Case story
One thesis for two audiences
Janet Kelly is a non-Indigenous nurse researcher who submitted a PhD thesis in 2008. She explains why she wrote one thesis for two audiences and how she approached the writing.
Within the university, I was advised to write two documents about the research – one a community document and the other an academic thesis for examination. However, the Aboriginal Women's Reference Group were adamant that for me to write two different documents was to continue a colonizing trend of taking Aboriginal knowledge and repackaging it, so that it was no longer accessible to, or co-owned by community.
One Elder woman said: ‘If you write two documents then how do we know what you have written and how can we give cultural approval for it. No – you write a readable document and we'll read it.’ They also discussed issues of trust, saying, ‘we have been betrayed by governments and organisations before. We know you and we trust you. We don’t know or trust the university.’
I listened to what the Aboriginal women were saying. In order to make ethics and values real, and for this research to be trustworthy, transparent and accessible, I needed to write a readable thesis. In order to do this, I needed to place community and Aboriginal women's needs alongside, and sometimes higher, than the needs of the university. I invited Aboriginal women (community members and health professionals) to form an Aboriginal Women’s Reference Group to guide the research and the thesis report. Some of my peers at university had difficulty accepting that a community group would define the parameters of my/our research, but my supervisors were very supportive. When I said, 'This is the Aboriginal Reference Group's bottom line’, they worked with me/us to make it fit within the necessary academic standards.
Janet’s academic supervisors at Flinders University in South Australia were Professor Charlotte de Crespigny, Associate Professor Eileen Willis, Associate Professor Sheryl de Lacey and Dr Yoni Luxford. Eileen Willis explains how Janet’s thesis was able to meet the requirements of examiners.
Janet’s thesis needs to be read as a narrative portrayal on healthy interactions between Indigenous women and a non-Indigenous researcher. It conveys the feeling of what it might be like to work along side Aboriginal people. It provides an example of what a good relationship might look like, and feel like. It does not provide information on how to do interactions with Aboriginal people, or tips, or what to avoid. The knowledge is embedded in the portrayal of the relationships.
The analysis that is usually required of a PhD is carefully and explicitly restricted to explorations of non-Indigenous issues such as colonialism or post-colonial feminism, critical theory and primary health care in Janet’s thesis. Such a thesis should not be a problem for supervisors. Supervisors are usually looking for some theoretical explanation. In Janet’s case the theory is directed towards non-Indigenous interactions and the thesis account is restricted to her journey and insights. Janet insisted on the project being a shared journey with the Aboriginal women as co-researchers. At all times she reminds the reader (and her supervisors) that the women were sitting with her in writing the text and were not the objects of analysis.
Perhaps the thesis’ most important contribution is that it keeps alive the ideas of community development/action research in a time when welfare programs are focused on measurable outcomes in line with bureaucratic formula and the delivery of services.
Eileen adds that the thesis has direct implication for policy makers:
This thesis does not provide quick fixes, identification of ideal programs or program evaluation. It focuses on the importance of relationships in closing the gap, suggesting that those working alongside Aboriginal people should never fall into the trap of objectifying them or constructing them as ‘problems’, but should welcome [program recipients] as partners in community development partnerships. It notes that effective policy implementation takes time, not only to build trust and relationships, but also to enable the transformation of individuals as they build confidence and develop.
The thesis demonstrates active engagement by Aboriginal women in the life of their community, their families and their children. It illuminates the tensions for Aboriginal people working within the system, caught between government policy that focuses on mainstreaming and the aspirations for self-determination.
Related links:
Kelly, J. 2008, ‘Moving Forward Together in Aboriginal Women’s Health: A Participatory Action Research Exploring Knowledge Sharing, Working Together and Addressing Issues Collaboratively in Urban Primary Health Care Settings’, PhD Thesis, Flinders University, Adelaide.