Different paradigms of evidence and knowledge: Recognising, honouring, and celebrating Indigenous ways of knowing and being

Abstract

Debates over evidence-informed policymaking are predominantly structured from a western paradigm of ontology and epistemology. Other ways of being and knowing are neither privileged by the policy space nor the discipline, certainly not in the same way or to the same degree. This is changing, however, in the face of cultural recognition and with diversity and inclusion agendas and within the contexts of posttruth politics and the questioning of expertise. This article explores the contribution of Indigenous ways of knowing and being as providing valid, alternative forms of evidence that ought to inform the policymaking process. Australian experience suggests that Indigenous evidence and knowledge offers unique, substantive insights that are offered as 'gifts' to inform policy and public administration communities. This contribution is unrecognised and unincorporated into public administration at Australia and the world's peril given that Indigenous approaches offer new exciting ways forward for engagement, sustainability, and policy innovation. It should not be co-opted or presumed. Indigenous peoples need to be given self-determination avenues to decide what they wish to share or not, why, and how. K E Y W O R D Sevidence-based policymaking, Indigenous knowledge, public administration epistemology Aust J Publ Admin. 2020;79:187-207.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/aupa

Conceptualizing outcomes for use with the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR): the CFIR Outcomes Addendum

“…An innovation is ideally supported by a “strong evidence-base” before it is implemented. However, we also recognize there is lack of agreement on what types of evidence warrant implementation [ 46 – 48 ] and there is a compelling need to dismantle knowledge-building silos (e.g., clinical trialists versus implementation scientists) to translate innovations more quickly into practice [ 49 ]. Thus, we chose the term “innovation” to acknowledge that implementation can occur with innovations that are supported by diverse sources and types of evidence.…”

Mapping the community: use of research evidence in policy and practice

“…In our silos we miss the opportunity to hear critical voices that challenge the dominant discourse in this space. For example, Althaus (2020) points out the contribution of indigenous knowledge could make to public policy, specifically pointing to both the products of policy and how evidence can inform policy (Boaz et al, 2019b). Work by Naquin et al (2008) showcase a model for the development and use of evidence that is culturally congruent with indigenous peoples and validated by research and funding communities.…”

Administrative burden and the Cashless Debit Card: Stripping time, autonomy, and dignity from social security recipients

“…15–16). People subject to the CDC have already been experiencing ‘the lottery of postcode reform’ (Althaus, 2019, p. 192) in terms of trial site selection, and research indicates that numerous cardholders view this style of policymaking as unjust given that it does not correspond with their personal behaviour (Bielefeld et al., 2020; Marston et al., 2020). For the CDC exit process to also allow for further postcode lottery factors does not fairly treat the applicant according to their specific needs, budgetary capabilities, and behaviour.…”