One

Outline the nature of the field of comparative Indigenous Studies and explain how the methodological issues involved in undertaking such comparative studies should be addressed.

The following paper is concerned with the nature, or defining features, of comparative Indigenous studies and the relationship between comparative Indigenous studies and research methodology. In the first section of the essay I explore various definitions of the aspects of comparative Indigenous studies, arguing that the term 'Indigenous' is problematic, particularly as applied in comparative studies. I also look at how the term 'methodology' is to be understood and look at various methodological issues that may potentially arise in a comparative study. I pay particular attention to the 'general comparative methodology' and evaluate its limitations as applied to a comparative Indigenous study. Further, I analyse a number of fundamental ethical issues that present themselves during a comparative study.

The term 'comparative Indigenous Studies' includes quite a lot of detail and to gain an adequate working definition it needs to be broken down into its constituent parts. I will therefore look at the terms 'Indigenous' and 'comparative' in turn and how they are and can be applied together into a uniform approach to study.

The term 'Indigenous' is problematic. The Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (n.d.) simply states that to be Indigenous one must be born in a country or to naturally occur in a country. Such definitions overlook fundamental features of the term 'Indigenous' and are extremely problematic in their application. For example the term 'country' is malleable, particularly since the introduction of ideologies such as 'Nation State'. When what is now Australia was colonised, for example, varied Aboriginal peoples were classified as belonging to the one country, Terra Australis, even though Australia was not then a unified nation (Donovan 2004, pp. 35-60). The United Nations Centre for Human Rights, or UNHCR, (ABT31: Online Study Guide) defines Indigenous Peoples as 'being the descendants of the original inhabitants of lands that have been subsequently colonised and settled by other groups'. While this definition certainly removes some ambiguity it assumes that to be Indigenous one must belong to a group that has been subject to colonisation. This condition is absurd and is not a necessary condition of the term 'Indigenous'. The International Labour Organisation (ILO) also state that this feature is an aspect of the term 'Indigenous', however, the ILO also recognise 'tribal peoples' who are distinguished from other sections of the community in various ways as Indigenous (Brownlie 1992, pp. 60-61).

These definitions all have virtues and also flaws. There are certainly people who are Indigenous but are not members of a nation that has been colonised and there are nations where the definition becomes a little hard to apply such as India (Brownlie 1992, pp. 60-61). However, for the purpose of this essay I will follow the UNHCR's definition as outlined above.

The term 'comparative' is much easier to define and is, in a sense, almost self explanatory. For a study to be comparative it must compare at least two subjects or aspects of a given subject (Fox & Gingrich 2002, pp. 1-2). A complete understanding of 'comparative' is therefore dependant upon it's subject.

Now that we have an adequate definition of our terms the concept of the subject of this essay, 'comparative Indigenous Studies', is becoming clearer. Comparative Indigenous Studies is a very broad concept and includes a lot of potential subject matter. Focusing questions are therefore developed for this purpose (ABT31: Online Study Guide). Focusing questions limit and focus the research that will be conducted for the study. Focusing questions also inform the methodologies employed for the study (ABT31: Online Study Guide).

There are numerous methodological approaches that can be applied to comparative Indigenous Studies and they are informed by a common set of questions, questions dependant upon the study's focusing questions (ABT31: Online Study Guide; Strathern 2002, p. xiii). The ABT31: Online Study Guide lists four primary aspects of methodology specific focusing questions, these are:

1.What information do we need?
2.From what sources?
3.How do we access and gather it?
4.How do we analyse, evaluate and use it?

These questions, while certainly comprising a method, are only the surface of one's methodology. A methodology approaches its subject from a particular perspective with the subject of the general comparative methodology being perceived as a distinct and independent variation (Peacock 2002, p. 45). A comparative Indigenous study would, according to this methodological position, perceive each Indigenous group as a unique and clearly definable entity or independent variation. But is such a general comparative methodology actually effective?

If this general comparative approach is applied to Comparative Indigenous studies we are left with a particularly obvious dilemma. The above definitions of the term 'Indigenous' mention nothing about the Indigenous group being a 'distinct and independent variation'. We can speak of Indigenous Australians but by no means is it implied that Indigenous Australians all belong to a single group that forms a 'distinct and independent variation'. There certainly are similarities between the varied Indigenous groups within Australia but these groups have relevant differences that distinguish them from one another too.

Perhaps this issue simply highlights inherent issues with the term Indigenous, particularly as applied in Australia. The Australian Nation State is a recent phenomenon with Australia's federation occurring only a little over 100 years ago (Australian Government 2007). The term 'Australian' has only very recent historical import whereas the term 'Indigenous' does not. By combining these two terms we are simplifying two distinct concepts and essentialising entire epochs of Indigenous history. Perhaps there is a problem with the general comparative methodology itself for with the phenomena of Globalism it is possible for Indigenous peoples to be spatially located vast distances from one another. This extinguishes any claim that this particular group forms a 'distinct and independent variation'.

What both of these considerations highlight, however, is an inherent issue that faces any comparative methodology. Peacock (2002, p. 46) highlights this issue well claiming that those who follow the comparative method 'face a conceptual task at once more challenging and more debatable because it entails analysis through abstraction to selectively highlight types or principles'. It is far beyond the scope of this short essay to elaborate in detail what is being discussed here however I will mention one very pertinent concept given to us via Post Modernism. It is a common theme of Post Modernism to analyse the source of our ideas, our concepts or, in Heidegger's terms, our facticity (Young 2003, pp. 121-122). One's ideas, ideas such as gender, ethnicity, class etc., are shaped via tradition and are received rather than developed (Young 2003, pp. 204-205). This has lead to prominent Post Modernists such as Derrida claiming that one's facticity actually creates one's reality (Young 2003, pp. 188-191).

