Paper Summary
Share...

Direct link:

"Save Our Energy for the Community": Sustaining Partnerships to (Re)Indigenize Social Studies Education

Sat, April 18, 8:15 to 9:45am, Virtual Room

Abstract

Partnerships between researchers and Indigenous organizations (schools, tribal colleges, nonprofits, tribal governments) demand sustained commitments to respect, reciprocity, relationality, relevance, responsibility, and representation (Author, 2016; Archibald, 2008; Brayboy, 2005; Kirkness & Barnhardt, 2001; Smith, 1999; Wilson, 2008).  These partnerships evolve over the course of many years to fit the needs of various partners. Broadly, this paper strives to answer the question: How can researcher-organization partnerships sustain efforts to (re)Indigenize social studies education and research?  To address this question, we—an Indigenous social studies teacher/tribal college leader and a non-Indigenous social studies teacher educator/scholar—endeavor to enact an “inward gaze” (Paris & Alim, 2017) and critically evaluate our seven-year-long partnership.  Specifically, this paper addresses tensions that arise when research teams collaborate over extended periods of time, particularly when members of the team hold responsibilities that span both community/practice and institution/research.

For many Indigenous communities, theory, practice, and research are inseparable (Author, 2018; Brayboy, 2005).  Our partnership confronts this reality through integration of community-specific Indigenous frameworks. For example, we apply traditional Piikani values in the research, development, and dissemination of oral history films.  These frameworks serve not only as practical and pedagogical tools, but they also guide methodological decision-making. While our specific methods of inquiry are unique to each context, we generally blend community-centered participatory research (Author, 2014; Northway, 2010) with Indigenous storywork (Archibald, 2008; Archibald & Parent, 2019).  Such work demands ongoing and meaningful collaboration between university researchers and community co-researchers through dialogue, deep listening, multimodal storytelling, and “participatory sense-making” (De Jaegher & Di Paolo, 2007). 

Although our collaborations have generated positive results and contributions, we frequently encounter challenges.  Repeatedly, Author 2 has reminded Author 1 to “save our energy for the community,” instead of focusing on narrowly-defined demands of Academia.  We have learned that products developed for/with the community (e.g., films, curriculum, presentations) are often more complicated to produce than the products typically demanded by the university (e.g., articles, grants, dissertations).  Furthermore, given their emphasis on reciprocity and responsibility, partnerships that strive to (re)Indigenize education and research may be expected to produce more than conventional teams, since they need to develop both community and academic products.  For example, Author 2 was asked to defend his dissertation twice—once at the university and once in his home community.

Despite these inherent, systemic tensions, several guidelines have helped sustain our partnership.  First, if conflict arises, we defer to the community framework. Second, we plan with flexibility and long-term commitment in mind.  Third, we communicate institutional and community needs and interests, even if those needs and interests are not directly connected to our current project.  Finally, we advocate in our communities and institutions to create change. For example, we pushed for (and achieved) modification to the department’s doctoral program to allow alternative modes for dissertation work.  While centering the community is the primary goal guiding our research, we recognize the need to share methodologies and products with academic audiences in order to encourage systemic and institutional change that support advancement of Indigenous scholars.

Authors