This article explores the contexts and meanings of researcher subjectivity within a specifically racialized field setting, the North American Indigenous Games. Drawing on literature of feminist critique and using the concepts of subjectivity and identity work, the author analyzes ways in which “authentic Indianness” and “White privilege” affect the research process. At the heart of the analysis is an important epistemological question: How do power dynamics affect the knowledge production processes involved in research?
Brah, A. (2001). Difference, diversity, differentiation. In K.-K. Bhavnani (Ed.), Feminism and “race” (pp. 456-478). New York: Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1996)
2.
Collins, P. H. (1998). Fighting words. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
3.
Frankenberg, R. (1993). White women, race matters. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
4.
hooks, b. (1992). Representing Whiteness in the Black imagination. In L. Grossberg, C. Nelson, & P. Treichler (Eds.), Cultural studies (pp. 338-346). New York: Routledge.
5.
McIntosh, P. (1988). White privilege and male privilege: A personal account of coming to see correspondences through work in women’s studies (Working Paper No. 189). Wellesley, MA: Wellesley College Center for Research on Women.
6.
Medicine, B. (2001). Learning to be an anthropologist and remaining “Native.”Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
7.
Mihesuah, D. A. (1998). Natives and academics: Researching and writing about American Indians. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
8.
Mihesuah, D. A., & Wilson, A. C. (2004). Introduction. In D. Mihesuah & A. C. Wilson (Eds.), Indigenizing the academy: Transforming scholarship and empowering communities (pp. 1-15). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
9.
Parkhill, T. C. (1997). Weaving ourselves into the land: Charles Godfrey Leland, “Indians,” and the study of Native American religion. Albany: University of New York Press.
10.
Rose, W. (1984). Just what’s all this fuss about White shamanism anyway?Dolphin, 9, 13-24.
11.
Smith, L. T. (2001). Decolonizing methodologies. New York: Zed Books.
12.
Swisher, K. G. (1998). Why Indian people should be the ones to write about Indian education. In D. A. Mihesuah (Ed.), Natives and academics: Researching and writing about American Indians (pp. 190-199). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
13.
Twine, F. W. (2000). Racial ideologies and racial methodologies. In F. W. Twine & J. W. Warren (Eds.), Racing research, researching race (pp. 1-34). New York: New York University Press.
14.
Twine, F. W., & Warren, J. W. (Eds.). (2000). Racing research, researching race. New York: New York University Press.
15.
Veroff, J., & DiStefano, A. (2002). Introduction. American Behavioral Scientist, 45(8), 1188-1196.
16.
Williams, B. F. (1996). Skinfolk, not kinfolk: Comparative reflections on the identity of participant-observation in two field situations. In D. L. Wolf (Ed.), Feminist dilemmas in fieldwork (pp. 72-95). Boulder, CO: Westview.
17.
Wolf, D. L. (1996). Feminist dilemmas in fieldwork. Boulder, CO: Westview.
18.
Zavella, P. (1996). Feminist insider dilemmas: Constructing ethnic identity with Chicana informants. In D. L. Wolf (Ed.), Feminist dilemmas in fieldwork (pp. 138-159). Boulder, CO: Westview.
19.
Zinn, M. B. (1979). Field research in minority communities: Ethical, methodological, and political observations by an insider. Social Problems, 27(2), 209-219.
