• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.
{"title":"Altyerre NOW: Arrernte dreams for national reconstruction in the 21st century","authors":"Joel Liddle Perrurle, B. Judd","doi":"10.18793/lcj2018.23.09","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18793/lcj2018.23.09","url":null,"abstract":"• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.","PeriodicalId":43860,"journal":{"name":"Learning Communities-International Journal of Learning in Social Contexts","volume":"26 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2018-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87024981","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper is set out as a conversation between three people, an Indigenous person and two non-Indigenous people, who have known and worked with each other for over 30 years. This work has involved them researching with communities in central Australia and the south west of Western Australia. The discussion concerns itself with ideas and practices that come from three conceptual traditions; English, Noongar and Pitjantjatjara to talk about how to build ngapartji ngapartji (“you give and I give in return”, in Pitjantjatjara), karnya birit gnarl (respectful and kind ways of sweating/working with people, in Noongar), between marlpara (“colleagues”, in Pitjantjatjara) and involving warlbirniny quop weirn (singing out to the old people, in Noongar). Kura katitj (Introduction and background) The history of outsiders carrying out research with Indigenous Australians is long and often vexed. To say that Indigenous communities do not often benefit from the work of researchers is perhaps an understatement. Although approved by the ethical protocols of universities, much research that is undertaken “on” Indigenous people, Indigenous lands and Indigenous knowledge maintains the longstanding model of “excavating” information, artifacts and insights. This reflects a long and lasting history where the vested interests of outsiders (like government, business, universities, even non-government organisations) usurp the goals and aspirations of Indigenous communities. It also reflects the fact that there are fewer areas of research in Australia where outsiders have invested so poorly in the capability and ethical practices of those they “send” to work with Indigenous communities. This chapter will provide a series of contemplations from a Noongar man and two nonIndigenous people whose research work with communities routinely sees them confronting 1 We use the term Noongar to refer to those – living and who have passed away – with longstanding cultural affiliations and connections to the south-west corner of Western Australia. 33 Learning Communities | Special Issue: Ethical relationships, ethical research in Aboriginal contexts | Number 23 – November 2018 tensions, paradoxes and ethical challenges. It takes the form of a dialogue where each draws together their experience as researchers. Moving between central Australia and the south west of Western Australia, this dialogue opens up a conversation across three knowledge domains: academic English, Noongar and Western Desert systems such as Pitjantjatjara. Using conceptual and cultural frameworks from across these systems we attempt to talk about how to build ngapartji ngapartji (“you give and I give in return”, in Pitjantjatjara), karnya birit gnarl (respectful and kind ways of sweating/working with people, in Noongar), between marlpara (“colleagues”, in Pitjantjatjara) and involving warlbirniny quop weirn (singing out to the old people, in Noongar). To support this discussion we also draw on work written by some of
{"title":"Ngapartji ngapartji ninti and koorliny karnya quoppa katitjin (Respectful and ethical research in central Australia and the south west)","authors":"J. Buchanan, L. Collard, David Palmer","doi":"10.18793/LCJ2018.23.04","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18793/LCJ2018.23.04","url":null,"abstract":"This paper is set out as a conversation between three people, an Indigenous person and two non-Indigenous people, who have known and worked with each other for over 30 years. This work has involved them researching with communities in central Australia and the south west of Western Australia. The discussion concerns itself with ideas and practices that come from three conceptual traditions; English, Noongar and Pitjantjatjara to talk about how to build ngapartji ngapartji (“you give and I give in return”, in Pitjantjatjara), karnya birit gnarl (respectful and kind ways of sweating/working with people, in Noongar), between marlpara (“colleagues”, in Pitjantjatjara) and involving warlbirniny quop weirn (singing out to the old people, in Noongar). Kura katitj (Introduction and background) The history of outsiders carrying out research with Indigenous Australians is long and often vexed. To say that Indigenous communities do not often benefit from the work of researchers is perhaps an understatement. Although approved by the ethical protocols of universities, much research that is undertaken “on” Indigenous people, Indigenous lands and Indigenous knowledge maintains the longstanding model of “excavating” information, artifacts and insights. This reflects a long and lasting history where the vested interests of outsiders (like government, business, universities, even non-government organisations) usurp the goals and aspirations of Indigenous communities. It also reflects the fact that there are fewer areas of research in Australia where outsiders have invested so poorly in the capability and ethical practices of those they “send” to work with Indigenous communities. This chapter will provide a series of contemplations from a Noongar man and two nonIndigenous people whose research work with communities routinely sees them confronting 1 We use the term Noongar to refer to those – living and who have passed away – with longstanding cultural affiliations and connections to the south-west corner of Western Australia. 33 Learning Communities | Special Issue: Ethical relationships, ethical research in Aboriginal contexts | Number 23 – November 2018 tensions, paradoxes and ethical challenges. It takes the form of a dialogue where each draws together their experience as researchers. Moving between central Australia and the south west of Western Australia, this dialogue opens up a conversation across three knowledge domains: academic English, Noongar and Western Desert systems such as Pitjantjatjara. Using conceptual and cultural frameworks from across these systems we attempt to talk about how to build ngapartji ngapartji (“you give and I give in return”, in Pitjantjatjara), karnya birit gnarl (respectful and kind ways of sweating/working with people, in Noongar), between marlpara (“colleagues”, in Pitjantjatjara) and involving warlbirniny quop weirn (singing out to the old people, in Noongar). To support this discussion we also draw on work written by some of","PeriodicalId":43860,"journal":{"name":"Learning Communities-International Journal of Learning in Social Contexts","volume":"23 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2018-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82034637","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Janine Oldfield, V. Forrester, Mutitjulu Community
The language education policy research based on the views of remote Indigenous communities that is the subject of this paper involved a complex metaphoric dance but one centred on the lead of Aboriginal collaborative research participants. The researchers in this dance, fortunately, had enough experience in traditional Aboriginal decision-making processes and so knew the tilts and sways that ensured the emergence of a reliable picture of remote Indigenous knowledge authority. However, as with most Indigenous research, the de-colonisation process and the use of Indigenous research methods hit a misstep when it came to the academy’s ethical procedures and institutional gatekeeping. This almost led to a position from which the research would not recover and from which a contentious but important Indigenous topic on Indigenous language education remained unvoiced.
{"title":"The dancing trope of cross-cultural language education policy","authors":"Janine Oldfield, V. Forrester, Mutitjulu Community","doi":"10.18793/LCJ2018.23.06","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18793/LCJ2018.23.06","url":null,"abstract":"The language education policy research based on the views of remote Indigenous communities that is the subject of this paper involved a complex metaphoric dance but one centred on the lead of Aboriginal collaborative research participants. The researchers in this dance, fortunately, had enough experience in traditional Aboriginal decision-making processes and so knew the tilts and sways that ensured the emergence of a reliable picture of remote Indigenous knowledge authority. However, as with most Indigenous research, the de-colonisation process and the use of Indigenous research methods hit a misstep when it came to the academy’s ethical procedures and institutional gatekeeping. This almost led to a position from which the research would not recover and from which a contentious but important Indigenous topic on Indigenous language education remained unvoiced.","PeriodicalId":43860,"journal":{"name":"Learning Communities-International Journal of Learning in Social Contexts","volume":"83 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2018-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"91041529","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Iteration is a factor of the human research ethical clearance through which research and evaluation with humans is undertaken in Australia. In remote community research contexts, iteration has helped us to redress some features of the cultural dissonance that occurs between western and Aboriginal research paradigms and between remote and urban contexts. Without a commensurate ethic of feedback between national programs and remote research settings, the uptake or non-uptake of findings from short-term or rapid-contract research often remain a mystery. The proposition this paper puts forward is for a post-research process whereby research commissioners and administrators provide feedback as to the uptake or not of research findings. This would produce a meta-data, as well as make accessible the rationale for research findings being accepted or rejected. The meta-data would provide baselines for further research, an ongoing record of areas of research and neglect, and assist in the uptake of research knowledge useful at a community level. However, this proposition would require non-partisan support which is highly unlikely to be realised in the current political climate. human research Ethics: Protocols, procedures and practices Despite being intensely researched, remote Aboriginal community residents’ outcomes for health, education, employment, wellbeing and safety fall below the set targets of Australian governments (Australian Government, 2016; Limerick et al., 2014). Evidently, research and evaluation contribute knowledge for the governance and provision of public services, but what knowledge, and how and why, is unclear. There is no formal requirement or system of feedback from research commissioners to research institutions, researchers or community research partners. With so much information and knowledge being produced, what else can human research ethical protocols contribute towards improving remote Aboriginal community outcomes? All research undertaken in Australia that includes people requires an ethical clearance, which is managed through a university or a government department. A human research ethics committee (HREC) grants a research project clearance when adequate ethical processes and oversight for the research are accepted by the committee. Procedural ethics and ethical practice together describe the process of ethical research and the terms are commonly understood as iteratively linked (Guillemin & Gillam, 2004). A principal of human research ethics is that research contribute to knowledge that achieves a greater social good. Producing findings through remote Aboriginal community research and evaluation is not enough, despite community-level priorities and the direct benefits of employment, participation and income from community research contract work. The social context of the current policy era has 93 Learning Communities | Special Issue: Ethical relationships, ethical research in Aboriginal contexts | Number 23 – November 201
(2012)还观察到，嵌入土著社区参与的研究面临着当地伦理研究所需的内容与合同客户或在相关国家伦理和政策框架内管理、委托或资助研究的其他利益相关者的要求之间的额外脱节。考虑到偏远地区之间的差异，伦理协议可以通过社区一级的研究伙伴关系进一步纠正文化失调。在这个层次上，研究很可能在社区环境中以及社区环境之间遇到文化上独特和细粒度的多样性。国家伦理议定书的目的是维护土著人民自决和表达其社区和文化价值的权利;但在它们内部，语言、文化、地理和身份政治的差异在背景内部或背景之间往往是无法分辨的。这降低了通过国家框架保留自决等预期价值的可能性。除非有时间和金钱进行必要的讨论，以便更好地理解研究将如何包括和代表一个社区的自决价值和优先事项，否则社区层面的数据不太可能导致社区优先考虑当地服务的结果。土著研究知识和伦理协议对非土著共同研究者的一个好处是，通过这个过程，研究者可以更好地理解她自己与拥有土著文化知识基础的合作者之间的研究，以及这与所支持的和实用的人类伦理研究价值是如何交叉的对远程社区参与的远程公共服务提供的实地研究是关于交叉性的信息和知识的渠道，它突出了当代偏远土著社会国家框架实施中隐含的文化和地理不协调(Austin-Broos, 2001)。1有关土著价值观和对土著和托雷斯海峡岛民进行伦理研究的伦理要求的更多细节，请参阅邓巴和斯克林杰(2017,pp. 64-65);《国民声明》(2003年，第69-71页);和AIATIS指南，(2012,pp. 4-18)。在国家层面，伦理学术研究过程的设计是为了使实践和程序能够理想地相互告知(Guillemin et al.， 2016)。这种实践、方法和程序的迭代是人类研究伦理审查过程设计中固有的。对于一些研究参与者来说，在获得他们的知情同意的过程中，讨论土著伦理研究协议的核心价值是极其重要的。在一项纵向研究中，随着时间的推移，这些对话塑造了知情同意工具，并提高了所述健康研究的参与率(邓巴和斯克林杰，2017;Guillemin et al.， 2016)。但是，国家框架的强制实施是否也减少了地方社区参与塑造自己的伦理研究的方式?在另一个环境和不同的研究背景下，土著参与者和共同研究人员之间达成知情同意的点没有那么有条不紊和程序化;事实上，建议使用知情同意协议可能会破坏研究。外来者和社区长老之间的书面文件、签名和正式会议记录很少能在远程环境中培养信任、合作或参与，除非存在非常良好的关系(Judd, 2017)。当人与人之间和文化之间对彼此的角色以及工作的潜力和意图的理解建立起来时，参与轨迹上会有一个点，通过这个点，研究的当地优先事项被确定和“拥有”(Lovell, Armstrong, Inkamala, Lechleitner， & Fisher, 2012)。参与式行动研究(PAR) (Wadsworth, 2011)是一种社区和行动驱动的研究方法，理论上寻求中介机制，导致社区层面的参与和变化。在偏远土著社区研究的两个案例中(Lovell, 2017;Lovell et al.， 2012)会话对话形成了研究团队的核心功能。通过将迭代过程嵌入到方法中，研究结果和建议可以确定和披露当地安全和福祉的优先事项。研究结果的吸收是一个谜:服务提供者与社区成员想要结果的理由不同;利益相关者会有不同的时间框架和冲动来投资或不投资建议。
{"title":"Research for social impact and the contra-ethic of national frameworks","authors":"J. Lovell","doi":"10.18793/LCJ2018.23.08","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18793/LCJ2018.23.08","url":null,"abstract":"Iteration is a factor of the human research ethical clearance through which research and evaluation with humans is undertaken in Australia. In remote community research contexts, iteration has helped us to redress some features of the cultural dissonance that occurs between western and Aboriginal research paradigms and between remote and urban contexts. Without a commensurate ethic of feedback between national programs and remote research settings, the uptake or non-uptake of findings from short-term or rapid-contract research often remain a mystery. The proposition this paper puts forward is for a post-research process whereby research commissioners and administrators provide feedback as to the uptake or not of research findings. This would produce a meta-data, as well as make accessible the rationale for research findings being accepted or rejected. The meta-data would provide baselines for further research, an ongoing record of areas of research and neglect, and assist in the uptake of research knowledge useful at a community level. However, this proposition would require non-partisan support which is highly unlikely to be realised in the current political climate. human research Ethics: Protocols, procedures and practices Despite being intensely researched, remote Aboriginal community residents’ outcomes for health, education, employment, wellbeing and safety fall below the set targets of Australian governments (Australian Government, 2016; Limerick et al., 2014). Evidently, research and evaluation contribute knowledge for the governance and provision of public services, but what knowledge, and how and why, is unclear. There is no formal requirement or system of feedback from research commissioners to research institutions, researchers or community research partners. With so much information and knowledge being produced, what else can human research ethical protocols contribute towards improving remote Aboriginal community outcomes? All research undertaken in Australia that includes people requires an ethical clearance, which is managed through a university or a government department. A human research ethics committee (HREC) grants a research project clearance when adequate ethical processes and oversight for the research are accepted by the committee. Procedural