There remains a concern that Indigenous Australians have been over-researched without corresponding improvements in their health; this trend is applicable to most Indigenous populations globally. This debate article has a dual purpose: 1) to open a frank conversation about the value of research to Indigenous Australian populations; and 2) to stimulate ways of thinking about potential resolutions to the lack of progress made in the Indigenous research benefit debate. Capturing the meaning of research benefit takes the form of ethical value-oriented methodological considerations in the decision-making processes of Indigenous research endeavours. Because research practices come from Western knowledge bases, attaining such positions in research means reconciling both Indigenous and Western knowledge systems to produce new methodologies that guide planning, evaluating and monitoring of research practices as necessary. Increasingly, more sophisticated performance measures have been implemented to ensure academic impact and benefits are captured. Assessing societal and other non-academic impacts and benefits however, has not been accorded corresponding attention. Research reform has only focussed on research translation in more recent years. The research impact debate must take account of the various standards of accountability (to whom), impact priorities (for whom), positive and negative impacts, and biases that operate in describing impact and measuring benefit. A perennial question in Indigenous research discourse is whether the abundance of research conducted; purportedly to improve health, is justified and benefits Indigenous people in ways that are meaningful and valued by them. Different research stakeholders have different conceptions of the value and nature of research, its conduct, what it should achieve and the kinds of benefits expected. We need to work collaboratively and listen more closely to the voice of Indigenous Australians to better understand, demonstrate and measure health research benefits. The authors conclude that as an imperative, a systematic benefit assessment strategy that includes identification of research priorities and planning, monitoring and evaluation components needs to be developed and implemented across research projects. In Indigenous health research, this will often mean adopting a benefit-led approach by changing the way research is done and preferencing alternative research methodologies. As a point of departure to improving impact and reaching mutually beneficial outcomes for researchers and partners in Indigenous health research, we need to routinise the assessment of benefit from outset of research as one of the standards toward which we work.

Purpose: Poetic inquiry is an approach that promotes alternate perspectives about what research means and speaks to more diverse audiences than traditional forms of research. Across academia, there is increasing attention to decolonising research. This reflects a shift towards research methods that recognise, acknowledge and appreciate diverse ways of knowing, being and doing. The purpose of this paper is to explore the different ways in which poetic inquiry communicates parallax to further decolonise knowledge production and dissemination and centre First Nations’ ways of knowing, being and doing.Design/methodology/approach: This manuscript presents two First Nations’ perspectives on a methodological approach that is decolonial and aligns with Indigenous ways of knowing, being and doing. In trying to frame this diversity through Indigenous standpoint theory (Foley, 2003), the authors present two First Nation’s women's autoethnographic perspectives through standpoint and poetics on the role of poetic inquiry and parallax in public pedagogy and decolonising research (Frederickset al., 2019; Moreton-Robinson, 2000).Findings: The key to understanding poetic inquiry is parallax, the shift in an object, perspective or thinking that comes with a change in the observer's position or perspective. Challenging dominant research paradigms is essential for the continued evolution of research methodologies and to challenge the legacy that researchers have left in colonised countries. The poetic is often invisible/unrecognised in the broader Indigenist research agenda; however, it is a powerful tool in decolonial research in the way it disrupts core assumptions about and within research and can effectively engage with those paradoxes that decolonising research tends to uncover.Practical implications: Poetic inquiry is not readily accepted in academia; however, it is a medium that is well suited to communicating diverse ways of knowing and has a history of being embraced by First Nations peoples in Australia. Embracing poetic inquiry in qualitative research offers a unique approach to decolonising knowledge and making space for Indigenous ways of knowing, being and doing.Social implications: Poetic inquiry offers a unique approach to centring First Nations voices, perspectives and experiences to reduce hegemonic assumptions in qualitative research.Originality/value: Writing about poetic inquiry and decolonisation from a First Nations’ perspective using poetry is a novel and nuanced approach to discussions around First Nations ways of knowing, being and doing.

