indigenous research: whose priority? journeys and possibilities of cross-cultural research in...

41

Geographical Research

•

March 2006

•

44(1):41–51

doi:10.1111/j.1745-5871.2006.00370.x

Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Original Article

PAUL HODGE and JOHN LESTER: Indigenous Research

Indigenous Research: Whose Priority? Journeys and Possibilities of Cross-Cultural Research in Geography

PAUL HODGE

1

* and JOHN LESTER

2

,

1

*School of Environmental and Life Sciences, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW 2308, Australia. Corresponding author. Email: [email protected];

2

Umilliko Indigenous Higher Education Research Centre, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW 2308, Australia

Received 8 February 2005; Revised 28 June 2005; Accepted 17 November 2005

Abstract

Decolonising research in geography is part of a broader ‘reflexive’ process whichcontinues to question the positivist status of ‘researcher as observer’. This papercontributes to this reflexive turn, drawing on the particular experiences of a cross-cultural Honours thesis. The paper is pursued through a parallel journey involvinga non-Indigenous researcher (and author of the cross-cultural Honours thesis)engaging Indigenous research

1

with interpretative insight from an Indigenousadviser or ‘on-looker’. The methodological difficulties revealed by the paralleljourney are emphasised to highlight both the complexities and reflexive possi-bilities of cross-cultural research but also to consider potential institutionaland pedagogic implications that stem from the experience. One of the substantialfindings of the paper is that, by linking Indigenous community priorities to researchand coursework, conventional (and often unequal) research relations are minimisedand colonising tendencies reduced. By challenging the conventional way thatcross-cultural research is conceived, and the way that institutional practices andresearch frameworks are implemented, geographers can continue their prolongedand complex efforts at decolonisation of the field and their own practices.

KEY WORDS

Reflexivity; human geography; Australia; decolonising research;ethics procedures; community-driven agendas; inter-subjectivities

ACRONYMHRAECG Hunter Region Aboriginal Education Consultative Group

While at the philosophical level, geographersappear to be questioning belief in science asa completely rational, neutral and whollyobjective activity, empirical research remainslargely unaffected … . This continues to rein-force the positivist heritage of the disciplinewhich, in the search for intellectual prestige,has attempted to emulate the methods of thenatural sciences, thus imparting an objectiveaura to research (Harrison and Livingstone,1980, 25).

Introduction

Over two decades ago Harrison and Livingstone(1980) observed that research methods withinhuman geography were prefigured by the discipline’spositivist legacy. They suggested that, unless theemerging voices of discontent within geographyreformulated the discipline’s foundational pre-suppositions, research methodologies could notbe thrown open to revision. In the years follow-ing this call for action the notion of objectivityas underpinning intellectual prestige has been

42


•

March 2006

•

44(1):41–51

© 2006 Institute of Australian Geographers

hotly contested. One set of challenges centres onthe processes and procedures that constitute theact of research. This has been particularly evidentin discussions within feminist geography onreflexivity and ‘situated knowledges’ (Haraway,1988; McDowell, 1992; England, 1994; Nast,1994; Kearns, 1997; Sutherland and Tandy, 1999;Twyman

et al

., 1999); in literature on the rela-tionship between geography and ethics (Mitchelland Draper, 1982; Curry, 1991; Lake, 1993;Smith, 1997; Hay, 1998; Proctor, 1998); withinquantitative/qualitative debates (Brannen, 1992;Hammersley, 1992; Winchester, 1996; 2000),and in cross-cultural or bi-cultural research con-texts (Howitt

et al

., 1990; Teariki, 1992;McLean

et al

., 1997; Tuhiwai-Smith, 1999).This paper develops the latter of these refor-

mulations (of the discipline), placing it into abroader ‘decolonising’ framework with particularreference to geography in Australia and its rela-tionship with Indigenous Australians (see Jacobs,1996; Howitt and Jackson, 1998). It is suggested,in line with Howitt and Jackson’s (1998) prog-nosis of the discipline, that significant contribu-tions have been made in geography in terms oftranscending colonial legacies, though remnantsof the discipline’s heritage continue to pervadethe present. Geography’s ‘colonial baggage’,suggest Howitt and Jackson (1998), is reflectedin recent portrayals of Indigenous peoples thatcontinue to render them invisible or irrelevant inAustralia’s landscapes. In this paper, the empha-sis is on the contemporary research implicationsof geography’s intellectual heritage which giveprimacy to the natural sciences and quantifica-tion as explanatory tools. The contention is thatcertain institutional settings and research prac-tices constrain qualitative research undertakenby human geographers and that this limitation,in some University settings, impacts on the dis-cipline’s potential to embrace Indigenous research.A second position suggests that geographers

have

made intellectual, practical and politicalcontributions to Indigenous Australians’ oppor-tunities to exercise their rights (Howitt andJackson, 1998) and that this paper, aligned withthese contributions, offers methodological possi-bilities centred around reciprocity and commu-nity agenda-setting. Part of the discipline’sreformulation, then, involves breaking down theobjective aura of research by nurturing a moreinteractive and collaborative view of researchparticipants, particularly in cross-cultural contexts.

