Indigenous Autoethnography

8/10/2019 Indigenous Autoethnography

1/33

http://jce.sagepub.com/Ethnography

Journal of Contemporary

http://jce.sagepub.com/content/43/4/456Theonline version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0891241613508148

11 December 20132014 43: 456 originally published onlineJournal of Contemporary Ethnography

Paul WhitinuiExperiencing ''Self'' as a Native Method of Inquiry

Indigenous Autoethnography: Exploring, Engaging, and

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

found at:can beJournal of Contemporary EthnographyAdditional services and information for

http://jce.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://jce.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://jce.sagepub.com/content/43/4/456.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Dec 11, 2013OnlineFirst Version of Record

- Jul 9, 2014Version of Record>>

at University of Huddersfield on July 9, 2014jce.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Huddersfield on July 9, 2014jce.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://jce.sagepub.com/http://jce.sagepub.com/http://jce.sagepub.com/http://jce.sagepub.com/content/43/4/456http://jce.sagepub.com/content/43/4/456http://www.sagepublications.com/http://jce.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://jce.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://jce.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://jce.sagepub.com/content/43/4/456.refs.htmlhttp://jce.sagepub.com/content/43/4/456.refs.htmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://jce.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/12/10/0891241613508148.full.pdfhttp://jce.sagepub.com/content/43/4/456.full.pdfhttp://jce.sagepub.com/http://jce.sagepub.com/http://jce.sagepub.com/http://jce.sagepub.com/http://jce.sagepub.com/http://jce.sagepub.com/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://jce.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/12/10/0891241613508148.full.pdfhttp://jce.sagepub.com/content/43/4/456.full.pdfhttp://jce.sagepub.com/content/43/4/456.refs.htmlhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://jce.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://jce.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.sagepublications.com/http://jce.sagepub.com/content/43/4/456http://jce.sagepub.com/


2/33

Journal of Contemporary Ethnography

2014, Vol. 43(4) 456487

The Author(s) 2013

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/0891241613508148

jce.sagepub.com

Article

IndigenousAutoethnography:

Exploring, Engaging, andExperiencing Self as aNative Method of Inquiry

Paul Whitinui1

Abstract

Tirohanga Whnui (Abstract): Traditional knowledge systems have been at thecore of our existence as indigenous peoples since time immemorial. As anoral/aural-based society, our ancestors frequently engaged in opportunitiesto not only test their knowledge at different times and in different situations

but also to recall knowledge through the art of story-telling. This paperseeks to (re)position autoethnography from an indigenous perspective. Thiswill be achieved by referring to autoethnography as a culturally informedresearch practice that is not only explicit to Mori ways of knowing butcan be readily validated and legitimated as an authentic Native methodof inquiry. Grounded within a resistance-based discourse, indigenousautoethnography aims to address issues of social justice and to developsocial change by engaging indigenous researchers in rediscovering their own

voices as culturally liberating human-beings. Implicit in this process is alsothe desire to ground ones sense of self in what remains sacred to usas indigenous peoples in the world we live, and in the way we choose toconstruct our identity, as Mori.

Keywords

indigenous autoethnography, Native inquiry, Mori, self, identity,difference, culture

1University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand

Corresponding Author:

Paul Whitinui, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.

Email: [email protected]

JCE

43

4

10.1177/0891241613508148Journal of Contemporary EthnographyWhitinuiresearch-article

2013

at University of Huddersfield on July 9, 2014jce.sagepub.comDownloaded from
mailto:[email protected]://jce.sagepub.com/http://jce.sagepub.com/http://jce.sagepub.com/http://jce.sagepub.com/mailto:[email protected]


3/33

Whitinui 457

Mihimihi (Formal Greeting)

Tihei Mauri Ora Behold there is life

E te Atua, tnkoe To God, greetings

E ngmaunga, tnkoutou To our mountainsgreetings

E ngawa, tnkoutou To our riversgreetings

E ngMarae, tnkoutou To our Maraegreetings

E ngmate To the dead

Haere ki te wkinga Go to your true home

Haere ki te kinga tuturu o tttouMtua

Go to the real home of our Father

Haere, haere, haere atu Farewell, farewell, farewellpiti hono ttai hono The lines have been joined

Te hunga mate ki te hunga mate The dead to the dead

Te hunga ora ki te hunga ora The living to the living

Nreira, e rangatira m Greetings, esteemed friends

Ka nui te koa, me te hari I am very happy

Kua huri mai ttou i tni r that we have gathered today

Ehara ahau i te tangata mohio ki tekrero, otire tika ana kia mihi atu

I am not a speaker but it is right that Ishould greet you

Ko Pohue, ko Emiemi, ko Tangitu ngmaunga

My mountains are Pohue, Emiemi, andTangitu

Ko Puhi te tangata Puhi are my people

Ko Taitimu te whare tpuna Taitimu resides memories of ourancestors

Ko Mtaatua te waka Mtaatua is our ancestral canoe

Ko Kaeo me Pupuke ngawa Pupuke and Kaeo are our traditionalrivers

Ko Whangaroa te moana Whangaroa is our ocean waters

Ko Tahwai, ko Te Huia, Paparore ngMarae

Tahwai, Te Huia, and Paparore ourtraditional meeting places

Ko NgPhi ki Whangaroa me TeAupuri ngiwi

I descend from the nation of NgPhiin the Whangaroa region and TeAupuri tribes

Ko Ngtiuru me Ngtikurnghap Ngtiuru and Ngtikurare myassociated tribal affiliations

NWhakatne ahau, engari, keitepoti e noho ana

I hail from Whakatne, but I now live inDunedin, New Zealand

Ko Pora Whitinui ahau My name is Paul WhitinuiNreira, tnkoutou, tnkoutou,

tnkoutou katoaGreetings one and all!11

http://jce.sagepub.com/http://jce.sagepub.com/http://jce.sagepub.com/http://jce.sagepub.com/


4/33

458 Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 43(4)

Tmatanga Krero (Introduction)

Indigenous autoethnography as a distinct Native2 method of inquiry

requires that as a person of Mori3

descent, I respectfully introduce who Iam (social identity) and where I am from (place identity). Similarly, andfrom an indigenous epistemological approach, there exist other broader con-structs and meanings associated with our essence as cultural human

beingsesoterically, metaphysically, and spiritually (Shirres 2000; Meyer2005). Hauge (2007) describes three identity theories worthy of mention:

place-identity theory, social identity theory, and identity process theory. Suchtheories invariably locate self holistically and as a reciprocal interaction

between people and the physical environment (Hauge 2007). Hauge (2007)describes this as a transactional view of settings where variations of place(i.e., sense of place, place attachment, place identity, place dependence, etc.)are constantly influencing a persons perceptions, experiences, personality,and cognition. Given the relative ease of accessing technology (i.e., comput-ers, iPhones, iPads, mobile phones, and other virtual interactive forms ofcommunication) in todays world, meeting indigenous peoples face-to-face(kanohi-ki-te-kanohi) is a culturally preferred and legitimate means of com-municating, engaging, and interacting with indigenous peoples on their terms

(Hemara 2000; Mead 2003; Shirres 2000; Wilson 2009). Durie (2001b)describes seven different kinds of whnau (family) constructs where self asan indigenous experience can be considered and constructed differently, suchas whnau as kin (based on traditional ancestors), whnau as shareholders ofland (land held among family members), whnau as friends (different kindsof associations outside of the immediate family), whnau-based meetings(family meetings discussing matters specific to their needs and aspirations),whnau as neighbours (neighbourly family members), whnau households

(income dependant families), and virtual whnau (family we rarely see).Whnau as an indigenous construct is layered by a number of different humaninteractions specific to ones place, identity, environment, and communityand influenced significantly by the cultural collective. Of particular concernare families (and individuals within) who are disconnected, lack identity, andare isolated and categorized as disadvantaged, underserved, and vulnerablemany of whom we know very little about (Durie 2001a). To understand howothers are affected, we must create appropriate spaces, approaches, and meth-

ods for others voices to be heard.Discovering, exploring, coconstructing, and narrating notions of self asan indigenous person must take into account an individuals ability to articu-late meaning in relation to why their world is socially, culturally, and politi-cally different as an indigenous person. It is, therefore, important to ask how

http://jce.sagepub.com/http://jce.sagepub.com/http://jce.sagepub.com/


5/33


6/33


7/33


8/33


provides a source of verisimilitude or a quality of seeming to be true orrelatable;

personal is both cultural and political.

Freeman (1997) also argued that

through narrative, that one is in a position to survey the whole that is ones life, andit is only through such a survey that there exists the possibility of obtaining thetruth about that life, indefinite and ungraspable though it is. (cited in Bochner2001, 151)

Similarly, a chapter by Ellis and Bochner (2003, 733) titled Autoethnography,Personal Narrative, Reflexivity: Researcher as Subject asked, how importantis it to make the researchers own experience a topic of investigation in its ownright. In this instance, using a systematic sociological introspection and emo-tional recall to understand ones personal experience as stories, more so thanmere essays, is considered a far more meaningful way to understand and (re)connect with people and the world they live within (Bochner 2001; Ellis andBochner 2003). In addition, Ellis and Bochner (cited in Denzin and Lincoln2000, 73940) identified with a number of alternative methods of engaging

self, including narratives of self (Richardson 1994); personal experiencenarratives, or self-stories (Denzin 1989); first-person accounts (Ellis 1998);

personal essays (Krieger 1991); ethnographic short stories (Ellis 1995); writingstories (Richardson 1997); complete member research (Alder and Alder 1987);auto-observation (Alder and Alder 1994); opportunistic research (Riemer1977); personal ethnography (Crawford 1996); literary tales (Van Maanen1988); lived experience (Van Maanen 1995); radical empiricism (Jackson1989); socioautobiography (Zola 1982); autopathography (Hawkins 1993);

evocative narrative (Bochner, Ellis, and Tillmann-Healy 1997); personal writ-ing (DeVault 1997); reflective ethnography (Ellis and Bochner 1996); confes-sional tales (Van Maanen 1998); ethnographic memoirs (Tedlock 1991);ethnobiography (Lejeune 1989); autobiology (Payne 1996); collaborative auto-

biography (Brandes, 1982); emotionalism (Gubrium and Holstein 1997); expe-riential texts (Denzin 1997); narrative ethnography (Abu-Lughod 1993);autobiographical ethnography (Reed- Danabay 1997); ethnographic poetics(Marcus and Fischer 1986); Native ethnography (Obnuki-Tierney 1884);

indigenous ethnography (Gonzalez and Krizek 1994); and ethnic autobiogra-phy (Reed-Danabay 1997). Many of the examples cited by Ellis and Bochner(2000) demonstrate the depth of coming to know the self as a moral highground within a western paradigm. Notions of being indigenous or indeedNative are rarely (re)claimed within the process of what counts as



9/33

Whitinui 463

ethnography because the ideologies of knowing and how we come to knowprivy more so the observers account of lived experience within a global con-struct as to opposed to a seamless web of indigenous interactions.

Laurel Richardson (2003) argues that writing is a process of self-discov-ery and that writers have to 1) write as a way of learning more about yourselfand your topic with an emphasis on showing more than telling and 2) as amethod of discovery and analysis, in that, by writing in different ways wediscover new aspects of our topic and more importantly our relationship to it;each are mutually inclusive, not mutually exclusive. The evocative nature ofautoethnography is, as Richardson describes, highly personalized revealingones own texts, stories, lived experiences, and narratives. They are, however,

actual real events that authors have encountered that are duly staged by flesh-ing out characters, unusual phrasings, puns, subtexts, allusions, flashbacksand flash-forwards, tone shifts, synecdoche, dialogue, and interior monologue(Richardson 2003). Autoethnographic writing can also be considered as anhonest attempt of increasing the visibility of an authors life first-hand,whereby locating experiences of self are subsequently interpreted socially,culturally, and politically (Coffey 1999). This attempt addresses the problemof speaking about the Other by reclaiming ones self in the text, but it does

not necessarily address how we come to know what it means to be indigenousor explain what it means to be indigenous from within.In 2001, my Masters dissertation titled Growing Up: My Search for

Identity in the Sporting Experience described my personal sporting endeav-ors with regards to how sport contributed, both socially and culturally, to myidentity as an indigenous Mori male. The experiences of playing sport werenot just about striving to become a better athlete, fitting in or trying to win, theexperiences also revealed how sport, though considered a safe place to reside,actually masked my search for identity (Whitinui 2001). Expression of guilt,low confidence and self-esteem, lack of belonging and trust, as a result of vari-ous social and societal pressures (i.e., family, school, lower socioeconomicconditions) were rarely understood by others, least of all by me. In the wider

New Zealand context, participating in sport was considered a positive andaccepted part of growing up as a New Zealand teenager. It also supportedthe stereotypical view of building boys into men to enable them to contrib-ute positively to society. From a personal standpoint, and despite all the goodtimes I experienced playing sport, once I stopped playing competitive sport,

issues underpinning Who am I emerged more frequently.My limited self-awareness and understanding about my identity coupled

with a lack of understanding about my indigenous language and culturerevealed my lack of knowledge, knowing and understanding what being Moriactually meant. Exploring the interrelationality between sport, identity, and



10/33


culture from my own personal experiences often asked me to mask my identityas Mori (Whitinui 2001). Values such as whakawhanaungatanga (positiverelationships), tama toa (being strong in times of adversity), manaakitanga

(looking after others), papa kinga(positive home environment), nohoangatangata (community connectedness), whakaaro tahi (interactions), tohun-gatanga(relevant skills and expertise), whnau(family connectedness), wairua(spiritual connectedness), hinengaro (positive thoughts and feelings), tinana(physical capability and well-being), mtauranga(relevant knowledge), andehoa m (positive friends) were all around me, but not within, because my

primary focus while growing up was on playing sport (Whitinui 2001).Being able to reflect upon, describe, and explain these sporting experiences

using autoethnography constructed a better personal understanding about howthe institution and systemic role of sport co-opted and negotiated my identityas a Mori male (Whitinui 2001). Today there are a number of indigenousscholars engaged in using indigenous autoethnography as a tool to challengemisconceptions of others about their identity as indigenous peopleshistori-cally, socially, and politically (Houston 2007; Tomaseli, Dyll, and Francis2008). However, informed seemingly by a number of critical and indigenousdiscourses (Denzin, Lincoln, and Smith 2008), a number of indigenous

researchers have argued for a new way of communicating how indigenouspeoples see the world from their own world view (Battiste 2005; Martinez2008; Meyer 2005; Smith 1999; Wilson 2009). Alternatively, exploring orexpressing self has been described by some as narcissistic and an overindul-gence in personifying everything as opposed to unpacking how knowledgeabout self is structured and produced (i.e., post-structural discourses). Thisis not to say there is an eitheror way of speaking and engaging about selfas an indigenous person, but it does imply that knowledge and knowing selfhas in some way been influenced from within existing social contexts, struc-tures, and environments over time and should not be overlooked.

Te Anake Kupumahi (The Universal Singular)

Interpretive interactionism assumes that every human being is a universalsingular and that no individual is ever just an individual (Denzin 1989).

Nevertheless, every human person must be studied as a single instance ofmore universal social experiences and social processes (Sarte 1981). The per-

son, Sartre (1981, ix) states, is summed up and for this reason is universal-ized by his epoch, he in turn resumes it by reproducing himself as asingularity. In other words, every person is like every other person but likeno other person; and that all interpretative studies are in some way biographi-cal and historical that surrounds the subjects life experiences (Denzin 1989,



11/33

Whitinui 465

19). Such positions also relate to what Denzin (1989) refers to as the univer-sal singular defined by Jean-Paul Sartre (1981, 19) as follows:

Universal singulars are individuals who are a single instance of more universalsocial experiences and social processes. This approach recognises that allinterpretative studies are biographical and historical. They are always fitted to thehistorical moment that surrounds the subjects life experiences.

The idea of the universal singular from an indigenous perspective is notnovel concept; however, telling our stories is not necessarily the same ashow others tell or interpret their own stories. Stories for and about Mori

people often emerge from a genealogy of relationships concerning love,hardships, humor, struggle, war, and lived experiences. They are also aboutthe interconnectedness between whnau, hap, and iwi, and between all liv-ing organismspast, present, and futureand the meanings that come fromthose interactions (Jackson 2008). For example, A person may die but thensomeone else is born, so the whakapapa continues in the process of never-ending beginnings, explains Jackson (2008, 27). Similarly, using Onceupon a time . . . is a matter of perception because not only do all culturesdefine time differently, they also see time differently. Inferred are the threads

of finding ones own understanding in these new beginnings and cherishingwhat Jackson (2008) refers to, as our own intellectual tradition whereby weinvent new ways of knowing through new beginnings. Implicit in this comingto know is the overarching ethical question, Why do I need to know and whodeserves to know? By engaging in the (re)validation of being who we saywe are as Mori, we also seek to legitimate our stories through a process ofself-determination that is both liberating and empowering.

Indeed, to tell my story let alone show what I want to share as an

indigenous person, requires a deep sense of appreciation for the diversity ofindigenous peoples world views, moral codes, and culture (Rachels andRachels 2010). Therefore, indigenous autoethnography seeks to resist themore dominant ideologies by deconstructing and reconstructing various his-torical accounts. It also seeks clarity, socially and culturally, by constructingand materializing a new reality to protect who we are and why we are who wesay we are (Jones and Jenkins 2008a).

No Wai Krero Taute? (Whose Story Counts?)

At the age of six years, others knew me perhaps better than I knew myself andas I developed into my teenage years I became rather introverted, shy, andaloof. In some circles, I was considered a person not to be trusted and a bit of



12/33


a trouble-maker. Why? Because I often walked around with a rather sly smileon my face appearing to know things others didnt, which made others feelrather 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 werenot being answered. Moreover, I was consistently seeking an understandingabout my identity being Mori, which was often superseded by my inner needto enjoy life, play sport, keep out of harms way, and to be happy. Havingspent such a long time in the sporting culture, the question of what constitutesa Native story and how we discern what a Native way of knowing selfis became more pronounced. It effectively required me to delink myself froma whole host of dominant discourses and to spend more time reflecting on

what constitutes being an indigenous Mori human being. For example, whatwe hear, see, feel/sense, taste, and touch although typical of our everydaylives (and based on our own level of knowing and associations with family,land, culture, language, and traditions) required an intuitional cultural refram-ing. Therefore, how we choose to start a story is not only an importantdeterminant in how we place ourselves within, it also dependent upon howwe really see ourselves in the world we liveasking ourselves the followingquestions:

1. Who am I and where am I from?2. How well do I know myself as being an indigenous person?3. What do I believe in as an indigenous person?4. What angers me or lifts my spirits as an indigenous person?5. What are the rules of conduct I set for myself as I make my way in the

world and how do these rules relate to who I am as an indigenousperson?

6. What am I willing to defend as an indigenous person and what lengthsam I willing to go to defend it?

Answers to these questions from an indigenous world view are intended tohighlight some of the critical themes or values we are likely to hold aboutourselves and those we interact with. Indeed, to talk about an ethnographicself as a Native inquiry method is to also consider blending Te Ao Mori(The World of Mori) alongside Western knowledge constructs (Macfarlane,Blampied, and Macfarlane 2011). Macfarlane, Blampied, and Macfarlane

(2011, 12) states that

content cannot be considered without regard for context, as context provides theecology wherein people exercise their individuality within a set of social relationsand responsibilities. Thus throughout a blended process . . . oral and written,



13/33

Whitinui 467

indigenous-grounded and science-groundedinforms and guides the professionalpractice (or research). When these contributing factors manifest, a synergeticmomentum is likely to occur, a momentum that drives the process forward, like a

waka (canoe) upon the water.

Indigenous autoethnography by its very definition asks us to considerepistemological perspectives equally and to draw together self (auto), ethno(nation), and graphy (writing). It also asks researchers interested in thismethod to consider their own level of connectedness to space, place, time,and culture as a way of (re)claiming, (re)storing, (re)writing, and (re)patriat-ing our own lived realities as indigenous peoples. In many instances, merelytelling our stories is not sufficient; we must also be prepared to show howstories are lived in authentically as well as meaningfully ways.

It wasnt long ago that the lone ethnographer rode into the sunset in searchof his Native. After undergoing a series of trials, he encountered the objectof his quest in a distant land. There he underwent his rite of passage by endur-ing the ultimate ordeal of field work. After collecting the data, the loneethnographer returned home and wrote a true account of the culture(Rosaldo 1989). Similarly, Chimamanda Adichies (2009) TED (TechnologyEntertainment Design 2009) presentation entitled Danger of a Single Story

reminds us that being exposed to a single story is very dangerous, and thatweve got to open ourselves up to balanced stories in order to get a grasp ofthe world around us. Telling stories of living in a world that makes graveassumptions about ones culture, ability to communicate, write, think, feel,including social circumstances, can be very dangerous.

Our lives and our cultures are composed of overlapping stories. Inherent inevery story is the desire to find ones authentic voice, but if we only hear asingle story about another person or country, we risk a critical misunderstand-

ing of being able to truly relate to another persons story because we have noexperience or connection to that persons life. Finding truth in a single storytherefore requires that we are careful of judging specific contexts or usingapproaches that are only indicative of equating measures that are then rational-ized as a form of social and cultural criteria (Smith 1984). Alternatively, wecannot assume that one persons story is enough to crystalize, predict, or influ-ence the necessary or sustainable change we often seek in telling our storiesculturally and/or politically. Rather, we must conjure cultural criticism, produce

new social parameters, and reveal new sociological subjects (Clough 2000).Prentice (2003) suggests that telling our stories is a respectable way ofengaging with our realities and creates new truths of coming to know our-selves in our world. The Persian poet and philosopher Mowlana JalaluddinRumi once said, How many words the world contains! But all have one



14/33


meaning. When you smash the jugs, the water is one. Coming to know selfis something we all share, but how we do this requires cultures and society towillingly accept difference(s) in race, ethnicity, gender, age, and knowledge.

