The research panel discussed the way power sits with those producing academic literature. The production of knowledge historically, and often still today, favours an established western system while side-lining or silencing ideas that are themselves deemed biased or too specifically local.
Daniel said that he uses ‘non-traditional ideas’ within his research and that this is met with resistance from some academics. Highlighting the problem of what is considered ‘legitimate knowledge,’ he drew attention to the fact that we, as researchers, may also encounter such resistance. I feel that learning frameworks outside the accepted norm would be potentially fulfilling and would like to examine some of these issues.
However, this brings up a question I have been contemplating since Patrick Thomsen spoke about using the concept of Talanoa to interview people. How can a non-indigenous scholar use indigenous concepts in their research? And for that matter, is it right to do so?
If we acknowledge issues of silencing and side-lining around indigenous ideas, surely we should work to break this by incorporating non-western concepts into our work? On a personal level, I find this line of thought conflicting. On one hand, I have a desire to learn about non-western theory and possibly incorporate it into my research; but this impulse is then pitched against an awareness that it may ultimately turn out as a continuation of the extractive nature of western academia.
It was informative to have this session listening to scholars who have dealt with these issues. When asked about this conflict of interest, Daniel’s response was to be aware, mindful, and respectful. This advice was useful, yet I still feel that I’m searching for an answer.
