Indigenous Knowledge and Ethics (original) (raw)
Related papers
2013
The use of indigenous research ethics has a possibility of contextualising indigenous research. Orthodox research is guided by ethical principles which are meant to protect the institution or researcher and the participants. Despite the existence of the ethical pronouncements, literature has shown that research has proven to be a source of distress for indigenous people. Research has historically drawn upon frameworks, processes and practices of colonial, Western worldviews and the inherent knowledge, methods, morals and beliefs (Martin, 2001). This has led to the perceived notion of insensitivity towards indigenous people. First, they are not only regarded as a "problem" to be solved by external experts, they are treated as passive "objects" that require assistance from external experts. In view of these arguments one can deduce that the orthodox research methods have somehow failed to uphold the contextuality of research methods. Stemming from the incompatibility between orthodox research methods and the indigenous milieu has been the predominantly negative indigenous experience of research which has resulted in not only sceptism towards researchers but also to research processes and outcomes. For instance, indigenous people are on record saying, "researchers are like mosquitoes; they suck your blood and leave". The umbrage has prompted robust calls from indigenous scholars and research ethicists to develop new paradigms of research that have a decolonizing agenda upholding Indigenous ethical archetype. This being a concept the article utilised descriptive and analytical approaches to examine how the indigenous research ethical modus operandi can be a lever to contextualize research. The article concludes by positing that to lessen the skepticism of indigenous peoples cultural sensitivity should be embodied in ethical considerations to negate any dilemmas. Further it avers that in the application of research methods ethical principles such as informed consent should not be taken at face value, but should be considered at a deeper level.
The shifting environment of Indigenous community-based research demands reflexivity because the negotiation and maintenance of relationships are central (Findlay, Ray, & Basualdo, 2014). This paper expands on the importance of social relationships in the Nehinuw (Cree) worldview by reflecting on an ongoing research partnership among a team of Indigenous and Settler researchers from three universities and one Indigenous community agency. The Nehinuw relationships of weechihitowin (supporting and helping each other), weechiyauguneetowin (partnership, collaborative or shared action), otootemitowin (respectful openness and acceptance of others), and weechiseechigemitowin (alliances for common action) (L. Goulet & K. Goulet, 2014) form the theoretical framework for analyzing the challenges and successes that have sustained this collaboration for almost 10 years. This article will enhance understanding of Indigenous community-based research to promote an epistemological shift toward Indigenous modes of inquiry.
Indigenous relationality: definitions and methods
2023
The following seeks to advance relational research methods by providing more specificity in how relationality is defined, and by engaging commonly held refrains on relational research. Responding to concerns about Indigenous relationality being pan-Indigenous, we suggest a three-part framework that defines Indigenous relationality. First, relationality as a defining aspect of global Indigeneity; second, relational understandings that emerge from specific Indigenous nations and third, relationality as manifest within inter-Indigenous connections. Building on our definitional work, we argue that three common refrains within relational research methods should be extended. First, researchers should be able to balance a slippage between the particular context of Indigenous nations and the general context of Indigenous relationality. Second, we have to do more than simply value relationships, and consider how we use relationality for critical thinking. Finally, ensuring accountability within Indigenous research requires us to revisit how we analyze the concept of community.
Research with Indigenous peoples is fraught with complexity and misunderstandings. The complexity of negotiating historical and current issues as well as the misunderstandings about what the issues really mean for individuals and communities can cause non-Indigenous researchers to shy away from working with Indigenous groups. In conducting research for my doctoral dissertation, I was a novice researcher faced with negotiating two very different sets of social contracts: the Western Canadian university's and my Indigenous participants'. Through narrative inquiry of my experience, this article explores issues of ethics, institutional expectations, and community relationships. Guided by Kirkness and Barnhardt's " Four R's " framework of respect, relevance, reciprocity, and responsibility, I aimed to meet the needs of both the groups, but it was not without challenges. What do you do when needs collide? This article shares my process of negotiating the research, the decisions made, and how I came to understand my role in the process as a Settler Ally. It closes with some implications for other researchers who are considering their own roles as Settler Allies.
Research Ethics and Indigenous Communities
American Journal of Public Health, 2013
d Definition of research: An individual Tribe's definition of research supersedes the intertribal IRB definition and is used when protocols are submitted to the intertribal board.