Introduction

As a university, RMIT’s main business is education; as a civil institution, it also has a mandate for social change. In 2019, pre the COVID-19 pandemic, the Office of Indigenous Education, Research and Engagement (OIERE) was tasked with developing an approach to fulfil the university’s commitment to creating an education environment in which Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples can fulfil their aspirations, where cultural heritage is safeguarded (RMIT University, 2016), and where non-Indigenous staff and students are active participants in a shared future. To do this required sharper focus on the responsibilities of non-Indigenous staff to be in relation with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples; as well as ensuring non-Indigenous staff are supported to develop the capabilities they need to fulfil that responsibility (Bullen et al., 2021; McLaughlin, 2013), without further burdening Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

The university’s policy and governance of the Indigenous perspectives program of work was primarily driven by RMIT’s commitment to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP, 2007). Central to the Declaration’s implementation is the recognition that Australia and its institutions have responsibilities to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, including the right to ‘establish and control their education’ without discrimination (Article 14, pp. 13–14), and the right to have Indigenous cultures and aspirations reflected in education (Article 15, p.14). At a national level, the work was informed by Universities Australia’s (UA) Indigenous Strategy 2017–2020 (2017), one recommendation of which was to task member universities to give all students the opportunity to engage with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander content throughout their studies and develop cultural competency. Page, Trudgett and Sullivan (2017, p. 45) note, however, the actions required for achieving UA’s recommendations were never clearly stated. In an outcome driven environment focused on funding associated with student experience data (Department of Education, 2019) professional development for staff is often ignored. The expansion and enhancement of the student learning experience is uniquely dependent on the quality of their educators’ understanding, knowledge and capability—and their own sense of wellbeing (Brookfield, 1995; Donohue, 2005). For OIERE, the question became: how do we move staff through cultural awareness and into relation with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples (Jonas, 2002); and how do we ensure this relation is foundational to our profession—education? Put another way, we are on the unceded lands of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, who have lived and practised knowledge systems and culture for over 60,000 years and continue to do so. How does this ineradicable truth influence the way we practice and engage with our disciplines, and how does this awareness inform innovation in higher education pedagogy?

The impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic with its repeated lockdowns, empty campuses, transition to online learning, and ensuing staff losses greatly interrupted the progress of the Indigenous perspective program of work, resulting in a sporadic approach. Notwithstanding the disruptions of the last couple of years, the program of work produced a framework and guiding principles to structure learning across disciplines and programs; and identified reflexivity, critical thinking, and relationality as necessary capabilities for academic and teaching staff to accomplish this work (Bodkin-Andrews et al., 2018; Gerlach, 2018; Nicholls, 2009). Importantly, what the last three years has allowed is a rethinking of the work, in the form of critical analysis and reflective review of the initiatives.

This paper begins with a discussion of the initial program of work to embed Indigenous perspectives at RMIT University, outlines issues relating to the uptake of its principles and actions, and then proposes a rethinking of the program of work. It makes recommendations for non-Indigenous educators regarding the necessary behaviours and actions required to ensure Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander ownership of their knowledges, cultural heritage, and data are respected (McLaughlin & Whatman, 2007; Nakata, 2007). The authors, a white Australian of Irish decent and a member of the Gunggari nation from southern Queensland, argue that non-Indigenous educators are often ill equipped to undertake curriculum deconstruction or review (Bullen et al., 2021; Wolfe et al., 2018). They lack a comprehensive understanding of colonial history, old and new racism (Pedersen et al., 2005), and the impact of power dynamics, with its institutional privileging of whiteness (McLaughlin, 2013). The authors use the term ‘racism’ in the title of the article as an acknowledgment that it is ‘still rampant across the education section, and Aboriginal Peoples continue to face deficit discourses’ (Weuffen et al., 2023, p. 1). A discussion of racism is not the focus of the article, but it is a required baseline of understanding about the power dynamics of institutional racism at the foundations of colonial western institutions, such as higher education institutions. It is often only with this foundational knowledge that educators are positioned to undertake curriculum analysis and ensure that their teaching environments are culturally safe. While this paper is case specific, the original project and the reconsideration of behaviours and actions are relevant to all educational institutions facing similar stumbling blocks when it comes to schooling non-Indigenous educators in the knowledge and capabilities required to include Indigenous perspectives in curricula and to create safe teaching environments.

