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

Abstract

Background 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. Objective 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. Design 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. 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. Results 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. Conclusion 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.

Yarning about Diet: The Applicability of Dietary Assessment Methods in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians—A Scoping Review

“…This review identified conversational methods, with references to a yarning style approach, as a dietary assessment method used with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander populations [ 46 ]. While less recognised by a western scientific approach, yarning is a well-established Indigenous research method that facilitates the culturally safe sharing of information and knowledge at the discretion of participants [ 15 , 52 ]. While yarning may take many forms, ‘research yarning’ may occur with a semi-structured conversation-approached interview that seeks to gather knowledge and information from participants on a topic [ 15 , 52 ].…”

“…While less recognised by a western scientific approach, yarning is a well-established Indigenous research method that facilitates the culturally safe sharing of information and knowledge at the discretion of participants [ 15 , 52 ]. While yarning may take many forms, ‘research yarning’ may occur with a semi-structured conversation-approached interview that seeks to gather knowledge and information from participants on a topic [ 15 , 52 ]. The way the conversational method was utilised by Bryce et al allowed for contextualisation through the interweaving of a quantitative dietary assessment method, a modified 24-h recall (unstructured, minimal questioning or probing and no portion size estimation), and the food-related conversations had with household members [ 46 ].…”

Assessing Financial Freedom among Teachers in the New Normal

“…Reciprocation or reciprocity is another aspect that needs to be achieved as it requires researchers to express gratitude to the participants involved [47]. This was an essential consideration since qualitative researchers need to realize that what the participants shared required remembering past experiences.…”

Co‐designing research with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander consumers of mental health services, mental health workers, elders and cultural healers

“…This self‐reflexivity is especially important given the historical context of unsafe and exploitative research done ‘on’ rather than ‘with’ Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples 8 . Non‐Indigenous people have often done research relating to Indigenous peoples without prior consent, meaningful engagement or access to results or benefits of the research 3,25,26 . Indeed, research has historically been used to justify dehumanising, and oppressive policies and practices 3,25 .…”

“…Non‐Indigenous people have often done research relating to Indigenous peoples without prior consent, meaningful engagement or access to results or benefits of the research 3,25,26 . Indeed, research has historically been used to justify dehumanising, and oppressive policies and practices 3,25 . Therefore, when non‐Indigenous researchers are working in research with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, they need to work in a self‐reflective manner, to be aware of biases shaped by dominant ways of knowing and engage in ongoing critical reflection 24,27–29 …”