This may be the author’s version of a work that was submitted/acceptedfor publication in the following source:

Buckskin, Peter, Tranthim-Fryer, Mark, Holt, Leanne, Gili, Jennifer, Heath,John, Smith, Dorothy, Larkin, Steve, Ireland, Sarah, MacGibbon, Lesley,Robertson, Kim, Small, Tammy, Butler, Kathleen, Chatfield, Tareka, An-derson, Peter, & Ma Rhea, Zane(2018)NATSIHEC Accelerating Indigenous Higher Education Consultation Pa-

per.National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Higher Education Consor-tium, Australia.

This file was downloaded from: https://eprints.qut.edu.au/197728/

c© Consult author(s) regarding copyright matters

This work is covered by copyright. Unless the document is being made available under aCreative Commons Licence, you must assume that re-use is limited to personal use andthat permission from the copyright owner must be obtained for all other uses. If the docu-ment is available under a Creative Commons License (or other specified license) then referto the Licence for details of permitted re-use. It is a condition of access that users recog-nise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. If you believe thatthis work infringes copyright please provide details by email to qut.copyright@qut.edu.au

Notice: Please note that this document may not be the Version of Record(i.e. published version) of the work. Author manuscript versions (as Sub-mitted for peer review or as Accepted for publication after peer review) canbe identified by an absence of publisher branding and/or typeset appear-ance. If there is any doubt, please refer to the published source.

1

Consultation PaperLead University: University of South Australia

Professor Peter Buckskin Mr Mark Tranthim-Fryer

Dr Leanne Holt Ms Jennifer Gili Mr John Heath

Ms Dorothy Smith

Professor Steve Larkin Dr Sarah Ireland

Dr Lesley MacGibbon Ms Kim Robertson

Associate Professor Kathleen Butler Ms Tammy Small

Ms Tareka Chatfield

Dr Peter Anderson Dr Zane Ma Rhea

Report for the Australian Government Department of Education and Training to

accelerate education and employment outcomes for Aboriginal and

Torres Strait Islander people in the higher education sector.

January 2018

i

Foreword The National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Higher Education Consortium (NATSIHEC) Aboriginal Corporation (AC) acknowledges the continuing sovereignties of Australia’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander nations. We pay our respects to Elders past and present.

We recognise and celebrate the journeys of past and present Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander educators and leaders who have contributed to advancing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander higher education. NATSIHEC (AC) continues to progress their work to build a stronger future for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and their communities.

Education is vital to the future empowerment, self-determination and advancement of Indigenous peoples and communities. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples states that through education, Indigenous people have the right to control, protect and develop their cultures and knowledge—and the right to an education without discrimination. Unfortunately, education in Australia still demonstrates colonial imposition of Western educative frameworks onto Indigenous people.

Aboriginal culture is the oldest living culture in the world, resulting in an abundance of rich knowledges and experiences. As conduits of knowledge, it is appropriate that universities embrace and value these knowledges that add significant value to the academy locally, nationally and internationally.

The final report on Accelerating Indigenous Higher Education focuses on three key areas in moving forward the agendas of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander higher education: whole-of-university reform; academic workforce; and science, technology, engineering and mathematics. The Accelerating Indigenous Higher Education Project engaged experts and leaders in universities and industry, including Indigenous and non-Indigenous stakeholders. NATSIHEC (AC) values the reciprocal relationships and networks that will allow us together to establish structures that are sustainable, productive and valuable for all Australian society.

We acknowledge the commitment by the Minister for Education and Training to ensuring the outcomes of the Review of Higher Education Access and Outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People: Final Report continue to be advanced. We also value our relationship with the Department of Education and Training and their support of this project.

In the past, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have continually driven Indigenous higher education agendas. NATSIHEC (AC) looks forward to a future of shared responsibility and respectful collaboration to advance Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander higher education outcomes.

Professor Peter Buckskin, PSM, FACE Chair, National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Higher Education Consortium (AC) November 2017

ii

Contents

FOREWORD .................................................................................................................................. I Contents ................................................................................................................................................ ii List of figures ...................................................................................................................................... viii List of tables ......................................................................................................................................... ix List of acronyms and abbreviations ....................................................................................................... x List of acronyms and abbreviations for universities ............................................................................. xi

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................... 12

2 RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................................................... 14 Recommendation 1 ............................................................................................................................. 14 Recommendation 2 ............................................................................................................................. 14 Recommendation 3 ............................................................................................................................. 15 Recommendation 4 ............................................................................................................................. 15 Recommendation 5 ............................................................................................................................. 16 Recommendation 6 ............................................................................................................................. 16 Recommendation 7 ............................................................................................................................. 16 Recommendation 8 ............................................................................................................................. 16 Recommendation 9 ............................................................................................................................. 17 Recommendation 10 ........................................................................................................................... 17 Recommendation 11 ........................................................................................................................... 18 Recommendation 12 ........................................................................................................................... 18 Recommendation 13 ........................................................................................................................... 19 Recommendation 14 ........................................................................................................................... 19 Recommendation 15 ........................................................................................................................... 19 Recommendation 16 ........................................................................................................................... 19 Recommendation 17 ........................................................................................................................... 20 Recommendation 18 ........................................................................................................................... 20 Recommendation 19 ........................................................................................................................... 20 Recommendation 20 ........................................................................................................................... 20 Recommendation 21 ........................................................................................................................... 21 Recommendation 22 ........................................................................................................................... 21 Recommendation 23 ........................................................................................................................... 21 Recommendation 24 ........................................................................................................................... 22 Recommendation 25 ........................................................................................................................... 22 Recommendation 26 ........................................................................................................................... 22 Recommendation 27 ........................................................................................................................... 22 Recommendation 28 ........................................................................................................................... 22

3 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................. 24 3.1 Purpose ..................................................................................................................................... 24

iii

3.2 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander higher education reform ................................................. 24 3.3 Accelerating Indigenous Higher Education Project .................................................................... 25

4 METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................................. 26 4.1 Data and evidence .................................................................................................................... 26 4.2 Key policy questions ................................................................................................................. 27

5 WHOLE-OF-UNIVERSITY REFORM .................................................................................... 28 Priority 1: Support whole-of-university approaches to improving Indigenous higher education outcomes. ................................................................................................................................................ 28 Why should we adopt a WoU approach to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander higher education? ..... 28

5.1 Data and methods .................................................................................................................... 29 Online survey ........................................................................................................................................... 30 National expert roundtable ..................................................................................................................... 30 Statistical analysis from Indigenous Education Statements .................................................................... 30 Case studies ............................................................................................................................................. 31

5.2 Literature review ...................................................................................................................... 31 Challenges linked to concepts of a whole-of-university approach .......................................................... 33 Learning from our past journeys to inform future direction ................................................................... 37 Aboriginal units were the fringe dwellers of mainstream university students and staff ........................ 37 Further policy review and an extension of the work carried out by the NAEC gradually saw Aboriginal units largely move away from enclaves towards mainstream faculties and schools .............................. 37 Universities Australia ............................................................................................................................... 38 Canadian Indigenous Education Accord .................................................................................................. 41 International Indigenous higher education models ................................................................................ 42

5.3 Survey results ........................................................................................................................... 44 Summary of survey results ...................................................................................................................... 52

5.4 National expert roundtable ...................................................................................................... 53 Governance .............................................................................................................................................. 56 Learning and teaching ............................................................................................................................. 57 Research .................................................................................................................................................. 57 KPIs, strategies and evaluation ................................................................................................................ 57

5.5 Indigenous Education Statements ............................................................................................. 59 Governance, strategy and leadership ...................................................................................................... 60 Appointment of senior Indigenous positions .......................................................................................... 60 Governance—community representation ............................................................................................... 61 Strategy .................................................................................................................................................... 61 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander designated spaces ......................................................................... 61 Student outcomes ................................................................................................................................... 62 Resourcing ............................................................................................................................................... 67

5.6 Case studies .............................................................................................................................. 67 5.6.1 Case Study 1—James Cook University ..................................................................................................... 68

Governance, strategy and leadership ...................................................................................................... 68 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander designated spaces ......................................................................... 68 Student and community engagement ..................................................................................................... 69 Learning and teaching, and research ....................................................................................................... 69 Workforce ................................................................................................................................................ 70 Resourcing and investment ..................................................................................................................... 70

iv

Cultural programs .................................................................................................................................... 70 5.6.2 Case Study 2—University of Newcastle ................................................................................................... 71

Governance, strategy and leadership ...................................................................................................... 71 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander designated spaces ......................................................................... 71 Student and community engagement ..................................................................................................... 71 Learning and teaching, and research ....................................................................................................... 72 Workforce ................................................................................................................................................ 72 Resourcing and investment ..................................................................................................................... 73 Cultural programs .................................................................................................................................... 73

5.6.3 Case Study 3—University of New South Wales ....................................................................................... 74 Governance, strategy and leadership ...................................................................................................... 74 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander designated spaces ......................................................................... 74 Student and community engagement ..................................................................................................... 74 Learning and teaching; and research ....................................................................................................... 75 Workforce ................................................................................................................................................ 75 Resourcing and investment ..................................................................................................................... 76 Cultural programs .................................................................................................................................... 76

5.6.4 Case study summary ................................................................................................................................ 76 5.6.5 Batchelor Institute: A comparative case study ........................................................................................ 77

Governance, strategy and leadership ...................................................................................................... 77 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander designated spaces ......................................................................... 78 Student and community engagement ..................................................................................................... 78 Learning and teaching, and research ....................................................................................................... 78 Research .................................................................................................................................................. 78 Workforce ................................................................................................................................................ 79 Resourcing and investment ..................................................................................................................... 79

5.7 Reform, priorities and key aspects ................................................................................................ 79 Key Aspect 1: Governance, leadership and strategy ............................................................................................ 80

Governance and leadership ..................................................................................................................... 80 Strategy .................................................................................................................................................... 82

Key Aspect 2: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander designated spaces ............................................................... 83 Key Aspect 3: Student and community engagement (access/ participation/success) ......................................... 84 Key Aspect 4: Learning and teaching, and research ............................................................................................. 85

Learning and teaching ............................................................................................................................. 85 Research .................................................................................................................................................. 86

Key Aspect 5: Workforce ...................................................................................................................................... 86 Key Aspect 6: Resourcing ...................................................................................................................................... 87 Key Aspect 7: Culturally engaging environment ................................................................................................... 87 Summary ............................................................................................................................................................... 88

Orange—Senior leadership and decision-making ................................................................................... 88 Blue—Senior managers and influencers .................................................................................................. 89 Red—Operational .................................................................................................................................... 89 Green—Students and university community .......................................................................................... 89

6 ACADEMIC WORKFORCE ........................................................................................................ 90 Priority 2: Increase the Indigenous academic workforce ..................................................................................... 90

6.1 Data and methods ......................................................................................................................... 90 Section One: Literature analysis .............................................................................................................. 90 Section Two: Statistical review ................................................................................................................ 90 Section Three: Interviews ........................................................................................................................ 91

v

Section Four: Online survey and expert roundtable forum ..................................................................... 91 Discussion and recommendations ........................................................................................................... 91

6.2 Literature review ........................................................................................................................... 92 The way forward is known ....................................................................................................................... 92 Indigenous HDR student characteristics .................................................................................................. 93 What can be done to support Indigenous HDR student success? ........................................................... 96 Indigenous education units ..................................................................................................................... 96 Academic supervision .............................................................................................................................. 97 Financial Support ..................................................................................................................................... 98 General duties, undergraduate students and professional sector supply pools ................................... 100 Indigenous academics’ workplace experiences ..................................................................................... 101 Workforce strategy ................................................................................................................................ 102 The matrix of legislation, funding and reporting ................................................................................... 103 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 104

6.3 Statistical review..................................................................................................................... 104 Contextualising Indigenous participation in Australian universities...................................................... 104 Indigenous academic workforce profile ................................................................................................ 104 Size of the Indigenous academic workforce .......................................................................................... 106 Gender ................................................................................................................................................... 107 Employment field of education ............................................................................................................. 109 Current duties classification .................................................................................................................. 109 Future Indigenous academic employee supply pool ............................................................................. 111 Numbers of Indigenous higher degree by research students................................................................ 111 Gender ................................................................................................................................................... 112 Field of Study ......................................................................................................................................... 113 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 114

6.4 University interviews ................................................................................................................... 115 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 115 Site profiles ............................................................................................................................................ 115 Indigenous centres ................................................................................................................................ 115 Indigenous studies ................................................................................................................................. 116 Research questions ................................................................................................................................ 116 Characteristics of interview participants ............................................................................................... 116 University governance and policy .......................................................................................................... 117 Employment supply and demand issues ............................................................................................... 118 Supply issues .......................................................................................................................................... 118 PhD requirement ................................................................................................................................... 118 Population characteristics and capacity ................................................................................................ 119 ‘Growing Our Own’ ................................................................................................................................ 119 Research—mentorship .......................................................................................................................... 120 Teaching—skill development ................................................................................................................. 121 Demand issues ....................................................................................................................................... 121 A place for women ................................................................................................................................. 121 Support for developing researchers ...................................................................................................... 122 Competing with the employment market ............................................................................................. 123 High-paying industry .............................................................................................................................. 123 Reputation and retention in higher education institutions ................................................................... 123 Racism, discrimination and identity ...................................................................................................... 124 Universities as a ‘western’ construct ..................................................................................................... 124 Inequity in workload .............................................................................................................................. 125

vi

Ignorance ............................................................................................................................................... 126 Discrimination within ............................................................................................................................. 126 Disclosure .............................................................................................................................................. 127 Leadership ............................................................................................................................................. 127 University leadership ............................................................................................................................. 127 Indigenous leadership ............................................................................................................................ 128 Territory ................................................................................................................................................. 129 Representation of Indigenous culture ................................................................................................... 129 Indigenous centre versus faculty responsibility .................................................................................... 129 Physical ‘place’ of Indigenous knowledges and education on campus ................................................. 131 Intellectual ‘place’ of Indigenous knowledges, education and staff in the academy ............................ 131

Section summary ................................................................................................................................................ 132 University governance and policy .......................................................................................................... 132 Supply and demand issues ..................................................................................................................... 132 Racism, discrimination and identity ...................................................................................................... 133 Leadership and territory ........................................................................................................................ 133

6.5 Indigenous academic staff survey findings .................................................................................. 135 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 135

Employment .......................................................................................................................................... 135 Gender and age of respondents ............................................................................................................ 136 Respondent’s State or Territory ............................................................................................................ 136 Respondents’ employment field ............................................................................................................ 137 Why respondents work at their university ............................................................................................ 137 Current educational qualifications ........................................................................................................ 137 University policy and strategies ............................................................................................................. 138 Recruiting and supporting Indigenous staff ........................................................................................... 139 What are universities doing to build capacity in Indigenous employees? ............................................ 140 Being Indigenous in a university environment ...................................................................................... 141 Experiences of racism/discrimination.................................................................................................... 143 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 145

6.6 Expert roundtable findings .......................................................................................................... 146 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 146 Roundtable briefing ............................................................................................................................... 146 Background ............................................................................................................................................ 147 Identified gaps in data/evidence ........................................................................................................... 147 Barriers .................................................................................................................................................. 148 Successful innovations ........................................................................................................................... 148 ‘Grow-your-own’ ................................................................................................................................... 149 Positive recruitment .............................................................................................................................. 149 National networks ................................................................................................................................. 149 Adapting school sector programs .......................................................................................................... 149 Priorities for reform ............................................................................................................................... 150 Targets ................................................................................................................................................... 150 Recruitment ........................................................................................................................................... 150 Promotion .............................................................................................................................................. 150 Cultural competency .............................................................................................................................. 150 Support .................................................................................................................................................. 151 Formally recognising Indigenous staff contributions............................................................................. 151 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 151

6.7 Discussion and conclusion ........................................................................................................... 151

vii

7 SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING AND MATHEMATICS ............................................... 156 Priority 3: Determine approaches to improve Indigenous outcomes in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) ........................................................................................................................................... 156

Strengthening Indigenous participation and practice in STEM ............................................................. 157 7.1 Data and methods ....................................................................................................................... 158 7.2 Statistical analysis ....................................................................................................................... 158

National picture of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students enrolled in STEM 2001–2014 ........ 158 Natural and Physical Sciences ................................................................................................................ 163 Information Technology ........................................................................................................................ 165 Engineering and Related Technologies .................................................................................................. 167 Trend examples: University with highest numbers of enrolment by narrow course field .................... 170

7.3 Expert roundtable findings .......................................................................................................... 172 Level One analysis: by question ............................................................................................................. 172

7.4 Survey ......................................................................................................................................... 173 Demographics ........................................................................................................................................ 173 Level One analysis: by question ............................................................................................................. 173

7.5 Interview data ............................................................................................................................. 177 Theme One: The need for institutional policy-driven change ............................................................... 177 Theme Two: University—Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community partnership ..................... 178 Theme Three: Universities need effective policies and procedures for enrolment and tracking ......... 178 Theme Four: Lack of data driving procedures ....................................................................................... 179

7.6 Reform priorities ......................................................................................................................... 180 Student focused ..................................................................................................................................... 181 Educator focused ................................................................................................................................... 181 Institution focused ................................................................................................................................. 181 Contextual way forward ........................................................................................................................ 181

7.7 Examples of current practice ....................................................................................................... 182 Aboriginal Summer School for Excellence in Technology and Science (ASSETS) ................................... 182 AIEF–BHP Billiton Tertiary Scholarship .................................................................................................. 183 Victorian Indigenous Engineering Winter School (VIEWS) .................................................................... 183 National Indigenous Science Engineering Program (NISEP) .................................................................. 184

7.8 STEM summary ............................................................................................................................ 185

8 ATTACHMENTS AND APPENDICES ........................................................................................ 186 8.1 Ethics approval letters .................................................................................................................................. 186

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT ................................................................................................................... 191 8.2 NATSIHEC (AC) letter of support ................................................................................................................... 194 8.3 Online survey questions ................................................................................................................................ 195

Whole-of-University .............................................................................................................................. 195 Academic Workforce ............................................................................................................................. 196

STEM ................................................................................................................................................................... 200 8.4 Academic Workforce Executive interview theme guide ............................................................................... 201

INTERVIEW THEME GUIDE ..................................................................................................................... 201 8.5 Academic Workforce Indigenous staff interview theme guide .................................................................... 202 8.6 Academic Workforce Australian academic classification definitions ........................................................... 203 8.7 Accord on Indigenous Education (2010) ....................................................................................................... 205 8.8 Concept Paper: Joint Departmental Advisory Council .................................................................................. 206

9 References ..................................................................................................................................... 208 10 PROJECT STAKEHOLDERS ............................................................................................................................... 215

viii

List of figures Figure 1: ATSIHEC whole-of-university proposed model ..................................................................... 32 Figure 2: Aboriginal tertiary participation, stage three—current situation ............................................. 38 Figure 3: Importance of adopting a whole-of-government approach .................................................... 44 Figure 4: Characteristics of a whole-of-government approach ............................................................. 46 Figure 5: Key aspects of a whole-of-government approach ................................................................. 47 Figure 6: Engagement of faculties ........................................................................................................ 47 Figure 7: Successful adoptions of a whole-of-government approach ................................................... 48 Figure 8: A model that reflects a whole-of-government approach ........................................................ 55 Figure 9: Possible cycle of a whole-of-government approach .............................................................. 58 Figure 10: Whole-of-university approach. ............................................................................................. 80 Figure 11: Whole-of-university organisational structure ....................................................................... 88 Figure 12: Three levels of coordinated action ....................................................................................... 93 Figure 13: National totals of full-time equivalent Indigenous academics at Australian universities

2001–2015 .................................................................................................................................. 107 Figure 14: National Indigenous staff as a percentage of all full-time equivalent academic staff 2001–

2015 ............................................................................................................................................ 107 Figure 15: National Indigenous full-time equivalent academics by gender 2001–2015 ..................... 108 Figure 16: Indigenous and non-Indigenous full-time equivalent academics as a proportion by gender

and current duties classification 2015 ......................................................................................... 108 Figure 17: National Indigenous academics by fields of education 2014 ............................................. 109 Figure 18: Indigenous full-time equivalent academic staff by current duties classification in five-year

averages 2001–2015 .................................................................................................................. 110 Figure 19: Non-Indigenous full-time equivalent academic staff as a proportion by current duties

classification in five-year averages 2001–2015 .......................................................................... 110 Figure 20: Numbers of Indigenous higher degree by research students as a proportion of all higher

degree by research students 2001–2015 ................................................................................... 111 Figure 21: Indigenous HDR students' yearly commencement and completion rates 2001–2015 ...... 112 Figure 22: Proportions of Indigenous higher degree by research completions by gender 2001–2015

.................................................................................................................................................... 113 Figure 23: Indigenous higher degree by research completions by field of study 2001–2015 ............ 114 Figure 24: Survey respondents current academic employment classification (profile of respondents)

.................................................................................................................................................... 135 Figure 25: Survey respondents by age ............................................................................................... 136 Figure 26: Respondents by employment field..................................................................................... 137 Figure 27: Respondents highest academic qualification .................................................................... 138 Figure 28: Respondents’ reported Indigenous university policies and strategies ............................ 139 Figure 29: Respondent-reported Indigenous staff support systems ................................................... 140 Figure 33: Average total enrolment of Indigenous higher education students by field of study

compared to total enrolments (2011–2013) ................................................................................ 157 Figure 31: National profile of Indigenous students in STEM 2001–2014 ........................................... 159 Figure 32 (a–c): Overall picture of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander-identified student enrolment in

STEM-related courses 2001–2014 ............................................................................................. 160 Figure 33: Number of Indigenous students enrolled in Natural & Physical Science courses by state

2001–2014 .................................................................................................................................. 161 Figure 34: Number of Indigenous students enrolled in IT courses by state 2001–2014 .................... 161 Figure 35: Number of Indigenous students enrolled in Engineering courses by state 2001–2014 .... 162 Figure 36: Highest enrolments in STEM by state/territory and university. .......................................... 163 Figure 37: State/Territory university level picture of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander-identified

student enrolment in STEM-related courses 2001–2014 ........................................................... 170 Figure 38: Universities with highest Indigenous students in STEM—trends by gender ..................... 171

ix

List of tables Table 1: Universities’ performance against seven key aspects of WoU ............................................ 59 Table 2: University appointments of Indigenous pro vice-chancellors and vice-chancellors ................ 60 Table 3: Percentage of Indigenous access rates for domestic students at Table A institutions,

2010–2015 .................................................................................................................................... 62 Table 4: Percentage of Indigenous participation rates for domestic students at Table A institutions,

2010–2015 .................................................................................................................................... 63 Table 5: Percentage of Indigenous retention rates for domestic students at Table A institutions,

2009–2014 .................................................................................................................................... 64 Table 6: Percentage of Indigenous success rates for domestic students at Table A institutions,

2010–2015 .................................................................................................................................... 65 Table 9: Data collection and reporting method comparison between Higher Education Information

Management Scheme (HEIMS) and Indigenous Education Statement (IES) systems .............. 105 Table 10: Respondents by state or territory ........................................................................................ 136 Table 11: Analysis of national picture by highest number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

students enrolled by State/Territory and by Narrow Course Field .............................................. 162

x

List of acronyms and abbreviations ABSTUDY Aboriginal Study Assistance Scheme APA Australian Postgraduate Award ATSIHEAC Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Higher Education Advisory

Council ABS Australian Bureau of Statistics CAE College of Advanced Education CPSU Community and Public Sector Union DET Department of Education and Training DIISRTE Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary

Education EBA Enterprise bargaining agreement FoR Field of research HDR Higher degree research HEIMS Higher Education Information Management System HEPPP Higher Education Participation and Partnerships Program HR Human resources IES Indigenous Education Statement IEU Indigenous Education Unit IHEAC Indigenous Higher Education Advisory Council ISP Indigenous Support Program ISSP Indigenous Student Success Program KPI Key performance indicators ITAS Indigenous Tutorial Assistance Scheme NACC National Aboriginal Consultative Committee NAEC National Aboriginal Education Committee NATSIHEC (AC) National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Higher Education

Consortium (Aboriginal Corporation)

NIHEWS National Indigenous Higher Education Workforce Strategy NIRAKN National Indigenous Research and Knowledges Network NTEU National Tertiary Education Union PhD Doctor of Philosophy PMC Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet RTS Research Training Scheme RAP Reconciliation action plan STEM Science, engineering, technology and mathematics Table A A list in the Higher Education Support Act 2003 (Cth) setting out

which higher education providers have access to which Commonwealth programs.

TEQSA Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency UA Universities Australia WoU Whole of university

xi

List of acronyms and abbreviations for universities ACU Australian Catholic University ANU Australian National University CDU Charles Darwin University CQU Central Queensland University CSU Charles Sturt University Curtin Curtin University Deakin Deakin University ECU Edith Cowan University FedUni Federation University Flinders Flinders University Griffith Griffith University JCU James Cook University La Trobe La Trobe University Monash Monash University MQU Macquarie University Murdoch Murdoch University QUT Queensland University of Technology RMIT RMIT University SCU Southern Cross University Swin Swinburne University of Technology UAdel University of Adelaide UMELB University of Melbourne UNE University of New England UniSA University of South Australia UNSW University of New South Wales UoN University of Newcastle UoW University of Wollongong UQ University of Queensland USQ University of Southern Queensland USYD University of Sydney UTAS University of Tasmania UTS University of Technology Sydney UWA University of Western Australia VicU Victoria University WSU Western Sydney University

12

1 Executive summary In 2015, there were 12 240 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students enrolled in Australian universities. Although consistent progress is evident in student enrolments over the past 10 years—between 2008 and 2015, enrolments increased by 74% (Universities Australia, 2017)—a significant disparity remains between Indigenous and non-Indigenous student enrolments.

The final report on Accelerating Indigenous Higher Education was commissioned by the Department of Education and Training (DET) in collaboration with the National and Torres Strait Islander Higher Education Consortium (NATSIHEC) Aboriginal Corporation (AC) to review the higher education sector imperative to introduce whole-of-university approaches to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander higher education; increase the Indigenous academic workforce; and increase Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander participation in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) disciplines and professions.

The Review of Higher Education Access and Outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People: Final Report (Behrendt Review), led by Indigenous Professor Larissa Behrendt, was completed in 2012. The Behrendt Review provided a comprehensive study of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander higher education in Australia and submitted 35 recommendations. It also revealed many issues and challenges impacting the access and participation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students in Australian higher education and focused recommendations on building professional pathways and responding to community need, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander knowledge and research in curriculum and practice, supporting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff, and driving change to university culture and sector governance to make Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander higher education outcomes a shared responsibility. These recommendations have influenced policy development across the sector and complemented existing policy, such as the National Indigenous Higher Education Workforce Strategy and Universities Australia Indigenous Cultural Competency Framework. While these are positive signs, they continue to represent the exception rather than the rule.

Since 2012, universities and the Australian Government have made progress in adopting the recommendations from the Behrendt Review. However, this progress has been ad hoc and continues to rely on Indigenous staff doing most of the ‘heavy lifting’ to improve all outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander higher education. If this is the case, what does it mean for implementing a whole-of-university approach? Moreover, the gap between institutional intent and action inevitably prompts questions on the effectiveness of Indigenous governance and leadership within universities. Finally, racism continues to exist within the academy—as reported by survey and site-visit respondents—and most likely underpins the findings within this report.

The final report on Accelerating Indigenous Higher Education outlines recommendations to:

• implement high-level policies, processes and strategies within government and university structures

• adopt effective leadership models, accountabilities and responsibilities

13

• recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ unique knowledges and lived experiences that contribute to the cultural, intellectual and social capital of higher education

• access appropriate resources and funding

• develop evaluation and quality control systems for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander higher education and research

• ensure reciprocal and respectful relationships between universities, governments and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples

• develop effective targeted programs that are championed by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and implemented based on evidence and good practice.

The launch of Universities Australia’s Indigenous Strategy 2017–2020 in March 2017 represented the first comprehensive national Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander higher education strategy endorsed by universities across Australia and NATSIHEC (AC). Together, NATSIHEC (AC), the DET, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, and Universities Australia are committed to accelerating higher education outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students, staff and communities, now and well into the future.

14

2 Recommendations

Recommendation 1 That the Department of Education and Training, the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) and NATSIHEC (AC) form a working party to develop and implement an Indigenous Higher Education Monitoring and Evaluation Framework, for the assessment and evaluation of quality approaches and accountability related to the following:

• develop whole-of-university standards for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander higher education and identify avenues to disseminate information across the university

• develop a TEQSA auditing process for measuring the quality of Indigenous student and staff participation in universities

• ensure the status of Indigenous knowledges within universities is included in any measure of quality in the provision of higher education

• develop an accreditation assessment in collaboration with NATSIHEC (AC) and include a majority Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander higher education representation

• establish an evaluation committee comprising representatives from NATSIHEC (AC) and TEQSA to evaluate the annual performance of higher education providers against the Higher Education Standards Framework where there are Indigenous imperatives

• develop a website, similar to the My School website, for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples that rates universities across measurable targets. Consider a reward system for universities that are innovative and responsive to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander needs.

See sections 5 (Whole-of-university reform) and 6 (Indigenous academic workforce).

Recommendation 2 That universities, to support a strong and sustainable university-wide framework that accelerates higher education outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples:

• develop strategy that achieves institutional cultural transformation across the university by implementing a whole-of-university approach

• recognise that the Indigenisation of the university is a shared responsibility and should be based on the principles of bicultural leadership and responsibility

• develop clear strategies, led by the Vice-Chancellor, with transparent accountabilities and resourcing

• identify positions of leadership for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander higher education at senior management level (e.g. Pro Vice-Chancellor/Deputy Vice-Chancellor Indigenous) and senior faculty and head of school level to influence change across the university

• develop and implement whole-of-university Indigenous strategies and plans that incorporate an overarching Indigenous strategy, with other supporting strategies

15

linked to core areas such as Indigenous learning and teaching, and Indigenous research

• develop implementation plans that action the overarching strategies

• define the commitment to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander higher education across all areas of university strategic plans, not only in equity/widening participation strategies or the introduction/opening statements of strategic plans.

• develop KPIs in core areas of the university with accountability linked to the vice-chancellor and the deputy vice-chancellor in the related core area

• implement reconciliation action plans and plans that complement wider university strategies and University Australia’s Indigenous Strategy 2017–2020, and that act to change the culture of institutions and naturalise the teaching of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander science.

See sections 5 (Whole-of-university reform), 6 (Indigenous academic workforce) and 7 (Science, technology, engineering and mathematics).

Recommendation 3 That universities ensure that their Indigenous pro vice-chancellor/deputy vice-chancellor’s professional development is structured by the formal provision of the following arrangements:

• include as a full member of the senior executive group

• consider, without being prescriptive and allowing for autonomy, a direct reporting line between the vice-chancellor and the Indigenous pro vice-chancellor/deputy vice-chancellor

• provide opportunity to perform leadership roles in and across other mainstream portfolios (not limited to Indigenous-specific equity or community engagement portfolios

• ensure membership of various executive-level strategic committees in finance, human resource management (including promotion committees), governance, administration and policy.

• Institute a formalised tracked career advancement program for eventual/potential promotion to the next level (such as Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor) articulated through performance development plans.

• consider extracurricular governance roles such as the chair of academic senate or board and similar appointments of status.

See sections 5 (Whole-of-university reform) and 6 (Indigenous academic workforce).

Recommendation 4 That universities develop and implement facilitation procedures for embedding cultural programs across the university that result in a culturally safe and responsive environment for the entire university community, including:

• the appointment of a professorial chair of academic capabilities (Indigenous) or an equivalent position by the vice-chancellor to the Indigenous pro vice-chancellor/

16

deputy vice-chancellor portfolio to oversee whole-of-university Indigenisation of curriculum, pedagogy and academic cultural competency capacity building

• the mandatory consultation by universities with Indigenous pro vice-chancellor/deputy vice-chancellor or equivalent senior Indigenous staff in the design of and variations to university cultural competency programs

• that all university cultural competency programs be designed according to the higher education context and its imperatives

• the employment of senior Indigenous academic and research leaders (including possibly retired/semi-retired Indigenous academics) as a new category of academic employee within faculties to provide a ready point of access to Indigenous research, academic and cultural mentoring to all non-Indigenous academic staff employed in schools and other academic/research entities

• the appointment of Indigenous community-based people in research advisory roles for staff and Higher Degree Research (HDR) students

• the development of formal strategies to engage Indigenous alumni as potential employees, HDR candidates, work-integrated learning providers and HDR supervisors.

See sections 5 (Whole-of-university reform) and 6 (Indigenous academic workforce).

Recommendation 5 That universities ensure the appropriate resourcing of designated Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander spaces, such as Indigenous education units, and that universities recognise these spaces for their contribution and value to the institution.

Recommendation 6 That the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Department of Education and Training, in collaboration with NATSIHEC (AC) and Universities Australia, scope the potential for funding new policy proposals that are based on the initiatives in this report in future federal budget cycles.

Recommendation 7 That the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Department of Education and Training form a cross-departmental committee, inclusive of NATSIHEC (AC) and Universities Australia, to ensure the participation, inclusion and consideration in broader higher education agendas, and to ensure the recommendations in this report are implemented.

Recommendation 8 That the Australian Research Council (ARC) pursue processes that introduce Excellence in Research for Australia four-digit fields of research (FoR) codes to enable appropriate funding, resources and recognition for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander research. Given the double weighting of completions of HDR students and the anticipated recommendations in the Australian Council of Learned Academies’ (ACOLA) review, transparency that recognises

17

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander research will contribute to developing and progressing Indigenous academic staff and HDR students. This agenda is needed for a sustainable whole-of-university approach.

Recommendation 9 That to increase the Indigenous academic workforce, universities develop and implement an Indigenous research strategy that:

• quarantines the quantum of funding commensurate with university Indigenous HDR targets for capacity-building activities

• prioritises the capacity building of Indigenous early-career researchers through the customised provision of comprehensive training packages, such as the preparation of successful grant applications, project management expertise, research revenue quantum, collaboration dynamics and publication outputs

• establishes formal professional development programs specifically designed for HDR candidates to acquire additional skills and capabilities during their candidature

• establishes professional development programs designed specifically for current and prospective HDR supervisors to access Indigenous research methodologies and exemplar supervisory capabilities for Indigenous HDR candidates

• prioritises increasing Indigenous HDR load and completions, and research funding and publication outputs

• dedicates resourced initiatives to increase the capacity of the Indigenous Higher Education Advisory Council (IHEAC) to raise the awareness of Indigenous HDR study and better support the needs of HDR students

• implements whole-of-university accountability for increasing Indigenous HDR student completions and the recruitment of Indigenous academics.

Recommendation 10 That universities increase sector-wide virtual and campus-based opportunities for Indigenous HDR students to network and build capacity by:

• creating innovative promotional communication strategies to include distribution on social media (e.g. campus online platforms)

• customising university brand quality to appeal to prospective staff and students in the Indigenous marketplace

• implementing an Indigenous higher education employment portal to advertise employment vacancies across the higher education sector, administered by NATSIHEC (AC)

• building the levels of engagement and participation with existing national research capacity building programs such as the National Indigenous Research and Knowledges Network (NIRAKN).

18

Recommendation 11 That a joint working group comprising the Department of Education and Training, Universities Australia and NATSIHEC (AC) review current Indigenous academic workforce data quality with specific attention to:

• achieving utility, accessibility, integrity, compatibility and reliability between HEIMS and IES data collections with the view to establishing a national student and staffing database in Indigenous higher education statistics for annual reporting and other related purposes

• providing formal guidelines on human resource best practices for eliciting and recording of the self-identification of Indigeneity

• developing strategies to achieve higher rates of self-identification through the insertion of explanatory notes into human resource and tertiary admission documents defining the purpose of data collections, and a two-stage mandatory identification process where Indigenous employees can identify confidentially with the understanding a decision to identify will not trigger automated referrals to other university services

• providing an annual compendium summarising data trends and patterns

• undertaking an annual Indigenous staff survey, similar to Your Voice, and submitting an annual report to the Minister for Education and Training (Australian Government) on the results of the survey.

Recommendation 12 That universities implement best practice human resource management in developing and implementing Indigenous employment strategies as outlined in the National Indigenous Higher Education Workforce Strategy, including:

• identifying relevant and aspirational performance targets

• aligning performance development plans to match academic promotion criteria and minimum performance threshold standards

• ensuring a consistent approach to performance management consistent with the Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF)

• recognising and sourcing externally located community and professional Indigenous leaders for potential employment in academic and policy management positions within the university

• encouraging whole-of-university recognition of Indigenous workforce esteem factors

• investigating the presence of cultural/racial bias currently inherent in the application of merit in selection processes

• setting Indigenous employment performance targets for vice-chancellors and other senior executives

19

• developing robust Indigenous workforce strategies that comprise demonstrable goals, targets, strategies and accountabilities, supported by the dedicated allocation of resources as a standing item in all annual budgetary cycles

• ensuring that the responsibility for implementing a university’s Indigenous employment workforce strategy is invested with the university’s Senior Executive, delegated to a specific sub-committee whose membership should comprise a minimum of 50% senior executive membership.

Recommendation 13 That NATSIHEC (AC) and Universities Australia collaborate to develop innovative and dynamic recruitment strategies that promote the academy as a preferred career option, including:

• targeting Indigenous graduates and final year graduands

• offering employment packages for prospective Indigenous employees that include additional inducements to offset any significant differential that exists between academic salaries and those of external competitors.

Recommendation 14 That NATSIHEC (AC) and Universities Australia jointly commission a national job evaluation review in relation to the positions occupied by Indigenous staff employed in the academic and professional categories. The job evaluation review will assess whether the assigned designation is commensurate with the expectations of the position.

Recommendation 15 That NATSIHEC (AC), Universities Australia and the Department of Education and Training jointly commission a national workforce modelling review to determine the future needs of the academy in relation to the projected requirements for the supply and demand of Indigenous academic staff and the specific professional development imperatives to ensure the meeting of these targets.

Recommendation 16 That universities undertake an independent review of the effectiveness of their anti-racism and discrimination policies, accompanying grievance procedures and related support mechanisms in relation to the impact on Indigenous staff and students; specifically:

• their current design and administration with respect to levels of responsiveness, sensitivity, integrity of investigative processes and post-investigative follow-up

• the extent to which anti-racism/discrimination policies and procedures are promoted through/within cultural competency programs

• to facilitate opportunities for all staff to engage in conversations in a safe environment with regard to the application of grievance policies concerning racism and dealing with everyday situations in the workplace where discrimination occurs

20

• in addition to the existing self-referral system, that universities investigate alternative methods for the lodgement of grievances and complaints by Indigenous staff and students in relation to racism.

Recommendation 17 That universities include core criterion, ‘Indigenous-related activity’, for lower- and upper-level academic promotion in the national academy and that a stipulated percentage of activity, no less than 20%, must be demonstrated to satisfy the criterion. Professional development plans should align with this criterion of promotion.

Recommendation 18 That the Department of Education and Training, in partnership with NATSIHEC (AC) and Universities Australia, commissions specific research into:

• the gendered discrepancies evident in current Indigenous participation rates in the academic workforce and HDR candidature

• the recurring pattern of Indigenous participation in particular fields of study, evidenced by discipline preferences in HDR studies and academic employment engagement.

Recommendation 19 That the Department of Education and Training and the Department of Prime-Minister and Cabinet commission feasibility studies to:

• investigate the possible introduction of specific compacts linked to or included in the Indigenous Student Success Program (ISSP) metrics that reward universities for meeting and exceeding targets in Indigenous academic workforce

• explore the potential to apply a purchaser–provider model within universities based on a percentage redistribution of Indigenous-generated equivalent full-time student load to the Indigenous portfolio of the university

• assess the capacity of the redistributed funds under a purchaser–provider model to achieve a transformative effect on Indigenous higher education outcomes, including on academic workforce development

• determine how these funds can be reinvested back into the university towards advancing Indigenous higher education.

Recommendation 20 That universities proactively embed cultural competency capability as a core continuous quality improvement cycle by:

• setting targets for increasing cultural capabilities of graduates through an Indigenous-specific graduate attribute

21

• revising current executive staff and new senior performance plans within universities to ensure cultural capability is a core knowledge and skill set

• assessing and measuring periodically the levels of employee understanding of cultural capability program content and subsequent impact of these new knowledges in the carriage of their work tasks and activities

• presenting a series of tailored sessions and workshops each semester

• developing professional development strategies to promote higher level comprehension of racism with particular reference to the paradigms of everyday silent racism and colour blindness as a critical imperative for all staff

• exploring the feasibility of introducing formal accreditation models to enhance the status of cultural competency professional development.

Recommendation 21 That universities provide incentives for faculties and schools to generate Indigenous workforce participation by:

• providing additional resources to establish Indigenous academic grow-your-own programs that are based on best practice of existing programs within the academy

• offering formal fixed-term or tenured employment to participants at the completion of these programs.

Recommendation 22 That Universities Australia, the Department of Education and Training and NATSIHEC (AC) collaborate to:

• design and deliver specific professional development programs to develop and enhance the intercultural management capacity of university senior management to acquire the required capabilities for working collaboratively and effectively with Indigenous academic staff, students and community leaders

• develop a joint budget proposal for government that articulates the conceptual framework, policy logic and rationale, resource implications and implementation strategies.

Recommendation 23 That the Department of Education and Training, Universities Australia and NATSIHEC (AC) form a working party in 2018 to:

• design and implement an ongoing Indigenous specific, accredited senior executive professional development program for current and emerging Indigenous higher education academic and research staff to gain the necessary capabilities for senior leadership roles in the academy, research, management, policy or administration

22

• ensure that all universities provide unequivocal approval and necessary material support to eligible employees who are accepted into the program.

Recommendation 24 That universities review their current utilisation of Indigenous employment coordinators including:

• undertaking formal job evaluations for current coordinator positions with the intention to revise the designation to a senior-level classification in recognition of the depth, complexity of tasks and responsibilities performed by Indigenous academic and professional staff, and the particular capabilities required to perform them successfully

• the provision of a specific budget allocation for Indigenous Employment Coordinator positions in all universities to facilitate professional development and recruitment initiatives are developed and delivered by the Indigenous Employment Coordinators

• developing an online portal as a clearinghouse to disseminate fundamental learnings and recommended readings.

Recommendation 25 That a coalition of universities be developed that brings together interested institutions and expertise in STEM in conversations where it will be possible to agree on a set of new teaching standards that will form part of teacher training and teacher professional development, which will be overseen by TEQSA.

Recommendation 26 That individual case management for students be implemented, with funding being directed to universities on a per capita basis, to ensure that each student receives the appropriate support they need, matched to their circumstances. A barrier will also be set up between funding and outcomes, to ensure that money goes to where it is needed. The money is to be held by NATSIHEC (AC) and distributed to universities based on the needs of students.

Recommendation 27 That a vision and communication strategy be developed, resulting in an increase in student numbers in STEM subjects, with students coming from both a direct pipeline from schools and via alternative pathways. The skills of academic staff will be developed such that they are able to effectively teach Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander sciences that align with the national curriculum.

Recommendation 28 That universities, government and relevant STEM industry organisations promote STEM higher education opportunities by:

• identifying clear connections of how STEM professions contribute to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, such as education and health

23

• promoting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander mentors and leaders who are already within STEM progressions, to demonstrate success

• introducing early year school programs that build on the aspirations of young Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children showing an interest in STEM areas

• introducing relevant pathway programs, such as associate degree pathways

• developing stronger industry pathways, such as the CSIRO Summer School Program and the BHP Scholarship Program.

• connecting with accrediting organisations, such as Science Australia Gender Equity (SAGE) to work together to develop and facilitate programs that increase participation and gender equality in STEM fields.

24

3 Background

3.1 Purpose The purpose of the Accelerating Indigenous Higher Education Project (the project) is to determine how best to support whole-of-university (WoU) approaches to improving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander higher education outcomes; increase the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander academic workforce; and improve Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples participation in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) disciplines.

With the conclusion of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Higher Education Advisory Council (ATSIHEAC) in 2015, the then Minister for Education and Training (the Honourable Christopher Pyne, MP) and the current Minister for Education and Training (Senator the Honourable Simon Birmingham) committed to engaging with Indigenous leaders and stakeholders in higher education to progress ATSIHEAC’s (2015, n.d.(a)) recommendations.

This is the final report to the Australian Government on the project’s findings and recommendations.

3.2 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander higher education reform Australia’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population is under-represented in the university system.

According to the Review of Higher Education Access and Outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People: Final Report (the Behrendt Review), Indigenous people comprised 2.2% of the overall population but comprised only 1.4% of student enrolments at university in 2010, including only 1.1%of higher degree by research enrolments. Staffing levels were also low, with 0.8%of all full-time equivalent academic staff and 1.2% of general university staff in 2010 being Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people (Behrendt et al., 2012).

The Behrendt Review reported low levels of participation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in university governance and management.

Research undertaken since the Behrendt Review provides more granular data relating to study and employment variations across institutions and disciplines, including STEM.

Without an appropriate level of STEM skills, Indigenous peoples’ share in the opportunities of Australia’s economy will be limited. (Behrendt Review, 2012)

STEM is significant in education and to the economy. Capability in STEM is now seen as key to higher productivity, technological adaptation and research-based innovation.

In response to the alarming gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people educational outcomes, the Minister for Education and Training sought to explore new, flexible ways of engaging with Indigenous higher education stakeholders and leadership more broadly.

Central to this reform is acknowledgement of the place of higher education in improving the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

25

I am particularly committed to achieving a vastly accelerated rate of transition by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students from school to higher education and the professions. Providing pathways into positions of greater influence will drive real improvements for Indigenous communities and the nation as a whole.1

These reforms were designed to focus on key organisations with the NATSIHEC (AC) at the centre of this approach, in partnership with the DET, the Prime Minister’s Indigenous Advisory Council, universities and other key experts.

Consultation with the university sector, including policy roundtables and other engagement, was undertaken with a focus on the priority areas of university leadership (whole-of-university reform), Indigenous academic workforce and participation in STEM.

An agreement to progress these priorities with NATSIHEC (AC)2 as the lead agency was endorsed in December 2015, with the program of work to be completed by April 2017.

3.3 Accelerating Indigenous Higher Education Project The Accelerating Indigenous Higher Education Project specifies three priorities for improving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander higher education that are designed to:

1. support WoU approaches to improving Indigenous higher education outcomes

2. increase the Indigenous academic workforce

3. determine approaches to improving Indigenous outcomes in STEM.

This report has been informed by three concurrent project roundtables to engage experts and leaders in universities, Indigenous higher education and industry. The roundtables, held in October 2016, were designed to build on the latest available evidence and strategise findings into measurable actions to progress national policy and funding in these priorities.

1 The Honourable Christopher Pyne MP, 2015 2 Project led by NATSIHEC (AC) Chair with administrative arrangements through the University of South Australia

26

4 Methodology The Accelerating Indigenous Higher Education Project builds on previous higher education reports and recommendations, including the Behrendt Review and the ATSIHEAC recommendations, to act as a catalyst to accelerate Indigenous education reform. The project’s aims were to:

• update currency of evidence and program interventions to inform future actions

• strategise findings from evidence into specific and measurable actions to progress the three priorities

• prioritise strategies with greatest expected impact that are realistic, costed and that clearly identify the agencies or institutions that will have carriage.

