Abstract
The number of Indigenous Australians engaged in the higher education has risen steadily in recent years. Since the 1970s, several groups have been established to represent issues impacting Indigenous staff and students across the Australian higher education sector. Despite the deep passion and commitment by Indigenous leaders to advance Indigenous education in general, no single group currently provides adequate representation and advocacy on these issues. This article reports on findings from an Australian Research Council-funded study on Indigenous leadership in higher education. In doing so, it shares the perspectives of senior Indigenous leaders, university executive such as Vice-Chancellors and Indigenous academics. Ultimately, this article purports that it is necessary for the Federal Government and Universities Australia to work collaboratively with Indigenous People if we are going to see collective advancement across the sector and that this needs to occur in a more meaningful way than currently exercised.
Introduction
The number of Indigenous students enrolled in higher education has significantly increased over time from just one student enrolment recorded in 1959 (Wilson & Wilks, 2015) to almost 20,000 in 2018 (Department of Education, Skills and Employment, 2018). This growth is a direct result of a range of factors including the advocacy of Indigenous leaders who have gone before us, paving the way for Indigenous people to have a rightful place in Australian universities (Locke, 2018; Page et al., 2017; Wilson & Wilks, 2015). For almost 50 years, the work of Indigenous people, through groups such as the National Aboriginal Education Committee, who pioneered the opening up of universities to Indigenous students through the 1000 Teachers by 1990 initiative (Holt & Morgan, 2016), or the Indigenous Higher Education Advisory Council (IHEAC) which advised the Federal Government on Indigenous workforce development and cultural competency (Indigenous Higher Education Advisory Council, 2006, 2011), or more recently the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Higher Education Consortium (NATSIHEC) which seeks to drive systemic change through working with the federal government on the Indigenous Student Success Program (Australian Government, 2018), has advanced Indigenous education in Australian universities. While many Indigenous academic leaders have been involved in these and other initiatives, they have largely been included as guests (Holt & Morgan, 2016) or from ‘outside the tent’; invited, even welcomed but on a conditional or contingent basis.
Despite steady increases in student numbers, a considerable and stagnant disparity remains in terms of the number of Indigenous people working in higher education compared to that of non-Indigenous people. Indigenous people account for a total of 3.1% of the Australian working age population yet accounted for only 1.2% of full-time equivalent staff employed in the Australian higher education in 2018 (Universities Australia (UA, 2019b)). The total number of Indigenous people employed in the sector was 1316 of the national 107,706 base (Department of Education, Skills and Employment, 2018). It is apparent that the Australian higher education sector needs to do more to support, develop and maintain Indigenous staff – particularly to ensure that we reach population parity. One result of the steady increase of Indigenous people choosing to study and then work in Australian institutions is the gradual increase of formal Indigenous leaders across the higher education sector. The last decade has seen a dramatic increase in the number of Indigenous Pro Vice-Chancellor positions, although there remains only one Indigenous identified Deputy Vice-Chancellor position. While the pace of change seems rapid, the extent of the corridors to which Indigenous academic leaders have access remain narrow with trajectories impeded by invisible barricades (Stoler, 2008).
Nakata (2006) identifies four key areas of Indigenous focus in higher education – Indigenous student support, teaching and Indigenous Studies program development, Indigenous research and scholarship in Indigenous Studies areas, as well as administration and management. Whilst the sector has broad responsibilities, the issue of representation in universities and disciplines has been prominent in discussions since Indigenous people entered the sector in the early 1970s (Anderson, 2015; Andersen et al., 2008; Coates et al., 2020a; Gunstone, 2013). Nakata (2013) affirms that like other sectors, there is reluctance for the Indigenous higher education sector to examine our own thinking and practices. One consequence is we are neglecting to contextualise Indigenous higher education models and practices against the history of our own practice and our own developing forms of thought. Instead, we contextualise our analysis and practice against the history of the shortfalls of the education sector and governments, and in terms of what they still need to do for us in the present and future. (Nakata, 2013, pp. 292–293)
We, the three authors, write this article as researchers, insiders and outsiders. All three of us are Aboriginal and in various ways have affiliations with groups discussed in this article. We are all engaged in Indigenous higher education; authors one and two for many years as academics and author three as a doctoral scholar. Author one is a member of the Pro Vice-Chancellor Indigenous group, author two is a member and former director of NATSIHEC and currently serves on the Universities Australia Deputy Vice-Chancellor Academic committee and author three is a member of the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Postgraduate Association (NATSIPA). As such, our positioning resists the simplistic dichotomy of insider/outsider (Breen, 2007; Pollack & Eldridge, 2016) but also sharpens our reflexivity as we scrutinise the data, and interrogate our own and each other’s epistemological inferences (Humphrey, 2007).
