Mapping Indigenous Paradigms, Research, and Practice in the World Indigenous Nations Higher Education Consortium

台灣原住民族研究季刊第 6 卷第 1 期頁 1-61 2013 年/春季號
Taiwan Journal of Indigenous Studies, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 1-61, Spring 2013
Mapping Indigenous Paradigms, Research,
and Practice in Indigenous Nations Higher
Education Consortium
W. James Jacob
Associate Professor, Administrative and Policy Studies Department
Director, Institute for International Studies in Education
University of Pittsburgh
Che-Wei Lee（李哲偉）
Program Coordinator, institute for International Studies in Education
Nancy Wehrheim
Adjunct Professor, La Roche College
Veysel Gökbel
Project Associate, Institute for International Studies in Education
Joel Dumba Chrispo Dumba
Xiaolin Lu（呂嘯林）

《台灣原住民族研究季刊》第 6 卷、第 1 期 (2013/春季號)2
Shengjun Yin（尹聖珺）
Abstract
In this article, we provide an in-depth organizational analysis of the
World Indigenous Nations Higher Education Consortium (WINHEC)
through its global strategies in achieving nation building and
self-determination for indigenized higher education efforts. We
identify four theories from the literature used by WINHEC in its
operations, and propose two new theories to fit our evaluation of the
Consortium—Indigenous Creativity Theory and Indigenous Cultural
Creativity Theory. Social cartography, archival analysis, and discourse
analysis are used to identify the indigenous, paradigms, and practices of
the Consortium. Employing a strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and
challenges (SWOC) approach, we examine WINHEC’s organizational
contributions, effectiveness, unique aspects, and challenges of indigenous
engagement and governance in the membership nations’ locations. The
findings suggest that both indigenous and non-indigenous peoples play an
important and symbiotic role essential for the furthering of indigenous
higher education worldwide.
Keywords: indigenous paradigm, indigenous higher education, WINHEC

3
Mapping Indigenous Paradigms, Research, and Practice in Indigenous Nations
Higher Education Consortium
INTRODUCTION
Although indigenous academia has existed in certain forms and at various
levels for millennia, only recently has it entered mainstream awareness,
motivating diverse researchers, policy makers, practitioners, and stakeholders
to acknowledge its significance in societies and histories of people worldwide.
This significance translates into the preservation of indigenous values,
knowledge systems, philosophies, and wisdom production in mainstream and
indigenous-oriented higher education (McGovern, 1999; Semali & Kincheloe,
1999; Smith, 1999; Teasdale & Rhea, 2000; Mutua & Swadener, 2004; Memmi,
2006; Denzin, et al., 2008; Kovach, 2009; Reagan, 2010; Dei, 2011; Chilisa,
2012; Smith, 2012; Jacob, Liu, & Lee, forthcoming). Some government
statistics and reports on higher education access (enrollment and attendance
rates), retention (including dropout rates), attainment, and job placement
provide various reasons why indigenous students and communities continue to
underperform compared to national averages in many countries (Bowen & Bok,
1998; Bolyard & Linders, 2003). Indigenous peoples in many locations continue
to be underdeveloped and underrepresented in “the fabric of mainstream
institutions of higher education” (Brayboy, et al., 2012: 2).
In considering the development of indigenous higher education worldwide
from 1900 to the present, old issues and new directions emerge from the
dynamic relationship between indigenous organizations and diverse groups’
efforts to develop indigenous education. Several scholars argue that the central
topic that is often debated by international organizations of all kinds on
indigenous education efforts is the recognition of the general lack of educational

success1
among indigenous peoples (Abu-Saad & Champagne, 2006; Huffman,
2008, 2010; Brayboy, et al., 2012). In addition, over the past few decades,
indigenous peoples around the world have confronted various developments that
often complicate the issue of indigenous educational achievement. Two
developments are of particular importance: (1) the dynamic relationships
between indigenous populations and the state; and (2) the definition and
recognition of indigenous peoples’ ownership, use, and management of language,
identity, culture, land, and other resources.
The first development has led to a tide of political organizing (or at times,
reorganizing) within indigenous communities. Inter-communal and local
organizations, national and regional confederations, and international linkages
have risen rapidly across five continents. Sometimes these organizing efforts
encounter great resistance from nation states and in locations where indigenous
populations comprise only a fraction of the current population. Second, in the
aftermath of World War II, we have witnessed a dramatic proliferation and
involvement of pivotal international organizations and actors. Regardless of the
various names and organizational objectives—multilateral organizations (e.g.,
UNESCO, UNICEF, World Bank, and OECD); bilateral donor agencies (e.g.,
SIDA and USAID); nongovernmental organizations (NGOs); and regional
agencies (e.g., the regional development banks and the European Union) have
1
Many internationally-renowned (non)indigenous scholars, including those associated with
WINHEC, recognize that indigenous peoples are often associated with the following terms in a
negative way—scholarly success, academic success, educational achievement, attainment,
accomplishment, and fulfillment (aside from the denotation of individual success in general).
We support the notion for the need to transform or to redefine the essence of these terms to
symbolize indigenous, collective, long-term success and to consider maximizing indigenous
collective gain (Deyhle & Swisher, 1997; Deloria & Wildcat, 2001; Champagne & Stauss,
2002; Reyhner & Eder, 2004; Brayboy, 2005; Abu-Saad & Champagne, 2006; and Huffman,
2008, 2010).

5
brought some pioneering declarations,2
political leverage, financial support,
and developmental agendas in support of indigenous peoples. Struggles
regarding nation building; sovereignty; universal education; land recognition;
and language, culture, and identity preservation are common to indigenous
peoples globally.
Although the current outcomes fail to meet certain standards and
expectations of all stakeholders, many advances have occurred. Furthermore,
the United Nations has built the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues
(UNPFII) as an advisory body to the Department of Economic and Social
Affairs’ (DESA) Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), with a mandate
to discuss indigenous issues with respect to “economic and social
development, culture, the environment, education, health and human rights”
(UNPFII, n.d.). DESA’s multi-mission focus makes it difficult for it to have
enough international influence to impact indigenous higher education
significantly at the global level. Undoubtedly, these organizations have made
great progress on national, regional, and global education policies and
practices regarding the development of indigenous education, albeit mostly
at primary- and secondary-education levels. However, what seems to be
lacking is the establishment of worldwide-consolidating, indigenous-serving
(or indigenous-oriented or indigenous-based) organizations for indigenous
postsecondary education3
with an active, professional, ethical, culturally
2
Several key United Nations (1948, 1966, 2007) engagement initiatives with indigenous rights
include the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights, and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples.
3
We interchangeably use postsecondary and higher (tertiary or third-level) education to signify
the period of higher learning that happens at non-indigenous and indigenous higher education
institutions (e.g., universities, colleges, academies, institutes of technology, research centers,

responsive, and accountable mandate. New currents of thought have begun to
circulate among indigenous intelligentsia; the idea is to create “a
multi-nation effort to accredit, empower[,] and thus affirm native control of
indigenous higher learning” (Meyer, 2005: 1). In 2002, the World Indigenous
Nations Higher Education Consortium (WINHEC) emerged as a product of,
and in response to, this history of inequity within higher education.
The remarkable efficacy and effects of postsecondary achievement and
success of indigenous peoples all over the world are gaining attention and
support from indigenous and non-indigenous peoples alike. In this article, we
examine the pivotal role WINHEC plays in the development of indigenous
higher education worldwide. We are particularly interested in exploring
WINHEC’s substantial contributions toward indigenous engagement initiatives
and to distinguish the nature of the Consortium’s operations from other
international organizations in the development of indigenous higher education.
Research on the evaluation of indigenous organizations is relatively scant. Few
attempts or studies have successfully mapped indigenous paradigms, research,
and practices in an international indigenous organization. There are also
relatively few studies that document and analyze indigenous methodologies,
indigenous-based theories, and indigenous paradigmatic thought.
Focused scholarship related to WINHEC is a relatively new development
and seminaries). Several significant studies and official reports have used the term
postsecondary education widely (e.g., Pavel, et al., 1998; Brayboy, et al., 2012). However, it is
important to highlight tribally-owned-and-operated community colleges or indigenized higher
education institutions (HEIs) to clarify the different nature of these institutions from
mainstream HEIs. We strive to highlight an arena, or institutional location in the case of
indigenous HEIs, that allows indigenous peoples to maintain or restore academic autonomy in
indigenous-dominant HEIs through indigenous ways of learning, structures, and systems (Stein,
1992; Boyer, 1997; Champagne, 2002; Jennings, 2004; Mihesuah & Wilson, 2004; Reyhner &
Eder, 2004).

7
in higher education studies. As such, what we do not know—and more
specifically, what we ought to know—about WINHEC far outweighs what we
do know. This study calls our attention to potential and fruitful lines of inquiry
already underway as well as some questions that are critical for interested
researchers of WINHEC. What are the individual and societal benefits of
WINHEC? What policies and practices can contribute to attracting and retaining
students and faculty member involvement at WINHEC? What policies and
practices can enhance their teaching and learning experiences? What can
non-indigenous organizations learn from WINHEC and what are the
possibilities and limitations inherent in applying that knowledge? Who can and
should study WINHEC? And what other, if any, extraordinary considerations
must be given to such studies? In this study, we address these issues and other
relevant questions.
We use a social cartography approach (Paulston, 1977, 1993, 1996;
Weidman & Jacob, 2011) to help bridge this gap in the literature. Through an
in-depth organizational examination of WINHEC, we reify a culture of
academic success in an indigenous higher education organization. In so doing,
this study seeks to contribute to our growing understanding of how and to what
extent WINHEC shapes its paradigms, research, and practices by, for, and with
(non)indigenous populations. We start with an overview of key terms and
indigenous higher education, followed by an examination of WINHEC’s
foundation and role in international higher education. Then, we describe the
research methods used in this study. In the findings and discussion section, we
map: (1) the indigenous paradigms and research in WINHEC; and (2)
WINHEC’s practices in the multisectoral approach outlined by the indigenous
accreditation mechanism using a strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and
challenges (SWOC) analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of WINHEC’s

services and programs. Finally, we conclude with a few suggestions for how
WINHEC can continue to play a prominent role in the furthering of indigenous
higher education worldwide.
AN OVERVIEW OF KEY TERMS AND INDIGENOUS
HIGHER EDUCATION
To cogently deal with the indigenous issues in WINHEC, it is
imperative to specify some key indigenous terms and an overall picture of
indigenous education development.
Reconceptualizing Indigenous Peoples and Indigeneity
The act of accurately reconceptualizing, rationalizing, and providing
justification for the indigenous nations and their accompanying themes by using
a singular-language terminology is like exercising politics of indigenous-
generated terminology—a campaign known as a critical intercultural dialogue
(James, 1999: 587-607; UNESCO, 2009; United Nations General Assembly,
2012). It provides a basis for mutual understanding of group values and helps
validate intercultural criticism. Such critical intercultural dialogue is based on
three criteria: the priority of understanding the other’s values to better
understand their perspectives, the achievement of fair conditions of discussion,
and the fostering of mutual openness and trust (James, 1999: 587).
To refine James’ (1999) argument, we further contend that in defining
indigenous one must recognize a continual balance between transformation and
equilibrium to challenge both the definer (including indigenous peoples) and the
defined, which were originally fixed ideologies. Providing a definition is

9
essential, however, to foster the epistemological transformation, cross-cultural
sensitivity (Harkness, et al., 2003; United Nations General Assembly, 2012),
and transcultural praxis for the authentic engagement of indigenous cosmologies
and experiences.
The literature is full of discussions surrounding the definitions of
indigenous peoples, indigeneity, and marginalized peoples. Scholars have
debated about proper terminology and definitions, especially following World
War II. Our intentionally broad definition of the term indigenous includes all
persons from aboriginal or first nation descent as well as official titles of
indigenous peoples from around the world. In refining our definition, we were
cautious to respect indigenous perspectives, definitions, and titles, recognizing
that not all indigenous peoples are necessarily or appropriately classified into
this big ethnic umbrella, especially since they have their own forms of address
or tribally-specific titles.
Though no single term for indigenous peoples is accepted globally, several
terms such as Native, Aboriginal, First Nation, and local have been used
because of the cultural, historical, and political differences in these divergent
contexts (UNESCO, 2006; Jacob, Liu, & Lee, forthcoming It is clear that
indigenous communities consider themselves as charged with the preservation
of their historical heritage and with the responsibility to transmit their unique
cultural identity to future generations by protecting them from the negative
pressures of mainstream culture (International Labour Organisation, 1989;
Cheng & Jacob, 2008). Drawing upon WINHEC’s triangulation of meaning—
language, culture, and spiritual beliefs— Manulani Aluli Meyer (2005: 5)
defines indigeneity as “a way to describe the qualities of ancient culture [that]
by its very structure work[s] toward strengthening the people it embodies.”
Besides language and culture that are commonly associated with educational

development, many indigenous members of WINHEC value their religious
faiths as well.
Examining Indigenous Education Development
The world is comprised of thousands of diverse populations and groups of
people. Today, there are an estimated 300-350 million (UNESCO, 2006: 4, 11)
or 370 million indigenous peoples in the world (Collings, 2009: 84; Carino,
2009: 21; Secretariat of the UNPFII, 2009: 1, 8). UNESCO identifies over 5,000
languages and cultures in more than 70 countries (UNESCO, 2006: 11); the
Secretariat of the UNPFII (2009: 1) notes that, of the 7,000 languages
worldwide, “more than 4,000 are spoken by indigenous peoples.” UNESCO
declared the First International Decade of the World’s Indigenous People
(1994-2004) and the Second International Decade of the World’s Indigenous
People (2005-2014) due to the increasing importance and recognition of
indigenous peoples. Furthermore, the United Nations announced a Declaration
on the Right of Indigenous Peoples in 2007 to help promote indigenous
institutions, cultures, and traditions, along with the development of their own
needs and aspirations. Among other reasons, the UN drafted the Declaration to
prohibit further discrimination that indigenous peoples have commonly
encountered. Furthermore, the Declaration provided suggested avenues for
effective participation so that these rights could eventually become mainstream
and bring economic and social improvement to all indigenous peoples (UN
General Assembly, 2007). As a component of such global recognition, Ronald
Niezen (2000: 119) notes:
The term indigenism has gained momentum over the last decades
largely out of the notice of observers, pundits, and theorists of

11
international events. Even though this recognition process is smaller
in scale, more fragile, less turbulent than the nationalist upheavals of
the past two centuries, it nevertheless has the potential to influence
the way states manage their affairs, and even to reconfigure the usual
alignments of nationalism and state sovereignty.
We recognize that most indigenous peoples still suffer from many
inequalities, government assimilation policies, and discriminations. Many
indigenous peoples do not have proper access to basic social services such as
education and health care because many live in urban and suburban areas where
poverty levels are often above national averages (UNESCO, 2006; United
Nations, 2008).
In terms of indigenous educational development, obtaining recognition for
indigenous cultures and languages is often a slow process for many educators,
policy makers, and practitioners, who usually come from mainstream society,
and they may not appreciate these distinctive cultures. When stakeholders fail to
find ways to enable indigenous peoples to engage in decision-making regarding
indigenous education policies, the equalization agenda of indigenous peoples is
halted. Unfavorable, and sometimes hostile, circumstances gradually lead to an
inevitable “indigenous genocide” in a way that causes the assimilation of
indigenous peoples into the mainstream culture. Here too are visible the many
inadvertent effects of “globalization, economic policies and practices, and the
policies related to human rights issues, the media and media culture, and
urbanicity” (Jacob, Liu, & Lee, forthcoming).
In this historical continuity, many indigenous peoples rely on language,
culture, and identity preservation through word of mouth or oral histories to
spread their languages, histories, and traditions. Therefore, both formal and

non-formal education mediums are among the most effective ways to protect
indigenous cultures, identities, and knowledge. Higher education institutions
(HEIs) can also play a crucial role in revitalizing the language, epistemology,
wisdom, and knowledge of indigenous peoples. Thus, we examine indigenous
higher education in terms of organizational structures, which claim to promote
indigenous peoples’ right to preserve their uniqueness and to transfer their
cultures to future generations.
Accelerating the articulation of knowledge, creating a global network
between people, and advancing the social, economic, and political status of
society are some of the expectations society has of HEIs. The connection
between the local and the global, and the modern and pre-modern, can
generate manifold ways that HEIs and society can interact (Jacob, Sutin,
Weidman, & Yeager, forthcoming). Having indigenous students and researchers
of indigenous epistemology at HEIs not only recognizes the significance of
indigenous peoples, but also prevents the swift disappearing of valuable
indigenous inheritances.
Undoubtedly, higher education simultaneously possesses potential
advantages and disadvantages when advocating indigenous cultures. Some
research suggests that Western higher education culture is more widely
represented within course syllabi, research activities, and schedules than
non-Western cultures. Douglas L. Morgan (2003), for instance, contends that
Western-dominated science often negatively affects indigenous knowledge and
wisdom, which includes specific ways of understanding the world.
In addition to Western dominance, we also recognize the hegemonic
dominance over indigenous peoples of many governments and national policies
from all parts of the world. Within higher education, many decision makers (e.g.,
policy makers and higher education administrators) and knowledge transmitters

13
(e.g., faculty members, instructors, and students) do not consider the wisdom of
indigenous societies as scientific or of equal value with other ways of learning.
Therefore, the intrinsic and often time-tested value of indigenous knowledge—
which comes from indigenous peoples’ ancestors and their experiences—is
often neglected within contemporary higher education systems. If indigenous
peoples are not given chances to present or prove the value of their knowledge
systems and ways of learning, many of these indigenous characteristics will
eventually be lost.
Being largely dominated by mainstream scientific knowledge paradigms,
those in higher education are often of the notion that promoting indigenous
epistemologies may be a potential risk to the reputation of a given institution or
to the scientific community. This pervasive notion threatens diversity in general,
and support for indigenous perspectives in particular. And yet, universities are
often still touted as centers of diversity in terms of knowledge generation and
education proliferation.
Obviously, as indigenous higher education students are encouraged to
embrace mainstream cultures, the risk of the domination and assimilation of
their indigenous cultures becomes greater. Generally, indigenous peoples live in
a combination context of mainstream and their own cultures. The latter often
suffers from a negative stigma and loss of esteem within indigenous youth
populations, as Morgan (2003: 46) notes: “this bicultural experience forces them
to live between two worlds where they do not belong in the [mainstream]
context and where their education often means that they cannot belong in their
own culture either—it having become the ‘other.’”
Mainstream standards have traditionally dominated the means by which
knowledge is evaluated. Instead, however, it is preferable to adopt a new
flexible, sensitive, and cultural paradigm that acknowledges and celebrates the

value of indigenous wisdom and knowledge, rather than solely relying on
mainstream perspectives. In other words, mainstream or non-indigenous
epistemologies cannot dominate; other perspectives are vital. Academia needs
philosophical transformation to overcome the hidden domination and
assimilation that threatens indigenous knowledge (Morgan, 2003). Aboriginal
students in higher education in Australia are examples of indigenous persons
living in a dominant Western paradigm. Many Aboriginal higher education
students are involved in Western-driven learning environments at universities
with no legitimate connection to Aboriginal knowledge. Moreover, Aboriginal
cultures are often neglected or entirely omitted from research and teaching
activities as there is little practice of incorporating such indigenous perspectives
into higher education contexts (Slade & Morgan, 2000).
Local knowledge and wisdom are one of the problematic exclusions in
modern universities. Changing the lens requires a Kuhnian paradigmatic shift; it
requires a clear understanding of knowledge and wisdom (Kuhn, 1962). Many
questions emerge from academics about how to evaluate higher education’s
tasks, encompassing: (1) what relationship exists between ideas generated at
HEIs and locally-recognized concepts of knowledge or wisdom? (2) How often
are globally-sensitive issues discussed and understood? (3) How can universities
play a fundamental role in preserving and promoting local knowledge
internationally? and (4) Does the incorporation of local knowledge and wisdom
into HEIs give a local entity more power to act globally, locally, regionally, or
ethnically?
In response to global changes, indigenous communities have made some
attempts to become more involved in local HEIs. As G. Robert Teasdale and
Zane Ma Rhea (2000) note, these communities remind the academy that the
cultivation of wisdom from that which is local, and the promotion of their local

15
knowledge in academic fora will increase the diversity of such institutions’
acumen, giving those institutions more caché.
Higher education is also an important arena in which to build a partnership
between indigenous communities and governments, not only in terms of student
involvement, but also in research about indigenous societies to promote their
unique cultures and epistemologies. However, some challenges still exist in
building collaborations and relationships with indigenous communities,
including: (1) insufficient participation of researchers; (2) insufficient
interpretations of research findings by scholars; (3) distrust of researchers by
tribal members; (4) lack of tribal policies regarding research endeavors; (5) too
few contributions of studies to indigenous societies; and (6) the existence of
only non-native theoretical frameworks with which to discuss study results
(Baldwin, et al., 2009).
WINHEC’S FOUNDATION AND ROLE IN HIGHER
EDUCATION
Established in August 2002 in Canada, WINHEC was the first global
organization providing a forum for exchange and cooperation in improving
indigenous higher education. It works with indigenous peoples to share the
vision and protect rights of indigenous peoples in terms of preserving languages,
cultures, and traditions through higher education. WINHEC was founded in a
move to the resist the negative impact of academic neo- and post-colonialism.
Indigenizing the academy, establishing a recognized accreditation mechanism
for indigenous higher education, and forming indigenous knowledge systems are

increasingly imperative transformations to reconstruct indigenous subjectivity4
in education and contribute multiple platforms for indigenous sustainable
development—all of which are the foci of this worldwide organization. The
Consortium aims to facilitate cultural exchange and academic dialogue through
international cooperation to consider it to be both an international organization
and movement. To achieve global targets, WINHEC uses its Global Strategy
Framework, which provides a common strategic approach, including the
founding principles, objectives, and rationale for establishing working groups.
WINHEC operates under the belief that indigenous peoples have the right to
determine their way of life and their relationship with governments. WINHEC’s
founding principles are primarily based on Articles 12, 13, 14, and 15 of the
2007 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
For centuries indigenous languages, cultures, social systems, and values
have been neglected and oppressed by waves of colonization. With the gradual
rise of human rights awareness, indigenous peoples’ desire for educational
equity increases. Some indigenous education leaders and scholars launched
WINHEC to create an organization strong enough to influence the future course
of history (Ambler, 2005: 18). Marjane Ambler (2005: 18) observes that “when
a dozen education leaders met in Alberta, Canada, in August 2002, [to establish
WINHEC] they felt the familiar thrill of history being made.”
The founding nation members present at the launch, the World Indigenous
Peoples Conference on Education (WIPCE), were Australia, the states of
Hawai’i and Alaska and the American Indian Higher Education Consortium of
the United States, Canada, the Wänanga of Aotearoa (New Zealand), and
4
We define indigenous subjectivity as the degree and praxis of substantially- and effectively-
exercising critical consciousness and an ability to express indigeneity or nature, such as
through indigenous peoples’ ethnic languages and traditional knowledge.

