Mobilising indigenous and non-western theoretic-linguistic knowledge in doctoral education.
Globalization has produced contradictory impulses that create conditions of super-diversity (Vertovec, 2007) while simultaneously further entrenching the dominance of White, Western knowledge production. Vertovec defines super-diversity as
the proliferation and mutually conditioning effects of additional variables [which] show that it is not enough to see diversity only in terms of ethnicity ... [including] differential immigration statuses and their concomitant entitlements and restrictions of rights, divergent labour market experiences, discrete gender and age profiles, patterns of spatial distribution, and mixed local area responses by service providers and residents (2007: 1025).
However, it is clear that Vertovec (2007) constructs these differences as a problem rather than as a productive development. Similarly, when Western universities proclaim their interest in super-diversity, a closer look shows that they still position difference as a deficit or threat, or as exotica for intellectual appropriation. As a result, the theoretic-linguistic knowledge produced by Indigenous, Pacific and international scholars in Australia, for instance, struggles to gain leverage especially in the STEM disciplines. By theoretic-linguistic knowledge, we mean concepts, metaphors and images which Indigenous and other non-Western scholars introduce into research from their home cultures, or knowledge produced using linguistic or cultural elements of their home countries. In doctoral education, Indigenous and non-Western candidates often experience marginalization, co-option and/or subjugation (Bunda, 2014; Manathunga, 2014). "Nice" White approaches to super-diversity claim to activate compassion for the Other while simultaneously refusing to acknowledge epistemic intellectual equality (Mitchell & Edwards, 2013).
As a research team working in Australia, we grapple with cultural difference across the areas of Indigenous, Pacific, immigrant and international education. We are Indian-Australian, Irish-Australian, Aboriginal and Chinese researchers and take up multiple positionings in a group of non-Euro-Americans (or Northerners). We are aware of the limiting, Othering work of the "non" when we use, for example, the term "non-Western theoretic-linguistic knowledge." The problem with using "non" is that it positions the White English-speaking "West" as the norm. However, it also refers to the ways in which knowledge is shaped by norms, and open to being reshaped. From an Aboriginal perspective, "non-Western" does not really work when referring to the experiences of Indigenous students--so we use "Indigenous and non-Western." Southern universities, where we work, are Western. For Indigenous and non-Western students, they are "white"--so we use the term "White, Western universities." In both Aotearoa/New Zealand and Australia, Pacific diasporic communities have a strong presence, even though they have not achieved the same recognition in both countries. Therefore, the work of Samoan and Tongan scholars, like Refiti (2013) and Thaman (2003; 2008), is especially generative for the argument explored in this article.
Challenging the Colonial Impulses of Globalising Education
The effects of globalizing education both foster and retard the movement of people, ideas and labor forces across geographical and epistemological boundaries. Globalizing education involves the recruitment of Indigenous, Pacific, immigrant, refugee and international students for Southern universities, paradoxically reinforcing the dominance of White, Western knowledge production (Alatas, 2006; Thaman, 2003). In that way, globalizing education is but a new form of intellectual and linguistic colonization that operates against Indigenous and Pacific students with a renewed virulence to erase and assimilate (Bunda, 2014; Thaman, 2003). The colonial discourses and scripts at the heart of globalizing education are difficult to challenge.
A significant response to the colonizing impulses of globalizing education has been the recent rise of Indigenous and non-Western theorizing. While much of this knowledge was prevalent prior to colonization, it is now being retrieved and called upon to mobilize renewed resistance (Baba et al., 2004; Bunda, 2014; Smith, 1999; Thaman, 2003). A significant part of this work is challenging mistaken beliefs that the White, Euro-American academy knows best and is the font of all civilizational wisdom. Mounting historical evidence demolishes the myth of a pure, separate and agentic West (Goody, 2010; Hobson, 2004). Scholars have documented the appropriation of knowledge (including scientific knowledge) from Asia and the Middle East by northwest Europe, and from many Southern colonies by northern Atlantic nations (Cook, 2007; Harding, 2011; Nakata, 2009; Sen 2006). This historical evidence demonstrates that White Anglophone academics can learn (and have learnt in the more or less distant past) from Indigenous and non-Western theoretic-linguistic knowledge, without necessarily assuming intellectual superiority. A shift from the unequal power balance favoring the West is underway, with economic, cultural and intellectual forces pressing for more reciprocal research relationships (Thaman, 2003). Support for intellectually divergent dialogues in doctoral education grows and entails activating and mobilizing Indigenous and non-Western research candidates' multilingual capabilities and theoretic-linguistic knowledge.
