Implementing genuine participatory action research with Aboriginal Elders: The Ngulluk Koolunga Ngulluk Koort project

Abstract

This paper describes the processes involved in establishing a genuinely collaborative and participatory role for nine Aboriginal Elders in a five-year participatory action research project focused on early child development in the Perth metropolitan area of Western Australia. The project goals are to better inform and align policy and program design with Aboriginal values, world views and concepts of childhood. The Elder’s authority in the design, conduct and outputs of the research are intended to adhere to a decolonising approach, whereby Aboriginal people have power and voice in ways that are aligned to their values and beliefs. Requirements for research that is collaborative, relational, participatory and reflexive are not straightforward or easily achieved, and the process of working with the nine Elders in their roles as Co-researchers has not been without its challenges. This paper explores the challenges and opportunities of working with Aboriginal Elders as Co-researchers and seeks to enhance understanding of the necessity of incorporating an Aboriginal worldview and knowledge framework in this way.

Keywords

Aboriginal participatory action research decolonising Elders early child development

Introduction

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people (henceforth respectfully referred to as Aboriginal) in Australia have been the focus of vast amounts of research for decades, although there is debate as to the value of research in improving health and social circumstances. Broadly, the interest in research in Aboriginal settings over the last century mirrors Australian society’s increased awareness of and concern about the poor health circumstances of Aboriginal peoples. While there have been some positive developments in recent decades, the Aboriginal research agenda is typified by a relative absence of an Aboriginal worldview. This includes research on early childhood issues and extends to policy and program design, resource and service allocation. This, in turn, has resulted in an ongoing sense of disconnect and distrust of research (and policy intervention) by Aboriginal families (Fogarty et al., 2018; Thomas et al., 2014).

To recognise and respect Aboriginal worldviews and culture while simultaneously addressing the disadvantage that many Aboriginal people face requires research, policy, practice and interventions grounded in Aboriginal values and perspectives of health, well-being and development. The five-year Ngulluk Koolunga Ngulluk Koort (Our Children, Our Heart) research project (2016–2020) is a participatory action research project with the objective of establishing a robust evidence base on the values and priorities of the largely Noongar Aboriginal community of urban Perth regarding Aboriginal child development. Ultimately, the project seeks to utilise this evidence to effect change in the way government and non-government policies, programs and services engage with Aboriginal people and work to improve outcomes for Aboriginal children.

The Ngulluk Koolunga Ngulluk Koort project (the project) has been designed not only to identify Aboriginal perspectives of early childhood development but also to work within traditional knowledge structures and authority. Crucial to this was the appointment of nine Aboriginal Elders as Co-researchers on the project who determine the research activities, including data collection, analysis and translation. This decision sought to ensure the research project worked within traditional authority structures among the Noongar community. Elders are cultural ‘bosses’ (Busija et al., 2020) and are considered the authority on all matters, including children and families, and are the ones who speak on behalf of the community (Lohoar et al., 2014). While the inclusion of parental voices/perspectives was a planned central feature of the research, the engagement of Elders was a foundational part of this action research project on Aboriginal child development. Elders are deeply engaged with the issues impacting on children and families in their communities not only from the close-knit nature of the community but also because so many are in primary care roles due to circumstances in their families (Du Preez et al., 2017).

The inclusion of the Elders is regarded by the project’s Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal team members as providing a necessary legitimacy and authority to the research findings and to achieving a genuine participatory approach underpinned by reciprocity and respect for cultural differences. It is also critical to the process of decolonising research by recognising and honouring the role and status of Elders in Aboriginal culture and putting them at the centre of the research process.

The deleterious and disempowering effects of colonisation are often maintained by systems, processes and practices rather than individuals. Decolonisation is a process rather than an outcome. It entails an ongoing discussion between those impacted by colonisation and those that benefit from colonialist practices. This requires that an intimate and close working relationship is established with the Aboriginal community and maintained throughout all stages of the research project (Wright et al., 2013; Wright & O’Connell, 2013). It requires research and researchers to be aligned with the goals and needs of Aboriginal peoples in a respectful way (Wright, 2011) and concomitantly, to recognise that the research setting is typically a colonised and hegemonic space (Guenther et al., 2017).

To date, few research studies have engaged with Elders in this capacity and instead typically opt to seek their input into study design and conduct via an advisory role (Castleden et al., 2012; Poudrier & Mac‐Lean, 2009). The role of Elders as Co-researchers was directly influenced by the approach to research by Noongar researcher Michael Wright in the Looking Forward project (Wright et al., 2016; Wright & O’Connell, 2015). This five-year project (and its successor the Looking Forward, Moving Forward project) utilised participatory action research to investigate the distrust and lack of understanding between mental health and drug and alcohol service providers and Aboriginal families living in Perth, Western Australia. A central feature of the Looking Forward project was the shared storytelling between Aboriginal Elders and researchers and then with senior management and frontline workers of relevant organisations. Its broad aim was to initiate systems change through a deep understanding and appreciation of the Noongar worldview so as to facilitate the decolonisation of existing practices both in research and in the provision of services (Wright et al., 2016). The processes employed by the project have enabled Noongar mechanisms, authority structures and value systems to stand in their own right. Wright et al. (2016) acknowledge that this has allowed for the recognition and celebration of a unique Noongar worldview and culture and empowered Noongar people.

This paper details the experiences of establishing a genuinely participatory role in an action research project for the Elder/Co-researchers and actively engaging in a decolonising process for the non-Aboriginal Chief Investigators (CIs) and project team staff involved. It reflects the viewpoints and experiences of the non-Aboriginal team members (including CIs and project staff) with a focus on challenges in the first three years of the project and associated responses and learnings. The non-Aboriginal CIs and non-Aboriginal project team members are all senior researchers with post-graduate qualifications and 10 to 15 years’ experience working in and (co-)leading research grants in Aboriginal health at a prominent child health research Institute located in Perth’s Children’s Hospital in Western Australia. Comments and reflections have also been provided by the Aboriginal project coordinator who has over 30 years’ experience working in early child development in the Aboriginal community and who works to link the project and the research institute to the Aboriginal community. The paper also includes insights and observations from one of the Aboriginal CIs who is a Senior Noongar Researcher in participatory action research at one of Perth’s Universities.

Ethics

Ethical approval was received from the Western Australian Aboriginal Health Ethics Committee (#674) and the University of Western Australia’s Human Research Ethics Committee (RA/4/1/7963).

Project setting

The project is being conducted in the Whadjuk Boodja region of Perth, Western Australia (roughly equivalent to the Perth metropolitan area). This area constitutes one of the 14 Noongar clan regions in the south-west of Western Australia covering over 5000 km². With more than 30,000 members, the Noongar people are the largest single Aboriginal nation in Australia.

In Perth, as elsewhere across Australia, data indicate that there are significant gaps between the health and development of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal children that are evident from the earliest stages of life. Disadvantage and adversity in childhood plays a major role in the disparities in life outcomes experienced by Aboriginal Australians (Shepherd et al., 2012). These disparities have, in part, been attributed to the post-colonisation history of Aboriginal Australia and the trauma of ongoing discrimination, dispossession and exclusion and underscore the importance of effective research, policy and service provision for Aboriginal families and children. A failure to understand or recognise the different ways Aboriginal families raise their children (e.g., by services aimed at addressing children’s disadvantages) is a pervasive issue in contemporary Australia and can be considered a direct cause of much policy and program failure (George et al., 2019).

Project method

Participatory action research

Participatory action research is widely accepted as facilitating the participation of research participants in the knowledge acquisition, translation and dissemination process (Baum et al., 2006). For these reasons, it is seen as highly effective and suitable to undertaking research with Aboriginal communities (Dudgeon et al., 2017; Wallerstein & Duran, 2006). Some suggest this approach to research best reflects Indigenous philosophies with its emphasis on local participation, learning through action, collective decision-making and empowerment through group activity (Wright, 2011). Yet as Friedman et al. (2018) note, ‘there is a big difference between researchers “working with” participants and becoming co-researchers with participants’. In our project, nine Aboriginal Elders have been engaged as Co-researchers in order to draw on their cultural knowledge, wisdom, professional skills and expertise to guide the setting of research priorities and advise on community engagement strategies, data analysis and translation of the research findings. This is not a superficial role but one that consciously seeks to shift decision-making power and authority from the research staff to the Elders (and through them, the broader Aboriginal community) and an acceptance that a failure to do so risks continuing a history of exploitive research and distrustful relationships. The Elder’s authority over the project is designed to adhere to a decolonising approach to research, whereby power and voice are given back to Aboriginal people in ways that are aligned to Aboriginal values and beliefs (Corntassel, 2012; Dudgeon & Walker, 2015; Fitzpatrick et al., 2017). The project design is also intended to facilitate genuine collaboration, two-way learning, shared decision-making and reciprocity in the research process.

Project milestones

Stage 1, 2016: Elder membership selection

The first project milestone was seeking endorsement regarding the aims and objectives of the project from Elders across Perth’s Aboriginal community and then to invite Elders to join and lead the project as members of the Co-researcher group. This was achieved via an inaugural Elders meeting attended by 51 Elders. This meeting sought and called for nominations from interested and available Elders to join the project Co-researcher group. The Elders at this meeting determined that a male and female Elder (where possible) should be included from the four metropolitan ‘regions’ as conceptualised by the Elders at this meeting.

From the inaugural meeting, a number of Elders completed an expression of interest that detailed their interests in the project and relevant experience, with additional Elders subsequently approached to gain representation from all regions and increase the number of male Elders. By June 2016, nine Elders commenced as Co-researchers, with one Elder subsequently resigning from the project due to personal commitments. A replacement was found after the rest of the Elder/Co-researcher group considered candidates from the relevant area, who were known to the community and viewed as having the appropriate level of seniority.

