Keywords

7.1 Introduction

There are many myths surrounding the experiences of Indigenous students in higher education. Indigenous students represent “fewer than one percent of all higher education students” (DEEWR, 2009; as cited in Asmar et al., 2011, p. 1) and have an overall higher attrition and lower completion rates than their non-Indigenous peers (2011). Asmar et al.’s (2011) research, designed to provide an understanding of why Indigenous people in Australia continue to be underrepresented in higher education, revealed many hidden dimensions to Indigenous student engagement and success. For example, it showed that while Indigenous students are less likely to complete their studies, they are “engaged with learning at a similar or slightly higher level than their non-Indigenous peers, and report levels of overall satisfaction equal or higher to their peers” (Asmar et al., 2011, p. 1).

Asmar et al.’s (2011) study, which focused on Indigenous students in higher education, revealed a disparity between interpretation of the statistics and the complex and nuanced reasons why completion rates remain low. They noted that more evidence about factors that contribute to Indigenous students’ success is required (Asmar et al., 2011).

It seems that wherever Indigenous students go, the myths follow about what they need in order to complete their research and studies. Through our experience with facilitating capacity-building workshops, interviewing and surveying Indigenous higher degree by research (HDR) students (see Chap. 1 for an overview of the research conducted), we continually heard what we refer to as “the three myths about what an Indigenous HDR student should be doing” throughout their studies. These myths are that an Indigenous HDR student should be:

  • Supervised by an Indigenous supervisor

  • Using Indigenous research methodologies

  • Researching Indigenous issues.

Indigenous HDR enrolments have “increased over the last decade but completion rates remain relatively low” (Moreton-Robinson et al., 2020, p. 3). There are a number of factors contributing to these low completion rates (Moreton-Robinson et al., 2020), and in this chapter, we argue that the needs of Indigenous HDR students are being consistently misunderstood, which may lead to lower rates of satisfaction with their studies, along with these low completion rates. This chapter interrogates the three myths to break down the problems with each of these assumptions. It provides an overview of what Indigenous HDR students have told us they need in order to complete their studies.

7.2 Data Used to Inform This Chapter

The group discussion and individual written responses were obtained in 2018 following a National Indigenous Research and Knowledges Network (NIRAKN) capacity-building workshop for Indigenous HDRs across Australia. Three separate group discussions took place; however, it was impossible to identify the participants from one another, so this data was labelled ‘GD_IndigenousHDR’. The written responses were completed individually, and therefore, we can identify each participant by number. The group discussions were audio recorded and transcribed. The transcribed group discussions were then uploaded into NVivo with the individual written responses. Both datasets were read in NVivo where the text was highlighted and coded to identify emerging themes. The online surveys that were completed by Indigenous HDR students and supervisors of Indigenous HDR students were developed using the Qualtrics online platform. The responses from both surveys were uploaded in NVivo so that they could be read, tagged and coded into themes. In total four datasets were used to inform this chapter (Table 7.1).

Table 7.1 Datasets used to inform this chapter
Full size table

7.3 Myth One: Indigenous HDR Students Need to Be Supervised by Indigenous Supervisor

It’s got nothing to do with culture and that stuff, I just need to know that I’m safe and supported (GD_IndigenousHDR).

The first myth about Indigenous HDR students is that the students must have Indigenous supervisors. This myth seems to have stemmed from the limited research in the area, which has until now focused “on the impact of cultural aspects on the student-supervisor relationship” (Moreton-Robinson et al., 2020, p. 8). Previous studies have reported the importance of culturally appropriate supervision for Indigenous students without the data to demonstrate how this “culturally appropriate supervision enables” them to succeed, (Moreton-Robinson et al., 2020, p. 11). With just 431 Indigenous academics employed in Australian universities in 2018 (Department of Education and Training, 2020, as cited in Moreton-Robinson et al., 2020), there are simply not enough to supervise the number of Indigenous students currently enrolled in HDR studies (Hutchings et al., 2018; Trudgett, 2011). With this knowledge, the research has shifted to make recommendations for non-Indigenous supervisors, such as requiring them to undertake cultural awareness training and involve non-academic community members in the supervisory team, and a database of academics who are in a position to supervise Indigenous students (Trudgett, 2011). These findings are focused on the impact of cultural aspects on the student–supervisor relationships, supervisors’ mentoring expertise and their availability and respect, as well as age and gender being contributing factors to the quality of Indigenous HDR supervision (Moreton-Robinson et al., 2020).

