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 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.

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.

Indigenous farmers have, for centuries, applied practices which maintained resilient and sustainable landscapes. Thus, understanding and preserving the agricultural knowledge of Indigenous farmers may enhance the knowledge base of sustainable agriculture. The purpose of this paper is to review current research in the fields of Indigenous knowledge and sustainability to present a research approach which enables a cohesive global way forward for future research projects seeking to understand and preserve Indigenous agricultural knowledge.

This study applied thematic analysis to review 57 research studies in the field of Indigenous knowledge and sustainability. Key themes were identified from four overarching criteria: research methodology, data input, output and outcomes.

The findings revealed a range of commonalities among the 57 research studies reviewed. This study proposes the research should continue to seek to understand and preserve Indigenous knowledge, however, research needs to go beyond simply documenting Indigenous knowledge. The way forward requires research of Indigenous agricultural knowledge to establish databases, digital repositories (including oral, video, visual) and online repositories with globally shared access, whilst acknowledging and acting in partnership with Indigenous farmers and their communities.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is an original study which has practical implications for enhancing research outcomes with regard to preservation of Indigenous knowledge. The findings of this study may be used to influence research policy formulation and implementation.

Ethical practices in relation to indigenous research require that the researcher decolonise the research. This can be challenging when institutional guidelines are unclear but at the same time exacting in terms of the level of input required as a prerequisite for approval. This article explores the ambiguities of approval through a study of the application process for ‘my’ doctoral research to observe indigenous athlete‐role models engaging with young people. I draw on Simmel’s (1976) ‘stranger’ to enunciate the constraints of approval and consent within a decolonising methodology and to propose the possibilities of an ethics of the self.

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.

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?

The purpose of this paper is to address some of the implications for methodology and ethics that arise when researchers in Indigenous territories locate their research projects as taking place within Indigenous countries. Centering the argument that ethical research with Indigenous communities must be rooted in upholding the primacy of Indigenous sovereignty, numerous considerations to improve qualitative research practices in Indigenous countries are discussed.

The author starts by introducing his relationship to Indigenous research as a mixed-Indigenous researcher. Moving onto discussing preliminary research considerations for working in Indigenous territories, the author argues that qualitative researchers must become familiarized with the historical and geographical contexts of the Indigenous countries they plan on working in. Using Canadian history as an example, the author argues that settler-colonial nationalisms continue to attempt to erase and replace Indigenous countries both in historical and geographical narratives. Building on Indigenous literature, the author then outlines the necessity of being aware of nation-specific protocols in law, culture, and knowledge production.

Drawing on this discussion, the author proposes a framework for preliminary research that can be used by qualitative researchers looking to ensure their projects are grounded in the best practices for the specific Indigenous countries they want to work with.

The author concludes that researchers should not expect Indigenous knowledge keepers to contribute large amounts of labour towards debunking colonial mythology and proving the existence of Indigenous countries. By doing this work as part of the preliminary research process, researchers create space for better collaborations with Indigenous communities.