Research Is Ceremony: Indigenous Research Methods
By Shawn Wilson
--- [Contents p. 5] ---
Contents
Acknowledgements ................................................................................5
Foreword and Conclusion
My Writing Style ............................................................................. 8 Sequencing of the Book................................................................. 9
1 Getting Started
Introduction
Purpose of the Book
Research Question
2 On the Research Journey
Beginning My Research Saga
Researcher Background—Introducing the Storyteller
Definition of Terms
How I Searched for an Answer to the Question
Overview of the Dominant Research Paradigms
Strategy of Inquiry
3 Can a Ceremony Include a Literature Review?
The Progression of an Indigenous Research Paradigm
A Chronology of Aboriginal Research
The Development of an Indigenous Paradigm
A Shift in Terminology, a Shift in Understanding
The Criterion for Indigenous Research
4 The Elements of an Indigenous Research Paradigm
On a Journey with My Friends
Introducing an Indigenous Research Paradigm
Elements of an Indigenous Research Paradigm
Indigenous Ontology and Epistemology
Indigenous Axiology and Methodology
--- [Contents p. 6] ---
5 Relationality
Building Relations at the Indigenous Scholars Conference
Relations with People
Relations with the Environment/Land
Relations with the Cosmos
Relations with Ideas
6 Relational Accountability
Ways of Applying an Indigenous Research Paradigm
Topic: How We Choose What to Study
Methods: How We Gather Information
Analysis: How We Interpret Information
Presentation: How We Transfer Knowledge
7 Articulating an Indigenous Research Paradigm
An Indigenous Research Paradigm in Action
Conclusions
References ...........................................................................................139
--- [p. 7] ---
Foreword and Conclusion
in logic, to follow the same patterns of communication and to have similar terms of reference. The reader must be able to comprehend the writer’s beliefs in order to see what the writer sees. When this is not happening, miscommunication is inevitable.
So in addition to explaining the aim of the book, this foreword explains a bit about how my logic works, the pattern my cultural style of communication follows, some of the terms of reference I use and my role in this process. As Terry Tafoya (1995) said, when speaking with people from another culture it often takes longer to explain the context, background or meaning of a story than it does to actually tell the story. On the other hand, when communicating with people who share the same culture, too much explanation or background detailing could be seen as disrespectful of the intelligence of the listener. Since I have no way of knowing if the reader is from the same culture as me, I hope I will be excused if I am being insensitive in this foreword. I come to you with a good heart.
This book describes one view of an Indigenous research paradigm, in the process answering the following questions:
- What are the shared aspects of the ontology, epistemology, axiology and methodology of research conducted by Indigenous scholars in Australia and Canada?
- How can these aspects of an Indigenous research paradigm be put into practice to support other Indigenous people in their own research?
I put forward in the book that: 1. the shared aspect of an Indigenous ontology and epistemology is relationality (relationships do not merely shape reality, they are reality). The shared aspect of an Indigenous axiology and methodology is accountability to relationships. 2. The shared aspects of relationality and relational accountability can be put into practice through choice of research topic, methods of data collection, form of analysis and presentation of information.
While this paradigm has developed from working with Indigenous scholars in Canada and Australia, it is by no means intended to be exclusive to these groups. Indigenous scholars from other countries and homelands (especially some phenomenal Native Hawaiians) have read this manuscript and taken part in discussions of our paradigms, as have many non-Indigenous academics, and have confirmed that their own worldviews are compatible. So I must apologize for leaving out any groups of peoples with my research questions. These were merely intended to provide some boundaries for the sake of my own research, not to limit the use of this paradigm. It is my hope that my continuing journey of learning in this area will allow me to incorporate the words of many more Indigenous scholars from around the world into this paradigm.
--- [p. 13] ---
1 Getting Started
million times. The story that I want to tell you now has to do with being a student and a researcher (maybe even a scientist) and how I am able to be these things while holding my head up high and holding true to the ideals and culture I was raised in. It may be that hearing my story about being an Indigenous researcher will make it easier for you to carry your beliefs into whatever field you choose to pursue when you grow up.
I am going to write about an Indigenous research paradigm: what it is, why it is important and what it means to me. It is through learning and living this paradigm that I assert my Indigeneity (if there is such a word) in the world of academics. Many people before me have written about the need for such a paradigm. I am not going to go over their arguments here—you can read them for yourself if you are interested. People such as Linda Smith, Lester Rigney and Fyre Jean Graveline have written about how Eurocentric research has helped in the colonization and oppression of our people. By standing on their shoulders for my justification, I want to go further and try to explain just how research can be different—can be Indigenous. It may be that by looking at the different aspects of an Indigenous research paradigm, we can both learn more about the bigger question of what it is to be Indigenous.
In order to tell this story, it may be necessary for me to use some pretty big and daunting words. I try hard not to use these words in everyday conversations, because I think that too many people use big language as a way of belittling others. However, some of the ideas I want you to understand require these words, as they are able to get across a lot of meaning. Our traditional language has words that contain huge amounts of information encoded like a ZIP file within them. The English language also has such words, so by helping to decode them for you, this story will be a lot more understandable. Perhaps a good place to begin is to explain to you just what a research paradigm is. A paradigm is a set of underlying beliefs that guide our actions. So a research paradigm is the beliefs that guide our actions as researchers. These beliefs include the way that we view reality (ontology), how we think about or know this reality (epistemology), our ethics and morals (axiology) and how we go about gaining more knowledge about reality (methodology). I am going to talk a lot more about the meaning of these words later.
