Recaliming Scholarship: Critical Indigenous Research Methodologies PDF

C H A P T E R 17 RECLAIMING SCHOLARSHIP: CRITICAL INDIGENOUS RESEARCH METHODOLOGIES Bryan McKinley Jones Brayboy Heather R. Gough Beth Leonard Roy F. Roehl...

C H A P T E R 17 RECLAIMING SCHOLARSHIP: CRITICAL INDIGENOUS RESEARCH METHODOLOGIES Bryan McKinley Jones Brayboy Heather R. Gough Beth Leonard Roy F. Roehl II Jessica A. Solyom Key Ideas  Critical Indigenous Research Methodologies (CIRM), an overarching line of thinking about methods and philosophies, is rooted in indigenous knowledge systems, is anticolonial, and is distinctly focused on the needs of communities.  CIRM is rooted in relationships, responsibility, respect, reciprocity, and accountability.  Research must be a process of fostering relationships between researchers, communities, and the topic of inquiry.  CIRM recognizes the role of particular components that make it viable for communities, but ultimately it is of little use to create frameworks rooted in these principles if these methodologies do not also promote emancipatory agendas that recognize the self-determination and inherent sovereignty of indigenous peoples. 424 QUALITATIVE RESEARCH In academic research we recognize that there is, as Maori scholars Linda Tuhiwai Smith (1999, 2000) and Graham Smith (2000), among others, have noted, an overemphasis on a specific type of science and research, often positiv- ist in nature and claiming to hold one singular truth (often referred to as Truth with a capital T). Grounded in a particular worldview inextricably linked to the practice of imperialism and colonialism—and with an unyielding insistence in the notion that Western scientific method and practices, which dominate the academy, are the only legitimate forms of knowledge production—academic research has, to put it politely, become estranged from indigenous communities. A Critical Indigenous Research Methodologies (CIRM) perspective, which fundamentally begins as an emancipatory project that forefronts the self-determination and inherent sovereignty of indigenous peoples is rooted in relationships and is driven explicitly by community interests. Given this orienta- tion, the challenge is for scholars and institutions that prepare researcher-scholars to move away from such limited definitions of what kinds of knowledge systems and research processes can be labeled scientific and to consider the ways in which indigenous peoples and methodologies inform and frame scientific scholarly inquiry. This chapter responds to a growing call in the academy for rethinking positivist models; for exploring the boundaries outlining indigenous research; and for envisioning anew, or perhaps re-visioning, a research paradigm grounded in indigenous knowledges, beliefs, and practices. We respond to this call here by offering an overview of CIRM as we inter- pret this process. In this chapter we present a view of CIRM that is unapologet- ically rooted in indigenous knowledge systems, is anticolonial, and is distinctly focused on the needs of communities (Battiste, 2000; L. Smith, 1999; St. Denis, 1992; Wilson, 2001b, 2008). In our discussion we attempt to engage in a rela- tionship with those indigenous scholars who have gone before us as we address research concerns, advising current scholars and those who will come after our time of the fundamental need for upholding the basic tenets of CIRM while further refining or adapting analytical frameworks and models that have been developed for specific communities (for example, the Kaupapa Maori approach). Colonization and the Call for (Re)Claiming an Indigenous Intellectual Life and Thought-World Writing about CIRM induced a sense of shared anxiety for us. We began the process with a great deal of introspection. We asked ourselves: What is this thing called “Critical Indigenous Research Methodologies”? Who are we to write about it? How can we talk about it in terms that capture the commonalities of RECLAIMING SCHOLARSHIP: CRITICAL INDIGENOUS RESEARCH METHODOLOGIES 425 research methodologies for many indigenous peoples, while at the same time recognizing the nuances in attempting to do this? We must always be mindful of these questions, as we are not alone in this conversation and in fact are able to draw on ongoing discussions that perhaps most notably gained momen- tum with the publication of Linda Tuhiwai Smith’s Decolonizing Methodologies (1999), but that had arisen, however briefly, in earlier parts of the twentieth century. Thus we begin by noting that scholarly arguments presenting a need for indigenous communities to (re)claim research and knowledge-making practices that are driven by indigenous peoples; rooted in recognitions of the impacts of Eurocentric culture on the history, beliefs, and practices of indigenous peoples and communities; and guided by the intention of promoting the anticolonial or emancipatory interests of indigenous communities are not new (see also Chapters Fourteen, Fifteen, and Sixteen). In fact, one of the earliest calls for this kind of research and knowledge-making surfaced in the scholarly literature in the early 1900s when Seneca scholar Arthur C. Parker (1916) published his article “The Social Elements of the Indian Problem” in the American Journal of Sociology. Almost fifty years later the late Lakota scholar Vine Deloria Jr. presented a similar call when he published Custer Died for Your Sins: An Indian Manifesto (1969). These scholarly works presented several important considerations for the creation of indigenous research methodologies. For example, although Parker did not provide a framework for establishing an indigenous research methodology per se, he did offer a sophisticated argument for why an intellectual framework, guided by indigenous epistemological, ontological, and axiological beliefs, is needed. (We use epistemologies to mean ways of knowing or how peoples come to know the things they know. Ontologies refer to how we engage the world [how people “be”]. Axiologies refer to how people value what is right— in other words, axiologies refer to particular types of value systems.) In the process of laying down “seven charges, out of perhaps many more, that the Indian makes at the bar of American justice” (p. 254), Parker (1916) recognized the detrimental effects of colonization on the intellectual lives of indigenous peoples and reasoned that human beings have a primary right to an intellectual life, but civilization has swept down upon groups of Indians and, by destroying their rela- tionships to nature, blighted or banished their intellectual life, and left a group of people mentally confused.... The Indians must have a thought-world given back. Their intellectual world must have direct relation to their world of responsible acts and spontaneous experiences. (p. 258) 426 QUALITATIVE RESEARCH The phrase “The Indians must have a thought-world given back” raises some concern for us as it seems to beg the question: Given back by whom? We agree that systematic attempts were and continue to be made to ensure that the intel- lectual life of Indians was blighted or banished (or, more literally, silenced and ignored). However, indigenous epistemological, ontological, and axiological beliefs have remained and survived. This chapter is a testament to this as it is largely driven by the work of indigenous scholars. (Brayboy [Lumbee], Leonard [Deg Hit’an Athabascan], and Roehl [Aleut] are indigenous people, and Solyom and Gough are allies [of Puerto Rican/Hungarian and Semitic/Anglo descent, respectively]). For us, this suggests that an intellectual life or an intel- lectual thought-world is not being given back by anyone. Rather, it is resurfacing through the growing contributions of indigenous scholar–community members around the world. Ultimately we believe that while Parker presents us with a thoughtful argument for asserting an indigenous intellectual life and thought- world, Deloria (1969), in his classic text Custer Died for Your Sins, makes a more direct contribution concerning the role of research and intellectualism among indigenous peoples by naming what the research and thought processes are actually about. That is, the tasks are not for indigenous communities to be given back a thought-world. Rather, the task is for indigenous peoples to reclaim our intellectual lives by developing practices that are based in practices guided by indigenous beliefs, actions, and experiences. In terms of research, we believe the right to an intellectual life described by Parker (1916) and others necessitates an engagement in the research process and the philosophy behind that process. In many ways Parker was a