The project methodology for each priority comprised:

• empirical analysis of higher education student participation and workforce data and trends

• analysis of higher education program interventions determined to be effective and replicable from evaluations and/or project collection of data and evidence

• cost-benefit analysis of a selection of higher education program interventions to improve Indigenous education outcomes

• roundtable forums and interviews with leaders and experts in STEM, workforce and whole-of-university practices to improve Indigenous student and workforce outcomes

• analysis and alignment of future actions and strategies for implementation with the national policy and funding environment anticipated in 2018

• priority of recommended actions in each of the three areas.

The methodology provided a framework for implementing the project, with variations in approach, stakeholder engagement and timing for each of the three priorities identified in Section 3.3 above.

4.1 Data and evidence The DET (2017) provided the following quantitative data from the Higher Education Information Management System (HEIMS) for the period 2001–2015:

• Indigenous student commencement and enrolments by field of study, gender, institution and broad field of study, with comparative data for the total domestic student cohort

• total Indigenous student enrolment by narrow field of study, with comparative data for the total domestic student cohort

• Indigenous student completion rates in the broad fields of STEM study.

Analysis of Indigenous academic employees at universities by field of study was also undertaken by the DET through its 2015 Indigenous Higher Education Statement.

27

The following processes were undertaken for deeper analysis of quantitative and qualitative evidence for each priority and identification of best practice.

4.2 Key policy questions Forum discussions and the establishment of priorities were guided by the following questions in each project stream:

1. What is the evidence telling us?

2. What gaps exist in data and evidence?

3. Where are successful programs currently operating?

4. What are success factors—can they be replicated?

5. What are the main barriers—how can their effects be minimised?

6. Which are the top priorities for reform (short and long term)?

7. What are the influential policy drivers after 2016?

8. What are the connections between the three priorities?

9. Implementing strategies: what, how, who, when, funding required?

10. What are the indicators of success?

11. How to use project findings to influence reform?

28

5 Whole-of-university reform Priority 1: Support whole-of-university approaches to improving Indigenous higher education outcomes.

In 2012, the Review of Higher Education Access and Outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People: Final Report (Behrendt Review) made 35 recommendations. Among the recommendations was a call for action for developing a whole-of-university (WoU) approach to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander higher education; increasing Indigenous participation in STEM disciplines and professions; and increasing the academic Indigenous workforce. The DET awarded funding to the NATSIHEC through the Higher Education Participation and Partnerships Program (HEPPP) to undertake a more thorough study on these three priority areas.

The Behrendt Review (2012) recommended:

That universities adopt a whole-of-university approach to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander student success so that faculties and mainstream support services have primary responsibility for supporting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students, backed up by Indigenous Education Units. (Behrendt Review, 2012, Recommendation 10)

It was, however, outside the scope of the Behrendt Review to identify a model for a whole-of-university approach. Therefore, this report provides guidelines for a successful whole-of-university approach to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander higher education.

Why should we adopt a WoU approach to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander higher education?

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (Australian Human Rights Commission, n.d.) states that ‘Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their cultural heritage, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions …’ and the ‘right to all levels and forms of education … without discrimination’. Specifically, relevant articles under the UN Declaration provide the following directives:

Indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. (Article 3)

Indigenous peoples have the right to establish and control their educational systems and institutions providing education in their own languages, in a manner appropriate to their cultural methods of teaching and learning. (Article 14.1)

States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them. (Article 19)

Universities have a national and an international responsibility to uphold these directives, as well as a social responsibility to contribute to a moral global society. They also need to adopt the open-mindedness required to create a learning environment that draws on knowledge systems outside of a narrow western viewpoint. Truly valuing the contributions of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander knowledges, experiences and perspectives adds depth and quality to any learning environment and to the global society.

29

A WoU approach in respect to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples is required to achieve accelerated outcomes in higher education (e.g. access, participation, retention and success), in research, in learning and teaching, and in employment. To date, most of the effort in advancing these areas has been contributed by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and centres. A shared approach that encompasses the broad resources and expertise of universities is vital in achieving the significant change and advancement needed to achieve parity.

This report defines a WoU approach to improving the educational outcomes of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, as well as to incorporating Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ knowledges and perspectives into the learning environment to enhance outcomes for all Australians. This report has been informed by consultation with Indigenous and non-Indigenous stakeholders across the sector, including senior Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff and executives at universities, relevant government authorities and external bodies, such as Universities Australia and NATSIHEC (AC). It contains guidelines on how a WoU approach can be applied in practice within universities and how the Australian Government can contribute to implementation. Additional recommendations for ensuring quality assurance and accountability are also included.

5.1 Data and methods The Accelerating Indigenous Higher Education Project (the project) was led by NATSIHEC (AC) Chair Professor Peter Buckskin under the auspices of the University of South Australia. The ‘whole-of-university reform’ component of the report was driven by Dr Leanne Holt, Macquarie University, with ethics and administration managed by the University of Newcastle.

Four methods of data collection were used in the project:

1. A survey of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders in every university in Australia, the Community and Public Sector Union (CPSU), the National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU), Universities Australia, National Union of Postgraduate Student Association; the full membership of NATSIHEC (AC) and other relevant stakeholders.

2. A national roundtable forum with key leaders/stakeholders from universities, government and associated bodies, such as Universities Australia.

3. The 2015 Indigenous Education Statements (IESs) required by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. The IESs were analysed within the headings identified as the key aspects related to WoU based on the findings of the two data sources above. Using the data from the IES reports, a table was developed identifying the progress of universities in the identified key aspects.

4. Case studies of the top- and bottom-ranked universities, based on student outcome ratios in 2014 and 2015, using DET data. A consultation period provided further input into the draft report and findings.

Seven key aspects were identified from the study and used to present the analysis:

1. Governance, strategy and leadership

2. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander designated spaces

3. Student and community engagement

4. Learning and teaching, and research

30

5. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander workforce

6. Appropriate resourcing and investment

7. Culturally responsive environments

Online survey

The online survey was distributed to NATSIHEC (AC) member and to key stakeholders from Table A universities, higher education unions and other stakeholder groups. Eighteen responses representing six states and territories were received.

National expert roundtable

A two-day national expert roundtable convened by NATSIHEC (AC) was held in Adelaide for the three projects. The roundtable attracted 26 participants on day one and 21 participants on day two. Expert representatives from a broad range of universities across Australia, the DET, Universities Australia and university advisory committees attended the roundtable.

The roundtable focused on the following questions:

1. How do you define a WoU approach for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander education?

2. What are the components or factors that contribute to a successful WoU approach to Indigenous education?

3. What are the benefits of WoU approaches?

4. What is the current evidence telling us?

5. Do we believe the current evidence has demonstrated WoU to be a productive model? Why?

6. What are the barriers to a WoU approach?

7. What examples are there of what is working?

8. Why is it important to have a WoU approach?

Statistical analysis from Indigenous Education Statements

Indigenous Education Statements (IESs) are provided by universities annually as a reporting requirement of the former Indigenous Support Program (ISP). The 2015 IESs provided evidence of strategies and practice responding to the following criteria based on the national Aboriginal Education Policy (DET, 2017).

1. Establish effective arrangements for the participation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in educational decision-making.

2. Increase the number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples employed as academic and non-academic staff in higher education institutions.

3. Ensure equitable access of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students to higher education.

4. Achieve the participation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students in higher education, at rates commensurate with those of all other Australians.

31

5. Enable Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students to attain the same graduation rates from award courses in higher education as for other Australians.

6. To provide all Australian students with an understanding of and respect for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander traditional and contemporary cultures.

Information collated from the IESs informed analysis across the seven key aspects of a WoU approach.

Case studies

Case studies were developed by a desktop audit of three universities representing leadership in access, participation and retention. A fourth case study on Batchelor Institute was presented to illustrate these aspects in an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander-governed university.

5.2 Literature review The process of accelerating Indigenous higher education has progressed greatly since the 1967 referendum, which moved responsibility for legislating Indigenous policy from the states and territories to the Commonwealth. This progress is reflected in increasing Indigenous enrolments, retention and completion rates in tertiary education. However, this transformative process is ongoing and requires continual evaluation of both the methodology and the implementation of Indigenous policies and strategies. Several publications—including the Review of Higher Education Access and Outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People: Final Report (Behrendt, Larkin, Grew, & Kelly, 2012), On Stony Ground: Governance and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Participation in Australian Universities (Moreton-Robinson, Singh, & Kimber, 2011), Universities Australia’s (2017) Indigenous Strategy 2017–2020 and Implementing a Whole-of-University Approach to Improving Indigenous Access and Achievement (ATSIHEC, n.d.(b))—have identified a WoU approach to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander higher education as the next step in this evolution and have provided key suggestions and strategies to allow universities to implement this approach within their institutions.

The Behrendt Review recommended a paradigm shift for universities to move ‘responsibility and accountability for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander outcomes to senior university leadership’ (Behrendt et al., p. 148). To date, there has been limited literature on WoU approaches; however, such literature has attempted to shape the methods universities across Australia have used in implementing their own WoU approach.

Although a range of literature has analysed university actions towards a WoU approach, little has been done in terms of the creation of a model. As discussed in Implementing a Whole-of-University Approach to Improving Indigenous Access and Achievement (ATSIHEC, n.d.(b), p. 1), there are many ways in which universities can implement a WoU approach, based on the structures and culture of the individual university, and each can be successful. While recognising that there is no single model that will fit every university, all the literature and evidence identifies key elements that need to be considered in the creation of a model.

As illustrated in Figure 1, ATSIHEC (n.d.(b), pp. 3–5) identified six key characteristics of a WoU approach, including acknowledgement of culture, clear governance and accountability, policy leadership, processes, capability, and connection with communities. These

32

characteristics were identified as being necessary in a WoU approach, and they could not work without each other.

Figure 1: ATSIHEC whole-of-university proposed model

These characteristics are similar to the priorities promoted by Universities Australia (2017) in its Indigenous Strategy 2017–2020. Similarly, the On Stony Ground (Moreton-Robinson et al., 2011) report identified that certain universities were achieving some aspects of a WoU approach but that in isolation, these aspects were unsuccessful in improving all areas of Indigenous higher education, supporting the claim that all these key characteristics are required to work together. The benefit of the guidelines provided in Implementing a Whole-of-University Approach to Improving Indigenous Access and Achievement (ATSIHEC, n.d.(b)) is that these recommendations start to articulate a clear and easily adaptable way for universities to begin implementing a WoU approach. However, they are based on broader discussions with universities, and do not provide much detail; a wider study, drawing upon a variety of sources and allowing for further refinement of these recommendations, is called for.

The first recommendation of the Implementing a Whole-of-University Approach to Improving Indigenous Access and Achievement (ATSIHEC, n.d.(b)) paper noted that ‘acknowledgment of culture’ is a key priority in a WoU approach. The importance of cultural recognition has long been argued and was a prominent topic at the World Indigenous Peoples Conference hosted by the National Aboriginal Consultative Committee (NACC) in Canberra in 1986. It gained further traction at the inaugural World Indigenous Peoples Conference on Education in Vancouver, Canada, in 1987. Dr Verna Kirkness, an organiser of the 1987 conference, provided an insight into the philosophy that guided the conference, which was consistent with the aims and objectives of Indigenous education previously enunciated by the National Aboriginal Education Committee (NAEC):

This included believing that educational success of Indigenous peoples lie in applying traditional values and beliefs to contemporary educational practice. We planned to hold a world conference in June 1987 based on the theme ‘Tradition, Change and Survival’ and a sub-theme ‘the answers are within us.’ (Morgan, 2016)

Acknowledgement of culture

Governance and accountability

Policy leadership

Processes

Capability

Connection with communities

33

This highlighted the belief that Indigenous graduates should not sacrifice Indigeneity to obtain higher education qualifications.

On Stony Ground (Moreton-Robinson et al., 2011, p. 41) noted that for cultural and structural change to occur, the employment of academic Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff needs to increase. Aboriginal involvement in key decision-making areas is paramount in a WoU approach, with the aim being shared responsibility and accountability across the whole university, from the highest level down. On Stony Ground (Moreton-Robinson et al., 2011) also highlighted the under-representation of Aboriginal peoples on high-level committees and in positions with decision-making influence.

As identified in ‘Improving Indigenous outcomes and enhancing Indigenous culture and knowledge in Australian higher education’ (James & Devlin, 2006), a variety of government programs have been implemented to accelerate Indigenous higher education. These programs play an important role in breaching some of the barriers associated with lower access and participation of Indigenous people within the higher education sector. Some of these programs directly impact access to resources available to target Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander higher education within universities, such as the Indigenous Student Success Program (ISSP)—previously known as the Indigenous Support Program (ISP). On Stony Ground (Moreton-Robinson et al., 2011, p. 41) discussed resourcing as a challenge for universities in achieving a WoU approach, focusing on the link between the reported goals in universities’ IESs and their ISP funding. The report posed the question: Are the criteria for awarding of ISP funding effective?. Evidence from the research suggested that the criteria for funding were not being met by a majority of universities across the three key areas of governance and cultural competency, student access and attainment, and staff employment. There were significant disparities between universities across Australia in successful actions linked to a WoU approach. The report noted that linking funding with failure to meet targets had the potential to further negatively impact Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students by limiting available funding for universities to contribute towards Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander education. This issue is not readily solvable; however, the elements of a WoU approach identified in Implementing a Whole-of-University Approach to Improving Indigenous Access and Achievement (ATSIHEC, n.d.(b)) presented key parameters within which universities can push towards this goal, which would also fulfil the requirements of IES reporting.

Each of the documents reviewed above agreed that a top-down approach, from the vice-chancellor to academic and professional staff, is required to successfully implement a WoU approach towards Indigenous success. The correct modelling of this approach will rely on further investigation and the identification of institutional best practice, and the inclusion of funding evaluation of any framework adopted by institutions. However, the literature to date advises that acknowledgement of Indigenous culture and embedding Indigenous student success outcomes into key performance indicators implemented through a WoU approach are crucial to the success of any model.

Challenges linked to concepts of a whole-of-university approach

In 2013, the National Indigenous Unit of the National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU) conducted a survey of NTEU members working at public universities in Australia to elicit their views on what a WoU approach to Indigenous student support would look like. This survey was initiated due to concerns about a ‘mainstreaming agenda’ that would relocate Indigenous staff from their specialist support positions into mainstream support roles. These concerns

34

arose prior to the Behrendt Review, but were reinforced by Recommendation 10 of the review:

That universities adopt a whole-of-university approach to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander student success so that faculties and mainstream support services have primary responsibility for supporting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students, backed up by Indigenous Education Units. (Behrendt et al., 2012)

The purpose of this survey was to determine whether a ‘mainstreaming agenda’ existed and, if so, to investigate the impacts and to oppose such an agenda if found to have adverse impacts. The survey had 86 confirmed responses. Most of the responses came from academic staff at public universities in New South Wales. According to the survey results, NTEU members saw the ‘mainstreaming agenda’ as real and believed that it had had, and would continue to have, negative impacts on both Indigenous university staff and students. Areas negatively impacted, as identified in the survey responses, included staff workloads and morale; employment security; career progression and development; and balance between work, life and community. For students, the balance between work, life and community was also an issue (with the added pressure of university study), as was access to appropriate and culturally safe study environments and pastoral support services.

Section 1 of the survey looked at the institutions and communities. Responses to the first five questions were overwhelmingly positive, with 76.7% of respondents saying their institution offered a range of Indigenous-specific academic and pastoral support programs for students, and 48.8% responding that they believed their institution had undertaken or would undertake a process of implementing a WoU approach. Further, 34.4% strongly agreed that implementing a WoU approach towards Indigenous education, support programs and/or Indigenous education units would ultimately be of benefit, while 23.3% disagreed. Similarly, 48.8% believed a WoU approach would have a positive impact upon the overall culture of and interaction with community at their institution, while 31.4% believed it would have a negative impact. This was a stark contrast to the sixth and final question in this section, which asked respondents to provide examples of the impacts of a WoU approach to Indigenous student support at their institution, if any. The responses provided were text-based and resoundingly negative.

Section 2 looked at the impacts of the WoU approach on staff. Respondents were asked what sort of impact they believed a WoU approach to Indigenous student support programs and/or Indigenous education units would have overall on Indigenous staff at their institution. 46.5% said it would have a positive impact of staff, while 47.7% said it would have a negative impact. This section then dissected the set of negative impacts, with 45.3% of respondents saying a WoU approach would negatively impact staff workloads, 53.3% that it would negatively impact staff morale, 48.8% that it would negatively impact secure employment, 40.7% that it would negatively impact employees’ work/life/community balance, and 37.2% that it would negatively impact career progression and professional development opportunities. Respondents were also asked to provide examples of the impacts a WoU approach would have or had had on them or other Indigenous staff. Again, the overall response were negative.

Section 3 looked at the impacts of the WoU approach on students. Respondents were asked what sort of impact they believed a WoU approach to Indigenous student support programs and/or Indigenous education units would have overall on Indigenous students at their

35

institution; 45.3% said it would have a positive impact on staff, while 46.5% said it would have a negative impact.

Respondents were also asked to provide examples of the impacts a WoU approach would have or had had on them or other Indigenous staff. Again, the responses were predominantly negative. This section also looked at the set of negative impacts, with 48.8% of respondents saying a WoU approach would negatively impact students' access to an appropriate study environment, 44.2% that it would negatively impact access to appropriate pastoral support services, 40.7% that it would negatively impact access to appropriate academic support services, and 41.9% that it would negatively impact the study/community/family/work/life balance of students. Further, 38.4% of respondents said that this approach would negatively affect students' continued ability to access university study as an educational pathway. When asked to provide examples of the impacts a WoU approach would have or had had on current and potential Indigenous students, a key theme was the feeling of a loss of Indigenous culture and community should all staff positions become mainstream positions.

Of the survey respondents, 19.8% identified as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander. It is important to keep in mind that most respondents did not identify as Indigenous and therefore may not recognise or understand the need for a culturally safe space for Indigenous staff and students, and the negative impacts a WoU approach would have on them. Eight key recommendations on how to approach this matter were provided by the survey report. All Indigenous students should be made aware of current pastoral and academic support services provided to them by their institution, and the university management should work with Indigenous students to minimise the negative impacts a whole-of-university approach might have on them. This should also occur in relation to Indigenous staff and should occur prior, during and after implementation of a WoU approach. If an institution is seeking to implement a WoU approach, it should convene an advisory committee with membership comprising all stakeholders. Appropriate, respectful and effective lines of communication should remain open and maintained so that community, students and staff may have meaningful input and ownership throughout the process. The institutions should work with all stakeholders and gain a community perspective on the impacts of a WoU approach on Indigenous staff, students and community members. It was recommended that none of the current suite of Indigenous higher education program funds should be replaced with mainstream student support programs. Institutions should maintain specified Indigenous and mainstream funding lines that pertain to Indigenous and non-Indigenous student support, within the control of Indigenous education and the equivalent mainstream university student support units or centres. Also, it is important that an immediate information dissemination and awareness campaign for community, students and staff should occur, using the information from the Behrendt Review, particularly with consideration of Recommendation 10.

In New Zealand, there has been an investigation into how the process of ‘whitestreaming’ can impact Māori staff and students within universities. In broad terms, whitestreaming is the process of replacing specialist jobs and services with generalised positions; for example, replacing Māori academic support officers with general support officers who help all students, not only Māori students. This is an issue in New Zealand where specialist Māori positions are being generalised within universities. The Tertiary Education Union (TEU; in Māori: Te Hautu Kahurangi o Aotearoa) report titled Project Whitestreaming: A Report on the Generalising of Māori Specialist Staff Positions in the Tertiary Education Sector (TEU, 2016) outlined the extent to which whitestreaming impacts Māori staff and students.

36

According to the report, teaching and academic student support positions have been most affected by whitestreaming, followed closely by positions in pastoral student support, staff support, research, and student recruitment. These findings showed not only that a wide variety of staff positions have been affected by the process of whitestreaming but also that this process impacts students. The report noted that the use of specialist Māori positions not only benefited the Māori staff, but also helped develop and establish a sense of cultural comfort and belonging among Māori students. Two methodologies were used to collect data: a collective survey and individual interviews.

The results of the survey, and completed by 884 Māori TEU members, indicated that whitestreaming was very common within New Zealand universities and had had negative impacts on Māori staff. Because of whitestreaming, 60.32% of survey participants said they had experienced a loss of collegial support, 53.97% had had an increase in workload, 49.21% experienced a loss of job satisfaction, and 44.44% said they wanted to leave their job and work elsewhere. The survey results also showed that 53.10% of Māori students were negatively impacted by whitestreaming. These impacts included being less likely to use student support services and decreased retention and pass rates. These results illustrate the fact that the use of specialist Māori positions not only benefited the Māori staff but also helped develop and establish a sense of cultural comfort and belonging among Māori students.

The individual interviews were conducted within semi-structured interview environments. Seventeen Māori staff who currently worked or had previously worked in Māori positions at New Zealand tertiary institutions were interviewed. These interviews found that the process of whitestreaming removed the focus from Māori staff and students and placed them under an equity umbrella with other minority groups. This shift in focus failed to acknowledge and respect the different wants and needs of Māori staff and took an ‘equality for all’ approach instead of an autonomous ‘by Māori, for Māori’ approach. This caused uncertainty and stress. It increased the workload of Māori staff and created a loss of autonomy, collegial support and job satisfaction among Māori staff—and the retention rates of Māori staff decreased. The interview findings also showed the negative impacts of whitestreaming on Māori students. The main findings were that whitestreaming caused reduced access to Māori-based student support, which then led to reduced participation and achievement among Māori students, because they did not have cultural support or access to Māori staff who understand them. The interviews mirrored the results of the survey results and demonstrated that the use of specialist Māori positions benefited both Māori staff and Māori students.

The report presented eight recommendations to New Zealand institutions engaged in whitestreaming. These included employing informed Māori staff, providing professional development opportunities for Māori staff, including Māori staff in important decision-making processes within the universities, appointing Māori people to senior positions within the universities and supporting them in these roles, and urging government support regarding policy advocacy. These recommendations will assist New Zealand universities in decreasing their system of whitestreaming, help them provide positions for and to empower Māori staff, and allow them to create a university that provides cultural support and understanding to Māori students.

37

Learning from our past journeys to inform future direction

Before exploring a WoU approach, it would be useful to reflect on the evolution of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander higher education. Each of the following structures were vital to the journey, and the advancements are pivotal to a new era of success for Indigenous higher education.

The first stage of Aboriginal tertiary education was primarily within the colleges of advanced education in the early 1980s, with the introduction of what were initially referred to as ‘Aboriginal Enclaves’, and later as ‘Indigenous Support Units’. At this time, the Enclaves were positioned on the outskirts of institutions, like fringe dwellers; however, they were pioneers in providing access and support to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students in higher education. These early initiatives were predominantly programs within the humanities faculties (Trudgett, 2010) driven by the political efforts of the National Aboriginal Education Committee (NAEC) and its ‘1000 Aboriginal Teachers by 1990’ policy (Hughes & Willmott, 1982) and the alternative entry and support programs gaining traction in education schools. By the mid-1980s, they had extended beyond special entry to include designated Aboriginal support programs and had extended into higher education institutions.

Aboriginal units were the fringe dwellers of mainstream university students and staff

The extension into higher education institutions was largely the result of the forced amalgamations of the colleges of advanced education and universities under the Dawkins reforms of the late 1980s, which saw universities inherit these programs. The desire to increase Indigenous graduates across the spectrum (highlighted by the NAEC) was strengthened by a belief in Aboriginal self-determination. In response to this, the early 1990s witnessed Indigenous units developing Indigenous courses and programs and, by the late 1990s, Indigenous research centres were being introduced. Due to recognition of the importance of Indigenous research and the need for empowerment of Indigenous communities in this area, by 1996 the Australian Government had developed an initiative of funding Aboriginal Research Centres of Excellence in a select number of universities, based on a competitive tender process. The common positioning of Aboriginal education spaces, at this time, was linked to faculties; however, they still did not quite fit and looked like a square peg in a round hole.

Further policy review and an extension of the work carried out by the NAEC gradually saw Aboriginal units largely move away from enclaves towards mainstream faculties and schools

Ongoing concerns over Indigenous student inequities saw further changes across the sector between 2000 and the present. As in previous eras, these changes have not been uniform. As a result, the landscape features several different models, ranging from some that have progressed only marginally from the enclave model to some with greater independence from the university structure, such as the Wollotuka Institute at the University of Newcastle, and the Jumbunna Institute for Indigenous Education and Research at University of Technology Sydney (Holt & Morgan, 2016). This range is reflected in a wide variety of responses to the criteria set out in the IES, in which reporting to the Australian Government is a condition of each university receiving supplementary funding for Indigenous students under the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Act 2000 (Cth).

38

Figure 2: Aboriginal tertiary participation, stage three—current situation

Greater influence from Aboriginal units into the wider university

Currently, Indigenous education units are still commonly either linked to a faculty or positioned within the deputy vice-chancellor portfolios. The survey from the present study found that most units are allocated immense responsibility and accountability for influencing the university agenda for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander higher education, without the required resourcing or infrastructure. The difference between past models and future models is that the past progress of Aboriginal people in higher education has occurred based on the continual drive and passion of Aboriginal people to ensure Aboriginal higher education remains on the agenda of universities. Future structures must shift this responsibility and accountability to the universities’ governance and leadership structures.

The Review of Australian Higher Education Final Report or ‘Bradley Review’ (Bradley, Noonan, Nugent, & Scales, 2008) of the wider university sector further highlighted that Indigenous student and staff statistics were still not commensurate with the wider Australian population ratios. This in turn led to an Indigenous-specific review headed by Indigenous Professor Larissa Behrendt. The Review of Higher Education Access and Outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People Final Report or ‘Behrendt Review’ (Behrendt et al., 2012), consistent with the findings of Bradley and published academic papers (Anderson et al.), recommended a sector-wide WoU approach to address these issues. Current research suggested that, in most instances, too much of the burden of addressing Indigenous student and staff inequities was being left to the Indigenous units. This was also highlighted by the On Stony Ground report (Moreton-Robinson et al., 2011), which had been commissioned to feed into the Behrendt Review. Gunstone (2008), among others, had previously argued that many universities had not developed appropriate policies, let alone appropriate programs, further highlighting the disparate standards within the sector.

Universities Australia

The movement towards a WoU approach has done little to alter this disparity, although the emergence of Universities Australia as a contributing force, and its attempted Indigenous Cultural Competency Framework initiative (Universities Australia, 2011) and the more recent Indigenous Strategy 2017–2020 (Universities Australia (2017), provides momentum going forward. However, Indigenous scholars such as Moreton-Robinson (2005) and Holt and

39

Morgan (2016) question the ability of the sector to adapt sufficiently to position Indigenous education centrally within the university structure in a way that provides equal recognition to the universities’ predominant western world view, rather than continuing the historical models of Indigenous persons and culture having to adapt to the prevailing models.

Universities Australia’s Indigenous Strategy 2017–2020 (University Australia, 2017, p. 24) includes the following principles.

• That Australia’s universities exist on the traditional lands of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples across the continent.

• That Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people hold unique knowledge and knowledge systems that are foundational and fundamentally important to Australia’s intellectual, social and cultural capital.

• That universities are accountable to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people on education and the use of traditional knowledge and cultures.

• That true partnerships between universities and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities within and outside the university are essential to deliver the best outcomes.

• That such partnerships should be conducted in a spirit of reconciliation that gives voice to Indigenous people in decision making that affects Indigenous communities.

• That social justice requires universities to implement effective policies and practices that unlocks the capacity of and supports Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff and students and responds to community needs.

• That parity of opportunity and outcome is a central objective of policy and practice.

• That universities control the resources and processes required to achieve these aims, and are committed to using them effectively.

Universities Australia’s Indigenous Strategy was launched in March 2017 at its annual Higher Education Conference. In a media release titled ‘Universities unveil Indigenous participation targets’, Universities Australia Chief Executive Belinda Robinson stated:

Australia’s first peoples make enormous contributions to learning and research. We hope this strategy will help universities to make the most of that contribution, lift Indigenous participation and celebrate Indigenous excellence. (Universities Australia, 2017)

The Indigenous Strategy recognises the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which was formally endorsed by the Australian Government in 2009. The endorsement signalled a new era of acknowledgement by the Australian Government that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have sovereign rights to their heritage—past, present and future. The rights of Indigenous peoples to an education and to have their cultures and aspirations included in education are an integral component of the UN Declaration. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples also have the right to control, protect and develop Indigenous cultures and knowledge (Articles 15 and 31). Historically, universities have been complicit in the patterns of disadvantage and discrimination against Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. However, it is acknowledged that higher education can be a powerful vehicle for individuals to change their futures and the futures of those around them.

40

Universities Australia’s Indigenous Strategy—the first national strategy for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students—is designed to lift Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander university enrolment, retention and completion rates. Its overarching aim is to increase the growth rate for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander tertiary enrolments by 50% above the growth rate in enrolments for non-Indigenous students.

The Indigenous Strategy coalesces a myriad of reports and reviews into the Indigenous higher education sector and is grounded in a wealth of research and collaboration between Universities Australia and NATSIHEC (AC).

The Indigenous Strategy proposes the following actions for Universities Australia members to build their Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander undergraduate student enrolments, retention and completions (Universities Australia, 2017, p. 26):

• maintain institutional growth rates for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ enrolment that are at least 50% higher than the growth rate of non-Indigenous student enrolment, and ideally 100% higher

• aim for retention and success rates for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students equal to those of domestic non-Indigenous students in the same fields of study by 2025

• aim to achieve equal completion rates by field of study by 2028.

The Indigenous Strategy also addresses targets for postgraduate students, the embedding of Indigenous higher education across policy, the WoU approach to Indigenous success, community partnerships, research strategies, cultural training for senior staff, cultural capabilities for graduates, commitments to the Australian Government’s Indigenous supplementary funding, workforce strategies, education strategies and university governance structures.

The Indigenous Strategy will build on the growth in Indigenous enrolments post the introduction of the demand-driven funding system, which has seen Indigenous enrolments increase annually by up to 10%. The strategy will tackle the issues surrounding retention rates, which are still well below those of non-Indigenous domestic students, and completion rates, which also remain comparatively low.

The Indigenous Strategy provides an ambitious framework for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander higher education success. The acknowledgement of the past and the role universities have played in discriminatory actions towards Australia’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples is highlighted, but the future is positive. Universities Australia’s 39 university members are now offered a framework for Indigenous success and will be able to demonstrate their commitment to this success through the actionable and achievable aims of the Indigenous Strategy, building on increased enrolments and the embedding of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures and knowledges across universities.

Universities Australia Chair Professor Barney Glover and Chief Executive Belinda Robinson outline in the foreword of the Indigenous Strategy:

In this land, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have sustained societies through ingenious systems of knowledge and learning ... It is important to remind ourselves that this vast lineage of educators spanned more than 2500 generations before Australia’s first university was designated formally 166 years ago. (Universities Australia, 2017, p. 6)

41

Canadian Indigenous Education Accord

In a submission to the Accelerating Higher Education Project, Morgan (2016) cites Canada’s Accord on Indigenous Education (the Accord) as a possible way of helping achieve this and argues that, without transformation, the under-representation of Indigenous persons throughout the academy will persist. Morgan proposed at the national roundtable that:

[t]he National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Higher Education Consortium (NATSIEC) initiate a process to investigate the feasibility of negotiating and establishing an accord with Universities Australia similar to the accord negotiated between the Association of Canadian Deans of Education (ACDE) and representatives of Canadian Indigenous people employed with key Canadian universities. (p. 5)

The ‘Toward a Community Empowering Accord on Indigenous Higher Education’ submission (Morgan, 2016) highlighted how the genuine commitment Australian universities display towards Indigenous education can be translated into a partnership that incorporates the key principles of self-determination, equity, and social and restorative justice. This partnership would be formed with an empowering approach and built on the historical work of the NAEC and other key stakeholders who have championed the cause of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander education.

Morgan (2016) proposes an accord (an agreement to give recognition and status) between NATSIHEC (AC) and Universities Australia (akin to the accord negotiated between the Association of Canadian Deans of Education and representatives of Canadian Indigenous people employed by key Canadian universities). An accord would include the development of community-based committees and professional development programs for senior non-Indigenous staff. The professional development would address the lack of cultural knowledge and experience of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

The submission identifies such an accord as important for continuing the growth in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander higher education. However, Morgan stresses that assimilation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples into Eurocentric institutions is not the answer for success in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander higher education. Rather, an accord that provides for the rights of Indigenous peoples under the UN Declaration and for culturally responsive and affirming education is the future of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander success in higher education.

In any negotiated new model, the concept of partnership must not simply be structured so that non-Indigenous agencies have all the resources but Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples possess all the need. No matter how this relationship is viewed, it is not a true partner! (Morgan, 2016)

The Canadian Accord on Indigenous Education (2010) provides an example of an effective partnership model. It is centred around Canada and its Indigenous peoples, so the language and focus differ from an Australian context; however, many of the core issues responded to are common to both settings. The Accord emphasises collaboration to improve and prioritise the education of Indigenous peoples.

The Accord sets a strong tone, with a preamble that discusses and defines the terminology used throughout the document and by different Indigenous groups. This sets a precedent for the whole document and recognises the importance of language and its use. Given the wide range of terminology used to describe Indigenous people within Australia, this format

42

provides a positive example of how to approach Indigenous language use in an Australian context.

The Accord provides context for Indigenous education in Canada, acknowledging the impact of historical policies on the current situation for Indigenous people in the education system and reiterating the importance of language use. It also focuses on teacher training, which has a direct impact on the cycle of experiences of current and future Indigenous students at all levels of education.

The framework outlined in the Accord is very clearly defined, and the expectation of signatories to actively ensure its implementation is emphasised. In this way, the Accord ensures that it is more than a symbolic gesture. The principles and goals outlined by the Accord align closely with those recommended by NATSIHEC (AC) (2016) regarding accelerating Indigenous higher education.

International Indigenous higher education models

Internationally, several nations have established Indigenous universities that are centred on the promotion of Indigenous knowledges, cultures and success within a tertiary setting. These universities are based on a WoU approach to Indigenous education, rather than implementing Indigenous frameworks into a western-based institution. This fundamental difference makes it impossible to accurately compare Indigenous universities internationally to Australian universities; however, these universities can be used as a model of good practice when taking a WoU approach to the acceleration of Indigenous higher education. In particular, the University of Saskatchewan (Canada) and Te Whare Wānanga o Awanuiārangi (New Zealand) provide models with elements to aspire to when implementing a WoU approach.

Indigenous universities take an approach to Indigenous education in which incorporation of Indigenous education is present in the institution from its foundation and which is implemented from the highest level. The entire institution takes responsibility, and all aspects of the university incorporate local Indigenous knowledge and culture. This culture is created through the public emphasis by senior executives on the incorporation of local Indigenous culture, knowledges and success as a core part of the whole institution’s business.

The chief executive officer of Awanuiārangi (Te Whare Wānanga o Awanuiārangi, 2016, p. 8) emphasised that cultural competency and academic achievement are as important as one another. The University of Saskatchewan emphasised Aboriginal success as one of four priority goals in ‘A Framework for Planning at the University of Saskatchewan’ (University of Saskatchewan, 1998, p. 6). This creates a culture in which the whole university has a common focus on Indigenous education and cultural competency as a core priority. In addition, this demonstrates involvement and accountability for the acceleration of Indigenous higher education at the highest levels.

A university-wide focus on Indigenous education must also be embedded within institutions’ strategic plans, as Saskatchewan and First Nations universities have done. These universities centre almost every aspect of the university on the integration of Indigenous cultures and knowledges, and the improvement of outcomes for Indigenous students. Awanuiārangi also embeds Indigenous education and culture in almost all of their strategic goals, according to Wānanga Ringahora: The Economic Contribution of the Wānanga Sector (Te Tauhi O Ngā Wānanga, 2014, p.14). This contrasts strikingly with Australian universities in which there is little, if any, focus on Indigenous education in strategic planning. Further, few Australian universities have an Indigenous-specific strategic plan beyond reconciliation action plans (RAPs) and Indigenous employment strategies.

43

Indigenous universities have learning and teaching frameworks for Indigenous education that are embedded throughout the curriculum. Awanuiārangi has Māori language, implemented to varying levels throughout all courses, demonstrating cultural presence throughout the university. The First Nations University also incorporates Indigenous knowledges in curricula university-wide and provides specialised Indigenous knowledges degrees, such as the Bachelor of Indigenous Health Studies, in a range of fields. The University of Saskatchewan aimed to deepen the inclusion of Aboriginal knowledge in the curriculum in Forging New Relationships: The Foundational Document on Aboriginal Initiatives at the University of Saskatchewan (University of Saskatchewan, 2003). Implementation of Indigenous cultures and knowledges within all tertiary curricula makes Indigenous education relevant through a WoU approach.

Designated spaces and units for Indigenous students are present at Awanuiārangi and the University of Saskatchewan. These units provide student support in a similar manner to Indigenous student centres within Australian universities; however, unlike most centres in Australia, these units do not appear to have sole responsibility for implementing Indigenous initiatives across the university.

It is difficult to ascertain the degree to which Indigenous universities provide a conducive learning environment for both Indigenous and non-Indigenous students. It would be incorrect to assume that an Indigenous university is necessarily a culturally welcoming space. The University of Saskatchewan reported anecdotal evidence of a sense that the university was not a welcoming space for Aboriginal students (University of Saskatchewan, 2003). However, that information was provided in 2003 when the university was still developing its cultural competency program. This indicates that cultural competency programs are a necessary part of a WoU approach.

Indigenous universities have vibrant displays of Indigenous culture throughout the campus, although this also occurs with some Australian universities. First Nations and Saskatchewan universities go beyond this by incorporating highly visual cultural elements into their architectural design, providing a clear visual link to culture. Awanuiārangi has designed its visual cultural elements to be learning spaces, facilitating Māori education. Visual representation of Indigenous culture on campus creates a more culturally welcoming environment for Indigenous students and demonstrates a university’s positive attitude towards the promotion of local Indigenous culture.

Community ties are an important element for universities and allow them to obtain guidance on and input into programs and initiatives. This two-way relationship is necessary to ensure community views are considered and incorporated throughout universities. The relationship takes different forms across tertiary institutions and is often accompanied by several different access points for community knowledge within one institution. For example, the First Nations University has an ‘Elder’s office’, with resident Elders who work in conjunction with the Katayak Elders Council, which provides consultancy and guidance on the university’s programming and activities. Additionally, the First Nations University has discussed plans for expansion of community engagement, demonstrating its prioritisation of this aspect of a WoU approach. Awanuiārangi also states that its council is a partnership between the Crown and the founding tribe, Ngāti Awa, demonstrating the high standing of the local community within the university (Te Whare Wānanga o Awanuiārangi, n.d.). The University of Saskatchewan demonstrated clear dedication to developing community relationships to better the university, students, and the local community for each other’s mutual benefit is continually reinforced throughout the foundation statement. However, it is not clear how these community

44

relationships were developed and the level to which they have had, and continue to have, influence and input into key decision-making within the university.

Each Indigenous university operates within the context of its local community, and not every aspect employed by these universities can be readily adopted by Australian communities. However, elements of these universities provide examples that can be adapted when implementing a WoU approach to Indigenous education.

5.3 Survey results Following the NATSIHEC (AC) roundtable, a qualitative survey was sent to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders at all Table A Australian universities and other non-Aboriginal key stakeholders. The survey objectives were to:

1. identify the level of support among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander university staff for a WoU approach to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander higher education

2. define a WoU approach for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander higher education and identify key characteristics and aspects

3. identify existing successful models of a WoU approach

4. highlight current levels of engagement between faculty, office and departmental staff and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander activity at individual institutions

5. define the responsibility for driving a WoU approach

6. identify government policy reforms.

The survey questions and some responses follow.

Q1. Can you tell us what institution/organisation you are associated with?

Participants who indicated their institution represented universities from Victoria, New South Wales, Northern Territory, Tasmania and Queensland. Forty-four per cent of participants did not indicate any association.

Q2. Do you believe it is important for universities to adopt a 'whole-of-university' approach to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander higher education?

Figure 3: Importance of adopting a whole-of-government approach

94.12 %

% 5.88

Yes No

Do you believe it is important for universities to adopt a 'whole of university' approach to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

higher education?

45

• Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders engage with all areas and levels of a university. It is therefore incumbent on universities to have the whole organisation involved.

• A WoU approach is the most effective way to ensure that Aboriginal business is university business and, therefore, everybody's business.

Q3. How would you define a 'whole-of-university' approach?

• This would involve everything a university does, including the built environment, governance, staffing, students, curriculum, teaching and research.

• A strategic approach created in collaboration with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, implemented (and implementable) by all areas of the university from central management down to individual schools and units. That all institutional documents that have strategic documents that have targets related to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students commencing and completing have more localised Indigenous Action Plans. That Indigenous staff are employed throughout the university including both academic and professional staff roles in all faculties and divisions.

• A WoU approach to me means that faculty staff and professional staff engage and commit to increasing and supporting the recruitment and retention of Indigenous students. This could be by recognising cultural obligations that our students have (family, Sorry Business, etc.) and acknowledging this by supporting Indigenous Support Units in recruitment processes but also supporting students via assessment, class interactions, class attendance. The lack of cultural safety within some faculties and professional services is astonishing. I expect there to be increased Indigenous staff employed in any positions, including senior positions. I'm not saying that Indigenous people should be employed to make KPIs—people need to be employed based on merit.

• Where everybody in the university, from the vice-chancellor and senior management [down] actively and openly considers Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff and student needs when developing policies, programs and community engagement. And that all staff have the skills and cultural competence needed to ensure that Aboriginal needs and best interests are appropriately understood.

• That all areas of the university are invested in achieving Indigenous student engagement, aspiration and success, that is, that not all Indigenous-related issues/matters are deferred to the Indigenous portfolio/teams/staff by default.

• It needs to be served from the top down. Accountability by means of KPIs for Senior University Executive is paramount. This is not just a problem for the Indigenous staff to handle, actually Indigenous staff shouldn't be expected to be responsible for this issue.

• Again there are two differing forms of the ‘whole university’ approach. One where all ATSI initiatives are mainstreamed and ATSI centres lose control of the directives. The second alternative is that ATSI centres remain at the heart of teaching and research initiatives and direct ATSI teaching and research across the institution.

• All university buying into the approach while taking direction from the central Indigenous unit.

46

• Cohesion, agreed and aligned vision, putting Indigenous peoples’ needs and aspirations first.

• Where every action, program, policy and service is inclusive of our peoples.

• A holistic approach to Indigenous education, whereby faculties, departments and offices collaboratively work towards a common goal, led by a strong Indigenous voice. The key is partnerships, consultation from the beginning and throughout, and a strategic approach that encapsulates the whole campus, from staff to students and stakeholders.

• The university from the chancellery to the divisions and faculties all have a responsibility for the success and participation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff and students. All areas are to have a strategic plan that has Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander business as core business and not an afterthought or add on or ‘oh the Oodgeroo Unit will take care of that’.

• Indigenous outcomes are both prioritised and embedded in university core business within all organisational entities.

• Everyone is responsible, everyone needs to be involved.

Q4. Can you identify characteristics of your institution/organisation that contribute to a 'whole-of-university' approach to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander higher education?

Figure 4: Characteristics of a whole-of-government approach

• Some faculties are now ‘coming to the party’ and contributing to orientation programs run by the Support Unit, and are also requesting training around challenges our students face during their academic journey. There is a push for more Indigenous staff in both academic and research areas, yet there are faculties and professional services that do not have Indigenous staff employed. There is consistent rhetoric around ‘growing our own’ in terms of academia, but little seems to be done to encourage this, unless it comes from the Indigenous support unit. I would like to see more Indigenous staff in senior positions; however, this also seems to be lip service rather than actively locating competent people to undertake these positions. There does not seem to be career pathways for Indigenous staff, and certainly, it would seem that Indigenous staff who are currently in senior positions are not mentoring Indigenous staff to be promoted into senior positions either at their current university or for preparation to apply for positions in other universities.

% 35.29

64.71 %

No Yes

Can you identify characteristics of your institution/organisation that contribute to a 'whole-of-university' approach to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

higher education?

47

• The only person responsible is the senior Indigenous person on campus.

• Reconciliation Action Plan and Indigenous Plan within our overall strategy.

• Very little, we have membership on some committees but not the senior decision making committees.

• Most evident in senior staff openness to contribute—not so much in corporate documentation or resourcing commitments.

Q5. What do you identify as being the key aspects and characteristics of a ‘whole of university’ approach?

Figure 5: Key aspects of a whole-of-government approach

Q6. To what extent are the faculties in your institution engaged in Aboriginal student access, participation and success strategies?

Figure 6: Engagement of faculties

0.00 %

% 10.00

20.00 %

% 30.00

40.00 %

% 50.00

% 60.00

Very Engaged Not at all Additional Partly Comments ( see

below)

48

• This rises and falls based on the individual commitment to the Indigenous Agenda. If it serves individuals’ purposes to be engaged in this space, for example, as benefits for personal gain, then people can be very concerned. Therefore, the sustainability of these issues is subject to personal interest or whim and not based on faculties commitment to these matters.

• Some faculties are beginning to be involved but there are half of the faculties at this institution that do not engage in access, participation and success strategies despite numerous attempts to get them involved.

• Faculties have been steadily improving their engagement over the last two years. Now a very positive engagement across most faculties and a willingness to change how they do Indigenous business.

Q.7 Can you nominate an institution that you believe has successfully adopted a 'whole-of-university' approach?

Figure 7: Successful adoptions of a whole-of-government approach

Q.8 What do you believe are the key factors that have driven their success?

• Whole-of-university approach with clear measurements and outcomes. Senior Exec[utives] are accountable, but also buy-in.

• Leadership, both Indigenous and other.

• Leadership and commitment.

• Level of engagement of senior Indigenous staff—international attention.

Q9. In what ways are these skills transferable between institutions?

• It is about governance, and being driven from the top. If it is in everyone’s KPIs, people will begin to become interested and motivated.

• Through networks like NATSIHEC (AC).

• Through networking and recognition.

• Very—need more unity than reinventing wheel, for example, strategies, benchmarking.

0.00 % 10.00 % 20.00 %

% 30.00 40.00 % 50.00 % 60.00 % 70.00 % 80.00 %

No Yes

49

Q10. Whose responsibility is it to drive a ‘whole-of-university’ approach?

• Senior management to drive. But everyone’s to do.

• The Chancellery.

• Everybody’s responsibility if institutions want to be seen as actively support Indigenous higher education—from Chancellery, academic and professional bodies. As it is, it is challenging for under-resourced Indigenous support units to continue to take full responsibility for this.

• Senior management including the senior Aboriginal position to work with the various parts of the university to drive change x 2.

• The Senior Executive with the support of Indigenous PVCs and/or portfolios.