An Indigenous research paradigm is made up of an Indigenous ontology, epistemology, axiology and methodology. These beliefs influence the tools we as researchers use in finding out more about the cosmos. Like myself, other Indigenous scholars have in the past tried to use the dominant research paradigms. We have tried to adapt dominant system research tools by including our perspective into their views. We have tried to include our cultures, traditional protocols and practices into the research process through adapting and adopting suitable methods. The problem with that is that we can never really remove the tools from their underlying beliefs. Since these beliefs are not always compatible with our own, we will always face problems in trying to adapt dominant system tools to our use. I hope that my articulating the aspects of an Indigenous research
--- [p. 17] ---
health. One consequence of such studies, even though their intentions may have been good, has been the proliferation of negative stereotypes about Indigenous communities.
Another, more subtle, problem with “outsiders” researching Indigenous peoples is that there is always a comparison made between the culture of the “studied” and that of the “studier.” The language, tone and focus of research reflects this comparison, with the inevitable consequence of rating of one over the other. As proponents of a holistic view of our worlds, Indigenous scholars may recognize the holistic approach to oppression that is evident in all of the ways that Indigenous peoples are held down by research and the dominant view of knowledge and the world is upheld. It is time for Indigenous peoples and Indigenous research to break free from the hegemony of the dominant system, into a place where we are deciding our own research agendas.
In her article about the paradox of Indigenous higher education, Heather Harris (2002) addresses the issue of hegemony with a Coyote story. Stories and metaphor are often used in Indigenous societies (not just in Canada and Australia but with other Indigenous peoples around the world) as a teaching tool. Stories allow listeners to draw their own conclusions and to gain life lessons from a more personal perspective. By getting away from abstractions and rules, stories allow us to see others’ life experiences through our own eyes. This information may then be internalized in a way that is difficult for abstract discussions to achieve. Harris’s story to me illustrates just how pervasive dominant system academics have been in guiding Indigenous research and the teaching of Indigenous knowledge:
Coyote was once again fed up with running around all day in the hot sun for a few scrawny gophers and rabbits. Dirt up his nose, dirt in his eyes, and what for? Barely a mouthful. Coyote had tried getting food at the supermarket one time like the Human People do but got the shit kicked out of him for that. So, once again, he went to his brother, Raven, to ask him for advice.
Coyote said, “Raven, there’s got to be an easier way to get fed. I tried the supermarket—got beaten up. Tried to get money from welfare but came up against the Devil’s Spawn in a K-Mart dress. Nothing’s worked so far. You got any other ideas?”
“Well,” Raven said thoughtfully, “the White Humans seem pretty well fed and they say that the key to success is a good education. Maybe you could go to school.”
“Hmmm,” Coyote mused, “maybe I’ll try it. Couldn’t hurt.”
Well, Coyote went off to the city to the university because that’s where Raven said adults go to school.
In a few days Coyote was back.
--- [p. 18] ---
“Well my brother,” Raven inquired, “did you get your education?”
“Not exactly,” Coyote replied, “education is as hard to get as a welfare cheque. To get an education like the teachers at the university takes at least 10 years—that’s a Coyote’s entire lifetime—and, in the end, you don’t get paid much anyways.”
“When I got to the university they asked me what program I was in. I didn’t know so they sent me to this guy who told me about the programs. I kinda liked the idea of biology—if I learned more about gophers maybe they’d be easier to catch. I liked the idea of engineering—maybe I could invent a great rabbit trap. But in the end I settled on Native Studies. Now that’s something I can understand—I’ve known these guys for thousands of years, even been one when it suited me.”
“So I went to my Introduction to Native Studies course and, can you believe it, the teacher was a white guy? Now how much sense does that make? I saw native people around town—any one of ’em has got to know more about native people than some white guy.”
“When I asked this guy what Indian told him the stuff he was saying, he said none—he read it in a book. Then I asked who the Indian was who wrote the book. And he said, it wasn’t an Indian, it was a white guy. Then I asked him what Indian the guy who wrote the book learned from and the teacher got mad and told me to sit down.”
The next day I went to my Indians of North America class. I was really looking forward to meeting all those Indians. And you know what? There was another white guy standing up there and not an Indian in sight. I asked the teacher, “Are we going to visit all the Indians?” He said, No. So I asked him, “How are we going to learn about Indians then?” And he said, just like the other guy, from a book written by a white guy. So I asked him if I could talk to this guy who wrote the book and the teacher said, “No, he’s dead.”
“By then, I was getting pretty confused about this education stuff but I went to my next class—Indian Religions. And guess what? When I went in, there wasn’t another white guy standing up at the front of the room—there was a white woman!”
“I sat down and I asked her, ‘Are we going to the sweatlodge?’ ‘No.’ ‘Sundance?’ ‘No.’ ‘Yuwipi?’ ‘No.’ ‘Then how are we going to learn—no wait, I know—from a book written by a dead white guy! I’m starting to get the hang of this education business.”
“So then I go to my Research Methods class thinking I’ve got it figured out. In this class the teacher (you’ve got it—another white guy) said that our research must be ethical, that we must follow the
--- [p. 19] ---
guidelines set out by the university for research on human subjects. The rules are there, my teacher said, to protect the Indians from unscrupulous researchers. Who made these rules I asked—you guessed it—a bunch of white guys. They decided we need protecting and that they were the ones to decide how best to protect us from them. So I told my teacher that I wanted to interview my father. The teacher said, you’ve got to ask the ethics review committee for permission. What?! I’ve got to ask a bunch of white guys for permission to talk to my own dad? That can’t be right. I was confused all over again.”
