Ancestral Knowledge Systems: A conceptual framework for decolonizing research in social science

Abstract

Building on the seminal work of Linda T. Smith in decolonizing research methodologies, this paper introduces Ancestral Knowledge Systems (AKS) as a conceptual framework for social science research methodologies. We use autoethnography and critical self-reflection throughout the article to make visible the components of AKS. First, we lay out the context in which AKS was re-created after a doctoral course on decolonizing research methodologies. We unpack internalized colonization to address the need to go beyond identity politics and towards AKS thinking as an approach to promote a multiplicity of knowledge systems. Next, we discuss family epistemologies and collective memories as methods for reconnecting accountability systems to ancestral homeland(s). Finally, we discuss our visions for AKS across learning ecologies. The scholarly significance of our research is twofold: (1) it develops a framework for critical introspection and connectivity for decolonizing research, and (2) it promotes a multiplicity of knowledge systems in the academy.

Keywords

Indigenous methodologies decolonizing research Ancestral Knowledge Systems internalized colonization family epistemology multiplicity of knowledge systems

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Anzaldúa

(1987). Borderlands/La frontera: The new mestiza. San Francisco, CA: Spinsters/Aunt Lute.

Anzaldúa

(1999). Borderlands/La frontera: The new mestiza (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Spinsters/Aunt Lute.

Brant Castellano

(2000). Updating Aboriginal traditions of knowledge. In Dei

G. J.

, Hall

B. L.

, & Goldin Rosenberg

(Eds.), Indigenous knowledges in global contexts: Multiple readings of our world (pp. 21–36). Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.

Burdell

, & Swadener

(1999). Critical personal narrative and autoethnography in education: Reflections on a genre. Educational Researcher, 28(6), 21–26. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.2307/1177293

Carter

(2004). Aristotle to advocacy: Critical reflections on the philosophy and practice of social science research. Educational Researcher, 33(1), 35–39. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.3102/0013189X033001035

Chrystos (1983). I walk in the history of my people. In Anzaldúa

, & Moraga

(Eds.), This bridge called my back: Writings by radical women of color (pp. 57–62). New York, NY: Kitchen Table/Women of Color.

Collins

(1989). The social construction of black feminist thought. Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 14(4), 745–773. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1086/494543

Corntassal

(2003). Who is Indigenous? “Peoplehood” and ethnonationalist approaches to rearticulating Indigenous identity. Nationalism and Ethnic Politics, 9(1), 75–100. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1080/13537110412331301365

Delgado Bernal

(1998). Using Chicana feminist epistemology in educational research. Harvard Educational Review, 68(4), 555–582. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.17763/haer.68.4.5wv1034973g22q48

10.

Deloria

, & Wildcat

(2001). Power and place: Indian education in America. Golden, CO: Fulcrum.

11.

Díaz-Soto

, Cervantes-Soon

C. G.

, Villarreal

, & Campos

E. E.

(2009). Xicana Sacred Space: A communal circle of compromiso for educational researchers. Harvard Educational Review, 79(4), 755–776. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.17763/haer.79.4.4k3x387k74754q18

12.

Forbes

(1995). The use of racial and ethnic terms in America: Management by manipulation. Wicazo Sa Review, 11(2), 53–65. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.2307/1409097

13.

French

B. M.

(2012). The semiotics of collective memories. Annual Review of Anthropology, 41, 337–353. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1146/annurev-anthro-081309-145936

14.

González

(2001). Haciendo que hacer—cultivating a mestiza worldview and academic achievement: Braiding cultural knowledge into educational research, policy, practice. Qualitative Studies in Education, 14(5), 641–656. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1080/09518390110059847

15.

Grande

(2004). Red pedagogy: Native American social and political thought. New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield.

16.

Hoffman

(2013). Respecting Aboriginal knowing in the academy. AlterNative, 9(3), 189–203.

17.

Holland

, Lachicotte

Jr. , Skinner

, & Cain

(1998). Identity and agency in cultural worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

18.

hooks

(1994). Theory as liberatory practice. In Komar

, & Bartkowski

(Eds.), Feminist theory: A reader (pp. 37–42). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

19.

