Durithunga – Growing, nurturing, challenging and ... · Durithunga – Growing, nurturing,...

Durithunga – Growing, nurturing, challenging and supporting urban Indigenous leadership in

education

John Davis-Warra Bachelor of Arts (Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Studies & English)

Post Graduate Diploma of Education

Supervisors:

Associate Professor Beryl Exley Associate Professor Karen Dooley

Emeritus Professor Alan Luke

Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

Faculty of Education

Queensland University of Technology

2017

Durithunga – Growing, nurturing, challenging and supporting urban Indigenous leadership in education i

Keywords

Durithunga, education, Indigenous, leadership.

ii Durithunga – Growing, nurturing, challenging and supporting urban Indigenous leadership in education

Language Weaves

As highlighted in the following thesis, there are a number of key words and

phrases that are typographically different from the rest of the thesis writing. Shifts in

font and style are used to accent Indigenous world view and give clear signification to

the higher order thought and conceptual processing of words and their deeper meaning

within the context of this thesis (Martin, 2008). For ease of transition into this thesis,

I have created the “Language Weaves” list of key words and phrases that flow through

the following chapters. The list below has been woven in Migloo alphabetical order.

The challenge, as I explore in detail in Chapter 5 of this thesis, is for next generations

of Indigenous Australian writers to relay textual information in the languages of our

people from our unique tumba tjinas. Dissecting my language usage in this way and

creating a Language Weaves list has been very challenging, but is part of sharing the

unique messages of this Indigenous Education field research to a broader, non-

Indigenous and international audience.

The following weaves list consists of words taken directly from the thesis. These

Language Weaves refer to both traditional Indigenous languages and idioms used in

contemporary language today. This list is in no way exhaustive or representative of the

breadth and depth of Indigenous Australian expression. More to the point, it is this

writer’s intention to pay respect and homage to my eldership who challenge every one

of us as Davis family members to expand and express our pride in culture and our

identity in all walks of life we take. My Jutja Noelly Blair, while last visiting his

extended Davis family, sat and spoke of and on Cobble Cobble language and culture.

He said to me while we spoke on language, “roll your tongue boy when you speak …

That’s how our old people spoke … Remember that – roll your tongue …” (Blair,

personal communication, 2015). The challenge is to continue speaking how our

ancestors have spoken of, for and on this land since time immemorial.

The Language Weaves to follow provide a translation of text for readers of this

research, a translation of how I “roll my tongue” in academic writing. The definitions

are written in generic text style to connote the meaning extracted from the Indigenous-

centric words. This signals the last time my languages will be relayed in

nondescript/generic font form in the thesis to follow.

Durithunga – Growing, nurturing, challenging and supporting urban Indigenous leadership in education iii

65,000 years of camp fire knowledges, storying and arting = 65,000 years refers to

the length of time Aboriginal people of Australia have occupied Australia, representing

in 2017 the oldest living and surviving culture in the world.

Aboriginal English = Refers to a linguistic term that relates to the specific ways

Aboriginal people communicate when speaking English.

Ambae = The South Sea Island village in Vanuatu.

Aunty = Relational term referring to female Elders and women. This is also a term of

endearment and respect.

Bandjalung = Traditional language group of northern New South Wales. Badjalung

can also be understood as a root language or base language of the Yugambeh.

Bandji = Is a Murri relational term, specifically in Barunngam it means a good friend,

generally a male term of reference.

Bariebunn Boul = Yugambeh language, specifically Wangeriburra, meaning the

“dreaming circle”. There is a Home Centred Learning space in Logan, which uses this

name and language across the whole school.

Barrunga = (Dalby) refers to the rat kangaroo, a specific species of kangaroo which

flourished in and around the areas of Dalby.

Barrungam = Traditional language group, west of the Bunya Mountains, language of

the Cobble Cobble people. Barrungam derives from the Barrunga or rat kangaroo as

above.

Batchalla = Traditional language group of the southeast Queensland coastal people in

and around K’gari (Fraser Island) and Hervey Bay.

Bidjara = The western Queensland traditional language and people of Springsure.

Black Swan = Refers to the Torres Strait Islander / South Sea Islander songs about the

brave men who voyaged out on the “Black Swan” sailing boat that capsized at sea due

to high winds.

Bonye Buru = Wakka Wakka language which means Bunya Mountain.

Booburrgan Ngummunge = Wakka Wakka, Jarrowar and Barrungam language

referring to the Bunya Mountains. This is a language reference to the fruiting Bunya

cone and translates to “mother’s milk”.

iv Durithunga – Growing, nurturing, challenging and supporting urban Indigenous leadership in education

Brown water = Aboriginal relational term connecting people to the freshwater ways

inside Australia. This refers to the creeks and estuaries found in inland Australia.

Bulkari = Bandjalung language referring to the school safe space in Logan Central.

Bunya Bunya = Refers to the Bunya Bunya pine tree, my family’s spirit tree, explained

and explored further in Chapter 3.

Bunya Bunya cone = When the Bunya Bunya tree has started to mature it begins to

fruit – producing the Bunya Bunya cone.

Bunya Bunya Cycle = Tumba tjina reference to the PhD learning tool being used in

this thesis. Bunya Bunya is the native tree of the southeast, specifically Booburgun

Ngumminge (Bunya Mountains, Queensland). The Bunya Bunya Cycle refers to the

seedling, growth and fruiting of the Bunya Bunya.

Bunya fruiting and sharing = A reference to the Bunya Bunya Cycle where the Bunya

cones are in abundance.

Bunya growth = Refers to the part of the Bunya Bunya Cycle found in the middle.

Bunya roots = A part of the Bunya Bunya Cycle. This part of the cycle is found at the

foot of the Bunya pines (see Chapter 3).

Bunya seedlings = The seeds of the Bunya Bunya are shown in the Bunya Bunya

Cycle as the outlying circle. The Bunya seedling is essential for growth.

Bunya tree = Refers to the top of the Bunya Bunya Cycle design.

Cape York = A far north Queensland regional place with a majority of Indigenous

community members.

Cherbourg = The Aboriginal Reserve found 260 kilometres from Brisbane.

Historically it was founded in 1900 and first called Barambah. The Cherbourg name

is in reference to a place in France. It is found on the traditional lands of the Wakka

Wakka people.

Circle:Cycle = A process operating monthly. Durithunga’s presence as an entity is

symbolised through the formation of a yarning circle held and shared around the local

community. This is further discussed in Chapter 3 as part of Community Durithunga

Research Design.

Durithunga – Growing, nurturing, challenging and supporting urban Indigenous leadership in education v

Clan circles = Refers to the specific individual groupings within an Indigenous

Australian context. A “clan” is a smaller group, like the Cobble Cobble, that is part of

a broader group or circle. The Cobble Cobble are a part of the bigger Barrungam

language group.

Cobble Cobble = Carpet snake clan, west of the Bunya Bunya Mountains. Cobble

Cobble is a family group of the Barrungam speaking people (see Languages map,

Appendix A).

Cocoon of knowledge = Reference to the way our traditional Elders and family groups

shared and built identity of individuals within the country from which they come. The

cocoon is a metaphor for the growth of a particular individual who is wrapped around

a strong sense of self through the knowledge that is shared of and on country by

respected lore men and women.

Coming into Country = A relational reference that refers to the movement and colonial

displacement of individuals and family groups. “Coming into Country” relates to

individuals or groups of Indigenous people who move into another person’s land. As

a Cobble Cobble man (of Warra) I have come into the country of the Yugambeh

(Beenleigh and Gold Coast).

Community Durithunga = The localised Indigenous education and Indigenous

educators yarning circle.

Community Durithunga Research = Refers to this research which is specific to

Community Durithunga.

Community elderships = Refers to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in

contemporary Australia who live within discrete communities and may be living off

their own country.

Coombabah = Yugambeh place name, referring to a suburb in the Gold Coast of

Queensland which translates as the place of rotting log.

Corroboree = Indigenous Australian word used colloquially to describe traditional

forms of dance and singing.

Country; my country = Refers to traditional lands of individual Indigenous groups of

Australia. “My country” refers to the specific land of an Indigenous Australian. There

vi Durithunga – Growing, nurturing, challenging and supporting urban Indigenous leadership in education

are over two hundred language or individual country places within Australia (see the

diversity of country via the Languages map, Appendix A).

Country map = Refers to the specific culturally significant and unique landscapes

representative within individual Indigenous Australian areas.

Countrywomen and men = Relational term connecting men and women to specific

places. For example, female and male members of the Cobble Cobble clan are

countrywomen and men of mine as a Cobble Cobble descendant.

Cultural Curriculums = Refers to specific curriculum which embeds Indigenous

Knowledges.

Currents of Culture = Indigenous Australian leadership model designed by Doug

Graham and Scott Gorringe, a freshwater perspective.

Custom = A cultural practice or ritual relating to a specific place, object, song or dance.

Dadirri = Daly River holistic learning process. Dadirri, translated by Ungunmerr-

Baumen, means to deeply listen.

Dancing = Customary practice of Indigenous people referring to rhythmic body

movements depicting everyday and everywhen life.

Davis family line = The Davis family line in this text refers to the ancestral family

group born in and around Warra. We are a Cobble Cobble family who trace our

familial line through to Lily Davis (Great Grandmother), where the Davis name begins.

Deadly jarjums = Relational term referring to my deadly – good – jarjums – children.

Djerripi = Barrungam word translated to mean “flying above”.

Djirribal Holistic Planner = Cultural curriculum tool linked to far north Indigenous

community in and around Tully in Queensland, the Djirribal people. Uncle Ernie Grant

is the esteemed Djirribal author and expert on developing this particular learning tool.

Its usage and application is explored further in Chapter 3.

Djukunde = Refers to the Traditional Owners on the eastern side of the Bunya

Mountains.

Dreaming = Dreaming is a deep Indigenous Knowledge which connects all around

Australia to Indigenous Australians across the continent. Each language, each country,

and each individual place has particular Dreaming stories which connect the beginning

Durithunga – Growing, nurturing, challenging and supporting urban Indigenous leadership in education vii

or making of the land or development of societal rules to specific places or animals.

The dreaming refers to an antiquity of knowledge and experiences that relate and

continue to happen today – referred to as “everywhen”.

Dreaming – the storying of the land = The belief systems of Indigenous Australian

people which connect us to specific tracts of land and stories. There are multiple

dreamings across Australia. A specific Dreaming Story is included for the local area

of Yugambeh and Yuggera country in Chapter 1.

Drumley walk = A Yugambeh annual walk established by the Yugambeh Museum to

celebrate the life of their Elders. Specifically the walk celebrates the life of Billy

Drumley and his sister, Jenny Graham, whom he visited at Southport on the Gold

Coast. Every year, Billy would trek for miles to see his sister and extended family

living on the Gold Coast. Billy would hike from Beaudesert and travel en route past

Tamborine Mountain and end at his sister. He was a famed axeman and pastoral worker

of the area.

Durangan = Yugambeh language word, specifically Wangerburra lands bordering the

Tamborine Mountain, meaning to grow.

Durithunga capacity building = Refers to the mentoring and professional learning

established through Durithunga’s Yarning Circles. Capacity building is shown well

through the Durithunga Credentialing process (Appendix B).

Durithunga Deadlies Touch Game = This program grew from five to sixteen schools

(see Appendix F). The organisation of the yearly event is what student and community

leaders developed as a Community Project through the Indigenous Education Student

Leadership Forums.

Durithunga’s footprint = Relates to the coverage of Durithunga in education spaces.

This is recognised in mainstream education circles as shown in Chapter 2. It has been

mapped by Durithunga as per footprint document attached in Appendix G.

Durithunga learning = Refers to the application of Durithunga principles in specific

learning. A case in point is the Community Credentialing process (see Appendix B).

This is a learning tool and process that is specific to Durithunga members.

viii Durithunga – Growing, nurturing, challenging and supporting urban Indigenous leadership in education

Durithunga learning communities = These are the discrete individuals, Durithunga

members, and communities they are from or relate to. A reference to the Circle:Cycle

process.

Durithunga meetings = Refers to the place where Circle:Cycle takes place. These

meetings are similar and distinctly different from the western model of meeting as they

weave Indigenous knowledges connected to yarning in circle.

Durithunga members = Refers to individual Durithunga members who make up or

hold Durithunga Yarning Circles.

Durithunga principles = The guiding principles of and for setting Durithunga Yarning

Circles. These principles are recorded in the Durithunga Seedlings document.

Durithunga research circles = Refers to the whole-group and one-on-one yarning

circles set for research.

Durithunga research journey = Durithunga journey is representative of growth and

this Durithunga research project shows this growing process in action.

Durithunga Roots = Chapter 1 reference to the grounding or beginnings of

Community Durithunga.

Durithunga Seedlings = Refers to the guiding principles of Durithunga. This

document (sample in Appendix H) was co-created by Durithunga members to show

colleagues how to set circle and develop deep yarning.

Durithunga voices = Refers to the Community Durithunga’s collective voice.

Eagleby = Housing commission suburb situated in the south of Logan City. Eagleby

is nestled within the Albert River system. Eagleby was named in reference to the many

eagles that nested in the area. The Eagleby Wetlands, which border the Albert River,

hold some of the most diverse and frequent viewing spots of Indigenous and migratory

birds of the area.

Elders; eldership = Refers to the elder statesmen and women of Indigenous Australian

communities. Elders are either Traditional Elders or Community Elders.

Everywhen = A reference to the Dreaming. The Dreaming is referenced in this way as

referring to being around all the time.

Durithunga – Growing, nurturing, challenging and supporting urban Indigenous leadership in education ix

Empowering culture, growth and learning through respect and Community to

enhance the future of our jarjums… = This vision statement was re-woven by

Durithunga members in 2006. Durithunga was established as an advocacy circle in

2002. Its focus or vision centred on the Yugambeh language “to grow”. Later upon re-

forming or re-weaving in 2006, held at the Yugambeh Museum, new members created

a vision focused on community empowerment and empowerment of individuals.

Esso = Torres Strait Islander language for thank you.

Footprints = Tracks traversed on country. Relates to the path that has been taken.

Freshwater grandfather = Reference to the country Grandfather is from. Freshwater

relates to the inland communities not coastal, who are referred to as “Saltwater”.

Future Weaves = Refers to next developments of processes.

Gaibarau = Jinibara Tradtiional Owner whom excelled at conversing and sharing story

and culture of Murri people of the south east of Queensalnd. His stories, yarns, maps,

voice recordings, lectures have all been used and catalogued since the time of sharing

from turn of the centry to when he passed in 1968. His legacy lives on thorugh the

development of Native Title claimants well into the 2000 era whom cite and reference

his work and recorndings as sign posts for claims to country and Native Title rigths.

Gamillaroi = Traditional Owners of southwestern Queensland and northwestern New

South Wales. This is a Koori language group.

Goorie = Traditional Owners of the Yugambeh refer to themselves as Goorie; northern

New South Welshmen and women also refer to themselves as Goorie, as well as some

other tribes like the Kabbi Kabbi.

Goorie traditional ceremony = Reference to Kabbi Kabbi yarning circle process

explored further in Chapter 3.

Guju = Barunngam language translates to Carpet Snake.

Gumera = Yugambeh word translated to “pumping blood”.

Gummanguru = Traditional Barrungam referemce to the main water flow on country

west of Bunya Bunya Mountains.

Guren ina narmi = Traditional Bunya Bunya song in Wakka Wakka and Kabbi Kabbi

language. This is one of the oldest and best-known songs of southeast Queensland. It

x Durithunga – Growing, nurturing, challenging and supporting urban Indigenous leadership in education

is a reference to the trade and exchange lines footprint since time immemorial. This

song is sung at the beginning and at the end of ceremonies.

Gurreng Gurreng = Traditional Owners of the Bundaberg region in Queensland.

Holistic learning = Refers to the Indigenous knowledge system and practice of

learning as a wholly connected individual, wholly connected to the local environ in

both a physical and a spiritual sense.

Hymba Yumba Community Hub = Hymba Yumba is Bidjara language for “listening

and learning”. The Hymba Yumba Community Hub is an Indigenous independent

school in Springfield near Ipswich, Queensland.

Indigenous Knowledge = A reference to the rich information shared on and about

country.

IKR = Indigenous Knowledge Research.

IKRP = Indigenous Knowledge Research Principles. These are protocols and

processes that are defined to build more culturally correct and centred research of and

on Indigenous peoples. This is explored more fully in Chapter 2.

Inala = A large Indigenous urban centre of the western suburbs of Brisbane. This is

also a Yuggera language word, which translates as “the resting place”.

Jackey Jackey = refers to a historical colonial reference to Aboriginal males

sepcifcially. The ‘Jackey Jackey’ analogy in contempoarary Aboriginal forklore is

similar to the African American colonial reference of ‘Uncle Tom’. Jackey Jackey in

Australia also refers to the migloo approporiation of western names like ‘Jack’ over

tribal or traditional names like Dundalli.

Jagera = Traditional Owner group of and around Ipswich and surrounding areas. A

totem that is largely kinnected to the Jagera is the black snake.

Jarjums = A Yugambeh relational word meaning young person.

Jarrowar = Traditional Owner group of the northwestern side of the Bunya Bunya

mountains.

Julli Julli = Spirit bird which takes its form as the Tawny Frogmouth Owl.

Jutja = Refers to our male elders. An Aborigional English term is ‘Uncle’.

Durithunga – Growing, nurturing, challenging and supporting urban Indigenous leadership in education xi

Kabbi Kabbi = Refers ro to the traditionl lands north of Meanjin, headed to Pine Rivers

and stretching out to the Sunshine Coast.

Kabul = Murri, south east language reference to Carpet Snake.

Kaka lagaw ya = Torres Strait language group. This traditional language group is

situated on the western as well as central islands of the Torres Strait.

Keendahn = Traditional Owner of the Yugambeh. Keendahn, like Gaibarau, shared

Traditional Owner stories which Historical and Geographical Societies of the time

recorded. Keendahn’s story of Pimpama has been translated by his contemporary kin

as part of a historical textbook, “Koombumerri, Saltwater People” (Best, 1997), and is

celebrated within the tourism sector of Queensland as a showpiece for Dreamworld’s

Corroboree Indigenous experience.

Kin and country = Refers to relatives and places families and individuals are connected

to.

Kin talk or kin mapping = Refers to an Indigenous Knowledge process of placing and

relating to someone within the context of family groups and country where they are

from. Linking and placing someone within or closely to the areas where one is from

enables individuals who haven’t met to understand or relate to one another based on

existing or prior relationships. This is a sophisticated communication technique, which

has grown and regrown around the country since time immemorial.

Kinnections, kinnected = A relational term connecting individuals to specific people

and places. Kinnectedness refers to the notion of social mapping and connecting of

people to places, names and communities across Australia. For Indigenous Australians

this is an integral part of being and living within Indigenous communities – being able

to map kinnections – people and families who place you (individually) within context

of the broader social or Indigenous community map. This process has strong links to

what Karen Martin flags as “Relatedness Theory” (2008).

Knowledge House = Loganlea State High School Showcase School on Third Cultural

Spaces, National Stronger Smarter Leadership Program 2007–2010 and Dare to Lead

Showcase School. Knowledge House was created as a safe space for Indigenous

jarjums and knowledge, and framed around the growth of Indigenous Knowledge

amongst an urban setting, that is, a house.

xii Durithunga – Growing, nurturing, challenging and supporting urban Indigenous leadership in education

Kombumerri books = Refers to the Yugambeh Traditional Owner book publisher. The

Kombumerri are the Traditional Owners of the Gold Coast area in Queensland.

Koori = Relational Indigenous word related to Indigenous Australians generally south

of the Queensland border, stopping at Victoria.

Kuku Langi = Traditional Owner group of far north Queensland. Kuku Langi language

group is situated in and around the coastal and hinterland areas of Cairns.

Lore = Traditional Owner customary practices. Lore refers to the Indigenous

Knowledges, principles and processes related to a particular area.

Manandanji = Refers to the clans out along the Condamine and Balonne Rivers. The

Manandanji are the Traditional Owner group directly next to the Barrungam speaking

people.

Mapping = A way of storying or understanding the land based on signal points or

signposts. To map is to contextualise and understand the surrounds.

Meriam Mer = Refers to the eastern island language of the Torres Strait.

Meshwork = Relational term connected to northern America, referring to the

interrelatedness or kinnectedness of Indigenous communities.

Mibbinbah Spirit Healing = Refers to the male wellbeing service situated on the Gold

Coast.

Migloo, Migloos = Relational term referring to non-Indigenous people.

Migloo colonisation = Reference to the traumatic colonisation periods endured by

Indigenous Australians. The initial time period began in 1788. A lot of Indigenous

Australians still feel the impacts of colonisation or colonising practices today.

Mimburi = Is a Kabbi Kabbi relational term. Riughly translated it means place of

flow. Gaibarau shared his definition of the “flow” concept in and around the south east

which has been attricuted to the colonisers deeper understand and development of

places for National Parks and Wildlife.

Monthly Durithunga Yarning Circles = Refers to the regular Yarning Circle held

every month. Circles can number between five and fifteen Durithunga members.

Munanjali Housing = Munanjali Housing is the Traditional Owner Housing

Cooperative located in Beaudesert. Munanjali Housing is part of the Cooperative rights

Durithunga – Growing, nurturing, challenging and supporting urban Indigenous leadership in education xiii

fought for and won by Indigenous leaders in the past. Aboriginal Housing, Medical

Centres and Legal Aid Offices are all examples of the hard-fought wins from agitations

and agitators of the 1960s, 70s and 80s. Munanjali Housing is one of the oldest

Aboriginal Housing Cooperatives in the state of Queensland.

Mundoolan = Yugambeh language referring to Death Adder snakes. Mundoolan is a

town of the Beaudesert area.

Murri = Relational word referring to Indigenous people within the Queensland region

– east coast. Mani, a derivative of Murri, also means “man”, a way of relating to others.

Murri Country = Relational phrase referring to the traditional lands of Queensland’s

Aboriginal people.

Murri School = The first Independent Indigenous school established in Queensland.

Colloquially it is known as the “Murri School”. Its official trading name is the

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Independent School.

Murriland = Aboriginal English reference to Queensland, “Murriland”. Was also the

name of the award-winning Indigenous Homework Centre in Beenleigh.

My story, kin and lore = Individual tracks and connection to country. Refers to

individual histories, relations and customary practices.

Ngai, ngaim = Murri relational term meaning, “I am…” or “me…”

Noonukal = A variation of the language group the Nunukul. Being an oral language

with limited written text there are a number of variations of this word, all meaning the

same people.

Nunukul Yuggera Dancers = Traditional Owner dance troupe of Nunukul and

Yuggera ancestry. Uncle Eddie Ruska is the head organiser of the world-renowned

dance troupe based in Redbank, Ipswich.

Nyumba Bugir Anga = Yugambeh language meaning to “teach clearly”. This was the

name of the Indigenous education program at Loganlea State High School (SHS)

before the development of Knowledge House.

Off Country = A relational concept referring to Indigenous people not living on their

traditional lands.

xiv Durithunga – Growing, nurturing, challenging and supporting urban Indigenous leadership in education

On Country, sharing Country = On country refers to Traditional Owner space and

sharing relates to the open access people have in relation to Traditional Owner territory.

One-on-one yarns = Refers to the individual yarning circles held as part of Durithunga

research.

Oodgeroo Noonuccal = One of the most famous Indigenous writers in Australia’s

literary history. She was a woman of high distinction both as a working woman and an

ex-service woman turned wordsmith. She signified her evolution as a writer, thinker,

agitator and leader of Indigenous politics later in life through a name change from Kath

Walker to Oodgeroo Noonuccal. Her language name, translated in Noonuccal, means

the paperbark countrywoman. The reference to paperbark was a connection to her

career as a writer.

Open and closed business = Durithunga and Indigenous Knowledge reference to what

information and processes are free to be spoken of and on; open business refers to

shared knowledges and closed business refers to knowledges and discussions which

should be considered more confidentially.

Palawa = Refers to the Traditional Owners of the most southern island, Tasmania.

“Proper way” education = Aboriginal English reference to cultural curriculums

embedded into schooling programs. Indigenous languages are an example of “proper

way” cultural curriculum.

Purga Elders and Descendants = Purga is a historical and colonial reference to the

mission founded on Yuggera lands by the Salvation Army. Purga Elders and

Descendants is a reference to the Traditional Owners and Community Elders who have

connections to Purga.

Quampie = Noonukal language relating to the pipi seashell.

Quampie First Story = This is a reference to the Indigenous Knowledge shared by

Professor Karen Martin in relation to Indigenous relationality.

Quandamoopah = Refers to the Traditional Owners of Minjerribah, Stradbroke Island

in Queensland. The word literally translates to mean “the dolphin people”.

Quandamoopah Ancestral core = Relates to the diagrammatical interpretation of the

central ancestral storying on Quandamoopah country.

Durithunga – Growing, nurturing, challenging and supporting urban Indigenous leadership in education xv

Reciprocity = Refers to the practice of giving back in relation to being gifted or granted

something in exchange.

Reciprocation lines = Refers to the specific places or people where reciprocity flows.

Relatedness = Theory developed by Professor Karen Martin. Relatedness refers to the

degrees of connections shared between Indigenous people and places.

Research weaves = Refers to the processes interrelated with the field of Indigenous

Knowledges. To weave is a shared Indigenous idiom connoting the deliberate

integration of sustainable practices and processes.

Respects = Respect is an Indigenous Knowledge principle. As a strategy it comes in

seven ways as Martin articulates – respect for your land; laws; culture; community;

elders; families; futures.

“Rule of three” = A foundational Durithunga principle. It relates to the notion or

principle that not one individual represents the voice of Indigenous community. To

enshrine this doctrine the “rule of three” was developed to encapsulate the importance

of getting and gathering three additional voices and supports in developing ideas or

advocacy.

Sharing Country = Refers to the amicable nature and nurturing way of Indigenous

people who share country.

Safe spaces = In a “proper way” education frame, safe spaces refer to the signposts or

specific points within schools or communities where Indigenous Australians feel

culturally affirmed and mentally sound.

Saltwater = The antithesis of freshwater. Saltwater refers to the environments enriched

by the ocean or seas.

Seedling = The seed growing in its initial cycle.

Song lines, singing = Refers to the customary practice and important mapping process

of people and country. Singing often connotes a connection or celebration of and about

country. There are multiple songs and song lines that weave and intersect all around

Australia.

xvi Durithunga – Growing, nurturing, challenging and supporting urban Indigenous leadership in education

Spirit = Refers to the holistic Indigenous Knowledge of being interconnected to a

metaphysical existence. Spirit is a very real and lived experience for Indigenous

Australians.

Spirit tree = Special or significant plants to a people or place. The Bunya Bunya is

special or unique to Cobble Cobble people as it connects to a richness of history in the

land. The tree’s existence dates back millions of years. The tree itself is the centre of

the inland, freshwater tribes’ exchange ceremonies.

Spirit worlds = Refers to spaces in the everywhen which are different from the

contemporary plane we inhabit in our everyday lives.

Stories of Strength = A process of sharing yarns that are strength based and share

information on the resilience and strengths of Indigenous people.

Storytelling, yarning = Another customary practice of sharing Indigenous Knowledge.

The process of yarning and sharing story is Indigenous-centric in the sense that our

culture is the oldest living surviving culture, an oral culture which relies on great orators

and storytellers to share and depict the key messages and lessons of life.

The land = A reference to the specific importance of a tract of land to a family group.

Tiddas = Is a Murri relational term meaning sister. This is the female relational frame,

linked to classifying friends as well.

Torres Strait Islanders = The far north Queensland Indigenous group based in the

Torres Strait. The majority of Torres Strait Islanders now in 2017 live off country.

Tracking = A particular hunting reference which relates to mapping the progress of a

particular animal or group of individuals.

Traditional languages = Refers to the myriad Indigenous languages shared across

Australia. The Australian languages map sample (Appendix A) shows the multi-

coloured interpretation of the diversity and number of different and unique Indigenous

cultures.

Traditional Owners = A relational term that connects people to specific country.

Traditional Owners related to this research are the Yugambeh and Yuggera people.

Tumba tjina = Barrungam language translated as “tracks of footprints”.

Durithunga – Growing, nurturing, challenging and supporting urban Indigenous leadership in education xvii

Turrabul = Traditional Owner group of the people north of Logan reaching into

Brisbane and the northern Brisbane region of Pine Rivers.

Ugurapul = Ipswich to Boonah regions Traditional Owner group. Collectively

Ugurapul people are linked to the green frog as a totem.

Uncle = Relational term referring to male Elders. In contemporary Australia this is a

particular form of praise and recognition of position with and between Indigenous

communities.

Urangan = The seaside town located at Hervey Bay, the heart of Batchalla country.

Wajin space = A specific Murri safe space in Logan using the Yugambeh language

name for platypus.

Wakka Wakka = Traditional Owner group of the Burnett and Mary River systems.

This is a large Traditional Owner group who hold their central meeting place at

Cherbourg, an Aboriginal Deed of Agreement community. The Wakka Wakka

language is a large linguistic base for a multiple of language groups in and around the

Wakka Wakka.

Wangeriburra = Traditional Owner group of the Tamborine to Mundoolan area of

Gold Coast Hinterland. Their traditional lands are shown in Figure 1.3.

Warra = Central camp area of the Cobble Cobble people. Warra can be translated in

two ways: as holding tightly, like a bundle, a reference to the contraction of the carpet

snake; or as a reference to traditional dancing, also known as corroborees.

Warra man = A reference to individual connections to country.

Ways of Knowing, Being and Doing = Refers to the further development of

‘Relatedness Theory’. This mapping is shared through Profesor Karen Martin’s work.

Weaving = Relates to the lived experience of weaving traditionally to create artefacts

and connections of considerable note.

Where your family from = Links to the customary practice of relatedness known as

kin mapping.

Whole-group yarning circle = Community Durithunga Research technique of getting

yarns of information on Durithunga from a collective group of Durithunga members.

Who’s your mob = Refers again to the kin mapping process.

xviii Durithunga – Growing, nurturing, challenging and supporting urban Indigenous leadership in education

Wiradjuri = Koori Traditional Owner group of southern New South Wales which

encompasses the freshwater country of the Blue Mountains.

Woongoolba = Yugambeh place name located in the sugar cane fields of the wetland

areas outside of Beenleigh.

Woven = Refers to the traditional Indigenous technique of interconnecting fibres and

materials to create connections for a range of artefacts.

Wunya mornay nyornee = Kabbi Kabbi and Jarrowar language translation of a

customary practice to sit, break bread and share country, where you are from.

Yarned in circle = “Proper way” process of holding conversations or meetings in circle

formation rather than in linear or behind table or hierarchical style.

Yarning circle = The customary practice of setting and sitting in a circle to

communicate. This again kinnects to the higher order thought process of creating equal

and equitable communication systems.

Yarraman = Barrungam and Wakka Wakka language meaning “horse”. The yarraman

is a song cycle shared by the Wakka Wakka and also refers to a township bordering

the Bunya Mountains on the eastern side.

Yawalapah = Yugambeh place name. Yawalapah is a township located in the northern

Gold Coast region. The Gold Coast is Koombumerri country.

Yiman = Traditional Owner space neighbouring the Barrungam in Queensland. The

Yiman are freshwater people.

Yinundee = Cobble Cobble ‘goodbye’, wishing all well when departing.

Yugambeh = Traditional Owner group of Logan City.

Yugambeh research Museum = The Traditional Owner institute located at Beenleigh,

south of Logan City. The museum has been operating for over twenty years. It is a

bastion of Yugambeh language development and archaeological importance.

Yuggera = Traditional Owner group of part of Logan City flowing into Ipswich.

YuMi Deadly Maths = Refers to QUT Indigenous maths method and experiences using

Indigenous mathematician Dr Chris Matthews’ “Cloud Model” theory and Maths as

Storytelling. YuMi is Torres Strait Islander Creole for “you and me” and “Deadly” is

Aboriginal English for “good”.

Durithunga – Growing, nurturing, challenging and supporting urban Indigenous leadership in education xix

Yumpla Tok = Torres Strait Islander Creole translating to “you people talk”.

xx Durithunga – Growing, nurturing, challenging and supporting urban Indigenous leadership in education

Abstract

Durithunga is an Indigenous community education model. Durithunga is

focused on growing, nurturing, challenging and supporting urban Indigenous

leadership in education. Yet as a community model of practice, Durithunga’s identity

is forged within Migloo mainstream education spheres as an identity of struggle. The

problem that a model like Durithunga poses is in the valuing of Indigenous

Knowledge and leadership in the delivery of Indigenous education across the schooling

sector, early childhood through to tertiary. Ultimately the research focuses on two

main questions:

1. How is Community Durithunga an educational and cultural process?

2. What impact is Community Durithunga having on education in the broader

community?

This research applies relationality theory to the challenge of Indigenous

education in an urban Queensland setting. The research focuses on embedding

Indigenous Knowledges within the process of problematising Indigenous education.

The research utilises Indigenous Knowledge and practices in the development of

research and analysis of what works from an Indigenous community perspective.

Indigenous Knowledge is central for knowledge wealth and strength to grow.

The research method used in developing relationality is a kinship research frame

known as tumba tjina. Tumba tjina calls on the ancestral lines and kinnections of the

researcher, who uses the Bunya Bunya to create a powerful collective sense-making

tool in research. The tool or method used to track the community model of learning is

the Bunya Bunya Cycle. Ultimately the research is envisioned to give further voice to

the people who are constructed, canonised and characterised in this field of research,

the Indigenous community comprised of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

Durithunga – Growing, nurturing, challenging and supporting urban Indigenous leadership in education xxi

Table of Contents

Keywords .............................................................................................................................. i

Language Weaves ................................................................................................................. ii

Abstract .............................................................................................................................. xx

Table of Contents .............................................................................................................. xxi

List of Figures ................................................................................................................ xxiii

List of Tables .................................................................................................................. xxiv

List of Abbreviations ....................................................................................................... xxv

Statement of Original Authorship……………………………………………………..xxvii

Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................... xxviii

Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Community Durithunga – Yarning in Circle on Country – Our Way ....................... 4

1.2 Tumba Tjina ............................................................................................................ 13

1.3 Symbolism in Writing ............................................................................................. 20

1.4 Community Durithunga Research Proposal ............................................................ 23

1.4.1 Statement of questions ............................................................................................. 23

1.4.2 Why are we asking the questions? ........................................................................... 25

1.4.3 Durithunga Roots ..................................................................................................... 28

Chapter 2:........................................................................................................Literature Review ............................................................................................................................... 36

2.1 The State of Play – What is the state of play in relation to Indigenous education? 37

2.2 What Are Our Indigenous World Views? ............................................................... 50

2.2.1 Naming and centring our world views .................................................................... 65

2.3 Learning Communities ............................................................................................ 71

2.3.1 Indigenous Australian hubs of learning ................................................................... 76

2.4 Summary of Literature Review ............................................................................... 80

Chapter 3:Research Design ................................................................................................ 83

3.1 Reframing Indigenous Research and Knowledge Within a Community Durithunga Context ............................................................................................................................... 84

3.1.1 Holistic learning ...................................................................................................... 85

3.1.2 Murri metaphors; Currents of Culture .................................................................... 88

3.2 Reframing Community Durithunga Research Through Tumba Tjinas ................... 90

3.2.1 Digging deeper into tumba tjina yarns … ............................................................... 92

3.3 Community Durithunga Research Design ............................................................... 97

3.3.1 Data collection strategies ....................................................................................... 100

xxii Durithunga – Growing, nurturing, challenging and supporting urban Indigenous leadership in education

3.3.2 Community Durithunga research methods ............................................................ 102

3.3.3 Data generation ...................................................................................................... 114

3.3.4 Data analysis .......................................................................................................... 120

Chapter 4: Results ................................................................................................................... 123

Chapter 5:Discussion …………………………………………………………………..158

Chapter 6:

Conclusion……………….……………………………………………………………...185

References………………………………………………………………………………201

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Languages Map…………………………………………………………..209

Appendix B: Community Credentialing……………………………………..................212

Appendix C: Community Durithunga Research support letters………………….…….217

Appendix D: Samples of transcriptions and Thematic Development Process from Whole Group and One-on-one yarns…………………………………………………………...221

Appendix E: Ethics Approval…………………………………………………………..228

Appendix F: Durithunga Deadlies Touch Carnival…………………………………….232

Appendix G: Durithunga footprint document…………………………………………..233

Appenidx H: Durithunga Seedlings sample……………………………………………...........................................................234

Durithunga – Growing, nurturing, challenging and supporting urban Indigenous leadership in education xxiii

List of Figures

Figure 1.1. An image of the great Bunya Bunya tree – my family’s spirit tree. ....................... 13

Figure 1.2. Queensland Indigenous Languages Map. ................................................................ 15Figure 1.3. Yugambeh Country map. ........................................................................................ 17

Figure 1.4. Yuggera Country map. ............................................................................................ 18

Figure 2.1. Indigenous research agenda, ocean and tidal flow, Linda Tuhiwai Smith, 1999 .... 52

Figure 2.2. The Alaskan Holotropic Mind (Kawagley, 2010). .................................................. 53

Figure 2.3. Knowledge bands of the Quampie First Story, by Professor Karen Martin, 2008. . 58

Figure 2.4. South East Regional Indigenous Education Plan. .................................................... 70

Figure 2.5. Logan District education map on Durithunga. ......................................................... 71

Figure 3.1. Currents of Culture (Gorringe & Graham, 2006). ................................................... 89

Figure 3.2. The Bunya Bunya Cycle. ......................................................................................... 94

Figure 3.3. Multi-stage Community Durithunga research processes. ....................................... 98

Figure 3.4. Community Durithunga Circle:Cycle process. .................................................... 109

Figure 3.5. Core of Community Durithunga Circle:Cycle. .................................................... 110

xxiv Durithunga – Growing, nurturing, challenging and supporting urban Indigenous leadership in education

List of Tables

Table 3.1 Community Durithunga Research Multi-Staged Protocol ........................................ 101

Table 4.1 Whole Group Third-Dimensional Narratives……………………………………………129

Table 4.2 Whole Group Yarning Circle Analysis – Codification…………………………………134

Table 4.3 Whole Group Yarning Circle Analysis – Categorisation………………………………135

Table 4.4 Whole Group Yarning Circle Analysis – Thematic Development……………………..136

Table 6. 5 One-on-One Yarning Analysis – Third-Dimensional Narrative……………………... 150

Table 4.6 One-on-One Yarning Analysis – Codification……………………………………………152

Table 4.7 One-on-One Yarning Analysis – Categorisation…………………………………………153

Table 6.8 One-on-One Yarning Analysis – Thematic Development……………………………….158

Table 5.1 Themes Developed from the Community Durithunga Research Yarning Circles……164

Durithunga – Growing, nurturing, challenging and supporting urban Indigenous leadership in education xxv

List of Abbreviations

ABC Australian Broadcasting Corporation ABS Australian Bureau of Statistics

ACARA Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority ACEL Australian Council for Educational Leaders

ACER Australian Council for Educational Research AEC Australian Employment Covenant

AIATSIS Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies ARC Australian Research Council

ASSPA Aboriginal Student Support and Parent Awareness AUD Australian dollar

CCP cross-curriculum priorities CDR Community Durithunga Research

CEC Community Education Counsellor COAG Council of Australian Governments

CSIRO Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation DEEWR Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations

EATSIPs Embedding Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Perspectives HR Human Resources

I2S2 Inquiry for Indigenous Science Students IEWs Indigenous Education Workers

IKRP Indigenous Knowledge Research Principles ILO International Labour Organisation

ISRN Indigenous Studies Research Network ISSU-CSQ Indigenous Schooling Support Unit of Central Southern Queensland

LOTE Languages Other Than English MCEECDYA Ministerial Council for Education, Early Childhood Development and

Youth Affairs MOU Memorandum of Understanding

NAIDOC National Aborigines and Islanders Day Observance Committee original definition now is a celebration spanning a whole week.

NAPLAN National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy NGO Non-government organisation

NITV National Indigenous Television

xxvi Durithunga – Growing, nurturing, challenging and supporting urban Indigenous leadership in education

NRL National Rugby League

PaCE Parent and Community Engagement P&C Parents and Citizens Association

PAR Participatory Action Research PhD Doctor of Philosophy

QCAA Queensland Curriculum and Assessment Authority QCE Queensland Certificate of Education

QIECC Queensland Indigenous Education Consultative Committee QUT Queensland University of Technology

RAP Reconciliation Action Plan RDA Racial Discrimination Act

RIP rest in peace SEAM School Engagement and Attendance through welfare reform Measures

SEIFA Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas SES socio-economic status

SSLC Stronger Smarter Learning Communities STEM Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics

Durithunga – Growing, nurturing, challenging and supporting urban Indigenous leadership in education xxvii

QUT Verified Signature

xxviii Durithunga – Growing, nurturing, challenging and supporting urban Indigenous leadership in education

Acknowledgements

It has been a journey to say the least. I sing out a lot of my family group within

the text and I’ll finish this part with a weave to the thesis …

So I would like to thank all the Indigenous communities I have been blessed to

grow with, learn with, stand along, yarn with and “be”. It has been my honour and

privilege to walk with everyone in education spaces where I and we continue to push

for the “essence” of education; the purity for us as Indigenous people is “proper way”.

I love the essence of education, the flow it can create, places of mimburi.

To members of Community Durithunga, well done and thank you.

More officially I would like to firstly acknowledge in the “mainstream”

education world brother Chris Sarra. He provided me with a broader platform to share

the successes our community had grown in Indigenous education. As the founding

Coordinator for Knowledge House at Loganlea High, a “third cultural space” in action,

Chris gave me the opportunity as one of the Teaching and Community Leadership

Coordinator positions for the Stronger Smarter Institute (formally Indigenous

Education Leadership Institute). It was my community that called me back from the

national leadership work we were entrepreneuring with the Institute and I left there

tooled for success in further streams of Indigenous education over the coming years as

a Regional Manager and Principal.

The greatest gift was through his insistence that we take, as a leadership team of

the Institute, serious steps to further qualifications. Here I embarked on a Master of

Education journey, which at confirmation was upgraded to a PhD candidature. I have

shifted multiple workspaces since leaving Stronger Smarter but the pursuit of my PhD

qualification has been a grounding constant, so thank you brother Chris, the sculpting

is nearly done …

To my Supervisory team – super is not enough superlatives. Brother Al Luke has

been my foundational Super – team member. His wise words, wisdom and advice on

educational theory, Indigenous Australian education landscape, international agendas

and just being Al provides me and I’m sure all of his colleagues and friends a

reassurance and steadiness for guidance. The personal supports I more deeply thank as

Durithunga – Growing, nurturing, challenging and supporting urban Indigenous leadership in education xxix

his words and guidance through this PhD process have woven in and around me, “JD

PhDs don’t fail people, it’s not the system; people, individuals fail PhDs … The

greatest challenge will be yourself …” Thank you my bandji. Wise words and I keep

challenging myself …

Tiddas Karen Dooley. I respectfully call you tiddas in language, my sister in

research, you have a way as a “super – advisor” to break down the barriers of the

university hierarchical structures which shows your wisdom and your ability to

transverse terrains and still provide a helping and guiding hand. Being a “big noter” is

not looked on kindly in my community. Your quieter ways and times when you

interface give poignancy to your words because tiddas you don’t speak for the sake of

being heard. You speak with meaning and purpose and I appreciate your supports with

me on my educational journey since the time we wove together at the school near the

Bunyas, developing Bariebunn Boul.

The second part to a deadly duo and a vocal and focal point of and for my

research is the tip of the porky-pine quill, Associate Professor Beryl Exley … Beryl

both you and Karen are tiddas and you take on the unenviable role of eldest tiddas.

That is the greatest honour in my family being like eldest tiddas and that is how I see

you. You gave the growls where needed and assisted in my work–life balance when

bigger world realities were impacting on all aspects of my life. I can’t thank you

enough. A language we share, big esso, big esso …

Charlotte Cottier (IPEd Accredited Editor) provided copyediting and

proofreading services according to the guidelines laid out in the university-endorsed

national Guidelines for editing research theses. Charlotte you are the ‘final sculpting’

that brother Chris spoke on. Thank you for your contibutions in getting my voice heard

within a western academic sense.

The final member of my Super-visory team is the deadly Mahlia Viligas. I was

blessed to have Al sing her out then weave her in as part of her “international duties”

while she was working at QUT. Sister girl gave me some good groundings and foci to

vocalise when writing. She was quickly snapped up by her Indigenous officialdom in

the U.S. dealing in specific First Nations policy, and as part of that growth of the

international Indigenous research agenda my tiddas I say thank you and blessings.

xxx Durithunga – Growing, nurturing, challenging and supporting urban Indigenous leadership in education

To come full circle, respect to gumera, the heartbeat, I send carpet snake hugs

to my Davis people … There’s a lady with whom I’ll be heading back to country as is

custom with the birth of our daughter, who keeps challenging me every day and

singing me out in every way, Gailey gumera gumera. Blessed to share all our jarjums

together and the special sunrises we see in each and every one of them in every day …

Julli Julli is calling outside while I write and that’s a spirit bird we pay a lot of

respect to, so I will finish by starting at the beginning because that is the essence of

“proper way”, education is a circle, strength comes from the endurance and light

shines bright every day, reminding us of the special gifts that have been bestowed to

us as a people … From the embers that singed the grounds of the great Bunya Bunya

I say, ngai Cobble Cobble Warra. Ngai Boobargan Ngummunge. Ngai guju, ngai

Kabul, ngai Wakka Wakka. Tumba tjina Barrunga-Warra, Barrungam ngaim.

Gumera-gumera Davis family … Gumera-gumera Durithunga … Yinundee…

Chapter 1: Introduction 1

Chapter 1: Introduction

This thesis is about Community Durithunga, an Indigenous community

education model grown and developed in the urban environ of Logan City,

Queensland, Australia. Community Durithunga is an Indigenous educators’

advocacy, leadership and learning circle. It has operated as a volunteer, not-for-profit

organisation for over a decade, comprised solely of Indigenous educators. The research

problem focus is the ongoing lack of community engagement, consultation and

dialogue of Australian schools with Indigenous communities. As such this thesis looks

specifically at an Indigenous community model of education in an urban context,

Community Durithunga. The problem that a model like Community Durithunga

poses is in the valuing of Indigenous Knowledge and leadership in the delivery of

Indigenous education.

This research applies relationality theory (Martin, 2008; Moreton-Robinson,

2000) to the challenge of Indigenous education in this urban Queensland setting.

Relationality in this research refers to the specific Indigenous Australian principles and

protocols connected to deep knowledges around familial and spiritual connections to

people and place (explored in depth in Chapter 2). This research focuses on embedding

Indigenous Knowledges, foregrounding international models in use in the field like

Tuhiwai-Smith (1999) and weaves in regional models that embed Indigenous

Knowledge, like Martin’s (2008) “Quampie Cycle” explored in Chapter 2. The

research utilises Indigenous Knowledge and practices in the development of research

and analysis of what works. The research that follows will contextualise these models

in relation to Community Durithunga.

The research method used in this thesis to develop relationality is known as

tumba tjina. Tumba tjina calls on the ancestral lines and kinnections of the researcher

who uses the Bunya Bunya to create a powerful collective sense-making tool in

research. The tool used to track the community model of learning is the Bunya Bunya

Cycle (Chapter 3). Ultimately the thesis problem is posited with two key questions: (1)

How is Community Durithunga an educational and cultural process? and (2) What

impact is Community Durithunga having on education in the broader community?

2 Durithunga – Growing, nurturing, challenging and supporting urban Indigenous leadership in education

This thesis provides a marker of sorts on the context of Durithunga and the

contextualisation of Durithunga amongst current Indigenous educational practices.

Foremost in Chapter 1 is a discussion on the context of Community Durithunga –

Durithunga Roots. To understand the impacts or gauge the importance of Durithunga

it is essential to dig deeper into the history and growth of Durithunga. This is an

important research step as it brings the reader closer to the context from which

Durithunga has grown.

In relation to the thesis questions and response as to why we are asking these

research questions, a comprehensive literature review has been mapped out in Chapter

2. It provides further international, national and then local examples and models of

how and why Indigenous education programs have grown and developed in Australia.

The literature review has three parts: “The State of Play”, “Indigenous World Views”

and “Learning Communities”. The first part of the literature review looks at the state

of play in Indigenous Australian education. It examines the current context of

Indigenous education in Australia. To that end it looks at current education policy and

focus, which has been coined “Closing the Gap”. This part of the literature review

examines how this agenda plays out amongst current Indigenous education leaders as

they respond to it from their own unique perspectives and points of view.

The second part of the literature review looks at naming Indigenous Australian,

and specifically Murri, world views in relation to centring Durithunga from an

Indigenous perspective as opposed to having Durithunga as a shared space – a blended

space (Barnhardt, 2005; Bhabha, 1994 & 2004; Davis, 2008; Yunupingu, 1989). The

final part of the review looks at the practice of Community Durithunga yarning in

relation to broader national, state and international models of Learning Communities,

networking and support. Specifically this section looks at international and national

perspectives on the importance of networks – hubs of learning. The final part of the

review looks at what’s working in relation to Indigenous community learning

processes, the notion of specific positive processes to enact or in action in Indigenous

Australian contexts.

Upon summation of this chapter, the literature review provides the thematic

anchors to map the research yarn themes against (a deeper thematic mapping is explored

in Chapter 5). Following the literature review, in Chapter 3, I extend the development

and practice of appropriate Indigenous methods in relation to conducting research with


Community Durithunga. Community Durithunga Research methods grow from an

Indigenous standpoint, linked to Moreton-Robinson’s (2000) and Martin’s (2008)

theories of relatedness. My own representation, contextualisation and understanding of

the process of Durithunga, via tumba tjina, come in the form of my families’, my clans’

spirit tree, Bunya Bunya.

As explored throughout the thesis, this is my way of seeing the world through

my Murri lenses – a part of my world view. The Bunya Bunya was used as a guiding

lens for me and guides us through Durithunga in this university western thesis process

(explored in depth in section 3.2.1). This lens was augmented through the research-

gathering process by utilising Indigenous methods of gathering research. To that end

the Indigenous Australian focus and practice of yarning circles and yarning circle

methods is used. Using the yarning circle process is the most appropriate and

potentially beneficial way of recording and tracking the journey of Community

Durithunga from a Community Durithunga perspective. This is an important “third

cultural space” shift in conducting Indigenous education research.

Yarning circle processes and Durithunga Seedling (Durithunga, 2006)

approach provide the best way to capture the rich text and thick descriptions that will

be generated by these educational discussions.

Chapter 4 provides an analysis of and on the research Yarning circles. The

chapter provides the results from the evidence gathered in both one-on-one and whole-

group Yarning circle contexts. This part of the thesis overlays the literature review

themes or “anchors”, with the themes drawn from the Durithunga field research – the

whole-group yarning circle and the one-on-one circles. Ultimately the results from the

research yarns either support Durithunga as a community and cultural education

model or represent it another way.

Chapter 5 explores the implications of Community Durithunga Research

towards deeper knowledge and analysis of and on the Indigenous education agenda.

