National Centre for Research Methods (NCRM)

Critical reflections on previous knowledge equity/lived experience work

Duration: 7:15 1061 transcript words EN summary

Video summary

The video critically examines the ethical landscape of research conducted by non-Indigenous peoples within Indigenous communities in Australia, emphasizing that such work must prioritize the benefit and betterment of the community rather than the advancement of the researcher. A central argument is that research has historically been a source of harm for Indigenous peoples, often described as a "dirty word" due to past abuses and negative outcomes, which necessitates a shift from studying *about* or *for* these communities to engaging in collaborative work *with* them. The speaker asserts that in the current era, there should be no justification for non-Indigenous researchers to conduct Indigenous-led research without an Indigenous co-researcher who possesses specific expertise and can ensure the project is conducted at all levels with genuine partnership. Furthermore, the discussion highlights the importance of understanding one's own positionality within the research dynamic, extending beyond a simple acknowledgment of privilege to a deep analysis of power structures and roles. The transcript illustrates how institutional mechanisms, such as ethics committees, have sometimes devolved into mere "tick-the-box" exercises that lack meaningful follow-up or accountability once approval is granted. This systemic issue is exacerbated by policies regarding life licenses, where the state's control over individuals labeled as vulnerable is used to restrict their ability to participate in research or share their lived experiences, effectively protecting institutional interests rather than the individual's well-being. The speaker argues that these restrictive guidelines often hinder the very people they claim to protect, preventing the dissemination of crucial information and maintaining a cycle of control within the justice and welfare systems. To address these challenges, the video proposes several constructive pathways forward, including the co-production of knowledge through platforms like podcasts that bring together diverse voices—such as students, researchers, and lecturers—to openly debate issues ranging from mental health to criminal justice. This approach fosters solidarity and disruption by creating spaces where people who would not normally interact can collaborate, leading to tangible outcomes like a co-edited book featuring contributions from both Indigenous and non-Indigenous authors across various disciplines. The project also involves community forums throughout Australia where these diverse authors discuss their chapters, reinforcing the idea that inclusion benefits everyone, particularly neurodiverse and disabled groups, by leveraging creative methods of communication that resonate in an era of shortened attention spans. Ultimately, the video concludes that transforming knowledge production requires moving away from traditional, exclusionary academic models toward more visual and accessible ways of sharing experiences firsthand. By diversifying communication strategies and embracing creativity, society can better include marginalized voices and ensure that research truly serves its communities. The speaker envisions a future where universities host regular dialogues to unpick complex issues regarding racial literacy and lived experience, ensuring that the history of abusive research is not repeated. This holistic approach not only honors the dignity of Indigenous peoples but also enriches the broader academic and social fabric by validating the expertise of all participants, regardless of their background or ability.

Read the full video transcript

So I think that um all non-indigenous peoples um yeah in the Australian context who are trying to do work and research um in indigenous communities or about indigenous peoples need to understand first why are they doing that research? Is that research of benefit to indigenous um peoples for their betterment or is it for the betterment or griegression of the actual researcher? So my point would be first is that is there actually a need and a benefit to the indigenous peoples and indigenous communities. Next, I would say to make sure that um research does no harm because as Linda Tuari Smith has said quite strongly in her work in her seinal book decolonizing methodologies that you know um research is a dirty word for indigenous peoples because of the abuse that's come and the negative outcomes that have been there for indigenous peoples. So in doing um for non-indigenous peoples um working and wanting to do indigenous researches I think that they need to first of all know that they are doing research with indigenous peoples not for or about indigenous peoples. So that's one position. My second um take would be I don't think in Australia there should be any need for any non-indigenous researcher to be doing indigenous research without a co-ressearcher who is indigenous in this day and time. There's plenty of indigenous researchers um who have expertise in all fields now where they should be included at all levels of a research project. So that's a really um solid thing for me um in terms of an expectation. I would also say that non-indigenous researchers need to know their own positionality in this research and that's more than just saying yes I recognize I'm a non-indigenous person and I have privilege. It's about knowing how their position is, what their positioning is in terms of, you know, power and where they are in their actual, you know, role and position within this research project. >> The co-production on the rating, right? So, I think that's that's a destructor in itself. I think universities maybe holding some type of talks where lived experience and and researchers and lecturers and students can get together and start unpicking some of this stuff would be another one. The use of audio and and when I say audio, it could be through a podcast platform. You could basically have those voices of lived experience of students and then or researchers in one space openly debating discussing or talking about said issues whatever they may be mental health criminal whatever that may be that disrupts because it brings people together who would never normally be in the same space. They're all ways in which I see disruption currently but could be definitely grown upon. I was angry because like I wanted to do an interview uh there was a big project that was happening but because I was on license I wasn't allowed to do it because he told me that they couldn't get through the ethics board I was um on license because basically I was still property of the state and I hated the fact that I wasn't I wasn't in a bad place mentally at that point well I was probably more than I am now but I was certainly able to take part in that and I wanted to and I certainly had the knowledge and the emotion and and the drive to be able to do it um and and I wasn't allowed to. I often feel that vulnerability is used by the state as a way to control people. Um, you know, when you're on life license or when you're on um when you're trapped in the system, you can't get out. So, I I was hindered so much by these guidelines that say they were protecting me, uh, when really they're protecting themselves. They're protecting their own interests and control and law and order. and um they don't want information to be to be spread >> in Australia. Um in Australian universities, all indigenous research has to go through ethics committees. But my concern is is that they go through all these processes and address thousands of questions which to me has become a tick the box exercise because once they get approved they go go and do that research but there's no institutional followup to actually hold them accountable for what research has actually been done. So unless somebody makes a formal complaint, nobody really knows whether this ethics is being followed. ethics committees have been put into place for a reason because of a history of um abusive research being done by non-indigenous researchers. I did yarning sessions with them about their experiences as educators in that field and trying to understand what racial literacy looks like across Australia. And um as that became a a project of joy but also a project of solidarity which led to the development of a uh co-edited book from that project which consists of 22 chapters um written by 28 authors from a variety of backgrounds disciplinary backgrounds and ethnic backgrounds indigenous and non-indigenous also with that we are holding a number of sessions um throughout Australia where all of those different authors are coming together from to discuss their chapters you know in community forums and um some university forums. >> So I think kind of diversifying it and like leaning into more visual ways of communicating knowledge. Um I think I think this is an example where it's really really beneficial to disabled groups, neurodyiverse groups, but I think it's also beneficial to everybody as well. I think it's one of those examples where inclusion is benefits everyone. Um so yeah thinking about different ways of um being creative um and I think as well I mean it's a stereotype that neurodyiverse people are really really creative but some of them are really creative so why not use that in the way we communicate the knowledge production sharing their experiences firsthand um because I think it I think it can be really powerful to do that. Um so yeah and I think as well the way society is going we're so um all of our attention span is is reduced and we people don't want to sit and read long things.