Social Inclusion, 2016, Volume 4, Issue 1, Pages 77-91 77

Social Inclusion (ISSN: 2183-2803)

2016, Volume 4, Issue 1, Pages 77-91

Doi: 10.17645/si.v4i1.436

Article

More Than a Checklist: Meaningful Indigenous Inclusion in Higher

Education

riginal peoples participation and success in Canadian higher education; however disparity continues to be evident in na-

tional statistics of educational attainment, social determinants of health, and socio-economic status of Aboriginal com-

pared to non-Aboriginal Canadians. For instance, post-secondary attainment for Aboriginal peoples is still only 8%

compared to 20% of the rest of Canada (Statistics Canada, 2008, 2013). A challenge within higher education has been

creating the space within predominately Euro-Western defined and ascribed structures, academic disciplines, policies,

and practices to create meaningful spaces for Indigenous peoples. Indigenization is a movement centering Indigenous

knowledges and ways of being within the academy, in essence transforming institutional initiatives, such as policy, cur-

ricular and co-curricular programs, and practices to support Indigenous success and empowerment. Drawing on re-

search projects that span the last 10 years, this article celebrates the pockets of success within institutions and identi-

fies areas of challenge to Indigenization that moves away from the tokenized checklist response, that merely tolerates

Australia, Australia), Waikaremoana Waitoki (University of Waikato, New Zealand), Rose LeMay (Wharerātā Group,

Canada) and Linda Waimarie Nikora (University of Waikato, New Zealand).

© 2016 by the author; licensee Cogitatio (Lisbon, Portugal). This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribu-

tion 4.0 International License (CC BY).

1. Introduction

Higher education has a responsibility to Indigenization,

that is, to empower Indigenous self-determination, ad-

dress decolonization, and reconcile systemic and socie-

tal inequalities between Indigenous and non-

riginal peoples have some form of a post-secondary

credential compared to 20% of non-Aboriginal Canadi-

ans) (Statistics Canada, 2008, 2013). This educational

disparity has repercussions to the individual, their

families, and communities as lower educational at-

tainment negatively impacts one’s socio-economic sta-

tus, health, and overall wellbeing. In thinking of what it

means to have a truly socially inclusive society within

the Canadian context, systemic barriers and inequities,

along with other barriers to social inclusion (e.g., dis-

crimination, racism, etc.) need to be addressed. In this

Social Inclusion, 2016, Volume 4, Issue 1, Pages 77-91 78

Indigenous higher education began in the 1960s

with the establishment of Native Education and Native

Studies programs in public universities (Battiste &

Barman, 1995; Brant Castellano, Davis, & Lahache,

2000; Stonechild, 2006) and later the development of

Cox, 2005). While this article is focusing on public non-

Indigenous institutions, it is important to acknowledge

the early leaders in Indigenous post-secondary institu-

tions who were the Gabrielle Dumont Institute (est.

1980) in Saskatchewan (Dorion & Yang, 2000) and the

Nicola Valley Institute of Technology (est. 1982) in Brit-

ish Columbia (Billy Minnibarriet, 2012).

Indigenization as a discourse through academic

writing and research emerged the early 2000s

(Mihesuah & Wilson, 2004) and has increased in scope

The purpose of this article explores what Indigeni-

zation means through institutional initiatives (e.g., poli-

cy, programs, and practices) that are aimed to support

Indigenous success. To begin, the article provides a

brief overview of the history of Aboriginal engagement

with public post-secondary education and then transi-

tions into exploring how the Indigenization movement

outside the academy. In understanding the landscape

of Indigenization, I situate the work that I have wit-

Barnhardt (1991) on the 4Rs of respect, relevance, re-

ciprocal relationships, and responsibility; the 4Rs be-

come the guiding structure for discussing the tensions

within the Indigenization movement to move institu-

tional approaches away from the tokenized checklist

response that merely tolerates Indigenous

knowledge(s) to one where Indigenous knowledge(s)

are embraced as part of the institutional fabric. The ar-

ticle concludes with questioning and providing a re-

sponse to: What does an Indigenized institution look

First Nations and Inuit kindergarten to grade 12 (or

equivalent) is a federal responsibility as dictated

through the Indian Act 1876 (and amendments) and

while initially concerned with on-reserve schools now

includes transfer payments to the provincial public sys-

tem for Aboriginal students who attend off-reserve

relationship with the federal government in terms of

education provision (Dorion & Yang, 2000). This rela-

tionship changed once legal changes to s.35 of the Ca-

nadian Constitution 1982 recognized the unique cul-

ture and rights of Métis peoples. Gabriel Dumont

Institute, established in 1980, was Canada’s first Métis

post-secondary institution that “focused on the educa-

tion through cultural research as a way of renewing

and strengthening the heritage and achievement of

Métis and non-status Indian peoples in Saskatchewan”

legally responsible for the post-secondary education of

Indigenous peoples (Battiste & Barman, 1995; Paquette

& Fallon, 2014; Royal Commission on Aboriginal

Peoples, 1996). Under the guise of social responsibility

(rather than legal), the federal government began

providing more support programs through federal

funding for access programs, some academic initia-

tives, and financial support programs for First Nations

learners, who were under the jurisdiction of the Indian

Act, starting in 1970s to 1990s (Human Capital

Nations) in 1972, remains a corner stone in the articu-

lation of First Nations visions for education. This docu-

ment was an Indigenous response to the federal gov-

ernments’ White Paper, a proposed policy that aimed

to change the nature of the relationship and responsi-

bilities of the federal government to First Nations peo-

ples. Indian Control over Indian Education clearly posi-

tioned the role of education across the lifespan (e.g.,

from early childhood to post-graduate education) for

First Nations peoples in Canada (National Indian

gage with Indigenization of higher education (Pidgeon,

Muñoz, Kirkness, & Archibald, 2013). Building on this

history, we have seen the emergence and recent re-

surgence in Indigenized-programs and services and In-

digenous-specific post-secondary institutions across

the country (Association of Universities and Colleges of

Social Inclusion, 2016, Volume 4, Issue 1, Pages 77-91 79

Canada (AUCC), 2010; Human Capital Strategies, 2005;

Pidgeon, 2005, 2014; The Aboriginal Institutes'

Consortium, 2005; Usher, 2009).

In many ways, Canada is in a unique moment in his-

tory as the national gaze has focused on the complexity

attention is influenced by the grassroots and communi-

ty based advocacy such as the Idle No More Movement

(e.g., http://www.idlenomore.ca) and the calls for a na-

tional inquiry for the missing and murdered Aboriginal

women (e.g., http://canadians.org/sites/default/files/

publications/missing-women-factsheet.pdf). Further to

this, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) of

Canada bought the nation together to witness, reflect,

and react to the cultural genocide experienced by Abo-

riginal peoples and the ongoing intergenerational lega-

Indigenization of higher education is part of this

reconciliation and to move forward, all involved- Abo-

riginal and non-Aboriginal need to consider what In-

digenization means. For example, as Indigenous re-

searchers, faculty members, students, Elders, and staff

bringing our knowledges, practices, and ways of being

into this colonial space must honors and respects who

we are as Indigenous peoples. Non-Aboriginals seeking

this “Indigenization” of their institutions must under-

stand what Indigenization really means, and that In-

3. Indigenization: What Does It Really Mean?

From Indigenous perspectives, Indigenization of the

academy refers to the meaningful inclusion of Indige-

presence of Indigenous/Aboriginal peoples and the val-

id contribution of Indigenous knowledge” (para. 1).

Mihesuah and Wilson’s (2004) Indigenizing the Acade-

my: Transforming scholarship and empowering com-

munities is one of the first texts put forward by Indige-

nous scholars who reflect on what it meant to

Indigenize the academy. It clearly laid out the challeng-

es of this process not only ideologically but also practi-

cally from a variety of Indigenous scholars from Canada

and the United States. For example, in his chapter of

the same text, Taiaiake Alfred (2004) reflects on In-

digenizing the academy as a process where “we are

working to change universities so that they become

places where the values, principles, and modes of or-

ganization and behavior of our people are respected in,

of structures and processes that make up the university

itself” (p. 88). Cupples and Glynn (2014) explored what

it meant for a group within Nicaragua’s coast to form

their own decolonized and intercultural university with

the “aim to support political and social struggles with

culturally and epistemologically appropriate modes of

teaching, learning, and research” (Mato, 2011 cited by

Cupples & Glynn, 2014, pp. 56-57). Cupples and Glynn

individual students “but without losing sight of educa-

nous peoples that the academy is just as much our in-

heritance as being part of the land and we have a right

and entitlement to be part of the meaning making of

this world and while we are in these spaces, “we must

not forget to be both responsible and humble” (p. 101)

and to “be generous of spirit, in war as well as in

peace” (p. 103). These recommendations support the

decolonizing work of Marie Battiste (Battiste, 1998;

Battiste, Bell, & Findlay, 2002), who views education as

a tool of decolonization where Indigenous people are

meaningful inclusion of Indigenous knowledge(s) with-

in the academy. Battiste (2013) in calling on educators

to decolonize their pedagogy and practices, provides a

way for us to address cultural misappropriation in our

institutions. This call applies to all involved in higher

education, whether a government bureaucrat, policy

analyst, administrator, faculty, staff, or student, Abo-

riginal or non-Aboriginal. She states:

Social Inclusion, 2016, Volume 4, Issue 1, Pages 77-91 80

There are criticisms of this movement from non-

Indigenous and Indigenous communities, albeit their

arguments come from difference places. The critiques

who are non-indigenous peoples tend to position their

arguments (or questions about or resistance too) In-

cannon of knowledge in which Aboriginal knowledges

are part of- so why does the academy need to In-

digenize? This resistance is particularly strong in aca-

demic disciplines with long colonial legacies and an

unwillingness to alter their thinking. Another group

adopts a multiculturalism stance, where they argue the

inclusion of Indigenous knowledges and practices

means that the academy will have to include all other

groups in society (e.g., race, class, gender). They push

back arguing the work of Indigenizing the academy is

they could make their institutions better for Aboriginal

students they would, but to undertake that task means

that they will have to devolve their power, position,

and prestige to create space for other ways of knowing

and being (Pidgeon, 2008a, 2014).

While criticisms, or cautions, from Indigenous

scholars regarding Indigenization are framed with an

awareness that this movement is occurring within a

deeply seated colonial structure with long histories in

the colonization of Aboriginal peoples and still influenc-

events, programs, and services and misrepresentations

of Indigenous peoples and their cultures (Arndt, 2013;

Jacobs, 2014; King & Springwood, 2001; Lee & Castagno,

2007; Paquette & Fallon, 2014). These Indigenous schol-

ars also inherently recognize these misrepresentations

and forms of resistance perpetuate the colonial project

of “othering” and sustain the inherent systemic racism,

of Indigenous culture and images within society.

Daniel Heath Justice (2004) aptly describes the ten-

However, if the view of the academy is one of “a place

of intellectual engagement, where the world of ideas

can meet action and become lived reality….[It] can also

be a site of significant cultural recovery work, a place

where all people who are disconnected from their his-

tories can begin their journeys homeward” (p. 102). It

is this later view, where Indigenization of the academy

is embodied in the work of Indigenous peoples engag-

ing as active participants in society and higher educa-

tion to the broader goals of decolonization and em-

Social Inclusion, 2016, Volume 4, Issue 1, Pages 77-91 81

vidual to family to community (local, provin-

cial/territorial, national, global) illustrates how an In-

digenous student’s educational journey or Aboriginal

community engagement in research or academic pro-

gramming is connected to a broader success and em-

secondary setting, for one to solely think of education

as an intellectual exercise ignores keys components of

the learning journey that fosters Indigenous under-

standings of success and well being (Pidgeon, 2008b).

The 4Rs, first proposed by Kirkness and Barnhardt

(1991), and later revisited by Marker (2004), are the

cornerstone of my own work (e.g. Pidgeon, 2014). Oth-

er Native American scholars have also been taken up

the 4Rs in their work in the US higher education system

(e.g., Shotton, Lowe, & Waterman, 2013). The 4Rs rep-

Indigenous and non-Indigenous ways of thinking of

supporting Aboriginal student success, in this article

the 4Rs are extended to help bridge understanding of

Indigenization where the Wholistic Framework centers

the work from the Indigenous perspective.

Building on Figure 1, Figure 2 provides a visual rep-

resentation of the interconnections in an institution

between senior administration, faculty/departments,

and faculty/staff/student with policies, programs, and

practices. It shows the inter-relationships of the global-

tion to the senior executive leadership to create sys-

temic and broader societal change.

Social Inclusion, 2016, Volume 4, Issue 1, Pages 77-91 82

It is important to acknowledge the Indigenous insti-

tutes, such as Nicola Valley Institute of Technology

(NVIT), the En’owkin Centre, Gabriel Dumont Institute,

and other Indigenous institutions operate under an In-

digenous governance framework, with Elders and Abo-

policy to program development and pedagogical prac-

tice imbeds and honours Indigenity. However, the fo-

cus of this article is on non-Indigenous public post-

secondary institutions, for this is where the meaningful

inclusion of Indigenity is a challenge.

Leadership in the Indigenization movement comes

from a variety of individuals and groups within and

outside the institution. It is the student affairs staff

working to recruit and retain Indigenous students

alongside Aboriginal student services, Aboriginal aca-

classroom. It also is exemplified at the most senior lev-

el- the president. For example, during the period of the

TRC, the University of Manitoba publically apologized for

its role in the training of teachers who worked in resi-

dential schools and its overall role in the colonial project

against Indigenous peoples. In July 2015, the incoming

president of the University of Saskatchewan, Peter Stoi-

cheff, publically announced that he is making Indigeniza-

tion his top priority. He explained that “the university

must be a leader in closing the gaps between Aboriginal

ernance of the institution (e.g., members on Advisory

council). Community involvement (or lack of it) also

highlights a tension in Indigenizing the academy—

Canadian higher education is primarily based on the bi-

cameral system and in many ways operates with values

and practices that are contrary to Indigenous govern-

ance models and cultural protocols. While more institu-

tions are honouring of territory at formal and public in-

stitutional events, they can do more to ensure that the

day-to-day operations of an institution, particularly re-

(e.g., Aboriginal strategic plans or specific policies).

Within British Columbia, there are 26 universities, col-

leges, and institutes, of whom 17 (65%) have institu-

tional level Aboriginal strategic plans. However, only

8/17 have some form of an Aboriginal Advisory Com-

mittee, whose representatives include Elders, Aborigi-

nal community leaders, and others who have an inter-

est in Aboriginal higher education from within the

members from the community and staff from the insti-

tution. These advisory committees can be simply “win-

dow dressing,” with limited power to make changes

and simply provide the institution with a check mark of

“have-it” but without influence or change on the insti-

tution itself. However, in most cases, these committees

do bring together leaders from within and outside the

institution and have terms of reference that forge

powerful relationships and leadership within the uni-

versity for Indigenous initiatives between the commu-

level, such as a Director, who may or may not have an

academic position within the institution, typically they

pendent on how the position was negotiated within

the institution, the reporting structure, budget at-

tached to the position (e.g., financial and human re-

sources), and most importantly, the mandate and goals

of the position and the authority to enact change (e.g.,

scope, role, authority— symbolic or otherwise)

(Pidgeon, 2014). Such positions create a unique oppor-

tunity to make systemic change through role-modeling

and mentoring other in living Indigenous values and

principles of governance in practice (Alfred, 2004;

Social Inclusion, 2016, Volume 4, Issue 1, Pages 77-91 83

Pewewardy, 2013). Such positions have also been cre-

ated in the United States, as Francis-Begay (2013) de-

scribed the establishment of special advisor to the

president at the University of Arizona in 1999, and not-

ed other institutions who have also created that liaison

(e.g., Montana State University, University of Idaho,

University of New Mexico, Washington State Universi-

ty, University of Oregon, Northern Arizona University,

and Arizona State University) (p. 82).

First Nations Student Associations (FNSA) are also a

growing component of student leadership and govern-

ance on campus. As part of the undergraduate student

union for the institutions, some FNSAs have negotiated

funding allocation for Indigenous-student initiatives

and programming on campus that benefits Indigenous

preparation for working with Indigenous learners and

their communities. It states “recognizing the need for

transformative educational change and acknowledging

the unique leadership responsibilities of deans, direc-

tors, and chairs of education within Canadian university

context, the ACDE supports and encourages the follow-

ing goals” (p. 5): respectful and welcoming learning en-

vironments; respectful and inclusive curricula; cultural-

promoting Indigenity in education; culturally respon-

sive assessment; affirming and revitalizing Aboriginal

languages; Indigenous education leadership; non-

Indigenous learners and Indigenity; and culturally-

respectful Indigenous research (pp. 5-8).

secondary education to Indigenous peoples, who rep-

resent diverse cultures, languages, histories, and con-

temporary perspectives (College and Institutes Canada,

2014b). The College and Institutes Canada, represent-

digenous communities” (para. 4). As of June 8, 2015, 34

colleges and institutes from Alberta, British Columbia,

Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Quebec, Ontario, New Bruns-

wick, North West Territories, and Yukon (College and

Institutes Canada, 2014a) had signed this document with

the commitment to the following seven principles: 1)

Commitment to make Indigenous education a priority;

2) Ensure governance structures recognize and respect

Indigenous peoples; 3) Implement intellectual and cul-

pointments throughout the institution, including Indige-

nous senior administrators; 6) Establish Indigenous-

centred holistic services and learning environments for

learner success; and 7) Build relationships and be ac-

countable to Indigenous communities in support of self-

determination through education, training, and applied

research (College and Institutes Canada, 2014a).

cies are also evident in university Aboriginal strategic

plans, with the addition of the area of research (e.g.,

implemented regarding Indigenous students as the

next section outlines.

In researching student experiences of university and

Social Inclusion, 2016, Volume 4, Issue 1, Pages 77-91 84

college, there were notable places in institutional poli-

cy that were pertinent to the Indigenous student expe-

rience and Indigenization. The first would be around

admissions, considering prior-knowledge and ensuring

culturally relevant admissions processes for students.

identification of whether or not they are Aboriginal and

2) financial barriers. To support Aboriginal access,

some institutions have developed third-party billing

policy. Third party billing allows for the institution and

provider of funding to directly work together and al-

lows an Aboriginal student (or any student who is re-

ceiving funding from an outside source (e.g., not stu-

dent loans, personal bank loans, or scholarships/

grants)) to not have to negotiate receipt of funding.

Examples of this funding policy are on the websites of

receive the funds.

In terms of self-identification, in an educational sys-

tem where being “labelled” Aboriginal has had nega-

tive consequences for many (e.g., special education or

non-academic streaming), Aboriginal students are leery

of institutional requests for self-identification (Hare &

Pidgeon, 2011; Royal Commission on Aboriginal

Peoples, 1996; Wotherspoon & Schissel, 1998). While

institutions may be simply asking for this information

for 1) enrolment numbers and/or 2) referrals to Abo-

during a visit to the Aboriginal student services centre,

in a class where they had an Indigenous faculty mem-

ber or instructor, or in later applications for Indige-

nous-specific scholarships or at the time of graduation.

Many of these students will never formally notify the

institution of their Indigenous identity hence, there are

discrepancies in reporting institutional statistics on

how many Indigenous students may be enrolled and

graduation rates.

Admissions policies also occur at the program level,

resentation in particular fields of study, notably medi-

cine, nursing, law, dentistry, and other professional

programs such as engineering or business. There are

also similar policies related to on-campus accommoda-

tions and financial supports (e.g., scholarships, grants).

Within Aboriginal admissions or other policies in

some institutions, a tension does exist with self-

identification and institutional processes that require

“proof” of Aboriginal ancestry. For students who are

registered Band members and/or have status through

the Indian Act, this documentation is relatively easy to

ting this required documentation is more problematic

due to the political tensions within their Band or com-

munity, separation from their community (e.g., Sixty

scoop, foster care, adoption, etc.), or relocation (e.g.,

growing up in urban settings or communities outside of

their ancestral connections or being Indigenous from

other countries) (Pidgeon, 2008a, 2008b; Pidgeon,

Archibald, & Hawkey, 2014). University and college

then becomes a time for these Aboriginal students to

explore, understand, and empower themselves with a

experiences of students. For example, the Association of

Canadian Deans of Education (2011) follow up report

demonstrated how the 19 Faculties of Education imple-

Social Inclusion, 2016, Volume 4, Issue 1, Pages 77-91 85

mented the Accord on Indigenous Education from a one-

time course to an integrated approach throughout the

curriculum. Some institutions have not only created a

required course but also have furthered their support in

the work of Aboriginal language revitalization and ex-

Nations (e.g., St. Francis Xavier University).