Co-creating impact: positioning indigenous knowledge holders as expert researchers Free

This paper shares the impact generated through a research partnership exploring the leadership and voice of Indigenous Australian women land, sea and wildlife conservators (henceforward described as “rangers”) and custodians. Currently, these women report that their leadership voice is under-recognized and under-appreciated relative to White and Indigenous males within local communities, governments and federal decision-making agencies. While Indigenous Australian women are increasingly being encouraged to lead, the institutions they interact with fail to recognize their authority or ability to act, often due to remoteness and isolation, rendering their knowledge and leadership voice effectively mute.

While conservation of land and sea resources throughout Australia is recognized as important to the biosecurity of the nation, Indigenous women rangers are under-represented, comprising less than 35% of the environmental ranger workforce in total and significantly less of the fulltime employed rangers. Also, these Indigenous women rangers face persistent challenges in transferring knowledge and having their collective voices heard within both government and non-government decision-making forums regarding the environmental management of their country (Woodside and Yeganeh, 2018). The research aimed to identify barriers to these women’s voices being heard and to provide recommendations that give them greater control over matters which impact their role as rangers and more broadly as leaders in their communities. For these women, recognition of their leadership voice within their communities supports them to lead conservation efforts that balance both Indigenous perspectives and Western regulatory requirements. For their communities, Indigenous women leaders serve as role-models, supporting their families and communities financially, emotionally and practically to achieve desired outcomes (Woodside and Yeganeh, 2018).

Australia’s Indigenous peoples are comprised of two distinct cultural groups made up of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples who represent 3.2% of the total Australian population. There is significant diversity within these two broadly described groups which can be exemplified by the existence of over 250 distinct language groups spread across Australia. An accepted definition of an Indigenous Australian, which was put forward by the Commonwealth Department of Aboriginal Affairs in the 1980s, and is still in use by some Australian Government departments, is “a person of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent who identifies as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander and is accepted as such by the community in which he or she lives.” However, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples also have their own laws and customs to determine membership of their group (AIATSIS, 2024).

Aboriginal identities are directly linked to their language groups and traditional lands which they refer to as “Country”. To Indigenous Australians, Country is a complex term that incorporates physical, spiritual (e.g. creation stories) and cultural elements (e.g. lore, ceremony and songlines). The physical not only refers to the land, but everything both living and supporting life (e.g. land, water, rocks, air). For this reason, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people might also describe themselves in ways that reflect the physical elements of their Country. For example, “saltwater people” for those who live on the coast, or “freshwater”, “rainforest”, “desert” or “spinifex” for people who live in that ecological environment.

The 200+ women participating in this research come from the Northern Territory of Australia and comprise Indigenous women from dozens of language groups and traditional Countries, “saltwater” and “desert”. They are all traditional knowledge holders of their Country, acting to preserve Country.

This research project must also be understood in the wider context of colonization, often characterized by a violent White settler history, and subsequent government policies and Western research paradigms. While such Western research paradigms aimed at trying to address “the issue”, they have often negatively impacted Indigenous people, communities and cultures in Australia due to their objectification of Indigenous people, their knowledges and lands. In accumulation, colonization has produced a context that sees Indigenous peoples severely disadvantaged in health and wellbeing, and with severe life outcome gaps compared to other Australians. A programmatic approach to “Closing the Gap” between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians has been established by the Federal Government, but failure to hear and respect the voices of Indigenous Australians in achieving these objectives is recognized as the major cause for stalled progress (Australian Government, 2020, p. 4). The value of Indigenous knowledges in resolving the gap remain largely untapped, with current knowledge largely derived from Western positivist, objectivist and scientific knowledge forms (Muzio, 2022). As Kennedy et al. (2022) also remind us, universities and their research are not exempt from coloniality, which strongly privileges non-Indigenous knowledge systems and methodologies.

A focus upon the experiences of Indigenous women highlights how different levels of power perpetuate and attenuate intersectionality experiences and offer different perspectives to resolving entrenched inequality (Thatcher et al., 2023). Understanding and acknowledging the different contextual experiences of White and Indigenous women is part of a growing, but under-represented, leadership literature that explores alternate approaches to leadership and leadership development, particularly those informed by Indigenous ways of knowing, being and doing (e.g. Jordan and Leroy-Dyer, 2023; Yates et al., 2023). Hence, a guiding principle of the current research was to increase the exchange and spread of Indigenous theoretical ideas, as well as prioritizing Indigenous ontologies, epistemologies and methodologies. This was intended as a means of creating greater plurality and diversity of voices and perspectives in generating greater understanding of how to resolve the complex challenges faced by Australian Indigenous women.

It is important to note that Indigenous ontology differs markedly from Western ontologies in many ways. Fundamentally, Indigenous ontology is a relational one and human existence must be understood in relation to the connections that humans have with the living and non-living, with ancestors, with the land, with animals, with plants and with other beings (Chilisa, 2020, pp. 23–24). As Sheehan (2024, p. 14) describes it:

Likewise, Indigenous epistemologies are relational. In contrast, dominant Western epistemological paradigms are built on the premise that knowledge is an individual entity, something that an individual can search for, and which can be gained and owned. Indigenous epistemology holds that knowledge is undergoing continuous generation, both with and around the individual and is shared with all of creation; and as such, a researcher is answerable to all these relationships when doing research (Kuokkanen, 2017; Wilson, 2008).

The premise of relationality underpinned our entire research process, cutting across the knowledge systems and processes depicted in Figure 4.

Another key problem addressed by the research is that emerging Indigenous leaders have limited guidance and instruction on leadership development activities that, while fitting within Western organization frames of reference, simultaneously honor Indigenous cultural heritage and leadership approaches which diverge in important ways from Western approaches (Yates et al., 2023). How Indigenous women lead and influence outcomes within their workplaces is an opportunity for both academics and practitioners to reimagine leadership and leadership development, by a rebalancing of Western and non-Western theoretical and methodological paradigms (Bruton et al., 2022; Gardner et al., 2020; Yates et al., 2023). This challenge and opportunity of walking in two worlds is not new in any transdisciplinary research which aims to honor and respect Indigenous knowledge. As Bartlett et al. (2012) note, this requires “Two-Eyed Seeing”. Two-Eyed Seeing is described in terms of the advantage of relational knowing and doing at the root of Indigenous ontologies and “refers to learning to see from one eye with the strengths of Indigenous knowledges and ways of knowing, and from the other eye with the strengths of Western knowledges and ways of knowing, and to using both these eyes together, for the benefit of all” (Bartlett et al., 2012, p. 335).

The genesis of the project was March 2018, when two of the authors were interviewed by Australia’s national broadcaster (Australian Broadcasting Commission) about the findings from their research project on the gender equality beliefs of Australian adolescents. In this radio interview, discussion focused on the issues that women face in Australian workplaces. This interview was heard on the other side of the country in Western Australia by an executive from a global environmental and cultural heritage foundation (“Heritage”). The executive contacted the research team to discuss the similar, but unique and nuanced, experiences of Australian Indigenous women rangers. This initial contact was the foundation of a series of correspondence, evolving relationships with Indigenous groups and cross-country meetings that culminated in a collaborative research partnership funded by “Heritage”. This partnership was formalized in 2023 between the research team’s university (“University”), “Heritage” and a large Indigenous land management organization operating in the Northern Territory of Australia (“NT Land”) (see Figure 1). “NT Land” is an organization focused on supporting Country and culture of several Indigenous land-owning groups in the Northern Territory (NT), employing an environmental ranger workforce for over twenty years. Critically, “NT Land” auspice a network of over 200 Indigenous women rangers (“Network NT”) who, pre-COVID, had begun to meet annually in the Northern Territory at a “Forum” to identify ways of overcoming shared barriers faced by them in progressing their careers, and healing their lands and their communities. A representative sub-group of 20–35 women from within “Network NT” (“Message Group”) were selected to organize and lead events such as the “Forum”. It was from this “Message Group” that five Indigenous women would later volunteer (along with the Indigenous “Heritage” woman ranger) to be trained as research associates as part of the co-design process for this project.

