For a while now I have been researching and writing about Australian Indigenous education issues. Like you all, I have seen much good work and learnt much from what is going on across the country and internationally to improve outcomes for Indigenous learners in formal education processes. And still we go on with the struggle and with the limitations that Western sciences and practices place on us in the process. This paper draws together theoretical propositions from the work we have been progressing for the higher education sector over the past decade and to point to some foundational principles that can help establish some early beginnings with Indigenous education as a discipline in the higher education sector.

Drawing on Gregory Cajete’s (1994, p. 55) explanation of “Pathway” (Path denoting structure, Way implying a process), a research framework was developed exploring Aboriginal women’s perceptions and experiences of health and health services. Developing the research methodology was like laying out the Path, as a well thought out structure or the plan for the research. It relates as an external landscape, not just in terms of the Path itself, but also the research process within the landscape of the site of the research. The Way, being the process, involved enabling a clear, thought out process for me to follow and additionally one for me within my Self. The research was informed and guided by Aboriginal women. I also travelled an internal landscape in the journey of the Self, within my own learning and coming to terms with myself as an Indigenous researcher within the Pathway.

Utilising Nakata’s (2007) description of the “cultural interface”, two Indigenous researchers and one non-Indigenous researcher examine their development of Indigenous research in and with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities conducted from within an institution of higher education. The authors reflect on their experiences in developing an Indigenous research project and use Indigenous standpoint theory as a device to explore these experiences. The framing of priorities and research questions, ethics processes, the treatment of project information or data, the managing of competing accountabilities, and the role of non-Indigenous researchers in Indigenous research are all explored in these reflections.

This paper captures an ideological moment in time in which I contemplated the methodological approach I was embarking upon. In my search for a more appropriate approach for conducting research with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander tertiary students at the University of Queensland, I chose focus groups set within the qualitative process of grounded theory. This paper explores the meaning, usefulness and persistence of grounded theory, how it juxtaposes with focus groups, and the implications for the reciprocal integrity of the research for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students and me. Within this context and the tenets of grounded theory I ask questions such as, “For how long in the process can your research texts (linking data and theory) about field texts (participants’ narratives) remain purely inductive?” And, “How does the movement between inductive theory development and deductive assumptions fit widi issues of power and authority in an Australian Indigenous context?”

I see possibility in the complementary use of grounded theory and focus groups that creates dialogic relationships between the students as both narrators and audience. Through the interaction of retelling, reliving and recreating life experiences in conversations, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander tertiary students conceptualise their individual subjectivities in a process of self-construction. How perceptive I am in “seeing” developing concepts within the students’ testimonies, and how I interpret those concepts in relation to existing theoretical content, may lead to new theory that influences the ongoing deconstruction of grand narratives often assigned to group identities. Co-research among the participants can provide the opportunity for monitoring the generative process.

This paper describes the process of engaging the extended Indigenous community within Saskatoon and the surrounding First Nations communities in what would be a first major research project between Indigenous communities and the University of Saskatchewan. A management committee was established comprised of all the major Saskatoon/Saskatchewan Indigenous organisations, such as the Federation of Saskatchewan Indians, Saskatoon Tribal Council, First Nations University of Canada and other community-based groups to ensure that research reflected First Nations and Metis needs. The project called “Bridges and Foundations” awarded some 35 projects close to two million dollars in research funds. The money was awarded through graduate student research bursaries, and community-based projects which highlighted the needs of Indigenous women, youth, students, elders and urban populations. The three research themes included respectful protocol, knowledge creation, and policy development. The research projects, which were largely Indigenous designed and driven, created one of the most extensive research collections over a period of four years and included major data collection on community-based research, Indigenous peoples and Indigenous knowledge systems and protocols. The paper relates the development of the project and speaks about the need for Indigenous peoples to lead their own research as well as the benefits of collaboration. It also highlights several of the research projects including a conference on Indigenous knowledge (2004), a video project describing the community mobilisation process behind Quint Urban Housing Co-operatives,

This paper seeks to engage the cultural interface where Indigenous knowledge meets western academia, by questioning the validity of traditional research methods. Firstly, it is a response to the challenges facing Indigenous people confronted with the ethical and methodological issues arising from academic research. Secondly, it is a journey into academia, where the researcher is all too often forced to remove the “self” from the “subject”; a difficult task for an Aboriginal person involved in research concerning Aboriginal people. Distancing oneself from research is even more difficult if the research is based closer to home, in one's own community.

