Indigenous Research Methodologies in Sámi and Global Contexts

# **New Research – New Voices**

*Series Editor*

Halla B. Holmarsdottir (*Oslo Metropolitan University, Norway*)

*International Advisory Board*

Karen Biraimah (*University of Central Florida, USA*) Heidi Biseth (*Buskerud University College, Norway*) Joan DeJaeghere (*University of Minnesota, USA*) Zubeida Desai (*University of the Western Cape, South Africa*) Alawia Farag (*Ahfad University for Women, Sudan*) Fatma Gok (*Bogazici University, Turkey*) Lihong Huang (*Norwegian Social Research (NOVA) Institute, Norway*) Suzanne Majhanovich (*University of Western Ontario, Canada*) Diane Napier (*University of Georgia, USA*) Vuyokazi Nomlomo (*University of the Western Cape, South Africa*) Gerald Ouma (*University of Pretoria, South Africa*) Adila Pašalić-Kreso (*University of Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina*) Yusuf Sayed (*University of Sussex, UK)*

Volume 11

The titles published in this series are listed at *brill.com/nrnv*

# **Indigenous Research Methodologies in Sámi and Global Contexts**

*Edited by*

Pirjo Kristiina Virtanen, Pigga Keskitalo and Torjer Olsen

leiden | boston

This is an open access title distributed under the terms of the CC BY 4.0 license, which permits any non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited. Further information and the complete license text can be found at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

The terms of the CC license apply only to the original material. The use of material from other sources (indicated by a reference) such as diagrams, illustrations, photos and text samples may require further permission from the respective copyright holder.

All chapters in this book have undergone peer review.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Virtanen, Pirjo Kristiina, editor. | Keskitalo, Pigga, 1972- editor. | Olsen, Torjer, editor. Title: Indigenous research methodologies in Sá mi and global contexts / edited by Pirjo Kristiina Virtanen, Pigga Keskitalo and Torjer Olsen. Description: Leiden ; Boston : Brill | Sense, [2021] | Series: New research - new voices, 2542-9221 ; volume 11 | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2021010843 (print) | LCCN 2021010844 (ebook) | ISBN 9789004420670 (paperback) | ISBN 9789004420687 (hardback) | ISBN 9789004463097 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Sami (European people)--Study and teaching. | Indigenous peoples--Research--Methodology. | Ethnology--Methodology. Classification: LCC DL42.L36 I66 2021 (print) | LCC DL42.L36 (ebook) | DDC 305.894/5700721--dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021010843 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021010844

Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: "Brill". See and download: brill.com/brill-typeface.

issn 2542-9221 isbn 978-90-04-42067-0 (paperback) isbn 978-90-04-42068-7 (hardback) isbn 978-90-04-46309-7 (e-book)

Copyright 2021 by Pirjo Kristiina Virtanen, Pigga Keskitalo and Torjer Olsen. Published by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes & De Graaf, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Rodopi, Brill Sense, Hotei Publishing, mentis Verlag, Verlag Ferdinand Schöningh and Wilhelm Fink Verlag. Koninklijke Brill NV reserves the right to protect this publication against unauthorized use.

This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

# **Contents**

List of Figures and Tables vii Notes on Contributors viii

 Introduction 1 *Pigga Keskitalo, Pirjo Kristiina Virtanen and Torjer Olsen*


9 *Kimapury* Reflections: Values and Research Agendas in Amazonian Indigenous Research Relations 229 *Pirjo Kristiina Virtanen*

Epilogue 254

*Torjer Olsen, Pigga Keskitalo and Pirjo Kristiina Virtanen*

Index 257

# **Figures and Tables**

# **Figures**


# **Tables**


# **Notes on Contributors**

# *Rauni Äärelä-Vihriälä*

(PhD in Education) is Associate Professor of Education at the Sámi University of Applied Sciences in Norway. She has also been working as a primary school teacher and Sámi language teacher for fifteen years in her home village of Sodankylä. The focus of her doctoral research was on the revitalization of the endangered Sámi language. The objective of this pioneer study was to provide a new perspective on Sámi language revitalization by analyzing the revitalization of Sámi language among children in one North Sámi language nest.

# *Hanna Guttorm*

(PhD in Education) is widely interested in life and its possibilities on our planet. She is especially inspired by Indigenous ontologies and post theories, investigating how we should do and write research in order to make a change towards a more ecological, social and cultural sustainability and solidarity. She has revitalized the language of his father, North Sámi, and has worked as Associate Professor in Sámi Teacher Education at the Sámi University of Applied Sciences in Norway. Currently she works as senior researcher in Indigenous Studies at the University of Helsinki. Her current research on healing methodologies is funded by Kone foundation. In addition, she participates in multiple collaborative research projects concerning different Arctic Indigenous issues.

#### *Lea Kantonen*

(Doctor of Arts) is Professor of Artistic Research at the University of the Arts Helsinki's Academy of Fine Arts and a researcher with the University of the Arts Helsinki's ArtsEqual initiative. She is interested in artistic dialogue with people from different cultures, language domains, generations, and professions. Her other interests include translation as part of the artistic process. Lea Kantonen and her partner, Pekka Kantonen, have exhibited internationally in art museums and locally in community centres and village schools. They have facilitated multilingual performances and workshops on the different interpretations of knowledge. Exhibitions, screenings and other presentations provide feedback on the ongoing processes – a means of continuous methodological revision and conversation.

#### *Pigga Keskitalo*

(PhD in Education) is a researcher at the University of Lapland. She is an Adjunct Professor at the University of Helsinki. She is currently working as a parttime researcher at the Sámi University of Applied Sciences (SUAS). Formerly, she worked for 20 years at the Sámi teacher education program at SUAS. She is a member of the UArctic Thematic Network on Teacher Education for Social Justice. She has participated in various national and international research and development projects, and has supervised doctoral students in education sciences. She is a North Sámi-speaking Sámi scholar, coming from the Ohcejohka (Utsjoki) community and living today in Enontekiö, Peltovuoma village.

#### *Ilona Kivinen*

(PhD in Finno-Ugric studies) is a Sámi language teacher at the University of Helsinki. Her special interests are in Sámi languages and historical linguistics. She has published various articles on adjectives in Sámi and Finno-Ugric languages especially from the historical perspective, and her current research concerns the variation of the adjective attributive system in North Sámi. In addition she has been working in projects that develop the technical tools for proofreading and modernizing Sámi languages.

#### *Britt Kramvig*

is a Professor at the Department of Tourism and Northern Studies, UiT the Arctic University of Norway. Her current research projects encompass the ongoing politics and practice of reconciliation in Arctic communities, imaginaries of Arctic futures, and the ontological turn in social science and humanities studies. Another major interest is the specificity of (Arctic) creativity, nature-based tourism and sustainability and how these can inform the future of the planet. In 2015–2016 she was a fellow at CAS (the Centre for Advanced Studies) in the project "Domestication in the Era of the Anthropocene in the Arctic" led by Prof. M. Lien (UiO). From 2013–2016 she was Norwegian PI on the HERA-project: "Arctic Encounters: Contemporary Travel/Writing in the European High North." During the period of 2016–2020, she has been a research partner at the Resource Extraction and Sustainable Arctic Communities led by Prof. Sverker Sörlin from KTH, Sweden and is a member in the Norwegian Scientific Academy for Polar research as well as a member of the Social Science and Humanity Committee IASC, The International Arctic Science Committee.

#### *Petter Morottaja*

has various roles in the Aanaar Saami (Inari Sámi) community: a university teacher, translator, writer, journalist and researcher. He has published two adventure novels in Aanaar Saami as a teenager and shorter texts in the magazine *Anarâš*. For him, writing in Aanaar Saami has meant making compromises on how to express thoughts that have emerged mainly in a Finnish-speaking environment in a language that seems to lack the vocabulary and the established style of popular culture. Nonetheless, he has seen these compromises not only as drawbacks but also an opportunity for creating something completely new in AS literature.

#### *Eljas Niskanen*

worked as Editor-in-Chief in the *Čyeti čälled* project in 2018 and took over the editing of the communal magazine *Anarâš*. He also edits belletristic texts and books. He is an L2 Saami speaker who has learnt Aanaar Saami during the Saami Education Institute's study year 2012–2013. Due to his job as a journalist, he has become a key person in 2018 in activating people in writing. He is harsh with himself when he makes mistakes, and he spends much time in solving linguistic problems. Sometimes his texts flow easily, and sometimes he gets stuck, mainly because of complicated linguistic issues.

### *Ragnhild Lydia Nystad*

was Vice-President of the Norwegian Sámi Parliament in 1997–2005. From 1995 to 1997 she served as parliamentary leader of the Norwegian Sámi National Association and in 1985–1991 she acted as the head of the Norwegian Sámi National Association, being its first female leader. During the same period, she established and led the Sámi Nursing Association. In the period 1986–1997, she was a member of the Sámi Council. Besides being a Sámi politician, she has acted in the art field, among others leading art school in Kárášjohka/Karasjok.

#### *Torjer Olsen*

(PhD in Religious Studies) is Professor in Indigenous Studies, The Centre for Sámi Studies, UiT The Arctic University of Norway. Research interests include Indigenous issues in education, gender and power in research methodologies, and Indigenous Christianities. Olsen is the project leader for the international research project "Indigenous Citizenship and Education". In 2015/2016, he was a visiting scholar in Te Puna Wānanga (School of Māori and Pacific Education), University of Auckland, Aotearoa New Zealand.

#### *Marja-Liisa Olthuis*

has a PhD in Saami languages and is the leader of the revitalization programs for Aanaar Saami. She started up the *Čyeti čälled anarâškielân* project, together with Erika Katjaana Sarivaara. She is a self-taught writer who learnt to write in Aanaar Saami during her studies at Oulu University, mainly from dictionaries and scarce texts. She started to write in Aanaar Saami in 2000 when a need arose to produce study materials. She has written five children's books and keeps her own blog, *Tejâblogi* (http://tejablogi.blogspot.com/). Nowadays she writes fiction and poems as her hobby.

#### *Hanna Outakoski*

**(**PhD) is Senior Lecturer in North Sámi at Umeå University in northern Sweden and at UiT the Arctic University of Norway. Her research interests lie in the areas of Indigenous didactics and pedagogy, literacy, multilingual school writing, writing processes, Sámi linguistics, and e-learning in Indigenous higher education contexts. She is currently working on research methodologies that bring direct benefits to the Indigenous communities already during the field work period, and that can be expanded to community projects that are not dependent on researcher presence.

#### *Attila Paksi*

(PhD in Social Sciences) is a Global Development Studies scholar. His research interests include locally initiated community development approaches, the interplay of formal education and Indigenous ways of knowing, Indigenous research methodologies, and hunter gatherer studies. He is the European representative of the International Society of Ethnobiology (2016–2021) and an honorary member of the ICCA Consortium, the Global association for the territories of life.

#### *Jelena Porsanger*

(PhD) was former Director of the Nordic Sámi Institute and former Rector of Sámi allaskuvla/the Sámi University of Applied Sciences. She is a Skolt Sámi scholar with a doctorate in the history of religion and Indigenous research from the University of Tromsø, and has a Licentiate in philosophy from the University of Helsinki. She was previously Rector of the Sámi University of Applied Sciences and now works at Sámiid Vuorká-Dávvirat, the Sámi Museum in Kárášjohka (Karasjok), and is affiliated to the University of Helsinki Indigenous Studies Program. She is currently a member of the international Editorial Board of *AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples* and is actively involved in the Skolt Sámi scientific and artistic project aimed at creating an interactive database of Eastern Sámi cultural heritage and history, funded by the Kone Foundation.

#### *Aili Pyhälä*

(PhD) has extensive grassroots-level experience in more than twenty-five countries, immersing herself in, and engaging with, Indigenous peoples and local communities, along with their knowledge systems, beliefs and practices. With twenty years of experience evaluating international cooperation projects worldwide, and following the principles of permaculture, her current research looks at the ways in which the promotion and imposition of various forms of so-called 'development' programs affect local cultures, environments, knowledge systems, and overall wellbeing. She is also researching the nuances and universalities in cross-cultural perceptions of happiness. She currently sits in the Executive Committee of the ICCA Consortium and is a partner of the Centre of Indigenous Conservation and Development Alternatives (CICADA). Alongside her academic work, she is a committed activist defending territories of life and their defenders.

### *Rauna Rahko-Ravantti*

(PhD) is an Associate Professor in the Sámi Teacher Education Program at the Sámi University of Applied Sciences, Norway. Her doctoral thesis in 2016 dealt with Sámi teachers' experiences about their work in Finnish schools. Her research interests are Sámi education and research methods, Indigenous youth, culturally meaningful education and diversified education contexts. She is a Sámi scholar connected to the Ohcejohka (Utsjoki) municipality in Finland.

#### *Torkel Rasmussen*

is an Associate Professor of Journalism, the Sámi University of Applied Sciences, Norway, where he has been teaching journalism since 2001. He has worked in Sámi media and has a degree in journalism from the University College of Oslo and a PhD in language sociology from UiT the Arctic University of Norway. He has published in the fields of Indigenous journalism and the revitalization of minority and Indigenous languages.

#### *Erika Katjaana Sarivaara*

(PhD in Education) works as a University Lecturer at the University of Lapland. She is a North Saami speaker, and a writer who has revitalized and taken back the language in her family. She uses North Saami both in academic circles and as a home language with her children. She has worked as a post-doctoral researcher from 2015 to 2016 both in the Aanaar Saami language technological project at Giellatekno, and the *Čyeti čälled anarâškielân* project.

#### *Irja Seurujärvi-Kari*

(PhD in Sámi and Finno-Ugric studies) is a researcher in Indigenous Studies and a retired Sámi lecturer of Sámi studies at the University of Helsinki. Her dissertation *Ale jaskkot eatnigiella* [Don't silence our mother tongue] (2012), which is written from Indigenous perspective, deals with the Indigenous movement and the role of language within it. She has co-edited several anthologies of Sámi people and their culture. *The Saami: A Cultural Encyclopaedia* was awarded the State Prize Award by the Ministry of Education in 2005. In addition to her academic work, she has acted as the longterm former Vice-President of the Sámi Parliament of Finland and President and Vice-President of the Sámi Council (a cooperative organ of the Sámi living in four countries). At present she leads *Sámegiela ja -kultuvrra Dutkansearvi* (the Sámi Language and Culture Research Association), whose main duty is to publish the first journal of Sámi Studies in Sámi in Finland. During 2020–2023 she will be a member of the Sámi Parliament of Finland.

### *Trond Trosterud*

is Professor of Saami Language Technology. He led the Aanaar Saami language technological project at Giellatekno in 2015–2016 which made the tools that form the basis for today's writing. He is a native speaker of Norwegian, who has used Finnish on a daily basis for the last three decades. He uses North Saami in professional contexts, making extensive use of writing tools (e-dictionaries, proofing and grammar checking tools, corpora), as both input (via reading) and writing practice are too scarce for automatizing the writing process. He is able to read Aanaar Saami to a certain extent.

#### *Pirjo Kristiina Virtanen*

is Associate Professor of Indigenous Studies at the University of Helsinki. She received her PhD in Latin American Studies. Her recent research interests include human–environment collectives, epistemological plurality, Indigenous leaderships, notions of time, and research ethics. She has collaborated with Arawak-speaking Machineri and Apurinã in Brazil since 2003. Her publications include monographs, several edited books and articles on Indigenous politics, mobility, youthhood, biocultural landscapes, as well as Indigenous ontologies and epistemologies. Virtanen is the author of *Indigenous Youth in Brazilian Amazonia: Changing Lived Worlds* (Palgrave Macmillan, 2012) and co-editor of *Creating Dialogues: Indigenous Perceptions and Changing Forms of Leadership in Amazonia* (Colorado University Press, 2017). In addition to her research interests, she has co-authored various Indigenous school materials.

# **Introduction**

*Pigga Keskitalo, Pirjo Kristiina Virtanen and Torjer Olsen*

This volume contributes to the discussion on Indigenous research methodologies and doing Indigenous research, drawing from perspectives on Sámi and global Indigenous studies. Sámi studies focus on Sámi society, while Indigenous studies have a more global approach, albeit drawing from local contexts. The rationale behind this book is the fact that in addition to the progression of Indigenous and Sámi rights and important previous contributions in the field of Indigenous research from a pan-Sámi perspective, there is an ongoing need to discuss (1) the starting point and meaning of Sámi research and research methodologies, (2) how Indigenous and Sámi studies academic discussions on the regional and local level are connected to the practical level of doing Indigenous research today in different contexts, as well as (3) how ideas from practitioners connect to global debates in Indigenous studies. The chapters offer a broad view of the articulation, conceptualization, and practice of Indigenous research methodologies locally, and in our case, especially in Sámi academic contexts.

By 'Sámi context' we refer to a pan-Sámi view, as the Sámi live in a wide area of mid Sweden and Norway up until the Kola Peninsula with nine different Sámi languages and diverse cultural and area features. There are between 75,000–100,000 Sámi people estimated to live in the four countries, about 45,000 in Norway, around 25,000 in Sweden, about 10,000 in Finland, and 2,000 in Russia. North Sámi is the largest of the Sámi languages, followed by Lule, Skolt, Inari, Southern, Skolt, Kildin, Ume, and Pite Sámi languages. They are all differently threatened languages. Some Sámi languages are no longer spoken (Salminen 2007). The Sámi people are the only Indigenous peoples in the European Union. The authors of this book come from the universities that conduct Sámi or Indigenous studies programmes in Norway, Finland, and Sweden, but not all the universities with these studies are included in this volume.

Who are the Sámi as Indigenous peoples is related to ethnic and political questions concerning the origin and background of this particular Indigenous group. The concept is related to political rights and to individual identity and is intertwined with questions about one's belonging and identity in the context of human rights and Indigenous self-determination (see e.g. Valkonen 2019). Overall, the understanding of this issue has been complex and is still open to debate. Obviously, due to the history of assimilation and the trajectory of the

© Pigga Keskitalo, Pirjo Kristiina Virtanen and Torjer Olsen, 2021 doi: 10.1163/9789004463097\_001 This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the CC BY 4.0 License. cultural colonial impact, the call for an inclusive way of understanding Indigeneity is a way to nurture the wellbeing and future of Indigenous peoples.

Likewise, a clear-cut definition of those who count as Indigenous is problematic, as it stretches from tribal peoples living in the rainforests of Borneo, to reindeer herders living in Siberia, to the Sámi living in both traditional and urban areas, or to Pacific Indigenous peoples who have migrated to other islands, not to mention the peoples of North and South America or Africa. The official categories of Indigenous peoples vary greatly. In Russia, a population of 50,000 is the limit for official recognition as Indigenous people. Africa and Asia also have their own state recognitions for Indigenous peoples. What unites different Indigenous peoples are their experiences of colonialism, as well as coloniality and modernity projects (Battiste 2000; Virtanen et al. 2013). In this context Indigenous peoples' aspirations to tell their own stories and use and advance their knowledges in academia can be understood.

There are about 370 million Indigenous peoples worldwide in over 90 countries. Despite the fact that they represent up to 5 percent of the global population, they account for about 15 percent of the extreme poor (World Bank Group 2018). Needless to say, it takes a broad approach to be able to study issues related to such a huge diversity of people within one field. Moreover, indigeneity is constantly reconceptualized by Indigenous people themselves (see e.g. de la Cadena & Starn 2007).

The diversity of Indigenous people (also referred to as First peoples, Aboriginal peoples, Native peoples, or autochthonous peoples), points to an enormous variety of Indigenous localities and historicities (Sanders 1999). There is no single definition or explanation of Indigenous peoples. There is, however, a set of characteristics concerning "Indigenous people" found in international conventions and declarations (such as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007) (UNDRIP), ILO–Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention 1989 (No. 169) and Martínez Cobo's study (1981), which have in part grown out of the success of the international Indigenist political struggle of the last four decades (Dahl 2012).

According to Paulette Steeves (2018), the term 'Indigenous' was not used to identify human groups until recently. According to Martínez Cobo (1981), Indigenous people form communities or nations as groups that have a "historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies" within the territories they developed, and as communities that "consider themselves distinct from other sectors of societies" now in their territories. Cobo further stresses that Indigenous people and communities are normally minorities within contemporary populations that work to preserve their ethnic identities and ancestral territories for future generations. Yet, it should be noted that Indigenous peoples are not always minorities, and in Bolivia and Guatemala Indigenous peoples form a majority. According to Steeves, the category should include socalled displaced people who prior to colonization identified themselves with specific lands and regions, as well as Indigenous communities that have for decades sought safer places and moved away from their original homeland areas. Furthermore, many descendants of Indigenous people were forced to hide their identities for their own safety due to colonization and genocidal policies that focused on physical and cultural erasure. This does not make them non-Indigenous, rather it makes them survivors of genocide, erasure and forced acculturation. The term First People came into use in the 1990s and as a concept refers to Indigeneity as an identity. Indigenous people are usually identified as the First People of a specific regional area (Steeves 2018).

Even if the concept 'Indigenous' can be contested, there is a shared understanding of what Indigenous studies covers and how it emerged. Likewise, in neighbouring disciplines like anthropology, religious studies, art history, sociology and gender studies, it is difficult to find a univocal definition of 'religion', or 'art', for instance, but the centre of attention is commonly understood.

The authors of this volume represent four countries where Sámi live. Most of them are involved with Sámi research and education and some with global Indigenous research. The authors represent mostly the humanities, and address the processes and research conducted in the participant tertiary institutions involved with Sámi and Indigenous studies and research. Sámi studies have for a long time been linked to global Indigenous research contexts. The authors are interested in discussing theoretical and practical implications when conducting research in the Sámi context and global Indigenous contexts, involving North European academic spaces. They engage with their experiences of doing research and reflect on the use of Indigenous research methodologies.

The chapters view Sámi and Indigenous studies through the lens of theoretical and practical research-based case solutions in the Sámi academic context. They arise from today's situation in Sámi and Indigenous research and studies in participative higher education institutions, where both researchers coming from different backgrounds are involved in research and teaching. The first three chapters provide theoretical insights about the research field, and from the fourth chapter onwards more case-based research examples are discussed. They all problematize and discuss methodological solutions in engaging in Indigenous knowledge in academia.

In Chapter 1, the editors of this book present the genealogy of Indigenous studies in Sámi and Nordic contexts, and the theoretical and practical implications in elevating Indigenous knowledge and perspectives in academia. The chapter also shows how as a consequence Sámi and Indigenous research emerged in Northern Europe. It also draws from central concepts, decolonization and Indigenization, in Indigenous studies as a discipline, and revisits them in its current research and teaching. Chapter 1 then reflects on the importance of Indigenous research methodologies, and what kind of challenges they may pose, taking into account both local and global contexts.

Chapter 2, by Jelena Porsanger and Irja Seurujärvi-Kari, focuses on early influential thinkers and their methodological choices, offering a deep history of Sámi research. It shows how holistic approaches concerning Indigenous epistemologies, ontologies, and axiologies have been present in Sámi intellectuals' thinking for centuries, and how it is practically present in the so-called *lávvu* method.

In Chapter 3, Pigga Keskitalo, Torkel Rasmussen, Rauna Rahko-Ravantti, and Rauni Äärelä-Vihriälä discuss the state of Sámi research and the authors' ideas on, and actions towards, the research paradigm shift based on the previous literature and their experiences when teaching and researching in the field. They present their ideas based on the *gáfestallan* talking circles and the research process inspired by making a traditional weaving band (*ruvdet* in North Sámi language).

In Chapter 4, Hanna Outakoski looks at the development of literacy research in Sápmi (Sámi land) through the implementation of Indigenous methodologies. She sees an awareness of Indigenous research principles as an example of what kinds of issues she has faced during her research and how she has solved them.

In Chapter 5, Hanna Guttorm, Lea Kantonen, Britt Kramvig, and Aili Pyhälä engage with the decolonial writing process in the context of Sámi and global Indigenous societies. They take the land, Eana, as an actor in the co-writing, and give the reader novel ideas about creating different ways of research writing.

In Chapter 6, Jelena Porsanger, Irja Seurujärvi-Kari, and Ragnhild Nystad present a conversational method, *muittašit ovttas,* literally translated "shared remembering", in the Sámi context. They also show how they have used the Sámi *solju*, breastpin, both as a methodological and a theoretical tool.

In Chapter 7, Marja-Liisa Olthuis, Trond Trosterud, Erika Katjaana Sarivaara, Petter Morottaja, and Eljas Niskanen present project-based writing strategies and methodologies in the Aanaar Saami (Inari Sámi) language community. They describe the measures taken to recreate and activate the missing writers' generations in their personal and communal writing processes. The authors preferred to use the spelling 'Aanaar Saami', because 'Sámi' actually comes from north Sámi writing, even if it is already commonly used in English. The language community itself uses 'anarâškielâ' for Aanaar Saami (Inari Sámi).

Chapter 8, by Attila Paksi and Ilona Kivinen, reflect on practical experiences of doing research with Indigenous communities in two different contexts, in Southern Africa and Sápmi. They provide personal stories and reflections on their research practices, especially reciprocal relationships.

Along similar lines, Pirjo Kristiina Virtanen in Chapter 9 reflects on cultural protocols and research agendas in Amazonian research, and how different localities accommodate the values often pointed out in Indigenous research methodologies literature. Lastly, this edited volume includes a concluding epilogue.

This edited volume is a result of the scientific workshops of the network *Indigenous Research Methodologies in Academia*. In 2017–2019, the network gathered together scholars from interdisciplinary scientific fields from the Sámi allaskuvla/Sámi University of Applied Sciences, the University of Helsinki, UiT-the Arctic University of Norway, the University of Oulu, the University of Lapland, Umeå University, and the University of the Arts Helsinki. The network was based on the practical need to create connections between institutions and scholars working with Indigenous and Sámi studies and research. The participants contributed with their thoughts and writing, drawing from their own efforts and practical work related to Indigenous and Sámi research as well as with the Indigenous societies from where this volume emerges. Their contributions reflect a broad approach in human, social, and environmental sciences, as well as cross-disciplinary and applied perspectives.

As such, the network became an important place for interdisciplinary collaboration connecting researchers. The network's scientific workshops addressed diverse topics, identifying the different Indigenous research, research methodologies, and theoretical approaches involved when working with jointly identified topics. The topics included: 'Indigenous epistemologies in dialogue with Euro-American academia', 'Evaluations of Indigenous research methods used in teaching', 'How to write about methodology' and fourthly, the final workshop in the Sajos Sámi cultural centre in Anár/Aanaar (Inari), Finland, 'Re-searching Indigenous methodologies and engaging communities'. Based on these topics, network members with similar interests examined the topics in their work. This volume presents the results of different working groups based on the writings of those groups which were created based on their agreement to cooperate. They also had similar interests in developing Indigenous research methods in the Sámi context. The workshops also hosted invited guests who gave their opening ideas and presentations. During the workshops, a common feature of the contributions was scholars working on decolonial projects, sharing methodological discussions through network building, and creating new relationships and reflections by researchers working in Sámi and Indigenous research contexts. Although the meetings were primarily directed at doctoral and senior researchers, they were open and gained wide attention. The workshops took place in Guovdageaidnu (Kautokeino), Romsa (Tromsø), and Kárášjohka (Karasjok), Ubmi (Umeå), and Helsset (Helsinki) and Inari (Anár) in Finland.

The book is aimed at those interested in research methodologies, Indigenous studies and Sámi research in particular, as well as all those interested in research concerned with Indigenous societies and how to implement decolonial approaches into research.

#### **Acknowledgments**

We would like to thank the Finnish Cultural Foundation for funding our workshops and allowing the creation of novel research collaborations; our project coordinators, Anni Latva-Pukkila and Mariia Rauramo, as well as Sofie Henriksen, who assisted in the editing process; the anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments, and lastly all our research collaborators.

#### **References**


# **Contemporary Indigenous Research within Sámi and Global Indigenous Studies Contexts**

*Pirjo Kristiina Virtanen, Torjer Olsen and Pigga Keskitalo*

# **Abstract**

This chapter addresses the genealogy of Indigenous studies, and how it is conceptualized and practised in the Sámi context. It discusses the inclusion of Indigenous knowledges and Indigenous ways of doing research in academia, as well as the role of Indigenous research methodologies in this effort. We link our chapter to larger academic Indigenous discussions on the concepts of 'knowledge', 'decolonization', 'research' and 'indigenization'. At the theoretical and practical levels these processes and initiatives have enabled researchers to shed light on Indigenous views on the past, the present, and the future, first of all in Indigenous societies, but also in academia. This chapter also addresses the challenges of moving between local and global levels. Indigenous research contexts are diverse and dynamic, and the key to creating dialogues, bridges, and collaboration, lies in this very diversity, complexity, and multivocality of Indigenous societies.

### **Keywords**

Sámi studies – Indigenous studies – Indigenization – decolonization – Indigenous research methodologies – Indigenous paradigm

#### **1 Introduction**

Even though many scholars would argue that Indigenous studies belongs within different kinds of cultural or ethnic studies, today it is a field of its own. It has its own scientific journals, academic events, as well as specially targeted funding mechanisms and strategic plans within education institutions. This chapter aims to discuss the inclusion of Indigenous knowledges and Indigenous ways of doing research in academia, as well as the role of Indigenous research methodologies in this effort. It sheds light first on the genealogy of Indigenous studies, the Sámi context in particular.

We link our chapter to larger academic Indigenous discussions on the concepts of 'knowledge', 'decolonization', 'research' and 'indigenization'. These concepts offer common points in Indigenous studies, and have been studied in diverse Indigenous locations. In addition to the research work carried out previously in the field, the authors' experiences of teaching and researching in Sámi Research and global Indigenous Studies and related programmes provide an important mirroring point. We present the programmes addressed in crossborder contexts, as well as the ideas of students in our study programmes. These views were collected in the course evaluations, which revealed the hopes and ideas of students' roles concerning their studies. The evaluations showed that students aimed to bring forth transformations in communities and societies, and indicated that researchers had a strong sense of individual responsibility in these projects. Pirjo Kristiina Virtanen works as an Associate Professor in Indigenous Studies at the University of Helsinki. Torjer Olsen works as a Professor in the Indigenous Studies Centre for Sámi Studies and is the Head of Department. Pigga Keskitalo works as a part time Associate Professor at the Sámi University of Applied Sciences in a Sámi teacher education programme and at the University of Lapland as a researcher.

Indigenous perspectives are diverse and dynamic, as they draw from the various aspects of Indigenous societies' practices, languages, histories, landscapes, and ways of living. The same applies to Sámi studies and Sámi society. Therefore, we aim here to go beyond clear-cut distinctions between Indigenous and non-Indigenous perspectives and avoid homogeneous and universal categorizations. We highlight the fact that Indigenous research methodologies do not only allow raising attention to diverse onto-epistemologies, but also more horizontal, relational, and accountable encounters in research (see Porsanger 2004; Weber-Pillwax 1999; Wilson 2008). Yet, such methodological efforts require critical reflections concerning the meaning of knowledge building and its methods in each local Indigenous context.

In what follows, the history of global Indigenous and Sámi studies is presented, and their approaches, overarching topics, concepts, and places in academia are discussed. As will be seen, the conceptualization of Indigenous studies as a discipline, its objectives, and thus how it is practised, is also related to Indigenous views on the past, the present, and the future.

#### **2 The Sámi in the World of Research**

Sámi research as a field of study is understood as research with Sámi contents from a Sámi standpoint and with the aim of producing knowledge about Sámi people using their own premises and Sámi language terminology. It can cover among other things, Sámi history, society, language, material and non-material culture, as well as environmental issues (Lehtola & Länsman 2012; Sergejeva 2002; Seurujärvi-Kari 2014a; Seurujärvi-Kari et al. 2011).

Sámi research itself has a long history (see Chapter 2 in this volume). Sámi intellectuals, since the 17th century, gave a deep account of the genealogy of Sámi research up until the 1970s. For centuries, missionaries and explorers actively travelled and explored the wide *Sápmi* (Sámi areas) (see e.g. Pulkkinen 2005). For religious purposes, missionary activities created the first Sámi writings as early as 1619 (Capdeville 2014). From the 17th century on, church schools were organized that gathered in Sámi children (Hirvonen 2004). The occasional use of the Sámi language was one means to introduce Christianity for the Sámi people (Minde 2003). This is a period of different unifying ideologies, such as the Enlightenment, highlighting the ideas of human rationality, and excluding many people who were considered culturally different. From the 1850s onwards, early institutionalized education was provided in different forms of assimilation processes in the different nation states where Sámi people lived. Gradually, the Sámi adapted to the customs, language, and attitudes of the mainstream culture (see Pauls 2019), and their children began to attend residential schools (Rasmus 2014).

The Sámi have been among the most researched Indigenous peoples in the world, and like many other Indigenous peoples around the globe they have long been the object of "Western" scholarship (Lehtola & Länsman 2012). One of the early research traditions related to the Sámi was Lappological research conducted by outside researchers from the 18th and 19th centuries onwards. These researchers represented different fields of science, from linguistics to philanthropy, and their research was conducted in Finnish, Norwegian, Swedish, German, Italian, and French, among other languages. Lappological traditions have been largely tainted by racist and stereotype ideologies until the middle of the twentieth century (e.g. Isaksson 2001; Seurujärvi-Kari 2014a). Racist attitudes were not the only ones, however, as Lappologist researchers were diverse and represented a variety of different approaches (Lehtola 2017).

Contrary to this tradition, Sámi scholar Alf Isak Keskitalo, among other forerunners, criticized the ways that Sámi were situated and represented in research. He argued in 1974 that the Sámi were only considered research objects and 'others', and called for a change in this hierarchical research design (Keskitalo 1974/1976, see also Chapter 2 in this volume). A. I. Keskitalo's views have been recognized as an inevitable turning point in the rise of new Sámi research and have justified Sámi's own research institutions. His views also marked a shift from the former Lappological approach to a new mode of Sámi research in which the voice and research needs of the Sámi themselves were central (Stordahl 2008; Thuen 1995). This occurred as a continuum to the Sámi movement, active since the early 1900s. The movement established a Sámi cultural and political awakening and later, other transformations, such as the establishment of the Davviriikkaid Sámi Instituhtta, Nordic Sámi Institute (NSI), in Guovdageaidnu (Kautokeino), Norway, in 1973. In addition, in the late 1970s, the Sámi movement was active because of the Alta dam conflict, which united Sámi people and gave a voice to Sámi rights.

The notion at the time that the Sámi themselves should decide how research was conducted, was part of the rise of the Indigenous decolonialism that emerged in the 1960s, which has been getting stronger ever since. In all the countries where the Sámi people live, Sámi studies from Sámi standpoints have been conducted in a variety of forms during their history. Sámi language studies began in Tromsø in the 1970s, at the Universities of Helsinki, Oulu, and Lapland in Finland since the 1980s (Lehtola 2014; Rantala 2014; Seurujärvi-Kari 2014b), in Guovdageaidnu Sámi allaskuvla (Sámi University of Applied Sciences) since 1989, and in Sweden since 2000 (Centre for Sámi Research 2020).

# **3 International Connections in the Emergence of Indigenous Studies as a Discipline**

Local and global politics have contributed to many transformations in science. Developments in the Indigenous field were connected to worldwide processes after WW2 inputting efforts on human rights perspectives. This was also a time when many former colonial countries became independent, and coincided with an increased political awareness of the struggles that Indigenous peoples had experienced for centuries (see e.g. Hill 2010). Among others, since the 1960s, Native American scholar, Vine Deloria Jr. (1970a, 1970b), wrote about the invisible history of the Indigenous peoples research in the U.S. Furthermore, in 1975, the first Indigenous Peoples World Council (WCIP) was held in Port Alberni in Canada, where common Indigenous issues were addressed.

Indigenous academic discussions were also strongly related to postcolonial thinking, which emerged in the 1960s. Or to put it in another way, postcolonial thinkers have acted in parallel with several Indigenous scholars worldwide since the end of the 1960s. Among them are Frantz Fanon (1965, 1965/1967) and Edward Saïd (1979), who founded and illuminated the field of postcolonial studies, representing alternative perspectives on gaps in cultural and political understanding. The roots of postcolonial critique go far back. Among others, in the 19th century, works like Joseph-Ernest Renan's *La Réforme intellectuelle et morale* (1871) presented colonialism as "the extension of civilisation", which ideologically justified the self-ascribed racial and cultural superiority of the "Western" world over the "non-Western" world (see Saïd 2000). "Western" is a contested term, like "Euro-American", but here we use it to refer to the influences of certain political, cultural, and economic features and influences that largely originate among European thinkers, and later also to the colonial powers established in the United States and Australasia. "Western" and "the West" are not concise analytical concepts. They are often used to describe and articulate a particular perspective. In the context of Indigenous research, the concepts are most often used as an opposition to what is Indigenous. Later, the work of Amar Acheraiou (2008), Homi K. Bhabha (1994), Gayatri Spivak (1990), Raman Siva Kumar (1999), and Dipesh Chakrabarty (2000/2007), among others, had a crucial impact on the development of postcolonial theory and studies.

Local Indigenous intellectual discussions also elaborated in relation to, and as part of, shared global dialogues, and Sámi research also contributed to the foundation of Indigenous studies globally. Furthermore, Indigenous scholars were also active in student movements and this also gave a voice to Indigenous students. As one of the results of these diverse global changes, Māori scholar Linda Tuhiwai Smith (1999/2012) wrote *Decolonizing Methodologies*, which became a monument in global discourse on Indigenous research with the recognition that "research is not an innocent or distant academic exercise but an activity that has something at stake and that occurs in a set of political and social conditions" (Smith L. T. 1999/2012, 5; also Löf & Stinnerbom 2016, 140). It has paved the way for Indigenous scholars who have felt the need to present their communities' points of view and histories from the inside, and to carry out research differently from the dominant "Western" mode. In Aotearoa New Zealand, the Kaupapa Māori movement by Māori scholars has become a foundation and a framework both for research, education and other related practices. In research it means research done in the Māori way. In practice, this research is done by Māori, for Māori, with Māori, and from a Māori perspective (Smith L. T. 1999/2012).

The developments in different Indigenous contexts, including the Sámi, draw from quite independent ideas, even if the processes of calling for a new type of research and inclusion of Indigenous peoples were occurring at the same time. In addition to the Kaupapa Māori movement (Smith G. H. 1997, 2003; Bishop 1996) in Aotearoa, Indigenous studies also relates to the many peoples of the Americas (Deloria 1970a, 1970b, 1998; Kovach 2009; Wilson 2001, 2008), to Sápmi, Sámi homeland (Gaski 2004; Hirvonen 2008; Kuokkanen 2000, 2007a; Lehtola & Länsman 2012; Porsanger 2004; Seurujärvi-Kari 2000), to Australia (e.g. Nakata 2007), to Asia (Mao et al. 2012), Asia Pacific (Dirlik 2006), and to Africa (e.g. Chilisa 2012). The terms vary, but the ideas have a similar resonance across local contexts within a wide geographical area.

This coming up with similar ideas also empowered Indigenous scholars, and led to the inauguration of Indigenous Studies programmes in a number of universities around the world. In several parts of the Indigenous world, from Aotearoa New Zealand, Australia, Sápmi, and the Americas, Indigenous research, Indigenous theories and research methodologies have been developed and come into being as an important part of creating and strengthening Indigenous knowledge both globally in academia. For a long time, Indigenous knowledge-making practices in diverse Indigenous contexts have inspired and guided educators.

#### **4 Indigenizing and Decolonizing Academia – A Global Project**

Bringing Indigenous knowledge into academia as valid knowledge has been one of the uniting aims in Indigenizing and decolonizing academia (Battiste 2000, 2013; Mihesuah & Wilson 2004; Wilson 2013). In several Indigenous contexts, despite the local differences in the content, knowledge is considered to be relational and place-based, built in relations that include other-than-humans and the land (e.g. Wilson 2001; Guttorm 2011; Helander 2016; Valkonen & Valkonen 2019). These relations are all connected with protecting the land and to many other social and economic issues. Indigenous knowledge draws from observations and experiences of generations, transmitted through chants, art, and intergenerational oracity (Chilisa 2012). Through the presence of Indigenous studies, Indigenous knowledge is finding a more legitimate space in academia and elsewhere, such as in policy making.

Indigenization and decolonization have become defining parts of Indigenous studies. Decolonization deals with different forms of knowing that originate from sources other than Eurocentric academic traditions. According to Walter Mignolo (2011), a decolonial view of the world looks critically at the geopolitics of knowledge and aims to go beyond Eurocentrism and Euro- American emphases. It allows different views of the present, the colonial past, and the pre-colonial past to emerge or become visible (Hutchings & Lee-Morgan 2016, 3–5; Smith L. T. 1999/2012, 23–24). Space is made for these connections and sources of knowledge and light are shone on them.

Decoloniality differs from postcolonialism. The latter presupposes something that has ended, whereas from the perspective of decolonization, colonization and imperialism are seen as processes that are still ongoing. Decolonial studies started from the "inside", with one's own language, concepts, theories, and methods. For Indigenous peoples, a key issue in decolonization is to move beyond the suppression and denial of Indigenous languages, histories, and knowledge bases, and instead to work with Indigenous concepts, methods and/or institutions, depending on the context. Decolonization is about taking different epistemologies and knowledge-production seriously.

In the context of Indigenous studies, decolonization allows a critical exploration of how existing research has been conducted through the impact of more or less colonizing methods and concepts. It also means carrying out research which does not replicate the damaging impact of colonization (Pihama 2016, 103). As research has shown, minds like territories can be colonized. However, decolonization debates have been criticized for creating new dualisms, and for essentializing and simplifying cultures.

In Indigenous studies, decolonization is also connected to the move towards *Indigenization*, an approach with a number of starting points. According to Martin Nakata (2006, 269), the process of Indigenization in Australia has been important on several levels. Indigenization of research and academic work has meant making a recognizably Indigenous space within universities, a space that works to culturally affirm Indigenous people and practices. Indigenous scholars shed light on a new perspective and aim at deconstructing Eurocentric hierarchies and dichotomies and highlighting holistic thinking (Chilisa 2012, 40–41; Kuokkanen 2000).

From these settings have emerged the so-called Indigenous paradigm (for a detailed discussion see Chapter 3 in this volume), which can be understood in the context of earlier scientific traditions and their "Western" categories and concepts being taken for granted (see also Kuokkanen 2009). The ideas and values in an Indigenous paradigm according to Rauna Kuokkanen (2000, 411) "is a way of both decolonizing Indigenous minds by 're-centring' Indigenous values and cultural practices and placing Indigenous peoples and their issues into dominant, mainstream discourses which until now have relegated Indigenous peoples to marginal positions". The Indigenous paradigm highlights the fact that research can be transformative, drawing from Indigenous ways of knowing. It can be contextual and local, drawing upon reciprocity and the notion of different culturally and scientifically meaningful measures like, for example, in the research literature that mentions giving, receiving and paying back (Kuokkanen 2007b) and standing with (e.g. TallBear 2014; also Öhman 2014).

Yet, Indigenous knowledges have still been considered static and closed (see Green 2008), or only as something specific for specific groups and contexts, and thus not debatable in academia (see Battiste 2008, 2013; Meyer 2008). However, today Indigenous and scientific knowledges are increasingly regarded as complementary: both can be discussed critically and both can offer innovations. Many researchers are Indigenous themselves, for instance 14 Virtanen ET al.

in the Sámi context, and therefore dichotomous terms, such as scientific and Indigenous knowledge are not even applicable. According to Fikret Berkes (1999/2012), combining traditional knowledge and the findings of "Western" scientific scholarship are bringing important contributions and solutions to among other things various environmental issues.

The concept of the cultural interface is relevant to describe a space for both Indigenous and non-Indigenous persons living in the border zone between different identities. It helps us to understand the presence or availability of numerous subject positions that an individual person and a community lives by and with. This space is multi-layered and multi-dimensional, and shapes how individuals speak of themselves and about others (Nakata 2007, 199). For scholars of Indigenous issues, this implies seeing Indigenous persons – or everyone they encounter or present through research – as active agents in their own present time. Likewise, it implies that collective Indigenous narratives consist of a collection of complex narratives rather than a single narrative (Nakata 2007, 204–211). Indigenous studies thus work within the context of different contents, even if there are similarities in the processes (cf. Briggs 2013).

#### **5 Indigenous Studies in Sámi Contexts**

The Sámi movement in the 1970s changed many things, including educational changes in Sápmi (Sámi homeland). As mentioned earlier, in 1973 the Nordic Sámi Institute, Davviriikkaid Sámi Instituhtta, was established. This era is a cornerstone in the discussion on Indigenous Research methodologies globally. Furthermore, in the 1980s, Sámi organizations and the Sámi movement called for more places for Sámi students in universities. Consequently, the Sámi University (Sámi allaskuvla) was established in 1989 in Guovdageaidnu, as a Sámi teaching and research institute to support Sámi language and teacher education. It originated from a need for establishing tertiary education in Sámi core area surroundings and environment, and with Sámi as the language of instruction. Davviriikkaid Sámi Instituhtta was combined with the University of Applied Sciences in 2005.

The Sámi University of Applied Sciences (SUAS) has a responsibility for Sámi higher education given in the Sámi language. SUAS has developed its syllabi on the basis of Sámi needs and is developing Sámi as an academic language. The main language of teaching, administration and publication is Sámi. According to Jelena Porsanger (2018), Guovssonásti (the Morning Star) is the symbol for the designation of SUAS, connecting the development process to the Sámi value system. Further, the metaphor of building a lávvu (traditional Sámi temporary dwelling tent) has shaped the epistemological platform of the institution (Porsanger 2018).

SUAS offers Sámi language studies from basic courses until doctoral studies, including Sámi teacher education programmes, Sámi journalism studies, reindeer herding, social sciences and Sámi craft and design and other Sámi culture-related shorter and longer courses. All of the studies comprise Indigenous knowledge and Sámi contents in their programmes. Most of the students are from the four Sámi countries with a Sámi population, but students from all over the world have participated in the study programmes. They have supplied culturally meaningful education that has fitted the needs of Sámi society. Since 2012, a new building called Diehtosiida (North Sámi for Knowledge village) has been built in Guovdageaidnu. The special architecture reflects Sámi life, philosophies and worldview, such as a fireplace in the restaurant area, the shape of the building imaging an Arctic fox and views of the surrounding village and landscape from all directions of the building. Guovdageaidnu is in the heart of Sámi land, in the middle of Finnmark county, an upland area of almost 100% Sámi-speaking inhabitants and traditional land. The establishment of Sámi allaskuvla, attaches Indigenous self-determination in tertiary education and research to global Indigenous development as well as Indigenous research in the Sámi context (Simonsen Thingnes 2020). New fresh study programmes in teacher education have started to produce master's and doctoral theses in Sámi and this research has highlighted Sámi issues.

UiT The Arctic University of Norway, with campuses spread over a large area of northern Norway, was established in 1968. Both Tromsø museum and the teacher education institution, which have become part of UiT, have a longer history of interest in and relevance for Sámi communities. UiT has a particular responsibility for education and research about and for the Sámi communities, and is **–** alongside SUAS **–** the most influential and defining institution on the Norwegian side of Sápmi.

Within the Indigenous movement, Sámis have been among the leaders in developing Sámi studies in academia. As a result of the emerging international Indigenist movement, Indigenous research ideas and critical approaches to research practices have expanded, leading to internationally recognized Indigenous research and education alongside more locally and/or regionally based Indigenous studies, such as Sámi studies. Thus, the global dimension of Indigenous studies has meant that insights, experiences, concepts and approaches easily travelled across hemispheres and oceans, and have empowered Sámi studies, among other Indigenous peoples.

UiT was given a special responsibility for research and education on Sámi issues. Today, Sámi and Indigenous issues are a central part of the official strategy. There are special programmes and research groups in several parts of the university, such as Sámi health research, Sámi and Indigenous law, and Sámi languages. Since 2003, UiT has also been offering an international Master's degree programme in Indigenous studies. The programme takes its location in the Arctic as a starting point to provide knowledge of the Sámi and other Indigenous peoples of the North. The programme also has a grounding basis in the study of local societies, which reflects the research interests of both teachers and students. A part of the methodological reflection is to challenge and inform students concerning the achievements of different kinds of Indigenous research methodologies.

Indigenous methodologies can be treated as a set of tools that can be used in diverse cultural and historical contexts. On the other hand, Indigenous methodologies can be seen as a locally based theoretical positioning. As such, an Indigenous methodology like Kaupapa Māori is seen as belonging to a specific historical, political and social context. Or perhaps more correctly, what Indigenous methodologies are will vary from one context to another. Following this, the researcher will need to take the particular local community as a starting point for research.

In Finland, studies on Sámi languages and cultures were introduced as early as in the 19th century at the University of Helsinki as part of comparative Finno-Ugric language studies (Riho Grünthal, personal communication). Sámi languages have been taught in addition to Finnish and other languages of the same language family. Since the 1970s, Sámi-speaking university teachers and staff have been employed at the University of Helsinki, and students at Helsinki have been able to specialize in Sámi languages. The Sámi studies programme began at the University of Helsinki in 1993 in order to strengthen the teaching and research in Sámi languages and cultures (Seurujärvi-Kari 2014b). Sámi studies provide education about different Sámi languages and Sámi cultures, while more global Indigenous Studies, which started in 2015, addresses theoretical and methodological issues related to Indigenous knowledge, including Indigenous societies past, present, and future. Its Indigenous Studies programme was founded to develop more ethically sustainable research among Indigenous peoples as well as to theorize Indigenous knowledges that deserve to be critically included in academia. This perspective originates from contacts established with several Indigenous communities. While encouraging Indigenous students to realize that their knowledges and traditional methods do matter and at the same time encouraging students to apply critical approaches, the programme highlights the fact that research and education has a key role to play in inclusivity. This also involves taking into consideration the diversity of Indigenous ideas that academia and global society can benefit from. Despite the diversity, there are several common points in Indigenous thinking and values that provide sustainable options.

In Finland, the official national responsibility is to teach Sámi language subject teachers at the University of Oulu, Giellagas Institute. It was also the first university to establish a professorship in Sámi culture in the 1970s. This was followed by founding the Giellagas Institute, the Sámi language and culture institute in the 2000s. In the Sápmi area, the University of Lapland in Rovaniemi started to educate Sámi language in the preservice teacher education programme in the late 1970s. It has today two professorships in the Department of Social Sciences, one in Sámi studies and the other in Arctic Indigenous Studies, and in addition, a Sámi language and a culture lecturer position in the Department of Education. Other universities in Northern Europe also conduct Sámi contents in various forms.

The teaching and research goals are different in each presented institution, but they also have certain shared features. As researchers and teachers, we locate ourselves and our programmes both in local and global contexts, depending on actors, time, and purpose. In the Indigenous and Sámi studies programmes students who participate in the study programmes come from diverse cultural, ethnic, linguistic and religious backgrounds. Education on Indigenous societies is greatly needed by those students who might make their careers in different sectors of society. One of the underlying rationales for inaugurating Indigenous studies was the thought that it could benefit students' future careers in policy making, the environment, the sustainability sector, education, social work, health care, law, and other areas of culture.

Since the beginning of Indigenous and Sámi Studies, Indigenous and Sámi studies programmes have also provided a context for local knowledge-making as well as providing a link to global Indigenous debates. This also poses some methodological challenges as we will discuss in the next section.

#### **6 Research Methodologies in Indigenous Research**

With the rise of Indigenous Studies as a discipline, the use of research methodologies has become debated and highlighted in a new way, being more connected to discussions of Sámi research contents more locally. This has meant enabling and empowering Indigenous self-determination in which Sámi researchers document the histories of their own people, that is, their own stories. The aim is to test theories and find solutions to the questions of Indigenous peoples when creating a brighter world for Indigenous communities and people after a long period of cultural colonial practices. These practices have led to assimilation and a loss of Sámi ways of living, Sámi cultures and Sámi languages. Indigenous Studies discusses the need to link research objectives and methodologies to community needs and contexts. It involves conducting research respectfully; meaningfully integrating knowledge obtained through research into Indigenous ways of knowing and being; using appropriate interview methods; and engendering a sense of trust and accountability (e.g. Weber-Pillwax 1999). These kinds of approaches have also emerged in participant-focused methodologies and designs (Putt 2013).

In the effort of elevating, discussing, and co-researching Indigenous knowledges, connections to the land, values, and languages, specific Indigenous research methodologies couched in Indigenous terms play a key role. Indigenous methodologies thus rely on Indigenous ontologies, epistemologies, and axiologies (principles regarding values) (e.g. Chilisa 2012, see Chapter 2 in this volume).

In Indigenous research methodologies, holistic approaches are at the core, along with dialogue, connections, collaboration, and relationality (Chilisa 2012). This has been seen as a key to take into account the well-being of the community where matters of academic research are concerned. By highlighting values in Indigenous research methodologies, Indigenous scholars in North America have pointed to the so-called "four Rs": relevance, responsibility, respect, and reciprocal relations in research and education (e.g. Kirkness & Barnhardt 1991; see also Chapters 3, 8, and 9 in this volume).

Taking Indigenous values seriously has especially impacted the development of a strong ethical framework in research (Battiste 2008; Drugge 2016). This has meant that Indigenous peoples themselves become included in a more horizontal view in the research process from the very beginning, rather than just being asked whether research can be carried out on them. In fact, taking ethical accountability seriously has been an important topic in Indigenous research methodological discussions, since the early debates (see e.g. Weber-Pillwax 1999, 38). Following these discussions, Shawn Wilson (2008) has written about these values enabling relational accountability in Indigenous research. Indigenous research methodologies involve critical reflections concerning cultural sensitivity, cultural protocols, and respectful ways of doing research. They aim to be deeply sensitive towards power issues, towards with whom power rests, and what the possibilities of making research transformative are. Considering one's positionality as a researcher includes several questions, such as one's position in the history of science and who benefits from the research (Bull 2002). These reflections on the researcher's situatedness also include an understanding of what are the scientific concepts that one may take for granted in a research.

Connected to Indigenous research methodologies, scholars tend to emphasize the need to take into account the whole research process, its past, present and future. Indigenous research methodologies encourage one to think critically about the purpose of one's research, while research design can work towards capacity-building and the role of research collaborators. Alexandra Drawson and colleagues (2017) in reviewing several studies using Indigenous research methodologies point out that the essence of Indigenous research methods is that such research is used to decolonize, heal, and rebalance power. The aim is not merely to produce new knowledge, but to assist community healing and spread transformative knowledge.

Other scholars in the field have also stressed that Indigenous research methodologies should have an overt political agenda related to Indigenous self-determination. Duane Champagne (2014), for instance, has called for centring Indigenous nations and their governance at the heart of the research. In fact, Indigenous research methodologies' aims is to reflect upon knowledgemaking practices and integration of new knowledge in an Indigenous community (Weber-Pillwax 1999, 169). For those who are not Indigenous scholars, it is necessary that their work is accountable and relates to local contexts. Indigenous locations differ, but in this effort Indigenous scholars have also become aware of similarities in their methodologies. Indigenous methodologies can also be employed regardless of one's ethnic identity and background. The need is to draw from ideas that scholars in Indigenous Studies have presented and to focus on local Indigenous contexts.

Education scholar and Pākehā (non-Māori) Alison Jones (2012) writes about the challenges related to being a non-Māori doing research on Māori issues. She refers to Māori scholars, stating that Kaupapa Māori is defined by Māori for Māori and that a non-Māori cannot be involved. In order to be able to engage in such research, they would have to have their authority conferred by whānau (the community) or whakapapa (genealogy). This Kaupapa Māori principle of being *for Māori, by Māori*, is primarily a political statement of inclusion. It is easy for Pākehā to interpret this as a way of excluding them from Kaupapa Māori approaches. However, Kaupapa Māori scholars are not primarily addressing Pākehā, but other Māori scholars. Hence, as a non-Indigenous scholar one needs to be able to *decentre* oneself in order to be truly informed by Kaupapa Māori (Jones 2012; Olsen 2018).

In discussions about Indigenous research agendas and methodologies, there are good reasons for them to be talked about in the plural. There is no single Indigenous research agenda or methodology. There are numerous subject positions available (Andersen 2009, 92). There are several ways of arriving somewhere or at a particular standpoint (Johnston & Pihama 1995, 83). As scholars within Indigenous studies, we should be careful when it comes to setting strict boundaries between the Indigenous and the non-Indigenous. Such a divide – when holding a premise of purity on each side – is highly problematic. There are many issues that contribute to making this relation more complex. One is the unsolved tension between talking of Indigenous as a local term and talking of Indigenous as a global term. One meaning of the word still continues to have an impact on the other. For the insider/outsider debate, this leads among other things to the question of whether or not an Indigenous person from one part of the world can (claim to) be an insider in the understanding of an Indigenous community in another part of the world. For the highly international and collaborative family of scholars in the field, this is an important matter. To what extent can Indigenous knowledge and perspectives from one Indigenous land and area be applied in another?

In recent years, academic discussion on specific Indigenous research methods has included, among other things, storytelling (e.g. Datta 2018; Kovach 2009; see Chapter 5 in this volume), *dadirri* (e.g. West et al. 2012), and *yarning* (e.g. Bessarab & Ng'andu 2010) among Australian Aboriginals, *talanoa* in the Pacific (e.g. Fa'avae et al. 2016), and Anishinaabe symbol-based reflections (Lavallée 2009) in North America. So, recently with more knowledge on Indigenous research methodologies and knowledge-production processes, people have started to draw upon them more centrally in their studies.

In the Sámi context, Sámi research methodologies have been actively discussed in addition to Sámi research in general, as discussed in Chapter 2 of this volume. The roots of Sámi research are found, among other things, in the profound work of the first Sámi author Johan Turi with his detailed descriptions and evaluations of the Sámi culture and its situation, and a bit later in the theories of the very first Sámi scholars, Israel Ruong, Nils Jernsletten, Knut Bergsland, Konrad Nilsen and Tor Frette (Öhman 2014).

After the establishment of the Nordic Sámi Institute in the 1970s further Sámi research started to emerge from different institutions. As mentioned, Sámi research emerged as an inter- and cross-disciplinary approach that dealt with diverse topics: Sámi languages and literature, traditional ways of livelihoods, politics, different cultural expressions of Sámi culture, Sámi arts and *duodji* (e.g. craftwork), architecture, Sámi health research, and different aspects of Sámi societies conducted by many respected scholars who have done pioneering work in developing Sámi methods and Sámi-centred research. Sámi research is understood as interdisciplinary studies connecting different disciplines when describing traditional ways of living and explaining the history and living conditions of the Sámi people and culture.

Tove Bull (2002) notes that Sámi research is connected to the histories of different kinds of assimilation policies. The ways of working with this dark past have been the key tools of Indigenous research starting points. Furthermore, Sámi researchers have drawn from their own local concepts central in Sámi onto-epistemologies to express continuity and relatedness, such as *oktavuohta* (relation, unity), *gaskavuohta* (reciprocal relationships), *birget*  (well-being) (e.g. Kuokkanen 2000, 2009; Porsanger 2007; Porsanger & Guttorm 2011), and *láhi/attáldat* (gift) (Kuokkanen 2006). Kuokkanen (2000, 416) has also referred to the Sámi drum and *Deatnu* (river), pointing out how these concepts express different connected realms, and a borderlessness and holiness. These have become important ideas for methodological designs. Sámi research has also used *lávvu* as a methodological tool (see Chapter 2 in this volume). It has been used in different contexts, for instance in language education by Pigga Keskitalo et al. (2013, 80–81), whose work relied on the idea of enclosing all actors in a language immersion process in order to create a basis for the appreciation of the Sámi language. The model comprises learners, teachers and the environment and takes into account culturally meaningful and landbased learning contexts. Along the same lines in this volume, several chapters reflect on community and land-based methods when engaging in Indigenous research.

#### **7 Responsiveness in Indigenous Research Methodologies**

Overall, Indigenous research methodologies also allow better Indigenous theorizing (see Chapter 6 in this volume; Simpson & Smith 2016; Virtanen & Seurujärvi-Kari 2019). Yet, there are some critical points that have to be taken into account when talking about Indigenous research methodologies. All Indigenous peoples have their own histories, language, and future aspirations. Their methods of living and knowing also differ. There is no one Indigenous method that would be universal and applicable for all. Therefore, there are Indigenous research methodologies, as processes, and specific local understandings of what ways of producing knowledge there are. Consequently, a dilemma, possibility, and/or tension within Indigenous studies and its methods are related to the relationship between what is local, specific, or relevant for one community or group of people on the one hand, and if it can be applicable in other contexts. The question then to reflect on is if the Indigenous methods of other Indigenous peoples are relevant in research. Indigenous peoples have very different academic traditions. Furthermore, should Indigenous research methods be labelled "Indigenous"? Several Sámi researchers, for instance, have for a long time been part of academia, and sometimes their traditional ways of knowledge production are present in all their academic practices.

On the other hand, while the use of Indigenous research methodologies can be constructive and make Indigenous knowledge more inclusive in academia, there is a great danger that new ideas are brought to the local contexts, and what is 'local' becomes weaker. Possibly the ways of knowing and disseminating knowledge that are valid elsewhere are not appropriate in a Sámi context. We propose that being conscious of these issues is a step forward.

Overall, Indigenous research practices can be defined as relational and holistic, but universal approaches should be shunned. Hence, what Kaupapa Māori is at its core cannot be strictly defined. Discussing the Kaupapa Māori in 2011, L. T. Smith, for example, is somewhat vague: "It was what it was, it is what it is, and it will be what it will be. It is more than, and less than, other comparative terms. It is more than a theory and less than a theory: it is more than a paradigm and less than a paradigm, it is more than a methodology and less than a methodology" (Smith L. T. 2011, 10; see also Porsanger 2011). This openness, alongside of Chris Andersen's and Jean O'Brien's (2017) notion of methodological 'promiscuity', is a good reminder that Indigenous methodologies are not ideologies or programmes written in stone. When attempting to articulate Indigenous methodology or at least methodological reflections from a global Indigenous studies or Sámi perspective, there is clearly a need to be open to diversity and variation in place and time. We can look at and learn from other parts of the Indigenous world, but we should also remember specific localities and practices.

Andersen and O'Brien (2017) have presented methods used in the field of Indigenous Studies and argue for a methodological 'promiscuity' that reflects the dynamic and pragmatic nature of this new field. In fact, it might seem that anyone researching Indigenous issues might argue that they are doing Indigenous studies. However, a precondition of Indigenous studies is that Indigenous voices, concepts, perspectives and interests are the main emphasis or basis (regardless of how difficult this may be to define) (Smith L. T. 1999/2012). What has been a uniting core in Indigenous studies are critical approaches, and especially the notion of Indigenous paradigm research. Indigenous studies draw on Indigenous frameworks in which Indigenous values, needs, the land, and histories are at the core. Indigenous studies involve elaborating Indigenous research methods, taking them seriously, and emphasizing ethical reflection and sensitivity (Nakata 2007). Marie Battiste (2000, 2013) has argued that self-determination and sovereignty should be the starting point in research related to Indigenous people and Indigenous education. For Battiste (2013), to Indigenize is to give space to different kinds of thinking and being. With these ideas in mind, Indigenous studies today can focus on education, health, the environment, literature, political documents, religious rituals, fieldwork, and – quite often – combine a diverse range of sources and types of sources (Andersen & O'Brien 2017, 4). Having said that, Indigenous studies is still in the making in the "Western" academic world, and its place is not so clear even to those inside academia. One reason for this is that there is not enough knowledge about Indigenous and scientific knowledge, their culturally situated conventions, and what the differences between them are (Bohensky & Maru 2011).

#### **8 Inclusivity in Research**

Even though we speak strongly for an Indigenous research paradigm, there is no single Indigenous cultural context, and hence we wish to avoid fixed and bounded oppositions in Indigenous and Sámi studies, such as those between 'the colonized' and 'the colonizer', and 'colonizing' and 'decolonizing'. There is clearly a need for decolonization, as mentioned earlier and famously claimed by central scholars like L. T. Smith (1999/2012), Nakata et al. (2012) and Battiste (2013), to mention a few. However, we need to be careful that decolonization does not re-create or imply clear-cut boundaries between people. Rather, Indigenous studies should go beyond dichotomous, clearly bounded, and binary thinking (Virtanen & Seurujärvi 2019). Nakata and colleagues (2012) have also warned about oversimplification when "Western" and Indigenous standpoints are contrasted as bounded categories. They call for a more openended stance in which the colonial legacy is considered a complex phenomenon, and conceptual limits to an understanding of various positions need to be acknowledged.

Indigenous communities even within one Indigenous nation may have different voices, and that community-making in itself is a constant, ongoing process. Furthermore, differences are endemic, not only between older and younger cohorts, but between those living in forest and urban areas – personal life-stories in particular create different knowledges and ideas about the community. However, all these perspectives are valuable in their own right. These are crucial issues when talking about Indigenous Studies today, as well as when searching to bring Indigenous knowledge into academia more widely. Despite the diversity among Indigenous peoples, there are some common features. Indigenous traditional ways of knowing are concerned with relations to other beings and their knowledges, what Graham Hingangaroa Smith (2003) has called relational knowledge. And of course relationality also exists between young and old, between women and men, and human and other-than-human beings. Past, present, and future are also constantly present and interconnected. Traditional ways of knowing, moreover, are about larger complexes, especially when making distinctions between bounded disciplines and different fields of study. Even if we have separate study units with their own learning objectives, it is hard to draw a line between Indigenous history, art, or education.

A widespread collaboration between colleagues in Sámi studies has already been in place for decades, as traditional Sámi lands spread beyond the current national borders. In North European countries, collaboration between scholars from different universities has been a feature of Indigenous and Sámi Studies since their inauguration in different universities. Exchanges take place at both the individual and the institutional level. This collaboration allows local voices to be heard internationally. On the other hand, this has sometimes left us with the dilemma of apparent over-diversity that seems to lack a united perspective. But just as Indigenous studies in general is framed by diversity, acknowledging different voices and diverse starting points is vital, and they can become complementary.

When we have collected course evaluation from the students in the UiT, UH, and SUAS, generally, we could see that Indigenous studies has opened their eyes to see the world, history, and power structures in a new way. With their consent, we can say that they were grateful for being provided with an overview of different approaches, research paradigms, and knowledge traditions, and found themselves sensitized to the exclusion or inclusion of different knowledges in academia. Probably the most diverse group of students in the master's programme in Indigenous studies are at UiT, as a large number of them are estimated to be Indigenous and come from almost all over the world. This diversity is at the same time one of the main assets and one of the biggest challenges of the programme. There is a considerable difference in academic culture between a graduate student from a Nepalese university and a student coming from a Canadian university. As is the difference between a student from Ghana and a student from Russia. Students are encouraged to make their diverse identities and backgrounds a talking point in the classroom. Peer learning is an integral part of the teaching methods, so that the classroom contains several layers or levels. Learning about differences and similarities, and what causes them, is an important part of education. This is an important lesson to learn for students who are both part of a system and at the same time are required to question that system.

L. T. Smith's famous statement in *Decolonizing Methodologies* is salutary: "Research is probably one of the dirtiest words in the Indigenous world's vocabulary" (1999/2012). Also for us, acting in a university in Western Europe, is of course being part of a "Western" educational system. At the same time, we claim that it can be an opportunity for a change. A key issue of Indigenous studies is also to work against hardcore dichotomization of any kind. Thus, it is as difficult to talk of a homogeneous "West" as it is to talk of a homogeneous group of Indigenous peoples. Nonetheless, we ask students to think about the interests and ideas of diverse Indigenous peoples. In order to do that properly, students need to acquire considerable knowledge in order to define what the interests and ideas of Indigenous peoples might actually be.

#### **9 Conclusions**

In this chapter, we have first discussed the growth of Indigenous knowledges and perspectives in academia and then their accountable inclusion through Indigenous research methodologies. We have seen that the discussions have drawn from diverse Indigenous contexts, and they have increasingly become debated also in methodological terms. Local Indigenous methods of producing knowledge as well as the views from Indigenous communities can be transformative at different levels in the communities and in academia.

In this chapter, we also reviewed briefly how the Sámi and Indigenous study programmes have progressed and formed, and what the experiences of students are. These, as well as our research activities, such as the two-year *Indigenous Research Methods in the Academia* project, showed that there were many different views about what Indigenous knowledge constituted and what could be a leading Sámi idea for our work. Voices coming from different researchers, employing different local and global contexts were crucial for our discussion. Even the understanding in our group among Sámi researchers showed that their views were not unified on what the "Sámi way" of doing research or knowledge-production methods was. The key to creating dialogues, bridges, and peacebuilding, as well as taking steps towards sustainable futures, lies in this very diversity, complexity, and multivocality. We also would like to emphasize that different scholars are needed when offering more critical and decolonial education at university levels (see also Nakata et al. 2012). Indigenous engagement and creation of novel relationships serve as a basis for social and academic inclusion. Awareness of the cultural interface that we work within as scholars of Indigenous and Sámi studies, can be an important tool both used as a mirror and a lens. As we dwell and move within a cultural interface, so do the people and communities of our North.

We have shown that Indigenous studies moves between and within local and global levels. Local relations have been the starting point in decolonial discussions, while new ideas from other Indigenous contexts as well as sciences have been helpful in elevating the understanding and different voices. Indigenous research methods may originate and be useful at society/nation and community level, yet in some contexts broader discussions, generalizations, and comparisons can be made. Sámi scholar Harald Gaski (2013) has identified local, national, and international levels in Indigenous research, and in our view, a recognition of these different levels can also be useful with methodological considerations and debates. Therefore, with this chapter, we want to point to the responsibility in the use of Indigenous research methodologies, and towards the different levels the methodological discussions can take.

#### **Acknowledgements**

We would like to thank the Finnish Cultural Foundation, the anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments, and lastly all those Indigenous societies who are our research collaborators.

#### **References**


Battiste, M. (2013). *Decolonizing education: Nourishing the learning spirit*. Purich.

Berkes, F. (2012). *Sacred ecology*. Routledge.

Bessarab, D., & Ng'andu, B. (2010). Yarning about yarning as a legitimate method in Indigenous research*. International Journal of Critical Indigenous Studies, 3*(1), 37–50. Bhabha, H. K. (1994). *The location of culture*. Routledge.

Bishop, R. (1996). *Collaborative research stories: Whakawhanaungatanga.* Dunmore Press.


Helander-Renvall, E. (2016). *Sámi society matters* (J. Valkonen & S. Valkonen, Eds.). LUP. Hill, G. (2010). *500 years of Indigenous resistance.* PM Press.


# *Sámi dutkama máttut***: The Forerunners of Sámi Methodological Thinking**

*Jelena Porsanger and Irja Seurujärvi-Kari*

#### **Abstract**

The chapter highlights the methodological importance in research of knowledgeable Sámi persons who had formal academic education and traditional knowledge-based competence. We regard these persons as the forerunners of present-day Sámi methodological thinking, *Sámi dutkama máttut*. They envisioned how Sámi issues can be studied and written about. They were able to write and conduct research based on their knowledge about the Sámi ways of thinking, philosophies and life maintenance. Between the 17th and 20th century, non-Sámi scholars were in the majority in shaping information about the Sámi. Today, Indigenous research methodologies shed light on Indigenous languages and experiences when theorising Indigenous knowledges. These ideas can be traced back to Sámi thinkers over the last five hundred years, even if this not overtly articulated in their writings. In their work, one can identify certain methodological choices, which we nowadays almost take for granted. This chapter is a tribute to the great Sámi thinkers who contributed to the rise of Sámi research from the Sámi perspective until Sámi research was institutionalized by the establishment of the Nordic Sámi Institute in 1973. In this chapter, we also introduce and apply the *lávvu* method as an analytical tool.

#### **Keywords**

Sámi research history – the forerunners of Sámi methodological thinking – Sámi epistemology – Sámi ontology – Sámi language – writing in Sámi language – *lávvu* method

#### **1 Tribute to Early Sámi Methodological Thinkers**

*Viimmát álbmot oažžu sáni Ságavuoru divodeaddjin Beassá cealkit šikkotkeahttá*

<sup>©</sup> Jelena Porsanger and Irja Seurujärvi-Kari, 2021 | DOI: 10.1163/9789004463097\_003 This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the CC BY 4.0 License.

*Doalvut dieđuid dálá dilis Dálkkas diehtemeahttumiidda Eahpitkeahttá*

 (From a poem written by Issát Sámmol Hætta for the 10th anniversary of the Nordic Sámi Institute in 1984)

The above excerpt from the poem indicates in an artistic way central methodological issues in Indigenous research, which are focused on in this chapter. The poem tells that after centuries of being silenced, the Sámi are finally empowered to raise their voice in the field of research to tell their stories based on their language and knowledge. This is an act of empowerment that enriches and reconstructs the discourse of representation of Sámi people whose voice can no longer be subjugated. This voice conveys and shares knowledge about the present – not only about the past as has often been done before – to heal the wounds of a colonized Sámi people and to empower them. The importance of these methodological issues for the first Sámi research institution celebrating its 10-year anniversary in 1984 is highlighted as unquestionable, *eahpitkeahttá*.

This chapter begins and ends deliberately with the establishment of the Nordic Sámi Institute in 1974, which was a significant landmark in the institutionalization of Sámi research (see Porsanger 2018; Schanche 2005, 245–249). In the 1970s, discussions on the decolonization of Indigenous peoples increased worldwide, and a paradigmatic change emerged and developed towards postcolonial research (see Chapter 1). Essentialized truths were to be questioned, the connections between knowledge and power were to be pondered, and the dichotomies produced by research were to be de-constructed since these elements simplify truth and maintain unequal relations. In the context of Indigenous peoples, de-colonization has meant reorganizing such central power hubs as research institutions and education systems, as well as establishing the institutions equipped to meet the Sámi world view (Seurujärvi-Kari 2012, 113). This process of institutionalization is closely linked to the right to self-determination in research, and the desire to break free from the colonial past. According to Linda Tuhiwai Smith (1999, 173), research is an important part of the decolonizing process and is a tool to justify knowledge. For the Sámi and other Indigenous peoples, this means freedom and power to acquire knowledge about their life and everything in the world, and about connections between various phenomena in order to develop their culture and identity (Magga 2008).

The Nordic Sámi Institute deliberately chose methodologies that focused on the Sámi language, traditional knowledge and experiences, healing and empowerment, demystification, and capacity building. Thus, the first Sámi research institution was very much ahead of its time by paying attention to these crucial methodological issues long before the concept of Indigenous methodologies was introduced in the late 1990s. The establishment of the Nordic Sámi Institute in the traditional Sámi rural area of Guovdageaidnu (Kautokeino) was a result of comprehensive debates, in which the legitimacy of this research institution was argued to be closely related to its teaching of the Sámi language and living culture.

This chapter focuses on some chosen Sámi accomplishments over many hundreds of years of Sámi theorising and thinking which we consider significant for the development of contemporary Indigenous methodologies. This is a non-conventional and novel way of presenting the Sámi history of thoughts by focusing on Sámi persons whose legacy deserves a profounder analysis than it has had previously.

Accounts of Sámi research history often emphasize the significance of various contemporary universities, academic departments, and scholarly contributions, Indigenous and non-Indigenous alike who have contributed to research about the Sámi, their culture and language. In research history, methodology is often presented in its connection to established academic disciplines with their respective theoretical advancement. From the 1990s, the focus was put on multidisciplinary research and on an approach from within Sámi culture itself (Gaski 1998; Kulonen et al. 1994; Kulonen et al. 2005, 5, 17; Seurujärvi-Kari et al. 2005, 356–370; Stordahl 1994).

In this chapter, we intend to highlight some significant Sámi thinkers throughout history stretching back to the last five hundred years or so. We also pose the question: What were the methodological choices of early Sámi thinkers? This chapter shows that much of the Sámi science-theoretical and methodological contemplations, which nowadays are regarded and taught as part of Indigenous methodologies, can be traced back to many Sámi intellectuals. Methodology as we currently perceive it might not have been articulated in the writings of these notable Sámi persons, who had formal academic education or traditional knowledge-based competence or both. However, in their work, writings, and publications one can identify methodological choices which today we almost take for granted in Indigenous and Sámi research.

This chapter is a tribute to some of the great Sámi thinkers who contributed to the rise of research on Sámi issues from the Sámi perspective, based on Sámi epistemology, ontology, and value systems. Their contributions can be seen as a succession of generations. Therefore, to make a brief analytical presentation of these contributions, we have chosen the traditional Sámi holistic conceptualization of genealogy. The Sámi concept of *máttut* 'predecessors and ancestors' is proposed to present these notable Sámi persons as forerunners of Sámi methodological thinking and research in general, *Sámi*  *dutkama máttut.* The recognition of the forerunners or ancestors in the Sámi history of thoughts is needed, in our opinion, to understand the essence of Indigenous methodologies in the Sámi context. In addition, our contemplations about methodological thinking are visualized and applied in the chapter by a new tool, developed for university teaching on Indigenous methodologies, the *lávvu* method (Porsanger 2015–2019).

The selection of Sámi thinkers is based on our long-time teaching and research on and about Sámi history and culture. Methodologically, the selection is grounded on the following criteria: these persons had good knowledge of the Sámi language, culture, traditions and ways of livelihood; they lived and worked in the traditional Sámi areas among the Sámi, and their contributions have had a direct or an indirect impact on the Sámi history of thoughts and on representations of the Sámi. Working within the discourses of their time and colonial set of power relations, they all employed a Sámi perspective, although they did not always articulate it as we do today (see also Chapter 3).

#### **2 Sámi Conceptualization of Indigenous Research Methodologies**

The main principles of Indigenous methodologies can be specified as follows: these principles put Indigenous languages, experiences and knowledges at the centre of the construction of knowledge about Indigenous peoples (e.g. Ahenakew 2016; Chilisa 2012; Denzin et al. 2008; Hokowhitu et al. 2020; Kovach 2009; Kuokkanen 2000, 2007; McKinley & Smith 2019; Seurujärvi-Kari 2012; Smith L. T. 1999, 2012; Wilson 2008). In the Nordic countries, the concept of Indigenous methodologies has been quite slowly acquiring its place in university education since the early 2000s (Porsanger 20041).

In this chapter, the symbolism related to a traditional Sámi nomadic way of living is employed, and a new method is developed and applied to present the holistic nature of Indigenous methodologies. The concepts related to a movable dwelling, *lávvu* 'tent' (Ruong 1969/1982, 105–110) are used to visualize the Sámi theorising on research methodologies. This so-called *lávvu* method provides multiple possibilities for visualization and conceptualization of the main principles of Indigenous research methodologies for educational purposes, for teaching and learning about Indigenous research, as well as for research conduct. *Lávvu* is a temporary shelter with a fireplace in the middle, designed to withstand high wind and rough weather. The basic structure consists of three wooden forked poles called *válddáhagat*, which are interlocked and form a tripod (see Figure 2.1). The other poles (*lávvomuorat*) are straight and laid upon this framework of three poles in a circular fashion to solidly hold the cover,

figure 2.1 A traditional Sámi *lávvu* (Design by Davvi Girji, from Porsanger 2018, 10)

which is placed on the poles. The number of the straight poles depends on the desired size of the *lávvu*. A fabric covers the whole construction, leaving a smoke hole in the middle. The *Lávvu* is movable, can withstand all kinds of weather; provides its occupants with warmth, care, and protection; and is socially important to keep families and their allies together (Porsanger 2018).

In the metaphorical sense, the three main poles (*válddáhagat*) that hold the whole construction represent the main basic structure of any Indigenous methodology:


The *lávvu* method allows one to see the interconnectedness of the three main dimensions of Indigenous methodologies in a holistic way. It helps to visualize the methodological choices in the contributions of the chosen Sámi thinkers in this chapter, such as the use of the Sámi language (concepts and conceptual thinking, theorising and research tools), lived experiences (life maintenance, means of livelihood, colonization and "othering"), and knowledge (traditional knowledge, philosophy, holistic ways of thinking and perception of reality).

The crucial value of Indigenous languages to Indigenous research is its ability to reflect and build identity, culture and cultural heritage on a much more sophisticated level than any other learned languages could do. By means of language, individuals and communities give meanings to relationships, social and physical environment, to material culture and immaterial heritage. Languages are not only tools of communication, they also offer a theoretical basis for understanding Indigenous traditional knowledge and reconstructing this knowledge (Battiste 2001, 40). It is an epistemic system, which combines people by participating in a common environment and in common experiences (Black 2014; Stavenhagen 2002, 18). Indigenous concepts give access to an understanding of the nature and basis of knowledge, and of various ways of knowing, especially in respect to the sources and the limits of knowledge (Seurujärvi-Kari 2012, 101–105). Language helps to choose, recognize and understand something as knowledge (see also Chapters 3, 4, & 7 in this volume). Indigenous conceptualization reflects the ontological assumptions that are specific to a particular Indigenous culture. Indigenous terminology about various phenomena of specific interest for the way of life and life maintenance can and have been used to enrich and deepen the scientific understanding of these phenomena (for the Sámi it might be concepts related to reindeer husbandry, kinship relationships, snow and ice conditions, types of landscape, etc.).

Indigenous peoples have experiences of subjugation, discrimination, and assimilation throughout the processes of colonization. These common experiences have crucial importance for the design and use of Indigenous methodologies. They make visible Indigenous understandings of the past and the present from within an Indigenous culture. The so-called outsider perspective has mostly been employed throughout the history of thought and research on and about Indigenous peoples. Although they may have the best of intentions, outsiders could not have experiences of being Sámi during the times of colonization. This ontological challenge has often caused representations that might have romanticized, or exotified, or victimized, or even mystified Indigenous peoples. This is related to representations of Indigenous peoples as "the other" in Lappology, the early study of the Sámi conducted from an outsider perspective2 (Lehtola 2017; Mathisen 2000; Nyyssönen & Lehtola 2017, 50–62; Pulkkinen 2005, 189–191).

For Indigenous methodologies, it is important to ensure that Indigenous peoples' stories are told in their voice, that intellectual property rights are observed, that Indigenous knowledge is protected from misuse and misinterpretation, and that the research outcomes are communicated back to the owners of this knowledge in order to support them in their desire to be subjects rather than objects of research. The approach involves respect for Indigenous knowledge, responsible relationships, reciprocity and relevance (Porsanger 2004, 120; Seurujärvi-Kari 2012, 113–117). This is part of Indigenous value systems and research ethics, which in Indigenous contexts often focuses on the positioning of a researcher, relational accountability, and on the impact of any research project on Indigenous peoples or groups (see e.g. WINHEC Research and Journal Working Group 2010).

Knowing about genealogies is a vital part of the Sámi cultural heritage, the conceptualization of history and Sámi identity. Genealogy in general traces lineages of kin relationships back in time. In Sámi, there is no one single term for genealogy, as for example *whakapapa* in Maori, probably because the traditional Sámi conceptualization of kinship relations is not linear, but instead covers an extensive network of multiplex relationships between ancestors referred to by the collective noun *máttut* (in the plural) in Sámi.3 The Sámi understanding of a genealogy is therefore more like a seine fishing net with hundreds of important net cells, covering all the lineages of the extended families, in a holistic multilevel totality with many branches.

#### **3 Educated Sámi Persons in Early Missionary Activities**

The accounts of the early history of Sápmi in the 17th and 18th centuries quite seldom focus on the influence of Sámi persons of that time as executive officials, clergymen or scholars (Rydving 2010). This approach can be changed by examining the sources from a Sámi perspective and by accentuating the role of significant Sámi persons of that time. Rydving (2010) underlines that the contributions of such influential persons as, for instance, Johan Graan or Olaus Sirma, deserve to be thoroughly analyzed.

The missionary activities and exploration of the traditional Sámi territories started to advance in the 1600s and 1700s, and the Sámi were in an in-between two understandings of reality and the surrounding world: their own Indigenous religion and spirituality, and the Christian faith. Under the Swedish crown, which at that time controlled most of the territories of the Scandinavian Sámi, the University of Uppsala became the place of education for Sámi clergymen and ministers (Hansen & Olsen 2004, 319, 327).4 Since that time, Uppsala has contributed to the rise of many prominent Sámi. In the time of the missionary activities among the Scandinavian Sámi, three significant Sámi persons with higher education from Uppsala are of particular note: Johan Graan, a governor of Västerbotten and – for a limited time – the Österbotten counties of the Swedish kingdom in the 17th century; Olaus Sirma, a clergyman in Eanodat (Enontekiö, Finland) between the 17th and the 18th centuries; and Lars Levi Laestadius, a pastor and administrator of the Swedish Lutheran Church in the Sámi areas. Laestadius was the founder of the Laestadian movement and was a significant 19th century Sámi theologian, linguist, ethnographer and botanist. University education equipped these three notable Sámi with the means to focalize Sámi knowledge, language and experiences, and to contribute politically, socially and scholarly to subsequent generations. Their Sámi background and knowledge provided them with tools to apply an insider perspective.

*Johan Graan* (ca. 1610–1679) gained a decisive influence on the political development of the Sámi lands. He had a Master of Arts degree from Uppsala and an academic degree from the University of Leiden (Holland), which corresponds with the present doctoral degree in law studies. He took Sámi language and knowledge into account and appreciated the information about the Sámi he received *in situ*, locally, from the Sámi people themselves. These priorities connect him and his contributions to Indigenous methodologies (Aikio 1992, 174; Rydving 2000a, 261–262).5

When the Swedish crown was shaping its policies to expand to the North, Graan used the Sámi insider perspective on the way of living to affect the policies of the King, with great success. He launched the so-called parallel theory (Swedish: *parallell teorin*) (see Nordlander 1938; Klein 2020, 164–167; Nyholm 2021). According to his letter to the "commission on the population of Lappmark", the Sámi and settlers could live side by side in the North without disturbing each other, because they used different resources. Therefore, Swedish settlements, enjoying several tax-free propositions, could expand to the North without reducing or oppressing the Sámi population. The Royal Act of 27 September 1673 concerning the settlement of Lappmark, commonly known as the Lapland White Paper (Swedish: *lapmarksplakatet*), was almost entirely based on Johan Graan's proposal (Nyholm 2021).

Although, as an official attendant of the state authorities, Graan influenced the colonization of the North, he made a significant contribution as a Sámi person to the protection of Sámi interests. Based on his knowledge of Sámi traditional life maintenance, Graan suggested keeping land records (Swedish: *jordebok*), which could protect the Sámi territories from migrations and settlements. He was also critical of the persecutions of Sámi religion. Therefore, there were no witch hunts (Swedish: *häxprocesser*) and trials in the counties of Västerbotten and Österbotten during Graan's time as a county governor (Aikio 1994, 174; Rydving 2010, 262).

Graan contributed to making significant changes to royal church and educational policies. He suggested educating the Sámi who were knowledgeable about language and culture as clergymen for the Sámi areas, and recommended avoiding the intermediation of church interpreters (Aikio 1992, 175–176; Rydving 2010). In his view, a lack of linguistic and cultural competency obstructed quality preaching and education to the Sámi (Aikio 1986, 109;). Graan proposed6 the establishment of special Sámi parishes from Ubmi (Umeå), Luleju (Luleå), Durtnos (Torneå), and Giepma (Kemi) to Ávjovárri and Ohcejohka (Utsjoki) (Aikio 1986, 109). These proposals were followed by the Swedish crown (Aikio 1994, 174–177).

Johan Graan influenced Johannes Schefferus's Lapponia (1673), the most widely cited monograph on Sámi culture and Indigenous religion, and a work that signified the birth of Lappology. Graan was the key person who contacted local clergymen and ministers in Sámi parishes to gather information for this magnum opus.7 He was convinced about the importance of local Sámi knowledge and the direct involvement of the people who worked in the local Sámi communities rather than depending on generalized descriptions. A search for the primary sources that present the views and opinions of the Sámi themselves, is an important part of Indigenous methodologies. Although most of the ministers were not ethnically Sámi, the principle of the validation of the information at the local level, including local language sources and place names, is one of the essential methodological requirements of present-day Sámi as well as Indigenous research. The contribution of another Sámi, Olaus Sirma, is also relevant concerning discussions on Indigenous methodological thinking. Sirma focused on the internal Sámi viewpoint, the use of traditional oral knowledge in writing, and the articulation of the needs of Sámi language in education.

*Čearbma Ovllá* (Sámi name), *Olaus Sirma* (Finnish name), Olof Mattson Sirma (Swedish name) (1655–1719), from Soabbat (Sompio), was knowledgeable about his Indigenous oral tradition, especially the yoik.8 His knowledge included life maintenance, spiritual customs, and the richness of his mother tongue, the Kemi Sámi (*giemasámi*) language. During his studies in Uppsala, he provided Schefferus with two texts of the Kemi Sámi yoiks along with his own translations. Included in *Lapponia*, the texts were the first contribution to European knowledge about the oral tradition of the Indigenous people of the North, and were translated into several languages. These texts have been much studied as masterpieces of the traditional Sámi yoik by numerous scholars and mark the birth of Sámi literature (Bartens R. 1999).

The texts have remained the outstanding pieces of the Kemi Sámi language, which became extinct already by the end of the 17th and the beginning of the 18th centuries (Tegengren 1952). The use of the minority language, Sirma's mother tongue in writing, without any existing orthographies at that time, and the noticeable use of metaphors and verbal expressions of Indigenous aesthetics make his contribution both relevant and important for current contemplations about Indigenous methodologies. In our view, the methodological significance of the texts is in the use of the local Sámi language in documenting the local oral tradition. In Indigenous methodologies, there is a need and demand to break free from the generalized representations of Indigenous issues. In this interface of theory and practice, local varieties of material and immaterial heritage, language varieties and dialects, personal names, genealogies and place names are crucial for research and for source criticism from a Sámi perspective (Porsanger 2007).

Additionally, it is notable that these texts were the first and only secular texts in Sámi ever published until the 17th century and long thereafter (Aikio 1992, 173). All Sámi language texts were translations of religious texts, because of the mainstream politics and education imposed on the Sámi through the course of time in the North. In this colonial discourse, there have been no arena or possibilities for the appearance and dissemination of texts in Sámi about everyday life, traditional practices, customs, and folklore up until the 19th century. Hence, two poetic texts presented by Sirma are methodologically much more than pieces of Indigenous literature or sources for the study of the obsolete Indigenous language. Rather, they are examples of Indigenous selfrepresentations within a dominant mainstream discourse.

The internal Sámi perspective on correlations of language and education is another issue, which makes Sirma a pioneer of Indigenous thinking and argumentation about knowledge development and literacy among the Sámi. While a clergyman in Torneå Lappmark (Durdnos) and following the tendencies of his time, he translated ABC books and sermons into Sámi, but was unable to publish them. Convinced of the significance of the mother tongue in education, Sirma was disappointed that in his parish there was very limited access to Manuale Lapponicum (1648) (Aikio 1992, 170–171), which he wanted to use for educational purposes as a textbook. To date, scholars have not uncovered why the book could not be used. Was it because it was written in a mixed language of Swedish and Sámi (ibid.), or because it was physically unavailable in the Sámi parishes, or because the Sámi language of this extensive textbook was different from Kemi Sámi? Sirma's dissatisfaction about the lack of Sámi textbooks and Sámi language teachers (or clergymen at that time) can be paralleled by contemporary struggles in the field of Indigenous education worldwide where the aim is educational development on the terms of the Indigenous peoples themselves.

The legacy of Olaus Sirma should – in our view – be raised to a higher level than the conventional and widely accepted view of him merely as a Sámi student who contributed to *Lapponia* (Hirvonen 2018, 23; Itkonen 1963, 7).

#### **4 Unification of Missionary and Scholarly Work**

In the first part of the 19th century, scholars were inspired by Herderian deterministic ideology and Romanticism and they became interested in Sámi people's life-style documenting Sámi folklore and Sámi cultural features including language. Theologians joined the documentation because of their need to learn Sámi language in order to conduct missionary work, and hence many writings on Sámi language, its history and structures appeared (e.g. Bartens HH 2005, 193–195; Hirvonen 2005, 115; Mathisen 2000, 105–108, 114–126; Rantala 2005, 363). Numerous collections of Sámi folklore and linguistic material were gathered across the whole Sámi area, representing valuable material corpuses formed by many scholars, including Lars Levi Laestadius.

Lars Levi Laestadius (1800–1861) deserves more attention in Sámi research history as a scholar than just as a revivalist leader and founder of the Laestadian movement (Jonsell et al. 2000). Laestadius made extensive and varied work as a theologian, philologist, ethnographer, and botanist. He founded the literary Lule Sámi language and contributed to the use of the written form of the Lule and North Sámi languages. His religious, ethnographic, and botanical works were based on information acquired from Sámi sources during fieldwork. He collected Sámi material from the Swedish part of Sápmi in the 1840s, first at the initiative of a French expedition, La Recherche. His research interests were not limited to only one field, for he worked in number of fields and took a holistic and interdisciplinary approach in his research. Laestadius possessed a deep knowledge of Sámi languages and Sámi culture, including traditional Sámi knowledge and their material and spiritual culture. Thus, he experienced, interpreted, and reinterpreted the world around him through his "cultural mother language", Lule Sámi. Laestadius was born and lived in a bilingual Sámi-Swedish family in an area that was linguistically and culturally diverse9 (Pentikäinen & Pulkkinen 2011, 13–14; Rydving 2000b, 70–71).

Laestadius was the only Sámi of his time who wrote directly in the Sámi language, neither translating from other languages nor rewriting other religious texts. He created the orthography of the Lule Sámi language in 1839, and wrote and published booklets and books in Lule Sámi between 1839 and 1847. These works included *Hålaitattem ristagasa ja satte almatja kaskan* (1839), *Nubbe hålaitattem* (1847) and a Bible paraphrase including 259 pages published under the title *Tåluts suptsasah, Jubmela pira ja almatji pirra* (Old stories of God and human beings, 1844). These publications, which became popular because his written language was close to the spoken language, made Laestadius one of the first writers in Sámi. He wrote his religious texts in authentic Sámi without using loan words or other foreign features, utilizing the language expressions, metaphors and logics of the spoken Sámi. For the first time the Sámi were able to read more widespread texts in their own language. It took over a hundred years until the modern Lule Sámi writing system was adopted in the Nordic Sámi conference in 1977 (Rydving 2000b, 75). It was as late as in the 1980s and 1990s that Lule Sámi texts comparable with Laestadius's texts from the 1830s and 1840s started to be published.

Being a pastor of the Swedish Lutheran Church and a missionary, Laestadius realized that sermons or writings would not bring the desired results to the Sámi if they were in a foreign language. Instead, he chose to use cultural codes familiar to the Sámi that would allow them to understand and learn. Through his childhood, fieldwork, and activities as a minister in the heart of his area of research Laestadius had the opportunity to become deeply acculturated to many essential elements of the Sámi way of thinking, lifestyle and language. As a mythologist, he gathered a great amount of data on Sámi beliefs and wrote a synthesis of them in Fragmenter i lappska mythologien. This manuscript was first published long after Laestadius's death, in a shortened form in 1959; the complete version was published in 1997 (see Laestadius, Kvideland & Pentikäinen 1997) in its original language, Swedish, and an English translation was made in 2002 (Pulkkinen 2005, 125–128). When he critically discusses the earlier research on Lapparnas hedniska Religion (Lappish Pagan Religion) he introduces the concept of Lapparnas inre hushållning (the "interior household" of the Sámi). Since the concept of religion does not exist in the Sámi language, Laestadius uses an Indigenous way of conceptualizing religion, indicating his understanding of the language of religion and his ability to describe the secret inner meanings of the Sámi religion and the Sámi view of the world (Pentikäinen 2000, 81). He equates the concept of religion with his cultural mother tongue. As an ethnographer he was an expert at listening to the oral history that had been mastered by people he knew, and as an ecologist, he was able to observe and listen to nature around him (Pentikäinen 2000, 77–78). "Laestadius' cultural idiom was Sámi, the heritage of his Sámi identity" (Pulkkinen 2005, 171; see also Outakoski 1991).

In our view, it is appropriate to re-evaluate the legacy of Laestadius as a Sámi scholar. To many, it is challenging to distinguish him as a person and as a scholar from attitudes toward the Laestadian revival movement. His extensive and varied scholarly work and his important contribution to the documentation of Sámi religion and traditional knowledge have not been appreciated sufficiently enough. His use of the Sámi language in writing and his understanding of Sámi religion based on information acquired from Indigenous sources were commemorated by Nordic scholarly circles in Laestadius's bicentennial anniversary (Jonsell et al. 2000).

Based on Laestadius's fieldworks and his personal experiences he managed to make a synthesis of Sámi beliefs, which he called Sámi mythology. His plans to finally write the Sámi's own history did not materialize. His main methodological significance in Sámi research is based on cross-disciplinarily, a holistic methodological approach to research, and his use of Sámi inside knowledge and cultural codes, such as his research into Sámi language and religious education.

#### **5 Traditional Professorship in Sámi Knowledge**

Comprehensive Indigenous knowledge has mostly existed orally. Transformation of oral knowledge into a written form is one of the biggest research challenges, especially in Indigenous research, because fixation of the living cumulative tradition into a firm written form immobilizes advancement of this collective knowledge. The appreciation and use of traditional knowledge and oral tradition as a source of information and as a means of analysis and as a representation of Indigenous life maintenance, culture, philosophies and values, has been imperative for modern Indigenous research. Internationally, Indigenous scholars have designed and applied methods to make visible and promote the legitimacy of traditional knowledges and skills. The focus has been on the needs of communities who are the legal owners and possessors of their traditional knowledges. In documentation on traditional knowledge, it has been essential to strengthen communities by developing methods that allow both protection for and accessibility to traditional knowledge (Battiste 2008; Porsanger & Guttorm 2011).

In this field, a contribution by a South Sámi, Anders Fjellner (1795–1876) is significant. Fjellner worked as a pastor in Suarsa (Sorsele) in the 19th century. He was a folklore enthusiast and documented the South Sámi oral tradition in his studies/in his research/ at the University of Uppsala. He collected oral tradition about the Sons of the Sun, Päiven Pārne'h,10 and other stories (see Hirvonen 2018, 41–44) told by the Sámi in Härjedalen, Suarsa (Sorsele) and Čohkkiras (Jukkasjärvi). The poetic and epical characteristics of these texts immensely influenced the general Nordic public and had a considerable impact on research on Sámi literature and the Sámi oral tradition (e.g. Collinder 1971; Gaski 1987, 2003; Hirvonen 2000, 2018, 39–44; Jansson 1962; Lundmark 1979; Sallamaa 2015; Wiklund 1906). Questions have been posed concerning the authenticity of these Sámi texts, their structural features, rhyme, poetry, lyrics and language. However, Fjellner's accomplishments as a recorder of the Sámi oral tradition by means of the Sámi language have not been questioned by scholars (Hirvonen 2018, 42), nor by the Sámi themselves, whose national anthem11 declares that the Sámi are the descendants of the Sons of the Sun (Gaski 2003).

However, Fjellner's methodology of recording oral tradition deserves – in our opinion – more thorough analytical research in the future. In the meanwhile, some introductory observations can be made. He relied heavily upon oral sources in the original language that he commanded perfectly well. To document and publish this material, he was obliged to put the authentic performances by the South Sámi storytellers into a written form. As no orthography existed, Fjellner made his own notes in the same way as Olaus Sirma did almost 200 years earlier. The published texts or the absence of the "original" hand-notes in South Sámi have been a challenge for numerous scholars in their search for confirmation and validation of the oral traditional material. In this sense, Fjellner's contribution is a good example of the ontological challenges in research on Indigenous traditions. Various questions come to mind. How can the credibility of the oral source information, which is neither written nor recorded in any other form, be traceable and verified? Who asks this question and why? Is there a connection between the relational accountability of Fjellner as a member of the Sámi society of that time, and the legitimacy of the traditional knowledge which he recorded? What set of values does research on these issues operate within?

According to Fjellner's family stories (see Fjellner L. 1996), he was a skillful storyteller and eagerly performed stories from Päiven Pārne'h orally in his old age when he became blind and was unable to write any longer. Anders Fjellner was awarded the honorary title of "Professor in Sámi and Finnish literature and languages" (Jansson 1962, 19) because of his proficiency and competence in oral tradition and languages.

*Johan Turi (Ovloš Juhána)* (1854–1936) was a traditional reindeer herder without any academic university education. However, he can be seen as one of the forerunners of Sámi methodological thinking who laid the foundation for Sámi research on traditional knowledge and literature written and published in Sámi in the early 20th century. His book *Muittalus samid birra* (An Account of the Sámi), which came out in 1910 in Sámi and Danish, explored and described the Sámi way of life from a Sámi perspective, using Sámi concepts and traditional storytelling, and combining individual and collective wisdom and knowledge. This book is the first secular book to be published in Sámi. It became a classic of Sámi literature and cultural history and was taught in university courses internationally and translated into several languages: German (1912), English (1917 and 2012), Swedish (1917), French (1974) and Finnish (1979). In 1965, the book was published in North Sámi using the Bergsland-Ruong orthography, edited and published by Israel Ruong.

Turi structured his presentation of Sámi culture according to the Sámi perception of time as cyclical, based on the traditional Sámi philosophy of life maintenance. This way of writing allowed him to connect material and immaterial, reindeer herding and yoik, storytelling and beliefs, the creative world of Sámi orality and down-to-earth traditional practices. Thus, Turi's book is based on the Sámi conceptualization of time, space and life maintenance. According to Hirvonen (2018, 83), Turi presents his story in a holistic manner, where the general understanding of the cycle of life comprises equally importantly the natural environment and social structures making a whole. Turi grounded his book on the traditional Sámi logics of orality, letting the storyteller testify his story by referring to people he is speaking about, or to those from whom he had heard the story. He even includes time and place references, increasing and strengthening the credibility of his storytelling. In addition, his drawing technique and the visual representations of the stories follows his storytelling, thus legitimizing his account of the Sámi by grounding it into the origin, the beginning, the genealogy: "Mun lean okta sápmelaš" (I am a Sámi) (Turi 1910/2012,12 11; also Gaski 2011, 116, 119). His aim was to tell the story of the Sámi people from a Sámi point of view, introducing first-hand information that he calls in a traditional way "the truth about the Sámi". Turi builds his account on the Sámi collective cultural heritage and epistemology by applying the Sámi methodology of memorizing.

It is typical of Turi's method of storytelling that his text follows a special kind of logics: similar to Sámi oral storytelling, the text may in some places jump from one story to a totally different story (Hirvonen 2011, 17, 20–21, see also *Sámi dieđalaš áigečála* 2/2011–1/2012). His idea was also to bring complete and thorough information to the authorities in order to improve and widen their limited knowledge about the Sámi way of living at that time. As Harald Gaski (2010, 2) points out: "story is true, it doesn't doubt or question, it explains why things are as they are". Turi's work is of considerable importance in Sámilanguage literature and in Sámi-driven research that recognizes storytelling as a methodology that is nowadays utilized and appreciated in Indigenous research. If he was living today, he would no doubt have been awarded an honorary doctorate in traditional knowledge (Gaski 2010).

#### **6 The Sámi Enter the Academy**

The first attempts to unite and consolidate Sámi political forces against the assimilation policies pursued by the nation-states was made in 1917 by the prominent Sámi woman activist *Elsa Laula Renberg* (1877–1931) (Jernsletten 1991; Johansen 2015; see also Chapter 6). However, it was not until the middle of the 20th century that the more active and comprehensive culturalpolitical consolidation of the Sámi was set in motion. The Sámi had been a despised group for centuries. As Professor Israel Ruong (1987, 16) has pointed out, the appellation Lapp, as well as many other pejorative denominations used of the Sámi, indicated discriminating attitudes towards the Sámi. The first Sámi institutions that emerged were as follows: the Sámi Council (1956, Nordic Sámi Council until 1992),13 Sámi museums in Norway and Finland in the 1950s, and in Russia in 1962,14 the Finnish Sámi delegation in 1973, the forerunner of the Sámi Parliament in Finland, and the Nordic Sámi Institute (1973). The institutions on the Scandinavian part of Sápmi were part of the emerging decolonizing processes, which aimed at the de- and reconstruction of power relations between the Sámi and Finnish, Norwegian, Swedish, and Russian majority populations. From the outset of Sámi political mobilization, the core idea was to use and promote the Sámi language in politics, as well as in education and Indigenous research (Porsanger 2018; Seurujärvi-Kari 2011, 37–78). The revival of the Sámi language was in focus, bringing with it the revitalization of Sámi forms of knowledge. Language plays a vital role in creating a national and cultural identity and in strengthening a sense of mutual cohesion and solidarity. This work brought hope for transformation and change from "othering", challenging cultural oppression and aiming toward social equality and justice. The Sámi cultural-political program adopted in 1971 in the Nordic Sámi conference focused on the Sámi language and education. This programme statement indicated the Sámi collective spirit designating Sáminess and respect for Sámi values.

*Israel Ruong* (1903–1986) made his life-long mission to improve the living conditions of the Sámi under the assimilatory policies, by actively participating in Sámi social and organizational life and by developing Sámi research and methodology. Ruong's contributions in Sámi research are many-sided. His academic work involved studies of traditional knowledge and practices both in the older and in the contemporary Sámi culture. Secondly, he carried out research on the Sámi language. His methodological principle both in political activities and in research was to achieve a holistic view. This means that in research on Sámi issues at least three perspectives and approaches should be taken into account: ecological, cultural, and psychological. Thus, e.g. regarding reindeer herding, a close relation existed between ecology and Sámi lifestyle, life maintenance and language. Ruong thoroughly studied the Pite Sámi language, its structure and its verb derivatives. He defended his dissertation *Lappische Verbalableitung argestellt auf Grundlage des Pitelappischen* in 1943, which is regarded as a thorough mapping of the Sámi language (Keskitalo 1999, 9; Ruong 1948). In this dissertation on his mother tongue he drew upon direct knowledge of his own language skills. On this basis he also encouraged young Sámi who had learned Sámi in their childhood to study their own mother tongue, since native language linguists were sorely needed (Ruong 1987, 23). Cultural, linguistic and livelihood issues needed to be dealt with holistically because "none of these issues exist alone, but all are linked together" (Ruong 1987, 13–14).

Ruong became a Docent in Sámi Language and Ethnology at the University of Uppsala (1949–1969) and was nominated Professor in 1969. He contributed to the establishment of the Sámi research department at the University of Umeå and the Nordic Sámi Institute (Korhonen 1986, 2005). Ruong based his work on the Sámi way of thinking, arguing that Sámi institutions should acquire a recognition academically and politically in the Nordic countries, and that Sámi language and culture should be recognized in the majority societies. In his opinion, the feeling of weakness and inability among the Sámi was largely because of colonial power relations, which did not allow them to decide about their own affairs (Keskitalo 1999, 10).

His ethnological knowledge was comprehensive and deep since he carried out exhaustive fieldwork on Sámi livelihoods and heritage. He published studies on mountain Sámi in Čohkkiras (Jukkasjärvi, *Fjällapparna i Jukkasjärvi socken*, 1937) and on reindeer milking in the South Sámi area (*Om renmjölkningen på sydlapskt område*, 1954). He conducted research on the Lule Sámi community of Jåhkåkaska, which represented to him classical Sámi nomadism more than any other reindeer herding areas in Sweden (1964). His first publication is a study on the Pite Sámi culture (*Studier i lapsk kultur i Pite lappmark* 1944) in his home area. Based on his observations and a large data collection comprising interviews, he depicted the changes in reindeer herding practices in the Pite Sámi area and its surroundings. An ecological aspect of this collection of data is essential, showing Ruong's aspiration for a holistic approach to research data. In the study of Jåhkåkaska sameby he presented his theoretical triangle when explaining reindeer herding changes as follows:

The framework of the investigation can be illustrated by a triangle with the sides denoted by the landscape, mankind and the reindeer, as the most important means of exploiting the landscape. This means, in other words, the production factors in reindeer breeding. In this connection, the degree of tameness of the reindeer must be regarded as a result of the long-term investment of labour, a kind of capitalization of labour, in order to increase the efficiency of the reindeer as a production factor. The former regular milking maintained the tameness of the reindeer (Ruong 1964, 46).

This triangle indicates that Ruong approaches theorising from the culturalecological point of view, and that his innovative methodology is based on Sámi conceptual thinking and a holistic understanding of interconnectedness of different aspects.

Thanks to his extensive fieldwork on Sámi culture in the Sámi areas, his research perspective was from inside Sámi culture, paired with participant observation and the scholarly analytical perspective (Fjellström 1986). Indigenous research emphasizes participant observation with the aim of gaining a closeness or familiarity with a group, through taking part in their daily activities over a long period of time and being part of this group (Wilson 2008, 40). Being a participant observer allowed Ruong to take an even more actionoriented approach. While engaging with knowledge-holders, he was simultaneously observing and analysing why they were doing things in the way they did. For him knowledge-holders were the main sources on which his research work heavily relied. To gain access to traditional knowledge requires that one observes carefully and listens to knowledge-holders knowing one's ecology but also people's skills necessary to manage and sustain in that environment. Indigenous epistemology is derived from immediate ecology, from people's experiences, thoughts, and collective memory, shared with others.

Indigenous knowledge is closely related to ecology in a certain place and to relationships embedded in that place. Sámi people's environmental and traditional knowledge inspired Ruong to study Sámi livelihoods and language. In our view, he was seeking for and found the spirit of his people in Sámi language, which is closely related to ecology. Indigenous knowledges can be expressed in language, its structures and in specific terminologies. Language is an instrument for thoughts and the community, thoughts are even born in a certain language (Virtanen & Seurujärvi-Kari 19; see Whorf 1956). Ruong shows that specialized language is necessary to life maintenance, resource management and survival in the North: he uses Sámi concepts related to the characteristics of the landscape, snow and ice, and to reindeer according to the animals' gender, age, colour, shapes of antlers, etc. (Ruong 1964, 46–95, 1969/1982, 64–84).

Ruong specialized in the study of the Sámi language, its structures and its rich vocabulary on ecology, reindeer herding, snow and landscape, which he deals with especially in the publication *Samerna*, first published in 1969.15 This publication is a synthesis of Ruong's research. In this well-known publication, Ruong emphasized an empirical material and historical perspective, but simultaneously he openly dealt with current issues such as the development of Sámi political and cultural institutions, education and land rights issues (e.g. the Skattefjällsmålet, Tax Fell case in Sweden16) which shows his life-long quest for Sámi rights.

To Ruong, the linguistic aspect of local knowledge is very relevant, since it contains and transmits histories, oral traditions, philosophies, and literatures to future generations. Ruong's important legacy to Sámi research and methodology is that linguistic competence is a prerequisite for research in Indigenous issues. In the same way one of the most important principles in current Indigenous theoretical thinking is that Indigenous languages can offer a means to open up theories of knowledge embedded in Indigenous concepts and methods for understanding Indigenous knowledge, and to engage in a paradigmatic process for restoration and healing of Indigenous peoples. Indigenous languages reflect and construct a reality of transformation in their holistic representations of processes that accentuate interaction, reciprocity and respect, and relational accountability (Wilson 2008).

