The general issues of ethics and fieldwork have been addressed in several rather good compendia (Sjoberg 1968; Klockars and O’Conner 1979; Social Problems 1980; Gubrium and Silverman 1989; Punch 1986, 1998). Each attempts to blend case studies and experiences that are highly contextual and occasioned— a particular experience by a person (of a given age, gender and education) doing fieldwork in a specific site in a specific period with general issues. Such exercises confront immediately the type-token problem—how does a given example or case fit a typology containing subheads like “personality,” “deception,” “privacy and harm”. . .? Many of the issues raised here are ethical, that is, standards of individuals, whereas social scientists seek guidelines for collective standards, or norms, morals and morality. That one is embarrassed, or ashamed, or guilty of some action is less important than whether one has violated a general rule of good conduct. In that sense, I am afraid we must cling to a vague and blurred idea about good conduct and sensitivity to violations of it. There is perhaps more agreement on unacceptable conduct than on the range of the acceptable. Goode’s essay may suggest possible harm to informants, but my concern is the absence of a clear research purpose or motivational account emphasizing scientific work.