人類學從學科建置以來，與殖民治理的關係糾葛而不斷思考研究倫理議題;原住民研究作為主體的展現，同樣也需要針對研究問題以及國家處境加反思，以脫離殖民情境。研究倫理的反思，一方面是對於人類學學科建置的遺緒進行批判與當代意義的重構，另一方面是對於研究者與被研究者的倫理關係之思考，以民族研究類型，探究實際倫理關係的形成與比較。與原住民相關的人類學研究從早期的族群類別研究，物質文化，宗教與親屬關係等問題，到近來關於認同與創新的文化展演，傳統領域之認識與回返，醫療資源與心理適應，以及災難後的重建與國家協商機制等。研究倫理的層面從個人或者村落基本的的知情同意，到使用資料後的集體權益考量，或者涉及對於傳統行為之改變評估，以及政策操作與資源分配時的公平議題。原住民研究在後殖民以及主體意義的需求動力下，從族群研究與人類學的傳統範疇中脫離，成為討論當代在地知識與生存處境的重要學科。而以科學與技術觀點所討論的原住民研究倫理，主要在深化原住民族研究倫理架構的內涵。以原住民議題層面的科學與技術研究方向為主，從科技與後殖民取向分析討論原住民研究之倫理議題。期望從原住民相關的技術設計以及科學研究問題上，提供倫理思的基本觀點。本研究以兩年期計劃研究成果，以研究倫理角度思考，原住民處境的技術問題，如何被呈現以及理解成為哲學處境的本體狀態。對於現有原住民研究與發展之技術問題與倫理討論相關部分，進行耙梳分類進而針對前面所述，對於傳統知識的情境分析，環境治理與資源使用觀點，及殖民技術的述，加以分析討論。尤其針對幾個重要衝突類型的討論：包括土地管理與傳統領域，資源共享與國家治理，環境災後重建與傳統生態知識研究之後殖民觀點。主要針對四個論述方向加以分析，並且討論以下四種倫理位置與知識生產的類別：「傳統知識或工藝復振與重現」類型，研究過程中「參與式資訊搜集」，因「災害或政策出現聚落與資源管理」，與「原住民本體權利與以及研究方法論」相關之綜合類別。透過四種形特定知識的研究與參與過程，本論文提出對於原住民研究之倫理題的再思考方向。

This paper is the tentative result of a two-year research project entitled ’’Ethical Practice and Indigenous Traditional Knowledge.’’ The result focuses on the typology and topography of ethical practice and participatory actions in the wake of ’’traditional future’’ (following James Clifford’s concept). There are four major types of ethical relations in the interaction between researchers/policies and local indigenous knowledge. First is the ’’Reconstruction and Renaissance of Traditional Knowledge or Handcrafts.’’ This type focuses on the translation from traditional knowledge to contemporary curator and exhibition intention. The ethical concern lies on the ’’stitchery’’’ between illegal obtain of traditional objects and the public recognition of museum’s mission. The second type of ethical relation is ’’Participatory Mode of Information Collection.’’ The common practice of GIS and tribal map of traditional territory is following in this category, and the focus is about the systematic substitution of local knowledge by academic/scientific viewpoint. Third, the type is ’’Collective Resource Management in reaction to Disaster or Policies.’’ This is a recurrent issue since natural disasters and human-induced disasters made indigenous communities even more vulnerable. The major concern of this type is to consider making new management regulations and translates native ethics into practical leadership in reaction to the contemporary scenario of ’’the tragedy of commons.’’’ Last but not least is the synergic and combined consideration of ’’Ontological Issues of Indigenous Rights and Epistemology of Researches.’’’ This is particularly focused on the critics on land ethics and cultural rights due to creative business. The ontological concern also reflects on the works of leading traditional discourses of rights into judiciary discussion as well as the critics on the violence of the state. All the four types are critical and mandatory to the research practice in relation to indigenous survival and cultural conditions. This research proposes to call for an ethical ’’return’’ (rather than theoretical ’’turns’’) in order to find ontological and pragmatic ways for the ’’’Traditional Futures.’’