Social Science, First
Nations, and the Quest for Knowledge: Is it simply a
question of Methodology?
Charles R. Menzies Dept. of Anthropology/Sociology University of British Columbia menzies@interchange.ubc.ca
Accusations of political correctness are as much an attempt to silence opposition as they are an attempt to use appropriate labels. Yet, such accusations --whether veiled or explicit-- reflect the real and tangible unease felt by an academic establishment accustomed to producing 'knowledge' within the context of liberal democratic societies. Anthropologists are well aware that they can no longer simply impose themselves upon colonized or marginal peoples (cf., Hymes "Reinventing Anthropology;' Asad, 'Anthropology and the Colonial Encounter;' Clifford, "Predicaments of 20th Century Culture'). However, doing research with, for and/or among Aboriginal peoples in the Americas presents social researchers with a special challenge; one that is simultaneously personal, institutional, and political. I shall briefly outline the context of research with Aboriginal peoples, address each 'challenge, and then offer 3 methodological options for consideration.
Conducting research is always situated within particular social and historical contexts that create limits to what is possible. At moments in time, research access to a 'field' can be restricted, at other times there may be no effective limits to what can be done or to which questions may be asked. At this moment in time, researchers working with or within First Nations' communities must operate within a highly restrictive field. This does not mean that the researcher abdicates their responsibility for accuracy or truthfully recording data related to their research question. It might, however, mean a researcher does not record certain types of data. Nonetheless, no one --neither First Nations nor researchers are interested in falsified reports. What is critical here is this: research with First Nations requires a special set of protocols that clearly identifies the rights, responsibilities, and obligations of both research partners and researcher.
Underlying the current reality is a history of forced relocation, systematic discrimination, and an expropriation of resources and territory. In recent years important and positive changes have occurred in the way in which the Canadian state and mainstream society relates to first peoples. These changes are not the product of any general expression of goodwill or liberal intentions. Rather, these changes have emerged out of a growingly militant struggle by first peoples to regain control over their own destiny. For some, this has involved armed struggles. For many others, it has meant combining acts of civil disobedience with legal action. Taken in their totality, these movements are an important manifestation of an important process of decolonization. Ironically, it is not the language of Political Correctness, but the language of writers such as Kathleen Gough, F. Fanon, and A. Cabral, that best describes the movements we are privileged/honoured witnesses of. Just as the independence and anti-colonial movements of Europe's 20th century colonies changed the way anthropology could conduct itself, so too are First Nations' movements toward self-determination challenging social researchers to reconsider how we do research (I would suggest that this also applies to research conducted beyond First Nations).
The political context of research with and for First Nations raises crucial personal challenges; most important of which is a direct challenge to the researchers belief that they have an unfettered right to ask questions and to publish 'their' findings. Working with First Nations often (though not always) involves a process whereby the researcher's research plans, methods, and written work is reviewed by an official body of the specific First Nations. There are many social researchers who consider this an infringement of their rights as individuals in a democratic society. First Nations do not deny the cultural validity of liberal individualism and the unfettered pursuit of knowledge for non-aboriginal peoples. However, within First Nations, an individual does not always, nor necessarily, have an individual right to knowledge. This has important implication for the gathering, analyzing, and publishing of research. And, it may well mean that the researcher can not publish certain types of articles or, at the very least, must submit drafts of papers to the First Nation for review. Perhaps, if researchers thought of this as a form of peer review they might not take such issue with having to have their work reviewed by First Nations or other community groups.
Institutional challenges arise out of and encircle the personal. First, the researcher's institution may have established policies that contradict those of the First Nations. Second, it may be necessary or appropriate to establish formal institutional links between the First Nation and the research institution. While difficult, institutional challenges are no insurmountable. The more pressing problems are inherently political.
As I discussed above, the current moment is defined by a broadening movement for self-determination by First Nations. Also, as noted above, this often poses problems of access for the researcher. However, to view this simply as an access issue is to misconstrue the nature of the situation. Access is simple the symptom of a history of colonization. Thus, research with and for First Nations requires a commitment on the part of the researcher to a political process (a la Raymond Williams). This is not a call for advocacy anthropology. Nor is it a call for anthropologists to become political hacks. It is a call for political engagement and a recognition that involvement in research with First Nations will be a political act irrespective of the researchers intentions. So then, what does one do? There are at least three basic options available:
- do not do research with, for, or among aboriginal people.
- conduct researcher led standard 'pursuit of knowledge' research.
- engage in co-operative, community-based research.
Each of these research options entail unique sets of advantages and disadvantages. Option 1 is offered as, in a sense, the 'zero' point of the graph. Options 2 and 3, however, reflect important competing models of research within social science and their underlying political assumptions and agendas. In broad terms, option two reflects a research model in which the researcher is able (and should be able) to accumulate knowledge with out impediment and, if the researcher is on the 'applied' side of the equation, there is also an underlying desire to participate in improving the operation of social institutions or policies. Option 2, therefore, remains essentially within the parameters of the mainstream paradigm. Option 3, however is more clearly directed toward participation in the process of social change. From this vantage point, there are no 'value-free' locations from which knowledge can be accumulated in a neutral fashion. Rather, all social positions are located within wider fields of power and this power is not equally distributed.
Anthropologists have had to deal with these issues in a way that many other social researchers have not. Our research brings us into direct contact, over extended periods of time, with people in which our primary method is based on establishing relationships that are 'friend-like' in nature. In fact, many of us do form lasting personal relationships with the people we work with while doing our field work. This is a critical difference between scientist who "don't need to ask the fish for permission" or our colleagues in other social science disciplines who conduct their research at more of an arms-length basis. This is both a strength and a weakness of the anthropological method and we have attempted to deal with this in a variety of manners.
For example, Richard Salisbury (sp?) argued that anthropologists should maintain a degree of social distance between themselves and those they 'study' so that they may act as a sort of 'societal ombudsman.' Del Jones, an urban anthropologist, makes a strong case for what he calls 'insider' anthropology: that is, anthropology conducted by members of a community is more authentic and legitimate than that conducted by outsiders with autonomous research agendas. And, in a recent book, Gavin Smith argues for an "engaged anthropology" that is self-consciously aware of its role in the social field of power and is oriented toward effecting change that undermines the mainstream imbalance of power.
All three of the above mentioned anthropologists were (and in Smith's case, is) involved in research with subaltern or marginalized peoples. However, Salisbury's paper, "Societal Ombudsman..." is essentially a variant of option 2 research. Jones and Smith are variants of option 3. The key issue revolves around the extent to which an anthropologist believes that knowledge floats free or is located within fields of power. Ultimately social researchers must make a commitment and, having done so, establish their methodological approach accordingly.
The following methodological approach is offered as one variant of option three and is based upon several separate research projects involving First Nations that I have designed and implemented. Many of what I present below is not new or unfamiliar to any researcher involved with anthropological research. What is different is the underlying emphasis on negotiation, dialogue and partnership of the approach.
STEP ONE: Initiate dialogue: The first step can come from either researcher or community. If it comes from the researcher, a full plan or detailed letter of intent should be prepared in advance of the first meeting. It is important that the researcher be prepared and willing to modify their plan to accommodate to the needs and protocol of the Nation.
STEP TWO: Refine research plan in consultation with the Nation.
STEP THREE: Conduct research. I have found it critical to the project to establish research teams comprised of community members ad university trained researchers. This facilitates a number of processes such as transferring knowledge from researchers to community members (and vice-versa), keeps important skills and knowledge within the community, and reduces the Nations reliance upon outsiders in terms of conducting their own research.
STEP FOUR: Write up, extension, and distribution. This step is the key phase of the project. The responsibility to remain in contact with the community is crucial. Whenever possible, meetings should be held to discuss and analyze the research results within the community. In my projects I attempt to leave in the community, not just copies of papers and reports, but also resource packages which describe the research process (such as descriptions of the methodological approach), data sets, and document banks of secondary literature. My ultimate aim is to make democratize access to my specialized research skills so that research can be conducted in the community and by the community.
The above methodological approach won't work everywhere, or should it be employed in all situations. What it does offer, is a guide to research with and for people who are 'historically' located outside of the mainstream of power. As social researchers affiliated with mainstream institutions and irrespective of our personal commitments and intentions, we are located at a nexus of power within the dominant society. Thus, I argue that our methodological approach must necessarily be oriented in such a way as it does not expand 'our' power and knowledge at the expense of those who are cut out off and excluded from the centres of power within contemporary society.
That is what I have to say.