Indigenous Paradigm Research

Abstract

This chapter explores indigenous paradigm research, highlighting the ways in which indigenous peoples have been negatively impacted by Western research paradigms and methodologies. It then describes, how a number of indigenous scholars are resisting imposed research strategies and creating spaces for fuller expression of research based in indigenous paradigms. The chapter illuminates the epistemic violence perpetuated by unreflective imposition of Western paradigms on indigenous people, exploring the work of scholars who are addressing that violence by re-centering indigenous people and their paradigms. It explains a number of ways of collaborating with integrity when engaging with indigenous people in research, including symmetrical worldviewing, inter-paradigmatic dialogue and respectful engagement with principles of indigenous research. I share examples from my own research, the research of a number of other indigenous scholars and that of emergent paradigm scholars whose epistemologies have significant resonances with indigenous paradigms.

Full text

159
© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015
D. Bretherton, S. F. Law (eds.), Methodologies in Peace Psychology,
Peace Psychology Book Series 26, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-18395-4_8
P. O. Walker ()
Peace and Conflict Studies, Baker Institute for Peace and Conflict Studies,
Juniata College, Huntingdon, USA
e-mail: walker@juniata.edu
Chapter 8
Indigenous Paradigm Research
Polly O. Walker
8.1 Introduction
Tsitsalagi. Nvwhtohiyada idehesdi. In the language of my ancestors: “I am Chero-
kee. May we live together in balance and harmony.” I am also of Anglo–European
descent, having grown up in the traditional lands of the Mescalero Apache, sites of
wounded places (Rose, 1997) where indigenous people face the ragged choices col-
onization has forced on them. The legacies of colonization have shaped a great deal
of formal academic research in ways which have appropriated indigenous knowl-
edge, misrepresented indigenous people and damaged indigenous communities.
Thus, my call for living in balance and harmony includes building relationships of
respect, relationship and reciprocity1 between indigenous and nonindigenous schol-
ars, researchers, and knowledge holders. This chapter builds on my experience in
conducting indigenous paradigm research, and my collaboration with a number of
indigenous elders and knowledge holders in Australia, Canada, and the USA.2 In the
following sections, I first outline ways in which dominant research paradigms have
negatively impacted indigenous people, and explore the ways in which indigenous
people are decolonizing research by honoring and re-centering indigenous para-
digms and the people who work within indigenous worldviews. In the latter section,
1 Auntie Joan Hendricks, of Minjerribah, has many times explained these three principles as key
tenets of Aboriginal Australian worldview.
2 I developed a research methodology based on dialogue across multiple paradigms that created
processes of building on resonances between indigenous and emergent western paradigms. This
would not have been possible without the support of the indigenous elders, senior people, and
knowledge holders who supported my process of “becoming researcher” (Walker, 2013).

160 P. O. Walker
I discuss ways in which indigenous and nonindigenous people are transforming
epistemic violence through collaborative and respectful engagement across differ-
ing worldviews and paradigms.
8.2 Decolonizing Research: Re-centering Indigenous
People and Their Paradigms
As Maori scholar Linda Tuwhai Smith (1999) points out in her seminal work on
decolonizing research, the term “research” itself has often been an epithet to many
indigenous people. The impacts of Western research on indigenous people have in
many ways been negative: researchers have appropriated and misused indigenous
knowledge (Battiste, 2008; Smith, 1999) drawing on research findings in ways that
further dispossess and marginalize indigenous people. In an unfortunate number of
cases research findings have even supported practices that justify direct violence to-
ward indigenous people, such as the forced sterilization of Native American women
that occurred in the USA through the 1970s (Smith, 2005).
Cultural and structural violence toward indigenous people was also evident in
policies and practices based on research findings of the colonial era, which made
claims regarding who was human (Stanfield, 1993, p. 17) with many indigenous
people being classified as nonhuman (Deloria, 1969; Smith, 1999, p. 69). Although
blatantly dehumanizing strategies are now curtailed through research ethics boards,
governmental and institutional policies to a large extent regulate who is officially
identified as indigenous and who therefore is entitled to or excluded from certain
rights or privileges (Deloria, 1999; Smith, 1999). The academy continues to be a
place of structural violence for many indigenous people, forcibly reshaping their
ways of knowing, and being, and contributing to their internal oppression by rei-
fying Western paradigms and marginalizing indigenous knowledge systems (Hart,
2010, p. 11).
Partly in resistance to these ongoing injustices, indigenous people around the
world are working to re-center their own paradigms, languages and methodologies,
facilitating research that is beneficial to their communities, and extended relational
networks (Meyer, 2008; Smith, 1999; Wilson, 2001). This resistance is both against
epistemic violence3 and for a revitalization of indigenous paradigms. Marilou Awi-
akta (1997, p. 777), Cherokee scholar, shares an evocative example of these two
types of resistance:
I was centered and happy in my heritage until I went to college and began Western educa-
tion in earnest. Everywhere I turned I found a “squared world,” a society so compartmental-
ized that life, including my own, had no room to move around, to breathe. For twenty years
I struggled against the Square World, but I unwittingly internalized it-tore my life web and
3 Spivak (1988) used Foucault’s terminology of epistemic violence to indicate the hegemony of
western worldview and the resulting marginalization and suppression of non-western ways of
knowing and being.

