Explaining the Condescending Ethics of Research Ethics Boards in Neo-Colonial Contexts

The purpose of this blog is to provoke discussion and debate about the practices of University Research Ethics Boards and the important role they play in determining what is, and what is not, 'ethical' research; often without the requisite experience of Indigenous approaches to knowledge construction, and little experience of research with (as opposed to 'on') Indigenous peoples.

Background 

To assume that the Aboriginal past or knowledge can be adequately explained from a totally foreign worldview is the essence of cognitive imperialism and academic colonisation                                    

                                                                              Henderson (1997, p. 23, emphasis added)

In 2008 I enrolled in my PhD at AUT University, in Auckland, New Zealand.  At the end of the following year I handed in my ethics approval forms as required of all students wanting to carry out post-graduate research at  a New Zealand university.  Having developed research/ethics guidelines for government agencies in the past, assisted other Maori post-graduates experiencing difficulties with institutional ethics processes, and cognisant of the many and varied issues with these processes as reported in the growing, critical literature (see Absolon, 2008; Berg, Evans & Fuller, 2007; Ellis & Earley, 2006; Marker, 2004; Smith, 1999; Wax, 1991), I was especially attentive to the principles and process utilised by AUT to measure the ethics of post-graduate student research.  

After reading through the wad of papers provided by AUT's Research Ethics Board (REB) (known as AUTEC) I had quickly come to the following conclusions:

1. the committee employed a set of risk-reduction focused, standardised  ethics 'tools'.  These tools were derived largely from the biomedical model that has long been challenged by 'critical' social researchers for privileging the 'autonomous, rational individual' over collective approaches with regards to all aspects of the research process;
2. the key concepts and related practices, such as informed consent, risk, anonymity, etc,  were central to the ethics toolbox;
3. the REB included the usual sub-section on 'engaging with Maori/Pacifica/minorities' which included the standard, vague command that we (researchers) 'ensure the cultural appropriateness of our research with Maori/minorities', etc, etc;
4. the REB in question relied heavily on a set of standardised, 'tick-the-box' processes for guiding its decision-making; and
5. despite having a Maori member, the Board had little experience of qualitative research with Maori, none whatsoever with Canadian First Nations, and no members with knowledge and experience of the discipline that informed the authors approach, Criminology. 

This situation was clearly going to cause problems for the proposed research as the methodology (including the ethics protocols - i.e., the key principles and practices that ensure you carry out respectful, appropriate research that does not place research participants at risk) was developed from significant, prior engagement with Indigenous advisers and potential research participants (both in Canada and New Zealand): in other words the 'ethics protocols' were set by the Indigenous participants themselves, accredited by experienced Indigenous researchers and experts from within the participating Indigenous communities.  This process - developing an ethical framework for research engagement with Indigenes - is central to much of the Indigenous scholarship on the subject of ethical research with Indigenous peoples (for references read pretty much all the references already cited in this piece, as well as Bishop, 1998; Glass and Kaufert, 2007 and Schnarch, 2004).  The engagement process resulted in an ethics protocol highlighted by the following:

1. no recording of interviews/focus groups in long houses/marae (if these venues are utilised);
2. informed consent for focus groups to be based on collective, verbal agreement and not signed forms;
3. where verbal agreement is given (and due to recording devices not being used), one individual (delegated by the group, or a designated elder) will be contactable by AUT persons if verification of consent is required; and
4. provisions will be made for individualised, written informed consent if requested by First Nation participants, but the emphasis would be on their preferred, collectivist engagement and consent practices.

In other words, the Indigenous-derived ethics process approach was to be privileged in both the New Zealand and Canadian contexts.

Unsurprisingly, the REB's response was less than ideal, with the original and subsequent applications being rejected, mostly on the basis of the privileging of collectivist, verbally derived informed consent over that of the standard, individual-focused, written consent process preferred by AUTEC.  The second application included a thorough critique of the REB's preferred consent process, based on Indigenous literature and the views of the author's Indigenous advisers, and a thorough explanation of the rationale behind the Indigenous ethics protocol.  As a compromise, the REB was offered a dual process: at the start of each community engagement, participants would be offered AUTEC's informed consent process; if this were rejected (as was likely), then the author would revert to the process stipulated by participants.  The REB in question rejected the compromise offered of a dual-consent process and continued to attempt to force its preferred individualised consent and engagement process upon the researcher and his research participants. Many more months were lost attempting to alter the approach taken by the REB, before my supervisor finally received formal sign off for the research to proceed in April 2010. 

