Indigenous Knowledge and Australian Heritage - Literature review Example

Indigenous knowledge and Australian heritage Institution Name Part I Australian Indigenous knowledge In a study to examine the need for indigenous epistemological approach by investigating the scientific construct of indigenous research in Australia, Foley (2003) takes the perspective that the propensity to force indigenous postgraduate students into using western ethnocentric research methodology is a cause for frustration among this group of students. In his view, such forceful application of western approaches contributes to the abandonment of their higher degree dreams. Hauser et al. (2009) shared a similar opinion in his document analysis to examine the place of indigenous knowledge in tertiary science education. According to Hauser et al. (2009), indigenous knowledge in the contemporary curriculum continues to be a challenge to traditional western models on Indigenous cultures and epistemologies. In a related study, McLaughlin et al. (2007) discussed the experiences of integrating indigenous perspectives, knowledge, and studies in the universities curriculum. McLaughlin et al. (2007) agrees with Foley (2003) and Hauser et al. (2009) that indigenous knowledge in the contemporary curriculum continues to be a challenge to traditional western models due to its complexities. Foley (2003) further pointed out that Indigenous Standpoint Theory should be developed, established and acknowledged. In his view, indigenous philosophy is anchored in oral traditions and therefore, modern-day indigenous scholars should never make this insignificant. Foley (2003) however expressed concern that reinventing traditional pre-European interaction by the indigenous academics is not likely. He argued that this is since post-European interaction has permanently changed pre-European contact epistemologies within the western-based model. McLaughlin et al. (2007) appears to echo Foley’s (2003) point that the Western approach to knowledge contributes to the elimination and possible extinction of indigenous knowledge and social systems. McLaughlin et al. (2007) agrees that this was essentially because indigenous knowledge was viewed as inferior. In fact, several non-Indigenous academics have reported the tensions encountered by the shifted ground and about offered insights to resolve the tensions. Consistent with an idea expressed by Foley (2003), Indigenous Standpoint encourages non-indigenous academics to recognise and acknowledge own positions on the presentation and development of Indigenous knowledge. This also vitalizes Foley’s (2003) conjecture that indigenous pedagogy has been seen as inferior compared to the western approaches. McLaughlin et al. (2007) further remarked that Indigenous knowledge is viewed as insignificant “other,” as it has been colonised even to the extent that it is made up of Westerners or the colonisers. Indeed, as stated by Foley (2003), the post-modernism model does not give regard to the Indigenous Standpoint model. However, indigenous academics should seek to preserve and develop the indigenous Standpoint to empower communities and preserve Indigenous knowledge (Foley, 2003). McLaughlin et al. (2007) also agrees that the position of indigenous knowledge and studies in western academic institution needs indigenous academics to perpetually critique their intellectual and cultural positions. However, the critiques should not just privilege indigenous intellectuals. Rather, it is the responsibility of the Indigenous academics to challenge the struggle against colonial forms of domination in academic institutions. Within this struggles are the commitment to reclaim indigenous knowledge, cultures and values. In McLaughlin’s et al. (2007) view, the success of such projects is reliant wholly on recognising indigenous knowledge in disciplines and the willingness and readiness of non-indigenous academics to examine their cultural positions and prejudices. This would, as stated by McLaughlin’s et al. (2007), facilitate embedding of indigenous perspectives into the university curriculum. In a related research, Phillips et al. (2007) examined the issues in contesting indigenous studies and indigenous knowledge. Based on document analysis of published literature on indigenous knowledge and indigenous studies, Phillips et al. (2007) established that when the indigenous knowledge is prioritised, academics who are Indigenous Australians by background tend to challenge the initially unchallenged authority of the old disciplines. Additionally, they challenge the newcomers who position Australian identity as indisputable, ethically corrective and racial by nature. Indeed, basing on this perspective, it could be argued that making Indigenous knowledge more formal for non-Indigenous Australians signifies the shift in ontological ground. Phillips et al. (2007) pointed that Indigenous studies and knowledge are intrinsically linked to the issues of cultural survival. This perspective was shared by Riley et al. (2013) who pointed out that Indigenous studies and knowledge always have inbuilt cultural practices. This supposed privileged position enjoyed by Indigenous researchers and scholars in the western academic circles is critiqued by Phillips et al. (2007). The researchers problematised the role of indigenous researchers and scholars and analysed the complexities of involving indigenous communities in research projects as a means of capacity building. Phillips et al. (2007) argued for the genuine partnerships in research as means of encouraging true community development. The idea is supported by Riley et al. (2013) in his study to investigate how to entrench aboriginal cultural knowledge in curriculum at universities and within aboriginal communities. Riley et al. (2013) argues that the pedagogical approach should take into consideration Aboriginal epistemology in content and methods to allow learning to be a process that is based on indigenous identity and culture. Riley et al. (2013) also promoted the perspective that the projects should be a partnership between Indigenous and non-Indigenous academics. In his view, this makes it easy to embed Indigenous knowledge and cultural perspectives into university teaching. To conclude, the researchers concur that the place of indigenous knowledge and studies in western academic institution require the indigenous academics to perpetually critique their own intellectual and cultural positions and that it is their responsibility to challenge the struggle against colonial forms of domination in academic institutions. PART II Western and indigenous ways of knowing Akena (2012) conducted a critical analysis of how the Western knowledge is generated and its effects on decolonisation and indigenous knowledge. The study was built on the view that there is an ongoing contest among Indigenous and non-Indigenous scholars over what should be considered as legitimate knowledge. In his view, the contest has had significant implication on the manner in which societal organisation, knowledge and response to environmental challenge is carried out. Akena (2012) views Western education system as a cross between ranges of knowledge espoused through European global expansion in order to add new knowledge to learning within the formal educational context. Wane (2013) supports the perspective. In her view, all aspects of Western education are interwoven with cultures and politics, and hence sustain systems of domination and colonialism. Wane (2013) pointed out that long histories of imperialism have enabled Western education to receive full acceptance in indigenous communities. As a result, the indigenous knowledge and perspectives have become less pervasive over time. In a related study, Garcia and Shirley (2012) conducted document analysis to examine ways in which indigenous academics could perform decolonisation or reclaim indigenous knowledge.Garcia and Shirley (2012) lament that the omnipresent nature of the Western society permeates indigenous ways of life, communities and minds. As a result, it enacts critical consciousness through decolonisation process to reclaim indigenous language. Akena’s (2012) study examined the generation of Western knowledge and its imposition, justification and implications on Indigenous knowledge and people. Akena’s (2012) underlying argument is that there is a correlation between those who produce knowledge and their motives within the societies they live. Akena (2012) concluded that such a relationship influences what should be regarded as ‘legitimate knowledge’ within societies in Indigenous or non-Western context. In respect to what should be considered as legitimate knowledge, Wane (2013) explains that Western education and perspectives have been given overstated considerations. The researcher reflected struggles by Indigenous academics to reconcile indigenous and non-indigenous knowledge to make both valid. In her view, this has in itself been futile. Wane (2013) argues that the desire for Western education and learning by Indigenous people has validated and formalised Western education. In her view, unlike indigenous academics, indigenous communities have been slow to challenge, question or resist Western education. In her review of literature, Wane (2013) shows that Western education has received full acceptance in indigenous communities. Indeed, all aspects of Western education are interwoven with cultures and politics, and hence sustain systems of domination and colonialism. There has however been lack of reciprocity from the Western schooling structures. Simpson (2001) appears to agree with this perspective. The researcher points out that Aboriginal people do not just want to be studied or consulted. Rather, they have a right to use the knowledge inside them to make decisions that impact their people, plants, communities, and lands. Like Foley (2003), Simpson (2001) examined how indigenous knowledge can be reclaimed by decolonising indigenous processes. Wane (2013) examined processes of reclaiming indigenous knowledge production and understanding. Wane (2013) concluded that it is the responsibility of Indigenous academics to take a proactive role in reclaiming epistemic centre and cultural knowledge, while simultaneously resisting and challenging the existing Western education system that has disregarded indigenous knowledge and studies. In Garcia and Shirley's (2012) view, the idea of reciprocity to indigenous communities is the catalysts for the general feeling of discontent among indigenous academics. Garcia and Shirley (2012) suggested that educators need to show the willingness to implement a pedagogy and curriculum that can develop a critical indigenous consciousness in students. In doing so, indigenous students would be more prepared to be vocal about approaching education based on indigenous perspectives. Garcia and Shirley's (2012) concluded that the pedagogical and theoretical practices of critical indigenous pedagogies are important for stirring up critical indigenous consciousness that promotes reclaiming of indigenous knowledge systems in classrooms and schools. The researchers added that it also leads to developing curriculum that ensures a balance between indigenous and Western knowledge systems. It also advocates for sovereignty and self-determination within classrooms and schools. Simpson (2001) agrees that academics support the idea of reclaiming knowledge. The researcher argues that more Aboriginal academics are calling for recognition and use of Aboriginal worldviews, theories of knowledge, paradigms and cultures in intellectual systems. To conclude, Akena (2012), Wane (2013), Simpson (2001) and Garcia and Shirley (2012) agree that unfortunately, the Western learning processes have excluded indigenous knowledge systems. Such lack of reciprocity has fuelled scholarly concerns and a need by indigenous academics to reclaim indigenous knowledge. PART III Western and Indigenous knowledge together Nakata (2010) seeks to show that the interface between Western scientific knowledge and Indigenous knowledge is a contested space. Consequently, dialogue between Indigenous and Western academics has often been characterised by taking of sides. Nakata (2010) promotes the notion that negotiation of meaning by the indigenous students happens at the cultural interface, which involves interaction between the indigenous and Western domains. Nakata’s (2010) article is based on the attempt by indigenous people to story their way through difficult dialogues and to put forward opportunities that allow more productive engagements concerning the position of Indigenous knowledge in the Indigenous people’s future considerations at Indigenous studies. Like Chigeza (2011), Nakata (2010) argues for acknowledging the significance of understanding, preserving and encouraging the use of indigenous and Western knowledge systems. According to Chigeza (2011), while seeking to encourage disposition towards accommodating Indigenous perspectives, the Western-based curriculum should be considered as a noble step in the right direction. Therefore, there is still a need to explore the difference dimensions of Indigenous student’s cultural resources and how these dimensions can be leveraged to prevent deficit models. Unlike Nakata who seeks to reconcile the notion of Indigenous people’s cultural resources, Chigeza’s (2011) study attempts to reconcile the notion of student’s cultural resources. In any case, both researchers based their arguments that human development happens on at least three levels: interpersonal, personal, and cultural, and that the three are interfaced in all kinds of human activities. Chigeza (2011) appears to support Nakata’s (2011) premise that interfacing Western and Indigenous knowledge systems promotes a more productive engagement concerning the position of Indigenous knowledge in the Indigenous people’s future considerations at Indigenous studies. Chigeza (2011) attempted to differentiate cultural capital, cultural disposition and community cultural wealth that inform the agency of students. For instance, while Nakata (2010) attempts to show that storytelling is still a familiar tradition among indigenous people that allows them to translate and pass on difficult concepts through generations. Chigaza (2011) takes a related perspective. He explains that story telling is like a community cultural wealth that passes on cultural knowledge, abilities and skills. Yosso (2005) also acknowledges that different forms of capital nurtured using cultural wealth include familial, navigational, aspirational, social and lingustic capital. In Yosso's (2005), capital draws on the knowledge of student's colour that also brings them from their communities and homes into the classroom. Nakata (2010) and Chigeza (2011) agree on the idea that cultural resources are expressed through language, and that culture and language are unimaginable without the other. The same perspective is shared by Yosso (2005) who argues that language is essential for communication, reflecting and categorising, as well as for other cognitive functions. Yunkaporta (2005) also argued for the cultural interface to ensure a perfect balance point of intersection between indigenous