Decolonizing Methdologies - Glass

Linda Tuhiwai Smith’s book, Decolonizing Methodologies, is broken into two major parts: how Western research has historically subjugated and colonialized indigenous peoples through its methods, and an “answer,” or recommendation, on the part of Smith regarding how to move forward with research.

Smith opens her book by introducing the reader to the views of Western research from the perspective of the indigenous persons: “the word itself, ‘research,’ is probably one of the dirtiest words in the indigenous world’s vocabulary” (Smith 2012: p 1). She continues part one of her book as an exploration of the research setting as “a significant site of struggle between the interests and ways of knowing of the West and the interests and ways of knowing of the Other” (Smith 2012: p 2). She describes how the researched experience “research fatigue” and continues on by questioning the authoritativeness – and positivistic nature – of Western research.

Smith problematizes Western positivism by pointing out that doing objective research just for the sake of research not only leads to a Western gaze on issues around gender, race, and other social systems, but it also has a tendency of essentially erasing major parts of history for the indigenous people.

The second half of Smith’s book, refreshingly, goes on to describe a solution to the issue of Western colonialism and research. She urges indigenous people not to completely shut researchers out, while urging both sides to participate in research from a more ‘social justice’ standpoint: no more research for the sake of research. The key in this is that the indigenous people are active participants in the outcome of such social justice research. In other words, research should set out to make a positive difference.

Research for the sake of research – or positivism – is one of the biggest tenants of the ivory tower that I struggle with. In my own research, I regularly remind myself that I am there to research these women struggling in the medical system, nothing more. While not all of the women of color in my research are indigenous (although, some of them certainly are), they are all impacted similarly: their plight is researched and documented while they struggle to make their way through the medical system that so regularly works against them.

This reading gives me a strong desire to use Smith’s methodologies of the Maori people by working with the people of color in my research to both understand their struggle and make a positive change.

Application to my project is where I get stuck. My research involves both the indigenous and the colonizers – the people of color and the medical system. I listen to the people of color express doubt, fear, frustration and anger when they are denied access to cultural practices or even basic necessities in the health care system. I also listen to care givers – midwives – express frustration with their inability to make change while also touting their patient-centered practices (that largely leave out their patients of color). Having access to both of these groups of people is key in understanding what is happening to people of color in the current health care system regarding midwifery; I am not sure how I would push for changes made without closing doors. This is something I’d love to talk more about.

Questions: 

My biggest question is around the word “indigenous:” who does this encompass? She touches on this in her book, but I am unsure if this would include people of color who are already “othered” in Western nations?

Does lumping indigenous peoples together effectively “other” them further? Is it like lumping all Hispanic/Latino peoples, over-simplifying cultures and suggesting too few solutions for too many people?