Abstract

This study presents an in-depth exploration of Meimeh and Paobii – two indigenous research methods derived from the cultural praxis of the Poumai Naga. Drawing upon an immersive fieldwork experience from doctoral research fieldwork, the research elucidates the epistemological underpinnings, practice-based enactments, and transformative potentialities inherent in these methods for decolonizing ethnographic data collection processes. Meimeh, an oral narrative and tradition conducted around a communal fire, facilitated the researcher’s journey in co-constructing meaning through intergenerational dialogues with Indigenous knowledge custodians. Paobii, the traditional public sphere, emerged as an immersive ethnographic site where the researcher engaged as a participant-observer in the community’s discursive processes, ritual enactments, and collective sense-making processes. By focusing on these culturally embedded approaches, the study highlights their profound significance in amplifying marginalized voices, fostering epistemic pluralism, and advancing decolonizing research paradigms that uphold Indigenous autonomy, relational accountability, and ethical partnerships. Ultimately, this research method contributes to the growing discourse on decolonizing research, epistemological inclusivity, and culturally congruent pathways towards positive social transformation within Indigenous communities.

Keywords: Meimeih, Paobii, Indigenous research, Indigenous epistemology, Poumai Naga, ethnography, onto-cosmological frameworks

 Introduction:

Indigenous research methodologies have increasingly gained recognition within the academic landscape, challenging the hegemony of Western epistemological frameworks and advocating for decolonized approaches that honour diverse knowledge systems. At the centre of this paradigmatic shift lies a fundamental quest for epistemic justice – a pursuit to expatriate dominant narratives and amplify the voices, experiences, and ontological realities of indigenous communities and subaltern groups (Bodhi, 2014, 2020, 2022; Akhup, 2013; Thaikho, 2015, Smith, 1999). Integral to this transformative endeavour are the methods employed for data collection, which hold the power to shape research outcomes, influence knowledge production processes, and either perpetuate or dismantle colonial legacies (Denzin and Lincoln 2008; Smith, 1999; Thaikho, 2015, 2018; Tripura, 2023).

Within this context, the present study draws upon an immersive fieldwork experience from doctoral research fieldwork in 2014 – 2016 embarking on an immersive ethnographic exploration of Meimeh and Paobii, the two indigenous research methods deeply rooted in the cultural praxis of the Poumai Naga, an ethnic community inhabiting the Northeastern regions of Senapati District, Manipur, and southern regions of Phek District, Nagaland, India. These methods originate from the core of the oral traditions and community activities of the Poumai Naga; and offer a profound lens into the intricate mosaic of indigenous epistemologies, axiological orientations, and onto-cosmological frameworks (Thaikho, 2018).

The significance of this study lies in its potential to unveil the multifaceted dimensions of Meimeh and Paobii, elucidating their epistemological underpinnings, praxiological enactments, and transformative potentialities as decolonizing approaches to ethnographic data collection. By focusing on these culturally embedded methods, the study aims to contribute to the burgeoning discourse on decolonizing research paradigms, amplifying marginalized voices, and fostering epistemic pluralism within the academic landscape.

Understanding Indigenous Knowledge Systems

Before delving into the intricacies of Meimeh and Paobii, it is imperative to establish a foundational understanding of indigenous knowledge systems. Indigenous knowledge transcends mere amalgamations of information; rather, it encompasses a holistic comprehension of life, the earth, and the cosmos, intricately woven with language, place-based wisdom, spiritual teachings, histories, communal values, and geographical spaces that extend beyond the physical realm (Leo, 2013; Thaikho, 2018, 2019, 2025; Descola, 2013; Kovach, 2005; Dei et al., 2000). This multifaceted framework is interwoven with oral traditions and communal dialogues that serve as conduits for transmitting wisdom across generations, emphasizing the intrinsic relationships between humans, nature, and the spiritual realm (ibid).  This interconnectedness forms the bedrock upon which Indigenous methodologies are constructed, challenging the dichotomous separations perpetuated by Western epistemologies and demanding recognition of the intertwined realities that shape Indigenous worldviews.

Positionality and Context

In acknowledging the importance of situating oneself within the research context, it is crucial to locate and position the researcher within the broader framework of this study. Akhup (2013) termed it as epistemological location and conceptualize as a fundamental unit of analysis that shapes an individual’s perception, reflection, actions, and understanding of self, culture, society, and the state. He defines this epistemological lens as context-embedded, emphasizing that the process of contextualization is a methodological necessity. Furthermore, he argues that scientific inquiry must maintain congruence between data, methods, theories, and values. Similarly, Martin (2003) refers to this concept as cultural location, asserting that an individual’s cultural position conveys information to other Indigenous peoples, facilitating connections based on political, cultural, and social relationships. Indigenous scholars further contend that self-location involves sharing personal historical details concerning one’s family and land. This practice enables others to recognize one’s origins, fostering mutual trust and relational accountability (as cited in Kurtz, 2013, p. 218).

As an indigenous scholar and member of the Poumai Naga Tribe, the researcher’s positionality is deeply intertwined with the cultural fabric and lived experiences of the community being explored.  Born and raised in Hiimai Dounamai (Purul Atongba village), situated at the heart of the Poumai Naga’s ancestral teidei (Teidei embodies both territory and territoriality, encompassing cosmological elements that sustain life and are considered sacred, with “Tei” meaning ‘sky’ or ‘space’ and “dei” meaning ‘land’ or ‘place’, symbolizing the interconnectedness of ‘father sky’ and ‘mother earth’ as a profound oath), the researcher’s formative years were immersed in the intricacies of Poumai Naga life, from engaging in agricultural practices and traditional subsistence activities to participating in Indigenous religious and cultural festivals. This embodied experience not only fostered a profound connection with the community’s heritage but also instilled a deep appreciation for the epistemological foundations and onto-cosmological frameworks that underpin Poumai Naga’s worldview.

The researcher’s positionality is intricately influenced by the complexities arising from historical and sociocultural changes. The Poumai Naga community has undergone significant transformations in the realms of education, development, and religion, with a significant portion of the population embracing Christianity and engaging with formal education systems. Growing up in a Christian family and village setting, the researcher underwent a unique socialization process that has shaped their perceptions and interpretations of the community’s indigenous practices and belief systems.

The researcher’s positionality is characterized by a duality – being deeply grounded in the community’s cultural traditions while simultaneously navigating the complexities of modernity. This duality presents both opportunities and challenges. As an insider with lived experiences, the researcher has an emic understanding of the community’s epistemological foundations and onto-cosmological frameworks, allowing for an in-depth interpretation of the collected data. However, the researcher’s exposure to external influences requires a reflexive approach, acknowledging the limitations of their knowledge and maintaining openness to continuous learning and co-constructing meaning with community members.

The Paradigm of Indigenous Research

Indigenous research paradigms represent an insightful departure from conventional Western frameworks, challenging the epistemological dominance that has historically marginalized Indigenous voices, experiences, and ways of knowing. At the core of these paradigms is a clarion call for decolonization, which involves acknowledging historical injustices and committing to dismantling the enduring legacies of colonialism within academic discourse and research praxis (Akhup, 2013; Bodhi. 2020, 2022; Thaikho, 2018; Smith, 1999). This decolonizing imperative goes beyond mere theoretical discussions; it requires the active empowerment of indigenous communities in the research process, positioning them as autonomous knowledge producers, co-creators of meaning, and active agents in shaping research agendas and methodologies (Tripura, 2023; Denzin and Lincoln, 2008; Smith, 1999).

In this transformative shift towards Indigenous research paradigms places a strong emphasis on data collection methodologies, as they serve as critical tools for either perpetuating or disrupting colonial legacies. The choice of methodologies can either maintain the status quo or actively challenge and transform the research landscape, making it more inclusive and representative of Indigenous perspectives (Ziipao, 2013). Researchers must carefully consider the implications of their methodological choices and strive to adopt approaches that empower Indigenous communities, validate their knowledge systems, and promote collaborative and ethical research practices. Indigenous research methodologies advocate for approaches that align seamlessly with Indigenous worldviews, ethics, and research protocols, fostering an environment of cultural congruence, reciprocity, and respect (Akhup 2022; Bodhi 2020; Smith 1999). It is within this emancipatory framework that the significance of Meimeh and Paobii emerges, as they embody the essence of decolonizing ethnographic data collection processes while simultaneously amplifying Indigenous voices, epistemologies, and onto-cosmological frameworks.

Meimeh: A Dialogic Journey of Knowledge Sharing

Meimeh, which means “sharing of knowledge beside the hearth,” encapsulates the profound essence of informal dialogues and narratives within Indigenous communities. It is a communal space where elders, revered as custodians of ancestral wisdom, share their lived experiences, histories, and traditional knowledge with younger generations, fostering intergenerational learning and cultural continuity. In the context of ethnographic research, Meimeh transcends the conventional bounds of data collection, emerging as a vibrant exchange of narratives, insights, and lived experiences that enhance qualitative inquiry (Thaikho, 2018).

Through Meimeh, the researcher embarks on a dialogic journey, crafting an informal and culturally grounded space where meaning, knowledge, and understanding are co-constructed through the interactive engagement between the researcher and community members. This journey extends beyond mere data extraction; it is a profound immersion into the fabric of community life, where the researcher builds trust, fosters rapport, and cultivates nuanced understandings that traditional surveys or interviews may fail to capture.

As an ethnographic data collection process, Meimeh is an Indigenous oral narrative and knowledge-sharing method that can be employed as an ethnographic data collection technique by researchers working in Indigenous communities. It involves the researcher engaging in informal conversational circles or gatherings, typically held around a communal fire hearth or other culturally significant settings.

The process focuses on active listening and participation in the sharing of stories, lived experiences, histories, and traditional knowledge as narrated by community elders and indigenous knowledge holders. The relaxed, culturally rooted environment of these narratives and storytelling sessions facilitates an open exchange, allowing meaning, knowledge, and understanding to emerge from the interactive dialogue between the researcher and participants. In this setting, the researcher takes on the role of an active listener, participant-observer, and co-learner, documenting the narratives through meticulous note-taking and, with the community’s permission, audio or video recording. Validation of understandings occurs through iterative sharing and dialogue within the Meimeh circles, ensuring a co-constructed interpretation of the narratives shared.

Meimeh aligns harmoniously with the principles of Indigenous research methodologies, emphasizing Indigenous ways of knowing, oral epistemologies, and culturally appropriate approaches to knowledge gathering and meaning-making between researchers and community partners (Kovach, 2009; Wilson, 2008). It represents a decolonizing method that centres on the voices, narratives, and knowledge systems of Indigenous peoples, actively challenging the extractive and exploitative legacies of colonial research paradigms.

In reflecting on the experience of employing Meimeh as a methodological approach for data collection, it can be considered as an enriching and transformative journey into the heart of the community. Engaging in this Indigenous oral tradition has enabled the researcher to establish strong rapport and trusted relationships with community members, fostering an environment of mutual respect and understanding.

Through the practice of Meimeh, the researcher has had the privilege of gathering rich narratives from community elders and knowledge holders, which provide valuable insights into the community’s history, beliefs, challenges, and aspirations. This engagement deepened the opportunity to contextualize the collected data within the indigenous worldviews, values, and epistemologies that underpin the narratives and its tradition. It also deepened the researcher’s understanding and helps in contextualizing the narratives shared, highlighting the unique perspectives and knowledge systems inherent in the community’s cultural heritage (Battiste, 2008; Kovach, 2009).

Moreover, Meimeh emphasizes the co-creation of meaning through interactive dialogue, which has been a transformative aspect of my research journey. This collaborative approach values the voices of community members and ensures that knowledge is developed through shared dialogue rather than extracted in a colonial or extractive manner (Denzin et al., 2008; Smith, 1999).

In addition to gathering narrative data, the researcher’s experience with Meimeh has allowed the researcher to observe and experience the protocols, customs, and teachings associated with the storytelling process itself. This immersive engagement has provided the researcher with a holistic understanding of the community’s social and cultural dynamics, enriching one’s research with nuanced insights. This data collection process has been deeply rewarding, offering a culturally sensitive and community-centred approach to research that honours the voices and experiences of the community members.

Some of the transformative dimensions that emerge out of the researcher’s immersive experience during the fieldwork with Meimeh:

    I. Building Rapport and Trust

Participation in Meimeh facilitated the establishment of strong bonds and trusted relationships with members of the Poumai Naga community. By immersing oneself in this Indigenous oral tradition, the researcher demonstrated a genuine interest in the community’s heritage and values, fostering a sense of mutual respect and understanding. This active engagement created a conducive environment for meaningful dialogue and data collection, underscoring the importance of cultural sensitivity and reciprocity in Indigenous research (Wilson, 2008; Kovach, 2009).

    II. Gathering Rich Narrative Data

Meimeh provided a platform for community elders and knowledge holders to share their stories and lived experiences. These narratives were rich in detail, offering profound insights into the community’s history, cultural practices, belief systems, and collective memories. The stories shared transcended mere data points, serving as windows into the lived realities, aspirations, and onto-cosmological frameworks of the community members (Archibald, 2008; Kovach, 2010).

    III. Contextualizing Data within Indigenous Worldviews

One of the quintessential strengths of Meimeh lies in its ability to contextualize data within the intricate framework of indigenous worldviews, values, and epistemologies. This contextualization was vital for interpreting the significance and nuances of the narratives shared, enabling the researcher to appreciate the unique perspectives embedded within the storytelling tradition and acknowledging the cultural meanings inherent in the community’s oral heritage (Battiste, 2008; Kovach, 2009).

    IV. Co-creating Meaning through Dialogue

Meimeh emphasizes a collaborative approach to meaning-making, eschewing the extractive practices of colonial research paradigms. Through interactive dialogues with community members, the researcher engaged in a process of co-creating meaning, ensuring that the knowledge produced was not merely a unilateral interpretation but a reflection of the community’s understandings and lived experiences (Akhup, 2015; Denzin et al., 2008; Smith, 1999).

    V. Observing Protocols and Customs

Beyond the collection of narrative data, the researcher’s experience with Meimeh involved observing and experiencing the protocols, customs, and teachings associated with the storytelling process itself. This immersive engagement provided a deeper appreciation for the cultural practices and norms that shape the storytelling tradition, allowing the researcher to understand the intricacies of communication, symbolism, and community dynamics embedded within Meimeh (Chilisa, 2012; Wilson, 2008).

In essence, the researcher’s experience with Meimeh as a data collection process was transformative, enabling the forging of meaningful connections with the community, gathering rich and contextually nuanced data, co-creating meaning through dialogue, and gaining a comprehensive understanding of the cultural landscape. Meimeh’s emphasis on cultural sensitivity and community-centred research solidified its position as an invaluable tool for conducting ethnographic inquiries that challenge the epistemological hegemony of Western research paradigms.

Paobii: Facilitating Public Dialogue and Engagement

Complementing the dialogic journey of Meimeh is Paobii, a traditional public sphere that has served as a pivotal site for collective deliberation, knowledge sharing, and the enactment of socio-cultural rituals and rites within the Poumai Naga community. Paobii, which translates to “traditional communal gathering site or customary public sitting place,” is a physical and symbolic space erected in every village clan, where community members gather to discuss daily affairs, observe rituals, and engage in respectful and inclusive dialogue (Thaikho, 2018).

In the context of ethnographic research, Paobii emerges as a critical ethnographic site, offering the Indigenous researcher a participatory observatory deeply embedded within the community’s system of knowledge production and meaning-making. It facilitates an emic perspective by allowing the researcher to engage as a participant-observer in the daily discourses, decision-making processes, and symbolic enactments that shape the community’s lived realities, belief systems, and praxes.

The researcher’s immersive experience with Paobii during the fieldwork illuminated the multifaceted dimensions of this Indigenous research method:

    I. Engaging as a Participant-Observer

Paobii enabled the researcher to engage as a participant observer in the daily discourses and decision-making processes of the Poumai Naga community. This immersion facilitated a first-hand understanding of the factors that shape the community’s lived realities, belief systems, and praxes. By actively participating in these interactions, the researcher could uncover nuanced insights that might have been overlooked through purely observational methods (Thaikho, 2018; Kovach, 2009; Wilson, 2008).

    II. Interpreting Symbolic Meanings and Epistemological Underpinnings

Paobii provided the researcher with a unique window into the community’s world, allowing for in-depth exploration of their rituals, ceremonies, and cultural practices. These events revealed rich symbolic meanings and knowledge foundations, offering insights into the community’s shared mindset, beliefs, and value systems. Active engagement in these cultural traditions enabled the researcher to comprehend the community’s distinctive ways of understanding and existing in the world. The ceremonies unveiled complex interrelations between spiritual beliefs, social organization, and environmental care, painting a comprehensive picture of the community’s cultural identity.

These practices have its significance in preserving and maintaining the community’s cultural continuity and transmitting knowledge across generations. Through Paobii, the researcher could capture, document and interpret the subtleties of these cultural expressions, contributing to a more comprehensive understanding of the lived realities and the resilience of their traditions in the face of ongoing challenges (Thaikho, 2018; Akhup, 2013 and Chilisa, 2012).

    III. Partaking in Inclusive Dialogues

Paobii facilitated inclusive dialogues that centred and valorised Indigenous voices, narratives, and the multivocal construction of knowledge. By actively participating in these dialogues, the researcher contributed to a shared space where diverse perspectives were acknowledged and respected. This collaborative approach to knowledge production fostered a deeper appreciation for the richness and complexity of the community’s heritage (Akhup 2013; Denzin et al., 2008; Smith, 1999).

    IV. Building Rapport and Establishing Reciprocal Relationships

Crucially, Paobii allowed the researcher to build rapport and establish reciprocal relationships with community members. By respecting and adhering to the protocols that governed interactions within this shared public sphere, the researcher demonstrated a commitment to ethical engagement and mutual respect. This approach fostered trust and openness, paving the way for meaningful dialogue and data collection (Thaikho, 2018; Akhup, 2013; Kovach, 2009; Wilson, 2008).

Paobii emerges as a vital component of indigenous research methodologies, embodying principles of inclusivity, cultural relevance, and community empowerment. It exemplifies a decolonizing ethnographic method that dismantles the extractive nature of colonial research by situating the researcher as a co-participant in the community’s processes of collective sense-making (Smith 1999). Data is generated not through extraction but through the researcher’s immersion within the participatory frameworks and oral traditions that shape Indigenous knowledge systems (Denzin et al., 2008; Smith 1999). Its role in facilitating public dialogue, collaborative decision-making, and knowledge co-creation underscores its significance as a transformative tool for advancing indigenous-led research initiatives and fostering positive social change within Indigenous communities (Chilisa, 2012; Smith, 1999).

The knowledge co-created through dialogues, observations, and engagement in Paobii is contextualized within Poumai Naga’s cosmology, axiological orientations, and localized epistemologies. This emic grounding allows for an authentic representation of the community’s lived experiences, subjectivities, and the ontological realms that inform their worldviews (Akhup, 2013). By centring Paobii, the indigenous research methodology privileges and reinscribes the autonomy of the Poumai Naga community as knowledge producers and holders. It upholds the relational accountability and ethical partnerships that are foundational to Indigenous research paradigms (Thaikho, 2018; Kovach, 2009; Wilson, 2008). In essence, Paobii serves as a decolonizing ethnographic site that facilitates a culturally congruent, collaborative, and epistemically grounded process of data collection, negotiated through the participatory frameworks established by the Indigenous community itself.

Challenges and Considerations in Indigenous Data Collection

While Meimeh and Paobii provide deep insights and transformative potential in the realm of Indigenous research methodologies, their application involves inherent complexities and challenges that require careful navigation. These challenges arise from the intricate interplay between Indigenous epistemologies, Western academic frameworks, and the contextual realities that shape research endeavours within Indigenous communities.

One of the primary challenges encountered in utilizing Meimeh and Paobii relates to language barriers and cultural nuances. Indigenous communities have unique linguistic traditions and cultural frameworks that can hinder and complicate effective communication and interpretation. The oral transmission of knowledge, along with the rich symbolism and context-specific nuances embedded within Indigenous narratives, can present challenges for researcher who are not fully immersed in the community’s cultural context. To overcome these obstacles, it is essential to commit to continuous learning, demonstrate cultural sensitivity, and actively engage in collaborative processes of meaning-making with community members (Tripura, 2023; Kovach, 2009; Smith, 1999).

Furthermore, the power dynamics and socio-political complexities within Indigenous communities can significantly influence the research process. Indigenous societies are not monolithic entities; rather, they consist of a diverse perspectives, interests, and power structures that shape how knowledge is produced, shared, and interpreted (Bodhi and Jojo, 2019; Akhup, 2013; Ziipao, 2013). Researchers must approach these intricate dynamics with sensitivity, reflexivity, and a strong commitment to ethical engagement, ensuring that marginalized voices within the community are amplified and that the research processes does not inadvertently reinforce existing power imbalances (Denzin et al., 2008; Kovach, 2010).

Additionally, the oral and experiential nature of Indigenous knowledge transmission can pose challenges in terms of documentation and validation within Western academic frameworks.  The concept of “data” in Indigenous research contexts transcends beyond traditional textual or numerical forms, rather incorporating lived experiences, embodied practices, and symbolic expressions (Thaikho, 2019; Smith, 1999). Integrating these diverse knowledge forms with the standards of academic publishing and peer review necessitates innovative strategies that respect both Indigenous protocols and scholarly expectations (Battiste, 2008; Chilisa, 2012).

Balancing these challenges necessitates a delicate equilibrium between upholding indigenous protocols and adhering to academic rigour. Researchers must navigate this terrain with humility, respect, and a genuine commitment to fostering reciprocal relationships with Indigenous communities. Collaboration, co-creation of knowledge, and a willingness to adapt research methodologies to align with indigenous worldviews and epistemologies become paramount in addressing these challenges (Kovach, 2009; Wilson, 2008).

Despite these complexities, the transformative potential of Meimeh and Paobii in reshaping research paradigms cannot be overstated. These methods represent a powerful opportunity to amplify Indigenous voices, perspectives, and agency in knowledge production processes, challenging dominant narratives and fostering epistemic diversity within the academic landscape.

Transformative Potential and Ethical Imperatives

The transformative potential of Meimeh and Paobii as indigenous research methods extends far beyond the mere generation of data; they hold the capacity to catalyse profound shifts in the epistemological foundations and onto-cosmological orientations that underpin academic discourse. By centring Indigenous ways of knowing, these methods challenge the hegemony of Western epistemological frameworks and demand recognition of the multivocal nature of knowledge production (Battiste, 2008; Chilisa, 2012; Smith. 1999).

Through the embodied praxis of Meimeh and Paobii, researchers engage in a decolonizing endeavour, dismantling the extractive and exploitative legacies of colonial research paradigms. These methods foster an environment of reciprocity, where knowledge is co-created through dialogic interactions, and Indigenous communities are positioned as autonomous agents in shaping research agendas and interpreting their lived realities (Denzin et al., 2008; Smith, 1999).

Furthermore, Meimeh and Paobii provide platforms to elevate the voices and narratives for Indigenous Peoples, serving as channels for the expression of marginalised perspectives and onto-cosmological frameworks that have historically been silenced or hidden within dominant academic discourses. By prioritising these voices, researchers contribute to the broader pursuit of epistemic justice, recognizing the diversity of knowledge systems and epistemological hegemony that have led to the marginalisation of Indigenous epistemologies (Bodhi, 2022, 2020; Kovach, 2009; Wilson, 2008).

Embedded within the application of these methods is grounded in ethical principles that require strict compliance. Meimeh and Paobii integrate informed consent, cultural protocols, and reciprocity into their practices, ensuring that research is conducted with the utmost respect, ethical integrity, and a commitment to fostering partnership with Indigenous communities.

Informed consent is not just a procedural requirement; it involves a profound understanding and acknowledgement of the community’s autonomy, agency, and right to self-determination (UN, 2008; Smith, 1999). Researchers must engage in transparent and ongoing dialogue with community members, ensuring that the research objectives, methodologies, and potential impacts. This collaborative an transparent approach fosters trust, mutual respect, and promotes a shared commitment to co-creating knowledge (Akhup, 2013; Chilisa, 2012).

Cultural protocols, which govern how knowledge is shared, interpreted, and disseminated within Indigenous communities, must be meticulously observed and respected. These protocols are intrinsically linked to the community’s onto-cosmological frameworks and serve as guardians of their epistemological foundations. By adhering to these protocols, researchers demonstrate a profound respect for the community’s sovereignty and contribute to the preservation and revitalization of indigenous knowledge systems (Akhup, 2022, 2015; Kovach, 2009; Wilson, 2008).

Reciprocity, a cornerstone of indigenous research ethics, demands that researchers engage in a mutually beneficial exchange with the community. This reciprocity may take various forms, such as capacity-building initiatives, knowledge sharing, or collaborative efforts to address community-identified needs and priorities. By embracing reciprocity, researchers foster a symbiotic relationship with Indigenous communities, ensuring that the research endeavour is not a unilateral extraction but rather a collaborative pursuit that contributes to the empowerment and self-determination of the community (Denzin et al., 2008; Smith, 1999).

The ethical foundation of Meimeh and Paobii not only enhances the integrity of research outcomes but also encourages the development of enduring partnerships between researchers and Indigenous communities. These collaborations go beyond the boundaries of specific research projects, fostering a long-term commitment to supporting Indigenous self-determination, preserving cultural heritage, and contributing to positive social change (Kovach, 2009; Wilson, 2008).

In essence, the transformative potential of Meimeh and Paobii lies in their ability to redefine research paradigms, elevate marginalized voices, promotes epistemic diversity, and stimulate decolonization within academic discourse. By adhering to the ethical principles embedded within these methodologies, researchers play a crucial role in furthering epistemic justice, cultural revitalization, and the empowerment of Indigenous communities as autonomous knowledge producers and agents of positive social change (Battiste, 2008; Smith, 1999).

Conclusion

The journey of research data collection through the Indigenous methods of Meimeh and Paobii embodies the essence of a paradigmatic shift. This shift confronts the epistemological hegemony of Western research frameworks and embraces the diversity of knowledge systems, voices, and onto-cosmological perspectives. This transformative endeavour is not merely an academic exercise but a profound recognition of the inherent value and richness of Indigenous epistemologies.

Meimeh, the dialogic tradition of oral narrative and intergenerational knowledge sharing conducted around a communal fire, facilitated the researcher’s immersion into the heart of the Poumai Naga community. By participating in these informal yet sacred circles, the researcher forged bonds of trust and rapport, co-created meaning through interactive dialogues, and gained a nuanced understanding of the community’s lived experiences, belief systems, and cultural praxes.

Complementing Meimeh was Paobii, the traditional public sphere that served as an immersive ethnographic site. Here, the researcher engaged as a participant-observer, witnessing and interpreting the symbolic enactments, collective decision-making processes, and inclusive dialogues that shape the community’s ontological realities. This embodied experience allowed for an emic comprehension of the epistemological foundations and onto-cosmological frameworks that underpin the Poumai Naga worldview.

Through this holistic exploration of Meimeh and Paobii, the study illuminated their profound significance in decolonizing research paradigms, amplifying marginalized voices, and fostering epistemic pluralism. By navigating the inherent complexities, such as language barriers, power dynamics, and the need to balance indigenous protocols with academic rigour, this research demonstrated the transformative potential of these indigenous methods.

Ultimately, Meimeh and Paobii emerged as catalytic forces for reshaping research paradigms, focusing on indigenous communities as autonomous knowledge producers and collaborative partners. In doing so, this study contributed to the growing discourse on decolonizing research, promoting inclusivity, and advancing positive social transformation through culturally congruent, reciprocal, and ethically grounded research praxis.

As researchers embrace the principles of Indigenous research methodologies, they embark on a journey that transcends the boundaries of academic inquiry, contributing to the broader pursuit of epistemic justice, cultural revitalization, and the empowerment of Indigenous communities. It is a journey that demands humility, respect, and a genuine commitment to fostering meaningful partnerships that honour the ancestral wisdom, lived experiences, and onto-cosmological frameworks that have shaped indigenous ways of knowing for generations (Kovach, 2009; Wilson, 2008).

Glossary

Meimeh: Sharing of knowledge beside the hearth. It is a communal space where elders, revered as custodians of ancestral wisdom, share their lived experiences, histories, and traditional knowledge with younger generations, fostering intergenerational learning and cultural continuity.

Paobii: Traditional communal gathering site or customary public sitting place, serving as both a physical and symbolic space established within each village clan. It is where community members convene to deliberate on daily affairs, observe rituals, and engage in respectful and inclusive dialogue. Moreover, the Paobii functions as the site of elders’ council meetings and a customary decision-making place, reinforcing its central role in the governance, social cohesion, and cultural continuity of the community.

Poumai Naga: The Poumai Naga is an indigenous tribal community primarily inhabiting in the Senapati district of Manipur and parts of the Phek district in Nagaland, India. They were officially recognized as a distinct tribe under the Constitution of India in 2002. The term “Poumai” translates to “people of Pou,” signifying their ancestral lineage and identity to their progenitor, Pou.

Hiimai Dounamai: refers to the Indigenous name used by the Poumai Naga community for their ancestral settlement. Officially recognized by the Government of Manipur as Purul Atongba, named in Manipuri (Meiteilon) language, it is classified as a revenue village in the state of Manipur, India. This site holds deep cultural significance for the Poumai Naga people, embodying their rich traditions, social structures, and serving as a central place for agricultural activities and communal gatherings.

Tei: Sky

Dei: Land

Teidei: Territory and also encapsulates the understanding of territoriality for the Poumai Naga. Teidei has cosmological elements that sustains all life forms and considered sacred.  The conceptual meaning of “Teidei”, meaning “Tei” means ‘sky’ or ‘space’ and ‘dei’ means ‘land’ or ‘place’. They believe that ‘father sky’ and ‘mother earth’ are mutually inclusive and they would take an oath in the name of their ‘father sky’ and ‘mother earth’ as the highest sacrifice a human beings can make (Thaikho, 2018: 232).

Acknowledgement

I wish to express my profound appreciation to Dr. Rimi Tadu and Fr. Phuvito Emmanuel, SDB, whose insightful feedback and constructive suggestions substantially contributed to the intellectual development of this work. The knowledge articulated in this paper is the outcome of collaborative and dialogic engagements with members of the Poumai Naga community, particularly during the data collection phase of my doctoral research, underscoring the co-creative nature of the research process.

References

• Akhup, A. (2022). Social work research through tribal/adivasi people’s lens: observations from academic engagement. J.Soc. Work Educational Practice. 7, pp. 30-44.
• Akhup, A. (2015). Revisiting Tribal Studies in India: An Epistemological Perspective. In Alex Akhup (ed.). Identities and their Struggles in North East (Pp 31-66). Kolkata: adivaani & Tribal Intellectual Collective India.
• Akhup, A (2013). Revisiting Tribal Studies in India: An Epistemological Perspective. Journal of Tribal Intellectual Collective India (JTICI) Vol. 1, No. 1, pp 1 – 14, June 2013.
• Archibald, J. (2008). Indigenous storywork: Educating the heart, mind, body, and spirit. UBC press.
• Battiste, M. (2008). Research ethics for protecting Indigenous knowledge and heritage: Institutional and researcher responsibilities. In N. K. Denzin, Y. S. Lincoln, & L. T. Smith (Eds.), Handbook of critical and Indigenous methodologies (pp. 497-510). Sage.
• Bodhi, S. R. (2022). Tribal Studies in India: Pre and Post Xaxa. Journal of Tribal Intellectual Collective India (JTICI). Vol.6, Issue 1. No. 5. TN. Part 1, Pp.70 to 89.
• Bodhi S. R. (2020). Epistemology of the Peripheralized – A Decolonial-historical Approach. Nagpur: New Vehicle.
• Bodhi S. R. and Jojo, B. (2019). (Eds). The Problematics of Tribal Integration: Voices from India’s Alternative Centers. Hyderabad: The Shared Mirror.
• Bodhi, S. R. (2014).Towards a Theory of Tribal Social Work: Some Reflections on its Methodological Foundation. The Journal of Development Practice, Vol. 1, September 2014. Pp. 10 to 16.
• Chilisa, B., & Tsheko, G. (2014). Mixed Methods in Indigenous Research: Building Relationships for Sustainable Intervention Outcomes. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, Vol. 8(3) 222 – 233. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689814527878
• Chilisa, B. (2012). Indigenous research methodologies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Descola, P. (2013). Beyond Nature and Culture. The University of Chicago Press: Chicago and London
• Dei, G. J. S., Hall, B. L., & Rosenberg, D. G. (2000). Indigenous Knowledges in Global Contexts: Multiple Readings of Our World. University of Toronto Press.
• Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2008). Introduction: Critical Methodologies and Indigenous Inquiry. In Norman K. Denzin., Yvonna S. Lincoln., & Linda Tuhiwai Smith (eds). Handbook of Critical and Indigenous Methodologies. Los Angeles: Sage Publication.
• Kana, F., & Tamataea, K. (2006). Sharing, Listening, Learning and Developing Understanding of Kaupapa Maori Research by Engaging With Two Maori Communities of Education. Waikato Journal of Education, Volume 12. Pp. 9 – 20. https://doi.org/10.15663/wje.v12i1.296
• Kovach, M. (2010). Conversational method in Indigenous research. First Peoples Child & Family Review, 5(1), 40-48.
• Kovach, M. (2009). Indigenous methodologies: Characteristics, conversations, and contexts. University of Toronto Press.
• Kovach, M. (2005). Emerging from the margins: Indigenous methodologies. In L. Brown & S. Strega (Eds.), Research as resistance: Critical, Indigenous and anti-oppressive approaches (pp. 19-36). Canadian Scholars’ Press.
• Leo, D. (2013). Reassembling The Notion Of Land: From the Lived Experience of the Poumai Naga Tribe in Manipur. Journal of Tribal Intellectual Collective India, Vol.1 No.4 pp. 38 to 54, June 2013
• Martin, K., & Mirraboopa, B. (2003). Ways of Knowing, Being and Doing: A Theoretica; Framework and Methods for Indigenous and Indigenist Re-search. Journal of Australian Studies, 27: 76, 202 – 214, DOI: 10.1080/14443050309387838
• Reid, A.J., McGregor, D.A., Menzies, A.K. et al. (2024). Ecological research ‘in a good way’ means ethical and equitable relationships with Indigenous Peoples and Lands. Nat Ecol Evol 8, 595–598. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-023-02309-0
• Smith, L. T. (1999). Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. London & New York: Zed Books Ltd.
• Thaikho, D.L. (2025). Cosmological Foundations of Shepoumai Naga Identity: The Role of Ancestry and Historical Memory. Journal of Tribal Intellectual Collective India. Vol.8.No.1, pp.1 to 16.
• Thaikho, D.L. (2019). The Idea of Land and Territoriality in Tribal Society(s). In Bodhi, S.R & Ziipao, R (Eds.). Land, Words and Resilient Cultures: The Ontological Basis of Tribal Identity. Tribal Intellectual Collective India.
• Thaikho, D.L (2018). Land, People, and Territoriality: A Study of Poumai Naga Tribe. Ph.D Thesis (Unpublished). Mumbai: Tata Institute of Social Sciences.
• Thaikho, D. L. (2015). Reclaiming the Foundational Value of Land: A Poumai Naga Narrative. In Alex Akhup (Ed.). Identities and their Struggles in North East. Kolkata: adivaani.
• Tripura, B. (2023) Decolonizing Ethnography and Tribes in India: Toward an Alternative Methodology. Front. Polit. Sci. 5:1047276. doi: 10.3389/fpos.2023.1047276
• United Nations (UN). (2008). United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Retrieved from “http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/DRIPS_en.pdf” http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/DRIPS_en.pdf
• Vaioleti, T.M. (2006). Talanoa Research Methodology: A Developing Position on Pacific Research. Waikato Journal of Education, Volume 12. Pp. 21 – 34. https://doi.org/10.15663/wje.v12i1.296
• Wilson, S. (2008). Research is Ceremony: Indigenous Research Methods. Fernwood Publishing.
• Ziipao, R.R. (2013). Tribes and Tribal Studies in North East: Deconstructing the politics of colonial methodology. Journal of Tribal Intellectual Collective India (JTICI), 1, 25-37.

Dominic Leo Thaikho is PhD TISS and currently Administrative and Academic Officer, Maria Montessori School, Imphal, Manipur. He can be reached in dominicthaikho@gmail.com

 

Have you like this article?