Abstract
In this article, we open up Yarning as a fundamentally relational methodology. We discuss key relationships involved in Indigenous research, including with participants, Country, Ancestors, data, history, and Knowledge. We argue that the principles and protocols associated with the deepest layers of yarning in an Indigenous Australian context create a protected space which supports the researcher to develop and maintain accountability in each of these research relationships. Protection and relational accountability in turn contribute to research which is trustworthy and has integrity. Woven throughout the article are excerpts of a yarn in which the first author reflects on his personal experience of this research methodology. We hope this device serves to demonstrate the way yarning as a relational process of communication helps to bring out deeper reflection and analysis and invoke accountability in all of our research relationships.
Introduction
In this article, we open up Yarning as a research methodology that is based on relationships, and which supports us as researchers to be accountable in our research relationships. Indigenous scholars have demonstrated how relational worldviews inform respectful research with Indigenous communities by providing an ontology that recognises and frames the ways we exist as and through our relationships—with our families and communities, with our research topic, with research participants and communities, with the Knowledges participating in our research, and with the Lands with whom we live and work (Adams et al., 2015; Bawaka et al., 2015; Kovach, 2009; Martin, 2008; Wilson, 2008; Wilson et al., 2019). Relational worldviews also provide a relational epistemology—to guide us on how we learn and develop our research process through relationships (Dean, 2010; Wilson, 2008).
We outline the ways Yarning as a research methodology can support researchers to attend to each of these relationships, and how the principles and protocols that govern the yarning process support relational accountability. We argue that this relational, principle, and protocol-based approach yields research that is trustworthy and has integrity from the perspective of all those involved: the researcher, the participants, the participating Indigenous communities, and Knowledge itself (Adams et al., 2015; Denzin et al., 2008; Martin, 2008; Wilson, 2008; Wilson & Hughes, 2019).
The yarning methodology described in this article was developed through research conducted with Elders across Australia on the subject of Aboriginal men’s dignity (Barlo, 2016). At the beginning of the study, the first author, Stuart Barlo, conducted a pilot project with participants using yarning as a method of data collection. During the research pilot, we recognised that there are significant principles and protocols associated with the type of yarning utilised in an Australian Indigenous process of knowledge transfer.
These principles and protocols are most visible when an Elder or knowledge custodian is transferring custodianship to someone else. As part of the research study, Stuart also spoke with Elders of the James Bay Cree and the Blackfoot of the Blood Reserves in Canada and found that similar principles and protocols associated with yarning were demonstrated in their understandings of talking circles. Throughout this article, we will discuss how these principles and protocols lay the foundation for yarning as an Indigenous research methodology that provides a culturally safe process, supports the researcher to practice relational accountability, and therefore produces research with integrity.
During the process of writing this article, Stuart had a yarn with Margaret to reflect on why yarning methodology is important from the perspective of his own research experience. We have included excerpts of Stuart’s reflections throughout the article, to elaborate important aspects of the methodology. We also hope these excerpts serve to demonstrate the way yarning as a relational process of communication helps to bring out deeper reflection and analysis and invoke accountability in all of the research relationships we describe below.
Acknowledgement
We begin by acknowledging Bundjalung Country, with whom we live and work and write.
As described by Datiwuy Elder Laklak Burrarrwanga, in an Indigenous Australian context, the term “Country”
incorporates people, animals, plants, water and land. But Country is more than just people and things, it is also what connects them to each other and to multiple spiritual and symbolic realms. It relates to laws, custom, movement, song, knowledges, relationships, histories, presents, futures and spirits. Country can be talked to, it can be known, it can communicate, feel and take action. Country for us is alive with story, Law, power, and kinship relations that join not only people to each other but link people, ancestors, place, animals, rocks, plants, stories and songs within land and sea. So you see, knowledge about Country is important because it’s about how and where you fit in the world and how you connect to others and to place. (Burarrwanga et al., 2013, p. 128; as cited in Emmanouil, 2016)
We acknowledge the role Country plays in holding and sharing Knowledge and enabling and shaping our research practice and our lives. We thank the Traditional Owners of this Country, the Bundjalung People, for welcoming us into this land and looking after it since time immemorial. We appreciate and pay our respect to Elders who have nurtured and ensured the continuity of Law and who have shown resilience, adaptability, and tremendous care in protecting and sharing their Knowledges. We particularly acknowledge the generosity and care of the Elders who participated in the research project through which this methodology was developed, from Arrente, Bundjalung, Gumbaynggirr, and Yuin Country.
Who are we?
My name is Dr Stuart Barlo, I am an Aboriginal man from the Yuin nation, situated on the far South coast of New South Wales, Australia. I completed my PhD journey 2016. In the course of that journey, I developed an Indigenous research methodology using the Indigenous Australians’ understanding of the concept and practices of yarning, and its underlying principles and protocols. In doing so, my research then opened up a discussion on the theory surrounding the concept of the agency of Indigenous Knowledge.
The co-authors of the paper include Margaret Hughes, who is one of Stuart’s PhD students and Shawn Wilson, who helped mentor Stuart throughout his doctoral studies. Bill Boyd and Alex Pelizzon were Stuart’s supervisors in his PhD. Bill, Alex, Margaret and Shawn continue to work with Stuart in developing Yarning methodology. Margaret had a series of yarns with Stuart to specifically help the Indigenous Knowledge in this article to emerge.
Why yarning? The start of Stuart’s Yarn
When I started the project, I was looking primarily at using narrative. I always intended to work with stories, so narrative methodology was my original plan, using an unstructured interview process. I sat down with Uncle Larry
1
initially and talked to him about it because he was a participant. I said to him, “How do we want to do this?” and he just looked at me and said, “well the only way we can do this is through yarning. We’re going to have a yarn.” He said, “You’re running an Indigenous project, with Indigenous senior men—some of the most senior Aboriginal men in Australia. Why would you even consider doing it a different way?” So we sat down and we talked about it and he unpacked yarning as a method of communicating—not as a method of getting data—but he started to talk to me about yarning as a communication device, and what that means for me as a participant. And he said, “One of the things that you’ll have to learn is to be an initiate, not a researcher.” So that sent me on a journey to find out—ok what’s the difference between a researcher and someone who is potentially being initiated? As an Aboriginal person, an Aboriginal man, whose Country doesn’t currently initiate, that was an interesting question for me. But we sat down and we talked about the difference between just simply asking questions and getting an answer, versus allowing somebody to communicate deeply about a subject they’re passionate about and me handling that respectfully. So that’s what we talked about for the first little while.
What is yarning?
Yarning is a term commonly used by Indigenous Australians that simply means to communicate. In different cultures there are different rules, language, and protocols for conducting conversations and sharing information. Across Australia, Aboriginal people constantly refer to yarning in the telling and sharing of stories and information. In Western Australia, the Nyoongahi people use the term “yarning” when they want to talk with someone (Bessarab & Ng’andu, 2010). When an Aboriginal Elder says, “Let’s have a yarn,” what they are saying is, “Let’s sit down, have a talk and a listen.” This talk/conversation/yarn can entail the sharing and exchange of information between two or more people socially or in a formal setting.
While Australian Indigenous people use the term yarning, most oral cultures use similar foundational communication techniques. For example, the First Nations peoples in Canada describe using talking circles or talking sticks and stones (“Elder Barbra Big-Canoe McDonald,” 2014; Kovach, 2009, 2010). While these terms infer the use of verbal communication, these conversations can also include song, dance, and drawings, or indeed whatever the person considers necessary to convey the information (Kovach, 2009, p. 92; Lavallée, 2009, p. 22; Munn, 1962). It is unclear when Aboriginal Australians started using the term yarning. However, it has effectively spread throughout the continent and is now used in a variety of settings to convey communication, learning, and sharing information.
Within an Australian Indigenous context, yarning has many layers (Barlo, 2016; Barlo et al., 2020; Bessarab, 2012; Bessarab & Ng’andu, 2010; Dean, 2010). Prior to colonisation, each layer had its own word, giving an indication of the purpose of the yarn (Barlo, 2016; Barlo et al., 2020). For example, in the Bundjalung language there are six specific words, each indicating the type of yarn you are about to enter in to (Uncle Charles Moran, Personal communication 22 June 2014, [Bundjalung words for Yarning]):
Junaa is the most informal type of conversation and simply mean to talk or tell someone something and has very few protocols attached to it.
Gayirray is slightly more formal and means “speaking together”; some of the protocols for this type of yarning help govern respect and courtesy. Gayirray is still a familiar type of yarning because it is more informal.
Junyirri is used when a meeting is being conducted, and means “talking together”. This type of yarning has some strict protocols that help maintain order in meetings or debates.
Nyayinggi(rray) is used to refer to sitting together in circle or having a conversation as a group. Nyayinggi(rray) has a number of strict protocols that allow each person to participate at their level, which can also include children.
Yahn.gawaymaliyah is used when an Elder wishes to impart some of their knowledge, and this type of yarn has very strict protocols which give complete control of the conversation to the Elder who called the meeting. Yahn.gawaymaliyah means “Sit down, listen and talk”.
Gayi is used in conversation between people (usually Elders) who are at the same level or status. The word Gayi means “to speak with”.
At some point over the last two hundred years, all these references to modes of communication were distilled down in English to the one word “yarning”. Importantly, however, Yarning as a research methodology we discuss in this article is based on the strictest level principles and protocols most visible in the fifth level style of communication conducted by Elders when passing on Australian Indigenous Knowledge to the next generation. While a researcher might pass through most of the other layers in the process of developing rapport and throughout a project, in a research context the importance of these stricter principles remains consistent across the layers.
Yarning as Indigenous methodology
Over the last decade, a number of Indigenous Australian scholars have provided explanations of yarning as a research method, and why it is effective with Indigenous researchers, participants, and stakeholders, as well as in cross-cultural contexts (Bessarab, 2012; Bessarab & Ng’andu, 2010; Dean, 2010; Geia et al., 2013; Walker et al., 2014). For example, Terare and Rawsthorne (2019) discuss the importance of yarning as a method for engaging cultural stories in health and well-being contexts, while Walker et al. (2014) describe the use of yarning as a culturally empowering method in research with Aboriginal women (Terare & Rawsthorne, 2019; Walker et al., 2014). As a result, there is growing recognition that yarning is an effective research and communication method in a variety of contexts, and that Indigenous communities have utilised yarning as a workable method to share, explore and learn for many previous generations, and will continue to do so (Yunkaporta, 2019).
In our experience of adopting yarning in research context, we initially ran a pilot which was intended to explore yarning as a method for research conducted with Aboriginal Elders. In the course of this pilot project, participants were given a stimulus statement, for example, “Aboriginal men have lost their Dignity,” and were asked to comment. This method provided the opportunity for participants to share and discuss as much or as little information about the topic as they wanted. The pilot project also provided a basis for our further consideration of Yarning as a complete research methodology. As the yarning process unfolded through the project, we recognised that yarning was far more than just a method of collecting data, but performed as a methodology in its own right (Dean, 2010; Wilson, 2008). In particular, the principles and protocols associated with deeper levels of yarning have cultural foundations that reflect Indigenous ontology, epistemology, and axiology. As a formal process of sharing knowledges, yarning is reliant upon relationships and thus the integrity of the process requires responsibility and accountability among the researcher, participants, Country, culture, and Knowledges. As a methodology, Yarning supports the researcher to engage respectfully in all of these relationships. This process is valued by many Indigenous nations and is fundamental to the articulation of Indigenous methodologies (Barlo et al., 2020; Kovach, 2009; Martin, 2008; Wilson, 2008).
Relational ontology and epistemology
A deep ontological foundation supports Yarning as a methodology, and this foundation has been directly passed down from the Ancestors to the present. The first aspect of this foundation is relationships. Indeed, from an Indigenous perspective, using a holistic approach, research, inquiry, and scholarship is all about relationships. The only way that this process of sharing worked historically was through relationships. Therefore, when we start to use this process in a research context, and when we begin to think about how we work both with the research participants (including ourselves) and the data itself, the process comes back again to being in relationship. We have to explicitly build a relationship with the data, with the knowledge that is being shared. This means that we need to spend time with the data—such a relationship takes time. Importantly, if the relationships are to be truly acknowledged, it is antithetical to separate the data from the person whose data it is, or from the context in which the data lives and belongs, or from the researcher. This is a key distinction from some other research methodologies that rely on objectifying data, deconstructing the context, disengaging the researcher, the participant and the data, and reconstructing and reconstituting the disaggregated data. Instead, within a Yarning methodology, data are treated with dignity and reverence. As an Indigenous methodology, this requires the building of respectful relationships among the researcher, the participants, the context, the data, and knowledge, as well as the ongoing maintenance of these relationships. This is considered the only way to truly engage the knowledge from which all else flows.
Another key ontological foundation of the methodology is that it has been deemed trustworthy and appropriate over countless generations. The world’s Indigenous populations have practised imparting information through stories for tens of thousands of years (Bessarab, 2012; Bessarab & Ng’andu, 2010; “Elder Barbra Big-Canoe McDonald,” 2014; “Uncle Larry Kelly,” 2012; Yunkaporta, 2019). Whether within the Canadian Cree or Blackfoot nations’ talking circles or the Australian Aboriginal yarning circles, there are ancient protocols that dictate how one must behave. These protocols flow from the Ancestors and are passed down to the individuals through discussions that take place over a lifetime (“Elder Barbra Big-Canoe McDonald,” 2014; “Uncle Larry Kelly,” 2012). When practised through Yarning methodology in research, these protocols provide a foundation of safety for participants, the researcher, and the knowledge being shared, which resonates beyond the individual research project.
So it is not that somebody suddenly came up with an idea, “This is what we need to do!” Rather, yarning as a valid way of conveying information and sharing knowledge has been tried and practised, tried and practised, and developed for thousands of years. The principles and protocols around it, therefore, protect not only the person who is delivering the information, the information itself, and its context, but also the reader or the receiver of the information. This is a centrally important quality of yarning: yarning is a protected space. Its very principles and protocols protect the space.
Research relationships
One way of entering into an understanding of the relational aspect of yarning is to talk about the different aspects of research relationships that yarning enables the researcher to include in the process. Specifically, Yarning methodology builds respectful, reciprocal, accountable relationships, not only with research participants, but also with the Ancestors, with Country, with the data or knowledges, and with history.
It comes back down to what I said before about being a relational process. If you don’t want to be in a relationship, chose a different model, basically. Because everything from an Indigenous perspective, when you’re doing Indigenous research, it’s about relationships. Everything is about relationship. Relationship with the person you’re talking to, relationship with their relations. It’s a whole relational process. We need to be really ready to be impacted by that. You need to be vulnerable. I believe that this model, this methodology, works in any Indigenous context. Or in any context where you’re interested in someone’s story. Because to be truthful, if you only want the story, you’re not doing research. You know, you’ve got to be interested in the person telling the story. And the only way that happens is through relationship. It comes back down to that picture up on the wall (see Figure 1.) That’s a creation story from my Country, painted by Uncle Lloyd. He’s talking about relationships between Sea Country, Ground Country and Sky Country, and how creation happened when they all came together. That’s what that story is about. And that’s the same process that we have through yarning. It’s about relationship between all of the elements to make one story. One of the things that we see in Yarning as a methodology is it’s actually a relational methodology. And to build that trust and to demonstrate that the space is safe, there needs to be a developing relationship. So it’s really important that an element of trust between both parties is there. It’s not just that the participant needs to trust the researcher, the researcher also needs to trust the participant. There needs to be a trust in the process. So we’re not only building a relationship with each other as researcher/participant, we’re also building a relationship researcher with the data, or with the information that’s coming. And that leads us to another space: we also need to build a relationship with the space we’re in itself. So Country plays a part in developing that. And you know, it’s often been my experience that when I run a research yarn on Country, the information is very different to when I run a research yarn in an office somewhere, because Country is interacting as well. That’s an important aspect. So we’re building relationships in multiple ways. We build them with the data, we build them with participants, and we build them with Country. You could also say we build them with the Ancestors as well, because they’re a part of the yarn. So it’s really important that one of the key principles in Yarning is that we understand relationship. There’s relationship, respect, reciprocity, all of those things are a part of the principles and protocols. But they’re about relationship.
Warriors Past, by Uncle Lloyd Gawura Hornsby (2015).
Ancestors
As mentioned above, the ontological foundation of yarning comes directly from the Ancestors. To engage respectfully in the process as researchers, therefore, we have to recognise the central role of the Ancestors in creating and protecting the space where we carry out our research and enabling the whole process to unfold. We are in turn accountable to our Ancestors in the research relationship, which contributes to the integrity of the process and the trustworthiness of our research findings.
When you’re looking at it from a cultural perspective, the importance of yarning in that space is that it’s a way of unpacking history in a contemporary context. Because, when you think about the model and the ontology, yarning comes from our Ancestors. So all of that knowledge is there. And it’s often said by Indigenous scholars and Elders that when you come into a room, you’re never by yourself because all your Ancestors come with you. So you’re never really alone. And the same process is true with yarning. When we sit down in this space it’s a protected space, and the things that protect it are the principles and protocols, but we’re also protected by our Ancestors, because they initiated the space, and they hold the space in most cases.
