(1) What new information or knowledge did you learn from this presentation?

Coming into this presentation I knew very little about Sámi culture, history, and colonial experience. I was pleased that Dr. Dankertsen spent time describing some of the history of Norwegian colonization and its impacts on Sámi people. I was particularly surprised about the amount of similarity between Norwegian and Canadian colonization and attempts to eradicate Indigenous languages and cultures through residential school, the introduction of Christianity, and harmful academic rhetoric and research around “race” and “superiority”.

(2) Are there particular aspects of the presentation you enjoyed or intrigued you and are there others that you think could have been improved (style and content)?

In my opinion, Dr. Dankertsen tied theory, results, and personal experience together well throughout the presentation. There was one quote that particularly resonated with me: that “many people are forced to become inauthentic in order to be authentic” (Kajsa Kemi Gjerpe, 2013, p. 82). It was clear that she could relate to her participants around this issue, and I felt this quote summarized many of her results related to the fluidity and path towards realizing or relating to Sámi identity. Additionally, she tied many of her research projects together well to create the presentation’s story line. I felt her story started appropriately with the crude history of colonization and its impact, finishing with positive examples of how people are reinventing what it means to be Sámi, both personally and in space. Finally, her use of photos in the presentation slides were very effective in conveying topics and added a lot of emotion to the presentation, bringing an international example closer to home for people to experience.

(3) Are there components of the research that would be applicable or relevant to your own Master’s research?

There are a few key aspects of Dr. Dankertsen’s research and presentation that are applicable to my work. First, many of Dr. Dankertsen’s sources overlap with my own, specifically her use of Smith, 1999, and a few that I have yet to incorporate but find useful (for example Kajsa Kemi Gjerpe, 2013). Second, I appreciated Dr. Dankertsen’s incorporation of her positionality as a Sámi and Norwegian woman in academia into her presentation, and found this thread particularly effective. Third, Dr. Dankertsen’s research is embedded within community (ies), which I find particularly inspiring and relatable to my own work. Her respect for participants was clear in the presentation, and she seemed to have good relations with her participants, illustrated, for example, by their use of names in her descriptive quotes.

(4) How well did the speaker respond to questions and is there a question you would have asked given the opportunity?

I felt question period was more of a discussion and dialogue than strictly question and answer, which to me is a positive sign of an effective presentation and telling of a story that resonated with audience members. Dr. Dankertsen’s responses showed her breadth of knowledge, even beyond her direct presentation topic, such as her explanation of “race” research and its use in German Nazi rhetoric. Provided the opportunity I would ask Dr. Dankertsen about the ethics (both university and personal) involved in her inclusion of participant (first) names in conjunction with illustrative quotes. I am curious whether this is common practice in her field and/or university, and what processes she took to receive consent from individuals and the university, if not common practice.