Indigenous Methodologies: Characteristics, Conversations, and Contexts, Second Edition

I often feel out of my depth talking about Indigenous methodologies. I'm not in the academy, so I don't have the same depth of knowledge as people who have spent a lot of time working inside of the university.  And my vocation is not scholarship. So sometimes when I talk to university based scholars about Indigenous methodology, I get the impression sometimes that I have somehow said something incorrectly but I don't know why. And then I start to doubt myself, and I think maybe I am relying too heavily on my experiences outside of the university, and maybe those experiences don't translate into the university. As a general concept, I feel like I get the broad strokes of Indigenous methodology. Yet, I feel like I am constantly not saying the right thing when I am talking about Indigenous methodology inside of academia, and I am often corrected by others. Many times I have thought to myself, maybe I should leave this discourse to the experts. But at the same time as an Indigenous student pursuing an advanced degree, I do feel a personal responsibility to familiarize myself with Indigenous methodologies. Also, when I finished my masters, I felt like I had only begun learning about Indigenous methodologies, so I was curious about them and wanted to know more. And so, even though I didn't use an Indigenous methodology for my doctoral work, I did take time to read about it. I read both the first and second editions of this book. Well... I actually re-read the first edition because I had read it before. And then I read the second edition. 

Side quest before I get to the book - There are different ways to go about naming things. For example, the United Nations does not have a definition of Indigenous peoples. The United Nations chooses a strategy instead where they "identify, rather than define indigenous peoples." If academia were to take the same approach towards naming Indigenous methodologies, then an Indigenous methodology would be, in the words of Lana Ray, "how Indigenous people approach research." Knowledge is socially constructed and the product of social interactions. In my wildest dreams there is a parallel dimension where this is the pathway taken... where Indigenous scholars created a body of scholarly literature which said "the defining feature of Indigenous methodology is the identity of the researcher." But in this dimension, the one we live in, the socially constructed approach taken in Canadian post-secondary has been to not shy away from creating a definition. The approach taken has been to try to suss out what objective markers define Indigenous methodology, or ought to define Indigenous methodology. What is notable about this approach is that by creating a definition, it now draws a line where some work sits outside of that definition, regardless of the identity of the researcher. If the United Nations approach were taken, Indigenous methodology would be identified rather than defined, and Indigenous methodology would be the ways that Indigenous people approach research. But as definitions now exist outside of Indigenous people, theoretically, now there are two categories of Indigenous researchers: Indigenous researchers who's work is Indigenous methodology and Indigenous researchers who's work is not Indigenous methodology. A definition disembodies Indigenous methodology, it has become reified. It is now a thing that is outside of the Indigenous researcher, and then the researcher, if they choose, strives towards it. And as Indigenous methodology is now disembodied from Indigenous people, it is now also something that the non-Indigenous researcher can strive towards as well. Not one person caused this to happen. It was a movement. And I trust that it was strategically the best direction to take at the time. 

From a critical theory standpoint, I totally understand how and why this happened. As Lana Ray says, it's strategic. In the context of unequal power relations, having a definition is a form of protection. It ensures that Indigenous people are not tokenized, being used to grant legitimacy to projects which do not further the interests of Indigenous people. And it ensures that non-Indigenous people can't just call any random work that they do "Indigenous methodology." It creates a standard for people to live up to. And it professionalizes Indigenous research methodologies. Depending on the definition, it can also be an avenue to ensure that there is broader Indigenous engagement in research projects. And it also legitimizes Indigenous approaches to knowledge, such as dreaming. Within the context of ongoing colonization, this is a strategy for decolonization. And within Eurocentric institutions, this is also a strategy for Indigenization. A number of Indigenous researchers, through their work in the university, have decided that this is strategically the best pathway forward. 

And Margaret Kovach's work, for many, has become the north star of that movement. 

Her work was initially driven by the desire to find a solution to a problem. As a PhD student, she started taking research methodology courses and was "not able to understand why research textbooks do not offer Indigenous frameworks as a methodological option for research." (p.5). Her experience with reflexive and positivist research was that they "are historically embedded within and arise from Western thought and thus cannot help but formulate interpretations through a western gaze or construct." (p.26). She describes her experience: "Of the methodologies available, I initially chose phenomenology as grounded in a constructivist paradigm with its value placed upon an experiential, self-in-relation interpretive tradition. However, phenomenology did not encompass the decolonizing, social justice dimension of my question. After much thought, i turned to a transformative paradigm and a qualitative methodology anchored in critical theory, but I found that the primary focus on power discourses overtook a holistic, experiential approach. And so I tried to employ a constructivist and transformative paradigm in one singular design. Perhaps a combination of the two would work? More headache, something was still missing." (p.50). So she put aside western methodologies, "returned to Indigenous teachings" (p.51) and eventually turned to Shawn Wilson's research as ceremony as well as an abductive approach, including dreams. In one part, she cites Shawn Wilson, who says this about western paradigms: "as Indigenous researchers we need to move beyond these, beyond merely assuming an Indigenous perspective on these non-Indigenous paradigms." (Wilson in Kovach, p.32). 

What came out of this searching was this definition: "For a methodology to be correctly identified as an Indigenous methodology, it must be anchored in Indigenous epistemology, theory, ethics, story, and community." (p.42). She says "Indigenous methodologies are founded upon Indigenous knowledges and guided by Indigenous people." (p.16). I note that "guided by" is a phrase which makes room for the possibility of a non-Indigenous researcher being guided by Indigenous people. With respect to community, she says "As a guard against ethical infringement in Indigenous research, an ethical vetting by Indigenous communities and establishments is recommended as a decolonizing imperative." (p.53). She also says "In theoretical research, there might not be human subject research, but the focus could be on an Indigenous community in some manner. Determining the Indigenous community to engage with will largely depend on the researcher's relationship with community in tandem with the subject and aim of the research project." (p.118). I note, though, that she guards her own ties, as she says "In my research I did not want to exploit community or familial knowledge or have this knowledge subject to dismissal (or appropriation)." so she was selective about what she shared in terms of her own sacred knowledge (p.100). I thought this was interesting. This is  a difficult paradigm that Indigenous researchers face, where sometimes one is working within a cultural or spiritual framework that will never be revealed to the reader. Indigenous people, including Indigenous students, have the right to both freedom of religion and privacy, so it's fair to say "I choose not to share this." But what makes it difficult is if one says "I chose to structure my work in this this way for spiritual reasons, but I will not discuss those spiritual reasons." Going back to the post from yesterday, one of the chapters in Sweeney Windchief and Timothy San Pedro's book briefly touches on this. 

She has a question and answer section. One question is whether or not Indigenous methodologies are really different from western qualitative approaches. She says that "Indigenous methodologies are different from Western methodologies because they are based on Indigenous knowledges and and Indigenous knowledges are different from Western knowledges. Indigenous knowledges require an Indigenous interpretation throughout. Adding an Indigenous 'look' to research that is predominantly Western in its theorizing and methods creates methodological floundering and can lead to tokenism." (p.37). Along the same vein, in a different section she says "We must not totally whitewash Indigenous research by pushing aside Indigenous methodologies or calling research 'Indigenous methodologies' when it is, in actuality, Indigenous research employing a methodology from Western intellectual tradition." (p.113). I actually do have something that I wonder about this. I require an example to articulate this wondering, so I will use Fanon as my example. Fanon drew upon a number of western based methodologies, including psychoanalysis, phenomenology, and existentialism. If one were to create a project which used Fanon's work as the theoretical framework, would it not fit into Kovach's definition? I acknowledge that I'm splitting hairs here. I'm not trying to be contrarian. I ask these types of questions in order to try to clearly understand the parameters of the definition. 

The question and answer section also contains the question of whether or not non-Indigenous researchers or researchers with little community connection can do Indigenous research methodologies, she says "not all research involving Indigenous people requires Indigenous methodologies." (p.38). I note the contrast between this stance, and the stance made by Sweeney Windchief and Timothy San Pedro in the preface to their book, where they say that if you are not using Indigenous methodologies you are perpetuating colonialism and dehumanizing others. Of the two stances, I prefer Kovach's. I'm biased in this because due to the nature of my work over the last ten years or so, I have done inquiries using a variety of methods. In response to the question posed about the identity of the researchers, Kovach also says "it's all about relationships." (p.39). 

I have a lot of notes on this book, but I won't blog all of them. These are the things that caught my attention at this point in time. Likely, I could pick it up five years from now and different things would stand out to me. I might come back to this book at a later time and say more. 

Lha Yudit'ih: We Always Find A Way - Bringing the Tsilhqot'in Title Case Home

 While I am on a methodology blogging spree, I want to talk about Lha Yudit'ih for a minute. I might do another post about it later. But for this post, I just want to talk about the methodology. 

The book is a collaboration between Chief Roger William and UBC researcher Lorraine Weir. I actually met Lorraine when she was early in this work. It was a long time ago, and I don't have notes, but I recall her telling me that she wanted to interview Roger about the title case to write the book, and he told her that in order to tell the story of the title case, she needed to talk to everyone, not just him. And I thought to myself "she's going to be here for a long time." 

In terms of Indigenous methodology, this is illustrative of the way that the researcher may have an idea that they want to pursue and an preliminary idea of how to pursue it. But a responsive researcher will be open to shifting their methodology according to the priorities set forth by Indigenous people. 

In order to collect interviews, she would go to events and make herself available for people to approach her, and then she would let them talk about whatever they thought was relevant in order to tell the story of the title case. Much of the presentation contains lengthy direct quotes, and then the assembling of interviews and connecting and contextual information is the interpretation. 

The book contains in the front matter an explicit statement making it clear that the book is not a representation of the Tsilhqot'in Nation or any of the five communities. I like the disclaimer. I think sometimes scholars try to assert that their projects are representative of Indigenous people. But in a way, that creates a system where Indigenous people are further marginalized because the researcher short circuits the ability of the community to represent itself. To me, the credibility of the work is enhanced by this disclaimer and the disclaimer affirms sovereignty. 

In the introduction, there is an explanation of how the project early on was presented at multiple events, including general assemblies of Xeni Gwet'in and Tsilhqot'in National Government gatherings, and how TNG staff was also kept appraised of the work as it progressed. Roger was the chief for most of the project, but when he was not chief, Xeni Gwet'in was still involved. I think this is an excellent example of Indigenous Research Methodology because the community had a great deal of control over the both the process and the outcome throughout the project. There is a high degree of rigor in terms of community based verification of the goal of the research, the process, and the outcome. And by the community, I mean the nation as a whole, including elected representatives, people who attended the governance meetings and gathering, and people who chose to contribute their thoughts to the project. When researchers claim that their methodology reflects respect for sovereignty - this is the gold standard in my opinion. There are a lot of definitions of Indigenous research methodologies. To me, the number one characteristic is the involvement of Indigenous people in shaping the aim, process, and product. 

I loved this book. I'll probably re-read it again and again. And I'm so grateful to Roger and Lorraine for their good work. 

Indigenous methodology books

 It's hard to believe it's been a month since I last posted. Time flies. During this strange time between submitting my dissertation and waiting for my defense, I have been reconnecting with friends that I have not talked to in a while. This is a strange time. I am no longer writing. But I need to stay in a headspace where I am thinking about my writing. I feel as though I am in a state of suspended animation. 

I relied on books a great deal during my doctoral work. I really like the meatiness of single author scholarly books. And collections created with intention. I like to annotate my books, write ideas in the front pages, add post it notes, and dog ear them. My favourite thing to do, though, is to sort them into piles on the floor. More than once during my doctoral work, I'd start my day by sitting on the floor and sorting and re-sorting my books into little piles, creating a little nest of ideas for myself. Once they are in piles sometimes I sort each pile according to year or according to relevance. It's like a little game. And then, I admire my arrangement. 

I've been slowly emerging from my writing phase. I took the books off the floor. Before they go back onto my bookshelf, I want to blog my favorite piles. When I finished my MA, I recall going through a phase where I wanted to blog books I had read. I wanted to catalogue them for future reference, and I typed out a lot of notes so that I could easily cite them in the future. It was pretty chaotic. It did prove to be a little bit useful when it came time to do my PhD. Not as much as I thought it would be, though. 

This time around, I am not going to blog each book extensively. Instead, I am just going to mention books that made an impact on me with a few notes. 

I thought about summarizing each book. But when I went back and looked at my notes, they didn't really lend themselves to a summary. My notes are related to what caught my attention, and what caught my attention was pretty narrow, because I was looking for connections with Indigenous science fiction and hermeneutics. So my notes don't really support the task of creating a summary, and I don't have the want to undertake the work of summarizing at this time, and so I am not going to provide summaries. 

