1. Syme SL. Social determinants of health: the community as an empowered partner. Prev Chronic Dis. 2004;1:1–5.[PMC free article][PubMed]
2. Walters KL, Stately A, Evans-Campbell T . “Indigenist” collaborative research efforts in Native American communities. In: Stiffman AR, editor. The Field Research Survival Guide. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2009. pp. 146–173.
3. Smith LT. Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. London, UK: Zed Books Ltd; 1999.
4. Rigney L-I. Internationalisation of an indigenous anticolonial cultural critique of research methodologies. A guide to indigenist research methodology and its principles. Wicazo Sa Rev. 1999;14:109–121.
5. Whap G A. Torres Strait Islander perspective on the concept of Indigenous knowledge. Aust J Indigenous Educ. 2001;29:22–29.
6. Struthers R Peden-McAlpine C. Phenomenological research among Canadian and United States Indigenous populations: oral tradition and quintessence of time. Qual Health Res. 2005;15:1264–1276.[PubMed]
7. Battiste M, Henderson JY. Protecting Indigenous Knowledge and Heritage: A Global Challenge. Saskatoon, SK: Purich Press Publishing; 2000.
8. Agrawal A. Dismantling the divide between Indigenous and scientific knowledge. Dev Change. 1995;26:413–439.
9. Battiste M, editor. Reclaiming Indigenous voice and vision. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia Press; 2000.
10. Grenier L. Working With Indigenous Knowledge: A Guide for Researchers. Ottawa, ON: International Development Research Centre; 1998.
11. Cajete G. Native Science: Natural Laws of Interdependence. Santa Fe, NM: Clear Light Publishers; 1999.
12. Wilson S. Research Is Ceremony: Indigenous Research Methods. Black Point, NS: Fernwood Publishing; 2008.
13. Botha L. Mixing methods as a process towards Indigenous methodologies. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2011;14:313–325.
14. Deloria V., Jr . Custer Died for Your Sins. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press; 1969.
15. Davis SM, Reid R. Practicing participatory research in American Indian communities. Am J Clin Nutr. 1999;69:755S–759S.[PMC free article][PubMed]
16. Cochran PAL, Marshall CA, Garcia-Downing C et al. Indigenous ways of knowing: implications for participatory research and community. Am J Public Health. 2008;98:22–27.[PMC free article][PubMed]
17. Denzin NK, Lincoln YS, Smith LT, editors. Handbook of Critical and Indigenous Methodologies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc; 2008.
18. Lavalee L. Practical application of an Indigenous research framework and two qualitative Indigenous research methods: sharing circles and Anishnaabe symbol-based reflection. Int J Qual Methods. 2009;8:21–40.
19. Swadener BB, Mutua K. Decolonizing performances: deconstructing the global postcolonial. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS, Smith LT, editors. Handbook of Critical and Indigenous Methodologies. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications; 2008. pp. 31–43.
20. Minkler M, Wallerstein N, editors. Community-Based Participatory Research for Health: From Process to Outcomes. 2nd ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 2008.
21. Israel B, Eng E, Schulz A, Parker E, editors. Methods in Community Based Participatory Research for Health. 2nd ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 2012.
22. Wallerstein N, Duran B. Community-based participatory research contributions to intervention research: the intersection of science and practice to improve health equity. Am J Public Health. 2010;100(suppl 1):S40–S46.[PMC free article][PubMed]
23. Lam TK, McPhee SJ, Mock J et al. Encouraging Vietnamese-American women to obtain Pap tests through lay health worker outreach and media education. J Gen Intern Med. 2003;18:516–524.[PMC free article][PubMed]
24. Rhodes SD, Hergenrather KC, Montano J et al. Using community-based participatory research to develop an intervention to reduce HIV and STD infections among Latino men. AIDS Educ Prev. 2006;18:375–389.[PubMed]
25. Griffith DM, Pichon LC, Campbell B, Allen JO. YOUR Blessed Health: a faith-based CBPR approach to addressing HIV/AIDS among African Americans. AIDS Educ Prev. 2010;22:203–217.[PubMed]
26. LaVeaux D, Christopher S, Contextualizing CBPR. Key principles of CBPR meet the Indigenous research context. Pimatisiwin. 2009;7:1–25.[PMC free article][PubMed]
27. Harding A, Harper B, Stone D et al. Conducting research with tribal communities: sovereignty, ethics, and data-sharing issues. Environ Health Perspect. 2012;120:6–10.[PMC free article][PubMed]
28. Carjuzaa J, Fenimore-Smith K. The give away spirit: reaching a shared vision of ethical Indigenous research relationships. J Educ Controversy. 2010 (summer):5.
29. Christopher S, Gidley AL, Letiecq B, Smith A, McCormick AK. A cervical cancer community-based participatory research project in a Native American community. Health Educ Behav. 2008;35:821–834.[PubMed]
30. Christopher S, Knows His Gun McCormick A, Smith A, Christopher JC. Development of an interviewer training manual for a cervix health project on the Apsáalooke reservation. Health Promot Pract. 2005;6:414–422.[PubMed]
31. Christopher S, Smith A, Knows His Gun McCormick A. Participatory development of a cervical health brochure for Apsáalooke women. J Cancer Educ. 2005;20:173–176.[PubMed]
32. Christopher S, Watts V, Knows His Gun McCormick A, Young S. Building and maintaining trust in a community-based participatory research partnership. Am J Public Health. 2008;98:1398–1406.[PMC free article][PubMed]
33. Smith A, Christopher S, Knows His Gun McCormick A. Development and implementation of a culturally sensitive cervical health survey: a community-based participatory approach. Women Health. 2004;40:67–86.[PubMed]
34. Watts V, Christopher S, Smith J, Knows His Gun McCormick A. Evaluation of a lay health adviser training for a community-based participatory research project in a Native American community. Am Indian Cult Res J. 2005;29:59–79.
35. Simonds VW, Christopher S, Crooked Arm Pease B . Messengers for health: Apsáalooke women capture the vision of wellness. In: Elk R, Landrine H, editors. Cancer Disparities: Causes and Evidence-Based Solutions. New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company and The American Cancer Society; 2011.
36. American Indian Law Center. Model Tribal Research Code. 3rd ed. Albuquerque, NM: American Indian Law Center, Inc; 1999. pp. 1–28.
37. Canadian Institutes of Health Research. CIHR Guidelines for Health Research Involving Aboriginal People. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Institutes of Health Research; 2007.
38. Kahnawake Schools Diabetes Prevention Project. Code of research ethics. 2007. Available at: http://www.ksdpp.org/media/ksdpp_code_of_research_ethics2007.pdf. Accessed April 11, 2013.
39. Schnarch B. Ownership, control, access, and possession (OCAP) or self-determination applied to research: a critical analysis of contemporary First Nations research and some options for First Nations communities. J Aborig Health. 2004:80–95.
40. Nickels S, Shirley J, Laidler G, editors. Negotiating Research Relationships With Inuit Communities: A Guide for Researchers. Ottawa and Iqaluit, ON: Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Nuravut Research Institute; 2007.
41. First Nations Centre. Considerations and Templates for Ethical Research Practices. Ottawa: National Aboriginal Health Organization; 2007.
42. Simonds VW, Christopher S, Sequist TD, Colditz G, Rudd RE. Exploring patient-provider interactions in a Native American community. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2011;22:836–852.[PubMed]
43. Gielen AC, McDonald EM, Gary TL, Bone LR. Using the PRECEDE-PROCEED model to apply health behavior theories. In: Glanz K, Rimer BK, Viswanath K, editors. Health Behavior and Health Education: Theory, Research, and Practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 2008.
44. Green L, Kreuter M. Health Program Planning: An Educational and Ecological Approach. 4th ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 2005.
45. Green LW, Kreuter M, Deeds SG, Partridge KB. Health Education Planning: A Diagnostic Approach. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield; 1980.
46. Lavallee LF. Threads of Connection: Addressing Historic Trauma of Indigenous People through Cultural Recreational Programming. Toronto, ON: Graduate Department of the Faculty of Social Work; 2007. University of Toronto.
47. Baskin C. Circles of Inclusion: Aboriginal World View in Social Work Education. Ottawa, ON: Department of Sociology and Equity Studies, Ontario Institute of Studies in Education/University of Toronto; 2005.
48. Holstein JA, Gubrium JF. Varieties of Narrative Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.; 2012.
49. Towle A, Godolphin W, Alexander T. Doctor-patient communications in the Aboriginal community: towards the development of educational programs. Patient Educ Couns. 2006;62:340–346.[PubMed]
50. Roter DL. Physician/patient communication: transmission of information and patient effects. Md State Med J. 1983;32:260–265.[PubMed]
51. Roter DL. Patient question asking in physician-patient interaction. Health Psychol. 1984;3:395–409.[PubMed]
52. Roter DL, Hall JA. Health education theory: an application to the process of patient-provider communication. Health Educ Res. 1991;6:185–193.[PubMed]
53. Roter DL, Hall JA. Physician gender and patient-centered communication: a critical review of empirical research. Annu Rev Public Health. 2004;25:497–519.[PubMed]
54. Roter DL, Hall JA, Katz NR. Relations between physicians’ behaviors and analogue patients’ satisfaction, recall, and impressions. Med Care. 1987;25:437–451.[PubMed]
55. Hall JA, Roter DL, Katz NR. Task versus socioemotional behaviors in physicians. Med Care. 1987;25:399–412.[PubMed]
56. Burke NJ, Joseph G, Pasick RJ, Barker JC. Theorizing social context: rethinking behavioral theory. Health Educ Behav. 2009;36:55S–70S.[PMC free article][PubMed]
57. Goodson P. Theory in Health Promotion Research and Practice: Thinking Outside the Box. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett; 2010.
