Working towards accountability in embedding Indigenous studies: Evidence from an Indigenous Graduate Attribute evaluation instrument

Abstract

Whilst Indigenous Graduate Attributes – or the embedding Indigenous cultural competencies within broad graduate attributes – are becoming increasingly popular within some universities, it is essential that universities be held accountable for the realisation of such policies. Considering that Australian Indigenous Studies – an essential component of Indigenous Graduate Attributes – is a highly contested space where colonial and Indigenous knowledges collide, this article presents evidence from analyses, engaging with Indigenous Standpoints, aimed at evaluating critically the degree to which university subjects may contribute to the realisation of Indigenous Graduate Attributes. Results identify not only an array of psychometrically sound factors which measure Student Knowledges and Attitudes to Indigenous Issues as well as Applied Indigenous Learning, but also indicate that the embedding of Australian Indigenous Studies content may vary across disciplines. In addition, results show that the impact of such embedding on student attitudes also varies greatly according to discipline, with positive, negative, and contradicting results across disciplines. These findings strongly suggest that any commitment to embedding Indigenous Graduate Attributes must be monitored very carefully.

Data sovereignty: A review

“…Most often, these agents are portrayed as the putative sovereign, e.g. when the respective passages concern “ national data sovereignty […] defined here as: Government’s exclusive authority and control over all virtual public assets” (Irion, 2012: 41), “Indigenous Data Sovereignty frameworks ultimately pertaining to the governance, access, collection, and use of multiple types of data by Indigenous nations and communities ” (Bodkin-Andrews et al., 2019: 236), “ consumers’ subjective experience with regard to their own data sovereignty and thus their digital self-determination” (Krahn and Rietz, 2017: 48), or “small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the field of healthcare fear[ing] the loss of data sovereignty and information outflow” (Gembaczka et al., 2019). Occasionally, these agents are also portrayed as the contributors, facilitators, or difference-makers to the sovereignty of some agent or other, e.g.…”

Culturally Responsive Pedagogy: A Canadian Perspective

“…Once again, one can consider how the implementation of CSP and CSRP could be done within the broader educational context. For instance, universities in Australia have been working towards embedding Indigenous culture and competencies into their programs to ensure that all students engage with indigenous materials within each of their courses in an effort to sustain Australian Indigenous values and knowledge (Bodkin-Andrews et al, 2019). Furthermore, Alfred (2009) demonstrates that CSP, within the context of higher education, can be used to incorporate the culture and history of individual learners in order to create a space in which both immigrant and native students can freely participate in the learning discourse.…”

Examining Indigenous leadership in the academy: A methodological approach

“…In 2018, it was reported that the number of Indigenous Australians employed at Australian universities had steadily increased (Department of Education and Training, 2019) and the research space within higher education had started to shift, ‘providing the opportunity for intergenerational transfer of Indigenous research practices and knowledge’ (Ford et al., 2018, p. 277). However, notwithstanding the observed shift, the ability to embed Indigenous Knowledges and practices still varied greatly across disciplines and Australian higher education institutions (Bodkin-Andrews et al., 2019). Furthermore, such ‘observations and shifts’ failed to identify Indigenous leaders as key decision-makers across the wider university governance structure.…”