Islands are often associated with distinct cultures. Although the island polities that formed during the withdrawal of empire frequently brought together various ethnicities, Indigenous governance and claims to cultural distinction have often remained an ideal for such islands and archipelagos. This paper examines the complex causality behind associations between indigeneity and islandness, discussing how island spatiality fosters: (1) cultural distinction, (2) connections between people and place, and (3) Indigenous territory. We argue that islands are exceptionally fruitful spaces for developing and maintaining distinct ethnicities, due not just to material effects of island geography but also in the manner in which both islanders and mainlanders conceptualise islands as “legible geographies.” Islands can thereby become quintessential spaces for containing Indigenous Peoples, simultaneously sustaining cultural difference while limiting the scope for Indigenous self‐determination. Drawing on cases from the Arctic, East Asia, Oceania and the Caribbean, we highlight the benefits that island spatiality can offer to Indigenous communities as well as the dangerous manner in which island spatiality can encourage essentialisations of Indigenous Peoples and circumscriptions of Indigenous spaces. This paper positions itself as an effort in decolonial island studies.
The Globalism Institute at Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT) University in Melbourne is conducting research on local responses to globalisation across 10 local communities in seven different countries. The project's "community-engaged research methodology" was developed first in the Hamilton region in southwest Victoria, where staff from the university have been working in community partnerships for nearly 20 years. This research methodology differs from action research in that it sustains a clear distinction between the knowledge and skills of "outside" researchers and the hard-won local knowledge of community members. It is based on respectful dialogue and a clear commitment to maintain relationships for a matter of years rather than weeks. It involves the creation of "spaces for engagement" that can lead to multiple, sometimes unexpected, outcomes. It integrates a range of research methods (including surveys, story collection, strategic conversations, photo-narrative techniques, and research journals) that generate rich data to be used (subject to consent) by both community-based and university-based researchers. The research methods are linked to forms of analysis that relate local experiences to broader social processes. Community-engaged research takes time and patience but it can ensure good feedback and support mechanisms, good-quality data, locally relevant research outcomes and a process that can be convivial for all involved.
Although the field of island studies has from the start regarded itself as a defender of islands and islander interests, it is entangled in coloniality. This editorial focuses on issues of power, knowledge, and position. Who wields power in island studies? Who knows about islands? Where is island studies located, and how does it position itself? The paper discusses problems such as tokenism and forced inclusions, denial and circumscription of expertise, and onto-epistemological discrimination and hegemony within island studies. Ultimately, the paper advances the need for critical reflexivity and decolonial methodology within island studies, for pluralistic approaches to inclusivity and recognition of epistemic differences.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.