1618 Indigenous Paradigm Research
stuffed the broken strands into the “boxes”…One quiet line marked the beginning of my
healing: “No more will I follow any rule that splits my soul.” Not for society or for gov-
ernment or for education or for any power whatsoever would I depart from the traditional
teaching of my elders: “All of creation is one family, sacred.”
Unfortunately, Awiakta’s experience is not unique, and indigenous scholars are often
expected to “strain their experiences” through Western paradigms in ways that distort
their worldviews and disrupt their relationships with their communities (see Hart, 2010).
Thus, indigenous reclamation of space in the academy often requires “dealing with mul-
tiple levels of colonization and social inequality” (Smith, 2005, p. 90).
Given these ongoing injustices, many indigenous scholars are calling for a “sov-
ereign research agenda” (Smith, 2005, p. 90) which centers on indigenous peoples’
needs and aspirations. Indigenous scholars around the world are drawing on their
own paradigms and articulating research methodologies designed to be of value
to their communities (Smith, 1999; Battiste, 2008) and the cosmos (Hart, 2010;
Meyer, 2008). Other approaches to decolonizing research are termed Indigenist,
based in indigenous worldviews, privileging indigenous voices, resisting marginal-
ization and appropriation yet integrating aspects of both indigenous epistemologies
and Western paradigms in ways that serve the needs of indigenous people (Rigney,
1998; Denzin & Lincoln, 2008). Wilson (2001) points out that decolonizing method-
ologies must move from indigenous perspectives on research to indigenous research
paradigms that fully articulate indigenous ontologies, epistemologies, methodolo-
gies, and axiologies. Wilson (2001, pp. 176–177) describes an indigenous research
paradigm as one in which knowledge is shared in relationship among humans and
between humans and the cosmos, and which requires relational accountability, with
researchers meeting a number of responsibilities to an extended relational network
that includes humans, the natural world, and the spirit world.
8.3 Reducing Epistemic Violence toward Indigenous
People
In this section, I explore some ways that researchers are engaging in peacebuild-
ing by decreasing epistemic violence toward indigenous people. These processes
involve symmetrical worldview analyses, implementation of indigenous research
principles, and inter-paradigmatic dialogue.
It is widely accepted in decolonizing research that indigenous researchers and
their communities should be able to decide if, when, and how to engage nonindig-
enous researchers in research endeavors. Thus, a number of scholars interested in
addressing epistemic violence and the colonial legacies of research are collaborat-
ing with indigenous people in ways that demonstrate respectful engagement with
indigenous paradigms. A critical aspect of this preparation is developing a deeper
understanding of indigenous worldviews and the ways in which dominant research
paradigms have marginalized indigenous people and their worldviews. Nonindige-
nous researchers will find it very difficult to develop meaningful relationships with,

162 P. O. Walker
and understandings of, Indigenous people if they are working solely from within
nonindigenous worldviews, which may blind them to ontologies, epistemologies,
and axiologies that are in some ways radically different to their own. Native Ameri-
can psychologists Edward and Bonnie Duran (1995, p. 25) take an even stronger
stance, arguing that, “to assume that phenomena from another worldview can be
adequately explained from a totally foreign worldview is the essence of psychologi-
cal and philosophical imperialism.”
In beginning to develop a deeper understanding of, and ways of redressing, the
imposition of Western research frameworks, a number of researchers are engag-
ing with symmetrical worldview analyses (Docherty, 2001), examining their own
worldview and developing an understanding of the worldviews of the people they
are working with. Symmetrical worldview analyses both enhance understanding
of one’s own out of awareness aspects of culture (which usually simply appear as
the normal way of doing business), as well as the visible and less visible aspects
of others’ cultures (Docherty, 2001). A worldview analysis, according to Docherty
(2001) also includes an understanding of how people from a particular cultural
group would describe what is real, how the real is organized, what is important,
how one comes to know, and how one should we act. Nevertheless, worldviews are
neither static nor created in isolation, and Docherty also emphasizes the role of in-
tersubjectivity in shaping, communicating, and understanding worldviews: “World-
viewing activities take place in dialogue with the context within which people live”
(Docherty, 2001, p. 51).
There are a number of issues that hinder respectful, accurate, and effective
worldviewing involving indigenous people. Unfortunately, many nonindigenous
researchers seek to understand indigenous peoples’ worldviews solely by using
scholarly texts or detached observation. Furthermore, many researchers working
within dominant Western paradigms are reluctant to analyze their own worldviews,
considering their frameworks to be scientific rather than culturally based (Docherty,
2001). Eliding a symmetrical worldview analysis may exacerbate structural vio-
lence: lack of reflective understanding of one’s own worldview results in a type of
blindness in which critical aspects of others’ ways of knowing and being may be un-
wittingly rejected and marginalized, and concepts which are of central importance
being obscured (Goldberg, 2009).
There are a number of extant symmetrical worldview analyses that illuminate the
ontology, epistemology, and axiology of indigenous and Western worldviews and
which may serve as reference points for developing worldview analyses with spe-
cific indigenous people. A brief excerpt of one of these can be seen in the following
table drawn from Eileen Moreton-Robinson’s (2009) research. Moreton-Robinson
has provided a fuller worldview analysis in her work: this section is intended to
point you toward her research, and that of other indigenous scholars (see, for ex-
ample, Graham’s (2008) essay on Aboriginal worldview), and to raise awareness of
the implications of worldview differences in research involving indigenous people
(Table 8.1).
It is evident from these brief examples that indigenous and Western worldviews
can be starkly different in a number of ways. The relevance of these differences has

1638 Indigenous Paradigm Research
largely been ignored within dominant Western research paradigms. In my doctoral
thesis examining conflict transformation between Aboriginal and nonindigenous
Australians, I drew on a comparative analysis of Western and indigenous world-
views, highlighting differences, and power imbalances which have implications for
conflict transformation. In this analysis, the central characteristics of the dominant
Western worldview were seen to include:
• A unilinear, present-centered conception of time
• An analytic rather than holistic conception of epistemology
• A human-over-human conception of human relations
• A human-over-nature conception of relations to nature (Galtung, 1990, p. 313).
In contrast, central characteristics of a number of American Indian/First Nations,
Native Hawaiian, and Aboriginal worldviews include:
• A circular (or spiral) conception of time (Bopp, Bopp, Brown & Lane, 1989;
Meyer, 1998a; Stanner, 1979).
• An holistic conception of epistemology (Bopp et al., 1989; Meyer, 1998a; Stan-
ner, 1979).
• A less hierarchical conception of human relations (Bopp et al., 1989; Meyer,
1998a; Rose, 1984).
• Humans in relationship of care and responsibility with nature (Bopp et al., 1989;
Meyer, 1998a; Rose, 1992) .
These dichotomous cultural analyses contribute to decreasing epistemic violence
only if they are used as, or considered to be, “starting points” (Pillay, 2006) for
a more fluid, relational, and context based cocreation of understanding. Docherty
(2001) uses the term “worldviewing” for the ongoing creation of meaning between
individuals and collectives. Thus, rigorous worldview analyses cannot be conducted
outside of relationship with people holding those worldviews. One may make a start
Table 8.1 Characteristics of indigenous and Western worldview. (Source: Moreton-Robinson and
Walter, 2009, pp. 4–5. Permission to use table granted)
Aspect of worldview Characteristics of indigenous worldview Characteristics of Western
worldview
Ontology Realities are predicated on being
embodied and connected. Reality is not
immutable and there are different layers
of reality that are contextual and related
to being a knowledge holder
Reality is perceived as immu-
table and the Western framing
of reality is invisible to the
perceiver
Epistemology Legitimacy is based on connectivity,
physical, and spiritual nature of life,
knowledge, and existence
Legitimacy is based on objec-
tivity of rational knowledge,
and other ways of knowing
are dismissed
Axiology Valued knowledge comes from many
sources including dreams, the ancestors,
stories and experience, and is embedded
in the land
Valued knowledge comes
from disembodied theories
rationally considered

164 P. O. Walker
from extant texts, which can be beneficial in decreasing the pressure on indigenous
people to assume the bulk of the responsibility for teaching nonindigenous people
about their culture and history.4 There are a number of published works that will as-
sist researchers in developing a deeper understanding of indigenous peoples’ world-
views, which differ among indigenous people yet retain similar underlying patterns.
Nevertheless, to effect a fuller understanding of, and respectful engagement with,
the worldviews of a people requires building relationships. In many indigenous
communities, respectful and ethical worldviewing involves learning through the
reciprocity of sharing meals, participating in rituals and community events, listen-
ing to the stories and explanations of elders, and giving back to the community.
Symmetrical worldviewing in some ways involves what John Paul Lederach
terms paradoxical curiosity (2005), the process of holding in relation seemingly
opposite energies, in this case: 1. constant change with 2. recognizable patterns.
There are continuing fluxes, similarities, and convergences, as well as differences,
among indigenous and nonindigenous peoples’ worldviews (Hart, 2010; Christie,
1992; Goldberg, 2009). Nevertheless, the differences in patterns that can be seen
in a range of indigenous worldviews and the dominant Western worldviews are
significant enough to present challenges to research collaborations between indig-
enous and nonindigenous researchers.
Michael Anthony Hart (2010) has articulated a Cree worldview analysis that
provides an example of thorough, relational and grounded work that could inform
a symmetrical analysis. Hart explains that an indigenous research paradigm is char-
acterized by:
• An ontology that emphasizes spirituality and reciprocity.
• An epistemology of fluid, emplaced learning and the expression of experiential
insight through stories, dreams, elders, ancestors and the natural world.
• A methodology based in relational accountability to collectivities and the cos-
mos.
• An axiology that values indigenous control of research, respect, reciprocity, safe-
ty, non-obtrusiveness, deep listening, nonjudgmental reflection, responsibility,
holistic logic, self-awareness, and subjectivity (Hart, 2010, pp. 1–16).
There are a number of indigenous scholars, such as Wilson (2001), Hart (2010),
Meyer (2008) and Smith (1999, 2005) who have articulated principles that shape
indigenous research. As one voice among many researchers working within indig-
enous paradigms, I would like to share the following principles, arising from my
understanding developed in relationship with the natural world, indigenous elders,
knowledge holders, scientists, and scholars, and collaboratively conducting re-
search with indigenous and nonindigenous people.
4 A number of senior indigenous women in Australia maintain that is the responsibility the nonin-
digenous people to educate themselves as deeply and widely as possible about indigenous issues
and indigenous settler power relations, rather than relying solely on Aboriginal people to educate
them (Graham, 1998; Huggins, 1998; Holt, 2000).

1658 Indigenous Paradigm Research
8.3.1 Relationship is Key in all Aspects of Research
“Here is an epistemological category that deepens all other categories: Existing in
relationship triggers everything; with people, with ideas, with the natural world”
(Meyer, 2008, p. 221). Relationships are integral in indigenous paradigm research,
including among humans, between humans and the natural world/cosmos, and be-
tween researcher, data and participants. Interrelatedness is a central tenet of indig-
enous worldviews and to function effectively, researchers are expected to build on
existing relationships as well as create and sustain new ones (Smith, 2005).
Research relationships extend beyond those with other humans, to include the
natural world. Mary Graham (2010), senior Aboriginal woman of the Kombumerri
people in Australia, articulates a place-based research methodology in which “In-
digenous research methods stress the moral nature of physicality (especially land)
and the need for relationality and interconnectedness with all life forces…” in
which “balance and re-balance is achieved when Place is used like an ontologi-
cal compass.” Graham maintains that “…Place precedes inquiry. Place defines and
supersedes inquiry. Place is a living thing, whether it is geographically located or
located as an event in time. Place does not hamper, confuse or attenuate inquiry,
rather Place both enhances and clarifies inquiry…It informs us of ‘where’ we are at
any time, thereby, at the same time informing us of ‘who’ we are” (Graham, 2010,
p. x). Other indigenous scholars, such as Hart (2010) and Meyer (2008) describe
reciprocal relationships with the living, natural world/cosmos as an integral part of
their research paradigms. Skillful data interpretation takes place in relation between
the researcher and the research participants rather than being done solely by the
researcher (Cajete 2000, p. 66; Begay & Maryboy 1998, pp. 50–55; Smith 1999,
p. 148). In Native Hawaiian epistemology, for example, intelligence outside of the
relationship is considered to be impossible (Meyer 1998a, p. 135) and knowledge
that breaks the awareness of interconnectedness with others is considered to be
worthless or harmful.
8.3.2 There are More than Five Senses that Inform Research
In indigenous paradigm research, empirical data includes many senses (Meyer,
2008) not included in Western research paradigms where empirical data is restrict-
ed to seeing, hearing, touching, tasting, and smelling. Many indigenous peoples’
epistemologies also include senses of intuition, dream, visions, and receiving signs
from the natural world; thus knowledge arises out of, and resides in mind, body,
emotion, and spirit, and connection with the natural world (Begay & Maryboy,
1998, p. 203; Cajete, 2000, pp. 75, 84–85; Duran & Duran, 1995; Ghostkeeper,
2001). Knowledge is thus holistic; intellect is valued, but not given priority above
other ways of knowing. For example, in Native Hawaiian philosophy humans “are
not simply ‘head thinkers’” but rather are directed by their “bodies…larger sense of
otherness” (Meyer, 1997, p. x).

166 P. O. Walker
8.3.3 Research is Based in Reciprocity
Interconnectedness calls forth reciprocity. Knowledge and understanding shared by
research participants evokes a responsibility on the part of the researcher to use that
information in ways that support group aspirations and values. In many indigenous
paradigms, knowledge is considered to be a gift and the recipients are expected to
respond in ways that demonstrate respect for the collective in how that gift is used
on behalf of the collective (Meyer, 1998a, p. 116; Whitt, 1997).
Indigenous paradigm researchers seek ways in which both data and findings are
shared with participants (Begay & Maryboy, 1998; Smith, 1999). At the end of the
research project, the participants continue to be involved in discussions on how the
research findings are to be utilized. A failure to include participants in these ways is con-
sidered by many indigenous people to be “stealing knowledge,” and such perceptions
fuel continued indigenous resistance to formal research (Smith, 1999, p. 176).
This reciprocity extends beyond the human realm. Indigenous paradigm re-
searchers are expected to fulfill their relationships to their extended network of
relationships (Hart, 2010). This includes ancestors, generations to come, and all
aspects of the natural world, as Wilson (2001, p. 177) describes: “…it is a relation-
ship with all of creation. It is with the cosmos; it is with the animals, with the plants,
with the earth that we share this knowledge. It goes beyond the idea of individual
knowledge to the concept of relational knowledge ….you are answerable to all your
relations when you are doing research.”
8.3.4 Methodologies are Characterized by Movement and Flux
Indigenous paradigm research is characterized by flux rather than time-bound im-
plementation of techniques (Begay & Maryboy, 1998, p. 69; Cajete 2000; Duran &
Duran, 1995; Peat, 1994; Smith, 1999, p. 182), and is based in a paradigm of cre-
ative, ever-changing processes rather than absolute truth (Little Bear, 2000). Thus
the methodologies involve “process thinking as opposed to the content thinking
found in the [dominant] Western worldview” (Duran & Duran, 1995, p. 15).
This flux can also be seen in Native American concepts of behaving “in a good
way” in research which means, in part, being responsive to the needs of indigenous
people, communities and all one’s relations. Rather than rigid research methods
being employed, flexible approaches are considered to be more rigorous, reliable,
and ethical. For example, the creative flux of indigenous paradigm research is
evidenced in indigenous conceptualizations of time, which include right time, the
time at which all factors indicate the situation is ready to support the action being
contemplated. Rather than base research decisions solely upon calendar or clock

1678 Indigenous Paradigm Research
deadlines, choices are made with regard to relationships with others and the natural
world (Peat, 1994, pp. 202–203; Tripcony, 1997).
8.3.5 Spirituality Is Integral to Research
Whereas dominant Western research paradigms are primarily secular, indigenous
paradigm research is “inherently spiritual” (Begay & Maryboy, 1998, p. 93). It
is important to note that spirituality is not equated with religion; it is instead a
participative, receptive awareness of, and dialogue with, the extended relational
network (ancestors, generations to come, and the cosmos). Within this networked
relationality, receiving advice or council from a relative who has died is considered
valuable information to many indigenous scholars (Meyer, 1998b, p. 40). In con-
trast, in mainstream Western worldview seeing and hearing deceased people is often
pathologized as drug induced psychosis or mental illness. In very few cases, would
information from deceased ancestors be considered acceptable research data within
dominant Western research methodologies (Stanfield, 1998, p. 352).
Many indigenous research paradigm methodologies acknowledge the fundamen-
tal role of spirituality in formal research (Duran & Duran, 1995, p. 44; Whelshula,
1999). For example, Meyer (1998a, pp. 99–100) claims that “the theme of spiritual-
ity was by far the largest” of all of her research categories, explaining that “ Inevita-
bly, every mentor spoke and lingered within the arena of how knowledge is affected,
acquired and shaped by spiritual forces.”
8.3.6 Relationship with the Natural World Informs Research
Concepts of relationship with the natural world as a living system are reflected in
indigenous paradigm research (Deloria 1995, p. 55; Little Bear, 2000, p. xi) and
many examples of decolonizing research involve articulation of live participation
with the natural world (Cajete, 2000, p. 2). I have written elsewhere (Walker, 2013)
about how relationship with the natural world shapes my awareness, thinking, and
relationships related to research. Sometimes the natural world calls me to slow
down, pay attention, and learn from a particular place; at times it strengthens me to
continue the research process; and at other times informs.
In many indigenous paradigms there is no hierarchy of humans over nature, and
information shared by the natural world is considered equally valid as data from
other humans. For example, Deborah Bird Rose (1992, p. 225) describes the world-
view of the Yarralin people of Australia in which listening to the natural world is
an integral part of their epistemology. Many indigenous peoples’ epistemologies
incorporate conceptualizations of land and other living creatures involved in the
cocreation of meaning with humans (see Meyer 1998a; Peat 1994).

168 P. O. Walker
8.3.7 Meaningful Evaluation of Research is Based in
Relationship and Takes Place at Many Levels
Meaningful evaluations of research must include its verisimilitude and persuasive-
ness to the indigenous communities who have collaborated in the research. The va-
lidity of findings may be indicated through “formal, informal, cultural and spiritual
means… In accordance with the traditional dimension, reliability can be acquired
experientially, intuitively and ultimately spiritually. The integrity of this kind of
knowledge is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to analyze or validate by outside
western research methods” (Begay & Maryboy, 1998, pp. 133–134).
Both indigenous communities and indigenous researchers measure rigor in terms
of the complexity and soundness of the findings, and also in relation to the research
project’s ability to maintain and strengthen interrelatedness among humans, hu-
mans, natural, and spirit worlds. They also evaluate the effects of the findings on the
community in relation to creating positive social change that responds to the needs
of many in the indigenous community (Meyer, 1998a; Smith, 1999, pp. 172–175).
There are a number of principles of indigenous paradigm research which differ
depending on the indigenous people/community/group involved in the research.
The seven principles I outline in this chapter are the central ones that shape my work
in indigenous paradigm research. I have explored them for purposes of reflection
and consideration of how engagement with principles of indigenous research might
assist in decreasing epistemic violence in the academy.
8.3.7.1 Inter-paradigmatic Dialogue
Dialogue across paradigms has brought some measures of balance to research col-
laborations between indigenous and nonindigenous people. One of the Cherokee
words that relates to indigenous concepts of peace and wellbeing is nvwati, roughly
translated as balance and harmony, or conceptualizing and engaging with seemingly
oppositional energies as a whole. In Cherokee worldview, the dominant Western
research paradigms are largely out of balance, separating the knowing of mind,
body and spirit, and the natural world, as well as fragmenting knowledge into tight-
ly bound disciplines. However, there are Western emergent paradigm5 researchers
who are also exploring conceptual frameworks that resonate with those of indig-
enous people, and a number of these emergent paradigm researchers are working in
respectful and ethical collaboration with indigenous people. I would like to briefly
explore some of the inter-paradigmatic dialogues I have been involved in: first,
face-to-face dialogues involving indigenous scholars, elders and knowledge hold-
ers, and Western quantum theorists. Then, I will turn to an exploration some of the
work from my doctoral thesis that explores resonances between indigenous and
Western emergent paradigms.
5 Emergent paradigm research is innovative, paradigm shifting research that lacks sufficiently sus-
tained scholarship for the Academy to define it as a paradigm.

1698 Indigenous Paradigm Research
For over a decade I participated in a series of dialogues, hosted by the SEED In-
stitute in New Mexico, that brought together quantum theorists with Native scholars,
elders and knowledge holders to explore interconnections between indigenous and
Western science. The dialogues were initiated and facilitated by Leroy Little Bear,
Blackfoot scholar, who earlier had invited David Bohm, seminal scholar in quan-
tum physics, to explore similarities in their paradigms. Building both on Bohmian
(Bohm, 1999) and Blackfoot forms of dialogue, participants explored indigenous
paradigms based in “ideas of constant motion and flux, existence consisting of en-
ergy waves, interrelationships, all things being animate, space/place, renewal and
all things being imbued with spirit” (Little Bear, 2000). Part of the intent of the
dialogues was to increase the understanding of, and respect for, indigenous science
and worldview. I remember vividly sitting beside Nobel Prize winning physicist
Brian Josephson, and hearing him build on a quote from John Horgan’s book The
End of Science, stating: “‘Our civilization is now facing barriers to the acquisition
of knowledge so fundamental that the golden age of science must be thought of as
over… we are now witnessing a transition from a science of the past…. to a study
of complex adaptive matter. We must hope for providing a jumping off-point for
new discoveries, new concepts, and new wisdom.’ Well, I think that’s very closely
connected to what we’re doing, and shows the two (Quantum theory and Native
Science) can be united in this sense” (SEED Transcipt, 2001).
Based on my experience of indigenous paradigms, and my intent to conduct
research within those paradigms, I sought out supervisors at the University of
Queensland who were receptive to my doing research in that manner. Colin Peile
became one of my advisors, based in part on my interest in his book on the Creative
Research Paradigm, which drew on Bohm’s and other physicists’ work in quantum
theory. Using his work and that of a range of scholars articulating indigenous para-
digms, I engaged in inter-paradigmatic dialogue, seeking to learn more about how
these frameworks could inform the methodology I was developing. As can be seen
in the table on the following page, the Creative paradigm, Native American para-
digm, and Australian Aboriginal paradigm have similar ontological, epistemologi-
cal, political, and spiritual characteristics (Table 8.2).
This table is not a full symmetrical worldview analysis; it represents only a few
characteristics of these paradigms. It is intended to indicate that emergent paradigm
research reflects many of the central principles of indigenous paradigm research:
interconnectedness, a focus on relationships, cocreative process, and expanded con-
ceptualizations of epistemology.
Peile’s methodology is based in the concepts of interconnectedness, building on
the quantum theory concept of a holomovement (Bohm, 1980), within which knowl-
edge develops through a flowing, constantly cycling movement between implicit
and explicit experience (Peile, 1994). A number of other Western scholars of emer-
gent paradigm research also stress the importance of interconnectedness in episte-
mology, as seen in the work of Barbara McClintock, Nobel Prize winning biologist
(cited in Keller, 1983, pp. 204), who maintains, “Basically everything is one. There
is no way in which you draw a line between things. What we [normally] do is full
of subdivisions that are artificial, that shouldn’t be there.” Likewise, Peile (1994,

170 P. O. Walker
Paradigmatic
assumptions
The creative paradigm Native American
paradigm
Aboriginal Australian
paradigm
Ontological Everything is part of
an undivided insepara-
ble whole. The whole
is holographically
enfolded within every
part and each part
enfolds every other
part. Creativity is the
fundamental process
of all reality…Mind
and body, matter and
consciousness, are
inseparable aspects of
an individual whole
which holographically
enfold each other
(Peile, 1994, p. 279)
All things are inter-
related. Everything
in the universe is part
of a single whole…
All of creation is in
a state of constant
change. Nothing stays
the same except the
presence of cycle
upon cycle of change.
(Bopp et al., 1989,
pp. 26–27)
Each part is both part
of the total system
and a system in
itself (Rose, 1984,
p. 221).…all parts of
the cosmos are related
to other parts (Rose
1984, p. 29)
Epistemological Knowledge arises
via synthetic insight
where this knowledge
forms an inseparable
creative aspect of
reality (Peile, 1994,
p. 279)
Everything is con-
nected in some way
to everything else. It
is therefore pos-
sible to understand
something only if we
can understand how
it is connected to
everything else. (Bopp
et al., 1989, p. 26)
…knowledge
originates in the
complex unbounded
web of metaphors,
drawn from the land,
animals, and the body,
and handed down
by the ancestors….
Knowledge making
can be posited as a
negotiation of meta-
phors, which will help
us to share and under-
stand our… partial
perspectives (Christie,
1992, p. 22)
Political The aim of relation-
ships with others is
creative mutual dia-
logue. It seeks to chal-
lenge the processes of
fragmentation and the
self-deceptive percep-
tion of control through
a process of synthesis,
insight and mutual
dialogue (Peile, 1994,
p. 279)
All the races and the
tribes in the world
are like the different
colored flowers of one
meadow. All are beau-
tiful. As children of
the Creator they must
all be respected (Bopp
et al., 1989, p. 80)
All perspectives are
valid and reasonable
(Graham, cited in Gra-
ham, Brigg & Walker,
2010). No part of the
system is subservient
to, or dominated by,
any other part… each
part of the system
must pay attention,
and respond, to other
parts (Rose, 1984,
p. 30)
Table 8.2 Assumptions of creative, Native American and Aboriginal Australian paradigms

1718 Indigenous Paradigm Research
pp. 273–274) explains, “Everything is part of an inseparable undivided whole…
The whole is holographically enfolded or implicit within every part.”
Emergent paradigm research also stresses reciprocal relationships between re-
searchers and research data, describing research processes in which the researcher’s
formal study and personal experience shape the data, and in turn are shaped by the
data. These scholars maintain that open acknowledgment of interconnections be-
tween the researcher’s experience and the data provides a more accurate representa-
tion of research processes (Lincoln & Denzin, 1998). For example, when asked how
she was able to develop her prizewinning research into genetics, McClintock (cited
in Keller, 1983, p. 117) described a relational approach with the nuclei of the corn
plants she was studying: “…when I was really working with them I wasn’t outside,
I was down there. I was part of the system. I was right down there with them, and
everything got big. I even was able to see the internal parts of the chromosomes-
actually everything was there. It surprised me because I actually felt as if I were
right down there and these were my friends.”
In emergent paradigm research, the relationship between researcher and research
data might be described as a cocreative process through which both the researcher
and the data are changed. This cocreative process has been described as “dancing
with the data,” as the researcher seems to lead the research process at times, and at
other times the data seems to direct the process (Peile, 1994). Research experiences
in which the data directs the process have led to creative integration of data, as
McClintock (cited in Keller, 1983, p. 125) describes: “You let the material tell you
where to go, and it tells you at every step what the next has to be because you’re
integrating with an overall brand new pattern in mind. You’re not following an old
one; you are convinced of a new one. And you let everything you do focus on that.
You can’t help it because it all integrates.” In his seminal text Blackfoot Physics,
theoretical physicist F. David Peat (1994), explains that in both indigenous and
emergent paradigms, knowledge is defined as an integrated process of “coming-to-
knowing” that occurs through holistic relationships with all things in the universe
(Peat, 1994, p. 174).
Paradigmatic
assumptions
The creative paradigm Native American
paradigm
Aboriginal Australian
paradigm
Spiritual It has been suggested
that God could be
equated with the
implicate whole and
is therefore enfolded
in everything (Peile,
1994, p. 279)
The spiritual dimen-
sion of human
development may be
understood in terms
of the capacity to
respond to realities
that exist in a non-
material way such as
dreams, visions and
spiritual teachings
(Bopp et al., 1989,
p. 30)
Spiritual existence
is not divorced from
the material world,
but embedded in it.
People and nature
are one… (Tripcony,
1997)
Table 8.2 (continued)

172 P. O. Walker
In emergent paradigm research, truth is also expressed as process, as the re-
searcher’s understanding at a particular time. For example, “In the creative ap-
proach, truth is a constant process of creative change…. Ideas generated within the
creative approach need to be seen as equivalent to a proposition or a proposal which
is put forward as a guide to action and is tested out in action” (Peile, 1994, pp. 181,
161). No claims are made for universal, absolute truth, although claims are made
for collective truths in flux that incorporate both the researcher’s understanding and
that of the wider community and are open to change.
Emergent paradigm research also engages many aspects of human experience,
drawing on “tacit, intuitive, emotional and historical aspects” (Lincoln & Denzin,
1998, p. 422). Emergent paradigm researchers call for engagement with spirituality,
seeing the process as “ensouling the world” (McClintock, cited in Keller, 1983),
defining spirituality as the awareness of the interconnectedness of all things in a
web of meaning and thus central to research (Capra, 1982). Physicist F. David Peat
(1994, p. 7) conceptualizes the flux of the cosmos as spirituality: “In modern phys-
ics the essential stuff of the universe cannot be reduced to billiard-ball atoms, but
exists as relationships and fluctuations at the boundary of what we call matter and
energy. indigenous science teaches us that all that exists is an expression of relation-
ships, alliances, and balances between what, for lack of better words, we could call
energies, powers, or spirits.” Other scholars name the explicit inclusion of spiritual
aspects in research as one of the six crucial issues facing qualitative researchers:
“…concerns of the spirit are already returning to the human disciplines, and will be
more important in the future” (Lincoln & Denzin, 1998, p. 424).
Emergent paradigm researchers often define empirical research data as involving
more than five senses, including data obtained from intuition, dreams, meditative
states, and communication with the natural world. Peile (1994, p. 225) acknowl-
edges sensory experiences in research in which information is processed at “…
the unconscious level, for example when dreaming or daydreaming, (in which) all
sorts of other differences, processes and associations may be intuitively explored.”
Likewise, McClintock (cited in Keller, 1983, p. 103) describes the central role of
intuition in her research, “Without being able to know what it was I was integrat-
ing, I understood the phenotype. When you suddenly see the problem, something
happens that you have the answer-before you are able to put it into words. It is all
done subconsciously. This has happened too many times to me, and I know when
to take it seriously.” None of these scholars advocates an abandonment of intel-
lectual analysis, rather a more balanced approach that integrates intellect and other
ways of knowing. Indeed, untested information that comes through intuition can be
as incomplete as information that is processed solely through intellectual analysis
(Peile, 1994, pp. 226–227).
Emergent paradigm researchers Peile (1994) and Polanyi (1962) also emphasize
the research role of unconscious, bodily knowing that is not directly perceived by
the five senses, but embedded in holistic ways in human experience. Michael Po-
lanyi (1962) states that all sensory knowing is based on a foundation of tacit, bodily
knowing that is not analyzed through individual sensory input, but is experienced in
an unconscious, holistic manner. indigenous epistemology shares similarities with