Key events in the evolution of the relationship that formed the foundations of the current partnership are represented in Figure 2. While this evolution appears linear, there were a multitude of challenging project setbacks, including rejections of grant applications led separately by both the “University” and “Heritage”, partnership shifts with Indigenous controlled organizations due to staffing changes or changing organizational priorities, COVID-19 lockdowns across Australia in 2020 and 2021, and quarantining of Indigenous communities, to name a few. This required the original team to revisit the project aims, objectives and philosophical orientation a multitude of times throughout the formative years. Nevertheless, the driving features of the ongoing relationship remained consistent: the adoption of a learning orientation to any funding rejection and other negative feedback; a willingness to interrogate assumptions and beliefs about the needs of Indigenous partners; decolonizing of researcher ontology, epistemology and methodology through focus upon centering Indigenous ways of knowing, being and doing throughout the partnership and co-creation and ownership of the research project.

Early in the research team’s development at “University”, it was clear that Indigenous lived expertise and research capabilities would be foundational to any future partnership impact. As the internal “University” team grew from the initial two team members to four, opportunities grew for increased knowledge and up-skilling about Indigenous research methods. One of the new research team members was a female Indigenous academic who operated in the “Western” research world, while also bringing an understanding of Indigenous perspectives and ways of being and doing. Along with the “Heritage” team, she was invited to attend an earlier Indigenous women ranger forum that took place with a different network located in Western Australia (“Network WA”) in November 2019.

This forum provided considerable insight and grounding into the issues and challenges facing Indigenous women rangers in Australia. The “Network WA” forum had a significant impact on the understanding of the team around what Indigenous women rangers wanted and how traditional Western methods of research would be inadequate for the task of understanding Indigenous women’s leadership and relative lack of voice. In February 2020 the onset of COVID-19 meant that, for two years, project development and meetings all happened remotely, significantly hampering the establishment of key relationships.

In June 2021 the “Heritage” team evolved, bringing on board a female Indigenous program coordinator focusing on supporting Indigenous women rangers across Australia. Through her work, she discovered that the rangers in the Northern Territory had successfully run several annual forums and were looking for support in having their collective voices heard on key issues directly affecting them and their ability to do their land and sea conservation work. As a former Indigenous woman ranger, this “Heritage” team member was in a unique position, operating as a boundary spanner between the Indigenous ranger social networks including the Northern Territory “Message Group”, and the Western social networks of “University” and “Heritage”. Throughout 2022 and early 2023, walking in both Indigenous and Western worlds, she brokered the research relationship between all three groups in the current research project – “University”, “Heritage” and “NT Land”. Moreover, this “Heritage” team member using her lived expertise was able to communicate with members of “Network NT” and “Message Group” leaders to efficiently build rapport and share insights and experiences relevant to the goals and objectives of the Indigenous women leaders.

While this research relationship may have evolved without such brokerage, it is evident that her involvement significantly sped up the process of establishing initial contact and for “University” to be considered as a potentially safe and appropriate research partner by “NT Land” and the “Message Group” in particular. Importantly this brokerage did not replace rapport building between “University” and “Message Group” members. Rather it highlighted the imperative to slow processes down to first develop trusting relationships with “Message Group” before commencing the research purpose and design and identifying jointly any training to be undertaken with “NT Land” and “Message Group”.

The development of a trusting partnership between the Indigenous team members of “University” and “Heritage”, and the shared understanding and growing appreciation of Indigenous research methods by the non-Indigenous team members, shaped the decision about the need for Indigenous women rangers as co-researchers in the project. This led to five, self-selected, Indigenous women rangers from “Message Group” becoming research associates on the project. The sixth Indigenous research associate nominated to join this group was the Indigenous female program coordinator from “Heritage”. Having “Message Group” members as the project’s research associates provided an informal sense of license to the non-Indigenous members of the “University” research team to engage more authentically in the design processes. This approach also provided space for “Message Group” members to find their voice without being overridden by Western research practices (e.g. fixed timelines, rigid planning, defined milestones, “established” models of leadership) that would traditionally have dominated the research design assumptions and implementation processes.

Overall, the non-Indigenous research team members underwent a significant learning curve early in the process. Their learning included self-reflection, reflexive discussion with numerous audiences about challenging their existing assumptions, learning about Indigenous knowledge creation and research methods and testing their understanding with various audiences. To test their understanding they consulted widely, including senior Indigenous academics at the “University”, Indigenous owned organizations, Indigenous community members and international Indigenous academic audiences through attendance at Indigenous conferences. This process was often confronting and included interrogation of pre-assumed knowledge about research and research methods. It essentially involved commencing a journey towards the decolonizing of self and knowledge (Smith, 2021). The journey required the non-indigenous researchers moving away from Western frames, enabling their acceptance of Indigenous ontologies, epistemologies and research methods, thereby enhancing their partnership with the six Indigenous women ranger research associates. It must be noted that this journey is ongoing, and the process of decolonization is not something that can be achieved quickly, especially given that each of the non-indigenous researchers still reside in Western institutions and still feel the pressures of Western research paradigms and administrative norms.