Data
In an Indigenous context, it is particularly important how we develop relationships with the data. What we call “data” in a research context is actually people’s stories and life experiences and knowledges. These are gifted to the researcher by participants within the research relationship. We, as researchers, have to acknowledge and appreciate the gift of knowledge that is being offered, and we have to treat that knowledge with tremendous care and respect. This means that we have to develop respectful and accountable relationships with the data, and thus with knowledge itself.
When you’re working with Indigenous Australian People, if you collect data and don’t build relationship—if you don’t establish a relationship with the data or the knowledge that’s been offered, the gift of knowledge that’s been offered—you can do whatever you want with it. Because you don’t have a relationship with it, you can take it out of context. That’s normal when you’re using some other model or some other methodology. It’s perfectly ok to deconstruct, de-contextualise, and destroy the data as it was given so that you can fit it into a different context. But using Yarning methodology, because of the relationship that’s been built, you’re obligated to allow the data to determine where it can be used. That’s because Indigenous Knowledge is contextual knowledge, so when you take it out of its context, it doesn’t necessarily apply. But many people try and apply it. It’s interesting at the moment that the raging debate in Australia is about using Indigenous Knowledge in fire management. And that’s great, but not all nation groups burned, because they didn’t have to, or it happened naturally through lightning strikes and those sorts of things. If you take something from my Country—the method, the model that we use to burn in my Country—and move it up to here in a rainforest area, it’s not going to work. So Indigenous Knowledge is not one-size-fits-all. You know there are over two-hundred and fifty different language groups—two-hundred and fifty different ways of doing it! And that is what comes with relationship—you understand that, “ok what I’ve just been told is for here. It may have conceptual context over there, but it certainly won’t have practical context over there.”
Another important point, also distinct from other methodologies, is that the ownership of the knowledge remains with the participant. It is important from a cultural perspective that only certain people carry certain knowledge. While many people may have access to the knowledge, only certain people have the cultural responsibility to see that it is dealt with correctly. Within Yarning methodology, then, simply because a researcher is given the information does not make it the researcher’s information, to do with as they like. There exist strict cultural obligations around how anyone uses the information, and about how anyone shares it. Within Yarning methodology, information is protected in the sense that the knowledge remains under the guardianship of the original knowledge holder. That guardianship does not get transferred under any circumstances during the research process.
Indigenous knowledge
Related to how we develop relationships with data or stories in the course of research is how we develop relationships with Knowledge itself. In an Indigenous context, Knowledge has agency and participates in the entire learning and sharing process (Hart, 2010; Howes & Chambers, 1972; Hughes & Barlo, 2020; Popova-Gosart et al., 2007; Sheehan, 2011). Just because someone has offered someone else a gift of knowledge, or shared a story, does not necessarily mean that the other person will be able to understand it! Therefore, in a yarning process, we must take the time to sit with knowledge and to develop a relationship with knowledge. This principle is related to what Uncle Larry shared at the beginning about learning to become an initiate of knowledge; that is, it takes time to develop such a relationship, and indeed to fully appreciate the importance and value of this relationship.
I think my appreciation has gotten deeper actually as I’ve thought through this whole process and started to develop exactly what it means to sit under knowledge, or sit with knowledge, rather than to gather knowledge. It’s about the relationship. Everybody develops relationships differently. And we develop relationships with different things differently. I think that’s a really important thing to think about in this process, because it’s about relationship. You’re building a relationship with the knowledge. Coming back to the fact that it’s an oral culture, we have a very strong oral history, we have a very strong way of telling stories and hearing stories as a way of giving information and providing context for things. It’s really important that when we start to tell stories and hear stories, we understand that we are sitting with knowledge, we are sitting under knowledge. A friend of mine once said to me that knowledge is like good coffee. The longer it percolates, the stronger it gets. So he said you’ve gotta let it percolate for a while. Sit with it, let it brew. That’s why you can’t rush this. Even the process of analysis is not a quick process. It’s quite time-consuming in its entirety. And it takes you off down many rabbit holes, into all sorts of interesting places. Because the knowledge that’s provided and the stories that are provided in this process allow you to not only see the thing you are researching (in my case it was the dignity of Aboriginal men), but it also allows you to get a glimpse of the history of Aboriginal people. Some of the stories that you hear historically become real. Uncle would be telling the story not only from a historical perspective, but he would say, “This happened to my dad.” So there’s a reality in that process that you wouldn’t normally hear. The other thing that I find fascinating with this methodology is that it changes the way you hear things, because you hear things from a personal perspective. Because you are being initiated into the knowledge. You’re not being initiated into some ceremonial cultural thing, it’s the knowledge that’s initiating you into this space. So for me, I was being initiated into the history around Aboriginal men and dignity. I’m now part of that story. That’s the other thing that’s really important in this process. As a researcher, you become part of the story. The next time Uncle tells his story, I’ll be a part of that story. And the time that you tell it, you’ll be telling it because it’s now part of you. So you’ll be telling the story. And one of the things that I like to think about when I run this methodology or when I run this type of research, is that once the research is done, your position changes. You’re no longer the researcher, you become the narrator. You’re now telling the story. And you have an obligation to the participants, to the knowledge, to the Country, to narrate the story well. And honestly.
When we take the time to develop a relationship with knowledge, to really sit with knowledge and become part of the story, we realise that the privilege of engaging with knowledge also brings with it responsibility, as in any relationship. If we think about initiation or undertaking different ceremonies—like teenagers entering adulthood—one gains the privileges of being an adult but also has to take on the responsibility of an adult. It is not just the access and privilege that is associated with being a knowledge initiate, it is the responsibility. We become responsible for how the knowledge is used. We become responsible for the knowledge remaining connected to its context and its custodians. And we become responsible for implementing the knowledge in our own personal lives. As Shawn Wilson (2008) suggests, “if research doesn’t change you as a person, then you aren’t doing it right!” (p. 83).
Research participants
The importance of developing rapport and respectful relationships with research participants is widely acknowledged within qualitative methodologies (Ermine et al., 2004; Evans et al., 2014; Martin, 2003, 2008; National Health and Medical Research Council, Australian Research Council and Universities Australia, 2007; Wilson, 2001, 2008). In a Yarning methodology, part of the research relationship consists of handing over control of the process to the participant. Participants control the direction of the conversation, what and how much they share, and ultimately how their stories are used. The integrity of the process requires the researcher to follow a number of principles and protocols, the strictness of which varies depending on the context. Because yarning is a culturally familiar process, participants, especially Elders, are intimately familiar with these protocols. Therefore, participants may hold the researcher to account as part of the research relationship.
My participants took this journey extremely seriously. And they took my role in it extremely seriously. I remember a point where, half-way through a conversation, I changed roles. And the Uncle I was working with got up and left. “You don’t want to do it properly, I’m not playing,” he said, “you just changed roles. So you went from being someone receiving information and knowledge to someone demanding information and knowledge.” What happened was that I tried to redirect the conversation into something that I was more interested in. He thought I wasn’t interested in what he was telling me. Which is not true, I was extremely interested in what he was telling me, but he had mentioned something that I really wanted to get more information on. But he said, “No, we do it this way because this is the process. Or we go and do a different process and you find somebody else.” I’ve found that with nearly everyone that I’ve run this process with, where I’ve given them the authority—and that’s what it’s about—it’s about the researcher handing the authority of the research to the participants. They’re in control. They determine what’s being said. They determine the direction of the research, because it’s their information. And it’s about how do we do that respectfully, and with a way of maintaining who they are in the process. So they took it really seriously. That’s a key, something I should have mentioned before. Part of the process is about ceding control to the participants in everything. They have control, ultimate control, over the data. Or the knowledge. University and Academia like to call it data. It’s actually a gift of knowledge, and that’s the way we need to treat it. Because it is a gift. I believe my participants gained a lot through the process. And yes, they were more than willing to do it again and again and again, because they felt that what they were doing was of value, not only to them but to the community, to their families, to Country. I think when you give your participants the opportunity to be in control of a research project, not necessarily of the research project, but of the data that’s coming into the project, they understand that the control that they have is about what’s given, how it’s given and the way it’s given. They really appreciate that. And they appreciate the time that they spend. You know, over four or five visits we spent over eight hours with each of my participants and, you know, they’re not young men. In fact, with one of them I actually stopped the interview process because I couldn’t cope any longer! So I don’t know how they were going! I had to have a break. They’ve endorsed the process since. Once my project was finished and all the reports were written, this process of yarning continues to unfold. You go back and talk to them about, “ok, well, this is what I’m discovering.” The discussion starts again around yarning and what it means historically.
Part of what is significant in research relationships in the context of yarning, is that the yarns do not start and stop with a discreet research project, or only exist when you wear your “researcher” hat. Engaging in a holistic process means having genuine relationships with participants that affect you as a person, and are often developed prior to the commencement of a research project and continue afterward. In turn, accountability to research relationships with participants extends beyond any discreet research period.
Someone said to me once, “Well, what happens when you go and ask someone to participate and they say no? If it’s about relationships, what do you do?” I said, “Well, we go fishing. We don’t talk about it. The relationship doesn’t stop because they don’t want to participate.” I said that we still have a relationship, and it’s really important when working in this Indigenous space that our relationships are genuine. They’re not relationships with the expectation that I’ll be your friend if you give me stuff. I’m your friend whether you give me stuff or not. So let’s go fishing. I don’t care if you don’t want to talk to me about this. Let’s go.”
History
The flexibility of the yarning process, and the fact that control of the process is handed over to participants, means that yarns go wherever the participant wants to take them. Often, that includes going into history and telling historical and cultural stories through a personal lens. Quandamooka scholar Karen Martin (2008) talks about Indigenous research as a “means to restore our Stories towards reclaiming our sovereignty” (p. 35). For the researcher, the discipline in the process is to trust this unfolding and to maintain the protocols even if it is not obvious at the time how what is being shared connects to the research project (Barlo, 2016; Bessarab & Ng’andu, 2010).
It was quite a journey. You know I asked a question about dignity, because that was what my research was about. So my question was, “Can you talk to me a little bit about the dignity of Aboriginal men.” And you see tears well up in someone’s eyes. And then they started talking about Captain Cook and, you know, I thought, “No, no I want to get to the juicy bits!” So that was the journey. But when you start to think about, when you re-listen to what was actually said in that process, Captain Cook, from an Indigenous man’s perspective, Captain Cook is where people see the dignity of Aboriginal men start to slide away. So it’s back to there, and then we start to move forward and we’ve got this out here, and then we come back through dignity, and then we go back out here, and then we come back through dignity. And so for each one of the men that I spoke to using this model, the first interview was, on average, two and a half hours. And then when I went back to them to say, “This is what I got out of it, this is the transcript,” we worked through that again and inevitably we got another hour and a half to two hours. And I did that several times. So at the end, each one of the men gave me approximately eight hours of conversation on dignity. The data that I got was amazing. But it was really about the journey. Using this model is a journey. It’s a journey through time. It’s a journey through history. And it’s a journey through your life. Because what they’re trying to do is impart very deep knowledge in a way that you can’t get it simply by asking a series of questions.
Indigenous axiology or relational accountability
Yarning is a powerful methodology from the vantage point of a relationship journey because the process engages the researcher in a web of relationships which includes research participants, the knowledges and stories themselves, Ancestors and Country, and histories and futures as they live in the telling and hearing of stories. The principles and protocols of yarning provide a protected space to engage these relationships with respect, accountability and integrity, which in turn contributes to developing research that has integrity and power as it responds to the lived realities with whom we are engaged.
The principles, protocols, and practices of yarning are used by Indigenous Elders to establish Indigenous Knowledge about the world as valid and trustworthy in an academic environment, and to have traditional Indigenous Knowledge made known to the wider communities. Elsewhere, we have described in more detail how these principles work in practice (Barlo et al., 2020). However, here we briefly outline the role of eight principles in establishing a culturally safe environment for research and supporting the researcher to participate in relational accountability.
When you think about it from an academic perspective, one of the things that we talk about is trustworthiness. If we think about how an oral tradition is done, if you don’t tell the story correctly, you get into trouble. And that brings us back to the principles and protocols around this space. You have a responsibility to tell the story truthfully and the way, exactly, the way you were told the story. Not to embellish but to tell it exactly how you were told. And that’s how an oral culture works. Yarning helps to bring that stuff out, because it’s a traditional way for Aboriginal or Indigenous people to talk about themselves, to talk about their culture, their nation and the other things that are a part of who they are. And when we think about the truthfulness or the validity of what we’re hearing, that’s because there’s an inherent fear in the back of your head that you’re going to be slapped over the back of the head by somebody because you’re miss-telling a story. I think the word accountability is a really important one, and it does come out of relationship. You will be held accountable by the participant, by the Knowledge, and by Country. All of those things will bite you if you do it wrong.
A foundation of eight principles, four main principles and four sub-principles, provides the structural support for a Yarning methodology. The four main principles are respect, reciprocity, relationship, and responsibility. The four sub-principles are dignity, equality, integrity, and self-determination.
Respect is far more than simply respecting the person you are talking with, as it also includes respecting the knowledge or the information that is being provided. This type of respect is demonstrated through the way the information is used. There is a saying that states, “Please don’t mistake my kindness for weakness.” This saying in Indigenous communities provides researchers with an opportunity to come to terms with the relationship and respect required in conducting research among Indigenous communities.
Reciprocity is often mistaken for simply being a reciprocal arrangement, where reciprocation is only part of reciprocity. Reciprocity is more than giving a like-for-like. Reciprocity is a process that models responsibility. It is also an honouring process that demonstrates the importance of the relationship.
Any form of research creates a relationship, and researchers soon become part of the narrative of the participant involved in the research process. Often times research narratives about Indigenous Australians are negative, especially when research is framed as responding to “problems” in communities (Wilson, 2008). Indigenous Australian culture is a culture that is built on connectedness (“Uncle Larry Kelly,” 2012; Uncle Ossie Cruse, 2013) and it is the researcher’s responsibility to not only develop connections with the participant and to maintain them, but it is equally important to develop respectful relationships with the knowledge that is being provided, and to convey that information in a way that fosters respectful narratives (Martin, 2008). Quite often in the past, Indigenous Australian people have been taken advantage of by researchers. This has violated a very important part of Indigenous cultures, the understanding of relationship, and connectedness (Wilson, 2008).
Developing a meaningful relationship also enables the researcher to understand the authority and the right that the participant may or may not have to speak on a particular topic.
Once the participant has provided information to a research process, there is a responsibility on the part of the researcher to handle the data respectfully, and to keep the participant informed each step of the way during the research process. The researcher has a corollary responsibility to maintain these relationships well after the research has concluded. The information provided is a gift and, as with all gifts, it needs to be treated with respect and honour. The person who is gifting the information continues to be the caretaker of the information. The researcher therefore has a responsibility not to misuse the information provided.
Dignity of identity refers to a special dimension of value. This dignity is the one most easily removed by external sources (Bostrom, 2009, p. 177). It is the dignity that we attach to ourselves as integrated and autonomous persons, persons with a history, persons with a future, and persons with all our relationships to other human and non-human entities. Therefore, every person who enters the yarning space is treated with the upmost honour or respect—this concept is referred to as dignity of identity.
From an Indigenous perspective, regardless of age or gender, each person has the same rights and responsibilities within the yarning space—this is true equality.
The yarning space is strengthened by each person being honest and fair—this is true integrity.
Self-determination means that within the yarning space the participant has the freedom to make their own choices about whether to participate or not, how much information to provide, and also to contribute to the analysis and decisions about how their stories are told and presented. Self-determination also recognises the agency of Knowledge and how Knowledge participates in the research process.
A limitation of Yarning methodology is that it requires us as researchers to engage with these principles throughout the entire research process, in all our research relationships, and in our lives and communities beyond our research. As a holistic approach, the process invites our whole-hearted engagement. As stated earlier, if you do not want to be vulnerable and engage in relationships, pick another methodology. Similarly, if one is not willing to take on the responsibilities that go along with accountable research relationships, this is not an appropriate research methodology. If there is a willingness, however, to engage holistically and whole-heartedly, the fruits of this research methodology can be very profound for all those involved.
Conclusion
From an Indigenous perspective, we live our lives through and as relationships. These relationships extend not just to other human beings, family, and community, but also to Country, to data and Knowledges, and to Ancestors and history. The Yarning methodology articulated in this article provides principles and protocols for acknowledging and engaging in these research relationships with responsibility, accountability, reciprocity, and respect. This Yarning methodology is significant because of its cultural foundations and because of how it responds to the demands of relational accountability within an Indigenous framework. This methodology is appropriate for researchers willing to engage in relationship with the process and who wish to produce research that can truly benefit communities. The positive results of this engagement are felt personally by the researcher and the participants, as discussed in this article, and produce research that is trustworthy and has integrity from the perspective of participants, communities, and of Knowledge itself.
Footnotes
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
