Moving between two worlds : student identity negotiation in an intercultural Mexican context

(1)

Moving Between Two Worlds

Student Identity Negotiation in an Intercultural

Mexican Context

Rachel Taylor

Master’s Thesis International Development Studies

Graduate School of Social Science, University of Amsterdam

Student Number: 11570970

Thesis Supervisor: Dr. Rosanne Tromp

Second Reader: Dr. Courtney Vegelin

Email: retaylor394@gmail.com

Date: 4 July 2018

(2)

Abstract

In spite of changes to the Mexican constitution in 1991 recognizing the country as pluri-cultural and the creation of the Intercultural University program in 2005, indigenous students are still primarily taught using the national Mexican curriculum throughout their primary and secondary schooling. Additionally, feelings of discrimination still exist amongst indigenous peoples in Mexico. In opposition to many of students past schooling experiences, the Universidad Intercultural Veracruzana looks to empower and uplift indigenous knowledges, languages, and cultures. Extensive research exists surrounding the translation and enactment of the 2005 national policy on the local level, but not regarding student identity negotiations due to this policy and its translation. There is also plenty of research surrounding curricular impact on student identity negotiation, but, much of this research occurs in the Global North. To address these knowledge gaps, this study asks, how do the students at the university negotiate their cultural identity in interaction with the university’s enacted curriculum? Through semi-structured interviews with students and classroom observations at the Universidad Intercultural Veracruzana- Totonacapan campus, this thesis examines how students negotiate their identities in the Mexican context where interculturalism looks to reconcile and empower indigenous identities. This research finds, first, that the intercultural curriculum at the university emphasizes cultural identity with particular emphasis on indigenous and community identity. Second, students define their identity through cultural associations, indigeneity, and community belonging. Third, students frequently re-negotiate their cultural identities as they interact with the intercultural curriculum which opposes many of their past experiences. Based on these findings, this thesis concludes that this re-negotiation of cultural identity can lead to gaps between the students’ spoken interpretation and acted translation of their identity. These findings imply that the empowerment of indigenous identities in Mexico would need be incorporated into primary and secondary school curricula with emphasis on indigenous knowledges, cultures, languages and ultimately, students’ cultural identities.

Key Words: intercultural education; cultural identity; identity negotiation; indigenous; Mexico;

(3)

Acknowledgements

First, I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr. Rosanne Tromp for the constant support and motivation. This research would not have been possible without her connections or knowledge of higher education in Mexico. Dr. Tromp’s guidance, extensive expertise, and wonderful feedback helped me grow and learn so much from this process. This research also would not have been possible without the support of my local supervisor in Mexico, Dr. Gunther Dietz. Dr. Dietz’s support for my research and willingness to connect me with Universidad Veracruzana

Intercultural, Totonacapan Campus and always answer all of my questions was a source of

comfort while I was in-country and an incredible help to this study. I would also like to thank my second reader, Dr. Courtney Vegelin for her readiness to support me and provide feedback. My experience in Mexico was an incredible learning opportunity as well as a time for personal growth. Many people locally made this possible. I want to thank the entire administration, staff, and professors at the UVI-Totonacapan, where the research was conducted. This research would not have been possible without them opening their classrooms (and homes) to me. The UVI professors were extremely welcoming, always willing to talk and answer questions, and happily connected me with most of my research participants. Their insight, hospitality, and

thoughtfulness made this an incredible experience. I want to especially thank Dr. Daisy Bernal for showing me the Totonacapan region, sharing all of her knowledge and wisdom with me, treating me as a colleague, and for becoming a dear friend.

I am incredibly grateful to the students of the UVI-Totonacapan. Beyond being participants in my research, the students treated me as a friend. The students extended immense kindness to show me around their communities and homes and open their hearts to me. I thank them for participating, for learning with me, and for teaching me so much.

Living in a small town in extremely rural Veracruz, Mexico was daunting and would have been much more difficult had I not found the family I stayed with. They included me in their meals, their adventures, and their celebrations—making me feel safe and at home the entire time. They were always willing to explain cultural differences, teach me how to do laundry by hand, and gave me numerous rides to the distant bus station. I will forever be grateful for their hospitality during a challenging 10 weeks.

Of course, I would also like to thank my family and loved ones, particularly my parents, Amy and Joe Taylor, and my partner, Antonio Belmar, for answering every panicked phone call, talking me through writer’s blocks, and supporting me every step of the way. I am extremely grateful for their constant support.

Thank you all. Rachel Taylor July, 2018

(4)

Agradecimientos

Primero que todo, quiero agradecerle a mi supervisora, la Dra. Rosanne Tromp por el constante apoyo y motivación. Este estudio no hubiese sido posible sin sus conexiones y conocimiento de la educación superior en México. Su consejo, experticia extensa y maravillosa ayuda me ayudó a crecer y aprender mucho del proceso. Este estudio tampoco hubiese sido posible sin el apoyo de mi supervisor local en México, el Dr. Gunther Dietz. El apoyo del Dr. Dietz y su buena voluntad de conectarme con la Universidad Veracruzana Intercultural, Sede Regional Totonacapan fue de mucha ayuda y una fuente de confort mientras estuve dentro del país. También quisiera

agradecerle a la segunda lectora de mi tesis, la Dra. Courtney Vegelin por su apoyo y entusiasmo de ayudarme y darme consejos.

Mi experiencia en México fue una increíble oportunidad de aprendizaje y también para mi desarrollo personal. Mucha individuos de la comunidad local hizo que esto fuera posible. Quiero agradecerle a la administración y los profesores en la UVI-Totonacapan, donde fue el estudio. Este estudio no hubiese sido posible si ellos no hubiesen estado tan dispuestos a abrirme sus aulas y sus hogares. Los profesores de la UVI me recibieron muy amablemente y siempre

estuvieron dispuestos a conversar conmigo y responder mis preguntas. Felizmente me conectaron con muchos de los participantes en mi estudio. Su opinión, hospitalidad, y simpatía hicieron que esta experiencia fuera increíble. Especialmente, quiero agradecerle a la Dra. Daisy Bernal por enseñarme la región del Totonacapan y por compartir su conocimiento y sabiduría conmigo, tratándome como una colega y por convertirse en una gran amiga.

Estoy increíblemente agradecida con todos los estudiantes de la UVI-Totonacapan. Además de ser participantes de mi estudio, los estudiantes me trataron como una amiga. Los estudiantes me trataron con mucha amabilidad y me enseñaron sus comunidades y hogares abiertamente y me abrieron sus corazones. Les agradezco por participar, aprender conmigo y por enseñarme tanto. Vivir en un pueblo pequeño en la parte rural de Veracruz, México fue intimidante y hubiese sido mucho más difícil si no hubiese encontrado a la familia con la que estuve viviendo. Ellos me invitaron a compartir sus comidas, sus aventuras y sus celebraciones, haciéndome sentir segura y como en casa durante mi estadía completa. Ellos siempre estuvieron ahí para explicarme las diferencias culturales y enseñarme como lavar mi ropa a mano. Además, me llevaron varias veces a la lejana estación de bus. Estaré para siempre agradecida por su hospitalidad durante las 10 semanas.

Por supuesto, también quiero agradecerle, a mi familia y a mi gente querida, en especial a Amy y Joe Taylor y a mi pareja, Antonio Belmar, por responder cada llamada de teléfono, apoyarme durante los momentos difíciles, y ayudarme en cada paso del camino. Estoy extremadamente agradecida por su constante apoyo.

(5)

List of Acronyms

Acronym Term Translation (if needed)

CNTE Coordinadora Nacional de

Trabajadores de la Educación

National Coordination of Education Workers

GCIBE Coordinación General de

Educación Intercultural y Bilingüe (CGEIB)

General Coordination for Intercultural and Bilingual Education

LGID Licenciatura en Gestión

Intercultural para el Desarrollo

Bachelor’s in Intercultural Management for

Development LDEPLUJ Licenciatura en Derecho con

enfoque de Pluralismo Jurídico

Bachelor’s in Law with a focus on Legal Pluralism

PRI Partido Revolucionario

Institucional

Institutional Revolutionary Party

SNTE Sindicato Nacional de

Trabajadores de la Educación

National Union of Education Workers

UVI Universidad Intercultural

Veracruzana

Intercultural University of Veracruz

(8)

1. Introduction

“The living conditions of the indigenous peoples have historically been below the national standards, which implies high indexes of marginalization manifested in different areas: educational, social, economic, cultural and health. It has been seen that the deterioration of indigenous cultures has been due largely to exogenous processes supported by one-dimensional discourses: from Conquest and Colonization to the structuring and expansion of the nation-state and globalization.” -Universidad Veracruzana

Intercultural (2007)1

Globally indigenous students tend to have higher drop-out rates, are under-represented in higher education, and have fewer graduates in professional careers (Jacob et al., 2015, 6). In the case of Mexico, scholars often cite the causes of these statistics as the historical assimilation education policies (Jacob et al., 2015, 6), the low quality and under-funding of indigenous schools, higher poverty levels among indigenous peoples, the neglect of indigenous languages both in and out of schools, and the rural location of many indigenous communities (Hernandez-Zavala et al., 2006, 3). In Mexico, the average student from an indigenous region typically completes three years of schooling while students from non-indigenous regions complete eight year and indigenous students have much lower test scores in Spanish due to having an indigenous language as their first language, not Spanish (Hernandez-Zavala et al., 2006, 3). All of these different barriers to education, as well as the curriculums themselves, can impact students’ self-perception and identity negotiation as they grow up. Typically, indigenous knowledge is not included in mainstream education systems which can be damaging to indigenous students’ understanding and identity formation surrounding their culture and practice (Jacob et al., 2015, 6).

Mexico is a unique case in Latin America with regards to its intercultural education university program which is mainly due to its history of indigenous rebellion and the San Andres Agreements in 1996. The above quote comes from the curriculum of one of these universities. The Universidad Veracruzana Intercultural (UVI) is the intercultural university for the state of Veracruz. This university attempts to broaden the discourse within and around indigenous cultures, languages, and knowledges, aiming to empower and value indigenous peoples and communities

(9)

in Mexico. My research focuses on the students of the UVI and how they enact the curriculum and what identity negotiation processes take place within the students as they conduct this enactment.

1.1 Research Aim and Relevance

The aforementioned past exclusion of indigenous knowledge and assimilation programs through curriculum are part of the reason the General Coordination for Intercultural and Bilingual Education2_{(GCIBE) and the intercultural university program were created in Mexico. The creation} of the intercultural university program and subsequently the UVI in Veracruz has been applauded as providing empowering and accessible higher education to indigenous students (Fierro and Rojo Pons, 2012: 118). How this program has been translated from the national level to the local level, and education policy translation in general, has been covered extensively by scholars3_{. Dietz and} Mateos Cortés (2012, 2016, 2017) in particular, focus on how national ideas and policies are translated and enacted on the local level at the UVI, particularly focusing on teachers and the role they play as actors in the university. On the global and national levels, there is an understanding of intercultural education as important to open the minds of the majority group to different and diverse cultures, peoples, and knowledges, it is not based on the needs of the minority (Dietz and Mateos Cortés, 2017, 30). On the contrary, on the local level in Mexico, indigenous groups view intercultural education as addressing their needs, being a tool for empowerment, recognition, and community building (De la Peña, 2006, 282). These differences between national policy and local practice appear in a variety of ways, such as in local curriculum, in teacher enactment of the curriculum in daily practice, but also in how students enact, interpret, and translate the curriculum. While significant research has been conducted on local curriculum translation and teacher enactment of curriculums and the impacts of this, there is an academic gap in the research on student enactment of curriculum, particularly when looking at student enactment of an intercultural curriculum.

In addition to this academic gap regarding students’ curricular enactment, there is also a gap around identity negotiation. Research on the impacts of intercultural and multicultural

2_{Website: http://eib.sep.gob.mx}

3_{See: Curiel Landa (2017), Dietz and Mateos Cortés (2012, 2016, 2017), Fierro and Rojo Pons (2012), Schmal}

(10)

education on identity does indeed exist, however; the majority of this research is conducted in the Global North (Dietz and Mateos Cortés 2017: 30). Ideas of multicultural education are not new, much of the Global North is also moving in this direction (Dietz and Mateos Cortés 2017: 30), however; the meaning placed on multiculturalism is often very different from the meaning used by indigenous groups. As Dietz and Mateos Cortés (2017) explain, “an urgency to develop an intercultural education is perceived [by education policy makers] as well, but not based on the minorities’ identity needs, but on the apparent inability of the majority society to meet the new challenges posed by the heterogeneity of students, by the growing socio-cultural complexity” (30). Therefore, much of the identity negotiation research surrounding intercultural education has been focused on an education system which emphasizes teaching majority students about other cultures, discrimination, and racism. Meanwhile, in Mexico, intercultural education represents overcoming historical discrimination and empowering indigenous knowledges, languages, and practices. This is a completely different meaning which may have different impacts on indigenous students identity than that of the system being used in Europe and its impacts on European students.

Beyond this scholarly gap, there is societal value to understanding student enactment of intercultural curricula and their identity negotiation processes. The indigenous experience in Mexico, from colonialism through present day is similar to indigenous experiences throughout Latin America. The intercultural university system in Mexico is the first of its kind in the country, therefore it holds great potential for the local indigenous communities, the national community, as well as indigenous communities across Latin America who have faced similar struggles. Latin American countries are beginning to shift towards intercultural and bilingual education systems and could use Mexico as a resource for the process. Therefore, it is valuable to understand the identity negotiation processes students undergo as they enact, interpret, and translate the unique intercultural curriculum, particularly if this model is going to be replicated in other countries. Understanding the impact of the intercultural university on students and their identity negotiations is also beneficial to future Mexican education policy, in order to create stronger and more relevant policies and curricula.

My research steps into these academic and societal gaps and conversations regarding student identity negotiation, policy enactment, and intercultural education by focusing on the

(11)

identity while enacting this intercultural program which seeks to empower their cultural identity? This is the phenomenon I seek to understand and the gap I seek to fill in the academic and societal conversation; how students are negotiating their identities as they interact with the curriculum, in the context of the Totonacapan region and the UVI.

1.2 Research Question and Sub-Questions

How do students at the Universidad Veracruzana Intercultural (UVI), Sede Regional

Totonacapan, negotiate their cultural identity while enacting the university’s curriculum?

Sub-Questions:

• How do these identity negotiations differ within the student: internally, externally, and nationally?

• How does the UVI curriculum present cultural identity?

• What aspects of the students’ identity’s does the UVI curriculum emphasize? • How do students themselves define the concept of identity?

• Which identity interpretations emerge in the negotiations as a result of students’ enactment of the UVI curriculum?

• What identity translations emerge in the negotiations as a result of students’ enactment of the UVI curriculum?

1.3 Chapter Overview

Following this introduction, I will discuss the theoretical basis for this research as well as the conceptual scheme that the research is based on. In the research design chapter, I will thoroughly explain the theoretical background for the research design, the methodology used, and reflect on the methods and ethics of the research. Additionally, I will discuss how the data analysis was conducted. In the empirical discussion I will discuss the main themes that emerged from the data in relation to the main research question and sub-questions. This will lead to the conclusion which will include a discussion of the main research question, suggestions for further research, and a theoretical reflection.

(12)

2. Theoretical Framework

2.1 Identity

I studied the process of student identity negotiation as they interacted with the curriculum at the UVI. First and foremost, it was important to determine how I am defining identity, which is an ongoing scholarly debate. The main debate is around whether identity is something determined by others or something people decide for themselves. The issue here is whether identity needs to be attached to a group or an official recognition or whether it can be something individuals decide. Taylor (1994) claims that identity is based on what separates people from other groups. Hall (1996) agrees with this, emphasizing that identity is “the product of marking difference and exclusion” and as such is something constructed based on othering and differences (4). However, Hall (1996), takes this further and argues that identity is a blend of both an individual’s personal decision and the label determined by others. On the other hand, Apple (2001) contends that identity is related to membership in a particular group. I strongly agree with Jacob et al.’s (2015) definition, a combination of all of the prior definitions stating; “identity is an ongoing process to identify selfhood and exclude others. Moreover, identity is dynamic and multiple constructed rather than permanent and individual. Finally, the process of recognition and misrecognition is based on power and exclusion” (383). This definition encompasses the most important aspect of identity; it is not fixed. Identity is constantly developing, changing, and being negotiated. Additionally, identity is both a process of defining oneself as an individual and defining oneself as a member of a particular group which excludes others.

“Power and exclusion” (383) are also important to consider when thinking about marginalized groups and their histories of forced assimilation or exclusion. Throughout history marginalized groups have been identified (and mis-identified) and excluded by those in power, therefore it is important to recognize that identity cannot be a label completely determined by others, this gives too much power to majority groups. Instead, I agree with Dilg (1999), that identity is a process of self-determination and self-recognition, an internal process whereby a person affiliates themselves with a specific group (22). While society does label people with identities and those may impact how people self-identify, ultimately each person constructs and

(13)

Hall (1997) explains the discursive approach to identity, which I used in my research. This approach emphasizes that identity is an ongoing and ever-changing process (Apple 2001), one which students at the UVI are constantly negotiating; inwardly, outwardly, and within their own community. This discursive approach ties students’ identity negotiation to their educational experience at the UVI because Hall (1997) argues that the approach focuses on, “how the knowledge which a particular discourse produces connects with power, regulates conducts, makes up or constructs identities and subjectivities” (6). The intercultural educational discourse occurring at the UVI differs from the mainstream primary and secondary education systems in Mexico. As Hall (1997) further argues, “identities are constructed within, not outside, discourse, we need to understand them as produced in specific historical and institutional sites within specific discursive formations and practices” (4). Therefore, the institutional discourse within the UVI, the knowledges being taught and produced, may cause students to re-negotiate their identities, particularly their cultural identities because of the emphasis on empowering indigenous knowledge. This approach allows for examination of identity negotiation processes and focuses on the impact knowledge and discourse can have on identity negotiation.

Cultural/Ethnic/Indigenous Identity

The next important debate around identity, for this research, is how to define cultural, ethnic, and indigenous identity, whether or not they are all the same, and who gets to define these and label themselves as such. The first piece is cultural identity; Green (1994) defines cultural identity by stating that it, “gives the individual a sense of common past and of a shared destiny” (7). However, Weaver (2001) argues that identity cannot simply be cultural, instead it is always a mix of “race, class, education, region, religion, and gender” (240). Re (2013) agrees that identity cannot be cultural, instead arguing that identity is an abstract and subjective idea while culture is something concrete (36). Re (2013) argues that both are their own processes, however; they are related in that, “culture and identity are linked processes but with different reproduction and transformation” (37). Jacob et al. (2015) disagrees with Weaver (2001) and Re (2013), instead stating that cultural identity is a broad category under which aspects such as indigenous identity can fall. Weaver (2001) and Re (2013) make valid arguments that identity is so much more than just cultural and that it is something abstract, however; when using the definition of identity as a way of defining

(14)

oneself against other groups, cultural identity can be a subsection of identity. Meaning, a person can self-identify or self-affiliate with a group based on its cultural practices. This is where the following aspect of cultural identity becomes important; the idea that a person can have multiple cultural identities. Oetting and Beauvais (1991) explain that a person can identify with a specific culture and this identification does not lessen identifying with any number of other cultures (cited in: Weaver, 2001: 249). Beyond cultural identity, a person can have multiple aspects of their identity and none of those aspects take away from the other.

In addition to cultural identity, there is a debate surrounding ethnic identity. It is important to recognize that neither cultural nor ethnic identity are something assigned based on physical appearance, instead both are self-determined (Weaver, 2001, 250). Beyond physical appearance, I argue that cultural and ethnic identity are not based on one’s ability to speak the language, one’s practicing of the traditions, customs, or religion. Instead, cultural and ethnic identity are based on one’s self-identification as such. This is particularly poignant when thinking about indigenous groups because their cultural identities, knowledges, languages, etc. have been minimized and destroyed over decades. As a result, there exist people who may not look like the assumed image of a particular culture or may not speak that culture’s language due to the domination of the majority culture, but still identify with that culture.

Jacob et al. (2015) uses the terms ethnic and cultural identity as somewhat interchangeable and cites Phinney (1992: 156) to define ethnic identity as, “part of an individual’s self-concept that derives from his or her knowledge of membership in a social group (or groups) together with the value and emotional significance attached to that membership” (384). The connection between cultural and ethnic identity is understandable, often times these groups overlap in terms of religion, traditions, language, and so on (ibid.: 384). Phinney (1990) gives a nice overview of the debate surrounding the definition of ethnic identity, pointing out that some scholars agree with Jacobs et al. (2015) that ethnic identity is the cultural aspect of identity (500)4_{. However, many scholars do} not agree, instead pointing to a variety of aspects which make up ethnic identity. According to Phinney (1990):

(15)

“Some writers considered self-identification the key aspect; others emphasized feelings of belonging and commitment (Singh, 1977; Ting-Toomey, 1981; Tzuriel & Klein, 1977), the sense of shared values and attitudes (White & Burke, 1987, p. 311), or attitudes toward one's group (e.g., Parham & Helms, 1981; Teske & Nelson, 1973)” (500).

Nagel (1994) argues that ethnicity is made up of smaller aspects such as, “language, religion, culture, appearance, ancestry, or regionality” (153). Here Nagel (1994) is arguing instead that culture and even identity, both self-defined and defined by others instead make up ethnicity. Ethnicity is a combination of these shared aspects and self-identification as part of a group.

In addition to cultural and ethnic identity, indigenous identity is also an important piece of this debate. First and foremost, I agree with Weaver (2001) that it is misrepresentative to “assume that all indigenous people experience a Native cultural identity in the same way just because they were born into a native community” (243). This is important in my research because even if students identify as indigenous, or I classify them as such, this does not automatically indicate that this identity means the same to each participant and that they have lived the same experiences. Identity is still a personal experience, process, and while it includes a feeling of belonging to a particular group, indigenous groups cannot be assumed to be the same and each person within these groups is not either.

Jacob et al. (2015) argues that indigenous identity is “a kind of cultural identity and would be reflected in the values, belief, and worldviews of indigenous people” (384). Meanwhile, Weaver (2001) defines indigenous identity as a process of self-identification, community identification, and external identification. Weaver (2001) argues that “there is some level of choice involved in accepting a Native identity” (244). Due to the nature of many indigenous practices, Weaver (2001) argues that indigenous identity is also community driven, “connected to a sense of peoplehood inseparably linked to sacred traditions, traditional homelands, and a shared history as indigenous people” (245). Ultimately, Weaver (2001) and Jacob et al. (2015) agree on this breakdown of indigenous identity because Jacob et al. (2015) separates indigenous identity into three sub-categories: individual, community, and external identity (385). Individual identity points to self-perception, however; this self-perception may be impacted by external factors, including

(16)

education, life experiences, gender, race, and so on (ibid.: 385). Community identity is a perception of belonging to a particular group; typically, the group has its own cultural practices, traditions, and shared history (ibid.: 386). Community identity can also be understood to be the collective identity of a group. Finally, external identity is the identity one portrays outwardly or is often defined by, oftentimes this is the aspect of identity that can be exclusive to outsiders and create a sense of belonging (ibid.: 387).

Identity is a complex debate with scholars debating on its meaning and subsets over many years. Ultimately identity is a multi-layered intersection of self-identification, feelings of belonging and othering, culture, ethnicity, language, religion, and much more. For the purposes of my research, I focused on indigenous identity as a subset of cultural identity, agreeing with Nagel (1994) that ethnicity is also constructed, but is different from identity. In order to better focus on indigenous identity, I used Jacob et al.’s (2015) sub-categories: individual, community, and external; however, I also added national identity as a sub-category. These sub-categories were the markers of which interview and focus group questions were based on throughout the research.

Due to the history of indigenous peoples in Mexico I felt it was crucial to include national identity as a component of indigenous identity. Up until the 1990s the national policy in Mexico towards indigenous peoples was one of assimilation. Indigenous identity was supposed to be forgotten and indigenous peoples were expected to assimilate into the national Mexican identity (Re 2013). The 1990s and subsequent decades have changed this stance and programs like the intercultural university program have begun to recognize and empower indigenous identity and knowledge. Therefore, the relationship between indigenous identity and national identity was extremely important to include. Re (2013) explains that national identity has existed since civilizations began to draw territorial lines and differentiate themselves (50). National identity and nationalism are concepts that have been thoroughly discussed by a myriad of scholars. Gutiérrez and Núñez (1998), while discussing national identity in Mexico, define it as, “the identification that citizens in the nation-state make of themselves” (82). Continuing, they argue that national identity is backed by institutional support from the nation and the borders that create the nation (83), in this sense Gutiérrez and Núñez (1998) seem to argue that national identity is mainly something geographical that is then supported by the government. They go on to state that this

(17)

the national we…in front of other nation-states as well as inside” (234). These concepts of national identity point to a feeling of belonging to the larger nation state, with a national rhetoric that is created by the institution of the state itself.

2.2 Curriculum: Enactment-Interpretation-Translation in Context

Many scholars write about policy enactment in education; what this looks like, what influences enactment, and whether policy enactment is a process or a moment. Enactment is an important piece of my research because I am taking this scholarly discussion around enactment and applying it to the students at the UVI. First, it is important to understand the debate around enactment, interpretation, and translation. The main divide among scholars is whether policy enactment includes interpretation and translation, or whether interpretation and translation are something done separately but simultaneously to enactment. Braun et al. (2011) argue that enactment includes interpretation and translation, stating, “policy enactment involves creative processes of interpretation and translation, that is, the recontextualization” (586). The argument here is that the entire process of enactment includes interpretation of the policy, translation of the policy, and the end product is a recontextualization of said policy—in the context of the school it is enacted in. However, Ball, Maguire, and Braun (2012) phrase their discussion by placing enactment and interpretation next to each other, as separate processes (10). The authors state, “…different individuals and groups of actors interpret and enact policy in specific contexts…” (11). This example shows how Ball et al. (2012) actually places enactment and interpretation side by side instead of together in one process.

It is also key to recognize that much of the scholarly debate around policy enactment focuses on the school or the teacher enactment-interpretation-translation process. In fact, Ball et al. (2012) views students as the “copers and defenders who are at the receiving end of policy in classrooms and corridors” (8). This argument ignores the possibility students have to go through their own process of enactment-interpretation-translation of the curriculum they are being presented. Granted, because this curriculum has already been adopted from policy and further adopted by the teachers themselves, it may already be an enacted-interpreted-translated curriculum that students are experiencing; but, students are still key actors who continue this process even further.

(18)

Based on the scholarly discussion surrounding policy enactment, for this research I define enactment as the interaction with the curriculum. This can mean, attending class, participating in class, work produced, activities, attending field trips, etc. Interpretation is the spoken discourse of the students, how they verbally interpret and adopt the curriculum after enacting it. Translation is understood to be practice, how students put the enacted and interpreted curriculum into practice in their daily lives. However, this is not to argue that the process is a one-directional flow and translation can only come after interpretation, all three pieces can occur simultaneously or out of order, other than the moment of first enactment of the curriculum by the students. This will be discussed further in the theoretical reflection (Section 11.1) of the conclusion.

Context

The previous discussion regarding enactment-interpretation-translation needs to be understood through the lens of context. Braun et al. (2011) argue the importance of context in enactment research. Due to the the diverse realities that policies are enacted in, the contextual lens allows understanding of the impact context has on the enacted policy. This point is crucial to my research because the intercultural education policy is being enacted in the unique context of Mexico, Veracruz, and even the Totonacapan region—each of these layers bring a different contextual lens to the enactment of the curriculum. Braun et al. (2011) break context into four dimensions: situated, professional, material, and external (588), which will be discussed further in Section 5.2.

This contextual lens for studying national intercultural education policy and the role of outside entities in the UVI helped me understand how the university arrived at the curriculum that is currently being enacted. Additionally, Braun et al. (2011) discuss how policy discourse plays out in visual representations within schools. These visual representations, such as curriculums, school policy and handbooks, and even posters on the walls of the institutions can represent the interpretation and translation of policy discourses, or as Braun et al. (2011) state, they are “carriers of discourse” (598). These textual and visual representations can create a common understanding among participants in the university (students, teachers, and administrators) of what the university and learning environment should look like. These “carriers of discourse” create the standards,

(19)

Braun et al. (2011) mainly focus on “carriers of discourse” that originate from an institutional level. However, student coursework and presentations can also represent the discourse students have around the concept of intercultural education, the curriculum, and the broader policies behind this curriculum. Students’ coursework is their own interaction with the curriculum and a form of enactment; it can be understood as a visual representation of how students think of their indigenous identity in relation to (and interaction with) the curriculum. Examining students’ work will be beneficial to reaching the pragmatic dimension of the theory, how students interact with the curriculum.

2.3 Conceptual Scheme

Based on the previous theory, the conceptual schemes for this research are as follows:

(20)

Rachel Taylor (2018) based on Jacob et al. (2015) and Weaver (2001)

The first conceptual scheme represents the fluidity of the student identity negotiation and re-negotiation process. This scheme demonstrates the continuum of identity and the important aspects that make-up the negotiation process. Student cultural identity negotiation is not just based on context; therefore, it was important to me to demonstrate the role curriculum and culture play in the identity continuum, along with context. Curriculum meaning the UVI’s particular curriculum and culture meaning the culture the students are raised in—whether that be their home, community, or nationally. The students’ own culture that they identify with plays a role in their subsequent identity negotiation process when they encounter and enact the UVI curriculum.

The arrows between the boxes represent the students’ interpretation of the curriculum. The idea is that students enact the curriculum and then interpret it together with their own context, cultural background, and identity. The two arrows leaving the diagram (one pointing up and one pointing down) represent the translation of this interpretation, by the students. This entire process

(21)

diagram. The identity continuum concept is based on Hall’s (1997) discursive approach to identity, seeing it as something continuous and fluid (See: Section 2.1).

The second conceptual scheme demonstrates the fluidity of the different contexts or worlds that the students negotiate their identities through. The levels included here represent a blend of different scholar’s identity theories as discussed in Section 2.1. The framework uses a modified representation of Jacob et al.’s (2015) sub-categories of indigenous identity: individual, community, and external (385). The scheme modifies these sub-categories to include Weaver’s (2001) understanding of the sub-categories of indigenous identity as well. Additionally, I take the sub-categories the scholars use for indigenous identity and apply them to cultural identity because not every student I interviewed self-identified as indigenous, therefore, I focused on overall cultural identity using the individual, community, and external levels. I added the level of the UVI because this serves as another context that students negotiate their identities within and another context that they must move between.

The student is located at the center of the framework with their current context of the UVI being the first ring because it is currently the context they are operating in on a daily basis and the context that I interviewed and observed them in. Following this is their community context and their national context. While Jacob et al. (2015) and Weaver (2001) do not include national as a sub-category, I decided to change external to national because of the political and historical context of Mexico. National identity and the national context are extremely important for indigenous groups in Mexico, therefore it was important to include this as another level that students negotiate their identities in. I was able to gather limited observations of the students in the community level, but national was not a level I was able to observe the students in. However, it is still an important aspect of their identity that cannot be forgotten. Additionally, I included the arrow in the scheme because many students discussed their feelings of having to move amongst these different levels or worlds, with different aspects of their cultural identity emerging based on the context. The arrow represents this movement among levels as well as the fluidity of both the students’ identity and their negotiations.

(22)

The operationalization of the research question and major concepts can be seen in the table below. The three main concepts for this research are intercultural education, curricular enactment (by students), and identity. These concepts can then be broken into further dimensions and variables, as seen below. The operationalization follows the anthropological education approach, flowing from the definition of intercultural education, to the context it is being enacted in by the students, to their interpretations and translations of this curriculum. Throughout the enactment, interpretation, and translation process, identity negotiation is occurring. The operationalization of curricular enactment uses Ball, et al.’s (2012) analysis through the lens of context as well as Braun et al.’s (2011) analysis of enactment, interpretation, and translation. The dimensions and variables used to operationalize identity stem from Weaver (2001) and Jacob, et al.’s (2015) sub-categories of indigenous identity and my earlier discussion regarding cultural identity.

Concept Dimension Variable Indicators/

Questions Education Intercultural Education Presence of intercultural education style

Diverse and inclusive curriculum (includes community and community service) Region specific curriculum (built by community) Local teachers Context: UVI institution definition of intercultural “Post-indigenismo” discourse San Andres

(23)

from context Local indigenous population and history UVI history Curriculum (students)

Enactment Interaction with the curriculum

Attending and

participating in class, assignments,

attending events, etc. Interpretation Spoken Discourse Incorporation of UVI

curriculum discourse around cultural identity (or rejection of this discourse) Spoken belief in traditional indigenous culture: language, dress, values, knowledges, etc. Translation Practice Incorporation of UVI

curriculum discourse around cultural identity into daily practice (or rejection of this)

Re-valuing of

traditional indigenous culture through

(24)

practice Incorporation of traditional culture through language, dress, use of knowledge, use of customs/practices, etc. in daily practice

Identity Identity Negotiation Internally Adoption (or

rejection) of mainstream culture values, and norms Learning of Spanish, rejection of

indigenous language (or the opposite) Increased (or

decreased) interest in and learning about indigenous culture Externally Participation (or

rejection of participation) in indigenous

community rituals, events, and traditions

(25)

Learning of non-indigenous religious practices, cultural norms, and traditions Type of clothing used (traditional culture or non-cultural)

Speaking of Spanish or speaking of

indigenous language Nationally Outward portrayals of

belonging to a national group Exclusion or inclusion of non-national group Cultural Identity Indigenous Identity Self-identification as

belonging to an indigenous group Community identification of belonging, by the individual and by the community

(including: cultural practices, traditions, shared history)

(26)

Outward portrayals of culture, traditions, practices, etc. in community and known areas Outward portrayals (or lack thereof) of culture, traditions, practices, etc. nationally— irrespective of location

(27)

3. Research Design

3.1 Methodological Approach

The methodological approach for my research design was as follows: anthropological education perspective is the overarching umbrella. The context of Veracruz (and more specifically, the Totonacapan region) were the smaller umbrella under which intercultural education is examined. Using pragmatic hermeneutics, I examined how the specific institution of UVI in Veracruz (with its own context as well) puts intercultural education into practice at the Totonacapan campus. This required examining the syntactic (Dietz and Mateos Cortés, 2012, 420) dimension: the university institution, particularly curriculum enactment. Using pragmatic hermeneutics, I also examined how students take the context of the UVI and their interactions with the curriculum and put it into practice with their own identity negotiations. This required looking at the semantic dimension (Dietz and Mateos Cortés, 2012, 420): the students; how they negotiated and practiced their identities and what identity formation processes occurred as a result of these curricular interactions. Finally, I looked at the pragmatic dimension: the interaction between the institution and the students, how the institution put the curriculum into practice and subsequently how students interacted with this curriculum.

3.2 Anthropological Education Perspective

In order to analyze the intercultural curriculum at the UVI and subsequently how students negotiate their identity as they interact with the curriculum, I used the anthropological education perspective. The perspective presented by Dietz and Mateos Cortés (2012) is based on the theory of Vertovec (2007) who argues that anthropological theory regarding multiculturalism needs to mimic the approach taken to studying migration (969). Meaning, the study of multiculturalism needs to include, “a range of contextual constraints, historical trajectories, group variables, institutionalized practices and possible paths of individual or collective action” (969). Dietz and Mateos Cortés (2012) take this postulation and use the anthropological education perspective to analyze intercultural education (412). Vertovec’s (2007) anthropological theory is necessary to analyze intercultural education because this style of education does not exist in a vacuum, especially not

(28)

in Mexico. Intercultural education is embedded in its context, the very curriculum arises from the context its being taught in. Therefore, the anthropological education perspective is important because it allowed me to examine how the students’ negotiation processes have emerged from their surrounding contexts and the impact these contexts have on the daily interactions between the students and the curriculum. The anthropological perspective includes examining both contextual factors as well as institutional dynamics and history; all of which are valuable influencers of the shape and implementation of intercultural education, which the students then interact with.

In order to take this research from the conceptual level of intercultural education to the practiced level of identity negotiation, I used anthropological hermeneutics which allow for the transition from the conceptual level to the daily practice, or cultural praxis (Dietz and Mateos Cortés, 2012, 418). Using pragmatic hermeneutics, I can separate the definition of intercultural education as it is understood in this context and the discourse surrounding it, from the actual implementation and how the curriculum appears in practice. Pragmatic hermeneutics is related to, but different from, cultural hermeneutics which is also a part of the methodology of my research. Cultural hermeneutics is focused on understanding not just what is on the surface, but everything underneath that makes up a person, curriculum, policy, society, etc. (Berger 1986: 151). Berger (1986) argues, “cultural hermeneutics should be used in all types of humanistic inquiry, aiming to a total comprehension of culture and civilization” (151). The idea here is that a culture, a civilization, or even a person cannot be fully understood without understanding the full present and historical context of their being. Therefore, cultural hermeneutics is important to this research to contextualize the research, but the research also needs pragmatic hermeneutics in order to analyze the gaps between the definition of intercultural education (within its context) and the actual implementation and daily practice.

Using this complete theoretical approach will allow me to examine both the conceptual discourse, including its origins and context, as well as the daily practice, the lived experiences that occur in the implementation of the conceptual discourse of education. Specifically, I focus on the lived experience of identity negotiation among students.

(29)

My research took place at the UVI’s regional Totonacapan campus in Espinal, Veracruz. The administrative center of the UVI is located in Xalapa, Veracruz, the state capital. Espinal is located approximately 170 kilometers Northwest of Xalapa. Both Espinal and Xalapa can be seen on the map below. This maps also shows the locations of the three other regional campuses located around the state: Grandes Montanas, Huasteca, and Selvas. These three campuses are located in predominately Nahuatl regions of Veracruz. Totonacapan is the only campus located in a predominately Totonaco region.5

The municipality of Espinal has a population of approximately 26,000 people6_{. The town} itself is the municipal head of the county of Espinal. The municipality is considered to be the entrance to the sierra region of the Totonacapan. The town sits evenly between both the coast and the mountains, making it ideal for the UVI campus because it can be easily reached by all students in the Totonacapan region.

5_{More context and history of the research location can be found in Chapters 4 and 5.}

6_{According to the municipal report produced by the Veracruz state government}

(30)

Source: www.uv.mx/cuo/universidad-veracruzana-intercultural-uvi

This location was chosen mainly due to its accessibility through known gatekeepers. I chose Mexico because of its indigenous population, which has been very politicized throughout Mexican history, particularly in the Mexican education system. I thought this would make for a more interesting research context when looking at an educational program that exists because of the outcome of past conflicts between indigenous groups and the Mexican government, the San Andres Agreements. Additionally, I chose Mexico because my thesis supervisor, Dr. Rosanne Tromp has conducted research there in the past and had several connections to different gatekeepers. She put me in contact with Dr. Gunther Dietz, a title researcher for the Instituto de

Investigaciones en Educación (Institute of Research in Education) of the Universidad Veracruzana in Xalapa. Dr. Dietz was my local supervisor for this research. He suggested the Totonacapan campus, contacted the campus director, and introduced me to the key professors and administration

(31)

this campus because it is the only campus that has both the LGID program and a law program. The law program is new as of 2017 and a bit of a pioneer program for the university. Therefore, because the Totonacapan campus has a wider variety of students and an innovative program for the UVI, we agreed this would be the best campus for my research.

3.4 Methodology

The methodology for this research follows the previously discussed, Anthropological Education Perspective by separating the research into three aspects in order to address the semantic, pragmatic, and syntactic features of the students’ interactions with the intercultural curriculum. The main research methods, explained in the following sub-sections, included semi-structured in-depth interviews, student observations, and document analysis. This methodology is the most appropriate to answer my research questions because it allowed me to understand how students themselves negotiate their identity through their interactions with the curriculum. Taking the research from the conceptual level of the curriculum to its enactment and the real interactions of students with this curriculum in daily practice. By using a variety of methods, I allowed for triangulation (Sumner 2008) of the data, ensuring less chance of bias. The unit of analysis for this research was current students attending the Universidad Intercultural Veracruzana at the Regional Totonacapan campus.

Semi-Structured Interviews7

The semantic piece of the research focused mainly on the students and how they negotiate their identity. Students do not begin university as blank slates, in terms of their identity; therefore, their time at the university can be thought of a process of shaping and re-shaping their identities as they enact the curriculum and put their identity into practice. In order to study identity negotiation, I conducted in-depth semi-structured interviews with current students as well as two graduated students. Semi-structured interviews allowed me the opportunity to discuss personal, community, external, and national identity negotiation in relation to the UVI, but also keep the interviews

(32)

relatively open beyond these main topics. Identity is not something that can be addressed in a few questions, therefore the in-depth nature of the interviews allowed participants to think through their own identity and formulate their answers throughout the interview.

The interviews provided insight into how students’ identity changed throughout their time at the UVI. Particularly, the interviews gave me a better understanding of how students have negotiated their identity in the university setting as they have learned more about Totonaco culture, language, and world views. Particularly while surrounded by both Totonaco and non-Totonaco students and taught by a variety of local and non-local teachers.

I asked students questions about what the word identity means to them, how they understand their own identity, they represent themselves externally and in their community, and their feelings on national identity. Additionally, I asked students about why they chose to attend the UVI, how they feel about their experience, and what classes they have enjoyed the most.

Student Observations: Classroom, Community, and Visual8

Student observations both during classes and during school activities allowed me to address the pragmatic aspect of the theory. These observations displayed the interactions between students and the curriculum. While students’ responses in the interviews were valuable to reveal their interpretation of the curriculum, I also wanted to observe first-hand how the students interact with the curriculum in practice, beyond their discourse surrounding the program. These observations of students showed levels of engagement with the subjects and activities, how students practice their identities in the university setting, how knowledgeable both students and teachers are on the subjects, and what the curriculum actually looks like in practice. Observing the students in practice in this way allowed me to understand how they translate their interpretations of the curriculum into their daily practices.

Student observations included in the classroom, visiting students in the communities where they were completing weeklong fieldwork research, accompanying second semester students on a fieldtrip, observing student presentations of their final research projects at a meeting of all four

(33)

campuses, observing student collaboration events with local and visiting actors, and observing student presentations upon their return from fieldwork.

I examined students’ coursework because the focus of my research was on students’ enactment of the curriculum rather than on teachers’ enactment. Rather than studying how teachers teach the curriculum, I examined how students interact with it. Whether that be in the classroom, presenting their projects, or interacting in the communities during their own research projects. Due to this, I did not interview teachers directly, however; I did obtain their permission to conduct in-classroom observations.

Another method I used to examine the students in daily practice was to conduct observations of the visual representations on campus of the intercultural curriculum. This included murals around the campus, posters, and student work hanging on the walls. These can be seen as visual representations of students’ interaction with the curriculum and their expressions of identity in response to this curriculum. For example, most of the murals around the campus were created and painted by students, these murals all reflect the curriculum being taught at the university. Therefore, these murals gave me the opportunity to analyze how students take the enacted curriculum, interpret it, and create their own work and translations of the curriculum.

Document Analysis

The main method I used to study the syntactic aspect, the institution, was in-depth document analysis of the UVI’s curriculum. This document analysis provided an understanding of the enacted curriculum that students are interacting with as well as how indigenous knowledges and identities are being represented in the curriculum. This analysis provided the background to understanding students’ negotiations with the curriculum as well as the classroom interactions and visual representations. I focused on what aspects of “the indigenous” the university emphasizes, what aspects are excluded, how indigenous knowledge is addressed, and what it means to be indigenous in the curriculum.

(34)

For my research I used a non-probability purposive sampling strategy. I used a non-random sample of the student population in order to conduct interviews and classroom observations. I had intended on doing a stratified sampling method where students would be representative of the year of study and gender breakdown of the total number of students at the university. However, this was not possible because I did not have enough time to establish report with the students. Therefore, with the short period of time I had to interview students who were immediately willing to be interviewed, regardless of representativeness of year and gender. Additionally, professors recommended students to interview that they felt would be talkative and open, willing to be interviewed, and that the teachers knew well. This made the interviews easier because the students trusted their professors who were introducing me. Therefore, the sampling criteria became purposive based on characteristics of availability and openness to being interviewed. There was no age limit for participants, however; the age minimum was eighteen years old; allowing for informed consent.

3.6 Data Analysis

The data analysis process was a process of narrowing down from open coding to selective coding. First, I transcribed all of my interviews and typed up all the field notes from my observations. Then, using the Atlas.ti software I analyzed these transcriptions, notes, and the following documents from the UVI: Internal Regulation of the UVI, Bachelor’s in Intercultural Management

for Development Plan of Study, and Bachelor’s in Law with a focus on Legal Pluralism Plan of Study.

I began the coding process for the interviews and field notes by using open coding. I began with no pre-determined codes or themes, instead coding quotes and fragments that were relevant to my main research question as well as my sub-questions. As I went on I found that I often used the same codes for several quotes. Next, I looked at an overview of the codes I had created, how often each was repeated, and began grouping and relating the codes into bigger themes, a process of axial coding. Using the network feature of Atlas.ti, I created webs of the codes to see the relationships between them and to develop the main themes of the data. The following is an

(35)

Rachel Taylor (2018)

I then went through the transcripts a second time using selective coding. For this phase I specifically looked for quotes which related to the codes and themes I had already created on my first round of analysis. This allowed me to focus in on the data that specifically fits in with the main themes.

I used a different process for the document analysis and coding for the regulation and plan of study documents. I analyzed these documents after completing my coding of the interviews and field notes. These documents had a lot of information that is not relevant or pertinent to my specific research questions and the themes I had already extracted. Therefore, in order to keep this analysis focused I solely did selective coding on the documents; meaning, I coded based on the core themes from the earlier data and the important codes already determined by the interviews. This method leaves some potential for bias because I could have missed other themes and variable by not analyzing the documents with open coding. However, I determined it was more important to analyze the documents through the lens of what the students found important about the curriculum. The following codes were determined from the interviews, field notes, and three documents I analyzed:

(36)

Code # of times came up

Identity: Indigenous 95

UVI building identity 80

Identity: Language 60

Identity: Community 50

Connection of UVI to “Indigenousness” 45

Discrimination 45

Identity in Practice 37

Teaching language and culture 37

UVI Curriculum 37

Mexican Identity 31

Defining Identity 29

Changing identity (based on space) 29 Loss of indigenous culture 29

Reason for going to UVI 28

Discovering/Rediscovering at UVI 16

Pride in Identity 15

Identity: Clothing 13

Culture and Customs 12

Identity: Family 12 Concept of Interculturality 9 Identity levels/interfaces 9 Identity: Student 6 Identity: Values 5 Marichuy 4 Identity: Food 3

Political Aspect of Curriculum 3

(37)

Defining Indigenousness 1

3.7 Limitations

One of the limitations to my research was the suspicion by the administration and professors at the university of me and my research. While I had a local gatekeeper, who had given me access and introduced me to the administration of the particular regional campus I focused on, once he was gone the administration was much more closed towards me and very reluctant to allow me access to the classes and students. This limited how many classes I was able to observe and the variety of subjects I observed. I was mainly limited to the female professors because I received the majority of pushback from male professors. Due to the fact that campus administration did not formally introduce me to the professors or students many professors were skeptical of my purposes and the intentions of my research and not willing to allow me in their classes. The second to last week of my fieldwork a group of biology students visited from a state university to learn about the region and dialogue with the UVI students. I was present during this dialogue and the outside students were pushing UVI students to share their raw data collection on medicinal plants with the biology students. Both UVI students and professors reacted strongly to this by explaining that the knowledge belongs to the community and that the UVI does not exist to export this community knowledge to outsiders. This was a moment of personal realization as to why the administration and professors were so skeptical towards me at the beginning of my research. They have had multiple experiences like the one I have just described, where they have their knowledge extracted by outsiders and receive nothing in return or even have a negative impact in return. Therefore, I think their skepticism of me was understandable and has motivated me to ensure I do not make the same mistakes as past visitors to their community.

Another limitation was holding focus groups with the students. I initially planned on having both interviews and focus groups with students. However, upon arrival I realized that this was not feasible because the students had classes scheduled for the entire day and typically traveled to their communities immediately after school as well as on the weekends. Therefore, I was not able to schedule focus groups. However, the observations of the students in the classrooms gave me

(38)

insight into how the students interact amongst each other and what the group dynamics looked like.

A speculative limitation that I cannot be sure about is the possibility that students’ responses during the interviews were what they thought I wanted to hear, especially if they thought that I represented the university in any way. I always explained that I was independent of the UVI, however; I was warned by my local supervisor and the campus administration and professors that this often occurs with the students. My hope that this potential response bias is counteracted by my observations of the students inside the classroom and in the communities, but it is still a potential limitation.

An interesting aspect to this research, which I cannot be sure whether or not it was a limitation, was the interview language together with the local context. All of the interviews were conducted in Spanish, only a few of the students interviewed spoke Totonaco; however, most had grown up in the Totonacapan region and the indigenous culture of the region. This means that there could be potentially cultural limitations to the interviews, both in my questions and the participants answers. There could have been cultural context clues that I missed or answers that I did not fully understand due to the culture gap between us. I attempted to avoid this limitation by first getting to know the region, the Totonaco culture, and the students, prior to beginning the interviews. My hope is that because the students knew me and I knew them to a certain extent some of these cultural gaps and different context were avoided.

3.8 Ethics and Ethical Reflection

The ethics of this research and my own position of power were something I was aware of and worked to ensure did not interfere with the research, participants’ responses, participants’ safety, or have a negative impact on the larger community. The biggest consideration I made was of my position of power, especially with regards to the risk of exploitation of participants (Morris 2015). Morris (2015) explains this nicely by stating, “there is a real danger that researchers end up reproducing ‘the colonial established authority of Western epistemologies’ (Chilisa, 2005: 675) whilst ‘silencing’ indigenous ethics (Tikly and Bond, 2013; Louw and Delport, 2006)” (213).

Moving between two worlds : student identity negotiation in an intercultural Mexican context