30
Nikolaus P. Himmelmann
context of language documentations it is useful to distinguish between different
types of metadata (in this broad sense), and it is now a widely-used practice to
use the term “metadata” in the context of language documentations exclusively
for data types which have a cataloguing or organizational function and to use
“annotation” (or “commentary”) for other types of information accompanying
segments of primary data.
11. The structuralist idea of language as an abstract system has been articulated in
a variety of oppositions including the well-known Sassurean distinction of
langue vs. langage vs. parole and the Chomskyan distinction of competence
vs. performance. For the present argument, the details of how the abstract lan-
guage system is conceived of do not matter and thus are ignored.
12. With regard to falsifiability (point (b)), not providing access to the primary
data is indeed a major problem for the scientific status of these descriptions.
However, the basic assumption here appears to have been that whoever wanted
to replicate and possibly falsify a descriptive analysis on the basis of material
other than the one made available in examples and texts could compile their
own set of primary data. This assumption is no longer viable in the case of en-
dangered languages and, as already pointed out in Section 2, it is hence not by
chance that a close connection exists between language endangerment and the
recent increased concern for the preservation of primary data in linguistics and
related disciplines.
13. The part called “descriptive analysis” in the rightmost column could also be
added in other ways to the overall format, for example as an additional column
of its own, on a par with “primary data” and “apparatus”. While there are theo-
retical issues associated with these alternative overall organizations, these do
not play a role for the argument in this section and hence can be safely ignored.
14. Essentially the same points made here and in the following with regard to de-
scriptive grammars could also be made with regard to conventional dictionaries
and ethnographic monographs (see Chapter 6 for a brief discussion of different
types of dictionaries, which is also relevant here). Including these two other
main analytical formats in the discussion would, however, unnecessarily com-
plicate the exposition. Hence, dictionaries and ethnographies are not further
discussed in this section. The choice of descriptive grammars as the main ex-
ample is simply due to the fact that it is the format the author is most familiar
with.
15. Very occasionally, though, especially in the interaction between parents and
children, unacceptable or highly marked structures might be attested in admon-
ishments of the form: Don’t say X, say Y.
Chapter 2
Ethics and practicalities
of cooperative fieldwork and analysis
Arienne M. Dwyer
Introduction
This chapter examines central ethical, legal, and practical responsibilities of
linguists and ethnographers in fieldwork-based projects. These issues span
all research phases, from planning to fieldwork to dissemination. We focus
on the process of language documentation, beginning with a discussion of
common ethical questions associated with fieldwork: When is documenta-
tion appropriate in a particular community, and who benefits from it? Which
power structures are involved, both in and out of the field? Section 1 ex-
plores key concepts of participant relations, rights, and responsibilities in
fieldwork in the context of ethical decision-making. It introduces a set of
guiding principles and examines some potential pitfalls. Section 2 discusses
the legal rights issues of data ownership (intellectual property rights and
copyright) and data access. Such information aids planning before field-
work and especially the archiving phase.
Sections 3 and 4 cover the more concrete practical aspects of the field-
work situation: developing a relationship with a speech community and
organizing and running a project. We survey what may be termed “the five
Cs” critical to planning and executing a project: criteria (for choosing a
field site), contacts, cold calls, community, and compensation. Finally, since
even the best-planned projects encounter logistical and interpersonal chal-
lenges, we present several generic case studies and some possible methods
of resolving such disputes.
Such ethical and logistical planning is essential to successful commu-
nity-centered knowledge mobilization, from which documentation products
useful for both academics and community members are produced in an
environment of reciprocity. It is the linguist’s responsibility to focus on
process (Rice 2005: 9)
1
as much as the end goals.
32
Arienne M. Dwyer
1. Ethics
1.1. Research as mediation
Ethical behavior is often assumed to flow intuitively from the noble goals
of scientific research. Most fieldworkers consider themselves well-inten-
tioned, rational people. But have all participating individuals and groups
been considered in these research goals? Have their ethical standards been
considered?
Fieldwork methodology has in the last decades progressed from a typi-
cally non-cooperative model (research on a community) to a cooperative
model which in its strongest form explicitly empowers speech communities
(research on, for, and with a community) (Cameron et al. 1992: 22–24).
Assumptions about what is ethical for a particular field situation are best
avoided, especially assumptions on the part of the researcher about what
participants want.
2
The researcher should also have a grasp of the legal
implications (local, national, and international) of data ownership.
3
An un-
derstanding of ethical and legal responsibilities also facilitates the building
of trust – and thus a successful relationship – with a community research
team. Finally, making ethical and legal premises explicit, helps to anticipate
and avoid problems. A field researcher mediates between speakers, their
communities and the fieldworker’s own community, which includes an
institution, a funding body, and possibly an archive. Inevitably, all partici-
pants in a language documentation will face ethical dilemmas, in which no
course of action seems quite satisfactory. There may be “no right decision,
only… [one] ‘more right’ than the alternatives” (Hill, Glaser and Harden
1995: 19).
Distilled to its essence, the ethics of field research entails indigenous
people and field researchers mediating each other's cultural imperatives.
This contextualization of ethical principles can only occur through produc-
tive mutual negotiation at the local level. The ethical principles presented
here may seem as both imperious and overly generic, given that in this
chapter broad-brush principles are often preceded by the cajoling impera-
tive should or the bossy must. But these are suggestions awaiting contextu-
alization in a particular research situation. And this mediation of ethical
principles by all participants forms the nucleus of any research project.
Dostları ilə paylaş: |