However, some challenges must be addressed in shifting the geopolitics of knowledge production. The first challenge concerns the ways in which cultural difference is rendered as a problem, which produces defensive reactions to the production of Indigenous and non-Western theoretic-linguistic knowledge in doctoral education. Another challenge are the operations of "nice white colonialism" (Mitchell & Edwards, 2013), which claim to be working towards social justice while reproducing unequal relations of power.
Rendering difference as a "problem"
Some White Western academics and universities render diversity as a problem, even as they claim to support "super-diversity" (Vertovec, 2007). When these academics feel threatened by the emergence of Indigenous and non-Western doctoral candidates and scholars, they often react with ethno-biopolitics, censorship and the assertion of authorship over ideas they have not generated (Bunda, 2014; Manathunga, 2014). They may also be attracted to the conservative version of "super-diversity," according to which Indigenous and non-Western research candidates are part of a super-problem surpassing anything previously experienced by Southern universities and posing super-complex methodological problems for the transmission of Euro-American theories via English-only pedagogies. In most places, this Western intellectual culture is all that Indigenous and non-Western research candidates find on offer (Ryan, 2011; Ng, 2012), though pockets of Indigenous and non-Western academic environments exist on the margins. Epistemologically, Indigenous and non-Western approaches to knowledge production are excluded, dismissed or belittled, and the history of transcultural knowledge exchange is denied, misinterpreted or eschewed (Beckwith, 2012; Cook, 2007; Goody, 2010).
Research candidates who challenge Euro-American orthodoxies from Indigenous and non-Western positions run substantial risks. Research candidates are, of course, generally in less powerful positions than those already credentialed by the university system, but for Indigenous and non-Western research candidates, academia is a particularly risky environment when they grapple with questions of authority, legitimation, power, responsibility and representation. They also have to worry about future chances in the academic labor market, which might be damaged by resisting Euro-American theorizing. Although some supervisors are aware of the dangers of exposing Indigenous and non-Western research candidates to the censure of White, Western "examiners and other academic gatekeepers" (Manathunga, 2013: 77), many supervisors--non-Western and Western--end up encouraging students to conform to the status quo in knowledge production, rather than seeking to create space for Indigenous and non-Western theorizing.
The power of nice White intellectual colonialism
Even more insidiously, White, Western colonialism now often expresses itself through the power of "niceness." Writing from a black American position, Mitchell and Edwards (2013: 101) grapple with the "patriarchal white supremacist spaces" in a predominantly White US university. In similar ways, Indigenous students inside and outside of the academy have labored diligently to raise the consciousness of the Whitestream (Andersen, 2009). However, this latter work is problematic. While appealing to the humanity of White students, it does not address the failure to perceive Indigenous and non-Western students as equally human and to accord their capability for generating useful knowledge the same value. Nice White intellectual colonialism positions Indigenous and non-Western students as "vehicles for learning," while White, Western students are compassionate, "willing passengers" to be carried yet again (Mitchell & Edwards, 2013: 104). On the other hand, some academics may seek to appropriate Indigenous or non-Western knowledge in order to secure their own individual success in publications and promotion applications. In these ways, "niceness" is used to retain White supremacy.
With varying motivations, White, Western academics may also encourage Indigenous and non-Western candidates to engage with their own cultural knowledge, but they may not always fully appreciate the cultural care that must be exercised in revealing and disseminating this knowledge. This places an extra burden on Indigenous and non-Western students. Not only must they stand up against the White, Western academy and defend the equality of their cultural knowledge, but they must also evaluate how to protect that knowledge and consider the risks of serving it up to an already privileged world, which may be only too willing to exploit it.
Therefore, to recognize theoretical and linguistic divergence as a strength rather than a deficit means moving beyond "nice" paternalistic approaches that reinforce colonial positionings. To reshape postgraduate research education means entering a power-sharing relation that is crucial for disrupting normalized practices that deny Indigenous theoretic-linguistic knowledges a presence in research (Bunda et al., 2012: 153-5). Already, some White, Western academics are willing to use their privilege to take on an increased workload of working with non-Western and Indigenous research candidates. Indigenous, non-Western, and Western co-researchers then join together to activate more balanced and equitable approaches to research education. However, more research is needed to understand how such an intellectual alliance can fashion knowledge production. Thus, it is necessary to ask what "academic research" is, now that it is being put to work by Indigenous and non-Western researchers, as well as by those already dominant in the academy. In the following section, we begin to answer this important question.
Reconstituting Research as Co-research
Our co-research in a team of Indigenous, non-Western and Western researchers is a challenge to creatively re-work prevailing constructions of so-called "educational problems." As educators from Indigenous Australian, Indian-Australian, Irish-Australian and Chinese backgrounds, we learn to co-research like one learns a craft, namely through practice. Indian-Australian, Michael Singh brings to the team an interest in unsettling politics of identity and a commitment to the presupposition of intellectual equality. He works with this team by subjecting his own research to critical re-analysis, so that unthought categories and unthought spaces of freedom may be established. Catherine Manathunga brings an Irish-Australian woman's perspective to explorations of supervision pedagogies. She comes to this team with a desire to learn from her colleagues and an awareness of her Whiteness and settler/invader history. She enjoys intellectually jamming with her colleagues, creating new riffs of connection, exploring areas of tension and complexity, grappling with difference.
Tracey Bunda brings an Indigenous Australian woman's perspective to the task of making the University more meaningful for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and communities. She comes to transcultural doctoral supervision fresh from the experience of her own doctoral studies work, with a desire to transform this space through critical theoretical and Indigenous understandings. She acknowledges the safe space the collegial group of researchers offers for cross racial/cultural dialogues, where she can say the difficult words, untangle the problematic and be agentic in transformation. Qi Jing brings a Chinese woman's perspective to her research about multilingual knowledge co-construction in Australia. She enjoys intellectual encounters with her colleagues, to productively explore the tensions and complexities of transcultural education.
Together, we examine how renegade knowledge can be included in doctoral supervision, using a process of intellectual contestation, dissensus and dialogue. For us, co-research is a method for capturing some of the complexity of knowledge production in Southern universities, where Indigenous and non-Western theoretic-linguistic knowledge is activated and mobilized. We draw upon the postcolonial notion of "transculturation" (Pratt, 2008) to rethink co-research: Indigenous and non-Western doctoral students are encouraged to explore Western knowledge to see what deconstructive possibilities can be achieved when blending aspects of this knowledge with their own (Manathunga, 2014).
In our transcultural co-research, we consciously strive to nurture a dynamic of meaning making through self-reflexive learning, based on each author's intellectual contributions and (trans)cultural dispositions. Our concept of transcultural co-research is grounded in a reconceptualisation of intellectual power in a globalized and technology-driven world: intellectual power today can no longer simply take the point of advantage on knowledge hierarchies, but should be actualized through mutual learning, intellectual responsibility and a transcultural research disposition. It is not what we each can do to produce knowledge, but what each of us can do with other members in a transcultural team, who are intellectually responsible for each other.
Part of that learning takes place through research-writing. Ongoing email exchanges between our team members feature simultaneous and instantaneous transcultural queries, suggestions, critiques and reflections as our research, writing and crafting goes forward. These exchanges resituate and reframe the Indigenous/non-Indigenous, non-Western/Western labour of knowledge production, increase our transcultural and translingual awareness, and enable transcultural knowledge co-production. Some examples of our email discussions so far include:
* The Aboriginal vernacular of "solid;"
* awareness of different English language accents, such as "t'anks a million" (Irish);
* how to pronounce Chinese scholar Tao Xingzhi's name;
* the historical development of Dao ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) in Taoism and Confucianism;
* how a social hierarchy is embedded in the Chinese concept Li ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] propriety);
* The Chinese writing style of [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (shape-scattering, yet spirit-concentrating)
By developing a transcultural research disposition we learn to stop ourselves from retreating into our research comfort zone and, instead, to build on our curiosity to investigate and co-produce transcultural knowledges. Our research-writing method places our work within the knowledge systems and languages of multiple cultures. This serves to:
* explain and justify the position we take;
* show how the new knowledge comes from engaging critically with different forms of existing knowledge;
* create an important and necessary sense of intellectual connectedness with existing research and with each other; and to
* Provide a basis from which to appreciate our original contribution to knowledge and to transfer Indigenous and non-Western knowledge to a global context.
In a departure from one-way mentoring, transcultural co-research mobilizes the expertise of all team members, using research-writing (for instance in email exchanges) as a tool for collective learning and theorizing, the co-production of knowledge, and the development of the team's authorial capabilities. As illustrated in the next section, we have deliberately sought to open a space for the voices and experiences of the Indigenous and Chinese members of our research team.
Insights into Mobilizing Indigenous and Non-Western Knowledge Production
In the Australian context, there is still very little understanding of the experiences of Indigenous doctoral students. For this reason, Tracey Bunda outlines her experiences of doctoral study here, and the particular issues research generates for Indigenous students. While more has been written about the experiences of international students, there is still a need to explore the particular experiences Qi Jing had, as a Chinese woman completing a doctorate in Australia, on a transnational research project in Chile. In the next section, insights into Indigenous Australian and non-Western doctoral experiences are briefly outlined.
Indigenous experiences of the research space
Once gained, Indigenous entry to the research space is still risky: it is pervaded by a panoptic gaze (Foucault, 1991) that tacitly judges the worthiness (or otherwise) of researchers, according to unreflected, institutionalized Whitestream norms of practice. Reinforcement of normative institutional codes of research in the context of Indigenous matters and communities is a continuation of the colonizing process. The process of de-colonization, by necessity, demands difficult conversations--if they can be had. In the absence of critical, dialogical self-interrogation by everyone in the research space, the labors of initiating and sustaining a conversation rest with Indigenous peoples. It is likely that the already outnumbered Indigenous researcher, having been invited in as the (less worthy) "other," will "politely" not be heard, or forcibly silenced, when trying to speak back to the inequity and injustice of continual colonizing practices. Without a speaking position, Indigenous presence in the research space is fraught. A participant of Bunda's doctoral research, DTSWCMC (who, at the time of interview, was also working on her PhD) speaks of this:
I strategically chose my supervisors because I knew that to care for the knowledge that I was engaging with ... in relation to my thesis ... I had to have particular supervisors with a certain critical base and theoretical positioning to be able to care for the knowledge that I was producing. There is a need to consider the responsibilities during and after the research project and in this sense I don't think the university particularly has a large pool of skilled [White academic] individuals that an Indigenous academic can access for supervision.
This account is indicative of the challenges facing Indigenous research capacity building. Pitfalls in supervision can sometimes be deeply disturbing, particularly when supervisor claims (e.g., to understand Indigenous relationality) turn into acts of "eating the knowledge" of the Indigenous other (hooks, 1992: 21). In the building of research capacity, the lack of care for the Indigenous learner also increases the urgency to protect the production of Indigenous knowledge through scholarship. That is, while Indigenous scholarly production of Indigenous knowledges presents a welcome authorial disruption to the dominant consensus in the academy, and while it should be fostered in the supervisory relationship, the latter can also be a site where an unhealthy fascination for eating the Indigenous other's knowledges manifests. In this type of relationship, fascination is then imagined as care whereas its subjugating power is disavowed.
A critical contribution to the building of capacity is a supervising academic's pedagogical and epistemological ability to perform "care" that can be acknowledged and deposited within relational frameworks known by the Indigenous researcher and scholar. Without authentic, or, in Aboriginal vernacular terms, "true and solid' (good and strong) performances that clearly draw from socially just impetuses, the capacity to build is stalled, and the relational framework that is vital to Indigenous research methodology is threatened.
Chinese experiences of the research space
When entering a Western university for research education, international students drift into a vast ocean of Western epistemic systems and intellectual conventions. It is questionable whether their intellectual mobility is improved in this situation: subjecting themselves to the allurement of the "supremacy" of Western knowledge often entails a partial or total rejection of the knowledge of their home culture. To address this problem, both supervisors and research students have to make the important breakthrough of recognizing the legitimacy and richness of non-Western students' home cultures and languages as sources of theories and theorizing.
In my own doctoral research journey, I benefitted from a balanced and reciprocal approach to transcultural education, which necessitates that all epistemic actors--Western, non-Western, Indigenous, Pacific, migrant and refugee--start from a relational assumption of intellectual equality and the value of knowledge co-construction. For me, the reciprocity of such intellectual networking created an augmented epistemic landscape, where all participants enjoyed greater intellectual mobility, through knowledge exchange, and intellectual originality, through knowledge co-construction (Qi, 2015). Exploring my "double knowing" (Singh and Shrestha, 2008: 77) released intellectual forces and energies that ultimately drove my doctoral research processes and outcomes. In this process, the legitimacy of both knowledge and knowledge contributors is produced and reproduced, rather than inherited or assumed, through critical and ethical intellectual endeavors. In actualizing the intellectual outcomes of this form of transcultural education, I mobilized a networked-hutong siwei, which denotes "a thinking pattern that reaches beyond agonizing over the predicament to critique, create, and work through the accesses and egresses of an intellectual labyrinth" (Qi, 2014: 386).
Mobilizing Indigenous and Non-Western Knowledge in Research Education
Mobilizing Indigenous and non-Western concepts, as we have illustrated in the sections by our Indigenous and Chinese co-authors, also involves mapping some of the grounds on which joint ventures in knowledge co-production can grow. In pushing forward the co-production of theoretic-linguistic knowledge, the Samoan concept of va is useful (see Refiti, 2013: 28). It captures the openness, the care for the Other and the social space of interaction between people that allow for equitable approaches to research education (see Table 1).
Va involves "social relations and the spiritual underpinnings to those social relations and ... is central to well-being. Va is a metaphor for relationships within defined and non-defined spaces" (O'Shea et al., 2015: 118).
Epistemological openness to blended knowledge
Working on producing a balanced approach to knowledge co-production requires that attention is given to the transcultural space of social relations (or va) in doctoral education. Firstly, supervisors need to be epistemologically open and curious about Indigenous and non-Western modes of theorizing and critique. Advancing the exchange of Indigenous, non-Western and Western knowledge entails reshaping concepts, metaphors and images from Indigenous and non-Western candidates' intellectual heritage, as our Indigenous and Chinese co-authors' vignettes about their doctoral experiences highlight above. It means exploring the potency of Indigenous and non-Western research candidates' efforts to reshape existing Euro-American Anglophone theoretic knowledge.
Manathunga (2014) calls the respectful and equal dialogue between Western and non-Western theories a "both-ways transculturation" (in our collaboration, we actually maintain a multi-directional conversation between Western, Indigenous and non-Western theories). Both-ways is an educational concept referring to Indigenous Australian school education that accommodates both Indigenous and non-Indigenous epistemological work (Ober &Bat, 2007). It has also been used in Aspland's (1999) work on intercultural doctoral supervision, where it captures the ways in which researchers work collaboratively to reshape epistemologies, methodologies and forms of knowledge co-production to conduct ethical and sensitive research. Perturbing Euro-American theoretical dependency entails, on the other hand, mobilizing a multiplicity of Indigenous and non-Western modes of theorizing and critique. Brearley & Hamm define Indigenous knowledge production as the intergenerational "research-based cultural regeneration, language revival and cross-cultural exchange" (2013: 260). Qi Jing (2015) argues for a networked-hutong siwei thinking pattern that engages complex knowledge co-construction springing from a relational approach committed to intellectual equality. Refiti (2013: 30) reasons that Deleuze and Guattari's Francophone conceptual tools of "buggery" and "bricolage" (bricklaying) resonate with key Samoan concepts and has brought them into conversation in his doctoral work. Methodologically, this entails (a) stitching together Samoan and other concepts, knowing full well that the edges have not been trimmed and the seams remain exposed; and (b) activating past concepts in the present, on the proviso that they are creative rather than merely descriptive (Refiti, 2013).
Ethics of care and hospitality
Manathunga (2015 in press) argues for an ethic of care and hospitality in supervising non-Western candidates. This replaces the anxiety about the Other, typical of the deficit view of research education illustrated by Vertovec (2007). Martin (2000: 83) argues that difference needs to be understood "as a paradigm for relation to the 'other'" and as an "ethical subjectivity through responsibility for the other". Accordingly, Martin suggests that "an ethical relation is where the autonomy of the self is called into question in favour of becoming hospitable" (84).
These notions of care and hospitality also share some similarities with Maori protocols for the reception of visitors and with Indigenous Australian traditions of reciprocity. Operating with an ethic of care for the Other, supervision becomes a space of "hospitality and generosity to the Other" (84), rather than one of assimilation and oppression. Especially when working with Indigenous students, care must also be extended to the integrity of the knowledge itself, as Bunda highlights above. These ideas are similar to Mitchell and Edwards' (2013: 109, 112) case for a non-violent and "radical ethic of pedagogical love" that involves "the participant's love for the other community member and their belief in a shared humanity" and that works towards "mutual respect and interdependence ... recognition, restoration and resistance" to White supremacy.
Transcultural Approaches to the va of Research Education: Concluding Thoughts
In order to mobilize Indigenous, non-Western, Pacific, immigrant and refugee knowledges in doctoral education, we need to develop transcultural approaches to the va spaces of social relations in research education, particularly in supervision pedagogies. This involves moving beyond contemporary trends in globalizing education, which continue to reinforce the dominance of White, Western knowledge production. As postcolonial, Indigenous and feminist research about science and technology demonstrates (Cook, 2007; Harding, 2011; Nakata, 2009; Sen, 2006), these issues are not only relevant to the Humanities and Social Sciences but, in different ways, also to the Sciences and Engineering (Manathunga, 2014). This article responds to the need to (a) challenge colonial discourses and the scripts, embedded in globalizing education, that render super-diversity as a problem; and (b) make visible the subtle operations of nice White intellectual colonialism. The latter appeals to the humanity of White students, encouraging them to empathize with their Others, while reinforcing inequitable neo-colonial conditions in which Indigenous and non-Western peoples must bear the burden of White learning (Mitchell & Edwards, 2013).
Our work is based on a recognition that mutual, transcultural knowledge exchange is not new. While recent research traces the historical assimilation and appropriation of knowledge from Asia, the Middle East and former Southern colonies, Indigenous and non-Western theorizing retrieves this knowledge and mobilizes renewed resistance to the colonial impulses of globalizing education.
Therefore, we argue, we must transform our research relationships and collaborations into a new form of co-research. As a team of Indian-Australian, Irish-Australian, Indigenous Australian and Chinese collaborators, we have been exploring how we might draw upon the diverse and equal theoretic-linguistic knowledges we bring to our co-research on doctoral education. Through a process of respectful dialogue, but also of contestation and dissensus, we endeavor to mold our arguments in spaces of cultural safety, operating with an ethics of care to each other and to the knowledge that we each bring. As multilingual co-researchers, we want to work with openness and curiosity towards a creative blending of Indigenous, non-Western and Western knowledge. An important part of this process is co-writing, which acts as a tool for collective learning and theorizing-across and between multiple knowledge systems and languages. Further, we have sought to privilege our Indigenous and Chinese co-authors' insights into doctoral education, as a way of understanding more vividly the complexities and possibilities of mobilizing Indigenous and non-Western theoretic-linguistic knowledge.
