Claudia,
I must admit when I read the words 'The author…needs, as do all scholars,
to have enough humility to ask, “Are there people who should be protected
from interviewers like myself in their own interests?”' I was a bit taken
aback - it does sound very pointed. However on re-reading I think it is
absolutely right. All researchers must ask ourselves 'in whose interest is
this research being conducted?'. Too often the answer is solely 'the
researchers'. Ethics committees have a role in balancing the benefits from
the research against the costs to the researched. You might call this
protectionism. Others might call it ethical oversight. And probably at
times ethical concerns is a cloak for protectionism. However that never
negates the need to be reflexive about ones own position. Isn't that all
the reviewer was saying? I certainly don't think the reviewer thinks you
are abusing anyone, rather that we must be aware that all research has the
potential for harm and sometimes we are stopped from conducting research
for very good reasons (all research with the possible exception of archival
research but even then I can think of one example where archival research
caused harm to a living person). All you need to do in your paper is
acknowledge that sometimes research is prohibited for good reasons but
elaborate why you don't think this was the case in your instance.
regards
Gráinne
Dr Gráinne Collins
Senior Research Officer
National Disability Authority
25 Clyde Road
Dublin 4
Ireland
[log in to unmask]
+353 1 6080428
From: "Malacrida, Claudia" <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: 20/05/2014 20:49
Subject: Re: Contentious issue with a publication
Sent by: The Disability-Research Discussion List
<[log in to unmask]>
Hi, Leslie,
Thanks for your feedback. The editors have left it to me as to how I want
to respond, but before I go back to them, I’m looking for some ideas about
how I might best do that. They do invite me to simply keep the paper ‘as
is’, but I am thinking that this feedback could be the basis for a
meaningful substantive addition to the paper – to point out that idea of
protectionism is often used to undermine speech.
I will acknowledge that some of my reaction is personal – I am a bit
stunned by the tone of the review, and also by the editors who don’t seem
to be able to understand that this comment is itself troubling in terms of
what kinds of people can speak and what sorts of ideas they should express.
The reviewer’s comment, “The author…needs, as do all scholars, to have
enough humility to ask, “Are there people who should be protected from
interviewers like myself in their own interests?” is actually in keeping
with the kind of protectionism I describe in the chapter. The Reviewer
seems to assume that people with disabilities are too weak or vulnerable to
be able to speak about their experiences or to know whether they wish to
speak about them – the implication is that I am abusing people by asking
their opinions. I think this is an important assumption to challenge.
I wonder if people on this list have input as to whether it is ethical or
reasonable on my part to use this person’s commentary in a revision to the
paper – as a way to point out that protectionism is not only present in the
‘helping community’ but that it also exists and is problematic in the
academy. I also wonder if my own emotional response is leading me to
consider something I shouldn’t.
Best,
Claudia
From: Roman, Leslie [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 1:25 PM
To: Malacrida, Claudia; [log in to unmask]
Subject: RE: Contentious issue with a publication
Hi Claudia,
We all get reviews from time to time that we don’t like or find
infuriating. Why not simply express your views on protectionism to the
editors and simply ask them to reconsider?
I am not sure the list-serve is the best place to resolve your concerns
with the editors. I would suggest speaking directly with them.
Leslie
From: The Disability-Research Discussion List [
mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Malacrida, Claudia
Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 11:48 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Contentious issue with a publication
Hello, all
I was invited to include a previously published paper in an anthology of
readings on Oral History. The chapter engages with barriers to conducting
research on an institution for ‘mental defectives’ in Alberta. The project
was stymied by protectionism on several fronts – guardians who wouldn’t
provide permission to survivors for interviews, archives with Freedom of
Information regulations that made locating files very difficult and very
expensive, and officials who would not provide access to the institution –
even for a tour. The point of the paper is to ask whether ‘protectionism’
is actually working in the service of those who already wield power, and
instead operates to disempower those who would speak about their own
histories.
The reviews are in, and below is a snippet from the Editors. They ask me to
consider revising the paper, saying that “alluding to the debate would
probably strengthen your argument and chapter” but they leave it up to me
what I want to do. I’m tempted to treat this as another example of
protectionism and write it in as such – but I welcome feedback….Here is the
review:
“…The reviewers were particularly enthusiastic about your chapter and
viewed it as a crucial and unique guide that, in the words of Reviewer 1,
“gets at institutional obstacles to having all voices heard, with emphasis
here on the most vulnerable individuals.”
