Advertisement

Indigenous Statistics

  • Tahu Kukutai
  • Maggie Walter
Living reference work entry

Abstract

Statistics about Indigenous peoples are a common feature of Anglo-colonizing nation states such as Canada, Australia, Aotearoa New Zealand, and the United States (CANZUS). The impetus for the production of most Indigenous statistics is the shared position of Indigenous disadvantage in health and socioeconomic status. In this chapter, we contrast statistics about Indigenous peoples with statistics for Indigenous people and statistics by Indigenous people. There are very significant differences between these categories of Indigenous statistics. At the heart of these differences is the methodology that informs the research processes and practices. Statistics about Indigenous peoples often reflect the dominant social norms, values, and racial hierarchy of the society in which they are created. In the CANZUS states, these statistics are deficit focused and, at times, victim blaming. Also missing from these statistical portrayals is the culture, interests, perspectives, and alternative narratives of the Indigenous peoples that they purport to represent. We contrast these statistics with those from statistical research using processes and practices that are shaped by Indigenous methodologies. Indigenous methodologies are distinguished by their prioritization of Indigenous methods, protocols, values, and epistemologies. We conclude with two examples of what Indigenous quantitative methodologies look like in practice from Aotearoa NZ and Australia.

Keywords

Indigenous Statistics New Zealand Australia Colonization Methodology 

References

  1. Ajwani S, Blakely T, Robson B, Tobias M, Bonne M. Decades of disparity: ethnic mortality trends in New Zealand 1980–1999, Public Health Intelligence Occasional Bulletin Number 16. Wellington: Ministry of Health and University of Otago; 2003.Google Scholar
  2. Andersen C, Walter M. Indigenous perspectives and cultural identity. In: Hyde M, Carpenter L, Conway R, editors. Diversity and inclusion in Australian schools. South Melbourne: Oxford University Press; 2010. p. 63–87.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson I, Crengle S, Kamaka ML, Chen T, Palafox N, Jackson-Pulver L. Indigenous health in Australia, New Zealand, and the Pacific. Lancet. 2006;367(9524):1775–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson I, Robson B, Connolly M, Al-Yaman F, Bjertness E, King A, …, Yap L. Indigenous and tribal peoples’ health (The Lancet–Lowitja Institute Global Collaboration): a population study. The Lancet. 2016;388(10040):131–57.Google Scholar
  5. Anderson I, Lyons JG, Luke JN, Reich HS. Health determinants and educational outcomes for indigenous children. In: Walter M, Martin KL, Bodkin-Andrews G, editors. Growing up strong children: indigenous perspectives on the longitudinal study of indigenous children. London: Palgrave MacMillan; in press.Google Scholar
  6. Axelsson P, Kukutai T, Kippen R. The field of indigenous health and the role of colonisation and history. J Popul Res. 2016;33(1):1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bessarab D, Ng’andu B. Yarning about yarning as a legitimate method in indigenous research. Int J Crit Indig Stud. 2010;3(1):37–50.Google Scholar
  8. Chilisa B. Indigenous research methodologies. London: SAGE; 2011.Google Scholar
  9. Commission on Social Determinants of Health. Closing the gap in a generation: health equity through action on the social determinants of health, Final report of the Commission on Social Determinants of Health. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2008.Google Scholar
  10. Cooke M, Mitrou F, Lawrence D, Guimond E, Beavon D. Indigenous well-being in four countries: an application of the UNDP’s human development index to indigenous peoples in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States. BMC Int Health Human Rights. 2007;7(9):1–11.Google Scholar
  11. Cunningham C, Stevenson B, Tassell N. Analysis of the characteristics of whānau in Aotearoa. Report for the Ministry of Education. Palmerston North: Massey University; 2005.Google Scholar
  12. Durie MH. The health of indigenous peoples: depends on genetics, politics, and socioeconomic factors. Br Med J. 2003;326(7388):510–1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. First Nations Information Governance Centre. Ownership, control, access and possession (OCAP): The path to First Nations information governance. Ottawa: The First Nations Information Governance Centre; 2014. Retrieved from http://fnigc.ca/sites/default/files/docs/ocap_path_to_fn_information_governance_en_final.pdf.
  14. Gracey M, King M. Indigenous health part 1: determinants and disease patterns. Lancet. 2009;374(9683):65–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gunnestad A. Resilience in a cross-cultural perspective. How resilience is generated in different cultures. J Intercult Commun. 2006;11. Retrieved from http://www.immi.se/intercultural/nr11/gunnestad.htm.
  16. Hall GH, Patrinos HA. Indigenous peoples, poverty, and development. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kahakalau K. Indigenous heuristic action research: bridging western and indigenous research methodologies. Hulili: Multidiscip Res Hawaii Well-Being. 2004;1(1):19–33.Google Scholar
  18. Kerr S, Penney L, Moewaka Barnes H, McCreanor T. Kaupapa Māori action research to improve heart disease services in Aotearoa, New Zealand. Ethn Health. 2010;15(1):15–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kovach M. Indigenous methodologies: characteristics, conversations, and contexts. Toronto: University of Toronto Press; 2009.Google Scholar
  20. Kruger T, Pitman M, Grennell D, McDonald T, Mariu D, Pōmare A, Mita T, Maihi M, Lawson-Te Aho K. Transforming whānau violence – a conceptual framework. Wellington: Second Māori Taskforce on Whānau Violence; 2004.Google Scholar
  21. Kukutai T, Taylor J, editors. Indigenous data sovereignty: towards an agenda, CAEPR Research Monograph, 2016/34. Canberra: ANU Press; 2016.Google Scholar