visionary who served to foreground the arguments that would arise decades later. His work frames the need for indigenous research methodologies as rooted in the recognition of basic human, community, and civil rights and recognizes that indigenous peoples think and behave in ways unique to their worldviews and experiences. Later, Cree scholar Shawn Wilson (2008) similarly argued, There is a need to examine how an Indigenous research paradigm can lead to a better understanding of and provision for the needs of Indigenous people. Appreciating the differences Indigenous people have in terms of their ontology, epistemology, methodology, and axiology can lead to research methods that are more fully integrated with an indigenous worldview. (pp. 20–21) Drawing from the works of such scholars as Parker, Deloria, L. Smith, Wilson, and many others, this chapter is our attempt to add our voices to the conversations, and although it is neither exhaustive nor as deeply involved as we  RECLAIMING SCHOLARSHIP: CRITICAL INDIGENOUS RESEARCH METHODOLOGIES 427 would hope, it is an effort to engage the work of those who have come before us and to offer something to those who have yet to engage in academic research. And, with great humility, we seek to honor and amplify indigenous voices and to reflect back what we already know to be true: that indigenous communities have for centuries engaged in empirical research, developed and refined as an integral process of living through engaged observation, both for survival and for continued growth. REFLECTION QUESTIONS 1. What kinds of connections can you envision among epistemologies (ways of knowing), ontologies (ways of being), axiologies (value systems), and the research process? 2. What are the implications of arguing that indigenous thought-worlds have survived and need to resurface within research rather than be given back? Note on Methods Versus Methodologies Before delving any further into the discussion on methodologies, it is important to acknowledge the distinction between methods (the tools used to collect data) and methodologies (the theoretical and philosophical considerations of how to engage in the process of doing research). Whereas the former represents a toolbox or how-to guide, the latter informs our theoretical understandings about the process. As the theory behind how and why we do research, research meth- odology drives the assumptions we make and our choice of topic and methods and situates us in a particular geopolitics of time and space. Methodology deter- mines whether we are looking for the Truth, a point of view, a structural cause or an individual failing, an answer, or a question. It determines whether we will believe we own what we find or whether we believe we enter into a relationship with those ideas to learn from them, to care for them, and to pass them on to the next generation. Methodologies, driven by beliefs about the nature of truth and data, encourage us to consider not only how to engage in the process of research but also why and to what end we engage in it in the first place. We will expand more on the historical and traditional forms of methodologies that have guided Western academic research as well as their epistemological, onto- logical, and axiological implications later in the chapter. We now turn, however, to a more general discussion of the concept of research as it relates to indigenous communities. 428 QUALITATIVE RESEARCH What Makes Research Such a Dirty Word? In order to fully engage in our goal of offering an overview of CIRM, it is neces- sary for us to consider the lasting impression the notion of research has left on indigenous communities. Scholars have noted that knowledge and research, their (re)production and value, have historically been embedded within a framework driven by colonialist and imperialist interests (for a more detailed argument see Duran & Duran, 2000; Henderson, 2000; L. Smith, 1999; Wilson, 2008). Maori scholar Linda Tuhiwai Smith (1999) explains the specific nature of one connotation of the term research and its practice when she states, “From the vantage point of the colonized... the word ‘research’... is probably one of the dirtiest words in the indigenous world’s vocabulary” (p. 1). Research for Indigenous communities invokes past, and notably present, incidents of abuse; exploitative research practices; looting of cultural knowledge, artifacts, and even bodies and genetic material; anthropological recastings of histories, cultural practices, and understandings of self, community, and sovereignty through out- siders’ eyes; and a placing of study and knowledge outside the community such that community members become objects to be studied and the knowledge produced fails to reflect indigenous values (Battiste & Henderson, 2002; Deloria, 1969; Hart, 2010; L. Smith, 1999). Moreover, the history of relegating indige- nous thought-worlds to the periphery (if they are acknowledged at all) by many of those engaged in research created a research paradigm used to discredit and sometimes eradicate indigenous knowledges and thought-worlds (Parker, 1916) by placing indigenous worldviews in direct opposition to Western ones. Mi’kMaq scholar Marie Battiste (2002) observes, For as long as Europeans have sought to colonize Indigenous peoples, Indigenous Knowledge has been understood as being in binary opposi- tion to “scientific,” “western,” “Eurocentric,” or “modern” knowledge. Eurocentric thinkers dismissed Indigenous Knowledge in the same way they dismissed any socio-political cultural life they did not understand: they found it to be unsystematic and incapable of meeting the productiv- ity needs of the modern world. (p. 5) In many ways the principles behind, and the processes of, colonization advance, develop, and promote research philosophies and practices that con- tinue to transform the (re)production of knowledge; knowledge that controls and dismisses indigenous or “other” knowledges, beliefs, and practices as inferior. (Western) scientific method has historically been presented as neutral, objective, and representative of the Truth. Research grounded in these methods has functionally served to vivisect the world, cutting across interconnections, lives, RECLAIMING SCHOLARSHIP: CRITICAL INDIGENOUS RESEARCH METHODOLOGIES 429 cultural knowledge, and bodies, often with good intentions and occasionally espousing a critical approach even as it reproduces the status quo. Such dissec- tions leave the objects of research scarred, producing and reproducing knowledge that defines the borders of exclusion and projects denigrated caricatures of the other to be internalized as grotesque truths about one’s own being and com- munity. This kind of research produces real consequences in the lives of the indigenous peoples researched, consequences reflecting the severed and dismem- bered processes from which they were generated. Understood in this light, research is dirty in large part because it has been used to systematically oppress, colonize, brutalize, and suppress indigenous peoples for generations (for addi- tional arguments engaging this theme see Battiste & Henderson, 2002; Blaut, 1993; Kawagley, 1995, 2006). Unfortunately, the recognition and identification of research engagement as a practice promoting and (pre)serving colonialist interests have created a signifi- cant divide between indigenous academics and indigenous communities. In fact, Deloria (1969) argues that research has in many ways been of no use to indig- enous peoples. He suggests that the reason research and academic knowledge are considered to be useless stems from the differences between the epistemolo- gies, ontologies, and axiologies driving Western theories and those guiding the lives of indigenous peoples. Deloria reminds us of the importance of praxis— the place where theory and practice come together in noticeable and important ways—when engaging in research involving indigenous communities by pointing out that “abstract theories create abstract action. Lumping together the variety of tribal problems and seeking the demonic principle at work is intellectually satisfying. But it does not change the real situation” (p. 86, italics added). Later he argues, “Academia, and its by-products, continues to become more irrelevant to the needs of the people” (p. 93). Linda Tuhiwai Smith (1999) made similar observations about the disconnect between the objectives and goals of (Western) research(ers) and those of indigenous communities: “Research was talked about [in indigenous communities] both in terms of its absolute worthlessness to us, the indigenous world, and its absolute usefulness to those who wielded it as an instrument” (p. 3). However, Graham Smith (2000), although recognizing the reasons indige- nous communities may remain distrustful of researchers, even those who are indigenous, cautions indigenous communities from being too quick to dismiss indigenous research(ers) by pointing out, There is good reason to be concerned that some Indigenous academics become “ivory tower intellectuals,” disconnected from Indigenous communities and concerns, mere functionaries for the colonization of 430 QUALITATIVE RESEARCH our peoples.... Rather than dismissing all intellectual contributions as being unworthy and problematic, we should be seeking out those whose work is supportive and useful and ensuring that they are able to contribute to the struggle with appropriate support and guidance from the community. (pp. 213–214) This statement presents a series of implications for considerations pertaining to the methods driving a CIRM approach as well as considerations pertaining to the question of why we engage in the research process. For G. Smith, the main point is that there is need for indigenous academics working for the people. He goes on to suggest that both support and guidance must come from communities and bluntly points out, “If Indigenous academics, despite the burden, are not accountable to both community and academy, then they ought to be!” (p. 213). Writing to this point, Linda Tuhiwai Smith (1999, 2000) and Graham Smith (2000) add that indigenous scholars must consider, and engage in, the transfor- mation of scholarly inquiry. This transformation either includes (re)moving inquiry from a process centered on promoting the interests of non-indigenous individuals or portraying indigenous or non-majority communities as defeated and broken. Instead they argue that the process of scholarly inquiry should seek to understand the complexity, resilience, contradiction, and self-determination of these communities, and should be driven by a desire to serve community interests (as defined by the communities themselves). Aleut scholar Eve Tuck (2009) addresses this directly when she suggests that research should be aimed at a fundamental transformation of how stories are reported, taken up, and used in marginalized communities and to what end they are used. Indeed, she chal- lenges scholars to consider if they are engaging in damage-centered research and suggests a move to desire-based scholarship. Tuck explains, In damage-centered research, one of the major activities is to document pain or loss in an individual, community, or tribe. Though connected to deficit models—frameworks that emphasize what a particular student, family, or community is lacking to explain underachievement or failure—damage-centered research is distinct in being more socially and historically situated. It looks to historical exploitation, domination, and colonization to explain contemporary brokenness, such as poverty, poor health, and low literacy. Common sense tells us this is a good thing, but the danger in damage-centered research is that it is a pathologizing approach in which the oppression singularly defines a community.... In a damage-centered framework, pain and loss are documented in order to obtain particular political or material gains. (p. 413)  RECLAIMING SCHOLARSHIP: CRITICAL INDIGENOUS RESEARCH METHODOLOGIES 431 Ultimately, the reframing of research agendas through transformational visions and responsiveness to the colonial underpinnings of research methodolo- gies is the essence of critical indigenous research. Tuck notes that desire-based research is an antidote [that] stops and counteracts the effects of a poison, and the poison I am referring to here is not the supposed damage of Native communities, urban communities, or other disenfranchised communi- ties but the frameworks that position these communities as damaged. (p. 416) Although we recognize that the contentious history of research in indigenous communities has led the very mention of the word to be received with apprehen- sion and suspicion, and understandably so, we believe there lies a possibility for framing research as rooted in a strength-based manner that is about doing exactly what L. Smith (1999, 2000), Tuck (2009), and others call for. That is, we remain hopeful that research methodologies centered on promoting coopera- tive, collaborative efforts between formally trained researchers and indigenous communities—essentially redefining relationships between and among rese- archers and the researched to establish truly collaborative relationships in which power is viewed as a shared resource—can serve an important role in (re)defining the nature, scope, and function of research such that the needs of communities can be addressed in meaningful, productive, and respectful ways. REFLECTION QUESTIONS 1. What makes the genealogy of research in indigenous communities important? 2. Why are scholars calling for a (re)claiming of research by indigenous peoples? Epistemological, Ontological, and Axiological Considerations in Research In the last decade indigenous scholars have been engaged in a series of conversa- tions about the need for indigenous peoples to become more assertive about conducting, participating in, and driving relevant research on indigenous issues and within indigenous communities (Cook-Lynn, 2000; Harris, 2002; Hart, 2010; Henderson, 2000; G. Smith, 2000; L. Smith, 1999, 2000; Tuck, 2009; 432 QUALITATIVE RESEARCH Weber-Pillwax, 2001; Wilson, 2001a, 2001b, 2008). As a result of these conversa- tions there has emerged a more explicit call for defining the boundaries of indigenous research and for laying out a vision of a research paradigm grounded in indigenous knowledges, beliefs, and practices. Before we outline a framework for CIRM, let us first offer an overview of the epistemological, ontological, and axiological assumptions promoted by traditional, generally Eurocentric forms of research. Many traditional forms of positivist research seek an ultimate Truth that assumes the world can be defined through the development of finite, discon- nected taxonomies (scientific classifications); these specific ways of conducting research claim to be rooted in objective, neutral hypotheses that will reveal “the” singular Truth. Traditional research perspectives often individualize the pursuit of knowledge such that the acquisition of knowledge is driven by individual interests and by the pursuit of knowledge for knowledge’s sake. Oftentimes researchers embedded in a positivist framework seek to isolate variables in living organisms and create research initiatives that will derive enough information to allow researchers to predict and control natural occurrences—including human behavior. For example, Western methodologies often assume the power to define taxonomically what is human or nonhuman, animate or inanimate, organic or inorganic, living or lifeless, natural or unnatural, rational or irrational. In addi- tion to promoting rigid definitions and labels, Western scientific methodologies may seek to exclude other epistemologies and methodologies that focus on the processes and qualities of relationships between and among humans and the worlds they inhabit (Deloria, 1969; Kawagley, 2006; L. Smith, 1999). This philosophical orientation to knowledge, its pursuit and uses, conflicts with indigenous perspectives that value seeking knowledge for the purpose of serving others. Inherent in this vision of research is the supremacy of Western understand- ings of science as a framing mechanism for research. Western conceptions of science, referred to simply as science, become the golden and guiding rule. Linda Tuhiwai Smith (1999) explains, Research “through imperial eyes” describes an approach which assumes that Western ideas about the most fundamental things are the only ideas possible to hold, certainly the only rational ideas, and the only ideas which can make sense of the world, of reality, of social life and of human beings.... It is research which is imbued with an “attitude” and a “spirit” which assumes a certain ownership of the world.... There are people out there who in the name of science and progress still con- sider indigenous peoples as specimens, not as humans. (p. 56) RECLAIMING SCHOLARSHIP: CRITICAL INDIGENOUS RESEARCH METHODOLOGIES 433 As suggested by L. Smith, colonized research, taught in the Western academy as good research, is problematic in several respects. First and foremost, this sin- gular approach, which assumes its own superiority, functions to silence, erase, appropriate, dominate, own, and oppress that which it encounters in the world— be it people, knowledge systems, or alternate visions of how the world could be. We want to be clear that research can, and should, serve multiple purposes in terms of its contributions. The primary motivation within a CIRM framework, however, is for the research and researcher(s) to serve indigenous communities, acting as a tool of the community to meet the community’s needs and to advance emancipatory goals of self-determination and sovereignty. Perhaps Wilson (2001b) explains this best when he writes, One major difference between the dominant paradigms and an Indigenous paradigm is that the dominant paradigms build on the fun- damental belief that knowledge is an individual entity: the researcher is an individual in search of knowledge, knowledge is something that is gained, and therefore knowledge may be owned by an individual. An Indigenous paradigm comes from the fundamental belief that knowl- edge is relational. Knowledge is shared with all of creation. (p. 176) There is an immediate connection made evident here between research and knowledge. It raises the question of how relationality—the ways in which relationships are enacted and connected—functions within the context of research and presents implications for the ownership, utility, and sharing of knowledge. Wilson encourages us to consider who owns the knowledge gener- ated from research and in what ways knowledge might not only be wholly relational, but sacred to specific communities and not meant to be shared in broader contexts. We would argue that in a CIRM framework knowledge is not a commodity; instead, it is information gained or accumulated in order to serve the needs of those with whom we are in relation. In other words, the knowledge acquired and generated through indigenous research is intended to serve others. Moreover, whereas many critical methodological theories operate within a social justice framework based in relationality, CIRM reflects indigenous peoples’ extension of the term social beyond the human realm, to include areas such as environmental, plant, animal, and spiritual realms. Thus far our discussion of indigenous methodologies, building on the work of others, promotes an axiological, or value-based, claim that is specifi- cally rooted in an anticolonial agenda and that places emphasis on serving the needs of indigenous peoples. Weber-Pillwax (2001) explains this when she writes, “I could also make a value statement and say that ‘whatever I do as 434 QUALITATIVE RESEARCH an Indigenous researcher must be hooked to the community’ or ‘the Indigenous research has to benefit the community’ ” (p. 168). This axiological commit- ment means that research must be driven by purposes that (re)position the motives of the researcher away from motives of control and individual gain—motives associated with preserving, promoting, upholding, and enforc- ing a colonialist agenda—to a position in which communities are primarily served. In essence we are suggesting that CIRM moves away from “ivory tower intellectuals” (G. Smith, 2003, p. 213) to community-serving, community- rooted intellectuals. What Is a Critical Indigenous Research Methodologies Framework? To our knowledge, there are no direct definitions of what specifically consti- tutes a Critical Indigenous Research Methodology; however, we do have a sense of how and in what ways indigenous scholars have begun to critically address the call for indigenous-based research and practices. Denzin and Lincoln (2008) suggest that one way to begin to conceptualize CIRM is by considering the following position: “Critical indigenous inquiry begins with the concerns of Indigenous people” (p. 2), and the concerns of indigenous peoples are not necessarily confined to a dichotomous opposition of human concern versus environmental concern. Moreover, for Evans, Hole, Berg, Hutchinson, and Sookraj (2009), discussions of indigenous methodologies need to include a consideration of who are engaging in the research and how they do so. For them, an indigenous methodology “can be defined as research by and for Indigenous peoples, using techniques and methods drawn from the traditions and knowledges of those peoples” (quoted in Denzin, Lincoln, & Smith, 2008, p. x). This definition recognizes a direct connection between ensuring that indigenous research methodologies include beliefs that are based on indigenous principles of relating and of sharing knowledge. This definition also raises another important consideration: that is, separating indigenous methodologies from indigenous knowledges not only is faulty—it also removes any sense of indigeneity from the methodology. Indigeneity is broadly defined as the enactment and engagement of being an indigenous person. In other words, methodologies inherently carry with them the ways in which those who are guided by them view the world. This worldview is inherently a part of one’s knowledge system.  RECLAIMING SCHOLARSHIP: CRITICAL INDIGENOUS RESEARCH METHODOLOGIES 435 Research as Service Still other scholars have presented a specific purpose that an indigenous research methodology should fulfill. According to Hart (2010), “An Indigenous Method- ology includes the assumption that knowledge gained will be utilized practically” (p. 9). Hart’s observation suggests there is a significant need for putting knowl- edge or research to practical use and echoes the work of other scholars who suggest research must address particular challenges or specific issues if it is going to be useful for indigenous peoples (Deloria, 1969; G. Smith, 2000; L. Smith, 1999, 2000; Weber-Pillwax, 2001; Wilson, 2001a, 2008). This serves as a further reminder that a CIRM approach is driven by service and is tied to well-being, rather than an approach that views knowledge accumulation as the end goal. Thus there is a clear sense in CIRM of the need to conduct research rooted in transformative processes that assist communities in ways that meet their needs. The literature is also clear on the idea that a community’s needs are best assessed by the community itself. Members of a community understand the local context, challenges, and resources; it is up to them to identify needs. Explaining how researchers engage communities on this level, Lumbee scholar Robert Williams (1997) draws on his experience as director of an indigenous legal clinic at the University of Arizona, writing that the clinicians in the practice go out into communities, listen to people there, and become “story hearing fools” (p. 764). This process of becoming “story hearing fools” largely ensures that com- munities drive the practices and research in which practitioners and researchers engage. The community-driven nature of CIRM should not be taken as an argu- ment that this kind of research is in any way anti-intellectual or nonempirical; rather, it helps to justify CIRM as a process that serves the needs of the people—as defined by the people—as well as to advance intellectual inquiries further in ways consistent with indigenous understandings of empiricism, multisensory learning, service, and responsibility. This focus on engaging in research endeavors that directly address the needs and concerns facing indig- enous communities, it has been argued, serves as one example of what may differentiate a CIRM framework or paradigm from a traditionally Western one. Consider Perry Gilmore and the late David Smith’s writings (2005) wherein they argue, “The notion that one should seek knowledge for knowledge’s sake is revered in Western traditions of scholarship. Indigenous research seeks to contribute both to academic and local communities” (p. 82). Although we would note that there is often overlap and intermingling between academic 436 QUALITATIVE RESEARCH and local knowledge, nevertheless this theme of connection between research by and research for indigenous peoples is echoed in multiple places and carries significant implications for what the role of the researcher is and how it is perceived (see also Chapter Eighteen concerning community participation). The Four R’s of CIRM: Relationality, Responsibility, Respect, and Reciprocity In response to the call by the indigenous researchers to (re)claim an indigenous intellectual life and thought-world, we suggest a framework built on relationality, responsibility, respect, and reciprocity. This CIRM perspective shares similari- ties with other critical perspectives—notably its commitment to research that is driven by the community, that serves the needs of the community, and that ultimately works to recognize basic human, community, and civil rights. How- ever, other facets of CIRM make it distinct from other critical approaches, as will be elaborated in the next sections. Relationality For us, the genesis of Critical Indigenous Research Methodologies is rooted in relationships. CIRM posits that knowledge is relational and thus not owned by the individual, presenting serious considerations for how we understand the purposes of data and their analyses as well as the purposes of knowledge produc- tion and acquisition for indigenous communities. This implication will be further explored in the following section. For now, we want to note our belief that knowledge is both relational and subjective, not based on objective truths that are often thought to define research; that is, objectivity in indigenous research is not a goal researchers should necessarily strive for. As Harris (2002) points out, “For many Indigenous people the notion of objectivity is preposterous because every aspect of Creation is continually interacting; the observer is interacting with the observed, and, therefore logically cannot be divorced from it” (p. 188). Many other critical research paradigms embrace the concepts of subjectivity and relationality; in contrast to CIRM, however, these other paradigms are still operating under very different assumptions about the world than are those para- digms grounded in indigenous worldviews (for example, worldviews that are human-centered or in which subjectivity may also include the metaphysical or spiritual realms). Metís scholar Cora Weber-Pillwax (2001) also recognizes the role of sub- jectivity when she states, “Indigenous Research Methodologies are those that enable and permit Indigenous researchers to be who they are while engaged RECLAIMING SCHOLARSHIP: CRITICAL INDIGENOUS RESEARCH METHODOLOGIES 437 actively as participants in the research processes that create new knowledge and transform who they are and where they are” (p. 174). Linda Tuhiwai Smith (1999) extends Weber-Pillwax’s point when she argues, “Indigenous research approaches problematize the insider model in different ways because there are multiple ways of both being an insider and an outsider in indigenous contexts” (p. 137). As we argue that CIRM, as a research stance, is rooted in relationships, we understand that this may not be as evident to readers as it is to us. In part, we want to make two important points concerning our argument for the importance of relationships in CIRM. The first point is that research must be a process of fostering relationships between researchers, communities, and the topic of inquiry. Embedded in this process is a need to engage from a position of trust; researchers must be trust- worthy and held accountable, as Graham Smith (2000) so clearly articulates. Linked to this, the second point is that CIRM acknowledges that there are mul- tiple ways to be in relationship. This starts with a real sense of protocol for conducting research: communities must be approached, permission must be granted, and research must be engaged in with benevolent intent, taking into account generations past, present, and future. The research itself is also con- ducted with a particular sense of humility; every legitimate relationship neces- sitates the discarding of egos and requires the researcher to recognize the responsibilities that emerge from the relationship. Other critical methodologies also make similar points concerning research. We acknowledge that some of the defining traits of CIRM are shared with other critical methodologies. We do not want to argue that all of CIRM is unique; rather, we want to point out that the totality of CIRM, driven by notions of sovereignty and self-determination, makes it unique and important. The con- nections to other critical methodologies point to the fact that CIRM stands in solidarity with these methodologies. Along these lines, Nicholls (2009) argues for an understanding of relationa- lity as methodology when, quoting Linda Tuhiwai Smith (1999), she states, “Indigenous Methodologies tend to approach cultural protocols, values and behaviours as an integral part of methodology” (p. 120). Nicholls further suggests that “relationality, in this context, is ontology, epistemology, and axiology” (p. 120). The behavioral aspects (ontology) of CIRM are driven by the beliefs (epistemology), which are framed by a value system (axiology). Within this value set, Maori scholar Russell Bishop (2005) notes that “researchers are expected to develop prevailing relationships with participants” (p. 117) on the terms outlined by the community. This expectation presents one of the responsibilities linked to the relationships. 438 QUALITATIVE RESEARCH Responsibility The link between relationships and responsibilities is critical. From a CIRM perspective, research is situated within complex relationships that necessitate multiple responsibilities on the part of the researcher. Indeed, Wilson (2001b) speaks directly to this point when he notes, What is an Indigenous Methodology?... To me an Indigenous Meth- odology means talking about relational accountability. As a researcher you are answering to all your relations when you are doing research. You are not answering questions of validity or reliability or making judg- ments of better or worse. Instead you should be fulfilling your relation- ships with the world around you. So your methodology has to ask different questions: rather than asking about validity or reliability, you are asking how am I fulfilling my role in this relationship? What are my obligations in this relationship? (p. 177) Embedded in Wilson’s words is an outline for thinking about CIRM that suggests indigenous-based research methodologies go beyond an individual- oriented way of engaging the world. Recognizing the importance of relation- ships, as we have previously noted, requires the researcher to think about how research affects others beyond himself or herself. Relationships exist between people, animals, places, and ideas. In a sense, this relatedness to other living objects/beings in the world situates peoples as just one part of a larger cosmos, not the center of it. To this end, if we have relationships with other peoples, things, animals, and places, we are necessarily responsible to them. As people we learn from, rely on, and survive and thrive because of that which sur- rounds us. Ideas, as part of the research process, implicate these same sets of relational protocols and responsibilities. Our ideas matter: how and if we pursue them and what becomes of those ideas after research ends—these things have long-lasting repercussions for those with whom we are in relation- ship. CIRM necessitates careful thought, consultation, and collaboration to care for both the ideas, or knowledge, it generates and the living beings those ideas influence. Respect Naturally emerging from relationships and responsibilities is the importance of respect. Respect is a key component of CIRM and is demonstrated in Linda Tuhiwai Smith’s earlier mention of protocols (1999) and Bishop’s reference (2005) to expectations of building relationships. Respect is one of those things RECLAIMING SCHOLARSHIP: CRITICAL INDIGENOUS RESEARCH METHODOLOGIES 439 that emerge from the process of building and engaging in relationships. Relationships must be built on mutual and ongoing respect, or the research cannot be conducted ethically. Linda Tuhiwai Smith (1999) continues by writing, The term “respect” is consistently used by indigenous peoples to under- score the significance of our relationships and humanity. Through respect, the place of everyone and everything in the universe is kept in balance and harmony. Respect is a reciprocal, shared, constantly inter- changing principle which is expressed through all aspects of social conduct. (p. 120) Valid relationships are vital to research and are enacted through processes of respect, as she notes. Reciprocity From the three R’s (relationality, responsibility, and respect) that are central to CIRM there emerges a fourth element: reciprocity. Reciprocity here moves beyond a “quid pro quo” line of thinking in research and relationships to one that reflects more of a “pay it forward” notion. That is, we take so that we can give to and provide for others—in order to survive and to thrive. In so doing we are bounded, through these relationships, to care for those things around us. This notion flows through the CIRM research process, which is, at its core, relational. Yupiaq scholar Oscar Kawagley (1995, 2006) notes that indigenous world- views contain a sense of responsibility and reciprocity. Cree scholar Michael Anthony Hart (2010), drawing on the work of Rice (2005), states, “Another dominant aspect is reciprocity, or the belief that as we receive from others, we must also offer to others” (p. 7). Within reciprocity is a clear sense of relatedness and that whatever is received makes its way back around to others. There is another aspect of reciprocity that contains, as Linda Tuhiwai Smith (2000) explains, [a] level of accountability in regard to developing transformative out- comes for the indigenous communities [researchers] purport to be serving. If a person is genuinely working on behalf of the community, then the community will also be part of the whole process, not simply be passive recipients of a grand “plan” developed outside themselves. (p. 213) 440 QUALITATIVE RESEARCH In other words, reciprocity happens through ongoing processes and relationships with others. Relationality, respect, responsibility, reciprocity, and accountability thus animate CIRM and guide all aspects of the research process. Living Research: Indigenous Empiricism, Multisensory Listening, and Indigenous Epistemologies For us, another important point in considering CIRM is to acknowledge that indigenous peoples have always engaged in research. We are empirical peoples, as Kawagley (1995, 2006) notes, and research for Native peoples is certainly not a new concept. Indigenous peoples used, and continue to use, our knowledge of the world, gained through generations of empirical observation and sensuous engagement of the world, toward hunting, farming, fishing, and meeting the day-to-day challenges of being in the world. Indeed, traditionally for indigenous peoples research has been engaged toward a high-stakes goal—survival. A critical aspect to surviving has been the ability of indigenous peoples to research through listening, or more specifically through multisensory listen- ing. For indigenous peoples, this means we listen with more than just our ears: we engage in listening through sight, touch, and smell. We listen to our gut; we listen to our memories; and we listen to what the old mountains and the wily coyotes care to share with us. In the past—and for many of us still, in the present—this was (is) true. Listening, or gathering data by observation and by engaging with the world through the seasons, means understanding how fish or caribou migrate; or when to plant corn, beans, and other foodstuffs; or when or where to build protective living structures. Research in this context, through long periods of observation, notes how the wind blows before a big storm comes and how this is different from how it normally blows. In the following quote, Iñupiat scholar Paul Ongtooguk (2000) clearly articulates the empirical knowl- edge necessary to survive in the Arctic: It was not mere hope and persistence that allowed Iñupiat society to develop in the North. Traditional Iñupiat society was, and is, about knowing the right time to be in the right place, with the right tools to take advantage of a temporary abundance of resources. Such a cycle of life was, and is, based on a foundation of knowledge about and insight into the natural world. Such a cycle of life was, and is, dependent upon a people’s careful observations of the environment and their dynamic response to changes and circumstances. Developing this RECLAIMING SCHOLARSHIP: CRITICAL INDIGENOUS RESEARCH METHODOLOGIES 441 cycle of life was critical to the continuance of traditional Iñupiat society. (para. 5) Native Hawaiian (Kanaka Maoli) scholar Manulani Aluli Meyer (2001) eloquently adds that these ways of knowing reflect a kind of listening or experi- encing through “senses... developed by culture” (p. 144). Noting that “knowl- edge has a genesis, a place of origin” (p. 148), Meyer reminds us that listening itself is relational, invoking genealogies of place and of family come and gone. Although detailing the depths of indigenous knowledge systems is well beyond the scope of this work, indigenous epistemologies are in many ways at the heart of the embodied research (that is, it is taken up through the senses, in part), of which listening is just one part. Our fundamental understanding, then, is that indigenous peoples have used research processes informed by particular epistemological, ontological, and axi- ological understandings of the world for millennia, and that the physical senses, the intellect, and intuition are all integral parts of these processes. CIRM calls for this type of multisensory listening and culturally embedded ways of knowing within research. In making such a call, CIRM recognizes the validity of indig- enous research as a set of time-tested, empirical methods of knowledge pro- duction, subject as they have been across generations to revision and updating based on observed changes in the environment. Moreover, CIRM calls on the researcher to really listen. Within the CIRM context, respect for multisensory listening, embodied intellect, and traditional worldviews that understand cause and effect as living, integrated systems reaching through time and space are all elements that inter- sect with the four R’s: relationality, responsibility, respect, and reciprocity (and accountability). These elements are embedded within the larger CIRM context of service, sovereignty, and self-determination. Both conceptually and in being, this rich combination, imbued with local worldviews, knowledges, and practices, guides not only research protocols but larger epistemological, ontological, and axiological questions about the research process: how it came to be; to what end it will be put; how the relationships embedded within it will progress long after grant dollars are spent; or how each generation will teach the next the research that, through lived experience and thoughtful action, has become encoded in place names, language, stories, planting, fishing, hunting, literature, and family ways of doing. CIRM is evolving and in many ways (re)hearing its own voice as well as the voices of community members past and present. In the process of this evolution there has emerged a particular call for a critical perspective on methodologies. It is to addressing the critical nature of these methodologies that we now turn. 442 QUALITATIVE RESEARCH REFLECTION QUESTIONS 1. How are the four R’s that the authors explain connected? 2. Why does listening need to be multisensory? What Makes the “Critical” Critical? Quechua scholar Sandy Grande (2008) writes, “By virtue of living in the Whitestream world, indigenous scholars have no choice but to negotiate the forces of colonialism, to learn, understand, and converse in the grammar of empire as well as develop the skills to contest it” (p. 234). Given the history of colonialism and its lasting effects on indigenous communities, indigenous research(ers) are faced with a number of struggles in the attempt to establish a research paradigm that is consistent with indigenous worldviews and practices. Engaging in these efforts means resisting the manner in which research has been traditionally conceptualized and practiced in the academy. Resisting research paradigms that have shaped the academy for so long by (re)defining indigenous paradigms means that, by its very nature, research based in indi- genous frameworks almost always becomes politicized. This is especially the case when non-indigenous researchers choose to acknowledge and engage work based on an indigenous knowledges and methodologies framework. By now it should be clear that research rooted in an indigenous meth- odologies paradigm, a theoretical and philosophical approach that places high priority on building relationships and serving the needs and interests of indigenous communities, carries with it a set of commitments to dialogue, com- munity, self-determination, and cultural autonomy (Denzin et al., 2008). In fact, Linda Tuhiwai Smith (2000) directly proposes a guiding principle for a CIRM when, echoing the work of Graham Smith (2000), she argues that “in terms of Kaupapa Maori, the most important question is related to issues of social justice” (p. 231). For her, social justice as a guiding principle includes (but is not limited to) addressing issues that will assist Maori peoples in reclaiming items stolen by colonizers, including land claims, “histories,” and “resources” (p. 232). These claims are rooted in treaty rights. Herein lies the key component for us in considering what makes indigenous research methodologies critical. The critical component is that the method- ologies recognize particular (group-based)—legal and inherent—rights of indig- enous peoples and work toward a vision of justice determined by communities  RECLAIMING SCHOLARSHIP: CRITICAL INDIGENOUS RESEARCH METHODOLOGIES 443 and in relation to things like land, histories, and resources. Thus engaging in research from an indigenous methodologies paradigm entails an understanding not only of the history and practices of indigenous communities but also of how research may be used to advance the political and social justice goals of indigenous communities. Linda Tuhiwai Smith (1999) further notes, The research agenda is conceptualized here as constituting a programme and set of approaches that are situated within the decolonization politics of the indigenous peoples’ movement. The agenda is focused strategi- cally on the goal of self-determination of indigenous peoples. Self- determination in a research agenda becomes something more than a political goal. It becomes a goal of social justice which is expressed through and across a wide range of psychological, social, cultural and economic terrains. It necessarily involves the processes of transfor- mation, of decolonization, of healing and of mobilization as peoples. (pp. 116–117) When it comes to a Critical Indigenous Research Methodologies framework, we believe that—although it is important to have indigenous research method- ologies that are rooted in indigenous practices of relationality, respect, reciproc- ity, and responsibility—it is of little use to create frameworks rooted in these principles if these methodologies do not also promote emancipatory agendas that recognize the self-determination and inherent sovereignty of indigenous peoples. CIRM thus requires researchers not only to be community-serving, community-rooted intellectuals but also to root their endeavors in the land and all of the politics that implies (see also Chapters Fourteen, Fifteen, and Sixteen). Where Do We Go from Here? Moving Forward and the Reclamation of Voice Indigenous scholars within the academy continue to voice a concern that has been expressed within communities for decades: that indigenous knowledge should be protected and respected (Battiste, 2000, 2002; Battiste & Henderson, 2002; G. Smith, 2000; L. Smith, 2000). It is only through the development of research frameworks and practices that are centered on serving indigenous communities and indigenous practices that we can actively work toward answering the call that Parker (1916) and Deloria (1969) put forth decades ago. If indigenous peoples are to reclaim our research and our intellectual voices, indigenous research(ers) must (re)claim and (re)define how research is 444 QUALITATIVE RESEARCH understood and taken up. Graham Smith (2000) echoes the concerns of Parker and Deloria to assert the need for indigenous peoples to pursue self- determination and reclaim an intellectual life that honors and respects indige- nous knowledges as he explains, My message... is that we have the option to set our own courses with respect to realizing our dreams and aspirations, and therefore we ought to be considering developing resistance initiatives around that kind of philosophy, initiatives that are positive and proactive. We must reclaim our own lives in order to put our destinies in our own hands. (p. 211, italics added) Resistance to CIRM It is not surprising that this process of reclaiming an indigenous research meth- odology and thought-world has been met with resistance from non-indigenous colleagues. Echoing some of Parker’s concerns (1916) just after the close of the nineteenth century, Cook-Lynn (2000) explains, At the close of the [twentieth] century, the efforts that indigenous peoples have made to speak for themselves and their peoples, either through their own works or through the interpretative works of transla- tors, are being subjected to abuse and scholarly/political attacks that goes far beyond the normal critical analysis of academic work. (p. 80) Thus indigenous scholarship, when it is engaged, suffers from the same practices and treatment that relegated indigenous worldviews to the periphery in the first place. Not engaging indigenous research is a hegemonic method by which the “Whitestream world” (Grande, 2008, p. 234) can discredit, ignore, or deny an intellectual life for indigenous peoples (see, for example, Battiste, 2002). Hegemony is a term first coined by Italian philosopher Antonio Gramsci (Gramsci, Hoare, & Nowell-Smith, 1971) to indicate how a society comes to believe that the manner in which things, like Western research, are engaged in has always been that way; it erases the fact that these beliefs have been influenced by imperial and colonial practices that have silenced and sub- verted the voices and thoughts of indigenous people for centuries. In this way, the power to name or determine the beliefs and practices of the community has come to rest on the shoulders of those responsible for colonizing these spaces rather than on those who have always inhabited the space(s). Viewed in this light, we can see that there is little that is “commonsense” or “natural” RECLAIMING SCHOLARSHIP: CRITICAL INDIGENOUS RESEARCH METHODOLOGIES 445 about the ways in which research has historically been taken up in indigenous communities. Cook-Lynn (2000) goes on to note, “It can be argued that pretending the work does not exist or pretending ignorance of it is one of the methods of dis- crediting the work” (p. 89). Ignoring, silencing, and hiding critical indigenous scholarship and its concomitant methods and methodologies are hegemonic practices. These practices of discrediting end up denying, once again, the basic human rights of indigenous peoples to develop their own intellectual lives and thought-worlds, defined not in the Cartesian sense but on indigenous terms. CIRM, then, must be counterhegemonic, calling attention to actions that seek to disrupt the “commonsense” nature of research and thinking that accom- pany mainstream ideas and research, as well as anticolonial. Similarly, Graham Smith (2000) points to another trend that has surfaced in an attempt to discredit the work of indigenous scholars. That is, attacking the credibility of the work serves to place into question the accountability the research(er) has to the academic community and to the indigenous community that is being served by the research. Within the postmodern analysis, there is often an emphasis on the critique—that is, on what has gone wrong—at the expense of providing transformative strategies and outcomes. Many academics have their research shaped by the institution in which they work—for example, in order to fulfill the institution’s academic expectations that research be positivistic and so on. A lot less emphasis is put on the critique that’s developed out of the organic community context (it’s not seen as real academic work). To put this another way, many Maori academics com- plain that we have to perform to two levels of accountability. Our academic credibility does not just depend on the institution we work for and the number of papers or books we produce. Our academic credibil- ity is also set in very powerful ways by the communities in which we are located. (G. Smith, 2000, p. 213) Echoing some of G. Smith’s concerns, Cook-Lynn (2000) points out that scarier still are the methodologies that are rising in response to indigenous efforts to engage in indigenous-centered research and practices: [Questioning the] veracity and authority of representational stories, questioning liberation theology, politics, and mediation—these have emerged as the disciplinary methodologies used to interpret and analyze the singular native voice. In the process much of what is written and 446 QUALITATIVE RESEARCH published as the American Indian literary voice of the twentieth century is subject to analysis as either inauthentic or too transgressive and coun- terhegemonic, and often is discredited in literature as not even aestheti- cally pleasing. (p. 81) This strategic response by those opposed to CIRM in discrediting the long- silenced voices of indigenous peoples is unsurprising given the history of Western research practices concerning indigenous communities. Indigenous researchers embracing CIRM may also find their efforts are trivialized as a certain fawning for a former utopia that cannot be achieved and as such may be dismissed as irrelevant, obsolete, or nonpracticable by current researchers. Such views dismiss thousands of years of indigenous research because lifestyles engaged in by indigenous peoples in the past are viewed as nonviable in today’s modern societies; these views represent a failure to under- stand that those traditions and forms of engaging in research do not remain in the past but continue to influence the present. That is, as indigenous researchers we are linked to the past through traditions, some of which are embedded in research done by our ancestors, but this does not mean indigenous researchers are stuck in the past. The past matters for the present in that we are all constructed by traditions that morph through their use and engagement. That said, indigenous researchers may find themselves on sandy ground and at a distinct researching disadvantage in an academy dominated by an almost unwavering belief in a singular epistemological approach grounded in Western understandings of science and in which academicians mistakenly assume the goal of CIRM is to time-travel back to a precontact era. To be clear, CIRM does not pretend that the goal is to flash back to precontact times (although wouldn’t that be something?!?). Rather, CIRM is grounded in a belief that by centering indigenous worldviews, values, beliefs, and traditions (old and new), it is possible to rehabilitate academic research into a responsible community member—into research that sustains, supports, and provides sustenance to those who dare to envision healthy, thriving futures grounded in indigenous worldviews and con- siderations of self-determination and sovereignty. Response to Critiques Moreover, it is imperative that indigenous scholars respond directly to the cri- tiques while simultaneously not becoming distracted by them. In order to do this, we argue that indigenous scholarship should stay focused on the relational aspects of the research and the justice-oriented nature of the work. Indeed,  RECLAIMING SCHOLARSHIP: CRITICAL INDIGENOUS RESEARCH METHODOLOGIES 447 Cook-Lynn (2000) notes that to not engage in critical research is a denial of a “basic human right” (p. 86, italics added). She goes on to argue that the denial of indigenous peoples’ right, “to express [themselves] collectively and historically in terms of continued self-determination, is a kind of genocide that is perhaps even more immoral than the physical genocide of war and torture” (p. 86). Cook- Lynn’s sentiment might be best addressed by Linda Tuhiwai Smith (1999), who writes, The denial by the West of humanity to indigenous peoples, the denial of citizenship and human rights, the denial of the right to self- determination—all these demonstrate palpably the enormous lack of respect which has marked the relations of indigenous and non-indigenous peoples. (p. 120) Notably, Cook-Lynn’s and Smith’s commentaries bear striking resemblance to Parker’s work (1916) in their analysis of the importance of self-determination and the right to an intellectual life. CIRM responds to the critique surrounding indigenous scholarship by moving the focus of the arguments away from an emphasis on dismissals to a focus aimed squarely at addressing particular issues of (in)justice. CIRM calls for attention to the needs of peoples and communities. Linda Tuhiwai Smith (1999) is again insightful when she notes, “Reclaiming a voice in this context has also been about reclaiming, reconnecting and reordering those ways of knowing which were submerged, hidden or driven underground” (p. 69). Ultimately the reclamation project of CIRM is a vital component of this work. We envision, in the foreseeable future, methodologies that do not succumb to the bitter politics of being right but ones that focus on doing right—that is, working toward fulfilling the needs of communities, asserting a right to intellectual and scholarly freedoms and creativity, and engaging the research process with integrity. Summary According to Maori scholar Linda Tuhiwai Smith (1999), “From the vantage point of the colonized... the word ‘research’... is probably one of the dirtiest words in the indigenous world’s vocabulary” (p. 1). This is because research invokes, for indigenous communities, past and present incidents of abusive, exploitative research practices. Yet many indigenous scholars, although 448 QUALITATIVE RESEARCH recognizing the reasons for why indigenous communities remain distrustful of researchers, argue that research can serve beneficial purposes when it is driven by community interests and undertaken with attention paid to the complexity, resilience, contradiction, and self-determination of these communities. For this reason indigenous scholars have been calling for indigenous communities to (re) claim research and knowledge-making practices that are (1) driven by indigenous peoples, knowledges, beliefs, and practices; (2) rooted in recognition of the impact of Eurocentric culture on the history, beliefs, and practices of indigenous peoples and communities; and (3) guided by the intention of promoting the anticolonial or emancipatory interests of indigenous communities. CIRM is a response to this call. A CIRM perspective fundamentally begins as an emancipatory project rooted in relationships and is driven explicitly by community interests. Admittedly, CIRM shares similarities with other critical perspectives, most notably in its commitment that research should be driven by the community; that it should serve the needs of the community; and that the research endeavor should work to ultimately recognize basic human, community, and civil rights. However, other facets of CIRM make it distinct from other critical approaches. Specifically, CIRM is rooted in indigenous knowledge systems and recognizes the role of indigenous beliefs and practices in the construction and acquisition of knowledge—this recognition serves to influence the techniques (methods) and expectations guiding the research process. CIRM recognizes that indigenous peoples think and behave in ways unique to their worldviews and experiences and thus places a heavy emphasis on the role relationships, responsibility, respect, reciprocity, and accountability play in our interactions with the human, physical, and spiritual world around us. In addition, CIRM is driven by a belief that information and knowledge are sometimes esoteric; that the knowledge uncovered through scientific inquiry does not solely belong to the researcher; and that the acquisition of knowledge requires one to enter into a relationship with those ideas—to learn from them, to care for them, and to pass them on to the next generation. From a CIRM perspective, knowledge is sacred and to be entrusted with it carries great responsibility, thus adding a seriousness to subsequent decisions researchers make in terms of how and when to ask for information and how and when to share the knowledge with which they have been entrusted. Finally, CIRM specifically recognizes the politi- cal positioning of indigenous peoples in contemporary societies and reasons that it is of little use to create frameworks rooted in these principles of relationships, reciprocity, and responsibility if these methodologies do not also promote eman- cipatory agendas that recognize the self-determination and inherent sovereignty of indigenous peoples.  RECLAIMING SCHOLARSHIP: CRITICAL INDIGENOUS RESEARCH METHODOLOGIES 449 Key Terms axiologies, 425 hegemony, 444 positivist, 424 counterhegemonic, 445 indigeneity, 434 praxis, 429 critical component, 442 indigenous methodologies reciprocity, 439 Critical Indigenous paradigm, 442 relationality, 433 Research methodologies, 426 respect, 438 Methodologies (CIRM), methods, 426 subjective, 436 424 multisensory listening, 440 taxonomies, 432 epistemologies, 425 ontologies, 425 hegemonic method, 444 Further Readings and Resources Suggested Readings Kawagley, A. O. (2006). A Yupiaq worldview: A pathway to ecology and spirit (2nd ed.). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland. In this study Kawagley explores both memories of his Yupiaq grandmother, who raised him with the stories of the Bear Woman and respectful knowledge of the reciprocity of nature, and his own education in science as it is taught in Western schools. Smith, L. T. (1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples. London: Zed Books. The book is divided into two parts. In the first, Smith critically examines the historical and philosophical base of Western research; in the second, she sets an agenda for plan- ning and implementing indigenous research, as part of the wider project of reclaiming control over indigenous ways of knowing and being. Smith, L.T.T.R. (2000). Kaupapa Maori research. In M. Battiste (Ed.), Reclaiming indigenous voice and vision (pp. 225–247). Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press. In this chapter, Smith points to the ways that Maori peoples are working to reclaim their sense of research. By turning to Kaupapa Maori theory, scholars can engage in critique and resistance in a way that also points to a need to exert control and exercise notions of sovereignty. All of this, she argues, is a move toward helping Maori peoples address the significant issues they face. Wilson, S. (2008). Research is ceremony: Indigenous research methods. Halifax, Nova Scotia: Fernwood.