Advertisement

Transforming Indigenous research: Collaborative responses to historical research tensions

  • Peter J. MatairaEmail author
Original Paper
First Online:

Abstract

Ongoing colonial power has long been ascribed to government bureaucracy and institutions of higher learning. By consequence, Indigenous communities today are still experiencing challenges regarding the function, foundation and fabric of research that impacts Indigenous peoples, including in the arena of social work education. Writing as an Indigenous scholar and Director of a Master of Social Work programme at a university in the Pacific region, the author’s goal in this article is twofold. On the one hand, he aims to contribute to critical self-reflection of Western research methodologies, while on the other hand offering a reconceptualisation of research tools and techniques that empower the researched and create reciprocal learning opportunities. Through discussion of Indigenous and allied or “co-conspirator” partnerships, and drawing on the example of a model called strengths-enhancing evaluation research (SEER), the author outlines observations regarding the tensions between Indigenous and non-Indigenous researchers and processes. He challenges the established norms of social science research, and offers theoretical and practical examples and questions – including the notion of the researcher as a guest –, that demonstrate how higher education institutions and Indigenous and non-Indigenous collaborations can provide critical responses to historical tensions regarding research and Indigenous peoples. The conduct and behaviour of researchers can have long-lasting, unintended consequences on communities at multiple levels of well-being. The author argues that both Indigenous and non-Indigenous researchers must collaboratively work with communities for change.

Keywords

social work education strengths-enhancing evaluation research (SEER) guesthood ethics decolonisation Indigenisation community engagement 

Résumé

Transformer la recherche autochtone : réponses concertées aux tensions historiques dans la recherche – La persistance du pouvoir colonial est depuis longtemps imputée à la bureaucratie gouvernementale et aux institutions d’enseignement supérieur. En conséquence, les communautés autochtones rencontrent aujourd’hui encore des défis relatifs à la fonction, au fondement et à la structure du travail de recherche, qui ont des répercussions sur les populations indigènes, y compris dans le domaine de la formation en travail social. Universitaire autochtone et directeur d’un programme de mastère en intervention sociale dans une université de la région Pacifique, l’auteur poursuit dans cet article un double objectif. Il entend d’une part contribuer à une auto-réflexion critique sur les méthodologies scientifiques occidentales; il propose d’autre part une reconceptualisation des instruments et techniques de recherche en vue d’autonomiser les sujets de l’étude et de créer des opportunités réciproques d’apprentissage. À partir du débat sur les autochtones et leurs partenariats alliés ou « co-conspirateurs », et prenant en exemple le modèle dit de Recherche évaluative de renforcement des atouts (strengths-enhancing evaluation research, SEER), l’auteur fait part de ses observations relatives aux tensions existant entre chercheurs et démarches autochtones et non-autochtones. Il remet en question les normes établies dans la recherche en sciences sociales et propose des exemples et questions tant théoriques que pratiques, dont la notion du chercheur considéré comme invité. Cette réflexion démontre que les institutions d’enseignement supérieur ainsi que les coopérations autochtones et non-autochtones peuvent fournir des réponses critiques aux tensions historiques quant à la recherche sur les peuples indigènes. La conduite et le comportement des chercheurs peuvent avoir des conséquences durables et involontaires sur les communautés, dans de nombreux aspects du bien-être. L’auteur préconise que chercheurs autochtones et non-autochtones travaillent en concertation et avec les communautés afin d’induire un changement.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

