Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

‘Aboriginal Voices’: An overview of the methodology applied in the systematic review of recent research across ten key areas of Australian Indigenous education

  • Published:
The Australian Educational Researcher Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 11 April 2019

This article has been updated

Abstract

The ‘Aboriginal Voices’ project is a consortium of researchers invested in seeking long-term solutions to the many and varied issues that have been identified as factors contributing to the underachievement of Indigenous students in education across Australia. The Aboriginal Voices systematic review project established an agreed methodology and protocols in order to map ten reviews to an overarching question: ‘What are the issues affecting the underachievement of Indigenous students in Australia and how can research inform solutions to the complex and inter-related issues needing to be addressed?’ The Project focuses on bringing clarity to the overarching question by applying a rigorous process with an Indigenous methodology to undertake these unique reviews. This introductory paper outlines the development of a critical Indigenous methodology used in these discrete but inter-linked systematic investigations. Using a consistent systematic methodology facilitated the re-aggregation of separate review findings to achieve new whole-of-systems insights into the complex issues affecting the educational opportunities of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

  • 11 April 2019

    In the original publication of the article, the author name “Cathie Burgess” was inadvertently missed in the author group.

Notes

  1. Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are two specific Indigenous groups located within Australia. When the term ‘Indigenous’ is used in this article, it refers to traditional peoples from these two groups.

  2. 2006–2017 with the exception of the review on racism which extended its date to range from 1989 to 2016.

  3. The PICo acronym stands for. P—population. I—Interest. Co—Context.

  4. PRISMA—‘Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses’.

References

  • Bazeley, P. (2009). Analysing qualitative data: More than ‘identifying themes’. Malaysian Journal of Qualitative Research, 2(2), 6–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Booth, A. (2016). Searching for qualitative research for inclusion in systematic reviews: A structured methodological review. Systematic Reviews, 5(1), 74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byrd, J. (2011). Transit of empire: Indigenous critiques of colonisation. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell Collaboration (n/a). So, you want to write a Campbell systematic review? Retrieved from https://goo.gl/fAFwud

  • Cochrane Collaboration. (2011). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Cochrane. Retrieved from http://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org/

  • Coughlan, M., et al. (2007). Step-by-step guide to critiquing research. Part 1: Quantitative research. British Journal of Nursing, 16(11), 658–663.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies, P. (2003). Systematic reviews: How are they different from what we already do? In L. Anderson & N. Bennett (Eds.), Developing educational leadership (pp. 25–38). London: SAGE Publications.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Denzin, N. (2005). Emancipatory discourses and the ethics and politics of interpretation. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (pp. 933–958). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denzin, N. (2010). Grounded and Indigenous theories and the politics of pragmatism. Sociological Inquiry, 80(2), 296–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dixon-Woods, M., Sutton, A., Shaw, R., Miller, T., Smith, J., Young, B., et al. (2007). Appraising qualitative research for inclusion in systematic reviews: A quantitative and qualitative comparison of three methods. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy, 12(1), 42–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drawson, A., Toombs, E., & Mushquash, C. (2017). Indigenous research methods: A systematic review. The International Journal of Indigenous Policy, 8(2), 5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foley, D. (2003). Indigenous epistemology and Indigenous standpoint theory. Social Alternatives, 22(1), 44–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gough, D., Oliver, S., & Thomas, J. (Eds.). (2017). An introduction to systematic reviews (2nd ed.). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grande, S. (2004). Red pedagogy: Native American social and political thought. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guenther, J. (2018). Factors contributing to educational outcomes for First Nations students in remote communities: A systematic review. Manuscript in preparation

  • Head, B. (2008). Wicked problems in public policy. Public Policy, 3(2), 101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joanna Briggs Institute. (2014). The Joanna Briggs Institute reviewers manual 2014: Methodology for JBI mixed methods systematic reviews. Adelaide, Joanna Briggs Institute University of Adelaide. Retrieved from https://goo.gl/nLxXqy

  • Korhonen, A., Hakulinen-Viitanen, T., Jylhä, V., & Holopainen, A. (2013). Meta-synthesis and evidence-based health care—A method for systematic review. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 27(4), 1027–1034.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Long, A. F., & Godfrey, M. (2004). An evaluation tool to assess the quality of qualitative research studies. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 7(2), 181–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowe, K. (2017). Walanbaa warramildanha: The impact of authentic Aboriginal community and school engagement on teachers’ professional knowledge. The Australian Educational Researcher, 44(1), 35–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsden, B. (2018). The system of compulsory education is failing: Assimilation, mobility and Aboriginal students in Victorian State schools, 1961–1968. History of Education Review, 47(2), 143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, M. (2008). Indigenous and authentic—Hawaiian epistemology and triangulation of meaning. In N. Denzin, Y. Lincoln, & L. T. Smith (Eds.), Handbook of critical and indigenous methodologies (pp. 217–232). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D., & The PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Med, 6(7), e1000097.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papaioannou, D., Sutton, A., Carroll, C., Booth, A., & Wong, R. (2010). Literature searching for social science systematic reviews: Consideration of a range of search techniques. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 27(2), 114–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. Padstow, UK: Blackwell Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2008). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. Wiley.

  • PRISMA. (2009). PRISMA 2009 checklist. Retrieved from https://goo.gl/NYTwQT

  • Rigney, L. (1997). Internationalisation of an Indigenous anti-colonial cultural critique of research methodologies: A guide to Indigenist research methodology and its principles. Journal for Native American Studies, WICAZO sa Review, 14(2), 109–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, F., et al. (2007). Step-by-step guide to critiquing research. Part 2: Qualitative research. British Journal of Nursing, 16(12), 738–744.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandelowski, M., Voils, C. I., & Barroso, J. (2006). Defining and designing mixed research synthesis studies. Research in the Schools, 13(1), 29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schroeder, R. (2014). Exploring critical and Indigenous research methods with a research community: Part I—The leap. In the Library with the Lead Pipe. Retrieved from https://goo.gl/6P7Gm9

  • Smith, L. T. (2000). Kaupapa Maori research. In M. Battiste (Ed.), Reclaiming Indigenous voice and vision (pp. 225–247). Vancouver: UBC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, L. T. (2012). Decolonising methodologies: Research and Indigenous peoples. London: Zed Books Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision. (2014). Overcoming Indigenous disadvantage: Key indicators 2014—report. Canberra: Productivity Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision. (2016). Overcoming Indigenous disadvantage: Key indicators 2016. Canberra: Productivity Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stern, C., Jordan, Z., & McArthur, A. (2014). Developing the review question and inclusion criteria. American Journal of Nursing, 114(4), 53–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vass, G. (2013). ‘So. What is wrong with Indigenous education?’ Perspective, position and power beyond a deficit discourse. The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 41(2), 85–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Victor, L. (2008). Systematic reviewing. Social Research Update, 54(1), 1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whittemore, R., & Knafl, K. (2005). The integrative review: Updated methodology. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 52(5), 546–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Macquarie University, Macquarie Park, Australia

    Kevin Lowe & Neil Harrison

  2. The University of Sydney, Camperdown, Australia

    Christine Tennent

  3. Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education, Batchelor, Australia

    John Guenther

  4. Melbourne University, Parkville, Australia

    Nikki Moodie

  5. Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia

    Greg Vass

  6. University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia

    Cathie Burgess

Authors
  1. Kevin Lowe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christine Tennent
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. John Guenther
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Neil Harrison
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Cathie Burgess
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Nikki Moodie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Greg Vass
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kevin Lowe.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The original version of this article was revised: The author “Cathie Burgess” has been included in the author group.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lowe, K., Tennent, C., Guenther, J. et al. ‘Aboriginal Voices’: An overview of the methodology applied in the systematic review of recent research across ten key areas of Australian Indigenous education. Aust. Educ. Res. 46, 213–229 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-019-00307-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-019-00307-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation