research topic yarning

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Chapter 19: Yarning

Sue-Anne Hunter

Learning outcomes

Upon completion of this chapter, you should be able to:

• Describe the different types of yarning.
• Discuss key considerations when undertaking yarning.
• Describe the advantages of yarning.
• Identify the challenges of yarning.

What is yarning?

Indigenous and non-Indigenous scholars 1 have maintained, for decades now, the need for First Nations representation in the creation of knowledge. Indigenous community viewpoints have historically been misunderstood, misrepresented in many cases ignored altogether. To achieve greater representation of Indigenous peoples’ live experiences, epistemologies and ontologies, Indigenous research methodologies are becoming more recognised. Yarning is one of these methodologies. In this chapter, yarning is discussed in the context of its use by Indigenous and Non-Indigenous researchers who are working with Indigenous peoples.

Yarning is an Indigenous cultural form of conversation. 1 Yarning can involve just two people, or in the case of a ‘yarning circle’, can involve a group of people. Yarning creates a culturally safe space in which Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander participants have authority and ownership in the process of sharing information and places the researcher in the position of the learner. 2 Yarning as a research method privileges Indigenous ways of knowing, drawing on Indigenous ontologies rather than Western social science ontologies. 2, 3 For this reason, when research involves First Peoples, yarning is an effective alternative to traditionally non-Indigenous formal interview techniques.

Yarning in a semi-structured interview is an informal and relaxed discussion through which both the researcher and participant journey together visiting places and topics of interest relevant to the research study. Yarning is a process that requires the researcher to develop and build relationship that is accountable to Indigenous people participating in the research . 4 (p.38) )

The four types of yarning described by Bessarab and Ng’andu 1 are described here.

Social yarning – an informal and unstructured conversation with the intent of purposeful exchanges to build trust and relationship. Social yarning typically precedes research or topic yarning. While social yarning is led by both the research participant and researcher, it is the responsibility of the researcher to establish connection through authentic and meaningful interest in the participant’s life while also sharing information about themselves. Points of connection may stem from sharing of community news, advice and whatever else people feel like sharing that is not related to the topic of the research. 1

Research or topic yarning – an unstructured or semi-structured conversation with purpose. The goal of research or topic yarning is to gather stories from the participant in relation to the topic while maintaining a relaxed and interactive style of interviewing. 1

Collaborative yarning – an unstructured or semi-structured conversation with purpose. A method whereby two or more people explore research ideas and explanations of new concepts. The yarn may lead to new understandings and discoveries relevant to the research topic. 1

Therapeutic yarning – a conversation in which the participant shares a personal story that includes memories of trauma or in some way evokes an emotional reaction. The researcher listens and provides space for the participant to give voice to their story and to make sense of it. Therapeutic yarning is not counselling; rather, it is the participant making meaning from the process of telling their story. Therapeutic yarning requires facilitation by a skilled professional who has both clinical and First Peoples cultural awareness knowledge. Therapeutic yarning can have empowering effects and enable participants to find meaning from the process of sharing their story and feeling heard. 1, 5

The four types of yarning are inter-connected and can all be part of the one yarning session. See Figure 1 in the article ‘ Decolonising Qualitative Research with Respectful, Reciprocal, and Responsible Research Practice ’. 3

Yarning is about relational connection with and between and with Indigenous peoples. It is about building and maintaining trusting relationships. Therefore, in the development phase of any research project, yarning in research with the Indigenous people or communities the research relates to, should start early, to ensure that the Indigenous participants are research partners, and have the opportunity to direct the research purpose, providing insights into local expectations and negotiating roles for the research. Yarning is flexible, adaptable and diverse, and hence starting the yarn in the early phases of the research is important in undertaking culturally safe and just research. 4

Yarning with Indigenous communities with the purpose to establish an inquiry design was recently exampled by The Yoorrook Justice Commission, in Victoria, Australia. The Yoorook Justice Commission inquiry, ongoing at the time of writing this chapter, is the first formal truth-telling Commission inquiry into historical and contemporary systemic injustices committed against Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples living in Victoria. In the period March to June 2022, in order to establish inquiry approaches, five Commissioners conducted 29 Yarning Circles involving 200 Elders across Victoria. The purpose of the Yarning Circles is described on page 18 of the interim report 6 (p18) :

The primary purpose of the Elders’ yarning circles was to provide information to Elders about Yoorrook, to build trust in Yoorrook’s approach, and to hear from Elders their priorities for the Commission’s focus in the next phase of work. Elders also took the opportunity to share parts of their own experiences or stories of their families and ancestors. Many expressed frustrations with, and cynicism towards, prior government efforts and official inquiries, noting that nothing had changed as a result. Many Elders had questions about Yoorrook, such as how it would be different, or expressed concern about how it is distinct from the First Peoples’ Assembly of Victoria or government. These meetings were a powerful source of ideas and information that have informed and will continue to guide Yoorrook’s work.

Key considerations in yarning

• All research that concerns or impacts Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in any way should align with the principles of the AIATSIS Code of Ethics for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Research . 7
• Many of the logistics and practicalities of running yarning sessions should be discussed in partnership and collaboration with Traditional Owners and Elders of the community. This includes determining who is appropriate to facilitate the yarning sessions; for example, someone within the community, a First Nations person external to the community or a non-Indigenous person, and the appropriate customs and protocols to follow. Payment for running the yarning sessions and participating in the yarning should also be discussed with Elders and incorporated into the research protocol.
• Before a researcher commences yarning, ways of providing a feedback loop for sharing research findings with the participating community, and especially the individuals who participated in the yarning, should be discussed and planned. When the yarning has finished and the research findings have been generated, this feedback loop should be enacted to ensure that the researchers’ interpretations and understandings accord with those of the individual and community participants. This process can mitigate against non-First Nations peoples’ worldviews being applied inappropriately to First Nations’ ways of knowing and being.
• The use of culturally appropriate and respectful language is essential. There is great diversity across Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities in Australia, and thus there is no single Indigenous identity. Consultation with Traditional Owners, Elders and community members is vital in ensuring that the preferences of the people involved are respected. Researchers should recognise that First Nations languages are firstly oral, and hence when written the language needs to reflect the spellings of local traditional owners, elders and community members. Language needs to be specific and strengths-based (focus on abilities, knowledge and capacities rather than what is lacking or deficits). If you are not sure, ask; for example, different individuals and communities may prefer to be named as Indigenous, Aboriginal, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander, First Peoples or First Nations. The Australian Government’s Style Manual 8 provides a good starting point for researchers to orient themselves to culturally appropriate and respectful language when writing with, for or about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples; however, it cannot take the place of meaningful consultation.
• When writing up yarning results, the elders and community members should be acknowledged in the report’s credits. Researchers should ensure they are quoting yarning participants with appropriate credits, including their names and Country, to demonstrate that the knowledge came from them and not from the researcher. The project report More Than Personal Communication: Templates for Citing Indigenous Elders and Knowledge Keepers provides guidance on how to appropriately acknowledge Indigenous participants. 9
• Be mindful of the principles of Indigenous data sovereignty – contributions by Indigenous people are not just data, they are stories. The principles can be found on the webpage of Maiam Nayri Wingara Communique. 10 These principles assert that control and accountability of the data rests with First Peoples and as such data should be contextualised and made accessible at an individual and community level. This approach is consistent with principles of self-determination. Culturally informed data management should be considered to be a process of protecting and respecting individual and collective interests. People who participate in one-to-one yarning sessions or yarning circles should be given the opportunity to indicate how they wanted their stories used, whether they wanted to be named and be informed of any other relevant contextual factors. This process will uphold the participants’ rights to their stories.
• First Nations peoples worldwide are over-researched, with research done to and on them rather than for and with them. Therefore, it is important that researchers work with First Nations communities, and that the research is initiated and led by the participating community, to ensure that it will be relevant and of benefit to the community. Community-Led Research – Walking New Pathways Together , by Rawlings, Flexner and Riley, provides guidance on how to build relationships and collaboration with communities, and the appropriate protocols. 11

Advantages and challenges of yarning

Yarning fosters connection, establishes trust and enables the researcher to explore the research topic in great detail. Yarning is an Indigenous way of doing things and recognises the importance of relationship, responsibility and accountability, to create cultural safety in partnership with the people who participate in the research. 1, 4 A challenge of yarning is managing time. The unstructured nature of yarning, focus on relationship and rapport-building and the researcher being the listener, can lead to an endless discussion. Negotiating the time expectations for the research or topic yarn with participants through social yarning can help to address this challenge. 1

Table 19.1 provides two examples of research in which yarning has been used as a data collection method.

Table 19.1. Examples of yarning in research

Yarning is a First Nations research method for sharing knowledge and is built on a foundation of relationship and collaboration. Yarning should be initiated and led by the participating community so that the research can be of benefit to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Working with Traditional Owners and Elders will help to ensure that the process of yarning is culturally appropriate and respectful, and recognises the diversity in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities in Australia.

• Bessarab D, Ng’andu B. Yarning about yarning as a legitimate method in indigenous research. International Journal of Critical Indigenous Studies . 2010;3(1):37-49. doi: 10.5204/ijcis.v3i1.57
• Leeson S, Smith C, Rynne J. Yarning and appreciative inquiry: The use of culturally appropriate and respectful methods when working Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women in Australian prisons. Method Innov . 2016;9 doi: 10.1177/2059799116630660
• Kennedy M, Maddox R, Booth K, Maidment S, Chamberlain C, Bessarab D. Decolonising qualitative research with respectful, reciprocal, and responsible research practice: a narrative review of the application of Yarning method in qualitative Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health research. Int J Equity Health . Sep 13 2022;21(1):134. doi: 10.1186/s12939-022-01738-w
• Dean C. A yarning place in narrative histories. History of Education Review . 2010;39(2):6-13. doi: 10.1108/08198691201000005
• Atkinson J. Trauma trails, recreating song lines: the transgenerational effects of trauma in Indigenous Australia. Spinifex; 2002.
• Yoorrook Justice Commission. Yorrook with Purpose  2022. Interim Report . Accessed September 18, 2023. https://yoorrookjusticecommission.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Yoorrook-Justice-Commission-Interim-Report.pdf 
• AIATSIS. AIATSIS Code of Ethics for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Research . 2020. Accessed September 18, 2023. https://aiatsis.gov.au/research/ethical-research 
• Australian Government. Style Manual – Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Accessed September 18, 2023. https://www.stylemanual.gov.au/accessible-and-inclusive-content/inclusive-language/aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-peoples#style_for_first_australian_languages_needs_to_recognise_continuing_cultures
• MacLeod L. More than personal communication: templates for citing Indigenous Elders and Knowledge Keepers.  KULA: Knowledge Creation, Dissemination, and Preservation Studies . 2021;5(1): 1-5. doi: 10.18357/kula.135
• Maiam nayri Wingara, Australian Indigenous Governance Institute. Indigenous Data Sovereignty Communique. Accessed April 29, 2023. https://www.maiamnayriwingara.org/
• Rawlings V, Flexner, J, Riley, L. Community-Led Research – Walking New Pathways Together . Sydney University Press; 2021.
• Dale E, Lee KSK, Conigrave KM, et al. A multi-methods yarn about SMART recovery: first insights from Australian Aboriginal facilitators and group members. Drug Alcohol Rev . 2021;40(6):1013-1027. doi: 10.1111/dar.13264
• Lukaszyk C, Coombes J, Turner NJ, et al. Yarning about fall prevention: community consultation to discuss falls and appropriate approaches to fall prevention with older Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. BMC Public Health . 2017;18(1):77. doi: 10.1186/s12889-017-4628-6

Qualitative Research – a practical guide for health and social care researchers and practitioners Copyright © 2023 by Sue-Anne Hunter is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

International Journal of Critical Indigenous Studies ijcis

Yarning about yarning as a legitimate method in indigenous research.

• Dawn Bessarab
• Bridget Ng'andu

This article demonstrates the credibility and rigor of yarning, an Indigenous cultural form of conversation, through its use as a data gathering tool with two different Indigenous groups, one in Australia and the second in Botswana. Yarning was employed not only to collect information during the research interview but to establish a relationship with Indigenous participants prior to gathering their stories through storytelling, also known as narrative. In exploring the concept of yarning in research, this article discusses the different types of yarning that emerged during the research project, how these differences were identified and their applicability in the research process. The influence of gender during the interview is also included in the discussion.

Current Issue

Information.

• For Readers
• For Authors
• For Librarians

• Open access
• Published: 13 September 2022

Decolonising qualitative research with respectful, reciprocal, and responsible research practice: a narrative review of the application of Yarning method in qualitative Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health research

• Michelle Kennedy 1 , 2 ,
• Raglan Maddox 3 ,
• Kade Booth 1 , 2 ,
• Sian Maidment 1 ,
• Catherine Chamberlain 4 , 5 , 6 &
• Dawn Bessarab 7  

International Journal for Equity in Health volume  21 , Article number:  134 ( 2022 ) Cite this article

15k Accesses

24 Citations

19 Altmetric

Metrics details

Indigenous academics have advocated for the use and validity of Indigenous methodologies and methods to centre Indigenous ways of knowing, being and doing in research. Yarning is the most reported Indigenous method used in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander qualitative health research. Despite this, there has been no critical analysis of how Yarning methods are applied to research conduct and particularly how they privilege Indigenous peoples.

To investigate how researchers are applying Yarning method to health research and examine the role of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander researchers in the Yarning process as reported in health publications.

Narrative review of qualitative studies.

Data sources

Lowitja Institute LitSearch January 2008 to December 2021 to access all literature reporting on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health research in the PubMed database. A subset of extracted data was used for this review to focus on qualitative publications that reported using Yarning methods.

Thematic analysis was conducted using hybrid of inductive and deductive coding. Initial analysis involved independent coding by two authors, with checking by a third member. Once codes were developed and agreed, the remaining publications were coded and checked by a third team member.

Forty-six publications were included for review. Yarning was considered a culturally safe data collection process that privileges Indigenous knowledge systems. Details of the Yarning processes and team positioning were vague. Some publications offered a more comprehensive description of the research team, positioning and demonstrated reflexive practice. Training and experience in both qualitative and Indigenous methods were often not reported. Only 11 publications reported being Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander led. Half the publications reported Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander involvement in data collection, and 24 reported involvement in analysis. Details regarding the role and involvement of study reference or advisory groups were limited.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people should be at the forefront of Indigenous research. While Yarning method has been identified as a legitimate research method to decolonising research practice, it must be followed and reported accurately. Researcher reflexivity and positioning, and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander ownership, stewardship and custodianship of data collected were significantly under detailed in the publications included in our review. Journals and other establishments should review their processes to ensure necessary details are reported in publications and engage Indigenous Editors and peer reviewers to uphold respectful, reciprocal, responsible and ethical research practice.

Introduction

Indigenous peoples have undertaken research since time immemorial, as evidenced in our continued survival prior to, and post colonisation and contemporary coloniality [ 1 ]. However, Indigenous peoples have long been researched by non-Indigenous peoples as mere objects, without prior consent to the research and commonly without meaningful engagement, or access to the results. In colonised countries, research has been utilised as a tool to dehumanise Indigenous peoples [ 1 ]. In Australia, research was used as a tool to justify Terra Nullius, “no man’s land”, the grounds on which the continent was taken by the crown with no negotiation or treaty offered [ 2 ] to the 500 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander nations [ 2 , 3 ] that have lived on this land, now called Australia, for over 60,000 years [ 4 ]. Research such as that conducted by D. J Cunningham (1889) “The Spinal Curvature in an Aboriginal Australia” which reported “…In these particulars the Australian spine resembles somewhat the spine of a Chimpanzee” [ 5 ] was used to de-humanise Aboriginal people, disrupting culture and cultural practice [ 6 ]. Findings were applied to understand the antithetical other and to justify the claim of Australia as uninhabited lands. Further, Darwin used such data to support his theory of evolution, arguing that the “natives” (sic) were the living example of the difference in degree between humans and apes [ 7 ]. Australia was colonised on a racially imperialistic basis which has been embedded through coloniality [ 8 ]. In the words of Linda Tuhiwai Smith:

“This collective memory of imperialism has been perpetuated through the ways in which knowledge about indigenous peoples was collected, classified and then represented in various ways back to the West, and then through the eyes of the West, back to those who have been colonized”. [ 1 ] (p. 30)

In response to the colonial legacy of research and its dirty [ 1 ] reputation among Indigenous people, the use of Indigenous research methodologies and methods to aid in decolonising the research process have been advocated for, and by Indigenous academics domestically and internationally [ 1 , 9 ]. Decolonising approaches recognise that the way of knowing has been historically and institutionally contrived in a Western construct, [ 10 ] and that Indigenous methodologies and methods can be used to shift the research paradigm and privilege Indigenous ways of knowing, being and doing. Indigenous ways of knowing, being and doing are shaped by our relationality. Relationality to each other, our lands, our knowledge systems and our storylines [ 11 ].

