Disrupting the academy: how we move from mere Indigenous inclusion to decolonization indigenization.

This research takes place in a period of reconciliation which is a conversation in Canada that has increased with the release of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) Final Report and its 94 Calls to Action. This has encouraged educational institutions to endeavor in Indigenization efforts. This study uses an Indigenous paradigm as articulated in the work of Shawn Wilson (2008) and Margaret Kovach (2009) to expand on current theory and frameworks targeting Indigenization within the academy along with exploring student perspectives on Indigenization with the intent to expand and provide greater context for the process of Indigenization in post-secondary institutions. Indigenous Knowledge should be welcomed, supported, celebrated and valued within the academy and this research is an example of moving the academy in that direction

Institutional Accountability Plan and Report - 2015/16:

2015/16 Reporting Cycl

Using Peacemaking Circles to Indigenize Tribal Child Welfare

Historical child welfare policies explicitly aimed to exterminate Indigenous culture and disrupt tribal cohesion. The remnants of these policies form the foundation for the contemporary child welfare system. These policies view the child as an isolated and interchangeable asset, over which parents enjoy property-like rights, and in which the child welfare system is incentivized to “save” children from perceived economic, cultural, and geographic ills through an adversarial process. Extended family, community members, and cultural connections have minimal voice or value. These underpinnings inform federal policies that influence all child welfare systems, including tribal child welfare systems. The result is that tribal child welfare systems perpetuate the individual, rights-centric, adversarial child welfare system that harms Indigenous families. Indigenous children have the right to maintain connections to their Indigenous family, tribal nation, culture, and cultural education. These rights translate into obligations the community owes to the child to ensure that these connections are robust. Tradition-based systems of dispute resolution—frequently called “peacemaking,” among other names, but which we will call “circle processes”—offer a hopeful alternative. Circle processes are rooted in an Indigenous worldview that perceives an issue, particularly a child welfare issue, as evidence of community imbalance that directly impacts the community, and conversely, imparts an obligation on the community to respond. Through the circle, family and community can complete their natural reciprocal relationship. Tribal child welfare has the potential to be a transformative system that promotes community, family, and children’s health and the self-determination and sovereignty of tribes. This Article outlines the ways in which the modern tribal child welfare system has been structured to compartmentalize families and perpetuate historical federal policies of Indian family separation. This Article then suggests that circle processes are a framework for re-Indigenizing the tribal child welfare system to not just improve outcomes (for which it has the potential to do), but to also honor the interconnected, responsibility oriented worldview of Indigenous communities. Ultimately, however, tribes should lead that re-Indigenization process, whether through a circle process framework or otherwise

A quantitative examination of the engagement of undergraduate Lumbee commuter students at a Native American-serving nontribal institution

There is a paucity of research on American Indian students in U.S. higher education, particularly those who commute and are citizens of the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina. Unfortunately, no studies have examined the engagement of undergraduate Lumbee commuter students. Kuh (2009b) defined student engagement as “the time and effort students devote to activities that are empirically linked to desired outcomes of college and what institutions do to induce students to participate in these activities” (p. 683). Engagement is a “powerful means” for students to enhance their cognitive and psychosocial development (Astin, 1996, p. 590). Student engagement also has a positive link to grades (Astin, 1977, 1993a; National Survey of Student Engagement [NSSE], 2000; Pike, Schroeder, & Berry, 1997) and rates of persistence (Astin, 1985; Pike et al., 1997; Simpson & Burnett, 2017). The purpose of this quantitative cross-sectional, single institution research design was to address the “American Indian research asterisk” by increasing the visibility and representation of American Indians in quantitative studies. Guiding the study conceptually was Astin’s (1984, 1999) theory of student involvement and Kuh’s (2009b) two-part definition of engagement. More precisely, the study sought to answer five research questions. The researcher hypothesized there was a difference in the engagement of undergraduate Lumbee commuter students based on their gender, academic classification, grade point average, and membership in a student organization. In addition, the researcher hypothesized family obligations predict undergraduate Lumbee commuter student engagement. The engagement of undergraduate Lumbee commuter students at the University of North Carolina at Pembroke (UNC Pembroke) was examined using items from the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE). The influence of family obligations on undergraduate Lumbee commuter student engagement was examined using Fuligni, Tseng, and Lam’s (1999) Current Assistance to the Family subscale. Family obligations was selected for this study because: 1) family (a core value in Lumbee identity) is the number one factor affecting the persistence of American Indian students in higher education (Bass, 2013; Guillory & Wolverton, 2008); and, 2) it was a way to include a culturally relevant variable in the examination of Lumbee student engagement. Data were collected from 144 participants who were: enrolled undergraduate students at UNC Pembroke during the spring semester of 2019; 18 years of age or older; lived off campus; and, self-identified as Lumbee. Results of one-way multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVA) did not find statistically significant differences in student engagement by gender, academic classification, grade point average, or membership in a student organization. A follow-up one-way MANOVA did find a statistically significant relationship between student engagement and membership in a student organization after the researcher collapsed the categories of membership types. Finally, the results of a single multivariate regression indicated that family obligations was not a significant predictor of student engagement. Contributing to the not statistically significant findings was the study’s lack of power to detect differences in the sample (due to the sample size) and the homogeneity of the population, which resulted in very little separation among the members on the measures. The study adds to the literature on the engagement of undergraduate Lumbee commuter students in higher education. Implications for practice include indigenizing the academy as a way for institutions of higher education to make a conscious “effort to bring Indigenous people, as well as their philosophies and cultures, into strategic plans, governance roles, academics, research and recruitment” (MacDonald, 2016, para. 4). Future research suggestions include: 1) a qualitative follow-up to the current study to mine reasons for and challenges to undergraduate Lumbee commuter student engagement; 2) the addition of culturally relevant items to the NSSE to better measure and understand undergraduate Lumbee commuter student engagement in curricular, co-curricular, and extra-curricular campus activities, especially those with a cultural focus; 3) a mixed methods approach to explore predictors of engagement, the influence of family obligations on Lumbee commuter, and the process students use to prioritize engagement in campus activities; and, 4) a reexamination of the definition of engagement and what constitutes engagement for those who commute and are Lumbee

