Researching Anger in Indigenous Men in Prison: A Perspective from Non-Indigenous Researchers

  • Linda Davey
  • Andrew Day
Part of the Social Indicators Research Series book series (SINS, volume 34)


In this chapter, the attempts of non-Indigenous researchers to develop an appropriate research methodology to investigate anger in Indigenous men in prison are described. The chapter examines the need for research that can meaningfully inform service provision to be conducted in the context of Indigenous critiques of mainstream research methodologies and describes some of the issues that arose in our attempt to achieve this. What emerged was an appreciation of the way in which the research methodologies that were available to us were inescapably representations of our own cultural backgrounds and that effective and culturally acceptable research practice was not a question of mere methodology, but of being prepared to remain conscious of the potential for our research to do harm.

Indigenous Australian Anger research Men in prison Research dilemma Ethical issue Harm in research Indigenist research Skepticism and resistance 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2003). The psychology of criminal conduct, 3rd edition. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  2. Bonta, J., LaPrairie, C., & Wallace-Capretta, S. (1997). Risk prediction and re-offending: Indigenous and non-Indigenous offenders, Canadian Journal of Criminology, 39, 127-144.Google Scholar
  3. Chambless, D. L., & Ollendick, T. H. (2001). Empirically supported psychological interventions: Controversies and evidence. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 685-716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Davey, L. (in press). Reflections on methodology. In A. Day, M. Nakata & K. Howells (Eds.), Aboriginal men and anger (pp. xx) . Annandale NSW: Federation Press.Google Scholar
  5. Day, A. (2003). Reducing the risk of re-offending among Australian indigenous offenders: What works for whom? Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 37(2), 1-16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Day, A., & Howells, K. (2002). Psychological treatments for rehabilitating offenders: Evidence based practice comes of age: Australian Psychologist, 37, 39-47.Google Scholar
  7. Day, A., Howells, K., Nakata, M., Davey, L., Wanganeen, R., & deSantolo, J. (2006). The develop-ment of culturally appropriate anger management programs for Indigenous people in Australian prison settings. International Journal of Offender Rehabilitation and Comparative Criminology, 50(5), 520-539. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Day, A., Davey, L., Wanganeen, R., Casey, S., Howells, K., & Nakata, M. (2008). Symptoms of trauma, perceptions of discrimination and anger: A comparison between Australian Indigenous and non-Indigenous prisoners. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23(4), 245-258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Foley, D. (2003). Indigenous epistemology and Indigenous standpoint theory. Social Alternatives, 22,44-52.Google Scholar
  10. Habermas, J. (1970). Toward a theory of communicative competence. In H. P. Dreitzel (Ed.), Recent sociology, vol XI (pp. 115 - 148) . London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  11. Hart, V., & Whatman, S. (1998). Decolonising the concept of knowledge. Paper presented at the HERDSA98 Conference in Auckland.Google Scholar
  12. Hoshmand, L. T. (2005). Narratology, cultural psychology, and counseling research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 178 -186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Humphrey, K. (2000). Indigenous health and ‘ Western research’. VicHealth Koori Health Research & Community Development Unit Discussion paper No.2. Melbourne: Victorian Health Promotion Foundation.Google Scholar
  14. Mals, P., Howells, K., Day, A., & Hall, G. (1999). Adapting violence programs for the Aboriginal offender. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 30, 121-135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. McLeod, J. (2001). The politics of counselling. In McLeod, J. (Ed.), An introduction to counselling (pp. 238 - 262). London: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Nakata, M. (in press). The interpretative framework for understanding what Indigenous men can tell us in the field studies. In A. Day, M. Nakata & K. Howells (Eds.), Aboriginal men and anger (pp. xx) . Annandale NSW: Federation Press.Google Scholar
  17. RCIADIC (1991). Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody: National Report. Canberra, AGPS.Google Scholar
  18. Rigney, L. (1997). Internalisation of an Indigenous anti-colonial cultural critique of research methodologies. A guide to Indigenous research methodologies and its principles. Journal of American Studies, 14, 90-122.Google Scholar
  19. Rigney, L. (2001). A first perspective of indigenous Australian participation in science: Framing indigenous research towards indigenous Australian intellectual sovereignty . Kaurna Higher Education Journal, 1, 1-13.Google Scholar
  20. Selby, J. (2004). Working divides between indigenous and non-indigenous: Disruptions of identity. I nternational Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education. 17(1), 1-17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Smith, L. T. (1997). Decolonising methodologies: Research and Indigenous peoples. Dunedin: University of Otago Press.Google Scholar
  22. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  23. Van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Leung, K. (2000). Methodological issues in psychological research on culture. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology , 21, 33 - 51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wanganeen, R. (in press). Grief and loss. In Day, A., Nakata, M. & Howells, K. (Eds.), Aboriginal men and anger . (pp. xx) . Annandale NSW: Federation Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Linda Davey
    • 1
  • Andrew Day
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Applied Psychological ResearchUniversity of South AustraliaAdelaide

Personalised recommendations