Search results

This research considers the potential for renewable energy partnerships to contribute to Canada's efforts to overcome its colonial past and present by developing an understanding of how non-Indigenous peoples working in the sector relate to their Indigenous partners.

This study is part of a larger research program focused on decolonization and reconciliation in the renewable energy sector. This exploratory research is framed by energy justice and decolonial reconciliation literatures relevant to the topic of Indigenous-led renewable energy. The authors used content and discourse analysis to identify themes arising from 10 semi-structured interviews with non-Indigenous corporate and governmental partners.

Interviewees’ lack of prior exposure to Indigenous histories, cultures and acknowledgement of settler colonialism had a profound impact on their engagement with reconciliation frameworks. Partners' perspectives on what it means to partner with Indigenous peoples varied; most dismissed the need to further develop understandings of reconciliation and instead focused on increasing community capacity to allow Indigenous groups to participate in the renewable energy transition.

In this study, the authors intentionally spoke with non-Indigenous peoples working in the renewable energy sector. Recruitment was a challenge and the sample is small. The authors encourage researchers to extend their questions to other organizations in the renewable energy sector, across industries and with Indigenous peoples given this is an under-researched field.

This paper is an early look at the way non-Indigenous “partners” working in renewable energy understand and relate to topics of reconciliation, Indigenous rights and self-determination. It highlights potential barriers to reconciliation that are naïvely occurring at organizational and institutional levels, while anchored in colonial power structures.

The purpose of this paper is to share the story-net approach and to situate it as one that benefits from blending story as Indigenous methodology with non-corporeal actant theory (NCAT). The authors hope it will serve useful in building storytelling communities where Indigenous and non-Indigenous scholars are working to heal together from colonial trauma, reveal the inner workings of historical and ongoing colonial projects, dismantle the agency of colonial projects, and welcome heartful dialogue into the centre of MOS discourse.

The authors employ a storytelling approach which includes mapping the story-net territory and identifying the plot points along the journey. The authors use the story-net approach to story the approach.

This approach served helpful when engaging within story archives and with storytelling collectives comprised of both Indigenous and non-Indigenous persons, peoples and knowledges. The authors found four key premises, which help to narrate the ontology, epistemology, methodology and axiology of the story-net approach and six plot points, which help in mapping the lessons learned from engaging with stories, storytellers, story listeners and the socio-discursive contexts surrounding story-net work.

The authors story an approach that can be useful to support emerging Indigenous scholars while engaging with their non-Indigenous colleagues to do story-net work. This approach may be useful to navigate the tensions to create safer, more humane, inclusive, relational, strengths-based and trauma-informed spaces for engaging with Indigenous stories, storytellers, story listeners and discourses, as well as, to plot the points of contention so as to set the stage for deepening respectful research relations.

The purpose of this paper is to address some of the implications for methodology and ethics that arise when researchers in Indigenous territories locate their research projects as taking place within Indigenous countries. Centering the argument that ethical research with Indigenous communities must be rooted in upholding the primacy of Indigenous sovereignty, numerous considerations to improve qualitative research practices in Indigenous countries are discussed.

The author starts by introducing his relationship to Indigenous research as a mixed-Indigenous researcher. Moving onto discussing preliminary research considerations for working in Indigenous territories, the author argues that qualitative researchers must become familiarized with the historical and geographical contexts of the Indigenous countries they plan on working in. Using Canadian history as an example, the author argues that settler-colonial nationalisms continue to attempt to erase and replace Indigenous countries both in historical and geographical narratives. Building on Indigenous literature, the author then outlines the necessity of being aware of nation-specific protocols in law, culture, and knowledge production.

Drawing on this discussion, the author proposes a framework for preliminary research that can be used by qualitative researchers looking to ensure their projects are grounded in the best practices for the specific Indigenous countries they want to work with.

The author concludes that researchers should not expect Indigenous knowledge keepers to contribute large amounts of labour towards debunking colonial mythology and proving the existence of Indigenous countries. By doing this work as part of the preliminary research process, researchers create space for better collaborations with Indigenous communities.