  22. Kukutai T, Walter M. Recognition and indigenizing official statistics: reflections from Aotearoa New Zealand and Australia. Stat J IAOS. 2015;31(2):317–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kukutai T, Sporle A, Roskruge M. Expressions of whānau. In: Social policy evaluation and research unit, families and Whānau status report 2016. Wellington: Superu; 2016. p. 52–77.Google Scholar
  24. Lalonde CE. Identity formation and cultural resilience in aboriginal communities. In: Flynn RJ, Duding P, Barber J, editors. Promoting resilience in child welfare. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press; 2006. p. 52–67.Google Scholar
  25. Lawson-Te Aho K. Definitions of whānau: a review of selected literature. Wellington: Families Commission; 2010.Google Scholar
  26. Malin M, Maidment D. Education, indigenous survival and well-being: emerging ideas and programs. Aust J Indigenous Educ. 2003;32:85–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Martin K. Ways of knowing, ways of being and qays of soing: a theoretical framework and methods for indigenous re-search and indigenist research. J Aust Stud. 2003;27(76):203–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Martin K. Please knock before you enter: aboriginal regulation of outsiders and the implications for researchers. Teneriffe: Post Press; 2008.Google Scholar
  29. Meyer WH. Indigenous rights, global governance, and state sovereignty. Hum Rights Rev. 2012;13(3):327–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Moewaka Barnes HM. Kaupapa Māori: explaining the ordinary. Pac Health Dialog. 2000;7(1): 13–6.Google Scholar
  31. New Zealand Government. Government ICT strategy and action plan to 2017. ICT Action plan 2014. Retrieved from: https://www.ict.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/Government-ICT-Strategy-and-Action-Plan-to-2017.pdf (2014).
  32. Porsanger J. An essay about indigenous methodology. Retrieved from http://munin.uit.no/bitstream/handle/10037/906/article.pdf..?sequence=1 (2004).
  33. Prout S. Indigenous wellbeing frameworks in Australia and the quest for quantification. Soc Indic Res. 2012;109(2):317–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Robson B, Reid P. Ethnicity matters: Māori perspectives. Wellington: Statistics New Zealand; 2001.Google Scholar
  35. Smith G. Whakaoho whānau: new formations of whānau and an innovative intervention into Māori cultural and economic crises. He Pukenga Korero. 1995;1:18–36.Google Scholar
  36. Snipp M. What does data sovereignty imply – what does it look like? In: Kukutai T, Taylor J, editors. Indigenous data aovereignty: towards an agenda, CAEPR Research Monograph, 2016/34. Canberra: ANU Press; 2016.Google Scholar
  37. Statistics New Zealand. He kohinga whakaaro/Māori social survey discussion document. Wellington: Statistics New Zealand; 2009.Google Scholar
  38. Taylor J. Indigenous peoples and indicators of well-being: Australian perspectives on United Nations global frameworks. Soc Indic Res. 2008;81(1):111–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Taylor J. Indigenous demography and public policy in Australia: population or peoples? J Popul Res. 2009;26(2):115–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Taylor J, Kukutai T. Indigenous data sovereignly and indicators: reflections from Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand. In: Paper presented at the UNPFII Expert Group Meeting on “The Way Forward: Indigenous Peoples and the 2039 Agenda for Sustainable Development”, United Nations, HQ, New York, 22–23 Oct. 2015.Google Scholar
  41. Te Rito JS. Whakapapa and whenua: an insider’s view. MAI Rev. 2007;3:1–8.Google Scholar
  42. The Treasury. Social investment. Retrieved from: http://www.treasury.govt.nz/statesector/socialinvestment (2016).
  43. Tibble A, Ussher S. Kei te pēwhea tō whānau? Exploring whānau using the Māori social survey. Wellington: Statistics New Zealand; 2012.Google Scholar
  44. Trudgett M, Page S, Bodkin-Andrews G, Franklin C, Whittaker A. Another brick in the wall? Parent perceptions of school educational experiences of indigenous Australian children. In: Walter M, Martin KL, Bodkin-Andrews G, editors. Growing up strong children: indigenous perspective on the longitudinal study of indigenous children. London: Palgrave MacMillan; in press.Google Scholar
  45. Tuhiwai Smith L. Decolonizing methodologies: research and indigenous peoples. London/New York: Zed Books; 1999.Google Scholar
  46. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. State of the world’s indigenous peoples, 2nd vol.: indigenous people’s access to health services. New York: UNDESA; 2015.Google Scholar
  47. United Nations General Assembly. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015. 70/1. Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Retrieved from: http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/70/1&Lang=E (2015).
  48. Valencia RR, editor. The evolution of deficit thinking: educational thought and practice. London: Routledge; 2012.Google Scholar
  49. Walter M. The politics of the data: how the Australian statistical indigene is constructed. Int J Crit Indigenous Stud. 2010;3(2):45–54.Google Scholar
  50. Walter M. Data politics and indigenous representation in Australian statistics. In: Kukutai T, Taylor J, editors. Indigenous data sovereignty: towards an agenda, CAEPR Research Monograph, 2016/34. Canberra: ANU Press; 2016.Google Scholar
  51. Walter M, Andersen C. Indigenous statistics: a quantitative methodology. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press; 2013.Google Scholar
  52. Yap M, Yu E. Data sovereignty for the Yawuru in Western Australia. In: Kukutai T, Taylor J, editors. Indigenous data sovereignty: towards an agenda, CAEPR Research Monograph, 2016/34. Canberra: ANU Press; 2016.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of WaikatoHamiltonNew Zealand
  2. 2.University of TasmaniaHobartAustralia

Personalised recommendations