Child Authorship as a Praxis of Reconciliation Working Proposal
SSHRC Summary
Story-making Reconciliation with Indigenous and non-Indigenous Children
The Truth & Reconciliation Commission’s (TRC) Calls to Action, specifically call 63.3, oblige teachers to engage Indigenous and non-Indigenous children in practices that support reconciliation. However, little guidance is provided to teachers on how to do this. Indeed, it is telling that the word “reconciliation,” does not currently appear in any of the Ontario Ministry of Education Elementary School Curriculum documents. It is not surprising then that the challenge of incorporating reconciliation in classrooms is significant. If we want the TRC’s reconciliation aims to be realized, our research must add to the small but growing body of work that studies ways for teachers to enable the reconciliation process (Callingham, 2015; Dumas, 2016; Roy, 2016). This process is not simply to inform students of the cultural genocide perpetrated against Indigenous people by settlers (Mahoney in Foubert, 2016). It must also create and facilitate opportunities for children from different nations and cultures to form and practice new relationships with each other that are qualitatively different from the existing colonial dynamic reinforced by the school system itself (Mackey, 2014; King, 2011; Grande, 2010). The work of my co-supervisor, Dr. Ng-A-Fook, whose research with Indigenous youth and his interest in the power of stories, particularly oral histories supports the possibility of story-making as a praxis for reconciliation (Llewellyn & Ng-A-Fook, 2017; Ng-A-Fook & Smith, 2017) as does the work of de Leeuw and Greenwood (2017). Further, narrative research suggests we understand each other through shared experiences that we tell as stories (Clandinin, 2007). When retold by youth, these stories create shared experiences with listeners/readers in, for example, a school community. Thus, an engaging story can
create the necessary conditions in listeners/readers to foster empathy and it is through such feelings of empathy that a good story can promote a shared understanding. Story for many Indigenous peoples is also a Way of Knowing the world. A storyteller’s ability to help others imagine their lived experience has the power to build bridges across different communities (Spence, 2010). Here Kovach concurs, stating that stories “are both method and meaning…and are the relational glue in a socially interdependent knowledge system” (2009, p. 11). In addition to story, Shawn Wilson, (2008), Margaret Kovach, (2009), Jeannine Carriere (2017) and other Indigenous scholars endorse the idea that collaborative making creates the necessary learning environments to support Indigenous pedagogy, where “teaching is by mentoring and learning is by doing and application” (Hogue, 2016, p. 162; Maddison, Clark, & de Costa, 2016; Robbins, Linds, Ironstand, & Goodpipe, 2017). Such Indigenous scholars, along with post-humanists, like Haraway (2009) call for collaborating and making stories that promise to help to forge a conciliatory “we” discourse. Extending this to Indigenous and non-Indigenous children, collaborative story-making might be seen as an act of meaning making that counters divisive “us-them” discourses (Dougherty, 2012; Foster, 2014).
Research Purpose: Building on this, I want to study (a) how story-making as a shared experience provides Indigenous and non-Indigenous children with opportunities to understand, create, and practice (re)conciliation with each other, and (b) how the creation of a new digital story artifact containing both Indigenous and a non-Indigenous content can develop, promote, and extend “intercultural understanding, empathy, and mutual respect” into the community and thus break the cycle of cultural dominance by settler Canadians (TRC, 2015, 63.3). The pedagogical aims of my research endeavor to support Cindy Blackstock’s position that “putting children first must be a foundational principle for reconciliation” (Castellano, Archibald, & DeGagné, 2008, p. 165). Research Question: My overarching research question is: What will Indigenous and non-Indigenous youth working together toward reconciliation using story-making learn about one another? Specifically, how can collaborative story-making (a) provide a model for real-life conciliatory practices that include being accountable and responsible for the decisions one makes in relation to others; and (b) cultivate a sense of empathy for Indigenous children and youth’s historical and present experiences here in Canada?
Theoretical Framework: Situated in a post-humanist world view, my research is framed by a specific critical arts-based relational model called Edu-craft (Taylor, 2016). Using art as enactment, “knowing in-doing” (p. 21), Edu-craft theorizes that collaborative making has the power “to undo the current ways of doing–and then imagine, invent and do the doing differently” (p. 7). Drawing theoretically on Barad (2007), the model positions story-making as a discursive practice that not only serves as the conduit “for critical thinking, questioning and considered creative activism” but also as a measurement of it (Taylor & Hughes, 2016, p. 20). Note: As a non-Indigenous researcher, I cannot claim first hand knowledge of Indigenous Ways of Knowing, so instead I use post-humanism as my theoretical framework. I do not position post-humanism as an equivalency for Indigenous Ways of Knowing, rather, I situate posthumanism as a complementary world view that I may and do embody. Consistent with this, I theoretically align my research to reflect the TRC’s position that non-Indigenous educators should take up the larger share of the responsibility for fostering reconciliation (Maddison et al., 2016; Tully, 2008).
Living a Praxis of Reconciliation: I propose that four children, two Indigenous and two non-Indigenous, create a short novel-length story together, by each assuming a main character for the story and role-playing their interactions as they solve a story problem of the group’s choosing (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2007). Each character will also be equipped with an object that has a special or magical property (of the author’s choosing) which allows the story characters to overcome some obstacle such as long-distance travel that would otherwise be impossible for the child characters to deal with.
Study Design: The implementation of my post-humanist design mixes three qualitative methodologies: Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), A/R/Tography, and Narrative Inquiry. Prior to classroom data collection I will conduct a CDA of several popular Indigenous and non-Indigenous stories to identify patterns of agency and structure to compare later with a CDA of the new story. This initial CDA will identify what (children’s) stories get told, who tells them, who makes them, and what story patterns/flows characterize plot, characters, etc. that are considered essential (Fairclough, 1995; Scollon, 2001; van Dijk, 2001; Wodak, 2008). Classroom data collection will begin in Fall 2018. Working with a Grade 5/6 teacher in a Gatineau school whose class has both Indigenous and non-Indigenous students, I will use A/R/Tography (Art/Research/Teach) and Narrative Inquiry to collect data on the story-making process, how researchers and participants teach each other, and how participants story their own story-making experience (Irwin, 2013; Irwin & O’Donoghue, 2012; & Clandinin, 2007; Pinar, 1975; Riessman, 2005; Yardley, 2008). I will spend approximately 20 hours with the participants in sessions of not more than 2 hours/day using Google Doc’s voice to text capabilities to record and automatically transcribe each session and the story itself. As participants discuss the possibilities for their story, my field notes will document decision points in the story-making process that allow/limit possibilities for the story/characters, and describe how these decisions get made. I will triangulate my notes by asking participants to describe how story, characters (or authors) are affected by their decisions, and invite them to discuss how understanding, empathy and respect for each other factors into making those decisions. After the story is finished and made available online, I will interview the authors individually and collectively about their story-making experience including its public reception. The analysis and synthesis of data will include a comparative CDA to identify story differences between the popular stories and the new story, and how the differences mark conciliation. It will also include an analysis of decision point data to identify how the research itself and the story-making discursive practice facilitated art production–the story–and teaching and learning by participants and me about cultural understanding, empathy, and mutual respect. I will also analyze transcripts of participants’ narratives for patterns that reflect conciliatory awareness and understanding. Finally, I will synthesize these analyses to produce my thesis and dissertation that I hope to complete by January 2020.
Ethics: I will prepare my ethics application in consultation with an ethics advisor, my co-supervisor and a committee comprised of a local teacher, an Elder, and a parent who can provide feedback on the research process, so I may address a less understood ethical question central to my study—an Indigenous/non-Indigenous child-to-child ethics, as distinct from an adult-to-child one.
Background: My doctorate study builds on an independent project that has provided me with a set of foundational practices for this study, and importantly, proof of pedagogical concept that youth can learn from one another while collaboratively writing an engaging novel (Bonnell et al., 2000).
Cited References
Barad, K. M. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: quantum physics and the entanglement of matter
and meaning. Durham and London: Duke University Press.
Bonnell, Z., Ko, S., Chandan, N., Wardle, K., & Lee, C. (2000). The Missing Bone. (C. Lee, Ed.).
Ottawa: byKidsBOOKS is a division of Cainrazor Press.
Byrne, G. (2015). Narrative inquiry and the problem of representation: “giving voice”, making meaning.
International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 7288(January), 1–17.
http://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2015.1034097
Callingham, C. (2015, January 1). Youth Engagement in Northern Communities: A Narrative
Exploration of Aboriginal Youth Participation in a Positive Youth Development Program.
Carriere, J., Richardson, C., & Boldo, V. (2017). Invitations to dignity and well-being: cultural safety
through Indigenous pedagogy, witnessing and giving back! AlterNative, 13(3), 190–195.
http://doi.org/10.1177/1177180117714413
Castellano, M. B., Archibald, L., & DeGagné, M. (2008). From Truth to Reconciliation. Ottawa:
Aboriginal Healing foundation.
Clandinin, J. D. (2007). Handbook of narrative inquiry: Mapping a methodology. Thousand Oaks
California: SAGE Publications, Inc. http://doi.org/10.4135/9781452226552
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Role-Playing. In Research Methods in Education (5th
ed., pp. 270–279). London & New York: Routledge Falmer.
Coulter, C. A., & Smith, M. L. (2009). The Construction Zone: Literary Elements in Narrative Research.
Educational Researcher, 38(8), 577–590. http://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X09353787
Denzin, N., Lincoln, Y., & Smith, L. (2008). Handbook of Critical and Indigenous Methodologies. 2455
Teller Road, Thousand Oaks California 91320 United States: SAGE Publications, Inc.
http://doi.org/10.4135/9781483385686
Dougherty, D. (2012). Makerspaces in education and DARPA. Make Magazine, 11–16.
Dumas, D. (2016, January 1). Negotiating Life Within the City: Social Geographies and Lived
Experiences of Urban Metis Peoples in Ottawa.
Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical Discourse Analysis: the crtical study of language. London and New
York: Longman Group limited.
Foster, H., Lande, C., Jordan, M., & S., S. (2014). An ethos of sharing in the maker community. In 121st
ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition (p. 8).
Foubert, T. (2016, November 3). Culture at the crossroads of truth and reconciliation | Local News |
Rocky Mountain Outlook. Rocky Mountain Outlook. Banff.
Grande, S. (2010). Teach boldly! Letters to teachers about contemporary issues in education. In Red
Pedagogy (Vol. 356, pp. 199–207). Peter Lang AG. http://doi.org/10.2307/42980614
Grumet, M. R. (2010). The public expression of citizen teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1–2),
66–77.
Haraway, D. (2009). Staying with the trouble: a lecture by Donna Haraway. USA: California College of
the Arts CCA Graduate Studies Lecture Series.
Hogue, M. M. (2016). Aboriginal Knowing. In Education, 22(1), 161–172.
Irwin, R. L. (2013). Becoming A/r/tography. Studies in Art Education, 54(3), 198–215.
Irwin, R. L., & O’Donoghue, D. (2012). Encountering Pedagogy through Relational Art Practices.
International Journal of Art & Design Education, 31(3), 221–236. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1476-
8070.2012.01760.x
King, T. F. (2011). A Companion to Cultural Resource Management. (T. F. King, Ed.). Blackwell
Publishing Ltd.
Kovach, M. (2009). Indigenous Methodologies: Characteristics, Conversations, and Contexts. Toronto,
New York: University of Toronto Press.
Llewellyn, K. R., & Ng-A-Fook, N. (2017). Oral history and education. (K. R. Llewellyn & N. Ng-AFook,
Eds.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Mackey, E. (2014). Unsettling expectations: (Un)certainty, settler states of feeling, law, and
decolonization. Canadian Journal of Law and SocietyArticle) Canadian Journal of Law and Society
/ Revue Canadienne Droit et Société, 29(210), 235–252.
Maddison, S., Clark, T., & De Costa, R. (2016). The Limits of Settler Colonial Reconciliation; Non-
Indigenous People and the Responsibility to Engage. (S. Maddison, T. Clark, & R. de Costa, Eds.).
Singapore: Springer. http://doi.org/DOI 10.1007/978-981-10-2654-6
Ng-A-Fook, N., & Smith, B. (2017). Doing oral history education toward reconciliation. In Oral history
and education (pp. 65–86). New York: Palgrave Macmillan US. http://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-
95019-5_4
Pinar, W. F. (1975). The method of “Currere.” Counterpoints, 2, 19–27. http://doi.org/10.2307/42975620
Riessman, C. (2005). Narrative in social work. Qualitative Social Work, 4(4), 391–412.
Robbins, J., Linds, W., Ironstand, B., & Goodpipe, E. (2017). Generating and sustaining positive spaces:
reflections on an Indigenous youth urban arts program. AlterNative, 13(3), 161–169.
http://doi.org/10.1177/1177180117714406
Roy, S. (2016, January 1). We are Still Dancing: Métis Women’s Voices on Dance as a Restorative
Praxis for Wellbeing.
Sarah de Leeuw, & Margo Greenwood. (2017). Turning a new page: cultural safety, critical creative
literary interventions, truth and reconciliation, and the crisis of child welfare. AlterNative, 13(3),
142–151. http://doi.org/10.1177/1177180117714155
Scollon, R. (2001). Mediated discourse: the nexus of practice - S. London and New York: Routledge.
Spence, P. (2010). The land, the storyteller, and the great cauldron of making meaning. Fourth World
Journal, 9(2), 31–38.
Taylor, C. A., & Hughes, C. (2016). Posthuman research practices in education. (C. A. Taylor & C.
Hughes, Eds.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. http://doi.org/10.1057/9781137453082
TRC. (2015). Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada: Calls to Action. Ottawa.
Tully, J. (2008). The negotiation of reconciliation. In Public Philosophy in a New Key (pp. 223–256).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511790737.009
van Dijk, T. (2001). Critical Discourse Analysis. In D. Tannen, D. Schiffrin, & H. Hamilton (Eds.),
Handbook of Discourse Analysis (pp. 352–371). London: Oxford: Blackwell.
Wilson, S. (2008). Research Is Ceremony: Indigenous Research Methods. Halifax: Fernwood.
Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2008). Critical Discourse Analysis: History, Agenda, Theory, and
Methodology. In Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis (pp. 1–33).
Yardley, A. (2008). Living stories: The role of the researcher in the narration of Life. Forum Qualitative
Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 9(3), 1–10.
Consulted References
Abram, D. (1996). The ecology of magic. In The Spell of the Sensuous (pp. 3–29). New York: Pantheon
Books.
Abram, D. (2010). The discourse of the birds. Biosemiotics, 3(3), 263–275.
Anderson, J., & Macleroy, V. (2016). Multilingual digital storytelling: Engaging creatively and
critically with literacy. Routledge.
Andrews, M., Squire, C., & Tamboukou, M. (2008). Narratives of events : Labovian narrative analysis
and its limitations. Doing Narrative Research, 23–41. http://doi.org/10.4135/9780857024992
Antonios Liapis, Georgios N. Yannakakis, Constantine Alexopoulos, & Phil Lop. (2016). Can computers
foster human users’ creativity? Theory and praxis of mixed-iniative co-creativity. Digital Culture &
Education, 8(2), 136–153.
Ashton-Warner, S. (1963). Teacher. London: Secker and Warburg.
Barsalou, L. W. (2016). Situated conceptualization. In M. H. Coello, Yann; Fischer (Ed.), Perceptual
and Emotional Embodiment : Foundations of Embodied Cognition Volume 1. (pp. 18–47). New
York: Routledge.
Briggs, J., & Peat, F. D. (1989). Turbulent Mirror. New York: Harper and Row Publishers.
Brushwood Rose, C. (2014). Exploring the “craftedness” of multimedia narratives: From creation to
interpretation. Visual Studies, 29(1), 30–39.
Byrne, G. (2015). Narrative inquiry and the problem of representation: “giving voice”, making meaning.
International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 7288(January), 1–17.
http://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2015.1034097
Clark, A. (1997). A car with a cockroach brain. In Being there - Putting brain, body and the world
together (pp. 1–33). Cambridge and London: The MIT Press Cambridge.
Cohen, J. D., Jones, W. M., & Smith, S. (2016). Makification: Towards a framework for leveraging the
maker movement in formal education. In Society for Information (pp. 129–135).
Coole, D. H., & Frost, S. (2010). New materialisms : ontology, agency, and politics. Duke University
Press.
Cristy Jefson, & Brandi Niemeier. (2016). Using digital storytelling to teach restorative justice and
decision making. Journal of Health Education Teaching Techniques, 2(2), 28–40.
du Toit, F. (2017). A broken promise? Evaluating South Africa?s reconciliation process twenty years on.
International Political Science Review, 38(2), 169–184. http://doi.org/10.1177/0192512115594412
Fairclough, N., Kress, G., Dijk, T. van, Leeuwen, T. van, & Wodak, R. (2014). CDA20+ Symposium,
Amsterdam 8-9 September 2014. Retrieved February 20, 2016, from
http://www.cda20plus.humanities.uva.nl/
Faulkner, D. (2014). Storytelling cultures in early years classrooms. He Kupu, 3(5), 80–91.
Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. Palgrave Macmillan.
Hammer, J. (2007). Agency and authority in role-playing “texts.” In M. Lankshs & C. Knobel (Eds.), A
new literacies sampler (pp. 67–94). Peter Lang.
Hatch, J. B. (2006). The hope of reconciliation: Continuing the conversation. Rhetoric and Public
Affairs, 9(2), 259–277. http://doi.org/10.2307/41940053
Hayles, K. N. (2006). Unfinished Work From Cyborg to Cognisphere. Theory, Culture & Society, 23(7–
8), 159–166.
Heavey, E. (2015). Narrative bodies, embodied narratives. In The Handbook of Narrative Analysis (pp.
429–446). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. http://doi.org/10.1002/9781118458204.ch22
Kakava, C. (2006). Discourse and conflict. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. E. Hamilton (Eds.),
Handbook of Discourse Analysis (pp. 650–670). London and New York: Oxford: Blackwell.
Kimmerer, R. W., & Tippett, K. (2016). The intelligence in all kinds of life. USA: On Being.
Kress, G. (2015). Semiotic work: Applied linguistics and a social semiotic account of multimodality.
AILA Review, 28, 49–71. http://doi.org/10.1075/aila.28.03kre
Kress, G., & Hodge, R. (1979). Transformations and truth. In Language as ideology (pp. 1–37). London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Laden, A. S. (2013). Ideals of justice: Goals vs. constraints. Critical Review of International Social and
Political Philosophy, 16(2), 205–219.
Lakoff, G. (2012). Explaining embodied cognition results. Topics in Cognitive Science, 4(4), 773–785.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2012.01222.x
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago and London: University of Chicago
Press.
Lavallee, M., Avery Kinew, K., Clark, W., Anderson De Coteau, M., MacKinnon, M., Director, S., …
Lussier, D. (n.d.). Framework for Research Engagement with First Nation, Metis, and Inuit People.
Winnipeg Regional Health Authority. Winipeg: University of Manitoba.
Litts, B. K. (2015). Making learning: Makerspaces as learning environments. ProQuest Dissertations
and Theses.
Llewellyn, K. R., & Cook, S. A. (2017). Oral history as peace pedagogy. In Oral history and education
(pp. 17–41). New York: Palgrave Macmillan US. http://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-95019-5_2
Loertscher, D., & Wolls, B. (2014). Transmedia storytelling as an education tool. In Ifla (pp. 1–13).
Low, B., Salvio, P. M., & Brushwood Rose, C. (2016). Community-based media pedagogies | Relational
practices of listening in the commons (1st ed.). New York: Routledge.
Magnat, V. (2012). Can research become ceremony?: Performance ethnography and indigenous
epistemologies. Canadian Theatre Review, 151, 30–36. http://doi.org/10.3138/ctr.151.30
Mahoney, K. (2016). Big thinking - Canada’s origin story. Ottawa: Fondation Pierre Elliot Trudeau
Froundation.
Ong, W. J. (1982). Writing restructures consciousnes. In Orality and literacy: the technologizing of the
word (3rd ed., p. 113). London and New York: Routledge. http://doi.org/10.2307/414000
Pinto, L. E. (2015). Putting the critical back into maker spaces. CCPA Monitor, 22(1), 35.
Prigogine, I. (1996). The end of certainty: Time, chaos, and the new laws of nature. New York: The Free
Press (Simon and Shuster).
Riemer, F. J., & Blasi, M. (2003). Rethinking relationships reconfiguring teacher research: Teachers as
ethnographers of culture, childhood, and classrooms. Action in Teacher Education, 29(4), 53–65.
Rowe, S., & Wertsch, J. (2002). Linking little narratives to big ones: Narrative and public memory in
history museums. Culture & Psychology, 8(1), 96–112.
Ryan, M.-L., & Thon, J.-N. (2014). Storywords introduction. In M.-L. Ryan & J.-N. Thon (Eds.),
Storyworlds across media: toward a media-conscious narratology (Project Mu, p. 363). Lincoln:
University of Nebraska Press.
Schiffrin, D., Tannen, D., & Hamilton, H. E. (2008). Handbook of discourse analysis. (D. Schiffrin, D.
Tannen, & H. E. Hamilton, Eds.). Chichester: Wiley.
Sheets-Johnstone, M. (2012). Steps entailed in foregrounding the background: Taking the challenge of
languaging experience seriously. In Z. Radman (Ed.), Knowing without Thinking. London: Palgrave
Macmillan UK. http://doi.org/10.1057/9780230368064
Sheridan, K., Halverson, E. R., Litts, B., Brahms, L., Jacobs-Priebe, L., & Owens, T. (2014). Learning in
the making: A Comparative case study of three makerspaces. Harvard Educational Review, 84(4),
505–531. http://doi.org/10.17763/haer.84.4.brr34733723j648u
Smith, L. T. (1999). Decolonizing methodologies research and indigenous peoples (2nd ed.). London &
New York: Zed Books Ltd.
Snaza, N., Appelbaum, P., Bayne, S., Carlson, D., Morris, M., Rotas, N., … Weaver, J. (2014). Toward a
posthumanist education. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing , 30(2), 39–55.
Snaza, N., & Weaver, J. (2015). Introduction: Education and the posthumanist turn. In N. Snaza & J.
Weaver (Eds.), Posthumanism and Educational Research (pp. 1–13). New York, London:
Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. http://doi.org/10.4324/9781315769165
Stengers, I. (2005). Events and histories of knowledge. Review (Fernand Braudel Center), 28(2), 143–
159. http://doi.org/10.2307/40241626
Tamboukou, M. (2015). Narrative phenomena: Entanglements and intra-actions in narrative research. In
Discourse and narrative methods: Theoretical departures, analytical strategies and situated
writings (pp. 37–47). SAGE Publications Ltd. http://doi.org/10.4135/9781473921764.n4
Ulmer, J. B. (2017). Posthumanism as research methodology: inquiry in the Anthropocene. International
Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 1–18. http://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2017.1336806
van Dijk, T. (1980). Story comprehension: An introduction. Poetics, 9(1–3), 1–21.
van Manen, M. (2009). The phenomenology of space in writing online. Educational Philosophy and
Theory, 41(1), 10–21.
Weaver, J. A. (2005). Digital aesthetics. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 21(1), 77–77.
Weil, Z. (2016). The world becomes what we teach: Educating a generation of solutionaries. PR
Newswire. Lantern Books.
Wineburg, S., & Schneider, J. (2010). Was Bloom’s taxonomy pointed in the wrong direction? Phi Delta
Kappan, 91(4), 56–61. http://doi.org/10.1177/003172171009100412
Wodak, R. (2015). Language and identity: The politics of nationalism. In Politics of Fear What Right -
Wing Populist Discourses Mean (pp. 70–94). London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Wolfe, C. (2009). What is posthumanism? Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press.
create the necessary conditions in listeners/readers to foster empathy and it is through such feelings of empathy that a good story can promote a shared understanding. Story for many Indigenous peoples is also a Way of Knowing the world. A storyteller’s ability to help others imagine their lived experience has the power to build bridges across different communities (Spence, 2010). Here Kovach concurs, stating that stories “are both method and meaning…and are the relational glue in a socially interdependent knowledge system” (2009, p. 11). In addition to story, Shawn Wilson, (2008), Margaret Kovach, (2009), Jeannine Carriere (2017) and other Indigenous scholars endorse the idea that collaborative making creates the necessary learning environments to support Indigenous pedagogy, where “teaching is by mentoring and learning is by doing and application” (Hogue, 2016, p. 162; Maddison, Clark, & de Costa, 2016; Robbins, Linds, Ironstand, & Goodpipe, 2017). Such Indigenous scholars, along with post-humanists, like Haraway (2009) call for collaborating and making stories that promise to help to forge a conciliatory “we” discourse. Extending this to Indigenous and non-Indigenous children, collaborative story-making might be seen as an act of meaning making that counters divisive “us-them” discourses (Dougherty, 2012; Foster, 2014).
Research Purpose: Building on this, I want to study (a) how story-making as a shared experience provides Indigenous and non-Indigenous children with opportunities to understand, create, and practice (re)conciliation with each other, and (b) how the creation of a new digital story artifact containing both Indigenous and a non-Indigenous content can develop, promote, and extend “intercultural understanding, empathy, and mutual respect” into the community and thus break the cycle of cultural dominance by settler Canadians (TRC, 2015, 63.3). The pedagogical aims of my research endeavor to support Cindy Blackstock’s position that “putting children first must be a foundational principle for reconciliation” (Castellano, Archibald, & DeGagné, 2008, p. 165). Research Question: My overarching research question is: What will Indigenous and non-Indigenous youth working together toward reconciliation using story-making learn about one another? Specifically, how can collaborative story-making (a) provide a model for real-life conciliatory practices that include being accountable and responsible for the decisions one makes in relation to others; and (b) cultivate a sense of empathy for Indigenous children and youth’s historical and present experiences here in Canada?
Theoretical Framework: Situated in a post-humanist world view, my research is framed by a specific critical arts-based relational model called Edu-craft (Taylor, 2016). Using art as enactment, “knowing in-doing” (p. 21), Edu-craft theorizes that collaborative making has the power “to undo the current ways of doing–and then imagine, invent and do the doing differently” (p. 7). Drawing theoretically on Barad (2007), the model positions story-making as a discursive practice that not only serves as the conduit “for critical thinking, questioning and considered creative activism” but also as a measurement of it (Taylor & Hughes, 2016, p. 20). Note: As a non-Indigenous researcher, I cannot claim first hand knowledge of Indigenous Ways of Knowing, so instead I use post-humanism as my theoretical framework. I do not position post-humanism as an equivalency for Indigenous Ways of Knowing, rather, I situate posthumanism as a complementary world view that I may and do embody. Consistent with this, I theoretically align my research to reflect the TRC’s position that non-Indigenous educators should take up the larger share of the responsibility for fostering reconciliation (Maddison et al., 2016; Tully, 2008).
Living a Praxis of Reconciliation: I propose that four children, two Indigenous and two non-Indigenous, create a short novel-length story together, by each assuming a main character for the story and role-playing their interactions as they solve a story problem of the group’s choosing (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2007). Each character will also be equipped with an object that has a special or magical property (of the author’s choosing) which allows the story characters to overcome some obstacle such as long-distance travel that would otherwise be impossible for the child characters to deal with.
Study Design: The implementation of my post-humanist design mixes three qualitative methodologies: Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), A/R/Tography, and Narrative Inquiry. Prior to classroom data collection I will conduct a CDA of several popular Indigenous and non-Indigenous stories to identify patterns of agency and structure to compare later with a CDA of the new story. This initial CDA will identify what (children’s) stories get told, who tells them, who makes them, and what story patterns/flows characterize plot, characters, etc. that are considered essential (Fairclough, 1995; Scollon, 2001; van Dijk, 2001; Wodak, 2008). Classroom data collection will begin in Fall 2018. Working with a Grade 5/6 teacher in a Gatineau school whose class has both Indigenous and non-Indigenous students, I will use A/R/Tography (Art/Research/Teach) and Narrative Inquiry to collect data on the story-making process, how researchers and participants teach each other, and how participants story their own story-making experience (Irwin, 2013; Irwin & O’Donoghue, 2012; & Clandinin, 2007; Pinar, 1975; Riessman, 2005; Yardley, 2008). I will spend approximately 20 hours with the participants in sessions of not more than 2 hours/day using Google Doc’s voice to text capabilities to record and automatically transcribe each session and the story itself. As participants discuss the possibilities for their story, my field notes will document decision points in the story-making process that allow/limit possibilities for the story/characters, and describe how these decisions get made. I will triangulate my notes by asking participants to describe how story, characters (or authors) are affected by their decisions, and invite them to discuss how understanding, empathy and respect for each other factors into making those decisions. After the story is finished and made available online, I will interview the authors individually and collectively about their story-making experience including its public reception. The analysis and synthesis of data will include a comparative CDA to identify story differences between the popular stories and the new story, and how the differences mark conciliation. It will also include an analysis of decision point data to identify how the research itself and the story-making discursive practice facilitated art production–the story–and teaching and learning by participants and me about cultural understanding, empathy, and mutual respect. I will also analyze transcripts of participants’ narratives for patterns that reflect conciliatory awareness and understanding. Finally, I will synthesize these analyses to produce my thesis and dissertation that I hope to complete by January 2020.
Ethics: I will prepare my ethics application in consultation with an ethics advisor, my co-supervisor and a committee comprised of a local teacher, an Elder, and a parent who can provide feedback on the research process, so I may address a less understood ethical question central to my study—an Indigenous/non-Indigenous child-to-child ethics, as distinct from an adult-to-child one.
Background: My doctorate study builds on an independent project that has provided me with a set of foundational practices for this study, and importantly, proof of pedagogical concept that youth can learn from one another while collaboratively writing an engaging novel (Bonnell et al., 2000).
Cited References
Barad, K. M. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: quantum physics and the entanglement of matter
and meaning. Durham and London: Duke University Press.
Bonnell, Z., Ko, S., Chandan, N., Wardle, K., & Lee, C. (2000). The Missing Bone. (C. Lee, Ed.).
Ottawa: byKidsBOOKS is a division of Cainrazor Press.
Byrne, G. (2015). Narrative inquiry and the problem of representation: “giving voice”, making meaning.
International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 7288(January), 1–17.
http://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2015.1034097
Callingham, C. (2015, January 1). Youth Engagement in Northern Communities: A Narrative
Exploration of Aboriginal Youth Participation in a Positive Youth Development Program.
Carriere, J., Richardson, C., & Boldo, V. (2017). Invitations to dignity and well-being: cultural safety
through Indigenous pedagogy, witnessing and giving back! AlterNative, 13(3), 190–195.
http://doi.org/10.1177/1177180117714413
Castellano, M. B., Archibald, L., & DeGagné, M. (2008). From Truth to Reconciliation. Ottawa:
Aboriginal Healing foundation.
Clandinin, J. D. (2007). Handbook of narrative inquiry: Mapping a methodology. Thousand Oaks
California: SAGE Publications, Inc. http://doi.org/10.4135/9781452226552
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Role-Playing. In Research Methods in Education (5th
ed., pp. 270–279). London & New York: Routledge Falmer.
Coulter, C. A., & Smith, M. L. (2009). The Construction Zone: Literary Elements in Narrative Research.
Educational Researcher, 38(8), 577–590. http://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X09353787
Denzin, N., Lincoln, Y., & Smith, L. (2008). Handbook of Critical and Indigenous Methodologies. 2455
Teller Road, Thousand Oaks California 91320 United States: SAGE Publications, Inc.
http://doi.org/10.4135/9781483385686
Dougherty, D. (2012). Makerspaces in education and DARPA. Make Magazine, 11–16.
Dumas, D. (2016, January 1). Negotiating Life Within the City: Social Geographies and Lived
Experiences of Urban Metis Peoples in Ottawa.
Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical Discourse Analysis: the crtical study of language. London and New
York: Longman Group limited.
Foster, H., Lande, C., Jordan, M., & S., S. (2014). An ethos of sharing in the maker community. In 121st
ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition (p. 8).
Foubert, T. (2016, November 3). Culture at the crossroads of truth and reconciliation | Local News |
Rocky Mountain Outlook. Rocky Mountain Outlook. Banff.
Grande, S. (2010). Teach boldly! Letters to teachers about contemporary issues in education. In Red
Pedagogy (Vol. 356, pp. 199–207). Peter Lang AG. http://doi.org/10.2307/42980614
Grumet, M. R. (2010). The public expression of citizen teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1–2),
66–77.
Haraway, D. (2009). Staying with the trouble: a lecture by Donna Haraway. USA: California College of
the Arts CCA Graduate Studies Lecture Series.
Hogue, M. M. (2016). Aboriginal Knowing. In Education, 22(1), 161–172.
Irwin, R. L. (2013). Becoming A/r/tography. Studies in Art Education, 54(3), 198–215.
Irwin, R. L., & O’Donoghue, D. (2012). Encountering Pedagogy through Relational Art Practices.
International Journal of Art & Design Education, 31(3), 221–236. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1476-
8070.2012.01760.x
King, T. F. (2011). A Companion to Cultural Resource Management. (T. F. King, Ed.). Blackwell
Publishing Ltd.
Kovach, M. (2009). Indigenous Methodologies: Characteristics, Conversations, and Contexts. Toronto,
New York: University of Toronto Press.
Llewellyn, K. R., & Ng-A-Fook, N. (2017). Oral history and education. (K. R. Llewellyn & N. Ng-AFook,
Eds.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Mackey, E. (2014). Unsettling expectations: (Un)certainty, settler states of feeling, law, and
decolonization. Canadian Journal of Law and SocietyArticle) Canadian Journal of Law and Society
/ Revue Canadienne Droit et Société, 29(210), 235–252.
Maddison, S., Clark, T., & De Costa, R. (2016). The Limits of Settler Colonial Reconciliation; Non-
Indigenous People and the Responsibility to Engage. (S. Maddison, T. Clark, & R. de Costa, Eds.).
Singapore: Springer. http://doi.org/DOI 10.1007/978-981-10-2654-6
Ng-A-Fook, N., & Smith, B. (2017). Doing oral history education toward reconciliation. In Oral history
and education (pp. 65–86). New York: Palgrave Macmillan US. http://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-
95019-5_4
Pinar, W. F. (1975). The method of “Currere.” Counterpoints, 2, 19–27. http://doi.org/10.2307/42975620
Riessman, C. (2005). Narrative in social work. Qualitative Social Work, 4(4), 391–412.
Robbins, J., Linds, W., Ironstand, B., & Goodpipe, E. (2017). Generating and sustaining positive spaces:
reflections on an Indigenous youth urban arts program. AlterNative, 13(3), 161–169.
http://doi.org/10.1177/1177180117714406
Roy, S. (2016, January 1). We are Still Dancing: Métis Women’s Voices on Dance as a Restorative
Praxis for Wellbeing.
Sarah de Leeuw, & Margo Greenwood. (2017). Turning a new page: cultural safety, critical creative
literary interventions, truth and reconciliation, and the crisis of child welfare. AlterNative, 13(3),
142–151. http://doi.org/10.1177/1177180117714155
Scollon, R. (2001). Mediated discourse: the nexus of practice - S. London and New York: Routledge.
Spence, P. (2010). The land, the storyteller, and the great cauldron of making meaning. Fourth World
Journal, 9(2), 31–38.
Taylor, C. A., & Hughes, C. (2016). Posthuman research practices in education. (C. A. Taylor & C.
Hughes, Eds.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. http://doi.org/10.1057/9781137453082
TRC. (2015). Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada: Calls to Action. Ottawa.
Tully, J. (2008). The negotiation of reconciliation. In Public Philosophy in a New Key (pp. 223–256).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511790737.009
van Dijk, T. (2001). Critical Discourse Analysis. In D. Tannen, D. Schiffrin, & H. Hamilton (Eds.),
Handbook of Discourse Analysis (pp. 352–371). London: Oxford: Blackwell.
Wilson, S. (2008). Research Is Ceremony: Indigenous Research Methods. Halifax: Fernwood.
Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2008). Critical Discourse Analysis: History, Agenda, Theory, and
Methodology. In Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis (pp. 1–33).
Yardley, A. (2008). Living stories: The role of the researcher in the narration of Life. Forum Qualitative
Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 9(3), 1–10.
Consulted References
Abram, D. (1996). The ecology of magic. In The Spell of the Sensuous (pp. 3–29). New York: Pantheon
Books.
Abram, D. (2010). The discourse of the birds. Biosemiotics, 3(3), 263–275.
Anderson, J., & Macleroy, V. (2016). Multilingual digital storytelling: Engaging creatively and
critically with literacy. Routledge.
Andrews, M., Squire, C., & Tamboukou, M. (2008). Narratives of events : Labovian narrative analysis
and its limitations. Doing Narrative Research, 23–41. http://doi.org/10.4135/9780857024992
Antonios Liapis, Georgios N. Yannakakis, Constantine Alexopoulos, & Phil Lop. (2016). Can computers
foster human users’ creativity? Theory and praxis of mixed-iniative co-creativity. Digital Culture &
Education, 8(2), 136–153.
Ashton-Warner, S. (1963). Teacher. London: Secker and Warburg.
Barsalou, L. W. (2016). Situated conceptualization. In M. H. Coello, Yann; Fischer (Ed.), Perceptual
and Emotional Embodiment : Foundations of Embodied Cognition Volume 1. (pp. 18–47). New
York: Routledge.
Briggs, J., & Peat, F. D. (1989). Turbulent Mirror. New York: Harper and Row Publishers.
Brushwood Rose, C. (2014). Exploring the “craftedness” of multimedia narratives: From creation to
interpretation. Visual Studies, 29(1), 30–39.
Byrne, G. (2015). Narrative inquiry and the problem of representation: “giving voice”, making meaning.
International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 7288(January), 1–17.
http://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2015.1034097
Clark, A. (1997). A car with a cockroach brain. In Being there - Putting brain, body and the world
together (pp. 1–33). Cambridge and London: The MIT Press Cambridge.
Cohen, J. D., Jones, W. M., & Smith, S. (2016). Makification: Towards a framework for leveraging the
maker movement in formal education. In Society for Information (pp. 129–135).
Coole, D. H., & Frost, S. (2010). New materialisms : ontology, agency, and politics. Duke University
Press.
Cristy Jefson, & Brandi Niemeier. (2016). Using digital storytelling to teach restorative justice and
decision making. Journal of Health Education Teaching Techniques, 2(2), 28–40.
du Toit, F. (2017). A broken promise? Evaluating South Africa?s reconciliation process twenty years on.
International Political Science Review, 38(2), 169–184. http://doi.org/10.1177/0192512115594412
Fairclough, N., Kress, G., Dijk, T. van, Leeuwen, T. van, & Wodak, R. (2014). CDA20+ Symposium,
Amsterdam 8-9 September 2014. Retrieved February 20, 2016, from
http://www.cda20plus.humanities.uva.nl/
Faulkner, D. (2014). Storytelling cultures in early years classrooms. He Kupu, 3(5), 80–91.
Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. Palgrave Macmillan.
Hammer, J. (2007). Agency and authority in role-playing “texts.” In M. Lankshs & C. Knobel (Eds.), A
new literacies sampler (pp. 67–94). Peter Lang.
Hatch, J. B. (2006). The hope of reconciliation: Continuing the conversation. Rhetoric and Public
Affairs, 9(2), 259–277. http://doi.org/10.2307/41940053
Hayles, K. N. (2006). Unfinished Work From Cyborg to Cognisphere. Theory, Culture & Society, 23(7–
8), 159–166.
Heavey, E. (2015). Narrative bodies, embodied narratives. In The Handbook of Narrative Analysis (pp.
429–446). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. http://doi.org/10.1002/9781118458204.ch22
Kakava, C. (2006). Discourse and conflict. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. E. Hamilton (Eds.),
Handbook of Discourse Analysis (pp. 650–670). London and New York: Oxford: Blackwell.
Kimmerer, R. W., & Tippett, K. (2016). The intelligence in all kinds of life. USA: On Being.
