The approach indicated above is an ethnomethodologically-oriented ethnography of everyday interpretive practice (see Garfinkel 1984), which derives from Husserl‟s (1962; 1970; see Gubrium and Holstein 2000: 488) philosophical, and Schutz‟s (1962; 1964; 1970) sociological approach to the part played by human
consciousness and interaction in investing with meaning, and so constituting, objective reality. It builds on their phenomenological rejection of notions of social reality as social facts which speak for themselves, and is informed by the social constructionist (Berger and Luckman 1966) and symbolic interactionist (Blumer 1962; 1969) focus on the generation of meaning through individuals‟ interpretative interactional experience and use of language and other symbolic interaction. The approach could not in this case therefore, accept at face value the orthodox understandings of Aboriginal cultural difference, assimilation and marginalisation as given, as „“out there”, so to speak‟ as in Schutz‟s “natural attitude”‟ (see Gubrium and Holstein 2000: 489-90). Instead, it adopts an ethnomethodological focus on the construction of Aboriginal reality through commonsensical knowledge, everyday interpretation and social interaction.
Gubrium and Holstein (2000: 488) argue that ethnomethodological enquiry is increasingly incorporating the antecedent conditions and larger structures which condition individuals‟ everyday construction of the object world. It focuses on individuals‟ subjective interpretation and intersubjective manipulation of the cultural patterns, institutional frameworks, collective representations, discourses, „publicly standardised ideas‟ (Douglas 1986: 96) and other „schemes of interpretation‟ (Schutz 1970) that surround them (see Benson and Hughes 1983: 100-03). It considers their categories, typifications and images as resources which individuals use to „interpret experience, grasp the intentions and motivations of others, achieve intersubjective understandings and coordinate actions‟ (Holstein and Gubrium 1998: 139; see also 146, 148), and, indexed to the local context (see Geertz 1993), as thus constituting their social reality. Within its ethnomethodological orientation then, the approach is influenced by critical, postructuralist and postcolonial theorisation of the conditioning effects of the macro structures of discourse-as-practice. It is sensitive to the structural parameters, collective and individual interpretive practice and their interplay in the everyday formation of Aboriginal reality. It seeks meaning which may to participants apparently precede, but is actually conditioned by structural forces and reflexively grounded in, their social interaction.
Analytic ethnography seeks to gain insiders‟ understandings of their own social reality (Malinowski 1967; Geertz 1993: 55-70). It often adopts an inductive,
grounded (Glaser and Strauss 1967) approach to „witnessing‟ (Goffman 1989: 125-26, 130) or becoming deeply familiar with that reality and developing generic theoretical propositions which emerge from the data (Lofland 1995). It is increasingly oriented, as in this case, to specific research questions deduced from related empirical enquiries and theory (Lofland 1995: 46, 51-2, 58-9; see Fetterman 1989). In this case, since the contemporary Aboriginal worlds of meaning are intertwined with those of the settler majority and global exigencies, the enquiry had to be sensitive to multiple intertwined and interacting cultures, social relationships and meanings. It had also to be sensitive to Aboriginal creativity in the interpretation, inflection, manipulation and navigation of the available resources, and therefore the potential for unorthodox, counter- hegemonic or „heretical‟ (see Bourdieu 1973) interpretation. In this case then, the attempt was to gain insiders‟ understandings of intermeshing inter- and intra- cultural perspectives, as they occur in schooling and everyday life, and as they are collectively and individually interpreted by Aborigines and others with whom they interact.
Accounting for such complexities demands that research serially bracket, estrange and deconstruct (Denzin 1989: 55-6) the key dimensions of the relationship—the two dominant discourses-in-practice and individuals‟ interpretive negotiation of them in their own discursive (including rhetorical, performative and interactional) practice. The methodological attempt in this case is to maintain an analytic separation between the discourses-in-practice and their negotiation by individuals in discursive practice, and to preserve the interplay between the two (see Gubrium and Holstein 2000). As it happened, from iterative thematic and semiotic analysis and „zig-zagging‟ between analysis and further data collection and comparison (see Creswell 1998: 57) a number of heretical insights emerged, notably the recognition of the strategic use of governing technologies by Aboriginal elites in respect of their own constituency.