The pivotal step in working with rights-holders in this project is the acknowledgment that the Indigenous women rangers not only became research associates on the project, but co-creators of the research aims, methods, data collection, analysis and publications, thereby also significantly growing the national significance and impact of the project for Indigenous rights-holders.

With the growth in their understanding of Indigenous knowledge creation, the “University” team over time concluded that traditional Western qualitative research methodologies were inadequate to gain the knowledge and understanding required to develop ideas and actions that would elevate Indigenous women’s voice, leadership and impact. Even culturally aligned Western tools like action research (Wilson, 2008) that have meaningful links to Indigenous ways of knowing, being and doing, are harmful methods without the development of relational accountability. As noted above, foundational to Indigenous culture is this essence of relationality, where Indigenous culture is synonymous with relationships, collaborations and spending time learning about each other, including a connection to country and ancestors (Wilson, 2008). A pivotal point came during the research training workshop with the Indigenous research associates, when the Indigenous “University” team member encouraged the non-Indigenous researchers to take a leap of faith and 'trust in the Indigenous process' that the indigenous research team members would produce the research aims, methods, research questions and outcomes expected by all partners. Practically, on the morning of the last day of training, the indigenous research associates were left alone to generate these outcomes and then present these to the whole research team. The outcomes presented by the Indigenous research associates were understood, accepted and adopted without change. All were clear not only about the methods by which the data would be collected, “dadirri” and yarning circles’, but also the exact language and framing (overarching ontology and epistemology) of the questions to be asked. This moment represented perhaps the most important learning point in the journey towards decolonizing the research process for the non-Indigenous researchers. Up to this moment, the non-Indigenous members of the “University” team merely had faith the process might work. However, from this point forward there was manifest evidence that Indigenous ways of knowing and doing would produce outcomes more aligned to the needs of the Indigenous women rangers than the ontologies, epistemologies and methods Western research could offer. This was further substantiated by the data collected at the “Forum” and its later analysis and allocation to themes and categories. Clearly, it was the non-Indigenous “University” team members that were being trained by the Indigenous Research associates, both in our first training session and again at later meetings of the research team. This was both a humbling and exciting experience for all members of the research team.

From this recognition and acceptance of the need to embrace and apply Indigenous epistemologies, the “University”, “Heritage and “Message Group” partners centered on the two Indigenous research methods of “yarning”, and “dadirri” to gather the data. Both are culturally safe Indigenous research methods through which a phronetic approach is adopted (Bainbridge et al., 2013; West et al., 2012). Yarning circles have growing acceptance as a legitimate method in Indigenous research and are being applied more widely in non-Indigenous contexts (Garvey et al., 2021). The closest approximation of a yarning circle in Western methodologies is the focus group, though they go beyond this method in several important ways (Chilisa, 2020). Indigenous yarning circles are community gatherings among Indigenous people, who meet to share their experiences, knowledge, and stories. Aware of the fact that people hold different worldviews, these circles are by tradition peaceful, giving complete respect to the voice or opinion of every member in the circle, who speak in turn and then listen respectfully to one speaker at a time. Yarning circles cultivate deep and sincere communication, active listening, and are critically important in the building of respectful relationships (Chilisa, 2020). For a larger group, several circles may be required to keep the number in a circle to a distance so that all can be heard. “Dadirri” is a Ngangikurungkurr word from the Daly River region of the Northern Territory. Traditionally, Indigenous people pass on stories orally and pictorially, and listening to the storyteller is vital to reproduce the story accurately to the next generation of storytellers. Dadirri can be linked to Western conceptions of critical theory and reflective practice and is increasingly applied in Indigenous research (Ungunmerr-Baumann et al., 2022). Dadirri goes beyond a simple conversation between the researcher and interviewee:

The use of these methods offers a process for moving beyond being an interpreter, to joining Indigenous people as part of the story being shared together.

The “Message Group” ultimately holds ownership and carriage of the outputs and impact of the research project. Hence, positioning Indigenous research partners from the “Message Group” as guiding experts of the research process was pivotal to ensuring the research team gained access to privileged Indigenous knowledge, enabling the whole team to understand the issues and how we might, together, develop answers for Indigenous women rangers. To further enhance trust and ensure that the research team went beyond the perception of superficial engagement, the Indigenous women researchers were funded and paid through a formal appointment at the “University”. Establishing these paid roles within the research team, not only recognized the deep cultural expertise of these women, but also that their ties to Country and culture were foundations to the success of the research partnership. In addition, there was the prestige, status and recognition associated with their employment by a “University” ranked in the World’s Top 50 research universities.

The slowly evolving research partnership centered on a series of meetings (i.e. virtual, in-person, individual and group-based). These meetings were iterative and involved relationship building, with generous time-lags between meetings to facilitate opportunities for those involved to return to their communities (academic and non-academic) to socialize their insights, discuss their learning and to plan the next steps. Figure 3 describes the iterative nature of co-creating impact amongst the research partners.

The success of these steps was evidenced through the ownership and engagement in the project by “Message Group” members. As some evidence of their ownership, “Message Group” communicated what they wanted from the research partnership and facilitated the self-selection by the six women to join the project as research associates. During the research training program, the Indigenous women research associates defined the overarching research question, developed the questions they intended to propose within the “dadirri” process and framed the overarching questions of the yarning circles at the “Forum”. The women’s leadership of the data collection and facilitation of discussions led to overall agreement by “Forum” participants for the establishment of a national forum to advance their goals.

The research training program was attended by representatives of each of the partner organizations and held “on Country” in the NT in July 2023. At the outset of this program, the Indigenous women research associates were introduced to the metaphor of “research as storytelling”. Through shared decision-making and collaboration with “Heritage”, “NT Land” and the “University”, the research associates generated the design of the proposed research method comprising of data collection from three sources: (1) “dadirri” with individual Indigenous women leaders at the “Forum” in September 2023; (2) “dadirri” with the “yarning circle” at the “Forum” in September 2023; and (3) reflective interviews with research associates on the process of undertaking research following the “Forum” (November 2023).

During the research training program, the Indigenous women research associates generated research protocols (i.e. research overview presentation for “Message Group” women as respondents, “dadirri” guiding questions, “yarning circle” guiding framework) and a data analytic strategy. At the completion of the training program, the women were excited and confident in undertaking the planned data collection at the “Forum”. They talked enthusiastically about their intentions to practice the research protocols with members of their communities between July–September 2023.

At the commencement of the “Forum” in September 2023 the Indigenous women research associates presented an overview of what the research was about to the 200+ attendees, undertook forty-six interviews with Indigenous women ranger “Forum” attendees using “dadirri”, which were digitally recorded by them. They also facilitated six “yarning circles” involving the 200+ Indigenous women ranger attendees from which notes were taken. The non-Indigenous women in the research team were given permission to sit quietly in the middle of the circle and act as scribes using large sheets of butcher’s paper ensuring transparency to those in the circle. These notes were validated by the Indigenous women following each yarning circle. The Indigenous women research associates presented a summary of their collective learning to all the attendees in a “Forum” closing session.

In a meeting with the whole research team in the NT in November 2023, using transcripts of the “dadirri” interviews and notes from the “yarning circles”, the Indigenous women research associates devised themes and categories of who an Indigenous woman leader is, and what barriers they face in undertaking their roles. As an example of how critical it is to not let Western academic conceptions drive research protocols or questions, the transcripts and the discussion of them by the Indigenous women research associates, did not refer to women as “leaders” but rather as “strong women” or “deadly women”, with actions and behaviors aligned to relational attributes rather than more heroic or solo conceptions of leadership embraced by Western leadership scholars. Likewise, barriers were often described in local contexts and in terms of traditional Indigenous roles for men and women on Country, but having been skewed by Western patriarchal models of who is heard. There were few detailed accounts conceptualizing Western structural barriers or the machinery of Government, other than acknowledgment that far off “Government” structures and methods of decision making were both part of the problem and the solution.

