Globalisation of Crime Control: Restorative Justice and Indigenous Justice

The following text is based on my notes for a presentation at the European Criminology conference, held in Budapest 3-6 September, 2013.

Introduction

Firstly, I want to articulate my 'position' to the audience, in others words expose both my purpose and my prejudice: this presentation is not the 'scientific observations of an Administrative Criminologist', but rather the subjective, grounded observations of an Indigenous activist.  My first, and primary goal is to articulate the Indigenous experience of the activities of criminologists, policy makers, and the restorative justice industry; to expose our concerns with how the activities of these crime control 'players' are exacerbating the neo-colonialism of First Nations through their ongoing use of Indigenous cultural artifacts in support of the inter-jurisdictional transfer of their crime control products.  My focus on expressing the Indigenous voice and experience enables me to meet the challenge laid down by First Nation leaders to further the cause of Indigenous justice, and also that of a small number of Western criminologists, such as O'Malley, Muncie and Stenson for criminology to move on from obsessive theorising about the shape and depth of contemporary globalising of crime control, and instead (my interpretation of what they were asking for) 'get real' and start analysing the micro-level impact all this 'globalising activity' is having 'on the ground' and with specific communities - in this case First Nations residing in Settler Societies like New Zealand and Canada.

I became interested in the globalisation of crime control as a criminological topic in the early 2000's, as a result of critical research into family group conferencing (see Tauri, 1998; 1999).  My interest was fuelled by a) engaging with the then growing criminological literature on the seeming increasing global transfer of western crime control policies, as a way of understanding how the FGC forum had moved from New Zealand to other jurisdictions; and b) because of a curious incident that occurred at an Indigenous justice conference I attended in British Columbia, Canada, in March of 2004.  The 'incident' went something like this:

Marketing restorative justice
At one point I was sitting working on my notes for my keynote address, when 2 delegates came to me and handed me a document, saying that I should read it and perhaps even comment on it later.  The document was a glossy, A4 marketing booklet for an RJ franchise (private) company.  The 'product' being spruiked was the company's franchised version of the FGC forum.  But that wasn't the really interesting part of the document (although finding out, at that time, that FGC had been privatised, certainly was revealing), it was the cover, and the language being used to 'sell' the product that really caught my attention. 

The script on the cover talked about 'real justice for Aboriginal peoples' and included a Koru motif, a well known 'Maori' art symbol, and the primary colours were Black, Red and White, the well known colours of the Maori sovereignty movement and its flag.  On opening the document I was confronted by  the usual over-the-top spiel associated with marketing materials, but in summary it went something along these lines:

'do you have an Aboriginal justice problem?  Are your Aboriginal peoples significantly overrepresented in the the criminal justice system?  If so, we have the deal for you, FGC's, a Maori (Aboriginal) justice initiative'... etc.etc

The Restorative Justice Industry and Indigenous Peoples
So, we might ask ourselves'what is wrong with this story?  What is concerning about this particular private company spruiking its wares on the international crime control market utilising the symbols, language and art of Maori? 

From an Indigenous perspective the answer is... everything, because a) the company in question certainly had not engaged with Maori to discuss using this material (evident from the script and work cited in the document), or sought permission to utilise it (more about that issue, and 'ownership' of culture in a postscript on responses to my presentation to be discussed in the next blog), and b) what was in fact being marketed, the FGC product, was not an Indigenous justice forum, at least not to the extent the company was claiming.  What the company was doing was simply repeating the oft-told, exaggerated claim of certain Australasian Administrative Criminologists, what I call the 'Origin Myth of the FGC', namely that the FGC forum is heavily imbued with 'Maori cultural practice', or is indeed an 'Indigenous forum'. 

Let us be clear - these claims are exaggerated: the forum is in fact much more heavily imbued with Western 'cultural artefacts', having its 'biological genesis' from the then growing mediation/western communitarian crime control response at the heart of its (heavily institutionalised) practice.  It is a Western policy/criminological invention on to which Administrative Criminologists and policy workers have grafted bits of Indigenous philosophy and practice.  At its philosophical heart the product is less about 'our ways of justice', and more a reflection of the then growing policy focus of responses to Western youth justice - the 'responsibilisation' of youth offenders and their families. 

From an Indigenous perspective, the activities of certain Western criminologists, policy-makers, and private franchise companies, spruiking certain RJ products, like FGC and Sentencing Circles - Western crime control models replete with bastardised Indigenous components - represents one of the biggest and most serious Criminological shams of the past 50 years (others include claims that 'more police = less crime', or that 'prisons are/can be therapeutic environments'). 

These are the products that are all too often valorised in the RJ literature; offered up as evidence to support the social movements claim to be significantly different to the brutalising, violent state justice system, and to its commitment to cultural sensitivity and empowerment of Minorities.  In fact the movement needs to wake up to itself and realise the following uneasy truths that all this activity:

a) is playing into the hands of government and policy makers - enabling them to offset the Indigenous challenge to the legitimacy of the formal justice system by providing it with artifacts that enable the appearance of cultural sensitivity and responsivity, in place of a genuine critique of the genocidal practices of state dominated crime control;

b) is more about fuelling the careers of criminologists and profits for private RJ companies, than empowering First Nations and furthering their desire for judicial autonomy.

Apart from a few well known exceptions (Kath Daly, Harry Blagg and Chris Cunneen, in the Australian context), the the acceptance of the Origin Myths associated with FGC and Sentencing Circles (re: their Indigenous foundations) within the RJ Academy, policy making, etc, is almost total, and goes largely unchallenged in the criminological and RJ lexicon.  This situation is a disgrace and there is no excuse for it, especially since publication of the Indigenous critique of all this activity has been steadily growing since the late 1990s, including my own work and that of Wenona Victor and Gloria Lee, to name a few.  And yet if you look at any bibliography on these artifacts published by the Academy you rarely find any reference to these publications, or meaningful engagement with the Indigenous issues and experiences they offer.  And what discussion there is, is more often than not highly superficial and dismissive.  For Indigenous criminologists like myself the situation is fuelling our discontent with the wider discipline of Criminology as it yet again demonstrates its willingness to support the neo-colonial subjugation of First Nations, just as it did during the colonialism, a fact eloquently exposed by Biko Agozino in his 2004 book Counter-colonial Criminology.

As an Indigenous person I find it easy to understand why Western criminologists, policy makers, private RJ companies and the like, are drawn to using Indigenous culture to sell their wares.  After all, one of the fundamental 'rules' of modern marketing is that 'sex sells', and let's face it, the Indigenous life-world is very sexy and very exotic.  This process - the Western criminological enterprise using, even stealing our 'stuff' - let us call it what it really is, namely the Eroticisation of Western crime control; a process driven by the desire to strengthen the marketing of Indigenised products on international markets.  But let's be just as clear about what it is not - the empowerment of the Indigenous Other.

And what may we ask, is the philosophical basis to all this marketing activity?  Well, one fundamental driver is the belief amongst many Western crime control 'experts' of the universal appeal of their wares; that Western crime control 'culture' can be universally applied anywhere in the world so long as you indigenise and eroticise for local consumption.

In 2001 Susanne Karstedt wrote that criminology was moving towards Indigenisation; rediscovering 'traditional' communitarian practices, but utilising Indigenous modes of crime control due to the Wests loss of their own practices over time; importing our practices from the Periphery to inform justice practice at the Centre.   Susanne was right to a point, because what was being imported were not Indigenous wares but Western responses, eroticised 'packages of political subjectivity' that met Western needs to 'get in touch with their historical, communitarian selves'.  In other words, you were all 'had' by a wonderfully effective marketing strategy.

The Impact of RJ Marketing on First Nations
The impact on First Nations of all this activity is very real, and very concerning.  Over the past 3 decades First Nations around the world have been resisting colonialism and neocolonialism by attempting to create for themselves some form of jurisdictional autonomy.  In response to these activities, and at the forefront of state resistance, have been globalised RJ products that are used as offerings of appeasement in place of real change to the racist, brutalising practices of crime control agencies.  Returning now to the story I used to open this presentation, the use of Indigenous cultural components to sell RJ products was a standard practice of companies operating in the North American jurisdiction.  And it had a very real impact as the Royal Mounties began utilising the forum as a standard response to youth offending.   

Dr Wenona Victor, a criminologist from the Stolo Nation of the Fraser Valley in British Columbia, underlines the successful transfer of FGC’s to Canada through the targeting of First Nations as recipients of this particular form of neo-colonial crime control product, and of the impact it had on First Nation moves to empower themselves.  By the late 1990s the Stolo First Nation of the Fraser Valley had begun the process of reinvigorating their own justice processes.  During that process they were informed that to 'receive' referrals of their youth (offenders) they would need to use FGC's.  Dr Victor describes receiving training on implementing FGC within Stolo territory, a process that had been sold to them by justice officials as “…developed by the Maori, the indigenous people of New Zealand”  She recounts the Stolo experience of receiving this training thus:

On the first day we all eagerly awaited her [the trainer’s] arrival.  We were somewhat surprised to see an extremely “White” looking lady enter the room; however, we have blonde blue-eyed, even red-headed Stolo among us, and so, too, we presumed, must the Maori.  However, it did not take us long to come to realise this lady was not Maori and was in fact Xwelitem [European].  Ah, the Maori had sent a Xwelitem; okay, we do that too, on occasion.  It is one of the many ironies of colonisation whereby Xwelitem often become our teachers….. [t]here are times when it is an Xwelitem who is recognised as the Stolo ‘expert’ and therefore, is the one talking even when there are Elders present.  But by the end of the three day training course I was convinced the Maori had lost their minds!  There was absolutely nothing Indigenous about this [FGC] model of justice whatsoever! (in Palys and Victor, 2007: 6)

Let me finish by reiterating what is going on here: the Stolo First Nation is attempting to empower themselves in part by resurrecting their own, tradition-based justice processes. While doing so government agents inform them that to be able to 'practice' Stolo justice with their own youth they would need to practice the 'justice' of another group of First Nations. Except that what they were expected to use was not Indigenous. The Academy, the RJ movement has a lot to answer for.

'Statistics, Damn Statistics.. and Bullsh*t': a Critique of 'Newboldian' Criminological Analysis of Maori and Crime

The following entry is a response to analysis of Maori and crime made by Professor Greg Newbold during a debate with Moana Jackson on Maori TV's Native Affairs in June 2013.

Introduction 

In previous blogs I have argued that one of the key issues facing First Nation peoples is the propensity for non-Indigenous commentators (whether criminologists, journalists or shock-jocks) to talk bullshit about First Nation peoples and crime.  More often than not, when critically analysing their comments you find that rarely is their position/perspective or critique backed by empirical research of the kind that requires you actually go talk to Indigenous peoples about their experiences of crime and crime control.  

A few weeks ago we observed yet another episode of this kind of behaviour, this time in the form of University of Canterbury criminologist, Professor Greg Newbold's performance on Maori TV's excellent show, Native Affairs (Monday 17 June, 2013).  I recommend that anyone who hasn't seen the show do so as it represents an interesting approach to the issue of whether or not police practice in New Zealand is biased, and whether or not bias plays a part in incidents that result in police shooting and killing Maori.  

The part of the show dedicated to this topic covered a number of issues, including an interesting discussion with Wally Haumaha from NZ Police National Headquarters, who's comments on the possibility of police bias were far more reticent than those offered recently on the same topic by the current Police Commissioner who unequivocally stated that there was no 'bias in New Zealand Police', and that perceptions of it as such were uninformed.  

It should come as no surprise that senior management of New Zealand Police would make these kinds statements despite empirical and anecdotal evidence to the contrary (e.g. Jackson, 1988; MRL, 1993; 1995; New Zealand Police and Te Puni Kokiri, 2001). If we take the Commissioner's position and that expressed later in the piece by Professor Newbold, then none of this 'evidence' is of any use to a debate on the issue of bias because it isn't the 'right' kind of evidence (more on that point below). In the case of the Commissioner, he was using the time honoured strategy employed of New Zealand police officials to sideline criticism of the organisation, namely presenting research or commentary that demonstrates the existence of bias or racism within the organisation as simply a reflection of peoples uninformed 'perceptions' of policing, rather than their actual experiences of it.  

The term 'perception' is critical to any/all discussions on the issue of bias in the criminal justice system, because it is a favourite rhetorical device of policy makers/criminal justice officials and Authoritarian Criminologists in New Zealand and other Settler Societies, who seek to dismiss any criticism of their activities, especially by minorities and First Nations. In using this term commentators are implying that we never 'experience' policing, we only have uninformed, unevidenced 'perceptions' of it.  

The underlying bias inherent in this  semantic stupidity is obvious when you analyse it for what it is saying about the Indigenous experience and critical criminological commentary: 1) 'We (in this case New Zealand Police) reject any and all accusations of bias in our dealings with Maori or any other population group; therefore 2) any evidence/claims of said bias is pure fiction, based on unsubstantiated perception; 3) any evidence that is generated via empirical research is tainted by the fact it was carried out by a biased researcher (meaning anyone who disagrees with or critiques the organisation is automatically assumed to be biased/subjective/probably a tree-hugging socialist, etc, etc); 4) anyone having experienced policing who then claims bias can be dismissed because they are probably an offender (who we haven't caught yet), or someone in their family is/was, so anything they say is invalid; and 5) we actually have no evidence to support our claim there is no bias, but in our case we don't need to prove any statements we make, unlike our critics'.