The reviewers did not request any revisions, except that Reviewer 1 wished
for a more “balanced” view. Here are his/her comments:
This [chapter] is flawed by its assumption that everyone is better off
somewhere else than in a place like the Michener Centre. No doubt most are
and that was the argument for emptying such places in the 1960s when
deinstitutionalization of both the clearly mentally challenged and the
questionably mentally ill occurred. We now know that that this has had
mixed results and that many of the homeless are people who, in another era,
might have lived a little longer and perhaps even had better lives overall
if they or their families could have access to places like the Michener
Centre. Similarly, the constant stories of disabled people being abused by
their own families or foster families within the privacy of homes has
raised issues of whether private homes are always better than institutions,
where sadistic people, at least some of the time, control themselves
somewhat for fear of being ratted by fellow workers or get fired when they
don’t. The author needs to demonstrate that she has at least a minimal
awareness that not everyone would agree with her that there is no such
thing as mental illness or that protective institutions are an oxymoron,
the horrors of the eugenics program at the Michener Centre notwithstanding.
And she needs, as do all scholars, to have enough humility to ask, “Are
there people who should be protected from interviewers like myself in their
own interests?” In brief, she needs to demonstrate that she is not so out
of it as to think that everyone is severely normal and able to look out for
their own needs. Sometimes a bit less Foucault and a bit more experience of
the real world benefits academics.”
Suggestions?
BTW, if you wanted some context, the original article is in downloadable
form here (I hope – links being what they are):
https://www.academia.edu/1531146/Contested_memories_efforts_of_the_powerful_to_silence_former_inmates_histories_of_life_in_an_institution_for_mental_defectives
Thanks.
Claudia Malacrida
Professor and Chair, Department of Sociology
University of Lethbridge
UHall A-890, 4401 University Drive
Lethbridge, Alberta
Canada T1K 3M4
Tel: (403) 329-2738
Fax: (403) 329-2085
email: [log in to unmask]
http://directory.uleth.ca/users/claudia.malacrida?no_headers=1
http://uleth.academia.edu/claudiamalacrida
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This e-mail message, including any and all attachments, is only for the use
of the intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is
confidential or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
advised that any dissemination, copying or other use of this e-mail is
prohibited. Please notify the sender of the error in communication by
return e-mail and destroy all copies of this e-mail. Thank you.
________________End of message________________
This Disability-Research Discussion list is managed by the Centre for
Disability Studies at the University of Leeds (
www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies).
Enquiries about list administration should be sent to
[log in to unmask]
Archives and tools are located at:
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
You can VIEW, POST, JOIN and LEAVE the list by logging in to this web page.
________________End of message________________
This Disability-Research Discussion list is managed by the Centre for
Disability Studies at the University of Leeds (
www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies).
Enquiries about list administration should be sent to
[log in to unmask]
Archives and tools are located at:
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
You can VIEW, POST, JOIN and LEAVE the list by logging in to this web page.
**********************************************************************************
Is le haghaidh an duine nó an eintitis ar a bhfuil sí dírithe, agus le haghaidh an duine nó an eintitis sin amháin, a bheartaítear an fhaisnéis a tarchuireadh agus féadfaidh sé go bhfuil ábhar faoi rún agus/nó faoi phribhléid inti. Toirmisctear aon athbhreithniú, atarchur nó leathadh a dhéanamh ar an bhfaisnéis seo, aon úsáid eile a bhaint aisti nó aon ghníomh a dhéanamh ar a hiontaoibh, ag daoine nó ag eintitis seachas an faighteoir beartaithe. Má fuair tú é seo trí dhearmad, téigh i dteagmháil leis an seoltóir, le do thoil, agus scrios an t-ábhar as aon ríomhaire. Is é beartas na Roinne Dlí agus Cirt agus Comhionannais, na nOifígí agus na nGníomhaireachtaí a úsáideann seirbhísí TF na Roinne seoladh ábhair cholúil a dhícheadú.
Más rud é go measann tú gur ábhar colúil atá san ábhar atá sa teachtaireacht seo is ceart duit dul i dteagmháil leis an seoltóir láithreach agus le mailminder[ag]justice.ie chomh maith.
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. It is the policy of the Department of Justice and Equality and the Agencies and Offices using its IT services to disallow the sending of offensive material.
Should you consider that the material contained in this message is offensive you should contact the sender immediately and also mailminder[at]justice.ie.
**********************************************************************************
________________End of message________________
This Disability-Research Discussion list is managed by the Centre for Disability Studies at the University of Leeds (www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies).
Enquiries about list administration should be sent to [log in to unmask]
Archives and tools are located at: www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
You can VIEW, POST, JOIN and LEAVE the list by logging in to this web page.
|
