Ethics of Response-Ability: Difference between revisions

From Knowledge-land-scape
Saskia (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Saskia (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
 
(5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
[[File:Great White Beast.png|thumb]]
[[File:Great white beast small.png|thumb]]


You have encountered a “Great White Beast”, a fleeting, shapeshifting figure that performs the world as indeterminate.  
You have encountered a “Great White Beast”, a fleeting, shapeshifting figure that performs the world as indeterminate.  


The ethics involved when it comes to drawing from research paradigms that consider the world as indeterminate, intra-dependent and ontologically generative, cannot be resolved through ‘right’ ways of doing things.
The ethics involved when it comes to drawing from research paradigms that consider the world as indeterminate, intra-dependent and ontologically generative, cannot be resolved through ‘right’ ways of doing things<ref>Rosiek, J., & Adkins-Cartee, M. (2023). Diffracting structure/agency dichotomies, wave/particle dualities, and the citational politics of settler colonial scholars engaging Indigenous studies literature. Cultural Studies↔ Critical Methodologies, 23(2), 157-169.</ref>.


Non-Indigenous researchers engaging any form of generative ontologies need to take responsibility for whichever option they choose:  
<div class="next_choice">Non-Indigenous researchers engaging any form of generative ontologies need to take responsibility for whichever option they choose:  


'''Engaging Indigenous scholarship.'''


''1. engaging Indigenous scholarship'', or


''2. not engaging Indigenous scholarship.''
Or,




Neither option is “innocent.” There are no "easy ways out".  
'''Not engaging Indigenous scholarship.'''


<div class="next_choice">
Neither option is “innocent.” There are no "easy ways out".</div>
In dealing with this Great White Beast, I have chosen to rely on a very selective body of western scholarship to formulate ways of thinking outside of the classic western subject/object divide and not appropriate Indigenous scholarship in formulating my own understanding of ontologically generative paradigms.


Where appropriate, I have placed my journey in dialogue with Indigenous scholarship.


'''"Return"''' to cut 3 to start tracing the Bearwatch project. </div>
<small><references /></small>


<span class="return to-cut-3 link" data-page-title="Wayfaring the BearWatch Project" data-section-id="8" data-encounter-type="return">[[Wayfaring the BearWatch Project#TEK Workshops|Return to Cut 3: Wayfaring the BearWatch Project]]</span>
<span class="detour to-cut-3 link" data-page-title="Engage Indigenous Scholarship" data-section-id="0" data-encounter-type="detour">[[Engage Indigenous Scholarship|Detour: Engage Indigenous Scholarship]]</span>
 
<span class="detour to-cut-3 link" data-page-title="Not Engaging Indigenous Scholarship" data-section-id="0" data-encounter-type="detour">[[Not Engaging Indigenous Scholarship|Detour: Do Not Engage Indigenous Scholarship]]</span>

Latest revision as of 14:47, 18 July 2025

You have encountered a “Great White Beast”, a fleeting, shapeshifting figure that performs the world as indeterminate.

The ethics involved when it comes to drawing from research paradigms that consider the world as indeterminate, intra-dependent and ontologically generative, cannot be resolved through ‘right’ ways of doing things[1].

Non-Indigenous researchers engaging any form of generative ontologies need to take responsibility for whichever option they choose:

Engaging Indigenous scholarship.


Or,


Not engaging Indigenous scholarship.

Neither option is “innocent.” There are no "easy ways out".


  1. Rosiek, J., & Adkins-Cartee, M. (2023). Diffracting structure/agency dichotomies, wave/particle dualities, and the citational politics of settler colonial scholars engaging Indigenous studies literature. Cultural Studies↔ Critical Methodologies, 23(2), 157-169.

Detour: Engage Indigenous Scholarship

Detour: Do Not Engage Indigenous Scholarship