Article Analysis of Putting Ourselves Forward: Location in Aboriginal Research

In the article, “Putting Ourselves Forward: Location in Aboriginal Research” written by Kathy Absolon and Cam Willett, they both demonstrate that there is a misconception of representation within the written works of academia because “neutrality and objectivity do not exist in research, since all research is conducted and observed through human epistemological lenses” (97). What most fail to realize when they immerse themselves within stories or research is that the intention of a researcher is flawed and does not conduct “ethical research that accurately represents who it is for and who it represents” (104). But rather it follows a clinical “colonial model” that reflects and represents confirmation and individual bias of those who conducted the research or story (98). Furthermore, it is also crucial to understand that the writers fail to incorporate the different types of representations properly and appropriately. Consequently, it creates misconnection, misrepresentation, misconception, and bias of an individual or a community when a researcher follows this approach, creating mistrust of those who seek knowledge. To take into consideration that research and stories are based on individuality which reflects on one’s life; it is paramount to understand that one can’t view or utilize representation as a concept to be generalized because it starts to invalidate who they are individually or collectively. Thus, it is pivotal to ground ourselves and acknowledge the different types of representation: Abstract or Empirical representation and Concrete or Rational representation. 

In the written works whether if it is academia or stories, there are different voices behind each text that represents individuality, a community, values, and beliefs that are being expressed from an outside perspective that has a pre-existing bias: “Representations are either broadened or limited by world view, socialization, internalization, and perceptual lenses” (111). For the majority of researchers, they do not assimilate themselves within their study, but instead, they collect information without trying to understand the “stories [that they] collected in a study might mean to the people who tell them” (105). With at fault knowingly or unknowingly, the researchers misuse the concept of representation due to the lack of their diligence to self-locate when they engage in a new environment. For “location forms the basis of representation and is integral to writing and representing oneself with respect”, and without the location of oneself, it produces generalizations and biases that create non-accurate representation for who and what they are researching (111). As a result, it creates exploitation and misappropriation of an individual or a community, when inaccurate and biased research is conducted and accessible to various platforms such as media, for the information gets misused and rewritten or told with other biases. Therefore, it creates a continuous cycle of misrepresentation that is hard to break. 

With the absence of self-location as Kathy Absolon and Cam Willett noted, I agree that as a researcher it is not possible to accurately represent anything other than yourself. However, if one grounded themselves, it would be possible to represent another voice because they become positioned, respectful, and connected to individuals or a community without treating them as they were only a research topic. To achieve true representation, we must accept and start to understand the faults of representation. The most prominent issue is how one views the concept of representation as unchangeable. However, we need to start acknowledging that this concept is evolving and should be reflected and utilized in a way that shows the “dynamic and transformative” aspects (110). We as readers and writers must understand and accept that there is diversity even in the same community, and representation must be treated as such.  To only use concrete or rational representation prevents diversity for it only represents the logic and realism before our eyes and therefore represents some elements that do not make up the whole message. Whereas abstract or empirical representations demonstrate the diversity and transformative aspects that present the factors that are hidden by our eyes such as emotions, thoughts, individual or collective experiences that make up the other half to complete a representation: “Memory is more than a mental process of recalling facts, experiences, and information. Human beings also have a capacity for sensory, physical, spiritual, and emotional memory" (116).  For one to include one representation is a flaw itself for it promotes biases, assumptions, misrepresentations, misconnections, and generalizations to be made. But to integrate both, concrete and abstract representations, it provides the true “concept of representation [which is] significant because it leaves an imprint on what is true” (110). 

In the end, when locating ourselves to research, it brings “ownership and responsibility to the forefront” as well as the exposure of what our intentions entail, thus breaking the cycle of misrepresentation. The deception of representation is that this concept is unchangable, but as Kathy Absolon and Cam Willett argue that “each time we locate ourselves, our representations change and, depending on the context in which we locate, we may or may not emphasize certain aspects of realities” and therefore representation is transformative (110). Thus, it is paramount for society to do its part by recognizing that the representations that are accessible in written work do not always complete the whole truth. Most forget the importance of including both empirical and rational data, for it is both that form a complete representation. To ground ourselves in research or our readings it provides an opportunity to have a fresh perspective and to be able to differentiate what our commonalities and differences are, creating respect, humility, integrity, and trust that helps ensure a connection and a positionality not only in research but in the researcher. With the eradication of the clinical “colonial model” structure and the way of thinking, it will then serve a “purpose of rehumanizing research [and representation] that demonstrates and creates of what is true (106). To fulfill this purpose, it will then truly share the representation of not only one voice but the voices of each individual or community both rationally and empirically.