Content uploaded by Vivian Jimenez Estrada
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Vivian Jimenez Estrada on Sep 16, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
44
the AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL of INDIGENOUS EDUCATION
Volume 34, 20 05
I nt r o du c ti o n
Indigenous scholars across the world, especially in
Canada (Hermes, 1998; Weber-Pillwax, 1999; Wilson,
2003), the United States (Cajete, 1994) and New Zealand
(Smith, 1999), have made valuable contributions
in the area of research, specifi cally in Indigenous
research (Smith, 1999). Indigenous research, broadly
defi ned, pertains to applying the culturally-situated
visions, understandings and directions necessary
to engage in processes that ultimately facilitate and
promote the well-being of Indigenous communities
in a holistic manner. As a Maya woman who currently
lives on Mississauga territory in Toronto, Canada, I
am dismayed at the dearth of contributions made by
Indigenous peoples in the geographical south, and
I am grateful to the many First Nations peoples of
this territory who have shared their oral traditions
and knowledges with me. These knowledges have
awakened and enriched my own understandings of
the issues at stake when conducting research, but also
of the similarities within our differences as Indigenous
peoples. The teachings and knowledges intersect with
my own, and collectively, they inform what I propose
as a culturally-based research methodology – the Tree
of Life, or Ceiba.
The Ceiba refl ects values that intersect across many
Indigenous cultures. One of these values is honouring
our past, present and future by remembering the
teachings contained in the oral stories that elders and
community members hold, whether recorded in print
form or not. Oral traditions, cultural understandings
and ceremonies are a vast fi eld of knowledge where
metaphors connect diverse Indigenous cultures while
also providing a vehicle for sharing and communicating
important lessons in a culturally-appropriate manner.
Connecting with other Indigenous peoples creates a
community of peoples with common visions walking
with the teachings they know. Some Indigenous
peoples of this Mississauga territory call it the “Red
Path”; we Maya call it sacbe. To walk this path, creating
community is important, especially for those of us
who have been forcibly displaced from our traditional
territories. For the internally and externally displaced,
relearning our ways while ensuring their protection is
crucial. One way to relearn has been listening through
oral traditions or books written by Indigenous peoples.
These stories have taught me lessons in history which
point to the importance of reclaiming my own Maya
Indigenous identity. In referring to an Indigenous
the TREE of LIFE as a
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
VIVIAN M. JIMÉNEZ ESTRADA
Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University
of Toronto, 252 Bloor Street West, Toronto, Ontario,
M5S 1V6, Canada
A b st r ac t
This paper is grounded on the premise that research, as a
colonising practice, needs constant reconceptualisation
and rethinking. I propose a methodology based on
some of the values, visions and stories from my own
Maya Indigenous culture and knowledge in addition
to other Indigenous cultures across the world. I argue
that researchers need to constantly acknowledge and
change the negative impacts of ignoring multiple
ways of knowing by engaging in respectful methods
of knowledge collection and production. This paper
contributes to the work Indigenous scholars have
done in the area of research methodologies and
knowledge production. First, a general overview of
the values and concepts embedded in the Ceiba or the
“Tree of Life” is presented; then, a discussion of what
respectful research practices entail follows; fi nally, it
concludes with a refl ection on how the Ceiba is a small
example of how researchers can adapt their research
methodology to the local context.
Volume 34, 20 05 the AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL of INDIGENOUS EDUCATION
45
identity I mean to say that I honour the cosmovision,
understandings and teachings that make Indigenous
cultures distinct and diverse. This paper is a small
contribution to the fi eld of Indigenous knowledge
and research methods that value and privilege the
knowledges, understandings and values of my Maya
culture – past, present and future. It is important to
add that efforts to construct education systems and
institutions that are centred on these knowledges
are well underway in Guatemala through organisations
like the Consejo Nacional de Educación Maya (CNEM)
(2004), where this work has pertinence because it
proposes a research method based on our knowledges.
It also expands the work of Indigenous scholars around
the world.
I am aware that reclaiming oral traditions and Maya
cultural practices requires that research is culturally-
situated. In this sense, it is both a political and spiritual
act, since researching, documenting and disseminating
Indigenous knowledges have historically been, on
the one hand, a part of what Linda Smith (1999)
calls a “colonial project”. She claims that more often
than not, research has been complicit in a series of
actions that undermine, misinterpret and misconstrue
Indigenous knowledges in an effort to further advance
acts of colonialism and oppression. On the other hand,
Indigenous peoples have “always been researchers”
(Ermine, 1995) and continue in this role. It is in the
spirit of continuing our role as researchers with an
awareness of that colonial legacy that I follow the steps
of Indigenous scholars who are increasingly creating
and participating in research processes. Such processes
follow an “ethic” that shifts from “research for research’s
sake (knowledge in the abstract) to research that serves
a specifi c purpose or need of the community within
which it is situated” (Hermes, 1998, p. 158). In this
paper, I reference specifi c and contextually relevant
Indigenous knowledges to honour multiple ways of
knowing. Although Indigenous peoples are diverse,
we do share respect and honouring as important
values. Engaging in respectful practices to gather,
interpret, share and contextualise these knowledges is
part of situating research methods (Hermes, 1998) in
a particular culture to challenge how
research is implicated in the production of
Western knowledge, in the nature of academic
work, in the production of theories which have
dehumanized Maori [Indigenous] practices that
continue to privilege Western ways of knowing
while denying the validity for Maori of Maori
knowledge, language and culture (Smith in
Menzies, 2001, p. 19).
I begin the paper with an overview of the aspects
embedded in the metaphor of the Ceiba, or Tree of Life.
This metaphor is an integral part of the understandings
and cosmovision contained in the Maya sacred book
of Creation, the Popol Vuh (Recinos, 1987). Secondly,
I point to the different parts of the tree, addressing
the theoretical framework, discourses and where the
research connects the past with the future. I want to
advise the reader that these are the beginnings of a
larger work where I intend to exchange ideas with
other Maya scholars who are working in the fi eld of
Indigenous knowledge and research methods. I want
to fi rst clarify why I use the Ceiba as a metaphor and
the limits of this paper. I posit that it explains Maya
ontology, or the theory of understanding what is
“real”. Maya cosmology, as the Popol Vuh narrates,
identifi es reality not as linear and unidimensional but
as circular and multidimensional. The Ceiba is the
axis through which the world goes through, which
also comprises Maya epistemology or the study of
systems of thinking and knowing: How do we know
what we know is “real”? In contrast, Western ways
of understanding have often overlooked Indigenous
ontology by claiming their understanding of the world
as universal. Along with positivist thinking, such
claims have negatively impacted the manner in which
research is carried out. The Ceiba, as a fundamental
aspect of Maya ontology and epistemology which
values multiple ways of knowing and understanding
the world, is an appropriate framework for developing
a culturally-based research methodology. This directly
impacts issues of pluricultural and culturally-grounded
education and research. Pluricultural is a term used
in Guatemala to refer to the presence of four different
cultures (Maya, Garífuna, Xinca and mixed bloods
or mestizos), and 21 different Maya languages. This
term serves as a way to denote a system that not
only includes Indigenous peoples and knowledges
in a Western pedagogical framework, it actually
moves beyond it to construct a system based on the
knowledge and understandings all cultural groups
(see CNEM, 2004, for further illustration on the use
of the term).
Secondly, the limits of the paper are many. The paper
is based on my initial thoughts and understandings
based on documents I have read and the stories I
have listened to. It is also important to acknowledge
how my lived experiences with cultural and physical
displacement, internalised racism and oppression are
also stories linking me to other Indigenous peoples.
Just as important are the stories of reclaiming,
strengthening and continuing to transform cultural
practices that are no longer equitable. I do not
personally know of many people living in Toronto
who live and claim their Maya Indigenous identity and
knowledge; therefore, the search to fi nd meaning and
understanding of the knowledge I carry is not easy.
Due to the unequal nature of the politics of
knowledge production, most of the documents
available as regards the Maya context are written by
non-Indigenous scholars, some working closely with
Maya communities in Guatemala (e.g., Mosquera
46
the TREE of LIFE as a RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Vivian M. Jiménez Estrada
Saravia et al., 2002; Tedlock, 1993; Warren, 1998).
There are a number of anthropologists who have done
important work as allies to the Maya in Guatemala. At
the time of writing this piece I also came across the
work of Maya intellectuals such as Demetrio Cojtí and
Victor Montejo, unfortunately their important work is
not included in this paper. To ensure the knowledge
in these documents refl ect the general understandings
of the Maya cosmos and realities, I referred back to
the stories of the Popol Vuh, literature written on the
foundations of Maya education (CNEM, 2004) and
personal communications with a Maya colleague in
Guatemala and a close Maya Tzotzil friend who lives
in Toronto. I have also paralleled these to stories I
heard from elders in Toronto at various times in the
past four years, and from articles and books written by
some Indigenous scholars across the world (Battiste,
2002; Cordero, 1995; Dei et al., 2000; Graveline, 1998;
Hermes, 1998; Montejo, 2005; Ren, 2005; Smith, 1999;
Wilson 2003).
S it u at i n g m y r e s ea r ch m et h o do l og y
My ancestral memory, as tapped during my interactions
with Aboriginal peoples in Toronto – listening to elders,
participating in the work of agencies such as Native
Child and Family Services of Toronto (NCFST), and
speaking with Aboriginal academics and non-academics
– have been central to my realisation of the similarities
we share in our understanding of the universe. As part
of a process of decolonising my mind (wa’ Thiong’o,
1996), spirit and ways of conducting research in
the academy, I privilege Indigenous understandings
as part of reclaiming the Maya identity suppressed
over years of complex historical, social, economic,
political and cultural genocide. Shawn Wilson (2003,
p. 161), an Opaskwayak Cree scholar, has emphasised
“the importance of relationships and the realisation
that everything needs to be seen in the context of
the relationships that it represents”. Karen Martin’s
“chronology of effects that have affected Aboriginal
peoples and therefore Aboriginal research” (Martin in
Wilson, 2003, p. 162), is useful in determining which
phase of research I wish to expand on, as outlined in
her “phases in the development of Aboriginal research
… terra nullius, traditionalising, assimilationist, early
Aboriginal research, recent Aboriginal research and
Indigenist research” (Martin in Wilson, 2003, p. 162). I
believe this paper falls within the category of Indigenist
research as it “challenges Indigenous scholars to
articulate their own research paradigms, their own
approaches to research, and their own data collection
methods in order to honor an Indigenous paradigm”
(Wilson, 2003, p. 170). To honour an Indigenous
paradigm, researchers and academics alike need to
understand, not only respect protocols as regards
to the collection and dissemination of data, but also
engage in a refl ective process as to what Indigenous
research is and who is ultimately benefi ting from it.
This, I argue, is the ultimate axiological position, or
the values which guide my research.
Charles Menzies (2001, p. 22), an Indigenous
anthropologist, documented personal research
guidelines that would interrogate the protocols
during the research process. These guidelines include:
(1) initiating dialogue; (2) refining the research
plan in consultation with the Nation; (3) initiating
research, ensuring community members are part of
research team; and, (4) writing, analysing, revising
and distributing information with the community
and maintaining contact after leaving the community
to ensure data analysis is accepted. Such a process is
useful to Indigenous scholars like me, who live outside
traditional territory and who may not have grown
up in a traditional cultural setting, embedded in the
Indigenous culture and language. I believe those of
us who grew up removed from these knowledges may
benefi t from borrowing research guidelines as a starting
point for initiating contact with the communities with
whom research will be conducted. These guidelines
will ensure that we are not participating in the
colonial process itself by “expand[ing] the power and
knowledge of the dominant society at the expense of
the colonized and the excluded” (Menzies, 2001, p.
