Brief Introduction to the Second Special Issue–School Psychology and Indigenous Peoples: Critical Perspectives and Indigenous-Led Approaches

Abstract

This issue of the Canadian Journal of School Psychology is the second of two parts of a special issue devoted to the intersection of school psychology and Indigenous Peoples within the Canadian context. It includes an additional five articles that relate to ethical practice, relationship building, and decolonized intervention, as well as an overview of the current state of Indigenous representation in school psychology research. It concludes with a commentary on the special issue. The two issues on the topic of critical perspectives and Indigenous-led approaches contribute to a starting point for dialogue and calls to action within school psychology.

This issue of the Canadian Journal of School Psychology is the second of two parts of a special issue devoted to the intersection of school psychology and Indigenous Peoples within the Canadian context. The first issue consisted of six articles that identified ways in which K-12 and postsecondary educational initiatives may support Indigenous students and practices (Schroeder et al., 2023). ¹ This second issue includes a set of five articles related to ethical practice, relationship building, and decolonized intervention, as well as an overview of the current state of Indigenous representation in school psychology research. It concludes with a commentary on the special issue.

Tension between communities and mainstream professional values and practice is at the center of the first article. Based on work in the Northwest Territories, ILLasiak Domoff et al. (2023) challenge the ineffectiveness of Western standards of learning and reflect on how school psychologists can contribute to the decolonization of education. They consider student educational success with the Inuit Holistic Lifelong Learning Model (Canadian Council on Learning, 2007, 2009), which reframes standards of learning for Inuit youth by aligning with the values and beliefs of the community’s residents. The article concludes with a discussion about how school psychologists can be reflective of Inuit assessment practices.

The second article is about relationship building but with a focus on Indigenous involvement in school psychology practice. This commentary from Dmytro et al. (2023) illustrates how one urban school psychology team has taken up learning about the history and experiences of Indigenous people and the team’s approach to engagement with First Nations communities on whose territory their school district resides. Details about context and specific steps taken are provided.

Next, McDougall (2023) tackles the ethical issue of dual relationships within psychological practice in Indigenous communities. She shares her personal journey of weighing the costs and benefits of dual relationships with her community members. She orients school psychology to recognize the communal ethic at the heart of Indigenous ways of being, which include, but not limited to, bringing one’s gifts where they are needed to the benefit of community. While the discussion is situated in her remote, fly-in Northern community—where it is nearly impossible to avoid dual relationships—the sentiment and ethical principle she explores resonate with Indigenous Peoples and communities across the country (and beyond). McDougall’s reflection adds to the much-needed reconsideration of ethical guidelines in the profession to honor Indigenous ways of relating and professional practice with and in Indigenous communities.

The fourth article expands upon school psychology’s role in decolonizing education, to highlight the lack of Indigenous representation in school psychology research. Golson et al. (2023) report the results of a systematic review provides an overview of the type of articles that include Indigenous youth. The review found a paucity of articles published within the last decade pertaining to Indigenous populations and the majority of those published focused on assessment—particularly cognitive ability. The article concludes that the field has an obligation to work with communities to conduct meaningful research that will inform better school psychology practice and extend findings beyond assessment.

Finally, the issue concludes with a commentary by Nelson (2024), one of the co-editors of this two-part Special Issue. Nelson’s closing commentary details how she sees the featured articles holding promise for changing practice, training, funding structures, and decolonization and Indigenization. Offered from her perspective as a Samahquam (In-SHUCK-ch Nation, St’at’imc people) and Squiala (Stó:lo Nation) community member and school psychologist navigating the tensions of western and Indigenous approaches, she challenges school psychologists to examine how they are can contribute to the advancement of critical perspectives and Indigenous-led approaches to school psychology. She shares specific examples of her personal journey to validate the perspectives of the contributing authors. Nelson calls upon non-Indigenous and Indigenous practitioners and researchers in the field to use their gifts to enact their responsibility toward supporting decolonizing and Indigenizing school psychology practice and research as a joint project of reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples.

In a circular, recursive, and relational fashion that resounds Indigenous pedagogy, Nelson’s closing commentary brings us to the beginning of this Special Issue project. We came together as a group of Indigenous (Nelson) and settler scholars (Lacerda-Vandenborn, Schroder, and Wendt) devoted to confronting long-standing norms and value systems that not only frequently do not serve Indigenous Peoples well, but also contribute to their continuous oppression around the globe under the guise of “help.”

School psychology exists at one of psychology’s main intersections of education and mental health. As professionals in the field, we are tasked with naming, defining, describing, explaining, assessing, and intervening on psychological phenomena (Cushman, 2019; Denzinger, 1990). And although the psychologist’s role is usually discussed in terms of the application of theories, tools, and knowledge to concerns of a cognitive and behavioral nature, the imbalance of power is a major dimension of disciplinary practice that remains largely unexplored. We ourselves have witnessed and researched ways in which disciplinary psychology is enlisted to guide social institutional practices concerned with the wellbeing of Indigenous children, youth, families, and communities (e.g., education, child welfare, mental health) and in the process has too often exacerbated inequities.

If we consider that the power inherent in bringing concepts, classifications, ideals, language, and norms into being have been heavily concentrated in the hands of white, affluent, cisgendered, heteronormative, and able-bodied scholars (Simpson, 2021), we conclude that the decolonization and Indigenization of psychological practice is not merely a practical matter, but rather one of ethical and social justice order (Ermine et al., 2004). Canadian philosopher Fricker (2007) considers the power associated with the creation of social identities in mainstream discourses. Fricker and other critical and Indigenist scholars explain that discourses of superiority and deficit are built upon the construction of norms, around which social stratification is justified and maintained (Blume, 2020; Charlton, 2020; Freire, 2009; Gone, 2004; Linklater, 2014). This mechanism of oppression is known as epistemic injustice (Fricker, 2007). By its own admission, disciplinary psychology has played a large role in sustaining epistemic injustice, and consequently contributing to the suffering and oppression of Indigenous and Peoples around the world (American Psychological Association, 2021; Canadian Psychological Association, 2018). If we are to act ethically in our professional roles, we ought to move beyond surface discussions that merely recognize the injustice of the past. We must confront the ways we are perpetuating the discrimination and oppression of Indigenous Peoples by commission and omission by holding too tightly to western values and approaches. Committing to unlearning narrow dominant ways is not a choice, it is a moral imperative. We call upon the profession to embrace the uncertainty that comes with finding out and learning continuously with, and from, Indigenous Peoples in the ways they see fit (Blume, 2020; Duran, 2006; Gone, 2004, 2021). The articles in this issue contribute to the growing literature of potential starting points for dialogue and to action. It all begins with the willingness to listen and engage with open hearts, minds, and spirit.