Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Community protocols for researchers: using sketches to communicate interaction guidelines

  • Open Forum
  • Published:
AI & SOCIETY Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Reviews of research and development collaborations with indigenous communities have exhibited numerous challenges related to researcher–community interactions. Based on many accounts of indiscretions, indigenous communities have begun generating conduct guidelines for researchers. However, the effectiveness of their chosen communication methods, guaranteeing appropriate behavior of the researchers, has not been established. This research contributes to an ongoing debate around appropriate ethical conduct of researchers in situ. The aim of this study was to investigate the interpretation accuracy of interaction guidelines produced in the form of sketches by a Malaysian indigenous community. We provided eight interaction sketches to 57 students, in three continents, for interpretation and expression of their intended behavior. We found that most were unable to accurately interpret the sketches and describe intended behavioral responses. A major concern remains with the tendency to fall back on prior practices of “good” behavior, with minimal guidance on contextual practices. In an attempt to provide greater direction, we explored a speech bubble exercise with further 15 students. Our findings directly contribute to current efforts in formulating researcher–community interaction practices that should form the basis of ethical research in situ.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Originally 30 participants completed the booklet, however, we excluded 5 participants as they were not born in Germany or did not indicate their country of birth.

References

  • Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (2012) Guidelines for ethical research in Australian indigenous studies. https://aiatsis.gov.au/sites/default/files/docs/research-and-guides/ethics/gerais.pdf

  • Bartlett C, Marshall M, Marshall A, Iwama M (2012) Integrative science and two-eyed seeing: Enriching the discussion framework for healthy communities. In: Hallstrom LK, Guehistorf NP, Parkes MW (eds) Ecosystems society and health: Pathways through diversity, convergence, and integration. McGill-Queen’s University Press, Montreal, pp 280–327

    Google Scholar 

  • Bentley C, Nemer D, Vannini S (2017) ‘‘When words become unclear’’: unmasking ICT through visual methodologies in participatory ICT4D. AI Soc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-017-0762-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castellano M (2004) Ethics of Aboriginal research. Int J Indig Health 1:98–114

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidoff J, Fonteneau E, Goldstein J (2008) Cultural differences in perception: observations from a remote culture. J Cognit Cult 8:189–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis M (2010) Bringing ethics up to date? A review of the AIATSIS ethical guidelines. Aust Aborig Stud 2010(2):10–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Dearden A, Kleine D (2018) Minimum ethical standards for ICTD/ICT4D research. In: Published Standards. 10th International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies for Development University of Sheffield, Sheffield

  • Emme M, Kirova A, Kamau O, Kosanovich S (2006) Ensemble research: a means for immigrant children to explore peer relationships through fotonovela. Alta J Educ Res 52:160–181

    Google Scholar 

  • Falak H, Zaman T (2017) Mitigating ethno-cultural differences: Ethical guidelines for ICT development in an indigenous community, design solutions for user-centric information systems. In: Saeed S, Bamarouf YA, Ramayah T, Iqbal SZ (eds) Design solutions for user-centric information systems. IGI Global, USA, pp 162–174

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gokiert R, Willows N, Georgis R, Stringer H (2017) Wâhkôhtowin: the governance of good community–academic research relationships to improve the health and well-being of children in Alexander First Nation. Int Indig Policy J 8(2). https://doi.org/10.18584/iipj.2017.8.2.8

  • Kapuire G, Winschiers-Theophilus H, Brereton M (2017) Deriving engagement protocols within community-based co-design projects in Namibia. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Social Implications of Computers in Developing Countries, pp 381–393

  • Kim W, Guan X, Park H (2012) Face and facework: a cross-cultural comparison of managing politeness norms in US and Korea. Int J Commun 6:1100–1118

    Google Scholar 

  • Landis J, Koch G (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonough S, Brandenburg R (2019) Who owns this data? Using dialogic reflection to examine an ethically important moment. Reflective Practi 20:266–355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore C, Castleden H, Tirone S, Martin D (2017) Implementing the tri-council policy on ethical research involving indigenous peoples in Canada: so, how’s that going in Mi’kma’ki? Int Indig Policy J 8(2). https://doi.org/10.18584/iipj.2017.8.2.4