References

  1. Battiste, M. (Ed.). (2000). Reclaiming indigenous voices and visions. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia Press.Google Scholar
  2. Chilisa, B. (2012). Indigenous research methodologies. Washington, DC: Sage.Google Scholar
  3. Chomsky, N. (2012). The science of language: Interviews with James McGilvray. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chun, M. N. (2006). Welina: Traditional and contemporary ways of welcome and hospitality. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i.Google Scholar
  5. Clarke, A. E. (2005). Situational analysis: Grounded theory after the postmodern turn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Corrigan, P., & Leonard, P. (1978). Social work practice under capitalism: A Marxist approach. Basingstoke: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dei, G. J. S., Rosenberg, D. G., & Hall, B. L. (Eds.). (2000). Indigenous knowledges in global contexts: Multiple readings of our worlds. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  8. Denzin, N. K., Lincoln, Y. S., & Smith, L. T. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of critical Indigenous methodologies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  9. Durie, M. H. (2003). The health of Indigenous peoples: Depends on genetics, politics, and socioeconomic factors. British Medical Journal, 326(7388), 510–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ferguson, K. (2005). Beyond indigenization and reconceptualization: Towards a global, multi-directional model of technology transfer. International Social Work, 48(5), 519–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Findlay, L. M. (2000). Foreword. In M. Battiste (Ed.), Reclaiming Indigenous voices and visions. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia Press.Google Scholar
  12. Fook, J. (1993). Radical casework: A theory of practice. Crows Nest, NSW: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  13. Hart, M. A. (2002). Seeking mino-pimatisiwin: An Aboriginal approach to helping. Black Point, NS: Fernwood Publishing.Google Scholar
  14. Harvey, G. (2003). Guesthood as ethical decolonising research method. International Review for the History of Religions, 50(2), 125–146.Google Scholar
  15. Kahakalau, K. (2004). Indigenous heuristic action research: Bridging Western and Indigenous research methodologies. Hulili: Multidisciplinary Research on Hawaiian Well-Being, 1(1), 19–33.Google Scholar
  16. Khawaja, I. (2017). You’ve got mail: Teaching Osama bin Laden’s letter to the Americans. Reason Papers, 39(2), 10–117.Google Scholar
  17. Kovach, M. (2010). Conversational method in Indigenous research. First Peoples Child & Family Review, 5(1), 40–48.Google Scholar
  18. Laenui, P. (2002). Processes of decolonization. In M. Battiste (Ed.), Reclaiming Indigenous voices and visions. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia Press.Google Scholar
  19. McGregor, D. (2004). Traditional ecological knowledge and sustainable development: Towards coexistence. In M. Blaser, H. A. Feit, & G. McRae (Eds.), In the way of development: Indigenous peoples, life projects and globalization (pp. 72–91). London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  20. McGregor, D. P., Morelli, P. T., Matsuoka, J. K., Rodenhurst, R., Kong, N., & Spencer, M. S. (2003). An ecological model of Native Hawaiian well-being. Pacific Health Dialogue, 10(2), 106–128.Google Scholar
  21. Mataira, P., & Morelli, P. (2010). A handbook for strengths-enhancing research (SEER): A tool for ‘aina-based program evaluation—Paths to relevant, effective program development. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii/Consuela Foundation.Google Scholar
  22. Mathar, T. (2008). Making a mess with situational analysis? Review Essay: Adele Clarke (2005). Situational analysis—grounded theory after the postmodern turn. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 9(2), 4.Google Scholar
  23. MBTSSW (Myron B. Thompson School of Social Work). (2010a). Strengths enhancing evaluation research: Paths to relevant, effective program evaluation [video]. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i and Consuelo Foundation. Retrieved 28 July 2018 from https://youtu.be/GEubejt8oUg.
  24. MBTSSW (Myron B. Thompson School of Social Work). (2010b). Strengths enhancing evaluation research: Paths to relevant, effective program evaluation [video]. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i and Consuelo Foundation. Retrieved 28 January 2019 from https://youtu.be/zB9i4juiuL4.
  25. Mead, M. (1928). Coming of age in Samoa: A psychological study of primitive youth for Western civilsation. Foreword by Franz Boas. New York: William Morrow.Google Scholar
  26. Meyer, M. A. (2013). Holographic epistemology: Native common sense. China Media Research, 9(2), 94–101.Google Scholar
