You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Knock, knock - Can I come in? San People of South Africa Issue Code of Ethics for Researchers
Your reporting on the change of ethics (and, for me, raising awareness of current trends in anthropology) is greatly appreciated.
I can't help but wonder how mistreated (citing the reasons for their ethics code) the San, and other tribes, had been to warrant this move?
So just to quote from the original article: "the motivation behind writing a code of ethics largely came from the publication of a study in 2010 that documented the genome of four San men in Namibia. For this study, researchers received the appropriate ethics approvals from the Namibian government and their respective universities. Using a translator, they also filmed verbal consent from the participants. But San leaders were upset that they were not consulted about the research and questioned the way verbal consent was acquired from participants. They also objected to terms used in the final paper, including “Bushmen”—a colonial-era name that is considered an insult. "
I myself haven't got any other juicy stories directly relating to the San, but there have been many controversial debates about ethics in research among indigenous peoples over the decades.
Thank-you. I can fully understand the 'bushman' issue cited. I find this fascinating as I am now questioning the accuracy of the few papers I have read, not of the San but other indigenous people.
Do you mean accuracy as regards how the people themselves prefer to be referred to? I'm sure in the above paper regarding genomes, probably the genetics science is really quite accurate, it passed peer review after all, it just seems to have been framed in rather insulting language.
I think it's interesting when it comes to research involving indigenous people, as usually they have fundamentally different worldviews from the researchers, and yet there's an implicit understanding that the positivist worldview of the researcher is the more "accurate" and "correct". In reality that worldview could equally be picked apart.
A remnant of colonialism, indeed. I'm also questioning the accuracy of the anthropology papers that I have seen, in regards to the author's observation of a group, and how much this lensing has affected the portrayal of culture, both in their use of language and their objections to certain traditions and beliefs. The cultural barrier. Of course, with peer-review, these can be spotted, along with counter-argument studies, but for the average enthusiast with limited access to papers and no formal education in the field, the media reporting on them adds another potential for a warped perception and thus my general skepticism to the material I've read.
I think maintaining a constant general skepticism to anything you've read is very healthy! I think some of my friends maybe get a bit exasperated by my constant critical analysis of anything and everything, he he he
Oh, definitely is healthy, but easier said than done, I reckon. Thank-you for your information above, I've learned quite a bit!
Thanks. I personally thought it was quite a lazy post just drawing attention to a story I've seen doing the rounds on my other social networks and so thought I'd share it on here, but I guess not everyone on Steemit have the same stories flying about their social networks! I'll definitely be sharing more! :D