Getting permission

Last night over dessert Lauren and I got into talking about the recent discussion on the RNLD (Research Network for Linguistic Diversity) mailing list concerning getting informed participant consent in linguistic research to study their language as well as permission to store recordings on a computer and allow the (controlled) release of such data. Much of the discussion appears to focus on non-literate communities.

In our experience and from what we've been told / read, speakers of minority languages don't usually see much value in having their language studied. There's usually little problem getting 'permission' to study a minority language - speakers are either happy that someone's interested in their language or confused as to why anyone would bother with it. Lauren and I both don't like the idea of 'imposing' ourselves on a language community (or speaker) and it would certainly be easier if the community simply asked for the help of a linguist on their language.

Incidentally, Pastor N., whom I am meeting with tomorrow, has done just that, asking for help with his language. Of course, the reason Pastor N. has asked for help with his language, is that years ago, some visiting SIL linguists came and started work on it, before quickly moving on to a related language. He therefore already sees the value in his language (even if the rest of his language community doesn't), thanks to those linguists all those years ago.

I suppose then that asking for consent in many speech communities is a bit like asking someone to share something that they don't really value (or even want). The kind of 'informed' consent that people in the discussion are talking about, implies that speakers already know the value of the languages they speak. But that usually happens only after a period of time when a linguist has been working on that language and people slowly realise that there is something of value there.

So then, and not to sound like a bureaucrat, but maybe we need at least two 'stages' of permission-getting? If we really want to protect what are perceived to be speakers' rights to their own languages, maybe we need to ask for permission first, then review what is permissible at a later more mature stage in the research. It would be like signing a treaty, then reviewing the terms of that treaty at a later stage.

I doubt such a proposal would sit well with researchers who want to know that the data they collect and openly share right now might one day be slapped with restricted access. But in my opinion, it's too easy to get a person to say 'yes' right at the start - it's like buying an antique chair from someone who views it simply as a dusty old object in urgent need of replacement.