Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Ethnography
http://jce.sagepub.com/
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
508148
research-article2013
Article
Indigenous
Autoethnography:
Exploring, Engaging, and
Experiencing Self as a
Native Method of Inquiry
Paul Whitinui1
Abstract
Tirohanga Whnui (Abstract): Traditional knowledge systems have been at the
core of our existence as indigenous peoples since time immemorial. As an
oral/aural-based society, our ancestors frequently engaged in opportunities
to not only test their knowledge at different times and in different situations
but also to recall knowledge through the art of story-telling. This paper
seeks to (re)position autoethnography from an indigenous perspective. This
will be achieved by referring to autoethnography as a culturally informed
research practice that is not only explicit to Mori ways of knowing but
can be readily validated and legitimated as an authentic Native method
of inquiry. Grounded within a resistance-based discourse, indigenous
autoethnography aims to address issues of social justice and to develop
social change by engaging indigenous researchers in rediscovering their own
voices as culturally liberating human-beings. Implicit in this process is also
the desire to ground ones sense of self in what remains sacred to us
as indigenous peoples in the world we live, and in the way we choose to
construct our identity, as Mori.
Keywords
indigenous autoethnography, Native inquiry, Mori, self, identity,
difference, culture
1University
Corresponding Author:
Paul Whitinui, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Email: paul.whitinui@otago.ac.nz
457
Whitinui
458
459
Whitinui
valid, authentic, or sufficient are the stories we hear or seek to share and why
would anyone be interested? And what enables or engages an indigenous
person to tell their stories in ways that help others as well as themselves to
better understand the inherent complexities underpinning our uniqueness as
culturally connected human beings? As a Mori academic, my views, understandings, ideas, and understandings about indigenous autoethnography will
no doubt differ considerably to other indigenous peoples perspectives and
narratives. The history of the indigenous Mori people in Aotearoa New
Zealand is well over two thousand years old with tribal stories etched in the
landscape of a world where our ancestors lived, died, and were put to rest.
Today, our tribal meeting houses (i.e., marae) remain as testimonies to those
memories and serve as a cultural haven for those stories to be preserved and
shared for future generations (Tauroa 1984).
A key aim of this paper is to provide a space to share a process of constructing a culturally distinct method of inquiry that may readily coexist in
the fabric of other peoples lived experiences but is unique from a Mori
world view. Although there appears to be an inherent lack of knowing how to
frame self as an indigenous qualitative method of inquiry, many Mori
researchers in AotearoaNew Zealand24 are actively defining what research
should look like from an indigenous world view and how new knowledge is
created, critiqued, and shared (Jones and Jenkins 2008a). Coming to know
the other as indigenous is a challenging task because global definitions
render us all as one coherent group of people seeking similar aspirations and
goals, typically stereotyping the other as being the same (Jones, Adams,
and Ellis 2013). The difference privileges a Native researcher as someone
who is either Native by birth (i.e., born of this place) and who can intuitively speak about the cultural nuisances associated with indigenous peoples
connection to, with, and about time, space, place, and identity. In more recent
times, autoethnography seeks to remain fresh and relevant and to build on
notions of coming out, being relevant, and creating alternative perspectives to specific complex social problems (Coffey 1999; Douglas and
Carless 2013; Ellis 2004; Jones, Adams, and Ellis 2013; Marechal 2010).
Douglas and Carlesss (2013, 93) poem titled Doing Autoethnography I
believe aptly identifies both the tension and potential inherent in engaging in
autoethnography:
Doing Autoethnography
So you read my words
Sketched on the page
And learned of entanglement
Well, here now is my flesh
460
461
Whitinui
462
463
Whitinui
464
465
Whitinui
19). Such positions also relate to what Denzin (1989) refers to as the universal singular defined by Jean-Paul Sartre (1981, 19) as follows:
Universal singulars are individuals who are a single instance of more universal
social experiences and social processes. This approach recognises that all
interpretative studies are biographical and historical. They are always fitted to the
historical moment that surrounds the subjects life experiences.
466
a trouble-maker. Why? Because I often walked around with a rather sly smile
on my face appearing to know things others didnt, which made others feel
rather uneasy. Unbeknownst to my peers, questions about who I am and
where do I fit in this world were often at the forefront of my mind but were
not being answered. Moreover, I was consistently seeking an understanding
about my identity being Mori, which was often superseded by my inner need
to enjoy life, play sport, keep out of harms way, and to be happy. Having
spent such a long time in the sporting culture, the question of what constitutes
a Native story and how we discern what a Native way of knowing self
is became more pronounced. It effectively required me to delink myself from
a whole host of dominant discourses and to spend more time reflecting on
what constitutes being an indigenous Mori human being. For example, what
we hear, see, feel/sense, taste, and touch although typical of our everyday
lives (and based on our own level of knowing and associations with family,
land, culture, language, and traditions) required an intuitional cultural reframing. Therefore, how we choose to start a story is not only an important
determinant in how we place ourselves within, it also dependent upon how
we really see ourselves in the world we liveasking ourselves the following
questions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
467
Whitinui
468
meaning. When you smash the jugs, the water is one. Coming to know self
is something we all share, but how we do this requires cultures and society to
willingly accept difference(s) in race, ethnicity, gender, age, and knowledge.
469
Whitinui
470
propagated stronger social and cultural kinships, in that, it was not unusual for
Mori to share stories, songs, whakapapa (genealogy links), and to strategically plan how best to proceed upon arrival. In many ways, early Mori were
visionaries and practiced for generations the art of tohungaism (i.e., ancient
and scared ways of enacting customary practices) and shared specific expertise and crafts beneficial for the collective (Robinson 2005).
Interestingly enough, being Mori today is not merely about what we do
that makes us distinct to other indigenous peoples or indeed, non-Mori, but
as Durie (2010) suggests, there is an innate need to focus more on our ability
to more cooperatively advance our community and cultural aspirations within
both the world of Mori (Te Ao Mori) and as citizens of the wider world
(Te Ao Whnui). From this perspective, many Mori are ever-mindful of the
changing nature of the world and our role as kaitiaki (i.e., guardians of the
land). Not only do Mori consistently acknowledge the past, we also seek to
construct ways to increase our visibility, socially, culturally, economically,
and politically (Durie 2010). Paradoxically, Mori as the major Treaty (i.e.,
signed between Mori and the British on February 6, 1840) partners not only
look to self-determine our future as Mori but also to engage how we as a
country move forward as one nation.
In the search for understanding of who we as Mori and being able to
reconnect who we are to our traditional ways of knowing helps to explain why
we think, feel, and act as we do. Indeed Mori, like many other indigenous
peoples, are not immune to new forms of global colonization. Today, Mori as
diverse indigenous communities are likely to live a more contemporary and
urban lifestyle, live away from their turangawaewae (i.e., traditional homelands), marae (traditional meeting houses), and whenua (i.e., family land), and
less likely to be fully engaged in learning and practising their language,
tikanga (customary practices), and kawa (customary protocols). Similarly, the
nature of whnau (extended family) has significantly changed from one that
was strongly based on a kinship system to one that is actively engaging crossculturally, both here and abroad, and alongside many different cultures (Durie
2001b). In addition, these sorts of trends also reflect the typical day-to-day
experiences many Mori encounter in modern times. Perhaps of greater
importance is that actually understanding these different kinds of experiences
and, in particular, how individuals reflect on their own unique lives as Mori
is less obvious. Certainly, there is no one universal way we as Mori live our
lives, nor is there any one model, perspective, or framework that can successfully align all Mori as being the same. Rather, we as Mori continue to create
innovative and alternative methods of looking at the world and our place
within. As a Native researcher, validation is determined by a researchers
background and tribal group membership (Hayano 1979). Locating self as a
471
Whitinui
472
473
Whitinui
whnaungatanga (ability to denote the interconnectedness of all things), tohungatanga (ability to practice the art of interpreting various skills and expertise),
ukaip (ability to locate self in spaces and places that nourish our existence),
and kotahitanga (ability to recognize unity in all things in the world). Creating
knowledge and coming to know from this position is more about internalized
ways of knowing (self) and driven by the quality (i.e., lived or learnt experiences) of ones inner wisdom, consciousness, and passionate participation
(Royal 2009a). The question, therefore, of how as Mori do we locate ourselves within the research agenda often becomes one of considering ideas about
our experiences from either an ethical or moral relationship standpoint
(Bishop 2005; Royal 1998a, 1998b, 2009a; Smith 1997; Smith 1999).
The location of self in the research agenda is therefore contestable within
and across a wide range of social science disciplines, including anthropology,
sociology, psychology, philosophy, political science, economics, and history.
Therefore, establishing an inquiry method that is specifically about how indigenous peoples make sense of self requires an interdisciplinary approach
because as indigenous peoples we intersect or cross a number of discipline
boundaries. Each discipline in itself represents a cultural response to self and,
therefore, must equally inform to some degree who we are as tangata whenua
Mori (people of the land) in todays society. In the same vein, self represented as a Mori in a mainstream research context has been highly problematic
because of the value of how others see us within the research agenda. Indeed,
one of the most significant problems of conducting research for, with, and about
Mori has been the inability for the research(ers) to acknowledge Mori as being
able to self-determine what knowledge means for us as a people (Smith 1999).
It is within this very notion that indigenous peoples across the globe have had to
work tirelessly to survive. Re-creating new realities under the gaze of territorial
validity (Jones and Jenkins 2008a, 2008b) where tribal consensus determines
what counts as knowledge posits a post-structural means of reinterpreting our
past. The four directions (i.e., decolonization, healing, transformation, and
mobilization) as well as the four conditions of being (i.e., survival, recovery,
development, and self-determination) offer some direction in how everyone
can contribute to the futures of indigenous peoples (Durie 2010).
Linda Tuhiwai Smith (1999, 11617) suggests that enabling Mori and
indigenous peoples to (re)claim, (re)connect, and (re)align their own existence
in a modern world today is necessary in helping to strengthen community and
whnau resilience. Resilience is also about the ability of the individual to
cope, manage, and bounce back in times of crisis, dislocation, grief, loss, hardship, and trauma. This can also relate to a loss of identity, self, and culture
within a world focused on material wealth and societal regulation. Revealing
self as a portal to expressing inner wisdom is not an easy concept to
474
475
Whitinui
cannot subsist from discovering the Other in ones self . . . for it is only
when we translate our own wounds into our own language of strangers and
retranslate the wounds of strangers into our own language that healing and
reconciliation can take place. The world is a made up of a plurality of human
beings, cultures, and tongues. The task of translating these interactions is an
endless one in that humanity exists in the plural mode, and under the guise
of plurality, language operates as a peculiar human trait. In many ways, the
idea of translating self is actually the act of taking up and letting go, of
expressing ones self and welcoming others instills a sense of hope toward
working to understand the many nuances of human life (Ricoeur 2007).
Joness (2010, 60) reflections on Paul Riceours account of narrative identity also suggests that conceiving of life as a narrative unity gives us a narrative identity which provides the response to the all-important question Who
am I? which must be posed and answered in order that we may then ask, How
should I live? Self-hood is achieved via a deep connection to all that one has
experiencedpositively or negatively, and assigned to an inner belief that life
will, in some way, be much better once one departs. In 2011 and 2012, the
AERA (American Educational Research Association) themes Inciting the
Social Imagination (New Orleans, Louisiana) as well as To Know Is Not
Enough (British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada) provided the space to recognize the contribution indigenous peoples knowledge has made to addressing
some of the ongoing problems, challenges and issues facing many educators
today. Although, not readily acknowledged in many of the sessions I attended
at both conferences, autoethnographic accounts were being readily shared and
applied via stories, narratives, autobiographies, critical race testimonies, and
oral histories. The preservation of self and fostering the continual narrative of
self allowed individual voices to speak about what we dont know about
indigenous students, and how stories actually create the dialectic space to better
understand indigenous student ways of engaging and learning. The narratives
of indigenous peoples live on in the way we honor our tupuna (ancestors), their
lands, their values, their spirit, and their vision. To locate ones self as a
Native Mori researcher within the research is in many ways enacting the
hopes and dreams of our ancestors to continue to survive, thrive, and prosper.
As indigenous researchers, we consistently seek to undertake research that
benefits our people and our communities. Understanding cultural space, place,
boundaries, ethics, morals, language, traditions, and heritage specific to being
Native requires time. From this position, the process of recalibrating and
reprioritizing what is important to being indigenous emerges. To relocate myself as a Native Mori researcher also asks that I engage in a higher level
of critical and cultural consciousness about my role as an indigenous
researcher (Bishop 2005; Smith 1997). Moreover, knowing why and how one
476
477
Whitinui
Such whakatauk also illustrate the depth of understanding that highlights the
importance of listening, sharing, learning, and humility about ones knowledge
(Kana and Tamatea 2006). How, then, should an indigenous person develop a
478
Native method of inquiry that allows one to speak but at the same time does
not elicit the characteristics of being whakahh. This is a challenging consideration and one that takes years of practice, poise, and patience. Questions to consider when contemplating this dilemma include the following:
When is an appropriate time to share your story?
What limitations do you place on telling your story (what do you choose
to share and what do you choose to leave out)?
Who are you telling your story to and why?
Will sharing your story about yourself bring people together?
Is there a sense of trustworthiness about your story and can people connect
with what you are saying with regards to who you are?
These questions assist also in shaping the ethical process of framing indigenous autoethnography from a Native position and include the following
guiding statements:
1. Attempts should be made to provide an air of equality as opposed
to an air of superiority by becoming a full participant in how knowledge and knowing is shaped, construed, negotiated, and included as
research;
2. Understand our own crisis of representation by searching for deeper
meanings about ones own identity, culturally, politically, socially,
and spiritually;
3. Being prepared to show, not only tell, our stories is a critical
aspect of sharing who we are as indigenous peoples.
As a result, four key attributes inform the framing of indigenous autoethnography intended to support other Native methods of inquiry (Bishop
1996, 2008; Bishop and Glynn 1999; Durie 2004, 1999; Hemara 2000;
Houston 2007; Kawagley 2001; Mead 2003; Metge 1998; Meyer 2005;
Pihama, Cram, and Walker 2002; Rangihau 1977; Royal 1998a, 2009b;
Shirres 2000; Smith 1997; Smith 1999) and include the following:
1. Ability to protect ones own uniqueness. This implies that writing
about our own storied lives moves beyond simply validating
knowledge to one of celebrating who we are as Mori. Implicit in
the ability to protect is the need to maintain who we are, including
our differences, identity, language, culture, and ways of knowing,
doing, and being.
479
Whitinui
480
481
Whitinui
way of being captured, in the Mori words mauri t, mauri ohooho, and mauri
ora (stand tall, be attentive, and keep well). This asks that we always remember who we are, where we come from, and to work for the collective wellbeing of our iwi, hap, and whnau, marae, and community. A well-known
whakatauk that enhances the potential to enrich indigenous autoethnography
by sharing our life experiences is recalled:
Nu te rourou, nku te rourou, ka ora ai ttou katoa
With your contribution and my contribution, the people will thrive
482
2009), and it requires a mind shift in our own lived realities as indigenous
peoples. The need to challenge injustices as well as our own understandings
about ourselves as indigenous peoples remains ever present in asking why we
do the things the way we do and how these events or interactions influence
our connection to culture and our own way of life (Hooker 2008). Finally, this
whakatauk (Mori proverb) by Hooker (2008, 16) proposes that indigenous
ways of knowing are, indeed, a dual reality that parallels the journey about
coming to know self, alongside the ability to be good in all that we do.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Notes
1.
2.
3.
4.
References
Adichie, C. 2009. Danger of a Single Story. TED (Technology Entertainment
Design). http://www.ted.com/talks/chimamanda_adichie_the_danger_of_a_single_story.html (accessed May 27, 2011).
Battiste, M. 2000. Reclaiming Indigenous Voice and Vision. Seatle: University of
Washington Press.
Battiste, M. 2005. Indigenous Knowledge: Foundations for First Nations. WINHEC
2005 http://www.win-hec.org/docs/pdfs/Journal/Marie%20Battiste%20copy.pdf
(accessed February 14, 2006).
483
Whitinui
484
485
Whitinui
edited by Stacy Holman Jones, Tony E. Adams, and Carolyn Ellis, 1748. Walnut
Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
Kana, F., and K. Tamatea. 2006. Sharing, Listening, Learning and Developing
Understandings by Engaging with Two Maori Communities Involved in
Education. Waikato Journal of Education 12:920.
Kapa, J. 2009. Ko te papa krero m Te Aupuri: Three Generations Walking through
the Whenua. Masters thesis, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Kawagley, A. O. 2001. Spirit, Knowledge and Vision from First Nations Sages.
Canadian Journal of Native Education 25 (2): 199206.
King, T. 2003. The Truth about Stories: A Native Narrative. Toronto, Canada: House
of Anansi Press Inc.
Macfarlane, A. M., N. M. Blampied, and S. H. Macfarlane. 2011. Blending the Clinical
and the Cultural: A Framework for Conducting Formal Psychological Assessment
in Bicultural Settings. New Zealand Journal of Psychology 40 (2): 515.
Manning, E. 2010. Always More Than One: The Collectivity of a Life. Body and
Society 16 (1): 11727. doi:10.117/1357034X09354128.
Manning, R. 2009. Place, Power and Pedagogy: A Critical Analysis of the Status of
Te tiawa Histories of Place in Port Nicholson Block Secondary Schools and the
Possible Application of Place-Based Education Models. PhD thesis, Victoria
University, Wellington, New Zealand.
Marechal, G. 2010. Autoethnography. In Encyclopedia of Case Study Research,
edited by A. J. Mills, G. Durepos, and E. Weibe, 4345. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Martinez, D. E. 2008. Indigenous Consciousness and the Production of Knowingness.
Paper read at American Sociological Association, Boston.
Mead, H. M. 2003. Tikanga Mori: Living by Mori values. Wellington, New
Zealand: Huia.
Metge, J. 1998. Time and the Art of Mori Storytelling. New Zealand Studies 8
(1): 39.
Meyer, M. A. 2005. Remembering Our Future: Higher Education Quality Assurance
and Indigenous Epistemology. WINHEC 2005. http://www.win-hec.org/docs/
pdfs/Journal/Manulani%20Meyer.pdf (accessed February 14, 2006).
Pihama, L., F. Cram, and S Walker. 2002. Creating Methodological Space: A
Literature Review of Kaupapa Mori Research. Canadian Journal of Native
Education 26 (1): 3043.
Prentice, R. 2003. Spiritualizing Pedagogy: Education as the Art of Working with
the Human Spirit. PhD thesis. Sunderland, England: University of Sunderland.
Rachels, J., and S. Rachels. 2010. The Elements of Moral Philosophy. 6th ed. New
York: McGraw Hill Higher Education.
Rangihau, J. 1977. Being Mori. Wellington, New Zealand: Hicks Smith.
Richardson, L. 2003. Writing: A Method of Inquiry. In Collecting and Interpreting
Qualitative Materials, edited by N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln, 499541.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ricoeur, P. 2007. On Translation: Thinking in Action. New York: Routledge.
Ricoeur, P. 2010. Being a Stranger. Theory, Culture & Society 27 (5): 3748.
486
Robinson, S. T. 2005. Tohunga-the Revival: Ancient Knowledge for the Modern Era.
Auckland, New Zealand: Reed.
Rosaldo, R. 1989. Culture and Truth: Remaking of Social Analysis. Boston: Beacon
Press.
Royal, C. 1998a. Te Ao Marama: A Research Paradigm. Paper read at Te Oru
Rangihau Maori Research and Development Conference, at Massey University,
Palmerston North, New Zealand.
Royal, C. 1998b. Te Whare Tapere: Towards a Model for Mori Performance Art.
Ph D thesis. Philosophy in Theatre and Film, University of Wellington, New
Zealand.
Royal, C. 2009a. Te Kaimanga: Towards a New Vision for Matauranga Maori. In
Te Manu Ao Seminar Series. Victoria University, Wellington.
Royal, C. 2009b. Te Kaimanga: Towards a New Vision for Matauranga. In
Directorship Public Seminar. Waipapa Marae, University of Auckland, Auckland.
Sarte, J. 1981. The Family Idiot: Gustave Flaubert, 1821-1827. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Shirres, M. P. 2000. Te Tangata The Human Person. 3rd ed. Auckland, New
Zealand: Accent.
Smith, G. H. 1997. The Development of Kaupapa Mori Theory and Praxis. PhD
thesis, School of Education, University of Auckland, Auckland.
Smith, J. K. 1984. The Problem of Criteria for Judging Interpretative Inquiry.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Practice 6 (4): 37991.
Smith, L. T. 1996. Nga Aho O Te Kakahu Mataauranga: The Multiple Layers of
Struggle by Mori Education. PhD thesis, Auckland University, Auckland.
Smith, L. T. 1998. Towards the New Millennium: International Issues and Projects
in Indigenous Research. Paper read at Te Oru Rangahau: Mori Research
and Development Conference, at Massey University, Palmerston North, New
Zealand.
Smith, L. T. 1999. Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples.
New York: St. Martins.
Smith, L. T. 2005. On Tricky Ground: Researching the Native in the Age of
Uncertainty. In The Sage Book of Qualitative Research, edited by N. K. Denzin
and Y. S. Lincoln, 85108. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sparkes, A. 2003. Bodies, Identities and Selves. In Moving Writing: Crafting
Movement in Sport Research, edited by J. Denison and P. Markula, 5171. New
York: Peter Lang.
Tauroa, H. 1984. Moritanga in Practice. Auckland, New Zealand: Office of Race
Conciliation.
Tomaseli, K. G., L. Dyll, and M. Francis. 2008. Self and Other: Auto-reflexive
and Indigenous Ethnography. In Handbook of Critical and Indigenous
Methodologies, edited by N. K. Denzin, N. K. Lincoln, and L. Smith, 34772.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Walker, R. 1990. Ka Whawahi Tonu Matou: Struggle without an End. Auckland, New
Zealand: Penguin.
487
Whitinui
Author Biography
Paul Whitinui, EdD, is of the Mtaatua waka and its confederate tribes in the Far
North of Aotearoa, New Zealand Ng Puhi and Ngti Kur. He is an associate professor in Mori teacher education at the University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
He has a background in Mori education, sport and leisure, Mori health and development and has published and presented on a range of topics broadly linked to issues
concerning culturally responsive pedagogies, successful schooling for Mori students
in the 21st Century, treaty-related issues in education, Mori health, resiliency and
wellbeing.