The productive uncertainty of indigenous and decolonizing methodologies in the preparation of interdisciplinary STEM researchers

  • Vanessa Anthony-StevensEmail author
  • Sammy L. Matsaw Jr
Original Paper


This study, undertaken in the Northwest USA, explores how graduate students in an interdisciplinary social–ecological systems research course engaged with concepts of epistemic difference and Indigenous knowledge as part of a required module titled “Ways of Knowing” to engage social and ecological change in climate science. We describe how graduate students engaged with Indigenous ways of knowing and discussion of interdisciplinary equity across knowledge systems and methodologies. Analysis of student perspectives drawn from fieldnotes, student course work, and post-course interviews illuminates tensions in preparing interdisciplinary science researchers to navigate epistemic difference. Students embraced Indigenous ways of knowing as useful for conceptualizing complex tensions in social–ecological systems research, while simultaneously sidestepping deeply rooted issues of power and coloniality in research. We trace two primary ways Indigenous ways of knowing informed interdisciplinary processes in students’ conceptualizations of social–ecological challenges: Science as more expansive: Reflexivity and interpersonal dilemmas; and Grappling with power and settler colonial discomfort. We argue that continued engagement in epistemic difference, particularly Indigenous knowledges, is necessary for cultivating scientific engagement in complex notions of knowledge equity in climate sciences involving Indigenous peoples/lands. Finding underscore how changes in graduate research training can expand research imaginaries, however, such expansions need to be systematic and multi-stranded to interrupt the deep-rooted marginalization of non-Western knowledges in scientific research.


Decolonizing Indigenous Interdisciplinary STEM Social–ecological systems 



The authors would like to thank Chelsea Armstrong for her help preparing this manuscript. This research was would not have been possible without the support of Professor Barb Cosens and Dr. Timothy Link. Thank you to Dr. Beth Leonard for her early review and feedback of this paper and to Dr. Philip Bell for his suggested revisions. We would like to thank all participants for their willingness to enter the vulnerable space of critical social change. This research was supported by NSF award #1249400. Lastly, we acknowledge this research took place on the tribal homelands of the Nimiipuu (Nez Perce) and Schitsu’umsh (Coeur d’ Alene) peoples and recognize that the institution which provided us resources to complete to this study has not adequately compensated the tribes for the theft of their lands.


  1. Armitage, D., Berkes, F., Dale, A., Kocho-Schellenberg, E., & Patton, E. (2011). Co-management and the co-production of knowledge: Learning to adapt in Canada’s Arctic. Global Environmental Change, 21(3), 995–1004. Scholar
  2. Bang, M., & Marin, A. (2015). Nature–culture constructs in science learning: Human/non-human agency and intentionality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(4), 530–544. Scholar
  3. Bang, M., Marin, A., & Medin, D. (2018). If indigenous peoples stand with the sciences, will scientists stand with us? Daedalus, 147(2), 148–159. Scholar
  4. Bang, M., & Medin, D. (2010). Cultural processes in science education: Supporting the navigation of multiple epistemologies. Science Education, 94(6), 1008–1026. Scholar
  5. Barnhardt, R., & Kawagley, O. (2005). Indigenous knowledge systems and Alaska native ways of knowing. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 36(1), 8–23. Scholar
  6. Battiste, M., Bell, L., & Findlay, L. M. (2002). Decolonizing education in Canadian universities: An interdisciplinary, international, indigenous research project. Canadian Journal of Native Education, 26(2), 82.Google Scholar
  7. Bell, D. A. (2015). Columbia river treaty renewal and sovereign tribal authority under the Stevens Treaty right-to-fish clause. Public Land & Resources Law Review, 36, 269.Google Scholar
  8. Berkes, F., & Berkes, M. K. (2009). Ecological complexity, fuzzy logic, and holism in indigenous knowledge. Futures, 41(1), 6–12. Scholar
  9. Blodgett, A. T., Schinke, R. J., Smith, B., Peltier, D., & Pheasant, C. (2011). In indigenous words: Exploring vignettes as a narrative strategy for presenting the research voices of aboriginal community members. Qualitative Inquiry, 17(6), 522–533. Scholar
  10. Blommaert, J. (2005). Discourse: A critical introduction. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Brandt, P., Ernst, A., Gralla, F., Luederitz, C., Lang, D. J., Newig, J., et al. (2013). A review of transdisciplinary research in sustainability science. Ecological Economics, 92, 1–15. Scholar
  12. Brayboy, B. M. J., Gough, H. R., Leonard, B., Roehl, R. F., II, & Solyom, J. A. (2012). Reclaiming scholarship: Critical indigenous research methodologies. In S. D. Lapan, M. T. Quartaroli, & F. J. Reimer (Eds.), Qualitative research: An introduction to methods and design (pp. 423–450). San Francisco: Wiley.Google Scholar
  13. Brayboy, B. M. J., & Maughan, E. (2009). Indigenous knowledges and the story of the bean. Harvard Educational Review, 79(1), 1–21. Scholar
  14. Cajete, G. (2000). Native science: Natural laws of interdependence. Santa Fe: Clearlight Publishers.Google Scholar
  15. Cajete, G. (2014). Re-building sustainable indigenous communities: Applying native science. In J. T. Johnson, R. P. Louis, & A. Kliskey (Eds.), Weaving indigenous and sustainability sciences: Diversifying our methods (pp. 36–39). Arlington: National Science Foundation.Google Scholar
  16. Charmaz, K. (2003). Qualitative interviewing and grounded theory analysis. In J. Holstein & J. Gubrium (Eds.), Inside interviewing: New lenses, new concerns. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Ltd.Google Scholar
  17. Charmaz, K., & Belgrave, L. (2012). Qualitative interviewing and grounded theory analysis. In J. F. Gubrium, J. A. Holstein, A. B. Marvasti, & K. D. McKinney (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of interview research: The complexity of the craft (pp. 347–365). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  18. Corntassel, J. (2009). Indigenous storytelling, truth-telling, and community approaches to reconciliation. ESC: English Studies in Canada, 35(1), 137–159. Scholar
  19. Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review. Scholar
  20. Deloria, V., Jr. (2004). Philosophy and the tribal peoples. In A. Waters (Ed.), American Indian thought: Philosophical essays (pp. 3–11). Malden: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  21. Foucault, M. (1979). Truth and power: An interview with Alessandro Fontano and Pasquale. In M. Morris & P. Patton (Eds.), Michel Foucault: Power/truth/strategy (pp. 76–91). Sydney: Feral Publications.Google Scholar
  22. Gaudry, A., & Lorenz, D. (2018). Decolonization for the masses? Grappling with indigenous content requirements in the changing Canadian post-secondary environment. In L. T. Smith, E. Tuck, & K. W. Yang (Eds.), Indigenous and decolonizing studies in education: Mapping the long view (pp. 159–174). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Geertz, C. (1983). Local knowledge. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  24. Godfrey-Smith, P. (2003). Theory and reality: An introduction to the philosophy of science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  25. Kimmerer, R. W. (2013). Braiding sweetgrass: Indigenous wisdom, scientific knowledge and the teachings of plants. Minneapolis: Milkweed Editions.Google Scholar
  26. Lemke, J. L. (2001). Articulating communities: Sociocultural perspectives on science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 296–316.;2-R.Google Scholar
  27. Leonard, B. R., & Mercier, O. R. (2016). Indigenous struggles within the colonial project: reclaiming indigenous knowledges in the western academy. Knowledge Cultures, 4(3), 99–116.Google Scholar
  28. Manathunga, C. (2009). Research as an intercultural ‘contact zone’. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural politics of Education, 30(2), 165–177. Scholar
  29. Mantyka-Pringle, C. S., Westman, C. N., Kythreotis, A. P., & Schindler, D. W. (2015). Honouring indigenous treaty rights for climate justice. Nature Climate Change, 5(9), 798–801. Scholar
  30. Manz, E., & Suárez, E. (2018). Supporting teachers to negotiate uncertainty for science, students, and teaching. Science Education, 102(4), 771–795. Scholar
  31. McGinty, M., & Bang, M. (2016). Narratives of dynamic lands: Science education, indigenous knowledge and possible futures. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 11(2), 471–475. Scholar
  32. McGregor, D. (2004). Coming full circle: Indigenous knowledge, environment, and our future. American Indian Quarterly, 28(3/4), 385–410.Google Scholar
  33. Medin, D. L., & Bang, M. (2014). Who’s asking?: Native science, Western science, and science education. Boston: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  34. Newberry, T., & Trujillo, O. V. (2018). Decolonizing education through transdiscriplinary approaches to climate change education. In L. T. Smith, E. Tuck, & K. W. Yang (Eds.), Indigenous and decolonizing studies in education: Mapping the long view (pp. 204–214). New York, NY: Routledge. Scholar
  35. O’Flaherty, R. M., Davidson-Hunt, I. J., & Manseau, M. (2008). Indigenous knowledge and values in planning for sustainable forestry: Pikangikum first nation and the Whitefeather Foresttiative. Ecology and Society, 13(1). Retrieved from
  36. Page-Reeves, J., Marin, A., Moffett, M., DeerInWater, K., & Medin, D. (2019). Wayfinding as a concept for understanding success among native Americans in STEM: “Learning how to map through life”. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 14(1), 177–197. Scholar
  37. Popper, K. (2013). Realism and the aim of science: From the postscript to the logic of scientific discovery. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  38. Reo, N. J., Whyte, K. P., McGregor, D., Smith, M. A., & Jenkins, J. F. (2017). Factors that support indigenous involvement in multi-actor environmental stewardship. AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples, 13(2), 58–68. Scholar
  39. Sillitoe, P. (2004). Interdisciplinary experiences: Working with indigenous knowledge in development. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 29(1), 6–23. Scholar
  40. Sium, A., & Ritskes, E. (2014). Speaking truth to power: Indigenous storytelling as an act of living resistance. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, 2(1), 1–10.Google Scholar
  41. Smith, L. T. (2012). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples (2nd ed.). London: Zed books.Google Scholar
  42. Steiner, G., & Posch, A. (2006). Higher education for sustainability by means of transdisciplinary case studies: An innovative approach for solving complex real-world problems. Journal of Cleaner Productions, 14, 877–890.Google Scholar
  43. Tuck, E., McKenzie, M., & McCoy, K. (2014). Land education: Indigenous, post-colonial, and decolonizing perspectives on place and environmental education research. Environmental Education Research, 20(1), 1–23. Scholar
  44. Tuck, E., & Yang, K. W. (2012). Decolonization is not a metaphor. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, 1(1), 1–40.Google Scholar
  45. Walter, M., & Andersen, C. (2013). Indigenous statistics: A quantitative research methodology. Florence: Left Coast Press.Google Scholar
  46. Whyte, K. P., Brewer, J. P., & Johnson, J. T. (2016). Weaving indigenous science, protocols and sustainability science. Sustainability Science, 11(1), 25–32. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Curriculum and Instruction, College of EducationUniversity of IdahoMoscowUSA
  2. 2.Idaho Water Resources InstituteUniversity of IdahoMoscowUSA

Personalised recommendations