Ruong was a pioneer in Sámi-driven research from a many-sided, crossdisciplinary, community-based perspective, carrying out comprehensive and long-lasting fieldwork in the communities, documenting social and material Sámi culture and traditional livelihoods, and analysing research material from ethnological, linguistic, and ecological aspects. Ruong was an active participant observer in the Sámi communities all his research life. He became a part of those communities he was working in, thus building strong reciprocal and respectful relationships through his deep understanding of being accountable to the Sámi communities. The methodology used by Ruong implied work to the benefit of the Sámi, implementing an Indigenous methodological strategy of researching back and reporting back, required in current Indigenous research.

Israel Ruong was the first Sámi person who became Professor in Sámi Language and Ethnology, a Sámi activist, a principal of a nomad school and an editor of *Samefolket* (1960–1973) (see Ruong & Ruong 1985). He contributed to deepening the understanding of his people and to sharing diverse and research-based information about the Sámi and their culture in the past and today. In 1984, at the 10-year anniversary of the Nordic Sámi Institute, Ruong awarded a scholarship carrying his name to Nils Isak Eira, praising the young Sámi scholar for his rich research knowledge on reindeer herders' professional language, conducted in Sámi (published in Sámi first in 1994). He encouraged the establishment of the Sámi political, cultural, research and educational institutions in the spirit of collectivity, mutual cohesion, and respect for the language (see Eira 1994).

The South Sámi, Professor Emerita at the University of Stockholm, *Louise Bäckman* (born in 1926), is one of the important forerunners of Sámi research. Bäckman is the first Sámi woman who became a Professor (Swedish: *professor med lärostol*) in Stockholm in 1986. Since the 1970s, she has contributed to the gradual change in the presentations of Indigenous Sámi religion, focusing on the internal perspective and source criticism from a Sámi perspective (Bäckman 1975; for other publications, see the collection of her articles in *Studier i samisk religion* 2013). One of her outstanding contributions is the inclusion of the gender perspective in research of Sámi cultural heritage. This has allowed her to show the previously silenced role of women in Sámi religion and in society, thus making Bäckman one of the Sámi pioneers in women's studies and the history of religion (Westman 2013, 9; see also Bäckman 2013). She lays the groundwork, highlighting that the source material about Indigenous Sámi religion was mainly and almost exclusively produced by outsider scholars (Westman 2013).

Bäckman has shown that this outsider perspective has over the centuries affected and shaped representations of Sámi tradition, religion and spirituality (Westman 2013), especially the role of the most important religious specialist, *nåejtie* (South Sami), encouraging the subsequent generations of scholars to abandon the use of the term "shaman" in the Sámi context, and to employ the Indigenous Sámi term (Bäckman & Hultkrantz 1978). The use of Sámi storytelling as source material for research on Indigenous religion, which can also be traced to Laestadius's work, is her novel methodological contribution, which legitimately connects her research methods to contemporary Indigenous methodologies (Porsanger 2007, 76–77).

Grown up in a traditional reindeer herding family, educated as a child in nomad schools,17 she has used her Sámi traditional knowledge, language skills and experiences in her research, although this has demanded courage since such a combination contradicted accepted ways of doing academic research (Westman 2013). Bäckman's publications display the time when the use of the pejorative denomination Lapp in academic writings was gradually replaced by the ethnonym Sámi (Porsanger 2007, 288–298),18 and Bäckman has actively contributed to this change. As capacity building is one of the prerequisites and consequences of Indigenous methodologies, Bäckman deserves particular attention as she has encouraged and contributed to the growth of Sámi academic circles19 (Westman 2013).

During her long professional life, she has been awarded the title of honorary doctor at the University of Umeå (2003) and many Sámi peoples' awards20 (Gaup 2019; see also Lindstrand 2019). Among the predecessors of Sámi methodological thinking, Bäckman is the first and only Sámi woman who succeeded to the professorship level in the 1970s-1980s, when even in the mainstream academy women were in an absolute minority. Her contributions, especially her role in the introduction of gender studies, deserve much more attention in scholarly training and education across the Nordic countries, and especially in Sámi higher education. Her example makes the role of Sámi women in research and education visible and appreciated.

The era of institutionalization of Sámi research in the early 1970s was marked by a remarkable contribution by a Sámi philosopher *Alf Isak Keskitalo* (*Alf Issát*, born in Guovdageaidnu in 1944). His article *Research as an Inter-Ethnic Relation* (Keskitalo (1976/199421), which is based on his speech given in Tromsø at the 7th Nordic Ethnographic Conference in 1974, illustrates the main principles of Indigenous methodologies, highlighting imbalances in research on and about minority issues (see also Chapters 1 & 3). Keskitalo describes this asymmetry in Indigenous research by introducing the term "imbalance in minority-majority relations", meaning that the mainstream academy had long kept the power to decide priorities, theories, and methods of research on and about Indigenous peoples.

In Keskitalo's speech, he outspokenly argues that the Sámi themselves should establish their own institutions in research, education and cultural heritage, and to conduct research on their own culture, language and society, based on their Indigenous philosophy, language and experiences, theories of knowledge and value systems. The rise of Sámi research of this quality and capacity would – in Keskitalo's argumentation – challenge and change the established outsider paradigm prevailing in research on minority issues of that time, as well as undo unequal power relations in the academy. The establishment of the Sámi-driven and managed institutions would – in Keskitalo's argumentation – necessitate access to reasonable research funding, distributed by the state authorities (Keskitalo 1976/1994, 12–23). Sámi institutions emerged as a result of the powerful Sámi political movement. Keskitalo argues for the need for capacity building that would result in the advancement of the Sámi academy with its specialized expert knowledge and language skills. The growth in the numbers of Sámi with higher education and a change in research methodologies would move the Sámi society from the position of being an object of mainstream research, which has resulted in the consistent accumulation of knowledge about the Sámi for the sake of knowledge for the mainstream society itself. According to Keskitalo, other Sámi academics and leaders of the Sámi movement, the urgent need of the Sámi society was to advance on their own terms, enjoying the rights to self-determination equally with the mainstream society (Keskitalo 1976/1994, 18–21).

Keskitalo delivered his conference speech in English, which in the 1970s was unconventional in the Nordic countries, arguing for the use of a "neutral" language, equally foreign to both Sámi and non-Sámi scholars (Keskitalo 1976/1994, 5–6). He gave attention to the necessity of developing Sámi as an academic language and argued that the Nordic majority languages did not need to be the dominating tool in discussions about research that affected the Sámi. Along these lines, Keskitalo showed that the choice of language in research influences power relations. His article remains relevant to this day, being one of the most valuable educational texts in Sámi research. His contribution came simultaneously with the establishment of the Nordic Sámi Institute and marked the start of the era of methodologically contested Sámi research as we know it today (Porsanger 2011, 229–230).

Keskitalo – together with Israel Ruong and many other prominent Sámi scholars and Sámi activists – was involved in the establishment of the Nordic Sámi Institute, where he was employed as head of the department of social sciences in 1982–1985. In 1972 Keskitalo became the head of the first ever Sámidriven cultural institution in Norway, Sámiid Vuorká-Dávvirat (Sámi Museum), which became a meeting place for various Sámi community interests and organizations, where the Sámi language, Sámi ways of living, epistemologies, values and cultural knowledge were appreciated and confirmed (RDM Hederspris 2018). Professor Ruong and Keskitalo represent the generation of Sámi schola rs in the 1960s–1980s who were actively involved in cultural political movements and societal work.22 At that time, scholars' participation in community work and their contribution to social development was not credited in a professional manner as it is nowadays, when academic contributions, and the development of curriculums and education are evaluated to be equally important as scholars' contributions to community work and societal development. This combination of academic and societal activities has through the course of history been characteristic for contributions of almost all prominent Sámi scholars. From the 1960s and 1970s, an increasing number of Sámi started entering the academy, accumulating critical mass, which allowed Sámi research to become self-sustaining and to create further growth. This is the time when more and more Sámi across national borders acquired higher education.23 At that time, the University of Oslo in Norway was the only academic institution where there w as a lectorate and a professorship responsible for education and research in Sámi language. Many prominent Sámi scholars educated in Oslo made remarkable contributions to the growth of Sámi research, the development of Sámi methodological thinking, and simultaneously they all took part in the advancement of Sámi society politically, culturally, educationally and intellectually. Among them, three significant persons can be mentioned: *Ásllat Niillas*(*Aslak Nils Sara*, 1934–1996), the first leader of the Nordic Sámi Institute in 1973–86; and *Juho-Niillas* (*Nils Jernsletten*, 1934–2012), his Licentiate thesis in 1974 was on prosody in the Deatnu Sámi dialect, he became Professor in Sámi language and literature at the University of Tromsø 1990–2012) (Jernsletten 1974; *Sámi dieđalaš áigečála* 1/2004; Seurujärvi-Kari 2005b, 379), and *Ole Henrik Magga* (1947– ). Magga's doctoral degree in 1986 was on the study of his mother tongue; he became Professor in Sámi language at Sámi University College from 1997, led the establishment of the common North Sámi orthography in Finland, Norway and Sweden in 1977, and was the leader of the language department at Nordic Sámi Institute in the 1970s (Trosterud 2005, 360–363; Ylikoski 2019, 59–68).

#### **7 Conclusion**

The holistic approach binds Indigenous epistemologies, an understanding of reality and value systems together, as illustrated by the *lávvu* method. Such an approach is characteristic of the legacy of many knowledgeable Sámi persons presented in this chapter. They worked in multicultural and multilingual environments, and were both empowered and limited by the existing power relations of their time during hundred years of colonization and the slightly shorter period of decolonization and transformative practices initiated by the Sámi people themselves.

Choosing certain pioneers over a period of four hundred years illuminates the intellectual history of Sámi methodological thinking. The forerunners of Sámi research empowered the whole Sámi society and local communities and influenced the beginning of a shift in power relations in society and academia. In spite of the prevailing scientific and social paradigms of each historical period, the Sámi contributors chosen in this chapter did to some extent change the research and methodological tradition from an outer perspective to an inner perspective on culture. Through pursuing Sámi ways of thinking and conceptualizing in Sámi, these researchers started to pay attention to whose voice would be heard more than earlier when presenting the Sámi cultural heritage and sources in research and social discourses. They are forerunners – *máttut* – who deserve a distinctive place in the comprehensive, many hundred years long ancestral network of Sámi research.

Followed by the increasing number of Sámi scholars who emerged starting from the 1960s, these remarkable persons contributed to Sámi knowledge and the further development of Sámi methodological thinking based on their mother tongue, their traditional knowledge and experiences, Sámi philosophy, values and knowledge systems. Thus, they relied upon the three main poles of Indigenous research methodologies and the legacies of many significant Sámi thinkers throughout the course of history, together building the Sámi *lávvu* of knowledge. The establishment of the Nordic Sámi Institute was a major turning point for the institutionalization of Sámi research and its further growth.

### **Notes**


#### **References**

Ahenakew, C. (2016). Grafting Indigenous ways of knowing onto non-Indigenous ways of being the (underestimated) challenges of a decolonial imagination. *International Review of Qualitative Research, 9*(3), 323–340.

Aikio, S. (1986). *Doložat* [*Gone, but never forgotten*]. Jår'galæd'dji.

Aikio, S. (1992). *Sámit ovdal min* [*The Sámi before us*]*.* Girjegiisá.

Aikio, S. (1994). Suoma Sámi nammafuolahusas [The Sámi language management in Finland]. *Sámi dieđalaš áigečála, 1*, 33–39.


# *Gáfestallan* **Talks of the Indigenous Research Paradigm in Sámi Research**

 *Pigga Keskitalo, Torkel Rasmussen, Rauna Rahko-Ravantti and Rauni Äärelä-Vihriälä*

# **Abstract**

This chapter continues the discussion on an Indigenous research paradigm involving Indigenous research methodologies based on existing theories and the authors' experience. We present our own experiences of conducting our PhD research projects in social sciences and teaching Sámi higher education programmes. We retrospectively evaluate the research processes we used in writing our PhD dissertations, with particular attention to how we implemented an Indigenous research methodology. The literature review demonstrates that Indigenous scholars frequently find that the Western research paradigm overpowers students' research. We also found that, consciously or unconsciously, we as researchers fitted our own research projects into an Indigenous research paradigm when we conducted our research. There is a growing awareness in our research environments that Sámi research should be conducted in a different way than mainstream research is. We also see a need for an ongoing effort to develop supportive practices incorporating a structured awareness of Indigenous methodologies.

### **Keywords**

paradigm shift – Indigenous research paradigm – Indigenous research – Sámi research – relational knowledge

#### **1 Int roduction**

There has been a repeated call for a paradigm shift in Indigenous research, and we have seen some serious attempts to investigate how to develop and implement a distinct research paradigm in Indigenous research. It started over 20 years ago, when Linda Tuhiwai Smith (1999/2012) emphasized the need to decolonize the research methods of the European tradition in her critical

<sup>©</sup> Pigga Keskitalo, Torkel Rasmussen, Rauna Rahko-Ravantti and Rauni Äärelä-Vihriälä, 2021 | doi: 10.1163/9789004463097\_004 This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the CC BY 4.0 License.

examination of Western philosophy and history. Smith argued that researchers must reject the Western paradigm and move away from imperialism and towards post-colonization. The fundamental theme of this article is the assertion that it is difficult even to clearly define the core terminology needed to construct an Indigenous research paradigm. For example, 'research paradigm' and 'Western research paradigm' are complicated and overlapping terms. This inspired us to investigate these terminologies theoretically before conducting a critical analysis of our own earlier research projects and teaching practices.

The term 'paradigm' is a label for a set of beliefs which go together to guide a person's actions. Researchers often refer to Thomas Kuhn for a definition of a research paradigm. A research paradigm is "the set of common beliefs and agreements shared between scientists about how problems should be understood and addressed" (Kuhn 1962/2012, 43). The various research paradigms, the differences between them and their perspectives are focal points for developing and constructing Indigenous research (Wilson 2001, 175). On the other hand, Maggie Walter and Chris Andersen (2016) identified a problem that there is no common, widely accepted definition of what a research methodology or a research paradigm is.

After reviewing different research literature, we chose as a basis for understanding the Indigenous research paradigm, the work of Shawn Wilson (2001), who handled the research paradigm holistically as a label with four main parts. Wilson's four aspects of a research paradigm are: (1) ontology, i.e. your way of being and what you believe; (2) epistemology, which is how you think about reality; (3) research methodology, or the way in which you are going to use your way of thinking, your epistemology, to gain more knowledge about your reality; and finally (4) axiology, which consists of ethics and judging what research is worth doing in different paradigms (Wilson 2001, 175).

This is why we focused our analysis on what we as researchers think and how this thinking affects our personal behaviours and actions during the research process. In this case, we investigated our own thinking and how it guided our behaviour and actions during our research, from designing a research project, the process of conducting the research, up to the publishing phase and beyond, following up with our research partners and considering the possible impact of our projects.

#### **1.1** *Setting t he Scene for Analyzing Paradigms*

During the Network for Indigenous Methods in Academia 2017–2019 we set up a working group to analyze our own practices as researchers and educators in Sámi higher education. The members of the working group have been colleagues and acquaintances for years and have had various connections to each other as scholars. We have gathered together to discuss different issues on numerous occasions in both informal and professional settings. However, this project gave us the opportunity and setting to sit down to discuss our respective understandings of Indigenous methodologies and to evaluate our work.

The workshops became a space of self-reflection, cooperative team- reflection and shared knowledge-building. We established a space for evaluating how we understood and implemented Indigenous research methods and methodologies in our own research, development projects and educational tasks. In these joint meetings, we dealt with the question of what we could have done if we had been more conscious, had had greater knowledge and had been more involved in the process of creating Indigenous methodologies. This can be described as self-evaluating our research processes in the light of research paradigms and the need to reconstruct them within the Sámi research context, analogous to a framework of relational Indigenous research methodologies (see Wilson 2001).

We began by analyzing research literature and our own actions as researchers and educators at *gáfestallan* talks*,* which are the Sámi way of 'talking circles' (see also Löf & Stinnerbom 2016, 147). *Gáfestallan* actually means 'coffee break' in North Sámi, and it is also a moment for sitting down, exchanging ideas, planning, and making decisions. The idea of *gáfestallan* talking circle can be transformed into a methodological tool to produce knowledge and to consider the research context holistically. We shared our experiences of completing PhDs on Sámi issues in Nordic universities. We decided to individually analyze our own PhD texts (Keskitalo 2010; Rasmussen 2013; Äärelä 2016; Rahko-Ravantti 2016) according to the demands we found most often highlighted in Indigenous research methodologies.

As a next step we agreed in the working group to write down our experiences, circulate them and discuss them during Skype calls before we conducted a new *gáfestallan* talking circle discussion at one of the face-to-face sessions during the network event. This time we addressed a specific question: Did we really do anything wrong and/or inappropriate in our research projects? We also discussed what was successful in our research processes. In her book *Reshaping the University*, Rauna Kuokkanen (2007) hoped for an upheaval in the world of science in which aggressive power struggles would be replaced by participation and commitment. This meant sharing our diverse perspectives on, and representations of, different aspects and phases of research. We observed that progress had been made, including some of the fundamental changes described by Kuokkanen (2007).

Indigenous research methods also involve talking about positioning and backgrounds – where we belong as Sámi and researchers. In the working group discussions, we talked about how we became researchers and shared our narratives, how we started to work and how our reference groups were formed. The crucial question from the beginning to the end of the research process was how we were connected to our communities as members, researchers and educators. According to Wilson (2001), a relationship requires connectedness to the community and the culture one is researching, as well as its ontology and worldview. This is necessary to establish a true partnership and to conduct sound research. We found these requirements essential in our former research projects. Establishing these relationships was time-consuming and sometimes expensive, as it necessitated a lot of travelling.

We analyzed our research and education processes as attempts to adjust to the system by combining mainstream universities and their Western research methodologies with Indigenous research methodologies. Inevitably, we all had to work with the strong impact of Western research methodologies because we are all Indigenous scholars who completed PhD degrees at mainstream universities. Our research might have gaps, as we all conducted our research within the educational and Sámi language context and at mainstream universities. In retrospect, we wrote our PhD dissertations to the best of our abilities and contributed to the creation of an Indigenous research methodologies. During our PhD research some of us were part of bigger research groups, which made us feel that our projects were accepted, guided and secured by the Sámi research community as well as the wider Sámi community. The Sámi University of Applied Sciences became a joint working and meeting place for all of us as scholars and lecturers, as we had all worked there and two of our PhD projects were funded and connected to research projects in the Sámi University of Applied Sciences. We feel that we are part of the changing Indigenous context (Smith 1999/2012, 111), as Indigenous research methods in some areas are now showing a strong impact in research.

We wish to stress in particular that our respective research projects were not developed in an 'Indigenous methodology vacuum'. We were each involved in Sámi research environments and frequently worked with other Indigenous research communities. At the same time that we were working on this book chapter we were also developing and teaching our master's programmes, which were conducted within different disciplines of Sámi education and Indigenous journalism. We realized that the paradigm shift had reached another level by the time we completed our PhDs. We share the experience of completing our PhDs in the 2010s, a period when many Sámi researchers and other researchers within the Sámi research field were preparing for their own doctoral studies and many new master's programmes were offered in Sámi higher education.

#### **2 Former Literature Co ncerning Indigenous Research Paradigm**

There is a need to address what constitutes the Indigenous research paradigm within the Sámi research context. In this process it is possible to draw on earlier theories in this field. Initially, we investigate some of the most important academic publications, which, it would be fair to say, have acquired canonical status in Indigenous studies and research. We also consider a few more recent publications which are not yet canonical. The uses of the concept also overlap; where one paper discusses Indigenous methodology, another refers to a paradigm. Still, they were obviously discussing the same object. We were not surprised by this confusion, as the field is still emerging. These publications are part of an ongoing discussion in which scholars present their thoughts and arguments and then often go on to contradict these very thoughts and arguments as the debate continues and the field expands.

Walter and Andersen (2016, 58–81) analyze the paradigm shift on Indigenous research methodologies in their book *Indigenous Statistics: A Quantitative Research Methodology.* They review that in former studies a common Indigenous research methodology has been said to be applicable to all Indigenous research, while it has been also claimed that Indigenous methodology can only be replicable in quality research, or that specific research paradigms must be developed according to the history of Indigenous peoples. Walter and Andersen challenge the idea of building an applicable research paradigm for all Indigenous research worldwide. On the other hand, they argue that quantitative research is also needed to obtain statistics on Indigenous peoples, such as research-based knowledge on Indigenous peoples' living conditions in different societies and contexts in a postcolonial era.

The paradigm shift on Indigenous research methodologies is still an ongoing and necessary debate whose roots can be traced back to the 1970s (see Chapters 1 & 2 in this volume). As early as 1974, the Sámi philosopher Alf Isak Keskitalo spoke about the inequality in research relating to the Sámi. He argued that the power relationships between the Sámi as research target and the outsiders conducting the research were asymmetric (Keskitalo 1976, 1994; Keskitalo & Eidheim 1974; see also Porsanger 2011). In his critique he also referred to Lappologist research history. Generally, Lappology describes Sámi culture from the outside, a fact that is reflected in the very word used for its name, derived as it was from 'Lapp', an exonym for 'Saami' [Sámi]. In Lappology research it was typical to strengthen the identity of the majority by creating borders and searching for differences. Lappology is burdened by many scientific and social attitudes, such as exoticism, romanticism, misunderstanding, Christianity and cultural and social archaeology (Pulkkinen 2005). However, according to Veli-Pekka Lehtola (2015), this documentation of an old way of life and culture is of benefit to modern research.

There are earlier writings by Sámi authors such as Johan Turi (1910), who can be considered the first Sámi ethnographer. He described Sámi life and living conditions in detail, and his accurate observations can serve as a model for writing story-like research. In addition, early Lappologists who also documented Sámi life and produced texts and teaching materials in Sámi were part of the initial process of establishing the Sámi language as an academic language despite the fact that these texts were also producing stereotypical images and othered the Sámi people. However, the real beginning of Sámi as an academic language is recognized to be a later work by the Sámi scholar, Israel Ruong (1969).

Indigenous research is closely connected to decolonization research, which has been inspired by many theorists. Some of the most important profound theorists are Frantz Fanon (1952, 1961/2004), Edward Saïd (1979) and Paulo Freire (1970). In many ways these writers shaped today's thinking about decolonization and power. Many attempts to build an Indigenous research paradigm have been based on the work of Fanon and other such writers around the world (e.g. Chilisa 2012; Kovach 2009; Smith 1999/2012).

Since the start of the new millennium, several scholars have highlighted the need to collectively re-write the paradigm. Their arguments are supported by Kuokkanen (2000), who wrote that the grounds for a paradigm shift rest on the fact that Sámi knowledge, values and society differ from the way academia has normally understood knowledge. Kuokkanen (2000), Wilson (2001) and Walter and Andersen (2016) are among the more serious attempts to develop a paradigm shift. Thus, we base our practical construction of a paradigm shift especially on the continuum of these previous writings by being aware of other important contributions as well.

Kuokkanen challenged Sámi researchers, claiming that many of them are dissociated from Sámi cultural practice:

Through the Western education system they have been 'immersed' into Western models of doing research which are often characterized by a Cartesian worldview, based on metaphysical dualism and laden with perceptions that derive from the Enlightenment: the fragmentation of human knowledge and the distancing of oneself both physically and mentally from the research object. (Kuokkanen 2000, 413)

Kuokkanen continued, arguing that "this has led to a situation where much Sami research follows and imitates prevailing Western paradigms and Eurocentric thinking without questioning its appropriateness or relevance" (Kuokkanen 2000, 413). Kuokkanen was describing the situation in Sámi research at the end of the last millennium. Today there is still a need to question the appropriateness and relevance of these models. The scope of an Indigenous research paradigm confirms the need for "a culturally specific discourse based on Indigenous peoples' premises, values and worldview" (Kuokkanen 2000, 413).

A year after Kuokkanen, Wilson (2001, 176) presented a practical solution in his article "What Is an Indigenous Research Methodology?", in which he called for the creation of a separate Indigenous research paradigm. He asserted in his abstract that Indigenous researchers must move beyond merely assuming an Indigenous perspective on non-Indigenous research paradigms. Wilson argues that the Indigenous research paradigm is special because it includes relationality compared to other research paradigms:

An Indigenous paradigm comes from the fundamental belief that knowledge is relational, is shared with all creation, and therefore cannot be owned or discovered. Indigenous research methods should reflect these beliefs and the obligations they imply. (Wilson 2001, 175)

Wilson (2001) also argued that Indigenous research must reflect Indigenous contexts and worldviews, which must come from an Indigenous paradigm rather than from an Indigenous perspective. Paradigm shifts emphasize holistic, culturally relevant research methods that build on a wide understanding of the connection between land and the people:

It is not just interpersonal relationships, not just with the research subjects I may be working with, but it is a relationship with all of creation. It is with the cosmos, it is with the animals, with the plants, with the earth that we share this knowledge. It goes beyond the idea of individual knowledge to the concepts of relational knowledge. (Wilson 2001, 176–177)

A research paradigm involves the establishment of protocols that identify a set of accepted procedures which guide researchers in 'best practices' throughout the entire research process (Wilson 2001), meaning putting effort into building connections, trust and commitment in research processes. Wilson pointed to four important elements which relate to the research paradigm. The first is ontology, or the belief in the nature of reality – that is, the researcher's way of being in the world, together with an awareness of the cultural protocols and understandings of the research participants. The second is epistemology, or how the researcher thinks about reality. This element is essential, as it determines how the knowledge and the meaning of that knowledge are opened – including how it relates to concepts such as truth, belief and justification (Wilson 2001; see also BonJour 2002; Steup 2005). The third, the research methodology, serves as a guideline for how a researcher will use his/her thinking (i.e. epistemology) when seeking to gain more knowledge about his/her reality. The fourth, the axiology, is a set of ethics or morals which makes the research a meaningful and safe activity for the participants involved in the study and determines how the research will benefit both the researchers and the participants. These four perspectives – ontology, epistemology, research methodology and axiology – together comprise a research paradigm (Wilson 2001).

#### **3 Prevailing Research Paradigms**

Wilson ( 2001) argued that there are four or five dominant Eurocentric paradigms which are used in most research: positivism, post-positivism, critical theory and constructivist theory. Indigenous researchers need to move beyond these, going beyond merely assuming an Indigenous perspective on these non-Indigenous paradigms. Indigenous ontologies, epistemologies, axiologies and methodologies are fundamentally different from, for example, critical theory, which supports the empowerment of disadvantaged groups of people as an Indigenous research methodology should include reciprocity (Wilson 2001). Bagele Chilisa (2012) has suggested another way of classifying research paradigms, using different words for the main research paradigms and presenting them in three pairs: positivism/post-positivism, interpretivism/constructivism and transformative/emancipatory. Barbara Kawulich (2012) presented a slightly different classification, dividing the paradigms into four categories: pos itivism/post-positivism, constructivism/interpretivism, transformative/eman cipatory and the postcolonial Indigenous research paradigm. Walter and Andersen (2016, 17) argued against "positioning Indigenous methodologies dichotomously in opposition to Western frames" and against grounding them in "a concept of traditional knowledge and culture 'outside modernity'".

#### **4 The Indigenous Standpoint**

We think Wilson's four aspects of a research paradigm, mentioned above as (1) ontology, (2) epistemology, (3) research methodology, and (4) axiology (Wilson 2001, 175) contribute tremendously to a common understanding of a research paradigm. For us, a lack of processing and implementing of an Indigenous research paradigm into practical Sámi research and teaching in tertiary  education, has made it challenging to start using Indigenous research methodologies in our own research and even more challenging to teach them to our students.

Walter and Andersen (2016) conceptualized research methodology as having three components: a standpoint, a theoretical frame and a method. They placed the Indigenous standpoint at the core of Indigenous research methodology and stressed that a research standpoint is arguably the most important determinant of a research project's methodology:

It pre-exists and fundamentally influences our choices of theoretical frame and method. Most critically, the research standpoint is a fundamental component of all methodologies, not just Indigenous ones. (Walter & Andersen 2016, 45)

This standpoint is influenced by the Indigenous social position, Indigenous epistemology, Indigenous ontology and Indigenous axiology. There is a sound body of literature on Indigenous epistemology, ontology and axiology, but less work has been done on the concept of the Indigenous social position. Walter and Andersen (2016, 46) relied on the work of Pierre Bourdieu (1984), particularly his three dimensions of social space "comprised of social, cultural and economic capital – that creates the filters and frames through which we make sense of the world and our own position within it". They added racial capital as a fourth dimension to an Indigenous position. Race does not make it impossible for non-Indigenous researchers to conduct Indigenous research, but it makes it clear that lack of Indigenousness affects the researcher's social space (Walter & Andersen 2016, 46–47).

# **5 Reflections on the Development of an Indig enous Research Paradigm**

Interestingly, Martin Nakata (2002) suggests that Western universities should act as mediators between Indigenous knowledge and Indigenous research. He points out that scholars should not underestimate the Western research tradition and build any dichotomies between Indigenous and Western understandings. We find his arguments plausible, as we do consider it fruitful rather to critically examine how this tradition should be expanded.

Critiques of the university as a Western concept and as dominated by Western thought are important. In order to criticize it, we must know its history; the big question is, however, do we have to discard a 2,000-year-old Western research tradition to create a separate 'Indigenous way of knowing within academia'? Is there nothing in the Western tradition of value which should be retained? Our short answer is that we find it hard to discard everything, as this tradition is also a part of our history. We find it reasonable to claim that an Indigenous research paradigm must be built on some existing academic traditions. However, this paradigm must also differ from other paradigms in particular ways. These are important questions. What should be retained and how would an Indigenous research paradigm differ from other research paradigms?

Based on earlier studies discussed in this chapter, we posed and evaluated questions about how and why we worked as we did in our research and educational tasks within the Indigenous methodology field when doing our research and working with our students. We realized that consciously or unconsciously, we were all already implementing Wilson's (2001) ideas in our work. Still, it is fair to say that the use of Indigenous methodologies had yet to become a common practice in Sámi research when we were working on our PhDs, despite the many high-level institutions working with Sámi studies in the Nordic countries and the many academics involved. Nevertheless, we realized that by working at the Sámi University of Applied Sciences, we were already immersed in an environment where Sámi research was frequently discussed as part of Indigenous research and Indigenous research methodologies were at the core of these discussions (see also Keskitalo 2020, 2012; Rasmussen 2020).

In the Sámi University of Applied Sciences, several experienced Sámi academics guided us into Sámi research. Scholars such as Jan Henry Keskitalo, Aimo Aikio, Vuokko Hirvonen, Kristine Nystad, Jelena Porsanger, Asta Balto and Liv Østmo not only 'talked the talk' when it came to Indigenous research, being among the leading theorists in this field, they also 'walked the walk' and supervised us in our own work. We are extremely grateful to have been involved in these discussions and knowledge transmissions. It is also worth mentioning that while we were working on our PhDs we were able to take part in international Indigenous research conferences where new ideas were presented and old ideas challenged, and the Sámi University of Applied Sciences arranged annual research conferences which included Indigenous research methodologies on the agenda. Several leading Indigenous scholars also visited our research environment.

Nevertheless, there is a contradiction here. Many students and researchers working in Indigenous studies or related fields were unsure of the discourse around the paradigm shift and where this kind of work was leading. Furthermore, the various organizations involved operated mostly independently and in their own countries, despite a few attempts to work cooperatively in the area of Sámi research and teaching. This reality reveals how powerful the dominant paradigm at universities is and how difficult it is to change that course.

We need to construct and evaluate our own roles as researchers and understand our obligations. We are also interested in discovering whether this method will help to build relationships with one another as researchers and with our research topics, and whether it will prompt further development based on this consciousness. This cannot be the responsibility of individual researchers alone. We need leadership on all levels at universities and we still need more of an upheaval in the world of science so that the present power struggle is replaced by participation and commitment, as Kuokkanen (2007, 156–157) has called for in *Reshaping the University*.

Next, we will illuminate our research path by discussin g how we position ourselves, connect with each other, collaborate and give back. In doing so we intend to formulate the paradigm shift as a concrete practice based on Wilson's (2001) analogical frame of connectedness. We believe that this will work in practice, as it is the research data which has helped us to build a theory around our thoughts concerning the Indigenous research paradigm.

#### **6 Connecting to Who We Are as Researchers**

The Indigenous research paradigm relates to the quality of research by positioning the research, the researcher and the research topic and by explaining the motivation for the research and the connection of the Indigenous community to the topic (Russell-Mundine 2012). In doing so, one is writing about one's own motivation, standpoint and aim in conducting the research. Readers can then draw their own conclusions about how valuable the research is and how broadly the research phenomenon can be applied. This constitutes part of the research quality and reliability in Indigenous research. Due to this requirement, we were aware of the significance of presenting in our texts who we are, what we are doing and what our backgrounds are*.*

This starting point of personal experiences and backgrounds gave us a strong basis for researching the topics we planned to investigate. In addition, our workplaces and research groups were committed to supporting the Sámi community through the research topics selected. We felt that, because of our background, education and membership in both our communities and our research groups, we were supported in many ways in undertaking this research. All this support makes us feel privileged; the question is however, is Indigenous research this well supported in other research institutions all over the world?

#### **7 Collaboration**

Designing a research project requires res earchers to take seriously the requirement of 'free, prior and informed consent'. We prepared our research project collaboration based on the national and institutional data protection requirements to be met based on which country your institution is based, and in which country you want to carry out research. Firstly, based on that, in Norway it was mandatory asking permission from the existing national research body *NSD – Norwegian Centre for Research Data* or possibly university ethical boards in Finland, based on funding and research design requirements. Secondly, if the data consists of data gathered at schools, like our data did, permission needs to be asked of the school head, teachers, parents and pupils. Some of the researchers had created a reference group. According to good practices in Indigenous research we should also ask permission from the Sámi local societies. We solved this requirement by visiting the teacher meetings, parents and pupils and presented our research in media and seminars and conferences. In addition, it is meaningful to also meet authorities, Indigenous politicians and NGO representatives from local associations. However, some of us had difficulty in defining the Indigenous society. It was challenging, if not quite impossible, to separate the local society from the local Indigenous society in some of the municipalities where we conducted our research. According to our knowledge, Sámis comprise the majority in some of these municipalities and are currently well represented in politics, bureaucracy and other important positions (Keskitalo 2010; Rasmussen 2013; Äärelä 2016; Rahko-Ravantti 2016).

The guiding point of our research was the idea of designing research projects that would benefit the Indigenous Sámi local communities (Barron 2002). The idea of benefit is closely connected to research ethics (Bull 2002). We had followed the discourses in the Sámi society and were aware of the fields in which Sámi and local authorities needed more knowledge about Sámi education matters. We used this important background information ourselves, and in our working groups, to identify the type of research needed in these societies.

We also selected research topics based on our lifetime experiences as Sámis in Sámi communities and the professional knowledge we shared with our colleagues and supervisors. Each author prepared carefully, negotiating with communities and speaking to other researchers as well as to principals, teachers, parents and pupils. Before each interview the interviewee(s) were informed and gave their prior consent.

Throughout our work we were determined that the Indigenous society must be involved in the research project and must receive something in return*.* First of all, we decided that our participants should be informed about the results of the research and the researcher's recommendations for improving their situation; in our case, this involved education and language revitalization, which are closely related issues.

#### **8 Giving Back**

'Giving back' was a useful guideline for our re search. This is because it reflects our way of thinking about research. We conduct research because our people have important knowledge to offer when they explain their views on their own realities. When we receive their knowledge we take upon ourselves a responsibility for the use of this knowledge to improve the life for our own people, and also for giving jointly constructed knowledge back to the knowledge holders to improve the situation.

Giving back is a concept which affects the whole research process, not just the methodologies used to conduct the research. It shapes how the research topic is chosen, the research questions, the reporting and the researcher's responsibilities to the people who contribute to the study throughout the whole research process. It does not stop when the research project comes to an end: The people we work with follow us. They remain a part of our lives as researchers, and we remain a part of their lives. We will meet them again at formal and informal occasions later in our lives.

# **9 Concretizing Relational Knowledge in the Indigenous Research P aradigm**

In this section, we construct and process relational knowledge in Indigenous and Sámi research and finally pull it all together, including how we understand relational knowledge, as shown in Figure 3.1. Figure 3.1 illustrates the process of selecting the topic of the research, asking permission and conducting the research through collaboration, dissemination, teaching and learning. Relational knowledge (Wilson 2001) is concretized by representing the process of research in the image as traditional braiding (*ruvdet* in North Sámi language) based on our construction of our research projects. *Ruvdet* is the action you do to make a Sámi braiding band.

Constructing a topic involves thinking about and searching for what is worthy of being researched. It is a process in which the researcher makes choices

in cooperation with and with the support of a research group, the academic community and different practitioners, in a particular Indigenous community. Another part of the process is asking permission. As researchers, we each dealt differently with this task when conducting research projects for our PhDs.

*First*, our standpoint led us to a research topic, as it helped us identify where there was a need for research. Each researcher became involved in the research question by communicating and cooperating with the community, or just by being a part of the Indigenous community. The *second* step was to ask permission. As researchers, we each approached this aspect of our work differently. Some of us felt that we already had a sufficient understanding of the research needed and therefore a mandate for research was gained. In addition, we were all already connected to our research projects, which meant that we were all part of a bigger research project; we had the support of our supervisors and colleagues, and we cooperated with other researchers both at a national Sámi level and at an international Indigenous level. We feel that we have all worked intensively to get the permissions needed to conduct our research in schools. Although we already had the required permission at the institutional level, we still needed individual consent prior to any personal interactions. This was obtained in two ways, and required each researcher to clarify the research aims, tasks and ethics. *Third*, conducting the research project required multiple sensitivities and responsibilities in relation to cooperating with the community. The need for sensitivity varied, but the most important point was close communication. *Fourth*, we disseminated our new knowledge in different ways and used the full range of media and platforms, from news stories, parents' meetings and scientific articles to local and international conferences. *Fifth*, the teaching and learning is now included in what we teach the students in the master's programmes and in our teaching of in-service teacher education at an advanced level.

#### **10 Discussion**

In this chapter we discussed the need for the furthe r development and vocabulary of an Indigenous research paradigm in the context of Sámi research. Elaborating the basis for this chapter in our *gáfestallan* talking circles mentioned in the beginning, we agreed that there is a need for such a paradigm. During our work we constructed the content of a paradigm critically evaluating former literature in this field and our actions as educators and researchers. Our intention is to find ways to develop Sámi education and Sámi educational research through teaching models and practices, and so we teach research using Indigenous methodologies. In some ways, we see Indigenous research as Graham Smith (2003) defined it – as a field where it is more important to think about who the research is done for and for what reason. The method itself is not the focus, as which one is chosen depends on the research design and the questions posed.

After elaborating our former research processes, they seem to be conducted in appropriate ways as we were connected to our own culture, having Sámi values and being aware of our own knowledge systems. By investigating what we have done as researchers and educators in higher education, we can clearly see that we are not disconnected, but are part of our societies, working for our communities. As a concrete Indigenous paradigm was not available, even though there have been individual attempts to resolve this challenge, we all felt in the course of our research that such a paradigm would have been more appropriate for us. We did, though, include Indigenous methodology in our research but we were unable to name a specific Indigenous research paradigm at that time. We therefore identify with Kuokkanen's (2000, 413) closing philosophical point, which she describes as a prescription for "a culturally specific discourse, based on Indigenous peoples' premises, values and worldview*"*.

We also subscribed to the thoughts of Walter and Andersen (2016), as they placed the Indigenous standpoint at the heart of Indigenous research methodologies and stressed that it is arguably the most important determinant of a research project's methodology. We consider that these authors have already provided the basis for an Indigenous research paradigm, and we believe that Walter and Andersen in particular have made an important contribution to this field. We think that the reason we could not find any serious flaws in our own research is that we all had Sámi research standpoints from the beginning of our projects. It is imperative that researchers are conscious of their research standpoints in the future, as this factor determines all other aspects of a research project and ultimately the research paradigm.

As a result of this book chapter project that has been carried out in the *Network for Indigenous Research Methods in Academia (2017–2019)*, we realized that Wilson (2001) serves as a well-developed basis for our work. We were able to concretize what the relational research paradigm means in Sámi research and how this relation should be treated in different phases of the research. We call this process by the Sámi term 'ruvdet' as those Indigenous concepts serve as a profound starting point in one's work and in one's working processes. Practically, this means that there is a beginning before you can act, you have to make a work to function, create a basis and a plan, then you are able to act. In the end, to finalize the work in an Indigenous way, you also have to carry out some actions to take into account certain requirements. We are already implementing this into new research and will spread these thoughts to colleagues and students who will engage with them.

#### **References**

Äärelä [Äärelä-Vihriälä], R. (2016). *Dat ii leat dušše dat giell a – Se ei ole vain se kieli. Tapaustutkimus saamenkielisestä kielipesästä saamelaisessa varhaiskasvatuksessa* [*It is not*  *just the language – A case study of a Sámi language nest in Sámi early childhood education*] (PhD dissertation). Acta Universitatis Lapponiensis 335. University of Lapland.


Ruong, I. (1969). *Samerna* [*The Sámi people*]. Bonnier.

Russell-Mundine, G. (2012). Reflexivity in Indigenous research: Reframing and decolonizing research? *Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 19*(1), 85–90.

Saïd, E. (1979). *Orientalism*. Vintage.

Smith, G. H. (2003). *Indigenous struggle for the transformation of education and schooling*. Keynote address to the Alaskan Federation of Natives (AFN) Convention, Anchorage, Alaska. https://faculty.washington.edu/pembina/all\_articles/Smith\_G2003.pdf


#### chapter 4

# **Developing Literacy Research in Sápmi**

*Hanna Outakoski*

# **Abstract**

Literacy research is the field of study that is interested in writing and reading, and in all activities, contexts, and ideas that are connected to texts, their production and interpretation. Within this field, several studies have been conducted in Indigenous multilingual contexts, but only a few of such studies mention Indigenous research and its principles. More importantly, explicit Indigenous methodologies are still absent from literacy studies, making it difficult to reflect upon methodological choices. Based on a comparative study of two literacy projects conducted in an Indigenous Sámi context, this chapter suggests that a first step toward the implementation of Indigenous methodologies is an awareness of Indigenous research principles. Awareness of the principles is required before they can be respected and followed, and before new methodologies can be discussed. This chapter suggests that it is also possible to consciously move towards methodologies that align with Indigenous research principles in literacy studies. In the best case, careful consideration of methodologies and guiding principles can lead to an understanding of the literacy landscape from unique perspectives that follow from collaboration, inclusion and mutual respect.

### **Keywords**

Indigenous methodologies – Sámi literacy – educational literacy studies

#### **1 Introduction**

This chapter paves the way for new collaborative approaches within educational literacy research, and discusses the methodologies of two literacy research projects conducted in Sápmi,1 the traditional settlement area of the Sámi people in northernmost Europe. The chapter claims that awareness and respect of Indigenous research principles opens a door to understanding the context through inclusion, thus making the insider perspective possible. Such an understanding is crucial in order for researchers to see and recognize local literacies, challenges, and successful approaches to the integration of literacy knowledges. Inclusion entails both the acceptance of the local perspectives in the research agenda, and all collaborations that obligate the researcher to constant introspection so as to assure that the main motivation and motives for the research originate from an appropriate source. I believe that these steps make it possible to explore what Indigenous methodologies and methods might entail within the field of educational literacy research.

Although this chapter takes up the opportunity of positioning Sámi writing and literacy research as an important factor in democratic societal development, the main aim of this chapter is to critically examine and compare the methodological choices of two Sámi projects. This is to see how literacy research can and should be developed in Sápmi, as well as in other Indigenous contexts (see also Chapter 7). A comparative introspective study like this is motivated by the seeming lack of Indigenous methodologies in the literacy field, and by a rising interest in including local literacies in Indigenous literacy research. It is still not clear what the Indigenous methodologies in this field can and should be, but close examination of already conducted projects can certainly highlight a number of areas within methodological choices that have the best potential for positive change.

In the analysis and in my conclusions, I have been especially inspired by Shawn Wilson (2001, 177), who argues that Indigenous methodologies are primarily about relational accountability. In its simplest form it means that the researcher is responsible and accountable for nurturing all relations with the community, including the research topic and other matters. According to Wilson, research methodology is about deciding how to use "your ways of thinking (epistemology) to gain more knowledge about your reality" (2001, 175). For me, finding this thought process has been challenging since explicit Indigenous methodologies are currently absent from literacy studies. It has made it harder to reflect upon whose reality it is that I am exploring. Is it the reality that I interpret through a research process, or is there another way of understanding the reality of the learners and their teachers by changing some aspect of the methodology? This chapter is part of that thought process, although I focus on the implementation of Indigenous Research Principles rather than on explicit methodologies. I believe these principles are the engine behind methodologies that are born and created by the inclusion of the Indigenous community in the research project.

This chapter is inspired by the ideas and questions that arose at the meetings of the international research network for Indigenous research methods in [Nordic] academia in 2017 and 2018, which I attended since the network began. The same network stands behind this book. The main goal of this network 86 Outakoski

has been to bring together Nordic Indigenous and non-Indigenous researchers from the disciplines of arts, humanities, and social studies. The members of the network set out to examine collectively how the different disciplines approach Indigenous issues, and how Indigenous research methodologies and ethics can become a part of Nordic academia in Europe.

For me, joining the network has been an eye-opening experience. It has become very clear to me that my field, educational literacy studies, has until now offered very little room for Indigenous research principles and methodologies, although many studies have been conducted in minority and Indigenous contexts. More surprisingly, even some of the most prominent researchers within Indigenous studies and epistemologies have suggested to me that my field is insignificant in terms of implementing Indigenous methodologies. Such conversations have also taken place during the network meetings. The exclusion of literacy studies as a possible site for implementing Indigenous methodologies tells me that for at least some researchers Indigenous methodologies still represent something static, unchangeable and non-applicable outside the study of Indigenous epistemologies. For them, Indigenous methodologies are obviously not an active thought process of the kind Shawn Wilson referred to.

It is a tricky business to chase after traces of Indigenous methodologies or sites where such methodologies could be found within a field of study known not to apply and implement such methodologies. It is especially difficult when literacy, writing and texts are not included in traditional knowledges of the Indigenous people. In Indigenous research literature, writing is often viewed as a part of the research process rather than as an interesting site of Indigenous knowledge itself. Linda Tuhiwai Smith, for example, characterizes writing and literacy as something that "[…] has been used to determine the breaks between the past and the present, the beginning of history and the development of theory" (2012, 30). Smith also states that writing is still intimidating for many Indigenous students, and the way writing has been used in academia has also been a powerful way to silence Indigenous voices (Smith 1999/2012, 30). The experiences of colonial writing blur the development of Indigenous literacies, and the view still seems to exist that literacy, writing, and texts are extraneous to Indigenous contexts, and therefore are separate from Indigenous epistemologies and worldviews. This entails an understanding of texts and literacies as something definable and Western, and local literacies and texts are often excluded from these kinds of definition. In Indigenous contexts in general, writing is seldom seen as a basic human right, a means of self-expression, or a mediator of multiple identities, and is instead seen as an externally imposed educational mechanism that strengthens unequal power relations. The bitter memories of having to learn to read and write in a non-native majority language, the painful loss of the mother tongue, and ideologies that view the heritage language as less valuable than other languages, add to the way Sámi and other Indigenous people view writing in their own language. All these reasons why other researchers might see literacy studies as irrelevant are for me an urgent motivation to study this field. These revelations and experiences have motivated me to write this chapter, and to examine through critical introspection my double roles as a literacy researcher and a member of the Sámi community.

This chapter is organized as follows. The following section discusses the relevance of Indigenous literacy research in an era of linguistic imbalance in modern multilingual societies. It claims that the inclusion of Indigenous literacies in educational programmes as well as in the research agenda supports local societal development. The third section describes briefly some general and some local Sámi perspectives on writing so as to set the scene for the following section, which is a comparison of two Sámi literacy projects. The comparative section asserts that there are research topics and methods that belong to traditional literacy methodology, and that they can be a necessary step on the way towards a holistic understanding of the situation. At the same time, this analytical section also claims that respecting Indigenous research principles in literacy projects can have a significant effect on linguistic and cultural revitalization, and can open up space for the inclusion of local Indigenous methodologies. The final section provides concluding remarks claiming in harmony with much Indigenous research literature that the will and motivation to include Indigenous research principles in literacy studies is the first deliberate step in moving towards what can be characterized as Indigenous research and methodologies.

#### **2 Indigenous Literacies Support Indigenous Societal Development**

One of the many ways in which Indigenous peoples around the world are still affected by colonization and oppression has to do with a lack of opportunities for societal development. Indigenous societal development includes the establishment of a local societal infrastructure that values and promotes the Indigenous culture, the local environment, and the language of the people. The infrastructure then creates work opportunities, and can function as the main engine in linguistic and cultural development. However, current Indigenous societal development faces many obstacles and challenges that are to a great extent dependent on language policies, educational policies, and other state-level decisions on how to control and maintain power over all state affairs, Indigenous affairs included.

In Botswana, for example, the San people are being kept away from the societal development of the rest of Botswana due to the unequal and disadvantageous educational policy that promotes English and larger domestic languages, and excludes local literacies (Ketsitlile et al. 2013). State policies thus push certain groups of people back, while others are promoted. In Hawai'i, the policies that in the past had as their main goal to annihilate all other forms of cultures and languages than English from local linguistic contexts have been removed. However, although language revitalization is a successful process on the larger islands, many native speakers in the most remote areas on the outermost islands are unable to read and write their own mother tongue. In these remote areas, native language has until now played almost no role in education. In these remote contexts, there seems to be a very clear divide between the spoken regional and local language, and written and official English. A positive development on the outermost islands involves the initiation of a new teacher training programme that takes native language, values, and ways of doing as the base for education (Faria et al. 2018). These programmes are important and witness how native Hawaiian has survived in small pockets in places where the state policies were not fully carried out. It is also in these environments that societal revitalization is now gathering strength to support the wider revitalization process. In the Sámi context, although oppressive policies have been actively counteracted and to a certain extent also removed, history is still a daily reminder of injustice. According to Johan Vasara, the welcome speaker at the World Indigenous Research and Education Conference (WIREC) 2018 and the former mayor of the strong Sámi language nest, Guovdageaidnu, written Sámi is almost entirely absent from the daily lives of the municipality workers. This reflects the situation elsewhere in Sápmi, where written Sámi is almost completely invisible in people's everyday lives, although it still seems to survive in academic and educational settings. In Sápmi, linguistic ideologies within the Sámi community have an impact on people's writing choices (Outakoski 2015a). Although officials, teachers, parents, and the learners themselves may value Sámi language and culture, real life practices may still promote the use of other languages in writing and in written communication.

In this chapter, I approach writing research from the Indigenous perspective, acknowledging the struggles that my fellow teachers and researchers experience in other Indigenous contexts. For now, I focus on the situation in Sápmi and, particularly, on two studies that have been carried out among Sámi learners and teachers. The power relations in Sápmi, the educational systems, political decisions, state policies, municipal policies, and all underlying beliefs and perceptions of languages have created a very complex situation in which the Sámi are in an inferior position (Outakoski 2015b). Nevertheless, I suggest that Sámi is no more written or oral than other languages, for it is not the language itself that carries such values as superiority or inferiority. Sámi is like any other language, and it has the potential to be anything or everything that other languages are. I also suggest that it is possible to have a positive effect on societal development and revitalization through research efforts that strengthen Indigenous literacy in the local community. In my view, promoting literacy does not mean cutting oneself off from some other cultural or linguistic domain, or contrasting literacy with oracy or traditional knowledge. Instead, promoting people's literacy in their Indigenous heritage language has an enriching effect on all areas of their linguistic and cultural knowledge.

#### **3 Positioning Writing**

All natural languages with the exception of sign language are primarily oral. It means among other things, and somewhat jokingly, that no humans are ever born with a pen in their hand. It is widely believed and asserted that people are somehow programmed or inclined to receive and look for information about how to code, interpret, and produce oral language. Depending on the theory (nativist, behavioural, or interactionist), the reasons for this inclination towards language learning vary, but all theories acknowledge the special period of early language learning. One could then say that humans are tuned in to receive and produce communicative messages between each other, and that a little child is especially alert in this process.

Establishing an oral language for children is important since children immediately and automatically start coding and interpreting the language they hear (e.g. Kuhl 2004). It is therefore sometimes said that a healthy child cannot consciously unlearn or hinder language acquisition (e.g. Radford 2004, 13). However, a child or an adult can forget parts of the language that are not in use. This is called language attrition or erosion (e.g. Köpke 2007; Ribes & Llanes 2015; Riionheimo 2013). There are different levels of language attrition, or interruptions that depend on many things, mostly on opportunities to use and hear the language. Interruptions in the learning processes are especially disadvantageous for minority or Indigenous pupils, as they risk being deprived of a spectrum of reading and writing strategies that could aid them in meaning- making processes. Therefore, it is crucial for language revitalization that the child has continuous exposure to the threatened language. Oral language knowledge is also very valuable when the child or adult starts to learn to read and write. Oracy and oral language skills are thus important for the development of literacy.

90 Outakoski

Alphabetical writing in its simplest form is the coding of sounds into arbitrary signs and letters that together build larger units and concepts that carry meaning or syntactic functions in the specific cultural and linguistic context they originate from. The child or adult then learns to build even larger units that carry propositions about the world, and that are used for meaning making, just as we do when we speak. Although oral language knowledge guides learners in their efforts to produce writing, it is not a natural process in the same way as first language oral acquisition is. The arbitrariness of the signs, letters and words creates the biggest differences between different languages. Learning the connections between signs and sounds, and how they are used to make meaning takes time. There are further differences between languages that base their writing on alphabets and sounds, as opposed to those that base their writing systems on symbols and combinations of signs. Yet we seem to have a strong tendency to learn the principals of these systems if we are given the necessary learning opportunities.

At the same time as we learn a language, we are building our understanding of the world and our understanding of pragmatics, that is, how to use the language we learn. For any pupil or student, Indigenous or non-Indigenous, natural language acquisition or learning is combined with the fine tuning of motoric skills, training of the memory, understanding the culture in which the language is spoken, and training social and communicative skills. The complexity of both the spoken and the written language increases as children or adult learners advance, receive instruction, test their knowledge, and most importantly, exercise their linguistic knowledge continuously and in a versatile manner.

Earlier research has shown that a number of linguistic strategies can be transferred between languages (Lindgren et al. 2016), and that knowing many languages opens up a spectrum of possibilities to construct complex Indigenous identities (Outakoski 2014). This is good news for all learners, as it means that reading and writing in any language brings advantages. Through reading, people widen their intellectual perspectives and build an ever-expanding lexicon. Through writing, people learn to express their thoughts in a controlled form, and learn to plan and organize their ideas and views. In addition to this, an open and welcoming language community also promotes participation in the local oral culture. The ability to participate in discussions and conversations promotes the use of languages in everyday life, strengthening the feeling of belonging and rootedness among the speakers. The ability to use one's own language, regardless of whether it is identified as the first language or the heritage language, gives people an opportunity to participate in societal development and societal meaning making in all situations in life. Through participation, acts of Indigenous citizenship become an important motor for societal revitalization.

#### **3.1** *Writing in Sápmi*

Sámi literary history goes back to the seventeenth century when the church played an important role in the production of texts in Sámi. Before and during the first half of the twentieth century, in the time of oppressive and assimilative policies, only a few Sámi writers published texts in Sámi. Literature from this time ranged between a few longer books on Sámi traditional livelihoods, short fictional stories, poems, political pamphlets, and educational materials. Some of the rich oral tradition has been restored in writing, but accounts of other local Sámi literacies are scarce. The first positive turn in the Sámi literary field coincided with the birth of the Indigenous movement /in the late 1960s/ in the beginning of the 1970s.

In the most recent report from the Sámi literary field, Johanna Domokos estimates that around 150 active Sámi writers presently produce texts in different Sámi languages and in other languages (Domokos 2018, 14). The professional Sámi writer society is rather small but is still proportional to the number of active Sámi speakers, which is at most around 10,000–30,000 people (see e.g. Outakoski 2015b, 7). Many writers from the 1970s have remained productive over the years, and have regularly experimented with genres and changing readerships. From the beginning of this century, there has been a steady stream of new authors who have entered the Sámi literary scene. It is no longer easy to discern clear themes in Sámi literature, though it can be said that Sámi literature reflects the spirit of the Sámi community, and discusses central domestic, social, popular, and political themes that are present in the Sámi context at different times (Lill Tove Fredriksen, personal communication October 2018).

Of course, literature and artistic written expression are not the only writing that exists in Sápmi. Writing is often present in most occupations in some way. Reporters, journalists, and other media workers often depend on written manuscripts, and need quite advanced writing skills to match the requirements of the genres they work within. There is also a fair amount of academic writing produced in Sámi languages in the last couple of decades, and at least two academic journals that publish in Sámi languages have been established.2 Researchers, teachers, and people who produce teaching materials and academic articles need good writing skills. There are also new arenas created for Sámi literacy in the Internet, where language and visual contents are connected to form strong messages about the society, the political situation, environmental threats, and other urgent issues within the Indigenous community (see, for example, the community pages for the Sámi activist group Suohpanterror3). Community-based language projects in the social media and the Internet have also opened up new arenas for groups of writers and language activists (Outakoski et al. 2018). These new arenas can hopefully create space for local literacies and texts that have not been seen as part of the literary tradition before.

Many service occupations also require at least some writing skills. Municipalities with Sámi residents should, at least in principle, see that the information is also disseminated in Sámi. Although bilingual writers should be at an advantage in these situations, it is often the case that writing in the majority language is enough for occupational purposes, and most Sámi-speaking people do not write in Sámi in their daily lives, either at work or during their free time.

Currently, many Sámi lack formal writing skills in their own language mainly because of the colonising and assimilating goals and policies of the states that have subsumed the Sámi people, their lands, and their culture. Many people also lack writing skills in Sámi since, according to the underlying hegemonic ideology of majority vs. minority languages, literacy in the Indigenous heritage language is not viewed in the same way as it is in the majority language. In this respect, the Sámi share the same oppressive educational history as most Indigenous people around the world. Among Indigenous groups and other minorities, schooling has been a very powerful way to forcibly detach them from their own people's values, epistemologies, language, and culture (Minde 2003; Kuokkanen 2007). Social, economic, and political power has been, and still is, tightly connected to the symbolic function of the dominant language (Mæhlum et al. 2008, 168). The nationalist ideas of an official state language are still in force in the Nordic countries, and most Sámi children still follow an educational trajectory where languages other than Sámi dominate the linguistic landscape of the school (Outakoski 2015a; Linkola 2014; Linkola & Keskitalo 2015).

For the last four or five generations, most Sámi over the age of six have learned to read and write, thus becoming literate. Nevertheless, they may totally lack writing and reading skills in Sámi, which can be either their mother tongue and/or their heritage language. Elderly Sámi have also received some basic literacy training in schools in the Nordic countries, where basic education has been provided at an early age to all citizens. However, the learning process has often been limited to majority languages, and, for the younger generations, also to English and other foreign languages. When a Sámi without any formal education in Sámi language compares his or her writing skills in different languages, it is easy to spot the differences. This is then sometimes mistakenly interpreted as Sámi analphabetism, a common misperception among the Sámi themselves. When learning about schooling in the Nordic countries and about the history of Sámi writing, it is clear that, unlike some other remaining Indigenous peoples, the Sámi are not analphabets, they simply lack the opportunities for extensive writing training in Sámi.

Even if a person has learned to read and write Sámi, the pedagogy and didactics of literacy training are, in most Sámi schools, based on the didactic models designed for majority languages. The main reason for this, I would say, is that the development of Indigenous and Sámi didactics is still only at an early stage, and the current teacher training programmes have not as yet addressed Sámi writing didactics as a separate area in need of development. Endangered Indigenous languages also face the dilemma of having to sort out priorities concerning language revitalization. When a language has nearly been lost, the remaining speakers often feel that it is necessary to recreate the lost generations first, and to concentrate upon the oral language learning in the first part of the revitalization process (Olthuis et al. 2013; see also Chapter 7).

Few academic studies have examined the state of writing in Sápmi, although it is clear that there is a need to strengthen Sámi writing at all societal levels and sectors in order to reach cultural and linguistic development and balance. Most of the earlier research has concentrated on different aspects of Sámi literature, its contents, themes, writers, and other characteristic traits of Sámi artistic writing (e.g. Gaski 1987; Hirvonen 2008; Fredriksen 2015; Ahvenjärvi 2017). There are also linguistic studies of Sámi writing concerning, for example, accuracy (Antonsen 2013; Länsman 2009), and a number of studies concerning language technology, proofing tools, grammar checkers, and other technological writing aids for Sámi languages (e.g. Antonsen 2018; Wiechetek 2018). There are also a number of studies on Sámi education (Huss 2008; Keskitalo et al. 2011, 2012, 2014; Linkola 2014; Belancic et al. 2017), on Sámi teachers (Rahko-Ravantti 2016), and on curricula for Sámi education at different educational levels (Olsen et al. 2017; Belancic & Lindgren 2017). It is very encouraging to see that after the turn of this century the Sámi educational sector has attracted a number of researchers, both Sámi and non-Sámi. Within the studies of writing and literacy in Sámi schools and in the educational sector, however, the studies are still very few and are concentrated in Umeå, Sweden. Many excellent and interesting studies on Indigenous literacy have been carried out internationally, but the main methodologies of literacy studies often belong to the tradition of ethnography, (critical) discourse analysis, literature studies, or experimental studies that use mixed-method approaches. To date, I have not found a literacy study that clearly states that it is primarily guided by Indigenous methodologies and thought processes.

Although this section has diverted us from the methodological focus promised in the beginning of the chapter, this section is necessary for Sámi readers. It is, to my knowledge, the first attempt to summarize the current and the past 94 Outakoski

state of Sámi literacy, especially from an educational point of view. It is also a way to set the scene for the literacy studies that are being or will be conducted in Sápmi. In the following section, I will take a closer look at the methodologies of two literacy projects which I have worked with in Umeå, Sweden. Neither of the two studies have used Indigenous methodologies as their main methodologies. It is therefore not possible to compare or highlight such methodologies in this chapter. However, both studies have had as their main goal to conduct ethical research among Indigenous peoples with the aspiration of having a positive effect on the participating community. The comparison given in the following section is based on application and implementation of a number of Indigenous research principles in the two projects, as it is my strong conviction that an awareness of and respect for such principles is the first step to open up the field for new methodologies.

# **4 Multilingualism, Revitalization and Literacy Development: A Comparative Study**

In the following sections, I first describe the two studies for comparison purposes. I then introduce the framework for guiding principles that I have used in my comparative analysis. Finally, I provide the reader with a comparative analysis of the two projects.

The aim of this comparison is not to assess the organization of the projects, or their results, and methods. Instead, the aim is to see to what extent Indigenous research principles have been respected and followed in educational Sámi literacy research in two specific cases. The term methodology in this chapter includes all choices and phases of the project from applying for funds to fieldwork and dissemination, and the decisions and choices made about methods for data gathering, analysis, and knowledge sharing.

#### **4.1** *The Projects*

The first project was an internationally conducted study on writing and its contexts among young multilingual Sámi learners called Literacy in Sápmi: multilingualism, revitalization and literacy development in the global North. It was a three-year project running between 2012 and 2014. We used a mixedmethod approach both when we gathered and when we analysed the data from Finnish, Norwegian and Swedish Sápmi. The main data consisted of 832 texts written by 149 Sámi learners, 24 semi-structured teacher interviews, and 184 detailed questionnaires from pupils, parents, teachers, and principals. The research team arranged writing sessions at the schools, but did not otherwise participate in the activities, teaching, or lessons. The members of the school community who took part in the study were mainly seen as participants or informants, with very few opportunities to control any phase of the research project, or to access or own the data. The texts and the materials gathered from the schools were not returned to the writers, nor did the schools or the writers have access to the data that they had provided. The visits at each school lasted between three days to one week, making it a cross-sectional study.

All in all, the first project could be characterized as a very typical academic project that included a short visit in the community for the purposes of data gathering, but that otherwise was focused on academic goals and publications. Most of the published articles, book chapters, and other publications were written in English or Swedish, and only one academic paper was written in North Sámi. Although the research team hoped to arrange a dissemination tour to all the schools, the only active reach back to the community was a doctoral thesis (Outakoski 2015b) that was posted to all the participating schools. This thesis was written almost wholly in English, and I was the writer of the thesis. As an Indigenous doctoral student, I was never offered a possibility to write my thesis in my mother tongue, Sámi, but I was expected to write a thesis that was accessible to the English-speaking academic community and non-Sámi members of the thesis committee. The research team did not produce any non-scientific publications in North Sámi that could have been read by the participants, the teachers, pupils' guardians, or the school principals.

A lot could be said about the first project when looked at from the Indigenous perspective, and the research team itself has also written a paper that discusses some of the pros and cons of the first project concerning the Indigenous research agenda (Outakoski et al. 2019). However, I always felt that the study we did was very valuable for the Sámi as well as for academia. It was the first large-scale literacy study among Sámi learners, and it provided the kind of results that are expected in a study that was a blend of positivist and sociocultural perspectives and methodologies. Among other things, the first study provided evidence on how the learners and teachers felt, and what they thought their writing environment looked like, i.e. their meta-pragmatic knowledge of the situation. This, however, could not reveal very much about actual longterm writing practices and discourses that surround learners at schools with Sámi pupils. The knowledge gap left behind by the first project was the main motivation for the second study. Without the insights from the first study, the second study would have lacked motivation and foundation, and it would have been difficult to offer solid arguments for funding.

The second study was a postdoctoral research project that explored how teaching supports writing in a multilingual heritage language context. The *how* perspective of the project allowed for early negotiations and planning together with the community and participating institutions who were important research partners, rather than being merely informants. This was a 27-month study with a research period that spanned from August 2017 until December 2020. The project focused on the writing instruction and writing discourses in Sámi teacher training programmes, and at one primary school, where Sámi was used as the medium of instruction for most of the pupils. The research focus thus shifted from the learners in the first study to the learning environment and to teaching in the second study. The focus of the second study was on the discourses of writing that are present in an educational and Indigenous writing context, and the analysis was based on Ivanič's (2004) framework on language views, contexts, and discourses for writing. Although the project had a number of academic goals connected to the fact that the project was funded with a view to producing academic publications, one of the main aims of the study was to provide the community with models, means, and materials that could be directly used to strengthen writing instruction in teacher training and in schools. For this reason, I worked in the project as a part of the staff at the host institutions, and as a resource teacher in the school. My first task was to observe and to learn, and then to provide practical and theoretical support during the visiting period and after.

One of the ways in which I have changed my thinking process has to do with how I used my time in the project for the good of the community. As an example, one of the first things I did was to design writing workshops for pupils and parents at the school where I stayed for a year. During these workshops, four known Sámi writers visited the school and inspired the children to consider occupations where their Sámi skills are seen as an asset. I wrote an application for external funding for this part of the project, including purchasing computers and paying the visitors a fee. The project received funding from the local state government, and the municipality owned that part of the project. In this way the computers and further purchases, as well as other economic benefits, stay in the community and can be reused in similar motivational projects. It is clear to me that we researchers could do many more similar things for the communities for whom and with whom we conduct our research. For example, we have the skills to write applications for funding that are crucial for community internal development projects. In my case, every part of the project was carefully designed in cooperation with the schools and the municipality, and was directly connected to the phenomena that I am also interested in academically.

Both projects have been conducted in a Swedish academic context, since the research is based in Umeå. The second study on writing discourses was shared with four participating host universities and one municipality in the northernmost part of Sápmi. The host universities for the international postdoc study were The Arctic University of Norway and Sámi Allaskuvla [Sámi University of Applied Sciences] in Norway, and Oulu University, and the University of Lapland in Finland. Both studies were primarily funded by the Swedish Research Council, and the second project was also co-funded by the Umeå School of Education. I was primarily responsible for establishing contacts with the research partners and for the planning and execution of the practical fieldwork in both studies, giving me a ground-eye view of the chosen methodologies. Most of the data collection methods and analysis methods in both projects are best described as traditional Western methods of inquiry. Thus, it is in the area of the actual working and analysis methods that I see a great need for development in the future if the research is to be characterized as Indigenous research.

#### **5 Framework for My Projects' Guiding Principles**

The comparisons presented later in this section are made using a number of leading principles for Indigenous methodologies that have been compiled from sources that the network for Indigenous research methods in academia has used as the basis for discussions and presentations during 2017–2018. The sources for principles thus vary from Indigenous research literature (e.g. Kovach 2009; Kuokkanen 2009; Smith 1999/2012) to principles endorsed by local Indigenous communities around the world.

Since there are a vast number of principles, some very general and others very detailed, I have made a selection of ten principles that reflect the current state of guiding ideas and structures within Indigenous research, as I have perceived them. I have also added an eleventh principle that is commonly discussed in research ethics in academia, namely recognition/honouring. These principles also reflect the discussions that we have had in the network. My intention is not to discard, or in any way disrespect my fellow researchers by making this selection and not a different one. The selection is a carefully thought out way to include academic as well as Indigenous community principles in my analysis that inevitably cannot consider each and every principle that has been formulated for Indigenous research methodologies. I am aware that the subjective selection will inevitably form and restrict my analysis, as would any other selection.

First, I include the four main principles from the First Nations Information Governance Centre that are known as the OCAP principles (First Nations Information Governance Centre 2014, 5):


These four principles highlight the concerns of Indigenous peoples, concerning the organization, execution, dissemination, access, preservation, and sharing of the phases, data and results of research projects that target Indigenous matters, languages, cultures, knowledges, and identity. These perspectives are less easily discarded if the research is done in cooperation with the Indigenous community, and even more preferably, partly or fully by the members of such communities. Ten years before this chapter was written, Rauna Kuokkanen (2009, 143–144) wrote that it was time to concretize the work on research principles concerning research done in Sápmi, and about issues that concern the Sámi people. She suggested, as many other Indigenous researchers have done, that such concretization processes should begin by answering questions on the researcher's role, the goals and purpose of the study, the topics, the relations to the community, whether the knowledge provided by the research partners will be shared, and so on. In the Sámi context, transnational common principles are not yet fully formulated, but several educational institutions are currently working on local principles.

In addition to the Indigenous community principles, I have also chosen six principles for Indigenous research that originate from Indigenous and non-Indigenous academia. These six principles come from a review article by Snow et al. (2016). The principles were developed mainly for the purposes of qualitative and critical research, and are based mainly on the works of Hsia (2006), Lavallée (2009), and Smith (1999/2012). The principles from the Snow et al. (2016) review are:

5. Indigenous identity development, which "involves active renegotiation of one's cultural identity to accommodate understanding how colonization has influenced personal identity of self and others" (p. 362),


The last principle has been added by me, but is well known from research ethics within Western as well as Indigenous research:

11. Recognition/honouring.

Within this principle I include recognition and honouring of the knowledge sources and knowledge processes that take place during, for example, a school literacy project in which the researcher is invited to the school in some specific role.

#### **5.1** *Analysis*

A summary of my analysis is presented in Table 4.1. The white boxes illustrate a positive case where an Indigenous research principle has been used as a guiding principle throughout the study, the light grey boxes indicate successful consideration of the research principles, the darker grey boxes illustrate which principles have been less well implemented, and the darkest boxes exemplify principles that have not been considered or actively implemented at all.

The table shows very effectively where the weaknesses of the two literacy projects lie. The first observation from the analysis results is related to the research perspective. The darkest boxes in both projects are at the top of the table, where community-endorsed OCAP principles are found. Table 4.1 shows that the principles of Control, Access and Possession are those that have been most difficult to implement or to consider in both studies. The progress in this area is marginal, but the design of the second study has created space for active considerations, negotiations, and adjustments that give more control and better access to the community. As research projects, the two studies are never totally free from the requirements, expectations, and demands put on table 4.1 Summary of the analysis of the implementation of 11 guiding principles on two adjacent and related literacy studies in Sápmi. The darker the colour of the box, the less successfully has the principle been considered and implemented in the project. The white boxes indicate that the principle has been actively implemented throughout the study


#### **Project 2**

Ownership of the interviews and all materials produced in the project is shared with the participants.

Control and mutual organization have been built into the project design from the beginning, as the research partners have been able to decide upon these details together with the researcher before the project applied for funding. However, the initiator of the design has been the researcher.

Some of the access is restricted by the order or decision of the local ethical board. The individual participants have access to data concerning themselves (e.g. interview copies), giving them the choice of using the material as they wish. Some of the materials are co-produced with the community so that the community has parallel access to and ownership of the materials and can make future decisions about the use of the produced content without academic intervention. However, some articles and papers will be less accessible as they are in English.

Inclusion of another locally funded project in the research project has made it possible to formulate assertions about possession, control and ownership of information, materials, infrastructure and knowledge that benefijit the community already during the fijield work period.

The project includes continuous negotiations and renegotiations with the partners. Such negotiations also include introspection and reflections on researcher identity. It has been easier to consider this aspect of the research as the study has had the cooperation of the Indigenous community and Indigenous educational institutions.

This project can be identifijied as a blended approach to research that tries to fijind a way to include Indigenous values even when it is difffijicult, or when it contradicts the academic restrictions placed on the project. There is a strong preference for Indigenous research goals that bring benefijits to the research partners. Some academic goals such as producing international papers in English are also included as a natural part of the academic project.

This has been the main guiding principle for the project even before applying for funds. The project started by establishing a common goal and a shared research plan with the research partners. Long-term relationships have been established, and they are being nurtured by continuous and respectful contact with the partners.

The inclusion of critical immersion has been the second most important guiding principle in the second project. However, as a researcher of Indigenous peoples, I would not want to call my involvement in the activities reexperiencing the culture. I would rather want to focus on being aware of the cultural context, and also trying to locate the potential distortions that my position as academic researcher might introduce into the situation.

A determination to conduct ethical research, although there are new challenges when the researcher is included in the community and in that way becomes part of the research itself. The goal of the research is to fijind ways to empower the community as a collective as well as its members as individuals. However, it is not possible to let the partners engage in all aspects of the research, without risking the reliability and validity of the study.

The research plan was written in such a way that the data collection, analysis and dissemination methods could be recognized by the funders and the ethical board. At the same time, the methods were flexible enough for the researcher to be able to adapt them according to a number of Indigenous research principles.

Both projects have acknowledged the sources of knowledge, and expressed respect and gratitude toward all the participants in the projects. However, the local ethical board in Sweden does not recognize or approve of the ways in which Indigenous communities honour the sources of knowledge, thus creating restrictions for the implementation of this principle. This information about the restrictions has been shared prior to the study with all participants, making them aware of the situation.

them by the funders and the academic community. These requirements seem to have an impact especially on the research plan, design and forms of data collection that are expected to be 'scientifically' controlled. In the first study, those academic expectations and their fulfilment were prioritized:

Looking back and reflecting upon our research questions and our initial design it was apparent that these originated from an academic interest in phenomena observed in society generally, and that the methodology of the study is informed by the Western epistemological traditions/ perspectives. The research questions were devised and formulated by us, the research team, without discussion with the community of North Sámi speakers and learners, or the wider North Sámi Indigenous community. (Outakoski et al. 2019, 168–169)

In the second study, the reflections from the first study have led to a change in attitude and perspective, and to a will to give the research partners better control of and access to at least the data that concerns them as individuals or as a collective in the form of a team of teachers. However, the second study also fails to receive its initial design and research goals from the community, although members of the Sámi teacher community have been involved in the design.

Another dilemma that is attested in the analysis concerns the dissemination and production of materials, academic papers, book chapters, articles and other materials that come out of these projects. In order to reach other Indigenous communities around the world, the medium of information cannot be solely North Sámi. In order to satisfy the academic community as well as the funders, the study must be disseminated in a scientifically accepted and validated manner so that it reaches a wide public. But in order for the community to gain benefits from participation in the study, the information should be given in the local languages, and in a form that is readable and understandable without previous academic training in the field. Neither of the two literacy projects considered here has received separate funding for translation that would allow for production of the materials in local languages as well as in English and Swedish. It is obvious that the two projects have failed to consider all the three potential publics in their designs, although the second project still has a chance to make ideological and practical decisions about the medium, language, and form of the research products.

The third result of the analysis concerns time frames and relations. Both of the projects considered here are rather traditional as far as the basic time frames and design are concerned, and have thus been limited by predefined phases of initial funding application, data gathering period, data analysis, and final dissemination. Both projects were also limited in time: the first project lasted for three years and the second project lasted for 2 years and 3 months. For myself as a Sámi researcher, a time frame of this sort means that there are no guarantees that the relations that are built up will, or can, be nurtured in the long run, other than perhaps as personal friendships. Non-Indigenous researchers, who enter into the community as outsiders, will often face more extensive difficulties.

For Indigenous research, and especially for literacy research that seeks to develop Indigenous literacy, these time frames are too narrow since there are no guarantees that projects have follow-ups, although researchers frequently seek continued funding for such activities. Also, the way funding and its time frames work, it is a challenge to include the community in the pre-application phase, especially if a working relationship has not yet been established. It is more usual that the community is only contacted after the project has received funding, and at that point the research design might be unchangeable and already rigidified. In our projects this was the case with the first project. The timeframes and the design of the project were focused on getting textual data from multilingual writers, and the relations with the schools and school staff, the writers, and the guardians were not considered a primary concern at any point of the project. The schools were merely given a chance to participate in a writing study, with no primary ambition to build relations that would lead to continued cooperation. In a project like this, it is easy to see why the other seven principles might not also be implemented successfully, or rather, why implementing these principles was not seen as an important goal of the project. In the first project, the implementation of Indigenous research principles was mainly restricted to the first and second phase of the project. In the first phase, for example, the writing tasks were adjusted to better reflect the Sámi context, and all contact materials and questionnaires were translated into Sámi and other local languages. In the fieldwork phase, the schools could suggest times and classrooms for data collection, and the interviews were carried out in the language preferred by the participants. Also ethical considerations, such as informed consent and a chance to leave the study at any point, were carefully integrated into the design. The community and relations with the community were not considered in the two remaining phases of the project, although a doctoral thesis was sent to the schools at the end of the project. Apart from the linguistic and contextual adjustments, and the careful ethical considerations, the first study resembled a literacy study that could have been conducted in any educational environment.

104 Outakoski

In the second project, the principles of Reflexivity and Power Sharing (7) and Critical Immersion (8) were chosen as guiding principles before the study applied for funding. This meant, for example, that relations with the potential research partners were established in advance of the application process. Most of the relations were established well in advance, and the community of research partners was gathered together to discuss what role they would want me, the main researcher, to take and what role they themselves would want to play in the mutual project. Also, the school, the principal, and school district leader were contacted well in advance before the application process. I as a member of the Sámi community had an advantage of knowing most of the school staff and my Sámi colleagues at the host universities before starting the project. Another advantage was my linguistic knowledge, since I could communicate in any of the five languages that my partners in the project spoke.

An initial design for the study was presented to the research partners, and they then had the chance to change and adjust it before the application. Most of the partners did not propose any changes, which suggests that the Sámi teacher community still sees research as something that comes from outside, and that is in a way static. It may also have been the case that the partners did not feel a need to change the design since the open *how* questions created space for flexibility, change of perspective, Indigenous ways of knowing and doing, and for mutual concrete benefits. From that moment on, the research partners, the community of Sámi teachers in higher education and in one primary school, played an active role in forming the project. I also found a way to prepare the school community for independent development projects after the research period was over by carefully documenting the action research part of the project. I have also made sure that the school and the municipality gain control of the infrastructure needed for future writing projects by applying for funds that stay within the municipality and that pay for the computers and other materials that are needed for replication of the writing project in the future. In this way the competence that the teachers gain through the project stays in the local learning environment, and can be used in multiple ways to develop Sámi literacy, even if there is no continuation of the project after the second project ends.

The eleventh principle of Recognition and Honouring is difficult to follow and fully implement in current research. This is mainly due to the fact that Indigenous research projects, at least in Sweden, are still being evaluated and assessed by ethical boards that have no Indigenous representatives or any experience in carrying out Indigenous research. In Umeå, the local ethical board that evaluated both of the discussed projects, is experienced in evaluating large quantitative medical studies, and uses the same principles in evaluating Indigenous research projects within the humanities and arts. It does not acknowledge individual or collective knowledge sources, which has led to a situation where all research participants and partners must remain anonymous. This contradicts the principles of Indigenous research ethics that merely see the researcher as a vessel for mediating the knowledge that originates from the community, and that reserves the ownership of the knowledge to its sources. It is clear that this aspect of research among Indigenous peoples has not developed in the direction it should in the Nordic countries, and much remains to be done in order to reach full implementation of the eleventh principle. The second project explored new ways to recognize knowledge sources, such as co-authoring papers and other materials. None of the projects is, however, anywhere near the satisfactory implementation of the last principle.

Although there are many areas that can be improved, the analysis shows that it is possible to shift from purely Western traditional research methodology toward a research methodology that also acknowledges, respects, and follows Indigenous research principles within literacy studies. There are still a number of challenges in finding appropriate methodologies for Indigenous literacy research, but there are a number of pioneers who are paving the way. Multiple research methodologies can also exist simultaneously, but for all literacy research carried out in Indigenous contexts, it is important to be aware of the choices one makes as a researcher. In Umeå, after our first Sámi literacy project, several new projects were initiated, and all of them show a new kind of awareness of Indigenous research principles.

#### **5.2** *A Personal Note on the Analysis*

For me as a researcher it is somewhat disturbing not to know exactly where my project is headed epistemologically, since I only have previous experience from traditional Western studies within literacy and syntax. In the first study I was doctoral student, and a part of a team where much more experienced researchers were directing matters, relieving me from some of the academic, moral, and practical burdens of a large research project. But even if it was, and still is, daunting to step out there, I did not hesitate to take up the opportunity to design a new study. It was a great opportunity to learn more about how literacy research can be designed and formed using Indigenous research principles as a guiding light. It has been of value to sort out my own priorities, in life as well as in academia.

It is clear to me that literacy studies should always make space for methodologies that feed back into the community, which is one of the leading principles of Indigenous research. I also claim that conscious implementation of Indigenous research principles in literacy studies conducted in Sápmi encourages local societal and community development. Such development can, in the best scenario, have long-lasting positive effects on the revitalization of a threatened language and its mother culture. Thirdly, I suggest that not all research that benefits Indigenous peoples can be guided by all the principles that characterize Indigenous research. An example of this is the choice of research topic which, according to Indigenous research principles, should be chosen in consultation and cooperation with the community, or, if possible, the topics should originate from the community itself. This, however, can be difficult if the community is, for example, (mis)guided by hegemonic ideologies that exclude certain research topics in the first place (see more on the Sámi and hegemony in e.g. Kuokkanen 2007, 149–150). Thus, for example, if the community sees no value in writing in their heritage language, then for a literacy researcher it could mean that any research topics having to do with writing would be hard to approach when negotiating research ideas and specific questions with the community. Another problem could be that the researcher could be asked to study totally different aspects of education or local context than the areas in which she has research competence. Perhaps this is not so much of a problem for the community as it is for the researcher and the narrow research field she might represent. Nevertheless, in such a case, it might sometimes be better to approach the community with a flexible research plan or idea, and to openly negotiate the possible topics, execution of the project, and the goals of the project, rather than the individual research questions that could still be of detailed academic character. Inclusion of community members in the research team might also ensure that the important community internal questions and perspectives are not discarded. In my case, I had the advantage of belonging to the community, and of being able to adjust and fine-tune the project along the way as I gained more knowledge and insights about the local context.

There are new questions that have surfaced as a result of my engagement in the two projects, and after having written this chapter. For one, I firmly believe that in the future we need parallel discussions with the communities and with researchers who aim at doing Indigenous research, so that both sides become better aware of their potentially changed roles in the research. Second, I still do not know what Indigenous methods of data gathering and analysis might be most appropriate in the field of literacy studies. However, I am willing to experiment, and I believe that I have already seen examples of methods that I have not considered before. I am becoming aware of a silent mentorship that was created between myself and the teachers who I accompanied. Together we were talking about Sámi literacy, and in which ways it might differ from mainstream literacies. I was also listening to my pupils. Their language is not trapped on the pages of their school books, and their literacies come from different sources than mine. I am, moreover, actively learning more about these sources. Third, although research in Indigenous contexts should always have the goal of giving back to the community, the community might be in need of something else than just research. I have come to the conclusion that it is the responsibility of the researcher to seek out such needs, and, already in the planning phase of the project, to examine whether it is possible to include community development in the project. Such considerations make it easier to respect and follow Indigenous research principles.

There are also a huge number of moral and ethical challenges, questions, and dilemmas that I have only just started to process. One important thing that I somehow feel a need to explain is that the way I have conducted my research has not been a strategy to make the community feel indebted to me, but is instead a way to show goodwill and caring without selfish motives. In return, the teachers and the school staff have included me in their community without suspicion or doubt. Inclusion has not come without an effort on both sides, and I am forever thankful for the contributions that my research partners have made to the project. Our project builds upon mutual trust; it requires engagement, flexibility, knowledge of the local language and culture, and the desire and opportunity to nurture long-lasting relations. Through such inclusion I have gained invaluable and unique insights into Sámi literacy instruction, Sámi educational writing contexts, and myself as an Indigenous Sámi researcher. Without inclusion and all the phases that have led there, my insights would not have been so rich, complex, and multifaceted. Having said that, the same inclusion places me under a great amount of pressure. I know that I need to be a good researcher, a good friend, an ally, a guide, and an observer, all at the same time. No matter what methodologies we follow, the hardest thing to do is to accommodate all those roles in one.

#### **6 Summary**

After having spent over two years as a guest at Sámi higher education institutions and at one Sámi primary school, I have started to question my own role as a researcher in the development of Sámi education in practice. It has become very clear to me that Sámi teachers, pupils, and parents do not directly benefit from the literacy research that is done in the Nordic universities, since such research often only adds to the knowledge bank of the academic community without any direct benefits to the Indigenous community. More is needed of researchers and their chosen methodologies. If the methodologies result in the research being inaccessible to the communities, not duly respecting the 108 Outakoski

sources of knowledge, and having no long-term real life impacts or having little practical effects on the literacy development of the people, then it cannot be categorized as Indigenous research.

Any research methodology that involves interactions with individuals and communities should include some sort of platform where the interests of the research field could be connected to the ideological and practical reality of the research participants and partners. Thus, bringing in new methodologies in literacy studies does not have to mean changing everything in the field. Instead, implementation of Indigenous methodologies in addition to Western methodologies can make the entire field witness and understand the effects of methodological choices for the local communities, whether they are Indigenous or not. Further, the inclusion of Indigenous ethics and methodologies in literacy studies can be an effective way to support societal development in Indigenous contexts. This is especially true if the research design includes activities or measures that provide direct benefits to the community already during the fieldwork period.

I have approached my field and its methodologies by looking at how two projects manage to acknowledge and respect eleven Indigenous research principles. If the most basic principles are not being considered, then it is very difficult to see how new methodologies can guide the field. I have found that perhaps the greatest challenge lies in opening up space for the communities' internal principles in research, whatever they may be in each context. This being said, it is also very clear to me that not all literacy research that is carried out among the Sámi should or can be categorized as Indigenous research. For example, without the first project presented in this chapter, a project which derives from the Western academic tradition, the second collaborative project would not have been possible or motivated. Moreover, the lessons learned from the second project will clearly be useful when arranging future cooperation in the field of literacy research.

The process of critical introspection has made it much clearer to me that respect for Indigenous research principles is only the first necessary step toward holistic Indigenous methodologies within literacy studies. A vision for such future research then includes a will and motivation to include and follow as many of the Indigenous research principles as is possible, thus deliberately moving towards what can be characterized as Indigenous research. While writing this chapter, I have also realized that I am already in a new thought process. It is the sort of process that Shawn Wilson (2001) was describing. My thoughts now focus on relations, listening, and accountability rather than doing research and finding answers. From here on I need a great deal more sensitive tuning so that the initiated thought process can form and inform my future research.

#### **Acknowledgements**

I wish to thank and honour my colleagues and supervisors who worked with me in the first project, Literacy in Sápmi. The project was led by Professor Kirk Sullivan, and the research team also included Professor Eva Lindgren and Professor Asbjørg Westum. Most of the articles that have been produced in the first project are co-written by the research group. I also wish to thank my main supervisor Professor Mikael Vinka. The Swedish Research Council is the main funder of both projects *Literacy in Sápmi* (project 2011-6153, contract B0615301) and *How does teaching support writing in a multilingual heritage language context?* (International Post Doc 2017-00474). The Umeå School of Education co-finances the second project. I want to thank both of the funders without whom these projects would not have been possible. I am also grateful for the encouraging comments from the two anonymous reviewers of this chapter. Most importantly, I want to thank and honour all of my research partners in both projects, without the approval and participation of the community there would not have been any research. Giitu!

#### **Notes**


#### **References**


# **Decolonized Research-Storying: Bringing Indigenous Ontologies and Care into the Practices of Research Writing**

*Hanna Guttorm, Lea Kantonen, Britt Kramvig and Aili Pyhälä*

# **Abstract**

In this chapter we want to bring Indigenous ontologies and ways of knowing into the practices of decolonized research-storying. One implication about that is bringing Eana, Earth in North Sámi, as a narrator into the text. This text is a collaborative endeavour, where we write about and with our encountering and living with/in Indigenous societies and ontologies. Care becomes present both in creating space for Indigenous ontologies in research-storying and in sharing and inviting other researchers to share their stories of friction in order to make the ontological change more likely to happen.

# **Keywords**

research-storying – decolonizing academia – Indigenous ontologies – non-human – care

…

Our new storytellers have a big job. They must understand their sacred place and they must also understand the new language and use it to express their stories without losing the thoughts and images that are culturally unique to them. This new storyteller must also be a translator of the old way, so that it will not be lost to a new generation. And all of this must be done on paper, for that is the new way[i].

∵

Maria Campbell, Cree Métis (1985)

© Hanna Guttorm, Lea Kantonen, Britt Kramvig and Aili Pyhälä, 2021 doi: 10.1163/9789004463097\_006 This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the CC BY 4.0 License.

114 Guttorm ET al.

#### **1 Introduction: Writing with Eana**

Solveig Joks, Liv Østmo (both Sámi) and John Law (2020, 316) end their article on verbing the Sámi concept *meahcci* with Nils-Aslak Valkeapää's words:

'I have no beginning, no end, and there is also no beginning, no end in the work I do' (Helander & Kailo 1998, 87). Quite so. In this way of thinking we are where we are, we do what we can do, we attend to it, and we try to care for it. No beginning, no end.

That's how we think too. This chapter is not a final end product of a collaborative endeavour but is more written on the path of searching other ways to write and of pondering over questions on how to make Indigenous ontologies present in research writing and whether there is space for that in academia. And how frustrated we sometimes become with academic writing standards. With those questions we write. The question about how to be truthful to the Indigenous ontologies (as we have learned to know them) also in the writing itself comes back time and again. Is it possible at all? To change the academic writing implies addressing what can be regarded as an academic text: to hear the Earth, to feel the Moon, to think like the forest, and to write with these ontologically different epistemologies, where do the non-words1 get translated into words in our writing process? To feel the gratitude, to struggle with the academic writing practices? 'We do what we can do, we attend to it, and we try to care for it'. Yes, there we still are, there in the middle of that path. There we, four academics, entangled in different ways with Indigenous studies and ontologies, write again and again. While doing so we are happy to follow e.g. Shawn Wilson (2009), who writes evocatively with and about multiple relationalities, and Robin Wall Kimmerer (2020), who listens to and writes with plants, while connecting their knowledge with scientific and Indigenous knowledge. Our questions in this chapter move freely from academic writing to sacredness and reciprocity, as well as connectedness with the Moon.

### **1.1** *Inviting Eana to Become the Narrator in Our Text*

While wanting to put Indigenous ontologies of understanding non-humans as actors, care-takers, and life-givers to work both in our thinking and writing practices, we undertake this writing as a joint process involving four storytellers: two Indigenous and two non-Indigenous academics, who met through the network of Nordic Indigenous methodologies. In addition, we invite *Eana*, the Earth in North Sámi, as the narrator in the text: We bring Eana into the text, both to honour her importance as the creator of the world and to trust her being here for guiding and participating in our sharing of experiences.

Many Indigenous teachers (see e.g. Valkeapää 2001) tell us that Earth comforts us in the moments of sorrow and mourning and advises us when we are faced with difficult decisions. In Wixárika communities, on the Western Sierra Madre Mountains in Mexico, where Lea has collaborated for years, the deified ancestors are present in everyday life and they comfort humans in the moments of sorrow, and they advise people in making decisions. People ask for their opinion when they need to make an important decision in their lives, for example the choice of a career. They can read, listen to music and see videos, so people sometimes leave letters and virtual files for them in sacred places (Hirvonen-Nurmi et al. 2018). In this chapter we think that Eana sees and follows what we (the authors of this chapter, but also other Earth beings) do and that's why she is able to narrate what happens.

In North Sámi, Eana refers to the land, the planet, the globe and even the soil. Eana is also closely connected with the Sámi word for mother, Eadni. In Indigenous languages, she has many names, including Tatei Yurianaka – a deified ancestor associated with the Earth and subterranean waters amongst the Wixaritari; or, as the Kogui call her, Jaba Sénenulang, the essence or energy from which the entire world was created. In this piece, we refer to her as Eana, in order for her to be present as a locally embedded, understood and worded figure, as it is here in Sápmi where we write this. We four academic scholars imagine what Eana could be 'thinking' or 'speaking', recognizing (and reminding the reader) that these notions of thinking and speaking are highly anthropocentric in themselves.

All four authors here are differently and partially connected to Indigenous spaces/places and their ontologies. These positions help us to understand Earth as our ancestor: created before us, giving us all we need, being our common ground and always there, seeing everything, loving and caring. And like many Indigenous writers and thinkers, we can see ourselves in other entities (see e.g. Kealiikanakaoleohaililani & Giardina 2016), as now in Eana, part of her. Eana knows, sees, listens, tastes, even reads theory, and as our collaborator, makes space to think how she would respond to all of this. Thus, we have asked her to be a narrator with us, not as if we were putting words into her mouth, but as we love her and feel her power in us and with us during the process of thinking and writing. We feel her support and imagine (that is, write ourselves) her loving and caring words.

#### **1.2** *Eana Reaching out a Hand; An Invitation to the Reader (19 June 2018)*

Eana, or, the narrator: You, who write and/or read this, are all earthlings, Earth beings, people living on me – connected in ways that are partly unknown even to you. Not only humans are earthlings; even texts need to be considered as contributing to the makings of world practices. We also know that readers read their own locally and culturally embedded stories into a text. A text is given to others to explore, to inspire other stories, and for you, the reader, to become a skilled storyteller in worlding practices of your own.

We are many storytellers here, these four women and me. We are a multitude. All the millions of microbiotas that inhabit their bodies together with all the voices that whisper in their ears and that write in and through them: their ancestors, their teachers, their contemporaries.

They have some work to do. They have stories to tell and stories to share, but they want to be cautious. They want to write carefully. They know they have to breathe and linger. They know they need to take their time, and to listen to their abilities to respond to the assemblage of texts and lives. These cannot be rushed or forced. They reach out their hands to the reader and they invite the reader in. They are thinking and writing of what it means to do research, to write in the world, to walk on my skin, my surface, to encounter each other and the more-than-human in and around us. They do not yet know where this is going to take them – let alone you, the reader.

Dear reader, do you follow? Will you hold on to my hand? I will take you to different places. I will offer you the chance to meet specific stories and their people in order to elaborate on these claims. I promise that I will mobilize the care I have always had, and which is enacted in responsible Indigenous research practices in order to keep you as safe as I possibly can.

#### **2 Responding to the Indigenous Ways of knowing**

Marisol de la Cadena (2015), who writes about the Andean peoples, is amongst those (others being, for instance, Blaser 2009; Kramvig & Flemmen 2018; Verran 2013) who suggest that 'culture' is an insufficient notion to understand current Indigenous claims of recognition. Indigenous movements and scholars often propose that we should write about knowledge practices, ontologies, instead of 'culture'. These practices and ontologies conjure non-humans as actors even in the political arena (de la Cadena 2010, 334). For example, the Wixaritari (sing. Wixárika) people include divine ancestors in their decision-making structures and practices (Kantonen & Kantonen 2017; Liffman 2011, 10).

Indigenous research methodologies are, in addition to many social and political concerns, concerned with avoiding redoing or re-evoking colonial memories of scientific ignorance, while responding to the need for stories that reflect Indigenous knowledge and ways to represent it (Chilisa 2012; Kovach 2009; Kuokkanen 2010; Smith 1999/2012; Speed 2015). The notion of scientific ignorance reminds us that we still need to (re)consider how we engage with Indigenous communities and how we can improve our own thinking about how Indigenous ways of knowing can be respected and cared for by scholars. We, the authors of this chapter, are inspired by engaging in decolonized research-storying, with which we mean recognizing and bringing into the centre the Indigenous ontologies which have been colonized as well during the long period of colonizing the lands and the ways of life. It is a wish to experiment with more inclusive ways of research writing whilst engaging with Indigenous ontologies and methodologies and pondering with and about the possibilities of writing at the academy. In that sense this can also be seen as a soft resistance and rebellion against academically rigid conventional ways of thinking and writing, with which we struggle. In academia, we are often forced to write in a certain language, style and format. We may ourselves be used to certain ways of representing knowledge or arguments, but if we take both Indigenous storytelling practices and non-human entities seriously in academic writing, we can also help to undo the injustices of intellectual colonialism. Indigenous storytelling does not always go directly to the point, nor does the main message in decolonized research-storying need to be revealed outright.2 Similarly, in this chapter, and as the starting quote suggests, we try to interweave the Indigenous way with the (Western) academic way and make the latter more open to the different themes and writing styles – connected to different ontologies – that arise.

Decolonized research-storying means for us truly making space for Indigenous ontologies, epistemologies and values while taking care of the vulnerability of those who are still not getting due recognition by mainstream societies. Even though the different ontologies and epistemologies of Indigenous peoples are often represented in academic texts and research reports, the way of knowing, coming to know and disseminating the knowledge may still get lost in the normalized formats and criteria of academia. We see that this loss keeps Indigenous ontologies vulnerable, as they never become accepted as such, but only through academic 'polishing' and conceptualizing. So, in this joint piece, not only do we discuss methods and methodologies, but we do so whilst living with and through Indigenous ontologies, values and practices, which are also becoming ours. By 'ours' we mean that we have needed much time and energy to struggle with theoretical concepts, methodological tools and our colonized minds embodied deep in us in order to be able to engage with, learn from and find the courage within ourselves to give space to indigenous ontologies and to write with and through them. For us, e.g. the Moon and the Earth are real entities. They act in and affect our lives in multiple ways. Indigenous ontologies have changed our ways of seeing and understanding the world and life itself, thus also our academic lives and ways of writing. Here we lean on Rauna Kuokkanen (2006):

[N]ot a mere 'translation' of indigenous epistemologies into the language of Western theories, but it requires that we take seriously understandings and theorizing of the world by indigenous societies which may not necessarily be articulated in ways or forms that are conventionally considered as 'theory' of 'philosophy'. (253)

Here we could also add the word and practice of 'methodology'. Also, according to Campbell (1985), the new generations of writers must learn how to move in-between languages and cultures, and use 'the new language' to negotiate other codes that can carry the sacredness of Indigenous stories.

We truly think that the complicated nature and subsequent challenges of the encounters between Indigenous societies and academia need to be taken more seriously. We regard revisiting ontologies of the specific world of the people, land and practices also helpful in order to formulate the claim of selfdetermination better (see e.g. Smith 1999/2012). Rethinking what an academic text is and can be is part of indigenizing the academy. Doing that though has not been at all easy and smooth, but on the way we have met different tensions, which we also write about.

Care, then, becomes present, and makes us careful with what and how we (can) write. How do we care for the different ontologies and how does our writing change when those ontologies become true and real for us? If and when a researcher who wrote with Christian ontology, on or with God, would not be seen as a serious academic, how does it then become possible to write with an ontology and world, where Earth, Moon and Sun become acting and powerful entities – as they actually always already were – and life-giving and lifeenabling elements? Can a serious academic retain credibility if deciding to see these as actors, and even care for them? Even hear them speak?

For Joan Tronto (1993) care includes everything that we do to maintain, continue and repair "our world" so that we can live in it as well as possible. "The world includes our bodies, ourselves, and our environments; all of which we seek to interweave in a complex, life-sustaining we" (Tronto 1993, 103). Care can therefore be connected to the engagement with Indigenous worlds and it emerges already early on in the process of research. Puig de la Bellacasa (2017) contests the view that care is something only humans do and argues for extending the consideration of agencies and communities that compose the living web of care also to non-humans. This extension can start simply by considering how care circulates in the natural world. Aryn Martin, Natasha Myers, and Ana Viseu (2015) conclude that care is multifaceted and contextual, and they suggest a set of different political commitments, ethics and forms of intervention. Hence "there can be no singular vision of what care is or what it might become" (Martin et al. 2015, 634).

This gift of interconnectedness urges academics to address what Donna Haraway (2016) calls the response-ability needed in living on a damaged planet. Haraway tells us that projects that enact multiple worldings3 are projects committed to "becoming involved in one another's lives" (Haraway 2016, 71). The undeniable interconnectivity in which we are embedded calls for other kinds of stories that also include the voices of non-humans, here thus also Earth, Eana. Often, there is not much space left for non-human entities in the language-based scientific texts, even though their existence were described or analysed.

Isabelle Stengers (2005) writes about the ecology of practices, encouraging us to be diplomatic in our collaborations and to recognize our diverging attachments and belongings. When we come together, we always come from somewhere and we need to be able to bring something back to the communities that we belong to and go back to. Everybody brings back a slightly different story than the others (Stengers 2005).

We authors – the four of us – each come from different intellectual backgrounds: arts, education, environmental sciences, development studies, and science and technology studies, all within which we have addressed Indigenous issues and methodologies in and through our own research. Each one of us is also differently and partially connected to Indigenous spaces/places and their ontologies. We have long been interested in research methods that challenge the traditional4 Western scientific method, as well as ways of knowing and representing. We see that different, including Western, theories and methodologies challenging dichotomic understandings, can be seen as further strengthening of Indigenous ontologies and methodologies, emphasizing the locally embedded stories, materially and discursively entangled practices, and different categorizations (even non-categorization, but rather seeing the relational and interconnected nature) of values. Kuokkanen (2009, 39–42) also refers to Derrida's conceptual practice of deconstruction, as well as postmodernist and feminist critiques when stating that "[b]ringing Indigenous ontologies, epistemologies, philosophies and ways of thinking into the academic world and research does not mean abandoning all the Western, European or mainstream theories or analytical models" (Kuokkanen 2009, 38–39, translation by HG). Similarly, she also states that Indigenous ontologies, epistemologies and ways of thinking should not only "get applied into Western theories or categorized through Western categories. That kind of application only breaks the holisticness and structure of Indigenous methodologies (Kuokkanen 2009, 38, translation by HG). Thus, we see Indigenous ontologies and Western critical theories working well together in challenging traditional Western5 power/knowledge systems as well as institutional and disciplinary habits.

Indigenous methodologies (e.g. Battiste 2017; Kuokkanen 2010; Porsanger 2004; Bishop 1996; Seurujärvi-Kari 2012; Smith 1999/2012) have the potential to enrich all our disciplinary fields (and even entire university programmes and curricula) in a multitude of ways, allowing for an expansion and inclusion into academia of other worldviews, wordings, and ways of knowing differently. We think that some of the scientific practices can be both undone and/or done differently. This, in turn, requires creating new and alternative spaces to the knowing and writing practices.

#### **2.1** *The Slippery Way of Decolonizing Writing in Practice*

The challenge lies in embarking on a practice of recognition of the reality that incorporates the multiple Indigenous practices – and the ontologies they come with – as the starting point. In order to write, the realness of the world of the writer – and those worlds that the writer tries to write into being – rests on the support of certain concepts and theories that support the possibility for otherness to become present. This can accomplish a struggle with words, authorities, structures, norms, and regulations – a need to attend to the working of the language and the need to tell new stories. We use words to tell stories, but they do not always succeed in depicting that which we yearn to say. In many cases this requires translation between different vocabularies and languages, which are not directly translatable, as they include the different knowledge systems. Yet, to make ourselves understood, we also need to recognize the world as messy and vague (Law 2006) and thus search for ways in which the multiplicities can be made present. Writing as a decolonizing practice can thus become messy and slippery.

Helen Verran (2018, 8) has commented upon the respect for and struggle with translation in the following way:

I recognize that such respect comes of struggle, with and through words, to partially inhabit the particular worlds that others' languages help to conjure up as 'experienced here-and-nows'. The subtleties of others' experienced worlds remain elusive when one trips over word.

We need to slow down in order to recognize that the worlds of others are by no means easily translated by the academic scholar, Indigenous or not (see also Guttorm 2014; Kantonen & Kantonen 2019). Verran (2013, 2018) argues that we need to attend to moments of epistemic disconcertment in order to avoid inflicting epistemic harm through epistemic ignorance. Similarly, Kuokkanen (2010) argues that academics have too often neglected Indigenous epistemic practices and should start attending to 'doing their homework'.

Texts like the one we are co-writing here can thus be regarded as homework for readers, as it involves puzzling about the particularities and peculiarities of epistemic practices that bring forth relevant historical, cultural, political, social, or even linguistic structures and meanings. This homework takes us to places where we can continue asking questions about epistemic injustice (Santos 2007) concerning ontologies and offer the reader the opportunity to imagine possibilities for decolonizing research and writing. Russell Bishop (1996, cited in Porsanger 2004) emphasizes that this relationship between the reader and the writer must be interconnected and reciprocal, as in "a family". We see this applicable also to the style of writing academic texts. A decolonized and decolonizing writing practice can cross the borders between different writing and representational styles and categories, like e.g. storytelling and academic writing (see also Chapter 2). In other words, by starting to incorporate different formats, such as storytelling, into scientific practice, we challenge academics and academic institutions to open up to and accept new modalities of knowledge and dissemination.

#### **3 Storying, Sharing and Thinking Together**

#### **3.1** *How to Read Further*

Here below we offer you stories of friction (Tsing 2005). Friction, as Anna Tsing defines it, is the collaboration between disparate partners that underpin endeavours. Friction opens the different ontologies to become visible, as well as a demand for them to be recognized. Friction draws attention to the formation of new cultural and political configurations that change, rather than repeat, old contests. Verran (2013) highlights that friction can be experienced as an embodied discomfort, and that we should stay with this discomfort as this can expand our ways of knowing the world (and ourselves). This is our analytical approach. We do not consider there to be different perspectives from where we make meaning of the same. We are on the same planet, yet there are multiple ways that we live with and on her, as well as tell and write stories about being an earthling. There are real differences. One way cannot easily be translated into another way, not even with the help of theoretical or methodological tools. These tools, we claim, do not become disconnected from the social, political, or cultural. We need to make these tools – and text – resemble us, which in turn plays a role in the world-making practice in which we all participate. As a result, what follows in this chapter may come across to some readers as strange and unconventional. Our frictional stories, happening and becoming told on and with our experiences in the contexts of Indigenous communities, take us to discussions and themes which were not-yet-known, nor planned in the beginning of this joint writing process.

Thus, as a short guideline for reading: In what follows in this chapter, we let individual texts, theoretical reflections and the imagined contributions of Eana (the Earth) get involved in what emerges. Actually, we do not want to make a remarkable difference between theoretical or empirical, individual or collaboratively written, 'own' or borrowed, especially as there is nothing which would in any case be solely owned by the writer. The writer is always entangled in multiple discourses and communities, which become visible and come to life in her text. So, it means that the following is not only personal or individual stories but is also entangled in theoretical discussions. There is no difference between the story and the message, so to speak, or between the data and analysis or results, as we tend to say in scientific language.

#### 14 December 2017

Eana, the narrator: The four women meet for the first time at the Think Corner of the University of Helsinki, on a cold winter evening. There, in a dark, quiet corner, on a comfortable black sofa, they open their emotional spaces, sharing their confusions, disconcertments, and any other feelings that were clearly keen to surface and be heard. They did not intentionally decide to work together. I let that happen.

They come into this world with many differences. They work differently, within different languages as well as in different disciplines and research fields. The possibility for them to become this one partly connected body of writing gave them the energy of trust, so they would speak honestly among themselves about the suffering that comes with bringing into the academic space both new and different stories. What they do have in common is that they have not given up in this process, nor have they fully given in to the mainstreaming of the Western academic writing practices. They also soon realized that they all care deeply for me and my future–past–present. These four academic women have also shared amongst them many of their feelings and a sense of urgency they feel in reframing what they consider an outdated, conventional, partly irrelevant, somewhat pathetic, counter-productively competitive, largely redundant, and therefore far too ineffective academic structure to meet the desperate calls of me and many of my earthlings, both human and non-human. Now I give them the care that I can give in this moment of many dramatic calls from other earthlings.

### 12 April 2018

Eana: In Kárášjohka, these four women start to share their personal stories on struggles with academic writing. I am with them, as Lea and Hanna are sitting on Lea's bed in a lovely cabin in Engholm Husky Farm, whilst Britt and Aili are connected through Skype. Immediately they also start to write between each other's stories, and to let those stories weave into other stories.

### 19 June 2018

Eana: I am, again, present with the four women at a workshop in Umeå. It is a dark room with wooden panels and a fireplace without a fire. They are supposed to write, but instead their souls need to cry. They are mourning their late loved colleagues and I want to console them. They write with me, in order to continue their task:

We need to come back into this room. Put our hands here on the log and feel the material. Put the log on the floor and feel the gravity towards the Earth Feel the gravity that pulls the log towards the Earth. See the people around us, looking at us. We shall go back and write in the empty space between us, write together with the spirit of Grandmother Earth, with the spirit of our students and colleagues who passed to the Otherworld. Now we start to write.

# **3.2** *Reconnecting the Moon: Making Room for New Arts of Noticing and Being*

Britt: I was learning about and practising ethnography in Småfjord, this Sea-Sámi community on the coast of Finnmark. I came here for multiple reasons, among them that the ethnographer Kolsrud in the 1950s claimed that all distinct Sámi cultural trails were long gone. Just a few people still spoke the Sámi language. One of these Sámi, Ingmar, should be my best friend and teacher. I am a first-generation academic and did not know of the rules and regulations of academia. My idea was that you just had to be as fair and honest as possible. To tell the stories just as they happen, using your own compassion and imagination to do so. I learned a multitude of knowledges over the years, moving in and out of the community. Knowledge that had to do with the way people related to nature, with how they respected others, their destiny, the stories, themselves, among these – my noticing of the moon. All of my new friends in the community were living with the rhythm of the moon. When to set the nets in the ocean, when to slaughter the lambs, when to cut wood, to fish halibut – or even to cut your own hair. There were no streetlights in the village, so while walking down the road in the evening, the presence of the moon was real and powerful. I could feel it in my body, and over time I started to embody the rhythm of the moon and the rhythm of my period changed and I started menstruation on the full moon. For me this rhythm very much became a sign of taking seriously the worlding done by some of my Sámi teachers in the village.

My first draft of an article stayed true to this experience of how the moon influenced the circle of life to human and non-human being in the village. I sent it to an academic journal, where it was rejected. The review did not accept the premises of my experience. The editor did not consider it to be relevant that I wrote about how my body reacted to being part of a community where the moon was a central actor in relation to other enactments. That I emphasized dreaming as part of how life was lived and a decision regarding life and death was made. The story of my changing bodily rhythm was ridiculed, and this was before nature became fashionable also for social scientists, and I did not manage to argue that my ethnography on the assemblage between people and nature could be a research object of social science. The story of the community, the moon and the fieldworker, was never published. I lacked the writing skills to make these stories come alive within an academic language. Later – also thanks to all my rehearsals on how to tell some of these stories in acceptable ways – it was finally published in a modified form.

Aili: I was recently told a story – one of the most impactful stories I have heard in years – of a greatly respected Master Shaman from the Indigenous peoples of the Vaupés in Colombia, whom my medical practitioner friends worked with as apprentices. This Master Shaman told them (and here in my words, summarizing what I recall of this account) that we are all mistaken if we think we can save the world from its current turmoil with our mere activism and individual efforts, no matter how great and successful. He continued that we are also mistaken if we think that influencing politics (including national governments and powerful decision-makers) can save the world. At this point, with all my suspense and curiosity arisen, the Master Shaman shared his deepest insight and revelation as to what – and only what – is needed to save our world. And it is this: the day when women are finally allowed (and allow themselves) to positively reconnect with and revere their own menstruation, and the moon cycle. And this reconnection means not only physical, but also emotional, social, cultural and spiritual, including revitalizing those associated rites of passage, initiation rites, and other traditions with immense significance to womanhood. My friends later returned to the same Amazonian community to study this phenomenon in more depth and were astonished to find that what the Shaman had told them seemed, in fact, to hold true. Their intriguing preliminary findings reveal this fundamental link between a woman's relationship to her menstrual cycle and in this case her health (Zuluaga & Andersson 2013).

Some months later, I mentioned this to another Shaman friend of mine, Hushahu, a strong female *curandera* of the Yawanawa people living in Brazilian Amazonia, and with whom I had the fortune to spend an entire day alone. I asked her how she interpreted the above story. She was as clear as day, as if I had asked the most obvious mundane question: of course, we need to reconnect with the moon and her cycle.

With these research stories we want to make room for another kind of thought, more of a feeling that arises from the knowing of being deeply attuned with the Moon, the Earth, the Sun and forest, as we already inevitably are, even though it is not much written in human sciences. Our bodies and lives are inextricably connected with and part of Eana, as she is a part of us, and her energy is circling around and within us all. With that we really need to ask how will that understanding change our writing practices? As many Indigenous writers have voiced (see e.g. Kealiikanakaoleohaililani & Giardina 2016, 60), we also think that our lost connection with the land on which we depend in so many ways, has made – and is making – us not only unsustainable in our choices, but also unhappy, distressed, scared, lonely, and cynical. This we have sometimes felt under the pressure of academic writing norms and demands.

We wonder how many readers have not experienced communication with non-human beings, like, for instance, the forest and its beings? As Eduardo Kohn (2013) shares with us, "to engage with the forest on its terms, to enter its relational logic, to think with its thoughts, one must become attuned to these". Having carried out deep anthropological and ethnographic work amongst the Runa of the Upper Napo (Ecuadorian Amazonia), Kohn (2013) learned how communicating with the non-human requires:

… a real feat of defamiliarizing the human. That is, it requires us to undertake an arduous process of decolonizing our thinking … to make room for another kind of thought – a kind of thought that is more capacious … This other kind of thinking is the one that forests do, the kind of thinking that thinks its way through the lives of people, like the Runa (and others), who engage intimately with the forest's living beings in ways that amplify life's distinctive logics. (223–224)

To learn from the Runa, and many other Indigenous peoples who also connect and communicate with non-human beings, we dream of what this could do to help even us urbanites reconnect with our own bodies and rekindle our relationship with the Moon, the Sun, the stars, all the elements, and then speak from experience – perhaps the deepest and truest knowledge of all. This is something we are smoothly wanting to do. And that truly is and can be something else than rational academic readers may be used to. To think (and write) as forest (would) do. To listen to the wisdom of plants and other non-humans is not supernatural, but natural, and by learning their languages we can be capable of understanding the generosity of the earth, and our moral responsibility for reciprocity, as well as telling stories that go beyond the scientific conventions (Kimmerer 2020). This, nevertheless, is something where we need attuning and imagination and where the traditions of rationality-based writing follow us; it is not easy to get rid of them. Anyway, we have tried to write with the Earth and we accept that it is just an attempt, even though it has been a deeply experienced feeling in us of having her working with us.

Similarly, Herman Melville (2003) wrote in *Moby Dick* (1851) that "It is not down in any map; true places never are". Those words guide us. We all have to learn more, read more, and practice more in order to find new and more true – true and truthful for our ontologically and epistemologically Indigenous/Indigenized ways of experiencing and living things – to write and tell stories so that the wisdom of the places and entities that we care for and that care for us can become visible to us, and through our texts also to others. We also always need to question what is not seen or told, or what is not written down on the new maps made. What we need according to Tsing (2015) is new arts of noticing. Noticing moments of harmony and dissonance that were created together. The kind of noticing that is needed to appreciate the multiple temporal rhythms and trajectories of the assemblage (Tsing 2015, 24). The multiple (female) stories of/in this text. Different – but all written with care.

#### **3.3** *Reciprocity and Sacredness*

The significance of offerings, or reciprocal practice of giving gifts (Kuokkanen 2006), is something we have learned from those Indigenous peoples and traditions which we have had the fortune to come to know. Offerings are indeed a universal and ancient practice of reciprocity and thankfulness. We have been pondering why it is that the modern world has forgotten this practice, and tend to think that Western civilization would somehow be 'dominant' – and that the rest of the world (all species included) were somehow there only to serve and satisfy us? How have we in the Western world come to think that we can just keep taking from the Earth and the Sea and the Mountains and the Rivers, and not give anything back? Why is it that we have lost the practice of weaving gratitude, appreciation, and reciprocity into all our actions, material and immaterial, leaving offerings to the elements, to the sources of life, to sacred sites, to springs, mountain tops, the fire, the rain? What does this shift to one-way selfish consumerism and commodification say about us? Do we somehow consider ourselves 'outside' of and 'more important than' this intricate web of universal life of which we are a part and upon which we fully depend? What does it say about our relationship with all that we live in and with, and especially, with that which we consume, with that on which we depend? This perplexes us more and more, this sheer hypocrisy and contradiction. Not to mention being way off track on anything resembling a healthy, balanced, sustainable life that could be foreseen to be equally healthy at least seven generations into the future (as some North American Native Americans used to think-plan-live).

Also, we want to speak about sacredness (as already alluded to by Fikret Berkes 2018). Why is it that, in the diverging paths of science and religion, many of us, the 'Western' or 'Westernized' us, have lost our sense of the sacred (Mander 1992)? Or, could it be that we have lost a space where the sacred can be present and publicly respected? Could we become convinced that it is this degradation of relationship and sacredness that is enabling us to (even consciously!) continue destroying our planet, cutting one snip at a time out of our very own life line?

Lea: The people in Wixárika villages in the Sierra Madre Mountains are always moving somewhere: to their cornfields, to the fields of some family member they have promised to help, to a pilgrimage, to a ceremony of the neighbouring community, to sell their crafts in the nearest town. They are constantly negotiating with the other community members, with the deified ancestors and even with foreigners. They bring new ideas and influences from other places. All my friends seem to be always leaving for a journey or a pilgrimage or just coming from somewhere. They are busy preparing offerings, small cups and decorated arrows, to be left on the sacred places. The Wixaritari leave offerings when somebody is sick or has to make a difficult decision, for example going to study or work in another community or town (Hirvonen-Nurmi et al. 2018). Young people sometimes leave digital offerings, like CDs and printed writings, instead of or together with traditional cups and arrows (L. Kantonen 2017, 154). They are sure that the ancestors are able to read them, as well. For many Wixaritari the offerings are "texts" that they write with the ancestors. Maestro Alfredo, one of the teachers, said: "We should not think that our ancestors are ignorant. They can write!"

Aili: This is what drew me to work with the Kogui, who, to my knowledge, are show-casing some of the strongest examples of how to live responsibly, humbly, wisely, and harmoniously: prioritizing their wellbeing and balance with the natural environment and the spiritual world, still to this day, despite the ever-encroaching pressures and temptations of Western civilization and "development" (Pyhälä, 2020). I was intrigued about better understanding, what it is that enables the Kogui to maintain such a strong culture and identity, in harmony with their natural environment, whilst resisting acculturation in the face of accelerating change. And this is what I've come to: the criticality of the Sacred and of the Law of Nature. Of recognizing that life is most harmoniously governed if done so according to the Law of Nature, and life happens not only here in the material world, but also in what the Kogui refer to as the Aluna (the spiritual dimension). According to the Kogui, paying attention to the relationships and occurrences in the Aluna is just as significant and important as acknowledging and caring for that which takes place here in the material world.

Hanna: In Sámi society the Sámi people themselves have come to feel ashamed about their sacred customs, feelings and acts. They have not been talked about out loud or in public for a long time. At the Sámi University of Applied Sciences, it was not until 25 years after its establishment that two young thinkers, scholar Lovisa Mienna Sjöberg and artist Elle Sofé Henriksen, organized a seminar on spirituality, *Vuoiŋŋalaš vierut*, in the fall of 2017. The lecture hall was full of students and faculty members who all shared the feeling of coming home when the humble Elders, reindeer herders and other traditional knowledge holders were telling about high respect and loyalty to the sacredness of more-thanhumans. The humility stayed in my mind (and body) as a longing to get to experience this even closer, within my own body.

I have felt the sacredness in the Laestadian movement, but I understand that that sacredness was disconnected from the body and the Earth and located somewhere outside/above, while the body and Earth are seen as sinful (flesh/body) or as mere resource (land). And still, also here, in order (not) to create too much friction, as I know how important Laestadianism and Christianity are even today also for many Sámi people, I would like to continue that I myself see sacredness everywhere now …

#### **3.4** *Privilege – and Burden – to Write*

Britt: I am so humbled to be able to spend my days doing research and given the possibility to write. It is truly a gift. I just need to find ways in which this gift can be used in a responsible way. The research tools offer me the possibility to open up the landscape that I belong to. But within that landscape are also things forgotten, violence and many acts of brutality. It took years before I learned (and I'm still learning) about the landscape as a Sámi haunted landscape. I want to become a researcher that is learning the art of letting myself be affected by past and present social and ecological devastation and destruction in order to become able to stay with the trouble; to refuse analytical understanding of its power to distance. I want to remember what was done to this country and to tell new productive academic stories that can also be helpful for others.

Hanna: I feel so privileged, so privileged, again and again, to have the possibility to think and write and get paid for that as a researcher. So privileged that I sometimes feel guilty about this privilege. But, as we all know, writing is not always easy. You can choose an easier or more difficult way to write. And/or you can choose a more or less honest way to write.

Such humble honesty, so honest that it hurts. It hurts me and it may also sometimes hurt my nearest ones. I don't like to, or can't play any roles or positions or institutions, it's this thinking-moving-becomingfeeling body (bones and blood and heart, you know how they work in and affect our bodies) which searches its way out through the ceiling/surface of being an academic. It's this inseparable life, personal and academic, inseparably interconnected.

In my academic writing I always want – or have the compelling need – to write in and with the struggling I go through, while doing different things: while writing a PhD report, while working as a teacher or an educator, while participating in the different academic happenings (see e. g. Guttorm 2018). In my head I always remember a dialogue between Foucault and Deleuze (1977, 207–208), where Foucault says that "the intellectual's role is no longer to place himself 'somewhat ahead and to the side' in order to express the stifled truth of the collectivity; rather, it is to struggle against the forms of power that transform him into its object and instrument in the sphere of 'knowledge', 'truth', 'consciousness', and 'discourse'".

I write in order for more differences to become possible, lovable and cared for. I write because of Eana – so that we all could see and take ownership of our responsibility for her. And I write as I feel I have been colonized and modernized by living in the South …

Today 7 January 2019, I continue shortly: How do personal losses, which I happen to be going through just now in my life, connect with the research? Is this the reason I in my current research am desperately searching for the connection with Eana, or the Earth? And through the Earth, connections and connectivity to others too? Just now I feel so lonely, so sad. So disconnected. Can these kinds of feelings be part of research? What do we mean when we say that academic life is embedded in personal life and vice versa? How do we carry on in grief and loss? How on Earth do I reconnect?

Many months later I continue again: And if and when I start to feel more connected, how do I stand with the fact that this connection needs to be presented with words put into a certain order in order to become accepted in academic worlds? What may get lost in that process?

Aili: On many working days I feel like I am in a prolonged contradiction with myself, and with my innermost values, morals, ethics, conscious awareness and even (em)body(ment) of my place here in this world at this time. I never got a kick out of reading and writing academic texts. In fact, I still don't! I don't even get a kick from teaching unless the format is such that the students are teaching me as much as I them. Co-learning and co-creating is what it is all about for me. On so many days, I dream of being outdoors, working with my hands, planting trees, harvesting wild food, regenerating the Earth, doing my bit to fix the immense damage we've done, communicating with native plants and animals, hearing what they have to say. What a dream! My heart lies in the body (action), not mind (theory). My passion ignites with mutual exchange and sharing, through emotions and senses we have yet to even realize we have, not just one-way rational communication or reception. I feel at my best in moments of physical contact and connection, not through various interpretations across filtered media.

I have so many dilemmas with academic requirements and culture. What is "methodology"? Why on earth do we spend so much time trying to define and re-define and debate and argue and justify certain terms and approaches and theories when we could simply just put that time and energy into listening deeply to the calling – what is it that is most needed right now? Who and what is calling us? What are they saying? What action is called of us? I dream of a world where we can come to have genuine interest in each and every being, and curiosity about where they are coming from, even if we do not understand them, and to build mutual relationships of trust, respect, and reciprocity, breaking prejudices and boundaries, whilst also accepting non-understanding and even agreeing to disagree. Worshiping diversity in all its forms.

Please do not misunderstand me. I am not intending to criticize or undermine anyone, nor do I want to preach or claim to know the way or have any answers to even my own dilemmas. We all have our strengths and weaknesses, we each have our roles to play and places to be and personal callings in this undirected theatre unfolding in and around us on this vast stage. We each have our own unique ways of contributing to, and expressing ourselves, in this world. Why, then, does academia try to stamp that into a mono-form? I wonder how much wisdom and insight is lost in the process?

Lea: We truly need to listen and act passionately, whatever calling we follow! While listening to you, I feel my privilege of working in the context of art and artistic research. Artistic research is very tolerant of emotional, practical and embodied writing – it feels quite natural to do practical things with your hands and simultaneously reflect on the process theoretically. However, we artists and artist-researchers have many other things to learn from Indigenous methodologies. We have not, for example, been educated into a culture of reciprocity and thankfulness. We have felt free to go anywhere and get inspiration and influences from anywhere without feeling the obligation to give anything back to the human or non-human sources and networks. Working with Indigenous communities in Mexico has made me rethink about the authorship in research writing.

I go back to the Wixárika villages. I hear news about drug cartels, shootings and killings happening in the neighbouring communities. Many of my friends seem to be afraid of something. When asked, they never tell exactly what it is. It is more and more difficult and dangerous to travel to the communities. When we were having a video workshop in a nearby town, and whilst walking on the street, there was suddenly gunfire around us.

I am struggling with my writing. How to write in a way that really cares for the community, the land, and the research data collected so far? Should I write about being afraid? Should I write about the hope? Or should I just stop working with the community? I feel a responsibility for the research data: videos, photographs, stories and for many unfinished collaborations. Could I just run away after working in the communities for 20 years? It is really frightening to feel threatened by violence and not be able to speak about it. When I came back from Mexico, I lost my ability to write, for the first time in my life. Every time I opened my laptop and started writing field notes, I started shaking.

On the other hand, I feel very privileged to be able to travel to the Sierra Madre Mountains. I can always avoid the most difficult/dangerous routes and I can afford to take a small airplane to the communities. Many people do not have the luxury of that choice.

Hanna: Exactly. How many things to think and write and feel about. Modernization, urbanization, getting lost, losing connection(s), the privileges, the different feelings. And the question of how to do that.

Doing and writing research is a complicated act of getting and giving. There are times when it feels like a privilege, but sometimes the privilege turns to frustration when not finding the ways to share what you feel are most important and true to your experience and learning within Indigenous societies.

Decolonized research stories can be stories of friction (Tsing 2005). Friction that draws attention to the formation of new cultural and political configurations that change, rather than repeat, old contests. We have felt, as Verran (2013) suggests, that friction can be identified through bodily disconcertment and understood as an expression of metaphysical disjuncture. We have taken advantage of knowing that disconcertments felt in the body are crucial potential detectors of difference and some specific significance. We have not had other possibilities than staying with the moments of disconcertment in writing practices.

#### **3.5** *Thanksgiving*

Are there other writers than us? Do we have loyalties and love, shame or fear, that enact with us and that we should pay tribute to? We need to expand our way of thinking about storying, as moments that can inform an emergent politics of memory and enact landscapes of remembrance. The concern needs not only be with the substance of the stories, but also with the very act of participating in a shared event – and how this event brings our attention to our sense of being-with-others that offer relation-weaving and world-making where the past and the future are recalled as well as remade (Kramvig & Verran 2019). Telling stories is caring for those that are within the event of the stories, and that are recalled into being.

The event of mourning that took place in Umeå can be regarded as productive, as Sara Ahmed (2014) reminds us. Grief can be seen as productive when it expresses itself through melancholy. She writes:

To lose another is not to lose one's impressions, not all which are even conscious. To preserve an attachment is not to make an external other internal, but to keep one's impressions alive, as aspects of one's self that are both oneself and more than oneself, as a sign of one's debt to others. One can let go of another as an outsider, but maintain one's attachments, by keeping alive one's impressions of the lost other. […] To grieve for others is to keep their impressions alive in the midst of their death. (Ahmed 2014, 160)

Keeping these impressions alive is both a non-transcendence of queerness, according to Ahmed, as well as acts of resistance. Some could consider that a project meeting which turns into collective mourning over colleagues who died young would be academically unproductive and too sentimental. But we think on the contrary: without that, even this text would not have come into being the way it has.

Lea: We really need to acknowledge the ones that have helped us. First of all, I would like to thank my Wixárika friend and artist colleague Rosita. I have asked her and my other Wixárika teachers and colleagues what kinds of stories they like being told in writings and in documentary videos. They answered that they like stories that make us more conscious of the struggles and processes taking place in the community. The stories should be connected to the earth, agriculture and the ancestors and they should give thanks to humans, ancestors and places. They should defend "every tree and every drop of water" of the sacred places. The processes should be told in their length and complexity, not just as beautiful fragments. Every detail should be true and in its proper place. The storyteller should be humble, not thinking that she is somebody more important than others (L. Kantonen 2017, 157–164).

When I have a problem, my partner Pekka sometimes asks: What would Rosita say? So, I thank her for being present in my research and everyday life, even if I don't have a possibility to communicate with her. When I write I also remember the discussions with my co-researchers and kin in the CRASH NGO collective.

Indigenous methodologies have changed my way of thinking about both art and artistic research. I have needed to let go of the traditional idea of a solitary or detached artist-researcher and let myself be woven into a network of relations that I can only partially understand.

I have also learned a lot from my Mexican colleague Xochitl Leyva Solano (Leyva 2011, 2014). Her grandmother is Mixtec, and she works with the Tzotzil Maya, and with the civilian Zapatista movement in the jungles of southern Mexico, as well as in the city of San Cristobal de las Casas. Like Aili, she has always felt the urgent need to work practically, in this case with the Tzotzil, not only in writing research, and she has written about that experience. I think that the discontent of academic practice has, in her case, led to valuable insights in academic writing. Together with her partner Axel Köhler she has found ways of co-theorizing with rural and urban Indigenous communities. They speak about corazón and co-razón (heart and co-reason); they seek to co-reason with their hearts together and that has led to collaborative artistic experiments (Köhler 2015).

This is how I want to continue co-writing with you, my friends, with heart and reason. During this year that we have been writing together my fear has gradually vanished. I can write again, maybe differently than before.

Hanna: Oh, I would have so many human and non-human beings to thank. My uncle Piera, eahkki, the older brother of my father, who still continues telling me stories; my aunt Sofe, siessá, the younger sister of my father, whose hospitality I am still honoured to take pleasure in always and always; my late father, áhčči; my late uncles and aunts; my Sámi Elders, like Irja; the land, the mountains, the cloudberries in the mire, the river, Deatnu. Many Sámi and other Indigenous authors have moved and cared for my soul, given it the strength to continue, to believe, to trust in Life and hope. Many other authors, many theorists, have given me concepts to challenge academicity as culturally and historically constructed and thus enabled my dreaming of something else being possible. My thankfulness goes to them all.

Britt: One of the ways I bring what I learned into my academic practice is to relate to the lunar phase when writing. In addition, I offer the same practice to my students. To open a new document when the moon is rising. To take advantage of the energy of the rising moon also in the becoming of a text. Reclaiming means reacquainting oneself with generative resources, resources that sustain and inspire (Green 2020). Can we learn to remember to trust in the possibility of weaving together different voices and ways of living together which colonization has cut people off from?

#### **3.6** *Letting These Stories Go*

This reaching out of an article In order for students to get some help in relation to their projects In a sense that we cannot tell them what to do

But we can tell them what we did That can serve as an inspiration, or not Some students can get punished for using our ideas … Or they can get lost by using them …

We need to be very careful We cannot protect them either We cannot work all the way to the end with them We can secure some part of the route of their ways with this There are soldiers and warriors on the way

Waiting, as many Indigenous researchers or researchers working with Indigenous methodologies know, is inevitable in Indigenous methodologies You need to have time You don't need to hurry You cannot hurry You need to be patient and wait And it will come out You will get a story Or you will find the path, a path

Your path, the path of your "family"

#### **4 Some Closing and Re-opening Words**

We want to argue that Indigenous ontologies both allow and demand openness for multiple research-storying. As we have already learned, Indigenous methods emphasize stories, traditional knowledge, and different artistic and experimental ways of knowing (e.g. Leyva 2011; Kovach 2009; Wilson 2009). In our decolonized research-storying, we have wanted to put these methods to work in the process of writing and not only use these different ways of knowing as research data, which we later turn into "scientific" text. In these decolonized research stories, we have constructed the story around the evolving relationships with our human and non-human research participants. These evolving relationships include both the encounter with academic demands, and with places, and with Indigenous ontologies, and with those ontologies becoming true. Decolonial writing in practice brings the Indigenous onto-epistemologies into scientific text and thus makes space for different ways of knowing and representing knowledge.

So often we academic writers see ourselves (or at least come across) as those who "know", or, as claiming knowledge or an objective truth about something. Open and vulnerable research stories, however, are not about something somewhere outside the researcher, they concern more the researcher and his/her/their situatedness. We feel that in order to be honest to the process of decolonizing research, we as researchers need to recognize and share openly where our stories and statements come from and how the different experiences resonate in us and make us think again and again. Knowing and coming to know happens in the in-betweenness and is thus related to the situations where even emotional tensions and discomfort are made and encountered. The stories with/of tensions reveal our connectedness and are most often not easy to tell. Still, these stories need to be written and shared. Thus, we want to encourage readers to share the research stories of friction and multiplicity with each other, and to reconnect in communities, be they smaller or wider ones, like here in academic societies.

Still, there is a time to speak up, and there is a time to remain silent. In Sámi and many other Indigenous cultures, you are looked down upon if you speak too loudly on behalf of others. So, there can be ruptures and holes in the stories. Sometimes what is needed is simply time. Lingering. Space. Waiting. Silence. We cannot be situated if we do not slow down. Slowing down not only counteracts the insensitivity and detachment that results from modern speed, but also really allows one to be more open. Open-eyed, open-eared, open-minded. Allowing for a whole world of possibilities to emerge and unfold.

Inspired by Kuokkanen (2010), one way forward for us academics is to start collectively fostering epistemic pluralism within our workplaces and institutions, as well as research networks and collaborations. It is timely that we allow such a paradigm shift to take place, in order for Indigenous worlding and previously held taboos, like sacredness and non-human entities, to appear also in academic texts. We strongly believe that the rewards extend far beyond conventional academic methodological practice: the implications are likely to reverberate across wider spectrums of relationship and respect, not only amongst scholars of different backgrounds, but also across all humans and non-humans, enabling our common purpose in finding collective solutions for common planetary challenges.

Here we come back to care, which is always different. No ethical guidelines or codes or consent forms – no matter how well filled in – can fix this. The process needs to be transparent, respectful, embedded, and embodied all along, in whatever time-space is right. And each case is different. Every sentence becomes bonded, a kind of materiality to become-with. In this chapter, care has especially been connected to the Indigenous ontologies and the meaning and acting of non-human entities in them. Caring for Indigenous ontologies and taking them seriously in an academic text – which is also giving space, and even voice, for them – means caring for the Indigenous worlds and words and ways of knowing and making them relevant and serious in academic discourse. In this text, we have invited Eana to participate in the making of it, which can be seen as a real possibility in Indigenous worlds. We have felt the need to call upon her. Eana has participated in our work by giving us space to live, breath, think and write, as well as recalling our connectedness with her and through her with all the other earthlings. Earth, Eana, is a non-human actor, but highly connected to everything we do in this chapter and in life. Eana, in our text, is the embodiment of the non-human in Indigenous worlding. We do not speak on her behalf, but we think and write with her.

Last, but not least, perhaps we all would do well to ask ourselves more often what our intention is. Why, for whom, or for what purpose are we writing? It is timely that we pose these questions out loud, and in all our vulnerability attempt to openly and transparently answer them. We think that it is in our hands to decide what kind of an academic cultural legacy we want to leave for the next generation of young Indigenous and non-Indigenous scholars. It is time we invite the youth to take this space, in their way, with their clean and less-conditioned minds and spirits. What we hope to offer young scholars is a space where they can feel safe and heard. A space where they can feel comfortable being themselves: open, different, and unique. We hope for a future where they can have the clarity, creativity, courage, and energy to do so, to find and create the needed methodologies and ways to write. Now, we hope that this text can be one that inspires them to listen to themselves, to Eana, to the wind, to the elements, and to each other. Through that they can find their voice, in all its openness, and respect it with care and take all the time they want and need.

and from the blue tundras I hear the story of life Winds rivers forests joik NILS-ASLAK VALKEAPÄÄ (1985)

#### **Notes**

1 Earth, Moon, forests and their spirits do not have words to present themselves. Still they are actors and they have their own will and power. Indigenous authors and storytellers (e.g. Valkeapää 2001) write about and with them, but how can academics put these non-words, the acts, will and power into words?


#### **References**

Ahmed, S. (2014). *The cultural politics of emotion*. Edinburgh University Press.


https://journals.oslomet.no/index.php/rerm/article/view/2703


Tronto, J. (1993). *Moral boundaries: A political argument for an ethic of care.* Routledge.


Valkeapää, N.-A. (2001). *Eanni, Eannážan.* DAT & Nils-Aslak Valkeapää.


# **'Shared Remembering' as a Relational Indigenous Method in Conceptualization of Sámi Women's Leadership**

*Jelena Porsanger, Irja Seurujärvi-Kari and Ragnhild Lydia Nystad*

# **Abstract**

This chapter looks at Sámi women's leadership and what contributed to its success. Inspired by Indigenous methodologies worldwide and Sámi orality, we have developed a method of *muittašit ovttas* 'shared remembering', for gathering information and conceptualizing Sámi women's leaderships. This method allows us to conceive and reason in a systematic manner, as well as to interpret the lived experiences and strategic choices of female leaders. Secondly, we scrutinized and structured our research material drawing from the symbolism represented in a solju 'round breastpin': its interconnected Circle of values and the Circle of actions. It worked both as a method and theoretical tool for our analysis. The presentation and analysis of our research material follows the structure of the circles of solju. In this chapter, we describe and operationalize these methods in a practice, bringing to the forefront the considerations about strategies, values, and actions of Sámi leadership from a Sámi perspective and by means of Sámi concepts. It opens up a space for further scholarly and public discussions about both Indigenous women's leadership and the design of research methodologies from an Indigenous perspective. The proposed research methodology can be applied to other projects in Sámi research, but it can also inspire Indigenous research in other contexts.

#### **Keywords**

Sámi concepts *–* Sámi values – Sámi epistemology – shared remembering – storytelling – *solju* method – Sámi women's leadership

#### **1 Research Objectives, Processes and Theoretical Inspiration**

*Duoddara girona Girddáša nu jo*

© Jelena Porsanger, Irja Seurujärvi-Kari and Ragnhild Lydia Nystad, 2021 | doi: 10.1163/9789004463097\_007 This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the CC BY 4.0 License.

*Lei-lo-lo-lo Buot viggabet váldit Buot oažžubet váldit Dan bivnnut gal vuođa Dii ehpet gal váldde*1 (From Joatkka Elle luohti, yoik)

A Sámi *yoik* filled a crowded conference hall in the University of Helsinki one day in November 2017, a strong woman's song that reflected hope for the future. The *yoik* sung by Káre Sámmol Ristena Ragnhild, Ragnhild Lydia Nystad was a fitting end to the International Conference on Indigenous Peoples' Rights to Cultural Heritage (November 16–17, 2017). This conference and the yoik empowered the three of us, Sámi women who have known each other for 30 years, to write this chapter. This desire to write arose especially after discussions with the conference speaker, the leader of the Permanent Forum, Mariam Wallet Aboubakrine, a Tuareg woman from Mali, Africa, who told about the struggles, actions and rights of Indigenous women. All three of us have worked in political and academic leadership, higher education, research, health, in Sámi communities and Indigenous issues internationally. Although we originally come from Norwegian, Finnish and Russian parts of Sápmi, we are all affiliated to the same territory in between Kárášjohka (Karasjok) and Gáregasnjárga (Karigasniemi) either by birth or by family ties. This is a border inland area between Finland and Norway, where Sámi is the majority language. Sámi is our home language and is our working language. This is our story.

We reflected on our experiences as leaders, we noticed common challenges in the Sámi community and worldwide. We realized that there is a deficit of information and a lack of public discussions about the role of female leaders in international and Indigenous politics, although women have always been influential in Indigenous societies and politics. We felt togetherness, peace of mind, creativity and a strong spirit which led us to jointly ponder Sámi knowledge about leadership, and to work and write together in a collaborative way.

The main aim of this project is to develop, from a Sámi perspective, a research methodology which allows to explore the role of female leaders and specific features in their leadership. Our methodology allows us to conceptualize Sámi women leadership within Sámi theories of knowledge and value system and to base the analysis on our life and working experiences as Sámi women and as leaders in a holistic way. We introduce and apply two methods: a method of *muittašit ovttas* 'shared remembering' for collecting of information, and a '*solju*' both as a method and analytical tool, structuring and presenting in an interconnected way the experiences and strategic choices of Sámi women in leadership positions. These methods are consistent with Sámi orality, value systems and epistemologies, and are grounded in experiences, memories, relationality and spirituality, allowing the establishment of logical connections between actions and values in a way that is peculiar to Sámi ways of thinking. The use of Indigenous epistemologies creates a foundation that allows us to select, recognize and understand something as Indigenous knowledge (e.g. Ahenakew 2016; Chilisa 2012; Denzin et al. 2008, Hokowhitu et al. 2020; Kovach 2009; Kuokkanen 2007; Lincoln, & Smith 2008; McKinley & Smith 2019; Porsanger 2004, 2007, 2014, 2018; Rigney 1999; G. H. Smith 2003; L. T. Smith 1999/2012; Wilson 2008).

Furthermore, the Sámi language offers a methodological and theoretical base that enables one to understand and reconstruct Indigenous knowledge (Seurujärvi-Kari 2012, 101–105). In research Indigenization takes place when Indigenous language is used in the construction of research tools. Hence, we used the Sámi language in our conversations, utilizing Sámi concepts as analytical tools in writing this chapter, which we later translated into English. This allowed us to link our memories to the cultural context, to discover connections between actions, values and events, and to see how, looking from a Sámi perspective, they can be determined by the social, political and cultural context. In addition to the instrumental value, Sámi as a language for research and analysis has an emotional impact that emerges from respect for our people and heritage. In our view, working, researching and writing in Sámi strengthens and develops our endangered language and cultural heritage (ibid.). We scrutinized numerous methodological and theoretical concepts as they appear in Indigenous research in English, such as sharing, naming, claiming, remembering, gendering, etc. (see 25 Indigenous projects in L. T. Smith 1999/2012, 143–164). We reflected on their applicability in the Sámi context, realizing that many of the concepts from other Indigenous contexts were not entirely suitable in our case. These considerations led us to the recognition of an interconnectedness of values and actions in women's leadership, and to theorizing about the ontology of relations, which resulted in the development of the *solju* method.

We worked together for more than a year, shared remembering, augmenting each other's stories, reflecting, connecting events to the Sámi and Indigenous societal life, history, politics, academic world and kinship relations. We shared stories, observations, contemplations, as well as traditional Sámi food. We recorded most of our structured conversations and transcribed more than the half of them, a total of twenty-nine pages.

In each meeting – in person or digitally – we made notes, altogether more than forty pages. All recordings, transliterations and notes were used for further conversations, in which we studied and elucidated our material from previous

figure 6.1 Methodology – *ollisvuohta* [holistically]: A working note as a visualization of discussions on method, 17 September 2018

settings. We did this predominantly in the non-linear way of oral communication, looking for a kind of Sámi logics and interconnectedness of issues. These conversations are both our source material and our method (about interconnectedness of material and method, see also H. Guttorm 2014).

#### **2 A Relational** *solju* **Method to Connect Actions and Values**

In Sámi, relations are based on a detailed knowledge of kinship and peoples' connection to the land. One can distinguish between *gaskavuohta,* which is close to the notion of "relationship" in English, and *oktavuohta*, which is close to the concept of "relations" (Porsanger 2007, 35–37). This interrelation is cyclic, reciprocal and holistic, and can be compared to conceptualization of various issues in Indigenous research worldwide (e.g. Battiste 2000, 2001, 2008; Bishop & Glynn 1999, 55; Keskitalo 1974/1994; Keskitalo, Määttä & Uusiautti 2013, 91; Østmo 2013; Porsanger 2004; G. Smith 2003; see also Chapter 3).

Figure 6.2 displays our methodological and theoretical base, the interconnectedness of all relations, which is needed for the analysis and for the understanding of Sámi collectivity (*searvevuohta*), in which it is not possible to set any element or any relationship apart from the whole (all relations). This way of thinking is closely related to Shawn Wilson's (2008, 97–125) considerations about relational accountability, which means being accountable to all your relations.

*Gaskavuohta* indicates bilateral and reciprocal ties between two things/ issues/persons/groups, etc., implying that there is a distance, *gaska,* between them, but these two sides are still mutually interdependent. *Oktavuohta* implies relationships in which there are more than two sides, which are interconnected and make a whole, a one, *okta*. The term *gaskavuohta* clarifies both the mutual and bilateral interdependence, and the interactive character of this relationship. The term *oktavuohta* brings to the fore an interconnectedness and a relatedness of diversity and communality in a holistic way. Many Indigenous scholars note the need to consider this interconnectedness and relationality in a holistic way, thus bringing academic work closer to traditional ways of knowing (Porsanger 2007, 36; see also Bishop 1996; Crazy Bull 1997; Deloria

figure 6.2 Ontology of relations according to Porsanger (2007, 35–37) (Graphic design by Attila Paksi)

et al. 1999, 32–39; Lowe & Struthers 2001, 126). According to Dale Stover (2002, 191) (Dakota Sioux), experience of relatedness "fosters the decolonising of knowledge since relatedness rather than knowledge becomes privileged; consequently, knowledge is no longer a matter of power relations between 'self' and 'other' but of kinship relations in which knowledge of each other extends freely in both cultural directions as a process of relational reciprocity".

Based on the theorizing of all relationships in a holistic way, we have developed a method inspired by the Sámi *solju* ('round breastpin'). From the early start of our project, we were looking for a symbol (an item, an object, a place, an action) which would structure the analysis. The symbol should be connected to femininity in a traditional Sámi way, and should display holistic integrity, and non-linear and multi-dimensional ways of thinking.

A *solju* is part of Sámi women's dress (*gákti*). It is a decorative jewellery which fastens the silk shawl and the dress in an aesthetic unity. If a breastpin is not fastened correctly, it affects the whole appearance, called *fárda*, which means how a dress fits a person. When a brooch is attached to a silk shawl correctly, one can say that a woman is wearing the dress charmingly with style (*nisu guoddá gávtti hámálaččat*) or she has a nice *fárda* (meaning that her dress suits her well). When a person moves, the leaves on the breastpin are in motion, clinking and jingling, revealing the mood of the person. A *solju* can be a safeguard, given as a gift with the special purpose of protection, which is named in North Sámi *šiella,* an 'amulet', aimed at keeping bad spirits away. In the present, men have also begun to wear breastpins as jewellery. Hence, although being initially a female object, a *solju* can now be a representation of gender equality. A *solju* also represents beautiful silver forging. It is part of Sámi art expressions which are often about how we maintain not only a sense of coherence but also our resilience and, ultimately, confidence and strength, and communicate the principle of relationality (Kenny 2012, 7).

A *solju* is part of non-verbal communication in many ways, but in a traditional wedding it has a special value. In the western parts of *Sápmi,* a bride wears a wedding shawl decorated with dozens of brooches (Figure 6.3). They can be purchased, but traditionally they have been gathered from among the kin of both the bride and the groom. This is an indication of close family ties within the extended family, and for the purpose of our chapter, this is a representation of relationality.

*Solju* is a symbol of relationality, therefore our analysis is organized as a form of *solju* connecting Sámi concepts, values, and actions. The round silver plate of a *solju* – in the technical terms of the production – is a foundation2 to which all leaves and other decorative patterns are attached. Likewise, for our methodology, a *solju* represents a foundation for our contemplations in a

figure 6.3 Wedding picture of Inger Elisabeth Utsi, who married Petter Jovnna Utsi in Kárášjohka/Karasjok (Photograph by Jelena Porsanger, 2018, reproduced with permission)

holistic manner and visualizes the holistic interconnectedness of values and actions. The analysis is therefore structured into two circles (Figure 6.4): the internal circle represents values, and the external one represents actions. In a circle, as in Sámi *yoik*, there is no beginning and no end.3 In Figure 6.4, one can see that a circle of values and a circle of actions influence each other and make one. The concepts inside our methodological *solju* we identify as meaningful for women in leadership.

The inner circle of the *solju* is a Circle of valu es which demonstrates the fundamental values for choice of actions by women in leadership:



The outer circle of the *solju* is a Circle of actions:


The first and the second pair of actions – appreciate and respect, and Sáminize and transfer – go through all processes of Sámi female leadership because for us Sámi leadership is based on an appreciation and respect for Sámi tradition, language and social interconnectedness. This implies the duty to base decisions and to implement them through actions to promote and transfer what is characteristic of Sáminess.

#### **3** *Muittašit ovttas* **– Shared Remembering as a Method**

The method of *muittašit ovttas* – shared remembering – is developed to collect research material and to conceptualize Sámi women's leadership. This method emerges from Sámi oral tradition and is applicable both for the gathering of information and analysis, and for the writing process. It is a non-linear and collective way of collecting information both retrospectively and with reference to the present and to reflections about the future in a holistic way. It is both a commemoration and a reflection from a present standpoint and position, when everyone complements and ponders about all matters taken in the course of shared remembering and later during the writing process.

The development of the method of shared remembering is inspired by many Indigenous scholarly contributions in which storytelling and Indigenous languages can be seen as a source and as a method (see also Chapters 2, 3 & 5). It is worth mentioning a storytelling or narrative by Margaret Kovach (2009, 56–58) and Sean Wilson (2008, 137), talking circles that represent a traditional way for Native Americans to solve problems, to remove barriers and allow people to express themselves with complete freedom by Bagele Chilisa (2012, 112– 116). Through storytelling, Indigenous peoples are engaging in research that is developed by and for their communities, empowering them (storytelling as an Indigenous project, see L. Smith 1999/2012, 144–145; see Datta 2017a, 3–4, 2017b) on making a connection to a "relational way of knowing"). In the Cree context, conversation is "a cumulative analysis of the topic":

A normal conversation between us all would naturally start off a lot of "small talk", as that is a key to getting everyone into mutually respectful relations. It allowed us to see how the others were feeling, to express whatever was on our minds that might be distracting us and to get ourselves thinking on the same wavelength. (Wilson 2008, 99)

We got a powerful inspiration to our work from the *yarning* method, based on the Nyoongah Aboriginal tradition in Western Australia (Bessarab & Ng'andu 2010). Yarning is an Indigenous cultural form of collaborative conversation. The *yarn* is about the sharing and exchange of information between two or more people socially, or more formally as a dialogical process that is reciprocal, inclusive and mutual (Bessarab & Ng'andu 2010, 38). Yarning has been widely applied as a research method which can be used both by Indigenous and non-Indigenous scholars (Bessarab & Ng'andu 2010; Moreton-Robinson & Walter 2009). The method of yarning circles has also been developed as a teaching and learning strategy for schoolchildren and students in Australia, to build respectful relationships, to learn together from a collective group, and to preserve and pass on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander knowledge. Dawn Bessarab and Bridget Ng'andu (2010) used yarning as a data gathering tool with one Australian Aboriginal and one Botswanian Indigenous group, thus demonstrating that yarning as a means of obtaining information has a global applicability in Indigenous contexts. The method was applied to conduct research interviews by establishing a relationship with Indigenous participants prior to gathering their stories through storytelling. Research findings demonstrate that yarning can be applied as a rigorous tool in the research process for a collaborative generating of information with a focus on the role and influence of gender during the research interview (ibid.).

Narration is a traditional Indigenous methodology globally applied to reflect experiences and strengthen community ties and togetherness (collectivity, *searvevuohta*). By means of storytelling, the Sámi made their reality comprehensible to themselves and to others in a culturally appropriate way (Hirvonen 2011, 16). Stories can serve as bridges that connect, bring alive and make memorable the experiences of the people (Chilisa 2012, 139).

The verb *muittašit* is derived from the noun *muitu* 'memory'. Memory does not appear from emptiness but from everything we have experienced (Saarenheimo 2012, 58–59), from an individual and a societal context, and from all our relations. By shared remembering we give meanings to our memories, we build specificity and construct a continuously moving "web" of events and reflections which contain single moments, experiences, feelings or knowledge which could be tied to a larger network (ibid.)

Initially and traditionally, *muittašeapmi* is always a narration, it is a process that evolves and expands collectively: a person is never alone, but memorizes together with others, human and non-human beings, contemplating and envisioning issues, persons or happenings, complementing, enriching and reminding. Our method can be called "shared remembering between friends", where we could add and complement in a free, undisturbed, and respectful way each other's stories and memories (cf. Wilson 2008).

The process of remembering involves storytellers who are simultaneously also listeners with a common interest in an issue. For a productive shared remembering, relationship between participants should be safe, trustworthy, peaceful, friendly, well-intended and supportive, so that even controversies can be handled with good spirit and in a productive way. All participants should have good background knowledge, and their own experiences or insight into others' stories and happenings. This process can be compared with autoethnography, which means that the researcher makes use of her own lived experiences. According to Seurujärvi-Kari (2012, 118–119), the researcher finds answers to the research questions that arise from her lived experiences. However, this means an interpretation of a truth rather than a quest for a truth, since truth is subjective and ambiguous, and truth is formed by the way that agents experience it (ibid.).

*Muittašeapmi* covers many time spans and levels, relations and relationships in a holistic way. The participants can connect several issues together or see an interconnectedness between issues, following a kind of a collective logics. They are in a multidimensional relationship, influencing each other and sharing the position of the "leader" of the conversation. One can start and others continue and complement a story, often relating the happening to kin, family ties, local history and Sámi history in general. This involves the abovementioned "experience of relatedness". *Muittašeapmi* is a product of socialization, learnt from forerunners and ancestors (Hirvonen 2011, 16, with reference to Saastamoinen 2000). The Sámi writer and a traditional knowledge-holder Johan Turi used this method in his famous book (1910/2010). *Muittašeapmi* can be compared to yoik *– luohti* – which for the Sámi has been a means of communication, remembering and transmission of knowledge, and at the same an attribute of identity and belonging. By the means of a *yoik* one recalls and represents something or somebody, but not talking "about" something or somebody. Thus, a yoik is a representation that brings memories, happenings, characters, issues, natural phenomena, and human and non-human beings alive: it is a way to remember and to commemorate (Ruong 1969/1982, 153– 158). Both *muittašeapmi* and *yoik* have a powerful spiritual dimension allowing to reflect and feel a sense of breaking free from the linear concept of time. A cyclic concept of time can be explained as a constant movement from the past to the present and back again (Saarenheimo 2012, 58–59). In *muittašeapmi*, however, it is not a movement in a circle, rather it is a movement along the turns (or levels) of a spiral, thus reflecting a multidimensional understanding of the world that is peculiar to many Indigenous cultures (see Porsanger 2007, 22–23).

When memories are chosen, they shape a story; thus, forgetting is also part of remembering, both for individuals and for a people (Saarenheimo 2012, 58–59; also Ruong 1969/1982, 153–155). *Muittašeapmi* for Sámi women in leadership, is a product of collective efforts: shared remembering combines singular events into a general cultural and historical consciousness and context. This method allows to identify and to fill the gaps in presentations of Sámi history, which are – despite the importance of Sámi women – mostly written about men and by men.

Our methodology of shared remembering (*muittašeapmi*) and a holistic interconnection of values and actions in Sámi women's leadership (*solju*) is implemented in the following chapters. The material collected through the process of shared remembering is analysed and structured by the *solju* method. This allows us to enhance knowledge about Sámi women's contribution to Indigenous politics, education and academic work. References to the records of our conversations are made with the help of abbreviations of names: ISK – Irja Seurujärvi-Kari (Sofe-Ánne Irja), RLN – Ragnhild Lydia Nystad (Káre-Sámmol-Ristena Ragnhild), and JP – Jelena Porsanger (Skolt Sámi kin of the Osipovs).

#### **4 The Circle of Values in the Methodological** *solju*

Women's leadership is closely connected to the protection and promotion of language, heritage and Sáminess, which is founded on the following questions: *Geat mii leat? Gos mii leat eret? 'Who are we?' 'Where do we come from?' Gosa mii gullat?* 'To which family/kin/group do we belong?" We have experienced and learned since birth belonging and love to *sohka* 'family and kin' and ruoktu 'place of birth'. Our Sámi names such as, for example, Káre-Sámmol-Ristena Ragnhild, having the names of several ancestors of Ragnhild, reflects the family connections and gives a strong family identity. Such interconnectedness usually differentiates Indigenous peoples from settler societies: place (both physical, environmental and social) provides identity, links the present with the past, and personal self with kinship. Indigenous knowledge often emerges from such an intertwined relation with a place, as Kovach points out: "it is a located and situated knowledge – a knowledge that is unique to a given culture or society and deeply ingrained in the Indigenous language and non-verbal communication" (Kovach 2009, 61).

In our leadership experiences, we consider our ancestors and families as leaders who guide us and assist us in carrying on the knowledge that we need for continuity and life maintenance. A detailed Sámi terminology of family relationships indicates the importance of kin and collectivity. In addition to terms based on gender, age and the succession of generations, there are also collective nouns for reciprocal relations, such as *fulkkežat* (extended family), *oappážat* (sisters), *vieljažat* (brothers), *verddežat* – persons who are not necessarily relatives but who cooperate (for example, our writing team of three women).

Family and collectivity create a sense of togetherness and strengthens the feeling of safety, security and care (Seurujärvi-Kari 2010, 85–90, 2018). *Searvevuoht*a (collectivity) has been the robust foundation of Sámi society from time immemorial, from the old *siida* society4 until today. In our view, the concept of *searvevuohta* corresponds with the idea of relational accountability (see Wilson 2008). In our conversations, we often had the feeling of an emerging collective spirit. This made possible the exchange of ideas, stories and memories and in-depth analysis from a Sámi perspective. The collective spirit strengthens and gives confidence, inspires collective creativity and creates the basis for generating new knowledge and launching new actions (cf. G. H. Smith 2003).

Collectivity plays an important role in politics, meaning a strong partnership with those whose way of thinking meets yours. This is especially relevant when female leaders build their networks:

ISK: … *dovddan dan kollektiivavuođas nu ahte buot nannoseamos kollektiivavuohta mus lei dalle Oslo rájes. Doppe lei dat sámesearvi ja de go johten Ohcejohkii lei Sámi Siida ja de lei Sámiráđđi mas ledjen miellahttun. Dalle diet searvvit eai doaibman ruđa fámuin dat doibme kollektiivan daningo olbmot, ovttaskas olbmot barge oktasaš barggu ... das ii oktage smiehttan lešgo das munnje ekonomalaš ávkin, smiehtai ahte mun ferten bargat, ii lean fertemisge dat bođiii lunddolaččat go mii gávnnadeimmet.*

[… I think that I felt the strongest feeling of collectivity when I was in Oslo (studying) where there was a (local) Sámi association and after moving (from there) to Ohcejohka there was Sámi Siida (a local association) and after that I was elected as a member of Sámiráđđi. It wasn't the power of money that ran these associations, they functioned on the basis of collectivity that is that individuals, cooperate and worked for a common cause … nobody was thinking of their own benefits or that they must do something, but it was natural to act and meet each other (and promote Sámi issues).]

In Sámi politics, "results can be reached if you use your resources for the common collective good" as RLN said when The Norwegian Sámi Association – Norgga Sámiid Riikasearvi – was celebrating its 40-year anniversary in 2008. She continued: *Rávven nuoraid ahte unnitálbmot politihkas galgá leat kollektiiva jurdda vuođđun, muđui ii ceavzze álbmot*, "I advise young people that minority peoples" politics must be based on the idea of collectivity, otherwise people will not succeed (literally "the people will not survive", see Helander 2008).

A spiritual core and relationality are at the heart of Indigenous leadership, "so that all of creation co-evolved in a symbiotic spiritual exchange" (Spiller, Barclay-Kerr, & Panoho 2017; Wilson 2008, 82–96). The feeling of a collective spirit is striking when Indigenous peoples meet, both in political arenas and in Indigenous research and education (Seurujärvi-Kari 1994a). Indigenous values become visible and operative through ceremonies, prayers, yoik or other traditional actions and rituals. For the Sámi, meetings with other Indigenous nations connect us to a larger context, focusing our attention to ideas and actions which might be forgotten or have vanished in Sápmi. Sámi spirit is liberating because it awakes creativity, launches new actions and opens connections between the past and the present (Seurujärvi-Kari 1994b).

In the process of shared remembering, several challenging political and academic situations in which we acted as leaders were discussed. Leaders often face a variety of unexpected situations and are obliged to find solutions to issues and challenges they are not prepared for (see further about *birget* and *birgehallat*). For women's leadership, creativity, improvisation and resiliency are extremely important, because unequal internal power relations connected to gender influence the working environment of female leaders.

Creativity in leadership is the capacity to find solutions and involves resourcefulness, which is formed and based on the Sámi cultural heritage, social competence and the cultural, social and natural environment. Creativity in this sense differs from creative inventiveness, such as, for example, explained in the context of duodji, traditional Sámi handicrafts (cf. Guttorm 2011, 4–5). Woman's leadership skills come from the family in the same way as the learning of traditional activities, and in this reciprocal learning process one's learning triggers learning in others. Creativity is closely related to success and management.

Leadership includes a lot of knowledge on local histories and sustainable development, land management practices and language and – for leaders in research and education – on academic work. Long-lasting academic and political work and cooperation with other Indigenous institutions, organizations and individuals have broadened our worldview and got us to reflect and compare different points of views when finding solutions to complicated issues. A creative woman is required to have visionary skills to make decisions which are meant to strengthen not weaken the situation.

In the Indigenous context resiliency and creativity are values with which Indigenous people have managed and survived in the processes of colonization, assimilation, and discrimination. The term resiliency involves "encompassing processes of risk and vulnerability, growth and transformation, culture and community, social structure and personality, and power and agency" (Kirmayer & Bhugra 2009, 2). The notion is part of conceptual thinking about the ecosystem and is especially applicable to Indigenous communities (ibid.). The concept and term resilience usually refer to the capacity to recover from, or adapt to, difficulties (Akearok et al. 2019, 1). Resiliency in our view is a characteristic of Sámi women's value and the ability to perform her leadership actions.

For the Sámi and many other Indigenous peoples, individual resiliency is linked to the resiliency of the community. It might be for that reason that this value appears in the Sámi national anthem as resilient Sámi kin – who resist oppressors without giving up, in a resilient and strong way, *sitkatvuođain* (*Sámi Soga Lávlla* by Isak Saba, 1906).

#### **5 The Circle of Actions in the Methodological solju**

#### **5.1** *Oassálastit ja juogádallat, 'Participate and Share'*

Gender equality issues have not been publicly visible in Sámi politics until Sámi women's organizations and commissions were founded in the middle of the 1980s. In the background, one can see the emerging of the international women's movement starting from the middle of the 19th century, getting stronger as late as in the 1960s and 1970s at the same time as Indigenous and other ethnic movements. These international and national processes and especially the United Nations International Women's Year (1975) revealed that Indigenous women can experience multiple subjugation in society, first because of gender and secondly on account of ethnicity.

Particularly since the mid-80s the Sámi movement has focused primarily on nation building, identity and collectivity (Ledman 2012, 100), aiming to assemble and promote the whole nation and not to differentiate into classes or groups according to gender or any other criteria. The main objective was to get the Sámi recognized as a people with a right to self-determination and the right to form their own institutions to maintain and promote their culture and language. In this process gender equality issues were left outside the agenda. Although women were actively involved in politics and in institutional building, men mainly acted as leaders of the Sámi organizations, e.g. in Norway in 1986 only three of the sixteen leaders in the Sámi leadership positions were women (Eikjok 2007; Kuokkanen 2007; Stordahl 1990, 7). Even in reports from the first decade of the 21st century (e.g. Lehtola 2005; Rantala 2004), Sámi political history is dealt with mostly from a masculine point of view and through men's actions, whereas women's rights, actions and influence in political decision-making are almost totally ignored (Hirvonen 2006, 55). These representations reflect inequality not only in politics but also in the whole society. In Sámi decision-making, women's issues have often been rejected since gender has been regarded as an issue which causes splits and slows down the process of Sámi self-determination (see Eikjok 2007; Ottar 1990). According to our discussion material, it is obvious that in Sámi organizations women have been under-represented until today.

