Epistemological, Ontological, and Axiological Considerations in Research

In the last decade indigenous scholars have been engaged in a series of conversations about the need for indigenous peoples to become more assertive about conducting, participating in, and driving relevant research on indigenous issues and within indigenous communities (Cook-Lynn, 2000; Harris, 2002; Hart, 2010; Henderson, 2000; G. Smith, 2000; L. Smith, 1999, 2000; Tuck, 2009; Weber-Pillwax, 2001; Wilson, 2001a, 2001b, 2008). As a result of these conversations there has emerged a more explicit call for defining the boundaries of indigenous research and for laying out a vision of a research paradigm grounded in indigenous knowledges, beliefs, and practices. Before we outline a framework for CIRM, let us first offer an overview of the epistemological, ontological, and axiological assumptions promoted by traditional, generally Eurocentric forms of research.

Many traditional forms of positivist research seek an ultimate Truth that assumes the world can be defined through the development of finite, disconnected taxonomies (scientific classifications); these specific ways of conducting research claim to be rooted in objective, neutral hypotheses that will reveal “the” singular Truth. Traditional research perspectives often individualize the pursuit of knowledge such that the acquisition of knowledge is driven by individual interests and by the pursuit of knowledge for knowledge's sake. Oftentimes researchers embedded in a positivist framework seek to isolate variables in living organisms and create research initiatives that will derive enough information to allow researchers to predict and control natural occurrences—including human behavior. For example, Western methodologies often assume the power to define taxonomically what is human or nonhuman, animate or inanimate, organic or inorganic, living or lifeless, natural or unnatural, rational or irrational. In addition to promoting rigid definitions and labels, Western scientific methodologies may seek to exclude other epistemologies and methodologies that focus on the processes and qualities of relationships between and among humans and the worlds they inhabit (Deloria, 1969; Kawagley, 2006; L. Smith, 1999). This philosophical orientation to knowledge, its pursuit and uses, conflicts with indigenous perspectives that value seeking knowledge for the purpose of serving others.

Inherent in this vision of research is the supremacy of Western understandings of science as a framing mechanism for research. Western conceptions of science, referred to simply as science, become the golden and guiding rule. Linda Tuhiwai Smith (1999) explains,

As suggested by L. Smith, colonized research, taught in the Western academy as good research, is problematic in several respects. First and foremost, this singular approach, which assumes its own superiority, functions to silence, erase, appropriate, dominate, own, and oppress that which it encounters in the world—be it people, knowledge systems, or alternate visions of how the world could be. We want to be clear that research can, and should, serve multiple purposes in terms of its contributions. The primary motivation within a CIRM framework, however, is for the research and researcher(s) to serve indigenous communities, acting as a tool of the community to meet the community's needs and to advance emancipatory goals of self-determination and sovereignty. Perhaps Wilson (2001b) explains this best when he writes,

There is an immediate connection made evident here between research and knowledge. It raises the question of how relationality—the ways in which relationships are enacted and connected—functions within the context of research and presents implications for the ownership, utility, and sharing of knowledge. Wilson encourages us to consider who owns the knowledge generated from research and in what ways knowledge might not only be wholly relational, but sacred to specific communities and not meant to be shared in broader contexts. We would argue that in a CIRM framework knowledge is not a commodity; instead, it is information gained or accumulated in order to serve the needs of those with whom we are in relation. In other words, the knowledge acquired and generated through indigenous research is intended to serve others. Moreover, whereas many critical methodological theories operate within a social justice framework based in relationality, CIRM reflects indigenous peoples' extension of the term social beyond the human realm, to include areas such as environmental, plant, animal, and spiritual realms.

Thus far our discussion of indigenous methodologies, building on the work of others, promotes an axiological, or value-based, claim that is specifically rooted in an anticolonial agenda and that places emphasis on serving the needs of indigenous peoples. Weber-Pillwax (2001) explains this when she writes, “I could also make a value statement and say that ‘whatever I do as an Indigenous researcher must be hooked to the community’ or ‘the Indigenous research has to benefit the community’” (p. 168). This axiological commitment means that research must be driven by purposes that (re)position the motives of the researcher away from motives of control and individual gain—motives associated with preserving, promoting, upholding, and enforcing a colonialist agenda—to a position in which communities are primarily served. In essence we are suggesting that CIRM moves away from “ivory tower intellectuals” (G. Smith, 2003, p. 213) to community-serving, community-rooted intellectuals.