  27. Midgley, J. (1983). Professional imperialism: Social work in the Third World. London: Heinemann Educational Books.Google Scholar
  28. Mihesuah, D. A. (2004). Academic gatekeepers. In D. A. Mihesuah & A. C. Wilson (Eds.), Indigenizing the academy: Transforming scholarship and empowering communities (pp. 31–47). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
  29. Miller, W. R., & Rollnick, S. (2002). Motivational interviewing: Preparing people for change. New York: Guildford Press.Google Scholar
  30. Morelli, P. T., & Mataira, P. J. (2015). Indigenizing evaluation research: A long-awaited paradigm shift. Journal of Indigenous Voices in Social Work, 1(2), 1–12.Google Scholar
  31. Morelli, P. T., Mataira, P. J., & Kalukului, M. (2013). Indigenizing the curriculum. The decolonization of social work education in Hawai’i. In M. Gray, J. Coates, M. Yellow Bird, & T. Hetherington (Eds.), Decolonizing social work (pp. 207–222). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  32. Morrow, R. A. (1994). Foundations of meta-theory: Between subjectivism and objectivism, critical theory and methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  33. OED (Oxford English Dictionaries). (n.d.). Definition of lifeway in English. In Oxford English dictionary. Retrieved 16 January 2019 from https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/lifeway.
  34. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  35. Pukui, M. K. (1983). ‘Olelo No‘eau: Hawaiian proverbs and poetical sayings. Honolulu, HI: Bishop Museum Press.Google Scholar
  36. Said, E. (1978). Orientalism. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
  37. Santos, B. (2014). Epistemologies of the South: Justice against Epistemicide. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  38. Scriven, M. (1972a). Objectivity and subjectivity in educational research. In L. G. Thomas (Ed.), Philosophical redirection of educational research (71st Yearbook, Part I). Chicago, IL: National Society for the Study of Education, University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  39. Scriven, M. (1972b). Prose and cons about goal-free evaluation. Evaluation Comment, 3(4), 1–4.Google Scholar
  40. Smith, L. T. (1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and Indigenous peoples. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  41. Stoesz, D., Karger, H. J., & Carrilio, T. (2010). A dream deferred: How social work education lost its way and what can be do. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  42. Suaalii-Sauni, T., & Ma Fulu-Aiolupotea, S. (2014). Decolonising Pacific research, building Pacific research communities and developing Pacific research tools: The case of the talanoa and the faafaletui in Samoa research communities and developing Pacific. Asia Pacific Viewpoint, 55(3), 331–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. UN (United Nations). (2008). United Nations Declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples. New York: United Nations. Retrieved 13 January 2019 from https://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/DRIPS_en.pdf.
  44. UN. (2010). Indigenous Peoples: Development with culture and identity in light of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. A reflection paper of the Inter-Agency Support Group on Indigenous Peoples’ Issues (IASG), consolidated by UNESCO as a contribution to the 9th session of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII) 2010. E/C.19/2010/CRP. 3. New York: United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. page 30. Retrieved 28 January 2019 from https://dialoguebetweennations.com/N2N/PFII/English/pdf/E%20C.19%202010%20CRP.pdf.
  45. Waibuta-Tagicakiverata, I., & Nilan, P. (2018). Veivosaki-yaga: A culturally appropriate Indigenous research method in Fiji. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 31(6), 545–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Walker, R. (2004). Ka Whawhai Tonu Matou: Struggle without end. Auckland: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  47. Weaver, H. (1999). Indigenous people and the social work profession: Defining culturally competent services. Social Work, 44(3), 217–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Williams, R. (1999). Cultural safety—what does it mean for our work practice? Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 23(2), 213–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wilson, S. (2008). Research is ceremony: Indigenous research methods. Black Point, NS: Fernwood Publishing.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning and Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Social Work, College of Health and SocietyHawai’i Pacific UniversityKanoeheUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options