Mohawk Interruptus- Harrison

Mohawk Interruptus offers a compelling look at indigenous/feminist methodologies. In this post, I will discuss some methodological strategies presented, and their relation to past readings in this course.

Many aspects of Dr. Simpson’s ethnographic methodologies reminded me of other concepts we have read in this class about feminist and indigenous methodologies. First, Simpson was very mindful to portray the community as a complex, multifaceted network with contradictions, diverse perspectives and heterogeneity. She states, “I refuse to practice the type of ethnography that claims to tell the whole story and have all the answers. This is not an even playing ground for interpretation, and I do not pretend otherwise,” (Simpson, p.34). She is not entering the community as an outsider and searching for a grand pattern or generalization. Rather, she is moving into and out of the community as a bicultural insider/outsider, cautious to highlight the complexities, intersections and contradictions of the group.

Second, Simpson’s sampling method was very unique. She intentionally sought out community members who had not been frequently interviewed by other scholars. From there, she used a snowball sampling method whereby interviewees suggested other participants. Several of the interview participants were acquaintances of Simpson prior to the research. In addition to the interviews, she observed community events and meetings, reviewed newspaper, radio and television media and reviewed other scholarly works about the community. She was not able to interview many women for her sample, so she states that women’s voices are represented through her observation of community events and meetings.

Third, Simpson was very concerned as a bicultural researcher about the reception of her work. This reminded me greatly of concerns raised by Lila Abu-Lughod in her work we read earlier this semester. Simpson wanted to make sure that she could ‘come home again’ after what she wrote – to ensure that community members would not be upset by her writing. At the same time, she was conscious of the risks of outsiders reading the work and wanted to ensure that her work could not be used against the community to harm them.

Finally, Simpson explains that she was very careful to respect what research participants wanted to discuss. If participants did not want to discuss a particular question, she did not push them. She was cautious to give participants the right of refusal and to not re-traumatize interviewees. This reminded me greatly of our class’ earlier discussion about ethnographic refusal. When a research participant tells you they do not want to discuss something, their refusal in itself tells you a great deal about the question. It makes sense for Simpson to honor the power of refusal in her work as a researcher, as she realizes how important refusal (of nationhood, recognition, etc.) is for her Mohawk community.

Questions:

How can researchers balance important concerns for community image (not presenting research information that could be used against researched communities) with concerns for scientific rigor?

 For example, high rates of mental illness in LGBTQ communities have been used by some to justify that LGBTQ identity is a mental illness, or is somehow inherently damaging. However, I feel it is important to share the facts about high rates of MI. One way some queer researchers balance this is by heavily contextualizing their statements – e.g. explaining that oppression and marginalization can be stressors to the body and mind, then presenting facts about high rates of MI in this context. Audra Simpson (in her methodology section) states that she did not share some information raised in the interviews in order to protect the community. How can researchers balance when to share delicate information (carefully, with context and explanation) and when it is best to say nothing? I feel acutely aware of the risks of saying too much – as it seems Simpson is too- but I wonder, what are the risks (to science, ourselves, our communities) of saying nothing?