and Western realities. Chigeza (2011) goes on to share Nakata’s (2010) perspective that language is a primary tool in manoeuvring and negotiating means when learning. It hence becomes crucial to pay attention to the language, students use for learning science. At this stage, cultural interface is essential. Therefore, Nakata (2010) and Chigeza (2011) appear to concur that negotiating meaning by the indigenous students happens at the cultural interface, which consists of interaction between the indigenous and Western domains. At this stage Yosso (2005) proposes the critical race theory (CRT) to education, which involves dedication to develop schools that acknowledge the multiple strengths of community cultures in a bid to serve the larger purpose of ensuring racial and social justice in learning. McGloin’s et al. (2009) argument is in accord with Chigeza (2011) and Nakata’s (2010) conjecture that students cultural resources have continually been side-lined by educators, policymakers and curriculum writers in science learning, making it become problematic for students to participate on a neutral ground with their Western counterparts, whose cultural resources are part of the curriculum. Taking a similar vein, Yunkaporta (2005) argued that educators need to embrace deeper Aboriginal knowledge and insights, as well as integrate them in classroom. In his view, the interfacing of aboriginal pedagogies and indigenous ones ensures that Aboriginal content is not trivialised or approached simplistically. Warcon and Bronwyn (2009) share a similar opinion. He argues that there is a need to rethink how culturally different styles of learning can be accommodated and acknowledged in classrooms. In both cases, there is a need to rethink classroom and literacy discourses. To conclude, the researcher’s underlying perspective is that it is inapt to continue restricting science literacy, classroom discourses, and assessment regimes in science to print-based forms of writing and reading and reject indigenous people’s oral, socio-cultural, and spatial language dimensions. Such curricula and regimes marginalise the indigenous students, since their cultural resources are not acknowledged and valued. References Adyanga, F. (2012). Critical analysis of the production of western knowledge and its implications for Indigenous knowledge and decolonization. Journal of Black Studies, 43, 599-619 Chigeza, P. (2011). Accommodating Indigenous Students' Cultural resources in Science Classrooms: An Approach to Enhance Learning Agency. Professional Doctorate James Cook University Warcon, C. & Bronwyn, F. (2009). How the knowledge within country informs Aboriginal arts practices and affirms and sustains identity. In: Selling Yarns 2: Innovation for Sustainability, 6-9 March 2009, National Museum of Australia, Canberra. Garcia, J. & Shirley, V. (2012). Performing Decolonization: Lessons Learned from Indigenous Youth, Teachers and Leaders’ Engagement with Critical Indigenous Pedagogy. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing 28(2), 76-91 Riley, L., Howard-Wagner, D., Mooney, J. & Kutau. C. (2013). Embedding Aboriginal Cultural Knowledge in Curriculum at University Level Through Aboriginal Community Engagement. Diversity in Higher Education 14(1), 251-276 Foley, D. (2003). Indigenous epistemology and Indigenous standpoint theory. Social Alternatives, 22(1), 44-52 Hauser, V., Howlett, C. & Mattews, C. (2009). The Place of Indigenous Knowledge in Tertiary science Education: A Case Study of Canadian Practices in Indigenizing the Curriculum. The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education 38(1), 46-57 McGloin, C. Marshall, A. & Adams, M. (2009). Leading the Way: Indigenous knowledge and Collaboration at the Woolyungah Indigenous Centre. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 6(2), 1-15 McLaughlin, Juliana M. and Whatman, Sue L. (2007). embedding indigenous perspectives in university teaching and learning: lessons learnt and possibilities of reforming / decolonising curriculum. In Proceedings 4th International Conference on Indigenous Education: Asia/ Pacific, Vancouver, Canada. Nakata, M. (2010). The cultural interface of Islander and scientific knowledge. The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 39, 53-57 Phillips, S., Phillips, J., Whatman, S. & McLaughlin, J. (2007) Introduction: Issues in (Re)Contesting Indigenous Knowledges and Indigenous Studies. The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education 36(1), 1-6. Simpson (2001). Aboriginal Peoples And Knowledge: Decolonizing Our Processes. The Canadian Journal of Native studies 21(1), 137-148 Wane, N. (2013). [Re]Claiming my Indigenous knowledge: Challenges, resistance, and opportunities. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society 2(1), 93-107 Yosso, T. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community cultural wealth. Race Ethnicity and Education 8(1) 69-91 Yunkaporta, T. (2005). Aboriginal Pedagogies at the Cultural Interface. Professional Doctorate Research James Cook University Research Online Read More

