Tentative Beginnings: Storytelling, knowledge creation, and social change
This is the final blog in a three-part series I created as my culminating assignment for a required first-year class on “transformational change methodologies” (a required course for the Social Practice and Transformational Change PhD program at the University of Guelph taught by Dr. Carla Rice). I have chosen to share my project publicly in the spirit of co-learning and reciprocity. While it feels vulnerable to do so, I believe we are all always in a state of becoming. With humility, I offer this messy, partial, and in-process piece.
In this blog I am beginning to explore methodologies and methods that I may use in my research project. See the first blog for background and context, and the second blog for some of the theory that is guiding my inquiry.
My Research Aims and Questions
The first two blogs in this series explain that I am a white settler-Canadian and I am a first-year PhD student in the Social Practice and Transformational Change program at the University of Guelph. I also manage the Conservation through Reconciliation Partnership (CRP), a seven-year SSHRC Partnership Grant aimed at supporting Indigenous-led conservation. In response to questions I have received from conservation organizations in my time with the CRP, I am hoping to support the decolonization of the conservation sector.
-
This video, by KAIROS Canada, describes the Blanket Exercise. The Blanket exercise is a popular education tool used to help settler-Canadians learn the history of colonialism in Canada in a participatory way. The exercise often brings forth a lot of emotion from settlers as they encounter difficult truths about their identities and beliefs.
A recent paper by Sheldon (2020) critiques the Blanket Exercise for extracting decolonization away from the material (rematriation of land). I am curious about the role of settler emotion in this exercise and if/how a decolonial approach to pedagogies of discomfort may be helpful.
-
expect it to be, at times, incoherent, messy, uncomfortable, difficult, deceptive, contradictory, paradoxical, repetitive, frustrating, incomprehensible, infuriating, dull and painful – and prepare for your heart to break and be stretched do you still want to do it?
This is an excerpt of a poem by Elwood Jimmy and Vanessa Andreotti (2019) in their book, Towards Braiding. The poem emphasizes feelings of discomfort, frustration and pain which are necessarily part of transforming Indigenous-settler relations. The poem names these emotions directly and calls upon settlers to engage with them bravely. -
In June 2021, a storytelling circle was convened with former ICE members and federal civil servants who provided organizational and operational support to ICE and the Pathway to Canada Target 1 initiative. The circle members reflected on their personal experiences of ethical space within the Pathway to Canada Target 1 process, including the organizational and personal commitments required to achieve ethical space.
This resource, which weaves together the audio and visuals from the storytelling circle, emphasizes the importance of emotion in ethical space processes and their lasting impact - transforming personal relations and professional practices.
For my project, I am interested in what emotions and stories can do to support transformational change. More specifically, the aim of my project is to explore how settler emotions can get stuck or move in ways that support the cultivation of a decolonial conservation practice in Turtle Island/Canada. While I am in the process of refining my research questions, my initial questions ask:
What can settler-conservationists' stories teach about the work emotions do to inhibit or help cultivate a decolonial conservation practice in Turtle Island/Canada?
How can these stories support the learning of other settler-conservationists?
How can this learning contribute to the transformation of the conservation sector in Canada?
Methodological orientations: Knowledge creation, art, and social change
-
As described by Natasha Myers (in Manning et al., 2020), the aim of this project “experiments with movement, gesture drawing, sonic mapping, and kinesthetic imaging to detune the colonial sensorium, and explore other modes of attention and rendering that can do justice to the sentience of more-than-human beings”. (pg. 238).
The “Becoming Sensor in a Sentient World” project is an interesting example of research-creation, drawing on art, science, and felt knowledges, not only of humans, but of the more-than-human to disrupt colonial hierarchical logics.
-
Wave Sound and Ayum-ee-aawach Oomama-mowan:
Speaking to Their Mother are two art projects by Rebecca Belmore (Lac Seul First Nation).For the Wave Sound project, Belmore created sculptures that were placed in four Canadian National Parks to encourage visitors to listen to the land and water.
For the Ayum-ee-aawach Oomama-mowan saw project, Belmore created a large (2 meter) wooden megaphone which was carried into Banff National Park so invited Indigenous leaders, activists and artists could “speak to and about the land”.
These works by an Indigenous artist, take place in state-controlled National Parks, which have violently displaced Indigenous peoples. The artworks serve to reimagine and reconnect relations between humans, land, water and other more-than-human entities.
-
This video, created by Michelle Wilson (white settler-Canadian), explores her embodied and emotional responses to a witnessing a taxidermied bison on display at the Manitoba Museum. Through this encounter, Michelle explores the entangled myths and violence of colonial conservation, Canadian nation-building, and settler identity. responsibilities for challenges these myths.
The video demonstrates the potential of critical-arts based methodologies to open up new conversations, stories and narratives.
-
This exhibit by Michelle Wilson weaves together textiles and technology to tell stories of bison. As a settler scholar/artist, Michelle focuses her stories on what settlers have done to bison and their kin.
This exhibit refuses to participate in the ‘colonial archive’, instead centering specific embodied perspectives by ‘taking the stories out of the academy’.
Michelle’s work has inspired my thinking about how to engage colonial conservation, settler identity/responsibilities, the associated affects of conservation.
Research as Creation
At this point in my studies, developing a methodology plan (however tentative) seems like an overwhelming task. There is so much I don’t know and every time I encounter an idea or concept, I find myself journeying on a new (to me) path with excitement, curiosity, and a desire to engage across epistemic difference with integrity. Recently, I have found myself drown to questions about how knowledge creation can happen through critical engagement with the arts within the broader context of decolonization as a specific justice project (Tuck & Yang, 2018).
Research-creation is a term that is emerging through the social sciences in Canada to describe methodologies that situate art and creation at the heart research inquiry and methods (Chapman & Sawchuck, 2012; Loveless, 2019; Manning et al., 2020). Research-creation does not assume an objective, knowable truth. Rather, research-creation methodologies “challenge the colonial, hetero-normative, white supremacist, and ablest logics of the settler-colonial Canadian university by centering intersectional queer, feminist, Black, Indigenous and critical disability scholarship/critical art practices” (Manning et al., pg. 226). Manning describes research-creation as active. It is “a way of getting involved in the world that takes seriously embodied knowledge, craft, creativity, aesthetics, and practices of […] making knowledge and telling stories about both what is known and what remains unknown” (pg. 227). Similarly, Stephanie Springgay describes her approach to research-creation as a “way of doing theory that is bodily, experimental, and considers research (knowledge making) as a (speculative) event emerging from a practice…” (in Manning et al., 2020, pg. 226). I am drawn to research-creation due to its ability to disrupt hegemonic systems by placing art at the heart of inquiry and its ability to expand one’s engagement with different ways and modes of being in the world, surfacing new entanglements and questions.
I have more learning to do to better understand current conversations regarding methodologies that weave together research and the arts, with attention to the nuances between approaches. For example, Chapman and Sawchuck (2012) describe four different categories to articulate different approaches to research and creation:
Research-for-creation: Experimental and processual activities from which a research event may emerge. This can include literature reviews; gathering artifacts; developing prototypes; collaborating with community partners. The results may be a final creative product, or a prototype (pg. 16).
Research-from-creation: Is a participatory, iterative processes that uses artistic works to generate research questions, which feed back into artistic creation. (pg. 17).
Creative presentations of research: Describes the creative presentation of traditional academic works (pg. 18).
Research-as-creation: Integrates theory and practice. It is takes place when “knowledge is produced as creative work, and not simply through their analysis and interpretation” (pg. 21).
