This book is an anthology with ten contributors. The editors, Marnee Shay and Grace Sarra, are authors or co-authors for eight out of the ten chapters.
The first few chapters introduce strengths based approaches, including theories, philosophy, and practice. From there, subsequent chapters look at different projects where people have employed strengths based approaches including case study research and co-design. The final chapter focuses on strengths-based knowledge production in Indigenous education.
Even though the book is an anthology with various contributors, the book has a nice, well-thought out logical flow. While it had internal variety, it did not feel disjointed. So kudos to the authors for that.
Each chapter has its own DOI and one of the chapters has a QR code. There are some really cool visuals in the book including diagrams which illustrate what codesign with Indigenous people is and what it is not, and collaborative artistic expressions of strengths-based identity created by youth.
Something that I particularly liked about this book is that it felt like the book was very connected to youth and the education of youth in their communities and classrooms. This connection made the book feel very alive.
There are three themes from the book that I would like to highlight: strengths based approaches, research, and futurisms/dreaming.
Strengths Based Approaches
Introduction to Strengths-Based Approaches in Indigenous Education Research and Practice
Chapter 1 introduces the readers to the concept of strengths based approaches and why they matter in Indigenous education. The authors characterize research as a "problem-based industry" (Shay & Sarra, 2026a, p.1). Within a problem based industry, sometimes Indigenous people are framed as the problem through specific slogans which appear in public policy. This is the ongoing colonial legacy of viewing Indigenous people through a deficit lens: "If you have lived in this country [Australia], you have absorbed deficit ideas about who Indigenous people are and what we are capable of. These deficit ideas are generated via the media, schools, policies, governments, legal systems, and social discourses." (Shay & Sarra, 2026a, p.2).
The antidote/counter approach to a deficit approach is strengths based approaches. Strengths based approaches "have enabled us to contribute new ways of approaching old problems, resulting in new findings and knowledge that provide different Indigenous-centric understandings of various pervasive problems in education." (Shay & Sarra, 2026a, p.1-2).
As an Indigenous person who works in education, sometimes I encounter people who wonder why I would work in education when it has a long and established legacy of being used as a tool of assimilation. This is especially true in Canada where Indigenous children were removed from their families under the guise of education. Some would even go so far as to say that those who work in the education system perpetuate and uphold colonial structures (obviously I don't say that... but it's been said to me). I am always interested to see how other Indigenous educators and scholars rationalize their participation in the education system. "We acknowledge the ongoing impact of colonial educational institutions and how they can work against principles of Indigenous sovereignty... However, there are possibilities for improving Indigneous peoples' educational experiences and outcomes by interacting with these systems." (Shay & Sarra, 2026a, p.5).
They take time to acknowledge successes in Indigenous education, but are careful not to gloss over the challenges. "We know how much more there is to do. But if we do not stop to see how much has changed for the better and where there are strengths to build from, we perpetuate a story of helplessness and pathology." (Shay & Sarra, 2026a, p.7). And they explain why hope is an important element in Indigenous education: "For our people, hope has kept the fire burning to keep advocating for change in the aftermath of colonisation. If we resign hope, the prospect of change dims. There would be no point in continuing the legacy of change-making that so many elders fought for." (Shay & Sarra, 2026a, p.8).
"The fundamental premise of [strengths based approaches] is that things can change, including people and situations (McCashen, 2005). The presupposition, then, is that hope can play a role in facilitating such a change." (Shay & Sarra, 2026a, p.7).
Theoretical Underpinnings for a Stronger Smarter Philosophy of Learning
Chapter 4 outlines Dr. Chris Sarra's Strong and Smart approach, which is an example of strengths based approaches. The Strong and Smart approach has five meta-strategies:
These strategies included: "acknowledging, developing, and embracing a positive sense of Aboriginal identity; acknowledging and embracing Aboriginal leadership in schools and school communities; having leaders who have high expectations of teachers, which in turn, have high expectations of students; innovative and dynamic school models in complex social and cultural contexts; and innovative and dynamic school staffing models." These strategies encompass a believe that positive change is possible when Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students ar proud of their identity - who they are and where they come from, strong in their hearts, solid in their community and smart in the way they do things when they are focused on high expectations and achievement to succeed. (Sarra & Shay, 2026, p.45).
Thriving through Strengths: A New Generation of Indigenous Education Researchers
Chapter 9 explores strengths based research approaches. For example,
In his 2005 work, McCashen defines [strengths based approach] as a transformative philosophy prioritizing peoples' unique strength, inherent dignity, and right to self-determination. As outlined by Saint-Jacques et al. (2009 p. 454), the [strengths based approach] is founded on six key principles:
1 every individual, family, group, and community possesses strengths, with a focus on these strengths rather than on pathology;
2 the community is viewed as a rich source of resources;
3 interventions are guided by client self-determination;
4 collaboration is central, with the practitioner-client relationship being primary and essential;
5 outreach is employed as a preferred mode of interventions; and
6 all people have the inherent capacity to learn, grow, and change. (Perkins, 2026, p.127).
Research
Theories and Strengths Based Approaches
Chapter 2 contains a number of explanations of the theoretical foundation of the book including: standpoint theory, relationality, appreciative inquiry, asset based community development, funds of knowledge, and salutogenic theory. The authors do a really good job of outlining different theories and defining them as they go. For example, "Indigenist research has three core principles: resistance as the emancipatory imperative, political integrity, and privileging Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voices." (Shay & Sarra, 2026b, p.16).
A Theoretical Lens for Strengths Based Knowledge Production in Indigenous Education
Chapter 10 was really interesting. The first few chapters explained what strengths based approaches are. Then the next few chapters provided examples of what strengths based approaches look like in education and education research. This final chapter focuses on strengths based knowledge production.
I found the section on Indigenous research especially interesting. They ask, what is Indigenous research, and they provide some examples, including Close the Gap (p.147), which is a public policy campaign in Australia which they say promotes a deficit based approach. But according to them it is Indigenous research. Then, they share the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS) code of ethics which says that Indigenous research is defined as research that is "concerned or impacts Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in any of the following ways" and provides examples such as research about Indigenous people, research in which Indigenous people are the target population, the target population contains a significant number of Indigenous people, separating out Indigenous people as a data sub-set, Indigenous communities are contributing to the research, new or existing data on Indigenous people is being used in the research and the research concerns Indigenous people's land and waters (p.149). The authors note that they have seen instances where researchers are engaging in these activities but avoid calling their work Indigenous research because they want to avoid adhering to Indigenous research ethics.
As an Indigenous researcher, I always find it surprising that the definition of Indigenous research is not simply "research done by Indigenous researchers." Their definition of Indigenous research is defined by the subject of the research, not by how the research is carried out. In Canada, the definition of Indigenous research is less broad, and I would say, less broad. I think that this is in part because there is federal funding available for Indigenous research, and so both Indigenous and non-Indigenous researchers have to compete for funding based on objective criteria. If everyone categorized their research as Indigenous research, then Indigenous people would have to compete with a bigger pool of applicants.
Even though Australia and Canada were both subjected to British colonialism, the ways that we engage in decolonization reflect our unique social, historical, and cultural contexts. Some ideas are portable, but not all ideas are perfectly portable. While the direction of broadening the application of Indigenous research ethics is a good direction, I'm not sure that expanding the definition of Indigenous research to all of the items listed in the Australian context is the best strategy in a Canadian context.
Anyhow, the authors created core tenants for ethical Indigenous education research, and I do like their core tenants:
Six core tenets for a theoretical lense in Indigenous education research:
- 1 strong Indigenous voices
- 2 Indigenous leadership
- 3 Indigenous agency
- 4 Strengths-based knowledge
- 5 Community strengths
- 6 Reimagining Futures (Shay & Sarra, 2026c, p.150).
Futurisms/Dreaming
Chapter 3 was very interesting. The authors included the work of Indigenous scholars such as Linda Tuhiwai Smith. And they put Indigenous scholarship in conversation with European/continental philosophers such as Simone De Beauvoir, Spinoza, Félix Guattari, Gilles Deleuze, Heraclitus, Ernst Bloch, and Antonio Gramsci. I relied on Bloch in my dissertation. His work on utopia is a good fit with Indigenous futurisms, which was my topic. I wish that this book had been available when I was writing my dissertation because it would have helped me create my foundation for studying Indigenous speculative fiction. Here is what the authors say about utopias:
Our interest in the role of desire in education was sparked initially by E.P. Thompson's (1976, p.27) reading of the French philosopher Miguel Abensour's (1939-2017) comment on Utopian thought in the work of the poet, designer, artist, and political activist William Morris (1834-1896). Abensour addressed the criticism that Utopian thought was wedded to model-building or the production of the blueprint of an ideal society and so could be quite restrictive and oppressive. The kind of Utopian thinking that has been rejected is that thinking that concentrates on the form rather than the function of Utopias (Levitas, 2013). The critics of Utopian thought went so far as to argue that the eventual end of the Utopian impulse was the emergence of the dystopia (Mumford, 1962; Nadir, 2010). Such criticism of immature abstract Utopian thinking is easily criticized. But as Bloch (1986) points out, there are dangers in abandoning the Utopian longing to the "way-of-the-world-philistine" ... the "fat bourgeois and the shallow practicist" (p.186). For Levitas (2013), the critics of Utopian thinking were operating from a "pro-capitalist ideological position" and they were "too cautious, [and] insufficiently Utopian" (p.122). A notorious instance of what can happen if we abandon Utopian longing is, surely, Fukuyama's (1989) proclamation of the end of history and his confident assertion of humanity's inability to imagine anything beyond the present (Webb, 2009). (Sarra, Shay, Maclennan & Mackie, 2026, p.31).
The authors link this idea of utopian thinking with research, and specifically, research which supports Indigenous futures:
A key feature of [appreciative inquiry] is ensuring distinct processes that allow for reimagining the current situation or status quo (Willoughby & Tosey, 2007). In developing our Strength-Based Theory for Indigenous Education Research, we looked to further scholarship incorporating Indigenous worldviews. As Indigenous education researchers, we know that there can be a narrow lens of emphasis on the past and present when discussing Indigenous education. The emphasis on the past and present is inherently a deficit way of conceiving our work in Indigenous education. It is underpinned by colonial discourses that continue to overlook Indigenous strengths and aspirations for better futures. Indigenous futurity can be seen as a form of resistance to the ongoing imaginings of Indigenous people in the past (Teuton, 2018). The reimagining futures tenet of our Strengths-Based Theory for Indigenous Education Research should allow for Indigenous perspectives on reimagined futures or alternative futures and solutions. The inclusion of reimagining futures will contribute to the development of Indigenous-informed, future-oriented data that is currently very limited in the corpus of literature. (Shay & Sarra, 2026c, p.155).
I am working on a project right now which I have in my head framed as strengths based, but I was grappling with how to explain the concept of strengths based in my specific context. This book is fully of theories and scholarship which outlines the parameters of strengths based. I think that it is a valuable contribution and I am sure that I will rely on it in the future.
Works Cited
Shay, M. & Sarra, G. (2026a). Introduction to Strengths-Based Approaches in Indigenous Education: Research and Practice. In (M. Shay & G. Sarra, Eds.) Strengths-Based Approaches in Indigenous Education: Research and Practice (p.1-11). New York, New York: Routledge.
Shay, M. & Sarra, G. (2026b). Theories and Strengths-Based Approaches. In (M. Shay & G. Sarra, Eds.) Strengths-Based Approaches in Indigenous Education: Research and Practice (p.12-26). New York, New York: Routledge.
Sarra, G., Shay, M., Maclennan, G., Mackie, I. (2026). Theoretical Underpinnings for a Stronger, Smarker Philosophy of Learning. In (M. Shay & G. Sarra, Eds.) Strengths-Based Approaches in Indigenous Education: Research and Practice (p.27-43). New York, New York: Routledge.
Sarra, G. & Shay, M. (2026). Applying SBA in Research and Practice. In (M. Shay & G. Sarra, Eds.) Strengths-Based Approaches in Indigenous Education: Research and Practice (p.44-55). New York, New York: Routledge.
Perkins, R. (2026). Thriving through Strengths: A New Generation of Indigenous Education Researchers. In (M. Shay & G. Sarra, Eds.) Strengths-Based Approaches in Indigenous Education: Research and Practice (p.125-143). New York, New York: Routledge.
Shay, M. & Sarra, G. (2026c). A Theoretical Lense for Strengths-Based Knowledge Production in Indigenous Education. In (M. Shay & G. Sarra, Eds.) Strengths-Based Approaches in Indigenous Education: Research and Practice (p.144-158). New York, New York: Routledge.
*Note - this blog is a sister blog to https://twinkleshappyplace.blogspot.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment