8
Trepidation, trust and time
J. Welsh & C. Burgess (2021). Trepidation, trust and time: Working with Aboriginal communities. In V. Rawlings, J. Flexner & L. Riley (Eds.), Community-Led Research: Walking new pathways together. Sydney: Sydney University Press.
Aboriginal people are understandably suspicious and reticent about universities and academics conducting research in their communities given the history of disrespectful, misconceived and often divisive research studies that have caused more harm than good (Daniels-Mayes, this volume; Martin, 2008; Rigney, 1999; Riley, this volume). As Dodson (2003) clearly notes: ‘Since their first intrusive gaze, colonising cultures have had a preoccupation with observing, analysing, studying, classifying and labelling Aborigines and Aboriginality. Under that gaze, Aboriginality changed from being daily practice to ‘being a problem to be solved’ (p. 27). The notion of Aboriginal people as ‘a problem to be solved’ still unpins many government policies and strategies (Buxton, 2017), and, usually, the broader community’s perceptions of Aboriginal peoples.
Researcher propensity to objectify Indigenous peoples, position ‘them’ through deficit assumptions and question the validity of Indigenous knowledges, values, beliefs and practices (Osborne, 2018) has resulted in a number of Indigenous researchers (see for instance, Martin, 2008; Moreton-Robinson, 2013; Rigney, 1999; Tuhawai Smith, 2012) calling for clear ethical protocols and practices for researching in Indigenous communities. This must include acknowledging Indigenous standpoints and applying critical Indigenous research methodologies in collaboration with the Indigenous peoples and communities. As Osborne (2018) notes, researchers need to articulate and work ‘from knowledges and lived realities generated outside the locus of institutional power which tended to be the domain of powerful white men’ (p. 27). Osborne 2018, p. 27) also identifies issues such as power, culture, values and language that need to be attended to, and that privileging Aboriginal voices through personal and collective narratives recognises the centrality of Aboriginal communication traditions. Researchers need to be aware that ‘The term “research” is inextricably linked to European imperialism and colonialism. The word itself, “research” is probably one of the dirtiest words in the indigenous world’s vocabulary’ (Smith, 1999, p. 1). This reminds us of an extensive history of Eurocentric bias, prejudice and, consequently, ill-informed findings.
This chapter outlines key issues for Aboriginal community members and researchers when planning and conducting research that is meaningful, important and beneficial for community. It draws on a yarning circle led by two local Aboriginal community members (Mary and Bryan1) consisting of researchers, community workers and others from diverse backgrounds working in this area. The yarning circle leaders led a discussion about researching in Aboriginal communities by articulating how they perceive and conduct Community-Led Research (CLR). Moreover, this chapter is constructed in a way that not only articulates the key issues involved but demonstrates how these are enacted through foregrounding personal and professional positioning, unpacking the notion of community and highlighting the key tenets of ethical and respectful work in this space. Finally, we identify ways in which this work ‘bumps up against’ the institutions and cultures within which we work as researchers.
In order to contextualise our work, we offer the following description of the Aboriginal community we live and work in.
As Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal researchers and educators working in our local Aboriginal community, we carry with us a deep-seated awareness of colonisation and the intergenerational trauma associated with this. We do not assume or apply this to the people we engage with unless they choose to share this and give their express permission. This further indicates the diversity, complexities and nuances that exist in our community of Redfern, an urban centre at the first point of invasion and in which a unique and resilient community has grown despite ongoing oppression through the institutional and broader society structures that underpin settler colonies such as Australia (Buxton, 2017; Dodson, 2003). Here, Aboriginal people have carved out a significant heritage, culture and presence that reverberates in Aboriginal communities across Australia, and constantly reminds non-Indigenous Australia that Aboriginal peoples and cultures are alive and thriving. In saying that, we are acutely aware how this can create conflicting agendas and politics and so negotiate this terrain carefully and respectfully.
Positioning ourselves in research contexts is important in two key ways: recognising how it operates within the power dynamics of a research setting (Howard & Rawsthorne, this volume), and how the participants engage subject positions as a resource to narratively construct their identity (Soriede, 2006, p. 527) within this context. As Aboriginal co-researchers and participants are often positioned as ‘other’, foregrounding their lived experiences through narrative traditions such as yarning, storying and humorous anecdotes provides opportunities to destabilise and decentre assumptions and knowledge ‘truths’.
Researcher awareness of their biases and assumptions is central to positionality and requires ongoing reflexivity to challenge and problematise the social and structural issues that marginalise and deny Aboriginal peoples’ histories and cultures (Russell-Mundine, 2012). As Moreton-Robinson (2003, p. 66) notes, ‘whiteness is both the measure and the marker of normality in Australian society, yet remains invisible for most white women and men, they do not associate it with conferring dominance and privilege’. D’Antoine, et al. (2019, p. 3) suggest that critical reflection is essential throughout the research process and acknowledgement of insider/outsider positioning critical to rigour in qualitative research. They note that researchers can occupy various insider and outsider positions at different times and in different ways, and so avoiding assumptions, expectations and complacency is important in developing respectful, trusting and reciprocal relationships. As Russell-Mundine (2012, p. 86) demonstrates: ‘I have, hopefully, developed a greater capacity to question my own culture, my whiteness and the structures and privileges that the dominant culture has created’.
For non-Indigenous researchers, Delpit (1993) suggests that deep listening is required as a member of the dominant (and harming) culture where:
[to] put our beliefs on hold is to cease to exist as ourselves for a moment – and that is not easy … because it means turning yourself inside out, giving up your own sense of who you are, and being willing to see yourself in the unflattering light of another’s angry gaze … it is the only way to learn what it might feel like to be someone else and the only way to start a dialogue. (p. 139)
These ideas indicate the complexity and emotional labour involved in ethical research with marginalised communities, in order to attend to difficult knowledges and uncomfortable ‘truths’ (McMahon & McKnight, this volume). These difficult knowledges are often revealed in the research process as Aboriginal narratives can be interwoven with lived experiences of trauma and tragedy. For the non-Indigenous person new to these experiences, Simon (2011, p. 434) suggests that ‘difficulty happens when one’s conceptual framework, emotional attachments and conscious and unconscious desires delimit one’s ability to settle meaning in past events’. Here, Simon recognises that many non-Indigenous people are unaware of the tragic circumstances for many victims of oppression, and when confronted with the reality of this, struggle to reconcile this with their understanding of their own culture and history. For some, this renders identity precarious and uncertain, invoking feelings of vulnerability (Harrison, Burke & Clarke, 2018). By embracing respectful and reciprocal relationships with community members/researchers, a sense of agency can be restored, and valuable partnerships formed (Howard & Rawsthorne, this volume).
We, the authors of this chapter, are Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal parents, educators, community members and researchers.
My name is Julie Welsh, I’m a Gamilaroi Murawarri woman, originally from Gunnedah, New South Wales, I grew up as very much a part of the Redfern community, from about the age of five when Mum and Dad brought us all down to Sydney. I’d like to pay my respects and acknowledge the traditional owners of the lands that we are meeting on, the Gadigal people of the Eora Nation. I would also like to pay respects to Elders both past and present and acknowledge those Aboriginal people who are in this room, and everybody coming together and making a real effort to create this space so that we can have a yarn. I work for local government and my role as a Community Development Officer is to support cultural and community programs to meet the needs and wants of local communities.
My name is Cathie Burgess and I am a non-Aboriginal teacher who has worked in Aboriginal education for over 35 years, currently as a lecturer/researcher at an elite university. I was born on and therefore also acknowledge Gadigal Country and that Aboriginal sovereignty was never ceded. I am a parent of Aboriginal children and we are all involved in local Aboriginal community sports and organisations. While I have a personal and professional passion and commitment to Aboriginal education, I am aware of my white privilege and the cultural biases that accompany insider/outsider positioning. Thus, I am guided by Aboriginal family, colleagues and friends in this lifelong learning journey that never ceases to surprise and reward.
In order to better understand this positioning, we unpack what we mean by community, since this concept is at the centre of a conceptual understanding of CLR.