Having provided the background, I want to move to explaining why this type of situation commonly occurs when Indigenous researchers, and research participants, find themselves engaging with academic REBs.

Indigenous critique of institutionalised ethics

Recently, a number of First Nation researchers have criticised the role REB’s play in stifling Indigenous-led, community-driven research.  Indigenous and (critical) non-Indigenous  critique of REB conduct covers a broad range of issues, including (but by no means exclusively):

Individualism – marked by the privileging of the autonomous research participant, and informed consent processes that forces individualised research and ethics protocols upon collectives.

Lack of expertise – members of REBs often lack adequate disciplinary, epistemological and methodological expertise in Indigenous research/issues, resulting in an over-reliance on tick-the-box approaches that ensure the hegemony of institutionally-derived protocols.

Universalism – the propensity for REBs to utilise processes derived from Eurocentric notions of ‘right’ (research) conduct, and essentialist notions of what does/does not constitute an ethical researcher, all of which eulogise the ‘individual’ research participant and marginalise social groups which prefer collectivist constructs to guide the research process.

Formulism – an over-reliance on standardised, formulaic, ‘tick-the-box’ approaches that mask the complexity of the social context within which research takes place.

I argue that the research-related universalism described above, forms a key operating principle for AUT's REB, and perhaps for all academic institutions across Settler Societies.  

Universalism works as a dominant operational principle throughout the country, despite the fact that all REB-related guidelines include text exhorting researchers (and, one presumes, REB’s) to ‘respect difference’.  Universalism, especially the Eurocentric, 'one-size-fits-all' approach to ethics it encourages, poses a significant risk for the Indigenous researcher and their research participants; a point repeatedly made during the interviews and focus groups I proceeded with in the second half of 2010 and throughout 2011 - and to which I included a set of questions on my participants views of AUTEC's behaviour.  For example, one prominent Maori researcher, when interviewed for my doctoral research said the following about AUTEC's attempts to override the Indigenous-derived ethics protocols I had initially developed:

The issue seems to me to be about their (the REBs) authority, and not about the best way of going about this business.  As Maori we have the right to determine how both insiders and outsiders research with us... reading that document [the REB’s written determination re: the second EA1 application], reads like they didn’t want to understand because it was easier to stick with what they know.  That is not a system based on everyone being the same [Universalism], but on everyone being like them. It is condescending to the extreme to tell us our ways are unethical.

The condescending ethics of research ethics boards

‘Condescending ethics’ – positions participants as the ‘Other’, reinforces powerlessness, and further marginalises them with knowledge production processes.                                    

                                                                                
                                                                               Reid and Brief (2009, p. 83)

So how do we explain the current state of affairs of institutionalised ethics processes in New Zealand and other Settler Societies?  To begin we might describe their processes and behaviour as little more than a contemporary manifestation of the condescending ethos that formed the basis of the role played by the academy and its research activities in the colonisation of First Nations (Battiste, 2000; Smith, 1999).  

The condescension of academic REBs and their processes relates directly to their preference for individualised research ethics, and the categorisation of the ‘subject’ as an autonomous entity to be engaged in meaningful ways, preferably after the institutionally-focused review process has been followed.  It is in the construction of the 'ethical' research subject as he/she whom acts autonomously (apart from the collective), and who can only give consent 'in writing', that we find the basis of the condescending institutional formulation of the 'right way' to engage ethically; a way that by necessity, marginalises any and all other approaches to gathering, analysing and disseminating knowledge.

Butzs’ invocation of Habermas’ concept of communicative action in relation to his own experiences of REB’s, provides a useful conceptual framework for understanding the condescending ethos that supports institutionalised ethics processes such as those employed by AUTEC and other, similar institutional Boards.  

According to Butz, Habermas distinguishes between two principle forms of ‘action’ in late modernity, Instrumental and Communicative.  Instrumental action is “oriented to technical manipulation and control, and communicative action to the ideal of intersubjective understanding and consensus among individuals” (Butz, 2008, p. 250).  As Butz states (Ibid, p. 250, emphasis his)

The former is outcome oriented, the latter process oriented.  For Habermas, communicative action is ethically prior to instrumental action, in that the justice of an outcome is contingent on the justice of the process that yielded it.  In contemporary modernity, he argues, the communicative effort to reach consensus is frequently sacrificed to the imperative of bureaucratic efficiency.

It is easy to view the author’s experience of REB’s in New Zealand (and, according to the extant literature, other Settler societies), in this vein, especially: 

[w]hen it is assumed that the problem of voluntary informed consent is solved by asking participants individually to sign written consent agreements regardless of the research context, then a fully communicative appreciation of the adjectives voluntary and informed are subordinated to the instrumental purposes of the monitoring and controlling attached to the noun consent (Butz, 2002, p. 251 – emphasis his).

Central to our understanding of the condescending nature of REB process and Indigenous research, is the concept of power.  In the mythology of the development of contemporary research ethics, REBs arose from concerns of power imbalances between the researcher - all powerful, and therefore ‘potentially dangerous’, and the research subject – powerless and in need of protection, provided, of course, by REBs as the independent arbiter of ‘righteous research conduct’ (Juritzen, Grimen & Heggen, 2011).  Juritzen et al argue in favour of expanding the conceptualisation of power in the researcher-research subject relationship to critically encompass “ethics committees as one among several actors that exert power and that act in a relational interplay with researchers and participants” (ibid, p. 640).  Thus, given the considerable power REBs wield, they cannot be exempt from critical commentary.  Let us now turn to explaining how and why condescending ethics processes manifest themselves through institutionally-derived REBs.

Lack of expertise, REBs and condescending ethics

The reported experiences of First Nation commentators and researchers points consistently to one key source of discontent with REBs, namely that their members generally lack experience of Indigenous communities, and the core principles and practices that are central to knowledge construction and dissemination within these Nations (Smith, 1999).  Sadly, in my experience, and that of other Indigenous researchers, this results in REBs that are dominated by non-Indigenous academics and external advisors' who make decisions about appropriate ethics protocols, while lacking the necessary socio-cultural experience and knowledge to make informed decisions on the 'ethics' of Indigenous research conduct. 

Van den Hoonaard (2006, p. 269) contends that the issue for many researchers is not the ethics codes used by REBs, but rather how these codes are interpreted and employed by committee members; especially where members clearly have little experience of the context within which research takes place.  This position is supported by significant literature (e.g., Anthony, 2004; Bradley, 2007; Haggerty, 2003) and comments made to the author during his recent engagement with First Nation researchers, including one research participant who stated that:

In my dealings with IRBs, I find they will have a standard ethics guidelines; go to the bibliography and all the usual experts are there, Henderson, Smith... they [REBs] say the right things, consult, engage, privilege [the Indigenous], but the practice is different.  Mainly white committees, no experience of us, who revert to their ways, to what they understand to be right.

Reid and Brief (2009, p. 83) highlight this failing with respect to their own experience of REB interference in their ethnographic project: “.... they did not have the capacity or resources to fully support ethical decision-making in the project, nor did they have the mechanisms in place to hear from the community researchers themselves”. 

Arguably, in the case of Indigenous-focused research, the lack of knowledge and experience of the research context is of greater risk to both researcher and participants than lack of disciplinary expertise.  Hammersley (2006, p. 4) describes the dangers thus: “Researchers’ decisions about how to pursue their enquiries involve weighting ethical and other considerations against one another, and this requires detailed knowledge of the contexts concerned”.  By drawing conclusions on the ethics of research situations they have little expertise in or knowledge of, and ignoring advice from those with the relevant experience, REBs place Indigenous researchers and their research participants in danger of experiencing ‘unethical institutionalised research’.  Hammersley (2006, p. 6) further states that:

What is involved here, to a large extent, is a great pretence: ethics committees are to operate as if making research decisions were a matter of applying a coherent [standardised] set of ethical rules that do not conflict with any other considerations, or that override them, and that good decisions can be made without having much contextual knowledge.

While following and conforming to an institutionalised bureaucratised ethics process means you have ‘acted’ as an ethical researcher in that particular context, the experience of the author, his research participants and the published (critical Indigenous) record, demonstrates that simply following REB processes does not guarantee ethical research ‘on the ground’.  It is argued here that conformity to the Academy’s bureaucratised processes comes with significant, potentially ‘unethical’ baggage because, as Knight et al (2004, p. 397) argue, institutionalised ethics protocols are a set of “cultural norms that [serve] the interests and reflects the values of the IRB and the academy”.   These cultural norms, replicated through mandatory engagement with institutional ethics processes, reflects the ‘knowledge by mass production’ that permeates so much of the Academy today; the dangers of which are beautifully summarised by Lorenz (2012, p. 606) who writes that:

We should not be surprised.... that universities have been changing in the direction of academic capitalism in the form of entrepreneurial McUniversities.  This development boils down to ‘a move from elite specialisation with strong professional controls towards a ‘Fordist’ mass production arrangement’. 

The McDonaldisation of the Academy is perhaps most evident when the formalisation of research becomes married with an over-reliance by academic institutions on universalistic processes of knowledge construction.  This situation, combined with the general lack of expertise of REB members of the Indigenous social context, generates an environment for the Indigenous pursuit of knowledge that is often seriously impeded by the inherent contradictions and condescension of the Academy's Eurocentric notions of 'right conduct' in the research context.  

In the next instalment of The Indigenous Criminologist I will offer a solution to the current dominance of REBs in determining what is/is not ethical conduct with Indigenous peoples, by arguing for a Maori-led process developed and delivered through the auspices of the Maori Association of Social Sciences.  

References

Absolon, K. (2008). Kaandosswin, this is how we come to know!  Indigenous graduate research in the academy: Worldviews and methodologies, unpublished PhD, University of Toronto, Toronto.
Anthony, R. (2004). Consistency of ethics review, Forum Qualitative Sozialforshung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, Vol. 6 No. 1, online.  
Battiste, M. (2000). Introduction: Unfolding the lessons of colonisation.  In M. Battiste (Ed.), Reclaiming Indigenous Voices and Vision, xvi-xxx.  Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.  
Berg, L., Evans, M. and Fuller, D. (2007). Ethics, hegemonic whiteness, and the contested imagination of 'aboriginal community' in social science research in Canada, ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 395-410.  
Bishop, R. (1998). Freeing ourselves from neo-colonial domination in research: A Maori approach to creating knowledge, International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, Vol. 11, pp. 199-219. 
Bradley, M. (2007). Silenced for their own protection: How the IRB marginalises those it feigns to protect, ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies, 6(3), 339-349. 
Butz, D. (2008). Sidelined by the guidelines: Reflections on the limitations of standard informed consent procedures for the conduct of research, ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 239-259. 
Ellis, J. and Earley, M. (2006). Reciprocity and constructions of informed consent: Researching with indigenous populations, International Journal of Qualitative Methods, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 2-13.
Glass, K. and Kaufert, J. (2007). Research ethics review and aboriginal community values: Can the two be reconciled?  Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, Vol. 3 No 2, pp. 25-40. 
Haggerty, K. (2003). Ethical drift: Governing social research in the name of ethics, paper presented at the American Law and Society meeting, Pittsburgh, 5-8 June. 
Hammersley, M. (2006). Are ethics committees ethical?  Qualitative Researcher, Vol 2, 4-7. 
Henderson, J. (1997). The Mi'kmaw Concordat. Halifax, Fernwood Publishing.
Juritzen, T., Grimen, H. and Heggen, K. (2011). Protecting vulnerable research participants: A Foucault-inspired analysis of ethics committees,  Nursing Ethics, Vol 18 No. 5, pp. 640-650. 
Knight, M., Bentley, C., Norton, N. and Dixon, I. (2004). (De)constructing (in)visible parent/guardian consent forms: Negotiating power, reflexivity, and the collective within qualitative research,  Qualitative Inquiry, Vol 10 No. 3, pp. 684-699. 
Lorenz, C. (2012). If you’re so smart, why are you under surveillance?  Universities, neoliberalism, and new public management.  Critical Inquiry, Vol. 38, pp. 599-629.
Marker, M. (2004). Theories and disciplines as sites of struggle: The reproduction of colonial dominance through the controlling of knowledge in the academy, Canadian Journal of Native Education, Vol. 28 No. 1/2, pp. 102-110. 
Reid, C., and Brief, E. (2009). Confronting condescending ethics: How community-based research challenges traditional approaches to consent, confidentiality, and capacity,  Journal of Academic Ethics, Vol. 7, pp. 75-85.
Smith, L. (1999). Decolonising methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples. Dunedin: University of Otago Press.  
Scharch, B. (2004). Ownership, control, access, and possession (OCAP) or self-determination applied research: A critical analysis of contemporary First Nation research and some options for First Nation communities,  Journal of Aboriginal Health, January, pp. 80-95. 
van den Hoonard, W. (2006). New angles and tangles in the ethics review of research,  Journal of Academic Ethics, 4, 261-274. 
Wax, M. (1991). The ethics of research in American Indian communities,  American Indian Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp 457-469. 

