Indigenous Research

1
Indigenous Research

• A Methodology for Indigenous issues and the
  peoples of Australia, Aoteraroa-New Zealand, US
  Canada

2
Why an Indigenous Methodology?

• Legacy of colonialism/imperialism
• Western authorship often understood as normative
  (scientific, objective, empirical)
• Privileging of knowledge types sources
• Insider/outsider research
• Self/Other duality
• Indigenous researchers Indigenous agency
• Focus on people not on objects of enquiry -
  foreground respect reciprocity
• Contemporary forms of colonialism
  (neo-colonialism)

3
The West

• Where is the West? what is the West?
• Drawing upon definitions used by African
  sociologist Barnor Hesse in his post-colonial
  analysis of Atlantic slavery, the West signifies
  not a geographical location, but a hierarchically
  driven politically, culturally and economically
  based project given to colonialism (2002 161).

4
Post-colonialism

• Without entering into the debates about when
  post-colonialism was/is, and which geographical
  locations are (potentially) post-colonial
  post-colonialism can be seen as a more or less
  distinct set of reading practices understood as
  preoccupied principally with the analysis of
  cultural forms which mediate, challenge or
  reflect upon the relations of domination and
  subordination- economic, cultural and political,
  between (and often within) nations, races or
  cultures which characteristically have their
  roots in the history of modern European
  colonialism and Imperialism, and which equally
  characteristically continue to be apparent in the
  present era of neo-colonialism (Moore-Gilbert
  199712).

5
Post-colonial Indigenous

• Post-colonial discourse is a response to colonial
  contact and a re-reading of colonial Euro-centric
  representations The Empire Writes Back
• Post-colonialism encourages self-reflective
  researcher highlighting cultural positioning
• Post-colonialism notes the slipperiness of
  language and the fuzziness of boundaries between
  constructed categories
• Indigenous methodologies often go beyond
  re-interpreting history, to consider the futures
  of those who were/are researched highlighting
  respectful and reciprocal relationships

6
Aboriginal Australian academic Lester
Irabbina-Rigby (2003)

• Respectful and Culturally Safe Research
  Practices
• Contemporary Indigenous researchers disrupt
  Eurocentric hegemony through the use of
  methodologies that protect Indigenous
  identities and cultures from misrepresentation,
  misappropriation, distortion, vulgarization, and
  deculturalization (2003 26).
• Indigenous researchers are more likely to be the
  only ones aware and respectful of other
  traditions (2003 34).
• Ignores that Eurocentric research may be replaced
  by its equal and opposite number in employing an
  overtly pro-Indigenous stance.

7
Maori scholar Linda Tuhawai Smiths (1999)

• The deconstruction of dominant and normative
  understandings of the past to reveal colonial and
  imperial undertexts does little to assist the
  contemporary plight of colonised peoples.
• Calls for research protocols to be established
  that guarantee Indigenous peoples are treated
  ethically in research.
• Indigenous peoples and their problems must not be
  looked at in isolation from wider society, and
  their right to protect established and created
  knowledge and tradition should receive proper
  recognition in appropriation discourse.

8
Questions to ask

• Whose research is this?
• Who owns it?
• Whose interest does it serve?
• Who will benefit from it?
• Who has designed its questions framed its
  scope?
• Who will carry it out/
• Who will write it up?
• How will the results be disseminated?
• Consider survival, recovery development (p10)

9
http//uit.no/getfile.php?PageId977FileId188
10
Bishop Glynn (1999) in Porsanger
http//uit.no/getfile.php?PageId977FileId188

• Initiation of a research project
• Evaluation of accountability
• Representation in object-subject research
  relationships
• The legitimation that relates to authenticity
  epistemological background of a research project
• Evaluation of benefits

11
(No Transcript)
12
Laara Fitznor (2003), a bi-cultural Cree educator

• As Indigenous identity often relates to oral
  history and storying, she asserts that there is
  room for both traditional referential discourse
  and the written record of oral accounts within
  academia.
• Grounds her argument about the significance of
  naming to Indigenous peoples.

13
Choctaw historian Devon Mihesuah (1998)

• Argues for a widespread gathering of oral history
  to ensure that this potentially rich store of
  information is not lost for future generations
  (1998 2),
• But she asserts that not only is a Native voice
  not necessarily a guarantee of accuracy, but that
  there is no single North American Indian voice.

14
Euro-Australian philosopher Carolyn DCruz (2001)

• Who should speak for whom? Authenticity is a
  highly contentious issue not only when
  non-Aboriginals speak for Aboriginals, but when
  Aboriginals speak for each other.
• Draws on post-structuralist French philosopher
  Michel Foucaults Archaeology of Knowledge
  (1969). Rather than foregrounding who has the
  right to speak, the place where the speaking
  takes place becomes the central focus discursive
  sites have given rules and procedures that
  condition the space made available negates an
  authentic identity for all circumstances and
  contexts (p 2,9).

15
References

• DCruz, C. 2001. Does it matter whose speaking?
  Authenticity Identity in Discourses of
  Aboriginality in Australia. http//152.1.96.5/jou
  vert/v5i3/cdcr.htm (last accessed 05/09/08)
• Fitznor, L. 2003. The Power of Indigenous
  Knowledge Navigating the Naming of Indigenous
  Groups Identities amidst the Legacy of European
  Colonial Definitions in Canada. In, Goduka,
  N.I., Kunnie, J.E. (eds). Indigenous Peoples
  Wisdom Power Affirming Our Legacy. Hampshire
  Ashgate 40-56.
• Hesse, B. 2002. Forgotten Like a Bad Dream
  Atlantic Slavery the Ethics of Postcolonial
  Memory. In, Goldberg, D.T. Quayson, A. (eds).
  Relocating Postcolonialism. Oxford Blackwell
  143-173.
• Irabbina-Rigney, L. 2003. Indigenist Research,
  First Nations People in Australia, Colonized
  Peoples. In, Goduka, N.I., Kunnie, J.E. (eds).
  Indigenous Peoples Wisdom Power Affirming Our
  Legacy. Hampshire Ashgate 25-38.
• Mihesuah, D.A. 1998. Natives Academics
  Researching Writing about American Indians.
  London University of Nebraska Press
• Moore-Gilbert, B. 1997. Postcolonial Theory
  Contexts, Practices, Politics, London Verso.
• Porsanger, J. Undated An essay about Indigenous
  Methodology. See link from http//uit.no/humfak/
  3518/24 (last accessed 05/09/08)
• Smith, L.T. 1999. Decolonizing Methodologies
  Research Indigenous Peoples. Otago Zen Books
  (C 8).
• Also see-
• Grimes, R.L. 1996. This May be a Feud, but It Is
  Not a War An Electronic, Interdisciplinary
  Dialogue on Teaching Native Religions. American
  Indian Quarterly 20 (3) 433-450.
• Strega, S. 2005. The View from the
  Poststructural Margins Epistemology
  Methodology Reconsidered. In, Brown, L.
  Strega, S. (eds.). Research as Resistance
  Critical, Indigenous, Anti-oppressive
  Approaches. Toronto Canadian Scholars Press
  199-236.
• Stillitoe, P. 2002. Globalizing indigenous
  knowledge. In, Sillitoes, P., Bicker, A.
  Pottier, J. (eds.). Participating in Development
  Approaches to Indigenous Knowledge. London
  Routledge 108-138.
• Yellow Bird, M. 1999. What We Want To Be
  Called. American Indian Quarterly 23 (2) 1-21.