





































Microsoft Word - GRHE-V3N2-p10


Global Research in Higher Education 
ISSN 2576-196X (Print) ISSN 2576-1951 (Online) 

Vol. 3, No. 2, 2020 
www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe 

10 
 

Original Paper 

Native Perspectives about Coupling Indigenous Traditional 

Knowledge with Western Science in Geoscience Education from 

a Focus Group Study 

Wendy F. Smythe1*, Judi Brown Clarke2†, Rebekah Hammack3 & Christie Poitra4 

1 Affiliation American Indian Studies, and Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Minnesota 

Duluth, Duluth, USA 
2 Affiliation Michigan State University, BEACON Center for the Study of Evolution in Action, East 

Lansing, USA 
3 Affiliation Montana State University, Bozeman, MT, USA 
4 Affiliation Native American Institute, Michigan State University, East Lansing, USA 
† Currently Chief Diversity Officer at Stony Brook Universitym, Stony Brook N.Y. 
* Wendy. F. Smythe, Affiliation American Indian Studies, and Earth and Environmental Sciences, 

University of Minnesota Duluth, Duluth, USA 

 

Received: March 3, 2020        Accepted: March 13, 2020       Online Published: April 8, 2020 

doi:10.22158/grhe.v3n2p10             URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.22158/grhe.v3n2p10 

 

Abstract 

Traditional Knowledge (TK) from Native American/Alaska Native (NA/AN) communities is often met 

with dismissive attitudes due to its perceived qualitative nature, however, careful examination of what 

TK represents, and how it formed, leads to the realization that TK is a mixture of qualitative, quantitive, 

and spiritual knowledge utilizing the same rigor as western science. TK represents knowledge about 

place, historical insight, and spiritual beliefs with a longstanding and tested understanding about 

terrestrial and aquatic systems. Theoretical positioning of this study supports the ideology that providing 

NA/AN students with culturally aligned educational opportunities creates equitable and inclusive 

learning environments, thereby increasing sense of identity and belonging. We present focus group data 

collected from two national conferences focused on success of NA/AN students in geoscience. Using a 

small discussion group format respondents were asked to consider: (1) How do you define science?, (2) 

How do you define TK?, and (3) What does coupling TK and science mean to you? Our findings revealed 

a holistic definition of science using typical (e.g., biology, geology, etc.) and atypical (e.g., social science, 

cultural identity, equity) descriptors. These findings emphasize the importance of developing culturally 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 3, No. 2, 2020 

11 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

aligned curriculum across all education levels to support NA/AN students. 

Keywords 

native education, traditional knowledge, STEM education, geoscience education 

 

1. Introduction 

This study examines, through a focus group format, the perspectives of Native students, Native and 

non-Native mentors, faculty, and professionals in geoscience research and education, about their 

opinions of how or if TK and western science knowledge systems are interrelated and complimentary. A 

review of current literature makes a strong argument for the benefits of using both knowledge systems 

for all students—while also addressing the difficulties encountered in blending these two distinct 

systems into geoscience research and education (Chatterjee, 2019; Ragavan, 2001). To better elucidate 

perspectives, we conducted two focus groups (n=50) at two national conferences that focused on Native 

student success across all western science or Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) 

disciplines. To gain a better understanding of the perspectives of Natives, from various tribal nations, 

on the importance of providing culturally aligned and ethical geoscience education, and the impacts 

respondents thought coupling these knowledge systems would have on their self-efficacy as a Native 

scientist. Research questions discussed in focus groups were: (1) How do you define science? (2) How do 

you define TK? and (3) What does coupling TK and science mean to you? 

This study is grounded in the theory that providing students with opportunities to couple TK and STEM 

will lead to positive outcomes in self-identity as a scientist and increase the pursuit of and retention of 

Native students in geoscience disciplines. Native students’ values and beliefs about themselves, in 

relation to their culture and community, span a spectrum of diversity within the classroom. Hence, 

post-secondary institutions often struggle to create equitable and inclusive spaces that meet the needs of 

each of these diverse students. Historically, academic institutions have failed to acknowledge that 

Native students come with unique life and cultural experiences and self-perceptions about their culture 

that influence and define their world view. This can lead to Native students struggling to reconcile 

these two worldviews (Guillory & Wolverton, 2016), making it difficult to connect STEM to their 

cultural identities, and resulting in decreased self-efficacy and failed retention rates. The belief that 

western science is universal knowledge, accepted by all, is a longstanding obstacle for Native students 

with higher educational aspirations, especially due to the dismissive perception that undermines TK 

(Bressan, 2017). 

 

2. Traditional Knowledge 

TK varies at the community level by virtue that there are 573 federally recognized and 66 state 

recognized tribes, with each community having distinct protocols, histories, and broader community 

cultural practices. The idea of combining the identities and realities of individuals from unique 

communities into a single understanding of TK is neglectful and harmful. In fact, it is more reasonable 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 3, No. 2, 2020 

12 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

to assume there will be a spectrum of beliefs, values, and perceptions of what constitutes TK. 

Generally, TK refers to local and/or regional knowledge embedded in cultural traditions by Native 

peoples, in one or more forms of collective abstracts, intuited, and diverse understanding, including, 

but not limited to, language, art, dance, music, names, medicines and remedies (Berkes et al., 2000; 

CEMA, 2015; Downes, 2000; Hoagland, 2017; Ragavan, 2001). 

TK encompasses multiple disciplines from geoscience, social science, spirituality, and health into a 

single body of knowledge. This ideology is in stark contrast to typical STEM ideologies, where 

information is seemingly compartmentalized and disconnected (Berkes et al., 2000; Durie, 2004; 

Iaccarino, 2003; Martin, 2012). The way in which TK is practiced between communities inform 

lifestyles and environmentalism from a specific community context. The root difference between TK 

and STEM is that STEM is grounded in a western perspective, and is disconnected from the values, 

culture, and perspectives that inform TK. This difference makes it difficult for mainstream society to 

understand and value TK. When the significance of TK is understood and perceived as equal in value 

to western science, only then will we realize the power of coupling these two knowledge systems as an 

innovative tool providing powerful solutions to complex scientific problems by creating a hybridized 

and holistic STEM education experience (Aikenhead & Ogawa, 2007; Hoagland, 2017; Smythe et al., 

2017). The coupling of these two knowledge systems is challenging, due to the difference in evaluation 

procedures, difference in ways of knowing, and in the understanding of what constitutes intellectual 

property and the required protocol of obtaining permissions to discuss and share TK. Coupling of these 

two knowledge systems presents great potential to create a new means for STEM research and 

education with an increase in diversity and innovation (Durie, 2004). Native students who have been 

exposed to both knowledge systems have an advantage in developing critical thinking skills with the 

ability to contemplate multiple knowledge systems as possessing value (Cobern & Loving, 2001). 

Robin Kimmerer (2002) provides a descriptive definition of TK, where he states that TK is the: 

“knowledge, practice, and belief concerning the relationships of living beings to one another 

and to the physical environment… born of long intimacy and attentiveness to a homeland and arise 

wherever people are materially and spiritually with their landscape”. 

2.1 Literature Review 

Here we distinguish between the cultural identity of Native students as numerous distinct cultures 

bound together and their TK systems, which represent more than a way of life or body of knowledge 

that cannot be fragmented into discrete ideologies (Weaver, 2001). Historically, TK has been 

manipulated and taken out of context to coincide with western concepts thereby misinterpreting its 

intended purpose and cultural meaning. Cobern and Loving (2001) contend that if TK were to be 

incorporated into western science, it risks being assimilated by the “dominate” science discourse, thus 

misconstruing the intended purpose. Menzies and Butler (2006) caution that using TK as a tool to 

enhance western science may result in scientists inferring that TK is less valuable and lacks the rigor of 

western science. This does not mean that TK and western science are incompatible but emphasizes the 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 3, No. 2, 2020 

13 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

benefit of using both knowledge systems to enhance our understanding of the world through STEM 

education. 

