Good for Whom?: Unsettling Research Practice

L. Nathan, Michelle Kaczmarek, M. castor, Shannon K. Cheng, R. Mann
{"title":"Good for Whom?: Unsettling Research Practice","authors":"L. Nathan, Michelle Kaczmarek, M. castor, Shannon K. Cheng, R. Mann","doi":"10.1145/3083671.3083685","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Through this paper, we join others concerned by the rhetoric that research and technology design contribute to a common good. We argue that framings of commonality obfuscate the detrimental effects of accepted research practice, particularly for disenfranchised communities. Claims of a common good are in alignment with a colonial perspective---a single all knowing entity, in this case personified by the researcher, who has the expertise and experience necessary to identify what is of benefit to all. Our argument is informed by our engagement with four Indigenous community|academic partnerships. We describe our efforts to avoid perpetuating problematic (yet common) research dynamics through questioning, critiquing and adjusting our practices as a research team. We offer understandings gained through attempts to unsettle our approach to research, grounded by the diverse experience and envisioned futures of our partners. We argue for the continued need for spaces where the short and longer-term implications of research practice can be articulated, discussed and acted upon.","PeriodicalId":320659,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Communities and Technologies","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"12","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Communities and Technologies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3083671.3083685","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 12

Abstract

Through this paper, we join others concerned by the rhetoric that research and technology design contribute to a common good. We argue that framings of commonality obfuscate the detrimental effects of accepted research practice, particularly for disenfranchised communities. Claims of a common good are in alignment with a colonial perspective---a single all knowing entity, in this case personified by the researcher, who has the expertise and experience necessary to identify what is of benefit to all. Our argument is informed by our engagement with four Indigenous community|academic partnerships. We describe our efforts to avoid perpetuating problematic (yet common) research dynamics through questioning, critiquing and adjusting our practices as a research team. We offer understandings gained through attempts to unsettle our approach to research, grounded by the diverse experience and envisioned futures of our partners. We argue for the continued need for spaces where the short and longer-term implications of research practice can be articulated, discussed and acted upon.
对谁有好处?令人不安的研究实践
通过这篇论文,我们和其他人一起关注研究和技术设计有助于共同利益的修辞。我们认为,共同性的框架模糊了公认的研究实践的有害影响,特别是对被剥夺公民权的社区。共同利益的主张与殖民主义的观点是一致的——一个单一的全知实体,在这种情况下,由研究人员化身,他拥有必要的专业知识和经验,以确定什么对所有人都有利。我们与四个土著社区的学术合作伙伴关系为我们的论点提供了依据。作为一个研究团队,我们通过质疑、批评和调整我们的实践来描述我们的努力,以避免使有问题(但常见)的研究动态永久化。我们通过尝试颠覆我们的研究方法而获得的理解,以我们合作伙伴的不同经验和对未来的设想为基础。我们主张继续需要空间,使研究实践的短期和长期影响能够被阐明、讨论和采取行动。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信