1738 Indigenous Paradigm Research
Polanyi’s (1962) concept of tacit knowing, “In both cases the knowledge is acquired
through experience and relationship with the thing to be known. In both cases the
knowledge is not so much stored in the brain but is absorbed into the whole person”
(Peat, 1994, pp. 55–66).
As evidenced in the previous section, Western emergent paradigm research
shares many of the central characteristics of indigenous paradigm research: an em-
phasis on interconnectedness and process, inclusion of spiritual experience, and
expanded conceptualizations of empirical data. There is a great deal of potential
for both indigenous paradigm researchers and emergent paradigm scholars to de-
velop collaborations, sharing, and learning from each other, without attempting to
assimilate one another’s approach. This principle of diversity in balance is central to
indigenous epistemologies. Graham (cited in Graham et al., 2010) explains that in
Aboriginal worldviews “all perspectives are valid and reasonable.” Likewise Meyer
(2008, p. 218) explains how engaging with difference in epistemologies leads to a
greater truth: “How I experience the world is different from how you experience
the world, and both our interpretations matter,” thus encouraging engagement with
knowledge as “vast, limitless, and completely subjective.”
8.4 Conclusion
A number of indigenous elders around the world tell of their ancestors foresee-
ing the arrival of White people in their lands: some warned that disaster trailed in
their wake, and others explained that there was both danger and powerful potential
for what could arise through respectful sharing between indigenous and nonindig-
enous people. I have often reflected on what our world might be like in this era if
indigenous knowledge and worldviews had been engaged respectfully by outsiders
rather than being demonized, disrupted, and dismissed. Nevertheless, the potential
for indigenous and nonindigenous people collaborating with integrity has not been
destroyed by colonial encounters. Although academic research around the world
is still marked by epistemic violence toward indigenous people, a number of in-
digenous and nonindigenous researchers and people are engaging with each other
in respectful and ethical research collaborations. There is much to learn from in-
digenous research paradigms about reinvigorating relational ways of knowing and
collaborations of integrity.
References
Awiakta, M. (1997). Amazons in Appalachia. In J. Harjo & G. Bird (Eds.), Reinventing the enemy’s lan-
guage: Contemporary native women’s writings of North America. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.
Battiste, M. (2008). Research ethics for protecting Indigenous knowledge and heritage: Institu-
tional and researcher responsibilities. In N. K. Denzin, Y. S. Lincoln, & L. T. Smith (Eds.),
Handbook of critical and Indigenous methodologies. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

174 P. O. Walker
Begay, D. H, & Maryboy, N. C. (1998). Nanit’a Sa‘ah Naaghai Nanit’a Bik’eh Hozhoon, Living
the Order: Dynamic Cosmic Process of Dine Cosmology. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
California Institute of Integral Studies, San Francisco.
Bohm, D. (1980). Wholeness and the implicate order. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Bohm, D. (1999). On Dialogue. (Lee Nichol (Ed.)) London: Routledge.
Bopp, J., Bopp M., Brown L., & Lane, P. Jr. (1989). The sacred tree (3rd ed.). Twin Lakes: Lotus
Light Publications.
Cajete, G. (2000). Native science: Natural laws of interdependence. Santa Fe: Clear Light Publish-
ers.
Capra, F. (1982). The turning Point: Science, society, and the rising culture. New York: Simon &
Schuster.
Christie, M. (1992). Grounded and ex-centric knowledges: Exploring aboriginal alternatives to
Western thinking. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on thinking (pp. 14–27).
Townsville, Australia.
Deloria, V. Jr. (1969). Custer died for your sins: An Indian manifesto. London: The Macmillan Co.
Deloria, V. Jr. (1995). Red earth, white lies. New York: Scribner.
Deloria, V. Jr. (1999). Spirit & reason. Golden: Fulcrum Publishing.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2008). Preface. In N. K. Denzin, Y. S. Lincoln, & L. T. Smith
(Eds.), Handbook of critical and Indigenous methodologies. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Docherty, J. S. (2001). Learning lessons from Waco: When the parties bring their gods to the ne-
gotiation table. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press.
Duran, E., & Duran, B. (1995). Postcolonial psychology. Albany: State University of New York
Press.
Galtung, J. (1990). International development in human perspective. In J. W. Burton (Ed.), Con-
flict: Human needs theory. London: Macmillan Press.
Ghostkeeper, E. (2001). A partnership of aboriginal wisdom. Presented at Breakthrough: Ninth
International Conference on thinking, Auckland, NZ, January.
Goldberg, R. M. (2009). How our worldviews shape our practice. Conflict Resolution Quarterly,
26(4), 405–431.
Graham, M. (1998) Interview with author. Brisbane: University of Queensland.
Graham, M. (2008). Some thoughts about the philosophical underpinnings of aboriginal world-
views. Ecological humanities: Classic essay, 45. http://www.australianhumanitiesreview.org/
archive/Issue-November-2008/graham.html.
Graham, M. (2010). Understanding human agency in terms of place: A proposed aboriginal re-
search methodology. Unpublished paper.
Graham, M., Brigg, M., & Walker P. (2010). Managing conflict through place and relatedness. In
R. Bleiker & M. Brigg (Eds.), Mediating across difference: Indigenous, oceanic and Asian ap-
proaches to conflict resolution. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Hart, M. A. (2010). Indigenous worldviews, knowledge, and research: The development of an
Indigenous research paradigm. Journal of Indigenous voices in social work, 1(1), 1–16.
Holt, L. (2000). Reflections on race and reconciliation. In M. Grattan (Ed.), Essays on Australian
reconciliation. Melbourne: Bookman Press.
Huggins, J. (1998). Sister girl: The writings of aboriginal activist and historian. St. Lucia: Uni-
versity of Queensland Press.
Keller, E. F. (1983). A feeling for the organism: The life and work of Barbara McClintock. San
Francisco: W.H. Freeman.
Lederbach, J. P. (2005). The moral imagination: The art and soul of building peace. United King-
dom: Oxford University Press.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Denzin, N. K. (1998). The fifth moment. N. K. Denzin, Y. S. Lincoln, & L. T.
Smith (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research: Theories and issues. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Little Bear, L. (2000). Introduction. In Cajete, G. (Ed.), Native science: Natural laws of interde-
pendence (pp. 1–19). Santa Fe: Clear Light Publishers.
Meyer, M. A. (1997). Native Hawaiian education: Our Kumupa’a. Unpublished paper, Hilo, Ha-
waii.

1758 Indigenous Paradigm Research
Meyer, M. A. (1998a). Native Hawaiian epistemology: Contemporary narratives, (Unpublished
doctoral thesis) Harvard University.
Meyer, M. A. (1998b). Native Hawaiian epistemology: Exploring Hawaiian views of knowledge.
Cultural Survival Quarterly, Spring, 38–40.
Meyer, M. A. (2008). Indigenous and authentic: Hawaiian epistemology and the triangulation of
meaning. In N. K. Denzin, Y. S. Lincoln, & L. T. Smith (Eds.), Handbook of critical and Indig-
enous methodologies. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Moreton-Robinson, A., & Walter, M. (2009). Indigenous methodologies in social science research.
Social Science Research Methods, 37(1), 1–18.
Peat, F. D. (1994). Blackfoot physics: A journey into the Native American universe. London:
Fourth Estate.
Peile, C. (1994). The creative paradigm: Insight, synthesis and knowledge development. Avebury:
Ashgate Publishing.
Pillay, V. (2006) Culture: Exploring the river. In M. LeBaron & V. Pillay (Eds.), Conflict across
cultures: A unique experience of bridging differences. Boston: Intercultural Press.
Polanyi, M. (1962). Personal knowledge: Towards a postcritical philosophy. London: Routledge
& Kegan Paul.
Rigney, L-I. (1998). Internationalisation of an indigenous anti-colonial cultural critique of research
methodologies: A guide to indigenist research methodology and its principles. Wiscoza Sa Re-
view, 14(2), 109–121.
Rose, D. B. (1984). The saga of Captian Cook: Morality in aboriginal and European law. Austra-
lian Aboriginal Studies, 2(2), 24–39.
Rose, D. B. (1992). Dingo makes us human. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rose, D. B. (1997). Rupture and the ethics of care in colonised cpace. In T. Bonyhady & T.
Griffiths (Eds.), Prehistory to politics: John Mulvaney, the humanities and the public intel-
lectual. Carlton: Melbourne University Press.
Seed Transcript. (2001). The language of spirituality transcript. A SEED Conference. Albuquerque,
New Mexico: SEED Open University.
Smith, L. T. (1999). Decolonizing methodology. London: Zed.
Smith, A. (2005). Conquest: Sexual violence and American Indian genocide. London: South End
Press.
Smith, L. T. (2005). On tricky ground: Researching the Native in the age of uncertainty. In N. K.
Denzin, Y. S. Lincoln, & L. T. Smith (Eds.), The Sage book of qualitative research (pp. 85–
108). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Spivak, G. (1988). Can the subaltern speak? In C. Nelson & L. Grossberg (Eds.), Marxism and
interpretation of culture (pp. 271–313). Chicago: University of Illinois Press,.
Stanfield II, J. H. (1993). Epistemological considerations. In J. H. Stanfield II & R. M. Dennis
(Eds.), Race and ethnicity in research methods (pp. 16–38). Newbury Park: SAGE.
Stanfield II, J. H. (1998). Ethnic modeling in qualitative research. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln
(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Stanner, W. E. H. (1979). White man got no Dreaming. Canberra: Australian National University
Press.
Tripcony, P. (1997). Too obvious to see: Explaining the basis of aboriginal spirituality. (Unpub-
lished paper), Brisbane, Australia.
Walker, P. (2013). Research in relationship. In D. M. Mertens, F. Cram, & B. Chilisa (Eds.), In-
digenous pathways into social research: Voices of a new generation. Walnut Creek: Left Coast
Press.
Whelshula, M. (1999). Healing through decolonisation: A study in the deconstruction of the west-
ern scientific paradigm and the process of retribalizing among Native Americans ( unpublished
doctoral dissertation). California Institute of Integral Studies, San Francisco.
Whitt, L. A. (1997). Metaphor and power in Indigenous and Western knowledge systems. (Unpub-
lished paper).
Wilson, S. (2001). What is indigenous research methodology? Canadian Journal of Native Educa-
tion, 25(2), 175–179.