Search results

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.

Purpose – We share experiences from the research process that expose the shortcomings and flaws of the different research production review mechanisms. Our aim is to highlight the resistance and paternalistic misunderstandings that characterise some processes when considering indigenous ‘subjects’.

Design/methodology/approach – This chapter draws upon examples from primary source material as the basis for analysis and discussion. These examples are drawn from academic reports, correspondence to authors and media accounts. The critical approach is influenced by the theoretical works that address the influence and infiltration of ‘commonsense’ understandings, and the resistance to alternative academic inquiry and interpretation of indigenous sports participation issues in Australia.

Findings – The structure, resources and mechanisms available to the dominant alliance of dominant groups serve to curtail and suppress alternative research efforts.

Research limitations/implications – The available examples are not drawn from the broad field. Indeed, they are limited to those available via research circles of colleagues. Any conclusions should be considered within the notion of context specific rather than any broad generalisation.

Books and periodicals on aeronautics: A buying list