Also, I want to note that this is not an attempt to be an exhaustive list of Indigenous methodology books. I read Research is Ceremony during my MA, and as I wanted to cover new-to-me ground for my PhD, I didn't re-read it for my PhD, so that is a notable absence. Another notable absence is Peter Cole's book. I have it, I read it, and it made an impression on me. But the little people took it. I trust it will return eventually. I also want to note that there are a lot of Indigenous education books which speak to Indigenous methodology. Even though this collection is on books that are primarily focused on Indigenous methodology, there are a lot of books in Indigenous education which are also helpful in illuminating the idea of Indigenous methodology.

The first book of mention is Jo-Anne Archibald's 2008 Indigenous Storywork. I think that the first time I read this, I was waiting for the stories. But this book is not sharing the research product - the stories gathered in her project. Rather, it is sharing the thought that went into the research process. This book has stood the test of time. In fact, as time goes on, I think it only becomes more impressive because of the fact that people have taken up the ideas of storywork in their own ways over time. The book can be used in two ways. First, some people use the book as a guide for their own work. Second, some people are inspired by the way that Archibald created something which reflects her own orientations to the world, and use it as inspiration to create their own way of engaging in research. I hear so many people talk about how this book inspired them, and so my respect for this work only grows over time. I thought it was interesting on page 36 when she asked herself "Was I doing anything different from earlier 'outsider' academics who created a legacy of mistrust among First Nations concerning academic research?" and when she reflected on the fact that "Even though I am a First Nations person and have some initial understandings about various First Nations cultures, I became like an outsider when I began to use the 'tools' of literacy to record my research observations and reflections about the oral traditions and practices through fieldnotes and now in this book..." Working with her mentors helped her resolve these concerns in part. But she also states on page 42 "I also want to transform my anxiety into positive action and begin to make systemic change so that learning institutions such as schools, colleges, and universities appropriately recognize and provide compensation for he knowledge expertise of Elders and cultural teachers." 

The second book is Margaret Kovach's 2009 Indigenous Methodologies: Characteristics, Conversations, and Contexts. I actually have a more recent version of this, so I'm not going to say much about this edition, except to say that it was the beginning of something bigger. And as this book is epic, I am going to write a separate post about it. 

The next book is John Borrow's 2010 book Drawing Out Law: A Spirit's Guide. What I love most about this book is that it isn't trying to fit into a western or scholarly paradigm. It does not justify itself. It just is. In this book, based on Anishinaabe tradition, he uses his dreams to create ideagrams/scrolls, and meditates on the images. He consults with his family and reflects on his experiences with scholarship, life, and the law. He engages in some imaginative storytelling. And that's the book. As a whole, it is an extremely interesting commentary on politics in Canada. Theoretically someone could recreate his method if they wanted. I haven't seen people try to do so in scholarship. I don't know that I would want to try to recreate his method. But I think that the fact that he took elements of his own Anishinaabe knowledge traditions (dreams, stories, creating these drawing and meditating on their meaning) and created a scholarly work out of those traditions is impressive. I think it's an assertion of intellectual sovereignty to just do what you want to do. 

The next book is Kathleen E. Absolon's 2011 Kaandossiwin: How We Come to Know. In this book, the author studied the methodologies of other Indigenous researchers by examining their work and having conversations with them. Her book is based off of her petal flower, which is her wholistic framework. I think her flower is cool. Overall, I really liked her voice. I felt like she was really accepting of other's work. Early in my doctoral work, someone told me that I had to choose the right methodology, or no one would take me seriously. I found that that advice really constrained my creativity, and led from a place of fear. While I'm sure the comment was meant to be supportive, it actually took me awhile to recover from that comment. This book helped me recover from this comment, because it helped me see that rather than approaching methodology from a place of fear, it is possible for Indigenous researchers to act on their inner knowing of what they think the right way is to proceed, and it affirmed for me that there are many ways to be Indigenous within academia. We don't all have to do things the same way, and there is no "right" methodology. In fact, many Indigenous scholars do not use something that already exists, they create a methodology that is right for them. For me, this book contained courageous role models. It was also cool, reading this book more than ten years after it was published, to see how many of the names in this book are familiar because they have done a lot of great work in academia since this book was published. 

The next book is Linda Tuhiwai Smith's 2012 Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and  Indigenous Peoples, Second Edition. I sometimes catch myself in my mind use the terms "decolonizing methodologies" and "Indigenous methodologies" interchangeably. In the foreword, Smith says "Decolonizing methodologies hinted at the possibility of Indigenous research methodologies but did not fully explore these. In recent years much more is being published that explicitly focuses on indigenous research methodologies, indigenous knowledge and indigenous practices and, increasingly these studies are written by indigenous scholars." (p.xiii). In the introduction, she talks about the complexities of being an indigenous researcher, both in terms of relationship with the academy (which assumes that as one is western educated, they can't speak from a place of authenticity) and with the community (in terms of avoiding replicating the harm of colonial modes of research and also grappling with being an outsider). She concludes the introduction by stating that this book is written specifically with indigenous researchers in mind. I love this because I am so rarely the target audience. The book goes on to document the history of colonial research and then imagine how Indigenous researchers might do research differently. I particularly like the section on twenty five Indigenous projects. In the introduction, she says this should not be read as a how to guide, but rather "a series of accounts and guidelines which map a wide range of research-related issues." (p.9). I think that's important to note, because part of the colonial mode of being is to point to a book as an authority and say "this authoritative person says this is what we ought to do, and so this is what you ought to do." If one were to take her book, and say that all Indigenous people should adhere to it, and turn it into a narrow set of rules, then that would be a re-enactment of colonialism. This is an important point, because the book does come from a very specific academic tradition - critical theory. That is the home that she has found for this work inside of the university, and certainly critical theory has been a good vehicle for bringing  Indigenous thought into the academy. However, each Indigenous scholar ought to have freedom and choice in deciding whether or not they want to be critical theorists, and also in deciding whether or not critical theory is the correct choice for each project. 

The next book is Jo-ann Archibald Q'um Q'um Xiiem, Jenny Bol Jun Lee-Morgan, and Jason De Santolo's 2019 book Decolonizing Research: Indigenous Storywork as Methodology. I think this book is really cool because it brings together Indigenous people from three continents, and they draw on Jo-ann Archibald's storywork as inspiration for their work. It also has a forward written by Linda Tuhiwai Smith. The editors have a foreword, and then the chapters are by various contributors. What is cool is that the first four chapters are Archibald's students who used her work to generate their own research. I think it speaks to the testament of her mentorship that just over ten years after publishing her book, a number of others are publishing research based off of her work. The introduction is interesting. In the 2008 Storywork book, Linda Smith is cited, but critical theorists like Fannon, Friere, and Said are not. The first time that I read the 2008 book, my first impression was not that it sprang out of critical theory. Rather, it felt like it was grounded within community based knowledge, and also informed by the work of other Indigenous people engaging in story. I'm not saying it was incongruent with critical theory, just that it didn't feel like it tightly adhered to critical theory, but not particularly driven by or oriented towards critical theory. And I admire the way that the book emphasizes voices Indigenous to this region. What makes the introduction to this book interesting is that it draws some clear lines to connect Archibald's work with Smith's work. The first part of the introduction summarizes storywork, and the second part summarizes Indigenous research as decolonization. When reading the chapter, I get the impression that the goal of the chapter was not to distinguish Indigenous research from decolonizing research, but rather to place Indigenous research inside of decolonizing research. For example, "Indigenous storywork may be considered a genre of decolonizing methodologies," (p.7). It does draw some very clear lines in the sand with respect to what is and is not Indigenous research. For example, "No matter how much knowledge (or qualification) a person accumulates, if the knowledge, research, or stories do not reach the collective consciousness of the wider group, then the person is failing to act in an Indigenous manner. Decolonizing research is not merely ethical research in terms of the requirements of the academy of institutions' more importantly it meets the criteria set by our own communities, who will often sanction the integrity and credibility of the story using their own measures." (p.7). And "Linda Tuhiwai Smith emphasizes, we can only make meaning within the community and not in the four walls of the tiered lecture theatre," (p.11). Thus, if one were to adhere to the criteria set out in this chapter, participatory action methodologies would be required. This pre-emptively rules out the idea that conceptual work or modes such as literary analysis would meet the definition. If one is to stay true to this concept, Indigenous research involves Indigenous people, plural, not one Indigenous person carrying out an individual inquiry. I'd be interested to see more work developed around what rigor means and how it is documented/demonstrated if one is to adhere to this concept that community members are the ones who determine the credibility of the research. I'd also be curious to know, when people employ this logic within university based research, do they have two stages for the ethics board. The first stage, to engage the community in co-developing the research design, and the second stage to get approval on the co-developed research design? The other question that I have, is whether or not there are ever conflicts where the community wants a specific research design, and the ethics board says no. If so, at that point, does the ethics board become a form of discipline to which communities must adhere to? 

The next book is Robin Starr Minthorn and Heather J. Shotton's 2019 book Reclaiming Indigenous Research in Higher Education. It begins with a foreword by Bryan McKinley Jones Brayboy, who asks "can a Native person engage in research and still be Native?" Then, he goes on to say "Of course it bears noting that Native people have always been researchers. As such, we have always had ideas about the purposes and role of research." (p.x). This is a notable difference from Smith's framing, where research is something that is done by the academy, and the roots of research lie outside of Indigenous communities. In Smith's framing, research came along with colonialism, as a tool of colonialism, which now must be transformed into something decolonial. Brayboy's framing is that we have always been researchers, and now we bring our modes of researching into the academy. The introduction, written by the editors, explains that a group of colleagues who created their own Indigenous space within a larger academic organization came together to write this book. I think it's cool when people who already have social connections come together with a specific vision for a project. They provide a genealogy of Indigenous methodologies and frameworks (Devon Mihesuah and Shawn Wilson, Linda Tuhiwai Smith, Bryan McKinley Jones Brayboy, Shawn Wilson, Margaret Kovach, Oliverira and Wright). The introduction chapter is very much focused on the challenges that Indigenous scholars face and how they navigate those challenges. A key point is that "What cannot be overlooked is that Indigenous research methodologies include an ancestry that is embodied within the researcher." (p.15). This is actually a significant statement, because I think that there is not yet consensus on the idea of whether or not non-Indigenous people can do Indigenous research. These editors have taken a position - the Indigenous identity of the researcher is integral to the definition of Indigenous research. The chapters that follow include research by Indigenous researchers on different aspects of post-secondary such as Indigenous student leadership and Indigenous student funding. Overall, the focus is very much inward looking, in that it does not look outwards into Indigenous communities. Rather, it looks inwards towards experiences of Indigenous people within universities, with an eye towards what universities can do differently to support Indigenous students. There is a wide range of methodologies used, including some chapters which focus on statistical analysis. The editors have written an excellent conclusion to end the book. They state "there is not a singular approach to Indigenous Methodologies. As the authors in this book have demonstrated, Indigenous Methodologies provide us the space to approach our research from our own frameworks and to privilege our own Indigenous and tribal epistemologies." (p.208). They also state that "there are different approaches to applying Indigenous Methodologies in higher education research, but they're all distinct and beautiful in their own ways." (p.209). They recommend that both Indigenous and non-Indigenous scholars have a responsibility to support future Indigenous scholars, and "to respect the different types of work emerging from our future Indigenous scholars." (p.210). I really like this, because it would be oppressive if we were to say to future generations "there is only one right way to do things, and it is the way that we have done things." Letting future generations play and experiment and try to out new things is important, because maybe they will do cool things that we have never dreamt of. There is something about this book which makes it feel different from the previous books. I'm not sure what it is and its neither good nor bad. I felt supported by this book. 

The next book is Sweeney Windchief and Timothy San Pedro's 2019 Applying Indigenous Research Methods: Storying with Peoples and Communities. It contains a forward by series editors Eve Tuck and K. Wayne Yang. In the preface. According to Tuck and Yang, what makes Indigenous research methods distinct is relational accountability (p.xii). "Creating and maintaining respectful and mutually beneficial relationships between researchers and Indigenous communities (even when the researcher comes from the community) is of utmost importance, in part because Indigenous peoples have sometimes been mistreated and misled by academic researchers, both in the distant and recent past." (p.xii). Again I ponder, does this mean that individual conceptual works or literary analysis projects do not fall under the scope of Indigenous research methods? Tuck and Yang assert that Indigenous Research Methods do not fall under critical race theory, and that Indigenous worldviews and decolonizing theory should be treated as "distinct philosophical traditions." (p.xii). I am not sure how much I agree with this. I think that decolonizing theory is in the same general realm (critical theory) as critical race theory. I think of them as similar but not the same - like broccoli and cauliflower. I'm not sure what that benefit is of making this distinction, other than to try to safeguard decolonizing methodology from the critical race theory backlash. I think Indigenous worldviews are much larger than what exists in scholarship or the academy, let alone any single school of thought, so I have no qualms about saying that it is broader and distinct from critical race theory. The preface of the book is written by the editors. One of the editors is of European and Filipino ancestry but was raised in an Indigenous community who told him that he is FilipIndian. The fact that he is co-editing an Indigenous Research Methods book implicitly answers the question "can non-Indigenous people do Indigenous Research Methods?" The preface says "When Indigenous methodologies are absent in Indigenous research, the results - the interpretation itself and dissemination of that interpretation - serves as a colonial tool of erasure that manifests in dehumanizing ways." (p.xviii). It's worth unpacking a few things here. First, not all Indigenous research uses Indigenous methodologies. Second, according to the authors, if you don't use Indigenous Methodologies (as defined in this book), you are perpetuating colonialism and dehumanizing others. I'm uncomfortable with the forcefulness of that claim. The editors also state that "Indigenous methods call for active participation and contribution to Indigenous community, culture, language, and social practice, through story." (p.xviii). The preface explains that this is a collection of chapters which were written by researchers who were instructed to yarn - that is, to talk together about how they apply Indigenous Research Methods. These conversations between researchers serve to illustrate and explain what Indigenous Research Methods are. Overall, I think the collection is great. My favourite chapter is one which talks about how to do culturally sustaining education in a context where, due to protocols limiting the dissemination of Indigenous knowledge beyond specific people, the educator is not able to culturally infuse all Indigenous knowledge for that community into the curriculum. Overall I thought this was an interesting read. And it is particularly interesting because of the multiple expressions of foundational Indigenous Methodology folks such as Smith, Archibald, Kovach, and Wilson. It demonstrates the dynamic nature of Indigenous methodologies. 

So, that's a quick survey of some of the Indigenous methodology books that I read. As my dissertation did not include working with Indigenous people (it involved me sitting by myself with books) - I actually did not feel comfortable calling my work Indigenous methodology, because according to many of these books, the participation of Indigenous people (plural) is integral to the definition. I recognize that in the context of unequal power relations, it is strategically beneficial to Indigenous people to uphold this definition. And I have no misgivings about saying "this specific project does not adhere to definitions of Indigenous Research Methodology that I have encountered." It is an ethical stance which I choose to take, and just because I didn't use Indigenous Research Methodologies for one project, does not mean that I will never use them. I feel good about my decision. That being said, reading about Indigenous Research Methodologies enhanced how I approached my own conceptual work. 

Favourite article - Lana Ray

 Hello Readers,

I just returned from Ottawa where I co-presented a workshop on centering Indigenous workers in reconcilation efforts. I haven't been to Ottawa for awhile. One of my biggest priorities while I was there was to get poutine, and on the last day I did get to go get poutine in an underground pub with my BC colleagues and a new colleague/friend from Ontario. Reasons why Ontario poutine is better than BC poutine:

• crispier fries 
• saltier gravy 
• meltier cheese 

It's probably a good thing that BC poutine is sub-par, because if it weren't, I would probably eat it more often, and goodness knows it's not exactly health food. 

Anyhow, I am just popping by here to share the best article that I read while working on my dissertation. This may or may not be a "best of" series. I'm wishy-washy about a series because now that I have a defense date, I am supposed to be spending my energy right now preparing for my defense. Maybe blogging will help me prepare. If I find it helpful, I will keep going. But if not, then I will just once again pause blogging for awhile. 

Anyhow, the article is called "Deciphering the 'Indigenous' in Indigenous Methodologies" by Lana Ray. Ray explains that when she first encountered the phrase "Indigenous methodologies" she thought it simply meant "how Indigenous people approach research" however, as she studied, she learned that actually it is "a mix of approaches and theories that were grounded in or congruent with pan-Indigenous principles and/or experiences such as colonialism." (p.87).

 According to Ray, strategic Indigenous methodologies "work largely within critical theory, are motivated by anti-colonial and anti-oppressive agendas, and work toward establishing an equitable relationship with the state." (p.86).  Strategic Indigenous methodologies "Strategic Indigenous methodologies work predominately but not exclusively within emancipatory (for example, critical and participatory action research) and deconstructive (for example, poststructural and postmodern) approaches which fall under the umbrella of post-positivism" (p.90). She emphasizes the importance of retaining the parameters of this definition, because if the phrase is used beyond the scope of it's intended parameters, then it will lose its meaning (p.91). She also flags a risk, which is that these methodologies may lead one to a place where "Indigenous peoples can only view themselves through the lenses of oppression and resistance" (p.91). 

Ray also introduces a concept that it not within strategic Indigenous methodologies, and that is convergence Indigenous methodologies. She says that convergence methodologies "employ broad understandings present within Traditional knowledge systems, are motivated by decolonization and revitalization efforts, and work toward the inclusion of Traditional knowledges." (p.86). She has a cool graph, where one line is traditional knowledge system/traditional methodology and the other line is western knowledge system positivism/western methodology. The two lines have arrows, and they are perpindicular to each other. But they intersect. I like this diagram because it doesn't force Indigenous knowledge systems into alignment with western knowledge systems. And the goal of Indigneous knowledge systems is not to expand the parameters of western knowledge systems. Even though they are going in different directions, they both exist, and the moment which they touch each other is generative. She also has another similar graph but in place of positivist is post-positivist. The angle is slightly different. She makes the claim that post-positivism is "less abrupt" but there is still not perfect alignment between traditonal knowledge/methodology and post-positivism. 

Both include elements of both traditional and western knowledge. She says that "they both work for Indigenous peoples, whether by forwarding anti-colonial and anti-oppressive agendas or incorporating Traditional knowledge systems within research methodologies." (p.97).

The article was written in 2012, but I think it remains relevant today. I'm not sure that since 2012, there has been any emergence of a methodology that eludes any contact with western methodology. I think that strategic Indigenous methodologies have firmly entrenched themselves within the Canadian landscape, and when I look at SSHRC's merit criteria for scholarships and fellowships awarded for Indigenous research, it aligns with some of the key elements of strategic Indigneous research https://www.sshrc-crsh.gc.ca/funding-financement/merit_review-evaluation_du_merite/guidelines_research-lignes_directrices_recherche-eng.aspx  I note for example, the requirement that "Community involvement and the co-creation of knowledge, as appropriate, are considered essential, especially in data interpretation. In this context, the co-creation of knowledge could include interpretative approaches that are jointly developed, reviewed and confirmed by and with community members or their community-delegated organization." This definitely reflects the participatory element of strategic Indigenous methodologies. 

I think that Ray's distinction between the two is useful, and I really appreciate the way that she has done a geneology. I also think that the fact that she flagged that there is a risk that if one uses only strategic Indigenous methodologies, there is a risk of one's perception of self being overtaken by the identity of oppression. Sometimes I have tried to initiate projects which begin with a strengths based approach grounded in a specific Indigenous concept, and then had requests to instead begin the work with a foundation which centers the experience of colonization, and it changes the work. Instead of an Indigenous concept standing on its own, it becomes subsumed within a larger story of colonialism. Instead of leading with Indigenous knowledge, it shifts the work to lead with a specific scholarly paradigm. At an intuitive level, I've felt the shift but been unable to articulate what shifted, and actually I've abandoned projects because that shift caused me to feel uninspired by my own work. Ray's article helped me see how that shift happens (from initial conception of a project to modifying a project to fit within strategic Indigenous methodologies) and I feel hopeful that with Ray's insights in mind, in the future I can navigate through that challenge and back towards a generative position. I've also found that it is difficult to simply assert Indigenous knowledge and proceed as an Indigenous person within the academy, as when one is inside of the academy, one always has to explain how any type of knowing links up with western knowledge. It's difficult to simply exist Indigenously inside of the academy, as one always has to explain their relationality to western knowledge inside of the academy. Ray's article affirms the that this is a difficult way to proceed within the academy, and I found it to be generally encouraging because it validates rather than glossing over that difficulty. 

Ray's article didn't specifically talk about the importance of sustaining communities of knowledge outside of academy, nonetheless it affirmed for me the idea that communities of knowledge outside of the academy are critical for sustaining Indigenous knowledges, as they are sites where Indigenous knowledge can just exist. I enjoy being in such spaces where Indigenous knowledge exists without having to justify itself in relation to non-Indigenous paradigms. Ray's article also affirmed for me the importance of strategic Indigenous methodologies within institutions, and strengthened my commitment to upholding the integrity of clear parameters for Indigenous methodologies. 

I located this article after Adam Murry referred to it in a lecture at SFU.

Readers please note - I am typing directly into the blogger website, and it doesn't have spellcheck. Typing directly into the blogger website is part of my creative process. Sometimes I start things in word and forget about them. If I type directly into the website, I just keep the tab open and it helps me manage my attention. I might come back some day, copy and paste this into word to catch typos, and then re-post. For now, though, I'm just going to post in spite of the fact that there may be typos.