Hughes

, Pennington

, & Makris

(2012). Translating autoethnography across the AERA standards: Towards understanding autoethnographic scholarship as empirical research. Educational Researcher, 41(6), 209–219. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.3102/0013189X12442983

20.

Kovach

(2009). Indigenous methodologies: Characteristics, conversations and contexts. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.

21.

Kuhn

T. S.

(1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.7208/chicago/9780226458106.001.0001

22.

Levins Morales

(1998). Medicine stories: History, culture and the politics of identity. Cambridge, MA: South End.

23.

Lie

S. S.

, & O'Leary

(1990). Storming the tower: Women in the academic world. London, England: Kogan Page.

24.

Martínez

(1998). De colores means all of us: Latina views for a multi-colored century. Cambridge, MA: South End.

25.

Martínez-Cruz

(2011). Women and knowledge in Mesoamerica: From east L.A. to Anahuac. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press.

26.

Milner

H. R.

IV (2007). Race, culture, and researcher positionality: Working through dangers, seen, unseen, and unforeseen, Educational Researcher, 36(7), 388–400. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.3102/0013189X07309471

27.

Moraga

, & Anzaldúa

(Eds.). (1981). The bridge called my back. New York, NY: KitchenTable/Women of Color.

28.

Moreno Sandoval

C. D.

(2013). Critical ancestral computing: A culturally relevant computer science education. PsychNology, 11(1), 91–112.

29.

Muhammad

, Wallerstein

, Sussman

A. L.

, Avila

, Belone

, & Duran

(2015). Reflections on researcher identity and power: The impact of positionality on community based participatory research (CBPR) processes and outcomes. Critical Sociology, 41, 1045–1063. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1177/0896920513516025

30.

Nieto

(2006). A Nuyorican in the academy: Lessons learned. In Berry

T. R.

, & Mizelle

N. D.

(Eds.), From oppression to grace: Women of color and their dilemmas in the academy (pp. 244–256). Sterling, VA: Stylus.

31.

Paris

, & Winn

M. T.

(Eds.). (2014). Humanizing research: Decolonizing qualitative inquiry with youth and communities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1111/jftr.12090

32.

Pérez-Huber

(2009). Disrupting apartheid of knowledge: Testimonio as a methodology in Latina/o critical race research in education. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 22(6), 639–654. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1080/09518390903333863

33.

Quijano

(2000). Coloniality of power and Eurocentrism in Latin America. International Sociology, 15(2), 215–232. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1177/0268580900015002005

34.

Ravitch

S. M.

, & Riggan

(2012). Reason and rigor: How conceptual frameworks guide research. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

35.

Rendón

L. I.

(2009). Sentipensante (sensing/thinking) pedagogy: Educating for wholeness, social justice and liberation. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

36.

Rosaldo

(1994). Culture and truth: The remaking of social analysis. Boston, MA: Beacon.

37.

Smith

L. T.

(1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and Indigenous peoples. Dunedin, New Zealand: University of Otago.

38.

Smith

L. T.

(2012). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and Indigenous peoples (2nd ed.). London: Zed.

39.

Smith

L. T.

(2014, October 7). Keynote address. Indigenous Sustainability Conference: Implications for the Future of Indigenous People and Native Nations, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona.

40.

Solórzano

, & Delgado-Bernal

(2001). Examining transformational resistance through a critical race and LatCrit theory framework: Chicana and Chicano students in an urban context. Urban Education, 36, 308–342. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1177/0042085901363002

41.

Trueba

(2002). Multiple ethnic, racial, and cultural identities in action: From marginality to a new cultural capital in modern society. Journal of Latinos in Education, 1(1), 7–28. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1207/S1532771XJLE0101_2

42.

Tuck

, & McKensie

(2015). Place in research: Theory, methodology, and methods. New York, NY: Routledge.

43.

Tuck

, & Yang

(2012). Decolonization is not a metaphor. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, 1(1), 1–40.

44.

Villenas

(1996). The colonizer/colonized Chicana ethnographer: Identity, marginalization, and co-optation in the field. Harvard Educational Review, 66(4), 711–731. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.17763/haer.66.4.3483672630865482

45.

Zavala

(2013). What do we mean by decolonizing research strategies? Lessons from decolonizing Indigenous research projects in New Zealand and Latin America. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, 2(1), 55–71.