This paper has three aims. The first is to learnfrom and articulate the possibilities emerging

from the particular experiences of a cross-culturalHonours thesis. Second, the paper argues thatthe institutional legitimation of qualitative meth-ods in research is linked to (further) decolonisingof the discipline; and third, that inter-subjectivitiesdeveloped through community-driven agendasyield more responsible cross-cultural pedagogy.The paper is divided into two sections. SectionOne describes the processes of negotiation, real-isation and transformation involved when thenon-Indigenous author of the cross-culturalHonours thesis in question (Paul Hodge), aidedby an Indigenous adviser and ‘on-looker’ (JohnLester), detailed the background and context ofthe initial research project. Notably, Section Oneis developed through a parallel journey wherethe authors are distinguished by initials – JohnLester (JL) and Paul Hodge (PH).

Section Two reflects on and develops severalinstitutional and pedagogic implications thatemerged from the cross-cultural Honours thesis.The first of these is the limiting aspects of theresearch ethics practices at the University ofNewcastle, and here we consider the possibilitiesof more appropriate procedures and practicesdrawing on examples from other Australian uni-versities. The second implication emerging fromthe cross-cultural Honours thesis involves linkingcommunity-driven agendas with Indigenous units(within Universities) to produce more responsible(and responsive) geography courses and researchpractice in cross-cultural settings. Here Spivak’s(1996) notion of ‘responsibility structure’ is per-tinent as an exemplar for this two-way flow oflearning (see also McLean

et al

., 1997, 12, foran example in the Aotearoa/New Zealand con-text). A third implication developed from thecross-cultural Honours thesis, largely underpin-ning the latter, is the conceptual possibilities ormethods of explanation that can emerge from‘collaborative negotiation’ between academiaand Indigenous communities in Australia.

‘Negotiation’ in the following parallel journeyrefers to the consultation process undertakenprior to and during the initial research project.‘Realisation’ relates to concerns that emergedduring the fieldwork, while ‘Transformation’describes the subsequent re-focussing of theresearch due to fieldwork difficulties. The tran-sition between the latter two stages, from reali-sation to transformation, consists of the critiqueof the ‘initial research project’ (the original aimsand methods of the Honours thesis) contained inthe ‘cross-cultural Honours thesis’ (eventualthesis submitted (Hodge, 1999)).

P. Hodge and J. Lester:

Indigenous Research

43


Section One: Negotiation, realisation, transformation

NegotiationPH

The initial research project stemmed from aconcern for the ongoing inequitable educationaloutcomes of Indigenous Australians

2

. Specifically,the aim was to reveal the attitudes of Indigenousstudents and parents (or relatives) on representa-tions of Indigenous issues in the Geographysyllabus at secondary schools using qualitativemethods (focus groups).

Prior to undertaking the initial researchproject I approached John Lester, the Professorof the Umulliko Indigenous Higher EducationResearch Centre at the University of Newcastle todiscuss ideas on a possible topic. At this meeting(where I was received cautiously) he suggestedthat I seek the guidance of a Koori co-researcherto act as a ‘cultural facilitator’ and potentially toassist my acceptance into local Indigenous com-munities. The guidance of a Koori co-researcherthroughout the initial research project was aimedat ensuring adherence to cultural protocols

3

.Assisted by a Koori co-researcher and Indig-

enous individuals within the Umulliko Indige-nous Higher Education Research Centre and theWollotuka Centre for Aboriginal Studies (also atthe University of Newcastle), a draft of ques-tions for the focus groups was developed. Atthe suggestion of JL the regional representativeof the Hunter Region Aboriginal Education Con-sultative Group

4

(HRAECG) was approached andrequested to present the initial research projectand focus questions to a regional meeting. Per-mission was granted and my session at the meet-ing confirmed. Following rigorous scrutiny andrevision the initial research project and focusquestions were received with broad approval.

JL

Confronted with the youthful enthusiasmand zest of a ‘do-gooder’ non-Indigenous com-mencing researcher, my task, as an Indigenousresearcher and cultural mentor, was challengingfrom the start. As head of one of only six veryrecent innovative Indigenous Research Centresin Australia established by the then Departmentof Education, Training and Youth Affairs, myprimary aim and mission was to empower Indig-enous communities through Indigenous research(whatever this was to be defined as!). The focusof Umulliko is to support and develop Indigenousresearchers and to explore with communities theadvantages of sound, culturally-relevant research.The Centre’s priority at this time was not to

support even more colonising research by non-Indigenous researchers. Fitting the developmentof a young non-Indigenous researcher into avery competitive priority list of action for Umul-liko appeared challenging, and this forced me asChair of Aboriginal Studies to explore the roleof non-Indigenous research in the context of thenew, emerging, Indigenous research ownershipfield. This was a timely pursuit since an eminentIndigenous peer of Aotearoa/New Zealand,Linda Tuhawai Smith, had about this timereleased her major work on ‘DecolonisingMethodologies’ (1999), which was extremelyscathing of non-Indigenous research and itseffects on Indigenous cultures.

