In this article, we explore the concept of Indigenous scholar sisterhood practices and its powerful role in affirming Indigenous women to survive and thrive in the act of research and the larger academic landscape. We address how we, as Indigenous women scholars, extend beyond transactional validity practices in qualitative research and engage in a collective form of validity that is holistic and grounded in Indigenous ways of knowing. We explore what it means to live our research and reclaim academic spaces among a collective sisterhood, as we grapple with questions of what valid and rigorous research looks like from an Indigenous perspective. Recognizing that attempts to decolonize methodological spaces can be complex and tempered with struggles, we provide personal accounts of Indigenous scholar sisterhood practices of love, prayer, vulnerability, and resistance and protection used to maneuver through this space together. As Indigenous women scholars, we conclude by reimagining the value of collective work as a means to not only survive academia but lift up our communities.
ArchibaldJ. A. (2008). Indigenous storywork: Educating the heart, mind, body, and spirit. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia Press.
2.
BirtL.ScottS.CaversD.CampbellC.WalterF. (2016). Member checking a tool to enhance trustworthiness or merely a nod to validation?Qualitative Health Research, 26, 1802-1811.
3.
BordasJ. (2012). Salsa, soul, and spirit : Leadership for a multicultural age (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
4.
BrayboyB. M. J. (2005). Toward a tribal critical race theory in education. The Urban Review, 37, 425-446.
5.
CajeteG. (1994). Look to the mountain: An ecology of indigenous education. Durango, CO: Kivaki Press
6.
CajeteG. (2015). Where there is no name for science: Response 1. In Grande’sS. (Ed.), Red pedagogy: Native American social and political thought (pp. 121-128). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
7.
ChoJ.TrentA. (2006). Validity in qualitative research revisited. Qualitative Research, 6, 319-340.
8.
CreswellJ. W.MillerD. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into Practice, 39, 124-130.
9.
DeloriaV.Jr. (1969). Custer died for your sins: An Indian manifesto. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
10.
DenzinN. K. (2012). Triangulation 2.0. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6, 80-88.
11.
Dickenson-SwiftV.JamesE. L.KippenS.LiamputtongP. (2007). Doing sensitive research: What challenges do qualitative researchers face?Qualitative Research, 7, 327-353.
12.
GrandeS. (2004). Red pedagogy: Native American social and political thought. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
13.
GrandeS. (2015). Red pedagogy: Native American social and political thought (10th ed.). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
14.
HarrisL.WasilewskiJ. (1992). This is what we want to share: Core cultural values. Albuquerque, NM: Americans for Indian Opportunity.
15.
KovachM. (2009). Indigenous methodologies: Characteristics, conversations, and contexts. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
16.
LatherP. (1993). Fertile obsession: Validity after poststructuralism. The Sociological Quarterly, 34, 673-693.
17.
LeeL. (2014). Dine perspectives: Revitalizing and reclaiming Navajo thought. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press.
18.
LindbergT. (2004). Not my sister: What feminists can learn about sisterhood from Indigenous women. Canadian Journal of Women and the Law, 16, 342-353.
19.
MackenzieN.KnipeS. (2006). Research dilemmas: Paradigms, methods and methodology. Issues in Educational Research, 16, 193-205.
20.
MankillerW. (2004). Every day is a good day: Reflections by contemporary Indigenous women. Golden, Colorado: Fulcrum Publishing.
21.
MaxwellJ. A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
22.
MaxwellJ. A. (2008). Designing a qualitative study. In BickmanL.RogD. J. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of applied social research methods (2nd ed., pp. 214-253). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
23.
MeyerM. A. (2008). Indigenous and authentic: Hawaiian epistemology and the triangulation of meaning. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S.Tuhiwai SmithL. (Eds.), Handbook of critical and Indigenous methodologies (pp. 217-232). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
24.
MihesuahD. A. (Ed.). (1998). Natives and academics: Research and writing about American Indians. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
25.
MihesuahD. A.WilsonA. C. (Eds.). (2004). Indigenizing the academy: Transforming scholarship and empowering communities. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
26.
MinthornR. (2015). Consciously leading with ancestor’s prayers and community in the heart. In MinthornR.ChavezA. F. (Eds.), Indigenous leadership in higher education (pp. 178-185). New York, NY: Routledge.
27.
MinthornR.ShottonH. J. (Eds.). (2018). Reclaiming Indigenous research in higher education. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
28.
OliveiraK. R. K. N.WrightE. K. (Eds.). (2016). Kanaka ‘Oiwi methodologies: Mo’olelo and metaphor. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i Press.
29.
RavitchS. M.RigganM. (2011). Reason and rigor: How conceptual frameworks guide research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
30.
SmithL. T. (1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and Indigenous people. London, England: Zed Books.
31.
TachineA. R.Yellow BirdE.CabreraN. L. (2016). Sharing circles: An Indigenous methodology approach for working with Indigenous peoples. International Review of Qualitative Research, 9, 277-295.
32.
TongA.SainsburyP.CraigJ. (2007). Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): A 32-item checklist for interview and focus groups. International Journal of Qualitative in Health Care, 19, 349-357.
33.
TuckE. (2009). Suspending damage: A letter to communities. Harvard Educational Review, 79, 409-428.
34.
TuckE.McKenzieM. (2015). Relational validity and the “where” of inquiry: Place and land in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 21, 633-638.
35.
TuckE.YangK. W. (2012). Decolonization is not a metaphor. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, 1, 1-40.
36.
TuffordL.NewmanP. (2010). Bracketing in qualitative research. Qualitative Social Work, 11, 80-96.
37.
VagleM. D. (2009). Validity as intended: “Bursting forth toward” bridling in phenomenological research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 22, 585-605.
38.
WalterM.AndersenC. (2013). Indigenous statistics: A quantitative research methodology. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
39.
WilsonS. (2008). Research is ceremony: Indigenous research methods. Black Point, Nova Scotia, Canada: Fernwood Publishing.
40.
WinterG. (2000). A comparative discussion of the notion of “validity” in qualitative and quantitative research. The Qualitative Report, 4(3), 1-14.
