Felecia Watkin Lui

No one’s discussing the elephant in the room: contemplating questions of research impact and benefit in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australian health research

BackgroundThere remains a concern that Indigenous Australians have been over-researched without corresponding improvements in their health; this trend is applicable to most Indigenous populations globally. This debate article has a dual purpose: 1) to open a frank conversation about the value of research to Indigenous Australian populations; and 2) to stimulate ways of thinking about potential resolutions to the lack of progress made in the Indigenous research benefit debate.DiscussionCapturing the meaning of research benefit takes the form of ethical value-oriented methodological considerations in the decision-making processes of Indigenous research endeavours. Because research practices come from Western knowledge bases, attaining such positions in research means reconciling both Indigenous and Western knowledge systems to produce new methodologies that guide planning, evaluating and monitoring of research practices as necessary. Increasingly, more sophisticated performance measures have been implemented to ensure academic impact and benefits are captured. Assessing societal and other non-academic impacts and benefits however, has not been accorded corresponding attention. Research reform has only focussed on research translation in more recent years. The research impact debate must take account of the various standards of accountability (to whom), impact priorities (for whom), positive and negative impacts, and biases that operate in describing impact and measuring benefit.SummaryA perennial question in Indigenous research discourse is whether the abundance of research conducted; purportedly to improve health, is justified and benefits Indigenous people in ways that are meaningful and valued by them. Different research stakeholders have different conceptions of the value and nature of research, its conduct, what it should achieve and the kinds of benefits expected. We need to work collaboratively and listen more closely to the voice of Indigenous Australians to better understand, demonstrate and measure health research benefits. The authors conclude that as an imperative, a systematic benefit assessment strategy that includes identification of research priorities and planning, monitoring and evaluation components needs to be developed and implemented across research projects. In Indigenous health research, this will often mean adopting a benefit-led approach by changing the way research is done and preferencing alternative research methodologies. As a point of departure to improving impact and reaching mutually beneficial outcomes for researchers and partners in Indigenous health research, we need to routinise the assessment of benefit from outset of research as one of the standards toward which we work.

Sea Country: navigating Indigenous and colonial ontologies in Australian environmental education

In this paper, we contribute to land education research by focusing on the Torres Strait Islands in the Coral Sea at the far north of tip of Cape York, Australia. We describe the Torres Strait Islander concept of Sea Country and Torres Strait Ailan Kastom (translated as ‘Island Custom’). We then analyse some of the ways in which settler colonisation has challenged these ways of knowing and being. Our inquiry looks at how Sea Country is positioned within two contemporary Australian examples of environmental education: firstly, within the new Australian Curriculum cross-curriculum priorities that mandate that special attention be given to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander histories and cultures and also to the concept of sustainability; and secondly, within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority’s Sea Country Guardians programme This analysis of environmental education curriculum and practice identifies the ways in which the concept of Sea Country and the Indigenous cosmology it represents are simultaneously supported and ignored in the current Australian environmental education context.

Setting the table: indigenous engagement on environmental issues in a politicized context

ABSTRACT Environmental issues are often highly politicized. Indigenous peoples may be reluctant to participate in research due to a history of colonization and negative experiences with researchers—described as a “chronic conflict”. We present a case where an acute conflict (an event that creates intense mistrust among stakeholders) occurred during a research project. The project studied a contentious issue: the sharing of dugong and turtle meat by Indigenous Australians. The chronic conflict of colonial history and Western research was exacerbated by media coverage of related issues when the project was starting, making participants unwilling to participate in our research. We adapted established Indigenous engagement protocols and—both literally and figuratively—set the table in response to the sociopolitical context of the research. This engagement process enabled us to establish trusting relationships with participants, and could benefit most researchers seeking to engage people, irrespective of Indigeneity or context.

Motivations for Sharing Bushmeat with an Urban Diaspora in Indigenous Australia

ABSTRACT The hunting and trade of bushmeat is a significant issue. The sharing of marine bushmeat between Australian Torres Strait Islanders and their mainland urban diaspora was documented from a diaspora perspective by collecting quantitative and qualitative data from communities in three mainland cities. Motivations for sharing dugong and turtle meat were almost exclusively cultural and mostly occurred when a diaspora member visited Torres Strait, when Torres Strait Islanders visited their mainland family, during Islander ceremonies, or when goods were exchanged as gifts. Each respondent consumed relatively little dugong and turtle meat (<1–2% of annual meat consumption, or < 1 kg per person per annum). Sharing bushmeat strengthened social capital and reinforced cultural identity. Harnessing the social capital generated from the sharing of bushmeat to engage the urban diaspora in dugong and turtle management activities in the Torres Strait could enhance the legitimacy and effectiveness of such initiatives.

Probes and prototypes: a participatory action research approach to codesign

Participatory Action Research (PAR) has a long history of use with disadvantaged groups in order to assist them to improve their living conditions, however its use with Information and Communications Technology (ICT) projects is less well known. This paper examines a case study where PAR was tied with the use of a technology probe by an Aboriginal group, with the goal of determining if culturally appropriate design of ICTs could help support individual well-being. The results of this project show that although PAR and probes can be used together, this combination has the potential to alter how probes are traditionally used in the design space. To support this premise, we review the history of the probes method in the literature and discuss changes in how cultural and technology probes have been implemented in recent years. We argue that as modifications are made to these frameworks due to the needs of the research, two sorts of project results should be fully elucidated: (1) the changes made to the original methodology and (2) how these changes have had an effect on the real-life environment to which they were applied.

Does Indigenous health research have impact? A systematic review of reviews

BackgroundAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians (hereafter respectfully Indigenous Australians) claim that they have been over-researched without corresponding research benefit. This claim raises two questions. The first, which has been covered to some extent in the literature, is about what type(s) of research are likely to achieve benefits for Indigenous people. The second is how researchers report the impact of their research for Indigenous people. This systematic review of Indigenous health reviews addresses the second enquiry.MethodsFourteen electronic databases were systematically searched for Indigenous health reviews which met eligibility criteria. Two reviewers assessed their characteristics and methodological rigour using an a priori protocol. Three research hypotheses were stated and tested: (1) reviews address Indigenous health priority needs; (2) reviews adopt best practice guidelines on research conduct and reporting in respect to methodological transparency and rigour, as well as acceptability and appropriateness of research implementation to Indigenous people; and (3) reviews explicitly report the incremental impacts of the included studies and translation of research. We argue that if review authors explicitly address each of these three hypotheses, then the impact of research for Indigenous peoples’ health would be explicated.ResultsSeventy-six reviews were included; comprising 55 journal articles and 21 Australian Government commissioned evidence review reports. While reviews are gaining prominence and recognition in Indigenous health research and increasing in number, breadth and complexity, there is little reporting of the impact of health research for Indigenous people. This finding raises questions about the relevance of these reviews for Indigenous people, their impact on policy and practice and how reviews have been commissioned, reported and evaluated.ConclusionsThe findings of our study serve two main purposes. First, we have identified knowledge and methodological gaps in documenting Indigenous health research impact that can be addressed by researchers and policy makers. Second, the findings provide the justification for developing a framework allowing researchers and funding bodies to structure future Indigenous health research to improve the reporting and assessment of impact over time.

My island home: re-presenting identities for Torres Strait Islanders living outside the Torres Strait

Since the end of the Second World War, the Torres Strait Islander diaspora located on the mainland of Australia has grown to the extent that it now represents just over 85 percent (40,367 people) of the total Torres Strait Islander population. The continued presence of Islanders living outside their ancestral home islands has called into question this groups ability to establish an authentic cultural identity that legitimises their claims of connection to the Torres Strait. This paper explores the representation and critical aspects of identity for these Islanders. It is based on a narrative inquiry with three different generations of Islanders living outside the Torres Strait (commonly referred to as Mainlanders). Through an emphasis on place-based identity, the narratives in this paper reveal a composite counter-narrative to the frequent claims of cultural and political dissolution and displacement. This paper provides insight into the ways that Islanders negotiate and contest the contemporary Mainlander experience through the creation of systems of re-presentation, cultural expression and relatedness between individuals and the collective.Abstract Since the end of the Second World War, the Torres Strait Islander diaspora located on the mainland of Australia has grown to the extent that it now represents just over 85 percent (40,367 people) of the total Torres Strait Islander population. The continued presence of Islanders living outside their ancestral home islands has called into question this groups ability to establish an authentic cultural identity that legitimises their claims of connection to the Torres Strait. This paper explores the representation and critical aspects of identity for these Islanders. It is based on a narrative inquiry with three different generations of Islanders living outside the Torres Strait (commonly referred to as Mainlanders). Through an emphasis on place-based identity, the narratives in this paper reveal a composite counter-narrative to the frequent claims of cultural and political dissolution and displacement. This paper provides insight into the ways that Islanders negotiate and contest the contemporary Mainlander experience through the creation of systems of re-presentation, cultural expression and relatedness between individuals and the collective.

Are Indigenous land and sea management programs a pathway to Indigenous economic independence

This paper focuses on Indigenous business development, an under-researched co-benefit associated with investment in Indigenous land and sea management programs (ILSMPs) in northern Australia. More than 65% of ILSMPs undertake commercial activities that generate revenue and create jobs. In addition to generating environmental benefits, ILSMPs thus also generate economic benefits (co-benefits) that support Indigenous aspirations and help to deliver multiple government objectives. We outline key features of northern Australian economies, identifying factors that differentiate them from Western urbanised economies. We discuss literature highlighting that, if the aim is to stimulate (short-term) economic development in northern Indigenous economies, then the requirement is to stimulate demand for goods and services that are produced by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people (herein referred to as Indigenous people), and which generate benefits that align with the goals and aspirations of Indigenous people. We also discuss literature demonstrating the importance of promoting a socio-cultural environment that stimulates creativity, which is a core driver of innovation, business development and long-term development. ILSMPs have characteristics suggestive of an ability to kick-start self-sustaining growth cycles, but previous research has not investigated this. Using 8 years of data relating to Indigenous businesses that are registered with the Office of the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations (a subset of all Indigenous businesses), we use statistical tests (Granger causality tests) to check whether ILSMP expenditure in the first year has a positive impact on Indigenous business activity in subsequent years. This analysis (of admittedly imperfect data) produces evidence to support the proposition that expenditure on ILSMPs generates positive spillovers for Indigenous businesses (even those not engaged in land management), albeit with a 3-year lag. ILSMPs have been shown to be an appropriate mechanism for achieving a wide range of short-term benefits; our research suggests they may also work as catalysts for Indigenous business development, fostering sustainable economic independence.

Indigenous and tribal peoples' health

[Extract] In a recent Lancet Article, Ian Anderson and colleagues 1 recommended that governments develop national policies with sustainable health targets focused on health service delivery, access, and Indigenous data systems. Smart policy and practice decisions can be informed by research evidence about what works; however, Indigenous people worldwide have expressed concerns that much research has been done already, without corresponding improvements in their health.