Abstract
This qualitative analysis of the Social Studies curriculum for Grades 3 to 6 for the province of Ontario, Canada examines binary framing in curriculum as a mechanism of cognitive imperialism that compartmentalizes Indigenous knowledge(s). The following binaries are discussed: Positive/Negative; Conflict/Cooperation; and Us/Them in terms of the ways that they compartmentalize Indigenous knowledge(s) and reinforce cognitive imperialism. Themes for further research are noted including presumptions of neutrality that divorce power analysis from perspective-taking, the prioritizing of peaceful relations over redressing power imbalances and adding Indigenous-themed content to the curriculum is not enough. Recommendations for curriculum reform are indicated and decolonial justice education (DJE) is conceptualized for actionable steps towards answering the Calls to Action in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (2015a, 2015b, 2015c).
Similar content being viewed by others
Researcher positioning
I understand the importance of locating myself in this research in terms of my heritage, familial composition, geographic location, and professional/personal experiences. Positionality is complex, multi-faceted, multi-dimensional and nuanced, however, I will try to be succinct. I am a Canadian-Ukrainian teacher-researcher who lives beside the largest reserve in Canada, many of my family members are of First Nations heritage (through marriage/partnership), and over the past decade I have worked in the communities of 11 First Nations. This research is a reflection of: my accountability to all my relations, my lifelong commitment to decolonizing my ways and earning (not assuming) allyship (Wilson and Wilson, 1998).
An underlying premise of this study is that curriculum is an instrument of cognitive imperialism. Comprising history, geography, and citizenship education, social studies has the potential to teach about Indigeneity, power, and justice. Following the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (2008–2015a, 2015b, 2015c), the province of Ontario revised its social studies curriculum in 2018 (OME, 2018), in partnership with First Nations, Métis, and Inuit educators, as well as residential school survivors. The revisions primarily consisted of adding Indigenous content to the existing curriculum (Kairos, 2016).
Research problem
Language is not neutral (Styres, 2019) and “No serious curriculum scholar would advance the argument that schools in general and curriculum in particular are politically neutral” (Pinar et al., 1995 p. 244). In education, compartmentalization controls “what stays out in terms of knowledges and worldviews” (Rockwell, 2005, p. 22). The lines of compartmentalization in society are traceable on the textual landscapes of curriculum (Rockwell, 2005). Curriculum is shaped by the way it is framed, which includes patterns of representation and/or the location of content. Meaningful and relevant action toward dismantling cognitive imperialism in education involves confronting dominance-imbued binary framing in curriculum that works as a mechanism of cognitive imperialism by compartmentalizing Indigenous knowledges (Smith et al., 2011).
The research question for this study is: How does binary framing reinforce cognitive imperialism by compartmentalizing Indigenous knowledges in the Social Studies curriculum for Grades 3 to 6 for the province of Ontario, Canada?
Literature review
Cognitive imperialism and compartmentalization
Colonization is a structure-not an event (Battiste, 2013; Battiste, 2016; Battiste and Henderson, 2008; McKenzie et al., 2016). As a form of colonization, cognitive imperialism is “maintains the legitimacy of only one language, one culture, and one frame of reference” (Battiste and Henderson, 2000 p. 198). Imperialism refers to dominance, thus, cognitive imperialism is dominance of the mind, encompassing knowledge systems and ways of being. An example of cognitive imperialism in education is when western notions of time that dominate Social Studies curriculum also dominate the minds of students who are implicitly taught to treat them as superior. Cognitive imperialism in education reproduces “colonial social relations” that are a reflection of binary framing logics, which contribute to the formation of in and out groups in society (Gahman and Legault, 2019, p. 57).
Defined as “divid[ing] something into separate sections, so that one thing does not affect the other” (Oxford University Press, 2020), compartmentalization ensures “the separation of a whole into small, distinct, and often isolated parts” (Angeli et al., 2016, p. 52). Land as alive and land is teaching us (Ahenakew, 2017). The control and domination of land teaches us of the control and domination of human beings.
Rooted in Cartesian dualism, early explorers compartmentalized land in divisive ways using fences and colonial maps. These early practices of compartmentalization continue to control who gets in and who stays out (Battiste and McLean, 2005; Pascale, 2011). As with land, compartmentalization controls the distribution of knowledge in education. Such controls include which knowledges are granted or withheld from access to power, legitimacy, influence, and/or value. On curricular landscapes, the compartmentalization of knowledge controls its representation and access to power. An example of the compartmentalization of knowledge in curriculum is the representation of Indigenous scientific developments as part of a distant past.
This example of compartmentalization teaches a hidden curriculum that reinforces cognitive imperialism via western epistemological dominance encompassing narratives of colonial common sense and progress (Julien et al., 2017; Martin, 1976; Jackson, 1990; Eisner and Eisner, 1985; Giroux, 1983; Schaefli et al., 2018; Hung, 2017; Dimitriadis and McCarthy, 2001). Similarly, education that foregrounds Indigenous knowledge(s) as one off or “isolated events” is an example of compartmentalization for silencing and erasure (Kaomea, 2003).
Compartmentalization is a way of categorizing the respective knowledge(s) of distinct culture groups which, according to Maori scholar Linda Tuhiwai Smith (2021), shapes society. Similarly, Fanon (1963) coined the term compartmentalization in reference to societal stratification and oppression. Similarly, the separation of Indigenous communities from education is linked to colonial relations and could also be considered to be form of compartmentalization (Goulet and Goulet, 2014). As a means of controlling the representation of knowledge and people(s), compartmentalization normalizes the stratification of society.
Curriculum framing
The explicit curriculum or “curriculum proper” (Martin, 1976, p. 136) is stated outright (i.e., learning goals and expectations), and the hidden curriculum encompasses values, attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors that are taught but not stated openly (Eisner and Eisner, 1985; Giroux, 1983; Jackson, 1990). The hidden curriculum also includes the “unwritten rules, regulations, standards, and expectations that form part of the learning process in schools and classrooms, not specifically taught to students through the planned or open curriculum and the content” (Rahman, 2013 p. 660). If left unexamined, patterns in curriculum framing (diction and voice) embed mechanisms of cognitive imperialism in the hidden curriculum.
Drawing from linguistics and decolonial scholars, the following section describes curriculum framing in terms of diction and voice. Diction refers to word choice which is a powerful element of curriculum framing. The use of diction in curriculum framing constructs binaries (i.e., good/evil, past/present etc.) that act as mechanisms of cognitive imperialism because they marginalize Indigenous knowledges (Julien et al., 2017). Through the (mis)use of diction in curriculum, injustices can be framed as “temporary disadvantage whose effects can be lessened over time” (Schick and St. Denis, 2005, p. 296). Thus, diction can be used to downplay injustices rooted in colonization and white settler colonialism.
Voice is another powerful element of curriculum framing. Voice can reveal the positioning and intended audience of curriculum writers. Both written and spoken texts reflect voice in different ways. In text-based content, authors’ voice can reveal their positioning and location both historically and culturally (Ivanič and Camps, 2001). Voice in curriculum framing reflects dominant western epistemologies through the removal, adding or invisibilizing of tense, the inclusion or exclusion of content within featured writing and ways of writing that speak to a dominant and/or exclusive audience.
Voice in curriculum framing reinforces cognitive imperialism through the use of verb tense to relegate knowledge(s) to a past or a vague time period (Ivanič and Camps, 2001). Voice in curriculum framing also reinforces cognitive imperialism by presenting a homogenized version of knowledge as categorically true, neutral and universal (Ivanič and Camps, 2001).
The location of content is also an aspect of voice in the framing of curriculum. According to Godlewska et al. (2016) the dominant voice of curriculum writers can be evident in the marginalization of Indigenous-related content:
A common marginalizing placement strategy is redirection for Indigenous content to sidebars, appendices, pictures, picture legends and websites… FNMI topics, although discussed in every chapter, are segregated into separate sections, even when the themes discussed in a chapter have immediate relevance to Indigenous communities…These placement strategies mention FNMI people while effectively marginalizing them. (p. 454).
In terms of voice, additional features of location in curriculum framing that reinforce cognitive imperialism include the following: backgrounding, foregrounding, side-barring, relegating of content to appendices, the treatment of pictures and content as add-ons, the outsourcing of information to external locations via website links and/or the isolating of content into separate sections and/or themes (Godlewska et al., 2016).
Both voice and diction can work together to frame curriculum content in ways that reinforce cognitive imperialism. As such, adding Indigenous content to a curriculum that is already framed and structured within colonial logics will provide only a surface-level intervention.
Binary framing
Dating back to the enlightenment era, western knowledge systems and philosophical traditions are steeped in binary dualisms (i.e., individual/society, good/evil, civilized/uncivilized, white/non-white, Christian/non-Christian, male/female, knowledge/ignorance) (Pascale, 2011; Alexander, 2013). Such binaries are used to legitimate assumptions of progress (or lack thereof) that stratify, marginalize and exclude (Batiste, 2016; Alexander, 2013; Whyte, 2018).
In the social studies curriculum, citizenship stratification may appear as good/bad binaries (Dicks, 2023). While the characteristics of a “bad” citizen may go unsaid, non-desirable traits can be deduced from depictions of what makes a “good” citizen and overtones of cooperation. At first glance, the qualities of a good citizen may seem relatively innocuous, even altruistic. However, in the context of ongoing settler colonialism in Canada, such framing normalizes the stratification of citizenship (Dicks, 2023). The stratification of citizenship and society more broadly effectuates “dynamics” (Samset, 2020, p. 599) that “enable injury, exploitation and domination” (Rothberg, 2019, p. 1).
Pastoral power
Romanticized depictions of colonization and the ideal citizen cultivate a white-savior citizenship narrative that fuels the phenomenon of pastoral power and pastoral care (Dion, 2003; Rice et al., 2022; Cavanagh, 2001). Pastoral power allocates worth to those who most closely resemble the enactment of a dominant moral code (Cavanagh, 2001). In citizenship education, overtones of morality construct good/bad binaries that reinforce cognitive imperialism by compartmentalizing diverse culture groups. Such binaries teach that citizens who behave and think a specific way are either good or bad. Therefore, good citizens are granted access to power and bad citizens are compartmentalized from access. Pastoral power confines students to life paths that are narrowly defined by western ideals (Cavanagh, 2001). Ultimately, the good Canadian citizen is constructed as an “agent of care” and all others are “in need of care”. (Cavanagh, 2001, p. 402).
Indigenous knowledges: relationality and holism
Throughout this study, the term “Indigenous knowledges” will encompass generational wisdom, truths, practices, histories, perspectives and expertize that continue to accumulate since time immemorial (Battiste, 2013; Gumbo, 2014). Relationality and holism are central to Indigenous knowledge(s). Although relationality and holism are very similar, each has distinct dimensions.
Relationality is the understanding that all parts of a system “are differentiated, [and] these relations are not oppositional, nor binary” (Martin and Mirraboopa, 2003, p. 207). As an epistemology, relationality is the belief that differences as more than just tolerated. Relationality deepens understandings of ourselves, and those around us and “position us in relation to each other” (Donald, 2009, p. 6). Therefore, a relational worldview sees connections among differences (Wilson and Wilson, 1998). In education, relationality is a way for overcoming the fragmentation caused by mechanisms of cognitive imperialism that compartmentalize Indigenous knowledge(s) (Keddie, 2014). Where Cartesian dualism involves division for purposes of categorization, enacted relationality builds connectedness (Tynan, 2020).
Holism “intercalates every aspect of Anishinaabe and many other Indigenous epistemologies, including one’s understanding of the self and one’s relationship to the community, other living things, the earth, and the divine” (Morcom, 2017 p. 121). Akin to relationality, holism refers more broadly to connectedness between the past, present, and future. Many Indigenous educational philosophies observe a holistic approach to education (Morcom, 2017) with “strands of connectedness” that bring all parts together (Cajete, 2020, p. 3).
Thus, holism is an understanding of the relationships within and among all that is, has, and will be. Holism is the understanding that what happens in one part affects all others. The divisiveness and reductionism of binaries in mainstream education negates Indigenous relationality and holism (Brigg, 2020). Conversely, Indigenous relationality and holism are antidote(s) to the discombobulation that is experienced when navigating a fragmented system.
Methods
Thematic analysis
Curriculum documents “as social facts (or constructs) alert us to the necessity to treat them seriously in social research” (Coffey, 2014, p. 370). According to May (2001), “sedimentations of social practices” are visible in documents (p. 176). Like the sedimentary rock of the Canadian Shield, a closer look at the layers of curriculum will reveal what is really happening below the surface (Mckernan, 2013).
Social studies curriculum comprises history, geography and citizenship education. I chose to analyze the curriculum for grades 3 to 6 specifically because there are explicit curricular connections to Indigenous topics in these documents, and this allowed me to prioritize depth over breadth while focusing on the grades/age groups I often work with. Curriculum analysis allows for an unobtrusive and relevant approach to the collection and assessment of data (Mckernan, 2013). In addition, throughout the methodological processes of this study, I consider what this research will bring of value both Indigenous and settler students (Tuhiwai Smith, 2021).
Thematic analysis of curriculum documents offers insight into the complex dynamics of relationships in education (human, conceptual, or otherwise). In addition, thematic analysis is a distinct branch concerned with the themes found in content rather than just content alone (McKernan, 2013). In each phase of this research, processes for confronting positivist assumptions of the researcher as a neutral agent paralleled the confronting of biases originating from colonial conditioning (Tuhiwai Smith, 2021).
A thematic analysis was carried out over several phases of theme-building through cycles of clarification and interpretation (Terry and Hayfield, 2022). Based on the definition of compartmentalization, the rounds of cycling through the data set centered on binaries in Indigenous-themed content. I also looked for evidence of compartmentalization in terms of the location of Indigenous-themed content in the curriculum.
In each round of analysis, my notes guided my ability to see the data set as a whole instead of fragmented and disconnected. Beyond categorizing, “meaningful entities were constructed from codes that unify disparate data and capture the essence of some degree of recurrent meaning across a data set” (Braun and Clarke, 2016, p. 740). The insights and themes from this reflexive theme-building process were considered in relation to the main research question. Ultimately, instead of attempting to silence my own biases, throughout the data interpretation and analysis process, I was acutely aware of the relevance of my positioning (Tuhiwai Smith, 2021; Simpson and Tuhiwai Smith, 2014).
Research findings and discussion
A thematic analysis of Indigenous-themed content in the Social Studies curriculum for Grades 3–6 from the province of Ontario revealed dominance-imbued binaries that reinforce cognitive imperialism by compartmentalizing Indigenous knowledges. In this thematic analysis of the Social Studies curriculum for grades 3 to 6, the following binaries were evident: Positive/Negative; Conflict/Cooperation; and Us/Them. These binaries will be described below in terms of the ways that they act as mechanisms of cognitive imperialism that compartmentalize Indigenous knowledges.
Positive/negative binary
In reference to colonization, a positive/negative binary was evident in the Social Studies curriculum for Grade 3. For example, students are to “describe some of the positive and negative consequences of contact between Indigenous people and European explorers and settlers in what would eventually become Canada” (OME, 2018, p. 112). In conjunction with the big idea that “interactions between people have consequences that could be positive for some and negative for others” (OME, 2018, p. 110), this binary suggests that the positive and negative consequences of settler colonialism apply to both Indigenous and settler peoples equally. This positive/negative binary contributes to the null curriculum because it compartmentalizes Indigenous knowledges from meaningful discussions around colonization (Battiste, 2013; Battiste and Hendersen, 2000; Fanon, 1963; Eisner and Eisner, 1985; Giroux, 1983; Jackson, 1990).
In another example, Grade 3 students are to consider “[…] the positive and negative effects of clearing of land for farms?” (OME, 2018, p. 90). This binary suggests that all stakeholders were/are impacted equally by the colonization and clearing of land. Therefore, meaningful discussions around how land clearing carries disproportionate consequences for Indigenous communities are also compartmentalized to the null curriculum (Battiste, 2013; Battiste and Hendersen, 2000; Fanon, 1963; Eisner and Eisner, 1985; Giroux, 1983; Jackson, 1990).
Conflict/cooperation binary
In the social studies curriculum, framing practices construct a conflict/cooperation binary that acts as a mechanism of cognitive imperialism by compartmentalizing Indigenous knowledge(s). For example, the Grade 3 curriculum asks students to:
describe how some different communities in Canada related to each other during this period (1780–1850), with a focus on whether the relationships were characterized by conflict or cooperation (e.g., cooperation between First Nations and settler communities) with respect to the sharing of medicines and technologies […] efforts to establish farms and villages; conflict as settlers impinged on First Nations lands. (OME, 2018, p. 91)
This curricular excerpt depicts Indigenous sharing of land and knowledge(s) as synonymous with cooperation. However, the question of whether cooperation was voluntary and who benefitted is compartmentalized to the null curriculum (Eisner and Eisner, 1985; Giroux, 1983; Jackson, 1990). In terms of diction, the word ‘impinged’ is used to describe Indigenous land dispossession (OME, 2018, p. 91). However, what exactly the impinging of land entails is unclear (Bradshaw, 2018; Eisner, 2002). Indigenous reaction to the development of settler farms and villages is presented as cooperation (OME, 2018, p. 91). This use of diction frames Indigenous communities as fully complicit with colonization and suggests that colonizer interests were/are neutral (Styres, 2008; Battiste, 2013). Lastly, when conflict and cooperation are treated as either/or binaries, anything less than full cooperation, by default, may be interpreted as a lack of cooperation (Schaefli et al., 2018).
In the Grade 5 curriculum, students are asked to “describe significant features of and interactions among Indigenous persons, among Europeans, and between Indigenous and European people prior to 1713 in what would eventually become Canada” (OME, 2018, p. 110).
Additional discussion questions include:
What are some ways in which colonialism has shaped Canada? Why might the same event have a different impact on different people? Why is it important to understand that different people have different perspectives? How do we form our own perspective? How do other people form theirs? What causes conflict? Do all conflicts have a resolution?
Why is it important to cooperate with others? (OME, 2018, p. 110)
Through the use of diction, the framing of above curriculum excerpt constructs a conflict/cooperation binary that acts as a mechanism of cognitive imperialism while crediting colonialism for having “shaped” Canada (Schick and St. Denis, 2005; Ivanič and Camps, 2001). A romanticized portrayal of colonialism with the expectation of cooperation comprises a hidden citizenship education curriculum of compliance and conformity that compartmentalizes Indigenous knowledges and controls access to pastoral power (Dicks, 2023; Cavanagh, 2001; Bradshaw, 2018; Eisner and Eisner, 1985).
Us/them binary
Framing was also found to construct an Indigenous/settler or us/them binary in the Ontario social studies curriculum (Martin and Mirraboopa, 2003; Shizha and Kariwo, 2011).
For example, under the section titled Indigenous Education in Ontario it states:
First Nation, Métis, and Inuit students in Ontario will have the knowledge, skills, and confidence they need to successfully complete their elementary and secondary education in order to pursue postsecondary education or training and/or to enter the workforce. They will have the traditional and contemporary knowledge, skills, and attitudes required to be socially contributive, politically active, and economically prosperous citizens of the world. (OME, 2018, p. 14)
In the above excerpt, First Nations, Métis, and Inuit students are represented as fully dependent upon settler systems for success (Gahman and Legault, 2019; Lu, 2018; Waligore, 2018; Battiste, 2013). As a mechanism of cognitive imperialism, this binary justifies settler presence, compartmentalizes Indigenous knowledges and controls the access to pastoral power (Cavanagh, 2001).
Also in the Grade 3 Social Studies curriculum, students will experience “opportunities to explore various topics that will enable them to develop an understanding of …First Nations, Métis, and Inuit communities and students’ own communities…” (OME, 2018, p. 22). Whether intentional or not, the above excerpt speaks directly to non-Indigenous students’ “own communities” while compartmentalizing Indigenous students as the exception (Waligore, 2018; Lu, 2018; Styres, 2008; Ivanič and Camps, 2001). A similar example is evident in the curriculum for grade 2 where students are asked “which First Nation lived on this land before your community was established?” (OME, 2018, p. 72). This is another example of how voice frames curriculum in ways that speak to an exclusively non-Indigenous audience thereby implicitly reinforcing for whom education has been designed (Battiste, 2013; Schulz et al., 2010; Styres, 2008).
Conclusion
Summary of findings
In the Ontario Social Studies curriculum for grades 3 to 6, there is evidence of binary framing as a mechanism of cognitive imperialism that compartmentalizes Indigenous knowledges. Specifically, this qualitative thematic analysis found evidence of Positive/Negative, Conflict/Cooperation, and Us/Them binaries. Interactions between overarching big ideas and a positive/negative binary suggest that the consequences of settler colonialism apply equally to both Indigenous and settler people(s). As well, there were instances where curriculum framing contributed to an ideological and mythical portrait of colonization. A binary of either cooperation or conflict shaped a hidden curriculum of compliance and conformity. Pastoral power and pastoral care were evident in moral and value-laden overtones. In light of this, the compartmentalization of Indigenous knowledges controls access to pastoral power and normalizes citizenship stratification. The voice of pastoral care in the examined Social Studies curriculum was predominantly western and there is evidence the curriculum speaks primarily to a non-Indigenous audience. Overtones of neutrality would supersede calls for redressing the injustices of settler colonialism. At times, First Nations, Métis, and Inuit students were portrayed as dependent upon settler systems for success (Gahman and Legault, 2019; Lu, 2018; Waligore, 2018). The aforementioned binaries act as mechanisms of cognitive imperialism in the Social Studies curriculum because they work to justify settler presence, compartmentalize Indigenous knowledges and control the distribution of power.
Implications and recommendations
Through critical examination of the hidden curriculum, binary framing that results from intersections between big ideas and overall/specific objectives can be addressed more effectively. Confronting narratives that romanticize colonization is required to address instances the disproportionate impact on Indigenous people(s) has been minimized, homogenized, or glorified.
It is recommended that curriculum be designed to reflect the communities it intends to serve. Therefore, a context-aware approach to curriculum development that is informed by local Indigenous communities is needed. Confronting western tones of morality and pastoral care in the hidden curriculum will loosen colonial control of and access to pastoral power that works to uphold cognitive imperialism and compartmentalize Indigenous knowledges. Further recommendations also include what I refer to as decolonial justice education (DJE).
Decolonial justice education
DJE is a way of addressing mechanisms of cognitive imperialism in education that compartmentalize Indigenous knowledge(s). The curriculum for DJE is based on Indigenous justice projects. Indigenous justice projects seek redress for injustices rooted in settler colonialism. Informed by Tuck and Yang (2018) the use of the word projects reflects justice movements as a “way to refer to a worldview combined with strategy combined with motive combined with practices and habits” (pp. 6–7). In DJE, curriculum content that is based on Indigenous justice projects encompasses matters that often go undiscussed including: decolonization, resistance, recognition, sovereignty, self-determination, languages, gender, equity, land, treaties, racial justice, (im)balances of power and environmental justice (Hill and Coleman, 2019; Tuori, 2019; Kuokkanen, 2019; Palmater, 2020; Tuck and Yang, 2018). In the process of learning of, from and through the legacies of Indigenous justice projects through DJE, student learning would include unlearning the lies of cognitive imperialism.
For example, DJE curriculum based on Grassy Narrows would encompass the community’s journey for justice and access to clean drinking water. Such DJE curriculum would teach of Indigenous solidarity, as well as the structural violences and faceted complicities of systemic settler colonialism. Cross-curricular connections with (for example) Indigenous sciences, Indigenous languages and media literacy would invite student learning to a place of envisioning what is truly required for justice (Cajete, 2020; Tuck and Yang, 2018; Styres, 2019).
Directions for further research
An examination of binaries in the grades not included in this study is recommended. In addition, the following themes for future curriculum analysis are noted: presumptions of neutrality that divorce power analysis from perspective-taking; the prioritizing of peaceful relations over redressing power imbalances and adding Indigenous-themed content to the curriculum is not enough.
Divorcing of power analysis from perspective-taking
The divorcing of power from perspective-taking in the Social Studies curriculum teaches students to accept all perspectives as neutral and devoid of power differentials and biases.
Presumption of neutrality
As a mechanism of cognitive imperialism, presumptions of neutrality act as mechanisms of cognitive imperialism by compartmentalizing Indigenous knowledge(s). Tied to western scientific reason and colonial logic imbued with common sense narratives of progress, a façade of neutrality conceals western interests (Battiste, 2016; Cunneen et al., 2017).
Adding indigenous content is not enough
Since the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (TRCC, 2015a, 2015b, 2015c), Indigenous-related content has been added to Ontario’s social studies curriculum (Kairos, 2016). For example, information about treaties, residential schools and Indigenous achievements was added. Yet, the adding of content does little to address the structural violences of systemic settler colonialism. While additions to curriculum are arguably better than nothing, this research demonstrates that binaries remain embedded in the framing of the curriculum and act as mechanisms of cognitive imperialism that compartmentalize Indigenous knowledges.
In closing
Cognitive imperialism in education is reinforced through binary framing that compartmentalizes Indigenous knowledge(s). On the surface, the addition of Indigenous-related content to the Ontario social studies curriculum is a gesture of reconciliation. However, answering the Calls to Action in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (2008–2015a, 2015b, 2015c) requires looking beneath the surface. Confronting mechanisms of cognitive imperialism is a first step in dismantling the bias-based structures of systemic settler colonialism in education.
Data availability
Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.
References
Ahenakew CR (2017) Mapping and complicating conversations about Indigenous education. Diaspora Indig Minor Educ 11(2):80–91
Alexander JC (2013) The dark side of modernity. Polity Press
Angeli C, Voogt J, Fluck A, Webb M, Cox M, Malyn-Smith J, Zagami J (2016) A K-6 computational thinking curriculum framework: implications for teacher knowledge. Educ Technol Soc 19(3):47–57. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A461608113/CIC?u=utoronto_main&sid=CIC&xid=b9ea151a
Battiste M (2013) Decolonizing education: nourishing the learning spirit. Purich Publishing
Battiste M (2016) Cognitive imperialism. In: Peters M (ed) Encyclopedia of educational philosophy and theory. Springer. pp. 1–6
Battiste M, Henderson JSY (2008) Naturalizing indigenous knowledge in education: a synthesis paper [Unpublished paper]. World Indigenous Peoples Conference on Education, Melbourne, Australia, December
Battiste M, Henderson J (2000) Protecting Indigenous knowledge and heritage: a global challenge. Purich Press
Battiste M, McLean S (2005) State of first nations learning. Prepared for the Canadian Council on Learning. Saskatoon’s Aboriginal Education Research Centre, University of Saskatchewan. Retrieved from www.ccl-cca.ca/NR/rdonlyres/4F9A3F29-7170-483CA468F00ED/0/StateOfFirstNationsLearning.pdf
Bradshaw EA (2018) Pipelines, presidents and people power: Resisting state–corporate environmental crime. In: Revisiting crimes of the powerful. Routledge. pp. 157–173
Braun V, Clarke V (2016) Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qual Res Sport Exerc Health 11(4):589–597. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806
Brigg M (2020) Registers of relationality for knowing Indigenous-settler politics. In: S. Maddison S, Nakata S (eds.). Questioning Indigenous–settler relations. Indigenous–settler relations in Australia and the world. vol 1. Springer. pp. 15–31
Cajete GA (2020) Indigenous science, climate change, and Indigenous community building: a framework of foundational perspectives for Indigenous community resilience and revitalization. Sustainability 12(22):9569
Cavanagh S (2001) The pedagogy of the pastor: the formation of the social studies curriculum in Ontario. Can J Educ 26(4):401–417. https://doi.org/10.2307/1602174
Coffey A (2014) Analysing documents. In: Flick U (ed) The SAGE handbook of qualitative data analysis. SAGE Publications, Inc. pp. 367–379
Cunneen C, Rowe S, Tauri J (2017) Fracturing the colonial paradigm: Indigenous epistemologies and methodologies. Méthod(e)s: Afr Rev Soc Sci Methodol 2(1–2):62–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/23754745.2017.1354548
Dicks H (2023) Beyond binaries: mixed-blood Indigenous inequalities. AlterNative Inte J Indig People. https://doi.org/10.1177/11771801231167654
Dimitriadis G, McCarthy C (2001) “Introduction” and “Conclusion”. From reading and teaching the postcolonial: from baldwin to basquiat and beyond. Teachers College Press, New York & London. pp. 1–13
Dion SD (2009) Braiding histories: Learning from Aboriginal peoples’ experiences and perspectives. UBC press
Donald DT (2009) Forts, curriculum, and First Nations Métissage: imagining decolonization of Aboriginal–Canadian relations in educational contexts. First Nation Perspect 2(1):1–24
Eisner E, Eisner EW (eds) (1985) Learning and teaching the ways of knowing. vol. 84. University of Chicago Press
Eisner EW (2002) What Can Education Learn from the Arts About the Practice of Education? J curric superv 18(1):4–16
Fanon F (1963) The wretched of the Earth. Grove
Gahman L, Legault G (2019) Disrupting the settler colonial university: decolonial praxis and place-based education in the Okanagan Valley (British Columbia). Capital Nat Social 30(1):50–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/10455752.2017.1368680
Giroux H (1983) Theories of reproduction and resistance in the new sociology of education: a critical analysis. Harv Educ Rev 53(3):257–293
Godlewska A, Rose J, Schaefli L, Freake S, Massey J (2016) First Nations, Métis and Inuit presence in the Newfoundland and Labrador curriculum. Race Ethn Educ 20(4):446–462
Goulet LM, Goulet K (2014) Teaching each other: Nehinuw concepts and indigenous pedagogies. UBC Press
Gumbo M (2014) Indigenous knowledge. In: Gunstone R (ed) Encyclopedia of science education. Springer
Hill RW, Coleman D (2019) The Two Row Wampum–covenant chain tradition as a guide for Indigenous–university research partnerships. Cult Stud ↔ Crit Methodol 19(5):339–359. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532708618809138
Hung CY (2017) The reformulation of national identity in the new Taiwanese citizenship curriculum through the lens of curriculum reformers. Asia Pac J Educ 37(2):205–218
Ivanič R, Camps D (2001) I am how I sound: voice as self-representation in L2 writing. J Second Lang Writ 10(1–2):3–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00034-0
Jackson PW (1990) Life in classrooms. Teachers College Press. http://www.kairoscanada.org/product/education-report-card
Julien M, Somerville K, Brant J (2017) Indigenous perspectives on work–life enrichment and conflict in Canada. Equal Divers Incl Int J 36(2):165–181. https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-11-2015-0096
Kaomea J (2003) Reading erasures and making the familiar strange: defamiliarizing methods for research in formerly colonized and historically oppressed communities. Educ Res 32(2):14–25. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3700052
Keddie A (2014) Indigenous representation and alternative schooling: prioritising an epistemology of relationality. Int J Incl Educ 18(1):55–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2012.756949
Kuokkanen R (2019-05-02) Restructuring relations: indigenous self-determination, governance, and gender. Oxford University Press. Retrieved 3 Apr. 2022, from https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190913281.001.0001/oso-9780190913281
Lu C (2018) Justice and reconciliation in world politics. Cambridge University Press
Martin JR (1976) What should we do with a hidden curriculum when we find one? Curric Inq 6(2):135–151
Martin K, Mirraboopa B (2003) Ways of knowing, being and doing: a theoretical framework and methods for Indigenous research and Indigenist research. J Aust Stud 76:203–214
May T (2001) Social research: issues, methods and process. Open University Press
McKenzie HA, Varcoe C, Browne AJ, Day L (2016) Disrupting the continuities among residential schools, the sixties scoop, and child welfare: an analysis of colonial and neocolonial discourses. Int Indig Policy J 7(2). https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/iipj/vol7/iss2/4
McKernan J (2013) Curriculum action research: a handbook of methods and resources for the reflective practitioner. Routledge
Morcom L (2017) Indigenous holistic education in philosophy and practice, with wampum as a case study. Foro de Educación 15(23):121–138. https://doi.org/10.14516/fde.572
Ontario Ministry of Education (OME) (2018) Social studies grades 1 to 6; History and geography grades 7 and 8. Queen’s Printer for Ontario. http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/elementary/social-studies-history-geography-2018.pdf
Oxford University Press (Retrieved Sept 9, 2020) Compartmentalization. In: Oxford English dictionary. https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/compartmentalization
Palmater P (2020) What we’re seeing in 2020 is Idle No More 2.0. Maclean’s 133(9):8
Pascale CM (2011) Cartographies of knowledge: exploring qualitative epistemologies. SAGE Publications
Pinar W, Reynolds W, Slattery P, Taubman P (1995) Chapter 5: Understanding curriculum as political text. Counterpoints 17:243–314. Retrieved from April 23, 2021. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42974921
Rahman K (2013) Belonging and learning to belong in school: The implications of the hidden curriculum for Indigenous students. Discourse Stud Cult Polit Educ 34(5):660–672
Rockwell E (2005) Walls, fences and keys:the enclosure of rural Indigenous schools. In: Lawn M, Grosvenor I (eds.), Materials of schooling: Design, technology, objects, routines. Oxford. pp. 19–46
Rice C, Dion SD, Fowlie H, Breen A (2022) Identifying and working through settler ignorance. Crit Stud Educ (ahead-of-print), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2020.1830818
Rothberg M (2019) The implicated subject: Beyond victims and perpetrators. Stanford University Press
Samset I (2020) Towards decolonial justice. Int J Transit Justice 14(3):596–607
Schaefli L, Godlewska A, Rose J (2018) Coming to know Indigeneity: epistemologies of ignorance in the 2003–2015 Ontario Canadian and world studies curriculum. Curric Inq 48(4):475–498. https://doi.org/10.1080/03626784.2018.1518113
Schick C, St. Denis V (2005) Troubling national discourses in anti-racist curricular planning. Can J Educ 28(3):295–317. https://doi.org/10.2307/4126472
Schulz W, Ainley J, Fraillon J, Kerr D, Losito B (2010) ICCS 2009 international report: Civic knowledge, attitudes, and engagement among lower-secondary school students in 38 countries. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement
Shizha E, Kariwo MT (eds) (2011) Impact of colonialism on education. In: Education and development in Zimbabwe. Sense Publishers. pp. 13–26
Simpson A, Tuhiwai Smith A (2014) Theorizing native studies. Duke University Press
Smith B, Ng-A-Fook N, Berry S, Spence K (2011) Deconstructing a curriculum of dominance: Teacher education, colonial frontier logics, and residential schooling. Transnational Curr Inquiry, 8(2). http://nitinat.library.ubc.ca/ojs/index.php/tci
Styres S (2008) The silent monologue: the voice within the space. AlterNative J Int J Indig People 4(2):89–101. http://www.alternative.ac.nz/content/silent-monologue-voice-within-space
Styres S (2019) Literacies of land: decolonizing narratives, storying, and literature. In: Indigenous and decolonizing studies in education. 1st edn. Routledge. pp. 24–37
Terry G, Hayfield N (2022) Reflexive thematic analysis. In: Ward MRM, Delamont S (eds.), Handbook of qualitative research in education. Edward Elgar Publishing. pp. 430–441
Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (2015a) Honouring the truth, reconciling for the future: summary of the final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. http://nctr.ca/assets/reports/Final%20Reports/Executive_Summary_English_Web.pdf
Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (2015b) Truth and reconciliation commission of Canada: Calls to action. http://nctr.ca/assets/reports/Calls_to_Action_English2.pdf
Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (2015c) Truth and reconciliation commission of Canada. House of Commons
Tuck E, Yang KW (eds) (2018) Toward what justice? describing diverse dreams of justice in education. Routledge
Tuori K (2019) The ECB’s quantitative easing programme as a constitutional game changer. Maastricht J Eur Comp Law 26(1):94–107. https://doi.org/10.1177/1023263×18822796
Tuhiwai Smith LT (2021) Decolonizing methodologies: research and indigenous peoples. Bloomsbury Publishing
Tynan L (2020) Thesis as kin: Living relationality with research. AlterNative Int J Indig People 16(3):163–170
Waligore T (2018) Redress for colonial injustice: Structural injustice and the relevance of history. Glob Just Theor Pract Rhetor 11(2):15–28
Whyte K (2018) Settler colonialism, ecology, and environmental injustice. Environ Soc 9:125–144. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26879582
Wilson S, Wilson P (1998) Editorial, Relational accountability to all our relations. CA J Native Educ 22(1):155–158
Kairos (2016) Education for reconciliation report card. http://www.kairoscanada.org/product/education-report-card
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The author declares no competing interests.
Ethical approval
This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.
Informed consent
This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Clarysse, L.K. Compartmentalizing Indigenous knowledge(s): binary framing and cognitive imperialism in social studies curriculum. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 10, 492 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01972-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01972-9