Search

Although awareness of cultural differences that distinguish Indigenous peoples has increased worldwide following attention from international human rights bodies, Indigenous cultural values have had little influence in shaping research agendas or methods of inquiry. Self-determination and reconciliation policies have been part of the decolonisation agenda of governments for several decades; however, these have not, until recently, been considered of relevance to research. Indigenous peoples feel that they are the most studied population in Australia, to the point where even the word research arouses feelings of suspicion and defensive attitudes. Indigenous people are generally cynical about the benefits of research and cautious toward what many perceive to be the colonial mentality or 'positional superiority' ingrained in the psyche of western researchers. This article examines the characteristics and colonising effects of traditional research methods and describes an alternative, decolonising approach. Decolonising research methodology is congruent with Indigenous epistemology and is guided by the values and research agenda of Indigenous people. The Guidelines for ethical conduct in Aboriginal and Torres Strait islander health research, developed by the National Aboriginal and Islander Health Organisation (NAIHO) with the National Health & Medical Research Council (NHMRC) in 2003 are examined, as they exemplify a decolonising paradigm for researchers.

Despite a strong historical record of resettling and providing care for refugee populations, the Australian Federal Government has increasingly implemented harsh and restrictive policies regarding the treatment and management of asylum seekers. Most controversial of these has been the mandatory detention of asylum seekers, a policy applied indiscriminately and without discretion where individual cases have not been subject to judicial review or time constraints. From the outset health professionals have raised concerns about the possible adverse mental health impacts of prolonged detention. In contrast, government representatives have characterized conditions in detention as benign and comfortable, and have consistently contested criticism of detention, often citing a lack of scientific evidence as tacit support for the continuation of the policy. Nevertheless, requests for access to the detention centres to undertake rigorous scientific investigations have gone unheeded. In this context we argue that the Australian Government has failed to uphold its commitment to good governance by allowing transparency, openness and a willingness to have the impact of its policies scrutinized by scientists. The manifest conflict of interest in the government position leads to a breach in the normal social contract between mental health researchers and those responsible for the policy of detention. There is, we argue, a legitimate moral imperative in such situations for clinical researchers to breach the walls of enforced silence and give a voice to those who are afflicted. This imperative, however, must be carefully balanced against the risks that may face detainees agreeing to participate in such research.

In this paper we reflect on the challenges of maintaining traditional ethical standards in social health research with asylum seeker detainees. Researchers in this context who begin from a clear advocacy position can face various dilemmas in the research process. The need to demonstrate particular research outcomes that support an advocacy position has the potential to compromise the veracity of the research endeavor. We review the potential benefits and risks to researchers and asylum seekers in this area, and argue that such research must be faithful to the realities encountered, so that rigour is not compromised by the interests of advocacy and a researcher's own moral imperatives.

The core of Australia's response to asylum seekers who arrive in an unauthorised manner has been to detain them in immigration detention centres until they are judged to engage Australia's protection obligations or, if they do not, until they are returned to their country of origin. For a number of asylum seekers this has resulted in very prolonged detention. This policy has aroused a storm of controversy with very polarised positions being taken by participants in the debate. In particular, the claim has frequently been made (including by this author) that the circumstances and duration of immigration detention cause substantial harm to the mental health of a significant number of detained asylum seekers. A rational debate on the effects of detention has been hampered by the fact that the Australian government has not allowed researchers access to the detention centres in spite of persistent requests for access by professional bodies. This paper is written in response to the following questions posed by the Journal: Is there a case to be made for individuals agreeing to participate in research studies and for the wider population of current and future detainees to be involved in research without informing either the detention provider or the host nation? Is is legitimate for a researcher to engage in potentially deceptive actions in order to obtain access to such detention facilities to undertake research? What ethical framework should underpin such research? Although there is very little guidance in the literature on the ethical conduct of research in settings such as immigration detention centres, a consideration of the ethical implications of carrying out research in the manner raised by these questions leads this author to conclude that such research cannot be ethically justified. Governments must be persuaded to allow, and to provide substantial support for, ethically conducted research on all aspects of detention. There is also a need for the development of an explicit ethical framework for the conduct of research in settings characterised by a very problematic human rights context.

It is sometimes argued that interview research with vulnerable social groups, such as frail, lonely, older people, has distinctive ethical and methodological requirements. The conventional one-off, professional interview is seen to be both inadequate as a method of data collection and inimical to the interest of research subjects. While ideologically persuasive, such a view is not derived from systematic analysis of actual interviews. In this article, I describe a research project on social isolation in which the conceptualization of elderly interviewees as "vulnerable subjects" had a number of critical but intended impacts on the course and outcomes of the research. I offer an empirically grounded analysis of the interview situation that suggests an alternative reading of the relationship between social representation of aging persons and the methods we use to study them.