The starting point was and always will beto seek Indigenous community support for thework and the best opportunity for this was tonegotiate a time to meet with the HRAECG. Atabout this time I also suggested that an Indige-nous co-researcher be brought on board to assistin the important community negotiations. Thecommencing researcher eagerly and, I believe,genuinely took on all advice rendered to himfrom Indigenous academics at the University. Itwas arranged that I be present at all IndigenousHRAECG meetings to assist at what can be avery challenging forum on most issues, andparticularly challenging for a non-Indigenousresearcher. Members of the group rigorouslychallenged the researcher’s right to research thistopic as a non-Indigenous person in the Indige-nous domain. As mentor and keen observer ofthe Indigenous process, I stood back to see howthe young researcher weathered the anticipatedbarrage of questions and testing of his

bonafides

. On several occasions after this initial test-ing period I provided advice and reassurance tothe group about the nature and quality of theresearch and my confidence in the youngresearcher, which grew throughout the processand in some regard became a testing ground forthe researcher to demonstrate his commitmentand understanding of the Indigenous environ-ment. Almost immediately after the researcher’smettle was tested by the HRAECG the moodswung to one of genuine support for the projectand the researcher.

RealisationPH

Prior to undertaking the research I met withan Indigenous academic who had had extensivefieldwork experience with Indigenous communi-ties throughout Australia. While she highlightedthe importance of honesty and feedback when

44


•

March 2006

•

44(1):41–51


dealing with Indigenous communities, she iden-tified a tendency for ‘things that come up’ tooften disrupt the research process. For instance,she noted that I may go to the extent of ringingthe participants weeks and days before theintended date of a meeting confirming timesetc., to find that someone in the extended familymay be sick or an event has been planned at thelast minute.

During the intervals (of the HRAECG meet-ing) I was introduced to various people repre-senting schools throughout the Hunter Region.While discussing the encouraging response tothe research with several people, I was approachedby a HRAECG committee member who told mequite candidly that, ‘[I]f there were more peoplein this room who were against you [as a non-Koori person] doing research on us [Koori peo-ple] then I would definitely be against it’.

One HRAECG representative expressed herinterest in the project at the meeting and agreedto participate in the research. I sent the focusgroup material and cover letter for her perusaland to hand out to students and parents. I gaveher several weeks to distribute the material andrang her after that time. She said that variousfamily difficulties had cropped up and to giveher a few weeks to sort things out. I rang hertwo weeks later and she simply said ‘[t]hingsare going OK’. I left my contact number andaddress and suggested she ring me as soon asshe was able to gather students together, but didnot receive a reply.

JL

As is the case with many Indigenous stu-dents who are wrongly pronounced as ‘failures’in the education system in Australia, thisresearch was quickly drawing similar ‘failed’status. However, it is not the student who is fail-ing but the education system that is failing tomeet the demands of the Indigenous students’and, in particular, the home communities’cultural demands. While the researcher in hisreflections may initially have thought perhapsthat the community had let him down, the realitywas that the communities, in the most appropri-ate (and for them perhaps the most polite)manner, said ‘no’ to the research: not that thecommunity did not wish to assist, but that theall-important completion of the research andthe ultimate graduation of the researcher was, inreality, not a priority for the communities atthis time.

The most fundamental consideration here isthe question; whose research? The nature of the

initial research project was designed to meetthe perceived need of the researcher; it wasresearcher-centric in its conceptualisation,development, structure and boundaries, andwas thus subsequently doomed to failure in itsimplementation in this form. Indigenous Aus-tralians are no longer interested in meetingresearch demands which are externally drivenand have little ultimate benefit to meeting andimproving their community demands. Regardlessof the level of support from within Indigenousprofessional and community organisations forthe research, his research topic had seeminglyfailed the most important test – local communityacceptance.

TransformationPH

Following the standard academic proce-dures of collaboration and consent (with intendedresearch participants), methodological difficul-ties emerged. Necessary communication forconducting the research became problematic,irregular, and finally absent. Significantly, theresearch participants involved had given consentto partake in the research. This contradictoryjuxtaposition, between consent and apparentindifference, was the impetus to consider theresearch context more closely. Following thisdisappointing response, and with a possibilitythat the entire thesis was at risk, particularlygiven the time constraints of an Honours program,I decided that an explanation of these fieldworkdifficulties could constitute a legitimate (re)-focus. Subsequently, an analysis of the methodsand methodology of the initial research projectbecame the focus for the cross-cultural researchthesis. The (re)-focus involved two emphases.

First, The ‘Application for Ethics Clearance’form for all university research involving humansubjects at the University of Newcastle reflectsa particular ‘quantitative’ focal point characteristicof its neo-positivist legacy and as such is limit-ing in its applicability for qualitative research

5

.Second, the participants’ experiences were

invariably to be conceptualised within Europeantheoretical constructs. The possibility of anIndigenous conceptual method of explanation –an Indigenous ‘way of seeing’ – was completelyexcluded as a legitimate alternative. On thisissue, Huggins (1998) questions the ways inwhich external (European) versions of ‘us’ passfor our (Indigenous) ‘reality’. She argues thatlimits need to be placed on the ways in whichour worlds are re-written or positioned withinconceptual frameworks which are not our own.


Indigenous Research

45


JL

The reflection of the researcher at this timeis in reality the important research journey andposes the perplexing question of whose researchand for whose ends? The young researcher’sproject underwent an amazing tranformation and,rather than contemplate its failure, he began toanalyse the research system’s failure to meet theneeds of the community. The young non-Indigenousresearcher in this instance actually gained mostout of the exchange when the community forcedhim to pause and carefully take stock of his work.This period was particularly sobering for theresearcher as such, and created a timeframe thatdid not fit within the academic constraints of com-pletion of an Honours’ program. Forced reflec-tion provided the catalyst for the more importantconceptual development of the researcher’sunderstanding of cross-cultural research.

Sharing the journey with Indigenous peoplesis the most important part of such a researchor community development process. However,non-Indigenous researchers and, for that matter,emerging Indigenous researchers must be pre-pared to wait to be invited into the domain. Nolonger can researchers sit in ivory towers of sup-posed knowledge and dream up research topics,pedagogical and epistemological evolutions ofIndigenous processes and outcomes. LocalIndigenous communities have perhaps the mostpowerful of weapons to counter such attempts;the power to say ‘no’ to research. In this instance,the research did not proceed because the localcommunity ultimately said no! not through sucha statement, but through a polite process of see-ing the research as unimportant to their dailylives, and hence according it a low priority.Institutional ethics committees and even com-munity representative bodies like the HRAECGdo not hold the ultimate sanction over appropri-ate research in Indigenous communities.

Section 2: Research ethics procedures and cross-cultural pedagogy

The spaces within the [dominant] researchdomain through which Indigenous researchcan operate are small spaces on a shiftingground.

Negotiating and transforming insti-tutional practices and research frameworks isas significant as the carrying out of actualresearch programmes

(Tuhiwai Smith, 1999,140, emphasis added).

This section reflects on and develops severalinstitutional and pedagogic implications thatemerge from the cross-cultural Honours thesis.

One of the critiques within the Honours thesiswas of the ‘quantitative’ focal point of theresearch ethics application where it was sug-gested that this primacy indicated remnantsof neopositivism. The contention was that thispresented a limitation to the cross-culturalresearch context of the Honours thesis. The firstpart of this section develops this point where itis argued that research procedures should reflectacceptable and legitimate research practice ingiven institutional settings. In this case, someimplications of the primacy of quantitativemethods in ethics applications are consideredinsofar as they relate to the

transformation

described within the cross-cultural Honours the-sis (Section 1). Examples from other AustralianUniversities’ ethics procedures are used to high-light both the constraints on qualitative researchundertaken in human geography at the Univer-sity of Newcastle and the possibilities that canfollow from more appropriate procedures andpractices vis-à-vis cross-cultural research ingeography.

The final part of Section 2 comprises two fur-ther implications stemming from the particularexperience of the cross-cultural Honours thesis.The first of these is the idea of linking withcommunity-driven agendas to produce moreresponsible (and responsive) Geography coursesand research practice. Here, Indigenous Units orDepartments at Universities could act as facilita-tors in an ongoing process whereby communitiesdetermine research priorities for undergraduatecoursework or individual research projects. Inthis process, communities would be activelyinvolved in the initial research agendas and out-comes, unlike the situation applying in moreconventional research processes such as thosewhich underpinned the initial research project(namely, identifying ‘problems’ to be ‘solved’through investigation). The final implicationemerging from the cross-cultural Honours thesisto be discussed in this paper involves concernover the inevitability that the participants’ expe-riences were to be conceptualised within Euro-pean theoretical constructs. At issue was theexclusion of an Indigenous conceptual methodof explanation – an Indigenous ‘way of seeing’.Guiding the approach to appropriate and inclu-sive research outcomes advocated in this paperis the position that bounded notions of self/other, insider/outsider, are limiting in that thesebinaries represent ‘others’ as ‘all-knowing sub-jects of otherness’ (Katz, 1992). This positionultimately renders collaborative work incongruent

46


•

March 2006

•

44(1):41–51


(this joint paper is itself a response to such aposition). Instead, the view is taken that none ofus can be all-knowing subjectivities and that‘collaborative negotiation’ indicative of an inter-subjective approach provides the basis, in thiscase, for sustained decolonising of institutionalpractices and research frameworks in geography.

Ethics procedures and Australian Geography programs: limitations and possibilities

Geography in Australian Universities finds itselfsituated in a variety of institutional locationsreflecting, among other things, its emerging cross-disciplinary links (Holmes, 2002). For thosehuman geography groups located among thenatural sciences this has led to a constrainingresearch environment. This was certainly the casein respect to the ethics procedures preceding the‘acceptance’ of the cross-cultural Honours the-sis in question. Figure 1 shows the institutionalsetting of human geography at the University ofNewcastle.

Significantly, human geography is one of thefew subdisciplines in the Faculty where qualita-tive research methods are commonly used byresearchers. Natural and behavioural scienceslargely engender a particular positivist method-ology in research procedures. For human geog-raphers undertaking qualitative research, this hasled to a necessary justification of these methodswithin positivist frameworks when obtainingethics clearance

6

(see also Winchester, 1996;Sutherland and Tandy, 1999). Thus, in answer toquestion 14 from the Ethics Application as part

of the ethics procedure for the initial researchproject (Table 1), Hodge (1999) wrote:

[t]his project is very much of a qualitativenature. The methods chosen for obtainingdata [focus groups] are extremely useful dueto their interactive social context and havebecome increasingly recognised as potentiallyempowering for participants.

The epistemological base of these questionsrequires specific responses. Indeed, when respond-ing to question 14 (Table 1) a position had to beargued in the above quotation as to why ‘statis-tical analysis’ was not ideal, and a propositionoffered to state the potential benefits that open-ended dialogue can produce for participantsagainst the detached and neutral positionimplied by the question.

There are several fundamental differencesbetween quantitative and qualitative methods in

Figure 1 Structure of Faculty: University of Newcastle, Faculty of Science and Information Technology. Source: Faculty ofScience and Information Technology Postgraduate (Research) Information Booklet (2003).

Table 1 Selection of questions: The University of Newcastle,Faculty of Science and Mathematics, Application for EthicsClearance for research with human subjects (Source: TheUniversity of Newcastle, 1998).

9. Explain (briefly and simply) the main scientificobjectives or hypotheses of your study?

13. Are you taking any physical or physiologicalmeasurements of subjects?

14. Briefly describe the types of statistical analyses youintend to use? Why is your sample size appropriate, andhow will these analyses meet your scientific objectives?


Indigenous Research

47


terms of their epistemological base. To statethis, however, is not to favour the position ofone set of methods over another or to diminishthe potential of a mixed method approach. Qual-itative methods provide unique knowledge aboutthe complexities of the human condition andthis uniqueness deserves a place of equal legiti-macy in institutional settings. In terms of ethicsapplications, a more appropriate line of ques-tioning is a necessary precursor to valuing thisperspective. For instance, an application couldinvolve a parallel stream or component of ques-tions appropriate to qualitative aspects of theresearch with supporting details and evidence ofacademic rigour. Lincoln and Guba (1985) andBaxter and Eyles (1997) have detailed defini-tions, assumptions and strategies for evaluatingqualitative research. Significantly, these formsof criteria acknowledge the multiple realities ofresearch participants and the biases and motiva-tions of the inquirer. They also require prolongedengagement with participants and peer examina-tion of the inquirer’s interpretations (Lincolnand Guba, 1985, see below).

Ethics procedures at La Trobe University(Victoria), Macquarie University (New SouthWales) and Flinders University (South Australia)provide useful models for other universitiesin relation to the legitimation of qualitativemethods. In the case of these universities, EthicsApplications (involving ‘human subjects’) givequalitative research methods equal status (withquantitative methods) in the application’s con-tent and design. This recognition evidently cor-responds with the institutional location andcontext within which the research is positioned,in this case, such as the location of Geographywithin a Faculty of Social Sciences. In the caseof Flinders University in South Australia, the‘Social’ in the application title (‘Application forApproval of Social or Behavioural ResearchInvolving Human Subjects’) has conceptualimplications for the content (questions) in theapplication. Two examples are illustrated below(Table 2).

In question C3 (Table 2) neither quantitativenor qualitative methods are given priority, unlikethe assumptions that underpin, for instance,question 14 of the University of Newcastleapplication (Table 1). The second question (D2,Table 2) reflects an understanding of groupaffinities and, in the case of research with Indig-enous communities, establishes a link to furtherconsultation with a mandatory submission tothe Indigenous Unit. This requirement ensures

deliberations are made by an appropriate andrepresentative body. A recent and timely devel-opment at the University of Newcastle

vis-à-vis

ethics procedures has been the establishment ofthe ‘Peer Review of Methodology for HumanEthics Applications’. This new procedure isincorporated into the undergraduate, courseworkand Honours application program within theFaculty of Science and Information Technology.Two promising developments identifiable in thissubmission process are, first, the attention tomethodology and its justification; and second,the potential for feedback from outside theFaculty. In the case of cross-cultural researchwith Indigenous communities at the Universityof Newcastle this review process could beinvolved as a component within the submissionprocess and involving the Umulliko IndigenousHigher Education Research Centre and the Wol-lotuka Centre for Aboriginal Studies (seebelow).

Possibilities of cross-cultural pedagogy in geography

Achieving spaces of dialogue between theidentities of colonialism is a way of compre-hending those other worlds so the boundarybetween the Other and the Self disappearsin the research process (McLean

et al

.,1997, 12).

This concluding section comprises two furtherimplications emerging from the particular expe-rience of the cross-cultural Honours thesis: the

Table 2 Flinders University, Adelaide: Social and BehaviouralResearch Ethics Committee; Application for Approval ofSocial or Behavioural Research Involving Human Subjects(Source: Flinders University, no date indicated).

C3. Outline of research methodology. [Are] the datato be obtained primarily quantitative or qualitative? Isinformation to be sought by questionnaire, interview ora combination of both? Will participants be video- ortape-recorded?

D2. Indicate whether the participant group comprisesa specific cultural /religious background, for exampleAboriginal or Torres Strait Islander, Indonesian, Catholic,Muslim etc … , or, if any such categories are likely toform a significant proportion of the population to besampled. If the answer is yes and the group/sub-groupis of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander background,a copy of this application must be submitted to theDirector of Yunggorendi for advice and comment.

48


•

March 2006

•

44(1):41–51


potential for community-driven research agen-das and the conceptual and explanatory possibil-ities that can develop from viewing knowledgeconstruction as a two-way flow of learning (Spivak,1996).

A key concern within the cross-cultural Hon-ours thesis was the researcher-centred aims ofthe initial research project and the ‘good inten-tions’ that underpinned them. While a concernfor the ongoing, inequitable educational out-comes of Indigenous Australians is merited, theexternally-driven nature of the research aimswas questionable and the possible gains for theIndigenous communities involved unclear. Thesuggestions outlined below form the basis foran approach that could inform the teaching of across-cultural methods course or core componentof a qualitative methods course at undergraduatelevel. There may also be relevant implicationsfor Honours or postgraduate research undertaken

with Indigenous communities. Such an approachcould help create, and learn from, ‘[a]chievingspaces of dialogue …’ (McLean

et al

., 1997, 12)and facilitate decolonising processes. Figure 2outlines a flexible teaching and research guidewhere communities define research priorities.

The key aspect of the flexible guide is that theIndigenous community/ies define a particular setof research topics, ranging in focus and subjectwith a ‘priority list’ of issues or concerns. Therole of the Indigenous Unit or Department wouldbe to act as a ‘facilitator’ whereby a range oftopics is further discussed with the communityand appropriate topics ‘attached’ to particularresearch proposals or courses. The degree ofappropriateness would depend on the relevantstudent level and associated timeframe open tothe course or research undertaking.

The negotiated timeframe and activities wouldinvolve the total time given to students’ immer-

Figure 2 Flexible guide to teaching and research in cross-cultural contexts. Developed from Lester (1997).


Indigenous Research

49


sion into the community/ies where interactiveworkshops, key informant presentations and returnworkshops are conducted. Negotiation overtimeframes appropriate to a particular course orresearch undertaking could be one of the initial‘priority’ issues discussed. An additional rolefor the Indigenous Unit or Department could beto coordinate continuity of research over timeamong multiple students as a way of addressingthe limited time windows of student participationin programs and their possible lack of longer-termcommitment to projects. A clear understandingof potential differences in concepts of time wouldalso be an important consideration. This is par-ticularly apparent because the time constraintsof academia are limiting in that institutionalisededucation invariably requires time-bound ‘out-comes’, whereas issues or concerns pertinentto communities (Indigenous or non-Indigenous)rarely conform to such time specificities.

Several notable points can be made on theflexible teaching and research guide in relationto the research experience described in Section1. First, the community-defined topic/s couldensure relevance of the research or coursecontent. Within this Indigenous-led context the‘well-intentioned’ are provided with a specifictopic to undertake on the community’s termsand subject to the community’s current priorities.Second, workshops, particularly return workshops,provide opportunities to share research out-comes and course findings with the community/ies. The workshops could also provide an oppor-tunity to negotiate a conceptual framework –Indigenous or non-Indigenous – which is condu-cive to the priorities sanctioned by the commu-nity and enables the potential for productive useof the ‘… fruits of research’ (Kearns, 1997, 6)

7

.The issue of researcher exploitation of partici-pants or co-researchers is minimised in thatcommunities are consistently kept up to date on‘their’ research priority/ies and, ideally, commu-nity members participate in the analysis andformulation of findings, rather than merelycommenting on them. The community-drivenemphasis of the research proposal or course alsolessens the chance of strong opposition to non-Indigenous involvement in Indigenous researchprocesses. In the case of insurmountable differ-ences of opinion, the communities involved willalways hold the power to veto research proposalsor course components. The ‘community’

8

referredto in the flexible guide could include a numberof communities in various locations. Some com-munities may have issues or concerns which are

appropriate to research only or conversely theycould relate more to a community matter appro-priate for inclusion in an undergraduate course.

Not surprisingly, given the complex nature ofsocial research, there are potential problems fac-ing a guide such as the one outlined here. Forinstance, there are no provisions for competingor conflicting community priorities. Second,who specifically is given the task of choosingresearch topics and then prioritising them? Here,the complex issue of ‘gate keeping’ becomesrelevant. These kinds of research problems arenot easily overcome. The challenge is to main-tain dialogue and negotiated inter-subjectivities,both from within the academic institutions(between human geographers and academic staffof the Umulliko Indigenous Higher EducationResearch Centre, for instance) and among thecommunities involved.

Conclusion

This paper detailed the unpredictability of cross-cultural research by describing some of theprocesses and procedures that constitute it. Themethodological difficulties exposed by the par-allel journey (Section 1) were emphasised tohighlight the complexities and reflexive possi-bilities of cross-cultural research but also inorder to consider the potential institutional andpedagogic implications that stem from the cross-cultural Honours thesis (Section 2). The papersuggested, firstly, that geography has some wayto go in ‘breaking the shackles’ of positivism,primarily in terms of institutional limitations,though there are precedents to be found in someAustralian universities. Second, the paper linkedthe institutional legitimation of qualitative meth-ods within geography to broader decolonisingprocesses. Finally, the paper outlined a flexibleguide for a cross-cultural pedagogy. Linkingcommunity-driven agendas to appropriate andresponsive research and university courses canensure more productive and less limiting rela-tionships between researchers and those thatmake research possible. Ultimately, by challengingthe conventional way that cross-cultural researchis conceived, and the way that institutional prac-tices and research frameworks are implemented,geographers can continue their prolonged andcomplex efforts at decolonisation of the fieldand their own practices.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThe authors would like to thank the research participantswho took part in the early Honours program, includingpeople within the Wollotuka Centre for Aboriginal Studies

50


•

March 2006

•

44(1):41–51


(Deirdre Heitmeyer and Joe Perry) and those holdingvarious positions within the New South Wales AboriginalEducation Consultative Group (Nigel Parbury and MichaelDonovan, in particular). The friendship and assistance ofDavid Williams and Bruce Gorring are also warmly appre-ciated. For helpful comments on earlier versions of thispaper we would like to thank Kate Hartig, Hilary Winches-ter, Steven Hodge and David ‘Bruce’ O’Brien.

NOTES1. ‘Indigenous research’ is defined here in its broadest

sense as research undertaken

with

communities (andprioritising their concerns) as opposed to conventionalresearch practice

on

Indigenous peoples that oftenprojects a ‘detached’ (and objective) researcher position.

2. In this paper descendants of the original inhabitantsof Australia are referred to in accordance with theirspecific geographical location. ‘Koori’ is used to distin-guish peoples from the south-eastern parts of Australia.Indigenous Australians, Indigenous peoples, Aboriginalpeoples or Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders arealso used in accordance with reference documents.

3. The Koori co-researcher and cultural facilitator was anundergraduate student undertaking a degree in second-ary teaching at the time at the University of Newcastle.

4. The Hunter Region is located approximately 150kilometres north of Sydney. The primary urban centrefor the region is Newcastle.

5. Such positivist traditions (empirical observations)affront appropriate cross-cultural methodologies. Hug-gins (1998), for example, states that ‘detached observerstatus is not advisable’ (1998, 86–87) when non-Aboriginal people write about Aboriginal people.

6. At the University of Newcastle, undergraduate course-work and Honours students are subject to Faculty Ethicsprocedures. For postgraduate student and staff researchthe University Ethics procedures are used. In this case,the Honours thesis was subject to the Faculty Ethicsprocedures and, when referring to ‘human geographyresearch’, we refer specifically to this particular ethicsprocess.

7. Workshops do not always flow unproblematically inthe way described here (as the experience of trying toorganise the focus groups in the initial research projectillustrates). Individual, group and/or household dynam-ics can affect attendance, participation and openness ofcommunication.

8. ‘Community’ is a complex and often contested termwhich tends to mask the differences that can existwithin it (see Ruming

et al

., 2004 on various notions ofcommunity).

REFERENCESBaxter, J. and Eyles, J., 1997: Evaluating qualitative research

in social geography: establishing rigour in interviewanalysis.

Transactions, Institute of British Geographers

22, 505–525.Brannen, J., 1992: Combining qualitative and quantitative

approaches: an overview. In Brannen, J. (ed.)

MixedMethods: Qualitative and Quantitative Research

. AshgatePublishing, Avebury, UK, 4–37.

Curry, M.R., 1991: On the possibility of ethics in geogra-phy: writing, citing and the construction of intellectualproperty.

Progress in Human Geography

15, 125–147.England, K.V.L., 1994: Getting personal: reflexivity, posi-

tionality, and feminist research.

Professional Geographer

46, 80–89.

Flinders University, no date:

Social and Behavioural EthicsCommittee: Application for Approval of Social or Behav-ioural Research Involving Human Subjects

. FlindersUniversity, Adelaide.

Hammersley, M., 1992: Deconstructing the qualitative-quantitative divide: an overview. In Brannen, J. (ed.)

Mixed Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Research

.Ashgate Publishing, Avebury, UK, 39–56.

Haraway, D.J., 1988: Situated knowledges: the science ques-tion in feminism and the privileges of partial perspective.

Feminist Studies

14, 575–599.Harrison, R.T. and Livingstone, D.N., 1980: Philosophy and

problems in human geography: a presuppositional approach.

Area

12, 25–31.Hay, I., 1998: Making moral imaginations: research ethics,

pedagogy and professional human geography.

Ethics,Place and Environment

1, 55–76.Hodge, P., 1999: Silences in the Social Sciences – A Cri-

tique of Cross-cultural Methodologies. Unpublished B.A.(Honours) thesis, School of Geosciences, The Universityof Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia.

Holmes, J.H., 2002: Geography’s emerging cross-disciplinarylinks: process, causes, outcomes and challenges.

AustralianGeographical Studies

40, 2–20.Howitt, R. and Jackson, S., 1998: Some things do change:

indigenous rights, geographers and geography in Australia.

Australian Geographer

29, 155–173.Howitt, R., Crough, G. and Pritchard, B., 1990: Participa-

tion, power and social research in Central Australia.

Australian Aboriginal Studies

1, 2–10.Huggins, J., 1998:

Sister Girl

. University of QueenslandPress, St Lucia, Australia.

Jacobs, J.M., 1996:

Edge of Empire: Postcolonialism andthe City

. Routledge, London.Katz, C., 1992: All the world is staged: intellectuals and

projects of ethnography.

Environment and Planning D:Society and Space

10, 495–510.Kearns, R.A., 1997: Constructing (bi)cultural geographies:

research on and with people of the Hokianga District.

New Zealand Geographer

53, 3–8.Lake, R.W., 1993: Planning and applied geography: positivism,

ethics and geographical information systems.

Progress inHuman Geography

17, 404–413.Lester, J., 1997: Researching With Respect: Narratives of

Experience When Researching Within Indigenous Contexts.Researcher Experiences of John Lester. UnpublishedPaper, University of New England, Armidale.

Lincoln, Y. and Guba, E., 1985:

Naturalistic Inquiry

. Sage,Beverly Hills, United States of America.

McLean, R., Berg, L.D. and Roche, M.M., 1997: Responsi-ble geographies: co-creating knowledge in Aotearoa/NewZealand.


53, 9–15.McDowell, L., 1992: Doing gender: feminism, feminists and

research methods in human geography.

Transactions,Institute of British Geographers

17, 399–416.Mitchell, B. and Draper, D., 1982:

Relevance and Ethics inGeography

. Longman, London.Nast, H.J., 1994: Opening remarks on ‘Women in the Field’.

Professional Geographer

46, 54–66.Procter, J.D., 1998: Ethics in geography: giving moral form

to the geographical imagination.

Area

30, 8–18.Ruming, K.J., Mee, K.J. and McGuirk, P.M., 2004: Questing

the rhetoric of social mix: courteous community orhidden hostility?

Australian Geographical Studies

42,234–248.

Smith, D.M., 1997: Geography and ethics: a moral turn?

Progress in Human Geography

21, 583–590.


Indigenous Research

51


Spivak, G.C., 1996: Subaltern talk. In Landry, D. andMacLean, G. (eds)

The Spivak Reader

. Routledge, London,287–308.

Sutherland, E.A. and Tandy, C.A., 1999: Challenges ofCross-Cultural Research: Methods and Processes. Paperpresented to the Inter-cultural Studies Conference,Newcastle, Australia.

Teariki, C., 1992: Ethical issues in research from a Maoriperspective.


48, 84–86.Tuhiwai-Smith, L., 1999:

Decolonising MethodologiesResearch and Indigenous Peoples

. University of OtagoPress, Dunedin, New Zealand.

Twyman, C., Morrison, J. and Sporton, D., 1999: The finalfifth: autobiography, reflexivity and interpretation incross-cultural research.

Area

31, 313–325.

University of Newcastle, 1998:

Faculty of Science andMathematics: Application for Ethics Clearance for Researchwith Human Subjects

. University of Newcastle, Newcastle,Australia.

University of Newcastle, 2003:

Faculty of Science andInformation Technology: Postgraduate (Research)Information Booklet

. University of Newcastle, Newcastle,Australia.

Winchester, H.P.M., 1996: Ethical issues in interviewing asa research method in human geography.

AustralianGeographer

26, 117–131.Winchester, H.P.M., 2000: Qualitative research and its place

in human geography. In Hay, I. (ed.)

Qualitative ResearchMethods in Human Geography

. Oxford University Press,Melbourne, 1–22.

indigenous research: whose priority? journeys and possibilities of cross-cultural research in...

Documents