Designing, Disseminating, and Learning From a National Survey of Indigenous-Language Programs

• In Event: Academic Well-Being and Decolonial Racial Justice: Findings From a National Study of Indigenous-Language Schooling

Abstract

Objectives/Purposes. Presentation 1 addresses the ILI study’s first set of research questions, which seek descriptive breadth on Indigenous-language education in the US. What is the current state of Indigenous-language schooling in the US? What programs exist, for what learner populations? What are the programs’ objectives, key features, and stated outcomes? The intent behind these questions is to build a database of use to Indigenous stakeholders as well as researchers and policymakers. While the survey generated descriptive data that responds to these questions, a more profound lesson centers on the process of survey design, dissemination, and interpretation in justice-seeking research. This presentation addresses both process and content in this study component. Perspectives/Theoretical Framework. No research methodology is contextually or ideologically neutral – a technical procedure sanitized of human subjectivity and influence. As Māori scholar Linda Tuhiwai Smith (2012) points out, knowledge producers, hierarchies, and institutions play key roles in (de)colonization and the transformative possibilities of research. Thus, we must ask, “Whose research is it? …. Whose interests does it serve? …. Who has designed its questions and framed its scope? …. How will its results be disseminated?” (p. 10). This perspective informs a critical analysis of our process in designing and disseminating an online survey developed specifically for this study, and the interpretation of survey findings. There were no pre-existing models; the design and dissemination grew organically from our disciplinary training, histories of experience, and positionalities vis-à-vis each other and Indigenous stakeholders. Methods/Modes of Inquiry. We provide an overview of the relational process through which the survey was developed and administered. This included initial and ongoing consultation with Indigenous educators and language activists, and a partnership with an Indigenous-serving organization, which is assisting in the survey’s dissemination. Data Sources. Survey responses yielded information on a wide range of educational, sociolinguistic, cultural, and geographic settings and program types, including pre-K, elementary, secondary, adult, and Tribal, community, and family-based approaches. The survey process also included extensive review of federal Administration for Native Americans (ANA) and Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) databases, in which approximately 600 Native American language- and culture-based programs were identified. Open-ended survey items sought “emic” or participant perspectives, inviting respondents to describe their program and its outcomes in their own words, share key factors in achieving program goals, and describe what motivated the program’s startup. Results/Findings. Key findings from the survey illuminate the diversity of Indigenous nations and communities undertaking Indigenous-language reclamation, the number of learners served, the variation in program models and funding sources, learner language proficiency on program entry and exit, major challenges to achieving program goals, and strategies of persistence and resilience in overcoming challenges. Significance. The survey establishes a baseline database on Indigenous-language programs in the U.S. We discuss the potential uses of these data, their utility for Indigenous education self-determination, and the implications of this study component for decolonizing, praxis-oriented research with Indigenous Peoples and Communities of Color.

Authors

• Tiffany S. Lee, University of New Mexico

• Sheilah E. Nicholas, University of Arizona

• James McKenzie, University of Arizona