Indigenous Protocol and Artificial Intelligence Position Paper

This position paper on Indigenous Protocol (IP) and Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a starting place for those who want to design and create AI from an ethical position that centers Indigenous concerns. Each Indigenous community will have its own particular approach to the questions we raise in what follows. What we have written here is not a substitute for establishing and maintaining relationships of reciprocal care and support with specific Indigenous communities. Rather, this document offers a range of ideas to take into consideration when entering into conversations which prioritize Indigenous perspectives in the development of artificial intelligence. It captures multiple layers of a discussion that happened over 20 months, across 20 time zones, during two workshops, and between Indigenous people (and a few non-Indigenous folks) from diverse communities in Aotearoa, Australia, North America, and the Pacific. Indigenous ways of knowing are rooted in distinct, sovereign territories across the planet. These extremely diverse landscapes and histories have influenced different communities and their discrete cultural protocols over time. A single ‘Indigenous perspective’ does not exist, as epistemologies are motivated and shaped by the grounding of specific communities in particular territories. Historically, scholarly traditions that homogenize diverse Indigenous cultural practices have resulted in ontological and epistemological violence, and a flattening of the rich texture and variability of Indigenous thought. Our aim is to articulate a multiplicity of Indigenous knowledge systems and technological practices that can and should be brought to bear on the ‘question of AI.’ To that end, rather than being a unified statement this position paper is a collection of heterogeneous texts that range from design guidelines to scholarly essays to artworks to descriptions of technology prototypes to poetry. We feel such a somewhat multivocal and unruly format more accurately reflects the fact that this conversation is very much in an incipient stage as well as keeps the reader aware of the range of viewpoints expressed in the workshops

Indigenizing cyberspace: the possibilities of new media technologies for indigenous peoples

The information superhighway. The global village. Cyberspace. These are only a few of the metaphors used to describe the Internet, a vast global interconnected computer network which has dominated life in the 20th and 21st centuries. While online media spaces are often described as an open limitless frontiers by scholars and users alike, recent scholarship has shown that racism, sexism, and other discriminatory forces shape user experiences. While this emerging literature on the issues surrounding cyberspace has uncovered important aspects of identity making in this space, this thesis project takes a different approach and considers the potential possibilities of new media technologies. By focusing specifically on the possibilities for indigenous users, an identity often ignored in new media scholarship, I argue that cyberspace is a critical landscape for indigenous peoples to work toward decolonization, carve out indigenous spaces online, and foster indigenous cultures and ways of knowing. By positing two new frameworks to analyze cyberspace, cyborg-intimacy and the virtual third space, I demonstrate new ways of thinking about how indigenous bodies matter in this space and how cyberspace can function as a zone outside of traditional political and cultural boundaries. Through this work, this thesis project not only asserts the presence of indigenous peoples in these spaces, countering stereotypes of these peoples as outside modernity, but also showcases the innovative ways that indigenous peoples are contributing and shaping cyberspace.Public AffairsWomen's and Gender Studie