Kulini: Framing Ethical Listening and Power-Sensitive Dialogue in Remote Aboriginal Education and Research

Abstract

Indigenous people often complain that they aren’t being listened to, that researchers, institutions and policy makers aren’t taking them seriously or listening properly to their concerns (Donald, 2016). In response, researchers, politicians and interested ‘others’ make commitments to do a better job. The language of ‘better listening’ is framed in terms such as to ‘listen deeply’ (Kohn, 2016; Wallace & Lovell, 2009), or listen ‘truly’ (Snowden, 2017), and in some cases, notions of ‘listening’ as opposed to ‘hearing’ as an act of good faith in responding to Indigenous peoples’ concerns is argued (Davis, 2016). As an ‘outsider’ working in Indigenous research, it is a primary concern to respectfully engage with, interpret, and ultimately, represent the voices and concerns of Indigenous people as ethically and truthfully as possible within a broader understanding of the limitations on us to do so well, if at all. In reality, this is a precarious negotiation at the best of times and requires careful ethical/methodological consideration to better represent claims that research is ultimately beneficial to participants and the communities they represent. This paper adopts the Pitjantjatjara language term ‘kulini’ (listen to, hear) to mark out the terms of ‘ethical listening’ at the cultural interface (Nakata, 2007a) through an Aboriginal language lens. Ethical responsibilities for initiating dialogue towards action is then developed as a model based on Delpit’s (1993) framing of ethical listening and action in educating ‘other people’s children’. Working from the kulini frame provides methodological cues that can orient research towards justice and more just possibilities. Introduction Indigenous people across the globe are frustrated that they aren’t being listened to, that researchers, institutions and policy makers aren’t listening or responding to their concerns (Donald, 2016). Commitments to listen beyond cursory, power-laden interactions are described in terms such as ‘better listening’ or to ‘listen deeply’ (Kohn, 2016; UngunmerrBaumann, 2002; Wallace & Lovell, 2009), or to listen ‘truly’ (Snowden, 2017). Some have debated the importance of ‘hearing’ as an ethical commitment beyond merely listening in responding to Indigenous peoples’ concerns (Davis, 2016). This paper presents methodological questions that arose in the course of my doctoral thesis (Osborne, 2016) where I endeavoured to privilege Anangu (Pitjantjatjara, Yankunytjatjara, Ngaatjatjarra and Ngaanyatjarra) voices in education dialogue across communities in the tristate area of remote Central Australia (the region where the states of South Australia, Western 27 Learning Communities | Special Issue: Decolonising Research Practices | Number 22 – December 2017 Australia and the Northern Territory meet). Globally, Indigenous scholars have repeatedly raised concerns regarding colonialist approaches to Indigenous research that ultimately diminish, even silence Indigenous voices, knowledges and aspirations (Bishop, 2011; Nakata, 2007b; Rigney, 1999; Sarra, 2011; Smith, 1999; Wilson & Yellow Bird, 2005) leading to ethical questions of research and justice. Others question whether power-laden methodologies are at all reliable in working towards any sense of ‘truth’ (Haraway, 2004; Harding, 1992). I have previously highlighted issues with outsider researchers’ attempts to ‘listen’ and ‘hear’ across points of power, epistemological and language difference in remote Aboriginal communities (Osborne, 2013, 2014, 2015a; Osborne & Guenther, 2013). In this paper, I propose working from the Pitjantjatjara language term ‘kulini’ (listen/hear) to frame a more culturally and contextually responsive (Guenther, 2015; Perso, 2012) methodological approach. In doing so, research must take account of the epistemological, ontological, axiological and cosmological contexts of the voices that are attempting to be heard. I then propose a model for informing institutional commitments to power-sensitive dialogue and ultimately, approaches to positioning research towards ‘more-just’ (Brennan & Zipin, 2008) possibilities.