Content uploaded by Makere Stewart-Harawira
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Makere Stewart-Harawira on Apr 18, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
Socialist Studies / Études socialistes Volume 9 (1), Spring 2013
Copyright © 2013 The Author(s)
Socia list Studies / Études socialistes:
The Journal of the Society for Socialist Studies / Rev ue de la Société d'étu des socia list es.
www.socialiststudies.com. ISSN 1918‐2821
Article
CHALLENGING KNOWLEDGE CAPITALISM.
INDIGENOUS RESEARCH IN THE 21ST CENTURY
MAKERE STEWART-HARAWIRA
University of Alberta
Keywords
Indigenous research, knowledge capitalism, Maori, western science
Biographical note
Makere Stewart-Harawira, Waitaha, is part of the New Zealand Mao ri
diaspora in Canada. She is the author of
The New Imperial Order : Indigenous
Responses to Globa lization.
Her research and scholarship are driven by her
conviction of the necessity for active critical engagement in the local and global
crises of governance and sustainability that confront us in the 21st century; the
necessity for a re-visioning of how we live to gether on this planet; and the vital
contributio n of traditional Indigenous knowledge systems and languages. She
may be reached at makere@ualberta.ca.
There is, of course, nothing new about the idea that Indigenous people conduct
research. Indigenous peoples have been conducting research since time immemorial, in
the sense of investigating and uncovering knowledge and developing new ways of
understanding the world. Arguably what might be new, at least as far as the last thirty or
so years are concerned, is the formalizing and positioning of Indigenous research as both
an act of re-claiming Indigenous sovereignty and authority and as an anti-colonial
process of engagement by Indigenous scholars and researchers with mainstream, western
science, an engagement that is transforming western research. At the same time,
Indigenous researchers claim their ways of knowing and doing research as valid,
legitimate and essential ways of understanding and interpreting the world.
The last decades have also seen re-newed attempts within some sections of the
academe to discredit both Indigenous ontologies and research methods. In such cases,
Indigenous research is deemed inadequate unless it meets western standards of validity.
In the context of the neoliberal turn, with its emphasis on market relationships and the
related pressures to monetarize research, the efforts to discredit Indigenous researchers
take on a dangerous new dynamic. In the past, political correctness concerns dismissed
Indigenous research as the misguided political appeasement of disgruntled ‘minorities’.
39
Socialist Studies / Études socialistes Volume 9 (1), Spring 2013
Now such political correctness issues are recast as an insistence on the importance of
promoting markets and private-public, or Indigenous-industry partnerships. Indigenous
research is deemed important only insofar as it is compatible with overriding concerns
for knowledge that creates profits. As I have argued elsewhere, the elevation of the market
as the main driver of the academy has profound implications for how we think about
knowledge. For Indigenous peoples in particular, this approach constitutes a form of
cognitive imperialism which impacts on Indigenous knowledge and Indigenous
scholarship in deeply contradictory but ultimately very damaging ways.
In this article, I reflect on these issues within the context of an environment that is
in many ways familiar in its relative inhospitality to Indigenous research and in other
ways changing at bewildering speed. But first there are some important disclaimers. I
make no attempt in this article to define Indigenous people, an important and extensive
debate that is however outside the scope of this paper. Nor do I attempt an authoritative
definition of either Indigenous knowledge or Indigenous research. Just as there is no
single definition of Indigenous people or even of ‘western’ knowledge or research, nor can
there be single, authoritative definition of the nature of Indigenous knowledge s and
research. Rather, I briefly explore concerns raised by Indigenous scholars and raised by
my own and other Indigenous experiences before considering the potential for radically
rewriting the postcolonial project against new forms of imperialism, including within the
academy. As Foucault points out, the genealogy of subjugated knowledges is important.
Thus I take as my starting point the trajectory of Indigenous research within the acad emy.
Historicizing Indigenous research
Since the earliest days of colonialism over five hundred years ago, the colonial
endeavor has sought to codify, quantify and tabulate flora, fauna and peoples. Early
anthropologists in 19th century Britain, for instance, literally ‘collected’ specimens of
Indigenous peoples and displayed them in zoos. Within the last hundred years, the
identification and study of Indigenous peoples, including their knowledge, ways of being
and cultural practices has been dominated by anthropologists and to a lesser but still
important degree by historians. The trajectory of Maori Studies in Aotearoa New Zealand
underlines the role of anthropology in particular (see Steve Webster (1989), Ranginui
Walker (1990), Hirini Mead (1983) and Catriona Timms (2007).
Maori Studies was established as a separate subject of academic study as early as
1952, when the University of Auckland established a branch of Maori Studies within the
department of Anthropology. As Hirini Mead observes, the predominant view at the time
was that Maori Studies was not worthy of a place within the academy in its own right and
should not be “seen as separable from anthropology” (Mead, 1983, p. 335, cited Timms,
2007). These were the heady days of an ‘Enlightenment’ tradition that for centuries has
40
STEWART-HARAWIRA: Challenging Knowledge Capitalism
treated ‘others’ as their own private zoo to be identified, categorized, codified and
tabulated (c.f. Stewart-Harawira 2005: 61-64), sometimes literally as we have seen. In
particular, cultural anthropologist Steve Webster (1989:49) describes the detrimental
influence of the positivist tradition of noted anthropologists Malinowski and Firth for
Maori peoples and culture. These social scientists redefined and reconstructed Maori
culture in ways that made sense to them within a worldview both foreign and in many
ways opposed to Maori culture, accruing considerable prestige and advancing their
careers at the same time as they developed deformed and distorted accounts of Maori
social and cultural life.
At that time, measuring ‘acculturation’ was an important anthropological project,
associated with a covert assimilation agenda and implying the inevitable absorption of the
Maori into colonial development. The merger of social anthropology and psychology
during the 1950s and 1960s saw the strengthening of the assumption of western social
scientists of the right to explain and defines Maori social functioning, personality
development and the directions for future Maori social and economic development.
Indices for measuring ‘Maoriness’ (Ritchie 1963: 39) based on the survival of belief and
behavior from pre-European Maori culture discounted more recent elements of Maori
world views and cultures and simultaneously assumed non-Indigenous ‘experts’ had the
authority to decide who was and was not Maori. As settler anthropologist James Ritchie
asserted in his study “Rakau Maoris who continue to base their identity on their
Maoriness do so at their own peril” (Richie, 1963: 191). In other words, as Webster argues,
anthropologists’ cultural definitions and normative assumptions about the ‘dangers’ of
continued Maori identity, as defined by anthropologists, were an expression of colonial
power, both over what constitutes Maori identity and regarding the (lack of) desirability
of that identity in a context where settler development was assumed to be the destiny of
Maori peoples (Webster 1989: 48) 55). The assimilationist agenda of social psychology
and anthropology became the commonsense belief of many Maori who absorbed the
notion that they must subsume their ‘Maoriness’ for the greater good, although there has
always been important Maori resistance.
It is against this history that Maori research in particular, and Indigenous research
more generally, can be understood. In claiming the rights of self-definition, the right to
tell their own histories, recover their own traditional knowledge and culturally grounded
pedagogies, epistemologies and ontologies, Indigenous scholars are engaged in an arena
of struggle which is systemic and sustained. In Aotearoa New Zealand, as elsewhere, at
the centre of this struggle are relationships of power and the right of Maori to sovereignty.
Nor is this story unfamiliar outside of the Maori context. The complaint that Aboriginal
people had been “researched to death” reported by Marlene Castello (2000: 31) regarding
the 1992 Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples in Canada echoed complaints from
many Indigenous communities over many decades. To a large degree this sense of being
“researched to death” drove Indigenous initiatives to assert their own sovereign authority
41
Socialist Studies / Études socialistes Volume 9 (1), Spring 2013
over the right to name and claim their own identities, definitions, traditional knowledge
and cultural practice. Most notably, this encompasses the right to their Indigenous
intellectual and cultural property and to the repatriation of cultural treasures referred to
in the social science community as ‘artifacts’. Integral to this movement was the
politicization of Indigenous communities and activists during the 1960s and 1970s. The
background and details of this global Indigenous movement and its connection to
ongoing misappropriation of traditional lands and the loss of language and cultural
knowledge has been well recounted by those who were in the forefront of this movement
(c.f. Harold Cardinal [1969] 1999; Linda Tuhiwai Smith [1999] 2012; Graham
Hinangaroa Smith 1997, Kathy Irwin 1994; Marie Batiste 2000). In Aotearoa New
Zealand, Canada and the USA, Indigenous education initiatives by and for Indigenous
people emerged alongside legal challenges to states for redress of illegal land
appropriations (Smith, 2005; Walker, 1990). In Aotearoa New Zealand, early childhood
immersion language programs in Maori expanded to include elementary schools and
colleges and leading ultimately to the establishment of autonomous Maori Studies
programs in certain universities (for a more detailed account, see Smith, 2005). Similar
processes occurred in Australia Canada, the US and elsewhere
In the early 21st century, Indigenous studies programs are significantly different
from colonially oriented studies of Indigenous peoples. Once, such studies limited their
attention to the cultural artifacts of ethnic groups who expected to pass peacefully or
otherwise into oblivion. Today, Indigenous Studies Faculties, Schools and Departments
exist within multiple universities across Aotearoa New Zealand, Australia, Canada, the
United States and the Pacific, testimony to the ongoing survival and strength of
Indigenous communities once programmed for cultural and in some cases, physical,
genocide. These academic programs include post-graduate instruction in Indigenous law,
international politics, arts and literature, pedagogy, epistemology and research, all
recognized as integral to the success of Indigenous post-secondary students and programs
and to the broader project of decolonization, not least within the university. Yet these
successes have not been achieved without constant and determined negotiation and re-
negotiation on the part of Indigenous scholars who have continued to struggle within and
without a system whose environment today, while familiar in many ways, is undergoing
rapid changes. First signaled in the late 1980s by the World Bank followed by the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in the 1990s, the
reconceptualization and reconstruction of the academy as the driver of the new
‘knowledge economy’ heralded a new kind of struggle over the nature and meaning of
knowledge (Peters 2003). Accompanying this redefinition of knowledge within the
academy, without the academy has been an inexorable resurgence of the re-appropriation
of Indigenous lands and identities, often through legislative measures which redefine
Indigenous self-determination as economic development, remove environmental
42
STEWART-HARAWIRA: Challenging Knowledge Capitalism
protections over lands and waterways, and reduce requirements to consult the traditional
Indigenous landholders prior to initiating resource development activities on those lands.
The politics of reclaiming
Before turning to the new challenges posed by this reconceptualization of the
university, it is necessary to consider the politics of reclaiming historical research by and
for Indigenous peoples. As discussed above, Indigenous historiographies have frequently
been subjected to invisibilization, misrepresentation and misinterpretation by historians
trained in the positivist tradition, as well as some more critical traditions. Thus the
reclaiming of those historiographies and the insurrection of subjugated Indigenous
cosmologies and ontologies continue to be central in Indigenous peoples’ resistance to
the homogenising impulse of modernity, including in its current manifestations. At the
heart of the decolonizing project has been the restoration and legitimation of Indigenous
knowledge systems and methods of conducting research. For some Indigenous scholars,
an important step on the journey has been to see the convergences between Indigenous
and qualitative research methods (see for instance Kahakalau, 2004; Smith, 2008) For
others the most important part of the process is to distinguish the nature of Indigenous
knowledge and research from dominant western forms of knowledge, for example
comparing individually based approaches to knowledge and research to the collective
approaches of most Indigenous communities (c.f. Bishop, 1998; Urion, 1999). Often these
comparisons take the form of ‘writing back’ against mainstream interpretations which
describe Indigenous peoples’ information-gathering methodologies as evidence of the
‘prescientific’, precausal nature of Indigenous knowledge systems, proof of an inability to
conceptualize in an objective symbolic manner (c.f. Widdowson and Howard, 2008).
Thus it is not unusual to see Indigenous thought systems described by Indigenous
scholars (and some non-Indigenous scholar) as circular or spiral in nature and inclusive
of both experiential and intuitive data. This contrasts with western knowledge systems,
frequently described as linear and concerned primarily with empirical data and
materiality. Lakota scholar Vine Deloria Jr. describes Indigenous conceptions of
knowledge as intrinsically connected to the lives and experiences of human beings, both
individuals and communities and emphasizes that all data and all experience is seen as
relevant to all things. All human experiences and all forms of knowledge contribute to the
overall understandings and interpretations, with no experience or piece of data seen as
invalid. The critical task, Deloria (1999) explains, was (and is) to find the proper pattern
of interpretation. Knowledge itself is commonly described as sacred, having come from
the Creator. Rather than being limited to a ‘codified canon’, a canon separated from
everyday life and taking place only in the special conditions of the laboratory, the
experiment, as ‘field work’ and in other highly codified ways, traditional or Indigenous
43
Socialist Studies / Études socialistes Volume 9 (1), Spring 2013
knowledge is an expression of life itself, of how to live, and of the connection between all
living things. From an Indigenous perspective, everything is living. This includes
inanimate objects that are understood to hold their own energy, or in Maori terms, mauri,
through which they are connected to the energetic web of the entire planet. Thus, as Vine
Deloria wrote, nothing is considered in isolation, rather, all data within the whole system
is carefully included.1
In short, interconnectedness, or relationality, is frequently described as the
foundational principle in Indigenous ontologies and cosmologies and the epistemological
and ontological base of Indigenous research. In this respect, it has much in common with
some kinds of ‘western’ scientific discoveries in the field of quantum physics and related
canons, although there may be important differences too. For instance, Métis professor
Carl Urion insists that Indigenous knowledge is at once spiritual, emotional, physical and
mental. In contrast, even ‘holistic’ western approaches like quantum physics fail to take
seriously spiritual and emotional experiences as well as physical, material and mental
ones. From this Indigenous concept of relationality derives sets of ethical principles that
define the boundaries for engaging in Indigenous research.
Considering method
Indigenous research operates within a complex set of interrelationships and rules
whose specifics are always determined by the Indigenous community itself. Indigenous
research has been defined as emerging from an epistemological base that foregrounds the
legitimacy and validity of locally determined Indigenous ontologies, epistemologies and
methodologies (cf Pihama, Cram, and Walker 2002), is conducted only with the full
consent and participation of the Indigenous communities concerned, and within the
boundaries, protocols, principles and practices determined by the community. Within
this space, protocols, relationships, reciprocity, methods, process and ownership of data
and findings define the parameters of the research project and are carefully and
thoroughly negotiated with the community. At the he art of Indigenous research lie issues
of who benefits, how, and to what purpose. Not infrequently, these questions may be
negotiated over and over again in the process of a major research project. At any given
point, the community may decide to discontinue the research. And at that point, the
research stops. In a very important sense, then, this is the heart of Indigenous research.
Intuition, dreams, and insights and ceremony frequently play an important role in
the protocols of Indigenous research. Ceremony, the details of which vary widely from
continent to continent and group to group, can prepare and open the mind to the
possibility of intuition and insights. As well as opening the mind, ceremony and prayer
are important mechanisms for ensuring that the researcher is of good mind, good heart,
1 This secti on has to a large extent been drawn from Stewart-Harawira 2005, pp. 35-39.
44
STEWART-HARAWIRA: Challenging Knowledge Capitalism
and good motive – all three critical in conducting Indigenous research – and that the
proposed research is in alignment with the highest good. Often a project will not begin
without this preparation. Notwithstanding that intuition, insight, and reams have not
infrequently been the catalyst for new discoveries and understandings within ‘western’
sciences, principles and practices such as these that are often the target of mainstream
scholars’ critiques which understood them as ‘unscientific’.
Another common target for critique is the recovery of data that is orally held and
sourced. Indigenous research recognizes that important historical and cultural knowledge
is often held in Indigenous communities in the form of story and songlines. Jo-ann
Archibald (2008) describes deep storying, or storywork, as an Indigenous research
methodology which builds on seven critical principles of respect, responsibility,
reciprocity, reverence, holism, interrelatedness, and synergy that form a framework for
understanding the characteristics of stories, appreciating the process of storytelling,
establishing a receptive learning context, and engaging in holistic meaning-making
(Archibald, 2008). Meaning-making can involve the process of comparing and cross-
matching oral accounts and it also involves careful interpretation of the language in
which the information is held, be it song, chant, story. Linguistic changes over time mean
that often such knowledge is described in language not readily accessible today, thus the
need for careful discernment of the pattern of interpretation, as Deloria points out. On
this basis, the notion that orally held knowledge lacks validity and verifiability is readily
challengeable by those who have access to understanding these processes. Stories’ in fact
provide a rich source of verifiable data that can be cross-matched and compared from
multiple perspectives when viewed through the right lens. The trick is in the knowing.
Just as mainstream knowledge systems have their own processes for ‘gate-keeping’,
Indigenous communities also have strategies for protecting the integrity of knowledge.
These are but some of the critical issues that are shaped and negotiated within particular
frameworks and relationships when entering the space of research negotiation with and
for Indigenous communities.
Inevitably, gate-keeping strategies have both positive and negative consequences.
Among the latter are gross misinterpretations and misrepresentations of, for example, the
rationales for particular cultural practices, the genealogy of certain aspects of knowledge –
often delivered in only partially accurate forms, in order to protect both the receiver and
the knowledge itself. For instance Maori have commonly held the view that in certain
cases the right to particular aspects of knowledge has to be earned, whereas in other cases
that right may be ascribed. Similarly, aspects of historical events, practices, and rationales,
may be creatively reinterpreted for the listener. In each situation the objective is
protection of that knowledge base. The difficulty, of course, is that these partial truths are
often replicated through dissemination activities by western scholars and administrators
such as presentations, publications, and texts. Ironically, the se partial truths are
frequently mobilized by western scholars to justify attacks on the credibility of
45
Socialist Studies / Études socialistes Volume 9 (1), Spring 2013
Indigenous cultural knowledge and research methods; in fact, this is simply partial
knowledge that has been decontextualized and therefore robbed of its meaning, which
appears only within the proper relational context.
Careful observation and testing, often over hundreds and thousands of years, is
equally part and parcel of Indigenous research methods. When Indigenous scholars write
about Indigenous scientific knowledge they are referring to minutely detailed knowledge
of the natural world and comprehensive understandings of the nuances that signal phases
of change within the natural world. Some of this is reflected in the traditional practices of
naming, as is also well documented and hardly needs recounting here (see for example
Basso, 1996) From the multitude of possible examples from Aotearoa New Zealand,
Huhana Smith’s (2008) doctoral thesis carefully tabulates five years of painstaking,
rigorous community research seeking out, analyzing and applying the necessary
information to restore a badly polluted and diverted river system. This provides an
outstanding example of an Indigenous methodological approach to research. The
methods utilized by Huhana Smith and the community included identifying, cross-
matching and analyzing oral stories and histories, songs, proverbs and other forms of
orally recorded information. The vast reservoir of traditional knowledge that emerges
from such painstaking tabulation and recording certainly can and does contribute
immeasurably to eco-system restoration. Its importance in enlarging scientific
understandings of the impacts of, for instance, climate change or industrial development
has been well documented (c.f. Gadgil, Berkes, Foke, 1993; Berkes, 2008; Green, D. &
Raygorodstky, 2010; Tyrell, 2011). The astronomical and cosmological knowledge
recorded in some communities may also contribute to our understandings of the
potential effects of proposals to mitigate the effects of its climate change. The possibilities
are limited only by the narrowness of our gaze.
As the academy undergoes deep and radical reconstructions, the unequal status
and ongoing attacks upon Indigenous knowledge and research demonstrates the
“epistemological tyranny” of ‘Western’ science, its rules for determining truth and so its
rules for disqualifying and marginalizing Indigenous ways of knowing (Kinchloe &
Steinberg 2008, pp.144-145). On the extreme end of such critiques are scholars such as
Widdowson and Howard who insist that the term ‘traditional knowledge’ is tendentious,
and that each item of purported traditional knowledge should be evaluated on the basis of
the evidence for and against it. Unless and until subjected to scientific (western) methods
of validation, traditional knowledge – which they distinguish from Indigenous knowledge
defined as a postmodern construct – can make no claims to validity. On the other hand,
they argue, if traditional knowledge is subject to the same kinds of scientific method as
western knowledge e.g. replicating and testing, what is the point of distinguishing it from
scientific knowledge? (Widdowson & Howard 2008, p. 231-240). Small wonder that
Indigenous scholars tend not to rely for validity on western science research methods by
which ‘heads, you lose; tails, you lose’. Yet arguments such as those presented by
46
STEWART-HARAWIRA: Challenging Knowledge Capitalism
Wddowson have been met with enthusiasm by many western scholars and critics of the
Indigenous turn in the early twenty-first century.
New Zealand scholar Elizabeth Rata, whose critiques of cultural relativism target
Maori education policy and practice, is more refined in her argument. Rata attacks the
equalizing of status of Indigenous knowledge in New Zealand universities, the
unfortunate creation of what she terms a ‘global industry’ (2011, 1-22), arguing that the
deployment of culturally appropriate pedagogies in education and by extension,
traditional cultural knowledge which is described as an expression of “immanentism –
the practice of asserting a necessary movement of history that confers subordinate groups
with objective interests in radical change” – works against social justice goals for those
whom it is intended to benefit. Her argument rests on what she holds to be the blurring of
the social knowledge and disciplina ry knowledge within the curriculum following the
turn towards constructivism. The problem, she argues, lies with the relativist claim that
all knowledge is socially constructed, a claim that extends to worldviews, ways of knowing,
and ‘knowledges’ and consequentially to the equalizing of status between social and
disciplinary or ‘scientific’ knowledge. Attacks of this nature are symptomatic of an
ongoing and systemic cognitive imperialism, an imperialism that fails to recognize the
ways that western science is historically and socially constructed. Far more troubling than
such attacks, however, is the radical shift to monetized knowledge and research and the
implications of this for Indigenous knowledge and research within the academy.
Futures for Indigenous research
As universities are reconstructed as the drivers of knowledge capitalism, the
challenges to Indigenous scholarship and research are significant. The conundrum faced
by Indigenous scholars and researchers in this environment is played out in our entry
into the global market model of knowledge capitalism in scholarship, in the discourses of
excellence and best practice, and in academic performance reviews which measure the
value of research in terms of its marketability. This substitution of industry and the
operation of the market for the pursuit of truth and meaning as the main driver of the
academe constitute a new form of cognitive imperialism which impacts on indigenous
knowledge and indigenous scholarship in deeply contradictory but ultimately damaging
ways.
On one hand, the new ‘knowledge economy’ operates to marginalize Indigenous
philosophical knowledge and traditional ways of being in the world as valid and
legitimate forms of study, insofar as Indigenous ways of knowing do not immediately
produce profitable research. On the other hand, it repositions (some) Indigenous
knowledge and scholarship within the discursive framework of innovation, excellence
and contribution to economic wealth. As university-industry partnerships substitute
public funding and demands and scholars and researchers are faced with monetizing
47
Socialist Studies / Études socialistes Volume 9 (1), Spring 2013
their teaching and research in order to maintain programs and spaces of engagement,
there are difficult decisions to be made, especially by those of us who see our work as
holding the space for Indigenous community-University relationships and engagement.
At the root of these decisions lie ethical and philosophical principles that are complex,
contested and contradictory. For Daniel Heath Justice (2004), the academy is a place of
engagement where “the world of ideas can meet action and become lived reality.” It is
here, he argues, in this borderland space of profound contradiction that cultural recovery
work can begin. Here also, I believe, is the place where the intersection of western and
Indigenous science can address the triple crises of ecological and economic catastrophe
and human wellbeing that confronts us – and which our children, and their children’s
children, will inherit (c.f. Addison, et al, 2010). On this account, a radically different
paradigm is required. Perhaps that, after all, is the true challenge of decolonization. Most
certainly, outside the academy, that sits at the heart of the rising crescendo of struggle
over the right to maintain, protect and preserve lands, waters, and ecosystems.
There is no question that inequity regarding Indigenous research and knowledge
is prevalent within the academy. There is equally no question that Indigenous knowledge
and research together with those of social and natural sciences provide a complex and
dynamic set of skills and understandings. These may yet enable humanity to find its way
out of the worst set of crises in the known history of humankind and towards a radical
reconceptualization of the complexity of interrelationship and the nature of being.
References
Addison, Tony, Channing Arndt, Tarp and Finn 2010, The Triple Crisis and the Global
Aid Architecture, Working Paper No. 2010/01, New Directions in Development
Economics program, UNU World Institute for Development Economics
Research (WIDER), Helsinki, University of Copenhagen.
Archibald, Jo-ann 2008, Indigenous Storywork. Educating the Heart, Mind, Body and
Spirit. Vancouver: UBC Press.
Agrawal, Arun 1995, Dismantling the divide between Indigenous and scientific
knowledge, Development and Change, Vol. 26, p. 413-439.
Basso, Keith 1996, Wisdom Sits in Places: Landscape and Language among the Western
Apache. University of New Mexico Press.
Berkes, F. 2008. Sacred Ecology, 2nd Edition. New York: Routledge.
48
STEWART-HARAWIRA: Challenging Knowledge Capitalism
Battiste, Marie, 2000, Reclaiming Indigenous Voice and Vision Vancouver, BC: UBC Press.
Bishop, Russell, 1998, Freeing ourselves from neo-colonial domination in research: a
Maori approach to creating knowledge, International Journal of Qualitative
Studies in Education, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 199-219.
Bishop, Russell, 1999, Kaupapa Maori research: An indigenous approach to creating
knowledge, Robertson, N. (ed). Maori and psychology: Research and practice.
Proceedings of a symposium sponsored by the Maori & Psychology Research Unit,
Department of Psychology, University of Waikato, Hamilton, Thursday 26th
August 1999. Hamilton, New Zealand: University of Waikato: 1-6.
Cardinal, Harold [1969] 1999, The Unjust Society. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Castello, Marlene 2000, Updating Aboriginal traditions of knowledge. George J. Sefa Dei,
Budd L. Hall and Dorothy Goldin Rosenberg (eds.) Indigenous Knowledges in
Global Contexts. Multiple Readings of Our World. Toronto; Buffalo; London:
University of Toronto Press.
Deloria, Vine Jnr 1999, ‘If you think about it, you will see that it is true’, Deloria, Vine Jnr.
Spirit and Reason. The Vine Deloria Reader. Colorado: Fulcrum Publishing, pp.
40-60.
Foucault, M. (1976), "Two Lectures." Power / Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other
Writings, 1972-1977, Colin Gordon (Ed). Brighton: Harvester, pp. 78-108.
Gadgil, M., Berkes, F., and Folke C. 1993. Indigenous Knowledge for Biodiversity
Conservation. Ambio, 22 (2/3): 151-156.
Green, D. & Raygorodstky, G. 2010, Indigenous Knowledge of a changing climate.
Climatic Change, 100 (2): 239-242.
Irwin, Kathie 1994, Māori research methods and processes: an exploration, Sites, 28,
pp.25-43, Autumn 1994.
Justice, Daniel 2004, Seeing (and Reading) Red. “Indian Outlaws in the Ivory Tower,”
D.A. Mihesuah & A. C. Wilson (eds.), Indigenizing the Academy. Transforming
49
Socialist Studies / Études socialistes Volume 9 (1), Spring 2013
Scholarship and Empowering Communities. Lincoln and London: University of
Nebraska Press.
Kahakalau Ku, 2004, Indigenous Heuristic Action Research: Bridging Western and
Indigenous Research Methodologies. Hulili: Multidisciplinary Research on
Hawaiian Well-Being, Vol. 1, No. 1 (2004).
Kinchloe, J.L. & Steinberg, S.L. 2008, Indigenous Knowledges in Education: Complexities,
Dangers and Profound Benefits. N. Denzin, Y. Lincoln & L. Smith (Eds.),
Handbook of Critical and Indigenous Methodologies (pp.). LA; London, New
Delhi: Sage.
Mead, Hirini Moko 1983, Tikanga Māori : Living by Māori Values , Palmerston North,
Huia Publishers.
Negri, Antonio 2008, Empire and Beyond [trans.Ed Emery].Cambridge: Polity.
Peters, Michael 2003, Classical Political Economy and the Role of Universities in the New
Knowledge Economy. Globalisation, Societies and Education, (1) 2, July 2003.
Retrieved from
http://pdfserve.informaworld.com/787791_770885140_713669018.pdf.
Pihama, Leonie, Cram, Fiona and Walker, Sheilagh 2002, Creating Methodological Space:
A Literature Review of Kaupapa Maori Research. Canadian Journal of Native
Education, 26 (1): 30-42.
Rata, Elizabeth (2011), The politics of knowledge in education. British Educational
Research Journal, DOI: 10.1080/01411926.2011.61538.
Ritchie, James 1963, The Making of a Maori. A Case Study of a Changing Community.
Wellington: A.H. & A.W. Reed.
Smith, Graham H. 1997, The development of kaupapa Māori: theory and praxis. PhD
thesis, University of Auckland.
Smith, Huhana 2008, Mäori reclamation models for natural and cultural heritage
protection particularly the revitalisation of the ecological, cultural and spiritual
values of Te Hakari Dune Wetland and the coastal environment from the Ohau to
Waikawa Rivers. Unpublished Ph D dissertation, Massey University, New Zealand.
50
STEWART-HARAWIRA: Challenging Knowledge Capitalism
Smith, Linda Tuhiwai [1999] 2012, Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous
Peoples. Dunedin: University of Otago Press.
Smith, Linda Tuhiwai, (2005), On Tricky Ground. Researching the Native in an Age of
Uncertainty. Norman K. Denzin, Yvonna S. Lincoln, and Linda Tuhiwai Smith
(eds). Handbook of Critical and Indigenous Methodologies, Sage (3rd Ed).
Stewart-Harawira, Makere 2005, The New Imperial Order. Indigenous Responses to
Globalization, London: Zed & Palmerston North, NZ: Huia.
Timms, Catriona E. (2007) Whāia te māramatanga: Māori language revitalisation and
tertiary education in Aotearoa. MAI Review, accessible at
http://journals.vaggi.org/record/view/13254.
Tyrrell, T.D. & Loh, J. (eds.) Biodiversity Indicators Partnership, 2011, Biocultural
Diversity: The intertwined status and trends of biod iversity, indigenous languages
and traditional knowledge. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK.
Urion, Carl 1999(a), ‘Recording First Nations Traditional Knowledge’. Unpublished
paper, U’mista Cultural Society.
Urion, Carl 1999(b), Hope and healing: Implications for rsearch design. Keynote address,
Canadian Association of Psychosocial Oncology (CAPO), May 1999. Ed,pmptm.
Verhelst, Thierry G. 1990, No Life Without Roots. Culture and Development. London: Zed
Books.
Walker, Ranginui [1990], 2004, Struggle Without End. Ka Whawhai Tonu Matou.
Auckland: Penguin.
Webster, Steve 1989, Maori Studies and the Expert Definition of Maori Culture: A
Critical History. Sites (18 ), pp. 35 -56.
Widdowsen Francis, Howard Albert 2008, Disrobing the Aboriginal Industry. The
Deception behind Indigenous Cultural Preservation. Montreal; Kingston, London:
McGill-Queen’s University Press.
51