Although prior research places an emphasis on culturally appropriate supervision, “there is no importance attributed to disciplinary knowledge in the production of new knowledge” which is “a criterion to be met in the examination of the dissertation” (Moreton-Robinson et al., 2020, p. 12) as well as the value of this that our research has shown to be an important variable perceived by Indigenous students as an indicator of quality HDR supervision. While our research demonstrates some disparity between students’ expectations (wants) and their actual needs and how they are met by the supervisors, which results in a disconnection between the students’ understanding of the supervisory process’ and the ‘institutional requirements of supervision’ (see Chap. 1), what was clear in our data is the value of supervisors’ disciplinary knowledge. When asked their perception of quality supervision, one Indigenous HDR student said: “Excellence in discipline, great communicator, high level understanding of the policy and processes, high level of support/guidance of navigating the ‘academy’” (IWR_IndigenousHDR20). This response places emphasis on the supervisor’s discipline knowledge as well as their understanding of the institutional demands of their university and the academy as a whole, which supports our concern that previous research has paid little attention to how supervisors support their students to completion by ensuring they meet the institutional requirements of the degree (Moreton-Robinson et al., 2020).

To the same question, another student answered:

A supervisor slash [sic] supervisors who are experienced in your field and who can support you through each milestone in a way that complements your working style … [and] sensitivity—not specifically culturally—but to the needs of your project/goals. A strong comment driven personality (IWR_IndigenousHDR29).

Although we agree with many of the recommendations made in previous research by Laycock et al. (2009), Schofield et al. (2013), and Trudgett (2011, 2014), our research demonstrates that more emphasis should be placed on the importance of disciplinary and institutional knowledge when matching students with supervisors. While feelings of cultural safety should not be overlooked as important factors contributing to Indigenous HDR student success, it is possible for Indigenous students to successfully complete their research with the support of non-Indigenous supervisors.

All three of the Indigenous authors of this book chose non-Indigenous supervisors based on their discipline expertise. For instance, Melanie Saward chose the primary supervisor for her Master of Fine Arts (Research) based on their discipline knowledge and understanding of the specific subject she was researching, and her associate supervisor was assigned by the university. Neither of her supervisors were Indigenous, and during her research, she felt that both supported her through her milestones in a way that set her up for success—so much so that she chose to continue the relationship for her PhD. At the Queensland University of Technology, Indigenous HDR students are provided with additional support via the Carumba Institute, and in many cases—certainly in Melanie’s experience—the support provided by Indigenous academics and staff can take up the responsibility for providing some cultural support for students when navigating the academic space. This is, of course, one case of one Indigenous student who had a positive experience with non-Indigenous supervisors; not all Indigenous students will have the same unique set of needs and expectations, and not every university is equipped with the facilities to support the specific requirements of Indigenous HDR students. Some of our HDR student participants noted that some of the downfalls to having non-Indigenous supervisors were a lack of knowledge of ‘Indigenous stuff’ (GD_IndigenousHDR); lack of familiarity with the high-level ethics process required when undertaking research involving Indigenous people (GD_IndigenousHDR); “not having a strong understanding of Indigenous perspectives, theories, [and] methodologies” (IWR_IndigenousHDR20); and “a need for supervisors to understand all the different directions that Indigenous students are often pulled in” (GD_IndigenousHDR).

The assumption that Indigenous HDR students must have Indigenous supervisors also creates a demand that universities struggle to meet. With so few Indigenous people completing HDR studies, often institutions will offer promotions to graduates very early in their careers. One student noted that they had sought out a particular supervisor “because I was told if you’re an Aboriginal you need an Aboriginal supervisor and this was who was available to me” (GD_IndigenousHDR). The student says that this supervisor had been “offered a professorship almost straight after finishing [their] PhD … [they have] never supervised a student to completion” (GD_IndigenousHDR). The student said that this was obviously having an effect on their supervisor’s work and had a ‘flow-on effect’ to the students as well (GD_IndigenousHDR). The student said “I don’t need that cultural support. I’ve got that from my family and from my elders. What I really needed was a good supervisor” (GD_IndigenousHDR).

A concerning comment about the lack of support from an Indigenous supervisor may be explained by a poor practice that some universities adopt by allocating Indigenous supervisors to Indigenous HDR students despite them not having the discipline knowledge. A participant in a group discussion said: “I have an Indigenous supervisor as my second. That supervisor does nothing, never offers feedback, doesn’t come to meetings” (GD_IndigenousHDR).

However, there appears to be a misbelief circling in universities that Indigenous HDR students should be placed with Indigenous academies. Out findings do not support placing Indigenous HDR students with supervisors who do not have disciplinary knowledge regardless of whether the academic is Indigenous or non-Indigenous. A recurrent theme in the group discussions and individual written responses was a sense among interviewees that supervisors’ unavailability was a big concern for their research journey. As one interviewee put it:

She [supervisor] is always too busy to read my work. She didn’t forward the paperwork that means I had to wait for 4 months for second supervisors. I discussed this with graduate school. My supervisor and the school blamed each other. No one followed up my questions (GD_IndigenousHDR).

We also found from the capacity-building workshops for Indigenous HDR students that it is important to remind students that they have agency and can change supervisors if the relationship is not working.

Another Indigenous HDR student revealed that their supervisor does not reply to messages, is never available and does not follow up on work they have offered. The students also discussed the power difference in relationships which may mean students do not feel comfortable to follow up requests with their supervisors.

We want to see the number of Indigenous academics increase so that any student who wants to have an Indigenous supervisor has that choice, but—perhaps ironically—in order for this to become reality, the belief that Indigenous HDR students must have Indigenous supervisors must change. If the myth that Indigenous students cannot be appropriately supervised to completion without having an Indigenous supervisor does not stop, we cannot expect retention and completion rates to improve. In order to improve outcomes for Indigenous HDR students, more attention should be placed on students being matched with supervisors with appropriate disciplinary background, institutional knowledge and cultural appreciation of Indigenous perspectives. One Indigenous HDR student captured this sentiment by stating that they believe that a good supervisor would have “cultural understanding support from an Indigenous perspective and the capacity to evaluate Indigenous understandings that are supportive of these concepts” (OLS2_IndigenousHDR2).

7.4 Myth Two: Indigenous HDR Students Need to Use Indigenous Research Methodologies

Statistical experimental design and advanced literature searches are also quite useful (OLS2_IndigenousHDR5).

The second myth is that Indigenous HDR students need to use Indigenous research methodologies. This myth often goes hand in hand with the expectation that Indigenous HDR students must have Indigenous supervisors. The assumption here is that non-Indigenous supervisors do not have a pre-existing understanding of Indigenous research methodologies and therefore will not be able to provide appropriate support. There are several issues with this assumption. First, Indigenous research methodologies do not exist solely for the use of Indigenous students and academics, and they are available for all to use. Second, it is racist to expect that Indigenous HDR students use a prescribed methodology that is race based.

7.4.1 Indigenous Research Methodologies

Yeah, don’t tokenise us. Why are we seen as so different from every HDR student (GD_IndigenousHDR)?

Indigenous research methodologies are available for the use of all scholars and researchers, not just those who identify as Indigenous. Our experience has shown that when non-Indigenous supervisors express discomfort in supervising Indigenous students, one of the assumptions they are making is that these students will need or want to use Indigenous research methodologies and, as a participant in our supervisor survey (who identified as being neither Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander) noted: “I am always worried that I am out of my depth, especially in relation to the theoretical” (OLS3_Supervisor6).

Indigenous research methodologies are available for everyone to read, study, gain an understanding of and use. In fact, we argue that in order to increase the number of Indigenous academics and remove the unnecessary burdens from those few Indigenous people currently working in the academy, it is critical that all academics engage with Indigenous methodologies. This is regardless of whether they are currently supervising Indigenous students and/or whether the students they are supervising are using Indigenous research methodologies.

With reviews of higher education and research training systems in Australia highlighting the need to increase Indigenous HDR students’ participation (Behrendt et al., 2012; McGagh et al., 2016) as a way of transforming “the Indigenous professional class” and reshaping “the research practices of tertiary institutions” (Moreton-Robinson et al., 2020, p. 6), it is critical that non-Indigenous academics researchers and academics “self-interrogate [their] contributions to, and alignments with, ongoing colonizing practices by way of conducting research … on (as opposed to with) Indigenous peoples” (Blair, 2016; Moreton-Robinson, 2000, 2006; Nakata, 2007, as cited in Krusz et al., 2020, p. 206).

Although there is a demonstrated understanding from supervisors that they need more professional development to better support Indigenous HDR students, when participants in our supervisor online survey were asked if they thought supervisors of Indigenous HDR students required professional development, 5 out of 33 respondents specifically mentioned the need for supervisors to understand Indigenous research methodologies (OLS3_Supervisor7, 25, 27, 28, 29). Many emphasised a need for cultural awareness training. While we agree that cultural awareness training can be helpful and institutions should be offering this training to all staff members, we see these responses as a lack of understanding of areas that would be of specific benefit to Indigenous HDR students, not to mention having a broader effect on decolonising across their own research, teaching and practices. It is important, too, to remember that cultural awareness training is broad and may not be applicable to individual HDR students who are not, as we have mentioned before, a monolith and come from many different communities and countries and have different levels of cultural engagement.