Before discussing Professor Newbold's statements, I want to make the following response to senior managers within the New Zealand Police, starting with the current Commissioner -  your recent claim that there is no bias in the force is clearly ridiculous and contradicts the small amount of research that has been published on this issue, and the stated position of some of your predecessors. If you actually believe the comments you made on this issue and if you are inferring that New Zealand's is the only police force in any Western jurisdiction that has no bias/racism, then you a) need to do more reading (such as the aforementioned New Zealand material and perhaps some of the hundreds of reports from other western jurisdictions, such as Bowling and Phillips, 2007, Hall et al, 1989 and Holdaway, 1996 amongst numerous others) and/or b) resign because someone this uninformed shouldn't be in charge of such a powerful institution.

So, how about we put aside the bullsh*t and work to do something about the problem... cool?  And a good start would be for the key justice agencies, the Ministry of Justice in particular, to step aside and allow independent, critical research on the topic of bias (see previous comments on this issue, in earlier blogs); which brings me to Professor Newbold's comments on Maori, crime and bias. 

The Newboldian Perspective on Maori and Crime

Let me begin by saying that I have great respect for Professor Newbold's work on penal policy in New Zealand; but that this respect usually evaporates when he comments on Maori issues.  

As for his latest attempt at expert commentary on Maori crime, where to begin?  We could spend an hour alone talking about his insensitive, provocative comments that a Maori victim of a police shooting should have been shot in the heart and not the head.  I note that Greg has refused to apologise for these words, claiming he was only stating a 'fact'.  Indeed, this is true to a point, police are (or should be) trained to aim at the body as it is larger in mass and therefore easier to hit.  But it is equally reasonable to predict and prepare for the fact that the comment would be hugely insensitive to the deceased's whanau, friends and others in the community, that the attitude expressed would come across as arrogant and insensitive.  Personally, I suspect that Greg wouldn't give a shite about any of that, as he probably got the outcome he wanted, to be provocative and to sound informed. The fact that his comments added nothing substantive to the discussion that was taking place at that particular point was irrelevant. 

So instead, let's deal with other elements of the analysis Professor Newbold offered in what I will call his 'Newboldian analysis of Maori and crime', a world where bias, at least that which is directed at Maori, does not appear to be allowed to exist, and which is willed away regardless of existing evidence, or lack of evidence to the contrary.  And so to my critique and in no particular order of importance:

1. There is no evidence of police bias: yes there is, and as an experienced New Zealand criminologist I expect Professor Newbold to have read it.  Ah, but of course the main issue is the nature of the 'evidence', right?  According to Professor Newbold the only valid research is that which is 'controlled', meaning that which is 'scientific'.  This can only be described as a load of tutai which rather conveniently ignores an extensive amount of published, critical criminological material that critiques the methodologies he seems to prefer. I could list and discuss the criticisms here, but as Professor Newbold is an experienced criminologist I shouldn't have to, he should already know what they are. For everyone else, Jock Young's recent expose of the fallacy of 'scientific' criminology, The Criminological Imagination (2011) is a good place to start.

2. Maori are over-represented in the criminal justice system because of their violent offending and drunkenness (my paraphrasing of one of his key arguments):  Certainly, the levels and nature of our offending goes some way to explaining our over-representation, but to dismiss bias the way Professor Newbold did, is intellectually redundant and can be critiqued in a number of ways, a) by repeating that evidence of bias and racism does in fact exist, but to recognise it for what it is, requires putting aside convenient bias against 'non-scientific' research methodologies; b) by recognising that there is significant evidence that racism and bias exists in jurisdictions we often compare ourselves to, such as Great Britain and Australia, which then begs the question 'why would we be the exception to the rule'?  

In turn I would ask those making the argument that there is 'no evidence of bias', to provide evidence that everything is actually ok, that bias and racism does not exist: Just as bias alone cannot explain Maori over-representation, nor can one make, with any scholarly authority the simplistic argument that bias and racism has nothing to do with it.

3. Research in Australia demonstrates that Aboriginal peoples are treated more leniently by the criminal justice system: I take it that Professor Newbold was referring to research carried out by Jeffries and Bond?  In this particular case he was likely referring to their analysis of sentencing decision in New South Wales.  If so, yes their research did show that (but you might like to take a long, hard look at the 'scientific' methodology before using the findings uncritically, as was done here), but for some reason Professor Newbold failed to a) contextualise his argument by mentioning other research published by the same authors that demonstrates bias in sentencing-related decision-making in the Queensland jurisdiction (in particular the lower courts) (see Bond and Jeffries, 2011); and b) the existence of plenty of other research that demonstrates bias policing practices across various Australian jurisdictions, carried out by criminologists Harry Blagg, Thalia Anthony, Chris Cunneen and so on. 