Kress, G. (2015). Semiotic work: Applied linguistics and a social semiotic account of multimodality.
AILA Review, 28, 49–71. http://doi.org/10.1075/aila.28.03kre
Kress, G., & Hodge, R. (1979). Transformations and truth. In Language as ideology (pp. 1–37). London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Laden, A. S. (2013). Ideals of justice: Goals vs. constraints. Critical Review of International Social and
Political Philosophy, 16(2), 205–219.
Lakoff, G. (2012). Explaining embodied cognition results. Topics in Cognitive Science, 4(4), 773–785.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2012.01222.x
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago and London: University of Chicago
Press.
Lavallee, M., Avery Kinew, K., Clark, W., Anderson De Coteau, M., MacKinnon, M., Director, S., …
Lussier, D. (n.d.). Framework for Research Engagement with First Nation, Metis, and Inuit People.
Winnipeg Regional Health Authority. Winipeg: University of Manitoba.
Litts, B. K. (2015). Making learning: Makerspaces as learning environments. ProQuest Dissertations
and Theses.
Llewellyn, K. R., & Cook, S. A. (2017). Oral history as peace pedagogy. In Oral history and education
(pp. 17–41). New York: Palgrave Macmillan US. http://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-95019-5_2
Loertscher, D., & Wolls, B. (2014). Transmedia storytelling as an education tool. In Ifla (pp. 1–13).
Low, B., Salvio, P. M., & Brushwood Rose, C. (2016). Community-based media pedagogies | Relational
practices of listening in the commons (1st ed.). New York: Routledge.
Magnat, V. (2012). Can research become ceremony?: Performance ethnography and indigenous
epistemologies. Canadian Theatre Review, 151, 30–36. http://doi.org/10.3138/ctr.151.30
Mahoney, K. (2016). Big thinking - Canada’s origin story. Ottawa: Fondation Pierre Elliot Trudeau
Froundation.
Ong, W. J. (1982). Writing restructures consciousnes. In Orality and literacy: the technologizing of the
word (3rd ed., p. 113). London and New York: Routledge. http://doi.org/10.2307/414000
Pinto, L. E. (2015). Putting the critical back into maker spaces. CCPA Monitor, 22(1), 35.
Prigogine, I. (1996). The end of certainty: Time, chaos, and the new laws of nature. New York: The Free
Press (Simon and Shuster).
Riemer, F. J., & Blasi, M. (2003). Rethinking relationships reconfiguring teacher research: Teachers as
ethnographers of culture, childhood, and classrooms. Action in Teacher Education, 29(4), 53–65.
Rowe, S., & Wertsch, J. (2002). Linking little narratives to big ones: Narrative and public memory in
history museums. Culture & Psychology, 8(1), 96–112.
Ryan, M.-L., & Thon, J.-N. (2014). Storywords introduction. In M.-L. Ryan & J.-N. Thon (Eds.),
Storyworlds across media: toward a media-conscious narratology (Project Mu, p. 363). Lincoln:
University of Nebraska Press.
Schiffrin, D., Tannen, D., & Hamilton, H. E. (2008). Handbook of discourse analysis. (D. Schiffrin, D.
Tannen, & H. E. Hamilton, Eds.). Chichester: Wiley.
Sheets-Johnstone, M. (2012). Steps entailed in foregrounding the background: Taking the challenge of
languaging experience seriously. In Z. Radman (Ed.), Knowing without Thinking. London: Palgrave
Macmillan UK. http://doi.org/10.1057/9780230368064
Sheridan, K., Halverson, E. R., Litts, B., Brahms, L., Jacobs-Priebe, L., & Owens, T. (2014). Learning in
the making: A Comparative case study of three makerspaces. Harvard Educational Review, 84(4),
505–531. http://doi.org/10.17763/haer.84.4.brr34733723j648u
Smith, L. T. (1999). Decolonizing methodologies research and indigenous peoples (2nd ed.). London &
New York: Zed Books Ltd.
Snaza, N., Appelbaum, P., Bayne, S., Carlson, D., Morris, M., Rotas, N., … Weaver, J. (2014). Toward a
posthumanist education. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing , 30(2), 39–55.
Snaza, N., & Weaver, J. (2015). Introduction: Education and the posthumanist turn. In N. Snaza & J.
Weaver (Eds.), Posthumanism and Educational Research (pp. 1–13). New York, London:
Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. http://doi.org/10.4324/9781315769165
Stengers, I. (2005). Events and histories of knowledge. Review (Fernand Braudel Center), 28(2), 143–
159. http://doi.org/10.2307/40241626
Tamboukou, M. (2015). Narrative phenomena: Entanglements and intra-actions in narrative research. In
Discourse and narrative methods: Theoretical departures, analytical strategies and situated
writings (pp. 37–47). SAGE Publications Ltd. http://doi.org/10.4135/9781473921764.n4
Ulmer, J. B. (2017). Posthumanism as research methodology: inquiry in the Anthropocene. International
Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 1–18. http://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2017.1336806
van Dijk, T. (1980). Story comprehension: An introduction. Poetics, 9(1–3), 1–21.
van Manen, M. (2009). The phenomenology of space in writing online. Educational Philosophy and
Theory, 41(1), 10–21.
Weaver, J. A. (2005). Digital aesthetics. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 21(1), 77–77.
Weil, Z. (2016). The world becomes what we teach: Educating a generation of solutionaries. PR
Newswire. Lantern Books.
Wineburg, S., & Schneider, J. (2010). Was Bloom’s taxonomy pointed in the wrong direction? Phi Delta
Kappan, 91(4), 56–61. http://doi.org/10.1177/003172171009100412
Wodak, R. (2015). Language and identity: The politics of nationalism. In Politics of Fear What Right -
Wing Populist Discourses Mean (pp. 70–94). London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Wolfe, C. (2009). What is posthumanism? Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press.
![]()
![]()
![]()
|