Morton Robinson describes;

“Relationality is an inextricable part of our sovereign knowledges, informing our scholarship to produce innovative social research. As a presupposition it shapes ways of knowing, being and doing to be connected is to know, and knowing is embodied in social relations and bloodline to country, determined by ancestors and creator beings that guide who can be a knower and of what knowledges” . [ 11 ]

Relationality shapes Indigenous methodologies, informing the ways in which research is conceptualised, designed, conducted, analysed and disseminated. As such the ways in which Indigenous methodologies are applied will vary depending on the relationality, social and cultural positioning of the researcher and peoples involved. In an example outlining Indigenist Research Methodology, Aboriginal scholar Rigney states:

“Indigenist research is research by Indigenous Australians whose primary informants are Indigenous Australians and whose goals are to serve and inform the Indigenous struggle for self-determination”. [ 12 ] (p. 118)

Research methods are then applied by the researcher to undertake the research, the ‘doing’. An international systematic review by Drawson et al. reported three key components to Indigenous Research Methods:

Researchers must situate themselves and the Indigenous Peoples with whom they are collaborating in the research process

The inclusion of Indigenous Peoples in the research process in a way that is respectful, reciprocal, and decolonizing and preserving of self-determinism, and

Prioritization of Indigenous ways of knowing [ 13 ]

These key components of Indigenous research methods coincide with the established standards for conducting ethical research with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, such as the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Values and Ethics Guideline, [ 14 ] the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS) Code of Ethics [ 15 ] and the Aboriginal Health and Medical Research Council (AHMRC) Key Principles [ 16 ].

Yarning in Indigenous qualitative research is one method being used in Australia and internationally, [ 17 ] and has been recommended for use in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health research [ 9 ] to privilege Indigenous ontologies [ 18 ]. Yarning has been used in recent research as a way to safely engage with participants to explore research questions relating to the topic of the study. The cultural safety of yarning enables sensitive issues to emerge as it fosters agency among participant(s) including the ability to disclose information at their own discretion [ 14 ]. Yarning is led by the researcher where the participant is encouraged to tell their story from the position of their lived experience. Whilst the research topic yarn does not follow a pre-determined set of questions, it does include a yarning topic guide relating to the research that the researcher is listening for in the story. Yarning does not follow the formal conventions of research interviewing and can weave in and out of the yarning story where the role of the researcher is to listen for cues related to the research topic. Yarning as a research method must also draw on cultural protocols and practices that are relevant to the people’s involved. Yarning draws on relationality through processes of the Social, Work and Research Topic Yarn which can inform either Collaborative Yarning or Therapeutic Yarning as presented in Fig.  1  [ 17 ]. Relationality of the Yarn is paramount to producing rich data [ 19 ]. It is reasonable to expect that Indigenous Standpoint generates deeper relationality, through shared experience and understandings of the Yarn [ 19 ].

A working depiction of the Yarning Process as developed by Dawn Bessarab

Whilst there appears to be consensus among Indigenous and non-Indigenous scholars on the need for decolonising research approaches and the importance of utilising Indigenous research methodologies and methods, we could not find literature specifically relating to how these are pragmatically applied to the conduct of research. The NHMRC directs researchers to conduct ethical research in line with six core values: Spirit and integrity, Cultural continuity, Equity, Respect, Reciprocity, and Responsibility [ 14 ]. Our Indigenous-led team sought to investigate how researchers are applying Yarning method to ethical health research. We then examined and analysed the Yarning process, including the role of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as reported in health publications.

Research team

Our lived experiences and coming to understand our relation to the world is complex, dynamic, but fundamentally important, as we recognise that Indigenous peoples ways of knowing, being and doing are relational [ 11 ]. This includes, but is limited to what is known, how it is known; the nature and embodiment of our realities, encapsulating what exists, what is possible, [ 20 ] and how we relate to our respective programs of research.

The majority Indigenous research team is led by a Wiradjuri woman MK with disciplinary training in social science/social work and Indigenous knowledges connected to Wiradjuri, Worimi and Awabakal country. KB is a non-Indigenous researcher, experienced in qualitative health research with a social science background. SM is a Noongar woman with disciplinary training in exercise and sport science and a current medical student. CC is a Palawa woman of the Trawlwoolway clan with training in midwifery, nursing and public health, and experienced in mixed methods research. DB is an Indigenous researcher from the Bard and Yjindabandi nations in Western Australia and is a senior social worker with extensive background and expertise in Aboriginal health research and methodologies specifically yarning. RM is from the Bagumani (Modewa) Clan in Papua New Guinea, with training and experience in public health and epidemiology.

Our research team embodies over 200 years of lived Indigenous experience and over 60 years’ experience conducting qualitative research in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health.

Methodology

This review forms part of a larger project exploring the conduct of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health research, led by an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander research team. A primary scoping review was conducted of all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health research published since the establishment of the Closing the Gap campaign [ 21 ]. This parent review included 2,150 articles and is published elsewhere [ 22 ]. When conducting this review, the authors sought to extract information on the reported use of Indigenous research methodologies and found 5% of articles reported using Indigenous methodologies and/or methods. Indigenous methodologies/methods were predominately reported in qualitative papers. This was not published in the parent review.

This review of Yarning aims to answer two research questions:

How are researchers applying the Yarning method in qualitative health research?

What is the role of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander researchers in the Yarning process, as reported in health publications?

Design and inclusion criteria

The parent review applied a systematic literature search via the Lowitja Institute website using the search tool Lowitja.search to access all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health literature in the PubMed database. The selected topics in the database were “all” and “Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander”. Publications were included if they presented original data on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health in Australia and were published between January 2008 and December 2020. The search was updated to include publications until December 2021. Publications that were identified as using qualitative methods for data collection and analysis were assessed. From this, those that reported using Yarning method were included for analysis in this review.

Level of reporting assessment

We assessed the level of reporting in the selected publications using a purpose-built tool to examine Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander engagement and oversight of the research. The tool was developed as informed by our research questions, ethical research guidelines and an established Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander quality appraisal tool [ 23 ]. The tool was developed due to the timeframe of included publications, and an acknowledgment of the lack of reporting guidelines for ethical research practice with Indigenous peoples prior to 2019 [ 24 ]. The tool has six categories; (1) Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander engagement in development of the research, (2) Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander engagement in data collection, (3) experience of researchers reported, (4) Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander engagement in the analysis, (5) Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander specific ethics approval granted, and (6) whether the original method publication was cited. Two authors (MK, KB) independently reviewed each document and ranked each publications level of reporting high (5–6), medium (3–4) or low (0–2). This assessment was not used to exclude studies or inform analysis, but rather it was used for Collaborative Yarning among the authorship team which is reflected in the discussion.

Data analysis

Full text publications were imported into NVivo software for analysis. Three members of the research team who conducted the quality appraisal (KB, MK & SM) engaged in Collaborative Yarning with all authors (MK, RM, KB, SM, CC & DB) to inform the analysis.

Thematic analysis, as outlined by Braun & Clarke, [ 25 ] was used to examine how researchers apply Yarning method in qualitative health research (MK & KB). The initial phase included familiarisation with the data. The team members involved in data coding (KB, SM & MK) have been immersed in the data throughout the primary review, and by reading and sorting each qualitative publication that reported using Yarning methods during the inclusion phase. The senior author DB familiarised the data by reading a sample of publications identified by MK. The sample of papers were selected, including a variety of reporting levels, to inform Collaborative Yarning practice to unpack the different perceptions in reporting of Yarning methods. Further, this approach assisted to ensure consistency between the authorship team, actively facilitating discussion on different points of view. The team members met and engaged in Collaborative Yarning to discuss the data after reading the selected publications on how Yarning was reported, and how it was being analysed according to the research questions.

Similar to Fereday, [ 26 ] thematic analysis was approached through a hybrid of inductive and deductive coding. As noted in our first research question, the role of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people was a key component to our analysis. Codes were developed deductively from our research questions as we sought to draw out the role of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the Yarning process. These codes included: “Aboriginal Involvement”, “Analysis approach”, “Framework Methodology”, and “Yarning Processes”. While these were not necessarily “pre-conceived” by the coders (MK & KB), they were broadly discussed prior to coding in relation to the research questions and were then sought out by the researchers. In conjunction with the initial deductive codes that were drawn out to address parts of the research aims, the coding process was predominantly inductive. Inductive coding was used to examine the integral components of Yarning processes, justification of method and the way that these methods, processes and involvement were being reported. MK & KB independently coded the same three publications before meeting to discuss initial themes. The authors found that overall, coding was similar, with some variations on wording to describe themes. After agreement, MK & KB continued to code a further five of the same publications before meeting again to compare. Any conflicts were discussed until agreement was reached, although disagreements were limited. SM cross checked codes and contributed to discussions of clarity of definitions. MK & KB coded an additional seven publications for comparison, before KB went on to singularly code the remaining publications. SM then reviewed all publications and codes for consistency and agreement to ensure all paper were coded independently and in duplicate.

Search results are outlined in Fig.  2 using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) four-phase flow diagram. The total 2,150 papers in the parent reviewed were screened, an updated search was conducted and found 8 new qualitative research papers. N  = 354 papers reported use of qualitative methods, Yarning method was reported in n  = 46 papers and were included in analysis.

PRISMA Flow diagram of study selection process

Of the 46 included publications, 15 were considered high level reporting across focus area, 19 medium level reporting, and 12 low level reporting. We elaborate on the intricacies of this throughout the result section.

We found that researchers are reporting the application of the Yarning method to qualitative research methodology in a wide variety of ways. Both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal researchers and research teams are using the method, collecting data and involved in analysis.

The following sections will be presented in a manner that addresses the research questions, by detailing how Yarning is being applied to qualitative health research as reported by the included publications, and what role Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander play in the research process.

How Yarning is being applied to qualitative health research

Our analysis of the 46 publications showed a variety of reporting on the way that Yarning is applied to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander qualitative health research. We begin our critical analysis into this, by first looking at why researchers report using Yarning, followed by how they report using Yarning and how they situate themselves as qualitative researchers and their team in the research process.

Why Yarning?

Reasoning for using Yarning method varied across publications. It was predominantly considered to provide a culturally safe and sensitive data collection process [ 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 ] that privileged Indigenous knowledge systems through connection and relationships [ 27 , 31 ]. Enabling two-way knowledge sharing; [ 27 , 37 , 39 ] using narratives; [ 40 , 41 ] storytelling [ 27 , 28 , 31 , 34 , 37 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 ] and addressing unequal power relationships were most commonly used to justify why Yarning was used, as it is a research process that acknowledges and builds on cultural protocols. One publication stated Yarning was the preferred research method for the older Aboriginal community (see Table 2 , 1.3) [ 46 ].

Yarning was reported to be an Indigenist research practice [ 28 ] that allows for more flexibility than other interviewing approaches [ 27 ]. Yarning method was considered to provide an environment that fosters rapport with participants, open discussion, and allow for participant-led research to co-create knowledge and privilege Indigenous voices.

How Yarning processes are being reported

Details regarding the specifics of the way that Yarning was conducted were often vague. For example, many publications simply stated that Yarning took place, without detail on the settings or the conversations that took place. However, some publications described various components of yarning, such as Therapeutic or Social yarning. For example, “ In this study, social yarning was used at the beginning of conversations with young people to establish a connection not strongly associated with the actual purpose of the yarn.” [ 27 ] (see Table 2 , 2.1).

Most publications reported using audio recording and transcribing to collect data, however, note taking was also reported as a form of data collection [ 27 , 47 ]. Note taking replaced audio recording to reduce potential harm and was deemed culturally safe in some instances. Mostly, it was due to consent not being obtained by participants who preferred note taking. One publication recognised that starting the recorder had the potential to break the flow of the yarn, so continued taking notes instead.

Eleven publications provided their entire interview guide [ 31 , 34 , 39 , 45 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 ]. Others provided a sample of example questions, [ 40 , 44 , 55 , 56 , 57 ] while others briefly described areas explored during Yarning [ 27 , 28 , 39 , 43 , 47 , 54 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 ]. One publication noted that there was “no set interview guide and that participants were encouraged, with consistent prompts to ‘yarn’ about their experiences with renal service providers”  [ 62 ]. Some descriptions were minimal stating guides either had minimal questioning or use of probes [ 42 ] or simply stated that they were semi structured.

Some of the more comprehensive papers provided insight into seating arrangement, reimbursement to participants, and provision of meals. One publication described the seating arrangement as a component to providing a safe environment that allowed the researcher to observe body language and non-verbal cues (see Table 2 , 2.4) [ 27 ]. Eight publications reported reimbursement to participants, which were usually vouchers of between $20 and $50 for their time in participating in the study [ 40 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 63 , 64 , 65 ]. Five publications reported incorporating a meal within the data collection. [ 32 , 38 , 45 , 63 , 65 ] Study sizes for individual Yarning was reported to include between 4 [ 49 ] and 74 participants [ 28 ] with minimal justification for the choice of numbers. Yarning circles were often applied across community settings with each Yarning circle including between 5–17 participants at each individual circle. All but one [ 66 ] of the publications ( n  = 45) reported the sample size.

Publications reported using varied sampling approaches including convenient sampling, [ 41 ] and opportunistic sampling [ 42 ], usually through routine health care [ 27 , 41 , 51 , 58 , 67 ]. However most papers reported purposeful sampling , [ 27 , 28 , 29 , 34 , 39 , 47 , 48 , 55 , 56 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 68 ] including through key community Elders and representatives [ 33 , 50 , 69 ].

Timeframes when conducting Yarning varied significantly from 10-30 min [ 27 ] up to 2.5 h, [ 44 , 55 , 56 ] more generally publications reported 40-60 min. Yarning circles were often reported as generally held at a time and place suitable to the participant [ 58 ] with use of community outdoor settings or participants houses. While Yarning was predominantly used to engage with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, some Yarning circles included non-Aboriginal participants such as health providers.

Research team positioning

Generally, details regarding the research team positioning were not available in publications (see: Table 1 & supp. 1 ). Exemplar papers described the research team and their positioning and demonstrated reflexivity on how this influences all stages of research (see Table 2 , 3.1). In these instances, authors described their ability to have “deeper” conversations with their participants, and the importance of established relationships in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander research. Some publications acknowledged that this contributed to providing a safe and favourable environment for participants.

Training and experience in both qualitative and Indigenous methods were often not reported. Eleven of the publications that reported Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander involvement in data collection also outlined the experience, qualifications and expertise of the interviewer/s (see Table 2 , 3.2) [ 33 , 39 , 40 , 42 , 45 , 50 , 51 , 60 , 64 , 65 , 72 ]. Six of the publications specifically stated that the interviewers had relevant training in conducting qualitative interviews [ 31 , 33 , 45 , 50 , 51 , 72 ]. One publication [ 31 ] specifically detailed that the research team had been trained in Yarning methods with Professor Dawn Bessarab, who validated the method. This was a more comprehensive example of the way training was reported compared to the way training was reported in other publications.

The role of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the Yarning process

We sought to detail the role of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in each stage the research process in publications that use Yarning method. In particular, we examine the role of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in leading the research, collecting data, analysis, and acting as an advisory to the research.

Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander led research

Eleven of the forty-seven publications reported Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as having led the research [ 28 , 30 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 40 , 42 , 54 , 64 , 65 , 70 ]. Those that were led by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander academics occasionally offered details on the authors and their roles. This was detailed using the authors initials, followed by their Aboriginal status, positioning, and role in the project. However, these details were scarce and difficult to immediately identify within publications. More comprehensive papers reflected on how these factors created an approach that helped centre Aboriginal voices in the research process (see Table 3 , 1.1).

Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander involvement in data collection

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander researchers were reported as responsible for data collection and interviews in only half of the publications [ 71 ]. Some publications provided less detail on data collection involvement than others, and simply noted that the researcher was Aboriginal and therefore culturally safe (see Table 3 , 3.2).

Seven publications reported that interviews were conducted by both Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander and non-Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander researchers, [ 28 , 31 , 39 , 56 , 57 , 59 , 63 ] often citing that one was there to assist the other. One publication identified that there was “no difference in data, in terms of collection or results, was perceived by the non-Indigenous researcher when conducting the interviews.” [ 57 ].

Six publications reported that there was no Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander involvement in data collection and the conducting of Yarning circles [ 29 , 38 , 48 , 49 , 67 ]. Some publications did not expand on this, and simply stated that the data collection was conducted by a non-Aboriginal researcher without further discussion (see Table 3 , 3.3). Others were more reflexive when addressing not having had an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander person collect the data. One publication [ 29 ] stated that they attempted to have an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander researcher involved, however, due to existing responsibilities of Aboriginal people in the area, they were unsuccessful (see Table 3 , 3.4). This publication then addressed the absence of Aboriginal involvement by detailing the critical part that relationships with the staff at Aboriginal Health Services were to different stages of the project. Another paper stated that the lack of Aboriginal involvement “may have impacted on the richness of interview data”  [ 48 ].

Whilst rare, some papers suggested Yarning methods as an effective way to counter the impact of not having an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person collect the data (see Table 3 , 3.5).

Others accounted for the lack of Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander involvement in data collection through using Aboriginal guidance over the project, stating ongoing guidance was sought throughout various stages of the project (see Table 3 , 3.6).

Overall, the absence of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander involvement in the collection of data was frequently not addressed by publications. Eighteen publications did not report whether or not there were Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander involvement in data collection [ 28 , 31 , 32 , 34 , 36 , 37 , 41 , 46 , 47 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 58 , 62 , 66 , 69 , 70 , 72 ]. For the most part, these publications did not identify who was responsible for conducting the Yarning circles.

Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander involvement in analysis

Twenty-four of the 46 publications reported Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander involvement in analysis [ 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 39 , 40 , 43 , 45 , 47 , 49 , 50 , 52 , 55 , 56 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 64 , 65 ]. Predominately it was simply stated that there were Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander researchers or advisory groups involved in the process, without further elaboration of exactly what the involvement entailed. One paper suggested that Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander investigators helped non-Indigenous researchers to “increase their cultural understandings and read the data differently. ” [ 28 ]. Other publications reported a collaborative analysis revision by experts and Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander coinvestigators (see Table 3 , 4.1). This was deemed efficient in the inclusivity of perspectives that may have not been considered.

Many publications did not report whether or not they had Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander involvement in data analysis. Some of these included publications that used the researchers initials to demonstrate involvement in analysis but did not specify whether they were Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander. Not having Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander involvement in data collection was typically not reflexively addressed.

One publication did report not having Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander involvement in data collection and identified potential issues with this throughout their publication with reflections such as “The challenge for a non-Aboriginal researcher exploring issues within the Aboriginal community is to avoid repeating mistakes of the past.” [ 67 ] Other publications noted (by those who acknowledge it) that Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander advisory, person or group was used to overlook data analysis.

A limited number of publications indicated that participants were offered the opportunity to provide feedback on the findings (see Table 3 , 4.2). It was often reported by simply stating that data was returned to participants for feedback. Some publications elaborated on this, with one suggesting that yarning with participants about the results allowed for them to review and engage with the interpretation of data. Some publications noted that transcripts were not returned to participants, nor were the data validated by participants without further comment.

The few publications that reported using an ‘Indigenous approach’ to analysis were slightly more comprehensive than those that reported grounded theory approach (see Table 3 , 4.3). Overall, details on analysis were often lacking, and were the least comprehensive component of the methodology sections.

“Aboriginal Advisory”

Only twenty-nine of the 46 included publications reported having an Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander advisory, person or group throughout the course of their study [ 27 , 28 , 29 , 31 , 33 , 34 , 36 , 37 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 51 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 59 , 60 , 62 , 63 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 ]. Advisory groups were used to oversee the research, analyse data, develop protocols, guide research conduct, identify potential services and recruitment, and develop interview guides. Publications that offered a more comprehensive description of the role of the advisory group gave details on who was involved, such as Elders and community members, and how their guidance was utilised in each stage of the research process (see Table 3 , 5.1). Often, these publications noted that the reference groups held the study team accountable for conducting appropriate and respectful research.

Most publications reported an Aboriginal reference or guiding group, with limited details on who was involved, or what exactly their role entailed (see Table 3 , 5.2). Many of the publications did not mention Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander Advisory until the acknowledgment section of the manuscript. The process of Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander advisory varied across publications, with limited consistency in the level of reporting and who was involved.

This is the first review to critically analyse the use of Yarning method in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health research. Through this, we make recommendations on how systems, including the Academy and other mechanisms such as journals, can better incorporate Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander ways of knowing, being and doing into systems and processes, to ultimately uphold research integrity.

Although there is a strong and growing evidence-base for Indigenous quantitative methods that have been used by Indigenous scholars with ongoing room for improvement in everyday practice, [ 73 ] researchers using Indigenous methods in health research frequently report using qualitative methods [ 13 ]. Qualitative methods are said to privilege Indigenous voices [ 12 ] and remove power imbalances [ 13 , 18 ]. Yarning method is the most commonly reported Indigenous method applied to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander qualitative health research. Despite this, our analysis shows that details regarding how Yarning methods were applied, and the intricacies of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander involvement (such as stages, level or type of involvement), were significantly under reported. While part of this may be attributed to limitations in researcher reflexivity, the level of detail required to situate authors positionality, relationality as well as thoroughly describe research processes are not always achievable within the existing parameters of journal and reporting guidelines. We offer our recommendations and improvement opportunities for both researchers, and academic institutions to ensure reporting in publications reflects the need for ethical and reciprocal research with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, as per the NHMRC Values and Ethics Guideline, [ 14 ] the AIATSIS Code of Ethics [ 15 ] and the AHMRC Key Principles [ 16 ].

The right reasons? Why are researchers using Yarning methods?

In the reviewed publications, Yarning was frequently cited as a way of decolonising research practice. It was considered culturally safe, offer two-way knowledge sharing, built on cultural protocols, and allow participant led research while attempting to better balance and privilege Indigenous voices. Numerous research has validated Yarning as a recommended method to privilege Indigenous ontologies [ 9 , 17 , 18 ]. However, it is not simply enough to report employing an Indigenous method such as Yarning and assume that it is adequate. Yarning is grounded in cultural positioning [ 17 ] and relationality [ 11 ]. Therefore, the application of Yarning will vary based on the context and the researcher (including their social and cultural positioning, and considerations of power and control) and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community involved. Similarly, Yarning is not simply the means to collect the data. Decolonising research must address the research process as a whole and centre Indigenous worldviews, values and principles [ 1 , 74 ]. This is depicted in Fig.  3 .

Visual representation of the Yarning Process in line with decolonising research practice as depicted by Michelle Kennedy

Reporting positioning, reflexivity and relationality is essential for ethical research

Irrespective of employing a decolonising approach, researcher positioning is well understood as a necessary component to conducting reflexive, ethical and quality research in all qualitative research practice. Researchers are embedded within the research process, and are therefore required to constantly consider their worldview and positionality [ 75 ]. As Kiekelame and Swartz (2019) conclude “the importance of reflexivity and self-reflexivity as a transformative approach in a decolonising process cannot be over emphasised”  [ 76 ]. Despite researcher positioning and reflexive practices being at the core of qualitative research and the importance of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander led research, we found limited information reported on the research team’s context, including social and cultural positioning and relationality which is a central “presupposition of an Indigenous social research paradigm”; [ 11 ] our belonging to Mob and Country, the connection to the living earth must be recognised and strategically mobilised by Indigenous peoples in developing an Indigenous research agenda.

While some publications articulated social and cultural positioning and relationality of researchers and decolonising research practice, most were silent on these aspects. This silence and subsequent invisibility, often leads to reinscribe racial dominance in theorising, analysing and undertaking research in practice; embedded through the ongoing experience of colonisation and the ingrained nature of coloniality across Australia.

Non-Indigenous authors did not always detail reflective practice or identify their social and cultural positioning. This is in opposition to decolonising research practice which seeks to address Euro-Western dominant paradigms [ 1 , 77 ]. Describing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander involvement, researcher reflexivity and positionality, and relationalities are crucial in research, including both qualitative processes and decolonising approaches. This is even more critical when Indigenous methodologies and methods are reportedly being applied by non-Indigenous peoples. Publications that reported using an “Indigenous lens” rarely articulated how this was applied, and how it informed the publication. While this can partially be attributed to structural publishing barriers, such as word count limitations, it is essential for researchers to describe how an Indigenous lens was applied as well as their role and how their perspectives inform the research process. It is not enough to note the application of an “Indigenous lens” but also how they applied this lens, particularly from a non-Indigenous standpoint. Reflecting on how their own practices, world views and experiences impacted and influenced the research outcomes and effectively and accurately represented the voices of participants in the research. Accountability in qualitative research requires the application and description of reflexive research practices in relation to the researcher and the researched. It is not possible for a researcher to completely omit researcher bias. It is therefore imperative to outline the reflexive processes, and how Indigenous peoples informed the research in a comprehensive manner in favour of upholding culturally safe, ethical and best practice qualitative research.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people should be involved in all stages of the research process

Despite ongoing calls for, and emphasis on the importance of having research to be led by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, only a quarter of publications self-reported Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander people as lead researcher. The remaining papers were silent in reporting Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander researcher(s) involvement or were led by non-Indigenous researchers. The transformative nature of Indigenous-led research is well established, [ 1 ] as such we urge all researchers to report leadership of the research in the publication.

Just over half the papers reported Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander people’s involvement in data collection, with limited information provided on qualifications/training or the relationship and cultural expertise to the participants or community engaged in the research. Acknowledging the centrality of following cultural protocols and practices when conducting Yarning method, details on data collection must report this detail when applying the method.

Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander involvement in analysis was seldom detailed, more frequently papers reported advisory groups, increasing cultural understanding, with and oversight as their primary role. Researchers and coders play a pivotal role in the process of thematic analysis [ 78 ]. Detailing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander involvement in all levels of the research conduct including the analysis is paramount to accurately representing the voices of those being researched and supporting ethical and cultural safe research. Decolonising research practice must privilege Indigenous knowledges and uphold self-determination and sovereignty which is not excluded from the analysis and reporting process. In line with recent research into Yarning application, [ 19 ] we recognise the need for refinement in the analysis process, and the importance of producing details of method and methodologies used.

As stated by Atkinson et al. [ 19 ]  “the more relational the Yarn, the greater the thickness of data, and an Indigenous Standpoint is likely to generate more relationality through shared implicit and explicit understanding for the Yarn”. Our research demonstrates that the relationality of Yarns is not consistently carried beyond the stages of data collection and into analysis, or at least, is not reported on.

We found that at times, Aboriginal research assistants were used to collect the data, but were not involved in the interpretation of the Yarns. To produce ethical, quality research, Aboriginal people should be involved in all stages of the research from conceptualisation to dissemination, including the analysis and interpretation. Understanding and conceptualising data collected from Yarning should involve Indigenous ontologies and standpoints to ensure participants stories are correctly and appropriately reported in the research results.

The role and details of Aboriginal reference/Advisory groups need to be reported

The formation of a community advisory or Aboriginal reference group (CAG/ARG) is important in ensuring governance and efficacy in the research process, as well as upholding Indigenous knowledges, sovereignty, and self-determination. The Aboriginal Health & Medical Research Council ethical guidelines state that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander ‘Advisory’ or reference groups must be representative of the group being studied and have knowledge or experience of the research matter and must be engaged throughout the life cycle of the project not just at the development or consultation stage  [ 16 ].

While the majority of publications reported having a CAG/ARG that provided oversight to the research process, we found that publications reported limited details on who was involved, and their specific role, particularly regarding analysis, reporting and validation of results. This detail is critical to understanding how the CAG/ARG is both representative of the group being studied and how their Indigenous knowledge, self-determination and sovereignty were upheld in the research process. While some publications offered detailed explanations of who was in the advisory group and what their role was through the research process, others simply stated that the research was overseen or guided by an Aboriginal advisory group. Offering details on the CAG/ARG is crucial, particularly when non-Indigenous researchers are engaging with Indigenous methods, such as Yarning. We question: Who validates that the methods are applied correctly? Is this left to the researcher to self-validate? And where is the research team’s accountability to the Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander community being studied?

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander “Advisory” or reference group are critical to ethical research practice, and must not be used to rubber stamp the research process. Research that aims to improve the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples must foreground Indigenous knowledges, sovereignty, and self-determination through relationality. Watego asserts “The transdisciplinarity required to effect change requires more than a bringing together of different methodologies—it demands attention to different ways of knowing and being in a relational, rather than hierarchical, manner, recognising the limitations of different knowledge systems as well as their strengths, so that the most appropriate conceptual tools are brought to bear in addressing the grand challenges we face both now and into the future”  [ 79 ].

Academic institutions and journals require structural change to account for reporting

As detailed throughout the results and discussion section of this review, authors frequently omitted important details regarding standpoint, positioning, reflexivity, level of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander involvement, and explanations of methods. It is reasonable to assume that silence in some of these areas are due to barriers in publishing. Academic journals should cater to the need to report reflexivity and positionality, particularly in relation to Indigenous research, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander research. Many journals have restrictive word counts and journal structures and essential reporting requirements, which create barriers to effectively reporting adequate details that demonstrate best practice, ethical and equitable research. Academic journals and existing structures should require accurate reporting to produce community relevant, scientific excellence in quality and valid qualitative inquiry, that considers and contextualises findings to the local context. Additionally, it is important to move beyond reporting qualitative rigour as simply just a check box exercise. The Qualitative Health Research (QHR) journal recently released an editorial detailing why their review process does not use checklists:

These lists ignore the value of the product of the research: They do not address the originality, the substance, the contribution, and the potential results to the actual topic—which is after all the purpose of the project itself. [ 80 ]

The editorial explains that checklist reviews can undermine the value of qualitative inquiry [ 80 ]. This authorship team suggested that beyond checklists, journals acknowledge Indigenous knowledge systems and seek contribution of Indigenous peer reviewers on the reporting of Indigenous methodologies and methods to uphold the appropriate reporting requirements [ 81 ].

Strengths and limitations

This paper reports a review of publications reporting the use of Yarning method in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health research. Our review was led by an Aboriginal research team including the author of the Yarning as a legitimate research method publication [ 17 ]. Our review provides a critical analysis of Yarning method as applied to qualitative health research and provides guidance to researchers on the future use, and reporting of Yarning method. Whilst Yarning is a culturally safe method that is preferred by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, non-Indigenous researchers need to consider the significance of relationality, sovereignty, and integrity of the research in the doing through the inclusion of Indigenous leadership at every stage.

Authors note that the Yarning method is applied to other disciplines of research and as such this paper offers limitations to understanding it’s broader application. Some publications in this review also included the use of other Indigenous and/or decolonising methods which were not analysed and out of scope in this review. Further analysis on additional Indigenist methods would be insightful.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people should be at the forefront of research about them. Coloniality has embedded systemic racism in our societal structures, privileging non-Indigenous peoples and disadvantaging Indigenous peoples. Coloniality perpetuates ideas about Indigeneity which are then formed and validated through social, cultural, and political structures, practices, and beliefs. They play out in our languages, knowledges, academic discourse, personal and social interactions and popular cultures, and other domains that assign and negotiate meanings and values [ 82 ]. Universities and research are not omitted from coloniality, which too, continue to systematically privilege non-Indigenous knowledge systems, methodologies and methods. Despite cutting edge research by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people since time immemorial, the exclusion of Indigenous knowledges, ways of knowing being and doing has a lasting impact that extends to peer review publications processes and policy development. Euro-Western academic hierarchies, “gold standard” reporting do not necessarily allow for, or consider, Indigenous ways of knowing or uphold Indigenous sovereignty and self-determination in the research process. Although Yarning is recognised as a legitimate research method to decolonising research practice, this method must not be used lightly to justify safety and security in research with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. It must be applied rigorously and reported accurately, describing how the different types of yarning were applied in research, the involvement of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples at all levels of the research, and the outcomes. We found that researcher reflexivity and positioning were significantly under detailed as was Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander ownership, stewardship, custodianship and analysis of data collected in our reviewed publications. Researchers, particularly non-Indigenous led research teams, must only report using an Indigenous method if they are willing to report adequate detail on its application and comprehensive detail on how Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples were involved in all levels of the research. Journals and other establishments should review their process to allow for these details to be documented in research publications without penalty and acknowledge the critical role of Indigenous Editors and peer reviewers. Only through this, can we uphold respectful, reciprocal, ethical, and responsible research practice.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article [and its supplementary information files].

Abbreviations

Community advisory or Aboriginal reference group

Smith LT. Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. London: Zed Books; 1999.

Google Scholar  

Borch M. Rethinking the origins of terra nullius. Aust Hist Stud. 2001;32(117):222–39.

Article   Google Scholar  

Vivian A, Halloran MJ. Dynamics of the policy environment and trauma in relations between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and the settler-colonial state. Crit Soc Policy. 2021;1:22.

Clarkson C, Jacobs Z, Marwick B, Fullagar R, Wallis L, Smith M, et al. Human occupation of northern Australia by 65,000 years ago. Nature. 2017;547(7663):306–10.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Cunningham DJ. The Spinal Curvature in an Aboriginal Australian. Proc R Soc Lond. 1888;45:487–504.

Fraser J. ‘Science, Museums and Collecting the Indigenous Dead in Colonial Australia’ by Paul Turnbull. History of Anthropology Review. 2020. p. 44.

Race CG, Exclusion F. Race For Exclusion. Aust N Z J Sociol. 1986;22(1):3–24.

Huggins J. Black women and women’s liberation. A Reader in feminist knowledge. London: Routledge; 1991.

Smith RL, Devine S, Preston R. Recommended methodologies to determine Australian Indigenous community members’ perceptions of their health needs: a literature review. Aust J Prim Health. 2020;26(2):95–103.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Sherwood J. Who is not coping with colonization? Laying out the map for decolonization. Australas Psychiatry. 2009;17(Suppl 1):S24–7.

Moreton-Robinson A. Relationality: A Key Presupposition of an Indigenous Social Research Paradigm. Sources and Methods in Indigenous Studies. United Kingdom: Routledge; 2017. p. 69–77.

Rigney LI. Internationalization of an Indigenous Anticolonial Cultural Critique of Research Methodologies: A Guide to Indigenist Research Methodology and Its Principles. Wicazo Sa Rev. 1999;14(2 Emergent Ideas in Native American Studies):109–21.

Drawson AS, Toombs E, Mushquash CJ. Indigenous Research Methods: A Systematic Review. Int Indig Policy J. 2017;8(2):1-25.

National Health and Medical Research Council. Values and ethics: guidelines for ethical conduct in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health research. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 2003. 2003.

AIATSIS. AIATSIS Code of Ethics for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Research. Canberra: ACT; 2020.

AHMRC. Aboriginal Health and Medical Research council Key Principles 2020 V2.0. Surry Hills: Aboriginal Health & Medical Research Council; 2020.

Bessarab D, Ng’andu B. Yarning About Yarning as a Legitimate Method in Indigenous Research. Int J Crit Indig Stud. 2010;3(1):37–50.

Geia LK, Hayes B, Usher K. Yarning/Aboriginal storytelling: towards an understanding of an Indigenous perspective and its implications for research practice. Contemp Nurse. 2013;46(1):13–7.

Atkinson P, Baird M, Adams K. Are you really using Yarning research? Mapping Social and Family Yarning to strengthen Yarning research quality. AlterNative: Int J Indig Peoples. 2021;17(2):191–201.

Martin K. Ways of knowing, ways of being and ways of doing: a theoretical framework and methods for Indigenous research and Indigenist research. J Aust Stud. 2003;765:203-24.

Australian Government. National Partnership Agreement on Closing the Gap in Indigenous Health Outcomes 2009–2013. Canberra: Australian Government; 2008.

Kennedy M, Bennett J, Maidment S, Chamberlain C, Booth K, McGuffog R, et al. Interrogating the intentions for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health: a narrative review of research outputs since the introduction of Closing the Gap. Med J Aust. 2022;217(1):50–7.

Harfield S, Pearson O, Morey K, Kite E, Canuto K, Glover K, et al. Assessing the quality of health research from an Indigenous perspective: the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander quality appraisal tool. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020;20(1):79.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Huria T, Palmer SC, Pitama S, Beckert L, Lacey C, Ewen S, et al. Consolidated criteria for strengthening reporting of health research involving indigenous peoples: the CONSIDER statement. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019;19(1):173.

Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101.

Fereday J, Muir-Cochrane E. Demonstrating Rigor Using Thematic Analysis: A Hybrid Approach of Inductive and Deductive Coding and Theme Development. Int J Qual Methods. 2006;5(1):80–92.

Hamilton S, Reibel T, Maslen S, Watkins R, Jacinta F, Passmore H, et al. Disability “In-Justice”: The Benefits and Challenges of “Yarning” With Young People Undergoing Diagnostic Assessment for Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder in a Youth Detention Center. Qual Health Res. 2020;30(2):314–27.

Marriott R, Reibel T, Coffin J, Gliddon J, Griffin D, Robinson M, et al. “Our culture, how it is to be us” - Listening to Aboriginal women about on Country urban birthing. Women Birth. 2019;32(5):391–403.

Carlin E, Atkinson D, Marley JV. “Having a Quiet Word”: Yarning with Aboriginal Women in the Pilbara Region of Western Australia about Mental Health and Mental Health Screening during the Perinatal Period. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(21):4253.

Article   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Butler TL, Anderson K, Condon JR, Garvey G, Brotherton JML, Cunningham J, et al. Indigenous Australian women’s experiences of participation in cervical screening. PLoS One. 2020;15(6):e0234536.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Cullen P, Mackean T, Worner F, Wellington C, Longbottom H, Coombes J, et al. Trauma and Violence Informed Care Through Decolonising Interagency Partnerships: A Complexity Case Study of Waminda’s Model of Systemic Decolonisation. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(20):7363.

Coombes J, Hunter K, Mackean T, Ivers R. The journey of aftercare for Australia’s First Nations families whose child had sustained a burn injury: a qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2020;20(1):536.

Coombes J, Lukaszyk C, Sherrington C, Keay L, Tiedemann A, Moore R, et al. First Nation Elders’ perspectives on healthy ageing in NSW, Australia. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2018;42(4):361–4.

Durey A, McEvoy S, Swift-Otero V, Taylor K, Katzenellenbogen J, Bessarab D. Improving healthcare for Aboriginal Australians through effective engagement between community and health services. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016;16:224.

Chapman R, Smith T, Martin C. Qualitative exploration of the perceived barriers and enablers to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people accessing healthcare through one Victorian Emergency Department. Contemp Nurse. 2014;48(1):48–58.

Rix EF, Barclay L, Stirling J, Tong A, Wilson S. The perspectives of Aboriginal patients and their health care providers on improving the quality of hemodialysis services: a qualitative study. Hemodial Int. 2015;19(1):80–9.

Meiklejohn JA, Arley BD, Pratt G, Valery PC, Bernardes CM. “We just don’t talk about it”: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ perceptions of cancer in regional Queensland. Rural Remote Health. 2019;19(2):4789.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Parmenter J, Basit T, Nelson A, Crawford E, Kitter B. Chronic disease self-management programs for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people: Factors influencing participation in an urban setting. Health Promot J Austr. 2019.

Kong AC, Sousa MS, Ramjan L, Dickson M, Goulding J, Gwynne K, et al. “Got to build that trust”: the perspectives and experiences of Aboriginal health staff on maternal oral health. Int J Equity Health. 2020;19(1):187.

Canuto K, Towers K, Riessen J, Perry J, Bond S, Ah Chee D, et al. “Anybody can make kids; it takes a real man to look after your kids”: Aboriginal men’s discourse on parenting. PLoS One. 2019;14(11):e0225395.

Lyall V, Guy J, Egert S, Pokino LA, Rogers L, Askew D. “They Were Willing to Work with Me and Not Pressure Me”: A Qualitative Investigation into the Features of Value of a Smoking Cessation in Pregnancy Program for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Women. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;18(1):49.

Bryce S, Scales I, Herron LM, Wigginton B, Lewis M, Lee A, et al. Maitjara Wangkanyi: Insights from an Ethnographic Study of Food Practices of Households in Remote Australian Aboriginal Communities. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(21):8109.

Lin IB, Ryder K, Coffin J, Green C, Dalgety E, Scott B, et al. Addressing Disparities in Low Back Pain Care by Developing Culturally Appropriate Information for Aboriginal Australians: “My Back on Track, My Future.” Pain medicine (Malden, Mass). 2017;18(11):2070–80.

Lin I, O’Sullivan P, Coffin J, Mak DB, Toussaint S, Straker L. “I can sit and talk to her”: Aboriginal people, chronic low back pain and healthcare practitioner communication. Aust Fam Physician. 2014;43(5):320–4.

Lukaszyk C, Coombes J, Turner NJ, Hillmann E, Keay L, Tiedemann A, et al. Yarning about fall prevention: community consultation to discuss falls and appropriate approaches to fall prevention with older Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. BMC Public Health. 2017;18(1):77.

Gibson C, Crockett J, Dudgeon P, Bernoth M, Lincoln M. Sharing and valuing older Aboriginal people's voices about social and emotional wellbeing services: a strength-based approach for service providers. Aging Ment Health. 2018;4(3):481-8.

Gonzalez T, Harris R, Williams R, Wadwell R, Barlow-Stewart K, Fleming J, et al. Exploring the barriers preventing Indigenous Australians from accessing cancer genetic counseling. J Genet Couns. 2020;29(4):542–52.

Munro A, Allan J, Shakeshaft A, Breen C. “I just feel comfortable out here, there’s something about the place”: staff and client perceptions of a remote Australian Aboriginal drug and alcohol rehabilitation service. Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy. 2017;12(1):49.

Seear KH, Lelievre MP, Atkinson DN, Marley JV. “It’s Important to Make Changes.” Insights about Motivators and Enablers of Healthy Lifestyle Modification from Young Aboriginal Men in Western Australia. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(6):1063.

Busija L, Cinelli R, Toombs MR, Easton C, Hampton R, Holdsworth K, et al. The Role of Elders in the Wellbeing of a Contemporary Australian Indigenous Community. Gerontologist. 2018.

Deacon-Crouch M, Skinner I, Connelly M, Tucci J. Chronic disease, medications and lifestyle: perceptions from a regional Victorian Aboriginal community. Pharm Pract. 2016;14(3):798.

Meiklejohn JA, Bailie R, Adams J, Garvey G, Bernardes CM, Williamson D, et al. "I'm a Survivor": Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Cancer Survivors' Perspectives of Cancer Survivorship. Cancer Nurs. 2018.

Pilkington L, Haigh MM, Durey A, Katzenellenbogen JM, Thompson SC. Perspectives of Aboriginal women on participation in mammographic screening: a step towards improving services. BMC Public Health. 2017;17(1):697.

Murrup-Stewart C, Whyman T, Jobson L, Adams K. "Connection to Culture Is Like a Massive Lifeline": Yarning With Aboriginal Young People About Culture and Social and Emotional Wellbeing. Qual Health Res. 2021;31(10):1833-46.

Lin IB, O’Sullivan PB, Coffin JA, Mak DB, Toussaint S, Straker LM. Disabling chronic low back pain as an iatrogenic disorder: a qualitative study in Aboriginal Australians. BMJ Open. 2013;3(4):e002654.

Lin IB, O’Sullivan PB, Coffin JA, Mak DB, Toussaint S, Straker LM. “I am absolutely shattered”: the impact of chronic low back pain on Australian Aboriginal people. Eur J Pain (London, England). 2012;16(9):1331–41.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Butten K, Johnson NW, Hall KK, Toombs M, King N, O’Grady KF. Impact of oral health on Australian urban Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families: a qualitative study. Int J Equity Health. 2019;18(1):34.

Meiklejohn JA, Garvey G, Bailie R, Walpole E, Adams J, Williamson D, et al. Follow-up cancer care: perspectives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cancer survivors. Support Care Cancer. 2017;25(5):1597–605.

Kendall S, Lighton S, Sherwood J, Baldry E, Sullivan E. Holistic Conceptualizations of Health by Incarcerated Aboriginal Women in New South Wales. Australia Qual Health Res. 2019;29(11):1549–65.

Reibel T, Morrison L, Griffin D, Chapman L, Woods H. Young Aboriginal women’s voices on pregnancy care: factors encouraging antenatal engagement. Women Birth. 2015;28(1):47–53.

Carlin E, Cox Z, Spry E, Monahan C, Marley JV, Atkinson D. "When I got the news": Aboriginal fathers in the Kimberley region yarning about their experience of the antenatal period. Health Promot J Austr. 2020;32:513–22.

Rix EF, Barclay L, Stirling J, Tong A, Wilson S. “Beats the alternative but it messes up your life”: aboriginal people’s experience of haemodialysis in rural Australia. BMJ Open. 2014;4(9):e005945.

Schoen D, Balchin D, Thompson S. Health promotion resources for Aboriginal people: lessons learned from consultation and evaluation of diabetes foot care resources. Health Promot J Austr. 2010;21(1):64–9.

Bovill M, Gruppetta M, Cadet-James Y, Clarke M, Bonevski B, Gould GS. Wula (Voices) of Aboriginal women on barriers to accepting smoking cessation support during pregnancy: Findings from a qualitative study. Women Birth. 2018;31(1):10–6.

Bovill M, Bar-Zeev Y, Gruppetta M, Clarke M, Nicholls K, O’Mara P, et al. Giri-nya-la-nha (talk together) to explore acceptability of targeted smoking cessation resources with Australian Aboriginal women. Public Health. 2019;176:149–58.

Peake RM, Jackson D, Lea J, Usher K. Meaningful Engagement With Aboriginal Communities Using Participatory Action Research to Develop Culturally Appropriate Health Resources. J Transcult Nurs. 2021;32(2):129–36.

Helps C, Barclay L. Aboriginal women in rural Australia; a small study of infant feeding behaviour. Women Birth. 2015;28(2):129–36.

Hamilton SL, Maslen S, Watkins R, Conigrave K, Freeman J, O’Donnell M, et al. ‘That thing in his head’: Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australian caregiver responses to neurodevelopmental disability diagnoses. Sociol Health Illn. 2020;42(7):1581–96.

Southcombe A, Cavanagh J, Bartram T. Capacity building in indigenous men’s groups and sheds across Australia. Health Promot Int. 2015;30(3):606–15.

Ryder C, Mackean T, Hunter K, Coombes J, Holland AJA, Ivers R. Yarning up about out-of-pocket healthcare expenditure in burns with Aboriginal families. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2021;45(2):138–42.

Henwood M, Shaw A, Cavanagh J, Bartram T, Marjoribanks T, Kendrick M. Men’s health and communities of practice in Australia. J Health Organ Manag. 2017;31(2):207–22.

Belton S, Kruske S, Jackson Pulver L, Sherwood J, Tune K, Carapetis J, et al. Rheumatic heart disease in pregnancy: How can health services adapt to the needs of Indigenous women? A qualitative study. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2018;58(4):425–31.

Walter MA, C. Indigenous Statistics: A Quantitative Research Methodology. London & New York: Left Coast Pres, Inc; 2013.

Haynes E, Marawili M, Mitchell A, Walker R, Katzenellenbogen J, Bessarab D. “Weaving a Mat That We Can All Sit On”: Qualitative Research Approaches for Productive Dialogue in the Intercultural Space. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(6):3654.

Sutton J, Austin Z. Qualitative Research: Data Collection, Analysis, and Management. Can J Hosp Pharm. 2015;68(3):226–31.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Keikelame MJ, Swartz L. Decolonising research methodologies: lessons from a qualitative research project, Cape Town, South Africa. Glob Health Action. 2019;12(1):1561175.

Wilson S. Research Is Ceremony: Indigenous Research Methods. Winnipeg, Manitoba: Fernwood Publishing; 2008.

Braun V, Clarke V. One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis? Qual Res Psychol. 2021;18(3):328–52.

Watego C, Whop LJ, Singh D, Mukandi B, Macoun A, Newhouse G, et al. Black to the Future: Making the Case for Indigenist Health Humanities. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(16):8704.

Morse J. Why the Qualitative Health Research (QHR) Review Process Does Not Use Checklists. Qual Health Res. 2021;31(5):819–21.

Movono A. Indigenous scholars struggle to be heard in the mainstream. Here’s how journal editors and reviewers can help 2021. Available from: https://theconversation.com/indigenous-scholars-struggle-to-be-heard-in-the-mainstream-heres-how-journal-editors-and-reviewers-can-help-157860 .

Watego CS, Singh D, Macoun A. Partnership for Justice in Health: Scoping Paper on Race, Racism and the Australian Health System. Melbourne: The Lowitja Institute. 2021.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We wish to acknowledge Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as the continuing custodians of the lands on which we live and work. We pay respects to the Awabakal, Worimi, Wurundjeri, Ngunnawal, Whadjuk peoples and their Elders past, present, and emerging.

No funding was received for this study. MK was supported by an NHMCR Early Career Fellowship (No. 1158670) during study period.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

College of Health Medicine and Wellbeing, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia

Michelle Kennedy, Kade Booth & Sian Maidment

Hunter Medical Research Institute, New Lambton Heights, NSW, Australia

Michelle Kennedy & Kade Booth

National Centre for Epidemiology and Public Health, The Australian National University, Canberra ACT, Australia

Raglan Maddox

School of Population and Global Health, Centre for Health Equity, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

Catherine Chamberlain

Judith Lumley Centre, School of Nursing and Midwifery, La Trobe University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

Ngangk Yira Research Centre for Aboriginal Health and Social Equity, Murdoch University, Perth, WA, Australia

Centre for Aboriginal Medical and Dental Health, UWA Medical School, Crawley, WA, Australia

Dawn Bessarab

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

MK & DB were responsible for study conception and design. MK, KB & SM were responsible for data extraction and analysis. All authors contributed to interpretation of data, as well as the drafting and revision of the manuscript. All authors have viewed and approved the current version for submission.

Authors’ information

See ‘ Research Team ’ within manuscript for relevant authors’ information.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michelle Kennedy .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1..

Level of reporting table and scoring system.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Kennedy, M., Maddox, R., Booth, K. et al. Decolonising qualitative research with respectful, reciprocal, and responsible research practice: a narrative review of the application of Yarning method in qualitative Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health research. Int J Equity Health 21 , 134 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-022-01738-w

Download citation

Received : 10 May 2022

Accepted : 22 August 2022

Published : 13 September 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-022-01738-w

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Qualitative
• Aboriginal health
• Indigenous methods
• Critical review
• Yarning method

International Journal for Equity in Health

ISSN: 1475-9276

• General enquiries: [email protected]

‘You can’t just show up and start asking questions’: why researchers need to understand the importance of yarning for First Nations

IRC Fellow, Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education

Research Professor, Curtin University

Associate Professor and the Director of Research, Curtin University

Disclosure statement

Robyn Ober receives funding from Australian Research Council

Rhonda Oliver receives funding from Australian Research Council.

Sender Dovchin receives funding from Australian Research Council.

Curtin University provides funding as a member of The Conversation AU.

View all partners

It’s essential for non-Aboriginal researchers to establish relationships with First Nations people when conducting research in their communities.

Past research practices have left a legacy of mistrust towards non-Indigenous researchers among many First Nations people. This is because research has been steeped in colonial practices, including viewing research as something done to Indigenous peoples without them having a say in how they are represented.

First Nations people and communities have had data about them collected with little or no input into the processes or questions asked. Even now, standard questions used for data collection do not always acknowledge that First Nations ways of living may be different from the rest of the population.

This includes things like the effects of intergenerational trauma, the fact First Nations family systems often involve more people than are blood related, and different cultural needs within health services.

This is where research practices such as “yarning” can offer an opportunity to establish relationships with these communities.

Once researchers establish a connection with people from the place they’re wishing to conduct their research, a mutual and inclusive relationship can be forged. This is essential to ensuring First Nations research participants are included in research, and not seen as research subjects.

Being able to build a relationship is vital to ensuring the lives of First Nations people are accurately portrayed and recorded, participants are not taken advantage of, and communities can benefit from the research.

Read more: Establishing a Voice to Parliament could be an opportunity for Indigenous Nation Building. Here's what that means

A history of research ‘on’ instead of research ‘with’

Since colonisation, Indigenous people have had negative experiences of Western research. Through fields such as anthropology, First Nations peoples were observed without permission, and had remains stolen .

Because non-Aboriginal researchers lack significant knowledge about First Nations people, their cultures and societies have often been judged by the degree they conform to Western customs and norms. As a result, misconceptions have followed, and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples have received very little benefit from the research conducted about them.

However in the past two decades, research has been undergoing a significant transformation . This is through incorporating First Nations practices such as yarning into the way research is conducted, providing additional insight into First Nations ways of being, doing and knowing.

Not only does yarning have the power to decolonise Eurocentric research practice, but it can also contribute to non-Indigenous researchers gaining a better understanding of Indigenous peoples and their communities.

Read more: Shifting seasons: using Indigenous knowledge and western science to help address climate change impacts

What is yarning?

Yarning is a tradition practised for thousands of years by many First Nations people in Australia. It is an integral part of Indigenous ways of learning and sharing.

It is usually undertaken by Aboriginal people coming together informally to unwind or in more formal ways such as discussing community or cultural matters. Storytelling is an important part of yarning that allows for reflection on recent or past histories and lived experiences and sharing knowledge.

Researchers can take part in “yarning” by talking to First Nations people about where each of them is from, people they know in common, and their connection to the place on which they meet, just to give a few examples.

Relationships are important in research

We have explored relationships between researchers and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander participants, and have found building trust is essential, but can be difficult.

For example, we found when a young non-Indigenous teacher started work in an Aboriginal community it took her roughly a year before the Aboriginal community decided she was ready to know about their land and culture. According to the teacher, the time proved she was “serious” about being the children’s teacher.

Researchers in First Nations communities need to make connections through sharing dialogues and lived experiences, mutual investment and building trust and credibility. This can be done by taking trips out to the bush and demonstrating commitment to the communities they wish to learn about.

Establishing relationships with the community like this also allows researchers to become acquainted with non-verbal communication such as body language and gestures fundamental to how some Aboriginal people interact.

Ideally these relationships should extend beyond local Aboriginal communities to relevant Aboriginal service providers, educators, practitioners, policymakers, academics and even park rangers. This will ensure additional background information, cultural contexts, and by extension, more robust research.

Researchers need to ask themselves how the research they are undertaking could have useful outcomes for communities, not just academia. This reciprocity can potentially address mistrust with some First Nations people.

It’s important researchers undertake culturally appropriate research that gives back to communities. Through establishing relationships and taking the time to listen to these communities, this will better ensure research undertaken is safe, ethical and useful for them too.

• Indigenous knowledge
• Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples
• First Nations people
• Aboriginal education

Want to write?

Write an article and join a growing community of more than 183,300 academics and researchers from 4,953 institutions.

Register now

Speaking Together: Reflections on Reconciliation, Yarning Circles, and Signature Pedagogies

• First Online: 17 June 2020

Cite this chapter

• Cathy Brigden 5 ,
• Al Fricker 5 ,
• Richard Johnson 5 &
• Andrea Chester 5  

3290 Accesses

3 Citations

As long as there have been people in Australia, there has been pedagogy—learning approaches and teaching methods.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Dhumbah Goorowa , means ‘commitment to share’, in Woi wurrung and Boon wurrung , the language groups of the peoples of the eastern Kulin Nation. Bundyi Girri is Wiradjuri . Bundyi poses the question; asking for something to be shared—shared with me/us? Girri means futures.

This is a significant change as it acknowledges the untrue myths that have been generated around colonisation and the national Anglo-Australian narrative. In addition, it specifically acknowledges the unchanged sovereignty that the First Nations never relinquished. This is a key driver within the Bundyi Girri process.

Arbon, V. (2008). Arlathirnda Ngurkarnda Ityirnda being-knowing-doing: De-colonising indigenous tertiary education . Teneriffe: Post Pressed.

Google Scholar  

Bell, D. (1987). And we are not saved: The elusive quest for radical justice . New York: Basic Books.

Bell, D. (1993). Faces at the bottom of the well . New York: Basic Books.

Bessarab, D., & Ng’andu, B. (2010). Yarning about yarning as a legitimate method in indigenous research. International Journal of Critical Indigenous Studies, 3 (1), 37–50.

Article   Google Scholar  

Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste (R. Nice, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). Westport: Greenwood.

Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. (1991). Reproduction in education, society and culture (2nd ed.) (R. Nice, Trans.). Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications.

Donald, D. (2012). Forts, colonial frontier logics, and aboriginal-Canadian relations: Imagining decolonising educational Philosophies of education. In A. Abdi (Ed.), Decolonising Philosophies of education (pp. 91–111). Amsterdam: Sense Publishers.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Freire, P. (1970). Padagogy of the oppressed (M. Ramos, Trans.). London: Penguin Books.

Geia, L., Hayes, B., & Usher, K. (2013). Yarning/aboriginal storytelling: Towards an understanding of an indigenous perspective and its implications for research practice. Contemporary Nurse, 46 (1), 13–17.

Gomez, L. (2004). A tale of two genres: On the real and ideal links between law and society and critical race theory. In A. Sarat (Ed.), The blackwell companion to law and society (pp. 453–470). Carlton: Blackwell Publishing.

Keating, P. (2015). Australia through aboriginal eyes: The only way to understand our land. In Address delivered in Sydney to mark the 23rd anniversary of his Redfern Park speech.

Moodie, N. (2014). The dark side of the force: The downside of social capital and indigenous higher education. Canberra: Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis.

Moreton-Robinson, A. (2004). Whiteness, epistemology and indigenous representation. In A. Moreton-Robinson (Ed.), Whitening race: Essays in social and cultural criticism (pp. 75–88). Canberra: Aboriginal Studies Press.

Queensland Curriculum & Assessment Authority. (2020, January 1). Yarning circles . Retrieved February 18, 2020, from https://www.qcaa.qld.edu.au/about/k-12-policies/aboriginal-torres-strait-islander-perspectives/resources/yarning-circles .

Rigney, L. (1999). Internationalization of an indigenous anticolonial cultural critique of research methodologies: A guide to indigenist research methodology and its principles. Wicazo Sa Review, 14 (2), 109–121.

RMIT University. (2016). Reconciliation action plan 2016–2019 . Melbourne: RMIT University.

RMIT University. (2019). Dhumbah Goorowa: Reconciliation plan 2019–2020 . Melbourne: RMIT University.

RMIT University. (2019b, January 31). Bundyi Girri . Retrieved February 17, 2020, from https://www.rmit.edu.au/media-objects/multimedia/video/staff-site/bundyi-girri#collapseOne .

Said, E. (2003). Orientalism . London: Penguin Books.

Shulman, L. (2005a). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus, 134 (3), 52–59.

Shulman, L. (2005b). Pedagogies of uncertainty. Liberal Education, 91 (2), 18–25.

Tuck, E., & Gaztambide-Fernández, R. (2013). Curriculum, replacement and setter futurity. Journal of Curriculum Theorising, 29 (1), 72–89.

Williams, R. (1997). Vampires anonymous and critical race practice. Michigan Law Review, 95, 741–765.

World Indigenous Peoples’ Conference on Education. (1999). The Coolangatta statement on indigenous rights in education. In World Indigenous Peoples’ Conference on Education (pp. 1–20). Hilo, Hawai’i: WIPCE.

Yunkaporta, T. (2009). Aboriginal pedagogies at the cultural interface Ph.D. dissertation . Townsville: James Cook University.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia

Cathy Brigden, Al Fricker, Richard Johnson & Andrea Chester

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cathy Brigden .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

Tricia McLaughlin

Andrea Chester

Belinda Kennedy

Sherman Young

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Brigden, C., Fricker, A., Johnson, R., Chester, A. (2020). Speaking Together: Reflections on Reconciliation, Yarning Circles, and Signature Pedagogies. In: McLaughlin, T., Chester, A., Kennedy, B., Young, S. (eds) Tertiary Education in a Time of Change. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-5883-2_11

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-5883-2_11

Published : 17 June 2020

Publisher Name : Springer, Singapore

Print ISBN : 978-981-15-5882-5

Online ISBN : 978-981-15-5883-2

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Meaningful Engagement With Aboriginal Communities Using Participatory Action Research to Develop Culturally Appropriate Health Resources

Affiliations.

• 1 Hunter New England Local Health District, Tamworth, New South Wales, Australia.
• 2 University of Technology (UTS), Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
• 3 University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, Queensland, Australia.
• 4 University of New England, Armidale, New South Wales, Australia.
• PMID: 31948353
• DOI: 10.1177/1043659619899999

Introduction: This article outlines the processes used to meaningfully and authentically engage Australian Aboriginal communities in Northern New South Wales, Australia, to develop culturally appropriate stroke health resources. Methodology: Participatory action research using the research topic yarning framework is a collaborative, culturally safe way to uncover vital information and concepts. There were two stages in the participatory action research project: community engagement and evaluation of the processes involved in developing the localised, culturally appropriate health resources. Results: Establishing relationships built on trust, mutual sharing of knowledge, and bringing together the wider community, enabled the health message to be embedded within the community, ensuring the message was culturally appropriate and sustainable. Discussion : The stroke education resource is a tangible outcome and a major achievement; however, the process of authentic engagement to achieve the final product was the ultimate accomplishment.

Keywords: Australian Aboriginal; Indigenous; collaboration; community ownership; cultural sensitivity; evaluation; health literacy and engagement; participatory action research.

• Health Resources
• Health Services Research
• Health Services, Indigenous*
• Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander*

PERSPECTIVE article

Synergies of affordances and place-based relationality in forest school practice: implications for socio-emotional well-being.

• 1 School of Law and Society, University of the Sunshine Coast, Maroochydore, QLD, Australia
• 2 Faculty of Health, Southern Cross University, Lismore, NSW, Australia

Research shows that the human-nature relationship positively impacts human well-being. Forest School (FS) practice offers young children a structured program of nature connection through activities, aiming to enhance their self-esteem and social skills. FS is now adapted in countries such as Australia, Canada and New Zealand where a unique cultural interface occurs between European settlers and Indigenous peoples. Responding to socio-cultural diversities, geographical contexts, and the traditional ecological knowledges, FS needs to go beyond play pedagogy and incorporate theoretical perspectives that promote human-nature relationship in local context-specific environments. We argue that the synergies between Western perspectives on affordances perceived in person-environment relationship and Indigenous place-based relationality perspective provide a more suitable approach for developing reciprocal relationships between FS participants and land/place/nature. We propose that the synergies between affordances perceived in FS and place-based relationality cultivated in participants will enhance social and emotional well-being. We call for specific research investigating such synergies supporting participant well-being. Future research on FS practice should be directed toward initiating and exploring co-designed studies by Indigenous and non-Indigenous researchers incorporating methodologies that study participant experience as well as evaluating the impact of FS programs embedding affordances and place-based relationality perspectives.

Introduction

In recent years, research has shown that enhancing the human-nature relationship positively impacts the health and well-being of people and planet. This paper argues that Forest School (FS) practice, a child-centered program of nature-connection that originated in Scandinavia and developed in the United Kingdom (UK), as is now offered in many countries, could be ideal to foster both planetary and people health and well-being because it enhances human-nature relationships in early childhood. However, to reach its potential when it is adapted in different socio-cultural and geographical contexts reflecting diverse traditional ecological knowledges (TEK), FS needs to be underpinned by theoretical perspectives that go beyond the Eurocentric play pedagogy. We argue that the synergies between the Western perspectives on affordances and Indigenous place-based relationality provide a solid theoretical underpinning for FS design and implementation. This will guide effective local context-specific practices enhancing participant well-being outcomes. This is especially important as FS expands from its original Scandinavian roots to countries with a significant cultural interface between European settler populations and Indigenous peoples, such as in Australia, Canada and New Zealand. We call for specific research investigating such synergies supporting participant well-being and the FS program impact.

Forest School practice and benefits

The FS model, formalized in the UK, drew upon the udeskole practice of Denmark which encouraged pre-school aged children’s experiential learning in the outdoors ( O'Brien, 2009 ; Knight, 2012 ). The Scandinavian philosophy of friluftsliv , or ‘free air life’, influenced udeskole practice encouraging feelings of being free as part of the natural world with an embedded spiritual connection ( Gelter, 2000 , 2010 ; Bentsen et al., 2018 ). FS is designed to nurture children’s holistic development by fostering a meaningful connection with self, activity and the natural environment. In the UK, the FS ethos draws from play pedagogy and the social constructivist paradigm ( Knight, 2018 ), promoting child-centered experiential learning as a means to enhance self-esteem. It emphasizes young children’s engagement with nature, cultivates peer interactions and social skills, and supports a sense of belonging. This approach positions FS as an effective avenue for the nurturance of children’s self-esteem in early years.

The FS program is designed predominantly for children to immerse themselves in regular weekly nature-based activities of at least 2 hour duration. Most often, the program takes place in natural environments such as woodlands, parks, urban forests, farms, and community green spaces. These sessions incorporate bushcraft, wood whittling, den building, nature-based games, arts and crafts, fire making, and storytelling ( Sharma-Brymer et al., 2018 ). Children enjoy these activities while creating personal connections and meanings with their surroundings ( Harris, 2021 ). They orient their sensory-perception learning to interpret and respond to various environmental stimuli thereby developing their physical, sensory, perception, and cognitive abilities. For example, tree climbing in FS can support multifaceted development including generating personal meanings alongside physical coordination and self-awareness.

Although FS approach is advocated as child-centered, in practice adults design and deliver the program activities focusing on rigorous risk assessment and school curriculum alignment, which arguably diminishes children’s agency and the child-centric philosophy ( Sharma-Brymer et al., 2018 ). In this sense, FS model could look back at its original roots of Scandinavian friluftsliv and udeskole practices for embracing a spiritual connection of being part of the natural world.

The FS model is now replicated in diverse geographical regions such as Australia, Canada, and New Zealand with local-specific modifications and adaptations [see MacEachren (2013) , Cumming and Nash (2015) , Alcock and Ritchie (2018) , Boileau and Dabaja (2020) , and Speldewinde and Campbell (2023) ]. These countries offer a unique cultural interface between European settlers and Indigenous peoples. As such, FS needs to be diversified to take into account local Indigenous place-based relationality frameworks as well as keeping its more Western person-environment relationship roots.

Relationality in human-nature relationships and implications for Forest School

From a place-based relationality perspective, humans relate to nature and other life forms with an inherent sense of connection and belonging. Relating to the natural environment by developing personal connections and meanings benefits individual and planetary health and well-being ( Lawton et al., 2017 ; Brymer et al., 2021 ; Jimenez et al., 2021 ). Research has demonstrated that spending time outdoors positively impacts physical and mental health, and life satisfaction ( Biedenweg et al., 2017 ; Barnes et al., 2019 ; White et al., 2019 ; Coventry et al., 2021 ; McCartan et al., 2023 ). Natural spaces occurring in wilderness, woodlands, parks, and water bodies provide urban dwellers diverse opportunities for self-awareness and self-reflections ( Cooley et al., 2021 ). Nature-based activities can significantly enhance overall well-being across the lifespan. For example, well-designed outdoor activities can raise self- awareness, self-esteem and belongingness in young people ( Roberts et al., 2020 ), while adults participating in community gardening can gain new learning that positively impacts their self-awareness and social connectedness ( Gregis et al., 2021 ). These examples illustrate the positive impact of human-nature relationships across all domains of well-being, strengthening the relationship to self and place which further encourages belonging.

In contemporary fast-paced, technology-driven life patterns, relating to nature has an invaluable benefit for human beings. Extending on this important point, we draw from Australian Aboriginal scholar Graham’s (2014) conceptualization of place-based relationality underlining the perspective of how human identity is intertwined with the natural world. Graham (2014 , p. 18) reflects on the connectedness between self and the land by noting “I am located therefore I am”, stressing human-nature interdependency. Graham (2023) also highlights that the human-nature relationship is underpinned by notions of kinship, caring and belonging. This interconnectedness impacts human identity and well-being. This notion is relevant across various Indigenous collectivist cultures which value the significance of the ties between people, place, culture and community. For example, according to Gee et al. (2014) , interconnectedness within the context of Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ cultures involves an interplay between land (Country), culture, family, kinship, community, and spirituality in forming identities, and influencing social and emotional well-being.

The FS model provides a rich scope for practically exemplifying the above concepts in action. The intention of the nature-based activities of FS is to facilitate children’s connection with their environment, while simultaneously encouraging social and emotional connectedness. However, this intention is often overlooked by activities thereby suppressing the deeper person-environment connection. This intention should align with Graham’s (2014) view of ‘being and belonging in a place’, when FS participants relate to the local natural environment allowing for connections to Country/land/place and the life forms [also see Thornton et al. (2021) ]. For example, young children participating in the weekly Bush Explorers program in Australia ( Bunyaville Environmental Education Centre, n.d. ) learn about local fish and frogs whilst exploring a local creek. This experience could be extended further by introducing relevant Aboriginal Dreamtime Stories to cultivate cultural curiosity in children about Indigenous knowledges and perspectives related to Country and the interconnections between its life forms. This experience potentially grounds their sense of self in the place.

Developing such relationships can also imply their responses to affordances present within the environment. In this light, we explore individual capacity for perceiving opportunities in the environment emphasizing the person-environment relationship in experiential learning.

An affordance perspective on Forest School

The FS ethos emphasizes child-centered engagement with activities and environment, encouraging free play, and nature explorations. Guided by adults, children are encouraged to take risks in a safe yet challenging environment. This approach enables children to learn from myriad opportunities present in the natural world. The dynamic and sensory-rich environment offers diverse experiences, including the changing seasons and varied natural stimuli (sounds, smells, and sights), integral to experiential learning. These experiences expose children to the properties of the environment, cultivating specific knowledges that assist in the development of self-awareness, leading to deeper interactions and facilitating a sense of attuning to information in the environment. At an individual level and also in small groups, children come to recognize their relationship with the place and its features as well as with peers. For example, they remember where their favorite tree is across seasons despite seasonal effects on the tree, allowing for perceiving different opportunities to interact with that tree as relevant to the season. They remember the ways of peer play associated with that tree allowing for richer reflections on relationships and meanings.

Gibson’s (1979) ecological psychology, particularly his concept of affordances, is highly relevant to the FS approach of experiential learning. Ecological psychology highlights the dynamic relationship between the individual and their environment. Affordances refer to multiple potential opportunities that the person-environment relationship offers; they are invitations for actions. Gibson conceptualized perceived affordances as action-opportunities within the person-environment relationship available to an individual. “The affordances of the environment are what it offers the animal, what it provides or furnishes , either for good or ill” ( Gibson, 1979 , p. 127; original emphasis). As such, the properties of the environment are perceived as possible action opportunities initiating behaviors, behavioral changes or adaptations ( Heft, 1988 ).

Gibson posited that an individual’s understanding and interactions with their environment are transformative, leading to better self-awareness. This process is driven by ongoing interactions with the environment, continually shaping sensory, perceptual, and cognitive abilities. By alerting oneself to environmental properties, one is able to continually ‘read and perceive’ (attuning) information present in the environment. This gradually enhances the person-environment relationship, learning to perceive opportunities with individual agency to act. The relative person-environment relationship strengthens with developing an intimate knowledge of the place and relating to it in myriad ways ( Brymer and Davids, 2014 ). As children in FS interact with their environment, they learn to perceive the rich landscape of affordances and respond adaptively, developing an acute awareness of the relationship between self and their surroundings.

In FS, children’s engagement with natural environments fosters their perceptual and responsive capability. Participating children, over a prolonged period and regular duration, are active agents who learn to attune to information in the environment, see, listen, smell, taste, and feel the place for its richer array of affordances thereby developing the capabilities to act on the environmental properties in newer ways.

A good example to illustrate affordances in FS is ‘mud kitchen’ play activity using a play kitchen set, mud (soil), fallen leaves, fruits and seeds, flowers and other such organic objects from natural surroundings. The children create numerous sub-plays within ‘mud kitchen’ play using imagination and learning to work collaboratively. This play activity enhances peer interactions, social skills, fostering creativity, curiosity and nature exploration with deeper connections. Additionally, it supports calmness and relaxation. The social, physical, emotional and cognitive domains are interactive, reinforcing personal relationship, constraining behaviors that are responsive to perceiving multiple opportunities ( Brymer and Davids, 2014 ). Affordances present in this play context evoke multiple behavioral responses. For example, mud can become soup in the ‘play kitchen’ or be used as paint of different hues for artwork decorating the kitchen. The action capabilities ( Woods and Davids, 2021 ) stemming from cultural experiences, beliefs and attitudes interact with the effectivities of the environment, constraining emerging behaviors. Children learn about flora, fauna, food types that are human-friendly and animal-friendly, and seasonal changes and their effects on human interactions with the environment, all of which also develop a sense of guardianship and reciprocal relationships.

The interactions with affordances in the human-nature relationship also foster the development of a reflective and relational self, aligning with Graham’s (2014) concept of place-based relationality. This kind of interactional ‘knowing’ the environment intertwines with the experience of ‘being’ in it (perceiving affordances) and doing (actions). This holistic engagement with the environment contributes to their cognitive and emotional development and instills a sense of responsibility and connection to the natural world. The following section discusses the alignment between affordances and place-based relationality to enhance FS practice and experience.

Synergies between affordances and place-based relationality in Forest School

The FS nurtures a unique connection between children and nature, promoting an appreciation of the natural world. This connection is fostered through immersive experiences where children sense and feel, listening to woodland sounds, touching and feeling the textures of trees, plants, leaves, flowers, fruits and seeds on the forest floor, while observing subtle changes in their surroundings. When explored through an integrative lens this immersive exploration fosters a place-based relationality, where children learn to effectively attune to information in the natural environment, thereby developing their capacity to perceive, relate and action helpful affordances. This further develops their sense of self in place.

While reflecting on ‘place’ (landscape within the natural world), Thornton et al. (2021 , p. 5) allude to “place attachment, place meaning, and place-responsiveness,” asserting humans are part of and belong to the natural world. Graham (2014) emphasizes coherence in one’s sense of identity and belonging through people-place relationality. When we sense and feel the place coherently, we relate to it with confidence. Our “social, spiritual and cultural life” ( Graham, 2014 , p. 19) shapes our relationships, influencing such coherence and confidence both in turn influencing our identity. This fosters a sense of security which comes from a deep reciprocal affiliation with the place ‘where we belong’ and custodial care for our place. From a Native American perspective, Kimmerer (2013) also highlights such reciprocity, a foundational understanding in human-nature relationships with respectful interactions in the natural world. Sharing Māori worldviews from New Zealand, Watene (2016) underlines the importance of local-specific TEK in supporting humans’ meaningful relationships with the natural world.

These concepts are significant to the notion of affordances. Attuning to information in the environment and perceiving the rich landscape of affordances available in the person-environment relationship strengthens action possibilities as well as a meaningful and reciprocal relationship with nature. Knowledge about the environment grows from direct experience, that is deeply relational and reciprocal (e.g., looking after the place).

Reflecting on the custodial ethic of care, Thornton et al. (2021 , p. 5) state it “emerges out of place and is also a structuring force,” impacting on human well-being. Graham (2013 , 2023 ) emphasizes the harmonious and caring interactions with that force in all its variations. The affordance notion provides some detail to this understanding as attuning to information in the environment and strengthening the capacity to perceive and action affordances also facilitates a relationship whereby protecting affordances for good becomes paramount. The interactive, interdependent and relational relationships connecting self, performance and the environment are embodied and also facilitate a sense of responsibility and stewardship. The intrinsic value of this embodiment is reflected in knowing the place and the place growing within us influencing the formation of our identity and belonging.

In affordance theory, the individual’s relationship with the natural environment is complex, shaping knowing, being and belonging experiences, as well as the relationship with the natural world, oneself, and others. This holistic approach to learning and development informs how best to facilitate experiences that support Graham’s (2023) view of a mutual understanding and connection between the individual and environment: “… the relation between people and land becomes the template for society and social relations” ( Graham, 2008 , p. 182). Graham also underlines the need for developing a collective spiritual identity through our connection to land/place. Affordance theory suggests collective spiritual identity through enhanced perception and action of affordances for behavior, principles of ethics and values of caring for the place in its holistic sense. FS can support these notions encouraging participants to develop reciprocal responsibility and social relations through deeper connections with self, peers, and the place. These integrated perspectives are crucial for social and emotional well-being.

Implications of synergies for socio-emotional well-being

The FS offers a vital counterbalance to the challenges of a sedentary lifestyle and digital overexposure, which increasingly affect children’s social and emotional well-being ( Roberts et al., 2017 ). A review by Dabaja (2022) highlighted the positive impact of FS on children in improving social, cooperative, and physical skills. Studies by Cumming and Nash (2015) and Coates and Pimlott-Wilson (2019) document behavioral transformations and enhanced social dynamics in the FS setting. Interviews with FS practitioners ( Harris, 2023 ) reveal shifts in communication skills and interaction styles, benefiting children who struggle with shyness or anxiety. The FS environment thus becomes a powerful set of activities for enhancing cooperation, calmness, confidence, and relationship building.

From a Western viewpoint, affordance theory is pivotal in FS, enabling children to recognize and utilize learning opportunities within the person-environment relationship. Equally important is how affordance theory supports the Indigenous place-based relationality concept in colonial-settler societies. Researchers from Australia, Canada, and New Zealand have underlined the importance of outdoor learning in early childhood education incorporating Indigenous worldviews. FS is popular in Australia where early childhood educators have modified it with ‘bush kindergartens’ (bush/land/place/Country) and ‘nature play’ approaches for local-specific adaptability (for example, Bush Kindy FS, Bush Knowing FS, Bush Explorers FS etc.) [see Speldewinde and Campbell (2023) ]. Responding to the importation of Forest School model into New Zealand, Alcock and Ritchie (2018) noted the significant role of Māori knowledges in enriching children’s experience in the outdoors. Similarly, MacEachren (2018) argued for decolonizing early childhood pedagogies in Canada by adopting Indigenised place-based, relational First Nations’ pedagogies. In the Australian context, Christiansen et al. (2018 , p. 69) emphasized diverse nature kindergarten sites enriching “localized sets of place-based relationships” and recognizing the local Aboriginal cultural connections to the bush. First Nations educator-led programs such as On Country Learning in Australian context ( Lee-Hammond and Jackson-Barrett, 2017 ) and The Ngahere kindergartens in New Zealand ( Kelly et al., 2013 ) demonstrate the value of place-based relationality where children develop a deep interconnected relationship with the place. These occasional studies demonstrate a dearth in research exploring the incorporation of Indigenous worldviews in FS adaptations.

Incorporating Indigenous place-based relationality perspective in FS practice needs a stronger push emphasizing its well-being benefits for humans as well as natural environments. This perspective, along with custodial ethic of care, fosters a uniquely interconnected relationship with land/Country/place/nature, specifically instilling in children a place-based sense of identity. This allows children to connect with local Indigenous cultures, stories, knowledges, and perspectives. Integrating these into the FS adaptations of bush kinder, nature play, and outdoor kindergartens promotes culturally responsive pedagogies supporting reciprocal place-based relationships.

The synergies between Western and Indigenous perspectives enrich the FS experience in children. The Western focus on the person-environment relationship complements the Indigenous perspective of relationality with place/nature, influencing individual social and emotional well-being. This approach supports self-esteem, agency, identity formation, and a deepened sense of connection with the natural world. Graham’s (2014) custodial ethic of care concept resonates with this approach, emphasizing the significance of relationships for social and emotional well-being.

The FS’s adaptability to diverse cultural contexts contributes to community well-being and supports the dissemination of TEK. By catering to different socio-cultural groups, FS practitioners are encouraged to develop programs that emphasize the synergies between Western and local TEK, facilitating children’s development as well-rounded individuals with place-based identity and belonging.

Besides innovating FS practice further to suit local-specific contexts, there is also a need for building research evidence studying the perspectives of all stakeholders on the program efficacy with emphasis on embedding Indigenous worldviews. Focusing on exploring further the affordances along with place-based relationality in FS adaptations needs careful consideration and the involvement of local Indigenous communities for deepening the impact. This entails co-designing research projects that incorporate mixed methods and qualitative methods to evaluate the experience of FS along with the impact of embedding Indigenous place-based relationality concept in practice. Non-Indigenous researchers could collaborate with Indigenous community members to apply Indigenous research methodologies of Storywork and Yarning besides using ethnography and action research. Specific research questions should also address participants’ lived experience and the overall benefits for their social and emotional well-being. Further research examining FS program outcomes and impact in its local-specific variations should be carried out in different parts of the world to explore the sociocultural dimensions of FS adaptations, as well as to gain deeper insights into the synergies of affordances and place-based relationality.

FS emerged as a robust child-centered experiential learning practice, offering a holistic approach to child development using natural environments. FS model’s focus on improving self-esteem and social skills supports children’s social, emotional, and physical well-being through immersive, nature-based activities. Going beyond play pedagogies, FS can benefit from the Western theory of affordances for strengthening person-environment relationship. When applied to cross-cultural contexts such as in European settler societies, FS practitioners can consider the incorporation of Indigenous perspective of place-based relationality for fostering reciprocal relationships between participants and the natural world. The affordances and place-based relationality perspectives enrich participants’ respectful interactions and relationships with nature, cultivating culturally responsive practices. The adaptability of FS to various cultural contexts embedding affordances together with local-specific Indigenous worldviews and TEK underscores its potential to enhance social and emotional well-being, promoting behavior, principles of ethics and values of caring for the place in its holistic sense. As this paper highlights, the synergies of affordances and place-based relationality hold transformative potential, extending their benefits beyond individual participants to families and communities, thereby nurturing more environmentally aware and emotionally resilient societies. Further research is needed to examine the impact of FS adaptations along with those synergies enhancing well-being outcomes. The authors have called for research focusing on co-designed studies involving local Indigenous communities and for the application of qualitative and mixed-methods study design evaluating FS program impact on individual and community well-being.

Data availability statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Author contributions

VS-B: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. EB: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. RW: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. ML: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.

The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

The author(s) declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers, at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Alcock, S., and Ritchie, J. (2018). Early childhood education in the outdoors in Aotearoa New Zealand. J. Outdoor Environ. Educ. 21, 77–88. doi: 10.1007/s42322-017-0009-y

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Barnes, M. R., Donahue, M. L., Keeler, B. L., Shorb, C. M., Mohtadi, T. Z., and Shelby, L. J. (2019). Characterizing nature and participant experience in studies of nature exposure for positive mental health: an integrative review. Front. Psychol. 9:2617. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02617

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bentsen, P., Stevenson, M. P., Mygind, E., and Barfod, K. S. (2018). “Udeskole: education outside the classroom in a Danish context” in The budding and blooming of outdoor education in diverse global contexts . eds. M. T. Huang and Y. C. Jade Ho (Taiwan: National Academy for Educational Research), 81–114.

Google Scholar

Biedenweg, K., Scott, R. P., and Scott, T. A. (2017). How does engaging with nature relate to life satisfaction? Demonstrating the link between environment-specific social experiences and life satisfaction. J. Environ. Psychol. 50, 112–124. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.02.002

Boileau, E. Y. S., and Dabaja, Z. F. (2020). Forest School practice in Canada: a survey study. J. Outdoor Environ. Educ. 23, 225–240. doi: 10.1007/s42322-020-00057-4

Brymer, E., Crabtree, J., and King, R. (2021). Exploring perceptions of how nature recreation benefits mental wellbeing: a qualitative enquiry. Ann. Leisure Res. 24, 394–413. doi: 10.1080/11745398.2020.1778494

Brymer, E., and Davids, K. (2014). Experiential learning as a constraint-led process: an ecological dynamics perspective. J. Adv. Educ. Out. Learn. 14, 103–117. doi: 10.1080/14729679.2013.789353

Bunyaville Environmental Education Centre. (n.d.). Bush explorers play group . Available at: https://bunyavilleeec.eq.edu.au/ourcurriculum/PreSchool/Pages/Bush-explorers.aspx

Christiansen, A., Hannan, S., Anderson, K., Coxon, L., and Fargher, D. (2018). Place-based nature kindergarten in Victoria, Australia: no tools, no toys, no art supplies. J. Outdoor Environ. Educ. 21, 61–75. doi: 10.1007/s42322-017-0001-6

Coates, J. K., and Pimlott-Wilson, H. (2019). Learning while playing: Children’s Forest School experiences in the UK. Br. Educ. Res. J. 45, 21–40. doi: 10.1002/berj.3491

Cooley, S. J., Robertson, N., Jones, C. R., and Scordellis, J.-A. (2021). “Walk to wellbeing” in community mental health: urban and green space walks provide transferable biopsychosocial benefits. Ecopsychology 13, 84–95. doi: 10.1089/eco.2020.0050

Coventry, P. A., Brown, J. V. E., Pervin, J., Brabyn, S., Pateman, R., Breedvelt, J., et al. (2021). Nature-based outdoor activities for mental and physical health: systematic review and meta-analysis. SSM Popul. Health 16, 1–14. doi: 10.1016/j.ssmph.2021.100934

Cumming, F., and Nash, M. (2015). An Australian perspective of a Forest School: shaping a sense of place to support learning. J. Adv. Educ. Out. Learn. 15, 296–309. doi: 10.1080/14729679.2015.1010071

Dabaja, Z. F. (2022). The Forest School impact on children: reviewing two decades of research. Education 50, 640–653. doi: 10.1080/03004279.2021.1889013

Gee, G., Dudgeon, P., Schultz, C., Hart, A., and Kelly, K. (2014). “Aboriginal and Torres Strait islander social and emotional wellbeing” in working together: aboriginal and Torres Strait islander mental health and wellbeing principles and practice . eds. P. Dudgeon, H. Milroy, and R. Walker (Canberra, Australia: Commonwealth Government of Australia).

Gelter, H. (2000). Friluftsliv: the Scandinavian philosophy of outdoor life. Can. J. Environ. Educ. 5, 77–90,

Gelter, H. (2010). Friluftsliv as slow and peak experiences in the transmodern society. Norwegian Journal of Friluftsliv. Available at: http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:ltu:diva-9185 .

Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception . Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Graham, M. (2008). Some thoughts about the philosophical underpinnings of aboriginal worldviews. Aust. Humanit. Rev. 45, 181–194,

Graham, M. (2013). The concept of ethics in Australian aboriginal systems of thought . Custodial Navigator. Available at: http://www.indigenoussovereigntyaustralia.com.au/wpcontent/uploads/2013/06/CustodialNavigator.pdf (Accessed July 12, 2023).

Graham, M. (2014). Aboriginal notions of relationality and positionalism: a reply to weber. Global Discourse 4, 17–22. doi: 10.1080/23269995.2014.895931

Graham, M. (2023). The law of obligation, aboriginal ethics: Australia becoming, Australia dreaming. Parrhesia 37, 1–21,

Gregis, A., Ghisalberti, C., Sciascia, S., Sottile, F., and Peano, C. (2021). Community garden initiatives addressing health and well-being outcomes: a systematic review of infodemiology aspects, outcomes, and target populations. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 18:4. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18041943

Harris, F. (2021). Developing a relationship with nature and place: the potential role of Forest School. Environ. Educ. Res. 27, 1214–1228. doi: 10.1080/13504622.2021.1896679

Harris, F. (2023). Practitioners’ perspectives on children’s engagement in Forest School. Education 3-13, 1–10. doi: 10.1080/03004279.2023.2183081

Heft, H. (1988). Affordances of children’s environments: a functional approach to environmental description. Environ. Psychol. Res. 5, 29–37,

Jimenez, M. P., Deville, N. V., Elliott, E. G., Schiff, J. E., Wilt, G. E., Hart, J. E., et al. (2021). Associations between nature exposure and health: a review of the evidence. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 18:4790. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18094790

Kelly, J., White, J. E., Dekker, M., Donald, J., Hart, K., McKay, F., et al. (2013). The Ngahere project: teaching and learning possibilities in nature settings . New Zealand: Wilf Malcolm Institute of Educational Research Hamilton.

Kimmerer, R. (2013). Braiding sweetgrass: Indigenous wisdom, scientific knowledge, and the teachings of plants . Minneapolis, USA: Milkweed Editions.

Knight, S. (2012). Forest School for all . London, UK: SAGE Publications.

Knight, S. (2018). Translating Forest School: a response to leather. J. Outdoor Environ. Educ. 21, 19–23. doi: 10.1007/s42322-017-0010-5

Lawton, E., Brymer, E., Clough, P., and Denovan, A. (2017). The relationship between the physical activity environment, nature relatedness, anxiety, and the psychological well-being benefits of regular exercisers. Front. Psychol. 8, 1–11. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01058

Lee-Hammond, L., and Jackson-Barrett, E. (2017). “Indigenous perspectives on outdoor learning environments: on country learning” in Outdoor learning environments . ed. H. Little (London, UK: Routledge).

MacEachren, Z. (2013). The Canadian Forest School movement. Learn. Land. 7, 219–233. doi: 10.36510/learnland.v7i1.639

MacEachren, Z. (2018). First nation pedagogical emphasis on imitation and making the stuff of life: Canadian lessons for indigenizing Forest schools. J. Outdoor Environ. Educ. 21, 89–102. doi: 10.1007/s42322-017-0003-4

McCartan, C., Davidson, G., Bradley, L., Greer, K., Knifton, L., Mulholland, A., et al. (2023). “Lifts your spirits, lifts your mind”: a co-produced mixed-methods exploration of the benefits of green and blue spaces for mental wellbeing. Health Expect. Int. J. Pub. Particip. Health Care Health Policy 26, 1679–1691. doi: 10.1111/hex.13773

O'Brien, L. (2009). Learning outdoors: the Forest School approach. Education 37, 45–60. doi: 10.1080/03004270802291798

Roberts, A., Hinds, J., and Camic, P. M. (2020). Nature activities and wellbeing in children and young people: a systematic literature review. J. Adv. Educ. Out. Learn. 20, 298–318. doi: 10.1080/14729679.2019.1660195

Roberts, J. D., Rodkey, L. R., Ray, R., Knight, B., and Saelens, B. E. (2017). Electronic media time and sedentary behaviors in children: findings from the built environment and active play study in the Washington DC area. Prev. Med. Rep. 6, 149–156. doi: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2017.02.021

Sharma-Brymer, V., Brymer, E., Gray, T., and Davids, K. (2018). Affordances guiding Forest School practice: the application of the ecological dynamics approach. J. Outdoor Environ. Educ. 21, 103–115. doi: 10.1007/s42322-017-0004-3

Speldewinde, C., and Campbell, C. (2023). Bush Kinders: building young children’s relationships with the environment. Aust. J. Environ. Educ. 40, 7–21. doi: 10.1017/aee.2023.36

Thornton, S., Graham, M., and Burgh, G. (2021). Place-based philosophical education: reconstructing ‘place’, reconstructing ethics. Child. Phil. 17, 01–29. doi: 10.12957/childphilo.2021.54696

Watene, K. (2016). Valuing nature: Māori philosophy and the capability approach. Oxf. Dev. Stud. 44, 287–296. doi: 10.1080/13600818.2015.1124077

White, M. P., Alcock, I., Grellier, J., Wheeler, B. W., Hartig, T., Warber, S. L., et al. (2019). Spending at least 120 minutes a week in nature is associated with good health and wellbeing. Sci. Rep. 9, 7730–7711. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-44097-3

Woods, C., and Davids, K. (2021). “You look at an ocean; I see the rips, hear the waves, and feel the currents”: dwelling and the growth of enskiled inhabitant knowledge. Ecol. Psychol. 33, 279–296. doi: 10.1080/10407413.2021.1965481

Keywords: Forest School, nature-based activities, affordances, Indigenous place-based relationality, socio-emotional well-being

Citation: Sharma-Brymer V, Brymer E, Willis R and Leach M (2024) Synergies of affordances and place-based relationality in Forest School practice: implications for socio-emotional well-being. Front. Psychol . 15:1352374. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1352374

Received: 14 December 2023; Accepted: 22 April 2024; Published: 10 May 2024.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2024 Sharma-Brymer, Brymer, Willis and Leach. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Vinathe Sharma-Brymer, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Helping People In Community After Stroke

Aunty audrey trindall, proud gomeroi woman , research assistant for the yarning up after stroke project.

Aunty Audrey has worked in Aboriginal Health in NSW for over 35 years in different health education roles out in community. “Having that one-on-one contact is pivotal to providing culturally appropriate healthcare,” she explains. “ I spent 10 years as a health co-ordinator with the Elders Program in the South Western Sydney Health District. My role was to facilitate art and craft activities while engaging with the elders’ group and guest speakers who gave talks about topics such as heart disease and diabetes. I also attended outings with the elders’ group and along with the health nurse, provided support and information about health priorities such as immunisations and screening for health conditions. People would often say how much it helped to have me there, as they felt comfortable and safe with me. For nine years I then worked for a mums and bubs program, called Building Strong Foundations at the Tamworth Community Health Service. With a child and family nurse, I visited mums in community and yarned about the health of their little ones, also providing health education on topics such as breast-feeding and how to quit smoking. We also conducted family days to celebrate events like NAIDOC week , so that people would enjoy a day out in community w ith f ood, music and a yarn, w hile we also provided them with health handouts and information. ”  

Aunty Audrey is currently involved with the Yarning Up After Stroke p roject in collaboration with her community and Hunter New England Local Health District clinical researchers, Dr Heidi Janssen and Professor Chris Levi . She has helped with the co-design of the self-management tool which aims to enable Aboriginal stroke survivors determine their goals for stroke recovery. She is currently working with her community and researcher s to pilot the program with the people living on Gomeroi /Kamilaroi/ Gamilaroi Lands, which encompasses the regional areas of Tamworth and Quirindi in north-eastern New South Wales . Yarning Up After Stroke was inspired by a New Zealand tool called ‘Take Charge ’. Yarning is an Aboriginal practice that is a culturally respectful, conversational way to learn, listen , share and receive information and also identify the health needs of Aboriginal communities. Yarning has been pivotal to understanding what community want and need and see as the solutions to ensure culturally responsive stroke recovery care that strengthens spirit and well-being after stroke .     “I had a stroke in 2012, so in this role I am sharing my lived experience of stroke, which also involves being a positive role model and sharing the different strategies that helped me recover from a stroke,” she explains. “I was lucky that I didn’t need speech therapy, but I did need some physical rehab which involved a stroke exercise program that helped me to regain my strength and balance. Going in the hydro pool with other participants was a lot of fun. The program offered a space where I felt supported and over time , it helped me regain my confidence too. Setting myself the goal of returning to work also really helped motivate me to keep going. Though I felt impatient and wanted my recovery to go faster, I learned that I had to pace myself. So, when I did return to work, I first went back a few hours a day on a couple of days a week.”  

Evidence is increasingly showing enormous benefits from people with lived experience supporting others in their health challenges and recovery. “In our team, everyone works equally together and though I don’t have a university degree, it’s great that my lived experience is respected and considered very valuable,” Aunty Audrey says. “Discussing lived experience is powerful. It helps people feel more comfortable about opening up and sharing what their issues are.”   

“Spirituality, links to land and belonging to land and to the mob that come from that land are at the core of Aboriginal being and identity,” Aunty Audrey explains. “We have 16 Aboriginal nations in NSW, each with their own traditions and cultural beliefs, so there is great richness and diversity of culture and many approaches to healing and ‘medicine’. This means that a ‘one size fits all’ approach may not work in all situations and health workers should collaborate with each person and their family to ask what their cultural and spiritual needs are.”  

At the CVRN showcase and awards evening, Indigenous health leaders discussed the life-changing impacts and outcomes of their outstanding ‘ in-community’ work. Learn more .

Updated 2 days ago

Popular Searches:

• clinical trial expertise
• clinical trial support
• clinical trials
• collaboration opportunities
• commercialisation
• early phase clinical trials
• establish a clinical trial
• ethics and governance
• facilitate resolution
• good clinical practice
• human research ethics committee
• key contacts
• motor neurone disease
• news articles
• problem solving
• publications
• solution service
• standard operating procedures
• start a clinical trial
• translational research

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

Research: Negotiating Is Unlikely to Jeopardize Your Job Offer

• Einav Hart,
• Julia Bear,
• Zhiying (Bella) Ren

A series of seven studies found that candidates have more power than they assume.

Job seekers worry about negotiating an offer for many reasons, including the worst-case scenario that the offer will be rescinded. Across a series of seven studies, researchers found that these fears are consistently exaggerated: Candidates think they are much more likely to jeopardize a deal than managers report they are. This fear can lead candidates to avoid negotiating altogether. The authors explore two reasons driving this fear and offer research-backed advice on how anxious candidates can approach job negotiations.

Imagine that you just received a job offer for a position you are excited about. Now what? You might consider negotiating for a higher salary, job flexibility, or other benefits , but you’re apprehensive. You can’t help thinking: What if I don’t get what I ask for? Or, in the worst-case scenario, what if the hiring manager decides to withdraw the offer?

• Einav Hart is an assistant professor of management at George Mason University’s Costello College of Business, and a visiting scholar at the Wharton School. Her research interests include conflict management, negotiations, and organizational behavior.
• Julia Bear is a professor of organizational behavior at the College of Business at Stony Brook University (SUNY). Her research interests include the influence of gender on negotiation, as well as understanding gender gaps in organizations more broadly.
• Zhiying (Bella) Ren is a doctoral student at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. Her research focuses on conversational dynamics in organizations and negotiations.

Partner Center

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Yarning About Yarning as a Legitimate Method in Indigenous Research

International Journal of Critical Indigenous Studies

This article demonstrates the credibility and rigor of yarning, an Indigenous cultural form of conversation, through its use as a data gathering tool with two different Indigenous groups, one in Australia and the second in Botswana. Yarning was employed not only to collect information during the research interview but to establish a relationship with Indigenous participants prior to gathering their stories through storytelling, also known as narrative. In exploring the concept of yarning in research, this article discusses the different types of yarning that emerged during the research project, how these differences were identified and their applicability in the research process. The influence of gender during the interview is also included in the discussion.

Related Papers

Qualitative Health Research

In this article, we discuss the origins, epistemology, and forms of Yarning as derived from the literature, and its use in research and clinical contexts. Drawing on three Yarns, the article addresses the extent to which non-Indigenous researchers and clinicians rightfully use and adapt this information-gathering method, or alternatively, may engage in yet another form of what can be described as post-colonialist behavior. Furthermore, we argue that while non-Indigenous researchers can use Yarning as an interview technique, this does not necessarily mean they engage in Indigenous methodologies. As we note, respectfully interviewing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples can be a challenge for non-Indigenous researchers. The difficulties go beyond differences in language to reveal radically different expectations about how relationships shape information giving. Yarning as a method for addressing cross-cultural clinical and research differences goes some way to ameliorating th...

Ranjan Datta

Using traditional Western research methods to explore Indigenous perspectives has often been felt by the Indigenous people themselves to be inappropriate and ineffective in gathering information and promoting discussion. On the other hand, using traditional storytelling as a research method links Indigenous worldviews, shaping the approach of the research, the theoretical and conceptual frameworks, and the epistemology, methodology and ethics. The aims of this paper are to explore the essential elements and the value of traditional storytelling for culturally appropriate Indigenous research: 1) develop a model of a collaborative community/university research alliance looking at how to address community concerns and gather data that will inform decision-making and help the community prepare for the future; 2) build up and strengthen research capacity among Indigenous communities in collaboration with Indigenous Elders and Knowledge-holders; and 3) discuss how to more fully engage Indigenous people in the research process. In two case studies with Indigenous and immigrant communities in Canada and Bangladesh that are grounded in the relational ways of participatory action research (PAR), the author found that traditional storytelling as a research method could lead to culturally appropriate research, build trust between participants and researcher, build a bridge between Western and Indigenous research, and deconstruct meanings of research. The article ends with a discussion of the implications of using traditional storytelling in empowering both research participants and researcher.

