Autoethnography as a Decolonizing Methodology: Reflections on Masta’s What the Grandfathers Taught Me

Abstract

As an Asian graduate student and a Native professor at a U.S. Midwestern Predominantly White Institution, we reflected upon Masta’s (2018) article, What the Grandfathers Taught Me: Lessons for an Indian Country Researcher, to examine the decolonizing aspects of autoethnography. Masta’s use of autoethnography to explore her experiences provides a deeply personal view into the phenomenon of living and researching Indigenous in an America that is inherently White in character, tradition, structure, and culture. The use of participatory and constructivist Indigenous autoethnography places the lived experience of an Indigenous woman at the center of the study, using the Indigenous lens to respect the cultural values, beliefs, and teachings of a community that remains largely overlooked in Eurocentric research. Such an appreciation and understanding led us to argue that autoethnography is a promising decolonizing methodology which has the potential to inform decolonization and social justice movements.

An organizing framework to break down Western-centric views of knowledge in North–South research

“…The relational level refers to the interaction, interpretation, and influence of two or more actors within a research project or program (Anthony-Stevens 2020; Castleden et al 2017 ; Ebersöhn and Malan-Van Rooyen 2018 ; LaVallie and Sasakamoose 2021 ; Windchief et al 2017 ). The individual level relates to each researcher’s attitudes, beliefs, and assumptions within their sphere of influence (Anthony-Stevens 2020; Ebersöhn and Malan-Van Rooyen 2018 ; LaVallie and Sasakamoose 2021 ; Pham and Gothberg 2020 ; Sylvester et al 2020 ). Within each contextual level of influence, three guiding principles enable researchers to engage with diverse forms of knowledge.…”

“…Anthony-Stevens and Matsaw ( 2019 ), Castleden et al ( 2017 ), Ebersöhn and Malan-Van Rooyen ( 2018 ), Hopkins et al ( 2019 ), LaVallie and Sasakamoose ( 2021 ), Lipscombe et al ( 2021 ), Matson et al ( 2021 ), Mazzetti and Blenkinsopp ( 2012 ), Pham and Gothberg ( 2020 ), Raczek and Sugandhi ( 2020 ), Rai and Khawas ( 2019 ), Silva et al ( 2020 ), Tilley ( 2017 ), van Meijl ( 2019 ), Wilson et al ( 2020 )…”

“…Beveridge et al ( 2020 ), Hopkins et al ( 2019 ), Kourantidou et al ( 2020 ), LaVallie and Sasakamoose ( 2021 ), Lipscombe et al ( 2021 ), Matson et al ( 2021 ), McNamara and Naepi ( 2018 ), Pham and Gothberg ( 2020 ), Raczek and Sugandhi ( 2020 ), Sylvester et al ( 2020 ), Tilley ( 2017 ), Torso et al ( 2020 ), Wilson et al ( 2020 )…”

“…Knowledge production is context dependent, i.e., it depends on individual, social, and environmental contexts (Anthony-Stevens and Matsaw 2019 ; Hall and Callery 2001 ; Spretnak 2011 ). It is developed through the accumulation of collective experiences, discursive assumptions, and meaning making (Pham and Gothberg 2020 ; LaVallie and Sasakamoose 2021 ). Knowing can be constructed, decoded, and experienced in numerous ways (Chambers 2007 ; Ebersöhn and Malan-Van Rooyen 2018 ; Hart et al 2017 ; Mazzetti and Blenkinsopp 2012 ) and is shaped through social and institutional norms and structures (Pham and Gothberg 2020 ; LaVallie and Sasakamoose 2021 ).…”

“…It is developed through the accumulation of collective experiences, discursive assumptions, and meaning making (Pham and Gothberg 2020 ; LaVallie and Sasakamoose 2021 ). Knowing can be constructed, decoded, and experienced in numerous ways (Chambers 2007 ; Ebersöhn and Malan-Van Rooyen 2018 ; Hart et al 2017 ; Mazzetti and Blenkinsopp 2012 ) and is shaped through social and institutional norms and structures (Pham and Gothberg 2020 ; LaVallie and Sasakamoose 2021 ). This diversity brings nuance in viewpoints and ways of knowing, potentially unfamiliar to researchers new to South–North research (Hopkins et al 2019 ; O’Flaherty et al 2008 ; Smith 2012 ; Windchief et al 2017 ).…”