Therefore, a significant need exists for Indigenous people to conduct and present research in a manner respectful of Indigenous ways of understanding and reflective of the ways in which Indigenous peoples wish to be framed and understood. This need has fuelled the search for Indigenous methodologies, which challenge the imperial basis of Western knowledge and the images of the Indigenous “Other”. The search for appropriate methodologies is part of the process Linda Smith (1999) calls “decolonisation” .

The Indigenous researcher - burdened with the challenge to perform academically rigorous research and the desire to practice this research respectfully - is often overwhelmed with internal conflict. Indigenous autoethnography represents one methodological option to such researchers. Indigenous autoethnography seeks to establish itself as a legitimate and respectful means of acquiring and formulating knowledge, by combining the tradition of storytelling, with the practice of academic research.

Attempts to Indigenise the curriculum run the risk of implying the application of an “impoverished” version of “Aboriginal pedagogy” and the promotion of corrupted understandings of Indigenous knowledge (Nakata, 2004, p. 11). What is required, Nakata (2004, p. 14) argues, is a recognition of the complexities and tensions at cross-cultural interfaces and the need for negotiation between “Indigenous knowledge, standpoints or perspectives” and Western disciplinary knowledge systems such that meanings are reframed or reinterpreted. Attending to these cross-cultural negotiations and the pedagogical practices they imply are profoundly challenging for both Indigenous and non-Indigenous educators.

This paper focuses on a project at Queensland University of Technology (QUT) which seeks to embed Indigenous perspectives in Humanities and Human Services curricula. It outlines the curriculum framework which was developed to guide the curriculum redesign in its initial phases. This is followed by a discussion of current research that has been concerned to identify material that can support the renegotiations of curricula endorsed by Nakata’s work. The research findings indicate that it is possible to identify a number of pedagogical approaches that can assist that process. Such approaches recognise various levels of engagement beyond the “intellectual”; they insist on a consistent unsettling of Western authority; they acknowledge Indigenous positions/positioning; and require critical self-reflection.

This paper examines the idea of embedding Indigenous perspectives drawing upon a metaphor for designing an environment that nurtures Indigenous cultural identity and relationships. This paper constitutes a teacher’s personal story of emerging understandings of Indigenous Standpoint Theory and pedagogy, which began with embedding Indigenous perspectives within a tertiary music and sound curriculum. These understandings were developed into “rules of thumb” that have had transferable implications for research that examines community music-making projects in urban Indigenous and cross-cultural communities. These ideas are explored through case studies that examine them in context. Furthermore, the idea of embedding Indigenous perspectives in my own value systems is explored and a growing awareness of the embodied understanding that stems from an open, continuous and critical discourse with Indigenous people. This reveals a relationship of belonging and welcoming interfaced with obligation and a growing knowledge of people, community and country and its effect on my “white understanding” of relationships. This proposal stems from several successful projects where participants have experienced both nurturing of Indigenous knowledge and a productive tension. This does not advocate an argument for positive discrimination but rather seeks to build the idea that interfaces which simultaneously develop embodied understanding alongside Indigenous pride can lead to compelling and unique learning experiences for students, teachers and communities.

Colonialism has had significant bodily impacts on Indigenous peoples through medicine. Excluded from the German race, Sámi have been burdened by mainstream prejudices which perpetuate myths about Sámi having poor genetic material and, as a consequence, having an inferior culture and language. This offensive burden and subsequent humiliation has particular implications for the Sámi who come into contact with the health system as patients. Ethnic identity is connected with taboos, not only for patients, but also for Sámi and non-Sámi treaters. According to common knowledge Sáminess should not be a theme. In spite of intense assimilation, many Sámi understand illness as something caused of powers in nature or influenced by other people. The result can be a feeling of bodily chaos. Not understanding the meanings of the signs shown by the patients may bring health workers to interpret expressions of culture as signs of disease. Sámi patients can be diagnosed as suffering from delusions. Sometimes they are visited by traditional healers in faith to restore bodily cosmos. What’s more, the patient trying to hide her Sámi origin can be considered as dishonest. Sensing this staff may discharge her from hospital earlier and spoil her chances to get proper treatment. Health educators have specific responsibilities to make students aware of the diversity of patient’s culture and view of life. Within thought of body phenomenology the experiencing body is both subject and object. Messages are filtered by a cultural framework and the persons in interaction impact on each other. Face-to-face with the patients you can sense their vulnerability and decide to meet them as objects for your therapy activities or as individuals.

Excessive anxiety and worry can prevent young people from participating fully in school and life opportunities. Anxiety can involve fear of being apart from significant people or being left alone; avoidance of certain situations or activities for fear of embarrassment; worrying about normal life issues; repetitive thoughts and behaviours used as protection against something bad happening; or panic attacks and fears of recurring attacks and their effects. It has been shown that unusual behaviours such as obsessional activities, the need for reassurance, low self-esteem, poor concentration, fatigue, headaches, stomach aches and other reactions from excessive anxiety can hinder a child's academic success at school and affect their social relationships. Furthermore, anxiety is linked to depression that, in some cases, leads to suicide. This is significant for Indigenous youth as suicide rates in this group are significantly higher than the Australian national average.

Not only are there difficulties in the ethical and practical aspects of conducting research with Indigenous youth, mere are also difficulties in assessing mental heakh and anxiety, in particular, with mis group. Nevertheless, it is important to gain a sense of Indigenous understanding about what is constructed as mental health, “wellness” and excessive anxiety and how we come to a shared understanding of these concepts so that meaningful research into areas such as anxiety can be conducted.

This paper reports on the processes experienced in the development of a language programme in a high school in the western suburbs of Sydney in 2006 and represents the ideas and views of the two key participants. We consider the different perspectives held by the key participants on the project and how these need to be worked through in order to come to a place where the two (or more) systems of knowing and learning can be symbiotic rather than pushing against one another. The two systems being referred to are, in brief, a Western academic position, held by the linguist on the project, and an Indigenous intuitive position, held by the language tutor on the project. We report on the steps forward and backward in this process and how the participants felt and dealt with the emotional and intellectual demands incurred throughout the process. Much of this “two steps forward, one step back” process has resulted from the struggle for the non-Indigenous linguist to understand the Indigenous tutor’s knowledge, input and feelings. Likewise the tutor had to come to understand the linguist’s knowledge base and what she was trying to do. We hope that this paper will open up many issues for consideration and discussion such as collaborative research, teaching and learning and working as a partnership.

The Hmong are the second largest tribal group in Thailand. Hmong society is stratified by both age and gender. Women were considered inferior to men in Hmong traditional society. There was a strong bias against education for Hmong women in the past. Hmong women’s access to education has improved with recent developments in the socio-economy and modern educational system. Today there does not appear to be discrimination against girls in continuing their education beyond the compulsory level. However, the conventional ideas that “marrying early, bearing early, and having many children are blessings” are popular in the Hmong community. Many girls of school age leave school for marriage. These traditional conventions are an obstacle for females in continuing their formal education. Today, the Hmong’s traditional subsistence economy is undergoing change, and many Hmong women are actively involved in business. Adult and vocational education is also an important way for Hmong women to improve their educational level and gain new skills for making a living. This paper is based on anthropological field research carried out in northern Thailand from December 2003 to September 2004, supported by the Asian Scholarship Foundation.

Policy documents on Indigenous education include statements such as equitable access to education, participation and outcomes that can be broadly described as social justice goals. However, there has been little academic analysis of how these goals are to be achieved. This paper proposes that the indirect discrimination provisions in Australian anti-discrimination law can provide a framework in which the goals can be evaluated against the endemic effects of dominant power on mainstream education. The legal provisions are designed to assess whether a policy or practice might adversely affect certain groups in our society distinguished by, for example, their “race”. If a higher proportion of persons who do not have that particular attribute can comply with the policy or practice, and the demand is unreasonable in the circumstances, then this will constitute unlawful indirect discrimination. This paper analyses three social justice strategies which appear to be race-neutral and to apply equally to all students, Indigenous and non-Indigenous: Indigenous studies in the curriculum, using Standard English in the classroom, and instilling Australian values. The outcome suggests that these approaches may have an adverse impact on Indigenous students, and may even be undermining the social justice goals they set out to deliver.

The role of the non-Indigenous educator and researcher in education on Indigenous issues is becoming the subject of critical scrutiny. Indigenous academics are successfully turning the gaze on non-Indigenous peers and practices. This paper narrates some of the experiences of a non-Indigenous educator teaching an undergraduate elective Indigenous tourism course. The educator has attempted to respect the principles of an evolving Indigenist paradigm in the development, running and review of the course. In particular, the educator consulted with Indigenous academics and leaders in the development of the course and its curriculum; privileged Indigenous voices throughout the curriculum (in readings, audio-visuals, guest lectures and tutorial exercises); and facilitated student interaction with the local Indigenous community and land.

