A local Indigenous inductive thematic analysis

The participants’ interview transcripts were subjected to a local Indigenous version of an inductive thematic analysis in order to identify common patterns of meaning (i.e., themes) more sensitively within the local Aboriginal context. Braun and Clarke (2006) affirmed the need for this localized approach, stating that thematic analyses must be modified within individual research contexts, based on the epistemological and theoretical positions driving the work and the intended outcomes. The general analysis guidelines proposed by Braun and Clarke were therefore contextualized in relation to local cultural protocols and meaning making processes

used within the Aboriginal community, in line with the positioning of the research as a form of community based CSP (Schinke, Smith, & McGannon, 2013). This approach was used to enable Indigenous knowledge to be presented and understood locally, through a culturally congruent and decolonized lens, rather than through a Western-academic (colonizing) perspective (Bartlett et al., 2007; Schinke et al., 2009).

In order to facilitate the locally grounded and decolonizing process, the Aboriginal researchers suggested that the thematic analysis be performed collaboratively with two Aboriginal research assistants, and that it also be performed within the Wikwemikong

community. It was emphasized that by physically engaging the analysis process on community lands, the Aboriginal research assistants would become naturally positioned as the contextual experts, and power and authority would more readily shift towards the local (Fletcher, 2003). The Aboriginal research assistants would thus be able to lead me through culturally meaningful analysis protocols, and help to challenge mainstream academic practices or interpretations during the coding of data. Though I would offer general analysis skills, my role as an academic would be decentralized to better support the expertise of the research assistants, as has been advocated in community based research (Schinke, Smith, & McGannon, 2013). I was invited to work out of the Wikwemikong community youth centre, with two research assistants who worked in that space as sport and recreation programming staff and were highly attuned to the experiences of local athletes. The research assistants had also personally experienced sport relocation and acculturation, and were therefore able to offer contextual insight around the coding of the project data, while also ensuring the cultural integrity of the analysis.

The steps of the analysis, rooted in local cultural protocols and a decolonizing agenda, were conducted collaboratively with the Aboriginal research assistants as follows. First, to

become familiar with the data, the Aboriginal research assistants and I read through each interview transcript and discussed the terms, experiences, and concepts that stood out. This dialogic process was part of an Indigenous consensus-building strategy that facilitated the sharing of ideas and the development of mutual understandings (Schinke et al., 2009). It was a critical step in enabling knowledge to be developed relationally, in line with collectivist cultural protocols within the Aboriginal community as well as a collaborative CSP research approach (Kral, 2014; Schinke et al., 2009). Second, the Aboriginal research assistants developed and inserted key words/phrases around quotations within each interview transcript, using the local terminology of the participants, in order to begin establishing topic patterns across the data set. Known as Indigenous coding, this strategy values local information and experience without forcing community members to adjust to non-culturally congruent, academic terms (Bartlett, Iwasaki, Gottlieb, Hall, & Mannell, 2007; Iwasaki, Bartlett, Gottlieb, & Hall, 2009; Schinke et al., 2009). As an example, the research assistants tagged a number of quotations with the phrase “just going for a skate,” which they described as an attitude amongst local Aboriginal hockey players of not expecting to be successful when trying out for or playing on teams in Euro- Canadian contexts. Through the use of this local terminology, the analysis centralized local Indigenous experiences and ways of thinking without the imposition of Western-oriented academic terminology (Bartlett et al., 2007; Schinke et al., 2009).

As a third step, the research assistants and I identified broader-ranging patterns of meaning, organizing the initial key words/phrases into more defined themes and sub-themes. Here, the knowledge of the Aboriginal research assistants was essential for contextualizing the themes and sub-themes and offering insight into what each meant in relation to the lived experiences of the participants. For example, the research assistants suggested organizing the

quotations tagged as “just going for a skate” into the more encompassing sub-theme “confronting attitudes that Aboriginal people can’t ‘make it.’” They explained how the self-doubt that many Aboriginal hockey players (and also other athletes) experienced within Euro-Canadian sport contexts was tied to broader racist attitudes and stereotypes about Aboriginal people. Through this (and other) lines of discussion, the research assistants provided deeper insight into the ways in which the Aboriginal athletes’ experiences were framed by a system of cultural oppression. As suggested by Braun and Clarke (2006), thematic analyses need to progress from description (where the semantic content of data get summarized) to interpretation (where the significance of data patterns are articulated and broader implications are gleaned). Moving forward with these insights, the analysis was presented to the Aboriginal researchers in order to further refine the themes and facilitate deeper understandings of their meaning. An open group dialogue took place amongst the Aboriginal team members and myself regarding the terminology, organization, and interpretation of themes until consensus was achieved. The team members’ feedback and refinements were incorporated into the analysis, whereupon it was finalized.

It is important to note that the data analysis process was much more recursive than it appears here (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Movement through the aforementioned steps was not linear, but rather back and forth as the research assistants and team members continually discussed and reflected on the data, and gained new (and fluid) understandings. This recursive aspect contributed to the community driven nature of the analysis, as the data was continually being explored in light of new insights brought forward from within the community and (re)negotiated through collective dialogues (Kral, 2014; Schinke, Smith, & McGannon, 2013).