Indigenous-informed arts-based research: decolonizing and expanding the dominant paradigm

Abstract

Arts-based research (ABR) includes research approaches that utilize creative arts, such as photo-taking and film, during various phases of the research process. The dominant paradigm informing ABR draws from features of participatory action research, supporting participants to become active in the research process, engaging critically with research questions. While dominant knowledge systems informing social research paradigms offer a foundation for ABR, they have not historically considered the value of Indigenous knowledge systems (IKS). IKS hold some of the oldest approaches to participatory education, though their benefit and merit has been undervalued and subjected to ongoing erasure. When researchers draw from the philosophical assumptions of IKS, they can expand the boundaries of ABR by incorporating the rigor, strength, and spiritual power of IKS. This integration ensures alignment of ABR with Indigenous worldviews and practices, including relationships that extend beyond humans to include animals, plants, and other beings. This article aims to challenge and demonstrate congruency with the dominant knowledge systems informing ABR, through the lens of an IKS.

Introduction

Arts-based research (ABR) includes a range of research approaches that utilize creative arts, for example photo-taking, film, and beyond, during various phases of the research process, including data collection, analysis, interpretation, and representation (Greenwood, 2019). While there are many approaches to ABR, the dominant research paradigm informing many aspects of ABR draws from features of participatory action research, supporting participants to become active players in the research process and to engage critically with a research topic, promoting education and action (Baum et al., 2006; Greenwood, 2019; Wang et al., 1998). In essence, participatory action research is informed by theories of community education, promoting critical reflection on social systems through dialogue, and by situating participants as active in shaping the production and dissemination of knowledge throughout the research process, with the ultimate goals of social change (Freire, 1970; Giroux, 2010; Wallerstein & Duran, 2010; Wang et al., 1998). While the dominant knowledge systems informing social research paradigms offer an important foundation to understanding and translating ontology, epistemology, and methodology in ABR, these dominant knowledge systems have not historically considered the value of an Indigenous Knowledge System (IKS) in ABR.

IKSs hold some of the oldest existing models for participatory community education, though their benefits and merit have been severely undervalued and subjected to ongoing colonial erasure. Central to Indigenous paradigms is the recognition that relationships extend beyond the human, encompassing the land, animals, plants, and spiritual beings that share the world with us. Indigenous paradigms offer an important foundation for re-situating ARB for Indigenous peoples, as well as non-Indigenous researchers. This article offers important considerations for informing and applying ABR through an Indigenous paradigm, to be led and reclaimed by Indigenous communities and peoples.

Drawing from an Indigenous research paradigm and its associated philosophical assumptions offers an opportunity for expanding ABR and bringing to light the rigor, strength, and spiritual power of Indigenous Knowledges as ways of knowing used to inform community education since time immemorial. As Pidgeon (2019) notes, “the collective gathering of information always has been part of Indigenous life” (p. 419), which the western world has dismissed. Indigenous Knowledges have been and continue to be subject to oppression and purposeful erasure, making their revitalization led by Indigenous peoples important to addressing systems of oppression. Yet some scholars have recognized how Indigenous methodologies are acts of empowerment for Indigenous communities since these methodologies are rooted in their own worldviews and knowledges (Pidgeon & Riley, 2021; Smith, 2012; Wilson, 2003).

In this article, I aim to both challenge and to demonstrate congruency with the dominant western foundations of ABR. While an Indigenous paradigm can stand alone in informing ABR, it is worthwhile to draw comparisons, especially to demonstrate the depth and difference of an Indigenous research paradigm to western-informed audiences. In doing this, I will introduce and review the ontological, epistemological, and methodological assumptions of ABR informed by an Indigenous paradigm, drawing from the work of other Indigenous scholars, and my own engagement with Indigenous ideas and ABR in the context of my graduate research. My graduate work was an ABR project using photovoice, a method in which participants take photographs and their images were used to generate meanings associated with past, present, and future access to food for Indigenous peoples living with HIV/AIDS in Mi’kma’ki (Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and parts of New Brunswick and Quebec, Canada) (Purdy, 2023). The methods and results of my graduate research are, however, beyond the scope of this ontological, epistemological, and methodological paper. In this work, I will also argue the importance of Indigenous peoples maintaining ownership and control over Indigenous Knowledge in ABR through translation/application led by Indigenous peoples and for Indigenous audiences/communities, to avoid continued oppression and appropriation of knowledges. It also offers opportunities for settler researchers to reflect on ways to decolonize research approaches, considering their role in promoting Indigenous self-determination and ownership over knowledges, practices, and research processes.

This article weaves my first-person voice as a woman of mixed Mi’kmaq and European ancestry. Throughout, I thread reflections on how I have come to clarify my understanding of the Indigenous-informed ABR paradigm shared here. I am from and living in Mi’kma’ki, specifically Nova Scotia, on the Northeastern coast of Turtle Island (North America), which is the ancestral, present, and future territory of the Mi’kmaq. I am therefore influenced by Mi’kmaw experiences, communities, and ideas. I am not however a speaker of the Mi’kmaw language so acknowledge the limitations this poses in my understandings of Mi’kmaw ideas and knowledge systems.

The second author, Phillip Joy, is a queer settler researcher who has experience using arts-based participatory approaches in his work. Phillip has offered knowledge clarifying the dominant paradigms informing ABR within this article. Our relationship, and this article, stems from my Master’s thesis project, supervised by Phillip, which was, as previously described, a photovoice project with Indigenous communities (Purdy, 2023). My research was originally informed by the dominant western traditions of ABR, but as I progressed through it, I grew to challenge and reflect on the paradigm informing my research. I began more fully to understand why the application of an Indigenous paradigm would be more aligned with both myself and the research, as it honors my values, acknowledges relational ways of knowing, and supports a more holistic approach to inquiry. My understanding of the ontology, epistemology, and methodology is explored in this article.

Exploring dominant research paradigms

Historically, the authority of a positivist or post-positivist research paradigm has set the gold standard in research, including in understanding issues and experiences impacting Indigenous peoples and communities. Within both paradigms, an assertion is made that value-neutral overriding rules or laws exist as reality or truth to be discovered, with post-positivism recognizing the imperfection of the researcher’s ability to know fully this reality (Creswell & Poth, 2018). Using these paradigms as a gold standard has had various impacts on Indigenous peoples across the globe. For example, a positivist lens historically shaped the translation of Darwinism in understanding social phenomenon, seeing the impacts of colonialism on Indigenous peoples as a natural occurrence related to “survival of the fittest,” positioning Indigenous peoples as a lesser evolved version of white European populations (Dennis, 1995). While post-positivism still holds power as a standard in some research fields, such as in the field of natural sciences, social theories have challenged their underlying assumptions as the gold standard for all knowledge generation, clarifying research paradigms that see reality in social circumstances as having more than a single overriding law that explains a phenomenon (Creswell & Poth, 2018). These theories have reflected on the values and assumptions underlying what informs the generation of knowledge, contextualizing theories that challenge dominant approaches to knowledge production. For example, critical theory focuses heavily on revealing, challenging, and deconstructing structures and relations of power, that inform social problems, finding application in fields such as feminist theory, as well as ABR (Brookfield, 2005). These paradigms now set the foundations for much of qualitative research and go beyond traditional positivist values, seeing research beyond the purpose of only knowing for the sake of knowing, but also to promote social change (Brookfield, 2005; Creswell & Poth, 2018).

Many critical social theories are rooted in understanding systems and social structures that shape the experience of the individual, often through the lens of power relations and systems of oppression (Brookfield, 2005). We see this in the work of those who’ve shaped the tradition of these fields such as Paulo Freire (1970) and Michel Foucault (1977, 1978). From a critical theoretical perspective, truths are contingent on power relations and social norms, typically informed and sustained by dominant ideologies, which help uphold and maintain hegemony (Brookfield, 2005; Giroux, 2010). Being informed by these theories in participatory action research means disrupting traditional researcher-participant relationships, encouraging community participation in knowledge production, and promoting critical reflection and dialogue related to social systems and power relations to encourage social change (Wang et al., 1998). Notably, the integration of community education within these forms of research are conceptualized through critical pedagogy, encouraging reflection on social systems and how those systems and the values that uphold them, are embodied within the individual and community (Freire, 1970; Giroux, 2010). This approach supports knowledge generation not only done by the researcher, but within the community throughout the research process.

One approach to translating these theories has been through ABR, which use art-based methods such as taking photos to answer a research question. This approach encourages participant reflection on and discussion of community strengths and issues, and promotes ownership over answers to a question through participant art (Wang & Burris, 1997). This method is one approach to disrupting the traditional researcher–participant relationship, empowering participants to generate new knowledge and ideas, when traditionally this has been the authority of the researcher to do on the participant’s behalf. Ultimately, arts-based and other participatory methodologies aim to encourage a “critical consciousness,” describing an increased personal understandings of social systems, their impact on shaping how we think and what we know, and assuming that this will improve political participation, as well reach wider audiences when new knowledge/ideas are disseminated more widely within the community (Freire, 1970; Wang et al., 1998; Watts et al., 2011). Achieving this assumes dialogue, or critical conversations about experiences and systems, is central to achieving a “critical consciousness” (Freire, 1970; Giroux, 2010). The traditions of ABR methods, including photovoice, draw from these ideas to encourage participants to reflect on their communities’ strengths and concerns using art, and to promote critical dialogue and knowledge about the social circumstances and values impacting and shaping the experiences of the community (Wang & Burris, 1997).

These traditions complement, but are not necessary for, Indigenous-informed ABR, helping to situate and interpret the embodiment of social values, generated by social and political structures that maintain oppressive systems. For example, some of these lenses can be applied in understanding colonialism. While dominant social theories used in qualitative research are compatible with an Indigenous research paradigm, they, like post-positivism, can create relations of power in which IKS are subjugated, limiting understandings of art, its meaning, and application in Indigenous research (Cooms & Saunders, 2024; Robertson, 2024). For example, the foundations of ABR are informed by a dominant research paradigm, that is, critical pedagogy, to inform methods. These dominant assumptions, while compatible with IKS, do not include the same forms of knowledge production, translation, and dissemination that an Indigenous paradigm offers. Perhaps somewhat ironically, the philosophical assumptions informing ABR recognize and explore the role of dominant discourse in maintaining and informing knowledge and research. In this context, discourse is seen as functioning to establish a dominant narrative through the distribution, production, and circulation of values, ideas, and statements that guide decision making within research and within the populace. As a result, knowledge can be seen as a social product, guided by dominant assumptions, values, and ideologies (Brookfield, 2005). The foundations of ABR are no exception, being informed by and supporting the maintenance of its own tradition. While this does not discredit the value of dominant theories informing ABR, it does offer opportunity for opening the door to consider how IKS can help build and inform arts-based approaches, especially as led and translated by and for Indigenous peoples.

Recognizing the influence of dominant research paradigms and their limitations for Indigenous and ABR, it becomes important to examine the underlying ontological, epistemological, and methodological assumptions that distinguish these dominant paradigms from Indigenous-informed ABR paradigms. The next section explores these foundational differences to clarify how each shapes the purpose and process of ABR.

Unpacking ontological and epistemological underpinnings

Ontology

Ontology is an important starting place in situating a research paradigm or knowledge system, helping position and guide the process of deciding what will be considered as true or real (Creswell & Poth, 2018). Ontology is concerned with the ideas and assumptions shaping how we define reality in a research paradigm: is there a singular overriding or constant truth to be discovered, or are there multiple, evolving truths shaped by social and cultural phenomenon? The latter is the assumption applied most often in qualitative research, while the first is typical in quantitative post-positivist informed paradigms (Creswell & Poth, 2018).

The ontological basis of dominant research paradigms informing ABR recognizes the social underpinning of knowing, framing truth as being informed by social and cultural systems and relations of power (Brookfield, 2005). It is through relationships with others, facilitated through critical conversation, that the impacts of these social systems and power relations are realized, supporting the individual and community to “break free” from assumptions, values, and ideas that they have embodied, and that help uphold systems of oppression (Giroux, 2010). This is relevant within black, queer, and feminist theories, which aim to deconstruct the impact of social systems and power relations on respective marginalized and oppressed groups, to support social change (Ahmed, 2006; Hooks, 1994, 2000). This is a self-determined process of realizing the impacts of social values and power relations, facilitated through self or community reflection through mediums such as art, often with a focus on those impacted by a particular social issue.

When I was first introduced to the concept of ontology in a qualitative research methods course during my graduate program, I became curious about the idea of truth. Specifically, I wondered how ontology connected to the teachings of Mikjikj (the turtle), teachings I already understood in my own context.

While the turtle’s teachings vary by Nation and self-knowledge, the turtle has been adopted by many Nations as part of the seven sacred teachings representing truth. Some Indigenous peoples interpret the turtle through its shell, with the inner scales representing the 13 phases of the moon over a year, and the outer 28 scales representing the 28-day moon cycle (Bernard et al., 2015). The turtle is also represented in how many Indigenous peoples describe the land mass of North America (Turtle Island). Many other turtle teachings and stories exist within and across Nations that build on and help make sense of the meaning of the turtle in different contexts. In the context of these turtle teachings, ideas about time and land are reflected as central to the turtle. One way this could be interpreted is that the turtle represents a constant, a metaphor for time and place, where reality or truth emerges. Through these turtle teachings, we can begin to understand ontology in an Indigenous research paradigm, where there is not a single answer to a research question, rather it is shaped by our interconnected relationship to land and time. It was these interconnected ideas surrounding truth, connected by Mikjikj, that prompted me to reflect on, and consider the depth of an IKS, and its similarity and differences to how ontology is typically conceptualized and clarified.

Further building on how reality is conceptualized in relation to land and time, we can consider our relationality more broadly as important to understanding ontology from an IKS. Within an Indigenous research paradigm, reality is conceptualized as being informed by the relationships that we build, and the meaning generated through those relationships (Wilson, 2008). For example, I build meaning or knowing through the personal relationship I build with the turtle. I come to know this, not only through my personal interpretation of the turtle, but by drawing from various other relationships in my life that inform this meaning and knowledge. The turtle, then, is used as a theoretical anchor guiding me to a personal truth, whose values, ideas, and concepts I interpret in the context of my collective relationships, the land, and as interconnected with past, present, and future, as I translate ideas from the past, into the present, and future. These relationships are personal, familial, generational, learned through time on the land, in ceremony, or by engaging with stories and teachings of Mikjikj. The existence of the biological turtle itself then is not the only truth, rather the conceptual embodiment and theoretical or spiritual interpretation of the turtle is also what is true.

Within an IKS, then, we are encouraged to build a personal relationship with the turtle as a way to know, while respecting and acknowledging the relationships that help shape this meaning. For Mi’kmaq, and other Indigenous peoples, this makes ontology inherently relational. This is captured in the Mi’kmaw phrase “Msit No’kmaq” (All My Relations), which states to respect and acknowledge the influence, interconnection, and sacredness of all relationships, living and non-living, past, present, and future, shaping who we are and what we know. You can start to see then how an Indigenous ontology is both relational and wholistic: unable to look at the truth or reality as singular, and instead looking through the lens of relationality. This is to say that reality or truth is the relationships or set of relationships that shape us over time (Wilson, 2008).

Likewise, IKS have a foundation that encourages self-determined knowledge generation, or truth, in relationship with others; however, they draw on various theoretical and conceptual anchors, such as the turtle, to guide this process of reflection and knowing (Archibald, 2008; Hart, 2007; Robertson, 2024). This goes beyond reflection on human-centric social systems and structures, incorporating the land as spiritually and metaphorically important to knowing, and leaning on various ancient eco-social practices like storytelling and ceremony to guide this knowing. Returning to Mikjikj, it is the spiritual and metaphorical relationship that guides reflection, reminding us of the importance of land, place, and time in shaping our knowing and being.

Here, I have drawn from Mikjikj to help inform an ontological assumption that no singular, stagnant reality exists in the context of the paradigm being proposed, where the turtle represents a conceptual basis for where truth or knowing emerges and is interconnected with land, place, and time. I also return to Mikjikj throughout as a personal conceptual anchor and as a relation that I return to, to demonstrate methodological application.

Epistemology

While ontology helps us situate what is classified as truth, epistemology situates how we justify what is true, asking how do I know? (Creswell & Poth, 2018). Within the dominant paradigm informing the epistemology of ABR, art is used as a medium for reflection on, and translation of, values and ideas, justified by the personal understandings and experiences of the individual participating in the research (Leavy, 2020). It is the shared dialogue and shared reflection on human-centric social issues and systems as a group that is seen as important to critical pedagogy (Freire, 1970; Wang et al., 1998) and ABR.

These dominant research traditions, however, do not conceptualize epistemology in the same way as an Indigenous research paradigm. For example, dominant social tradition does not conceptualize reality and knowing as emerging and shaped beyond human-centric social systems (Brookfield, 2005; Freire, 1970). While dominant ABR encourage reflection on social systems and their impact on the individual through discussion and participation within those human systems, they do not conceptualize this as relationality, rather as dialogue or conversation (Freire, 1970). That is, they do not conceptualize the approach as encouraging ongoing relationships, not only with each other, but with all of our relations (Msit No’kmaq) both human and non-human.

An Indigenous research paradigm, however, draws from critical reflection through relationship not only with people and shared reflection on social values, but with ideas embedded in story, dreams, ceremony, spiritual practices, as well as time spent on the land, in relation to other living and non-living beings. These realities are built in the context of relationships in the community, specific to place, and consider past, present, and future, leaning on various stories, teachings, ceremonies, and people for guidance. These often include ancient eco-social practices that have been maintained through forced erasure, sustaining communities’ values throughout genocide. Art is one core aspect and method used within IKS, alongside various other forms of guided reflection, for example storytelling (Archibald, 2008; Hart, 2007).

Within an Indigenous research paradigm, epistemology is relational, similar to an Indigenous ontology (Kovach, 2021; Wilson, 2008). This means I justify how I know through interpretations and meaning generated through the relationships I build with ideas, concepts, people, places, land, and things. This makes ontology and epistemology closely related, or even the same within an Indigenous paradigm, as reality is the relationship that one builds with the truth (Wilson, 2008). Relationship in this context encourages conceptual embodiment of ideas, values, and metaphor, using various theoretical or conceptual anchors, such as the turtle, to guide interpretation, and to encourage making connections between ideas (Archibald, 2008; Kovach, 2021; Wilson, 2008).

Understanding the turtle through an Indigenous epistemology, then, asks us to interpret and justify meaning at the individual level, encouraging conceptual embodiment, drawing from observation, stories, and various other avenues that encourage reflection. This could include dreams, ceremony, time on the land, engagement with stories, or time spent with Elders. Importantly, an Indigenous epistemology leans on relationships and guidance from within an Indigenous community, making relational accountability core to knowing (Pidgeon, 2019; Wilson, 2008). This accountability is to other Indigenous people, but also to the land and other relations, and is captured in the Mi’kmaw phrase Msit Nokmaq. An Indigenous ontology and epistemology are rooted in autonomy and self-determination, placing authority over generation of meaning in the hands of the individual, and making truth emergent and evolving through each generation (Simpson, 2014), influenced deeply through creative pursuit, story, time spent on the land, and with community. This is different than being informed by individualism, however, in that these pursuits are deeply informed by community and relationship, rather than centering the individual in isolation. Important to the development of self-determined knowledge or truth in this context is relational accountability, built through time spent with our relations. Simpson (2014) captures the importance of this, labeling it as “visiting” and describing it as “lateral sharing in the absence of coercion or hierarchy, and in the presence of compassion” (page 18). Visiting, and relationality then, is not outcome or production oriented, rather it is emergent and based in care. It is where knowledge emerges, through sharing of stories, participation in ceremonies, and other forms of care-based exchange within a community space, including creative pursuits, that are self-determined, and shaped through relationships.

From an epistemological standpoint then, I have come to understand what is true about how I understand Mikjikj through my personal relationship with and understanding of them. I do this by seeking out Mi’kmaw stories of Glooscap, a central figure in Mi’kmaw tradition. I also visit communities with Mikjikj and pay attention to how my family and community understand or interact with Mikjikj. In addition, I reflect on the places and ways Mikjikj lives, connecting these observations to my own personal, communal, and familial experiences. Through this process, I am able to interpret and be guided by Mikjikj. The turtle then is both a personal, communal, and generational theoretical anchor, who encourages self-determined interpretation of concepts, metaphors, and ideas embedded within stories and teachings. The turtle, their stories, the way they live on the land/water, and their various teachings encourages me to reflect on, translate and embody the meaning I generate from my own relationship with them, while remembering and applying the idea of Msit No’kmaq. This relationship is both personal and collective, based on where I am from, my family, my community, past generations or ancestors I relate to, and how I pass this knowledge on for the future. While meaning generated is self-determined, individual and personal, I cannot generate this meaning in isolation, rather I must lean on my relationships to support knowledge generation, which is shaped in time and place.

Methodology

Methodologies concern themselves with how we find out more about what is real, considering the method or approach to finding out what is true. The methodology informing dominant ABR similarly encourages critical reflection on an idea using art. Usually, the idea is associated with a social issue impacting the community, where art is used as a tool for interpreting and sharing meaning associated with this issue, helping both the individual and group come to new understandings of the issue in question. The goal is to support achieving a deeper understanding of how political, social, and economic factors can impact a person’s place within the world (Freire, 1970). Freire understood new understandings emerging from this process as critical consciousness, which he described as promoting action by allowing people to recognize the possibilities of response. That is, people may recognize structural inequalities but do not feel compelled to act on their insights unless they believe their efforts will yield a desired outcome (Freire, 1970; Watts et al., 2011). This is a core aspect of ABR methodology, where art is seen as a method to achieving critical consciousness, providing participants an improved understanding of how we are shaped by dominant social structures, and relations of power.

Indigenous methodologies are those that encourage relationship building to know more, prioritizing the relationship with someone or something, over just understanding the thing itself (Archibald, 2008; Kovach, 2021; Wilson, 2008). Returning to the turtle as an example, an Indigenous methodology encourages me to build a personal understanding and interpretation of the turtle through the relationship I build with them as a concept, but also by building relationships with others who may offer their own stories, ideas, and values so that we may grow our shared and individual understanding of the turtle. It also involves respect and protection of the turtle itself, considering my impacts on the places where the turtle lives, ensuring my relationship with the land considers also the turtle’s relationship to the land.

One way these relationships within an Indigenous methodology are built is through repetition (Archibald, 2008). I listen to or read stories about the turtle, I observe how the turtle lives and where they live, I have a dream about the turtle, I talk about the turtle with other Indigenous people to learn their interpretations, I create art with the turtle’s shell and use it, I reflect on my family’s relationship to the turtle. Repeated and ongoing relationship building with the turtle as a living and ancestral relation, metaphor, and spirit provides a theoretical anchor, guiding the emergence of new ideas, re-lived, and re-interpreted through centuries old teachings and stories, that I build into my own life and that I clarify continuously through my relationships with others, and pass on to future generations. This means interpreting turtle as a theory not only happens in the context of your individual relationship with the turtle in a vacuum, but in the context of all of your relations that you draw from to help understand the turtle, as well as those who pass your interpretations on to. This knowledge, therefore, emerges in the context of place and time, where I have autonomy in generating meaning, leaning on relationships for guidance. This methodology applied to ABR methods then aims to promote the generation of meaning by encouraging participants to begin or continue building on their personal relationship with concepts, teachings, and ideas, using art as a medium.

A similar idea is represented in how knowledge is understood in the context of IKS, having been described as “self-knowledge” gained through a process of coming to know, drawing on personal reflection, experiences, senses, and instincts (Hart, 2007). A major aspect of self-knowledge (Hart, 2007), is a deep understanding of the web of relationships between people, their ecosystem, and other living beings and spirits that share the land. Through both lenses people gain awareness and agency through dialogue and personal generation of knowledge. An IKS however, goes beyond reflection on human-centric social structures and systems seen in the interpretation of critical consciousness, expanding to the non-human world, and instead centering land.

Storywork, offered by Archibald (2008), provides insight into how an Indigenous-informed ABR methodology can be translated and communicated in ways that hold meaningful insights for people. Similar to art, the structure of a story gives place for fluidity of metaphor, symbolism, and interpretive communication (Archibald, 2008; Kovach, 2021). This form of knowledge exchange requires the involvement of the listener or viewer, asking them to interpret and take their own learning from the story (Archibald, 2008; Kovach, 2021). When told, the listener may be expected to unfold the story’s meaning in the context of their own life, where the story acts as a philosophical guide for change (Archibald, 2008). In this way, listeners take responsibility for their learning, developing meaning relevant to their lives that may change over time and be applied to different experiences/stories through repetition and continued engagement with stories or the values embedded in them (Archibald, 2008). In a similar manner to storywork, art more broadly can act as an avenue for storytelling, where the participant has autonomy in the generation of a “story” or idea through art forms such as photographs, beadwork, song, dance, regalia, and beyond that is used to share an idea with the viewer, encouraging the viewer's interpretation and reflection.

Methods

Drawing from this methodology, various forms of art can then be seen as “tools” added to an already existing “toolbox” of Indigenous ways of producing and disseminating knowledge. Depending on the research aim, methods may include opportunities for participants to engage with ceremonies or other spiritual practices that support them in identifying a personal theoretical anchor, or that encourage them to continue building their relationship with an existing anchor. It would also incorporate relationship building and sharing among a group, and with the community. The art itself acts as a tool for capturing this anchor in relation to the project aim. It is important then, that this paradigm be led by Indigenous leaders with the inclusion of Elders, Knowledge Holders, Community members, or participant families, so that participants have opportunities to engage with and build relationships with these knowledges through those who hold them and can support their translation.

Within a western context, ABR methods often ask participants to answer a question using art, which is clarified or shared with the researcher usually in the format of an interview or focus group (Wang & Burris, 1997). Typically, the researcher may then record and transcribe the interview or focus group, later completing thematic analysis to capture common experiences or phenomenon across participants, depending on the approach to data analysis. To support the application of a participatory approach, participants may be involved throughout various aspects of these research methods. This may include shaping the research question, supporting participatory data analysis, or making decisions about how art or results will be disseminated. This approach assumes that common themes would be identified that capture an idea, experience, or phenomenon across all participants. I argue, however, that while the foundations of an Indigenous research paradigm can accommodate and be compatible with this approach, they also maintain room for the absence of formal thematic analysis. In the context of photovoice – and my graduate work – where participants use photographs to reflect on their experiences, I see their images and the meanings they assign not simply as data to be themed collectively. Instead, I view each photograph, like the turtle, as an individual idea open to ongoing interpretation shaped by each observer’s relationship to it. Within an IKS, room is maintained for self-determined interpretation of the values, concepts, and ideas captured by a conceptual anchor like a story, or turtle teachings. An art form then, is not always something to be analyzed as generating a single meaning on behalf of a group of participants, but as a guide for continually re-generating, and re-applying meaning, through the person engaging with the art, making it a tool for re-generating and passing on knowledge.

I see Indigenous-informed ABR as offering an opportunity to generate transmission of ideas embedded within art, with autonomy of the viewer and artist over how and with whom they share their art. Similarly, stories are often told or gifted by an Elder or storyteller as a teaching tool, asking the listener to interpret and translate their own meaning from it. How stories are told often depends on who is listening, with details changing or evolving with the listener (Archibald, 2008). Similarly, a participant should have autonomy over how they share the context of their art and with whom they wish to share it. This approach may not aim to identify and tell a single story for all participants to be captured through thematic analysis. The approach of thematic analysis, for some, may also encourage the need for a representative sample of a population to support data saturation (Braun & Clarke, 2021). While thematic analysis is a helpful and important approach to some forms of knowledge generation, and dependent on research goals, it does not mean that knowledge cannot be generated in the absence of thematic analysis and data saturation. Rather, ownership over generating knowledge through art, representing a conceptual or theoretical anchor, can remain in the hands of participants, or those who view and engage with the art. This puts power in the hands of participants and those engaging with the art form to generate and re-generate autonomous meaning among themselves and with other participants and/or the public, at their discretion. An analysis that captured specific themes or created a theory could contradict this, generating a singular theory or themes to explain a single answer to the research question, which may or may not be the goal of an Indigenous-informed ABR project. The goal rather, may be for participants to generate and interpret ideas using art, as guided by a question, similar to other modes of knowing within IKS. I think back to the turtle, who guides me in reflection and conceptual embodiment, and the emergence of personal, autonomous meaning generated from this relationship. I am also reminded that every person who engages with the turtle will develop their own personal application of the meaning of the turtle, despite potentially drawing sometimes from similar or the same teachings or stories. In some ways, I see thematic analysis of participant photographs to be in some ways equivalent to overriding the meaning that someone else generates from the spirit of the turtle, with my own meaning, based on the context of my own life, community, and experiences.

Translation and dissemination

A core aspect of ABR methods includes the opportunity for the dissemination of art created during the project. The format of dissemination ranges, depending on the form of art and the ways that participants may be interested in having their work shared. Dissemination could include an in-person or online art gallery, a story, a film, dance, song, poetry, a comic book, a play, and beyond (Archibald, 2008; Cooms & Saunders, 2024; Greenwood, 2019). It can also include traditional academic publications. Within an IKS, however, especially in the context of application to ABR, knowledge generation, translation, and dissemination are not separate processes. Instead, they are inherently connected. It is the art itself then that acts as the basis for the generation of new knowledge, simultaneously acting as an opportunity to also translate and disseminate knowledge as values, ideas, or concepts embedded within art at the community and individual level. Likewise, story acts in a similar manner (Archibald, 2008), as does engagement with and time spent on the land (Simpson, 2014). In the context of art, photos, paintings, beadwork, and other creative pursuits such as basket weaving can create accessible ways to capturing ideas that can be disseminated for others to engage with and generate their own connections and ideas from as a form of translation. In addition, various art forms act as an opportunity to engage with stories, land-based learning, and other Indigenous eco-social practices, which can be translated or captured through art.

Notes on ethical engagement with Indigenous ABR

This approach to research requires a deep, reciprocal relationship with the Nation that is being engaged. It also requires Indigenous leadership. This is related not only to the importance of relational accountability but also to the experience of loss of knowledge within communities, and the impacts of colonial ideas and values on IKS. This research approach is not only about engaging with IKS through art, but confronting the impacts of colonial ideas within ourselves and within our communities. This is difficult work because in the process of engaging with Indigenous-informed artistic practice and critical reflection in this way, we can expose colonial impact within ourselves and within our communities, illuminating trauma and pain. It also can mean that we illuminate or recognize political and social values and ideas within our own communities; values that are typically attached to people that can include our community leaders, service providers, family members, or friends. For this reason, it is crucial that we understand and are accountable to the community we are working with in doing ABR informed by an Indigenous research paradigm, so that we maintain relationship to the community, support continued community healing, and create spaces that prioritize safety. To do this, one must first work to build relational accountability to the community and understand its context.

ABR informed by an Indigenous research paradigm requires engagement with Indigenous peoples, their practices, and their knowledge. It is therefore a process of supporting the reclamation and revitalization of Indigenous Knowledges. This work inherently must include meaningful Indigenous leadership direction. Without this work being led by us and for us, the interpretation and context of meaning transform, adapting to the relationships, values, and communities of non-Indigenous peoples, fostering continued appropriation. Knowledge generation, then done outside of a strong connection with Indigenous communities, shifts to emerge in the context of non-Indigenous places, experiences, and relationships, maintaining systems of power and oppression over Indigenous knowledge. If those holding more power maintain their power over meaning and interpretation of the knowledges held in our community, subjugation of knowledges continues. For this reason, methodology that is drawing from IKS embedded in Indigenous story, ceremony, art, and other practices, must center and prioritize Indigenous peoples, emerge from Indigenous peoples needs, and must include meaningful leadership direction from Indigenous leaders or scholars.

Conclusion

An Indigenous research paradigm that informs ABR offers an approach that is rooted in a relationship with land and time, while promoting the autonomy and determination of the individual in the generation and interpretation of meaning through engagement with artistic practice. These ways of knowing have been generated and re-generated since time immemorial, embedding personal critical reflection and knowledge generation at the core of Indigenous social structures. Stories, beadwork, regalia, and basket making all represent ways this was/is done, explaining IKS beyond descriptors of “oral communication.” This goes beyond what is offered by dominant theories such as critical theories, drawing from generations of knowledge passed on in families and communities, through stories, ideas, ceremonies, images, practices and their interconnection between Nations across Turtle Island. This makes knowledge localized, personal, and emergent, while being deeply interconnected between families, communities, and Nations. Engagement with this form of research requires meaningful leadership from Indigenous leaders or scholars, and ongoing relationship building to develop accountability to communities involved.