Inawendiwin and Relational Accountability in Anishnaabeg Studies: The Crux of the Biscuit Author: Nicholas J. Reo Source: Journal of Ethnobiology, 39(1) : 65-75 Published By: Society of Ethnobiology URL: https://doi.org/10.2993/0278-0771-39.1.65 BioOne Complete (complete.BioOne.org) is a full-text database of 200 subscribed and open-access titles in the biological, ecological, and environmental sciences published by nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses. Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Complete website, and all posted and associated content indicates your acceptance of BioOne’s Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/terms-of-use. Usage of BioOne Complete content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non-commercial use. Commercial inquiries or rights and permissions requests should be directed to the individual publisher as copyright holder. BioOne sees sustainable scholarly publishing as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofit publishers, academic institutions, research libraries, and research funders in the common goal of maximizing access to critical research. Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/Journal-of-Ethnobiology on 03 Apr 2019 Terms of Use: https://bioone.org/terms-of-use Access provided by Dartmouth College Journal of Ethnobiology 2019 39(1): 65–75 Inawendiwin and Relational Accountability in Anishnaabeg Studies: The Crux of the Biscuit Nicholas J. Reo1 Abstract. Researchers working with Indigenous nations often recognize the need to build respectful relationships with nation representatives, but too often assume that everyone has the same understandings of respect and accountability. Relational accountability, an ethical guideline for conducting research with Indigenous nation partners, references the kincentric beliefs among many Indigenous Peoples. It implies that researchers are responsible for nurturing honorable relationships with community collaborators and are accountable to the entirety of the community in which they work, potentially including collaborators’ more-than-human network of relations. This research examines relational accountability in ethnobiology and other research contexts, with a focus on work within Anishnaabe territories. Anishnaabe inawendiwin, a teaching about kinship, provides a path for centering research ethics and praxis in Anishnaabe ways of knowing and being. Anishnaabe inawendiwin urges us to remain committed to Indigenous nation partners regardless of budgets and beyond research grant timelines; to attend to accountabilities towards more-than-human communities; to foster loving, personal relationships with research partners; and to involve youth genuinely in the partnerships. Keywords: mino-bimaadiziwin, Anishnaabe studies, Indigenous research methods, kinship Opening Thoughts ties in ethical and respectful ways, Native Academic communities are increas- Hawaiian geographer Renee Paulani Louis ingly acknowledging that, when working in (2007) reviewed Indigenous research Indigenous territories, researchers need to methodologies and identified four over- be highly engaged and strive for respectful arching principles: relational accountabil- and committed partnerships with Indige- ity, respectful representation, reciprocal nous nations and communities (Rundstrom appropriation, and rights and regulation. and Deur 1999; Tallbear 2014). Partnerships These principles are general guides for of this nature are built upon honorable and ethical research, but to put them into often deeply personal relationships (Fox action, they need to be informed by et al. 2017; Tallbear 2014). However, the community-specific ethics, protocols, and nature of honorable relationships (e.g., understandings. trustworthy, honest, loving, etc.) is deter- In this contribution, I rely on my cultural mined in culturally specific ways and is background and the lessons I have learned rooted in a given community’s own ethical from my research partners to unpack one of protocols and traditions. Ultimately, the Louis’ four principles, relational account- communities with which I have the priv- ability, in a culturally-specific way. I am ilege to work need to determine whether Anishnaabe (Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chip- our relationships are honorable and these pewa Indians), and most of my research evaluations are distinct from research ethics partnerships have been with various Anish- assessments by institutional review boards. naabe nations in the Great Lakes region of In her attempt to provide guidance the United States and Canada. To explore for working with Indigenous communi- this research principle and its ethical 1Dartmouth College, Native American Studies and Environmental Studies programs, 37 North Main Street, Hanover, New Hampshire, USA ([email protected]) Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/Journal-of-Ethnobiology on 03 Apr 2019 Terms of Use: https://bioone.org/terms-of-use Access provided by Dartmouth College 66 Reo context, I present success stories and lessons tific community’s record of unethical and learned from my various research partner- unchecked research practices in Indigenous ships in Anishnaabe territories, reflect on territories (Hoover 2017; Smith 2013). I am my perspective as an Anishnaabe scholar, Anishnaabe, but if I approach an Indigenous and discuss these examples and perspec- nation with a research idea or proposal, tives in light of Indigenous (more pointedly, they see me as a scientist and an academic Anishnaabe) studies and ethnobiologi- first, and an Indigenous person second. This cal literature. Through this discussion and means that I carry the baggage of any uneth- presentation of examples, I hope to provide ical or dishonorable research practices that tangible insights into human-environment the community has historically experi- research and the study of environmental enced. One of the more well-known cases knowledge in Anishnaabe cultural and of unethical practices is a relatively recent political contexts. incident from the University of Arizona, where blood samples collected from Hava- Relational Accountability supai Tribal community members were used Relational accountability references the for non-consensual genetic research (Mello “kincentric” (Salmón 2000) beliefs among and Wolf 2010). Many other, less abhorrent many Indigenous Peoples, which holds examples have been discussed, including that people are dependent on and related social anthropologist Paul Sillitoe’s (2015) to everything and everyone around them, critique of particular forms of participant including air, water, rocks, plants, animals, observation ethnography culminating in and so-called “supernatural” beings (Louis publications that Indigenous community 2007). It implies that, as a researcher, I “subjects” regard as detached from their am not only responsible for nurturing and realities. maintaining relationships with my specific Collectively, the relationship between community collaborators, but I am also the academic community and Indigenous accountable to entire communities where groups has, for generations, been pater- I work (Steinhauer 2002; Wilson 2001; nalistic and Indigenous ways of knowing Wilson and Wilson 1998). This potentially have not fully been valued or respected includes my collaborators’ non-human (Castleden et al. 2017). Past experiences network of relations. with universities can lead Indigenous The principle of relational account- communities to believe that all research is ability emerged primarily as an Indigenous designed to benefit academics, not commu- counternarrative that questions extractive nity members (Smith 2013). As a result, modes of research. As an Anishnaabe communities are left feeling “researched to scholar who does community-oriented death” (Hoover 2017:15). research, the principle makes sense and In part because of the skepticism feels right to me. Nevertheless, it is not communities feel about academic research, always clear who I am accountable to in forging relationships is not quick or easy the context of research relationships with work. It requires spending a lot of time Indigenous nations. In this section of the together. In my research partnerships, we paper, I provide some context that helps make a lot of space for personal conver- explain why relational accountability sations about things other than research. matters and why it is not always a simple We make space for going beyond the rigid research principle to enact. fieldwork itinerary and, as such, some of the It is important to recognize that richest learning opportunities are the most Indigenous People often view university spontaneous ones. We participate fully in researchers skeptically because of the scien- tribal cultural protocols when invited to do Journal of Ethnobiology 2019 39(1): 65–75 Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/Journal-of-Ethnobiology on 03 Apr 2019 Terms of Use: https://bioone.org/terms-of-use Access provided by Dartmouth College The Crux of the Biscuit 67 so. And when I fail to participate in these conducted with Indigenous nations slower, relational processes, it can cause should be carried out in a manner which fledgling projects to flounder. is respectful and ethically sound from the Having good intentions about my perspective of the Indigenous Peoples research relationships is not sufficient. we work with. This is a seemingly simple Even in instances when researchers have point, but it is easily overlooked and much every intention of honoring and valuing