ethics and ethical practice together describe the process of ethical research and the terms are commonly understood as iteratively linked (Guillemin & Gillam, 2004). A principal of human research ethics is that research contribute to knowledge that achieves a greater social good. Producing findings through remote Aboriginal community research and evaluation is not enough, despite community-level priorities and the direct benefits of employment, participation and income from community research contract work. The social context of the current policy era has 93 Learning Communities | Special Issue: Ethical relationships, ethical research in Aboriginal contexts | Number 23 – November 201","PeriodicalId":43860,"journal":{"name":"Learning Communities-International Journal of Learning in Social Contexts","volume":"505 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2018-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78139689","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.
{"title":"The making of Monstrous Breaches: An ethical global visual narrative","authors":"J. Lovell, K. Wallace","doi":"10.18793/LCJ2018.23.10","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18793/LCJ2018.23.10","url":null,"abstract":"• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.","PeriodicalId":43860,"journal":{"name":"Learning Communities-International Journal of Learning in Social Contexts","volume":"26 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2018-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88596055","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper presents a comic-strip to tell the story of an experience where we, the researchers, struggled to reconcile our institution’s ethical requirements with the need to build respectful and reciprocal relationships with research participants, the essence of ethical practice. The core images of our comic-strip derive from Wallace and Lovell’s monoprint, “Monstrous Breaches” (Lovell & Wallace, in press). We respond to the artists’ invitation to re-work their monoprint in order to better understand the “monsters” or dangers of our research world. We contend that traversing the spaces between institutional and relational ethics is itself a process that is often fraught with ethical dangers, “monsters” that researchers and institutions often overlook at our peril. Critical interpretation and analysis of the comic-strip elicits three “monsters” that can be encountered in this space: 1) the deficit model that assigns “vulnerability” to all Aboriginal research participants and the implications of this; 2) the neo-paternalist assumption that participants share the institution’s values and goals, resulting in measures that impinge on rather than protect participants’ needs, and; 3) the friction between an institutional discourse that is built on certainty, replicability, and legalistic concepts of safety in contrast to a relational discourse that recognises uncertainly, responsiveness and interpersonal concepts of safety. 77 Learning Communities | Special Issue: Ethical relationships, ethical research in Aboriginal contexts | Number 23 – November 2018 Figure 1. Al and Lisa’s collaged comic strip, ‘Different Monsters’, 2017. 78 Different monsters: Traversing the uneasy dialectic of institutional and relational ethics | Al Strangeways and Lisa Papatraianou
{"title":"Different monsters: Traversing the uneasy dialectic of institutional and relational ethics","authors":"Al Strangeways, Lisa H. Papatraianou","doi":"10.18793/LCJ2018.23.07","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18793/LCJ2018.23.07","url":null,"abstract":"This paper presents a comic-strip to tell the story of an experience where we, the researchers, struggled to reconcile our institution’s ethical requirements with the need to build respectful and reciprocal relationships with research participants, the essence of ethical practice. The core images of our comic-strip derive from Wallace and Lovell’s monoprint, “Monstrous Breaches” (Lovell & Wallace, in press). We respond to the artists’ invitation to re-work their monoprint in order to better understand the “monsters” or dangers of our research world. We contend that traversing the spaces between institutional and relational ethics is itself a process that is often fraught with ethical dangers, “monsters” that researchers and institutions often overlook at our peril. Critical interpretation and analysis of the comic-strip elicits three “monsters” that can be encountered in this space: 1) the deficit model that assigns “vulnerability” to all Aboriginal research participants and the implications of this; 2) the neo-paternalist assumption that participants share the institution’s values and goals, resulting in measures that impinge on rather than protect participants’ needs, and; 3) the friction between an institutional discourse that is built on certainty, replicability, and legalistic concepts of safety in contrast to a relational discourse that recognises uncertainly, responsiveness and interpersonal concepts of safety. 77 Learning Communities | Special Issue: Ethical relationships, ethical research in Aboriginal contexts | Number 23 – November 2018 Figure 1. Al and Lisa’s collaged comic strip, ‘Different Monsters’, 2017. 78 Different monsters: Traversing the uneasy dialectic of institutional and relational ethics | Al Strangeways and Lisa Papatraianou","PeriodicalId":43860,"journal":{"name":"Learning Communities-International Journal of Learning in Social Contexts","volume":"96 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2018-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84424339","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Ethical research with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples is a complex and delicate space. It often juxtaposes Western views of ethical practice with Indigenous worldviews and values. The lead author’s doctoral research project has focused on the expectations, experiences and outcomes of boarding school for remote Aboriginal students, families and communities. This paper presents a thematic analysis of the reflections of the authors on working together on this research as a non-Indigenous researcher and an Aboriginal Community Researcher. Strategies to implement what the authors and literature describe as ethical practice in remote Aboriginal communities are discussed. Implications for future research and lessons learned through this experience are identified.
{"title":"Researching together: Reflections on ethical research in remote Aboriginal communities","authors":"T. Benveniste, CQUniversity, L. King","doi":"10.18793/lcj2018.23.05","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18793/lcj2018.23.05","url":null,"abstract":"Ethical research with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples is a complex and delicate space. It often juxtaposes Western views of ethical practice with Indigenous worldviews and values. The lead author’s doctoral research project has focused on the expectations, experiences and outcomes of boarding school for remote Aboriginal students, families and communities. This paper presents a thematic analysis of the reflections of the authors on working together on this research as a non-Indigenous researcher and an Aboriginal Community Researcher. Strategies to implement what the authors and literature describe as ethical practice in remote Aboriginal communities are discussed. Implications for future research and lessons learned through this experience are identified.","PeriodicalId":43860,"journal":{"name":"Learning Communities-International Journal of Learning in Social Contexts","volume":"17 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2018-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88258014","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Introduction to Special Issue: Being here matters","authors":"B. Judd","doi":"10.18793/lcj2018.23.01","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18793/lcj2018.23.01","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":43860,"journal":{"name":"Learning Communities-International Journal of Learning in Social Contexts","volume":"83 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2018-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86641467","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Decolonising Research Methodologies in East Arnhem Land","authors":"M. Tane, M. Harwood","doi":"10.18793/LCJ2017.22.06","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18793/LCJ2017.22.06","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":43860,"journal":{"name":"Learning Communities-International Journal of Learning in Social Contexts","volume":"78 1","pages":"48-68"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2017-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79481983","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
There is currently a strong movement among First Nations researchers in Australia and globally to draw on their own epistemologies, ontologies and axiologies in academic research. It is evident that Indigenous researchers are pushing back the boundaries in the research academy to make space for a new, fresher way to do research by drawing on old traditional Indigenous ways. Our Indigenous ways of working, being and making-meaning appeal to me as a researcher, because these are my strength, these are familiar to me, these are what I know. By drawing on my own epistemologies, ontologies and axiologies, I am bringing my own thought process, ethical considerations, and culturally appropriate ways of carrying out research with Aboriginal and Torres Strait people.
{"title":"Kapati Time: Storytelling as a Data Collection Method in Indigenous Research","authors":"R. Ober","doi":"10.18793/LCJ2017.22.02","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18793/LCJ2017.22.02","url":null,"abstract":"There is currently a strong movement among First Nations researchers in Australia and globally to draw on their own epistemologies, ontologies and axiologies in academic research. It is evident that Indigenous researchers are pushing back the boundaries in the research academy to make space for a new, fresher way to do research by drawing on old traditional Indigenous ways. Our Indigenous ways of working, being and making-meaning appeal to me as a researcher, because these are my strength, these are familiar to me, these are what I know. By drawing on my own epistemologies, ontologies and axiologies, I am bringing my own thought process, ethical considerations, and culturally appropriate ways of carrying out research with Aboriginal and Torres Strait people.","PeriodicalId":43860,"journal":{"name":"Learning Communities-International Journal of Learning in Social Contexts","volume":"47 1","pages":"8-15"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2017-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74005148","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：