Criminologists Behaving Badly

The following blog focuses on two related topics resulting from attending the Australian, New Zealand Society of Criminology conference, held at University of Auckland (jointly with AUT University of Auckland), from 27-30 November, 2012.  

Part 1 offers a brief summary of the Maori-focused papers presented at the conference, while Part 2, titled When Criminologists Behave Badly, provides commentary on some of the bizarre behaviour exhibited by senior members of the Academy in response to the Maori-centric presentations.

Part 1 - Maori focused papers.

A couple of things stuck out about this years ANZSOC conference; 1) unsurprisingly (given it was held in New Zealand) a decent number of papers focused on Maori perspectives were offered, and 2) all of said papers either spoke directly from the Maori perspective (by using 'engaging methodologies'), or (if delivered by a non-Maori  presenter) took a 'critical' view of issues of importance to Maori.  This situation was a distinct improvement on the trend evident at past ANZSOC's where the greater majority of 'Aboriginal papers' were delivered by non-Indigenous scholars utilising non-engaging methods while largely ignoring Indigenous-generated theorising, empirical evidence and literature (the specific session on 'Aboriginal issues' at the 2011 conference in Geelong a recent, classic example). 

In all, 8 papers were offered that privileged the Maori voice and experience of criminal justice issues.  The following section provides some brief comments on each paper; I will make available longer commentaries sometime early in the New Year:

Moana Jackson (Keynote speech): Taking the 'Crim' out of Criminology: Towards an Indigenous Causation Theory.  Moana's key points related to the weaknesses of Eurocentric criminology, in particular its lack of focus on the historical drivers of Indigenous marginalisation and the part this plays in over-representation, and the power of Indigenous theories and responses  to social harm, based on the (re)building of relationships, using a theory of relational distance to analyse and explain incidents of social harm, and why the state and criminology's responses are often ineffective.

Terikirangi Miheare (Victoria University of Wellington): The Misappropriation of Maori Culture in Prison.  A beautifully presented paper; started off with a gentle meander through the recent history of Corrections use of Maori culture to sell itself as 'culturally responsive', and ended with a devastating critique that demonstrated that the Departments so-called 'tikanga programmes' are little more than a misappropriation of Maori culture in pursuit of policy/political legitimation.  

Kristen Maynard: Ruru Parirau: The Power of Stereotypes and Potential Implications for Justice Policy and Practice.  This excellent presentation focused on the negative impact that stereotypes of Maori amongst policy workers is having on the development of effective policies and interventions.  Kristen used a recent example where she and her colleagues purposefully challenged stereotypes of Maori and alcohol to develop an effective policy programme aimed at minimising harm from alcohol consumption.  This paper provided a nice policy-in action case study to supplement the more 'theoretical/political/ideological' focus of other papers presented at the conference.

Antje Deckert (AUT University):  Neo-Colonial Criminology: Decolonising Research Methods and Discourse. Antje's paper was based on preliminary findings from analysis of the types of methods used by criminologists who publish journal articles on Indigenous people: her conclusion so far: about 75% don't bother to talk to Indigenous peoples directly, preferring instead to use silencing methodologies.  Interesting, one criminologist who attended this session seemed to think this was unfair as it implied that any criminologist who didn't write about Indigenous issues was therefore guilty of silencing, which is weird given that this has no bearing on the focus of the paper as was clearly stated by the presenter during her talk.

Juan Tauri (Queensland University of Technology): 'If You're so Good, Why is Your Policy so Bad?' A Critical Indigenous Appraisal of New Zealand's Crime Control Industry.  My perspectives on the poor quality of NZ policy making is well documented elsewhere :-)

Robert Webb (AUT University): Maori Offending: A Critical Analysis.  Rob's paper took us through the recent history of policy making in New Zealand and Maori in the criminal justice system, and how this has resulted in individualistic, poorly crafted interventions.  Anyone wanting to read his perspective simply type in Robert Webb, Maori and crime into google - there are at least 2 papers readily available on line. 

Tracey McIntosh (University of Auckland): Rethinking Over-representation: Maori and Confinement. This paper provided a Maori/offender informed critique of issues with correctional policy making with regards Maori (especially Maori women).  

Kim Workman Maori over-representation in the criminal justice system: the police response.  In this paper Kim decided to focus on policing and Maori issues.  Starting with an overview of research that evidences the drivers for the poor relations between Maori and the police, Kim then highlighted some of the genuine attempts by police to improve the situation (for example, Liaison Officers), but finished by highlighting that the recent Tuhoe incident and statements that no bias exists in police in NZ demonstrate that we still have work to do in this area. 

Part 2 - Criminologists Behaving Badly

A summary of the ANZSOC 2012 experience wouldn't be complete without commnetary on the behaviour of a small group of (prominent) Criminologists towards Indigenous issues (in general ) and a small group of Indigenous speakers (specifically). My reasons for mentioning these issues are 1) to educate these people about how to act respectfully when engaging with people they disagree with regardless of ethnicity, and 2) to forewarn our post-graduates about the types of people, attitudes and behaviour they are likely to experience as they go about their work as Indigenous scholars.

Overall, the majority of participants appeared receptive to the issues raised by Maori/non-Maori scholars who attempted to bring Maori perspectives into the conference; even if they did not fully agree with the perspectives they brought to the table.  Unfortunately, a small group of scholars offered the sad, old style of engagement reminiscent of the colonial era.  This generally entails talking about Indigenous issues while lacking detailed knowledge of the Indigenous context, Indigenous theory, research, literature, and socio-cultural/political context.  This same group appeared to believe that the conventions regarding respectful conduct towards other delegates did not apply to them, something that was especially evident when Indigenous delegates presented their papers.  Here is a small number of 'case studies' from the conference that illustrate these issues:

1. The 'I know bugger all, but I'll make an expert comment anyway' Criminologist

This is one of my favourite 'criminological types' who  frequent criminology conferences.  This sub-species is more often than not white, middle class and male; academics who have spent little time researching with First Nations, but who might have written a paper (or 2) sometime in the distant past about Aboriginal people (extensively panned by critics).  These individuals enjoy 'putting the natives right' about their past and current social context, but react badly to any critique of their perspective, especially if it comes from said natives.  

A classic example of the boorish behaviour of this 'type' occurred during the Post-Graduate day: In a presentation on comparisons of Romani and Maori youth and criminal justice, one criminologist began his poorly evidenced rhetoric by stating "I don't really no much about Maori and New Zealand'... but continued, regardless, to argue that because Maori have parliamentary representation they cannot be viewed as 'marginalised', or not as marginalised as other Indigenous/marginalised peoples (as though there is some sort of international league table of Indigenous marginalisation).  Now, if this statement had been framed as a question regarding empirical issues relating to problems with comparing one group to another, and across jurisdictions there wouldn't have been much of a problem.  Sadly, this was not the case, as the commentator chose  instead to offer it as a statement that they clearly did not expect a response to.  It was delivered with the 'perspective of an expert'; presented as an incontestable statement on the current situation of Maori in the New Zealand context.  This situation is highly problematic both in terms of the accuracy of the statement offered by said Criminologist, and their expectation that the statement was beyond comment.  I responded anyway, stating that it was simplistic to equate political representation with empowerment, and that because of this, Maori cannot be considered as marginalised as other social groups.  This kind of representation is simplistic because it is contradicted by plenty of 'empirical evidence' that political representation does not automatically = significant impact on or over the development of policy and legislation: simplistic because the statement demonstrates a lack of meaningful engagement with material on the contemporary social context in which Maori live.  Unfortunately, this particular commentator was simply replicating the same misinformed perspective that is offered on a regular basis in New Zealand by non-Indigenous scholars, policy workers and talk-back radio hosts.  

The speakers responded later that evening by accusing me of playing the 'Race Card' (a claim they repeated to my boss the next day).  I interpreted this to mean one of two things, either a) I had disempowered him by talking as an Indigenous person (can't really help that!) or b) I had unfairly lumped him in with other ignorant non-Indigenous commentators, which was true, but impossible to avoid given the poor quality of his statement.  As usual, this individual gave me little chance to respond as he simply walked away after making his allegation.  If he had stuck around and engaged with me as he should have, I would have politely but firmly told him that we had both played the Race Card, me when I spoke as an Indigenous person in response to his uninformed comment, and he when he chose to speak with authority on the 'Maori situation', despite his own admission that he knew very little about either Maori or the New Zealand context.  Hopefully in future this individual will consider their ignorance of such matters, and think a bit more before privileging their own voice in this way.  I am also hoping that in future they learn to cease such puerile behaviour as falling back on the use of allegations such as 'the Race Card' against their detractors, and instead choose to debate the issues directly with us.  

The same individual confirmed both their ignorance of Indigenous issues and arrogance in thinking they can talk regardless when he asked Moana Jackson if he had "Any evidence to back anything he said" during this keeynote speech.  The ignorance/arrogance of this question is highlighted by the fact that plenty of evidence exists to back all aspects of Moana's talk, whether related to his argument for socio-cultural genocide of First Nations (truckloads), his contention that First Nations had their own law and 'justice' processes (shitloads), and that these processes are applicable to some/all Indigenous peoples today and will likely work better for us (a small amount and growing).  I would expect this experienced Criminologist, who enjoys commenting on  Indigenous issues with regularity, to have engaged with this material.  Unfortunately, the tone and nature of his question hints that he hasn't, to which only 2 explanations are possible (in my view of course): 1) he hasn't engaged, which does not require further comment, or 2) he knows it exists but because the material is generated by Indigenous people it is 'probably unscientific, and therefore invalid and easily dismissed'.  Either way, all he did was underline the reputation of this particular sub-species of Criminologist, universally ignorant of First Nation perspectives, but all too willing to 'tell the natives how it is' regardless of their lack of knowledge of the Indigenous world. 

2. The 'conventions of right, ethical behaviour don't apply to me' Criminologist

A number of incidents highlighted that certain Criminologists think themselves above all others when it comes to respectful behaviour towards participants.  Unfortunately, and whether by design or not, these incidents occurred too often when Maori delegates were presenting:

a) to the senior Criminologist who walked down about 12 rows, in front of Moana Jackson as he delivered his keynote speech and thrust the microphone in his face; this is rude and obnoxious to Maori and non-Maori alike: instead of being rude, simply ask for something to be done, or sit closer to a speaker!  Next time you behave this way you will be told in no uncertain terms that your behaviour is offensive... in front of 180 other criminologists :-)

b) to the same person and a colleague who talked, moaned and bitched through the entire session on Maori perspectives, and who's ill-informed, prejudiced comments could be heard by those around them; if you can't handle different perspectives to yours being aired, especially by Indigenous peoples, and you actually believe it's ok to behave in such an unprofessional manner, perhaps you shouldn't come to our sessions?  You'll probably have more fun talking to each other anyway.  

To both individuals concerned I present my third and last 'Bullsh*t Artist of the Week' award for 2012.

Cheers and a happy New Year to you all :-)