All of this work leads us to map out how equitable, mutually beneficial joint ventures in knowledge co-production might flourish, so that doctoral education can move beyond the hegemony of White, Western knowledge. In this, we have drawn on the Samoan concept of va, or the space of social relations, to reconfigure the politics of knowledge co-construction in research education. We have argued that this involves a commitment to epistemological openness and a respectful curiosity about Indigenous and non-Western modes of theorizing and critique. In this, "both-ways transculturation" and a creative blending of Indigenous, non-Western and Western knowledge will encourage research candidates to critique Euro-American theorizing and to retrieve and regenerate Indigenous and non-Western knowledge.
We have also argued that nurturing the va of doctoral education involves enacting an ethics of care and hospitality towards the Other, as well as to the knowledge being shared, created and mobilized. Building upon Maori protocols for welcoming visitors and Indigenous Australian traditions of reciprocity, this ethics of care emphasizes the importance of relational approaches to doctoral education and supervision.
Finally, we argue that Indigenous and non-Western research candidates need to be positioned as multilingual co-researchers. This would involve activating a pedagogy of intellectual equality that systematically transforms Indigenous and non-Western knowledge into documented and validated theoretical concepts and modes of critique. Thus, we hope to build upon the transformative possibilities created by the increasing presence of Indigenous and non-Western doctoral candidates in White, Western universities and to work towards full epistemological cultural inclusion.
Alatas, S. (2006). Alternative discourses in Asian social science. New Delhi: Sage.
Aspland, T. (1999). 'You learn round and I learn square:' Mei's story. In Y. Ryan and O. Zuber-Skerrit (Eds.), Supervising postgraduates from non-English speaking backgrounds (pp. 25-39). Buckingham: The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University.
Baba, T. L., Mahina, O., Williams, N., & Nabobo-Baba, U. (2004). Researching Pacific and indigenous peoples: Issues and perspectives. Auckland: Centre for Pacific Studies, The University of Auckland.
Beckwith, C. (2012). Warriors of the cloisters. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Brearley, L. & Hamm, T. (2013). Spaces between Indigenous and non-Indigenous knowledge systems: Deep listening to research in a creative form. In A.-Chr.
Engels-Schwarzpaul & M. A. Peters (Eds.), Of other thoughts: Non-traditional ways to the doctorate. A guidebook for candidates and supervisors (pp. 259-278). Rotterdam, NL: Sense Publishers.
Bunda, T. (2014). The relationship between Indigenous peoples and the university: Solid or what! (PhD Thesis). University of South Australia, AU.
Bunda, T., Zipin, L. & Brennan, M. (2012). Negotiating university 'equity' from Indigenous standpoints: A shaky bridge. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 16(9), 941-957.
Cook, H. (2007). Matters of exchange. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Foucault, M. (1995). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. New York, NY: Knopf Doubleday.
Goody, J. (2010). The Eurasian miracle. Cambridge: Polity.
Harding, S. (Ed.). (2011). The postcolonial science and technology studies reader. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Hobson, J. (2004). The Eastern origins of Western civilization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
hooks, b. (1992). Black looks: Race and representation. Boston, MA: South End Press.
Manathunga, C. (2013). Culture as a place of thought: Supervising diverse candidates. In A.-Chr. Engels-Schwarzpaul & M. A. Peters (Eds.), Of other thoughts: Non-traditional ways to the doctorate. A guidebook for candidates and supervisors (pp. 67-82). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Manathunga, C. (2014). Intercultural postgraduate supervision. London: Routledge.
Manathunga, C. (in press, 2017). A critical turn in knowledge construction in intercultural doctoral pedagogy and communication? In A. Diaz & M. Dasli (Eds.), The critical turn in intercultural communication pedagogy: Theory, research and practice. London: Routledge.
Martin, B. (2000). Place: An ethics of cultural difference and location. Educational Philosophy & Theory, 32(1), 81-91.
Mitchell, R. & Edwards, K. (2013). The colour of thought: Advising ethic minority candidates through a radical ethic of pedagogical love. In A.-Chr. Engels-Schwarzpaul & M. A. Peters (Eds.), Of other thoughts: Non-traditional ways to the doctorate. A guidebook for candidates and supervisors (pp. 101-114). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Nakata, M. (2009) Australian Indigenous studies: A question of discipline. In A Sarwal & R Sarwal (Eds.), Reading Down Under: Australian literary studies reader (pp. 126-135). New Delhi: SSS Publications.
Ng, S. (2012). Rethinking the mission of internationalization of higher education in the Asia-Pacific region. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 42(3), 439-459.
Ober, R. & Bat, M. (2007). Both-ways: The philosophy. Ngoni kook: A Journal of Australian Indigenous Issues, 31, 64-86.
O'Shea, M., Tuagalu, I. & Henning M. (2015). Pasifika relational space and its connection with motivation to learn and quality of life. In M. Henning, C. Krageloh & G. Wong-Toi (Eds.), Student motivation and quality of life in higher education (pp. 118-127). London: Routledge.
Qi, J. (2015). Knowledge hierarchies in transnational education. London: Routledge.
Qi, J. (2014). A networked-hutong siwei of critiques for critical teacher education. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 42(4), 379-391.
Refiti, A.L. (2013). A "psychedelic method:" Spatial exposition, perspectivism and bricklaying. In A.-Chr. Engels-Schwarzpaul & M. A. Peters (Eds.), Of other thoughts: Non-traditional ways to the doctorate. A guidebook for candidates and supervisors (pp. 27-34). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Ryan, J. (2011). Teaching and learning for international students. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 17(6), 631-648.
Sen, A. (2006). The argumentative Indian. London: Penguin.
Singh, M. & Chen, X. (2012). Ignorance and pedagogies of intellectual equality. In A. Lee & S. Danby (Eds.), Reshaping doctoral education (pp. 187-203). London: Routledge.
Singh, M. & Harreveld, B. (2014). Deschooling l 'earning. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Singh, M. & Huang, X. (2012). Bourdieu's lessons for internationalizing Anglo-phone education. Compare, 43(2), 203-223.
Singh, M. & Meng, H. (2011). Democratising Western research using non-Western theories. Studies in Higher Education, 38(6), 907-920.
Singh, M., & Shrestha, M. (2008). International pedagogical structures: Admittance into the community of scholars via double knowing. In M. Hellsten & A. Reid (Eds.), Researching international pedagogies (pp. 65-82). Dordrecht: Springer.
Smith, L.T. (1999). Decolonising methodologies: Research and Indigenous peoples. London: Zed Books.
Thaman, K. (2003). Decolonising Pacific Studies. Contemporary Pacific, 15(1), 1-17.
Thaman, K. (2008). Challenges for Pacific research: A personal view. Keynote paper presented at Building Pacific Research Capacity and Scholarship Fono 2008, Fale Pasifika, University of Auckland, Auckland, NZ.
Vertovec, S. (2007). Super-diversity and its implications. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 30(6), 1024-1054.
University of Western Sydney
Victoria University, Melbourne
University of Southern Queensland
University of Western Sydney
Table 1 From Euro-American approaches to research education to transcultural approaches in the research va. Euro-American approaches Transcultural approaches Epistemological arrogance: "the Epistemological openness and West is best" curiosity about Indigenous and non-Western modes of theorizing and critique Limited research directions Creative blending of Indigenous, non-Western and Western theoretic-linguistic knowledge Anxiety concerning the foreign Ethics of care and hospitality for the Other Notion of non-English speaking Notion of multilingual background students co-researchers Racist discrimination against Cultural inclusion and knowledge historically marginalized co-construction communities
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Author:||Singh, Michael; Manathunga, Catherine; Bunda, Tracey; Jing, Qi|
|Date:||Jan 1, 2016|
|Previous Article:||"Papatuanuku/Papa:" some thoughts on the oppositional grounds of the doctoral experience.|
|Next Article:||Crafting spaces between the binary: renegade locations for the radical re-visioning of non-traditional graduate advising.|