17
Saamiland (North Norway). “Creating an accreditation body for indigenous
education initiatives and systems that identify common criteria, practices and
principles by which indigenous peoples live” became one of the Consortium’s
essential goals (WINHEC, 2010: 3).
Due to the uniqueness of the WINHEC accreditation process, it is a
developing study with fertile potential for change, even though there is scant
scholarly literature available about quality assurance for indigenous higher
education institutions. Hence, we use the WINHEC accreditation issues in our
case study to highlight its strengths, weaknesses/limitations, opportunities, and
challenges for, by, and with (non)indigenous peoples and those who are
interested in this topic.
After decades of institutional-, local-, state-, national-, and global-level
initiatives to facilitate tribal nation building, self-determination, sovereignty,
indigenous knowledge systems, and culturally-responsive education through
indigenous control of higher education, WINHEC emerged as an indigenous-
generated5
academic player. The rise of WINHEC both fueled and resulted
from the indigenized 6
academic identity. This organization represents a
population that has suffered a history of exclusion in mainstream academia and
that is generally economically poorer than those from mainstream societies. This
international Consortium strives to gain academic recognition for indigenous
epistemology.
5
We define the term indigenous-generated as a set of ideas, knowledge, and innovations unique
to indigenous peoples, either from times past, present, or in the process of development.
6
We define indigenized as a critically indigenous-generated praxis that involves necessary
non-indigenous integration besides native maintenance, by combining the meaning of “to cause
to have indigenous characteristics or personnel” in Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary,
11th ed. (2003: 634) with Devon Abbot Mihesuah and Angela Cavender Wilson’s (2004) term
“indigenizing.”

With the emergence of the international indigenous rights movement in the
latter half of the twentieth century, indigenous scholars have been obliged to
balance individual rights with collective rights through international initiatives.
Indigenous nations had found themselves divided by newly-imposed
international borders, or lumped together with other groups entirely. This made
it particularly challenging to find a forum that would deal with their demands
instead of eschewing responsibility. Consequently, indigenous leaders began to
unite with other Aboriginal groups to increase their effectiveness in the fight for
their rights. Since the 1970s, increasing numbers of indigenous peoples have
organized across geographic and political borders, bringing international
attention to their common struggles, despite their vastly different cultures and
locations. These organizations vary, from global organizations such as the
World Council of Indigenous Peoples to smaller organizations, such as the
Coast Salish Gathering, that reunite cultural groups divided by political borders.
Various international indigenous organizations began to emerge in the 1960s,
when indigenous scholars and non-indigenous professionals became more aware
of the urgent need to unify the strengths of all indigenous peoples around the
world and establish a sustainable development institution.
METHODS
Research Design
Key indigenous scholars all over the world, including some from the
Latino and African American communities in the United States, stress that
understanding history is a vital component for the conduct of ethnic research in
their communities (Chilia, 2005; Dezin, et al., 2008; Cram, 2009; LaFrance &

19
Crazy Bull, 2009; Mertens, 2009; Mertens, et al., 2009). John H. Stanfield II
(1994) asserts that historical viewpoints are imperative to design loci of
exploration based on the indigenous experiences of people of color. We thus use
a historical-narrative research approach as a legitimate basis that complied with
the following three principles of an indigenous-ethnic model for research
(Stanfield, 1994):
1. It should be based on oral communication because so many
non-Western cultures within and outside industrial nation states
are oral-communication based.
2. It should be grounded in holistic (not fragmented or dichotomized)
notions of human beings because many non- Westerners view the
social, the emotional, and the spiritual as integral parts of a
whole person linked to a physical environment.
3. The methodology should incorporate the use of historical
documents, participant observation, and oral history to allow
people of color to articulate holistic explanations about how they
construct the reality.
Theoretical Framework
By employing the Tai-Ji Model for theoretical selection, we identified
multiple theories that help us in our organizational analysis (Jacob & Cheng,
2005). The theories we drew from include Complexity Theory, Kaupapa Maori
Theory, Networks of Practice, and Self-Determination Theory. Because these
existing theories did not fully explain what we needed in this study, we
developed two other theories—the Indigenous Creativity Theory and the

Indigenous Cultural Creativity Theory.
Data Sources and Collection
Our primary data collection approaches included archival documents from
the existing literature, as well as from discourse not yet in the academic
literature but available primarily through the Internet. We used the following
four-step process in conducting this indigenous organizational archival and
discourse analysis. First, we identified a topic through which to evaluate
WINHEC and compiled sources that were helpful in the identification of our
research questions. Second, we conducted a thorough literature review, with
particular focus on the preliminary and secondary sources most instrumental in
support of our examination of WINHEC’s issues. Third, we identified the
available historical data through the official WINHEC website
(www.win-hec.org), primarily targeting their published journal articles, regular
minutes, annual conferences and agendas, and written organizational
constitution. Fourth, we used standards and criteria to evaluate the quality of our
assembled data. This study was conducted over a one-year period from January
to December 2012. It included four distinct phases: (1) defining the research
questions, (2) conducting a literature review, (3) reviewing the assembled data
and analyzing WINHEC using a SWOC analysis approach, and (4) writing and
refining this article.
DATA ANALYSIS
Indigenous Paradigms and Research: Social Cartography Approach
We followed a social cartography approach (Paulston, 1977, 1993, 1996;

21
Weidman & Jacob, 2011) to map indigenous paradigms and research in
WINHEC. Social cartography provides researchers with an ability to present
original ideas that are highly related to indigenous social lives, mythic symbols,
(un)written or cultural totems and maps/texts (Paulston, 1996) as expressions of
indigenous worldviews. This mapping strategy helped us to position theoretical
stances and perspectives of WINHEC. To explore how WINHEC members
know and interpret this world to generate their paradigms and research agendas,
we scrutinized WINHEC’s documents through the existing indigenous-relevant
theories mainly coming from the field of comparative, international, and
development education (CIDE) (Jacob, et al., 2011: 69-71) because of its
balance of marco-and-mirco theories. Further, we collect other adequately
relevant academic disciplines to shape WINHEC’s inherent theoretic
standpoints, such as psychology.
Indigenous Practice: A SWOC Analysis Approach
We evaluate indigenous practice in WINHEC using a strengths, weaknesses,
opportunities, and challenges (SWOC) approach to best reflect the pros and
cons of the Consortium’s activities’ implementation and overall performance;
meanwhile, we draw from WINHEC’s stated and assumed goals and objectives.
This analytical framework identified internal and external factors that favored or
hindered the achievement of these goals and objectives.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
Indigenous Paradigms and Research in WINHEC
In this study, we examine theories linked to WINHEC initiatives and the

Consortium’s effectiveness in helping indigenous peoples using certain
theoretical lenses that have been determined by the Tai-Ji Theoretical Selection
Model (Jacob & Cheng, 2005; Cheng, et al., 2011).
Complexity Theory
We draw from Complexity Theory to discuss the various dynamics that
exist within complex organizations and recognize the multiple perspectives from
all organizational stakeholders. New dynamics often emerge within the
Complex Theoretical Framework and need to be taken into account when
“different aspects and actions of individual stakeholders shape the educational
organization in new ways” (Jacob, et al., 2011: 76). They combine to help an
organization reach beyond what appears to be a sum of its parts through
collective synergy efforts. W. James Jacob and his colleagues (2011) continue to
explain Complexity Theory, as it is applied to comparative, international, and
development education (CIDE) settings, by positing that:
educational organizations are most often seen as the subject of
study. The theory is concerned with the way in which the community
interacts within the education setting; a setting that would be defined
in Complexity Theory as including not just the administration,
teachers and students, but also the stakeholders in the process such as
parents, community, government, and those who provide funding. (76)
Clearly, indigenous peoples represented by WINHEC are diverse and
involve a multitude of stakeholders as well as strong ties to local and national
communities.
Kaupapa Maori Theory

23
Another theory we draw from is Kaupapa Maori Theory, which is based on
Maori traditional philosophies and principles. Kaupapa Maori Theory is a
worldview or way of knowing the world that advocates self-determination. This
involves the coming together of whakapapa (genealogy) and whanau (kinship)
in reformulating the Maori identity, an identity that is Maori-owned and
controlled (Jacob, et al., 2011: 84). This idea of kinship comports with the
caring communities that we propose as an addendum to communities of practice.
This theory, at least in the Maori community, “acknowledges the socio-
economic difficulties and other disadvantages Maori have faced, yet stresses the
ability to overcome them through an extended family network” (Jacob, et al.,
2011: 85); further, it “can contribute to CIDE discourse by opening up what has
been primarily Eurocentric, to include alternative traditions and ways of
knowing” (87).
We argue that such a network is successful because of the caring feeling
that families can impart. We also contend that the effect of the community as an
aid in education and life would be highly diminished if that caring feeling were
to be thwarted or distorted. A sense of caring is necessary to enable success to
develop within the psyche of the learners of the community. Paul Farmer (2009:
23) addresses a similar idea, writing with his customary fervor as he works with
the world’s disenfranchised people. He argues that a lack of caring and any kind
of suffering is wrong. We maintain, on the basis of Farmer’s experiences and our
own in teaching, that greater achievement will be observed in a family-like
structure with caring at the center. Kaupapa Maori Theory is applicable beyond
the Maori culture and “can inform other indigenous contexts” (Jacob, et al.,
2011: 88).
Network of Practice Theory

We also use the Network of Practice Theory (Jacob, et al., 2011) as
WINHEC is a network of indigenous peoples, advocates, and organizations,
working for the benefit of indigenous peoples worldwide. Network of Practice
Theory builds on the idea of communities of practice and creates a superset of
associations where the sharing of knowledge is aided by technology, especially
e-mail communication. In this instance, technology becomes a key feature in
that it has the latent ability to facilitate the creation of an expanded group that
can interact across multiple sites in a collective manner.
Indigenous Creativity Theory
To understand indigenous peoples’ learning in WINHEC, we coin a new
theory called Indigenous Creativity Theory, which is based on the notion that
humans have unlimited learning potential and that optimal learning occurs when
all people enjoy the foundational principle of academic freedom. Academic
freedom creates an environment whereby indigenous peoples can learn without
fear of oppression or discrimination. Learning is a social and dynamic
experience, “a process by which young people grow into the intellectual life of
those around them” (Vygotsky, 1978: 88). An ideal social situation should
enable positive affect and increased achievement in a learning situation where
indigenous peoples can access higher education, especially within a local
WINHEC-affiliated HEI.
To facilitate a safe learning environment, we propose the organization of
Indigenous Caring Communities (ICCs) as an important element of the
Indigenous Creativity Theory and an offshoot of the Networks of Practice
Theory. ICCs can range from large groups to indigenous dyads and small groups
that can be used as a venue to enable a dialogical process of learning, which fits
with Paulo Freire’s (1970) notion of dialogical learning (Taylor, 1993). This

25
dialogical process is grounded in the idea that care, compassion, and love are
required for sustained learning. ICCs are essential for indigenous peoples to
thrive at the higher education level. Drawing from an enabling environment that
is so prevalent in successful ICCs, WINHEC continues to expand its own stance
on how to interact with other indigenous nations and institutions. As Sheng Yao
Cheng and his colleagues (2011: 295) argue that “theory creation . . . is an
ongoing process that builds upon the rich foundation of previous educators who
advocated various global standpoint theoretical perspectives.”
Abraham Harold Maslow (1970, 2000) asserts that humans have a
hierarchy of needs and that two of the most essential are safety and the need to
belong (including a sense of human caring). Indigenous people need to possess a
sense of belonging in their learning process. If Maslow’s hierarchy has any
merit, ICCs are required to provide a caring environment where all participants
enter without fear and with belonging; this ICC environment enables indigenous
cultures to be a centerpiece of the learning experience. In a complementary
mode, Daniel Amen (2008: 31, 219) maintains that “positive, happy, hopeful
thoughts release chemicals that help you feel good” and “relationships are
critical to how we deal with stress and trauma . . . [thus] connection enhances
brain function.” Since Amen posits this biological response to positive thinking,
he also suggests that relationships affect such a response:
Success in almost any adventure in life—at home, work, in
our hobbies and churches—is enhanced when we build a brain
trust of personal relationships and social networks…... Acquiring and
implementing the behaviors that encourage your social communities
to thrive is essential for a magnificent mind. (220)

Thus, learning is enhanced by the positive relationships that one has with
others, including with the communities in which they interact. Consequently,
positive relationships and places of belonging will enable indigenous peoples to
achieve more in all areas of life, including in their higher education pursuits.
Amen (2008) further concludes that children can be taught by our communities;
we recognize the central role parents and other positive role models play in this
communal learning process. When indigenous students and faculty members
face challenges in higher education, ICCs can help buoy them up through
continual positive reinforcement and social scaffolding. Positive role
models—including parents, teachers, and leaders—are integral to implementing
successfully Indigenous Creativity Theory through the careful establishment of
sustainable ICCs.
This positive thinking for indigenous peoples as learners would also spawn
positive self-identities (Amen, 2008: 256). Indigenous self-identities are
positively enhanced when indigenous peoples realize that their culture is valued
and respected. Indigenous languages and cultures can only be preserved if they
are valued by those who can best preserve them. Such positive thinking can be
enabled when learners, especially indigenous learners, recognize intrinsic
motivational reasons to preserve their heritage as a natural and important part of
the learning process. ICCs provide participants with caring personal
relationships during their academic pursuits. Thus, with their basic needs met,
indigenous students can be motivated to achieve at whatever academic level
they desire, including higher education. ICCs help by providing a caring
community of learners and mentors within the higher education experience.
Having a place for indigenous cultures within academia sits at the heart of
the ICC model within Indigenous Creativity Theory. Our evaluation of
WINHEC causes us to believe that ICC associations exist and can be expanded

27
further within the Consortium and globally.
David A. Kolb and colleagues (2000) note that learners translate reflective
observation and active experimentation into abstract concepts and then subsume
them into action plans. Subsequently, reflective observation and active
experimentation create a type of anticipatory motivation to implement new
concepts. Such reflection and experimentation are part of metacognition and
would be better enabled if indigenous higher education students felt safe enough
to expose their own thinking. If indigenous students understood themselves
through metacognition and understanding their emotions, they would also be
better equipped to face any discrimination.
Edward L. Deci and Richard M. Ryan (2008) also suggest that intrinsic
motivation would increase from caring relationships such as between indigenous
students and their mentors, whether indigenous or not, as part of the ICC dyads
or small groups. These dyads/groups would have a sense of autonomy as they
authentically help each other in a mutual learning goal, which is also supported
by Freire’s (1970) ideas of dialogic education in authentic tasks.
Stephen Krashen’s (1982) theory that language acquisition emphasizes
message and attitude over form, as discussed by Elaine Horwitz (2008), can also
be used in complementary ways with Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal
Development to argue for the peer and small group approach (Miller, 2009).
These theories support the idea of indigenous peoples acquiring languages with
which to enhance their success at the higher education level. Furthermore,
where peer and social groups often enable learning, higher education
organizational bureaucracies and rigid scientific communities often prevent the
generation of new knowledge with an embedded type of inaccessibility (Zinsser,
1988) and paradigmatic stalemate (Kuhn, 1962). ICCs help indigenous students
increase their ability to engage in learning within local and national higher

education systems.
Thus, the success that Maslow implies awaits these students, and it would
motivate them further into his ideas of autonomous success, self-actualization,
and self-transcendence (Huitt, 2007). Maslow’s ideas suggest that the learner
will be able to find transcendent worth in helping others of their own and other
indigenous communities, even those that are geographically distant, especially
using technology. This connection with distant ICCs aligns with the Network of
Practice Theory and fits well with WINHEC’s technologically connected
paradigm.
Indigenous Creativity Theory suggests that indigenous people traditionally
have employed ways of knowing that are unique to their cultures, and generally
involve the creative indigenous students’ lenses. Howard Gardner and Thomas
Hatch (1989) acknowledge that human beings have basic gifts of different types,
and Judy Lombardi (2008) discusses how indigenous students’ different
backgrounds and understanding can be accessed by the various ways of
knowing.
Tying these ideas together, an additional need that Maslow recognizes is
creative expression (Maslow, et al., 1993). Maslow positions creativity over the
scientific lens, arguing that the artistic paradigm is an ideal way to teach others
content. This is antithetical in many ways to the history of what is termed the
Western mind-set, which has emerged from a more positivist framework.
Herman A. Witkin and colleagues (1977) introduce the idea of field-
dependent and field-independent learners, where field-dependent learners
generally follow a Gestalt approach of understanding ideas as a whole first.
These individuals are usually considered more creative-oriented by nature, and
we argue that they learn best through a creativity approach in accomplishing
tasks effectively. As explored in WINHEC journals, indigenous learners often

29
prefer this creativity approach, as most published articles include indigenous
ways of knowing that are inherently creative (Carey, 2011).
The indigenous members involved with ICCs include learners, parents, and
mentors (often expressed as elders), as well as other contributors including
non-indigenous peers and mentors, or instructors of various genres within small
communities, such as the local affiliates of WINHEC. Indigenous Creativity
Theory posits that indigenous peoples have expressed an affinity for creative
ways of knowing. However, since the advent of more advanced communication
technologies (especially the Internet and the widespread use of cellular and
smart phones), we recognize that ICCs now exist across large geographic
distances among indigenous peoples in almost every nation. Technology helps
ICCs provide a sense of identity and belonging.
Some social theories have been used to scrutinize WINHEC (Horwtiz,
2008: 53). The languages that indigenous students may have as a first language
or wish to acquire can be an advantage within the social context of WINHEC
associations. WINHEC should be able to facilitate language learning among its
partner member affiliates. This is because indigenous mentors within the tertiary
system are often more attuned to students who share their own indigenous
language, as well as be in a position to promote the learning of other indigenous
languages. Those who want to acquire greater linguistic knowledge include
people who already have some facility in it but wish for more fluency, which
opens a channel to oral histories and traditions, especially as conveyed by elders,
which are very important to most indigenous communities.
Language and cultural immersion are necessary to understand fully
indigenous traditions, cultures, and languages. Experiencing, or speaking, the
language through active and frequent dialogue is a necessary part of the
language acquisition process. Indigenous languages are best acquired when

learners are able to speak with peers and mentors in an ecological setting (Van
Lier, 2000; Khatib, et al., 2010); such languages can be learned better in an
environment infused with WINHEC personnel who have similar indigeneity. As
Horwitz (2008) notes, during these conversations indigenous students would
negotiate meanings with indigenous and non-indigenous official language
speakers. This approach enables language learning and understanding by others
and helps indigenous peoples be equally adept at their own indigenous
languages as well as the majority language of their country, as WINHEC
suggests.
WINHEC could provide a mechanism or framework that helps higher
education students maintain and develop their indigenous ideas and cultural
heritages. This framework could be strengthened by allowing indigenous
students to develop feelings of kinship in group associations. This follows what
Duane Champagne (2010) calls the indigenous way of living in the world.
Champagne considers these kinship groups as less secular, more intimate, and
more like small bands of extended family. We argue that kinship is an important
element of the feeling of caring inherent in ICCs. This can enable both
indigenous and non-indigenous students to have a framework to share and
access knowledge in a more friendly, familiar, and clear way.
ICCs are indigenous communities, including those organized or facilitated
through technology, that allow for the sharing of information within a caring
and extended family-type setting, provided by indigenous and/or non-
indigenous community members, one to another. However, ICCs do not
preclude participants from also joining in with beneficial experiences in
indigenous communities. We define beneficial experiences as any activity or
way of knowing that affirms indigenous peoples in their rights to exist, develop
their cultures, granted freedom of beliefs and religion, and which promotes life

31
and love. The love we refer to is a sisterly or brotherly love as in the Greek
philía (φιλία) and familial love as in storgē (στοργή) (Liddell & Scott, 1940).
ICCs should foster an environment of cooperation and synergistic learning.
An example may include two or more ICC members actively engaged in a
peer-writing group. In this scenario, ICC members would be working in
collaboration with one another and learning from each other. As they co-author
a paper or essay together, they would not only learn from and reinforce each
other’s work, but they would also build self-esteem and meaningful
relationships (Dennison, 2000). Hughes Bradley and his colleagues (2010)
found that learning based on peer interaction is so deep that it often continues
for years afterwards, affirming the idea of a caring community of learners. This
makes ICCs ideal reciprocal learning centers.
Such an environment should include the presence of someone who
embodies the approach of teachers of indigenous peoples everywhere, since they
present a cultural affinity for the sense of belonging that is salient to
identification with their ethnic group (Champagne, 2010). Vygotsky (1978)
posits that a teacher who cares would be aware of and address learners using the
various intelligences that would enable them to learn in the best way they can.
WINHEC supports the idea of creativity informing knowledge and being
part of knowledge at the higher education level. One of the inaugural WINHEC
founders, Gunvor Guttorm from Sami University College in Norway, has
devoted herself to introducing Sami handicraft and art (sáiduodji) to higher
education since 1986, when she was hired to plan and implement the first
teacher training program in handicrafts, known as duodji (Guttorm, 2012). Since
then, she has been the authentic advocator in developing duodji at Sami
University College, introducing the best practices of the traditional handicraft
into academic programs while maintaining traditional values.

Guttorm’s program is an example of how an indigenous scholar integrates
indigenous knowledge into academic programs to invent a creative and
sustainable higher educational program that is accredited at the master’s level.
One can imagine how a caring and creative educator, especially one with
indigenous ties, can use such a creative venue as duodji to enable students to
learn. In literacy, for instance, students can create handicrafts with meaningful
words. Edwards (2010: 30) notes:
Literacies include the ability to communicate and understand the
environment including nature, weather patterns, star paths, tides and
seasons (Edwards, 2009) as well as the ability to communicate and
relate to human entities, most commonly done through whaikorero,
karanga, pao, waiata, whakatauki and general korero. Other literacy
forms included ‘art’ such as whakairo, raranga, taniko, kowhaiwhai
just to name a few. These literacies primarily were about
communication, living and balance that supported mutual causality
(Meyer, 2009).
Donna M. Mertens (2010: 16) explains, for instance, that in Botswana,
lessons about HIV/AIDS prevention include students’ own conceptions, using
creative venues such as singing, dancing, poetry, myths, et cetera. Before
designing such interventions, Mertens interviewed some teens about their
desires and opinions regarding sexuality and education.
Paul Whitinui (2010: 4) indicates that Maori students succeed better with
the inclusion of communicative and creative singing and dancing:
The growing interest in kapa haka by schools today is perhaps
reflective of the changing needs of students to engage in alternative

33
learning environments that are more likely to coincide with their
preferred cultural learning activities, styles and abilities. For many
Māori communities and in particular, the whānau (immediate family),
having kapa haka signals that schools are willing to provide
environments that are culturally safe, caring and supportive
(Macfarlane, Glynn, Cavanagh, & Bateman, 2007). In 2002, the New
Zealand Qualification Authority recognised kapa haka as an
academic subject that schools could readily offer to all students
(NZQA, 2002). This decision enable[s] Māori students who
participate in kapa haka to have the opportunity to gain academic
credits that can be accredited to the National Certificate in
Educational Achievement at various levels, Te Reo Māori (Māori
Language), Māori Performing Arts, Ngā Toi Māori i roto i te
Mātauranga (The Arts-dance, drama, music and visual arts), as well
as Health and Physical Education Curriculum (Hindle, 2002).
Thus, many Māori, and by extension other indigenous peoples, have a
creative learning style and will be more successful if allowed to learn in that
manner.
Self-Determination Theory
This is not to say that there is some biological component in this learning
style. Rather, inclusion in the curriculum of the creative arts supports the
creativity inherent in some indigenous cultures, enabling better results in
learning. This will be relevant if Self-Determination Theory (SDT) (Deci &
Ryan, 2008) proves applicable to indigenous students:

The most central distinction in SDT is between autonomous
motivation and controlled motivation. Autonomous motivation
comprises both intrinsic motivation and the types of extrinsic
motivation in which people have identified with an activity’s value
and ideally will have integrated it into their sense of self. When people
are autonomously motivated, they experience volition, or a self-
endorsement of their actions. (182)
Hence, we see that indigenous people will be more motivated when their
“sense of self” is associated with an activity, such as learning of any sort. This is
the kind of activity that WINHEC has been endorsing and working on in a
complementary fashion with indigenous people’s preferences and self-identity,
which is an essential need (Maslow, 2000). Such efforts, therefore, should
produce more motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2000) and can help indigenous people
overcome some of the dismal education performance statistics that prevail in
many of these communities.
Brian Hoffman and Brian Frost (2006: 51) conclude that the understanding
and use of multiple intelligences is a necessary aspect of any organization’s
ability to teach students. The use of interpersonal intelligence is most helpful
and more easily accessed in small communities or dyads of indigenous
students (like ICCs), found in organizations like WINHEC. Moreover, when
organizations involving indigenous students need to accomplish tasks, Brian
Belland and colleagues (2000) show that peer informants work quite well with
task-based learning in language acquisition.
Theresa Pica (2005) also indicates that peer interactions are effective
when “information gaps” are seen as a hurdle to overcome. Nevertheless,
college-age ESL students were found by Paul Kei Matsuda and Jeffrey

35
Jablonski (2000) to be denied ownership of the English language by their
instructors and other students, often inhibiting their development. In class
interactions, disenfranchised students were learning as if they were students
learning a second language, which could be addressed by the inclusion of
knowledgeable peers in a community provided by such a group as WINHEC.
Indigenous Cultural Creativity Theory
We define Indigenous Cultural Creativity Theory as the use of various
forms of creativity within an indigenous cultural context that expresses ways of
knowing (including spiritual ways of knowing) that tap into the creative
practices of indigenous cultures, both from the past and present. Such practices
include performances of poetry, dancing, singing, and musical expressions,
especially using languages and cultural instruments that have been hand-crafted.
Common indigenous art forms are done primarily by hand, and include various
media, such as painting, craft-production, pottery, clothing-production, and
other fine art. They also include any other auditory, tactile, pictorial, or graphic
representation, including computer-assisted representations, that express ideas
of indigenous peoples, converging the senses with cognition.
Metacognition is regarded as a creative way to address one’s own needs
in acquiring knowledge; Scott Ridley and colleagues (1992) observes how
indigenous peoples use their creative techniques to access knowledge, especially
indigenous epistemology. They assert that the use of metacognition is a
successful and ubiquitous endeavor that can be used by many populations to
enhance knowledge acquisition in creative ways.
To enhance their students’ language acquisition, several Chinese educators
used John Flavell’s (1979) premise that metacognition can help students
overcome their blind spots in learning. This paradigm translates to the ideas of

indigenous peoples’ need for creative self-reflection and the use of the
intra-personal intelligence. Therefore, metacognition can enhance motivation
and understanding of targeted knowledge.
Schools are beginning to recognize creative indigenous epistemologies in
such art as kapa haka, which is a Maori cultural expression of dancing in rows.
In Aotearoa (New Zealand), it is mandatory for the curriculum in high schools
to show support for Maori people (Whitinui, 2008, 2010). Thus, it is clear that
the educational establishment is beginning to include the indigenous creative
lens for all students, not just those who claim indigeneity.
Even Elsa Stamatopoulou, Chief of the Secretariat of UNPFII, notes that
although indigenous peoples of the world contribute much diversity,
indigenous peoples continue to suffer discrimination,
marginalization, extreme poverty and conflict. Some are being
dispossessed of their traditional lands as their livelihoods are being
undermined. Meanwhile, their belief systems, cultures, languages and
ways of life continue to be threatened, sometimes even by extinction.
(United Nations DESA, 2009: iii)
There is a lack of opportunity afforded by the dominant social structure,
which rarely provides diverse minority groups with an equal, culturally relevant,
and critical platform to undergird their subjective epistemology. This lack
means that the unique ways of knowing that are embedded in indigenous
cultures are disrespected, unacknowledged, and unknown to the majority of
dominant cultures, and even to those youth of the indigenous cultures. There is a
real danger that these precious cultures will become extinct unless efforts are
made to preserve them. That is, of course, where WINHEC comes in, as one of

37
several answers to this problem. WINHEC has the potential to serve as an ideal
forum where indigenous peoples’ epistemologies are respected and preserved.
Many scholars argue that there is a crucial role for an organization like WINHEC
to help preserve the beauty that is found in indigenous cultures and support
peoples who have much to contribute, enabling their stars to rise within higher
education circles in their own unique ways.
Indigenous Practices in WINHEC: A SWOC Analysis
In this section, we examine WINHEC based on a SWOC analysis, which
enables us to evaluate the effectiveness of WINHEC’s services and programs
(see Figure 1).
Figure 1. SWOC Analysis Summary of WINHEC
Source: Created by the Authors.

Strengths
Recognition. When indigenous higher education is officially recognized
and accredited, it creates a positive symbol to reconstruct indigenous
subjectivity and value human rights in the formal higher education system.
Moreover, recognized accreditation is a practical step to transform indigenous
peoples’ endangered status and marginalized condition. The advantage of
official recognition is obtaining an identity from diverse (non)indigenous
peoples publically, legitimately, and internationally.
Indigenous Values, Cultures and Languages. A unique element of the
WINHEC accreditation compared to other mainstream accreditation bodies is
the focus on indigenous values, cultures, and languages. Therefore, (non)
indigenous peoples are encouraged to pay more attention to their worldviews,
cultures, and dialects. In this way, indigenous people can have a positive
identity through the accreditation process and become more willing to use their
previously disregarded cultural capital. WINHEC recognizes three elements that
are essential to protect and enhance: language, culture, and spiritual beliefs.
Meyer (2005: 4) claims that, “the WINHEC priority of language is itself a
reminder that what has birthed our world view is held in ancient symbols, codes
and energies that we are returning to for meaning and joy.” WINHEC
encourages the use of indigenous languages in all facets of programming.
Additionally, a focus on culture preservation is considered to be a best
practice by WINHEC, and one that it aims to support at the higher education
level. Indigenous cultures have survived the on-going societal bombardment of
the belief that the dominant or global way of thinking is better than traditional,
indigenous ways. To consolidate the integrity of indigenous cultures with
ethnic/cultural identity through education, WINHEC perceives quality assurance
as being achieved when culture is preserved and celebrated within higher

39
education systems.
WINHEC also supports spiritual beliefs and practices found in indigenous
centers of higher learning. This is accomplished by the very nature of
WINHEC’s vision: “Indigenous Peoples of the world united in the collective
synergy of self determination through control of higher education” (WINHEC,
2005). According to Meyer (2005: 6), “WINHEC encourages both process and
product of accreditation efforts that are accomplished and supported within a
framework that honors all spiritual beliefs, practices and expressions.” For
instance, Meyer (2005: 8) continues by noting that, “We must shape our own
qualities of excellence found in our language, our cultures and in all expressions
of spirit.”
An additional organizational strength of WINHEC is that it supports both
Indigenous Creativity Theory and Indigenous Cultural Creativity Theory. Since
indigenous cultures often emphasize creative expression as an intrinsic part of
self-identity, WINHEC as an organization is able to provide a venue for such
expression in higher education. When indigenous peoples enroll in higher
education, they often secure a creative affinity and credibility that their cultures
express.
Since its establishment, WINHEC has recognized the important role elders
play in indigenous education. Elders are considered culture bearers who
shoulder great responsibility in the preservation of indigenous knowledge,
languages, and traditions. The specialty of the transition of indigenous
knowledge mostly relies on the important roles elders play and have played in
the past. In the process of building connections between HEIs and indigenous
communities, elders play a significant part in terms of transition and
interpretation of indigenous knowledge (lokepa-Guerrero, et al., 2011; Triumpf,
2011).

Academic Autonomy. Through the WINHEC accreditation process,
indigenous peoples have more power to decide on their curriculum content,
design, and instruction language. In doing so, they have some quiet control over
academic programs and employ the faculty members they need. The WINHEC
accreditation process represents academic autonomy and is a recognized
strength of the Consortium that should be further developed and expanded.
Diverse Partnerships. The accreditation review team is comprised of both
community members and indigenous higher education members (WINHEC,
2010). In other words, the community is considered a key stakeholder group in
the accreditation process. Consequently, during the accreditation process,
indigenous HEIs can be significantly supported by community members and in
turn, members of local communities gain a sense of ownership and contribution
because they were able to participate in the accreditation process.
HEIs are also starting to pay attention to indigenous programs, departments,
and colleges and are recognizing the value of applying for WINHEC
accreditation to obtain the bicultural identification certification. As Walter
Fleming said, “By being accredited by WINHEC, potential students and
indigenous communities can be assured that [Minnesota State University’s]
Native American Studies department has met both academic and cultural
standards of excellence” (“Montana State University Native American Studies
setting standard,” 2009). He further noted that this is also a good way to
reexamine institutional values because “institutions rarely assess, or even
identify, their institutional values” (Ibid.). The WINHEC accreditation process
has given the Native American Studies Department an opportunity to identify a
“value system upon which it has always operated but never articulated” (Ibid.).
Alternative Accreditation Framework and Process. To the best of our
understanding from our document analysis, the WINHEC review team members

41
and other consultants involved in the accreditation process have no set criteria
based on the principles of general higher education accreditation. Meyer (2005:
4) argues that, “we did not offer templates of comparison or review aggregated
data, rather questions probed into understanding how language, culture and
belief systems were strengthened with coursework, community and
collaborations with global cousins.” The accreditation process places a central
role on the natural formation of indigenous performance. Meyer further notes
that, “indigenous accreditation then is no longer about overseeing
well-intentioned ideals, but rather it became a way to bear witness” (4).
WINHEC provides the opportunity for different kinds of indigenous
knowledge to exist, which are also valued and used in many academic pursuits.
When HEIs undergo the WINHEC accreditation process, they and/or indigenous
higher education programs have the opportunity to enhance the preservation of
indigenous cultures, traditions, and values. In 2003, the Accreditation Authority
was established on behalf of WINHEC to implement the idea of academic
accreditation for indigenous higher education institutions and programs.
The WINHEC Accreditation Handbook (2010) states that the accreditation
process includes participation of indigenous peoples and stakeholders and
focuses on “the educational institutions for performance, integrity, and quality
that entitles them to the confidence of the cultural and educational community
being served” (4). The Accreditation Handbook also recognizes the importance
of including “participation by indigenous peoples to be served through the
respective institution/program, including responsibility for establishing review
criteria and participating in the self-study and review process” (4). If the
accreditation review process is positive, the WINHEC Accreditation Authority
Board approves a HEI for a 10-year period (see Figure 2).

Figure 2. WINHEC Institutional/Program Accreditation Framework and
Process
Source: Created by the authors.
Two points in the accreditation process are worthy of attention. First,
candidate HEIs or programs can provide a self-study through which they
critically examine themselves in terms of educational structure and funding,
academic achievement, and their service to indigenous communities.
Considering effort and time constraints, members of the review team are greatly
assisted if they receive a completed self-study in advance of their visit. In
addition, the requirement that at least “an Elder who has been associated with a
member program or institution” (WINHEC, 2010: 11) must be included,
enhances the quality and effectiveness of each review team visit and also
reflects the importance of elders taking an active role in improving indigenous
higher education.

43
Weaknesses
Budgetary Issues. One of the budgetary issues occurred at the American
Indian Higher Education Consortium (AIHEC) meeting in 2004, where
WINHEC founders gathered and mentioned that they were facing a financial
crisis. Turoa Royal and Trevor Moeke (both Maori) from New Zealand, two
WINHEC founders, noted that for the Consortium to achieve the goal of
building human capacity for helping individuals and the community to
participate in the global world and to engage in well-being living had cost the
Maori approximately US$182,000 a year to operate WINHEC (Ambler, 2005:
20). They recognized that this amount was clearly insufficient for WINHEC’s
activities to fulfill its mission, meaning WINHEC faces a continual need to raise
funds. One way that it could consider overcoming this weakness is by seeking
more stable funding sources, including potential endowment donors. The other
potential critique is in reference to financial transparency. Current and
prospective members could benefit from understanding the flow, management,
and status of WINHEC funding, especially regarding substantial, effective, and
accountable business practices.
Lack of Widespread Participation. Although WINHEC (2010: 3)
proclaims that part of its purpose “is to provide an international forum and
support for indigenous peoples to pursue common goals through higher
education,” most of the HEIs that have received WINHEC accreditation are
located in predominantly English-speaking countries (e.g., Australia, Canada,
New Zealand, and the United States), with the exception of those in Norway. In
other words, the Consortium has positioned itself as an international leader that
attends to global concerns surrounding indigenous higher education; it should
build upon the progress it has made over the past decade to incorporate more
non-indigenous higher education perspectives and institutions. However,

available documents from WINHEC’s website show that the Consortium’s
network has a relative lack of participation from several parts of the world, such
as Africa, Latin America, South Asia, and other Pacific Islands besides Hawai’i
and New Zealand.
Lack of Quality Assurance Follow-up. There is no clear process to assure
that, once accredited, institutions or programs maintain their quality. This may
prevent indigenous peoples from always receiving the best possible learning
opportunities. More could be done to help strengthen the institutional quality
assurance capacity building, especially after receiving WINHEC accreditation.
From 2005 to the present, the majority of articles in WINHEC-sponsored
journals are written by authors from Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the
United States, which creates an imbalance of focus on worldwide indigenous
higher education portrayed in the academic literature. WINHEC’s goal to be a
leading organization with representation of indigenous peoples and societies
from around the world is hampered when the Consortium’s major publication
outlets have such a dearth of contributors from some parts of the world.
Additionally, the executive board members and founding members include
people from a relatively small number of countries.
Although WINHEC provides various means for creative expression in
indigenous arts, it has not used the same means to encourage more quantitative
content areas in higher education. Consequently, various indigenous learners,
especially those creative learners, are prevented from accessing such content
areas. WINHEC is, however, an excellent venue for encouraging the shifting of
a one-sided paradigm for indigenous learners, which could be realized through,
for instance, an expression of physics problem learning using kapa haka.

45
Opportunities
Through conferences, publications, and advocacy, WINHEC is an ideal
hub for (non)indigenous peoples to meet, collaborate, and work toward a
common goal. It provides opportunities for indigenous students with common
perspectives “to draw strength from each other” (Ambler, 2005: 20).
Potential Accreditation for All HEIs. The WINHEC accreditation process
is not limited to indigenous-oriented HEIs; it also welcomes mainstream
institutional applications. This enables WINHEC to have a potentially wide
outreach with HEIs throughout the world. It also provides a venue for
institutions and programs that would like to become more involved with
indigenous issues to do so.
Internationalization of Local Indigenous HEIs. Accreditation promotes
cooperation between local indigenous HEIs and other HEIs worldwide. This
international synergy approach is an effective opportunity for WINHEC to help
HEIs preserve and promote indigenous academia. The WINHEC Annual
General Meeting, which most recently was held in Hualien, Taiwan in 2012, is
an example of WINHEC branching out to additional locations (Table 1).
Similarly, the Consortium could hold its annual meetings in a variety of
countries to help spread its influence and outreach potential.

Table 1. Locations of WINHEC Annual General Meetings, 2003-2012
Year Institution City/Country
2012 National Dong Hwa University Hualien, Taiwan
2011 Sonesta Cusco Hotel Cuzco, Peru
2010 Sámi University College Kautokeino, Norway
2009 First Nations Technical Institute Brighton, ON, Canada
2008 La Trobe University Melbourne, Australia
2007 Chaminade University Honolulu, HI, USA
2006 Fond du Lac Tribal and Community College St. Cloquet, MN, USA
2005 Glenview International Hotel and Conference
Centre
Hamilton, New Zealand
2004 Griffiths University Brisbane, Australia
2003 University of Hawai’i – Manoa Honolulu, HI, USA
Source: Adapted by the authors from the WINHEC (2012) Archive of Annual General
Meetings.
Potential to Build a Global Indigenous Higher Education Archive.
WINHEC has a unique and potentially influential opportunity to advocate on
behalf of many indigenous peoples worldwide. The Consortium is able to reach
out to local and national governments on behalf of indigenous higher education
issues. Its focus is based largely on Articles 12, 13, 14, and 15 of the UN
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which emphasizes that states
should acknowledge and protect the rights of indigenous peoples in preserving
and fostering their languages, cultures, and worldviews (United Nations, 2007).
Since the legitimacy and formal recognition of indigeneity often emanates from
governmental policy, WINHEC should take into consideration the role that
governments and policy makers play. Furthermore, indigenous peoples should

47
be actively engaged in policy-making processes, especially policies established
to serve the indigenous communities (Jacob, Sutin, Weidman, & Yeager,
forthcoming).
Another viable area of expansion is the development of a higher education
network between employers and indigenous students. WINHEC could also
consider developing an internship program for its accredited HEIs with partner
industries and government agencies. It could also establish an international
exchange program and the premier archive or digital library of indigenous
writings and scholarship among its global higher education institutional
network.
Challenges
Diversity of Languages and Cultures. Regarding the question of language
accessibility for the rising indigenous generation, Meyer (2005: 5) notes that
WINHEC’s accreditation reviewers “want to hear what has inspired students, in
whatever language they choose” because they understand how important it is to
preserve indigenous languages and cultures. The WINHEC accreditation process
is an indigenous ideal, whereby indigenous cultures, languages, and traditions
can be recognized and promoted, but the challenge remains how best to preserve
and promote this ideal. While, in theory, WINHEC supports advocating and
preserving all indigenous languages, it is very costly for it to include an
indigenous language in the accreditation process. It takes a lot of time, money,
and energy to select qualified review team members who have the contextual
language fluency and who are also familiar with the local cultures. As a result,
only a relatively few indigenous languages have been examined by WINHEC
during the accreditation processes to date.
Varying Legitimacy Perspectives on the WINHEC Accreditation Process.

Because higher education accreditation is well developed in many countries,
some scholars and peoples may view the WINHEC process as being too
non-traditional. Such criticisms come from both internal and external sources,
where some critics question the legitimacy of WINHEC’s process. This will be a
continuing challenge.
Articulation Agreements. One of the challenges that WINHEC accredited
HEIs face is articulation agreements with other, predominantly mainstream,
HEIs. Students transferring from an indigenous HEI to a mainstream HEI
benefit from the transferal of completed credits from one institution to the other.
WINHEC does not currently deal with this issue in its accreditation process. As
a result, there is the possibility that some courses taken by students at an
indigenous HEI may not transfer to other HEIs within the same country or in
international settings.
No single institution serves as a global higher education reservoir of
indigenous peoples and WINHEC has the unique challenge (as well as potential
opportunity) to assume this important leadership role. Information is essential
for conducting quality research and in disseminating accurate information about
indigenous peoples’ languages, cultures, and traditions. How and where to
house this information reservoir is a challenge that needs to be addressed.
Perhaps WINHEC could further expand its publications section of its website to
include an archive of indigenous education research based on thematic topics of
interest to higher education stakeholders. Such an indigenous archive would
prove valuable to students, faculty members, policy makers, and indigenous
education advocates worldwide. This recommendation is closely aligned with
several of WINHEC’s goals, especially Goal 6 to “Create a global network for
sharing knowledge through exchange forums and state of the art technology
(WINHEC, 2012).

49
CONCLUSION
Based on our SWOC analysis, we argue that the primary advantages of
WINHEC include its ability to promote self-determination of indigenous higher
education, the reconstruction of indigenous subjectivity, and indigenous higher
education sustainability. WINHEC accreditation is a successful, legitimate, and
imperative process in developing indigenous higher education at local, national,
and international levels. The accreditation process is threatened, however, by a
lack of sufficient financial resources, transparency, and ongoing quality
assurance, especially after accreditation is granted. In addition, WINHEC is also
faced with a lack of members from many countries. Linguistic barriers also
challenge the organization when it comes to organizing its leadership meetings,
because many board members speak less common languages. However, the
many possibilities that exist seem to outweigh the Consortium’s weaknesses and
challenges. WINHEC members are faced with both the challenge and
opportunity of building a worldwide indigenous network capable of boosting
indigenous peoples’ causes through higher education channels to many diverse
nations.
In this article, we examined the relationship between WINHEC’s espoused
theories and practices, focusing on the Consortium’s unique model of promoting
indigenous higher education and the dynamic interplay it has with HEIs globally.
We used a social cartography framework to scrutinize the interactions between
WINHEC and its current partners and in examining its internal and external
institutional dynamics. Finally, we ascertained that WINHEC helps fill a
tremendous organizational gap in promoting indigenous higher education
throughout the world. It is especially relevant in advocating the cause of
indigenous peoples within higher education systems, where they have

traditionally been excluded. In its attempts to preserve and promote indigenous
paradigms, WINHEC can energize and enliven almost any field of endeavor in
which an indigenous or interested non-indigenous person may be interested.
Despite its already impressive successes, WINHEC is a relatively new
organization. It will take time for it to realize its full potential.
By integrating the best of East and West, global and local, tradition and
innovation, we proposed several recommendations for WINHEC leaders to
consider as they expand its higher education outreach and influence potential
among (non)indigenous peoples worldwide. In addition, we also suggested
strategies for overcoming possible limitations or challenges. If it can build upon
its strengths and make good use of its opportunities, WINHEC has a bright
future in advocating the cause of indigenous peoples worldwide at the higher
education level. Additionally, we have provided multiple examples whereby
WINHEC can minimize or overcome its weaknesses and challenges that it faces
now and will undoubtedly face in the future. The SWOC analysis has outlined
multiple areas for improvement and change. Continuing with its vision to reach
out to indigenous peoples across the earth, WINHEC has an important
leadership role to play in the advancement of indigenous higher education issues
worldwide.

51
REFERENCES
Abu-Saad, Ismael, and Duane Champagne, eds. 2006. Indigenous Education and
Empowerment: International Perspectives. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.
Ambler, Marjane. 2005. “Embracing the World: Indigenous Educators Join Hands to
Share Gifts.” Tribal College Journal of American Indian Higher Education, Vol.
16, No. 4, pp. 18-20.
Amen, Daniel G. 2008. Magnificent Mind at Any Age: Natural Ways to Unleash Your
Brain’s Maximum Potential. New York: Three Rivers Press.
Baldwin, Julie A., Jeannette L. Johnson, and Christine C. Benally. 2009. “Building
Partnerships between Indigenous Communities and Universities: Lessons Learned
in HIV/AIDS and Substance Abuse Prevention Research.” American Journal of
Public Health, Vol. 99, No. S1, pp. S77-S82.
Belland, Brian R., Krista D. Glazewski, and Jennifer C. Richardson. 2011.
“Problem-Based Learning and Argumentation: Testing a Scaffolding Framework to
Support Middle School Students’ Creation of Evidence-Based Arguments.”
Instructional Science, Vol. 39, No.5, pp. 667-694.
Bolyard, Melissa, and Annulla Linders. 2003. Increasing Faculty Diversity: The
Occupational Choices of High-Achieving Minority Students. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Bowen, William G., and Derek Bok. 1998. The Shape of the River: Long-Term
Consequences of Considering Race in College and University Admissions.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Boyer, Paul. 1997. Native American Colleges: Progress and Prospects. San Francisco.
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Brayboy, Bryan McKinley Jones, Amy J. Fann, Angelina E. Castagno, and Jessica A.
Solyom. 2012. “Postsecondary Education for American Indian and Alaska Natives:
Higher Education for Nation Building and Self-Determination.” ASHE Higher
Education Report, Vol. 37, No. 5, pp. 1-154.
Brayboy, Bryan McKinley Jones. 2005. “Transformational Resistance and Social
Justice: American Indian in Ivy League University.” Anthropology and Education
Quarterly, Vol. 36, No. 3, pp. 193-211.
Carey, Melissa. 2011. “Incorporating Indigenous Knowledge into Research Practice.”
Journal of World Indigenous Nations Higher Education Consortium, Vol. 2011, pp.
37-44.

Carino, Joji. 2009. “Chapter I: Poverty and Well-Being,” in Department of Economic
and Social Affairs ed. State of the World’s Indigenous Peoples, pp. 14-49. New
York: United Nations.
Champagne, Duane, and Jay Stauss, eds. 2002. Native American Studies in Higher
Education: Model for Collaboration between Universities and Indigenous Nations.
Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
Champagne, Duane. 2009. “Chapter IV: Contemporary Education,” in Department of
Economic and Social Affairs, ed., State of the World’s Indigenous Peoples, pp.
129-154. New York: United Nations.
Champagne, Duane. 2010. Notes from the Center of Turtle Island. Lanham, MD:
AltaMiraPress.
Cheng, Sheng Yao, and W. James Jacob. 2008. “American Indian and Taiwan
Aboriginal Education: Indigenous Identity and Career Aspirations.” Asia Pacific
Education Review, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 233-47.
Cheng, Sheng Yao, W. James Jacob, and Pochang Chen. 2011. “Metatheory in
Comparative, International, and Development Education: Dialectics between the
East and West and Other Perspective,” in John C. Weidman and W. James Jacob,
eds., Beyond the Comparative: Advancing Theory and Its Application to Practice,
pp. 295-314. Rotterdam/Boston/Taipei: Sense Publishers.
Chilisa, Bagele. 2012. Indigenous Research Methodologies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Collings, Neva. 2009. “Chapter III: Environment,” in Department of Economic and
Social Affairs, ed., State of the World’s Indigenous Peoples, pp. 84-127. New York:
United Nations.
Cram, Fiona. 2009. “Maintaining Indigenous Voices,” in Donna M. Mertens and Pauline
E. Ginsberg, eds., Handbook of Social Research Ethics, pp. 308-322. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Deci, Edward L., and Richard M. Ryan. 2008. “Self-Determination Theory: A
Macrotheory of Human Motivation, Development, and Health.” Canadian
Psychology, Vol. 49, No. 3, pp. 182-185.
Dei, George J. Sefa, ed. 2011. Indigenous Philosophies and Critical Education: A Reader.
New York: Peter Lang Publishing.
Deloria, Vine, Jr., and Daniel Wildcat. 2001. Power and Place: Indian Education in
America. Golden, CO: Fulcrum Publishing.
Dennison, Susan. 2000. “A Win-Win Peer Mentoring and Tutoring Program: A

53
Collaborative Model.” The Journal of Primary Prevention, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp.
161-174.
Denzin, Norman K., Yvonna S. Lincoln, and Linda Tuhiwai Smith, eds. 2008. Handbook
of Critical and Indigenous Methodologies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Deyhle, Donna, and Karen Swisher. 1997. “Research in American Indian and Alaska
Native Education: From Assimilation to Self-Determination,” in Michael W. Apple
ed. Review of Research in Education, Vol. 22, pp. 113-194. Washington, DC:
American Educational Research Association.
Edwards, Shane. 2010. “Matauranga Maori Literacies: Indigenous Literacy as
Epistemological Freedom v. Eurocentric Imperialism.” Journal of World
Indigenous Nations Higher Education Consortium, Vol. 2010, pp. 26-37.
Farmer, Paul. 2009. “On Suffering and Structural Violence: A View from Below.”
Race/Ethnicity: Multidisciplinary Global Contexts, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 11-28.
Flavell, John H. 1979. “Metacognition and Cognitive Monitoring: A New Area of
Cognitive- Developmental Inquiry.” American Psychologist, Vol. 34, No. 10, pp.
906-11.
Freire, Paulo. 1970. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum.
Gardner, Howard, and Thomas Hatch.1989. “Educational Implications of the Theory of
Multiple Intelligences.” Educational Researcher, Vol. 18, No. 8, pp. 4-10.
Guttorm, Gunvor. 2012. “Paradigm Shift in the View of Duodji in the 21st
Century/Higher Education in Duodji,” paper presented at the WINHEC
International Indigenous Research Conference, Hualien, Taiwan, September 2012.
Harkness, Janet, Fons Van de Vijver, Peter Ph. Mohler, eds. 2003. Cross-Cultural
Survey Methods. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.
Hoffman, Brian J., and Brian C. Frost. 2006. “Multiple Intelligences of Transformational
Leaders: An Empirical Examination.” International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 27,
No. 1, pp. 37-51.
Horwitz, Elaine Kolker. 2008. Becoming a Language Teacher: A Practical Guide to
Second Language Learning and Teaching. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Huffman, Terry E. 2008. American Indian Higher Educational Experiences: Cultural
Visions and Personal Journeys. New York: Peter Lang Publishing.
Huffman, Terry E. 2010. Theoretical Perspectives on American Indian Education:
Taking a New Look at Academic Success and the Achievement Gap. Lanham, MD:
AltaMira Press.
Hughes, Bradley, Paula Gillespie, and Harvey Kail. 2010. “What They Take with Them:

Findings from the Peer Writing Tutor Alumni Research Project.” Writing Center
Journal, Vol. 30, No. 2, pp. 12-46.
Huitt, William G. 2007. “Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs,” in William G. Huitt ed.
Educational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University.
International Labour Organisation. 1989. “International Labour Organisation:
Convention Concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries.”
International Legal Materials, Vol. 28, No. 6, pp. 1382-1392.
Jacob, W. James, and Sheng Yao Cheng. 2005. “Mapping Paradigms and Theories in
Comparative, International, and Development (CIDE) Research,” in David P.
Baker and Alexander Wiseman, eds., Global Trends in Educational Policy, pp.
221-258 In the International Perspectives on Education and Society book series,
Vol. 6. New York: Elsevier Science, Ltd.
Jacob, W. James, Jennifer R. Crandall, Jason Hilton, and Laura Northrop. 2011.
“Emerging Theories in Comparative, International, and Development Education,”
in John C. Weidman and W. James Jacob, eds., Beyond the Comparative:
Advancing Theory and Its Application to Practice, pp. 69-91.
Rotterdam/Boston/Taipei: Sense Publishers.
Jacob, W. James, Jing Liu, and Che-Wei Lee. Forthcoming. “Policy Debates and
Indigenous Education: The Trialectic of Language, Culture, and Identity,” in W.
James Jacob, Sheng Yao Cheng, and Maureen K. Porter, eds., Indigenous Education:
Language, Culture, and Identity. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Jacob, W. James, Stewart E. Sutin, John C. Weidman, and John L. Yeager, eds.
Forthcoming. Community Engagement in Higher Education: Policy Reforms and
Practice. Boston/Rotterdam/Taipei: Sense Publishers.
James, Michael Rabinder. 1999. “Critical Intercultural Dialogue.” Polity, Vol. 31, No. 4,
pp. 587-607.
Jennings, Michael. 2004. Alaska Native Political Leadership and Higher Education: One
University, Two Universes. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
Khatib, Mohammad, Minoo Alemi, and Parisa Daftarifard. 2010. “On the Relationship
between Input and Interaction Psycholinguistic, Cognitive, and Ecological
Perspectives in SLA.” Broad Research in Artificial Intelligence and Neuroscience,
Vol. 1, No.4, pp. 59-68.
Kolb, David A., Richard E. Boyatzis, and Charalampos Mainemelis. 2001. “Experiential
Learning Theory: Previous Research and New Directions,” in Robert J. Sternberg,
and Li-fang Zhang, eds., Perspectives on Thinking, Learning, and Cognitive Styles,

55
pp. 227-47. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kovach, Margaret. 2009. Indigenous Methodologies: Characteristics, Conversations
and Contexts. Toronto: University of Toronto.
Kuhn, Thomas S. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
LaFrance, Joan, and Cheryl Crazy Bull. 2009. “Researching Ourselves Back to Life:
Taking Control of the Research Agenda in Indian Country,” in Donna M. Mertens
and Pauline E. Ginsberg, eds., Handbook of Social Research Ethics, pp. 135-149.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Liddell, Henry George, and Robert Scott. 1940. A Greek-English Lexicon. Revised and
augmented throughout by Sir Henry Stuart Jones, with the assistance of Roderick
McKenzie. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
lokepa-Guerrero, Noelani, Barbara Carlson, LarryRailton, Dallas Pettigrew, Eloise
Locust, and Tjalaminu Mia. 2011. “The Need for Elders in Education: Five
Indigenous Perspectives from Around the World.” Journal of World Indigenous
Higher Education Consortium, Vol. 2011, pp. 15-26.
Lombardi, Judy. 2008. “Beyond Learning Styles: Brain-Based Research and English
Language Learners.” The Clearing House, Vol. 81, No. 5, pp. 219-222.
Maslow, Abraham Harold, Bertha G. Maslow, and Henry Geiger. 1993. The Farther
Reaches of Human Nature. 2nd ed. New York: Arkana.
Maslow, Abraham Harold. 1970. Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper and
Rowe.
Maslow, Abraham Harold. 2000. “A Theory of Human Motivation.” Psychological
Review, Vol. 50, No. 4, pp. 370-396.
Matsuda, Paul Kei, and Jeffrey Jablonski. 2000. Beyond the L2 Metaphor: Towards a
Mutually Transformative Model of ESL/WAC Collaboration. West Lafayette, IN:
Purdue University. Available online at:
http://wac.colostate.edu/aw/articles/matsuda_jablonski2000.htm; accessed on 11
May 2013.
McGovern, Seana. 1999. Education, Modern Development, and Indigenous Knowledge:
An Analysis of Academic Knowledge Production. New York and London: Garland
Publishing.
Memmi, Albert. 2006. Decolonization and the Decolonized. Trans. Robert Bononno.
Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Mertens, Donna M. 2009. Transformative Research and Evaluation. New York:

Guilford.
Mertens, Donna M. 2010. “Philosophy in Mixed Methods Teaching: The Transformative
Paradigm as Illustration.” International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches,
Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 9-18.
Mertens, Donna M., Heidi M. Holmes, and Raychelle L. Harris. 2009. “Transformative
Research and Ethics,” in Donna M. Mertens and Pauline E. Ginsberg, eds.,
Handbook of Social Research Ethics, pp. 85-102. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Meyer, Manulani Aluli. 2005. “Remembering Our Future: Higher Education Quality
Assurance and Indigenous Epistemology.” Journal of World Indigenous Nations
Higher Education Consortium, Vol. 2005.
Mihesuah, Devon Abbott, and Angela Cavender Wilson, eds. 2004. Indigenizing the
Academy: Transforming Scholarship and Empowering Communities. Lincoln, NE:
University of Nebraska Press.
Miller, Patricia H. 2009.Theories of Developmental Psychology. 5th ed. New York:
Worth Publishers.
Montana State University Native American Studies setting standard. 2009, February 28.
New York: India Country Today Media Network. Available online at:
http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com; accessed on 15 May 2013.
Morgan, Douglas L. 2003. “Appropriation, Appreciation, Accommodation: Indigenous
Wisdoms and Knowledges in Higher Education.” International Review of
Education, Vol. 49, No. 1/2, pp. 35-49.
Mutua, Kagendo, and Beth Blue Swadener, eds. 2004. Decolonizing Research in
Cross-Cultural Contexts: Critical Personal Narratives. Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press.
Niezen, Ronald. 2000. “Recognizing Indigenism: Canadian Unity and the International
Movement of Indigenous Peoples.” Comparative Studies in Society and History,
Vol. 42, No. 1, pp. 119-48.
Paulston, Rolland G. 1977. “Social and Educational Change: Conceptual Frameworks.”
Comparative Education Review, Vol. 21, Nos. 2&3, pp. 370-395.
Paulston, Rolland G. 1993. “Mapping Discourse in Comparative Education Texts.”
Compare, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 101-114.
Paulston, Rolland G., ed. 1996. Social Cartography: Mapping Ways of Seeing Social
and Educational Change. New York: Garland Publishing.
Reagan, Timothy. 2010. Non-Western Educational Traditions: Indigenous Approaches

57
to Educational Thought and Practice. 3rd ed. New York: Routledge.
Reyhner, Jon, and Jeanne Eder. 2004. American Indian Education: A History. Norman,
OK: University of Oklahoma Press.
Rhea, Zane Ma, and Bob Teasdale. 2000. “A Dialogue between the Local and the
Global,” in G. Robert (Bob) Teasdale and Zane Ma Rhea, eds., Local Knowledge
and Wisdom in Higher Education, pp. 1-14. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group
Publishing Limited.
Ridley, D. Scott, Paul A. Schutz, Robert S. Glanz, and Claire E. Weinstein. 1992.
“Self-Regulated Learning: The Interactive Influence of Metacognitive Awareness
and Goal-Setting.” Journal of Experimental Education, Vol. 60, No. 4, pp.
293-306.
Secretariat of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII).
2009. “Introduction,” in Department of Economic and Social Affairs, ed., State of
the World’s Indigenous Peoples, pp. 1-11. New York: United Nations.
Semali, Ladislaus M., and Joe L. Kincheloe, eds. 1999. What Is Indigenous Knowledge?
Voices from the Academy. New York: Falmer Press.
Slade, Malcolm, and Douglas Morgan. 2000. “Aboriginal Philosophy in Australian
Higher Education: Its Own Place in Its Own Time,” in G. Robert (Bob) Teasdale
and Zane Ma Rhea, eds., Local Knowledge and Wisdom in Higher Education, pp.
51-78. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Smith, Linda Tuhiwai. 1999. Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous
Peoples. London and New York: Zed Books.
Smith, Linda Tuhiwai. 2012. Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous
Peoples. 2nd ed. London and New York: Zed Books.
Stanfield, John H., II. 1994. “Ethnic Modeling in Qualitative Research,” in Norman K.
Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln, eds., Handbook of Qualitative Research, pp.
175-188. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Taylor, Paul. 1993. The Texts of Paulo Freire. Buckingham, UK: Open University
Press.
Teasdale, G. Robert (Bob), and Zane Ma Rhea, eds. 2000. Local Knowledge and
Wisdom in Higher Education. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing.
United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). 2006.
UNESCO and Indigenous Peoples: Partnership to Promote Cultural Diversity.
Paris: UNESCO.
United Nations General Assembly. 1948. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

New York: United Nations.
United Nations General Assembly. 2007. United Nations Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples. New York: United Nations. Available online at:
http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/DRIPS_en.pdf; accessed on 12
March 2012.
United Nations General Assembly. 2012. “Global Efforts for the Total Elimination of
Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance and the
Comprehensive Implementation of and Follow-Up to the Durban Declaration and
Programme of Action,” August 22, UN Document A/67/325. New York: United
Nations.
United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII). n.d. Permanent
Forum: Origin and Development. New York: UNPFII.
UNPFII. 2006. “Who are indigenous peoples?” in Factsheet 1: Indigenous Peoples and
Identity at the Fifth Session of UNPFII. New York: UNPFII.
Van Lier, Leo. 2000. “From Input to Affordance: Social-Interactive Learning from an
Ecological Perspective,” in James P. Lantolf, ed., Sociocultural Theory and Second
Language Learning, pp. 245-259. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Vygotsky, Lev Semenovich. 1978. Mind in Society: The Developments of Higher
Psychological Processes. Edited by Michael Cole, Vera John-Steiner, Sylvia
Scribner, and Ellen Souberman. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Weidman, John C., and W. James Jacob, eds. 2011. Beyond the Comparative:
Advancing Theory and Its Application to Practice. Rotterdam/Boston/Taipei:
Sense Publishers.
Whitinui, Paul. 2008. “Kapa Haka Counts: Improving Participation Levels of Māori
Students in Mainstream Secondary Schools.” MAI Review, Vol. 2008, No. 3, pp.
1-14.
Whitinui, Paul. 2010. “Indigenous-based Inclusive Pedagogy: The Art of Kapa Haka to
Improve Educational Outcomes for Māori Students in Mainstream Secondary
Schools in Aotearoa, New Zealand.” International Journal of Pedagogies and
Learning, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 3-22.
World Indigenous Nations Higher Education Consortium (WINHEC). 2005. Vision.
Honolulu, HI: WINHEC. Available online at: http://www.win-hec.org/?q=node/3;
accessed on 14 March 2012.
WINHEC. 2010. WINHEC Accreditation Handbook: Higher Education. 3rd ed. Porirua,
Aotearoa (New Zealand): WINHEC. Available online at:

59
http://www.win-hec.org/?q=node/16; accessed on 1 April 2012.
WINHEC. 2012. WINHEC Website. Honolulu, HI: WINHEC. Available online at:
http://www.win-hec.org; accessed on 14 March 2012.
Witkin, Herman A., Carol Ann Moore, Donald R. Goodenough, and Patricia W. Cox.
1977. “Field-Dependent and Field-Independent Cognitive Styles and Their
Educational Implications.” Review of Educational Research, Vol. 47, No. 1, pp.
1-64.
Zinsser, William Knowlton. 1988. Writing to Learn. New York: Harper and Row.

Mapping Indigenous Paradigms, Research,
and Practice in Indigenous Nations Higher
Education Consortium
W. James Jacob
Associate Professor, Administrative and Policy Studies Department
Director, Institute for International Studies in Education
Che-Wei Lee（李哲偉）
Program Coordinator, institute for International Studies in Education
Nancy Wehrheim
Adjunct Professor, La Roche College
Veysel Gökbel
Joel Dumba Chrispo Dumba
Xiaolin Lu（呂嘯林）

61
Shengjun Yin（尹聖珺）
摘要
在本篇文章中，我們提供一個深入的組織分析，探究世界原住民
族高等教育聯盟 (World Indigenous Nations Higher Education
Consortium，以下簡稱 WINHEC) 為了原住民化高等教育所做的努力，
如何透過其全球策略達成民族重建及民族自決。我們從文獻中辨識出
WINHEC 應用在經營自身組織的四種理論，並提出兩個適切評鑑聯盟
的新理論—原住民族創造力理論(Indigenous Creativity Theory)及原住
民族文化創造力理論(Indigenous Culture Creativity Theory)。社會地圖
學 (Social Cartography) 、檔案分析 (Archival Analysis) 、論述分析
(Discourse Analysis)被應用來檢視聯盟的原住民典範、研究與實踐。透
過優勢、劣勢、機會與挑戰的 SWOC 分析方式，檢視 WINHEC 對各
地區之會員民族的組織貢獻、有效性、特殊觀點、原住民族參與的挑
戰及管理。研究結果主張，在推動全球原住民族高等教育的活動中，
無論是原住民族或非原住民族，雙方皆扮演著重要且相互依存的角
色。
關鍵詞：原住民族創造力理論、原住民族文化創造力理論、原住民族
典範、原住民族高等教育、世界原住民族高等教育聯盟
(WINHEC)

Mapping Indigenous Paradigms, Research, and Practice in the World Indigenous Nations Higher Education Consortium

More Related Content

What's hot

Similar to Mapping Indigenous Paradigms, Research, and Practice in the World Indigenous Nations Higher Education Consortium

More from Che-Wei Lee

Recently uploaded

Mapping Indigenous Paradigms, Research, and Practice in the World Indigenous Nations Higher Education Consortium