# data[].attributes.body
"The master’s tools of colonization will not work to decolonize what the master built. Our challenge is to fashion new tools for the purpose of decolonizing and Indigenous tools that can revitalize Indigenous knowledge." This quote really stood out to me and made me think about the way history has been taught and the ways in which we discuss how to decolonize.

# data[].attributes.body
This reading sounds so familiar. I am sure I have read it before in my master classes. I just don't remember which class. However, it prompted me to reflect on how I can decolonize my own research. Even in historical classes, it is very white mindset. Being a researcher, I feel like it is now my duty to offer other perspectives.

# data[].attributes.body
This week made me reflected a lot on my journey as a researcher since my MA degree. I don't feel like I was given the chance to look into other types of paradigm as I went to UCLA. I feel like a big part of UCLA was critical race. So I felt the most comfortable looking at my research through the lens. However, I do know I have other thinking that I am still exploring. So this week validated my other point of view and beliefs more.

# data[].attributes.body
This week’s readings unlocked a new point of view for me when looking at research. I have always seen writing, research, and teachings presented to me with a critical eye - always adding my community to its context both historical and personal. Therefore, I try to create a more holistic POV, one that is relatable to me. However, I have not taken myself out of the framework. I always include myself with all the deficits assigned to me. But now I am reframing my thought process and looking at all these post-colonialism POVs as nothing more than historic, stale, male, and white led. And as a presenter in the Smith, L. T. (2012) book was quoted “post-colonialism? Have they left?” This is a reminder that the work and heavy lifting of having to add myself should no longer be a self-assessment – not in 2025!  I will continue to be critical of research, but now I will be more conscious of how the information was gathered and disseminated. Especially when it comes to data-collection (Tracy, 2025), as it can be used as a divisive tool. Overall, this week’s reading has left me “asking new questions rather than providing definitive answers” Tracy, S. J. (2025).

# data[].attributes.body
Coming to know the past p. 38

Will allow us to better lay the path for the future where everyone’s voice can be heard justly. What trips me out is that all of us think we have good intentions. For example, decolonizing scholars feel like they are setting the record straight for their ancestors and some do, however, can it also be argued that some scholars are just doing the same to the people that did that to them? All I am saying is two wrongs do not make a right so we should all try to be just in our research but not having something in our back pocket.

# data[].attributes.body
Social construction-we build our world socially… p. 457

I have an autistic niece and it makes me wonder how much of our world is really created socially if she does not socially interact with people and is in a sense a lone wolf?

# data[].attributes.body
“The most mindful researchers are dialectical thinkers, being able to successfully explore, acknowledge, and synthesize opposing viewpoints.” (Tracy, 2025, p. 68)

The idea of dialectical thinking connects directly back to the four paradigmatic approaches Tracy (2025) describes in chapter 3. Each of the paradigms Tracy provides frames reality in a different way, and my positionality as an educator shapes which ones I naturally lean toward. For example, I often identify with the critical paradigm because of my focus on literacy gaps, equity, and access, while the interpretive paradigm resonates with my belief in valuing students’ lived experiences. At the same time this quote reminds me that to conduct strong qualitative research I must step out of my comfort zone. Moving forward, I see it as my I now challenge to explore how both postmodern and post-positivist paradigms might inform and complicate my own research development.

# data[].attributes.body
I really enjoyed this reading because it offered a fresh perspective on the ways imperialism, history, writing, and theory are connected. I am particularly thankful for how Tuhiwai-Smith critiques the deep entanglements between research, imperialism, and colonialism. Her work reminded me that research has historically been used as a tool of colonization, but it can also be a space for decolonization and empowerment when approached critically and intentionally.

# data[].attributes.body
The author presents several theoretical perspectives: positivism, post positivism, phenomenology, critical theory and feminism, and explains that they can connected to our research interests. I also understand that as we are moving forward in our research, working with a method that seems fitting, and finding twists and turns in our work, we might change our theoretical perspective. Is this something that can possibly occur? I also feel that I might start out with one perspective, possibly not have have enough understanding of that theoretical perspective and want to change. I imagine this is the flexibility that is needed when researching. The author is clear about topics overlapping, so I would conclude that I might shift to another topic that seems to fit my research in a more appropriate way, even if I was versed in the key tenets and assumptions of each. Does this sound possible?

# data[].attributes.body
The author explains the differences and similarities of qualitative research and the strengths and purposes of each. This is helpful before embarking on a research project to make sure one is working within a method that is practical and fitting for their purposes. I found this very helpful. It is also mentioned that there are three broad “poses of qualitative research, which do not include the need to predict or generalize. Instead, qualitative researchers conduct studies: understand, interrogate, and deconstruct. The subject of academic rigor is addressed as well and explained in short and simple sections, which I also found most helpful.

# data[].attributes.body
The four concepts described were: imperialism, history, writing, and theory which are all seen as "problematic" from an Indigenous perspective. The descriptions of each are complex and informing, and I will strive to understand and apply the ones that are appropriate to my research. I appreciated the closing remarks of the chapter, "Part of the exercise is about recovering our own stories of the past" and "it is about centring our concerns and world view and then coming to know and understand theory and research from our own perspectives and for our own purposes." It is then that we get a bigger picture of the the varied world views, it is then that we can reach others and be a light in the world.

# data[].attributes.body
Looking through the different research lenses - “you will understand how different people, with different lenses, perceive the world in such different ways.” p.55 The more we understand these different lenses, the more we will find the ones we can identify with and prefer. We need to identify our point of view and then we can better understand other points of view, their tenets, and arguments. Many of these overlap and don't have definite boundaries, but it is still valuable to be able to discern them as we go forward with our research. It seems that as confusing as this might be now, it will become clearer as we go forward with our research.

# data[].attributes.body
Qualitative data cannot be separated from ideology - a set of doctrines, myths and beliefs that guide and have power over individuals, groups, and society (p. 59)

The more I read and think about my own personal beliefs, values, and who I am, I feel as though I cannot separate my own identity from my research. My lived experiences, particularly as a first-generation Latina navigating education, inevitably shape the way I interpret stories, frame questions, and understand data. While part of me worries this makes my research “biased,” I am beginning to see that qualitative inquiry requires transparency and reflexivity rather than detachment.

This makes me wonder: How can I ensure that my values inform my work in a way that empowers participants rather than overshadows their voices? How do I balance acknowledging my own positionality with staying accountable to the stories and realities participants choose to share?

Additionally, I found it interesting to see how many paradigms exist, each uniquely different yet important to scholarly work. I am left wondering: as researchers, are we expected to strive to be critical scholars, post-positivists, positivists, or interpretivists? I understand that elements of each paradigm can shape our perspectives, but can we draw from all of them, or would that create conflict once we begin conducting our own research? - Karina Guerrero