Colonization and Indigenous methodology

• In Event: Critical Leadership Perspectives May Enable New, More Equitable Educational Futures

Abstract

Part A. Colonial education systems have continued globally to marginalize indigenous populations (Elkington et al, 2020; Miller, 2010). The pillars of white supremacy, brought to indigenous peoples by early European explorers via the Doctrines of Discovery have, through laws and policies, remained pervasive and destructive to this day (Mutu, 2019; Ngata, 2019). This continues to disenfranchise many people who are not considered to be the ‘norm’ such as indigenous people, immigrants, and differently abled.
In Aotearoa-New Zealand, educational disparities between the indigenous Māori population and non-Māori are stark, and, despite multiple attempts to address them, they have continued intergenerationally (Ministry of Education, 2022). These disparities perpetuate an on-going pathology of Māori that is reflected in, and reinforced by, the discourses of wider society (Bishop & Glynn, 2003). Principles of social justice, pertaining to the equitable distribution of wealth and well-being, and political imperatives on the wider nation to address the detrimental impact of economically non-engaged proportions of the population, makes this a serious issue (Katene & Taonui, 2018).
This presenter focuses on a combination of Kaupapa Māori and critical theories in a process of theory-based, school-wide reform which saw school leaders begin to challenge the status quo of under-achievement and pathologizing about Māori. Findings offer learnings about critical, decolonising leadership from the authentic voices of leaders who, against the odds, began to effect more transformative outcomes for underserved and marginalized students.
Part B
In his paper, this discussion leader took a research-methods tack and considered the contributions Indigenous methodology can make to understanding and promoting social-justice related leadership. If appropriate the discussion leader can share experiences during the small group parts of the session with using these methods to study Indigenous leadership in a Canadian First-Nations group. Access to do the study was granted after more than two years of negotiations with group members. There were two stipulations: Indigenous methodology had to be employed and the study would be the beginning of a long-term relationship with the group. The study produced interesting findings that augmented and, at times, even challenged Western thinking about what leadership looks like and how it should be practiced. In addition, the group leader did things to fulfil the long-term relationship commitment, including exploring, with an Indigenous group member, a written adaptation of the talking circle strategy used orally by the Indigenous group to make decisions and solve problems. When the paper this exploration generated was submitted to journals for possible publication, some reviewers viewed the exploration as cultural appropriation. After the paper was published, others have raised similar concerns. Consequently, one topic that could be discussed in this small group is whether it is ever appropriate for those who are not Indigenous to utilize Indigenous methods.

Authors

• Mere Berryman, University of Waikato

• Robert B. Donmoyer, University of San Diego