Imagining the possibilities of a cross-cultural oral narrative portraiture method: stepping beyond binary discourses

2019 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Sara Weuffen ◽  
Aunty Marjorie Pickford
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Inquiry ◽  
Cross Cultural ◽  
Oral Narrative ◽  
Indigenous Research ◽  
Research Knowledge ◽  
Cultural Research ◽  
Indigenous Research Methodologies ◽  
Communication Practices ◽  
Intercultural Research ◽  
Researcher Identity

AbstractContemporary scholarly critique in Indigenous research spaces has tended to focus on binary dualities, including the purpose of Indigenous-focused research, and the legitimacy of researcher identity, research knowledge and truth. Yet, perhaps unintentionally, such interrogation has led to the continued (re)construction and maintenance of false race-based dichotomies. In this paper, one way in which we seek to step beyond binary race-based discourses is by advocating for the advancement of cross-cultural research practices that interweave traditional and contemporary communication practices. We put forward the case that by knitting together Eurocentric and Indigenous research methodologies, Lawrence-Lightfoot's (2005, Qualitative Inquiry 11, 3–15) portraiture method, and Aboriginal practices of storytelling/yarning, the cross-cultural oral narrative portraiture method enables co-construction of more holistic, culturally nuanced and responsive stories, where meaning, context and reason resonate. In the 21st century research space, we open dialogue for thinking about data as stories, and advocate for contemporary intercultural research processes that are inclusive, engaging and promote co-construction of narratives for storying.

Cultural Motives in Information Systems Acceptance and Use

2011 ◽  
pp. 864-871 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manuel J. Sanchez-Franco ◽  
Francisco José Martínez López
Keyword(s):  
Cultural Values ◽  
Social Science Research ◽  
Empirical Support ◽  
Cross Cultural ◽  
Cultural Dimensions ◽  
Four Dimensions ◽  
Cultural Research ◽  
Cross Cultural Research ◽  
Communication Practices ◽  
National Boundaries

In view of academic and theoretical perspective, the effects of culture on IS acceptance have been studied by researchers mostly based on Hofstede’s (1980) cultural construct. It has also been shown to be stable and useful for numerous studies across many disciplines. First, Hofstede’s dimensions assume culture falls along national boundaries and that the cultures are viewed as static over time. Second, Hofstede (1980) asserts that central tendencies in a nation are replicated in their institutions through the behaviour or practices of individuals. And, third, Hofstede’s framework explicitly links national cultural values to communication practices; i.e., communication practices using ICT are central to our study (see Merchant, 2002; Samovar, Porter, & Jain, 1981; Stohl, 2001). Furthermore, Hofstede’s model was important because it (a) organised cultural differences into overarching patterns, and (b) conducted the most comprehensive study of how values in the workplace are influenced by culture, which (c) facilitated comparative research and launched a rapidly-expanding body of cultural and cross-cultural research in the ensuing 20 years. Hofstede’s (1980) cultural dimensions serve as the most influential culture theory among social science research, and has received strong empirical support. Hofstede, therefore, contributed the influential work in cross-cultural research. Hofstede (1984, p. 51) defines culture as “the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one group from another”; and (b) proposes a series of four dimensions (a fifth was added later; that is, Confucian dynamism) that distinguishes between work-related values. The cultural dimensions are individualism-collectivism, power distance, uncertainty avoidance, and masculinity-femininity. Hofstede and Bond (1988) found an additional dimension, which is particularly relevant to Asian culture, Confucian dynamism (i.e., often referred to as long/short term orientation). These value dimensions, which distinguish national value systems, also affect individuals and organizations.

Supervision of Indigenous research students: considerations for cross-cultural supervisors

2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 256-265 ◽  
Author(s):  
Denise Wilson
Keyword(s):  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Indigenous Communities ◽  
Cross Cultural ◽  
Indigenous Research ◽  
Indigenous Students ◽  
Supervisor Relationships ◽  
Indigenous Research Methodologies ◽  
Supervision Practices ◽  
Research Students

Essential to Indigenous research students’ development is their preparation to undertake Indigenous research with an appropriate Indigenous approach. Preparing Indigenous students to conduct research with Indigenous communities requires their adequate and proper preparation, although this does not always happen. Getting the research story right is key to better understanding the persistent, complex and multidimensional inequities in the access, use and quality of health services Indigenous peoples face. Successful preparation of Indigenous students is contingent on quality student–supervisor relationships. The literature indicates that Indigenous student supervision undertaken by non-Indigenous supervisors can be hindered. Two vignettes demonstrate problems with cross-cultural supervision of Indigenous research students’ experiences. An examination of cross-cultural supervision practices highlights the need to prepare Indigenous students in Indigenous research methodologies to optimise outcomes to reflect Indigenous peoples’ realities. Following an overview of approaches to undertake research with Indigenous people, strategies to support cross-cultural supervision are suggested.

scholarly journals Decolonizing both researcher and research and its effectiveness in Indigenous research

2017 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-24 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ranjan Datta
Keyword(s):  
Positive Impact ◽  
Research Training ◽  
Indigenous Communities ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Indigenous Research ◽  
Research Knowledge ◽  
Cultural Research ◽  
The University ◽  
Indigenous Land ◽  
Decolonizing Research

How does one decolonize and reclaim the meanings of research and researcher, particularly in the context of Western research? Indigenous communities have long experienced oppression by Western researchers. Is it possible to build a collaborative research knowledge that is culturally appropriate, respectful, honoring, and careful of the Indigenous community? What are the challenges in Western research, researchers, and Western university methodology research training? How have ‘studies’ – critical anti-racist theory and practice, cross-cultural research methodology, critical perspectives on environmental justice, and land-based education – been incorporated into the university to disallow dissent? What can be done against this disallowance? According to Eve Tuck and K Wayne Yang’s (2012) suggestion, this article did not use the concept of decolonization as a substitute for ‘human rights’ or ‘social justice’, but as a demand of an Indigenous framework and a centering of Indigenous land, Indigenous sovereignty and Indigenous ways of thinking. This article discusses why both research and researcher increasingly require decolonization so that research can create a positive impact on the participants’ community, and conduct research ethically. This article is my personal decolonization and reclaiming story from 15 years of teaching, research and service activities with various Indigenous communities in various parts of the world. It presents a number of case studies of an intervention research project to exemplify the challenges in Western research training, and how decolonizing research training attempts to not only reclaim participants’ rights in the research but also to empower the researcher. I conclude by arguing that decolonizing research training creates more empathetic educators and researchers, transforming us for participants, and demonstrating how we can take responsibility for our research.

scholarly journals Bridging Parallel Rows: Epistemic Difference and Relational Accountability in Cross-Cultural Research

2015 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicole Latulippe
Keyword(s):  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Methodological Approach ◽  
Indigenous Research ◽  
Ethical Approach ◽  
Cultural Research ◽  
Indigenous Lands ◽  
Self Study ◽  
Cross Cultural Research ◽  
Indigenous Research Methodologies ◽  
Relational Accountability

To what extent are non-Indigenous researchers invited to engage the knowledges of Indigenous peoples? For those working within a western paradigm, what is an ethical approach to traditional knowledge (TK) research? While these questions are not openly addressed in the burgeoning literature on TK, scholarship on Indigenous research methodologies provides guidance. Reflexive self-study - what Margaret Kovach calls researcher preparation - subtends an ethical approach. It makes relational, contextual, and mutually beneficial research possible. In my work on contested fisheries knowledge and decision-making systems in Ontario, Canada, a treaty perspective orients my mixed methodological approach. It reflects my relationships to Indigenous lands, peoples, and histories, and enables an ethical space of engagement through which relational accountability and respect for epistemic difference can be realized.

scholarly journals Approaching Nonhuman Ontologies: Trees, Communication, and Qualitative Inquiry

2021 ◽  
pp. 107780042199495
Author(s):  
Sarah Abbott
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Sustainability ◽  
Qualitative Inquiry ◽  
Human Consumption ◽  
Indigenous Research ◽  
Human Communication ◽  
Community Based ◽  
Indigenous Epistemologies ◽  
Emergence Theory ◽  
Indigenous Research Methodologies ◽  
Ontological Emergence

Consideration of trees has historically been confined to disciplinary, quantitative perspectives embedded in botany, earth sciences, resource management, environmental sustainability, and sustainable development wherein trees are largely viewed as senseless, bio-mechanical matter to be controlled and used for human consumption and economic gain. In this article, I reflect selectively on methodologies and methods I used in a broader, interdisciplinary project to study the sentient, intelligent relationality of trees as agentic, conscious, innovative entities embedded in unique, community-based lifeways. My research framework integrated Indigenous research methodologies, public ethnography, ontological emergence theory, plant science, philosophies of plant and nonhuman knowing, interspecies communication, and filmmaking. Herein, I focus on how perspectives and approaches based on qualitative, ethnographic inquiry and Indigenous epistemologies support and broaden research, (re)presentation, and engagement with trees and other nonhumans. Methods I discuss include the practices of cultivating tree/human communication and fostering human sensitivity and embodied knowing.

Sociocultural memory development research drives new directions in gadgetry science

2019 ◽  
Vol 42 ◽  
Author(s):  
Penny Van Bergen ◽  
John Sutton
Keyword(s):  
Episodic Memory ◽  
Autobiographical Memory ◽  
Developmental Psychology ◽  
Cross Cultural ◽  
Memory Development ◽  
Development Research ◽  
Cultural Research ◽  
New Directions ◽  
Cross Cultural Research

Abstract Sociocultural developmental psychology can drive new directions in gadgetry science. We use autobiographical memory, a compound capacity incorporating episodic memory, as a case study. Autobiographical memory emerges late in development, supported by interactions with parents. Intervention research highlights the causal influence of these interactions, whereas cross-cultural research demonstrates culturally determined diversity. Different patterns of inheritance are discussed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document