Search results

The purpose of this paper is to explore the notion of decolonizing interpretive research in ways that respect and integrate the qualitative sensibilities of subaltern voices in the knowledge production of anti-colonial possibilities.

The paper draws from the decolonizing and post-colonial theoretical tradition, with a specific reference to Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak’s contribution to this analysis.

Through a critical discussion of decolonizing concerns tied to qualitative interpretive interrogations, the paper points to the key assumptions that support and reinforce the sensibilities of subaltern voices in efforts to move western research approaches toward anti-colonial possibilities. In the process, this discussion supports the emergence of an itinerant epistemological lens that opens the field to decolonizing inquiry.

Its practical implications are tied to discursive transformations, which can impact social and material transformations within the context of research and society.

Moreover, the paper provides an innovative rethinking of interpretive research, in an effort to extend the analysis of decolonizing methodology to the construction of subaltern inspired intellectual labor.

Over recent decades, research institutions have prescribed discrete ethics guidelines for human research with Indigenous people in Australia. Such guidelines respond to concerns about unethical and harmful processes in research, including that they entrench colonial relations and structures. This chapter sets out some of the limitations of these well-intentioned guidelines for the decolonisation of research. Namely, their underlying assumption of Indigenous vulnerability and deficit and, consequently, their function to minimise risk. It argues for a strengths-based approach to researching with and by Indigenous communities that recognises community members’ capacity to know what ethical research looks like and their ability to control research. It suggests that this approach provides genuine outcomes for their communities in ways that meet their communities’ needs. This means that communities must be partners in research who can demand reciprocation for their participation and sharing of their knowledge, time and experiences. This argument is not purely normative but supported by examples of Indigenous research models within our fields of health and criminology that are premised on self-determination.

One’s standpoint and consequent research paradigm impacts how we conduct research, including study design, analyses interpretation and dissemination of results. In 2017, the authors began PhD, studying the potential barriers to aftercare treatment for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children aged under 16 who had sustained a burn injury in one of five major hospitals in Australia. The paper aims to discuss this issue.

As Aboriginal PhD students, the authors are conducting research using Aboriginal ontology as a framework, which is based on a holistic framework with interconnectedness, person-centred care and Aboriginal ways of knowing as the foundation. The framework has been shaped by the first author’s knowing, being and doing, and the authors’ worldview has informed and shaped the standpoint and the way the research has been developed and conducted.

It was important for the authors to have a connectedness to each aspect of the research and to each individual person that shared their story: this was paramount to the ways of being.

This connectedness stems from growing up on the authors’ country and learning from elders, from the connection to all entities living around, within and with the authors. The Indigenous research methodology was used throughout the study, including yarning and Dadirri, a way of deep listening and learning, as the basis for interviewing.

Since 2008, the Global North universities and the rural district of Chilanga, Kasungu in Malawi, have endeavored to create a dialogic, inclusive, and reciprocal knowledge-transfer project. Numerous years of consultation with community members resulted in the creation of Transformative Praxis: Malawi, a project dedicated to bettering human conditions in one of the most impoverished areas of the world. Through participatory action research (PAR), the Malawian community strongly indicated the need to foster critical thinking, creativity, and social entrepreneurship in the areas of Education, Health, and Development. Although local women were prominent in all stakeholder meetings, a growing suspicion emerged that the inclusive intent of our research-based work was actually supporting existing male-oriented power structures, which exist despite ongoing assurances of the active participation of women in decision-making, and the purported matrilineal societal nature of Malawi. Through a progressive series of critical incidents connected to literature on PAR and women in impoverished communities, this chapter chronicles the manner in which local Chilanga women unexpectedly and unconventionally solidified their participation and authentic leadership in a Global North and South initiative based in Malawi.

Tribal economic development in post-settlement era Aoteroa/New Zealand has opened up opportunities for Maori to invest in the sustainable commercial utilisation of their traditional economic resources. Mahinga kai (traditional food and food sources) has always been at the heart of the Maori tribe Ngāi Tahu’s spiritual, cultural, social and economic existence. The purpose of this research is to revitalise mahinga kai enterprise through the commercial development of traditional and contemporary food and food resources in a culturally commensurate manner.

Participant action research theory and practice were used by researchers from Toitū Te Kāinga (Regional Development Unit of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu) between 2008 and 2012. This was informed by a Kaupapa Maori philosophy of respect and empowerment of the participants’ needs.

The development of the Ahikā Kai Indigenous business system shows that competitive advantage can be created for Indigenous businesses and enterprises through a four-pronged strategy based around: first, human rights that empower tribal members; second, product differentiation based on cultural principles; third, an internal accreditation system to help verify the ethical credibility of the products; and fourth, lowering producer costs through website marketing and direct-to-consumer selling.