Put another way Community Durithunga Research is a vehicle of learning that

provides voice, advocacy and empowerment for all Indigenous education workers

involved. Community Durithunga Research provides a body of work that is written

and recorded from Indigenous educationalists’ voices – a community perspective, not

just one voice representing Indigenous issues. Understanding the social and political

landscape is essential in forging better pathways in education and thus positive


outcomes for Indigenous Australians. To not understand, not see and ultimately not

value voice in education like Durithunga, grown from unique local environs, is to the

detriment of quality educational programs and outcomes.

Chapter 5 analyses and comments on the learnings from the Durithunga

research by commenting further on the context from which the research yarns connect

with the already established terrain of Indigenous education research as discussed in

the literature review. In doing this linking analysis, this chapter then explores what

challenges the research yarns bring into the field as a localised Indigenous study group.

Bringing the analysis together, the chapter culminates with the “Overarching Research

Analysis Summary” in section 5.4.

Chapter 6 is the conclusion to the thesis. This chapter provides a summary of the

research steps taken and conclusions on findings and theory. Ultimately it provides

recommendations of and on Community Durithunga Research. It summarises the

steps taken to reflect on the specific field of research and reviews each chapter’s

development. Keeping in step with the strong Indigenous centre of this PhD, making

future connections from the research, recommendations coming from the research are

reflected as possibilities around “Future Weaves”.

1.1 COMMUNITY DURITHUNGA – YARNING IN CIRCLE ON COUNTRY – OUR WAY

On Country, Yugambeh and Yuggera speaking lands, Durithunga is a

grassroots1 initiative that has been established by active2 Indigenous educators,

teachers, Indigenous Education Worker (IEW3s), Community Education Counsellors

(CEC4s) and Elders. It was designed to empower and embrace Indigenous leadership

in education in Logan City, a major suburb of Brisbane in Queensland, Australia.

Durithunga represents Indigenous membership from a broad cross-section of

education – early childhood through to tertiary. Durithunga’s primary focus is on

Preparatory (Prep) to Year 12 schooling with members from government and non-

1 “Grassroots” here refers to the on-the-ground workers closely connected to their communities and local areas. 2 “Active” refers to the notion of engagement in yarning and reflective practice – not maintaining a silo existence within school spaces. 3 Indigenous Education Workers work on Teacher Aide time/money. 4 Community Education Counsellors are remunerated for their community work (paid at a higher rate than IEWs). CECs are only found in high schools.


government sectors. Through the presence of our active leadership the Durithunga

process is connected to over 500 Indigenous jarjums and their families. Within Logan

City the total Indigenous population is just over 7000. Just as is represented in the

diversity of the local area, Durithunga membership comprises a myriad of Indigenous

identities. Most members come from Murri and Koori backgrounds; however, there

are connections shared to the Palawa of Tasmania and as far north as the Torres Strait

Islands.

Durithunga is about empowering Indigenous identity, yet fusing Indigenous

identity and strength within Migloo education systems. It is about us reclaiming our

space, not Migloos providing a formal institutional space. This is the essence of

Durithunga – a focus on growth and change, and a deliberate attempt to develop and

enact a process of community growth and development, consultation and negotiation. It

is a means for remembering and privileging our cultural processes and practices – for

renewing and validating Indigenous protocols and processes like Durithunga Yarning.

The Durithunga yarning process and underlying values are grounded in mutual

respect. We work on the belief that one or two individuals never represent community.

It is always representative of a group. Accordingly, we established the “rule of three”

as a basic principle for Durithunga meetings (Durithunga, 2006). No actions,

invitations, support or work from Durithunga occur unless there is clarification and

support from at least three Durithunga voices. The rule of three, then, is a simple but

significant Indigenous process for consultation.

Migloo political and education systems employ processes of consultation that

are based on hierarchical structure, featuring individualised and top-down decision-

making. Even where there are good intentions by school leadership, this approach

frequently sets the grounds for “token” consultation, where community members are

convened to “rubber stamp” decisions about Indigenous children and students that

often have already been made (Luke et al., 2013). Within current education structures,

schools have a Principal who is in charge of representing and managing the school.

Curriculum is divided into departments or specialty areas. In secondary schools, there

are Heads of English, Maths, Teaching and Learning, and year-level Coordinators. The

parent body – known in Australian schools as Parents and Citizens (P&C) – is typically

led by a key individual or small core of influential parents. Indigenous education

within Queensland schools typically is delegated as the responsibility of an individual,


such as an Indigenous representative who is known as an IEW or CEC. This Migloo

mode of business is footprinted throughout Australian school sites. Durithunga breaks

from this way of being by weaving a stronger notion of Indigenous community

commitment and consultation into the schooling of Indigenous youth.

A legacy of the “industrial model of education” (Callahan, 1962) across school

and community sites is the structural formation of distinct and often segregated silos

of information and communication – built not on a holistic frame of exchange and

awareness (like Durithunga), but on the ideologies grounded in the values of the

Migloo. Among its many structural effects, the Migloo educational systemic structure

creates a silo and siphoning effect of and for knowledge (Davis & Spillman, 2009).

This breaking into bits and parts – the segmentation, taxonomy and hierarchy of

knowledge into disciplinary fields – is one of the core features of western schooling

and science (Halliday & Martin, 1995).

In Australian Indigenous education there is continuing support and funding for

this hierarchical, individualistic model, both in the development and implementation

of programs to improve individual (Indigenous and non-Indigenous) performance, and

in terms of the delegation of responsibility and accountability for these programs to

individual school bureaucrats and teachers. At the same time, little capital or effort is

invested in the local development of community capital, consultative power and

learning communities. Whatever its intents, this individualistic approach has led to

limited Aboriginal educational outcomes: “there is no consistent forward trend in

improving the wellbeing of Indigenous people … [in particular] no forward trend

towards a reduction in the disparity between Indigenous and non-Indigenous

Australians” (Craven,et al. 2005, p. 4). A major empirical study of Indigenous school

reform in Australia noted that despite changes to leadership thinking and attempts at

school operations to embed Indigenous practices, “the general Indigenous community

view and experience is that schools continue to work from deficit assumptions that

preclude student enfranchisement, academic improvement and genuine community

involvement and governance” (Luke et al., 2013, p. 32). The overall effect is the

continued marginalisation of communities and students.

We as a community don’t work in silos. We don’t work as separate entities or

individuals wedded to specific institutional roles. Community Durithunga operates as

a collective, without government or institutional funding or support. We assert


ourselves according to kin and country and, depending upon our grounding in the

community and values of our families, follow a thorough process of community

consultation. This requires active participation and the everyday practice of a core

Indigenous approach to the world: yarning.

As a community, then, we necessarily must work and develop as a collective.

Historically in Indigenous education, the Aboriginal Student Support and Parent

Awareness (ASSPA) program (Davis, 2005) encouraged this approach in a

Queensland context – the ideal of “community consultation” (operational in

Queensland from the 1990s to 2005). While the Australian states of New South Wales

and Victoria have legislated Aboriginal Education Consultative Groups (AECGs),

Queensland communities have no such consultative groups; there is no consistent

localised support model or process to ensure continual community consultation and

input.

What existed was a governmental support system led by the Queensland

Indigenous Education Consultative Committee (QIECC). The QIECC was a statewide

body that visited regions at least once a year to hear concerns and report these to the

Minister for Education5. Yet QIECC itself was not a regular yarning circle of the

people, for the people – it was a centralised state committee run under the auspices of

government controls with advisory powers to the Director-General and Minister only.

It had no official mandate to generate policy, legislation or operational decisions. And

as of 2017 the QIECC model has been abolished by the state government. In 2017 it

has been re-created as the Queensland Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education

and Training Advisory Committee (QATSIEAC), (Department of Education and

Training, 2017).

In Queensland our localised community voice, ASSPA, was withdrawn via

federal government funding cuts in 2005. This left communities with no other localised

Indigenous support mechanisms for schools. Without the layers of other supports

affiliated with this funding, communities have been disenfranchised from the process.

As Packer of the Australian Education Union noted, the government’s action “fail[s]to

empower parents and does nothing to encourage them to remain involved in their

5 In its role as a consultative group, QIECC flagged its support to Durithunga in the regular articulation and struggle of asserting Indigenous education rights and issues from Indigenous people.


school and participate in the child’s education” (Packer, 2005, p. 16). For us as an

urban centre, the cutting of ASSPA by the federal government of Prime Minister John

Howard was a clear attack on our collective identity and mobilisation within an

educational context. More to the point it was a reinforcement of the governmental force

and control, and systemic racism we endure as colonised people. Aunty Val Wright is

an Indigenous education expert based in regional Queensland in Mackay. She, like

Packer, was outraged at the quickness of ending a generational process and practice of

ASSPA and was outraged at the way parents were made to feel: “With such an

expeditious change in the parents’ roles in schools no provision has been made to

address the disempowerment that has occurred due to the shift from school based

decision making to centrally controlled management” (Aunty Val Wright, CEC, cited

in Davis, 2005, p. 104). She further explains, “For too long have Indigenous parents

been denied equal status in managing their children’s educational pathways … as a

result, appropriate outcomes become unrealistic” (Aunty Val Wright, CEC, cited in

Davis, 2005, p. 104). The full and proper engagement of local community is a void

that still has not been successfully filled or managed by schools. By studying and

documenting Community Durithunga, my aim here is to address the urgent need for

alternative models and action at the school/community level.

In 2010 the voids that existed in relation to local community consultation were

evidenced by the establishment of the Department of Education, Employment and

Workplace Relations (DEEWR) project, PaCE – Parent and Community Engagement

– aimed at running programs and processes that embrace solely the needs of

Indigenous parents connected to school communities. Such processes as flagged by

Aunty Val are doomed if they “are devised by bureaucrats who are ill informed on

Indigenous rights” (Aunty Val Wright, CEC, in Davis, 2005, p. 104). PaCE as an

intentional community-based process has created good learning options for specific

community programming; however, the federal government did not sustain all project

funding beyond 2013 (retrieved from apps.aifs.gov.au).

Before the Howard government rolled out changes to Indigenous education (the

end of ASSPA in 2005), we as a community of concerned Indigenous educators in

Logan City sought to tackle the Migloo way of doing business through conducting

business based on our connectivity, our strength, our solidarity and our Indigenous

identity. So in 2002 on Yugambeh and Yuggera speaking lands this process of greater


collective sense making and representation of our community voice in education

began. This was a different way from ASSPA, not a government way – our way. A

collective of 10–15 Indigenous education leaders began to meet, plan and prepare

education and community advocacy through our ways – monthly Community

Durithunga Yarning circles based on the Yugambeh word and concept of

Durithunga – to grow.

Durithunga today in 2017 still meets at the behest of its active members for

Yarning circles, which challenge, embrace and endorse our ways of doing and being

Indigenous within a Migloo educational context. Whereas in 2002 Durithunga circles

met outside of school hours, Community Durithunga in 2017 holds yarning circles

that span a whole weekday. As explained by one participant, “Community

DURITHUNGA means we as Indigenous educators make the time, demand the time

to gather, sit, yarn …” (Belinda Wilson, cited in Davis & Grose, 2008, pp. 12–13).

Durithunga has evolved and developed its own methods, its own processes

based on Indigenous Knowledges (Martin, 2008; Sheehan & Walker, 2001). The

major work by Indigenous scholars defining and explaining the nature and power of

Indigenous Knowledge and epistemology is taken up at length in Chapter 2. With the

focus of Durithunga being on us, for us, by us, there still exists in 2017 a feeling of

unease or fear of Durithunga ways by Migloo educationalists. Based on the years of

Yarning circles that have been conducted and the leadership circles that attend and

conduct Durithunga business this uneasiness can be attributed to our very different

world view. The Indigenous Knowledge that Durithunga is based on is respect.

“Respect is built only on truth … The ultimate demonstration of Indigenous

Knowledge Research respect is ‘not knowing’ ” (Sheehan & Walker, 2001, p. 4). To

not always “know”, being in a position to learn and rethink is a challenge for

colleagues whose identity in education is based on being a “knower”, a “head teacher”.

Within Migloo educational spaces there is a tendency toward “container-ing” and

controlling Murri presence or Murri identity (as evidenced by Aunty Val’s analysis

of the end of ASSPA). The focus now in schools, from schools, is on the school’s

identity rather than the community’s. That is to say, schools in this context tend to

operate, from a Community Durithunga perspective, as “islands” not rooted in their

local community contexts. The schools as community entities drift within the torrent


of the complex communities they are in, focused solely on the maintenance of the

island and its identity and connection with and to mainstream school settings.

Community Durithunga leadership embraces the notion and identity of

community, rooted in the land on which we are based; recognises Traditional

Ownership up front as core business; embraces Community elderships and leaderships;

and meets together to yarn and reflect on the best possible ways forward as a community

of educators. Community Durithunga’s identity is one wedded in community, a part of

community so school sites are seen as bridges; school identity is about bridging out to

community, not resting the whole identity within the boundaries of the school fence.

Central to this identity and creating the educational space for connectivity that branches

out is the process of yarning. This notion of community and of yarning often causes

misunderstandings and conflicts with and between school spaces – Durithunga process

shakes the very ground “island schools” are based on. One principal who was directly

involved in reform oriented to social justice and equity said to me, “I don’t know about

all this community business … I let our staff go and do all this stuff and we don’t do

well on NAPLAN. Sometimes I feel like stopping all our community work …” (personal

communication, 2010). The comments reflect a shared focus of school leaders within

our regions – they are focused on NAPLAN, attendance records and MySchool6. Yet in

the same school space a Durithunga member reflected on their need for yarning and

connection, which Durithunga brings: “I’m grateful for my time at Durithunga … I feel

more stronger and confident in what I do … I’m talking up and now I want to get my

degree in teaching …” (personal communication, 2010). To enable the IEW in this space

to articulate strong community voices and processes, Durithunga has been a beacon of

support.

Durithunga represents an active, vocal, local voice from our disparate

community, which challenges, supports and develops the educational systems we live

in. Durithunga is the voice of Indigenous educators who ground our processes in our

greatest survival tool – ourselves – our resilience. Durithunga represents a Murri

process that builds on the community strengths and grows the potential of Indigenous

community as a collective. Durithunga represents growth. It is a process of Indigenous

6 MySchool refers to the national schooling data index held for all Australian schools. Data on socio-economic status, regionality of schools and National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) is recorded also.


community engagement grounded in community consultation – taking the time to talk

and walk together within our urban context of Logan City.

This is something simple but something that breaks the silo process of Migloo

business … Whatever decision is made, DURITHUNGA process must be a

process that is recognised and supported as a collective … Valuing and

recognising the voice of many not just one. (Belinda Wilson, cited in Davis &

Grose, 2008, p. 10)

Community involvement in curriculum planning and development, valuing the

social and cultural context of the learner, and acknowledging the power that exists in

Indigenous communities go some way to moving schools from the traditional silo,

separate institute of power and control, “island schools” to laying the foundations for

community hubs of learning which value and promote lifelong learning for all. Central

to these foundations is the recognition and understanding of Indigenous Knowledge

as essential for Indigenous program development. Durithunga thus is a lived,

experiential embodiment of Indigenous Knowledge – a way to interface and

understand and action Indigenous Knowledge.

A leading Indigenous educationalist working in New South Wales, Tyson

Tjunkaporta, frames the need for movement and change in the Migloo system as well.

Tjunkaporta’s (2009) work on quality teaching and Aboriginal pedagogies as higher

order processes explores the shift of thinking needed to embed and value Aboriginal

and Torres Strait Islander education in mainstream settings. This is a shift from

essentialising Aboriginal cultures, through to experiencing Aboriginal cultures. “It’s

about recognising the power of power based / local based learning not ceding to

tokenistic essentialist views of Aboriginality – learning through Aboriginal culture not

about Aboriginal culture” (Tjunkaporta, 2009). In relation to Indigenous education,

Tjunkaporta draws on the rich tapestry of Native American and Canadian weaves. The

insight here is that creating a more embedded approach to Indigenous curriculum

requires a real move away from the conventional curriculum and pedagogy in the

classroom.

Durithunga’s yarning circle processes provide Indigenous educators, our

communities and their schools with a process and action that enacts processes of

learning through Aboriginal ways. The yarning circle breaks the classroom paradigm

and normalised habitus by locating all physically in circle, enacting a more communal


approach. This way of doing is linked to story on Country; this method is grounded in

practices thousands of years old – it is here explained in detail in Chapter 3. The

intricacies and complexities of working within circles are no better shown than by the

Country map of Australia (see Appendix A). The hundreds of different clan circles

form a separate but interconnected web of identity around Australia. Each space is

individuated and distinct from the other. The centrality of Indigenous Knowledge and

world view is what makes Community Durithunga a powerful space – a lived and

learning space, which if embraced fully and understood properly offers powerful

processes to further enhance education, today and into the future.


1.2 TUMBA TJINA

Figure 1.1. An image of the great Bunya Bunya tree – my family’s spirit tree.

Before we begin to dig deeper, unpack, write, record, read and reinterpret

Durithunga in educational terms for the purpose of this thesis, I will explain part of

my story, my yarning and my connections to this topic. I do this through my Tumba

Tjina yarn. My aim is to centre my writing reflections and understandings from the

base I am kinnected and related to – my tumba tjinas, my peoples’ footprints and

tracks on Country.


I am a Murri Ambae man. My name is John Davis, named after my cousin who

passed away, Johnny Currieusio (nee Davis) RIP. In my family circle I have my amazing

partner Gail with whom I share nine jarjums in our melded family (excluding cousins

and pets). I have five deadly Davis jarjums aged from 18 to 11: eldest Zaine; twins

Rueben and Tamas; eldest girl Melachi and baby girl BB. I also have three deadly

Brackenrig jarjies, Bethy aged 15, Braiden aged 11 and Lil Cobb Abbey, aged 6. And

at the finalisation of this PhD document, we welcome our first baby, Ameliah Yverringa-

Rose Davis. Each Davis jarjums has distinct Davis names which kinnect them to their

tumba tjina. Our Murri side connects us through the Davis family line – my

Grandfather Fred Davis; and our Ambae (South Sea Islander) side connects us through

the Ober family – my Grandmother Elizabeth Davis (nee Ober).

Grandfather’s tumba connects us to Warra; Barrungam speaking country, the

lands bordering the Bunya mountains and stretching out along the Condamine River

(Gummanguru) and creeks of Barrunga (Dalby). Our freshwater grandfather settled

and set up our family on the salt water of the Batchalla, Hervey Bay. Grandfather and

Great Uncle Harry Davis bought land there, at Urangan, to raise our families upon

and effectively escape the restrictions of the Protection Act7, which had split many

parts of our extended family. The Queensland Indigenous Languages Map in Figure

1.2 provides some direction as to the places and spaces that kinnect me to country.

7 The Aboriginals Protection and Restriction of the Sale of Opium Act 1897 was the social exclusion tool used by non-Indigenous.


Figure 1.2. Queensland Indigenous Languages Map.

As a young fellah we were brought up on the salt water – knowing we had strong

connections to Wakka Wakka (carpet snake peoples). Grandfather’s sisters were

forced with their families to live on the reserve at Cherbourg as part of the Protection

Act. These families connected to our Davis line include the Jerome, Riley, Blair, Bligh

and Bond families. Grandfather always made space for our families in Cherbourg on

our land. They could break away from the reserve and holiday in Hervey Bay. This

story and this land play a big part in our family history. Our father, Alfred Davis Snr


RIP, shared our strong connections with the land, kin and country by sharing songs

like Guren ina narmi and Island songs like Black Swan, which imbued in all of us a

strong pride and sense of self and connection to our heritage.

Dad married my beautiful mum, Dawn Davis (nee Burns), a fiery redhead

teacher. She is of Scottish and Jewish roots, was born and bred in Seven Hills,

Brisbane, and grew up remembering the strong Wharfie tales of struggle and Wobbly8

internationalists shared by her father, Grandfather William Burns. These tales of

struggle of and for workers’ rights developed a keen sense of social justice and passion

in each of the Davis siblings.

Mum and Dad had five jarjums, Alfred Jnr, Will, Megan, me, and Lucy. We

grew up amongst a strong cocoon of knowledge of self, connectedness with each other

and sense of strength in being, feeling and practising our Murri identity. This strong

sense of self, fused by the relationship of my mother and father, was maintained and

grown by my mum alone when I turned 9 – I was always exposed to our Murri culture

and made to feel proud of who I was. As a family, for our safety and wellbeing we had

to move away from our familial base of Hervey Bay and we settled in Yugambeh

country, Eagleby, where this yarn is set (see Figure 1.3).

Through the strong teaching of our family, augmented by the years of educational

focus and determination for us to succeed – spawned by our mother – we have all

completed tertiary training and are heavily involved in community work and education.

We have two university academics, a Social Worker, CEO and Community Capacity

Manager all grown from our strong family root that was seeded in the Housing

Commission estate9 of Eagleby (where Mum still lives in our three-bedroom home).

8 Woobly is a relational term given to unioinsts from the turn of the century whom organised as the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) retrieved from links.org.au 9 Housing Commission estate refers to the state government’s subsided housing scheme. This affords lower socio-economic families with the right to housing and accommodation at subsidised rental costs.


Figure 1.3. Yugambeh Country map.


Figure 1.4. Yuggera Country map. Site of Hymba Yumba Community Hub (see link below)

My background is as a senior teacher and principal involved heavily in the

development and sustainability of Indigenous educational practices ranging from

Logan City to Mackay, Queensland. I started my doctoral studies while working as a

Teaching and Community Leadership Coordinator for the Stronger Smarter Institute

(directed by Professor Chris Sarra). I have, since the commencement of this thesis,

held positions of State Indigenous Education Departmental leadership as a Regional

Manager and Principal at an Indigenous community school, Hymba Yumba

Community Hub (Bubs to Year 12) Indigenous school in Springfield, near Ipswich,

the traditional home of the Ugurapul, Jagera and Yuggera (see Figure 1.4) and

recently returned to the Institute as Chief of Research and Impact. Community

Durithunga represents a process that embraces both the teaching and community


leadership aspects of my work roles and is a process that has grounded me in all the

roles I have had in Indigenous education.

Community Durithunga Research

“Durithunga – Growing, nurturing, challenging and supporting urban Indigenous

leadership in education”


TREE

I am the tree

The lean hard hungry land

The crow and eagle

Sun and moon and sea

I am the sacred clay

Which forms the base

The grasses vines and man

I am all things created

I am you and

You are nothing

But through me the tree

You are

And nothing comes to me

Except through that one living

Gateway

To be free

And you are nothing yet

For all creation

Earth and god and man

Is nothing

Until they fuse

And become a total sum of something

Together fuse to consciousness of all

And every sacred part aware

Alive in true affinity

Kevin Gilbert in Inside Black Australia (1990).

1.3 SYMBOLISM IN WRITING

Our metaphors and symbols of our Indigeneity are powerful tools and points of

reference in our now urban communities where we represent 5–10% of the total local

populations. The gum tree is a symbol that has been chosen by Durithunga to

represent us and the processes we use in an educational leadership perspective. The

gum tree is a powerful part of our natural landscape – it grows tall and strong. It

supports myriad life forms in multiple ways through direct gifts of food and - shelter,


and indirectly through light reflection, shade and stability for the soil. The root system

that holds the tree is just as important as the tree itself. The root system grounds the

tree in the earth and gives nutrition and strength so the tree continues to grow. These

trees can grow upwards of 10–15 metres, standing tall and proud along the buildings

and roads and houses we all occupy today. And the tree begins from a single seed – a

seedling. When the seedling is planted in the earth and forms shoots the tree begins to

grow.

The poem “Tree” by Kevin Gilbert captures the story of growth well. Gilbert

conveys the image of a tall gum set in its natural surrounds and juxtaposes this against

the lived relational world of Indigenous people – the Dreaming – the storying of the

land. Here animals are seen as connected to the gum. The gum to the land; people to

the land; born of the clay. We are all kinnected. Accordingly, poems, stories, images

and art are used in Durithunga yarning circles to discuss how people are feeling and

what they are thinking in relation to their world. People’s individual beliefs, thoughts

and feelings are just as important as the bigger collective. In fact in order to grow

through Durithunga it is essential that individuals see themselves and practise rituals

like the poetry reflection to position their identity clearly amongst the collective –

“there is no we without a me” (Gorringe, 2006).

This is what Durithunga means, growth – growth and connectivity on many

levels. Durithunga is a constant process in action. Durithunga has happened and is

still happening now as I write. It is grounded as much in its actions as in its roots.

Durithunga is a growing, living thing.

Across this writing, the capture of these types of stories (like Gilbert’s poem) on

and connected to Durithunga is one of my primary methods. The storying – sharing

of story is an example of another method known as “stories of strength”. Stories of

strength connects to relatedness theory as defined from a Quandamoopah perspective

by leading Aboriginal academics Aileen Moreton-Robinson (2000) and Karen Martin

(2008). This is explored further in Chapter 2, where I review contemporary Aboriginal

theory and scholarship.

Another method being used throughout this text to delineate Indigenous thought

and value structures is the capture of words, phrases and concepts of an Indigenous

standpoint, relating to Durithunga. This is done by italicising and bolding the words.

Here I follow in the footsteps of other Indigenous writers, thinkers and activists who


have sought to shift the power dynamic of the dominant Migloo structures, that is,

written word by breaking and highlighting our thought worlds through a distinct font

or tracking system (linked to, for example, the works of Davis, 2007; Martin, 2008;

and Sheehan, 2012).

Italicising and bolding text in this thesis provides a privileged positioning of

Durithunga and thought worlds connected to our Ways of Knowing, Being and Doing

(Martin, 2008). In this way, words connected to Durithunga, Durithunga processes

like yarning and the unique languages of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples

have been italicised to highlight the deeper meaning and learning attached to the words

or phrases used. Martin explains her use of highlighting and “privileging” text in her

important piece, Please knock before you enter (Martin, 2008). She explains that when

she

draw(s) on the words that express the realities, knowledges … wisdom of my

Elders … the standard rules for English literacy are extended in two ways.

First a different font is used and then italicised, bolded and indented as a mark

of respect … (Martin, 2008, p. 19)

Will Davis (2007), an influential Queensland scholar, activist and curriculum

development specialist, applies a similar logic. Following his work on the development

of Indigenous language programs in Queensland schools, Will is now working as CEO

for Indigenous Housing, Jinndi Mibunn in Logan. In his Masters thesis Spear Making

(Davis, 2007) he reflects on Norm Sheehan’s (Sheehan & Walker, 2001) use of

English words (as an Indigenous Australian writing within academic discourses),

stating that “through the use of parenthesis, art and symbols … Sheehan … articulates

Indigenous meanings using English words … to describe Indigenous philosophy …”

(Davis, 2007, p. 14). Davis further develops this process via his use of parenthesis in

his thesis, stating, “I will be using a semantic technique to denote various Indigenous

Knowledge terms such as ‘spear’, ‘relation’, ‘structure’ as [spear], [relation],

[structure] … to denote culturally loaded terms with specific multi dimensions …”

(Davis, 2007, pp. 5–6).

Additional to the in-text symbolism of Murri words and deeper thought

processes is the collation of an in-text Language Weaves list. The creation of this list

(at the front of the thesis) has come about from supervisory team feedback in relation

to deepening Migloo readers’ understandings of the language and richness of culture


we’re trying to capture in this text. The challenge I lay on the table for future

Indigenous scholars is to articulate our words solely in our way. The challenge in next

iterations of Community Durithunga type research is to extend further the research

paradigm to reflect more fully our language and lore.

While writing this thesis, I have been aware of the continual tensions between

this Indigenous approach and the conventional requirements of the academy and the

thesis genre. It is, however, ground that has been walked by Indigenous scholars in

this country for over three decades now – with outstanding work done by many of the

scholars cited here – Nakata, Yunkaporta, Martin, Sarra and many others – in their

own way, often breaking the boundaries of academic convention.

1.4 COMMUNITY DURITHUNGA RESEARCH PROPOSAL

“Durithunga’s … visioning is about empowering… for myself it has helped me

personally … to be confident … for [all of us] it’s a place for us Indigenous

workers and teachers … I’m happy to be a part of Durithunga and proud to be

able to invite others along [to] join us … to grow.”

(Dirie in Davis, Dirie, & Sadler, 2009)

1.4.1 Statement of questions

Durithunga has arisen as a unique Indigenous practice and process within a

majority non-Indigenous, urban setting of Logan City. The local Indigenous leadership

of the area transcend their surrounds and tap into a deeper learning (Ungunmerr-

Baumen, 2002) and process – yarning. Our surrounds are clear – Indigenous people

who number just over 7000 in Logan in a city of just over 250,000. Overall in Logan

City at the time of this research we represent 2.8% of the population (Australian

Bureau of Statistics [ABS], 2011).

Within school spaces from the preparatory year to secondary school10 our student

populations are 5–10% of the total school populations. Workers, Elders and teachers

within these spaces often represent the only Indigenous staff member on site; within a

typical school space this is sometimes a ratio of 1 in 70 or in others 1 or 2 in a staff of

10 Prep to secondary school are the minimum required school-aged programs all families must access in Queensland. Children generally start Prep aged between 4.5 and 5.5 years old. Primary school goes from Prep to Year 6 and secondary school goes from Year 7 to Year 12.


24011. Within these spaces challenges then are at the forefront of the way Indigenous

issues and identities are dealt with. Here the onus is on you as an individual to stand

up or speak up, to represent Indigenous peoples and perspectives. “The tendency of

schools to pass on the total responsibility for Indigenous education [to] the Indigenous

teacher, who in most cases is the only Indigenous teacher in the school, has the effect

of absolving other teachers from their responsibility …” (Santoro & Reid, 2006, p.

294). In survey responses and interviews with Indigenous school staff at over 74

schools across Australia with significant Indigenous student numbers, Luke et al.

(2013) also reported that Indigenous staff were regularly called in to respond to and

deal with all school-related matters – especially behaviour management – that the

administration considered Indigenous in nature.

Community Durithunga is, then, a deliberate attempt to disrupt and trouble this

current structure of management and accountability that is defining and dominating

Indigenous education. At the core of Community Durithunga business is collective

sense making – community engagement. It provides a mechanism for Indigenous staff,

both teachers and IEWs (teacher aides and liaison officers), to meet the challenging

Migloo structures head on in a “culturally safe” (Bulman & Hayes, 2010) way. The

Indigenous leaders of Community Durithunga meet and work together collaboratively

and with purpose to build constructive, culturally based and culturally safe educational

process within mainstream school settings where the majority of our jarjums attend.

Cultural safety is an essential building block of Indigenous educational reform.

Cultural safety encompasses the notion of setting circle12, delivering process, which is

grounded and reflective of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander identity. Cultural safety

in an educational setting refers to the proper recognition and following of Indigenous

principled processes and embracing of protocols. In the current influential work of Sarra

through the Stronger Smarter Institute,13 cultural safety is seen as a core building block

of educational strategies for transformation in Indigenous education (Luke et al., 2013).

In essence, cultural safety connects with the notions of “Stronger” identities and

embracing of Indigenous ways within school spaces. “Stronger” stands side by side with

11 Student and staff populations in school spaces was gathered from www.myschool.edu.au. 12 Setting circle relates to yarning circle method, physically moving selves into formation of circles to create safe spaces. 13 See: http://www.strongersmarter.com.au


being “Smarter” in this educational philosophy (Sarra, 2012). In “island school” spaces,

cultural safety can be seen as an “add on” – something to be recognised at least once a

year – through NAIDOC. Yearly recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

footprints does not create safer spaces of learning for Indigenous communities. In

Durithunga, cultural safety is core business – it is embedded in how Community

Durithunga leaderships do business.

Community Durithunga through its active membership and leaderships has

sought to build, as a community of Murri and Torres Strait Islander educators, a

process that acknowledges and embraces the Indigenous leadership that exists and is

needed for positive change across our educational sites from early childhood to

adulthood. Community Durithunga as a process, as an Indigenous construct, then, is

extremely important for Indigenous education within its local educational context as

well as the potential it holds as a broader learning tool. This thesis examines the

importance or significance of Durithunga within the current educational paradigms

that exist. The thesis explores the following core research questions:

1. How is Community Durithunga an educational and cultural process? and

2. What impact is Community Durithunga having on education in the

broader community?

1.4.2 Why are we asking the questions?

In our time – 2017 – a time of increased freedoms and recognitions – why not

challenge current educational practices that rely on conformity and control rather than

conversation and fluidity? There are different crimes committed against us as a

colonised people and it’s deeply, socially and spiritually right to question western

practices and processes in education, which continue the subjugation of Indigeneity.

As Mick Dodson has stated on numerous occasions, the “recognition of a people’s

fundamental right to self-determination must include the right to self-definition ... It

must include the freedom to live outside the cage created by other peoples’ images and

projections” (Dodson, 2003, p. 31). It is on us as a people to claim the spaces of

interaction and interface. Durithunga is one such space of reclamation and self-

definition.

Within the complex realities and stories that revolve around our learning sites in

Logan City, we have sought to build, as a community of Murri and Torres Strait


Islander educators, a process that acknowledges and embraces the Indigenous

leadership that exists and is needed for positive change across our educational sites.

Community Durithunga is an Indigenous-only circle of support as opposed to

blended or mainstream reference group spaces, which have a strong, often overbearing

Migloo presence. It represents a space that reclaims our ways of doing business and

being respectful to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander stories we grow from and

the traditional story we live and work from. Durithunga represents a being, an essence,

a presence of being Indigenous and doing business in Indigenous ways for Indigenous

people living on Country, sharing Country, people involved in education. The Migloo

education system demands, through policy rhetoric, Indigenous presence within its

bureaucratic structures and processes. Often educational regions have Indigenous

education reference or advisory boards. These boards are structured on, and hold and

base their structures in, Migloo methodology and practices. Durithunga does not.

Durithunga is underpinned by core Indigenous principles (Durithunga Seedlings,

2006), which help shape and mould the behaviours we exhibit as Durithunga members

to grow into, learn and regrow our yarning circles and leadership practices.

This is a shared Indigenous space, a process that recognises the power and story

of Traditional Owners on Country and embraces the Indigenous leaderships that exist

in and around Logan City: the Community elderships and leaderships. It is a powerful

thing in a whole community context where we number 5–10% of the city’s total

population to make the time, seek the time and get the time to sit, meet, connect and

yarn in circle to move forward the important business of “Empowering culture,

growth and learning through respect and Community to enhance the future of our

jarjums” (Durithunga, 2006).

Community Durithunga is a time process – a way of fracturing the dominant

Migloo time sequences and controls by drawing on and connecting back to processes

that are rooted in relatedness (Martin, 2008; Moreton-Robinson, 2000) and being

hyper-connected as a people. Time as a process in current Durithunga contexts is

predicated heavily on western ways. The biggest factor impacting on Durithunga

circles is western time pressures. Durithunga breaks this dominant time sequence by

connecting to our ways of kinnecting and relating. Community Durithunga draws on

the strong stories of community and kinnectedness to create a circle of support and


empowerment, an Indigenous-only circle that is built on Indigenous Knowledge

principles and processes of respect, reciprocity and recognition.

The majority of Indigenous people in Australia and in Murriland live in urban

and major regional centres (ABS, 2011; Singh et al., 2001). Here in this reality our

jarjums – our lifeblood – as an overwhelming majority attend state school settings.

Durithunga grows within a site where significant numbers of Indigenous young

people go to school (as compared to leaving home communities or living in areas of

low numbers of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders), yet are perceived as not having

a community or a real identity by their Migloo teachers. As Bond reflects on her

experiences and work within Logan and Inala, “dominant societal assumption appears

to be based on a racist mythology that urban Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

people have no culture or legitimate Indigenous identity” (Brough, Bond, & Hunt,

2004, p. 4).

Durithunga Yarning processes show a way to effectively embrace Indigenous

Ways of Knowing, Being and Doing. These are processes and ways of operating that

provide a telling, practical way forward. The Durithunga Seedlings provide a powerful

map to enable us Indigenous workers, educators, and family members to transcend the

Migloo confines we are bordered or contained in and embrace wholeheartedly our ways.

The Migloo confines are the dominant school spaces we live and work in day to day.

The confines are the structures of the schools – closed in four walls and properties all

fenced in. The confines are the regimented testing and school timetabling regimes, which

dominate all school systems from prep to tertiary. The confines are the organisational

structures we live and work in – principal leaders, heads of department, coordinators,

teachers, teacher aides and students. This is a top-down western model of education.

This system’s bureaucratic organisation often moves away from the very base, root of

education – the heart; our jarjums and our humanness; our being together. Durithunga

enables us as educators to re-centre and connect to that core philosophy of education –

“we’re here for the jarjums” and grow from the connections we can build and make with

one another. Sitting in circle breaks down the silos of power constructs which are very

evident in school spaces, because the circling takes power away from roles and

bureaucracy: “standing in circle allows everyone to see each other as they stand shoulder

to shoulder … circles are formations where power relations are structured differently”

(Martin, 2008, p. 80).


This thesis, then, flows from my active membership and participation in

Durithunga Yarning Circles. I am blessed and honoured to be recording part of the

powerful journey (and Stories of Strength) that exists in our community in Logan City.

Durithunga’s footprint is on Yugambeh and Yuggera lands (Logan City), a nexus of

Aboriginal lands along the rivers. The story of Durithunga follows these rivers from

the Albert (connecting Beenleigh, Edens Landing and Eagleby learning communities)

to the Logan (connecting Logan Central suburbs like Woodridge, Loganlea, Bethania

and Kingston learning communities). Durithunga is our community’s grassroots

educational leadership circle. This is our community voice on Country four

generations after Migloo colonisation. We are still here, we are strong and we maintain

our connection to country, kin and lore in all of its complexities in a modern context.

The following thesis documents the context of Durithunga and critically situates

Durithunga amongst current Indigenous educational interventions, models and

practices. Foremost will be a discussion on the context of Community Durithunga –

Durithunga Roots. To understand the impacts or gauge the importance of Durithunga

it is essential to dig deeper into the history and growth of Durithunga.

1.4.3 Durithunga Roots

To understand Durithunga process is to link into the rich tapestry of narrative and

learning that is woven in the local environments and shared across our disparate lands.

These are our Durithunga roots. The notion of Country – knowing the land; knowing

the original peoples; knowing stories; understanding and respecting relationships – is a

core tenet of this concept. Our people refer to their Dreaming, spirit, and ancestral spaces

as Country – my Country. I have laid out part of my Country through the tumba tjina

yarn. The concept of Country relates to Durithunga in three ways. First is the storying

on/in Country – framed here as “On Country”. This refers to the links to the land already

laid out by and from Traditional Ownership, the Yugambeh and Yuggera speaking

peoples. The second is “Coming into Country” and the third “Sharing Country”.

Coming into Country relates to the rich Murri narrative that has developed – other

Indigenous families who call this Country – Yugambeh and Yuggera speaking lands –

as their home. These are referred to in some accounts as historical people or Community

Elders. The third part relates to the space as shared by non-Indigenous peoples –

Sharing Country.


Durithunga Roots … on Country

Durithunga Roots are based on the nexus of the rivers and creeks, which bind

Yugambeh and Yuggera speaking peoples – a cross-section of nations. Yugambeh and

Yuggera peoples have connection to Country since the Dreaming. The Traditional

Owners, Yugambeh and Yuggera speaking peoples share story connected to the

making of the region – creation. Keendahn is an example of the rich storying attached

to Country – used in local schooling contexts and texts.

Keendahn’s “Genesis of Pimpama Island” is a story of the Koombumerri that

explains the creation of Pimpama islands through the re-creation of ancestral spirit

stories. The story connects the sea animals in a battle for control/supremacy.

Keendahn, a Traditional Owner of Yugambeh speaking Country, shared this yarn to

the Royal Brisbane Geographical Society; he refers to the story as happening “long

before the whiteman” (Barlow & Best, 1997, p. 41). It is linked as part of a Yugambeh

cultural text used in the Logan area schools discussed in this thesis. The story is that

…

“… long before white man … all that part of Moreton Bay from

Doogurumburrum, now Rocky point at the mouth of Logan river to Kanaipa

(Iron bark spear) was the theatre of a titanic war between all denizens of the

land, air and the water … The three main divisions of animal life – terrestrial,

aerial and aquatic – fought triangularly for supremacy, birds, flying foxes and

sharks, porpoises, goannas, snakes … Yowgurra14 the goanna was early in the

fray armed with a spear but just as he joined in the melee, Boogaban, the

sparrow hawk, swooped down and snatched the spear (juan) out of the grasp

of Yowgurra. With this in its hands it flew over the water and drove the spear

into the back of a porpoise that just at that moment exposed itself. The

porpoise with a spear sticking in its back, exerted itself to a mighty blast and

blew the weapon out; there ensued such an incessant torrent of mingled blood

and water from the spear wound that all neighbouring territory became

inundated, resulting in the present day tangle of islands, swamps and network

of channels and creeks of that portion of the bay and from this cause

originated Pimpama island Talnunjpa, Yawulaph, Wahgumpa, Coombabah

… all great areas of swamp country.” (Barlow & Best, 1997, pp. 41–42)

14 Yowgurra is now commonly spelt Yuggera. Their strong totemic animal is the goanna.


This story and connection of kin to Country is storied all throughout the land.

Keendahn’s storying lays a visual and historical map of the layout of the land and the

contact and storying of neighbouring clans. In this Yugambeh story are strong

references to the Yuggera (Yowgurra). There are place names and spaces we see,

smell, taste, touch and feel every day – like Yawalapah (Yawulaph) and Coombabah.

The telling of the stories – the significance of the stories – remains in the place names,

which make up part of our Durithunga region. Yugambeh’s local museum at

Plantation Road, Beenleigh, is the key-keeping place for these stories15. This is shared

across Durithunga learning communities – strong connections to Country maintained

by place names like Eagleby, Woongoolba and Mundoolan. Eagleby is the early

settler/invader recognition of the importance of the eagle to Yugambeh speaking

people; Mundoolan is the place of the death adder. The word Durithunga is derived

and connected to Country – the language of the land. It is Yugambeh language,

meaning to grow – also written or spoken as durangan16, language shared by

Traditional Owner educationalists of the area, Uncle Brian Williams and Aunty Eileen

Williams. The weaving of strong stories and connections to place and names of place

is footprinted all across Yugambeh and Yuggera speaking lands.

Following settlement and invasion, families of the Yuggera and Yugambeh were

forced in parts off their traditional lands and on others remained as an undeniable link to

Country and history as cattlemen, yarraman, domestics and farmers of the area.

Testament to this is the living entity Yugambeh Museum, Koombumerri books,

Nunukul Yuggera Dancers, Munanjali Housing and celebrations like the Drumley

walk. Such is the power of colonial contact that only now, in the most recent decade, has

the open knowledge and sharing developed around the boundaries and lines of Yuggera

and Turrabul peoples – knowledge of Country which was always there but was

knowledge of our people that had fallen asleep as it wasn’t allowed to be spoken due to

the massive impact of Migloo invasion.

… Coming into Country

On these lands, as visitors now living and sharing this country, it is vital we pay

respect and honour to the old people of the area. We recognise and respect the diversity

15 Yugambeh Museum, www.yugambeh.com 16 Wangerriburra dictionary is the core text used in schools for Yugambeh language development. Durangan in this dictionary means to grow.


of Aboriginality that exists and honour and respect the nexus of nations that Logan

now represents.

In Murriland there exist enclaves of Traditional Owner communities and

connections to specific sites, locales or environments. Within our southeast region the

disparity is extremely diverse. The Yuggera have been closely linked to the Noonucal

and were connected to Purga Mission in Ipswich, with close ties to Inala. Traditional

Owners always maintained a strong connection with Logan City; Yugambeh

kinnected to Koombumerri and Munanjali. Coming into Country Wakka Wakka –

Cherbourg families have created strong connections to Inala and Logan. Coupled with

this dynamic is the very real itinerant mobility of our people. All of Logan has strong

ties with Koori families, the Tweed, Central Coast and western New South Wales,

moving and settling up north – nations like Gamillaroi, Badjalung and Wiradjuri.

Added to this dynamic are the very real, very strong Torres Strait Islander

cultures. We have a plethora of family groups across language areas – Kaka lagaw ya,

Meriam Mer and Yumpla Tok (Nakata, 2007; Queensland Art Gallery, 2011; Singh

et al., 2001). The majority of Torres Strait Islanders live on the mainland of

Queensland and Logan City is home to significant Torres Strait Islander family groups.

Historically, the relationships between Torres Strait Islanders and Aborigines

post-Federation have been complex culturally and legally. All Indigenous groups across

Australia have benefited from the Torres Strait Islander triumph in the High Court of

Australia, widely known now as the Mabo decision, won in 1992. The successful case

too was able to succeed based on the long struggle of Indigenous native title rights taken

up by many Aboriginal groups, including the Northern Territory’s “bark petitions” in

the 1960s and Prime Minister Gough Whitlam’s symbolic hand back of land to the

Gurindji in 1975 (Singh etal, 2001). In Logan, there has been common cause and

practical mobilisation of both Torres Strait Islanders and Aborigines, with many of the

former participating in Durithunga as active members and supporters of mainland

Indigenous cultural practices like yarning in circle. Both these distinct yet aligned

cultural groups have worked together to develop more culturally safe spaces and

practices within education, health, housing and employment.

Combining all these identities, seeing Indigenous people as a “homogenised”

group, we have been statistically profiled in Logan City as numbering over 7000 (ABS,

2011). This is one of the biggest Indigenous populations in the southeast corner of


Queensland. Young people represent the biggest part of the Indigenous population.

Young people aged 5–19 attending an educational institution represent 31.4% of the

total Indigenous population in Logan. When ages are considered, the younger jarjums

profile grows to almost 50%. Most significantly, in the age range of 0–24 years old,

the Indigenous profile is quite astonishing – 63.6%. The current non-Indigenous age

profile for the same 0–24 age bracket is just over half the Indigenous, at 38.5%.

Statistically what becomes evident is that in the Indigenous population, the younger

generation far outnumbers the eldership or adult-aged population, a profile that

resembles a less developed country. The social impact of this difference in age density

is considerable as a higher birth rate links to higher mortality rates (Camm, Camm &

Gordon, 1990). It places pressures on the older population to support the younger

population and can be an influence on social mobility.

The demographic and cultural context underlines the imperative for adult

leadership to support and mentor jarjums as shown through this statistical footprint.

The greatest area of need or biggest population focus is the 0–24 age bracket.

Durithunga’s working spaces cover the width and breadth of the spaces the majority

of these young people attend – schooling and tertiary learning centres. If an approach

like Durithunga yarning is not embraced more fully, what we have developing in

areas like Logan is a focus on youth and eldership without the programmatic definition

and support of middle-aged, middle-tier leadership. Western education often

recognises the need for eldership, seen as “old people” and often rooted in an

anthropological definition of “eldership” or “leadership”. But it is not as focused at

acknowledging the need to build and develop second-tier, middle-aged leadership.

This lack of recognition of voice is far from what our traditional knowledge systems

look like and define as tiers of leadership. The Bunya Mountains Elders for example,

named eldership and leadership for Bunya Bunya peoples:

Leadership is earned with skills and knowledge ... The term Elder in the

Aboriginal community does not mean a person of age ... you can ... have the

term bestowed upon you when you are quite young. (Bonye Buru, 2010, p. 11)

… Sharing Country

The Migloo name for our area is Logan City. It is named after Captain Patrick

Logan of the time of invasion. Logan was a tyrant, a murderer, a thief, and a leader of

his people. Initially the area of Logan was sourced as a penal outreach. The river was


used as a source of transport and for produce. Within the areas of Kingston and

Loganlea a gold mine was founded alongside one of our major creeks – Scrubby Creek

(Starr, 1988).

Outlying areas like Beenleigh and surrounding districts became cane and

farming communities. Beenleigh was the first port for South Sea Islander labour that

came to work the cane fields. German immigrants set up family enclaves in and around

Beenleigh based on the fact they weren’t allowed to settle upon other areas within

Logan (Starr, 1988). This forms part of the history of the rich German connections,

which set up and have sustained spaces like Bethania and Eagleby.

Captain Logan died at the hands of the Indigenous inhabitants. His death was

based on the harsh settlement processes he enacted. The violence dealt by a guerrilla

warrior force can be linked to the lines of reciprocity and sharing that were (and

remain) protocol for the Indigenous peoples. Dale Kirwin, an Aboriginal academic

based at Griffith University, has described the lived experiences of Aborigines at the

time of settler conflict and contact. Kirwin refers to this upholding of protocol as part

and parcel of “Aboriginal law … based on a warrior culture … [which] required that

justice had to be restored” (Kirwin, 2007, p. 12).

An extremely diverse immigrant population shares Logan City’s rich historical

story today. Logan, specifically Woodridge, is home to significant immigrant

populations in Australia. Pacific Islanders represent the most significant community

in numbers and their families represent significant proportions in schooling

institutions. As of last census update, Samoan was the most spoken home language

(other than English): 12.8% of all languages spoken at home were recorded as Samoan

(ABS, 2011). The human populations are diverse and complex and have recently been

impacted on by new African immigrants. Logan Central is a mecca for immigrant

populations because it is the hub of immigrant services as well as the tried and true

path of past immigrant families. Overall, Logan Central holds a majority of Migloo

Australians.

Juxtaposed against this backdrop our collective communities in Logan City share

a “lower degree” of social advantage. The tool to judge social disadvantage is known

as the Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA). The index of relative socio-

economic disadvantage is derived from attributes such as low income, low educational


attainment, and high unemployment, variables that reflect disadvantage. SEIFA17 has

been constructed so that disadvantaged areas have or show low index values. High

scores on the index generally indicate that there are few families of low income or

unskilled occupations.

The index ranges from 800 to 1200, so areas of high disadvantage would score

in the 800s and areas of low disadvantage would score in the 1000s. ABS (2011) noted

that Logan City, according to the SEIFA 2011 data, scored 971, higher than Ipswich

at 966.3 and Redcliffe at 957. The collective areas of Brisbane and the Weipa

Township scored the highest on 1047.7 and 1064.5 respectively. Logan’s closest

southerly region, Gold Coast, scored 1014.2.

From the SEIFA data a fuller picture of the diversity across Logan City is

revealed. Logan has a high portion of public housing (such as Eagleby, which has a

SEIFA score of 865; and Logan Central, 807) as well as affordable housing estates and

pockets of communities with high socio-economic status (Daisy Hill, SEIFA score of

1045; Logandale, 1104.9), which are restricted in some parts for access and divided

by highways, gates, bridges and major roads. Without the economic base of having, or

having access to, private vehicles these areas are literally inaccessible. Our

Durithunga schools are largely based amongst our Housing Commission Estates –

Loganlea (858.4), Logan Central, Eagleby and Waterford.

The perceptions that stem from these kinds of datasets are of poor

neighbourhoods, high crime, lack of safety and living “below standard”. These are

common perceptions held and maintained by mainstream media outlets and people

outside of Logan. Such are the popular misconceptions of and about our city that local

politicians have countered the stigma of the name association and have started an “I

Love Logan” advertising campaign18. The core of this approach is telling other stories

of and about Logan. Logan celebrities and identities are being contacted to head the

campaign, like supermodel Catherine McNeil. The social challenges stemming from

17 The degree of “development” cited by the ABS is determined by the United Nations through the Human Development Index. The rate of Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA) advantage and degree of development has impact on funding models that flow into education. Generally Indigenous and areas of social disadvantage attract bigger monetary support through national and state allocation of funds for education. 18 The “I Love Logan” campaign is a positive storying advertising campaign undertaken by the local Logan City government.


Logan outpoured on national television networks across the country in January 2013,

captured as the “Logan Riots”19. This situation or social dis-cohesion that arose is

representative of the social complexity Logan faces as a complex community.

The social indicators coupled with the diverse human demographics make our

city, the space of Durithunga, a highly complex space. Our history, our story is alive

and living, vibrant; we come from a complex past and represent today a complex

community. This environment provides the rich soil to grow in spite of the diversities,

because of these diversities; based on the notion of understanding and responding to

the social and cultural context of the learner. Durithunga Yarning has evolved in this

space, Logan City, as a unique Indigenous practice and process which calls for greater

collaboration and recognition of Indigenous processes and principles for learning, and

works to fracture the very regimented, often fragmenting, practices of Migloo or

“mainstream” educational institutions. Durithunga does this to reassert the position of

Indigenous voice amongst a very diverse and complex social and cultural context – a

process of identification, articulation and practice of Indigenous Ways of Knowing,

Being and Doing that privileges our way, proper way, over the dominant Migloo or

multicultural discourses, and are beginning to emerge and become cemented in this

complex learning environment. As is the case for most differential policy or

procedures, Indigenous peoples are often contextualised within mainstream settings as

a group of “others”.20

19 “Logan Riots” coverage from 2013 reached all national television networks; see

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c9d_1358206104 20 We’re beginning to be “othered” in Logan in a multicultural discourse. The topic of relationships between Aborigines and migrant communities in Queensland and Australia is, of course, beyond the scope of this thesis and warrants a full study.


Chapter 2: Literature Review

Community Durithunga maintains a strong Indigenous presence and identity

within the complex community backdrop it is based in, responds to and is grounded

in. Durithunga Roots have as much impact as the educational spaces Durithunga

members are connected to. To unpack further the educational spaces, political and

policy contexts, community hub and learning contexts, as well as Murri contexts and

perspectives, the following literature situates Durithunga in context of the current

Indigenous educational and social science research. As discussed in the introduction,

the literature review is shaped around three core areas:

1. The state of play in Indigenous education: What is the state of play in

relation to Indigenous education? What is “Closing the Gap”? And how does

this agenda play out amongst current Indigenous education leaders?

2. Indigenous Australian world views: Naming and centring our world views;

our ways of knowing, being and doing within the centre of Indigenous

educational practice.

3. Learning communities: Communities of practice – what are broader notions

of learning communities or collectives in education (internationally and

nationally)? Where are they coming from and for what purpose? How do

processes operate within Indigenous Australian learning contexts?

The aim of the “state of play” section is to explain further the context from which

Durithunga emerges. The context that is the focus of this part of the review is

Indigenous education. Here, Indigenous education is positioned by various competing

parties as being centred in a deficit, the gaps between Indigenous and non-Indigenous

educational performance or outcomes. “Closing the Gap” (explored further in section

2.1) is the new policy and political terminology which has evolved to position

Indigenous people as lacking in relation to what non-Indigenous people have.

This is complex because it is a Migloo discourse that is recognised in a range of

governmental, corporate and political dialogues and it is a campaign that is

championed or figureheaded by significant Indigenous statesmen and women like

Warren Mundine and Marcia Langton. The various approaches taken by our

Chapter 2: Literature Review 37

figureheads are “systems accountability” approaches, “Indigenous responsibility”

approaches and “human rights” approaches. It is with the human rights approach that

Durithunga is more closely aligned; however, Durithunga is different and unique in

that it centres and forms its identity based on Indigenous Knowledge principles or

Ways of Knowing, Being and Doing.

Section 2.2 of the literature review deals with Indigenous thought processes –

specifically articulating Indigenous Australian world views. This reflection is important

because Durithunga as a process is embedded in Indigenous Knowledge – following a

strength-based approach of education. This part of the review positions Durithunga

amongst broader Indigenous perspectives – global teachings, and then bores down more

closely to national perspectives. The focus on Karen Martin and Norm Sheehan and

Polly Walker’s Indigenous Knowledge principles is apparent because Durithunga as

an Indigenous leadership process has used Martin and Sheehan’s research in the

development of their processes and projects (Durithunga, 2006).

A microanalysis of the application and impact of Indigenous Knowledge is

shown through the review of the Durithunga Seedlings. The Seedlings are the living

document, guide and framework to mediate, support and define Indigenous

Knowledge principles and processes within current educational paradigms. A deeper

analysis of the Durithunga Seedlings follows the data collation and collection

gathered from Community Durithunga Research Yarning Circles.

Learning communities is the last part of the literature review. Learning

communities represents research into current Migloo and Murri approaches to

education that work – collective forms of education. It’s important to gauge the

effectiveness of learning community approaches from both a Migloo and Murri

perspective because Durithunga is positioned as a process that mediates both.

Durithunga is a deeply Indigenous-principled process and it operates and deals with

education sites, which are predominantly Migloo.

2.0 THE STATE OF PLAY – WHAT IS THE STATE OF PLAY IN RELATION TO INDIGENOUS EDUCATION?

The Migloo education system of learning has not met the needs of our

Indigenous communities in Australia. What does exist in the learning of and in western

education is a massive gap between baseline skills of numeracy and literacy of and


between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. “Australian schooling is failing

to address the needs of Indigenous Australian students who remain the most

educationally disadvantaged in the country” (Collins, 2000, Commonwealth of

Australia, 2002, as cited in Santoro & Reid, p. 289). What we know from our

educational perspective is that the current models and practices operating in

mainstream education sites continue to widen this gap: “there is no consistent forward

trend in improving the wellbeing of Indigenous people … [in particular] no forward

trend towards a reduction in the disparity between Indigenous and non-Indigenous

Australians” (Craven et al., 2005, p. 4, supported in Luke et al., 2013).

National Indigenous disadvantage in relation to mainstream social wellbeing is

quite significant. There is an excess of literature that maps the socio-economic profile

of Indigenous Australians. The ABS, the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres

Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS) and the Australian Council of Educational Research

(ACER) all hold comprehensive historical and contemporary datasets that track and

define Indigenous identity in relation to national and international concepts of

wellbeing. In Australia, the Commonwealth Government incorporates this agenda

through a whole-of-government approach focused on “Closing the Gap”(COAG,

2009). As has been shown by the “Close the Gap” campaign coined by Oxfam and

sponsored by artists like John Butler, this information is beginning to seep into the

everyday facets of our lives, entering into the discourses of popular culture, which

inform the government and wider communities’ connection to the topic nationwide.

Writers and commentators from diverse educational settings use the proliferation

of data from studies conducted by organisations like the ABS, AIATSIS, ACER and

other institutions to provide a social science snapshot of Indigenous identity as well as

juxtapose this identity against the backdrop of mainstream Australia. These snapshots

on social status are used across educational settings around the country. In schools

these snapshots are linked to National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy

(NAPLAN) testing. The outcomes from these tests are all connected with the national

“Closing the Gap” campaign. The depth of this data about Indigenous disadvantage is

generally called by educationalists in the field “deficit data” or “gap” data, because the

root of the discussion and proliferation of the data is showing what Indigenous people

do not have in comparison to non-Indigenous people. Coupled with this, the notion

that Indigenous people are “lacking” or underperforming allows non-Indigenous


workers to deflect any responsibility for poor performance from their own professional

practice and processes and solely channel the site of these inequities on the shoulders

of the low performing (Amosa & Ladwig, 2007; Beresford & Partington, 2003;

Gorringe, 2006; Sarra, 2008, 2012). What the data shows is a failure of systems to

create space and opportunity for Indigenous people to grow and prosper (Amosa &

Ladwig, 2007; Beresford & Partington, 2003; Sarra 2005, 2012).

Historically the trend and tendency was for educational studies or research

surrounding Indigenous educational wellbeing to focus solely on highlighting the

“gap”. So well-known is the statistical profile of Indigenous “disadvantage” that

writers and commentators on educational issues relating to Indigenous education now

flag the “excessive gaps” and position their pieces as ways forward (Amosa & Ladwig,

2007; Craven, 2005 & 2011; Hayes et al., 2006; Luke et al., 2013; Sarra, 2003, 2005,

2012). Researchers like Amosa and Ladwig (2007) as well as Hayes et al. (2006)

acknowledge complexities that exist within and between learning communities around

Australia but focus on teacher efficacy – professional efficacy as a way to redress

negative datasets (deficit data). Amosa and Ladwig contend through their research on

“Quality Teaching” that being Indigenous or from a low socio-economic status (SES)

background is not a reason or an excuse for the poor performance in national and state

testing systems (like NAPLAN). More to the point the shifts that occur when Quality

Teaching frames are used are quite significant; that is, data shows the higher quality

the task the more positive results students of Indigenous and low SES backgrounds

achieve. Quality Teaching is predicated on the Productive Pedagogies Framework and

represents a more recent teacher-training model.

2.1 The notion of an accountabilities agenda – teacher efficacy – is best shown

by the educational practices, speeches and activism of Professor Chris Sarra. Sarra

(2003, 2005, 2008, 2012, 2013) embodies a new trend in Indigenous education

research which shifts the focus from recognising the gap to actual working examples

that promote shift and change. Sarra’s positioning and expertise on the agenda is

augmented through his identity as an Aboriginal Australian. His research and current

practice involving the “Strong and Smart” philosophy shows that when high

expectations are upheld, Indigenous students and communities perform and excel

beyond the “norms” of the deficit data. The Stronger Smarter Institute is an institute


which has been created by Sarra to action and record this agenda – providing working

examples as shown by the Learning Communities project (Luke et al., 2013). The

institute is based on the philosophies and learnings grounded in the practical

experience and lessons learnt from Sarra’s time in Cherbourg State School, an

Aboriginal Community School.

Cherbourg is situated in the heart of Wakka Wakka country but historically as a

reserve has become home to hundreds of different clan groups neighbouring the

Wakka Wakka and as far north as Kuku Langi speaking peoples upwards of Cairns.

Within this complex reality Chris Sarra, an Aboriginal man of the Gurreng Gurreng,

was Principal of Cherbourg State School. Through his principalship and management

of dynamic community leaderships and teachers on staff, the school transformed from

a low performing, low expectations culture to a high performing, high expectations

primary school hub. Through the actioning of the Strong and Smart vision, Sarra and

his team of Indigenous and non-Indigenous educators provided more opportunities and

areas for the jarjums to be recognised and revered for their commitment to education.

The Strong and Smart visioning saw Cherbourg’s deficit data in relation to attendance,

performance and wellbeing improve tenfold. The underlying factor to which Sarra

(2005, 2012) attributes the radical shift in deficit data for the schooling community

(related to high absenteeism and poor retention and performance) was (and is) the

notion and belief of high expectations – high expectations of Indigenous young people

– maintaining strength in identity (being strong), to create better outcomes (develop

the “smarts” of the students). This process was based on responding to the social and

cultural context of the learner.

In his review of the transformations from 1998 to 2003, Sarra provides

invaluable statistical as well as qualitative feedback on the progression and

transformations that occurred in the school. The core to the development of shifts and

changes is attributed by Sarra to the Strong and Smart vision. “We wanted more than

what we were getting in the past, and we knew that with new approaches we would

get it.” (Sarra, 2005, p. 4). Strong and Smart shifted “the mindset that seemingly

accepted Aboriginal underachievement as normal to one in which we all had to believe

we could get better outcomes from our children” (Sarra, 2005, p. 4). The Strong and

Smart vision relates to the learning philosophy and school motto all the students, staff

and community lived and live by.


The power of the Strong and Smart philosophy is undeniable. Since creating the

space for the vision to grow and articulating and supporting the development of the

students with the vision, the school as a learning hub reduced absenteeism, increased

real attendance and improved in the standardised statewide testing regimes.

“Unexplained Absences in Term 3, 2000 were recorded at 1,185. In Term 4, 2001

unexplained absences had dropped to 68.5. This represents a reduction of 94%” (Sarra,

2005, p. 11).

Sarra’s reflection on practice and steps for empowerment and shift in deficits led

to the development of a broader philosophy and focus. In 2005 Sarra created the Stronger

Smarter Institute to turn the tide of low expectations of Indigenous young people across

the country, changing the tide of Indigenous education. Stronger Smarter was run under

the Telstra Fund and Myer Foundation grant allocations and agreements with the state

government and now, most recently, the federal government.

Stronger Smarter’s initial mandate was to build the critical mass of educators to

change the tide of Indigenous education. The process to achieve this is through the

Stronger Smarter Leadership Program. Stronger Smarter delivers its educational

philosophy of change and positive futures for Indigenous young people by focusing

transformations around five meta-strategies (drawn from the collective experiences of

Stronger Smarter schools and program development in Cherbourg). The five meta-

strategies are:

Ø Acknowledging, developing & embracing a positive sense of Aboriginal

identity in schools;

Ø Acknowledging & embracing Aboriginal leadership in schools & school

communities;

Ø ‘High expectations’ leadership to ensure ‘high expectations’ classrooms, with

‘high expectations’ teacher / student relationships;

Ø Innovative & dynamic school staffing models, especially for community

schools;

Ø Innovative & dynamic school models in complex social and cultural contexts.

(Sarra, 2012)

What we have developing here in discourses of Indigenous education through

the Sarra model is an actioning of the Indigenous education agenda which shows and


provides school learning communities with working examples of school

transformations applying the meta-strategies. Armed with the Stronger Smarter meta-

strategies, school communities were involved in a massive study to track and record

transformational shifts across the country – this was known as the Stronger Smarter

Learning Communities Project (Luke et al., 2013). Sarra’s institute is the peak

Indigenous education institute impacting and providing leadership in school

communities around Australia responding to the social and cultural contexts of rural,

urban and remote Indigenous communities. To that end the federal government

invested over AUD$16 million in the development and delivery of the Stronger

Smarter philosophy across Australia – the Learning Communities project.

2.1.2 Juxtaposed against the backdrop of Stronger Smarter Learning

Communities’ approaches are economic rationalist models (Hayes et al., 2006;

Pearson, 2005) of Indigenous educational reform. The most politically charged and

politically committed (drawing as much, if not more, public and private funding as the

Stronger Smarter Institute) is the far north Queensland model under the auspices of the

Cape York Institute. At its helm is lawyer turned educational expert Noel Pearson.

Noel Pearson’s “practical reconciliation” agenda (Pearson, 2009) was forged when the

Howard administration gained office in the federal government. Pearson’s

philosophies are in direct contradiction to Sarra’s Stronger Smarter visioning, but at

the core, Pearson’s aim for more positive futures for Indigenous young people is a

common ground – or thread shared. Pearson’s approach is not about the reformation

and efficacy of the system – changes of system for empowerment – which Sarra

focuses on. Pearson’s model sits in the core of our people – the responsibility agenda:

to shift negative datasets in education and health we must first take responsibility

ourselves for our own decisions and practices as Aboriginal people. “Development

will require access to the opportunities of the real economy. But to make this possible,

we must restore social order, attack passive welfare, and tackle substance abuse”

(Pearson, 2005, p. 3). As such, Pearson has been a champion of the quarantining

agenda – freezing welfare payments: “Our people therefore fail to take responsibility

for ourselves as individuals, for our families, or for our communities. Extremely poor

outcomes in education, health, employment, law and order can all be related to passive

welfare (particularly combined with substance abuse)” (Pearson, 2005, p. 9). Pearson

sees this development of responsibility and striving for excellence in Indigenous


education as essential for Cape York communities (Pearson, 2009) whereas Sarra’s

approach rests and focuses on change within the school system: education

responsibility = “do the job you’re paid to do”. The significant impacts of both is that

Sarra’s and Pearson’s discourses impact and have traction with mainstream service

delivery – support of governments both state and federal and attention of the media –

dominant discourses Australia wide.

What we have happening in the 2010s is a competing and positioning of agendas

from our own people – no one-size-fits-all approaches, but diverse ways of dealing

with the teaching and learning interface – which is meted out in dominant

“mainstream” discourses like “Closing the Gap”. It is these two organisations,

Stronger Smarter Institute and Cape York Institute, that I would argue, with their

public figureheads, have dominated the discourses in and around education and the

notion of educational reform. I couch the agenda as “reform” because ever since the

Howard era, practical reconciliation has been focused on “fixing the problems” and

educational disadvantage is one such “problem”. Sarra’s and Pearson’s approaches –

the accountabilities approach (Stronger Smarter) and the responsibilities agenda (Cape

York Institute) net multimillion dollar budgets to bring about shift and change. Each

provides what they purport as clearer ways forward to closing the gap.

Pearson’s most recent morph in the education agenda has been the delivery of the

“Direct Instruction” model to the Cape communities, a process estimated to have cost

over AUD$7 million. Direct Instruction is part of a three-part domain strategy for

Indigenous education that Pearson proposes will deliver positive outcomes in schools.

This strategy refers to schools being class domains, club domains and culture domains.

The class domain relates to the process of Direct Instruction. Direct Instruction is

basically a process whereby teachers read and work from an instructional and

assessment script for the teaching of numeracy and literacy. There have been at present

improvements achieved across the Cape schools in relation to Direct Instruction: “some

senior primary school students … have gained more than 1.75 years of learning in just

one year of instruction” (Jawun, 2011). What Pearson refers to as the club domain refers

to the curricula areas of Information Technology (IT) and Physical Education (PE). The

third domain is cultural. This work is being driven and impacted on by linguists and

anthropologists. The two last domains, club and culture, are not to be practised within

the class domain, which takes the prime learning times from morning till afternoon. So


school is rooted in the class domain, which is scripted in texts not born from the social

and cultural context of the learner but rooted in the western test regime – responding to

the national literacy and numeracy testing agenda. “Direct Instruction is a teaching

model developed over 40 years of scientifically driven research. It is a structured

teacher-led program” (Jawun, 2011).

Pearson’s approaches (like Sarra’s) have far-reaching impacts on learning

communities across Australia. Pearson’s Cape York learning communities were the

first to trial SEAM – School Engagement and Attendance through welfare reform

Measures. SEAM as a process effectively fines parents and suspends Centrelink

(welfare) payments if their children are not attending school. From the test site in Cape

York the Commonwealth Department of Education, Employment and Workplace

Relations (DEEWR) has rolled out SEAM at pilot sites around Australia, including in

Logan. Following the full pilots, the welfare restrictions of SEAM – “passive welfare

responsibility” as Pearson purports – are being implemented in all schools around

Australia. The response and record of the learning outcomes from the three domains

of education practised in Cape York schools will no doubt have implications and

impacts far broader than far north Queensland.

Pearson’s stance on Indigenous education reform and refocus is supported by

other Cape York Indigenous educationalists like Marcia Langton (2009), who see the

economic impasse our people suffer as the major hurdle for positive future

development. Langton’s positioning is unique and important because she represents

part of Aboriginal women’s voices on par with Sarra and Pearson. Langton is a Bidjara

woman with ties to the Yiman peoples. She is a leading Aboriginal academic, a

historian who has a long association with Aboriginal politics. Langton as a leading

Indigenous scholar has a long association with the Cape, as she was a native title field

officer and researcher in the area in her earlier career life. Langton places her

standpoints within the realm of “practical reconciliation” – a reform agenda associated

with the economic prosperity of the Aboriginal people.

To gain a fairer footing in the dominant economic systems of the country is what

Langton sees as creating a more positive flow-on effect in relation to the “gap”. Langton

sees and supports, for example, mainstream economic development linked to leaders

like Twiggy Forester, Australian mining mogul, as the way forward for Indigenous

Australians to create stronger futures (Mundine & Langton, 2009). Forester leads a


corporate interventionist strategy as part of his “commitment” to Indigenous education

and the “Closing the Gap” agenda, the Australian Employment Covenant (AEC). The

AEC is the type of approach and rhetoric Langton supports. The AEC is a corporate-led

interventionist strategy which aims to have 50,000 jobs ready for Indigenous people

Australia wide within the next decade. The work Forrester is leading is the contract

negotiation and job generation from other corporate bodies.

Marcia Langton explores further ways forward in the “Closing the Gap” agenda

by reflecting on current demographics of Indigenous populations, as well as

contextualising these globally through discussion of Indigenous people’s position in

relation to economics (Langton & Ma Rhea, 2009). Langton and Ma Rhea (2009) look

at the impacts of Indigenous Australian education gaps in relation to broader themes

of poverty and economic isolation. They state, “closing the gap is proving elusive, with

deep professional and ideological disagreements fracturing a coherent response”

(Langton & Ma Rhea, 2009, p. 96). In their work they recognise the role of Chris

Sarra’s approaches alongside Noel Pearson’s in developing educational reform and

transformations. They flag, however, a lack of consistency when it comes to the roll-

out of Indigenous education programs.

A way forward that Langton and Ma Rhea (2009) propose is to follow the

International Labour Organisation’s (ILO) framework for Indigenous peoples. They

focus the reforms here because the ILO’s focus is a broader global accountability

function of and between governments and corporates in addressing world poverty.

Section 169 of the ILO is the core design framed as “the way forward” to close the

gap. It is, according to Langton and Ma Rhea, “the foremost internationally legal

instrument which deals specifically with rights of tribal peoples” (2009, p. 104). A

blueprint is provided based on this standard to follow and realise Australian

accountability – the “systems accountability” that Sarra strives for. A drawback is only

20 countries have signed the document and Australia is not one of them. Coupled with

this, in the struggle to self-determine and be recognised in decision-making processes,

this is a process (ILO – section 169) which by Langton’s own admission was criticised

for “insufficiently including Indigenous peoples in the drafting and excluding self

determination and decision making power” (Langton & Ma Rhea, 2009, p. 106).

Again the core of what Langton proposes and calls for, equal economic footing

and real job pathways, is focused on the betterment of Indigenous people, and shares a


common thread with Pearson and Sarra. The differences lie not so much in “what” Sarra,

Pearson and Langton strive for in relation to better futures, but in “how” they aim (and

are) going forward – that is a major point of conjecture. The reality of all three

figureheads is that their approaches – systems accountability or responsibility

approaches – are not just abstract theories. What is problematic is that these processes,

netting multimillion-dollar government and corporate support, are not wedded or grown

from the wants or situated in the needs and voices of the most affected – the Murri and

Torres Strait Islander families. The notion of community consultation or full

community buy-in to the approaches is not core or central. Again, Langton strives to

attain a broader, global approach through section 169 of the ILO. But fundamentally at

the core of this approach was, and is, the lack of full and proper consultation and

development of self-determining decision-making processes.

2.1.3 These points of view and approaches can be directly contrasted with other

Indigenous expertise connected to the “Closing the Gap” agenda, leaders like Tom

Calma and Pat Turner. Calma and Turner are (like Langton) elder statesmen and

women of the public debate and service of and for Indigenous Australians. Their focus

is on the human rights agenda to “Close the Gap”, a process which diverges from

Langton’s ILO approach in that the human rights approach doesn’t cede rights or

interests of Indigenous stakeholders. Tom Calma provides his take on the “Closing the

Gap” agenda from his role as Social Justice Commissioner to now Coordinator of

“Tackling Indigenous Smoking”. Calma, through his association with Reconciliation

Australia, has a clear link to the agenda, which he delineates from the federal

government process: “our campaign is to ‘Close the Gap’” (Calma, 2010, p. 2). The

government, through their peak bodies such as the Council of Australian Governments

(COAG) and Ministerial Council for Education, Early Childhood Development and

Youth Affairs (MCEECDYA), linked to organisations like the Cape York and Stronger

Smarter Institutes, aim their strategies to “Closing the Gap”. “Close the Gap’s” core

focus is to close the life and health expectancy gap. Calma’s process is embedded in a

human rights–based approach.

Australia is bound by international human rights conventions to enact

“progressive realisation” – a commitment to providing positive health outcomes for

Indigenous Australians (Calma, 2010, p. 7). Inherent in this approach is the right of

community-based localised governance. To “close the gap” is for Indigenous


Australians to enjoy the same life outcomes and future possibilities of non-Indigenous

Australians. This is an inherent human right – a human right linked to international

conventions, which Australia is a party to. What’s clear (and a major point of

difference from the “Closing the Gap” agenda) is that one human right cannot be

suspended for another – that contravenes the basic tenets of equality. Therefore the

suspension of the Racial Discrimination Act (RDA) and quarantine of Indigenous

Australians’ money (linked to the Cape York Institute’s responsibility agenda) is

something that is not part of the “Close the Gap” agenda; however, it is a real part of

the federal government’s responses (as shown through SEAM). Calma’s approach is

clear: to move forward in Indigenous health and life outcomes, human rights advocacy

and strengthening of a human rights approach is the key. This is where this approach

is limiting from a Durithunga perspective. Calma’s positioning of our people solely

from a human rights approach moves the centrality of community-based processes to

a broader international rights agenda.

Pat Turner (2008) is another Aboriginal leader who takes umbrage at the way all

levels of Australian government are dealing with the Indigenous agenda. She sees the

issue of the gap – the distance to travel between Indigenous and non-Indigenous

positive health and wellbeing outcomes – as the responsibility of the government – a

human right to life. Turner gave her reflections on her career and response to the

“Closing the Gap” agenda at a university conference titled, “Closing the Gap: When

and how will Australia ever become truly liveable for Indigenous Australians?”

(2008). Turner, unlike Pearson, is opposed to any notion that issues of change or need

for improvement rest within our own communities. What Turner advocates is for

governments and the policy makers of the day to take responsibility and stop “hurting

the victim”. Turner says,

It is a blight on the nation if the gap is not closed. It is blight on every single

Australian and every single government. It’s not our blight. It’s everyone’s

blight. We’re the victims – don’t blame us. Take a good hard look at

yourselves and what you can do to make a difference. (Turner, 2008, p. 10)


Through Turner’s experience as a long-serving public servant and Chief

Executive Officer of the National Indigenous Television station (NITV),21 she strongly

calls for governments to “engage” and “negotiate” with Aboriginal leadership. To

ensure this happens or to have mechanisms which support this, Turner, like Calma,

believes our strength relies on international standards – having within Australian

doctrine clear provisions that “protect” and “support” Aboriginality – a Bill of Rights.

The hurts from the past reflected in the pains suffered in the present can begin to be

healed when we as Australians have a clear recognition of our First Nation peoples

and their rights in our government structures. Turner believes that this will be achieved

through a treaty and full and proper inclusion within the Australian Constitution.

Turner uses the current Australian federal governments creation and sustainment of

the Northern Terrority Intervention as an example of the inequities built, lived and

experienced everyday by Indigenous citizens. She purports that there is no better

evidence for the need of a distinct Bill of Rights then through recent federal

government suspensions of the RDA – the Northern Territory intervention from 2007

to 2011. The act of suspension of the Act is an example of the blurring of lines of

government on human rights. To protect and enshrine our basic human rights, both

Calma and Turner see Indigenous Australian treaty and constitutional reform as the

best course of action. Calma and Turner’s approaches are useful because they don’t

centre the deficit or gap as a responsibility of Indigenous peoples. Rather they, like

Sarra, see shifts and changes needing to come from the governments and systems of

the day. The variation from Sarra’s approach is that Calma and Turner centre their

approach on international standards – the conventions and rights of us as human beings

– basic human rights.

What we have playing as a nation – politically, across the media and within

school and education systems – is these distinct and varied conversations in and around

Indigenous education which are siloed or siphoned into the “Closing the Gap” agenda.

The Sarra “systems accountability” approach parallels the Pearson and Langton

“practical reconciliation” approach. On the other end of the spectrum are the “human

rights” approaches, which call for equal opportunity through pursuit of more strongly

21 Pat Turner was nominated the first Chief Executive Officer of the inaugural Indigenous television station, NITV.


defined human rights within the governing structures of the country, to which Sarra

would be more closely aligned.

Separate to the deficit focus of “the gaps” are the processes based solely and

entirely around Indigenous footprints – strength-based approaches which concentrate

on articulating the world views, knowledges, principles and practices of Indigenous

Australian cultures. This is where Durithunga is principally situated. These

approaches focus on what Indigenous Australians do share as strengths as a people –

the survival and resilience skills of a people, the knowledge, connection and

relatedness of a people woven over 65,000 years. These approaches draw on the

strengths of our people from the past to help reinterpret and understand events today.

Aboriginal health expert Chelsea Bond provides a strong reinterpretation of our

Indigenous footprints juxtaposed against the notions of deficits – the “Closing the

Gap” agenda. Reflecting on her health work and study within the urban Aboriginal

suburb of Inala, Bond noted that the “Strong in the City (program) chose to emphasise

a strength based approach in an effort to help provide a more balanced approach to

understanding Indigenous communities which are often only characterized in terms of

weaknesses” (Brough, Bond, & Hunt, 2004, p. 7). This is where Durithunga sits. It is

an urban, strength-based, localised, vocalised, Indigenous-principled process which

reflects and responds to the needs of our people not based on deficit data or closing

gaps between Migloo society and our people, but embedded and infused in our way –

our right to live and be a part of education through practising, growing and learning

our ways – Durithunga yarning.

Durithunga’s journey has synergies with current Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander academic research (like Bond’s), and the thinking and construction of

Indigenous Australian “thought worlds” (Kawagley, 2010) – our Ways of Knowing,

Being and Doing (Martin, 2008). This is unique and different in relation to the

Indigenous education environment because it moves from looking at what Indigenous

people don’t have – gaps and lacks in relation to comparison of and with non-

Indigenous peoples and populations – to basing practice, research and reflections on

that which we do have: an in-depth, strength-based approach. This is a powerful

approach because in the formation and development of other responses to Indigenous

education – the “systems accountability” or “practical reconciliation” approaches –

there is a constant reflection and justification of what is being done to “better” our


Indigenous communities. Indigenous-based practices, reflections and actions

grounded in Indigenous standpoint work from what we have as nations grown in our

Indigenous spirit and ancestral connections to the land, a re-membering and

reinterpreting not for the “now” but based in the everywhen – our world views, our

thinking, our way of life.

This is arguably a powerful shift in dynamics, in part because Sarra, Pearson and

Langton make connections to the everywhen but stop short of defining, articulating or

centring their approaches in this rich narrative. The same too can be said of the human

rights approach. Although the semantics are definitely different and meanings and

application are separate, Calma’s “Closing the Gap” via the human rights approach

recognises the importance of our identity and diversity but still positions us as lacking

in relation to what we don’t have. Not just on a national scale but internationally,

“Indigenous health [and education] is regularly depicted in terms of stereotypical

images of hopelessness” (Brough, Bond, & Hunt, 2004, p. 6).

This concludes the first part of the literature review, “State of Play”. This section

has outlined the current and competing Indigenous policy voices. The next section of

the literature review, “What Are Our Indigenous World Views?”, articulates more

explicitly Indigenous world views and current methods in research.

2.2 WHAT ARE OUR INDIGENOUS WORLD VIEWS?

In order to get to our ways of doing, prefacing our knowledge, we need to look

at Indigenous Knowledge research from a global, national and local perspective. It’s

important to look at the different shape and form of Indigenous Knowledge in different

contexts as each impact on the other. Each particular context maintains a flow or

common thread – the depth and richness of Indigenous thought worlds (Kawagley

2010), or Ways of Knowing (Martin, 2008), as its cornerstone. It is this cornerstone –

Indigenous Knowledge – that is the foundational base of Community Durithunga.

Internationally the shaping and sharpening of Indigenous world views within a

research or academic environment has been led by the powerful works of Indigenous

standpoint reflection and action, like the collective work of Denzin et al. in the

Handbook of Critical and Indigenous Methodologies (2008). Linda Tuhiwai Smith

provides the most influential text in the development of ideas kinnected to Indigenous

research. Smith articulates an agenda for Indigenous research through her foundational


piece Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples (1999). This

agenda as Smith defines it flows on from the burst of activist energies and

commitments from the 1960s in New Zealand22.

The agenda, as Smith details, connects local, regional and global efforts moving

towards the ideal of a self-determining world (Smith, 1999). It is conceptualised by

Smith as constituting a program and set of approaches, which are situated amongst the

decolonisation policies of the Indigenous people’s movement. The agenda is focused

on the goal of self-determination. To reach the ultimate goal of self-determination in

research involves the processes of transformation, decolonisation, healing and

mobilisation.

Smith uses the rich storying of her Country, Aotearoa, New Zealand and draws

from the strengths of her people, the Maori, to name the transformative process in

terms of the wind and tidal flows of Aotearoa. The flows are connected to “Tangaroa”,

the sea spirit being (Smith, 1999, p. 116), essential to Maori people as the sea is the

giver of life, sets times and conveys movement. The four directions of the wind are

named as Healing (north); Decolonization (east); Transformation (south); and

Mobilization (west). These are processes which “connect, inform and clarify tensions

between the local, regional and global” (Smith, 1999, p. 116). The push and pull of the

tides are flagged as Survival; Recovery; Development; and ultimately Self

Determination. The tides are “conditions and states of being through which indigenous

communities are moving” (Smith, 1999, p. 116).

22 This 1960s era holds significant political importance for us as Indigenous Australians, symbolically remembered through our census referendum and the creation of Indigenous-specific services.


Figure 2.1. Indigenous research agenda, ocean and tidal flow, Linda Tuhiwai Smith, 199923

Smith calls for a research agenda reform. She calls to account the forms and

structures which bind and hold knowledge. Smith’s work centres our being, our

identities as Indigenous people in the middle of all research. To move forward in the

application and articulation of Indigenous-based research, it is essential to centre the

research from within. Via the Maori footprint Smith explains how research can be

articulated and practised in ways that embrace our cultural identity our spirit, our ways.

Smith’s work shows how Durithunga can be positioned or understood within a

broader global context.

23 This diagram is taken from Linda Smith’s important text, Decolonizing Methodologies, p. 117.


There are a number of other international examples of Indigenous research

agendas that show and support the notion of the power, in form and structure, of

Indigenous Knowledge. Indigenous Knowledge - “The Alaskan Holotropic Mind”

(Kawagley, 2010; see Figure 2.2) is a great example of the power of storying and the

knowledge that underpins it. Oscar Kawagley was a powerful Yupiaq writer, academic

and educational leader. He explained the power and intricacies of complex knowledge

shared by Indigenous cultures through living in harmony with nature (Kawagley,

2010). Kawagley did this through the storying on country, “imbedded in our myths”

(Kawagley, 2010, p. 1).

Figure 2.2. The Alaskan Holotropic Mind (Kawagley, 2010).

Kawagley (2010) is able to heighten readers’ awareness into the power of story

through the storying of the Crane – a microcosm of the whole universe. As Kawagley

explains, “Native creative mythology/science … deals with the whole – the physical,

intellectual, emotional and spiritual dimensions of our inner and outer ecologies”

(Kawagley, 2010, p. 2). What he leaves through his kinnections to the Yupiaq is a

clear design of “The Alaskan Holotropic Mind” using a “tetrahedral metaphor to

illustrate some of the key elements in the Yupiaq worldview” (Kawagley, 2010, p. 2).

Central to this design is the image of the circle “representing the universe, or circle of

life … On this circle are represented the human, natural and spiritual worlds”

(Kawagley, 2010, p. 2).

The application of Indigenous Knowledge in research and community

development is essential in developing discourses which are more representative of our


way. Jo-Ann Archibald’s work on Indigenous Storywork is a comprehensive book that

explores the practical application of storying methods (Archibald, 2010). Archibald is

of the Sto’:lo Nation and is Associate Dean for Indigenous Education in the Faculty of

Education at the University of British Columbia. Specifically Archibald works on and

expresses ways to bring storytelling into educational contexts.

What Archibald does is explain the importance of storying through showing and

actioning story – the reader is taken on a “journey”, her journey of developing this

text. Through the specific yarns and storying of her people, her kinnections, she is able

to weave in broader applications of the storying work. An example of the broader

applications is her definitions and explanations of holistic knowledge. Archibald

states, “An Indigenous philosophical concept of holism refers to the interrelatedness

between the intellectual, spiritual … emotional and physical … realms to form a whole

healthy person” (Archibald, 2010, p. 11). These models are further supported by

cultural writers like Steeves (2010) and Battiste (2008) who use metaphors and cultural

references of ecology are used in PhD and project research. These global examples all

show how and why Indigenous Knowledge is being centred in an Indigenous research

agenda. The centring of “our ways” opens the space within academic and educational

contexts to pursue other forms of learning and application of our unique methods.

The focus on being or centring our ways is a common thread shared with recent

developments in Indigenous Australian thinking and writing on Indigenous research.

Recently Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander academics have begun to shape and

map ways for us as learning communities to engage in an Indigenous Australian

agenda. It’s a process of valuing Australian holistic knowledge. This process is

pursued through our own principles and practices. Our writers and thinkers in this

realm are academics like Aileen Moreton-Robertson, Martin Nakata, Karen Martin

and Norm Sheehan. In defining this space further, Phillips, Phillips, Whatman, and

McLaughlin (2007) believe the “cultural interface today for Indigenous Knowledges

and Indigenous Studies can be defined in four ways: Indigenous educators and

Indigenous community; non-Indigenous educators and Indigenous community;

Indigenous educators and non-Indigenous educators; and Indigenous Standpoint

theory and pedagogy” (2007). I would attest that leaders in the Australian field,

covered in this literature review, like Nakata, Martin and Sheehan use the fourth

“way”, Indigenous standpoint, in their works as researchers. They centre their


approaches not on what is lost or needs to be gained from a reconciliation agenda

(Sarra, Pearson, Langton), but on what can be gained from engaging in Indigenous

Australia’s thought worlds – rich narratives.

In the discussion that follows I will discuss research on Indigenous Knowledge

in relation to particular concepts that will guide frameworks and tools of Community

Durithunga research. In particular I will look at Nakata’s work on Indigenous

standpoint theory, Martin’s storying and relatedness theories, and Sheehan and

Walker’s Indigenous Knowledge principles in order to set the foundations for the

methodological chapter to follow.

Nakata’s work provides unique insight into Indigenous standpoint theory

through his dissection of the dominant academic discourses, which build and create

spaces of and about Torres Strait Islanders. Disciplining the Savages – Savaging the

Disciplines (Nakata, 2008) is a decisive text, which examines the impact of other

lenses on the identity of the Torres Strait, and the impacts this has. Nakata finishes

with a unique insight into the standpoint of Indigenous Australians – rightfully able to

claim our own space – Nakata’s Standpoint theory.

As a Torres Strait Islander academic, Nakata is able to highlight the significant

inequities in analysis that western social science, specifically anthropology, applies to

his people. Nakata is able to critique and comment on “experts” in the field of

anthropology as an Indigenous “expert” born from the field of research. This creates a

destabilising effect of and on western academic research of and on Indigenous people.

Specifically in regard to this lead work, that is of the Torres Strait Islander people,

Phillips et al. refer to it as destabilising or “shifted ground” (Phillips et al., 2007, p.

10). The shifting ground refers to the notion of objectivity or espoused expertise in the

fields of study of and on Indigenous people. Non-Indigenous scholars must now take

a sharper look, both ethically and morally and through educationally sound practices,

to re-interpret or reposition their endeavour of and on Indigenous research and topics

not from a privilege of western academic “correctness” or “rightness” (or whiteness –

Moreton-Robinson, 2000). Non-Indigenous academics especially must examine their

potential Indigenous studies or research amongst a growing corpus of work that

recognises the complexities of the cultural interface. The “shifting ground” or spaces

of not knowing link very strongly to earlier educational work on Indigenous

Knowledge – specifically Yolngu work on Ganma theory (Yunupingu, 1989 as cited


in Craven, 2011). To understand the cultural overlaps Nakata refers to is to

acknowledge the movement of the tides, Ganma, brownish and salt water. Brackish

water, Ganma theory of Yunipingu explains that the fluidity of the water – the tides –

brings both waters together and the space that is met creates “brackish water”. These

are spaces for deeper learning – transition and intersection woven already in the natural

landscape. Nakata draws on this deeper learning to suggest all Indigenous studies must

be looked at more deeply rather than settle for the “rightness” of western academia.

Karen Martin, as a Quandamoopah woman, has gone further in her steps of

reaching for an Indigenous standpoint by using an explicit world view methodology

for incorporating Indigenous approaches. Martin’s (2008) work on Indigenising

Aboriginal research has great synergies to the work of Kawagley (2010) and Archibald

(2010) and research of Durithunga. Martin flags constructs that connect to our identity

and sense of self as being Indigenous – knowing we’re Murri within a society which

has been heavily colonised. Martin refers to the three-part process of “Knowing; Being

and Doing” Aboriginal research and applying Murri research principles.

Martin’s (2008) work on Indigenous research principles provides an in-depth

look at research and researching from an Indigenous standpoint through the discussion

of her research from her perspective as a Quandamoopah woman. From this

standpoint Martin draws on the rich storying of Country, which she refers to as

Quandamoopah ontology. From this foundational base of learning, grounded in the

root of the stories from Country, of Country, connected and kinnected to Country,

Martin is able to delve into the rich stories, which permeate from her understandings

of Quandamoopah to draw strength from these and form powerful understandings in

relation to the theory of Relatedness. “Relatedness is the golden idea … [it] moves us

beyond decolonisation … because it employs what is ours, relating what makes sense

and pulls us through transformation to action” (Mahlo 2008, as cited in Martin, 2008,

p. 7). Relatedness, according to Mahlo, “draws on what is best about Aboriginal

agency and brings fourth [to our] consciousness … how [this] … is maintained” (as

cited in Martin, 2008, p. 7).

Martin’s Relatedness theory (2008) is grounded in the trilogy of Ways of

Knowing, Ways of Being and Ways of Doing – the three knowledge bands. This

theoretical framework of three knowledge bands has been derived from the storying

on Country – related to the Country she is kinnected to. The story of the Quampie is


used as the pedagogical framing device to explain the knowledge bands. Quampie is

a seashell and is found on the lower tidal waters. This storying on Quampie is related,

drawing from the Quandamoopah Ancestral core. The story of the Quampie relates

to the saltwater, the creation, life cycle and connectedness the Quampie has with

Quandamoopah as a rich food source. Martin (2008) articulates a Quandamoopah

epistemology through the “Quampie First Story”, told through three knowledge

bands. The thread that is woven from the ancestral stories – the “golden idea” that

Mahlo alludes to – is that Martin is able to show how Murri ontology, the Dreaming

or storying on Country is the foundation for all other research or frames to research –

to make sense. Relatedness – the ability to immerse yet transcend and see above the

terrain, from a micro to a macro perspective – is what Martin flags as the core learning

which underpins her work. This relatedness is demonstrated in a myriad of ways. The

Quampie is an example of the richness of storying: Quandamoopah epistemology is

articulated through Quampie first storying. Martin communicates these through text

and art to show the enfoldment and development of the “golden idea” of relatedness.

The Quampie as a pearl shell relays storying around the harshness and beauty of

saltwater Country. The sand can be coarse, yet sand helps in the creation of pearls and

the shininess of the Quampie shell. Men would largely gather Quampie but this is not

a male-only ritual. The Quampie itself responds and is connected to the environment

on the whole as it grows and develops according to the richness of the nutrients and

healthiness of the local environment upon which it is based. “Pollution upstream can

affect the rate of growth … features of this environment impact on the Quampie in

many ways” (Martin, 2008, p. 71).

The power of Martin’s (2008) work is to show our way not just through written

text but also through visual representation of the storying connected to the

Quandamoopah. The three knowledge bands are represented as arched lines that grow

from the central core of ancestral storying. Each has a specific purpose within

Quandamoopah epistemology that is achieved via the continual actioning of daily life,

the ongoing immersion of relatedness and fulfilling the conditions of each knowledge

band. Each band is kinnected and related to the other, drawing strength from the

powerful Country root and storying on which it is based.


Figure 2.3. Knowledge bands of the Quampie First Story, by Professor Karen Martin, 2008.

As discussed earlier, the three knowledge bands are Ways of Knowing, Being

and Doing. “Knowing” refers to recognising and centring the development of research

and process from our own footprint – the learnings passed on for generations as

Indigenous peoples of Australia. Specifically, Martin refers to “knowing” as “knowing

relatedness”. So knowing the Quampie story and being able to articulate connections

to country and the activities associated with Quampie all demonstrate ways of

knowing the relatedness and thus the power of the story from a Quandamoopah

perspective.

“Being” refers to a process of identifying the community – stories of strength

we are connected to as disparate communities and how we draw strength from these.

Once we know our relatedness, “ways of being” relatedness refers to fulfilling three

conditions – being respectful; responsible; and accountable. Being respectful means

being respectful of the lore that binds you, or us, to story in any given context.


Responsibility to relatedness is the notion that first stories never change – these are

connected to our Dreamings and spirit worlds, other stories, personal stories or those

relating to an entity, and should be understood and articulated in context. Some

storying is shared – public, like the ones in this piece – and others are not. This

condition of relatedness refers to the notion of Aboriginality/Indigeneity as being

kinnected to a bigger yarn, broader than the individual notion of community. As

Martin explains, relatedness can never be owned or placed in a hierarchy. She states,

“in this state of relatedness, no single Entity is more important than another” (Martin,

2008, p. 69). This condition flows on to the notion of accountability. As an individual

and as a part of a whole, you and we must be accountable to maintaining and sustaining

relatedness. This is shown through the actioning of reciprocity.

“Doing” relates to the actioning of research in an Indigenous Australian context.

This is the last band, the enfoldment and evolvement of ways of knowing and being

for stories of relatedness (Martin, 2008, p. 79). Martin articulated two conditions of

this knowledge band – to live relatedness in terms of its process and its practices.

Process is explained as being an action of coming amongst entities and alongside. This

refers to the lived experiences of peoples. Martin explains it as coming amongst an

entity and experiencing physically, socially and economically. This process is highly

contextual. Coming alongside relatedness Martin refers to immersion, a process that is

even deeper – a spiritual connection, social, emotional and intellectual. Practising or

“doing relatedness” refers to ritual as in ceremonies. These are vast and varied and

take into account the disparate experiences of Quandamoopah. On reflecting on the

use of traditional languages, which has shifted for a lot of Quandamoopah, as “we

don’t speak” fluently, Martin refers to other ways of practising Quandamoopah,

connecting to Quampie knowledges in other ways: “[the] majority of people … have

never really lost their culture, it’s just done a different way” (Martin, 2008, p. 80).

Martin shows how the Aboriginal processes of research and our own standpoint

theories are interconnected. These don’t operate in isolation; our ways of being are

about the rights we earn by fulfilling rites to country, self and others. Through this our

ways of being shape ways of doing Martin, 2008). Each part creates a whole; this is

what holistic learning is all about.

Martin weaves her story through multimodal expression – her representation of

the story through art – a strong Indigenous practice of Country. The Quampie story is


then reflected through the words on the page, the speaking of the words and the

visualisation of the story through art. This is a powerful sensory expression, one that

builds on from the set standard western way of deconstructing and theorising from a

range of theoretical or western paradigms to shifting the lens to an Indigenous

Australian standpoint. This is a powerful representative tool of our people for our

people and by our people in that it redefines the education boundaries or parameters,

which fence in the academic world. These are being expanded, tested, tried and

enfolded (Martin, 2008) through a theoretical framing or sensory testing which is

based on over 65,000 years of camp fire knowledges, storying and arting.

The power of what Martin does is to name and reclaim our Indigenous standpoint

in the midst of the powerful colonial conquering systems of the academy – within the

text – the written word on the page. Her respect principles draw on the rich history

shared on Country – principles of respect, sovereignty and power grounded in her

individual Country – as a descendant of the Noonukal. The process of drawing and

extracting from our knowledges has grown or matured into the rich articulation of

Martin’s prose. And this has not grown in isolation. Martin makes constant

reconnections to her teachers like Oodgeroo Nunukul. This is a powerful reconnection

point because Martin’s source or “expertise” is connected to ancestors –

Countrywomen and men. “I corroborate … with the words of other Quandamoopah

People. I [draw] on the knowledges, beliefs and words of my Elders, family and

Countrymen …” (Martin, 2008, p. 65).

Martin, through her scripting like the Quampie narrative and designs, sharpens

the images and utterances of our people’s perspectives, grounding them in our unique

identities – individual family identities such as “Where you from? Who your mob?”

This kin talk is essential for any Indigenous research work. In reaching for her

standpoint, Martin (2008) provides a telling “tool kit” or transferable range of

principles for researchers to consider when dealing with Indigenous research,

communities and topics. Martin frames these as the “seven respect research strategies”.

These research strategies have grown from Quandamoopah ontology, comprised of

the creators, ancestors and spirits. There are key features which grow from this

ontology – filters – future life lessons – analysis tools – these are concepts of

connectedness and relatedness. The key features are based on the principle of respect.

For Martin (2008), Respect as a strategy comes in seven ways: for your land; for laws;


for culture; for community; for elders; for families; for futures. These are seven

distinct research strategies, which Martin used in her research on and about the Kuku

Langi peoples – the Indigenous people of the far north areas near Cairns (Martin,

2008). The research strategies provided a framework to create a research protocol or

“rules” which Martin (2008) had to follow as part of the research (see Martin’s

“Protocols for research”, p. 131). The seven “Respects” were woven throughout her

doctoral study and are enshrined in the notion of “everywhen” by drawing on her

traditional footprints as a Noonukal and Bidjara woman (Martin, 2008).

Martin provides a telling framework to build from and recognise the diversity in

the land and flags that are expressions of our standpoints. These expressions come in

a multitude of ways – they are polyphonic. Whereas Martin uses and is connected to

art – storying through visuals – my story kin and lore is connected more closely to

song lines, singing and dancing, storytelling, and yarning. The tools of expression I

draw from come from within the rich story of my people’s Country – my tumba tjina:

Bunya Bunya and Warra. This is what I draw from as a part of my analysis approach

into Community Durithunga. I am a fledgling in my Country lore systems so the

knowledges I know and share are layered in a way that only reveals one layer of

knowledge, and the stories I have had revealed to me are on a multi-layered plane – of

which I am accessing only part of the layers – part of the story. The standpoint I can

share, the knowledges that are open, I am still sharpening and gaining access to.

Sheehan and Walker (2001) frame the ability to give and receive Indigenous

Knowledge as “open and closed businesses” in their paper on Indigenous research in

“Purga, The Purga Project: Indigenous Knowledge Research”. Sheehan and Walker

like Martin, provide strong processes to follow and acknowledge when working with,

in and from an Indigenous research agenda. Sheehan and Walker frame a set of core

Indigenous Knowledge Research Principles (IKRP) that he sees as transferable, like

Martin’s seven strategies. Through the research site of Purga Mission – a powerful

historical and traditional owner site in Ipswich, for Yuggera peoples – Sheehan and

Walker reflect on seven distinct Knowledge Principles formed and transferable in

relation to the research interface – principles grounded in our kinnections to Country.

I have chosen Sheehan and Walker’s (2001) work on Purga as it has strong

kinnections with Community Durithunga Research. As explained in Chapter 1

(section 1.4) Community Durithunga is based along the waterways of the Yugambeh.


As in the Dreaming Story shared earlier, there are close connections to the Yuggera

(who are named in the story). The Yuggera hold close boundaries with the Yugambeh.

It is essential in building knowledge strength and forming deeper awareness to signal

the footprint of Traditional Owners “on Country” rather than use “off country” tools

(as shared later in Chapter 3, section 3.1, through discussion of the Djirribal Holistic

Planner). To that end, this piece – as a living, breathing document – is more closely

aligned relationally with Sheehan and Walker’s (2001) work than with any other text

here. My previous work role saw a powerful curriculum and pedagogical shift with

Purga Elders and Descendants gifting use of the site for the Hymba Yumba

Community Hub. Aunty Lily Davidson, who brokered part of the research conducted

by Sheehan on country, relayed that she had reached out to Polly Walker, who was

from overseas, to share that Purga and Hymba Yumba were in partnership. A key part

of the partnership brokerage is the redevelopment of Purga as an Indigenous

Knowledge Centre (Aunty Lily Davidson, personal communication, May 2015).

What Sheehan and Walker (2001) do through their work on IKRP is to provide a

set of strategies to follow and connect with in relation to Indigenous research. The nine

principles Sheehan and Walker unpack provide a telling toolkit to use and refer to when

engaging in our research interface. The power of Sheehan and Walker’s research within

a Durithunga context is that Sheehan (as a support person/mentor) and the IKRP have

been used and applied to guide powerful Indigenous learning processes. Will Davis’s

(2007) work and research into Indigenous methods in classroom spaces is an example

of this application. Davis is a foundational member of Community Durithunga and co-

scriber of the Durithunga Seedlings (Durithunga, 2006). He applied IKRP in his

development of “Spear Making” (Davis, 2007), a powerful Indigenous learning method

applied within the urban learning space of Kingston Centre Education Program.

The first IKRP is that Indigenous Knowledge is not open knowledge. This

principle acknowledges the autonomy of Indigenous Knowledges. Via this principle

it is acknowledged that the researcher doesn’t have an inherent right to knowledge or

to seek knowledge. Inherent in this principle is the notion that there are some

knowledges that can be shared and others that cannot – it is Indigenous peoples as

controllers and owners of that knowledge who decide who, how and when this can be

shared according to lore and custom.


The second principle is that knowledge is a living thing. Indigenous Knowledge

Research (IKR) according to Sheehan and Walker (2001) includes the research in an

Indigenous world view that encompasses relationships between all parties as relevant

and essential. The next principle weaves through the last as “being present”. This third

IKRP is predicated on the notion that researchers must be present and involved in the

patterns of relationships within the community. Being present actively places a

researcher in active and reciprocal relationships. The onus is on the researcher to map

and effectively engage in the patterns of relationships that exist and need to be

sustained in the research sequence.

The fourth principle delves into the unknown of the Aboriginal thought world

(not yet accessed or known or recognised often by the western worlds) and that is the

realm of the spirit world. IKR researchers must engage with patterns of relationships

of the environment and the unseen. This principle delves further in this world view of

interconnectivity by tapping into our spirit worlds. Spirit learning is a distinct element

of living intellectualism for Indigenous philosophy and hence for Indigenous research.

Davis reflects on this IKRP by stating “listening to the world outside of humans’

purview could be disconcerting from an occidental standpoint, however, this is a

distinct element of living intelligence for Indigenous philosophy [and thus] Indigenous

research” (Davis, 2007, p. 26). Part of this principle is being open to new learnings

and correlates strongly with the fifth principle. The fifth principle is to be a learner and

foster learning. This IKRP relates to entering into relationships on our terms and

philosophical paradigms.

The sixth IKRP is to be real. This is a challenging principle in its own right

because it calls on self-reflection and commitment to be and connect to humaneness, not

being taken up in a role – the role of researcher. To be real is to be accepted in a

community context – being in a pattern of respectful relationships. When involved and

entwined in a strong base, relating on an individual level, the respectful relationships

which are forged can be for the cycle of the research project or may be of a long-term

nature – a benefit of the connectiveness of conducting research via the IKRP. To be real

is to respect the people and place where research is being conducted. To respect all things

is the seventh principle. To do this effectively encourages, according to Sheehan and

Walker, learning at a deeper level. The ultimate demonstration of this IKR is to be in a

“space of not knowing”. As Sheehan and Walker reflect, “respect is built only on truth


and being true to oneself. The ultimate demonstration of IKR respect is ‘not knowing’”

(Sheehan & Walker, 2001, p. 4).

The final two principles relate to recognising and reacting against oppressive

colonial discourses as well as transferring principles but methodologies stay in place

– unique to the context they are centred on. The eighth IKRP relates to awareness and

active acknowledgement in the field of hidden cultural, environmental, historical and

social relations. To be doing IKRP refers to taking a proactive stance against colonial

discourses. The final principle is closely aligned with Indigenous philosophies like a

meta-philosophy. “IKR methodologies are meta-research methodologies. Their aim is

to instigate environments that facilitate Indigenous people defining their own

pathways into the future” (Sheehan & Walker, 2001, p. 7). IKRP thus provides a

unique Indigenous way of doing research.

In these ways, Nakata’s, Martin’s and Sheehan’s research lays a foundation for

the work that underpins Community Durithunga. In summarising the power of

Indigenous Knowledge, Will Davis reflects, “Indigenous philosophy, principles of

being, knowing and learning are a necessary and integral core for authentic Indigenous

education to occur” (Davis, 2007, p. 5). This is a powerful point. Indigenous

Knowledge through this process – as in Will Davis’s “Spear Making” curriculum or

Durithunga’s Seedling development – is essential if our ways are to be footprinted

more heavily in education spaces. Martin achieves “authentic Indigenous education”

from her development of research from a Quandamoopah perspective, the theory of

relatedness as told through the story of the Quampie which defines Ways of Knowing,

Being and Doing. Nakata achieves “authentic Indigenous education” through his focus

on Torres Strait Islander identities and world views, reaching as he does for an

Indigenous standpoint theory (Nakata, 2007).

Durithunga has gone to the next step of “practice”, as Martin frames it: to build

a set of protocols and principles for Durithunga memberships to follow, the

Durithunga Seedlings. As flagged earlier, IKRP were (and are) used as guiding tools

to drive the development of the Durithunga Seedlings. A full and specific unpacking

of the Seedlings occurs in the next part of this world view section.

All of the processes mentioned above are unique and powerful in their own right

and in their own context. Davis reflects on the core differences from a western

perspective by noting that knowledge from an Indigenous understanding of the world


is not so much about the product but the process, processes which both Sheehan and

Martin go to lengths to describe and share. “Indigenous knowledge is a living [relation]

and thus is significantly different from a western paradigm that separates from living

contexts and relatedness” (Davis, 2007, p. 17). Durithunga process is grounded in the

notion of relatedness, connecting and reflecting as an Indigenous learning community.

As a collective we have named and framed the behaviours, actions, knowing, beings

and doings we want to live and grow as an Indigenous education leadership circle. Our

naming or framing as a collective is known as the Durithunga Seedlings.

2.2.1 Naming and centring our world views

This section of the literature review details the way Indigenous Knowledge has

been taken up by Community Durithunga membership/leaders. Specifically this

section focuses on the Durithunga actioning of two fundamental processes – the

Seedlings and Yarning Circles (Durithunga, 2006). This section provides a description

as to why and how these processes are enacted. A detailed description of the

significance of these processes will be provided in the data analysis of Community

Durithunga Research.

Durithunga Seedlings

Durithunga has created a safe, kinnected space for yarning through the

development of its learning framework – the Durithunga Seedlings (Durithunga,

2006). It operates as a practice, a ritual to remind us as Indigenous collectives that we

have a greater responsibility than that of the disparate mainstream school education

spaces: we have a responsibility as a people, as a community, as Indigenous

individuals to draw from and reconnect (Martin, 2008) to our Ways of Knowing, Being

and Doing. “[Durithunga] makes you feel proud … we’re empowering our kids as

well … [learning] about their culture… gives them their self-esteem … that enables

them to do their school work” (Dirie in Davis, Dirie, & Sadler, 2009). Dirie goes

further into her reflections on the power of Durithunga process and practices – “one

of our [core] principles is respect … That’s the biggest thing … that we teach … to

everyone that is there [in circle]. Be respectful of yourself and to the group … that’s

what we try and teach the kids as well” (Davis, Dirie, & Sadler, 2009). Durithunga,

as Sadler sees it in his reflections, is about “looking after each other” (Davis, Dirie, &

Sadler, 2009). To this, Sadler reflects that he “was able to survive” (Davis, Dirie, &

Saddler, 2009) in a hostile school environment because of Durithunga. The Yarning


circles operate to fracture time (as explained earlier, section 1.1) to remind us as

individuals that we are connected and kinnected across this land and we have to be

respectful and reminded of our obligations to kin, custom and lore. As Martin reflects

on “circle work”, “standing in circle allows everyone to see each other as they stand

shoulder to shoulder … circles are formations where power relations are structured

differently” (2008, p. 80). The Durithunga yarning circles provide a constant

reconnection time and process to grow and gain strength of and from each other: “[the

circle structure] ensure[s] agency of each member of the circle [which] is a necessary

part of its function” (Martin, 2008, p. 80).

Durithunga Seedlings provide the framework for us as Indigenous leaders

within the education sector and community where we’re based, to operate in a way

that is respectful and connected to the stories and ways of our cultures, our

knowledges, our being, our actions (doing) and ultimately our spirit. The Durithunga

Seedlings provide a map – layers of knowledge which help show our leaders the ways

we have made sense of as a collective to best work and be together across disparate

settings. As Sadler reflects, “the very essence [of Durithunga] means to grow … the

principles behind [Durithunga] means to grow – constantly taking steps forward to

get to the next level” (Davis, Dirie, & Sadler, 2009).

The challenge for Durithunga and processes which engage to embed and define

an Indigenous standpoint within the current Indigenous education agenda or time is to

not lose or cede the central standpoint, the central strength to other modes or ways of

defining our identities – like the “Closing the gap” agenda does (section 2.1). The

argument and rebuttal of our ways of doing and being can be (and have been) played

out in the media, academia and popular discourses through arguments and logic which

seemingly recognise the need for “our ways” but question the position of “our ways”

solely in relation to the deficit data.

What I mean is, “our way” is recognised as important but the rebuttal stance is

“… and what does that do to close the gap?” This approach creates a binary and and

only affords our people an opportunity to enter into the realm of “Closing the gap” if

we concede that “our way” is not the only way. Pearson’s “education domains” (2011)

demonstrate this point well. Within the “school space” prime learning is centred solely

on Direct Instruction – the “class domain”. Our Aboriginality is not centred in the

middle of the school curriculum but is treated as a separate domain to be guided by


linguists and anthropologists – non-Indigenous “experts” on and of culture. What

processes like Community Durithunga do via their very presence is challenge current

thinking and systems approaches by not basing approaches from a western “closing

the gap”, reform agenda approach but represent a way, “our way”, that reconnects and

remembers that we must first draw from our collective spirits and identities before we

go about business.

Durithunga Yarning Circles

Durithunga is a process of yarning and sharing that recognises its place, its

relationship on the land not grounded in Yugambeh or Yuggera ontology but

respectful of, recognising and acknowledging the Traditional Owners’ centrality to

business. Durithunga yarning (to be further explored in Chapter 3, section 3.3.2) is a

practice which seeks to tap into and draw from the strengths of collective yarning and

sense making embedded in the land, and a ritual and practice passed on to all

Indigenous peoples who come into Country – being respectful and mindful of others.

Durithunga yarning [relates to] community efficacy … we grow our own

processes … our rituals … we don’t rely on funds to sit in circle … Our own

approach – our community efficacy [is about] visioning principles … [We

have developed] processes that we’ll say like “rule of three” – you’re not just

the only voice for Community Durithunga – you need three other voices to

support. (Davis in Davis, Dirie, & Sadler, 2009)

Durithunga then is couched in Durithunga Seedlings, principles of respect

drawn from the collective yarning developed on Country. Durithunga has grown

from what community leaders in Logan wanted and want for Indigenous education,

not told or dictated from other sources: “Empowering culture, growth and learning

through respect and Community to enhance the future of our jarjums…”

(Durithunga, 2006). This visionary thinking from an Indigenous standpoint has grown

by the people, of the people, for the people – enshrined in the principle of respect for

communities as shown by the base principle of “rule of three”.

Having circles set on Indigenous principles and yarned in circle, meeting

regularly to discuss business and move forward opportunities for our community is

something embraced wholeheartedly by active Indigenous leadership:

… our Indigenous workers [were] in a big green shed. Students were never

allowed to come near it. Since I’ve been involved with Durithunga [the


school] has moved us to the office … [Durithunga voices spoke up and out

about this situation] … Moving us to the office our kids get to see us … They

come in droves and at lunch now our office is full of jarjums. (Dirie in Davis,

Dirie, & Sadler, 2009)

Over time this same space has won state education awards for Indigenous

education excellence. Durithunga was a driving influence of and for change within

this space (covered in the Whole Group Yarning Circle discussion, section 4.1.3).

The challenge for Durithunga is for other educational processes like the

mainstream education systems of Logan to keep up with the diversity and richness of

yarning Durithunga creates:

Durithunga to me means to grow and I see this on a personal level …

Durithunga has seen me develop in a new role, servicing a broader

community for our young people in juvenile justice … that’s what …

Durithunga means to me … My growth. (Sadler in Davis, Dirie, & Sadler,

2009)

This chapter has looked at why Indigenous Knowledge is important. There are

a number of ways this can be taken up. Within learning spaces this can be taken up as

solely community owned and controlled – like the Independent Aboriginal and Torres

Strait Islander schools – the Murri School and Hymba Yumba. This can be taken up

in a blended way – via the application of third spaces of learning (Barnhardt, 2005;

Bhabha 1994 & 2004; Davis, 2008; Yunupingu, 1989 cited in Craven, 2011 ). This is

seen through the development of Embedding Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

Perspectives (EATSIPs) linked to the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and

Reporting Authority (ACARA) cross-curriculum priorities (CCP). EATSIPs (2010) in

state education jurisdictions mapped a school’s phases of Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander education and supports, through individual and independent auditing. This

was part of state governments’ commitments to the Australian Reconciliation Agenda

and was written as part of the government Reconciliation Action Plans (RAPs). On a

national level and covering all schools across Australia is the national curriculum.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander perspectives are part of the Australian

Curriculum’s priority areas. In school spaces Indigenous Knowledge can be taken up

as transformative cultural assessment, as Davis’s model approach to “Spear Making”

shows (Davis, 2007). Each of these ways takes up different starting points. Murri


schools focus on independence – breaking away from current Migloo learning spaces;

EATSIPs focuses on school and teacher efficacy; transformative cultural assessments

focus on curriculum and pedagogy. The Community Durithunga starting point is

different once again. The actioning of our processes – our ways – has come from an

Indigenous Knowledge foundation and also mitigates or addresses the threat (of

independence, i.e., Murri school approach) that Durithunga poses or can be perceived

to pose to Migloo education spaces.

The differences of paradigm and world view that Durithunga comes from and

centres its being in is no better shown than in recent developments of the South East

Region’s24 Indigenous education plan of 2010. Yarns from Community Durithunga

queried and questioned the region’s Migloo approach to learning and strategising for

Indigenous education, a cacophony of matrixes and tables. This style and way of doing

is and was in direct contradiction to Durithunga principles of yarning in circle: cycles

of growth and development of approaches form our way. As redress to this action of

the mainstream, Community Durithunga leadership came up with our way of

strategising and creating positive futures for jarjums in our mainstream school spaces

(see Figure 2.4).

24 The South East Region is one of seven regions for state education in Queensland. The South East is the region where Durithunga is based.


Figure 2.4. South East Regional Indigenous Education Plan.

Our Community Durithunga membership re-presented the regional strategic

planning through our way – through art. Community Durithunga leader Petah Hegarty

was commissioned by the region to reflect “our way” through art. The foreignness or

otherness of Durithunga ways from a Migloo or western standpoint from a blended third

space process (Bhabha, 2004; Davis, 2008; Nakata, 2008; Yunupingu, 1989) is a

challenge for Durithunga within an Indigenous education agenda of Australia. The

creation of Indigenous education plans from our art and ways of knowing used within a

western education system could be too inaccessible for non-Indigenous educationalists.

Durithunga’s position though is not to provide non-Indigenous educationalists with

footnotes, references and understandings of “our art”.

Durithunga’s stance is to use our art, our knowledge, and our practices as ways

to show what we mean by education for our jarjums. The strength of Durithunga is

in its articulation of our Ways of Knowing, Being and Doing. Our Ways of Knowing,

Being and Doing should be and are in Durithunga circles – privileged. The challenge

for this way – a strengths-based approach of Indigenous education leadership – is in

conveying the messages of Durithunga to non-Indigenous educationalists. To this end

the final section, 2.3, of the literature review looks at what are broader notions of

learning communities – collectives in education. Where are they coming from and for

!


what purpose? And, finally, how do these processes compare to Indigenous Australian

learning processes?

2.3 LEARNING COMMUNITIES

The “foreignness” or “otherness” of Durithunga is possibly something that

could hamper or hinder Durithunga’s impact in community – specifically the

mainstream Migloo Logan community involved in education. Community

Durithunga in action is an Indigenous Knowledge centred approach mitigating

Migloo learning spaces. As a Yarning circle process, Durithunga’s challenge is to

help non-Indigenous educational leaders in not just stating or citing the importance of

Durithunga (as is reflected in their rhetorical policy papers and plans – see Figure 2.5

below), but to live Durithunga – being a part of Durithunga learning – digging

deeper. In order to know, reflect and enact Durithunga principles, non-Indigenous

leadership needs to break down the notion of “foreignness” or “otherness” that

Durithunga seemingly permeates.

Figure 2.5. Logan District education map on Durithunga.

This is a hard thing to do. As stated in the beginning, Migloo education is

predicated on a system of knowing, being and doing which was formed after the

!


industrial revolution. Ways of being and doing, and communicating, are predicated on

Migloo ways of ordering and control – supposedly supporting young people. The core

of what this perspective is built on – caring and supporting young people (as an

alternative to having young people work in mines) – is strength. The challenge is, as

has been discussed, the layers of bureaucracy and power which now feed into and

through education – embodied by Principals, Heads of Department and Coordinators.

Education as a tool remains a “safe space” for young people but the actioning of “safe

spaces” is varied. Based on the economics of modern-day school spaces (still largely

free and low cost) and lack of independent Murri spaces (only two independent Murri

schools exist in the southeast region of Murriland), Indigenous families frequent state

school spaces rather than paying for (or being able to afford) private non-government

school space. These are the spaces Durithunga learning communities are heavily

based in: state school community spaces. To break the “foreignness” or “otherness”

that a process like Durithunga seemingly gives off is a constant challenge. This part

of the literature review looks at how the “foreignness” or “otherness” of Durithunga

can be mitigated through unpacking and understanding broader notions of learning

communities or communities of practice (Bhabha, 1994 & 2004; Black, 2008; Lave &

Wenger, 1991; Martin-Kniep, 2008; Putnam, 2000; Senge, 2000; Wenger, 1998) and

how these may relate.

The feeling of “foreignness” or “otherness” is an interesting concept in itself.

How does a dominant Migloo majority feel isolation or experience “otherness”?

“Otherness” is something that is forced on Indigenous identities constantly (Moreton-

Robinson, 2000). It has been discussed at length here via the discussion of “Closing

the gap” discourses that have emerged. The mitigating space that Durithunga deals

with and in is based on power relations pure and simple.

Fesl, a pioneering Aboriginal academic, makes good comments on the power

relations shared between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. She states that

Migloo life by sheer weight of numbers is done with and to us (Fesl, 1993). Although

there are greater numbers of Indigenous people living along the east coast – urban and

regional centres – this space is the fortress of Migloo colonisation. The Migloo have

fortified their identity with their cultural symbols, and reference points – government,

law courts. Within this reality stronger Indigenous identities fight, resist and persist with

alternative Aboriginality – in opposition to dominant hegemony. However, there are a


significant proportion of brothers and sisters who live and walk the less resistant reality.

They function within the realms of the greater colonial paradigm and society: their

reaction is another way of working – survival – a different way of doing and being

Indigenous (Gorringe & Graham, 2006). So practising and enacting Indigenous

Knowledge principles cuts to the core of Migloo identity. Depending on the cultural

competency and proficiency (Enoch as cited in Gorringe & Spillman, 2008) of the non-

Indigenous leadership, spaces like Durithunga yarning will be either fully understood

or totally misinterpreted because they are outside of the knowledge and understanding

of their identity. As Bond reflects on Migloo perceptions of urban communities,

“understanding [of our] Indigenous communities … [is] often only characterized in

terms of weaknesses” (Brough, Bond, & Hunt, 2004, p. 7). So Durithunga’s very

presence as a strength-based approach to Indigenous education is extremely challenging

and can be disempowering for some non-Indigenous leaders. What is a shaky foundation

for some is the fact that Durithunga is based on and draws strength from Indigenous

Ways of Knowing, Being and Doing (Martin, 2008).

In this review I consider research that looks at the ways learning communities

are positioned and actioned as this is the context from which Durithunga grows. The

monthly Durithunga Yarning Circles are a practice of meeting and communicating

which is not totally foreign to Migloo approaches. Durithunga yarning, as a collective

practice, sits within broader western educational understandings of networks, hubs or

groups of learning – shown through collectives like Meanjin25, Queensland History

Teachers’ Associations and locally in Logan through processes like the Logan

Education Alliance. These associations, these collectives represent peak bodies for

educators to learn from and grow appropriate pedagogical practices. So Durithunga

yarning/Durithunga capacity building can be recognised within this space by the

Migloo mainstream as part of practices which are shared or reflected in the general

educational context of the region, state, nation and globally. The notion of being a

network, a group, a collective is a practice that is not totally foreign from a Migloo

educational point of view. This point is shown by Durithunga’s inclusion in state

school databases (see Figure 2.5).

25 Meanjin is a Turrabul reference for the Brisbane River. Meanjin in education refers to the Brisbane Local Council of Australian Literacy Educators.


What current Migloo institutions draw from is a rich social science history of

learning and creation of communities of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger,

1998). This model of a community of practice is viewed as a simple social system.

Durithunga’s Yarning circle is an example of this. The growth in diversity of these

communities, when complexities are developed further, is when the simple systems

interrelate. An example again is the Community Durithunga Touch Carnival and

Indigenous Languages practices (explored further in Chapter 4, section 4.1.3). A

practice, as Wenger explores further (2000), has a life of its own; a paradox it confronts

is in its success, whereby own internal struggles can bring down a community of

practice. This paradox, to remain on a learning edge, “takes a delicate balancing act

between honouring the history of the practice and shaking free from it”, Wenger states

(Wenger, 2000, p. 3).

Durithunga potentially represents the site of innovation and creation as a space

where Indigenous learning and teaching is judged and valued in balance not apart from

Migloo education (Barnhardt, n.d.; Bhabha, 1994 & 2004; Davis, 2008; Nakata, 2007;

Yunupingu, 1989). The notion of building greater community capacity in education is

one that is used as a benchmark – a process to attain better learning outcomes in

schools both nationally and internationally (Bhabha, 1994 & 2004; Black, 2008; Lave

& Wenger, 1991; Martin-Kniep, 2008; Putnam, 2000; Senge, 2000).

Now we’ll look at specific programs that are in place and have been researched

which show the importance of developing communities that learn – learning

communities. Within the current education systems, whether global or national, there

exists the potential to innovate, create and invigorate learning in ways which

incorporate community leadership and capacity building (Friere, 1971 & 2004; Hooks,

2003; Shor, 1992). The notion of “community capacity building”, developing the

efficacy of a community of educators, is not Indigenous specific. This approach has

positive implications across all sectors of education. Researchers have explored

techniques for developing curricula and quality teaching and learning environments

that take account of the context of the local area where the learning is based.(Harrison,

2001; Martin-Kniep, 2008; Sobel, 2004).

Black (2008) explores the notion of community hubs of learning from an ACER

perspective. Hubs of learning refer to sites whereby schools divulge parts of their

power to incorporate more community identities and processes. The community


capacity building process is part of a broader international trend for governments to

achieve policy goals by divulging power to local authorities. As Black (2008, p. 42)

notes, “[local] networks … facilitate innovation [and they are] also an innovation

themselves”. A school’s potential then is exponential – positive effects on broadening

social practice and creating hubs of exchange and learning have positive flow-on

effects in and through the school (Black, 2008), a feeling that is shared internationally

as well (as shown by writers and practitioners like US-based Martin-Kniep, 2008).

Martin-Kniep outlines the direct line between quality teaching performance through

educational hubs and student performances. He defines these as processes of

developing the individual and embracing the collective, which strengthen the whole

educational program. His work draws on the rich knowledge of studies conducted

internationally to paint a positive picture for concepts connected to hubs of learning.

Responding to the local, social and cultural context of the learner and learning

community is something inherent in the actions of building connected hubs of learning.

A balance, though, is required. Black (2008) delves deeper into the research behind

educational areas of success for low SES, which uses a “hub” approach. The positive

impact of centralising curricula from minority standpoints can be reversed if students

and learning hubs aren’t exposed to other ways of being and doing – if their learning

isn’t extended. The overstatement and development of curriculum and practice around

the minority status or “place” where students grow from can create a tendency towards

low expectations and perceptions of education within low-SES areas as “ghetto

education” (Forman, 2012). Fitting curricula and pedagogy (processes) solely in and

around identities fixed in these contexts can hamper further learning (Black, 2008).

Sarra (2005, 2012) highlights this dynamic in his work based in Cherbourg (as

explained earlier). The underlying factor to which Sarra (2005, 2012) attributed the

radical shift in deficit data was (and is) the notion and belief of high expectations –

high expectations of Indigenous young people – maintaining strength in identity (being

strong), amplifying the difference in order to create better outcomes (develop the

“smarts” of the students). This process was based on responding to the social and

cultural context of the learner. The challenge as Black (2008) and Sarra (2005, 2012)

both purport is to broaden the social mix for the students and the school without

sacrificing the strong sense of self. Within the context of changing or shifting school


curriculum focus and thus power dynamics, there exist conflicts and complexities in

and around the notion of broadening school horizons outside into the community.

Migloo school spaces as learning communities have challenges also in forging a

shared identity as a learning community – coming together for the greater good. The

very systems schools represent are in direct conflict with notions of community hubs

according to Hayes, Mills, Christie, and Lingard (2006). What they posture is that

often these hubs are doomed from the start based on the very model they grow from.

For example, in Australia our education system is susceptible to the influences of the

market economy’s process of exchange, supply and demand. The very structure of

schooling systems tends to create more competition for and of resources (and

enrolments) than it does to promote the ideal of collective learning and capacity

building. This market due to the competition for enrolments, then, effectively

hamstrings schools as communities. This situation creates a scenario whereby schools

don’t want to share or expose what’s working in fear of losing control and ultimately

enrolments.

Another hindrance outlined by Hayes et al. (2006) is the very nature or cultures

of schools within Australia. What invariably happens with schools as broader learning

communities is the notion of conformity – following one particular model or practice.

This breaks the very notion of creating a learning community. Learning implies trial

and error, practice and discussion, dialogue and critique. School conformist models

reinforce order and control = containing like Pearson’s Direct Instruction model.

Hayes et al. (2006) see the real importance in school cultures is embracing the diversity

and difference that exists and maintaining a process of diversification.

2.3.1 Indigenous Australian hubs of learning

There are, Australia wide, a diverse and disparate array of processes and

programming which have impacted positively and continue to produce positive social

wellbeing results in discrete Indigenous communities, the Sarra example in Cherbourg

for instance. From the literature this is possibly the most telling factor – major shifts

happen in discrete community contexts. Processes that work are rooted in the notion

of responding to the context of the learner – place-based solutions, according to Dillon

and Westbury (2007) and Beresford and Partington (2003), are the most effective. Both

sets of authors map out key approaches that work in Australian contexts based on their


experiences and reviews of interventionist processes and positive effects that produce

positive outcomes related to wellbeing and program sustainability over the last decade.

Just as Senge (2000), Martin-Kniep (2008) and Hayes et al. (2006) provide

frameworks or practical “how to” steps to create positive programs in mainstream

educational contexts, Beresford and Partington (2003) provide practical tools in

relation to Indigenous education in Australia. Most effective in their analysis are the

site-specific programs of engagement and capacity building. Conversely this research

shows that the biggest failures are processes imposed by governments; “unless … key

underlying issues are addressed, there is a very real chance that the current intervention

[in the Northern Territory26] will simply lead to a repeat of the same debilitating

mistakes of the past” (Dillon, 2007, p. 211).

Contextualising programs according to the distinct environments they grow from

goes a long way to providing appropriate interventions on site. Beresford and

Partington (2003) map a “Community development approach” as a possible way

forward, building on the notion that improvements come from our own discrete

settings. The “Community development approach” is referred to as “the best” to action

the agenda of Indigenous education producing positive educational outcomes.

Beresford and Partington acknowledge the work that is already being done in relation

to prime ministerial cabinets and bodies like MCEECDYA. Focused whole-of-

government approaches are what “Community engagement” is about according to

Beresford and Partington’s thinking. It is an acknowledgement that institutions play a

significant part in the delivery and outcomes of programs and meaningful engagement

happens when responsibilities are shared and programs are held accountable to other

organising bodies.

Both Beresford and Partington claim the greatest shifts occur with the full and

proper engagement of Indigenous communities. To this end both writers acknowledge

the work and stories recorded by the Northern Territory and Queensland state

government reviews on Indigenous education (2003). Specifically they highlight the

beginnings of the Cape York Institute – agreements with private sectors as essential

and the development of clearer frames of reference and responsibilities designed in

26 Intervention refers to the quarantining of social welfare payments from the Commonwealth. Never exercised before on any other citizen in Australia, this was first trialled in the Northern Territory focused on Aborigines.


Queensland for capturing “Community engagement” as shown by the Partners for

Success approach. “Queensland has gone further than most, if not all, the states in

articulating the objectives of community development policy within an Aboriginal

education context …” via “Partners for Success” (Beresford & Partington, 2003, p.

247). The policy “importantly … [names] and identifies the roles and responsibilities

of each level of the education department for implementing the strategy” (Beresford

& Partington, 2003, p. 247). To have these roles and responsibilities clearly

highlighted means that education systems take on a more efficacious approach.

Coupled with this is the notion of high expectations – whatever and wherever program

delivery is developing there must be an unassailable belief that Indigenous

communities share the capacity to see positive changes grow – a process which is far

removed from the interventionist policies rolled out in the Northern Territory and Far

North Queensland, and trialled in Logan City through Centrelink – SEAMs

quarantines (explained earlier in section 2.1).

Dillon and Westbury (2007) and more recently Luke et al. (2013) support further

the notion of localised, discrete processes of change. In fact Dillon and Westbury call on

policy makers to repeal and reform past practices so they embark on a new roll-out of

re-engagement. To do this and effect positive change, Dillon and Westbury (2007) flag

the need to embrace strength-based processes and build on the rich social landscapes

that exist already in communities. In their book Beyond Humbug – Transforming

government engagement with Indigenous Australia (2007) they refer to this process as

building on and developing “in depth nodes” in communities – working from the

networks that already exist. Durithunga does this by establishing connections with each

other through the common tie of being Indigenous within our urban setting. Dillon and

Westbury (2007) flag that the flaws of past practices, reflected in Indigenous wellbeing

data, are not a fault or deficit for the Indigenous community to change but something for

the governing systems and governments of the day to better plan for and embrace.

“Substantive engagement” then is the blueprint they flag as a way forward in closing the

mass disadvantages that exist.

Substantive engagement is “iterative and reciprocal”, a dialogue with

community. The only guarantees Dillon and Westbury (2007) propose for processes

which move beyond the intervention-type approaches of the Northern Territory, and

now via the SEAM program, are for “governments to substantively engage” (p. 211).


This represents a commitment to long-term not short-term policy and program action.

Substantive engagement requires a remake of current strategies. Dillon and Westbury

suggest policy writers and reformists need to frame key questions:

• What are the structural changes needed to embed substantive engagement?

• What are the realistic prospects for implementation of new institutional,

policy and program arrangements?

In full what they propose is a bipartisan approach based on the human story – the fact

that we need to respond to the deficit data as a country that wants the best for all of its

citizens. This, in action, means governments and interested parties need to act in ways

that are not like the previous approaches, which are too complex and over complicated;

“the current structure of program development and implementation is fundamentally

flawed … It is overly complex … and is akin to an overlapping patchwork … the

effectiveness … is ultimately undermined by the very complexity of government

responses” (Dillon & Westbury, 2007, p. 212).

Ironically the bipartisan support proposed by Dillon and Westbury can be formed

through the creation of another body – bureaucracy. Dillon and Westbury frame the need

to create an independent Indigenous reform commission. The commission would

comprise analysts, policy makers, and Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal leaderships who

come together to work toward the main goal of “closing the gap”. Central to their notions

of change and re-engagement is the focus on and from Indigenous people. Positioning

Indigenous people within the centre of community capacity building will, when taken

up, ensure policy rhetoric is embodied in practice.

The most extensive Indigenous education longitudinal study conducted in

Australia has been completed as an appraisal of the Stronger Smarter Institute footprint

(Luke et al., 2013). In the final recommendations of and for moving forward, Luke et

al. explain that there is a dearth of literature and projects that work on a national scale

– Stronger Smarter included. What the longitudinal study shows is the need to work

from a regulated set of standards and criteria to work on what they see as three

pathways to reform:

• Strong emphasis on understanding, engaging with and acknowledging cultural and

linguistic resources of Indigenous students and communities

• Strong emphasis on Indigenous staff and leadership within the school and

engagement with community


• Strong emphasis on building teacher capacity and quality pedagogy across the

curriculum through whole school curriculum planning in key areas.

(Luke et al., 2013, p. 45)

What Luke et al. (2013) argued was not a “one size scalable” solution to

Indigenous education deficits. What were drawn from the study were key thematic

strengths and recommendations to come from Sarra’s “systems accountability”

agenda. Fifty-three key findings are outlined in the Stronger Smarter Longitudinal

Study findings. From these findings Luke et al. provide an analysis on what they frame

as three pathways to reform (shown above). Of these, in lieu of a national consolidated

Indigenous education framework, Luke recommends following the internationally

successful and Indigenous community engaged approach of the Ontario Model. In this

model, local schools and regions are provided with a template that outlines and frames

practices and, indeed, accountabilities for responding to all three of these challenges:

Indigenous school leadership and governance; community cultural engagement; and a

systematic reform of teaching and learning, curriculum and pedagogy that engages

both with Indigenous knowledges, cultures and histories and with the demands of

mainstream school knowledge and achievement.

This is, then, a well-researched and recognised learning framework. Hymba

Yumba Community Hub as an Indigenous-centric learning institute took up the

framework as part of its Curriculum and Pedagogical Strategic Planning, 2015–2018.

Further tracking and analysis of the successful applications of such recommendations

will be a future reference point on the scalability and success of the “systems

accountability” approach. Stronger Smarter Institute has also developed a model from

the research called the “Stronger Smarter Approach”. Utilising its 2000-strong

network of educators around the country, the Institute’s next phase of research is

tracking the impact of the Stronger Smarter Approach across its national meshwork of

schools and community contexts.

2.4 SUMMARY OF LITERATURE REVIEW

Consistent themes and messages emerge throughout the literature in relation to

educational programs for Indigenous communities. There is a clear flag from the

research that place-based solutions oriented to community dialogue, engagement,

exchange and knowledge are the most appropriate model to create change and develop


shifts in deficit data. The notion that “one size fits all” or that governments can

conveniently roll out a “one sizes fits all” model is antiquated according to the works

of Luke et al. (2013), Beresford and Partington (2003), Dillon and Westbury (2007),

and Sarra (2005, 2012). The complexities and diversity of individual Indigenous

settings represent sites where quality teaching and learning models are localised and

specialised; these have the potential to have most positive impacts. This is where the

role of Community Durithunga shapes as a unique Indigenous response to the

complexities of the community within an urban, city context.

The unique nature and setting of Durithunga is equally reflected by the literature

which exists at present. Just as Durithunga represents a unique response to meeting

the challenge, or bases processes on the social and cultural context of the learner, there

is in relation to the proliferation of urban specific texts, a real lack of comprehensive

literature connected in and around the urban Indigenous context. Internationally

Canada holds the most Indigenous-specific processes (Luke et al., 2013) and

Australia’s focus is rural and remote (Dillon & Westbury, 2007). So although an

excess of literature exists on the socio-economic status and life expectancy realities

for Indigenous Australians, there is a dearth of literature in specific relation to urban

Indigenous education realities.

In saying this, Community Durithunga can be placed or rather juxtaposed

amongst a growing narrative in and around learning communities, the need and

importance of community hubs of learning. Both internationally and nationally, the need

to build stronger community hubs of learning, and lift the potential of learning institutes

which schools and the Durithunga learning communities are based in and around, is

essential if curricula are to be diversified and grown in quality, as well as to positively

address the social and emotional indicators for participants across the social divide. As

the modelling of Wenger and Lave suggests, these concepts are not new or indifferent

to Commmunity Durithunga modelling. There is a strong research footprint of and on

communities of practice (Wenger, Lave, & Wenger, 1991). This is not the point or focus

of this particular research – a comprehensive in-depth study of and on western modelling

and discussion on communities of practice. Rather, in this context the focus is on

Indigenous Australian hubs of learning. In this context Community Durithunga shapes

as a unique urban community capacity building process in Indigenous education. More

importantly Durithunga is connected to a growing Indigenous practice and process of


development, recognition and connection to Indigenous principles like mutual respect

and reciprocation, linking learnings from stories of strength – our relatedness. What

distinguishes this approach to learning communities from the “communities of practice”

and “learning hubs” models is the call for direct engagement with Indigenous

Knowledge, standpoint and narrative.

Chapter 3: Research Design 83

Chapter 3: Research Design

What follows in this next part of the thesis is a discussion on the methodology

that underpins Community Durithunga Research. The research is driven by a distinct

methodology that is based on, in and through Murri knowledges. It is fundamentally

driven by Murri ways of Knowing, Being and Doing. As has been explored in the

literature review of Chapter 2, centring Indigenous world views is a mobilisation of

decolonised thinking (Smith, 1999), which in its most relevant and distinctly

Australian perspectives (Nakata, 2001 & 2007, Martin, 2008, Sheehan, 2012) is and

can be solely bridged from an Indigenous Australian standpoint. This standpoint, this

centring of Indigenous Australian Knowledge, is the “golden idea” shared from

Martin’s (2008) research. It requires movement away from decolonising theory to

processes of transformative action. In her research on Kuku Langi protocols, Martin

(2008) expands on the notion of Relatedness and introduces the localised

contextualised process of transformative action, called the Quampie cycle (Martin,

2008). For the research I report on here, I introduce the tumba tjina perspective,

particularly the Bunya Bunya Cycle.

In the first section of the methodological discussion, section 3.1, I detail some of

the epistemological frameworks from a Murri perspective, in particular that of holistic

learning. I use holistic learning frames and employ Murri metaphors in order to centre

Indigenous Knowledge as a part of the educational experience. I draw on and down

from frameworks which are related and connected to the learning spaces of

Durithunga. For example, the “Holistic Planner” (Grant, 1998) is an Indigenous

Australian learning tool well in action across Durithunga learning spaces. Moreover

within closed, discrete yarning circle processes, the brown water metaphor, “Currents

of Culture” (Gorringe & Graham, 2006), is used internally by Durithunga members

to understand and navigate the complex kinnections and contestations that exist of and

on us as Murri people in the 21st century.

In the second section of the methodology chapter, section 3.2, I explain how

tumba tjinas, Bunya Bunya perspectives are important in this context to developing

an appropriate research design. They are important and essential in stretching the

knowledge fabric and research paradigm so that it doesn’t just sit and name and refer


to Indigenous standpoint theories and perspectives, but creation and utilisation of

perspectives is essential to knowledge strength and creation of more empowering

education as actioning Indigenous research methods centres learning from Indigenous

Australian Knowledge wealth. The Bunya Bunya itself is representative of that

knowledge wealth. It is a polyphonic form of expression and relationship base that has

kinnected people in and around the southeast of Murri country since time immemorial,

“the Bunya Feasts … laws/lores are based on sophisticated environmental and cultural

management processes which enabled resources on Bunya Mountains and surrounding

areas to replenish and be maintained over thousands of years” (Markwell, 2010, p. 7).

The final part of the chapter, section 3.3, offers an explanation of and connection

to holistic learning and tumba tjina methodological framing. It is an exploration of the

specific tools used in gathering data for this thesis. Specifically section 3.3 looks at the

utilisation of the yarning circle as a culturally safe, proper way tool of research

gathering. In discussion of the types of method used, the chapter explores the

Durithunga specific steps of research and how data gathered has been managed to best

create a close and culturally sound fit.

3.1 REFRAMING INDIGENOUS RESEARCH AND KNOWLEDGE WITHIN A COMMUNITY DURITHUNGA CONTEXT

As discussed earlier, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander practitioners like

Martin (2008), Sheehan (2001, 2012), Nakata (2008), and Moreton-Robinson (2000),

who work within the realm of refining and redefining educational paradigms, all share

examples of the rich tapestry of knowledges, responsibilities and protocols that exist and

remain part of our being Indigenous Australian. Within society today “decolonising is

about reclaiming and redefining our ways of doing and being, recognising our world

view and cultural knowledge as central to research and processes in our Community …”

(Martin, 2008, p. 56). Nakata defines Indigenous standpoint as a distinct form of analysis

that is itself both a discursive construction and an intellectual device to persuade others

and elevate what might not have been a focus of others (Nakata, 2002). This is a

significant shift for us as a people, not being researched on but researching for the

empowerment of our people. “By proactively framing participant’s views of …

democracy and Community, Indigenous people take control of their own fates. They

refuse to be side tracked into always responding to non-Indigenous others’ attempts to

define their life situations” (Dodson, 2003, p. 32).


3.1.1 Holistic learning

Notions of holistic learning are integral to the conceptualisation of Indigenous

research. Holistic models of learning and pedagogy are ingrained in the teaching and

learning of our Indigenous culture from family to family member, part of an ingrained

process for attuned families linked to past strengths and processes. Holistic learning is

no better shown than in the definition of Quandamoopah ontology as shared by Karen

Martin (2008). Holistic learning is a comprehensive tool which impacts on the area of

research. Holistic models and concepts are based on Indigenous Ways of Knowing,

Being and Doing. Djirribal Elder Uncle Ernie Grant has been a front-runner, a leader

in the education field (from the Preparatory year to Year 12, the final year of formal

schooling) in Murriland, developing and articulating a unique holistic framework

through a Djirribal perspective. His learning frame, the “Holistic Planner” (Grant,

1998 cited in QSA, 2000) had significant impacts on Durithunga communities.

The Holistic Framework is a Djirribal tool based on the land and families

connected to Djirribal. In schools there is exposure to and use of holistic tools and

models from different Murri perspectives. The planner is used as a way of synthesis

and analysis of complex issues – seeing issues from an Indigenous perspective. This

Djirribal frame provides a strong footprint to unpack or begin to work through

complex Indigenous study topics, where reference points are connected to the whole,

not as separate and compartmentalised processes.

Uncle Ernie’s Framework is a way our knowledge and ways of doing can impact

in the classroom. It’s a way for all jarjums and staff, Indigenous and non-Indigenous,

to look at issues and run processes based on Indigenous perspectives. Commenting on

the impacts of the model, Indigenous community liaisons state, “I’ve learnt this more

with the implementation of the notion of teaching Traditional Games in schools ...

Uncle Ernie’s frame goes a long way to filtering and forcing an Indigenous perspective

into the Physical Education program” (Petah Hegarty in Davis & Grose, 2008, p. 8).

Within the cultural interface the Holistic Planner has been used on a multitude of

levels, providing a bridge with and between Indigenous Ways of Knowing and dominant

Migloo ways as part of the current schooling system. The Holistic Planner can be used

in a classroom pedagogical sense, to review specific curriculum items and as part of

teacher training, especially when Migloo teachers are being prepared to work with our

jarjums. Two Migloo teacher educators, Exley and Bliss, examined the positive impacts


of the Holistic Planner on a cohort of literacy educators, specifically, Reading Recovery

Teachers. In their study, they found that teachers who appreciated the Holistic Planner

more effectively built bridges and scaffolded linkages between the cultural interface that

their jarjums encountered (and encounter every day). By using the planner on a

multitude of levels the “students’ culture has been valued and celebrated and bridges …

built between the students’ culture … and the culture of learning required for engaging

… with texts” (Exley & Bliss, 2004, p. 13).

As a planning and reflective tool it provides a powerful space for meaningful

integration of Indigenous topic areas, because of the recognisable elements that

connect with and relate to each other: relationships, language, culture, land, place,

time. The Holistic Planner allows a space for deep reflection, breaking the old mould

of teacher as expert to teacher as facilitator and learner as well. The framework

provides a source of other ways of doing and being a part of education.

The Djirribal learning tool is a strength-based lens. The focus and, therefore, the

power in the process is this world view of how topics, units of work and major studies

can be based on these principles, understood and shared from a unique perspective.

Grant’s tool orientates the lens on themes and issues from a Murri perspective.

Understanding and utilising such frameworks creates greater spaces of innovation,

which is at the core of Durithunga. Such is the depth of learning that the Djirribal frame

operates as part of classroom reflection and school planning. The holistic framework is

used and should be understood as an experiential learning process on Djirribal Country.

It forms part of the Echo Creek Ranch eco-learning experience in Tully. Tully is situated

in the sub-tropical region of Murriland. Here groups can interact and understand

Djirribal holistic learning from the footprint and perspectives of the Djirribal as

delivered and coordinated by Uncle Ernie Grant. This process gives greater insight into

understanding the interconnected learning of our peoples and is a process for engaging

the potential of Migloo teachers in proper way learning.

Synergies of this type of modelling link to the learning and philosophies of

Bunya Bunya elders like Jutja, Pa Jerome. The Jarrowar and Cobble Cobble

learnings shared by the old people, grounded knowledge in the senses, provide jarjums

with a cocoon of education – wrapping the individual in a whole to grow. Jutja and

our elders like my father and his father, Grandfather Fred Davis, were brought up in

and around this feeling of strength and safety. Their learning was based on the smell,


sight, taste, touch and feel of the world around. Our Aboriginal learnings were (and

are) based on these philosophies, which in turn provided experiences that allowed a

strong learning that catered for strong interpretation, synthesis and analysis of

surroundings to make sense of the world. This is known and shared by Jutja as the

cocoon of knowledge.

The cocoon of knowledge as told to/by Peter Djerripi Mulchay (personal

communication, May 2008):

He (Jutja Pa Jerome) would tell me of his first years, years of love and

contentment.

It was as if you were cocooned, warm in the embrace of that loving family

structure.

I think his most treasured memories go back to times he spent with the family

he loved. The time spent with his grandfather, Old Uncle Jerry Jerome, stayed

with him the whole of his life.

The Old Man would call him over and they sat together. “Djerripi” he would

say, “close your eyes”, and he would begin to speak.

Uncle told me that his words, that old language was like poetry. Every word

would fill your mind, and he spoke so gently that you would hang on every

word.

With his words you were taken to the exact place the exact moment to feel the

exact experience that the old man wished to share with you.

Uncle told me how those old people used to teach the little ones.

This was the way a thousand generations had passed on vital knowledge with

a love and gentleness.

“Look” they would say and the children would gather around to look at a

particular leaf, “close your eyes, feel it” they would say. Rubbing the leaf

quickly, they would say “smell it”, and breaking off a little of the leaf the

children would taste. “That’s what that leaf is like in the early winter” the old

women would say and then they would all move on laughing and playing.

Experiential learning within the context of the local community, storying and

language of the land, all provide a deep learning tradition to draw from. This is the

deep well Ungunmerr-Baumen refers to when she says, “Dadirri recognises the deep


spring that is inside us” (Ungunmerr-Baumen, 2002, p. 1 – this is explored further in

this chapter’s discussion of the yarning circle as a data collection tool). Durithunga

principles for yarning and actioning of yarning circles work on connecting to those

knowledges and processes as the best practice proper way to deal with educational

issues connected to our people. “Circles are important because there is no beginning

or no end and therefore no completion but continuous cycles” (Martin, 2008, p. 80).

Durithunga represents a new process that remembers our way of doing business.

There is strength in numbers; meeting Migloo systems head on means working

together collectively to build the best outcomes. This is strategic, but embedded in a

thoroughly cultural way.

3.1.2 Murri metaphors; Currents of Culture

What is essential in all our applications of our ways of doing and being today,

2017, is the recognition and understanding of the diversity of leadership that sits in

and around us as Aboriginal peoples in the 21st century. As a community we can’t

move to realms of healing and spiritual awareness (empowerment) if we don’t fully

grasp or understand the complexities of identities and power that exist in and around

our communities. So the Bunya Bunya Cycle provides an overarching process to

develop Durithunga research, and other frames like the Holistic Planner provide

specific and practical “how to” steps in the application of Durithunga yarning. The

brown water model Currents of Culture is an example of another Indigenous frame

that is both specific and practical, which has been important for us as a collective to

gather our understanding and develop our recognition of the types of leadership

realities and complexities that exist in our communities today.

This frame was designed by Scott Gorringe and Doug Graham (a freshwater

perspective) for discussion and discourse on Indigenous leadership and leadership

capacity against the backdrop of western society (Gorringe & Graham, 2006).

Gorringe uses part of this model in his paper on Indigenous leadership (Gorringe,

2008). The paper in its first iterations was presented at the World Indigenous Peoples

Conference in 2005. As a learning tool it has been replicated nationally through the

Stronger Smarter Leadership program and was a part of the Stronger Smarter

Institute’s key readings. Currents of Culture defines Aboriginal leadership amongst

the setting of a river. The Indigenous leadership path is explained as being much like

the current, moving in different directions, flowing smoothly downstream or rushing


in rapids or whirlpools. Within the river there are a number of different identities and

beings that react to the mainstream in different ways – not less important, just different.

There are beings that can canoe quite easily – cruise with the current – down streams.

There are the rocks in the water, stuck in ways of doing and being that are very

traditional. There are the freestyle canoers who cruise down the creek and fight the

tide too – the Pearsons and Sarras. There are whirlpools, which form around the rocks

– these are the spaces of not knowing (see Figure 3.1).

Figure 3.1. Currents of Culture (Gorringe & Graham, 2006).

This metaphor provides a speaking point for us as leaders to discuss the types of

leadership we see and the behaviours we know exist as part of the cultures that develop

around our organisations today. Part of the formulation of our Durithunga seedlings

has been discussion of the diversity of leadership styles and problems of sticking to

one particular style of leadership in our community. Also of importance for bringing

about change in our current ways of being and doing is to get us into the whirlpools –

spaces for change. Lateral violence27 plays a major part in mediating spaces within

education and across school spaces. Lateral violence is complex, hard and

counterproductive. We have complex communities where, coupled with the very real,

ever-present dominant Migloo paradigm, lateral violence is sometimes rife. Bulman

27 This is a term used to describe the attack or discrediting of Indigenous people by Indigenous people.


and Hayes (2011), extrapolate the effects of lateral violence on their male Indigenous

clients as part of the Mibbinbah Spirit Healing process. As described by them,

“invidiously lateral violence is endemic among colonised or oppressed peoples who

shame, humiliate and belittle one another” (p. 15). Durithunga provides a way where

we can engage in Indigenous education without siding or disengaging our people or

attacking others. Models like the Currents of Culture enable us to understand our

realities through our ways, with our meanings.

3.2 REFRAMING COMMUNITY DURITHUNGA RESEARCH THROUGH TUMBA TJINAS

Karen Martin as discussed earlier provides a transformative platform to build from

and recognises the diversity in the land from a Murri point of view. The expressions of

our standpoints as outlined by Martin come in a multitude of ways – they are polyphonic.

Articulating a new/old world order is important according to Maholo (in Martin, 2008).

