Search results

Research in critical disaster studies stresses the urgency to explore alternative ontological framings (Gaillard and Raju, 2022) that encourages researchers and practitioners, especially Indigenous communities, to nurture spaces where Indigenous voices are well represented. It is imperative that research in the Pacific should be guided by Pacific research methodologies to maximize positive outcomes (Ponton, 2018) and break free from limited Eurocentric ideologies that are often ill-suited in Pacific contexts. Hazards in the South Pacific region have become more frequent and volatile. This has created a growing interest in the study of disasters in the region. However, current disaster studies in the Pacific are often problematic as they often fail to challenge the implicit coloniality of the discipline.

This paper will expand on these arguments, suggesting ways to overcome the limits of common Eurocentric research frameworks in disaster studies and to illustrate the significance and relevance of Pacific methodologies.

It is pertinent that critical disaster studies encapsulate Pacific worldviews and knowledge as valued and valid to reconstruct Pacific research. Decolonizing disaster research will ultimately liberate the discipline from limitations of its colonial past and allow for truly engaging and critical research practices.

This paper will illustrate and articulate how Talanoa, a pan-Pacific concept, could offer a more culturally appropriate research methodology to disasters, seen through a Samoan lens. Talanoa is an informal conversation that is widely shared among Pacific communities based on pure, authentic and real conversations which are crucial elements in building relationships with Pacific communities (Vaioleti, 2006).

The purpose of this paper is to draw on the author’s research involving girls who leave their Torres Strait Island communities for boarding colleges in regional Queensland, Australia, and the academic, social and cultural implications that impede the transition process between community and school. While this paper discusses some of the research outcomes, its main focus is the unique indigenous research paradigm “Family+Stories=Research”, devised for and utilised within this project. This paradigm centres on the Australian indigenous kinship system and was implemented in two specific phases of the research process. These were: the preliminary research process leading up to the implementation of the research project; and the data collection phase. In turn, both phases enable the cultural significance of the kinship system to be better understood through the results. Because observations and storytelling or “yarning” were primarily used through both phases, these results also endorse the experience of the participants, and the author – both professionally and personally – without requiring further analysis.

The indigenous research paradigm and methodology unique to this research project implements the kinship system, allowing the researcher to access the appropriate resources and people for the project. Prior to the data collection phase, contact with significant community members in both boarding colleges and the Torres Strait Region was made. The methodology implemented for the research project was ethnographic and used observations, individual interviews and focus groups. The views and experiences of 26 past and present students, and 15 staff, both indigenous and non-indigenous, across three different boarding colleges were recorded.

Through both phases of the research project, the kinship system played a significant role in the ethnographic research process and data collection phase, which focussed on two key areas encompassed within the kinship system: “business” and the “care of children”. Stories from the researcher and the participants confirm the significant role that the kinship system can play within the indigenous research paradigm: Family+Stories=Research.

The paper introduces an indigenous research paradigm and methodology designed around two factors: family and stories. This paper brings to light the impact of the kinship system used within communities of the Torres Strait Islands and explains how this system advantaged the research process and the data collection phase by enabling the researcher to freely access stories specific to the research project.

Evidence on the methods followed by non‐Indigenous researchers for conducting research that involves Indigenous people in Australia is sparse. This paper describes the methodology and steps followed by a non‐Indigenous researcher for engaging with men from an Aboriginal community in rural Victoria in conducting mental health services research. It describes the process adopted to initiate research and build research capacity within an Indigenous community where Indigenous researchers were unavailable and the local communities were ill‐equipped to conduct research themselves. The methodology followed was informed by the values and ethics guidelines of the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, the decolonising methodology of Linda Tuhiwai Smith as well as methods suggested by other authors. Lessons learnt included providing for a long time frame, which is necessary to develop relationships and trust with individuals and their Communities, adopting a flexible approach and engaging cultural advisers who represent different sections of the Community.

