Research, Ethics and Indigenous Peoples: An Australian Indigenous perspective on three threshold considerations for respectful engagement

Author(s):  
Ambelin Kwaymullina

Indigenous peoples have long critiqued the harmful effects of Eurocentric research processes upon Indigenous cultures and communities. This paper—which is grounded in the author's knowledge and experience as an Aboriginal Australian academic—examines three threshold considerations relevant to non-Indigenous scholars who seek to enter into respectful research relationships with Indigenous peoples or knowledges. The first is the question of whether the research should be conducted at all. The second is positionality and how this affects research. The third is the need for scholars to comprehensively inform themselves about ethical research principles, including in relation to free, prior and informed consent, and Indigenous cultural and intellectual property.

2017 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 1-14 ◽  
Author(s):  
Juan M Tauri

Recently, Indigenous commentators have begun to analyse the way in which institutional Research Ethics Boards (REBs) engage with Indigenous researchers and participants, respond to Indigenous peoples’ concerns with academic research activities, and scrutinise the ethics proposals of Indigenous scholars. Of particular concern for Indigenous commentators is that the work of REBs often results in the marginalisation of Indigenous approaches to knowledge construction and dissemination, especially in relation to the vexed issue of informed consent. Based on analysis of the results of research with Indigenous researchers and research participants, this paper argues that institutionalised REBs’ preference for ‘universal’ and ‘individualised’ approaches for determining ethical research conduct marginalises Indigenous approaches to ethical research conduct. The paper concludes by calling for a decolonisation of REB processes through recognition of the validity of communal processes for attaining the informed consent of Indigenous research participants.


Author(s):  
Soledad Torrecuadrada García-Lozano ◽  
Vladimir Aguilar Castro ◽  
Carlos Grimaldo Lorente

In this chapter, the authors attempt to demonstrate that respect for cultural identity of all human groups should be seen as a fundamental right. Ignoring Collective rights of indigenous peoples, those related to their cultural traditions, generally causes the lack of respect. Thus, knowledge of the cultural manifestations and their origin and meaning (as part of the history of the territories they inhabit) can conquer this respect on a par with its defense. This obviously with comprehensive training aimed to sensitize the general population in the positive assessment it deserves it different. The actions of nation-states governments with strong indigenous population has been characterized, until recently, by a remarkable disregard for indigenous cultures, having as a result the result of which such attitude, today from the non - indigenous perspective indigenous cultural manifestations are reduced to colorful folklore shows, when not seen as backward and primitive traditions. This chapter delves deeply into the legal framework for the protection of collective and cultural rights of indigenous peoples. The authors also attempt to show the weaknesses of the law and how states should act to strengthen them. Proposed article does emphasis on indigenous traditional knowledge and not in a wider debate on the topic of knowledge in general.


2019 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 251-269
Author(s):  
Richard Healey

Much of the debate around requirements for the free, prior, and informed consent of indigenous peoples has focused on enabling indigenous communities to participate in various forms of democratic decision-making alongside the state and other actors. Against this backdrop, this article sets out to defend three claims. The first two of these claims are conceptual in nature: (i) Giving (collective) consent and participating in the making of (collective) decisions are distinct activities; (ii) Despite some scepticism, there is a coherent conception of collective consent available to us, continuous with the notion of individual consent familiar from discussions in medical and sexual ethics. The third claim is normative: (iii) Participants in debates about free, prior, and informed consent must keep this distinction in view. That is because a group’s ability to give or withhold consent, and not only participate in making decisions, will play an important role in realising that collectives’ right to self-determination.


Author(s):  
Julie Bull ◽  
Karen Beazley ◽  
Jennifer Shea ◽  
Colleen MacQuarrie ◽  
Amy Hudson ◽  
...  

Purpose For many Indigenous nations globally, ethics is a conversation. The purpose of this paper is to share and mobilize knowledge to build relationships and capacities regarding the ethics review and approval of research with Indigenous peoples throughout Atlantic Canada. The authors share key principles that emerged for shifting practices that recognize Indigenous rights holders through ethical research review practice. Design/methodology/approach The NunatuKavut Inuit hosted and led a two-day gathering on March 2019 in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Newfoundland and Labrador, to promote a regional dialogue on Indigenous Research Governance. It brought together Indigenous Nations within the Atlantic Region and invited guests from institutional ethics review boards and researchers in the region to address the principles-to-policy-to-practice gap as it relates to the research ethics review process. Called “Naalak”, an Inuktitut word that means “to listen and to pay close attention”, the gathering created a dynamic moment of respect and understanding of how to work better together and support one another in research with Indigenous peoples on Indigenous lands. Findings Through this process of dialogue and reflection, emergent principles and practices for “good” research ethics were collectively identified. Open dialogue between institutional ethics boards and Indigenous research review committees acknowledged past and current research practices from Indigenous peoples’ perspectives; supported and encouraged community-led research; articulated and exemplified Indigenous ownership and control of data; promoted and practiced ethical and responsible research with Indigenous peoples; and supported and emphasized rights based approaches within the current research regulatory system. Key principles emerged for shifting paradigms to honour Indigenous rights holders through ethical research practice, including: recognizing Indigenous peoples as rights holders with sovereignty over research; accepting collective responsibility for research in a “good” way; enlarging the sphere of ethical consideration to include the land; acknowledging that “The stories are ours” through Indigenous-led (or co-led) research; articulating relationships between Indigenous and Research Ethics Board (REB) approvals; addressing justice and proportionate review of Indigenous research; and, means of identifying the Indigenous governing authority for approving research. Research limitations/implications Future steps (including further research) include pursuing collective responsibilities towards empowering Indigenous communities to build their own consensus around research with/in their people and their lands. This entails pursuing further understanding of how to move forward in recognition and respect for Indigenous peoples as rights holders, and disrupting mainstream dialogue around Indigenous peoples as “stakeholders” in research. Practical implications The first step in moving forward in a way that embraces Indigenous principles is to deeply embed the respect of Indigenous peoples as rights holders across and within REBs. This shift in perspective changes our collective responsibilities in equitable ways, reflecting and respecting differing impetus and resources between the two parties: “equity” does imply “equality”. Several examples of practical changes to REB procedures and considerations are detailed. Social implications What the authors have discovered is that it is not just about academic or institutional REB decolonization: there are broad systematic issues at play. However, pursuing the collective responsibilities outlined in our paper should work towards empowering communities to build their own consensus around research with/in their people and their lands. Indigenous peoples are rights holders, and have governance over research, including the autonomy to make decisions about themselves, their future, and their past. Originality/value The value is in its guidance around how authentic partnerships can develop that promote equity with regard to community and researcher and community/researcher voice and power throughout the research lifecycle, including through research ethics reviews that respect Indigenous rights, world views and ways of knowing. It helps to show how both Indigenous and non-Indigenous institutions can collectively honour Indigenous rights holders through ethical research practice.