This requires a “conscious decision to reframe what has been critiqued to restore

Aboriginal terms of reference” (Maholo in Martin, 2008, p. 7). Martin uses and is

connected to art through storying through visuals (Martin, 2008) – my story, kin and

lore (as flagged earlier) is connected more closely to song lines; singing and dancing;

storytelling; and yarning. So my reframing comes via the lenses I share as a

countryman of Booburrgan Ngummunge, a Bunya Bunya perspective.

It is essential, then, in the reframing of the research into a Bunya Bunya

perspective, to share yarns on the richness and depth of story on country kinnected to

Bunya Bunya. I base my reframing on my tumba tjina yarning (shared upfront in

Chapter 1) – stories shared to me on Country, from Country. I use the Bunya Bunya

as a symbolic organiser to recognise the power of the Bunya Bunya as a collective

sense-making tool and as a symbol of the mountains from where the Bunya Bunya

originates, to the connector of the western plains – Barrungam speaking lands

bordering the Wakka Wakka where my family’s Dreaming stories begin. “We belong

to this land, the land is our mother. We are part of a spiritual structure … That is

Boobarran Ngummin, the Bunya Mountains, our Mother” (Jerome in Bunya Elders,

2010, p. 12).

I do this as a Traditional Owner but also as a countryman who has been actively

involved in maintaining song lines and storylines of ceremonial exchanges through


recent “Caring for Country” initiatives. The Bunya Mountains Elders Council recently

partook in an extensive research study, which culminated in an Aboriginal aspirations

plan for Bunya Bunya called “Bonye Buru – Booburrgan Ngummunge” (2010). This

is a comprehensive Indigenous Knowledge text, which was created through the

collective sense making of Indigenous stakeholders led by an Indigenous researcher

and facilitator (Markwell Consulting, 2010). In their collective wisdoms, research of

and on the Bunyas is mapped out as a key direction forward from our people, with the

Elders wanting “more Aboriginal involvement in research relating to Booburrgan

Ngummunge” (p. 38). It is through kinnections to these processes and my people that

this tumba tjina approach is based. I acknowledge other clan groups – connectors to

the mountains – Wakka Wakka, Djukunde and Jarrowar with whom we share

Booburrgan Ngummunge. It is through these family groups and through the stories

of the land that we form as a connected collective to harvest and harness the rich

natural properties of the mountains to share with others from far and wide around

Murri Country and even moving into Koori lands.

Bunya Bunya is a special place both on a physical plane, mentally and as a

spiritually strong point. The gift, as Elders of today explain, has been in the practice

and ritualised process of sharing – how we relate, interact and connect with others,

“Bunyas … is where we learn about sharing and caring about others … the Bunya

festival – Aunty Beryl Gambril” (Bunya Council of Elders, 2010, p. 6). “Guren ina

narmi – people come together is a Bunya Bunya song … John Davis … Warra.”

(Bunya Council of Elders, 2010, p. 7). The practice of Durithunga then can be

understood as re-practising the rites and ceremonies of Bunya Bunya, a reconnection

to country.

Collective understanding is shown best by our process of yarning (Atkinson,

1994; Bennet, 2010) linked to ceremonies and broader collective understandings and

collaborations as shown by Bunya (Jerome, 2002; Kirwin, 2007). These processes and

principles of learning from our Indigenous standpoints intersect and weave their way

through the very processes of Durithunga. In reality Durithunga has embodied and

embraces our ways of thinking, being and doing as ways of reclaiming, renaming and

emancipating community voice from the dominant Migloo world view. As Dodson

states, “ultimately we can only do for ourselves using our own processes and tools …


For too long social research has imposed views (and essentialised) what is our …

culture” (2009, p. 33).

3.2.1 Digging deeper into tumba tjina yarns …

Bunya is a process of ceremony shared by the custodians of the land, the Wakka

Wakka, Barrungam, Jarrowar and Djukunde. Here goods are exchanged and

differences are settled; connections are made and boundaries are redefined and shared

with members from all over the region. Traditional Owner groups historically shared

their country and their song to all from as far south as the Tweed River and as far north

as Bundaberg – west past the Manandanji clans out along the Condamine and Balonne

Rivers. This represents an expanse of hundreds of kilometres. As a Murri Bunya

Mountains Ranger recently told on country, “we have clippings, tool shavings that are

from minerals found as far west as Broome” (Laurie Mickelo, personal

communications, 2014).

These ceremonies connected to the Bunya are part of a cycle, often marked by

bumper harvests happening every three years or so (Jerome, 2008; Kirwin, 2007). So

Aboriginal nations from all surrounds would set circle, gather, meet and exchange

within and around the Bunya mountains at these times of massive Bunya nut harvests.

“Ritual[s] of exchange and cultural material and intellectual property occurred where

[these] Aboriginal nations gathered” (Kirwin, 2007, p. 7). Within the context of Bunya

Bunya ceremony and ritual, Indigenous communities opened complex and intricate

processes of celebration, accepting and understanding differences to best fit the needs

of our peoples – we still do.

Ceremonies of exchange are well known and remembered by Murri community.

In fact ceremonies were shared around Murriland: inland of Mackay along the stock

routes (Budby, personal communication, 2005), southwest to Winton (Wathumapa –

Gorringe & Spillman, 2008) and the mullet feasts of the Quandamoopah from

Stradbroke Island. Bunyas are known and shared all over the country: “Bunya feast is

one such mutual feasting place where … Aboriginal nations gathered” (Kirwan, 2007,

p. 7) for information sharing and collective sense making and understanding.

Discussing protocols were and are parts of the process. This is what we remember.

This is what Durithunga is founded on – Indigenous storying and respect, rooted in

the story of the lands as shared in process like Bunya Bunya. We share this rich story


of collective sense making, gathering, yarning, time fracturing, taking the time to

reflect and listen; we share this in ceremony and song and it is still left heavily

footprinted in the very rich lands of the Bunya Bunya mountains today.

This rich storying is transportable to other contexts and environments. Our

ancestors did and have done it successfully in the past for thousands of years and we

too have the knowledges, frameworks and links to these processes and ways of being

to invigorate, innovate and challenge the ways we live and learn today. This is the

collective strength or pool of knowledge we draw from as Indigenous collectives

(Martin, 2008; Moreton-Robinson, 2000; Ungunmerr-Baumen, 2002). Being together,

relating our story and songs within the context of the lands we are on, creating

relationships and connections are essential to providing a culturally safe, culturally

sound presence in now a predominantly Migloo space.

So to reframe Community Durithunga Research is to provide an overarching tool

or weave to connect all pieces. The overarching tool I’m using in this process is the

Bunya Bunya Cycle. Knowledge for me, and thus the research journey, can be

understood and articulated better through the yarning attached to the Bunya Bunya

Cycle. The Bunya Bunya Cycle is best understood as a whole; all parts are connected

and kinnected to the other. Figure 3.2 below depicts the connectedness of each part of

the cycle as symbolised by the path which joins each Bunya Bunya seed. There are two

types of seeds depicted here in the cycle in Figure 3.2. First there is the growing cycle

seed. This is drawn in the form of a diamond (see Bunya Roots and Growth, Figure 3.2).

Following growth there is the fruiting cycle. The fruiting seeds are depicted with a

crosshatch design (see Bunya Tree, Cone and Fruiting, Figure 3.2).

From the Bunya Bunya seed the Bunya Bunya tree grows. The tree takes a long

time to grow, set its roots and build. When the tree has started to mature it begins to

fruit – producing the Bunya Bunya cone. The Bunya Bunya cone holds the rich

Bunya Bunya nut that has been the source of strength both physically but more

importantly, mentally and spiritually, which helps us grow.


Figure 3.2. The Bunya Bunya Cycle.


The middle part of Figure 3.2, the predominant image of the cycle, is of the Bunya

Bunya pine. Here it is depicted in three ways. Firstly at its earlier stages in growth – left

of centre. Then as the Bunya Bunya grows, the tree begins to fruit. The fruiting tree

represents a significant shift in the Bunya Bunya Cycle; this is represented as the middle

tree. The fruit of the cones are shown as circles under the branches. Following the

fruiting cycle the tree becomes barren and waits its next cycle of growth – tree right of

centre. The difference between this tree in the cycle is that the tree has fruited and will

continue to fruit the great Bunya Bunya cones.

There are three significant parts of the fruiting Bunya cone (see Figure 3.2). First

is the cone itself, a large pod of seeds. Secondly is the collective growth or fruiting of

the Bunya Bunya, which is shared by our people, the cones as collectives. Thirdly

there are the individual seeds, which can be regrown and re-harvested. These can be

seen on the right-hand side, demarcated by the crosshatch design.

The Bunya Cone symbolises Durithunga Yarning. This is connected to the next

part of the cycle, Fruiting and Sharing. Durithunga research is an embodiment of

this part of the cycle – the capture and storying of Durithunga and a celebration and

acknowledgement of the significant journey of Durithunga. Then there are the

individual seeds; these can be understood as the principles of Durithunga. Within a

Durithunga context these are known as the “Seedlings”.

The three plain seed images of the Bunya Cycle (left-hand side of cycle, Figure

3.2) are representative of Bunya Roots (found at the foot of the Bunya pines), Bunya

Growth and finally Bunya Tree (the top of the design). Each part of the seed image in

the cycle is symbolic of a part of the Durithunga research journey. The roots refer to

the storying, in which Durithunga is grounded, story of Country and coming into

Country – Durithunga roots. The “growth seed” relates to the contextualisation of

Durithunga research – the Circle:Cycle process. The Durithunga journey is

representative of growth and this Durithunga research project shows this growing

process in action. To grow, the Bunya Bunya seeds form roots which grow into the

tall pine tree stands. The image of the tree is a metaphor for growth – a symbol of

Durithunga.

The cycle itself as shown above in Figure 3.2 is not designed for a western linear

form. It is cyclical. It reconnects, rolls and weaves at different points and parts

kinnected in the cycle. As such I have broken down as much as possible what the


Bunya Bunya cycle looks like through a Community Durithunga Research lens. As

a research tool it has helped ground me in my research journey and enabled me to

focus and write to not what the Migloo academy dictates but what the tumba tjina

defines. Boring down further into the design, looking further into the cycle there are

further connections, thesis specific, that can be made or drawn to the cycle elements

shown in Figure 3.2 above.

• Bunya Roots: Within the thesis this relates to Chapter 1 – Yarning Our

Way, tumba tjina and Community Durithunga’s deep roots on Country.

• Bunya Growth: Educational contextualisation in the literature review,

Chapter 2.

• Bunya Tree: Kinnects very clearly to Durithunga’s tree and visioning. The

contextualisation of “who and what is Durithunga” is footprinted

throughout the thesis but is signalled up front, in title pages, diagrams and

explanations of research focus from Chapter 1. The “gum tree” as a signifier

of Durithunga is seen through Durithunga documentation and art pieces

just as the Bunya is symbolised through the art of the Cobble Cobble.

• Bunya Cone: As shared earlier, this links very clearly with Durithunga

yarning – the Circle:Cycle process operating monthly. Durithunga’s

presence as an entity is symbolised through the formation of a yarning circle

held and shared around the local community. This is further discussed in

this chapter as part of Community Durithunga Research Design.

• Bunya Fruiting and Sharing: Links very closely with Community

Durithunga Research as a whole – the proposal of research, the action of

research and the sharing of research through analysis chapters, specifically

Chapter 4.

• Bunya Seedlings: Connects very strongly with Durithunga Seedlings – the

base principles from which Durithunga as an education process grows.

Within the thesis this is further unpacked through the discussion of results

in Chapter 5 and in the discussions on future research weaves in Chapter 6.

The Bunya Bunya Cycle provides a way to understand and explain this

Durithunga research through a kinnected methodology. There is no beginning or end

– this is a cycle – movement and fluidity is key. I draw on what Nakata (2008) purports


as Indigenous standpoint as a form of analysis and extend on the works of

transformative Indigenous research such as that provided by Martin (2008) through

centring methodology via tumba tjina framing. This cycle of knowing and

understanding, doing and being is something that is heavily wedded into the process

and practices of Durithunga yarning. It is the intention of this research project and

process to use this tumba tjina framing as a way to effectively mediate the unknown

and uncharted university thought worlds on these specifics around growing and

nurturing urban Indigenous education leadership. The Bunya Bunya Cycle is, from

my perspective as a Warra man, the most appropriate way to convey the depth of

storying connected to Community Durithunga.

This style of visual expression is important too. The Bunya Bunya Cycle here is

representative more of body paint; body art design. As flagged earlier my polyphonic

expression is through storying, song and dance. Through the storying I’ve been

sharing on country, I take part in singing for and of our people. When we dance and

sing, when we corroboree, we paint up. Part of singing, of song, of country is painting

the symbols and images that kinnect us. This rough sketch is more representative of

the style and kinds of images I paint up and we as Cobble Cobble people are singing

for – singing Bunya Bunya.

Our framing is essential to maintain and grow knowledge strength. It’s essential

too because as we step into the realms of spirit healing and community empowerment

we draw not from structures of the Migloo voice but rely and draw strength from our

own way – proper way – Durithunga way. This is the most powerful message

Community Durithunga sends. We are willing, able, capable and confident to speak

our ways, live our ways and share our ways as the best ways forward in Indigenous

education based on community empowerment – “Empowering culture, growth and

learning through respect and Community to enhance the future of our jarjums…”

3.3 COMMUNITY DURITHUNGA RESEARCH DESIGN

This section looks at how research has been conducted on and in a Community

Durithunga context. Utilising the learning gathered from the literature review –

understanding the centrality of Indigenous Knowledges and Indigenous Knowledge

Research Principles, this design has been developed to best suit or fit the unique


context of Durithunga. Being a unique context, unique methods have been used in the

design, like Yarning Circles to best capture and embody Durithunga process.

Community Durithunga Research has been recorded and analysed using a

qualitative approach (Chilisa, 2012, Cresswell, 2008). Qualitative research is the most

appropriate because it allows rich, thick description (Chilisa, 2012, Cresswell, 2008).

Qualitative data and gathering processes connect to how and why Durithunga operates

the way it does – the rich and thick descriptions generated from yarning. Within

qualitative structures a narrative research design has been chosen. Moreover

Community Durithunga is predicated on the fact that Durithunga is involved heavily

in the production and development of information – as such Community Durithunga

is an active participant in research. With this in mind Community Durithunga

Research as a process connects strongly with Participatory Action Research (PAR)

(Cresswell, 2008). Through a PAR approach members connected to the research,

research problem or question are active research participants. Durithunga member

participation is outlined further in the multi-staged process, steps (i) – (xii), of

Community Durithunga Research (see Figure 3.3).

Figure 3.3. Multi-stage Community Durithunga research processes.

Narrative designs (storying) by their very nature offer a process to capture, focus

and analyse data collected from participants’ stories – personal narratives. Moreton-

Robertson refers to the importance of storying and narratives by saying we have

continued to survive and thrive, growing a strong sense of pride in our collective

resilience. She refers to this as “relationality” whereby we grow strength from and

forge identities with each other (Moreton-Robertson, 2000). Sarra quotes Narogin in

the definition and articulation and need for Indigenous voice in research. He argues

that a PhD from an Indigenous standpoint may look different from others. The


development of genres like the PhD style of writing (i.e. academia), “is a European

way of categorising works of literature … This design is a way of leading the reader

away from intuition to what is seemingly logical responses” (Sarra, 1999, p. 2). To

accept European constructions of what are right and correct forms of writing, Sarra

quotes Narogin (an Aboriginal playwright) in citing that to do so, “dilutes the

Aboriginality of our work” (Narogin as cited in Sarra, 1999, p. 2). The narrative design

allows for the journey of Durithunga as well as the notion of community efficacy;

reflexivity in practice to be recorded, codified and analysed in a way not separate or

totally removed from the root, which Community Durithunga has grown. For

instance, in the case of survey-based research, Likert scales are examples of processes

that could capture very finite, specific information from participants. Narrative designs

allow for the participant to predominantly produce the texts for analysis. Having

members speak for Durithunga, about Durithunga learnings, then taking raw data to

codify and map common threads provides a more comprehensive and richer text for

data capture and analysis. Personal narratives allow and afford participants the chance

to articulate and express their own voice – the effects of Durithunga on them, their

work and their community – it is their story.

The design itself in this instance offers a more empowering model than others as

it creates the space to be connected and understood: agency and voice. Indigenous

peoples since the time of colonisation (invasion), have been represented and recorded

ad nauseam. Such is the legacy of western knowledge systems that we even have in

Australia an Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies

(AIATSIS) – a separate institute from all the art galleries, museums and university

halls which all hold knowledges “of” and “for” Indigenous peoples. As flagged earlier,

Dodson argues, the “recognition of a people’s fundamental right to self-determination

must include the right to self-definition ... It must include the freedom to live outside

the cage created by other peoples’ images and projections” (Dodson, 2003, p. 31).

Learning from and hearing the voice of Indigenous peoples and their experiences in

further developing leadership capacity shifts the western academic power imbalances

which run deep through our country. To be active knowledge creators in a space Murri

people have created (i.e., Durithunga), having voice heard, listened to and represented

in this way allows for stronger and more positive identification with the research

process.


Linked to strong notions of social justice; creating more spaces for Indigenous

knowledge collections, collectors and record spaces; and honouring Indigenous voice,

the sample for this design is firstly a group – a record of a whole group yarning session,

and then the research bores down to the perspectives of a few – three voices of

Durithunga. The collection of three voices is significant in this design because the “rule

of three” (Durithunga, 2006) is an Indigenous Knowledge principle, a part of the

“Seedlings” documents or Durithunga ways shared in Chapter 2. These ways are shared

and spoken highly of amongst Durithunga Community.

Durithunga principles were created for Durithunga leadership. A way to

immerse the research in the locale of the community investigated is to immerse process

in these principles. The notion of hearing, recording and retelling community voice, a

collective, is captured well by the Durithunga yarning circle. These circles provide

multiple perspectives from ten up to fifteen active members. These voices provide the

backdrop against which to juxtapose in-depth interviews. This wider circling or

capture of story provides a broader sample to map and match the themes discussed and

shared in the individual yarns. This “two-way” process allows space for deeper

analysis of the key messages/themes generated by Durithunga, providing a process

for authentication. Moreover this design of whole growth and individual growth and

group reflections is representative of the Durithunga membership structures at

present. Each individual comes from individual school and community teams and then

they gather in circle as a collective Durithunga voice. As Phillips et al. attest in an

Indigenous Australian research context, “our pursuit of scholarly and community

objectives through Indigenous Knowledge … is inherently linked to issues of cultural

survival, human rights, economic and political self-determination” (Phillips et al.,

2007, p. 11).

3.3.1 Data collection strategies

Durithunga yarning, the principles of Durithunga guided the selection of key

peoples to participate and represent Durithunga. So as to not have a self-selecting,

self-identifying process dictate who was selected for the one-on-one interview

sessions, general parameters around diversity needed to be applied here. Diversity

allows for further authentication of datasets gathered. Although Durithunga would

nominate their representatives to share individual Durithunga journeys, the

parameters of choice sat around: inclusion of a male perspective and inclusion of three


identities that covered the spectrum of knowledges connected to education in this

community context. That is, membership who were chosen to represent their

Durithunga journey and its impacts had to be representative of three significant

junctures of learning – early years (infants–primary), middle years (high school) and

upper years (tertiary and community education).

The Community Durithunga membership dynamic is reflective of the general

population in relation to male and female staff ratios involved in education. That is to

say, the majority of Durithunga members are women. Men represent, as they do

generally across education sites around the country, the minority of workers and

members present. The Indigenous community is a disparate group also. Durithunga

members are made up of a mix of Traditional Ownership – families whose

connections to Country link back to time immemorial; Community eldership – local

families living on others’ traditional Country for significant numbers of years; and

leaders from multiple Country sites – linked as far north to the Torres Strait and far

south as the Wiradjuri (New South Wales). Members’ ages vary from mid-twenties

through to late fifties and sixties. A majority of members come from the thirty – fifty

year bracket. As a group, too, the membership represents a complex mixture of socio-

economic statuses ranging from working class to high economic status. The one

constant for all membership is that Durithunga circles are 100% Indigenous.

These diversities have implications for research production and analysis. In an

attempt to best manage these diversities and create a sharp image of Community

Durithunga’s community capacity building process, specifically responding to the

research questions, a multi-staged process was mapped out, as shown in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1

Community Durithunga Research Multi-Staged Protocol

Stage Description

(i) Durithunga proposal for study

(ii) Durithunga permissions + reciprocation lines

(iii) Researcher “critical circle” established for feedbacks

(iv) Researcher presence at Durithunga yarning (sit + listen)

(v) “Critical circle” updates/feedback

(vi) Researcher proposal of process + possible date claimers (share)

(vii) Durithunga Yarning circle – multiple perspectives (captured first)

(viii) Durithunga member checking


(ix) “Critical circle” updates/feedbacks

(x) Durithunga storying – individual perspective x3

(xi) Durithunga member checking

(xii) “Critical circle” updates/feedbacks

Again, this process of active Community Durithunga inputs and outputs needed

for research reciprocation is about the knowledge intent of research being for and of

the people. Leaders in the field of Indigenous health like Bulman and Bond flagged

earlier in the literature review all attest to models of reciprocation and sustainability of

practice. Bulman’s (2010) work on yarning circles for Indigenous men enabled

participants to access and learn tools to mediate complex and challenging behaviours.

Bond’s (2004) work in Inala focused on the “seeing” and recognising of Indigenous

community in urban locales. Through the study then was a keen focus on strength-

based conversations and processes in research. Bronwyn Fredericks as an Indigenous

education and health researcher adds to this body of work also. She has completed

significant work on Indigenous community controlled health research through the

establishment of the Community Controlled Multi-Institutional Centre for Clinical

Research Excellence (Fredericks, 2007). What Fredericks does through her body of

research linked specifically in Indigenous health is provide a bridge from international

modelling and metaphor of “Path-way” learning and adapts that to her Indigenous

Australian context. The “Path-way” research frame allowed her (and allows us as

Indigenous researchers) to break down the research barrier – the Migloo institutional

hegemony – and redefine through our ways. Durithunga’s multi-staged approach

above can be understood amongst this body of work as a community controlled and

contextualised piece of research.

3.3.2 Community Durithunga research methods

In reaching for an Indigenous standpoint it’s essential to use our own methods

(Martin, 2008; Smith, 1999). Phillips, a lead academic in the “safe space” creation of

learning within QUT, contested “Indigenous academics around Australia are now

more then ever in control of emerging understandings of Indigenous Knowledges and

Indigenous Studies” (Phillips et al., 2007). With these strong notions in mind – the

claiming of our Indigenous Australian tools as key components of the research

methods, the Yarning Circle has been used as the predominant research gathering tool

and technique to develop understandings and knowledges in and around the


response/focus questions. Circles are important, as Martin explains, “because there is

no beginning or no end and therefore no completion but continuous cycles” (Martin,

2008, p. 80). The circling reflects what is happening in Durithunga contexts as well –

a process that is in action. This next section of the research design will explain in depth

the use and practical application of Yarning Circle methods through looking at their

various forms and structures as well as their application within current educational

contexts. Community Durithunga draws on these various approaches and has

developed its own unique method of Durithunga yarning.

Yarning circle method

Yarning in Aboriginal English refers to a process, a time sequence separate

from the mainstream. Our cultural footprint is heavily meshed in oral history and oral

storying. Today, as Murri and Torres Strait Islanders who constitute two to ten per

cent of the total population within urban areas, the strength of storying and oral

traditions is shown through yarning. Yarning represents a way of sitting,

communicating and being present which builds a strong sense of self and promotes

wellbeing and connectedness (Hazlehurst, 1994; Martin, 2009; Robertson, 2000). My

tumba tells of a ceremony “wunya mornay nyornee”28 – time to sit, listen, share and

create spaces for deeper learning. Yarning encapsulates the essence of this knowledge

through contemporary rituals like kin talk or kin mapping – detailing “where your

family from?” “who’s your mob?” When our relationship boundaries are set or

explained we’re able to move forward into deeper dialogue.

Yarning circles or Yarning circle processes are powerful methodological

research tools to action when dealing with Indigenous or complex content. There are

a number of Yarning circle processes to draw from and learn from in the application

and direction of research from an Indigenous standpoint.

Dadirri is an example of an Indigenous Australian approach to yarning. Dadirri

refers to the process of deep listening and being present. Dadirri as Miriam Rose

Ungunmerr-Baumann of the Daly River people explains, is the connection to the deep

well – inner springs which exist in all of us. Dadirri is an essential element of yarning

and Durithunga yarning as it refers to the notion of presence and being. Durithunga

28 Refers to a Jarrowar and Cobble Cobble process of yarning in ceremony. This is the relationship setting ceremony – a process to set how we will interact and “be” with each other.


yarning requires members to be present and sit and yarn and connect. Ungunmerr-

Baumen explains that Dadirri “renews us and brings us peace …” It’s a process, a way

of being which is tuned into 65,000 years of knowledge as river people, “… we don’t

hurry the river we wait and become a part of the river …” So Dadirri provides a

powerful Indigenous thought process to ritualise and recreate in our learning spaces.

Durithunga shares synergies with Dadirri in that it focuses on the notion of circle –

allowing all voices to be heard and all members in circle to be present – listening and

reflective.

Gorrie woman Deb Bennet provides another dynamic Murri process for yarning

– the yarning circle. She draws on her own unique processes drawn from various

Indigenous story, song and ceremonies passed on by the ancestors (Bennet, 2010). Her

process draws on the ceremonial elements of fire, earth, water and air, key aspects of

Goorie traditional ceremony.

Essentially Bennet (2010) explains that yarning circles enable people to come

together in equal status. The yarning circle depicts a journey of learning and self-

discovery, which empowers the individual and community. The ceremony as depicted

by Bennet is divided into the four core elements progressing from fire to air – from

heat and heaviness to buoyancy and lightness. So in essence there are four stages to go

through to complete and be a part of a Goorie yarning process. Fire refers to the

element of light – shedding light on a situation. Fire burns with passion and power – it

provides a tool to regenerate and regrow. A ritual connected to this element is smoking.

Smoking as a ceremony in Goorie (and Murri) cultures was and is used to ward off

older spiritual ties and cleanse and heal – make holy.

After participants emerge through a firing process they reflect on their

connection to and through earth. Earth is the physical plane; it sustains us through

processes of reproduction and regeneration. Earthing ourselves refers to the notion of

connecting to land and allowing us to grow; learn new skills – a metaphoric process.

The earth is symbolised in ceremony through the painting of the earth on our skin, like

with ochre.

The next stage of the yarning process is water. Water, as a reflection tool in this

process, links to notions of empowerment and transparency. Water refers to lifeblood

– gift of spiritual growth. The element according to Goorie philosophy reminds us to

live meaningful lives, ethically and with dignity. Moving with fluidity in this stage,


not becoming stagnated allow the individual to experience and reflect on the final

element – air.

Air is the ultimate elemental experience according to Bennet (2010). Air refers

to an uplifting experience, a place of powerful spiritual awakenings – the place of the

eagle. The eagle in the air is a symbol of strength and compassion – signifying via its

movement the winds of change – new futures. Air refers to the most liberating

experience of knowing and recognising what we don’t know and being able to take a

leap of faith or commitment.

Each element though is grafted and grounded by a “shadow side” or darker side

of and for analysis. For each of the elemental stages there are parts of the element, which

provide challenges and expose weaknesses in individuals and for groups if not dealt with

effectively. For example in the fire stage – fire is a gift of light but in its form it may

rush out, be too intense and burn you. Fire may over burn and cause destruction and

distress. Earth’s groundedness can cause suffocation or in essence people can bury

themselves away in issues or old ways of doing things. The elements of water and air

can also be impacted on by the notion of stagnation – being stuck in the same ways or

positioning one’s self as “better or higher” than others, similar to Sadler’s (2009)

reflections on the dangers of “not growing”. There are essential learnings for all the

elements as there are direct benefits for each, but if there is reliance on one particular

way of being then there is space for negative processes and behaviours to develop.

To move through these elemental stages to reflect on one’s experiences through

the lenses of a Goorie yarning process, according to Bennet enables us to work more

effectively as individuals and ultimately as learning communities. These elemental

yarning circle processes provide a way forward to reflect, direct and redirect energies.

This is created through the equitable process of sitting and setting the yarns in circle

– a process of non-hierarchical thinking. To engage in this ceremonial process

according to Bennet is to engage in a transformative process as the yarning circle is

linked not only to the wellbeing of the individual participating but is woven into a

community renewal, community empowerment frame.

Durithunga as a yarning circle process has evolved amongst the rich history of

narrative, storying, sharing which is footprinted all across the land. Ungunmerr-

Baumann and Bennett both show how and why circle methods are kinnected to specific


Aboriginal thought processes and practices. Moreover they show how these processes

can be transferred and enacted in different settings, school and community contexts.

Bessarab and Ng’andu go further into the power of yarning circle usage within a

research-specific frame (Bessarab & Ng’andu, 2010). They provide a detailed synopsis

of why and how yarning circles are integral to the capture, recording and reflection of

data from Indigenous perspectives as an Indigenous process. Bessarab provides insight

into Indigenous Australian yarning circle process, specifically Nyoongah, and Ng’andu

provides a Botswana perspective into the need and importance of using the yarning

circle as a methodological tool. Yarning as a “research tool has benefits for research as

it facilitates in depth discussions” not from a western frame or perspective but from an

Indigenous stand point. “Yarning is conducive to Indigenous ways of doing things …

its strength is [in] the cultural security … it creates for people participating in research”

(Bessarab & Ng’andu, 2010, p. 11).

The power of their research methodological base yarning was and is in the rich,

thick descriptions gathered from research participants. The storying is based on the

yarning of the individual Indigenous participants, not guarded or bound by strict

research questioning and answering techniques, but a technique that breaks the

perceived researchers’ barrier as it “demands more human to human interactions”

(Bessarab & Ng’andu, 2010).

Yarning in circle in these contexts can flow in a number of ways – each as

important and essential as the other. Bessarab and Ng’andu (2010) see the yarns as

initially social (building relationships) and then shifting into the research topic and

branching into either “collaborative yarning” or “therapeutic yarning”. “Research

yarning” is the obvious ideal from a researcher’s perspective as this deals with the

topic at hand. However what Bessarab and Ng’andu explore is the notion that all parts

of the yarning process, from “social” through to “therapeutic yarning”, are essential

and of equal importance in developing rich texts and allowing individuals to forge their

storying. An example of the diversity of yarns is shown by collaborative yarning. This

type of yarning deals with the notion of dynamic dialogue and discussion to map and

discuss where the research topic sits and fits.

The rich or thick text that is produced through the processes of yarning is vitally

important in research pertaining to Indigenous people according to Bessarab, and

Martin. The challenge for researchers is the mediation and commitment to unravelling


thick descriptions, as yarning methods can produce a lot of information, which “can

be messy and challenging” (Bessarab & Ng’andu, 2010, p. 3). The messiness is

something that Martin refers to as essential in understanding our ways of doing and

being. “To erase the messiness is to deny my identity”, according to Martin (2008, p.

21). In the “therapeutic yarning” process an informant may reveal or connect a

personal experience which is traumatic or caused great stress. Here the researcher’s

role is challenged and shifts again from one of facilitator and mediator of research

topics to become an active listener – being present and staying connected to the yarn

that is shared. In all of its facets yarning has the potential both to provide space for

Indigenous processes to be acknowledged and embraced within research paradigms

and to provide the space for healing.

With my in-depth knowledge and understanding of Durithunga process and

protocol as well as yarn styles shared in Aboriginal English, transcripts were

purposefully chosen to be rewritten and reinterpreted through transcriptions without

the full inclusion of members’ iterative comments. The mapping of “oohhhs” and

“aahhh” type comments for example were purposefully omitted from transcriptions so

as to reflect the poignancy of what members were speaking. I say poignancy as there

is a common perception amongst members of Durithunga that “I can’t talk like that

... I don’t have a good education”. These comments and feelings I have picked up over

the years from colleagues sitting in circle detract from the wholeness or oneness of

direction and impetus that each member has. My re-interpretation of speeches is “you

do talk clear ... You do have a strong educational foundation”. One of the most

devilishly difficult tasks imposed on us now as a colonised people is to break a

colonised thinking as to worthiness compared to others – especially the colonisers. As

Durithunga provides a safe space to yarn and be less colonised, I found it essential to

not re-interpret mobs’ words verbatim, especially as they re-read pieces through

member checking process, in light of this point of view. The best way I was able to re-

interpret the rich yarns shared was to include the important pauses and spaces mobs

left when speaking. As Durithunga is a time process as well – a way of fracturing the

dominant Migloo time sequence – I recorded silences and pauses in yarns via the use

of three dots (ellipsis) – “...”


Durithunga Yarning

Where an Indigenous practitioner like Deb Bennet (2004) has enacted the

yarning circle process through application of Smith’s (1999) decolonisation method,

Ungunmerr-Baumann has centred her approached solely from a Daly River knowledge

base. Community Durithunga has centred its approaches on its Indigenous

Knowledges more like Ungunmerr-Baumen. The Seedlings as a process clearly

defines how, who and where to set circle. “The Seedlings form the basis of how to run

Yarning circles and guide members in Indigenous development and understanding”

(Davis, 2010, p. 172). Durithunga has developed its own unique yarning circle

process and practice in order to best share and develop Indigenous educational

understandings. The monthly meeting process is an important practice and ritual in

place in Durithunga (as shown by the Durithunga Seedlings in Appendix H). Within

individual school spaces the circle is used in varying ways to embrace and infuse our

way of doing and being together. Yarning circles are used as forms of communication

in both primary and secondary school settings dealing with Indigenous topics and

issues. Each process that is developed in each discrete setting is developed with the

support of other Durithunga members, sharing processes and practices that work to

hold effective yarning circles. This cycle of learning is integral to Community

Durithunga process. We operate on a cyclic nature of society – everything is

connected and operates holistically. So the processes that are enacted in our individual

school and local settings are operated in our shared community learning space –

Community Durithunga. So Community Durithunga brings together in circle the

discrete and localised processes of yarning and being together. This cycle recognition

of diversity is imbued in our process of setting circle in discrete individual settings –

creating bigger circles with the individual school spaces we herald from. So there is

fluidity and movement in the rotation of our Durithunga yarning circles (held

monthly) and there is form and structure in the process/practice of holding a yarning

circle – how the circle is set, how we sit and relate to each other – sitting equally

sharing space.

Circle:Cycle

The regular ritual of setting circle across our learning and community sites has

been a powerful action of Durithunga to embrace the notion of diversity that exists

across the disparate learning community sites (as shown above). To harness and use


“spaces of not knowing” – the “whirlpools” of opportunity (Gorringe, 2006), we have

developed a Circle:Cycle process (see Figure 3.4). The circle relates to the inner strength

– the core, our spirit, and in the context of Durithunga this is shown through our yarning

circle. Yarning circles provide a powerful process for us to gather and rally as

collectives. The cycle motion and movement is essential in this process. To enable

Durithunga to continue to grow, our bases for yarning shift and change – we draw

strength from each other and hold Durithungas at each discrete local setting. Thus the

meeting process is an important practice and ritual in place in Durithunga. Each

monthly yarning circle is set at the behest of Community Durithunga members so

monthly Durithunga rotates and sets circle in different school and community locations.

Figure 3.4. Community Durithunga Circle:Cycle process.

!

!!

!!

!

!


Figure 3.5. Core of Community Durithunga Circle:Cycle.

!

!!!

Marsden

!!

Deadly Jarjums

!!

GUMURRI

!

Stronger, Smarter

!!!

Bulkari

!

Murriland BSHS

!!

Knowledge House

!!

Community Durithunga


Our Circle:Cycle process allows us to best use and harness the diversity of skills

and connections we have across school and local community sites, enables the very

limited resources we have to hold processes that draw on the strengths of us not as

individuals but of us as a collective, the wider, broader collective yarning spaces we

create and connect each other with. Sadler, while reflecting on his community

development work in schools, says, “with the assistance of community elders like

NUTCHA, we set up Wajin space. Wajin space is based on the philosophies of

Knowledge House (Davis & Grose, 2008) – a safe space for Indigenous jarjums at

Mabel …” (Davis, Dirie, & Sadler, 2009). Through his active participation in

Durithunga yarning and connection with a diverse learning hub, Sadler was able to

draw on the rich support structures he had in Logan’s education circles. The

Durithunga circles were able to assist his development and structuring of support

programs that would fit, work and most importantly be sustainable – he used the

knowledges and experiences and advices from Knowledge House to assist in the

development of Wajin space. The connection space – site to bring and share the

learning – was Durithunga. His experiences then impacted on what future work he

was able to develop in other school spaces, “at Marsden SHS there was no way for a

sustainable Men’s Group to be established (based on my experiences at Knowledge

House) – so we didn’t pursue it” (Davis, Dirie, & Saddler, 2009).

Within Migloo education meeting cycles there’s the notion of a department, a

chair and a minute taker. Durithunga shifts the dynamic of siloing ways of information

by creating spaces for all voices to have a say. The movement and cycle of learning

Durithunga meetings encourage is unique. The Circle:Cycle creates a set base and the

cycle ensures a flow of new ideas and identities. This links to Bennet’s reflections on

water yarning. Bennet highlights that in the water phase of yarning we can become

stagnant (Bennet, 2010). The Circle:Cycle creates fluidity and movement – not staying

stagnant – a process of rippling in action.

With this in mind yarning circles, specifically those framed from a Community

Durithunga perspective (Durithunga, 2006), are the core methods used in gathering

data. Data gathered on and from Durithunga learning needs to reflect the local, social

and cultural context – Community Durithunga yarning circles do this. The difference

in this context is that these yarning circles are “Research yarning circles” and not

Community Durithunga monthly meeting circles. The information gathered, re-


storied and ultimately shared is predicated on the strong relationship building and

reciprocation lines determined prior to the research being conducted. So within the

circles a related approach, kinnected approach of yarning has been applied. With this

in mind Aboriginal English was used as the main communicative technique in

conveying questions and yarning in circle. Aboriginal English is a language I am well

versed in and is the dominant language used in Community Durithunga yarning

circles.

The relational weave I have created and the need to work on Community

Durithunga Research required a comprehensive stepping out of reciprocal rights.

Although I am a member of Community Durithunga and held significant leadership

positions as a Principal and Manager, I am not as a sole member bigger than the

Community Durithunga Circle or principled enough to not have to pay back

community for my taking of knowledge. In true recognition of my role in the flow of

Community Durithunga and as a member of a disparate Indigenous community, I

needed to establish a clear reciprocal relationship whereby the taking of information

and eventual earning of a PhD qualification was not earnt separate to or devoid of any

connection, recognition or pay back to Community Durithunga. The reciprocity of

the research act was a tool used to acknowledge the different spaces (although

kinnected) we shared as “subject” and “researcher of subject” (see points (ii) & (vii)

of the Multi-staged Protocol in Table 3.1).

Reciprocation

Establishing researcher and participant relationship and supports was essential

to build research trust and support. As such, clear lines of reciprocation were

established as part of the sharing protocol/principle in research. This was important

too as I am a member of Durithunga. Establishing researcher protocols allowed me to

re-establish relationships based on what else was being taken or used from a research

perspective and not assume trust through my already established relationship with

Durithunga. To that end Durithunga flagged its most urgent requests that I could

assist and gift back to Durithunga community as part of the research process.

“Community Credentialing” was the model I was tasked with refining and developing

for use in Durithunga circles. Credentialing is Durithunga’s new model of

certification or authorisation of members. Basically it entails recognition of grounded

Durithunga members in abilities and skilled in delivering grounded Indigenous


education programs. This is a closed document – one owned fully by Community

Durithunga (a brief outline of the model is attached in Appendix B).

Once the reciprocation lines were clearly established we went on to hold the

research yarning circles. These were purposefully held in two distinct junctures. The

first being the whole group yarning circle and then followed by the one-on-one yarns.

As regular Durithunga is a group process (represented through the Circle:Cycle) it

was essential to allow the research to develop from the closest point of reference. This

method allowed for text production nearest to the source: “Indigenous research is about

changing and improving conditions … The preeminent need of the Indigenous

research agenda is for research that is conducted according to the concept of

Indigenous World View (IWV). The Indigenous World View places Indigenous

people at the centre of the research environment” (Denzin et al., 2008, p. 92).

Embodying Community Durithunga Research in this way honours where

Community Durithunga is at within its localised community environment. From this

point other ways of understanding Durithunga could be established (one-on-one

interviews) but only after the collective voice was captured.

Ethics development – a third cultural space

The QUT Research Ethics process I was involved in was a great example of third

cultural space created in education. QUT organisationally has multiple layers of

Indigenous education and by these actions layers of culturally safe ways of working.

The undergraduate space, Oodgeroo Unit, is mirrored by the next “paperbark” layered

by the postgraduate, Indigenous Studies Research Network (ISRN), which I am a part

of. I have received professional learning seminars of and on the postgraduate research

experience and QUT ethics process.

This prior network experience gave me as an Indigenous researcher greater

understanding of and on QUT’s research requirements. This in turn broke down the

cultural barrier of understanding what was to come in the ethics process. Seminars

were held in the ISRN unit and allowed for me as an Indigenous researcher to feel

culturally safe and supported in the process. To know more and learn more about how

research topics progressed through the ethics process enabled me to prepare a

submission which adequately fit the requirements of QUT and readily honoured the

Indigenous community and approaches I was to adopt. The research proposal was

officially lodged and accepted for ethics clearance through our QUT ethics submission


process. The Community Durithunga ethics application was submitted as a lower risk

application heavily predicated on the notion of relatedness. The ethics approvals were

augmented by the goodwill and support of Community Durithunga and Logan

Community educationalists who also submitted support letters and endorsement of

Community Durithunga Research (see Appendix C).

3.3.3 Data generation

Durithunga Research Yarning circles and in depth “one-on-ones” have been

mobilised to produce text on Community Durithunga. Open-ended questions honoured

the role of the participants and allowed them to articulate their understandings and

knowledges of place. The group Yarning circle provided a collective response to

research questions and one-on-ones provided a specific individual’s response. Samples

of the transcriptions from whole group and one-on-one yarns can be found in Appendix

D. The research question for the group was, “How does Durithunga support and

encourage Indigenous community input in education?” and for the individual, “How

does Durithunga support and encourage your input in education?” The text analysis to

follow required description of information and development of themes, the practice of

re-storying and mapping for themes.

The participants involved in Community Durithunga Research were all active

Durithunga members and willing (permission signed and sorted through ethics

applications) participants of the research process. They themselves represent a powerful

Indigenous research principle in being active co-creators of knowledge, what Sheehan

refers to as facilitation of “Indigenous people defining their own pathways into the

future” (Sheehan & Walker, 2001, p. 7). Their work and their stories are collective

knowledges of strength and resilience in life and learning. Understanding their role and

their perspectives in this research creates a stronger Indigenous research weave. To that

end I apply Moreton-Robinson’s “Relationality theory” (2000) or work on Stories of

Strength. Stories of Strength is applied in my work context, living and delivering

quality education to our predominantly Indigenous cohort. To that end we as staff apply

a process known as Stories of Strength. Following the research thread in its purest form,

to weave in the totality of and about the Durithunga leaders setting circle, it is essential

to give more context as to the make up and backgrounds of the Community Durithunga

membership. To that end I refer to the knowledge circle (highlighted in Chapter 4) as

“leadership”. The group themselves, understood individually, provide some significant


insight into the leadership development capacity of a process like Durithunga as it

brings together a conglomerate of individual identities and creates a space of learning,

sharing, daring and advocacy that is unprecedented as a Murri community leadership

process.

These same identities it was decided, very early on in the research

conceptualisation and agreed upon in developing the Durithunga Research Multi-

Stage Protocol, to maintain anonymity so as to avoid institutional reprisals. Reprisals

are very real and have been inflicted on Durithunga before. The institutional racism

meted out has come in the form of threats from Principals to report Durithunga leaders

to the Ethics Branches of State Education, forced mediation between members and

Principals by the State Education Department and written threats of reprisals from

Principals in email correspondences. So as to buffer Durithunga leaders from any

further or potential reprisals, specific names and schooling sites are not referred to in

the research gathering process. Their pseudonyms provide a distinct representation of

each individual and when they read the doctorate, the Durithunga leaders involved

will be able to make kinnections to the names and contexts more freely than non-

Durithunga members.

To that end I would like to quote or refer to Moreton-Robinson’s development

of “relationality”. Relationality in her context referred to as drawing strength from

stories of Indigenous resilience. Kinnected to my previous working environ, Hymba

Yumba uses this process specifically in all staff meeting processes. As Indigenous

education is such a challenging space, in order to build the “strength-based”

conversations in and around education, staffs are asked to share Stories of Strength.

Stories of Strength are shared straight from the field and allow us to focus on the

positives the jarjums share even though they have complex home lives.

In a Durithunga context the complexities rest in and around the local

environment. Logan City as explained in Chapter 1 is extremely diverse. Local state

school agitation through teachers’ unions have meant the “difficulty rating”, as

indexed as part of the State Education Enterprise Bargaining agreement29, state schools

in and around the Logan Central area are classed the most difficult and earn teaching

29 The 2016 Teacher’s Certified Agreement outlines these key elements and points of difference. Information can be accessed via the State Department’s website www.deta.qld.gov.au


staff more points to assist them to transfer. These “difficult” school spaces are largely

sites of Durithunga leadership.

Stories of Strength are shared by Durithunga members through their yarns

shared on and about Durithunga in action in Logan. Durithunga members

participating in Community Durithunga research are individual Stories of Strength.

These are the individuals who aim for deeper more embedded approaches to

Indigenous learning and practice. Their stories provide a great scope of the potential

Durithunga has as a process of connecting individuals – as a hub of learning, or

learning community, as espoused in the literature review. Moreover the individual

stories of strength also provide an intimate map of the individuated successes

Durithunga as an educational process has helped to build.

Of the members involved, two were significant male teaching representatives,

Mook and Mick. As Indigenous men they represent the minority of men working

within the education system. Their presence was a reflection of the safe spaces they

felt in yarning and support as men dealing with complex issues across diverse learning

environments, primary and secondary.

Within the research yarning circle were Elder leaderships, specifically those

referred to or revered as Aunties. Within our Indigenous Australian context, especially

within urban locales where colonisation is so abhorrent and overwhelming, to be

bestowed the relational honour of being an Elder is hugely significant. Two older

stateswomen are yarned in context here and their stories are unique and paradoxically

representative of the depth of leadership within our complex communities.

Statistically, as shared in Chapter 1, the disparity between Indigenous and non-

Indigenous wellbeing factors like health, employment and wage capacity is quite

significant. Yet woven into the daily lives of different areas of the Logan City spectrum

are two elder stateswomen who are homeowners and family women to significant

family groupings in Cherbourg and the Torres Strait. Their significance lies in the

leadership roles they share in their respective family structures and then how they

demonstrate these individually in primary, secondary and community schooling

sectors. They provide the calming and charismatic weaves of women and women’s

business within circle, which the men have to be mindful and respectful of. They share

their stories of strength through the regular yarning of processes and activities they

have led in delivering successful, sustainable Indigenous education programming.


“Next Generation” leadership is an essential building block towards sustainable

practices. Ellah, Maude and Mel represent the younger generations of teachers within

Indigenous community. These are important voices to hear and be guided by. As can

be seen in the statistical profile shared in Chapter 1, the youth represent the majority

of Logan’s Indigenous statistical profile. That in mind, all processes, whether they are

social services, health or education, must provide significant links of and to our

community’s context, and to our youth. Without youthful participation in community

leadership weaving, processes would not be sustainable. Both Ellah and Mel share the

“voice” leadership role in Durithunga. They are strong, confident Indigenous women

of the 2010s generations. When they yarn they reflect on the educational opportunity

afforded to them through proper way learning structures and provide through their

individual leaderships ways to implement processes to maximise impact for our new

jarjums. A significant stand out for all of these young women is the way they weave

with Elders and more senior Indigenous educators. They put their strong voice across

and make time and space for Elders to talk and refer to Elders for leadership and

advice.

The “middle cohort” of the research yarning circles is significant also. The

“middle cohort” is representative of the mothers, aunties and sisters who make up the

majority of Indigenous education roles across school sites. These are the regular faces,

safe spaces jarjums connect with and to. The power in Durithunga’s leadership again

lies in its diversity, with workers’ abilities ranging from Principal Policy Officer roles

to Lead Teacher roles. What Durithunga leaders show in the ability to set circle and

yarn effectively together is an invaluable role modelling of and for each other. The

messages a Principal Policy Officer role delivers in circle, as a larger regional

repository of education messages as contrasted to a Community Liaison non-teaching

officer, is a message of political and strategic power to our people. Durithunga as a

yarning circle process is a constant professional development in action. That said, the

Principal in circle gains invaluable insight into the challenges of Indigenous education

for a liaison or Teacher’s Aide. Through advocacy and knowing their rights, these

leaders are directed to relevant spokespeople or legislation that can support individuals

in their contexts.

Data generated from these Durithunga members’ yarns refer specifically to

stages (vii) – (xii) of the Community Durithunga Research Multi-Stage Protocol.


Following the Whole Group Yarning Circle was the first data generation process. The

Whole Group Yarning Circle consisted of ten Duirthunga members, myself as PhD

student and researcher, and Professor Allan Luke as a silent observer (a part of my

supervisory team).

I was chairing the Yarning circle. To sit in the Durithunga Research Circle,

Durithunga members had to sign an ethics approval and permission form (see

Appendix E). These instruments were good in setting a distinct research gathering

circle as it afforded me as facilitator and researcher with a buffer as a Durithunga

member enabling further risk of bias from me to be mediated in the process. I showed

all research yarning circle members the digital recording device to be used and

explained how the yarning circle would be held and would transpire as part of our

already established reciprocation process. The research yarns were not and are not for

open sharing in public forum and have ethical requirements attached, that is, storage

and vetting of data. Following the Whole Group Yarning Circle would be the One-on-

one Yarning Circles and responses to questions.

Being a Community Durithunga member I facilitated the yarn based on and

around the research questions and allowed participants to respond to these questions.

In circle, each Durithunga member had the questions in hands to also direct their

responses. The Whole Group Yarn took one hour and forty-four minutes. The raw

recording was transferred from digital recording device and uploaded to two servers.

The first was QUT ISRN computer room upload on John Davis H: drive. The folder

for drives concerning Community Durithunga Research is “CDR”. The second

computer drive for storage of data was my personal external hard drive “Seagate”. The

two uploads ensured the safe space data collection of Community Durithunga

Research was stored in more than one location as a backup for data.

The recordings of the Whole Group Yarning Circles were transcribed by me into

an initial rough draft. This drafting process is referred to in the multi-stage steps as

(vii) “Member Checking”. The rough drafts following transcription were circulated to

Community Durithunga Whole Group Yarning Circle participants only. Through the

member checking process participants were encouraged to give me written feedback,

add further definition to their reflections or sign off on the rough draft transcription as

a true and correct reflection of their part in the Whole Group Yarning Circle. Member

checking continued as a validation process until the final stage of Community


Durithunga Research Methods. A sample of the Whole Group Yarning Circle

transcript can be found in Appendix D.

The “Critical Circle Feedbacks”, stages (ix) and (xii), were and have been

important feedbacks of and on Community Durithunga Research process. The

participants, a circle of three, represent a disparate skill set connected directly to the field

of Indigenous education and philanthropy. The participants were a Non-Government

Organisation entrepreneur, Indigenous Fine Artist and ISRN memberships. This circle

provided specific insight from outside perspectives, not living within the locale of Logan

City. Each member though holds a significant kinnection to me and is a leader in their

field. Anonymity again is essential in creating safer circles of research. They as a

collective are referred in this PhD as the “Critical Circle”.

The Critical Circle’s feedback was insightful and understanding of the unique

context Community Durithunga comes from. The yarns and connections were less

formal and prescriptive than the Community Durithunga Research member checking

or vetting process (stages (i) – (xii)). This flexibility allowed for the space and time to

kinnect through the research data generation process and still (stage (xii)) continues

as I complete the final parts of this research. The Critical Circle would largely take the

role of “listener” and provide feedback as to the cultural safety of Community

Durithunga members and the ethical application of research. So questions around the

“Reciprocation” process were held early in the research process (stage (iii)) and re-

looped in later yarns (stages (ix) & (xii)). This circle has been important to me too as

a cultural safety in research as an Indigenous researcher.

The Critical Circle’s distance from the local Logan context yet kinnections

through specific work and community fields ensures an integrity of the Community

Durithunga Research is maintained through space and provides me critical and ethical

feedback on the realness of research and positives for and against community. As

Sheehan articulates on IKRP, “to be real is to be accepted in a community context –

being in a pattern of respectful relationships” (Sheehan & Walker, 2001). Research is

one dimension of our regular yarns. The circle also provides feedback on broader

issues like Indigenous leadership in Australia, government interventions and

legislation.

The individual or one-on-one yarns took the same approach as mapped out in

the Whole Group Yarning Circle process above. Distinct differences in this data


gathering process was for each yarn, there was no “silent observer” as had been the

case with the Whole Group Yarning Circle. Times varied too between individuals

sharing the one-on-one yarns (see sample transcripts in Appendix D). The three

individuals chosen spoke for a combined forty-eight minutes. Alexis spoke for

seventeen minutes, Ellah for fourteen and Mook for seventeen. To maintain the

integrity of the data generated and then attained, the same multi-staged protocol

process ((i) – (xii)) was applied. Maintaining the kinnections with and to Durithunga

Yarning, the Circle:Cycle was reinforced through the recording of individual yarns at

three distinct and different locations, Logan Central, Kingston and Edens Landing

respectively.

The recording of the Community Durithunga Research yarns and subsequent

member checking and vetting process, Stages (i) – (xii), led to the production of four

significant bodies of data: the Whole Group Yarning Circle and three individual one-

on-one Yarns. This data, following the stages of Durithunga Research, required

deeper analysis and evaluation in order to gauge the congruence with research

questions or distinctive differences. The next part of the chapter explores the data

analysis process.

3.3.4 Data analysis

A conceptual framework provides an anchor point for thematic analysis. The main

method – yarning circle approach – produced a lot of rich text from Durithunga

members’ yarning. The literature review findings provide Community Durithunga

Research with some key findings to anchor further analysis. From the review key

findings signalled themselves as significant and instrumental in defining or

understanding Community Durithunga context. Concepts that were recurring were:

• the need for strengths-based approaches in Indigenous program delivery;

• Indigenous Knowledge as core foundational knowledge which connects to

relatedness and standpoint theories or conversations; and

• recognition and definition of the notion of learning communities.

These key concepts are used as the lenses to view, review and unpack the rich

text gathered from yarning circles. The recurrence of these concepts within the rich

text gathered from Durithunga yarns either supports the notion of Durithunga impact

on Indigenous education or re-presents it in another way.


Following the research yarning circles the process for text production was:

interviews, re-storying then codifying. The process of re-storying started with the raw

interview data. Here I took the raw data and wrote according to key elements of the

story – relating to chronological sequence. The final part of the process was the re-

storying according to sequence. The “Three Dimensional Space Narrative Structure”

(Creswell, 2012) provides a good way of tracking Durithunga yarns. The three spaces

to record and map themes relate to “Interactions, Continuity and Situation” – context.

Here the notions of yarning, relating and creating connections are tracked alongside

time space continuums – how Durithunga has impacted past, present and in the future.

Following this technique I used a manual codification process to develop a better

understanding of recurring themes developing from further reviews of the transcript.

The manual manipulation of data provided me as the researcher another “hands-on”

interface technique, which is more kinnected to how Durithunga circles operate.

Handwriting initial codes then transferring information into relevant tables gave me as

researcher a more kinnected method of doing research as opposed to utilising a

computer-generated program approach. This kinnected technique I used was doable

as the group yarning circle numbered ten and the interviewees numbered three. If there

were bigger cohorts I would need to consider more practically what the best approach

would be.

Codifying the texts formed the next phase of data collation – labelling and

segmenting data to form descriptions and broad themes. This codifying process allows

for a thorough tracking and development of recurring “broad themes” (see

Codification tables, sections 4.1.3 and 4.3.2). When the data had been codified there

needed to be further distillations – reduction of codes to a manageable number – which

formed overarching themes. These themes then were mapped in comparison to the

concepts flagged through the literature review.

This process of boring down into the essential or core themes from the narratives

is further achieved through thematic analysis connected with the data. The process of

thematic layering provided another refinement tool to conceptualise the connectedness

of themes and allow for broader abstraction. When these processes have been

‘completed’ what’s needed is a narrative discussion to summarise findings – a

discussion on empowerment. Following this discussion an interpretation of findings is


essential to place the learnings gathered from the research into a Community

Durithunga context.

In this research process I have applied varying analytical approaches to the

thematic mapping and coding of the rich text gathered. Memo-ing is an example of

one such process applied to the rich texts gathered. Memo-ing as a technique has been

used throughout the data collection and analysis process. Using the transcripts gathered

from both group and individual yarning circle, I then used the evidence gathered from

the transcripts to map recurring themes using the memo-ing technique. Following the

memo-ing of the texts I applied closed readings to check and recheck what I rewrote

and recoded as the themes from the conversations. Closed readings, as a continual

analytical tool, afforded me and Community Durithunga with a continuous evaluative

process whereby I reflected on what was being represented before it went further in

the research process (see Figure 3.3, section 3.3). This allows for a further

magnification and sharpening of the data gathered.

The interpretation of findings requires a “stepping back” from the research to

provide insight, showing possible implications. Here personal views are contrasted

against the literature and relations made on the meaning of the data. Ultimately the

goal through Community Durithunga Research is to address the research questions.

The conceptual framing, linked to the text analysis and boring down on themes, as

shown through processes like memo-ing, lead directly to a discussion and link to the

research questions. Ultimately the data gathered and discussed in Chapter 4 either

supports the power and significance of Durithunga as a unique educational construct

or it doesn’t. The analytical process concludes in Chapters 5 and 6 with suggestions of

and for future research on Community Durithunga.

Chapter 4: Results 123

Chapter 4: Results

This chapter unpacks the analytical approach designed to best record and

deconstruct Community Durithunga rich texts – the yarning of Community

Durithunga members. This is a deductive analysis. The analysis and results to follow

represent the trunk of the Bunya Bunya tree cycle (Figure 3.2). The analysis to follow

overlays the literature review themes or “anchors” with the themes drawn from the

Durithunga field research – the whole group yarning circles and the one-on-one

circles.

“… I remember bub when we began yarns in the park … Durithunga … Look

now…” (Aunty Eileen Williams, personal communication, 2010). Durithunga is a

yarning circle set as a process to build Indigenous workers, counsellors and educators

with esteem and kinnection within education (as explained in Chapter 1). This

building of a positive identity in Indigenous education was a key theme of the literature

review – emphasis on “strength-based approach[es] in an effort to help provide a more

balanced approach to understanding Indigenous communities, which are often only

characterised in terms of weaknesses” (Brough et al., 2004, pp. 216–217). At the core

of the Durithunga approach is Indigenous identity – ways of being embedded in all

that is done, from interactions to physical layout of room = set in circle. To that end,

to see progression through deficit data – the so-called “gap” – Indigenous method and

approaches to Indigenous educational inequities must be recognised as positive and

needed space. As ACER researchers reflected in earlier longitudinal studies,

“developing stronger links between schools and Indigenous communities ...

developing a school culture in which Indigenous students feel included and supported

... are key aspects of closing the gap” (Purdie, Reid, Frigo, Stone, & Kleinhenz, 2011,

p. 6). That is, structures like Durithunga must be recognised for all their worth as

learning communities designed to build an effective cultural/social response to the

complex issues/space of Indigenous education. As Phillips et al. (2007) explain in their

editorial journal article on Indigenous Knowledges, “key [Indigenous] pedagogical

approaches useful to renegotiating … curricula include recognition and

implementation of levels of engagement beyond the intellectual, a consistent unsettling

of Western authority, [and] acknowledgement of Indigenous positions …” (Phillips et


al., p. 3). These have been the core foundational anchors of the literature review

(Chapter 2), that:

• there is a clear flag from the research that strength-based and place-based

solutions are the most appropriate model to create change;

• Durithunga is connected to a growing Indigenous Knowledge practice and

process development; and

• Community Durithunga can be placed or rather juxtaposed amongst a

growing narrative in and around learning communities, the need and

importance of community hubs of learning.

The whole group yarning circle is a process which encourages Indigenous voice

within the realm of Indigenous education specifically linked to Durithunga. The

difference and variance of this voice was evident in the yarns shared within and

between members in circle. The whole group yarning circle comprised Durithunga

participants only as speaking members. Two of the participants were men and the rest

were women. Members in circle comprised principals, lead teachers, IEWs, CECs, and

Coordinators. All members in circle were active members – a part of regular

Durithunga yarning circles from 2011 to 2013. The whole group was made up of

foundational members (10 years); mid-term members (4–6 years); and fledgling

members (1–2 years).

As explained in Chapter 3, these members represent significant individual

Stories of Strength. Understanding more about the individual contexts from which

Durithunga members come to gather and set circle is to gain deeper insight into the

community gifts that exist in all Indigenous education contexts.

4.1 COMMUNITY DURITHUNGA RESEARCH CIRCLE MEMBERS

Alexis = Regional Community Educator. Created three significant safe spaces

of learning across her career, growing from an Independent Murri school setting to

creating safer school spaces in state education, specifically Logan Central High and

Middle Schools. She is a regular Education Award winner for state and national

Indigenous Education and Community Development Awards. Her home community

is Cherbourg and she has been a local community stalwart of Logan for over twenty

years.


Mook = Languages and Physical Education teacher. Mook is an earlier career

teacher but long-time member of the Logan community (has grown up in Logan,

residency spanning thirty years). He augments his teaching work and style alongside

NGO commitments and activities. He provides a strong male voice and support in and

across Community Durithunga schools. Mook’s home community is in northern

Australia.

Ellah = Community Liaison Officer. Ellah is a graduate from a strong

community school and as a younger person of Logan has turned her earlier schooling

experiences around from disengagement to championing education. She is an early

career educator. Her specialist space is secondary education. She has grown up and

been educated in Logan City but her home community is Cherbourg. She has strong

connections to Bunya Bunya and Wakka Wakka.

Eliza = Principal Project Officer, working in Regional Office on Cultural

Curriculums across all state school sites. She is a senior teacher by trade. Her home

community is Mount Isa and she has been a Logan resident for over twenty years. She

is a permanent teacher employee with the state education department specifically

working in Logan primary schools. Eliza has family kinnections to Kalkadoon.

Keleen = Gifted and Talented teacher working in Logan South primary schools.

She is a more senior career teacher and has been instrumental in developing and

sustaining gifted and talented programming for Indigenous jarjums through

Indigenous pedagogical modelling. Keleen also weaves in additional naturalist talents

as a local animal rescuer and animal welfare advocate. Keleen is a member of the

Stolen Generations. Her family roots are Koori, stretching to Victoria.

Mel = Early career teacher. Mel is transitioning between Regional Office work

on Cultural Curriculums and teaching career options. She is a local community

Indigenous scholarship winner upon graduation from Logan South High, receiving a

fully paid teaching scholarship, and has as part of that woven into local secondary

school settings. As a born-and-bred community student like Ellah, Mel is a great

working and walking role model of the success of proper way Indigenous education

modelling. Mel, as shared in the whole group yarning circle, was blessed to come

through a Community Durithunga school. As a Koori, Mel has kinnections to the

Palawa.


Darnah = Senior Regional Liaison Officer. Darnah has raised her family in

Logan. She has a career in safe-space education in Logan spanning twenty years. As a

Durithunga member Darnah has grown and led sustainable Indigenous education

practices across primary and secondary settings. She has represented Durithunga at

national conferences as a keynote speaker. Darnah’s expertise in creating sustainable

safe space practices led to her last posting before retirement in an independent Murri

school mentoring younger IEWs. Darnah’s home community is Townsville and she

identifies as a Torres Strait Islander.

Mick = Senior career teacher. Curriculum expert in Health, Physical Education

and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies. Mick is a Queensland Curriculum

Authority expert, a panellist for Regional Health and Physical Education. As a

Unionist he provides advocacy for Durithunga members in and around their rights at

work. Mick is often requested by Durithunga members to come and provide cultural

support at a range of educational meets, be they strategic or operational. He is a Logan

City community stalwart, educated in Logan and teaching within Logan South

secondary schools. Mick’s family is Koori. He, like Keleen, has kinnections to

Victoria. Mick still plays semi-professional football and is a Senior Hall of Famer in

local Australian Football.

Maude = Early career teacher. Maude forms part of a well-defined Durithunga

safe space, so her weaves value add to already successful processes. She is another

younger graduate forging her steps and processes in Indigenous education. She is

beginning to represent her community at Indigenous policy and program facilitations

and branch off into project work within her secondary school spaces.

Theirs is a story individually and collectively which is representative of the kinds

of leadership and expertise that come from local community contexts. Durithunga as

a collective represents over thirty active members. Durithunga Yarning Circles act as

part of the Circle:Cycle process as a regular safe space to yarn and share and grow

more success models of Indigenous education. This point on advocacy and safe space

creation cannot be understated. The research circle above shows some of the strengths

that exist. Despite their successful Migloo education certificates, these members, in

fact all Durithunga members, report the sense of relief and release when they get to

set circle proper way. Every member of the research circle above and from the


membership as a whole expressed that they have experienced times when they have

not been or felt totally culturally safe in their organisations.

There are a myriad of stories of struggle and resilience and resistance to the

dominant Migloo hegemonic and oppressive structures. And as a foundational

Durithunga member that point cannot be understated either. There is a great sense of

pride in a Logan community where Durithunga members reflect on all the fights with

the system they have had. This is part of our Indigenous identity. Ingrained in the

struggle that has permeated since colonisation is that we are in a fight or struggle for

power. One of the jobs for us as Indigenous educators and as the “next generations” is

to not cede ground won and hardly fought for by our forebears.

Just at this time of my final drafting I attended a Sorry Business ceremony for a

great Torres Strait Islander leader and campaigner for rights, Uncle Steve Mam RIP.

The voice of his struggle and fight for recognition of Indigenous rights and Torres

Strait Islander customary lore is unprecedented in the state of Queensland. One of his

many mentees gave the eulogy with such power and emphasis on “the struggle” for

rights, what life was like in the 1960s through to the 1980s. Such powerful Indigenous

education founding fathers were spoken of: Uncle Steve, Pastor Don Brady, the

designers of Independent Indigenous schools and spaces, specifically Health. I

reflected with my colleague, fellow Indigenous educator, Deputy of Hymba Yumba,

that it is important to have our stories, proper way knowledge shared and understood

for the next generations. To know and understand what strong ancestry, even from

times post colonial contact, they have and we as communities have grown from.

This research provides some mapping as to parts of these struggles. If ever there

is to be deliverance of the key educational national target of “closing the gap” as

espoused through the literature review, then this resistance and repetitive

organisational oppression must be called and dealt with as it is. The contestations

Durithunga members share are contestations against institutional racism. Until

educators in Australia are willing to move into realms of self-reflective practice, which

recognises the power imbalances that exist, then the target of closing the gap will not

be fully reached. Understanding this voice that Durithunga represents is an important

step in education research to articulate what has transpired in Indigenous education in

specific localities, and what are the learnings from the way a circle of non-government


affiliated Indigenous educators are and have been treated by the circles of education

spaces that come from or are born within their home communities.

4.2 WHOLE GROUP YARNING CIRCLES

The whole group yarns were arranged to be held at a Durithunga location – a

part of the Circle:Cycle. The initial yarn was held at a foundational member’s work

and community learning space. Doing this – holding the circle within the meeting

space and place of a regular Durithunga circle member – again parallels Community

Durithunga Research with its actual roots (each member was foregrounded on the

research proposal) and questions before the yarns took place. When agreement was

reached on the purpose and reasons for the research yarns, discussion was opened up

to answer the two research questions.

In the whole group yarning circle, specific questions were asked of Durithunga

members in relation to Durithunga’s impact in education. Firstly, “How does

Community Durithunga support and encourage Indigenous community input in

education?”, and secondly “What impact is Community Durithunga having on

education in the community?” Responses to these questions created an ongoing

overlap or response weave. The weave or holistic answering relates to the kinnected

nature of the respondents. For example, responding to question one simultaneously in

some instances answered question two before the question was asked. Clear space was

made in research yarns for each question; that is, specific junctions were made to

respond to question one and two and still participants wove responses which

interconnected. In beginning to answer question one, participant Darnah said, “We’re

not just Durithunga community – we’re all friends … [I’ve] enjoyed coming to

Durithunga as well and seen the benefits from school which we’ll speak on in Q2

but Durithunga does help us to grow, help us to become stronger, it’s helped me…”

(Darnah, Whole Group Yarns, 2012, p. 1).

Form and structure were an important part of holding the research yarns. To that

end members sat in a circle on chairs with nothing in the middle or in front of them

like tables. The only foreign objects in the circle were the tape-recording devices. From

these yarns the rich text generated was produced into transcripts. I followed the

research gathering protocol (Stages i–xii) in developing the yarns into written text.

The data from transcripts, following member checking, was analysed using third-


dimensional space narrative and codification. This enabled a boring down process that

led to the development of overarching field research themes.

The rich texts gathered in the group yarning circle were transcribed and member

checked by Durithunga membership. As a whole group learning process this was

shared at a Community Durithunga circle (as part of the Circle:Cycle). Individual

members took the transcripts and re-read and checked for accuracy and omissions.

This information was used to create a final transcription that was used for thematic

analysis.

4.2.1 Community Durithunga Research whole group yarning circle analysis

In actioning Durithunga research I partook in a staged analytical process of

thematic production:

• third-dimensional space narrative: re-reading;

• codification: closed readings;

• categorisation: memoing; and

• thematic development: re-presentation of research data.

For both datasets – whole group and individual yarns – the above steps were

taken. Third-dimensional text production needed its own separate analytical steps. The

transcript was re-read and reinterpreted through a three-dimensional reflection,

reflections on “Continuity”, “Interaction” and “Situation”. This enabled an essential

part of the research analysis to begin – a separation or “othering” of the data from my

own personal kinnections and understandings. The transcripts were labelled according

to the three dimensions and subsequent data has been tabularised as shown in Table

4.1.

Table 4.1

Whole Group Third-Dimensional Narratives

Narrative descriptors Tally Percent (%)

Continuity Reflections on past 25 10 Reflections on present 25 10 Reflections on future 12 5

Interaction Reflections as individuals 50 20


Reflections as a group 79 32

Situation Reflections on Durithunga 25 10

Reflections on other Indigenous “safe spaces”

13 5

Reflections on schools 14 6 Reflections on places –

specific locations other than schools etc.

4 2

Total 247 100

This reshaping of the data has created a deeper, more layered interpretation of

Community Durithunga’s evaluation and reflections on successes and challenges.

The numerical tracking system used in this process and mirrored throughout this

research analysis comprised of a manual tallying system. Tallying was used to track

the way yarns were unfolding based on the frame being used for analysis. In this

instance the focus was on third-dimensional narrative reflections. When comments

were made by participants on time sequences an individual tally was scored and

recorded. In Table 4.1 these individual scores are recorded in the “Tally” column.

To deepen the analysis further the tally totals were then calculated as

percentages. The basic formula to flow from this analysis was the number of individual

tallies for a particular narrative descriptor over the total number of tallies recorded

from the yarns. This figure was then multiplied by one hundred to give a percentage

total. As a sum the equation was:

Number of individual narrative descriptors × 100 = % Total number of narrative descriptors

This simple formula is applied to all tallying for this research analysis. This

particular tallying and percentage calculation was chosen to bolster the claims to derive

from the study as a representation of the data through a numerical lens. A bigger

numerical number of participants would have required another calculating system and

process, perhaps electronically. In this instance, the application of the formula above

linked to the manual tallying system was the process of choice and best fit for the


study. The claims represented as a number and a percentage of a total makes the data

more quantifiable and speaks to a broader audience.

4.2.2 Third-dimensional narrative

Third-dimensional space narrative required an analysis of the times, perspectives

and places Durithunga members mentioned throughout the whole group yarn. The

three spaces were classified as “Continuity”, “Interaction” and “Situation”.

“Continuity” refers to the sequencing of past, present and future accounts.

“Interaction” refers to who is being highlighted whether it is a person or community

perspective, and “Situation” refers to all the specific areas recorded.

This technique allowed for a deeper, whole picture to develop around

Durithunga and how the Durithunga group perceives it. What in fact happens through

this process is the creation of a “metaphoric inquiry space” (Creswell, 2008, p. 519).

This allows for the data to be “othered” or placed outside of the realm of real-time

conversations and understood in a more research-specific frame. Again this process of

“othering” data or moving further from the reality it comes from was important,

especially in this research project as I carry and assume a certain degree of bias.

Mapping what members felt collectively was the story of Durithunga and placing that

in another space allowed for a more Western objective view of Durithunga to develop.

As has been discussed in earlier chapters, the development of a third cultural space

(Bhabha, 1994 & 2004; Nakata, 2007; Yunupingu, 1989) is essential in creating better

flows or fits in Indigenous education. In this instance, the “foreignness” of translating

the rich yarns gathered and creating written transcripts was symbolically developed

through the two stages of third-dimension narrative reflection, then culminated in the

thematic mapping process. In a sense this approach of “othering” the data this way

provided me as a researcher a degree of cultural safety, re-positioning my role as a

foundational Durithunga member to a new role as QUT researcher.

Durithunga members provided a rich picture of and from their perspectives as

to the construct and composition of Durithunga within education spaces. Participants

provided a flowing weave of past and present yarns kinnected to their personal and

collective journeys as Durithunga members. The yarns shared focused mostly around

these time sequences of past–present (20% of all discussions). Members reflected


heavily on what Durithunga was doing and meant in a present context yet wove this

back in yarns to the history of Durithunga – its beginnings and linking it further back

to Dreaming mythology and ways of being before Migloo interactions. “… Years ago

back to what our culture was it was all about the dreamtime stories … Durithunga

started from a story…” (Alexis, Whole Group Yarns, 2012, p. 3). This was the most

telling part of the continuity yarns shared with and across the Durithunga members’

circle, Durithunga’s importance and impact regularly in a present setting and its

strong link to history and past footprints in education.

This is not to say members were not “futures” orientated. There were constant

mentions throughout the yarns of Durithunga’s futures and ways forward for

Indigenous education in a local community context. The consistency was gauged

through classifying and then numbering how many times past–present and futures

were mentioned. As can be seen in Table 4.1, the heavier focus of members was in and

around the past–present time sequence at 20%; however, there is still a significant

mention and speaking of futures within a Durithunga context. Futures were

constructed by Durithunga members, symbolically through the future incorporation

of Durithunga. This was yarned as a significant path in maturation of Durithunga

and symbolic of Durithunga growth. The Durithunga processes – Seedlings – were

yarned too as essential in carrying Durithunga ideals into the future.

In the weaving of time focus on past–present it was evident too that the group,

as a group of individual members, referred most prolifically to Durithunga and

concepts of group identity as compared to individual identities or visions of self and

self-importance in the drive forward in Indigenous education. The group dynamic, the

group identity, was the most referred to interaction shared by all members across the

whole group at 32%. References to own selves and individual reflections were heavily

contextualised amongst the broader collective identity of Durithunga and its support

structures. When sharing responses to questions, members referred to group actions

and identity as “we” and “our”. The importance of this was conveyed by one group

member as Durithunga being family, “… this strong bond … feels like a second

family … that’s what I feel … I’ve got brothers over here … always got sisters there

… Elders there who’ll put you back in place …” (Mick, Whole Group Yarns, 2012,

p. 4).


Reference to significant places or context of places was the next telling factor of

the third space narrative. Durithunga as a place – as a safe space – a total of 10% was

yarned by all members. Describing the place, members made connection to the

Durithunga processes, which maintained safe spaces. “One of the things that stands

out to me is the equality of it all … no one person is dominant – is in charge …

everyone’s thoughts are respected … Bring one another together … makes me feel

strong …” (Keleen, Whole Group Yarns, 2012, p. 1). The circle method was a key

component of this.

School or mainstream education sites of Logan City were the most referred to

places where Durithunga was contextualised. The safe spaces referred to were

specific parts of the school, which were Indigenous (what is referred to earlier in the

Circle:Cycle process). The “metaphoric space” created through the whole group

yarning circle was a space which was reliant on its strong methods like yarning in

circle, focused in the past and present and represented as a group identity situated in

the education spheres of Logan City.

4.2.3 Thematic mapping

Following the re-creation of the whole group yarns as a metaphoric inquiry

space, I moved to the next stage of thematic mapping. The third-dimensional narrative

technique required a lot of handwritten text input on the transcript borders. The next

technique I used was similar, applying a manual codification process to develop a

better understanding of recurring themes developing from further reviews of the

transcript. The first step was codifying the issues or terms Durithunga members

referred to frequently. A list of code words was created in this part of thematic

mapping, for example: “empowering”, “growth”, “accountability”, “support”,

“challenging” and “identity” (see Table 4.2 for further examples). There were over

twenty codes that signalled themselves through closed readings of the transcripts.

These codes were then grouped into categories as shown in Table 4.2. The final step

of analysis was developing overarching themes gained from the yarns.

The initial codification process led to the development of 17 Whole Group

Durithunga codes. The thematic mapping was undertaken through the development

of memos produced from closed readings of the transcripts. These memos augmented

or re-presented the data another way. These were codes that were signalled by


members on frequent occasions. The frequency was recorded via tallying scores, in

order to define the significance of particular codes. The frequency of the coded

words/concepts was used to collate broader categories. This process helped create a

more manageable amount of codes to group for categories and then thematic mapping.

Table 4.2

Whole Group Yarning Circle Analysis – Codification


Empowering + Growth 38 25.5

Accountability + Support 38 25.5

Challenging 3 2.0

Processes 29 19.5

Culture + Identity 6 4.0

Family + Connections 11 7.4

Non-supportive 9 6.0

Struggle 1 0.7

Nurture 1 0.7

Whole community growth 7 4.7

Sustainable 4 2.7

Resilience + Remembering 2 1.3

Total 149 100%

“Empowering” was a code used to highlight/interpret the meaning of parts of the

transcript. For example, Mick yarned that: “… Firstly when you have a big group like

here – Durithunga – it’s empowering, it’s a voice, a process … Come here get all

that knowledge ...” Following on from the example of labelling three-dimensional

reflections, each section of the transcript was coded utilising the spaces of the outlining

borders to write an interpretative code against the written text.

The same numerical calculation steps used in the narrative dimension analysis

were applied in the specific thematic codification tracking. For consistency, the same

column headings are used in Table 4.2 as for the dimension data in Table 4.1, with

codes recorded as “Narrative Descriptors”. This was an important connection to make.

Although the data analysis was different in the dimensional narrative discussion, the

yarns were tracked under the same “Narrative Descriptor” heading. This shows that

although the transcriptions analysis was different in context, the processes for


calculation and deeper analysis were the same. Overall, all data to be analysed is

connected to the development of themes. So the othering of data in a third dimensional

continuum is still connected to the thematic discussion to develop (one is not totally

separate from the other).

Again, to add further weight to claims of significance of Durithunga

participants’ points of view on particular topics or foci, the codification tallies were

calculated as a percentage. The percentage totals show what particular focus and

standpoint Durithunga participants have on the topics labelled as Narrative

Descriptors. From the data in Table 4.2, the codes of “Empowering + Growth”,

“Accountability + Support” and “Processes” represent the majority of participants’

narrative descriptions of and on the whole group yarn research questions. These three

codes made up 70% of participant feedback responses. There was little difference

between the percentage total of each code, with all three scoring similarly at around

20 to 25%.

Table 4.3

Whole Group Yarning Circle Analysis – Categorisation

Category Code groupings

Challenges Non-supportive; struggle

Durithunga Way Processes; remembering + resilience; empowering + growth

Cultural Weave Culture + identity; family + connections + nurture

Sustainable Footprint Whole community growth

Educational Professionalism Accountability + Support

Following the codification of data, the next step of categorisation required a

further synthesis or grouping of like codes into broader more manageable categories.

“Empowering” as a code used to describe the type of yarns like Mick’s above example

was then kinnected to other like codes (see Table 4.3). The category was created based

on the use of similar terminology and concepts shared by participants. The category

was a broader grouping of like codes. As such the “Empowering” code grouped more

directly to “Durithunga Way”. This had strong kinnections to “Cultural Weave”;

however, it was different in that the “Durithunga Way” codes reflected more on

Durithunga-specific processes, like Mick’s definition of being “a voice”, rather than


being about or related to specific aspects of Murri culture, like art or Dreaming

stories.

The categories that signalled themselves from the transcripts were: Challenges;

Durithunga Way; Cultural Weave; Sustainable Footprint; and Educational

Professionalism. The re-reading and re-grouping of data though this process clumped

these five categories together for closer consideration. The clumping or amalgam of

codes into broader categories was achieved through grouping codes according to the

categories that most closely related. For instance, the code of “struggle” more closely

linked to the category of Challenges as compared to being a part of the category of

Durithunga Way. As will be apparent from the earlier readings and definitions of

Durithunga, “struggle” is a part of the Durithunga journey. The notion of “struggle”

though was captured through the category of Durithunga Way in another way, through

more of a strength base – like “resilience” or “empowerment”. Again a process of

closed readings and memoing was used to track how my readings of the transcripts

were re-presenting themselves.

The last process then was to tease out the thematic weaves that revealed

themselves through the analysis. It’s an important reflection to make because all of the

themes are interconnected.

Table 4.4

Whole Group Yarning Circle Analysis – Thematic Development

Themes Category groupings

Sustainability Challenges; Cultural Weave; Sustainable Footprint

Growth Educational Professionalism

Empowerment Durithunga Way

From the process of thematic development, three broader or overarching themes

were grouped together – these were Sustainability, Growth and Empowerment.

Thematically the broader themes relate very closely to Durithunga’s core vision,

“Empowering … culture, growth and learning through respect and Community to

enhance the future of our jarjums.” From a research point of view, the distillation of

rich yarn/text data gives a more focused, more refined and more real definition of what

Community Durithunga purports to do as well as provides evidence of what

Durithunga has and is doing. Within the epistemological world of Western research


this provides “proof” of and on the particular field of research taken. Reaching for a

more grounded or kinnected response, within a “third space” (Bhabha, 1994;

Yunupingu, 1989), this process of thematic analysis links very closely to the field of

research on organisational culture (Schein, 2004). Specifically, cultural analysis of and

on what organisations “say they do”, what they “show they do” and what they actually

“do in practice”. The evidence gathered of and on Community Durithunga framed

around the research questions either supports it organisationally as a recognisable

educational space or re-presents it another way.

The framing of the questions was linked to the need to analyse more definitively

what specific examples of impact members could cite. The process – yarning in circle;

holding monthly meets; Seedling supports – was clear. Further examination was

needed in relation to specific examples of and points of difference from the process

and production of Durithunga values in action. To that end, members gave specific

insight into Durithunga actions stemming from circle. Each member commented on

varying ways and degrees of individual impact.

The impact of Durithunga yarning (reflected by the case studies to follow) was

shown individually by a participant in relation to job offers. Participants commented

that they were “... approached by various schools who knew I was a part of

Durithunga and they were asking me to come bring that to ... the school” (Keleen,

Whole Group Yarns, 2012, p. 9). Keleen referred to Durithunga’s collective nature

and way of working which was embraced and sought out by the school, “... they said

yeah we want that (collaboration) ... we understand what you’re all a part of and we

need that in our school” (Keleen, Whole Group Yarns, 2012, p. 9). Membership and

development in circle then was viewed as a positive in employability. The notion of

Durithunga “doing something” – moving on issues – was one strongly voiced by all.

Keleen reflected that through Durithunga circle her programs at her previous school

were able to be sustained. Through Durithunga and its supportive weave, “the school

was actively looking for people to act in my role [when I left]”. The act of “reaching

out” by the school “made me feel really good ... valued ...” (Keleen, Whole Group

Yarns, 2012, p. 9).

This valuing of space – recognising the important role Durithunga plays in

advocating and supporting individuals – was another key message shared by

participants. Through this supporting network Durithunga has helped build broader


footprints within the broader community, rippling further than local school contexts.

That was the most telling next reflection – Durithunga impact on broader community

developments. Durithunga’s development of student leadership programs (Case

Study 2) was flagged by all participants as the next most powerful step. Durithunga

brokered a leadership program within the region through the Stronger Smarter Institute

and the Indigenous Schooling Support Unit of Central Southern Queensland (ISSU-

CSQ). Members reflected, “through Durithunga we were able to start a leadership

program with our primary and high school students” (Darnah, Whole Group Yarns,

2012, p. 8). The three-day leadership program saw student leadership grow our

Durithunga Deadlies Touch Game. This program has grown from five to sixteen

schools (see Appendix F). The organisation of the yearly events is what students and

Durithunga members take ownership of. Darnah further reflected, “It’s been great

to see the vibes come out of it – it’s made our jarjums really, really strong” (Darnah,

Whole Group Yarns, 2012, p. 10).

The future rippling of action out to the broader community was another common

theme. Alexis in her role as Regional Coordinator of Indigenous Parental Engagement,

mooted Durithunga was her regional approach to developing parents. “To me I see

we’re not just going to have one Durithunga circle we going to have plenty within

Logan and our parents are going to be one of them and all the schools better watch

out!” (Alexis, Whole Group Yarns, 2012, p. 10). Durithunga then is seen as much in

its present form and structure as well as being visioned in the future. The core concept

to this dualism in time and space was summed up as a process of community building

by Mel (flagged earlier). She reflected that Durithunga ways give jarjums in

individual school settings a strong sense of self-identity, “our urban Aboriginal kids

come searching for that ... these strong Durithunga spaces ...” (Mel, Whole Group

Yarns, 2012, p. 14). What that does is build an individual connection to space, then

individuals connect to other spaces, which form communities. “In [our school] we had

an identity and a space and yeah it made us strong and builds community” (Mel,

Whole Group Yarns, 2012, p. 14). This collective sense of identity as explained earlier

was symbolically yarned by Alexis as a Dreamtime Story. Durithunga is a process

taken by individuals in a range of contexts and impacts in a multiple of ways. Its basis

is connection to culture or Indigenous ways – “... bringing back our culture, especially

our language, bringing it to life ...” (Alexis, Whole Group Yarns, 2012, p. 15). Alexis


encapsulated the story or everywhen of Durithunga by linking it to the Dreamtime

Story. “Our story is [about] ... sitting in parks with the families ... That story has to

continue on ... That’s how our Dreamtime process continues ... Our moral ... is to

grow.” (Alexis, Whole Group Yarns, 2012, p. 15). The whole group yarning circle

provided a rich tapestry of and about Durithunga. My analysis process allowed for

the breaking down of this rich text into manageable and comparable parts in order to

map recurring themes.

Overall the process of thematic development was challenging. The similarities

between concepts brought forward through the yarning wove a picture of interrelated

and interconnected explanations and definitions of and about Durithunga concepts. In

a lot of instances this part of the analysis process was like “splitting hairs”. Doing the

process manually gave me as the researcher a closer connection and affinity to the data

being transcribed and translated. This was, as flagged earlier, a conscience decision,

which fits more closely to my forms and structures – ways of doing my tumba tjina.

Overall, as per part of the Bunya Bunya Cycle, these themes should be interpreted as

interrelated and woven within the collective understanding of Durithunga. Each theme

is woven closely, kinnected to the other.

“Sustainability” was yarned and recognised by all members as a key component

of Durithunga’s structure and future. Durithunga members took great pride in

signalling their history, their story, and how Durithunga is developing into a not-for-

profit business – becoming incorporated. “The strength of processes are mirrored in

our incorporation work now … I get quite passionate about these processes because

it’s deadly … people know who we are and what we stand for … and … enquire …

how [they] can be a part of that …” (Mel, Whole Group Yarns, 2012, pp. 5–6).

To develop sustainability is to also grow practices and processes that develop

and change. “Growth” as a thematic concept was another strong message purported

and shared through the whole group yarn. In Yugambeh language Durithunga means

to grow and members shared on numerous occasions how they individually and

collectively grew its processes and presence within education spheres. “Durithunga

does help us to grow, help us to become stronger, it’s helped me just as much as it’s

helped Alexis, it gives you that confidence” (Darnah, Whole Group Yarns, 2012, p.

2).


“Empowerment” is the last theme signalled from the transcriptions and analysis

process. Empowerment again was yarned symbiotically as part of the responses on

Growth. Empowerment came through as feeling connected, protected and supported

in all levels and layers of education. Empowerment was strongly yarned as the

development of safe spaces. Following Durithunga processes – footprinting

Indigenous principles and processes first – empowered members to act decisively and

empathetically within their own workplaces and on a personal level. “[Durithunga]

makes us become lifelong learners, be those teachers, what makes the kids [want to

learn] because of Durithunga it makes it possible – it makes me connect with elders,

friends, sisters, brothers … this is family … that’s what the kids … feel” (Maude,

Whole Group Yarns, 2012, p.13).

Each member reflected on his or her own personal experiences in education and

how Durithunga as a yarning circle provided a safe space to come gather and share

learnings in relation to Indigenous education. “… when you have a big group like

here – Durithunga – it’s empowering, it’s a voice process … Come here get all the

knowledges … we can work together to keep the system accountable …” (Mick,

Whole Group Yarns, 2012, p. 1). The notion of safe space was significant through

yarning circle. The antithesis of safe space is unsafe space and experiences and

members shared examples of these too. “… I was threatened by students … I went to

the union, I felt nothing was being done … I felt a need to be resolution [so] … I

brought forward Durithunga” (Mick, Whole Group Yarns 2012, p. 5). Durithunga

as a process provides mechanisms to create safe spaces and enable enrichment and

sharing across communities: “… two words that stand out to me are support and

encouragement … I feel so supported by the network of teachers; teachers aides;

community people to help us move forward …” (Mook, Whole Group Yarns, 2012,

p. 1).

The safe space (as flagged earlier) was recorded and shared with members

metaphorically as a “family”. Families “support, encourage and grow ... connections”

(Mick, Whole Group Yarns, 2012, p. 7). Durithunga as a process was integral in

building a notion of safe space and this was the archetypal space revealed by members.

Members gave further voice and credence to the space by naming symbols, which

represented the safe space Durithunga created. The Durithunga tree was the main

symbol yarned and woven throughout the group discussion. The tree as a metaphor


comprised all parts making a whole – roots, trunk, branches, leaves – and was used by

a number of members to describe the Durithunga story from past to present to future.

“… that branch always shaking – stirring up trouble … even though [it’s]

shaking we’re still connected to that whole root is connected right down into the

ground … to me that’s what Durithunga process is … keeps me grounded” (Alexis,

Whole Group Yarns, 2012, p. 6).

“… Everything we’ve said today … I keep thinking of that tree … deep roots

… strong trunk … branches going out … and now we’re beginning to drop

Seedlings ...” (Keleen, Whole Group Yarns, 2012, p. 15).

The story of Durithunga itself (past roots) was described as a “Dreamtime

Story”: “Every Dreamtime Story has a moral … our moral is to grow …” (Alexis,

Whole Group Yarns, 2012, p. 11). The strength of Indigenous people; storying; ways

of Knowing and Being and Doing were seen as central to continuing the integrity of

Community Durithunga yarning. “… remember[ing] those stories [is important], it

began under trees … stay[ing] grounded … the roots of the tree stay in the ground

– we’ve got to keep our feet on the ground …” (Mick, Whole Group Yarns, 2012,

p. 11). The most challenging part of Community Durithunga yarning was Migloo –

mainstream schools misunderstanding and misinterpreting Durithunga business.

“Some [Migloo] people … feel challenged – like under a microscope because

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in their schools … have a strength base

[Durithunga]. Is [this] why they ark up? I don’t know I’m interested to find … why

they [Migloo educationalists] see this [Durithunga] as a tool of division, as a

negative rather than a tool that can bring good energy to their schools” (Mel, Whole

Group Yarns, 2012, p. 5).

The notion of shared experiences of circle that Durithunga was a needed

method, an essential space for Indigenous voice, was evident across all participant

responses. To that end Durithunga was perceived to positively impact individuals and

individual community members and spaces in that it provided a grounded and strength-

based conversation in relation to Indigenous education. Other ways or other methods

within education spaces did not afford Indigenous members the same level of safety

and familiarity. Durithunga as a process was a way to break the stress of dealing with

the complex issues of Indigenous education and community through a Migloo institute

and Migloo ways.


Specific impacts and examples of Durithunga influence varied across the whole

group yarning circle. There are four particular case studies that have been developed

to best capture the storying and yarning shared by the whole group yarning circle.

Each member, as has been highlighted, was expert in providing space for others to talk

and checking that they weren’t rushing answers to questions. And through the yarning

collectively, as a whole group, the following case studies have been developed to best

capture the strengths shared by Community Durithunga members.

The development of Community Durithunga leadership over a decade has led

to some considerable “wins” or impacts on an Indigenous education front. At the very

core of Durithunga philosophies is the concept “to grow” – mirrored through the

theme of Growth. Through setting of regular yarning circles in a Circle:Cycle process

comes an action generation or rather seedlings of actions, which grow. The actions of

Durithunga in developing and sustaining “best practice” models (mirroring the theme

of Sustainability) of Indigenous education is one of its greatest yet least celebrated

strengths. Ironically this has been a push for this research on urban Indigenous

leadership. The push is to capture and celebrate more definitively the positive and

enduring strengths Indigenous communities have and share as part of education.

Community Durithunga has been a part of the Logan education context for over a

decade yet no specific funding apart from in-kind support has been directed to

Durithunga. However, as a community of practice or Learning Hub, Durithunga has

sustained its existence and presence for this long. Policies and directives shift and

change with consecutive governments, however the community of practice and the

individuals within localised community contexts continue to grow within their context.

That is the power of a process like Durithunga – it focuses on local leadership and

processes for leadership development.

The actions of this community group are vast and varied. Specific Community

Durithunga Stories of Strength though are essential to share to ensure the rich

blueprint of this particular learning community is understood (Dillon & Westbury,

2007). Dillon and Westbury, as stated earlier in Chapter 2, see the role of governing

systems and governments is to better plan for and embrace Indigenous communities.

“Substantive engagement” (Dillon & Westbury, 2007) then is the blueprint they flag

as a way forward in closing the mass disadvantages that exist. This is a reflection of

the key Whole Group theme of Empowerment. There are already successful


practitioners and practices that have grown success in the field of Indigenous

education. Within an extremely complex learning environment and community

context, there grows Indigenous communities’ own, home-grown response to proper

way education. All members of Community Durithunga share processes and practices

that are unique to Durithunga and are embodied in the group’s Seedlings document

(explored in Chapter 2). Within the attachments or supporting documents of the

Seedlings is a website snapshot of part of Community Durithunga’s educational

footprint (see Appendix G). Of these, kinnected to the whole group yarns, there are

four major “blueprint case studies” to share here in this text. I now turn to these.

4.2.4 Community Durithunga Stories of Strength

Case Study 1: Stronger Smarter Institute National and Regional Showcases

Over the course of 2007–2012, the Stronger Smarter Institute continued to grow

and invest in its partnership brokerage with Community Durithunga. Initially the

entry points were through me as a Stronger Smarter Institute Facilitator; however, as

the national training programs grew so did the scope of program delivery and need for

showcase schools and community groups. Over the course of this time, Community

Durithunga, through Stronger Smarter partnerships, toured Canberra, specifically

presenting at AIATSIS for the National Indigenous Studies Conference on

“Perspectives on Urban Life”, 2009. This experience was shared with touring jarjum

members, who got to travel interstate and present as part of the national convention.

Community Durithunga members were requested to be filmed for the Stronger

Smarter Institute forums on Indigenous Education filmed by Professor Chris Sarra.

These vignettes, stored at the Stronger Smarter Institute and available online, provide

Community Durithunga voices and perspectives on Indigenous education in urban

environs.

These filming activities were augmented by on-the-ground program delivery and

facilitation of “Community Durithunga in action” Workshops. Woven into the

Stronger Smarter Leadership program, this led to keynote presentations in Cherbourg

and Logan, specifically the Yugambeh Community Centre in Kingston. Again the

leadership opportunity was not just afforded to one individual representing the group;

Durithunga’s Seedling principle of “rule of three” ensured three active Durithunga


member voices were sharing yarns and perspectives on what works on an Indigenous

education front in urban locales.

Through the further development of Stronger Smarter Institute programming

came the development of the Stronger Smarter Learning Communities (SSLC) project.

SSLC is what the largest longitudinal study in Indigenous education is based on.

Community Durithunga in developing SSLC projects further was chosen through

community consultations as the first site for Stronger Smarter to develop its Indigenous

Youth Leadership programs.

SSLC partnered with the Department of Education, specifically the Indigenous

Schooling Support Unit (ISSU) and Durithunga, to co-create “Logan Indigenous

Student Leadership Projects.” This leadership program created a jarjums-centred

learning approach, which developed jarjums’ focus on challenges which they could

control, and then challenges they wanted to see change in. Through this research, the

jarjums developed four projects in 2010. Of these the Community Durithunga Deadly

Days Touch Carnival remains an active event on Logan’s community calendar (see

pictures from 2012 in Appendix F). The success of regional leadership programs like

ours saw the Stronger Smarter Institute develop the Stronger Smarter ‘Learn, Earn,

Legend’ Youth Summit in 2011. This has since been a regular fixture of the National

Rugby League’s (NRL) Indigenous All Stars games programming. The original

departmental architects of the Durithunga Leadership program are still advertised as

providing Indigenous Student Leadership programs via the departmental website30.

Case Study 2: Embedding Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Perspectives across schools (EATSIPs, 2010 – ongoing)

Again, a major legacy or lasting tjina of Community Durithunga has been in

EATSIPs, also referred to as “Embedding”. This has been Queensland Government’s

important public document on Indigenous education program development and

support. Community Durithunga has been an active knowledge creator, facilitator and

consultant in the development and delivery of Embedding throughout the state.

Embedding, led by the Queensland Department of Education, wove a three-pronged

30 www.deta.qld.gov.au The latest version of the “Indigenous Student Leadership” programs are linked on the website, tagged Indigenous Student Ambassador Network.


process to deliver on its commitment to Reconciliation (as referred to in its

Reconciliation Action Plan of 2010). The three prongs of Embedding were and are:

I The EATSIPs document – a seventy-four-page text designed by Indigenous

educators from around the state. Initially framed through the work of Mayrah

Drieise and then compiled by Penny Hamilton.

ii The EATSIPs Principal Project Officers – hired across the seven state

education regions and program managed centrally through ISSU. These officers

provided professional development for regions and developed EATSIPs project

documents for regional cluster schools.

iiiEATSIPs Online – refers to the “Modular” program for education staff to

compete to gain certification in core EATSIPs processes (shared regionally

through professional developments).

Community Durithunga’s active involvement in the EATSIPs processes is aptly

referenced and referred to in the EATSIPs document. Durithunga over the years,

without additional grants allocated, has created a symbiotic and influential relationship

with and between peak bodies of and on Indigenous education.

Case Study 3: Indigenous languages in Community Durithunga schools

Durithunga through its very inception has woven in the concept of revitalisation

and strengthening of Indigenous languages. The use of the word Durithunga is very

contextualised to the local area and provides an educational building block to develop

and deepen further curricula. Yugambeh languages teacher and foundational

Durithunga member Aunty Eileen Williams and her sister Aunty Robyn provide the

eldership with Aunty Pat O’Connor to underpin languages development. That said, in

2008–2010, Community Durithunga led a concerted localised campaign through

Community Durithunga Yarning Circles to grow Indigenous languages more. There

were a number of significant local area deaths and illnesses, which led to the passing

of aeons of language knowledge. To deepen learning in and around languages and

bolster language holder spaces, Durithunga went on a collective sense-making

process to best prepare and develop a localised learning response to Indigenous

language. This project work conducted by Community Durithunga ran initially before

and then in parallel with the state’s curriculum authority, Queensland Curriculum and

Assessment Authority (QCAA).


Community Durithunga’s Indigenous Languages project work focused on the

language of the Yugambeh. This language weave centred the languages work in and

on the Yugambeh Language Museum. This seed document was gifted to four hub

schools, Beenleigh High, Woodridge High, Waterford West Primary and Loganlea

High. These schools all had Durithunga members and Durithunga leadership woven

into their individual spaces. However, it was the initiative of the Principal, Ms Di

Carter, and leadership of Waterford West State School that led the development and

delivery of the first South East Region’s whole of Primary Indigenous Languages

program. Waterford West used the Languages Other Than English (LOTE) curriculum

time to develop Yugambeh languages. Community Durithunga provided the seed

programming and leadership support, then funding agencies like ISSU and Waterford

West provided the monetary initiative to drive the change and sustain it in schools.

QCAA were developing (and now have completed) a comprehensive Indigenous

Languages Syllabus. Principal Policy Officer Will Davis (a Durithunga Foundational

Member) was the writer of the Languages Syllabus. The QCAA officially launched

the syllabus in 2010. Upon releasing the syllabus to the media, specifically ABC,

Waterford West was chosen as the “showcase school”.

Case Study 4: Waterford West Longitudinal Study URLearning

URLearning was a successful study undertaken and led at Waterford West State

School in Logan, specifically chosen as a Community Durithunga school, and was

led by the QUT research team. What this meant was that Community Durithunga was

the broker of and for the research within a representative school in Logan. The goal of

the study was to partake in a school’s literacy interventions through multiple entry

points, focused on teacher efficacy. Community Durithunga leadership has been

involved in the conceptualisations, consultations and delivery of programs within and

for this study.

As well as the school having a significant Indigenous population, the educational

leadership within the school had partaken in Stronger Smarter Indigenous Education

Leadership training. As an affiliate school and a school working very specifically on

and toward bettering Indigenous education programming, Waterford West was also in

partnership with the Department of Education Indigenous Education Division,

specifically ISSU-CSQ. ISSU-CSQ’s Regional Manager was based at Waterford West


part-time and through its partnership with Waterford and Durithunga assisted in the

development of the Indigenous Language program.

These deep connections to Indigenous education focus and programming led to

the development of Indigenous-centred learning approaches in Yugambeh language as

a LOTE class was established, then led into the creation of the Bariebunn Boul –

Dreaming Circle after-school Home-Centred Learning program (Davis-Warra,

Dooley, & Exley, 2011, Exley, Davis, Dooley, 2016).