22). Therefore, to assert the agency of the community
with whom one conducts research necessitates an
acknowledgement that colonisation is alive and thrives
in the protocols of the institutions where our schooling
takes place. To ignore that research processes are
tainted by larger systems of oppression makes all of us
complicit in a need to decolonise our methodologies
and praxis through following a protocol of respect
toward the communities with whom we work. This
refl ection is a necessity not only for non-Indigenous
researchers but also for Indigenous researchers given
the complex factors that make researchers “outsiders”
and “insiders” in communities. I use the term “insider”
in the same manner Mary Hermes (1998) does, which
“calls on epistemic privilege [sic] to validate ideas and
considers emotions and ‘all the details of the ways
in which [their] oppression is experienced’ to be an
essential way in which knowledge is constructed”
(Narayan in Hermes, 1998, p. 166, my emphasis).
Basic concepts in Maya cosmology and relevance of
the Ceiba research model
The illustration on Maya cosmology (Figure 1) from
the document called “Maya Achí wisdom” (Mosquera
Saravia et al., 2002, p. 42) describes the metaphors of
the Ceiba. It illustrates how the Ceiba encompasses
understandings of the Four Sacred Directions and the
Wheel of Life. The concepts I will refer to revolve around
the Mayan concepts of duality: east/west; north/south;
above/below; sky/earth; good/evil; shadow/light; male/
female; life/death; beginning/end; emptiness/fullness.
Volume 34, 20 05 the AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL of INDIGENOUS EDUCATION
47
These dualities are embodied in the importance of
the number 2, from which the Popol Vuh states that
all reality begins, since one cannot exist without the
other. This concept of a unifi ed dichotomy, not in the
Western sense of binaries that divide entities but rather
as dualities that highlight the interconnectedness of
opposite energy forces, highlights the manner in
which research needs to balance the information
that is disclosed with a way to make the information
useful for the lives of the members of the participating
community. Dei et al. (2000) have identifi ed these as
similarities that cut across Indigenous cultures and
facilitate the dissemination of the balance needed to
conduct research and maintain integrity and respect
not just for the people in the communities but for the
universe as a whole.
Duality, as briefl y illustrated, is an important concept
in understanding the notion of maintaining balance
in the universe. According to the Maya and other
Indigenous cultures, there is a fi fth direction which is
the centre; a sixth direction which is the Zenith; and
a seventh direction which is the Nenith. In the Popol
Vuh , the centre is represented by the Ceiba, or the
axis from which all life emanates and through which
all life passes. As a Maya researcher in search of ways
that validate and honour multiple ways of knowing,
duality not only unifi es, it also diversifi es and holds
the unit together. By contrast, a researcher that only
takes information and does not give anything back to
the community upsets this balance.
The Ceiba is the metaphor that expresses the
constant struggle in which opposing forces try to
become unbalanced. As the axis through which all
creation passes, all of us who are part of Creation
have the responsibility for restoring and maintaining
balance. The concept of balance becomes crucial when
ascribing to an Indigenous research methodology as
one of the ways in which it positively informs it is
through acknowledging that our past informs the
present and present actions carry consequences into
the future. This understanding is also expressed in
the metaphor of the Seven Generations that illustrates
how our actions today spiral into the future for Seven
Generations. As a research methodology and principle,
I believe it provides the grounds from which to feel and
think more clearly before engaging in harmful activities.
Similarly, the belief that we “build on earlier realities”
(Cajete, 1994, p. 28), alludes to how knowledge has
been shared and reconstructed to refl ect the vitality of
cultures. It also speaks to self-refl ection processes that
are necessary to move forward with the help of lessons
learned from past mistakes. Cajete’s (1994, p. 28) vision
to “engineer a new reality built upon earlier ones,
while simultaneously addressing the needs, and acting
in the sun of our times”, coincides with Anishnabek
peoples’ Seven Grandfather Teachings: wisdom, love,
respect, bravery, honesty, humility and truth. In Maya
cosmology, these values include cooperation, balance,
3. NORTH
Right side of
sun; above earth;
masculine; death;
place of light and
goodness
5. CENTRE
Axis of Creator and
humanity; sky and
earth; wind and sea;
sacred place of order,
harmony & balance
4. SOUTH
Left side of sun;
below earth;
feminine; life and
fertility; place of
darkness and evil
2. WEST
Dusk, sunset; place
of rest and stillness;
place of death
1. EAST
Dawn, sun rise; place
of honour and of
Creator; life essence
of Creator
respect, sacredness, truth, thanksgiving and diversity.
The Ceiba encompasses all these values, and they
guide the research methodology.
T he Ceiba research methodology
Wilson (2003, p. 171) has traced some useful guidelines
to understand the cultural appropriateness of research
methodology. Likewise, Maya scholar Carlos Cordero
emphasises the importance of “approaching knowledge
through the senses and intuition” (Cordero in Wilson,
2003, p. 171). This aspect transcends and connects
the material with the spiritual world, implying that
researchers need to look beyond the superfi ciality of
signing an informed consent form and instead engage in
practices that build a relationship with the community
involved. It also goes beyond the connection between
researcher and “researched”, whereby both have the
responsibility and respect to change the terms of the
research if it proves disrespectful and/or dangerous in
any way for the communities involved. Challenging the
limited capabilities of negotiating informed consent
forms also challenges the power differentials often
present between academia and communities, an issue
not often addressed.
Dei et al. (2000) ascertain that an Indigenous
epistemology acknowledges multiple ways of
understanding and seeing the world. Through the
Ceiba, seeing and understanding the world in multiple
ways implies valuing the duality professed in Maya
cosmology. Understanding that this duality engenders
unity as opposed to division promotes balanced
processes of gathering, analysing and producing
knowledge. In this sense, knowledge can no longer be
Figure 1. Maya cosmovision (after Mosquera Saravia et al., 2002, p. 42).