Sjharn Leeson

With First Peoples and non–First Peoples scholars alike questioning the efficacy of research methods based solely upon accepted social science research paradigms with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander populations, innovative and ontologically inclusive alternatives require consideration. Research conducted with incarcerated Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women in the Northern Territory and Western Australia may provide such an opportunity, arguing for a method of ‘research at the interface’ that utilises appreciative inquiry with culturally appropriate conversations (yarning). Employed across four prisons, the interface research method was applied as an innovative solution to measuring prison performance. It highlighted the lived experience of incarceration while re-imagining the prison, as it exists when it functions at its best. The article begins with a snapshot of the research conducted with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women in prisons across the Northern Territory and Western Australia; this provides a frame through which to consider the efficacy of interfacing First Peoples research paradigms with Western traditional modes of research. Furthermore, the innovative application of appreciative inquiry to the prison is discussed. Given that appreciative inquiry explores and privileges the narrative as a means of making sense of the prison experience, the authors suggest it complements the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander tradition of ‘yarning’. A yarning style represents a way of ensuring cultural safety, respect and the utilisation of First Peoples ontology to research conducted with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women. Overall, it is delineated how interfacing appreciative inquiry and yarning may provide a viable alternative to the deep colonising and perpetually oppressive use of Western modes of scholarship when engaging in research with First Peoples.

Cindy Hanson

The transnational perspectives offered in Indigenous Research Methodologies by Bagele Chilisa make this book not only a valuable resource for university- and community-based research and engagement, but also one with practical and wide-reaching appeal for scholars, community researchers, and graduate students. Bagele Chilisa, a Botswanabased scholar, undertakes an extensive examination of Indigenous methodologies that draws on theories and practices from a variety of cultural and academic contexts. Her examples range across African proverbs and songs, Indigenous story-telling and mixed research methods including Indigenized Euro-Western approaches.

Dr Catherine Demosthenous

This written work comes out of, and is based on, stories shared at a recent yarning circle. In developing this paper, the authors acknowledge that the issues raised might not apply to all Aboriginal women. We acknowledge that there are many Aboriginal women who have shared loving relationships with non-Aboriginal men and given birth as a result of those relationships. However, it is critical to raise for discussion issues that have been prevalent in the lives of many of our women, who have had their children removed and been denied their right to be mothers. We acknowledge those women and our mothers, grandmothers, sisters, aunties and daughters - those that have gone before us, those that are present and those to come, to focus this paper on how mother is articulated, constructed and made meaningful by, and for, the Aboriginal women of the yarning circle. We recognise that each Aboriginal woman has her own experience of what mother might mean, we understand that there may be elemen...

Art/Research International: A Transdisciplinary Journal

Hinekura Lisa Smith

Despite Indigenous peoples’ deeply methodological and artistic ways of being in and making sense of our world, the notion of “methodology” has been captured by Western research paradigms and duly mystified. This article seeks to contribute to Indigenous scholarship that encourages researchers to look to our own artistic practices and ways of being in the world, theorizing our own methodologies for research from our knowledge systems to tell our stories and create “new” knowledge that will serve us in our current lived realities.I explain how I theorised a Māori [Indigenous peoples of Aotearoa New Zealand] weaving practice as a decolonizing research methodology for my doctoral research (Smith, 2017) to explore the lived experiences of eight Māori mothers and grandmothers as they wove storied Māori cloaks. I introduce you to key theoreticians who contributed significantly to my work so as to encourage other researchers to look for, and listen to, the wisdom contained within Indigenou...

Melanie Nelson

Russell Bishop

Karminn C.D. Daytec Yañgot

In her seminal work Decolonizing Methodologies, Linda Tuhiwai Smith (1999; 2021) unravels how methodologies affect Indigenous peoples by focusing on the processes that generate, transmit, and dissipate Indigenous knowledges, and pushes for the amplification of Indigenous voices in research. Picking up from the path paved by Smith, Margaret Kovach (2009; 2021) carves another on Indigenous methodologies. She postulates that in doing Indigenous research, Indigenous methodologies should be a feasible option for gathering data because its commensurability with Indigenous worldviews makes giving back and decolonization within reach. The efflorescence of conversation as a method, thus, requires a good appreciation of what it can bring to the research table.

Crystal McKinnon

RELATED PAPERS

Herzschrittmachertherapie + Elektrophysiologie

Thomas Klingenheben

Case Reports in Ophthalmological Medicine

Maciej Gawęcki

Javier Rivera Sandoval

Mohammad Zameer Iqbal

Uche A Dike

Revista Teias

Dayana Silva de Oliveira

Journal of Gastrointestinal and Liver Diseases

Journal of Chromatography A

Renan Carlos

Le infezioni in medicina : rivista periodica di eziologia, epidemiologia, diagnostica, clinica e terapia delle patologie infettive

Claudia F. Tinoco

Research, Society and Development

Rayanne Maciel

Cancer Genetics

Tadanori Tomita

Jurnal Tanah dan Iklim

RIDHO SYAHPUTRA

Open access Macedonian journal of medical sciences

jose carlos Cardoso

Clinical and Experimental Immunology

Benjamin Damien

Journal of Religion & Health

Mesfin Kahissay

Prof. Dr. Alfonso de Toro

hjjkhjhg gghgt

Mehr un Nisa

Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira

João Batista Silva Araujo

UNCC毕业证书 北卡大学夏洛特分校学位证

Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine

Clayton Queiroz

Plant Cell Reports

Cacilda Vale

Acta diabetologica

Viswanathan Mohan

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

• Americans’ Changing Relationship With Local News
• 1. Attention to local news

Table of Contents

• 2. Local news topics
• Americans’ changing local news providers
• How people feel about their local news media’s performance
• Most Americans think local journalists are in touch with their communities
• Interactions with local journalists
• 5. Americans’ views on the financial health of local news
• Acknowledgments
• The American Trends Panel survey methodology

The share of Americans who say they follow local news very closely now stands at 22% – a decline of 15 percentage points since 2016, when 37% of U.S. adults said the same.

Most U.S. adults (66%) still say they follow local news at least somewhat closely , although this number is also down. Roughly eight-in-ten adults (78%) followed local news at least somewhat closely in 2016.

This decline in attention is not unique to local news: The percentage of Americans following national news very closely declined from 33% in 2016 to 22% in 2024. And the share who say they follow the news all or most of the time (whether it is local, national or some other kind of news) dropped from 51% in 2016 to 38% in 2022.

The decline in attention to local news has occurred across demographic groups, though there are still major differences by age. Young adults are much less likely than their elders to say they follow local news: In 2024, just 9% of Americans ages 18 to 29 say they follow local news very closely, compared with 35% of those 65 and older.

But people across all age groups have become less likely to follow local news in recent years. For instance, in 2016, 23% of the youngest adults said they followed local news very closely, and 51% of the oldest adults said the same.

About half of the youngest adults (47%) now say they follow local news at least somewhat closely, while majorities of all other age groups say this.

Americans with higher levels of formal education are less likely than those with a high school diploma or less education to follow local news very closely. While 17% of college graduates say they follow local news very closely, 28% of those with a high school education or less say the same.

And while Americans at all levels of education have become less likely to follow local news, this gap has narrowed in recent years. In 2016, there were 23 percentage points between the highest and lowest education categories (24% vs. 47%), compared with an 11-point difference today.

Black Americans are more likely than people in other racial and ethnic groups to follow local news very closely. But there is virtually no difference on this question between Democrats and Republicans (including those who lean toward each party).

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

• Digital News Landscape
• Journalists
• Trust in Media

Introducing the Pew-Knight Initiative

8 facts about black americans and the news, audiences are declining for traditional news media in the u.s. – with some exceptions, how black americans engage with local news, local tv news fact sheet, most popular, report materials.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Age & Generations
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Economy & Work
• Family & Relationships
• Gender & LGBTQ
• Immigration & Migration
• International Affairs
• Internet & Technology
• Methodological Research
• News Habits & Media
• Non-U.S. Governments
• Other Topics
• Politics & Policy
• Race & Ethnicity
• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center

Terms & Conditions

Privacy Policy

Cookie Settings

Reprints, Permissions & Use Policy

POV: Decision to Reclassify Marijuana as a Less Dangerous Drug Is Long Overdue

Photo by Thought Catalog/Unsplash

Move signals a new opportunity for scientific research and economic opportunities, but quest i ons remain

Seth blumenthal.

In 1971, when asked about psychiatric professionals’ support for cannabis’ therapeutic applications and benefits, President Richard Nixon complained, “Most people would do a hell of a lot better with a preacher than a psychiatrist.” For Nixon, removing science from the cannabis discussion and elevating morality and virtue moved the conversation into his long-standing concern with youth’s ever-growing permissiveness.

However, cannabis science seems to be making a comeback. In a widely anticipated but still controversial announcement, the Biden administration indicated that the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) will move cannabis out of its Schedule I narcotic classification—grouped with the most dangerous drugs, such as heroin, that the DEA deems highly addictive and of little or no medicinal value. With cannabis a Schedule III substance, businesses will now be allowed to invest in the industry with tax relief and researchers will have an opportunity to investigate cannabis without the draconian restrictions on funding in place since 1971.

While many cannabis legalization activists argue that the move does little to address the historical wrongs of the war on drugs and fails to end federal marijuana prohibition, it is important to note this foundational shift away from the moralistic and criminalized framing perpetuated over the last 50 years since Nixon ensured this outdated scheduling classification.

When Nixon announced the war on drugs and his signature contribution in 1971, the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), narcotics enforcement in America suffered from a fragmented patchwork of policies that begged for federal standards across state lines and provoked a controversy about where cannabis stood in relation to other “street drugs.” Marijuana, the symbolic drug of the counterculture, quickly became a political football in the increasingly heated dialogue surrounding the generation gap. Hoping to diffuse this tension, Nixon appointed Governor Raymond P. Shafer (R-Pa.), a former prosecutor, as head of the National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse to develop guidelines for prevention and law enforcement as well as scheduling recommendations.

The Shafer commission conducted the most extensive and comprehensive examination of marijuana ever performed by the US government. They recorded thousands of pages of transcripts of formal and informal hearings, solicited all points of view, including those of public officials, community leaders, professional experts, and students. They also organized a nationwide survey of public beliefs, information, and experience with drugs. In addition, they conducted separate surveys of opinion among district attorneys, judges, probation officers, clinicians, university health officials, and “free clinic” personnel. In total, they commissioned more than 50 projects to survey enforcement of the marijuana laws in 6 metropolitan jurisdictions.

Nixon found himself in the awkward position of opposing his own study as the report claimed that marijuana did not cause hallucinations and that there was no evidence pot itself caused “crime, sexual immorality or addiction to hard drugs.” The commission recommended that private use be legalized, but further suggested that Nixon should remove drug classification from the DEA purview to allow cannabis rescheduling. As Congressman James Scheuer (D-N.Y.) observed, the commission’s recommendation to decriminalize marijuana represented a “great step forward in regaining the credibility of the youth in our country.”

Nixon disagreed. A week before the report came out, the president announced he would never decriminalize cannabis no matter the study’s findings. “I don’t want psychiatrists,” Nixon grumbled, “I want to smash the dope peddlers.” Thus, Nixon maintained an enforcement- and supply side–focus on cannabis policy that exaggerated prohibition’s moral righteousness, dismissed the scientific evidence, and maintained the DEA’s control over scheduling, which stifled researchers’ efforts to understand this widely used substance.

While efforts to persuade the DEA to reschedule cannabis failed several times, this imminent correction raises a new controversy. Even cannabis activists question the impact this new policy will have on enticing “Big Pharma” and corporate investment, often at odds with the public health research that rescheduling allows and threatening the struggling effort in each state to foster economic and racial equity in the industry. While the opening of both research and economic opportunities reflect a shared effort to bring cannabis science out of the morality framing Nixon preferred, Biden’s efforts shift the question from “whether” we should reschedule to “how.”

Seth Blumenthal, master lecturer at the College of Arts & Sciences Writing Program, can be reached at [email protected] .

“POV” is an opinion page that provides timely commentaries from students, faculty, and staff on a variety of issues: on-campus, local, state, national, or international. Anyone interested in submitting a piece, which should be about 700 words long, should contact John O’Rourke at [email protected]. BU Today reserves the right to reject or edit submissions. The views expressed are solely those of the author and are not intended to represent the views of Boston University.

Explore Related Topics:

• Government & Law
• Share this story
• 0 Comments Add

Seth Blumenthal Profile

Comments & Discussion

Boston University moderates comments to facilitate an informed, substantive, civil conversation. Abusive, profane, self-promotional, misleading, incoherent or off-topic comments will be rejected. Moderators are staffed during regular business hours (EST) and can only accept comments written in English. Statistics or facts must include a citation or a link to the citation.

Post a comment. Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Latest from BU Today

Class of 2024: songs that remind you of your last four years at boston university, cloud computing platform cloudweaver wins at spring 2024 spark demo day, boston teens pitch biotech concepts to bu “investors” at biological design center’s stem pathways event, the weekender: may 9 to 12, dean sandro galea leaving bu’s school of public health for washu opportunity, meet the 2024 john s. perkins award winners, comm ave runway: may edition, stitching together the past, two bu faculty honored with outstanding teaching awards, advice to the class of 2024: “say thank you”, school of visual arts annual bfa thesis exhibitions celebrate works by 33 bfa seniors, q&a: why are so many people leaving massachusetts, killers of the flower moon author, and bu alum, david grann will be bu’s 151st commencement speaker, photos of the month: a look back at april at bu, bu track and field teams compete at 2024 patriot league outdoor championships this weekend, 22 charles river campus faculty promoted to full professor, this year’s commencement speaker we’ll find out thursday morning, the weekender: may 2 to 5, how to have ‘the talk’: what i’ve learned about discussing sex, university, part-time faculty tentatively agree to new four-year contract.

Featured Topics

Featured series.

A series of random questions answered by Harvard experts.

Explore the Gazette

Read the latest.

What is ‘original scholarship’ in the age of AI?

Complex questions, innovative approaches

Early warning sign of extinction?

Epic science inside a cubic millimeter of brain.

Six layers of excitatory neurons color-coded by depth.

Credit: Google Research and Lichtman Lab

Anne J. Manning

Harvard Staff Writer

Researchers publish largest-ever dataset of neural connections

A cubic millimeter of brain tissue may not sound like much. But considering that that tiny square contains 57,000 cells, 230 millimeters of blood vessels, and 150 million synapses, all amounting to 1,400 terabytes of data, Harvard and Google researchers have just accomplished something stupendous.   

Led by Jeff Lichtman, the Jeremy R. Knowles Professor of Molecular and Cellular Biology and newly appointed dean of science , the Harvard team helped create the largest 3D brain reconstruction to date, showing in vivid detail each cell and its web of connections in a piece of temporal cortex about half the size of a rice grain.

Published in Science, the study is the latest development in a nearly 10-year collaboration with scientists at Google Research, combining Lichtman’s electron microscopy imaging with AI algorithms to color-code and reconstruct the extremely complex wiring of mammal brains. The paper’s three first co-authors are former Harvard postdoc Alexander Shapson-Coe, Michał Januszewski of Google Research, and Harvard postdoc Daniel Berger.

The ultimate goal, supported by the National Institutes of Health BRAIN Initiative , is to create a comprehensive, high-resolution map of a mouse’s neural wiring, which would entail about 1,000 times the amount of data the group just produced from the 1-cubic-millimeter fragment of human cortex.  

“The word ‘fragment’ is ironic,” Lichtman said. “A terabyte is, for most people, gigantic, yet a fragment of a human brain — just a minuscule, teeny-weeny little bit of human brain — is still thousands of terabytes.”  

Jeff Lichtman.

Kris Snibbe/Harvard Staff Photographer

The latest map contains never-before-seen details of brain structure, including a rare but powerful set of axons connected by up to 50 synapses. The team also noted oddities in the tissue, such as a small number of axons that formed extensive whorls. Because the sample was taken from a patient with epilepsy, the researchers don’t know whether such formations are pathological or simply rare.

Lichtman’s field is connectomics, which seeks to create comprehensive catalogs of brain structure, down to individual cells. Such completed maps would unlock insights into brain function and disease, about which scientists still know very little.

Google’s state-of-the-art AI algorithms allow for reconstruction and mapping of brain tissue in three dimensions. The team has also developed a suite of publicly available tools researchers can use to examine and annotate the connectome.

“Given the enormous investment put into this project, it was important to present the results in a way that anybody else can now go and benefit from them,” said Google collaborator Viren Jain.

Next the team will tackle the mouse hippocampal formation, which is important to neuroscience for its role in memory and neurological disease.

Share this article

You might like.

Symposium considers how technology is changing academia

Seven projects awarded Star-Friedman Challenge grants

Fossil record stretching millions of years shows tiny ocean creatures on the move before Earth heats up

How old is too old to run?

No such thing, specialist says — but when your body is trying to tell you something, listen

Excited about new diet drug? This procedure seems better choice.

Study finds minimally invasive treatment more cost-effective over time, brings greater weight loss

How far has COVID set back students?

An economist, a policy expert, and a teacher explain why learning losses are worse than many parents realize