This research adds to a growing (yet still evolving) body of literature on Indigenous entrepreneurship and the role of voluntary certification in Indigenous business development. The Ahikā Kai business system is an original world first for this type of Indigenous development based on creating a competitive advantage for multiple independent enterprises while maintaining the core integrity of its cultural brand and its operations.

Many academics have, as of late, shown commitment to decolonising academic research and/or have (re-)educated themselves, at least to some extent, on Indigenous epistemologies, methodologies and methods. While these efforts seem commendable, they may lead to tenacious expectations by some senior academics that new and emerging Indigenous scholars must use Indigenous research tools when conducting decolonising research with their communities. However, such expectations can create ethical issues in instances where the use of Indigenous research tools may be inappropriate or even harmful due to the ongoing impact of deep colonisation in the community. Such counterproductive expectations also disempower emerging Indigenous researchers as they undermine the researcher’s knowledge of what is and is not appropriate in their communities. In this autoethnographic account, an Indigenous knowledgemaker and her non-Indigenous academic mentor jointly reflect on the tightrope walk between meeting academic expectations and contributing to the decolonisation of Indigenous communities in meaningful, non-harmful ways. Drawing on Edward Said (1979, 2004), we contemplate whether the increasing dissemination of Indigenous scholarship has generated a type of ‘academic neo-orientalism’ that is characterised by academic outsiders exoticising emerging Indigenous scholars in various research matters and thus re-colonise (perhaps contrary to their sincere intentions) Indigenous scholarship.

Ethical practices in relation to indigenous research require that the researcher decolonise the research. This can be challenging when institutional guidelines are unclear but at the same time exacting in terms of the level of input required as a prerequisite for approval. This article explores the ambiguities of approval through a study of the application process for ‘my’ doctoral research to observe indigenous athlete‐role models engaging with young people. I draw on Simmel’s (1976) ‘stranger’ to enunciate the constraints of approval and consent within a decolonising methodology and to propose the possibilities of an ethics of the self.

In this chapter, we explore the ethics of developing and maintaining meaningful and equitable relationships between Māori and Pākehā scholars and researchers. We begin by asking if it is even desirable, viable, or sustainable to pursue decolonising research in disciplines and relationships that are so deeply entrenched in settler-colonialism. We consider the challenges involved in managing an equitable distribution of decolonising labour in settings with few Indigenous scholars, particularly around the constant work of educating and pointing out ignorance, as well as the emotional labour of dealing with Pākehā vulnerability, inaction, and resistance to change. Building on the Kaupapa Māori principles of whanaungatanga and manaakitanga, we suggest a tangible set of seven strategies or ‘collaborative ethics’ to address these challenges in working together and in actively dismantling while privilege and white supremacy within the Academy and wider world of research.

The Pasifika (Pacific Island) research methodology talanoa (conversation) has contemporary resonance beyond its local context. At the recent Bonn Climate Change Conference, for example, talanoa was adopted to spark international dialogue about our collective futures. But this and other recent instances raise the question as to whether and how talanoa can and should be applied in a non-Indigenous context – or, indeed, online. As a culturally diverse research team, we undertook a talanoa about our experience of researching historical literacy with Māori and Pasifika students through talanoa. Here we introduce what we learnt from the literature about the nature of talanoa, its use as a methodology, and its application in higher education and reproduce our own recent online talanoa on the experience of learning to do talanoa together. Three key lessons emerged from our research conversation. Firstly, we learnt that time is of the essence: researchers must carefully balance the need for the talanoa to run its natural course with the need to not overburden the participants. Secondly, we learnt that where the researchers undertake the talanoa is less important than attending to the relationships (the vā) between the researchers and participants, and the researchers and participants themselves. And, finally, in keeping with what some Māori researchers and their allies have argued of Kaupapa Māori research methodology, we learnt that indigenous methodologies like talanoa, when employed with care and in recognition of their emergence out of decolonial struggles for indigenous sovereignty and self-determination, can foster a fruitful intercultural research conversation.

Purpose – We share experiences from the research process that expose the shortcomings and flaws of the different research production review mechanisms. Our aim is to highlight the resistance and paternalistic misunderstandings that characterise some processes when considering indigenous ‘subjects’.

Design/methodology/approach – This chapter draws upon examples from primary source material as the basis for analysis and discussion. These examples are drawn from academic reports, correspondence to authors and media accounts. The critical approach is influenced by the theoretical works that address the influence and infiltration of ‘commonsense’ understandings, and the resistance to alternative academic inquiry and interpretation of indigenous sports participation issues in Australia.

Findings – The structure, resources and mechanisms available to the dominant alliance of dominant groups serve to curtail and suppress alternative research efforts.

Research limitations/implications – The available examples are not drawn from the broad field. Indeed, they are limited to those available via research circles of colleagues. Any conclusions should be considered within the notion of context specific rather than any broad generalisation.