This paper addresses understandings and theorising of identity in cyberspace. In particular, it focuses on the construction, maintenance and performance of urban Indigenous identities on the contemporary internet social space, Facebook.

It is well recognised that research with Aboriginal communities needs to be ethical, meaningful and useful, in a way that is defined by communities themselves. This article provides an example of how reflexivity, from a number of positions and paradigms, can be used to undertake such research. I used a reflexive journal to document and critically assess the challenges and discomfort I experienced while undertaking research with Aboriginal communities, including uncertainty and feeling in the minority. Reflexivity allowed me to experience a number of key learnings, including: the importance of relationships; the importance of time, transparency and trust in relationships; reciprocity; the importance of listening; a partnership approach; and the impact of Aboriginal culture and past experience. The way in which I redefined my success as a researcher is also explored. In using reflexivity I reached new levels of understanding about myself, which enabled me to alter my practice and therefore change the experiences of those I was working with, ideally towards experiences that were perceived as culturally safe. Using reflexivity also enabled me to identify my position as a White researcher and centralise the needs and perspectives of Aboriginal people in my research. The purpose of this article is to present my own journey, as well as start a dialogue and provide a framework for how others might use reflexivity to become a culturally safe health professional or researcher and centralise the needs and perspectives of Aboriginal people in research and practice.

When people talk about education of remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students, the language used is often replete with messages of failure and deficit, of disparity and problems. This language is reflected in statistics that on the surface seem unambiguous in their demonstration of poor outcomes for remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students. A range of data support this view, including the National Action Plan—Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) achievement data, school attendance data, Australian Bureau of Statistics Census data and other compilations such as the Productivity Commission's biennial Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage report. These data, briefly summarised in this article, paint a bleak picture of the state of education in remote Australia and are at least in part responsible for a number of government initiatives (state, territory and Commonwealth) designed to ‘close the gap’. For all the programs, policies and initiatives designed to address disadvantage, the results seem to suggest that the progress, as measured in the data, is too slow to make any significant difference to the apparent difference between remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander schools and those in the broader community. We are left with a discourse that is replete with illustrations of poor outcomes and failures and does little to acknowledge the richness, diversity and achievement of those living in remote Australia. The purpose of this article is to challenge the ideas of ‘disadvantage’ and ‘advantage’ as they are constructed in policy and consequently reported in data. It proposes alternative ways of thinking about remote educational disadvantage, based on a reading of relevant literature and the early observations of the Cooperative Research Centre for Remote Economic Participation's Remote Education Systems project. It is a formative work, designed to promote and frame a deeper discussion with remote education stakeholders. It asks how relative advantage might be defined if the ontologies, axiologies, epistemologies and cosmologies of remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families were more fully taken into account in the education system's discourse within/of remote schooling. Based on what we have termed ‘red dirt thinking’ it goes on to ask if and what alternative measures of success could be applied in remote contexts where ways of knowing, being, doing, believing and valuing often differ considerably from what the educational system imposes.

The rates of higher education access, participation and completion for Indigenous students are much lower than those for non-Indigenous students in Australia. This paper argues for a research-led focus on what works in terms of Indigenous student equity in higher education. Undertaking independent evaluation of existing initiatives and leveraging the experience of hundreds of successful Indigenous graduates, it may be possible to articulate some of the ways in which success has been, and can be, achieved, despite the challenges that face Indigenous students. In other words, it may be possible to articulate some aspects of what works for some Indigenous people in relation to higher education. A focus on articulating strategies that Indigenous individuals and communities might adopt in relation to higher education should be developed alongside the management of systemic problems through a range of means. The “success-focused” approach would provide one of a suite of approaches that may be helpful in addressing Indigenous student equity.

Indigenous participation rates in higher education are significantly lower than the rates reported for non-Indigenous people in Australia – with the greatest disparity evident in the area of postgraduate studies. This problem needs to be addressed by providing culturally appropriate support mechanisms to Indigenous postgraduate students. This article draws on the findings of a doctoral thesis in which the support provided to Indigenous postgraduate students in Australia was investigated (Trudgett, 2008). Several issues and problems emerged from the data surrounding the support, or lack thereof, provided to this cohort by the Indigenous Units or centres in universities today. Nine recommendations for consideration and implementation by the Indigenous Units within Australian universities are provided. These recommendations have the potential to reduce this disparity by helping to close the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous participation and, most importantly, completion rates in postgraduate studies.

This article explores an integrative framework for a motivational psychology for the education of Indigenous students. Drawing on and adapting Graham’s (1994) taxonomy for motivational psychology, it is suggested that enhancing the educational outcomes of Indigenous students involves addressing factors relevant to the self (positive identity, academic self-concept, and academic resilience), cognitive and affective factors (that facilitate motivation, engagement, achievement, and enjoyment of school), socialisation and child-rearing antecedents (the role of the family), failure dynamics (fear of failure and shame), the role of significant others and their contexts (peers, community, teachers, schools, and the scope for pastoral pedagogy), and the issue of young people’s pathways and transitions. Values, attitudes, and approaches to school and schoolwork that are common across Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal students and the role of positive psychology are also explored as a means of contributing to a better general understanding of human behaviour.

Indigenous students everywhere are known to require particular types and levels of support as they enter, and continue their studies within universities. Such support is often provided by designated support workers employed for that purpose. Our study of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander academic staff around Australia, however, found that teaching staff also spend considerable time and effort supporting their students' learning experiences both in and out of the classroom. Our findings suggest that this issue is multi-dimensional and complex. Outwardly, visible dimensions of Indigenous academic support roles, we found, are often just the tip of an iceberg. We argue that, while students' need for support is increasingly well documented, the informal support roles played by the few Indigenous academics have been under-reported and may not be visible, or recognised. Going further, we propose a new conceptual framework for analysing the unique context in which Indigenous academic work occurs.

This is a reflective paper that explores Martin Nakata's work as a basis for understanding the possibilities and restrictions of non-Indigenous academics working in Indigenous studies. The paper engages with Nakata's work at the level of praxis. It contends that Nakata's work provides non-Indigenous teachers of Indigenous studies a framework for understanding their role, their potential, and limitations within the power relations that comprise the “cultural interface”. The paper also engages with Nakata's approach to Indigenous research through his “Indigenous standpoint theory”. This work emerges from the experiential and conceptual, and from a commitment to teaching and learning in Indigenous studies. It is a reflection of how non-Indigenous academics working in Indigenous studies can contribute to the development and application of the discipline.

This paper critically examines some elements of the nation’s policy on Indigenous education priorities (Department of Employment, Education and Training, 1989) and how they have framed our approaches to formal schooling issues over the past decade. I draw on some of the ‘cultural’ tensions in the policy position to illustrate the dilemma they produce at the level of practice. I then reflect on the implications of these tensions for literacy teaching as well as ways that they can be addressed. The conclusion brings these reflections back to a more theoretical level to consider how shifts at the level of theory might re-frame how we might best view the literacy issues and priorities in Indigenous contexts.

Drawing on demographic data collected from interviews with 50 Indigenous Australians with a doctoral qualification and 33 of their supervisors, this paper provides the first detailed picture of Indigenous doctoral education in Australia, with the focus on study modes, age of candidates, completion times and employment. It also analyses data produced through interviews with supervisors including age, employment levels and academic background. The study confronts a number of common perceptions in the higher education sector, to find that many Indigenous Australians are awarded their doctoral qualification in the middle stages of their career. This particular cohort is more likely to be studying in the arts and humanities, employed in higher education and enrolled on a full-time basis. This Australian Research Council (ARC) funded research provides new and important data to inform government policy, and to allow universities to implement strategies and recommendations arising from the Behrendt Report of 2012.

This study explored the experiences of 32 male Aboriginal students from regional and remote towns and communities while they attended a metropolitan boarding school away from home and family in Perth, Western Australia. Using narrative interviews it specifically investigated how these Aboriginal students construct meaning around the transition experience to boarding school. Three major themes emerged from the data: (1) Decision Making and the subthemes of Choice-less Choice and Opportunity; (2) Organisational Climate and the subthemes of School Environment and Belonging, Culture Shock, Homesickness, Identity, Code Switching, Teachers, Academic Expectations, Residential Life, and Friendships and Peer Relations; and (3) Relational Change and the subthemes of Family Dynamics, Friendships at Home, and Cultural Connectedness. This study emphasises the importance of conceptualising and understanding social phenomena from the perspective of those who actually undertake the experience, and the findings are discussed in terms of policy and practice relevant to Australian boarding schools.

In Australia, Indigenising the curriculum is increasingly acknowledged as a possible avenue for addressing Indigenous under-representation in tertiary science education in a culturally appropriate and relevant manner. While no Australian university has implemented such a program, there is much to be learnt about the inherent complexities of Indigenising curriculum before it is pursued. In Canada, however, innovative university programs have been implemented that imbed Indigenous knowledge into the curriculum. This paper details key findings from research that sought to learn from Canadian practices in Indigenising tertiary science curriculum, by exploring the practices and experiences of two Canadian programs: Trent University's Indigenous Environmental Studies program, and Cape Breton University's Integrative Science program.

This paper describes a “scaffolding” methodology for teaching academic literacy that has achieved outstanding success with Indigenous adults returning to formal study at the Koori Centre, University of Sydney. The paper begins by outlining the background to the Koori Centre program and the literacy needs of Indigenous students. We then describe the methodology, including the approach to teaching academic reading, making notes from reading, and writing new texts using these notes. These are key skills required for academic study, which Koori Centre students need to learn. The paper concludes by describing some of the results for students’ literacy development and changing approaches to teaching in the Koori Centre.

The concept of Indigenous knowledge itself has life; it is ‘living’ knowledge. This Indigenous knowledge or ‘living’ knowledge is not written, but rather transmitted orally by the gatekeepers and holders of knowledge, especially from our Elders ‘Athe’ (grandfather), ’Aka’ (grandmother), our parents ‘Baba’ (father), and ‘Ama’ (mother), as well as our (uncles) ‘Awahdeh’ and our (aunties) ‘Ama’. These holders of knowledge play a major part in our individual lives as they mould or shape our minds, values, ethics, morals and opinions about society today and its influences on us as individuals. The Elders also influence where we place ourselves in our community and in the wider community. This transmission of Indigenous knowledge is ‘passed on’ through traditional language, traditional lores, understandings of totems, kinship ties, performance of dances, songs, stories, myths, legends, rituals, ceremonies and activities or events which influence our lives daily.

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

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

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

As we move forward with the shaping of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander research agendas and directions in Australia we are confronted with many issues basic to the beginning of any discipline: the problem of small numbers; the complexity and enormity of the problems; the diversity in the intellectual field; the limited albeit developing expertise; the limited opportunities for intellectual dialogue; and, of course, the absence of resources to build a professional base. The issue of our relative absence from developing academic knowledge traditions over the last two centuries, and our recent entrée to the higher eduction sector, understandably, compounds our beginning point. This paper was the basis of a keynote address at the third Indigenous Researchers’ Forum in Melbourne in 2001 and, in the main, is part of an ongoing conversation that speaks to the developing issues.

There is clear evidence that Indigenous education has changed considerably over time. Indigenous Australians' early experiences of ‘colonialised education’ included missionary schools, segregated and mixed public schooling, total exclusion and ‘modified curriculum’ specifically for Indigenous students which focused on teaching manual labour skills (as opposed to literacy and numeracy skills). The historical inequalities left a legacy of educational disparity between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. Following activist movements in the 1960s, the Commonwealth Government initiated a number of reviews and forged new policy directions with the aim of achieving parity of participation and outcomes in higher education between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. Further reviews in the 1980s through to the new millennium produced recommendations specifically calling for Indigenous Australians to be given equality of access to higher education; for Indigenous Australians to be employed in higher education settings; and to be included in decisions regarding higher education. This paper aims to examine the evolution of Indigenous leaders in higher education from the period when we entered the space through to now. In doing so, it will examine the key documents to explore how the landscape has changed over time, eventually leading to a number of formal reviews, culminating in the Universities Australia 2017–2020 Indigenous Strategy (Universities Australia, 2017).

According to Manovich (2001), the database and the narrative are natural enemies, each competing for the same territory of human culture. Aboriginal knowledge traditions depend upon narrative through storytelling and other shared performances. The database objectifies and commodifies distillations of such performances and absorbs them into data structures according to a priori assumptions of metadata; that is the data which describes the data to aid a search. In a conventional library for example, the metadata which helps you find a book may be title, author or topic. It is misleading and dangerous to say that these databases contain knowledge, because we lose sight of the embedded, situated, collaborative and performative nature of knowledge. For the assemblages of digital artefacts we find in an archive or database to be useful in the intergenerational transmission of living knowledge traditions, we need to rethink knowledge as performance and data as artefacts of prior knowledge production episodes. Through the metaphors of environment and journey we can explore ways to refigure the archive as a digital environment available as a resource to support the work of active, creative and collaborative knowledge production.

Aboriginal children appear to be more likely to be involved in bullying than non-Aboriginal children. This paper describes part of the “Solid Kids Solid Schools” research process and discusses some of the results from this three year study involving over 260 Aboriginal children, youth, elders, teachers and Aboriginal Indigenous Education Officers (AIEO's), and an Aboriginal led and developed Steering Committee. It is the first study that contextualises Aboriginal bullying, using a socio-ecological model where the individual, family, community and society are all interrelated and influence the characteristics and outcomes of bullying.

This paper demonstrates that for Aboriginal children and youth in one region of Western Australia, bullying occurs frequently and is perpetuated by family and community violence, parental responses to bullying and institutional racism. Addressing bullying requires actions to reduce violence, foster positive cultural identity and reduce socio-economic disadvantage.