In McLaughlin’s et al. (2007) view, the success of such projects is reliant wholly on recognising indigenous knowledge in disciplines and the willingness and readiness of non-indigenous academics to examine their cultural positions and prejudices. This would, as stated by McLaughlin’s et al. (2007), facilitate embedding of indigenous perspectives into the university curriculum. In a related research, Phillips et al. (2007) examined the issues in contesting indigenous studies and indigenous knowledge.

Based on document analysis of published literature on indigenous knowledge and indigenous studies, Phillips et al. (2007) established that when the indigenous knowledge is prioritised, academics who are Indigenous Australians by background tend to challenge the initially unchallenged authority of the old disciplines. Additionally, they challenge the newcomers who position Australian identity as indisputable, ethically corrective and racial by nature. Indeed, basing on this perspective, it could be argued that making Indigenous knowledge more formal for non-Indigenous Australians signifies the shift in ontological ground.

Phillips et al. (2007) pointed that Indigenous studies and knowledge are intrinsically linked to the issues of cultural survival. This perspective was shared by Riley et al. (2013) who pointed out that Indigenous studies and knowledge always have inbuilt cultural practices. This supposed privileged position enjoyed by Indigenous researchers and scholars in the western academic circles is critiqued by Phillips et al. (2007). The researchers problematised the role of indigenous researchers and scholars and analysed the complexities of involving indigenous communities in research projects as a means of capacity building.

Phillips et al. (2007) argued for the genuine partnerships in research as means of encouraging true community development. The idea is supported by Riley et al. (2013) in his study to investigate how to entrench aboriginal cultural knowledge in curriculum at universities and within aboriginal communities. Riley et al. (2013) argues that the pedagogical approach should take into consideration Aboriginal epistemology in content and methods to allow learning to be a process that is based on indigenous identity and culture.

Riley et al. (2013) also promoted the perspective that the projects should be a partnership between Indigenous and non-Indigenous academics. In his view, this makes it easy to embed Indigenous knowledge and cultural perspectives into university teaching. To conclude, the researchers concur that the place of indigenous knowledge and studies in western academic institution require the indigenous academics to perpetually critique their own intellectual and cultural positions and that it is their responsibility to challenge the struggle against colonial forms of domination in academic institutions.

PART II Western and indigenous ways of knowing Akena (2012) conducted a critical analysis of how the Western knowledge is generated and its effects on decolonisation and indigenous knowledge. The study was built on the view that there is an ongoing contest among Indigenous and non-Indigenous scholars over what should be considered as legitimate knowledge. In his view, the contest has had significant implication on the manner in which societal organisation, knowledge and response to environmental challenge is carried out.

Akena (2012) views Western education system as a cross between ranges of knowledge espoused through European global expansion in order to add new knowledge to learning within the formal educational context. Wane (2013) supports the perspective. In her view, all aspects of Western education are interwoven with cultures and politics, and hence sustain systems of domination and colonialism. Wane (2013) pointed out that long histories of imperialism have enabled Western education to receive full acceptance in indigenous communities.

As a result, the indigenous knowledge and perspectives have become less pervasive over time.

Read More