Mahi tetenga (Indigenous Autoethnography as a

Resistance Discourse)

Traditionally, authoethnography was commonly referred to as the insiderethnography, a qualitative research method whereby a researcher uses partici-

pant observation and interviews in order to gain a deeper understanding of agroups culturein that autoethnography focuses more on the writers subjec-

tive experience rather than the beliefs and practices of others (Hayano 1979).Autoethnography is commonly referred to as the insider ethnographyaqualitative research method in which a researcher uses participant observationand interviews in order to gain a deeper understanding of a groups culturein that autoethnography focuses on the writers subjective experience ratherthan the beliefs and practices of others (Hayano 1979). Autoethnography isnow widely used (though controversial) in performance studies, the sociologyof new media, novels, journalism, and communication, and applied fields such

as management studies, consumerism, nursing, counseling, psychology, etc.,because it elicits the following ethical and epistemological positions:

1. Truth likeness or trust worthiness refers to what makes what we do orwho we are authenticate or believable (Mead 2003);

2. Counterhegemonic discourse aims to resist colonial or Eurocentricways of knowingbased on critical pedagogy (Henry Giroux andPaulo Freire), organic intellectual (Antonio Gramsci), as well as com-municative rationale (Jrgen Habermas) that asks the critical ques-tions such as what is the answer and why do we think or do what wedo (Smith 1997);

3. Indigenous peoples want greater access to methods/approaches ofinquiry that are more closely aligned to their ways of knowing, doing,and being. For example, oral life histories, poetry, motifs, art, perfor-mance, and performativity (the enactment of speech, the norms,nuances, and nature of language used to tell our stories) (Butler 1997);

4. We are all culturally connected human beings with our own ways of

communicating what we think, know, understand, and experiencefrom within our own worlds (Meyer 2005);

5. Focuses on the quintessential notions of what it means to engage inbeing indigenous (Denzin, Lincoln, and Smith 2008).



15/33

Whitinui 469

Exploring self as a cultural and political valuebased method of inquiryseeks an implicit revisioning of critical (social justice tenants) and culturalresponsive pedagogies (political and moral purposes) by enacting a resis-

tance counterhegemonic discourse that enables indigenous peoples to narrateour own storied lives and as it pertains to restoring a cultural balance withothers and the environment.

Sparkes (2003) acknowledges that exploring and engaging self whenusing autoethnography is a consistent process of experimentation as well as a

process of breaking down often tightly secured boundaries. This, he argues,is juxtaposed within keeping various identities and selves separate, shored upand protected from swirling confusions we all experience in our own lives

(cited in Denison and Markula, 2003, 61). Sparkes crisis of representation (asign of the times in terms of conducting qualitative inquiry about self)emerged by differentiating his own writing of self and in the process of

privileging rigor over imagination, intellect over feelings, theories over sto-ries, and abstract ideas over concrete ones (Sparkes 2003). Seemingly, a formof conscious and critical praxis emerges from within to allow the ordinaryexperiential self to emerge as aware, engaged, and empowered.

Mahi Rangahau Mori (Researching Being Mori)

From an indigenous perspective, being born Mori is not a choice butrather an innate cultural marker that aligns my way of life specific to living inAotearoa, New Zealand. Being Mori is considered a gift, in that, as Mori,Papa-t--nuku (Earth Mother) and Ranginui (Sky Father) provides an indig-enous symbolic interaction of connecting the esoteric world with the meta-

physical world, and to ourselves as human beings.Our history lays claim to Tne-nui--rangi, who as one of the seventy-two

children of Papa-t--nuku and Ranginui, was responsible for creating the lifeprinciple of humankind and as a result brought forth our first known woman,Hine-ahu-one. Tne and Hine-ahu-one later gave birth to Hine-t-tama wherebysubsequent children were to follow (Robinson 2005). From various historicalrecords, Mori people first arrived in Aotearoa New Zealand around AD900and returned to numerous destinations in the Pacific (Walker 1990; Davidson1992). Through indigenous peoples oral life histories and whakapapa (gene-alogy), it was revealed that Mori did not all arrive at the same time as certain

anthropologists and historians claim (i.e., Percy Smith, Elsdon Best, and JohnWhite); nor did Mori arrive perilously, famished, or by chance, as variousdisplays of art depict. Rather, early Mori were considered excellent seafaringnavigators and explorers and were well equipped to endure and traverse longdistances at sea (Evans 1997). The time spent crossing the vast oceans also



16/33


propagated stronger social and cultural kinships, in that, it was not unusual forMori to share stories, songs, whakapapa (genealogy links), and to strategi-cally plan how best to proceed upon arrival. In many ways, early Mori were

visionaries and practiced for generations the art of tohungaism (i.e., ancientand scared ways of enacting customary practices) and shared specific exper-tise and crafts beneficial for the collective (Robinson 2005).

Interestingly enough, being Mori today is not merely about what we dothat makes us distinct to other indigenous peoples or indeed, non-Mori, butas Durie (2010) suggests, there is an innate need to focus more on our abilityto 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 thechanging nature of the world and our role as kaitiaki (i.e., guardians of theland). Not only do Mori consistently acknowledge the past, we also seek toconstruct 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 onlylook to self-determine our future as Mori but also to engage how we as acountry move forward as one nation.

In the search for understanding of who we as Mori and being able toreconnect who we are to our traditional ways of knowing helps to explain whywe 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 asdiverse indigenous communities are likely to live a more contemporary andurban lifestyle, live away from their turangawaewae (i.e., traditional home-lands), marae (traditional meeting houses), and whenua (i.e., family land), andless likely to be fully engaged in learning and practising their language,tikanga (customary practices), and kawa (customary protocols). Similarly, thenature of whnau (extended family) has significantly changed from one thatwas strongly based on a kinship system to one that is actively engaging cross-culturally, both here and abroad, and alongside many different cultures (Durie2001b). In addition, these sorts of trends also reflect the typical day-to-dayexperiences many Mori encounter in modern times. Perhaps of greaterimportance is that actually understanding these different kinds of experiencesand, in particular, how individuals reflect on their own unique lives as Moriis 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 success-fully align all Mori as being the same. Rather, we as Mori continue to createinnovative and alternative methods of looking at the world and our placewithin. As a Native researcher, validation is determined by a researchers

background and tribal group membership (Hayano 1979). Locating self as a



17/33

Whitinui 471

Native researcher is a deeply personal one, whereby culture, as part of onesjourney in life, is framed by our own perceptions and experiences. Over thepast twenty years, Kaupapa Mori research has become a culturally relevant

and integral approach to interrogating the methods we use as both Mori andindigenous researchers (Bishop 1995, 1997, 1998b, 2005; Pihama, Cram, andWalker 2002; Smith 1997; Smith 1996, 1999, 2005).

Mahi Kaupapa Mori ((Re)positioning of Kaupapa

Mori Theorizing)

Over the past twenty-five years, there has been a steady increase in the number

of Mori researchers attaining either a masters or PhD qualification (Ng Paeo te Maramtanga 2010). As a result, research that reflects a Mori world viewthat is inclusive of ways we engage in coming to know are more prevalent;and in a time of much economic uncertainty, eagerly sought. For example, ahui (Mori gathering) process is about bringing people together for a com-mon purpose and is a distinct way of engaging people to make decisions col-laboratively for the benefit of the tribe (Bishop 1998a). More often than not,however, Mori-based research has been viewed by Mori people with unen-

viable suspicion and at times even resentment, because there is a notion thatresearch is more about Mori as opposed to working with Mori.Today, new forms of critical and indigenous methods have emerged to

counter the continual misrepresentation, misuse, and misappropriation ofindigenous knowledge (Denzin, Lincoln, and Smith 2008). Smith (1997) forexample employs a Kaupapa Mori methodology as an intervention strategyto reflect the Mori experience in research more as a war of position. Fromthis position, such an intervention requires that Mori engage in western dis-courses using the resistive notions of conscientization, resistance, and trans-formative praxis(Freire 1972) to highlight how systemic or structural powercontinues to deny Mori access to their rights to self-determination in allareas of society (Smith 1997). Grappling with these sorts of transformationalideas also suggest that the politics of liberating forms of research must beginwith the desires, aspirations, and dreams of those individuals and groups whohave been excluded by the larger ideological, economic, and political forcesthat govern our society (Denzin and Lincoln 2000). For example, the develop-ment of cultural studies has often been defined through its analysis of culture

and power, by expanding its critical reading to analyze how power informsissues of race, gender, class, ethnicity, and other social formations. Althoughthe questions posed within this discipline identify who produces, regulates, orengages in the social struggle, the failure to empower indigenous peoples toelf-determine their own futures remains glaringly apparent (Smith 1997).



18/33


Indigenous autoethnography in one sense encapsulates both western andindigenous forms of knowing, yet in some ways neither of them. From a Moriworld view, the question of what counts as Mori knowledge often remains an

abstract idea, where we apply a strategy or approach (e.g., kaupapa Mori) andthen through our own association with mainstream academic institutions applyit naively to a western or colonial and postcolonial paradigms, such as sociologyor anthropology. Smith (1999, 119) argues that research has been inextricablylinked to European imperialism and colonialism because imperialism frames theindigenous experience. As a response, indigenous peoples must respond byreclaiming our own research agendas by repatriating our cultural thinking,knowledge, and knowing. From a western perspective, Guba and Lincoln (1994)

presented the notion of competing paradigms, where quantitative scientistswere considered relatively disinterested in peoples experiences and wereinclined to act more as objective informers to various decision- and policy-mak-ing endeavors. At this level, an individuals voice becomes more like conven-tional benchmarks of positivistic rigor where the laws of science prevail andcontinue as the dominant discourse. Over time and with a growing level of criti-cal and cultural conscious engagement within the academy and from within ourown communities, new discourses have emerged that give voice and validity

to those previously omitted (Guba and Lincoln 1994).Charles Royal (1998a) during his time working at Te Wnanga-o-Raukawa(Mori-based tertiary institution in Aotearoa, New Zealand) as Director ofGraduate Studies proposed a new research paradigm called Te Ao Mrama(i.e., The World of Enlightenment as a new paradigm). The process, though con-sidered in its infant stage, asked the question, Which comes first, knowledge ofa phenomenon or the experience of a phenomenon? Similarly, can we reallyknow a phenomenon if we have not experienced it? Or can we really experiencea phenomenon if we have no knowledge of it? Royal (1998a) suggests there ismuch to discuss on these questions alone but more importantly, without anappropriate methodology how can new knowledge even emerge. A key position(Royal 1998a) is that new knowledge must also be aligned with a method that iscentered within a Mori world view, whereby the past informs the present andthe present helps to navigate our future. In this example, whakapapa (genealogy)is used as an analytical tool traditionally employed to help understand the nature,origin, connections, and trends related to a particular phenomenonas anorganic process. Within this field of study, the whakapapa (genealogy) tool elic-

its certain values and beliefs that can be answered from many different positionsand contributes more coherently to understanding Te Ao Mrama (our reality).

According to Royal (1998a, 83-84), Te Ao Mrama perpetuates six keyconcepts: rangatiratanga (ability to bind [ranga] groups [tira] together),manaakitanga (ability to mutually express mana toward each other),



19/33

Whitinui 473

whnaungatanga(ability to denote the interconnectedness of all things), tohun-gatanga(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). Creatingknowledge and coming to know from this position is more about internalizedways of knowing (self) and driven by the quality (i.e., lived or learnt experi-ences) of ones inner wisdom, consciousness, and passionate participation(Royal 2009a). The question, therefore, of how as Mori do we locate our-selves within the research agenda often becomes one of considering ideas aboutour 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 withinand 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 indig-enous peoples make sense of self requires an interdisciplinary approach

because as indigenous peoples we intersect or cross a number of disciplineboundaries. 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 repre-sented as a Mori in a mainstream research context has been highly problematicbecause 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 aboutMori has been the inability for the research(ers) to acknowledge Mori as beingable 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 towork tirelessly to survive. Re-creating new realities under the gaze of territorialvalidity (Jones and Jenkins 2008a, 2008b) where tribal consensus determineswhat counts as knowledge posits a post-structural means of reinterpreting our

past. The four directions (i.e., decolonization, healing, transformation, andmobilization) as well as the four conditions of being (i.e., survival, recovery,development, and self-determination) offer some direction in how everyonecan contribute to the futures of indigenous peoples (Durie 2010).

Linda Tuhiwai Smith (1999, 11617) suggests that enabling Mori andindigenous peoples to (re)claim, (re)connect, and (re)align their own existencein a modern world today is necessary in helping to strengthen community and

whnau resilience. Resilience is also about the ability of the individual tocope, manage, and bounce back in times of crisis, dislocation, grief, loss, hard-ship, and trauma. This can also relate to a loss of identity, self, and culturewithin a world focused on material wealth and societal regulation. Revealingself as a portal to expressing inner wisdom is not an easy concept to



20/33


understand or practice. Nevertheless, the opportunity for an individual toexpress self in a creative, empowering, and personally satisfying manner canfoster the sharing of intellectual wisdom that can help to illuminate inner

wisdom.In the world of Mori, we often refer to this form of expression as mana

(integrity), in that not only is everyone born with mana, everyone has theright to express mana as well as the responsibility to care for mana. Aliteral definition of mana is that it refers to ones ability to express integrity,respect, and love at the highest level; similarly, mana is also something welearn to appreciate and develop from within. From this position we can eitherenhance or diminish our mana depending on how we choose to express

ourselves (Royal 2009b). Indigenous researchers are consistently working toknow more about themselves and to protect their mana. For example, itis not uncommon for many indigenous researchers to engage in framing theirresearch using an indigenous methodology (e.g., Kaupapa Mori) and to vali-date their research as being informed by indigenous peoples. However,understanding peoples lived and learnt experiences, such conventionalmethods may not always fit when exploring or examining an indigenous per-sons single life. Richer and deeper descriptions about an individuals percep-

tions or experiences must be outside a researchers primary need to merelygather information about people and to make comparisons related to causeand effect. It requires a deep appreciation for an individuals core cultural andsocial essence of how they see themselves in the world they live and why.

Positioning ourselves as Mori with/in the research agenda requires anunderstanding that the self is a reflection of the collective as we are alwaysinfluenced by a myriad of social and cultural engagements and interactions(Eketone 2008). However, writing an autoethnographic account may be con-sidered as whakahh (vain, conceited, arrogant, opinionated, and officious)

because it appears on the surface to consider ones own individual view of theworld exclusive of the collective. Furthermore, many Mori researchers maywell avoid talking about their own personal experiences because questionsabout who do you represent when we speak about self is highly contest-able within and across different tribal contexts or settings.

Manning (2010, 11819) argues that the body is always more than one andis consistently active in experiencing moments, objects, associations, cre-ations, feelings, expressions, even life in the now-ness and that the body is

infinitely creating opportunities to engage the actual with the virtual.From this perspective, life expresses the individuals feelings as a collectiveweb of bodies-becoming across life and in the journey of ones being

becoming that can never be resolved individually (Manning 2010). Similarly,Ricoeur (2010, xx) reminds us that even when one speaks of ones self, one



21/33

Whitinui 475

cannot subsist from discovering the Other in ones self . . . for it is onlywhen we translate our own wounds into our own language of strangers andretranslate 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 humanbeings, cultures, and tongues. The task of translating these interactions is anendless one in that humanity exists in the plural mode, and under the guiseof plurality, language operates as a peculiar human trait. In many ways, theidea of translating self is actually the act of taking up and letting go, ofexpressing ones self and welcoming others instills a sense of hope towardworking to understand the many nuances of human life (Ricoeur 2007).

Joness (2010, 60) reflections on Paul Riceours account of narrative iden-

tity also suggests that conceiving of life as a narrative unity gives us a narra-tive identity which provides the response to the all-important question Whoam I? which must be posed and answered in order that we may then ask, Howshould I live? Self-hood is achieved via a deep connection to all that one hasexperiencedpositively or negatively, and assigned to an inner belief that lifewill, in some way, be much better once one departs. In 2011 and 2012, theAERA (American Educational Research Association) themes Inciting theSocial Imagination (New Orleans, Louisiana) as well as To Know Is Not

Enough (British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada) provided the space to recog-nize the contribution indigenous peoples knowledge has made to addressingsome of the ongoing problems, challenges and issues facing many educatorstoday. Although, not readily acknowledged in many of the sessions I attendedat both conferences, autoethnographic accounts were being readily shared andapplied via stories, narratives, autobiographies, critical race testimonies, andoral histories. The preservation of self and fostering the continual narrative ofself allowed individual voices to speak about what we dont know aboutindigenous students, and how stories actually create the dialectic space to betterunderstand indigenous student ways of engaging and learning. The narrativesof indigenous peoples live on in the way we honor our tupuna (ancestors), theirlands, their values, their spirit, and their vision. To locate ones self as aNative Mori researcher within the research is in many ways enacting thehopes and dreams of our ancestors to continue to survive, thrive, and prosper.

As indigenous researchers, we consistently seek to undertake research thatbenefits 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 andreprioritizing what is important to being indigenous emerges. To relocate my-self as a Native Mori researcher also asks that I engage in a higher levelof critical and cultural consciousness about my role as an indigenousresearcher (Bishop 2005; Smith 1997). Moreover, knowing why and how one



22/33


chooses to locate ones self in various and specific cultural settings is animportant consideration prefacing the use of an indigenous autoethnographicmethod of inquiry.

Mahi Tangata Whenua (Locating Self as a

Native Mori Researcher)

In my previous role as a postgraduate coordinator, I have encouraged manypostgraduate students to include in their writing(s) something that connectstheir research to who they are and how their research relates to their placein the world. The first question I often encounter is Do you mean some-

thing about who I am or, something about me that relates to my research?Both questions seek to empower students to validate who they are withintheir research and, second, to become authors of their own destiny by con-structing meaning about self that relates to people, place, and power(Manning 2009). Indigenous peoples have a history of struggle through the

process of colonization and have much to contribute in what we dont knowabout indigenous peoples human behavior, endeavor, and resilience.

From a personal perspective, the question Who I am? is just as impor-

tant as how the research will benefit the collectivepower sharing of selfas opposed to only being concerned about ones own self-interest (Bishop2005). These questions, who you are and how your research relates toyour place in the world, propose an ethical and moral responsibility thatenables indigenous peoples to tell their own stories and to be ever mindful ofthe multiple sites of struggle shaping ones indigenous self. Historically,research for many indigenous peoples has been a dirty word (Smith 1999);however, the benefit of (re)engaging in cultural sites or scared spaces hasenabled indigenous peoples to rewrite their history and to reclaim an indige-nous world view by reflecting on some fundamental questions:

Who am I?Why am I here?Who are we?What is real?What is knowledge?How may knowledge be applied usefully?

How is knowledge transmitted?Who has access to certain knowledge?How does one interpret knowledge?With whom do I belong and share such perspectives?



23/33

Whitinui 477

Linda Tuhiwai Smiths (1998) keynote address at the Te Oru Rangahau:Mori Research and Development Conference titled Towards the NewMillennium: International Issues and Projects in Indigenous Research

included examples, experiences, and events of how the adverse effects ofmodern forms of imperialism (i.e., neoliberalism, globalization, privatiza-tion, and user-pays) of the mid-1980s adversely affected the Mori laborworkforce via redundancies in the work place and restructuring processes.Such ideas were also consistent in perpetrating the well-being of her com-munity, and although the word I was rarely used, close to home exam-

ples explicitly inferred how the larger tribal collective, of which she remainsan integral part, had been impacted (i.e., poverty, illnesses, and underachiev-

ing). Being able to engage in the multiple sites of struggle signals a needto engage in research that is inclusive of Mori world views, processes, andapproaches and to critically engage in the misrepresentation and misuse ofMori identities (Smith 1998). Therefore, representing our lives within theresearch agenda is to tell our own stories so that as indigenous peoples wecan self-determine our future more positively in a modern world. But howwe see ourselves is often a challenging proposition for many because itrequires individuals to unpack the many levels of colonization and to recon-

struct new understandings about ones indigenous self, culture, and identity.In this regard, indigenous autoethnography as a resistance-based discourseis deeply concerned for addressing indigenous peoples struggles, hardships,and challenges from culturally and politically explicit positions.

Mahi Anga Whakaaro (Creating a Native

Method: Framing Indigenous Autoethnography)

Finding culturally appropriate spaces to tell stories face to face about our-selves is no longer prevalent in contemporary society because of the manyforums in which to communicate. Similarly, from a Mori perspective,whakatauk (sayings/proverbs) remind us that as Mori, speaking about our-selves is often regarded as whakahh (vain), for example:

Kore te kumara e whaakii ana tna reka (The kumara [sweet potato] does not sayhow sweet it is);

Waiho te mihi m te tangata (Leave your praises for someone else).

Such whakatauk also illustrate the depth of understanding that highlights theimportance of listening, sharing, learning, and humility about ones knowledge(Kana and Tamatea 2006). How, then, should an indigenous person develop a



24/33


Native method of inquiry that allows one to speak but at the same time doesnot elicit the characteristics of being whakahh. This is a challenging consider-ation and one that takes years of practice, poise, and patience. Questions to con-

sider 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 indig-enous autoethnography from a Native position and include the followingguiding statements:

1. Attempts should be made to provide an air of equality as opposedto an air of superiority by becoming a full participant in how knowl-

edge and knowing is shaped, construed, negotiated, and included asresearch;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 criticalaspect of sharing who we are as indigenous peoples.

As a result, four key attributes inform the framing of indigenous autoeth-nography intended to support other Native methods of inquiry (Bishop1996, 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 protectones own uniqueness. This implies that writingabout our own storied lives moves beyond simply validating

knowledge to one of celebrating who we are as Mori. Implicit inthe ability to protect is the need to maintain who we are, includingour differences, identity, language, culture, and ways of knowing,doing, and being.



25/33

Whitinui 479

2. Ability to problem-solveenables an indigenous person to considermaking a number of adjustments that help to craft a story that iswell-reasoned, trustworthy and authentic. This position considers that

making adjustments is also about coming to know more about selfas it reflects being indigenous in a world that is constantly changingand evolving. Many of our own stories relate to struggle, hardship,loss, social justice, hope, preservation, potential, renewal, resistance,resilience, reclamation, revitalization, reconciliation, truth, the land,responsibility, reciprocity, and human values.

3. Ability to providegreater access to a wide range different meth-ods, scenarios, experiences that not only support our social, cultural

and spiritual well-being as Mori, but also supports the wider indig-enous collective, including whnau, iwi, hap, marae, and commu-nity. Access also relates to (re)engaging in environments that help toself-determine, (re)connect, (re)discover or inform ways of coming toknow our identity, uniqueness and potential as Mori.

4. Ability to healis achieved when learning about self is seen tobe critical to ones existence and survival as a collective of culturalhuman beings. From this position, writing about self is considered

a culturally dynamic, creative, and powerful learning point of differ-ence that moves toward a more universal, performance/participatory,Native way of knowing and becoming that is relevant in todaysworld (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.Framing Autoethnography as a Native Method of Inquiry.



26/33


These four attributes are not intended to create a prescriptive way ofdefining how we research identity, culture, and self as indigenous

peoples. Rather, the framework seeks to pursue an inner balance in the way

we explore, describe, connect, interpret, and share our uniqueness as indig-enous peoples. The notion of replenishment suggests that as indigenous

peoples we are innately and inextricably linked to the people (tangata) andthe environment (whenua). Indeed, from a more socio-cultural and ecologi-cal position, people and the environment nourish, sustain and protect ourvery existence as human beings, and through our engagement with both, weare able to strengthen our resolve to enact the other four attributes that enableindividuals to be culturally engaged, well and balanced. The impact of each

also replenishes ones inner capacity and capability to interact socially, men-tally, emotionally, and spirituallywith respect and integrity (see Figure 2).

The aforementioned process is a self-reflexive and (w)holistic processintended to construct ongoing dialogue and to (re)locate, (re)situate and (re)

construct self with/in the research agenda. Through a process of sharing,listening, learning, and developing mutual understandings, a number of cul-tural insights, reflections, and learnings emerge as cultural sites of encounteror potential that may help to repair or heal personal hardships and challenges.The essence of indigenous autoethnography is to, therefore, present a cultural

Figure 2.Indigenous Autoethnography: A Culturally Explicit and InformedResearch Practice.



27/33

Whitinui 481

way of being captured, in the Mori words mauri t, mauri ohooho, and mauriora (stand tall, be attentive, and keep well). This asks that we always remem-

ber who we are, where we come from, and to work for the collective well-

being of our iwi, hap, and whnau, marae, and community. A well-knownwhakatauk 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

He Whakaaro Whakamutunga (Final Thoughts)

The truth about stories (King 2003) is so much more than merely talkingabout being Mori, Native, or indigenous; but rather it is a journey of (re)connecting with specific cultural sites, spaces, and struggles that relate to ourfluid past, present, and hopes for the future. Indigenous autoethnography fromthis perspective is therefore about reclaiming our indigenous voice, visibility,and vision (Battiste 2000; Smith 2005) as indigenous peoples in the researchagenda. This can only be achieved successfully by understanding that learningabout self as an indigenous person relates to valuing relationships with the

people and the environment. Linda Smith (1999) argues that diversitystrengthens a tribehomogeneity kills it. Indigenous autoethnography seeksto strengthen and clarify how we as indigenous peoples want to live in theworld today. Ultimately, this means speaking about self creates new knowl-edge; meanings and possibilities that inform how being Mori, Native, orindigenous is different. However, this coming to know is not restricted bywhether one has or has not engaged in a specific community, way of life, or

experience but rather the ability of the individual to think, uncover, connect,synthesize, interpret, explain, and present ways of how self is represented.

Indigenous autoethnography as a resistance-discourse is intended toinspire people to take action toward a legitimate way of self-determiningones collective and cultural potential. Indigenous autoethnography also aimsto construct stories that invoke a deep sense of appreciation for multiplerealities and lives concerning indigenous peoples ways of knowing. Asindigenous autoethnography continues to develop, distinctions between our

potential as cultural human beings and what is required to protect our exis-tence as Mori, Native, or being indigenous will thrive.

The need to coconstruct discursively our own individuality and connec-tion to place becomes even more significant when claiming our indigenoushuman rights to land, lakes, rivers, forests, and streams (Kapa 2009; Manning



28/33


2009), and it requires a mind shift in our own lived realities as indigenouspeoples. The need to challenge injustices as well as our own understandingsabout ourselves as indigenous peoples remains ever present in asking why we

do the things the way we do and how these events or interactions influenceour connection to culture and our own way of life (Hooker 2008). Finally, thiswhakatauk (Mori proverb) by Hooker (2008, 16) proposes that indigenousways of knowing are, indeed, a dual reality that parallels the journey aboutcoming to know self, alongside the ability to be good in all that we do.

Ka Mutu Whakatauk(Concluding Mori Saying)

Mte whakaatu, ka mhio When we are shown, we come to know

Mte mhio, ka mrama When we know, we can come to understand

Mte mrama, ka ora When we understand, all will be well.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publi-cation of this article.

Notes

1. This is my mihimihi/pepeha (traditional greeting).2. Native refers to my place of origin as an indigenous Mori person.3. Mori are the indigenous peoples of Aotearoa-New Zealand.

4. Jones and Jenkins (2008a) chapter on,Re-thinking Collaboration: Working theIndigene-Colonizer Hyphen aims to reclaim an indigenous voice by includingthe indigenous name first followed by the hyphenated colonized word or term.

5. Whnau (immediate family relationships), hap (sub-tribe - interspersed familyrelationships), iwi (extended wider family relationships).

References

Adichie, C. 2009. Danger of a Single Story. TED (Technology Entertainment

Design). http://www.ted.com/talks/chimamanda_adichie_the_danger_of_a_sin-gle_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).

http://www.ted.com/talks/chimamanda_adichie_the_danger_of_a_single_story.htmlhttp://www.ted.com/talks/chimamanda_adichie_the_danger_of_a_single_story.htmlhttp://www.win-hec.org/docs/pdfs/Journal/Marie%20Battiste%20copy.pdfhttp://jce.sagepub.com/http://jce.sagepub.com/http://jce.sagepub.com/http://jce.sagepub.com/http://www.win-hec.org/docs/pdfs/Journal/Marie%20Battiste%20copy.pdfhttp://www.ted.com/talks/chimamanda_adichie_the_danger_of_a_single_story.htmlhttp://www.ted.com/talks/chimamanda_adichie_the_danger_of_a_single_story.html


29/33

Whitinui 483

Bishop, R. A. 1995. Freeing Ourselves from Neo-colonial Domination in Research:An Indigenous Approach to Creating Knowledge. Paper read at NZARE, atPalmerston North, New Zealand.

Bishop, R. A. 1996. Collaborative Research Stories: Whakawhanaungatanga.Palmerston North, New Zealand: Dunmore Press.Bishop, R. A. 1997. Mori Peoples Concerns about Research into Their Lives.

History of Education Review26 (1): 2541.Bishop, R. A. 1998a. Examples of Culturally Specific Research Practices: A Response

to Tillman and Lopez. Qualitative Studies in Education11 (3): 41934.Bishop, R. A. 1998b. Freeing Ourselves from Neo-colonial Domination in Research:

A Mori Approach to Creating Knowledge. Qualitative Studies in Education2(2): 199219.

Bishop, R. A. 2005. Freeing Ourselves from Neocolonial Domination in Research:A Kaupapa Maori Approach to Creating Knowledge. In The Sage Handbookof Qualitative Research, edited by N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln, 10938.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bishop, R. A. 2008. Te Kotahitanga: Kaupapa Maori in Mainstream Classrooms.InHandbook of Critical and Indigenous Methodologies, edited by N. K. Denzin,N. K. Lincoln, and L. T. Smith, 43958. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bishop, R. A., and T. Glynn. 1999. Culture Counts: Changing Power Relations inEducation. Palmerston North, New Zealand: Dunmore Press.

Bochner, A. P. 2001. Narrative Virtues. Qualitative Inquiry27 (2): 13157.Butler, J. 1997. Excitable Speech: A Politics of the Performative. London:Routledge.

Clough, P. 2000. Comments of Setting Criteria for Experimental Writing.Qualitative Inquiry6 (2): 27891.

Coffey, A. 1999. The Ethnographic Self: Fieldwork and the Representation ofIdentity. London: Sage.

Davidson, J. M. 1992. The Polynesian Foundation. In The Oxford History of NewZealand, edited by Geoffrey W. Rice, 327. Auckland, New Zealand: Oxford

University Press.Denzin, N. K. 1989. Interpretive Interactionism (Vol. 16. Applied Social ResearchMethods Series). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Denzin, N. K., and Y. S. Lincoln. 2000. The Handbook of Qualitative Research. 2nded. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Denzin, N. K., Y. S. Lincoln, and L. T. Smith. 2008. Handbook of Critical andIndigenous Methodologies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Douglas, K., and D. Carless. 2013. A History of Autoethnographic Inquiry. InHandboook of Autoethnography, edited by S. H. Jones, T. Adams, and C. Ellis,

84106. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press.Durie, M. 2001a. Bicultural Practice for People Working in the Social Services.Auckland, New Zealand.

Durie, M. H. 2001b. Mauri Ora: The Dynamics of Mori health. Wellington, NewZealand: Oxford University Press.



30/33


Durie, M. H. 2004. Mori Achievement: Anticipating the Learning Environment.Paper read at Hui Taumata Mtauranga IV: Increasing the success for rangatahiin education insight, reflection and learning, at Turangi/Taupo.

Durie, M. H. 2010.Nga Tai Matatu: Tides of Maori Endurance. 4th ed. Melbourne,Australia: Oxford University Press.Eketone, A. 2008. Theoretical Underpinnings of Kaupapa Mori Directed Practice.

MAI Review(1):111.Ellis, C. 2004. The Enthnographic I: A Methodological Novel about Ethnography.

Walnut Creek: AtaMira Press.Ellis, C., and A. P. Bochner. 2003. Autoethnography, Personal Narrative,

Reflextivity: Researcher as Subject. In Collecting and Interpreting QualitativeMaterials, edited by N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ellis, C., and A. P. Bochner. 2006. Analyzing Analytic Autoethnography: AnAutopsy.Journal of Contemporary Ethnography35 (4): 42949.Evans, J. 1997.Nga Waka o Nehera. Auckland, New Zealand: Reed.Freire, P. 1972.Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin.Guba, E. G., and Y. S. Lincoln. 1994. Competing Paradigms in Qualitative Research.

InHandbook of Qualitative Research, edited by N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln,10517. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hauge, A. L. 2007. A Critical Comparison of Three Identity Theories.ArchitecturalScience Review50 (1): 4451.

Hayano, D. M. 1979. Auto-ethnography: Pardigms, Problems and Prospects.Human Organizations38 (1): 99104.

Hemara, W. 2000. Mori Pedagogies: A View of Literature. Wellington, NewZealand: New Zealand Council of Educational Research.

Heshusius, L. 1994. Freeing Ourselves from Objectivity: Managing Subjectivity orTurning to a Mode of Consciousness?Educational Researcher23 (3): 1222.

Hooker, M. 2008. Makawe: Gaining an Understanding of Tikanga for Hair.Springfield, Rotorua: M & J. Hooker.

Houston, J. 2007. Indigenous Autoethnography: Formulating Our Knowledge Our

Way.Australian Journal of Indigenous Education36:4550.Jackson, M. 2008. Restorying the Nation: Removing the Constancy of Terror.Paper read at Traditional Knowledge Conference 2008 Te Tatau Pounamu: TheGreenstone Door, Auckland, New Zealand.

Jones, L. 2010. Oneself as an Author. Theory, Culture & Society27 (5): 4968.Jones, A., and K. Jenkins. 2008a. Indigenous Discourse and The Material: A Post-

interpretative Argument. International Review of Qualitative Research 1 (2):12544.

Jones, A., and K Jenkins. 2008b. Rethinking Collaboration: Working with

the Indigene-Colonizer Hyphen. In Handbook of Critical and IndigenousMethodologies, edited by Y. S. Lincoln, N. K. Denzin, and L. T. Smith, 47186.Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Jones, S. H., T. A. Adams, and C. Ellis. 2013. Introduction: Coming to KnowAutoethnography as More Than a Method. In Handbook of Autoethnography,



31/33

Whitinui 485

edited by Stacy Holman Jones, Tony E. Adams, and Carolyn Ellis, 1748. WalnutCreek, CA: Left Coast Press.

Kana, F., and K. Tamatea. 2006. Sharing, Listening, Learning and Developing

Understandings by Engaging with Two Maori Communities Involved inEducation. Waikato Journal of Education12:920.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 Education25 (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 Assessmentin Bicultural Settings.New Zealand Journal of Psychology40 (2): 515.Manning, E. 2010. Always More Than One: The Collectivity of a Life.Body and

Society16 (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 thePossible Application of Place-Based Education Models. PhD thesis, VictoriaUniversity, 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 Studies8

(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 NativeEducation26 (1): 3043.

Prentice, R. 2003. Spiritualizing Pedagogy: Education as the Art of Working withthe Human Spirit. PhD thesis. Sunderland, England: University of Sunderland.

Rachels, J., and S. Rachels. 2010. The Elements of Moral Philosophy. 6th ed. NewYork: 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 InterpretingQualitative 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 & Society27 (5): 3748.

http://www.win-hec.org/docs/pdfs/Journal/Manulani%20Meyer.pdfhttp://www.win-hec.org/docs/pdfs/Journal/Manulani%20Meyer.pdfhttp://jce.sagepub.com/http://jce.sagepub.com/http://jce.sagepub.com/http://jce.sagepub.com/http://www.win-hec.org/docs/pdfs/Journal/Manulani%20Meyer.pdfhttp://www.win-hec.org/docs/pdfs/Journal/Manulani%20Meyer.pdf


32/33


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 OruRangihau 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, NewZealand.

Royal, C. 2009a. Te Kaimanga: Towards a New Vision for Matauranga Maori. InTe Manu Ao Seminar Series. Victoria University, Wellington.

Royal, C. 2009b. Te Kaimanga: Towards a New Vision for Matauranga. InDirectorship Public Seminar. Waipapa Marae, University of Auckland, Auckland.

Sarte, J. 1981. The Family Idiot: Gustave Flaubert, 1821-1827. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press.

Shirres, M. P. 2000. Te Tangata The Human Person. 3rd ed. Auckland, NewZealand: Accent.

Smith, G. H. 1997. The Development of Kaupapa Mori Theory and Praxis. PhDthesis, School of Education, University of Auckland, Auckland.

Smith, J. K. 1984. The Problem of Criteria for Judging Interpretative Inquiry.

Educational Evaluation and Policy Practice6 (4): 37991.Smith, L. T. 1996. Nga Aho O Te Kakahu Mataauranga: The Multiple Layers ofStruggle by Mori Education. PhD thesis, Auckland University, Auckland.

Smith, L. T. 1998. Towards the New Millennium: International Issues and Projectsin Indigenous Research. Paper read at Te Oru Rangahau: Mori Researchand Development Conference, at Massey University, Palmerston North, NewZealand.

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 ofUncertainty. In The Sage Book of Qualitative Research, edited by N. K. Denzinand Y. S. Lincoln, 85108. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Sparkes, A. 2003. Bodies, Identities and Selves. In Moving Writing: CraftingMovement in Sport Research, edited by J. Denison and P. Markula, 5171. NewYork: Peter Lang.

Tauroa, H. 1984. Moritanga in Practice. Auckland, New Zealand: Office of RaceConciliation.

Tomaseli, K. G., L. Dyll, and M. Francis. 2008. Self and Other: Auto-reflexive

and Indigenous Ethnography. In Handbook of Critical and IndigenousMethodologies, 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, NewZealand: Penguin.



33/33

Whitinui 487

Whitinui, P. 2001. Growing up Maori: My Search for Identity in the SportingExperience. Submitted for a Masters in Sport and Leisure, University ofWaikato, Hamilton, New Zealand.

Wilson, S. 2009.Research Is Ceremony: Indigenous Research Methods. Halifax, NS,Canada: Fernwood.

Author Biography

Paul Whitinui,EdD, is of the Mtaatua waka and its confederate tribes in the FarNorth of Aotearoa, New Zealand Ng Puhi and Ngti Kur. He is an associate pro-fessor 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 develop-ment and has published and presented on a range of topics broadly linked to issues

concerning culturally responsive pedagogies, successful schooling for Mori studentsin the 21st Century, treaty-related issues in education, Mori health, resiliency andwellbeing.

Indigenous Autoethnography

Documents

Transcript of Indigenous Autoethnography