  • Nisbett R, Miyamoto Y (2005) The influence of culture: holistic versus analytic perception. Trends Cognit Sci 9:467–473

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riddell J, Salamanca A, Pepler D, Cardinal S, McIvor O (2017) Laying the groundwork: a practical guide for ethical research with indigenous communities. Int Indig Policy J 8(2):6. https://doi.org/10.18584/iipj.2017.8.2.6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers Y, Marsden G (2013) Does he take sugar? Moving beyond the rhetoric of compassion. Interactions 20:48–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • South African San Institute (2017) San code of research ethics. http://trust-project.eu/san-council-launches-san-code-of-ethics/

  • Spence S (2003) Social skills training with children and young people: theory, evidence and practice. Child Adolesc Ment Health 8:84–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Svalastog A, Eriksson S (2010) You can use my name; you don’t have to steal my story–a critique of anonymity in indigenous studies. Developing World Bioethics 10:104–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vannini S, Nemer D, Halabi A, Sabiescu A, David S (2017) Critical incidents analysis: mismatching expectations and reconciling visions in intercultural encounters. J Commun Inform 13:25–34

    Google Scholar 

  • Wain T, Sim M, Hayward C, Coffin J, Mak D, Rudd C (2013) Creating cultural empathy and challenging attitudes through indigenous narrative project. Eculture 5:18–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiser J (1988) See what I mean? Photography as nonverbal communication in crosscultural psychology. In: Poyatos F (ed) Cross-cultural perspectives in nonverbal communication. Hogrefe Publishers, New York, pp 240–290

    Google Scholar 

  • White J (2013) Policy research: good or bad? Int Indig Policy J 4(3). https://doi.org/10.18584/iipj.2013.4.3.2

  • Willows N (2013) Ethical principles of health research involving Indigenous peoples. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab 38:3–5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wingert S, White J (2017) Introduction to the special issue: reconciling research: perspectives on research involving indigenous peoples. Int Indig Policy J 8(2):10. https://doi.org/10.18584/iipj.2017.8.2.10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winschiers-Goagoses N, Winschiers-Theophilus H, Rodil K, Kapuire G, Jensen K (2012) Design democratization with communities: drawing toward locally meaningful design. Int J Sociotechnol Knowl Dev 4:32–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winschiers-Theophilus H, Zaman T, Yeo A (2015) Reducing white elephant ICT4D projects: A community-researcher engagement. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Communities and Technologies, pp 99–107

  • Winschiers-Theophilus H, Zaman T, Stanley C (2017) A classification of cultural engagements in community technology design: introducing a transcultural approach. AI Soc J Knowl Cult Commun 34(3):419–435. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-017-0739-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wynberg R, Schroeder D, Chennells R (2009) Indigenous peoples, consent and benefit sharing: lessons from the San-Hoodia case. Springer, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Zaman T, Winschiers-Theophilus H, Yeo A, Ting L, Jengan G (2015) Reviving an indigenous rainforest sign language: Digital Oroo’ adventure game. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies and Development

  • Zaman T, Winschiers-Theophilus H, George F, Yeo A, Falak H, Goagoses N (2016) Using sketches to communicate interaction protocols of an indigenous community. In: Proceedings of the 14th Participatory Design Conference, pp. 13–16

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Carl von Ossietzky University of Oldenburg, Ammerländer Heerstraße 114, 26129, Oldenburg, Germany

    Naska Goagoses

  2. Namibia University of Science and Technology, 5 Jackson Kaujeua Street, Windhoek, Namibia

    Heike Winschiers-Theophilus

  3. University College of Technology Sarawak (UCTS), Sibu, Sarawak, Malaysia

    Tariq Zaman

Authors
  1. Naska Goagoses
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Heike Winschiers-Theophilus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tariq Zaman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Naska Goagoses.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Goagoses, N., Winschiers-Theophilus, H. & Zaman, T. Community protocols for researchers: using sketches to communicate interaction guidelines. AI & Soc 35, 675–687 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-019-00914-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-019-00914-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation