1.1 Colonial Legacies in Education Research

Education research has often perpetuated colonial legacies, and education has been – and continues to be – weaponised as a key tool of colonisation (Battiste, Reference Battiste2013; Meighan, Reference Meighan and Chapelle2025a; Smith, Reference Smith2021). Colonisation is the practice of domination and can be defined as ‘the action or process of establishing a colony or colonies in a place, especially as part of an effort (typically by a foreign state) to appropriate the area settled and to assert political control over any Indigenous inhabitants’ (Oxford English Dictionary, 2025).

An early English usage captures this colonial logic. One of the first recorded uses of the word colonisation in English occurs in a book by Samuel Boyse (Reference Boyse1747), written in the aftermath of the 1745 Jacobite Rising in Scotland and the ensuing subjugation of Indigenous Gaels in the Gàidhealtachd (Gaeldom, the Scottish Highlands and Islands):

This rhetoric exemplifies how education was explicitly weaponised to ‘reform and improve’ the Highlands by erasing language, culture, and traditional governance. Mainstream education worldwide has likewise sought to ‘“erase and replace” linguistically encoded knowledges and cultural identifications with those associated with dominant-class ideologies, values, and practices’ (McCarty, Reference McCarty, Tollefson and Pérez-Milans2018, p. 356). As Indigenous (Māori) scholar Smith (Reference Smith2021) elaborates, ‘the coloniser did not simply design an education system. They designed an education especially to destroy Indigenous cultures, value systems and appearance. Those systems were called Indian boarding schools, residential schools, village day schools’ (p. 22). Today, Indigenous educational practices – such as land-based learning, transmission of cultural and ecological knowledge, and storytelling – continue to be marginalised and afforded little ideological and implementational space within mainstream education (Archibald, Reference Archibald2008; Battiste, Reference Battiste2013; Hornberger, Reference Hornberger2005).

In research, Indigenous peoples have frequently been positioned as ‘subjects’ or ‘objects of study’, with little regard for the social realities they face or the impact of research on their well-being (Assembly of First Nations, 2009; Cajete, Reference Cajete2000; Deloria, Reference Deloria1991; Gilchrist, Reference Gilchrist1997). Research has historically been carried out on, rather than in collaboration with, Indigenous peoples and minoritised groups worldwide (McGregor et al., Reference McGregor, Restoule and Johnston2018; Meighan, Reference Meighan2023). Smith (Reference Smith2021) explains, ‘“research” is inextricably linked to European imperialism and colonialism … [It] is probably one of the dirtiest words in the Indigenous world’s vocabulary … it stirs up silence, it conjures up bad memories, it raises a smile that is knowing and distrustful’ (p. 1).

Decolonisation can be defined as ‘the process of eliminating the effects or influence of colonisation or colonialism on attitudes, assumptions, power structures, institutions, etc.’ (Oxford English Dictionary, 2025). This Element on decolonising research practices in education therefore seeks to put this process into action, replacing extraction with relationship and control with community governance. The following subsection turns to positionality and self-location as the ethical foundation for that work.

1.2 Researcher Positionality and Reflexivity

To counteract colonial legacies and harmful education research practices, Indigenous scholars emphasise the necessity of researcher positionality – sometimes referred to as ‘self-location’ (Absolon, Reference Absolon2011) – before embarking on research, especially with Indigenous and minoritised communities (Kovach, Reference Kovach2009; McGregor et al., Reference McGregor, Restoule and Johnston2018; Riddell et al., Reference Riddell, Salamanca, Pepler, Cardinal and McIvor2017). These practices are particularly essential when engaging with Indigenous and minoritised communities beyond one’s own, to avoid perpetuating colonial harms.

1.3 The Methodological Gap in Mainstream Educational Research

Indigenous research methodologies centre decoloniality through Indigenous worldviews (Smith, Reference Smith2021), relational accountability (Wilson, Reference Wilson2001), and kinship with human and more-than-human relations (McGregor et al., Reference McGregor, Restoule and Johnston2018). However, mainstream educational research has yet to fully operationalise these principles within methodological frameworks. A significant gap remains in translating these principles into actionable research practices within dominant research traditions.

1.4 Introducing Dùthchas as a Kincentric, Relational Methodology

In response to this methodological gap, this Element introduces Dùthchas, a millennia-old Indigenous Gaelic concept, embodying kinship, responsibility to land, and place-based belonging (Meighan, Reference Meighan2022a). I operationalise Dùthchas as a kincentric and relational methodology that fosters ethical, community-centred educational research. Throughout this Element, kincentric and relational methodologies are understood as being rooted in relationships. By kincentric, I mean methodologies premised on reciprocal and accountable relations among people, land, and more-than-human kin that inform how knowledge is gathered, generated, and shared. Researchers are embedded, accountable participants, moving from data collection to knowledge gathering, data analysis to knowledge generation, and findings/dissemination to knowledge sharing (see Sections 3–6). Offered from my perspective as an Indigenous Gael, this orientation is situated and non-prescriptive, to be adapted under local protocols, community leadership, and consent.

1.4.1 What Is Dùthchas?

Dùthchas is an intrinsic part of the sealladh a’ Ghàidheil (Gaelic worldview) and is derived from the Gaelic root word ‘dú/dùth’, meaning ‘earth’ or ‘land’ (MacKinnon & Brennan, Reference MacKinnon and Brennan2012). Dùthchas can have several meanings, both internal and external dimensions, such as hereditary right or claim, birthright, heritage, native or ancestral home, kindred affection, or innate quality (McQuillan, Reference McQuillan2004). The word exists both as Dùthchas in Gàidhlig (Scottish Gaelic) and as Dúchas in Gaeilge (Irish). As a Gaelic onto-epistemology and methodology, Dùthchas emphasises the interconnectedness of people, land, culture, and an ecological balance among all entities, human and more than human (Meighan, Reference Meighan2022a). Importantly, Dùthchas, as a dynamic, fluid ontology and praxis, goes beyond a mere ‘feeling’ of identification with place and community to tangible conduct and action motivated by a sense of ethics, respect, and responsibility for said place and community to maintain ecological balance (Meighan, Reference Meighan2022a, p. 5). Oliver (Reference Oliver, Nicolson and Meikle2021) adds,

Dùthchas is that ontological dynamic of embodied experience and emplacement (‘on the ground’), and complex entanglement (‘in the mind’) with relationships of belonging and dwelling, heritage and inheritance, a human ecology with ‘place’ (including, where relevant, land) … This sense of belonging and responsibility, when conceived of as praxis, as emplaced ethical relations, ‘is political, social and cultural imagination in action’.

(n. p.)

As such, Dùthchas prioritises kinship, relationality, respect, and responsibility, serving as a guiding principle for emplaced ethical relations, community-led research, and self-decolonisation practices. Drawing on Indigenous Gaelic scholarship and my own worldview as an Indigenous Gael, I operationalise Dùthchas as a kincentric and relational research methodology, composed of five core principles (Figure 1; Meighan, Reference Meighan2022a):

1. (1) Interconnectedness: Recognising dynamic, holistic relationships within the research context.

2. (2) Responsibility: Commitment to ethical processes and accountability to the land, place, relationships, and more than humans encountered during the research.

3. (3) Respect: Beyond institutional ethics board approvals, answerability to the local community and community-specific knowledge and cultural protocols.

4. (4) Ecological Balance: Prioritising sustainable relationships with lands, waters, and communities to minimise the environmental impact of research.

5. (5) Kinship: Viewing participants relationally as extended family and kin networks rather than research subjects.

Figure 1

Gaelic knot representing Dùthchas principles.

Source: Meighan(2022a).

Thus, Dùthchas, as a kincentric, relational methodology centres Indigenous knowledge systems; researcher positionality and self-location (Absolon, Reference Absolon2011); researcher reflexivity (Consoli & Ganassin, Reference Consoli and Ganassin2023); relational accountability and reciprocity (McGregor et al., Reference McGregor, Restoule and Johnston2018; Wilson, Reference Wilson2001); and emplaced ethical relations (Oliver, Reference Oliver, Nicolson and Meikle2021). Dùthchas as kincentric praxis and research-in-relation means that when you are collaborating with a community that is not your own, culturally- and community- specific protocols and procedures known best by community members themselves must be followed. The goal is not to tell the community’s stories or enforce a research framework, but rather to empower the community’s voice, their knowledge, and their expertise (Lambert, Reference Lambert2014).

1.5 Focus and Structure of this Element

This Element explores how kincentric and relational methodologies can decolonise research practices in education. Drawing on empirical research with participants from an Indigenous Anishinaabe community in Canada, an Indigenous Gaelic community in Scotland, and broader scholarship advancing Indigenous and decolonising methodologies (Absolon, Reference Absolon2011; Kovach, Reference Kovach2009; Smith, Reference Smith2021), this Element examines how researchers – particularly those researchers who are not Indigenous to the lands on which they work – can ethically and reciprocally engage with Indigenous and minoritised communities.

It critiques dominant educational research paradigms, including positivist, post-positivist, and neoliberal approaches, that prioritise standardisation, economic utility, and ‘best practices’ (Grimmet, Reference Grimmett2019; Ramirez et al., Reference Ramirez, Meyer, Lerch, Mundy, Green, Lingard and Verger2016). In contrast, this Element foregrounds Indigenous, kincentric, and relational methodologies that prioritise community-led knowledge gathering and knowledge generation (Chiblow, Reference Chiblow2021; McGregor et al., Reference McGregor, Restoule and Johnston2018), relational accountability (Wilson, Reference Wilson2001), and researcher reflexivity (Consoli & Ganassin, Reference Consoli and Ganassin2023).

1.6 Key Takeaways

1. (1) Research is never neutral: researchers’ assumptions and positionality shape every stage of inquiry.

2. (2) Colonial legacies in education research have marginalised Indigenous knowledge systems and continue to influence mainstream methodologies.

3. (3) Positionality and reflexivity are essential practices for ethical and decolonising research.

4. (4) Dùthchas, as an Indigenous Gaelic methodology, offers a kincentric and relational framework grounded in interconnectedness, responsibility, respect, ecological balance, and kinship.

5. (5) Situated, not prescriptive: the framework is rooted in an Indigenous Gaelic perspective and is offered for adaptation under local protocols and community governance, not as a universal blueprint.

6. (6) From theory to praxis: decolonising research requires community-led, land-based, and relational approaches to education research.

2.1 Dominant Paradigms in Educational Research

Educational research has been historically shaped and influenced by dominant positivist, post-positivist, and neoliberal paradigms that emphasise measurement, efficiency, and outcomes aligned with economic productivity (Bourassa, Reference Bourassa2021; Grimmett, Reference Grimmett2019; May & Sleeter, Reference May and Sleeter2010). These frameworks often privilege ‘best practices’ ideologies (Ramirez et al., Reference Ramirez, Meyer, Lerch, Mundy, Green, Lingard and Verger2016) that reinforce human capital theory and neoliberal multiculturalism, reducing education to market-driven outputs rather than relational, community-led and community-centred processes. As a result, many scholars and policymakers frame education through the lens of ‘academic capitalism’, reducing pedagogy and teaching practices to standardised assessments and exams that contribute to nation–state economic growth (Laininen, Reference Laininen and Cook2019).

Mainstream education research is also characterised by the ‘epistemological error’ (Bateson, Reference Bateson1972) in dominant (Western) thought (Meighan, Reference Meighan2025b). The epistemological error is the flawed belief that humans are separate from their environment, leading to exploitative actions that harm both humanity and the ecosystems on which we depend. As Bateson (Reference Bateson1972) noted, ‘we are most of us governed by epistemologies that we know to be wrong’ (p. 485) and ‘the creature that wins against its environment destroys itself’ (p. 493). The positivist, ‘objective’ view of the human as ‘superior’ to the rest of nature and the ‘other’ has led to social, linguistic, and environmental injustices; ‘epistemicide’ (knowledge death; Santos, Reference Santos2016); an empiricism that uncritically replicates models and data collection and analysis tools emerging from the epistemological error, and an ‘arrogant elitism’ in education research (Macedo, Reference Macedo2019).

The neoliberal, individualistic worldview characteristic of dominant educational onto-epistemologies starkly contrasts with more ecocentric, earth-centred, and time-tested sustainable onto-epistemologies, such as Indigenous lifeways and worldviews. Indigenous worldviews across the globe view language, culture, and the land as inseparable (Chiblow & Meighan, Reference Meighan2021, Reference Chiblow and Meighan2023). Land is also considered to be an animate, spiritual entity and a teacher (McGregor et al., Reference McGregor, Restoule and Johnston2018). The understanding that land is animate and a teacher dissolves the human–nature dichotomy and human (cognitive) exceptionalism and superiority characteristic of the hegemonic Western worldview (Battiste, Reference Battiste2013; Plumwood, Reference Plumwood2002). According to Sterling (Reference Sterling2003), there is a disconnect between the mainstream dominant Western, binary, mechanistic worldview (decontextual separation) and the alternative holistic worldview (co-creation in context). Sterling suggested an ecological worldview as a way forward for a new sustainable education paradigm. Sterling (Reference Sterling2010) elaborated, ‘not only do current ways of thinking, perceiving and doing need to change in response to critical systemic conditions of uncertainty, complexity and unsustainability, but old paradigms are the root of these conditions’ (p. 19). This change could involve epistemic (transformative) learning, which involves (un)learning to transform ‘understanding and conceptions about the interdependence of humans and nature, the essence of humanity, fundamentals of wellbeing, and the role of economy in our world … education for a sustainable future must have a strong reflective value dimension added’ (Laininen, Reference Laininen and Cook2019, p. 180). Laininen (Reference Laininen and Cook2019) continued by saying that, ‘they [schools] reflect deeply our Western worldview which is the underlying cause for the sustainability crisis (…) [and] the main goal of education would be to give future generations tools for thinking and seeing the world differently, constructing their own worldviews, and acting to create a sustainable future’ (pp. 186–187).

In education, therefore, we must enact alternative and relational ways to overcome ‘monocultural approaches to knowledges’ (Icaza & Vazquez, Reference Icaza, Vazquez, Bhambra, Gebrial and Nisancioglu2018, p. 117), essentialist and monolithic views of culture and identity, and ‘decolonise our minds’ (wa Thiong’o, Reference wa Thiong’o1986). While debates in mainstream education research continue around objectivity, neutrality, and researcher detachment, decolonial and Indigenous scholars stress that all research is inherently political. For sustainable and relational futures, research methodologies must therefore be evaluated based on their relational accountability to the communities and ecosystems with which they engage (Kovach, Reference Kovach2009; Wilson, Reference Wilson2008).

2.2 Towards Kincentric and Relational Alternatives

Recognising these limitations of dominant paradigms, this Element aligns with Indigenous and decolonising critiques, offering a kincentric and relational alternative grounded in Indigenous worldviews and decolonising practices. Decolonising education research requires interrogating not only methods but also the onto-epistemic assumptions that shape research itself. This does not mean a blanket rejection of dominant paradigms. Tranepistemic dialogue across knowledge systems is important for transformative education, bridging worldviews, and (un)learning processes (Meighan, Reference Meighan2025b). As Smith (Reference Smith2021) reminds us, ‘decolonisation … does not mean and has not meant a total rejection of all theory or research or Western knowledge. Rather, it is about centering our [Indigenous] concerns and world views and then coming to know and understand theory and research from our own perspectives and for our own purposes’ (p. 43).

Central concepts such as validity, reliability, and generalisability – cornerstones of positivist traditions – must be reconsidered through Indigenous knowledge systems. Dominant education research remains heavily shaped by positivist traditions, where validity is defined by objectivity, measurement, and replicability. This paradigm assumes knowledge is detached from the knower, that reality is fixed and observable, and that research can be separated from culture, land, language, and relationships.

In contrast, Indigenous research is grounded in fundamentally different onto-epistemic assumptions (McGregor et al., Reference McGregor, Restoule and Johnston2018; Smith, Reference Smith2021). Knowledge is relational, land-based, and inseparable from identity, language, and community. The criteria for empirical validity – and indeed the very notion of valid knowledge – depart significantly from Western norms (Table 1).

Indigenous research validity is not measured by replication, neutrality, or generalisation; it is grounded instead in relationality, community coherence, and cultural continuity. While these principles emerge from Indigenous contexts, they also hold relevance for other minoritised and place-based knowledge systems globally. Section 2.3 articulates these Indigenous validity principles explicitly.

2.3 Principles of Indigenous Research Validity

Indigenous research reframes validity through several interconnected principles, as exemplified non-exhaustively below.

1. (1) Relational Validity

   Knowledge is valid when it arises within respectful relationships – between researchers, participants, land, language, and more-than-human kin.

2. (2) Cultural Credibility

   Does the research make sense to the community? Can Elders or knowledge holders affirm that it reflects their truths?

3. (3) Communal Coherence

   Are the findings in alignment with the community’s lived experience, teachings, and stories?

4. (4) Reflexive Accountability

   The researcher’s integrity and positionality are transparent, responsive, and documented.

5. (5) Story-as-Knowledge

   Validity is not in abstraction but in the coherence and resonance of oral tradition and storywork. If a story is honoured by the community, its truth is valid.

From this perspective, knowledge and decolonising research practices cannot be divorced from place, people, and more-than-human relationships. Research is not extractive; it is grounded in relationship, responsibility, healing, and cultural continuity. Shifts in how research quality is assessed in kincentric and relational methodologies are synthesised in Table 2, Section 2.5. The next subsection grounds these principles through applied examples from Anishinaabemowin and Gaelic contexts.

2.4 Applied Examples: Language Reclamation as Relational Practice

My research with Anishinaabemowin language speakers and learners from Ketegaunseebee (Garden River First Nation) in Canada reflects Indigenous research validity principles (Meighan, Reference Meighan2023). Through a community-led, digital language reclamation project, participants included Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) and language learning grounded in land, community, and cultural continuity. Language was not framed as merely a technical skill nor separate from education, but as a pathway to healing, positive identity formation, and relationship-building – educational outcomes often excluded from or disregarded in dominant research paradigms.

Similarly, my research with Scottish Gaelic speakers (Meighan, Reference Meighan2025c) illustrates how language learning, oral tradition, and land-based practices challenge assumptions that education must be institutionally delivered. Gaelic language reclamation is deeply tied to kincentric and relational education processes, where learning, healing, land connection, and community wellbeing are inseparable. With these illustrations in view, Section 2.5 reframes conventional research standards through a kincentric and relational lens.

2.5 Reframing Research Standards: Reliability, Validity, and generalisability

Kincentric and relational methodologies centre ethical relationality, place-based knowledges, cultural protocols, and community-led approaches to knowledge generation (see Section 3). They expose the limitations of dominant research frameworks that assume neutrality, objectivity, and detachment are unquestioned standards (Kovach, Reference Kovach2009; Wilson, Reference Wilson2008). Building on Sections 2.2 and 2.3, Table 2 reframes conventional research standards through a kincentric and relational lens.

Table 2 can be viewed as ‘translation work’ for institutional ethics and quality rubrics (e.g., IRB, peer review, tenure metrics). Where institutions ask for ‘validity’, ‘reliability’, and ‘generalisability’, this Section offers a multiple and additive justification: the institutional term is met but specified through kincentric and relational criteria such as relational accountability, cultural integrity, and community validation and benefit. In practice, this can support researchers in explaining why standard procedural compliance is insufficient on its own, while still demonstrating rigour in terms institutions recognise.

When conceptualising kincentric and relational methodologies:

1. (1) Generalisability is reframed as Transferability, respecting cultural protocols and specificity while offering insights applicable to other contexts globally

2. (2) Reliability emphasises trustworthiness, consistency, and depth, not merely replication under lab conditions

3. (3) Validity reflects cultural appropriateness, community leadership, and Indigenous knowledge systems

In Indigenous science (Cajete, Reference Cajete2000; Chiblow & Meighan, Reference Chiblow, Meighan, Wall and Buell2026; Stewart, Reference Stewart2019), validity and reliability emerge from relationship, community accountability, and lived experience, not standardisation nor quantification. Reliability and trustworthiness come from coherence across community voices and enduring knowledge of place. Storytelling (Drawson et al., Reference Drawson, Toombs and Mushquash2017; Iseke, Reference Iseke2013; Lee-Morgan, Reference Lee-Morgan, Archibald, Lee-Morgan and Santolo2019) and storywork (Archibald, Reference Archibald2008) are thus paramount; stories embody evidence, such as TEK and medicinal knowledge, when rooted in relationship and cultural integrity. Validity comes from using culturally appropriate, community-led methods, such as following cultural protocols that reflect Indigenous knowledge systems.

Western science often equates detachment with objectivity; Indigenous science recognises relationship and multiple ways of knowing as essential pathways to truth. Both are rigorous but serve different goals (Chiblow & Meighan, Reference Chiblow, Meighan, Wall and Buell2026; Smith, Reference Smith2021). Kincentric and relational education research is accountable not to abstract measurement tools, but to the people, languages, and lands it aims to serve.

While some scholars have embraced the ‘weaving’ or ‘braiding’ of Indigenous and Western knowledge systems (Kimmerer, Reference Kimmerer2014), dominant discourses often marginalise Indigenous science as ‘folklore’ or social knowledge, excluding it from the natural sciences (Chiblow & Meighan, Reference Chiblow, Meighan, Wall and Buell2026). Yet, the English word ‘science’ itself derives from the Latin ‘scientia’, meaning knowledge. This raises a critical question: whose knowledge counts as valid science in education research, and whose knowledge is dismissed? This imbalance presents both a gap and an opportunity to recognise Indigenous science as sophisticated, observational, place-based, and time-tested knowledge systems on par with Western scientific traditions (Chiblow & Meighan, Reference Chiblow, Meighan, Wall and Buell2026).

2.6 Conclusion: Kincentric and Relational Research

Kincentric and relational methodologies in education follow Indigenous ways of knowing and being, where validity and reliability are relational, not merely statistical. Trust is earned through community connection, cultural coherence, and respectful representation, not replication or detachment. As Indigenous (Cree) scholar Shawn Wilson (Reference Wilson2001) states, ‘an Indigenous paradigm comes from the fundamental belief that knowledge is relational, shared with all creation, and therefore cannot be owned or discovered’. This relational understanding fundamentally departs from the extractive tendencies of conventional research.

Kincentric and relational methodologies are inseparable from Indigenous onto-epistemologies, which are often incompatible with dominant Western paradigms (Smith, Reference Smith2021). Knowledge is not detached nor value-free but is generated through relationship, land, language, and collective memory. Storytelling, language, and lived experience are valid – and necessary – forms of knowledge transmission. As summarised in Table 2, Section 2.5, validity and reliability in Indigenous education research – and by extension, in kincentric and relational approaches – are grounded in relationship, accountability, and cultural integrity (Chilisa, Reference Chilisa2012; Wilson, Reference Wilson2008). In essence, recognising Indigenous knowledge systems requires moving beyond metrics towards relational, land-based, and community-led research and learning. In this way, education research can foster accountability, cultural continuity, and epistemic, linguistic, and racial justice.

2.7 Key Takeaways

1. (1) Dominant paradigms in education research are shaped by positivist, post-positivist, and neoliberal frameworks that prioritise efficiency, measurement, and economic productivity.

2. (2) Dominant paradigms marginalise Indigenous knowledge systems, often reducing education to standardised outputs.

3. (3) Decolonising research requires a fundamental shift towards approaches grounded in place, kinship, language, and reciprocity.

4. (4) Researchers must critically examine their onto-epistemic assumptions at the planning stage.

5. (5) Practical strategies include co-developing research frameworks with communities and using evaluation criteria that prioritise relational accountability and Indigenous data sovereignty.

3.1 From Data Collection to Knowledge Gathering

Mainstream education research often employs data collection tools like mass-scale surveys, large-scale classroom-based assessments or interventions, structured interviews, and standardised instruments. These methods tend to prioritise large data sets, objectivity, replicability, and statistical measurability – features aligned with positivist and neoliberal paradigms – over context, relationality, and meaning-making (Battiste, Reference Battiste2013; Grimmett, Reference Grimmett2019; see also Sections 1 and 2).

Within these data collection models, participants are often anonymised, decontextualised, and knowledge is reduced to quantifiable outputs. This tendency towards abstraction is widely critiqued within Indigenous research scholarship, which calls for approaches grounded in community-defined protocols, relationships, and reciprocity (Drawson et al., Reference Drawson, Toombs and Mushquash2017; McGregor et al., Reference McGregor, Restoule and Johnston2018; Wright et al., Reference Wright, Wahoush, Ballantyne, Gabel and Jack2016).

Kincentric and relational methodologies depart from abstraction fundamentally and reframe data collection as knowledge gathering. They begin with the premise that knowledge is inherently situated, co-generated, and relational. This approach:

1. (1) Considers the researcher an integral part of the research process, not separate from it

2. (2) Positions participants as knowledge holders, not data points

3. (3) Emphasises long-term relationship-building and community co-design

4. (4) Recognises story, land, and ceremony as valid knowledge sources

5. (5) Treats knowledge as emplaced, ethical, and inseparable from kinship relations

Knowledge gathering is shaped by land, language, and the relationships among people, more-than-human entities, and place. Specifically, a kincentric and relational approach to knowledge generation respects existing familial, kinship, and community relationships and deepens understanding of educational processes, such as language revitalisation and cultural reclamation, beyond formal schooling and dominant structures and institutions. Rather than treating data as extractable content, these methodologies recognise the act of knowledge gathering as an ethical, reciprocal, and pedagogical process.

3.2 Knowledge Gathering: Examples

Practical examples from two distinct case study contexts – Anishinaabe (Section 3.2.1) and Gaelic (Section 3.2.2) – illustrate kincentric and relational knowledge gathering in action.

3.2.1 Anishinaabe Context

In the TEK-nology project – a community-led, digital language reclamation initiative with participants from Ketegaunseebee (Garden River First Nation) – knowledge gathering unfolded through kincentric and relational practices. The project was rooted in an Anishinaabe paradigm, Mino-bimaadiziwin (The Good Life; McGregor et al., Reference McGregor, Restoule and Johnston2018), to be responsive and in-relation to the Anishinaabeg community – my husband’s community – where the research was taking place. I followed an Anishinaabe community-led, decolonising participatory framework, Biskaabiiyang (“Return to Ourselves”; Geniusz, Reference Geniusz2009), which starts with the researcher decolonising themselves to conduct meaningful research with the Indigenous community.

My self-decolonisation process was guided by Dùthchas (see Section 1.4), the Gaelic concept denoting land-based responsibility, kindship, and ecological balance. Before beginning the project, I began reclaiming my endangered Indigenous language (Scottish Gaelic), participated in ceremony in my family’s Anishinaabe community, and completed an Anishinaabemowin language course taught by Elder and Anishinaabek Nation Language Commissioner Barbara Nolan, who later joined the project.

Dùthchas and Biskaabiiyang together grounded me in a respectful, accountable, and non-appropriative approach, deeply informed by my lived experience. As Wilson (Reference Wilson2001) reminds us, we must be ‘answerable to all your relations when you are doing research’ (p. 177). In keeping with this, Anishinaabe Bizindam (deep listening; Chiblow, Reference Chiblow2021) and Gaelic Càirdeas (kinship and friendship; Meighan, Reference Meighan2022a) were foundational to knowledge gathering.

