Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Naming, claiming, and (re)creating : Indigenous knowledge organization at the cultural interface Doyle, Ann Mary 2013

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
24-ubc_2013_spring_doyle_ann.pdf [ 1.91MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 24-1.0073667.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0073667-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0073667-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0073667-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0073667-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0073667-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0073667-source.json
Full Text
24-1.0073667-fulltext.txt
Citation
24-1.0073667.ris

Full Text

NAMING, CLAIMING, AND (RE)CREATING: INDIGENOUS KNOWLEDGE ORGANIZATION AT THE CULTURAL INTERFACE by  Ann Mary Doyle  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF  DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY  in  THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES  (Educational Studies)  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver) April 2013  © Ann Mary Doyle, 2013  Abstract This design/research study is located at the disciplinary interstices of Indigenous education and information science. It is motivated by the weaknesses of the dominant library knowledge organization systems (KOS) in representing and organizing documents with Indigenous content. The study first examines the nature of the problem and then explores ways in which Indigenous conceptual, theoretical and methodological approaches can generate new directions for KOS design. It thereby addresses the central research question, “How can Indigenous approaches to knowledge inform principles of design of library knowledge organization systems to serve Indigenous purposes?” An Indigenous theoretical lens, @ Cultural Interface, is assembled for the study composed of Martin Nakata’s (2007b) Cultural Interface, and Dwayne Donald’s (2009b) Indigenous Métissage. It is integrated with domain analysis in information science (Hjørland & Albrechtsen, 1995) to produce a methodology, domain analysis @ Cultural Interface, used to study the domain of Indigenous knowledge within post-secondary education. Information was gathered through expert interviews with nine Indigenous designers of Indigenous KOS from four countries; a user study with nine First Nations, Aboriginal, and Métis graduate students; and theoretical analyses. The study produced a theoretical framework for Indigenous knowledge organization based on four main findings: (1) knowledge organization is integral to educational infrastructure and is consequential for Indigenous learners and all learners; (2) a definition of the domain of Indigenous knowledge in post-secondary education, its boundaries and the boundary marker of Indigeneity; (3) an articulation of Indigenous knowledge organization as a field of study including a (partial) history, typology of design practice, objectives, and ii  evaluation framework; and (4) a design workspace for conceptual enquiry. These findings are synthesized in a theoretical framework, Indigenous knowledge organization @ Cultural Interface, which can be applied in the design, study, and critique of knowledge organization for Indigenous purposes. It is noted that this study and its theoretical framework have been constructed incrementally based on selected theorists, particular participants, experiences, and literatures and offer only one of many possible interpretations.  iii  Preface Earlier versions of the literature review (see Chapter 1.5) were included in the following: (1) Burns, Kathleen, Doyle, Ann, Joseph, Gene, and Krebs, Allison. (2009). Indigenous Librarianship. In M. J. Bates and M. N. Maack (Eds.), Encyclopedia of library and information studies (3rd ed. online). Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis; (2) Doyle, Ann. (2006). Naming and reclaiming Indigenous knowledges in public institutions: Intersections of landscapes and experience. In G. Budin, C. Swertz, and K. Mitgutsch (Eds.), Advances in Knowledge Organization: Vol. 10. Knowledge Organization for a Global Learning Society: Proceedings of the Ninth International ISKO Conference, 4–7 July 2006, Vienna, Austria (pp. 435–442). Würzburg, Germany: Ergon; (3) Webster, Kelly, and Doyle, Ann. (2008). Don’t class me in antiquities! Giving voice to Native American materials. In K. R. Roberto (Ed.), Radical cataloging: Essays at the front (pp. 189–197). London, England: McFarland. Earlier versions of the Metaphor of the Musqueam Map (see Chapter 1.1) were included in the latter two citations.  Ethical Approval for interviews was received from the University of British Columbia, Office of Research Services and Administration, Behavioural Research Ethics Board Certificate Number H08-00261.  iv  Table of Contents Abstract.................................................................................................................................... ii! Preface ..................................................................................................................................... iv! Table of Contents .................................................................................................................... v! List of Tables ......................................................................................................................... xv! List of Figures....................................................................................................................... xvi! List of Abbreviations .......................................................................................................... xvii! Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................ xviii! Dedication ............................................................................................................................. xix! Chapter 1! The Metaphor of the Musqueam Map: Library as Territory ...................... 1! 1.1! The Musqueam Map ................................................................................................................. 2! 1.2! The Library as Territory ........................................................................................................... 4! 1.3! Teachings of the Musqueam Map ............................................................................................. 6! 1.4! Purpose of the Research ............................................................................................................ 8! 1.4.1! Research Question ............................................................................................................. 9! 1.4.2! Research Design ................................................................................................................ 9! 1.4.3! Researcher Location: One Story ...................................................................................... 11! 1.4.4! Changing the Stories We Tell.......................................................................................... 13! 1.5! Citation Style .......................................................................................................................... 14! 1.6! Literature Review ................................................................................................................... 17! 1.7! General Terminology .............................................................................................................. 22! 1.8! Field Guide to Knowledge Organization in Information Science .......................................... 24! 1.8.1! Information Science ......................................................................................................... 24! 1.8.2! Knowledge Organization (KO) ....................................................................................... 25! 1.8.2.1! Document ..................................................................................................................................25!  1.8.3! Knowledge Organization System (KOS) ........................................................................ 26! 1.8.4! Controlled Vocabularies .................................................................................................. 27!  v  1.8.5! Classification ................................................................................................................... 28! 1.8.6! Classificatory Structures .................................................................................................. 29! 1.8.7! Faceted Classification ...................................................................................................... 30! 1.8.8! Advantages and Disadvantages of Faceted Classification .............................................. 30! 1.9! Outline of the Dissertation ...................................................................................................... 31!  Chapter 2! Theoretical Location: The Cultural Interface ............................................. 40! 2.1! The Cultural Interface: Development of a Theory.................................................................. 42! 2.1.1! Lived Experience ............................................................................................................. 43! 2.1.2! Discursive Constructions of Indigenous Identity ............................................................ 45! 2.1.2.1! Missionary Discourse: The Cannibal, the Noble Savage, and the Lost Soul ...........................45! 2.1.2.2! The Discourse of Science: The Historic Evolutionary Subject ................................................46! 2.1.2.3! Contemporary Colonialisms: The 20th-Century Evolutionary Subject .....................................47! 2.1.2.4! Education Policy Discourse: The Cultural Subject ...................................................................48!  2.2! The Cultural Interface: A Social Ontology ............................................................................. 49! 2.2.1! Characteristics of the Cultural Interface .......................................................................... 51! 2.2.1.1! The Primacy of the Present .......................................................................................................51! 2.2.1.2! Continuity of the Past ...............................................................................................................52! 2.2.1.3! (Op)positions.............................................................................................................................52! 2.2.1.4! Embodied Experience ...............................................................................................................53! 2.2.1.5! Orate-Literate Divide ................................................................................................................54! 2.2.1.6! Indigenous Standpoint Theory: An Epistemology ....................................................................54!  2.3! (Re)Reading Nakata: Towards a Relational Epistemology .................................................... 56! 2.3.1! Mediating Standpoint Theory .......................................................................................... 57! 2.3.1.1! Objectivity, Reason and the Knowing Subject .........................................................................61! 2.3.1.2! Balancing: The Modern and Postmodern .................................................................................63!  2.3.2! Situated Knowledges ....................................................................................................... 66! 2.4! The Research Ethic of Indigenous Métissage ......................................................................... 68!  vi  2.5! Discussion: @ Cultural Interface ............................................................................................ 71!  Chapter 3! Methodology: Domain Analysis @ Cultural Interface................................ 74! 3.1! Prologue: Stopping in Order to Begin .................................................................................... 74! 3.2! Design/Research ..................................................................................................................... 76! 3.3! Indigenous Research Methodology ........................................................................................ 77! 3.3.1! Researcher Responsibilities ............................................................................................. 79! 3.3.2! Two Kinds of Rigour: Trustworthiness and Credibility .................................................. 80! 3.4! Constructing a Methodology .................................................................................................. 81! 3.4.1! Domain Analysis in Information Science........................................................................ 82! 3.4.2! Realism: The Word and the World .................................................................................. 84! 3.4.3! Discourse Theory: Discursive Constructions of the World ............................................. 85! 3.4.4! Domain Analysis @ Cultural Interface ........................................................................... 86! 3.5! Application of the Methodology: Four Domain Analyses @ Cultural Interface.................... 88! 3.5.1! Domain Analysis 1: Critical Study of Mainstream Knowledge Organization ................ 91! 3.5.2! Domain Analysis 2: Conceptualizing a Domain ............................................................. 92! 3.5.3! Domain Analysis 3: Conceptualizing a Field of Study ................................................... 93! 3.5.3.1! Method: Expert Interviews with Indigenous Designers............................................................94! 3.5.3.2! The Designers and their Knowledge Organization Systems.....................................................98!  3.5.4! Domain Analysis 4: User Study with First Nations, Aboriginal, and Métis Graduate Students ......................................................................................................................... 102! 3.5.5! Analysis and Reporting of Individual and Group Interviews ........................................ 104! 3.6! Experiences of Researcher .................................................................................................... 106! 3.7! Summary ............................................................................................................................... 108!  vii  Part One: NAMING ........................................................................................................... 110! Chapter 4! Knowledge Organization as Infrastructure: Consequences and New Directions ................................................................................................................. 111! 4.1! Theorizing Power: Knowledge Organization as Infrastructure ............................................ 112! 4.1.1! The (Hidden) Curriculum and Textbooks ..................................................................... 115! 4.1.2! Knowledge Organization as Educational Infrastructure ................................................ 117! 4.1.3! Who is the Public? Gatekeeping at the Library ............................................................. 119! 4.1.4! Resistances, Mediations, and Boundary Objects ........................................................... 121! 4.2! Effects of Knowledge Organization Systems for Indigenous Learners ................................ 122! 4.2.1! The Literature of Indigenous Critique ........................................................................... 123! 4.2.1.1! Silencing and Theft .................................................................................................................124! 4.2.1.2! Information Policy ..................................................................................................................126! 4.2.1.3! Global Reach ...........................................................................................................................127!  4.3! Student Voices: Experiences in the Library ......................................................................... 128! 4.3.1! Student Experience: Is It There? I Can’t Find It ........................................................... 130! 4.3.2! Glut: Too Many Words ................................................................................................. 131! 4.3.3! Absence: No Words ....................................................................................................... 132! 4.3.4! Not the Right Words ...................................................................................................... 133! 4.3.4.1! Two Literacies ........................................................................................................................134!  4.3.5! Diverse Access: Access to Diversity ............................................................................. 135! 4.3.6! Native Libraries: Strengthening Connections ............................................................... 136! 4.4! Discussion: Consequences and New Directions ................................................................... 139! 4.4.1! Theft of Indigenous Knowledge .................................................................................... 139! 4.4.2! The Enemy’s Language ................................................................................................. 140! 4.4.3! Library Climate ............................................................................................................. 141! 4.4.4! Intergenerational Impacts .............................................................................................. 142! 4.4.5! Institutional Accountability ........................................................................................... 143!  viii  4.4.6! Discussion: New Directions .......................................................................................... 143!  Chapter 5! What is Indigenous Knowledge? Conceptualizing a Domain ................... 146! 5.1! Discursive Constructions of Indigenous Knowledge............................................................ 147! 5.2! Student Voices: Experiences as Learners and Researchers .................................................. 150! 5.2.1! Identity, Classification, and Access to Knowledge ....................................................... 151! 5.2.2! Naming and Researcher Responsibility......................................................................... 152! 5.2.3! Indigenous Knowledges and Other Knowledges .......................................................... 153! 5.2.4! Broadening the Discourse.............................................................................................. 154! 5.3! Indigenous Scholars Conceptualize Indigenous Knowledges .............................................. 155! 5.3.1! The General and Specific .............................................................................................. 157! 5.3.2! Approaching Dualisms .................................................................................................. 160! 5.3.3! The Indigenous/Western Knowledge Divide ................................................................ 161! 5.3.4! Indigenous Knowledges In Action ................................................................................ 163! 5.3.4.1! Indigenous Education..............................................................................................................164! 5.3.4.2! Indigenous Studies ..................................................................................................................168! 5.3.4.3! Indigenous Research Methodologies ......................................................................................172!  5.4! Discussion: Theorizing Indigeneity ...................................................................................... 175! 5.4.1! Indigeneity and Knowledge Organization ..................................................................... 177!  Part Two: CLAIMING ....................................................................................................... 181! Chapter 6! Indigenous Knowledge Organization: Mapping a Field ........................... 182! 6.1! Indigenous Knowledge Organization in Canada: The Past in the Present ........................... 184! 6.1.1! Brian Deer ..................................................................................................................... 185! 6.1.1.1! The Brian Deer Classification: The National Indian Brotherhood Library (1974–1976) ......186!  6.1.2! Gene Joseph ................................................................................................................... 188! 6.1.2.1! The BC-Deer Classification: The Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs’ Library (1979– 1980) .......................................................................................................................................190!  ix  6.1.2.2! The FNHL-Deer Classification and the Gene Joseph Subject Headings: The Native Indian Teacher Education Program (1982–1993) and First Nations House of Learning (1993–2005) Libraries ..................................................................................................................................191! 6.1.2.3! Heiltsuk Cultural Education Centre Classification: Heiltsuk Cultural Education Centre (1984– present) ....................................................................................................................................193!  6.1.3! Bert Morrison ................................................................................................................ 194! 6.1.3.1! The Ojibway and Cree Resource Centre Classification: The Ojibway and Cree Cultural Centre Resource Centre (1980–present) .............................................................................................195!  6.1.4! The Original Peoples’ Library Association ................................................................... 198! 6.2! Indigenous Knowledge Organization: A Range of Practice ................................................. 199! 6.2.1! Indigenous Knowledge-Based Systems ........................................................................ 200! 6.2.1.1! Classifications .........................................................................................................................200! 6.2.1.1.1! Brian Deer Classification ...............................................................................................201! 6.2.1.1.2! Ojibway and Cree Cultural Centre Classification .........................................................202! 6.2.1.1.3! Native American Educational Services (NAES) Classification ....................................203! 6.2.1.2! Alphabetic Subject Vocabularies ............................................................................................204! 6.2.1.3! Indigenous Local Knowledge Bases .......................................................................................205!  6.2.2! Indigenous Hybrid Systems ........................................................................................... 206! 6.2.3! Local Indigenous Adaptation of a Universal KOS ........................................................ 207! 6.2.4! Advocacy for Institutional Change of a Universal KOS ............................................... 208! 6.3! Discussion: Naming and Claiming Indigenous Knowledge Organization ........................... 213!  Chapter 7! Indigenous Design Space, Purpose, and Evaluation .................................. 218! 7.1! Indigenous Design Space ...................................................................................................... 219! 7.1.1! The Academy as Research Site ..................................................................................... 221! 7.1.2! Funding and Sustainability ............................................................................................ 222! 7.1.3! Indigenous Design Language ........................................................................................ 223! 7.1.4! Stories of Experience ..................................................................................................... 224!  x  7.1.4.1! Wholism ..................................................................................................................................224! 7.1.4.2! Indigenous Authority ..............................................................................................................225! 7.1.4.2.1! The Story of Wilp Wilxo’oskwhl ..................................................................................225! 7.1.4.2.2! The Story of the Indian Women and the Museum .........................................................226! 7.1.4.3! Indigenous Diversity ...............................................................................................................227! 7.1.4.3.1! The Story of the Silver Bracelet ....................................................................................227! 7.1.4.3.2! The Story of a Cree Visitor to Cree Territory................................................................227! 7.1.4.3.3! The Story of a Māori Van Ride .....................................................................................228! 7.1.4.4! Indigenous Continuity: Revitalization and Persistence ..........................................................229!  7.2! Indigenous Semantics and Structure ..................................................................................... 231! 7.2.1! Semantics: Similarities and Differences ........................................................................ 233! 7.2.1.1! English Language Terms to Represent Indigenous Topics.....................................................233! 7.2.1.2! Indigenous Semantics .............................................................................................................234! 7.2.1.2.1! Indigenous Connotation .................................................................................................234! 7.2.1.2.2! Indigenous Polysemy .....................................................................................................234! 7.2.1.2.3! Indigenous Ontological Differences ..............................................................................235! 7.2.1.2.4! Indigenous Language Terminology ...............................................................................236!  7.2.2! Structure ........................................................................................................................ 236! 7.2.3! Indigenous Cataloguing Standards ................................................................................ 239! 7.3! Discussion: Purpose and Evaluation of Indigenous Knowledge Organization .................... 240! 7.3.1! Purpose .......................................................................................................................... 241! 7.3.1.1! Naming ....................................................................................................................................242! 7.3.1.2! Claiming ..................................................................................................................................243! 7.3.1.3! Educating ................................................................................................................................244! 7.3.1.4! Ethical Access .........................................................................................................................245! 7.3.1.4.1! Cultural and Intellectual Property ..................................................................................246! 7.3.1.4.2! Reconstructing Memory ................................................................................................248! 7.3.1.4.3! Rights and Title Claims .................................................................................................250!  xi  7.3.2! Evaluation—Does the Axe Cut Wood? ......................................................................... 251!  Part Three: (Re)CREATING............................................................................................. 256! Chapter 8! Adding to the Rafters ................................................................................... 257! 8.1! The Concept of Warrant as a Boundary Object .................................................................... 258! 8.2! Four Planes of Warrant ......................................................................................................... 259! 8.2.1! Epistemic Warrant ......................................................................................................... 261! 8.2.1.1! Theory and Practice ................................................................................................................261! 8.2.1.1.1! Indigenous Perspectives on Theory and Practice ..........................................................262! 8.2.1.2! Scientific/Philosophical Warrant ............................................................................................262! 8.2.1.2.1! Indigenous Perspectives on Scientific/Philosophical Warrant ......................................266! 8.2.1.3! Educational Warrant and Consensus ......................................................................................269! 8.2.1.3.1! Indigenous Perspectives on Educational Warrant and Consensus ................................270! 8.2.1.4! Literary Warrant......................................................................................................................270! 8.2.1.4.1! Indigenous Perspectives on Literary Warrant................................................................272!  8.2.2! Discursive Warrant ........................................................................................................ 273! 8.2.2.1.1! Indigenous Perspectives on Discursive Warrant ...........................................................276!  8.2.3! Social and Ethical Warrant ............................................................................................ 278! 8.2.3.1.1! Indigenous Perspectives on Social Warrant ..................................................................281!  8.2.4! Technical Warrant ......................................................................................................... 282! 8.2.4.1.1! Indigenous Perspectives on Technical Warrant .............................................................285! 8.2.4.1.2! Indigenous Educational Warrant ...................................................................................287! 8.2.4.1.3! The Warrant of Indigenous Sovereignty........................................................................288! 8.2.4.1.4! Two Territories of Indigenous Classification ................................................................290!  8.3! Discussion: Wholism and Integration ................................................................................... 292!  Chapter 9! Indigenous Knowledge Organization @ Cultural Interface ..................... 295! 9.1! Towards Integration: Developing a Theoretical Framework ................................................ 295! 9.2! Revisiting the Musqueam Map ............................................................................................. 297!  xii  9.3! A Theoretical Lens................................................................................................................ 298! 9.4! Methodology for Studying an Indigenous Knowledge Domain ........................................... 300! 9.5! Four Findings ........................................................................................................................ 300! 9.5.1! Consequences of Mainstream Knowledge Organization .............................................. 301! 9.5.2! The Domain of Indigenous Knowledge in Post-Secondary Education ......................... 302! 9.5.3! Indigenous Knowledge Organization as a Field of Study ............................................. 303! 9.5.4! Adding to the Rafters: Design Workspace .................................................................... 304! 9.6! A Theoretical Framework ..................................................................................................... 305! 9.6.1! Purposes ......................................................................................................................... 306! 9.6.2! Design Principles ........................................................................................................... 307! 9.6.2.1! Indigenous Authority ..............................................................................................................307! 9.6.2.2! Indigenous Diversity ...............................................................................................................309! 9.6.2.3! Wholism and Interrelatedness .................................................................................................310! 9.6.2.4! Continuity ...............................................................................................................................312! 9.6.2.5! Aboriginal User Warrant.........................................................................................................315! 9.6.2.6! Designer Responsibility ..........................................................................................................316! 9.6.2.7! Institutional Responsibility: Ethical Access ...........................................................................317!  9.6.3! Evaluation ...................................................................................................................... 318! 9.6.4! Summary........................................................................................................................ 319! 9.7! Discussion: What’s Indigenous About Indigenous Knowledge Organization?.................... 320!  Chapter 10! Conclusion: Reflecting on Relations ......................................................... 323! 10.1! Naming, Claiming and (Re)Creating ................................................................................... 324! 10.2! Implications for Scholarship ................................................................................................ 326! 10.2.1! Indigenous Information Studies? ................................................................................... 326! 10.3! Implications for Policy ......................................................................................................... 327! 10.4! Implications For Future Research ........................................................................................ 329!  xiii  10.4.1! Naming .......................................................................................................................... 330! 10.4.2! Claiming ........................................................................................................................ 332! 10.4.3! (Re)Creating .................................................................................................................. 332! 10.5! Limitations ........................................................................................................................... 334! 10.6! Contributions of the Study ................................................................................................... 335! 10.7! Reflecting on Relations ........................................................................................................ 337!  References ............................................................................................................................ 340! Appendices ........................................................................................................................... 378! Appendix A Interview Participants, Dates and Places ................................................................... 378! Appendix B Guiding Interview Questions for Indigenous Designers ........................................... 379! Appendix C Guiding Questions for Group Interviews .................................................................. 381!  xiv  List of Tables Table 1.1! Dissertation Map .................................................................................................. 39! Table 3.1! Four Domain Analyses @ Cultural Interface: Information Sources, Research Questions, and Findings Chapters........................................................................................... 90! Table 3.2! Indigenous Designers Interviewed: By Name, Knowledge Organization Scheme, and Country............................................................................................................................. 99! Table 6.1! Indigenous Knowledge Organization: Mapping Design Practice...................... 212! Table 7.1! A Wholistic Evaluation Framework .................................................................. 254! Table 10.1! A Sample Research Agenda ............................................................................ 329!  xv  List of Figures Figure 9.1! Indigenous Knowledge Organization @ Cultural Interface ............................. 297!  xvi  List of Abbreviations  AIATSIS ATSILIRN AILA BBK BC BC-BDC BCE BDC CC CRG CRSG CS CV DDC FNHL IIRG IKO KO KOS LC LCC LCSH LIS NAN OCRC PCC UC USA UBC UBCIC UDC UK SAGE IK UNDRIP  Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders Library, and Information Resources Network American Indian Library Association Bibliotechno-bibliografichesaia Klassifikatsiia British Columbia Brian Deer Classification - British Columbia Before current era Brian Deer Classification Colon Classification Classification Research Group Classification Research Study Group classification scheme controlled vocabulary Dewey Decimal Classification First Nations House of Learning Indigenous Information Research Group Indigenous knowledge organization knowledge organization knowledge organization system(s) Library of Congress Library of Congress Classification Library of Congress Subject Headings Library and Information Studies/Science Nishnawbe Aski Nation Ojibway and Cree Cultural Resource Centre Program for Cooperative Cataloging University of California United States of America University of British Columbia Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs Universal Decimal Classification United Kingdom Supporting Aboriginal Graduate Enhancement Indigenous knowledge United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples xvii  Acknowledgements Any dissertation is a long journey whether or not it takes a long time. This particular dissertation took quite a long time and I express my appreciation to everyone who supported me in its twists and turns. Special gratitude to my research supervisor, Jo-ann Archibald, Q’um Q’um Xiiem, for inviting me to the table, for clarity, authority, and immense patience with the process. Thank you to committee members Joe Tennis and Amy Metcalfe for your insight and good counsel. A h"n’q’"min’"m’ thank you to Elder Larry Grant for an introduction to the language and new understandings. I appreciate the support of the University of British Columbia and the Faculty of Education through offers of graduate student grants, academic awards, and tuition waivers, and the support of the University Library. My ongoing appreciation to the individuals who generously agreed to participate in this study: the designers and the graduate students. The designers included John D. Berry, Brian Deer, Alana Garwood-Houng, Gene Joseph, Cheryl Metoyer, Bert Morrison, Ann Reweti, Kelly Webster, and educator Deanna Nyce. The graduate student participants are anonymous in this report, however I hope that if you read this that you will hear your voices, and feel an honest representation. I also hope that others who hear the students’ voices will take up the challenge expressed here. Thanks for the stalwart support of my colleagues at the Xwi7xwa Library who believed that the work was important to the aspirations of the library. A debt of thanks to Linda Allen, Access Services Supervisor (now retired); and special thanks to Eleanore Wellwood, Technical Services Assistant, and off-hours bibliography checker; appreciation to Dan Slessor and all of the student assistants and GAAs – past-present-future; librarians, Kim Lawson, Sarah Dupont, Nancy Hannum, and Ene Haabniit; and Cameron Duder for IT formatting. I appreciate the early encouragement of Madeleine MacIvor, Longhouse administration, and University Librarian pro tem, Peter Ward. To my backers: siblings, siblings-in-law, pod of nieces and god-daughter Sho, and the big boys: I hope you all come to visit now, and I am free to travel again. Appreciation to my cousin in genealogy, John Rufus, for inspiration to build it – whatever it is.  xviii  Dedication  To the students, my teachers.  xix  Chapter 1  The Metaphor of the Musqueam Map: Library as Territory  “?a: si:?em’ n" si:yey", ?eỷ t" n" šxwqwel"w"n k’w"ns ?i k’w"cnal".”1 Elder Larry Grant, h"n’q’"min’"m’ language teacher, welcomed us to class at the Musqueam Elders’ Centre with this greeting. Although I didn’t know it at the time, my interest in knowledge trails began with the Elder’s welcome and a student project for this first-year h"n’q’"min’"m’ language class.2 The course is offered through the University of British Columbia (UBC) First Nations Language Program, a collaboration between the nation and the university to revitalize the h"n’q’"min’"m’ language. H"n’q’"min’"m’ is one of three dialects of Halkomelem and, like many Indigenous languages in Canada, it is endangered.3 Within the context of endangered languages the loss of a language is understood to be like the loss of a world. A team of linguists, Elders, and speakers worked to develop an orthography and curriculum resources for the students. Often the instructors were only one step ahead of the class, producing a curriculum chapter while trying to accurately record and represent the words of the Elders and remain faithful to the spirit and artistry of the tradition. “?"lqs"n is the name of this point of land,” Larry Grant began as he introduced the peninsula where the University of British Columbia is located on the traditional unceded  1  My honoured friends and relatives, I’m happy to see you. The term h"n’q’"min’"m’ is not capitalized: the h"n’q’"min’"m’ orthography does not 2 The term h"n’q’"min’"m’ is not capitalized: the h"n’q’"min’"m’ orthography does not conform to English language conventions. 3 Of the twenty-six surviving First Nations Languages in British Columbia, all are endangered; another six ancestral BC languages have become extinct. UBC First Nations Languages Program website (cf. Shaw, 2001). 2  1  territory of the Musqueam people. Musqueam means “people of the river grass.” The Musqueam people have lived here for thousands of years, on the territory encompassing what is now called Point Grey campus. As students we learned how the term Musqueam had been anglicized, and the ways in which the English, French and Chinook languages intermixed with h"n’q’"min’"m’ to shape new forms and blended traditions. We learned how the cardinal directions orientating to sea and forest are carried in the clitics4 of the language, and the verb formations are dependent on visibility and proximity. Histories of contact were shared as well as appropriation of land and resources that occurred when Europeans arrived and with colonization, the Indian residential school system, and the imposition of the Indian Act.  1.1  The Musqueam Map For my class project I mapped over thirty-five h"n’q’"min’"m’ place names on  ?"lqs"n based on the Musqueam Declaration (Musqueam Indian Band, 1976) and archival research. It included place names for crab apples stands, sturgeon fishing areas, sources of fresh water, bogs, village sites, and transformation sites. These places and their names evoke associated narratives, stories of sustained use, histories, and origins. Musqueam trail systems connected the resource sites with the lookouts on the cliffs and the villages on the river and inlet. In the 19th century loggers’ skidroads5 cut through the forest, perhaps overlaying or disrupting the original trails. In 2013, walking paths thread through the second and third growth forests of ?"lqs"n in the area now named Pacific Spirit Park. It is not clear to me how  4  Clitics are syntactic words which also serve as word-parts. Matthews, J.S. and Pinder-Moss, J. The skid-roads of Vancouver, 1865-1905: How the forest was logged-off. Map p. 66. N. no. 130. Oblong Map S. 81. City of Vancouver Archives, Vancouver, BC. 5  2  these overlays of the original Indigenous and newer trail systems are related or the points at which they intersect. Mapping the place names provided me with a glimpse of the record written on the land here, and the meanings carried in the h"n’q’"min’"m’ language: a layered, complex chronicle of thousands of years of Musqueam continuous presence, interactions, and knowledge creation and transmission (Musqueam Indian Band, 2006, 2011) in this place. Learning while walking across Musqueam lands with Elder and teacher Rose Point (Norma Rose Point, 1933–2012), I was one of the many with whom she shared her experience and knowledge. At the end of term, all of the student projects created for the Musqueam language class were returned to the Nation. The h"n’q’"min’"m’ orthography and the h"n’q’"min’"m’ language are considered Musqueam intellectual and cultural property.6 The University of British Columbia (UBC) Point Grey campus map (University of British Columbia, 2011) is ostensibly a map of the same place. The campus map carries names such as St. John’s, St. James, St. Mark’s, St. Andrews, Macmillan, Macdonald, and Mackenzie: a reflection and assertion of its acknowledged heritage. The campus map does not reference Musqueam presence or Musqueam heritage on this traditional Musqueam territory. There is little recognition of the history of interrelationships between the university and the nation. The campus map is oriented on a grid anchored to magnetic north: the buildings plotted and aligned in a similar manner. The only exception, an anomaly on this map, is the First Nations Longhouse oriented to true north aligning with the sun at the eastern door and the west wind.  6  All students in the class signed a protocol agreement acknowledging that materials produced for the class belonged to the Musqueam Indian Band. The three-page summary of the Protocol Agreement between the Musqueam Indian Band Council and the University of British Columbia, dated January 20, 1997, was the product of ongoing collaborative efforts intended to respect and protect the cultural and intellectual property of Musqueam Nation. 3  I have worked as a librarian for over fifteen years with the First Nations House of Learning, Xwi7xwa Library, the Aboriginal library at the University of British Columbia, Point Grey Campus. Xwi7xwa (pronounced whei-wha) means “echo” in the Squamish language and the library is intended to echo Aboriginal voices as part of the mandate of the First Nations House of Learning to transform the university to reflect Aboriginal cultures and philosophies, linking the university and First Nations communities (Kirkness & Archibald, 2001). For many years, prior to and during my tenure, the library was staffed primarily by student assistants. First Nations, Aboriginal, Métis, and other student workers and volunteers sustained the library during this time, and continue to sustain the library. In many ways the students have also been my teachers, an ongoing education. In 2005, the library became a branch of the university library system and is now (2013) the only Aboriginal branch of a university library in Canada. I mention this unique status because it seems to me that its meaning and the possibilities it carries, both now and in the future, depend in large part on the ways in which the library develops, describes and classifies (maps) its collections of Indigenous materials through its knowledge organization systems (KOS).  1.2  The Library as Territory Library knowledge organization systems (KOS) are like the maps to the contents of  the library: they chart the intellectual terrains in collections. The library contents comprise a vast territory composed of such regions as scholarship, tradition, memory, narrative, and creative expression. A library KOS maps this knowledge territory: its structure and (often) contested terminologies are the navigation points. Like any map, a KOS surfaces certain aspects, and excludes others through the selection of vocabulary and the ways in which subjects are named and grouped together (Olson, 1998, 2002). It creates authoritative 4  accounts through recognition and erases those that do not fall within its purview, rendering them invisible. Territories are delineated by naming, drawing boundaries, and showing relationships: the navigation co-ordinates are not north and south or sea and mountain but semantics and structure. To me, as a librarian the mapping out (eclipse) of the profound Musqueam presence in this place on the university campus map is akin to the eclipse of the Musqueam presence in the university library collections. The university is built on Musqueam territory. Musqueam people teach and learn at the university as faculty and students, serve as Elders, sit as members of the university senate, consult on advisory committees, and act as hosts at international events. However, when a Musqueam person asks me where the materials on Musqueam are located in the UBC Library, I have to say, “There is no word for Musqueam in the library world.” There is no place on the library shelves for Musqueam materials; there is no category for library materials about the Musqueam people in the university library. The Musqueam Nation is effectively erased in the library territory through the categories and languages of historic disciplines and their classification systems; Musqueam, when referenced, is subsumed under the general category of Coast Salish along with other nations in this area. The eclipse of Indigenous presence on library maps is not limited to Musqueam. As Maidu poet Janice Gould observes, “there is not a university in this country that is not built on what was once native land” (1992, p. 81). Based on Gould, I suggest that the metaphor of the Musqueam map is a national metaphor; it extends across the country throughout Indigenous territories and their resident academies. Gould asks us to reflect on this possibility and consider what it means about the relationship “of Indians to academia” (1992,  5  pp. 81–82). One of the purposes of the research study is to investigate what the knowledge maps of university libraries mean about the relationship between Aboriginal learners and academia, and to enquire into ways of creating maps to Indigenous content held (and hidden) in library collections.  1.3  Teachings of the Musqueam Map The Musqueam map teaches that maps are not neutral or objective representations.  Through the concepts and relations that they select and name (or not), they shape the kinds of questions that can be asked, and the kinds of answers that are possible (Turnbull & Watson with the Yolngu Community at Yirrkala, 1989, p. 54). Maps are shown to schoolchildren to impart a sense of national identity. Maps are also used to assimilate people by depicting them as if they were no different than an undifferentiated mass, as if they do not have a unique identity, and in this way maps can make whole peoples seemingly disappear (Dorling & Fairbairn, 1997, p. 69). At another extreme, maps may also be used to literally exhibit peoples. For example, when tourist maps of sites sacred to Indigenous people are made public they may cause as much harm to Indigenous societies as disease and guns: this type of mapping draws attention to, or makes public, territory that is considered private (Dorling & Fairbairn, 1997, pp. 69–73). Governments use maps to control territory and as a symbol to legitimize conquest; and maps have long supported colonization and empire building. However, the effects of mapping are not unidirectional and there are long histories of Indigenous representations of space and location though mapmaking and map use (Harley, 1992, p. 527; Lewis, 1998). Contemporary Indigenous cartography serves multiple purposes, including traditional use studies (Tobias, 2000), the (re)assertion of Indigenous territorial claims such as the Musqueam Declaration and Map (1976), and the production of evidentiary 6  material, such as the “map that roared” in the Delgamuukw’ and Gisdaywa claim which redefined Aboriginal title in Canada (Joseph, 2009, p. 2337, as cited in Burns, Doyle, Joseph, & Krebs, 2009). Indigenous cartography in this sense is also evident in the mapping of intellectual territories seen in Indigenous knowledge mapping in libraries (S. Simpson, 2005). Maps may stake territory but they are also generative in that they can provide new perspectives by ordering knowledge differently, creating new connections, and enabling unanticipated ones. They can “provide practical opportunities for making connections whenever and wherever it is socially and politically strategic” (Turnbull & Watson with the Yolngu Community at Yirrkala, 1989, p. 62). The study considers these different forms of mapping: mapping as assimilation and appropriation, as resistance and assertion, and as connection and passage. The latter carries potential for reimagining possibilities by creating knowledge trails through and among different terrains, thereby encouraging redefinition and different perspectives: new mappings. An example of Indigenous mapping in libraries is the Aboriginal classification scheme used at the Xwi7xwa Library. Originating from the Brian Deer Classification (BDC) and expanded by librarians in British Columbia, it represents an Indigenous ordering of the world. It enables interactions between learners and documents by tracing Indigenous-made boundaries (though classification), and creating knowledge trails (through subject description) to the Indigenous content in the collection that learners may follow or recreate in their own ways. The BDC is a product of the ingenuity and independent thought of Brian Deer. It is also a model of collaborative development as librarians working in Indigenous libraries across the country continue to recreate and adapt it. However, it is a reality of competing priorities that it has not been updated or restructured using newer approaches that  7  could better accommodate the multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary collections typical of an Aboriginal academic library, and a burgeoning 21st-century Indigenous scholarship. At the Xwi7xwa Library the collections overwhelm the classification scheme as well as the related alphabetic subject vocabularies that depend on the scheme for structure. Given this immediate real-world problem, I struggled at first with the distinction between map-making and mapping in choosing a focus for the study. Map-making is devoted to the technique and artistry of creating maps, whereas mapping is an interpretation of a world (Dorling & Fairbairn, 1997). The two are interrelated: “Our perception of the world is constantly being moderated by our experiences of mapping, map-making and map use” (Dorling & Fairbairn, 1997, p. 4). I view mapping as a process of interpretation that requires an understanding of the social relations behind map production, the working practices of practitioners, and the relations of power (Dorling & Fairbairn, 1997, p. 74). I reached the conclusion that mapping must precede map-making because interpretation precedes design. As the Hawaiian aphorism counsels, O ke kahua mamua, mahope ke kūkulu “The site first, and then the building” (Meyer, 1998, p. iv). The pressing design problem at the library where I work must wait until the (conceptual) site is complete.  1.4  Purpose of the Research The purpose of the research study is to contribute to the development of theoretical  approaches and methodology for the design of knowledge organization systems to serve Indigenous purposes. This entails both critical and constructive examination of the ways in which library knowledge organization theory and practice may be consequential for Indigenous learners, and of the ways in which Indigenous approaches to knowledge may (re)define the processes and products of knowledge organization. 8  1.4.1  Research Question  The main research question asks, “how can Indigenous approaches to knowledge inform principles of design of library knowledge organization systems to serve Indigenous purposes?” It is composed of four sub-questions: 1. How do knowledge organization systems function as infrastructure and to what effect for Indigenous learners? 2. How is Indigenous knowledge conceptualized by Indigenous scholars? 3. What elements of library knowledge organization theory are hospitable to interpretation from Indigenous standpoints? 4. What criteria could be employed to develop Indigenous evaluation instruments for KOS?  1.4.2  Research Design  Guided by a central tenet of Indigenous research methodology to engage Indigenous perspectives and scholarship (Kovach, 2009; Rigney, 2006; Smith 2005), I sought an appropriate Indigenous theory to anchor the study. I choose Martin Nakata’s Indigenous theory of the Cultural Interface (2002, 2007b) as ideal for a highly diverse public postsecondary site, and grounded it with a Canadian research ethic, Indigenous Métissage (Donald, 2009b). This Indigenous theoretical location (Nakata, 2007b; Donald, 2009b) served both as an overarching ethic and as a navigation compass to guide the study. The Cultural Interface is a conceptual space for enquiry about the interrelationships between Indigenous and Western (and other) knowledge systems that gives primacy to the lived experience of Indigenous people in colonial regimes (Nakata, 2007b). As a theoretical space it manifests a tension between the modern/humanist commitment to social change and the 9  postmodern sensibility characterized by an antipathy to dualisms, and a recognition of the contingent, partial, and fluid nature of experience and knowledge. The research ethic of Indigenous Métissage exhibits a similar tension: it focuses on surfacing Indigenous accounts of presence, participation, agency, and resistance, as well as stories of interaction, in order to create more complex, reciprocal, and interreferential (hi)stories (Donald, 2009b, p. 99). It is intended to unsettle the dominant colonial narrative of separation between Aboriginal and Canadian people that entrenches division and obscures (hi)stories of interrelationality. I used an interdisciplinary research framework design/research to mediate another type of tension: that between the functionalist goal of designing an information system and a reflective and interpretive practice. Design/research takes into account the social and ethical implications of design processes and design artifacts. Indigenous discourse theory (Nakata, 2007b; Donald 2009b) is used to enquire into the ways that knowledge is made powerful and the ways that Indigenous people are positioned by it and within it. The objective is to enact a change process that transforms one situation into another. Two precepts that emerge from this theoretical location are a commitment to harness the traditional academic disciplines in service of Indigenous interests (Nakata, 2002, 2007b) and to seek common ground for dialogue and integration (Donald, 2009b). Based on these precepts I investigated ways of integrating Indigenous theory (Nakata, 2007b; Donald, 2009b) and knowledge organization theory. The first integration blends a discourse theoretic analysis of power with the method of domain analysis in information science. It produces a methodology, Domain Analysis @ Cultural Interface, which is used to study four dimensions of Indigenous knowledge domains: (1) a critical study of knowledge organization; (2) a study of Indigenous practices and theory of knowledge organization; (3)  10  an examination of the concept of Indigenous knowledge; and (4) a user study with First Nations, Aboriginal, and Métis graduate students who use academic libraries. The second integration produces a theoretical framework for Indigenous knowledge organization that melds knowledge organization scholarship with Indigenous theoretical, and experiential perspectives. The latter is based on Indigenous theory (Nakata, 2007b; Donald, 2009b), and interviews with nine Indigenous designers of Indigenous knowledge organization systems and nine First Nations, Aboriginal, and Métis graduate students. I conceptualize the broadranging discourse of knowledge organization theory as constituting four dimensions (planes of work) concerned with epistemological, social, discursive, and technical bases of classification. Guided by the Indigenous principle of wholism I propose that Indigenous knowledge organization (IKO) requires an articulation on all four planes. These central findings are used to create a theoretical framework for IKO, Indigenous knowledge organization @ Cultural Interface, which is applied at an Aboriginal academic library in Canada generating seven principles of design.  1.4.3  Researcher Location: One Story  The research is shaped by fifteen years of professional experience and practice as a librarian at the Xwi7xwa Library. It is also informed by my volunteer work with various professional organizations supporting the development of Aboriginal libraries and information services.7 It is also influenced by my personal and intellectual locations as researcher, learner, writer, and map-maker. Working at the First Nations House of Learning  7  British Columbia Library Association, First Nations Interest Group (1992-present); Canadian Library Association, Information Needs of Aboriginal Peoples Interest Group (cochair 2003–2005); American Indian Library Association, Subject Access and Classification Committee. 11  opened many doors to me: it motivated my coursework as an unclassified student that led to study with the Ts”kel Indigenous Education program, and an invitation to join the SAGE (Supporting Aboriginal Graduate Enhancement) program with Aboriginal graduate students. The Musqueam language program afforded the opportunity to take the h"n’q’"min’"m’ language course at the Musqueam Elders’ Centre, which began a whole new path in my education. During this time, I continued to learn more about navigating both others’ expectations and assumptions, and my own expectations of myself as a non-Indigenous person working and studying in Aboriginal contexts. My heritage is Acadian French (Baie des Chaleurs) and Welsh (United Empire Loyalist)-Scots (separatist). The shores of the Baie des Chaleurs trace the Gaspe Peninsula, Listuguj territory, and northern New Brunswick; the area has historically been a multilingual/cultural mix of Acadian, Mi’kmaq, Québécois, and British people. My heritage, like the heritage of the country, is one of historic (and contemporary) mediations between francophone and anglophone; Catholic and Protestant; and Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal peoples. I am a first generation university student with an undergraduate degree in English and Philosophy and grew up in Toronto, the oldest of five siblings. During the summers as an undergraduate, I worked in the north: the oil patch in northern Alberta, and service industry in the Yukon, and Northwest Territories. In particular the summer I spent in Yellowknife living within the hospitality of a Métis family—(sometimes) fishing at midnight, and working at the Yellowknife Inn announcing the flights up the Mackenzie River on the PA system: “Fort Simpson, Norman Wells, Fort Good Hope, Inuvik”—was formative in my thinking. The Berger Commission on the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Enquiry was about to begin, and my interest on leaving Yellowknife was in Native law. I wrote the LSAT  12  at Osgoode Hall but the cost (and climate) of law school was a deterrent, and instead I opted for a one-year master’s program at Library School and two directed studies. The largest was a comparative analysis of the Aboriginal collections at the London Native Friendship Centre, the Spadina Branch Aboriginal collection of the Toronto Public Library, and the London Public Library (Doyle, 1979); the second was the design of a women’s resource centre using language that could surface women’s experiences, contributions, and histories so often erased by a dominant discourse.  1.4.4  Changing the Stories We Tell  Returning to Yellowknife recently for a family eightieth birthday celebration, I explained what I thought was my esoteric research area to an old friend still working underground. He understood me immediately, saying half-jokingly, “I get it—you’re a white woman doing Indian work.” Some Indigenous theorists hold that Indigenous research is research carried out exclusively by Indigenous researchers with and for Indigenous communities (Rigney, 1999, 2001; E. Steinhauer, 2002; S. Wilson, 2003). However, Indigenous research is also conceptualized as a transformative project that seeks institutional and social change, centres Indigenous knowledge, and holds a critical view of power relations but is not necessarily linked to the ethnicity of the researchers (Bishop, 1998; G. H. Smith, 1997; L. T. Smith, 1999, 2005). I situate the research study within this latter paradigm. An expression of my lived experience, family ancestry, and generational perspective coalesce in a critical poststructural approach to research. My interpretation of the nature of the research problem has shaped the criteria I selected for the theoretical positioning within the dissertation. It gives primacy to the interests of diverse Indigenous learners, both current and future generations, and the interests of all Canadian learners, 13  including new Canadians. I do not view this research area as an Aboriginal issue, I view it as a Canadian issue and cite Wet’suwet’en speaker, Satsan [Herb George] who says, “we need to change the stories we tell and put a new memory in the minds of our children” (George, 2005, p. 13).  1.5  Citation Style My choice of citation style aims towards transparency of authorial voice and  recognition of the accomplishments and influences of others. Following Indigenous scholars (LaRocque, 1999; Sewell, 2001) I write predominantly in the first person and choose not to write as a disembodied third-person voice that assumes a form of objectivity that separates the “word” from the “self.” This is consistent with Nakata’s style (2007b) and is congruent with a poststructuralist approach that seeks to blur the subject-object divide. Within this paradigm it is recognized that researchers are positioned to impose meanings on another’s text, therefore there is a responsibility to strive to make our positions explicit throughout the research process as each researcher is also a producer of discourse (Cheek, 2008, pp. 355– 357). For example, Martin Nakata’s use of language is distinctive, and as a new theorist I am hesitant to reword Nakata in my own words because my translation may be overwriting another theoretical discourse or misconstrue his meaning. Therefore in describing Nakata’s theory, for the most part, I retain his language, and when interpreting Nakata’s theory I use my own interpretation in my own words. The Indigenous designers who participated in the study all agreed to be identified by name. I therefore attribute quotes from their interviews using the full form of their names.8  8  All the designers gave written consent to be identified by name. 14  This is an important element in the recognition of the importance of names and naming in Indigenous contexts; it also recognizes Indigenous authority and the significance of the designers’ contributions. Similarly, the representation of the Indigenous designers’ views from the interviews is primarily verbatim from the transcripts as is much of the reporting of the group discussions with the Aboriginal graduate students. A purpose of the study is to present Indigenous experience and thought as represented by the participants, and not to rephrase or reframe the voices of the participants; my interpretation, which is clearly marked as either discussion or conceptual framework, is in my own words. The graduate students who responded to my call for First Nations/Aboriginal students to participate in the study emphasized that the use of any collective term for Aboriginal people is fraught. Aboriginal peoples are culturally and linguistically diverse and do not form a homogeneous group, and therefore collective terminology is problematic. For some of the graduate students, no collective term was acceptable except, in some cases, the name of a particular nation. However, in meeting my promise of anonymity for student participants, I do not identify the participants by nation or community affiliation. In Canada the term First Nations carries particular legal, social and political meanings, and not all Aboriginal people are First Nations (see Chapter 1.7). Métis people are a unique people often considered as being comprised of diverse Métis communities. Thus in this dissertation, I regularly refer to the graduate student participants as “First Nations, Aboriginal, and Métis people” in recognition of Indigenous diversity, and not by the collective term Aboriginal which may be perceived as erasing particularities. The names of the student participants are all fictional and intended to be gender neutral. In citing their quotations, I have prefaced the  15  fictional names with the focus group number (1 or 2) in order to give the reader a sense of where themes and discussions occurred in both groups. In recognition of the Indigenous protocols that honour relationship and affiliation, I include the nation of each Indigenous scholar cited from the secondary literature if they have self-identified. Affiliation is represented in brackets following the personal name when I first introduce a scholar’s work. Sometimes an individual is known publicly by two names: a traditional name and an English name. In this instance, I cite the most common usage first, followed by the second name indicated by square brackets, for example, Satsan [Herb George]. To facilitate sharing of scholars’ work, I have given preference to open access repositories rather than licensed databases in compiling sources for the references list. The references list is formatted following the modified APA style sixth edition that cites the full name of the authors, not author initials, for the reasons stated above and for clarity. Martin Nakata’s Indigenous theory of the Cultural Interface is a particular theoretical construct with specific characteristics and is a key component of this study. It is therefore considered a proper noun and it is capitalized. I apply this theoretical position in various contexts. Specifically, I integrate it with the method of domain analysis in information science and more generally with knowledge organization theory. When it is used in this way, I use the “@” symbol to indicate that the Cultural Interface is conjoined with another concept to produce an integrated theoretical construct. The “@” symbol serves as a marker of Martin Nakata’s theory as an application, and as Indigenous theory-in-action (Archibald, 2008). It is used for example in domain analysis @ Cultural Interface and Indigenous knowledge organization @ Cultural Interface. The primacy of Nakata’s theory of the Cultural Interface is also denoted in the author citation order within the dissertation: when I refer to Indigenous  16  theory meaning the theory I have developed based on Martin Nakata and Dwayne Donald, it is represented as Indigenous theory (Nakata 2007b; Donald 2009b) i.e. with Nakata preceding Donald.  1.6  Literature Review The information science literature documents a range of disparate knowledge  organization practices in Indigenous contexts. There is a gap in literature that conceptualizes these practices as an interrelated whole, or that articulates the practice and emergent theory as constituting a distinct field of study with particular characteristics, histories, and commitments. I have conceptualized Indigenous knowledge organization in this way, and articulated its characteristics, and its boundaries for the purposes of this study (see Chapter 6). I view the research study itself as being located within this field of study, Indigenous knowledge organization (IKO). Its histories, design principles, and practices of bibliographic classification and description are little documented in the literature. Svenonius (1981) characterizes the study of bibliographic knowledge organization systems as falling into two categories: (1) those that are evaluative and study performance of knowledge organization systems, and (2) those that are related to developmental research and the design of knowledge organization systems. These two areas of study are necessarily interrelated and inform each other (Svenonius, 1981). Within Indigenous contexts these two areas of study are also present. An international literature falls within the first category, the evaluative study and critique of the dominant knowledge organization systems. For the most part it focuses on critique of the Library of Congress Classification (LCC), the Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH), and the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) (Berman, 1993, 1995; Blake, Martin, & Pelletier, 2004; Carter, 2000, 2002; Irwin & Willis, 1989; 17  Joseph, 1994, 1995; Lawson, 2004; Lincoln, 1987, 2003; Martens, 2006; G. Martin, 1995; Moorcroft, 1992, 1993, 1994; Moorcroft & Garwood, 1997; MacDonald, 1993; Olson & Schlegl, 2001; Szekely et al., 1997). However, the second category of study that is particularly relevant to this research study is much less prolific: the research devoted to design and development of bibliographic knowledge organization systems in Indigenous contexts. In New Zealand, the research related to the development of the Māori Subject Headings invigorates the field and constitutes a seminal body of literature particularly focused on Māori use of libraries and the development of the Māori Subject Headings (de Barry, 1998; Irwin & Willis, 1989; MacDonald, 1993; S. Simpson, 2005; Szekely, 1997). In Australia, the development of the Australian and Torres Strait Islander thesaurus grew out of critique of Library of Congress Classification (LCC) and Subject Headings (LCSH) (Moorcroft, 1992, 1993) that led to the development of a unique set of protocols intended to guide bicultural practice in libraries, and to the Australian Indigenous thesaurus (GarwoodHoung, 2005, 2008; Moorcroft & Garwood, 1997). In 2004, a seminal colloquium held at the State Library of New South Wales on libraries and Indigenous knowledge generated a set of proceedings that highlight the issues and frame the developing discourse in the field (Nakata & Langton, 2005). These materials are considered contextual to the current research study. In North America as of 2011, the research literature on the design and development of bibliographic knowledge organization systems for materials by and about Indigenous people and topics comprises two graduate student theses: a doctoral dissertation on provisional classificatory models for a tribal college library (Chester, 2006), and a master’s thesis that  18  develops a classification for Comanche women’s dress (Mahsetky Poolaw, 2000). In addition, the research literature on the development of culturally relevant terminology for the representation of Indigenous names and concepts includes a doctoral dissertation devoted to the representation of Native American Indian names in published documents (Exner Little Bear, 2005) and an article describing a survey on terminology for Indigenous collectives and preferences for the medicine wheel as a classificatory structure (D. Lee, 2011). A separate (but related) thread within the North American literature focuses on professional practice aimed at the modification or adaptation of the dominant universal KOS in order to improve Indigenous representation (Carter, 2000, 2002; Herlihy & Cocks, 1995; Lincoln, 1987, 2003; Martens, 2002, 2006; Tomren, 2003; Young & Doolittle, 1994). Research in North America has begun to respond to the need for theoretical and applied study of the design and development of Indigenous knowledge organization systems. George G. Chester, Leech Lake Tribal College administrator, identifies the need for classifications that are more compatible with Indigenous worldviews and are based on the knowledge organization systems of Indigenous cultures for use in tribal college libraries in the United States. His doctoral dissertation, Proposed Tribal College Cataloging Systems: From Isolation to Association (2006) presents a comparative analysis of the main classes and notation systems of four mainstream systems: Library of Congress Classification (LCC), Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC), Universal Decimal Classification (UDC), and Colon Classification (CC), counterpoised with an Aboriginal system, the Brian Deer-British Columbia Classification (BC-BDC). Several possible hybrid models are developed based on design principles of cultural respect, user friendliness, and adaptability to Internet. Chester tacitly recognizes the authority of community Elders as a principle of design (2006, p. 14).  19  He recommends moving from hierarchical to associative library knowledge organization systems based on the requirements of each Indigenous community, and local interests and worldviews. He supports the development of KOS through collaborative partnerships at local and global levels (Chester, 2006). Supporting and expanding Chester’s research, Deborah Lee’s case study of the use of academic libraries by six Aboriginal university students in Canada (2001) finds that mainstream systems do not reflect Aboriginal worldviews. Lee’s subsequent survey study on terminology for concepts, “Indigenous Knowledge Organization: A Study of Concepts, Terminology, Structure and (Mostly) Indigenous Voices” (2011), finds that further investigation of non-hierarchical approaches and less linear structures for organizing Aboriginal-related materials are indicated. Wendy Mahsetky Poolaw (Comanche-Kickapoo) approaches Indigenous knowledge organization from the perspective of clothing as a form of historical document. Her master’s thesis, Descriptive Classification Analysis of Comanche Women’s Dress (2000), calls attention to deficiencies in classification and terminology for the description of Native American dress that impede research and learning. She develops a descriptive terminology of construction methods and dress periods to facilitate information retrieval of design and fabrication of Comanche women’s attire over time, and to determine metadata requirements for photographic images. Similarly to Exner Little Bear (2005), she emphasizes the importance of personal names and recommends the creation of metadata to identify Nation and familial relationship, for example Wanada Parker, Daughter of Quanah Parker, as part of Indigenous personal name metadata. Although not explicitly addressed in her thesis, Mahsetky Poolaw’s treatment of Comanche dress as historical document points to a broader area of theoretical research about  20  Indigenous approaches to document theory. Such an enquiry could examine expanded definitions of document that resonate with Indigenous records, record keeping, and transmission, to enquire about what Indigenous documents are and do in both traditional and contemporary contexts. Early definitions of the concept document, and its Latin predecessor documentum, denoted not only a material record of some form but also something that served the act of instruction or teaching, that is as a form of oratory or oral presentation (Lund & Skare, 2010). This type of definition is particularly germane in Indigenous contexts and considering what documents are and do in physical, social, and cultural dimensions may be a productive area for Indigenous theorizing within information science. Frank Exner Little Bear’s doctoral dissertation, The Impact of Naming Practices Among North American Indians on Name Authority Control (2005), later published as Creating Identity: North American Indian Names and Naming (2007), and a related article (2008) examine authority control of North American Indian names in published documents. His analysis identifies three name forms that reflect the histories of the original oral cultures and colonizing cultures in North America: European, traditional and mixed (2005, p. 157). His findings show that personal naming practices of North American Indians allow an individual to have more than one name at a time, and to have names that change over time. These traditional name forms may carry narrative in the form of an autobiographical story of an individual and exert a form a social control in carrying different social expectations in different contexts (2005, p. 44). Citing the significance of names and their potential to carry a record of cultural inclusion, genealogy, histories, expectations, and relationships, he recommends that the AACR2 (Anglo-American Cataloging Rules 2nd edition) and Names of Persons: National Usages for Entries in Catalogues (International Federation of Library  21  Associations and Institutions [IFLA], 1996) ameliorate their treatment of traditional and mixed-form North American Indian personal names (2005). This study builds on the design and development research described above (Chester, 2006; Exner Little Bear, 2005, 2007; D. Lee, 2001, 2011; Mahsetky Poolaw, 2000). It fills in gaps in the literature regarding conceptual, theoretical, and methodological aspects of Indigenous knowledge organization in libraries. It also contributes to empirical research regarding the theory and practice of Indigenous designers, and the thoughts and experiences of First Nations, Aboriginal, and Métis students as users of academic library knowledge organization systems. The critical study of knowledge organization theory also influences the design and development of new KOS in a dynamic and dialogic cycle.  1.7  General Terminology For the purposes of this research study the following guideline to terminology is  provided to clarify the discussion. First Nations is used to mean Indigenous sovereign nations in Canada and individuals who identify as members. Aboriginal is used as an inclusive category for all Indigenous people in Canada, including Métis, Inuit, First Nations, status Indian, and non-status Indian people. Indigenous is used both in local and global contexts to refer generically to tribal peoples and includes Aboriginal people (Alfred, 1999; Castellano, 2000; Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples [RCAP], 1996). Regarding the representation of Kahnawake, Brian Deer recommended the use of the form Kahnawake when writing in English (rather than Kahnawa:ke) (Brian Deer, personal communication, December 16, 2008). This form is used throughout the dissertation. Indigenous knowledge(s). Within the text of the study, I use the term Indigenous knowledge in a general sense, to mean knowledge produced by an Indigenous individual or 22  collective that in any way draws upon Indigenous experience. The term Indigenous knowledges (plural) indicates recognition of the heterogeneity of Indigenous peoples and therefore of Indigenous knowledge systems. These two terms are used interchangeably within the dissertation. Chapter 5 What is Indigenous Knowledge? Conceptualizing a Domain examines the term Indigenous knowledge(s) in depth not as a concept but as dynamic knowledge domains. Indigenous knowledge organization systems. The dissertation is concerned with knowledge organizations systems used to structure and describe print and digital library materials produced by Indigenous peoples or relevant to Indigenous peoples, topics, and scholarship. The term is used in this sense unless explicitly stated otherwise, and is further examined in Chapter 6 Indigenous Knowledge Organization: Mapping a Field. Indigenous scholarship. Scholarship produced by Indigenous people, including academic scholars and community scholars. The intellectual traditions of Aboriginal communities are considered scholarship. Ontology. An area of study within philosophy (metaphysics) that considers what exists in the world. The term is most often used in this philosophical sense in this dissertation, and not as a form of knowledge organization system unless explicitly indicated. Wholism. Wholism denotes Indigenous understandings of interconnectedness of everything in the universe (Archibald, Pidgeon, & Hare, 2004; Pidgeon, 2008) as an epistemic and a spiritual principle. This spelling is used to distinguish it from the Western philosophical concept of holism.  23  1.8  Field Guide to Knowledge Organization in Information Science As this is an interdisciplinary study, I anticipate that there may be multiple audiences.  For readers who may not be familiar with the field of information science, this section locates the field of knowledge organization within the discipline of information science, defines some of its key concepts, and includes an introduction to faceted classification referenced throughout the study. Readers may choose to review this section, omit it, or use it as reference. The terminology within the field of knowledge organization in information science is often technical, there are multiple definitions for basic concepts, and synonyms and near-synonyms abound (Broughton, 2006; Hjørland, 2003b; La Barre, 2004; Svenonius, 2000). The terminology used within this section is taken from the disciplinary literature and in the case of multiple definitions the preferred meaning or interpretation is established when it is introduced.  1.8.1  Information Science  Information science is frequently defined as “an interdisciplinary science concerned with the systematic study and analysis of the sources, development, collection, organization, dissemination, evaluation, use and management of information in all its forms, including the channels (formal and informal) and technology used in its communication” (Reitz, 2004, p. 358). This type of definition emphasizes an objectivist, analytical approach and underplays the fundamental human and social dimensions that to my mind are integral to information and communication. The emergent academic programs in the field called iSchools are closer to offering an operational definition that I would like to use for this study, one that focuses on “the human context of a rapidly changing information environment” (University of Toronto, 2012) and situates human interaction at the centre of the relationship between information, 24  people, technology and society. This type of conceptualization of the field highlights the need for continuing enquiry about the nature of the discipline and its key concepts (Mai, 2002) on the border between social sciences and the humanities, and therefore where discussions of epistemology and interpretive methodologies are important (Hansson, 2005, pp. 102–103).  1.8.2  Knowledge Organization (KO)  Knowledge organization is a broad interdisciplinary field represented in the literatures of science, computer science, education, anthropology especially cognitive anthropology, linguistics, cognitive science, sociology, statistics, psychology, and philosophy (Bowker & Star, 1999; Hjørland, 1998, 2005, 2011a). This breadth reflects the ubiquity of knowledge organization as a basic human activity that seeks patterns and forms relationships as a way of making sense of the world (Satija, 2000). Within information science, the focus of this dissertation, I use a definition of knowledge organization developed by Tennis (2008): “the field of scholarship concerned with the design, study, and critique of the processes of organizing and representing documents that societies see as worthy of preserving” (2008, p. 103).  1.8.2.1 Document The term document is understood to include all forms of media, from artistic and musical creations to visual images, three-dimensional objects, and electronic media (James Anderson, 2003; Langridge, 1989). Knowledge organization may be understood in a narrow sense as the practice of indexing and abstracting, constructing thesauri and classifications, however it has a central 25  role in the production and communication of knowledge in the context of social, cultural, and historical traditions (Bowker & Star, 1999; Hjørland, 2003b; Hodge, 2000; La Barre, 2006). When the field of knowledge organization is conceptualized in this way it admits critical social analyses of the nature of knowledge and knowledge production. It then has the potential to shift deductive-nomological theoretical approaches aimed at systems designed to reflect reality towards approaches that understand knowledge organization schemes as particular and contingent views of the world (Mai, 2004, p. 40). These broader definitions of classificatory units of analysis build on the work of traditional theorists at the same time as expanding the scope of the field within information science (Mai, 2004).  1.8.3  Knowledge Organization System (KOS)  At the most general level, knowledge organization systems (KOS) may be defined as social systems and institutions that organize knowledge. For example, they are manifest as the structure of universities and scientific disciplines, or more concretely in bibliographic forms such as encyclopedias and dictionaries. They may be embodied in the built forms of material discourse, such as architecture, regalia, or winter counts, or enacted through social institutions such as potlatch, ceremony, and storytelling. In library contexts they are primarily designed to support search and retrieval of information held in library collections of print and digital materials. They encompass various forms, from bibliographic classifications to thesauri and subject headings, to semantic networks and ontologies; they are at the heart of every library, museum, and archive (Hodge, 2000).  26  1.8.4  Controlled Vocabularies  Controlled vocabularies (CVs) are bibliographic languages that describe the intellectual attributes of documents (author, title, edition and subject) for a particular audience in order to facilitate information retrieval. There are two types of subject CVs; a classificatory CV (classification) is expressed in notation and verbal expression whereas an alphabetic-subject CV uses only verbal expression, such as thesauri, subject headings, glossaries, taxonomies, and ontologies. They perform three functions to disambiguate meaning: the control of terms to prevent multiple terms for the same concept (synonyms); the control of terms to prevent multiple meanings for the same word (homonyms); and the mapping of variants in order to show relationships. The mappings show structured semantic relationships, such as hierarchical, equivalency, and associative relationships, and perform a navigation function in showing users relational knowledge. A primary requirement of a controlled vocabulary is collocation: the gathering of like materials together. One means of accomplishing this is by eliminating synonyms, and a measure of its effectiveness is called recall. The control of homonyms is required in order to minimize the retrieval of irrelevant results; for example, the word drum could mean a musical instrument, a fish, a sound, or a container for oil. A measure of relevance is called precision. Precision and recall are two primary objectives of and evaluation criteria for CVs (Svenonius, 2003). However, there is ongoing debate about their theoretical grounds and validity (La Barre, 2006, p. 28). Other kinds of indexing vocabularies include natural language indexing using freetext searching over a whole document, and keyword indexing using significant terms taken from the titles and abstracts of documents. Research studying the comparative effectiveness  27  of uncontrolled and controlled vocabulary indexing finds that keyword is particularly effective at retrieval of unique terms (McCutcheon, 2009), and a controlled vocabulary is mandated when precision and recall are important retrieval objectives. It is generally agreed that both classificatory and alphabetic subject languages are required to order subjects effectively (Svenonius, 2003). The design of controlled vocabularies occurs at two levels. The conceptual level addresses objectives and principles, as well as entities, their attributes, and relationships; it operates at the level of ideology. The implementation level functions at the level of technology: it formulates rules that are used by the controlled vocabulary to create descriptions. There is a delicate balance between the conceptual and technical levels that may be upset when “technology, theoretically at the service of ideology, loses its direction and subverts it” (Svenonius, 2003, p. 59). This is a useful warning for Indigenous knowledge organization.  1.8.5  Classification  Classification in its broadest sense is the process of organizing a universe of knowledge into some systematic order (Chan & Hodges, 2007). It organizes both concrete and abstract entities. When the entity to be organized is knowledge it is called knowledge classification, whereas a library classification or bibliothecal classification organizes books or documents, and bibliographic classification organizes the subjects contained in documents (Satija, 2000, p. 222). A primary purpose of library classification is to arrange documents on a shelf by collocating like materials in a helpful sequence arranged from the general to the specific, and secondarily to organize the bibliographic records representing the materials in a systematic order, typically in an online library catalogue for the purpose of information retrieval. 28  Thus, classification is both a process of organizing a universe of knowledge, and a scheme or system produced through the process. It is also the “art” of applying a classification scheme once it is designed (Chan, 1994; A. Taylor, 2004). A classificationist designs a classification scheme and a classifier applies a particular scheme (Ranganathan, 1967, Section GA01); and classification theorists conduct classification research and study (Satija, 2000, p. 224). For the purposes of this study, I use the term designers to refer to those who design knowledge organization schemes, including classifications, thesauri, and alphabetic subject heading lists.  1.8.6  Classificatory Structures  The scope of a universal classification scheme is the whole universe of human knowledge, whereas a special classification covers a specific field or domain and is designed for a specific user group (Sayers, 1955, p. 79). A classification scheme (CS) is composed of three parts: a schedule mapping the universe or domain of subjects, an index to the subjects, and a notation that assigns a code to the classes and is composed of numbers, letters, or symbols, or a mix of these. The index to the schedules lists the terms used by the scheme and links each term to its class number (Ranganathan, 1967). Universal library classifications begin with a universe of knowledge and divide it into successive orders of classes and subclasses eventually systematically listing all topics. A characteristic that is relevant to the class it is dividing is selected as a principle of division at each stage. The division is from general to specific wherein each class is a species of the one above it and a genus to the one below. The classification proceeds gradually down through classes and subclasses from those of great extension (broad scope) to those of greater intension (depth or detail). The structure formed is a hierarchical structure called an inverted 29  tree (Chan, 1994). It produces enumerative classification systems that aim to list every possible topic in a universe as mutually exclusive, jointly exhaustive categories. The Library of Congress Classification (LCC) and the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) are the two predominant universal bibliographic classifications in North America and are examples of (predominantly) enumerative classification schemes. However, as is often the case with categories, it turns out they are not mutually exclusive and overlap in many instances (Beghtol, 2008; Svenonius, 2003).  1.8.7  Faceted Classification  In the 1930s S. R. Ranganathan rejected a top-down approach beginning with the universe of knowledge divided by main classes and subclasses, and instead used a bottom-up approach to create classifications derived from a dynamic universe of concepts that built upwards to larger faceted classes (Beghtol, 2008) that could represent multiple dimensions or facets of a subject. Ranganathan honed his new method of analytico-synthetic classification (faceted classification) through the iterative development of his faceted classification scheme, the Colon Classification (CC) and influenced classification research on three continents. His theory was further developed through the Classification Research Group (CRG) in the United Kingdom, the Classification Research Study Group (CRSG) in North America, and the Library Research Circle in India.  1.8.8  Advantages and Disadvantages of Faceted Classification  Because an enumerative classification attempts to list all subjects within a universe of knowledge, including the past, present and anticipatable future, it freezes knowledge as soon as it is designed (Coates, 1978, p. 289) and is soon overpowered by the emergence of new 30  subjects (Ranganathan, 1967, Section CU). Because faceted classification can combine facets freely, it is flexible and responsive to local interests (La Barre, 2006), hospitable to new knowledge, and expressive in its ability to represent compound subjects (Vickery, 1966) and multiple perspectives (Kwaśnik, 1999). As applied in digital libraries it is free of the constraint to arrange physical documents in a linear order on a shelf. In this environment it also can be mapped to and provide a framework for other controlled vocabularies, such as thesauri and subject headings providing enriched access through integrated tools (Broughton, 2006; Ingwersen & Wormell, 1992). Faceted classification offers these advantages to research and development of Indigenous knowledge organization, and to Indigenous knowledge organization systems. It does, however, require more effort to design and construct (Vickery, 1966) and a deeper understanding of the knowledge domain and its users in order to establish relevant facets and fundamental categories (Kwaśnik, 1999). The dissertation is devoted to developing these types of deeper understandings in preparation for undertaking (future) design and construction.  1.9  Outline of the Dissertation The short title of the study, Naming, Claiming, and (Re)Creating, is meant to evoke  active dimensions of Indigenous self-determination (L. T. Smith, 1999) and the generative capacity of Indigenous thought and continuity of traditions. These three dimensions are interdependent and act in synergy with each other to produce transformation. Naming at its most general level is interpreted as Indigenous self-representation. It may manifest as Indigenous naming of nations, concepts, people, and places. It is evidenced in the ongoing endeavour of Indigenous people to find expression of Indigenous experience, thought, and continuity with traditional forms that may be absent in current textual and visual 31  vocabularies. It also is seen in the Indigenous scholarship that develops and applies Indigenous theoretical, conceptual, and methodological discourses within the disciplines (cf. Teuton, 2008). It simultaneously implies a resistance to external impositions of naming or categorizing or setting the terms of the debates about legitimate ways of knowing, what exists in the world, and the values that are considered important. Indigenous interests in naming not only denote the intellectual and creative processes of imagining and establishing designations for people (collective and individual), places, and things but also in (re)conceptualizing experience, histories, theory, and scholarship at collective and individual levels, in academic and community contexts. Claiming extends the act of naming through assertion in wider public spaces. As an action it hails an audience and “has a certain noisiness to it” (L. T. Smith, 1999, p. 143). It is intersubjective in this sense and in its inherent aspiration to recognition. Recognition is an acknowledgement of existence and of an entitlement to be heard. Its meanings shift with context and use and I draw on Justice (2010) in interpreting it as carrying multiple meanings. It has grammatical meaning in the sense of a common context of perception. It carries a meaning of mutuality in its potential to connect us to others through shared perceptions, experiences, or commitments (Justice, 2010). It may also carry political meaning in the recognition of a collective political voice, for example as seen in a formal acknowledgement of the political existence of a government or nation (Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 2005). Examples of this range of meanings are manifest in acts as diverse as claiming Indigenous identity as form of self-introduction, or claiming intellectual territory in the academy, or claiming land through blockade of a road, or claiming the right to be heard through hunger strike. Within the context of knowledge organization systems, claiming of  32  Indigenous self-representation (naming) resonates and creates connections through the web of networks formed by the carriers and material embodiments of knowledge organization systems: library catalogues, databases, archival finding aids, embedded metadata, shared bibliographic utilities, and institutional repositories. (Re)Creating is read as a generative process that is imaginative in origin and is manifest in Indigenous creativity in discourse and practice. It inspires the adaptive and formative processes that continue traditions into the present and the future. It creates new connections and understandings through revisioning precedents or reframing hegemonic forms. In academic contexts it may (re)create or redefine disciplinary concepts or theories through applying an Indigenous approach to another discipline. Within Indigenous knowledge organization it is manifest through integrating Indigenous conceptualizations of knowledge, being in the world, and values to disciplinary theory, practice, and methodology. The reporting and interpretation within the dissertation are organized according to these three dimensions: naming, claiming, and (re)creating. Chapter 1 The Metaphor of the Musqueam Map: Library as Territory draws on the metaphor of the map to compare geographic space with discursive and intellectual space. It presents the mapping out (eclipse) of Musqueam presence on the university campus map as analogous to the eclipse of Musqueam presence on the university library map. In naming and drawing boundaries around scholarship, through the classifications and subject headings that compose its knowledge organization systems (KOS), the library map describes and organizes the contents of the library collections. The map is a metaphor for the research problem, the inadequate representation of Indigenous content and scholarship in library collections through the dominant KOS. It motivates the main research question, “How can Indigenous  33  approaches to knowledge inform principles of design of library knowledge organization systems to serve Indigenous purposes?” Chapter 2 Theoretical Location: The Cultural Interface presents the Cultural Interface, a theoretical space developed by Indigenous scholar Martin Nakata (2002, 2007b) to examine the intersections between Indigenous and Western knowledge systems from an Indigenous discourse analytic perspective. It is complemented by the research ethic of Indigenous Métissage developed by Dwayne Donald for Indigenous education in Canada (Donald, 2009b). This assemblage of critical Indigenous theory provides the theoretical location of the study and the research design. It is a particular theoretical location developed for the purposes of the study and when it is applied in conjunction with another concept or method it becomes activated and is represented by the “@” symbol, for example, Indigenous knowledge organization @ Cultural Interface. Chapter 3 Methodology: Domain Analysis @ Cultural Interface integrates the Indigenous discourse theoretic approach of Nakata (2007b) and Donald (2009b) with domain analysis in information science to produce a methodology for studying Indigenous knowledge domains, Domain Analysis @ Cultural Interface. This approach theorizes a knowledge domain as a projected category of analysis comprised of documents, and discursive and social practices within a power-charged field. Contrary to a view of knowledge organization (KO) as a neutral practice without social consequences, it views social consequences and ethical concerns as integral to knowledge organization in Indigenous contexts. The methodology is applied in four domain analyses of the domain of Indigenous knowledge in post-secondary education: (1) a critical study of knowledge organization and its consequences for Indigenous learners, (2) an analysis of Indigenous  34  knowledge as a knowledge domain, (3) a study of knowledge organization in Indigenous contexts based on expert interviews with nine Indigenous designers of knowledge organization systems, and (4) a user study with nine First Nations, Aboriginal, and Métis graduate students who use academic libraries. Each domain analysis has its own methods, analyses, and interpretation. The findings and interpretations are presented in three parts: Part One: Naming (Chapters 4 and 5); Part Two: Claiming (Chapters 6 and 7); and Part Three: (Re)Creating (Chapters 8 and 9). Part One: NAMING presents findings and interpretations in two chapters focused on different aspects of Indigenous self-representation. Chapter 4 identifies the operation of power within knowledge organization, the ways in which Indigenous self-representation is effaced, and the effects of this for Indigenous learners and all learners. Chapter 5 explores multiple ways in which Indigenous scholars conceptualize and apply Indigenous knowledge. These multiple Indigenous discourses are interpreted as a dynamic Indigenous knowledge domain within post-secondary education. Chapter 4 Knowledge Organization as Infrastructure: Consequences and New Directions presents an analysis of power relations in knowledge organization (KO) using the concept of infrastructure (Bowker & Star, 1999). I compare infrastructure with the concepts of hidden curriculum and official knowledge used by Indigenous educational theorists (Calliou, 1999; Hampton, 2000) in order to argue that KO is integral to educational infrastructure. Based on findings from the group discussions with First Nations, Aboriginal, and Métis graduate students and the theoretical analysis, I identify negative social, pedagogical, and economic consequences of KO for Aboriginal learners. I then suggest that there is an institutional responsibility to address barriers that library knowledge organization  35  systems present for Indigenous learners and Indigenous education (Pidgeon, 2008). The graduate student discussions also moved beyond critique to illuminate new directions for KO design. The chapter addresses the research sub-question 1: “How do knowledge organization systems function as infrastructure and to what effect for Indigenous learners?” Chapter 5 What is Indigenous Knowledge? Conceptualizing a Domain interprets Indigenous knowledge (not as a concept) but as a dynamic knowledge domain comprised of multiple and competing discourses that operate within and influence wider social arenas. Indigenous scholars’ conceptualizations of Indigenous knowledge are examined through three kinds of expression: (1) conceptual descriptions in the secondary literature; (2) practices operationalized as Indigenous knowledge “in action” (Archibald, 2008) in postsecondary education exemplified by Indigenous education, Indigenous research methodology, and Indigenous studies programs; and (3) group discussions with First Nations, Aboriginal, and Métis graduate students based on lived experience. The concept of Indigeneity is identified as a rhetorical marker of Indigenous discourse in order to distinguish it from external discourses for the purposes of knowledge organization. The chapter addresses research sub-question 2: “How is Indigenous knowledge conceptualized by Indigenous scholars?” Part Two: Claiming comprises two chapters focusing on claiming the field of Indigenous knowledge organization as an Indigenous practice and scholarship, and as Indigenous knowledge in action (Archibald, 2008). It is viewed not only as a form of information scholarship and professional practice but as a social, political, and pedagogical instrument (adapted from Justice, 2011). The section reports on the findings and  36  interpretations emerging from the expert interviews with nine Indigenous designers of Indigenous knowledge organization systems from four countries9 and the literature. Chapter 6 Indigenous Knowledge Organization: Mapping a Field asserts the existence of an Indigenous range of practice with an emergent theory, named Indigenous knowledge organization (IKO) and claims it as an Indigenous field of study. It articulates types of design practice, boundaries, characteristics, and a shared high-level objective of social transformation. These are synthesized in a typology that maps IKO design practice at local and global levels. The chapter first documents oral histories of the development of IKO in Canada based on interviews with three First Nations designers. It then maps an international field of IKO practice according to strategies for change, as manifest through design and described according to jurisdiction, institutional location, scope, and focus. The site of the current research study is then located within this typology. From the perspective of Indigenous experience, the chapter addresses research sub-question 3: “What elements of library knowledge organization theory are hospitable to interpretation from Indigenous standpoints?” Chapter 7 Indigenous Knowledge Organization: Design Space, Purpose and Evaluation examines the Indigenous designers’ approaches to knowledge and conceptualizations of similarity and difference among Indigenous approaches, and between Indigenous and mainstream knowledge approaches. It is divided into three sections concerned with theory, semantics/structure, and evaluation. The first section examines ethical, philosophical, social, and political aspects of Indigenous knowledge organization.  9  For details see: Appendix A: Interview Dates and Places and Appendix B: Guiding Questions for Expert Interviews with Indigenous Designers. 37  The second section examines Indigenous approaches to semantics and structure within KOS. The third is an interpretation of IKO purpose that has social, political, and pedagogical dimensions in addition to the technical purpose of information retrieval, and thus entails multiple criteria for evaluation. The chapter addresses research sub-question 4 “What criteria could be employed to develop Indigenous evaluation instruments for KOS?” Part Three: (Re)Creating is composed of two chapters that demonstrate ways in which Indigenous approaches to knowledge shape theoretical, conceptual, and methodological dimensions of knowledge organization. I apply the theory of the Cultural Interface and the empirical findings from the interviews to demonstrate some of the ways in which Indigenous approaches shape the processes of representing and organizing documents within Indigenous knowledge domains. Chapter 8 Adding to the Rafters selectively examines key theoretical debates within knowledge organization theory, mapping them in relation to each other and in relation to the Indigenous perspectives and Indigenous theory articulated in Chapters 1–7. I use the concept of warrant as a boundary object to enable a dialogue between Indigenous theory and KO theory (Beghtol, 1986, 2002a, 2002b; Bowker & Star, 1999; Olson, 2010; Wisser, 2009). I then examine how different approaches to warrant produce different classificatory arguments, and where these intersect or not with Indigenous interests. From Indigenous theoretical perspectives, the chapter addresses research sub-question 3, “What elements of knowledge organization theory are hospitable to interpretation from Indigenous standpoints?” Chapter 9 Indigenous Knowledge Organization @ Cultural Interface summarizes the findings from Chapters 1–8 and synthesizes them through a theoretical framework for  38  Indigenous knowledge organization, Indigenous knowledge organization @ Cultural Interface. The framework is applied at a particular type of site, an Aboriginal academic library in Canada, to produce seven principles of design and is now ready for future use at the technical level of construction of KOS. It addresses the main research question “How can Indigenous approaches to knowledge inform principles of design of library knowledge organization systems to serve Indigenous purposes?” Chapter 10 Conclusion: Reflecting on Relations concludes with a consideration of the overall findings, the significance and limitations of the study, and the possibilities for future research. It reflects on the relations involved in mapping of Indigenous knowledge, mapping of Indigenous theory, and possible implications for this type cartography. Table 1.1 Dissertation Map summarizes the organization and contents of the dissertation. Table 1.1  Dissertation Map Naming, Claiming and (Re)Creating: Indigenous Knowledge Organization @ Cultural Interface  1. Metaphor of the Musqueam Map: Library as Territory 2. Theoretical Location: The Cultural Interface 3. Methodology: Domain Analysis @ Cultural Interface Part One: NAMING 4. Knowledge Organization as Infrastructure: Consequences and New Directions 5. What is Indigenous Knowledge? Conceptualizing a Domain Part Two: CLAIMING 6. Indigenous Knowledge Organization: Mapping a Field 7. Indigenous Design, Purpose and Evaluation Part Three: (Re)CREATING 8. Adding to the Rafters 9. Indigenous Knowledge Organization @ Cultural Interface 10. Conclusion: Reflecting on Relations !  39  Chapter 2  Theoretical Location: The Cultural Interface  A theoretical location establishes the researcher’s assumptions about the nature of reality, what and how we can know, and the values that underpin the design of the study: ontology, epistemology, and axiology (Creswell, 1994, 2009). Although often hidden (Slife & Williams, 1995), these assumptions shape the methodology, the procedures of enquiry, and the specific methods of data collection and its interpretation (Creswell, 2009, pp. 3–5). In selecting a theoretical location, my primary criteria were fit with the site of the question, the purpose of the research, the interests of the participants, and my interests (and location) as a researcher. I therefore sought an Indigenous theory to ground the design and drive the methodology for this study of Indigenous approaches to knowledge (Archibald, 2008, p. 36). It needed the capacity to theoretically accommodate a highly diverse user group of Indigenous learners (and other learners): a theorization of Indigenous diversity and a universe of interrelationships. Finally, it was important to me to establish a theoretical location where I could maintain my own integrity as a non-Indigenous researcher within the shifting intersections of disciplinary, social, and cultural fields of the study. Martin Nakata’s Cultural Interface (2002, 2007b) is an Indigenous theoretical space developed for examining intersections between Western and Indigenous knowledge systems. It is “constituted by points of intersecting trajectories” within a space of dynamic relations that abounds with “ambiguities, conflict and contestation of meanings” (Nakata, 2007b, p. 199). As a postmodern approach, it views the maintenance of structural oppositions, such as those between them-us or traditional-Western, as unhelpful in explaining complexity and instead examines contests over meanings and the ways in which knowledge is made  40  powerful. Martin Nakata also examines intersections between Indigenous knowledges and libraries (Nakata, 2002, 2003b, 2007c; Nakata & Langton, 2005), which is a fairly rarefied field and I felt elated to find a theorist, and an Indigenous theorist, working at these intersections. The discourse analytic approach of the Cultural Interface contributes insights into the ways in which Indigenous identity and Indigenous knowledge are discursively constructed through various forms of dominant discourse. These characteristics of the Cultural Interface met and exceeded the criteria I had established for the study’s theoretical location: it provides a critical poststructural Indigenous theory, in addition to understandings of the socially constructed nature and associated consequences of discourse within Indigenous contexts. Secondly, in seeking an axiology to establish an ethical compass for the study, I selected Dwayne Donald’s Indigenous Métissage (2009a, 2009b) because it shifts the ethic to a place-based site of enquiry, and articulates specific objectives that might be operationalized in a knowledge organization system located at a post-secondary institution in Canada. It enlivens the ethos of the project with a relational ethic based on principles of interconnectedness and renewal. Indigenous Métissage as an ethic is informed by a philosophical commitment to ecological understandings that view human relations as relations with all beings in the world, and our futures as people are tied together. Indigenous Métissage uses specific places and their related artifacts in Canadian landscapes (symbolic and concrete) as sites of enquiry: it first gives primacy to Indigenous accounts, experiences, and philosophies, then critically examines the colonial context, and finally strives to surface histories of interaction in order to shift often reductive narratives of a place and create a more “complex, reciprocal, and interreferential story” (Donald, 2009b, p. 99).  41  The chapter introduces the Cultural Interface (Nakata 2002, 2007b), including the responsibilities of researchers, the development of the theory, analysis of the ways in which Indigenous identities are constructed through dominant discourses, and the effects on people’s lives. It next examines the Cultural Interface as a social ontology and an approach to enquiry intended to shift dominant discourse to produce more useful representations of Indigenous people in the hope of social change. It then offers a contextual (re)reading of this theoretical space to examine perceived tensions within it, and to identify how, for the purposes of this study, I balance these tensions through a relational ontology-epistemology (Haraway, 1991b) and axiology (Donald, 2009b, 2011) at the Cultural Interface (Nakata 2002, 2007b). The final section examines the ways in which this interpretation of the Cultural Interface will drive the methodology of the study and shape the development of a theoretical framework for knowledge organization in Indigenous contexts.  2.1  The Cultural Interface: Development of a Theory Martin Nakata conceptualizes the Cultural Interface as a theoretical space from which  to view the interrelationships between Indigenous and Western knowledge systems and to consider their possibilities for advancing Indigenous aspirations as determined by Indigenous people (Nakata, 2002, 2006, 2007a, 2007b). A space of conflicting and competing discourses, it is continuously (re)negotiated as the responses and priorities of individuals and collectivities within it are fluid and heterogeneous. The intersections of Indigenous and Western knowledge systems are seen to offer potential for producing new knowledge relevant to Indigenous interests as well as world knowledge. It is assumed that positioning different knowledge systems as singular oppositional dualities is an inadequate basis from which to theorize complex relations because it leads to analyses that obscure the complexities 42  of both systems and assume a fixity across time and space within both that is “inherently false” (Nakata, 2002, p. 284). Therefore an examination of the epistemological bases of the (potentially) interacting theoretical positions is required in order to understand where there may be similarities across categories and differences within them (Nakata, 2002). Researchers at the Cultural Interface face the challenge to maintain the continuity of an Indigenous knowledge system while simultaneously harnessing the potential of another and ensuring that Indigenous interests are served (Nakata, 2002). They are charged with a responsibility to read their discipline as the discipline reads it, and as it is read from Indigenous perspectives. This dual commitment is intended to foster dialogue between the disciplinary discourses and to extend them by including elements that may have been submerged, Indigenous understandings of them, and the ways in which they give expression to power (Nakata, 1998a, p. 4). The challenge for my particular study is to present a reading of knowledge organization theory from a disciplinary perspective as well as one that engages Indigenous perspectives. The aim is to further understandings of the ways in which Indigenous approaches to knowledge might inform knowledge organization theory, and how the theory and practice of knowledge organization may prove useful (or not) to Indigenous interests.  2.1.1  Lived Experience  The development of the theory of the Cultural Interface is grounded in the lived experience of Martin Nakata and articulated through his scholarship over time (cf. 1991, 1995, 1997, 1998a, 1998b, 2002, 2006, 2007a, 2007b, 2008, 2010). Martin Nakata identifies as a Torres Strait Islander whose heritage links to the islands within the Torres Strait, north of Australia. The Strait was (re)named after a Spanish explorer in the 17th century, 43  overwriting the local names of the island communities with a single anglicized name, a collective identity imposed, and traditional boundaries and affiliations obscured (Nakata, 1995, p. 42). The Second World War resulted in socio-economic and political changes for the Torres Strait Islander people who gained the federal vote (1962), and the state vote (1965). The schools were desegregated in the 1960s, although access to secondary school education on the Australian mainland was unavailable until the early 1970s (Nakata 2007b),10 when Martin Nakata navigated the school system. As an employee and later as a graduate student he found that his views were often either patronized or discounted, and he was corrected by non-Indigenous experts claiming to know more about his history and experience than he did, or who suggested that other Islanders may be more authentic. This experience sparked his research interest in the ways in which Western discourse positioned him as an Indigenous person and dominated understandings of Islanders. Through sharing these experiences with his readers, I suggest Nakata achieves multiple goals: an educational goal of informing readers about Indigenous people and of the Torres Strait Islands; a social goal of offering a form of solidarity with Indigenous students who may be enduring similar experiences; and a political goal through the rhetorical form of autobiographical resistance (Moreton-Robinson, 2003) and a demonstration of Indigenous agency (and ingenuity). Finally, the issues he identifies serve as markers of engagement for others because they represent not only a single individual’s (his)story, but also represent shared Indigenous experience, and thus begin to map out on macro levels, potential national and global points of intersection among diverse Indigenous peoples, and between Indigenous  10  Martin Nakata is the first Torres Strait Islander to graduate with a Ph.D. (James Cook University, 2011). 44  and non-Indigenous people. While the specific experiences of a Torres Strait Islander scholar are localized, individual, and grounded in place and time, the patterns resonate with a wider Indigenous experience which Nakata translates into a both a theoretical location, the Cultural Interface, and a method of enquiry, Indigenous standpoint theory.  2.1.2  Discursive Constructions of Indigenous Identity  In his analysis of the ways in which dominant discourse positions Indigenous people, Nakata examines three exemplars of Western text: an early missionary account, a historic scientific report, and contemporary education policy. His aim is to identify their underlying assumptions, demonstrate how these are replicated in contemporary discourse, and examine continuing effects on the lives of the Indigenous people (Nakata, 2007b, pp. 2–11). These are canonical exemplars of the discursive construction of Indigenous identities in different genres of Western texts. I suggest that knowledge organization systems (KOS) are another genre that discursively constructs the identities (individual and collective) of Indigenous people.  2.1.2.1  Missionary Discourse: The Cannibal, the Noble Savage, and the Lost Soul  Using an early text of the London Missionary Society (LMS), Nakata examines how it positioned the Torres Strait Islanders as both subject and object of the missionaries, and as savages in need of a soul. The missionary’s account claimed ignorance of the country of “cannibals and genuine savages” (MacFarlane, 1888, p.15, as cited by Nakata, 1997, p. 44) although there had been numerous recorded visits during the three hundred years prior to this mission (Nakata cites fourteen). The account represents Victorian society’s image of the noble savage and a vision of a progressive as yet unreached ideal state. The missionary role 45  was to deliver the lost souls of the Torres Strait to the ideal state through the Christian gospel. Christian texts and curriculum materials were developed in the six local languages and dialects as part of the imposition of a Christian belief system. This spiritual colonization went hand in hand with secular colonization and appropriations of land, natural resources, and labour. For Martin Nakata, missionary discourse marks the beginning of a systematic way of outsiders thinking about Islanders, imagining who and what they are and what should be done “for” them (Nakata, 2007b, p. 25).  2.1.2.2 The Discourse of Science: The Historic Evolutionary Subject The second text examined is the Haddon Report, which documents a research project to study the Torres Strait Islander people in 1889. It culminated in a six-volume report, The Cambridge Anthropological Expedition to the Torres Strait Islands of 1898 (Haddon, 1901, 1935), which aspired to new standards of rigour in scientific investigation of “the savage mind.” It compared Islanders and Europeans on a range of tests in order to provide “a window onto human evolutionary history” (Nakata, 2007b, pp. 30–43). It was based on theory that postulated that different levels of brain function developed in an evolutionary manner and this tied anthropology and psychology to the biological sciences. Difference was defined as relative to a superior European standard and then on an evolutionary scale of less to more developed/civilized (Nakata, 2007b, p. 44). It also reflects the travel writing and ethos of the Victorian era, claiming for example that, “savages can see objects and hear sounds which escape the most acute European” (Rivers, 1901, p. 12, as cited in Nakata, p. 46, 2007b).11 The report fails to document exploitative labour practices or express concern  11  These historical secondary citations were used by Nakata in developing his theory and are included here as examples of the tenor of the original text and the logic of Nakata’s research. 46  regarding the wellbeing of the Islanders and loss of life in harvesting sea cucumber (C. Myers, 1903, p. 142, as cited in Nakata, 2007b, p. 77). Its analysis of colour recognition again rested on evolutionary theory that ties colour to cultural stages of development based on a naming. The term kulka for red was translated as “blood” not “dawn”; one consequence was that Martin Nakata grew up learning that the name of his home community, Kulkalaig, meant “bloodthirsty people” not “Eastern people”—the place where the sun rises (Nakata, 2007b, pp. 56–60). The research in structural linguistics aimed to create a global taxonomy of linguistic differences plotted on an evolutionary scale, wherein each language was studied as a static entity, excluding historical and socio-political contexts. Nakata views this synchronic (structuralist) approach to Islander languages as impoverished: “It is their speech, not their meanings, that is seen as the important part of the act of speaking. They are heard but not listened to” (2007b, p. 37).  2.1.2.3 Contemporary Colonialisms: The 20th-Century Evolutionary Subject The 19th-century desire to plot peoples on an evolutionary scale is now considered obsolete and even by the time the last volume of the Haddon report was published (1935) one scholar described it as “strikingly archaic in its format, language and concerns” (cf. Urry, 1998, p. 233). Nonetheless, the Haddon report continues to be cited as a key reference about the Torres Strait Islander people; it is studied in schools and read in related disciplines in Australia. Nakata holds it up as an example of research that purports to be scientific (objective) but that interweaves the moral and epistemological assumptions of Victorian England, salvage anthropology, and structural linguistics into the corpus of knowledge about the Torres Strait Islanders that continues to be disseminated today. It does not belong to a  47  long-gone historical past but continues to be present in the intellectual and scientific disciplines in which current practice remains embedded (Nakata, 2007b, p. 128). As testament to Nakata’s thesis, in 1998, over a century after the Expedition, a centenary volume was issued that celebrates its achievements, lauding the Expedition’s “innovative theoretical and methodological approaches” that contributed to “the foundations of the disciplines of anthropology and experimental psychology” (Herle & Rouse, 1998, p. x). One reviewer noted the absence of Indigenous authorial content in the volume, stating: “It might have been insightful to have the final word go to a native scholar or community leader who could have interpreted the impact of the Expedition through a different set of eyes” (Griffiths, 2000, p. 197). Although Martin Nakata was a Torres Strait Islander doctoral student conducting research on the Expedition at the time, his views about the impacts of the Expedition and of its report for Torres Strait Islander people are absent from this volume.12  2.1.2.4 Education Policy Discourse: The Cultural Subject Nakata notes that although 20th-century research in education has improved public knowledge about Torres Strait Islander people, it has not resulted in improved educational outcomes for Islander students. He attributes this failure to the powerful influence of Western disciplinary assumptions that continue to underpin contemporary educational policy research. For example, material conditions continue to be translated into abstract universal categories: historical universal categories such as “lost souls” and “savages” become contemporary universal categories such as “habits,” “languages,” and “culture” (Nakata, 2007b, p.159). This reifies a cultural subject as part of a unitary group and erases the  12  Martin Nakata published a commentary article, Anthropological Texts and Indigenous Standpoints, in a peer-reviewed journal, Australian Aboriginal Studies (Nakata, 1998). 48  particularities of individuals—age, gender, religion, interests, politics, education, economic circumstances—subsuming them under a normative and static “cultural other.” Nakata calls this discursive move “culturalism” (Nakata, 2007b, p. 10; cf. McConaghy, 2000). When the discourse of culture lacks political analysis it elevates art, song, and dance but silences Indigenous claims to land, sea, and air rights. It locks Indigenous people in a distant tradition called “culture” and precludes a history of agency, resistance, and adaptation in dealing with invasion and the alienation of lands and resources (Nakata, 2007b, pp. 179–181). Used as an organizing principle, the construction of Indigenous people as “culturally different” may set up cultural maintenance in opposition to equal educational outcomes (Nakata, 2003a). Individual or collective cultural subjects become vulnerable to stereotyping and being cast as culturally exotic, traditional, or aesthetically rich, which in turn invites others to expect Indigenous people to conform to the stereotype. This may lead Aboriginal individuals to internalize and conform to the image, or use it as a lens for both viewing and resolving problems. A culturalist agenda silences the heterogeneity of Indigenous viewpoints and experiences, and therefore tends to produce educational theories about the most appropriate ways to educate the group, or practices that test for cultural appropriateness of curriculum and pedagogy for the group. It fails to challenge contemporary neocolonial practices and institutions, and also fails to address concrete, specific material and social conditions (Nakata, 1995, p. 56).  2.2  The Cultural Interface: A Social Ontology Nakata rejects the dominant characterization of Indigenous/non-Indigenous  interaction as a culture clash and instead conceptualizes it as a cultural interface. This social ontology is intended to accommodate multiple, contested, and negotiated meanings, and to 49  mediate between theoretical and empirical realms. It becomes knowable through understanding historical specificities of the discursive constructions of Indigenous peoples, and Indigenous responses to these discourses that continue to shape contemporary understandings (Nakata, 2007b, pp. 198–99). Constituted by points of intersecting trajectories in dynamic relation, it is multi-layered and multi-dimensional in time and space. It comprehends many shifting and complex intersections between different people with different histories, experiences, languages, agendas, aspirations, and responses. It is a space where different systems of thought, competing and contesting discourses within and between different knowledge systems, and different systems of social, economic, and political organization interact. As much as it is overlaid by various theories, narratives, and arguments that work to produce cohesive, consensual, and co-operative social practices, it also abounds with contradictions, ambiguities, and contestation of meanings that emerge from these various shifting intersections (Nakata, 2007b, p. 199). All of these elements and relations create the possibilities of what can be seen, spoken, heard, and understood (or not); what knowledge can be accepted or legitimized (or not); and what individual and collective actions are possible. As a lived location, it is the space where Indigenous people, collectively and individually “live and act on a daily basis” and in this sense is both a personal and a civic space (2007b, pp. 199–210). Indigenous experience is constituted both in and through interactions between lived experience and discursive constructions within the Cultural Interface. Because of this complexity and because it is open to interpretation, the Cultural Interface is primarily a site of struggle over the meaning of Indigenous experience.  50  2.2.1  Characteristics of the Cultural Interface  The Cultural Interface gives primacy to the lived experience of Indigenous people in colonial regimes. It aims to shift discourse from one using only colonial referents to one that gives accounts of both sides of colonial contact, as well as the contact situation itself. Three objectives emerge from this: (1) to give voice to Indigenous positions that have been overwritten by Western discourse; (2) to support Indigenous goals of equality with others; and (3) to contribute to the maintenance of cultural distinctiveness and interests as determined by Indigenous people (2007b, p. 209). Applied within educational contexts, it aims towards the reform of institutional practices, policies, and programs. Prevalent theoretical elements within this space include time conceptualized as a continuous present, an aversion to binary oppositions, the centrality of lived experience and Indigenous agency, and a complex view of orality.  2.2.1.1 The Primacy of the Present The effects of theorizing Indigenous people as being from and of the human past are often overlooked in analyzing the ways in which Indigenous people are positioned in the present. Within this construction no primacy is given to Indigenous lived experience and thought: they are overwritten and retold in the language and logic of the Western order of things (Nakata, 2007b, pp. 202–203). Indigenous culture is to be understood as always already in a dynamic present and Indigenous history is continuous with that present. History must be understood as Indigenous peoples’ “own construction of historical understanding”: the whole trajectory of the past living in the present and to be carried forward into the future as ways of being, thinking, and knowing (Nakata, 2007b, p. 203). There is no requirement to meet academic criteria in recognizing the explanatory roles of this construction for 51  Indigenous people making sense of the world and establishing aspirations for the future. “We are not content with being subjected as ‘Other’ to everybody else. We reference ourselves to an entire universe not just to Western imperialist projects” (Nakata, 2007b, p. 162).  2.2.1.2 Continuity of the Past The history of Indigenous agency must inform the analysis of both historical and current positions at the Cultural Interface. This caveat arises due to the inscription of Islanders into other knowledge systems that render Islanders discontinuous with their own histories through denying Islanders as “actors in their own present” (Nakata, 2007b, p. 204). Therefore the Cultural Interface seeks to surface how Indigenous peoples maintain(ed) their own ways of thinking, doing, being, narrating, analyzing, adapting, and negotiating who they are both individually and collectively. Often presented as one of diminishment and loss, the historical position of Indigenous people is also one of strength, dignity, and intellect: it is a history of how Indigenous people “acted in the present of that historical period” (Nakata, 2007b, p. 205). Islander people move forward by reconstructing stories and practices; their lives continue to be attached to Islander identity as they participate as students, workers, citizens, consumers, and in all of the roles and responsibilities of global life.  2.2.1.3  (Op)positions  Explanations of Indigenous positions through (op)positions such as “them-us” or “traditional-Western” do not offer a framework that is useful for explaining complexity. While an Indigenous position may be conditioned at these intersections it is not reducible to a single relation. The boundaries that emerge between categories such as “traditional” or 52  “Western” are fuzzy and choices that emerge in lived realities do not neatly emerge from or support one or the other (Nakata, 2007b, p. 200). The contests over meaning also include those among Islanders themselves, all of whom are positioned differently, and mediate understandings of experience differently. Nakata rejects conceptualizing any continuum of authenticity in relation to Indigenous identity or Indigenous experience. For example, he holds that an Islander elder who has lived a largely subsistence life in a remote community is no more “authentic” than a younger Islander who has a government job and lives in a town. Both individuals are Islanders and their experiences and interpretations of their lived realities may vary but are equally legitimate. It may be that their analyses prove to be quite similar, it may also be that their differing analyses could lead to more useful explanations because they uncover differing effects of the many elements that condition their experiences (Nakata, 2007b, p. 211).  2.2.1.4 Embodied Experience Nakata argues that the tensions of being constrained by an untenable choice between “a whitefella and a blackfella perspective” (Nakata, 2007b, p. 215) are physically experienced. This corporeal sense (or embodied knowledge) and the memory of it play a role in informing choices. It is recognized that embodied experience can both inform and limit knowledge, and it is included as part of the set of elements that shape the range of Indigenous responses (2007b, p. 216). “The everyday—where active, knowing Indigenous subjects continuously negotiate changes manifest in their everyday lives—must be theorised into any analysis of the Interface, otherwise the position of Indigenous subjects at the Interface cannot be understood via their experience of the it” (Nakata, 2007b, p. 207).  53  2.2.1.5 Orate-Literate Divide Nakata holds that “the oral and literate world are not separate but entwined, intertextual and continue to evolve as traditions and artefacts of our engagements with each other; we all continue to live in times where there are oral traditions” (2007b, p. 176). The assumption that Indigenous students come from an oral tradition positions students as being outside of literate traditions, and separate from the complex interactions of the past hundreds of years. Theories of socio-linguistic differences between literate and orate traditions overlook many factors, such as degrees of media exposure including print exposure; educational levels and university degrees; influences of second language; social and linguistic backgrounds; and the fluidity of mobile populations moving between and among metro-urban, rural-urban, and rural non-traditional communities (Nakata, 2007b, pp. 172– 173). Constructing Native language communities at one end of a spectrum and English language communities at another sets up a falsely polarized framework from which to approach problems and envision reform. It also obscures English language and other language communities’ historic and present oral traditions.  2.2.1.6 Indigenous Standpoint Theory: An Epistemology Nakata proposes Indigenous standpoint theory as a means by which to articulate the politics at the Cultural Interface and provide an analysis of why and how they produce “different realties” for Indigenous collectives and individuals as compared with others. Standpoint theory has been adopted variously by groups whose accounts have been excluded or marginalized within intellectual knowledge production in order to assert their interests and accounts of experience (Nakata, 2007b, p. 213). As a genre its first premise is that the social position of the knower carries epistemological significance and secondly that more objective 54  knowledge is produced by critically reflecting on one’s experience within the social order where knowledge is produced (Nakata, 2007b, p. 214, as quoted in Pohlhaus, 2002, p. 285). Nakata’s Indigenous standpoint theory also assumes that the interpretation of experience is shaped by previous and current theory and discourse, which sit in complex relation to each other. A standpoint is produced through critical enquiry: Indigenous people’s lived experience is a point of entry to investigation, it is not the case under investigation (Nakata, 2007b, pp. 214–215). Indigenous standpoint theory is not opinion or a collection of stories derived from lived experience, or “hidden wisdom” waiting to emerge, nor is it equivalent to data collected through opinion polls, surveys, consultative processes, or Indigenous presence in the bureaucracies of various sectors (Nakata, 2007b, pp. 212–214). The goal is not to produce the “truth” but to reveal how knowledge production works, and how Indigenous people are caught up in it. The motivation is the hope of more useful representations of and knowledge about Indigenous people within the larger project of social transformation relevant to Indigenous lives (2007b, pp. 209–215). As a form of critical analysis, Indigenous standpoint is in itself a discursive construction, as well as a mode of persuasion and a technique to surface what may have been subjugated. It is intended to shift Indigenous knowers from a narrative position (wherein they “tell their stories to” or “advise” others) to one that can be activated on a theoretical plane and has the power to disrupt a dominant discourse (Nakata, 2007b, p. 210). Nakata argues that by bringing in accounts of those who have traditionally been outside the institutions where knowledge of their social life is both produced and classified, it produces better accounts by including relations to which more privileged knowers are not attentive (Nakata, 2007b, pp. 214–215). He is committed to producing better accounts  55  through a demonstration of validity in order that Indigenous standpoint theory is accepted as a legitimate part of academic theoretical discourse. Its benefits are in the potential to strengthen Indigenous identity when negotiating with an outside world (2003c, p. 14), and as a theoretical tool for Indigenous students to claim as a legitimate academic approach through which to view their positions (1998a, p. 11). This supports his overall goals of improving curriculum (2003a, p. 144), establishing an influential Indigenous scholarship at the centre of academic life (2004, p. 3), and the recognition of Indigenous Education (2007a, p. 7) and Indigenous Studies (2006, p. 267) as discrete academic disciplines.  2.3  (Re)Reading Nakata: Towards a Relational Epistemology Part of the generative and analytic power of Nakata’s theoretical framework is that it  establishes theoretical space for Indigenous voice but it prescribes and proscribes no characteristic content of that voice. While Nakata draws on his Indigenous lived experience and establishes connections to land/sea, family, and community, he leaves completely open the content and context of Indigenous knowledge(s). Nakata’s Indigenous standpoint theory and the Cultural Interface could potentially be utilized as a theoretical position by any Indigenous theorist or Indigenous authorial voice to fill up with their own interpretation. The Cultural Interface is not deterministic, it is “a space of possibilities as well as constraints which can have negative or positive consequences for different people at different times” (Nakata 2007b, p. 200). While Nakata’s framework provides conceptual and analytical resources for engaging with theoretical discourse in ways that express and mobilize Indigenous interests, it also draws on a range of theoretical approaches that stand in relation to others in the Western canon. In some cases, the approaches he engages may be seen as commensurate in the sense that they share common goals. In other cases, when he selects 56  one theoretical approach, he is implicitly rejecting others because the theories are incommensurate. Nakata’s conceptualization of the Cultural Interface is characterized by multiple identities, contingent historical contexts, and the rejection of theoretical dualisms, concepts that are associated with postmodern thought. These postmodern characteristics are incommensurate with Enlightenment thought written in concepts such as the autonomous knower, ahistorical objective reality, and mutually exclusive categories. Standpoint theory as a theoretical genre employs the concepts and methods of Enlightenment thought, and its related notions of validity, truth, objectivity, and privileged knowledge. Also through his critical analysis of the discourse(s) of science Nakata implicitly rejects the concepts of universal human subjects and teleological progress found in the philosophies of modern humanism. These components of Nakata’s theoretical framework may be seen to be incongruous because the postmodern ontology expressed in the Cultural Interface and the Enlightenment epistemology and modern humanist concepts embedded in standpoint theory seem to be at odds. In considering this apparent paradox, I turn to the lineage of feminist standpoint theory upon which Nakata draws (Harding, 1991; Hartsock, 1983; Pohlhaus, 2002; D. Smith, 1987).  2.3.1  Mediating Standpoint Theory  Feminist standpoint theory emerged as a response to Enlightenment thought, including the notion of scientific objectivity, within the context of political struggles to have women’s interests represented in public policy and in the natural and social sciences disciplines that influenced that policy (Harding, 1998, p. 149). It used the tools of these dominant traditions to defend feminist knowledge claims as adequate, valid, and authoritative 57  in relation to the authority of science that excluded them. It continues to struggle with this inheritance and its conflicted philosophical legacy: African American feminist, lesbian poet (and librarian) Audre Lorde expresses the quandary as, “the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house” (1984). Modern scientific method claims that there are connections between ideas (scientific theories), experience (what we know through the senses), and reality (what really exists in the world). Other approaches to knowledge derive from different ontologies, beliefs about what really exists and the kinds of things that exist, and as a consequence produce different epistemologies about how we come to know. Epistemologies specify normative rules for what constitutes legitimate knowledge, and what criteria may be used to establish knowledge as adequate or valid (Ramazanoğlu & Holland, 2002, pp. 29–41). In Western philosophy, three influential epistemological families are relevant to standpoint theory: empiricism, realism, and relativism. Empiricism relies on observation and experiment to make knowledge claims; it accepts no a priori knowledge that is independent of experience. It holds that knowledge of reality derives from factual evidence that can be observed independently of researchers’ values and replicated by others adhering to the proper method. Empiricist methods (purported to) scientifically establish the inferiority of women and Indigenous people in the 19th century by examining brain size and bodily differences (cf. Nakata, 2007b). Constructivist theorists challenge empiricism, arguing that social location(s) and power relations shape the identification of the problems to be studied, selection of the research methods, and the interpretation of the findings. Also in contrast to empiricism, realist epistemologies claim that although reality is not fully knowable it can be approached  58  through a combination of both observation and theory; the latter is required in order to imagine what is blind to the senses and cannot be directly observed. Relativists, on the other hand, claim that it is not possible for researchers to access reality independently of how they think about it and of the language that mediates thought. Because theorists draw variously on these epistemological traditions, there is a range of standpoint theories that differ in their conceptualizations of the nature of experience, thought, and reality and the connections (if any) between them (Ramazanoğlu & Holland, 2002, pp. 12–30). Nakata develops Indigenous standpoint theory within this legacy and articulates his position plotted at various points between the polarities of objective scientific method and radical relativism. Feminist theorists do not agree about whether feminist standpoint is theory, epistemology, both, or neither (Ramazanoğlu & Holland, 2002, p. 63). Ramazanoğlu and Holland (2002) argue that in addition to being both political and theoretical, standpoint theory necessarily entails an epistemological stance because it assumes the inseparability of power and knowledge.13 Moreover, it considers how people think about oppression and how people know what they know, and ultimately strives to show that standpoint makes a stronger claim or “better accounts” than any other theoretical or epistemological position (Ramazanoğlu & Holland, 2002, p. 67). Although Nakata (drawing on Dorothy Smith, 1987) describes Indigenous standpoint as a method of enquiry (2007b, pp. 213, 215), he also agrees with and quotes Pohlhaus (2007b, p. 214) who states that a premise of standpoint is that the  13  Some theorists understand feminist epistemology, including standpoint, as a form of social epistemology (Grasswick & Webb, 2002), that is the conceptual and normative study of the role of social interests, social relations, and social institutions in knowledge production. This is distinct from the sociology of knowledge, which is interested in the empirical study of contingent social conditions or causes of what is accepted as knowledge (Schmitt, 1998). 59  social position of the knower is epistemically significant and has the potential to produce more objective knowledge (Pohlhaus, 2002, p. 285). This suggests that Indigenous standpoint may also be viewed as an epistemological approach and not simply a strategic move to gain leverage in power-laden discussions for Indigenous voice. Nakata advocates Indigenous standpoint because of its indisputable strength in giving primacy to Indigenous experience and Indigenous perspective. At the same time, he acknowledges that standpoint theory in general is criticized (2007b, p. 215). One weakness is that it relies on “who” can know rather than “what” can be known. It therefore tends to centre politics of identity and location, and may create boundaries between those with common concerns. There may be advantage in positioning Indigenous standpoint as epistemology in terms of the potential to strengthen its authority, and in the provision of a theoretical and practical methodological tool for Indigenous interests and Indigenous students, two of the aims of Nakata’s framework. If Indigenous standpoint is conceptualized as an epistemology then it needs to be able to establish criteria for evaluating whether (and how) one claim is better or stronger than another. Standpoint has a tendency towards relativism wherein all views are considered to be relative to their conditions of production and are therefore considered equally valid. One way to avoid relativism could be to proffer standpoint as valuable in conjunction with other possible epistemologies, however this tactic tends to produce finely nuanced distinctions among a proliferation of unprivileged identities/knowledges and split them from a unitary dominant group, which then sets them in dualistic opposition again (Harding, 1986, p. 660).  60  2.3.1.1 Objectivity, Reason and the Knowing Subject In order to balance this slide towards extreme relativism on the one hand and an aversion to strong empiricism on the other, Nakata calls upon Sandra Harding’s conceptualization of strong objectivity to establish the authority of standpoint. Objectivity is a polysemous concept but can be understood as producing knowledge that is free from bias and subjectivity (Ramazanoğlu & Holland, 2002). Strong objectivity is conceptualized as producing less partial and less distorted knowledge because it makes explicit the social location, position and values of the knower/subject. It also thereby moves to conflate the division between subject/object of knowledge. Standards that maximize strong objectivity include a reflexive subject (researcher) who positions herself on the same critical plane as objects of knowledge through specifying who the knowledge is for, by what means it is produced, with what funding, and in what social situation it is produced. Both researcher(s) and participant(s) are treated as embodied, visible, and heterogeneous. The research agenda is located within a political and epistemic community rather than being produced by an individual (Harding, 1993, pp. 68–69). Advocates of Enlightenment thought claimed that the path to freedom and autonomy lay through the exercise of reason through which individual scholars discovered and made progress. The Cartesian separation of subject (pure thought) and object (matter) generated a model of scientific investigation focused on the discovery of an external world (that really exists) that is not necessarily known but is knowable through the agency of a “knowing self” (Ramazanoğlu & Holland, 2002). The theoretical consequences associated with splitting the world in this way are that the body is treated as matter that is to be mastered by reason, and a high value placed on scientific method produces expert professions that require specialist  61  training. Expertise therefore becomes increasingly institutionalized, as does the legitimization of what counts as authoritative knowledge, and there is a concomitant tendency to exclude certain categories of knowers from institutions of knowledge (Harding, 1991). Because the capacity to reason was defined as residing in the domain of European masculine thought, one of the first struggles for those excluded from this domain was for access to education and claims to be reasonable. All standpoint theorists face this same challenge and along with other critical theorists must decide whether to retain the Enlightenment concept of reason or to reclaim it in some other mode (Haraway, 1991a, pp. 71–80). (I think) Nakata responds to this challenge by reclaiming reason such that it is inclusive of Indigenous authority, and cognizant of power relations. Through giving account of his feelings and his commitment to Indigenous education, Nakata construes emotion not as subversive to but as constitutive of knowledge, and so further extends the parameters of traditional concepts of reason (based on Jaggar, 2008b, p. 378). His critique of Western “experts” as “discoverers and conveyors of truth” exemplifies an Indigenous critical account of the Enlightenment narrative of the subject and object of reason; however, he does not jettison but “reclaims” reason for Indigenous theory. The concept of the knowing subject is central to both the scientific tradition and to modern humanism. A central characteristic of the latter is the notion of the universality of humanity, and its associated (and problematic) claim to represent the human race. A humanist approach conceives of progress as the emancipation of subjugated groups through reason: it is based on a premise of a unitary category that is subject to some shared form of oppression from which individuals can be liberated. It produces discourses of social justice and universal human rights at the same time as it elides actual intra-group inequalities and  62  differences, and therefore differences in power relations within a group (Ramazanoğlu & Holland, 2002, pp. 33–38). There is a set of contested problematics clustered around the use of humanism: unitary categories; questions about the notion of progress and what it may constitute; who envisages what should be transformed and for whom. However, critical theorists with a commitment to social change find it difficult to abandon these notions and are hard pressed to escape replicating existing power relations. They must continuously mediate the contradiction that there are both emancipatory and reactionary effects deriving from notions of teleological progress and the transcendental humanist subject (Lather, 1991, p. 37; McLaren, 1988). Western thought itself may be read as a history of revolutionary projects that were envisioned as emancipatory: the 15th-century bourgeois revolution, 18thcentury Marxist revolution, and 19th-century anti-colonial projects. Each of these aspirant transformative projects positioned privileged knowers/knowledge at the heart of its theoretical framework. How can standpoint theory redefine the relations of power if it establishes yet one more privileged knower/knowledge (Harding, 1986, p. 656)?  2.3.1.2 Balancing: The Modern and Postmodern While standpoint theory may trouble the foundations of Enlightenment thought, postmodern thought disassembles the foundations brick by brick: reason, the knowing subject, scientific method, truth and reality. Instead it asks how knowledge is made powerful. Through contesting the unified conception of a group, it challenges any standpoint of a collective or notion of knowledge grounded in the experience of a group, indeed it questions even the possibility of producing valid knowledge of a world viewed as a discursive construction (Ramazanoğlu & Holland, 2002, pp. 84–86). Yet, standpoint theorists insist on retaining a material reality that is “really real,” and that has consequences 63  for people’s lives, and this insistence is compelling because of its appeal to common sense and its political exigency. The power of standpoint is precisely its ability to name experiences that previously were undefined or defined through dominant concepts and categories that rendered harm invisible (Harding, 1986, p. 646; Hirschmann, 2004, p. 324), and to produce knowledge that does not exist in dominant discourses (D. Smith, 1997). A critique of the postmodern holds that its emphasis on difference tends to produce an extreme form of relativism that does not distinguish one type of identity or struggle over another. This renders real poverty, global hunger, and social exclusion as invisible or abstract and produces a “tyranny of difference.” In order to break out of this tyranny, a political and ethical position that aligns with unprivileged/negated classes must be advocated (Žižkek, 2000). Being weighed in the balance are the potential strengths of scientific method and the Enlightenment legacy, and considerations of moral agency and emancipatory theory (Ramazanoğlu & Holland, 2002, p. 97). Postmodern thought rejects the dualisms inherent in modern thought: culture/nature, reason/passions, objectivity/subjectivity, mind/body, abstract/concrete, and their siblings. Nonetheless, these dualisms structure public policy, the organization of the disciplines, and institutional and social practices. Although they are empirically false, they cannot be dismissed as irrelevant as long as “they structure our lives and our consciousnesses” (Harding, 1986, p. 662). An intermediary position views the tensions between the modern/postmodern as producing areas of “fruitful ambivalence” that offer potential not so much as a coherent framework but more as a process for re-theorizing the experiences and objects of everyday life (Harding, 1986, p. 664; Lather, 1991, p. 212). These tensions could prove to be characteristic of a second wave of standpoint theory that incorporates strands of  64  poststructuralism and postcolonial approaches (Selgas, 2004, p. 302). Theorists may choose not to play postmodern games by their rules and instead decide not to abandon investigation by knowing subjects of specific power relations, their intersections, histories, materiality, morality, and effects (Ramazanoğlu & Holland, 2002, p. 103). Foucault counsels that we salvage liberatory projects by displacing the knowing subject with the singular, the contingent, and the strategic. He advocates a critique of what we are that entails a historical analysis of the limits that are imposed on us, as well as experimenting with the possibility of going beyond these limits. Foucault’s approach of attending to how we are constituted as subjects of our own discourses and not to formal structures and universals is clearly central to Nakata’s work. As I (re)read Nakata in light of these considerations, I come to view his position at the intersection of knowledge, power and ethics, like Foucault’s, as being neither “for” or “against” Enlightenment thought but rather against knowledge presented as complete, and for a continuous critique of ourselves “always in the position of beginning again” (Foucault, 1984, pp. 46–47). This (re)reading of Nakata leads to my current understanding that the perceived paradox of a postmodern social ontology and a modernist epistemology within his framework reflects a larger paradox within contemporary social theory and philosophy. The political and ethical commitments of Indigenous standpoint theory call for practical application and action in the world that lean on the logics and the efficacies of modern thought, including a modern commitment to better accounts, and humanist ideals of a better world however fraught these may be. Indigenous standpoint is committed to a conceptualization of some form of objectivity in order to demonstrate validity and justify its accounts as counter readings of social and historical conditions as well as the possibilities of  65  renewals. Within Nakata’s framework, epistemology can no longer exclude social and political dimensions as components of a theory of knowledge. The demonstration of validity need not meet the criteria of truth claims of a positivist scientific method but demonstrate coherence, accountability, and internal consistency.  2.3.2  Situated Knowledges  For myself, as a non-Indigenous theorist within the Cultural Interface, I adopt a relational epistemology: one that is based on my chosen position as a “situated knower” with multiple identities and multiple subjectivities to engage with Nakata’s theoretical framework and to seek resonances and shared goals. I draw on a Donna Haraway’s conceptualization of situated knowledges (1988/1991b), which shifts the subject from a location within subjugated knowledges to one that is situated as heterogeneous, partial, locatable, and critical.14 Within constructed dichotomous relationships that then emerge from this position, it is understood that these are not conceptualized as discrete (mutually exclusive) but as continua of tensions and resonances in a power-charged field. A heterogeneous subject is neither fixed nor predictable and is always constructed in contexts, thereby creating the possibility to “join with another, to see together without claiming to be another” (Haraway, 1991b, p. 195). This thesis seeks perspectives that strive to construct knowledge that is “less organized by axes of domination” within ourselves and others and expresses hope for transformative knowledge  14  Donna Haraway introduced the concept of situated knowledges to feminist theory (Jaggar, 2008a) through her article “Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective” (1988, 1991b) which originated as a commentary on Sandra Harding’s The Science Question in Feminism (1986) (Haraway, 1991a, p. 248), a key text for Nakata. 66  conjoined with the imperative of an accountable critical enquiry (Haraway, 1991b, pp. 187– 195). Situated knowledges derive from a view from a body that is conceptualized as always complex, contradictory, structuring, and structured (Haraway, 1991b, p. 195). Positioning is therefore the key practice that is used to ground knowledge and to avoid essentializing social categories in order that they are understood as always in relation to a continuously changing context wherein subjects construct, rather than discover, meaning and values. As individuals are subjects of, and subjected to social construction, it follows that “ethics and politics ground struggles over what counts as rational knowledge” (Haraway, 1991b, pp. 193–195). As situated knowledges are both embodied and discursive in this sense, they are suited to a material-semiotic technology 15 (Haraway, 1991b, p. 192). Material-semiotic meaning systems are tied to the material worlds and the bodies that they structure, and by which they are structured (Haraway, 1991b, p. 194). I choose a situated knowledges position as an alternative to a standpoint position for two reasons: firstly, by definition Nakata’s formation of Indigenous standpoint excludes nonIndigenous knowers, that is, this definition excludes me as a non-Indigenous knower; secondly, and perhaps more significantly, for the reasons outlined in Section 2.3.1, I think the conflation of identity-knowledge is theoretically problematic both as an epistemology and as a method that reproduces privileged knower/knowledge positions. A situated knowledges  15  Drawing on Foucault, the term technology is understood as a conscious form of rationality that organizes practical systems manifest in what we do and the ways we do it. The freedom with which we act and react within these practical systems and modify the rules of the game is considered to be the strategic side of these practices. Foucault distinguishes practical systems as differing from both the representations that individuals give of themselves, and the various conditions that determine them without their knowing (Foucault, 1984, p. 48). 67  position mediates this tension: it retains the historical contingency of knowledge claims and knowing subjects, combined with a “critical practice” for recognizing our own discursive technologies and their effects, and is leavened with a commitment to (more) faithful accounts of a “real” world (Haraway, 1991b). This conceptualization of an epistemic position I believe sits comfortably with and is activated within Nakata’s ontology of the Cultural Interface, and is compatible with Nakata’s political and ethical commitments and, at a philosophical level, the confluence of the modern and postmodern through a materialsemiotic conjunction; this is my political and ethical standpoint within the Cultural Interface. This interpretation of the Cultural Interface has been crafted as the ontology-epistemology for the study. The final component of the theoretical location is the axiology.  2.4  The Research Ethic of Indigenous Métissage Axiology may be defined as the philosophical study of values (Flew & Priest, 2002)  and axiological ethics as a focus on the question of “what is worth doing and what should be avoided” (Hiles, 2008, p. 53). The answers will include assumptions about the values a theory might reflect, or its organizing principle, or how it might contribute to society. I selected Indigenous Métissage as the research ethic for the study. Developed by Dwayne Donald16 for Indigenous education in Canada (Donald, 2003, 2009a, 2009b, 2011), it is rooted in an Indigenous ethic of relationality, which is congruent with my situated-knowledges position. Indigenous Métissage has a philosophical commitment that is based on an ecological understanding, and views human relations as relations with all beings or entities that inhabit the  16  Dwayne Donald is a descendent of the Papaschase Cree whose traditional territory encompasses Edmonton, Alberta. Donald has worked as a teacher and learner with the Kainai people on the (Blood) reserve (Donald 2009b). 68  world: the environment is not separate from this complex web of relationships. It acknowledges “how our histories and experiences position us in relation to each other, and how our futures as people in the world are tied together” (Donald, 2011, p. 4). The term métissage derives from the Latin mixtus meaning “mixed,” which referred to a cloth of two different fabrics (Chambers, Hasebe-Ludt, Donald, Hurren, & Oberg, 2008). It evokes the potential to transform, and through admixture to oppose naturalized (made to appear natural) ideas, and thus troubles the boundaries of concepts and logic (Donald, 2009b). It has been engaged in life-writing inquiry as a form of self-authorization of individual and collective representations and for possible retrieval of community knowledge and values (Zuss, 1997). The genealogy of métissage reaches back to the notion of a bricoleur who creates a bricolage as an emergent response and proffered solution to a concrete situation. It is emergent in that it takes shape and reforms as different perspectives, methods and techniques are applied (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994). It may braid personal and family stories with those of nation and nationality (Donald, 2009a, p. 8). As a textual braid, it interweaves diverse texts to represent juxtaposing perspectives, highlighting differences while simultaneously identifying points of affinity (Chambers et al., 2008, p. 142). Donald extends the concept of métissage to serve as an interpretive research sensibility, a textual practice, and a curriculum approach for Indigenous education in Canada. Intended as a counter narrative Indigenous Métissage holds the potential to transform, and to oppose naturalized ideas and dominant narratives (Donald, 2009b) premised on the organizing principle of relationality. Donald views the artifact of the fort in Western Canada as a mythic symbol and as a site of inquiry into the colonial narrative that entrenches separation and difference between  69  Aboriginal and Canadian people and elides interrelationality. A central challenge is contesting the idea that the experiences of Aboriginal people are theirs alone and separate from the rest of the country (2009b, p. 6). The enquiry at the site of the fort is an example of place-based enquiry: “Often, cities, towns and communities across Canada have been built on places that have specific cultural, spiritual, and social significance to Aboriginal peoples, and Canadians living in those places do not and cannot have those same connections” (Donald, 2009a, p. 10). The stories that Aboriginal people tell about these places and artifacts might dislodge those dominant beliefs. Donald proffers these place-stories as a way to facilitate dialogue and expand understandings. Place-based enquiry begins with Indigenous experiences, philosophies, and ways of knowing as a point of entry and then expands inquiry through interpretation in a Canadian context. The overarching goal is to contribute to repairing the dominant colonial narrative in Canada through surfacing Indigenous stories of presence, participation, agency and resistance in order to create a more “complex and reciprocal story” (Donald, 2009b, p. 99). Guided by ecological understandings of interconnectivity and renewal Indigenous Métissage aims to tell stories from Indigenous pedagogical and philosophical perspectives and centre the wisdom traditions of Indigenous peoples (Donald, 2009b, p. 144). It critically examines the unequal power relations within Aboriginal/Canadian relationships, and surfaces histories of interaction in order to create a more “complex, reciprocal, and interreferential story” (2009b, p. 99). As part of a narrative tradition, the practice of Indigenous Métissage requires attentiveness to language, its use, polysemous nature, and its historical locatedness. It recognizes the interpretability of life, experience, and knowledge and explores the ways in which interpretation offers pedagogical tools to critically analyze what is going on and to  70  choose alternatives (Donald, 2009b, pp. 145–151). In centring Indigenous accounts and lived experience both the Cultural Interface and Indigenous Métissage are part of a larger Indigenous research tradition that strives to “honor and illuminate Indigenous worldviews and perspectives” (S. Wilson, 2003, p. 170) through (re)surfacing and explicitly acknowledging the contributions of Indigenous peoples (Rigney, 2001).  2.5  Discussion: @ Cultural Interface My integration of the Cultural Interface and Indigenous Métissage, developed in  this chapter, theoretically anchors and guides the study (Haraway, 1991b; Nakata, 2007b; Donald 2009b). For the purposes of the study it is indicated with @ and represented as “@ Cultural Interface”: it articulates the ontology, epistemology and axiology underpinning the overall research design and my approach to knowledge organization in Indigenous contexts. It shapes the methodology, the methods of data collection, representation, and interpretation of the findings. As a critical interpretive space it is committed to social transformation. It centres the role of discourse in the maintenance of unequal power relations; however, it also views discourse as constructive and aims to create more complex and interreferential representation in the hope of shaping meaning within discourses, and thereby transforming them. Discourse is understood as constitutive in that it plays a role in producing the social world including knowledge, identities, and social relations, as well as in sustaining or destabilizing them. The Cultural Interface gives primacy to complexity of Indigenous lived experience in colonial regimes, and sets a research agenda intended to shift discourse from one using only dominant discourses to one that gives accounts of both sides, as well as the contact situation itself. The objectives here are to give voice to Indigenous accounts, and to support 71  Indigenous equity and Indigenous cultural distinctiveness. At the same time it establishes principles that shape theory and methods, notably an aversion to reducing complexity to dualist oppositions, and an inclusion of lived experience. It asserts the primacy of Indigenous present in relation to the past, and the recognition of Indigenous agency. One consequence of using a discourse theoretic approach is a requirement for researchers to be accountable for the ways in which they construct meanings and to commit to theoretical and methodological transparency, explaining decision-making in the development of theory and stating the researcher positionality, as Nakata models in his works. A commitment to social change within a political and epistemic community rebalances a poststructuralist impulse to multiple, perspectival accounts (relativism) to one that retains transformation as an ethical objective and a design commitment. This entails the (modern) defence of knowledge claims that offer a reasoned, logical rationale and empirical data in support of stronger arguments, or less false accounts. It brings ethical and political elements into the field of epistemology that traditionally has excluded them based on a (contested) claim to objectivity and neutrality. Political and ethical elements are viewed as constitutive of knowledge, as warrant for knowledge claims, and therefore as evaluative criteria of those claims. Thus, within this framework social, including embodied, sources of knowledge are incorporated in a reworked epistemology. It includes evidence of inequitable social and material conditions as justification for change, which leads to the inclusion of every-day lived experience as integral to knowledge and knowledge production. At the same time, the power of language is recognized in shaping the social world, and so two forces are at work: the material and the discursive.  72  The Cultural Interface is particularly relevant to the study of knowledge organization in Indigenous contexts. Contrary to the opinion that 19th-century attitudes, values, and epistemological assumptions are obsolete, it demonstrates that they are still embedded in contemporary disciplines, institutions, policy, and practice. The analysis of the ways in which Indigenous identities and knowledge are discursively constructed through dominant texts informs analysis of knowledge organization systems as “text,” and to examining the effects of knowledge organization on the lives of Indigenous learners. Nakata’s discourse theory leads to my conceptualization of the “object” of study of knowledge organization as dynamic knowledge domains constituted through interactions in power-charged fields, with associated implications for the ways in which entities and concepts are imagined. The epistemology @ Cultural Interface requires the inclusion of social and ethical elements within knowledge organization: the processes of representing and ordering knowledge in documents that may lead to new approaches and possibilities for knowledge organization in Indigenous contexts.  73  Chapter 3  3.1  Methodology: Domain Analysis @ Cultural Interface  Prologue: Stopping in Order to Begin The purpose of the study is to investigate how Indigenous approaches to knowledge  inform the design of knowledge organization systems to serve Indigenous purposes. My initial strategy focused on the comprehensive faceted classification theory of S.R. Ranganathan (1957, 1967), supplemented by the work of members of the Classification Research Group (CRG) in the UK (Coates, 1978; D. J. Foskett, 1974; Langridge, 1976, 1989, 1995; Vickery, 1960, 1966,) and contemporary classification theorists (Beghtol, 1986, 2002a; Broughton, 2006; La Barre, 2006) to support my original intention to design a prototype faceted knowledge organization scheme (KOS) to facilitate Indigenous scholarship. The classification literature describes procedures for designing KOS based on the premise of an objective representation of information for the purpose of facilitating effective information retrieval (Feinberg, 2008; Mai, 2008). It is described as a stepped process: a five-step process by Mai (2006), three steps by La Barre (2006), six or seven steps by Vickery (1960, 1966), and more generally by Langridge (1992) and Ranganathan (1967). At a technical level there are well-developed instructions on, for example, the form of terms, disambiguation of terms, relationships between terms, and facet analysis of compound subjects (Aitchison, Gilchrist, & Bawden, 2000; Ranganathan, 1967; Soergel, 1974). I have entitled Mai’s summation (2006, p. 17) Five Steps for Classification: (1) Analyze the literature, needs, actors, tasks, domains, activities, etc. (2) Collect, sort, and merge terms. (3) Select descriptors and establish relationships.  74  (4) Construct the classified schedules. (5) Prepare the final product. However, as Mai (2006) notes, the first step is complex and the established procedure does not offer much assistance with it. For example, Ranganathan counsels that we study the “universe of knowledge” (1953) and La Barre that we “survey the field” (2006). There is a gap in the literature at this conceptual level that involves establishing a philosophical position that in turn will inform how the related issues and decision-making processes are addressed (Feinberg, 2008; Mai, 2006, 2008). This initial step determines, in a theoretical sense, what exists in the world, how we come to know, and who may be a knower. It therefore shapes design decisions at every level including notions of authority and warrant, “what counts as a concept” (Feinberg, 2008, p. 28), and the “methodological aspect of the design and construction process” (Mai, 2008, p. 17). The Five Steps for Classification present design as a well-defined problem (build a retrieval tool) and it assumes the decision to build a certain type of retrieval tool has already been made. However, as Feinberg suggests, if the decision was not already made and if we did not know, for example, the purposes and objectives envisioned for such a tool then the problem becomes “not to create a retrieval tool but to figure out what to create” (2007a, p. 38). It appears that the formulation of the problem is in fact the problem, and that both the problem and the solution gradually emerge in tandem, a process Feinberg describes, citing Schön (1983), as a “reflective conversation with the situation” (2007a). Engaging in reflective conversation at this point I decided to stop: I stopped undertaking a research study designed to create a solution (build a faceted classification prototype) and instead began an enquiry into the nature of the problem. The stated purpose of the study remained the same:  75  to investigate how Indigenous approaches to knowledge inform the design of knowledge organization systems to serve Indigenous purposes. However, the imagined product shifted from an artifact to a process, and the possibility of creating in the first instance not an artifact but a conceptual space for enquiry and for design (Feinberg, 2007a).  3.2  Design/Research Beginning again, I chose design/research as a research framework because it explicitly  theorizes the social implications of design and supports efforts to integrate two (or more) disciplines to address a real-world problem. Thus the current study is a design/research study located at the disciplinary interstices of Indigenous education and information science. As an interdisciplinary field design/research examines questions from the perspectives of two or more knowledge domains and seeks synergies between them in order to solve a problem. The insights generated, and the action taken on these insights, are called integration. Integration seeks to reconcile disparate perspectives or approaches to result in something altogether new or beyond the limits of individual disciplinary knowledge: it aims to draw elements together to produce a new, coherent, and functional whole (Repko, 2008, p. 116). A goal of interdisciplinary enquiry may be a comprehensive understanding as much as a concrete product: the process of moving toward integration is considered valuable in and of itself (Repko, 2008). The ultimate objective is enacting a change process that transforms one situation into another (Simonsen, Bærenholdt, Busher, & Scheuer, 2010, pp. 202–203). Design/research integrates two research traditions. The first is a scientific tradition; it is functionalist and aims to develop systematic knowledge and is only connected loosely with reflective practice. The second studies how design works, including studies of actors, including designers and users and their