Roles and responsibilities

Since commencing with the project, the nine Elder/Co-researchers have participated in 10 to 12 group meetings per year (along with smaller sub-group meetings with other stakeholders) to progress each stage of the project starting with the community engagement and data collection processes, then data analysis and translation of the findings both with the Aboriginal community and broader stakeholder groups. They are paid an honorarium for their participation at each meeting, in recognition of their expertise and time. The group are tasked with ensuring the research project builds a deeper understanding of Aboriginal/Noongar cultural values, customs and laws regarding parenting and early childhood development and the priorities of the community for raising ‘strong’ Aboriginal children. Their role also extends to ensuring the project is relevant to the needs of the local Aboriginal community(s) especially parents with young children, and that the research process is culturally safe and aligns with the strengths of Aboriginal culture. The Elders are accountable to the broader Perth Aboriginal community and more specifically have a cultural responsibility to secure a better future for all Aboriginal children.

The Elder/Co-researchers are supported in their roles by the research grant’s six CIs and the project team, comprising four research and support staff. The CIs have overall responsibility for the completion of the project and include a non-Aboriginal lead and a further five CIs – three of whom are Aboriginal. The research and support staff consist of a non-Aboriginal senior researcher, an Aboriginal project coordinator and two research assistants (all staff are employed part time) – with all staff reporting directly to the lead CI. The research and support staff (project team) are responsible for supporting the Elder/Co-researcher members’ decision-making processes. They also coordinate all meetings and work to develop ways to implement the actions agreed upon.

Stage 2, 2016 to 2017: Listening to the community

Qualitative data collection

One of the critical milestones for the project was consulting with the Aboriginal community of Perth to explore their views, values and priorities regarding raising Aboriginal children. The Elder/Co-researchers guided the strategy for engaging and consulting with the wider Aboriginal community of metropolitan Perth and co-facilitated a series of community forums and focus groups that were undertaken across the four metropolitan regions. These attracted participants who were largely senior members of the community – accordingly, the Elder/Co-researchers proposed that focus groups be held at venues attended by younger parents. Six focus groups were undertaken across the four regions (between April and October 2017). There was also a focus group hosted just for Aboriginal men to attend from all the regions to increase the project’s access to men’s views and provide a more culturally acceptable way for men to discuss the issues. All the focus groups were designed to support younger members to feel comfortable to speak up and involved participants of mixed ages (approximately 19–82 years).

The community forums and focus groups were an Aboriginal-led process involving an Aboriginal facilitator, supported by experienced project team members and overseen by the Elder(s) from the relevant region. Recruitment of participants utilised the project team and Elder/Co-researchers’ networks. In total, the forums and focus groups involved 138 participants.

The Elder/Co-researchers determined that participants were to be asked three core questions at each of the forums and focus group:

What are the moorditj (good) things that are important in raising strong, solid young kids (under six years of age);

What things might get in the way of Aboriginal kids (under six years of age) growing up solid in Perth;

Thinking about kids under the age of six years, what things help Aboriginal kids grow up solid (resilient, confident, happy, healthy)?

The analytic process

Initially, the project team applied a conventional thematic content analysis to the data collected from the forums and focus groups to identify broad themes. These themes were then presented to the Elder/Co-researchers for discussion. The project team were conscious that the Elder/Co-researchers needed to regard the findings as a true reflection of the context and reality of peoples’ lives, values and beliefs. This process of discussing the key issues and themes within the data generated a few robust and passionate reflections and comments by many of the Elder/Co-researchers. Critically, they were concerned that the emerging themes were not providing any new insights – with a number of Elders reflecting that ‘we’ve been saying this for thirty years’, especially in response to the strong theme of the need for programs, services and schools that work with, not against, cultural differences.

Eventually, the final set of key findings and their representation in a single visual image were agreed to by the Elder/Co-researchers who validated these as a true reflection of Noongar/Aboriginal values regarding early child rearing and development and the unique strengths of Aboriginal culture and family for children. This aspect of the research process was critical to confirming the outcomes from the data analysis and ensuring the project team could be confident about the validity of the findings and interpretations. Too often in research, the interpretation of findings is shaped by the views of the researchers conducting the data collection and analysis, with results presented as a final product to advisory or reference groups. Rather, the process with the Elder/Co-researchers sought to ensure the community maintained authority over the interpretation of results – a process identified as critical by Indigenous researchers (Smylie et al., 2014).

Stage 3, 2017: Reporting back to community

The Elder/Co-researchers and project team were conscious that they needed to report back to the larger Elders group that gave the initial authorisation for the project to proceed. In October 2017, the Elder/Co-researchers presented to 60 Aboriginal Elders. They detailed how the consultations with community had taken place and outlined the findings from the data analysis. They provided the pictorial representation of the findings to the group and sought approval to continue with the project and to use the findings to start engaging with stakeholders and advocate for a Noongar worldview in policy and service design. While there was a broad ranging discussion of early childhood development issues, many of the Elders in attendance expressed a level of frustration and impatience at a lack of action on many of the issues impacting on Perth’s Aboriginal children. At times, this was directed at the nine Co-researchers who had to defend the purpose of yet ‘another’ research project and whether it would make a difference. Notwithstanding, the Elder/Co-researchers were strongly encouraged by the broader Elder community to proceed with seeking to change how programs and services engage with Aboriginal families. There was a complex engagement process occurring at this meeting, with responsibility and accountability assumed by the Elder/Co-researchers in their roles with the project particularly pronounced.

