2 On the Research Journey#

Collection note: This is a navigation copy assembled from an existing local Markdown extract; it does not claim to be a complete or authoritative edition.
Coverage: Available local extract: printed pages 33–61.
Provenance: RCH-Wilson-ElementsOfResearchParadigm-001-260111213125-ab2ff9a0-fec7-451e-9fc4-3e6752370ad8.SOURCE.md

thinking because of the prevalence of a common Indigenous epistemology. My observations have led me to develop the topic of an Indigenous research paradigm.

In addition to knowing my motivations as a researcher, you should also be familiar with the terms that I use and before going any further, I will clarify these.

Definition of Terms#

Research Paradigm#

Research paradigms are labels that are used to identify sets of underlying beliefs or assumptions upon which research is based. These sets of beliefs go together to guide researchers’ actions. Any research represents the paradigm used by the researcher, whether the researcher is conscious of their choice of paradigm or not. Paradigms are thus broad principles that provide a framework for research. As paradigms deal with beliefs and assumptions about reality, they are based upon theory and are thus intrinsically value laden.

What is reality? How do we know what is real and what is not? How can we find out more and explore our reality? What moral beliefs will guide the search for reality? These questions are at the heart of what research paradigms are. The sets of beliefs that make up research paradigms are the interrelated concepts of ontology, epistemology, methodology and axiology.

Ontology#

Ontology is the theory of the nature of existence, or the nature of reality. Is there one “real” world that each of us observes differently through our own senses, or do various worlds exist, depending upon the point of view of the observer? There is no way to come to a definite answer to this question, so people develop an ontological set of beliefs and take it on faith from there. Once a set of beliefs is established regarding just what is “real,” research then follows these beliefs in an attempt to discover more about this agreed upon reality. Ontology is thus asking, “What is real?”

Epistemology#

Epistemology is the study of the nature of thinking or knowing. It involves the theory of how we come to have knowledge, or how we know that we know something. It includes entire systems of thinking or styles of cognitive functioning that are built upon specific ontologies. Epistemology is tied in to ontology, in that what I believe to be “real” is going to impact on the way that I think about that “reality.” Choices made about what is “real” will depend upon how your thinking works and how you know the world around you. Epistemology is thus asking, “How do I know what is real?”

--- [p. 34] ---

Methodology#

Methodology refers to the theory of how knowledge is gained, or in other words the science of finding things out. Your view of what reality is, and how you know this reality, will impact on the ways that more knowledge can be gained about this reality. If the ontology is that there is one ultimate reality, then there should be one way of examining this reality (methodology) that will help to see it best (epistemology). If the ontology is that various realities exist, then you will choose ways of examining one of these realities (methodology) that will take into account your point of view as a researcher to come up with a better understanding (epistemology). Methodology is thus asking, “How do I find out more about this reality?”

Axiology#

Axiology is the ethics or morals that guide the search for knowledge and judge which information is worthy of searching for. One’s view of ontology will be reflected in what knowledge is worth seeking in order to better understand reality. In addition to judging the worthiness of the pursuit of certain types of knowledge, axiology also concerns itself with the ethics of how that knowledge is gained. If knowledge itself is the ultimate end, then any means of obtaining that end may be justified. If reality is fluid and the objective of research is to change and improve this reality, then other ethical principles must be applied. Axiology is thus asking, “What part of this reality is worth finding out more about?” and “What is it ethical to do in order to gain this knowledge, and what will this knowledge be used for?”

Indigenous#

Indigenous is used throughout this book to refer to the people and peoples who identify their ancestry with the original inhabitants of Australia, Canada and other countries worldwide. Indigenous is also used as an adjective to describe things that belong to these peoples (like Indigenous knowledges). While I recognize that Indigenous is a general term that does not truly represent the diversity of the Nations involved, as this book is looking at some of the things that we hold in common I have retained its use. The words “Aboriginal,” “Aborigine,” “Native,” “First Nations,” “Torres Strait Islander” or “Indian” are used in specific references, so I have retained these when they have been used by others. I try to use the specific nations of people, such as Cree or Bundjalung, where they have identified themselves that way. The term Indigenous has important implications politically, as in the face of colonization we assert our collective rights as self-determining peoples at an international level. In addition to the term Indigenous, much thought needs to go into the term used for describing things that are not Indigenous.

--- [p. 39] ---

an Indigenous paradigm to conduct my research, when it is the roots of this Indigenous research paradigm that I hope to uncover? Western linear logic might consider this hurdle insurmountable, but Indigenous ways of thinking insist on a more circular approach to the problem. The ideas presented came out of the research that was conducted and formed the methods used to gain the ideas. In the last chapter of the book, I discuss how this information was obtained, analyzed and shaped in my research, as an example of an Indigenous research paradigm in action.

Strategy of Inquiry#

Before continuing to use the idea of an Indigenous methodology it is necessary to discuss the differences between methodology, strategies of inquiry and methods. As discussed earlier, the methodology is a part of the paradigm that guides the research and is based on the assumptions of the ontology and epistemology. The methodology can be seen as providing the final destination in the research journey. Strategies of inquiry build upon a methodology to fill in how you will arrive at the research destination. A strategy is like a roadmap that helps you to get to where you want to go. By including a strategy step in your research, it becomes possible to change methods as best suits the situation. Methods are the particular tools or techniques that you use to actually gather data. To continue the research journey analogy, methods are the means of transportation. These methods are only means to an end (your methodology). Thus, as long as the methods fit the ontology, epistemology and axiology of the Indigenous paradigm, they can be borrowed from other suitable research paradigms.

Some methods and strategies have inherent in them more relationship building and relational accountability than others and therefore may be more attractive in an Indigenous paradigm. Talking circles (discussed a bit later) and action research (Carson and Sumara, 1997) are good examples, but again they are only tools. Without following the Indigenous axiology of relational accountability, they can still be used in hurtful ways.

Many methods are built specifically for a particular paradigm. Some Indigenous scholars may attempt to “decolonise” methodologies and turn them into something that can be useful in Indigenous research. This is an attempt to insert an Indigenous perspective into one of the major paradigms. It is my belief that this will not be very effective, as it is hard to remove the underlying epistemology and ontology upon which the paradigms are built. On the other hand, if one starts from an Indigenous paradigm, then one can choose to use any tool from within that paradigm that may be effective.

Denzin and Lincoln (1994) describe qualitative research as “multimethod in focus, involving an interpretive, naturalistic approach to its subject mat-

--- [p. 40] ---

ter.” As this Indigenous research project utilized qualitative methods and as qualitative research by its definition has no single focus, it may be appropriate to change the traditional positivistic language of “research methods” to look more at “strategies of inquiry.” The choice of strategies that I used in this study depended upon the questions that I wanted to ask, upon the context of the study, upon the resources available to me and finally upon what I could do in the setting where the study took place.

By using the term “strategies of inquiry,” I am implying that one specific research method would not fit the subject being studied. Instead of writing down one (or several) chosen methods and planning to stick to them, I developed a general strategy of where I wanted to go. This strategy needed to allow for change and adaptation along the way. By having an end goal I would like to achieve and perhaps a process or way by which I would like to get there, I hoped to remain open to any change that the situation required. In addition to the process changing in order to achieve the end goal, the end goal also changed to meet the emerging process.

I used a combination of methods, including participant observation, interviews with individual participants and focus group discussions, in this research. As other authors (for example, Bloor, 2001; Kvale, 1996; Spradley, 1979, 1980) have described the techniques used in these data gathering tools better than I ever could, I will give but a brief overview here.

Traditional Indigenous research emphasizes learning by watching and doing. Participant observation is a term used for this watching and doing in a scientific manner. The aim of this strategy is to gain a closeness or familiarity with a group, through taking part in their day-to-day activities over a long period of time. While engaging with the group, the researcher is simultaneously observing their behaviour and analyzing why they are doing things in their way. Being a participant observer allowed me to take a more action-oriented approach to the research (Heller, Price, Reinharz, Riger and Wandersman, 1984) and put emphasis on the face-to-face relationships and sharing of daily living experiences (Gans, 1982). The relationship building that this sharing and participating entailed is an important aspect of ethical Indigenous research.

I have a natural advantage in that participant observation in Indigenous communities has taken place all my life. In that sense this research is emic. Also, because I am working within communities that I am already a part of, rapport has already been built and trust established. Relational accountability requires me to form reciprocal and respectful relationships within the communities where I am conducting research. The methodology is in contrast with observational techniques that attempt to be unobtrusive and not influence the environment studied.