The term ‘community’ is frequently applied to Aboriginal contexts, with little explanation as to what this actually means conceptually and/or in practice. Certainly, it moves beyond common or normative understandings of the term due largely to the complex, localised and nuanced historical, cultural, social and political experiences of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as an oppressed ‘other’ in a settler colony, as Ted Wilkes, a Nyungar researcher from Western Australia, notes (Dudgeon, et al., 2014, p. 6):
The Aboriginal community can be interpreted as geographical, social and political. It places Aboriginal people as part of, but different from, the rest of Australian society. Aboriginal people identify themselves with the idea of being part of ‘community’; it gives us a sense of unity and strength.
This description by Bryan alerts us to the importance of local community:
Redfern is all about trailblazers from Redfern. This used to be the capital for self-determination and civil rights movements, a hub for Aboriginal people and many different communities coming here to connect, especially Stolen Generation2 and people who are looking for work. Over the years, most recently, Redfern has changed a lot. Unfortunately, many of our people have been moved out of the area, so we’re trying to recapture that spirit and culture back into the area so that there’s always going to be a reason for Aboriginal people to come back and connect with Redfern.
Mary further notes the impact of changing demographics in the area, an issue faced by many urban communities that were once considered ‘slums’ by outsiders:
Dealing with gentrification is our reality in this area, you know? So, as a community, and a wider community, how do we deal with that? It’s terrible for families to be moved out, it’s terrible for our Elders and other senior people to be moved out and put somewhere else when this is the only place that they’ve known for 40–50 years … Redfern is such a significant place for us, and where I’m situated right now, I work right next to the Block.3 For me, that gives me energy every day. It’s a challenge right now because it’s under construction but in 12 months’ time, there should be Aboriginal families back on the block, that’s where our families belong.
In response to the colonising practices of Western research, Indigenous people and organisations have developed and implemented ethical and respectful protocols for working with Aboriginal communities rather than about or to Aboriginal communities (Dreise & Mazurski, 2018, p. 10). In Australia, key university and other research institutions ethics procedures are influenced by documents produced by the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies and the National Health and Medical Research Council. The Lowitja Institute (2011) also published a comprehensive, practical guide for researchers detailing how the six principles of ethical Indigenous research – spirit and integrity, reciprocity, respect, equality, survival and protection and responsibility – can be actioned. Critical ethical questions raised are, ‘who controls the research process?’, ‘who does the research benefit?’ and ‘who owns the new knowledge?’ (p. 24).
Crucial to planning and designing research is support for community priorities, time for community consultation, two-way co-researching in a collaborative learning partnership and audience-appropriate translation and dissemination of research findings (D’Antoine et al., 2019). Certainly, one of the main complaints from Aboriginal communities is that researchers arrive, often unannounced, with a predefined research plan, expecting the community to ‘rubber-stamp’ their plan. Mary identifies a similar context where Aboriginal protocols are ignored:
[W]e certainly know when it’s assessment time, because you have uni students coming into community wanting to speak to Aboriginal people as if we’re here waiting for them to tick their boxes. These fullas bring their privilege and sense of entitlement thinking they can come into community and just take, not follow protocols, not show respect, not engage with community proper way, but simply take, this is ignorance at its best!
This indicates that following community protocols, building relationships and trust needs to occur before the research design is finalised. It is important to ascertain if the proposed research supports community priorities, privileges community voices, respects community views on data/knowledge, ownership/copyright and contributes new knowledge that acknowledges and augments community cultural strength.
In working with Nyoongar people in south-east Western Australia, Wright, Lin and O’Connell (2016, p. 91) identified humility, inquisitiveness and openness as key attributes for working in Aboriginal contexts. Humility involves a willingness to learn from and understand Aboriginal co-researchers, ‘to find out what makes us Nyoongars tick in the first instance …’ Researchers’ readiness to admit their lack of knowledge and mistakes is an important signifier of cultural humility. Inquisitiveness was noted through the effect of shared Elder life stories, which were at times traumatic and uncomfortable for researchers, but resulted in a transformational understanding of the issues, concerns and resilience of Aboriginal peoples. As a deeper relationship emerges, Wright, Lin and O’Connell (2016) note that the experiential learning inherent in the research process created researcher openness to new knowledges, understandings and ways of doing things, which was critical for an overall shift in how to work with Aboriginal people to meet their needs.
In a departure from the commonly held idea that research is the arena of universities and academics, working honestly with Aboriginal communities requires alternative conceptualisations and approaches to what research means outside the academy, as the title of this chapter and Mary’s observations imply:
I’ve got to go and actually seek advice on that within community. And that might not necessarily be one conversation. That could probably be three or four conversations over a period of time. So if you come in and say that you want the answer within the next couple hours or even days, that probably won’t happen.
Indeed, over the past 20 or so years, there have been purposeful moves towards research methodologies that recognise the complexity of diverse Aboriginal worldviews, lived experiences and the effects of marginalisation and therefore call for a critical rethinking of positivist approaches and Western ‘truths’. As Henry et al. (2002, p. 2) note, methodology is ‘neither value-free nor culturally pure abstraction’, so researcher positionality and the research methods they choose is a significant consideration when conducting research with Aboriginal people. Rigney (1999, p. 632), for instance, argues that ‘Indigenous peoples must now be involved in defining, controlling and owning epistemology and ontologies that value and legitimate the Indigenous experiences’. This founding principle of Critical Indigenous Methodologies (see Martin, 2008; Rigney, 1999; Tuhawai Smith, 2012) is designed to counteract the oppressive, often harmful practices of Western research. These researchers also privilege Indigenous epistemologies, ontologies, axiologies and methodologies as relational, holistic, culturally located, politically aware, respectful, reciprocal and cognisant of discourse. Smith (1999, p. 193) suggests that when Indigenous people become researchers, ‘questions are framed differently, priorities are ranked differently, problems are defined differently; and people participate on different terms’.
In efforts to be more culturally respectful and politically active, researchers could engage with their communities through co-producing research. For instance, Banks, Hart, Pahl & Ward (2019, p. 5) suggest that:
Co-production refers as much to the spirit and philosophy of the research as it does the mechanics of doing it, [and a] conscious awareness of on the part of all co-researchers [that] people come to the research from different positions of status, power, wealth, ability and confidence.
Notably, co-production is relative to context, consciously employing expertise in empowering and respectful ways to focus on the production of knowledge for social change rather than social change itself as an outcome. This then suggests that research methodologies such as participatory action research where the processes and ongoing knowledge (re)creation are the focus, tend to be conducive to a co-production approach. These research practices are well suited to Indigenous contexts not only for their obvious goal of active participation, but also for their community-based analysis of social problems, co-production of knowledge, which opens up space for Aboriginal epistemologies and ontologies, as well as community-driven action for change (Henry et al. 2002, p. 8). Mary describes a contextual example where the local Redfern Aboriginal community takes back control of their flag-raising ceremony from a government organisation:
[W]e talk about community development, we’re very strong on that – everything is community-driven and about empowering our community. It might be just this little ceremony that you think, ‘What’s the big deal?’ But symbolism is everything and seeing community say, ‘No, this is how we’re going to do this. We’re going to have it at one of our black organisations, we’re going to raise the Aboriginal flag, and that’s the start of our celebrations for the week.’ Within that comes those particular ceremonies that will take place, we’re reclaiming our ways of doing. This is what community decision making is all about.
This comment describes the importance of community-conceptualised and driven action that speaks to the heart of what CLR might mean.
Emerging here is the importance of positioning community member’s front and centre of the CLR process. This includes identifying the research problem, co-designing the process, negotiating data ownership, and disseminating the findings. As Clapham (2011) asserts, ‘research which is most highly valued by Aboriginal communities is community-controlled and asset- [or strengths] based, and that leadership at both community and academic levels is critical for such research to succeed’. Moreover, the research needs to emerge from listening and dialogue, capture the diversity of experiences, build the capacity of all involved, and benefit the community as well as be accountable to the community (Terarre & Rawsthorne, 2019, p. 145). Bryan comments on the importance of Elder engagement in this process:
[T]he most inspiring thing was that we had Elders coming in to engage in our community meetings and discussions, which was completely organic. That’s because they understand what we’re trying to do, and they’re trying to show that support to us as well.
For Aboriginal community members and researchers, accountability to community is paramount and there are immediate consequences for not following protocols that impact on everyday lives that are generally not evident to non-Indigenous researchers. Mary explains:
And we know straight up that if we do something wrong, or we didn’t consult properly or we thought we were real deadly and were going to make a decision on something, we get ripped straight away. We get told straight up. I could get that phone call at 10 o’clock at night, so it’s not a 9 to 5 thing. Community is always community; and we are always accountable.
These critical methodological approaches contribute to the bigger picture of decolonising research which seeks to privilege Aboriginal voices and acknowledge their agency in producing as well as critiquing research processes and outputs. This includes problematising and changing institutional and policy structures that undermine, silence and/or sideline Aboriginal voices (D’Antione et al. 2019, pp. 2–3). Moreover, this strength-based approach is enriched when researchers commit to deep ongoing reflexivity to ensure an awareness of the influence of their positionality on research processes.
We’re kind of hoping that it’s more of a yarn, as opposed to a formal presentation, because we’re trying to do those practices that we do when we come together where we sit around and we yarn, that’s what’s really important. It doesn’t take away the importance of what the conversations are, but these are the ways we do things. So, we see this as equality of everybody sitting around and coming together. (Mary)
In the Australian context, yarning is becoming an increasingly recognisable form of communication and data generation in Indigenous research methodologies, respecting that participants are often marginalised and/or voiceless (Besserab & Ng’andu, 2010; Laycock, Walker, Harrison & Brands, 2011; Shay, 2019; Terarre & Rawsthorne, 2019). Bessarab and Ng’andu (2010, p. 37) describe yarning as ‘an Indigenous cultural form of conversation’ that asks questions such as ‘where you from?’ and ‘who’s your mob?’ to indicate kinship, Country and community ties, and develop and/or strengthen connections based on this information. Locating each other within our meaning systems (Martin, 2003) in order to understand and negotiate boundaries and protocols, supports the development of genuine relationships before the research begins (Shay, 2019). Yarning circles encourage circular rather than linear discussion, reflecting Aboriginal epistemology (Wright, Lyn & O’Connell, 2016, p. 87) and providing opportunities for participants to contextualise and contribute their personal experiences as they wish. This circumlocutive approach appears vague, oblique and deliberately avoiding the point, but it is purposively employed to assess researcher patience, perseverance and open-mindedness and draw out hidden agendas and motivations. Paradoxically, it can also be part of the relationship-building process. Researchers therefore need to be prepared for the investment of time and the difficult questions that may be asked, be flexible and adaptable to allow for possible variations and/or changes to their plans, and potentially rethink their positioning and ways of working (McMahon & McKnight, this volume). It is a priority, though, to retain trust, integrity and credibility even if it means the research project needs to be reconceptualised or abandoned.
Bessarab and Ng’andu (2010) identify four types of yarning: the social, research, collaborative and the therapeutic yarn. The social yarn is an informal conversation that can include ‘gossip, news, humour, advice and whatever information both parties feel inclined to share in the moment’ (p. 40), is often the foundation upon which trust is built and may determine what will be revealed or not in the research yarn (Shay, 2019). The research yarn is more formal as the research topic is the focus of the yarn; it is similar to a semi-structured interview, but often punctuated with personal, often contextual anecdotes. In the collaborative yarn, key issues and themes emerging from the research are discussed and ‘unpacked’ in order to visualise and articulate where the research is heading. Finally, the therapeutic yarn emerges organically if a participant reveals a traumatic or intensely personal or emotional experience, and so the researcher needs to focus on deep listening and support (not counselling). The meaning-making emerging from this can ‘empower and support the participant to re-think their understanding of their experience in new and different ways’ (Bessarab & Ng’andu, 2010, p. 41).
Central to the yarning process is deep listening (Laycock, Walker, Harrison & Brands, 2011, p. 201; Wallerstein, 1992), which includes silence and stillness (Terrare & Rawsthorne, 2019, p. 6). Dadirri, a Ngengiwumirri word from the Daly River area in the Northern Territory (Miriam-Rose Ungunmerr-Baumann, 1993 in Laycock, Walker, Harrison & Brands, 2011, p. 53), describes an inner, deep listening involving contemplation, observation and connectedness only available in reciprocal relationships (McMahon & McKnight, this volume). It recognises people as unique, diverse and complicated, fostering a way of learning and co-producing knowledge. It is central to the project of decolonising research, reclaiming epistemology and unpacking social, political and cultural concepts as mediated through Indigenous knowledges (Terrare & Rawsthorne, 2019, p. 7). For non-Indigenous researchers it is an opportunity to participate beyond one’s comfort zone, see perspectives that a Western-oriented approach may not reveal (Bessarab & Ng’andu, 2010, p. 47), and seek a deeper understanding of the importance of a holistic and collaborative approach to research.
The stark contrast in the organisational, cultural, social and political constructs of universities and communities becomes a key issue for researchers working ethically and respectfully in communities, particularly in marginalised communities. The nature of academia and the way in which structures and processes are organised, render university systems inflexible and dogmatic in meeting procedural and audit requirements (Rawsthorne & de Pree, 2019). This creates significant barriers when working with local community people and/or small non-for-profit, often under-resourced organisations.
Universities are generally seen as society’s holders of ‘important’ knowledge, the places where new knowledge is discovered and shared with other knowledge holders such as governments and policy makers. Significantly, this constructs an elitist frame that dismisses external, particularly community-generated knowledge, as meaningful to the academy (Rawsthorne & de Pree, 2019, p. 145). This attitude impacts on academics who embark upon research in their local communities as the intellectual, social and emotional labour academics invest in such projects is not recognised in workloads, promotion or publishing in non-traditional outlets not measured in university metrics (Rawsthorne & de Pree, 2019, p. 145).
Cameron et al. (2019, pp. 72–73) note that issues such as sources of knowledge, power, uncertainty, worldviews and audiences arise when universities partner with marginalised communities. Sources of knowledge from communities comprise largely of lived experiences and practices that are very different from academic sources, and ironically, these experiences are negative due to the way in which institutions and their knowledges exclude and devalue these communities. This speaks to issues of power, the uncertainty of participation and contrasting perspectives of what constitutes valuable knowledge. Rawsthorne and de Pree (2019, p. 146) suggest that community-led and co-designed research develops knowledge and practices grounded in the lived experiences of participants and therefore of value to them. If value and impact is indeed the goal of socially orientated research, then this knowledge is new, inclusive and aligns with broader society goals of social justice.
University administration and organisational procedures create barriers when working with communities, and can undermine the credibility, trust and relationship-building processes all essential for working locally (Webster, Hill, Hall & See, this volume). By and large, these issues include (see also Robinson, Flexner & Miller, this volume):
There are a number of implications for researchers working in their local Aboriginal communities. Perhaps the most difficult but significant is developing trust in order to build relationships and authentic engagement. Pigza (2016) notes that this is ‘human work that requires time, transparency, authenticity, trust, accountability, and clear communication’ (p. 96). As Bryan suggests, ‘everything should be an opportunity to learn and engage, whether it’s Aboriginal people to non-Aboriginal people, or non-Aboriginal people to Aboriginal people. And that’s about creating those times to engage with everyone’. As collaboration is critical in research with communities in order to ethically respond to local issues, how to proceed is an important consideration. For instance, should we engage in community-led, co-designed, two-way capacity building, participatory action research, or as our community members describe this, as protocols and accountability? Without investing the time needed to deconstruct these concepts in the context within which the research is to occur with the people who are central to the research, then it is unlikely to produce the desired outcomes, and the loss of trust between the researcher and community is far more detrimental than not completing the research.
If social justice and change underpins research in community contexts, in Aboriginal contexts, decolonising research methodologies are significant in creating the conditions for change. It recognises that the ‘term research is inextricably linked to European imperialism and colonialism’ (Denzin & Lincoln, 2014, p. 5) and that Indigenous knowledges must be privileged and listened to at deep levels. It foregrounds Aboriginal empowerment, governance and ownership throughout the process and a deep awareness by non-Indigenous participants of the history of harm and ongoing deficit discourses that have emerged from inappropriate research. It acknowledges ‘ Indigenous researchers and community members as experts in the research process and agents for change’ (D’Antoine, 2019, p. 2) and the importance of reporting findings from a strength-based position through Aboriginal voices.
This chapter highlights key challenges for working in the margins with local communities to effect change, many of which arise from the institution rather than the community. It calls for researcher and institutional humility, flexibility and reciprocity as representatives of colonising structures and for the positioning of social justice, sovereignty and self-determination front, centre and foundation of the research process.
Australian Council for Educational Research (2012). Guidelines for ethical research in Indigenous studies. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies.
Banks, S., Hart, A., Pahl, K. & Ward, P. (2019). Co-producing research: A community development approach. Bristol: Policy Press.
Baum, F. (1998). The new public health: An Australian perspective. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
Buxton, L. (2017). Ditching deficit thinking: Changing to a culture of high expectations. Issues in Educational Research, 27(2), pp. 198–214
Bessarab, D. & Ng’andu, B. (2010). Yarning about yarning as a legitimate method in Indigenous research. International Journal of Critical Indigenous Studies, 3(1), pp. 37–50.
Cameron, J., Wenger-Trayner, B., Wenger-Trayner, E., Hart A., Buttery, L., Kourkoutas, E., Eryigit-Madzwamuse, S. & Rathbone, A. (2019). Community-university partnership research retreats: A productive force for developing communities of research practice. In S. Banks, A. Hart, K. Pahl & P. Ward (Eds.), Co-producing research: A community development approach. Bristol: Policy Press.
Clapham, K. (2011). Indigenous-led intervention research: The benefits, challenges and opportunities. International Journal of Critical Indigenous Studies, 4(2), pp. 40–48.
D’Antoine, H., Abbott, P., Sherwood, J., Wright, M., Dowling, C., Lehmann, D., Eades, A. & Bessarab, D. (2019). A collaborative yarn on qualitative health research with Aboriginal communities. Australian Indigenous Health Bulletin, 19(2).
Delpit, L. (1993). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other people’s children. In L. Weis & M. Fine. (Eds). Beyond silenced voices: Class, race, and gender in United States schools, pp. 119–144. New York: State University of New York Press.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2014). Introduction: Critical methodologies and Indigenous inquiry. In N. K. Denzin, Y. S. Lincoln, & L. T. Smith (Eds.), Handbook of critical and Indigenous methodologies, pp. 1–20. London: Sage.
Dodson, M. (2003). The end in the beginning. In M. Grossman (Ed.), Blacklines: Contemporary critical writing by Indigenous Australians, pp. 25–42. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.
Drawson, A. S., Toombs, E. & Mushquash, C. J. (2017). Indigenous research methods: A systematic review. The International Indigenous Policy Journal, 8(2). doi: 10.18584/iipj.2017.8.2.5
Dreise, T. & Mazurski, E. (2018). Weaving knowledges: Knowledge exchange, co-design and community-based participatory research and evaluation in Aboriginal communities. Sydney: NSW Department of Aboriginal Affairs.
Dudgeon, P., Milroy, H. & and Walker. R. (2014). Working together: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander mental health and wellbeing principles and practice. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia
Foley, D. (2003). Indigenous epistemology and Indigenous standpoint theory. Social Alternatives, 22(1), pp. 44–52.
Harrison, N., Burke, J. & Clarke, I. (2018). Stolen generations: Teaching about the experiences of trauma. Knowledge Cultures 6(2), pp. 51–63
Henry, J., Dunbar, T., Arnott, A., Scrimgeour, M., Matthews, S., Murakami-Gold. & Chamberlain, A. (2002). Indigenous research reform agenda: Rethinking research methodologies. Links Monograph Series 2. Canberra: Cooperative Research Centre for Aboriginal & Tropical Health, The Lowitja Institute.
Laycock, A. with Walker, D., Harrison, N. & Brands, J. (2011). Researching Indigenous health: A practical guide for researchers. Melbourne: The Lowitja Institute.
Martin, K. (2003). Ways of knowing, being and doing: A theoretical framework and methods for Indigenous and Indigenist re-search. Journal of Australian Studies, 27(76), pp. 203–214.
Martin, K. (2008). Please knock before you enter: Aboriginal regulation of outsiders and the implications for researchers. Tenerfiffi, QLD: Southern Cross University.
Moreton-Robinson, A. (2003). Tiddas talkin’ up to the white woman: When Huggins et al. took on Bell. In M. Grossman (Ed.), Blacklines: Contemporary critical writing by Indigenous Australians, pp. 66–77. Melbourne, Australia: Melbourne University Press.
Moreton-Robinson, A. (2013). Towards an Australian Indigenous women’s standpoint theory. Australian Feminist Studies, 28(78), pp. 331–347.
Nakata, M. (2007a). The cultural interface. The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 36(S1), pp. 7–14.
National Health and Medical Research Council (2018). Ethical conduct in research with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples and communities: Guidelines for researchers and stakeholders. Canberra: NHMRC.
Osborne, S. (2018). Kulini: Framing ethical listening and power-sensitive dialogue in remote Aboriginal education and research. Decolonising Research Practices, 22, pp. 26–37.
Pigza, J. (2016). The POWER model: Five core elements for teaching community-based research. In M. Beckhman and J.F Long. (Eds.), Community-based research: Teaching for impact, pp. 93–107. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Rawsthorne, M. & de Pree, A. (2019). Are we welcome here? Building trust through community-based research. In A. Kover & G. Franger (Eds.), University and society: Interdependencies and exchange, pp. 140–157. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Press.
Rigney, L. (1999). Internationalization of an Indigenous anticolonial cultural critique of research methodologies: A guide to Indigenist research methodology and its principles. Wicazo Sa Review, 14(2), pp. 109–121.
Russell-Mundine, G. (2012). Reflexivity in Indigenous research: Reframing and decolonising research? Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 19, pp. 85–90.
Shay, M. (2019). Extending the yarning yarn: Collaborative yarning methodology for ethical Indigenist education research. The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, pp. 1–9. doi: doi:10.1017/jie.2018.25
Simon, R. I. (2011). A shock to thought: Curatorial judgment and the public exhibition of ‘difficult knowledge.’ Memory Studies, 4(4), pp. 432–449.
Smith, L. T. (1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and Indigenous peoples. London: Zed Books.
Soriede, G. E. (2006). Narrative construction of teacher identity: Positioning and negotiation. Teachers and Teaching Theory and Practice, 12, pp. 527–547.
Terarre, M. & Rawsthorne, M. (2019). Country is yarning to me: Worldview, health and well-being amongst Australian First Nations people. British Journal of Social Work, 50(3), pp. 1–17.
Tuhawai Smith, L. (2012). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and Indigenous peoples (2nd ed.). London: Zed Books.
Walker, M., Fredericks, B., Mills, K. & Anderson, D. (2014). ‘Yarning’ as a method for community-based health research with Indigenous women. The Indigenous Women’s Wellness Research Program, Health Care for Women International, 35(10), pp. 1216–1226.
Wallerstein, N. (1992). Powerlessness, empowerment and health: Implementation for health promotion programs. American Journal of Health Promotion, 6(3), pp. 197–205.
Wenger, E. (2000). Communities of practice and social learning systems. Organization, 7(2), pp. 225–246.
Wright, M., Lin, A. & O’Connell, M. (2016). Humility, inquisitiveness, and openness: Key attributes for meaningful engagement with Nyoongar people. Advances in Mental Health, 14(2), pp. 82–95.
1Pseudonyms for local Aboriginal community members leading the yarning circle.
2 The Stolen Generation are Aboriginal people who were removed from their families as children and put in institutions to assimilate them into white society to provide cheap domestic and farm labour.
3 The ‘Block’ is the local name for an area of Redfern owned by the Aboriginal Housing Company that used to have a large number of Aboriginal families living there. This is currently being redeveloped to include university student accommodation as well as affordable housing for Aboriginal people.