Barnhardt and Kawagley (2005) proposed a call to action to enhance Native students’ understanding of 

STEM by developing a hybridized TK-STEM research and science education model. One challenge 

was the preservation of TK, culture, and language while providing STEM instruction. By implementing 

a hybridized educational model that incorporates cultural and western perspectives, Native students 

would be more successful in pursuing STEM disciplines than when taught from only a western 

perspective. Coupling TK and western science and infusing traditional ways of knowing into western 

pedagogy is an effective strategy to engage Native students in STEM disciplines, an area in which 

Native students have historically had little success compared to their non-Native counterparts (Price et 

al., 2008). In addition, teachers with an understanding of TK especially from the community where 

they teach, will allow them to have a better understanding of the worldview of their students, and thus 

allowing them to engage with their students on subjects such as science in an meaningful way, as they 

adopt a culturally relevant science pedagogy (Kawagley et al., 1998). 

According to Snively and Corsiglia (2001), only 3% of students enroll in STEM programs, as they 

view science as “inaccessible and culturally irrelevant”. Native students may find science content 

inaccessible if TK does not co-exist with STEM in their classrooms (Aikenhead, 2002), and students 

cannot engage in meaningful science learning until conflicts between what is taught and their cultural 

experiences are resolved (McKinley & Gan, 2014). Using a both/and approach in teaching rather than 

an either/or approach enables students to become fluent in multiple ways of knowing and thinking 

(Abrams & Hogg, 2004; Aikenhead & Jegede, 1999) better preparing them to become Native scientists 

and leaders. Despite the benefits, ontological differences between TK and STEM can challenge efforts 

to bring the two knowledge systems together (Mazzocchi, 2006), as there is a fundamental disconnect 

between the TK and STEM with regard to: 1) ways of knowing, 2) protocol for collecting and using 

TK, 3) interpretation of knowledge, and 4) the ethics of using and sharing TK (Chatterjee, 2019; 

Ragavan, 2001). This disconnect is often reflected in the history of the U.S. which has extracted from 

TK for science instruction, where few educators understand Native worldviews and its effect on student 

learning (Snively & Corsiglia, 2001; Kawagley et al., 1998). To this end, it has been suggested that 

western science may be functionally distinct from TK and these distinctions could contribute to the 

disconnect between Native worldviews and western science (Durie, 2004), resulting in western 

scientists being skeptical as to the value of TK because western science is considered objective and 

generalizable focusing heavily on technical skills, experimental design, and explanatory power of the 

data, whereas these attributes are not the focus of TK which is grounded in a particular culture (Abrams 

& Hogg, 2004). Despite ontological differences, these two worldviews possess similarities in that they 

both involve making observations and inferences about natural systems of understanding of the natural 

world (Hoagland, 2017; Martin, 2012). 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 3, No. 2, 2020 

14 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

2.2 Methods 

This case study was conducted using a dual moderator focus group format, in which moderator one 

posed discussion questions, and moderator two recorded all responses and ensured that all discussion 

questions were addressed by the group. We applied the Indigenous Traditional Knowledge Framework 

(ITKF) guidelines when posing questions, recoding, and analyzing data. ITKF emphasizes respect, 

protection, and the ethical use of TK systems, by reducing environmental, social, and cultural risk 

associated with the development of resources, by improving relationships, and strengthening public 

trust in environmental decisions driven by policy. ITKF is based on the following guiding principles for 

TK such that; TK is an important body of knowledge providing insight of the natural environment and 

is unique to the communities bearing the knowledge, that it is valuable and should be considered and 

acknowledged alongside western science; that TK belongs to the Native community who bears the 

knowledge and is under the authority and control of the community; that permission is required to 

collect, analyze, and disseminate knowledge; and TK will be discussed in a constructive manner 

building an atmosphere of mutual respect between stakeholders (CEMA, 2015). 

