Practical guidelines for Indigenous research: lessons from a case study exploring data literacy in our local Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community

Abstract

This article presents an Indigenous research methodology developed in the context of a case study to better understand data literacy within our local Indigenous Australian community. For too long Indigenous peoples have been the subjects, rather than the producers, of data-focused research. By adopting this approach in our case study, we identified practical guidelines for conducting best-practice Indigenous research in our own local community. Researchers must build genuine relationships with Indigenous Peoples and communities, understand community priorities and cultural protocols, maintain good Indigenous data governance and include Indigenous Peoples at all stages of research. This article also considers the positionality of the Aboriginal researchers in the study’s design, conduct and ethical considerations. Adopting these guidelines allowed for insights to be collected and interpreted through an Indigenous lens and ensured that the case study met the needs of and benefitted our local Indigenous Australian community.

Introduction

This article presents guidelines for an Indigenous research methodology which were developed and applied within the context of a case study used to explore data literacy within an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community in Southeast Queensland, Australia. In doing so, it adds to the growing dialogue on best practices for conducting research with Indigenous Peoples, in particular Indigenous Australians. While many studies do present best practice approaches for building research relationships and engaging with Indigenous Australians effectively, this article takes a different trajectory by sharing the approach used by researchers who are already part of the local community in which the research takes place. The first and second authors are Aboriginal Australians, and together with our research team, it was important to us to undertake research in a way that is ethical, respects Indigenous peoples and honours Indigenous ontology, epistemology and axiology in our local community.

Southeast Queensland (Figure 1) provides a distinct context for examining Indigenous research practices as it is a community that is both culturally diverse and rapidly evolving. Aboriginal Peoples and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in this region have diverse cultural backgrounds and live across urban, semi-urban and rural settings. The area is supported by a well-established network of community-controlled organisations, providing capacity for community-led initiative and engagement with research. This area is one of the fastest-growing regions of Indigenous people in Australia and includes traditional country of the Gubbi Gubbi, Wakka Wakka, Yugara, Turrbul, Quandamooka, Kombumerri, Mununjali Peoples and more. These characteristics make Southeast Queensland an important setting for understanding how Indigenous Australians sustain cultural knowledge, exercise agency and navigate change. The region’s dynamism and diversity make it a compelling example for showcasing Indigenous research practices, offering insights that extend beyond the local context and contribute to broader discussions about Indigenous knowledge, self-determination and community resilience.

Figure 1.

Map showing Southeast Queensland region of Australia (State of Queensland, 2025).

Prior to colonisation, Indigenous Australians—the Aboriginal Peoples and Torres Strait Islander Peoples—consisted of over 500 nations with different languages, territories and customs (Corporal, 2017). It is well documented that due to settler colonialism, Indigenous Australians experience poorer health, wellbeing and socio-economic outcomes than non-Indigenous Australians (Cook, 2021; Corporal, 2020; Paradies, 2016). This disparity is reflected within Indigenous populations across the globe and Indigenous-led data-informed research offers a way to understand and redress these inequities. These disparities have been exacerbated by the widespread bias present in the design and conduct of research undertaken by colonial researchers (Foxworth & Ellenwood, 2023; Woods et al., 2023). Knowledge is often structured around professional disciplines that are fundamentally based on Western ideology, resulting in prioritisation of Western knowledge and research approaches which do not reflect the cultural structures or interests of Indigenous communities. This perpetuates disadvantage and overshadows Indigenous success, strengths and achievements (Cook, 2021; Foxworth & Ellenwood, 2023; Kendall et al., 2011). Furthermore, this narrative measures Indigenous communities against mainstream Western standards and portrays Indigenous Peoples as an issue to be fixed (Smith, 2021; Tsosie, 2020). Walter (2018) has identified the Indigenous data paradox, in that there is a vast amount of data about Indigenous Australians and a dearth of data by or for Indigenous Australians. In addition, the exclusion of Indigenous peoples in data production has resulted in a data that is Blaming, Aggregate, Decontextualised, Deficit-based and has Restricted access (BADDR data) (Walter, 2018).

To counter this deficit-based framing and offer strengths-based solutions, research about or involving Indigenous peoples should be Indigenous-led, uphold Indigenous data sovereignty and respect Indigenous knowledges, practices and worldviews. These considerations should be integrated into all stages of the research including data analysis, interpretation and the decision-making processes resulting from research findings.

Indigenous research methodology

The use of Indigenous research methodology can ensure that research meets the needs of Indigenous communities. This approach ensures Indigenous peoples and their perspectives are respected and considered within the conception, design, data collection, analysis, and reporting of the research. Corporal (2017) asserted that to work towards solutions, approaches that recognise Indigenous Australians’ connections to land, kinship, protocols and worldviews be used. Indigenous research methodology is not defined by a specific research method; rather, it is an approach to the research that is grounded in Indigenous ontology, epistemology, and axiology (Martin, 2003; Smith, 2021; Walter & Suina, 2019).

Rigney (1999) described three principles of Indigenist research:

1. Resistance as the emancipatory imperative. This principle emphasises that research must challenge colonial systems and empower Indigenous communities.

2. Political integrity. This principle means research should meet community agendas and work towards self-determination.

3. Privileging Indigenous voices. This principle highlights that Indigenous peoples should be leading research and that Indigenous perspectives should guide the research approach.

Indigenous research methodology (a) recognises the self-determination of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples and the experience of historical oppression; (b) is led by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples; and (c) ensures the lived experience, perspectives and beliefs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples are fundamental to the research. Approaching research in this way can serve as a form of resistance against colonial oppression and reclamation of Indigenous sovereignty and identity (Smith, 2021).

Martin (2003) describes how Aboriginal ways of knowing, being and doing can be centred within aspects of Western research such as “research assumptions; research questions; literature review; research design; conduct; analysis; interpretation; reporting and dissemination” (p. 211). Walter and Suina (2019) further describe an Indigenous methodology as one in which Indigenous worldviews, perspective values and lived experiences are central and have used this approach in exploring Indigenous data and Indigenous data sovereignty. Furthermore, an Indigenist approach allows for the positioning of Indigenous Australians as producers of knowledge rather than as the object of research, respecting their knowledge and their data.

First Nations communities globally have also developed protocols for research pertaining to Indigenous groups. The CONSIDER statement was collaboratively developed by researchers from Australia and Aotearoa (Huria et al., 2019). This statement includes a checklist for reporting of Indigenous health research and highlights the importance of formal partnerships, Indigenous leadership, and adherence to ethical protocols.

Indigenous theoretical frameworks

Theoretical and conceptual frameworks are an important consideration when adopting an Indigenous research methodology, as they ensure that Indigenous perspectives are valued and considered. Frameworks such as Indigenous Standpoint Theory (IST) and Cultural Interface Theory provide a lens through which researchers can understand and interpret the experiences and knowledge of Indigenous peoples (Martin, 2003; Moreton-Robinson, 2013; Nakata, 2002, 2007).

IST allows for Indigenous peoples’ experiences and knowledges to be central to the research and findings theorised from an Indigenous perspective (Nakata, 2002). With origins in feminist standpoint theory, IST challenges the dominant Western paradigm by challenging assumptions and power dynamics (Cook et al., 2023; Foley, 2003; Moreton-Robinson, 2013). The standpoint of Indigenous peoples is influenced by our ways of knowing, being and doing and is grounded in Indigenous knowledges (Martin, 2020). IST emphasises that knowledge is relational, contextual and deeply embedded in cultural, spiritual and environmental connections as opposed to the objective, universal and measurable notion of knowledge in Western epistemology.

The experiences of Indigenous Australians can further be understood through what Nakata (2002, 2007) describes as the Cultural Interface. This is a contested space between Indigenous and Western knowledge systems, and Cultural Interface Theory has been used extensively in research related to the educational experiences of Indigenous Australians (Cook et al., 2023; Meston et al., 2025; Prehn & Guerzoni, 2024). In this study, Cultural Interface Theory complemented IST by providing a lens to interpret how Indigenous Australians use data within both Indigenous and Western knowledge systems. It highlights how participants navigate tensions, opportunities and differing expectations in these overlapping knowledge spaces, ensuring that data literacy is understood not only in terms of technical skills but also in relation to cultural, relation and community contexts. Applying Cultural Interface Theory alongside IST allowed researchers to recognise where Indigenous Australians exercise authority over their own data within Western systems (Cook et al., 2024). It highlights how participants navigate both Indigenous and Western knowledge spaces, providing insight into how IDSov principles are enacted in practice and showing that data literacy is shaped by cultural, relational and governance contexts.

Community-based research

Strategies or initiatives that seek to benefit Indigenous Peoples are most successful when they are Indigenous-led and consider Indigenous perspectives, protocols and worldviews (Cook, 2021; Corporal, 2017). Research undertaken to address issues within Indigenous Australian communities should include involvement from communities at all stages of the process, even before any research agenda or project is proposed. Community-based research (CBR) is a non-Indigenous approach that aligns with the Indigenous approach in that it involves community members, organisations and researchers in all aspects of the research process. This ensures that any research conducted benefits the community, similar to Indigenist approaches (Israel et al., 1998; Rigney, 1999; Stoecker, 2003). Stoecker (2003) argues that CBR can be a tool for social justice. In the context of Indigenous research, CBR provides space to consider the value of Indigenous knowledge systems and Indigenous peoples’ contributions to the research, honouring sovereignty and Indigenous ways of knowing to guide the research process (Corporal, 2017; Moreton-Robinson, 2015). Wali et al. (2021) explored how various community engagement strategies have been used to develop chronic disease interventions in Indigenous populations and propose that building partnerships with Indigenous communities should be the first step in research.

Engaging with community requires more than just a discussion of the proposed research and possible benefits, but as Kendall et al. (2011) suggest non-Indigenous researchers should also “examine the epistemologies that underlie their work and the ways in which they relate to entire Indigenous communities” (p. 1725). Reflexivity and flexibility are required when engaging with Indigenous communities (Corporal, 2020). Pyett et al. (2009) suggests that similar to CBR approaches, those undertaking research with urban Aboriginal communities should prioritise building relationships, learning about the community and communicating with the community throughout the project. CBR together with deep community engagement can also provide insight into community data needs and priorities.

Indigenous data and governance

Indigenous data, Indigenous data governance and Indigenous data literacy are important concepts in the context of the case study that this article is based upon. Indigenous Australians have an inherent and enduring authority over data that relates to their communities, knowledge systems and country and have always gathered and protected their knowledge (Lovett et al., 2019). Carroll et al. (2020) describe Indigenous Peoples’ data in the global context as:

(1) information and knowledge about the environment, lands, skies, resources, and non-humans with which they have relations; (2) information about Indigenous persons such as administrative, census, health, social, commercial, and corporate and, (3) information and knowledge about Indigenous Peoples as collectives, including traditional and cultural information, oral histories, ancestral and clan knowledge, cultural sites, and stories, belongings (p. 3).

In the Australian context, Indigenous data have been described by the Indigenous Data Network (2024) as:

Data generated, intentionally or not, by, about, or for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Indigenous data refers to information, in any format or medium, collected, analysed, stored, and interpreted within the context of Indigenous individuals, collectives, populations, entities, lifeways, cultures, knowledge systems, lands, biodiversity, water and other resources.

It includes data collected, used, or stored by any agency, department, laboratory, organisation, corporation, statutory body, university or research institute, conducted by, with, and about Indigenous people or peoples, and data that Indigenous communities have generated and maintained themselves.

This definition of Indigenous data clearly articulates the various ways data is perceived by Indigenous Australians and recognises the sovereignty of those data. Furthermore, this definition builds upon other definitions of Indigenous data (see, Lovett et al., 2019; Rainie et al., 2019; Walter et al., 2021) by considering the intent behind the generation of data and where it is held.

The Maiam Nayri Wingara (2018) Indigenous Data Sovereignty Collective in Australia defined Indigenous Data as “information or knowledge, in any format or medium, which is about and may affect Indigenous peoples both collectively and individually”, and Indigenous Data Sovereignty as “the right of Indigenous peoples to exercise ownership over Indigenous data. Ownership of data can be expressed through the creation, collection, access, analysis, interpretation, management, dissemination and reuse of Indigenous data.” Indigenous data sovereignty (IDSov) stems from the inherent rights of Indigenous peoples and communities to have a say in, and exhibit ownership of, their Indigenous data (Cook et al., 2024; Walter & Suina, 2019). Lovett et al. (2019) credits Canadian First Nations communities with pioneering modern IDSov. Prehn et al. (2024) states, IDSov is “the right of Indigenous peoples to control the collection, ownership, and application of data about their lives” (p 154). While IDSov asserts Indigenous rights over data, Indigenous data governance (IDGov) enacts those rights by ensuring that there are appropriate Indigenous decision-making processes across the data life cycle (Carroll et al., 2021; Lovett et al., 2019; Walter & Suina, 2019). It is a tangible mechanism that ensures Indigenous rights are upheld when considering all aspects of data. IDGov asserts that Indigenous peoples have control over their data and also that Indigenous peoples can make data-driven decisions to improve community outcomes (Prehn et al., 2024). The CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance (Collective benefit, Authority to Control, Responsibility and Ethics) have been developed to ensure there is Collective benefit, Authority to Control, Responsibility and Ethics when considering Indigenous data. The First Nations Principles of OCAP^® (Ownership, Control, Access and Possession) were developed by the First Nations Governance Centre in Canada to support strong information governance on the path to First Nations data sovereignty (First Nations Governance Centre, n.d.). Our neighbours in Aotearoa (New Zealand), Te Mana Raraunga, the Māori Data Sovereignty Network describe the Principles of Māori Data Sovereignty as Rangatiratanga (Authority) Whakapapa (Relationships), Whanaungatanga (Obligations), Kotahitanga (Collective benefit), Manaakitanga (Reciprocity) and Kaitiakitanga (Guardianship) (Te Mana Raraunga, 2018).

Access to data by Indigenous Australian communities has been recognised nationally as a key priority to improve socio-economic outcomes. The National Agreement on Closing the Gap (Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, 2020) was created through collaboration between the Coalition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peak Organisations and all Australian Governments. The National Agreement aims to address the deep-seated inequalities experienced by Indigenous Australians and strive for equality. Priority Reform Four of the National Agreement highlights “Shared Access to Data and Information at a Regional Level,” emphasising (a) the importance of communities having access to data to make informed decisions about their future; (b) the need for data and information sharing and (c) the importance of transparency and capacity building to ensure communities have the resources and skills needed to collect and use data effectively (Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, 2020). Empowering use of and engagement with data in Indigenous Australian communities, aligns with the National Agreement’s capacity-building agenda.

Data literacy is the ability to use data effectively for decision-making and it requires the ability to understand, analyse and argue with data (Cook et al., 2024; Mandinach & Gummer, 2013). Furthermore, enhancing data literacy may assist communities with IDSov, ensure proper data governance around access, use and sharing of data, and lead to increased self-determination and community empowerment (Cook et al., 2024). To build capacity to access, collect and use data within the Indigenous Australian community, it is important to understand community perspectives and how people currently engage with data.

Considering cultural protocols

Within Indigenous Australian communities, there are certain protocols followed which may not be known to non-Indigenous peoples or Indigenous Australians from other communities (Campbell et al., 2024; Corporal, 2017). By engaging and building relationships with the community in the early stages, researchers can gain an understanding of cultural protocols within the community. Each community may have their own language, laws, stories, family kinship networks and cultural practices (Corporal, 2017).

Upholding protocols of engagement take time and should be considered when developing project timelines. Pyett et al. (2009) assert that extra time is required when developing trusting relationships and that researchers need to consider this. Additional time may also be needed to allow for cultural events, protocols and to protect the health of Elders (Corporal, 2020). Participants may not be available unexpectedly due to Sorry Business. They may also need to travel for Sorry Business so this may mean they are not available for a period of time. Corporal (2017) also suggests that researchers need to allow proper time to listen to Indigenous participants and this may mean that interviews cannot take place within a set duration.