Conducting individual interviews was a second method used in the re-

--- [p. 41] ---

search. Dominant system researchers have stated that interviews should be open-ended and dialog based (Spradley, 1979) in order to allow for a mutual sharing of information (Mishler, 1989). Interviews are focused discussions that allow the researcher to gather information directly from the point of view expressed by the research subject. To re-state this method into Indigenous terms, I talked with other Indigenous people about the subject of my study. In addition to helping me to learn more about Indigenous research, talking with the participants helped me to build relationships with many of these people, who I now consider friends.

Focus group discussions are another commonly used research method. My research strategy included using talking circles as a form of focus group discussion with the other research participants. A talking circle involves people sitting in a circle, where each person has the opportunity to take an uninterrupted turn in discussing the topic. Talking circles, while not a new idea for Indigenous people, are newly being accepted as a research technique (Hanohano, 2001; Martin, 2001). They are based upon the ideal of respect for participants in the circle (Archibald and Haig-Brown, 1996), where everyone has an equal chance to speak and be heard. Discussion typically follows a controlled format where each participant has an opportunity to talk in turn about the topic brought to the circle. Wilson and Wilson (2000) describe the talking circle as follows:

Typically, group members sit in a circle that represents the holism of Mother Earth and the equality of all members. In some circles an eagle feather or other sacred object is passed around, following the direction of the sun. In other groups a stone is passed from speaker to speaker, symbolizing the connection among group members and to the guiding spirit. The holder of the object speaks “from the heart” and the group listens silently and non-judgementally until the speaker has finished. Each member is given a chance to speak. A common rule of circle work is that members must not speak out of turn. In most instances, a complete talking circle comprises four rounds, although time restraints, rules and norms vary with each group. Most important is that group members feel ownership of these rules. (p. 11)

Focus group discussions were also held through seminar style conversations regarding Indigenous research methodologies.

In Indigenous research the topic being studied becomes a major key to the process that will be used. It is important to remember that I was looking for the meaning of why and how Indigenous people relate to things (research), rather than looking for a causal relationship between things. Research must use relational accountability, that is, must be connected to or a part of a com-

--- [p. 42] ---

munity (set of relationships), if it is to be counted as Indigenous (Cardinal, 2001; Steinhauer, 2001a, 2001b; Weber-Pillwax, 2001; J. Wilson, 2000). In order to build a healthy set of relationships, it is necessary to follow the proper protocol for working in the community (Pickett, Dudgeon and Garvey, 2000; Smith, 1999; Tafoya, 1995). As a preliminary stage to the research, I discussed the Australian Indigenous protocol with John Williams-Mozley, who is a Western Arrernte man of the Ntjalka clan. I used the knowledge of my own culture to ensure that protocol was followed with the Canadian Indigenous participants.

As stated above, I will return later to the specifics of how this strategy of inquiry was implemented. The form of writing in this book differs from the dominant style in that it does not follow a linear process (i.e., describe what I wanted to do, describe how I did it, then describe what I found out) but rather a more cyclical pattern that introduces ideas or themes, then returns to them at intervals with different levels of understanding. I will use my specific research methods and strategy as one example of an Indigenous research paradigm in action later in the book, but it is necessary first to explain and understand the paradigm that the methods attempted to follow.

As part of the protocol that I intend to follow, it is necessary that I explain a bit more about the boundaries I have placed upon myself and upon this research. I have consciously and explicitly decided not to critique other research paradigms and strategies or to justify my own paradigm through citing dominant paradigms. My only goal is to explain an Indigenous research paradigm and the relationships surrounding it. Critiquing other research paradigms or justifying my own through citing others would constitute a recognition of their jurisdiction over Indigenous research. It would be giving away the power of an Indigenous research paradigm to say that it needs to be justified by a dominant paradigm. Similarly, critiquing dominant paradigms as a way to promote the need for an Indigenous paradigm is eroding the underlying beliefs upon which the paradigm is established. I do not appreciate being told which paradigms and tools I can or cannot use in my research, so I cannot decide for other researchers whether the paradigms they have chosen will or will not work for them in their unique situations.

--- [p. 61] ---