4. The only valid research has be 'scientific'; it has to 'control' for certain variables: hogwash... see previous comments about the work of Jock Young.  The Professor might wish to engage with the qualitatively informed work on biased policing in England (Hall et al, 1978), just for starters and go from there to engage with the truckload of critical, 'grounded', ethnographic, detailed research that demonstrates the existence of bias in contemporary, Western, neo-liberal societies, like Great Britain, the U.S, Australia and... New Zealand. Comments made during Native Affairs about how complex bias research is/can be because of all the things you need to 'control for' is true to a point, but conveniently ignores the (validity of) research findings from scholars who employ observational and ethnograpnic techniques.  All of this demonstrates the weakness of some of the arguments Professor Newbold offered on Native Affairs. Overall, it appeared that the statements made were highly selective in terms of the so-called 'evidence' used to support them, while at the same time, a different 'measure' of quality was used to critique alternative perspectives.

and lastly

5. That the research Moana is carrying out on police/Maori engagements would only be valid when published in a 'reputable criminology journal': my response is to ask 'what qualifies as a reputable journal'?  Would it be Criminology, or the Australian New Zealand Journal of Criminology, or the Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, all of which have poor records of publishing research on bias based on engaging methodologies?  Is the Professor not aware of the inherent bias in many of the leading criminological journals and other publications, as pointed out by Biko Agozino (2003), who's expose is supported by a soon to be published article by Dr Antje Deckert (AUT University) that confirms the paucity of Indigenous-centred research across the entire range of 'reputable criminology journals' in Settler Societies? I have a sneaky suspicion that reputable Indigenous-focused journals such as MAI Review and the Indigenous Policy Journal, and perhaps even QUT's own International Journal for Crime and Justice, wouldn't make the Professor's list of 'reputable' journals, most likely because they break a cardinal rule of Authoritarian Criminology - namely that they publish research where academics have actually gone out and engaged with Indigenous peoples, and sought to privilege the Indigenous experience of crime control, rather than hide behind the 'cloak of objectivity'.

References
Agozino B (2003) Counter-Colonial Criminology: A Critique of Imperialist Reason. London: Pluto Press.  
Bond C and Jeffries S (2011) Indigeneity and the Likelihood of Imprisonment in Queensland’s Adult and Children’s Courts. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law 19(2): 169–183

Bowling B and Phillips C (2007) Disproportionate and Discriminatory: Reviewing the Evidence on Police Stop and Search. Modern Law Review 70(6): 936-961.

Hall S, Critcher C, Jefferson T, Clarke J, Roberts B (1978) Policing The Crisis: Mugging, the State and Law and Order. London: Macmillan.

Holdaway, S (1996) The Racialisation of British Policing.  London: Macmillan.

Jackson M (1988) Maori and the Criminal Justice System: He Whaipaanga Hou: A New Perspective. Department of Justice, Wellington.

MRL Research Group (1993) Public Attitudes Towards Policing.  MRL Research Group, Wellington.

MRL Research Group (1995) Public Attitudes Towards Policing.  MRL Research Group, Wellington.

New Zealand Police and Te Puni Kokiri (2001) Challenging Perspectives: Police and Maori Attitudes Toward One Another.  New Zealand Police National Headquarters and Te Puni Kokiri, Wellington.

Doing Things for Ourselves: Responding to the Condescending Ethos of Institutional Ethics Processes

This blog builds on the previous discussion of the condescending ethos of institutionalised ethics processes, by arguing for Maori/First Nation-led ethics processes:

Introduction

In a powerful call to arms for the decolonisation of the edifice of Eurocentric, colonialist research, Arthur Smith (1997: 25/26) asserts that:

It is self evident that Indigenous people now want their voice in research, and they want it to be heard and understood.... [t]he right to establish and control the terms and conditions of cultural research is an inalienable right for all peoples of the Earth. The colonial era is dead, if not yet buried.

Given the experiences of Research Ethics Board-related conduct reported in the previous blog, one might argue that at least in the realm of academic, institutionalised ethics, the paternalism that characterised colonialism is alive and kicking in the present.