My work as a non-Indigenous educator in the new academic field of tourism studies is currently pivotally important because Indigenous academics are not yet asserting their claim to this field. In my attempts to adhere to an Indigenist paradigm I aim to create important opportunities to ensure appropriate discourse and encourage Indigenous academics into the field. In relation to appropriate discourse and learning, student feedback so far indicates important transformations in consciousness are occurring. However, the problematic of the non-Indigenous educator speaking for Indigenous peoples as “essentialised Others” remains a key concern. While the tensions between Indigenous and non-Indigenous in the conduct of Indigenous education are real and important, this work in the teaching of Indigenous tourism suggests that the resolution of tensions require alliances and shifts in power.

This paper seeks to identify and explore the differences of Indigenous approaches to historical practice. Why is history so important to Indigenous Australia? History is of crucial importance across the full spectrum of Indigenous understanding and knowledge. History belongs to all cultures and they have differing means of recording and recalling it. In essence, the paper explores the undercurrents of Australian history and the absence for so long of an Aboriginal place in that history, and the process over the past 40 years in correcting that imbalance. During the 1960s and 1970s the Aboriginal place in Australian history for so long erased, overlooked or ignored was suddenly a topic worthy of wider attention and importance. But despite all that has been published since, we have not realistically even touched the surface of what is buried within both the archives and oral memory. And quite clearly what has been recovered remains largely embedded within a white viewpoint of the past.

The Queensland Aboriginal and Islander Health Council (QAIHC) lead and govern the Centre for Clinical Research Excellence (CCRE), which has a focus on circulatory and associated conditions in urban Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. The CCRE is a partnership between QAIHC and Monash University, the Queensland University of Technology, the University of Queensland, James Cook University, the National Heart Foundation, and the University of Wollongong. The establishment of the CCRE under the community-controlled model of governance is unique and presents both opportunities and challenges for innovative partnerships between universities and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community organisations. This paper outlines the processes and strategies used to establish a multi-institutional research centre that is governed by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community-controlled health sector.

The recent hype and ascendancy in the discourse of community capacity-building has generated a lot of heated debate among development and policy experts on its applicability in various contexts. In particular, questions have been raised on the presuppositions inherent in the discourse and, more so, the tension that exists between theory and practice. This paper aims to contribute to the ongoing debate about the politics of capacity-building. While the paper begins by deconstructing the theoretical principles that underpin capacity-building, it seeks to show how the concept is covertly used to subjugate and create power imbalance between the “builders” (supposedly those with the power) and the “beneficiaries” (those assumed to be powerless), in the name of development and empowerment. Specifically, the paper seeks to respond to the following questions: What is “capacity”? Who needs capacity? Capacity to do what? Whose interest(s) is/are served when peoples’ capacities are built? The paper concludes by critically examining the tensions, contradictions, and ambivalences from the canvassed responses to the questions above and suggests alternatives ways of looking at capacity-building in Indigenous communities.

Indigenous people have been for a long time deprived of financial benefit from their knowledge. Campaigns around the stolen wages and the “Pay the Rent” campaign highlight this. As does the endemic poverty and economic disenfranchisement experienced by many Indigenous people and communities in Australia. Recent enterprises developed by Indigenous people, such as the sale of art works, can be seen as examples of people receiving remuneration for tangible products deriving from their knowledge. Also, tourism involves the sale of selected knowledge in context. Information and Communication Technology (ICT) is a rich and expanding area of enterprise development which supports the development of knowledge and its use in enterprise. While such work depends on the owner’s, or in this case Indigenous, control of the knowledge, it can open up new avenues for enterprise development. Knowledge about local land can be included in children’s computer games, knowledge about successful projects can be shared between communities through the immediacy and multimedia format afforded by online environments, and government reports and statistics can be accessed and analysed by Indigenous groups, given tools that suit a community’s abilities and needs. In particular the way in which ICT can be adapted to individual requirements make such tools ideal for communities which form such a varied and complex environment. The author believes it is important that Indigenous communities not only benefit from ICT by taking control of the technology for their purposes, but are also part of its creation and design to suit their aspirations. ICT is a highly flexible technology which can be tailored to many different enterprises. This paper presents some of the projects being developed at the University of New South Wales and suggests how these can be extended.