In Reciprocity: Responses to Critiques of Indigenous Methodologies

Windchief, Sweeney; Polacek, Cheryl; Munson, Michael; Ulrich, Mary Eileen; Cummins, Jason D.

doi:10.1177/1077800417743527

Cited by 21 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, I am appreciative of the responses to these reflections by Windchief et al (2017), who have so graciously chosen to enter this dialogue with me. It may be beneficial here to briefly acknowledge several background experiences and assumptions that we likely share as we enter this dialogue.…”

Section: Two Take-away Points About Irmsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moreover, with specific reference to their article, I appreciate Windchief et al's (2017) definition of Indigenous methodologies as "unique ways researchers use Indigenous positionality and perspective to perform research with and within Indigenous communities . .…”

Section: Two Take-away Points About Irmsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the spirit of advancing this dialogue, I will now briefly attend to some specific responses offered by Windchief et al (2017). In my view, many of these reflect the fact that some of my critical reflections were misunderstood, or that we appear to have talked past one another.…”

Section: Two Take-away Points About Irmsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this article, I first include a transcript of my 2014 presentation that sets forth my critical reflections about IRMs. Then, in the spirit of dialogue, I respond to Windchief et al (2017), particularly with respect to instances in which I believe they have misunderstood some facet of my reflections or in which we appear to be "speaking" past one another. Finally, I will propose a reframing of this dialogue that jettisons an essentializing Indigenous-Western opposition to instead encourage nuanced attention to distinctive knowledge practices associated with orality and literacy.…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

“…This presentation generated a range of audience responses, some critical and heated. It did inaugurate dialogue, however, as evidenced by publication of Windchief, Polacek, Munson, Ulrich, and Cummins (2017) in this journal.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Considering Indigenous Research Methodologies: Critical Reflections by an Indigenous Knower

Gone

2018

Qualitative Inquiry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Within the domain of academic inquiry by Indigenous scholars, it is increasingly common to encounter enthusiasm surrounding Indigenous Research Methodologies (IRMs). IRMs are designated approaches and procedures for conducting research that are said to reflect long-subjugated Indigenous epistemologies (or ways of knowing). A common claim within this nascent movement is that IRMs express logics that are unique and distinctive from academic knowledge production in “Western” university settings, and that IRMs can result in innovative contributions to knowledge if and when they are appreciated in their own right and on their own terms. The purpose of this article is to stimulate exchange and dialogue about the present and future prospects of IRMs relative to university-based academic knowledge production. To that end, I enter a critical voice to an ongoing conversation about these matters that is still taking shape within Indigenous studies circles.

show abstract

Section: Two Take-away Points About Irmsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Two Take-away Points About Irmsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Two Take-away Points About Irmsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 98%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Considering Indigenous Research Methodologies: Critical Reflections by an Indigenous Knower

Gone

2018

Qualitative Inquiry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Beyond the monolith: A systematic review of the literature on Latiné/x/a/o students in engineering using a liberative approach

Revelo,

Mejia,

Mejía

et al. 2024

J of Engineering Edu

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThis systematic review of the literature on Latiné/x/a/o students in engineering was motivated by the recent increase in interest and thus scholarship about this population and the need for a nuanced understanding of the population's diversity.PurposeThis article's purpose is to provide a basis for critically exploring how heterogeneity within the Latiné/x/a/o engineering student population—and across the spectrum of pre‐college to graduate school—is used in engineering educational scholarship. The following research question is addressed: “How is the diversity within Latiné engineering students exemplified in the engineering education literature?”Scope/MethodThis work was guided by a liberative approach as the driving framework to review and synthesize literature published in peer‐reviewed journal articles from 2005 to 2018 that met the following inclusion criteria: (i) population of interest included Latinés; (ii) focused on engineering or included engineering within the larger STEM; and (iii) studied K–20 education.ResultsSixty‐nine studies were reviewed and synthesized. Key findings include an insufficient focus on Latiné students, an increased use of purposeful and critical theoretical frameworks, and a lack of demographics used to present a nuanced understanding of Latiné students in engineering.ConclusionsWe conclude that contextualized demographics should be included which enable analysis that provides nuanced understandings of Latiné students in engineering. While there is increased interest within engineering education to work with Latiné students, our findings point to the need of ensuring that research is conducted with cultural sensitivity, accuracy, and a nuanced understanding of the lived experiences of Latiné individuals.

show abstract

An organizing framework to break down Western-centric views of knowledge in North–South research

Turner,

Rogers,

Kneebone

et al. 2024

Sustain Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Global challenges, such as climate change, persistent poverty, and food insecurity are complex problems. These societal, environmental, and economic challenges cross scientific disciplines, communities, and geographies, requiring interdisciplinary, North–South solutions. Nevertheless, prevailing sustainability science responses are Western-centric. Some seminal studies have attempted to understand and engage with diverse knowledge systems. These include decolonial and Indigenous methodologies, such as “Two-Eyed Seeing”, which emphasizes the importance of using both Western and Indigenous knowledge to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the world, and participatory action research, which highlights the importance of involving participants in the research process and promoting social change through collaborative effort. However, apart from in-country research collaborations with traditional Indigenous knowledge, most North–South studies overlook the role or influence of Western-centric views and therefore fail to recognize and incorporate diverse worldviews and knowledge systems. This may, in part, reflect the tendency to categorize research into disciplinary silos, but more likely is the unintentional, yet prevalent, view that Western science is “objective and neutral.” As more scholars from multiple disciplines and geographies focus on interdisciplinary North–South research, it is critical that researchers reflect on dominant research approaches and knowledge production. Studies can co-construct, reproduce, or control the forms of knowledge generated—whether intentional or unintentional. This paper presents an organizing framework to help researchers navigate, understand, and engage with diverse forms of knowledge in undertaking North–South research. The framework draws on empirical observations from the authors’ interdisciplinary research and from empirical cross-cultural literature. It comprises three contextual levels of influence, featuring guiding principles and subsequent practical actions researchers can use to navigate the complexities of knowledge co-construction in North–South research.

show abstract

In Reciprocity: Responses to Critiques of Indigenous Methodologies

Cited by 21 publications

References 18 publications

Considering Indigenous Research Methodologies: Critical Reflections by an Indigenous Knower

Considering Indigenous Research Methodologies: Critical Reflections by an Indigenous Knower

Beyond the monolith: A systematic review of the literature on Latiné/x/a/o students in engineering using a liberative approach

An organizing framework to break down Western-centric views of knowledge in North–South research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About