Stage 4, 2017 to 2018: Establishing the project’s focus

Given the multitude of issues and themes within the data collection, the project team assumed that the best approach for the remainder of the project, especially given budget and time constraints and the small size of the team, would be to progress a single research priority in order to develop a translation strategy and engage with stakeholders. The team approached the Elders with the intention of getting them to select and agree on one priority. Their responses reinforced to the team that many of the issues impacting on the lives of Noongar community children and families are deeply interconnected and that several community concerns required immediate attention. Accordingly, the initial idea of selecting one issue, at the exclusion of others, ignored the realities that the Elders face and their lived experience and made little sense to them.

The Elders settled on three key priority areas that were considered a more holistic and encompassing approach to address the concerns raised by the community through the consultation process. These included issues impacting on Aboriginal children and families associated with (1) housing, (2) child protection and child removal and (3) early childhood education and care. From this outcome, the project team had to rethink timelines and how outcomes could be achieved with the increased workload. It was proposed and accepted by the Elders that three sub-groups would be created where each of the Elders focused on one of the research priorities and would progress the activities, attend meetings to meet with government and non-government stakeholders and then report back to the main group on decisions taken and outcomes.

Stage 5: Engaging with stakeholders (2018–2020)

Since 2018, the Elder/Co-researchers and project team have been engaging with a range of stakeholders in each of the three priority areas and seeking to educate people about ‘Aboriginal ways’ regarding children. These stakeholders include Aboriginal controlled organisations, who are considered key stakeholders by the Elder/Co-researcher group, and government and non-government organisations. The intention is to support the actions of those already advocating for change, as well as to seek to work directly with, and influence the approach of, other organisations and especially service providers. This process has not been without its setbacks and challenges. An example was the project team’s attempts to bring stakeholders around the table with the Elder/Co-researchers to progress potential solutions to one of the project’s priority areas – housing. Discussions quickly broke down when some of the Elders objected to proposals to engage with relevant government departments and Ministers. Rather than seen as an opportunity to influence those in a position to change policy, the Elder/Co-researchers were critical of such an approach being ‘more rhetoric’ and articulated a view that governments were not to be trusted. This was challenging for the project team who regard directly engaging with those who do have influence over the design, funding and delivery of services and programs to Aboriginal people as a worthwhile strategy. The project team appreciated the deep-seated nature of the Elder/Co-researchers’ concerns and their experiences of continually feeling imposed on by government and a lack of power over their own lives. This instance also raised an entrenched issue for the Elder/Co-researchers, that is, a lack of trust in governments and many mainstream organisations.

The importance of building trust through developing relationships in the first instance was made very clear to the project staff who have subsequently reworked timelines and the approach to stakeholder engagement. The emphasis has become ensuring far more time for firstly identifying ways that trust can be built between organisations and the Elder/Co-researchers and relationships developed before any ensuing actions or strategies are raised.

The challenges of participatory research

Requirements for action research that is genuinely collaborative, relational and participatory are not straightforward or easily achieved, and the process of working with the nine Elders in their roles as Co-researchers has not been without its challenges. We now explore, and reflect on, some of these as experienced by members of the project team and some of the CIs and identify some of the opportunities this process has also presented.

Timelines

One of the main challenges to the research work with the Elder/Co-researchers has been dealing with the disjuncture between the timeframes required to work with community in a genuine way within a participatory action research project and those imposed by mainstream research grants. The project meetings involving the Elder/Co-researchers are a good example of how the project team have had to adjust their preconceived notions regarding the length of time required to allow for project discussions and decisions. The cultural importance of yarning and storytelling and fluid structure of these meetings mean that project timelines have had to be continually readjusted and more meetings and budget allocated to ensure adequate time is given to reaching decisions and designing the next steps of the project. Many other authors have reflected upon the need to regard storytelling as a legitimate dialogic method within research and its congruence with the relational dynamic of an Indigenous paradigm (Bishop, 1999; Iseke, 2013; Kovach, 2010; Quayle & Sonn, 2019). The project staff have had to learn that storytelling is a means for sharing and listening and is the foundation to a strong relationship and can position the researcher as a participant in a collaborative and holistic process (Caxaj, 2015; Kovach, 2015).

The project team have also learnt that short or ‘to the point’ meetings do not suit the ways in which the Elders arrive at decisions. While each meeting does make progress, they certainly do not adhere to a linear process of working through agenda items and many issues are often carried over to subsequent meetings. The Elder/Co-researchers are especially conscious of the responsibilities they have to their community, and this flows onto a need to ensure many issues are discussed in full with a range of views and experiences reflected upon.

