Which part, specifically, is damning? Because this document largely says, "we believe that ethics is important in research" and "we shouldn't stigmatize the populations we research".
Because the word "stigmatize" is a loose word that can be applied to anything
If tomorrow you were to find in a reproducible experiment that people with samoans origins are not good at abstract math you would be "stigmatizing" the population and your research would be banned.
The problem with the word "stigmatize" is that it is a code word that draws a line of what may be studied and published.
It is basically a warning to steer clear of anything "controversial" because at any time it could be declared at "stigmatizing" and there would be no recourse.
If you found that AND you had no Samoans on your research team.
You don't think that maybe we should make sure there's one person on the research team who can be like, "so, you aren't accounting for this variable, which is cultural but also probably hidden from those who don't come from the culture"?
that is the problem exactly with the "stigmatizing" thing
any research that finds that X is worse at Y must be wrong somehow because we know it cannot possibly be like that - so we are not publishing it at all - no discourse is allowed on the matter
What if you check in and there is no hidden cultural element that explains the result? You seem to assume that of course there must be and therefore any research that reaches a conclusion people don't like must necessarily be wrong if only they consult with a person of the appropriate background to tell them so.
The only thing that's important is whether the research was conducted honestly and whether the data is accurate or not.
Stigmatizing is something other people can do or not do with that information, and the people doing the stigmatizing are the ones who should be held responsible for it. Suppressing research because you're afraid someone else might misinterpret it or use it as a justification to do something wrong is not a way to make scientific progress.
Whatever truth about the world the research reveals will still be there and we will be less equipped to deal with it by hiding in ignorance out of fear.
Well, I hope you’re right. Sure, every other instance where over-educated white people who’ve never worked outside academia decide on behalf of minorities that something “causes harm” to them has been universally stupid, but maybe this time it will be different.
It says that the scientific method is enhanced by having people with knowledge about a domain involved in the research.
I am not Japanese. I'm not Finnish. I've never been to Finland or Japan. If I write an academic paper about the educational culture of these two countries, you don't think it would benefit from having a Finnish or Japanese person involved?
