Table 3 Descriptive quotes: The role of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the Yarning Process

1. Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander led research

1.1 Details on authors and their roles

“The Screening Matters study was conceptualised, led, and conducted by Indigenous Australian women: LJW, TB, GG, BM and two Aboriginal community research officers. It privileged the voices of Indigenous Australian women–the participants. Finally, the study aimed to understand the individual, community, and structural influences on Indigenous Australian women’s participation in cervical screening. Together, this approach ensured that Indigenous Australian women’s perspectives on cervical screening were centred in the research.” (Butler, Anderson et al. 2020 [30])

2. Research Team Positioning

2. 1 Description of researchers involved

The remaining members of the research team are all Aboriginal men who work within Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health and have children of their own. The fact that the researchers were all Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander fathers allowed for common ground with the participants and an ability to have far deeper and more frank conversations with the participants before, during and after the recorded yarning group sessions. At each of the yarning group sites, at least one member of the research team either had an established relationship with some or all of the participants which created favourable and safe interview conditions. (Canuto, Towers et al. 2019 [40])

2.2 Researcher trained in Yarning

The research team have all undertaken training in yarning methods with Professor Dawn Bessarab, who is a Bard/Yjindjabandi woman and an expert in Indigenous research, qualitative methodologies and yarning methods. (Cullen, Mackean et al. 2020 [31])

3. Aboriginal Involvement in data collection

3. 1 Detailed description of Aboriginal researcher

The research was led by a Torres Strait Islander man (KC), who is an experienced qualitative researcher. The yarning groups were co-facilitated by KC and an Aboriginal male health worker and health service team leader (KT). KT led the yarning group discussions using a semi-structured yarning guide. (Canuto, Towers et al. 2019 [40])

Qualitative data were collected through use of yarning methodology between August 2015 and January 2016 by a female Aboriginal Researcher (MB) with experience and qualifications in social and community services. (Bovill, Gruppetta et al. 2018 [64])

3.2 Limited description Aboriginal researcher

The qualitative researcher was an Aboriginal woman, making yarning culturally safe and aligned with the cultural values of Aboriginal people. (Hamilton, Maslen et al. 2020 [68])

3.3 Non-Aboriginal researcher with limited discussion

Interviews were conducted in person at OH by a non-Aboriginal female researcher. (Munro, Allan et al. 2017 [48])

The interviewer was a female non-Indigenous graduate research student living in Derby. (Seear, Lelievre et al. 2019 [49])

3.4 Reflexive discussion for no Aboriginal involvement

Despite attempts and available funding, we were unable to secure a Pilbara Aboriginal co-researcher to work alongside us during the design, interviewing and analysis of this study. This was, in part, due to the existing workloads and other responsibilities of Aboriginal people in the Pilbara who were interested in and supportive of the project. In the absence of an Aboriginal co-researcher, our relationship with Aboriginal staff at recruitment sites and the Pilbara Aboriginal Health Planning Forum (PAHPF) was crucial in obtaining feedback on the research design, approach and analysis, and ensuring that the study was undertaken in a culturally safe way. (Carlin, Atkinson et al. 2019 [29])

Both researchers were present for the group sessions and for 3 of the interviews. The other 9 interviews were conducted by the non-Indigenous researcher independently. No difference in data, in terms of collection or results, was perceived by the non-Indigenous researcher when conducting the interviews. (Butten, Johnson et al. 2019 [57])

3.5 Yarning as a way of addressing not having Aboriginal involvement

Although in this study, non-Indigenous researchers convened ‘focus group’ discussions (the term ‘focus group’ will be used for consistency), they became yarning circles where the Aboriginal health staff exchanged knowledge about their own perspectives and personal views of Aboriginal women’s experiences through shared stories in an Aboriginal way. This exchange, using yarning, changed the dynamic of the focus group so that the non-Indigenous researchers would learn from the Aboriginal health staff. (Kong, Sousa et al. 2020 [39])

This approach facilitated a dynamic exchange where Aboriginal knowledge could be taught and shared by the Aboriginal staff to the non-Indigenous researchers, building trust and reciprocity. (Kong, Sousa et al. 2020 [39])

3.6 Aboriginal guidance to account for not having Aboriginal involvement

Access to the sites was organised by the Indigenous representative, who was culturally aware and sensitive to the needs of the participants, and he accompanied the researchers and assisted in the interview and yarning circle procedures. In this regard, the researchers were cognisant of the history of ‘exploitative and harmful research practices’, in the context of non-Indigenous researchers ‘working with Indigenous peoples and communities’. (Henwood, Shaw et al. 2017 [71])

The possibilities for power imbalances were acknowledged during recruitment and participant interviews and all attempts were made to identify ways to minimise this occurring. Ongoing guidance was sought and appreciated from the AH&MRC ethics committees, Aboriginal advisors and other researchers experienced in Indigenous research. (Helps and Barclay 2015 [67])

4. Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Involvement in Analysis

4.1 Collaboration between Aboriginal and non-Indigenous Investigators

Aboriginal investigators explained the differences using their cultural knowledge, which led the non-Aboriginal investigators to read the women’s data differently, using different ‘lenses’. (Marriott, Reibel et al. 2019 [28])

Initial summaries of the data were reviewed by members of the interprofessional research team (physiotherapy, Aboriginal health, public health medicine and anthropology), and Aboriginal coinvestigators to include perspectives, themes and issues that might not otherwise have been considered. (Lin, O'Sullivan et al. 2013 [55])

Coding was undertaken concurrently throughout data collection by JM who conducted the yarns to assist early coding and inform ongoing data collection. In addition, an analysis meeting was held with four members of the research team (JM, BM, BA, and CMB), two of whom identify as Indigenous, to refine categories and patterns across the stories as well as to seek agreement on identified categories. (Kong, Sousa et al. 2020 [39])

4.2 Opportunity for feedback from participants

After agreement between AK, MSS and FT, AK convened with the AHWs and FPWs separately to yarn about the themes. This allowed for participants to check, engage and further contribute to the interpretation of the data, and ensure rigor. (Kong, Sousa et al. 2020 [39])

4.3 Indigenous approach to Analysis

To guide this process we drew on the research practice described in Dadirri—an Indigenist research approach that calls for researchers’ deep listening for what is being communicated, along with what is not shared. A commitment to our critical reflexivity for how we listened to and analyzed participants’ stories was pivotal to this process, as was mindfulness of the local, national, and historical contexts within which participants’ stories were being shared. (Lyall, Guy et al. 2020 [41])

Although critiques of Yarning point to difficulty in establishing rigor due to the inherent “messiness” of gathered data, these limitations are based on perspectives from Eurocentric epistemological priorities which can be offset by establishing Indigenous epistemological foundations and engaging an appropriate cultural lens to analysis. (Murrup-Stewart, Whyman et al. 2021 [54])

5. Advisory

5. 1Detailed description of advisory group and their role

A study reference group (SRG) made up of representatives from supporting organisations and services was established. The SRG members are Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people (men and women), including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander male community members and one non-Indigenous male. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander men of the SRG guided the research team throughout the research process; their guidance ensured the research was conducted appropriately. (Canuto, Towers et al. 2019 [40])

5.2 Limited description of advisory group and their role

An Aboriginal Reference Group was established to provide guidance, cultural advice and input into the information and processes of the research. (Schoen, Balchin et al. 2010 [63])