48
the TREE of LIFE as a RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Vivian M. Jiménez Estrada
“objectively” separated from its source and inevitably
has to go through processes of legitimation from
the communities where the research takes place.
Honouring and privileging Indigenous knowledges
require that the researcher states her/his own roots
of motivation for entering into research relationships.
For communities, this means open and honest
communication regarding the dangers, implications,
and complications that could arise from both the
research methods and the outcomes. For researchers,
it is a way to rethink the processes involved and
also to weigh rewards both for her/himself and the
community – are they balanced? Avexním Cojtí Ren
(2001, p. 5) has expressed this motivation in relation
to anthropological research:
Control of the Maya past is equal to the control of
our power in the present … The reconstruction
of our past history [has excluded us] and we want
to relate our history rather than being treated as
objects, historical resources for the public and on
the market. We want to speak on our own behalf;
we want to tell our own story.
In a country where more than 65% of the population
is Indigenous with 23 distinct languages (in spite of
this diversity and of signing the Peace Accords in 1996
and ratifying ILO Convention 169, Spanish remains the
offi cial language) and where poverty and violence have
marked the lives of the majority, research that shows
respect and values life and cultural diversity is not
merely an intellectual pursuit – it is a necessity. This
is marked by the efforts that different organisations
have made in terms of questioning the very meaning
of education and trying to construct education systems
that are not merely bilingual but pluricultural and
refl ect the diversity of the Maya, Xinca, Garífuna and
Mestizo peoples of the country. For the purpose of
beginning to set a research framework, I posit that
the values embedded in the Ceiba form what I call
the roots of research. As stated earlier, Indigenous
peoples have always been researchers (Battiste, 2002;
Cajete, 1994; Smith, 1999). Careful observation with
the heart, mind, spirit and senses allows researchers
to gather information. In Maya cosmology, as stated in
the Popol Vuh, this information is tested and reshaped
to particular contexts. The roots lie in the belly of
Mother Earth and are grounded in a particular set of
understandings that inform the direction in which the
tree will grow. The basis for a research methodology,
the roots that inform research, must be grounded in
what Menzies (2001), Smith (1999), Weber-Pillwax
(1999) and Wilson (2003) have agreed are initial
contact protocols based on a perceived question that
needs addressing.
To make research respectful, not only to Indigenous
communities but to all communities where research is
conducted, we need to understand where imbalance
exists. The colonial legacy of education and research
is based on a Western model that ignores multiple
ways of knowing, appropriates and repackages what
is considered suitable for its purposes, and makes
universal claims on that knowledge (Smith, 1999).
Negating and/or appropriating knowledges ruptures
the balance in the Ceiba, and from this perspective
the research will cause more imbalance. Any research
needs to coincide with the concepts, vision, needs
and objectives of the communities involved and
affected. What guides the process for this research
methodology is to gather these knowledges to create
a method that is a “situated response” (Hermes, 1998)
that honours Maya cosmology and epistemology. This
method is founded on my individual and collective
understandings and conceptualisations of some aspects
of Maya knowledge, where they are situated and how
as human beings that form part of a common cultural
location are able to tap into it. Refl ecting back on my
previous research (Jiménez, 2002), I can see how good
intentions do not automatically become good research
practices. This is especially true in regard to keeping
in touch with the communities that formed part of the
process and also disseminating the words that may
or may not reach them because it is in written form
or not in an Indigenous language. Language is key in
developing and continuing to support the communities
with and for whom researchers work. Learning my own
Maya Ach’i language is a goal to conduct appropriate
research in the future.
Keeping in clear communication with the members
of that community necessitates periodical visits
and/or correspondence including the consultation
throughout the process as regards to the knowledge
being produced. Being accountable to this protocol
necessitates good visioning in the sense that the
expenses that will be incurred for communication
should be factored in with the rest of the research
process. During my previous research (Jiménez,
2002) I did not have the financial or technical
means by which to follow through with these very
important factors. Factoring in language instruction,
translation and interpretation costs will also ensure
that the skills I bring to the community will be shared
if the community so wishes. In effect, an important
aspect of conducting research, as expressed by many
researchers also involves the transferring of skills so
that local members can reproduce the research process
themselves with the goal of fostering autonomy.
As Smith suggests, this position then also requires
looking at ourselves and asking tough personal,
political and institutional questions regarding the
research we conduct:
This is not part of a purely pragmatic response
to increasingly militant and assertive Indigenous
peoples. Rather, it is part of a necessary program
of decolonisation in which researchers develop
Volume 34, 20 05 the AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL of INDIGENOUS EDUCATION
49
a more critical understanding of the underlying
assumptions, motivations and values which inform
research practices (Smith in Menzies, 2001, p. 23).
The implications of conducting Indigenous-based
research within institutions where ethical processes
are conceptually different from the understanding of
Indigenous communities cannot be ignored. In this
sense, proposing criteria for the ongoing negotiation
and respect needed when working with institutionally
marginalised communities necessitates a discussion
around a restructuring of such ethical frameworks.
But, it also needs a clarifi cation of the theories that
inform the methods of research used.
The bark, or the theories guiding the research
The bark is the structure that will ensure that the values
or axiological position of the research are upheld. To
scholars such as Russell Bishop (1998), Linda Smith
(1999) and Cora Weber-Pillwax (1999) this means
following cultural protocols and respecting the time
and space necessary for the research to take place or
not. I am especially interested in referring to methods
in the plural sense, as I support Hermes’ (1998, p. 57)
position that:
methods are categorically distinct from theory.
They are disinterested tools for extracting
information, ways of doing (not thinking about)
that are implicitly a one-way interaction … project
theory intersected with methods continuously …
[and] acted as a situated response.
The assertion that theory is distinct from methods
necessitates a consideration for ways in which to
ensure accountability. For example, Taurima and Cash
(2000, p. 2) posit that one way to do this is to shift from
a sense of “talking past each other to talking to each
other”. The metaphor of the Ceiba is refl ected in the
way Maya traditional decision-making processes are
carried out. In my previous research (Jiménez, 2002),
I discussed community decision-making processes and
protocol. This cultural tradition is not maintained in
all communities, but I feel it is important to reclaim
and share it to maintain a process of accountability
on issues that affect the community. I highlight this
lesson since attending these meetings allowed me to
present my research, clarify intentions and also get
feedback regarding my work. This process is very
much tied to the understanding that duality is part
of unity, and so in every aspect of research a “positive
intention” may be countered by a “negative result”. In
this case, a researcher is in fact responsible for taking
all these aspects into account and making sound
judgments accordingly.
As researchers, we need constant reminders of
how theory is constantly intersecting with methods.
Therefore, accepting the limits of both refl ects the
diversity and specifi city needed to counteract universal
theories or methods. This means that, if at one
particular point the theory needs to change to adapt to
the method and vice versa, or if the research will not
take place at all, the researcher needs to present an
alternative plan. This part is especially diffi cult given
that most graduate students receive little or no support
in case this happens. I reiterate that an understanding
of the conceptualisation of respect and reciprocity, a
duality that is important in the Ceiba understanding of
valuing relationships, help guide the research. Weber-
Pillwax (1999) states:
Respect is more than just saying please and
thank you, and reciprocity is more than giving a
gift. According to Cree elders, showing respect
or kihceyihtowin is a basic law of life. Respect
regulates how we treat Mother Earth, the plants,
the animals, and our brothers and sisters of all
races … Respect means listening intently to
others’ ideas, that you do not insist that your
idea prevails. By listening intently you show
honour, consider the well-being of others, and
treat others with kindness and courtesy.
The theories grounding the Ceiba research
methodology are Indigenous knowledge, anti-
colonial thought, woman-centred understandings and
decolonising praxis. I will fi rst discuss Indigenous
knowledges referring to the conceptualisation Dei et
al. (2000, pp. 5-6) use:
A body of knowledge associated with the long-
term occupancy of a certain place. This knowledge
refers to traditional forms of social values, as well
as to mental constructs that guide, organize and
regulate the people’s way of living and making
sense of their world.
In addition, it is crucial to state this refers to the
original inhabitants of the particular place from
which the knowledges are tapped. Omitting this
aspect would ascertain the myth that settler society
is part of this body of knowledge. Bishop (1998) and
Smith (1999) refer to this body of knowledge in order
to “challenge Eurocentric paradigms in research”
(Shahjahan, forthcoming, p. 3). Indigenous research
methods, then, encompass some characteristics
that cut across time and space (or cultures) and
are crucial for the process and goals of research
methodologies: respectful knowledge that contributes
to the well-being of the cosmos. There are some
theories that actually support the attainment of
this balance, and I will refer to them briefl y, to
acknowledge their contributions.
Shahjahan (forthcoming) has succinctly outlined
the stages of anti-colonial thought. Based on these
50
the TREE of LIFE as a RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Vivian M. Jiménez Estrada
understandings, he posits that the similarities of
anti-colonial thought to an Indigenous perspective
are best expressed by Baber (1996, p. 95) when
cautioning about the implications of essentialising
“Western knowledge systems” and removing their
context. Shahjahan (forthcoming) sets the stage for
the application of the initial phases of anti-colonial
thought to contemporary times in his discussion about
the absence of an alternative framework in which
agency regarding research is addressed. In this sense,
Smith and the scholars mentioned at the beginning
of the paper provide the much needed critique and
move beyond the critique by engaging in research that
is both culturally-situated and agency-based.
As a continuation of anti-colonial thought,
decolonising praxis speaks to the move from
oppositional discourse into the embodiment and
actions that interrogate the colonial legacy. I previously
stated that decolonising practices within research
methods are not only a matter of naming colonialism
and critiquing it: they entail an active engagement
with a mirror in which to refl ect and interrogate
our own actions and motives as researchers. I go
back to the idea that for Māori people, this means
looking people in the eye and talking to one another
so that their motives are revealed. Likewise, the
Ceiba approach to research methodology entails a
constant awareness of the instances where, for the
sake of saving time or another material circumstance,
research is done in ways that are detrimental to the
balance of the community, ourselves and the universe.
Smith (1999) and Bishop (1998) have specifi cally
addressed this need in their work. I would like to
also bring these understandings into the research
that is done with and for Maya communities since,
to date, I am not aware of a single document that
speaks from a culturally-situated location. In addition,
I have not come across papers written about, for
or from Mayans that challenge “objective” research
methods, but also speak of research processes that
are transformative. By transformative I mean research
that subverts current unequal power relations due to
the racialised, gendered and oppressive frameworks
from which research has traditionally been enacted.
T he t r un k
To my understanding, the trunk of the Ceiba not
only holds all the life-promoting energies with which
we live, it also creates a vehicle for transmitting the
knowledge that grounds our actions and therefore
informs the directions into which we are heading.
In other words, if the trunk is also a metaphor for
the elements which keep the tree alive, I will extend
the metaphor to say that the trunk contains all the
ideologies with which we ally our research. Personally,
through the exchange of information pertaining to the
commonalities in Indigenous knowledges, I defi ne
my theoretical framework as one that is informed by
Indigenous knowledge; that is, decolonising and also
one that centres balance on all fronts. This means that
although these characteristics intersect with theories
of feminism, anti-colonialism and critical pedagogy,
I refer to these as Indigenous knowledges and
woman-centred epistemologies. I take this position
since this stance better refl ects my cultural location,
since the Maya culture is traditionally matrilineal.
However, Mosquero et al. (2002) state that based on
anthropological research, there is enough evidence to
support that the Maya Ach’i were mainly a patrilineal
society. This notion can be countered with the stories
in the Popol Vuh, which always acknowledge the female
side of Creation and deities before the male ones, as
an acknowledgement of the centrality of the female
in the universe. This illustrates my argument of the
necessity to continuously negotiate meaning with the
communities with whom we conduct research.
T he b ra n c he s
As a last part of the Ceiba, the branches represent the
many ways in which to share this information. The
indivisibility of the people from whom knowledge
is collected grants the responsibility to share the
protocols with the respect and reverence that not only
participants deserve, but life itself. One core aspect to
remember in this methodology is that the spirit that
informs and guides the research process transcends
the material world. The Ceiba’s essence and spirit is an
understanding that as human beings and researchers,
we need to honour and privilege multiple knowledges,
peoples and life. This understanding fl ows through
the branches, a metaphor for the areas in which the
research will need to reground itself by going back
to the roots of research, or the original intent for
gathering knowledge and information.
The branches then represent how research
connects different cultures, peoples, times and spaces.
This connection will hopefully heal the division and
imbalance perpetuated by oppressive and damaging
research. The Ceiba, as a research methodology, has
the potential to:
• rehumanise knowledge disseminated in academia
and in the classrooms;
• support the understanding that our lives, actions
and memory affect the nature of one’s scholarship
and locating ourselves in our research implicates our
accountability for what is produced and to a certain
extent, to how the research will be used by others;
• add to already existing critical thinking tools
to transform not only research ethics but also
its methodology;
• role-model respectful relationships with all human
beings while at the same time forcing us to be
honest about our limitations and boundaries;
Volume 34, 20 05 the AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL of INDIGENOUS EDUCATION
51
• possibly engage non-academics in their own
research processes and support their own research
goals; and
• interact with all our relations in a way that is not
only relevant to the academic setting but also to our
lives in general.
I believe that the possibilities for grounding
the research in Indigenous knowledges has many
implications that necessitate a constant rethinking,
rechecking and restructuring when necessary. As
I continue learning more theories that speak to the
struggles that peoples experience in different areas,
I realise the reluctance to engage in a truly respectful
and reciprocal research relationship could be related to
institutional and personal factors. On the one hand, I
personally know that the tight deadlines and minimum
funding makes it diffi cult, but not impossible, to engage
in time-consuming processes that ensure accountability
and responsibility in all we do. If we accept that respect
and reciprocity mean more than saying “please” and
“thank-you”, but to challenge our actions and motives,
then this means also a deep transformative process
regarding how we operate in this world. On the other
hand, the challenges of conducting research also imply
that the lives of participants may also go through similar
transformative processes. Further, if, as researchers,
we are not equipped with proper support mechanisms
to address these issues, how could we work with the
communities in which we conduct research if this
trust and respect is absent? These challenges inevitably
surface in the research process.
Such institutional and personal barriers cannot be
ignored and we need to also have support mechanisms
worked into our research process. This means engaging
in research that supports the community so that the
community may support it in the face of adversity. I
truly believe that honouring the knowledges, spirits
and processes of the research itself will yield balance.
What I mean is that, from the Ceiba tree, I have
stated that there are forces that try to unbalance the
universe. If we think of the challenges as forces that
need balancing, then time, fi nancial and intellectual
constraints will not matter too much. Transcending the
material with a more spiritually-centred notion of the
implications of our actions, I believe, can have positive
effects in working for, with and in relation to all parts
that inform our realities, our universe and the future.
It is appropriate to end with an overview of a
research model that is similar to what I propose.
Russell Bishop’s (1998) “model of critical and cultural
consciousness” is an interesting example of the
connections between different Indigenous cultures.
Bishop is Māori from New Zealand, and it is our
understanding that as Maya people, we are the Māori’s
“older siblings”. The evidence is in our stories, art
and songs. The six critical principles Bishop refers to,
which Taurima and Cash (1999) outline, support my
concerns about research and the use of the Ceiba as
research methods:
1. The knowledge carriers are the principal researchers
(representation).
2. They control the knowledge (power/imposition).
3. Their stories are valid (representation).
4. The research is for their benefi t and for the Māori
community (benefi ts).
5. Māori mentors guarantee cultural safety for the
knowledge carriers and the research facilitators
(legitimation).
6. The research facilitators are accountable to the
mentors who also formally initiate the project
(accountability/initiation).
They further explain that these protocols are:
living practice rather than only … a document,
[to ensure] that the major questions raised in
Bishop’s model are answered in ways that protect
the knowledge carriers, ensure that the inquiry
benefits the community, and support Maori
language and cultural aspirations. Publication
ensures that the inquiry process, no less than
the knowledge gathered in the process, is
“open”, “public” “without disguise” (the meaning
of “Tumatanui”). It is open for all to make
their own judgments (Taurima & Cash, 2000,
p. 4).
C on c lu s io n
To end, I would like to reiterate that research is a
complex endeavour that needs to remember and
prioritise the values of respect, responsibility and
accountability. My own journey in academia – especially
in past research activities – has not been easy. Walking
a path without clear guidance is not easy. I believe
that this discussion facilitates a “coming home”, a
return to the roots that connect and clarify my role
as a researcher. But mostly, I believe that it will help
me further understand what I consider are the basic
elements of knowing oneself, to relate to the metaphor
of the Ceiba. Sylvia Maracle has said that:
In trying to walk the traditional path there are
four lifelong questions we ask ourselves: Who am
I? In order to answer that I have to know: Where
have I come from? And once I know where I have
come from, I have to know: Where am I going?
And once I know where I am going, I need to
know: What is my responsibility? (Maracle, in
Anderson, 2000, p. 40).
I try to conduct my research as best I can with the
resources I have and with the awareness that it is my
52
the TREE of LIFE as a RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Vivian M. Jiménez Estrada
responsibility to learn from my mistakes and to honour
the wisdom from elders, ancestors and those spirits
that guide my actions. To the spirits that have guided
me thus far, through story, reversed situations and
uncomfortable realisations I say Maltyox. May their
wisdom be present in all I do.
Acknowledg ements
I would like to thank Professor Judy Iseke-Barnes,
Fernando Hernández Pérez (Maya Tzotzil), and José
Yac Noj (Maya K’iche’) for their helpful comments on
earlier drafts of this article. I am also grateful to the
anonymous journal reviewers for their constructive
comments and to Marie Battiste and the editorial team
at AJIE.
References
Anderson, K. (2000). Recognition of being: Reconstructing native womanhood.
Toronto: Second Story Press.
Baber, Z. (1996). The Science of empire: Scientifi c knowledge, civilisation, and
colonial rule in India. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Battiste, M. (Ed.) (2002). Reclaiming Indigenous voice and vision. Vancouver:
University of British Columbia Press.
Bishop, R. (1998). Freeing ourselves from neo-colonial domination in
research: A Maori approach to creating knowledge. International Journal
of Qualitative Education, 11(2), 199-219.
Cajete, G. (1994). Look to the mountain: An ecology of Indigenous education.
Durango, CO: Kivaki Press.
Consejo Nacional de Educación Maya. (CNEM). (2004). Uxe’al Ub’antajik le
Mayab’ Tijonik: Marco Filosófi co de la Educación Maya. Guatemala: Save
the Children.
Cordero, C. (1995). A working and evolving defi nition of culture. Canadian
Journal of Native Education, 21, 7-13.
Dei, G. J. S., Hall, B., & Rosenberg, D. (2000). Indigenous knowledges: An
introduction. In G. S. Dei, B. Hall & D. Rosenberg (Eds.), Indigenous
knowledges in global contexts: Multiple readings of our world (pp. 3-12).
Toronto: Toronto University Press.
Ermine, W. (1995). Aboriginal epistemology. In M. Battiste & J. Barman
(Eds.) First Nation education in Canada: The circle unfolds. (pp. 101-112).
Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.
Graveline, F. J. (1998). Circle works. Halifax: Fernwood.
Hermes, M. (1998). Research methods as a situated response: Towards
a First Nations’ methodology. Qualitative Studies in Education, 11(1),
155-168.
Jiménez, V. (2002). Deconstructing resistance: Indigenous knowledge, culture
and the Zapatista struggle for Indigenous autonomy. Unpublished Master’s
thesis, York University, Toronto, Canada.
Menzies, C. R. (2001). Reflections on research with, for, and among
Indigenous peoples. Canadian Journal of Native Education, 25(1), 19-36.
Montejo, V. (2005). Maya intellectual renaissance. Austin: University of
Texas Press.
Mosquera Saravia, M. T.; Gaspar Salvador, M. A. & Sucuquí Mejía, I.
(2002). Conociendo la sabiduría Achí: Salud y Enfermedad en Rabinal.
Guatemala: Instituto de Estudios Interétnicos de la Universidad de San
Carlos de Guatemala.
Recinos, A. (Ed.). (1987). Popol Vuh (20th ed.). Guatemala City: EDUCA.
Ren, A. (2001). Maya archaeology and the political and cultural identity of
contemporary Maya in Guatemala. Retrieved 16 November, 2004, from
http://ethical.arts.ubc.ca/Avexnim.html.
Shahjahan, R. A. (forthcoming). Mapping the fi eld of anti-colonial discourse
to understand issues of Indigenous knowledge: Decolonising praxis. McGill
Journal of Education.
Smith, L. (1999). Decolonising methodologies: Research and Indigenous people.
London: Zed Books.
Taurima, W., & Cash, J. (2000, December). Te Wananga: Developing a
bicultural model using critical systems. Paper presented at the 35th annual
conference of the Operational Research Society of New Zealand, Victoria
University of Wellington, New Zealand. Retrieved 22 April, 2005, from
http://www.esc.auckland.ac.nz/Organisations/ORSNZ/conf35/papers/
TaurimaCash.pdf.
Tedlock, D. (1993). Breath on the mirror: Mythic voices and visions of the
living Maya. San Franciso: Harper.
wa’ Thiong’o, N. (1996). Decolonising the mind. London: Heinemann.
Warren, K. (1998). Indigenous movements and their critics: Pan-Maya activism
in Guatemala. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Weber-Pillwax, C. (1999). Indigenous research methodology: Exploratory
discussion of an elusive subject. Journal of Educational Thought, 33(1),
31-45.
Wilson, S. (2003). Progressing toward an Indigenous research paradigm.
Canadian Journal of Native Education, 27(2), 161-178.
About the author
Vivian M. Jiménez Estrada is a Maya woman, born in
Guatemala City, who migrated to Canada in 1988. She
obtained a Bachelor (BES) and Master degree (MES)
from the Faculty of Environmental Studies at York
University, where she also works as a researcher with
the International Secretariat for Human Development.
As a second year doctoral student at Ontario Institute
for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, her
research focuses on the application of global Indigenous
knowledges in “education”, specifi cally as applied to
the development of a Maya University in Guatemala.
She is also interested on the interconnections between
race, culture, gender and spirituality in education and
knowledge production.
EDITORIAL
Elizabeth Mackinlay & Jackie Huggins ii
INTRODUCTION
Thinking Places: Indigenous Humanities and Education
Marie Battiste & Cathryn McConaghy 1
THINKING PLACE:
Animating the Indigenous Humanities in Education
Marie Battiste, Lynne Bell, Isobel M. Findlay, Len Findlay &
James (Sákéj) Youngblood Henderson 7
LÁHI and ATTÁLDAT:
The Philosophy of the Gift and Sami Education
Rauna Kuokkanen 20
NĒHÎTHÂWÂK of REINDEER LAKE, CANADA:
Worldview, Epistemology and Relationships with the
Natural World
Herman Michell 33
the TREE of LIFE as a RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Vivian M. Jiménez Estrada 44
the SEED is the LAW
Eileen M. Antone 53
ABORIGINAL KNOWLEDGE TRADITIONS in DIGITAL
ENVIRONMENTS
Michael Christie 61
TRANSFORMATION and RE-CREATION:
Creating Spaces for Indigenous Theorising in Canadian
Aboriginal Studies Programs
Deborah McGregor 67
SHIELDWOLF and the SHADOW:
Entering the Place of Transformation
Randolph Bowers 79
HE ÃPITI HONO, HE TÃTAI HONO: THAT WHICH is JOINED
REMAINS an UNBROKEN LINE:
Using Whakapapa (Genealogy) as the Basis for an Indigenous
Research Framework
James Graham 86
CENTRING ABORIGINAL WORLDVIEWS in SOCIAL
WORK EDUCATION
Cyndy Baskin 96
USING the ‘ARTS’ to TEACH INDIGENOUS AUSTRALIAN
STUDIES in HIGHER EDUCATION
Karen Vaughan 107
MOVING and DANCING TOWARDS DECOLONISATION
in EDUCATION:
An Example from an Indigenous Australian Performance
Classroom
Elizabeth Mackinlay 113
EDUCATION as HEALING:
How Urban Aboriginal Men Described Post-Secondary
Schooling as Decolonising
Jean-Paul Restoule 123
BRINGING KNOWLEDGE to TRUTH:
The Joke and Australian (In)Humanities
Cathryn McConaghy 132
INSIGHTS on FIRST NATIONS HUMANITIES
James (Sákéj) Youngblood Henderson 143
NOTES to CONTRIBUTORS 153
Volume 34 — 2005
ISSN 1326-0111
ISBN 1864998431
Volume 34 — 2005
THINKING PLACE:
The Indigenous Humanities & Education
Marie Battiste & Cathryn McConaghy (Eds.)
ISSN 1326-0111
The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education is a peer
reviewed research journal publishing articles in the fi eld of
Indigenous education, broadly defi ned. It is the only journal
for educators devoted specifi cally to issues of practice, pedagogy
and policy in Indigenous education in Australia. The journal has
an international audience and is highly valued by its readers as
a reliable source of information on Indigenous education issues.
Contributions on the participation of Indigenous people in education
and training; equitable and appropriate access and achievement of
Indigenous people in education and training; and the teaching of
Indigenous studies, cultures and languages to both Indigenous and
non-Indigenous students are encouraged. Notes to Contributors can
be found at the back of each issue. The journal is published by the
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies Unit at the University of
Queensland, under the strategic management and with the support
of the Unit Director, Michael Williams.
Editors: Jackie Huggins & Elizabeth Mackinlay
Managing Editor: Sean Ulm
Administrative Assistant: Jan Stewart
Graphic Design: Lovehate Design
Printing: Printpoint Australia Pty Ltd
Artwork: Adapted from Jungle Vine (2002)
by Macsen Ja-wukanyi Chalmers
All correspondence and submissions should be addressed to:
The Editors
The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies Unit
The University of Queensland
Brisbane QLD 4072
AUSTRALIA
Email: ajie@uq.edu.au
URL: http://www.atsis.uq.edu.au/ajie/
The views expressed in this journal are not necessarily those of
the Editors or Publisher.
© Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies Unit
The University of Queensland, 2006
ISSN 1326-0111
ISBN 1864998431
Volume 34, 20 05
i
the AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL of INDIGENOUS EDUCATION
EDITORIAL
Elizabeth Mackinlay & Jackie Huggins ii
INTRODUCTION
Thinking Places: Indigenous Humanities and Education
Marie Battiste & Cathryn McConaghy 1
THINKING PLACE:
Animating the Indigenous Humanities in Education
Marie Battiste, Lynne Bell, Isobel M. Findlay, Len Findlay & James (Sákéj) Youngblood Henderson 7
LÁHI and ATTÁLDAT:
The Philosophy of the Gift and Sami Education
Rauna Kuokkanen 20
NĒHÎTHÂWÂK of REINDEER LAKE, CANADA:
Worldview, Epistemology and Relationships with the Natural World
Herman Michell 33
the TREE of LIFE as a RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Vivian M. Jiménez Estrada 44
the SEED is the LAW
Eileen M. Antone 53
ABORIGINAL KNOWLEDGE TRADITIONS in DIGITAL ENVIRONMENTS
Michael Christie 61
TRANSFORMATION and RE-CREATION:
Creating Spaces for Indigenous Theorising in Canadian Aboriginal Studies Programs
Deborah McGregor 67
SHIELDWOLF and the SHADOW:
Entering the Place of Transformation
Randolph Bowers 79
HE ÃPITI HONO, HE TÃTAI HONO: THAT WHICH is JOINED REMAINS an UNBROKEN LINE:
Using Whakapapa (Genealogy) as the Basis for an Indigenous Research Framework
James Graham 86
CENTRING ABORIGINAL WORLDVIEWS in SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION
Cyndy Baskin 96
USING the ‘ARTS’ to TEACH INDIGENOUS AUSTRALIAN STUDIES in HIGHER EDUCATION
Karen Vaughan 107
MOVING and DANCING TOWARDS DECOLONISATION in EDUCATION:
An Example from an Indigenous Australian Performance Classroom
Elizabeth Mackinlay 113
EDUCATION as HEALING:
How Urban Aboriginal Men Described Post-Secondary Schooling as Decolonising
Jean-Paul Restoule 123
BRINGING KNOWLEDGE to TRUTH:
The Joke and Australian (In)Humanities
Cathryn McConaghy 132
INSIGHTS on FIRST NATIONS HUMANITIES
James (Sákéj) Youngblood Henderson 143
NOTES to CONTRIBUTORS 153
TABLE of CONTENTS