Embarking on profoundly sensitive research that concerns communities of which we are not ourselves a part, involves critical awareness of the history of social research and reflexivity about the position that researchers hold in relation to ethics, integrity and the pursuit of knowledge.
MaGPIE research in Western Australia involves considerable engagement with these issues, as PhD researcher, Anna Charlton, looks at state responsibility and Indigenous rights in the region in relation to mass graves. The following offers a short introduction to some of these considerations.
‘Innocent intentions’
Social theorist John Hinkson writes that the destructive relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples in settler societies often stems from hostile intentions. He argues, however, that ‘innocent intentions’ are the more interesting case to consider, allowing for “greater insight into the underlying assumptions at work in the relationship”. While the line between hostility and innocence in settler-colonial societies may sometimes be blurred, innocent intentions are generally thought of by the person taking action to be ‘good’, positive, or in some way an act of ‘making things better’, suggesting that they derive from and reveal “the chasm between two very different sets of cultural assumptions”. Innocent intentions have been linked historically to strategies or policies that purportedly support ‘the greater good’ and are grounded in Western knowledge and cultural assumptions. Hinkson argues that the Australian institutional practice of separating Indigenous children from their parents and families throughout the twentieth century is an example of this. It is evident here just how quickly such intentions can take the form of hostile action.
The role of research/er
Research outside of one’s own environment presents different challenges, responsibilities and expectations. It is critical that non-Indigenous researchers consider how innocent intentions may shape research that involves Indigenous peoples directly or relates to issues facing Indigenous peoples. Research is largely concerned with addressing gaps in understandings, knowledge and policy, prompting organisations, governments and institutions to develop research projects. The bid to address gaps in knowledge – something that appears to be an innocent intention – can often fail to recognise who the gaps in knowledge belong to and why this gap exists. Further, it may not adequately address the associated risks or outcomes that will follow a ‘filled-in gap’, such is who is responsible for what gets done with the ‘new knowledge’, or how, why and where the knowledge is shared in the future.
Today, we bring awareness to the problematic anthropologist of yesterday embarking on research across ‘distant lands’, collecting stories, artefacts and knowledge to which he was never entitled. Yet this dynamic is not always a thing of the past, and contemporary pursuits of knowledge continue to be tied in a complex relationship between research and conquest. When considered in the context of Indigenous perspectives, gaps in knowledge and understandings do not belong to First Nations – who are the holders of their own knowledges – but rather to the outsider (the researcher), who is not a part of the community, and who may or may not be seeking to answer, or even ask, a relevant question.
Linda Tuhiwai Smith, in her work Decolonizing Methodologies, states that “the ways in which scientific research is implicated in the worst excesses of colonialism remains a powerful remembered history for many of the world’s colonized peoples”. Academic research has played a significant role in the destructive relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples, with both the act of research and its dissemination, tools of oppression and exploitation. Exploitation and destruction that has not arisen from hostility alone, but innocence too. It has been argued that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are the most researched people in the world, and yet this has led to a status of being “over-researched without corresponding improvements” in outcomes, begging an important question: why is it not useful?
A relationship re-set
In 2008, following mounting calls to address the stark disparities between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples’ health and life expectancy in Australia, a National Indigenous Reform Agreement was formalised, setting out targets to ‘Close the Gap’. Nearly twenty years later, it is widely acknowledged that it has failed. Earlier this year in March, National Close the Gap Day was celebrated with the theme, Community Voices: The Pathway to Justice, Equality and Healing, reflecting the message that “initiatives developed without genuine partnership continue to struggle to meet objectives”. This month, the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council withdrew its support from the state’s Closing the Gap framework, citing failures by the government to deliver what communities need. With it, the message: “it’s time to reset relationships”.
Building relationships based on trust is identified in the AIATSIS Code of Ethics for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Research, and such trust is built on strong foundations of ethics and responsibility. Smith proffers a set of guiding questions for those engaging in research that create these foundations and address the pitfalls of innocent intentions:
“Whose research is it? Who owns it? Whose interests does it serve? Who will benefit from it? Who has designed its questions and framed its scope? Who will carry it out? Who will write it up? How will its results be disseminated?”
Yet, there is more. While interrogation of the practical scope and design of research are the cornerstones, the quality and meaning of the work as it unfolds lie in reflecting on the following:
Is her spirit clear? Does he have a good heart? What other baggage are they carrying? Are they useful to us? Can they fix up our generator? Can they actually do anything?
These questions speak to the relationship between researcher and research – between person and person, person and community – and offer a key to unlocking meaningful research: a pursuit not of knowledge, but of ongoing learning, collaboration and connection through conscious and respectful engagement.
With MaGPIE research in Western Australia entering final stages over the next year, reflecting on these issues remains central to the commitment to non-extractive and ethical research. The gaps in knowledge identified by the Mass Grave Protection, Investigation and Engagement project surrounding Indigenous rights and mass graves have presented opportunities for learning that stretch beyond finding missing data and look to the intentions, relationships and responsibilities that shape meaningful research and positive outcomes.
Anna Charlton