The research questions, formulated after having established relationships in the community, were:

1. (1) (How) can technology rooted in Indigenous worldviews and knowledge systems support community-based language revitalisation and cultural reclamation?

2. (2) How can we co-create a culturally, emotionally and environmentally responsive Indigenous language acquisition pedagogy with TEK-nology?

3. (3) How do community learners and Elders demonstrate engagement and learning with TEK-nology, and what are the implications for decolonising language education?

Kincentric and Relational Participant Selection

Guided by Dùthchas as emplaced ethical relations (Oliver, Reference Oliver, Nicolson and Meikle2021) and Biskaabiiyang as a decolonising, participatory framework (Geniusz, Reference Geniusz2009), I implemented a kincentric and relational method (Figure 2) for participant selection. Participants (N = 8) were selected through purposive and snowball sampling (Patton, Reference Patton2015), beginning with family and extended kin, such as family and family friends.

Figure 2

Kincentric and relational approach to sampling.

Source: Meighan (2022a).

1.03Practical Note

For those new to the community, begin with trusted partners – such as Elders, kin networks, or language advocates – to ensure that participant selection is grounded in relationship and reciprocity.

The rationale for this approach is well described by Wilson and Hughes (Reference Wilson, Hughes, Wilson, Breen and Dubre2019), ‘as researchers, we are not separate from the process, but rather participate in a relationship with what we are learning’ (p. 9). Johnston et al. (Reference Johnston, McGregor, Restoule, McGregor, Restoule and Johnston2018) elaborate:

The researcher is nested in concentric circles of relationships. The researcher must consider their relationship with self, with family, with those that provide guidance in carrying out the research, with the research participants, with the broader community, with the ancestors and future generations, with the environment and land, and with the Creator.

(p. 11)

As such, this kincentric and relational method enabled:

1. (1) Acknowledgement of my positionality and ‘self-in-relation’ (Graveline, Reference Graveline1998) as a Gael researcher

2. (2) Respect for existing relationships in my married family’s Indigenous community

3. (3) Deeper insight into nuanced factors that may influence intergenerational language transmission

4. (4) Recognition of the land as co-researcher and interlocutor (Engman & Hermes, Reference Engman and Hermes2021)

Knowledge Gathering Methods

Knowledge was gathered using digital and online technologies over thirteen weeks (September–December 2021) and included:

1. (1) A reflexive online self-decolonisation journal

2. (2) Offering Asemaa (Tobacco) to the land and ancestors in gratitude

3. (3) Individual semi-structured conversations with participants, who later formed a Language Revitalisation Committee (LRC)

4. (4) One LRC sharing group to share thoughts on decolonising education

5. (5) Three LRC focus groups to co-develop content for three TEK-nology language videos

6. (6) A final online community screening and feedback survey

The LRC, formed collaboratively, consisted of participants and myself, the researcher. I practised Miigwetchiwin (prayer and gratitude; Reo, Reference Reo2019), Anishinaabe Bwaajwewin (nurturing relationships; Reo, Reference Reo2019) and Gaelic Càirdeas (kinship and friendship) throughout. Using Kovach’s (Reference Kovach2010) Conversational Method as inspiration, I activated relational dialogue and Bizindam (Chiblow, Reference Chiblow2021) to gather knowledge as shared story. Bizindam is further explored as an interpretive framework in Section 4.

The three LRC focus groups generated ideas and themes to generate content for language learning videos, such as the relationships between the Anishinaabemowin language and the local land. The sharing group reflected on healing and strength-based education in the community. The resulting videos – filmed by LRC members – are hosted on a public LRC YouTube channel with participant consent.

1.04Practical Note

Digital tools such as Zoom, collaborative documents, and community-curated YouTube channels can support relational research when co-designed with participants and aligned with community protocols (See section 6.2.4 on ‘Relational technology’; see also Meighan, Reference Meighan2021, Reference Meighan2022c).

At the end of the project, the videos were shown to participants at a TEK-nology video screening on Zoom. Participants were invited to respond to an anonymised online survey for feedback on the pilot project and the co-creation process.

Reflexive Self-Decolonising Journal Excerpt

I kept a reflexive self-decolonising journal (Moeke-Pickering et al., Reference Moeke-Pickering, Hardy and Manitowabi2006) to document my research journey. I wrote about things such as what decolonisation and decolonising education research mean to me; challenges and tensions; and my language learning journey in Anishinaabemowin and reclamation journey in Scottish Gaelic. This journal helps me activate inward knowledge, a key component of knowledge gathering and generation (Kovach, Reference Kovach2009). Below is an excerpt from my first entry:

Today, I’m at the point where I’m about to send out invitations to potential Language Revitalization Committee (LRC) and TEK-nology video participants. I’m very mindful that I would like to embark on this project in my married family’s community in the most relational way possible, and I think a good way of doing that is by starting with myself and radiating outwards.

• Me.

• Close immediate family.

• Extended family.

• Relational human kin (close family friends that I know or who have been recommended to me).

• Relational more than human kin (the land).

I’m imagining this working like a concentric circle (insert image when I get to drafting it) … It is my sincere hope that I can embark on this project in a good way … I’mnot from the community where I will be working myself, so I would like to start with people I know, to include people who are close to my immediate relations in the project. I want to centre the people who know the land and their community and the process of reclaiming their language at the heart. They will guide the process … I think the thing I would like most is to be transparent to myself and also to anyone else going forward. And this journal will be helpful (I hope) in tracking that journey and the experiences I have.

(August 16, 2021)

Taken together, the LRC process and journal reflexivity model the shift from extractive data collection to kincentric and relational knowledge gathering, centring reciprocity, accountability, and collective responsibility.

3.2.2 Gaelic Context

Knowledge gathering in Uibhist a Deas (Isle of South Uist, Scottish Highlands and Islands) followed a similarly kincentric and relational approach. Guided by Dùthchas principles (see section 1.4), I conducted online fieldwork in the Scottish Gaelic language with three Gaelic speakers who hold either lived or studied experience of Gaelic oral tradition.

This fieldwork involved semi-structured conversations in a form of a brief Cèilidh (Scottish Gaelic word for ‘visit’ or ‘gathering’). Cèilidhs are traditionally story- and song-rich gatherings, rooted in Gaelic tradition. In this fieldwork case, although brief, the Cèilidhs illuminated community memory, land-based practices, and ancestral knowledge. Participants were treated as Elders, knowledge co-creators, and cultural holders – as kin, friends, and family – not ‘subjects’.

The research questions, after relationships were established in the community, were:

1. (1) What does oral tradition mean to you?

2. (2) What does the concept Dùthchas mean to you?

3. (3) To what extent are oral tradition and cultural concepts like Dùthchas important to the language and culture of the Gaels?

1.05Practical Note

To adapt Cèilidh as method for other contexts, (1) replace structured interviews with informal, culturally grounded visits rooted in Càirdeas (kinship and friendship); (2) emphasise mutual exchange and shared cultural knowledge; and (3) be humble, listen, and be flexible with time and space, allow the rhythm of conversation and memory to guide the discussion.

Kincentric and Relational Participant Selection

Guided again by Dùthchas as emplaced ethical relations (Oliver, Reference Oliver, Nicolson and Meikle2021), I took a kincentric and relational approach to participant selection. Participants (N = 3) were selected through purposive and snowball sampling (Patton, Reference Patton2015), beginning with family and extended kin, such as family and family friends. As in the Anishinaabe context, this approach respected relational entry into community knowledge spaces.

1.06Practical Note

In kinship-based societies, like in traditional Gaelic clanFootnote ⁴-based society, starting with trusted relational pathways – such as relatives, friends, long-time neighbours, or language advocates – helps build the trust and cultural familiarity needed for meaningful engagement.

This method helped gather knowledge on:

1. (1) What oral tradition means to people originally from South Uist and those living in the community

2. (2) What factors may influence the traditions and culture of the Indigenous Gaels

Knowledge Gathering Methods

Knowledge was gathered using digital and online technologies (November 2024) and included:

1. (1) A reflexive online self-decolonisation journal

2. (2) An individual online Cèilidh in Scottish Gaelic with participants

The knowledge gathered with the participants in South Uist emphasised the centrality of oral tradition and the concept of Dùthchas itself as forms of intergenerational cultural education and ethical belonging.

Knowledge Gathering and Dùthchas

The Cèilidhs reflected and affirmed Dùthchas as an onto-epistemology: not merely a theory, but a way of living and knowing, a methodological praxis grounded in land, kin, and memory. As my mother’s cousin and participant, Ailig O’Henley, sharedFootnote ⁵:

Tha beul-aithris a’ ciallachadh rudan a thighinn a-nuas bho ghinealach gu ginealach…cha robh foghlam foirmeil cho math ri sin, mar sin ’s e beul-aithris an dòigh a bh’ aca [muinntir na coimhearsnachd] air an cultar fhèin a chumail beò bho ghinealach gu ginealach …bàrdachd, òran, abairtean, dòighean-cainnt, seanfhaclan, a h-uile sìon a’ tighinn a-nuas.

Tha Dùthchas…a’ tighinn bho dùthaich, ach tha e nas bunasaiche na sin…tha e mun cuairt ort, tha e san àrainneachd. An-uiridh, bha mi ann an Dalabrog aig taigh mo sheanair, do shinn-sheanair-sa [Aonghas ’ill Easbaig]. Bha mi a’ toirt clach am bàrr a bha air a dhol fon talamh…’s e a’ dùsgadh clach a chanadh na seann fheadhainn ris an sin. Bha mi a’ smaointinn an uair a thug mi a’ chlach sin am bàrr, cia mheud duin’ eile dhen teaghlach againn a bha air a’ chlach sin a làimhseachadh? Cò an làmh mu dheireadh a bh’ oirre? Bràithrean mo mhàthair, mo sheanair, nas fhaide air ais na sin? Tha sin mar phàirt dhen Dùthchas agad cuideachd, an t-àite dham buin thu, na rudan a tha gad chuartachadh. Mar sin tha Dùthchas gu math farsaing, [co-cheangailte] ris an àite is ris na daoine bhon d’ thàinig thu. Tha e gad chuartachadh air na cruitean, air na lochan, far an robh ar sinnsearan a’ coiseachd, far an robh iad ag obair, a’ gearradh an fheòir, a’ cur a’ bhuntàta, sin Dùthchas dhòmhsa…tha thu mar gum biodh a’ leantail sna lorgan aca.

Oral tradition means things being passed down from generation to generation… formal education wasn’t very good, so oral tradition was the way [community members] kept their own culture alive across generations—poetry, song, expressions, ways of speaking, proverbs…

Dùthchas…comes from dùthaich [homeland], but it’s more fundamental than that…it surrounds you, it’s in the environment. Last year, I was in Daliburgh at my grandfather’s house [Figure 3], your great-grandfather’s [Angus Walker]. I was lifting a stone that had sunk into the ground…the old people would have called that “waking a stone”. I was thinking, when I lifted that stone, how many other members of our family had touched that same stone? Whose hand had last been on it? My uncles, my grandfather, further back than that? That, too, is part of your Dùthchas—where you belong, the things that surround you. So Dùthchas is very broad, [connected] to the place and the people you come from. It surrounds you in the crofts, the lochs, where our ancestors walked, where they worked, cut the grass, planted the potatoes—that’s Dùthchas to me…it is as though you are following in their footsteps. (Ailig O’Henley, individual conversation, November 2024)

Figure 3

The old family croft in Daliburgh, Isle of South Uist.

This example continues to influence my researcher reflexivity and evolving understanding of Dùthchas as a kincentric and relational methodology. It also highlights how knowledge gathering, even through digital and online means, can remain rooted in land, kin, memory, and cultural continuity when guided by ethical relations. This Gaelic case echoes the Anishinaabe emphasis on kinship, language, and place, which is also reflected in Māori research frameworks.

3.3 Kincentric and Relational Knowledge Gathering: Key Practices

Kincentric and relational knowledge gathering methods prioritise story, land, ceremony, and cultural protocols over extraction, anonymity, and detachment. In both the Anishinaabemowin and Gaelic research contexts (Section 3.2), these practices were grounded in Indigenous concepts and frameworks like Dùthchas, Cèilidh, Biskaabiiyaang, and Bizindam.

Education research, and the kincentric and relational methodologies therein, aim not just to generate knowledge but to support cultural continuity, community wellbeing, and relational healing.

Key practices include:

1. (1) Relational Entry

   Relationships begin before formal research activities. For example, in the Anishinaabemowin and Gaelic cases (Section 3.2), I connected first with close kin, then extended family, then community Elders. This ensures trust and reciprocity from the outset.

   1.08

   Practical Note – Attend community gatherings, speak with Elders, and listen before designing any instruments or tools. Where appropriate, consider ceremony or cultural protocols to begin your engagement.

2. (2) Conversational Methods

   Participants engage in conversations or Cèilidhs (Section 3.2.2), rather than structured interviews, to gather community knowledge authentically and enable personal and communal storytelling and co-learning. For instance, these could follow the Dùthchas principles (Section 1.4) and Bizindam listening protocols (Chiblow, Reference Chiblow2021).

3. (3) Community-led Committees

   Participants form committees that co-create research and, where applicable, educational content, such as video resources, to ensure community ownership and active participation throughout the research process. In Ketegaunseebee, the LRC co-created content, shaped goals, and evaluated results (Section 3.2.1). The process encouraged collective responsibility.

4. (4) Storywork and Land-based Teachings

   Elders and language or knowledge holders share local knowledge, oral traditions, and place-based teachings, both in the Indigenous language and informed by the land. These are forms of pedagogy as well as ‘data’ (Archibald, Reference Archibald2008).

5. (5) Digital Co-Creation

   In the digital age, participant control and agency are paramount. In the TEK-nology project, participants filmed their own language videos, supported by community-led editing with the researcher and consent processes (Section 3.2.1).

6. (6) Iterative Consent

   Consent is not a one-time checkbox. Participants are engaged throughout the process. They have the right to revise, pause, or withdraw their contributions. Ongoing consent is maintained, with feedback loops and member-checking part of the research process.

In Table 3, knowledge gathering techniques are described with an example and a practical adaptation that researchers can implement in their own work.

3.4 Kincentric Methodological Framework

Table 4 summarises six interconnected and interrelated phases that inform a kincentric and relational approach to knowledge gathering and the practical actions involved. This framework affirms the interdependence of methodology and worldview. These are not linear checkpoints, nor exhaustive, but signal overlapping cycles of reciprocal enactment.

3.5 Ethical Considerations and Data Sovereignty

Integral to kincentric and relational research are robust ethical frameworks, including Indigenous data sovereignty (Kukutai & Taylor, Reference Kukutai and Taylor2016; Walter et al., Reference Walter, Kukutai, Carroll and Rodriguez-Lonebear2021). These ensure that knowledge is not just gathered ethically, but stays with the people and communities who shared it originally.

Both case studies in Section 3.2 adhered to sovereignty protocols, including:

1. (1) OCAP® in Canada (Ownership, Control, Access, and Possession)

2. (2) Global CARE principles (Collective benefit, Authority to control, Responsibility, and Ethics)

All digital content (e.g., language videos) remains under the control of the participants, for use in cultural learning, ceremony, local education, and future reclamation endeavours. In the TEK-nology case study (Section 3.2.1), the language video recordings were:

1. (1) Subject to participant member-checking

2. (2) Revised where requested

3. (3) Stored in community-led and freely accessible repositories (e.g., LRC YouTube channel)

This approach ensured that knowledge remained relational, contextual, and ethically co-owned, not extracted, anonymised, or externally controlled.

3.6 Methodological Distinctions and Relational Rigour

Kincentric and relational methodologies diverge from dominant educational research not only in tools but in worldview (Table 5). Knowledge is gathered and co-generated in relationship, accountable to community, land, and more-than-human kin. This section summarises how these approaches differ and how rigour is established.

3.7 Implications for Educational Research

The methods and frameworks described in this section carry implications well beyond the specific case studies. They invite a transformative rethinking of what educational research and data collection reframed as knowledge gathering can look like, particularly in Indigenous and minoritised contexts.

Key implications include:

1. (1) Methodological innovation – Treat story, ceremony, land, and community memory as valid and rigorous research methods

2. (2) Ethical practice – Centre data sovereignty frameworks such as OCAP® and CARE, ensuring knowledge remains with its rightful holders

3. (3) Pedagogy-research interconnections – Treat knowledge gathering as a reciprocal educational process, where projects are designed to create usable learning resources

4. (4) Transferability (not generalisability) – Kincentric methods can be adapted to other education contexts, if done with cultural specificity, humility, and relational care

3.8 Conclusion

This section has reframed data collection as knowledge gathering: a deeply relational, ethical, and situated process grounded in Indigenous concepts like Dùthchas and Biskaabiiyang. These concepts centre story, land, kinship, and community-defined priorities, moving away from extraction and towards co-creation, cultural continuity, and self-determination.

The TEK-nology project and South Uist oral tradition fieldwork demonstrated how kincentric and relational methods are not abstract ideals but practical, grounded approaches. They generated knowledge held in story, community, and ceremony: knowledge that lives on in memory, digital repositories, and ongoing language reclamation.

Participants were not data points; they were co-educators, cultural holders, language and knowledge keepers, and guides. As a researcher, I was also a learner, family member, and participant in a broader cycle of responsibility.

By rejecting positivist norms of neutrality and extraction, kincentric and relational methodology reclaims education research as a practice of epistemic justice, healing, and ethical belonging. These approaches are not just possible, they are necessary for research that genuinely supports Indigenous resurgence, cultural renewal, and futures led by community-defined visions.

3.9 Key Takeaways

1. (1) Data collection within kincentric and relational methodologies is reframed as knowledge gathering, guided by the 5 R’s of Indigenous research.

2. (2) Relational knowledge gathering sustains cultural continuity and community well-being, while also deepening the researcher’s accountability and reflexivity.

3. (3) Story, land, ceremony, and language are forms of knowledge and research evidence, not just anecdotes.

4. (4) Practical knowledge gathering strategies include following cultural protocols; practising Bizindam (Anishinaabe deep listening); enacting Càirdeas (Gaelic kinship), and upholding Indigenous data sovereignty (OCAP®, CARE).

5. (5) Kincentric and relational rigour is rooted in reciprocity, protocol adherence, community validation, reflexivity, and data sovereignty in practice.

6. (6) Design for community benefit first, and keep an audit trail of decisions and how community feedback informs the research.

4.1 Relational and Kincentric Approaches

This section turns attention to data analysis as a crucial site of epistemic power and (in)justice within decolonising research practices. A fundamental shift is needed in education research, moving away from conventional data analysis – often defined by extraction, categorisation, and abstraction – towards knowledge generation, which is grounded in relationship, meaning-making, story, and accountability to people, place, and purpose. This shift is not merely terminological nor cosmetic re-labelling; it reorients the goals, processes, and ethical foundations of research itself.

Where dominant qualitative and quantitative methods have provided useful insights for many in educational research, they frequently privilege abstraction and generalisability in ways that can overlook the importance of context, relationality, and land-based knowledge systems (see also Section 3). In contrast, Indigenous concepts and frameworks – such as Gaelic Dùthchas, Anishinaabe Bizindam, and Mi’kmaq Etuaptmumk (Two-Eyed Seeing, a balanced inclusion of Indigenous and Western knowledge systems; Bartlett et al., Reference Bartlett, Marshall and Marshall2012) – offer complementary analytic paradigms that centre ethical, reciprocal relationships and context-specific interpretation. These frameworks call for iterative, community-led meaning-making processes that honour, rather than abstract, knowledge from the cycles of relation within which it was gathered.

This section, therefore, focuses on analytical approaches that seek an in-depth understanding of social phenomena and lived experience through story and conversation. It extends Dùthchas and Bizindam (see Section 3) as interpretive lenses that guide how knowledge is generated, validated, and situated within cycles of relational accountability. Here, land and kinship are not only contextual factors; they are integral determinants of interpretive validity and active co-participants in knowledge generation.

Importantly, this section does not seek to dismiss the utility of some dominant or popular analytic approaches. Reflexive thematic analysis (RTA; Braun & Clarke, Reference Braun and Clarke2021), for instance, can offer a valuable framework for researchers engaging in self-aware, context-sensitive inquiry. However, this section contends that such approaches must be expanded to include Indigenous onto-epistemologies that foreground responsibilities to community, land, and more-than-human kin. In this way, it advocates for a more inclusive and relational approach to data analysis that honours multiple knowledge systems.

Despite growing interest in decolonising research practices, a significant gap persists in the literature concerning Indigenous-specific analytic methods, especially pronounced in educational research contexts. Sivertsen et al. (Reference Sivertsen, Johnson and Smith2025), reviewing over 190 articles, found that only Kaupapa Māori (Aotearoa/New Zealand) and Yarning (Australia) were widely used as analytic methods, with limited examples from Canada, the US, and Europe. This highlights the urgent need to document, validate, and further develop analytic practices rooted in relationship, kinship, community, and land.

In response, this section provides both scholarly critique and practical guidance. It outlines kincentric and relational approaches to knowledge generation, drawing from Indigenous traditions in Canada and Scotland, and demonstrates how Dùthchas and Bizindam function not only as worldviews but as robust analytic lenses that shape interpretation, relational accountability, and research validity. This section particularly supports non-Indigenous researchers who seek to work with Indigenous and minoritised communities, emphasising relational accountability not as an ethical add-on, but as a central analytic principle.

Specifically, this section will:

1. (1) Critique the limitations of dominant educational data analysis approaches.

2. (2) Present Indigenous analytical frameworks – such as Bizindam, Dùthchas, and Two-Eyed Seeing – as viable and rigorous alternatives for kincentric and relational knowledge generation.

3. (3) Offer practical guidance and comparative tools for researchers, particularly those who are not Indigenous nor working within their own communities, to undertake relational and kincentric knowledge generation with integrity and accountability.

To make these methodologies accessible to non-Indigenous scholars and applicable in mainstream educational contexts, this section contrasts dominant with kincentric-relational approaches across onto-epistemic foundations, analytic techniques, reflexivity, and ethical responsibilities. The case studies in Section 4.2 show how frameworks such as Dùthchas and Bizindam generate lived, relational insights aligned with Indigenous understandings of education, and how these lenses operate in analysis – reframed here as knowledge generation.

4.2 Knowledge Generation: Towards Kincentric and Relational Analytical Frameworks

Kincentric and relational research methodologies call for analytic approaches that align with Indigenous ways of knowing and being. This section illustrates how Bizindam and Dùthchas – initially introduced in Section 3 as knowledgegathering methods – can be extended as frameworks for knowledge generation, interpretation, and relational accountability. It also introduces Two-Eyed Seeing as an analytic lens that enables relational bridging between Indigenous and dominant knowledge systems without subordinating one to the other.

Bizindam – deep, ethical, relational listening (Chiblow, Reference Chiblow2021; Section 3) – guides researchers to analyse through reciprocal attentiveness and contextual accountability. Dùthchas frames meaning-meaning and interpretation through principles of kinship, ecological balance, responsibility, and land-rooted belonging (Meighan, Reference Meighan2022a; Section 3). Meanwhile, Two-Eyed Seeing, articulated by Mi’kmaq Elder Albert Marshall, promotes relational co-interpretation, inviting researchers to ‘see from one eye with the strengths of Indigenous knowledges, and from the other eye with the strengths of Western knowledges’ (Bartlett et al., Reference Bartlett, Marshall and Marshall2012). Crucially, Two-Eyed Seeing supports ethical knowledge bridging rather than epistemic assimilation, preserving the distinctiveness of each knowledge system while encouraging dialogue and relational accountability (Muir et al., Reference Muir, Duncan and Almack2023).

Dominant analytical models often fall short when interpreting Indigenous knowledges because they tend to overlook context, relationships, and cultural protocols. While not dismissing mainstream methods entirely (see also Smith, Reference Smith2021), this section advocates for analytical approaches explicitly including and accommodating Indigenous, kincentric and relational frameworks. For example, reflexive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, Reference Braun and Clarke2021) can beneficially intersect with qualitative Anishinaabek analysis (Chiblow, Reference Chiblow2021) and be guided ethically by Two-Eyed Seeing or Dùthchas principles (Meighan, Reference Meighan2022a), thereby producing research accountable both to Indigenous and academic communities.

Mainstream education research typically rests on positivist or post-positivist paradigms, assuming a separation between researcher and data (Creswell & Poth, Reference Creswell and Poth2018; see also Sections 1 and 2). In contrast, Indigenous frameworks reject such separability, asserting instead that knowledge is shared relationally, deeply embedded within human and more-than-human relationships. As discussed in Section 3, knowledge is not extracted or ‘collected’, but rather gathered relationally and generated through sustained responsibilities to people, land, and ancestors (Chiblow, Reference Chiblow2021; Kovach, Reference Kovach2009; Meighan, Reference Meighan2022a, Reference Meighan2023; Wilson, Reference Wilson2008).

Kincentric and relational approaches thus fundamentally reframe analysis as knowledge generation. This is not a shift from one method to another, but a fundamental repositioning of analysis itself – not as categorisation but as relational meaning-making embedded in story, land, kinship, spirit,Footnote ⁶ and ethical responsibility. Sivertsen et al.’s (Reference Sivertsen, Johnson and Smith2025) systematic review of Indigenous analytic methods supports this view, noting that few studies genuinely operationalise Indigenous frameworks despite frequent references to Indigenous worldviews. Those that do – such as Kaupapa Māori, Yarning, Talking Circles, and Cree NAKPA (Nanâtawihowin Âcimowina Kika-Môsahkinikêhk Papiskîci-Itascikêwin Astâcikowin- translates very loosely to medicine/healing stories) – consistently emphasise cultural protocol, spiritual aspects such as ceremony, and community validation. For instance, Marriott et al. (Reference Marriott, Reibel and Coffin2019) used Yarning circles not only as a methodological tool but as an onto-epistemic stance requiring culturally embedded reciprocal listening practices resonant with Bizindam. From the Indigenous Gaelic perspective, interpretation through Dùthchas similarly prioritises relationality and embodied belonging. Instead of using predetermined codes, meaning is generated through Cèilidh (a visit; see also Section 3.2.2), ancestral memory, and land-based practices. These methods resist abstraction, compelling researchers to remain accountable to land, community, and relationships throughout knowledge generation. Section 4.2.1 concretely illustrates these kincentric and relational principles through specific examples in Anishinaabe, Gaelic, and additional Indigenous contexts. These cases practically demonstrate how frameworks, such as Bizindam, Dùthchas, and Two-Eyed Seeing, function as rigorous analytical methods in their own right, maintaining ethical consistency and interpretive validity across diverse epistemic traditions.

4.2.1 Case Study Applications

TEK-nology Project, Canada (Meighan, Reference Meighan2022c)

In the TEK-nology project, conducted collaboratively with kin from my Anishinaabe family’s community, knowledge generation was inherently relational, guided by Bizindam, Dùthchas, and Miigwetchiwin (gratitude) (see also Section 3.2.1). The LRC played a central role in collective interpretation, involving iterative conversations, stories, reciprocal feedback loops, and community-led reflections on digital educational resources. Rather than following a linear progression from transcript to code, themes were generated through relationship and reflection. These themes were not abstracted away from context; they informed the co-creation of culturally responsive language learning materials that reflected the interconnectedness of Anishinaabemowin, land, and community life. Stories were held in relationship and interpreted and understood as expressions of healing and strength-based education within the community.

To interpret both my ‘internal’ researcher reflections and ‘external’ knowledge (Kovach, Reference Kovach2009), I drew on qualitative Anishinaabek data analysis (Chiblow, Reference Chiblow2021) alongside Reflexive Thematic Analysis (RTA) (Braun & Clarke, Reference Braun and Clarke2021). Qualitative Anishinaabek analysis involves interconnected phases:

1. (1) Bizindaage (I listen to someone)

2. (2) Ozhibii’igi (I wrote things down)

3. (3) Naanaagadawendam (I consider, notice, reflect)

4. (4) Nisidotaagwad (It is understood)

This sequence reflects a relational and iterative approach to knowledge generation, grounded in the ethical responsibilities of listening, writing, reflecting, and understanding.

RTA, while rooted in Western qualitative traditions, offers a flexible approach that ‘emphasises the importance of the researcher’s subjectivity as analytic resource, and their reflexive engagement with theory, data and interpretation’ (Braun & Clarke, Reference Braun and Clarke2021, p. 330). Its six phases – data familiarisation, systematic coding, theme generation, theme development and review, theme naming, and writing – can be adapted to support deeper reflexivity and cultural accountability. In this case, RTA was used in dialogue with Anishinaabek analysis, not to standardise or systematise interpretation, but to scaffold transparency and coherence for broader audiences.

Throughout the knowledge generation process, Dùthchas informed my lens as a Gael researcher, guiding interpretation through interconnectedness, responsibility, respect, ecological balance, and kinship (see also Section 1.4). These principles shaped how I situated insights within broader networks of kin and land-based belonging. Namely, I sought to respectfully and responsibly listen (Bizindam) to the interconnectedness in the participants’ stories and maintain balance by heeding our kinship and friendship (Càirdeas) (Meighan, Reference Meighan2022a). Codes were not predetermined or deductively imposed but interpreted through Dùthchas and a process of relational meaning-making that remained open to the complexity and specificity of participants’ lived experience and their stories.

In practice, the knowledge generation process included the following iterative steps:

1. (1) Bizindaage and data familiarisation: I manually transcribed approximately eleven hours of conversations, sharing, and focus groups.

2. (2) Ozhibii’igi and theme generation: I coded transcripts line-by-line, highlighting words or phrases – such as ‘language’, ‘gikendaaswin (knowledge)’, and ‘spirit’ – that reflected cultural meaning and community insight.

3. (3) Naanaagadawendam and developing themes: Reflecting on relationships among the preliminary 196 codes, such as ‘Western education’ and ‘Indigenous education’, I identified salient and recurrent initial themes I felt could shed light on the research questions.

4. (4) Nisidotaagwad: Finally, I reviewed the codes and themes iteratively for alignment with community insights, naming them using participants’ words as much as possible (Table 6).

Table 6Theme generation examples

Table 6 Long description

The table has two columns: Theme, and Participant words, participant-reviewed. The first theme is Language comes from the land. Two participant quotations are listed under this theme. The first states: Elders say that language comes from the land, and therefore it’s place-specific (Susan Chiblow, individual conversation, September 3, 2021). The second states: Most of my teachings come from the people around me, or even the plants around me, the animals around me, it’s all like my teachers are everyone around me (Sydney Nolan, individual conversation, September 16, 2021). The second theme is Everything is imbued with spirit. One participant quotation is listed: As Anishinaabe People, we believe everything has a spirit and carries a spirit. Plants and medicines have a name and should be directed as such, treat them as such (Debra Nolan, individual conversation, September 8, 2021). The table shows how themes were generated directly from participant language, linking land, place, plants, animals, and spirit to knowledge and relationality.

RTA acknowledges diverse guiding theories and paradigms (Braun & Clarke, Reference Braun and Clarke2021), enabling it to be informed by Indigenous worldviews, such as Dùthchas and Bizindam. While RTA emphasises researcher reflexivity, Indigenous analytic frameworks further centre land, kinship, ceremony, and community protocol (Chiblow Reference Chiblow2021; Meighan, Reference Meighan2022a). Used together, these frameworks help ensure interpretive validity and accountability to both Indigenous and academic communities. This process echoes Two-Eyed Seeing principles (Bartlett et al., Reference Bartlett, Marshall and Marshall2012) to ethically bridge frameworks, ensuring neither tradition is subordinated to the other. Instead, each maintained its distinctiveness while complementing the interpretive process.

The combined use of Anishinaabek analysis, Dùthchas, and inductive RTA did not aim to integrate knowledge systems into a single unified model. Rather, it honoured the distinctiveness of each while allowing for a transepistemic and transdisciplinary dialogue (Meighan, Reference Meighan2023) between them. This approach to knowledge generation ‘is not calling for an integration of … knowledge systems but rather recognizes there are multiple ways of gathering [and generating] knowledge’ (Chiblow, Reference Chiblow2021, p. 7).

South Uist Gaelic Oral Tradition Project, Scotland (Meighan, Reference Meighan2025c)

Similar principles informed knowledge generation and my interpretive process in the South Uist Gaelic oral tradition project. Here, Cèilidhs (conversational visits) were interpreted through Dùthchas, with Càirdeas (kinship/friendship) guiding presence and listening, coding, theme generation, and member-checking processes (Table 7).

Table 7Knowledge generation example: interpreting a Cèilidh excerpt through Dùthchas

Table 7 Long description

The table has four columns: Step, Evidence (participant words, participant-reviewed), Interpretative move, and Practical action. The first row is Listening and presence. Evidence includes three quotations: Oral tradition means things being passed down from generation to generation; Formal education wasn’t very good, so oral tradition was the way they kept their own culture alive across generations; and Waking a stone… how many other members of our family had touched that same stone? The interpretative move is that kin terms and place-markers show knowledge moving through kin lines and land, and that more-than-human objects and places act as memory-keepers and sensory knowledge. The practical action is to note kin and cultural terms and placenames, keep exact wording, and mark tone and pauses. The second row is Line-by-line coding. Evidence is grouped as Kin: grandfather…uncles; Place: Daliburgh… crofts, lochs; Practice: cut the grass… planted the potatoes; and Belonging: where you belong… surrounds you. The interpretative move is that iterative code clusters mirror Dùthchas principles: interconnectedness, responsibility, respect, ecological balance, and kinship. The practical action is to copy exact phrases directly and avoid paraphrase. The third row is Theme in participant words. Evidence is the quotation: Dùthchas: That’s where you belong, those are the things that surround you. The interpretative move is Place as pedagogy, meaning learning is carried by land, objects, and kin-relations rather than by institutions alone. The practical action is to use the quoted sentence as the theme title. The fourth row is Member checking. Evidence is Return theme to participant for resonance. The interpretative move is community validation. The practical action is to record and apply feedback. Overall, the table illustrates a relational analytic process in which participant words are preserved, interpreted through Dùthchas, and validated with participants.

Participants were viewed as cultural knowledge holders and kin, not as abstract ‘data sources’. Stories were honoured as part of a shared and living Gaelic knowledge system. Acts such as returning to communal ancestral places (e.g., ‘waking’ the family croft stone) and reflecting collectively on intergenerational memory were themselves forms of knowledge generation, embedded in cultural practice and land-based epistemology (see full knowledge gathering example in Section 3.2.2).

Across both case studies, knowledge generation and interpretation remain inseparable from land, kinship, ceremony, and reciprocal community engagement. In a kincentric and relational methodology, knowledge is not extracted; it is co-generated, witnessed, and carried in relation. In these examples, Dùthchas orients ethical emplacement, Bizindam guides deep listening, and Càirdeas sustains the kin-relational cycles through which knowledge is generated and returned.

Indigenous Contexts Worldwide

The approaches in the Anishinaabe and Gaelic contexts resonate with a growing body of research documenting Indigenous-led methods of relational knowledge generation:

1. (1) Kaupapa Māori frameworks in Aotearoa/New Zealand – Raerino et al. (Reference Raerino, Macmillan, Field and Hoskins2021) used Kaupapa Māori (Māori principles) to guide theme development. Initial deductive codes were refined through iterative group reflection among Māori researchers, illustrating that rigour can emerge from Indigenous worldview alignment, not external analytical models.

2. (2) Yarning circles in Australia – Marriott et al. (Reference Marriott, Reibel and Coffin2019) used collective coding between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal teams, followed by group yarning. Listening shaped coding decisions, surfacing themes such as ‘cultural security’ that might otherwise have been missed.

3. (3) Talking Circles among Secwépemc professionals in Canada – Bourque Bearskin et al. (Reference Bourque Bearskin, Seymour and Melnyk2025) facilitated ceremonial circles where transcripts were collaboratively coded. Themes like ‘sociopolitical contexts of Aboriginal nursing’ were generated through relational dialogue, intergenerational teaching, and cultural protocol, not predefined codes.

4. (4) NAKPA (Cree ‘medicine/healing stories’) in Canada – McIlduff et al. (Reference McIlduff, Acharibasam, Starr and Chapados2022) convened panels of Elders, participants, and researchers to interpret participant stories collectively. Themes were not imposed, but were generated through healing discourse, ceremony, and community leadership.

Across these examples, several principles hold:

1. (1) Collaborative interpretation enhances cultural integrity – Interpretation is not only the task of the individual researcher alone but is grounded in collective reflection with kin, such as Elders, knowledge holders, and communities.

2. (2) Themes are iterative and community-validated – Themes were not researcher-imposed, but were generated through group reflection and community validation.

3. (3) Interpretive authority is rebalanced – In each case, researchers assumed listening roles, acknowledging Indigenous researchers and participants as epistemic experts and cultural interpreters.

These practices resonate deeply with the knowledge generation principles underlying the TEK-nology and Gaelic oral tradition projects. Themes did not arise from predefined coding frameworks; they were generated through kinship, listening, dialogue, protocols, and culturally embedded knowledge generation processes guided by Bizindam and Dùthchas.

Table 8 succinctly, though non-exhaustively, summarises key contrasts between dominant and kincentric-relational analytical paradigms, providing researchers with practical tools to begin conceptualising their own knowledge generation framework.

Table 8Comparison of dominant and kincentric-relational analytical approaches

Table 8Comparison of dominant and kincentric-relational analytical approaches

Dimension	Dominant analytical approaches	Kincentric-relational approaches
Onto-epistemic basis	Positivist, post-positivist	Relational, land-based, kinship-centred
Relationship to participants	Detached, objective observer	Co-creators, relatives, community members
Validity	Reliability, replicability, generalisability	Community validation, relational accountability, cultural coherence
Reflexivity	External analyser	Relational participant, self-reflective and accountable
Analytic methods	Deductive coding; statistical modelling; AI/algorithmic analysis	Storywork, ceremony, collective interpretation (Bizindam, Càirdeas)
Methods	Thematic coding, statistical modelling	Bizindam, Dùthchas, Yarning, Cèilidh, NAKPA
Ethical accountability	Institutional ethics review	Indigenous data sovereignty, cultural protocols

Kincentric and relational approaches – rooted in Indigenous worldviews and frameworks such as Dùthchas, Bizindam, and Two-Eyed Seeing – challenge educational researchers to reimagine analysis not as a detached or mechanical task, but as a practice of knowledge generation. These frameworks do not reject all dominant analytical methods outright. Rather, they invite us to expand our epistemic horizons, to ask whose knowledges are valued, and to reflect on how meaning and knowledge are relationally generated through accountability to community, land, and ancestral responsibilities.

Such approaches offer not only alternative methods but an alternative stance that is grounded in humility, co-creation, and ethical engagement with more-than-human kin. For researchers working outside their own communities or within Indigenous and minoritised contexts, kincentric and relational methods thus provide rigorous, community-led ways to co-generate knowledge that is valid, relational, transformative, and rooted firmly in relational accountability.

Section 4.3 and 4.4 provide practical guidance and strategies for applying these principles within research design and interpretation, offering concrete examples from the aforementioned case studies as models of relational knowledge generation integrity and culturally congruent research.

4.3 Practical Implications and Researcher Responsibilities

The implications from kincentric and relational knowledge generation frameworks are significant:

1. (1) Knowledge generation as an ethical site – It is not enough to gather stories relationally if they are then analysed through extractive or technocratic models. Kincentric and relational knowledge generation requires ethical alignment between knowledge gathering (Section 3) and generation (Section 4), ensuring consistency and foregrounding Indigenous relational worldviews throughout the research lifecycle.

2. (2) Themes as generative and situated – In kincentric and relational knowledge generation, themes are not imposed or predetermined; rather, they are generated within specific cultural contexts and are validated collaboratively by community knowledge holders. This approach aligns with principles of Indigenous data sovereignty and community authority, reaffirming the authority of Indigenous communities to define and interpret their own knowledge (Leonard, Reference Leonard2017).

3. (3) Reflexivity beyond the individual – While reflexivity is essential, relational frameworks demand that researchers go beyond personal reflection to actively engage in ongoing consent, collective interpretation, and shared knowledge generation processes. It is critical that researchers consistently create spaces for Indigenous analytical leadership throughout knowledge generation, ensuring interpretive processes also reflect collective, rather than only individual, understandings.

4. (4) Balancing epistemic authority and methodological pluralism – Frameworks like Two-Eyed Seeing (Bartlett et al., Reference Bartlett, Marshall and Marshall2012; Muir et al., Reference Muir, Duncan and Almack2023) offer practical ways to ethically bridge distinct knowledge systems. Crucially, however, methodological pluralism must not lead to epistemic hierarchies, where Indigenous frameworks become subordinated within Western analytic scaffolds. Instead, Two-Eyed Seeing serves as a guiding ethical stance, promoting coexistence, respectful dialogue, and relational balance between Indigenous and dominant analytic traditions without compromising their distinctiveness.

Together, these considerations frame knowledge generation not as the endpoint of research, but as a continuation of relational, land-based accountability.

Researchers – particularly those not Indigenous to the communities or lands where they work – must therefore engage in sustained relational and reflexive practice. Several practical strategies facilitate relational knowledge generation integrity and culturally congruent research:

1. (1) Prioritising relationships – spend substantial time within communities, establishing genuine relationships before generating knowledge. Relational trust is foundational, supporting meaningful co-interpretation rather than unilateral extraction.

2. (2) Begin with the self – engaging critically with positionality, privilege, and personal research motivations (Geniusz, Reference Geniusz2009; Kovach, Reference Kovach2009) deepens reflexive accountability, situating the researcher ethically within relational networks.

3. (3) Collaborative meaning-making – actively inviting community members, Elders, and knowledge holders into processes of interpretation ensures that knowledge generation insights remain accountable, community-validated, and culturally congruent.

4. (4) Utilising cultural protocols and concepts – prioritise Indigenous languages, ceremony, cultural concepts, and storytelling as integral components guiding interpretation, thereby embedding knowledge generation processes within meaningful cultural contexts.

5. (5) Rejecting universalising, ‘one-size-fits-all’ coding schemes – adhering to community-defined values, practices, and relational worldviews to shape analytic procedures directly counters reductive, one-size-fits-all coding schemas, ensuring knowledge generation reflects lived relational realities.

Furthermore, Two-Eyed Seeing explicitly addresses scenarios where methodological bridging is necessary, especially within institutional or mixed-method contexts. Practically, this might involve strategically integrating or ‘triangulating’ methods such as automated thematic clustering or statistical modelling – perhaps useful for structural or logistical insights – with subsequent community-led interpretation sessions firmly anchored in Indigenous relational protocols and storytelling. Two-Eyed Seeing can thus become a practical analytical commitment to ethical synergy rather than a convenient methodological supplementation.

This relational and ethical integration must be undertaken carefully, maintaining the distinctiveness of each analytic tradition, preserving cultural integrity, and ensuring epistemic balance. Such methodological bridging should always uphold relational principles of humility, patience, and cultural responsiveness (Muir et al., Reference Muir, Duncan and Almack2023). As Muir et al. (Reference Muir, Duncan and Almack2023) note, this principle supports ethical integration rather than assimilation. Two-Eyed Seeing offers a dialogue across epistemic systems – for example, initial Western-style coding for structural insight, followed by rigorous Indigenous group review to provide cultural and relational richness and to approve coding and themes generated.

Together, these implications and responsibilities reframe analysis as relational knowledge generation and a land-based continuation of research accountability rather than as an endpoint. Researchers engaging relationally and kincentrically must commit to sustained reflexive practice, ongoing relational consent, and ethical dialogue, with clear recognition of community-defined analytic authority.

The subsequent section further provides practical guidance and concrete tools for effectively implementing these responsibilities within research contexts, reinforcing kincentric and relational knowledge generation as ethically rigorous, relationally accountable, and culturally transformative practices.

4.4 Kincentric Tools and Reflexive Strategies for Researchers

To operationalise kincentric and relational knowledge generation rigorously, several practical strategies support ethical and culturally congruent interpretation processes. These strategies, drawing on the relational frameworks of Bizindam, Dùthchas, and Two-Eyed Seeing, provide researchers with concrete tools for embedding relational accountability throughout analysis:

1. (1) Adopt a cyclical iterative process – approach knowledge generation cyclically rather than linearly. Continuously revisit, reinterpret, and collaboratively validate meanings through sustained conversations with participants and community members. Such iterative cycles of reflection ensure that interpretations remain dynamic, relationally accountable, and contextually grounded.

2. (2) Centre ceremony and storytelling – include Indigenous ceremonies where appropriate and consensual, storytelling, and culturally meaningful metaphors, anchoring knowledge generation firmly within cultural, historical, and land-based contexts. Rather than abstracting meanings, interpretation emerges relationally through culturally resonant narrative frameworks.

3. (3) Co-create interpretation with Elders, language keepers, and knowledge keepers – actively co-create interpretive meanings. Presenting themes back to communities for further review and reinterpretation helps maintain cultural integrity and prevents unilateral, researcher-imposed meanings.

4. (4) Document reflexive processes transparently – use fieldnotes, audio memos, or online journals to transparently document analytic decisions and shifts in understanding over time. Make explicit how Indigenous epistemologies shape interpretive processes, methodological accountability, and analytic integrity.

5. (5) Embrace plurivocality and ambiguity – remain open to multiple, even contradictory voices and perspectives. Rather than forcing themes into rigid typologies or binary categories, allow thematic insights to remain dynamic, plurivocal, and responsive to relational complexities.

Beyond these individual practices, researchers can adopt systemic methods to deepen relational accountability, uphold Indigenous analytic leadership, and respect Indigenous data sovereignty. Practical tools include:

1. (1) Forming community-based advisory committees early – Establishing educational committees or analytic advisory panels early in research design – such as the LRC (see Section 3) – ensures that interpretive protocols remain guided explicitly by Indigenous expertise, leadership, and relational principles.

2. (2) Hosting relational gathering events – Regularly convening community dissemination sessions, Cèilidhs, talking circles, or story-sharing events – whether online or in-person – provides structured yet relational spaces for shared interpretation, collective validation, and mutual reflection. These gatherings significantly reduce the risk of reductive coding or interpretive unilateralism.

3. (3) Tracing Indigenous epistemologies in knowledge generation – Researchers should systematically document how Indigenous epistemologies and relational practices shape each interpretive step. Such explicit tracing – comparable to Marriott et al.’s (Reference Marriott, Reibel and Coffin2019) collective coding, Raerino et al.’s (Reference Raerino, Macmillan, Field and Hoskins2021) kaupapa-guided memory reflections, the reflective journal from the TEK-nology project (see Section 3), or the knowledge generation example (Table 7, Section 4.2.1) – clarifies the relational basis for analytic decisions, reinforcing community transparency, methodological coherence, and ethical accountability.

Collectively, these tools ensure that kincentric and relational knowledge generation remains deeply embedded in ethical relationships and ongoing reciprocal learning rather than becoming isolated as technical practices. Relational knowledge generation thereby becomes a sustained commitment to community-centred meaning-making, relational accountability, and ethical responsibility, both within and beyond academic contexts.

4.5 Conclusion: Knowledge Generation as Ethical, Relational Practice

This section has demonstrated that kincentric and relational knowledge generation – grounded in Indigenous frameworks such as Bizindam, Dùthchas, and Two-Eyed Seeing – are theoretically rigorous, ethically grounded, and culturally generative alternatives to dominant analytic practices. Relational knowledge generation resists abstraction and instead situates interpretation within land, kinship, spirit, and ongoing relational accountability. Such analysis is rooted fundamentally in ethical responsibility, not only to knowledge holders, but also to land, ancestors, and future generations.

Educational researchers, especially those working within Indigenous or minoritised contexts, must recognise that analytic practices are never neutral. Rather, they embody deep assumptions regarding knowledge validity, legitimacy, and epistemic authority. Kincentric and relational frameworks explicitly challenge these assumptions, prompting researchers to reimagine how interpretation occurs – not merely as technical data processing, but as ethical, reciprocal acts of meaning-making and knowledge generation deeply embedded in relational networks. Ultimately, knowledge generation is not only a method; it is a stance, a responsibility, and a pathway towards more just, land-honouring, and community-rooted research futures.

Kincentric and relational methodologies thus represent not simply alternative analytic techniques, but profound epistemic stances grounded in humility, reciprocity, ethical co-creation, and sustained engagement with human and more-than-human kin. Particularly for researchers working with communities that are not their own, these frameworks offer rigorous pathways towards community-led, culturally congruent knowledge generation, emphasising reflexivity, reciprocity, and sustained accountability throughout the research lifecycle.

Ultimately, relational knowledge generation offers a transformative shift in educational research practice, moving from detached categorisation towards relational accountability, from isolated interpretation towards collective co-generation of meaning and knowledge, and from methodological dominance towards epistemic pluralism. This shift is critical as education research continues to embrace genuinely decolonising practices that honour the inherent rights of Indigenous peoples to define their own analytic traditions, interpretive protocols, and relational epistemologies.

Looking forward, ongoing research must continue to explore how kincentric, digital, land-based, and community-led analytic frameworks can further support Indigenous resurgence, uphold data sovereignty, and sustain culturally rooted forms of relational knowledge generation. Through sustained relational commitment, humility, and reciprocal learning, researchers can contribute meaningfully towards more just, ethical, sustainable, and community-centred research futures.

4.6 Key Takeaways

1. (1) Data analysis in kincentric and relational methodologies shifts from extraction to knowledge generation rooted in responsibility and reciprocity.

2. (2) Conventional analytic practices risk abstraction and erasure of relational and land-based contexts.

3. (3) Indigenous frameworks such as Dùthchas, Bizindam, and Etuaptmumk provide guidance for relational knowledge generation.

4. (4) Practical strategies include slowing down, co-analysis with communities, iterative feedback, and recognising land as a knowledge-holder.

5. (5) Analysis is itself a site of accountability, requiring reflexivity and ethical responsibility.

5.1 Reflexivity in Education Research: Gaps and Necessity

While reflexivity is widely discussed in qualitative methodology, explicit and sustained reflexivity in education research using Indigenous, kincentric, and relational methodologies remains limited. A recent review of Yarning – a conversational method rooted in Aboriginal Australian traditions and protocols (see also Section 4.2.1) – found that, across numerous education and health-related studies, only half of the publications involved Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander researchers in data collection, and less than a quarter in analysis. Crucially, most of those studies failed to report researcher positionality or reflexive practice – even when using Indigenous methods (Kennedy et al., Reference Kennedy, Maddox and Booth2022). This gap underscores how critical reflexivity is in educational research contexts and reaffirms the necessity of a kincentric and relational approach where researcher positioning is explicitly acknowledged and negotiated.

5.2 Reflexivity in Kincentric and Relational Methodologies

Reflexivity within kincentric frameworks extends beyond personal awareness. It is a relational act, requiring the researcher to position themselves in webs of kinship, land, and community responsibility. This approach rejects the detached, ‘objective’ observer-researcher dynamic and instead foregrounds a commitment to:

1. (1) Accountability to all relations (human and more-than-human) (Wilson, Reference Wilson2001, Reference Wilson2008)

2. (2) Recognition of self-in-relation to the research context (Graveline, Reference Graveline1998)

3. (3) Reciprocity in the knowledge exchange process

4. (4) Humility and willingness to be transformed by the research journey

In kincentric and relational approaches, reflexivity is not a one-off ‘positionality statement’ in a methodology section – it is a continuous cycle of reflection, action, feedback, and adaptation that actively informs and is integral to the research process (Figure 4).

Figure 4

Kincentric and relational reflexivity cycle.

5.3 Navigating Positionality: A Gael Researcher in an Anishinaabe Context

Drawing on my own research experiences, I reflect on navigating my positionality as a Scottish Gael – Indigenous to the Scottish Highlands and Islands – conducting research with participants from an Anishinaabe community in Canada. I am not Indigenous to Turtle Island (also known as North and Central America), and my role in this context required careful consideration of ‘insider–outsider’ dynamics, cultural and community protocols, and my own responsibilities to self, family, ancestors, and more-than-human relations (see Sections 1 and 2; Wilson, Reference Wilson2001).

My reflexive process was shaped by:

1. (1) Shared histories and understandings of language loss and reclamation between Scottish Gaelic and Anishinaabemowin, which strengthened kinship and ethical relations but did not erase difference.

2. (2) Participation in ceremony and language learning, such as an Anishinaabemowin course with Elder Barbara Nolan, prior to formal research.

3. (3) Engagement with Biskaabiiyang (“Return to Ourselves”; Geniusz, Reference Geniusz2009) as a framework for self-decolonisation

4. (4) Operationalising Dùthchas as both an ethical stance and methodology

5.4 Ethical Challenges in Kincentric and Relational Education Research

In the field of Indigenous education, reflexivity is increasingly recognised as core to ethical method design (e.g., Fitzpatrick & May, Reference Fitzpatrick and May2022). For instance, reflexive autoethnographic researchers studying positionality in First Nations contexts in Canada have emphasised that researchers carry their subjective, cultural ‘traces’ into the field. By reflecting on these traces, they not only recognised biases but also repositioned themselves within relational obligations (Evans, Reference Evans2023). Similarly, research on navigating ‘insider–outsider’ roles in education emphasises that positionality and reflexivity are not optional; it is essential for maintaining ethical clarity and validity, where insider-outsider positions are fluid and context-bound rather than binary (Katyal & King, Reference Katyal and King2014; Yip, Reference Yip2024).

Conducting research when you are not Indigenous to the communities and the lands on which you work brings important ethical challenges and considerations:

1. (1) Power dynamics between researcher and community

2. (2) The expectations of academic institutions compared to community needs

3. (3) Misalignment between dominant Western IRB protocols and Indigenous ethical frameworks

4. (4) Risks of extractive knowledge production

For example, IRB processes may often focus on individual consent forms alone, while Indigenous ethics prioritise collective consent, data sovereignty, and relational accountability. Negotiating these differences requires both advocacy within institutional structures and a commitment to community-led decision-making.

5.5 Reflexivity as Long-Term Commitment

Reflexivity is inseparable from long-term relational accountability (Wilson, Reference Wilson2001). In kincentric and relational research, relationships extend beyond the project timeline; the researcher remains connected to the community through follow-up, continued knowledge exchange, and supporting community goals.

5.6 Reflexivity Tools for Education Researchers

To translate these principles into concrete action, researchers can draw upon a set of adaptable reflexivity tools. Table 9 below summarises a non-exhaustive range of approaches – from personal journaling to community-led feedback loops – that embed reflexivity as a living practice throughout the research process. These tools are not prescriptive checklists but adaptable prompts that can be reshaped according to cultural protocols, community expectations, and the evolving context of the work.

One way to evidence and strengthen reflexivity is to maintain an audit trail that documents how positionality, decision-making, and ethical commitments evolved over time (see also Section 3.6.2). Table 10 below offers an example from the TEK-nology project (Section 3), illustrating how each action was informed by community guidance, grounded in specific protocols, and linked to tangible community benefits. While each research context will differ, researchers can adapt this trail to their own contexts and circumstances.

5.7 Reflexivity and Rigour as a Kincentric Practice

Kincentric reflexivity means being accountable to:

1. (1) All relations: human, more-than-human, and land-based

2. (2) Community-defined priorities: research serves community goals, not only academic ones

3. (3) Intergenerational responsibility: today’s choices affect future biocultural continuity

This reframes reflexivity as a relational act rather than a purely self-reflective one. In kincentric approaches, and drawing from the studies and examples in Sections 2, 3, and 4, reflexive rigour in education research is not about reproducibility; it is grounded in:

1. (1) Trustworthiness: built through sustained engagement (such as repeated LRC reviews)

2. (2) Cultural integrity: adherence to protocol (Asemaa; talking circles; Cèilidh)

3. (3) Community validation: findings checked by those who shared the stories

4. (4) Reflexive transparency: an auditable trail of positionality shifts and decisions

5. (5) Ethical embedding: whose knowledge is centred, who benefits, who decides?

6. (6) Ongoing reflexivity: how did the researcher change, and how is that visible?

7. (7) Data sovereignty in practice: OCAP®/CARE honoured.

In this framing, reproducibility yields to relational coherence; neutrality yields to answerability.

5.8 Closing Reflections

As a Gael sociolinguist working in partnership with Anishinaabe communities, my reflexivity was informed by my own experiences of language loss and cultural reclamation. The parallels, and differences, between the Anishinaabemowin and Gàidhlig (Scottish Gaelic) contexts deepened my awareness of how decolonising research in education must prioritise land, language, and community-defined outcomes. My positionality demanded accountability, not only to academic conventions, but to the communities and knowledge systems I am part of. Reflexivity in kincentric and relational education research is not optional; it is the ethical foundation on which the entire project rests.

Reflexivity is profoundly relational and rooted in self-location, historical consciousness, humility, and a commitment to decolonial praxis. Integrated across design, knowledge gathering, knowledge generation, and knowledge sharing (see Sections 3, 4, and 6), reflexivity honours Indigenous sovereignty, sustains long-term relationships, and ensures that educational research is a site of learning, reciprocity, and cultural continuity, rather than extraction.

5.9 Key Takeaways

1. (1) Reflexivity is an ongoing, dialogic process where the researcher and research mutually shape each other.

2. (2) In kincentric and relational methodologies, the researcher is embedded within the research and accountable to more-than-human and community relations.

3. (3) Reflexivity requires constant attention to how identity, worldview, and institutional position influence all stages of the research.

4. (4) Practical strategies include journaling, dialogic reflection, community accountability, and ethical humility.

5. (5) Reflexivity is inseparable from ethical responsibility; it sustains decolonising research as a relational and accountable practice.

6.1 Reframing ‘Findings’ as Relational Knowledge Sharing

Mainstream dissemination channels, such as journal articles, conference presentations, and academic libraries or repositories, tend to privilege Western structures of authority. Search engines often relegate Indigenous knowledges to ‘folklore’ (Meighan, Reference Meighan2021), and those most deeply implicated in the research – the communities themselves – are frequently excluded. Such approaches perpetuate extractive dynamics in which people and communities are treated as research ‘subjects’, not co-curators or co-creators of knowledge (Section 1).

In many Western and positivist research traditions, ‘findings’ are framed as discrete results or objects ‘discovered’ in the field, analysed, and then disseminated for academic consumption (Wilson, Reference Wilson2001). This language mirrors the extractive logics of colonial resource mining – in both physical and digital settings – in which something is ‘found’, removed from its relational context, and ‘owned’ by the finder. As Indigenous (Māori) scholar Smith (Reference Smith2021) reminds us, research has often been ‘one of the dirtiest words in the Indigenous world’s vocabulary’ (p. 1) because of its deep entanglement with colonial extraction and exploitation.

From a kincentric and relational perspective, the very idea of ‘finding’ is problematic. Knowledge does not lie inert, waiting for ‘discovery’. Knowledge is alive, dynamic, and bound in relationships among peoples, lands, waters, and more-than-human kin. Indigenous (Cree) scholar Wilson (Reference Wilson2001) states, ‘an Indigenous paradigm comes from the fundamental belief that knowledge is relational, shared with all creation, and therefore cannot be owned or discovered’. This section therefore reframes ‘findings’, a term common in academic discourse, as knowledge sharing. This reframing aligns with previous sections, which have positioned data collection as knowledge gathering and data analysis as knowledge generation (Figure 5).

Figure 5

Kincentric and relational research cycle.

Kincentric and relational methodologies require dissemination that honours Indigenous knowledge systems, community protocols, and long-term relational accountability. This means centring formats that are accessible, culturally grounded, and community-controlled, aligned with principles of data sovereignty, reciprocity, and kinship.

While much discourse on research with Indigenous and marginalised communities rightly focuses on the harms of extraction, a strengths-based approach also reframes knowledge sharing as an act that builds on existing capacities, resilience, and cultural pride. In the First Nations Information Governance Centre’s (FNIGC, 2020) Strengths-Based Approach framework, community assets – such as language fluency, cultural continuity, and land-based practices – are seen as the foundation for research design, reporting, and application. In relational knowledge sharing, this means asking not only ‘How can we avoid harm?’ but also ‘How can we amplify what is already thriving?’ This aligns with kincentric ethics, ensuring dissemination reinforces intergenerational strengths and supports futures envisioned by the community itself.

The shift is not only semantic, but it is ethical and practical:

1. (1) From extraction to reciprocity – knowledge is shared and received through trust and respect.

2. (2) From ownership to stewardship – knowledge remains embedded in its community of origin.

3. (3) From product to process – knowledge sharing is part of an ongoing cycle of learning, teaching, and relationship-building.

If the community consents, open access is therefore an important practice for relational knowledge sharing. If knowledge is locked behind paywalls or in subscription-only databases, the very communities that shaped it may be excluded. Open access publications, community-controlled repositories, and freely accessible archives – whether digital or physical – are critical to ensuring that knowledge remains with, and usable by, its community of origin. Public libraries, local learning centres, and community media platforms can also serve as dissemination hubs, bypassing barriers imposed by commercial publishers.

Relational reframing also aligns with the Five R’s of Indigenous Research (McGregor et al., Reference McGregor, Restoule and Johnston2018) – Respect, Relevance, Reciprocity, Responsibility, and Relationship – which emphasise that dissemination must benefit the community, not just the academy (see also Section 3). Indigenous data governance frameworks such as the Collective Benefit, Authority to Control, Responsibility, Ethics Principles (CARE) affirm that communities must approve and control how knowledge is stored, shared, and applied. Knowledge sharing is never automatic nor assumed; research participants decide whether and how it occurs. This is particularly important to prevent further data mining and extraction from Indigenous and minoritised peoples and their communities.

This section will therefore explore how research can be shared in ways that honour Indigenous knowledge systems, kin, existing relationships, and promote community impact. It will propose alternative models of knowledge sharing, including community reports, oral presentations, accessible online open education resources, and digital storytelling. Drawing on case studies in this Element and other examples from education research, it will share tools and insights that support kincentric and relational approaches to knowledge sharing.

6.2 Relational Knowledge Sharing: Applications and Examples

Indigenous and relational knowledge sharing and mobilisation research emphasise context, transparency, and mutually beneficial processes and outcomes. Hutchinson et al. (Reference Hutchinson, McIlduff and Legare2023) provide a framework for making knowledge visible on a community’s own terms, acknowledging that these terms differ among Indigenous peoples, and embedding accountability and relational ethics throughout. Context is vital, and they caution against ‘the colonial practice of adopting a pan-Indigenous approach’, which ignores heterogeneity and silences individual voices (p. 911). In the Inuit context, Pufall et al. (Reference Pufall, Jones and McEwen2011) found that culturally preferred forms of knowledge sharing, such as story circles, community workshops, and visually rich presentations, produced deeper engagement than conventional academic products.

6.3 Models and Strategies for Relational Knowledge Sharing

Table 11 presents dissemination modes and strategies as acts of relational knowledge sharing rather than mere academic ‘outputs’. These approaches emerged both from my own projects and from wider Indigenous and community-based research practice. They are non-exhaustive; each community will have its own preferred and culturally grounded forms of sharing. The aim is not to prescribe but to provide adaptable models that can be combined, modified, or expanded, depending on the research context, community priorities, and cultural protocols.

6.4 Knowledge Sharing as Ongoing Relationship

Relational knowledge sharing is not the ‘final stage’ of research. In kincentric and relational methodologies, it is an ongoing cycle that often begins before formal knowledge gathering and continues long after the project’s close. In this approach, knowledge sharing is inseparable from the relationships that sustain it.

In practice, this can mean:

1. (1) Regular feedback loops – sharing drafts, media, or early findings for community review.

2. (2) Iterative consent – checking at each stage if certain knowledge can be made public or should remain within the community.

3. (3) Co-authorship and co-presentation – inviting community members to present at conferences or be named authors on publications, ensuring recognition is shared.

4. (4) Embedded exchange – Treating knowledge sharing as part of everyday interactions, whether at community gatherings, school events, or cultural ceremonies, so that it remains woven into local life.

This approach reframes dissemination as reciprocal rather than transactional, not a handover of ‘results’ but a continued dialogue that allows knowledge to live, adapt, and grow with the community.

6.5 Navigating Institutional Expectations

Relational knowledge sharing often sits uneasily alongside the performance metrics and output requirements of academic institutions. Universities, funders, and publishers frequently prioritise peer-reviewed articles, high-impact journals, and quantitative measures (citations, downloads) over community-defined impact. This can create tension when community protocols call for slower timelines, non-conventional academic formats, or restrictions on public release.

Common tensions include:

1. (1) Access versus prestige – Journals with high prestige may be paywalled, excluding the very communities that shaped the research.

2. (2) Control versus Intellectual Property (IP) frameworks – University IP policies may assume that the institution ‘owns’ outputs, conflicting with Indigenous data sovereignty.

3. (3) Speed versus relationship – Institutional timelines for ‘deliverables’ often conflict with the slower, consent-based pace of relational work.

Possible strategies to navigate these tensions include:

1. (1) Advocate early – In ethics applications and funding proposals, clearly state that non-conventional academic artefacts – such as infographics, community videos, podcasts, or bilingual OERs – are legitimate and essential forms of dissemination.

2. (2) Reframe ‘impact’ – Position community benefit (e.g., language revitalisation, cultural continuity, strengthened kinship ties) as a primary measure of success, alongside conventional metrics.

3. (3) Pair outputs – Publish academic articles alongside companion materials – such as community reports, open-access videos, or in-person workshops – so both institutional and community needs are met.

4. (4) Negotiate IP clauses – Work with legal and research offices to ensure contracts recognise community ownership and stewardship of knowledge.

By building these strategies into project proposals and budgets, researchers can create space for community-prioritised dissemination and knowledge sharing while still fulfilling institutional requirements.

In some contexts, communities choose to ‘braid’ or bridge Indigenous and Western knowledge systems to meet diverse audience needs without diluting cultural integrity, such as through Two-Eyed Seeing (Bartlett et al., Reference Bartlett, Marshall and Marshall2012; see also Section 2.5). This ‘braiding’ is not a merging into a single strand, but a respectful intertwining where each knowledge system retains its identity and authority (Chiblow, Reference Chiblow2021). For example, a bilingual report might embed traditional stories alongside statistical analyses, allowing each to stand on its own terms while informing the other. Such approaches can be reinforced by aligning with emerging policy frameworks, such as the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (TCPS2) Section 9 in Canada, the AIATSIS Code of Ethics in Australia, or the CARE Principles internationally, that mandate community control, consent, and culturally grounded dissemination. Positioning relational knowledge sharing within these policy shifts strengthens its legitimacy within institutional settings while keeping it firmly rooted in community priorities.

6.6 Reflecting Long-Term Accountability in Practice and Reporting

Relational knowledge sharing is not completed when a paper is published or a resource is uploaded. In kincentric and relational research, accountability continues beyond the life of a grant or project. This long-term responsibility means planning for the care, renewal, and governance of shared knowledge, so it remains alive and relevant to the community that shaped it.

Barriers to sustaining accountability can include:

1. (1) Limited digital infrastructure in communities for hosting and maintaining resources.

2. (2) Funding models that focus on short-term deliverables rather than ongoing stewardship.

3. (3) Researcher mobility – when project leads move institutions or regions, relationships can stall if no continuity plan exists.

Strategies for long-term accountability include:

1. (1) Build intergenerational relationships – Engage youth, Elders, language speakers, and knowledge keepers so knowledge sharing remains rooted in multiple generations.

2. (2) Embed training and protocols – Equip community members with skills and tools to update and adapt materials independently, from editing subtitles to uploading new recordings.

3. (3) Design for low-barrier access – Offer offline formats (e.g., printed storyboards, USB drives, local screenings) alongside online materials to overcome connectivity gaps.

4. (4) Plan for resource renewal – Schedule updates as language, education needs, or cultural contexts change. This may mean returning annually to share adaptations or co-create new content.

5. (5) Support local community capacity – Invest in equipment, software, and training so communities maintain agency over its knowledge and control their own media production, archiving, and educational dissemination.

Reporting itself becomes a relational act when:

1. (1) Reflexive narratives centring community voices and acknowledging their decision-making roles.

2. (2) Transparent documentation of how dissemination decisions were made (e.g., audit trails, accountability journals as discussed in Section 5).

3. (3) Evidence of relational transformation – Sharing not just ‘outputs’ but how the dissemination process reshaped relationships, responsibilities, and mutual trust.

6.7 Closing Reflections

Reframing dissemination from ‘reporting findings’ to relational knowledge sharing changes not only the language of research but its ethics, priorities, and practices. It affirms that:

1. (1) Knowledge belongs with, and remains accountable to, its community of origin and those who shared or informed it in the first place.

2. (2) The process of sharing is inseparable from the process of building and sustaining relationships.

3. (3) The most meaningful ‘impact’ is measured not in academic recognition but in community benefit, cultural continuity, and strengthened kinship ties.

In kincentric and relational research, dissemination becomes a living practice, designed not only to inform but to teach, connect, and sustain. This means:

1. (1) Co-designing with communities so outputs reflect their priorities, languages, and worldviews.

2. (2) Ensuring accessibility through open access, multilingual formats, and culturally grounded presentation styles.

3. (3) Recognising technology as relational, capable of strengthening cultural sovereignty when used accountably, or perpetuating harm when deployed without consent and context.

Emerging technologies – such as digital storytelling, interactive media, and Artificial intelligence (AI) – offer powerful ways to create embodied, land-rooted forms of sharing. But these tools must always be shaped by community governance, not institutional convenience, ensuring they are accountable to the peoples and lands from which the knowledge comes.

In both the TEK-nology project and the South Uist Gaelic oral tradition research, knowledge sharing and dissemination are a form of education, rooted in language, culture, and relationships. Co-created videos, oral narratives, infographics, and bilingual OERs were not merely outputs in the conventional academic sense; they were living practices that continued to teach, inspire, and connect. In this way, knowledge sharing is not the end of the story; it is an ongoing conversation carried forward by those with whom we share responsibility, moving beyond traditional academic dissemination towards relational, culturally sustaining practices that remain accountable to kinship networks.

6.8 Key Takeaways

1. (1) Dissemination framed as ‘findings’ risks perpetuating extractive logics rooted in colonial traditions.

2. (2) A kincentric and relational approach reframes dissemination as knowledge sharing, recognising knowledge as embedded in relationships.

3. (3) Mainstream academic channels privilege Western authority; decolonising dissemination requires diverse, community-centred pathways.

4. (4) Practical strategies include prioritising community access, respecting Indigenous data sovereignty, and balancing academic with creative and community-led formats.

5. (5) Dissemination is not the end of research but part of an ongoing cycle of relationship, accountability, and reciprocity.

7.1 Decolonising Education Research as Relational Praxis

This Element has introduced and illustrated the possibilities of kincentric and relational methodologies for decolonising research practices in education. Across six sections, it has demonstrated how Indigenous concepts – such as Gaelic Dùthchas (land-based belonging and ethical responsibility) and Càirdeas (kinship), Anishinaabe Bizindam (deep listening), and Mi’kmaq Etuaptmumk (Two-Eyed Seeing) – provide not only theoretical insights but also practical frameworks for reshaping how research is designed, conducted, and shared. The Element shows how Indigenous worldviews function as methodological anchors for ethical practice. These are not add-ons to mainstream research; they are foundational to community-led education.

Section 1 grounds the work in self-location and reflexivity; Section 2 reorients planning through Indigenous criteria of ‘quality’; Section 3 reframes ‘data collection’ as knowledge gathering within protocol and reciprocity; Section 4 advances knowledge generation through Dùthchas, Bizindam, and Two-Eyed Seeing; Section 5 deepens reflexivity as relational accountability and data sovereignty; Section 6 repositions findings as knowledge sharing led by community priorities and relational technology.

A consistent theme throughout the Element is that research cannot be reduced to a technical process of extraction, analysis, and reporting. Rather, it is an ongoing, ethical, and relational practice situated in webs of kinship with peoples, lands, knowledges, languages, and more-than-human relations. By grounding research in relational accountability, reflexivity, and Indigenous knowledge sovereignty – and aligning with the Five R’s (Respect, Relevance, Reciprocity, Responsibility, Relationship) – this Element argues for more just, inclusive, and community-led practices. By bridging Indigenous and non-Indigenous research traditions, it calls for a future where educational research is accountable, relational, and life-affirming. A key contribution is the reframing of conventional mainstream research stages into kincentric and relational practices (Figure 5):

1. (1) Data collection → Knowledge gathering

2. (2) Data analysis → Knowledge generation

3. (3) Research ‘findings’ and dissemination → Knowledge sharing

Additional contributions include:

1. (1) Foregrounding Indigenous epistemologies and methodologies: not supplementary to mainstream approaches but essential alternatives that shift the centre of educational research.

2. (2) Reframing data and analysis: Bizindam and Dùthchas demonstrate that knowledge is dynamic, contextual, and ethically entangled.

3. (3) Emphasising researcher reflexivity and ethical responsibilities: Positionality is not an afterthought but a constant negotiation of accountability, evidenced through audit trails and member-checking.

4. (4) Reimagining dissemination: Sharing knowledge is not merely about producing ‘findings’ but returning, co-curating, and sustaining knowledge in ways that honour community protocols and data sovereignty.

Together, these insights offer a framework that is simultaneously theoretical and practical. For scholars and practitioners, the invitation is to approach educational research as a kincentric practice and as an enactment of relationality and ethical responsibility across human and more-than-human worlds.

This Element contributes to the growing embodiment of decolonising methodologies in education by operationalising kincentric and relational approaches in practical ways. It offers a methodological pathway – especially for researchers who are not Indigenous to the lands on which they work – to engage ethically, relationally, and accountably with Indigenous and minoritised communities. Across the Element, the argument is consistent: decolonising educational research is not merely a change in methods; it is a centring of Indigenous philosophies of education and a re-making of relationships among researchers, communities, lands, languages, and more-than-human kin.

7.2 Methodological Contributions

This Element complements existing decolonising scholarship by detailing how to enact kincentric and relational methodologies in education:

1. (1) It shows research in practice through Anishinaabe (TEK-nology) and Gaelic (South Uist) case studies.

2. (2) It demonstrates how knowledge gathering, generation, and sharing replace extractive logics of ‘collect–analyse–publish’ and ‘publish or perish’.

3. (3) It centres relational accountability – to communities, lands, and more-than-human kin – as a criterion of rigour.

7.3 Implications for Educational Research

7.4 Policy, Practice, and Future Research

7.5 Final Reflections: Towards Kincentric and Relational Futures

Decolonising education research is an iterative, relational journey, not an ‘end point’. To be decolonising, research must centre Indigenous philosophies of education and be accountable to ongoing relationships with communities, lands, languages, and future generations. By foregrounding the importance of Indigenous frameworks, this Element offers a methodological pathway for more ethical, relational, and accountable research. By reframing inquiry as kinship work, we make space for futures where Indigenous knowledge systems are central to collective flourishing for all humans and more-than-humans.

The pathways offered herein are situated and contextual. Adapt them under local leadership and protocol, with care and respect for the lands, waters, peoples, languages, cultures, and relations in which research is embedded. Educational research must listen deeply and act humbly and respectfully, treating knowledge not as property to own but as kin to care for.

The pathways illustrate that: (1) decolonising research practice is not an ‘add-on’ ethic; it is a shift from extractive knowledge production to kincentric, land-accountable relational praxis; and (2) research ‘rigour’ is respecified and reimagined through community-grounded credibility, relational accountability, and governance over knowledge gathering, generation, and sharing.

7.6 Key Takeaways from Element

1. (1) Research as relationship: Centre kinship, reciprocity, and accountability over extraction or abstraction.

2. (2) From ‘data’ to knowledge: Practice knowledge gathering, knowledge generation, and knowledge sharing in place of collect/analyse/findings.

3. (3) Indigenous concepts and knowledges as central: Dùthchas, Càirdeas, and Bizindam show knowledge as living and relational; Two-Eyed-Seeing supports ethical bridging.

4. (4) Rigour redefined: Evaluate by relational accountability, cultural integrity, community validation and benefit.

5. (5) Ethical researcher positionality: Reflexivity and accountability are essential to decolonising research practices, evidenced through audit trails and member-checking.

6. (6) Sovereignty and stewardship: Honour Indigenous data sovereignty; treat dissemination as pedagogy that returns to, and remains in community (open access where consented).

7. (7) Bridging knowledge systems: Valuing Indigenous and non-Indigenous knowledge traditions in dialogue, without assimilation or hierarchy.

8. (8) Relational technology: Use digital tools as accountable, community-governed pedagogies, not as neutral.

9. (9) Situated, not universal: This framework is offered from an Indigenous Gaelic perspective for context-specific adaptation, not as a universal blueprint.

10. (10) Transforming education: Education as a practice that is accountable to communities, lands, and more-than-human kin.

7.7 Practical Guide: Implementing Kincentric and Relational Methodologies

This guide synthesises the Practical Notes from each section into an accessible framework. It is intended to support researchers, educators, and community partners in applying kincentric and relational methodologies in practice. It is situated and non-prescriptive and must be adapted to adhere to local cultural protocols, community needs, and community leadership.

7.8 Glossary

Anishinaabemowin:

The Anishinaabe language

Bizindam (Anishinaabe):

Deep listening (Chiblow, Reference Chiblow2021); an interpretive stance of reciprocal attentiveness and contextual accountability during knowledge gathering and analysis.

Bizindaage / Ozhibii’igi / Naanaagadawendam / Nisidotaagwad (Anishinaabemowin) – ‘I listen / I write / I consider-reflect / It is understood’:

iterative phases of qualitative Anishinaabek analysis (Chiblow, Reference Chiblow2021) used alongside reflexive thematic analysis.

Biskaabiiyang (Anishinaabe):

‘Return to ourselves’ (Geniusz, Reference Geniusz2009): a decolonising, participatory framework that begins with researcher self-decolonisation and alignment with community protocols.

CARE Principles:

Collective benefit, Authority to control, Responsibility, Ethics: global Indigenous data governance standards complementing FAIR/open science.

Càirdeas (Gaelic):

Kinship/friendship; the ethic of relational presence, hospitality, and mutual care shaping collaboration and interpretation.

Cèilidh (Gaelic):

A visit/gathering; used here as a conversational, story-rich method for co-generating knowledge.

Dùthchas (Gaelic):

Land-rooted belonging, kinship, responsibility, and ecological balance (Meighan, Reference Meighan2022a); used here as both onto-epistemology and methodology guiding ethical relations.

Etuaptmumk (Two-Eyed Seeing) (Mi’kmaq):

Seeing with the strengths of Indigenous and Western knowledges together, without assimilating one into the other (Bartlett et al., Reference Bartlett, Marshall and Marshall2012); an ethical bridge for co-interpretation.

Gàidhlig:

The Gaelic language.

Indigenous data sovereignty:

The right of Indigenous Peoples to govern how data/knowledge are collected, stored, accessed, interpreted, and shared.

Kincentric:

A worldview and method that treats humans, land, waters, and more-than-human beings as interrelated kin; research proceeds through those relations.

Knowledge gathering (in place of ‘data collection’):

Relational, ethical, situated co-creation of knowledge shaped by land, language, story, ceremony, and community priorities.

Knowledge generation (in place of ‘data analysis’):

Relational meaning-making through storywork, dialogue, and protocol-guided interpretation; context is preserved rather than abstracted.

Knowledge sharing (in place of ‘findings/dissemination’):

Community-led, culturally grounded circulation of knowledge (e.g., OER, oral presentations, screenings) that returns benefits and sustains relationships.

Land:

From an Indigenous perspective, includes lands, waters, and spirits. Not an inanimate commodity but a living, spiritual entity encompassing humans, non-humans, and more-than-humans; a relation and teacher.

Land-based (learning/practice):

Education/research undertaken with land as a living relation and teacher, guided by local protocols and ecologies rather than treating land as a neutral site.

Language:

Not merely a decontextualised tool for communication; a vital transmitter of culture and specialised place-based knowledge (e.g., medicinal knowledge).

Mino-bimaadiziwin (Anishinaabe):

‘The Good Life’ (McGregor et al., Reference McGregor, Restoule and Johnston2018): orienting research towards respectful, balanced living in relation to community and place.

More-than-human:

Beings other than humans (e.g., animals, plants, waters, lands, spirits, ancestors) recognised as relations and knowledge-holders within research.

OCAP® (Canada):

Ownership, Control, Access, Possession: First Nations principles guiding data governance and community authority.

Place-based (learning/practice):

Grounded in a specific geographic place/space with its own cultural, social, and ecological dimensions (e.g., knowledge of a particular ecosystem in a particular place).

Reflexivity:

Ongoing, dialogic self-location and accountability: tracking how identity, power, and relationships shape decisions; evidenced via journals, audit trails, and community feedback.

Relational accountability:

Being answerable to all relations (human and more-than-human) (Wilson, Reference Wilson2001) across design, gathering, interpretation, and sharing; requires reciprocity, consent, and ongoing care.

Relational technology:

Digital processes and platforms adapted to community protocols (control, consent, context, access), used to co-create, host, and steward knowledge (Meighan, Reference Meighan2022c).