Author(s):  
Laurence Marquis ◽  
Mark Daku

This chapter studies ethics in research. Ethics play an important role in scientific inquiry, beyond cases of plagiarism, fraud, and misconduct. Importantly, there is a difference between ethical research and ethical researchers. While principles of ethics in research stem mostly from the biomedical field, they have also been adapted to apply to the social sciences. These principles are generally addressed through three common principles: voluntary participation, informed consent, and confidentiality. Researchers themselves must be wary of a number of other factors that can influence their project and role, such as the supervision of students, or other situations where there is a relationship of authority. Similarly, researchers must be careful not to make misrepresentations to subjects about the project or the related risks, or fail to disclose any conflict of interest. Researchers must take steps to ensure their neutrality so that no preconceptions or personal bias can risk influencing the results or subjects. The chapter then looks at ethics review boards and the emergent ethical issues.


2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 176-200
Author(s):  
John Soroski

Canada’s first two large historical encounters of recognition and work-in-progress accommodation of previously marginalized and alienated groups involved French Canada and newcomer Canadians. The third such engagement is now underway in response to the Indigenous peoples of Canada. While this endeavour is long overdue, there is reason for concern that the laudable enthusiasm of many for this project of reconciliation may be authorizing some policies, practices and discourses that conflict with and potentially undermine the values that informed and came out of previous inclusionary encounters. Three areas of concern arise. The first is the embrace of state deference in some instances to unlawful and sometimes violent forms of Aboriginal protest and resistance, undercutting the idea of the rule of law and of the value of the peaceful resolution of disputes. The second is the propensity to under critically over-authorize Indigenous cultural communities as sources of moral valuation, in ways that may undermine individuals’ dignity and well-being, as well as doing harm to the good of intra-cultural inclusiveness. The third is the related tendency to over-valorise Indigenous cultures and claims in ways that suggest symbolically and in practical terms the idea of the existence of morally first-class and morally second-class Canadians.


Author(s):  
Steve Bruce

It is right that social researchers consider the ethical implications of their work, but discussion of research ethics has been distorted by the primacy of the ‘informed consent’ model for policing medical interventions. It is remarkably rare for the data collection phase of social research to be in any sense harmful, and in most cases seeking consent from, say, members of a church congregation would disrupt the naturally occurring phenomena we wish to study. More relevant is the way we report our research. It is in the disparity between how people would like to see themselves described and explained and how the social researcher describes and explains them that we find the greatest potential for ill-feeling, and even here it is slight.


2021 ◽  
pp. 088541222110266
Author(s):  
Michael Hibbard

Interest in Indigenous planning has blossomed in recent years, particularly as it relates to the Indigenous response to settler colonialism. Driven by land and resource hunger, settler states strove to extinguish Indigenous land rights and ultimately to destroy Indigenous cultures. However, Indigenous peoples have persisted. This article draws on the literature to examine the resistance of Indigenous peoples to settler colonialism, their resilience, and the resurgence of Indigenous planning as a vehicle for Indigenous peoples to determine their own fate and to enact their own conceptions of self-determination and self-governance.


2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 291-313 ◽  
Author(s):  
Almut Schilling-Vacaflor ◽  
Riccarda Flemmer

Based on rich empirical data from Bolivia, Colombia, and Peru – the three Latin American countries where the implementation of prior consultation processes is most advanced – we present a typology of indigenous peoples’ agency surrounding prior consultation processes and the principle of free, prior and informed consent (fpic). The typology distinguishes between indigenous actors (1) mobilising for a strong legal interpretation of fpic, (2) mobilising for meaningful and influential fpic processes, (3) mobilising against prior consultation processes, and (4) blockading prior consultation processes for discussing broader grievances. We identify the most prominent indigenous strategies related to those four types, based on emblematic cases. Finally, we critically discuss the inherent shortcomings of the consultation approach as a model for indigenous participation in public decision-making and discuss the broader implications of our findings with regard to indigenous rights and natural resource governance.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document