• Vice-Chancellor x 3.

• ATSI and university equal partnership.

• VC and senior staff.

• All senior leadership of the university.

• Council and the Senior Executive Leadership.

• VC/Board—but often falls on Institute.

Q.11 What role do Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Centres (or equivalent) play in implementing and sustaining a ‘whole-of-university’ approach?

• Advice to leaders, support to individuals.

• They are critical for a variety of reasons, including providing safe places for students to break out to and to reaffirm connections and cultural identity.

• I would expect that the role of Indigenous support units has been total—but this cannot be sustained without the support of the institution.

• They are a vital component. Not only do they hold the overarching responsibility for students, they are also the main interface between the university and the Aboriginal community. They need to be vibrantly physically and culturally present on campus.

• Quite often the immediate assumption and expectation is that these centres are at the core of enabling WoU approaches, that is, central source of all things relating to Indigenous targets/outcomes.

• To support, but not drive. Their job is students ... not strategy.

• Crucial.

• Providing direction, advice and reporting.

• We are the experts. We should be self-determining our business. We need to be at the table.

• Provide input, should not be responsible.

• Raising the Indigenous voice, building the capacity of the university, training, cultural support for staff, motivation, and sharing of knowledge.

50

• At …, very little. We can make suggestions and recommendation but they don’t seem to have much of an impact.

• Depends on whether the university has an Indigenous senior executive as the centre is likely to be marginalised; ideally it would ensure the cultural integrity of all strategies implemented to achieve Indigenous outcomes.

Q12. What evidence and data are indicators of a university’s success in delivering a ‘whole-of-university’ approach?

• When we see Indigenous students and staff spread throughout the institution and succeeding at rates comparable to their non-Indigenous peers.

• In addition to the traditional reporting measures—access, retention, attrition, completions but also full reporting structures on embedding Indigenous knowledges, Indigenous staff satisfaction and Indigenous student satisfaction.

• Increased student enrolment and completions; increased Indigenous employment; embedding Indigenous knowledges throughout the curriculum in all courses offered by the institution.

• Student enrolments up; completions up; strong engagement with the community; all faculties and divisions actively involved; rising numbers of Aboriginal academics; rising numbers of Aboriginal HDR enrolments and completions.

• Indigenous students, staff and the rest of the community have a sense of belonging. That they feel valued, respected and unique in the Australian context as First Nations people.

• Student and staff numbers and all staff reporting on their success and outcomes.

• For me none!

• Increased participation and success rates for students and staff.

• High retention of students and staff. Low absences. Good wellbeing. No racism.

• Employment and graduation numbers of our peoples.

• Student enrolments, progression, completions, Indigenous employment, Position of highest Indigenous staff member, presence of Indigenous curriculum and cultural training.

• University senior leadership KPIs; reporting in university annual reports of initiatives outside of the Indigenous Support Unit.

• Core student and staffing metrics.

• High staff/student participation and appreciation.

Q13. From a national perspective, what have been the key factors that have driven any success or increased outcomes in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander higher education?

• Demand-driven enrolment system enables more students to get into university. HEPPP and outreach programs have served to build aspiration, and a growing awareness and willingness of unis and communities to address historic under-servicing of Indigenous peoples.

51

• Indigenous support units, Indigenous employment strategies, Indigenous curriculum.

• Indigenous support units; pro-vice chancellor positions who are in a position to be heard.

• Very little has changed in my time. Intentions are good, but action on those intentions, especially actions that disturb the status quo, seem to fall by the wayside. It’s not from want of Indigenous academics trying. There now seems to be a greater move for change—and senior appointments are part of that. Got to have a seat at the table to be heard. A lot of increased participation is related to Aboriginal people themselves wanting to pursue higher ed. Unis playing catch up—but it’s getting better.

• Flexible and responsive pathway programs of Indigenous students, that is, language, literacy and numeracy, pastoral and academic support—particularly responding to the reality of the Indigenous student cohort and demographic.

• ATSI direction and control.

• Number of people identifying as Aboriginal these days ... Various papers (can’t think of them right now).

• Changing the narrative from deficit to success.

• National policies have been key drivers.

• Active NATSIHEC (AC) members who are committed to the change, attend meetings and contribute to the discussion with federal government representatives.

• Advocacy from Indigenous academic leaders and the Indigenous academy, their hard work and commitment, Behrendt Review.

• Indigenous staff presence with university-wide support.

Q14. Can you identify any policy reforms that the Australian government need to drive to support ‘whole-of-university’ approaches to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander higher education?

• Extra funding is always useful, but really it is not impossible for unis to do with existing resources.

• Increased funding that supports a whole of university approach that recognises the importance of Indigenous student support at all levels of the university but particularly in Indigenous support units.

• More reward for universities who are innovative and responsive to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander needs; more identification of monies—such as block grants—that universities are required to spend supporting Aboriginal staff and researchers—a public ‘My Aboriginal University’ site that rates universities across a range of measurable whole-of-university items.

• Recent funding model reforms to all Indigenous supplementary funding programs and initiatives have been a major disruption to core business. The shift has become outcomes-focused and non-reflective of actual Indigenous student demographics/trends; for example, mature-aged part-time students who take longer to complete their studies and/or defer studies for periods of time. Thirty per cent of all Indigenous supplementary funding is now retained until completion and this is not reflective/responsive to institution’s needs.

52

• Provide more funding for ATSI higher education.

• Don’t think the government needs to drive this—should be down to what suits each institution.

• Cultural competence and anti-racism workshops—basically they need to invest in teaching the real history of our country. More funding for scholarships and bursaries to actually get kids to uni. Support for Indigenous academics.

• Provide greater incentives and penalties for lack of effort.

• Embedding KPIs into university funding to support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander outcomes. KPIs that are identified by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander higher education employees. KPIs are not met, then limited funding. For example, enforce university contributions to support the Indigenous Support Unit and a minimum specified percentage of total income.

• PMC [Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet] and [Department of] Education need to better understand and appreciate the Indigenous higher education sector, currently forced to deal with ignorance and ineptitude.

Summary of survey results

Survey responses revealed a high level of support (93.33%) for a WoU approach to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander higher education. Respondents defined a WoU approach as a cohesive and inclusive approach to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander higher education led from the top by the vice-chancellor and senior executives, and informed by the institution’s IEUs. Further, strategy, policy and KPIs, or other measurement and accountability instruments, should be informed by IEUs in collaboration with senior staff, faculties and departments across each institution.

The results indicated strong support for the vice-chancellor and senior leadership taking the lead in a WoU approach.

Respondents were asked to identify key aspects and characteristics of a WoU approach. The following aspects or characteristics received a response rate of 80% or greater:

• senior executive appointments

• WoU Indigenous strategies

• institutional strategic plans and KPIs

• WoU Indigenous curriculum framework

• WoU governance, committees and structures

• senior participation and university committees.

Results show a lack of faculty engagement with university strategies designed to improve Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander student access, participation and success. However, three respondents indicated some improvement in this context, while one respondent felt there was now ‘very positive engagement’ with faculties within their institution. Respondents felt it was the role of senior executive staff, vice-chancellors and university boards and councils to lead the implementation of a WoU approach.

53

The responses showed the role of IEUs to be crucial to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students. Responses emphasised that IEUs provide safe spaces for Indigenous students and staff to live and learn, and an environment that is respectful of their and others’ cultures. Further, responses indicated that IEUs enabled the provision of appropriate direction, advice and reporting to universities. Respondents generally felt IEUs were integral and holistic components of universities through their provision of support and strategic advice towards a WoU approach.

To facilitate the implementation of a WoU approach to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander higher education, the following initiatives were identified:

• seek funding from government to support a WoU approach and to reward institutions that are responsive to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander needs

• develop accountability measures, such as a website for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples that rates universities across measurable WoU targets

• embed KPIs into university funding to support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander outcomes and the establishment of IEUs.

5.4 National expert roundtable The national expert roundtable was held in Adelaide on 13–14 October 2016. The focus of the roundtable was to discuss a WoU approach to advancing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander higher education; for example, developing a supportive culture, instituting appropriate governance, establishing budget and accountability frameworks, defining characteristics and principles, showcasing examples of good practice; and determining future directions.

The following key issues arose in response to the above topics:

• university contribution versus government contribution

• accountability of universities for representation in key decision-making and senior management

• inclusivity of funds

• tokenism versus real change

• governance, values and culture

• identified positions at all levels

• need for a review of all KPIs

• cultural respect for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples across all parts of the university

• universities partnering to share good practice

• demonstration of application of RAPs

• current evidence

• safe university environments for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples

• ability of universities to deliver

• barriers to a WoU approach

54

• need to reframe the ‘it worked in the past’ mentality

• scholarship eligibility review

• the development of a virtual Indigenous university

• decolonisation of education

• the presence of Indigenous centres is crucial to universities and should not be compromised for WoU approaches

• reliance on supplementary funds

• sovereignty.

1. How do you define a WoU approach for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander education?

The NATSIHEC (AC) roundtable aimed to define a WoU approach for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander higher education, which encompasses commencement, retention and completion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students. The working groups discussed ideas for a WoU approach, with a focus on governance as the key disseminator of values and culture throughout the university. A WoU approach was identified as a method of fostering cultural respect. It was further suggested that an important aspect of a WoU approach is the existence of systems and structures driven through integrated strategic plans, RAPs and further WoU strategies. A WoU approach is also defined by the cultural dynamic and environments of universities. It was strongly suggested that IECs should not be sacrificed for a WoU approach.

The key principles were determined as:

• self-determination

• social justice

• equity

• accountability

• attainability and sustainability

• transparency.

Figure 10 was suggested as a model that reflected a WoU approach.

55

Figure 8: A model that reflects a whole-of-government approach

2. What are the benefits of WoU approaches?

Several benefits of a WoU approach were identified, including moral responsibility, business incentives, student benefits, community engagement, academic empowerment, financial incentives, and providing a counter to the current western viewpoint embedded within institutions.

3. What are the barriers to a WoU approach?

The roundtable believed that the current barriers to a WoU approach related to buy-in by the senior executives of universities. It was hoped that the launch of the anticipated Universities Australia’s Indigenous Strategy 2017–2020 would assist in reinforcing the importance of this commitment. It was also considered that there is a lack of guidance and evidence around the implementation of a WoU approach, so although there were universities that had the goodwill, they lacked direction. Resources and funding were also deemed to be a contributing factor to barriers. Given the extensive growth required in all key areas of the university, there was concern that the current access to resources was insufficient. Ongoing racism was also raised as a strong contributor to barriers to a positive and proactive university environment conducive to advancing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander higher education.

4. What is the current evidence telling us?

It was highlighted that there is currently no university within Australia that is implementing a WoU approach in an entirely effective manner. It was stated that a recent survey indicated that one-third of universities are doing well with their WoU approach to Indigenous policy, one-third demonstrate average progress, and one-third are not doing well.

It was believed that IECs are currently the core of support for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students and implementation of initiatives within the wider university. The work undertaken by IECs is vital for students, and there was a clear view in discussions that they should not be diminished to allow for a WoU approach.

Govern-ance

Culture

Whole of University

Values

56

5. Do we believe that the current evidence has demonstrated whole-of-university to be a productive model? Why?

The working group believed it was too soon to evaluate the true impacts of a WoU approach; however, universities that have demonstrated actions aligned to a WoU approach tend to have better achievements and outcomes than universities that have not progressed or have only recently progressed WoU strategies and structures.

6. What examples are there of what is working?

The working groups highlighted a few universities that reflected a holistic approach to a WoU agenda; however, there were a number of universities that demonstrated good practice in certain areas.

• The Australian National University was one of the first universities (after Curtin University) to develop and implement a RAP. The RAP sought to embed strategies, systems and structures that would reflect a WoU approach driven by the senior deputy vice-chancellor.

• The University of Technology Sydney introduced a comprehensive committee structure that incorporates senior committees for all core areas of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander higher education. Each committee is chaired by the relevant senior executive member and determines strategies, resources and clear KPIs.

• La Trobe University and the University of Western Australia offer Indigenous Studies foundation modules that are compulsory for all undergraduate students enrolled at the universities. The modules cover a base-level knowledge of history, culture and protocols that form the foundations for further embedded knowledges within individual academic programs.

• The University of Newcastle has high-level KPIs linked to its Institutional Strategic Plan 2011–2015 relating to workforce and Indigenous student outcomes. Further to this, the university was the first in Australia to receive cultural accreditation from the World Indigenous Nations Higher Education Consortium (2010) recognising the holistic approach to embedding a culturally affirming and intellectually engaging space across the university.

7. What are the components/factors that contribute to a successful whole-of-university approach around Indigenous education?

• Governance and accountability

• Learning and teaching

• Research

• KPIs, strategies and evaluation.

Governance

Discussions by the working groups concluded there is a definite need for governance within universities to include Indigenous representation at all levels. Each institution should be accountable for ensuring there is adequate representation of Indigenous people across all university classifications and streams, including in senior management and leadership positions, and on decision-making boards and committees. The working group identified that all universities should have an Indigenous position on their council.

57

Learning and teaching

The working groups identified a clear need for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander history, cultures, knowledges and issues to be embedded throughout every course offered within Australian universities. Learning and teaching is the core business of universities, and the embedment of these elements at the course level will not only reflect universities’ commitment but also allow students to gain a deeper understanding of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Students will also develop a deeper level of knowledge; the lack of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander knowledges leads to a significant gap in the level of understanding that students can gain from all content.

The working groups also discussed the need for a framework to support pre-service teachers in gaining culturally appropriate skills and understanding of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander history, cultures, knowledges and issues. Not only is a framework necessary for pre-service teachers to meet professional teaching standards, but it also ensures future Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students will be supported and engaged in a culturally appropriate manner within the classroom. A framework as part of a WoU approach would assist in the decolonisation of education.

Research

The fields of research (FOR) codes for Indigenous Studies are at the six-digit level. The codes are the standard FOR classification codes used by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) and the Australian Research Council (ARC) to classify research activity in Australia. The working groups mentioned that the use of ABS data in defining the key code areas are the main issue when it comes to changing the codes to a four-digit level. A conversation is required with the ABS to discuss the codes in relation to future change. The working groups recommended that the six-digit level of coding should be revised so that Indigenous study is granted four-digit status. This would mean that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander funding goes to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander research staff or students and that non-Indigenous staff would be unable to use funding for Indigenous research without Indigenous involvement. In addition, transparency is required for research grants. The FOR codes are scheduled to be revised in 2018.

ISP funding was not available for research students as the program was linked to increasing enrolment, retention and completion rates for undergraduate Indigenous students. Roundtable participants anticipated that this will change when the new ISSP guidelines are finalised.

KPIs, strategies and evaluation

The working groups suggested the need for a demonstrated application of university-wide strategies. They discussed the possibility of developing sector-wide generic KPIs and university-specific KPIs to address the needs of students and the community. Current KPIs should be reviewed to ensure Indigenous values have a place across all performance outcomes.

The working groups identified that all universities should be required to have a RAP and to provide evidence of its implementation and impact within the university.

The working groups discussed the idea of whether there should be a graduate workforce with specific roles and responsibilities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students.

58

The working groups suggested that the cycle shown in Figure 11 provides an effective process for evaluating, reviewing and rewarding successful progress of WoU approaches by universities.

Figure 9: Possible cycle of a whole-of-government approach

Accord •Indigenous

values & principles

•Agreements

Assessment •Indigenous

Knowledges •Governance •Leadership

Accreditation •NATSIHEC (AC) •Expert panels

Recognition

59

5.5 Indigenous Education Statements The DET provided all 2015 Indigenous Education Statements for analysis. Table 1 gives an overview of university outcomes against the seven key aspects of a WoU approach.

Table 1: Universities’ performance against seven key aspects of WoU

Key Aspects 1. Governance/

Strategy/Leadership

2. Aborigina

l spaces

3. Community

Student engagement

4. Learning & Teaching

& Research

5. Cultural programs

6. Appropriate resourcing

7. Workforce

plans

PVC/ DVC

Included in Senior Executive Group

Community representative/Com

mittee structure

ISP Indigenous education

included in university

strategic plan

Learning and

Teaching

Research

Institution

1 UWA ?

2 UNSW

3 UniSA

4 UoN

5 USYD

6 UTS

8 UoW ?

9 CDU

10 CQU

11 Griffith

12 JCU

13 QUT

14 UQ ?

15 USQ x

16 USC

17 UC

18 UMELB

19 UTAS

20 Deakin

21 VicU ?

22 RMIT ?

23 Swin ?

24 Flinders ?

25 UAdel ?

26 La Trobe ?

27 Monash ?

28 Murdoch ?

29 Curtin ?

30 ECU

?

31 UNE

?

32 SCU ?

33 ANU

34 CSU ?

35 ACU

36 MQU

37 WSU

38 FedUni

?

60

Governance, strategy and leadership

Appointment of senior Indigenous positions

From 2009 to 2017, there were 15 pro vice-chancellor positions and two deputy vice-chancellor positions appointed that have Indigenous higher education as a portfolio responsibility. Of these positions, 52% also have membership on the highest level senior executive committee. Table 2 shows the universities that have created senior positions with responsibility for Indigenous higher education, from 2009 to 2017. It includes the recent two inaugural Australian Aboriginal distinguished professors appointed in 2016 and 2017. It is worth noting that although the University of Canberra does not have a pro vice-chancellor, the university appointed an Aboriginal chancellor in 2013.

Table 2: University appointments of Indigenous pro vice-chancellors and vice-chancellors

University Job title Year Member of executive group

Charles Darwin University Pro Vice-Chancellor (Indigenous Education and Research)

2009 Yes

University of Notre Dame Deputy Vice-Chancellor 2009 Yes University of Sydney Deputy Vice-Chancellor

(Indigenous Strategy and Services) 2011 Yes

University of Queensland Pro Vice-Chancellor (Indigenous Engagement

2011 Yes

Central Queensland University Pro Vice-Chancellor (BHP Chair in Indigenous Engagement)

2012 Yes

Edith Cowan University Pro Vice-Chancellor (Equity and Indigenous)

2012 Yes

University of Wollongong Pro Vice-Chancellor (Inclusion and Outreach)

2013 No

University of Tasmania Pro Vice-Chancellor (Aboriginal Research and Leadership)

2014 Yes

Charles Sturt University Pro Vice-Chancellor (Indigenous Education)

2014 No

University of Melbourne Pro Vice-Chancellor (Engagement) 2014 No Western Sydney University Pro Vice-Chancellor (Aboriginal and

Torres Strait Islander Leadership) 2015 No

University of Newcastle Pro Vice-Chancellor (Indigenous Education and Research)

2016 No

University of Technology Sydney

Pro Vice-Chancellor (Indigenous Leadership and Engagement)

2016 No

James Cook University Pro Vice-Chancellor (Indigenous Education and Strategy)

2016 Yes

University of Western Australia Pro Vice-Chancellor (Indigenous Education)

2016 No

RMIT University Pro Vice-Chancellor (Indigenous Education and Engagement)

2017 No

University of New South Wales Pro Vice-Chancellor (Indigenous) 2017 No Monash University Pro Vice-Chancellor (Indigenous) Queensland University of Technology

Distinguished Professor 2016

University of Melbourne Distinguished Professor 2017

61

Governance—community representation

Of 38 universities, 17 have Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander advisory committees or equivalent. These committees have a membership that is either full Aboriginal participation or majority Aboriginal participation, with external and/or internal representation. They are primarily responsible for providing expert advice to universities on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander higher education. The new ISSP guidelines (2017) reinforce the importance of Indigenous people and committees in contributing to decision-making, particularly on the distribution of funding. Section 11 of the Indigenous Student Assistance Grants Guidelines 2017 (Cth) states:

To meet the requirements of these Guidelines, the Indigenous Governance Mechanism of a Table A provider or a Table B provider must:

(a) consist of:

(i) an appropriately qualified senior academic employee of the provider who is an Indigenous person; or

(ii) an appropriately qualified senior executive employee of the provider who is an Indigenous person; or

(iii) a committee constituted by a majority of Indigenous persons, each of whom has skills and experience relevant to the role; and

(b) have responsibility for advising on, reviewing, making recommendations about, and monitoring the use of ISSP grants; and

(c) have authority within the governance structure of the provider; and

(d) have a charter that outlines:

(i) criteria for appointment; and (ii) roles and responsibilities; and (iii) decision-making processes.

Strategy

Seventeen universities have a WoU Indigenous strategy or equivalent. The strategies generally relate to all core areas of the university and are led by a senior position with responsibility for Indigenous higher education. Further to this, 26 universities now have Indigenous higher education represented in their strategic plan.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander designated spaces

The majority of universities have Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander designated spaces; however, there are variances in how they are situated in each university. Some spaces have a holistic, expert and centralised model, whereas others have multiple, concentrated expertise in certain areas, such as research, student engagement or learning and teaching. Recently, a few universities have also dispersed staff that were originally within an IEU into mainstream faculties and units, and left unstaffed spaces for students to access. One of the main contributors that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students link to their positive student experience is being a part of a community or family representing a culturally safe

62

space conducive to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander success (Trudgett, 2009; Pechenkina & Anderson, 2011; Pechenkina, Kowal, & Paradies, 2011). Therefore, it is questionable if an unstaffed student space is an effective strategy.

Student outcomes

Table 3 demonstrates the steady growth in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander access, participation, retention and success from 2010 to 2015. It also highlights the variances across the sector in all target areas.

Table 3: Percentage of Indigenous access rates for domestic students at Table A institutions, 2010–2015

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Australia Table A Providers 1.59 1.64 1.66 1.70 1.77 1.89 State and territory New South Wales 1.55 1.65 1.75 1.94 2.04 2.17 Victoria 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.81 0.84 0.90 Queensland 1.98 1.94 2.22 2.15 2.36 2.69 Western Australia 1.84 1.77 1.56 1.60 1.71 1.82 South Australia 1.39 1.50 1.41 1.53 1.42 1.42 Tasmania 1.59 1.76 1.77 1.71 1.84 2.05 Northern Territory 10.31 11.37 9.69 8.03 6.93 7.92 Australian Capital Territory 1.28 1.36 1.22 1.30 1.39 1.34 Multi-state 1.71 1.87 1.40 1.69 1.69 1.50 Higher education institution Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education

98.4 93.58 100 0.00 50.00 100

Charles Darwin University 5.46 6.60 9.49 8.03 6.89 7.80 James Cook University 4.94 3.96 5.27 5.27 5.51 6.70 Southern Cross University 3.24 3.39 3.16 3.76 4.59 4.98 University of New England 2.67 3.23 3.33 3.32 3.39 4.13 University of Newcastle 2.94 2.80 2.82 3.02 3.17 3.90 Central Queensland University 3.76 3.45 3.67 2.96 3.59 3.66 University of Southern Queensland 2.27 2.17 2.63 2.41 2.83 3.44 Charles Sturt University 1.73 2.17 2.68 3.27 3.15 3.29 University of the Sunshine Coast 1.88 2.11 2.03 2.56 2.20 3.06 Murdoch University 2.58 1.65 1.70 2.07 3.02 2.59 Griffith University 1.78 1.76 1.88 2.09 2.29 2.58 University of Tasmania 1.59 1.76 1.77 1.71 1.84 2.05 University of Canberra 1.37 1.38 1.55 1.68 1.71 1.92 Edith Cowan University 1.38 1.24 1.41 1.43 1.48 1.90 Western Sydney University 1.22 1.43 1.36 1.41 1.75 1.86 Curtin University of Technology 2.42 2.67 1.94 1.86 1.78 1.84 University of Wollongong 1.61 1.73 1.66 1.90 1.84 1.82 University of Western Australia 1.62 1.60 1.38 1.55 1.53 1.67 University of Adelaide 1.69 1.59 1.52 1.49 1.85 1.65 Queensland University of Technology 1.09 1.44 1.51 1.49 1.59 1.54 Australian Catholic University 1.71 1.87 1.40 1.69 1.69 1.50

63

Deakin University 2.16 2.01 1.89 1.92 1.80 1.48 University of Technology Sydney 1.45 0.83 0.86 1.05 1.13 1.47 University of South Australia 1.29 1.59 1.55 1.7 1.40 1.40 Federation University Australia( 0.59 0.62 0.80 1.13 1.05 1.32 Flinders University 1.24 1.30 1.16 1.29 1.12 1.32 University of Queensland 0.91 0.94 1.09 0.91 1.07 1.26 La Trobe University 0.52 0.77 0.81 0.72 1.22 1.09 University of Notre Dame Australia 0.79 0.86 0.73 0.66 0.79 1.02 University of Sydney 0.83 0.79 0.96 1.04 1.02 0.90 Australian National University 1.19 1.34 0.93 0.95 1.13 0.89 Macquarie University 0.42 0.88 0.91 0.91 1.12 0.87 University of Melbourne 0.67 0.50 0.49 0.70 0.67 0.87 Swinburne University of Technology 0.25 0.29 0.48 0.56 0.37 0.77 University of New South Wales 0.78 0.77 0.95 1.13 0.94 0.71 Victoria University 0.49 0.34 0.39 0.64 0.77 0.69 RMIT University 0.48 0.57 0.53 0.39 0.43 0.62 Monash University 0.50 0.53 0.46 0.44 0.42 0.54

Table 4: Percentage of Indigenous participation rates for domestic students at Table A institutions, 2010–2015

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Australia Table A providers 1.35 1.38 1.41 1.47 1.54 1.60 State and territory New South Wales 1.31 1.40 1.49 1.63 1.72 1.77 Victoria 0.67 0.69 0.72 0.72 0.75 0.79 Queensland 1.74 1.75 1.88 1.91 2.07 2.28 Western Australia 1.33 1.27 1.18 1.19 1.29 1.33 South Australia 1.22 1.30 1.27 1.33 1.37 1.38 Tasmania 1.50 1.65 1.79 1.71 1.85 2.06 Northern Territory 10.37 9.17 7.29 7.40 6.78 6.95 Australian Capital Territory 1.12 1.23 1.20 1.32 1.36 1.40 Multi-state 2.10 2.04 1.78 1.73 1.72 1.58 Higher education institution Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education(c) 97.7 94.4 100 94.12 87.50 93.75 Charles Darwin University 5.01 5.27 7.06 7.25 6.64 6.81 James Cook University 4.01 3.79 4.35 4.38 4.52 5.16 Southern Cross University 2.71 2.86 2.94 3.33 3.85 4.30 University of Newcastle 2.44 2.52 2.53 2.75 2.90 3.17 Central Queensland University 3.21 3.08 3.16 2.74 3.11 3.16 University of New England 2.21 2.57 2.71 2.80 2.79 3.12 University of Southern Queensland 2.23 2.19 2.28 2.26 2.55 2.83 Charles Sturt University 1.57 1.79 2.11 2.59 2.84 2.81 University of the Sunshine Coast 1.73 1.87 1.88 2.20 2.25 2.54 Griffith University 1.82 1.80 1.77 1.94 2.09 2.31

64

University of Tasmania 1.50 1.65 1.79 1.71 1.85 2.06 Murdoch University 1.72 1.44 1.26 1.49 1.93 1.93 University of Canberra 1.17 1.37 1.39 1.60 1.71 1.87 University of Wollongong 1.41 1.47 1.55 1.66 1.75 1.79 Queensland University of Technology 1.14 1.25 1.39 1.43 1.57 1.64 Deakin University 1.86 1.87 1.90 1.88 1.80 1.63 Western Sydney University 1.11 1.28 1.29 1.35 1.48 1.59 Australian Catholic University 2.10 2.04 1.78 1.73 1.72 1.58 University of South Australia 1.38 1.53 1.57 1.60 1.55 1.50 Edith Cowan University 1.12 1.04 1.14 1.25 1.30 1.48 Flinders University 1.02 1.20 1.15 1.27 1.28 1.38 Curtin University of Technology 1.68 1.67 1.45 1.28 1.33 1.28 University of Adelaide 1.18 1.07 0.99 1.02 1.21 1.27 University of Western Australia 1.13 1.16 1.06 1.09 1.16 1.17 Federation University Australia 0.81 0.70 0.69 0.84 0.97 1.14 Australian National University 1.08 1.11 1.03 1.08 1.08 1.02 University of Queensland 0.77 0.80 0.86 0.87 0.90 1.01 University of Technology Sydney 1.16 0.98 0.95 0.96 0.90 0.99 La Trobe University 0.53 0.63 0.65 0.60 0.83 0.87 Macquarie University 0.65 0.74 0.78 0.77 0.88 0.87 University of New South Wales 0.64 0.69 0.83 1.00 0.96 0.86 University of Sydney 0.72 0.73 0.82 0.84 0.87 0.80 University of Notre Dame Australia 0.64 0.65 0.64 0.54 0.61 0.75 University of Melbourne 0.60 0.52 0.51 0.55 0.61 0.69 Victoria University 0.40 0.31 0.37 0.45 0.55 0.63 Swinburne University of Technology 0.22 0.23 0.34 0.44 0.31 0.56 RMIT University 0.38 0.43 0.48 0.40 0.42 0.48 Monash University 0.36 0.41 0.43 0.41 0.40 0.41

Table 5: Percentage of Indigenous retention rates for domestic students at Table A institutions, 2009–2014

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Australia Table A providers 69.02 69.21 68.50 69.78 70.94 71.18 State and territory New South Wales 72.28 73.66 73.12 73.93 72.91 72.12 Victoria 69.10 68.54 71.98 66.30 67.08 68.04 Queensland 70.33 68.27 69.36 68.68 72.36 72.53 Western Australia 61.76 62.53 62.73 63.56 70.30 67.69 South Australia 69.48 74.67 71.75 70.64 70.66 73.74 Tasmania 66.50 70.95 74.24 70.80 72.98 72.70 Northern Territory 60.56 54.52 33.57 60.49 55.28 64.33 Australian Capital Territory 75.71 73.68 70.87 77.91 74.19 74.52 Multi-state 65.78 72.86 72.24 68.04 77.74 70.81 Higher education institution University of New South Wales 74.27 83.43 86.18 84.56 81.38 78.69 University of Newcastle 79.95 79.01 75.25 81.21 80.59 78.65

65

University of Queensland 73.96 72.94 74.67 77.39 76.38 78.29 University of Adelaide 73.68 65.08 68.10 68.07 72.50 78.26 Monash University 82.72 84.07 80.00 83.46 79.86 78.23 University of the Sunshine Coast 70.89 73.81 72.38 72.00 80.58 77.91 University of Sydney 76.21 79.51 80.75 76.31 76.64 77.70 Queensland University of Technology 76.01 71.01 75.84 73.72 79.19 77.65 University of Wollongong 76.88 76.47 79.33 80.69 77.73 77.38 Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education 59.67 54.89 4.68 72.73 68.75 76.92 University of Notre Dame Australia 64.86 66.67 71.74 60.78 70.21 76.92 University of Western Australia 75.78 78.42 73.72 82.39 84.12 76.79 University of Canberra 75.36 77.88 70.97 78.36 75.16 75.42 Western Sydney University 75.09 80.32 70.59 73.96 74.40 74.89 University of Melbourne 82.00 71.17 81.75 75.56 80.00 74.16 University of Technology Sydney 69.53 64.15 74.89 72.38 65.33 73.63 Australian National University 75.93 70.16 70.77 77.42 72.95 73.28 University of South Australia 68.88 79.06 74.50 67.91 67.94 72.84 Murdoch University 64.44 69.92 68.47 69.05 61.69 72.73 University of Tasmania 66.50 70.95 74.24 70.80 72.98 72.70 Flinders University 66.33 74.63 69.33 77.46 74.04 71.69 James Cook University 66.75 60.87 67.46 62.34 68.80 71.48 Griffith University 74.07 73.89 69.25 73.31 71.09 71.23 Macquarie University 67.57 71.85 70.78 65.08 74.13 71.13 Australian Catholic University 65.78 72.86 72.24 68.04 77.74 70.81 RMIT University 73.42 67.90 75.26 67.86 83.84 69.49 University of Southern Queensland 68.66 70.72 66.86 64.71 67.72 69.48 La Trobe University 63.64 67.83 70.40 59.40 71.20 68.62 Federation University Australia 77.14 70.00 66.67 57.89 57.69 67.74 Southern Cross University 64.78 70.37 64.49 67.29 65.38 67.16 Central Queensland University 59.79 56.37 57.59 60.58 67.15 66.34 Deakin University 61.41 64.49 66.67 63.50 63.22 65.57 University of New England 68.00 66.44 71.43 67.95 66.67 65.50 Swinburne University of Technology 76.19 69.23 74.07 61.11 35.23 64.86 Charles Sturt University 68.24 67.78 66.74 69.95 68.60 64.81 Edith Cowan University 60.56 64.67 64.37 68.59 72.41 64.78 Charles Darwin University 61.89 54.04 54.86 59.91 54.85 63.95 Curtin University of Technology 55.17 51.79 53.37 51.18 65.44 61.41 Victoria University 76.92 70.00 81.63 59.26 63.64 61.11

Table 6: Percentage of Indigenous success rates for domestic students at Table A institutions, 2010–2015

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Australia Table A providers 71.72 71.50 72.43 73.28 72.86 73.63 State and territory New South Wales 75.90 74.82 75.37 75.26 75.00 75.30

66

Victoria 71.88 71.59 71.92 73.44 71.06 74.57 Queensland 70.82 71.73 71.63 72.50 72.37 73.11 Western Australia 63.37 63.47 65.43 70.71 68.93 69.91 South Australia 70.09 71.36 74.41 72.15 73.89 73.87 Tasmania 78.97 77.95 78.71 79.05 76.73 75.84 Northern Territory 60.86 60.52 57.86 58.42 61.16 59.21 Australian Capital Territory 82.61 76.55 80.86 77.24 79.10 78.09 Multi-state 78.22 72.39 76.02 78.99 77.98 78.23 Higher education institution Monash University 84.91 83.94 86.56 87.92 84.92 85.55 Australian National University 88.46 88.03 90.46 86.50 86.49 84.98 University of Melbourne 84.68 79.69 83.89 84.67 84.44 84.96 University of New South Wales 86.03 84.51 81.70 85.12 81.29 84.44 University of Sydney 84.02 83.40 85.64 84.78 85.11 84.41 RMIT University 75.03 84.69 83.24 81.67 77.61 82.74 University of Wollongong 83.29 86.21 85.19 82.39 83.72 82.33 University of Queensland 75.84 80.33 79.76 78.33 79.75 82.18 Flinders University 70.68 71.29 74.58 75.76 76.56 80.94 University of Technology Sydney 66.81 74.66 80.90 78.17 75.02 80.24 Queensland University of Technology 69.31 72.38 73.29 76.26 76.73 80.12 Western Sydney University 78.72 75.08 76.57 79.22 78.61 78.92 University of Divinity 72.42 100.00 91.89 100.00 67.66 78.37 University of Notre Dame Australia 88.44 76.42 83.84 84.02 86.79 78.36 Australian Catholic University 78.22 72.39 76.02 78.99 77.98 78.23 Griffith University 79.15 78.15 77.75 75.71 77.13 77.52 Victoria University 66.93 70.86 76.25 79.36 66.24 77.39 Federation University Australia 84.31 75.58 73.93 76.30 78.25 77.08 La Trobe University 81.29 80.68 72.71 81.05 78.81 76.61 University of Newcastle 75.74 77.01 77.08 74.83 75.63 76.44 Macquarie University 86.06 74.69 75.12 75.79 73.81 75.86 University of Tasmania 78.97 77.95 78.71 79.05 76.73 75.84 University of Western Australia 74.58 73.37 76.76 75.96 80.15 75.38 University of the Sunshine Coast 71.58 70.38 71.18 74.10 73.68 74.62 Charles Sturt University 69.96 67.55 71.97 74.24 75.23 74.50 University of South Australia 79.01 78.58 79.53 74.88 78.21 73.99 University of Canberra 75.57 67.01 73.08 70.32 73.39 73.42 Edith Cowan University 62.27 68.63 65.28 69.28 65.87 71.63 James Cook University 66.49 67.85 68.66 68.98 68.70 68.97 Swinburne University of Technology 77.91 76.70 67.19 52.57 72.37 67.76 University of Adelaide 58.75 60.10 64.80 63.53 65.37 67.08 Central Queensland University 62.44 64.81 67.43 67.68 65.61 66.97 Murdoch University 50.25 59.11 62.99 64.08 58.69 65.81 Curtin University of Technology 61.30 56.62 57.50 68.94 65.66 65.52 University of New England 69.77 65.59 65.19 64.71 63.64 63.86 Deakin University 57.47 56.83 58.95 61.76 58.14 63.58 Southern Cross University 69.17 67.47 60.48 58.95 59.91 59.80

67

Charles Darwin University 67.80 65.07 55.97 57.74 60.25 59.21 University of Southern Queensland 65.40 62.67 58.79 62.57 58.67 57.15 Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education 54.43 55.98 92.25 92.16 90.00 0.00

Resourcing

It was difficult to determine universities’ contributions to Aboriginal and Torres Islander higher education in addition to the government-restricted funding sources. There were universities that identified additional contributions in their IESs; however, a vast number of universities did not provide this as a part of their public report. Ongoing concerns were raised through the surveys and roundtable, questioning the future and sustainability of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander higher education without the government-restricted contributions.

The analysis identified approximately 10 universities that were progressing well in implementing structures and processes identified as key aspects within the adoption of a WoU approach to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander higher education. This is based on the understanding that a WoU approach includes:

• high-level Indigenous involvement in governance across the university

• Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander-specific recruitment strategies and practices

• Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander-specific student engagement

• cultural immersion programs and practices for both Indigenous and non-Indigenous students

• Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community involvement in decision-making, as well as in student engagement, teaching, curriculum development and research activities

• high-level appointments for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff; and a move towards parity between Indigenous and non-Indigenous staff.

Similar analysis of all other universities was also undertaken—that is, universities that did not identify or were not identified by others as having adopted or were in the process of adopting a WoU approach. In the main, these institutions did not rank as highly as those listed in the tables, except for Southern Cross University, whose ratio performances in access, participation and bachelor award success were all greater than one. However, the university had no higher degree or other postgraduate student completions in 2015. This put the university below all the listed universities in terms of performance against the entire assessment criterion. It is evident from the analysis of all the data that while all institutions are contributing to Indigenous student access, participation and success, only a small number demonstrate outstanding progress in all areas. Of course, this is the aim of defining a WoU approach and articulating the guiding principles for its implementation and continuation—to ensure maximum effort across the sector in addressing the large disparities that exist between Indigenous and non-Indigenous students.

5.6 Case studies The case studies represent three universities that are leaders in access, participation and retention outcomes. As pointed out earlier in this report, no university in Australia has yet achieved a successful WoU approach. However, as shown in the case studies, three

68

universities have initiated actions in all areas of the key aspects discussed above, demonstrating a real commitment to a WoU objective.

There is a large disparity between the universities that achieve high outcomes in these three indicators and universities that achieve high outcomes in completion and success rates. This seems to be due to the latter universities having lower numbers and higher academic access requirements, such as those evident in most Group of Eight universities.

The following universities’ approach to improving Indigenous higher education outcomes is showcased in the case studies:

• James Cook University—higher access rates

• University of Newcastle—higher participation rates

• University of New South Wales—higher retention rates.

5.6.1 Case Study 1—James Cook University

Governance, strategy and leadership

James Cook University has a consolidated centre for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander higher education that encompasses academic, research and student/community engagement. The leadership includes a Pro Vice-Chancellor (Indigenous Education and Strategy) who is also a member of the Senior Management Group. The primary role of the Pro Vice-Chancellor is to:

Lead an institution-wide strategy to advance Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander educational outcomes, in areas of engagement, education and research. (James Cook University, 2017)

There is Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander representation on the Academic Board, Research Committee, Ethics Review Committee and International Advisory Board. An Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Reference Group, comprising the Senior Deputy Vice-Chancellor and nine Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff, meets bi-monthly and provides high-level advice. Student involvement is also encouraged, with Aboriginal student leaders attending every second meeting.

The University Strategic Plan recognises the knowledges of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples on its priority page and, further to this, makes a commitment within the ‘Learning and Teaching’ pillar to improve the access and participation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students. An Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Strategic Action Plan sits beside the institutional strategic plan and highlights six priorities: recognition, employer of choice, cultural competence, engagement, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students, and research.

The university currently has a Reconciliation Action Plan 2015–2017 to provide another level of commitment, complementing their internal strategies.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander designated spaces

The Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Centre provides expertise on all aspects of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander higher education. The centre’s leadership comprises a

69

Head of Centre (Professor), Associate Dean (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education and Strategy) and Heads of Student/Community Engagement, Indigenous Health, and Education. The Head of Centre reports to the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Indigenous Education and Strategy) located within the portfolio of the Senior Deputy Vice-Chancellor.

The key roles of the centre include student support, teaching and research, partnerships and development, and cultural protocols.

Student and community engagement

In 2015, the university was ranked as the national leader relating to access rates of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students.

The university reported in its IES that it is:

fully committed to making the university experience for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students a positive and successful one. We want them to succeed with their studies and we place much emphasis on providing the best possible support mechanisms that are culturally appropriate. By meeting with students on a regular basis, we hear directly what they require and wherever possible, meet their requests in a timely manner. (James Cook University, 2015, p. 20)

The Centre provides mentorship and academic, welfare, financial and accommodation services. Referrals are also made to university services across specific student support domains.

Learning and teaching, and research

The university has a graduate attribute statement that requires all courses to deliver on diversity and be responsive to its local communities. This is embedded into all course learning outcomes across the University. Further to this, the university has adopted a ‘Curriculum Focused Model’ that includes clear guidelines:

• actively engage with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural learning opportunities

• promote appropriate cultural protocols with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders

• develop experiences that enhance cross-cultural communication

• actively embed Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander perspectives. (James Cook University, 2015)

There are also 15 specific Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander subjects offered as core units or electives and some specific academic programs requiring a placement in rural or remote communities.

The university’s ‘Our Research’ webpage highlights its commitment to appropriate research with Australian Indigenous communities, particularly its local communities. The Centre has an Indigenous Research portfolio, with an Indigenous Research masterclass and specific Indigenous Research subjects offered. A document is also available that defines Indigenous Research Protocols and ethics guidance.

70

Workforce

In 2015, the university launched a new Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Workforce Strategy 2015–2020. The Strategy outlines the following goals.

• attract outstanding people

• best practice recruitment and selection

• ‘Growing your Own’ strategies

• becoming an employer of choice for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

Accountability for the outcomes of the workforce strategy rests with the Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Services and Resources, and the Director, Human Resources.

In 2015, the university had 42 ongoing full-time Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff, with 26 professional staff ranging from HEW 4 to 10+ and 16 academic staff across all levels.

Resourcing and investment

The university contributed approximately $1.4 million in funding above its ISSP funding provision in 2015 (IES, 2015).

Cultural programs

The university has developed a comprehensive suite of programs towards achieving a culturally responsive environment. The university’s Reconciliation Action Plan 2015–2017 states in Action 2.1 that it will:

[e]ngage … students and staff in cultural learning to increase their understanding and appreciation of Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, histories, cultures and achievements. (James Cook University, 2015)

Specifically, this action includes as a measurable target:

Develop and implement a comprehensive program that aims to increase cultural awareness and competency of … staff to engage and respond to Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander imperatives in higher education. (James Cook University, 2015)

The workforce strategy promotes an environment free of racism and discrimination, and the Centre delivers cultural competency/awareness training and cultural protocol workshops.

71

5.6.2 Case Study 2—University of Newcastle

Governance, strategy and leadership

University of Newcastle has a Pro Vice-Chancellor (Indigenous Education and Research) position, which commenced in September 2016. The Pro Vice-Chancellor is positioned as a senior leader in the university structure, but is not included in the executive group. The Pro Vice-Chancellor has oversight of the Wollotuka Institute as well as advancing the outcomes of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander education and research across the university. The university explains the PVC is responsible for:

embedding and championing Indigenous education and research throughout the university, and for overseeing the work of The Wollotuka Institute. (UoN Website)

There is Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander representation on the Academic Senate and Ethics Review Committee. A Board of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education and Research (BATSIER) has an all-Aboriginal membership, including Elders, community members and key internal Aboriginal staff. The Board provides advice to the Vice-Chancellor through the Pro Vice-Chancellor and Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic).

The university’s NeW Futures Strategic Plan 2016–2025 (University of Newcastle, 2016) includes a key target of achieving parity of participation of Aboriginal students and 3.9% Aboriginal staff by 2020. The plan also states:

We are resolute in our commitment to excellence in Indigenous education and research and to the importance of Indigenous culture and knowledges. (University of Newcastle, 2017)

The university previously had a Reconciliation Action Plan 2011–2015 that guided the inclusion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander higher education in the university’s central strategic plan.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander designated spaces

The Wollotuka Institute encompasses student engagement, community engagement, learning and teaching, research and Indigenous health. The Institute is led by a director, who is a senior staff appointment, with associate professors as coordinators of learning and teaching, and research. The director reports to the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Indigenous Education and Research). An associate professor also leads the Indigenous Health portfolio.

The Institute further provides a culturally affirming space for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students at the university. Elders in residence are available to provide cultural advice and guidance to students, staff and the university.

Other spaces at the university include the Purai Global Indigenous and Diaspora Research Centre, led by a professor. The Centre engages in Indigenous interdisciplinary research with national and international affiliates.

Student and community engagement

In 2015, the university was ranked as the national leader in participation rates and was close behind University of New South Wales in retention rates for Aboriginal and Torres Strait

72

Islander students. In 2016, University of Newcastle was the first in Australia to enrol over 1000 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students.

The Wollotuka Institute provides academic, social, emotional and cultural assistance to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students, from enabling through to research higher degree. The Institute has student engagement and community engagement teams. The community engagement team delivers a high school outreach program that engages Years 7 to 12 students to introduce them to higher education opportunities through a range of culturally strong and engaging programs. A community engagement position also engages with the wider university, ensuring connections are maintained.

Learning and teaching, and research

The Wollotuka Institute offers the Yapug enabling program and the Bachelor of Aboriginal Professional Practice degree. The courses that make up the bachelor degree are also available as electives for students undertaking degrees across the university. Indigenous health courses are also available as core and elective components of medicine, nursing and health programs. An Aboriginal education course is also a core component of all teaching programs from early childhood to higher education.

As a strategy to embed Indigenous curriculum and perspectives across all programs of the university, Indigenous terms of reference are specified in all cyclical external program reviews. The terms of reference include ‘attraction of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students into relevant programs’ and ‘embedding curriculum and perspectives’. An Aboriginal member of the Program Review Committee is also appointed.

The university has an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander research cluster that is led collaboratively by the University Research Office and the Wollotuka Institute. The research cluster brings together Indigenous and non-Indigenous researchers with a shared interest in Indigenous research. The Purai Global Indigenous and Diaspora Research Centre offers a more externally focused research body that undertakes community-driven research locally, nationally and internationally.

Workforce

An Indigenous Employment Coordinator is located within the PVC (Indigenous Education and Research) Unit. The university as of September 2017 is working from a 2014–2016 Indigenous employment strategy. This strategy had four priorities:

• attraction and recruitment

• environment and retention

• development and extension

• governance.

An Indigenous Employment Committee oversees the strategy and Indigenous employment outcomes.

University of Newcastle also has a ‘grow-your-own’ academic development program that focuses on increasing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander academic appointments. In 2015, the university had 75 permanent Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff, 24 academic and 51 professional.

73

Resourcing and investment

The university’s IES did not identify additional funding over and above the ISP funding and the EFTSL funding attracted through teaching.

Cultural programs

In 2015, the Wollotuka Institute was the first in Australia to successfully acquire cultural accreditation by the World Indigenous Nations Higher Education Consortium (WINHEC). The WINHEC accreditation goals include:

• accelerating the articulation of Indigenous epistemologies (ways of knowing, education, philosophy and research)

• protecting and enhancing Indigenous spiritual beliefs, culture and languages through higher education

• advancing the social, economic and political status of Indigenous Peoples that contribute to the well-being of Indigenous communities through higher education

• creating an accreditation body for Indigenous education initiatives and systems that identify common criteria, practices and principles by which Indigenous Peoples live

• recognising the significance of Indigenous education

• creating a global network for sharing knowledge through exchange forums and state of the art technology

• recognising the educational rights of Indigenous Peoples

• protecting, preserving and advocating Indigenous cultural and intellectual property rights, in particular the reaffirming and observance of the Mataatua Declaration on Cultural and Intellectual Property Rights of Indigenous Peoples (June 1993)

• promoting the maintenance, retention and advancement of traditional Indigenous bodies of knowledge. (WINHEC, 2010)

The Wollotuka Institute prides itself on ensuring its cultural integrity and values are at the forefront of all its endeavours.

The university has previously delivered a multi-layered cultural competency program across all staffing areas.

74

5.6.3 Case Study 3—University of New South Wales

Governance, strategy and leadership

The University of New South Wales (UNSW) has recently (early 2017) appointed a Pro Vice-Chancellor Indigenous. The role is promoted as having overall responsibility for delivering the outcomes of the university’s Indigenous agenda. Although the Pro Vice-Chancellor is not a member of the Management Board, they are a member of the Executive Team. Both the Pro Vice-Chancellor and the Director of Nura Gili—the university’s Indigenous Programs Unit—are members of the Academic Senate and the Leadership Forum. The Executive Team guides and ensures strategic and operational delivery and the Leadership Forum is an avenue for engagement for the Vice-Chancellor.

An Indigenous Advisory Council is in the early stages of development with the aim of informing development and implementation of an Indigenous strategy for UNSW.

A strong feature of UNSW is the high-level faculty engagement in contributing to the advancement of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander higher education, including Winter School and pre-programs, Indigenous Law Centre, Muru Marri Indigenous Health,; Indigenous Pre-Medicine programs; Indigenous Science and Engineering Program; and Aboriginal Career and Leadership Program.

The new UNSW 2025 Institutional Strategy has ‘A Just Society’ as a main theme, with Indigenous education embedded throughout this priority. This is a major change from the previous institutional strategic plan, which lacked reference to Indigenous education.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander designated spaces

The Nura Gili Indigenous Programs unit engages with Indigenous students; Indigenous employment; Indigenous studies; and Indigenous research. A director (associate professor) leads the unit with managers and coordinators overseeing specific areas. Nura Gili is located within the Deputy Vice-Chancellor Education portfolio.

Nura Gili describes its role in the following way:

Nura Gili values the potential that education can offer, and with the theme of the fireplace in mind, we invite Indigenous and non-Indigenous people to gather, learn and share together, to light a torch of their own, to guide them, and light their way as they create their own journey. (UNSW, 2017)

Nura Gili works in close collaboration with faculties across the university on specific Indigenous programs and initiatives.

The Indigenous Law Centre is located within the Faculty of Law and provides a space that focuses on Indigenous law research. It is the only one of its kind in Australia.

Student and community engagement

In 2015, the university was ranked as the national leader for retention rates of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students.

The university offers Indigenous preparation programs and admission schemes.

75

Nura Gili offers outreach and ambassador programs and mentor, financial, accommodation, pastoral and academic support services. Referrals are also made to university services across specific student support domains.

As noted, the university is currently working towards the establishment of an Indigenous Advisory Council, which will provide the opportunity for a community voice in strategic and operational directions related to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander higher education.

Learning and teaching; and research

Nura Gili offers an Indigenous Studies major and minor academic stream of study primarily undertaken by Arts-based students. Individual courses from the major and minor stream can be selected as general education electives, other than the capstone courses. There are also 12 Indigenous studies courses offered outside the minor/major stream in other faculties. Nura Gili describes the focus of the academic offerings as:

an interdisciplinary field of study that offers students the opportunity to gain a deeper understanding of the history and cultures of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. (UNSW, 2017)

Further to the major and minor academic stream, a Bachelor of Arts (Indigenous Studies) (Honours) program is also available through Nura Gili.

As of September 2017, UNSW does not have an Indigenous Learning and Teaching strategy outside Nura Gili’s offerings. However, the university does have an Australian Indigenous Studies Learning and Teaching Network, which is a collaboration of Indigenous and non-Indigenous educators with a shared interest in Indigenous education and teaching practices.

Nura Gili also includes a research portfolio focused on Indigenous research, particularly in the areas of Indigenous studies, Indigenous education, cultural studies, and museum studies. Further areas of research interest across the university include Indigenous law and politics. The Nura Gili research portfolio also supports the attraction and progression of Indigenous HDR students.

Workforce

Nura Gili has developed an Indigenous Employment Plan 2012–2016, which aims to:

• increase Indigenous staff across all levels in all areas of the university

• develop Indigenous staff capacity

• support Indigenous students towards employment outcomes

• strengthen relationships with Indigenous communities.

Responsibility for the outcomes of the Indigenous employment plan was assigned to Human Resources (HR); however, the developed strategy was not finalised, signed off or implemented. Nura Gili believes that leadership of the employment strategy, as a WoU initiative, should be driven by HR and, as a result, the university remains without a current Indigenous employment strategy.

In 2015, the university had 40 ongoing full-time Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff, with 25 professional staff ranging from HEW 3 to 9 and 15 academic staff across all levels.

76

Resourcing and investment

In 2015, the university reported an investment of $2.26 million in addition to the ISP funding (UNSW, 2015).

Cultural programs

Nura Gili offers a cultural awareness session for tutors and ambassadors. The university does not currently offer any wider cultural competency/safety programs.

Associate Professor Reuben Bolt noted that:

[t]he key to a Whole of University approach is to ensure there is a genuine commitment starting from senior executive to provide the foundation to drive outcomes across the whole university. (Interview, 2017)

5.6.4 Case study summary

Most of the universities in the top quartile of achievement for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander student outcomes demonstrate actions and initiatives in the majority of the key aspect areas identified for a WoU approach. A number of these initiatives, however, are in the earlier stages of implementation and, therefore, do not yet exercise their potential influence. The biggest gaps relate to representation of senior Indigenous positons on the executive group, and representation on university councils and high-level Aboriginal community advisory committees or equivalent. Across the whole sector, senior Indigenous positions and representation in faculties are lacking, with only a few examples in isolated faculties such as Medicine/Health and Law.

In comparison to these leading universities, those in the bottom quartile of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander student outcomes lack a visible commitment by the university’s executive group or presence at that level, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander objectives in institutional strategic documents, and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander strategy or planning documents aligned to core areas of the university or WoU initiatives.

The majority of universities have designated spaces; however, these are mainly confined to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander support services with solely professional appointments and rely on the resources of the ISSP, resulting in no scope for growth and innovation.

The lack of senior academic roles further stifles opportunities for learning and teaching and research agendas, resulting in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander higher education being invisible in the core business of the university.

Two universities in this lower quartile also lack any Aboriginal employment or workforce strategy, even though this has been a requirement of the Indigenous restricted funding guidelines for many years.

Below is a comparative study of the only Australian Indigenous-led Table A tertiary provider. Batchelor Institute commenced in the 1960s as a part of Kormilda College and has since grown into an institute providing education from vocational education through to HDR programs. The Institute prioritises education for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and communities.

77

5.6.5 Batchelor Institute: A comparative case study

Both‐ways is a philosophy of education that ‘brings together Indigenous Australian traditions of knowledge and Western academic disciplinary positions and cultural contexts, and embraces values of respect, tolerance and diversity’. (Batchelor Institute, 2017a)

In addition to the above case studies, a case study of Batchelor Institute is presented as the only Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander-governed tertiary institution recognised as a Table A provider. At the national roundtable the importance of Australia maintaining and further growing this type of institution was discussed.

Governance, strategy and leadership

Batchelor Institute (the Institute) is a dual-sector institution offering both vocational and higher education qualifications. The Institute is overseen by an Institute Council with majority Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander membership, including the current Chairperson. The current Chief Executive Officer is an Aboriginal person who leads the executive team, which also includes an Aboriginal Elder Executive Advisor: Academic and Cultural Leadership. An Institute Advisory Board provides advice to the Institute from a membership of all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, reporting to the CEO and the Council.

The Institute has a Strategic Plan 2015–2020 that focuses on a philosophy called ‘Both Ways’, ensuring that the Institute ‘provides an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander lens to a mainstream education system’. In turn, ‘both ways’ represents the institute’s approach to its educational environment, working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to provide a culturally successful approach. The Strategic Plan, underpinned by ‘both ways’, presents five pillars.

1. Strategic, sustainable, innovative Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander business.

2. A demand-driven organisation in action.

3. An organisation where excellence underwrites its work.

4. An Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisation that will contribute to Australia’s national identity.

5. Establish Batchelor Institute within the higher and further education sector at the national and international level. (Batchelor Institute, 2015)

The Institute and the strategic plan achieve their outcomes by aligning their practice and environment with seven values viewed through an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander lens:

• authenticity

• excellence

• agility

• dedication

• integrity

• teamwork

• respect. (Batchelor Institute, 2015)

78

The Institute has a full suite of plans that guide all the core activities of the Institute.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander designated spaces

There are no designated Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander spaces; the whole Institute is representative of its local country and wider Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community. Batchelor has three campuses—Batchelor, Alice Springs and Casuarina—with 11 community campus locations.

Aboriginal students and community are represented on all media and publications. Aboriginal artwork is also utilised on all publications and across the campus. The architecture of the buildings further represents the local community and country landscape.

Student and community engagement

The Institute has Academic Support Officers who provide a broad range of academic assistance. There is also an Office of Elder Academic and Cultural Leadership that provides additional cultural engagement with students as well having a strategic role.

Learning and teaching, and research

A Teaching and Learning Plan 2017–2021 reflects the Institute’s vision of being an Australian leader in First Nations Tertiary Education and Research. The Teaching and Learning Plan focuses on four objectives.

1. Provide a culturally safe training, teaching, learning and research environment for both students and staff.

2. Focus on higher education, research and training that support the aspirations of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island peoples and lead to employment.

3. Promote and commit to increasing innovative and flexible approaches to training, teaching and learning

4. Increase access to training and higher education, and retention and success of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students (Batchelor Institute, 2017b).

The Institute offers academic programs across a broad range of disciplines from Certificate 1 through to PhD level.

Research

The Institute has a Research Plan 2016–2020 (Batchelor Institute, 2016). The plan focuses on providing an effective environment for higher degree research students; responding appropriately to community demand-driven research; collaboration and networks to build a sustainable research program; strengthening and building internal communities of practice to support an innovative research approach; providing a knowledge base from a First Nations perspective; and establishing a national and international profile for the Batchelor Institute Graduate School, Centre for Collaborative First Nations Research and the Centre for Australian Languages and Linguistics.

79

Workforce

In 2015, the Institute had 497 staff with 169 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff. The Institute focused in 2015 on increasing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff representation, resulting in a 60% increase, and it plans to continue this growth.

Resourcing and investment

The Institute is listed as a Table A educational advisor, eligible for the same resources and funding as other Table A providers based on agreed outcomes.

5.7 Reform, priorities and key aspects The roundtable in 2016 and survey in 2017 produced a number of statements that help define the important aspects of a whole-of-university approach.

A whole-of-university approach is the most effective way to ensure that Aboriginal business is university business and therefore everybody’s business.

A strategic approach created in collaboration with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, implemented (and implementable) by all areas of the university from central management down to individual schools and units.

Where everybody in the university, from the Vice-Chancellor and Senior Management [down], actively and openly considers Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff and student needs when developing policies, programs and community engagement. And that all staff have the skills and cultural competence needed to ensure that Aboriginal needs and best interests are appropriately understood.

Where every action, program, policy and service is inclusive of our [Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander] peoples.

A holistic approach to Indigenous education, whereby faculties, departments and offices collaboratively work towards a common goal, led by a strong Indigenous voice. The key is partnerships, consultation from the beginning and throughout, and a strategic approach that encapsulates the whole campus, from staff to students and stakeholders.

Indigenous outcomes are both prioritised and embedded in university core business within all organisational entities.

It is important to recognise that there is no one single model that will fit every university; however, as universities attempt to conceptualise and deliver what a ‘whole-of-university’ structure might look like, it has become clear that there are some key aspects that are important to achieving a WoU approach. One of the fundamentals of moving towards a WoU approach is a reciprocal partnership with Aboriginal people and communities in all the layers of the university environment.

The study identified seven key areas for action leading to successful implementation of a WoU approach.

1. Governance, strategy and leadership

2. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander designated spaces

80

3. Student and community engagement

4. Learning and teaching, and research

5. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander workforce

6. Appropriate resourcing and investment

7. Culturally responsive environments.

Figure 10: Whole-of-university approach.

A WoU approach needs to be a layered approach, embedded across all core areas of a university and based on a model that includes Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander participation at all levels of the university.

Key Aspect 1: Governance, leadership and strategy

Governance and leadership

Consultation identified this area as integral to a WoU approach. University senior executives have a major influence on the vision, strategies, environment and culture of an institution. The Whole of University Survey (2017) demonstrated a high level of support (93.33%) from the respondents for the introduction of a WoU approach to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander higher education. Respondents also felt introduction of a WoU approach was the role of the senior executive, vice-chancellors and university boards and councils, inclusive of an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander presence within these structures.

Governance and leadership of a WoU approach needs to be driven by the vice-chancellor. The vice-chancellor must drive commitment and priority at the highest level to advance Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander higher education. This provides a strong foundation for this commitment to be reflected university-wide and woven through the fabric of a university.

81

The data demonstrated an overwhelming belief that accountability must also start at this level and be instilled throughout faculties and operational units.

The creation of Indigenous senior executive positions has been a positive step in a number of universities. In 2009, Charles Darwin University was the first to appoint a Pro Vice-Chancellor (Indigenous Education and Research). The position was established to influence Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander higher education from a senior level. Other universities quickly followed, with The University of Sydney appointing a Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Indigenous Strategy and Services) in 2011.

The challenge for universities creating senior positions is to ensure that accountability for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander higher education is not exclusively vested in the Pro Vice-Chancellor or Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Indigenous) role. In the media release announcing the appointment of the Pro Vice-Chancellor (Indigenous Leadership and Engagement) at the University of Technology, Sydney (UTS) the Vice-Chancellor of UTS explained that

Importantly, this role is not responsible for UTS’s Indigenous strategy; that responsibility lies with all my senior executives and deans, in fact all members of UTS. Our Indigenous strategy is part of core business. What it will do, however, is put additional senior support and focus in place, accelerating our already ambitious aspiration in this area. (Clinton, 2016)

Further to this, UTS has a comprehensive, fully integrated governance structure that includes the Vice-Chancellor’s Indigenous Advisory Committee, with a membership of Aboriginal internal and external stakeholders and the Chair also being a member of the University Council. Also reporting to the Vice-Chancellor is the Indigenous Strategic Management Committee, comprising all senior executive members as well as the Pro Vice-Chancellor Indigenous Leadership and Engagement, together with other key members. Five core sub-committees—each with its own plan, resourcing and accountability—are further linked to a senior executive member.

One of the key objectives of creating senior positions is to influence high-level strategic directions and decisions at a university. However, in a number of cases these senior positions have been excluded from the senior executive group, thereby removing an important ingredient of achieving a WoU approach. This is not the case in all universities; for example, in 2012 the Pro Vice-Chancellor (BHP Chair in Indigenous Engagement) at Central Queensland University was appointed President of the Academic Board, with membership of the senior executive and council and oversight of 19 sub-committees across the university.

However, the creation of one senior position, such as a Pro Vice-Chancellor or Deputy Vice-Chancellor, will not in itself lead to a WoU approach; even with influence at the highest level, there will still be challenges to instilling change at the faculty level and below. While there are currently some faculties across universities that are highly engaged in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander higher education, this is mostly due to individual goodwill, program legacy or professional requirements. A consistent structure is required to ensure holistic outcomes are achieved across each university.

Ensuring that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander higher education is considered in all decision-making forums, in a culturally relevant way, requires Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander representation on governing committees. Governance structures that influence

82

faculties, departments and strategic decision-making are integral to a WoU approach. These committees include, but are not limited to, university councils, senior executive groups, academic senates and other related committees.

Current university models and structures related to learning and teaching or research already demonstrate holistic governance and leadership in relation to a WoU approach. They are typically led by a Pro Vice-Chancellor or Deputy Vice-Chancellor with an aligned central expert group. Associate deans or equivalents with discipline-related knowledge are appointed in each faculty to drive the agendas from within. This model would also be effective for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander higher education—associate deans with discipline knowledge providing leadership within the faculties on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander student and community engagement, workforce, Indigenous learning and teaching, and research, in collaboration with central Aboriginal education portfolios and Pro Vice-Chancellor or Deputy Vice-Chancellor senior appointments.

There are currently universities that are investing expertise and resources in delivering high-level outcomes in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander higher education. However, there are also universities that are not making significant progress towards developing a successful model related to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander higher education. This disparity suggests a need to make universities nationally accountable for the level of attention and initiative given to this area. A quality assurance mechanism could address the gaps in some universities as well as recognise the achievements in others. Such a mechanism would need to have a majority Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander perspective.

The recent guidelines incorporated into the ISSP raise the expectations of universities in relation to delivering effective outcomes and structures that enhance Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander higher education. The challenge lies with universities taking on responsibility to contribute funding on top of that allocated to the ISSP. The ISSP funding is ‘supplementary’ funding and, therefore, should not be the sole funding source utilised by universities in developing and delivering their Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander higher education agendas.

Strategy

The institutional strategy should align Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander higher education with universities’ strategic visions and aspirations. There are currently several universities moving towards a longer term aspirational document. Whether short- or long-term, strategic documents should clearly identify Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander higher education as a commitment or a priority of the university. Complementing this commitment, institutional top-down Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) must be introduced to ensure progression and accountability at the highest level. Aboriginal success should be a core deliverable through its inclusion as part of core business. The KPIs should be linked to the senior executive group.

At the moment, a vast majority of the university’s KPIs for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander education fall to the [Aboriginal] unit around university policy, student recruitment/retention/success including marketing. There is no ownership or responsibility taken by the faculties and all reporting is expected from the unit. (Survey respondent, 2017)

To fully effect delivery of outcomes of strategies for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander higher education, key policies also require the provision of appropriate content, direction and

83

referrals to ensure university operational governance is reflective of the overarching strategies.

An Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander higher education strategy should further identify and promote the key Aboriginal higher education priorities and visions of a university. There is strength in the strategy being complementary to the institution’s broader strategic plan, providing more detail and depth to drive implementation of programs and initiatives and inform appropriate resourcing.

Universities may choose to engage with external bodies, such as Reconciliation Australia, through the development of a RAP to show their commitment in a public forum and add another level of accountability. Importantly, if this path is chosen it must be driven by the senior executive of the university in collaboration with senior Aboriginal roles in the true sense of reconciliation.

Key Aspect 2: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander designated spaces

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander spaces should not be threatened by the adoption of a WoU approach.

It should be a priority for all areas of the university, but needs to have a central Indigenous unit to oversee and drive direction. (Survey respondent, 2017)

There is some trepidation about the prospect of a WoU approach affecting the role of Aboriginal units, as stated by a survey respondent (2017):

I am a little reserved on the prospect of a whole institutional mainstreaming approach to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander education. If Aboriginal Centres maintain control and their own autonomy in the space it can work as a partnership of collaboration.

Universities need to be seen to acknowledge and respect Aboriginal expertise, values, perspectives and knowledges. There needs to be a visible presence where the whole university community can engage with Aboriginal knowledges and perspectives.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander designated spaces in universities may relate to one space encompassing a broad range of expertise. Alternatively, universities may have multiple spaces with specific expertise on Aboriginal and Torres Strait lslander student engagement, Indigenous research, teaching and learning, or other focus areas.

Designated spaces provide both Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students and staff and the non-Aboriginal university community with a culturally and intellectually engaging educational setting. They are built on the principle of self-empowerment, strongly reflect an Aboriginal viewpoint and provide a space of shared Indigenous perspectives. The presence of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander spaces should not be compromised under a WoU approach. The spaces should not be designed to mirror the services already provided by the central university services; rather, they should provide a culturally affirming environment and provide universities with a source of expertise from an Indigenous standpoint related to all core areas of the university: governance, student engagement, workforce, learning and teaching, and research.

84

[Aboriginal spaces] are a vital component ... They are the main interface between the University and the Aboriginal community. They need to be vibrantly physically and culturally present on campus. (Survey respondent, 2017)

However, accountability and responsibility must move beyond being driven by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and instead be driven by a strong university governance, leadership and accountability model. Despite ongoing challenges, Aboriginal people across the academy, primarily from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander designated spaces, have driven Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander higher education at a national and international level for the past four decades. The future structure needs to value the contribution and expertise of these spaces but also ensure that senior leaders in governments and universities share the responsibility and accountability. This was noted by a survey respondent who had worked in both a faculty environment and an Indigenous education unit:

When in the faculty, little emphasis was placed on supporting the recruitment and retention of Indigenous students, rather it is seen to be the responsibility of the Indigenous Support Unit. This in turn places higher workloads of already under-resourced units … Faculties and professional staff need to commit to being involved. (Survey respondent, 2016)

Key Aspect 3: Student and community engagement (access/ participation/success)

Since 2010, there has been an increase in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander student enrolments based on effective full-time student load (EFTSL), from 7370 to 10,621 in 2015 (DET, 2017).

Student and community engagement is critical to increasing the access, participation and success of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students at university. However, universities need to move beyond the traditional emphasis on ‘student support’. The language of student support has, over time, created a perception that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students at university automatically require ‘student support’. The associated stigma discourages Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students from accessing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander designated spaces. The language of ‘student and community engagement’ better reflects the need of students to engage with individuals and communities that draw on common values, perspectives and knowledges. This includes academic engagement but extends also to cultural, emotional and social engagement, reflecting a holistic approach to the student experience.

Providing a culturally affirming environment within a university is crucial to student success. A high number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students are ‘first in family’ tertiary students and find the university environment daunting. Students identify as a major contribution to their success having a ‘home away from home’ or feeling that they were part of a community where the knowledges and experiences they bring to their university journey were respected and cultivated.

Student connection to community, country and culture is reinforced by the different priorities of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students in choosing tertiary studies. Feedback from Aboriginal students indicates a strong desire to give back and contribute to their communities and this is prioritised over obtaining a good job or earning a high income.

85

Community engagement and Elders in Residence/cultural advisor-type programs contribute to mentorship and guidance, helping students maintain connections and engage in dialogue that contributes to their personal, cultural, professional and academic growth.

There is continued under-representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander postgraduate and research students in universities. Previous ISP funding guidelines excluded, to some extent, the funding of academic assistance to postgraduate students. Postgraduate students contribute to Aboriginal professional leadership and, potentially, to the academic workforce. Ensuring that postgraduate students are provided with opportunities conducive to a successful student experience should be an integral part of a university student engagement strategy, irrespective of the funding source. Developing processes that identify students from undergraduate level for postgraduate opportunities is key to increasing postgraduate enrolments. Further, strategies to ensure appropriate supervision and mentoring of HDR students require attention from the research development offices and should be integrated within university policies and practices. Again, Aboriginal representation on relevant postgraduate research and ethics committees is vital for progressing this area.

Ongoing access to scholarships that provide opportunities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students is also essential to a successful student experience. Eligibility criteria for scholarships should respond to the holistic experiences and needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students and not just duplicate non-Aboriginal criteria.

Programs and strategies that drive and respond to increasing access, participation, retention and success of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students need to be adopted within both the Aboriginal unit and the faculties more broadly. These initiatives should respond to the holistic cultural, social, academic and emotional needs of students to contribute to a positive higher education experience.

Relationships with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and communities need to be built on trust, respect and reciprocity. The university must ensure that relationships, engagement and invited representation of Aboriginal communities is undertaken with a genuine intent to value the contributions and knowledges imparted.

Key Aspect 4: Learning and teaching, and research

Learning and teaching

The survey found that 82.35% of respondents indicated that a WoU Indigenous curriculum framework was important to a WoU approach. Learning and teaching frameworks or strategies should be developed that ensure all students have Indigenous graduate capabilities. These graduate capabilities must include understanding and appreciation of Aboriginal knowledges, perspectives and histories, and the necessary skills and attributes to work with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and communities.

The framework or strategy should demonstrate how Indigenous learning and teaching is embedded throughout the academic programs of the university. It should be developed in collaboration with appropriate Aboriginal voices providing expertise on discipline-related or broader cultural contexts. The national roundtable emphasised the need for Indigenous content to be included in all courses and for the development of an Indigenous studies framework for pre-service teaching. The strategy should encompass systems and processes that are already embedded into the learning and teaching structure, such as cyclical external

86

program reviews, providing a systematic approach to identifying appropriate content inclusion across the whole program, as well as an avenue for ongoing evaluation and quality control.

Currently, the majority of universities—if engaging in this area at all—have a strong focus on certain disciplines (mainly those with professional accreditation requirements) or rely on the interests and goodwill of program or course coordinators. Introducing a university-wide strategy or framework ensures sustainable long-term outcomes and consistent alignment with principles, values and pedagogies.

Research

The attraction, retention and success of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander HDR students requires attention. National initiatives such as the NIRAKN have contributed to this objective, providing mentorship, development and research leadership opportunities. Unfortunately, the funding for such initiatives is short term and often concludes just as they achieve momentum and show evidence of positive outcomes. Universities and the Commonwealth need to invest in long-term resourcing for Indigenous research agendas, both from the perspective of HDR students and for developing Indigenous Research Centres that provide community-driven research that responds to the needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and communities.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander participation and engagement also need to extend to ethics and university research committees. Increasing access to appropriate and skilled HDR research supervisors for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students also needs attention.

The roundtable also discussed the Excellence in Research Australia (ERA) FOR codes used to demonstrate research focus. Research output is assessed using four-digit FOR codes, with six-digit codes listed as sub-groups under these primary areas. The four-digit FOR codes are based on ABS data, and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander research is only listed as a six-digit code, that is, as a sub-group rather than a FOR. To enable appropriate funding, resources and recognition for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander research it is urged that it be recognised as a FOR and assigned a four-digit code, resulting in a higher profile and increased long-term research outcomes.

Universities should develop a strong Indigenous research plan that guides their strategy, expertise and investment. Such plans should focus on building a strong Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander research community. Universities should consider creating targeted centres, clusters or university Indigenous research networks that privilege Indigenous knowledges and research and provide an empowering space for Indigenous academics to advance their research profiles.

Key Aspect 5: Workforce

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander workforce plans or strategies are a requirement under the new ISSP guidelines. However, the appointment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff needs to be seen as more than equity initiative and should recognise the experiences and qualifications these positions bring to the university environment. Building Indigenous workforce capacity is integral to progressing a whole-of-university strategy. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander workforce strategies should focus on the appointment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples at all levels and across disciplines, in both academic and professional streams. It needs to be recognised that Aboriginal people add value to the university community, bring mainstream qualifications, and bring specific knowledges,

87

perspectives and experiences as an Aboriginal person. Although Aboriginal people play a critical role in university endeavours toward Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander advancement, their contribution to the university beyond the Aboriginal agenda needs to be recognised.

Key Aspect 6: Resourcing

To date, resourcing of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander higher education within universities has relied heavily on the ISP. Previous to the introduction of the ISSP in 2017, this funding was calculated using a formula weighted heavily towards access (70%) and, to a lesser extent, participation and success. The new formula under the ISSP recognises that access is only one part of achieving successful outcomes in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander higher education and that participation and success are equally important to ensuring a positive student experience. For this reason, the formula is now equally weighted between these three indicators, with an additional 10% weighting focused on increasing the participation of regional and remote students.

The newly developed guidelines of the ISSP raise the expectations that universities will deliver effective outcomes and structures that enhance the success of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander higher education. The challenge lies with universities taking on responsibility to contribute funding on top of allocated ISSP. The ISSP funding is ‘supplementary’ funding and should not be the sole source utilised by universities to address Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander higher education agendas.

As noted above, while some universities are investing expertise and resources into delivering high-level outcomes in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander higher education, others are not investing in developing a successful model that contributes to this space. Universities need to be nationally accountable for their level of attention and initiative. Feedback from both the national roundtable and the survey strongly reinforced the need for a quality assurance mechanism linked to Commonwealth guidelines (including the ISSP guidelines) to address the gaps in university investment and planning and to recognise achievements. Ideally, this mechanism needs to have a majority Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander perspective.

One of the possible measures suggested to develop a collective quality assurance mechanism is a formal partnership agreement, such as an accord, between the Commonwealth government, NATSIHEC (AC) and Universities Australia. Such an agreement would aim to support the expectations of the ISSP guidelines and the aspirations of the Universities Australia Indigenous Strategy.

Key Aspect 7: Culturally engaging environment

Cultural safety is of paramount importance to the attraction and success of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students and staff. Universities have a responsibility to provide a culturally safe environment for all students and staff and the wider university community. A zero-tolerance policy on racism should be developed and enforced to provide an effective learning environment for the benefit of all members of the university community.

There are numerous cultural competency, cultural awareness, cultural safety or other similar training programs being implemented across universities. Cultural transformative practice should also be reflected and embedded into university practices and policies to ensure the university is providing a culturally affirming educational environment that reflects the intent of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People.

88

Summary

A WoU approach should reflect a WoU respect for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, knowledges, experiences and practices in all aspects of the university environment.

A WoU structure should be embedded into all levels of a universities structure.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders engage with all areas and levels of a university. It is therefore incumbent on universities to have the whole organisation involved. (Survey respondent, 2016)

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander positions and representation should be able to be mapped throughout the organisational structure, as indicated in Figure 13.

Figure 11: Whole-of-university organisational structure

Orange—Senior leadership and decision-making

• An Indigenous senior leadership position represented on the executive group.

• Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander representation on decision-making governance mechanisms, such as an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander strategic advisory committee.

89

• Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander representation on university councils.

• Inclusion in institutional strategic plan and related documents.

• Highest level of accountability.

Blue—Senior managers and influencers

• Reflective of areas of influence and senior expertise leadership.

• Senior Indigenous positions in each of the faculties and offices to ensure a layered approach to influence, engagement and leadership related to student engagement, learning and teaching, and research throughout the academic environment of the university, and to provide an Indigenous disciplinary focus and specialisation.

• Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander designated spaces providing expertise in WoU objectives and strategies, and the provision of a culturally affirming and engaged space for students, staff and community.

• Indigenous strategies and related documents and policies.

Red—Operational

• Building the representation of workforce in both the academic and professional areas, represented by the red level, is integral to contributing Aboriginal perspectives and knowledges across all areas of the university and creating a respectful, diverse environment.

Green—Students and university community

• Provision of a culturally safe and culturally responsive environment for all students and staff.

90

6 Academic workforce Priority 2: Increase the Indigenous academic workforce

The issues associated with Indigenous employment are longstanding but seem to have increased in importance for Australia’s most recent governments. There is documentation regarding the types of jobs and industries Indigenous people work in, how many of them work and whether that work is full-time or part-time, the geographic location of where they live and work, and the types of payments they receive from the Federal Government when not engaged in employment. However, all this documentation does not tell the whole story of their employment and why they engage, or do not engage, in employment; nor does it support the employment of other Indigenous people (Fredericks, 2009, p. 25).

This report was commissioned by the NATSIHEC (AC) to review the higher education sector imperative to increase the Indigenous academic workforce. The report is one of three projects that will contribute to an overall profile to accelerate Indigenous higher education in Australian universities.

6.1 Data and methods Led by Professor Steve Larkin in collaboration with NATSIHEC (AC), Charles Darwin University and the University of Newcastle, the report proposes a range of recommendations to increase the number of Indigenous academics in Australian universities based on sector data, trends identified in the literature and advice provided by cohorts drawn from the current workforce of Indigenous staff and non-Indigenous tertiary senior executives.

A mixed-methods approach (Creswell, 2003) and thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) were used to develop a profile of the barriers and opportunities for the current Indigenous academic workforce, projected future supply pool, and strategies for increased recruitment and retention. Previous reviews, surveys, interviews and an expert roundtable provided data for this profile. Additionally, the review has privileged literature authored by the current Indigenous academic workforce to model the strength of existing Indigenous Australian scholarship.

Section One: Literature analysis

The literature review sought to contextualise the Indigenous academic workforce in Australian universities, including publications from both Indigenous and non-Indigenous authors. Post-2000 reports and reviews were used to track institutional strategies and polices that targeted Indigenous education in the higher education sector.

Section Two: Statistical review

The Australian Government’s DET provided datasets concerning Indigenous university employment and students, including data collected from the Higher Education Information Management System (HEIMS) and IESs. While recognising data limitations, the review sought to gain an approximation of the future supply pool of skilled academics and Indigenous HDR students.

91

Section Three: Interviews

Three universities identified as excelling in increasing Indigenous participation and representing diverse geographical locations (inner regional, outer regional and major city) were chosen as interview sites.

Data were collected and recorded from three separate sources: interviews, university site visits and desktop auditing. Each university campus was visited between November 2016 and February 2017, with an orientation provided to the Indigenous education unit and other facilities used by Indigenous staff and academics. In total, 26 people, comprising 19 Indigenous academics, 6 senior executives and 1 Indigenous senior executive were interviewed. Desktop audits of institutional policies and strategies on Indigenous participation were also undertaken.

Section Four: Online survey and expert roundtable forum

NATSIHEC (AC) contributed to the data collection from two of the review’s data sources: an anonymous online survey and expert roundtable forum. The survey was distributed to the NATSIHEC (AC) membership (n=67). Over four weeks, a total of 32 respondents (48%) completed the survey. The findings of both the survey and expert roundtable forum aligned with the interviews and previous review recommendations.

The academic workforce stream of the roundtable forum was attended by 19 participants on day one and 13 participants on day two.

Key questions for the symposium to answer were:

1. What is the evidence telling us?

2. What gaps exist in data and evidence?

3. Where are successful programs currently operating?

4. What are the success factors, and can they be replicated?

5. What are the main barriers and how their effects be minimised?

6. What are the top priorities for reform, short- and long-term?

7. What are the influential policy drivers after 2016?

8. What are the connections between the three priority streams?

9. What are the implementation strategies?

10. What are the indicators of success?

11. How to use the findings of this project to influence reform?

Discussion and recommendations

The review’s final analysis provides a series of detailed recommendations needed to increase the Indigenous academic workforce. Areas to be addressed include:

• data collection and quality measures

• inter-cultural capacity building initiatives for staff and students

• measures of funding and accountability through workforce strategies at all levels

92

• professional development for all Indigenous academics, including senior executives

• workforce modelling, including future supply pools from undergraduate students and the professional sector.

6.2 Literature review This literature review encompasses previous review data and recommendations, sector strategic documents and specialist commentary that contextualises both the current Indigenous academic workforce in Australia and the future parity targets. It should be noted that the data, findings and recommendations of this project correlate directly to the earlier review findings, which have been unevenly implemented across the Australian higher education sector.

The way forward is known

The implementation of the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Policy in 1989 (DEET, 1989) placed a much-needed focus on increasing Indigenous participation in higher education. Following this, the Bourke Report in 1991 (Bourke, Farrow, McConnochie, & Tucker, 1991) records one of the first suggestions that specific strategies were necessary to increase the number and enhance the career development of Indigenous people in the higher education sector.

Subsequent reviews (see, e.g., Department of Innovation Industry, Science and Research, 2011) have continued to acknowledge the continued under-representation of Indigenous people in university teaching and/or researching roles. The theme is also present in institution, jurisdiction and whole-of-sector strategic initiatives, culminating in Universities Australia Indigenous Strategy 2017–2020 (2017, p. 17), which ‘indicates strongly that the way forward is known’.

Models developed by or in consultation with Indigenous academics have consistently provided the same message regarding the inclusion and success of Indigenous people in the education system from early childhood to tertiary leadership over the past 30 years. These themes, described by Langton and Ma Rhea (2009), begin with a foundation of community ownership, high expectations and engagement. In the second tier, an education system authentically seeking partnerships and collaboration is needed. Finally, government alignment, characterised by transparency and accountability, is required to move Indigenous education towards a culturally affirming parity. The recommendations from this review seek to address all three levels of this pyramid.

93

Figure 12: Three levels of coordinated action

(Langton & Ma Rhea, 2009, p. 110)

Drawing on previous review data, adapting this model to increasing the Indigenous academic workforce in the higher education sector provides a series of measurable targets for the Australian Government and higher education sector, grounded in authentic community relationships. Indigenous communities cannot feel safe in providing either the students or staff for the higher education sector until genuine measures address the inclusion of Indigenous epistemologies and ontologies as valid knowledge systems. Unless and until this occurs, Moreton-Robinson’s (2000a, 2000b) critique of universities as a ‘Duggaibah or Place of Whiteness’ will remain valid. Central to the dismantling of this cultural bias, Martin maintains (2003, p. 205) that approaches must address:

• recognition of our worldviews, our knowledges and our realities as distinctive and vital to our existence and survival

• honouring our social mores as essential processes through which we live, learn and situate ourselves as Aboriginal [and Torres Strait Islander] people in our own lands and when in the lands of other [Indigenous] people

• emphasis of social, historical and political contexts, which shape our experiences, lives, positions and futures

• privileging the voices, experiences and lives of Aboriginal [and Torres Strait Islander] people and Aboriginal [and Torres Strait Islander] lands.

The recognition and valuing of different Indigenous ontologies, epistemologies and axiologies is central to developing the supply pool for the future Indigenous academic workforce, most significantly in increasing both Indigenous HDR recruitment and completion.

Indigenous HDR student characteristics

Due to persistent inequities in the earlier stages of the educational pipeline, there are low numbers of Indigenous people beginning and successfully attaining university qualifications. In 2013, only 1% (13,781) of all university enrolments were of Indigenous students (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2015b). As a cohort, Indigenous university students have different characteristics to non-Indigenous students. Asmar, Page, and Radloff (2011, p. 2)

94

report that Indigenous university students are more likely to be female, older, of lower socioeconomic background, from a non-metropolitan area, and the first in their family to attend university. Indigenous HDR students’ most popular fields of education are health, arts, humanities and social sciences, Indigenous studies and education (ACER, 2011). Further, the current Indigenous HDR cohort share similar patterns of gender and fields of education to the current Indigenous workforce profile.

Indigenous students also experience different patterns of hardships that limit their attainment of university qualifications. In discussing reasons that students give for considering early departure from their university study, Edwards and McMillan (2015, p. 32) demonstrated a startlingly different pattern between advantaged and disadvantaged students. Disadvantaged students (including those from a low socio-economic status background, non-metropolitan location and Indigenous students), were more likely to report pressure on their studies from competing financial and personal hardships. Advantaged students were more likely to report lifestyle and personal choices as reasons for discontinuing their university studies (see Table 7).

Table 7: Disadvantaged and advantaged students’ reasons for considering discontinuing university study (adapted from Edwards & McMillian, 2015, p. 32)

Reasons cited more commonly by low-SES, non-metro and Indigenous students

Reasons cited more commonly by high- SES, metro and non-Indigenous students

• Financial difficulties

• Family responsibilities

• Health or stress

• Workload difficulties

• Need to do paid work

• Moving residence

• Study/life balance

• Academic support

• Fee difficulties

• Boredom/lack of interest

• Change of direction

• Career prospects

• Expectations not met

• Gap year/deferral

• Quality concerns

• Other opportunities

• Travel or tourism

Pechenkina, Kowal, and Paradies (2011) suggest that Australian universities demonstrate a distinct ‘dual system’ of Indigenous student participation in which one group of universities is very successful at attracting Indigenous students, while the other group demonstrates greater success in Indigenous student completions. Those universities excelling at Indigenous student completions are more likely to be in the Group of Eight universities—well-resourced, leading research institutions (Group of Eight Australia, 2017). This suggests that universities excelling at Indigenous student completions need to invest in strategies to increase their enrolments without lowering entrance standards or reducing the current level of student support. In contrast, those universities excelling at Indigenous student commencement need to better prioritise support and resources so that more students complete their education.

Indigenous students’ experiences in higher education are also characterised by racism, often encountered as a type of ‘epistemological racism’ deeply embedded in academia through

95

westernised educational practices that stereotype minority groups’ epistemologies as inferior (Bodkin-Andrews & Carlson, 2013, 2016; Fredericks, 2009; Larkin, 2015; Moreton-Robinson, 2005). While often less obvious than other forms of overt racism, it alienates Indigenous students and impacts their ability to succeed academically. For example, Harrison, Trudgett, and Page (2015) have documented the epistemological challenges Indigenous doctoral students encounter during the examination and marking of their thesis. In this research, Indigenous students described tensions in how culturally defined western concepts such as ‘objectivity, independence and self-regulation’ are dominantly used to benchmark the examination of an academic thesis (Harrison et al., 2015, p. 10). This dominant discourse privileges western knowledge production and marginalises the intellectual integrity of Indigenous students and their knowledge production. On a practical level, it also makes it difficult for Indigenous students to find sympathetic but academically rigorous supervisors and examiners (Laycock, Walker, Harrison, & Brands, 2011).

In confronting epistemological racism, many Indigenous academics have accepted Rigney’s (2006) challenge to use resistance as an ‘emancipatory imperative’ in research. The practice of resistance has included the reframing of ‘Indigenous Knowledges’. In the Bradley Review of Higher Education (Bradley, Noonan, Nugent, & Scales, 2008), Indigenous knowledge is framed as both a challenge and a valuable asset to the academy because of its capacity to question the ‘underlying assumptions’ of some academic disciplines, and its capacity to uniquely prepare graduates with attributes needed to work across the social diversity of Australian society (Bradley et al., 2008, pp. 32–33). Asmar, Mercier, and Page (2009) contend that Indigenous academics are of ‘inestimable value to tertiary institutions because of the Indigenous knowledges they hold’ (p. 158). Despite pressure from Indigenous academics and staff for its circular and institutional inclusion, Indigenous knowledge still remains peripheral to the core business of many Australian universities (Bunda, Zipin, & Brennan, 2012; Rigney, 2011).

Indigenous HDR students are less frequently discussed in the literature as a cohort. The academic career pathway requires HDR qualifications, so it is important to better understand the demography and experiences of Indigenous people who successfully attain their masters by research or doctorate degrees. The results from an online survey conducted by Trudgett Page, and Harrison (2016, pp. 6–8) show Indigenous academic doctors appear to gain their qualifications mid-career and are likely to be working in the higher education sector. Of the Indigenous academic doctors surveyed, 64% completed their qualification in the arts and humanities. Unlike Indigenous undergraduates, who are likely to undertake distance or block-mode structured courses, 74% of these Indigenous academic doctors undertook their study as internal students. In addition, almost half the Indigenous academic doctors completed their studies while enrolled full-time, a further quarter part-time, and a quarter mixed. Trudgett et al. (2016, p. 8) propose that, as Indigenous doctorate students are likely to be both working and studying in the higher education sector, universities appear to be gaining ‘considerable value’ from their Indigenous academic workforce. They further comment that this value is enhanced when the student is both studying and working in the same institution.

Additionally, HDR candidature is characterised as a socially and intellectually lonely place for Indigenous students. The Behrendt Review (Berhendt et al., 2012) attributes the Indigenous HDR students’ experiences of isolation to being part of a very small cohort for which the pursuit of western education often physically and psychologically isolates them from their community. The social isolation reported by Indigenous HDR students can be ameliorated through a range of measures that enhance networking opportunities among students and with

96

Indigenous academia more broadly. Barney (2013) provides an example of a virtual postgraduate meeting place that was established at one university. The website seeks to provide Indigenous HDR students with a range of resources to support their candidature, raise the profile of successful Indigenous academics, disseminate Indigenous news and upcoming events, and provide a list of other Indigenous students to network with.

The Behrendt Review (Behrendt et al., 2012) and Barney (2016) both suggest that Indigenous HDR students benefit from other forms of intensive cohort support, such as masterclasses, workshops and seminars. Other examples of initiatives that have been successful in supporting Indigenous HDR students are the virtual resource Indigenous research pathways: http://www.Indigenousresearchpathways.edu.au (Australian Government, 2017) and the capacity-building program led by the National Indigenous Research and Knowledges Network, involving initiatives such as seminars, conferences, critical reading groups and masterclasses (NIRAKN, 2017).

What can be done to support Indigenous HDR student success?

There is a small body of literature that offers important insights into promoting the success of Indigenous HDR students in Australian universities. The literature describes approaches in the areas of IEUs, academic supervision, financial support and networking opportunities.

Indigenous education units

A range of terminology is used in the literature to refer to IEUs, including Indigenous Support Centres, Indigenous Support Units, Indigenous Support Services or Indigenous Support Units. IEUs began in 1973 as part of the ‘enclave’ approach to increasing Indigenous participation in higher education through the provision of Indigenous hubs to service the needs of Indigenous students (Bin-Sallik, 2003; Holt & Morgan, 2016). IEUs are now present in all Australian universities and serve the threefold purposes of supporting Indigenous students, networking between Indigenous students and Indigenous academics; and provision of an Indigenous presence on the campus (Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, 2016a).

IEUs continue to be identified as an important tool for increasing Indigenous participation in higher education (Andersen, Bunda, & Walter, 2008), providing targeted, intensive and Indigenous-specific support for students undertaking university education. This support includes academic tuition, ‘special entry conditions’, Indigenous role-modelling, psychological services and a physically segregated Indigenous space (Bin-Sallik, 2003). Recent inquiry (Barney, 2016) suggests that many IEUs could improve their capacity in supporting Indigenous HDR students who have additional and often unmet needs compared to undergraduate students.

Drawing on qualitative data shared by Indigenous HDR students, Behrendt et al. (2012) recommend a range of practical strategies that can build postgraduate support capacity in IEUs. These include:

• ensuring IEU staff are welcoming to students and approachable

• targeting employment of Indigenous staff with tertiary qualifications and research experiences to work in IEUs

• implementing a Postgraduate Support Officer position in IEUs

97

• hosting and undertaking a schedule of professional development activities specifically for Indigenous HDR students

• routinely introducing and orienting Indigenous HDR students to the IEU and its resources

• facilitating university Indigenous postgraduate support groups through the IEU

• compiling and distributing scholarship information to postgraduate students, preferably as early as possible into their candidature.