Western research paradigms have largely understood impact through the lens of peer-reviewed publications, grants, patents and conference outputs (Wickert et al., 2021). In centering Indigenous methodologies within this research partnership, the team has navigated tensions between prioritizing the impact of the partnership for Indigenous people, communities and organizations against the well-cited academic pressures to demonstrate traditional research impacts. The duality of these impacts appears insurmountable on face value with the incompatibility between the relational focus required for building trust and centering the experiences of Indigenous women (Moreton-Robinson, 2013), and the time- and outlet-bound pressures of academic publication (Niles et al., 2020).

These tensions, however, were resolved through carefully working with various academic and non-academic audiences (e.g. granting bodies, other research disciplines), and designing strategies to facilitate timely, consistent and ongoing communications amongst the growing research partnership, while leveraging this new knowledge into the publication of book chapters, theory driven pieces for journals and conference presentations. Further opportunities to redefine impact emerged from the inclusion of Indigenous research associates self-selected from the “Message Group” into the research team. The upskilling and training of these non-academic research associates enabled the co-creation of the research enterprise, facilitated meaningful and effective discussions and influenced outcomes at the “Forum”. It also provided these women and their respective communities with a broader skill set to represent their communities in future research agendas.

The profile of these women continues to impact positively through increasing the capacity of their Indigenous communities to investigate future research projects and partnerships, alongside their sharing of the learning from these projects with members of their own and other communities. A manifest example is of an unintended outcome of the research process. On the first day of the training program, the “University” team had given each research associate an information and work pack that had included “University” branded purple shirts as a gift. The women research associates took to wearing these every day, also wearing them at the “Forum” to self-identify as researchers to the other women rangers. They quickly became respectfully known to the “Forum” attendees as the “Purple Shirt Mob”. The women were not only seen as drivers of the discussions towards a National Forum at the “Forum”, but also inspired a desire by other women to become part of the “Purple Shirt Mob” in future programs. In addition, the delivery of the research associate training in-person and on Country by “University” facilitated greater on-site and personal contact that built a deeper understanding of our Indigenous co-partners in this research. This position contrasts with the one described by Bruton et al. (2022), where the authors conduct research without visits to the site of data collection or allocate any time to building deep relationships with the local community.

The inclusion of Indigenous non-academic research associates afforded new opportunities for impact through providing interviews on Indigenous community radio, connecting with local and state policymakers and producing various forms of publications appropriately targeted to mixed audiences (e.g. reports to interstate ranger networks, social media posts, newsletters, letters to Government Ministers). They have been instrumental in creating opportunities for the research team to hold meetings with Indigenous elders, and State based politicians with responsibilities for Indigenous affairs. Likewise, should submitted grants with the research partners be successful, there are many more Indigenous women rangers who have experienced the work to date and now wish to join the “Purple Shirt Mob” to expand the research nationally. All these opportunities have increased the voice of Indigenous women rangers, while growing their understanding of the barriers and enablers of their leadership.

The experience of the “University” team in the co-creation of knowledge with the research associates also has implications for future research impact using co-creation methods, as well as implication for qualitative methods generally.

Greenhalgh et al. (2016, pp. 405–420) identified several principles shared by successful co-creation processes. In summary, these are: first, the need for a systems perspective that accepts that interacting entities are self-organizing but will continue to evolve and even emerge in the research process, and as past experiences of the subject/s of the research endeavor will constrain thinking around the research, that each entity will differentially adapt to specific aspects of the research process generating outcomes that cannot be predicted. Second, the research process is a creative process with human experience at its core. Third, there must be robust processes that are transparent and reflexive that explicitly deal with collaboration, governance, leadership, power differentials and the ongoing quality of relationships.

Many of the principles outlined above are a feature of how impact has been enhanced in this project. However, in terms of Indigenous co-creation evidenced in this project we would emphasize the following:

• In terms of the systems perspective, understanding past experiences will be critical. Generally, it is the lived experience of Indigenous peoples to have experienced bias, discrimination and even deep physical and mental trauma associated with the subject of the research. Whereas the funders and non-Indigenous researchers typically have not. Such experiences must be understood by all entities engaged in the project to understand its impact on each stage of the project.

• In terms of the human creative process, there is a fundamental difference between Western and Indigenous ontologies and epistemologies. As such, there is a critical need to explicitly tackle the impact that differing ontologies and epistemologies of the entities involved will have upon the project up front.