2.3 Study Structure and Focus Group Questions 

This is a collective case study of two focus groups from two STEM conferences focused on Native 

students and scholars. The focus group A took place at Conference A, a three-day gathering of tribal 

mentors, college students, faculty, research centers, elders, and tribal community members. The 

mission of the conference was to promote participation of Native students in the applied science 

disciplines with the purpose of encouraging students from largely two-year institutions such as 

community or tribal colleges, to consider transitions to four-year institutions while build peer and 

mentor networks. Additionally, Conference A focused on supporting Native students on developing 

their identities as Native scientists. Conference B, while similar to Conference A, focused on increasing 

representation of Native students, scientists, and professionals in STEM disciplines. Conference B 

brought together Native college students, pre-college students, faculty, professionals, and industry 

partners working in STEM disciplines. Students who attended Conference B were primarily from 

4-year universities and graduate programs with fewer tribal college students and faculty represented. 

Conference B provided professional development opportunities for students by providing mentors and 

resources for resume writing, onsite job interviews, information for academic scholarships, and 

providing students an opportunity to present research in a culturally aware welcoming environment. 

For this study, convenience sampling was used as respondents (n=50) self-selected to participate in the 

focus groups as advertised at both conference programs as an opportunity to discuss their perspectives 

on the relationships (if any) between STEM and TK. The composition of respondents covered a broad 

range of professions, undergraduate through postdoc, faculty, cultural practitioners, and elders, and 

thus a broad age range, 18 to 64 years reported. Gender composition was skewed towards females 

(66%) over males (34%). The structure of the study was a series of open-ended questions designed to 

maximize the opportunity for respondents to discuss the questions among their peers. Questions 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 3, No. 2, 2020 

15 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

discussed were: (1) How do you define STEM? (2) How do you define TK? and (3) What does coupling 

TK and STEM mean to you? Focus groups were divided into small groups of five to ten, to ensure that 

each participant had an opportunity to participate in the discussion questions and ensured respondents 

remained engaged. 

2.4 Data Sources and Analysis 

Qualitative data for this study was collected from focus group responses to a series of three discussion 

questions (Wilkinson, 2004). Namely, each group was provided with materials with which to record both 

individual and group responses as data sources (Duggleby, 2005). Data collected was used to construct 

an open coding schema organized into a matrix that was organized according to each question and 

conference (A or B). Constant comparison method (Glaser, 1965) was used to analyze the focus group 

responses from the matrix. The first round of coding consisted of open coding as described by Saldana 

(2013). Next, axial coding was used to sort data into sub-category topics within the context of each 

question. Finally, line-by-line coding was used to develop themes. The frequency of each theme was 

determined by tabulating the of responses falling within each theme (Glaser, 1978, 1992; Glaser & 

Strauss, 1967; Strauss, 1987). 

 

3. Results and Discussion 

Through our coding schema, we developed a matrix to address the manner in which focus groups made 

sense of discussion questions (Onwuegbuzie et al., 2009). The first discussion question examined how 

respondents defined science (Table 1). Responses to question one (How do you define science?) were 

provided by 82% of respondents. These respondents described science using both traditional disciplines 

(e.g., biology, geology, chemistry, etc.) in addition to disciplines and concepts not typically considered 

when describing science, such as social justice, equity, social science, politics, and cultural identity, 

resulting in a more holistic definition of science (Barnhardt & Kawagley, 2005; Hart, 2010). 

Responses demonstrate the importance of community cultural practices and knowledges to defining 

STEM. Focus group respondents from Conference B appeared to utilize expected discipline specific (e.g., 

biology, geology, etc.) terms to describe STEM. A number of respondents from both conferences 

described STEM through social science disciplines (e.g., sociology, public health, political science and 

education), discussing STEM through the lens of social justice and equity. Respondents from Conference 

B interpreted question one through the lens of STEM work impacting tribal sovereignty in positive ways. 

Additionally, responses from Conference B also included coupling of TK with STEM. This illustrates 

that a subset of respondents viewed a relationship between TK and STEM knowledge systems. The 

responses to define what science is and/or means display interdisciplinary notions across science and 

social science. 

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 3, No. 2, 2020 

16 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Table 1. Categories and Definitions of STEM Illustrating Themes Present in the Data and the 

Frequency of the Cited Themes across Conferences A and B 

 

Responses to question two (How do you define TK?) were provided by 82% of respondents, in which a 

majority of respondents from both conferences (A and B) discussed a definition of TK as related to 

practices, beliefs, histories, customs and values of their community, as it relates to individual identity 

(Table 2). There were a number of respondents from conference B that discussed knowledge sharing as 

important to defining TK. It is somewhat unexpected that the concept of sharing knowledges outside of 

the community would be part of this defining (Brush, 1993; Coombe, 1998; Iseke-Barnes, 2006). 

Responses from Conference A did not discuss sharing TK across communities, with only one participant 

discussing sharing knowledge. This difference in the opinion of exchange of and assimilation of TK with 

STEM may be attributed to life experiences and alterations in worldview of participants from each 

conference. Keeping in mind that respondents from conference A were from 2-year tribal colleges, 

cultural practitioners, and tribal members and likely to have had limited experiences in mainstream 

culture, relative to respondents from Conference B who were from 4-year university, postdoctoral 

researchers, faculty, and STEM professionals who spend more time in mainstream culture. The other 

significant theme that emerged from question two was the role of collaboration to couple TK with STEM 

education. The desire to couple TK with STEM was present across both conferences. Conference B 

respondents are trying to reconcile their two worldviews into a coupled knowledge system that allows 

them to utilize two distinctive and equally important knowledge systems. 

 

 

 

 

Question #1—What does STEM mean to you? A B 

Category Definition   

STEM Disciplines Refers to STEM being defined as different STEM disciplines 14 27

Social Science Disciplines Refers to social sciences 7 7 

 

Social Justice/Equity 

Refers to social justice activist issues and actions related to Native 

American/Alaska Native communities’ wellbeing, capacity building, 

and positive outcomes 

3 6 

Tribal Politics, Governance, 

Policy 

Refers to tribal sovereignty, exercising tribal sovereignty or the 

impacts of external policy on tribal communities 
0 3 

Native American/Alaska 

Native Cultural Identities and 

Practices. 

Refers to the Native American/Alaska Native histories, beliefs, 

practices, customs, values, and knowledges 0 5 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 3, No. 2, 2020 

17 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Table 2. Definitions of TK Outlines the Different Ways Focus Group Respondents Thought about 

How to Define TK and the Frequency of the Cited Themes across Conferences A and B 

Question #2—What does TK mean to you? A B

Category Definition   

Cultural Identities and Identity 

Practices 

Refers to the Native American/Alaska Native histories, beliefs, 

practices, customs, values, and knowledge that contribute to 

individual identity. 

19 22

Community Knowledge 

Sharing 

Refers to the practice of sharing Native American/Alaska Native 

cultures, beliefs, knowledges, etc. with another group and/or 

community. 

1 19

Efforts and/or Perspectives to 

Bridge TK with STEM 

Collaborations, meetings, workshops, classes, curriculum to couple 

TK with STEM. 
6 10

 

Finally, responses to question three (What does coupling TK and science mean to you?) were provided 

by 44% of respondents (Table 3). The significant decline in response was notable and suggests a variety 

of reasons as to why respondents chose not to respond. Respondents may not have been comfortable 

coupling knowledge systems due to fear of knowledge being misinterpreted, theft of intellectual property, 

or loss or engulfment of knowledge to mainstream ideologies, or respondents simply never considered 

coupling TK and STEM knowledge systems and may have needed more time to consider the question 

(Barnhardt & Kawagley, 2005; Brush, 1993; Cobern & Loving, 2001; Coombe, 1998; Iseke-Barnes, 

2006; Menzies & Butler, 2006). However, of those who did respond, we noted positive views on the 

importance of coupling TK and STEM knowledge systems in which respondents viewed TK as equal to 

STEM, without the typically imposed hierarchy. However, there were notable differences between 

Conference A and B between the number of respondents highlighting this theme, again this may be due 

to life experience and alterations in worldview. A second major theme identified was in the desire for 

youth to reclaim TK to support their identity and leadership in STEM disciplines, and respondents 

discussed the importance of sharing TK with others, as found from question two. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 3, No. 2, 2020 

18 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Table 3. Views on Coupling TK and STEM Outlines the Themes and the Frequency of the Cited 

Themes across Conferences A and B 

Question #3—What does coupling TK and STEM mean to you? A B

Category Definition   

View TK as Equal to STEM 

Refers to (1) recognizing the benefits of bringing the two knowledge 

systems together; (2) viewing TK as a valid and valuable knowledge 

system in the same way as STEM 

6 14

Collective Understanding 

and/or Communication 
Refers to communicating and sharing knowledge with others 3 4

Becoming a Change Agent 

Refers to power structures at play, or desire to reclaim power to ignite 

change. How respondents view themselves as taking a stand, sharing 

their ability to be change agents, how to claim and maintain TK power 

statements. Self-identity and leadership. Surviving standing in two 

worlds 

16 7

 

Analysis of focus group responses revealed several findings and themes around the perceived 

interdisciplinary potential of geosciences education, the potential impact of western science on Native 

communities, and the need to share knowledge across cultural groups and communities to support the 

betterment of education for all. Themes represented here highlight the interconnected nature of STEM 

identities to cultural identities. Respondents highlighted the differences in worldviews seen between 

these two cultures, where TK was described as observations of the natural world and learning how to 

adapt for survival, and where STEM was described as a field that was an addition to what was already 

known by elders in the community. The acknowledgment that TK and STEM are relevant knowledge 

systems and necessary to survive was a theme that repeatedly emerged. 

Respondents from both conferences (A and B) stated that they felt their TK was marginalized in 

academia and agreed that coupling of these two knowledge systems would be positive for Native students, 

with the idea that integration would result in increased pre-college graduation rates, and an increase in 

post-secondary degree completion in STEM disciplines (Dee & Penner, 2017). Brayboy and Castagno 

(2009) have shown how a culturally responsive education model is successful in improving student 

self-efficacy, as “culturally responsive education recognizes, respects, and uses students’ identities and 

backgrounds as meaningful sources for creating optimal learning environments”. When the importance 

of TK is understood and weighted as possessing value, STEM education can create a learning community 

that is supportive of Native students and valuing of two knowledge systems which are truly innovative, 

problem solvers capable of providing powerful solutions to complex scientific problems through the 

creation of a hybridized and holistic STEM education experience (Hoagland, 2017; Smythe et al., 2017). 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 3, No. 2, 2020 

19 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

4. Conclusion 

This study conducted with two focus groups (n=50) at two national research conferences focused on 

supporting Native student success in geosciences fields. Our study examined how respondents defined 

science and TK, and the potential of coupling TK with geoscience research and education. We found that 

respondents across the two conferences defined science through traditional science disciplines (e.g., 

biology, geology, etc.) but also through nontraditional disciplines such as social science. Definitions of 

science also included strong social justice, equity, and community-centered themes. In regard to 

definitions of TK, respondents focused on concepts of knowledge sharing across culture and 

communities, cultural identity, and sense of belonging with in geoscience. There was a strong desire 

expressed to couple TK and western science knowledge systems to foster the betterment of tribal 

communities and NA/AN students. Finding of this focus group study presents us with a snapshot of 

perspectives of NA/AN students, mentors, and geoscience professionals. While this is a small study 

which cannot be broadly generalized, the findings are valuable and suggest a need for additional research. 