For Indigenous scholars in health sciences, finding “ways of doing” research that value Indigenist knowledge is an important consideration. Indigenist research methodology offers a useful alternative to mainstream research approaches that draw upon orthodox Western knowledge systems. However, as Indigenous research approaches have only recently entered the academic discourses of health science, few courses currently exist to support Indigenous students and their supervisors who work in this area. While negotiating Indigenist methodologies is challenging, more Indigenous scholars are recognising the importance of doing so. This paper will outline some of the issues experienced by two Indigenist research students coming to terms with the relevance of an Indigenist research approach to their study, as well of those of their supervisor, the third author of the paper.

Excessive exposure to sunlight during early childhood increases the risk of developing skin cancer. Self-administered questionnaires exploring sun-protection knowledge, practices and policy were mailed to the directors/co-ordinators/senior teachers of all known early childhood services in Queensland, Australia, in 2002 (n = 1383; 56.5% response). Most (73.7%) services had a written sun-protection policy (SPP). However, 40.6% of pre-schools and kindergartens had not developed a written SPP. Most directors had moderate knowledge about sun-protection (median score: 7/12 [IQR 6, 8]), but few understood the UV index, the sun-protection factor rating for sunscreens or the association between childhood sun-exposure, mole development and melanoma. Pre-school teachers had lower knowledge scores than directors of long day care centers and other services (P = 0.0005). Staff members reportedly wore sun-protective hats, clothing and sunglasses more often than children. However, sunscreen use was higher among children than staff. Directors' knowledge scores predicted reported hat, clothing, sunscreen and shade utilization among children. Remoteness impacted negatively on director's knowledge (P = 0.043) and written SPP development (P = 0.0005). Higher composite sun-protection scores were reported for children and staff from services with written sun-protection policies. SPP development and increased sun-protection knowledge of directors may improve reported sun-protective behaviors of children and staff of early childhood services.

To build individual Indigenous research capacity and strengthen the capability of health research programmes to be culturally and ethically inclusive of Indigenous Australians in public health research. In order to facilitate optimal participation and in recognition of the differing levels of research experience and knowledge held within this community of practice, an inclusive and culturally appropriate mixed methods approach with influences from action research and Indigenous research principles was undertaken. Over the duration of the project, participants improved their research outcomes as measured by a range of factors including publications, completion of degrees and retention of project members. Provision of an Indigenous led, culturally appropriate system of infrastructure and support centred on capacity building is effective in strengthen the inclusion of Indigenous Australians in research.

Background: Primary healthcare services have principal responsibility for providing child and youth wellbeing and mental health services, but have lacked appropriate measurement instruments to assess the wellbeing of Indigenous children and youth or to evaluate the effectiveness of programs and services designed to meet their needs. This review assesses the availability and characteristics of measurement instruments that have been applied in primary healthcare services in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United States (CANZUS countries) to assess the wellbeing of Indigenous children and youth. Methods: Fifteen databases and 12 websites were searched in December 2017 and again in October 2021. Pre-defined search terms pertained to Indigenous children and youth, CANZUS country names, and wellbeing or mental health measures. PRISMA guidelines were followed, with eligibility criteria guiding screening of titles and abstracts, and selected full-text papers. Results are presented based on the characteristics of documented measurement instruments assessed according to five desirability criteria: development for Indigenous youth populations, adherence to relational strength-based constructs, administration by child and or youth self-report, reliability and validity, and usefulness for identifying wellbeing or risk levels. Results: Twenty-one publications were found that described the development and or use by primary healthcare services of 14 measurement instruments, employed across 30 applications. Four of the 14 measurement instruments were developed specifically for Indigenous youth populations, four focused solely on strength-based wellbeing concepts but none included all Indigenous wellbeing domains. Conclusion: There is a diversity of measurement instruments available, but few fit our desirability criteria. Although it is possible that we missed relevant papers and reports, this review clearly supports the need for further research to develop, refine or adapt instruments cross-culturally to measure the wellbeing of Indigenous children and youth.