Drawing on the distinctions made by Chapman and Sawchuck, Loveless (in Manning et al., 2022) argues that research-creation inextricably links the form and content of research while inviting scholars to “pay rigorous attention to “non-writerly” forms as challenges to conventional knowledge production as inherited within the settler colonial spaces of the Canadian university” (pg. 230). While I have more to learn about the distinctions between research-creation and critical arts-based research, I am coming to understand that the most important consideration is that research-creation does not create art as a secondary outcome of research. Rather, theory, art, and practice come together to answer questions that exceed a particular discipline, while disrupting hegemonic systems and approaches to knowledge production.
Personally, I’m drawn to this approach because when I think of moments where I have generated new insights for myself, they have often emerged when I was making something (whether that be a painting, a textile art piece, a poem, or a piece of music). While the prospect of integrating art so intrinsically throughout my research process is exciting, I also find myself quite nervous. I look at this blog I created for my assignment and - clearly - creating art is not my first instinct when it comes to producing something within the confines of the academy. My mind immediately begins to recite a list of why I shouldn’t attempt research-creation and should stick to creative presentations of research (I am not an artist, I don’t have training to be an artist, I don’t have time to learn artistic skills or knowledge). Speaking with my friend and fellow SOPR student, Janna, I wonder how much of this internal dialogue is a product of my training. I too have been shaped by the systems I am trying to change. I too have been taught to suppress emotive and creative forms of knowing. This acknowledgement brings some comfort, but I am treading tentatively towards research-creation methodologies.
Story-Making and the Re•Vision Centre for Art and Social Justice
For my project, I hope to engage with the Re•Vision: The Center for Art and Social Justice’s (Re•Vision) multimedia storytelling methodological approach, which is described by Rice & Mündel (2018) as situated both within the tradition of critical arts-based research and the rich tradition of activist art (pg. 214). Re•Vision describes critical arts-based research is an “umbrella of methods that seek to generate original works through art-making and is characterized by political and process-oriented approaches” (Evans et al., 2022). Their approach brings together participants, often from justice-seeking groups, to create short personal stories using digital multimedia (photographs, video, music, art) through facilitated, multi-day workshops. Re•Vision’s approach aligns with research-creation methodologies in its commitment to destabilizing positivism and its recognition that “every day people make knowledge” (Rice & Mündel, 2018, pg. 215). Moreover, knowledge can be co-created through the artistic practice of making stories (Rice & Mündel, 2018, pg. 215). Oriented towards social change, Re•Vision’s methodology aims to shift “taken-for-granted-understandings” (Evans et al., 2022). I do find myself wondering whether there is a distinction to be made between research-creation and critical-arts based research as they are described and practiced by Re•Vision (Evans et al., 2022; Rice & Mündel, 2018) and Manning et al. (2020). Reflecting on the power of stories, Rice and Mündel (2018) content that stories have a unique ability to “make us vulnerable to ourselves and others, make us ask questions about who we are and who we should be, make us take risks, go to uncharted places, and rethink ourselves in relation to others and the world” (pg. 224). While I am in the very early stages of learning about this methodology, I am excited by the opportunities storytelling makes possible for revealing what we do not yet know about ourselves and for deepening our understanding of how our identities are shaped through encounters with the world (Rice & Mündel, 2018, pg. 216).
Possible Methods
My research questions are interested in both emotion and stories, and their potential to inform and catalyze social change. To address my first question, which is concerned with what settler stories can teach about how emotions enable and inhibit the cultivation of a decolonial conservation practice, I am hoping to recruit 10-12 settler-conservationists to engage in a multimedia storytelling workshop series. With support from myself and Re•Vision’s team of facilitators and methodological experts, the participants will create short personal stories about their attempts to enact or cultivate a decolonial conservation practice. The storytellers will be guided through a series of creative, open-ended prompts designed to encourage reflections on their own identities, subjectivities, and relations with land, water, and more-than-human entities in the context of conservation. I imagine asking participants to reflect on:
Moments of shift in their practices and learning with attention to what those moments felt like in an embodied way;
Moments when they felt resistance or discomfort; and
Moments when they felt new understandings, connections and generative possibilities and how those new understandings felt.
-
This project sought to understand how to create school communities that support positive Indigenous student achievement. The innovative story-making methods used with settler-teachers is of interest to me and my project.
-
This digital resource is a guide through Re•Vision’s story-making process and demonstrates the potential of stories for supporting transformative social change. It will be an important resource for me if I choose to pursue multimedia story-making methods.
-
This podcast by WalkingLab is an introduction to critical walking methodologies as research-creation. The podcast explains where the term research-creation comes from, and the ways critical walking methodologies draw on queer, crip, and critical Indigenous studies to interrogate relationships with land, place and movement.
-
Drawing on Tuck and McKenzie, who argue that methods have a place and need to be relationally appropriate/accountable, this podcast explores the possibilities of critical walking methodologies for responding to place in research.
-
This website explores the stories of people from different communities who are impacted by eugenics.
The website is an interesting example of how stories can be presented digitally in a way that prepares the listener to engage with respect and care.
As explained in my second blog, a decolonial conservation practice must have the rematriation of Indigenous land and life as its primary goal and objective (Tuck and Yang, 2018). The importance of land in decolonizing conservation practice is something that I am curious about attending to in my methodology and methods. From my limited knowledge of Re•Vision’s methodology, participants could be encouraged to think about place and their relationships to place through different prompts which might inspire a story. Given the centrality of land, water, and power in the context of my project, I began wondering if there is a way to bring land and place into my methodology more directly.
I recently discovered critical walking methodologies and the work of WalkingLab. Critical walking methodologies engage land-based artistic, walking, and research practices in ways that “unsettle the distinction between living and non-living matter” and they create opportunities to “shift the ways in which we understand place as something fixed and static, to place as a set of relations between humans, non-humans, and the environment” (WalkingLab, n.d.). I am interested in exploring the possibility of bringing participants together in place, hosted by a community with an Indigenous Protected and Conserved Area or other Indigenous-led conservation initiative, to engage in critical walking methodologies as part of the story-making workshop. Participants could engage with guest lectures or with artistic works while walking. They could also record sounds of the land, water plants and animals while on the walk, take video footage, photographs and narration. They could also create prose or fiction while out on the land. These gathered media could then be incorporated into their digital stories. Another approach would be to invite the participants to travel to a place that has affected them and their attempts to cultivate a decolonial conservation practice, where they could carry out similar activities before creating their multimedia stories. If these two options are cost prohibitive, a more economical option would be to adapt the methodology by encouraging participants to walk in a place where they live that is meaningful for them and provide tools to guide their independent processes before creating their stories.
This video by TwoRow Info provides a short overview of an annual 10 day canoe paddle down the Grand River in what is now known as Ontario. The canoe trip brings together Indigenous peoples and settlers in a journey from Cambridge Ontario to the shores of Lake Eerie. It is meant to represent an embodied commitment to the principles of the Guswentah or Two-Row Wampum Belt Covenant. Participants camp along the canoe route and participate in teachings together. I’m interested in the Two Row on the Grand as an example of bringing people together on the land and water to transform relationships and subjectivities.
I am imagining the stories created through the workshop will be reviewed by an interdisciplinary team of Indigenous and non-Indigenous scholars and practitioners who are interested in pedagogical approaches to transforming the conservation sector. Together, we will discuss our affective responses to the videos and connect them to theory. At this time, I find myself struggling to identify an appropriate approach to answering my the second and third research questions, which are interested in the potential for the stories to support the learning of settler conservationists. I am not trying to measure the impact the stories will have on settler-conservationists learning, so I don’t believe I need to engage in methods to test the stories as a pedagogical intervention. That said, I do wonder if I need to engage more with educational theory and methods to sufficiently answer my second and third research questions.
