Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T03:05:48.045Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Privilege, Decentring and the Challenge of Being (Non-) Indigenous in the Study of Indigenous Issues

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2017

Torjer A. Olsen Open the ORCID record for Torjer A. Olsen [Opens in a new window]
Torjer A. Olsen*
Affiliation:
Centre for Sami Studies, University of Tromsø, The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, 9037, Norway
*
address for correspondence: Torjer A. Olsen, Centre for Sami Studies, University of Tromsø, The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø 9037, Norway. Email: torjer.olsen@uit.no.
Get access

Abstract

There are acceptable ways of studying Indigenous issues as a non-Indigenous scholar. Still, the role and identity of the scholar is important and debated within the study of Indigenous issues. The purpose of this article is to accept, but explore the premise of a distinction between Indigenous and non-Indigenous. I claim the possibility of taking a decentred space within Indigenous studies and move towards a methodological and theoretical foundation that is informed by scholars with different stances and backgrounds. A key approach is the intersectional approach to privilege. Neither privilege/oppression, Indigenous/non-Indigenous, nor insider/outsider are binary relations. From Indigenous methodologies such as kaupapa Māori, I emphasise, in particular, the local starting point, arguing that this is the way to transfer relevant issues to a bigger context.

Keywords

Indigenous studiesintersectionalitymethodologyprivilege
Type
Research Article
Information
The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education , Volume 47 , Issue 2 , December 2018 , pp. 206 - 215
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ahmed, S. (2000). Strange encounters. Embodied others in post-coloniality. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Andersen, C. (2009). Critical indigenous studies. From difference to density. Cultural Studies Review, 15 (2), 80–100.Google Scholar
Battiste, M. (2008). Research ethics for protecting indigenous knowledge and heritage. Insitutional and researcher responsibilities. In: Denzin, N.K., Lincoln, Y.S., & Smith, L.T. (Eds.), Handbook of critical and indigenous methodologies (pp. 497–510). Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
Bhabha, H.K. (2004). The location of culture. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bishop, R. (1996). Collaborative research stories: Whakawhanaungatanga. Palmerston North: Dunmore Press.Google Scholar
Bishop, R. (2008). Te Kotahitanga. Kaupapa Māori in mainstream classrooms. In: Denzin, N.K., Lincoln, Y.S., & Smith, L.T. (Eds.), Handbook of critical and indigenous methodologies (pp. 439–458). Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
Brunn-Bevel, R.J., Davis, D.J., & Olive, J.L. (2015). Introduction. In: Davis, D.J., Brunn-Bevel, R.J., & Olive, J.L. (Eds.), Intersectionality in educational research (pp. 1–18). Sterling: Stylus.Google Scholar
Cannella, G.S., & Manuelito, K.D. (2008). Feminisms from unthought locations. Indigenous worldviews, marginalized feminisms, and revisioning an anticolonial social science. In: Denzin, N.K., Lincoln, Y.S., & Smith, L.T. (Eds.), Handbook of critical and indigenous methodologies (pp. 45–60). Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
Chilisa, B. (2012). Indigenous research methodologies. Los Angeles: SAGE.Google Scholar
Clifford, J. (2013). Returns. Becoming indigenous in the twenty-first century. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Coombes, B., Johnson, J., & Howitt, R. (2014). Indigenous geographies III: Methodological innovation and the unsettling of participatory research. Progress in Human Geography, 38 (6), 845–854.Google Scholar
Dahl, J. (2012). The indigenous space and marginalized people in the United Nations. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Deloria, V. (1998). Comfortable fictions and the struggle for turf: An essay review of the invented Indian: Cultural fictions and government policies. In Mihesuah, D. (Ed.), Native and academics: Researching and writing about American Indians (pp. 65–83). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y. (2008). Introduction. Critical methodologies and indigenous inquiry. In: Denzin, N.K., Lincoln, Y.S., & Smith, L.T. (Eds.), Handbook of critical and indigenous methodologies (pp. 1–20). Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
Green, J. (2007). Taking account of Aboriginal feminism. In: Green, J. (Ed.), Making space for indigenous feminism (pp. 20–32). Winnipeg: Fernwood Publishing.Google Scholar
Hunt, S. (2012). Dialogue on intersectionality and indigeneity: Summary of themes. Vancouver: Institute for Intersectionality Research and Practice. Retrieved November 29, 2016 from http://www.academia.edu/4677649/Dialogue_On_Intersectionality_and_Indigeneity_Summary_of_Themes.Google Scholar
Hutchings, J., & Lee-Morgan, J. (eds.) (2016). Decolonisation in aotearoa: Education, research and practice. Auckland: NZCER Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, G. (2014). Off the stage, on the page: On the relationship between advocacy and scholarship. Religion, 44 (2), 1–14.Google Scholar
Johnson, P., & Pihama, L. (1995). What counts as difference and what differences count: Gender, race and the politics of difference. In: Irwin, K., Ramsden, I., & Kahukiwa, R. (Eds.), Toi Wahine: The worlds of Māori women (pp.70–85). Auckland: Penguin.Google Scholar
Jones, A. (2012). Dangerous liaisons: Pākehā, kaupapa Māori, and educational research. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 47 (2), 101–112.Google Scholar
Jones, A., & Jenkins, K. (2008). Rethinking collaboration: Working the indigene-colonizer hyphen. In Denzin, N.K., Lincoln, Y.S., & Smith, L.T. (Eds.), Handbook of critical and indigenous methodologies (pp. 471–486). Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
Kovach, M. (2010). Indigenous methodologies. Characteristics, conversations and contexts. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Kuokkanen, R. (2007). Reshaping the university. Responsibility, indigenous epistemes and the logic of the gift. Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
Land, C. (2015). Decolonizing solidarity. Dilemmas and directions for supporters of indigenous struggles. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
May, V.M. (2015). Pursuing intersectionality, unsettling dominant imaginaries. New York/London: Routledge.Google Scholar
McGloin, C. (2009). Considering the work of Martin Nakata's “Cultural Interface”: A reflection of theory and practice by a non-indigenous academic. The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 38 (01), 36–41.Google Scholar
Moreton-Robinson, A. (2000). Talkin’ up to the white woman. Indigenous women and feminism. Queensland: University of Queensland Press.Google Scholar
Moreton-Robinson, A. (2011). The white Man's burden. Patriarchal white epistemic violence and aboriginal women's knowledge within the academy. Australian Feminist Studies, 26 (70), 413–429.Google Scholar
Moreton-Robinson, A. (2015). The white possessive. Property, power, and indigenous sovereignty. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Nakata, M. (2006). Australian indigenous studies: A question of discipline. The Australian Journal of Anthropology, 17 (3), 265–275.Google Scholar
Nakata, M. (2007). Disciplining the savages: Savaging the disciplines. Canberra: Aboriginal Studies Press.Google Scholar
Olsen, T.A. (2014). The exclusive nature. Sami christianity in the age of eco-indigenism. Journal of Religion in Europe, 7 (3–4), s177–s202. doi: 10.1163/18748929-00704001.Google Scholar
Olsen, T.A. (2015). “Masculinities” in Sami studies. Journal of Northern Studies, 9 (2), 37–53.Google Scholar
Olsen, T. A. (2016). Gender and/in indigenous methodologies: On trouble and harmony in indigenous studies. Ethnicities Online First. doi: 10.1177/1468796816673089.Google Scholar
Pease, B. (2010). Undoing privilege: Unearned advantage in a divided world. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
Pihama, L. (2001). Tihei Mauri Ora: Honouring our voices. Mana wahine as a kaupapa Māori theoretical framework. PhD Thesis. University of Auckland.Google Scholar
Porsanger, J. (2004). An essay on indigenous methodologies. Nordlit 15, 105–120.Google Scholar
Puch-Bouwman, J. (2014). A promised mindland? A rectificatory theory-practice position for non-indigenous researchers. AlterNative 10 (4), 409–421.Google Scholar
Smith, G.H. (1997). The development of kaupapa Māori theory and praxis. PhD thesis. University of Auckland.Google Scholar
Smith, L.T. (2010). Decolonizing methodologies. Research and indigenous peoples. London/New York: Zed Books & Dunedin: University of Otago Press.Google Scholar
Smith, L.T. (2011). Storying the development of Kaupapa Māori. In Hutchings, J., Potter, H., & Taupo, K. (Eds.), Kei Tua o Te Pae hu proceedings: The challenges of Kaupapa Māori research in the 21st century (pp. 10–15). Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar
Tafjord, B.O. (2013). Indigenous religion(s) as an analytical category. Method and Theory in the Study of Religion, 25 (3), 221–243.Google Scholar
Wilson, S. (2008). Research is ceremony. Indigenous research methods. Nova Scotia: Fernwood.Google Scholar