Reviewing the relevant higher education sector peak bodies
Universities Australia
The Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee was established in 1920 (UA, 2020a). However, in response to a recommendation from a review in 2006, the group rebadged itself as UA to restructure the organisation into a peak industry body with a broader representative role for the sector. The current membership consists of representatives of 39 universities in Australia. Of key relevance to this article, UA state they ‘advocate for the vast social, economic and cultural value of higher education and research to Australia and the world’ (UA, 2020a).
There are four sub-groups of UA that reflect core functions – the Deputy Vice-Chancellor Academic (UA, 2020b), Deputy Vice-Chancellor Corporate (UA, 2020c), Deputy Vice-Chancellor International (UA, 2020d) and Deputy Vice-Chancellor Research (UA, 2020e) groups. An initiative that UA recently introduced, in conjunction with NATSIHEC, has been the establishment of two senior Indigenous people to each of the four Deputy Vice-Chancellor sub-committees (NATSIHEC, 2019; UA, 2020f). The intent was to provide leadership opportunities and capacity building to the Indigenous representatives whilst also ensuring that the Deputy Vice-Chancellor committees were rightly informed and advised about Indigenous matters. UA has had a lead Vice-Chancellor for Indigenous matters for some years. Hence, it is now timely to reflect the espoused values of the organisation to ensure inclusion of Indigenous voices from inside the organisational tent and no longer only externally or at the margins.
NATSIHEC
The NATSIHEC and its antecedent group National Indigenous Higher Education Network have advocated for Indigenous access, scholarship and research since the 1990s (NATSIHEC, 2020). NATSIHEC membership is open to all Indigenous Australians employed in the higher education sector. Membership to NATSIHEC is not determined by one’s level of appointment or seniority. NATSIHEC is an Indigenous Corporation which, while the organisation is made up of Indigenous people working in higher education, has always valued independence from institutional ties. In this way, although not uncomplicated, the Indigenous members ‘speak critically from the “margins” to the “centres” of institutional power’ (Bunda et al., 2012, p. 951). In 2019, the group signed a Memorandum of Understanding with UA (2019a) to continue the progress made through the collaborative development of the UA, 2017–2020 Indigenous Strategy.
Walan Mayiny: The Indigenous Leadership project
Following the review of the four University Australia sub-groups and the NATSIHEC, this article reports on an Australian Research Council-funded project titled Walan Mayiny: Indigenous Leadership in Higher Education (note: Walan Mayiny means ‘strong people’ in the Wiradjuri language). The Walan Mayiny project specifically aims to examine the positions and subsequent responsibilities of senior Indigenous appointments within the Australian higher education sector. For comparable purposes, the project extends its focus to senior Indigenous higher education roles across Canada, New Zealand and the United States. Additionally, recognising that no single group currently provides adequate representation and advocacy on Indigenous issues, the findings reported in this paper will assist with understanding how the Federal Government and UA can work collaboratively with Indigenous people.
While details pertaining to the adopted methodological approach and theoretical framework have been previously published (see Coates et al., 2020b), we note the wider project is underpinned by Rigney’s (1999) notion of emancipatory, Indigenist research and Indigenous standpoint theory (Foley, 2003) which centres Indigenous epistemologies. It is structured in a way that centres Indigenous voices in three of the five stages of the study, to highlight their significant contributions to the higher education sector.
Study stages and participants
The study includes five stages with each stage working with a different participant group, namely; recruitment officers tasked with assisting universities with recruiting a senior Indigenous leader (stage one), senior Indigenous leaders at levels such as Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Pro Vice-Chancellor or Dean (stage two), non-Indigenous senior executive holding a position of Vice-Chancellor, Provost, Deputy Vice-Chancellor or other delegated senior executives identified by their Vice-Chancellor (stage three), Indigenous academics ranging from Associate Lecturers to Professors (stage four) and First Nation Peoples across Canada New Zealand and North America, holding similar senior leadership roles (stage five). Given the small number of individuals within three of the stages’ participants groups, we invited all individuals of those groups to participate in the study rather than relying on saturation or redundancy to determine when to cease collecting data (Trotter, 2012). For the remaining two stages, we used a snowball sampling method (Heckathorn, 2011; Noy, 2008) initiated through desktop searcher, which is explained in further detail below. In each stage, we were interested in a diversity of views pertaining to the perceived value and subsequent responsibilities of senior Indigenous leadership positions (Bazeley, 2013; Silverman, 2013). Interview questions were comparable across the five stages (i.e. tailored slightly to suit the intended participant group) and are described in more detail below.
Stage one of the research involved recruitment professionals tasked with assisting a university to fill an Indigenous leadership position at the Dean, Pro Vice-Chancellor or Deputy Vice-Chancellor levels. The purpose of this stage of interviews was to gain an understanding of the brief recruitment professionals were provided with when given the task of recruiting to senior Indigenous positions. The recruiters were identified by searching for recently advertised Senior Indigenous positions (refer to Trudgett et al., 2020 for further details of this stage of the study).
The second stage of the study comprised of Indigenous Australians who hold an Indigenous specific position of Dean, Pro Vice-Chancellor or Deputy Vice-Chancellor. In 2018, when the data were collected for this stage, 22 Indigenous people were holding these roles. Each of the incumbents received an invitation to participate in the research, with 14 (64%) of them contributing to this study. This group of people was asked to share their experiences in the role. Focus was placed on engagement with staff, students and community; challenges faced in their positions; key achievements and goals; governance structures; the characteristics of Indigenous leadership; and relationships with senior executive.
The third stage comprised of university Senior Executive. Participants in this stage were asked specific questions concerning senior Indigenous appointments, as well as methods to engage with Indigenous staff, students and community. Additional questions sought views pertaining to the way in which senior Indigenous leaders contribute to the vision for the university, in relation to Indigenous Australian education and research. Each of the 39 Vice-Chancellors overseeing Australian universities were invited to participate in this stage. A total of 27 (69%) Vice-Chancellors participated in the research, 4 (10%) did not respond, 2 (5%) were somewhat indecisive/non-committal and did not participate, 3 (8%) declined the invitation and 3 (8%) delegated the opportunity to another member of their senior executive. The participants who had been asked by their Vice-Chancellor to take part consisted of one Provost and two Deputy Vice-Chancellors. One Vice-Chancellor asked that another member of the Executive also take part in their interview. In summary, 31 people participated in this stage of the study comprising of 27 Vice-Chancellors and 4 other members of Senior Executive from a total of 30 universities participated in the research. Of the 31 participants, 19 were male and 12 were female. This included 16 of the 26 (62%) male Vice-Chancellors and 11 of the 13 (85%) female Vice-Chancellors.
Stage four comprised of Indigenous academics ranging from the more junior Level A/Associate Lecturer academics through to the Level E/Professors. The third author of this article, Coates, was assigned this specific stage of the project as the main component for her PhD research. In cases where stage four participants were employed at a university that had a senior Indigenous position, specific questions were asked about the perception of the role and the effect the role had on their own position. Additionally, participants were asked their opinion on the key strengths and challenges of the role. Participants employed at a university without a senior Indigenous position were asked to share their views on why that may have been the case. These participants were also asked what they thought the benefits and challenges of the role may be, in the event a senior appointment was made. A total of 56 Indigenous academics were invited to participate in the study with a total of 19 (34%) agreeing to participate. The academic level of the 19 participants comprised of 2 (11%) Level A Associate Lecturers, 5 (26%) Level B Lecturers, 5 (26%) Level C Senior Lecturers, 1 (5%) Level D Associate Professor and 6 (32%) Level E Professors. Of the 19 stage four participants, 3 (16%) were males and 16 (84%) were females.
Recognising the importance of including an international perspective to the study, stage five of the enquiry sought to include the voices of First Nation people who occupy Senior Leadership positions in Canada, New Zealand and North America. Participants in stage five of the study were asked similar questions to participants in stage two. In addition, participants at stage five were asked their views on potential opportunities for international engagement with colleagues holding similar leadership positions, and the value these would have. A total of eight people were invited to participate in the New Zealand portion of the study, with five (63%) taking part. In Canada, we invited nine participants with four (44%) participating. The North America component was undertaken in the second half of 2020.
At the time this article was written, we had conducted a total of 76 semi-structured interviews which included 3 recruiters, 14 Indigenous Australians occupying a senior leadership position, 31 members of Senior Executives, 19 Indigenous academics and 9 international First Nation leaders. Importantly, the study captured experiences from staff across 35 of the 39 universities in Australia which was of key importance given the differences across locations, i.e. the complexities of attracting staff to regional areas, the cultural diversity in different regions and the geographical scope of areas that institutions serve.
Data collection
All but three of the Australian interviews were conducted in person (face-to-face) at the participant’s office or nominated location. Of the three interviews that were not conducted face-to-face, two were conducted via telephone and one using Skype technology. The New Zealand interviews were conducted in person; however, despite all good intentions to travel to Canada and North America for data collection, COVID-19 provided challenges which led us to using zoom technology for those conversations. Most interviews went for approximately one hour, ranging from 17 minutes to 2 hours. All interviews were transcribed and then sent to the participants for their perusal. Though it is important to provide an overview of the entire study, this article utilises only the data gathered from stages two (Senior Indigenous Leaders), three (University Executive) and four (Indigenous academics).
Data analysis
For the purposes of this article, we have isolated the responses to a single question related to representation and Indigenous voice in the academy. Each of the senior Indigenous leaders (stage two), senior executive (stage three) and Indigenous academics (stage four) were asked the question ‘Thinking about the Indigenous Higher Education sector, do you believe there is a group, organisation or peak body that represents Indigenous staff, agendas and issues?’ We used NVIVO software as a means to manage the significant interview transcript data generated throughout the project (Al-Yahmady & Al-Abri, 2013). Using the software, we were able to separate those parts of responses that were relevant to this question.
As the next step, each set of responses across the three stages was manually analysed in detail for emerging themes, connections and disagreements (Bazeley & Jackson, 2013). The results in relation to the related peak body – the focus of this article – are presented here.
Results
The overall data suggest that there is no single body identified in Australia as representing the Indigenous portfolio. Six of the 14 (43%) Senior Indigenous leaders who participated in this research believe there is a group that represents Indigenous staff in the higher education sector. Five of the 31 (16%) Senior Executives who participated in this research believe there is a group that represents Indigenous staff in the higher education sector. Three of the 19 (16%) Indigenous academics who participated in this research believe there is a group that represents Indigenous staff in the higher education sector.
A more nuanced and complex picture emerges with a more detailed analysis of the data.
The senior Indigenous leaders expressed a strong desire for a national group that can appropriately advocate for and represent Indigenous people in higher education. However, some shared concerns about the existing groups being fragmented and plagued by underlying politics. I don’t see us having a strong and unified national voice, I think it’s fragmented. There seems to be different groups of people within higher education with different agendas being taken to government and to institutions. They’re sometimes in conflict and sometimes in open conflict about what’s a priority and what we should be doing or what’s an issue. (Senior Indigenous leader) I think there’s too much – there will always be politics but I think it’s a pity. I’m not putting the Indigenous agenda on a pedestal that we should be better than the rest of higher education. (Senior Indigenous leader)
Universities Australia
Some of the senior Indigenous leaders shared their experiences of sitting on one of the Deputy Vice-Chancellor sub-groups committees. Analysis revealed that their experiences were not deemed meaningful and that they felt an element of disrespect. They’ve just sacked us all by the way. Two weeks ago they sacked us all. Which I’m pretty annoyed about. (Senior Indigenous Leader) They were saying it’s better to have Indigenous people within the DVC, but having been in the [name of group deleted] group, it’s just you are two little under-appreciated voices and they’re just really not interested. (Senior Indigenous Leader) It was very difficult to get anything driven there … We weren’t even consulted about the Indigenous strategy that UA put out. We had no idea until it was public. (Senior Indigenous Leader)
One Vice-Chancellor explained that they did not think the structure was achieving what it set out to. I think [the original idea from the lead VC Indigenous] was that the six or so senior Indigenous academics … to go on to the standing – would in fact be a de facto group to reach out to for advice and guidance. But I think that in a way is a little challenging, because it’s de facto rather than inclusive. (Senior Executive)
To remove Indigenous people from the margins, several participants expressed the need for a fifth sub-group of UA – one that is inclusive of the Indigenous Pro-Vice Chancellors and Deputy Vice-Chancellors. However, some Indigenous leaders believed that there was a lack of willingness from UA to implement this. We did talk to Universities Australia about whether there should be a PVC Indigenous group, and we have talked amongst ourselves. Universities Australia didn’t want it. (Senior Indigenous leader) I think UA hadn’t given a lot of consideration to how to bring us all together as a group. (Senior Indigenous leader). The Universities Australia it’s run by 40 VCs. So I actually think … setting up something outside of Universities Australia that actually speaks to universities. Speaks to, is not part of. You can work side by side. That thing about not always going like that. But to be independent of it. It will get watered down, it will get washed down, it will end up being a tick a box anyway. Because everything does. (Senior Executive) I can see great merit in there being a grouping drawn together under the UA umbrella. (Senior Executive) There does need to be a standing committee of UA that supports – so provides secretarial support, so it makes it happen. It sets the agenda, manages the papers and helps them in – it’s also a great professional development opportunity for a leadership group to step up, to have a chair of that group for two years, to have an executive working on key policy issues, to develop some best practice recommendations, other things. I think it’s overdue and timely because of the current strategy… I can’t think of many other ways that we could give sustainability to a body to provide some guidance and leadership in the sector. That way the lead VC would attend those sessions as well, so you get a vice-chancellor attending. That will give good connection through to the plenary, which is always one of the advantages of – a lead VC without a standing committee needs to find other ways to connect to the leadership. (Senior Executive) UA is a useful thing for it to be there, for it to be under. But I would also say it doesn’t have to be that. It could be something created outside of UA. UA would want to bring it within its folds… You could also set it up so that UA respects it. So that it has that relationship with UA but I do think having it separate and aligned with the minister, brilliant. (Senior Executive)
NATSIHEC
Participants also discussed the contribution of NATSIHEC and their representation of Indigenous people in the Australian higher education sector. One senior Indigenous leader shared that they were a member of NATSIHEC and despite not being able to attend meetings for a couple of years, they found it useful as they received information via the group as part of the members list. Others also provided positive comments about the work NATSIHEC has carried out across the sector. I think they’ve also worked really hard and been successful at positioning themselves as the body in terms of consultation, in terms of the Higher Ed sector. I think that's been really effective. Certainly with any of the position papers that they’ve put forward or anything like that I’ve not ever had a problem in terms of the position adopted. (Senior Indigenous Leader) I think at the UA board level, the conversations to do that with NATSIHEC have been really good I think and very positive. (Senior Executive) The fact that UA got an Indigenous strategy up again wasn’t so much that there was a lot of heavy lobbying from Indigenous leadership, it was a couple of VCs who have a strong affinity, as I do in my institution, to saying, we have to be doing better at this. (Senior Executive)
Other Senior Executive indicated that they were less familiar with the work of NATSIHEC. Well there’s NATSIEC. To be honest, I’m not really sure what they do. I don’t hear much from them. I’m not sure, even, that their mandate is to represent Indigenous staff. (Senior Executive) NATSIHEC I think is absolutely fabulous for what it is, which is really about representing student centres. It does not represent, and is not capable I don’t believe of higher level engagement or higher level – and you can see that by the number of people who – the people who don’t go. (Senior Indigenous leader) I believe that NATSIHEC is trying to model itself or remodel itself on the NAISA structure. I think it needs to change its brand to this is a research-led thinktank that is designed to influence policy, not a bunch of political activists who are going to occupy the VC’s office for a week from next Tuesday. (Senior Indigenous Leader) NATSIHEC is really good for operational component. But really, I don’t think NATSIHEC lobbies enough for political change. I think NATSIHEC is probably really good at the operational level. I think there’s been an attempt to move it into more of a strategic space, but I don't think it has the respect of the department yet, nor the minister. (Senior Indigenous leader) We’re dealing with a lot of stuff on the agenda, but the kind of coordinating body that then enacts this stuff that comes out of there doesn’t function as well as it might. That’s not a criticism of NATSIHEC or the secretariat that comes with it, because essentially the secretariat comes out of whatever resources any individual can offer to it. (Senior Indigenous leader)
There was significant lack of satisfaction in relation to NATSIHEC reported by the Indigenous academics. It was clear that this group felt that they were not represented adequately in the sector by NATSIHEC. Notably, this included people who had in the past attended a NATSIHEC meeting. I was so disillusioned to sit in a room listening to people who were brought together to push forward an Indigenous education agenda talk about really low-level stuff every single time I went. It’s such a missed opportunity, so I think it’s a complete waste of time. (Indigenous academic) I’ve been to NATSIHEC a few times, but I think they’re more interested in curricula and who’s Aboriginal and who’s not, which is kind of annoying because it really kind of denotes from the actual issues that are out there. (Indigenous academic)
AIATSIS
The AIATSIS was also mentioned by a few participants as a possible group that is representative of the Indigenous higher education sector – however, it was noted that this was of key relevance to the national research agenda as opposed to broader sector engagement. AIATSIS is probably a place that has more of a focus for me in terms of what it does in development of research protocols, strategies, engagement, et cetera. (Indigenous academic) I think they could do more. They’re getting a lot of money and they should be providing some training for us. (Senior Indigenous leader)
NTEU
The NTEU advocates to government and universities on behalf of its members. Within the structure of the NTEU are various sub-groups including an Indigenous group which lobbies on behalf of its Indigenous members. Again, there was not consensus amongst stakeholders as to the effectiveness of the group. Two of the Indigenous academics referred to the positive body of work performed by the NTEU. NTEU, so I’m a union member and I think the NTEU, the Indigenous stuff in there have done way more for connecting Indigenous academics than any of the formal Indigenous bodies have done. So, they do research on the experiences of Indigenous academics, they talk about the gender breakdown, they talk about the brown, I don’t know if they call it the brown ceiling, but so many Aboriginal women who get stuck at academic level B and progressing beyond that just seems impossible. So, they’ve done research in all of that, they’ve agitated around and they’ve advocated for things. So, I feel very much the NTEU Indigenous caucus has been important as well. (Indigenous academic) We have quite a good representation and I think that the NTEU does more to push Aboriginal agendas in universities then possibly NATSIHEC does. (Indigenous academic) I don’t think the NTEU’s done anything particularly spectacular to assist Indigenous staff or the profile or career structures or anything for Indigenous staff. I’ve just had a big argument with them about – in enterprise agreements that say you must have so many staff by such-and-such – well, I think that’s the wrong strategy because I could go out and employ a whole lot of gardeners tomorrow and tick the box. (Senior Executive) They don’t actually have any real power to hold the university accountable. So they can – well they might go and campaign for Indigenous staff and have those questions with senior executives about why they’re not doing certain things, it doesn’t change anything. (Indigenous academic)
Other groups
There were four additional groups identified by participants as representative of the Indigenous higher education sector; however, this was minimal (i.e. only three or less participants mentioned them). These groups were the Pro Vice-Chancellor Indigenous Innovative Research Universities (IRU) Group, the NATSIPA, the World Indigenous Nations Higher Education Consortium (WINHEC) and the National Indigenous Research and Knowledges Network (NIRAKN). Whilst these groups each conduct important work, they have a specific focus that is not necessarily inclusive of the entire Indigenous higher education sector on a national level. For example, the IRU has a limited membership of seven institutions, NATSIPA is focused on postgraduate students, WINHEC is broader than just the national agenda and NIRAKN is research focused with a limited timeframe.
Conclusion – Moving forward
The data shared in this article were collected throughout 2018 and the first half of 2019. It is interesting timing given the Indigenous Pro Vice-Chancellors and Deputy Vice-Chancellor across the nation met as a group for the first time in May 2019 at Queensland University of Technology. It marked a moment in history where Indigenous people holding leadership positions came together with a vision to collaborate with one another, whilst as a group, lobbying bodies such as UA and the Minister for Education on high-level matters relating to Indigenous Education. Since this initial event, meetings have been held with this collective every month. There is a strong likelihood that this group will indeed form as an official subgroup of UA. Should this occur, UA must be transparent, listen to Indigenous voices, always recognise agency and support Indigenous self-determination. The success of such a relationship will be determined by meaningful engagement and avoidance of tokenistic gestures, as appears to be the perception in some instances.
Data presented in this article suggest that other groups which have had some limited success, such as NATSIHEC and the NTEU, struggle because they are operationally focused with membership open to all Indigenous people employed in higher education. Whilst the community representative nature of these groups is to be commended for their inclusivity, NATSIHEC and NTEU fail to attract high level expertise from the bulk of its membership. This is not to say that they are not worthy of a seat at the table or the opportunity to be heard. Rather, it is about recognising capacity and limitations.
To conclude this article, the following set of recommendations should be implemented. They are developed in response to the key issues stemming from the findings, review of literature and also draw on our experience as Indigenous higher education practitioners who have observed and contributed to a number of peak body groups discussed. These recommendations are by no means conclusive, but are offered as a starting point to reframe Indigenous representation in the Australian higher education sector. UA constitutes a new sub-group consisting of the Indigenous Pro Vice-Chancellor and Deputy Vice-Chancellors. This group should be the primary Indigenous advice mechanism for UA. The Federal Minister for Education should re-establish an Indigenous Advisory Committee like that of the IHEAC. This committee should be open to all senior Indigenous academics employed in higher education with a selection process established to determine membership.
Further to these two crucial recommendations, it is reasonable to suggest opportunities for capacity building of emerging Indigenous leaders be established through implementation of observer positions on the above two committees, as this would enhance the sector.
It is through high level expert engagement with the bodies such as UA and the Federal Government that we can enact positive change across the sector. Our findings from the interviews suggest we cannot understate the importance of this relationship being mutually meaningful, respectful and collaborative. As noted in findings presented in this article by both Indigenous academics and senior leaders, while the Indigenous appointments to the UA committees were considered significant, some questioned the selection process. For other Indigenous academics who served on the committees, there was a sense of being outnumbered and that it was challenging to be heard. Importantly, we must work together as a unified group to advance the national higher education sector – not just for the benefit of Indigenous Australians, but all people.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
We would like to sincerely thank the 76 people who participated in this research by kindly sharing their knowledge and experiences with us. It was indeed a true honour and privilege to gather such a range of views about how we can collectively make the higher education sector better for current and future generations of Indigenous Australians.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: We would like to thank the Australian Research Council for funding this project (IN180100026).
