0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Moving Beyond Culturally Bound Ethical Guidelines
interested parties to define ethical guidelines that would protect the
rights and interests of all involved.
Launched in 2002 by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research
Council (sshrc), this dialogue involved key aboriginal organizations
and individuals. Following the submission of more than fifty briefs,
participation in an extensive dialogue on a Yahoo! site with more than
three hundred individuals—the majority aboriginals, and the prepa-
ration of two major synthesis papers, McNaughton and Rock ( 2004 ,
59 , note 23 )remark that “within the Dialogue there has been some
ambivalence around the need for national ethics guidelines.” Partici-
pants in the dialogue have argued that research guidelines and proto-
cols were best defined at the local level. Defining them otherwise would
demonstrate a lack of respect for the legitimate differences rooted in
distinctive local cultures and practices. “For example, the Blackfoot
emphasize approval by responsible individuals, not community polit-
ical representatives,” whereas, “in other Aboriginal communities ap-
provals are given by families who are responsible for various kinds of
knowledge” (McNaughton and Rock 2004 , 59 , note 23 ).^4
Determining how to ethically conduct research involving aborigi-
nal peoples is complex. In 1998 , the three councils had already rec-
ognized that “in Canada and elsewhere, aboriginal peoples have dis-
tinctive perspectives and understandings embodied in their cultures
and histories.” “Debates may arise,” noted the three councils, “be-
cause of different definitions of public and private life,” different “no-
tions of property,” or, “competing interests among different sections of
the community” (tcps 2003, 6. 2 ). Reading through the Tri-Councils
Policy Statement and sshrc recent synthesis papers, it becomes clear
that progress toward establishing culturally sensitive ethical guide-
lines goes hand in hand with a critical examination of the ontological
and epistemological assumptions that aboriginal and non-aboriginal
parties bring to the table.
These assumptions, I argue, have profound implications: First, at
the level of describing the world within which one is to conduct re-
search; second, at the level of ethical decision making with aborigi-
nal peoples in a social environment that encompasses the presence of
both the living and the dead. For as Chief Seattle of the Dwanish tribe