• In terms of processes, and related to point 2 above, research leaders must, on one hand, understand and reconcile the competing agendas/structures of funders, the academy, Indigenous collaborators and members of the research team in formalizing the governance of the project, while on the other, have a tolerance and (enthusiastic) acceptance of ambiguity and the emergent needs of the entities and individuals involved in the project as it unfolds.

The experience of the research team also serves as a timely reminder of a potential critical weakness of qualitative research with Indigenous peoples undertaken by non-Indigenous researchers. For example, Bourdieu (1996) noted significant limitations that the researcher needs to overcome when constructing, delivering and analyzing interviews. He cautioned the researcher to ensure that they are “culturally literate” by ensuring that they obtain a self-reflexive understanding of the interviewee’s position and the need for the researcher to be aware of the rules, customs, values and culture which characterize the research subject. The researcher must have an “understanding of what an interviewee can and cannot say” (Bourdieu, 1996, p. 19) so that valid interpretations can be made, and all questions posed need to be examined to ensure that the researcher understands the origins and limits of each question and the responses it is likely to produce. He notes “Just as there is no neutral recording, there is no neutral question” (Bourdieu et al., 1991, p. 41). Despite the non-Indigenous researchers having spent years in trying to understand Indigenous ontology, epistemology, methods as well as their lived experience, there can be no substitute for a shared habitus of the interviewer and the interviewee.

In summary, in the formative years of the research partnership between “Heritage” and “University”, the orientation of the partnership was focused on contributions to empirical research and growing the knowledge of Western leadership models and practices. Over the course of the project, the scope of the partnership expanded and evolved to encompass a broader understanding of impact beyond peer-reviewed Western publications. Our understanding of impact has evolved to focus upon outcomes that advantage the lives and work of the research partners, participants and their communities.

Within the research partnership, the “University” team evolved their definition of impact in the following ways:

• The demonstrable ownership and leadership of the research process by the “Message Group” and Indigenous women research associates and the ability to conduct future research independently.

• Ongoing collaboration by the “Message Group” and Indigenous women research associates with the “University” on a national level version of the project through application for a Federal Government Australian Research Council grant.

• Developing a shared understanding of who is an Indigenous woman leader and how this should be viewed by Government agencies and other external stakeholders.

• Successfully implementing the research project through data collection and the manifest outcomes at the “Forum”, which included agreement to establish a national forum for all women Indigenous rangers.

• Identifying the barriers to Indigenous women rangers’ voices being heard and to develop strategies to overcome these barriers at the national forum.

Through the foundational design of this research partnership, Indigenous women became a key part of the research team. The communities represented by these research participants were emboldened to engage in defining the impact of this partnership through dialogue, feedback and the ongoing process of re-defining the outputs of the partnership. This orientation sits well with the notion of seeking practical impact (Wickert et al., 2021) where opportunities to make a difference emerge when researchers take as a starting point a “big question” (i.e. improving Indigenous gender equality) that is worth exploring, and then work with a wide range of social actors (e.g. individuals, communities, NGOs policymakers) affected by the problem.

Ongoing challenges for the project relate to power imbalances between the various partners and these will need to be managed. These imbalances favor different parties within the various contexts of the project. In the context of academic track records (e.g. in research, publications, conference presentations), the “University” team members experience a significant advantage through their expert and informational power sources that could have influenced initial data analysis and the academic publications that will emerge from the project. On the other hand, the Indigenous research associates are also positioned with a significant power advantage around expert and informational power within their communities and on Country, through deep connections and relationships to community and expertise in traditional knowledges and culture. The power bases of both Indigenous and non-Indigenous members of the research team will need to be managed to ensure that the outputs from the project truly reflect the potential diversity dividend that can emerge from this research team.

There is an ongoing dialogue around commitments to those engaged with the research partnership/project (i.e. research associates, research participants, rights-holders) and their communities as the project delivers upon its existing goals. These commitments are implied (i.e. completing the agreed deliverables of the research partnership), but are also explicit (i.e. defined in a collaborative and iterative manner). As the project potentially moves forward towards a national forum, work will continue around understanding Indigenous women’s leadership and voice, ongoing alignment and agreement of the overarching goals. Central to these goals will be how they are best achieved without being a point of tension, particularly around ongoing funding and the roles of the partners in new developments arising from the “Forum”.

These issues are particularly salient in partnering with Indigenous communities in the Australian context where the research is designed to respond to community needs, and directed by those who, in a Western tradition of academic research, might not otherwise be considered as co-researchers (Jordan and Leroy-Dyer, 2023). The partnership has several key characteristics: mutually defined; ceases only when mutually agreed; driven by a shared commitment to solving real-world phenomena (Wickert et al., 2021) and with the pragmatism imposed by ongoing funding issues around deliverables. There is also a cyclic approach in this research partnership that is depicted in Figure 4. Also depicted is the centrality of co-design, wherein Indigenous ways of knowing (epistemologies) and ways of being (ontologies), inform our ways of doing (axiologies) and thus the overall methodological design (Wilson, 2008), ensuring the research is designed and enacted appropriately within both Western and Indigenous parameters. Furthermore, we illustrate the permeability between ways of knowing, being and doing – depicted by dotted concentric circles – that characterized this partnership in its commitment to Indigenous approaches foregrounding the research.

As we have argued, centralizing the partnership according to an Indigenist research paradigm allows for a methodological approach and choice of methods that engage with Indigenous peoples and their ways of knowing and being. At the time of writing, the project lies between stages 6 and 7 and is poised upon a new cycle with the agreement to pursue a national forum.

Ethical considerations around ownership and impact were built into the foundations of the partnership. However, it is noteworthy that the ethics of defining ownership and impact are somewhat at odds with the highly prescriptive nature of the National Human Research Ethics Committee (NHREC) guidelines in Australia, which “University” and its partnership is subject to. While this artefact of colonialization, and the subsequent research “done to” rather than “done with” Indigenous Australians, was initiated to protect Indigenous people’s rights, along with Tauri (2018), we remain concerned about the degree to which NHREC prescriptions constrain Indigenous participants to comply with some elements of Western ethics, particularly when they are co-investigators.

In line with Indigenous ethical research best practice (AIATSIS, 2024), at the outset of the research, impact was co-defined, co-created and shared. Privilege was given to manifest outcomes for the Indigenous women who are the subject of the research rather than traditional Western research methods and outputs driving the outcomes. Critically, the “subjects” of the research are also the drivers of the research. Indigenous research associates defined the overarching research question, the operationalization of methods, undertook data collection, led on data analysis and determined publications; while the “Message Group” has the final say over all outputs of the project.

As Wickert et al. (2021) emphasize, research findings are impactful when they lead to the change, modification or confirmation of how people think, talk or act. As social scientists, we have an obligation to widen the circle of stakeholders we seek to engage with and influence. By design, the positive impacts of this partnership are intended to extend well beyond publication to impact individuals, communities, policies and the practices of Indigenous leaders, more broadly. We recognize and acknowledge this approach challenges some Western research conventions, and while it can be quite confronting to non-Indigenous researchers starting out on this path, it is also hugely rewarding to those who embrace the journey.

The research project has required substantive and transformative learning within the “University” team around how we define, undertake and produce meaningful research outcomes. However, this does come at significant risk to research academics in terms of publication of empirical findings in leading academic journals, particularly in the leadership and management fields. As Kennedy et al. (2022) highlight, Indigenous research methods such as yarning are yet to be fully embraced as empirically sound by the mainstream academy, while Kovach (2010, p. 156) argues that there is both a challenge and an opportunity for mainstream academics and journals to reconceptualize areas such as leadership away from heroic or individualist accounts of leadership, towards a relational standpoint as embodied in Indigenous cultures. As such, we call for change in the leading journals in the management field. Journal reviewers need to explore and question the validity of arguments that dismiss or downgrade Indigenous ontologies and epistemologies or research methods as being less valid or reliable than traditional Western ways of understanding and interacting with the world. Likewise, editors and reviewers of academic publications that publish work around Indigenous people need to rigorously interrogate and make transparent how Indigenous peoples were involved in all levels of the research, from inception to publication. The inclusion of Indigenous knowledge experts (individuals or communities) as co-researchers and co-authors, should come to be seen as a minimum standard rather than best practice in Indigenous research.

We wish there to be an acknowledgement that this article has equal first author contribution. Terrance W. Fitzsimmons and Miriam S. Yates contributed equally as first authors of this paper.