Protocols: Devices for Translating Moralities, Controlling Knowledge, Defining Actors in Indigenous Research, and Critical Ethical Reflection

By Raven, Margaret | Australian Aboriginal Studies, Fall 2010 | Go to article overview

Protocols: Devices for Translating Moralities, Controlling Knowledge, Defining Actors in Indigenous Research, and Critical Ethical Reflection


Raven, Margaret, Australian Aboriginal Studies


Abstract: Protocols are devices that act to assist with ethical research behaviour in Indigenous research contexts. Protocols also attempt to play a mediating role in the power and control inherent in research. While the development of bureaucratically derived protocols is increasing, critiques and reviews of protocols have been undertaken in an ad hoc manner and in the absence of an overarching ethical framework or standard. Additionally, actors implicated in research networks which include gatekeepers, guardians and gatecrashers--are seldom theorised. This paper sketches out a typology of research characters and the different moral positioning that each of them plays in the research game. It argues that by understanding the ways actors enact research protocols we are better able to understand what protocols are, and how they seek to build ethical research practices.

Introduction

Has anyone ever told you a secret? Did you keep the secret confidential, or did you share it? When we are entrusted with a secret, there are implicit assumptions and expectations that the information is shared in confidence, and that it not be shared or widely distributed. When we share secrets we break the protocols of keeping secrets, and thus risk the possibility of losing a friend, or losing face. However, we also face the possibility of receiving a benefit from sharing a secret. Secrets are common currencies in research. At times, researchers classify information as secret to control the results in pursuit of intellectual accolades, to claim authorship of ideas or for commercial economic gains. Research, however, operates on the tension between the protection of confidential or secret information and the need for wider distribution of it. Thus, when actors in research receive information, they push up against this tension and are faced with the prospect of deciding if the information falls into the category of information of a confidential nature or information which can be distributed or shared. Because the development and distribution of information often relies on robust research relationships, there exists a strong incentive for actors to not share secret information. Sometimes information is clearly defined as private or secret, such as when it forms part of a 'trade secret' or a legal agreement. In this instance, it is clear to the actor that the intention, expectation and legal obligation is that the information should not be shared or distributed. Other times, however, the distinction is not so clear. In this fuzzy area protocols play a role in defining the nature of information as public or private and, on this basis, whether actors can share it or should keep the information from the public domain.

In light of postcolonial critiques of research (Ashcroft, B et al. 1998; Spivak 1994)--which problematise the role of universities in the exploitation of Indigenous peoples and Indigenous knowledge--research institutions are increasingly formalising protocols around the processes for accessing, utilising and sharing Indigenous knowledge. This is done to build robust collaborative research relationships with Indigenous individuals/communities, where Indigenous knowledge can be ethically accessed and shared. Through these relationships Indigenous knowledge is defined and categorised as public or private, and then joint decisions are made on how this information can be used and distributed. Protocols and guidelines are assumed by some within universities and Indigenous communities to work through using a prescriptive ethical approach to target researcher behaviour. That is, it is assumed that protocols establish a set of prescribed rules that all researchers will submit to and follow uniformly.

But not everyone enacts protocols in the same way. This divergence is influenced by differing conceptions of 'Indigenous knowledge' that sit within the spectrum of knowledge as an embodied experience to knowledge as a disembodied entity.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Protocols: Devices for Translating Moralities, Controlling Knowledge, Defining Actors in Indigenous Research, and Critical Ethical Reflection
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.