In the 1970s and 1980s there was not much talk about feminism among the Sámi, although worldwide gender equality became institutionalized and evolved into its own domain. As a result, women began to gain greater influence in society; the focus of the women's rights movement was on legal and social equality (Hirvonen 2006, 57–60; Ledman 2012, 82). National laws on equality (e.g. in Norway in 1979) have contributed to the increasing participation of women in politics. Also, the international cooperation of Indigenous women has offered new political and cultural resources to strengthen Indigenous women's identity, and to recognize the many-sided oppressions experienced by women (Greene 2007, 30).

The 1980s mark the start of the empowering and emancipation of Sámi women from colonial and patriarchal practices and unequal gender positions (Eikjok 2007, 117; 1990, 15–21; Ottar 1990). One of the reasons for women to join politics was their concern about the transmission of the cultural heritage to the coming generations. In the Sámi political discourse of that time, these issues were defined as soft rights (*dipma vuoigatvuođat*) in contrast to so-called hard rights (*garra vuoigatvuođat*), which included the economy, the means of traditional livelihood, land and water rights.5 Through the establishment of women's associations, Sámi women gained support from other Indigenous women and also from the majority women's rights movement. Sámi artist organizations also emerged at that time actively entering the Sámi political discussions by means of the arts; it is significant that in the Sámi artist organizations women and men were equally represented (Hansen 2007, 45–72; Hirvonen 1995, 1998/2010).

In Sámi politics, Elsa Laula Renberg (1877–1931) is regarded as the pioneer of the Sámi movement. She was ahead of her time by founding the first Sámi women's organization *Brurskanken Sámiske Kvindeforening* as early as in 1910 (see Laula 1904). However, our discussion material reveals that her role and significance was little known before the 1980s, when the Sámi Council began to design the Sámi national symbols, such as a flag and flag days, and inaugurated the celebration of the Sámi national day and the national anthem in the 1980s and 1990s. After Elsa Laula's time, the progress of Sámi women's issues and gender equality was slow up until the 1970s and 1980s. Then, Sámi women started to address gender issues by organizing large-scale seminars on women's current position: in Kiruna, Sweden in 1975, in Kárášjohka, Norway in 1978, and in 1982 and 1985, organized by the Sámi Council (Seurujärvi-Kari 2005, 434–436). These events promoted the position of Sámi women in traditional occupations and the general job market (Eikjok 1990; Kuokkanen 2009, 2011a).

In 1986, the first Sámi Women's Commission of the Sámi Council was founded; this Commission together with Sáráhkka, the Sámi women's organization founded in 1988 and Sámi Nisson Forum (Sámi Women's Forum, 1993) started to promote women's political and cultural rights and gender equality in Sámi society. The aims of the organizations were to focus on the position and role of Sámi women in society, and to promote women's awareness of their current and future position to change social conditions so that women would be legally guaranteed equal rights with men. Women's visibility was to be increased, and it was considered important to promote cooperation with other Indigenous peoples and women's organizations (Sárá 1990, 47–55). Sámi women from Russia joined the association in large numbers. Compared with the Sámi in the Nordic countries, the Sámi in Russia6 have been in a much more difficult political situation, and hence Sámi women in Russia have actively sought support and cooperation with Scandinavian Sámi. However, it is worth mentioning, that Sámi women were leading the process of establishment of two Sámi organizations in Russia (in 1989 and 1998), and since then have dominated the leadership positions (Porsanger 1995; Rantala 2005, 164–165).

Sámi women's efforts have resulted in today's situation, where female leadership is recognized in Sámi organizations, institutions and politics, although gender equality is still seldom discussed (Kuokkanen 2011b; Seurujärvi-Kari 1995, 85–87).

#### **5.2** *Fámuidahttit ja friijandahkat, 'Empower and Emancipate'*

By establishing their own organizations, and sharing their concerns and visions, the Sámi women have been empowered and emancipated. In doing this, Sámi female leaders were empowered by their close kinship relations. A woman's relations and connectedness within her family includes a common history and a joint understanding of the issues and challenges of leadership. Our families passed on leadership knowledge through cyclical learning processes. Women in our families used their life-experiences and stories as an active channel for learning from each other. The concept of experience enhanced our understanding of the relationship between experience and learning to engage in self-directed transformation and change.

RLN remembers that she learned about her rights as a woman from her family:

*De leai mannan máŋga historjjá Norggas ja birra máilmmi muhto dat gii mu oahpahii dan nisson friijavuhtii ja fápmui, dat leat eadni ja áhčči dat* 

figure 6.5 The Sámi representatives at the First Summit of Indigenous peoples, organized by Rigoberta Menchú Tu m in Chimaltenango, Guatemala in 1993: Lars-Anders Bær, Pekka Aikio, Ole Henrik Magga, and Jelena Porsanger (Personal archive of Jelena Porsanger)

*lei sáhka das ahte ferte oahpu váldit daningo oahppu addá buoret juolggi boahtteáigái ja friddjavuhtii.*

[There have been many histories in Norway and in the world, but it was my father and mother who taught us woman's emancipation and power.]

In our conversations, it was emphasized that meetings with other Indigenous women had been the most empowering and emancipating experiences. JP reflects on her collaboration with the Maori in Aotearoa:

*Sis lea kollektiivavuohta hui nanus. Sis ii leat individulisma mii mis sámiin lea dál hui garas … mo sii jurddasit bearraša, iežaset gaskavuođas sii eai jurddaš ovttaskas olmmožin, álo hállet ovttas ja dan sii leat álo hállan ahte muitte, nanavuođa oažžu iežas olbmuid luhtte. Ja dat lea nu duohta go sáhttá.*

[They have a strong sense of collectivity. They don't have the individualism that we Sámi today have come to adhere to too much. That's how Maori think about the family and relationships, they don't think of individual persons, they always talk as a group. They always said to me: you find strength only with your own people. It's as true as it can be.]

The worldwide women's struggle for gender equality and women's status have empowered Sámi female leaders and opened up venues to participate in international politics. It took decades, even a century, to make more precise provisions on gender equality such as *The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women* (1981). Finally, women's rights were recognized as human rights. Indigenous women took part in many UN World Conferences during 1975–1995, for example, the UN World Conference on Human Rights in 1993 in Vienna, which led to one of the major achievements of the establishment of a High Commissioner for Human Rights to coordinate and supervise the Centre for Human Rights (Pietilä & Vickers 1994, 117–131). Sámi women were also actively involved in planning and implementing, for example, the UN Indigenous Year (1993) and Decade (1994–2004), the UN Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro (1992), the UN World Conference on Women in Beijing (1995), the Permanent Forum for Indigenous Peoples (2002) and the UN Declaration on Indigenous Rights (2007). The WCIP Women's General Conference (1993) in Guatemala was one of the worldwide series of meetings that were held prior to the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing (1995). ISK memorizes that the practical organization of the WCIP Women's General Conference was carried out by the female members of the WCIP Board. The conference adopted a plan of action with the aim of enhancing the opportunities for women to participate in decision-making. The main achievements of this Conference were, first, that for the first time a woman, Noeli Pocaterra, a representative of the Wayuu people from Venezuela, was elected Vice-President of the WCIP. Secondly, the women's commission and network were founded.

The Beijing Conference adopted the *Declaration of Indigenous Women*, which demanded the national states to promote and reinforce the rights of Indigenous women, including the right to participate in decision-making at different levels of society.

Women as leaders have played an important role in Indigenous Sámi higher education, for example more than half of the leaders of *Sámi allaskuvla* (now the Sámi University of Applied Science) since 1989 have been women. Joining the World Indigenous Higher Education Consortium (WINHEC) at the beginning of the 2000s, was one of the most empowering and liberating actions *Sámi allaskuvla* has taken since its establishment (see Porsanger 2018). This was one of the strategies of securing knowledge guardianship and creating Indigenous academic space, reclaiming equity definitions and changing the status quo in favour of a small Sámi language tertiary institution in the context of Norwegian higher education (ibid.). Close connections and collaboration with other Indigenous institutions allowed all parts to focus on issues important in a collective sense, seen from an Indigenous point of view. In this process, both women and men were equally involved, but it has been obvious that especially the Indigenous and Sámi women in WINHEC were the keepers of the good spirit.

#### **5.3** *Ráđđádallat ja šiehtadallat, 'Negotiate and Conciliate'*

Since the beginning of the Sámi movement, negotiation and conciliation have been important parts of the political strategy to promote Sámi rights and positions especially with authorities (Seurujärvi-Kari & Virtanen 2019). Negotiations imply the ability to make compromises, as JP says:

# *Fertet leat čeahpit kompromissaid váldit ja de viimmát beassat dasa ahte kollektiivavuohta, searvevuohta lea okta sámi árvu.*

[We must be smart to make compromises and to get to that situation where collectivity, interconnectedness is one Sámi value.]

Collectivity and good spirit have been important for the formation of Sámi political, cultural and academic institutions and organizations. However, reflecting on her experiences as the Rector of Sámi University College, JP pondered about a need to be resilient and strong under collective political pressure. Finding solutions to educational and academic challenges and controversies might get difficult especially for female academic leaders, who are most likely to be left alone, if a part of the academic circles collectively sets a political agenda to control and dismiss research results, as was the case in 2013. According to JP, in these controversies she needs to build her actions on a different set of values, balancing between collective pressure and academic integrity, called *fágalaš integritehtta* by RLN in this case in our conversations. In this matter, political and academic leadership are not entirely compatible.

RLN also deepens the ability to make compromises and negotiate:

*Lei dárbu leat idealista ja de sáhttá leat nu ahte gávnnat dan barggus dan mii lea realisma ja dat lea justa dat ahte soabadit ja gávdnat čovdosiid, fertet dalle geahččát maid mun, gokko mun sáhtán miehtat ja gokko in dárbbaš miehtat … don fertet ovtto miehtat ja ovtto figgat gávdnat dakkár oktasaš čovdosiid. Ja diekko bokte mii oruimet čeahpit dasa mo geahččalit gávdnat čovdosiid veikk'al ii lean álo dat buoremus oppalohkai muhto don fertejit gávdnat juoidá kompromissaid.*

[I had a big need to be an idealist. Then it could be that you might find some practical issue in your work, then you have to compromise and find a solution, and you have to look at where you can give up and where you don't have to retreat. When no common solutions are found, you should always assent and try to find satisfactory solutions. On that point, we seemed to be much better, although the solutions were not always the best, but you had to find something which helped you reach a compromise.]

When we were talking about negotiation and conciliation issues, we wondered whether *fámostallan*, 'the exercise of power' is specific to men only. According to RLN, women in leadership do exercise power to achieve equality:

*Diet lea dat dásseárvu ahte fertet ovtto muitit dan ahte dat ii ollašuva ovttatmáno, ja dan fertet don čáđat rahčat bealuštit dan dásseárvvu …*

figure 6.6 Establishment of the Sámi Parliamentary Council, the co-operational body for Sámi Parliaments in Finland (F), Norway (N) and Sweden (S), the Sami from the Kola Peninsula, Russia (R), as observers, March 2, 2000 in Kárášjohka/Karasjok, Norway (Personal archive of Irja Seurujärvi-Kari)7

#### **5.4** *Birget ja birgehallat, 'Manage and Be Resilient'*

There are many challenges to leadership, and female leaders are obliged to use all possible resources, but it is important to succeed without losing integrity and confidence. The actions of managing and being resilient are closely related to the Sámi concept of *birgejupmi* ('maintaining a livelihood'), which relates to values, to the sustainable use of resources, and to the social network; it binds people and communities, the landscape and the natural environment, social and spiritual development, and identity (Porsanger & Guttorm 2011, 21–22). In leadership, as in traditional livelihoods know-how skills, resourcefulness, reflexivity and professional and social competence are needed.

Leadership includes considerable knowledge about local histories, land management practices and language in addition to academic work. In our experiences, female leaders often have to cope alone when faced with difficult situations, often without almost any political or any other support. It is often the case that female leaders are left alone when contradictions become increasingly demanding. In these situations, resiliency and creativity are needed. During their political and private lives female leaders must learn to act fairly both with respect to collective and individual integrities, including their own.

We shared memories about negotiations that were successful and about those which failed. RLN remembers an important meeting in the establishment of the Barents Region in 1993, when the nation states and the representatives of the provinces in the Barents region were signing The Kirkenes Declaration. Unfortunately, there was nothing in the Declaration text about Indigenous peoples. RLN was sent to the meeting by the Sámi Council, which, however, was not knowledgeable about the whole process of negotiations and signing the treaty. It was unclear at that time what Sámi institutions were eligible representatives of the Sámi people in this signing process. She was required to sign the Declaration on behalf of all the Sámi, given contradictory advice by some of the Sámi politicians in the meeting "to find a solution by herself" or not sign at all:

RLN: *Ja de ledje nu ollu olbmot doppe'… Mun gávdnen čovdosa go ledjen smiehttan sáhttágo Sámiráđđi vuolláičállit traktáhta Norgga Sámedikki ja Suoma Sámi Parlamentta ovddas ja mearridin: ii sáhte. Danin čállen gaskaboddosaš vuolláičállin. Stoltenberg (Norgga stáhtaminister) rábmui mu ja dajai dokumenta lea mannan miehtá máilmmi. Ledjen čállán* 

# *golmma gillii dan ahte dat lea gaskaboddosaš vuolláičállin. Dien láhkai čovden dan ášši. Goal dat lei juo issoras dat.*

[There were a lot of people there … I had time to think, and then an idea came to my mind that I couldn't sign on behalf of the Sámi Parliaments of Norway and The Sámi delegation of Finland. Then I decided to put an interim signature. Stoltenberg (the Prime Minister of Norway) was pleased and said the Declaration has already been published all over the world. I had written in three languages that this is an interim signature. This was the way I found the solution. I felt a sense of excitement.]

We shared memories about negotiations that failed. For the World Council of Indigenous Peoples (WCIP) conference in Tromsø in 1990, the Sámi Council nominated a Sámi candidate as President of WCIP. The Sámi were members of the WCIP under the auspices of the Sámi Council. RLN (as the leader of the biggest Sámi national organization, *Norgga Sámiid Riikkasearvi* in Norway, the third author) and ISK (as the leader of the Finnish Sámi delegation, the member of the organizing committee of WCIP General Assembly and the Indigenous women's seminar, which was a parallel event in Tromsø, the second author) were keeping the decision. For them, a significant question in politics relates to confidence, in particular keeping to decisions that were jointly approved earlier. However, a small group of Sámi representatives did not keep the decision of the Sámi Council, and made a new nomination directly in the meeting. The result of this contradiction was that no Sámi was elected as President although the Sámi had played a central role in the activities of the organization throughout its existence. This failure of the Sámi was widely reported, including in the Sámi media (see ČSV 1990 – Sámisk månedsmagasin).

In Sámi political struggles for participation in international politics Indigenous women's networks were often a success factor for Sámi women in leadership. ISK tells about an annual meeting of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous issues that she attended in the late 2000s, which had Indigenous languages as the main topic. As Vice-president of the Sámi Parliament of Finland, she was officially representing the Finnish Sámi. Although she did not get a seat at the official delegation table, the female leader of the Permanent Forum Victoria Tauli-Corpuz was knowledgeable about ISK's political position and gave her the floor to present as an accredited conference participant. ISK proposed a new international instrument on linguistic human rights to protect and promote Indigenous languages. This proposal was accepted by the Permanent Forum:

ISK: *Bargen guokte evttohusa vuosttas álgoálbmogiid gielaid soahpamušas ja dan várás moniterenortnega ceggemis ja nubbin riikkaidgaskasaš álgoál-* *bmogiid giellajagis. Gielalaš diversitehta dovddasteami dihte dárbbašuvvo ođđá gaskariikkalaš instrumenta suodjalit ja ovddidit álgoálbmotgielaid. Dát ođđá gaskariikkalaš instrumenta, mii guoská álgálbmotgielaid, galgá sisttisdoallat nana čuovvunmekanismma. Erenoamáš bargojoavku dán ođđa instrumentta ollašuhttima várás galgá maid vuođđuduvvot Permanent Foruma vuollái.*

[I made two recommendations, first about a new international instrument on Indigenous languages that should include a strong monitoring mechanism. Second about the international year of Indigenous languages. In recognition of the linguistic diversity, a new international instrument on linguistic human rights is needed to protect and promote Indigenous languages. A special working group on monitoring should be established under the Permanent Forum.]

This example shows the significance of the Indigenous women' network, which supports its members to manage and to be resilient – *birgehallat* – within the unequal power relations. This also shows that in Indigenous women's networks emancipation and mutual support, relationality, creativity, trust, and keeping to collectively agreed decisions put forward crucial Indigenous issues related to the life maintenance of Indigenous peoples, *birgejupmi*.

#### **6 Conclusion**

A research methodology proposed in this chapter is applied to explore and analyse the role of female leaders and specific features in their leadership from the perspective of Sámi women. Our methodology acknowledges research based on the Sámi way of thinking and language, our shared philosophies, close relationships between collective and individual level, actions and meanings. The methodology consists of a method of shared remembering (*muittašit ovttas*) for gathering of information, and a relational *solju* method for analysis, structuring and presentation of the research material. Collecting of information by the method of shared remembering has revealed the interconnections between values and actions of Sámi women in leadership. The *solju* method allows to present and scrutinize the material collected by our shared remembering in a relational and holistic manner based on Sámi epistemology, ontology and value system. The process of shared remembering and the holistic analysis are two integral parts of a transforming and empowering research practice that connects the physical, emotional, historical and cultural dimensions together. This methodology makes "theory talk": theory becomes part of the conversation.

Shared remembering is used as an inspirational and productive social act. An understanding of memory requires sharing stories in a way that avoids essentializing the problems and issues of cultural conceptions, including issues related to women's leadership in Sámi society. For those involved in a research project, the method of shared remembering is reflexive, responsible and respectful. It allows researchers to produce knowledge in a collective research journey in which the participants together visit places and topics of interest that are relevant to them. The *solju* method utilizes an Indigenous language both as a tool of communication, and as a theoretical starting point for understanding and representing Indigenous knowledge. The use of Sámi in the discussion and writing process resulted in identifying many Sámi concepts used as analytical tools. One of the most crucial concepts is *searvevuohta*, which we identified as a Sámi equivalent to Wilson's (2008) concept of relational accountability. In our opinion, the methodology of *solju* and shared remembering can be applied to other research projects for collection and analysis of empirical material, regardless of gendering, in various Sámi and other Indigenous contexts.

Our methodology aims at involving Indigenous people in the research process as experts in their tradition and sources of knowledge, especially by means of Indigenous languages and conceptual worlds that are largely inaccessible from an outside perspective. This chapter is a contribution to Indigenous methods of collaborative writing. This method articulates that our stories are our theories and methods. Stories inspire us to overcome imagined barriers. They can act as bridges that connect our histories, our senses, our practices and values. For research purposes, they connect us to Indigenous theories of knowledge.

#### **Notes**


#### **References**


Porsanger, J. (2007). *Bassejoga čáhci: gáldut nuortasámiid oskkoldaga birra álgoálbmotmetodologiijaid olis* [*The water of sacred rives: References of the Skolt Sámi belief system in the light of Indigenous methodologies*]*.* Davvi Girji.


Sárá, M. N. (1990). Sámisk kvinnebevegelse. *Ottar, 2*, 47–55.


# **Strengthening the Literacy of an Indigenous Language Community: Methodological Implications of the Project** *Čyeti čälled anarâškielân***, 'One Hundred Writers for Aanaar Saami'**

*Marja-Liisa Olthuis, Trond Trosterud, Erika Katjaana Sarivaara, Petter Morottaja and Eljas Niskanen*

# **Abstract**

Aanaar Saami (Inari Sámi) literacy is weaker than that of majority languages in the sense that reading and writing Aanaar Saami is less common. In order to strengthen literacy, we argue for an approach that represents a methodology for participatory research from a community and an in-group perspective. We also discuss the implications this has for Indigenous research. The chapter presents a strategy for producing new readers and writers, both native and non-native. Whereas the language revitalisation process of the last decades has successfully created new speakers in the younger and middle generations, literacy is still lagging behind, and thus we prioritise strengthening literacy. The strategy, called *Čyeti čälled,* is a set of actions taken to encourage people to write, creating new domains for writing and supporting people in their writing processes. We argue that in order to succeed, revitalisation needs a pluralistic approach, including the involvement of all generations and the inclusion of both spoken and written language.

### **Keywords**

language revitalisation – language planning – Indigenous writing – community perspective in research – widening language domains

### **1 Introduction**

The chapter presents an approach to consolidating and extending the language revitalisation of Aanaar Saami (AS), Inari Sámi. In the first revitalisation

<sup>©</sup> Marja-Liisa Olthuis, Trond Trosterud, Erika Katjaana Sarivaara, Petter Morottaja and Eljas Niskanen, 2021 | doi: 10.1163/9789004463097\_008 This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the CC BY 4.0 License.

phase (1997), the young speaker generation was recreated by using the 'language nest' method for child speakers. Faced with a situation of fluent elders and a generation of children who could speak the language, the second phase aimed at recreating a middle generation of speakers (Olthuis et al. 2013). The third revitalisation phase is the core of this chapter: that is, how to activate the recreated language generations to write in AS. We will show that the approach of this third phase has methodological ramifications for Indigenous research in ways that will become clear below. The perspective for revitalisation is kept internal to the language community in question. We will also discuss whether this has implications for Indigenous methodology on a more general level.

The language revitalisation process that AS has undergone during the last generation is arguably one of the most successful cases, even on a global scale (for an overview, see Olthuis et al. 2013; Pasanen 2015). So far, it has included a long-term and large-scale language nest project and a one-year full-time educational project, producing AS proficiency for 17 speakers from the lost middle generation. The next step in the revitalisation process is to establish AS literacy that matches and supports the language community. The goal of this step is to find out how to create new writing domains for AS and strengthen the existing ones, to educate and encourage the recreated middle and young generations to read and write the language, and finally, to stabilise the writing culture.

This chapter holds a community perspective on the research process, with the early stages of developing a writing culture in the One Hundred Writers for Aanaar Saami project (*Čyeti čälled anarâškielân*) as a starting point. We describe how the project is outlined and conducted and then analyse our practice of conducting it. These actions together form our literacy revitalisation method and have a direct impact on Indigenous literacy itself. All the actions used in this project can be applied to language revitalisation contexts all over the world.

For the project itself, we implemented a particular method in order to get people to write, creating an open atmosphere and ideology for writing, combined with new publishing domains, writing tools and teaching methods aimed at writing. Our point of view comes from within the AS community and language and the way we approach the language is by insisting that our revitalisation approach actually works and does not merely pay lip service to the revitalisation goal. We will describe the measures to recreate the missing writers' generations and to activate them in their personal and communal writing processes. The paper describes a revitalisation programme, *Čyeti čälled anarâškielân*, initiated as a cooperation between Anarâškielâ servi (The Aanaar Saami Association)1 and the research group Giellatekno at The Arctic University of Norway (UiT). The programme creates new writing domains and strengthens existing ones.

The chapter is structured as follows: after this introduction comes a background on the AS language and its linguistic situation, followed by a section on methodology, the latter giving both a general discussion and a presentation of the methodological considerations underlying this chapter. We then provide an analysis of the *Čyeti čälled* project and its relevance for the language revitalisation. This is followed by a discussion of the results and conclusions of our work for strengthening literacy of Indigenous languages.

#### **2 The Aanaar Saami Language**

The Aanaar Saami language is one of eight living Saami languages. The Saami languages are spoken within central and northern Fenno-Scandinavia and the Kola Peninsula of Russia. AS is spoken in an area located around Lake Inari in Northern Finland, and the number of AS speakers has probably never amounted to more than 1,000 people (Olthuis et al. 2013, 25).

The AS language community experienced a rapid increase in the status of their language in the period following the year 2000, with a need to use the language as a medium of education in schools and in the production of study materials when teaching began in AS in local schools. Furthermore, the language was used in the Saami media, as well as in official translations in the municipality of Aanaar/Inari. The language was also protected by law due to the Saami Language Act (legislated in 1992, updated in 2003), as all official announcements needed to be published in all three Saami languages of Finland. These changes were very welcome, as AS underwent a decline in the number of its speakers earlier, during the period of 1950 to 1980, when the language nearly lost its middle and young speaker generations. There were several reasons for the decline. First, the language shift happened through mixed marriages. Second, in 1920, the Spanish flu killed about 10 percent of the population in Aanaar. Third, during the Lapland War in 1944–1945, nearly all of the inhabitants of Lapland were evacuated to Ostrobothnia, where they faced the pressure to shift to the majority Finnish language. Fourth, the traditional migration schools were replaced with primary schools after World War II. This placed the children in dormitories for long periods of time, separated them from their families. In addition, the children were often punished for speaking Saami (Olthuis et al. 2013, 31–32).

The lost generations from the post-war assimilation period have been recreated through threefold revitalisation programmes organised from within the AS language community itself: (a) through participating in language nest activities for small children; (b) by using the language in schools as a medium of education; and (c) through adult language education, especially for the lost middle generation. This recreated middle generation is now transmitting the language to younger generations (see Olthuis et al. 2013; Pasanen 2015).2 In the first stage, the revitalisation efforts focused on boosting the oral skills of L2 speakers, with less focus on literary skills. In the 1980s, the language counted approximately 350 speakers, but the revitalisation efforts (Olthuis et al. 2013; Pasanen 2015) raised the number to 450 speakers, including new L2 speakers. After the introduction of new speakers to the language community, writing follows as the natural second step in revitalisation.

The founding of Anarâškielâ servi in 1986 has been the most important step towards creating stronger literacy in AS. Within a period of 30 years, the association has published nearly 40 books in diverse genres such as memoirs, collections of old stories, translated children's books and a comprehensive study of AS place names (see also Morottaja 2018, 63). Crucially, before the *Čyeti čälled anarâškielân* project, there was only one speaker writing regularly and continuously. The other speakers were more irregular writers or merely writing short messages.

AS writing crosses a number of genres, including ecclesiastical texts, autobiographies and biographies, short stories, novels and poetry, as well as children's books. Additionally, oral tradition, such as storytelling and traditional *livđe* music, should be included in the *belles lettres*, even though this oral tradition has mostly remained unwritten.

Modern printed AS fiction consists of publications from the last three decades. Since then, over 60 works have been published, about two thirds being children's books. The most common way of generating fiction is to translate books from North Saami or Finnish; however, publishing original children's books has recently become more popular. Adult fiction consists of memoirs or folklore, and there are two poetry collections. Popular genres such as sci-fi, fantasy, detective stories, romantic stories or just plain prose are almost nonexistent (Morottaja 2018, 63). Petter Morottaja (2009, 70; see also Gaski 2018, 40) points to the absence of internal criticism:

Writing in AS has always been a holy right for each language speaker. Each script will be accepted with applause. We have to think whether this is good or not: not every text can be first-rate. However, there is nothing else. […] It is possible to take a new perspective for the text, even though one is not able to write that well. It is sufficient to write a bit differently than the others. (Translated by the authors)

As Morottaja points out, there are no full-time authors in AS. Typically, AS authors are language workers (journalists, AS researchers and translators) who write their texts as a hobby or side job, possibly with small grants or without any compensation whatsoever. Increasingly, authors and publishers of literary publications in AS need to apply for more grants. Hence, there has been a lack of systemisation in setting up new writing domains and activating new writers. The *Čyeti čälled* project addresses this problem.

# **3 Methodological Considerations**

This section begins with a general discussion of Indigenous methodology, followed by a presentation of the positions the present authors have in the language community. Finally, we illuminate the data-gathering process in the project under discussion.

# **3.1** *The Concept of 'Indigenous Methodology'*

Ethics in Indigenous research are greatly emphasised due to oppressive research processes that Indigenous peoples have faced throughout history. Crucially, the transmission of this research paradigm has been going on for the last two decades, and this ethical perspective has been established as a norm within Saami studies. Several writers have established a set of concepts called *Indigenous methodologies* (IM) and view them as methodologies that 'can be summarized as research by and for Indigenous peoples, using techniques and methods drawn from the traditions of those peoples' (Evans et al. 2009, 894; see also Battiste 2000; Smith 1999). Our approach is different. We see the main principles of Indigenous research on a more overarching level, as research conducted from the language community's viewpoint, using Indigenous language in the study, applying the expertise of both insider and outsider researchers, and returning research results to the community. Besides being researchers, we are also part of the language community as coordinators of an active collaboration (see also Chapter 5 in this volume). At this phase of the *Čyeti čälled*, we already see the initial results of the project strengthening AS literacy and thereby also AS speakers' agency.

Methodologically, our perspective comes from within the AS language community, a community of which we are part.3 When it comes to Indigenous studies, we cannot highlight enough the importance of including the members of the language community on the research team. Our methodologies are taken from language revitalisation and from descriptive and computational linguistics. The principles behind the AS orthography and the computer proofing programme to support the writers are not made by 'methods drawn from the traditions of [the Indigenous] people', as Evans et al. suggest (Evans et al., 894). We do indeed use the AS grammar as our fundament and pay close attention to the ways it functions, but the methodologies arise from orthography building and grammar modelling by technological language methods. The Indigenous perspective in our approach can also be found in our insistence upon using modelling methods suitable for the complex word structure of AS, rather than, for example, copying methods developed for English.

Seeing the context of this study from a linguistic perspective, the lexical and grammatical description of AS is based upon one and a half centuries of research by outsider linguists and philologists, created in cooperation with AS speakers. During the last two decades, AS linguists and pedagogues have built a practical AS orthography with the needs of the AS speaker community in mind. An orthography created with the writers in mind is a good starting point for developing literacy, but it is not enough if there is no space for a writing culture. The *Čyeti čälled* project was set up in order to bring the speakers in touch with literary culture.

The pedagogical principles behind the project are for engaging writing. In the *Čyeti čälled* project, several texts were written collectively while discussing both linguistic and orthographical issues among the participants. As mentioned, the research methodology of *Čyeti čälled* is connected to participatory research aimed at empowering suppressed groups, in this case a language community with a need to establish its own literacy. The literature of the language community must necessarily be written by the community itself.

Writing about Indigenous literacy in other languages is not enough to advance literacy; what is needed is rather that the Indigenous people write in their own language. This requires writers with linguistic knowledge and a will to write, as well as the means to carry it through. Such means include an orthography for the language in question. The orthography should be developed in a way the speakers could easily use in writing their own Indigenous language. From a majority-language point of view, this may seem like an obvious requirement, but all too often, Indigenous languages' orthographies are created in order to express the nuances of the language to linguists rather than as an actual tool for writing (see also Bird 1999; he makes the same point when discussing tone marking for orthographies of languages in Cameroon). When insisting upon keeping the perspective of the writer in mind, appropriate demands for the orthography automatically follow. This is not self-evident, and both AS and other Saami orthographies have undergone changes in recent decades in order to fulfil these demands. By the nature of the project, only members of the AS language community are able to write. The text resulting from the project will have content deemed relevant and interesting by the community itself.

A possible critique of the present programme may be that literacy is a Western invention alien to Indigenous communities, and that oracy should be in focus. We wholeheartedly believe in the focus on oracy, and its role in AS revitalisation is amply documented and discussed in works by both Marja-Liisa Olthuis, Suvi Kivelä and Tove Skutnabb-Kangas (2013) and Annika Pasanen (2015). Still, we find that literacy has a role to play alongside oracy in language revitalisation as well. When revitalising their language, adults often have limited access to native speakers, or they must acquire a certain level of language skill before they can interact with elderly speakers in the minority language. Both teaching material and a language community distributed across time and space require literacy.

#### **3.2** *The Writers' Positions*

It would be natural to assume that Saami-speaking researchers, working with a literary revitalisation programme, would be fluent writers of Saami. This is definitely not always the case. Writing in a minority language is never self-evident, even if we were to call ourselves leading figures in modern Saami literacy. We need to begin at the grassroots level. It has therefore been necessary to find our own positions as writers of Saami in the community. This has been thoroughly discussed among the authors in this group. Most of us started writing in Saami as adults. While introducing ourselves in the following sections, we also describe our personal methods for teaching ourselves and our positions as researchers. The authors have varying roles in this project.

*Marja-Liisa* has a PhD in AS and is the leader of the revitalisation programmes for AS. She initiated the *Čyeti čälled* project, together with Erika Katjaana. Marja-Liisa is a self-taught writer who learnt to write in AS during her graduate school fellowship at Oulu University, mainly from dictionaries and scarce texts. Before her university years, she had not used any AS for 10 years. After graduating with a degree in Finnish, her first task when embarking upon the process of taking the language into use again, was to renew the AS orthography and to proofread the AS hymn book. Through this work, she learnt to write. She started to write in AS in the year 2000, when the need to produce study materials arose. She has written five children's books4 and keeps her own blog called *Tejâblogi* (Olthuis 2018). Presently, she writes fiction and poems as a hobby, with or without the spellchecker. Her way of learning is to write more and frequently. She still experiences writing in AS to be a slow process, mainly from a linguistic standpoint – yet, as pointed out by one of the respondents to our questionnaire, 'Writing in AS is twice as slow as in Finnish, but why should one hurry?'

*Erika Katjaana* works as a lecturer in North Saami language and culture in teacher education at the University of Lapland. She has a PhD in education, 182 Olthuis et al.

and she has the title of docent at the University of Helsinki. She is a North Saami speaker and a writer who has revitalised and taken back the North Saami language in her family. She uses North Saami both in academic circles and as a home language with her children. Erika understands AS. Her children are AS speakers, which is their heritage language. Erika worked as a post-doctoral researcher from 2015 to 2016 on both the AS language technological project at Giellatekno and the *Čyeti čälled* project.

*Eljas* worked as editor in chief for the *Čyeti čälled* project in 2018 and took over the editing of the communal magazine *Anarâš*. He is one of the most active writers in the community. He also edits belletrist texts and books. He is an L2 speaker who learnt AS during the Saami Education Institute's study year 2012–2013. At present, he is a fluent speaker and always willing to broaden his vocabulary. Due to his job as a journalist, from 2018 onwards, he has become a key individual in activating people to write. He is harsh with himself when he makes mistakes, and he spends a lot of time solving linguistic problems. Sometimes while writing, his texts flow with ease, and sometimes he gets stuck, mainly because of complicated linguistic issues.

*Petter* has had the longest career as an AS writer. He is a native speaker who learnt to write AS in elementary school. He has had, and still has, various roles in the AS community: as a university teacher, translator, writer, journalist and researcher. As a teenager, he published two adventure novels in AS, and he has published shorter texts in *Anarâš* magazine as well. Writing in AS has meant making compromises on how to express thoughts that have emerged mainly in a Finnish-speaking environment using a language that seems to lack the vocabulary and the established style of popular culture. Nonetheless, he has not seen these compromises as drawbacks but rather as opportunities for creating something completely new in AS literature.

*Trond* is a professor of Saami language technology. He led the AS language technological project at Giellatekno in 2015–2016. The technological language tools emerging from this project are in daily use by writers, forming the basis for today's writing. He is a native speaker of Norwegian who has used Finnish on a daily basis for the last three decades. He speaks and writes North Saami in professional contexts, utilising Finnish as a starting point for expressing himself in Saami. When writing in North Saami, he makes extensive use of writing tools (e-dictionaries, proofing and grammar-checking tools, corpora), as both input (via reading) and writing practice are too scarce for automatising the writing process. Trond never studied AS and is not an AS writer, but he has a passive knowledge that makes him able to participate in a conversation in AS using North Saami.

On a personal level, we all seek to improve as writers and to activate others to write. In our research process, there is a continuous need to get a complete and up-to-date picture of the literacy and especially of the potential writers' obstacles to writing in AS.

#### **3.3** *Data Gathering*

The *Čyeti čälled* project is based on the writing needs of AS speakers, and the idea was to initiate and implement the project while taking into consideration real-life necessities. During the early phase of the planning process for the project, Giellatekno conducted a web-based survey in order to determine the needs of AS writers (Olthuis et al. 2016). The target group was people who are able to read and write in AS. The material was collected in January 2016. A total of 43 writers, 33 female and 10 male, participated in the survey. The number of participants was sufficient, as it was almost a third of all AS writers. The aim of the survey was to find out who writes in AS, the number of writers, their thoughts and feelings about writing in AS and, finally, what kind of support they need when writing in AS.

According to the results, 14 participants reported that their language ability was at the level of a native speaker, whereas 25 participants reported themselves to be L2 speakers. The participants also evaluated their linguistic skills and especially the linguistic challenges they met when writing. The most challenges appeared in the field of inflection, where 14 participants experienced challenges. There were also 12 participants who perceived conjugation and declension as (very) simple matters.

Most participants (N = 25) maintained that they write the language daily; nine of the participants write weekly, four monthly and two seldomly. The most common writing domains were mobile phone messages, emails and other Internet messages. Some participants wrote shopping lists, children's school papers, and news texts in AS. Less-used domains were blogs and academic texts. The participants wrote relatively little AS in other domains.

From the turn of the millennium onwards, digital tools have been predominantly used for writing. For this to be possible, the tools needed must be in place for all languages in need of literacy. This implies the implementation of language-specific letters, keyboard layouts and drivers, as well as proofing tools and lexical resources. For AS, large parts of this infrastructure are already in place due to the language technology project for AS conducted at Giellatekno, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, and subsequent cooperation between UiT and various institutions in Finland (Anarâškielâ Servi, the University of Oulu and the Saami Parliament, *Sämitigge*).

#### **4 Strengthening AS Literacy**

A natural method to activate writers is to create a need for writing within the language community, thereby creating stronger writing domains. This is one of the main paths the *Čyeti čälled* project follows. The process of establishing new domains is slow, demanding a remarkable change in the societal position of the language as well as funding and human resources.

#### **4.1** *The Profiles of Aanaar Saami Writers in 2016*

As already stated, a language needs both a core of active writers and a larger number of other writers in order to create vibrant literacy. For languages with weak literacy, the role of the most active writers becomes even more significant. The AS writers' skills differ from one speaker-generation to the next; thus, the speakers need to be activated and educated from different perspectives, depending on their writing experiences as well as their orthographical and computer skills. Our primary goal was to identify these experiences and skills in order to take the present situation as a starting point for further work.

#### **4.2** *The Elders*

Elderly AS people are native speakers who have mastered the grammar and expressions, but mainly lack writing skills in their mother tongue. They either write in AS with their own personal orthographies or do not write at all (Olthuis and Gerstenberger 2019). This generation also reads Saami remarkably slower than they read Finnish. In addition, they are mostly unfamiliar with computers, and they seem to encounter problems with the modern vocabulary recently created for various new domains, mainly for study material purposes in schools (Kalla 2010).

The elders have been activated to participate in the revitalisation process as Language Masters for the middle generation. They have appreciated this role and taken it seriously (Olthuis et al. 2013, 82–94; Pasanen 2015). In the same revitalisation context, they have also been activated to write in AS by the middle generation and have received some orthographical teaching from their apprentices. One of the Masters, Anni Sarre, has been encouraged by her apprentices and published a poetry book *Spejâlistem*, 'Reflection' (2014). She had written poetry in Finnish before (Sarre 2014, 4–5), but now she also writes poetry in her mother tongue. The writing of most elders is more recreational, a joyful way of expressing themselves in their own language.

#### **4.3** *The Working-Age Middle Generation*

The main division in the language community runs between the older generation of native speakers and the middle and young adult generations, who are mainly L2 speakers and familiar with computers. Since the AS study programme had mostly concentrated on oracy, there had been less time for literacy. Most L2 speakers are familiar with the AS orthography, yet their writing process is slower than when writing in Finnish, their own native language. Like typical non-native language speakers, they need grammatical support as well as support with vocabulary and expressions.

For this chapter, we interviewed four AS key writers who use the language actively, addressing their needs and experiences in writing AS. They all wished to be mentioned by name. From our viewpoint, their attitudes towards writing in AS have been essential to the revitalisation process. The main issue common to all these writers is the feeling of fear and stress when writing in AS. They also experienced that writing in AS was slower than writing in Finnish.

*Anja Kaarret* is a native speaker who works as a journalist and writes news media texts in AS. Since she did not learn to write AS in school, her texts are proofread, and she uses the new spellchecker. She thinks it is easier to write in AS, as one can write without fear, and it is also fun to produce texts together with others.

*Annika Pasanen* is an L2 speaker and a scholar who has written academic papers and short stories in AS. She considers academic texts to be easier to write than other texts, as one can operate with a more limited vocabulary. She has mastered the orthography but mentions that her vocabulary and expressions are limited, and she feels that her writing in AS is slower than in Finnish. She has also written literary texts in Finnish and therefore has high expectations for her AS texts as well.

*Petra Kuuva* is a teacher and an L2 speaker who mainly writes exercises for her pupils. Writing is easy for her, as is the orthography. Like in Annika's case, vocabulary is the main challenge for her. She also experiences writing in AS to be a slow process because of both technical and vocabulary limitations, as typing each AS-specific character requires her to press two keys on her keyboard (see also Olthuis 2017).

*Henna Aikio* is an L2 speaker who works as a teacher and produces study materials for schools. She writes for *Anarâš* magazine, essays for her AS studies and poems at her leisure. She has no problems with the orthography, but she feels that her vocabulary is more limited than in Finnish. She also checks inflections regularly with technological language tools.

It is well worth noting that all of the individuals also write AS in their work life. They need it in their professional roles, and this provides the opportunity to become fluent writers. Similar results have been found by Antonsen (2018a, 85ff). By assessing relevant language communities, she illustrates the worldwide tendency that Indigenous language communities benefit on a general level when their language is used in administration. The literacy of languages without such a professional writing domain do not fare as well.

#### **4.4** *Youth and Children*

The youngest writers (primary school pupils) often face several obstacles in writing. They have mainly learnt AS in the language nest.5 Eljas has worked with the children during the project and argues that the children seem to like writing. They also master orthography, and it is easy to activate them in writing, but their language skills are not at the native-speaker level. Their texts are not always comprehensible or grammatically correct. There are still gaps in their knowledge concerning linguistic structures. Besides writing, Eljas expressed that the children also need more intense language teaching, mainly with the structures that differentiate AS from Finnish. Writing seems, however, to be a good way to learn the language.

For example, Kuuva uses AS as a medium of education in primary school. She describes her pupils' language skills as heterogeneous. This can also be observed in their general AS usage. For some children, the language nest has been their only place to learn AS before school. AS is rarely their home language, but in many families, at least one parent speaks it. However, there are already native speakers in this generation. Kuuva's 13-year-old pupils write confidently in AS, without any shortages in their language skills concerning their creative writing. Their misspellings do not hinder understanding. The pupils prefer Finnish in writing, which is expected, because their main language domains are also in Finnish (private e-mail from Kuuva, October 30, 2018).

Kuuva's pupils, ages 9–12, write the way children normally do. Some of them like writing and are productive, but some can get only a couple of words written. Pupils who are interested in writing do not mind if they lack a single Saami word. They just ask their teacher or a friend. Older pupils are also able to use the e-dictionary (*Nettidigisäänih*6). The children's stories are humorous, imaginative and, for the most part, descriptive. The younger children seem to prefer writing in AS over writing in Finnish, mainly because they still lack writing experience in other languages (private e-mail from Kuuva, October 30, 2018).

The situation is less optimistic outside the Saami area, where AS instruction only occurs in small-scale settings. Without specific attention and activity from parents, the children easily become illiterate in AS. Nowadays, distance learning is possible in some schools. According to statistics from the Saami Parliament, 60 percent of the 10,000 Saami people in Finland7 and more than 70 percent of the Saami children under the age of 10 (Lehtola and Ruotsala 2017, 23) live outside the Saami area. The fragile social status of the Saami languages outside the Saami area is a main concern in revitalisation work and truly a threat to people's personal writing skills. The *Čyeti čälled* programme is set up for the Saami area, where it also activates writers in a context where the language is actively spoken and used.

#### **5 A Planned Strategy for Strengthening Literacy**

It was clear from the outset that AS literacy would have to be developed in a wide range of domains. As a starting point, we looked at the already existing domains, which, above all, were administrative texts and AS study material for the primary and secondary schools, all of which are published by the Saami Parliament. The permanent and most of the freelance jobs are related to these domains. Another notable writing arena is required by the Saami Language Act, as all municipal documents must be translated into Saami. The third strong writing domain is the Saami media, YLE Sápmi, especially its homepages.

One of the oldest writing domains is the communal magazine *Anarâš*,8 established in 1988 as one of the first measures of language revitalisation*.* With a circulation of close to 300 subscribers, it covers the lion's share of the speaker community. *Anarâš* is now published twice a year, with each issue containing approximately 10 articles spread over 36 two-column pages. The magazine has been the core of AS literacy since its establishment and nowadays activates an increasing number of writers. These writing domains have existed since the beginning of the twenty-first century and should be maintained.

A new domain is scientific writing, through scientific theses at different academic levels, with the journal *Sámi dieđalaš áigečála*9 as a central domainspecific outlet. The recent (2018) launch of a second scientific journal publishing in Saami languages, the biannual *Dutkansearvvi dieđalaš áigečála*,10 published by the Sámi Language and Culture Research Association, adds more to this domain.

The way of activating writers through work has proven to be effective. Recently, a report to the Nordic Council of Ministers assessed the situation of Saami lit erature (Domokos 2018). The author suggests 15 measures to create a stronger literature (2018, 26–27; Appendix 1). Her approach is different from ours, as her focus is on promoting literature whereas ours is on creating writers. Most of the measures she mentions will only be relevant when there are AS writers to be promoted who are able to write the literature.

# **6 The One-Year Programme to Reinforce Writing in Key Professions**

One aim of the *Čyeti čälled* project was to support professionals (mainly AS journalists and translators) in their writing process. The survey concurred that the new L2 generation was willing to write, but they needed linguistic support. Since the Saami Education Institute did not have the usual study year for AS in 2016–2017, the AS community wished to organise a one-year writing programme for professionals. The aim was also to learn how to use the new AS spellchecker (Morottaja et al. 2018) at the same time. In total, 18 participants registered for the one-year programme. They were divided into three groups based on their writing purposes: media, science and study materials/translations. Besides individual writing at work, the programme offered sessions with instructors. There were three instructors available, one for each thematic group. The participants had either face-to-face sessions in the classroom or remote sessions in the virtual classroom, with technical support. The sessions were usually organised twice a month.

The outcome correlated perfectly with the writing needs in the field: longer texts were produced by the study material and translation experts. Participants even produced a few scientific texts, namely papers and master's theses, during the year. These groups were in contact with their instructors at regular intervals. Surprisingly, even though the media group was continuously producing texts, it had the least contact with the instructors among the groups. We learnt from our experience that there should have been variation in the instruction according to the genre. While the news reporters were pressed for time and usually had no time to wait for the sessions with their news texts, the other groups worked in completely different circumstances: their texts could be written with a less demanding agenda, and comments from the instructor could wait longer. The reporters developed their own survival strategies: the native speaker who struggled with the orthography commented on the texts, and the non-native speakers, based on these comments, were able to write and proofread each other's texts. We concluded that this method should be used more in Indigenous text production with writers with more limited skills.

As the participants had already conceived their texts, there was no need to answer questions concerning genres and personal writing processes. Instead, the instructors faced the matter of missing terminology. This is a very common phenomenon when the language is taken into a new domain. We could trace terminological problems concerning historical and scientific texts, and news texts were approached using more colloquial vocabulary.

In spite of the mismatch in the planned schedule concerning the text production, this experimental year was a very positive experience for us. As Saammâl Morottaja, one of the instructors, pointed out in an interview (Niskanen 2016), there is still a shortage of all kinds of texts. The most positive outcome was the collective production of more professional and educational texts over the course of the one-year programme.

#### **6.1** *Promoting Writing in Academic Studies*

As mentioned earlier, the AS revitalisation programme promoted oral skills in its first stage. The influences of oracy can be seen at the university level: it is challenging to begin working on writing. Furthermore, writing a master's thesis in AS is a new genre for students. Writing in AS also has its advantages: it is easier to address the morphophonological gaps in students' texts, as well as interference from Finnish. The students also use the new spellchecker, so it is less labour-intensive to concentrate on content and grammar instead of correcting misspellings.

For the first time, the University of Oulu participated in strengthening AS writing in 2019–2020. We have added a more intense writing section, from five to 15 study credits in AS advanced special studies.11 During the first course of five study credits, the students can translate texts, write a scientific paper or use creative writing (see Mäenpää 2015). During the second course, the students concentrate on scientific writing – the writing process as well as the proofreading of their texts. Third, we have added a missing course on the AS literary tradition. Thus, getting used to the writing process will be the focal point. The students have appreciated this change, and they will also get more responses in writing. These sections appear to be quite natural in the study programme, but it has been a long journey to develop a study programme from scratch, stressing oracy, and then slowly move towards more literacy. Nonetheless, it is still too early to discuss specific results.

As there are not very many writers of AS, it would be ideal to specialise in some of the following genres that would also strengthen AS over time:


It would be helpful to organise a text seminar focusing on writers' skills, such as stylistic issues, grammar and morphosyntax. Each participant could write his or her own texts, which would then be analysed and proofread together.

The first PhD programmes for an AS Master of Arts are being planned by the Giellagas Institute at the University of Oulu. It is necessary to plan revitalisation programmes in detail and activate speakers in using the language orally and in writing. The first feedback has been promising, and even new speakers are very welcome.

**6.2** *Children's Wishes: 1000 sijđod nuorâikirjálâšvuotâ anarâškielân* The idea for the *1000 Pages of Youth Literature* as an AS side project arose from the Finnish Cultural Foundation´s *Lukuklaani* project, or 'Reading Clan', where the idea is to establish or improve existing school libraries in Finland to activate schoolchildren's reading and thus improve their reading abilities.12 The intention of the *1000 sijđod nuorâikirjálâšvuotâ anarâškielân* project is to translate *belles lettres* into AS, as the schoolchildren were asked for their ideas and they said they would like to read 'Harry Potter' and 'other famous books'. This side project received funding from the Kone Foundation in November 2018. Besides activating child readers, this kind of project is a good way to activate writers and translators as well. While finishing this paper, the project was established, implemented and finalised. Young AS speakers have participated in the project and translated novels, short stories and Wikipedia articles. The translations by young speakers have mainly been carried out as summer jobs, conducted by an AS student, Martta Alajärvi (2019), and an AS media worker, Fabrizio Brecciaroli (2020). Hopefully, these activities can be continued. More experienced AS students have translated entire books that will be published in the near future. Their translations have been conducted as part of their academic AS study programme. Our experiences have been very positive. This method also works as a study materials project: the pupils have learnt to produce learning materials by themselves, and translation work also has a positive effect on their literary use of the language.

#### **6.3** *Activating Leisure Time Writing*

During the *Čyeti čälled* project, Anarâškielâ servi has organised writing evenings and weekends for AS speakers. These gatherings have been popular. The focus has been on creative writing. The participants have written poems and short stories that can be found on the *Čyeti čälled* blog.13 One of the most pleasant memories concerning creative writing was a writing evening in October 2018; a language nest needed a story concerning traffic safety. That evening, five writers worked on the same text, with one document, writing and editing at the same time. It worked, and the language nest got their story, called *Širottâs*, or 'Reflector'.14 This kind of writing is voluntary work for everyone, and thus the texts are usually short due to personal time constraints and the purpose of the writing.

Continued success depends on who will write books in the future. The writing projects seem to strengthen the writing culture. The writers dare to write more freely and use their imaginations. It might also help if Saami literature were better funded and people could become full-time authors, at least for some time (Morottaja 2009, 70). Even improved technical means would be of great assistance.

# **7 The Use of Language Technology in the Minority-Language Writing Process**

Seen from the perspective of the writing process, Indigenous languages differ from majority languages in two ways. First, they are used less frequently and in fewer arenas than written languages, and the written norms are thereby less familiar to the speaker. Second, most Indigenous languages are morphologically more complex than the surrounding majority languages; each dictionary word (lemma) occurs in a high number of word forms.

For the writing process, the writer needs to find words he or she wants, spell them correctly and put them together in appropriate ways. Language technology may offer four types of help in this process for different aspects of the language:


Language learners need proper dictionaries in which the minority language is used as the target language. Indigenous language communities who want to use their languages in everyday settings face the additional challenges of the terminology in modern society: What shall we name all these modern things? Do we take the word from the majority language, and if so, do we adapt its orthographic principles? Do we borrow a loan translation (calque) from the majority language, or do we invent a new word altogether? Often, language communities use all these strategies, and the challenge for a minority language community is to agree upon a common term in each concrete case. Good dictionaries from the majority to the minority language, enriched with grammatical information, are probably the most central resources for supporting the writing process.

Majority-language spelling is learnt through reading the same word forms over and over again. Minority languages possess fewer texts and fewer channels of exposure than majority languages. There are not only fewer books and magazines in minority languages but also barely any billboard commercials and TV programmes with minority-language subtitles. Speakers of Indigenous languages, thus, read their own language for fewer hours a day than they read the majority language. For grammatically complex languages, morphological variation also leads to less exposure to each word form. Indigenous languages often lack a standardised spoken variety defined by an economically dominant elite. This adds up to a situation where it is hard to learn the written language by memorising the written form of each and every word. The availability of a good spellchecker may, in fact, be a prerequisite for establishing the literacy of a given language. A key concern for the *Čyeti čälled* project and, we would argue, for any literacy project involving Indigenous languages is to address the fundamental difference in written language acquisition met by Indigenous language readers and writers.

L2 speakers of a heritage language are often insecure about the grammatical structure of the language. These writers need all the help they can get, and a grammar-checker programme to give advice on grammatical patterns may be the tool needed for L2 speakers to be able to become active writers. For L1 speakers, it would help them to avoid interference from the majority language if so desired.

How to use a language is learnt by example, and the paucity of linguistic input in a weak language community may be compensated for by giving access to corpora written in the minority language. Thus, when faced with the challenge of using a specific verb, the writer may look up its usage in a text collection. For writers of minority languages, access to lemmatised and grammatically tagged corpora may provide a resource compensating for the paucity of linguistic input in the speech environment.

For AS, the basic tools (keyboards, proofing tools, analysers and machine translation) are available online and as downloads from UiT.15 The proofing programme has rather decent coverage and is advanced enough to support both beginners and experts alike (cf. Antonsen 2018a, 30 for an overview of the AS transducer coverage, and Morottaja et al. 2018 for a presentation of the proofing programme itself). L2 writers would need a different type of programme – for example, a grammar checker that also corrects grammatical errors when the words in isolation do not contain any spelling errors.

#### **8 Discussion**

In this paper, we have described the *Čyeti čälled* project and its attempts to activate people in writing and to set up new writing domains. The vicious cycle of having neither writers nor readers seems to be broken in the AS community. This has been done via a detailed plan for promoting a writing culture. We expect this writing culture to be strengthened further as more and more people write AS as part of their work.

The experience from the one-year full-time adult language course referred to in section 2 is that grammar should be prioritised first, and thereafter oracy. The basic materials of a grammar, a dictionary and textbooks to learn the language are thus central to revitalisation. When extending this to writing, the *Čyeti čälled* project was the first draft of an AS writing programme. Further details still need to be planned out. Whatever strategy one decides on, one has to cope with scarce human resources; if something needs to be done, then all other activities must wait. A strict priority order is needed.

The full-time one-year course got somewhat downscaled into follow-up courses at the Sámi Education Institute in Inari. These courses seem to be steady at the moment, and should be kept going, as language transmission still needs to be prioritised. Furthermore, especially in academic or higher education, the urge to educate writers should be honoured. Promising writers should be recruited, and specific writing programmes developed for them. Daily writing assistance is also needed in creating texts for everyday life. A study programme for creative writing needs to be planned and implemented. There is a growing need to write both administrative and academic texts, as well as nonfiction and literary texts.

Dutkansearvi – Sámi Language and Culture Research Association has now published four Saami issues of its linguistic journal, with 28 articles in Saami, eight of them in AS. Nevertheless, there is still a long journey to stabilise academic writing in Saami. Having a strong academic peer-review system has been the main issue, as well as motivating Saami-speaking researchers to write in Saami. Furthermore, the journal needs to be accepted in the three-level classification system of the Publication Forum,16 as the rating system of universities prefers publications in rated journals and book series. Last but not least, it is a challenge to get funding for academic Saami publications.

The single most important issue when planning the future of AS literacy is the future of *Anarâš*, the community magazine.17 This magazine has been published two to four times a year since 1988, is only written in AS and is read by the whole AS community. From the very beginning up until 2017, the majority of the articles were written by the editor, Ilmari Mattus. The revitalisation efforts of the last generation, including the work reported here, have given rise to a new linguistic situation. In a way, one may say that the continued existence of AS literacy throughout the whole revitalisation period has given what Dauenhauer and Dauenhauer (1998) refer to as a *prior ideological clarification.* For them, the lack of such a clarification, and thereby the lack of belief in the feasibility of Indigenous literacy or even revitalisation at all, has been the main reason for the failed attempts at the revitalisation of Tlingit and Haida. Pasanen (2015, 45) observes a corresponding ideological clarification of the speakers' own role in AS revitalisation as foundational to its success. Restricting ourselves to literacy, we would like to stress that the continuous existence of *Anarâš* in a very concrete way has established both the possibility and the use of an AS written culture. At present, the strategy should be to widen the writer base to a larger part of the speaker community, and also strengthen *Loostâš*,18 a web publication with shorter articles and a younger target group. In order to broaden the writer base, technological language means need to be further developed. Today, there is a spellchecker to catch orthographic mistakes (Morottaja et al. 2018); this should be followed up with a grammar checker, a programme to catch real-world and syntactic errors.

Sitting together and writing together does not necessarily require funding. It does not need strict planning, either – just a large dose of creativity. Creating prestigious new domains, however, calls for a remarkable change in the status of the language and a change in the old ways of thinking. It might also help to have a project planner to write funding applications and propose programme suggestions to potential funders and co-partners. Such tasks are often underestimated and unstaffed. For example, the advice to activate young people to read Saami literature does not help very much (see Domokos 2018, 26; Appendix 1, point 1), as there are not a lot of texts to read. We think that the texts need to be written first, and by young people themselves. Could the children translate or even write (and illustrate) a book or stories in school? This could also help them understand the current situation of Saami literature and improve their writing skills at the same time. Or should they translate stories? As Kuuva (private email, October 30, 2018) remarks, the gaps in grammar and vocabulary are not that visible while there is something interesting to do. Pupils with fewer creative writing skills could probably translate or have a different role in the writing process, such as developing the plot and protagonists. Someone also needs to illustrate or just comment on the plot. The classroom could develop a common strategy for working things out. But their teachers also need to be encouraged in Indigenous writing.

Our focus on literacy for Indigenous languages is not without its opponents. Although seldom put forward in scientific texts, we have encountered among both fellow linguists and Indigenous community members the view that literacy is neither a part of Indigenous tradition nor plays a prominent role in revitalisation. Now, the Latin alphabet is no more native to Germanic languages than to any of today's Indigenous languages, and a good orthography should in any case be built upon the language itself rather than upon conventions laid out for a foreign language. As for literacy in revitalisation, written language plays a central role in the linguistic documentation forming a basis for language teaching. Furthermore, a literary society gives more prominence to the written language. In an investigation of Indigenous and minority languages on a global scale (Antonsen 2018b), it was shown that precisely the minority language communities that employ professional scribes (e.g., for bureaucratic text) also represent the languages with an infrastructure for Indigenous literacy.

We, as authors, have started at the grassroots level, motivating ourselves to write in Saami. We think this attitude has helped during the *Čyeti čälled* project. We have not taken traditional researcher roles – we have also been writers, dreamers, doers and developers. Since there is not much to read, we will have to create the needed texts ourselves. We have been joined by others. We are thankful for their impact, thoughts and words. As shown by Morottaja (2018, 65), 'It seems that during the project there has been an increase in the number of writers. The project has had a positive impact, especially on the activation of L2 speakers. Some previously passive native speakers have also produced texts'. This is exactly what we have wanted, and what we have to continue with.

#### **9 Conclusion**

In this chapter, we have provided an analysis of the revitalisation of AS. This revitalisation has gone through three phases: (a) a language nest programme boasting a 25-year continuum; (b) the intensive schooling of almost an entire generation of new adult speakers; and (c) the introduction of AS into schools and society. What has been missing from this picture is a stronger focus on literacy. For all the new domains in which AS is being introduced (school, adult education, workplaces, administration), literacy is a prerequisite. The very first steps of this third revitalisation phase have thus been characterised by attempts to activate the speakers as writers and to set up new writing domains that are actively used by the writers. The method has been one of participatory writing, where new writers have shared their texts and received advice from more experienced writers. Since this work is in an initial phase, it has few measurable results as of yet. We are still able to conclude that the revitalised speakers see literacy as a central part of their linguistic ability and that they are willing to go through considerable efforts to acquire these skills. The existence of professional domains for writing (administration, school, media) has been an operational factor in promoting literacy. At the same time, writing in professional domains should be only a part of Indigenous literacy. Literacy is, to humankind, so many other things: a vehicle of thought, an expression of creativity, a sharing of ideas and the expression of one's innermost thoughts. This should be, and increasingly is, the case for Aanaar Saami as well.

#### **Acknowledgments**

We would like to warmly thank Annika Pasanen, Anja Kaarret, Henna Aikio and Petra Kuuva for sharing their writing experiences with us and for allowing us to use their names in this chapter. We would also like to thank Mervi Sistonen for developing the AS study programme for the University of Oulu, and Jack Rueter, Michelle Francett Hermes and Ellen Marie Jensen for their comments and proofreading.

#### **Notes**


#### **References**

 Anarâškielâ servi ry. (2018) *Lostâ* [*Magazine*]. https://issuu.com/anaraskielaservi/ docs/losta1\_vedos4\_digi


Sarre, A. (2014). *Spejâlistem. Heijastus* [*Reflection*]. Sämitigge.


# **Appendix 1: Domokos – Recommendations for Strengthening Saami Literacy**


# **Reflections on Power Relations and Reciprocity in the Field While Conducting Research with Indigenous Peoples**

*Attila Paksi and Ilona Kivinen*

# **Abstract**

This chapter looks at how specific research methods are chosen when conducting research with Indigenous Peoples and how theoretical principles and approaches are manifested on the ground. The authors share their personal stories and reflect on their research practices based on their fieldwork experience with the North Sámi in Finland and Norway, and with the Khwe San in Namibia. The two Indigenous groups represent two markedly different contexts. However, the commonalities in the upholding of cultural traditions allow researchers to reflect on methodological choices on shared grounds. Two sets of principles for conducting research in an Indigenous context are discussed, while the authors reflect on two main topics in more details; power relations and reciprocity. This chapter argues that principles such as *methodological flexibility* and the researcher's *relationships* with the community members, cultural values and the research topic are vital elements of research carried out with Indigenous communities.

#### **Keywords**

fieldwork – methodological flexibility – participatory photography – language documentation – Khwe San – Sámi

#### **1 Introduction**

This chapter is written by two scholars representing different research fields and fieldwork experiences. Attila Paksi, a social scientist with a long experience of fieldwork among the Khwe San people in Namibia, and Ilona Kivinen, a linguist studying Sámi languages, with a relatively short fieldwork experience

<sup>©</sup> Attila Paksi and Ilona Kivinen, 2021 | DOI: 10.1163/9789004463097\_009 This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the CC BY 4.0 License.

among the Sámi people. Regardless of the differences, both scholars are outsiders to the researched communities, which tends to profoundly affect the reciprocity and power relations between the community members and the researchers.

Postcolonial Indigenous research approaches and methodologies are informed by a relational worldview (Chilisa 2012; Kovach 2009). Consequently, Indigenous research itself can also be perceived as a web of relationships between people who are sharing information with each other (Wilson 2001). Fieldwork as qualitative research is based on building and managing relationships between the researchers and community members (Brayboy & Deyhle 2000; Maiter et al. 2008; Smith 1999). These relationships are meant to be maintained throughout the entirety of the research (and beyond), including the topic selection based on community needs that creates the basis for giving back and reciprocity.

The development of reciprocal relationships also implies addressing power disparities that occur in a research setting (Maiter et al. 2008). Melber (2019) points out that being aware of power inequalities does not eliminate the risk of reproducing them. Therefore, a paradigm shift towards the plurality of experiences, practices, knowledge and theories are required. To accommodate this plurality in an Indigenous research setting, Kovach (2009) argues for applying methods such as storytelling, life history and unstructured interviews, while other researchers emphasize exercising methodological flexibility rather than exact methods. Despite contemporary postcolonial theoretical and methodological approaches, researchers still face many challenges when aiming at incorporating Indigenous practices and protocols into their research and trying to address power inequalities during their fieldwork.

The aim of this chapter is two‐fold. First, we provide an insight into the specificities of conducting research with Indigenous peoples by outlining key principles and approaches when taking power relations, cultural contexts and Indigenous ways of knowing into account. Second, we explore methodological considerations through our own experiences doing research with the North Sámi and with the Khwe San people. We provide a self-reflective overview of alternative ways of knowledge production in the context of the two studied communities' cultural concepts. We discuss various forms of reciprocity and practices of giving back in our research settings, and how the different starting points may affect the trust between scholars and community members. The two markedly different case studies provide an ideal scenario to showcase common methodological choices that address power inequalities and build on reciprocal relationships to co-create knowledge and skills in a research setting.

#### **2 Principles of Culturally Responsive Research Practices**

Researchers are likely to belong to a cultural group from which most of the destabilizing influences on Indigenous cultures originated (Groh 2018). Legal, ethical and methodological considerations are imperative to counteract our influences. Several Indigenous groups formulated their own ethical guidelines for research. The Mi'kmaw people in Canada developed a set of principles to provide researchers with the manner and relationships necessary for a harmonious relationship with the community (Battiste 2008). The San people in Southern Africa formulated their code of research ethics, emphasizing the need to show respect, honesty, fairness and care (South African San Institute 2017). The Sámi people are still in discussions about developing Sámi ethical guidelines. Meanwhile, the world's only Sámi university, the Sámi University of Applied Sciences, follows the WINHEC1 ethical guidelines for research (Linkola et al. 2016). Apart from following set ethical principles, the chosen field methods are also crucial in Indigenous research. One way to counteract our influences is to design and apply minimally invasive research techniques, starting with a thorough self-analysis on positionality, values and personal behaviour (Groh 2018; see also Chapter 9).

Verna (Pepeyla) Miller, a member of the Nlakapamux First Nation and past president of the International Society of Ethnobiology (ISE) reminded the researchers to examine the outside environment as well as the inner self:

When you arrive at your fieldwork to conduct research with Indigenous People, you should first listen, listen and listen more. And when you think, you have listened enough, then listen, listen and listen more. (Verna (Pepeyla) Miller at ISE Congress; Belém, Brazil, 2018)

Smith (1999) stated that research with Indigenous peoples should be respectful, ethical, sympathetic and useful. Restoule (2008) during his work with Canadian Aboriginal people formulated the five Rs of research in an Indigenous research context: (1) respect, (2) reciprocity, (3) relevance, (4) responsibility and, (5) relationship. *Respect* refers to the need to recognise and respect Indigenous cultural norms, values, and a holistic worldview. *Reciprocity* means that research must be mutually beneficial to the researcher and the local communities while listening to participants voices and accommodating their needs and goals. The research topic and method should be *relevant* to the Indigenous community. The researcher has a *responsibility* to recognise and uphold Indigenous values, practices, and ways of knowing. *Relationship*s between the researcher and Indigenous community members, and between community and culture are the crucial bond between the previous four Rs. Restoule claimed that a researcher engaging with Indigenous communities must fundamentally understand these concepts.

Kovach (2009) argued that contemporary research with Indigenous Peoples must include a decolonizing agenda because of the persisting colonial influence on Indigenous representation and voice in research. Snow and colleagues (2016) outlined six principles to engage researchers in practices that privilege the voices and goals of Indigenous populations (Table 8.1).

The principles of Snow et al. overlap with Restoule's five Rs and provide theoretical and practical guidance to conduct research with Indigenous peoples. The sixth principle, *methodological flexibility*, highlights not only the need of


table 8.1 Principles of research practices, as described by Snow et al. (2016)

using alternative data collection methods but also the multi-layered relationship between the researcher and community members. The researcher's roles could vary between participant, facilitator or an advocate depending strongly on the methods deployed. Also, methodological flexibility plays a crucial role in academic discussions between non-Indigenous and Indigenous scholars.

#### **3 Our Stories**

Sharing "*my own story*" is a conscious act to state our positionality and reflect on our background and epistemological history. Positionality in a research setting means the self-understanding of the past and present identities each researcher brings into research relationships (Heaslip 2014). This reflection entails considering our family history, cultural values, academic backgrounds, and past personal experiences. Smith (1999) argues that researchers must go further than merely recognizing personal beliefs and assumptions. Snow and colleagues (2016) consider the researcher's reflexivity to be an integral part of the entire research process, involving honesty, openness about values and biases, and commitment to giving back to participants. We aim to introduce ourselves to illustrate how we have arrived at our field of studies to do research with the North Sámi and Khwe San people, by sharing our own reflective stories.

#### **3.1** *From Teaching Students to Learning from Indigenous Peoples*

My name is Attila Paksi. I was born and raised in Hungary, where I graduated with a master's degree in education and worked as a high-school teacher for three years in Budapest. My teaching journey continued in Australia, where I became familiar with the challenges Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students and families were facing in a modern school setting. During a visit to Vanuatu's islands, I was exposed to further dissonance between the school system and the traditional *kastom* schools of the Ni-Vanuatu (see e.g. McCarter & Gavin 2011). At that time, I had limited knowledge concerning social or cultural issues of Indigenous peoples. However, my interest arose to study the relationship between the modern education system and Indigenous ways of knowing, which eventually led me to work with the Khwe San people in Namibia.

Field researchers typically arrive at the study area without much of an introduction and prior relationship with the local people (Van Maanen 2011). By the time I made my first visit to the Khwe communities, I was fortunate to know three Khwe San elders from an international conference held in 2014. Lengthy discussions on local livelihoods and their ways of knowing led to an invitation to visit their communities. In 2015 I took the elders up on their invitation and conducted a scoping field trip leading to a doctoral research study involving 15 months of fieldwork (three times five months) between 2016 and 2018.

I had arrived at the villages to conduct fieldwork with – what I believed at that time – an open mind. In the beginning, my openness constituted listening to people's needs and identifying their main challenges. I quickly realised that my perceived openness was severely biased by my practical, solution-oriented mindset in wanting to solve local challenges. After a month of fieldwork, I began to understand the message in Verna (Pepeyla) Miller's talk, and my adjustment to the local setting slowly started to take shape. The experience of living together with the Khwe people provided not only an opportunity to study an Indigenous group but also triggered continuous self-reflection on my positionality, power relations, knowledge systems and result-driven methodologies. The mindset shifts of a practising teacher to a collaborative research participant resulted not only in carefully selecting my research methods but also a more reciprocal relationship with the locals.

#### **3.2** *A Linguist Searching for Her Place*

My name is Ilona Kivinen. To my father, the *North* is very important although he has never lived there. My grandmother, father's mother, was from that area but had fled the war to the south in the 1940s. She stayed there due to marriage. Now her childhood home is under the artificial lake of Lokka. My family's roots on my grandmother's side have been studied, and they go back to Sámi people in the nineteenth century. Samuli Paulaharju, in his book *Sompio,* writes of my relatives, among others.

I interviewed my father a few years ago, bringing up emotional feelings about Sáminess that surprised me. Other, similar identity interviews have shown similar reactions in people who realise their Sáminess for the first time.2 His mother did not speak about the times in the North, only about relatives from time to time. This type of denial of roots has been studied, e.g. on Sea Sámi people (e.g. Toivanen 2020). To my father, the Lokka region is more important, although he has never lived there.

I spent my childhood summers in Lokka with my family and shared a strong sense of belonging to the North with my father. I went to study Finno-Ugric languages at the University of Helsinki and fell in love with the North Sámi language and specialised in Sámi language studies. I have worked in Sámi language technology projects together with Sámi people. I have also had an opportunity to teach at the Sámi allaskuvla (The Sámi University of Applied Sciences). As a result, I made connections and made friends with North Sámi people. When meeting new Sámi people, they ask me where I am from. I tend to answer that I am from the south, but my ancestors were originally from the North.

I see it as essential that a scholar learns the language of the studied community to interact and make friendships, thus building trust between the scholar and the community members. In addition, for minority language speakers, the "outsiders' interest" may raise the value of the language and provide motivation to continue using it and transmitting it to children (see Pasanen 2015, 53). Raising the value of the language is especially important because the Sámi, like many other Indigenous peoples, have been ashamed of speaking their mother tongue for a long time, and many still carry that shame. However, I have also felt that some may not like an outsider who speaks Sámi, especially those who do not speak Sámi themselves, i.e. they have lost their ancestral language. I feel that I have regained my ancestral language. Although I do understand that for many I am still an outsider.

I often reflect on my place in Indigenous language research. I am not eager to differentiate between Indigenous and minority languages due to the vulnerable situation of both under the pressure of nationalism and ideas of monolingualism. However, it is critical to maintain and develop minority languages, as language is one of the essential building blocks of identity. My job as a linguist is to support the speech communities by producing more knowledge on the language for and with the speakers

#### **4 Our Research Settings**

Conducting fi eld research is not merely the use of pre-set techniques but de pends on a complex interaction between the research problem, the researcher and those who are being researched (Burgess 2002). Our fieldwork settings differ in several ways, but both of us had to find and carefully design and redesign the most suitable methods in our specific research setting.

#### **4.1** *The Research Setting in Namibia – by Attila Paksi*

An approximately 4,000 Khwe San people live inside the Bwabwata National Park, Namibia. The Khwe are traditionally mobile hunter-gatherers but today are settled in villages. They rely mostly on the social welfare system, food aid and the income of a small number of wage labourers in the community (Paksi & Pyhälä 2018). The ban on hunting and restriction on gathering due to nature conservation policies altered local livelihoods. However, hopes of the Government are high in integrating the Khwe into the mainstream economy through modern schooling, agriculture and employment creation (Republic of Namibia 2017). Meanwhile, the school dropout rates are high (Dieckmann et al. 2014), farming yields are negligible (Heim & Pyhälä 2017), and development projects do not make a long-lasting contribution in the villages. The settlements do not have electricity and radio coverage. Small local shops sell mostly alcohol and basic food items, while families live in mud or grass houses scattered around a tarmac road, fetching water from a centrally located borehole and refer to their lives as mere survival.

Only a fraction of Khwe students complete Grade 10 at the local schools and a handful of Khwe students finish tertiary education. The ones who earned a degree or a diploma stayed in larger townships and got employment. The ones who dropped out of school consider themselves as "*Grade 8 failures"* or "*Grade 10 failures"* and stayed in their villages knowing that they will probably never be formally employed.

I have conducted research with the people living in the Eastern part of Bwabwata National Park, where approximately 1,600 Khwe are settled in 8 villages. I have carried out my field trips with my wife, who has been studying food and nutrition security as part of her doctoral research, while I was focusing on the role of traditional knowledge (TK) in (1) education, (2) nature conservation and (3) development projects.

Widlok (1999), while working with the Haiǁom in the Mangetti area of Namibia, described his field research as stationary, living in one village for the course of the fieldwork. In contrast, we have decided with my partner to conduct a mobile field research, living in a tent and moving from one village to another by car. We have chosen to be mobile for practical reasons: to cover a larger geographical area; the flexibility to pack and move anytime; less time spent with daily travelling; to experience various village settings, and be present in the studied village's daily life. Throughout our 15 months long fieldwork, we have lived in four different villages but visited all the eight settlements in the study area.

#### **4.2** *The Research Setting in Sápmi – by Ilona Kivinen*

The Sámi people live in four different countries; Norway, Finland, Sweden and Russia. The total Sámi population is at most 100,000 (Lehtola 2015b, 23). They speak nine different Sámi languages – all of them considered endangered – that are closely related to each other. But not every Sámi person speaks Sámi. The number of speakers varies from less than five to about 20,000.3 However, the absolute number of speakers tell very little about the vitality of the languages, and the transmission and proportion of speakers in the total population are considered more relevant (Pasanen 2015, 74). The significance of the language related to the Indigenous identity varies among the speakers of the different Sámi languages. Still, in most cases, it is an integral part of ethnic identity, and in the Sámi context, the language is a part of the definition of being a Sámi (Sameloven 1987; Saamelaiskäräjälaki 974/1995 §3). Living in the area of four states means variation in the rights of maintaining the Sámi language, culture, and livelihood. All states have different laws and regulations that hinder cross-country collaborations. The languages and dialects do not follow the national borders, but the majority languages have a strong effect on the Sámi languages, creating new borders in dialects.

Unlike the Khwe, the Sámi live a modern life. They live in houses, but many of them still use traditional livelihoods; reindeer herding, fishing and hunting. Most of the Sámi are working in modern professions,4 and many have moved to cities seeking better living standards. Also, the Sámi are required to move outside of Sápmi to be able to participate in the higher education system. Hence, the most prominent Sámi communities are in cities such as Roavvenjárga and Helsset. This movement of the Sámi coupled with the changes that occurred related to the traditional living areas (see Chapter 7) have meant that the languages are not spoken in uniform areas, but the speaking communities have become separated and mingled. This is consistent with Johanna Laakso's (2014, 74) notion that the language speakers no longer live in their traditional communities. However, the Sámi are willing to use their native languages also in urban surroundings, where all the related services are organised on a voluntary basis by Sámi organizations.

All Sámi languages are considered endangered, but many are being revitalised (see e.g. Aikio-Puoskari 2016). One success story of reviving the Sámi languages is their modernization to meet the needs of modern, literate society. This applies especially to North Sámi, but also to other Sámi languages. Modernization involves the expansion of the use of Sámi to new, written domains that are outside of the traditional places of language use, such as administration, education and literature. The Sámi people consider the wide usage and writing of the language crucial for language survival (S. Aikio 1987, 457). Unlike Indigenous literature, in which the Indigenous language is fragmented, Sámi literature is mostly written in one of the Sámi languages (Ahvenjärvi 2019). However, there are not enough opportunities for writing in Sámi, and Sámi speakers are not used to using their language in a literary form (Outakoski 2015).

Language technological tools, such as morphological analysers (Giellatekno) and spell checkers (Divvun) for Sámi languages have been developed for all who write in Sámi to support the literal use of the language. It is worthwhile mentioning that in the development of these tools, both Sámi and non-Sámi professionals and linguists participated. This means that there was no need to discuss how to bend the tools to match the needs of the language as the project participants already knew what was needed.

I have conducted my fieldwork with mostly rather well-educated people, namely Sámi-speaking students and teachers. I made field trips to Oulu University, to meet with students from the Finnish side of Sápmi, to Guovdageaidnu (Kautokeino) in Norway with a Sámi majority population, to Eanodat (Enontekiö) in Finland, and to Soađegilli (Sodankylä) in eastern Finland, where one village, Vuohčču (Vuotso), belongs to the Sápmi. In these areas the livelihood consists of reindeer herding and hunting, but in the centres of Guovdageaidnu and Eanodat people also work in modern professions, such as teachers and administrative workers. Of these municipalities, Guovdageaidnu is also seen as the centre of the Sápmi area.

# **5 The Applied Methods with the Khwe San and the Sámi**

When conducting research with Indigenous peoples, there must be ethical, epistemological and methodological inclusion of Indigenous voice, understanding and practices (Kovach 2015). In many cases that implies using methods brought in from Indigenous cultures such as yarning (Bessarab & Ng'andu 2010), sharing circles or Anishnaabe symbol-based reflection (Lavallée 2009), while in other cases it involves the adjustment of long-established academic methods. Wilson (2001) argues that some methods are chosen rather than others because they fit comfortably within the Indigenous paradigm, like talking circles, storytelling and even Participatory Action Research (PAR).

# **5.1** *Studying the Khwe San's Traditional Knowledge – by Attila Paksi*

By listing and evaluating the methods applied in the field, two groups emerged (Table 8.2). The first set of methods are more informal, spontaneous and observational while the second set is more rigid, planned and data-driven. Nonetheless, they are closely related to each other and work in a complementary manner.

The applied field methods emerged gradually over time. During my frequent afternoon village walks, locals approached me casually and engaged in informal


table 8.2 The applied fijield methods while working with the Khwe San people

discussions. These led to opportunities to accompany Khwe youth and elders on gathering trips to the forest or visiting their agricultural fields. These gathering trips provided a unique insight into the Khwe's traditional knowledge. In addition, by visiting local schools and talking to the teachers, the transmission methods of "modern school knowledge" could also be observed. The process and results of these observatory methods gradually led to more structured ones. Pressing topics emerged and contradictions surfaced through the informal discussions leading to the development of locally relevant free listing and ranking activities, interview guides and survey questionnaires. I have also observed the locals' interest and excitement about the books I was reading and holding in my hands. They were particularly curious about photos and illustrations. This prompted me to try out photo-elicitation during semi-structured interviews, which helped immensely in starting a directed conversation even with community members who had previously thought that they had nothing to contribute. Using photos helped to bridge emotional and epistemological barriers and eventually led to the application of a participatory photography method, which is further discussed in this article.

#### **5.2** *Sámi Language Studies in the Modern World – by Ilona Kivinen*

The tradition of language research among the Sápmi reaches far back in time, at least a few centuries. Language documentation has played a crucial role in Sámi language studies, and it has also been closely connected to language history, etymology and the studies of Finnish and other languages that are related to Sámi languages. There has also been a long history of comparing Sámi with other languages and of proving its relation to Uralic languages. Also, many linguists, such as Just Knud Qvigstad, were interested in the Sámi languages as disappearing languages that needed to be documented. Despite the ideas of different scholars, the collected materials have helped in revitalizing the languages.

Today, documentary linguistics aims to collect and save ethically and technically sustainable materials on languages in the world (Himmelmann 1998, 2006). It is supposed to serve both research and the language communities in their aims to maintain and develop their languages (Austin & Sallabank 2018; Jalava & Sandman 2020).

My interest lies in examining changes in Sámi languages, and the research method involves documenting the language spoken by native speakers, in addition to using archive material. In the field, I asked Sámi speakers to talk to each other while I was recording the conversation both with video and audio equipment. I admitted both native and second-language speakers to my research. This differs from many earlier studies, in which the scholars decided who spoke language well enough to participate the study.5 There were given topics, but the speakers were free to change the topics and speak about whatever they preferred as the focus of the study was in the morphosyntactic structure of the language, not the topics of the conversations. The speakers knew that I can speak their language, so they knew I understood their conversations. In modern research I see it important that the scholar knows the language enough to converse with the consultants.

The research itself concerns the language and is connected with the long tradition of language research. The methodological issues in my field trip concern questions about how to collect material ethically, where to archive collected material, and how my research may serve the language communities. These questions I solved by interacting with the Sámi. I asked how the language consultants wanted to get information on the study. Mostly they wanted to know about my research directly.

I presented my work in conferences to Sámi scholars who were interested in my work. I was wondering how useful my studies were for them, but I got positive feedback. I also noticed that the Sámi were especially interested in the language spoken in the nineteenth century. Therefore, I decided to concentrate on that language more than I had planned before the presentation.

# **6 Challenging Power Structures by Applying Participatory Photography – by Attila Paksi**

While I was walking in one of the villages with my research assistant, a somewhat intoxicated Khwe man in his 50s approached me yelling in Afrikaans and Khwedam:

What are you giving to me? What are you giving to my family? You are here, asking questions, and going back to your country to become rich. You never gave anything to us. (Field notes, 20/10/2016)

At that time, I had already known this person for many months, visited his household several times and shared food, and provided transport for him. After my initial surprise, I realized that his aggressive verbal attack was more of an expression of accumulated past sorrows with researchers and development agents. The colonial legacy of conducting research with Indigenous peoples is impossible to neglect in the field. Smith (1999) argues that the research process creates a positional superiority of the researcher which objectifies Others. Max (2005) urges researchers working with Indigenous peoples to understand the history and presence of colonization in a self-reflective manner concerning power and privilege with the aim of becoming allies in collaborative research projects. However, the entrenched positional superiority of a researcher exists not only in academic circles but also in the mind of Indigenous peoples, which makes it even more challenging to form a legitimate and meaningful alliance.

The verbal attack also signalled the desire of the community members to organize my research along the lines of local norms and involve the whole community in a way that every household could benefit. Smith (1999, 50) argues that local communities have the task to determine priorities, to bring the locally chosen issues to the centre, and to discuss them within their community. However, this process implies a hierarchy among the local individuals: one person stepping forward from the community to propose a meeting, setting an agenda and leading a discussion. The person who proposes such a meeting puts himself under enormous social pressure from local peers as San people mostly choose opportunities that will not make them stand out from the rest of their communities (see e.g. Ninkova 2017, 219). The person might get ridiculed and asked: do you think you are special? I often found that development agents and ministry personnel working with the Khwe became frustrated with the lack of active participation, as illustrated by the following quote of a Namibian NGO worker:

I am tired of the Khwe. We organized meetings, training and provided opportunities, but when the time comes to stand up for their own rights and mobilize themselves, nobody does anything. (Interview transcript, 11/12/2017*)*

While the exact reasons for the lack of the Khwe's self-mobilization are complex, the hunter-gatherer egalitarian social relationships do form an essential part of this phenomenon.

At the beginning of the 15 months fieldwork, I was generally perceived by the Khwe as a white outsider, with abundant resources, staying only temporarily in the villages. I was frequently asked to give money, food or provide car transport. As one of the young adolescent Khwe told me, laughing after I denied his request to give him 10 Namibian dollars:

For you, it is easy. You can say no. (Field notes, 9/3/2017)

He was right. I had the power and privilege to answer yes or no to any request of the communities. After the initial struggles, certain rules were set and by following the principle of critical immersion, I participated actively in the villagers' daily lives. I started learning the local Khwedam language, drank the same borehole water and took part in various activities ranging from wild food collections to community meetings. However, critical immersion has to go further than plain participation. It is a process of interaction, by which respect is communicated, and acceptance is achieved (Groh 2018). The local's perceptions about me as an outsider changed notably over time. Towards the end of my fieldwork, a community meeting was organized by one of the government offices in a Khwe village. I was eager to participate; therefore, I approached the government officers to allow me to sit at the meeting. I was rejected as they said only community members are invited. When I shared this with the Khwe representatives, they replied:

What are they talking about? You are living with us for a long time. You are a member of our community, so just come and sit with us. (Field notes, 2/2/2018)

Apart from sharing the daily life of the Khwe, and learning about the local power relations, the conscious choice of research methods also contributed to challenging the long-established unequal power structures. One of the methods I have applied during my fieldwork is Photovoice. Photovoice is a visual Participatory Action Research (PAR) method where participants identify, capture and reflect on specific topics within their own community through photography. The method involves the training of the participants, taking photos, individual interviews and group discussions, and deciding on the action to initiate change. PAR is often quoted as an approach to overcoming power imbalances between researchers and research participants by creating conditions that foster empowerment (Pant 2014). Photovoice is designed to increase the individual's and the community's access to power (Wang & Burris 1997). In addition, further advantages are also highlighted, such as seeing the world through the community members' eyes and engaged participation. These resonate well with the principles formulated by Snow and colleagues (2016). However, Castleden and Garvin (2008) pointed out, when working with Indigenous partners, that the researcher should consider modifying the Photovoice method according to the local values, social relations and practices. In their work with the Huu-ay-aht First Nation tribe in Canada, they applied an iterative process of Photovoice to mimic the traditionally iterative way of community dialogues.

Certain aspects of the Photovoice method were modified according to Khwe San cultural values and practices. In the process of the nomination and selection of participants, I aimed to take into account egalitarian social relations and tried to engage the whole community. I observed during my stay that the commonly used selection processes by development agents caused social disruption. When the headman nominated participants, he selected his closest kin only. If the community decided about the participants in a meeting, they randomly selected people present at that time. Development agents tended to choose participants with higher grades of education or experienced knowledge holders. Each of the selection methods is likely to cause anger and jealousy between community members as some households would be over-represented, while others are left out. After careful consideration, the ten selected participants represented ten different households that were not related to each other; the group consisted of five men and five women; participants represented a diverse educational and socio-economic background, and there was one representative of the village headman's family. Even though participation was voluntary, and the selection process followed cultural protocols, the community members still did not gain full control over the participatory photography method. I had learned that all previous community projects had failed when development agents left the responsibility of selecting participants and organizing the resources to the Khwe community members. Therefore, the approach I applied was to facilitate the Photovoice project for its whole duration and make joint decisions with the community members by actively listening to everyone's voice. Using the Photovoice method, the participants set the basic rules, decided the time frame, and the conditions and procedures of sharing the photos. Moreover, at the end of the project, the photographers – together with the broader community – decided about future actions related

Another power imbalance surfaced over the course of the fieldwork. The Khwe community members expressed several times that their survival and overall livelihood depended on the Namibian Government's policies and decisions. They looked dejected and voiced their feelings about being marginalized and powerless. In one of the Photovoice projects, the topic of "*hunger in our community*" was chosen, as the Khwe people wanted to present their struggles to government officials, who regularly dismiss complaints about food insecurity. The photographers captured many aspects of food availability, accessibility and affordability in their villages, and shared their photos and stories at a larger community meeting. Having received the results of the Photovoice, community members felt they had a crucial role to play in initiating positive social change by sharing the photos and stories with government officials. Therefore, the community decided to create and print a formal report with the most representative photos and stories to hand them over to local decisionmakers personally.

to the photos and the stories that they had captured.

The Photovoice method was repeated in five villages, involving a total of 41 Khwe San participants, focusing on a variety of themes (hunger, well-being, development, and traditional knowledge) based on mutually agreed terms. While the hunger project resulted in a printed report targeting government officials, in the other projects, the participants created posters to showcase them at community meetings and exhibit them at local schools. Furthermore, it was discussed with the participants that a photo exhibition would be organized in the future, with an even wider (international) reach to raise awareness about their present situation. The Photovoice process and its results certainly contributed to empower local community members to act. However, to reach the desired positive social changes, mutually respectful relationships need to be developed not only with researchers but also between the Khwe people and local, regional and national decision-makers.

# **7 Power Relations in Language Documentation and in Academia – by Ilona Kivinen**

**7.1** *Language Documentation: Who Has the Power? What about Trust?* The Sámi are one of the most studied Indigenous peoples in the world (Lehtola 2015a, 22), and before the Dálvadas project (the official name was "*The collecting project of Sámi folklore*") in the 1960s, they were only objects of study. In

the Dálvadas project, organized by the University of Turku, Finland, the Sámi themselves took part in the research and, for example, conducted the interviews themselves, although the project was led by non-Sámi scholars. The interests in studying Sámi came from outside, and the research often served political agendas. In the 18th and 19th centuries Sámi was taught to priests in order to convert the Sámi people to Christianity. Thus, also the first literary material written in Sámi was mostly religious.

I have discussed my background earlier in this chapter, and regardless of my roots, I see myself as an outsider in a language community. Thus, I carry the burden of a former tradition in which the language material was recorded and then taken away. The language consultants hardly ever knew where the extracted material was stored and how it was used. The problem between Indigenous peoples and scholars was, and still is, trust. For example, Lagercrantz (1950, 159), a linguist who actively argued on behalf of revitalizing the Sámi languages, had difficulty in gaining the trust of the Sámi people. The scepticism concerning the agenda of the scholars can still be heard in such comments as: "The scholar wants only to benefit his/her career with this research".6 Thus, I had to be careful not to make the consultants feel as if they were mere objects but were crucial participants in the study, because in the end, the speakers had the deciding power. If they volunteer for the work, there will be material for research. If they do not, there will be no new materials, and researchers will be confined to work with archives. In order to get consultants, the scholar has to be open about the study (s)he makes, and avoid giving a feeling that (s)he is in power to extract material from the native speaker.

Trust means friendship, and over time there have been friendships between scholars and consultants. I thought that by knowing people and speaking the language, it would be rather easy to get consultants. I did get a total of eight conversations recorded, but it was more difficult than I thought, and I did not get as many conversations as I wanted. I felt uneasy about asking people if they could come and act as consultants for me, which made the task even more difficult. However, I did benefit from friendships, because it is easier to ask a friend to participate than a stranger.

Documentary linguistics today is based on the assumption that language is part of a speaker's physical, psychological, social and cultural environment (Jalava & Sandman 2020). Documentary linguistics, and linguistic research more widely, should serve the language communities in their efforts to revitalize their languages. The communities should have the power to decide how to use the materials collected in language documentation. The most appropriate archive for saving the collected Sámi material is the Sámi Kulturarkiiva (Saami Culture Archive), which is at the University of Oulu. The archive is connected with the Giellagas Institute, which is primarily responsible for Sámi higher education in Finland, and the archive material is used in education. One of the archive's aims is to offer material for revitalizing and strengthening the Sámi traditions, language and culture, and to connect the present Sámi with their ancestors.7 It also receives archive material from other institutes in order to be the one place where all Sámi material is collected, and thus make the archive material accessible.

#### **7.2** *The Power Relations in Academia and the "New Linguistics"*

The question of power relations in academia is twofold. First, it concerns the position of Indigenous languages in the more and more monolingual English academia, in which even national languages have been marginalized in research. Second, it concerns the question of who has the right to carry out Indigenous research.

English has expanded to all areas in academia in the name of internationality. Alongside of Indigenous and minority languages, national languages also struggle in modern academic surroundings, in which points are given by the publication of work in English. This development also hinders the terminological work in research and keeps information from the communities it is supposed to benefit. Something is always lost in translation, and cultural differences are particularly difficult to translate (see Kovach 2009). Also, I see it as problematic that in a large variety of studies, terminology is translated from English to other languages instead of looking for more suitable terms in their own languages.

Linguists are, or should be, in the front line to resist the development of monolingual academia. Florey (2008) uses the term the "new linguistics", in which linguists not only document languages but also actively participate in the revitalization and preservation of the languages they study. This can also be seen as giving back to the community. I have had the opportunity to learn the language, and I am obliged to work actively to preserve the language and develop its use in new domains such as academia. Multilingualism and multiculturality should be brought into academia in order to support multiculturalism in the world, both inside and outside the academia. The language activism among scholars is not new. In the 1920s Lagercrantz was already actively participating in the work to revitalize and develop the position of Sámi in society (Lagercrantz 1950, 120).

The Sámi have developed the use of Sámi languages at an academic level by establishing their own Sámi academia. For example, North Sámi is the main language of Sámi allaskuvla, The Sámi University of Applied Sciences.

It is possible to use Sámi languages in certain symposiums and conferences. The oldest academic symposium in Sámi is probably the *Sámi giela ja girjjálašvuođa symposia* – The symposium for Sámi language and literature, which has been organized biennially since 1993.

There are also two academic journals that publish in Sámi. One, *Sámi dieđalaš áigečala* has been published since the 1990s. The second one, *Dutkansearvvi dieđalaš áigečala* has been published since 2018. Both publish articles on Sámi and Indigenous issues. Both are peer-reviewed journals, which means that the reviewers are at least capable of reading in Sámi. It is still good to keep in mind that academic Sámi, just like other languages at an academic level, is not always comprehended by average speakers. Thus, it is crucial to inform readers about research by using other channels than the scientific publishing ones.

Concerning the question of who can carry out Indigenous study, the field of Sámi studies is politicized (Lukin 2014, 2015). Now much of the research is also done by Sámi themselves, and some tend to think that only Sámi can carry out Sámi research (Mustonen 2012, 261). However, there are also views that state that the scholar's ethnicity does not make him/her a better scholar in any subject (A. Aikio 2006, 379).

Non-Indigenous scholars have to be careful and listen carefully to the Sámi people and communities. However, it is also essential to avoid polarizing Indigeneity and non-Indigeneity; instead both groups should work closely together. An example of togetherness in Sámi linguistics has been the conference series Sámi linguistic symposium (SAALS), which gathers together both Sámi and non-Sámi scholars to exchange ideas and trends in Sámi linguistics. Participants may give their presentations in English or any Sámi language. This is an example of active work in preserving and developing the language at the academic level, and in this matter the Sámi language community may be an example to other Indigenous language communities by showing that it is possible to bring the language to an academic level.

# **8 Addressing Sharing and Reciprocity among the Khwe San – by Attila Paksi**

The Khwe man in his 50s who yelled at me and complained about the lack of his personal benefits highlighted different conceptualizations of giving and sharing. In many research settings, giving back means the dissemination of the study results with the intention that the research contributes to the local people's future well-being. However, as the researcher eventually leaves the Indigenous community, the locals are eager to receive tangible benefits while the researcher is among them. *The Journal of Research Practice* dedicated a special issue to the topic of "Giving Back in Field Research", where the authors showcased several ways of giving back to the community, including monetary compensation, sharing food, providing jobs and skilled training, car rides and organizing community festivals, among other things (Gupta & Kelly 2014). Furthermore, the authors also highlighted their own struggles to overcome power differences, choose the most appropriate methods, and create a reciprocal relationship.

Kovach (2009) argues that the concept of giving back means to maintain a relationship throughout the entire research process. Too often in the past, the Khwe people received false promises, therefore gaining their trust and building a reciprocal relationship seemed difficult. When I promised at the end of my first five months of fieldwork that I am coming back again soon, every single Khwe person laughed at me in disbelief. They have heard these kinds of promises too many times already. My arrival for the second five months increased the level of trust and strengthened my relationship with the locals, which has grown even stronger after my periodical but still continuous interaction with the people. One of the many ways of interacting with the Khwe was the cultural process of sharing. Demand sharing in an immediate-return hunter-gatherer society has a long tradition (Peterson 1993; Woodburn 1982), which carries over to the present day. Therefore, providing car rides, transporting water and agricultural products, sharing food and water, giving away clothes, stationery and books are all part of the cultural process of sharing which were taken for granted during my fieldwork. It is one of the primary practices to maintain egalitarian social relations and address power differences within the community.

Barnard (2004) notes that sharing and reciprocity are partly strategies for social well-being and partly strategies for material well-being, while Widlok (2013) argues for differentiating sharing from reciprocity. As the sharing of the researcher's material resources is implicitly embedded into the Khwe cultural sphere, giving back and reciprocity could mainly be addressed in the non- material realm. Gupta and Kelly (2014) provided some examples like the organization of training and skill development or assistance in writing grant proposals. Another common theme among marginalized communities is simply to spend time with the locals and listen to their needs, complaints, ideas and proposed solutions and if possible, forward those to the relevant decisionmakers. These activities might seem unrelated to the scientific work and categorized as advocacy – as stated in relation to the principle of methodological flexibility by Snow and colleagues (2016) – but they are crucial building blocks of reciprocity.

The choice of research methods could weaken or strengthen reciprocal relationships. The Photovoice method enables researchers to act as trainers and share their skills and knowledge on communication and photography in the beginning. During the project, however, the participants became the experts while explaining local phenomenon based on their photos to the researcher or each other. Moreover, the researcher might participate as a facilitator during Photovoice group discussions and act as an advocate by connecting community members and decision-makers. Ultimately, the advocacy remains with the local community members. This multi-layered relationship between the researcher and the community members forms an integral part of reciprocity.

Photovoice, as a research method, provided crucial data for my studies, at the same time, it also strengthened my relationships with the local community. One of the participants shared his satisfaction with the Photovoice project:

I am glad you came to us. Nobody came to our village before to teach us something. (Field notes, 12/11/2016)

The locals perceived participatory photography not as a research method, but primarily as a useful set of skills that could provide benefits for the community. The Khwe photographers mastered a new tool – the camera – and connected it with the already familiar method of storytelling to express themselves in a potentially more impactful way, showing their ability to be their own advocates in the future. Working with self-taken photographs, the participants could showcase – and capture with a camera – their detailed knowledge of the local flora and fauna, and could integrate their social and cultural values in ways that are well-aligned with the Khwe's everyday life.

#### **9 Giving Back in the Sámi and Linguistic Context – by Ilona Kivinen**

"Sometimes giving back starts with the ability of looking at another human being and giving with no agenda other than to say thank you" (Finney 2014, 4). Giving back to the community is rather a new idea, although already earlier scholars did get involved in daily chores while living among the people and sent their publications back to the communities (Enges & Mahlamäki 2018; Lagercrantz 1950). However, no other steps were taken to give back the research findings.

In recent years the repatriation of physical materials, such as bones and museum collections, have been returned to the Sámi areas and Sámi museums.8 Such work has started the revitalization of old cultural artefacts, such as *ládjogahpir*, a Sámi woman's hat with a horn, which disappeared from use in the 19th century (Harlin & Pieski 2020). Also, the earlier mentioned Dálvadas project was resurrected in the spirit of repatriation. In 2018 scholars went to the village of Dálvadas in Ohcejohka (Utsjoki) and held a gathering with local people to inform them about the collected material. The scholars and villagers gave presentations and held an exhibition of the photos taken during the research project (Enges & Mahlamäki 2018).

What about linguistic material and research? How can one give back in the linguistic context? Many chrestomathies made of Sámi languages were written for an academic audience rather than for language learning purposes at a basic level, or being useful for the language speakers themselves. Modern research ethics require that the material has to be given back to the community in a form that locals can use it. This means that there should not just be academic studies, but also material for the language community, such as grammars and dictionaries (Jalava & Sandman 2020). However, funding is rarely available for both purposes. This part should be better understood by funding institutions in order to benefit the language communities better.

Giving back also means openness to possibilities to make use of the research in different contexts. I felt that I was conducting my research out of purely academic interest. However, I was also hoping to contribute to the description of North Sámi adjectives in future grammars, which is an essential part of the language documentation process. At an early stage of the study, a Sámi teacher (a Sámi herself) told me how happy she was with my research focus, as she hoped that it would make the teaching of adjectives easier for her. This is one example of the way in which my research might be of some use.

Linguists can, and even should, be involved in the revitalization work of minority and Indigenous languages in the spirit of the new linguistics (Florey 2008, 124). As a linguist I am grateful for learning the Sámi language and giving back means active participation in revitalizing and developing the language so that it is preserved for later generations. For my own part, I have given lectures and presentations, and written articles in Sámi, thus actively working for the use of Sámi on an academic level.

I also wanted to say thank you to the people participating in my study. As it is traditional, in the field I offered the participants something to eat and drink to thank them for participating in my study. I thanked them in the presentation I held in Sámi at a conference in 2018, even though the examples from the collected materials shown were anonymised, and focused on the language, not on the content. I thanked those who had participated in my study in person, but I also thanked those, living and dead, who had told their stories to be stored in the archives that I am using to study the language. I will also send information on my research to any language consultants who would like to know more about my work. However, the academic level does not always benefit the community. Sometimes also the availability of academic publications for everyday people is limited. Both Sámi journals, however, are available on the Internet. Though, the language in an academic publication includes vocabulary that may not be known to common speakers. Also, illiteracy in written Sámi is still a fact (Kemi 2009, 67–68), as the modern orthography for North Sámi was only accepted as late as in 1979 (S. Aikio 1987, 474). In this context, I feel that it is not enough for me to just write in academic publications. Also, I am planning to give an interview in Sámi when I have something to tell about my studies. We have already talked about this possibility with a Sámi journalist who knows of my topic.

#### **10 Conclusions**

In this chapter, we have presented two sets of principles related to working together with Indigenous peoples in a research context. We have reflected on our own fieldwork experiences working with the Sámi and the Khwe San people and examined how these principles are taken into account in our studies. Through our methodological choices, we illustrated how we approached power relations, relationships and reciprocity.

Relationships were found to be of crucial importance in our research (see also Chapters 2, 3, 5 & 9). The multi-layered, complex interactions started with a thorough standpoint clarification by reflecting on and connecting to ourselves. Gaining trust and acceptance through honesty and mutuality from the Indigenous community members represented another layer of relationships. Our connection to the research topic, to our role and obligations in the Indigenous community and to the specific research methods also formed our relationships. The power relations between the researcher, the Indigenous community members, stakeholders and decision-makers, as well as between the wider academia and language communities poses a constant challenge to reciprocal relationships and plays an important role in advocating for positive social change.

Our methodological choices might be shaped by our disciplinary background, but they were highly influenced by the local settings. Adopting Indigenous approaches or adjusting long-established methods when producing research – in a collective way of listening to the voices of the Indigenous communities – could be transformative. In academic circles the transformation could take the form of changing research practices and developing reciprocal relationships, whereas in Indigenous communities, benefits can be received both during and after the research. The applied Photovoice method among the Khwe San provided a practical case study on the challenges and opportunities of methodological choices when working with Indigenous people. The presented fieldwork methods and considerations in Sámi language research illustrate the respect and flexibility that should serve not only the academia but also the language community. The modernization of Sámi languages can be seen as a successful collaboration between academia and language speakers, and as an example of language activism on the academic level. Irrespective of which specific method is chosen to work with, we need to acknowledge the importance of giving back throughout the entirety of the research process.

#### **Acknowledgements**

We would like to thank the Khwe San community members for welcoming Attila Paksi and sharing with him the joy and struggles of life in the rural Namibian villages. We would also like to thank the Sámi consultants for providing valuable data to Ilona Kivinen and to her Sámi friends and colleagues for commenting on her study and helping to learn more about the Sámi language and culture.

This chapter draws from the material already presented in Paksi, A. (2020). Surviving 'development': Rural development interventions, protected area management and formal education with the Khwe San in Bwabwata National Park, Namibia [PhD dissertation]. University of Helsinki.

#### **Notes**


#### **References**


Ninkova, V. (2017). *"Now that we have development": Change, resilience and education for the Omaheke Juǀ'hoansi* (PhD dissertation). UiT the Arctic University of Tromsø.


Woodburn, J. (1982). Egalitarian societies. *Man, 17*(3), 431–451.

# *Kimapury* **Reflections: Values and Research Agendas in Amazonian Indigenous Research Relations**

*Pirjo Kristiina Virtanen*

# **Abstract**

This chapter addresses the role of a "northern" researcher carrying out research with Amazonian Indigenous peoples. Reflecting on my long research experiences in the Purus River region, the states of Acre and Amazonas, Brazil, and my co-living and co-knowing with the Apurinã and Manchineri, I ask how Indigenous sovereignty and power can be accommodated with North-South relations. Indeed, can Indigenous agendas be combined with academic research at all? I discuss the relationships, impacts, and interactions in research. Then I analyze the local values and cultural protocols that have been taught to me very practically, materially, and immaterially not only during my fieldwork, but also in the longer research process. I then address the "path method" I learned as a way to produce knowledge and to contemplate changing situations. The researcher's relations and personal experiences are thus fundamental, even if the methodological practices can also be guided by studying Indigenous research methodologies. My research points to my constant attention to Indigenous agendas and their importance in the multiple relations of actors.

### **Keywords**

research agenda – Amazonia – values – cultural protocols – path method

#### **1 Introduction**

"How will this benefit the community?" I soon heard this question in 2003 in the Brazilian Amazonia, where I had been carrying out research with different Indigenous communities. Amazonian Indigenous societies are conscious that they have been studied extensively, far more than the other local populations, and that especially anthropologists have come to their territories, completed their theses and dissertations, yet hardly informed their 'informants' about the research process and its results. However, in the Southwestern Amazonia, where I have worked in the state of Acre, and in the Central Purus region in the state of Amazonas, also lived many non-Indigenous people, who were called *txai* (McCallum 1997; Virtanen 2014). This is originally a Panoan word for a brother-in-law. Even if it is a term for males, it has become a word used by different Indigenous groups for both women and men who had become trusted persons and contributed to the transformation in the community. These included those working in the government, Indigenist organizations and so forth, who had built long-term reciprocal relationships with Indigenous peoples. Some of them have had an elemental role in the demarcation of Indigenous territories in the 1980s and 1990s, and thus transformed the Indigenous histories. Especially by their co-living in the communities and becoming part of their social relations, these *txai*s had changed themselves as persons, as much as their relations with the Indigenous societies had changed the life in the communities. In that context, when asking for the first time about the benefit of my research to the community, the scale of possible benefits seemed like an impossible objective. I was not Brazilian, I was at the initial stage of my research, and still learning both Portuguese, Indigenous languages, and regional history. My knowledge of the Brazilian state structures was also quite minimal, even if I had in fact worked for the Brazilian state for two years.1 How could I bring a change and transformation to the community as just a PhD student in Latin American studies? That question affected me strongly, and since then I aimed at doing research that could also be relevant for the communities, rather than merely covering gaps in previous research.

In academia, Indigenous scholars have been vocal about what is the relevance of research for Indigenous societies. Research can be relevant for a researcher and academic institutions, but not necessarily for Indigenous societies or the local community. Indigenous scholars in different parts of the world have asked whose interests does the research serve? Who has set the objectives of the research? How will the research results be disseminated and to whom? The issue of the purpose of research and its motivations, relevance, and how one can give back have been discussed in different Indigenous contexts (e.g. Bishop 1998; Kovach 2009, 112–115; Kuokkanen 2008; Kwaymullina 2016; Porsanger 2004; Smith 1999/2012). Furthermore, the roles of so-called outsiders or non-Indigenous researchers have been debated. Opinions differ from the perspective that considers that Indigenous research should only be for Indigenous scholars (Rigney 1999; Smith 1999/2012; Foley 2003; Wilson 2008) to those who recognize the valuable roles and forms of contribution that researchers from diverse backgrounds can have, such as advocacy, cultural translations, and many other forms of interactions leading to community transformation (e.g. Boekraad 2016; Jones & Jenkins 2008; Kwame 2017; Olsen 2016; Sylvester et al. 2020). Therefore, in this chapter, I am interested in looking at Indigenous sovereignty and power in research, and how Indigenous research methodologies can advance more relevant, impactful, and transformational research for local communities. I ask can Amazonian Indigenous agendas be combined with academic research at all?

In this chapter, I reflect on my own journey as a researcher, and thus aim at contributing to the discussion on the researcher's role, impact, and relations when working with Indigenous communities. I am a non-Indigenous researcher, and I am grateful to my Apurinã and Manchineri teachers for our co-learning. In Southwestern Amazonia I have also learned from the Huni Kuin (Kaxinawa) and Yawanawa, whose lands I have also visited, as well as from encounters in local educational and political events with other Indigenous peoples. I have also worked for some time with several Sámi scholars who are geographically closest to me.

Research has taken me to different countries for long periods, but my closest relations are in Central Finland, where I have grown up in forested countryside. I have training in Latin American studies, anthropology, and religious studies, and I have contributed to various cross-disciplinary projects internationally that have also included archaeology and linguistics. I currently carry out research and teach in the Indigenous studies programme at the University of Helsinki, which is "my" North. This program works towards epistemic justices and the co-creation of knowledge. Its research agendas combine personal motivation, some are guided by available funding, but they substantially include Indigenous agendas.

The South in my research context is in fact the centre for my Indigenous research collaborators. Arawakan-speaking Apurinã (Pupỹkary) and Manchineri (Yine) live in the Purus River region in the states of Acre and Amazonas, Brazil, and they consider their lands to be the centre of the world. The former number some 8,000 persons, mostly in the state of Amazonas, while there are approximately 1,000 Manchineri in the state of Acre. The Manchineri belong to the Yine people, and a substantial part of the Yine also live in Peru. In Brazil, the Manchineri live on the Mamoadate reserve and its various settlements by the Yaco River, the River Acre reserves, as well as in urban areas. The Apurinã live in over 20 demarcated territories, which have very different socio-ecological environments, as well as in urban centres. My first research dealt with Indigenous youths, and my subsequent research work has dealt with Indigenous politics, Indigenous history, language revitalization, and protection of the biocultural landscape and heritage. Overall, my methodological choices have been co-learning through ethnography, including conversational types of interviews, storytelling, participant observation, walks, and the production of visual materials (video recordings and photographs). I first collaborated with the Manchineri and later more with the Apurinã, but my contacts with both are still frequent.2

The Upper and Central Purus River in Southwestern Amazonia has been transformed by Indigenous peoples for thousands of years. Its biocultural landscapes manifest and materialize human history, knowledge, and ways of being. The Amazonian forests are shaped by long-term human-environment interactions, and the early human actions and processes of domestication have had an impact on the biodiversity of the Amazon (e.g. Pärssinen et al. 2020; Watling et al. 2015). Southwestern Amazonia contains monumental earthworks: numerous precolonial ceremonial sites and circular villages, both with carefully designed road structures (Saunaluoma et al. 2018; Virtanen & Saunaluoma 2017). This region has become one of my homes and I feel deeply connected to its land and peoples.

In the following section, I review the discussions on power and relationships in Indigenous research, comparing the contexts in the North and South, and then address my own research experiences in the Purus River, reflecting on the core values recognized in Indigenous research methodologies, namely relevance, responsibility, respect, and reciprocal relations, and how these "four Rs" are integrated into my Amazonian Indigenous research. I then discuss and present the "path method" that has allowed not only a more horizontal and inclusive research practice, but also a continued reflection and recognition of different research agendas. Finally, I look at the significance of the participants' role in the research process, and how both human and other-thanhuman actors restrict and open space for collective action and endeavour, and thus for a truly Indigenous agenda.

#### **2 Relations (Un)Built in the Research Process**

The history of academic research has been done by "colonial eyes" as Linda Tuhiwai Smith (1999/2012, 444) puts it, showing a fascination with otherness and the commodification of Indigenous knowledges. These knowledges can be of interest to a wide range of actors, and there have been many cases of its misappropriation and misuse. In academia, today there are official Codes of Conduct providing tools for ethical research in different disciplines. They can protect Indigenous communities and their knowledges from exploitation, but Indigenous communities have also designed their own ethical guidelines for research. Among others, *Te Ara Tika* (2010), guidelines for Māori research ethics, pay attention to relations and how they are built into the process, which is referred to as *Whakapapa*. *Whakapapa* also involves the future development of such relations. *Te ara Tika* identifies three levels of research: Kaupapa Maori, Maori centred, and mainstream. In Maori research, space is given for interaction and collaboration, but always in specific terms; so-called mainstream level also draws upon the local assessment and the local perspective.

Besides these Indigenous research ethical guidelines developed in different places, the literature on Indigenous Research methodologies has addressed requirements for good research practice where Indigenous peoples are concerned. Several Indigenous researchers have underlined certain values and issues when doing research in Indigenous societies. Different Indigenous peoples have different values, but at the core have been *relevance, responsibility, respect, and reciprocal relations*. Among others, these were mentioned by Kirkness and Barnhardt (1991) in the area of Education Sciences. Other issues have also been mentioned, such as honesty, caring, determination, inter-relatedness, kindness, sharing, trust, and giving back (see e.g. Bishop 1998; Hoffman 2013; Kuokkanen 2000; Porsanger 2004; Steinhauer 2002; Weber-Pillwax 1999, 2001; see Chapter 8).

The codes of conduct in Indigenous communities are largely set by oral traditions, as Willie Ermine (2007, 195) has noted. These can point to the boundaries, limits, and sacred spaces of clans, families, among other things, that touch upon who people are as humans, and their future aspirations (Ermine 2007, 195–202). In research they can become engaged as important methodological and ethical tools. For Ermine, ethical space in research refers to engagement and dialogue in which cultural differences are recognized, rather than legal instruments applied as universal tools. This can facilitate researchers in thinking critically how to relate with participants in a study.

At the same time, it should be recognized that there is already a long history of decolonial and inclusive research traditions that work towards social, epistemological, and environmental justice, among other things. These can be among the reasons for researchers from the North to do research in Indigenous communities far from their own lands. It has been noted that epistemic plurality is important for all humanity (e.g. Fricker 2007), and indeed Indigenous peoples form a great part of the world's socio-cultural diversity and the lands managed by them contribute to the planet's ecosystems. Furthermore, in different disciplines ethical engagement and making a difference to the communities is at the core of the research, such as in engaged anthropology (e.g. Low & Merry 2010; Sillitoe 2015), and community archaeology (e.g. Ferguson & Colwell-Chanthaphonh 2006; McAnany 2016; Smith 2005).

Even if universities have recently opened up spaces for Indigenous knowledge (see e.g. Sumida Huaman & Brayboy 2017; see Chapter 1), deep structural power asymmetries between different knowledges and educational views still exist. Furthermore, even if Indigenous Studies programmes exist in Latin America and Indigenous peoples have power and a say in research about them, the situations are very different between the Global South and the Global North. The Sámi have participated in higher education for a longer time and have contributed to its Indigenization. Many Sámi scholars have also become successful in obtaining research funding and have thus led research projects. The same goes for Canada, the U.S.A., Australia, and New Zealand. In the Global South, such as in Amazonia, where Indigenous intellectuals and elders have produced and shared their knowledge for thousands of years, economically and educationally their situations are different. Yet, the linguistic, biological, and cultural diversity in their lands is exceptional, and at the same time severely endangered. Several Amazonian Indigenous peoples are counting on project funding and constructive collaborations to ensure a more robust and protected future. Indigenous peoples in the South have numerous needs for new knowledge, and the world's ecological situation, among other things, calls for a research in which different values, ideas of knowledge, and being are better understood. Besides their lands, many Indigenous peoples in the Amazon have lost their language, songs, stories, and environmental knowledge, and being able to participate in higher education is considered to be a way to bring this vital heritage and its riches back. It is in fact quite a recent phenomenon that Indigenous people are participating in postgraduate education in Brazil (Apurinã & Virtanen 2020).

In the context of the Global South, the differences between Indigenous and non-Indigenous researchers can clearly be recognized (Rigney 1999; Smith 1999/2012; Wilson 2008), but different researchers are needed to change the course of power relations and the planetary situation (see e.g. Virtanen et al 2020). In this effort, the question of *how* to do research and Indigenous sovereignty become primary. An Australian aboriginal scholar, Ambelin Kwaymullina (2016, 442), has addressed the debates on the roles of Indigenous and non-Indigenous researchers and notes: "acknowledging sovereignty changes the conversation from considering whether to engage respectfully with Indigenous peoples to a meaningful exploration of how, and more broadly, of the ways in which we all might live together so as to sustain the land upon which all depend for survival".

Nevertheless, as Kwaymullina (2016) points out, where respectful relations with Indigenous peoples are concerned, the question is not only *how* research should be carried out, but *whether* research should be carried out at all. There are also issues that people do not wish to be addressed. In Amazonia, this is the case both with Indigenous and non-Indigenous researchers. Here the elders have guided many Indigenous teachers who in their training courses are asked to investigate communal topics for their course assignments. My Manchineri colleague, for example, was told not to study powerful traditional songs, as they could only be sung and spoken in certain restricted ritual spaces. Certain knowledge gaps should thus not be filled, because silence can be a means to protect Indigenous societies. On the other hand, some research topics require Indigenous participation if they are to be addressed properly. Kwaymullina (2016, 441) notes:

Further, any argument that there are not enough Indigenous experts in a particular field ignores the vast body of Indigenous knowledge held by Indigenous peoples outside of the academy, including by the Elders. To suggest that only those Indigenous people trained in a Western knowledge discipline can speak to that discipline is to repeat past patterns of positioning Indigenous peoples as native informants rather than as sovereign peoples with our own knowledge systems which produce knowledges as valid as those of the West. Silence does not always exist to be filled by non-Indigenous scholars – or at least, not by non-Indigenous scholars alone.

Many of the Indigenous authors who have addressed the importance of limits, values, and cultural protocols in research have come from North America, Aotearoa (New Zealand), as well as from Sápmi, while Amazonian Indigenous thinkers have addressed more the power asymmetries, prejudice, and ignorance that exist in society and academia (Apurinã 2017, 2019; Kopenawa & Albert 2010; Santos 2013; see also Tapia 2014). Francisco Apurinã (2017, 501), who is one of the rare Indigenous persons to hold a doctoral degree3 in Brazil, reminds us that in interactions of different people in research it is important "to know the difference, to understand the difference, and to learn with difference".

In my experience, cultural protocols and *how* research should be carried out are shown in interactions with Amazonian Indigenous societies, if one is open to recognize them. In Amazonian Indigenous communities where I have worked these protocols were taught while living and co-learning, and gradually they became a more robust part of my research practice. Relations are established in Amazonia in the context of local values and cultural protocols, and that requires experimental learning and shared paths. In the following section I will reflect on my own experiences as well as the dialogues I had with the Apurinã and Manchineri, from different places and of different ages, in my role as a researcher.4

# **3 The Relevance of Research in the Indigenous Territories in the Purus River**

In my research context, non-Indigenous people are considered a social category of its own (*payri* in Manchineri*, kariwa* in Apurinã), yet in the Amazon, as well as in many other research contexts, some researchers form relations, can become more related to the people, and can even be addressed by kin terms through relational practices. Among other things, besides being *kariwa* for the Apurinã, the Apurinã name, Iriana, given to me now places me in certain social relations.

Bruce Albert, an anthropologist who has worked closely with the Yanomami and Davi Kopenawa, has also noted that an ethnographer, if eventually gaining the trust of the people, is evaluated on the basis of whether s/he is useful in mediating between different worlds (Kopenawa & Albert 2010, 570). For the community, it is crucial to have persons who know how to get into contact with state offices, to open their doors, or introduce new skills and capacities that at the local level people would not otherwise have access to. I feel I have many roles in the Amazonian communities where I have worked, which vary from intermediator to be taken into kin relations.

I first started working with the Arawakan-speaking Manchineri people, as they invited me to be part of their project that aimed at cultural exchange with their Yine relatives, whose territories were on the Peruvian side of the border. My engagement involved a series of events that initially led me to the state of Acre, one of the reasons being a new archaeological project of the University of Helsinki together with the Brazilian universities, UFAC and UFPA.5 My aim was to understand how Indigenous youthhood navigated between their villages and urban areas, and what their present and future aspirations were. I had lived in Acre for some time, and had become familiar with the Indigenous youth movement and many Indigenous families living in the urban neighbourhoods. The youths wanted to tell their stories and struggles to the world, and this shaped the content of my doctoral dissertation (Virtanen 2012). I decided not to visit the Indigenous reserves, as I thought I would be a burden to the people in the villages. However, Indigenous teachers who came to the training course told me that I should visit the territories to gain a wider perspective on Indigenous youth. At the same time a Manchineri6 spokesperson acting in the city considered me a potential actor for their new association and the contacts they wanted to establish both nationally and internationally. Eventually, we managed to arrange two different fundings for the Manchineri organization that allowed a cultural exchange and travels between the Yine in Brazil (Manchineri) and Peru.7

My first official research permit was given for the Manchineri Indigenous territory, Mamoadate, and the second for both Manchineri and Apurinã. The research permits were issued by the Brazilian state, with the official approval of the community. The official research permit acquiring process gave me good knowledge about the required administrative processes. For the community, however, the official papers were not considered important, as approval is given by the community in the initial community meeting in which the researcher presents the research project idea, and its preliminary design. But even before that meeting, co-producing of knowledge can take place, as the researcher often meets with Indigenous leaders, as well as other actors, who can give their ideas and suggestions concerning the research aims and methods. Once the research takes place in the field, the approval is in fact re-given or withdrawn during each visit.

Following Tuhiwai Smith (1999, 173), decolonizing research principles involve reflecting on the relevance of the research with local Indigenous research interlocutors, and I learnt that research can be impactful at various levels. Studies in collaborative and engaged anthropology (Low & Merry 2010) note that social impacts can be made in various ways, transformations can also come through social critique and theory. Nils Oskal (2008) also notes a scientific-theoretical approach that includes Indigenous epistemologies is essential for Indigenous futures. In the context of Amazonian Indigenous societies' research, the key motivation of many anthropologists has been the communication and process of equivocation between different ontological systems (e.g. Viveiros de Castro 2012). My research interlocutors, however, were not so interested in academic debates.

The dialogues with the Manchineri and Apurinã communities revealed that there were urgent questions and challenges they wished to address with researchers. Among other things, both communities desired to have teaching materials in their own languages that could be used in schools. Such materials were lacking, as the contents of the teaching material received from the state were in many ways distant from the local contexts. With the Manchineri, who already had many trained teachers working in the village, we looked for funding, and co-produced a school book about Manchineri history (*Tsrunni Manxinerune hinkakle pirana*). With a new funding obtained we organized workshops with elders and Manchineri teachers, and put together a complied edition of oral histories.8 The book is now used in Manchineri schools, and most of it is in the Manchineri language.

In the case of the Apurinã, only a few communities speak their Indigenous language, and therefore the revitalization of the language was one of the priorities that the Apurinã leaders talked about in their communities. As I had also met with a Brazilian linguist, Sidney Facundes, working on the Apurinã and Arawakan languages, and who had already drafted preliminary teaching materials for Apurinã teachers and schools, we decided together that the primary topics of our collaboration would become the community planning and organizing of language workshops. This has involved co-preparing and coproducing teaching materials with Apurinã teachers and elders and it became one of the concrete ways of contributing to and giving back to the communities. The impact for the Apurinã society at large also came through capacity building. In the preparation of teaching materials and community language workshops, Indigenous leadership was essential, even if the work was funded by my university and other funders.9 The books include, among other things, *Amu Asãkirewata Pupỹkary Sãkire!* (Let's speak Apurinã) and *Iũkatsupary Apaiaũkiku* (Writing in Apurinã), and my role in the publications has been to ensure that Apurinã perspectives and knowledge-making become integrated into the co-work, as well as taking care of the production phase.

As the communities live far from urban centres, and only a few have a satellite telephone connection, local Indigenous and pro-Indian organizations have acted as crucial intermediators in establishing agendas. Our research agendas thus had elements from different motivations. The language revitalization has brought a new valuation towards Pupỹkary sãkire (Apurinã language), and today it has become more visible and pronounced by the Apurinã, among other groups, in social media and WhatsApp groups.

My own research methods have greatly altered since my first fieldtrip, when among other things, my interviews were rather structured. Later, they became more conversational, opening up a space for deeper thoughts and new directions that the research interlocutors considered essential to contemplate, either individually or collectively. Conversations have continued in various contexts and we have come to co-analyze the situations and earlier discussions that we shared. Consequently, the community raised the topics of their biocultural lands, more-than-human perspectives, the efforts of their leaders to affect policy-making, land protection, traditional knowledge, and schooling, all themes which we become to address together. Some research topics were also motivated by academic debates, while others were driven by research collaborators' wishes to address urgently some issues.10 My research agenda has been also dictated by cross-disciplinary research projects and invitations to write for specific edited volumes and special issues. My research agendas varied in emphasis, and combined various motivations, but throughout I wanted my work to be relevant to the community, and to show reciprocity, respect, and responsibility.

#### **4 Reciprocal Relations in Amazonian Lifeworlds**

Where Amazonian ideas of being are concerned, it is typical that subjects come to exist through beings. Consequently, reciprocity is a crucial value in Amazonian lifeworlds at the ontological level, as it contributes to the closer relationality of beings. Relationality, and returns to the community, among other things, are a crucial part of kin-making. As a person who is not from an Amazonian Indigenous community, learning what reciprocity means at the local level requires some time in experiencing it through communal relationships. Reciprocity for one thing is linked to generosity, and, for instance, good leaders are known for their generosity. Overall, much weight is placed on human interaction and social relations, and this is also expected from researchers (see Conklin 2010).

Furthermore, in very practical terms, materially and immaterially, reciprocity with my research interlocutors has meant exchanging knowledge and information of different kinds. People in distant villages were often interested in any new information dealing with their territories, including new legal issues, project funding, educational opportunities, but also just knowledge of my own country. Material contributions varied from fishing nets to generators, which were required in the community, as well as during our research and capacity-building workshops. Extra food and ammunition were transported from urban areas, and extra bullets were welcomed by hunters. Economically, the researcher had more power, but at the same time researchers were vulnerable and dependent on the local forest dwellers with their rich place-based knowledge. Furthermore, during my first field trips, I learned how social relations become materialized in exchange of objects, foods, and medicine, but also constant borrowing of different objects when needed. In the beginning, I was bothered that my sandals disappeared from the doors of the houses where I had been hosted. Over the years I became grateful that they were useful to someone and were at hand when needed. Meantime, I was grateful for the hospitality, healing, and different knowledges I have been privileged to receive in Amazonia.

Reciprocity has also meant travelling back to the community with my results and analyses, acting as a mediator for governmental agencies, or being involved in nongovernmental agencies' educational and environmental protection projects taking place along the Purus River. Returning the data and results thus happened in different forms and is an elemental part of maintaining my research relationships. Besides academic publications and more popularized communications discussing the topics that I saw to be relevant for the communities, dissemination to non-academic audiences and actual co-production of knowledge with them are for me part of the research process.

Collaborative, participative, and community-based research methodologies have become popular in academia and can be considered a reciprocal way of doing research. However, being involved in the community in all its different phases has to be reflected on critically in Indigenous communities, especially in terms of distance and time. Most of the communities I have worked with live in forest areas, at a few days' distance from the closest place allowing a telephone or internet communication. Although inspired by collaborative and community-based research methods, aiming at co-formulating the objectives of the research, co-producing data, co-analyzing, and co-disseminating at a long-distance can be challenging (see Ritchie et al. 2013). Thinking that research should be reciprocal at the collective level is indeed challenging on a long-term scale, and it requires well-planned means that allow for communication with the whole community. In recent years, with the arrival of mobile phones, better internet connections, and the increasing use of social media, when visiting smaller municipalities, even those who live far from Internet connections would find a way to enter into contact with me (and me with them). However, the older people were not so familiar with new social media applications and needed someone to be their intermediator.

Researchers have recently also noted that research activities that adopt a participative approach can take a considerable amount of time away from elemental everyday tasks and the economic activities of communities, thus impacting them negatively. Therefore, research should find a suitable time in the communities' timelines (see Löf & Stinnerbom 2016). Reflecting on the researchers' results also requires its own time.

Over the last few years, fortunately some of the persons who participated in my studies were able to make their dreams come true and enter higher education, and become researchers themselves. Together we have written co-authored articles about Indigenous education and histories. With some Manchineri and Apurinã colleagues, I have moreover co-presented papers in conferences, which has been just one step in our analytical thinking, and could be described as a para-site (Marcus 2012) to my fieldwork sites. These "parasites" become places for continued production of knowledge. Nevertheless, they depend on careful translations, time, and many other issues that are not easily solved. Even if there was funding, some of research partners' travels were cancelled because we did not manage to draw up travel documents in time and because of overlapping events in the communities.

Overall, interactions can also turn into friendship and collegiality, and today I receive a greeting or an exchange of news almost on a weekly basis from someone visiting a city from a distant village or living in an urban area. Sadly, however, power and privilege are not equally shared with my Apurinã or Manchineri academic colleagues. As a scholar based in a northern academia, it must also be recognized that I have more economic liberty to travel, discuss and disseminate research results than my local research collaborators. I can also participate in conferences and other debates to improve my knowledge of the ongoing debates. Yet, associated with these academic spaces, I make constant decisions on how to carry out my research and how to contribute to inclusivity (cf. Kwame 2017). Decoloniality is not about giving voice to others by explaining and reporting, and in this way empowering or emancipating others. It is more about changing the roles from objects to real subjects, as Kaupapa Maori does (Bishop 1998), and it is more about taking a critical look at a northern researcher's role in decoloniality and Indigenization (see Chapter 1). I have worked towards making research Indigenous-led, but even in our own university recruitment processes my aim to bring in Indigenous researchers has often failed. Despite the power structure in my own northern academic institution, we have with project funding managed to remunerate Amazonian Indigenous researchers and quite recently postdoctoral funding was granted to an Amazonian Indigenous researcher. In the communities where I work, I have tried to be transparent about the limitations in the academic world, such as the bureaucratic difficulties of a research project being fully locally led when funded by a research agency from my home country. Yet, this does not prevent drawing from cultural protocols as an essential starting point for research and interactions. This also includes other-than-non-human actors (see also Shawn 2008).

Reciprocity and interactions in the Apurinã and Manchineri communities is also manifested in their ways of relating with the environment, which I will address in the next section. Ideas of reciprocity and respect for master spirits are reflected in the social and customary institutions of many Amazonian Indigenous communities, which consider humans and the environment to be a continuum where all life forms are interconnected (Descola 2005; Turner 2009; Viveiros de Castro 2012). The values of reciprocity, care, relationality and conviviality become evident in many Amazonian Indigenous cultures, under the understanding that all lifeforms are dependent and sentient beings, which form different symmetrical and asymmetrical relations. Taking these ideas into account has meant for my research, not only thinking of the rights of individuals and the community, but also other-than-humans.

#### **5 Respect for Diverse Amazonian Life-Forms**

The value of respect, as underlined by Indigenous research methodologies, is in the Amazonian context crucial. It involves respecting those entities that are important for life-making, and, thus, are considered to have transformative roles. The Apurinã and Manchineri generally respect their elders as knowledge-holders, and also address them respectfully, but at the same time with care. Respect and care also extend to ancestors, to those generations that are now considered to be present in the form of birds, animals, and in different places. They teach in other-than-human forms, as well as through the dreams, songs received, and visions. The respect for other humans thus includes previous generations.

Collectively owned, produced, and shared knowledge is typical for what is called Indigenous knowledge. It is also intergenerational, and thus individuals typically come to know such knowledge only through their relations with other beings (Basso 1996; Berkes 1993/2012; Cajete 2000). Consequently, the relations and the context in which the knowledge and information are produced is an important issue for Indigenous epistemologies. Indigenous knowledge exists in relations, or rather it is a relational entity that does not exist individually.

Respect among the Manchineri and Apurinã also goes beyond humans, and includes several other-than-human actors. In my research, this has meant recognition of the master spirits of the game and trees, among other things (Virtanen 2019). Respectful approaches to the local other-than-human actors are a crucial tool to keep beings healthy, and disrespecting these norms can cause illnesses, accidents, and unsustainability in the community. These issues have been central in studying the Manchineri and Apurinã, not only in places where such beings are considered powerful, but also when pronouncing their names. Overall, other-than-human actors are elemental actors in bringing life and well-being, not only when exploiting the resources moderately, such as in hunting practices.

Therefore, the existing written historical records are limited in narrating their past, because research has shown that Manchineri and Apurinã history is entangled with other-than-human actors (Apurinã 2019; Virtanen 2019). As I became a collaborator in the projects addressing the precolonial past, I soon aimed at shedding light on the local Indigenous perspectives and concerns of the research. However, this was a result of my gradual learning of local values and onto-epistemologies that allowed me to integrate Indigenous perspectives into the cross-disciplinary projects. Including Manchineri and Apurinã values and temporality into the archaeological research in the Manchineri and Apurinã regions has been done in small steps. Even if there are varying Indigenous approaches to precolonial geometric earthworks, among other things, Indigenous views reveal that the history of inhabitation was based on a different logic (Virtanen & Saunaluoma 2017) than the settler-extractive agencies who arrived after the colonization of the Amazonian lands (cf. Blaser et al. 2010). Ancient earthwork sites are constantly being destroyed by cattle farmers and new roads, and therefore archaeologists' work in identifying these sites is urgent. In these situations, the respectful way of doing research requires knowledge of Indigenous values and temporalities. These issues have in fact been discussed in the recent literature on the history, memory, cultural heritage (e.g. Erikson & Vapnarski forthcoming; Fausto & Heckenberger 2007), and collaborations between Indigenous peoples and archaeologists (e.g. Ferguson & Colwell-Chanthaphonh 2006; Machado 2013, 2017; Smith & Wobst 2005), but having said that, the local context always has its own specific understandings and temporalities.

In my archaeological research, integrating Indigenous perspectives has given me a deeper understanding of what should be researched and what not (cf. Kwaymullina 2016). In archaeological projects I became aware how especially other-than-human actors required respect. There were several issues related to ancestors, who had to be addressed with extra care, and that as primary guides elders needed to be listened to carefully. This was particularly difficult when certain issues that were to be protected from research were precisely the ones that might guarantee sustainability, health, and well-being in the community. Among the Apurinã and Manchineri, there are deep aspirations to make better connections with their ancestors, because colonization caused a rupture in these relations (see also Machado 2017), and ancestral relations offer power and knowledge. As I have discussed elsewhere, the elders hoped that the ancient sites would be orally discussed among the community to educate the younger generations about the history of the territory and the entanglements of humans and other-than-human actors (Virtanen 2019, cf. McGregor 2004). This can also be understood in this context that most Apurinã students had not received differentiated schooling to strengthen their Indigenous knowledges and language (Virtanen & Apurinã 2019). This situation also motivated the PhD research of my Indigenous research colleague, Francisco Apurinã, who addressed the protection of the Indigenous sacred sites in the region (Apurinã 2019). Overall, the work on the protection of the cultural heritage, educative actions, and capacity building was regarded as possible only under cultural protocols and in relation with other local, regional, and international actions protecting the land and its knowledges. Thus, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous actors were needed.

#### **6 Responsibility as a Long-Term Commitment**

Local cultural norms are not necessarily told explicitly, but one learns them over a period of time by experiencing them. I realized that the most important things were told to me without asking, and the knowledge was shared with me. This happened when the community members, especially the elders and knowledge holders, felt that I had become knowledgeable enough in cultural norms, and consequently sufficiently responsible. I felt I was no longer told that certain information embedded secrecy, but I was trusted in a sense that it was expected without saying that I would understand that certain matters were told only to me and were not meant to be shared with others because they contained sensitive or sacred information. In the Amazonian understanding of knowledge-production, knowledge is a matter of social age, and one's own capacities to know certain things develop gradually. Thus, a researcher can evolve by gaining more experience, and through in-depth knowledge gradually understand what kind of information can be published in academic publications, for instance.

I have noted that co-knowing in the Amazon is not only about me as a researcher and communities, but is about collaborations in relations with other actors. This involves the environment, as well as governmental and nongovernmental organizations, artists and so forth, with whom we established collaborations. As an example, I could mention the information collection for the Funai, the Brazilian state Indigenous agency, as they requested a report on several issues that they required for demarcation processes of the Apurinã land to be extended (Baixo Tumiã), as the Funai had few human resources to do that; and co-leading of teacher capacity-building workshops with governmental and nongovernmental organizations (e.g. with Comissão Pró-Indio, Mapkaha, FOCIMP, Cimi). Acting in multiple relations with different actors requires knowledge of stakeholders locally, regionally, nationally, and internationally, as well as time to become familiar with them. The responsibility can be viewed as how to be an actor in the multiple relations of other actors. As Elizabeth Sumida Huaman (2014) has noted about language revitalization, such efforts are useless if actors do not take into account broader matters such as government policy issues.

Responsibility as a value is crucial, but on the other hand, there are limits to it and to what we can do as individuals. For instance, in our projects to prepare and produce Indigenous school materials, there have been long delays that were related to many external factors. Among the state secretaries of education, the staff often changed, transportation took longer than planned, there was sometimes lack of funding, and most recently there has been the global pandemic.

Furthermore, in the efforts to protect the cultural heritage for the communities, huge damage by diverse economic actors has been beyond the influence of individual researchers. Large-scale resource extraction and infrastructureconstruction projects, and even climate changes taking place in the Amazonian forest, drastically alter the biocultural landscape and local communities' ways of life. Among other things, these changes have already washed away a great part of the evidence of the precolonial past. One example is a precolonial location not far from the Lábrea municipality centre. This precolonial site, identified by an Apurinã family along the Central Purus River, is collapsing into the river, and is being washed away. In this location, one of the channels of the Central Purus River had changed its course, resulting in the collapse of a large area of riverbank, thus revealing an abundance of fascinating ceremonial ceramics. These ceramics were decorated with detailed geometric patterns, while some displayed extinct animal figures and motifs, representing distinctive styles of the Upper Purus. The variety of styles indicated that the site had been used for a long period of time. The Apurinã and the local Indigenist organization had saved the precolonial ceramics from falling into the river and had hoped that researchers would save and record the objects. Unfortunately, funding has not been found to cover the high expenses needed for travelling to and preserving the site.

In a similar manner, when I was in the municipality of Pauini in the Central Purus, my Apurinã friends led me to a site where pieces of finely decorated ancient ceramics could be found scattered on the ground, while the mouths of large ceramic pots could be seen poking through the surface of the soil. This is one of the very few sites in the Central Purus that was recorded in the Brazilian National Archaeological Research Project of the Amazon Basin in the 1970s, yet the Apurinã report further similar sites inside their demarcated territories in the region. As the locals showed me around the area, a tractor was clearing neighbouring land for a new house construction.

Furthermore, in the Apurinã territory of the Central Purus River, an Apurinã community leader asked for guidance on how to save ancient funeral urns that had been revealed in their territory. It was known that I collaborated with archaeologists and biologists in the Upper Purus River area working on precolonial geometric earthworks, but unfortunately the attempts to save the local cultural heritage has to date lacked financial backing. In this time of lacking resources, collaboration between researchers, state officials, and nongovernmental actors has become even more vital. During my recent years of working in the Central Purus, each trip has provided me with novel information about the precolonial settlements in the region. Until today, Indigenous perspectives on deep history have remained invisible in local schools, and marginal in official regional cultural heritage discussions. Cultural heritage education in non-Indigenous and Indigenous societies is crucial for knowing better the regional history, and requires integration of in-depth knowledge of Indigenous ideas, connections to the land, and cultural protocols.

#### **7 Sensitivity While on the Path of the Research Process**

Learning with the locals in the Amazon has also taught me how the Apurinã and Manchineri invest plenty of time reflecting on what they call their path (*kimapury*/*hatnu*). One's capabilities, skills, and potential for future development are reflected individually by the people through their own feelings, intuitions, imagination, and discussion with others. Visions and dreams also indicate the paths to take as individuals and show the futures to come (Virtanen 2014). This exercise is characterized by a specific future present temporality; it is as though the future can be felt here and now.

Sensitivity to one's path and development is not, however, an individual effort, but is always related to other beings. Very practically this materialized in physical movement on the path, be it territorial or fluvial, when the Manchineri and Apurinã constantly encounter new paths, and the traveller has to decide which way to go. Even if it would be an individual journey, one is always relating – or avoid entering into the relations – with other beings. On those journeys and during the movement, animals, such as birds, among other things, are important communicators of the paths to take while moving and travelling. They indicate what dangers to avoid on the path.

For me, the path of research has become analogous to these reflections on one's future to come: constantly observing which way to take, according to the changing environment, contexts, their actors, and the resources along the way. As one moves on the path of research, every situation changes, and new beings are encountered who themselves are moving and related to other actors. I have also learned from my research interlocutors that the aim of the journey must be kept clear, but on the way, guidance must also be listened to carefully. The Manchineri and Apurinã pay careful attention to their elders, knowledge-holders, those with medicinal wisdom, and other-than-human actors who have other ways of perceiving the world.

According to my research interlocutors and hosts, different other-thanhuman actors communicating with the community have in fact played decisive roles in my research (see Virtanen 2014). This has also guided the community to reflect on how they could see my research in those relations they aspire to regenerate in the future.

Reflexivity is concerned with sensitivity, and not only cultural sensitivity. It is about deep listening, both to humans and other-than-human actors, as well as their interlinkages. My *kimapury* path reflection method has also guided me to research what needs to be attended to and to leave out elements that should be protected in silence (see Kwaymullina 2016, 440). Reflexivity has also guided me in connecting my research with relevant partners, so that it could have as much impact as possible. Overall, the *kimapury* (path) method has guided me to evaluate what kind of research agenda I have in my research, and I hope I have navigated accordingly.

#### **8 Encountering and Raising Indigenous Agendas**

Research has become a crucial place to regenerate more inclusive and equal relations. For me, critical tools in this effort have been the comprehension of local onto-epistemologies, values, understanding of community's relations, reflections in changing situations, but also avoiding burdening communities with my research. Thus, it is not only researchers, it is also participants who can make an impact and are thus crucial in the research process. The participants can be both human and other-than-human actors, and thus diverse actors can restrict or open up spaces in which Indigenous agendas can be shared and acted upon.

Debates about who can carry out research with Indigenous peoples (e.g. Rigney 1999; Smith 1999/2012; Wilson 2008) have been crucial. Today, ethical research and collaborations can effectively change academic structures and power relations. State politics are also indivisible from Indigenous research practices. Critical reflections on the researcher's agenda can reveal if a research is Indigenous-led, is led by a fully funding agency, or is led by an academic institution programme. Some research certainly still exists that is only about reporting *on* Indigenous peoples and theorizing, or is just about finishing an academic programme, and is conducted without any Indigenous agenda. For instance, in the North, so-called Lappological research (see Chapter 1) was largely carried out using this approach. Also, a research, if it is established only by certain funding opportunities, may not accommodate Indigenous sovereignty. Therefore, I would like to underline that Indigenous society's agency and participation in a research process and the ethical spaces created (Ermine 2007) are even more critical questions for all researchers working with Indigenous peoples, as academic life has become shaped by funding calls, journal impact factor numbers, and so on. In these situations, the question of power and Indigenous sovereignty in research still needs to be critically looked at. It is elemental to ensure that Indigenous research agendas become recognized and raised in all studies that deal with Indigenous peoples.

Furthermore, research is also required in multiple relations with governmental, nongovernmental, academic, and Indigenous organizations and their new ethical spaces and co-production of knowledge. After the pandemic, this kind of research, and interacting more with local actors, such as Indigenous organizations, can produce transformative impacts, even without the researcher's physical presence in the field. Research with local organizations can save time for communities, which might be busy with other issues. This certainly requires larger thinking about relations, their history, and how these relations are formed at different levels.

The question that remains is what then is an Indigenous agenda? These agendas are constantly changing, and can be learned in the context of local relations, values, and cultural protocols. Additionally, the debates and discussions on Indigenous research methodologies in which local onto-epistemologies and axiologies are taken seriously can advance thinking, teaching, and research. Speaking from my own experience, it was only my long-term local experimental learning in the relationships with diverse community members and other-than-human actors in their social worlds that gave me an understanding of my impacts in the local Amazonian contexts. It was there that I learnt what the abstract values of relevance, reciprocity, respect, and responsibility meant in my own research context and relations.

#### **Acknowledgements**

I am grateful to the Apurinã and Manchineri for having learned about the value of co-existing and co-knowing, as well as to the anonymous reviewers and my co-editors of this volume for their constructive ideas. For research funding, I am grateful to the Academy of Finland, the University of Helsinki Research Funds, and the Kone Foundation. For the language revision, my thanks to Mark Shackleton.

#### **Notes**


is not about Apurinã and Manchineri values and cultural protocols that could be taken as a guide in research.


#### **References**


Cajete, G. (2000). *Native science: Natural laws of interdependence*. Clear Light Publishers.


Ermine, W. (2007). Ethical space of engagement. *Indigenous Law Journal, 6*(1), 193–203.

Facundes, S., Virtanen, P. K., Freitas, M. F. P., Lima-Padovani, B. F., & Nascimento Costa, P. (2018). Issues on language revitalization and engagements in the Amazon – The case of Apurinã. In D. S. Brunn & R. Kehrein (Eds.), *Handbook of the changing world language map.* Springer. https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/ 10.1007%2F978-3-319-73400-2\_35-1


tree species found in the Upper Purus. *Environmental Archaeology.* https://doi.org/ 10.1080/14614103.2020.1765295


# **Epilogue**

*Torjer Olsen, Pigga Keskitalo and Pirjo Kristiina Virtanen* 

This collection of contributions addressing Indigenous research methodologies in Sámi and global contexts organically come to stress the responsibility of Indigenous research. This book grew out of years of collaboration. It started with a workshop at the Sámi University of Applied Sciences in Kautokeino. More correctly, in Guovdageaidnu. Using the Sámi name of a Sámi place is an important part of Indigenizing our research. At the Guovdageaidnu workshop, scholars from different institutions and countries in Sápmi met to talk about doing Indigenous research.

Few years **–** and many workshops **–** later, we can fairly say that we learnt something about the importance of research, but also about the challenges and the need to have an anchored and reflexive approach to doing research. Talking about "Indigenous research" and "Indigenous research methodologies" may suggest that these are concepts that are fixed and easily defined. They are not. It could have been better to talk about our approach and about the process we have been through as "Indigenizing research methodologies". This is because the processual dimension is both important and defining for the movement that currently exists, consisting of researchers that in different ways strive to do their research in proper and ethically sound ways according to different kinds of Indigenous protocols and claims. Our book should be seen as an attempt to take part in an ongoing struggle to Indigenize research methodologies. As such, it is not a methodology textbook. Nor is it an encyclopaedia of Sámi research methodology. It is, however, a collection of works by scholars who in their own ways suggest how and what research can be.

Reading this clearly shows the fluidity and diversity of this Indigenizing process. On one hand, the work in the network, and thus the papers in this book, can be described as filled with diversity, tension and disagreement. The authors come from different places, institutions and disciplines **–** and even generations. Diversity, tension and disagreement can be difficult to handle. At the same time, they are all integral to the community of scholars. Diversity is a key description of Indigenous communities, both in general and in specific terms. The Sámi are but one of a huge number of Indigenous peoples living all over the world in a large number of contexts. The Sámi are also one people, but they live in many different places and ways, and use different dialects. Consequently, having and applying a diversity perspective in the articulation of Indigenous research methodologies mirrors what Indigenous communities

© Torjer Olsen, Pigga Keskitalo and Pirjo Kristiina Virtanen, 2021 doi: 10.1163/9789004463097\_011 This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the CC BY 4.0 License. look like. We cannot and should not aim to create or articulate one Indigenous research methodology.

Diversity, tension and disagreements aside, working together in a network has also shown a great deal of joint effort, agreement and companionship. We have shared the idea and recognition of the need to make changes in academia when it comes to Indigenous research. We have shared the critical reading of and perspective on some of the dominant heritage within research related to Indigenous communities. We have shared the recognition of the importance of Indigenous voices, ways of thinking, knowing and doing, and perspectives becoming an integral part of academia.

This recognition, and the struggles mentioned connected to it, have several dimensions. First off, they apply to the actual research being done by scholars and students. As this book shows, methods and methodologies are affected by such recognition.

Secondly, there is an institutional dimension. This book gathers authors from a number of institutions, from Helsset/Helsinki, Oulu and Roavvenjárga/ Rovaniemi in Finland, Ubmeje/Umeå in Sweden, to Guovdageaidnu, and Romsa/Tromsø in Norway. Most of our institutions have, as shown in Chapter 1, quite a history of carrying out Sámi research. As such, we already carry some institutional recognition into this network. However, we have also shared the quite often mentioned experience of being, to different degrees, islands in our home institutions in the interest of doing Indigenous research.

We argue that there are several tendencies simultaneously in operation. There is a general tendency of institutional recognition of Sámi and Indigenous research, shown for instance in how UiT The Arctic University of Norway gives Sámi education and research central places in strategy documents. At the same time, the level of recognition varies, as does the level of implementation of this recognition. Further, the recognition does not come of itself, nor is it a fixed situation. The institutional recognition of Sámi and Indigenous research has not come without a struggle, and this struggle continues. It is in itself a process. This is a similar kind of Indigenization wherein the goal is, following Martin Nakata, to make institutional spaces that are uniquely Indigenous. We would argue that Indigenous research methodologies should be integrated into the institution to a higher degree.

A part of this process is the development and further building of Sámi and Indigenous research with connected methodologies. More than three decades have passed since Indigenous research methodologies surfaced. More than two decades have passed since Linda Tuhiwai Smith set the agenda with her book *Decolonizing Methodologies*. This means that the field is no longer a new field. It is in fact already established. It also means that this field, like all 256 Olsen et al.

fields, needs critical perspectives that are directed inwards. In the process of Indigenizing research methodologies we therefore call for the aforementioned diversity, tensions and disagreements to be an integral and defining part of what Indigenous research methodologies can be.

After this book had been written, an edited volume came out, *Applying Indigenous Research Methods: Storying with Peoples and Communities* (2019), by Sweeney Windchief and Timothy San Pedro. Their book dealt with questions relating to applying Indigenous research methodologies, and focused on North America and Hawai'i. Our book contributes to these contextualised discussions, broadens the methods beyond the storywork, as well as reflects the use of Indigenous research methodologies from diversity of backgrounds.

Finally, we would like to point out that as educators and researchers, no matter what is the background, we should constantly remind ourselves of our deep responsibility. In this process of imparting knowledge and encouraging a more inclusive production of knowledge, we should undergo continuous selfassessment: what are the values and structures that we follow and what is the motivation and logic that our intentions embody? We must have a long-term commitment to nurturing Indigenous knowledge, frameworks, and perspectives and making them thrive, and for that there is no magic or immediate solution.

# **Index**

academia 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16, 22–25, 55, 66, 70, 74, 80, 85, 86, 95, 97, 98, 105, 114, 117, 118, 120, 124, 131, 216–218, 223, 230, 232, 235, 240, 241, 255 alphabetical writing 90 analphabetism 92 Anarâš magazine 182, 185, 187 Anarâškielâ servi 176, 178, 190, 196 ancestors 35, 36, 39, 115, 116, 127, 128, 133, 154, 155, 206, 217, 242, 243 ancestral territories 2 Anishnaabe symbol-based reflection 20, 210 Apurinã 231, 232, 235–238, 240–246, 248, 249 archiving 211, 212, 217, 224 assimilation 1, 9, 18, 21, 38, 48, 157, 177 axiologies 4, 18, 66, 72, 73, 248 birgejupmi, 'maintaining a livelihood' 165, 167 Brazil 125, 231 Bwabwata National Park 207, 208 care 17, 37, 113, 114, 116–119, 122, 123, 126, 136, 137, 156, 203, 238, 241–243 Cartesian thinking 70 Christianity 9, 69, 129, 216 circle of values 150, 155 co-creation 231 collaboration 5, 18, 24, 76, 77, 85, 119, 121, 131, 136, 161, 163, 179, 208, 223, 233, 234, 238, 243–245, 247, 254 collective knowledge 45, 105, 242 collectivity 52, 129, 148, 150, 155, 156, 158, 161, 163 colonial writing 86 colonialism 2, 10, 36, 116, 117, 212 coloniality 2, 42, 49, 232 community-based research 51, 92, 240 comparative introspective study 85 constructivism/interpretivism 72 constructivist theory 72 control 87, 95, 98–102, 104, 163, 215 co-writing 4, 121, 134 creativity 137, 145, 151, 156, 157, 165, 167, 194, 195

critical immersion 99–101, 104, 110, 204, 213, 214 critical theory 72, 120 cultural archaeology 69 cultural erasure 3 cultural heritage 38, 39, 47, 52, 53, 55, 145, 146, 157, 159, 243, 245, 246 cultural interface 14, 25 cultural studies 5, 7 culturally responsive research practices 203 Čyeti čälled anarâškielân 176, 178

Declaration of Indigenous Women 162 decolonial 5, 6, 12, 25, 26, 233, 241 decolonial writing 4, 135 decolonization 4, 8, 12, 13, 23, 34, 35, 48, 55, 70, 136, 204 decolonization research 70, 113, 117, 135 decolonized storying 113, 117, 135 deconstruction 119 duodji 20, 157, 169

eana 4, 114, 115, 119, 122, 123, 125, 130, 137 earth-beings 115 ecology of practices 119 education 3, 7–9, 11, 14–19, 21–26, 34–36, 40–43, 45, 46, 48, 51, 53, 85–88, 93–95, 103, 105, 106, 108, 231, 234, 240, 255 educational literacy studies 85–87, 93–95, 103, 105, 106, 108 educational policy 41, 87, 88 egalitarian social relationships 213 elders 128, 134, 176, 184, 205, 211, 234, 235, 237, 238, 242–244, 246 Enlightenment 9, 70 epistemic injustice 117, 121 epistemology 35, 47, 50, 66, 71–73, 92, 102, 117, 119, 146, 167, 211, 242 ethical research guidelines 203, 232, 233 ethnic identities 2, 3, 14, 19, 24, 38, 98, 208 Eurocentric 12, 13, 70, 72 exoticism 69

fágalaš integritehtta 163 fámostallan, 'the exercise of power' 164 fieldwork 23, 43–45, 49, 50, 51, 94, 97, 103, 108, 124, 201–203, 205, 207–209, 213–215, 219, 220, 223, 240 Finno-Ugric language and culture studies 16, 206 First Nations Information Governance Centre 98 First People 2, 3 fishing 39, 209, 239 food insecurity 215 forced acculturation 3 free, prior and informed consent 7, 76, 104 friction 121, 128, 132, 136

gáfestallan talks 67, 79 gaskavuohta, 'relationship' 21, 147, 148 gender equality 149, 158–160, 162 genocide 3 giving back 77, 107, 202, 205, 218–223, 233, 238 grammar modelling 180

heritage language 87, 89, 90, 92, 96, 106, 182, 192 holistic approach 4, 18, 49, 55 holistic understanding 50, 87 honouring 97, 99, 100, 104 human rights 1, 10, 162 hunter-gatherer 207, 213, 220 hunting 207, 209, 210, 242 Huu-ay-aht First Nation 214

ILO–Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention 1989 (No. 169) 2 inclusion 7, 11, 19, 24, 24, 52, 84, 85, 87, 100, 101, 106–108, 120, 210 Indigeneity 2, 3, 219 Indigenization 4, 8, 12, 13, 146, 234, 241, 254–256 Indigenous epistemologies 4, 5, 50, 55, 73, 86, 118, 121, 146, 237, 242 Indigenous literature 42, 209 Indigenous movements 15, 91, 116 Indigenous multilingual contexts 94, 96 Indigenous ontologies 18, 72, 73, 113, 114, 117–120, 135–137 Indigenous research paradigm 22, 23, 65, 66, 68, 70–72, 74, 75, 79, 80 Indigenous research principles 4, 84–87, 94, 99, 101, 103, 105–108, 179, 202–204 Indigenous rights 1, 54, 231 Indigenous self-determination 1, 15, 17, 19

Indigenous societal development 87, 108 Indigenous studies 1, 3, 4, 6–8, 10–26, 56, 69, 74, 86, 114, 179, 218, 231, 234 Indigenous writing 96, 194 intellectual colonialism 117 intellectual property right 39 interdisciplinary collaboration 5 International Conference on Indigenous Peoples' Rights to Cultural Heritage 145 juogádallat, 'to share' 151, 158 Khwe San 201, 202, 205, 207, 210, 214, 216, 219, 223 Kirkenes Declaration 165 knowledge 2, 3, 7, 8, 12–25, 34–43, 45–56, 66, 67, 69–74, 76–79, 85, 86, 89, 90, 93–95, 98–108, 114, 116, 117, 120, 121, 124, 126, 128, 129, 135, 136, 138, 145–147, 149, 153– 157, 160, 162, 165, 168, 182, 186, 202, 205, 207, 208, 210, 211, 215, 220, 221, 230–232, 234, 235, 237–244, 246, 248, 256 knowledge holders 50, 77, 128, 154, 215, 242, 244, 246 Kogui 115, 128 Laestadian movement 40, 43, 128 language attrition 89 language community 4, 90, 175–181, 184, 191, 192, 196, 216, 219, 221, 233, 238 language documentation 211, 216, 217, 222 language erosion 89 language ideology 43, 92, 176 language nest 88, 176, 177, 186, 190, 195, 196 language planning 183, 238 language revitalization 77, 88, 89, 93, 231, 238, 244 language skills 49, 52, 53, 89, 181, 186 Lappology 38, 41, 56, 69, lávvu method 4, 36, 38, 55 literacy development 94, 108 literacy research 4, 84, 85, 87, 94, 103, 105, 106, 108 literacy revitalization 94 loan translation 191 local literacies 85, 86, 88, 92 Martínez Cobo's study 2

Manchineri 231, 232, 235–237, 240–243, 246, 249

#### index 259

máttut, 'predecessors and ancestors' 35, 36, 39, 55 menstruation 124, 125 methodological flexibility 99, 100, 202, 204, 220 Mexico 115 migration schools 177 minority language 42, 92, 181, 191, 192, 194, 195, 206, 207, 217 modernization 132, 209, 223 moon 114, 118, 123–126, 134, 137 mourning 115, 123, 132 muittašeapmi, 'remembering' 153–155 muittašit ovttas, 'shared remembering' 4, 145, 152, 167 multiculturality 55, 218 multilingualism 94, 219 multi actor relations 244, 248 municipal policies 88, 92, 177, 187 Namibia 201, 205, 207, 208, 213 natural language acquisition 90 nonhumans, other-than-humans 56, 114, 116, 117, 123–126, 131, 134–137, 153, 154, 241 non-Indigenous 3, 8, 14, 19, 20, 35, 71–73, 86, 90, 98, 103, 114, 137, 153, 204, 219, 230, 231, 234–236, 243, 246 non-linear 39, 147, 149, 152 non-native majority language 87 Norgga Sámiid Riikkasearvi 156, 166 oassálastit, 'participate' 151, 158 oktavuohta, 'relations' 21, 147, 148 ontology 39, 66, 68, 71–73, 118, 148, 167 orthography-building 44, 55, 180

othering 38, 48 ownership 57, 98, 100, 101, 105, 130

pan-Sámi perspective 1 paradigm shift 4, 65, 68–71, 74, 75, 136, 202 paradigmatic change 34 participative research 240 participatory action research 210, 214 participatory photography 210–212, 215, 221 path method 232, 247 photovoice 214–216, 220, 223 positionality 18, 203, 205, 206 positivism 72 possession 98–101 post-positivism 72 postcolonial 10, 11, 34, 69, 72, 202

precolonial 232, 242, 243, 245 privilege 129, 131, 132, 149, 204, 213, 239, 241 reciprocity 13, 39, 51, 72, 114, 126, 127, 131, 149, 201–203, 219, 220, 223, 238, 239, 241, 248 recognition 2, 11, 26, 36, 49, 57, 97, 99, 100, 104, 116, 117, 120, 146, 167, 232, 242, 255 reconnecting 123 reindeer herding 15, 47, 49, 51, 52, 57, 209, 210 relational accountability 18, 39, 46, 51, 85, 148, 156, 168 relational knowledge 23, 71, 77, 78 relationship 5, 21, 25, 38, 39, 50, 51, 68, 69, 71, 75, 99–101, 103, 121, 125–128, 131, 135, 136, 147–149, 153–155, 160, 161, 167, 199, 202–206, 213, 216, 219, 220, 223, 230, 232, 239, 248 relevance 15, 18, 39, 70, 87, 177, 203, 230, 232, 233, 236, 237, 248 research agenda 5, 19, 85, 87, 95, 229, 231, 232, 238, 247, 248 research paradigm 4, 22–24, 65–75, 79, 80, 179 research responsibility 8, 15, 26, 75, 107, 131, 203, 232, 248, 254, 256 research standpoint 73, 80 research-storying 113, 117, 135 research writing 4, 88, 113, 114, 117, 131, 132, 134, 138 resilience 149, 151, 158, 165 respect 8, 38, 39, 48, 51, 52, 84, 92, 94, 101, 105, 107, 108, 117, 120, 128, 131, 136, 137, 146, 151, 165, 203, 214, 223, 232, 233, 238, 241–243, 248, responsibility 8, 14, 15, 17, 18, 26, 75, 77, 107, 126, 130, 131, 168, 203, 215, 232, 233, 238, 244, 248, 254, 256 response-ability 119 Romanticism 43, 69

power relations 36, 48, 49, 53–55, 69, 86, 88. 149, 157, 167, 201, 202, 206, 214, 216, 217,

223, 234, 247

ruvdet, 'traditional Sámi weaving band' 77, 78, 80

sacredness 114, 118, 126–129, 136 Sámi conceptualization 36, 39, 47 Sámi cultural heritage 39, 52, 55, 157 Sámi didactics 93 Sámi dutkama máttut, 'predecessors of Sámi research' 33

Sámi epistemology 35, 47, 167 Sámi ethnography 93, 123 Sámi identity 1, 39, 44, 69, 154, 158, 208 Sámi knowledge, 'Saami Culture Archive' 40, 41, 43, 45, 55, 70, 145 Sámi Kulturarkiiva 217 Sámi Language Act 177, 187 Sámi linguistics 219 Sámi literacy 87, 91, 94, 104–107 Sámi movement 10, 14, 53, 158, 159, 163 Sámi mythology 44, 45 Sámi ontology 35, 37, 38, 46, 66, 167 Sámi professorship 17, 45, 53, 54 Sámi research 1, 3–6, 8–10, 16, 17, 20, 21, 34, 35, 43, 45, 46, 48, 49, 51–56, 65, 67, 68, 70, 72, 74, 75, 77–80, 218, 254, 255 Sámi research history 35, 43 Sámi rights 1, 10, 51, 163 Sámi studies 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 15–17, 23–25, 74, 179, 218 Sámi thinkers 35, 36, 38, 56 Sámi Women's Commission of the Sámi 160 Sámi women's leadership 144, 151, 152, 155 Sáminess 48, 150, 152, 155, 206 San people 88, 201–203, 205, 207, 210, 213, 223 Sápmi 4, 5, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 39, 43, 48, 57, 84, 85, 88, 91, 93, 94, 97, 98, 100, 105, 109, 115, 145, 149, 157, 187, 208–211, 235, 254 Sáráhkka, the Sámi women's organization 160 searvevuohta, 'relational accountability' 150, 156, 163, 168 self-analysis 203 self-determination 1, 15, 17, 19, 22, 34, 54, 118, 158, 159 shared knowledge-building 67, 101, 147, 152

shared remembering 4, 144–146, 152–155, 157, 167, 168, sharing circles 152, 153, 210 siida, 'Sámi village', 'reindeer herding community' 156, 168 social archaeology 69 solju method 146, 147, 155, 167, 168 spirituality 39, 52, 128, 146 state policies 88, 247 stories of friction 121, 132, 136 storying 113, 117, 121, 132, 135, 138 storytelling 20, 47, 52, 117, 121, 138, 152, 153, 178, 202, 210, 221, 232 sun 45, 46, 118, 125, 126

talking circles 67, 79, 152, 210 temporality 242, 243, 246 traditional knowledge 14, 34, 38, 45, 46, 48, 50, 52, 56, 72, 89, 128, 135, 138, 154, 208, 210, 211, 238, traditional knowledge-based competence 46 transformative research 13, 19, 25, 72, 55, 167, 223, 230, 231, 237, 248

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples 162

Western philosophy 66, 119, 120 Wixárika 115, 127, 131, 133 World Indigenous Research and Education Conference 88 worlding(s) 116, 119, 124, 136–138 writing culture 176, 180, 190, 192

yarning 20, 152, 153, 210 yoik, 'a traditional form of Sámi music' 41, 42, 47, 145, 150, 154, 157, 168