Whatuora: Theorizing "New" Indigenous Research Methodology from "Old" Indigenous Weaving Practice
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite Indigenous peoples’ deeply methodological and artistic ways of being in and making sense of our world, the notion of “methodology” has been captured by Western research paradigms and duly mystified. This article seeks to contribute to Indigenous scholarship that encourages researchers to look to our own artistic practices and ways of being in the world, theorizing our own methodologies for research from our knowledge systems to tell our stories and create “new” knowledge that will serve us in our current lived realities.I explain how I theorised a Māori [Indigenous peoples of Aotearoa New Zealand] weaving practice as a decolonizing research methodology for my doctoral research (Smith, 2017) to explore the lived experiences of eight Māori mothers and grandmothers as they wove storied Māori cloaks. I introduce you to key theoreticians who contributed significantly to my work so as to encourage other researchers to look for, and listen to, the wisdom contained within Indigenous knowledge and then consider the methodologies most capable of telling our stories from our own world-views.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.042 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it