Impact and benefit agreements (IBAs) between natural resource developers and Aboriginal communities are increasingly portrayed as viable approaches to assure Aboriginal people will reap economic benefits of resource extraction in their traditional territories. Drawing from existing literature about the social context of IBA negotiations, especially in Northern Canada, the authors’ analysis contributes to the study of negotiated agreements by using Lukes’s three dimensions of power to examine how IBAs confer particular advantages and disadvantages to Aboriginal people and proponents of development, thereby distributing power inequitably. The authors argue that, under some conditions, IBAs may provide more direct engagement with industry and a sharing of benefits from resource development than heretofore has been provided in Northern Canada. Depending on the before-, during- and after processes and outcomes, IBAs can also stifle Aboriginal people from sharing information about benefits negotiated by other groups, prevent deeper understanding of long-term social impacts of development, thwart subsequent objections to the development and its impacts, and reduce visioning about the type and pace of development that is desirable.

In the Canadian North researchers of all disciplines are increasingly finding that local communities are neither uninterested nor ignorant of the potential for research to benefit their communities. We propose preliminary field-work as the early stages of research in the field that allow for exploration, reflexivity, creativity, mutual exchange and interaction through the establishment of research relationships with local people often prior to the development of research protocols and ethics applications. Based on a review of field research literature combined with our own personal research narratives from northern Canadian community research, we initiate a much needed discussion on the topic of preliminary field-work in order to understand more clearly its functions and contributions. We reflect on and examine our own experiences providing methodological guidance to other researchers who are contemplating community-based field research. Preliminary fieldwork acknowledges the increasingly intertwined standards of research quality, integrity and broader research ethics.

In the two decades since Alexander Lockhart's seminal article on the insider–outsider dialectic in native socioeconomic development, a great deal of change has occurred in the Canadian North and new challenges have emerged for community‐based participatory research and development. This is particularly the case in the Northwest Territories, where Aboriginal communities are facing for the first time the triple challenges of Aboriginal land claims implementation, Aboriginal self‐government, and a boom in mining and petroleum development. Increasingly, participatory methods in research and community development are being co‐opted to serve state or corporate interests, far from their radical origins in movements for social change. A historical analysis is called for that accounts for the contradictory and contested social contexts in which participatory activities are imbedded. This article suggests that a return to the roots of the participatory method requires the creation of a new autonomous space of resistance. The academic outsider is uniquely positioned to facilitate critical interventions in both community and university contexts. The resulting convergence of critical outsider and insider has great potential in the forging of new knowledge that can contribute to self‐determination beyond the bounds of the state.

No abstract

No abstract