For example, the differences identified between the responses from participants at the two conferences 

related to sharing TK across communities indicate a need to further explore this areas. In particular, it 

will be important to explore how the life experiences of these different respondents contribute to their 

views on sharing TK across communities. 

 

References 

Abrams, D., & Hogg, M. A. (2004). Metatheory: Lessons from social identity research. Personality and 

Social Psychology Review, 8(2), 98-106. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0802_2 

Aikenhead, G. S. (2002). Cross-cultural science teaching: Rekindling traditions for Aboriginal students. 

Canadian Journal of Science Mathematics and Technology Education, 2(3), 287-304. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/14926150209556522 

Aikenhead, G. S., & Jegede, O. J. (1999). Cross-cultural science education: A cognitive explanation of 

a cultural phenomenon. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(3), 269-287. 

https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199903)36:3<269::AID-TEA3>3.0.CO;2-T 

Aikenhead, G. S., & Ogawa, M. (2007). Indigenous knowledge and science revisited. Cult Stud of Sci. 

Educ., 2, 539. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-007-9067-8 

Barnhardt, R., & Kawagley, A. O. (2005). Indigenous knowledge systems and Alaska Native ways of 

knowing. Anthropology Education Quarterly, 36(1), 8-23. 

https://doi.org/10.1525/aeq.2005.36.1.008 

Berkes, F., Colding, J., & Folke, C. (2000). Rediscovery of Traditional Ecological Knowledge as 

Adaptive Management. Ecological Applications, 10, 1251-1262. 

https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2000)010[1251:ROTEKA]2.0.CO;2	

	
 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 3, No. 2, 2020 

20 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Brayboy, B., & Castagno, A. E. (2009). Self-determination through self-education: Culturally responsive 

schooling for Indigenous students in the USA. Teaching Education, 20(1), 31-53. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210802681709 

Bressan, D. (2017). Indigenous Knowledge Helps Scientist to Assess Climate Change. In Forbes 

Media LLC. Retrieved from 

https://forbes.com/sites/davidbressan/2017/07/05/indigenous-knowledge-helps-scientists-to-assess

-climate-change/#2ab192b15527 

Brush, S. B. (1993). Indigenous knowledge of biological resources and intellectual property rights: The 

role of anthropology. American Anthropologist, 95(3), 653-671. 

https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1993.95.3.02a00060 

CEMA Task Group. (2015). CEMA Indigenous traditional knowledge framework project: Indigenous 

traditional knowledge framework. In C. Candler, & D. Thompson (Eds.), The Firelight Group 

Report. 

Chatterjee, M. (2019). Intellectual property, independent creation, and the lockean commons. 

https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3327897 

Cobern, W. W., & Loving, C. C. (2001). Defining “science” in a multicultural world: Implications for 

science education. Science Education, 85, 50-67. 

https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-237X(200101)85:1<50::AID-SCE5>3.0.CO;2-G 

Coombe, R. J. (1998). Intellectual property, human rights & sovereignty: New dilemmas in 

international law posed by the recognition of indigenous knowledge and conservation of 

biodiversity. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 6(1), 59-115.  

Dee, T. S., & Penner, E. K. (2019). The casual effects of cultural relevance: Evidence from an ethnic 

studies curriculum. American Educational Research Journal, 54(1), 127-166. 

https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831216677002 

Downes, D. (2000). How Intellectual Property Could Be a Tool to Protect Traditional Knowledge. 

Colum. J. Envt. L., 25(253), 254-257. 

Duggleby, W. (2005). What about focus group interaction data? Qualitative Health Research, 15, 

832-840. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732304273916 

Durie, M. (2004). Understanding health and illness: Research at the interface between science and 

indigenous knowledge. International Journal of Epidemiology, 33, 1138-1143. 

https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyh250 

Glaser, B. G. (1965). The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Social Problems, 12(4), 

436-445. https://doi.org/10.2307/798843 

Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press. 

Glaser, B. G. (1992). Discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine. 

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative 

research. Chicago: Aldine. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006199-196807000-00014 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 3, No. 2, 2020 

21 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Guillory, R. M., & Wolverton, M. (2016). It’s about family: Native American student persistence in 

higher education. The Journal of Higher Education, 79(1), 58-87. 

https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2008.0001 

Hart, M. A. (2010). Indigenous worldviews, knowledge, and research: The development of an 

Indigenous research paradigm. Journal of Indigenous Voices in Social Work, 1(1A). 

Hoagland, S. J. (2017). Integrating traditional ecological knowledge with western science for optimal 

resource management. IK: Other ways of knowing, 3(1), 1-15.  

Hugo, R., Smythe, W. F., McAllister, S., Young, B., Marring, B., & Baptista, A. (2013). Lessons 

learned from a K-12 geoscience education program in an Alaska Native Community. The Journal 

of Sustainability Education, 5. 

Iaccarino, M. (2003). Science and culture. EMBO Reports, 4(3), 220-223. 

https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.embor.embor781 

Iseke-Barnes, J. (2006). Misrepresentations of indigenous history and science: Public broadcasting, the 

internet, and education. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 26(2), 149-165. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/01596300500143112 

Kawagley, A. O., Norris-Tull, D., & Norris-Tull, R. A. (1998). The indigenous worldview of Yupiaq 

culture: Its scientific nature and relevance to the practice and teaching of science. Journal of 

Research in Science Teaching, 35, 133-144. 

https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199802)35:2<133::AID-TEA4>3.0.CO;2-T 

Kimmerer, R. (2002). Weaving traditional ecological knowledge into biological education: A call to 

action. Bioscience, 52(5), 432-438. 

https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2002)052[0432:WTEKIB]2.0.CO;2 

Martin, D. H. (2012). Two-eyed seeing: A framework for understanding indigenous and 

non-indigenous approaches to indigenous health research. Can J Nurs Res., 44(2), 20-42. 

Mazzocchi, F. (2006). Western science and traditional knowledge: Despite their variations, different 

forms of knowledge can learn from each other. Science and Society, EMBO Rep., 7(5), 463-466. 

https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.embor.7400693 

McKinley, E., & Gan, M. (2014). Culturally responsive science education for Indigenous and ethnic 

minority students. In N. G. Ledermann, & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science 

Education (Volume II). New York: Routledge. 

Menzies, C. R., & Butler, C. (2006). Understanding ecological knowledge. In C. R. Menzies (Ed.), 

Traditional ecological knowledge and natural resource management. Lincoln: University of 

Nebraska Press. 

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Dickinson, W. B., Leech, N. L., & Zoran, A. G. (2009). A qualitative framework 

for collecting and analyzing data in focus group research. International Journal of Qualitative 

Methods, 8(3), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690900800301 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 3, No. 2, 2020 

22 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Price, M., Kallam, M., & Love, J. (2008). The learning styles of Native American students and 

implications for classroom practice. Eighth Native American Symposium, 36-43.  

Ragavan, S. (2001). Protection of traditional knowledge. 2 Minn. Intell. Prop. Rev., 1. 

https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.310680 

Saldana, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage 

Publications. 

Smythe, W. F., Hugo, R., & Mc Allister. (2017). Incorporation of traditional knowledge into 

geoscience education: An effective method of Native American instruction. Journal of 

Sustainability Education. 

Snively, G., & Corsiglia, J. (2001). Discovering Indigenous Science: Implications for Science 

Education. Science Education, 85(1), 6-34. 

https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-237X(200101)85:1<6::AID-SCE3>3.0.CO;2-R 

Weaver, H. N. (2001). Indigenous Identity: What Is It, and Who Really Has It? American Indian 

Quarterly, 25(2), 240-255. https://doi.org/10.1353/aiq.2001.0030 

Wilkinson, S. (2004). Focus group research. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative research: Theory, 

method, and practice (pp. 177-199). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

 