If this is actually so then any basis one has for conducting a comparative study becomes absurd as the reality of the researcher, the ideas that the researcher uses in his or her comparative study, are relative only to his or her own facticity and must be presented from below the reality of the subject or subjects being studied so the researcher's subjective prejudice is not given primacy of place (Malpas 2005). Peacock (2002, p. 47) does argue, however, that the phenomena of Modernism limits this claim as 'the particular stance of anyone is presumably merged with the stance of everyone'. Whatever the case these points, while not stating that a comparative methodology is defunct, illustrate that particular care needs to be taken at all stages of the comparative study, from the birth of the concept, to limiting the focus of the study, right through to the presentation of the work itself.

This leads us to the final and perhaps most fundamental aspect of a comparative study, ethics. Two fundamental questions that the comparative researcher needs to ask are 'what are the rights of the groups that I'm studying?' and 'how will my study impact upon the groups that I'm studying?' (Brewster Smith 2000, p. 3). Such an ethical perspective will most certainly inform the entire process of the comparative study.

Brewster Smith (2000, p. 5) outlines five moral principles that should underlie research practices, these are:

1.Respect and Autonomy
2.Beneficence and nonmaleficence
3.Justice
4.Trust
5.Fidelity and Scientific Integrity

It may seem that these principles aren't applicable to every case of a comparative Indigenous study, some studies may only compare aspects of the past and therefore principle four, Trust, may not be applicable. This doesn't limit their validity however as all of these conditions needn't be simultaneously met for them to be to be valid. Principle one, Respect and Autonomy, however, has particular ethical importance as this principle impacts directly upon the rights of the groups being studied. Sales and Lavin (2000, p. 113) show that 'most researchers acknowledge that their work should respect the self-determination or autonomy of participants' and that 'most researchers recognize (sic.) the importance of doing research that promotes well-being...and advances human knowledge'. However, numerous ethical problems do arise even when the researcher acknowledges an ethical approach to their methodology. As noted above, one's facticity shapes their approach to their research and as such conflicts between the researcher and the 'researched' may potentially arise. A conflict in moral principles, for example, between the researcher and the 'researched' and, as exemplified in the case of a comparative study, conflicting moral principles between the two or more groups being studied, have the potential to cause fundamental problems in one's study (Sales & Lavin 2000, pp. 113-114).

One further ethical problem that may arise is when one set of research data taken for one purpose is used by another researcher for an entirely different purpose (Sales & Lavin 2000, p. 121). For example, data gathered at the time of the Waitangi Treaty in 1840 may reflect different goals and research methods that are no longer acceptable and may therefore misrepresent details that a contemporary researcher is attempting to present.

What this analysis shows is that all facets of a comparative Indigenous study, from the concept of the study, through to the methodology and the presentation of the research, are subject to numerous impediments such as the problems identified above with the term 'Indigenous'. More pertinent, however, is the analysis of the impact of one's methodology upon the comparative Indigenous study. The conclusion drawn is that one's facticity influences the approach to the comparative Indigenous study in numerous ways such as the choice of, or access to, concepts used in the analysis and how they are applied and impact upon those subject to the study. The methodological approach, therefore, has the potential to direct the conclusions of the comparative Indigenous study.

References

ABT31: Online Study Guide, Viewed April 01 2008, University of South Australia, Adelaide, <http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/learn/unaipon4/PATH=/Resources/11054/Online+Learning+Resources/&default=welcome.htm>.

Australian Government 2007, 'Federation', CULTURE.GOV.AU, viewed April 01 2008, <http://www.cultureandrecreation.gov.au/articles/federation/>.

Brewster Smith, M 2000, 'Moral Foundations in Research With Human Participants' in Bruce D. Sales & Susan Folkman (eds.), Ethics in Research With Human Participants, American Psychological Association, Washington, pp. 3-10.

Donovan, V 2004, The Reality of a Dark History: From Contact and Conflict to Cultural Recognition, Arts Queensland, Brisbane.

Fox, R.G. & Gingrich, A 2002, 'Introduction', in Andre Gingrich & Richard G. Fox (eds.), Anthropology, By Comparison, Routledge, New York, pp. 1-24.

Indigenous. (n.d.). Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary. Viewed April 01, 2008, <http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Indigenous>.

Malpas, J 2005, 'Hans-Georg Gadamer', in Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2005 Edition), Viewed April 01 2008, <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2005/entries/gadamer/>

Peacock, J 2002, 'Action Comparison: Efforts Towards a Global and Comparative yet Local and Active Anthropology', in Andre Gingrich & Richard G. Fox (eds.), Anthropology, By Comparison, Routledge, New York, pp. 44-69.

Sales, B.D & Lavin, M 2000, 'Identifying Conflicts of Interest and Resolving Ethical Dilemmas', in Bruce D. Sales & Susan Folkman (eds.), Ethics in Research With Human Participants, American Psychological Association, Washington, pp. 109-128.

Strathern, M 2002, 'Foreword', in Andre Gingrich & Richard G. Fox (eds.), Anthropology, By Comparison, Routledge, New York, pp. xiii-xviii.

Young, J 2003, The Death of God and the Meaning of Life, Routledge, New York.