The role of IEUs also raises several salient questions about WoU engagement, including:

• the dispersal of Indigenous academic staff across the faculties in mainstream disciplines and/or increasing the remit of IEUs to include curriculum delivery on Indigenous issues

• the possibility of senior appointments to facilitate WoU academic engagement with cultural competency training and curriculum development (these may or may not be placed in the IEUs)

• appointment of senior figures, including pro vice-chancellors with a WoU mandate, to potentially lessens the role of IEUs in cultural advocacy at committee level

• institutional and sector-based targets and measures to increase the Indigenous academic workforce within and outside IEUs, across all discipline areas and levels.

It should be noted that there are varying positions on the efficacy of the IEU model in the future. For example, in critiquing the ‘enclave model’ of IEUs, Anderson et al. (2008) argued:

[t]hese patterns send a powerful underlying message to both Indigenous and non-Indigenous students about the place of Indigenous people within the higher education sector, as both separate and different. It also means that Indigenous students are largely bereft of role models and culturally competent support and supervision outside the Indigenous centres. (p. 6)

Holt and Morgan (2016) note that, despite these critiques, some universities have held firm to the ‘enclave’ model that essentially positions Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as guests (the ‘Guest Paradigm’) in a pool of mainstream academic culture and tradition.

This review notes that, to achieve parity, there needs to be an increase in roles for Indigenous academics outside IEUs and that this will require significant institutional culture change.

Academic supervision

Successful completion of HDR also requires competent and appropriately skilled academic supervisors. Laycock et al. (2011) explored the experiences of Indigenous researchers and their supervisors, demonstrating that Indigenous students are often challenged when trying to find a supervisor who is able to embrace Indigenous epistemologies in the construction and execution of the research process. Due to the small size of the Indigenous academic workforce, many students are unable to find appropriately skilled Indigenous people to supervise them. While it is recommended that this can be ameliorated through institutions compiling and maintaining a database of Indigenous academics able to act as supervisors (Behrendt et al., 2012; Trudgett, 2011), it seems demand will outstrip the current supply. As a

98

result, non-Indigenous supervisors still need to be part of the supervisory team of many Indigenous HDRs. While these relationships can work well, and non-Indigenous supervisors can act as a valuable conduit to disciplinary knowledge and mentorship, difficulties are routinely reported in research undertaken with the Indigenous HDR cohort. Practical strategies for overcoming this include:

• building capacity in non-Indigenous supervisors

• innovating to include the cultural expertise of Indigenous community representatives in the supervision role (Laycock et al., 2011)

• cross-cultural training for supervisors that encourages self-reflection (Trudgett, 2014)

• institutional strategies to capture best practice and monitor HDR student feedback (Behrendt et al., 2012).

Financial Support

Commonwealth higher education policy is a critical driver of Indigenous participation (Schofield, O’Brien, & Gilroy, 2013, p. 19) and it is likely that funding increases are correlated to higher rates of Indigenous participation (Schofield et al., 2013, p.21). Reforms to the current funding arrangements for HDR students are proposed as an important factor in supporting Indigenous students to succeed (ATSIHEAC, 2015; Behrendt et al., 2012). As Indigenous students are more likely to come from a background of socio-economic disadvantage, funding opportunities are a crucial access issue to participation in HDR education. Currently, Indigenous students are eligible for two sources of funding to undertake HDR studies: Australian Postgraduate Award stipends (APA) or ABSTUDY (Aboriginal Study Assistance Scheme) allowance. The APA stipend is administered by individual universities on behalf of the DET, (2016c) and is awarded competitively. ABSTUDY is administered by Centrelink and students are ineligible if they ate receiving an APA stipend. The stipend has advantages over ABSTUDY: it is a tax-free, is not affected by a partner’s income and is exempt from decreases as earnings increase. In the case of ABSTUDY, recipients are penalised by a lower rate of payment if they or their partner exceed a capped fortnightly earning. While both sources of income fall short of supporting Indigenous students, a recipient of the APA stipend can continue to undertake paid work without penalty (ATSIHEAC, 2015).

Due to a range of institutional administrative factors relating to competitive selection and persistent earlier inequities in the educational pipeline, there are very few Indigenous recipients of APA stipends. The Behrendt Review (Behrendt et al., 2012) stated that, in 2010, only 0.4% of all APA stipends were awarded to Indigenous students. It has been suggested that universities should increase Indigenous access by allocating a reserved number of APA stipends commensurate with their targeted enrolment rate for Indigenous HDR students. This reform has also been endorsed by previous iterations of the national Indigenous peak representational body for higher education, NATSIHEC (AC) (ATSIHEAC, 2015).

Reform of the Research Training Scheme (RTS) is also proposed as another way to redirect funding towards Indigenous HDR students. The RTS is Australian Government funding allocated to individual universities on the basis of their overall research performance and is intended to support the training of HDR students. The allocation of the funding to specific students is determined and processed by individual institutions (DET, 2016b). The Behrendt Review (Behrendt et al., 2012, p.112) commented that, in 2010, Indigenous students only accounted for 1% of all students receiving RTS support. Redirection and quarantining of

99

funds for the support of Indigenous HDR students currently requires goodwill on the part of individual institutions because there are no legislative requirements placed on which students receive funding. The Behrendt Review (2012) proposed that changes could be made to the RTS whereby universities allocate the funding commensurate to their Indigenous HDR student target. Outcomes could then be reported to the Australian Government through mission-based compacts. Its envisioned that redirection of RTS funds would build the capacity of universities to provide quality research training for Indigenous students, leading to higher rates of completion (ATSIHEAC, 2015; Behrendt et al., 2012).

Barney (2016) also cautions that many undergraduate Indigenous students have poor levels of awareness about HDR qualifications and, based on research with Indigenous students and advice from an Indigenous advisory group, suggests strategies to embed knowledge and raise the profile of HDR study among undergraduate Indigenous students (see Table 8). This includes approaches aimed at the individual/staff level, university school/ faculties, IEUs and graduate schools. Comprehensive implementation of these strategies is likely to be very important in attracting undergraduate Indigenous students to an academic career.

100

Table 8: A selection of strategies for raising the profile of HDR study for Indigenous students (adapted from Barney, 2016, pp.28–29)

University school/faculty strategies Indigenous Higher Education Unit Strategies

Work collaboratively with the university’s Indigenous unit/centre and graduate school to identify and nurture high-performing Indigenous undergraduate students.

Provide scholarships for Indigenous undergraduate students to undertake an Honours year.

Develop undergraduate courses with strong research components so Indigenous students can engage in research methods and develop research skills.

Identify and promote Indigenous academics as role models and ambassadors to promote HDR.

Provide welcoming and supportive spaces that demonstrate a culture of research.

Assign a designated staff member to focus on pathways into HDR.

Identify and nurture high-performing Indigenous undergraduate students.

Encourage Indigenous undergraduate students to gain research experience.

Run masterclasses and seminars for Indigenous undergraduates to explain what HDR is; outline the professional and personal benefits of undertaking HDR.

Provide examples of research that benefits Indigenous communities and discuss enrolment and admission processes, research ideas and supervision.

Communicate to Indigenous undergraduate students the diverse career opportunities available to HDR graduates and the diverse pathways into HDR.

Highlight success stories from graduates.

Develop outreach programs in schools and Indigenous communities to demonstrate how HDR is worthwhile.

Build a network/cohort of Indigenous undergraduate students interested in Honours and HDR.

General duties, undergraduate students and professional sector supply pools

General duties staff have been suggested as a future supply pool of Indigenous academics (Behrendt et al., 2012). The approach of targeting general duties staff is included under the umbrella term ‘growing your own’, which includes universities targeting promising undergraduate Indigenous students (Behrendt et al., 2012, p.140). For the most part, this strategy is based on the premise that the majority of Indigenous university employees in Australia are currently in general duty roles and could be an undervalued asset in increasing the Indigenous academic workforce. The Behrendt Review (2012, p.140) commented that ‘growing your own’ could be achieved through ‘academic internships, time release and more flexible study leave provisions for their non-academic staff’.

101

There was scant supporting literature on employment strategies for the upskilling of general duties staff and no examples of case studies demonstrating a successful transition from general to academic duties. Some information can be inferred from the discussion in Behrendt et al. (2012) on the overlap of general staff roles and broader cultural competency and curriculum support. However this was regarded as an ‘outside of the role’ obligation that potentially disadvantaged general staff. Additionally, discussions from the expert roundtable and site interviews suggest that some Indigenous general duties staff are both casually employed as academics and HDR candidates. This places them in double disadvantage, in both workload and research, due to their general inability to access study leave.

The Behrendt Review (2012) also identified professional sector staff as a future supply pool of Indigenous academics. This approach highlights the necessity of Australian Government initiatives in achieving employment parity, as the majority of Indigenous graduates enter government employment. The success of these professional recruitment practices and staff career development through robust employment strategies and capacity building can provide models of best practice for adaption and adoption in the higher education sector (Bin-Sallik, 2003). In addition, the lack of competitive remuneration for higher education employment compared to the wider public sector acts as an inhibitor for Indigenous higher education employment. Therefore, if the Australian Government seriously prioritises reaching parity in the Indigenous academic workforce, it must commit the funds to make these roles financially attractive (Behrendt 2012).

Indigenous academics’ workplace experiences

There is limited literature privileging Indigenous academics’ experiences in the workplace. Asmar, Page, and Mercier (2009) document the unique workplace roles and pressures placed on Indigenous people within the academy. Asmar and Page (2009), drawing from interviews with Indigenous academics, demonstrate that teaching is a ‘dominant dimension’ in their work. For the Indigenous academics interviewed, teaching was considered a vital part of enabling Indigenous students to succeed in the unfamiliar university environment.

Supporting students beyond formal role expectations is an immense and hidden dimension of Indigenous academic roles. For Indigenous students, tertiary education often involved significant life-changing events, such as leaving their communities for the first time or, as mature-entry students, balancing the hefty demands of work–study obligations. Indigenous academics explained that their commitment to assisting such students often placed excessive demands on their time and resources (ACER, 2011, p.12).

Requests from non-Indigenous academic colleagues on issues of pedagogical revision, research ethics support and community engagement also impact on Indigenous academic workloads. The combined demands of meeting these support roles offered job satisfaction but also contributed to stress and overwork. Additionally, when coupled with the prioritisation of teaching, Indigenous academics had limited time to pursue career progression activities such as further HDR study or research (Asmar et al., 2009).

The Indigenous Unit of the National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU) undertook a survey of its Indigenous membership and documented common experiences of racial discrimination, cultural disrespect and lateral violence in their higher education workplace (National Indigenous Unit of the National Tertiary Education Union, 2011). These negative workplace experiences are likely to be compounded for Indigenous academics who must further manage the effects of epistemological racism in their research and pedagogical endeavours.

102

A range of measures were recommended in the NTEU report, including enhancing discrimination reporting and grievance processes, as well as an awareness campaign discussing lateral violence and its impact on staff recruitment and retention (National Indigenous Unit of the National Tertiary Education Union, 2011, p. 4).

Workforce strategy

Since 1969, the challenge of increasing Indigenous employment rates in the Australian labour market has been the focus of numerous government policies with varying levels of success (Gray, Hunter, & Lohoar, 2012). More recently, Indigenous people’s under-representation in the higher education sector has been increasingly recognised and is now framed by a complex matrix of strategies, legislation, funding agreements and reporting mechanisms. Wilson and Wilks (2015) suggest that there has been a ‘gradual but splintered acknowledgment of government’s responsibility’ in addressing the inequity of Indigenous participation in tertiary education. They assert that Indigenous representation has been impeded by changing funding priorities driven by ideological and political positions.

The National Indigenous Higher Education Workforce Strategy (NIHEWS) (IHEAC, 2011), launched in 2011 and endorsed by Universities Australia, provides a best-practice approach to improving the recruitment and retention of Indigenous people in the higher education sector. The strategy emphasises the importance of setting clear performance targets and assigning responsibility for meeting these goals to faculty deans. In addition, it includes workplace strategies to specifically increase the numbers, retention and professional development opportunities for Indigenous academics.

One of the NIHEWS key objectives is maintaining a workplace environment that is sensitive to the needs of Indigenous employees. To meet this goal, Universities Australia supported the development and implementation of a best-practice Indigenous cultural competency framework with five guiding principles:

1. Indigenous people should be actively involved in university governance and management.

2. All graduates of Australian universities should be culturally competent.

3. University research should be conducted in a culturally competent way that empowers Indigenous participants and encourages collaborations with Indigenous communities.

4. Indigenous staffing will be increased at all appointment levels and for academic staff, across a wider variety of academic fields.

5. Universities will operate in partnership with their Indigenous communities and will help disseminate culturally competent practices to the wider community. (Universities Australia, 2011, p. 8)

The establishment of the Indigenous cultural competency framework in Australian universities supports the WoU model by elevating Indigenous leadership and shifting responsibility for improving outcomes. It is certainly clear that, prior to the introduction of the NIHEWS and the Indigenous cultural competency framework, many universities demonstrated poor performance in increasing Indigenous access and participation through their customary business management (Moreton-Robinson et al., 2011).

103

The matrix of legislation, funding and reporting

Prior to January 2017, eligible universities in Australia accessed federal funding through the ISP (Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, 2016b). The ISP funds were intended to be used by universities to meet the needs of their Indigenous students, with implicit aspirations of achieving equality of opportunity in the higher education sector. According to the Australian Government (Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, 2016b), this included establishing and managing IEUs, and funding academic and study skills tuition, psychological counselling services and facilitation of cultural awareness activities. The awarding of these funds was legislated under the Higher Education Support Act 2003 (Cth), which determined that a university’s ongoing eligibility is dependent upon:

• implementing strategies to improve access, participation, retention and success of Indigenous students

• demonstrating increased participation of Indigenous people in the institution’s decision-making

• having an Indigenous employment strategy. (DIISRTE, 2012, 1.20.1)

Performance against these indicators, along with expenditure details, is annually reported to the Australian Government (DIISRTE, 2012). Though the Australian Government encourages the use of a standardised template, universities often adopt their own reporting format. Legislative requirements do not detail how success is measured in improving Indigenous student outcomes, nor do they dictate how participation of Indigenous people in the institution’s decision-making is evidenced. Legislative reporting obligations may also have encouraged the employment of skilled administration staff rather than improved performance outcomes for Indigenous students and staff in universities. Moreton-Robinson et al. (2011, p. 6) have demonstrated that many universities do not have ‘policies, objectives or targets’ around Indigenous governance and many do not have ‘customary management items’ to evidence their strategies for improving the access, participation, retention and success of Indigenous students, despite this being an eligibility criterion for ISP funding.

Though the Higher Education Support Act 2003 does not dictate the content of an Indigenous employment strategy, best practice is to set clear performance goals for the numbers of Indigenous employees and at which level of duties they are employed (IHEAC, 2011). Enterprise bargaining agreements (EBAs) are one the few mechanisms for accountability in Indigenous staff numbers, although some universities have performance targets in their Indigenous employment strategy. Limited Indigenous representation in unions can reduce the ability of the EBA to influence institutional commitment to increasing Indigenous employment. To address this, Rigney (2011, p. 11) has recommended a review and evaluation of all university Indigenous employment strategies.

While it is obvious that legislative and best-practice drivers influence the institutional priority given to Indigenous employment, it is likely other factors are also involved. As Schofield, et al. (2013) advised, there seems to be an ideological tension in Australian universities between prioritising social justice and equity issues while also responding to marketisation demands as corporate producers of educational services in a global economy. Herein lies both a challenge and an opportunity for universities to embrace the unique contributions of Indigenous academics to the social and economic capital of Australia.

104

Conclusion

This literature review has contextualised a range of issues pertinent to increasing the Indigenous academic workforce in Australian universities. Using themes of WoU approaches, increasing the supply pool, Indigenous workplace experiences and workforce strategies, key insights and approaches to increasing the Indigenous academic have been identified and discussed.

6.3 Statistical review Contextualising Indigenous participation in Australian universities

Australian universities span all jurisdictions and make significant contributions to national wellbeing through the delivery of education, research, innovation and economic prosperity (Deloitte Access Economics, 2015). Universities in Australia employ over 120,000 staff and provide education to over one million students (Deloitte Access Economics, 2015). Despite these important national contributions, not all Australians are equal beneficiaries of the development and dispersal of this social and economic capital. Indigenous people have been and remain under-represented in all aspects of the higher education sector, both as students and as staff. This under-representation is part of Indigenous people’s broader experiences of comprehensive disadvantage, manifested in population-based social, economic and health inequities (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2015b).

Under-representation of Indigenous people in the higher education sector is determined in part by comparing Indigenous participation rates to the percentage of Indigenous people in Australia who are of working age (15–64 years). This approach was recommended by the Behrendt Review (2012, p. 236), which advised that the parity target should be adjusted in line with available population data from the Australian census. However, this assessment of equity does not make adjustments for the differences in population-based characteristics such as age profile, morbidity levels or labour-force readiness, which are markedly different between Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2015a). After introducing these metrics, the Indigenous academic staff parity target is 2.7%.3

Indigenous academic workforce profile

Using the parity target goal of 2.7% to frame discussions, the profile of the Indigenous academic workforce in Australian universities can be explored using the IES and HEIMS.4

Drawing conclusions about the Indigenous academic workforce through either independent or combined use of IES and HEIMS datasets has inherent methodological limitations. There is a range of collection methods, irregular reporting formats and dissimilarities in data collection

3 The ABS advises that in 2011 there were 669,881 Indigenous people, or 3% of the total Australia population, and this number is expected to continue to grow (ABS, 2014). Of these Indigenous people, 40,6579 were between 15 and 64 years of age, which represents 2.7% of the comparable aged total Australian population (ABS, 2013). 4 These reporting systems are designed for different purposes: the IES as a compulsory reporting mechanism for universities to maintain eligibility for Indigenous student funding; and the HEIMS as legislative requirement under the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to maintain eligibility for Commonwealth support by way of grants or payments to approved educational providers and student financial support (DET, 2017).

105

methods and times (see Table 9). Accordingly, the datasets struggle to provide a range of consistent, comparable figures. For example, in 2014 the IES reports the total number of Indigenous academics as 657, while the HEIMS reports the number as 396 (DET, 2016a).

The inconsistencies in these figures can be explained by a range of factors, including known irregularities in reporting templates between universities and the two datasets, multiple and alternative data collection variables, and dissimilar data collection methods and time periods. Furthermore, both datasets are limited by the identification of Indigenous status, with neither reporting system stipulating or recommending protocols on how this is achieved. Indigenous status can be recorded by way of self-identification on human resource records and/or through public identification. Anecdotally, the HEIMS database draws only on human resource records, which may be suggestive of under-reporting. In contrast, the IES is more likely to identify Indigenous status by both human resource records and public identification, which may lead to greater validity. The following workforce profile can only be interpreted as an approximation and in no way measures Indigenous academics’ workplace satisfaction. Unless otherwise explained, the figures in this report use the HEIMS datasets.

The development of accurate reporting mechanisms is of the utmost urgency if confident and robust measures of the reality of the Indigenous academic workforce are to be obtained. This is essential to accurate evaluation of the successes and limitations of strategies designed to support the growth of the Indigenous academic workforce.

Table 9: Data collection and reporting method comparison between Higher Education Information Management Scheme (HEIMS) and Indigenous Education Statement (IES) systems

Method and variables

HEIMS dataset IES dataset

Purpose To meet reporting obligations under the Higher Education Support Act 2003 (Cth) so as to maintain eligibility for Commonwealth funding.

To maintain eligibility for IES data and demonstrate improved access, participation and success of Indigenous students.

Data collection method

Data collection period

‘Snapshot’ of full-time/fractional full-time staffing profile at 31 March of the reference year or, for casual staff, one previous calendar year from 31 December.

Varied but often reported as over the course of one an academic year.

Reporting format Consistent between universities using an online portal with distinct reporting fields.

Inconsistent reporting templates between universities, though DET provides a recommended template.

Universities included

Table A and B providers only. Table A providers only.

Data collection officer

Likely to be a general administrator without institutional affiliation to the university’s Indigenous cohort.

Likely to be internal and institutionally affiliated with the university’s Indigenous cohort (anecdotal).

106

Reporting variables

Indigenous status Recorded self-identification on employment records.

Recorded self-identification on employment records and (anecdotally) public identification.

Reportable employment status

Full-time and fractional full-time, actual casual and estimated casual staff.

Casual, academic and professional; casual permanent.

Employment duties classification. i.e. Levels A,B, C, >C

Yes: academic and non-academic classification levels.

Ad hoc, with inconsistent reporting between universities. Academic classifications levels and/or position titles often but not always stated.

Gender Yes: male and female Yes: male and female

Fields of education HDR students by field of education.

Academic staff field of education not reported.

Field of education only able to be inferred from the recorded position title or affiliated faculty.

Age Yes. No.

Size of the Indigenous academic workforce

Despite the limitations discussed above, all datasets suggest that Indigenous academics are poorly represented in the Australian academic workforce and that, nationally, percentages fall short of the parity target goal of 2.7%. For example, meeting the target in 2015 would have required a further 816 Indigenous academics to be employed. While the total number remains low, there is evidence of positive growth albeit at a much lower rate than for the non-Indigenous academic workforce. The numbers of Indigenous academics employed in individual universities demonstrates wide variance. Data show that some institutions employ no Indigenous academic staff and others more than 20 Indigenous academics (DET, 2016a).

107

Figure 12: National totals of full-time equivalent Indigenous academics at Australian universities 2001–2015

Figure 13: National Indigenous staff as a percentage of all full-time equivalent academic staff 2001–2015

Gender

The majority of Indigenous academics are female and their proportion has been increasing over time (see Figure 17). During 2001–2015, males consistently accounted for less than 50% of the Indigenous academic workforce. The most current figures available, from 2015,

0.64 0.66 0.68

0.7 0.72 0.74 0.76 0.78

0.8 0.82 0.84

Indigenous staff as a percentage of all FTE academic staff

Percentage of Indigenous academic staff

108

show that 66% of Indigenous academics were female. Unlike the non-Indigenous academic workforce, a larger percentage of senior Indigenous academics above level C are female (see Figure 18). This suggests that a gendered approach may be necessary to both retain and progress the promotion of current Indigenous females and attract the recruitment of more Indigenous males.

Figure 14: National Indigenous full-time equivalent academics by gender 2001–2015

Figure 15: Indigenous and non-Indigenous full-time equivalent academics as a proportion by

gender and current duties classification 2015

0 % % 10 % 20

30 % % 40 % 50

60 % 70 % 80 % 90 %

100 %

Indigenous females Indigenous males

National Indigenous FTE academic staff by gender

60 40 20 0 80

> level C

level C senior ( lecturer)

level B lecturer ) (

level A non - Indigenous female Indigenous female non - Indigenous male Indigenous male

Indigenous and non-Indigenous FTE academics as a proportion by gender & level of employment in 2015

109

Employment field of education

IES data from 2014 (see Figure 19) suggests that the majority of Indigenous academics are represented in the following five fields in descending order: society and culture (n=233.3), education (n=175.3), health (n=111.1), natural and physical science (n=43.5); management and commerce (n=34.5); and creative arts (n=32.9).

*This includes the combined fields: information & technology (n=4.2); food, hospitality & personal services (n=1.5); engineering & related technologies (n=9.4); and architecture & building (n=3).

Figure 16: National Indigenous academics by fields of education 2014

Current duties classification

Academic duties are classified using employment levels A–E (see Appendix 9.6). In a number of universities, it is necessary to have a doctorate or equivalent to proceed beyond level B. Available data suggests that, on average, Indigenous academics are proportionally under-represented at senior levels (see Figures 20 and 21). Indigenous academics at level C account for only 15.2–17.8% of the workforce, compared to 22.7–23.3% of the non-Indigenous workforce at this classification; and above level C classification, only 10.5–23% of Indigenous academics are represented, compared to 22.7–27.1% of non-Indigenous academics. However, when viewed as five-year averages over 2001–2015, there is evidence of improved proportional Indigenous representation at senior classification levels.

National Indigenous academics by field of education 2014

110

Figure 17: Indigenous full-time equivalent academic staff by current duties classification in

five-year averages 2001–2015

Figure 18: Non-Indigenous full-time equivalent academic staff as a proportion by current duties classification in five-year averages 2001–2015

0 5

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

2001 - 2006 2005 - 2011 2010 - 2015

level A level B ) lecturer ( level C ( senior lecturer) > level C

Indigenous FTE academic staff as a proportion by current duties classification in five year averages

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

2001 - 2006 2005 - 2010 2001 - 2015

level A level B ( lecturer ) level C senior ( lecturer) > level C

Non-Indigenous FTE academic staff as a proportion by current duties classification in five-year averages

2001–2015

111

Future Indigenous academic employee supply pool

Progression through an academic career pathway in Australian universities requires HDR qualifications. Therefore, the supply pool of future Indigenous academics is closely associated with the progression and success of Indigenous HDR students. Indigenous people are grossly under-represented in the HDR student cohort and as a proportion fall well short of the target parity rate of 2.7%.

Numbers of Indigenous higher degree by research students

Over the years 2001–2015, yearly records indicate that 253–500 HDR students were Indigenous. As a proportion, this ranges from between 0.67% (n=253) in 2001, to 1.11% (n=500) in 2015 (see Figure 22). There has been an encouraging trend of increasing numbers.

Figure 19: Numbers of Indigenous higher degree by research students as a proportion of all

higher degree by research students 2001–2015

While the number of Indigenous HDR students demonstrates growth, there is large disparity between students commencing and students successfully completing their degree (see Figure 23). The yearly completion rates spanning 2001–2015 demonstrate that between 18 and 44 Indigenous students successfully attained their HDR qualification each year.

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

Indigenous HDR students

Linear ( Indigenous HDR students)

Indigenous HDR students as a proportion of all HDR students 2001–2015

112

Figure 20: Indigenous HDR students’ yearly commencement and completion rates 2001–2015

Gender

As with academic employment rates, females dominate the Indigenous HDR student cohort, with the proportion of males slowly decreasing over time (see Figure 24). Figures from 2015 demonstrate that females accounted for 65% and males 35% of all Indigenous students. A similar gender ratio is evident in the HDR completion rates, with females accounting for 59.3% of all completed HDR qualifications over the years 2001–2015 (see Figure 25). The reasons for a greater female participation in further HDR study among the Indigenous population are largely unknown, but the finding further supports the earlier contention that gendered strategies to encourage more Indigenous male participation may be necessary.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

20012003200520072009201120132015

Indigenous student HDR commencement Indigenous student HDR completion

Indigenous HDR students by commencement and completion numbers 2001–2015

113

Figure 21: Proportions of Indigenous higher degree by research completions by gender

2001–2015

Field of Study

The majority of Indigenous HDR students fall within a narrow cluster of educational study fields. Data drawing on all HDR completions over 2001–2015 demonstrates that the top four represented education fields in descending order were: 38.4% society and culture (n=191); 14.4% health (n=14.4%); 14.2% creative arts (n=71); and 8.8% natural and physical sciences (n=44) (see Figure 25). This is similar to the pattern observed in the academic workforce

Indigenous HDR completions by gender 2001–2015 -

Indigenous female Indigenous male

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Indigenous female Indigenous male

Proportions of Indigenous HDR students by gender 2001–2015

114

though there are far more awards of creative arts HDR qualifications, than Indigenous academics currently employed in this field. This may be part of a broader commercial disparity between supply and demand in the creative arts industry. This study field proportions are distinct from those of the non-Indigenous students.

Figure 22: Indigenous higher degree by research completions by field of study 2001–2015

Conclusion

The following conclusions about the Indigenous academic workforce can be drawn after reviewing the datasets available.

• Current DET data collection systems are unfit for the purpose of measuring the Indigenous academic workforce and/or assessing the success or limitations of strategies to increase it.

• Notwithstanding such limitations, the available data suggests the Indigenous academic workforce is slowly growing but at a much lower rate than the non-Indigenous workforce.

• The current proportion of the Indigenous academic workforce is .82% and, as of 2005, falls well short of the target parity rate of 2.7%.

• To meet the parity target in 2015 would have required a further 816 Indigenous academics to be employed.

• A smaller proportion of Indigenous academics work in the higher levels of employment in universities than non-Indigenous academics.

• The Indigenous academic workforce is concentrated in narrow fields of education, with the majority employed in the areas of society and culture, education and health.

• Indigenous HDR students are under-represented, suggesting a lower completion rate.

Indigenous HDR completions by field of study 2001–2015

society and culture

health

creative arts

education

natural & physical sciences

management &commerce

agriculture, environment and related science

115

• The greater proportion of the Indigenous academic workforce is female. This suggests that a gendered approach may be necessary to progress the promotion of Indigenous females and recruit more Indigenous males.

• These gender ratios and narrow fields of education are, for the most part, also reflected in the Indigenous HDR student cohort most likely to form the future supply pool of academics.

6.4 University interviews Introduction

The review conducted 26 structured interviews at three universities between November 2016 and February 2017. These interviews provided Indigenous staff an opportunity to comment on their experiences of higher education employment and make recommendations for increasing the workforce. Additionally, a smaller cohort of senior executives commented on their planning and implementation of Indigenous academic employment strategies within their university. A desktop audit of the universities’ policies and strategies was also undertaken.

Site profiles

The three universities were in the top 15% of a 2011 study (Moreton-Robinson et al., 2011) that used a weighted scoring system (Indigenous student access and attainment 40%, Indigenous staff employment 30%, and governance and cultural competence 30%) to assess the success of Indigenous education practices.

In addition, the three universities were in the top 25% of all Australian universities for employment ratios of Indigenous staff. The interviews aimed to explore how these practices had translated into action, and what difference, if any, they made to the number of Indigenous academic staff employed in the universities.

The three universities chosen represented a geographical spread of urban and regional institutions. Further, each university also had Indigenous Employment Coordinator position, although one of these positions was vacant at the time of the site visit.

Indigenous centres

All three universities had dedicated IEUs. While these had varying structures, each offered:

• Indigenous student support services with tutorial support

• a physical study centre with computers, and support for Indigenous scholarships and grants

• research units (of varying stages of development)

• policy officers

• Indigenous Elders on campus

• undergraduate and postgraduate pathway options

• an Indigenous Head of School (although some IEUs also employed non-Indigenous staff).

116

Indigenous studies

Each university facilitated Indigenous studies qualifications in linguistic, business, education and policy-focused areas. Further, IEU staff contributed to service teaching in mainstream courses such as education and nursing.

Research questions

There were three key questions informing the interviews.

• What initiatives had the universities undertaken to improve the pipeline of Indigenous academics?

• What were their lived experiences as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander academics in relation to university employment?

• What were the personal perceptions of senior university staff around strategies for increasing lndigenous employment?

All interview participants were briefed on the research, supplied with a ‘Plain Language Statement’, signed consent forms, participated voluntarily, and were guaranteed anonymity through the allocation of individual pseudonyms. Interviews were conducted face to face and held privately in the office or meeting room of the interviewee’s workplace.

A copy of the structured interview questions is attached at Appendix 9.4 and Appendix 9.5

Characteristics of interview participants

• Employment profile: Of the 26 interviewees, 20 identified as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander academics, six were non-Indigenous senior executives (at pro vice-chancellor level or above).

• Gender and age of respondents: 14 of the interviewees were male, and the remaining 12 were female. Ages ranged from 30 to 60 years.

• Current educational qualifications: Respondents were also asked to identify their academic qualifications. Of those recorded, 17 held a PhD qualification, 4 held a masters degree, and four were enrolled in a PhD at the time of the interview.

Findings from the interviews describe insights and practical strategies for increasing the Indigenous academic workforce. These findings can be broadly organised into the five themes of:

• university governance and policy

• employment demand and supply issues

• racism, discrimination and identity

• leadership

• territory (the place of Indigenous studies and knowledges in the academy).

These themes and respective sub-themes are discussed in greater detail below.

117

University governance and policy

Good clear strong governance, planning is absolutely vital. There is nothing new to it, in the sense that it is the good governance that we give anything that is genuinely important to the University, it’s just that Indigenous education and employment historically has not been seen to have the ‘worth’ of that good governance. (Jackson, senior executive)

Almost without exception, interview participants affirmed the high governance and policy ranking attributed to their university. There was a widespread awareness of the range of institutional policies and strategies in place, aligned to the aspirations for Indigenous education and Indigenous employment. Staff acknowledged and valued that their institution articulated a focus on improving Indigenous education outcomes adopted as:

• a prominent feature of their university strategic plan

• actively espoused by their vice-chancellors and responsible pro vice-chancellor

• a key element of university marketing initiatives

• specific Indigenous strategies for teaching, research, student access, student success, community engagement and employment

• a range of governance mechanisms to be actioned, measured and reported against

• inclusive committees and boards with Indigenous representation

• the number of committees and boards with representation by Indigenous and non-Indigenous professionals and academics.

Staff interviewed understood the value of such comprehensive and clearly defined approaches to Indigenous employment, although all linked the success of such an approach to the leadership provided by the incumbent vice-chancellors and relevant pro vice-chancellor.

Two of the three universities had reinvigorated their efforts in relation to Indigenous employment through the strong leadership of their vice-chancellors around reporting and accountability of the senior executives. It appeared that the devolution of responsibility for Indigenous employment was a key feature of their ability to sustain their high employment numbers.

So the whole governance loop, planning is quite clear, it is very directive. We don’t just have broad statements in our strategies. You might find there are some broad strategies in one section, but then there is an activity that has to be implemented to support it. (Jackson, senior executive)

The third site was undergoing a process of renewal driven by a newly endorsed strategic plan that aimed to address a downturn in numbers of Indigenous academic staff. Many of the academic staff employed at this university were in the Indigenous Student Support Centre. Senior executives from this university with currently low Indigenous academic staff numbers acknowledged that existing Indigenous staff (generally) tended to be at lower levels within the organisation, or employed using ‘soft money’ that meant their positions were short-term, with no guarantee of continued employment. One non-Indigenous senior executive linked this practice to funding cycles that privilege funding for particular purposes at particular times.

118

I think that the university always needs to be attendant to the way in which the funding cycle of cut and growth operates to marginalise Indigenous employees. Now we’ve got to push for Science Technology Engineering and Maths (STEM). I want to know where Indigenous people fit into that. It seems like that’s yet another trick to delay what I think are measures you’d have to do. There’s always a ‘The timing’s not right, it’s not a good time’. (Christopher, senior executive)

Employment supply and demand issues

All interviewees agreed that increasing the number of Indigenous academic staff was important. Although there was consensus around the need to ‘grow-your-own’ through the pipeline of existing Indigenous HDR students, targeted recruitment options suggested included:

• creating more Indigenous-specific positions

• adopting a form of ‘positive discrimination’ for all positions

• creating specific numerical targets.

We need to have Indigenous staff across the breadth of the institution. I was challenged recently because our enterprise agreement has a number. It says, we will by the end of this agreement achieve this many staff. People have been getting upset that we haven’t hit that number. I have a problem with that number because I could go out tomorrow and employ a stack of gardeners or something and meet the number. It’s the wrong metric. (Robert, senior executive)

I think on the very senior executive, I think it’s (increasing Indigenous academic staffing) been on the agenda for some time in terms of that everyone would be on board with that idea. Where it starts to fall down is how you implement that. How you get that—I think we’re committed to doing that. We’re struggling, I’m struggling, with how do you do that, how do you bring staff along to make it clear? (Cynthia, senior executive)

Supply issues

PhD requirement

The mandatory requirement for academics of level B or above to hold a doctoral qualification was identified as the critical barrier to rapidly increasing the number of Indigenous academics. Overwhelmingly, Indigenous interviewees who had achieved this milestone had taken over five years, and up to ten years, to complete their doctorate. They stressed that their extended candidatures was not determined by a lack of academic skill, intellectual capability or motivation, but rather extenuating personal circumstances.

For many, doctoral qualification had come at a high cost to their personal lives or health, especially as they performed responsible roles within their community or extended families. Moreover, their status as the primary income earner for their family and the expectations of extended family and community responsibility extended candidatures.

For academics it is the PhD. Having done this myself, trying to do your PhD while you’re a low level academic, which means you’re going to have a high teaching load and I had (several) kids during the period while I was doing it. Hard, very, very, very hard, very high burnout. (Sonya, Indigenous academic)

119

Population characteristics and capacity

Interview and data analysis suggests that the supply of Indigenous academics is linked to population density, but not necessarily Indigenous population ratios. For example, the more rural university with a smaller population catchment, but large Indigenous demographic, expressed the most difficulty in recruiting Indigenous academics.

In contrast, most interviewees at the other two sites did not consider that there was a lack of supply of suitably qualified Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people for academic positions. They were familiar with the reasonably large numbers of graduates from their own universities and others, and actively invested in ‘growing their own’, including the provision of PhD support programs for Indigenous staff.

Across all sites, interviewees identified the lack of supply of Indigenous candidates who possessed academic and management skills, and experience. In referring to that mix of skills, one Indigenous participant stated,

In senior management, I think there’s probably not a lot of candidates that would be in senior management positions as academics, but on the ground, when you’re looking at As and Bs, there’s no problem filling those at all. Plenty of people that are eligible. (Andrew, Indigenous academic)

This highlights the issue of pathways development as critical for universities in improving the participation of Indigenous staff at senior academic positions in both research and teaching, and it needs to start early.

The first thing is letting people know that this is a career path, so letting them know that this is an option, I don’t think (HDR) students are aware of that. (Alice, Indigenous academic/student support)

Interviewees generally acknowledged the anomaly that Indigenous HDR scholarships often go unfilled. At one site, Indigenous staff recalled how a (mainstream) faculty attempted to increase Indigenous HDR students through a generous scholarship but that the marketing material for the scholarship was only placed at the faculty reception desk. It Is likely that none of their potential scholarship applicants were aware of it. Further, the site that identified supply issues, though providing a generous study allowance program, did not have an active, coordinated program in place to support and develop Indigenous HDR students. Once Indigenous HDR students are enrolled, the implementation of innovative and practical support for ‘growing your own’ academics was considered the most important factor for developing an Indigenous academic pipeline.

‘Growing Our Own’

Developing and implementing flexible support programs to grow the quantity and quality of Indigenous academic staff was a recurring theme in the interviews. The need for such programs was identified equally across the employment spectrum—from programs for HDR students, PhD fast-tracking and early-career academics through to post-doctoral support and executive training for Indigenous experienced academics,

[B]ut there are difficulties. In the past, most of—and which most of our academics are mature age, so you need to understand you’re attracting people you expect to move. There’s dislocation and costs associated with it and, while the pool, I’m

120

pleased it’s growing, it’s still not at saturation point for high-quality candidates for high-quality jobs. (Connor, Indigenous academic)

Two of the sites visited host nationally significant programs for ‘growing their own’ Indigenous academics that have been in operation for several years. Both have implemented academic fellowship programs employing full-time, Level A staff to complete their PhD studies with a reduced teaching and service load.

Some staff interviewed at one of the sites had taken advantage of the program and had completed their PhDs while working in the IEU. They valued the program but were curious as to why there had not been a WoU adoption of the model,

Why doesn’t law school? Why doesn’t psychology? What about our nursing? What about education, why doesn’t one other school at the university have it? I don’t know. Maybe there’s not the money there, the funding’s not there and it’s not at the top of—it doesn’t have to be at the top of list but it just has to be on their to-do list for 2017 or 2018. It’s creating those opportunities, if there’s no opportunities there’s not going to be places with black faces. (Malakai, Indigenous academic)

In contrast, other interviews suggested these programs were due for a re-evaluation. They recommended greater flexibility, particularly with the timeframe for completion, also citing the potential for misuse by employers focused on the delivery of ‘work’ outcomes rather than support for academic completion.

Research—mentorship

Participants identified access to, and support from, experienced research academics as a key opportunity for career development.

[F]or example I’ve done two university jobs, I would very much like to do research, but have no idea where to start and no-one has actually said, ‘Is this what you would like to do? and if it is, here is a person who can help you’ … and be quite explicit about this is the way you do it. I came from a tertiary education background, and I still don’t know how to navigate through this system … it is so difficult to navigate. (Alice, Indigenous academic/student support)

Indigenous academics consistently identified a lack of access to senior research mentors for professional development and skills such as grant writing. Access to this ‘insider’ knowledge was highlighted as crucial for Indigenous academics to progress in their research careers. The predicament was described by one Indigenous academic who had successfully won a research grant.

[S]o how does the average level A or level B know those things? ... you can’t know unless—someone has got to give you the key. They’ve got to actually open the door. No matter how much you want it, you can’t kick that door down. Someone has got to open the door for you and they have to be on the inside to open it—and that is the only reason I got the (research) grant. (Sonya, Indigenous academic)

121

Teaching—skill development

There was agreement across all interviewees that universities needed to increase the numbers of new Indigenous teaching academics coming through the pipeline. However, as one Indigenous academic noted, there are concerns around recruiting students into teaching positions where they have not worked in their discipline area.

Well one of the things that seems to be a bit habitual is that we have students come through and we think, they’re bright or they’re good … so we kind of steer them into academic life. The problem with that is we have a whole pile of people who are teaching something they don’t know how to do. They did the theory, but they never went and did the practice. So if you bring a student through and you snaffle them straight away, there’s no professional experience. And it seems to be something that is, you know, two schools of thought. Some people are just—we’ve got to grab them and get them in, but there’s always something lacking in their teaching and their practice because they didn’t physically do it. They can’t talk with the voice of experience. (Jessica, Indigenous academic)

While this was potentially an issue within practitioner disciplines, it was suggested that for other disciplines this may not be as problematic. Several other Indigenous academics prioritised the need to have more Indigenous academics (as researchers and/or lecturers) across disciplines to extend Indigenous knowledges, deliver Indigenous standpoints, and apply Indigenous pedagogies.

Existing teaching staff at each university talked about how it is important to have Indigenous academics working as lecturers, in front of students, where they can provide an Indigenous standpoint, and be positive role models, particularly for Indigenous students. One expressed concern with the low numbers of teaching staff across the university, stating:

I think is quite a poor effort actually, considering the university targets Indigenous topics or Indigenous people as a resource and don’t necessarily value that in their educators. (Celeste, Indigenous academic)

Demand issues

A place for women

Interviewees suggested that generally the university sector does provide the flexibility many women require in achieving a home-life balance, and this includes a significant proportion of Indigenous female staff.

Apart from one poorly managed staff member, Indigenous academic interviewees had described generally supportive and family-friendly work environments.

I do think this particular university is reasonably supportive of women. Not so much at the hiring. There’s a lot of complaints that they don’t hire women [into executive roles], they’re more inclined to hire a man and give him a higher salary and that sort of thing. But as an overall employer, they’re fairly good at supporting women and being flexible with hours and there’s childcare on all the campuses … So I think they do sort of provide a certain amount of—but there’s still the thing that if you take maternity leave you’re not going to get as high up the ladder as the fellow who didn’t and stayed here and got published sixteen times while you

122

were off having a baby. I think there’s still always going to be that, I don’t know how you get around it. (Jessica, Indigenous academic)

Identified failures to support Indigenous female academics were noted in supporting research aspirations and allowing for teaching relief to provide greater flexibility. Some very practical improvements for universities were also recommended, including:

• the need to provide for domestic violence leave in enterprise agreements

• the need to provide ‘family friendly’ work environments (not only at the IEU)

• a need for mothers’ rooms on campus

• a need for safe women’s spaces on campus.

Given the identified additional expectations placed on Indigenous women in the university workforce, there did not appear to be commensurate support mechanisms for them. Overall, the informants agreed that supporting Indigenous women in the workplace was important.

The men interviewed expressed a high level of regard for Indigenous women working in universities, and acknowledged their contribution as reflective of the roles that Indigenous women play in their families and communities more broadly. They also acknowledged that the female-dominated staffing profile reflected the higher education student profile.

Support for developing researchers

An experienced Indigenous academic reflected, as in all careers, that some individuals will transition into academia easily, but for most there will initially be a steep learning curve. At the early stage, academics can be quite vulnerable in the workplace, and one Indigenous academic highlighted the need to ensure that those staff are not expected to deal with issues on their own.

The academic instruction that they are given (at this early stage) is crucial, absolutely crucial. (Simone, Indigenous academic)

For instance:

Course coordinators need to ensure that their Level As don’t get ‘lost out in the wilderness’. Importantly, coordinators need to be working with early career academics around ‘What are academic standards?’, ‘What does quality look like?’ and asking themselves ‘What support am I providing staff who are teaching into my courses?’. (Simone, Indigenous academic)

Indigenous academics also reflected, however, that there is little recognition of the additional knowledge and perspectives they bring to the academy as Indigenous peoples who participate in a living culture distinct from that of mainstream Australia.

Any Indigenous person who gets to work in our higher ed[ucation] space has an advantage. Has an advantage. Because they’ve proven that they can manoeuvre in the western education academic space and they have the added bonus of this Indigeneity, this Aboriginal centre, this extra added knowledge. So I don’t think that gets recognised enough. It doesn’t get spoken about. It doesn’t get presented as if these Indigenous academics should be valued because they actually have an extra, added dimension and skill. (Celeste, Indigenous academic/lecturer)

123

[Y]ou need the talent, not just positions filled, but highly talented people in each position, and then you need people in those positions who are not only talented and supported by excellent governance and planning and reporting mechanisms, but highly talented people, people who have outstanding interpersonal, soft skills, in relationships, to make it happen. (Jackson, senior executive)

Another Indigenous academic saw huge potential for the university to employ Indigenous people particularly into entry-level research assistant and project officer roles.

[M]aybe, well for the life of the [research] grant we take on a cadet, we take on a RA and the RA might just be … another Indigenous person who has a certificate four or three or whatever. Just a community member who has done a bit of TAFE … and just has the skills to be efficient in administrative duties and also some research, just a bit of an all-rounder basically at the end of the day … you know, give a community mob a go. (Malakai, Indigenous academic)

This could help address the issues of research being done about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities with a lack of community ownership. Actively recruiting and involving more Indigenous people as researchers at the ‘grass roots’ level is an opportunity to develop Indigenous community researchers and provide more impactful research outcomes.

Competing with the employment market

High-paying industry

The impacts of the employment market on university attraction were noted by both Indigenous and non-Indigenous staff.

Like, we desperately need people in STEM. But if you send someone out to be an engineer, they’re not going to come back to teach. Why would they? The money’s ridiculous. We’ve got to work out some way of doing that. It’s very hard to get doctors to come back in for our Doctor’s Program and we’ve sort of got people that we’ve got coming back in one day a week and then they gradually increased it to two days a week and that kind of thing. And that might be the pathway. Get them back in a little bit and then a little bit more. So once they see what academic life is like, they might get into it. (Jessica, Indigenous academic)

Interviewees from regional and rural universities identified the mining industry as a significant market force affecting available employees, employment aspirations and student enrolment generally.

The metropolitan university identified that when Indigenous students are qualified in business and accounting disciplines they get ‘snapped up’ by the banks, and the university cannot compete with banking sector salaries and benefits.

Reputation and retention in higher education institutions

Indigenous staff seeking cross-institutional engagement stated they look at the Indigenous staffing profile of potential partner institutions, with one participant stating:

124

When I look at a Centre, I always look at the staff and just see how many Indigenous staff are working in those spaces and working at senior roles instead of at the front desk. (Malakai, Indigenous academic).