This chapter is a conversation between the three authors, an Indigenous person, a multigenerational White settler, and a White immigrant, about how equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) connects with the history and pervasive practices of colonialism, White supremacy, and embedded racism, and what might be done to create a new future that is individually and collectively just. EDI has become increasingly embraced by organizations and governments to overcome bias, to increase representation of underrepresented groups, and to revise discriminatory policies across almost all areas of intersectionality. But EDI has no answers for the issues of Indigenous reconciliation and decolonization that seem to exist in a parallel world. A deeper understanding is needed about the individual rights roots of “equity,” as well as knowledge of Indigenous history, since Indigenous communities are not simply additional cultural groups in Canada. The British Royal Proclamation of 1763 initially codified a “nation to nation” relationship, but subsequent broken treaties, and the 1876 Indian Act, imposed a White supremist relationship on Indigenous populations, stole lands, and attempted to eliminate traditional cultures. Since 1970, Indigenous organizations have sought a “citizenship plus” relationship with Canadian federal and provincial governments, a direction supported by more recent court decisions. This chapter includes examples of how these ideas have been applied by some organizations and concludes with a model for developing personal stamina and resilience for learning, reconsidering, and interacting with others about identity issues given the complexities of personal learning and system change.

The purpose of this paper is to explore this process through reviewing key reports and literature through an Indigenous standpoint lens. We identify three key challenges facing the Yoorrook Commission in its journey. First, the continued resistance of influential sections of the Australian community to look backwards and accept responsibility for the violence of the colonial project. Second, the trauma facing those who speak out and remember and the real danger of expectations dashed. Third, the continuance of the colonial pandemic and underlying and invisible racism that infects and poisons all Australians.

This paper has drawn on key literature and secondary data through an Indigenous Lens.

We identify three challenges facing Yoorrook. First, the resistance of influential sections of the Australian community to accept responsibility for the violence of the colonial project. Second, the trauma facing those who speak out and remember and the danger of expectations dashed. Third, the continuance of underlying and invisible racism that infects and poisons the hearts and minds of non-Indigenous Australia. Despite these challenges we argue that the ability of Yoorrook to capture the lived experience of First Peoples in Victoria and the ability to hold key government officials to account presents a unique opportunity to advance the self determination of all First Peoples in Australia.

This is the first Treaty in Victoria and there has been no study of it before.

In recent years, many Western states have moved towards funding the asylum processing and resettlement systems of countries in the Global South. These forms of outsourced migration governance are upheld by a vast industry of state and non-state actors. This chapter draws on fieldwork conducted in the Republic of Nauru to look at the people and places on the frontlines of the extractive asylum industry. Using Alexander Weheliye’s (2014) concept of ‘racialising assemblages’, the author argues that outsourced asylum regimes exacerbate the continuous subjection of Indigenous and migrant communities to toxic practices and discourses. Outsourced asylum is a contemporary practice of resource extraction (much like other forms of mining) that builds on colonial extractive projects that disproportionately target communities of colour. Ongoing processes of dispossession and displacement are occurring as people and places are rendered into resources and frontline sites for the extractive asylum industry. This chapter also shows how humanitarian and liberal democratic discourses are part of the mechanics of racialised geopolitical ordering. Racialised refugees are made into destitute victims, whereas locals become brutish villains, rather than political subjects. In attending to the politics of refusal, where Nauruans and refugees refuse ingrained racialising assemblages that deny them personhood, the author stresses the importance of intersectional advocacy that highlights the toxic effects of extractive asylum regimes on local and migrant populations alike.

Purpose: To critically explore the implications of the August 2020, decision by Carleton University’s Institute for Criminology and Criminal Justice (ICCJ) to end to its intern program with the Ottawa police, the RCMP, Correctional Services Canada and Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre starting in Fall 2021.

Findings: In contrast to the negative reaction of Kevin Haggerty to this decision, the authors offer a strong but qualified endorsement of the ICCJ’s move to put an end to its internship with coercive institutions. The ICCJ strategically mobilized discourses of anti-Blackness and inclusion in response to the murder of George Floyd and the individual and communitarian traumas of Black, First Nations and Metis and students colour in its program. The ICCJ did not, however, substantively engage with the ways that criminology, sociology and the university are complicit through the legitimation practices and processes of ideology, professionalization and research in the ‘violence work’ of the state. The critique, ethics and logical conclusion of abolitionism are obfuscated.

Methodology/Approach: The authors explicitly draw on the Black Radical Tradition, Neo-Marxism and radical neo-Weberianism to sketch research possibilities that resist the university as a space of violence work, both in criminology and in the professionalization of policing.

Originality/Value: The debate between the ICCJ and Kevin Haggerty is an important opportunity to critically analyze the limits of critical criminology and lacunae of a debate about abolitionism, anti-criminology and university-state nexus as a site for the production of ideological and hardware violence work. Grounded in the Black Radical Tradition, neo-Marxism and radical neo-Weberianism, the authors sketch a framework for a research agenda toward the abolition of criminology.