Abstract
‘Research is probably one of the dirtiest words in the Indigenous world’s vocabulary’ states seminal scholar Professor Linda Tuhiwai Smith. In recent years Academia has increasingly aimed to redefine its relationship with First Peoples away from extractive and harmful legacies, recasting First Peoples in leadership and collaborator roles as researchers rather than always the researched. Protocols, guidelines, and procedures have been developed to ensure that academic ‘First Peoples Research’ is undertaken in a manner that prevents harm and promotes academic rigour. However, much research on First Peoples continues to be designed, lead and authored by non-Indigenous scholars, resulting in best circumstances research that misses out on First People’s expertise and insight, and in the worst examples research that mischaracterises, misinterprets, plagiarises, and misleads the discipline. This article is motivated by the ongoing and illegitimate assumptions regarding First Peoples made by academic institutions, journals, ethics committees, and researchers, especially in the business, management, and economics disciplines. This article serves as a refutation of this anti-empiricism. With a focus on the business and economics disciplines we argue that First Peoples of the Australian continent have a long history of entrepreneurship, trade and commerce that predates the oft cited theorists by millennia, yet First Peoples’ knowledges in these disciplines are too often sidelined, ignored, and fundamentally misinterpreted. As a collective of First Peoples and non-Indigenous academics working in these disciplines, we write this article to defend the territory of First Peoples business, management and economics. We provide a discussion of the decades of work from seminal First Peoples scholars who have carved out the research area of First Peoples entrepreneurship, business, management and economics, a refutation of repeated recent examples of deficit-laden research practices, and a pathway forward for academics and journals in recognising valuable First Peoples research that is for, with and by Mob.
Terminology
The authors of this paper are First Peoples, representing but a fraction of the diversity among our respective Nations numbering more than 650 sovereignties, in conjunction with non-Indigenous academics who have willing made a stance with us. Working across Indigenous and non-Indigenous standpoints, but led by the First Peoples authors’ perspectives, we draw a line in the sand to the extractivism of this Eurocentrically laden knowledge production which is the antitheses of nothing about us without us. Our preferred nomenclature is to utilise First Peoples. Where the literatures identify First Peoples in other ways, excluding direct quotations and naming protocols, providing the meaning and intent remains unaltered, we utilise First Peoples as an act of intellectual self-determination and academic activism.
Keywords
1. Introduction
Business management, organisations and economics disciplines have historically perpetuated the ‘... assumed universality of Western knowledge ...’ (Nkomo, 2021: 213), contributing to hostile environments for scholars who bring critical and challenging worldviews (Cubillo, 2023; Liu and Pechenkina, 2019; Watego, 2021). Within disciplines that predominately publish and favour positivist research paradigms, the experiences and voices of First Peoples have been systemically sidelined (Bennett, 2023). Yet, amid these challenges, we as dedicated First Peoples and non-Indigenous scholars, persist in our efforts to honour those who have walked before us while effecting positive change for our communities, future generations, and the academy. In the ongoing journey of establishing a credible First Peoples enterprise discipline, First Peoples and non-Indigenous scholars, have encountered significant resistance when submitting First Peoples-centric research to top-tier journals in Australia and internationally. This is despite focus by top ranked journals on critical, decolonial or even anti-capitalist perspectives on business topics (Peredo, 2023). Over the past four decades, trailblazers globally such as Manley Begay Jr, Wanda Wuttunee, Manuka Henare, Ana Maria Peredo, Dennis Foley, Ella Henry, Joe Gladstone, and many others have laid the foundation for a thriving discipline. Our elder scholars have dedicated their career to creating nurturing environments that encourage early career First Peoples scholars which is so essential for the future of business education and related disciplines. This requires dedicated socialising into academia and creating safe spaces to explore First Peoples philosophies and perspectives in what are often hostile settings.
This heavy and critical work is made more challenging for the few First Peoples academics working in our Business Schools and Faculties, especially when discipline leaders fail to incorporate First Peoples expertise and perspectives into curricula signalling not only to current but future staff and students that First Peoples scholarship and experience is not of value. Within the disciplines of business, management, organisational studies, and economics in Australia, the presence of First Peoples scholars and well informed non-Indigenous scholars remains scarce. Opportunities for First Peoples intellectuals in these disciplines are infrequent, emphasising the critical importance of calls for special issues, conference themes and symposia as platforms for scholars to convene, connect, discuss challenges, collaborate, and collectively advocate for space in the academy for First Peoples led research. It is perhaps unsurprising that research in these disciplines then continues to produce practices and knowledge that can be and is harmful to First Peoples, practices that treat First Peoples as objects of enquiry rather than agents of enquiry.
Both First Peoples scholars and non-Indigenous collaborators share ethical, moral, and cultural responsibilities to advance the disciplines of First Peoples business, economics, management and organisational studies through thoughtful, innovative, and provocative scholarship that expands and or disrupts established hegemonic knowledges and practices. This responsibility extends to building upon the robust foundation established by trailblazers and scrutinising research that fails to meet First Peoples ethical and methodological standards. As a team of scholars we take up this challenge and position this article as a response to recent irresponsible scholarship, published then retracted from this journal (AJM, 2024), which perpetuates the ongoing and not so ancient practice of ‘dirty research’ (Smith, 2012).
Extractive research practices operate from a colonial mind-set and the repercussions of these practices impact First Peoples and communities in ways that include cultural and community consequences for participating in harmful or at our most generous, clumsy unthoughtful research. This article goes beyond mere critique; we seek to transform the hurt of irresponsible scholarship into a teachable moment for the disciplines. Working in a First Peoples space requires a continual process of self-reflection towards decolonisation of the mind and practices of research. While the first step is moving away from extractive practices that frame participation as sources for novel data collection, we show that research participation is a relational practice with First Peoples scholars, enterprisers and communities.
In this article, we explore key considerations including Special Issue call for papers, study design, the use of linguistics/language through to editorial review and publication of articles. We explore methodological concerns, briefly consider incorrect and outdated information, and collectively express concerns about discriminatory framing in research articles. This is not then a call to enhance the discipline’s relationship with First Peoples by ‘handling First Peoples issues more sensitively’, but by acknowledging the intellectual contributions that First Peoples have and continue to make to the discipline.
1.1. Positionality: investing time in relational practices
Increasingly, authors are discussing their positionality/standpoints within their research. This primarily involves the author/s discussing their social identity, where they are coming from and how this relates to the research (see Bryant, 2024). For some, there is a discomfort with the idea that this might be an expectation, that their identity and social positioning might have bearing on what they view to be objective academic research: Science has constructed a version of Indigenous ‘reality’ embedded in scientific discourse that has no Indigenous input, in a language that is non-Indigenous by and for a non-Indigenous audience. (Foley, 2003b: 44)
For First Peoples in the academy, Indigenous Standpoint Theory (IST) is not just a mode of positionality but is an integral part of research design and relational research practice. However, like any method, theory, or methodology undertaking within academic research, IST can be misinterpreted by authors and readers. The use of IST (Foley, 2003b; Nakata, 2007b; Moreton-Robinson, 2013) is challenged as non-scholarly (Whop et al., 2019) because Indigenous ontologies, epistemologies, axiology continues to be marginalised within the academy (Prehn, 2024).
We introduce ourselves with the intent of developing good relations and establishing connections with readers. We are a group comprising Early Career Researchers through to Distinguished Professors with career appointments as Directors of Research Centres of Excellence, Deans and Deputy-Vice Chancellors. Our academic and community contributions include being members of Human Research Ethics Committees (HRECs), recipients of Australian Research Council funding and appointments, special issue editors, journal editors, board members of both Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations and non-Indigenous entities. Beyond highlighting the identity of the author/s, the utilisation of IST in practice speaks to the relationality (Tynan, 2021), value, and the reciprocal responsibility of research and academic work, and thus a ‘discursive method of inquiry’ (Foley, 2003b; Moreton-Robinson, 2013; Nakata, 2007b). A method of inquiry that disrupts non-Indigenous understandings of ‘Indigenous reality’ and seeks to pursue a research agenda of purpose, more aligned with Indigenous way of knowing, being and doing. We introduce ourselves with the intent of developing good relations and establishing connections with readers.
This article unites the voices of six First Peoples and two non-Indigenous scholars in Australia from across a range of disciplines and universities. This unity reflects the necessity of shared resistance to research practices that marginalise and misrepresent First Peoples, reinforcing colonial structures that continue to position us as objects of inquiry rather than agents of knowledge. We honour Gai-mariagal man Professor Dennis Foley, and Gunditjmara man Distinguished Professor Mark Rose. Over the past quarter-century, Professor Foley, extolled as one of the fathers of First Peoples enterprise 1 research (Griffith University, 2022), has laid the foundations for First Peoples led research in entrepreneurship that extolls ‘for, with and by’ Mob. 2 At a time when the focus on First Peoples entrepreneurship was marginal, Foley’s research demonstrated how First Peoples entrepreneurs challenged and expanded accepted social theories, including those related to social and cultural capital (Foley, 1999, 2000, 2003a, 2006a, 2006b, 2007, 2008a, 2008b, 2008c, 2010, 2014a, 2014b; Foley and O’connor, 2013). Distinguished Professor Mark Rose, recognised as a pre-eminent educator, has contributed over thirty years to advancing First Peoples knowledges in the academy. Rose’s nurturing of generations of First Peoples and non-Indigenous students and academics, along with his standards for First Peoples research and teaching, sets a benchmark in higher education. These two leaders in First Peoples enterprise scholarship join their voices with First Peoples academics Koori woman Professor Michelle Evans, Karajarri Yawuru man Dr Mark Jones, Dja Dja Wurrong man Dr Aleryk Fricker and Noonuccal Jandawal Quandamooka woman Dr Samantha Cooms, collaborating with non-Indigenous allies Dr Christian Eva and Professor Pauline Stanton.
Together, we stand firm for standards in First Peoples research within and around First Peoples enterprise, claiming and building this space in partnership with First Peoples enterprise leaders, their organisations, and communities. The First Peoples led economic landscape is re-emergent, growing year on year (Evans et al., 2024) as individuals, families and communities utilise enterprise as a means of achieving self-determination and economic justice against the backdrop of a national fascination continuing to compel the colonial agenda of First Peoples assimilation (Cooms et al., 2022).
In undertaking our co-authorship, we demonstrate the scholarly practice of working across Indigenous and non-Indigenous standpoints. Our intent is to illustrate decolonial practices within the scholarly practices of research, writing and publications while being informed by First Peoples ways of knowing, being and doing which we demonstrate in practice. As highlighted, individually we maintain expertise, lived experiences, social positions and identities that are our own and that shape our relationship to the research disciplines of this journal. Collectively, we operate our obligation to ensure that these disciplines and those working within are equipped to identify and produce research that meets standards of academic integrity and rigour, which is the motivation for this article.
2. Context
The Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS, 2020: 2) defines Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander research as Research that impacts on or is of particular significance to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, including the planning, collection, analysis and dissemination of information or knowledge, in any format or medium, which is about, or may affect, Indigenous peoples, either collectively or individually.
What research ‘may affect’ First Peoples is a question that researchers, HRECs, and journals grapple with, considering the potential of relevant ethical implications. AIATSIS and the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) have developed principles for ethical research with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples that have become the standard for all research engagement with First Peoples. These have been developed to prevent the continuation of harmful and extractive relationships between academia and First Peoples, and to aid in the development of ethical research design. The detailed principles within the AIATSIS guidelines uphold the importance for research with First Peoples to demonstrate Indigenous self-determination and leadership, impact and value, and research that is sustainable and accountable. These principles go beyond ensuring that First Peoples research is ‘handled sensitively’, or uncritically categorising First Peoples as ‘vulnerable’, and provide a framework that priorities First Peoples’ priorities, values, needs, knowledges, and expertise. Moreover, it recognises the reciprocal responsibilities of the researcher/s in building their relationship with participants and/or target communities. The relationality of the practice of research is at the heart of First Peoples research, echoing First Peoples beliefs, values and customs (Wilson, 2008).
For academic journals, it may not be within the regular scope of their role to independently evaluate the ethical merits of submitted research where it has received approval from a HREC. Yet, the ethical merits of research are a crucial aspect of research integrity, representing the first institutional hurdle to clear. For academic journals, just as HRECs have developed heightened standards for assessing First Peoples research, they so too must develop their own processes. Some journals maintain explicit author guidelines and formal processes; however, these examples are limited. For journals in varied disciplines, reputations have been developed among First Peoples academics and practitioners, evidenced by the wealth or lack of First Peoples authored articles. A surefire way to develop a positive reputation is for a journal to maintain strong representation of First Peoples within the editorial ranks and build a track record of developing and publishing rigorous First Peoples research.
This article has been developed in response to a recently published, now retracted article published by The Australian Journal of Management (AJM) (2024). As co-authors, we offered a detailed critique of the content of the article and the journal’s decision to publish it. As detailed in the retraction notice, the decision to retract the article stemmed from the lack of ethical compliance of the research as detailed by the host university. However, our critique maintained far more wide-ranging concerns about the research, which raised significant questions about the journal’s processes in adequately assessing the merits of First Peoples research. Subsequently, we were invited by the journal to write an article that would assist in identifying best practices relating to First Peoples research within the business, management and economics disciplines. As per the request of the journal, this article does not litigate the specific concerns initially raised given the article has now been retracted. However, in articulating what best practice looks like, it is important to note that truth-telling is part of this. By recognising and reflecting on what is done poorly, assists us to learn and conceive what can be done well. As Kuokkanen (2007) asserts, the academy must acknowledge its limited conceptions of knowledge and genuinely transform itself before it can recognise the gift of Indigenous epistemes.
3. What is bad First Peoples research, and why does it continue?
The relationship between the academy and First Peoples has historically been one of violence and extraction. While research practices have developed over recent centuries and decades, the legacies of horrific and dehumanising research practices are still felt, for example in the race science motivated policies that led to the Stolen Generations. There is much long-standing, oft cited, but still under-appreciated (and too often not adequately understood) resources available for understanding good and bad practice relating to First Peoples and research (AIATSIS, 2020; NHMRC, 2018; Smith, 2021; Nakata, 2007a). There is little purpose in this article re-exploring this territory, but it can offer considerations more specific to the disciplines of this journal.
At a broad level, there are long-standing telltale signs of research proposals, submitted and published articles that draw immediate suspicions. The use of acronyms and the non-use of capitals when referring to First Peoples and the omission of First Peoples authors in the reference list are the early warning signs. ‘Deficit discourse’ is by now surely a vernacular that researchers are familiar with, yet far too consistently are First Peoples positioned as dysfunctional objects of enquiry (Fogarty et al., 2018). The complete absence of First Peoples authorship or leadership within a research project is indicative of potential issues with how a research problem is framed, how a methodology is developed, and the implications it draws. The homogenisation of the diversity of First Peoples (histories, cultures, priorities, circumstances) in the Australian and at times global contexts is inherently flawed. The scattergun deployment of the word ‘culture’ or ‘community’ across a word document without any specific definition or context leaves the reader to fill in the gaps.
For some, avoiding these pitfalls may seem more as markers of respect, but not generally impactful on the scholarship itself. For many in academia there appears to be a vague sense of understanding that First Peoples ‘issues’ should be handled more ‘sensitively’ or ‘appropriately’ but these seemingly small, however in reality big, missteps are precursors to poor research design and a misunderstanding of the research area. ‘Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander research’ (AIATSIS, 2020), like any research area, deserves to have its legitimacy and integrity safeguarded by the principles that are meant to underpin academic enquiry. Academic journals have the infrastructure to assess and develop impactful, novel, and necessary scholarship, and this infrastructure should extend to areas of First Peoples epistemologies and research protocols.
For the business disciplines, there appears to be a continuing pervasive assumption that there is little to no scholarship on or by First Peoples. This both operates as a means of delegitimising First People’s current or historical participation in and expertise in the discipline (e.g. management, leadership, economics, supply chain management, and human resource management), and by clearing space for a ‘research gap’ for non-Indigenous researchers to build their careers on. First Peoples scholars of previous decades faced significant pushback and worked hard to carve out this research space for those to follow; the ignorance of and disrespect to their scholarship is hardly in-line with best academic practice. If the editorial staff of journals do not have the requisite capabilities and expertise to recognise this, then they need to develop them.
3.1. Reviewing to Retraction: examining an example of scholarship that perpetuates deficit discourse, discriminatory narratives, misrepresentation, and misinformation
In August 2023, AJM published an article that was retracted the following year in November (AJM, 2024). This article was the subject of our robust review from which we identified numerous issues including deficit discourse, discriminatory narratives, methodological limitations, misrepresentation, and misinformation. The published article was flagged by one of our author group, circulated among co-authors, and found to be so inflammatory that the authors sought to extoll these issues of academic integrity in a public way via the platform of the same journal. The use of deficit language and stereotyping can perpetuate harmful narratives and undermine the dignity of First Peoples communities (Watego, 2021; Henry and Foley, 2018). We criticise the article for employing deficit language and reinforcing harmful stereotypes about First Peoples. We also spotlight the glaring deficiency in this work in the conspicuous presence of content without appropriate acknowledgement of the original sources. Moreover, the misinterpretation of sources, notably evident in their treatment of Sweeney (1993), results in inaccuracies in representing First Peoples rights and activities and returns us to the first criticism regarding the perpetuation of deficit discourses. This lapse not only breaches fundamental ethical standards in academic writing but also compromises the reliability and credibility of the article. Furthermore, the inclusion of conflicting and outdated information underscores a fundamental lack of scholarly rigour and necessitates a comprehensive review of the literature to rectify these oversights.
To be more specific, the article is marred by instances of deficit discourse and language, that, arguably, perpetuate discriminatory narratives, contributing to a distorted and harmful representation of First Peoples. An example is that First Peoples enterprisers ‘.... lack of motivation ..’.’. which oversimplifies the lived experiences and priorities of First Peoples enterprises and communities, inadvertently reinforcing stereotypes about their commitment to economic engagement. Similarly, the assertion that First Peoples working away from their traditional Country are making a ‘.... trade-off ..’.’. valuing commercial outputs rather than the continuity of being on Country, without any contextual narrative explaining the impact of colonial practices that forcibly removed First Peoples from their traditional Country. This framing not only perpetuates negative stereotypes but also fails to recognise the agency and diverse motivations within First Peoples communities. The Authors compare a Brazilian nut harvesting business to an Australian First Peoples skincare and wellness business, describing deficits of ancestral knowledge through engagement with the commercial world inevitably leading to cultural erosion. This completely misreads and misrepresents the way Indigenous enterprising creates spaces for First People to engage cultural knowledges and traditions (Manganda et al., 2023) through the vehicle of business.
One example of misinformation is the misinterpretation of Schaper (2007), where the Authors inaccurately represent First Peoples in Australia as largely ‘.... excluded from the cash economy....’ until the mid-20th century. This assertion overlooks the complex historical and economic interactions, including instances of First Peoples participation in the cash economy, thereby perpetuating a skewed narrative of both First Peoples economic history and the historiographical landscape of the nation. These discriminatory narratives contribute to the ongoing marginalisation of First Peoples Labour history, and the Australian nation’s sustained ‘cult of forgetfulness’ (Frances et al., 1994; Stanner, 1968).
The deployment of IST was a clear example of incorrect application. IST which is both theory and practice (Jones et al., 2024a) conjoins numerous interlocking theories, adapting to meet the contextually differing and distinctive research priorities of the global Indigene (Porsanger, 2004). IST can be summated as the 4Rs:
Recognising the lived experiences of First Peoples
Resonating with an emancipatory underpinning with self-determination as a prima facie motivation politically, economically and intellectually
Reverberating with the echo of First Peoples voices and penmanship
Retaining the knowledge for research collaborators and communality, ‘for the benefit of the many’ (Jones, 2023).
IST proactively challenges the remnants of erroneous assumptions while questioning prevailing western knowledge structures and production that subtly reinstitutes authority and oppression by ‘calling out’ the vestiges of colonial and Eurocentric supremacy. And most importantly is a standpoint that is the domain of First Peoples academics.
Collectively we take special exception to the misinterpretation and plagiarism pertaining to now passed Gumbaynggirr scholar Dr Jarrett. One of very few First Peoples scholars in the business discipline, an early career researcher only graduating his PhD from the University of Technology Sydney in 2019, having brought lived experience as an enterprise owner to the discipline of First Peoples business. It is disgraceful to have his words used in this way and without the recourse to personally retort, we stand strongly united on his behalf to say there are numerous textual matches between the Authors article and Dr Jarrett’s doctoral thesis. The multiple occurrences of such by the Authors is indefensible and is an insult to Dr Jarrett’s scholarship.
These above instances, and many further examples that plague the literature review which cannot all be curtailed in this response, represent research and writing practices of great concern equating to a contemporary example of ongoing ‘dirty research’ (Smith, 2021). Addressing these issues is not only imperative for upholding the principles of academic integrity but also crucial for providing accurate and respectful representation of First Peoples enterprises and communities (Watego, 2021). We argue that poor scholarship in the First Peoples research sector will bode poorly for scholars seeking to gain insights and wisdom garnered across 65,000 or more years from First Peoples connection to Country, particularly in relation to belonging and environmental sustainability (Cooms and Watson, 2023).
4. So how did the article get published?
The critique of journals, publishers, and editors, in this instance the AJM, requires a reflection on the overall landscape of First Peoples enterprise research and the responsibility of scholarly gatekeepers in upholding standards. The introductory paragraphs in our paper commend the strides made in First Peoples enterprise research, acknowledging key contributors and highlighting ground-breaking work from First Peoples academics globally, setting a positive tone. However, the subsequent disappointment with the recent article in particular serves to question the integrity of the review process, which in this case was a special issue.
We raise serious concerns about how articles riddled with issues – deficit discourse, lack of understanding of IST, underlying bias assumptions, and methodological shortcomings – could have passed through the rigorous review process of a reputable journal. We raise pivotal questions regarding the role of Guest Editors, who, despite having control over desk rejections, chose to send the article for review despite its glaring non-compliance with the AJM submission guidelines. The identification and qualifications of the reviewers come under scrutiny, with a strong assertion that any reviewer with basic knowledge about First Peoples enterprise, Indigenous methods or research approaches would have identified and rejected the significant flaws present in the article. They would have been aware of the thinness of the literature review with key literatures missing or poorly explained. They would have been shocked by the lack of understanding of IST and the general methodological sloppiness. They would have been appalled at the lack of intellectual rigour. They would have rejected the article. The reviewers do not appear to have noticed any of these key issues, nor the special issue Guest Editors, nor the journals Editor in Chief, or the article would not have been accepted.
One learning from this flawed process for the AJM is the importance of a line of sight from the Editors of the Journal through Special Issue Guest Editors to the reviewers especially regarding First Peoples research and scholarship. This is not only important for the AJM but all reputable business and management journals globally. We identify the Journal of Industrial Relations as a first mover in collaborating with First Peoples scholars in developing a Code of Ethics to be applied to the publication process. The AJM could follow suit in the management disciplines. Such an approach would likely attract more First Peoples led enterprise research in Australia that is culturally informed and impactful. Such a process could also showcase and promote First Peoples enterprise research in Australia. By adopting decolonial reflexivity, non-Indigenous standpoints can move from being complicit in the perpetuation of colonial paradigms to becoming active participants in decolonising efforts. This shift not only benefits First Peoples but also enriches the academy by fostering diverse and relational approaches to knowledge production.
5. The scholarly issues at hand
Indigenous research is ultimately about reciprocal relationships between the researcher and the researched, which may be defined by the researcher’s Indigenous understanding, their ‘ways of knowing’ and their assumptions about reality, that are not Eurocentric in nature and origin. (Henry and Foley, 2018: 213–214)
First Peoples research is underpinned by a relational dynamic. Relationality between the philosophies engaged with, with the participants who choose to participate and contribute to research, to our family kinship which expects cultural responsibilities and accountabilities be upheld (Jones, 2024). First Peoples research is founded in reciprocity, where advancing knowledge is also about advancing community aspirations and questions. Thus, conducting First Peoples research must be for, with and by Mob.
All authors, from all walks of life, even those with the best of intentions, are not immune to the strong push by the Academy for quantity of publication outputs. This is founded in colonial constructs incentivising hegemonic approaches to research, which in turn perpetuates and re-affirms Anglo normativity while failing to recognise cultural diversity in the extractive pursuit of First Peoples knowledges, what Rose (2021) refers to as hegemonic drift. Given Universities Australia (UA, 2022) and the overwhelming number of Australian Universities expressed reconciliatory strategic intentions (Reconciliation Australia [RA], 2024), the dissonance between rhetorical pursuit of social and reconciliatory justice and evidenced hegemonic drift creates cause for alarm in the academy. Such practices further bringing into the question the substance and veracity of Reconciliation Action Plans in practice, in this instance in particular relating to the pillar of Respect.
Author ambivalence, laying blame on journal editorial processes and or personal disregard for the rigorous production of knowledge contributes to an Australian research climate that values quantity over quality with the framing of First Peoples, practices and cultures as objects of enquiry for extraction, analysis and benefit for the researcher and the Academy. Simple respect when mentioning First Peoples in academic papers acts as a flag to First Peoples researchers and communities reading literature that Respect is indeed lacking. The use of a lower case ‘i’ for Indigenous in reference to First Peoples, subtly re-affirming colonial linguistic dominance and thought, of a supposed bygone era where Mob were positioned as sub-human. First Peoples represent the longest continuous living cultures in the world, we are people of Indigenuity (Wildcat, 2023). First Peoples both expect and deserve to be accorded with Respect which necessitates a capital ‘I’ for Indigenous when referring to people.
First Peoples research requires a higher level of scrutiny and ethical respect. It is automatically elevated to the university wide HREC as a consequence of being considered more than high risk. While some have argued for a more nuanced HREC approach to evaluating First Peoples research projects (Jones et al., 2019) our examples suggest that the focus should also be on the ethics approval process and who has such authority. Hawkes et al. (2017) and Jones et al. (2024b) surfaced concerns pertaining to what constituted HREC mandates and the representation of First Peoples on HREC Committees. The retracted publication example provided brings into question both First Peoples representation on HREC Committees and the veracity of researchers’ responses which in our experiences are becoming more refined in response to values statements but with no more substantive substance in practice. The composition of HREC Committees is not easily identified, however, our collective experience across multiple institutions suggests that First Peoples are underrepresented, and that recruitment and retention are critically important if institutions are to meet their reconciliatory initiatives.
6. Indigenous special issues
Getting published in high quality business, management and organisational journals is challenging for all scholars. These journals often have low acceptance rates, focus on their own discipline and expect a theoretical contribution to their discipline in the paper. Special Issues can provide an opportunity for early career researchers to submit a paper in a much smaller field meaning that the paper is more likely to be sent out for review and has a greater possibility of publication. However, here we have the first problem which has been highlighted in the earlier example in this paper. If the Editors in Chief and Special Issues Editors are not aware of the importance of ‘by, with and for’ (Henry and Foley, 2018) First Peoples in relation to research then they cannot recognise ‘dirty research’ (Smith, 2021). They are less likely to have built relationships with First Peoples academics who can be called upon as reviewers. They are more likely to take a rudimentary approach that any papers that address First Peoples issues addresses a gap and should be published. They cannot see their own limitations and biases until the damage has been done.
The second problem is when a Special Issue purports to be focused to First Peoples research, but no First Peoples are involved as Special Issue Editors. An example of this is in a Call for Papers the authors received in 2024 on Indigenous Cultural Constructs in Management Research in the Asia Pacific from a well-known international journal. None of the Editors were Indigenous and the term Indigenous culture appeared to include research based on the culture of Chinese, Vietnamese or Thai ‘local’ businesses conflated with Indigenous businesses and Indigenous management research. The Special Issue Editors used the lower case ‘i’ for Indigenous throughout the call, their references were dated and ignored all the important business research that has been carried out over the past 20 years by First Peoples researchers. There was clearly a lack of relational citations (Tynan, 2021), no First Peoples, Māori, Pasifika or Taiwanese Indigenous business scholars appeared in the references. If Editors are not networked with these Indigenous academics, how are they going to ensure that any Indigenous papers submitted to the Special Issue demonstrate being ‘by, with and for’ Indigenous people?
We felt that this Call for Papers while appearing to recognise and value Indigenous perspectives was quite offensive to First Peoples scholars in the disciplines. We expressed our views to the Editors and offered to facilitate a conversation to help them understand our concerns. This offer was not taken up. A third concern with journal submissions in general is the danger of ‘black washing’ which means including the name of a First Peoples scholar to give the appearance that this research has a First Peoples perspective when in reality it hasn’t. Clearly, the Editors of business, management and organisational journals need to educate themselves on how to recognise a range of problematic research and publications.
