- How do these research methods differ from other research methods you are familiar with?
- I thought that these research methods would be vastly different than a lot of the evidence based practice I am used to. For the most part, it seemed to be more of a combination of current methodologies than anything completely newfangled. They were definitely more qualitative in their approach than really strict and measureable.
- Do you think all of these methods are fully “decolonized” – why or why not?
- I don’t think all of the methods are fully decolonized. I don’t think they could ever be. As long as we’re using the same language to examine them, we’re continuing to pull from the same mindset no matter how hard something new is trying to be created. In one of the articles they were talking about indigenous heuristic action research needed to meet or exceed a level of sophistication to be passed off as scholarly. Here is a great example of an attempt to indigenize while using the same colonized metric. To me, it just doesn’t work. We will never know what a fully decolonized method is because even if there were one, if there was any iota of an overlap (which there would inevitably be because we are measuring similar things) it would be discounted as not fully decolonized.
- Do any of these methods resonate more with you than others?
- I really liked the Hawaiian ways of communication including talking story and observation. For another class of ours, we had to conduct an interview recently. Since I interviewed someone I knew, it was very much a talk story session that was laid back and relaxed. When I was taking notes of my reactions to the interview, I criticized myself for it being too unstructured, having a good rapport with the interviewee, and letting the conversation organically unfold. If I were to look at this design through an indigenous perspective, I could’ve considered this to be a really great study!
- The going native approach didn’t speak too well to me. I just feel like there’s something false about it. The author brought up a good counterpoint that going native can “maintain the façade that our position does not, or should not, matter.” Of course it matters! We are human beings, not robots. It is very difficult to separate our experiences from others’. There was another good point I read countering this issue. It spoke to the benefits of studying across gender/race/other lines because we ask more questions and for more explanations rather than making assumptions.
- How might your identity as native or non-native impact your research with indigenous groups?
- There was a huge kernel of truth in one of the readings. It said that no matter who you are, you need to re-examine yourself and your biases. We cannot assume that just because someone is a minority that they are subject to “biases, prejudices, and oppressive actions.” So whether I am native or not, I should be critically thinking and adjusting the way I approach research.