One participant also noted that they “felt supervisors of Indigenous HDR students should have training that is led ‘by Indigenous staff’” (OLS3_Supervisor33) and another said that supervisors should “meet with other Indigenous scholars and students – to talk about Indigenous research methodologies” (OLS3_Supervisor22). In many institutions, the work of building Indigenous HDR student capacity and doing the work of decolonising falls to Indigenous academics. As already noted in this chapter, there are very few Indigenous academics employed by Australian institutions, so when non-Indigenous academics expect Indigenous academics to take on additional work of providing cultural awareness training, they are further adding to the burden and labour of their colleagues. When it comes to supervising HDR students, this again goes hand in hand with the assumption that Indigenous HDRs should have a co-supervisor who is Indigenous. We feel this demonstrates that these supervisors believe it is the Indigenous academic’s role to provide cultural and Indigenous methodological support while it is their role to provide discipline-specific support. However, there is no reason they cannot engage with, and understand and use Indigenous research methodologies and support any student who wishes to use them, regardless of whether the student is Indigenous.

Although we would like to see Indigenous methodologies form a key part of mandatory professional development for supervisors of Indigenous HDR students, as noted by respondents above, the idea that academics should wait to be trained in these areas is problematic. The research and literature needed to start engaging with Indigenous methodologies are already available to these supervisors, and we would like to see them stepping up and taking the initiative to learn. To apply Moreton-Robinson’s (2000) work on decolonising feminism to the academic space, she said that decolonising “requires more than including voice or making space for Indigenous [people]” (p. 351). To do this, non-Indigenous people must initiate “and engage in dialogue with each other, rather than inappropriately requesting or expecting direction … from Indigenous colleagues” (Krusz et al., 2020, p. 206). This can also be applied to non-Indigenous academics who already have the tools available to them in order to take the initiative and interest in Indigenous research methodologies without being prompted by the supervision of Indigenous HDR students or by their Indigenous colleagues.

7.4.2 Indigenous Research Methodologies: Use Is Not Compulsory

I expect my Indigenous students to complete a project that makes a contribution to their community (OLS3_Supervisor12).

Although we argue that all researchers and academics should develop an understanding of Indigenous research methodologies, we also argue the assumption that every Indigenous student will want—or need—to use Indigenous research methodologies demonstrates a problematic homogenisation and othering of Indigenous people. It also shows a concerning lack of focus on the institutional requirements of HDR studies.

At our home institution, the Queensland University of Technology (QUT), the guidelines for examiners of PhD theses state that a thesis is expected to show evidence of: originality of the research data and/or analysis of the data; coherence of argument and presentation; competence in technical and conceptual analysis; and contextual competence (QUT, n.d.). It does not, however, state that Indigenous students must use Indigenous research methodologies, just as it does not state that non-Indigenous students must use a methodology specific to their race, culture or other identity. Yet, during our time facilitating workshops for the National Indigenous Research and Knowledges Network (NIRAKN), many students, including one of the authors of this book, Melanie Saward, were asked which Indigenous research methodologies they were including in their research. Another of this book’s author, Levon Blue, was told by one of her supervisors that she should use talking circles when conducting research in the First Nation community during her PhD. The advice was not followed; instead, Levon was led by the Community members she interviewed, which was one on one and group interviews that were audio recorded.

Indigenous HDR students are negotiators of complex intersections (Nakata et al., 2015, p. 140) between their own experiences and standpoints as Indigenous people, their research and the institutional requirements of their degrees. They work in contested spaces (Nakata et al., 2015) with Western education systems having their roots in colonialism and being “based on a foundation of oppressive ideologies of assimilation” aligning to the dispossession of Indigenous people (Pihama et al., 2019, p. 52). For this reason, we believe it is important that Indigenous HDR students are given the opportunity to engage with Indigenous research methodologies—if they choose to—regardless of whether they are including them in their research or not. But, as the engineers and controllers of their research, it is up to the student to choose the most appropriate methodological framework for their research and discipline. Though Indigenous HDR students work in these contested spaces, Western knowledge systems are an important site for Indigenous intellectual and critical inquiry, for it is from this location, that Indigenous students articulate their own position, “forged … from within their own experiences of being Indigenous” (Nakata et al., 2015, p. 142).