The issue of timelines raises a very real challenge for research professionals, particularly balancing Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal expectations and principles for progressing research projects and achieving outcomes within grant timelines and budget limitations. The project is funded by a mainstream grant scheme (albeit with a focus on Aboriginal-specific projects) that requires timelines, budgets and outcomes to be determined at the time of applying for the grant. While researchers may know the important elements from Aboriginal culture that should be incorporated into research practices (respect, patience and reciprocity), these do not necessarily align with the conditions of many mainstream grants (Comino et al., 2016; Mooney et al., 2016). Deadlines can be difficult to manage in Aboriginal research projects and Aboriginal people may not feel this is an essential priority. Certainly, this is confirmed by the experience of the project’s meetings. The investment of resources and time to adhere to processes that are culturally appropriate and honour the Elders decision-making processes needs to be seriously accounted for in the scoping, project management and budgeting processes of research projects as well as grant assessment processes for participatory action research.

Working with lived experience

Like many in the Perth Aboriginal community (and elsewhere), the Elder/Co-researchers are dealing with the realities of poverty, disadvantage, grief and trauma, and associated challenges in their families, as well as racism (both historical and contemporary), and for some, the ongoing impact of being forcibly removed from family and/or traditional homelands (Stolen Generation members). Such is the reality of death and grief in many Aboriginal peoples’ lives that the project deliberately does not schedule meetings or project-related activities on a Friday (typically a day for Aboriginal funerals in Perth) due to the regularity of funerals. The Elders’ lived experiences impact on the project in different ways. Often, it can involve the Elder/Co-researchers sharing their stories or the experiences of their family members during the project meetings, often for the purposes of reflecting and sharing how the issues under discussion directly impact on their lives and their family members. This can be confronting at times for the project team who value this form of knowledge-sharing but are also conscious of needing to ensure the meetings provide time to progress activities and decisions.

Personal experiences form the ‘lens’ through which the Elder/Co-researchers often view issues and potential directions of the project. Many of the Elders are understandably frustrated because the project centres on issues that have been a persistent and pervasive feature of their life for decades – despite ongoing calls for change. Furthermore, they have witnessed a series of successful programs being defunded or replaced by less suitable options, and this is also a source of frustration. This, in turn, can give rise to cynicism among many of the Elders who are wary of engaging with government and other non-Aboriginal organisations – which was, and continues to be, one of the aims of the translation strategy for the research.

In their research with Aboriginal people, Comino et al. (2016) discuss the importance of being continually aware of the impact of past and present government policies and how these continue to shape the ways in which Aboriginal people perceive and engage with mainstream institutions (Comino et al., 2016). The challenge for the project staff is not just recognising the impact of past disempowerment, disrespect and inequality but progressing the project in ways that do not serve to continue these. How we realise suitable and appropriate translation and engagement strategies with the research priorities has been and remains an ongoing challenge that, like many aspects of the project, takes time and continual negotiation and problem-solving with the Elder/Co-researchers.

Shifting from researched to researcher

While the Elder/Co-researchers were familiar with the research process, this was primarily as passive recipients or subjects within a community that are historically over-researched and consulted. Leading and being directly involved in the research tasks of this project has required the Elder/Co-researchers to engage directly with systems and processes attached to traditional Western research projects. This has required them to grapple with the limitations and impositions of a research project that is being conducted in a mainstream and western institution. The project team are continuously striving to identify ways that support the Elder/Co-researchers to understand these limitations especially regarding what can be achieved as well as to expand the project team’s own understandings. Yet as the Elder/Co-researchers have shown, there are times when it is very difficult to reconcile or align a research project with their ways and expectations. The role of the Aboriginal project coordinator assists in ‘translating’ some of the issues and experiences that can cause frustration and misunderstanding for the Elders and researchers. She is critical to taking the time to sit with the Elder/Co-researchers and explain the workings of the research environment. Examples include what is feasible within the budget. She also assists the non-Aboriginal project staff to have a better understanding of the Elder/Co-researchers’ expectations about what research can deliver. The project coordinator describes her role as an example of the way Aboriginal people continually ‘walk between two worlds’ a reference to the many differences between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal experiences and worldviews.

Achieving consensus

Among the nine Elder/Co-researchers, there are those who by virtue of their seniority have more authority to speak than others, and this can pose a challenge to ensuring that knowledge and wisdom of other Elders are aired/heard. The project team do not want to undermine decision-making structures but endeavour to engage with all the Elder/Co-researchers and explore everyone’s ideas and input into the project. Mooney et al. (2016) note that rarely do all members of an Aboriginal community exist in harmony and that expectations of a unified voice or beliefs on all issues are unrealistic (Mooney et al., 2016). In order to find common ground, the project team has had to allow time to facilitate all to speak as well as accept the fact that decisions may not be addressed or resolved in a way we expect. The project team have also learnt that there are some decisions that are too hard for the Elders to be expected to resolve and that some decisions are not unanimous but are still accepted because of a majority or the seniority of those making the decision.

Relationship building

An integral part of the participatory action research approach involves relationships. The relationships between the Elder/Co-researchers and the members of the project team are essential to the project, and these have required the project team to demonstrate respectful behaviour and recognition of the authoritative position of the Elders and their status as knowledge holders. Meaningful engagement with the Elders requires relationships to be formed that are outside of those usually developed within a professional environment. These relationships also require trust, which takes time, and for certain assumptions and preconceptions to be put aside. Trust is an important value for Aboriginal people and the Elders have talked about a lack of trust towards Aboriginal people by systems, governments and society as well as their own lack of trust with mainstream services and governments.

Project staff have learnt that relationships with the Elders involve continually questioning and reconsidering ownership and power within the research process. Transparency and inclusiveness, regular feedback, deep listening and learning by the non-Aboriginal researchers are critical so that trust between all involved can develop and the research project progress. For the non-Aboriginal researchers on the project team, this is not always easy – and has meant having to work at gaining and maintaining the trust of the Elders. At times, some of the Elders have directly challenged the non-Aboriginal research staff questioning their motivations and ability to understand the experiences of Aboriginal people.

Opportunities

Gaining insights and understanding

The non-Aboriginal project staff recognise the privilege of receiving insights and first-hand accounts of the Elder/Co-researchers’ experiences of growing up in Western Australia as an Aboriginal person, as members of large families and extensive kinship networks, as well as their professional lives, and their deep cultural knowledge, values and language. As non-Aboriginal people involved in Aboriginal health and well-being research, it is a unique position to be so embedded in the lives of the Aboriginal Elders and their families. Too often, engagement only occurs in the limited context of data collection.

In terms of insights and understandings that the Elder/Co-researchers may have gained, they have articulated a value in their role and status at the research Institute where the project and project team are based. Increasingly, other researchers are becoming aware of their need to listen and learn from Aboriginal people, especially Elders, and gaining meaningful input from Aboriginal community members, including at the earliest stage of project development. This growing recognition has manifest as invitations for the Elder/Co-researchers to be involved in other research projects and a greater acknowledgement of their level of authority and respect. These are initial but significant changes that are already starting to have a positive impact. The project team have also witnessed the growing confidence of the Elder/Co-researchers who are increasingly asserting their views, attending high level meetings with stakeholders and engaging in public speaking engagements and other avenues for representing and advocating on behalf of the community. This is an important outcome of the research.

Reflexive learning

Indigenist scholar and writer Taiaiake Alfred (2018) describes decolonisation as ‘forgoing the need to be right, to be in charge, and to possess’ and involves ‘embracing the discomfort of the unsettled existence of an ally committed to the strength and well-being of Indigenous nations’.

There is a necessary measure of discomfort in decolonising research practices and in legitimately incorporating Aboriginal knowledge and Aboriginal ways of knowing, decision-making and priorities in the research process.

The engagement with the Elder/Co-researchers has provided the non-Aboriginal researchers and CIs with an opportunity for meaningful reflection about their role and position as non-Aboriginal researchers. This has involved a continual process of negotiating the complexities of working in cross-cultural contexts and one’s ‘outside’ status. At times, non-Aboriginal research staff have questioned whether there is a legitimate contribution they can make. This is a significant learning experience, even for researchers who are experienced in research with Aboriginal communities and settings. Non-Aboriginal researchers need to be fully aware of the influences that have formed their worldview and to identify their own cultural and historical biases (Kowal, 2011). Developing this reflexivity is not an easy task. Some suggest that it can be assisted through the critical reflection of others with similar kinds of training or race privilege (Kowal, 2011; Nilson, 2017). Certainly, the project team understand the importance of recognising power relations and the way these manifest in the conduct of research and the importance of continually addressing to ensure ethical and participatory research ‘with’ rather than ‘about’ Aboriginal people.

Final thoughts

Much research in Aboriginal contexts fails to adequately incorporate an Aboriginal worldview. This results in an ongoing sense of disconnect in how research is experienced by Aboriginal people and contributes to the inappropriateness of research. It also fails to advance the transformative potential within research for all parties involved. Gaining the trust of Aboriginal people that research can be conducted in accordance with their ways of knowing and authority structures is a necessary objective of participatory action research. It is also important that the role of research in contesting colonising practices is recognised and valued by both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people.

First and foremost, the Ngulluk Koolunga Ngulluk Koort project has been designed with the aim of giving prominence and authority to Aboriginal decision-making processes, priorities and values in its governance arrangements and conduct. This project has chosen to adhere to the principle that the Elders hold the highest level of authority in determining an acceptable approach to research, data collection, analysis, translation and engaging with stakeholders. As a result, we are learning that bringing the Elders into the research space can be challenging especially the disjuncture between two very different ways of knowing and sharing knowledge, decision-making and the time allocated to achieving both. The project team accept and advocate for the centrality of Aboriginal ways of knowing, being and doing. This is not an easy process or without its challenges. Many senior researchers would struggle if confronted by Elders who refuted their approach to data collection and translation and insisted on pursuing other approaches and topics. We posit that many participatory research projects would not facilitate such an authoritative role for Aboriginal people in the first place. To those researchers we ask, on what basis can you claim your action research as truly participatory?

Ultimately, action research with Aboriginal people is not apolitical and cannot be approached as such. Rather, it must support or advance a social justice perspective and, despite the challenges and even a level of discomfort, there is a responsibility of non-Aboriginal researchers to commit to transformative and decolonising practices that support Aboriginal peoples’ self-determination.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank the nine Elder Co-researchers of the Ngulluk Koolunga Ngulluk Koort project (Aunty Millie Penny, Uncle Albert McNamara, Aunty Charmaine Pell, Uncle Allan Kickett Snr, Aunty Muriel Bowie, Aunty Oriel Green, Kerry Hunt, Aunty Doris Hill and Uncle Sealin Garlett) for their support and valuable input. We also wish to thank all the community members who have given their time and energy to participate in the research. We welcome and invite your comments and reactions at our action research community’s interactive ARJ blog housed at AR+

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) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by funding from an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (APP#1098844). The funding body had no part in the study design, conduct, analysis or interpretation of this study nor the decision to submit this study for publication.

ORCID iD

Clair Scrine

Author biographies

Clair Scrine is a senior research fellow who completed a Bachelor of Arts with Honours (first class) and PhD at Macquarie University, Sydney NSW. Clair has been working in Aboriginal health and wellbeing research since 2006. Clair is passionate about research that advances a holistic approach, emphasizes the centrality of social determinants and the importance of healing from stress and intergenerational trauma as critical components of people’s health and wellbeing. Her research seeks to identify ways that programs and services can work in partnership with Aboriginal communities, be family focused and culturally responsive, and support Aboriginal people to have greater control over their lives and health outcomes.

Brad Farrant is a senior research fellow who completed a Bachelor of Science with Honours and a PhD in Developmental Psychology at the University of Western Australia. Brad's research focuses on the importance of early childhood development. He is particularly interested in how to connect this to strengths of Aboriginal people and culture. Coming from the perspective of Developmental Psychology. Brad is also interested in how broader ecological factors like biodiversity loss, population growth, peak water and climate change will interact to affect children's development now and in the future.

Carol Michie is an east arrernte woman from Alice Springs who has lived in Perth for the past 30 years. She has many contacts and connections with the local Noongar community as well as many connections throughout the communities of WA and Australia. Carol has over 25 years’ experience of working within child education and child development services and is passionate about being part of playing a positive role in enhancing the opportunities of our Aboriginal families to provide a culturally supportive environment in which to raise confident, resilient children who feel they have something to offer.

Carrington Shepherd is a senior research fellow with extensive experience in quantitative research projects at the Telethon Institute since 2005. He was awarded his doctorate in 2013, which examined the role of socioeconomic factors on the health and development of Aboriginal populations-this is one of the few studies internationally to explicitly look at the socioeconomic patterning of health in an Indigenous population, and the first to examine these patterns among Aboriginal children using population-representative data.

Michael Wright, associate professor, is a yuat nyoongar man from the Moora and New Norcia area of Western Australia, north of Perth. Associate Professor Wright’s experience, understandings, and expertise are highly regarded and recognised in the Aboriginal community, with Government and non-Government agencies, and policy-makers. He has worked as a hospital-based social worker and as a mental health service manager and completed a Masters of Applied Epidemiology from the National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health at the Australian National University in 2004. In 2010, Michael completed his PhD (Curtin University) which explored Aboriginal families’ access to mental health services and, in the same year, secured a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) post-doctoral fellowship to conduct applied research investigating the barriers Aboriginal families faced in accessing those services.

References

Alfred

(2018, Spring). Dont just resist: Return to who you are. Yes! Magazine. https://yesmagazine.org/issue/decolonize/2018/04/09/dont-just-resist-return-to-who-you-are/

Baum

MacDougall

Smith

(2006). Participatory action research. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 60(10), 854–857.

Bishop

(1999). Collaborative storytelling: Meeting indigenous peoples’ desires for self-determination in research. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED467396.pdf

Busija

Cinelli

Toombs

M. R.

Easton

Hampton

Holdsworth

Macleod

Nicholson

G. C.

Nasir

B. F.

Sanders

K. M.

McCabe

M. P.

(2020). The role of elders in the wellbeing of a contemporary Australian indigenous community. The Gerontologist, 60, 513–524. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gny140

Castleden

Morgan

V. S.

Lamb

(2012). “I spent the first year drinking tea”: Exploring Canadian university researchers’ perspectives on community‐based participatory research involving Indigenous peoples. The Canadian Geographer/Le Géographe Canadien, 56(2), 160–179.

Caxaj

C. S.

(2015). Indigenous storytelling and participatory action research: Allies toward decolonization? Reflections from the peoples’ international health tribunal. Global Qualitative Nursing Research, 2, 2333393615580764.

Comino

E. J.

Knight

Grace

Kemp

Wright

D. C.

(2016). The Gudaga research program: A case study in undertaking research with an urban Aboriginal community. Australian Social Work, 69(4), 443–455.

Corntassel

(2012). Re-envisioning resurgence: Indigenous pathways to decolonization and sustainable self-determination. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, 1(1), 86–101.

Dudgeon

Scrine

Cox

Walker

(2017). Facilitating empowerment and self-determination through participatory action research: Findings from the National Empowerment Project. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 1–11.

10.

Dudgeon

Walker

(2015). Decolonising Australian psychology: Discourses, strategies, and practice. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 3(1), 276–297.

11.

Du Preez

Richmond

Marquis

(2017). Issues affecting Australian grandparents who are primary caregivers of grandchildren: A review. Journal of Family Studies, 23(1), 142–159.

12.

Fitzpatrick

Macdonald

Martiniuk

D’Antoine

Oscar

Carter

, Lawford, T., & Elliott

(2017). The picture talk project: Starting a conversation with community leaders on research with remote aboriginal communities of Australia. BMC Medical Ethics, 18(1), 34.

13.

Fogarty

Bulloch

McDonnell

Davis

(2018). Deficit discourse and indigenous health: How narrative framings of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are reproduced in policy, p. xii.

14.

Friedman

V. J.

Gray

Ortiz Aragón

(2018). From doing to writing action research: A plea to ARJ authors. Action Research, 16(1), 3–6. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750318763041

15.

George

Mackean

Baum

Fisher

(2019). Social determinants of Indigenous health and Indigenous rights in policy: A scoping review and analysis of problem representation. International Indigenous Policy Journal, 10(2), 1–25.

16.

Guenther

Osborne

Arnott

McRae-Williams

(2017). Hearing the voice of remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander training stakeholders using research methodologies and theoretical frames of reference. Race Ethnicity and Education, 20(2), 197–208.

17.

Iseke

(2013). Indigenous storytelling as research. International Review of Qualitative Research, 6(4), 559–577.

18.

Kovach

(2010). Conversational method in indigenous research. First Peoples Child & Family Review, 5(1), 40–48.

19.

Kovach

(2015). Emerging from the margins: Indigenous methodologies. In L. Brown & S. Strega (Eds.) Research as Resistance: Critical, Indigenous and Anti-oppressive Approaches (pp. 19–36). Canadian Scholars’ Press.

20.

Kowal

(2011). The stigma of white privilege: Australian anti-racists and Indigenous improvement. Cultural Studies, 25(3), 313–333.

21.

Lohoar

Butera

Kennedy

(2014). Strengths of Australian Aboriginal cultural practices in family life and child rearing. Australian Institute of Family Studies.

22.

Mooney

Riley

Blacklock

(2016). Dimensions of Aboriginal community development. In Kickett-Tucker

Bessarab

Coffin

Wright

(Eds.), Mia Mia Aboriginal community development: Fostering cultural security (pp. 54–70). Cambridge University Press.

23.

Nilson

(2017). A journey toward cultural competence: The role of researcher reflexivity in indigenous research. Journal of Transcultural Nursing, 28(2), 119–127.

24.

Poudrier

Mac-Lean

R. T.

(2009). ‘We’ve fallen into the cracks’: Aboriginal women’s experiences with breast cancer through photovoice. Nursing Inquiry, 16(4), 306–317.

25.

Quayle

A. F.

Sonn

C. C.

(2019). Amplifying the voices of indigenous elders through community arts and narrative inquiry: Stories of oppression, psychosocial suffering, and survival. American Journal of Community Psychology, 64, 1–13.

26.

Shepherd

C. C.

Zubrick

S. R.

(2012). Social gradients in the health of Indigenous Australians. American Journal of Public Health, 102(1), 107–117.

27.

Smylie

Olding

Ziegler

(2014). Sharing what we know about living a good life: Indigenous approaches to knowledge translation. The Journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association/CHLA= Journal de L’Association Des Bibliotheques de la Sante du Canada/ABSC, 35, 16–23.

28.

Thomas

D. P.

Bainbridge

Tsey

(2014). Changing discourses in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health research, 1914–2014. Medical Journal of Australia, 201(1), S1–S4.

29.

Wallerstein

N. B.

Duran

(2006). Using community-based participatory research to address health disparities. Health Promotion Practice, 7(3), 312–323.

30.

Wright

(2011). Research as intervention: Engaging silenced voices. ALAR: Action Learning and Action Research Journal, 17(2), 25.

31.

Wright

Culbong

Jones

O’Connell

Ford

(2013). Making a difference: Engaging both hearts and minds in research practice. ALAR Journal, 19(1), 36–61.

32.

Wright

Lin

O’Connell

(2016). Humility, inquisitiveness, and openness: Key attributes for meaningful engagement with Nyoongar people. Advances in Mental Health, 14(2), 82–95.

33.

Wright

O’Connell

(2013). Weaving the narratives of relationship in community participatory research. New Community Quarterly, 11(43), 8–14.

34.

Wright

O’Connell

(2015). Negotiating the right path: Working together to effect change in healthcare service provision to Aboriginal peoples. Action Learning Action Research Journal, 21, 108--123.