“So I sat down and thought about all this for a long time. Finally I figured it out. If white guys teach all the courses about Indians and they teach in the way white people think, then to find Indians teaching the way Indians think, all I had to do was give up Native Studies and join the White Studies program!” (pp. 194–196)
Purpose of the Book
The main focus of this book rests with the positive effects of maintaining, transmitting and clarifying an Indigenous way of doing and being in the research process—the basis of an Indigenous research paradigm.
The development of an Indigenous research paradigm is of great importance to Indigenous people because it allows the development of Indigenous theory and methods of practice. For example, in the field of Indigenous psychology, Indigenous people will be the ones to decide what is “normal” or “abnormal,” or if that distinction even needs to exist. A strong Indigenous research paradigm can provide ways to celebrate the uniqueness and glory of Indigenous cultures, while allowing for the critical examination of shortcomings. It will encourage a greater appreciation of Indigenous history and worldviews, thus allowing Indigenous peoples to look towards the future while neither demonizing nor romanticizing the past. This study is also important for non-Indigenous people, as it will assist in the understanding of Indigenous issues, cultures and values. Just like Coyote in his quest for knowledge, students should have the choice of studying “Native” issues that are researched and presented from an Indigenous paradigm.
There is a common recognition by workers in the fields of human services, education, health, criminology and psychology, to name a few, that Indigenous peoples, whether in Canada or Australia, present a different set of needs and necessitate a different way of doing business in the service industries (Coleman, 1998; Davidson, 1995; Novins et al., 1997; Reynolds-Turton, 1997; Ross, 1992). In an attempt to meet these different needs, investigations, royal commissions, specialized programs and staff cultural training have been advanced. A few examples of these initiatives help to justify the need for an Indigenous research paradigm.
--- [p. 21] ---
lead to research methods that are more fully integrated with an Indigenous worldview. The social sciences will be enriched as this understanding extends to the general community.
The theoretical framework underlying this study assumes that there are common aspects within the research paradigms of Indigenous peoples in Canada and Australia, and the research aims to determine what these common aspects are. Through searching out the similarities in the beliefs underlying the research of Indigenous scholars in Canada and Australia, it is hoped that a shared Indigenous research paradigm may be developed.
As stated in the foreword and conclusion, the study that this book is based upon aimed to answer the following questions:
a) What are the shared aspects of the ontology, epistemology, axiology and methodology of research conducted by Indigenous scholars in Australia and Canada; and b) How can these aspects of an Indigenous research paradigm be put into practice to support other Indigenous people in their own research?
It is important to remember that this book looks for similarities between aspects of a research paradigm for Indigenous peoples and will not compare Indigenous ideas, theories or beliefs with the dominant system. It is not possible for me to use an assimilated view (i.e., to try to conduct this research as a white researcher would) in order to try to understand successful Indigenous research. It is important for me to use an Indigenous viewpoint while conducting and writing up this research, in order that a legitimate and comprehensive understanding of an Indigenous research paradigm is reached.
The next chapter discusses how this research question developed, followed by a brief review of literature. Rather than attempt a comprehensive review of the multitude of research paradigms and methodologies that an Indigenous research paradigm might draw upon for support, the literature review focuses on the stages through which Indigenous research has progressed.
This chapter explored my personal reasons or motivation for conducting and writing up this research. Through the pre-existing relationship I share with my sons, I hope that you have formed a stronger relationship with me, the researcher and scribe. I also provided an academic rationale for the research, described its purpose and the research question that I intend to address. Thus armed with motivation, rationale and purpose for this study, I venture forth into my research saga.
--- [p. 33] ---
2 On the Research Journey
thinking because of the prevalence of a common Indigenous epistemology. My observations have led me to develop the topic of an Indigenous research paradigm.
In addition to knowing my motivations as a researcher, you should also be familiar with the terms that I use and before going any further, I will clarify these.
Definition of Terms
Research Paradigm
Research paradigms are labels that are used to identify sets of underlying beliefs or assumptions upon which research is based. These sets of beliefs go together to guide researchers’ actions. Any research represents the paradigm used by the researcher, whether the researcher is conscious of their choice of paradigm or not. Paradigms are thus broad principles that provide a framework for research. As paradigms deal with beliefs and assumptions about reality, they are based upon theory and are thus intrinsically value laden.
What is reality? How do we know what is real and what is not? How can we find out more and explore our reality? What moral beliefs will guide the search for reality? These questions are at the heart of what research paradigms are. The sets of beliefs that make up research paradigms are the interrelated concepts of ontology, epistemology, methodology and axiology.
Ontology
Ontology is the theory of the nature of existence, or the nature of reality. Is there one “real” world that each of us observes differently through our own senses, or do various worlds exist, depending upon the point of view of the observer? There is no way to come to a definite answer to this question, so people develop an ontological set of beliefs and take it on faith from there. Once a set of beliefs is established regarding just what is “real,” research then follows these beliefs in an attempt to discover more about this agreed upon reality. Ontology is thus asking, “What is real?”
Epistemology
Epistemology is the study of the nature of thinking or knowing. It involves the theory of how we come to have knowledge, or how we know that we know something. It includes entire systems of thinking or styles of cognitive functioning that are built upon specific ontologies. Epistemology is tied in to ontology, in that what I believe to be “real” is going to impact on the way that I think about that “reality.” Choices made about what is “real” will depend upon how your thinking works and how you know the world around you. Epistemology is thus asking, “How do I know what is real?”
--- [p. 34] ---
Methodology
Methodology refers to the theory of how knowledge is gained, or in other words the science of finding things out. Your view of what reality is, and how you know this reality, will impact on the ways that more knowledge can be gained about this reality. If the ontology is that there is one ultimate reality, then there should be one way of examining this reality (methodology) that will help to see it best (epistemology). If the ontology is that various realities exist, then you will choose ways of examining one of these realities (methodology) that will take into account your point of view as a researcher to come up with a better understanding (epistemology). Methodology is thus asking, “How do I find out more about this reality?”
Axiology
Axiology is the ethics or morals that guide the search for knowledge and judge which information is worthy of searching for. One’s view of ontology will be reflected in what knowledge is worth seeking in order to better understand reality. In addition to judging the worthiness of the pursuit of certain types of knowledge, axiology also concerns itself with the ethics of how that knowledge is gained. If knowledge itself is the ultimate end, then any means of obtaining that end may be justified. If reality is fluid and the objective of research is to change and improve this reality, then other ethical principles must be applied. Axiology is thus asking, “What part of this reality is worth finding out more about?” and “What is it ethical to do in order to gain this knowledge, and what will this knowledge be used for?”
Indigenous
Indigenous is used throughout this book to refer to the people and peoples who identify their ancestry with the original inhabitants of Australia, Canada and other countries worldwide. Indigenous is also used as an adjective to describe things that belong to these peoples (like Indigenous knowledges). While I recognize that Indigenous is a general term that does not truly represent the diversity of the Nations involved, as this book is looking at some of the things that we hold in common I have retained its use. The words “Aboriginal,” “Aborigine,” “Native,” “First Nations,” “Torres Strait Islander” or “Indian” are used in specific references, so I have retained these when they have been used by others. I try to use the specific nations of people, such as Cree or Bundjalung, where they have identified themselves that way. The term Indigenous has important implications politically, as in the face of colonization we assert our collective rights as self-determining peoples at an international level. In addition to the term Indigenous, much thought needs to go into the term used for describing things that are not Indigenous.
--- [p. 39] ---
an Indigenous paradigm to conduct my research, when it is the roots of this Indigenous research paradigm that I hope to uncover? Western linear logic might consider this hurdle insurmountable, but Indigenous ways of thinking insist on a more circular approach to the problem. The ideas presented came out of the research that was conducted and formed the methods used to gain the ideas. In the last chapter of the book, I discuss how this information was obtained, analyzed and shaped in my research, as an example of an Indigenous research paradigm in action.
Strategy of Inquiry
Before continuing to use the idea of an Indigenous methodology it is necessary to discuss the differences between methodology, strategies of inquiry and methods. As discussed earlier, the methodology is a part of the paradigm that guides the research and is based on the assumptions of the ontology and epistemology. The methodology can be seen as providing the final destination in the research journey. Strategies of inquiry build upon a methodology to fill in how you will arrive at the research destination. A strategy is like a roadmap that helps you to get to where you want to go. By including a strategy step in your research, it becomes possible to change methods as best suits the situation. Methods are the particular tools or techniques that you use to actually gather data. To continue the research journey analogy, methods are the means of transportation. These methods are only means to an end (your methodology). Thus, as long as the methods fit the ontology, epistemology and axiology of the Indigenous paradigm, they can be borrowed from other suitable research paradigms.
Some methods and strategies have inherent in them more relationship building and relational accountability than others and therefore may be more attractive in an Indigenous paradigm. Talking circles (discussed a bit later) and action research (Carson and Sumara, 1997) are good examples, but again they are only tools. Without following the Indigenous axiology of relational accountability, they can still be used in hurtful ways.
Many methods are built specifically for a particular paradigm. Some Indigenous scholars may attempt to “decolonise” methodologies and turn them into something that can be useful in Indigenous research. This is an attempt to insert an Indigenous perspective into one of the major paradigms. It is my belief that this will not be very effective, as it is hard to remove the underlying epistemology and ontology upon which the paradigms are built. On the other hand, if one starts from an Indigenous paradigm, then one can choose to use any tool from within that paradigm that may be effective.
Denzin and Lincoln (1994) describe qualitative research as “multimethod in focus, involving an interpretive, naturalistic approach to its subject mat-
--- [p. 40] ---
ter.” As this Indigenous research project utilized qualitative methods and as qualitative research by its definition has no single focus, it may be appropriate to change the traditional positivistic language of “research methods” to look more at “strategies of inquiry.” The choice of strategies that I used in this study depended upon the questions that I wanted to ask, upon the context of the study, upon the resources available to me and finally upon what I could do in the setting where the study took place.
By using the term “strategies of inquiry,” I am implying that one specific research method would not fit the subject being studied. Instead of writing down one (or several) chosen methods and planning to stick to them, I developed a general strategy of where I wanted to go. This strategy needed to allow for change and adaptation along the way. By having an end goal I would like to achieve and perhaps a process or way by which I would like to get there, I hoped to remain open to any change that the situation required. In addition to the process changing in order to achieve the end goal, the end goal also changed to meet the emerging process.
I used a combination of methods, including participant observation, interviews with individual participants and focus group discussions, in this research. As other authors (for example, Bloor, 2001; Kvale, 1996; Spradley, 1979, 1980) have described the techniques used in these data gathering tools better than I ever could, I will give but a brief overview here.
Traditional Indigenous research emphasizes learning by watching and doing. Participant observation is a term used for this watching and doing in a scientific manner. The aim of this strategy is to gain a closeness or familiarity with a group, through taking part in their day-to-day activities over a long period of time. While engaging with the group, the researcher is simultaneously observing their behaviour and analyzing why they are doing things in their way. Being a participant observer allowed me to take a more action-oriented approach to the research (Heller, Price, Reinharz, Riger and Wandersman, 1984) and put emphasis on the face-to-face relationships and sharing of daily living experiences (Gans, 1982). The relationship building that this sharing and participating entailed is an important aspect of ethical Indigenous research.