Implementation of the methodology in the context of a case study

The applied approach to the Indigenous Research Methodology is presented here in the context of a case study which explored data literacy within the Southeast Queensland Indigenous Australian community. The findings of this case study are reported elsewhere (Cook et al., 2024).

This study was co-designed with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Community Health Service Brisbane (ATSICHS), a community-controlled organisation which serves the Brisbane and Logan Indigenous Australian communities in Southeast Queensland, Australia. ATSICHS is the largest community-controlled organisation in Queensland and its services include the areas of health and wellbeing, children and families, and Elders support. The aims of this study were to:

• (a) understand the current state of data literacy in the local Indigenous Australian community,

• (b) understand how Indigenous Australian community members currently engage with data, and

• (c) develop practical, evidence-based ideas to enhance community data literacy.

To ensure that Indigenous Australian values, decision-making, beliefs and world views were privileged in the study, the Indigenous research methodology adopted a case study approach which included participatory and collaborative techniques and was framed by Indigenous Standpoint Theory and Cultural Interface Theory. These theoretical and conceptual frameworks were selected so that responses could be viewed and interpreted through an Indigenous lens and align with IDSov principles. Our Indigenist methodology explained below includes community involvement, respect for cultural protocols, and appropriate data collection and analysis methods.

Community involvement in the design

Rather than aligning with the needs of individual researchers or the academic institution, this project was conceptualised in collaboration with ATSICHS to address priorities voiced by the community-controlled organisation. Co-designed approaches have been used extensively in research pertaining to Indigenous peoples and using Indigenous research methodologies (Henderson et al., 2024; Wali et al., 2021; Williams et al., 2021). A second Aboriginal researcher living in the local community was also engaged and joined the team.

In addition to the project being co-designed with ATSICHS, Indigenous Australian community members located in the Southeast Queensland area were consulted throughout the project and before any research took place. Researchers immersed themselves in the community and attended gatherings and events such as a number of National Aboriginal and Islander Day Observance Committee (NAIDOC) days to strengthen our relationship with the community. During community events, we used Indigenous cultural protocols of introduction. This included sharing about ourselves, where we are from, and listening to people’s stories before there was any mention of research (Best, 2011). Once rapport was built, we then shared the idea behind the study and sought feedback from community members and Indigenous stakeholders to determine if this research, in principle, met the needs of the community and would be beneficial.

These community voices helped to shape the direction of the research as a staged approach, with the first stage being to:

• (a) gain an understanding of what the current data literacy level in the community might be,

• (b) learn how community members were engaging with data and using data,

• (c) identify whether enhancing data literacy was desired by the community,

• (d) learn suggestions for how data literacy could be improved within the community.

The significance of this approach means that Indigenous Australians are leading the direction of future research, aligning with community needs and priority areas (Cook et al., 2024). Furthermore, the relationships built in the initial design were useful as they provided an understanding of community culture, priorities and perspectives which may impact upon data collection, analysis and presentation of findings.

Cultural protocols within data collection

The data collection methods were decided in collaboration with ATSICHS and the community to ensure that methods were culturally safe and meaningful. For example, yarning was chosen as the primary method of data collection because it reflected local communication protocols and supported participants to share their perspectives in their own way. Furthermore, free, prior and informed consent processes were developed with the community, ensuring that participation reflection community expectations. Before any data were collected, participants were fully informed about the research, how their data would be used, how it would be stored and what access and disposal procures were in place. Researchers took time to explain the project with participants and community members. This ensured that free, prior and informed consent was obtained (AIATSIS, 2020; United Nations, 2007). Data collection employed Indigenous protocols for engaging with all participants, including exhibiting respect, yarning with participants, and identifying yourself culturally and geographically (Corporal, 2017). Given the vulnerability of our Elders and the increased risk to Indigenous Peoples to some illnesses, researchers had to be mindful of protecting the community such as rescheduling interviews in times of increased disease prevalence. Data collection was postponed several times due to the risk of COVID-19. We advocate that researchers must be flexible and considerate of our communities.

Similar to Shay (2021) who describes a collaborative yarning methodology, the relationship between the research and the participants was an important factor to consider. The data collection was undertaken by an Aboriginal member of the research team who was also part of the local Indigenous community. Approaching data collection through a modality such as yarning, can foster cultural safety, build connections and alleviate cultural risks (Campbell et al., 2024).

Data collection was approached through an Indigenous lens, meaning that in addition to the cultural protocols we considered in the previous section, we also engaged with the participants and took their lead regarding:

• (a) The location of the interview,

• (b) The timing and duration of the yarn,

• (c) Whether participants attended individually or as a group.

We wanted to ensure participants felt safe in the sharing of their thoughts, knowledge and experiences. In each yarn with the participants, we followed Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander protocols of introduction (Best, 2011; Corporal, 2020). Corporal (2020) explains that by following proper protocols during the interview process, high-quality data can be collected as participants may be willing to share more openly.

The approach described above led to qualitative data being collected from 20 Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander adults who engage with ATSICHS on their perceptions, understanding and engagement with data. The Indigenist design allowed for interpretation of the data through an Indigenous lens and findings indicated that Indigenous Australians perceived data to be important in their day-to-day lives. Participants described data in a way which aligned with the definition provided by the Indigenous Data Network and suggested that enhancing data literacy within the community would be beneficial (Cook et al., 2024).

Research ethics and considerations

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) (United Nations, 2007) articulates the rights of Indigenous peoples, many of which are directly relevant to how we design, engage in and conduct Indigenous research. In Australia, research that pertains to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples should abide by the Australian Institute for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS) Code of Ethics for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Research (2020) “the AIATSIS Code”. The key principles of the AIATSIS Code are Indigenous self-determination, Indigenous leadership, Impact and value, Sustainability and Accountability. Indigenous research approaches align with best practice according to the AIATSIS Code, which is a model of engagement. It explains that multiple types of engagement may be required depending on the research and that the outcome or benefit to Indigenous Australians should be the most important consideration in the project’s development.

The case study was guided by the AIATSIS Code of Ethics and UNDRIP, particularly the rights to self-determination and to maintain, control and protect data relating to Indigenous Peoples. These ethical frameworks were embedded throughout the research, shaping co-design processes with ATSICHS Brisbane, privileging Indigenous voices in data collection and analysis and ensuring data governance practices aligned with IDSov. Ethical clearance was obtained through the university Human Research Ethics Committee. The case study adhered to the AIATSIS Code’s principles of Indigenous self-determination, Indigenous leadership, Impact and value and Sustainability and accountability.

Indigenous self-determination was central to the design, conduct and reporting of the research. As previously discussed, this research was co-designed with a community-controlled organisation and Indigenous Australian community members. Free, prior and informed consent was obtained prior to data collection. In addition, the use of interviews to collect data allowed for Indigenous people’s views, priorities and perspectives to be considered and discussed in the context of the study.

Indigenous leadership was enacted through consultation with the community before research took place and by co-designing this work with a community-controlled organisation. This ensured that research priorities, processes and outcomes were determined by the community, and that Indigenous knowledge and data were valued throughout. The Aboriginal researchers’ connection to the community and the wider team’s expertise support this process but were guided by community. The study was low risk, and the findings were anticipated to benefit the community, aligning with the AIATSIS Code’s impact and value principle. Another feature of the study that aligned with this principle was that as the study was co-designed with ATSICHS, the findings could be implemented by the community-controlled organisation and benefit the clients who participated in the study.

Sustainability and accountability were also considered in the case study design by ensuring that the research team included community members and that there would be ongoing benefit to the community. In accordance with IDGov, appropriate processes were followed to ensure that data was collected, stored and used in culturally safe and accountable ways. An example of this was how we advocated for community members to be able to access their data in the future should they choose to do so. This upholds the principles of UNDRIP that emphasise Indigenous peoples’ rights to self-determination and control over matters, including data, that affect them.

Discussion

Ascertaining community perspectives was crucial to ensure that the research conducted was informed by the community and was conducted ethically. In this section, we will discuss how the adoption of an Indigenist approach enhanced this study, ensured ethical conduct and articulated the next steps of this work to undertake research that is Indigenous led.

Reflections on the approach

Indigenous research methodology prioritises upholding the rights of Indigenous peoples. Given the objective of the case study to support the enhancement of data literacy within a Southeast Queensland Indigenous Australian community, the chosen approach was appropriate. In designing the research method, we looked to existing Indigenous frameworks, guidelines and methodologies; however, as many of these referred to building relationships and were targeted at non-Indigenous researchers or those outside to the community, some adjustments were required for this study so that the design met the needs of our own local community.

The first principle Rigney (1999) described was “resistance as the emancipatory imperative” which asks researchers to challenge the Western approach to research and prioritise Indigenous peoples and knowledges. Within this study the co-design approach, inclusion of Indigenous researchers who are part of the Southeast Queensland community, and input from other Indigenous Australian community members aligned with this principle and appropriately recognise and position the knowledge held by not only the Indigenous Australian participants but also the Aboriginal researchers (Corporal, 2017). Reflecting upon the data collection and analysis, it was beneficial that this was led by Aboriginal researchers. The insider position of the researchers not only assisted with community engagement and participant recruitment, but it also assisted with thematic analysis. Corporal (2017) encourages researchers to consider Indigenous Australians’ worldviews and ways of describing their observations and experiences. The Aboriginal members of the research team discussed together what was shared in the interviews and the interpretation of the data. This allowed for the interpretation of findings through our Indigenous standpoint as Aboriginal researchers part of the Southeast Queensland community (Cook et al., 2023). For example, when one participant was asked, “How could the health service better share the data they collect? How do you reckon they could tell you about the data?” he responded with “I won’t listen to them. Data is a private problem conversation”. Without context or through a Western lens, this may be interpreted as disinterest in the data held. However, through our Indigenous lens we were able to discuss and recognise that this response indicated that the participant had significant trust in ATSICHS to manage his data and to uphold IDSov. If we take the time to deeply listen to our participants, we can hear what they want to tell us (Corporal, 2017). While this example highlights the value of Indigenous standpoint, our team’s positioning also required reflection. As Aboriginal researchers from different mobs, working in our local community, we navigated a space between shared insider understanding and diverse local perspectives. This positioning supported richer interpretation of participant insights but also required careful attention to local protocols and relational responsibilities (Martin, 2003; Nakata, 2007; Pyett et al., 2009; Rigney, 1999). These dynamics further aligned with IDSov and IDGov, where authority over data and decisions about its use rests with the community (Kukutai & Taylor, 2016). By reflecting on our positionality throughout the research, we were able to deepen the analysis and demonstrate how IDSov and IDGov can be operationalised in practice, not just through formal policy, but in everyday processes of Indigenous-led research.

Ensuring ethical conduct

For the Aboriginal researchers within the research team, ethical accountability extends beyond meeting ethical requirements and obtaining approval from our university. The lead authors are first and foremost Aboriginal peoples and are accountable to our community (Martin, 2003). Despite requiring researchers to uphold the AIATSIS Code, the Western ethics process can conflict with our Indigenist process and our positionality. As community members conducting research, it is important that we are aware of any conflict of interest, perceived or actual. However, we should not let this preclude us from sharing our knowledge in the design, conduct and analysis of the work. Martin (2020) centred relatedness within Indigenous research and Aboriginal sovereignty as “respecting and centring Aboriginal ways of viewing the world and all things in it, of knowing, giving meaning to and valuing the world, and in the ways this is expressed” (p. 96). In addition, Martin (2020) states “Indigenist research is transformative in that the researcher is positioned in relatedness to knowledge of self and of others.” It would be remiss of us not to consider our perspectives as Indigenous peoples within the team comprised of Indigenous and non-Indigenous researchers to inform the study.

Although ATSICHS is a community-controlled organisation, who represents the community as its core business, it was challenging to have this position recognised within the formal ethical process. One such challenge centred on the perception of the organisation’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff, who were not considered as community members who would benefit from the findings, or as contributors to the design of the project in the view of the ethics reviewers. Walter and Suina (2019) described the importance of Indigenous lived experience within the design; therefore, it would be appropriate that staff of a partner organisation would be appropriate stakeholders to provide insights. In addition, these staff may be essential in distributing findings and participating in the implementation of recommendations.

Benefits and sharing

This case study provided an opportunity to learn about data literacy within Indigenous Australian communities and how individuals, communities and community organisations could benefit and be empowered to use data. By understanding that Indigenous data are considerably more than statistics collected about Indigenous Peoples, community members, organisations and representatives can assert their sovereign rights over those data and ensure good IDGov. For example, one participant described themselves as sovereign and explained that the data about them was also sovereign. The framing further shaped our interpretation of IDSov, grounding it in lived experience and reinforcing self-determination. Other participants also highlighted the importance of having access to their own health data, such as blood pressure, to inform everyday decisions about their wellbeing. These examples show that for participants, data literacy was practical and directly connected to decisions they made about their lives and health. Applying Cultural Interface Theory also deepened our understanding of data literacy in this context as participants spoke about their sovereign data being held in Western systems. This is similar to the “contested space” that Nakata (2007) describes. Recognising this through Cultural Interface Theory showed that Indigenous Australian’s data literacy involves navigating both systems simultaneously, reinforcing the need for approaches which respect IDSov.

Furthermore, by approaching this research in an Indigenist way and consulting with community on the design, we were able to ensure that we were undertaking research that the community believed would be of benefit (Cox et al., 2021; Foxworth & Ellenwood, 2023).

Communication throughout the research is important in CBR and in Indigenist approaches (Israel et al., 1998; Rigney, 1999; Stoecker, 2003). This includes appropriate dissemination of findings, not only from the initial stages of the research but also through to the final stages and evaluation. One key benefit of including Indigenous researchers on the team, allows for findings to be shared back to community in various ways such as through conversations, community gatherings, Indigenous conferences and formal reports.

Recommended guidelines for research in our community

Based on the implementation of the Indigenous research methodology, we advocate for the following guidelines when conducting Indigenous research in the local community context:

• Know and be a part of your local community and build meaningful relationships with Indigenous community members and organisations. It is important that the research addresses community priority areas, and this requires researchers to engage with the community to learn what these areas are. Relationships and immersion in the community can not only provide researchers with appropriate understanding of cultural protocols and considerations but also allow for deep community engagement about the research project to ensure it is undertaken ethically.

• Ensure there is sufficient time to engage with the community and be flexible to accommodate cultural protocols and community events.

• Consider appropriate Indigenous data governance mechanisms to ensure that IDSov is upheld. IDGov should be discussed with the community.

• Adhere to appropriate ethical codes when conducting research; however, be mindful that Indigenous research methodology may conflict with some research ethics committees. Understand that Indigenous researchers are accountable first and foremost to the community and even though they may be researchers, they are still community members. This positionality can benefit the research and research outcomes.

• Institutional ethics processes should consider input from local Indigenous community representatives such as community members and community-controlled organisations to support Indigenous-led research.

• Disseminate research findings in a way that is best suited to the community that participated in the research. As research findings should benefit the community, they must be accessible. This should be determined by the participants and community members who have informed the research and likely will not be through formal academic mediums.

Conclusion

This article has presented an Indigenous research methodology in the context of a case study undertaken by members of the Southeast Queensland area exploring data literacy within their local Indigenous Australian community. It has explored how researching in one’s own community can pose unique challenges and considerations which are not widely discussed in broader Indigenous research methodologies and contexts. Reflecting on the approach, key learnings were discussed, culminating in a set of practical guidelines for undertaking Indigenous research within the local community context. These include the importance of building relationships with the Indigenous community, including Indigenous peoples in the design and conduct of the research, upholding Indigenous data governance and ensuring that research meets community needs and priorities, and that research findings are shared back to the community who participated in the study. In summary, the use of an Indigenous research methodology can privilege Indigenous knowledge and recognise the position of Indigenous peoples as knowledge holders; ensure research is conducted ethically; provide community input into the design, analysis and reporting of fundings; and lead to better outcomes not only for researchers but also for Indigenous communities.