Discussion: Benefits, limitations and questions
Potential Benefits
As a settler-scholar working with other settlers, I am working from within my own knowledge system, though I hold a commitment to collaborating across epistemic difference with integrity. This commitment guides my interest in adopting methodologies that align epistemologically with Indigenous methodologies and methods. The emphasis of research-creation methodologies on generating knowledge through practice is appealing because this approach has congruence with Indigenous methodologies. Leanne Betasamosake Simpson (2017) explains that within Nishnaabeg thought, theory is continually created through “embodied practice within families, communities, and generations of people” (pg. 151). Continuing, Simpson argues that theory is for everyone - not just academics. She explains that to learn about something, from a Nishnaabeg perspective, it is essential to “‘get a practice […] get out, get involved, and get invested” (pg. 165). Athabascan scholar Dian Million (2014) describes the relationship between theory and practice slightly differently. She contents that theory is a “link between sets of practices”, connecting ways of “intuiting/feeling/thinking” (pg. 36). Emphasizing the importance of practice, Million (2009) also argues that “ the social structure itself is both “medium and out-come” of “[e]motionally [e]mbodied [p]ractices.” (pg. 72). Despite the slightly different views on the relationship between theory and practice offered by Simpson and Million, the ability of research-creation methodologies to embed practices in the knowledge creation process will be beneficial for my project.
Similarly, arts-based storytelling methodologies can have strong alignment with Indigenous methodologies. Margaret Kovach (Pasqua First Nation) describes story as an Indigenous methodology, explaining that stories “remind us of who we are and of our belonging” (pg. 94). They are deeply relational and are born out of connections with the world. In Indigenous storytelling methodologies, stories and knowing are inseparable (Kovach, 2009, pg. 94). Stó:lo researcher Jo-Anne Archibald (2008) uses the term ‘storywork’ to describe both the importance of storytelling as Indigenous methodology and to describe how stories “invite listeners to reflect deeply on their actions and reactions” (Rice et al., 2022, pg. 21; Kovach, 2009, pg. 94; Archibald, 2001, pg. 94). Rice et al (2022) explain how they draw on Indigenous thinkers like Lee Maracle, Daniel Heath Justice (Cherokee) and Thomas King (Cherokee) to orient themselves to the transformative potential of stories as “carriers of people’s knowledge, values, and relationships – as speech acts that have the power to make and change the world” (pg. 20). It is this transformative potential that draws me to story-making as methodology.
Another benefit to using storytelling methodologies is the relevance of stories and narrative for both Ahmed’s theory of affective economies and Dian Million’s theory of felt knowledge (see my second blog for more detail). Ahmed (2004) explains that she uses narrative analysis to explore what work emotions to because emotion is performed through speech acts, which are reflected in texts (pg. 13). While my project is more focused on audio/visual stories, I believe Ahmed’s close analysis of metaphor and narrative is applicable. In her work on ‘felt theory’, Million (2009) describes how stories convey embodied knowledges, which can “fuel discursive shifts” and mobilize political change (pg. 64). These stories have the potential for remaking social relations and shifting subjectivities at the micro and macro scales.
Potential Limitations and Risks
My main concern about my proposed methodology is the risk of centering and reifying whiteness, and the potential for inadvertently creating opportunities for moves to settler ignorance (Tuck and Yang, 2012) in the process of engaging settler stories. This is a challenging undertaking for a white settler and an emerging scholar. However, I am inspired by and will seek guidance from the Re•Vision team, who worked on the Nishnabek de’bwe win//Telling Our Stories: Aboriginal People and Allies Using Technology, Telling Stories, and Making Change project. One output of this project was the paper entitled “Identifying and working through settler ignorance”, which explains how the Re•Vision team decolonized their methodological approach. This included:
Disrupting conventional binaries between researcher and researched by ensuring researchers are active participants in the research creation process (including by making their own stories);
Offering robust training to prepare workshop participants to engage respectfully across epistemic difference, and to challenge/disrupt the colonial gaze in their storytelling process;
Engaging a knowledge keeper to provide support with cultural protocols and teachings; and
Operating under Indigenous leadership and hiring a team of Indigenous and settler facilitators (Rice et al. 2022, pg. 21)
Importantly, Rice et al. (2022) describe how they “enacted a pedagogy of accountability”. This was accomplished by “emphasizing how Indigenous storytelling methods center the necessity of listening” and by “remaining attuned to the problematics of settler stories that look for recognition from Indigenous peoples rather than take responsibility for transformational change through decolonizing thought and action” (Flowers, 2015 in Rice et al., 2022, pg. 21). I take my role and responsibility for destabilizing settler narratives through story-making very seriously and will work closely with my supervisor to ensure that I am well prepared and well supported before engaging in this work.
As mentioned earlier, another significant limitation of engaging in research-creation as a methodology is my own ignorance of the arts. Natalie Loveless and Stephanie Springgay explain that transdisciplinary research is hard work - it requires an ethical commitment to “many different disciplines, practices, and ways of being” (In Manning et al., 2020, pg. 242). It also requires an understanding of art. While graduate students do not necessarily need to already have an art practice before engaging in research-creation methodologies, Loveless and Springgay (In Manning et al., 2020) emphasize that graduate students should have an openness to creating a practice that engages deeply with art and/as theory (pg. 242). While I am interested in engaging deeply with the arts in my scholarly work and developing my own artistic practice, I am concerned about imposter syndrome and my own time/capacity constraints as this would add another layer of complexity to my work.
New questions and concluding thoughts
This blog series represents my tentative first step towards thinking about the methodological orientation for my research project and potential methods I might use. While I have learned that I am interested in settler emotions, stories, and conservation practice in the context of the broader decolonial project, I still have many questions to consider before developing my research proposal. Some of these questions include:
How can I recruit participants to engage in this project if the topic may be a deterrent for some? I recognize that exploring emotion is a vulnerable thing to do.
As a settler-scholar, I am focused on settler responsibilities for decolonizing conservation practice. However, I have some concerns about how to do this work ethically. I am wondering how I can host workshops with settler-conservationists in a way that avoids asking Indigenous collaborators to take on unnecessary emotional labour (acknowledging there will, likely unavoidably, be some)?
I am also concerned that, while the question of settler emotion in decolonizing conservation practice is relevant, I expect this may not be a priority for many Indigenous collaborators in the CRP. I have been considering how I can ensure there is reciprocity throughout the process, even if the questions I’m exploring do not have immediate tangible benefits for Indigenous communities engaged in Indigenous-led conservation.
I am wondering what kind of additional training and preparation might I need before I can engage in these methods. I wonder whether I could shadow the Re•Vision facilitation team. I’m also exploring taking a creative writing or storytelling class.
I’m curious about what steps I can take to begin to cultivating my own artistic practice in relation to this project. I recently participated in a 1:1 consultation with a librarian for support with my project. They suggested I create a research journal to track my ideas, thoughts, and questions, as well as my process. I am wondering if I could create (and more, importantly, maintain) a journal that integrates my own artistic practice.
I am wondering if I need to engage with educational theories and methods to answer my second and third research questions. I hope not to because I want to focus on settler emotion and decolonizing conservation. I will work with my committee to perhaps refine my research questions and for support with my methods to ensure the scope is manageable and relevant to my interests.
I wonder if it would be helpful to adopt a mixed-methods approach to my work. I could pair the critical walking methodologies/multimedia story-making methodologies with a narrative analysis of public communications materials produced by environmental not-for-profit organizations. It could be helpful to analyze individual practitioners stories with narratives produced by organizations as a collective with it’s own identity and investments.
I have much more to learn about each of the topics I am interested in. I am really looking forward to exploring them more deeply through my qualifying exam and ongoing course work.
Works Cited
Ahmed, S. (2004). The cultural politics of emotion, second edition. Edinburgh University Press.
*Archibald, J. (2008). Indigenous storywork: Educating the heart, mind, body and spirit. University of British Columbia Press
Chapman, S. & Sawchuck, K. (2012). Research-Creation: Intervention, analysis and “family resemblances”. Canadian Journal of Communication, 37(1), 5-26. http://doi.org/10.22230.cjc.2012v37n1a2489
Conservation through Reconciliation Partnership. (2022, November 8). Building Ethical Partnerships for Indigenous-led Conservation [Video]. Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwi6qX5UKFw&t=620s
Evans, C., Fowlie, H., Jones, C. Lee, L., Mündel, I., & Rice, C. (2022). Re•Vision Online Story-Making. E-Campus Ontario [Digital Publication]. https://revisionstorymaking.ca.
* Jimmy, E., Andreotti, V., & Stein, S. (2019). Towards braiding. Musagetes.
*Kovach, M. (2010). Indigenous methodologies: Characteristics, conversations, and contexts. UT Press
*Loveless, N. (2019). How to Make Art at the End of the World. Duke University Press
Manning, E., Loveless, N., Myers, N. & Springgay, S. (2020). The intimacies of doing research-creation: Sarah E. Truman in conservation with Natalie Loveless, Erin Manning, Natasha Myers, and Stephanie Springgay. N. Loveless (Ed.) In Knowings and knots: Methodologies and ecologies in research-creation. University of Alberta.
Million, D. (2009). Felt theory: An Indigenous feminist approach to affect and history. Wicazo Sa Review, 24(2), 52-76. http://doi.org/10.1353./wic.0.0043
Million, D. (2014). There is a river in me: Theory from life. In A. Simpson & A. Smith. (Eds.), Theorizing Native studies. Duke University Press.
Re•Vision: The Center for Art and Social Justice. (2023, March 5). nishnabek de’bwe win//telling our truths: Aboriginal People and Allies Using Technology, Telling Stories, and Making Change. Re-Vision: The Center for Art and Social Justice. https://revisioncentre.ca/projects/nishnabek-debwe-win
*Rice, C. & Mündel, I. (2018). Storymaking as methodology: Disrupting dominant stories through multimedia storytelling. Canadian Review of Sociology. 55(2), 211-231. https://doi.org/10.1111/cars.12190
*Rice, C., Dion, S.D., Fowlie, H. & Breen, A. (2022). Identifying and working through settler ignorance. Critical Studies in Education, 63:1, 15-30, http://10.1080/17508487.2020.1830818
Sheldon, J. (2020). Colonial under the covers: A critical examination of the KAIROS Blanket Exercise and its limitations as a decolonial education tool. Transformations, 30(2), 111-126
*Simpson, L.B. (2017). As we have always done: Indigenous freedom through radical resistance. University of Minnesota Press.
Stonefish, M., Stonefish, S., Parker, P., Slark, M. & Charlebois, A. (n.d.). Into the light: Living histories of oppression and education in Ontario. https://intothelight.ca/index.html
TwoRow Info. (2022, November 14). Two Row 3Minute [Video]. Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDzsOXJoZx8
*Tuck, E., & McKenzie, M. (2014). Place in research: Theory, methodology, and methods. Routledge
Tuck, E. & Yang, W. (2018). Born under the rising sun of social justice. In E. Tuck & W. Yang (Eds.), Toward what justice? Describing diverse dreams of justice in education. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351240932
WalkingLab. (n.d.). Podcast episode 1: Introduction to critical walking methodologies [Podcast]. WalkingLab. https://walkinglab.org/podcast/walkinglab-introduction-to-critical-walking-methodologies/
WalkingLab. (n.d.). Podcast episode 6: Walking-with place [Podcast]. WalkingLab. https://walkinglab.org/podcast/walkinglab-introduction-to-critical-walking-methodologies/
Note: Sources with an asterisk * were listed as mandatory or recommended from the Transformational Methodologies Lab course taught by Dr. Carla Rice (SOPR PhD program, University of Guelph).