Suchergebnisse

PurposeThis paper provides critical insights into the contextual challenges of researching indigenous people in Vietnam's public sector organisations.Design/methodology/approachDrawing on a study of indigenous employee voice and inclusion in public sector organisations in three locations in the Central Highlands region, the researcher engages in self and methodological reflections to explain the challenges faced.FindingsThis paper identifies and discusses the challenging issues of political sensitivity, data access, availability and consistency of quantitative data, and characteristics of indigenous participants in the context of Vietnam.Practical implicationsThis paper benefits directly those who are interested in researching Vietnam's indigenous people in future. Further, it contributes to the global conversation on the challenges of conducting indigenous research, particularly in reaching out to indigenous populations and obtaining reliable data in order to capture indigenous voice and experiences.Originality/valueThere is a dearth of knowledge of indigenous research in non-Western countries where indigenous people are not recognised officially by the government. This paper addresses this knowledge gap by focusing on cultural, political and societal issues of indigenous research from Vietnam.

Over the last several decades, scholars working on Indigenous topics have faced increasing pressure to engage in research that promotes social justice and results in formal partnerships with Indigenous communities. In this article, we argue that non-community-based research, in which the researcher exercises academic autonomy over the project, still has a role to play in Indigenous-focused research, depending on the research question, topic, and situation at hand. We explore this argument from the perspective of political scientists who study Indigenous–settler political relations in Canada.

This article explores and extends one aspect of the research theories and methods defined by Lester-Irabinna Rigney (1999) as 'Indigenist research', namely, published sources. We view published sources broadly as incorporating poetry, life histories, community histories, creation stories, scholarly articles and books. This article seeks to operationalise Indigenist research in the context of the sources that are central to academic work and critically engage with how the ontologies that inform knowledges are valued in the academy. We aim to explore the relationships Aboriginal people create with the parts of their knowledges that have become translated into text. Whilst acknowledging that oral traditions and processes are fundamentally important, this article seeks to situate sources published by Aboriginal people as a key part of the 'contestation of knowledge' that lies at the heart of Indigenist research (Rigney 1999: 116). Our aim is to start the conversation about the issues that are raised in framing how primary and secondary sources might be constituted within Indigenist research. We are two Aboriginal scholars of the Palyku people, and one non-Indigenous scholar. Writing in this academic space requires openness, sharing and profound trust between collaborators, which we have had the privilege of developing together over many years.

Indigenous research frameworks can be used to effectively engage Indigenous communities and students in Western modern science through transparent and respectful communication. Currently, much of the academic research taking place within Indigenous communities marginalizes Indigenous Knowledge, does not promote long-term accountability to Indigenous communities and their relations, and withholds respect for the spiritual values that many Indigenous communities embrace. Indigenous research frameworks address these concerns within the academic research process by promoting values such as: relationality, multilogicality, and the centralization of Indigenous perspectives. Indigenous research frameworks provide a framework that can be used in multiple contexts within higher education to bring equitable practices to research, teaching, mentoring, and organizational leadership. In this article, as a researcher who uses Indigenous research frameworks, I utilize autoethnography to engage in critical, reflexive thinking about how my perspective as an Indigenous researcher has developed over time. The purpose of this autoethnography is to reveal how Indigenous research frameworks may enhance higher education, especially for Indigenous students.

Over the last several decades, scholars working on Indigenous topics have faced increasing pressure to engage in research that promotes social justice and results in formal partnerships with Indigenous communities. In this article, we argue that non-community-based research, in which the researcher exercises academic autonomy over the project, still has a role to play in Indigenous-focused research, depending on the research question, topic, and situation at hand. We explore this argument from the perspective of political scientists who study Indigenous–settler political relations in Canada.

Qualitative research methods have treated Western knowledge systems and Indigenous studies as polar opposites with asymmetrical power relations. Studies have documented the hegemonic dominance of Western science over Indigenous knowledge systems. Despite this tension, there is an opportunity to integrate Western science with Indigenous knowledges to bridge these discordant systems. This paper argues that Constructivist Grounded Theory (CGT), a Western-based version of grounded theory can be weaved with Indigenous research. CGT's emphasis on co-construction, relationality, value-free inquiry, and social justice align with Indigenous research principles. Using examples from both CGT and Indigenous scholarship, the paper argues that CGT with its pragmatist and constructivist orientation can exist alongside an Indigenous research agenda. Furthermore, the flexible, emergent, and relativist nature of CGT aligns with some aspects of Indigenous research. The paper demonstrates that both knowledge systems can be treated on an equal par, engender methodological reciprocity and provide mutual benefits to each other. Weaving CGT and Indigenous research might provide new avenues of thinking about doing research with Indigenous communities and other marginalized communities.

With an example of a single study, I describe the strategic application of etic and emic approaches (in outsider research) to incorporate more insider perspectives. I introduce an iterative methodological model that instantiates the etic and emic theories into methodological practices. The model centers on the concept of methodological flexibility (methods that flex to accommodate insider perspectives). Reframing the balancing etic and emic perspectives in terms of the iterative model and methodological flexibility achieves two goals. Firstly, it supports the process of researcher reflexivity. Secondly, it enables a practical discussion of methodological adaptations that encourage emic perspectives throughout all phases of a study: design, data collection, and analysis. Drawing from my mixed methods study in the Yucatán, I further describe the model for balancing the two polar perspectives. Practical methodological recommendations made could inform other studies conducted by outsiders in indigenous or other communities.

Abstract: This article focuses on a philosophical approach employed in a PhD research project that set out to investigate sport career transition (SCT) experiences of elite Indigenous Australian sportsmen. The research was necessary as little is known about the transition of this cohort to a life after sport, or their experiences of retirement. A key problem within the SCT paradigm is a presumption that an end to elite sport requires a process of adjustment that is common to all sportspeople—a rather narrow perspective that fails to acknowledge the situational complexity and socio-cultural diversity of elite athletes. With such a range of personal circumstances, it is reasonable to suppose that athletes from different cultural groups will have different individual SCT needs. The researcher is non-Indigenous and mature aged: she encountered a number of challenges in her efforts to understand Indigenous culture and its important sensitivities, and to build trust with the Indigenous male participants she interviewed. An Indigenous philosophy known as Dadirri, which emphasises deep and respectful listening, guided the development of the research design and methodology. Consistent with previous studies conducted by non-Indigenous researchers, an open-ended and conversational approach to interviewing Indigenous respondents was developed. The objective was for the voices of the athletes to be heard, allowing the collection of rich data based on the participants' perspectives about SCT. An overview of the findings is presented, illustrating that Indigenous athletes experience SCT in complex and distinctive ways. The article provides a model for non-Indigenous researchers to conduct qualitative research with Indigenous people.

Ethical tensions exist regarding the value and practice of acknowledging Indigenous contributions in community-based participatory research (CBPR). Semistructured phone interviews with researchers documented their perspectives on authorship in the scholarly dissemination of their community-based participatory Indigenous research. Thematic analysis resulted in four key ideas: (1) current practices regarding methods of acknowledging community contributions; (2) requirements for shared authorship with individual versus collective/community partners; (3) benefits to sharing authorship with collective/community partners; and (4) risks to sharing authorship with collective/community partners. Findings suggest an emerging but inconsistent practice.

Federally funded research in Canada is of significant scope and scale. The implications of research in the colonial project has resulted in a fraught relationship between Indigenous Peoples and Western research. Research governance, as an aspect of public administration, is evolving. The relationality inherent in new public governance (NPG)—a nascent public governance regime—may align with Indigenous relationality concepts. Recent societal advances, such as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), the Truth and Reconcilliation Commission of Canada (TRC), and the Indigenous Institutes Act in Ontario, provide further impetus for Indigenous self-determination in multiple domains including research. This article advocates for Indigenous research sovereignty and concludes with suggestions for ways in which federal funding agencies, specifically the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC), could contribute to the advancement of Indigenous research sovereignty.

The phrase African indigenous research (AIR) depicts a novel research thrust that seeks a global entrance into the mainstream research assortment as a competitive area of study. A discourse on decolonisation attempts to reverse the gains of colonialism. Existing studies show that most (South) African universities' curricula can be traced to the colonial era. A rereading of available scholarly conversations depicts some reluctance on the part of education authorities towards decolonising the (South) African universities' curricula. It is in the context of the above that the present study engages conversations on decolonisation in order to establish a common ground that affords AIR a notable articulation on decolonisation of (South) African Universities' curricula. The present research is anchored on a critical race theory (CRT) in which narrative inquiry as a methodological approach is utilised. Although the phrase African universities' curricula is employed, the study will focus on the (South) African universities' curricula as representative examples. The (South) African scenario is preferred as a case study due to the author's familiarisation with (South) African universities as well as African decolonisation discourses. The study attempts to answer the following three questions (1) what motivated research conversations on decolonisation? (2) why is the study on decolonisation of the curricula in (South) African universities necessary? and (3) what is the global impact of decolonisation processes in (South) Africa?

There is conceptual confusion in academic scholarship regarding Indigenous research methodologies and decolonising research methodologies. Scholars view these paradigms as similar yet distinct, but very few seek to define that distinction. In this article, I explore the relationship between these approaches to academic research. Both paradigms emphasise the need to transform the academy because of its tendency to marginalise non-Western epistemologies. Transformation requires the interconnection and co-ordination of many paradigms including Indigenous, feminist, and antiracist approaches to research. I propose viewing Indigenous and decolonising research methodologies as a relationship, and suggest both are dynamic practices that do not exist outside of the people who use them. What they look like and how they relate to one another will depend upon who uses them, why they are used, and where they are practiced.