Hi Leoj,

You mention Indigenous 'research'. It's a strange beast, Indigenous 'research'. and very many Indigenous staff at universities are devoting themselves, neglecting their actual duties, throughout their entire careers, once they get a whiff of potential fame, with very few results to date.

It seems to be very different from what people assume is 'research': usually that works something like this:

* a person reads widely around a topic;

* then puts forward a hypothesis, a new idea backed by and coming out of existing findings;

* since the essence of research is to be able to put up something original and rebut any major objections and counter anybody trying to point out defects in the hypothesis, somewhere where the hypothesis falls down or is completely refuted by somebody else - a rigorous research design has to be proposed, using a wide range of statistical techniques, to strengthen the hypothesis and to rebut objections - this is the extremely difficult part, which takes up most of the time spent on the research;

* further relevant reading of all the latest findings on the topic, a process which lasts for the duration;

* enough defensive back-up to be able to rebut any objections by members of an examination committee - which is, after all, their role.

Indigenous 'research' doesn't work like this: it is much more like that 'research' done during the Middle Ages by priests, putting forward an hypothesis and then looking for anything which confirms it, ignoring anything which doesn't. Indigenous 'research' is confirmatory, it avoids having to rebut anything.

Of course, any researcher would immediately recognise that this is not 'research' as such, but merely the first step in the process: identifying an hypothesis. The big work comes later, year after year, rebuttal after rebuttal of all objections.

Indigenous 'researchers' eschew what they call 'non-Indigenous research", with its pesky methodology and stats. I haven't come across such a researcher who can understand stats, or even read a spread sheet - these are, after all, so 'white' and therefore bad. So it goes, interminably, worthlessly.

Joe

It's the values of the far right that incites such criticism. Abbott was a perfect example of a person that far to the right he was encroaching on communism.
The far right have been getting the boot around the world and now they are after Trump. See how the english election went they were after a bigger majority, same as our DD election.
SO TTBN it is you are to blame.

Joe (Loudmouth),

Talking about research, learning and integrity...

A person has to do the full research and not simply
accept what suits one's ideologies or political
agenda:

http://www.themonthly.com.au/nation-reviewed-robert-manne-comment-keith-windschuttle-2256

Foxy,

Would that be this man (Manne)?

http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/michael-connor/2009/03/left-s-war-on-books/

<Robert Manne’s “Hogwash”

Left academics are ideologues first and second, and scholars third.

Left academics are ideologues first and second, and scholars third.

In 2004, John Dawson published Washout: the academic response to The Fabrication of Aboriginal History (Macleay Press).

Dawson examined Whitewash (Black Inc.) – a book edited by Robert Manne which presented a collection of self-interested essays defending academic historians whose work had been criticised by Keith Windschuttle.

Washout is an important book.

Dawson compares the claims by Windschuttle and the responses of the academics. He does so fairly. His approach is clear and interesting. He quotes both sides and suggests who is right. In the Left controlled literary journals, the Left controlled universities and in books from the Left publishing houses he has been ridiculed and misrepresented.

A campaign of denigration was waged to make Washout disappear. It began with unfair book reviews.

Washout was dealt with in the Left’s Australian Book Review in May 2005. The review was destructive and incompetent and completely biased against Washout yet it was highlighted by the journal’s editor. On the front cover its title was given a dramatic and eye-catching presentation in large, bright yellow letters – the reviewer surely not unaware how that colour had been so usefully employed by anti-semites in Hitler’s Germany. It was a single yellow word spelt out in bold capital letters against a rich, red background – “HOGWASH”.

The review of Washout, a book critical of Robert Manne, was written by – Robert Manne. In 1600 words he ridiculed and denigrated an honest book.

The Australian Book Review is a weapon of the Left used to attack books critical of the old historians by passing them for review either to the academics themselves or their friendly colleagues.

The cover of the following edition of the Australian Book Review (June-July 2005) was more friendly. This time it was used to publicise a book and puff its author with a review by Barry Hill. The book was by – Robert Manne.>

Foxy,

Robert Manne's stuff was garbage, assertions, nothing which was worth a damn.

On the other hand, I was massively impressed with Windschuttle's easy rebuttal of Manne's tripe - in fact, I'm impressed by everything that Windschuttle has ever written. Ever. Everything. He digs and digs and finds evidence. Unlike Manne, he doesn't rely on second- and third-hand stuff, he does his own digging.

Perhaps you can find reasons for disagreeing ?

Dear Foxy, please don't send us infantile files of stuff that most of us have seen before and dismissed: don't treat us like bloody children in Grade 2, in our first Ab. Studies class, learning about how all-powerful and all-evil our ancestors were.

Joe

Joe (Loudmouth),

Right. Message received!

So much for research, learning, and integrity.

You only want to read what agrees with your
ideologies.

Got it!