Reconciling Positionality: An Indigenous Researcher’s Reflexive Account

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I read through this paper a number of times, as someone who has worked in First Nations communities for over four decades ( I am not Indigenous through I am speaker of three Indigenous languages) I was enthralled by just how much is important in this paper. At first reading I thought is was too much, but the author has so successfully engaged with the complexities of what it takes to do field work from multiple angles of perceptions and how each one fo these perceptions unveils the subjectivities of peoples and our own, or in this case the authors own subjectivity. There could indeed bet other paper taken from this paper, where the authors 'slows" down and looks at any one of the case studies included in this article with some more depthing.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to read and engage with the paper. I deeply appreciate your insights and observations, particularly given your extensive experience working within First Nations communities and your fluency in Indigenous languages. Your perspective adds significant value to the work, and I'm glad to hear that the paper resonated with you on multiple levels.

Your observation about the initial impression of an overwhelming amount of content aligns well with what I think about my approach. I aimed to capture fieldwork's intricate nuances and complexities from various perceptual angles, highlighting how each perspective contributes to the broader understanding of subjectivities, both of the researched communities and the researcher. It's rewarding to learn that the depth I sought to achieve became evident through repeated readings.

I appreciate your suggestion to explore individual case studies in more depth. I think this resonates with my consideration for future work. Additional layers of insight and understanding can be unveiled by slowing down and dedicating focused attention to specific case studies. Your recommendation reinforces my belief in the potential for expansion and deeper analysis.

Once again, thank you for your time, thoughtful feedback, and valuable expertise. Your response encourages me to continue delving into these important topics and refine my perspectives further. I plan to continue engaging with scholars and practitioners like yourself to contribute meaningfully to the discourse surrounding First Nations communities and the complex dynamics of fieldwork.

Reviewer 2 Report

As a white-passing D'harawal (Aboriginal Australian) scholar, I wish to congratulate the author on this courageous and carefully written paper, as I would argue that the role of positionality and critical reflexivity should now be considered an essential requirement for ethical research practice, regardless of the discipline, methodology, and methods engaged with. The transparency and openness with which the author has written this paper is greatly appreciated, and as a result, I strongly encourage the publishing of this paper (although I hope the author will carefully address the following concerns).

With that being said, there was something that made me quite uncomfortable with this paper, something I must admit I have been guilty of myself (as I was trained within a Western institution that utterly and completely privileged non-Indigenous research methods and theories when targeting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and communities). That is, considering that you are an emerging (and immensely talented) Anishinaabe scholar, where is the seminal Indigenous and First Nations scholarship in this paper? The notion of Indigenous positioning in research has long been recognised as an essential element within Indigenous Standpoint Theories and Indigenous Research Methodologies, so why is  this largely missing from your paper?

Consider your first paragraph, you centre the work of Gramsci, who is from a recognised colonising Country (although rather late to scene as it targeted African and Middle Eastern Countries). Why have you not written of the seminal works of Opaskwayak Cree scholar Shawn Wilson and Plains Cree and Saulteaux scholar Margaret Kovach (their methodological works on Relationality, Tribal Methodologies, Conversation Methods could also have greatly, and positively, influenced your research practices)?

You may argue that there is a debt we have as Indigenous scholars to early non-Indigenous critical and feminist scholars (whilst ignoring the likes of Māori scholar Linda Smith, Cherokee scholar Eva Garroutte, Japanangka scholar Errol West, Torres Strait Islander scholar Martin Nakata, Narungga, Kaurna and Ngarrindjeri scholar Lester-Irrabina Rigney who all produced significant works around that time), but there is also a consequence of centring such non-Indigenous scholarship, and that is the further erasure of Indigenous and First Nations scholarship (and voices).

Consider also your possibly unconscious biased coverage of the insider-outsider researcher distinction (page 5), where you seemingly valorise the ‘advantage’ of outsider research through its so-called illusionary impartiality (aka colour-blind racism) and ignorance (‘cloud’) of local contexts (aka white privilege)?    

Consider also your reduction of ethics to the mere issue of ‘consent’ (page 12), whilst ignoring the Indigenous ethical guidelines and protocols (e.g., from UNDRIP to AIATSIS) that have been developed around the world (consider also the principles of Indigenous Data Sovereignty and Indigenous Data Governance that often have been attributed to OCAP that was developed By First nations communities in what is now known as Canada). Also within my institution, we have to cite the ethics review process and clearance number in publications (hence why I raised ethical concerns).   

My intent in highlighting this is not to reject this paper (I support it strongly), or for you to turn this paper into a thesis, but to rather reflexively address the following question in your discussion:

 Why wasn’t Indigenous and First Nations scholarship centred in this research paper?

Maybe take one or two paragraphs to consider this, and also tone down what I read as a rather condescending critique on the dirty laundry of the First Nations organisations and communities you’re are addressing (and meant to be representing). Whilst this is an ongoing critical discussion we must have as First Nations and Indigenous scholars, it needs to be done with care. I can’t speak for what is now known as North America or Canada, but within 'Australia', many Indigenous scholars have critiqued the taint of whiteness, patriarchy and sexism (and their intersections with homophobia and gender identity discrimination) within Indigenous organisations and communities (e.g., Goenupul Quandamooka scholar Aileen Moreton-Robinson, Munanjahli and South Sea Islander Chelsea Bond, Gai-mariagal scholar Dennis Foley, Wiradjuri scholar Sandy O'Sullivan).

Ng’andu’o’wa – I am sorry if I have come off as overly critical here, but I’m really only asking for a couple of paragraphs added to, what I believe, is an exceptionally promising paper.

Bantjeri bulbuwul naminima’o’mi – You add strength to the voices of your ancestors.            

Author Response

Reviewer Comment: As a white-passing D'harawal (Aboriginal Australian) scholar, I wish to congratulate the author on this courageous and carefully written paper, as I would argue that the role of positionality and critical reflexivity should now be considered an essential requirement for ethical research practice, regardless of the discipline, methodology, and methods engaged with. The transparency and openness with which the author has written this paper is greatly appreciated, and as a result, I strongly encourage the publishing of this paper (although I hope the author will carefully address the following concerns).

With that being said, there was something that made me quite uncomfortable with this paper, something I must admit I have been guilty of myself (as I was trained within a Western institution that utterly and completely privileged non-Indigenous research methods and theories when targeting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and communities). That is, considering that you are an emerging (and immensely talented) Anishinaabe scholar, where is the seminal Indigenous and First Nations scholarship in this paper? The notion of Indigenous positioning in research has long been recognised as an essential element within Indigenous Standpoint Theories and Indigenous Research Methodologies, so why is this largely missing from your paper?

Response: I want to acknowledge that the omission you pointed out was unintentional, and I deeply regret any oversight in this regard. I fully recognize the importance of incorporating Indigenous scholarship and perspectives into research related to Indigenous communities and issues. Your comment has highlighted the need for me to be more conscientious in this aspect of my work.

Regarding the absence of a discussion on Indigenous Standpoint Theories and Indigenous Research Methodologies, I want to be transparent about my level of exposure and expertise in these areas. While I am an emerging Anishinaabe scholar, I have had limited exposure to Indigenous Standpoint Theories and Research Methodologies. I have recognized that my knowledge in these domains is not at the level of expertise that they rightfully deserve.

I want to assure you that I am committed to addressing these deficiencies in my work. I have already taken steps to rectify these issues in my research. I am actively working to expand my exposure to Indigenous Standpoint Theories and Research Methodologies so that I can incorporate them more effectively into my future work. I understand the importance of continuing to educate myself on these matters to better serve Indigenous communities and to ensure that my research respects and values Indigenous perspectives.

Reviewer Comment: Consider your first paragraph, you centre the work of Gramsci, who is from a recognised colonising Country (although rather late to scene as it targeted African and Middle Eastern Countries). Why have you not written of the seminal works of Opaskwayak Cree scholar Shawn Wilson and Plains Cree and Saulteaux scholar Margaret Kovach (their methodological works on Relationality, Tribal Methodologies, Conversation Methods could also have greatly, and positively, influenced your research practices)?

Response: I added the following paragraph to the introduction section of the paper:

"The paper also hopes to highlight the importance of research as a ceremony and the significance of integrating Indigenous perspectives and values into the research process. I hope to contribute to the previous work on Indigenous research methodology by scholars like Margaret Kovach and Shawn Wilson. Kovach (2021) and Wilson (2008) emphasize the need to move away from Eurocentric research paradigms and toward research methodologies that respect Indigenous knowledge systems and traditions. Like Wilson, I seek to promote the idea that research is not just a detached academic exercise but a deeply spiritual and interconnected process that should be approached with cultural sensitivity and respect for Indigenous worldviews. According to Wilson (2008), Indigenous research methods are a vital component of Indigenization efforts within academia. They challenge colonial legacies, center Indigenous voices and knowledge, and create pathways for more inclusive and respectful research practices that reflect the diversity of human experiences and perspectives. Kovach's work emphasizes the significance of understanding Indigenous knowledge systems, oral traditions, and cultural practices when conducting research within Indigenous communities. She advocates for researchers to approach their work with cultural humility, respect for community protocols, and a commitment to reciprocal relationships (Kovach, 2021)."

Added the following text to the first paragraph of the conlustion:

"Reflexive accounts are an important contribution to Indigenous research methods, which play a crucial role in the broader process of Indigenization of academia (Wilson, 2008). The integration of Indigenous knowledges, perspectives, and methodologies into educational institutions and research practices contribute to a more inclusive, respectful, and culturally sensitive approach to research and education, recognizing the unique worldviews, histories, and ways of knowing of Indigenous peoples. Indigenous research methodologies are critical for centering Indigenous perspectives within academic research (Kovach, 2021)."

Reviewer Comment: You may argue that there is a debt we have as Indigenous scholars to early non-Indigenous critical and feminist scholars (whilst ignoring the likes of Māori scholar Linda Smith, Cherokee scholar Eva Garroutte, Japanangka scholar Errol West, Torres Strait Islander scholar Martin Nakata, Narungga, Kaurna and Ngarrindjeri scholar Lester-Irrabina Rigney who all produced significant works around that time), but there is also a consequence of centring such non-Indigenous scholarship, and that is the further erasure of Indigenous and First Nations scholarship (and voices).

Response: Added the following paragraph to the conclusion:

"The current paper hopes to contribute to the body of previous work on the decolonization of Western methodologies, the experience of Indigenous identity, the valuing Indigenous knowledge systems . Scholars in these areas include Linda Tuhiwai Smith, Eva Garroutte, and Martin Nakata among others. In her book “Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples,” Maori scholar Linda Tuhiwai Smith (2021) critically examines the history of Western research practices and their impact on Indigenous communities. She advocates for a decolonized approach to research that is rooted in Indigenous perspectives, worldviews, and priorities. In addition, Cherokee scholar Eva Garroutte’s work is significant in the field of Indigenous studies and has been influential in raising awareness about the experiences and perspectives of Native peoples (Garroutte, 2003). Finally, the Cultural Interface framework, developed by Nakata (2002) seeks to understand the interactions and tensions between Indigenous cultures and Western systems, particularly within educational contexts. The framework emphasizes the importance of recognizing and valuing Indigenous knowledge systems and perspectives within educational practices. The work by these scholars represent only a fraction of those who have had a profound influence on the field of Indigenous studies and inspired researchers, scholars, and activists worldwide to engage in research that respects and values Indigenous knowledge and voices."

Reviewer comment: Consider also your possibly unconscious biased coverage of the insider-outsider researcher distinction (page 5), where you seemingly valorise the ‘advantage’ of outsider research through its so-called illusionary impartiality (aka colour-blind racism) and ignorance (‘cloud’) of local contexts (aka white privilege)?   

Response: Re-worded the paragraph on outsider researchers to make it more impartial and added references to the views of Indigenous scholars on the issue of outsider researchers working with Indigenous populations.  

Reviewer comment: Consider also your reduction of ethics to the mere issue of ‘consent’ (page 12), whilst ignoring the Indigenous ethical guidelines and protocols (e.g., from UNDRIP to AIATSIS) that have been developed around the world (consider also the principles of Indigenous Data Sovereignty and Indigenous Data Governance that often have been attributed to OCAP that was developed By First nations communities in what is now known as Canada). Also within my institution, we have to cite the ethics review process and clearance number in publications (hence why I raised ethical concerns).  

Response: Added the following statement within the paragraph:

"Stronger ethical guidelines and research protocols have also been implemented by academic institutions, reducing the potential harm to Indigenous populations. Also, Indigenous organizations like the First Nations Information Governance Centre (FNIGC) have developed stringent data sovereignty principles such as Ownership, Control, Access, and Possession (OCAP), which asserts that First Nations should have control over data generated during research with their populations.[1]

[1] First Nations Information Governance Centre. (n.d.). The First Nations Principles of OCAP. Retrieved from, https://fnigc.ca/ocap-training/"

Reviewer comment: My intent in highlighting this is not to reject this paper (I support it strongly), or for you to turn this paper into a thesis, but to rather reflexively address the following question in your discussion:

 Why wasn’t Indigenous and First Nations scholarship centred in this research paper?

Response: As mentioned above, my exposure to Indigenous scholarship is limited and would want to speak to that area of research once I have worked more closely with the works of Kovach, Wilson, Smith, and others. 

Reviewer comment: Maybe take one or two paragraphs to consider this, and also tone down what I read as a rather condescending critique on the dirty laundry of the First Nations organisations and communities you’re are addressing (and meant to be representing). Whilst this is an ongoing critical discussion we must have as First Nations and Indigenous scholars, it needs to be done with care. I can’t speak for what is now known as North America or Canada, but within 'Australia', many Indigenous scholars have critiqued the taint of whiteness, patriarchy and sexism (and their intersections with homophobia and gender identity discrimination) within Indigenous organisations and communities (e.g., Goenupul Quandamooka scholar Aileen Moreton-Robinson, Munanjahli and South Sea Islander Chelsea Bond, Gai-mariagal scholar Dennis Foley, Wiradjuri scholar Sandy O'Sullivan).

Response: Re-worded much of the discussion section so that comments were less condescending and less revealing about what was observed. I added references by Tai Alfred and Linda Smith relating to colonialism has been a disrupting force on tradition governance systems, resulting in many of the issues that can occur in First Nations communities. 

Ng’andu’o’wa – I am sorry if I have come off as overly critical here, but I’m really only asking for a couple of paragraphs added to, what I believe, is an exceptionally promising paper.

Bantjeri bulbuwul naminima’o’mi – You add strength to the voices of your ancestors. 

Response: Miigwech for your comments, I believe they make the paper much stronger.