Controversies and Consequences which Arise from Anthropologist being Contracted by a Particular

1506 Words4 Pages

When anthropologists’ are involved in native title litigations, ambiguities may arise. In native title cases, anthropologists’ give their expert, objective opinion. This opinion helps determine whether a continuing relationship between an Indigenous group and the land exists. Engaged anthropologists apply their methodology to real world situations, such as native title. The Native Title Act passed in 1993, provides a national system which recognises and protects native title. It recognises that some Indigenous people, who show continuity from their traditional laws and customs, have rights to their land. In the efforts of creating social change the goals of the community, anthropologists and legal constraints of The Native Title Act may vary. The Indigenous community’s goal is to prove a relationship to the land. While an anthropologists’ goal is to conduct research on such communities which will support or counteract their claim. In achieving the objectives of these two groups ambiguities may arise. This paper will firstly discuss the controversies and consequences which arise from anthropologists being contracted by a particular. Secondly, issues which arise from the methods involved in anthropological research are discussed. Lastly, the risk of advocacy when presenting anthropological findings is shown.

Differing Roles of Contracted Anthropologists:

The role and position of the anthropologist will change according to whom they are contracted by. The two contractors are the applicants and those contesting or responding to the native title claim. Katie Glaskin (2004) discusses in her article the issues that hiring an anthropological witness can involve. Glaskin (2004) outlines that the role of the anthropologist depends on w...

... middle of paper ...

...002, ‘Preserving Culture in Federal Court Proceedings: Gender Restrictions and Anthropological Experts’ in Land, Rights, Law, Issues of Native Title, Volume 2, Issues Paper No. 15, May 2002. AIATSIS Native Title Research Unit, Canberra.

Morphy, H 2006, ‘The Practice of an Expert: Anthropology in Native Title’, In Anthropological Forum 16(2):135-151.

Robinson, M 2001, Disparate Judicial Approaches to the Production of Anthropological Fieldnotes: Observations on the Daniel and Smith cases. Paper delivered at the conference Expert Evidence in Native Title Court Cases: Issues of Truth, Objectivity and Expertise, Adelaide, 6-7 July 2001.

Trigger, D 2004, ‘Anthropology in Native Title Court Cases: ‘Mere pleading, expert opinion or hearsay’?’, in Crossing boundaries: Cultural, legal, historical and practice issues in native title, Melbourne University Press, Carlton.

More about Controversies and Consequences which Arise from Anthropologist being Contracted by a Particular

Open Document