This means that for some Indigenous HDR students, using Indigenous research methodologies may not be the most appropriate fit for their research. A participant in our online supervisor survey specifically noted a need for supervisors of Indigenous HDRs to have training that would help supervisors to “better understand the ramifications of the imposition of Western education systems and how this plays out at the HDR level” (OLS3_Supervisor4). We are not arguing that the imposition of Western education systems has not had and will not have an effect on Indigenous HDR students, but our data demonstrated that when responding to their perception of supervising Indigenous HDR students, very few had considered that their students might not want or need to use Indigenous research methodologies.

In research on employment, Indigenous people are constantly negotiating “between different systems of thinking and practice, and understanding of people’s historical experience of these intersections” (Nakata et al., 2015, p. 142). The Australian Government’s Review of Higher Education Access and Outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People Final Report by Behrendt et al. (2012) suggests that universities offer participation activities such as “capacity building, mentoring, peer support, tutoring” and so on to “better meet the needs of students” (p. 26). Through our experience of running capacity-building research, we have interacted with many students who have noted that this separate mode of delivery has provided them with a good grounding in Indigenous research methodologies. For one of the authors of this book, Melanie Saward, participating in Indigenous research methodologies masterclasses and workshops as an HDR student helped her to negotiate the intersections between Western knowledge systems and discipline-specific skills, despite the fact that her master’s research did not use any Indigenous research methodologies. She used knowledge gained at this training to negotiate a space between the academic process and her identity as an Indigenous person. Many students who participated in our workshops and training had similar experiences, and although we do not expect that students who participate will necessarily apply their learnings to their research, we understand that we are providing Indigenous students with “strategies for working within the disciplines to uphold Indigenous standpoints” (Nakata et al., 2015, p. 142). Nakata et al. (2015) described an approach that:

is likely to have bearing on the quality of Indigenous students’ preparation for professional practice in a range of Indigenous contexts; for example, in health practice, governance areas, economic development, law, and business. Working in these contexts requires constant negotiation between different systems of thinking and practice, and understanding of people’s historical experience of these intersections. Indigenous learners’ engagement with the disciplines is a specific, specialised example of what Indigenous Australians deal with every day as they interact with broader institutional practices and conventions (p. 142).

Indigenous research methodologies are important tools for research and are available for everyone—Indigenous or not—to read, understand and apply to their research and practice. We want to see more academics actively and autonomously engaging with these methodologies as we believe it will make them better supervisors and allies. But while we want to see supervisors finding a new understanding of Indigenous research methodologies, it is important that they do not impose race-based methodologies on the Indigenous HDR students they are supervising if they are not the most appropriate methodologies for the student’s research. As an Indigenous HDR student noted “although I’m not doing cultural studies, it is still important [my supervisors] understand that Indigenous issues/practices/relatedness/history/family [are] all important” (IWR_IndigenousHDR30).

7.5 Myth Three: Indigenous HDR Students Should Be Researching Indigenous Issues

Don’t assume that because I’m Aboriginal I want to discuss every racist event that comes up in the media, introduce me to the practices and people that helped you succeed (OLS2_IndigenousHDR19).

The assumption that Indigenous HDR students should be researching Indigenous matters rather than their own research interests is problematic. Many Indigenous HDR students have shared with us that they were told that their theses were not Indigenous enough and had been given recommendations to incorporate more Indigeneity into their theses. A non-Indigenous supervisor who participated in our online survey noted that they expect their Indigenous students to “complete a project that makes a contribution to their community” (OLS3_Supervisor12). There are problematic aspects to this assumption, with one important one being: are non-Indigenous students expected to complete a project that makes a contribution to their communities? Or are they simply expected to meet the institutional requirements of their research?

Like their non-Indigenous colleagues, Indigenous HDR students undertake research for myriad reasons. While some will wish to make contributions to their communities, others are exploring art and practice, upskilling for employment or researching as a part of a team. Just as it may not be appropriate in some contexts for students to introduce Indigenous methodologies into their research, some students will have research interests that do not relate to Indigeneity and it is problematic for supervisors to assume that they will need to do so.

7.6 Summary

Undoing commonly held beliefs about the needs and wants of Indigenous HDR students is critical if we are to see better retention and completion rates and in order to see our aim of a robust Indigenous academic workforce come to fruition. To do this, we suggest that supervisors of Indigenous HDR students engage in critical reading, research and discussion of Indigenous research methodologies, being careful to not expect their Indigenous colleagues to do the work of delivering training or facilitating these discussions. Non-Indigenous supervisors need to understand the challenges facing Indigenous HDR students and academics and work with their colleagues to better support their students, understanding that it may not always be possible for Indigenous HDRs to have Indigenous supervisors, that they may not need or wish to use Indigenous research methodologies in their research and they may choose not to research Indigenous issues.