CHAPTER 3: Methodology
3.7 Evaluating the methodology
3.7.1 Weaknesses
The greatest weakness in the methodology was undoubtedly the limited amount of time that I was able to spend on the Kainai Reserve conducting the empirical research. Although a great deal was accomplished in terms of data collection during the total of seven weeks that I spent in the field, it is my opinion that much more could have been achieved had I been able to carry out the field work over a longer period of time. I take this view based on certain
53 practical issues that arose during both visits to the field. It was often very difficult, for example, to contact people and make arrangements for me to interview them, because they were out of town, busy with work or other social commitments, or experiencing ill health.
Sometimes, repeated attempts to get in touch with certain individuals before leaving the field were unsuccessful; had I been able to remain there for longer, however, my chances of eventually meeting with them would probably have improved.
Perhaps a greater disadvantage, however, was the fact that that I did not have enough time to build relationships with the elders during my brief visits to the community. In §3.3, I explained the importance in Niitsitapi culture of consulting with the elders with respect to seeking knowledge, and how this applies in a research context. A very important aspect of working with the elders in the local setting is that the student, or learner (that is, the researcher), makes an effort to develop reciprocal relationships with those elders whom he or she approaches for instruction, advice, and/or information. Niitsitapi scholar, Betty Bastien (2004:55-56), writes that “[k]nowledge arises in a context of alliances and reciprocal relationships…[t]o seek knowledge means to establish and maintain relationships—the essence of the normative order of Niitsitapi.” In terms of these relationships, students may, for instance, perform chores, or purchase gifts of tobacco, clothing, and/or food, for elders, in exchange for shared knowledge. In retrospect, I think that had I been able to carry out each stage of the field work over a longer period of time, I would probably have had greater opportunity to build these kinds of relationships with some of the elders in the Kainai Reserve community. This might perhaps have been a more appropriate approach, given cultural expectations as to how knowledge transfer should be handled.
My lack of proficiency in Niitsi’powahsin also represented somewhat of a limitation in the methodology, particularly with respect to the empirical work. Although all of the elders with whom I conducted interviews could speak English to some degree, there were a number of others whom I did not approach to participate in the study because I was told beforehand that they spoke only Niitsi’powahsin. On one occasion I was able to meet with a non-English speaking lady of over ninety years of age, thanks to a family member who offered to interpret, but this was an exceptional case. Had I worked with an interpreter on a regular basis throughout my visits, I could probably have interviewed at least three or four more elders in the community. Financial limitations, however, prevented me from adopting this strategy.
54 3.7.2 Advantages of the methodology
The decision to incorporate traditional Niitsitapi knowledge into an analytical framework which facilitates the interpretation of data from a Niitsitapi perspective, enabled me to expand the focus of the research in terms of the issues, or questions, which the latter initially set out to address (§1.1). For example, in the very early stages of the project, that is, before the first round of field work had been carried out, I had made the tentative assumption—based at that point on what I had read in the literature, as well as on informal conversations that I had held with certain collaborators in the field—that Niitsitapi personal names function as mnemonic gestalts, through which certain aspects of traditional Niitsitapi culture are remembered and passed down between successive generations. However, as the work progressed, and particularly after having listened very carefully to what participants in the study had shared with me during the first field trip undertaken in October/November of 2005, I began to realise that, although the names do indeed appear to possess mnemonic features, they also seem to constitute an important, dynamic element in the everyday practice of traditional Niitsitapi ways of living, with close connections to many other aspects of the culture; they are not, in other words, only about “memory”. Thus, had I not paid close attention to what local sources were telling me, and continued to concentrate only on verifying my initial assumption, I might well have missed the opportunity to explore those aspects of Niitsitapi naming phenomena that have ultimately contributed to the provision of a more comprehensive account of the role of names and naming practices in Niitsitapi culture, than a narrower focus would have allowed.
Another advantageous aspect of the methodology has been the close collaboration between me and people (particularly my mentors) in the Kainai community. One vital aspect of this collaborative effort has been the co-supervision of the project at the local level, which has enabled me to maintain a focus on expressing the Niitsitapi perspective concerning personal names and naming practices; in a way that conforms to local expectations as to how such expression should be made. In addition, this collaboration has allowed me to consistently verify my explanations of the subject matter with my advisors in the field (§3.6). Having my analysis reviewed by members of the Kainai Reserve community has, hopefully, provided a safeguard against the possibility of my having misinterpreted the information that the Niitsitapi people have entrusted to me, as well as ensured authenticity in the account of Niitsitapi names and naming practices that is presented in this dissertation.
55 A further strength in the research, particularly when considered from a Niitsitapi viewpoint, is that I have been given a Blackfoot name see Appendix 2), and thus the benefit of the embodied experience of those things which I have been pursuing knowledge about, whilst carrying out my study (§4.2). Embodiment, expressed in Niitsi’powahsin as aistomatoo’p ‘it is done to our bodies/beings’, is a central concept in Niitsitapi epistemology. The underlying idea is that a person cannot really ‘know’ about something unless it has become a part of them, in other words, unless they have experienced for themselves what that particular thing is all about. In terms of this philosophy, then, since I have gone through the process of receiving a Niitsitapi name, I have earned the right to speak about the things that are involved in that process; and this infuses my research with a great deal of integrity, from a local as well as scholarly, perspective.