I have a natural advantage in that participant observation in Indigenous communities has taken place all my life. In that sense this research is emic. Also, because I am working within communities that I am already a part of, rapport has already been built and trust established. Relational accountability requires me to form reciprocal and respectful relationships within the communities where I am conducting research. The methodology is in contrast with observational techniques that attempt to be unobtrusive and not influence the environment studied.
Conducting individual interviews was a second method used in the re-
--- [p. 41] ---
search. Dominant system researchers have stated that interviews should be open-ended and dialog based (Spradley, 1979) in order to allow for a mutual sharing of information (Mishler, 1989). Interviews are focused discussions that allow the researcher to gather information directly from the point of view expressed by the research subject. To re-state this method into Indigenous terms, I talked with other Indigenous people about the subject of my study. In addition to helping me to learn more about Indigenous research, talking with the participants helped me to build relationships with many of these people, who I now consider friends.
Focus group discussions are another commonly used research method. My research strategy included using talking circles as a form of focus group discussion with the other research participants. A talking circle involves people sitting in a circle, where each person has the opportunity to take an uninterrupted turn in discussing the topic. Talking circles, while not a new idea for Indigenous people, are newly being accepted as a research technique (Hanohano, 2001; Martin, 2001). They are based upon the ideal of respect for participants in the circle (Archibald and Haig-Brown, 1996), where everyone has an equal chance to speak and be heard. Discussion typically follows a controlled format where each participant has an opportunity to talk in turn about the topic brought to the circle. Wilson and Wilson (2000) describe the talking circle as follows:
Typically, group members sit in a circle that represents the holism of Mother Earth and the equality of all members. In some circles an eagle feather or other sacred object is passed around, following the direction of the sun. In other groups a stone is passed from speaker to speaker, symbolizing the connection among group members and to the guiding spirit. The holder of the object speaks “from the heart” and the group listens silently and non-judgementally until the speaker has finished. Each member is given a chance to speak. A common rule of circle work is that members must not speak out of turn. In most instances, a complete talking circle comprises four rounds, although time restraints, rules and norms vary with each group. Most important is that group members feel ownership of these rules. (p. 11)
Focus group discussions were also held through seminar style conversations regarding Indigenous research methodologies.
In Indigenous research the topic being studied becomes a major key to the process that will be used. It is important to remember that I was looking for the meaning of why and how Indigenous people relate to things (research), rather than looking for a causal relationship between things. Research must use relational accountability, that is, must be connected to or a part of a com-
--- [p. 42] ---
munity (set of relationships), if it is to be counted as Indigenous (Cardinal, 2001; Steinhauer, 2001a, 2001b; Weber-Pillwax, 2001; J. Wilson, 2000). In order to build a healthy set of relationships, it is necessary to follow the proper protocol for working in the community (Pickett, Dudgeon and Garvey, 2000; Smith, 1999; Tafoya, 1995). As a preliminary stage to the research, I discussed the Australian Indigenous protocol with John Williams-Mozley, who is a Western Arrernte man of the Ntjalka clan. I used the knowledge of my own culture to ensure that protocol was followed with the Canadian Indigenous participants.
As stated above, I will return later to the specifics of how this strategy of inquiry was implemented. The form of writing in this book differs from the dominant style in that it does not follow a linear process (i.e., describe what I wanted to do, describe how I did it, then describe what I found out) but rather a more cyclical pattern that introduces ideas or themes, then returns to them at intervals with different levels of understanding. I will use my specific research methods and strategy as one example of an Indigenous research paradigm in action later in the book, but it is necessary first to explain and understand the paradigm that the methods attempted to follow.
As part of the protocol that I intend to follow, it is necessary that I explain a bit more about the boundaries I have placed upon myself and upon this research. I have consciously and explicitly decided not to critique other research paradigms and strategies or to justify my own paradigm through citing dominant paradigms. My only goal is to explain an Indigenous research paradigm and the relationships surrounding it. Critiquing other research paradigms or justifying my own through citing others would constitute a recognition of their jurisdiction over Indigenous research. It would be giving away the power of an Indigenous research paradigm to say that it needs to be justified by a dominant paradigm. Similarly, critiquing dominant paradigms as a way to promote the need for an Indigenous paradigm is eroding the underlying beliefs upon which the paradigm is established. I do not appreciate being told which paradigms and tools I can or cannot use in my research, so I cannot decide for other researchers whether the paradigms they have chosen will or will not work for them in their unique situations.
--- [p. 61] ---
3 Can a Ceremony Include a Literature Review?
preparation that happens long before the event. It is, in Atkinson’s (2002b) translation, dadirri, the many ways and forms and levels of listening. It is, in Martin’s (2003) terminology, Ways of Knowing, Ways of Being and Ways of Doing. It is the knowing and respectful reinforcement that all things are related and connected. It is the voice from our ancestors that tell us when it is right and when it is not. Indigenous research is a life changing ceremony.
--- [p. 62] ---
4 The Elements of an Indigenous Research Paradigm
By now you should have build a fairly solid relationship both with me (through the writings to Julius, Max and Falco) and with the socio-research timeline that has led Indigenous research to the place where it is today. It was my intention in the preceding chapters to develop the context from which to view what comes next. With these relationships in place, it is possible to go on to directly discuss an Indigenous research paradigm.
It is no longer necessary for me to continue writing directly to my children. That tool allowed you to develop a good understanding of me and my place in the research. I face a problem if I discontinue that style, though, in that I wish to retain much of the personal information, stories and insights that are reflected in the letters to my sons. So I shall retain that style for now, but address you directly so that I can continue to share these more personal bits of writing.
On a Journey with My Friends
I have been writing about the importance of relationships and how they are the key to an Indigenous research paradigm, but what I have failed to do is to build a stronger connection between you, the reader, and the other people who have been involved in my research process. I need to apologize for this lack of introductions. If I were following the proper Indigenous protocols, I would have done this already. I guess that in switching back and forth between worlds (Indigenous and dominant) I sometimes forget where I am.
I need a way to deepen your understanding of this web of relationships that we as co-researchers share; I need to help you to come into this web yourself. It is impossible for me to just take you around and introduce you in person to all of the others. This would probably be the best way to accomplish
--- [p. 63] ---
what I want to do, and is what I will do with my children as they grow older, but I don’t think it will work for the others who are reading this. I can’t really expect everyone who reads this book to travel around the world to meet with everyone. (Though if you’re willing to pay for the trip, let me know. It could be lots of fun...)
So, how will I go about building this set of relationships? The only things that I can think of that I have to work with at the moment are the relationship I have with my children, and have shared with you, and my relationships with the others. Perhaps if I share how I developed my relationships with the other researchers, you can use your understanding of me to help you to make the connection. So even though you may not meet the others directly, I will try to act as intermediary so that you can see them through my eyes (and through our relationships). They are obviously more than mere research participants; they are my friends and co-researchers.
As I write about later in this chapter, the ethics involved in an Indigenous research paradigm sometimes differ from the dominant academic way of doing things. I would like to use the real names of everyone I worked with on this research, so that you will know exactly whom I am writing about. This goes against the rules of most university ethical research policies. However, how can I be held accountable to the relationships I have with these people if I don’t name them? How can they be held accountable to their own teachers if their words and relationships are deprived of names? What I will do is write using the real names of everyone who has given me explicit permission to do so. I will use pseudonyms for anyone who I couldn’t get in touch with to talk about it or who had any misgivings about the use of their name.
Let’s see, how do I do this? Maybe I’ll tell you little stories that can serve as metaphors of how I see and know each person.
Jane
Jane Martin is Ojibwa and, though she now lives in Edmonton, her home community is in Ontario. As with the other students in the First Nations Education program at the University of Alberta, I met Jane through Mom and Dad when they directed the program. An integral part of what they accomplished had to do with bringing the students together to work as a cohort group. Jane, along with Peter and several of the other students and their families, came to stay at our family home at Opaskwayak one summer for a retreat. They were all there to get to know one another and to build the relationships that would help them to help each other through the years to come. Helen (my wife) and I were working with a group of youth mentors at the time and volunteered to run Jane and the others through an obstacle course that we had built. In order to be successful, everyone had to work together and be able to see creative solutions to the obstacles we put in their way.
It was great fun. We had a terrific afternoon, and I remember everyone laughing and enjoying each other’s company. We came away with a wonderful
--- [p. 64] ---
spirit of camaraderie. We eagerly faced (and overcame) each obstacle in the course that afternoon with real gusto. Whether it was being guided blindfolded and barefoot through a minefield of mousetraps or retrieving the anti-venom from a swamp filled with mutant alligators, as long as we were all together, it felt like there was no obstacle we couldn’t take on.
So that is kind of how I see Jane. I know that she will be there as part of the team whenever there is an obstacle in our way. And I know that we will have fun, that there will be plenty of laughter, but that we will do whatever needs to be done so that the whole team can benefit.
Peter
Peter Hanohano is a Native Hawaiian. As such, he is not really an Indigenous Australian or Canadian but is an Indigenous person who was living in Canada. I still view him as Indigenous, just as I view myself as Indigenous when I am in Australia. Peter and his family were also there and part of the team at the retreat at Opaskwayak. Peter also came to stay at the cabin at the lake while he was finishing off writing his dissertation. Julius went for rides with Moosoom and him in the canoe while he worked out his ideas. I think I’ll talk about his whole family though, because they are such a close and loving group that it seems a shame to separate Peter from the rest of them. They are able to truly demonstrate through their lives the essence of relationality—honouring and treating with respect those we are in relationship with.
I remember Helen, Julius and I arriving in Hawaii around 11 o’clock one night, half-way home on a trip from Australia to Canada, and being picked up at the airport by Peter and Lynn. We got back to their house bleary-eyed and jetlagged, and all fell into comas. After breakfast one of their daughters and a cousin guided us around on a sightseeing tour of the north shore. Julius was such a tiny little guy then that his swimsuit fell off every time a wave hit when we took him in swimming. When we got back to their home, everyone was there to greet us and share dinner. We stayed up and gabbed till everyone was ready for bed. In addition to Peter, Lynn, the five children and grandma, a couple of extra cousins were crashed out around the place. The girls had given up their room for us, so all the kids were camping out in the living room. I said to Helen that it was just like being back on the reserve, with the whole extended family over at Chapan’s house.
Even with everyone in the house, there was a constant supply of food on the table for whoever was hungry. I’ve never seen that many kids get along so well together, and to just hang out and have fun without the usual family bickering and squabbles. I don’t think it’s that they were on their best behaviour because we were there either. They are just such a loving and caring family that their way of looking out for each other is a constant part of their lives. Anyway, that’s how I see Peter, as a part of this great family who are ready to take in a few strays at any time.
--- [p. 65] ---
Cora
It’s a bit harder for me to describe the relationship that I share with Cora Webber-Pillwax. Of the students in the First Nations Education program who helped with this research, I probably know the least about her personal life. This isn’t because she is secretive, but I think it says more about her humility. She just doesn’t talk about herself much. She is a powerful and deep thinker, but perhaps more importantly she lives her beliefs and carries her philosophy into her everyday life.
Cora maintains very strong connections to her home community in Calling Lake and would do anything at anytime if the community needed it. She shares this commitment also to the Metis community in general throughout Alberta. I think that for her, relational accountability extends first to her home community, and that this accountability mediates her relations with academia and other Indigenous scholars. So even though I know this about Cora, it is hard to think of a story to describe her to you. I present later in the chapter one of the stories she shared with us at a research seminar and I analyze the life out of it there. Maybe that’s all I need to share about Cora, and you can read the story of her reaction to the anthropologist’s description of her grandfather to get a clearer picture of her.
Lewis
Again I am having a hard time thinking of a story that can sum up what I know about Lewis Cardinal. This idea of using a story or single event as a metaphor for each of the co-researchers does not seem like such a great plan as I progress. I know and have worked with Lewis’s father Don as an Elder in the counselling program at Brandon University. Knowing his father I think gives me a greater understanding of Lewis. The Cardinals are great orators, and the family is known throughout Canada for their political activism. They are Cree from Sucker Lake in Alberta.
Let’s see... Lewis came into his job as director of Native Student Services at the University of Alberta in 2000. The previous director had been heavily criticized for his autocratic management style, and the office was really dysfunctional by the time he left. When Lewis took over, he made a commitment to himself and to everyone working in the office to implement a “circular” management style.
He began by starting the practice of holding regular talking circles with everyone. All of the people who worked there—secretaries, student advisors, counsellors, receptionists and administrators—were given equal say in how the office was run. In addition to the practical or physical running of the office, the talking circles allowed staff the opportunity to work through some of the issues that had been festering among them. It wasn’t long before you could feel the difference in the atmosphere upon walking into Native Student Services. It became a much healthier environment. Staff members are also encouraged to work on their own holistic health through workshops on nutrition and scheduled exercise sessions.
--- [p. 66] ---
Lewis is able to make connections to the big picture and the political aspects of all that we do, including our research. That he was able to implement an Indigenous epistemology into the running of an office on a university campus speaks to his commitment to working from an Indigenous worldview. He excels in being able to explain this worldview to non-Indigenous people in such a way that they are able to understand its importance.
Karen
In order to tell you about Karen Martin, I’m going to relate something that stands out in my mind from the Indigenous scholars conference. Aha, now I can return to the story as metaphor style! Karen, who is a Noonuccle woman from the Quandamooka people of southeast Queensland, is an Indigenous scholar from Australia. She presented her ideas on how Indigenous research has progressed and her thoughts on how it should reflect Indigenous ways of doing, being and knowing. As a way of starting her presentation, she first showed us where she was from on a map (one she said that she ripped out of a magazine on her flight over to Canada). The map was the “western” way for her to explain where she was from and to give us a way of orienting her spatially.
The next thing she did was to show us a painting she had done of her homeland. This was her Indigenous way of showing us where she was from. The painting was of the same physical location as the map, but the similarities ended there. What the painting showed us was the relationships she held with the land and the relationships she had observed others sharing with the land. It was what I would call an Aboriginal “dot” painting. But I now realized what these dots were. Sure they are an interesting visual form, but as important from this new perspective was the fact that the dots and lines on the painting represented relationships between things. Physical forms could be made out, and I suppose seeing the western style of map that I am trained to recognize helped me to make the connection there. I was also able to understand a lot more about Karen from seeing how she viewed her relations with the land. The painting allowed me to see into her way of thinking about the land. It allowed me to form a much closer or more deeply rooted understanding of her. She had shown me a way to build relationship with her in a way that I might not have done otherwise.
What she had also done was to demonstrate to me how research—which is all about building closer relationships with things/ideas—could be done from an Indigenous research paradigm. She was acknowledging, and thus being respectful of, the relationships that she shared with the land. Karen also shared her knowledge of these relationships with us in a way that allowed us deeper insight, which was her way of giving back some of what she has gained through her relations. That she took the time to share with us in the way that she did was also the responsible way of doing this. She took on the responsibility of sharing the relationship with us in several ways, so that we could understand it better.
--- [p. 67] ---
Gregory
It was a typical spring day in Brisbane. The sky was clear and it was nice and warm without being too hot. As we gathered on the lawn in front of the medical sciences building, there was a feeling of tranquility that was almost but not quite disturbed by the sounds of traffic from the nearby street. We had started gathering well ahead of the appointed time, and Gregory Phillips was everywhere—making introductions, chatting with friends, helping the “Aunties” set the food. People wandered in and chose places to sit, under the trees in the shade or leaning against a log and basking in the sun. The Aunties had brought damper and muffins and had set a fire for billy tea and coffee. Gregory made sure that everyone had something to eat and drink.
As the afternoon progressed, we formed ourselves into a circle. This gathering was taking place so that Gregory could present his research findings. Representatives from several Aboriginal communities came to the presentation in order to show their support of his work. The Elder who was traditional guardian of the land we were on started the formal part of the presentation with a prayer welcoming us onto her land. We then went around the circle for introductions: there were university and thesis committee people, other students and members of both the local Indigenous community and other communities from around the state. After Gregory talked about what he had done, the community members thanked him formally for his work.
Gregory, who is an Indigenous man from Mount Isa, did a wonderful job of bringing everyone together that day. Everyone had an opportunity to share, to ask questions and to feel included in the process of presenting his research. I felt honoured to have shared in this process and to have witnessed Gregory following the protocol so that his work could be given in a respectful way back to the community.
Wombat (obviously a pseudonym)
Here is a story I can relate to you about Wombat. Jean Graveline, Wombat and I held a teleconference one day, talking about the programs we work in at our universities. As we all work as counsellors and healers, the discussion turned to the intergenerational impact of trauma, including all of the negative shit that accumulates in our communities as a result of centuries of colonization. As she talked, Wombat’s voice became harsher, and she started to cough more and more. I realized that I had not properly set the stage for discussing the topics that were brought up. I quickly lit a smudge and cleared out the energy of the room with its smoke. As Wombat smudged, her voice slowly returned to normal, and she was able to go on with the conversation. Her issues are her own story to share, but the point is that by not properly preparing the environment, further discussion of these negative issues became more and more difficult.
This little story for me exemplifies how I see Wombat. She is a very sensitive person, who is deeply committed to the Indigenous communities where she works. That she would put herself at risk in order to bring these topics out into
--- [p. 68] ---
the open is indicative of her character. She identifies herself as having come from “the three I’s: Indigenous, invader and immigrant.” Her Indigenous ancestry comes from the Bundjalung people of northeast New South Wales. The second self-identified I comes from the convicts and initial wave of settlers, of mixed English and Celtic descent, who invaded Australia. Finally, she is also of immigrant German ancestry. She has shared with me how much of a struggle it has been for her to come to terms with / among these various aspects of her identity. I have learned a lot from her about the need to listen with deep respect in order to build strong relationships.
She says that her family named her Wombat. Wombats are known for their determination; when faced with an obstacle, they just put their heads down and keep on pushing until they get through. And though Wombat certainly shows this determination and deep sense of commitment in her work, she is also a whirlwind of energy when she gets going. Her energy is enough to carry along those of us who sometimes become complacent or have lost the energy to fight. I guess that I would nickname her a “Cyclone Wombat.”
Stan
It gets a bit trickier telling you about Stan. He is my father, an educator, a researcher and my friend. The reason that I am including him in this section is that he acted like the consulting Elder on this project. So not only has he read what I have written and discussed the research project with me, it is to him that I feel most accountable. As my father, he has obviously been the most influential person in teaching me about being Indigenous. I feel nourished by his guidance and also feel a sense of obligation to get things right. After all, I am a reflection of his teachings and want this reflection to be as true as possible. I have already told you a lot about Stan earlier in the book.
There are a lot of other people who have helped me and who I have learned from in this process, including Trish Fox and John Williams-Mozley, who were at the school of human services at QUT during my time there and helped me to get through the hoops that the system set in my way; Victor Hart and Penny Tripcony at the Oodgeroo unit of QUT, who gave me a lot of new ideas to think about and helped to firm up my ideas for my research; the rest of the First Nations education students at the University of Alberta, who have always been so open and welcoming to me whenever we talk; Jean, Brenda and Dawn in the First Nations and Aboriginal Counselling degree program at Brandon University, who put up with me and showed me a lot of this stuff about relationality in action through the way that we work together; the faculty at the College of Indigenous Australian Peoples at Southern Cross University, who have let me into their community of friends; and of course the rest of my family who have shared with me real insight in my “participant observation.”
Now that you know some of my co-researchers, perhaps the words and ideas that they have shared with me will take on fuller meaning.
--- [p. 69] ---
Introducing an Indigenous Research Paradigm
As I get down to the heart of what an Indigenous research paradigm is all about, once again I am filled with doubt about how to proceed. This is due to the fact that much of this knowledge came to me in an intuitive fashion. In talking about these ideas with the others who were helping me to form them, I often found that just mentioning a word or phrase would trigger the release of a whole load of information and ideas—within both me and the people I was talking with. All of us were research participants, rather than me being the researcher and them my subjects. We all learned and grew as a result of exploring our relationship with this topic. As I review my notes and transcripts, they seem incomplete without the final coming together that was required deep within our beings. I talk about this style of analyzing ideas in the next chapter.
Writing on a personal level, rather than in the abstract to an anonymous reader, has helped in some way to get these ideas out while retaining some of their context, but they still feel hollow or that a great deal of their context is missing. One problem is that the elements of an Indigenous research paradigm are interrelated or interdependent; it is difficult to separate one to write about. Again reviewing my notes, I find that there is no distinction between where one element ends and the next begins.
My friend Peter related to me having the same problem in presenting his thesis. When talking with his Elders, often he would find that they would say things or describe events that would take him to a different place. In his thesis, he was not sure whether to talk about what the Elders were saying or about the place where they took him. If I tell you about what we were talking about when I was doing this research, will you make the same intuitive leaps that I did? I cannot be sure of this. On the other hand, if I just tell you where I ended up with my ideas, will you be confused about how I got there? There is no real way for me to tell whether you are ready to receive this information.
Something that has become apparent to me is that for Indigenous people, research is a ceremony. In our cultures an integral part of any ceremony is setting the stage properly. When ceremonies take place, everyone who is participating needs to be ready to step beyond the everyday and to accept a raised state of consciousness. You could say that the specific rituals that make up the ceremony are designed to get the participants into a state of mind that will allow for the extraordinary to take place. As one Elder explained it to me: if it is possible to get every single person in a room thinking about the exact same thing for only two seconds, then a miracle will happen. It is fitting that we view research in the same way—as a means of raising our consciousness. But how can I reflect this ceremony in my writing? How can I get you to the same space that allowed me to understand these concepts, and how can I know when you are there? In short, how can I know when or if we are both thinking about the same thing at the same point in this process?
One thing that bothers me is when ceremonies and symbols become dogmatic. One symbol in our culture that has amassed a great deal of this dogma is