Indigenous Early Career Researcher’s perspectives of ‘safe spaces’ in higher education

Abstract

The Developing Indigenous Early Career Researchers Project is a three-year longitudinal study funded by the Australian Research Council that ran from January 2020 to December 2022. Its main focus was to investigate the experiences and perspectives of Indigenous Early Career Researchers working in universities across Australia. This article presents four main attributes identified by Indigenous Early Career Researchers as necessary to creating culturally safe spaces in Australian universities. These attributes include, safe to: (a) be Indigenous; (b) seek advice and make mistakes; (c) speak openly; and (d) trust. The successful implementation of these attributes requires institutional support and commitment in the form of relevant higher education policies and practices. Importantly, an overarching perspective of this article is that effective implementation of culturally safe spaces for Indigenous Early Career Researchers requires a significant shift in institutional discourse from the inclusion of Indigenous Peoples and Knowledges to recognising Indigenous Peoples as sovereign.

Introduction

In 1989, the National Aboriginal Education Policy put forward 21 long-term goals to address challenges and shortcomings of Aboriginal education across all levels of the education system. Two of these goals were specifically aimed at increasing the number of Indigenous ¹ professional and academic staff in the higher education sector (Department of Employment Education and Training, 1989). However, a focussed study on Indigenous higher education employment conditions and concerns was not conducted until 1991. Specifically, Bourke et al. (1991) examined staff profiles, industrial conditions and participant perceptions of employment conditions in Aboriginal Support Units. ² With a view to improving Indigenous employment, supporting staff development and strengthening Indigenous support units, the report made several recommendations, including the necessity of employment security, alongside employment conditions equivalent to those of other academic staff, access to career structure and appropriate professional development programs (Bourke et al., 1991).

Although Bourke et al. (1991) focussed specifically on Indigenous staff employed in Aboriginal Support Units, various reports in the years that followed stressed the underrepresentation of Indigenous staff across the higher education sector as a significant issue (Behrendt et al., 2012; Bradley et al., 2008; Universities Australia, 2011). More recently in 2022, it was noted that the total number of professional and academic Indigenous staff had doubled from 771 in 2005 to 1,571 in 2020. However, these figures represent 1.3% of the total university staff population, which remains well below working-age population parity of 3.1% (Universities Australia, 2022, p. 30).

In relation to this figure, there are additional issues that must be noted. Firstly, the fact that this percentage has shifted very little over the last two decades, thus, while the raw numbers suggest a considerable increase, it is only keeping pace with overall sector growth. Page et al. (2017) noted that ‘Indigenous Australian outcomes are gradually moving from the margins to the centre of universities missions albeit at a pace that will need to improve to achieve parity by 2040’ (p. 29). In addition, it is critical to note that when the increase in the number of Indigenous staff is reviewed in greater detail, it is evident that there are many more professional than academic Indigenous staff as the number of academic staff remain at about one third (1/3) of that total. Thus, given Universities Australia’s strategy and the increasing focus in the sector on not just Indigenous students but Indigenous Teaching and Learning and Indigenous research, the burden of work continues to fall on a relatively smaller pool of Indigenous academics (Locke et al., 2022).

In conjunction with underrepresentation, both domestic and international studies have evidenced the detrimental effects of systemic and behavioural racism within the academy on Indigenous and First Nations career progression (Bodkin-Andrews & Carlson, 2016; Fredericks, 2011; Kidman, 2020; Thunig & Jones, 2020). Specifically, Indigenous and international scholars investigating racism and ‘whiteness’ ³ in education draw attention to the reality that some peoples continue to deny or disregard the existence of racism in institutions and/or society (Gillborn, 2019; Smith et al., 2021; Walter & Butler, 2013). Furthermore, Vasquez (2022) argues that ‘White faculty decontextualize, commodify, and weaponize resilience against Black, Indigenous, People of Color (BIPOC) faculty’ (p. 1). Thus, expectations to build one’s resilience against racism is prioritised over strategies and efforts to challenge and dismantle the systems on which racial biases and actions are formed and maintained (Ahmed, 2012; Bond et al., 2018).

Data from the Developing Indigenous Early Career Researchers project has highlighted and examined similar challenges and barriers associated with ongoing examples of both micro and macro forms of racism throughout the academy (Locke et al., 2021, 2022a; Povey et al., 2022). In a previous article from the Developing Indigenous Early Career Researchers project (Locke et al., 2022b), Indigenous Early Career Researchers (ECRs) identified a need for the provision of both physically and virtually safe spaces where Indigenous knowledges and protocols were understood, observed, practised and implemented.

Interestingly, these findings are not dissimilar to challenges identified by Trudgett (2009) regarding the levels and type of support provided to Indigenous postgraduate students by Aboriginal Support Units (ISUs). Summarily, it highlighted eight issues and offered recommendations that would enable ISUs to build welcoming environments for Indigenous postgraduate students. Despite the fact that this study was conducted over ten years ago and that Indigenous ECRs participate in a different capacity at universities to Indigenous postgraduate students, challenges such as isolation and exclusion as a result of unwelcoming spaces, a dearth of Indigenous academic mentors and restricted opportunities to collaborate with peers and Indigenous community continue. This suggests an ongoing irony in the face of inclusion as it appears that Indigenous ECRs must continue the fight for culturally safe spaces in which to teach, research and collaborate in the very places where they are the sovereign peoples (Thunig & Jones, 2020; Watego, 2021). While Bishop (2022) notes that, from an Indigenous position, sovereignty is a multi-faceted concept that involves actual, spiritual, psychological and political characteristics, Morgan (2019, p. 117) states that, ‘the principle that has characterized the struggle for social and political justice for Aboriginal peoples is sovereignty’ (p. 117). Thus, this article engages with an emancipatory imperative ‘to support the personal, community, cultural, and political struggles of Indigenous Australians to carve out a way of being for ourselves in Australia in which there can be healing from past oppressions and cultural freedom in the future’ (Rigney, 1999, p. 117).

In exploring the concept of safe spaces from the perspective of Indigenous ECRs, this article challenges universities to rethink the positioning of themselves as benevolent in their efforts towards Indigenous inclusion. Instead, this article calls for a mindset that recognises the lands on which they operate and prosper as stolen lands and Indigenous peoples as sovereign. This article advocates that the creation and continued growth of genuinely safe spaces for Indigenous ECRs in institutions across Australia are paramount to identifying, challenging and dismantling institutional structures that maintain and harbour inequities faced by Indigenous staff and students. Thus, the main aim of this article is to explore key attributes, identified by Indigenous ECRs of culturally safe spaces in Australian Universities.

Methodology and Methods

The Developing Indigenous Early Career Researchers project is a three-year longitudinal study, funded by the Australian Research Council (ARC). Using a qualitative methods approach, Indigenous ECRs were invited to share their stories and experiences. The three-year longitudinal approach was employed to facilitate an exploration of the ‘evolving and complex processes’ (Murray et al., 2009) of the developmental trajectories of careers of Indigenous ECRs. Using an Indigenous methodological approach (Martin, 2008; Rigney, 1999), the article explores the concept and experiences of culturally safe spaces from the perspective of Indigenous ECRs. The research was conducted by three Indigenous scholars, comprising two Indigenous professors (authors two and three) and an Indigenous early career researcher (author one). Ethics approval for this study was granted by Western Sydney University Human Research Ethics Committee (Approval Number HR 13270).

Indigenous Early Career Research Participants

A total of 30 Indigenous ECRs participated in Stage One (2020) interviews and 28 in Stage Two (2021) and Stage Three (2022) interviews. In 2021, two participants were unable to participate. Although one of these participants returned in 2022, and a different participant withdrew from the study which meant that participant numbers remained at 28 in the third and final stage (2022). At the beginning of this study (Stage 1, 2020), Indigenous ECRs were employed in 21 different institutions across Australia with the majority (90%) of Indigenous ECRs employed at either Academic Level B (17) or C (10). The remaining participants (10%) were equally spread across Level A, Level E and Professional positions. Comparatively, at the completion of all interviews in 2022, an equal number of Indigenous ECRs held positions at Level B (13) and Level C (13). While Level Bs dropped by four and Level Cs increased by three over the three-year study, the combination of level B and C positions continued to represent the majority of Indigenous ECR participants at 71%.

The original Indigenous ECR cohort were sourced from institutions across Australia, which included 12 Indigenous ECRs located in New South Wales, ten in Queensland and two each in Victoria, Western Australia, South Australia and the Northern Territory. Substantial diversity among Indigenous ECRs was also apparent in the number of years employed in higher education, in employment conditions and roles, and the ECR year of each participant at the commencement of the project. For instance, just under half (14) were first year ECRs and seven were in their second year. Thus, 70% of participants were within the first two years of the five-year ECR phase. Interestingly, in the first year of this project, 13 Indigenous ECRs had been employed in the higher education sector between 11 and 13 years, nine for 6–8 years and eight from 1 to 5 years. Relevant to this article was also the factor of whether an Indigenous ECR was employed in an Indigenous department or was a member of an Indigenous research team. Although this was not initially drawn from demographic data, it became apparent in a deeper analysis of the data in relation to the theme of cultural safety. Further demographic details about the ECRs participating in this study can be acquired from additional publications (Locke et al., 2021, 2022b; Povey et al., 2022).

As a result of Covid-19 restrictions, lockdowns and border closures, all interviews in each stage were conducted using a video conferencing service. Although the original plan was to conduct interviews in person, all efforts were made to ensure that initial engagement and research interviews respected and upheld cultural protocols. For instance, at the beginning of each first interview (Stage 1) the researcher shared information about her connection to Country and family as part of her introduction and enquired as to the same for each Indigenous ECR. This information was not recorded as part of the interview transcript in order to maintain participant confidentiality. However, the researcher was able to begin each subsequent interview (Stage 2 and Stage 3) with a respectful, informal yarn asking about the Indigenous ECR’s family and personal life. The researcher also connected with participants between formal interviews via email and offered additional informal zoom meetings in place of in person catch ups that would have been available if not for the pandemic. In hindsight, Covid-19 actually provided common experiences that enabled the researcher to establish collegial and supportive relationships with all Indigenous ECR participants through the sharing of and listening to personal experiences, concerns and challenges.

Once the researcher had confirmed a participant was comfortable for the recording to begin, the semi-structured interview began. Each interview was guided by a total of twenty questions that addressed seven different areas of interest, such as demographic information (which was kept confidential), role responsibilities, aspirations, mentorship, challenges, support and the higher education sector. The researcher used these questions as a guide to ensure all areas had been addressed during the interview, so the order that questions were asked or certain themes were explored differed between participants. This meant that each interview was mostly led by the participant with the researcher reiterating information or asking questions to draw out specific details that were relevant and appropriate to the focus of the project. All participants received written and recorded transcripts from each interview so they could modify and redact any information before it was shared with or explored by the research team. This approach met with ethics requirements and assisted in honouring the intellectual and cultural property rights of all participants.

NVivo 12 was employed to firstly identify and document relevant demographic participant attributes. The team then explored and examined the data to understand and record a diversity of viewpoints (Jackson & Bazeley, 2019) from which major themes and experiences were identified. Data for this article was derived firstly from an analysis of Indigenous ECR comments and reflections related to professional and academic interactions, collaborations and experiences within their schools and institutions. Further to this, a more in-depth analysis was conducted to identify instances in which cultural safety was specifically identified, explored and discussed by an Indigenous ECR.

In alignment with the ethics report, pseudonyms were used for all participants; in some cases, Indigenous ECRs chose their own, while others gave permission for the researchers to choose a pseudonym on their behalf. For the purposes of this article, any direct participant quotes will be presented using the participant’s pseudonym and the interview stage (Stages 1, 2 or 3) from which the quote was sourced.

Findings

Common themes that emerged from Indigenous ECR experiences and insights highlighted that the hierarchical and competitive nature of the academy does not sit comfortably with Indigenous ways of knowing, being and doing. As a result, the capacity of Indigenous ECRs to engage and lead culturally relevant and respectful teaching and research practices was significantly hindered. From an examination of this data, we have identified four major attributes necessary to develop and maintain cultural safety in both built and virtual spaces. These attributes involve spaces in which it is safe to:

• be Indigenous

• seek advice and make mistakes,

• speak openly,

• trust.

The words ‘safe to’ are the crucial starting point for each of the four attributes. The use of the word ‘safe’ in this context infers an understanding, drawn from the data, that Indigenous ECRs often find themselves in situations where they are culturally and academically unsafe as a result of institutional or peer expectations to justify Indigeneity, fulfil tasks not expected of their non-Indigenous colleagues and/or supporting the work of non-Indigenous scholars that does not in turn support the development or progress of their own careers.

Indigenous Early Career Researchers Creating and Working in Safe Spaces

The diversity of employment positions and conditions experienced by the participants provided rich data about the level and type of supports available to the Indigenous ECRs contributing to this study. For instance, Indigenous ECRs who were employed in Indigenous departments or research teams mostly reported experiences of collegiality and a sense of belonging that assisted their developing career trajectories. The notion of being part of a ‘village’ was identified as a positive experience by some participants.

It is a village. We work incredibly well together, we publish’ together, we include everybody. Everyone gets included in the things that we do. Our department administrator also publishes with us and we’re working towards building their career, their academic profile as well. The team, including our DA, everyone in the department, won a [name redacted] Award last year for the way that we operate and the things that we’ve done. It works really well. (James, stage 3)

However, many Indigenous ECRs participating in our study reported that they felt isolated and/or excluded due to the dearth of Indigenous academics in their faculties or institutions (Locke et al., 2022b). As a result, these Indigenous ECRs explained that they sought out and established Indigenous networks across different faculties and institutions in order to access culturally appropriate and collegial support.

We kind of created our own mentorship group, of coming together and talking about our experiences and encouraging each other with our writing and so forth. In that sense, that collegiality between the three of us was quite important for – and I see that as mentoring. Yeah, that we were sharing our experiences together, and finding solutions and finding ways in which to navigate this very white system. (Eli, stage 1)

I think we found our own network. We found our own people. I didn’t wait for the white institution to create that for us because they would never have. So, we had to do that for ourselves and we prioritise that. They found that quite threatening, but actually, we’re performing really well, so they can’t complain because we are actually doing all of the things that they want us to do and that’s – this is the way that we want to do that. (Areau, stage 3)

These comments highlight Indigenous ECR agency in navigating and supporting Indigenous academics to honour and raise Indigenous voices in a system of education that is often contrary to Indigenous epistemologies and ontologies. In seeking out and supporting one another, Indigenous ECRs demonstrated reciprocal mentorship and cultural collegiality that are integral to Indigenous community development (Bessarab & Forrest, 2017) and Indigenous ways of knowing, being and doing (Martin, 2008; Rigney, 1999, 2006). As these Indigenous ECRs had already successfully navigated the higher education space as students (Thunig & Jones, 2020), it makes sense that they have both the experience and knowledge required to define the attributes of culturally safe spaces within the academy.

Anatomy of Safe Spaces

In light of the way in which the Covid-19 pandemic impacted staff and student engagement across the higher education sector (Bennet, Unik & Cross, 2020; Blackmore, 2020), it is pertinent to consider academic spaces as both physical and virtual. Thus, rather than describing the interior design of a physical space in an institution, it is more pertinent to understand underlying attributes that define built and virtual environments as culturally safe. Thus, we explore the following four attributes, safe to be Indigenous, safe to seek advice and make mistakes, safe to speak openly and safe to trust that underpin the anatomy of a culturally and academically safe space for Indigenous ECRs.

Safe to be Indigenous

Many Indigenous ECRs shared experiences in which their identity was challenged by non-Indigenous staff. Such challenges were multilayered in the ways they were experienced. Firstly, there was an assumption that it was acceptable and appropriate for a non-Indigenous scholar to enquire as to the details of an Indigenous ECR’s Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander heritage. The second challenge arose from non-Indigenous expectations of what Indigenous culture entails and how they expected an Indigenous ECR to ‘perform’. Kimberley provided an example in which the expectations placed on Indigenous scholars was clearly different to that of her non-Indigenous colleagues.

So, like, if I say no to a media interview, it’s because I don’t want to express my opinions publicly. But then, I don’t want the - if it’s a white person who says no to giving a particular media interview, that’ll be it. But if I say no about giving a media interview on an Indigenous position, then all of a sudden, it’s like, ‘why, is it because she’s not black enough?’ Or ‘why – is it because – shouldn’t she know? She’s black. She should know everything about a black issue’. (Kimberley, stage 1)

Indigenous ECRs expressed comfort and a greater sense of safety at working in spaces with other Indigenous scholars who understood and shared similar challenges to themselves. In these experiences, Indigenous ECRs explained that the expectation to justify and carefully choose their words was greatly reduced.

You don’t have to justify. You don't have to start at the beginning. You can be your angry voice without being told you need to settle. You can be you in a very authentic way and you know ‘other’ - everyone around you understands what you're going on about. (Sasha, stage 1)

Martha also noted the strength and confidence that comes from being in the presence of other Indigenous scholars. An important take away from their comment is that isolation from other Indigenous scholars can reduce the likelihood of Indigenous ECRs raising issues or concerns about their career progression with senior non-Indigenous scholars.

It’s really important too that I think ECRs have that strong cohort as well so that they can feel on that same level and talk about what’s happening with them and what’s going on with them… If you don’t have that peer generative power, that power from your peers and your cohorts on that level, you also don’t feel safe or brave enough to go and ask for it at a higher level either. (Martha, stage 2)

The issue of isolating Indigenous scholars from one another was also raised by Lee, who stated a strong desire for safe spaces where Indigenous researchers could come together for research training, collaboration and to support one another in navigating the systems of academia. However, Lee shared that faculty restructuring significantly reduced the level of comfort and safety they previously experienced as an Indigenous ECR.

They closed down our Indigenous school, mainstreamed it and we’re all left with just nothing. We’re trying to pull together conversations with each other and that sort of thing. There’s a lack of synergy. (Lee, stage 1)

Lee went on to say that at the same time the Indigenous school was closed, funding for Indigenous research was increased. Thus, in a time when Indigenous relationships and supports had been dismantled, individual Indigenous ECRs also experienced increasing demands from non-Indigenous colleagues who were planning to secure Indigenous research funding.

As well as having a shared space in which to support and collaborate with one another, Indigenous ECRs identified safe spaces as those that are characterised by Indigenous ways of knowing, being and doing. In these environments, engagement can be led by Indigenous scholars who collaborate with an Indigenous collective that will likely include, if not be guided by, local Indigenous Elders and/or community members.

I think it’s really important now that people feel valued, and that people feel safe. That people feel that they are in a positive supportive environment that is aligned to what we would see as a community that’s guided by our own [Indigenous] values and our own experiences and our own aspirations. (Hannah, stage 2)

We need more leaders coming through to lead in ways that honour the kind of cultural values that I have, I think, which is very community orientated, and less of the whole, the values that underpin the academy, which is just competition, elitism, all of those things I see creeping into our spaces. (Mica, stage 1)

To provide genuinely safe spaces for Indigenous ECRs, it is crucial that institutions have systems in place that ward against cultural taxation (Garrison-Wade et al., 2012; Joseph & Hirshfield, 2011). It is culturally unsafe to be Indigenous in institutions that fail to renumerate, award or account for the time and unique expertise invested by Indigenous ECRs, especially when the roles and responsibilities they fulfil are additional to those of their non-Indigenous peers. Indigenous ECRs participating in this study provided a myriad of examples in which their contributions to teaching and research in the academy were underestimated, undervalued or accredited towards a non-Indigenous scholar’s career progression. Many of these examples are shared and examined in an additional article demonstrably titled, ‘Australian Indigenous early career researchers: unicorns, cash cows and performing monkeys’ (Locke et al., 2022a).

Safe to Seek Advice and Make Mistakes

Sixteen Indigenous ECRs used the term ‘critical’ to define the types of relationships, advice, conversations and feedback they found most beneficial to their career progression. Overall, this term was used to emphasise the conditions of honesty, respect and genuine interest in an Indigenous ECR’s development and career progression.

Somebody who believes in you, because there's often times when you don't believe in yourself, and you just need that person to say, no, actually you’ve got this, or you can do this, or you need to actually sell yourself a little bit better; you’re not selling yourself enough. (Julie, stage 1)

This perspective was clearly articulated by Areau who reflected on the way in which Elders in her community provide advice and guidance.

Well, if I think about our Elders and if I think about - it’s kind of an enormous amount of knowledge and kindness and generosity of spirit, so a mixture of those. I don’t just mean kindness, like it can be critical love but it's not like you don’t get challenged, but you do it in a way that is not toxic, that is loving, that is constructive. (Areau, stage 1)

When reflecting on what good mentorship entails, Henry also commented on the way in which an Elder might guide and support learning. The term ‘growl’ is similar to Areau’s expression of ‘critical love’; in both cases, the advice provided is often direct and to the point. However, the intention is not to harm or shame, but to encourage one’s growth, as it is enacted through Indigenous relationality in which respect, responsibility and accountability are paramount (Martin, 2008).

Good mentorship is - I’ll say it’s nurturing but it’s also nutritive. Nutritive as in nutrition. That’s - it does provide that collective support but it also provides those opportunities to fall and be corrected or perhaps you should approach that scenario in this way. So, what an Aunty gives you a growl [to teach you a lesson], that sort of thing. (Henry, stage 1)

Ongoing underrepresentation of Indigenous staff in institutions means that Indigenous ECRs often find themselves as the ‘go to’ person for Indigenous related content or questions. This expectation increases the level of burden and pressure placed on Indigenous ECRs, some of whom admitted to feeling as though making mistakes was not acceptable. As a result, many Indigenous ECRs highlighted the need for spaces where mistakes were viewed as an accepted component of their learning journey and not as an indicator of deficiency or failure.

I think, that creating something where Indigenous [academics] or career researchers can make mistakes and say the wrong things, but it's okay. We’re not going to be mocked or pointed out and be chastised over things that we might say that is purely because we don't have the experience or [are] as experienced. (Cate, stage 1)

You really need someone to have a yarn with and it has to be a comfortable safe space yarn. It can’t be something that’s recorded or someone who’s going to - it needs to be that you are not afraid to ask any questions so that you get the right knowledges. (Olive, stage 3)

Overall, Indigenous ECRs highlighted the fact that despite having earned a PhD, they continue to develop and grow their teaching and research knowledges and skills. Those who moved to a different institution or faculty were also navigating unfamiliar systems and establishing relationships in new teams that may or may not have included other Indigenous scholars. As a result, Indigenous ECRs identified that a safe space was indicative of an environment in which they felt confident to seek out help or advice without the fear of inappropriate expectations, judgements or criticisms.

Safe to Speak Openly

This particular attribute goes hand in hand with the first: safe to be Indigenous, since much of what Indigenous ECRs bring to the academy, such as Indigenous perspectives and accountabilities to truth telling often challenge long-held beliefs and expectations of non-Indigenous staff and students. Teal Dhakki’s comment below reflects Sasha’s comment above in relation to the way in which Indigenous ECRs wish to express themselves. While Sasha referred to using her ‘angry’ voice without reprisal, Teal Dhakki included the use of ‘swear’ words, which she explained are not uncommon or necessarily offensive in dialogue with her Indigenous peers and community members.

I think you have to be able to use the type of language [including swear words] that you use to express yourself. You need to feel comfortable; you need to have a level of trust and the information flow has to be both ways. It’s not just contained with one, the perceived person with all the knowledge. So, it’s the sharing of, give and take with knowledge transfer. (Teal Dhakki, stage 1)

Teal Dhakki also challenges the Western perspective of a singular knowledge holder or expert and presents an Indigenous approach that prescribes collaborative knowledge sharing and learning. Eli, referring to white walls, spoke about non-Indigenous academics who act as gatekeepers of knowledge and often fail to consider worldviews that are different to their own. This was also exampled by Riley, who was kept in a specific role despite their growing knowledge and capacity to contribute and participate in research projects in broader and more effective ways.

So initially when I started, I had to manage ethics for a bunch of different projects which was a really great learning experience and I’m glad I did it. But now that I feel like I have ideas about things, I feel that my skills would be better suited to doing that sort of thing and critical thinking rather than being the one – I just don’t want to be the person people think of as just the person who manages the ethics. (Riley, stage 1)

Thus, the attribute of being safe to speak openly pertains not only to how Indigenous ECRs express themselves and share their knowledges. Speaking openly also includes decision-making power over the choice of topics and content to be discussed and, importantly, having agency over teaching and research roles rather than being confined to assigned duties that will contribute little to an academic career trajectory.

Safe to Trust

This final attribute could easily be considered as dependant and perhaps a culmination of the previous three. It is highly unlikely that trust will exist in a space where Indigenous ECRs do not feel safe to be Indigenous, seek support, make mistakes or to speak openly. It is clear in the comments below that Indigenous ECRs do not expect to be shielded from difficult conversations but instead wish to contribute to discussions that address genuine issues and concerns relevant to Indigenous Peoples and their communities. Indigenous ECRs recognise that trust is a crucial attribute to the success of such discussions.

Someone that you can trust and have really honest open discussions with that you get to the point of the matter and you give - you have respect for conversations about the real issues. But you don’t feel awkward raising those issues with each other. (Cate, stage 1)

There has to be trust first and foremost, because sometimes you have to talk about some really tough things and feel that you’re going to get an open, honest answer, and that they’ve got your back. Yeah, and it becomes a deep personal relationship. You’ve got to have this trust because they’re also going to be critical of you at times as well, and you're not always going to get what you want to hear from them. (Julie, stage 1)

Many Indigenous ECRs identified the value and importance of trusting relationships that enable collaboration and achieve effective change. In describing these types of relationships, Indigenous ECRs used words such as: relational, respect, open, honest, integrity and sharing. Some Indigenous ECRs spoke specifically about these qualities in regard to providing and receiving mentoring.

It’s very relational for me. Everything is just about relationships and listening and respect. I don’t think any of the mechanics or principles of mentoring work unless you have that approach. Yeah, it’s just foundational, I guess. (Mica, stage 3)

People have expertise in different areas of their lives. They have seniority in different areas of their lives. It’s not hierarchical. It’s - yeah, it’s relational. (Patricia, stage 3)

While the attribute of trust may be considered an obvious requirement, unfortunately it is not something that Indigenous ECRs can afford to take for granted in the higher education space. The hierarchical and competitive nature of universities has been shown to foster misinterpretations and misappropriation of Indigenous Knowledges through the silencing and exclusion of Indigenous voices (Rigney, 2006; Smith et al., 2021). In addition, the underrepresentation, and in some cases siloing, of Indigenous ECRs in institutions and across the higher education sector greatly hinders the ability of Indigenous ECRs to work collaboratively or in support of one another and this, in turn, heightens competition between a limited number of unique and critical scholars. In this scenario, and with increasing demands made by non-Indigenous colleagues and institutions, trust between Indigenous scholars can become tenuous and, as a result, Indigenous ECRs may experience lateral violence. Gorringe et al. (2011, p.8) tell us that, ‘Lateral violence describes a range of damaging behaviours expressed by those of a minority oppressed group towards others of that group rather than towards the system of oppression’.

Eight Indigenous ECRs shared examples of lateral violence that they had either witnessed or else experienced themselves. In all cases, Indigenous ECRs reflected on the competitive and isolating nature of academic work that ignites and fuels tensions and undermines the proper engagement of Indigenous ways of knowing, being and doing within institutions grounded in Western beliefs and values.

Well, that’s what lateral violence is, disenfranchised, powerless people will end up taking it out on one another, that’s how it starts. (S, stage 1) ⁴

I have actually experienced a bit of a lateral violence and I think a lot of people think it doesn’t happen, but it does with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples who are in an area where there are not many of us. (J, stage 1)

Three of the eight Indigenous ECRs who specifically raised the issue of lateral violence also felt that most institutions are not equipped to deal with this form of violence and that some are ignorant to its existence.

If people are being honest, then the kind of level of lateral violence in these institutions is something that no one wants to talk about, but it’s there and that’s why I’m saying it. That's why I want it to be de-identified because I want it to come into the data even if I’m the only person, at least I’m speaking about it. (M, Stage 1)

Relatedly, some Indigenous ECRs also spoke about the lack of institutional understanding and support for issues and challenges that arise usually as a result of racism. Those who engaged advice and support services provided by their institution reported that their concerns were not fully understood and/or addressed.

I don’t trust any [internal institutional support services]- I’ve never trusted them. At my last uni when I went through a whole heap of stuff, I tried utilising HR and they just did a number on me so I will never use - I will never, ever trust the university’s support mechanisms ever again. Don’t trust them, won’t use them. (M, stage 2)

To sum up this section, the attribute, safe to trust is complex as it aligns and is reliant on the capacity of institutions to provide spaces for Indigenous ECRs in which they are safe to: be Indigenous, seek support, make mistakes and to speak openly. The capacity of Indigenous ECRs to trust that institutions are genuine in their commitment to the engagement and success of Indigenous scholars is impacted greatly by the level at which Indigenous ways of knowing, being and doing are recognised and engaged in the schools and institutions in which they are employed. Institutional rhetoric and policies that promote inclusion, engagement and career progression for Indigenous scholars are quickly made redundant if they do not actively provide and maintain learning, teaching and research environments that are safe for Indigenous staff and students to attend and participate in.

Discussion and Conclusion

In this article, we have identified four main attributes of safe spaces, from the perspectives of Indigenous ECRs. However, we argue that these attributes, which include: safe to be Indigenous, safe to seek advice and make mistakes, safe to speak openly and safe to trust, should not be considered as definitive answers to the provision of culturally safe and academically sound environments for Indigenous ECR career progression and success. In identifying attributes required to create safe spaces for Indigenous ECRs, the data also brings to light challenges and barriers faced by Indigenous ECRs. Specifically, that Indigenous ECRs do not always feel safe to openly identify as Indigenous, to seek advice, make mistakes, speak openly or to trust either their colleagues and/or institutional policies and practices. This clearly indicates that Indigenous ECRs are differently positioned to non-Indigenous ECRs as a result of their Indigeneity.

As a result, it is paramount that attributes such as the ones identified in this article are recognised and included in sector policies and processes that legislate the ways in which Indigenous Knowledges and Peoples are recognised and valued across the higher education sector, if not across Australia more broadly. To achieve this requires a change in institutional discourse from simply including Indigenous Peoples and knowledges to recognising that as sovereign peoples, Indigenous ECRs belong in higher education institutions across Australia and that Indigenous knowledges, perspectives and worldviews are integral to the recognition and success of Australian institutions as global academies. This position is strongly supported by Indigenous academics who advocate Indigenous sovereignty within the academy.

Bishop (2022) noted that, ‘sovereignty is not lost through the process of invasion, we retain sovereign rights and responsibilities as custodial peoples who have always belonged here/ (p. 135). In engaging Rigney’s (1999) emancipatory imperative and recognising Indigenous Peoples as sovereign, Indigenous ECRs would be positioned in the academy as emerging leaders in both their fields of expertise and through their cultural connections and responsibilities to their Indigenous Countries and communities. From this leadership position, Indigenous ECRs would have an increased agency over their developing careers rather than being consigned to Indigenous specific policies that non-Indigenous scholars may choose to ignore or avoid.

In exploring the concept of safe spaces in the academy from the perspective of Indigenous ECRs, this article reported that Indigenous ECRs found strength, confidence and support when they were able to connect and collaborate with other Indigenous ECRs and scholars. However, with many Indigenous ECRs employed in faculties or institutions in which Indigenous representation was minimal at best, we identified four main attributes that are integral to providing spaces that Indigenous ECRs would consider culturally and academically safe. We suggest that, in order for these attributes to be effectively implemented across the higher education sector, the discourse needs to change from the inclusion of Indigenous Peoples and Knowledges to recognising Indigenous Peoples as sovereign. In addition, universities need to rethink the positioning of themselves as benevolent in their efforts towards Indigenous inclusion.

This is a big conversation that questions the way in which Indigenous Peoples are recognised and valued within and outside global academies. Thus, the authors of this article advocate that the creation and continued growth of genuinely safe spaces for Indigenous ECRs in institutions across Australia are paramount to identifying, challenging and dismantling structures that maintain and harbour inequities faced by Indigenous staff and students.