These circumstances demanded that the research make the most of the empirical and theoretical literature and the researcher‟s own life experience, but also that, as always part of the hermeneutic circle (Denzin 1989: 31, 53), the researcher‟s „fettering human assumptions or “pieties”‟ (Lofland 1995: 42), emotional attachments and partisan biases be acknowledged, moderated and
accounted for as far as possible. Thus, it was possible to draw on lived familiarity with the grammar or system of signification, including symbols, rituals and routines (Eco 1984), of Aboriginal relations with the institutions of the state, particularly educational institutions, for guidance. This familiarity was helpful in negotiations with Aboriginal community organisations, individuals and schools, though some preconceptions which attended it meant an initial reluctance to make or accept heretical interpretations. In order to overcome that reticence and to ensure a genuinely informed reading (see Denzin 1989: 45) of the data, developing interpretations were proposed to more interested teachers, Aboriginal students and adults involved in the research, and university colleagues. They were also cross-checked against each other as they changed, and continually referenced against the work of relevant critical thinkers.
Negotiation of the ethics and politics of indigenous research
The methods adopted above ensured „a “sophisticated”‟ research rigour (Denzin 1989: 22)2 and integrity that was critical in order that any as yet unknown but potentially heretical conclusions be accepted by state administrators, Aborigines and their political leaders, as legitimate depictions of social reality, and that any implications be capable of informing institutional change. In the context of indigenous interpretive frameworks which have held social scientific research to be ethnocentric, exploitative and objectifying (Smith 1999), some indigenous researchers and spokespeople have asked that researchers be of „good heart‟ (Smith 1999: 10) and conduct research that is in the interests of the relevant community.
Such strictures can impose ethical tensions on an interpretive ethnographic project such as this. As indicated above, the project responded to Aboriginal claims that government programs and service delivery are culturally inappropriate, and are as a result ineffective, act to diminish Aboriginal culture and identity, and contribute to socio-economic marginalisation. The project began by hypothesising the role of government in challenging Aboriginal communal and individual identity and seeking to articulate the problematic relationship with government
2 Sophisticated rigour is especially critical in this area of research, since in order to have any impact on the established orthodoxy in indigenous affairs the research methods (and findings) must be as publicly available, comprehensive and understandable as possible.
and mainstream community, in the expectation that it would advocate for minority interests and propose more appropriate government policy, program and service delivery. Consistent with research ethics at the time (Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies 2002; National Health and Medical Research Council 2003a, 2003b), participants were provided with full information and voluntary participation sought in those terms.
However, as with much exploratory qualitative research (Rice and Ezzy 1999: 39), and consistent with the principles of ethical research, the data told an expected story which had nevertheless to be followed, using the theoretical framework and empirical literature to reflect critically on methods, analysis and emergent findings, and the possibility of undue personal influence on them. That involved bracketing my progressive bias and deconstructing not only the dominant liberal but also Aboriginal discourse, and led unavoidably to conclusions which did not conform to express community interpretations and expectations and were not apparently in the community‟s best interests, as they are defined in the dominant political rhetoric. The data, which captured the meanings of all sectors of the Aboriginal population (that is, members of the political elite and others of a range of ages, localities, political stances and communal affiliations), led to something like a „guilty knowledge‟ (Fetterman 1989: 135) of internal Aboriginal politicking, normalising regulation and inequity. The knowledge forced a re- evaluation of the initial presumption of a simple equation between restrictive governmental action and legitimate Aboriginal resistance in pursuit of a threatened cultural integrity, and consideration of the notion that the creative agency of the Aboriginal elite is a foundational part of the problematic Aboriginal condition of political claim.
This dawning realisation in the mid to latter stages of the fieldwork created an ethical dilemma and some tension, insofar as it was neither possible to hold onto former certainties, accept the dominant progressive or Aboriginal rhetoric at face value nor, therefore, maintain the same relationship of trust with some Aboriginal interlocutors, who retained that rhetoric as an article of faith. At the same time, the obligation was to pursue the research and include these discomforting data in the analysis; to do otherwise would have been to collude with vested interests and perpetuate a „scientific and moral fraud‟ (Fetterman 1989: 125). The ethical
obligation was to the Aboriginal population as a whole and to a comprehensive examination of the dynamics which shape Aboriginal lives. Thus in interviews, social interaction and formal discussion it was necessary to represent the research project as honestly but circumspectly as possible, and to give greater prominence to some aspects, like the elite politics, and less to others. This was possible to an extent, but my growing critical understanding of the dominant discourses and political stance did eventually become evident, which meant that earlier social interaction and interviews had to end. Ultimately, though they may be uncomfortable for some, the conclusions to which the project have come are the product of rigorous research and repay the trust of the Aboriginal informants who told their stories. They also can contribute positively to the long-term interests of the Aboriginal and wider Australian communities of which they are part.