One strong justification for the need for an overhaul of First Nation experience of institutionalised ethics is the impact it has on us as ‘ethical researchers’.  In the end, the repeated requests for assurances from the author that he would adhere to AUT University's preferred, individual-focused ethics protocols (particularly relating to informed consent) were given (albeit by my supervisor), simply so the REB would sign-off and enable my doctoral research to proceed.  This was done with full knowledge that in all instances the ethics protocols of First Nation communities, participants (whether as individuals, groups or communities) would take precedence over the protocols of the REB in question (see Haggerty, 2004: 408, for further discussion of the related issue of ‘conscious subversion of formulaic, institutionalised ethics protocols’).  Schwandt (2007: 92) refers to this strategy as ‘playing the game’ for the sake of receiving the gift of authorisation; a strategy she used from time-to-time to keep her own students safe (albeit from REBs) as related thus:

We publicly and privately complain about the onerous review process, but when it comes time to file the papers, we simply figure out what it is in terms of language and procedure that IRBs [REBs] are looking for and then find ways to say it just so.... a major problem with such a strategy is that it encourages confusing technical compliance with IRB regulations with careful and sound substantive ethical review of one’s research.  Moreover, it creates the impression that ethical matters are dealt with once IRB approval has been granted (ibid: 92).

According to focus group participants in research I carried out in New Zealand and Canada in 2010-11, personal communications with Indigenous researchers, and the extant literature,  ‘playing the game’ is widespread; indeed it is considered by some as necessary for their protection as a researcher, and for the protection of their participating Indigenous communities.  Understanding a researcher’s decision to ignore the advice and direction of an institutional REB is easy when we see that “... research ethics boards can create an unproductive tension between receiving ‘ethics approval’, and being an ‘ethical researcher... because REBs regularly confuse the difference between ‘ethics’ as a noun (i.e. a process for ‘ethics’ review), and ‘ethical as an adjective (i.e. a research review process that is ‘ethical’) ’” (Riviere, 2011: 195).  

While it is easy to understand or validate resistance strategies like ‘playing the game’, I wish to propose a different strategy, one that requires us to stop playing the ‘ethics game’ as dictated by institutional REBs.  I am advocating that we develop our own REB(s), modelled on our specific socio-cultural and ethical principles and practices (see Brant-Castellano, 2004 and Manson, Garroutte, Goins and Henderson, 2004: 60S for similar arguments in other colonial jurisdictions).

What is being proposed here is neither novel, nor unrealistic.  Similar calls have been made by Maori commentators in the past with regards the development of a Maori Ethical Framework (e.g. Palmer 2009; Te Ropu Rangahau Hauora a Eru Pomare, 1996) Precedents have already been set by other First Nations residing in Settler Societies; including the Cherokee (Manson et al, 2004: 65S-70S; Nuu Chah Nulth First Nation (Wiwchar, 2004) and Mi’kmaq Grand Council of Mi’kma’ki (also known as Sante Maio’mi within the seven districts of the Mi’kmaq nation, Nova Scotia).  Indeed, in relation to Canada Menzies (2001: 21) writes that:

Many First Nations communities have now instituted research protocols that researchers must abide by when researching in a First Nation community.  Such protocols, whether community – or researcher initiated, ultimately contribute to the establishment and maintenance of respectful research relations.   

Let us consider the example provided by the eminent leaders of the Mi’kmaq First Nations who authorised the development of the Mi’kmaw Ethics Watch (Ethics’ Eskinuapink) “to oversee research processes that involve Mi’kmaw knowledge sought among Mi’Kmaw people, ensuring that researchers conduct research ethically and appropriately within Mi’Kma’ki” (Battiste, 2007: 114).  Battiste (2007: 114-115) relates that developing the process was “... a significant step toward ensuring Mi’kmaw peoples’ self-determination and the protection of our cultural and intellectual property”.  The said Ethics Committee oversees the research protocol and ethical research throughout the seven traditional districts of the Grand Council, which includes the provinces of Newfoundland, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Quebec.  Members of the original Mi’kmaw Ethics Watch included community elders, leaders and researchers.  This body works in similar ways to REBs; members receive and consider research proposals, assessing them against identified ethics norms and protocols.  The purpose is again, similar to that of an institutionally-focused REB, except in this case the primary goal is the protection of Mi’Kmaw peoples and Mi’Kmaw knowledge (Battiste, 2007: 126-127).

Doing Things for Ourselves

The important thing is that the time has passed when non-Indigenous researchers could even presume to speak on behalf of Indigenous Australians or speculate for one moment about whether their research is different and what the current priorities are, or will be.  This is Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander business.  The right to establish and control the terms and conditions of cultural research is an inalienable right for all peoples of the Earth.  The colonial era is dead, if not yet buried (Smith, 1997: 25). 

No doubt that the construction of a pan-Maori ethics process would cause discomfort for some REBs and non-Indigenous researchers.  After all, as Glass and Kaufert (2007: 27) write REBs “are accustomed to being the sole arbiters of the ethical acceptability of a project.  With contemporary demands for indigenous participation, they may now be asked (or told) to collaborate with communities who perform another review”.... and furthermore that “[m]ost conventional boards are not yet well prepared to meet the demand of communities for a more interactive partnership”.  No doubt some, including Maori and other Indigenous researchers, will likely advocate for continued participation in REBs, in order to enhance their processes ‘from within’, in a display of beneficial co-operation.  There is some validity to this position because most, if not all New Zealand REBs involve Maori academics as members or external advisors'.  Also, most committees in their protocols a sub-section dedicated to ‘protecting’ vulnerable populations such as Maori and Pacifica peoples.  And yet despite all this, too many Maori academics and post-graduate researchers report being victimised and sidelined by analysis and decision-making behaviour of these committees.  So, by all means let us carry on being members of REBs, and provide gentle chastisement for any unethical, disempowering conduct and decisions.  But let us not lose sight of who they work for in the first instance – the institutions in which they reside.  We need to force the issue by developing a body dedicated to advising, nurturing and supporting our post-graduates and established researchers; a body capable of holding REBs, government agencies and private researchers to task if their conduct negatively impacts Maori researchers and Maori research participants.

In response to the anticipated resistance from REB, their members and the wider Academy, I offer the following rationale: I believe that a separate Maori ethics review forum is a necessity because it would:

• underline the unique status of Maori as Treaty partners;
• serve as a real, observable action that operationalises self-determination in the realm of knowledge production (see Bishop, 1998: 201);
• send a strong message to the non-Indigenous academy, and in particular the institutions they serve, that their perspective on ‘how to research’ the Indigenous Other is no longer hegemonic;
• provide emerging and experienced Maori researchers with an experienced body of experts to whom they can turn for support; advice on methods, methodology, analysis and all other issues relating to scholarship;
• provide an experienced body to which non-Maori/Indigenous scholars, REBs, etc, can engage with to enhance their ability to carry out ethical research with Maori; and
• provide a Maori-dominated body to which Maori individuals, organisations, hapu, iwi and communities can turn for support when confronted with issues involving researchers, REBs and academic institutions. 

Furthermore, by developing our own REB, albeit freed from the ideological strains brought about by Eurocentric hegemony, we will move towards enveloping knowledge construction within the movement towards sovereignty (Wilson, 2004).  We will, in effect, be better positioned to meet the required actions of a sovereign people, as identified in First Nation literature, namely to:

1. resist or reject Eurocentric theory – in this instance theories about the gathering and dissemination of ‘valid’ knowledge;
2. resist or reject versions of ourselves that are fantasies of the power elite – in this instance the hegemonic constructions of ‘otherness’ that permeate New Zealand REB’s;
3. free ourselves to explore epistemological differences, thus freeing ourselves from the constraints of Eurocentric epistemology;
4. reclaim that which is too often denied us – namely the right to gather and disseminate information as we see fit, and resist (if need be) what is said and written about us (see Tuck and Fine, 2007: 163 and Battiste, 2000).

Any arguments (especially by members of the Academy and REB’s) to this suggestion will need to respond to the recent United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples adopted by the General Assembly in 2007 that recognises the often poor treatment of Indigenous peoples by its member states and calls for “control by Indigenous peoples over development effecting them and their land”, and the need for Indigenous peoples to give their “[f]ree, prior and informed consent” to any decisions or actions that affect their well-being.  Inarguably, the actions of researchers and research bodies – including academic institutions and their REB’s – can be considered as such. And as Castellano (2004: 102) rightly points out:

 [f]undamental to the exercise of self-determination is the right of peoples to construct knowledge in accordance with self-determined definitions of what is real and what is valuable.  Just as colonial policies have denied Aboriginal Peoples access to their traditional lands, so also colonial definitions of truth and value have denied Aboriginal Peoples the tools to assert and implement their knowledge.  Research under the control of outsiders to the Aboriginal community has been instrumental in rationalising colonialist perceptions of Aboriginal incapacity and the need for paternalistic control.

The Academy, especially members of REBs, and the general population of researchers, might balk at an Indigenous-led ethics process.  No doubt some will view it as just another level of ‘red-tape’.  Schnarch (2004: 93) preempts such concerns when he writes that:

Some researchers may balk at the idea of a First Nations review/approval process, construing it as political interference contrary to academic freedom.  They do, however, readily accept the constraints of peer review for funding proposals, journal articles, and so on.  As with academic review, a First Nations review process is generally intended to ensure quality of the work, its relevance, and the appropriateness of interpretation.

Having prompted some of the likely counter-arguments, I see no reason why we cannot proceed to develop a Maori-specific ethics body in the social sciences.  We already have a ready vehicle upon which to build the process, the Maori Association of Social Sciences, which I believe can easily be turned from a representative/relational body, into one that actively works to support and protect researchers and research communities. 

Concluding Remarks

This now brings us full circle, back to the opening section of the previous blog, that highlighted the range of First Nation criticisms of Eurocentric, institutionalised research processes.  A key motivation for the First Nation focus on Western modes of knowledge construction was the role this activity played in the colonisation process and its ongoing role in Indigenous marginalisation in the neo-colonial context (Tauri, 2009).  As Battiste and Henderson (2000: 132-133) write “[m]ost existing research on Indigenous peoples is contaminated by Eurocentric prejudice.... [thus the development of] ethical research must begin by replacing Eurocentric prejudice with new premises that value diversity over universality”.  It is my contention that if we are to achieve the retrenchment of Eurocentric hegemony over knowledge construction and dissemination, we must challenge the power and authority the academy has granted itself over the production process; a power that is personified in institutionally-centred bodies such as REBs. 

As if we need further justification for Indigenous resistance, we might consider Bradley's (2007: 341) comment that:

By controlling the models of research, who gets to speak and how subjects get to represent themselves, IRBs are in a powerful position as part of the institutional structure.  In this position they can, and often do, silence the voices of the marginalised and perpetuate an academic political economy and a traditional top-down research and professional model that quantify and objectify human lives by keeping them nameless, faceless and voiceless.

References

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. 

Battiste, M (2007) Research Ethics for Protecting Indigenous Knowledge and Heritage: Institutional and Researcher Responsibilities, in N. Denzin; M. Giardina (Eds.), Ethical Futures in Qualitative Research: Decolonising the Politics of Knowledge: 111-132.  Walnut Creek (CA): Left Coast Press. 

Battiste, M and Henderson, J (2000) Protecting Indigenous Knowledge and Heritage: A Global Challenge.  Saskatoon: Purich Publications Ltd. 

Bishop, G (1998) Freeing Ourselves from Neo-colonial Domination in Research: A Maori Approach to Creating Knowledge, Qualitative Studies in Education, 11(2): 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. 

Brant-Castellano, M (2004) Ethics of Aboriginal Research, Journal of Aboriginal Health, 103: 98-114.

Castellano, M (2004) Ethics of Aboriginal Research, Journal of Aboriginal Health: 98-114.

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, 2(2): 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.

Manson, S; Garroutte, E; Goins, R and Henderson, P (2004) Access, Relevance and Control in the Research Process: Lessons from Indian Country, Journal of Aging and Health, 16(5): 58S-77S. 

Menzies, C (2004) Putting Words into Action: Negotiating Collaborative Research in Gitxaala, Canadian Journal of Native Education, 28(1/2): 15-32. 

Palmer, S (2009) Te Tauranga Waka.  Coromandel: Tumana Research. 

Riviere, D (2011) Looking from the Outside/In: Re-thinking Research Ethics Review, Journal of Academic Ethics, 9: 193-204.  

Schnarch, B (2004) Ownership, Control, Access, and Possession (OCAP) or Self-determination Applied to Research: A Critical Analysis of Contemporary First Nations Research and Some Options for First Nation Communities, Journal of Aboriginal Health, January: 80-95. 

Schwandt, T (2007) The Pressing Need for Ethical Education: A Commentary on the Growing IRB Controversy, in N. Denzin; M. Giardina (Eds.), Ethical Futures in Qualitative Research: Decolonising the Politics of Knowledge: 85-98.  Walnut Creek (CA): Left Coast Press.

Smith, A (1997) Indigenous Research Ethics: Policy, Protocol and Practice, The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 25(1): 23-29.

Tauri, J (2009) The Maori Social Science Academy and Evidence-based Policy, MAI Review, June (online).  

Te Ropu Rangahau Hauora a Eru Pomare (1996) Hui Whakapiripiri: A Hui to Discuss Strategic Directions for Maori Health Research.  Wellington: Te Ropu Rangahau Hauora a Eru Pomare.

Tuck, E and Fine, M (2007) Inner Angles: A Range of Ethical Responses to/with Indigenous/Decolonising Theories, in N. Denzin; M. Giardina (Eds.), Ethical Futures in Qualitative Research: Decolonising the Politics of Knowledge: 145-169.  Walnut Creek (CA): Left Coast Press. 

Wilson, W (2004) Indigenous Knowledge Recovery as Indigenous Empowerment, American Indian Quarterly, 28: 359-372. 

Wiwichar, D (2004) Nuu-chah-nulth Blood Returns to West Coast, Ha-Shilth-Sa, 16 December.

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.