Beginnings…or everything is back to front…

RMIT University is a dual sector, global institution, and Australia’s second largest university. The Indigenous perspectives program of work began at the Melbourne campuses where approximately 54,000 higher education students are enrolled and 2180 academics are employed. The internal governance of the work was guided by RMIT’s second Reconciliation Plan, Dhumbah Goorowa 2019–2020, which required the university to develop in the organisation, ‘the skills and knowledge required to be in relationship with Indigenous sovereignties, thereby advancing sustainable reconciliation’ (RMIT University, 2019, p. 18). The Indigenous perspectives program of work began in early 2019. Expertise was marshalled from across the university and consideration given to the foundations and motivations for the work. We initially undertook an environmental scan of Australian universities to gain a better insight into relevant strategies, curriculum development, learning and teaching models and the prevalence of Indigenous specific graduate attributes. The desktop research involved accessing and reviewing university policies and reports, education blueprints and plans, reconciliation action plans and learning and teaching strategies available on websites.

The Behrendt review of higher education (Behrendt et al., 2012) maintains that ‘appropriately crafted Indigenous graduate attributes have the potential to significantly alter the cultural competence of the professional workforce in the future and to improve outcomes for their Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander clients’ (p. 193). Behrendt et al. (2012) recommend that universities in partnership with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff and communities should develop and implement Indigenous specific graduate attributes. UA’s Indigenous Strategy (2017) includes in this category graduate attributes with an Indigenous lens or the inclusion of cultural competence. In 2017, 12 universities reported having an Indigenous specific graduate attribute, by 2021, the number had only increased by five (Universities Australia, 2021, p.12).

A discussion of the efficacy of graduate attributes to drive cultural change is outside the scope of this paper, and it is difficult to ascertain reasons for the disinclination of universities to implement an Indigenous specific graduate attribute. The lack of constructive alignment for graduate attributes with both program learning outcomes and assessments, and the extent to which staff and students are even aware or share their institution’s vision are common criticisms (Oliver et al., 2018; Wong et al., 2022). It is, however, important to acknowledge Bidjara scholar Berice Anning’s (2010) insightful discussion of the development and embedding of an Indigenous graduate attribute into courses at the University of Western Sydney, and Bodkin-Andrews et al. (2018) more recent discussion relating to similar work undertaken at the University of Technology, Sydney (UTS). Both these papers highlight the need to take a collaborative and comprehensive approach to curriculum development.

What the environmental scan further showed is that frequently there is an ad hoc approach to the embedding of Indigenous knowledges, perspectives, and content in programs (Ranzijn et al., 2008). McLaughlin and Whatman (2007) note contextualisation is often dependent on the understanding, skill and capability of the staff expected to teach the content in their specific disciplines. Implementation of activities across universities include offering either a major or minor in Indigenous Studies, or a separate first year unit. Courses such as Nursing and Teaching, which have professional accreditation requirements regarding Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, are most likely to include Indigenous content in a contextualised manner. Universities offer a range of professional development opportunities for both academic and professional staff, including cultural awareness workshops, micro credentials, MOOCs and learning models, although they are rarely compulsory. The primary issue regarding these activities is the lack of consistency, with uneven opportunities for both staff and students to engage with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander educators, communities, and content.

Out of the universities reviewed, UTS is perhaps an exemplary model, having taken a university wide approach. The university established the Centre for the Advancement of Indigenous Knowledges in 2015 with the employment of senior Indigenous staff; set a requirement for all first-year students to undertake an Indigenous Studies subject, and where relevant to the discipline, have Indigenous perspectives embedded in second year and third year units, evident in program learning outcomes, and aligned to Indigenous specific graduate attributes (Page et al., 2016, 2018). James Cook University (JCU) also offers a comprehensive program with the curriculum geographically contextualised around the language and culture of Traditional Owners where campuses are located. JCU established an Indigenous Education and Research Centre (IERC), offers numerous Indigenous Studies electives, and has an explicit graduate attribute; importantly, their Indigenous strategy is embedded in the university’s strategy. Queensland University of Technology (QUT) similarly has a strong visual, cultural presence. QUT established the Carumba Institute as the centre for Indigenous research students and a special Indigenous Studies unit, Oodgeroo, where students can participate in an immersive experience; it also offers an Indigenous Studies minor and mandatory Indigenous units in health focused programs such as Psychology, Nursing, and Nutrition.

There is a geographical context to the actions taken by universities to include Indigenous knowledges, perspectives, and content that appears to be directly related to demographics. More than 63% of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples live either in New South Wales (34.2%), or Queensland (29.2%) (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2022). Local Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities offer opportunities to universities within these areas to engage with Elders and Traditional Owners and run immersion and on-Country experiences for staff and students, that are sometimes less easy to make available to institutions in other states.

Findings from the Indigenous Strategy Final Report (Universities Australia, 2021) are useful here. All 39 member universities have heeded the UA’s recommendation to develop an Indigenous strategy and implement activities in varying ways, and 14 universities have developed a separate Indigenous research strategy. Positive trends include initiatives to encourage Indigenous students’ participation in higher education and increased enrolment rates; yet completion rates for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students at 47% ‘are still lagging well behind’ the 74% for non-Indigenous students (p. 25).

Curriculum development with Indigenous content

With a focus on curriculum development, we also reviewed the critical literature around embedding Indigenous perspectives to better understand risk factors and opportunities for success. There has been much discussion about how preservice teachers, after completing their university degrees, still feel unqualified to teach the Australian curriculum where it requires knowledge of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander histories and cultures. (Baeza, 2019; Burgess et al., 2022; Ma Rhea & Russell, 2012; Moodie, 2019; Moore & Baker, 2019; White et al., 2022). Less attention has been paid to how ‘qualified’ academics feel when they are required to teach Indigenous subject matter in their disciplines. Due to professional requirements for the inclusion of content that relates to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Communities as clients, the discipline of health has made some progress in this area; yet graduates still report on their lack of confidence, and academics on their lack of knowledge and experience in teaching in the area (Wolfe et al., 2018). There are some singular examples of two-way (or both way) learning, for example Moore and Baker’s (2019) development of an Arts Education module in a Bachelor of Education degree, which evidenced improvement in the understanding of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Cross-Curriculum Priority and the Early Years Learning Framework (p. 96).

The Australian Psychology Accreditation Committee (APAC) has a requirement that all psychology programs include some coverage of Indigenous content and critiques of western psychology (Ranzijn et al., 2008, p. 132). In their analysis of undergraduate course piloting of draft curriculum guidelines for psychology academics, Ranzijn et al. (2008) noted that many academics commented on the resistance they felt from both their institution and colleagues, including:

a lack of support from fellow academics, a lack of support from higher levels of the university, and arguments that (a) there was not enough space in already overcrowded psychology programs, (b) there was a lack of expertise to teach this content, (c) there were no models or guidelines to work from, (d) there would be high levels of student resistance, and (e) this kind of material is peripheral to the central purposes of teaching psychology. (p. 137)

Unsurprisingly, students responded positively to the courses which included Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander academics and professionals, who were involved in the development and teaching of the course, and as community members, often spoke of their racialised experience within the profession (p. 137). Ranzijn et al. (2008) posit that to ensure success, there are two primarily non-negotiable requirements: first, academics who teach the material ‘must be committed to its inclusion’, and second, students are open to reflecting on their own preconceived ideas, perceptions, and behaviours (p. 139).

In 2016, the collaborative learning and teaching project, Australian Indigenous Psychology Education Project (AIPEP), led by Bardi scholar Professor Pat Dudgeon, found the only way to ensure all psychology graduates are well practised in culturally responsive behaviour and cognisant of the contemporary effects of colonisation was to integrate Indigenous content vertically and horizontally through curriculum design (Dudgeon et al., 2016, p. 9). The AIPEP (2016), in collaboration with the Australian Psychological Society (APS), developed three significant documents: the AIPEP Curriculum Framework, the AIPEP Guidelines for Increasing the Recruitment, Retention and Graduation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Psychology Students, and the AIPEP Workforce Capabilities Framework. The AIPEP Curriculum Framework and Guidelines remove the lack of relevance of the ‘curriculum as a primary barrier’ (p. 11) for the participation and retention of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander graduates, a crucial action in an environment where there are too few Indigenous psychologists and health specialists. More recently Dudgeon et al. (2021) have identified a positive ‘shift in the societal response to many of the issues captured in the [original AIPEP] project’ (p. 163). They argue Indigenous knowledges can play a central role in ‘addressing critical social issues’ at the forefront of psychology. There are still, however, barriers in both the discipline and the profession, with evidence consistently demonstrating ‘that the absence and scarcity of cultural visibility in the curriculum remains a significant barrier to minority group participation’ (p. 166).

Anecdotally, discussions at the AARE Conference 2022 would suggest that a worrying disjuncture exists between what the registering bodies, in this case the APS and TESQA, require of graduates and what grassroots educators understand they are required to teach. The discipline of psychology is not the only area where this ‘uncomfortable’ discrepancy has been identified.

Wolfe et al. (2018) surveyed health academic and educators at multi-campus Australian universities about their practices and attitudes to delivering Indigenous content. While 63% of participants reported that they included Indigenous content in their teaching, 60% also noted they felt ‘awkward, unsure or avoided teaching Indigenous content’ (p. 649). Reasons attributed to these behaviours included being worried they would make mistakes, not knowing what to teach and finding it ‘too hard’ (Wolfe et al., 2018, p. 654). Affirming Papua New Guinean academic Juliana Mohok McLaughlin’s (2013) comments about the need for ‘rigorous and persistent’ professional development for non-Indigenous staff, Wolfe et al. (2018) propose that all levels within universities must commit to this work and that future research ‘must focus on ways to effectively build capability in non-Indigenous academic staff to teach Indigenous content in collaboration with Indigenous community members’ (p. 660).

The work itself—piloting through mapping

Previous success with the RMIT Belonging Project (Wilson et al., 2018), taught us the importance of taking a university-wide approach while also working at a grassroots level with academics through discursive practice (Young, 2009). As we were completing the environmental scan and critical review for the Indigenous perspectives project, we began the work of developing a framework and guiding principles through a pilot study. We invited a small group of non-Indigenous educators including discipline leads and program managers from across the three higher education colleges to collaborate with us in this work. The participants included five staff from the College of Sciences, Engineering, Computing Technologies and Health and Medical Sciences (STEM), three staff from the College of Business and Law (CoBL), and six staff from the College of Design and Social Context (DSC). We applied a set of criteria to how we chose the participants: they must have completed professional development, including a micro-credential on colonisation and Indigenous sovereignty and self-determination, be active participants in a Ngulu Reconciliation Committee (Ngulu is the Woi wurrung and Boon wurrung word for 'voice', the committee’s purpose is to drive activity and review and report on the progress of reconciliation activities), and, who were already creating opportunities for students to engage with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander content throughout their studies (Universities Australia, 2017). These opportunities may have included working with local communities to engage in research and on-Country experiences, collaborating with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Elders and academics, reviewing curriculum to include Indigenous perspectives and contents, and advocating for the employment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander educators.

Curriculum audit

Initially, we invited the participants of the pilot group to complete a curriculum audit of all courses in one chosen program using guiding questions or prompts, which would later inform mapping activities. Most programs were three or four-year Bachelor and Honours programs, with CoBL piloting a two-year Masters degree. The prompts in Table 1 acted as a guide through the initial annotation process and were then further interrogated through mapping activities.

Table 1 Indigenous perspective curriculum review prompts
Full size table

Method of mapping

The next step we took was to collaborate with program managers and coordinators to create curriculum maps in the disciplines of Environmental Engineering, Surveying and Geospatial Science, Creative Writing, Early Childhood Education, Sustainability and Urban Planning and Human Resource Management programs. We used a mapping method as it is a technique that can make curriculum more ‘transparent’ to educators and students alike (Harden, 2001). Furthermore, Uchiyama and Radin (2009) note mapping offers a range of opportunities, it ‘fosters respect for …profession knowledge and expertise’ and ‘allows all participants to examine, or re-examine, their individual and collective beliefs about teaching and learning in structured and safe settings’ (p. 273). Our method of curriculum mapping aligned with our discursive approach (Young, 2009), which also encourages collaboration as it supports ‘reflective practice in curriculum design’ (Spencer et al., 2012, p. 271). The purpose of the maps was to capture current initiatives and activities around Indigenous perspectives and culturally safe behaviours occurring in disciplines, and to understand how best to develop the capability of educators to embed Indigenous perspectives in discipline knowledge, practices, protocols, and skills.

Rather than using self-development mapping software, we worked at a grass roots level with pens, whiteboards, and post-it notes. We invited an experienced communications designer, Josie Ryan, to participate in our sessions and create the design of the maps. The maps captured information, created transparency, made strengths and gaps visible and were fluid enough to invite reconsideration, maintaining Jacobs and Johnson’s (2009, p. 5) thesis that mapping is an ‘active review process’. It quickly became apparent that while many programs had offerings in first year, and occasionally some also had them in second year, they were rarely available in third year. This meant that the knowledge and skills students were introduced to in first year were not further developed as a program learning outcome in the later years of their study. The Indigenous perspectives program maps supported educators to move through phases from understanding place and the significance of being on Country, to comprehending the importance of relations through actions, and developing workplace strategies that are informed by reflexive practice in response to Indigenous ways of knowing. As noted in Fig. 1a, this progression was captured in the three columns on the front side of the maps through place, relationship, and practice. The maps were undertaken in several phases, shared with program staff, discussed, challenged, added to, and corrected in response to comment and feedback.

Fig. 1
figure 1figure 1

a Program map of Indigenous perspectives in Surveying and Geospatial Science. b Program map of Indigenous perspectives in Surveying and Geospatial Science

Full size image

The mapping process produced visual prototypes (see Fig. 1a & b) that function as living documents and models for colleges and schools to influence current work and future planning. Importantly, they can act as encouragement to educators considering how an Indigenous perspectives approach to their discipline can inform graduate learning outcomes. At some point in the mapping process, we asked participants to articulate the Indigenous specific discipline capability they wished students to have learned by the completion of their degree. The discipline capabilities were captured in the curved pattern on the front side of the maps. As seen in Fig. 1a, for Surveying and Geospatial Science, it was reflexivity – ensuring students as professionals would never rename an area or place a boundary mark thoughtlessly again. They would know whose land it was, its Aboriginal name, and the names of the Traditional Owners. They would endeavour to practice codesign and collaboration. For Environmental Engineering, it was the ability to engage in respectful relationships and collaboration in the management of water culture, and for Creative Writing, it was Indigenous discipline leadership through theoretical situation writing in relation to 200 generations of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander storytellers.

The Framework

The curriculum mapping and collaboration work enabled us to develop The Guiding Principles of the Indigenous Perspectives Framework (see Fig. 2), which is aligned with staff capability development frameworks and informed by our Community (Industry) Indigenous Engagement Framework, sharing the domains of strength-based, collaboration, and responding to context. The framework is modelled on a helix with each domain connected and informed by a range of actions. The other three domains or action areas are relationality, power dynamics, and belonging. The purpose of the framework is to build staff capability to support them in their considerations of how to embed Indigenous perspectives in curriculum through ‘responsible practice’ (Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, [AIATSIS] 2020). At the heart of the framework are the learning and teaching principles of the –– Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology Act (2010) (RMIT University, 2016) and the obligation under UNDRIP to commit to Indigenous sovereignty and self-determination.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Guiding principles of the Indigenous perspectives framework

Full size image

Everyone wants a map…

By the start of 2020, the Indigenous perspective framework and principles had been piloted and accepted across the University's three colleges and at all undergraduate year levels. Educators described how the initiative was ‘changing mind sets’, challenging the ‘basis of disciplines’, and leading to a rethinking of knowledge and discipline boundaries—and every school wanted a map. When the COVID-19 pandemic hit, much of the work towards embedding Indigenous perspectives halted. That said, what time has allowed is a rethinking of the program of work. One realisation is clear, for the pilot we selected staff who were already engaged and doing this work, through passion, interest and for altruist reasons. But for most non-Indigenous academics and educators, nothing has changed in their teaching environment. What follows is a discussion of some of the issues we believe are hindering the progression toward embedding Indigenous perspectives, curriculum review and innovation in pedagogy in higher education.

Issues of terminology, understanding, and expertise

Bodkin-Andrews et al. (2018) emphasise the critical and reflective work of challenging ‘systemic privileging of non-Indigenous and colonial discourses’ within education institutions is not just the work of ‘Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander scholars and teachers, but also the responsibility of non-Indigenous academics and organisations’ (p. 2). Informed by UNDRIP (2007) and UA’s (2017) Indigenous Strategy 2017–2020, the original purpose of the Indigenous perspectives program of work was to ensure Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ identity and knowledges are valued by the university and that non-Indigenous people carry the responsibility of being active and respectful participants in the relationship.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ knowledges have been misappropriated within learning environments across the university sector (Janke & Sentina, 2018; Page et al., 2016). This is neither respectful or appropriate, nor does it identify the true meaning of Indigenous knowledges. When non-Indigenous people attempt to impart Indigenous knowledges, the results can be tokenistic, involve cultural appropriation, and assumptions of pan-Aboriginality (Battiste, 2013; Nakata, 2004, 2007; Smith, 1999). Torres Strait Islander scholar Martin Nakata (2004) has warned that by bringing Indigenous knowledges into western institutions, we encourage ‘extraction of elements of Indigenous ways of understanding the world…to fit with the curriculum areas’ (p. 25). For many non-Indigenous academics, there is ambiguity around what we mean within the university sector when we talk about Indigenous knowledges and perspectives in an educational and research context. We understand that Indigenous knowledges come from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, and are specifically constructed by applying collective, community-based Aboriginal ways of knowing, being and doing to the production of knowledge (Moreton-Robinson, 2014; Watson, 2014). For non-Indigenous educators, knowing Indigenous knowledges exist, and have always existed, allows an awareness and reconsideration of the bounded nature of disciplines (Nakata, 2007) in what Kamilaroi researcher Melitta Hogarth terms, the ‘contentious space where Indigenous and Western knowledges meet’ (2022, p. 236).

The new UA (2022) Indigenous Strategy 2022–2025 notes that non-Indigenous people ‘can learn for themselves more about the country and its history including the continuing contribution of Indigenous people’ (p. 54). Experience has shown that some educators will always undertake their own process of self-education in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander history, culture and practice. To do this, they partake of every opportunity offered within their workplace and civic and social life. But many others ignore these opportunities or take on a personal journey of learning but fail to bring that knowledge to their teaching and research. Institutionalised in a colonial system, founded on an ethos of exclusion and its inherent racism, they have frequently received an education that did not teach Indigenous knowledges and perspectives as parallel ways of knowing (Smith, 1999). They are unwilling or unable to see the relevance to their discipline (Williamson & Dalai, 2007), are time poor, feel they have no expertise, are afraid of doing the wrong thing (Bullen et al., 2021; Wolfe et al., 2018); or fail to understand the importance of becoming educators of culturally competent future professionals (McLaughlin, 2013 p. 254).

Wolfe et al. (2018) contend that three levels of action are required by universities to ‘address this discomfort in academic staff: (i) provide a rationale (‘why’ teach Indigenous content); (ii) develop a plan (‘where’ and ‘what’ Indigenous content to teach) and (iii) develop capability in academic staff regarding ‘how’ to teach Indigenous content’ (p. 649). A decade ago, McLaughlin (2013) argued that non-Indigenous staff require thorough and regular professional support to transform the pedagogical experience (p. 258). Our experience has shown the pressure point is the educator capability build. It requires universities to resource the development of academic capability through professional development and time relief, allowing (or requiring) educators to become students of Indigenous Studies. In arguing this, the authors acknowledge that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander researchers, educators, and students have not been given such luxuries as they have battled with the hegemonic, western institution of ‘the university’. Developing the knowledge and capability of non-Indigenous educators, who are by far the majority in higher education, however, is the logical way to progress curriculum review and development.

An Indigenous perspectives approach makes recommendations for non-Indigenous educators regarding the necessary teachings, behaviours, and actions required to ensure Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ ownership of their knowledges, cultural heritage, and data (Intellectual Property) are respected (McLaughlin & Whatman, 2007; Nakata, 2007). To embed Indigenous perspectives in curriculum, academics and educators need to understand the ‘underlying currents of race and racism’, be fluent in the tenets of critical race theory, Indigenous standpoints, and critical pedagogies (Mclaughlin, 2013, p. 254), and to act upon these learnings. The idea that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples should bear the burden of educating non-Indigenous educators and students is untenable. Indigenous research theories and methodologies that exist at the cultural interface (Nakata, 2007), run parallel to western ways of knowing (Smith, 1999) and contest its dominance in education systems, should form the foundation of this learning. Another concerning issue is that educators misunderstand what they are being asked to know and do when it comes to including Indigenous perspectives in curriculum.

The Indigenous Knowledge IP Hub (Australian Government, n.d.) states in relation to Intellectual Property, that Indigenous Knowledges is a term used to cover a range of knowledge held and continually developed by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. It can include such things as language, song, dance, stories, songlines, art, and knowledge of plants, science, medicines, and agriculture. Non-Indigenous educators are not being required to teach Indigenous knowledges in this sense. They are not being asked to teach culture, but to teach about culture, in a contextualised manner. Jingili curriculum specialist Joe Sambono (2021) developed a framework for teaching Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander histories and cultures in science through the Australian Curriculum. The framework is equally useful to tertiary educators in the way it identifies the stages and limits of teaching Indigenous knowledges by non-Indigenous educators working independently and the ‘potential opportunity of cultural content if Community is engaged’ (p. 11). It is clear the best opportunities for this occur when non-Indigenous and Indigenous educators and community collaborate on teaching. As Sambono (2021) argues, however, a ‘known risk of depending on community involvement is lack of availability and community overload’ (p. 9). In some ways, the empirical, objective nature of scientific research makes this demarcation around teaching Indigenous knowledges clearer than in some humanities and practice-based disciplines. Again, Sambono’s approach is useful here: ask yourself, ‘Am I showcasing a culture or am I teaching another culture’s practice?’ (p. 12, italics in original).

Conclusion…to begin at the beginning again…

When a freshly-minted PhD arrives at a university, they are taught how to teach, often through a Graduate Certificate. Similarly, we need to educate our academics in ‘Indigenous Studies’ if we, in turn, expect them to teach the next generation of professionals entering the global workforce (Behrendt et al., 2012). The new UA (2022) Indigenous Strategy 2022–2025

requires a sharper focus on universities’ commitment and responsibility, both at an institutional level and across the sector, to ensure those responsible are delivering on the commitments, and that indicators and evidence show how they deliver and whether they have reached their goals. (p. 17)

How will institutions activate this commitment going forward in relation to curriculum development and innovative pedagogy? QUT’s professional development modules, Indigenous Perspectives in Learning and Teaching, and Applying for Associate Fellow Higher Education Academy (Indigenous), have given academics a gateway to develop their capacity and understanding of this work in curriculum and practice. Another opportunity may be found through Graduate Certificates in Higher Education Teaching, which many universities run for all new and interested academics. Content could be included, or modules added that focus on Indigenous knowledges and perspectives. UTS is building toward this with a micro credential on Supervision Indigenous Higher Degree research, which has now been joined by one on embedding Indigenous perspectives in curriculum.

At RMIT University, we have begun to develop an enterprise-wide approach to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ inclusion by embedding five Indigenous strategic commitments within the new university strategy Knowledge with Action 2031. The commitments are Reconciliation to Responsible Practice, Indigenous Students, Indigenous Knowledges (Research, Learning and Teaching), Indigenous Staff and Community. The Indigenous perspectives program of work has informed the RMIT Education Plan to 2025: Learning Through Life and Work through value-driven aspirations of active engagement with global citizenship, diverse peoples and knowledges systems and sustainability. The RMIT Indigenous Research Plan 2023 -2025 has been approved and recent work has been completed on Open Scholarship Policies to ensure the protection of Indigenous Cultural and Intellectual Property. Where our research is now continuing is through the development of an Indigenous Student Success Strategy (ISSS), which aligns with the university strategy and will be completed in early 2024. The collaboration and insights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Vocational Education, Undergraduate, Higher Degree Research and Deadly Alumni will be foundational to the work going forward.

The research undertaken to complete the ISSS will not only improve the experience and retention of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students but inform how we better support and develop educator capabilities. It is only once academics have foundation understanding and are on a learning journey to develop capacity that they will be in a situation to teach about Indigenous perspectives with recompense, and the appropriate acknowledgement of Intellectual Property rights (UA, 2022, p. 54). With these foundations, undertaking mapping of curriculum may then truly make transparent the way in which Indigenous perspectives can radically transform the western curriculum, pedagogy, and ways of knowing.