The purpose of this paper is to explore Indigenous Works’ efforts to facilitate Indigenous-led research that is responsive to the socio-economic needs, values and traditions of Indigenous communities.

This paper is grounded in an Indigenous research paradigm that is facilitated by Indigenous-led community-based participatory action research (PAR) methodology informed by the Two Row Wampum and Two-Eyed Seeing framework to bridge Indigenous science and knowledge systems with western ones.

The findings point to the need for greater focus on how Indigenous and western knowledge may be aligned within the methodological content domain while tackling a wide array of Indigenous research goals that involve non-Indigenous allies.

This paper addresses the need to develop insights and understandings into how to develop a safe, ethical space for Indigenous-led trans-disciplinary and multi-community collaborative research partnerships that contribute to community self-governance and well-being.

The Pasifika (Pacific Island) research methodology talanoa (conversation) has contemporary resonance beyond its local context. At the recent Bonn Climate Change Conference, for example, talanoa was adopted to spark international dialogue about our collective futures. But this and other recent instances raise the question as to whether and how talanoa can and should be applied in a non-Indigenous context – or, indeed, online. As a culturally diverse research team, we undertook a talanoa about our experience of researching historical literacy with Māori and Pasifika students through talanoa. Here we introduce what we learnt from the literature about the nature of talanoa, its use as a methodology, and its application in higher education and reproduce our own recent online talanoa on the experience of learning to do talanoa together. Three key lessons emerged from our research conversation. Firstly, we learnt that time is of the essence: researchers must carefully balance the need for the talanoa to run its natural course with the need to not overburden the participants. Secondly, we learnt that where the researchers undertake the talanoa is less important than attending to the relationships (the vā) between the researchers and participants, and the researchers and participants themselves. And, finally, in keeping with what some Māori researchers and their allies have argued of Kaupapa Māori research methodology, we learnt that indigenous methodologies like talanoa, when employed with care and in recognition of their emergence out of decolonial struggles for indigenous sovereignty and self-determination, can foster a fruitful intercultural research conversation.

Social marketing and government policy are intertwined. Despite this, policy analysis by social marketers is rare. This paper aims to address the dearth of policy analysis in social marketing and introduce and model a methodology grounded in Indigenous knowledge and from an Indigenous standpoint. In Australia, a minuscule number of First Nations people complete doctoral degrees. The most recent, major policy review, the Australian Council of Learned Academies (ACOLA) Report, made a series of recommendations, with some drawn from countries that have successfully uplifted Indigenous doctoral candidates’ success. This paper “speaks back” to the ACOLA Report.

This paper subjects the ACOLA Report, implementation plans and evaluations to a detailed Indigenous Critical Discourse Analysis using Nakata’s Indigenous standpoint theory and Bacchi’s Foucauldian discourse analysis to trace why policy borrowing from other countries is challenging if other elements of the political, social and cultural landscape are fundamentally unsupportive of reforms.

This paper makes arguments about the effects produced by the way the “problem” of First Nations doctoral education has been represented in this suite of Australian policy documents and the ways in which changes could be made that would actually address the pressing need for First Nations doctoral success in Australia.

Conducting policy analysis benefits social marketers in many ways, helping to navigate policy complexities and advocate for meaningful policy reforms for a social cause. This paper aims to spark more social marketing policy analysis and introduces a methodology uncommon to social marketing.

The purpose of this paper is to provide an account of the author's negotiation of a methodological and personal crisis that emerged in the course of his PhD research. It provides a description of the research project and how, in its implementation, questions emerged for the author regarding the likely “indigenous credibility” of the work, and the repercussions of this for him as an indigenous researcher.

The author provides a narrative account of the events and responses, identifying critical issues, courses of action and subsequent outcomes. Opportunity is also provided for the reader to consider their own response to the issues identified.

The author discovered that the initial misgivings regarding the research project were misguided following a broader reading of the literature regarding Indigenous Standpoint Theory and Causal Layered Analysis. Indeed, as well as allaying the initial anxieties, a number of aspirational congruities between the approaches became evident which, in the opinion of the author, will lead to a differently rendered layering of the arena of indigenous mental health. The author also discovered that a source of his initial misgivings were related to his own essentialised constructions of what constitutes credible indigenous research.

The paper has implications for those indigenous researchers who may be grappling with methodological issues related to their research, particularly those considerations regarding Indigenous Standpoint and other nominally indigenous theories/methodologies.

The paper presents a novel attempt to compare and contrast methodologies specifically identified as indigenous, with those that could be utilised as complementary to them. Such attempts at collaboration serve to challenge essentialised expectations about what can constitute meaningful research by, and for indigenous Australian people.

Criminology and criminal justice research in Australia that involves Indigenous peoples or has an Indigenous focus currently needs to follow guidelines of the National Health and Medical Research Council National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (Updated 2018) and the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS) Guidelines for Ethical Research in Australian Indigenous Studies (2012). However, neither of these documents specifically focus on research or evaluations in the criminology and criminal justice space, resulting in discipline-specific gaps. Drawing from both the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and Indigenous and post-colonial literature on research ethics, our chapter focuses on three core questions: (a) What does ‘free, prior and informed consent’ to participate in research mean and how should it be obtained and operationalised in criminology and criminal justice research involving Indigenous peoples and communities? (b) What does the requirement that research be ‘for the benefit of Indigenous peoples’ mean in the context of criminal justice research? and (c) How can ethical guidelines ensure that Indigenous-focussed criminological and criminal justice research and evaluation enhance and support Indigenous peoples’ empowerment and self-determination?

Over recent decades, research institutions have prescribed discrete ethics guidelines for human research with Indigenous people in Australia. Such guidelines respond to concerns about unethical and harmful processes in research, including that they entrench colonial relations and structures. This chapter sets out some of the limitations of these well-intentioned guidelines for the decolonisation of research. Namely, their underlying assumption of Indigenous vulnerability and deficit and, consequently, their function to minimise risk. It argues for a strengths-based approach to researching with and by Indigenous communities that recognises community members’ capacity to know what ethical research looks like and their ability to control research. It suggests that this approach provides genuine outcomes for their communities in ways that meet their communities’ needs. This means that communities must be partners in research who can demand reciprocation for their participation and sharing of their knowledge, time and experiences. This argument is not purely normative but supported by examples of Indigenous research models within our fields of health and criminology that are premised on self-determination.

The purpose of this paper is to share the story-net approach and to situate it as one that benefits from blending story as Indigenous methodology with non-corporeal actant theory (NCAT). The authors hope it will serve useful in building storytelling communities where Indigenous and non-Indigenous scholars are working to heal together from colonial trauma, reveal the inner workings of historical and ongoing colonial projects, dismantle the agency of colonial projects, and welcome heartful dialogue into the centre of MOS discourse.

The authors employ a storytelling approach which includes mapping the story-net territory and identifying the plot points along the journey. The authors use the story-net approach to story the approach.

This approach served helpful when engaging within story archives and with storytelling collectives comprised of both Indigenous and non-Indigenous persons, peoples and knowledges. The authors found four key premises, which help to narrate the ontology, epistemology, methodology and axiology of the story-net approach and six plot points, which help in mapping the lessons learned from engaging with stories, storytellers, story listeners and the socio-discursive contexts surrounding story-net work.

The authors story an approach that can be useful to support emerging Indigenous scholars while engaging with their non-Indigenous colleagues to do story-net work. This approach may be useful to navigate the tensions to create safer, more humane, inclusive, relational, strengths-based and trauma-informed spaces for engaging with Indigenous stories, storytellers, story listeners and discourses, as well as, to plot the points of contention so as to set the stage for deepening respectful research relations.