Another Indigenous academic reflected that sometimes one will see an Indigenous family, or clan or other affiliated groups working in a particular IEU. This observation was seen as reflecting profiles in Aboriginal community organisations.

The wider reputation of institutions was also widely acknowledged as a drawcard or deterrent for Indigenous employees. Staff at one of the universities visited noted the growing number of phone calls they are receiving from interested Indigenous academics, now that their reputation for employing and supporting Indigenous academics is rapidly growing. In acknowledging the small pool of Indigenous academics nationally, and the prevalence and effectiveness of Indigenous networking, institutional reputation should be considered as a key issue for increasing Indigenous employment, and a risk factor for senior executives across the institutions to manage.

Environments become unhealthy and unsafe when hard issues haven’t been addressed for long periods of time … but I don’t think you can have a wonderful employment record, in an unpleasant place. (Jackson, senior executive)

While attraction is one issue, retention is another. A common interview theme was that Indigenous staff would be most likely to ‘stick around’ at their institution if they believe that staff are being treated fairly and supported in their career advancement.

We’re a sticking lot—if we are being treated well, we will stay. (Malakai, Indigenous academic)

My view is that I think employment of Indigenous people happens in spite of any planning and it is operating on networks and I think when you have Indigenous people in an organisation, if they feel safe, rewarded and nurtured, then they will invite and bring others along. I think there’s a catchment affect. (Christopher, senior executive)

One of the other things … [that is important is an environment that is] collegial, is not a spirit of competitiveness, or territoriality, amongst the Indigenous staff, [that] is a quite a healthy, a very healthy environment, a very safe environment and that’s an important thing. (Jackson, senior executive)

Racism, discrimination and identity

Universities as a ‘western’ construct

Indigenous interviewees believed that universities are built on traditional western notions of knowledge production and reproduction, and that the structures, practices and informal corporate culture of the university are inherently ethnocentric and/or racist.

Academic staff also described practical experiences of what they considered to be racist or discriminatory behaviours, often believed to be unintentional, but no less impactful.

The issue is that Indigenous people are not recognised anyway, and that is one of the enduring factors of racism. I’m actually startled at how durable that is. That’s a feature of what we might say is that traditional views of Cartesian and of positivist knowledge don’t always benefit Indigenous knowledges or research,

125

because it comes from a different set of epistemologies, different ontology, aetiology, they’re all very, very different. (Christopher, senior executive)

One Indigenous academic described how this approach played out in practice when applying to the Human Ethics Committee:

When you write your ethics application, you have to spell everything out. It’s kind of a minefield. The template isn’t geared for Indigenous researchers; it’s very much a non-Indigenous perspective or view. If you’re doing an Indigenous topic, you have to fill out a whole lot of these other questions about conducting research with Indigenous people. That’s fair enough. But do non-Indigenous people have to answer all of those questions if they’re studying a non-Indigenous topic? No they do not. Why should I as an Indigenous researcher have to fill out all those extra questions about my integrity, my motivation when I’m studying an Indigenous topic? It’s offensive. It’s ridiculous. (Celeste, Indigenous academic/lecturer)

Another interviewee described being disappointed that universities operate as a microcosm of the wider Australian society, with overt and covert racism.

Universities have the intellectuals of this country who should know better. They have all the resources, skills, knowledges, and they know how to work it out, but they chose not to. They choose to go along with ignorance, uninformed, uneducated beliefs about racism when it comes to Aboriginal people. And that’s for me one of the biggest frustrations. At this university, it is not overt but it exists and it’s subtle and it’s pervasive and it manifests as resistance to policy implementation, recommendations. On the surface, there’s the acceptance of recommendations but you know that just isn’t going to be changed. (Elaine, Indigenous academic).

To combat racism and ethnocentrism, many interviewees described working in the sector, particularly as lecturers, as contributing to a changed society, to ‘make a difference’. Most had themselves attained academic success, in spite of their less than satisfactory education experiences. The relentless contradiction between these altruistic values and the increasing pressure for universities to commercialise and compete inevitably contributes to sector turnover, job satisfaction, and productivity.

Inequity in workload

Interview participants described situations where Indigenous academics were discriminated against by their supervisor because of their Indigeneity. A common issue appeared to be allocating extra tasks to Indigenous staff because of their race. Indigenising the curriculum is an example where extra responsibilities are extended to Indigenous staff with no recognition or consideration of their existing full workload, or consistency with their job description.

Being the only Indigenous person in a work unit can also be quite difficult. Participants commonly described being openly targeted as the Indigenous ‘expert’, which can be very confronting. Respondents also mentioned staff on campus who are reluctant to identify as Indigenous because of the perceived negative outcomes in workload.

126

Ignorance

Other Indigenous staff, particularly younger staff, were less likely to describe experiences of ‘racism’. Rather, they considered some non-Indigenous staff behaviours to be based on their lack of knowledge of Indigenous Australians, including historical experiences and contemporary issues. This extends to a lack of cultural sensitivity exhibited through inappropriate comments during the informal ‘tearoom’ or the ‘water-cooler’ conversations, which can inhibit staff cultural safety.

This was accompanied by a widespread concern among Indigenous staff that many non-Indigenous Australians were not genuinely interested in Indigenous cultures, as one stated:

Many Australian institutions exhibit a general level of ignorance which then comes out as racism or prejudice … we get more interest from international students wanting to know about Indigenous culture, than from our non-Indigenous colleagues. (Tanya, Indigenous academic)

Another described the uncomfortable situation of being singled out in a large staff meeting to respond to an impromptu question from the manager about what he/she could offer the team in relation to improving Indigenous education outcomes for their whole portfolio, implying that one staff member should hold all the answers because of their Indigeneity.

The lack of recognition of Torres Strait Islander peoples as Indigenous to Australia and the uniqueness of their culture and contributions was reported by both non-Indigenous and Indigenous staff and students. Again, this was acknowledged as not always intentional behaviour, but linked to poor cultural and historical appreciation.

Discrimination within

Several Indigenous academics interviewed identified practices of discrimination by Indigenous peoples themselves, describing situations in which they had felt personally discriminated against by other Indigenous members of staff.

[I]f I'm being truthful, I think our challenges are internal, I think it’s amongst us [Indigenous people] rather than externally. (Alice, Indigenous academic)

Another Indigenous academic echoed this.

I know a particular staff member who knows she is Aboriginal but doesn’t know where she comes from. And I have seen over time, just little niggly comments that delegitimise what she says because it is like, ‘Well what do you know? You don’t even know where you come from’ and I think that it is unfortunate and it is unkind and it fails to recognise that she didn’t actually have a part in that. (Simone, Indigenous academic)

On balance, Indigenous staff also reflected that having a workplace where all staff identified as Indigenous provided a necessary community of support for both staff and students.

I really like the way [the Indigenous Centre] is set up in the fact that everybody that teaches and works there is Aboriginal because I think it gives that sense, and certainly my students in our surveys have said, it gives them that sense of community and belonging whereas when they’re around non-Aboriginal people in an Indigenous centre it's different. So I think that’s important to have as many

127

Aboriginal people in an Aboriginal centre, if not all. Sometimes that’s not logistically possible because we don't have the numbers of people. (Tanya, Indigenous academic)

Disclosure

Indigenous academics discussed how it is not uncommon for Indigenous people to keep their identity to themselves in the work environment. One interviewee clearly expressed that there are real and valid reasons some people choose not to identify as Indigenous in the workplace:

Yeah, as I’ve got closer to senior management I’ve found out there were Aboriginal people … all over the place, but they never identified. They whisper in my ear, ‘… do you realise I’ve got an Aboriginal background. I don’t want to report it, I don’t want it there’ and to me, strategically, that was cool. (Connor, Indigenous academic)

Another Indigenous academic stated that, in some circumstances, publicly stating one’s Aboriginality can be considered a political act. That does not mean a person does not have their own construction of Aboriginality, but it may mean they are not able to, or choose not to, make that political statement. Neither institutions nor colleagues have the right to demand that disclosure but it is helpful to be able to record student and staff Indigeneity for the purposes of promoting Indigenous-specific support services; for example, to forward information about Indigenous Tutorial Assistance Scheme (ITAS) for students or staff. One respondent also acknowledged their own caution when asked to identify themselves, saying:

Personally, if I am faced with the identifying question, I will ask ‘why?’ because I think it can be a loaded question, with other agendas behind it … so I will wait to see if someone can give me a decent explanation, other than just, ‘it’s on the form’. (Alice, Indigenous academic)

Another senior Indigenous academic qualified this:

The fear is for some of them is if they identify they will cop racism. So, it’s like the old hospital, ‘if I tell them I’m Aboriginal, I'll get put on the veranda’. So, they don’t want that burden, so I’ve got no trouble with that. My only concern would be, if they want specific Aboriginal resources, they’re designed for identifying Aboriginals. (Connor, Indigenous academic)

There was no clearly articulated process, consistency of practice, or guideline for universities in relation to the collection, collation and/or appropriate use of the ‘identification’ of Indigenous staff. Hence, universities make these decisions at the institutional level and, inevitably, some institutions will achieve better outcomes than others.

Leadership

University leadership

Most interviewees strongly indicated that ‘leadership matters’ and discussed the critical importance of the vice-chancellor’s authentic commitment to change through promoting and driving the requirement to increase the profile of Indigenous academics and Indigenous studies.

128

Everyone knows that if it is important, the Vice-Chancellor includes it in their presentations all the time, is talking about how proud they are about the achievements all the time, you can’t say it’s important and then it’s invisible. So public championing, and constant championing, and monitoring and demanding by the Vice-Chancellor is fundamental and without that, you are not going anywhere. (Jackson, senior executive)

Interviewees suggested that most universities are managed by people who are technical experts, usually in the sciences, and that senior managers surround themselves with others who think alike. In contrast, much of the qualitative data collected during these interviews indicates the importance of interpersonal, ‘soft’ skills in relationship building and management. Several other elements of good university leadership were identified by respondents, including:

• authentic relationships between senior executive staff and Indigenous staff (not confined to employment levels)

• acknowledging the potential value of Indigenous academics working beyond the enclave of the Indigenous Centre, into ‘mainstream’ roles

• endorsing whole-of-university policy approaches and holding institutional leaders accountable for such policies and the change-management processes they require.

I think if we’re not in the system then what are we doing here? So we go, you know, well I’m in [the Indigenous Centre]. No we’re not, we’re a part of the university. So if we want to hold the university to account, then we’ve got to be prepared for them to hold us to account. To me, it’s a two-way street. You know, it’s that thing, it’s that rigour that comes in here, it’s the type of standards that we’re creating. I think the only way to do that is to create the leadership model. (Frederick, Indigenous academic)

Indigenous leadership

Each of the three interview sites employed an Indigenous pro vice-chancellor to champion Indigenous education at their university, and all the interviewees were well aware of this appointment. Both Indigenous and non-Indigenous interviewees strongly supported having an Indigenous academic operating as a member of the university executive. All Indigenous staff demonstrated an astute understanding of the complexities of the role of the Indigenous pro vice-chancellor in meeting the demands of Indigenous staff, students and community, along with their role as an executive in the chancellery.

In addition to the Indigenous pro vice-chancellor, a number of highly experienced and widely published Indigenous academics were employed at the universities in senior roles, mostly in Indigenous studies. Their leadership within the institution was also widely valued and sought.

In general, respondents expressed confidence in the commitment of their senior executive cohort to the Indigenous portfolio, though many interviewees acknowledged that leadership and representation by Indigenous professionals and academics across the institution were critical factors yet to be addressed fully. An experienced Indigenous academic discussed the need to have more Indigenous people in senior positions across the university, mentoring junior staff in their career trajectory.

129

I think one of the keys is we have to put more people at a higher level. Like good, experienced people at a higher level so that they can provide some kind of mentoring for the younger ones coming in, because they [younger ones] have to see that somebody made it. (Jessica, Indigenous academic)

It was clear from the field visits that staff were simultaneously proud of the historical achievements of their university’s IEU, and somewhat disconcerted about the recent experiences of change in staff and/or structuring. A common aspiration among Indigenous staff, and some senior executives, was developing more WoU approaches to increasing Indigenous staffing.

Territory

Representation of Indigenous culture

Non-Indigenous and Indigenous respondents discussed the need for more symbolic and practical representations of Indigenous culture on campus. There was agreement that, outside the IEU, there was very little visible sign of the university’s commitment to Indigenous education—for example, a lack of public art, Indigenous flagpoles, visual arts, infrastructure or landscaping.

I mean you just walk around, there’s nothing visible that’s Indigenous. You go to [the Indigenous Centre] and that’s about it. Having said that, [this town] is very widely—there’s not really a lot of cultural diversity anyway if you compare this to say, you step into [other large towns]. There’s really actually just a very European look and feel so I think that’ll be quite confronting. (Jerry, senior executive)

Even within the IEU, some staff believed that there was a need for more practical programs to support Indigenous students in strengthening their cultural identity, but this was considered somewhat controversial.

[T]hey think it’s [the IEU] there for education but what they don’t realise is to build up someone’s identity is you’re going to follow through to the education as well and their strength and belief in themselves, so if we make people strong in who they are then education will follow through with that … we did get something up and running here … where we invited didj[eridoo] player, weaving, storytelling, art, we had a whole section of it and the students thrived and loved it and all the feedback we got was insane! (Angela, Indigenous academic and HDR student)

Indigenous centre versus faculty responsibility

Some Indigenous staff felt that the strength of the Indigenous centre engagement across the university was used to meet faculties’ responsibilities for Indigenous inclusion.

[T]hey [other faculties] feel like they can ring up [the Indigenous centre] and ask one question and then tick the box in their criteria, curriculum, whatever and say yeah, we did advise with Indigenous people … Who’s checking these things? Where’s the checklist? Is there anything you know I don’t know? (Angela, Indigenous academic and HDR student)

Conversely, others discussed support from non-Indigenous academics who had mentored them professionally. They highlighted the connectivity between Indigenous and non-Indigenous academics in mentoring and relationship-building as crucial in career progression.

130

In terms of research, one Indigenous academic described it as follows:

[W]hether it is Aboriginal or non-Aboriginal [academics], still in a certain sense, to get your foot in the door, there has to be a level of patronage. It is a very old, English notion of getting some entry into a professional group. You need that patron that makes you their research assistant or sends you an email to say, ‘Hey … this has come up. What about applying for this?’ So if you don’t have those networks, you don’t get those opportunities. I think having more opportunities for student and staff collaborations would be a good thing, to enable people to develop those networks. (Sonya, Indigenous academic)

With regard to teaching, several interviewees discussed their aspiration to not be ‘pigeonholed’ as an Indigenous academic who can therefore only teach Indigenous studies:

[A]n Aboriginal lawyer can talk about other things … what I found in Humanities [was], I didn’t just talk about race, I also talked about gender; I could actually do a whole course where I didn’t particularly talk very much about Aboriginal people at all, because it might have been on foundational theory … It doesn’t always have to be because you’re Aboriginal you can only talk about Aboriginal things. You can talk about other things. (Sonya, Indigenous academic)

While the majority of senior executives expressed clear support for increasing the representation of Indigenous peoples and other equity groups in faculties, the depth of understanding around issues such as positive discrimination, and how to go about recruiting, appeared lacking. Rather, executives focused on supporting Indigenous staff/HDR students after commencement, and welcomed the social inclusion agenda, but had not given adequate consideration on how to actively recruit or retain Indigenous staff.

Apart from one site where the IEU had a policy of exclusively employing Indigenous staff, the use of ‘special measures’5 or ‘identified’ positions was rare. One university did not have any identified positions; another stated they only had a very few identified roles, and the third site (where the Indigenous centre exclusively employed Indigenous staff) did not appear to see value in using this approach outside the Indigenous centre. When asked about views on using ‘special measures’ or ‘identified’ roles in recruiting, there was some reluctance. One senior executive replied:

If there are ways that the university can support equity groups, once they’ve sort of been appointed on something you could argue as a level playing field, if you can support those people, that makes a world of difference. I think when you get pushback from staff and individuals are where it’s seen as being unfair. I’ve got ten papers published, this person’s got two and yet she got promoted or she was appointed and I didn’t, I’m on a contract, but, having made those appointments, if you can support those individuals, be they female, Indigenous, some sort of other equity group, I don’t think there’s much pushback on that. (William, senior executive).

It was widely acknowledged by Indigenous respondents and most senior executives who were interviewed that the heads of schools and faculties needed to step up and take more

5 Testing an applicant’s specific knowledge and skills in relation to Indigenous issues to be filled only by Indigenous applicants.

131

responsibility for increasing the employment of Indigenous academics within their own domain.

I don’t think that we’ve had a robust Aboriginal employment strategy that has looked at [those] issues. Or if we have, I don’t think it has been implemented as soundly as it could have been. Because I think you have to actually make it other people’s responsibility. It can’t always be our [Indigenous staff] responsibility … if you think about it, it is mad to put that responsibility on the marginalised. It actually has to be the people in the centre of that. (Sonya, Indigenous academic)

Physical ‘place’ of Indigenous knowledges and education on campus

At the time of the field visit, two of the three sites had clearly identifiable (purpose-built) IEUs that administered student services, teaching spaces, community engagement and Indigenous education initiatives. At one site, these services were dispersed physically; however, this decentralised service did not appear to impact negatively on the work or the employment profile of the Indigenous portfolio—in fact, their reputation as an employer of choice for Indigenous staff appeared to be growing. Apart from requiring some infrastructure upgrades, there were no other significant problems identified through either the interviews or the site observations in relation to the Indigenous-specific student facilities available.

These places were highly valued, well resourced and well utilised. Symbolic physical infrastructure such as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander flagpoles, signage in local languages, Indigenous artworks and landscaping added to the ambience of the IEUs and commonly enhanced staff and student experiences. They were considered an important symbol of the universities’ commitment to Indigenous education.

Intellectual ‘place’ of Indigenous knowledges, education and staff in the academy

The need to maintain IEUs in the university was regarded as crucial, with both Indigenous and non-Indigenous staff believing that the centres provide a unique service to various stakeholder groups, including Indigenous students, staff and community, all university staff and international visitors.

Respondents identified that their universities lacked similar levels of support (particularly soft infrastructure) to develop and progress talented Indigenous staff. They identified extra demands on Indigenous staff, their complex community relationships, and the discrimination that many faced or feared, noting the absence of support networks for Indigenous academic staff at either local or regional levels. Nor were there active mentoring programs or professional development opportunities afforded to Indigenous academics, beyond the early career programs.

Strategy I think comes back to the need within the precinct and the [university] to have some kind of formal/informal gathering of Indigenous academics and Indigenous HDR students. So, that we network with each and we’re all talking to each other and identifying the weaknesses and proposing strengths and new approaches and new opportunities. (Elaine, Indigenous academic)

None of the interviewees identified effective strategies driven from within the human resources department in their institution, but commonly described any success of Indigenous staff as being self-directed, or scaffolded by strong interpersonal skills and a sense of will, through informal mentors. Beyond the IEU itself, some long-term Indigenous staff interviewed

132

suggested that the level of resistance to indigenising the academy often did not dissipate, but became more subtle or covert,

As I’ve moved through the ranks into more senior positions, in all of the education I’ve been involved with, racism doesn’t disappear, it becomes very sophisticated. (Malakai, Indigenous academic)

Indigenous academics highlighted the critical place of Indigenous education within the ‘western’ university system and the enduring aspirations of Indigenous academic staff.

I would love to see more Aboriginal faces in different faculties and different schools. Because in a lot of senses—we’re like this island here in the university—the Aboriginal island. Unless they come over here on a boat, they’re not going to know really about Aboriginal issues. And if you have an Aboriginal person in your school, although the conversations might get a bit uncomfortable at times, the conversations are being had, and people are being informed. There are a lot of academics here that would not know much about Aboriginal issues at all. They’re not there to be political, but anything to do with Aboriginal people is political in Australia anyway. So issues arise and discussions probably take place which have informed people, and give them a better—give them a different perspective. (Andrew, Indigenous academic)

Others described their hopes for Indigenous higher education.

I’ve been to Canada, and I’ve been to New Zealand, and I see them, the construction of their protocols, and their sense of—not entitlement, but their sense of belonging in an academic space and a conversation, and the rigour that goes with it. That’s what I want. I want that for us. (Frederick, Indigenous academic).

Section summary

University governance and policy

Interviewees generally had good knowledge and understanding of the various policies and strategies espoused by their institution. Most also agreed that such aspirational documents were an important requirement for universities and for implementation by the vice-chancellor. The interviews and desktop audits demonstrated that the universities studied had progressed on developing necessary policies and strategies as recommended by previous national higher education reviews and reports. There was more work to be done in relation to:

• actioning, setting of measures and accountability

• formalised committee structures

• incentives and consequences for non-performance.

Supply and demand issues

There was a general recognition by respondents of the increasing number of Indigenous people completing PhDs, but also that this process was commonly a drawn-out and extremely taxing experience for many. Interviewees also described the competition with the private and public sectors, who could offer significant wages/conditions for highly credentialled Indigenous candidates.

133

The supply of employees suitable for senior management roles within the university sector (whether professorial or not) was identified as an area requiring explicit attention. It was noted that Indigenous employment is not purely an equity/diversity/inclusion issue, but rather is core business and needs to be resourced as such.

The provision of material resources to support the inherently valuable contribution of First Nations peoples in the Academy was seen as vital.

Racism, discrimination and identity

Interviewees concurred that a level of systemic discrimination is an enduring feature of the higher education sector, while simultaneously recognising that Indigenous people belong in universities as students, researchers, professional and academic staff, bringing unique epistemological and ontological knowledges and pedagogies.

Indigenous staff acknowledged some internal issues in identity politics that affected cultural and workplace safety. Senior executive staff demonstrated a strong commitment to equity and diversity in the workforce but also recognised the need for assistance from the Indigenous university community to implement the required change.

Most were yet to move from a philosophical position of equity to one of understanding the strategic demand and value of Indigenous employment.

Leadership and territory

Good leadership and good management were highlighted as among the most important factors for the university sector’s ability to attract, develop and retain a growing Indigenous academic workforce.

Interviewees noted that the authentic commitment of university vice-chancellors and senior executives is needed to prioritise the allocation of commensurate resources, including Indigenous ‘voices’ throughout the planning, implementation and measuring of success.

Indigenous staff valued leadership rather than management.

Interviewees affirmed that Indigenous issues within the academy cannot be relegated to the sidelines, considered as optional extras, or underestimated in terms of their value in knowledge production. Rather, Indigenous knowledges and education, research and engagement, led by Indigenous professionals, needs to be built into the very fabric of each university and the sector, in rhetoric and in practice, as core business.

The IEUs were widely acknowledged as the places to go for ‘anything Indigenous’ at each site, sometimes overburdening staff in addition to their core work. One Indigenous staff member saw the university’s growing interest in Indigenising the curriculum as a key opportunity intersecting with employment parity, HDR research, community ownership and social inclusion:

[F]rom all the policy stuff that I’ve been reading so far I’ve found for the past three years it’s definitely been a part of our vision in the strategic plan to increase our Indigenous employment ... but I can’t see any avenues that they’re providing for Indigenous employment other than [the Indigenous Centre]. So when they want Aboriginal perspectives within their course content they call [the Indigenous Centre] and you’ve got our academics there that are covering here. Instead they

134

[faculties] should be employing community people and putting them on temporary contracts within the books to improve Aboriginal employment. (Angela, Indigenous academic/HDR student).

135

6.5 Indigenous academic staff survey findings

Introduction

The survey provided NATSIHEC (AC) members employed in Australian universities the opportunity to comment on their experiences of employment. An anonymous online survey was distributed by NATSIHEC (AC) to a total of 67 email addresses drawn from its membership database. A total of 32 responses were received, a response rate of 48%. While a higher response rate would be preferable, the timing of the survey—during November and December 2016, when staff were finishing the academic year—may have contributed to the lower return rate. In addition, there may have been incomplete or old email addresses included in the membership database.

A copy of the questionnaire is attached at Appendix 9.3.

Employment

Of the 32 respondents who answered the survey, 84% worked full-time, 10% worked part-time and 6% were in casual employment. All the respondents who completed the survey identified as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander persons in official university documentation.

Staff were asked about their current academic employment classification. Responses indicated that 30% of respondents were working at HEW levels 8–10. As Figure 26 below shows, there was a spread of respondents from all academic employment classifications.

Figure 23: Survey respondents current academic employment classification (profile of

respondents)

Academic Level A Academic Level B Academic Level C Academic Level D Academic Level E

Academic Executive Contract HEW Levels 1-4 HEW Levels 5-7

HEW Levels 8-10 HEW Executive Contract

% 30 % 40 % 0 % % 20 10

Current academic employment classification

136

The project was also interested in how long staff had been working at their current classification, and found that 60% of the respondents had been at their current level for five years or more.

Nominating vacancies as Indigenous Identified Positions is one way universities can ensure they increase the number of Indigenous staff they employ: 50% of the survey respondents stated that they were in Indigenous identified positions; 37% were in non-identified positions, and 13% did not know if their position was Indigenous identified.

Gender and age of respondents

For gender, 67% of respondents identified as female, 23% as male, and two preferred not to answer. This gender breakdown is similar to the gender breakdown of Indigenous staff in Australian universities. The age range of employees was weighted towards the older age groups, as shown in Figure 27.

Figure 24: Survey respondents by age

Respondent’s State or Territory

Respondents were asked to identify the state or territory in which the main campus of their university was based.

Table 10: Respondents by state or territory

Northern Territory 31%

Queensland 28%

New South Wales 28%

Victoria 10%

Tasmania 3%

Western Australia 0%

Australian Capital Territory 0%

South Australia 0%

20-29

30-39

40-49

50-59

over 60

% 10 % 20 % 0 % 40 % 50 % 30

Age of respondents

137

Respondents’ employment field

Regarding employment field, 42% of the survey respondents worked in Indigenous-focused areas, including Indigenous Studies, Aboriginal Studies, and IEUs.

Figure 25: Respondents by employment field

Why respondents work at their university

When asked why they chose to work at their university, 48% stated that they wanted to make a difference for Indigenous communities/people/students:

This university has an exceptionally strong commitment to Indigenous higher education; the Indigenous staff regard the university highly and there is subsequently a history of positive engagement.

I love the workplace culture, and the whole-of-university approach to Indigenous education.

I enjoy higher education and this university is the one that aligns most with my personal goals.

The comments above focused strongly on the respondents’ universities, but other respondents made more general comments about ‘making a difference’.

I love that we are chipping away at supporting our people to get an education of their choosing.

A total of 26% of respondents chose to work at their university because of its location: it was close to their home, or to their country. A similar 22% responded that they chose to work at their university because it provided them with opportunities for personal development.

Current educational qualifications

Respondents were asked to identify their highest academic qualification. As illustrated in Figure 29, 33% had a bachelor degree, 26% a masters degree and 19% had a PhD.

% 30 % 35 40 % 45 % 50 % % 20 0 % 5 % 10 % 15 % % 25

Indigenous focused

Education

Research

Senior exec/policy

Social sciences

Chancellery

Law

Where respondents work

138

Figure 26: Respondents highest academic qualification

University policy and strategies

As identified by Moreton-Robinson et al. (2011), the development of policies within universities that support Indigenous students and staff is critical to the recruitment and success of Indigenous students and the recruitment and retention of Indigenous staff. As Figure 30 shows, 83% of respondents stated that their universities had policies and practices for Acknowledgement of Country; 70% had Indigenous representation on governance boards or committees; and 63% had Elders in Residence, Indigenous employment targets or key performance indicators, and RAPs. At the lower end of the scale, 40% of respondents stated that their universities had an Indigenous workforce strategy, cultural responsiveness training for all staff, and an Indigenous research strategy. It is interesting to note that, under the Higher Education Support Act 2003 (Cth), universities must have an Indigenous employment strategy to be eligible for ISP funding. At the time of writing, there has not been a reported breach of the act; it is therefore possible that these lower rates reflect respondents’ perceptions, which might be impaired by a lack of knowledge of policies.

When asked what impact these policies and strategies had on increasing Indigenous staff recruitment and retention, nine respondents made positive comments that included:

They have all contributed to positive outcomes. They all lift the profile of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees and raises our cultural profile within the university.

Rather than a RAP, my university takes the view that its Indigenous commitments are ongoing and core business central to the success of the university. Hence, there is no RAP. The key to success has been an Indigenous Education and Employment Policy, two Indigenous targets (education and employment), senior

No post school qualification

Certificate level 1-4

Diploma level 1-4

Bachelor degree

Honours degree

Masters degree

Doctorate / PhD

0 % 10 % 20 % 30 % 40 %

Highest academic qualification

139

staff accountabilities, and annual reporting. These led to significant improvements being achieved even before the appointment of a PVC.

Four respondents were less positive about the impact of the existing policies and strategies.

All make a difference but most are on paper only and there are either no KPIs and/or accountability to achieve them.

PVC position ensures that Indigenous advancement is ‘on the agenda’ but the university needs more demonstration of commitment across all areas.

Figure 27: Respondents’ reported Indigenous university policies and strategies Note: seven universities were not included in this table)

Recruiting and supporting Indigenous staff

Respondents were asked what formal support systems their universities had in place to recruit and support Indigenous staff members. As Figure 31 illustrates, 90% of respondents indicated that their university had special paid leave for Indigenous staff for cultural obligations or ceremonial activities. Respondents were asked which, if any, of the formal support systems made a difference in terms of recruitment and retention of Indigenous staff at their universities. Comments about specific strategies included:

Targeted recruitment of Indigenous academic staff has made a difference as it increased the Indigenous academic cohort, allowing more support in faculty for our students.

What has made the biggest difference is supervising Indigenous PhDs and the special leave.

Further, respondents believed that if universities are serious about recruiting and retaining Indigenous academic staff, some of the formal support systems—for example, offering Indigenous post-doctoral fellowships (13%), assisted progression for existing staff (13%),

% 60 % 70 % 80 % 90 % 10 0 % % 20 % 30 % 40 % 50

RAP Indigenous representation on governance committees or…

Appointment of Pro Vice Chancellor Indigenous Education /… Indigenous academic employment KPI/targets

Indigenous research strategy Cultural responsiveness training for all staff

Anti - racism policies Indigenous educational strategy/plans

Implementation of Indigenous Higher Education Workforce… Recognition statement / Acknowledgement of Country

Elder in Residence

Policies and strategies in place

140

paid study leave to complete PhDs (23%), and mentoring of Indigenous staff (23%)—need to be extended into more universities.

Figure 28: Respondent-reported Indigenous staff support systems

A total of 87% of respondents stated that there had been Indigenous representation on their interview panels; 13% had no Indigenous representation on their interview panels.

The data confirmed that 97% of respondents stated that there were other Indigenous staff in their direct work areas. Only 3% did not have other Indigenous colleagues.

What are universities doing to build capacity in Indigenous employees?

The survey found that 7% of respondents were studying for their master’s degree and 18% for their PhD, while 75% were not currently studying to increase their academic qualifications. One respondent explained the competing demands that prevented them from completing further academic qualifications while working at the university.

I like many others had to make a decision whether to take on HDR study or focus my effort on building the capacity of the university to effectively support staff and students, support and build capacity of Indigenous staff, build Indigenous research capacity across the university—ethics, grants, workshops, mentorship, etc., build the capacity of Indigenous groups, organisations and communities re education and research. Plus the responsibilities I have as a Traditional Owner as part of Native Title holder.

When asked what support their universities provided to help staff increase their qualifications, time off for study was mentioned by 39% of the respondents. The amount of study time granted depended on the person’s position, but those in academic positions usually received between half a day and a full day per week. Respondents in generalist positions were more likely to be given time off for short-term professional development training (13%). Respondents commented on the discretionary nature of study leave within their universities.

Indigenous postdoctoral fellowships

Special paid leave for Indigenous staff for cultural obligations

Internships for early career Indigenous academics

Targeted recruitment of Indigenous academic staff

Assisted progression for Indigenous staff

Paid study leave for PhD

Support for increasing our qualifications

Mentoring for Indigenous academic staff

Indigenous academic network

60 % 70 % 80 % 90 %100% % 0 % 10 20 % 30 % 40 % 50 %

Indigenous staff support systems

141

All study leave is offered on a ‘case-by-case’ basis and is conditional on each manager’s expectations and allowances. All activity is in addition to existing workload.

Reimbursement of fees was identified by 26% of respondents as a factor motivating decisions to study, and some commented on the difficulty in paying fees upfront themselves and waiting for reimbursement if they passed their study.

Finding out about what entitlements were available and negotiating the process of accessing this support proved to be barriers for some respondents as no support was offered; 19% of respondents indicated they did not know what support was available. Additional comments include:

The paperwork is intensive and not very encouraging. It seems to be a token offer once you jump through hoops and fill in a plethora of paperwork.

I’m looking at studying Applied Social Sciences next year, which will translate through to my area of employment, so I’m looking at talking to my manager soon, but I am hesitant as they are not very encouraging.

Progression and promotion assistance was also identified as important if Indigenous staff are to learn to negotiate the university system for progression and promotion. Some universities had established mentoring for Indigenous staff, which respondents found very helpful.

I have had mentoring and encouragement. I am currently looking at opportunities to move my position into an area which will provide more development opportunities.

I have received a number of development opportunities since starting in the higher education sector. These opportunities have allowed me to progress through the promotion ranks

However, 58% of respondents wrote that they received very little or no support for progression or promotion. For example, one respondent wrote:

I have had minimal support. I have been at academic level C for 10 years.

Being Indigenous in a university environment

Research (Page & Asmar, 2008) has shown that Indigenous staff members in universities are often required to offer Indigenous advice or representation outside their direct work duties. This is in addition to their existing workloads, and is usually not recognised in terms of progression or promotion; 83% of respondents stated that they were called upon to do this work.

I am expected to know all aspects of all business across the entire university and to have a willingness and/or capacity to provide input and contributions to all business, often at times in direct competition with my existing role, responsibility and priorities. There is no recognition for this work in any formal/informal way.

Yes. I have been asked to provide advice, guidance and support to my Manager and other more senior members of staff about Indigenous matters—for example, ideas and suggestions for running cultural activities for staff. I’ve also been asked

142

to conduct internal cultural competency training for staff that would include those more senior to me.

Lots, including welcome to country, networks and introductions, liaison, research, reviewing Indigenous information, participation in delivery of units that are relevant to Indigenous cultural knowledge.

Of the respondents to this survey, 67% believe that they spend more time supporting Indigenous students than do their non-Indigenous colleagues, 20% stated that they do not work directly with students and 13% did not spend more time than their non-Indigenous colleagues.

Respondents commented on Indigenous students’ preferences for support from Indigenous staff.

Absolutely! Staff throughout the institution are renowned for deferring all Indigenous student AND staff-related matters to the office for input, consideration and response.

Yes, particularly in the area of racism and supporting HDR students who are grappling with what it means to come from a different epistemological position to supervisors.

Yes, I do despite me not having a role with student support. Indigenous students seek me out to help them, ask for letters of support for scholarships, seek out help with how to talk to other academics, get academic support and more.

Respondents were asked how easy it is to balance their family, cultural and workplace expectations: 20% stated that they found this was easy and 80% stated that it was not easy. One of the respondents who did find it ‘relatively easy’ commented:

It is ‘relatively’ easy for me and this largely because I am living away from most of my immediate family. Sad to say that when residing in same town as family, it is inherently more difficult to balance work and study with family and cultural obligations.

Most of the respondents (80%) stated that they found it difficult to balance their university work and their cultural and family responsibilities.

I think sometimes it is hard with cultural obligations. Other times I have the same issues as non-Indigenous people, for example, sick kids, sick parents, sick partner, parent-teacher interviews, and chores to be done at home which are just like non-Indigenous people. There are other issues I need to manage that non-Indigenous staff don’t have to—for example, extended family issues, funerals, community needing advice and support. I write letters for people for government, parole boards, and help community with submissions, and Native Title issues.

Family and cultural responsibilities are not fully understood by employers and the demands to meet expectations for both are stressful as neither family, nor work, understand the commitment required for both. Family and work demand more and more time which is causing conflict and the ability to fully commit to each—so both are disappointed (family angry) when you are unable to meet their expectations (family events), attend functions (for work) or complete studies (because there is no time at home or work).

143

Institutional understanding of Indigenous cultural ways of doing things, and traditional ownership, caused additional stress for two survey respondents.

Being culturally connected to the lands on which your institution is based can be a good thing for the institution and your community. But this doesn’t always happen. When members of our community who are not raised within communities are appointed to senior positions, their knowledges are limited given the separation to mob when growing up. How do they know how to deploy Indigenous knowledges in the positions they hold when their ontological connection to country hasn’t been maintained. The university recruitment process needs to be redeveloped to address this matter.

When senior Indigenous staff are not connected to country at the institutions they work, they do not mix in the community in which they live, and so they feel they can do whatever they like given the positions they hold. And they do.

Another respondent raised the issue of universities relying on one Indigenous voice within their institution.

There is one senior staff member who is always called upon for advice and I find this to be a very dangerous situation for our university to be in, when they rely on only one Indigenous voice, and definitely does not encourage collaborative Indigenous advice and input.

Experiences of racism/discrimination

Two-thirds (66%) of the respondents stated that they had experienced racism or racial discrimination in their workplace in the past 12 months. Most of the examples of the racism/discrimination provided involved systematic and systemic exclusion of Indigenous staff and issues within the university. Respondents wrote about being ignored, discounted and excluded, and the low priority given to Indigenous issues within their universities.

Being ‘dismissed’ either as a professional and/or as a representative for Indigenous issues at senior management meetings.

Usually takes the form of systemic exclusion (left out/not included) from senior executive business and related activities, perception of not being regarded as equivalent.

It’s what I call ‘administrative discrimination’ or discrimination through low prioritisation, attention and energy. Indigenous matters are pushed to the bottom of the list of things to be done. When this continues to happen to the same group of people, already suffering from disadvantage and neglect, the neglect is compounded. I believe this is a form of unconscious discrimination and probably one of the most damaging in the sector. That said, I rarely hear of it being articulated as such.

This is evident in many different ways on a day-to-day basis and starts with senior management—Indigenous staff ignored even when we are asked for advice; policies and plans which are supposed to support Indigenous staff and students are on paper only with no accountability or consequences if no achievements; blatant statements by senior management that Indigenous studies are not needed and/or don't need to be taught by Indigenous staff. A current move to get rid of identified positions in the new EBA and the list goes on.

144

Where do I start? Most of the time just ignored, forgotten about and or treated as if I don’t know what I'm talking about, or have no experience when in fact I do. Decisions are mostly made for me rather than with me, I’m often told after the fact about what is happening rather than a part of the discussion/event. At the other end I’m used to ‘tick the box’ when it comes to Indigenous consultation with little or no input at all—even when I don’t know about it (saw my name on a document that I had no input into at all).

One survey respondent wrote about their input being limited to Indigenous issues:

Inclusion within the workplace is only to the degree that it is seen as being identifiably Indigenous in nature, that is, Indigenous knowledge, practice or activity, and outside of this box, one is perceived to be vacuous.

One respondent described how they were they were personally racially insulted by their dean at a public event.

At a very public book launch of my book, my Dean was scheduled to speak. As she stood up and went to the podium she said ‘Where is xx, I can’t see ... Oh there you are, you have clothes on, your hair is done, and you have shoes on!’

Four survey respondents wrote about their experiences of lateral violence, or experiences of racism or discrimination from other Indigenous staff at their universities.

Sometimes I feel the discrimination from my own mob who look down on and judge me based on my skin colour (not dark enough) and academic qualification (I don’t have a PhD) because I simply do not meet their standard.

In my experience with my current employer, all and any racism that has been experienced has been from other Indigenous staff, for example, making accusations that ‘it’s become too white’—albeit under my leadership as an Indigenous middle-manager; other Indigenous staff at similar levels actively undermining aspirations, targets and priorities.

Of the respondents who wrote about their experiences of racial discrimination, 60% took action through official university channels. Actions included bringing it to the attention of the individual involved, that person’s supervisor, union action, or formal complaints through the human resources system. However, judging from the comments made by respondents, they experienced little success using these mechanisms.

Sometimes will raise it with Line Manager; however, that often leads to only conversation about the issue and no real outcome, in effect creating more frustration. No acknowledgement on how hard it to raise the issues in the first place. Then I have to justify/explain why it is an issue as opposed to being able to explain the issue. Plus then I’m to offer the suggested solutions.

I spoke to the Dean, who is also my supervisor. I spoke to PVC Teaching and Learning. I looked into my options with HREOC. I retreated into a very unsafe place and became increasingly frustrated, anxious and depressed.

I have complained many times and was told that this was not going to change ... even writing this I am worried that I will be reprimanded or even dismissed.

A total of 24% of respondents wrote that there is a need for cultural competence and anti-racism training and workshops at all levels of their universities, and they see that this is the

145

long-term solution to this type of discrimination, particularly relating to issues of their exclusion from decision-making.

Of respondents who had experienced racism in the past 12 months, 17% stated that that they took no formal steps to address it.

None, not worth it—just do my job and shut up.

Took advantage of exclusion to focus on my own professional areas of interest (e.g. undertake research).

Conclusion

Respondents to the anonymous online survey of 32 Indigenous academics at Australian universities identified many areas that would improve their job satisfaction and be more likely to attract new staff. In contributing to the review recommendations, respondents had a range of suggestions as to how their university could employ more Indigenous staff. These suggestions included initiatives that would assist in both recruitment and retention of staff and the attractiveness of the university as a workplace, such as:

• being proactive in community development and capacity-building

• supporting workforce development/gaining qualifications

• demystifying the university as an employer

• creating more Indigenous Identified positions

• targeted recruitment

• offering PhD and post-doctoral scholarships

• offering research and teaching fellowship programs.

Respondents also identified a range of activities and actions that would make the university an attractive place to work for Indigenous staff. These included:

• implementing existing policies and strategies

• having clear targets and KPIs, with consequences if these are not met

• committing resources to the recruitment and retention of Indigenous staff

• having Indigenous staff working at all levels of the university

• establishing effective Indigenous staff support and mentoring

• making Indigenous education central to the university—not an ‘add-on’

• ensuring that Indigenous Identified positions are ongoing, not short-term.

The following two statements are representative of the comments made by respondents.

The university should start to practise what it preaches. Indigenous staff will be attracted to an employment environment that values diversity, that pays commensurately, that backs up RAPs and Indigenous employment policies and that demonstrates commitment through symbolic and practical strategies. Word of mouth (organisational reputation) is critical in Indigenous employment.

146

Promote itself as a workplace that is culturally competent, encourages Indigenous cultural diversity, has clear structural career pathways, advertises more identified positions in local community; collaborate more with local Indigenous organisations and recruit from that pool.

6.6 Expert roundtable findings Introduction

NATSIHEC (AC) hosted a national forum on 13–14 October 2016 to improve education and employment outcomes for Indigenous people in the higher education sector. This section of the report focuses on stream 2 of the forum: increasing the number and capability of the Indigenous academic workforce.

Roundtable briefing

The academic workforce stream was attended by 19 participants on day one and 13 participants on day two. This stream was facilitated by Indigenous researcher Professor Steve Larkin from University of Newcastle.

The symposium considered 11 key questions.

1. What is the evidence telling us?

2. What gaps exist in data and evidence?

3. Where are successful programs currently operating?

4. What are the success factors, and can they be replicated?

5. What are the main barriers and how can their effects be minimised?

6. What are the top priorities for reform, short- and long-term?

7. What are the influential policy drivers after 2016?

8. What are the connections between the three priority streams?

9. What are the implementation strategies?

10. What are the indicators of success?

11. How to use the findings of this project to influence reform?

147

Background

A review of literature had been circulated to the forum members prior to the event. The participants in the Increasing the Indigenous academic workforce stream summarised the evidence in the following points.

1. There is a long way to go to achieve population parity for the Indigenous academic workforce.

2. Targets for Indigenous academic staff need to be nuanced and have consequences for both failing to meet them and for gaming the numbers—which currently happens in IESs.

3. Research by the NTEU has shown that there is a correlation over the long term between Indigenous staff and retention of Indigenous students.

4. There is a misalignment or disconnect between academic and disciplinary cultures and Indigenous culture around acceptability of self-promotion and promotion seeking. Indigenous culture does not approve of self-promotion or promotion seeking in the same way as wider academic and disciplinary cultures.

5. Promotion criteria do not necessarily align with the performance plans for Indigenous staff, who may be producing outputs for or doing work with communities and on Indigenous issues.

6. This is further reflected in the disconnect between espousal of commitment to Indigenous cultural competency in graduate attributes but not in promotion criteria for academic staff.

7. To an extent, Indigenous academics are more likely to become ‘trapped’ in predominantly teaching roles than non-Indigenous academics. While teaching is broadly seen as a positive by Indigenous academics, historic promotion biases towards research have constrained career pathways.

8. In the same vein as for teaching roles, sessionalisation and casualisation disproportionately affect Indigenous staff and HDR students who may be on session-to-session contracts for long periods without accruing leave or entitlements or career prospects available to ongoing and fixed-term employees

9. Racism remains a problem, both tacitly and systemically. This bold statement was asserted by the group as applying at the classroom, school, faculty and institutional levels, and is in part evidenced by the career and alignment issues highlighted above.

Identified gaps in data/evidence

The collection of data about Indigenous academic staff at Australian universities is not robust. This lack of reliable data makes it difficult to establish an accurate employment and promotional status of Indigenous academics across the Australian university sector. The roundtable identified the need for information to be collected and published in a systematic format.

1. Not all Indigenous staff have been given the opportunity or mechanism to identify as such, calling into question the ‘Indigenous identified’ and ‘not Identified’ versus non-Indigenous numbers.

148

2. Academic staff movements are not tracked by current data for ongoing, fixed-term or casual or sessional staff, meaning Indigenous staff promotion applications and outcomes within or between universities are not counted.

3. Exit Interview data is not collected, retained or made public.

4. Outputs from Indigenous academics for community resources and development are not counted in the same way as publications in journals, if they are recognised at all; consequently, workloads of Indigenous staff are not measured in the same way as for non-Indigenous staff.

5. Information on Indigenous representation and committee activity; teaching other courses requiring an Indigenous view, content or perspective on cultural competency or Indigenous history, literature or arts; and other ‘Indigenous business’ for university events such as welcomes to country, specific ceremonies etc., is not available.

6. There is no public data on progress or attainment of compact or reconciliation action plan alignment, commitments or targets.

7. There is no data on high-performing Indigenous academics, graduates and students.

Barriers

Indigenous higher education is not seen as core business by university leadership or government. The business case for Indigenous higher education and staffing is not well understood, despite the Behrendt Review and ATSIHEAC, and is rarely quantified in terms of either student numbers or research or philanthropic dollars brought into the university. The risks associated with not doing Indigenous higher education well are similarly not recognised.

Systemic and tacit racism remain issues for Indigenous academic and non-academic staff and, as a consequence, universities are not always culturally competent or safe.

In some institutions where targets have been set, meeting these targets has led to some questionable practices. For example, in some institutions targets are not being met in practice because recruitment is not being translated into retention. Multiple occupants of the same position are counted individually towards the target.

A significant problem within and across institutions is poaching of Indigenous staff to meet quotas or targets. This leads to churn—cycling of the same higher-profile or well-known academics through disciplines, faculties and institutions at marginally increasing salaries, job levels and titles—and actually reduces opportunities for new staff and Indigenous HDR students.

Industrial pressures exacerbate all the above barriers. Five universities have, or have attempted to, write Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander conditions such as ceremonial, cultural and other conditions out of enterprise agreements.

Successful innovations

Despite the barriers identified above, and the lack of data on a national basis about the status of Indigenous academics, the forum discussed a number of successful initiatives running at individual universities.

149

‘Grow-your-own’

A number of universities operate programs designed to ‘grow their own’ academic staff.

• The University of Newcastle has a program called Indigenous New Career Academics (INCAs), wherein participants spend one-third of their time on each of PhD studies, teaching and research over a three-year, full-time contract. Some INCAs are attached to the Wollotuka Institute and some are located in faculties and disciplines. The main drawback is that participants must finish in three years or revert to contract work.

• Charles Sturt University’s program includes a four-year contract comprising 75% PhD work, 20% teaching and 5% administration. Participants are mentored to move to an ongoing position within the university.

• Murdoch University has a similar program to Charles Sturt University, with 20% teaching and the remaining workload comprising PhD completion.

• The Sydney University Leadership program is for five years with one day a week teaching and the rest PhD. There is also the Breadwinners program for undergraduates with family responsibilities.

These programs are successful because they focus on the core business of completing a PhD, teaching and research. The participants maintain relatively low teaching loads, with the total teaching and marking loads capped. The programs are generally for 3–5 years with support and mentoring, and transition arrangements to ongoing academic positions.

Positive recruitment

Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education has a policy-driven approach under the special measures provisions in Northern Territory legislation. When a job is advertised, all Indigenous applicants are interviewed first and independently; the selection panel does not know if there are non-Indigenous applicants. The non-Indigenous applicant pool is only sent to the panel for consideration if there is not a suitable Indigenous candidate. Measures such as this ensure that both equity and quality concerns are equally addressed.

National networks

The NIRAKN has made a significant difference to the retention and progress of Indigenous HDR students and established a range of networking opportunities and nodes for Indigenous academics to come together around disciplines, research and careers.

Adapting school sector programs

Participants at the forum argued that there is a need for a program similar to the very successful ‘Dare to Lead’ program from the schools sector to engage non-Indigenous and Indigenous university leaders in culturally competent leadership. Dare to Lead is a Commonwealth-funded, principal-led initiative originating in 2003. The four peak principals' associations of Australia urged schools and education bodies to join the newly formed Dare to Lead Coalition with the aim of improving education outcomes for Indigenous students. The Coalition built on the positive results of the ten Dare to Lead forums held across Australia in 2000 and 2001. In total, these forums were attended by more than 1200 school principals.

150

Priorities for reform

In addition to providing models of successful initiatives for other universities to consider implementing, the forum identified priorities for action that, if implemented, would increase the number of Indigenous academics working in Australian universities. These priorities included strategies for targets, recruitment, promotion, staff support, and recognition of Indigenous staff contributions in universities.

Targets

Although the forum participants identified issues with universities implementing targets in the past, the use of targets was still considered essential to bringing about change. They recommended a national policy framework with a standardised set of targets that could be customised to institutional conditions, including multi-campus variation. Essential components for the success of targets include a robust monitoring system, real rewards for achievement and real sanctions for non-achievement of set targets.

Recruitment

In order to attract Indigenous graduates back to the academy, outreach programs are needed. Strategies to increase recruitment of Indigenous graduates that focus on the pipeline include:

• undergraduate to postgraduate academic pathways

• professional practitioner to academic (‘Professor of Practice’) pathways

• life skills and experience to academic and/or Elder in Residence pathways.

Additionally, adapting recruitment processes to accommodate cultural competency and sensitivity is required. Where these policies and processes exist, they should be enforced by human resource units and university and faculty leadership. The requirement for Indigenous representation on selection panels and committees considering Indigenous candidates should be mandatory.

Promotion

While recognising that universities are autonomous, the forum recommended some degree commonality of promotion standards to build in Indigenous cultural competency. They recommended the long-term goals of adopting culturally attuned promotion processes across all universities. In the short term, resources to demystify promotion processes and academic and professional pathways for Indigenous academics and professional staff should be implemented.

Cultural competency

A WoU approach to cultural competency that is modelled from the top down is essential if the number of Indigenous academics working in Australian universities is to increase. Cultural competency needs to be embedded across all institutions with a clear and coherent purpose and focus. This was seen as a necessary adjunct to cultural competency as a graduate attribute: How can an institution produce culturally competent graduates if it is not itself culturally competent?

151

Support

Universities need to provide better support for Indigenous staff who are completing HDRs. Such support will likely be most effective as candidates reach the writing stage, rather than at commencement. During this phase, support could take the form of buying out of teaching time, contingent on progress, as per the University of Sydney, Charles Sturt University, Murdoch University and University of Newcastle processes described earlier in this section.

Indigenous academic staff looking to make the move to leadership and administrative roles could be given access to a senior executive-style program such as the Harvard executive development program or the Yale MBA. The program would build skills, networks and experience for Indigenous staff to facilitate promotion to higher leadership duties. Such support should target high performers, include residential professional development and be financed by institutions, university groupings or a Universities Australia scholarship fund.

Formally recognising Indigenous staff contributions

University, faculty and school leadership levels need to recognise that Indigenous staff are often the only people, in both central units and in faculties and schools, who can teach the Indigenous content and protocols in their own and other classes. Because of this, they often have heavier teaching loads and therefore often need more flexible arrangements for research or study leave.

The corollary of this is that universities, faculties and schools must cease treating Indigenous staff as the Indigenous expert or resource. At the same time, the Indigenous staff in faculties and schools must not be forgotten by IEUs.

Conclusion

The roundtable forum reiterated many of the key issues previously identified in the literature review, interviews and staff surveys, supporting the validity of the review findings. New points worthy of special note include:

• providing formal leadership and managerial training

• models of best practice identified by roundtable participants

• creating culturally attuned promotion standards

• development of a robust monitoring system and incentives for achieving parity targets

• the creation of aspiration programs modelled on successful school programs

• the impact of the cross-sector movement of a select senior cohort of Indigenous academics, limiting the career progression of mid-career academics

• issues in the collection of data regarding Indigenous identification.

6.7 Discussion and conclusion The review of relevant literature on the Indigenous academic workforce characteristics and associated issues identified the following points.

1. Under current institutional arrangements, achieving population parity for the Indigenous academic workforce is not possible in the short or medium terms.

152

2. Targets for Indigenous academic staff need to be nuanced and have incentives attached to achieving them

3. There is a correlation between the presence of Indigenous staff and the increased retention of Indigenous students.

4. There is a tension between academic disciplinary cultures and Indigenous cultures, especially around the acceptability of formal promotion and the self-promotion of claims. Indigenous culture generally does not approve of self-promotion or promotion seeking in the same way as is expected in the mainstream academic cultures.

5. Academic promotion criteria do not necessarily align with or include the work priorities contained in performance plans for Indigenous staff—who may be producing outputs for or with communities and on Indigenous issues.

6. This is further reflected in the disconnect between the recognition of Indigenous cultural competency in graduate attributes but not in promotion criteria for academic staff.

7. Indigenous academics are more likely to become ‘trapped’ in predominantly teaching roles than non-Indigenous academics and have constrained career pathways.

8. In teaching roles, sessionalisation and casualisation arrangements disproportionately affect Indigenous staff and HDR students who may be on session-to-session contracts for long periods without the entitlements or the career prospects available to ongoing and fixed-term employees.

9. Racism remains a problem, both tacitly and systemically, occurring at the classroom, school, faculty and institutional levels, and may help explain the career and alignment issues highlighted above.

The report found that the collection of data about Indigenous academic staff at Australian universities is not robust. This lack of reliable data makes it difficult to accurately establish the employment and promotional status of Indigenous academics across the Australian university sector.

However, all datasets suggest that Indigenous academics are poorly represented in the Australian academic workforce and that yearly national percentages fall short of the parity target goal of 2.7%. While the current number remains low, there is evidence of positive growth albeit at a much lower rate than for the non-Indigenous academic workforce.

A summary of the survey census data identified that the majority of Indigenous academics are female; most respondents worked full-time; approximately one-third were working at HEW levels 8–10; roughly two-thirds had been at their current level for five years or more; half were in Indigenous Identified positions; and 42% worked in Indigenous-focused areas. Just under half stated that they worked in a university because they wanted to make a difference for Indigenous communities/people/students. Approximately 75% of survey respondents were not currently studying to increase their academic qualification.

Survey findings showed the development of policies within universities that support Indigenous students and staff is critical to the enrolment and success of Indigenous students and the recruitment and retention of Indigenous staff.

Respondents were asked what support their universities provided to help staff increase their qualifications. More than half of the respondents reported that they received very little or no

153

support for progression or promotion. Indigenous staff members in universities are often required to offer Indigenous advice or representation outside their direct work duties in addition to existing workloads. This work is usually not recognised in terms of progression or promotion. The majority of respondents (80%) stated that they found it difficult to balance their university work and their cultural and family responsibilities.

Two-thirds stated that they had experienced racism or racial discrimination in their workplace in the past 12 months. Most examples of the racism/discrimination involved systematic and systemic exclusion of Indigenous staff and issues within the university. Respondents wrote about being ignored, discounted and excluded, and the low priority given to Indigenous issues within their universities. Around two-thirds took action through official university channels. However, respondents stated they achieved little success using official grievance channels.

The majority of Indigenous academics were represented in the academic fields of society and culture, education, health, natural and physical sciences, management and commerce, and creative arts. On average, Indigenous academics are proportionally under-represented at senior levels. When viewed as five-year averages over 2001–2015, there is some evidence of improved proportional Indigenous representation at senior classification levels.

Progression through an academic career pathway in Australian universities requires HDR qualifications. Indigenous people are grossly under-represented in the HDR student cohort and as a proportion fall well short of the parity target of 2.7%. While there has been an encouraging trend of increasing numbers, there is large disparity between students commencing and students completing their degree. The majority of Indigenous HDR students fell within a narrow cluster of educational study fields.

It was reported that a number of universities operate programs designed to ‘grow their own’ academic staff. These programs are successful because they focus on the core business of completing a PhD, teaching and research.

NIRAKN was noted as having made a significant difference to the retention and progress of Indigenous HDR students. Participants at the national forum also argued the need for a new program similar to the school sector Dare to Lead program to engage non-Indigenous and Indigenous university leadership in culturally competent leadership.

Despite past issues with universities implementing targets, the use of targets was still considered essential to achieve change. The development of a national higher education sector policy framework that embedded nuanced targets with incentives for achieving target outcomes was supported. The development of a standardised set of targets would be customised to specific institutional contexts, including multi-campus structures. An essential component of the national target framework would be a robust monitoring system to assist with trend analysis, assessment of sector performance and generating evidence to assist resource decisions.

To attract Indigenous graduates back to the academy, the forum suggested outreach programs are needed.

Forum participants concluded that existing recruitment processes should be adapted to demonstrate cultural competency and be formally mandated and implemented. While universities are autonomous institutions, the forum recommended commonality of promotion

154

standards and that these standards should incorporate Indigenous cultural competency across all universities. A resourced strategy to demystify promotion processes and academic and professional pathways for Indigenous academics and professional staff also received popular support at the national forum.

The forum agreed that a WoU approach to cultural competency, modelled from the top down, is essential if the number of Indigenous academics working in Australian universities is to increase. Cultural competency also needs to be embedded across all institutions.

The forum also suggested universities need to provide better support for Indigenous academic and professional staff completing HDRs. Such support will likely be provided as candidates reach the write-up stage rather than at the commencement of candidature and would therefore be contingent on demonstrating progress in the second half of the candidature.

Indigenous academic staff aspiring to leadership roles could be given access to an Indigenous-specific senior executive professional development program to provide the skills, knowledge sets, networks and experience necessary for competing for positions at the next level of leadership. It was agreed that this should be resourced by both the Australian and State governments and universities

There were a number of significant findings from the three case studies. Interviewees generally had a good knowledge and understanding of the various policies and strategies espoused by their respective institutions. Most also agreed that such policies were an important requirement for universities and that this was consistently reinforced by their respective vice-chancellors. The interviews and desktop audits demonstrated that the universities studied had progressed on developing necessary policies and strategies, as recommended by previous national higher education reviews and reports.

There was more work to be done in relation to actioning, setting of measures, accountability and formalised committee structures, incentives and consequences for non-performance. Respondents from one of the institutions described a changed paradigm in relation to accountability for Indigenous staffing targets. There, an annual review of faculties means that the deans need to report outcomes and progress to the Indigenous pro vice-chancellor’s office, leading to the uncommon situation where the Indigenous portfolio is undertaking the review, rather than being reviewed.

There was a general recognition of the increasing number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait people completing PhDs, but that this process was commonly a drawn-out and taxing experience for many. Interviewees also described competition with the private and public sectors, which could offer significant wages/conditions for highly credentialled Indigenous candidates. The supply of employees suitable for senior management roles within the university sector (whether professorial or not) was identified as an area requiring explicit attention. In order to create real change in the sector, it was recommended that Indigenous employment not be seen as purely an equity/diversity/inclusion issue, but rather should be core business and resourced as such.

There was agreement across case study interviewees that a level of systemic discrimination is an enduring feature of the higher education sector. There was simultaneous recognition that Indigenous peoples belong in universities as students, researchers, professional and academic staff, and as intellectuals who bring unique epistemological and ontological

155

knowledges, perspectives and pedagogies. Both Indigenous and non-Indigenous staff made reference to this inherent tension within the academy.

Indigenous staff acknowledged some difficulties arising from identity politics in their relationships with each other but also commented on the enhanced cultural safety of Indigenous spaces and the camaraderie created by working with other Indigenous professionals. Senior executive staff demonstrated a strong commitment to equity and diversity in the workforce but recognised the need for assistance from the Indigenous university community in order to implement the required changes, and most were yet to move from philosophical support for equity to appreciating the strategic demand for and value of Indigenous employment.

Good leadership and good management were highlighted in the case studies as among the most important factors in the university sector being able to attract, develop and retain a growing Indigenous academic workforce. Interviewees stated that, along with an aspirational Indigenous education agenda with unambiguous objectives, vice-chancellors and senior executives need to demonstrate an authentic commitment to that agenda, by allocating commensurate resources and the affording equivalence to Indigenous ‘voices’ in planning, implementing and measuring success.

Indigenous knowledges and education, research and engagement, led by Indigenous professionals, need to be built into the fabric of each university and the sector, both in rhetoric and in practice. Leadership was described as an activity driven by genuine commitment from the individual to the development of others and attached to respectful relationships.

From a wider perspective, as one senior executive reflected, Australian universities are in a stage of relative infancy. While this does present challenges, it also provides unique opportunities to develop and shape our institutions into the future.

I think there is a lot more work to be done, but in all due respect, higher education in Australia is very young. The institutions are averaging at 30 years old. The work needs to be quick, but also at the national pace. (Camilla, senior executive)

156

7 Science, technology, engineering and mathematics Priority 3: Determine approaches to improve Indigenous outcomes in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM)

According to the Behrendt Review (Behrendt et al., 2012), Indigenous people comprised 2.2% of the overall population, but only 1.4% of student enrolments at university in 2010, including only 1.1% of all full-time equivalent academic staff and 1.2% of general university staff in 2010 being Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The Review reported low levels of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander participation in university governance and management. Participation in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) streams was highlighted as a particular concern, with the report noting a statement from the South Australian Department of Further Education, Employment, Science and Technology’s submission to the review:

Across all levels of education Indigenous participation in STEM is well below that of non-Indigenous students, which is especially significant given the very young demographic profile of the Indigenous population (ABS 2006) … without an appropriate level of STEM skills, Indigenous peoples’ share in the opportunities of Australian’s economy will be limited. (Behrendt et al., 2012, p. 19)

The Group of Eight submission also raised grave concerns in relation to the low mathematical achievement level of Indigenous school students, which adversely affects access to STEM disciplines at university.

Research since the Behrendt Review has provided more granular data relating to study and employment variations across institutions and disciplines, including STEM. STEM is of significant importance in education and to the economy. Capability in STEM is now seen as central to productivity, technological adaptation and research-based innovation. However, there has been little research on STEM participation, programs and educational practices from an equity and diversity perspective.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are significantly under-represented in higher education studies, contributing to high levels of social and economic disadvantage. Under-representation in the STEM and business disciplines is particularly acute. Figure 32 illustrates Indigenous participation rates in STEM-related fields of study across all Australian universities. The chart compares this participation data with other fields of study and to the 2.2% parity benchmark for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander higher education students recommended by the Behrendt Review.

157

Figure 28: Average total enrolment of Indigenous higher education students by field of study

compared to total enrolments (2011–2013)

Strengthening Indigenous participation and practice in STEM

Research on this priority built upon the work of Paige, Hattam, Rigney, Osborne, and Morrison (2016) as part of the Excellence and Equity in Mathematics [xe] project investigating what initiatives Australian universities are developing or undertaking to improve successful higher education study pathways for Indigenous students in disciplines underpinned by science and mathematics. Paige et al. found that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander school completion rates and transition-to-university statistics, particularly in STEM-related programs, remain lower than for their non-Indigenous peers. They also found that STEM-related literacy remains alarmingly low in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students, a fact directly linked to the low uptake of STEM-focused disciplines at university level. They further identified that schools and universities do not readily recognise or utilise Indigenous knowledges within the STEM curriculum and that the culture within STEM disciplines is often challenging for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students.

Paige et al. (2016) conducted six case studies of STEM access and retention programs offered by universities or corporations to identify the successes and challenges of these programs. Strengths of the programs included their accessibility, consideration of cultural contexts, Indigenous mentors, connection to Indigenous knowledges, relevant partnerships, longer-term connections and engagement, forming of peer networks, and tertiary preparation. The challenges related to ongoing funding (most programs were reliant on HEPPP funding), ongoing support for participants up to and including their transition to university, and sustainability concerns arising from resources, funding and human capital issues.

The Strengthening Indigenous Participation and Practice in STEM report (Paige et al., 2016) contained recommendations for policy and practice reforms by universities and governments, as well as the development of a future blueprint for STEM research. Within these broader recommendations, the researchers highlighted the need to assemble appropriate resources, build confidence by creating inclusive learning environments and engage with Indigenous communities, and identified a number of high-impact priorities for Australian policy makers.

158

7.1 Data and methods Four types of data have been collected and analysed for the current research.

1. National-level data on enrolment patterns for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students in STEM-related fields were collected for the period 2001–2014 and were analysed to provide an overview of trends and issues.

2. A national roundtable was conducted to obtain the views of key stakeholders from government and universities. Participants’ views were sought on the participation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students in STEM-related fields of study and problems and barriers at both the institutional and the student participation level.

3. A national survey was completed to identify the views of a broader group of stakeholders, including those who were unable to come to the national roundtable.

4. Finally, face-to-face interviews were conducted with four key respondents to obtain more in-depth perspectives on some of the emergent themes and obstacles Indigenous students face in enrolling in and completing STEM-related study at undergraduate level.

7.2 Statistical analysis National picture of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students enrolled in STEM 2001–2014

The available statistics provide a picture of the numbers of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students who enrolled in STEM-related university courses over the period 2001–2014 (where STEM-related disciplines are identified as natural/physical sciences, information technology, and engineering and related technologies). It is important to note that these are only enrolment figures and therefore do not convey any information about commencement and attrition data.

Despite this limitation, a number of interesting features emerge from the analysis of this data as discussed below. First, in terms of the national picture, Queensland and New South Wales appear to have numerically larger enrolments over the 13-year period in all three identified STEM fields of study (physical and natural sciences, information technology, and engineering and related courses) as shown in Figure 33.

159

Figure 29: National profile of Indigenous students in STEM 2001–2014

Over the period 2001–2014, a total of 11,232 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students was enrolled across the three identified STEM-related streams. The numbers enrolled at each university varied considerably in absolute terms, in terms of distribution by course and by gender, and on a state-by-state basis.

Analysis of these broad overview data does not paint a consistent picture and no clear directions emerge that would guide strategic planning. Even so, it is possible to discern from a finer-grained analysis a number of trends of interest. Moreover, the inconsistency and ambiguity demonstrated in the analyses of these data themselves offer insight into areas for further research.

1841

647

1630

768

277 326 342 18 2

0

610

246

754

144 118 92 44 90 5

8 62

268

09 12

65 2 167 144 109 55 0

0 200 400 600 800

1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

ACT Multi QLD NSW VIC WA SA TAS NT

Nat & Phys IT Eng

160

(a) Natural and Physical Sciences

(b) Information Technology

(c) Engineering and related technologies

Figure 30 (a–c): Overall picture of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander-identified student

enrolment in STEM-related courses 2001–2014

161

Figure 31: Number of Indigenous students enrolled in Natural & Physical Science courses by state 2001–2014

Figure 32: Number of Indigenous students enrolled in IT courses by state 2001–2014

1841

647

1630

768

277 326

342 218

NSW VIC QLD WA SA TAS NT ACT Multi

Indigenous students enrolled in Natural & Physical Science courses by state 2001–2014

Indigenous students enrolled in IT courses by state 2001–2014

610

246

754

144

118

92

44 90

5

NSW VIC QLD WA SA TAS NT ACT Multi

162

Figure 37: Number of courses by state 2001–2014

Table 11 provides a snapshot of information about which universities attracted the highest number of Indigenous student enrolments in STEM-related disciplines over the period 2011–2014 by State/Territory and by narrow course fields of Natural and Physical Sciences (Nat/Phys), Information Technology (IT), and Engineering (ENG).

Table 11: Analysis of national picture by highest number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students enrolled by State/Territory and by Narrow Course Field

Analysis of the profiles show a differentiation in terms of which universities (by State/Territory) have attracted the highest numbers of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander enrolments into the three STEM-related fields of study in the period 2001–2014. This differentiation is illustrated at the university and the State/Territory level in the figures below.

862

268

1209

265

167 144

109

55 0

NSW VIC QLD WA SA TAS NT ACT Multi

Indigenous students enrolled in Engineering courses by state 2001–2014

163

Figure 33: Highest enrolments in STEM by state/territory and university.

These profiles identify the best performing universities (in terms of attracting Indigenous student enrolments in STEM-related disciplines) and provide an indication of where there may be value in further in-depth data collection and analysis to identify the factors such as Indigenous leadership, strong university policies and practices, and supportive government policies that have assisted in attracting Indigenous students to those high-performing institutions specifically to STEM-related disciplines.

Natural and Physical Sciences

0

100 200 300 400

USQ NEWC Curtin UniSA UTAS RMIT ANU CDU

ENG Highest enrolments

by State/Territory by university 2001-2014

164

165

Information Technology

166

167

Engineering and Related Technologies

168

169

170

Figure 34: State/Territory university level picture of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander-identified student enrolment in STEM-related courses 2001–2014

Trend examples: University with highest numbers of enrolment by narrow course field

Analysis of the data for the two universities with the highest Indigenous student enrolments in STEM-related disciplines over the period 2011–2014 (University of Southern Queensland and Queensland University of Technology) indicates that there is an upward trend in enrolments across all three STEM-related fields of study. However, while the general trend is toward growth, the increase has not been steady or consistent, with significant fluctuations year on year. There is also a clear disparity difference in growth trends when considering gender.

Data analysis for all the universities represented in this data set, across all narrow fields of study, painted a similar picture, which raises more questions than answers. In all three of the figures above, disaggregation by gender suggests that the number of female Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander student enrolments has been stable but consistently low over the period 2001–2014, with no indication of growth—in contrast to the overall trend. The data does, however, indicate that female Indigenous students are more inclined to enrol in the natural and physical sciences stream than the other STEM fields, where they remain considerably under-represented in comparison to their male peers.

In the case of male Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students, more comprehensive analysis is needed to determine factors that have influenced the marked year-on-year fluctuations in enrolment. Such research should examine whether increases and decreases correlate with and/or can be attributed to periodic external policy drivers; internal university policies and programs; faculty-specific programs and/or programs conducted by Indigenous academic strengthening units; or individual Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students deciding to enrol/not enrol for other reasons.

171

Figure 35: Universities with highest Indigenous students in STEM—trends by gender

6 10

3

13 8

16

5

21

7 11

5 9

5

14

6 8 4

10

3

14

5

16

4

16

5

22

4

23

05

10152025

Fem

ale

Fem

ale

Fem

ale

Fem

ale

Fem

ale

Fem

ale

Fem

ale

Fem

ale

Fem

ale

Fem

ale

Fem

ale

Fem

ale

Fem

ale

Fem

ale

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

IT QUT Trend 2001-2014

3 7

3 5 1

7 3

11

3

11 4

14

4

20

5

26

6

34

7

39

4

41

3

35

3

36

5

37

05

1015202530354045

Fem

ale

Fem

ale

Fem

ale

Fem

ale

Fem

ale

Fem

ale

Fem

ale

Fem

ale

Fem

ale

Fem

ale

Fem

ale

Fem

ale

Fem

ale

Fem

ale

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

ENG USQ Trend 2001-2014

10 3

11

3 9

4 9

3

16

4

15

4

23

5

14

4

19

5

24

11

28

10

23

11

23

9

23

5

05

1015202530

Fem

ale

Fem

ale

Fem

ale

Fem

ale

Fem

ale

Fem

ale

Fem

ale

Fem

ale

Fem

ale

Fem

ale

Fem

ale

Fem

ale

Fem

ale

Fem

ale

20012002200320042005200620072008200920102011201220132014

NAT/PHYS SCIENCES USQ Trend 2001-2014

172

7.3 Expert roundtable findings Level One analysis: by question

1. How can Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students be encouraged to pursue STEM studies?

It was noted that medicine has had significant success in attracting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students. Several reasons were identified for this success, the primary one being that students readily perceived that a degree in medicine could have a direct positive impact on their communities. Additionally, once a cohort of graduates had been established they then served as ambassadors, moving into communities and inspiring and encouraging the next generation of students by demonstrating the employment opportunities post-degree.

The University of Southern Queensland also had success in enrolling engineering students through associate degrees, whereby students could ‘get a taste’ of the course and then transfer to a full degree if they wished to continue to study in the field. This represented an alternative pathway into a STEM discipline.

It was pointed out that to encourage students to remain, and excel, in a course, students needed individual arrangements that took into consideration their unique needs whether those needs related to finance, accommodation, family situation, or psychological well-being.

2. What are the current barriers to individual institutions preventing students from taking STEM subjects?

Literacy levels were noted as being a problem, but the implications are quite nuanced. On the one hand, low literacy is an issue in its own right. However, students can often have a high aptitude for STEM subjects despite low literacy levels, but this aptitude may often go unrecognised because assessment tasks require a foundational literacy level to successfully complete. Two approaches are needed to overcome these problems. In the first instance, and at the broadest level of response, literacy levels need to be improved. Additionally, however, assessment methods should be reconceptualised to better take a student’s aptitude for STEM into account. A review of how assessments are administrated may be needed. Teachers also need more professional development to be sensitive to Indigenous cultural issues in order to create an inclusive learning environment in the class. This came back to a question of teaching pedagogies; it was noted that, currently, the pedagogies around Indigenous education are very weak and there are limited and low-quality resources in place to improve them.

3. What programs have had a meaningful impact for individual institutions?

One of the biggest challenges identified was trying to equip educators with both the necessary knowledge to teach the subject effectively and the necessary pedagogy to teach in a manner that is engaging for Indigenous students. The smaller and more remote the institution, the larger the problem becomes, as teachers may lack the skills on both counts.

The programs that had the most institutional impact were those that identified the need to engage Indigenous students early in their education. Engagement at the upper primary and secondary levels is required if Indigenous students are to move through the system and consider studying a STEM discipline at university. One successful strategy is academic

173

camps, where secondary students have an early opportunity to come onto a university campus and experience STEM study at the university level. This approach also has the potential to create beneficial relationships between the universities, schools, secondary students, teachers, families and the broader community; this, in turn, assists in ensuring that students receive support and encouragement in a more holistic environment, which better supports aspirations to attend university.

7.4 Survey Demographics

There were seven main respondents (n=7) from a range of universities: three city-based, two regional and two not specified. Responses were received from both faculty (Respondents A, B, C, and E) and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Academic Strengthening Units (ASUs—Respondents D, F and G). There was no input from university policy-makers or those responsible for developing Indigenous STEM-specific, university-wide programs, despite broad distribution of the survey to those networks.

In terms of faculty responses, one was received from Science/Maths, one from Science, one from Environmental Science, and one from Science/Engineering.

Level One analysis: by question

Q1. What is the (available) evidence telling you about how your university is undertaking STEM interventions that are specifically designed to attract and support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students?

Overall, the responses suggested that there is very little evidence the respondents’ universities are undertaking any STEM-related interventions specifically designed to attract and support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students. Respondents E and F reported that they have STEM-specific outreach programs that are undertaken at the university level. Respondent B (faculty-based, Science) said that activities designed to attract and support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students into STEM courses was undertaken by their ASU, which was responsible for recruitment and communication of programs with the faculties. Respondent A (faculty-based, Science/Maths) said that the only channel of information about such programs and initiatives was their individual knowledge of their own faculty-based activities and that there was not, as far as they knew, any university-wide approach. Respondent G (ASU-based) reported that there was

[c]onflicting evidence which says under-representation generally in STEM but it’s not necessarily the case with the number of enrolments in STEM-related disciplines.

Respondent C (faculty-based, Environmental Science) and Respondent D (ASU) said that they had little evidence at their respective universities of anything specific being undertaken.

Q2. What gaps exist in your data and evidence about STEM interventions that are specifically designed to attract and support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students?

174

As might be predicted from the responses to Question 1, lack of data and the absence of a rigorous approach to available evidence and data were the most commonly reported concerns (Respondents B, D, E and G). Respondent F added that:

The current gap is an integrated approach to enable the collection of data and evidence. All activities are being implemented in silo.

Of those respondents who added to the general picture, Respondent A highlighted a lack of communication as being a key issue, saying:

The gap would be principally one of communication (e.g. if a colleague independently engages with, or drives, any such initiative without reporting/communicating that to me). The same would be a lack of communication between my faculty (Science) and that of Engineering and IT.

Respondent C made the following observations:

The gaps we’ve identified include how to support alternate ways of knowing and academic level of attainment among Indigenous students, how to support students to maintain their cultural identity while also undertaking a discipline-based STEM course, and how to identify and support role models for those Indigenous students in STEM fields.

Q3. Where are successful programs currently operating in your university?

Only one respondent reported a successful program (an Indigenous Science Experience Camp). Two respondents pointed only to the ASUs. Overall, the responses indicated that there is very little knowledge of successful programs being run, despite the statistics indicating that over the last 13 years there have been increasing numbers of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students enrolling in STEM-related courses. This suggests that the trend toward growth in enrolment has little to do with planning or programs generated by universities at the broader level, but it may suggest the success of programs being run by ASUs and by faculties. Possibly the most telling response was:

I do not know of any successful programs in my university.

Q4. Thinking about your answer to the previous question, what are their success factors? Can they be replicated?

It was clear from the responses to Question 3 that it is not yet possible to identify success factors, or their replicability, given the paucity of data and evidence. Five respondents said they had no data yet. The one positive response from the Question 3 did provide the following comment on the positive effect of the Indigenous Science Experience Camp, run as a university outreach activity:

Qualitative feedback from participants indicates an increased interest in Science disciplines and careers. Current quantitative data on transition to relevant degrees is being collected.

Another respondent, whose only evidence of success has been with programs run and controlled by ASUs, points out that:

175

Possibly the factor that most influences success is that the support services are led by Indigenous people and are student-centric.

This speaks to the overarching issue of the absence of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander governance within universities, where responsibility for success is devolved to ASUs without the necessary Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leadership in matters to do with policy, strategic planning, resourcing, and programmatic links between government drivers, university- and faculty-based responsibilities and those of the ASUs. This is further discussed in the WoU section of this report (see Section 5).

Q5. Thinking about your previous answers, what are the barriers? How can their effects be minimised?

Not surprisingly, respondents were able to more easily identify the barriers impacting their university undertaking STEM interventions specifically designed to attract and support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students. Two respondents, one faculty-based and one ASU-based, said the biggest barrier was that the recruitment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students has never been a focus of their work. Lack of awareness of the issues or needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students, and lack of resourcing, communication, policy and overall strategy were also identified as barriers. Respondent A, an academic based in a Science/Maths-related faculty, was responsible for pastoral care of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander science students and was also the academic approver for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students seeking entry into science disciplines via an alternative pathway. This respondent explained that one barrier to doing this work effectively is that:

I have several Faculty responsibilities in addition to being the portfolio holder, in addition to my teaching responsibilities.

Another respondent said the biggest barrier facing his faculty was explaining to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander potential students how STEM-related qualifications might link back to the needs of their communities.

Q6. At your university, what are top priorities for reform short/long-term in undertaking STEM interventions that are specifically designed to attract and support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students?

Respondent E was the only respondent to report the beginnings of a reform process with a STEM focus at their university, building on the success of their Indigenous Science Experience Camps. All others reported that it is ‘early days’, that there are processes ‘under discussion’ but that there were no specific long- or short-term priorities for reform yet. As Respondent G observed:

Currently we are at early stages of strategy implementation that focuses on broader relationships, systems and initiatives across the whole university. It is hoped that once there is progress and momentum that more specific discipline-related priorities can be adopted.

Q7. At your university, what are influential policy drivers after 2016 in undertaking STEM interventions that are specifically designed to attract and support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students?

176

Respondents identified a range of policy drivers they believed might help with STEM interventions in their universities. Respondent A spoke about the university having a policy of achieving ‘parity’ between non-Indigenous and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students and felt that this general policy would focus attention on recruitment and retention of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students in STEM-related courses. They also felt that the university’s secondary school outreach program would have a similar flow-on effect. Respondent B focused on Equity and Access policies as being helpful. Respondent C identified their university policy on improving retention as a useful driver. Respondent D was the only one able to draw on specific STEM-related policies. Respondent F said their university policies for disadvantaged students were the only ones currently available to support the work in STEM-related course in the recruitment and retention of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students.

Q8. Thinking about your answer to the previous question: what, how, who, when and how much capital is required at your university to respond to these policy drivers?

Only three respondents addressed this question and all were clear that the matter of senior Indigenous governance in universities needs to be addressed. The success of policies and strategies to improve the recruitment and retention of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students into STEM-related courses, in their view, depended on this aspect. Respondent B said:

A coordinated top-down approach with significant engagement from senior management of the university that emphasises the importance and financial commitment to Indigenous engagement. As well as a ‘grass roots’ approach of people committed to implementing activities. Activities require co-creation and support from Indigenous staff and students.

Respondent E raised the matter of cascading sponsorship from the vice-chancellor to the STEM-related faculties as being an important element, saying that:

To make this happen we need real support from the VC down, as well as a strong supported program from within the Faculty.

Respondent A noted the importance of resourcing and pointed out that the relationship between the Indigenous governance group and the vice-chancellor would ultimately determine the success or failure of any policies regarding higher education for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students because, if this relationship was working well, then allocation of resources would be undertaken responsibly and transparently, guided by some form of strategic planning and accountability mechanisms.

Q9. Thinking again about how your university is undertaking STEM interventions that are specifically designed to attract and support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students, in terms of your future monitoring: What are your university's indicators of success?

The only success indicator for four respondents was the general information provided by recruitment data in terms of increases, and attrition data in terms of decreases. Only Respondent E spoke of the success indicator being one that would arise from specific STEM enrolment improvement metrics and an increase in number of relationships between the faculty, STEM-related professional associations and businesses, with a focus on the employment of Indigenous people.

177

Q10. And lastly, thinking again about how your university is undertaking STEM interventions that are specifically designed to attract and support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students, how might we use the findings of this small project to influence reforms that you regard as necessary if the policy objectives are to be met?

All respondents shared ideas in response to this question and made recommendations that align with both the interview data and the roundtable forum feedback. The following issues were raised as being required for better Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leadership in the governance of Indigenous monies given to universities:

• better collection and analysis of data and evidence

• stronger links to Universities Australia and the ACDS, and other relevant stakeholders

• further research to be done to establish successful programs

• guidance on what works in the successful recruitment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students into STEM-related courses and in their eventual successful completion of their qualifications and in gaining employment in the field of their choice.

As one respondent wrote:

If I can show the Faculty successful initiatives with good outcomes that will help with Faculty buy-in …

7.5 Interview data Overall, the interview data confirms, albeit in more detail, the uneven and often confusing attempts by universities to attract Indigenous students into STEM-related fields of undergraduate study. Four subjects were interviewed, all of whose universities are known to have run ‘successful’ programs. The responses were then themed into four areas.

1. The need for institutional policy-driven change.

2. University–Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community partnership.

3. Universities need effective policies and procedures for enrolment and tracking.

4. Lack of data driving procedures.

Theme One: The need for institutional policy-driven change

Unsurprisingly, the first common theme was the critical role played by individuals within universities and how this approach will not, by itself, increase enrolment growth beyond the already occurring trend evident from the available statistics. Institutional memory was identified as a key factor across those interviewed. As one interviewee said of a senior university figure who had been a significant driver of their university’s focus on Indigenous participation in STEM-related disciplines:

… once they leave then the organisation memory’s gone.

Another observation common to all the interviews concerned the need for institutional-level action, as individual effort would never be able to sufficiently increase numbers—both of enrolments and successful completions—to meet the government’s policy goals and the

178

aspirational numbers encouraged under the new Universities Australia policy. One interviewee explained that:

It has to be an institutional-wide activity, it can’t just be dependent on individuals, because otherwise corporate history and engagement waxes and wanes. We’ve been doing snippets here and there. We’ve had a very naive view, from my perspective, in the past that you try your best to increase recruitment and numbers and that will all flow through.

Theme Two: University—Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community partnership

The second common theme was the need for universities to sustain engagement with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and potential Indigenous students in this space, in view of the lack of knowledge and understanding in the community about the importance of STEM-related knowledge for the future. As one interviewee said:

I think the biggest barrier for us in terms of degrees themselves is that our kids—and it is not an Aboriginal specific issue. We find ourselves being impacted more I think, our kids are just not equipped to undertake the degrees when they come into the university … And that is not just for Mathematics. It is also for Biological Sciences and ANU … when I was at ANU they run a specific pathways program for eight weeks for any student that we—we would often put Aboriginal Torres Strait Islander students in there if they didn’t have a background going into Science, particularly Biological Sciences. The Physical Sciences are not too bad because you’ve just got to have Mathematics. So Mathematics is a definite barrier.

Theme Three: Universities need effective policies and procedures for enrolment and tracking

The third common theme focused on the new policies and programs that specifically sought to increase both enrolments and successful completions. Interviewees spoke about various programs that have worked from within STEM-related disciplines, especially where it is the responsibility of non-Indigenous academics and Heads of School to oversee these matters. One explained their three processes for enrolling an Indigenous student in their STEM-related faculty:

So if they haven’t got the ATAR cut-off, based on a series of English-language tasks and math skills tasks and a personal statement and an interview which I participate in. So I look at the personal statement, I correct the maths task, and I attend the interview. On the basis of that we can, for example, make a recommendation the student goes directly into the program irrespective of their ATAR.

The bulk of the students who use the second option, if we sense that maybe because of the base of their English scores or their maths scores or maybe other things that we just tweak, we might say why don’t you do your first year in XYZ College, and then you go straight into your second year. So the articulation is seamless. They go straight into second year. And that’s offered for a number of—I use the word program for course, so a Bachelors degree I call a program. So there’s a complete articulation between what they do in XYZ College and what they do in our programs.

179

And then the next level down is a thing called ABCStart and this is a series of preparation courses that allow them to then apply for first-year entry the next year based on successful completion of these units.

These procedures were similar to those discussed by other interviewees and also identified in the survey responses. A strong common element in the reporting of successful procedures was the guidance and leadership offered by the university Indigenous Student Support unit. Non-Indigenous, faculty-level ‘responsible’ staff reported that they commonly devolved responsibility for pastoral care of Indigenous students to the Indigenous Student Support unit, focusing only on matters of academic admission, progress and committee-level work.

Theme Four: Lack of data driving procedures

The final common theme, also reflected in the roundtable feedback and the survey data, is that there is very little empirical evidence on which to build a reliable understanding of what is working and what is not. One interviewee explained that ‘keeping an eye’ on the Indigenous students in his School was only one of his many responsibilities. He told us that:

I haven’t drilled down and made any formal evaluation of whether direct entry versus XYZ College versus ABCStart makes a difference. I guess also from a statistical level it would be quite weak because last year we had 18 out of a cohort of more than 3000 students. This year I think we’re up to 20 something, but again out of a cohort of 3000, so you’re not even looking at a very big group. You’re looking at a sample size of only about 30, 20 to 30.

None of the interviewees were able to speak to data that they had collected or analysed, even though all were in roles that designated them as responsible for Indigenous student academic progress in their school or faculty. One interviewee was reluctant to share any data with us because he felt that competition for Indigenous students was so cut-throat that he needed to protect his knowledge of what he knew to be successful at his own university. Another summarised what they believed to be best practice, saying:

… as I came in to this role, I recognised that decisions are made for anecdote, not on an evidence base. That’s totally against our scientific training. So, we need to collect the data, do the cohort analysis about outcomes … until then we are just working on opinion and hope.

Their views on the future, and what is needed, are an important conclusion to this section of data description. On the environment needed at universities:

I think—it is about creating the opportunity, saying there is an opportunity for Indigenous space, but the academy has got to embrace it. Again that was pretty—we were flying by the seat of our pants and just finding the right supervisor was a lot of work but gee it helped students to understand that this Indigenous research can actually—so the feedback from all of those students—and we only had six or five in every semester.

But the feedback from all of those students was that they didn’t realise that they could do a research in their own discipline from an Aboriginal perspective. It really opened up their eyes. It was labour and resource intensive but I’m not sure if I could do that here.

180

And of the need to build a community of practice under an Indigenous STEM Academy:

I think we can build this thing. I think my vision for an Indigenous STEM Academy would be multi-institutional and it wouldn’t just be universities. It would be Questacon, it would be CSIRO and it would be all those government agencies that are trying to do the right thing but don’t know how!

7.6 Reform priorities Drawing together the main themes from the four data sources, the key findings can be summarised as follows.

1. There is little reliable empirical evidence beyond the big picture data collected at the national level; more needs to be done to gather more fine-grained and nuanced data about the different experiences of universities, and of Indigenous students, regarding the successes and failures of policies and programs designed to attract and retain Indigenous students in STEM-related fields of study.

2. Big-picture data does not allow us to understand the ‘on the ground’ experience of university bureaucrats, academic staff and Indigenous students. The roundtable, survey and interviews were conducted to gather qualitative data to help explain some of the trends noted in the statistical broad brush.

3. Common themes across qualitative data included:

a. the need for a coordinated university response, but one that must be guided by empirical evidence

b. the idea of establishing an Indigenous STEM Academy as a multi-sectoral institution to develop a community of practice that can inform university and government policy arising from evidence of best practice

c. the important role played by Indigenous Student Support units in both academic and pastoral support

d. nationally, the need for focused collaboration between the Australian Government, universities and organisations such as CSIRO, to engage Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and raise awareness, especially among young people, of the importance of and need for STEM-related knowledge.

Statistics

Data analysis for the universities, represented in the available dataset, provided a consistent picture but one that raised more questions than it answered. Disaggregation by gender suggests the number of female Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander student enrolments has been stable but low in the period 2001–2014, with no indication of growth. In the case of male Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students, a more detailed analysis is needed to determine which factors have influenced enrolment trends, including whether the overall increase can be attributed to external policy drivers, internal university policies and programs, faculty-specific programs and/or programs conducted by Indigenous Academic Strengthening Units, or whether enrolment patterns determined more by individual Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students deciding to enrol or not enrol for unrelated reasons.

181

Roundtable

Feedback from the national roundtable identified three key domains that require attention for a systemic change to take place in the STEM area.

Student focused

Interventions are seen as an effective way to support students; for example, through case-managing individuals. This approach might be met with resistance within universities, as some lecturers perceived it as preferential treatment. However, quite often the number of Indigenous students is relatively low and it is well within the scope of existing resources to take special care on a case-by-case basis to ensure students are able to move successfully through university and graduate.

Additionally, if students are to enrol in, and achieve results in STEM disciplines at university, a strong STEM presence in primary and secondary school is required. Early childhood, primary and secondary experts noted the need for students to be engaged in the processes of critical inquiry from a young age (Years 4 and 5). It is imperative that interest in STEM be encouraged early and nurtured all the way through to graduation from university.

Educator focused

For a successful uptake of Indigenous students in university STEM courses, work is needed to successfully communicate to (potential) students what STEM is. It needs to be made clear that there is such a thing as Indigenous sciences, and that they are a meaningful avenue of academic pursuit.

The roundtable discussions also raised the issue that the skills of educators engaged in STEM-related teaching need to be not only improved but developed in such a way that educators are capable both of teaching STEM subjects and of teaching all students in a way that appropriately engages with Indigenous science. To achieve this, there needs to be advocacy for the up-skilling of teachers. Finally, research needs to be conducted to develop Indigenous knowledge pedagogies.

Institution focused

In view of the previous point, one important requirement is that academics and teachers up-skill themselves in relation to Indigenous pedagogies. However, initiatives with this objective often encounter resistance from teachers who do not believe this knowledge or skill is necessary. To overcome this issue, Indigenous pedagogies should form a mandatory element of a teacher’s professional development, and evidence that competency in this area has been attained and maintained should be required to retain teaching accreditation. There are already similar standards imposed on teachers in other areas; it should only be a small step to add this requirement. TEQSA should also play a role in regulation to ensure that standards and quality are met, as also suggested in Section 5 on WoU.

Contextual way forward

Ball’s (2015) Australian Quarterly publication ‘STEM the gap: Science belongs to us mob too’ provides a firm foundation to begin to contextualise and theorise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander engagement in the STEM domain. Key to Ball’s paper was the colonial rhetoric and disciplinary devaluation surrounding Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander sciences. both in

182

the Australian context and more broadly in the intellectual Polar South (Connell, 2007). Ball argues the following points.

• The current system is a violation of the UN Declaration of Human Rights (1948), specifically Articles 27 and 31 pertaining to people having a right to access scientific knowledge, and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have a right to develop and maintain their sciences.

• Among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, there is a perception that science is not a subject for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, that is, that it is a western construct and has only ever been used to destroy their culture. It is imperative that this narrative be shifted if there is to be meaningful change and uptake of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students in STEM.

• The western scientific canon should be challenged with more prominent emphasis on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander scientific endeavour and examples of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander science that have either been forgotten or hidden, or destroyed by the colonisers.

Importantly, Ball also argues that this is not a matter of rejecting western science, but of finding the nexus where both scientific endeavours will be able to respect and learn from each other.

7.7 Examples of current practice There is still much to do in increasing the participation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in STEM disciplines and professions. There are, however, some attempts at early intervention building on aspirations, providing an insight to study and workforce, highlighting pathways, incentives and mentoring. The following examples provide an overview of some of the current national practice of programs that focus on the attraction, participation and success of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students in STEM disciplines within higher education.

Aboriginal Summer School for Excellence in Technology and Science (ASSETS)

The Aboriginal Summer School for Excellence in Technology and Science (ASSETS) is an integral part of the Indigenous STEM education program funded by BHP Billiton Foundation and facilitated by the CSIRO. The program aims to improve participation and achievement of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students STEM.

ASSETS is a nine-day residential summer school hosted by James Cook University, University of Newcastle and University of South Australia at various times in December and January. The focus is on Year 10 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students with an interest in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Post attendance at the camp, student participants are then supported through Years 11 and 12 with a leadership and support program. Each summer school incorporates cultural, academic and personal development strands, ensuring a holistic approach to student success.

The cultural strand is supported by a local ‘Cultural Patron’ who can provide expert cultural knowledge from the local community. Activities are focused on the students exploring cultural identity and the recognition of the connections between western and Indigenous sciences. The academic strand involves student teamwork, with the assistance of academic providers

183

to help students develop and conduct an open inquiry project to be presented on the final day. Finally, the personal development strand involves students in leadership workshops and focuses on pathways to study and careers. Students are provided with the opportunity to network with various STEM professionals to hear their stories of their own experiences and pathways and to allow students to develop their knowledge of the potential professions available.

Upon completion of the Year 10 leadership program, students are supported through Years 11 and 12. The program helps students develop leadership skills and access work experience, mentoring and tertiary education opportunities. All aspects of the ASSETS program are free for students.

AIEF–BHP Billiton Tertiary Scholarship

The AIEF–BHP Billiton Tertiary Scholarships are focused on providing financial assistance, professional development and career support to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students with an interest in STEM professions. The scholarships are awarded to outstanding Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students undertaking tertiary studies in engineering, science and other approved degrees, and who also may aspire to work for BHP Billiton and one day become leaders in business. Scholarship recipients are also encouraged to apply for the BHP Billiton Australian Foundations for Graduates Program at the end of their degree.

This scholarship offers students a unique and highly attractive opportunity to learn from experts, develop a future network of colleagues, attend world-class training and build exceptional skills and expertise.

The AIEF–BHP Billiton Tertiary Scholarship provides students with:

• the cost of accommodation up to a maximum of $22,000 per annum

• an annual stipend of up to $2000 for textbooks and other materials, or other education-related expenses

• a living allowance of up to $6000 per annum.

The AIEF–BHP Billiton Tertiary Scholarship recipients also receive ongoing professional development and career support from AIEF and BHP Billiton, including the opportunities to attend professional networking and development events. Participants can further apply for the BHP Billiton Australian Undergraduate Program, which provides the opportunity for graduates to undertake a 12-week placement with BHP.

Victorian Indigenous Engineering Winter School (VIEWS)

VIEWS was established in 2016 and is a collaborative program between the University of Melbourne, RMIT, Swinburne University and Monash University. The program is sponsored by BP, Arup and Google, with in-kind sponsorship from Barpa, Engineers Without Borders, Melbourne Water, Melbourne Star, Metro Trains Melbourne and the National Institute of Circus Arts.

The VIEWS program is an initiative arising from the 2015 National Indigenous Engineering Summit. Its aim is to provide Year 11 and 12 Indigenous students with an immersive experience of engineering and introduce the offerings of the four universities.

184

The program is facilitated over six days and provides Indigenous students with the opportunity to learn about the different pathways to becoming an engineer and experience first-hand the inspirational stories of Indigenous engineers and engineering students.

The program is held in the July school/university break, allowing participants to live on campus at the University of Melbourne while attending the camp. The program includes site visits to relevant companies across Melbourne, exploration of the campuses and study options at the partnering universities, hands-on workshops, and insights into the global challenges addressed by engineers across many fields.

The VIEWS program aims to demystify the engineering profession to increase the participation of Indigenous students in engineering degrees and professions.

National Indigenous Science Engineering Program (NISEP)

The NISEP uses science to place Indigenous youth in leadership positions so they gain the confidence, motivation and skills to stay in school and consider pathways to higher education.

The NISEP program was introduced in response to a request from the Yaegl Aboriginal Elders to Macquarie University scientists in October 2004. NISEP is a collective of Aboriginal Elders, science academics and secondary school staff committed to improving educational outcomes for Indigenous youth.

NISEP is unique as it places Indigenous secondary-school students in leadership roles at school, in the community and at university events, where they teach younger students, their peers and community members relatable western and Indigenous sciences. The program supports these new student leaders throughout their entire secondary schooling, providing them with student mentors from Macquarie University’s ‘Engaging the Community in Science’ subject, and building strong and continuing connections with their local communities.

The program has grown to an established consortium comprising Macquarie University, Charles Sturt University (CSU) in Wagga Wagga, Yaegl and Wiradjuri Aboriginal Elders and ten partner schools across northern New South Wales, western Sydney and the Riverina.

NISEP’s expansion proves it to be a highly robust model for promoting community engagement and changing the lives of young Indigenous people. PwC recognised NISEP’s success, selecting it as one of the 2016 21st Century Minds Accelerator Program STEM education initiatives for its potential to grow and to ‘help build Australia’s future innovators’.

If it wasn’t for events like this, I probably wouldn’t have gone on to Year 12 and I’m sure other Indigenous students at my school would feel the same. (NISEP student leader, Casino High School)

Since June 2016, the program has empowered more than 180 Indigenous secondary students as leaders of science events, to audiences of around 2000 people. NISEP builds self-belief, with seven in ten NISEP leaders expressing an increased desire to complete high school or increased ambitions to go on to higher education, and eight in ten expressing an increased interest in science.

My involvement in NISEP was an integral factor in me choosing to enter higher education. (Former NISEP student now enrolled in Science/Law at Macquarie)

185

7.8 STEM summary There is a current dilemma in STEM. While research shows that in the future up to 70% of jobs will require some form of STEM knowledge, there are low rates of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander enrolment in the field. One approach to getting communities on board is through the message that engagement in STEM study results in economic opportunity. Other messages that may foster a sense of engagement and urgency include:

• the current absence of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students in STEM disciplines (and hence, in future, in STEM careers) is a violation of human rights

• change in this area will make a contribution to Closing the Gap

• technology will drive future improvement to conditions for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and those who live in remote areas, and they should be involved in the fields that will bring benefits to their communities.

STEM disciplines within western learning environments have not been a traditional discipline of interest for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students. Programs to shift Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people’s mindsets and attitudes towards STEM professions are vital. The visible application of STEM professions to advancing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities is a key strategy to be considered in moving forward. Highlighting current and past achievements and mentor relationships in STEM will advertise the opportunities available to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Secondary school programs require a focus on STEM in the early years to build student aspirations and provide appropriate information and capacity to make informed choices in regard to STEM professions and pathways.

From a university perspective, to retain Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students already enrolled in STEM programs, faculties must build closer relationships with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander education units, bringing together cultural and Indigenous knowledges with discipline knowledge to create holistic strategies. Historically, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander education units have been primarily responsible for access, participation and success programs with few resources and limited discipline expertise. A WoU approach will provide an enhanced capacity to develop successful programs with shared accountability.

To increase the access and participation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in STEM disciplines, a collaborative and holistic approach is vital. Although there some successful STEM programs that are offered, they are ad hoc and limited to the location and offerings of individual universities. A holistic approach that includes governments, universities, Aboriginal communities and relevant industry organisations, from early school interventions through to employment, is needed to ensure a significant impact in representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students in STEM disciplines.

186

8 Attachments and appendices

8.1 Ethics approval letters

187

188

189

190

191

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT Project: Improved Indigenous Outcomes in Science,Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) Chief Investigator Dr Peter Anderson Faculty of Education Phone: 03 90059197 email: peter.anderson@monash.edu

Co Investigator Associate Professor Zane Ma Rhea Faculty of Education Phone: 03 99044416 email: zane.marhea@monash.edu

You are invited to take part in this study. Please read this Explanatory Statement in full before deciding whether or not to participate in this research. If you would like further information regarding any aspect of this project, you are encouraged to contact the researchers via the phone numbers or email addresses listed above. Financial Disclosure The researchers for this study, Drs Anderson and Ma Rhea have been funded as part of the NATSIHEC (AC): Accelerating Indigenous Higher Education research project funded by the Australian Government to specifically examine the STEM stream of the bigger project. We are participating in the National Roundtable as researchers from Monash University. We will be meeting with you as researchers for the STEM stream of roundtable discussions in order to collect information from you that will form the basis for our analysis and reports back to both NATSIHEC (AC) and the Australian Government. What does the research involve? The aim of this project is to undertake a national study of how universities are undertaking STEM interventions that are specifically designed to attract and support Indigenous scholars. The working hypothesis of this study is that the current approaches taken by universities are reactive to government policy but under-planned in terms of development of interventions based on empirical data and strategic organisational development principles. Participants will be asked to objective of the project is to identify effective policies and strategies to increase enrolments, participation and completion of Indigenous people in STEM-related higher education studies. Why were you chosen for this research? As a key stakeholder in your specific STEM related discipline your expert knowledge is vital to this project. Consenting to participate in the project and withdrawing from the research Agreeing to participate in this study is voluntary and you are under no obligation to participate. After you read this Explanatory Statement, you will be asked if you would like to participate. The Explanatory statement is yours to keep. If you would like to take part in the study, you will be given a Consent Form which you must read carefully and sign before the roundtable discussion can begin.

192

The Consent Form will describe your rights in this study, such as not distributing your name to any third party (confidentiality), whether the interview can be audio-recorded, and whether you would like to participate in any visual promotional materials that will arise from this project. The Consent Form will remain with the Chief Investigators for the duration of the study. Possible benefits and risks to participants The benefits of your participation are the valuable insights you will provide to the improvement of Indigenous outcomes in Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics (STEM). There is no anticipated inconvenience or discomfort beyond the normal experience of everyday life, either in the short or long term from participation in the project. Data collection for this project will be conducted at a roundtable forum. The risk to you as a participant is thus minimal as the interviews do not seek highly personal information and will be conducted at your convenience. Confidentiality Your name/identity will be kept as confidential as possible, given your public role and responsibilities. All care will be taken to ensure that specific comments are not directly attributable to you unless you have given prior consent on the Consent Form. Pseudonyms will be used to maintain confidentiality as requested by you and as appropriate. Storage of data Storage of the collected data (interview transcripts) will adhere to the Monash University regulations. The data will be kept on an encrypted hard-drive and on university premises in a locked cupboard/filing cabinet for 5 years. Use of data for other purposes Data (interview transcripts) and any ideas generated from data may be used to write journal papers and book chapters, but individual comments will not be attributable to you unless with your prior consent. You will be asked for your specific permission for the roundtable discussion to be audiotaped for transcription purposes. After the audio interviews have been analysed for key themes/ideas, you may be invited to talk on camera about the key themes/ideas that have been generated from the audio interviews. You will be asked the same questions for the visual promotional resource that you have been asked in the audio interview. The invitation to participate in both the roundtable discussion (audio taped) and the video interview (videotaped) will be clearly present on the Consent Form (‘Consent to use data for other purposes’). Declining to participate in the video section of the project will not jeopardise your participation in the main study, which will comprise only of the audio-recorded interview. Results This project is expected to be finished in July, 2017. The results will become available shortly after, in the form of a report to NATSIHEC (AC) and to the Australian Government. If you would like to be informed of the results of this research, please contact the Chief Investigators on emails mentioned on the previous page. Complaints Should you have any concerns or complaints about the conduct of the project, you are welcome to contact the Executive Officer, Monash University Human Research Ethics (MUHREC): Executive Officer Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee (MUHREC)

193

Room 111, Chancellery Building E, 24 Sports Walk, Clayton Campus Research Office Monash University VIC 3800 Tel: +61 3 9905 2052 Email: muhrec@monash.edu Fax: +61 3 9905 3831 Thank you, Dr Peter J. Anderson

194

8.2 NATSIHEC (AC) letter of support

10 May 2016 To Whom It May Concern We wish to give support for the commissioned ‘National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Higher Education Consortium’ (NATSIHEC (AC)) research project titled: Accelerating Indigenous Higher Education. This three tiered project will be investigating: (1) Improving Indigenous outcomes in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics

(STEM) (2) Increasing the number of Indigenous academic staff (3) Developing and promoting whole‐of‐university approaches to improving Indigenous higher

education outcomes The Office of Pro Vice Chancellor Indigenous Leadership at Charles Darwin University is undertaking the research associated with increasing the number of Indigenous academic staff. We offer our support and full endorsement as they undertake this important work to address the under‐representation of Indigenous academics in the higher education sector. Yours sincerely

Professor Peter Buckskin PSM, FACE Chairperson, NATSIHEC (AC) Project Director, Accelerating Indigenous Higher Education 0431 549 580 http://NATSIHEC(AC).edu.au

195

8.3 Online survey questions

Whole-of-University

Q1. Can you tell us what institution/organisation you are associated with? (optional)

Q2. Do you believe it is important for universities to adopt a Whole-of-University approach to

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander higher education?

Q3. How would you define a Whole-of-University approach?

Q4. Can you identify characteristics of your institution/organisation that contribute to a Whole-of-University approach to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander higher education?

Q5. What do you identify as being the key aspects and characteristics of a Whole-of-

University approach?

Q6. To what extent are the faculties in your institution engaged in Aboriginal and Torres

Strait Islander student access, participation and success strategies?

Q7. Can you nominate an institution that you believe has successfully adopted a Whole-of-

University approach?

Q8. What do you believe are the key factors that have driven their success?

Q9. In what ways are these skills transferrable between institutions?

Q10. Whose responsibility is it to drive a Whole-of-University approach?

Q11. What role do Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander education centres (or equivalent)

play in implementing and sustaining a Whole-of-University approach?

Q12. What evidence and data are indicators of a university’s success in delivering a Whole-

of-University approach?

Q13. From a national perspective what have been the key factors that have driven any

success or increased outcomes in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander higher education?

Q14. Can you identify any policy reforms that the Australian government need to drive to

support Whole-of-University approaches to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander higher

education?

196

Academic Workforce

Thanks for your time and thoughts in completing this survey. The anonymous results will be used to inform interventions and strategies aimed at increasing the number of Indigenous staff in Australian Universities 1. Please select your CURRENT employment status Casual employment Part-time employment Full-time employment Other (please specify) 2. What is your current academic employment classification? Academic Level A Academic Level B Academic Level C Academic Level D Academic Level E Academic Executive Contract HEW Levels 1–4 HEW Levels 5–7 HEW Levels 8–10 HEW Executive Contract 3. How long have you been at this classification? Less than one year One year Two years Three years Four years Five years or more 4. What is your highest academic qualification? No post school qualification Certificate level 1–4 Diploma level 1–4 Bachelor degree Honours degree Masters degree Doctorate / PhD Other (please specify) Other (please specify) 5. Are you currently studying to increase your academic qualifications? No Yes—Bachelor Yes—Masters Yes—Doctorate

197

6. What support does your university provide to help increase your qualifications? 7. Have you accessed this support? Yes No If not, why not? 8. What support, if any, have your received from your university in terms of your progression or promotion? 9. Is your position an Indigenous identified position (as covered by Section 9 of the Commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act 1975)? Yes No Don't know 10. In what discipline area or faculty do you work? 11. Why did you choose to work at this university? If “yes”, how many? 12. Were there Indigenous members on your recruitment panel for your current position? Yes No Don’t know Please explain the reason for your answer. 13. Do you identify as an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander person in official university documentation? Yes No Sometimes 14. Are there any other Indigenous staff in your direct work area? Yes No Don’t know Which, if any, of these have made a difference at your university? 15. Which of the following formal support systems does your university have in place? Indigenous academic network Mentoring for Indigenous academic staff Support for increasing your qualifications Paid study leave for PhD Assisted progression for Indigenous staff Targeted recruitment of Indigenous academic staff

198

Internships for early career Indigenous academics Special paid leave for Indigenous staff for cultural obligations/ceremonial activities Indigenous post-doctoral fellowships Which, if any, of these have made a difference at your university? 16. Which of the following does your university have in place? RAP Indigenous representation on governance committees or boards Appointment of Pro Vice Chancellor Indigenous Education / Leadership or equivalent Indigenous academic employment KPI/targets Indigenous research strategy Cultural responsiveness training for all staff Anti-racism policies Indigenous educational strategy/plans Implementation of Indigenous Higher Education Workforce Strategy Recognition statement / Acknowledgement of Country Elder in Residence Any details you would like to add 17. Are you ever called upon to offer Indigenous advice or representation outside of your direct work duties? Yes No Please give an example 18. How easy is it to balance your family, cultural and workplace expectations? easy not easy Please comment 19. Do you find that you need to spend more time supporting Indigenous students than non-Indigenous staff do? N/A I do not work with students No Yes Please give an example 20. Have you experienced racism/discrimination in your workplace in the past 12 months? Yes No 21. What action, if any, did you take to redress this racism/discrimination? 22. What could your university do better to meet your needs as an Indigenous staff member? 23. What could your university do to employ more Indigenous staff? 24. In what State or Territory is the main campus of your university located? NSW SA

199

NT ACT QLD TAS WA VIC 25. What is your age? 20–29 30–39 40–49 50–59 Over 60 26. What is your gender? Male Female Other / Prefer not to answer Thanks for taking the time to complete this survey

200

STEM

Roundtable/focus group thematic questions 1. What is the (available) evidence telling us?

2. What gaps exist in data and evidence?

3. Where are successful programs currently operating?

4. What are their success factors? Can they be replicated?

5. What are barriers? How can their effects be minimised?

6. What are top priorities for reform‐ short/long term?

7. What are influential policy drivers after 2016?

8. What are connections between the 3 priorities?

9. 2017 strategies: What, how, who, when and how much capital is required?

10. Future monitoring‐ what are indicators of success?

11. How to use project findings to influence reform?

201

8.4 Academic Workforce Executive interview theme guide

INTERVIEW THEME GUIDE We are investigating your University’s success in the employment of Indigenous academic staff. The following questions are guides to prompt discussion, and are about YOUR PERSPECTIVE only.

THEME COMMENTS

Introduction Greetings, explanation of research, questions, gain informed consent, COLLECT signed form

Background Ask about: Employment/candidature status/classification, length of time in position, etc.

Demographics and History

What is your employment background and how did you become an senior academic?

Key Questions 1. How satisfied are you about the number of Indigenous academic staff employed at this university?

2. What is the university doing, if anything, to increase the numbers? Can you give an example of an initiative? How is this funded?

3. How would increasing the number of Indigenous academic staff benefit the university?

4. Whose responsibility in the university is it? To what extent is the employment of Indigenous academics on the Senior Executive agenda?

5. What role do the Indigenous teaching & learning and Indigenous research strategies play in decision making relating to Indigenous employment?

6. What do you think about using ‘special measures’ to increase the number of Indigenous academics? (e.g. Indigenous nominated positions, positive discrimination).

7. What would “a university of choice” for Indigenous academics look like?

8. What do you know about the work being done by the Indigenous academics at this university?

9. What cultural competency is being offered at your university? What have you personally completed, at the university or elsewhere?

Wrap-up Would you like to add anything else? Do you have any questions? Thank you and goodbye.

202

8.5 Academic Workforce Indigenous staff interview theme guide

INTERVIEW THEME GUIDE (INDIGENOUS STAFF) We are investigating your University’s success in the employment of Indigenous academic staff. The following questions are guides to prompt discussion, and are about YOUR PERSPECTIVE only.

THEME COMMENTS

Introduction Greetings, explanation of research, questions, gain informed consent, COLLECT signed form.

Background

Ask about: age, employment/candidature status/classification, highest qualification, discipline, length of time in position, etc.

Demographics and History

What is your employment background and how did you become an academic/HDR student?

Identity

Ask about identity and disclosure in the workplace.

Current Employment

1. What has your university done to increase the number of Indigenous staff in academic roles?

2. How did/does your Uni go about reaching numbers of Indigenous academic staff? (e.g. they have an IEP, they actively recruit, they have identified positions, a mentor program, etc.)

3. How did/does your university finance the increase in numbers of Indigenous academic staff?

4. Do you know how many Indigenous academics are at your university? 5. Have you, or are you aware of Indigenous staff experiencing racism

or discrimination in employment? 6. Do you believe that you take on responsibility for Aboriginal and

Torres Strait Islander matters outside your job description and duties?

7. Do you believe that older women working in Universities who have children/dependents have enough support for these family responsibilities?

8. Have you identified any other barriers to increasing Indigenous academic employment in Australian Universities?

9. Do you have any suggestions for overcoming barriers to increasing Indigenous higher education workforce in Australia?

Wrap-up

Would you like to add anything else? Do you have any questions? Thank you and goodbye.

203

8.6 Academic Workforce Australian academic classification definitions Academic Classification Definitions as per (Commonwealth Government, 2002) the Higher Education Academic Salaries Award 2002 SCHEDULE B—MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR ACADEMIC LEVELS (MSAL)

Teaching and research academic staff Level A A Level A academic will work with the support and guidance from more senior academic staff and is expected to develop his or her expertise in teaching and research with an increasing degree of autonomy. A Level A academic will normally have completed four years of tertiary study or equivalent qualifications and experience and may be required to hold a relevant higher degree. A Level A academic will normally contribute to teaching at the institution, at a level appropriate to the skills and experience of the staff member, engage in scholarly, research and/or professional activities appropriate to his or her profession or discipline, and undertake administration primarily relating to his or her activities at the institution. The contribution to teaching of Level A academics will be primarily at undergraduate and graduate diploma level.

Level B A Level B academic will undertake independent teaching and research in his or her discipline or related area. In research and/or scholarship and/or teaching a Level B academic will make an independent contribution through professional practice and expertise and coordinate and/or lead the activities of other staff, as appropriate to the discipline. A Level B academic will normally contribute to teaching at undergraduate, honours and postgraduate level, engage in independent scholarship and/or research and/or professional activities appropriate to his or her profession or discipline. He or she will normally undertake administration primarily relating to his or her activities at the institution and may be required to perform the full academic responsibilities of and related administration for the coordination of an award program of the institution.

Level C A Level C academic will make a significant contribution to the discipline at the national level. In research and/or scholarship and/or teaching he or she will make original contributions, which expand knowledge or practice in his or her discipline. A Level C academic will normally make a significant contribution to research and/or scholarship and/or teaching and administration activities of an organisational unit or an interdisciplinary area at undergraduate, honours and postgraduate level. He or she will normally play a major role or provide a significant degree of leadership in scholarly, research and/or professional activities relevant to the profession, discipline and/or community and may be required to perform the full academic responsibilities of and related administration for the coordination of a large award program or a number of smaller award programs of the institution.

Level D A Level D academic will normally make an outstanding contribution to the research and/or scholarship and/or teaching and administration activities of an organisational unit, including a large organisational unit, or interdisciplinary area. A Level D academic will make an outstanding contribution to the governance and collegial life inside and outside of the institution and will have attained recognition at a national or international level in his or her discipline. He or she will make original and innovative contributions to the advancement of scholarship, research and teaching in his or her discipline. Level E A Level E academic will provide leadership and foster excellence in research, teaching and policy development in the academic discipline within the institution and within the community, professional, commercial or industrial sectors. A Level E academic will have attained recognition as an eminent authority in his or her discipline, will have achieved distinction at the national level and may be required to have achieved distinction at the international level. A Level E academic will make original, innovative and distinguished contributions to scholarship, researching and teaching in his or her discipline. He or she will make a commensurate contribution to the work of the institution.

204

Research academic staff (inclusive of creative disciplines)

Level A A Level A research academic will typically conduct research/scholarly activities under limited supervision either independently or as a member of a team and will normally hold a relevant higher degree. A Level A research academic will normally work under the supervision of academic staff at Level B or above, with an increasing degree of autonomy as the research academic gains skills and experience. A Level A research academic may undertake limited teaching, may supervise at undergraduate levels and may publish the results of the research conducted as sole author or in collaboration. He or she will undertake administration primarily relating to his or her activities at the institution.

Level B A Level B research academic will normally have experience in research or scholarly activities, which have resulted in publications in refereed journals or other demonstrated scholarly activities. A Level B research academic will carry out independent and/or team research. A Level B research academic may supervise postgraduate research students or projects and be involved in research training.

Level C A Level C research academic will make independent and original contributions to research, which have a significant impact on his or her field of expertise. The work of the research academic will be acknowledged at a national level as being influential in expanding the knowledge of his or her discipline. This standing will normally be demonstrated by a strong record of published work or other demonstrated scholarly activities. A Level C research academic will provide leadership in research, including research training and supervision.

Level D A Level D research academic will make major original and innovative contributions to his or her field of study or research, which are recognised as outstanding nationally or internationally. A Level D research academic will play an outstanding role within his or her institution, discipline and/or profession in fostering the research activities of others and in research training.

Level E A Level E research academic will typically have achieved international recognition through original, innovative and distinguished contributions to his or her field of research, which is demonstrated by sustained and distinguished performance. A Level E research academic will provide leadership in his or her field of research, within his or her institution, discipline and/or profession and within the scholarly and/or general community. He or she will foster excellence in research, research policy and research training

205

8.7 Accord on Indigenous Education (2010)

http://www.csse-scee.ca/docs/acde/acde_accord_indigenousresearch_en.pdf

206

8.8 Concept Paper: Joint Departmental Advisory Council

CONCEPT PAPER

TOWARDS A NATIONAL JOINT DEPARTMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL

ON INDIGENOUS HIGHER EDUCATION National Indigenous Higher Education Advisory Council (NIHEAC)

1. Terms of Reference

The Taskforce: • Provides advice on the prioritisation and subsequent implementation of the Behrendt

Report recommendations • reports to both the Minister for Education and Training and the Minister for Indigenous

Affairs through the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet • provides high level advice on policy matters concerned with Indigenous higher

education including but not limited to learning and teaching, research, community engagement, workforce, governance, and administration.

• Monitors statistical trends relating to sector performance in student metrics (student enrolment, retention and completion in both undergraduate and post graduate cohorts) and provides associated commentary and analysis against current policy, services and programs in relation to access and participation

• Provides advice on overcoming contemporary challenges by identifying new policy initiatives that provide innovative and effective solutions to achieving outcomes

• Represents an intersecting and coordinating mechanism in terms of the various inter-related policies (Behrendt, UA, government), providing strategic direction and advice on national policy assessment, review and development.

• Responds to requests for specific matters as referred by respective Ministers 2. Rationale

• There is no similar organised national forum in place since the abolition of IHEAC; • There is subsequently no formal opportunity out for all relevant parties to regularly

engage with each other • As a consequence, there is not a collegial approach to collectively addressing

challenges and identifying solutions • There is a separation between the Indigenous academy, the sector peak body and

government in relation to their responsibilities and respective contributions to Indigenous higher education

• The NIHEAC establishes a national platform for a joined-up approach between the major stakeholders

• Current communication protocols and direct engagement arrangements between NATSIHEC and government are limited and hoc, dependant on key senior departmental staff availability and attendance at one on one meetings with the Chair or at NATSIHEC meetings. Even with the latter, there is minimal time for discussion on strategic matters. They also occur in what could be perceived as a potentially adversarial atmosphere. Government Indigenous higher education policy is based on a reactive rather than proactive approach.

207

3. Membership • DET senior executive service representative as co-Chair • PMC SES representative as ex officio • NATSIHEC Chairperson as co-Chair • NATSIHEC Executive x 4 • Universities Australia (VC Chair of Indigenous sub-committee) • Possibly representatives from university groupings such as IRU, G8, RUN etc • Representative from PM&C Indigenous Advisory Council • Possibly NTEU

4. Meetings • Meets quarterly • Mainly Canberra • DET/PMC provides secretariat support • 1–2 day meetings • standing agenda items • use of working groups and sub-committees • Provision of an adequate working budget for travel, fees, and commissioning of special

projects 5. Governance

• Chaired by DET Departmental Secretary/SES officer • Minutes and post-meeting briefings to Ministers • NATISHEC Chairperson as CO-Chair • develops a strategic plan for 3-year period • Annual reports to both Ministers • Reports to PM&C Indigenous Advisory committee

208

9 References

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). (2013). 3238.0.55.001- Estimates of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, June 2011. Retrieved February 2, 2017, from http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/ abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/3238.0.55.001June%202011? OpenDocument

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). (2014). 3238.0 — Estimates and Projections, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, 2001 to 2026. Retrieved February 1, 2017, from http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Products/C19A0C6E4794A3FACA257CC9001 43A3D?opendocument#

Australian Council For Educational Research (ACER). (2011). Literature review relating to the current context and discourse of Indigenous tertiary education in Australia. Melbourne, Australia: Author. Retrieved from http://research.acer.edu.au/Indigenous_education/31/

Ahmed, S. (2012). On being included: Racism and diversity in institutional life. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Andersen, C., Bunda, T., & Walter, M. (2008). Indigenous higher education: The role of universities in releasing the potential. The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 37(1), 1–8.

Asmar, C., Mercier, O. R., & Page, S. (2009). ‘You do it from your core’: Priorities, perceptions and practices of research among Indigenous academics in Australian and New Zealand Universities. In A. Brew (Ed.), Academic research and researchers (pp. 146–161). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

Asmar, C. & Page, S. (2009). Sources of satisfaction and stress among Indigenous academic teachers: findings from a national Australian study. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 29(3), 387–401. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188790903097505

Asmar, C., Page, S. & Radloff, A. (2011). Dispelling myths: Indigenous students’ engagement with university. Retrieved from http://research.acer.edu.au/ausse/2/

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Higher Education Aboriginal Corporation (ATSIHEAC). (2015). Growing the Indigenous academic workforce: ATSIHEAC recommendations to the government. Retrieved from https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/atsiheac_academic_workforce_paper.pdf

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Higher Education Aboriginal Corporation (ATSIHEAC). (n.d.(a)). ATSIHEAC recommendations: Accelerating the pace of change in Indigenous higher education. Retrieved from https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/atsiheac_recommendations_to_government.pdf

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Higher Education Aboriginal Corporation (ATSIHEAC). (n.d.(b)). Implementing a whole-of-university approach to improving Indigenous access and achievement. Retrieved from https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/atsiheac_whole_of_university_paper.pdf

209

Australian Government. (2017). Pathways to postgraduate study for Indigenous Australian Students. Retrieved February 25, 2017, from http://www.Indigenousresearchpathways.edu.au/

Australian Human Rights Commission. (n.d.). UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Retrieved from https://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/un-declaration-rights-indigenous-peoples-1

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2015a). Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Performance Framework 2014 report Northern Territory. Canberra, Australia: Author. Retrieved January 3, 2017, from http://www.aihw.gov.au/publicationdetail/?id=60129553241

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2015b). The health and welfare of Australia’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, 2015. Canberra, Australia: Author. Retrieved from http://www.aihw.gov.au/publicationdetail/?id=60129550168

Ball, R. (2015). STEM the gap: Science belongs to us mob too. Australian Quarterly, 86, 13–19

Barney, K. (2013). ‘Taking your mob with you’: Giving voice to the experiences of Indigenous Australian postgraduate students. Higher Education Research & Development, 32(4), 515–528. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2012.696186

Barney, K. (2016). Pathways to postgraduate study for Indigenous Australian students: Enhancing the transition to higher degrees by research. Canberra, Australia: Department of Education and Training.

Batchelor Institute. (2015). Strategic Plan 2015–2020. Retrieved from https://www.batchelor.edu.au/biite/wp-content/uploads/2015-BIITE-Strategic-Plan-v4.1-WEB.pdf

Batchelor Institute. (2016). Research Plan 2016–2020. Retrieved from https://www.batchelor.edu.au/biite/wp-content/uploads/2016-BIITE-Research-Plan-v4.2-WEB.pdf

Batchelor Institute. (2017a). Home page. Retrieved from https://www.batchelor.edu.au/ Batchelor Institute. (2017b). Teaching and Learning Plan. Retrieved from

https://www.batchelor.edu.au/biite/wp-content/uploads/TL-plan-2017-2021-v3-web.pdf Behrendt, L., Larkin, S., Griew, R., & Kelly, P. (2012). Review of higher education access and

outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people final report. Canberra, Australia: Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education.

Bin-Sallik, M. (2003). Cultural safety: Lets name it!. The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 32, 21–28.

Bodkin-Andrews, G., & Carlson, B. (2013). Racism, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander identities, and higher education: Reviewing the burden of epistemological and other racisms. Diversity in Higher Education, 14, 29–54.

Bodkin-Andrews, G., & Carlson, B. (2016). The legacy of racism and Indigenous Australian identity within education. Race Ethnicity and Education, 19(4), 784–807. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2014.969224

Bourke, E., Farrow, R., McConnochie, K., & Tucker, A. (1991). Career development in Aboriginal higher education. Canberra, Australia: Commonwealth of Australia.

Bradley, D., Noonan, P., Nugent, H., & Scales, B. (2008). Review of Australian higher education final report. December 2008. Canberra, Australia: Commonwealth of Australia.

210

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Bunda, T., Zipin, L., & Brennan, M. (2012). Negotiating university ‘equity’ from Indigenous standpoints: a shaky bridge. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 16(9), 941–957. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2010.523907

Carbado, D., & Gulati, M. (2013), On being White: Rethinking race in ‘post racial’ America, New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Clinton, T. (2016). Indigenous leadership and engagement gets another boost at UTS. Keeping our Mob Connected. Retrieved from https://www.firstnationstelegraph.com/educationindigenous-leadership-and-enga?lightbox=image_fug

Connell, R. (2007). Southern theory: The global dynamics of knowledge in social science. Cambridge, UK: Polity.

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Department of Employment, Education and Training (DEET). (1989). National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Policy. Canberra, Australia: Author.

Deloitte Access Economics. (2015). The importance of universities to Australia’s prosperity. A report prepared for Universities Australia. Canberra, Australia: Universities Australia.

Department of Education and Training (DET). (2016a). Discussion paper: Indigenous higher education staff data. Unpublished discussion paper.

Department of Education and Training (DET). (2016b). Research Training Scheme. Canberra, Australia: Australian Government. Retrieved February 25, 2017, from https://www.education.gov.au/research-training-scheme

Department of Education and Training (DET). (2016c, June 15). Australian Postgraduate Awards, Canberra, Australia: Australian Government. Retrieved February 24, 2017, from https://www.education.gov.au/australian-postgraduate-awards

Department of Education and Training (DET). (2017). HEIMS reporting checklist — HEIMSHELP. Retrieved February 10, 2017, from http://heimshelp.education.gov.au/sites/heimshelp/resources/pages/reportingchecklist#nav

Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education (DIISRTE). (2012). Higher Education Support Act 2003 — Other grants guidelines (Education) 201 D2. Retrieved February 21, 2017, from http://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2012L00281/Html/Text

Department of Innovation Industry, Science and Research. (2011). Research skills for an innovative future: A research workforce strategy to cover the decade to 2020 and beyond. Canberra, Australia: Commonwealth of Australia.

Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. (2016a). Higher education. Retrieved March 1, 2017, from https://www.dpmc.gov.au/Indigenous-affairs/education/highereducation

Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. (2016b). Indigenous Support Programme. Retrieved June 27, 2016, from https://www.dpmc.gov.au/Indigenousaffairs/education/Indigenous-support-programme

Edwards, D., & McMillan, J. (2015). Completing university in a growing sector: Is equity an issue? Melbourne, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research. Retrieved from http://research.acer.edu.au/higher_education/43/

211

Fredericks, B. (2009). Getting a job: Aboriginal women’s issues and experiences in the health sector. International Journal of Critical Indigenous Studies, 2. Retrieved February 2, 2017, from http://www.isrn.qut.edu.au/pdf/ijcis/v2n1_2009/Final_Fredericks.pdf

Gillborn, D. (2008). Racism and education: Coincidence or conspiracy? New York, NY: Routledge.

Gray, M., Hunter, B., & Lohoar, S. (2012). Increasing Indigenous employment rates. Closing the Gap Clearinghouse. Retrieved February 6, 2017, from https://203.2.121.30/uploadedFiles/ClosingTheGap/Content/Publications/2012/ctg-ip03.rtf

Green, J., Willis, K., Hughes, E., Small, R., Welch, N., & Daly, J. (2007). Generating best evidence from qualitative research: The role of data analysis. Australia and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 31, 545–50. doi:doi:10.1111/j.1753-6405.2007.00141.x.

Group of Eight Australia. (2017). About. Retrieved February 23, 2017, from https://go8.edu.au/page/about

Gusa, D. (2010). White institutional presence: The impact of Whiteness on campus climate, Harvard Education Review, 80(4), 464–490.

Gunstone, A. (2008). Australian university approaches to Indigenous policy. Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 37(Suppl.1), 103–108.

Gunstone, A. (2013). Indigenous leadership and governance in Australian universities. International Journal of Critical Indigenous Studies, 6(1), 1–11.

Harrison, N., Trudgett, M., & Page, S. (2015). The dissertation examination: Identifying critical factors in the success of Indigenous Australian doctoral students. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42, 115–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1085488

Holt, L., & Morgan, R. (2016). Empowering Aboriginal aspirations in Australian university structures and systems. In M. Davis & A. Goody (Eds.), Research and Development in higher education: The shape of higher education (vol. 39, pp. 96–105). Fremantle, Australia: Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia.

Hughes, P., & Wilmot, E. (1982). A thousand Aboriginal teachers by 1990. In J. Sherwood (Ed.), Aboriginal education: Issues and innovations (pp. 45-49). Perth, Australia: Creative Research.

Indigenous Higher Education Advisory Council (IHEAC). (2011). National Indigenous higher education workforce strategy. Canberra, Australia: Universities Australia & Indigenous Higher Education Advisory Council.

James Cook University. (2015). Reconciliation Action Plan 2015–2017. Retrieved from https://www.jcu.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/124579/JCU-Reconciliation-Plan-2015-2017.pdf

James Cook University. (2017). Responsibilities for academic quality and governance. Retrieved from https://www.jcu.edu.au/policy/learning-and-teaching/charter-of-responsibilities-for-academic-quality-learning-and-teaching#10

James, R., & Devlin, M. (2016). Improving Indigenous outcomes and enhancing Indigenous culture and knowledge in Australian higher education. Canberra, Australia: Department of Education, Science and Training.

Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Kuokkanen, R. (2007). Reshaping the university: Responsibility, Indigenous epistemes, and

the logic of the gift. Vancouver, Canada: UBC Press.

212

Larkin, S. (2015). Critical race theory and Indigenous higher education: Towards a remaking of the university. In H. Huiser, R. Ober, S. O’Sullivan, E. McRae-Williams, & R. Elvin (Eds.), Finding common ground: Narratives, provocations and reflections from the 40 year celebration of Batchelor Institute. Batchelor, Australia: Batchelor Press.

Laycock, A., Walker, D., Harrison, N., & Brands, J. (2011). Researching Indigenous health: A practical guide for researchers. Melbourne, Australia: The Lowitja Institute.

Langton, M., & Ma Rhea, Z. (2009). Indigenous education and the ladder to prosperity. In H. Sykes (Ed.), Perspectives (pp. 95–119). Retrieved from http://www.futureleaders.com.au/book_chapters/pdf/Perspectives/Langton_Ma_Rhea.pdf

Martin, K. L., & Mirraboopa, B. (2003). Ways of knowing, being and doing: A theoretical framework and methods for indigenous and indigenist re-search. Journal of Australian Studies, 27, 203–214.

Moreton-Robinson, A. (2000a). Duggaibah, or ‘place of whiteness’: Australian feminist and race. In J. Docker & G. Fischer (Eds.), Race, colour and identity in Australia and New Zealand (pp. 240–255). Sydney, Australia: University of New South Wales Press.

Moreton-Robinson, A. (2000b). Troubling business: Difference and whiteness within feminism. Australian Feminist Studies, 15(33), 343-352.

Moreton-Robinson, A. (Ed.). (2005). Whitening race: Essays in social and cultural criticism Canberra, Australia: Aboriginal Studies Press.

Moreton-Robinson, A. (2011) The white man’s burden: Patriarchal white epistemic violence and Aboriginal women's knowledges within the academy. Australian Feminist Studies, 26(70), 413–431.

Moreton-Robinson, A., Singh, D., & Kimber, M. (2011). On stony ground: Governance and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Participation in Australian Universities. Retrieved March 2, 2017, from http://www.isrn.qut.edu.au/research/documents/On_Stony_Ground_MoretonRobinson_2 011Uni_Governance.pdf

National Indigenous Unit of the National Tertiary Education Union. (2011). I’m not a racist, but ... Report on cultural respect, racial discrimination, lateral violence and related policy at Australia’s universities. Melbourne, Australia: National Tertiary Education Union.

National Indigenous Unit of the National Tertiary Education Union. (2013). NTEU Indigenous Member Survey: ‘Whole-of-University’ approach to Indigenous student support. Retrieved August 21, 2017, from http://www.nteu.org.au/atsi

National Medical and Health Research Council. (2003). Values and ethics — Guidelines for ethical conduct in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health research. Canberra, Australia: Commonwealth of Australia. Retrieved January 16, 2017, from http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/synopses/e52syn.htm

National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Higher Education Consortium (NATSIHEC) Aboriginal Corporation (AC). (2016). Accelerating Indigenous higher education. Retrieved from http://natsihec.edu.au/projects/aihe/

National Indigenous Research and Knowledges Network (NIRAKN). (2017). Research pathways. Retrieved February 21, 2017, from http://www.nirakn.edu.au/research-pathways/

Page, S., & Asmar, C. (2008). Beneath the teaching iceberg: Exposing the hidden support dimensions of Indigenous academic work. The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 37(S1), 109–117.

213

Paige, K., Hattam, R., Rigney, L.-I., Osborne, S., & Morrison, A. (2016). Strengthening Indigenous participation and practice in STEM: University initiatives for equity and excellence. Adelaide, Australia: University of South Australia.

Pechenkina, E., Kowal, E., & Paradies, Y. (2011). Indigenous Australian Students’ participation rates in higher education: Exploring the role of universities. The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 40, 59–68. https://doi.org/10.1375/ajie.40.59

Rigney, L.-I. (2011). Indigenous higher education reform and Indigenous knowledges. The University of Adelaide. Retrieved February 13, 2017, from http://search.informit.com.au.ezproxy.cdu.edu.au/browsePublication;py=2013;res=IELIN D;issn=0729-4352;iss=2

Robinson, B., (2017). Universities unveil Indigenous participation targets. Retrieved 12 April 2017 from https://www.universitiesaustralia.edu.au/Media-andEvents/media-releases/Universities-unveil-indigenous-participation-targets#

Schofield, T., O’Brien, R., & Gilroy, J. (2013). Indigenous higher education: Overcoming barriers to participation in research higher degree programs. Retrieved 2 February 2017 from http://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=751433020449904;res=IELAPA

Tertiary Education Union (TEU; Te Hautu Kahurangi o Aotearoa). (2016). Project Whitestreaming: A report on the generalising of Maori staff positions in the tertiary education sector. Retrieved 21 August 2017 from http://teu.ac.nz/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/20160314-Project-Whitestreaming-Report-FINAL.pdf

Te Tauhi O Ngā Wānanga. (2014). Wananga, Ringahora, The Economic Contribution of the Wananga Sector. Retrieved 16 March 2017 from https://tinyurl.com/z5lunf7

Te Whare Wānanga o Awanuiārangi. (2016). Te Whare Wananga o Awanuiarangi Prospectus 2016. Retrieved 16 March 2017 from https://tinyurl.com/zk7yf4m

Te Whare Wānanga o Awanuiārangi. (n.d.). Awanuiarangi Council. Retrieved 14 February 2017 from http://www.wananga.ac.nz/about/council

Trudgett, M. (2009). Build it and they will come: Building the capacity of Indigenous units in universities to provide better support for indigenous australian postgraduate students. The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 38(1), 9–18. https://doi.org/10.1375/S1326011100000545

Trudgett, M. (2010). Supporting the learning needs of Indigenous Australians in higher education: How can they be best achieved? International Journal of Learning, 17(3), 351–361.

Trudgett, M. (2011). Western places, academic spaces and Indigenous faces: Supervising Indigenous Australian postgraduate students. Teaching in Higher Education, 16(4), 389–399. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2011.560376

Trudgett, M. (2013). Stop, collaborate and listen: A guide to seeding success for Indigenous higher degree research students. Diversity in Higher Education, 14, 137–155.

Trudgett, M. (2014). Supervision provided to Indigenous Australian doctoral students: A Black and White issue. Higher Education Research & Development, 33(5), 1035–1048. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2014.890576

Trudgett, M., Page, S., & Harrison, N. (2016). Brilliant minds: A snapshot of successful Indigenous Australian doctoral students. The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 45(1), 70–79. https://doi.org/10.1017/jie.2016.8

Universities Australia. (2011). National best practice framework for Indigenous cultural competency in Australian universities. Canberra, Australia: Author.

214

Universities Australia. (2017). Indigenous Strategy 2017–2020. Canberra, Australia: Author. University of Newcastle. (2016). NeW Futures Strategic Plan 2016–2025. Retrieved from

https://www.newcastle.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/355979/Delivering-on-our-Strategy.pdf

University of Newcastle. (2017). A passion for excellence and discovery. Retrieved from https://www.newcastle.edu.au/about-uon/our-university/vision-and-strategic-direction/new-futures-strategic-plan-2016-2025/a-passion-for-excellence-and-discovery

University of New South Wales (UNSW). (2015). Indigenous Education Statement. Retrieved from http://www.nuragili.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/Signed%20Nura%20Gil%202015%20IES.pdf

University of New South Wales (UNSW). (2017). Nura Gili — Indigenous Programs Unit. Retrieved from http://www.nuragili.unsw.edu.au/about-us

University of Saskatchewan, (1998). A framework for planning at the University of Saskatchewan. Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/jzf5mdr

Wilson, K., & Wilks, J. (2015). Australian Indigenous higher education: Politics, policy and representation. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 37(6), 659–672.

World Indigenous Nations Higher Education Consortium (WINHEC). (2010). WINHEC accreditation handbook (3rd ed.). Retrieved from http://winhec.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/WINHEC-Accredit_Handbook_Higher-Ed_3rd-Ed.pdf

215

10 PROJECT STAKEHOLDERS

The project forum has engaged with the following stakeholders.

STAKEHOLDER WoU WF STEM

Department of Education and Training (sponsor and representatives)

NATSIHEC (AC) members

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander elders

Indigenous higher education staff, academic and professional (representative sample of roles/levels)

Indigenous higher education students (representative sample)

Department of Education and Training (data requirements)

Universities Australia

Education Council (AESOC, higher education representative)

University workforce / human resources professionals

University business intelligence specialist (data analytics)

International Indigenous scholars

National Tertiary Education Union

Australian Council of Deans of Business

Australian Council of Deans of Science

Australian Council of Deans of Engineering

Australian Council of Deans of Education

National Centre for Student Equity in Higher Education

Indigenous Business Australia

Office of the Chief Scientist / CSIRO

Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (IAS)

Prime Minister’s Indigenous Advisory Council nominee

State and Territory Indigenous Education Consultative Bodies

Australian Association of Mathematics / Science Teachers

Industry representatives, e.g. advocacy bodies, tech organisations (Google Indigenous projects), Ernst & Young Indigenous Sector Practice

Subject matter experts