Writing a Comparative Study on Indigenous People - Article Example

Running Head: Comparative Indigenous Studies Major Methodological and Ethical Issues Associated with Writing a Comparative Study on Indigenous People [Client’s Name] [Affiliation] Comparative analysis is one of the many research methodologies where certain characteristics of a given sample are compared to a given standard or benchmarks. In most cases, comparative analysis works as it exposes major flaws in the sample under study based solely on the benchmark. If the benchmark is good, or is the most objective standard there is, it is highly probable that the research would yield a more accurate result. However, comparative approach to research does not always yield the best result or the most accurate. In the case of using any forms of comparative analysis on Australian aborigines with other forms of indigenous groups around the world (North America and New Zealand), the use of comparative analysis yields to futile, inconclusive and often conflicting results. By principle, a successful comparative study can be achieved if (a) the subjects under study have the same initial states, (b) any changes within the initial states of whichever subjects can be quantified and controlled, and (c) any uncontrolled changes within the initial states can be easily removed from the analysis of the data points afterwards (Zepetnek, 2002). This is true even for social researches. The deviations from the initial state of the social environments under study tell so much about the reaction of a particular subject towards the external factors –induced, controlled, or naturally-occurring. In this regard, this paper will evaluate the major methodological and ethical issues associated with writing comparative studies between and among Aborigines, Maori and Native Americans. The first major flaw of the comparative researches done on these indigenous people is the assumption that they have the same set of cultural, social, and ideological backgrounds. This categorization of different cultural identities is flawed mainly because even though the Aborigines, the Maoris, and the Native Americans are indigenous, their similarities end there. Going back to Zepetnek’s (2002) arguments, the first condition would only hold if both cultures under study have very similar characteristics or attributes before change is introduced. Because of the differences in social orientations, perspectives, ideologies, and belief systems of these three indigenous groups, their reactions towards the Western colonization varies. In cases where this condition would not hold, the validity of the claims of the research undertaking becomes highly questionable. Majority of the studies done on these three indigenous social groups are based on their reactions to British colonialism and how they were able to adapt with the new, more dominant social system. The social setting prior to the arrival of the Western colonizers were considered as the initial state of most comparative researches aimed towards these three indigenous people. In Fisher (1980), the response of the three indigenous groups on the presence of the colonizers are explained and expounded. According to his research, the Aborigines were easily subjugated by the colonizers, the Maoris offered innovative ways of resistance, and the Native Americans are neither tough resistors nor easy subjects for colonizers. Jacobs (n.d) also make the mistake of categorizing all three indigenous people on the same label – that they are indigenous. His general discussions on how some of these indigenous people were able to survive the colonial period by adapting to the ways of the foreigners and deliberately leaving their cultures behind in exchange for a far better socio-economic situation while others failed miserably fails to take into account the importance of social identity in any comparative studies. His oneness of perception towards the indigenous people of Australia, North America, and New Zealand is convenient for his research design which is to explore why interaction between these indigenous people and the foreigners often lead to fatalities and death. Jacob deliberately ignored the fact that such variation of outcomes were expected, which is highly dependent on the differences between and among the perspectives, profiles, and cultural orientations of these aborigines. The differences among the groups allowed them to respond differently to the attempt of the colonizers to colonize them. The aborigines were easily subjugated; the Maoris resist to some degrees allowing too little external influence to go through their societies; whereas the Native Americans were both resistant and welcoming to such change (Fisher, 1980). Because of these varying reactions of the indigenous people, the treatment of the White colonizers towards the control of these societies varied as well and fluctuates over time as the situation calls. The concept of internal differences is evaluated in Fleras (2009) where instead of evaluating the internal group dynamics of the Aborigines rather than focusing on their social identities which is somehow vague for an outsider to even consider. This is voiced in Trudell’s We are Power where the voice of his narration speaks of how the foreigners from modern societies raped their cultures and renamed the contexts where they grew up and attained consciousness (Trudell, n.d). He has elaborated how the foreigners treated the indigenous like the aliens from their own lands and how his kind attempted to rescue their culture and disposition and failed miserably to gain it back; and how some other clans were able to retrieve their freedom only to live in isolation which is no freedom at all. Most of Trudell’s lament is directed on how non-aborigines act as if they know exactly what the Aborigines (or any indigenous people for that matter) are thinking and are capable of feeling, resulting in conflict of views and perspectives which often lead to misunderstanding. This is another aspect of the failure of the comparative studies on various indigenous people – the lack of substantial understanding of the internal processes of indigenous groups. Majority of the researchers of indigenous groups are non-indigenous. They create their observations based on a culturally biased views and make their research design based on the contexts that they believe is right and appropriate. This is a very wrong perspective and a faulty research design. From the arguments of Fleras (2009), how could someone so foreign and naive about the internal politics of the indigenous societies under study be able to comprehend what was really going on within the social structure or social system that they themselves are not a part of. From this context alone, the methodologies used by various comparative researches on indigenous people are flawed and hence questionable. Third and most importantly, comparative researches on indigenous people focus on the future socio-cultural and socio-economic trends for this people like health and welfare (Hayes, 1990), representation in the governing bodies (Dodson, 1993), and advances in education and learning (Palmer, n.d; Fisher, 1980) based on a shifted initial condition which is most likely the set at the time they gained their independence from the colonizers. These various researches used social theories and statistical tools to quantify and measure the changes of the social patterns of the indigenous people with a single-minded assumption that the original initial state they are in affects largely the shifted initial state they have become after gaining their independence. That means to say that the deliberate attempt of these researches to ignore the differences in the original state these indigenous people are in, as well as their assumptions that nothing about these original states is relevant in the factors being considered, allowed these researches to place (again) each unique indigenous society under the same categories. These three reasons – the placing of three different indigenous groups under one category, the failure to understand the internal processes involved in indigenous societies, and the deliberate neglect of the changes that occurred over the period of years - all contribute to the failure of the methodologies of researches to account the actual situation and conditions of cultural indigents. Even though these issues are very clear and are easy to identify, various researchers have deliberately ignored the facts and issues brought up by this oversight. Moreover, nobody really paid particular attention to the possibility of coming up with a culturally biased research because of culturally predetermined variables injected in the research (like the measurement of success from the perspective of the Aborigines or the level of acceptable education viewed by Native Americans). The failure of the researches to take these into account, and the deliberate publication of their works knowing the fact that they have missed important variables in the process leads to the ethical concerns of comparative researches on indigenous studies. This deliberate omission of facts and variables is against the ethical principles of any social researches as it is suggested that social researches must publish impartial and objective views towards the issues under study. Comparing the economic development of the Maori with that of the culture of third world countries is a highly biased perspective since this neglects the cultural consideration of success from a Maori’s perspective, hence, the ethical consideration. With this, the result implies that of the 14 comparative studies done on indigents, majority of these have errors on methodologies and have some serious issues on the ethical aspects of the research. References Atkinson, W. Background History. In Atkinson W. Look at North American Indian history programs. Pp 2-9 Dodson, M. (1993).Geneva process and what it can mean for Australia. In Jull, P (ed). (1993). Surviving Columbus : indigenous peoples, political reform and environmental management in North Australia. Pp 20-22 Fisher, R. (1980). Impact of European settlement on the indigenous peoples of Australia, New Zealand and British Columbia : some comparative dimensions. Canadian Ethnic Studies. v. 12, no. 1 pp. 1-14 Fleras, A. (2009). Nations within : Aboriginal state relations in Canada, the United States and New Zealand: preface. ix-xii. Oxford University Press. Hayes, M. (1990). Australian aborigines and American indians : comparisons in health care. New Doctor. v. 54 pp. 15-18 Jacobs, W. Fatal confrontation : early native white relations on the frontiers of Australia, New Guinea and America - a comparative study. In Berkhofer, R. (ed). American Indian: essays from the Pacific historical review. Pp 27-54. Palmer, P. (n.d). Colonial Parallel. Candian indian: a history since 1500. Collier- McMillian. Trudell, J. (n.d). We are Power. In Moody, R. (n.d). Indigenous Voice: Visions and Realities. Zed Books. Pp 300-306. Zepetnek, S (ed). (2002). Comparative Central European Culture. Purdue University. Read More