Beyond Institutional Ethics: Anishinaabe Worldviews and the Development of a Culturally Sensitive Field Protocol for Aquatic Plant Research

Brittany Luby,Samantha Mehltretter,Elli Pattrick,Margaret Lehman,Jane Mariotti,Robert Flewelling,Andrea Bradford,Gabrielle Goldhar

doi:10.3390/w13050709

Abstract

Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (TCPS2) guides knowledge production and dissemination in Canada. While it is intended to protect vulnerable populations from harm, it fails to consider Anishinaabe worldviews and, by extension, to effectively direct ethical water research with aquatic plant life. Using Anishinaabe oral testimony and oral stories, Niisaachewan Anishinaabe Nation (NAN) and the University of Guelph (UofG) co-developed a culturally sensitive field protocol to respect Manomin (Wild Rice) as an other-than-human being and guide research into Manomin restoration. By illuminating key directives from NAN, this article showcases the limitations of institutional ethics in Canada. It concludes with recommendations to broaden TCPS2 to better address Anishinaabe teachings about plant and animal relations, but ultimately challenges institutional Research Ethics Boards (REBs) to relinquish control and respect Indigenous Nations’ right to govern research within their territories.

Highlights

Western natural science methodologies are founded in a positivist ontology [1], where there is one “truth” that can only be known when researchers remove themselves from their scholarship and claim objectivity [2]
The Winnipeg River Drainage Basin (WRDB) is an approximately 150,000 km2 watershed that drains into Lake Winnipeg in what is currently known as Manitoba [9]
In the Anishinaabe worldview, all beings originating from Earth have a spirit and can enter into a relationship with human beings

Summary

Introduction

Western natural science methodologies are founded in a positivist ontology [1], where there is one “truth” that can only be known when researchers remove themselves from their scholarship and claim objectivity [2]. Indigenous researchers are more likely to describe truth as relational [2]. While ontologies cannot be tested as right or wrong [3], power imbalances have led to the celebration of Western ontologies as “reflecting ‘higher orders’ of thinking” in colonial institutions [4] 24), if they conduct their study through a positivist lens, their outputs reflect colonial understandings of the world. This article builds on the work of change makers like Linda Tuhiwai Smith and Shawn Wilson to decolonize research

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion