Advertisement

Fieldwork Ethics: The Rights and Responsibilities of the Fieldworker

  • Shobhana L. Chelliah
  • Willem J. de Reuse
Chapter

Abstract

There has been a great deal of discussion in recent years on the responsibilities of the fieldworker with respect to the community whose language is being studied. As Dwyer (2006:50) puts it, “The ethical requirements of fieldwork-based investigation are complex, as they demand that the researcher attend both to a respectful and reciprocal relationship with the language community and produce documentation meeting the standards of the academic community and the funding agency.” In this chapter, we review what has been reported in the literature regarding the challenges of meeting these many demands.

Keywords

Community Member Sexual Harassment Language Planning Language Ideology Cooperative Goal 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Ahlers, Jocelyn C. 2009. The many meanings of collaboration: Fieldwork with the Elem Pomo. Language and Communication29(3):230–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Annamalai, E. 1998. Language Survival in India: Challenges and Responses. In Studies in Endangered Languages, ed. by Kazuto Matsumura, 17–31. International Clearing House for Endangered languages Linguistic Studies 1. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.Google Scholar
  3. Azar, Betty Schrampfer. 1989. Understanding and Using English Grammar. [second edition]. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.Google Scholar
  4. Bowern, Claire. 2008. Linguistic Fieldwork. A Practical Guide. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
  5. Bradley, David, and Maya Bradley, eds. 2002. Language Endangerment and Language Maintenance. London: RoutledgeCurzon.Google Scholar
  6. Bullon, Steve, Ramesh Khrishmurthy, Elizabeth Manning, and John Todd. 1990. Collins Cobuild English Grammar. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  7. Cameron, Deborah, Elizabeth Frazer, Penelope Harvey, M. Ben H. Rampton, and Kay Richardson, eds. 1992. Researching Language: Issues of Power and Method. Politics of Language. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Cameron, Deborah. 1998. Problems of empowerment in linguistic research. In Le travail du chercheur sur le terrain. Questionner les pratiques, méthodes, les techniques de l’enquête, ed. by Mortéza Mahmoudian and Lorenza Mondada, eds., 23–38. Cahiers de l’ILSL 10. Université de Lausanne.Google Scholar
  9. Childs, G. Tucker. 2007. The ethics of documenting dying languages: Lessons from the MDP and projections for the DKB. Gainesville, FL: 38th Annual Conference of African Linguistics (ACAL), March 22–25. Online: http://www.unimol.it/summerschool/teachers%20materials/TuckerChilds/Childs%202007%20Ethics.pdf/summerschool/teachers%20materials/TuckerChilds/Childs%202007%20Ethics.pdf
  10. Crowley, Terry. 2007. Field Linguistics. A Beginner’s Guide. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Czaykowska-Higgins, Ewa. 2009. Research models, community engagement, and linguistic fieldwork: reflections on working within Canadian Indigenous Communities. Language Documentation and Conservation3(1):15–50. Online: http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/ldc/ http://hdl.handle.net/10125/4423.Google Scholar
  12. Debenport, Erin. 2010. The potential complexity of “universal ownership”: Cultural property, textual circulation, and linguistic fieldwork. Language and Communication29(4).Google Scholar
  13. Dixon, R. M. W. 2010. Basic Linguistic Theory. Volume 1 Methodology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Dobrin, Lise M., and Jeff Good. 2009. Practical language development: Whose mission? Language85(3):618–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dorian, Nancy C. 1993. A response to Ladefoged’s other view of endangered languages. Language69:575–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dwyer, Arienne M. 2006. Ethics and Practicalities of cooperative fieldwork and analysis. In Essentials of Language Documentation, ed. by Jost Gippert, Nikolaus Himmelmann and Ulrike Mosel, 31–66. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  17. Dwyer, Arienne and Ulrike Mosel. 2001. Metadata Description Recommendations: General; Content.DOBES Technical Reports 6a.1, 6b.2 (15.03.01).Google Scholar
  18. Eira, Christina. 2009. Book reviews of: Field Linguistics, a Beginner’s Guide, by Terry Crowley, and Linguistic Fieldwork: A Practical Guide, by Claire Bowern.Australian Journal of Linguistics29(2):306–310.Google Scholar
  19. England, Nora C. 2002. Commentary: Further rhetorical concerns. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology12(2):141–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Epps, Patience, and Herb Ladley. 2009. Syntax, souls, or speakers? On SIL and community ­language development. Language85(3):640–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Evans, Nicholas, and Alan Dench. 2006. Introduction: Catching language. In Catching language: The Standing Challenge of Grammar Writing. (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 167.), ed. by Felix K. Ameka, Alan Dench, and Nicholas Evans, 1–39. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  22. Florey, Margaret. 2008. Language activism and the “new linguistics”, Expanding opportunities for documenting endangered languages in Indonesia. In Language Documentation and Description, Vol 5, ed. by Peter K. Austin. London: School of Oriental and African Studies.Google Scholar
  23. Francis, Norbert, and Pablo Rogelio Navarrete Gómez. 2009. Documentation and Language Learning: Separate Agendas or Complementary Tasks? Language Documentation and Conservation3(2):176–191. Online: http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/ldc/453http://hdl.handle.net/10125/4438.Google Scholar
  24. von Gleich, Utta. 2005. Language documentation and development of teaching Material. Language Archives Newsletter5:2–5.Google Scholar
  25. Grinevald, Colette. 1998. Language endangerment in South America: a programmatic approach. In Endangered Languages: Language Loss and Community Response, ed. by Lenore A. Grenoble and Lindsay J. Whaley, 124–159. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Grinevald, Colette. 2006. Worrying about ethics and wondering about informed consent: Fieldwork from an Americanist perspective. In Lesser Known Languages in South Asia: Status and Policies, Case studies and Applications of Information Technology, ed. by Anju Saxena and Lars Borin, 338–370. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  27. Hale, Kenneth L. 1992a. On Endangered languages and the safeguarding of diversity. Language68(1):1–3.Google Scholar
  28. Hale, Kenneth L. 1992b. Language endangerment and the human value of linguistic diversity. Language68(1):35–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hale, Sara Whitaker. 2001. Reminiscences of the trip to Australia 1959–1961. In Forty Years on: Ken Hale and Australian Languages, ed. by Jane Simpson, David Nash, Mary Laughren, Peter Austin and Barry Alpher, 19–28. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
  30. Handman, Courtney. 2009. Language ideologies, endangered-language linguistics, and Christianization. Language85(3):635–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Harrison, K. David. 2007. When Languages Die. The Extinction of the World’s Languages and the Erosion of Human Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hill, Jane H. 2002. “Expert rhetorics” in advocacy for endangered languages: Who Is listening, and what do they hear? Journal of Linguistic Anthropology12(2):119–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2006. Language documentation: What is it and what is it good for? In Essentials of Language Documentation (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs, ed. by Jost Gippert, Nikolaus P. Himmelmann and Ulrike Mosel, 1–30. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  34. Hinton, Leanne. 2003. Language revitalization. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics23:44–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Holton, Gary. 2005. Ethical practices in language documentation and archiving linguistic resources. Presented at the Annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Jan 6–9, 2005. Online: http://www.language-archives.org/events/olac05/olac-lsa05-holton.pdf
  36. Holton, Gary. 2009. Relatively ethical: a comparison of linguistic research paradigms in Alaska and Indonesia. Language Documentation and Conservation3(2):161–175.Google Scholar
  37. Innes, Pamela. 2010. Ethical problems in archival research: Beyond accessibility. Language and Communication30(3):198–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Krauss, Michael E. 2005. Athabascan Tone. In Athabascan Prosody, ed. by Sharon Hargus and Keren Rice, 55–136. (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 269.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  39. Labov, William. 1982. Objectivity and commitment in linguistic science: The case of the Black English trial in Ann Arbor. Language in Society11:165–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ladefoged, Peter. 1992. Another view of endangered languages. Language68(4):809–11.Google Scholar
  41. McNamara, Laura A. (2010). Moving forward with the CEAUSSIC Ethics Casebook: What is the Casebook, and why now? Blog of the American Anthropological Association, January 27. http://blog.aaanet.org/2010/01/27/ceaussic-ethics-casebook/
  42. Mithun, Marianne. 2001. Who shapes the record: the speaker and the linguist. In Linguistic Fieldwork, ed. by Paul Newman and Martha Ratliff, 34–54. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Montler, Timothy. 2007. The Klallam language program. UNESCO Register of Good Practices in Language Preservation. Online: http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/indexphp?pg=00145&categ=05
  44. Nathan, David. 2006. Thick interfaces: Mobilizing language documentation with multimedia. In Essentials of language Documentation, ed. by Jost Gippert, Nikolaus Himmelmann and Ulrike Mosel, 363–379. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  45. Newman, Paul, and Martha Ratliff. 2001. Introduction. In Linguistic Fieldwork, ed. by Paul Newman and Martha Ratliff, 1–14. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Newman, Paul. 2007. Copyright essentials for linguists. Language Documentation and Conservation1(1):28–43.Google Scholar
  47. Olson, Kenneth S. 2009. SIL International: An emic view. Language85(3):646–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ostler, Nicholas, ed. 1998a. Endangered Languages: What Role for the Specialist? Proceedings of the Second FEL Conference. Bath: The Foundation for Endangered Languages.Google Scholar
  49. Penfield, Susan D., Angelina Serratos, Benjamin V. Tucker, Amelia Flores, Gilford Harper, Johnny Hill Jr., and Nora Vasquez. 2008. Community collaborations: Best practices for North American Indigenous language documentation. International Journal of the Sociology of Language191:187–202.Google Scholar
  50. Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  51. Raign, Kathryn Rosser. 2006. The Decisive Writer. Boston, MA: Thomson Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  52. Research Center for Linguistic Typology. 2009. Fieldwork Manual. Fieldwork and Your Wellbeing. Bundoora: La Trobe University, Research Center for Linguistic Typology.Google Scholar
  53. Rice, Keren. 2006. Ethical issues in linguistic fieldwork: an overview. Linguistic Fieldwork Preparation. A Guide for Linguists. Online: http://www.ch2006. ass.utoronto.ca/lingfieldwork/pdf/2.pdf.
  54. Riley, Kathleen C. 2009. Who made the soup? Socializing the researcher and shaping her data. Language and Communication, 29:254–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Robinson, Laura C. 2010. Informed consent among analog people in a digital world. Language and Communication, 30(3):186–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Schneider, Cindy. 2009. Why field linguists should pay more attention to applied linguistic research. Paper presented at the Australian Linguistic Society Conference, Melbourne, July 2009.Google Scholar
  57. Seeger, Anthony. 2001. Intellectual Property and Audiovisual Archives and Collections. Folk Heritage Collections in Crisis, May 2001, ed. by Council on Library and Information Resources. Washington D.C.: The American Folklife center, Library of Congress. Online: http://www.loc.gov/folklife/fhcc/propertykey.html.
  58. Simpson, Jane, David Nash, Mary Laughren, Peter K. Austin and Barry Alpher, eds. 2001. FortyYears on: Ken Hale and Australian languages.(Pacific Linguistics 512). Canberra: Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, The Australian National University.Google Scholar
  59. Warner, Natasha, Quirina Luna, and Lynnika Butler. 2007. Ethics and Revitalization of Dormant languages: The Mutsun language. Language Documentation and Conservation1(1):58–76. Online: http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/ldc/
  60. Woodbury, Anthony C. 1993. A defense of the proposition: “When a language dies, culture dies.” Proceedings of the First Annual Symposium About Language and Society-Austin (SALSA).) Texas Linguistic Forum33:101–129.Google Scholar
  61. Yamada, Racquel-María. 2007. Collaborative linguistic fieldwork: practical application of the empowerment model. Language Documentation and Conservation 1(2):257–282. Online: http://nflrc.hawaii.edu/ldc/

Copyright information

© Springer Netherlands 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of North TexasDentonUSA

Personalised recommendations