Ngapartji ngapartji ninti and koorliny karnya quoppa katitjin (Respectful and ethical research in central Australia and the south west)

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 our Māori colleagues and friends. The decision to write as a dialogue between three people may be seen as a little wam (strange) to some. We have chosen to do it in a conscious attempt to “unsettle” the convention of creating a “voice” that is singular, authoritative and self-assured (see Freire, 1986; Westoby & Dowling, 2013). In part, writing as a dialogue reflects the critical part that gnulla wangkiny in Noongar or nganana tjunguringkula waakaripai in Pitjantjatjara (“we go along talking and yarning together”) plays in Indigenous Australian communities. It also reflects our desire to more honestly demonstrate the value of “yarning” (Bessarab & Ng’andu, 2010; Barlo, 2017). We will write this in a way that is closest to how the ideas came to be, as a series of observations and questions, forged through what we have read, tested and experienced. We will also write it in a way that pays respect to and rightfully tries to honour Indigenous ontological, epistemological and conceptual traditions. Although we write in English we will also draw upon Noongar and Pitjantjatjara language and conceptual ideas. The piece also reflects the fact that the three authors have a long history of having yarns like this. We have known each other for more than thirty years, worked on research together, travelled often and learnt much from one another. In addition, in November of 2017 and specifically to help us prepare this paper, we sat down and recorded two yarns in Canberra and out at Boyagin Rock near Brookton in Western Australia. Our style may be unsettling for some but as Muecke (2004) points out, Aboriginal frames have long had to endure an unfair distance from most recognized philosophy. This is despite the fact that they have long had much to offer (see Buchanan et al., 2016). ngearn noonook, nguntu palya (Introducing each other) Dave: Len, can we start our discussion about research ethics by getting you to talk about first steps? We have this yarn on Noongar boodjar (Noongar country). As we begin the process of “travelling” from Noongar country to central Australia, what would you say about how we do this as “ethical researchers”? Len: Well if wam (outsiders in Noongar) are yaarl koorliny gnulla boodjar (coming to our country in Noongar), one of the first things we would expect them to do is to “sing out” to the old people, those who have passed away and are now the spirit of the lands and sense of the place (Collard, 2007). You need to call out to ancestors, to moort (family in Noongar) about who you are and what your intentions are. We do this out of respect to the people from that place. It also helps make us safe. Crucially it makes it clear to people from the area that whatever we might think about the ethical or right way to do things in our own area we also understand that the particular character and form of ethical behaviour shifts from place to place. This last point is important to make before we go too much further. Although we will make some observations, we don’t want readers to mistake 34 Ngapartji ngapartji ninti and koorliny karnya quoppa katitjin (Respectful and ethical research in central Australia and the south west) Jennie Buchanan, Len Collard and Dave Palmer our main point, which is that ethical research is different from country to country and Indigenous group to Indigenous group. So let’s do this to our Anangu moort or waltja (family, in Pitjantjatjara). Kaya Anangu bidi. Nguntu palya? Gnulla koorbal karnya barminy gnulla nidja koorliny yeye nyinniny. Gnullak Noongar katitjin Anangu baranginy boollah katitjin bidi. Nidja Noongar boodjar noonook nyinniny. Anangu boordier nidja boojar, koora, yeye boorda. Gnulla koorbal boolah warlbirniny weirn. (Hello to our Anangu bosses. Are you good? We write this while sitting in Noongar country. We believe it is worth remembering that Anangu have contributed much to cultural and economic life in central Australia as Noongar have in the south west of Australia. We recognise Anangu as bosses for their knowledge and language. We will go along picking our way through knowledge with a respectful feeling in our gut.) Jen: Len, I am reminded of what your friend, colleague and Anangu maaman (father in Pitjantjatjara), Barry Judd, has said about the business of coming into central Australian communities as an ethical researcher. He talks about old Anangu practices offering us “the proper basis of ethical research practice”. Barry claims that our starting point should be “the practice of when, where, and how one camps”. In particular, asking where one needs to physically position oneself is critical. Traditionally, visitors to the Country of another Anangu group would be required to approach from the direction of their homeland, set up camp within view of their hosts, but initiate no contact with them. Then they would wait. Wait for half a day, a full day, or two full days. Only when their hosts approached their camp did it indicate that the visitors were welcome. This is the protocol that our research project has used on field research visits to Papunya (Judd cited in Hawkes, Pollock, Judd, Phipps, & Assoulin, 2017, p. 26). Dave: It is also important to explain a little about who we are and what this has to do with what we are writing about. Len: Dave, you were born in Kaurna country or Adelaide but your moort is from the UK, heh? You and I have known each other since the mid 1980s and we studied youth work together before we each started teaching at university. Jen: Professor Collard [Len], you describe yourself as Wadjuk Balardong Noongar and we have worked together in different ways since the early 1990s. You, Dave and I met at university during our undergraduate degree in youth work too. Dave: Jen, you’d describe yourself as a Wedjela (non-Aboriginal) who grew up in Noongar boodjar? Jen: Sometimes! When I’m in the Kimberley I turn into a Gardiya (a non-Aboriginal person) (Muecke, 2014). Warlbirniny: birniny (In contrast to excavation) Jen: Dave, you have had some things to say about the tendency by research organisations to insist on conducting themselves using an “excavation” approach. Can you talk about this? 2 On this occasion we will refer to our relationships with work on Anangu and Yarnangu country. This reflects our personal experiences and the fact that our affiliations are more connected with people from Pitjantjatjara, Yankunytjatjara and Ngaanyatjarra communities. 35 Learning Communities | Special Issue: Ethical relationships, ethical research in Aboriginal contexts | Number 23 – November 2018 Dave: I’ve come to notice amongst many colleagues and in the culture of universities what I describe as research through “excavation”. We come from long traditions of seeing research as an activity that is much the same as mining. We set out as researchers to do some exploration work, prospecting the knowledge terrain, trying to uncover what sits underneath the surface so we can pull it out, bring it back to the academ