Hand-wringing is over
So if you've ever been involved in any anthropological or ethnobiological work you'll know that researchers in these fields are often obsessed with ethics and will talk themselves round in circles, wringing their hands, agonising, double-guessing and deeply philosophising about what is ethical and what is not. Usually the main references are from associations such as the American Anthropological Association or the Society of Ethnobiology, among others, as well as discussion papers on the topic.
Here's an interesting story (by the Smithsonian) that's been doing the rounds this year regarding the San people (often known as "bushmen") of South Africa. Following in the footsteps of indigenous groups such as First Nations in Canada and Aborigines in Australia, they have released their own code of ethics for researchers.
The Ethics Code quick overview
The ethics requests researchers to:
- submit proposals for their studies to the San councils for approval
- respect the privacy of San
- not take or publish photos of individuals without their consent
- not bribe individuals to take part in their studies
- communicate honestly with the San and not misrepresent the purpose of their work
- allow San to review the research before publication
It also elaborates on how benefits may be shared with the community beyond simple payment of money, including providing opportunities for co-research, skills training, employment of translators and research assistants.
The entire tone of the code is one of welcome, expressing committed engagement with future research but simply inviting this to be on a respectful basis. I love how on the last page it says:
"Andries Steenkamp, the respected San leader who contributed to this Code of Ethics until he passed away in 2016, asked researchers to come through the door, not the window. The door stands for the San processes. When researchers respect the door, the San can have research that is positive for us."
Bottoms up!
It's great to see some bottom-up empowerment among indigenous groups in Africa, and it's another step towards counter-balancing some of the colonial legacy inherent in research culture. And hopefully researchers will sigh a breath of relief at having the heavy weight of ethical judgement being alleviated a bit, and they shall have to do less hand-wringing.
Controversy of a San voice
The Smithsonian article highlights the controversial issue of the San wishing to review the research before publication. As a researcher myself who has traveled to conduct research among indigenous groups as a masters student, I realise that this may have some practical knock-on effects. Unless a researcher has very good in-country academic/NGO partners who can conduct this review process on their behalf, this means that they will have to travel back a second time to present the work before publishing. I wonder if this will restrict some younger early career researchers who simply might not have the funds for two return international flights? You might say can they not just stay out there to write up and then present, but the reality is that this isn't practicable for most early researchers. This could act as a restriction on research being conducted, much of which may be very beneficial for the tribes themselves (although there are some very interesting debates being reignited about the need and value of such work following the recent need to rescue explorer Benedict Allen in Papua New Guinea). Personally I think it is best to comply to the proposed code, but it's an interesting consideration.
However I'm guessing the real controversy of this aspect of the new code though lies in the worship of the sacred impartiality of science, and the fear that results will be biased due to influence of the San at the review stage to make themselves appear in the best possible light, with the possible censorship of certain results. However any researcher should really be aware that their results are never going to be impartial anyway! Whether they acknowledge it or not they are already imbuing their work with their own cultural perspectives and values. The mere choice of methods used has already condemned the work to a certain level of bias. And through this process it is clearly the researcher who holds the power of deciding (whether consciously or not) where that bias lies. Hence the code is simply seeking to redress that power imbalance to a certain extent.
I'm probably going to regret not having spent more time thinking through some of my points on this post, as ethics in research is a very twisty and tort area. Let it be said that I'll be happy for any other perspectives to be shared!
Peace and Love Steemonians!