58. Munro S, Lewin S, Swart T, Volmink J. A review of health behaviour theories: how useful are these for developing interventions to promote long-term medication adherence for TB and HIV/AIDS? BMC Public Health. 2007;7:104–119.[PMC free article][PubMed]
59. Pasick RJ, D’Onofrio CN, Otero-Sabogal R. Similarities and differences across cultures: questions to inform a third generation for health promotion research. Health Educ Q. 1996;23(suppl):S142–S161.
60. Mohatt GV, Hazel KL, Allen J, Stachelrodt M, Hensel C, Fath R. Unheard Alaska: culturally anchored participatory action research on sobriety with Alaska Natives. Am J Community Psychol. 2004;33:263–273.[PubMed]
61. Jones A, Jenkins K. Rethinking collaboration. Working the indigene-colonizer hyphen. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS, Smith LT, editors. Handbook of Critical and Indigenous Methodologies. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications; 2008. pp. 471–486.
62. Christensen J. Telling stories: exploring research storytelling as a meaningful approach to knowledge mobilization with Indigenous research collaborators and diverse audiences in community-based participatory research. Can Geogr. 2012;56:231–242.
63. Blodgett A, Schinke RJ, Smith B, Peltier D, Pheasant C. In Indigenous words: exploring vignettes as narrative strategy for presenting the research voices of Aboriginal community members. Qual Inq. 2011;17:522–533.
64. Iseke JM. Indigenous digital storytelling in video: witnessing with Alma Desjarlais. Equity Excell Educ. 2011;44:311–329.
65. Poudrier J, Mac-Lean RT. ‘We’ve fallen into the cracks’: Aboriginal women’s experiences with breast cancer through photovoice. Nurs Inq. 2009;16:306–317.[PubMed]
66. Cueva M, Dignan M, Kuhnley R. Readers’ theatre: a communication tool for colorectal cancer screening. J Cancer Educ. 2012;27:281–286.[PubMed]
67. Gray N, Ore de Boehm C, Farnsworth A, Wolf D. Integration of creative expression into community-based participatory research and health promotion with Native Americans. Fam Community Health. 2010;33:186–192.[PMC free article][PubMed]
68. Hodge FS, Pasqua A, Marquez CA, Geishirt-Cantrell B. Utilizing traditional storytelling to promote wellness in American Indian communities. J Transcult Nurs. 2002;13:6–11.[PMC free article][PubMed]
69. Tom-Orme L. Native Americans Explaining Illness: Storytelling as illness experience. In: Whaley BB, editor. Explaining Illness: Research, Theory, and Strategies. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers; 2000. pp. 237–257.
70. Garroutte EM, Westcott KD. The stories are very powerful. In: O’Brien S, editor. Religion and Healing in Native America. Westport, CT: Praeger; 2008. pp. 163–184.
71. Poonwassie A, Charter A. An Aboriginal worldview of helping: empowering approaches. Can J Couns. 2001;35:63–73.
72. Duran E. Story sciencing: analyzing the silent narrative between words. In: Stewart S, Moodley R, Beaulieu, editors. Indigenous Integration of Mental Health Healing in the Helping Professions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; In Press.
73. Cueva M, Kuhnley R, Lanier AP, Dignan M. Story: the heartbeat of learning cancer education for Alaska Native community healthcare providers. Convergence (Toronto) 2006;39:81–90.
74. Moody LE, Laurent M. Promoting health through the use of storytelling. Health Educ. 1984;15:8–10. 12. [PubMed]
75. National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, National Institute of Health, US Department of Health and Human Services. Taking action: health promotion and outreach with American Indians and Alaska Natives, Literature Review. 2006. Available at: http://www.niams.nih.gov/about_Us/Mission_and_Purpose/Community_Outreach/Multicultural_Outreach/AIAN_WG/NIH_AIAN_Lit_Rev.asp. Accessed March 20, 2013.
76. Duran B. The promise of health equity: advancing the discussion to eliminate disparities in the 21st century. Paper presented at: 32nd Annual Minority Health Conference; February 25, 2011; Chapel Hill, NC.
77. Dutta-Bergman MJ. The unheard voices of Santalis: communicating about health from the margins of India. Commun Theory. 2004;14:237–263.
78. Martin KL. Please Knock Before You Enter: Aboriginal Regulation of Outsiders and the Implications for Researchers. Teneriffe, Queensland, Australia: Post Pressed; 2008.
1 Cree scholar Shawn Wilson states in Research is Ceremony: Indigenous Research Methods:
[O]ne of the great strengths that Indigenous scholars bring with them is the ability to see and work within both Indigenous and dominant worldviews. This becomes of great importance when working with dominant system academics, who are usually not bicultural. As part of their white privilege, there is no requirement for them to be able to see other ways of being and doing, or even to recognize that they exist. Oftentimes then, ideas coming from a different worldview are outside of their entire mindset and way of thinking. The ability to bridge this gap becomes important in order to ease the tension that it creates. (44)
In the field of Performance Studies, Dwight Conquergood points to a similar disjunction when describing the gap separating performance scholars from performance practitioners as a counterproductive “academic apartheid” (153), a practice/theory divide defined by Shannon Jackson as an insidious “division of labor” privileging those who think over those who do (Professing 111). This lack of communication and understanding between theorists and practitioners severely undermines performance research endeavours that require building relationships based on trust, respect, and reciprocity. While Indigenous research principles are designed by and for Indigenous scholars and activists working within their own communities, Wilson states: “So much the better if dominant universities and researchers adopt them as well” (59). In my embodied research on the work of women artists from different cultures and generations who collaborated with Jerzy Grotowski during the theatrical and post-theatrical periods of his practical investigation of performance, I found these principles more pertinent than the methodologies developed by those whom Wilson identifies as “dominant system” academics (58).
2 Reading Research is Ceremony: Indigenous Research Methods while conducting fieldwork helped me to address the potentially colonialist dimension of ethnographic praxis. In this book, Wilson posits respect, reciprocity, and relationality as the three R’s of Indigenous methodologies, and cites Evelyn Steinhauer’s statement: “respect is more than just saying please and thank you, and reciprocity is more than giving a gift” (86). Indeed, Indigenous research principles are meant to ensure that the research conducted by Indigenous scholars “will be honoured and respected by their own people” (59). Such research criteria are so fundamental to Indigenous communities that they “will not allow entry by researchers, Indigenous and non-Indigenous alike, until they have met the community’s conditions” (59). According to these principles, researchers must engage in a “deep listening and hearing with more than the ears,” and develop a “reflective, non-judgmental consideration of what is being seen and heard,” as well as “[a]n awareness and connection between logic of mind and the feelings of the heart.” Ultimately, researchers bear the “[r]esponsibility to act with fidelity in relationship to what has been heard, observed, and learnt” (59). In my experience of conducting embodied research on experimental performance practice, fieldwork has been more about doing than talking. Because intuition is inherent to creativity, a deep sense of trust is necessary, yet it takes time to achieve such trust. Investing oneself as fully as possible in this long-term process is an important way of demonstrating commitment, and as time passes, trust increases along with the responsibility that comes with receiving someone’s trust.
3 Wilson goes on to suggest that, from an Indigenous perspective, research is ceremony because it is about making connections and strengthening them, a process that takes “a lot of work, dedication and time” (89–90). The multi-sited fieldwork I conducted from 2008 to 2012 was predicated on establishing and sustaining the type of relationships that Wilson identifies as necessary conditions for conducting research. The ethical research principles advocated by Indigenous scholars have guided me throughout the research and writing process and enabled me to develop a range of writing strategies to engage with questions pertaining to positionality, lived experience, and embodied ways of knowing. Honouring these principles has also required me to strive for reciprocity, relevance, and accessibility as part of the goals that I prioritized in the dissemination of my research through my monograph Grotowski, Women, and Contemporary Performance: Meetings with Remarkable Women (Routledge 2014) and its companion Documentary Film Series (Routledge Performance Archive).
4 Within the discipline of anthropology, Indigenous and feminist ethnographers have compellingly articulated alternative ethnographic models that account for the lived experience of researchers and research participants. In the Chicago Guide to Collaborative Ethnography, Luke Eric Lassiter notes that American Indian scholars were among the first to produce a radical critique of ethnographic fieldwork and to “call for models that more assertively attend to community concerns, models that would finally put to rest the lingering reverberations of anthropology’s colonial past” (6). Indigenous and feminist anthropologists raise related epistemological and methodological questions about ethnographic authority and the politics of representation because they share similar concerns about the ways in which conventional methodologies enable researchers working from within the academy to authoritatively speak for the Other (56, 59). A particularly challenging aspect of my project was that the women whose creative work I was investigating often anchor their artistic research in traditional cultural practices that can provide access to embodied experiences of spirituality. Such practices have existed throughout the world for thousands of years, yet their spiritual dimension, when not simply dismissed as a form of false consciousness, has been left entirely unexamined by post-structuralist analyses of cultural processes. By contrast, I have found in Indigenous research methodologies alternative theoretical frameworks that are inclusive of spirituality. Although the women involved in my project have developed diverse perspectives, the latter are often situated at the intersection of theatre, tradition, and ritual. Moreover, spirituality in their work often entails a connection to nature, and their teaching promotes a search for balance between human and non-human life that privileges experiential ways of knowing, which I relate in the third chapter of my book to an ecology of the body-in-life grounded in the organic processes of the natural world.
5 Embodied experience, spirituality, and relationship to the natural world are fundamental to Indigenous conceptions of knowledge, and for Indigenous scholars the purpose of research is “not the production of new knowledge per se” (Denzin et al., 14), but the development of pedagogical, artistic, political, and ethical perspectives guided by Indigenous principles and informed by the conviction that “[t]he central tensions in the world today go beyond the crises in capitalism and neoliberalism’s version of democracy” (13). For according to Native Canadian, Hawaiian, Maori, and American Indian pedagogy, “[t]he central crisis [. . .] is spiritual, ‘rooted in the increasingly virulent relationship between human beings and the rest of nature’” (Grande, qtd. in Denzin 13). In response to this crisis, Indigenous activists propose a “respectful performance pedagogy” that “works to construct a vision of the person, ecology, and environment” compatible with Indigenous worldviews (Denzin 13). There are important parallels between such a conception of pedagogy and the teachings of the women involved in my project, especially since experience as a way of knowing is central to their post-theatrical approaches to performance, which often cross the boundaries of aesthetic and ritual performance.
6 Linking experiential ways of knowing to cultural practice and spirituality has significant implications for research itself: in her book Kaandossiwin: How We Come to Know, Kathleen E. Absolon (Minogiizhigokwe) describes Indigenous ways of searching for knowledge by stating: “[W]e journey, we search, we converse, we process, we gather, we harvest, we make meaning, we do, we create, we transform, and we share what we know. Our Spirit walks with us on these journeys. Our ancestors accompany us” (168). Absolon relates hunting for knowledge to ethics instilled in the land and transmitted across generations, and points out that “Indigenous ethics are implied in life itself and exercised through the teachings” (25). During my interview with Cree performer, director, and writer Floyd Favel, who worked with Rena Mirecka, a key founding member of Grotowski’s Laboratory Theatre, we discussed Western cultural constructions of the Indian Warrior, which Favel contrasted with the Native American warrior ethic as a commitment to taking care of others within a communal society.
7 Substituting the actions of searching, gathering, harvesting, creating, transforming, and sharing for the notions of fieldwork, informants, data collection, and the dissemination of research outcomes simultaneously foregrounds the embodied dimension of the research process and the researcher’s responsibility for practicing her craft and developing her expertise ethically. From this perspective, the researcher is cast in the role of the ethical warrior/care-giver, which is inevitably more demanding than playing the stock character of the academic. Since the call of Indigenous scholars to change research from within the academy can be perceived as an impossible task, it is helpful to be reminded by Bagele Chilisa that it is precisely because “all research is appropriation” that the way in which it is conducted always has consequences. She points out that when “benefits accrue to both the communities researched and the researcher,” conducting research can be reconfigured as a two-way transformative process that she identifies as “reciprocal appropriation” (22). More productive collaborations between Indigenous and non-Indigenous researchers might thus be on the horizon if we can learn from each other how to respectfully engage in reciprocal appropriation. Absolon stresses that “[t]he academy is being pressured to create space for Indigenous forms of knowledge production, and change is occurring,” which leads her to contend: “Without a doubt we continue to establish channels to have an impact on making Indigenous ways of knowing, being and doing a solid methodological choice within the academy” (166- 67). Creating space for such epistemological and methodological possibilities will entail resisting dominant theoretical frameworks that pre-determine research outcomes, and acknowledging that each step of the research process is part of a larger collective journey. How we come to know might then perhaps no longer be experienced as a competition for knowledge between individuals striving for academic recognition, but as a relational process dependent on mutual trust, collaboration, and healing.