7. What is good First Peoples research, and what is the path forward?
The rules and guidelines established by bodies such as AIATSIS provide specificity for researchers, research institutions, and academic journals about what characteristics constitute ethical First Peoples research. What meets the standard of good research differs between journals, their standards and processes. Basic procedures can provide journals with the infrastructure to facilitate good First Peoples research, attract First Peoples authors, and generate research impact. As a starting point, journals should be familiar with ethics and procedures relating to First Peoples research outlined by AIATSIS and NHMRC. Journals should assess submissions on their compliance with the AIATSIS principles, and prospective authors should be aware of these expectations of the journal. These processes should go beyond the standards set by publishers or the Committee on Publication Ethics (2025) guidelines which are too broad level to be adequately applied to First Peoples research.
Journals should be considering the representation of First Peoples across the journal’s ecosystem. Reviewers, Board Members, Associate Editors, and Editors in Chief. Ensuring adequate representation can be a challenging task for journals no matter the discipline, considering the underrepresentation of First Peoples in the academy, and the already stretched workload of those in the academy. This may necessitate developing younger academics and drawing on practitioners where relevant. Crucially, this should not abdicate non-Indigenous editorial staff from building their capabilities, it is not the singular role of First Peoples to assess the adequacy and merits of good research. Non-Indigenous scholars need to actively engage with Indigenous colleagues and knowledge holders, not as passive observers but as allies committed to creating safer and more equitable spaces for research and teaching.
The utilisation of Indigenous methods and methodologies challenging and expanding the western modes of academic enquiry, not to be recast only as more ‘culturally appropriate’ forms research. Non-Indigenous researchers might consider the way in which First Peoples researchers approach research differently, not through a lens of cultural difference but of academic expansion, research design that generates relevant, impactful, and novel findings. Moreover, where academic journals are attempting to review submissions that utilise methods, methodologies, frameworks that are grounded in First Peoples ontologies and epistemologies, it should be evident that an adequate review process requires peer revision from experts capable of interpreting that work.
Rather than overlay western concepts and frameworks into First Peoples’ contexts, consideration may be given to how research disciplines can be expanded through First Peoples’ enquiry. Too keen are researchers to impart western understanding of management, governance, value onto First Peoples. Is the discipline not curious as to how it might expand should it incorporate First Peoples’ expertise, histories, and values relating to areas of leadership, management, economics, sustainable development?
Journals may consider the appropriateness of auditing their publication history for its works authored by First Peoples, and the scholarship it has generated relating to First Peoples. For the business disciplines in Australia, there continues to be an underrepresentation of First Peoples students and academics, and therefore a limited pool for journals such as this to draw from. This is a complex issue that requires the shaping of the discipline to be more suited to First Peoples ambitions, and that better values First Peoples’ contributions. There are tens of thousands of years of rich history that this discipline can benefit from.
8. We should all expect better
I believe it is vital to the aims of equality that more scholars speak out and speak against the diverse and continuous pressures for epistemic obedience. (Lui, 2019: 22)
This is not to say a number of good research and publication practices have not been implemented by non-Indigenous scholars. Unlike the arbitrariness of government (see Messenger, 2024) we do not shy away from the importance of ‘truth telling’ as a strategy in building greater research excellence an approach that is inclusive of First Peoples ‘ways of being, ways of knowing and ways of doing’. We have provided a sample of recent examples which are unlikely to be isolated occurrences. First Peoples are resilient, and the research practices provided which are likely to be unexhaustive are hardly ‘ancient history’ and as a committed collective we ask for enterprise scholarship that exemplifies for, with and by – we are watching.
We argue that the processes that led to the initial publication of the now retracted article (AJM, 2024) fails to meet the ethical and methodological standards required for genuine partnership with First Peoples, offering a one-dimensional view of First Peoples enterprises while perpetuating potentially harmful and offensive stereotypes of a supposedly bygone era. As scholars, it is imperative to approach research in First Peoples spaces with cultural sensitivity, methodological rigour, and a commitment to avoiding essentialism. It is only then that society will benefit from 65,000 years of First Peoples knowledges through a research relationship that is respectful and reciprocal. These examples, rather than contributing to greater understanding of First Peoples enterprise contexts, serves as a cautionary example of how not to engage transactionally with these highly sophisticated and diverse enterprise environments. Future research in this domain should prioritise First Peoples perspectives and values, utilising collaborative methodologies that genuinely empower First Peoples voices rather than perpetuating stereotypes and promoting misinformation – it’s time!
Practical and theoretical contributions
Footnotes
Final transcript accepted 5 June 2025 by Andrew Jackson (Editor-in-Chief ).
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.