Brokerage with the QUT research team and Community Durithunga members

within the specific locale of Waterford embedded within the research an Indigenous

centre or core to consultation. I myself was asked and accepted by Durithunga as a

Chief Investigator of the research. A key consultative brokerage of the research was

the concept of “gifting back” (reciprocation) to community. This concept ensured the

researchers were grounded in the locale of the community they were “researching in”

and were required to develop a stream of reciprocal processes that gifted back to the

community. A powerful development of and on Bariebunn Boul was the gifting of

practicum QUT students to assist in running the after-school program. Relationships

researchers had, specifically Exley and Dooley, from their university backgrounds,

correlated into student teacher training programs and practicums which provided an

opportunity for students to learn within an Indigenous-specific context and enable the

after-school program to have additional volunteer support to deliver programs. The

power of the programs developed, both languages and Bariebunn Boul, is recorded as

part of URLearning research (Luke, 2012) and is referenced within the Stronger

Smarter Longitudinal Study (Luke et al., 2013).

The case studies above are powerful examples of the “wins” Community

Durithunga has achieved through its educational weaves in and around Logan City.

Yet in spite of these “wins” there existed still, very raw, very real yarns shared by

members on the breaks of cultural safety within especially mainstream, state education

settings. In this sense, the challenge of and in Indigenous education, Durithunga

helped members create a better balance and grow cultural safety within the

organisational structures Durithunga supported members in. Mediation support was

an example given by members of circle. Mediation occurred and was enacted by

Durithunga when mainstream process had left members feeling unsafe. As shared

earlier, a member revealed a story where issues raised within school space had been


raised to the teaching unions. From both a schools front and a union front the member

felt nothing was being done. The member reflected that, “I felt a need to be a

resolution to that ... I brought forward Durithunga ... I used members of Durithunga

... and it was a real strength because we used our processes, Indigenous processes

...” (Mick, Whole Group Yarns, 2012, p. 6). The weaving of Durithunga and support

of Durithunga on both a macro and micro level was received very positively: “... to

me that is the ultimate strength in Durithunga ... our systems, our body of people ...

are powerful people, really, really powerful people ...” (Mick, Whole Group Yarns,

2012, p. 6). Mick felt before the mediation, disempowered and unheard. Durithunga

provided solutions “Indigenous processes to speak and deal with the issues ...” (Mick,

Whole Group Yarns, 2012, pp. 6–7).

The footprint of Durithunga (outlined in the case study examples above),

kinnected to the theme of Sustainability, was described as literally “building

communities”. A member reflected that as students they saw their leaders – their Murri

teachers – attend Durithunga. That efficacy and that notion of setting circle and

yarning then doing programs within the school site “gave us a strong emotional

connection that was gifted to us at school ... (Mel, Whole Group Yarns, 2012, pp. 2–

3). Reflecting on past Durithunga members’ work in school, “When Will got in there

we had an identity and a space ... It made us strong and it builds community ... We’re

[the students] in our thirties now and we keep each other strong” (Mel, Whole Group

Yarns, 2012, pp. 14–15). Yarns wove through specific supports like mediations and

personal support to broader impacts of Durithunga – sustaining Indigenous education

programs; growing Durithunga parent voices; building wider learning communities.

4.2.5 Summary

From the articulation of specific Durithunga ways of working and weaving –

yarns on seedlings, form and structures – to specific yarns on individual impacts, it is

clear from the whole group yarning circle that Durithunga has an overwhelmingly

positive impact on Indigenous educators developing leadership and community

strength based approaches. Referring back to the two questions posed to the group at

the start – “How does Community Durithunga support and encourage Indigenous

community input in education?” and “What impact is Community Durithunga having

on education in the community?” – the group yarns show that Community Durithunga

not only supports and encourages Indigenous community input, but that the impact is


immensely positive and happens in multiple ways – rippling out and in (linked to the

Circle:Cycle model) and focused or framed around three key themes: Sustainability,

Growth, and Empowerment.

How was it important? Overwhelmingly, members of the Durithunga circle

shared stories of strength which mapped Durithunga’s journey holistically –

impacting on Indigenous education as a collective and boring down into specific circle

supports for individuals – how the whole group circle supported individuals. The

process in action was relayed as sustainable through its form and structure. As a

process it is able to move and shift according to local context. At the core of this

structure is the notion of individual growth and empowerment. Durithunga’s growth

is reflected in its membership ranging from fledgling members to its foundational

members and its power was shared by all through specific stories of strength – whether

it was mediations, vouching messages, or growth into broader community events and

practices like student leadership.

The next most powerful step in the research was to take the Durithunga research

questions and bore these down specifically to individual members to gauge impact and

influence of the Durithunga way of doing Indigenous education. Individual

testimonies and references provide a strong case in relation to providing quality

qualitative data. Individual yarning legitimises and “promotes the voices of people of

colour by using storytelling to integrate the experiential knowledge drawn from history

of the ‘other’ into critiques of the dominant social order” (Denzin et al., 2008, p. 93).

Again, this development of Durithunga research needed to come from points of

reference closest to Durithunga’s sources – its individual members. Durithunga

method was again used to promulgate research of and on the one-on-one yarns. The

best weaving of a culturally correct or proper way process was by using a Durithunga

Seedling principle – “rule of three”.

4.3 ONE-ON-ONE YARNS

Durithunga is a process – a way to hold Indigenous relationship circles. The

process of Durithunga is what makes members feel connected – rule of 3; Durithunga

principles; having a voice; setting circle. To support the form and structures of

Durithunga three members, Alexis, Ellah and Mook were asked to share their

individual reflections on Durithunga. Specifically, they were asked – “How does


Durithunga process support and encourage your input into education?” and “What

impact positive or negative is Durithunga having on education in your community?

What specific individual examples can you give?”

4.3.1 Community Durithunga Research one-on-one yarning analysis

As expected from the types of yarns and approach to the research, a lot of rich

text was gathered from individual participants. To maintain the consistency of

approach in data collection (as highlighted earlier), the same analytical steps and

processes were used in the distillation of the rich texts as for the whole group analysis.

In the initial stages of contextualising and understanding Durithunga’s position –

creating a metaphoric inquiry space, the third-dimensional space-time continuum

again was used.

Thematic production as a process:

• third-dimensional space narrative: re-reading;

• codification: clozed readings;

• categorisation: memoing; and

• thematic development: re-presentation of research data.

Following the re-storying of rich text gathered within a three-dimensional space

narrative, a process of thematic layering was applied to the data. Again, for consistency

of approach, the data gathered was analysed using a coding system, grouping further

into categories and ultimately leading to the creation of overarching themes. As part

of the breaking down of data and bias assumed as a member of Durithunga, a separate

thematic analysis was applied to the rich text. By not assuming or using the same

categories or codes from the Whole Group Yarns a sharper description of the

individual yarns comes. That is, a separate analysis not hinged on the codes defined in

the larger yarning circle allows for stronger connections to be made, so similarities or

differences to come would not be pre-determined by use of earlier codification

processes. Table 4.5 tabulates the three-dimensional narrative of the one-on-one yarns.

Table 4.5

One-on-One Yarning Analysis – Third-Dimensional Narrative


Continuity Reflections on past 9 8


Reflections on present 11 10 Reflections on future 8 8

Interaction Reflections as individuals 18 17

Reflections as a group 25 24

Situation Reflections on Durithunga 8 8

Reflections on other Indigenous “safe spaces”

6 6

Reflections on schools 11 10 Reflections on places –

specific locations other than schools etc.

10 9

Total 106 100

4.3.2 Third-dimensional narrative

Using this process, a clearer picture or focus of what and where Durithunga is

positioned in educational spheres was understood more fully from the perspectives of

the Durithunga members themselves. Durithunga is grounded very clearly in its

structure – circles. And circles are set in many contexts. Logistically, circles are set in

Logan within individual schools and communities. “We come together and have our

yarns, we do ‘rule of three’, we have closed business and open business … [in] closed

business we’re able to share things we can’t share to our education providers

because it’s all about doing it our way … Murri way…” (Alexis, One-on-One Yarns,

2012, p. 1). As a process Durithunga is understood from individuals within a historical

space – linked to our ways and traditions, linked to thousands of years’ worth of

generational knowledge, yet it is situated just as equally in the present.

The realness of action of Durithunga was a strong response shared by each

member: “I’ve used … Durithunga processes back in schools …” (Alexis, One-on-

one Yarns, 2012, p. 1). So Durithunga is a process, a support circle and action group

happening now: “... I’ve had the opportunity to build Durithunga not just within

myself and my school but across schools with ISSU and Stronger Smarter coming

on board” (Ellah, One – on -one Yarns, 2012, p. 1). Mook adds, “Durithunga is a

good way of plugging in. If we’ve got a problem at school then we can yarn and


others say ‘orgh yeah we got Aunty who could help out’…” (Mook, One-on-One

Yarns, 2012, p. 1).

There is a multiplicity of perspective when it comes to time sequencing as well.

Each member commented on past and present and equally reflected on Durithunga in

the future. The future Durithunga was yarned as an “incorporated Durithunga”, the

making of the circle as a recognised entity for funding seen as the next most powerful

step. “… [I’ve] really enjoyed that, you know, to see it grow from the ‘park those lil

yarns’ to the place whereby we become incorporated and do more…” (Alexis, One-

on-One Yarns, 2012, p. 5). Ellah adds, “… me and my co-worker … [got] on the

phone … talk[ing] about Community Durithunga is a huge timeline [for us] 2007 –

2012. Having a good ol’ yarn about the strengths of Durithunga becoming

incorporated … think[ing] it’s deadly our mob can do extreme things …” (Ellah,

One-on-One Yarns, 2012, p. 4). Durithunga is something that is linked to a strong

history of educational support and doing things proper way in Logan; it acts now in

individual and group contexts and is planning and acting towards the future. This sense

of movement and fluidity supports earlier chapter reflections on the form and structure

of Durithunga – the Circle:Cycle.

As shown in Table 4.5, the reflections of individuals across all three narrative

dimensions were heavily weighted towards “Interaction” and “Situation” type yarns.

The majority of narrative discussion focused in and around “Interactions” with

individuals and as a group dynamic. These responses were captured as 41% of all

aggregated one-on-one yarns. Of this dimension, group identity and group interactions

were the most consistently shared reflection by one-on-one participants, at 24%. These

“group” reflections were mirrored in the whole group yarns. 32% of participant

reflections in the whole group yarns focused on these forms of interaction (see Table

4.1 in section 4.2.1). The conclusions to draw from here are that the whole group

reflections are corroborated and supported by the individual, one-on-one yarns. This

is powerful because it is drawn from individual participant interviews, not shared as

part of a group dynamic (and thus perceived bias or infleunece that can come from

yarning within a group).

4.3.3 Thematic mapping Table 4.6

One-on-One Yarning Analysis – Codification



Safe space 11 9.7

Durithunga Way 29 25.7

Murri Way 5 4.4

Yarning 6 5.3

Group 6 5.3

Our voice 2 1.8

Empowerment 9 8.0

Leading + Leadership 20 17.7

Futures 2 1.8

Growth 8 7.1

Struggle 8 7.1

Support 3 2.7

Strength 2 1.8

Purpose + Focus 2 1.8

Total 113 100%

Table 4.7

One-on-One Yarning Analysis – Categorisation

Category Code groupings

Durithunga Way Yarning; Safe space; Purpose + Focus; Support; Group

Leadership Leading

Empowerment Growth

Struggle Futures

Murri Way/Weave Strength/Spirit; Our voice

Table 4.8

One-on-One Yarning Analysis – Thematic Development

Themes Category groupings

Empowerment Durithunga Way

Footprint Murri Way

Leadership Struggle


Again, codes were defined for each of the one-on-one participants’ transcribed

texts / field notes. These codes were treated or added together as a way of tracking the

one-on-one yarns collectively. So the codes that signalled themselves in Ellah’s yarns

have been grouped with the same codes stemming from Mook’s yarns. For all three

individual yarns, a list of 16 codes was created (see Table 4.6). Samples of codes

growing from the rich texts were “safe space”, “our voice”, “struggle” and “leading +

leadership”. From this list categories were formed for the highest tallied codes. Of

these “Durithunga Way”, Leadership”, “Empowerment”, “Struggle” and “Murri Way”

were flagged as the major categories (see Table 4.7).

For consistency of approach, the tabularised and tallied data was collated into

percentages (Table 4.6). Of these “Durithunga Way” and “Leading + Leadership”

tallied the highest number of responses, numbering twenty-nine and twenty

respectively. These made a combined totalled of 43.4% of all narrative descriptors

tallied. No other code scored a percentage total above 10%. This heavier weighting of

percentages was the logic behind development of categories (Table 4.7). The category

groupings were the amalgam of like-related codes. Through application of the thematic

development process these category groupings were developed into overall themes

(Table 4.8).

To that end, through the thematic development process, the themes in the whole

group yarning circle were: Sustainability, Growth and Empowerment; and in the one-

on-ones the themes were: Empowerment, Footprint and Leadership.

What we find in the data is strong corroboration of the themes mapped in the

whole group yarns. As the research questions asked for specific individual examples

of Durithunga impact/influence, there are deeper individual examples of Durithunga

impact. These individual accounts give support to the whole group reflections on

empowerment. For example, Alexis in her one-on-one yarns reflected that

“Durithunga process [has] empowered us as people, it’s made us not afraid to speak

up … I’m a real quiet and shy soft spoken … coming through these circles … it’s

been a power” (Alexis, One-on-One Yarns, 2012, p. 2–3). Mel reflects in the whole

group yarn that “yeah it’s that feeding that you get that’s important, that builds you

up. It’s so much more than that powerbase of Indigenous to keep the man honest –

it’s more than that, it’s growing whole communities” (Mel, Whole Group Yarns,

2012, p. 5).


Individually each participant gave specific examples of how the Durithunga

process developed their own practice and support as individual, Indigenous staff

members. Alexis reflected that “… it’s all about doing it our way … Murri way and

getting feedback from our peers within our Indigenous community” (Alexis, One-

on-One Yarns, 2012, p. 1). Ellah shared that in “regular Durithunga yarning circles

I’ve had support on what I’ve put forward and what I’ve put back that’s needed in

my school … [it’s] been a support in a structural context [and] it’s a personal place

where I can go talk about issues … bringing them to the table and having them dealt

with…” (Ellah, One-on-One Yarns, 2012, p. 1). Mook added “networking – ‘rule of

three’ within our school we use … that’s helped me out big time … knowing that

you’re not alone – that there’s Indigenous workers everywhere … if we have any

problems we’re always supported” (Mook, One-on-One Yarns, 2012, p. 1). This was

a strong message shared by all three individual participants. “Empowerment” was

something found when participating in circle – following Durithunga processes.

Individual growth in leadership, in school/community positions were other dominant

themes. Alexis reflected on Durithunga processes she “… brought into [her] new

work at Boystown with my families … [She’s] hoping to … build Durithunga parent

groups … so that parents have a voice” (Alexis, One-on-One Yarns, 2012, p. 1). Ellah

shared on Durithunga Student Leadership Camps in 2009–10: “[We] had an awesome

opportunity to combine three high schools and … three primary … we had built this

up for the Durithunga mob [jarjums] to become better leaders in their school … I

passed one of my leadership mob who were in Year 10 then – he’s in Year 12 now …

[he] said, ‘I’ve got a lot of thanks to give you Aunty Ellah for all the things you have

done for me. You had faith in me’ ” (Ellah, One-on-One Yarns, 2012, p. 2).

The notion of growth and growing connects strongly to Durithunga’s visioning:

“Empowering culture, growth and learning through respect and Community to

enhance the future of our jarjums…” This growth is shared and understood

collectively too – you grow individually and just as important is the growth of the

whole group. Durithunga steps to incorporation are a great example of this concept.

Each participant shared individual stories of strength and success in growing

leadership. This growth was always linked back to other broader notions of growth in

Durithunga – holding regional leadership camps in future looking forward to

incorporation, seeing Durithunga as essential statewide. Ellah concluded that “this


should be a mandatory process that all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

workers in each region should have, this type of process that builds in communities

– something this deadly should be shared because if I can benefit and I’m only 24

then I’m sure all of us can benefit and grow” (Ellah, One-on-One Yarns, p. 3).

4.3.4 Summary

The one-on-one yarns provided a focused and intimate record of the impact of

Community Durithunga on individual members. As has been mirrored in the whole

group yarns, there was an overwhelmingly positive reflection on the impact of

Durithunga on Indigenous educators developing leadership and community strength

based approaches. In these yarns individual participants were asked, “How does

Durithunga process support and encourage your input into education?” and “What

impact positive or negative is Durithunga having on education in your community?

What specific individual examples can you give?” Each member provided

personalised accounts of and on the impact of Durithunga on personal and working

lives. Alexis shared how her voice had got stronger as a naturally quieter person, Ellah

had jarjums from across Durithunga schools share their thanks for her Durithunga

project work, and Mook reflected on the strength of the leadership meshwork he relied

on in his cultural curriculum development. The responses respondents gave were

framed around three key themes: Empowerment, Footprint and Leadership.

4.4 OVERALL SUMMARY OF WHOLE GROUP AND ONE-ON-ONE YARNS

From the Durithunga Research yarns, the strong message that comes in relation

to Durithunga and its importance to education is that it is an essential element in

providing Indigenous education empowerment through support networks of and for

Indigenous workers. Durithunga provides safe space, connections and support

through its unique flow method – Circle:Cycle. The cognisant recognition and

articulation of power imbalances in education systems and use of Indigenous method

to break the power imbalances are powerful steps in articulating a stronger, proper

way process in education. There are, as highlighted in mainstream discourses,

Indigenous meeting groups or committees and these differ significantly from

Durithunga. Durithunga’s difference and strength is in its articulation and procedural

follow-through of Indigenous method like yarning in circle.


Why is this significant? The majority of Indigenous education methods, research

and monetary developments are focused on non-Indigenous ways of knowing, being

and doing. As discussed in earlier parts of this thesis, the mainstream reformist agenda

is known collectively as “closing the gap”. Durithunga is not focused on gaps or

deficit data. It is a community-run, not-for-profit organisation operationalised for over

a decade. A real detriment in Indigenous education or health and wellbeing policy and

development is the continued “jetty approach” to funding and programs. That is, funds

and programs are centred on shorter – two-year – “jetty31” cycles, whereas programs

in an Indigenous context should be focused on sustainability and longevity – more like

bridges. “Closing the Gap” as a national conversation in politics ironically is working

on shifting targets and benchmarks to 5–10 year goals, something Durithunga has had

in its central being for over a decade. Durithunga as an Indigenous education process

is not a “jetty”; it is more of a “bridge”. The bridge is connected to the past, which

informs the present and assists in planning for the future.

31 A pertinent example of a “jetty approach” stemming directly from the research has been ISSU – Indigenous Schooling Support Unit – CSQ (Central Southern Queensland). Within the time of this research period recording whole group and one-on-one yarns (2012), the Queensland State Government in all its collective wisdom has disbanded the unit (2014) and “refocused” on a new set of priorities. Community Durithunga is still here in Logan; ISSU CSQ is not.

Chapter 5: Discussion 159

Chapter 5: Discussion

This thesis, Durithunga – Growing, nurturing, challenging and supporting

urban Indigenous leadership in education, has been based on Community Durithunga

Yarning Circles held on Yugambeh and Yuggera speaking Country – Logan City.

Fittingly the research analysis flow is based in and around Indigenous voices and

explanation of challenges within education of the Community Durithunga members

themselves, as defined from the data generated from the research yarns. Ultimately the

yarns focus in and around the research questions,

1.How is Community Durithunga an educational and cultural process? and

2.What impact is Community Durithunga having on education in the broader

community?

Linked to strong Indigenous storying of and on Country, this thesis has explored the

theory of relatedness (Martin, 2008) and its implications in developing Community

Durithunga Research linked to tumba tjinas. Community Durithunga Research used

the Indigenous research method of yarning circles to capture, record and reflect on the

story of Durithunga. I extended the current Australian research paradigm or rather

augmented approaches foregrounded by Martin (2008), Nakata (2007), Sheehan and

Walker (2001), and Fredericks (2007), through tumba tjina by creating the Bunya

Bunya Cycle. As a research tool the Bunya Bunya Cycle has guided research weaves

and writing. Throughout the text I have created space and highlighted the significance

of our Indigenous world view by highlighting language texts and deeper context

knowledge through use of Migloo font systems (W. Davis, 2007; Martin, 2008;

Sheehan & Walker, 2001).

Chapter 5 will explore the implications of Community Durithunga Research

towards deeper knowledge and analysis of and on the Indigenous education agenda.

Put another way, Community Durithunga Research is a vehicle of learning that

provides voice, advocacy and empowerment for all Indigenous education workers

involved. Community Durithunga Research provides a body of work that is written

and recorded from Indigenous educationalists’ voices – a community perspective, not

just “one voice” representing Indigenous issues. Understanding the social and political


landscape is essential in forging better pathways in education and thus positive

outcomes for Indigenous Australians. To not understand, not see and ultimately not

value voices in education like Durithunga, grown from unique local environs, is to

the detriment of quality educational programs and outcomes.

Section 5.1 will analyse and comment on the learnings from the Durithunga

research by commenting further on the context from which the research yarns connect

with the already established terrain of Indigenous education research established in

this thesis from the literature review (Chapter 2). Following this introduction into

analysis, section 5.2 will analyse further the links the research yarn themes have with

the themes developed in the literature review. In doing this linking analysis, section

5.3 will then explore what challenges the research yarns bring into the field as a

localised Indigenous study group. Bringing the analysis together, the chapter

culminates with an examination of the “Overarching Research Analysis Summaries”

in section 5.4.

5.1 DISCUSSION OF CONTEXTUALISATION

The recording and documenting of the unique Indigenous educators’ voices

within a community context was a core driving principle behind the research captured

in Chapter 4. The collective voices of the Whole Group Yarning Circle and the three

individual voices captured in the One-on-one yarns provided the rich text to analyse

and ultimately compare and contrast learnings currently established through the

literature review of Chapter 2. The capture of these unique Indigenous research voices

provides a contextualised Indigenous community representation of the issues and

challenges of education within the disparate learning environs and communities from

which members come. Themes that have developed from Community Durithunga

Research are centred from an Indigenous standpoint, not researched about an

Indigenous standpoint. This centring of research has been a focus of this study and has

expanded the relationality models shared from Moreton-Robinson (2000) and Martin

(2008). Tumba tjina reframing of research, specifically applying a Bunya Bunya lens

to research, has kept this research more connected to the environment from which it

has grown. This is research and knowledge production of and from Indigenous people,

not research for Indigenous people, the latter being a process of “othering” or

externalising Indigeneity, which creates social tensions and harm.


The importance of Community Durithunga Research lies in the gaps it exposes

in the current political and policy procedures as highlighted in the literature review of

Chapter 2. The literature review, in contextualising the field of research, focused on:

(a) the current state of play of Indigenous educational agendas (section 2.1), (b)

Indigenous world views (section 2.2), and (c) the conceptualisations of learning

communities (section 2.3). The Indigenous education agenda as defined in the

literature review as “state of play” is very much situated in a “gaps” conversation. That

is, Indigenous identities and realities are defined in profiles of our community as

lacking or underachieving in relation to health and wellbeing and compared to Migloo

Australia. As explained in the literature review, this is defined by various competing

parties as being centred in a deficit – the gaps between Indigenous and non-Indigenous

educational performance or outcomes. “Closing the Gap” is the new policy and

political terminology which has evolved in Australia to position Indigenous people as

lacking in relation to what non-Indigenous people have. The corpus of the current

“state of play” has been articulated through this piece as “systems accountability” to

the gap (Amosa et al., 2007; Sarra, 2005, 2011, 2012), “practical reconciliation” for

the gap (Langton & Ma Rhea, 2009; Pearson, 2005), or a positioning as part of a

“human rights” agenda (Calma, 2010; Turner, 2008). The substantial literature review

presented in Chapter 2 was conducted to contextualise the field of research within the

scope of education theory and practice specific to Indigenous Australian contexts.

From here the Durithunga Yarning Circle Research (discussed in Chapter 4)

had specific thematic anchors to juxtapose what themes the Community Durithunga

Yarning Circle Research would potentially reveal. The overall thematic “anchors”

from the literature review were:

• the need for strengths-based approaches in Indigenous program delivery;

• Indigenous Knowledge as core foundational knowledge which connects to

relatedness and standpoint theories or conversations; and

• recognition and definition of the notion of learning communities.

5.2 LINKING RESEARCH THEMES

Community Durithunga Yarning Circle Research provides another layer to

understand or deepen perspectives on the “gaps” conversations. Its essence or

transcendence from solely a “gaps” agenda is in its articulation of a very clear, much


grounded Murri thought knowledge process. From the literature review this agenda is

known as “Indigenous Australian world views” (Martin, 2008; Moreton-Robinson,

2000; Nakata, 2007; Sheehan, 2012; Sheehan & Walker, 2001; Yunupingu, 1989).

Murri developments of processes or responses to education can be understood within

the body of work internationally, led by Maori educationalists and researchers (e.g.,

Tuhiwai Smith, 1999) and North American educationalists and researchers (e.g.,

Archibald, 2008; Battiste, 2008; Kawagley, n.d.; Steeves, 2010). These international

works are morphed and closely linked in an Australian context as seen through the

groundbreaking Australian work of Nakata, Sheehan and Martin.

Durithunga with its layering of knowledge and processes like “open and closed

businesses” and “rule of three” shows how strong Indigenous voice and world view

can be grounded within local contemporary contexts of urban Indigeneity, Migloo

landscapes and within and between dominant hegemonies. The hurdles or barriers

Durithunga encounters in its localised context come from non-Indigenous lack of

acceptance, awareness and arrogance in not listening to, seeing or supporting

Indigenous methods in practice. To continue the silencing of voices like Durithunga

in a mainstream educational context is to continue the subjugation of Indigenous

people well into the 21st century. Durithunga ways are essential as they provide

another voice, an alternative, more authentic Indigenous education voice. As noted by

Purdie et al. (2011), “developing stronger links between schools and Indigenous

communities ... [is a] key aspect ... of closing the gap of educational achievement for

Indigenous students” (p. 6). The “stronger links” is what a body like Durithunga and

research like Community Durithunga Research provide. Sometimes the voices of

organisations like Durithunga may be perceived, by non-Indigenous mainly and

sometimes by Indigenous, as too radical or different to understand: “… Why do they

ark up? Is it because they don’t want a strong Indigenous voice?” (Mel, Whole

Group Yarns, 2012, p. 5). This is fine. What would be to the detriment of Indigenous

education is to not hear or recognise the Durithunga voice at all. As Alexis cautions,

“... they better watch out ... we building parent circles next ...” (Alexis, Whole Group

Yarns, 2012, p.11 ). By her very comments, Alexis shows what adversarial nature she

feels needs to be taken with and shown toward current education systems. To break

off and not build greater connections with and between Indigenous education practices

like Durithunga and current education systems impacts on all parties weaving in and


across the educational sphere. The impact is mirrored in the data associated with

“closing the gap”. If all voices, more so Indigenous voices, aren’t heard or

acknowledged or listened to then education systems in their current practices will

continue to have gaps in services and delivery of education with and to Indigenous

communities.

The research analysis in Chapter 4 was conducted with Durithunga members

using a PAR approach (as stated earlier – see section 3.3). The strong tenets of active

participant practice were shown by my role too as researcher on Community

Durithunga to finish in the design and development of the Community Credentialing

process (see Appendix B). This was a clear reciprocal task I had to take in gaining

access to deeper knowledge, yarns of and on Durithunga process. The connection to

the local community context and Community Durithunga perspectives of the research

was brokered by me through my prior connections and knowledge of process and place

as a decade-long community resident and foundational member of Community

Durithunga. The empowerment of Indigenous voices through research is another

point of contribution from the research.

The participatory research approach then led to the formation of specific

Community Durithunga Research Yarning Circles. These circles generated a

significant textual base to draw from and analyse. The rich texts were distilled through

a selective deductive analytical process explained in detail in Chapter 4. The field data

text generated from the research questions was codified and categorised to ultimately

lead to core overarching themes. These themes developed from the Community

Durithunga Research Yarning Circles are shown in Table 5.1 below.


Table 5.1

Themes Developed from the Community Durithunga Research Yarning Circles

Whole Group Yarn themes One-on-One Yarn themes

Ø Sustainability Ø Empowerment

Ø Growth Ø Footprint

Ø Empowerment Ø Leadership

The Whole Group Yarning Circle themes reached through the staged analytical

process (explored in Chapter 4) were mirrored through the deeper yarning process

provided through one-on-one yarns. When Durithunga “rule of three”

representatives spoke, their rich texts were thematically drawn from using the same

analytical process. From the One-on-One yarns, themes generated were

“Empowerment”, “Footprint” and “Leadership”. Taken together, both data sets show

strong mapping across the Whole Group Yarning Circles and the One-on-One Yarns.

Whole Group themes were “Sustainability”, “Growth” and “Empowerment”.

As has been shown through the earlier Chapter 1 reflections on Durithunga

foundations, the Circle:Cycle is a strong model to grow sustainable practices and

understand the importance of context. The research yarns can be understood in a

Durithunga context, that being the individual yarns relate and kinnect very strongly

with the whole group yarns. In construction of the yarns, the whole group yarn was

followed by the Durithunga principle of having three voices speak of and for their

experiences. Using the close kinnections method already established through

Circle:Cycle process the research yarn themes can be kinnected like this:

• Empowerment : Empowerment

• Sustainability : Footprints

• Growth : Leadership.

As has been foregrounded in the earlier literature review process of Chapter 2,

the themes map strongly with those found through the literature review. Themes

derived from the literature review focus in and around the need for strength-based

solutions. These are clearly aligned to the yarning circle data gathered around the

theme of “Empowerment”. Empowerment in relation to the whole group yarns was

codified as “Empowering and Growth” and categorised as “Durithunga weave”.


Individually, empowerment was codified as “Growth” and categorised or grouped

together as part of “Durithunga Way”.

To locate and develop points of change and transition for issues and challenges

within individual discrete community contexts is more successful and will grow more

success if fostered and developed fully from its specific locale. This draws from deep

Indigenous Knowledge like that shared by Jarrowar Elder, Jutja Paddy Jerome. In

sharing ways to heal or develop healing in his important piece, Jurrawa Men’s

Handbook, Jutja cited “… Our ancestors would expect that in the same locality’s the

[harmful] organism appeared, will be found a plant extract that will keep this

organism under control” (Jerome & Wilkie, 2003, p. 3). This voice, this recognition

of Indigenous leadership within its own community context from this research

provides part of the “healing” required in achieving Indigenous education excellence.

Growth : Leadership as mirrored themes from the research yarning circles

connect strongly with the main themes from the literature review relating to “hubs of

learning” or “communities of practice”. This was a constant reflection of and from

Community Durithunga members within the whole group and individual yarns.

Durithunga was synonymous as a collective of knowledge that gave individuals

power. Mook in the Whole Group said it best, reflecting that, “Durithunga to me is

about setting circle, coming here, get all the knowledge … Bring it back …” (Mick,

Whole Group Yarns, 2012, p. 1). A key part of this practice of developing and growing

Indigenous leadership was defined by another Whole Group member as, “creating

equality of practice”. The process of setting circle was the way or the “how to” create

sustainable models of practice. Keleen reflected, “One of the things of Durithunga

that stands out to me is the equality of it all. We have all different people from

different backgrounds and levels of education and roles that they’re in and yet no

one person is dominant – is in charge – leading with their own agenda – everyone’s

thoughts are respected and that’s the thing I feel really strong with Durithunga”

(Keleen, Whole Group Yarns, 2012, p. 1).

Our Indigenous world view and need to conduct educational practice using

proper ways is shown through yarning circle thematic reflections on Sustainability

and Footprints. The Circle:Cycle reflected on by Keleen and the Seedlings documents

are all examples of “how” Durithunga develops sustainable practices. Sustainability

and Footprints were strong themes developed from the research yarning circles and


this was shared through the research yarns when members in both Whole Group and

One-on-One yarns shared significant Durithunga Stories of Strength. Both the

leadership of the circle to create leadership opportunities as shared via the whole group

case studies, and the individual case study example of Student Durithunga leadership,

demonstrate significant examples of the power of strength-based, Indigenous-centred

approaches to Indigenous education. This important base, leaving footprints, ways to

follow, was shared strongly in both individual and whole group scenarios.

These Community Durithunga Research Yarn themes were drawn from the

words and concepts flowing from Durithunga members, which make the yarning

circle data rich and unique. What can be concluded from the overall thematic analysis

is that Indigenous leaders in the field of education require specific protocols and ways

to perform their roles to the highest level. Durithunga has led in the development of

tools that are Indigenous-centric, Indigenous-led and specific or need to be related to

the local environment or place – Country – where they are from. Tools in existence

already from a Durithunga perspective are the Seedlings and monthly yarning circle

process. These tools provide the processes to enact change; proper way education and

curriculum development flows.

In this particular research field, Indigenous education, Durithunga voices,

Durithunga perspectives are continually contested and challenged for legitimacy and

purpose, as has been shown through the research yarns shared in Chapter 4. When the

Migloo system can’t contain or control the space, it exerts its political will and power

to divide and ultimately conquer (Fesl, 1993). Durithunga and I, as recorder of the

Durithunga journey, have felt twofold this divisive and challenging power. It’s a drain

personally, professionally and emotionally to continue to feel the need or be in the

position to “justify” oneself when in a role, in a circle of knowledge and support that

makes you feel the most protected, kinnected and loved. In mainstream education the

silencing or distancing of “other” dissenting voices is symptomatic of a Western

bureaucratic process which relies on top-down structures and believes and functions

in rank and file order and control (J. Davis & Spillman, 2009; Robinson, 2015).

This is an area of ongoing conflict for Durithunga and provides another space

for research – to deeply examine the lack of empathy, awareness and understanding of

current education systems in relation to Indigenous community models of learning and

leadership. The leading Indigenous educational institute, Stronger Smarter, focuses


this learning through their Indigenous education leadership training as developing

“cultural competence”. Cultural competence on the Stronger Smarter frame is

replicated in the national Indigenous education policy – seen via the Aboriginal and

Torres Strait Islander Education Action Plan 2010–2014 (MCEECDYA, 2010). What

a process like Durithunga and Durithunga Research does is highlight the need to go

further than cultural competency – work more to build “cultural proficiency”. Cultural

proficiency in a Durithunga context is understood through Durithunga proper way

processes like setting circle, Seedlings document guides, “rule of three” philosophy,

holding yarns in multiple settings (Circle:Cycle), all examples shared and referred to

through both sets of research yarns.

When we as educators understand the structures and unpack those structures

more – the ones that define us in education – then we get closer understanding of what

hampers or hinders Indigenous development. This links to finding voice, establishing

other ways of doing. The unpacking of essential items and services, dismantling the

bureaucratic approach of systems in education further, would be an interesting piece

of research to flow from this thesis. This could include tracking what and where

Indigenous education monies flow, especially in and around the space of building

community models of practice like Community Durithunga. Why? Because the

reality in the Indigenous education landscape is that Indigenous communities stay, live

and grow in their specific locales, whether this be an urban setting like Durithunga or

a remote setting like the Torres Strait or Cape York community. Indigenous

community members are the local answers in specific local environments to the

challenges of education.

5.3 CHALLENGES STEMMING FROM COMMUNITY DURITHUNGA RESEARCH

Durithunga is an Indigenous education circle in operation for over 10 years on

a voluntary basis. Its members have reached and maintained high-level leadership

positions and attest to Durithunga’s support mechanisms as foundations to their

success, yet the mainstream education and political circles have not afforded or

afforded similar dollar worth to the overall functioning and development of

Durithunga. The Whole Group Yarn “Case Studies” were examples of the power of

Durithunga ways within a specific local school context and impacts as a broader tool

for regional or district change. These models shared and yarned by Durithunga


members are examples of the rich community contexts or “blueprints” to follow,

developed off “in-depth [community] nodes …” (Dillon & Westbury, 2007; Luke et

al., 2013) that communities already hold. The Stories of Strength shared through the

Case Study examples are linked to all the Research Yarning Circle themes,

sustainability through cultural practices, growth of leadership and expanding

footprints.

Yet despite these Stories of Strength, articulation by higher learning institutes

like QUT and Griffith University, and development of Durithunga ways through

university-level texts and journal articles (all signifiers of Western education

academia), Durithunga is “othered” in mainstream education settings. This “othering”

is felt by our young people, who are disproportionately absent from mainstream

schooling, are suspended and excluded at higher rates than other jarjums, and are most

likely not to graduate Year 12 as compared to non-Indigenous young people, nation

and state wide. The “othering” is a further magnification of the leadership stresses our

adult leaders like Durithunga members feel in seeking to develop more quality and

authentic Indigenous education experiences. Our jarjums deal with the sharp end of

the spear or echidna quill so to speak. And systemically our jarjums’ experiences, as

shared earlier in Chapter 1 in Logan City social data definition and now through

jarjums’ reports on Queensland school equity, show what experiences of “othering”

they have to deal with. Completing a Queensland Certificate of Education (QCE) is

the state’s equivalent of graduating Senior Secondary Schooling (Year 12). Figures

compiled in 2011 by the peak Queensland schools’ curriculum body, QCAA, for

Indigenous Reference Group circulation (whom I was a part of), found that of all non-

Indigenous students completing Senior, 83% received a QCE, whereas of all

Indigenous students, 62% attained a full QCE (QCAA, 2011). These realities impact

on their futures and lead to other disproportionate disadvantages such as having the

highest unemployment rates and higher incarceration rates per capita than any other

portion of the population (Singh et al., 2001 and Department of Social Services, 2009).

Recently there has been Queensland Government media coverage of successes

in the state’s “Closing the Gap” data. At the end of 2015, for example, the data for the

South East Region’s state schools showed jarjums achieving “better than” non-

Indigenous scores for results. According to the State Minister for Education, Ms Kate

Jones, “98 per cent of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students (268) have


successfully completed Year 12, compared to 94 per cent of non-Indigenous students

(7105)” (Jones, 2015). This is a positive movement and results must be understood in

context. In the same media statement, Minister Jones went on to qualify that in the

foundational senior schooling year, Year 10, Indigenous students are still leaving at a

rate significantly higher than non-Indigenous students. CSIRO, through their

Indigenous Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths (STEM) focus (CSIRO,

n.d.), found the recent “gains” in the “Closing the Gap” data celebrated by the State

Minister for Education from data gathered from the QCAA (www.qcaa.qld.edu.au) are

not translating to Indigenous success or leadership in university pathways. STEM

programmers are particularly focused on university pathways, as a career in STEM

areas requires tertiary qualifications at a university level as a bare minimum for

success. From a tertiary perspective, the data provided by QCAA on all Queensland

students highlights that 22% of all Indigenous students reached a university entrance.

This is less than half of what non-Indigenous students achieve, with 53% of non-

Indigenous graduates attaining university entrance levels in 2015.

This is a key point of difference for Durithunga. It is not situated in a gaps

agenda. It is positioned as recognising up front the strength of knowledge and systems

and principles of Indigenous culture and peoples in learning. If leadership in

Durithunga circles has grown without the additional funding of a multimillion-dollar

education system (as established through state government funding) then surely some

dollar value, if Migloos are real about “Closing the Gap”, should be directed toward

Durithunga-like models of community practice.

Durithunga’s position though is not determined by these power imbalances.

Durithunga’s “othering” by mainstream Migloo way is seen as strength. “… We’re

there but we’re like that [Durithunga] tree, we’re there and it rattles and shakes now

and again – stirs up you know – the non-Indigenous” (Alexis, Whole Group Yarns,

2012, p. 2). This is a key point of difference between Migloo perceptions of us as

Indigenous people and Indigenous people’s perceptions of our own identity. The

“othering” or positioning of a “loud” or “challenging” voice may be seen by some as

a distraction or hindrance to the broader Indigenous education agenda – like closing

the gap. And herein lies the paradox. Challenges still lie in Migloo practices of

subjugation and colonial conquest and structure. A core role of Durithunga is to

provide a voice for Indigenous members, advocacy. In a one-on-one yarn, Alexis


commented, “… you know, that’s what I’ve done with the Durithunga processes

within my work, within myself you know, it’s helped me as a person, you know me

from the very beginning JD – you know I’m real quiet and shy, soft spoken I

suppose, but coming through these circles and meetings and yarns with our mob

and see our mob involved in this Durithunga circle, it’s been a power …” (Alexis

One-on-One Yarns, 2012, p. 2). This is still an issue or a challenge for all

educationalists in Australia, the perpetuation of a powerlessness and power imbalance

of and on Indigenous people through institutionalised racism (Fesl, 1989; Luke et al.,

2013).

There exists in our localised contexts an understanding of Aboriginal or Torres

Strait Islander education workers in relation to these power imbalances. Those who

engage wholeheartedly in western education systems and approaches, who don’t

engage in Indigenous-principled practices, are known as “Jacky Jackys”. This is a

derogatory term bestowed today by our people to denote Indigenous people who are

perceived as not engaging, or who don’t engage, in community practices like

Durithunga or Indigenous celebrations like NAIDOC. The Jacky Jacky in colonial

times referred to male workers who did the bidding of the pastoral owners or police.

That is a “closed” or “inside” knowledge definition of local Indigenous leadership,

what Gorringe (2009) refers to in his “Currents of Culture” model (see Chapter 3). We

are all a part of the colonial construct of education. This relationship breaks down

further into the “King and Queen Breastplate” system whereby elderships in colonial

times were marked with a brass plate to denote who they were and what area they were

from. Often Migloo names like Jacky or Kitty were used on breastplates and with

individuals, as the original names were too hard for Migloos to translate or

understand32. This is a lived reality for us as Indigenous educators, being exposed to

forms of lateral violence towards each other. What is perhaps a more conciliatory way

of understanding this type of Indigenous leadership, what Gorringe and Graham shared

as “down streamers” (2006), is through that metaphor of a stream.

32 Our family share kinnections to so-called “Kings and Queens” whom we refer to as Elders or “Great Kin…” My Great Great Grandmother had her beautiful Cobble Cobble name Julli changed in translation to Lily because Julli (pronounced yull-ee) was too hard to write traditionally and traditional writing gave recognition to a race at the time that was perceived to be “dying out”. Now we have five generations of “Lily Davis” in our family.


Durithunga positions are determined and maintained through its Indigenous

processes, not the colonial system’s understanding or defining of “us”, and this is the

most powerful and telling factor of Durithunga research, linked strongly to the

literature review theme of expressing Indigenous world views. The Durithunga

methods provide all in Durithunga circle with an empowering and clear “how to” kit

in relation to Indigenous program development and protocol approaches. This was

very clear in the research yarns, both in the whole group and within the one-on-one

yarns. Members were able to share and maintain “what works” in Indigenous

education delivery through an Indigenous lens which in turn provided a blueprint to

develop better Indigenous leadership. There is potential in understanding Durithunga

method further as it could inform policy, corporate and community structures and ways

of developing Indigenous programs in cost-efficient, grounded and ultimately

sustainable ways. Sustainability is one of the biggest detriments to continued

Indigenous education excellence. Durithunga process provides insight into how

sustainability is and can be developed further. For example, as Aunty Eileen Williams

said, “… I remember bub when we began yarns in the park … Durithunga … Look

now…” (Aunty Eileen Williams, personal communication, 2010). Our Yugambeh

Elder and foundation member of Community Durithunga shared her yarns as a

presence at Student Durithunga Leadership Launches in 2010 (see Appendix F). In

2012 members further articulated Durithunga’s continued philosophy of growth,

commenting that, “they [Migloo institutions] better watch out ... we building parent

circles next ...” (Alexis, Whole Group Yarns, 2012, p. 10).

5.4 OVERARCHING RESEARCH ANALYSIS SUMMARIES

To summarise, Community Durithunga is more of a human rights approach,

than a systems accountability approach. It is wedded to the practices of relatedness and

being together. This is the most telling part from the literature review. The Indigenous

Knowledge principle of relatedness, kinnectedness is the core principle or world view

which drives Durithunga and makes it different and unique within broader education

circles and from other discourses and perspectives on Indigenous education – whether

they be a systems accountability approach, responsibility approach or human rights

based approach.


The energy and power Durithunga brings and which ripples out is in and

through its central core – Indigeneity and claiming and naming are at the core of

Durithunga business. It is a strengths-based approach to Indigenous education – not

predicated on what we don’t have as a people – the deficits or the “gaps”. Brough et

al. (2004) in their Strong in the City project adopted “a strength-based approach in an

effort to help provide a more balanced approach to understanding Indigenous

communities” (p. 216). Durithunga yarning is a practice based on what we have –

what is rich – an interconnected, interrelated social web or meshwork which, when

woven in an Indigenous-principled way, sustains and grows further leaderships.

Extending the Durithunga research paradigm and grounding this research

through Indigenous Knowledge I have reframed Community Durithunga Research

using holistic learning tools and metaphors. Building on these understandings I’ve

drawn deeper by shaping the phases of the research design and data production

(Chapter 4) through applying tumba tjina knowledge. Within the context of this

research project I have specifically been using the Bunya Bunya Cycle. The Bunya

Cycle provides the most powerful way to reflect and progress Community Durithunga

Research from my research perspective. Community Durithunga Research is the site

of interface where the power, importance and significance of Durithunga can be better

understood, shared and regrown. Applying a tumba tjina frame is an example of

regrowing our ways. Tumba tjina reframing embodies the essential core of

Durithunga – to grow. Tumba tjina framing achieves two things – grounds the

research linked to a unique Indigenous perspective and correlates significantly to the

foundational principles of Durithunga. This reframing and following of Bunya Bunya

Cycle closes the gap of research distance – “othering”. This is a telling and lasting

footprint of the research. Tumba tjina framing enables Indigenous research to be

articulated and re-presented, proper way. This body of work adds to the already firm

tracks of Indigenous Australian researchers like Martin (2008), Sheehan and Walker

(2001), Nakata (2007) and the late great Yunupingu (1989). It is from these Indigenous

theorists that I have been able to durithunga my research.

The tumba tjina analysis provided a deeper cultural analysis tool to the specific

realm of Indigenous education, growing from the tenets of international role

modelling, that is, Kapa Papa Maori and the Tidal Flow (Smith, 1999), then making

bridges and linkages to Australian Indigenous educationalists. The tumba tjina


reframing provides another analysis tool, another layer to deepen Indigenous

Knowledge and understanding of the very fabric of learning which has institutionalised

us as a people for over two hundred years. As has been made clear in the earlier

literature review, the creation of an “Indigenous identity” in Australia has been largely

attributed, historically, to other people’s perceptions of us. Martin’s important work in

2008, Please Knock Before You Enter, provided further road mapping and linkages to

grow another form of information layering, assessing the “big ideas” or concepts

attributed to education through not a rubric but a cyclical analysis tool – Quampie

Cycle. This research draws on tumba tjina knowledge and focuses analysis in and

around the Bunya Bunya Cycle. Bunya holds significant knowledge and thought

processes intricately woven through 65,000-year-old methods of storytelling, song and

dance. What tumba tjina reframing does is provide another way to analyse data, not

according to the Western or Migloo academic structures, but grounded in the very

roots of the oldest living surviving knowledge system in the world.

As discussed in Chapter 2, applying Indigenous world view to research is central

to building knowledge strength and creating a power balance between the sanctity of

the Migloo academy and the knowledge systems and processes of Indigenous

Australians, like the Cobble Cobble from whom this research draws. The importance

cannot be understated as the field of Indigenous research is heavily predicated, audited,

ordered and controlled by non-Indigenous ways of seeing the world. Community

Durithunga Research moves our Indigeneity away from the position of supposed

Western scientific objectivity and critique and places research within the new order of

empowerment. Embracing this third cultural space (Bhabha, 1994 & 2004;

Yunupingu, 1989), I have enacted my own Indigenous research frame – tumba tjina –

and drawn from the rich cultural traditions and practices of the Cobble Cobble using

Bunya Bunya Cycle as a guiding tool of and for Community Durithunga Research.

Again, as has been shown in the literature review of Chapter 2, Community

Durithunga Research is situated within the context of rich Indigenous research and

knowledge development led internationally by scholars like Tuhiwai Smith (1999),

Kawagley (2010), and Battiste (2008), and centralised or focused more sharply from

an Australian point of view by researchers like Yunupingu (1989), Nakata (2001 &

2007), Sheehan (2012), Sheehan and Walker (2001), Fredericks (2007), and Martin

(2008). Utilising Martin’s core conceptualisation of relational theory and expressions


being polyphonic, I have used the painting system I’m kinnected to – body art, crush

rock, corroboree – and woven to create the Bunya Bunya Cycle tool. This tool will be

presented further to the Bunya Mountain Council of Elders for further feedbacks and

developments (as part of the relatedness – proper way process) and will be used by

me in future research endeavours. This is a key contribution of the research.

The most challenging area and one which needs further contestation to get our

way, proper way, more solidly footprinted is in the higher education, tertiary space.

Tumba tjina, yarning in lingo, my voice as author has been continually pulled and

pushed. As a high-level Western graduate who has completed Bachelor and Graduate

Diploma level degrees, with over two decades of Indigenous educational experience

and leadership in the field, my voice was and has been continually questioned by the

educational academy. Although the institution has come so far in accepting and

adopting other ways of working and being, as laid by and through the great works of

Martin (2008), Nakata (2007), and Sheehan (2012), I found as a leader in my field

questions on my ability to master the Migloo tongue and way to speak extremely

challenging, affronting and insensitive. There are future implications in the full and

proper utilisation of tumba tjina framing to dictate and provide ways forward for

future brokerage of this space institutionally. Having the academy conduct tumba tjina

reframing, linking to method and research ways of their local area and assuring their

lead academics and field officers apply this type of cultural safety and proficiency lens

would ensure future PhD graduates and higher level researchers are afforded the safe

option of dealing and unpacking deep historical, cultural and spiritual learnings with a

deeper empathy and awareness of the impacts of “othering” Indigeneity.

Holding the Community Durithunga Research Yarning Circles was

empowering in a multitude of ways. The focus of PAR as a research frame meant

Community Durithunga were active knowledge makers as well as shapers. The act of

taking information needed to be yarned at many levels to gain circle confidence in the

intent of my Durithunga research proposal and assert kinnectedness to the research –

that this would not just be a “once off” and unsustainable. Applying IKRPs (Sheehan

& Walker, 2001) like “being real” was essential and Durithunga monthly Yarning

Circles kept me real and accountable. Durithunga requested specific supports to gift

back to the circle in exchange for research time and space. The design of the

Community Credentialing process (see Appendix B) is a lasting, documented and


Durithunga-endorsed practice that I have had to lead and complete as part of my

research journey.

Maintaining the thread of relatedness, reaching for an Indigenous standpoint I

have used the tools of Durithunga to both guide, plan and develop Community

Durithunga Research as shown by the Community Durithunga Research design.

Durithunga perspectives as defined by Durithunga Seedlings provide the appropriate

framework to develop appropriate research methods. That said, the yarning circle has

been the appropriate method to capture Durithunga yarning. A negative reflection of

the research would be that I did not afford Durithunga members enough time to

deepen their reflections and share their voice to the fullest. Although research

questions were sent out through Durithunga networks early, Durithunga members

shared a large amount of and on “othering” scenarios – examples of being attacked

and not heard by Migloo systems. I, myself, in the research construction and

completing the QUT ethics process and following timelines established, did not afford

members more opportunity to yarn. The “othering” scenarios aren’t wrong or bad

knowledge; these are reflections of and on Indigenous educators’ real lived

experiences. What I would flag in hindsight of developing the research and sharpening

members’ responses in a research context would be to allow for another yarn or yarns

to take place. This way, story of struggle would be articulated first and then deeper

yarns would develop on the solution bases, the “wins” Durithunga has gained through

application of its processes and development of leadership. These are significant, as

highlighted by the Whole Group Yarn Case Studies. However, if more time was

afforded and more opportunity to yarn was given, members could have elaborated

more on the relational weaves they have developed individually and Durithunga’s

strength regionally.

In my construction of research questions and development of research and

recording of Durithunga in its closest forms, I didn’t allow or afford greater time to

yarn and reflect on Community Durithunga movements as a decade-long process.

Paradoxically this lack of time sequencing goes against Bunya Bunya process. The

original or historical Bunya time was a harvest based on a three-month cycle, at least.

Off Country today, I and my Davis families closest to me are lucky to go to Country

for three days! I should have factored more on the timeline constrictions. This goes

against the Indigenous-centric, or strength-based approach. I formulated the research


through following part of Durithunga Circle:Cycle process. The Circle:Cycle of

Durithunga yarns covers a whole year, twelve months. Deeper kinnected analysis to

the true strengths and richer knowledge bases of Durithunga would come through a

longer Research Yarning Circle time sequence.

What Durithunga does as a process is link back to 65,000-year-old methods and

revitalises these within a 21st century Australian context. Durithunga itself doesn’t

exist without community and Durithunga as an educational process is wedded and

seeded within the rich social support network and NGO spaces occupied across

Durithunga communities. These safe spaces are articulated through Community

Durithunga Research as individual or specific sites of learning and contact within

school spaces (see Circle:Cycle, Chapter 3). Durithunga as a process though can be

understood within a contemporary Australia-wide context juxtaposed amongst these

safe spaces: Indigenous health, legal, housing and corporate community services.

These services have been sought and won by a number of Indigenous statesmen and

stateswomen. The Indigenous experts referred to in text here (highlighted via the

literature review) are links to that recent Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander social

capital landscape – a part of a long thread of Indigenous proper way and safe space

agitators politically created through contestations of basic human rights in the early

1960s. The hard-fought battles of and on Australian Citizenship, Native Title, Housing

and Health all provide the fertile ground for Indigenous educational extra services to

grow.

What Durithunga represents is the next iteration of more clearly defined, more

community articulated responses to, with and for education. From the research yarns

the significance of safe space and proper way process needs to be highlighted. All

participants both in a whole group and individual yarn context shared the importance

and significance of having circles of support to help refine, define and support their

leadership development. Having a regular circle of practice to reflect and grow

strategies within Durithunga contexts enabled and empowered workers. Mook used

the local Yugambeh language in his reflections on proper way process: “When we go

to Durithunga mate I come out so charged, you know, I come out so focused – it’s

not that we’ve lost, we need refocusing and know that you’re not the only one there

and fully supported – knowing that the right protocols – you know there’s times

when I’m not sure and I’ll ring you or Darnah or Shaz, Ritz and you say always


guiding us in the right direction even if you can’t help, it’s like that junnie ba de

bani the family baash and it’s not just educators it’s the community as well –

connecting with the Elders and foundation members before …” (Mook, One-on-One

Yarns, 2012, p. 1).

Having more Indigenous leaders engage in processes that focus on the

appropriate function and methods of Indigenous education is a good thing. This is the

core of Durithunga, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people claiming their space

and commitment to Indigenous education – our lifeblood – our jarjums. This

reclaiming is no better shown than by Durithunga members themselves reflecting and

commenting on the significance of Durithunga, both pre-Community Durithunga

Research and through Durithunga Research circles:

Wider circles like Community DURITHUNGA gives schools in our inner city

area a chance to speak … Our people in schools don’t get the chance to speak

because administration doesn’t support Indigenous education workers and

teaching staff … white administration and schools don’t want to listen and

commit the time … Community DURITHUNGA means we as Indigenous

educators make the time, demand the time to gather, sit yarn and take the time

to listen. (Belinda Wilson in J. Davis & Grose, 2008, pp. 12–13)

These spaces that are Murri run – Murri owned, represented in schools …

Durithunga has pushed for these culturally safe spaces not just for students but

community – parents …” (Mel, Whole Group Yarns, 2012, p. 14).

Community Durithunga is a way of being which is interconnected to knowing

and doing business our way. Sadler (J. Davis et al., 2009) reflects on our ways of

working by providing the following comments, “It’s awesome to see our young men

grow … I still maintain a relationship [even though I may not be in school space].”

Our way is not just a “professional thing”, as Sadler further articulates in his

reflections. Durithunga is “not just a professional thing … We don’t have the

professional detachment that a lot of non-Indigenous colleagues have in Social work

or education because we’re going to run into these young people again.” This is a

strength, a way of checking our relationships and ensuring we pursue the best possible

ways to yarn and act: “we want to be sure we’re for real – that it’s not just a

professional thing … as Indigenous people we’re relationship based” (J. Davis et al.,

2009). This relationship base is the power of Durithunga – it’s real, heartfelt, from the


spirit of our people, drawing on the strengths of the oldest surviving culture in the

world. Community Durithunga Research goes some way forward in capturing and

sharing this spirit, this essence of Durithunga – to grow.

Durithunga educational footprint is real and “Durithungas” exist, as this

research would indicate, in multiple Indigenous, strengths-based forms and settings

across Australia. What becomes a detriment or blocker in effective development of

authentic Indigenous education and thus further footprinting of Stories of Strength

and success are Migloo structures, designs and interferences – power imbalances.

What does it say about an education system where Indigenous workers – leaders – are

involved, yet reflect constantly on their cultural safety or lack thereof outside of

Durithunga? What does it say about an education system whereby a circle of

voluntary Indigenous education leaders is perceived to be and made to feel like a

threat? Do the leaders themselves in all educational settings feel embraced? The

answer overwhelmingly is “no”. To bore down further, what does this research say for

jarjums’ experiences in education systems if leaders like Durithunga leaders feel

culturally challenged?

Durithunga exists and has evolved in a complex learning environment as a

strong Indigenous voice in education. As an Indigenous-principled process, it does not

centre its approach and its perspective from the Indigenous “deficit” or “gap”

discussion that has prevailed in Australian public discourses. It can be positioned or

placed within the growing Indigenous discourse on community development

approaches that should be localised and built from in-depth nodes (Brough et al., 2004;

Dillon & Westbury, 2007) that already exist. Durithunga members themselves reflect

that “[Durithunga] makes you feel proud … we’re empowering our kids as well …

[learning] about their culture … gives them their self-esteem ...” (J. Davis et al., 2009).

Durithunga members involved in Research Yarning later reflected that, “I began to

realise it’s bigger than just two or three schools in Logan, it’s right across the whole

region and stretches even growing more and more with people from like Goldie

[Gold Coast] wanting to come in, which is good, yeah, my thoughts is every time I

go there I come out feeling 10 feet tall and bullet proof and our jarjies are going

ahead and that’s one thing I like about it is it doesn’t focus on what we want it

focuses on what is needed” (Mook, One-on-one Yarns, 2012, p. 3). Community


Durithunga is a way of being that is interconnected to knowing and doing business

our way, proper way.

In Community schools or deeply Indigenous contexts this, or proper way

research (the process of research and information gathering), is vetted through a

“Black Card” process whereby organisations and researchers have to commit to “Black

Card” protocols to gain access to the knowledges and stories shared of and from people

of these unique community contexts (Woorabinda Council, Black Card concept,

2009). In this PhD research this has been referred to previously as “open” and “closed”

knowledge or business. Tumba tjina reframing provides a powerful lens to apply, or

have non-Indigenous researchers apply, when getting into the space of Indigenous

thought-world critique. This has wider implications for ethics and application for

ethics as well. The opportunity that research like Community Durithunga brings is

paradoxically confined by the institutional space that has provided Durithunga voice

and voices to be heard. With the broader Indigenous education implications

Durithunga impacts on and positively informs, there are dual limitations of, for and

on Community Durithunga Research.

Durithunga represents a national solution in a community-based context; the

adaptability of the Durithunga process for positive change and supports of Indigenous

community and leadership development is significant. In this research field that

particular voice, that particular perspective is continually contested and challenged for

legitimacy and purpose, as has been shown through the research yarns shared in

Chapter 4.

5.5 CONCLUSIONS

To capture the true spirit or essence of this research in this field, this chapter

analysed the impact and discussed the implications of Durithunga research on the

current Indigenous education landscape. The literature review conducted in earlier

chapters provided the thematic anchors to understand more about the context of

Indigenous education landscape in Australia. Of these, “strength-based” solutions

were seen as the most appropriate model to create change and develop shift in deficit

data. Secondly, from the literature review it was shown that the growing Indigenous

practice and process development, recognition and connection to Indigenous world

views are part of a global and local development and recognition of the power of


Indigenous ways. This is augmented in an Australian context through the development

of relatedness (literature review, section 2.2). Thirdly, there is a growing narrative in

and around learning communities, the need for and importance of community hubs of

learning. Both internationally and nationally, there is a need to build stronger

community hubs of learning, to lift the potential of learning institutes.

Overall the connections and weaves between the earlier Chapter 2 literature

review themes and Community Durithunga Research Yarn themes can be understood

more fully as:

• Strength-based solutions are the most appropriate model to create change

and develop shift in deficit data. The complexities and diversity of

individual Indigenous settings represent sites where quality teaching and

learning models are localised and specialised; these have the potential to

have most positive impacts. This is where the role of Community

Durithunga shapes as a unique Indigenous response to the complexities of

the community within an urban, city context. (Literature review, section

2.2.1)

• More importantly Durithunga is connected to a growing global Indigenous

practice of recognition and connection to Indigenous world views. This

draws on principles like mutual respect and reciprocation, linking learnings

from stories of strength – our relatedness. (Literature review, section 2.2)

• In saying this, Community Durithunga can be placed or rather juxtaposed

amongst a growing narrative in and around learning communities, the need

and importance of community hubs of learning. Both internationally and

nationally, the need to build stronger community hubs of learning to lift the

potential of learning institutes, which schools and the Durithunga learning

communities are based in and around, is essential if curricula are to be

diversified and grown in quality as well as positively addressing the social

and emotional indicators for participants across the social divide. In this

context Community Durithunga shapes as a unique urban community

capacity building process in Indigenous education. (Literature review,

section 2.3)


These literature review anchors have been juxtaposed against the grounded

Community Durithunga Research. The yarns generated from the research questions

were targeted at Durithunga members articulating what they saw Durithunga doing

in education across the region and individually. Rich text was generated in both the

individual and Whole Group Yarning Circles. From these, three predominant research

themes were developed using a deductive analysis. The themes articulated were:

• Empowerment : Empowerment

• Sustainability : Footprints

• Growth : Leadership

These themes have strong connections and track closely to the themes developed

in the literature review. What the themes do from the research yarns is provide sharper

and practical “how to” steps in relation to building sustainable leadership practices and

programs in Indigenous education. An example is Sustainability : Footprints. The

Durithunga modelling here, setting circle, using Seedlings as a guiding tool, all

extend the literature review themes of and on Indigenous world view and building

learning communities. To extrapolate further, Community Durithunga Research then

extends current research in and around strength-based learning and Indigenous world

views by focusing and centring the research using tumba tjina frames. The Bunya

Bunya Cycle and application to Durithunga Research provides another thread to the

Australian weave of Indigenous Knowledge and research production.

Using the research tools of and from Indigenous Knowledge sources like Bunya

Bunya provides Indigenous researchers the tools to buffer and “other” research, which

is bound by Western ideologies and practices. Using tumba tjina frames empowers

researchers like myself and other Indigenous scholars to djerripi (rise above) the

Western research structure and create safe spaces, proper way places of research

interface. Alongside my deadly non-Indigenous PhD Supervisory team, I would not

have been able to complete this research of and on Community Durithunga without

my tumba tjina grounding. What makes that so important, and flips the dominant

research paradigm in which I have to partake as an educationalist in a contemporary

Australian setting, is that there are deeper songs and dances that Cobble Cobble

countrymen and women will be able to kinnect with and sing to as they read part of

this text. Also, the broader Indigenous community through knowing and seeing the

words, our words and knowledge highlighted and given privilege in the text will be


able to draw deeper understanding and have immediate kinnection with and to the text.

Through this whole PhD, foregrounded in the works of Martin (2008), there is a

linguistic code, what I have signalled up front as “Language Weaves”. This is a

signifier to mobs to identify and understand and relate to this type of education text in

a way that privileges our contemporary voices. These are the words and ways we

speak, especially when we’re together, and are the way we build kinnection and trust

with each other through a process which goes back to all our beginnings – relationality

(Martin, 2008; Moreton-Robinson, 2000).

When broader longitudinal studies of and on Indigenous education like the

Stronger Smarter Longitudinal Study (Luke et al., 2013), Purdie’s ACER research

(Purdie et al., 2011) and Craven et al.’s research on Indigenous education practices

nationally (Craven et al., 2005), all explored in the literature review, attest to the fact

that notions of deeper Indigenous community connections are needed with and

between contemporary school settings, there develops a similarity or matching of

research themes which speak of and on promoting shifts in the outcomes for

Indigenous peoples as a polity across Australia. The Stronger Smarter Longitudinal

Study authors recommended a “strong emphasis on understanding, engaging with and

acknowledging cultural and linguistic resources of Indigenous students and

communities” (Luke et al., 2013, p. 45), as well as a “strong emphasis on Indigenous

staff and leadership within the school and engagement with community” (Luke et al.,

2013, p. 45). Purdie et al. (2011), reflecting on their ACER longitudinal research study,

commented that “Developing stronger links between schools and Indigenous

communities ... developing a school culture in which Indigenous students feel included

and supported ... are key aspects of closing the gap” (p. 6). Moreover, Craven et al. in

an earlier 2005 study flagged, “there is no consistent forward trend in improving the

wellbeing of Indigenous people … [in particular] no forward trend towards a reduction

in the disparity between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians” (p. 4).

Elucidations are found in the Durithunga research yarns on a “place-based” learning

model, deeper, more responsive school practices to develop and include Indigenous

voice and a consistency of approach to the Indigenous education landscape (Luke et

al., 2013).

What Durithunga offers, as has been shared by the Indigenous members

participating in the Community Durithunga Research, is a process of practices and


cultural leadership development actions or “how to” approaches to build and

ultimately deliver sustainable practices of Indigenous educational excellence. All

Durithunga Research members reflected on this and expressed their views, providing

exemplars of Durithunga models, place and strengh-based learning models at work in

both Whole Group and One-on-One yarns. “The strength of processes are mirrored

in our incorporation work now … I get quite passionate about these processes

because it’s deadly … people know who we are and what we stand for … and …

enquire … how [they] can be a part of that …” (Mel, Whole Group Yarns, 2012, pp.

5–6). “Durithunga does help us to grow, help us to become stronger, it’s helped me

just as much as it’s helped Alexis, it gives you that confidence” (Darnah, Whole

Group Yarns, 2012, p. 2). “… that branch always shaking – stirring up trouble …

even though [it’s] shaking we’re still connected to that whole root is connected right

down into the ground … to me that’s what Durithunga process is … keeps me

grounded” (Alexis, Whole Group Yarns, 2012, p. 6). “... to me that is the ultimate

strength in Durithunga ... our systems, our body of people ... are powerful people,

really, really powerful people ...” (Mick, Whole Group Yarns, 2012, p. 6).

The group research yarns were then amplified through one-on-one reflections

like: “Durithunga process [has] empowered us as people, it’s made us not afraid to

speak up … I’m a real quiet and shy, soft spoken … coming through these circles

… it’s been a power” (Alexis, One-on-One Yarns, 2012, pp. 2–3). “… it’s all about

doing it our way … Murri way and getting feedback from our peers within our

Indigenous community” (Alexis, One-on-One Yarns, 2012, p. 1). Ellah shared that in

“regular Durithunga yarning circles I’ve had support on what I’ve put forward and

what I’ve put back that’s needed in my school … [it’s] been a support in a structural

context [and] it’s a personal place where I can go talk about issues … bringing them

to the table and having them dealt with …” (Ellah, One-on-One Yarns, 2012, p. 1).

Similarly, Mook added “networking – rule of three within our school we use … that’s

helped me out big time … knowing that you’re not alone – that there’s Indigenous

workers everywhere … if we have any problems we’re always supported” (Mook,

One-on-One Yarns, 2012, p. 1). The core point of difference and the rub shared with

and between Durithunga, like community-controlled contexts and other non-

Indigenous approaches to learning, is that Durithunga is centred and developed solely

from Indigenous knowledge and leaders.

Chapter 6: Conclusions 185

Chapter 6: Conclusions

This chapter provides a summary of the research steps taken and conclusions on

findings and theory. Ultimately it provides recommendations of and on Community

Durithunga Research. It summarises the steps taken to reflect on the specific field of

research and reviews each chapter’s development. The research itself has been directed

or framed around two driving research questions identified in Chapter 1 as:

1.How is Community Durithunga an educational and cultural process?

2.What impact is Community Durithunga having on education in the

broader community?

Keeping in step with the strong Indigenous centre of this PhD, making future

connections from the research, recommendations coming from the research are

reflected as possibilities around “Future Weaves”.

This thesis provided a marker of sorts on the context of Durithunga and the

contextualisation of Durithunga amongst current Indigenous educational practices.

Foremost was a discussion on the context of Community Durithunga – Durithunga

Roots. To understand the impacts or gauge the “importance” of Durithunga it was

essential to dig deeper into the history and growth of Durithunga. This was an

important research step as it brings the reader closer to the context from which

Durithunga has grown. Contextualising, providing place and strength-based solutions

to local challenges, was a key finding that grew from the literature review.

In relation to the thesis questions and response as to “why are we asking these

research questions?” a comprehensive literature review was then mapped out in

relation to Durithunga. Again this research step was important as it provided further

international, national, then local examples and models of how and why Indigenous

education programs have grown and developed in Australia. The literature review had

three parts: “The State of Play”, “Indigenous Australian World Views” and “Learning

Communities”. The first part examined the current context of Indigenous education in

Australia. To that end we looked at current education policy and focus, which has been

coined “Closing the Gap”. This part of the literature review examined how this agenda


plays out amongst current Indigenous education leaders as they respond to it from their

own unique perspectives and points of view.

The second part of the literature review looked at naming Indigenous Australian,

and specifically Murri, world views in relation to centring Durithunga from an

Indigenous perspective as opposed to having Durithunga as a shared space – a blended

space (Bhabha 1994; Barnhardt, 2005; Davis, 2008; Yunupingu, 1989). The final part

of the review looked at the practice of Community Durithunga Yarning in relation to

broader national, state and international models of learning communities, networking

and support. Specifically, this section looked at international and national perspectives

on the importance of networks – hubs of learning. It also looked at what’s working in

relation to Indigenous community learning processes, the notion of specific positive

processes to enact or in action in Indigenous Australian contexts.

It was important to review these areas through the literature review because

Durithunga has evolved and continues to evolve amongst this complex backdrop of

educational agendas. Leaderships shift and change. We now have Aboriginal and

Torres Strait Islander expertise at the forefront of public debates on Indigenous

education, like Sarra and Pearson. The policy focus has shifted more explicitly to a

deficit agenda, “Closing the Gap”, yet Durithunga process, Durithunga in action

remains uniquely different, maintains its integrity through the processes it’s grounded

in. Its importance or value is seemingly reflected in the continual yarning and

longevity of process – in operation now for over a decade. Yet Durithunga exists with

no specific budget, no specific staff supporting Durithunga, no funds. What it does

exist on is the visioning principles it shares with members and the rich process and

storying connected to our way, proper way (Bulman & Hayes, 2010), and the space to

yarn.

This literature review provided the thematic anchors to map the research yarn

themes, explored in Chapter 5. Durithunga research yarns showed strong mapping

and intersections with the literature review themes. The gem or thread to create future

weaves in this field of research (as discussed in previous chapter) lay in the tools or

“how to” steps Durithunga has created and continued to practice. The “how to” tools

relate to the Seedlings document, the setting of circles of support, the Circle:Cycle and

the foundational principle of rule of three for any notion of community or voice

representation. These tools were mirrored in the development of the thesis through the


analytical application of tumba tjina frames to research specifically the Bunya Bunya

Cycle.

Following the literature review I extended the development and practice of

appropriate methods in relation to conducting research with Community Durithunga.

The Bunya Bunya Cycle was the methodological framing used in conducting and

reconstructing Community Durithunga Research from an Indigenous standpoint,

linked to Moreton-Robinson’s (2000) and Martin’s (2008) theories of relatedness. My

own representation, contextualisation and understanding of the process of

Durithunga, via tumba tjina, come in the form of my families’, my clans’ spirit tree,

Bunya Bunya. Whereas Community Durithunga has been using the image of a strong

gum tree – eucalypt on Country – I see the development, the growth of Durithunga

through the lenses and collective sense of my forebears.

As explored throughout the thesis, this is my way of seeing the world through

my Murri lenses – a part of my world view. The Bunya Bunya was used as a guiding

lens for me and guides us through Durithunga in this university process (explored in

depth via the Research Design chapter). This lens was augmented through the research

gathering process by utilising Indigenous methods of gathering research. To that end

the Indigenous Australian focus and practice of yarning circles and yarning circle

methods were used. Using the yarning circle process was the most appropriate and

potentially beneficial way of recording and tracking the journey of Community

Durithunga from a Community Durithunga perspective. This is an important “third

cultural space” shift in conducting Indigenous education research. To create further

safe spaces to yarn and share experiences in learning and documenting actions more

fully from the context individuals and communities come from, then it is imperative

researchers move into the brackish water (Yunupingu, 1989) or hybrid space (Bhabha,

2004) to develop more representative voice and perspective in texts.

This “third space” of planning and actioning research led to a research design

which was heavily predicated on the storying and process protocols of the local

Indigenous education community connected to Community Durithunga. Yarning

circle processes and Durithunga Seedlings (Durithunga, 2006) approach provided the

best way to capture the rich text and thick description that were generated by these

educational discussions. The Seedlings, for example, remains the pre-eminent text for

Durithunga members to refer to and connect with processes and protocols that - work


in our localised contexts. This core document provided invaluable guidance for a

researcher like me to unpack and understand further the impacts of Durithunga on

Indigenous education, not from a standpoint of a separate identity but from within.

The development and production of Durithunga research data was facilitated

through development of clear research reciprocation lines. This is an important

distinction and separation of assumed bias of myself as both a member of Community

Durithunga and a researcher of Community Durithunga. I was not assumed privilege

in the space of accessing inside local knowledge yarns of and on Indigenous education

practices. Through the research as a member of QUT I had to (a) prove the worth of

the study, (b) gain local Eldership and Durithunga approval in initial ethics process,

then (c) complete a leadership documentation process for Community Durithunga –

the Credentialing Model (shown in appendices). Again this is an important “third

cultural space” movement for a researcher, Indigenous or non-Indigenous. You have

to be prepared to give back and show your research intent. You have to show in your

research how your work is not just a taking of local knowledge but is part of a

sustainable footprint. This “taking of knowledge” and taxing of community times is

best exemplified through the community development work in Woorabinda of the

endorsed “Black Card” process (explored already in Chapter 5).

To effectively lay a clear reciprocation line and gift back a process like

Community Credentialing allowed for me as a QUT researcher to conduct research

with Community Durithunga. This provided the fertile ground to grow research yarns

from and develop further thematic analysis on the core research questions,

How is Community Durithunga an educational and cultural process? and

What impact is Community Durithunga having on education in the broader

community?

What can be concluded from an overall thematic analysis of both the literature

review and Community Durithunga Research Yarns is Indigenous leaders in the field

of education require specific protocols and ways to perform their roles to the highest

level if they are to build in sustainability of practices. Tools that Durithunga has led

in the development of are Indigenous-centric, Indigenous led and specific or need to

be related to the local environment or place – Country where they are from. Tools in

existence and summised in Chapter 5, are the Seedlings and monthly yarning circle


process. These tools provide the processes to enact change – proper way education and

curriculum development flows. The power of this proper way process was shared

through the Whole Group Yarning Circle “Case Study” examples. Each case study

shared had an overall focus that was embedded in a community of practice and

grounded in community consultation and development. Case in point is Waterford

West Longitudinal Study, URLearning. This topic or focus area is in and around

educational research. Yet embedded into the URL project scoping was community

consultation driven by Durithunga. This was not just one-off consultation but

maintaining relationships through regular researcher “check ins” with Durithunga, as

advised by the Durithunga Chief Investigating Officer. Reciprocation protocol was

designed by Community Durithunga whereby the university committed to providing

staffing support to the Indigenous Homework Hub, Bariebunn Boul, at the site of the

research school and space. This enabled the further development and deepening of

Indigenous education modelling already in practice at the school, symbolised by their

Indigenous Languages Yugambeh program. The Homework Hub and Language

program are still in existence to this day, eight years after the original inception and

laying of sustainable relationship weaves by Community Durithunga.

Economically, Durithunga as an Indigenous community-led approach to

education runs as a not-for-profit volunteer process. The circle partaking in the

research represented 10 active members and Durithunga has 42 members on its

membership list. Schools within the region typically have a workforce ranging from

70 staff members in smaller schools to 240 in larger schools. Of these numbers one or

two workers in schools may be Indigenous. The level of funding to sustain these

western models of education within the current locales runs into the millions of dollars.

Yet significantly, as the SEIFA data (Chapter 1, section 1.4.3) attests, there are

significant gaps in socio-economic statuses of our Indigenous communities within the

Logan City corridor. Within this space, without the substantial backing of additional

monetary supports, Durithunga has seeded and grown a leadership model that has

impacted and sustained Indigenous education programs and individual leaders well

into a decade. This is an opportunity that should not be missed by other NGOs,

philanthropic and government agencies. The gems to come from Community

Durithunga, in summary, lie not just in what has happened but in how Durithunga

does business, sets circles and provides safe, proper way education.


6.1 WHAT IS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF COMMUNITY DURITHUNGA WITHIN THE CURRENT CONTEXT OF INDIGENOUS EDUCATION?

The potential of research on and of Community Durithunga, capturing the

unique journey and processes that have developed, is immense. Unpacking and

understanding “how is Community Durithunga an educational and cultural process?”

and “what impact is Community Durithunga having on education in the broader

community?” acknowledges the journey and voice shared and heard from a

Community Durithunga perspective, a unique urban Indigenous voice. The majority

of system approaches to Indigenous education and community are “done to” and not

“done with” community. Professor Chris Sarra expressed this well in reflecting on his

state system Principalship in Cherbourg. He stated, “the most fundamental mistake

I’d made … was not working hard enough with community people to embed their

voice and authority into the governance processes of the school” (Sarra, 2012, p. 274).

At the time of final submission of this thesis, state media headlines abound about

another state school community context where in an all Aboriginal community,

Aurukun, located in a remote area in Queensland’s Far North, the state system

approach to challenges faced in the local community by unruly youth is to close the

school down, temporarily. Aurukun community members, leaders and Elders were in

shock, “that our children, high achieving children will be deprived of schooling”

(Branco, 2016). The Wik Women’s Group of Aurukun went on to comment, “The

Premier has shut our school without notice and with no plan in place … Solving a

problem with fifteen disengaged youths by disengaging another three hundred children

from schooling is a recipe for disaster” (Branco, 2016). Most recently and impacting

me significantly has been a non-Indigenous Board directorship, which has led the

ousting of its foundational Indigenous Principal at Hymba Yumba. The local

community of Hymba Yumba is asking “why as an Indigenous Community School do

we have so many non-Indigenous power brokers?” Yet in the community controlled,

public-Independent schooling model in Gunbulunya, Northern Territoty there is a full

Indigenous Board governance model which is brokered through Australian Electoral

Commission professional development and governance training (see

www.strongersmarter.com.au ). The issues and challenges around sustainable best

practice models of and on Indigenous education continue to develop over time and will

continue to spike as they have in recent Aurukun and Ipswich communities until that


voice of Indigenous community and Indigenous community control is heard and

listened to.

Community Durithunga is an educational process and practice that transcends

the predominant Migloo footprint of an urban place and imprints firmly Indigenous

principles and spirit. It is an Indigenous-principled process that is derived from the

good knowledge, senses and identities of the disparate Indigenous people of Beenleigh

and Logan – known as Logan City – Yugambeh and Yuggera speaking Country.

Because it has focused its work on leadership development it also provides a

sustainability of practice as it is based on processes not people. Durithunga ways or

proper way education model offers a great transferability of practice to see the model

grow in other unique community contexts.

6.2 LIMITATIONS

Writing and drafting these final edits as part of the quality assurance process I

definitely have felt in the final moments – so close – yet so far away in obtaining

another Migloo qualification. Whilst doing this there have been dual cultural

leadership roles and processes I have been tasked to engage in and support Cobble

Cobble development. To walk in my world is to walk in a world of continual flux and

paradox, something that this Durithunga research piece gives deeper Indigenous

insight into. The true essence of being and strength of purpose comes from what’s

written and recorded here as tumba tjina spirit. Tumba tjina is a spirit because it is an

essence, a sense, a living, breathing, feeling thing. This is what one of our great Murri

philosophers, Gaiarbaru, refers to as “mimburi…” (Gaiarbaru in Steele, 1984), the

flow. When recording his responses as a Jinibara man to questions of landscape, tribal

boundaries and practices, Gaiarbaru’s insights provide the most lasting and

recognised Indigenous response to early colonial reflections of and on the South East

of Murriland and surrounds. He explained the complexity of mimburi to Steele

through his readings of country. Reflecting on areas which border Bunya Mountains,

for example, Gaiarbaru stated, “… Gugundair [just outside of current Cherbourg] is

mimburi of the carpet snake … This was fighting ground and corroboree place during

bunyas” (Gaiarbaru in Steele, 1984).

Trying to record and write in a stylised academic voice fit for the academy has

been a trying task and ultimate attack on and of my identity as a 21st century


Indigenous man. The concept of flow – the essence of Durithunga – applies here in

two parts: first, in my need within Western academy sense to cite prior authors (i.e.,

Gaiarbaru quoted in Steele, 1984); and, secondly, because the concept itself so

appropriately relays my struggle as an Indigenous author whereby my writing in a

number of ways has been disjointed – remade – remodelled = the flow blocked or

damned to allow a Migloo flow to ultimately dominate or dictate the current or tide of

my writing – my self-expression – my tumba tjina. As can be seen by the Gorringe

and Graham (2006) Indigenous Leadership model (cited in Chapter 3), the “rocks” of

the academy create an impact on flow; however, they ultimately don’t decide the flow

of things. My struggle, my flow I hope for in a future Indigenous scholarship further

on in QUT, particularly in Murriland, particularly in Australian Indigenous education,

provides another stepping stone to pass by the rocks of the academy and allow deeper

meaning and creativity to grow and flow from future writings and reflections.

To that end, in transitioning the Community Durithunga Research text into

Migloo tongue, I quote Gaiarbaru in relation to flow in the context of my reality today,

my tumba tjina he is kinnected to countryman of mine, my Jutja Noelly Blair, he

says, “roll your tongue boy when you speak … That’s how our old people spoke …

Remember that – roll your tongue…” (Blair, personal communication, 2015). So

brothers and sisters who follow part of my working don’t ever forget to “roll your

tongue…” To not do that is to cede another part of our identity to the Migloo. It was

and has been a constant challenge of my writing here to keep Community Durithunga

Research grounded in its context – readable and useable for my people. Ultimately to

see the will of the academy attain a PhD I need to complete this piece with another

deeper Migloo lens. Just know throughout my writing I have felt this struggle as I’ve

continually tried to “roll my tongue…” To honour and remember the deep learning

gifted to us as a people – 65,000 -year-old knowledges that at this stage of

“civilisation” in a 21st century Australia, still need to be canonised and recorded in a

Western tongue. I implore our future generations to never cede to the academy –

always search for balance – a third cultural space of writing and reflection, but I am

hopeful in seeing my future grandchildren – gunnin-gunnins – write prophetise and

hypothesise that they tip the balance of the Western academy to our side – our way –

tumba tjina’d, recorded in lingo, through our forms of expression, our way. Because

nothing in the Western academies at present time easily recognises Indigenous identity


as it presents itself as a knowledge system of and on its own. There are pockets of

success and safe spaces like Indigenous Studies units – QUT’s ISRN and Oodgeroo

Unit respectively, but for the most part, by Migloo academia Indigenous Knowledge

is referred to or grappled to be understood in Critical Race Theories, Post Modernity,

Anthropologically and via Freirian lenses, and so on. It’s symbolic of the power

imbalances in our academy that Indigenous Knowledge and ways cannot be expressed

how we as Indigenous people want to express them but need to be moulded and crafted

to fit the academic microscope. Limitations that exist at present as I see them are in

the academies’ willingness or structural development to build a clearer bridge for our

voices and our families’ knowledges to be equally reflected. The focus is on our

making of our pieces to fit the Migloo academic structure, not the academy knowing

and accepting our knowledges as they are.

Durithunga will continue to grow and morph – it is up to the academies of higher

learning especially to recognise and understand our ways better, more deeply and

openly than what is currently instituted. I highlight the academy because it is the higher

learning institutes which ultimately can direct and influence the processes of the

regional education systems. The “blockers” in a local community context of

Durithunga are held to account ultimately by the institutes that sustain them – provide

their graduates, provide further spaces of and for learning through research and

longitudinal studies. These institutes and knowledge systems are readily accepted and

understood – the system only sustains if it replicates itself – reflective of current

practice and thoughts. The variance of the acceptance of “others” voices in the

academy is no better shown than in the data analysis and reflective feedbacks on

Community Durithunga Research as a whole. From the research itself there are

various specific limitations that flag themselves as part of the final stages of evaluation.

The specific research limitations to be discussed next are the yarning circle method,

time taken in research and the need to map further models of success.

A limitation of the current Community Durithunga Research model is the

amount of data gathered from Durithunga circles. To expand and articulate more

voices and hear from multiple Whole Group Yarning Circles would enable a fuller

picture of the experiences of Indigenous leaders in the field of education. That said,

other Indigenous methods of research and laying research footprints could enable other

ways for the information to be expressed, whether that is by visual or digital media.


Another perceived limitation or challenge is that the research is not quantitative.

A perception amongst popular discourses, policy makers, political, and Western

academia is a growing trend to use and rationalise processes according to quantifiable

data. The perception is these data sets represent “hard data”. Qualitative studies like

Community Durithunga represent “soft data”. The notion of hard and soft data

denotes strength and objectivity in crunching numbers and analysing data for trends as

compared to “softer” thematic mapping. The rigour of member checking and critiquing

processes affords qualitative studies like Community Durithunga some backing as a

rigorous approach. Reality-wise it is a more culturally abridged version – linked more

closely to our ways.

Time sequencing has been an issue in this research too – Community

Durithunga ebbs and flows based on the need of the community of leaders it services.

Start-up dates and roll-out of interview processes invariably rose and fell with the need

of the community so setting dates and recording processes needed to be flexible. This

is important to consider as the type of research mapped out in the narrative research

design is structured around the notion of supporting Indigenous leadership, not

governing and dictating how, why and when the Indigenous leadership needs to

conduct them within a research framework.

The ISRN was instrumental in creating or following the flexibility needed in

research gathering. Successfully winning an ISRN research grant, I was able to access

additional funding and human resources support which enabled me to conduct Whole

Group Yarning Circles appropriate to and fixed within Durithunga timelines. The

grant assisted in providing me and my research teams with a feed and appropriate

gathering space to cater for the yarns. These Indigenous supports are essential from

my point of view. The support I’ve had from Indigenous research base should be

mirrored all throughout tertiary institutes as a best practice model.

With these factors in mind it was essential to conduct this research in the most

culturally safe and Indigenous-centred way. The research proposal was officially

lodged and accepted for ethics clearance through our QUT ethics submission process.

The Community Durithunga ethics application was submitted as a lower risk

application heavily predicated on the notion of relatedness. The ethics approvals were

augmented by the good will and support of Community Durithunga and Logan

Community educationalists who also submitted support letters and endorsement of


Community Durithunga Research (see Appendix C). Through the support of ISRN,

we workshopped the ethics process and the notion of being “othered” even as an

Indigenous researcher researching within my local community context. This role play,

question and answer time with ethics committee members made the process less

daunting.

The year 2011 saw the design and development of the research proposal, ethics

clearance and successful Confirmation completion. Central to this was the

establishment of reciprocation lines – what I had to do in order to research Community

Durithunga. The following year, 2012, saw the field data captured and member

checked – grown from the yarning circle method; 2016 saw the final analysis and

submission of Community Durithunga Research as part of my doctoral thesis ready

for Oral Presentation.

Durithunga influence on proper way education is quite significant in the Logan

community. Even at this time of writing another Durithunga school has received an

“Excellence in State Education Award” for Community Partnerships. As I wrote my

first full draft in 2014, Durithunga celebrated its fourth consecutive year of

Durithunga Deadly Days, positive, healthy living gathering at Kingsridge Park,

Kingston where over 100 jarjums partook in touch and leadership activities from

Years 4 to 12. I myself received in 2014 an “Emerging Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander Educational Leadership Biennial Award” from the Australian Council for

Educational Leaders (ACEL). In 2016 two Durithunga school members led the

Indigenous Languages keynotes on school best practices in Indigenous languages at

the “Kanji Waiburra” Queensland Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Language

Forum held at the Gold Coast. Those areas with most active memberships continue to

grow strength in embedding curriculums, in cultural and identity programs and

spiritual and healing programs. A limitation of this research has been the further

mapping and tracking of these specific stories of strength and success. The next

iterations on Durithunga Research should collate and record specific program

developments creating an even richer picture of proper way education, Cultural

Curriculums that work and sustain excellence.

To do this would begin to create more balance of what is ceded in the design,

delivery and reflection of research. Commitment to further deeper research promotes

safer learning pathways as broader learning opportunities are afforded to further


learning communities so Cultural Curriculums can be potentially shared. In this way

the true essence, spirit or flow of Durithunga type models can be unpacked and

examined further to impart knowledge on how to embed and invigorate culturally safe

and sustainable proper way education.

Community Durithunga represents a way of educating that embraces and

infuses Indigenous Ways of Knowing, Being and Doing within an urban environment.

The process itself – Durithunga yarning and the Durithunga Seedlings – represents

Indigenous Knowledge principles and processes which are transferable and transcend

the specific local Migloo urban footprint. Durithunga Yarning breaks through the

layers of Migloo ways of doing and being and plants a seed, which regrows our ways.

It has grown and regrown because it is predicated on a method and successful practice

that has sustained this Country since time immemorial – yarning (Bennet, 2010;

Ungunmerr-Baumann, 2002).

6.3 FUTURE WEAVES (RECOMMENDATIONS)

From Community Durithunga Research there are overlocking threads (the

gems) that bind the research as a whole and present themselves as spaces for future

development and exploration. This section shows what are the future weaves or

recommendations for research stemming from this thesis. These recommendations are

symbolised through dot points.

In relation to the colonised dynamic, the frontierism and paternalism experienced

and relayed by many members of Durithunga, reinforced by other Indigenous

experiences in education nationally and internationally as shared in the literature

review, there are significant challenges for our systems of education to embrace and

provide responses to. In the context of where Community Durithunga is based, the

challenge for Migloo education systems is to:

• better embrace community approaches to learning – methods and practices;

and

• access IKRPs like “not knowing” – shift power dynamics like sitting in

circle.

Educational regions can embrace our ways – as shown through the South East

Region’s Indigenous Education Plan 2008 (shown earlier in Chapter 2). However, this


embrace must go beyond the token and follow through on supporting and developing

“in depth nodes” (Dillon & Westbury, 2007), which the South East Region is

continuing to do through its Indigenous Education Regional Team profile. At the time

of inception of this Durithunga research there were no regionally employed

Indigenous Education Workers. Additional workers were invested through additional

state-level roles (gifted through ISSU). Now in 2017 there are at least three full-time

Indigenous Regional Officer roles. This shows positive movements forward and is

reflective of years of Durithunga agitation for shift and change.

This move goes beyond the “cultural competency” phase of simple awareness

about us as Indigenous people and needs to:

• shift into the realms of “cultural proficiency” where Migloos are reflecting

and understanding more about themselves and their kinnections and

relatedness. To move from the token “aware phases” and be working and

weaving within phases of “cultural proficiency” enables Indigenous

educational excellence to grow.

Part of the solution, as yarned by Durithunga voices in this piece, is about:

• setting safer circles of learning; holding separate language and cultural

lessons; timetabling differently; then embracing the difference!

To continue the education cycle at present continues to widen the gap (Craven, 2005

Luke et al., 2013).

• Durithunga methods and Durithunga case study data provide effective

working examples of Indigenous leadership, Cultural Curriculums and

‘blue prints’ of programs that work, are effective and sustainable!

Surely some monetary investment is needed to seed this growth further. In its

present form – operationalised for over a decade in Logan, Durithunga has grown

from no additional funding supports – grants or offers – other than “in kind” supports.

Regionally through yarning circle feedbacks and official letters and demands to show

cause there has been regional development of officer roles (as flagged above).

However, the Durithunga professionalism, depth of wealth as a learning space and

recognition of its personnel’s expertise has continued to go unfunded. Yet within the

school centres that have excelled in “authentic Indigenous education”, awarded

international, national, state and regional education awards and -recognition,


Durithunga leadership has been centrally woven. Further examples of Durithunga

“authentic Indigenous education” models are:

• “Murriland”, Beenleigh, Australian Education Union National Award for

Reconciliation Education, 2000;

• “Footprints in Film – Nyumba Bugir Anga”, Loganlea, Griffith University,

shortlisted Short Film in Cannes International Film Festival and South Coast

Regional Showcase Award for Inclusive Education, 2006;

• “Bulkari”, Woodridge, Australian Education Union National Award for

Reconciliation Education and Individual Award, 2009;

• “Knowledge House”, Loganlea, Showcase School on Third Cultural

Spaces, National Stronger Smarter Leadership Program 2007–2010 and

Dare to Lead Showcase school;

• “URLearning” Longitudinal Study Waterford West, Australian Research

Council (ARC) grant, 2010–2013;

• “YuMi Deadly Maths” Centre for Excellence schools, Marsden (2012–

2015), Beenleigh (2012–Present) and Kingston (2012–Present);

• “Bariebunn Boul”, Waterford West, Premier’s Reconciliation Award

Winner, 2013;

• “Dreaming Circle”, Waterford West, Department of Education Showcase

Awards, State Winner, 2013;

• “Digital Literacy and Indigenous Knowledges” Longitudinal Study, Hymba

Yumba, Springfield, 2013–2016, ARC;

• “Logan PaCE”, Logan Central, Individual Awards, State Reconciliation

Recognition Ceremony, 2014;

• “Emerging Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Educational Leadership”,

Individual Award, 2014–2015, ACEL and;

• “Department of Education and Training Indigenous Education Conference

2017. ‘Yugambeh Language Program’ Showcase, July 2017.


There’s an opportunity to engage current Durithunga leaderships to broker,

either through Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) type agreements or in

partnership accords, some funding which could see this model grow exponentially.

• Durithunga’s power lies in its response and kinnection to local area

contexts.

Here realities of Indigenous intellectual property rights, protocol and procedure are

dealt with as core business. Knowledge of self and self-awareness and articulation of

identity, promoting a strength-based Indigenous identity is key. Durithunga provides

particular parts of that key, code or more appropriately, weaves that work.

Durithunga will continue to grow, shift and change in its present form as a

cultural and an educational process. It has a specific way that engrains sustainability,

and Indigenous educational growth needs sustainability. To not embrace this

sustainable blueprint is to the detriment of future Indigenous educational outcomes.

To not acknowledge the role of Durithunga in developing culturally safer ways further

segregates and silences Indigenous voice in the development and delivery of

groundbreaking proper way education. The challenging Migloo question is: Why does

current education modelling not fully – economically – embrace Indigenous place and

strength-based solutions or models? If Durithunga circles reflect part of their

Indigenous Educators’ role in feeling and growing safety for themselves, each other

and their respective communities in taking part in Durithunga circle then, to quote

another Durithunga member, “…why do they ark up?” (Mel, Whole Group Yarns,

2012, p. 5). What is the inherent fear in systems where Indigenous people take control

and ownership of their own and collectively our village’s wellbeing? Autonomous

modelling of community-controlled and led governance structures and responses are

not a new concept. Yet in 2017, as Community Durithunga Research shows, there is

still significant perceived and demonstrated resistance from Migloo hegemony which

pulls back or rather tries to contain or control what Indigenous education modelling

looks like.

The unpacking of essential items and services – dismantling the bureaucratic

approach of systems in education – would be an interesting piece of research to flow

from this thesis. The actioning of proper way process is a constant struggle for

Durithunga. Further research on the contestation of knowledge fields and ownership

would provide deeper insights into the institutional blockages and racisms that exist


still. For our jarjums, if adult circles don’t feel safe, culturally affirmed, intellectually

embraced, what is the feeling like for our jarjums enrolled in a majority of institutes

that have Migloo hierarchical structures and power relations? This would be another

powerful research area to further develop, jarjums’ programming, and one which

Durithunga has some grounding in, with its prior partnerships with ISSU and Stronger

Smarter, developing the first South East Queensland Indigenous Student Leadership

camps.

Durithunga has embraced future steps through engaging in an incorporation

process. The next case studies or microcosms to follow would be on the success of

Durithunga within the “not-for-profit” community organisation space. Durithunga

demonstrates how you create, build and sustain Indigenous leadership practices in

education.

Finally to conclude, yinundee, Community Durithunga has sustained and

regrown its processes for over 10 years through its dogged determination to see its

visioning grow – “Empowering culture, growth and learning through respect and

Community to enhance the future of our jarjums …”

References 201

References

Amosa, W., Ladwig, J., Griffiths, T., & Gore, J. (2007, November). Equity effects of quality teaching: Closing the gap. Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education annual conference, Fremantle, Western Australia. Retrieved from http://www.aare.edu.au/data/publications/2007/amo07284.pdf

Archibald, J. (2010). Indigenous Storywork: Educating the heart, mind, body and spirit. British Columbia, Canada: UBC Press.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2011). Indigenous profile – Census of population and housing. Retrieved from http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/censushome.nsf/home/data

Australian Institute of Family Studies (2010). Parental and Community Engagment (PaCE) Knowledge Circle Practice Profiles. Canberra: Australian Government. Retrieved from http://www.apps.aifs.gov.au

Barlow, A., & Best, Y. (1997). Koombumerri – Saltwater People. Melbourne, Vic: Heinemann Library.

Barnhardt, R. (2005). Culture community and place in Alaska Native Education. Retrieved from http://www.ankn.uaf.edu/Curriculum/Articles/OscarKawagley/Holotropic.html

Battiste, M. (1995). Introduction: Towards a definition of Indian education. In M. Battiste & J. Barman (Eds.), First Nations education in Canada: The circle unfolds. Canada: UBC Press.

Bennet, D. (2004) cited in Papers and Abstracts: Education and Social Action Conference, December 2004, Flowers, R (Editor), University of Technology Sydney: Retrieved from http://www.cpe.uts.edu.au/pdfs/Educ_Social_Action_CCD.pdf

Beresford, Q., & Partington, G. (2003). Reform and resistance in Aboriginal Education: The Australian experience. Western Australia: University of Western Australia Press.

Bessarab, D., & Ng’andu, B. (2010). Yarning about yarning as a legitimate method in Indigenous research. International Journal of Critical Indigenous Studies, 3(1), 37–50.

Bhabha, H. (1994). The location of culture. London, UK: Routledge Press.

Bhabha, H. (2004). Bhabha: The Location of Culture. London, UK: Routledge Press.

Black, R. (2008). Beyond the classroom: Building new school networks. Melbourne, Vic: ACER Press.

Branco, J. (May, 2016). Aurukun’s Wik Women’s Group Lashes Queensland Government Response: Retirevd from http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au


Brough, M. K., Bond, C., & Hunt, J. (2004). Strong in the City: Toward a strength based approach in Indigenous health promotion. Health Promotion Journal of Australia, 15(3), 215–220. http://search.informit.com.au.ezp01.library.qut.edu.au/documentSummary;dn=454334405992845;res=IELHEA

Bulman, J., & Hayes, J. (2010). Yarning spaces: Dealing with depression and anxiety amongst Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander males the “proper way”. The CAPA Quarterly (Journal of Australian Counsellors and Psychotherapists Association of New South Wales) 1, 24–28.

Bunya Mountains Elders Council (Eds.). (2010). Bonye Buru – Boobagun Ngumminge – Bunya Mountains Aboriginal aspirations and caring for country plan. Queensland: Burnett Mary Regional Group.

Cajete, G. (1994). Look to the mountain: An ecology of Indigenous education. Colorado: Kivaki Press.

Callahan, R. B. (1962). Education and the cult of efficiency. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Calma, T. (2010). 2010 Chalmers Oration – What’s needed to Close the Gap? Adelaide, South Australia: Rural and Remote Health 10: 15686. Retrieved from http://www.rrh.org.au

Chilisa, B. (2012) Indigenous Research Methodologies. California, USA: SAGE Publications Inc.

Craven, R. (Ed). (2011) Teaching Aboriginal Studies: A Practical Resource For Primary And Secondary Teaching. Allen and Unwin Publishers.

Craven, R. G., Tucker, A., Munns, G., Hinkley, J., Marsh, H. W., & Simpson, K. (2005). Indigenous students’ aspirations: Dreams, perceptions and realities. Canberra, ACT: Department of Education, Science and Training, Commonwealth of Australia.

Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (3rd ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Education.

CSIRO. (n.d.). Indigenous STEM Education Project. Retrieved from https://www.csiro.au/en/Education/Programs/Indigenous-STEM

Davis, J. (2004). Practical reconciliation and the state education system – Education policy update. Australian Indigenous Law Reporter, 9(3), 103–106.

Davis, J. (2012) Community Connectionsin education: Community Durithunga- yarning in circle on Country, our way. In J. Phillips & J. Lampert (Ed.), Introductory Indigenous Studies in Education (pp164-177). French Forest, NSW: Pearson Australia.

Davis, J., Dirie, E., & Sadler, T. (2009). Durithunga [Audio podcast]. Presentation at AIATSIS National Indigenous Studies Conference – “Perspectives on urban life:

References 203

Connections and reconnections”, Canberra. Retrieved from http://www.aiatsis.gov.au/research/conf2009/papers/E4.1.html

Davis, J., & Grose, S. (2008). Whichway?... What happens when embedding Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander perspectives in schools meets the professional standards for teachers and an accountability matrix? Paper presented at World Indigenous Peoples’ Conference on Education, 7–11 December 2008, Indigenous Education in the 21st Century: Respecting tradition, shaping the future. Victoria Aboriginal Education Association Inc. Retrieved from http://www.strongersmarter.com.au

Davis, J., & Spillman, D. (2009). Keynote two: The Stronger Smarter footprint. In The Fourth Tristate Remote Schools Conference: Mparntwe (Alice Springs), 22–23 March 2009 (pp. 24–25). Retrieved from http://www.yooyahcloud.com/DTL/VKxLF/TriState_2009_Report_-_Final.pdf

Davis, W. (2007). Spear making (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Queensland, St. Lucia.

Davis-Warra, J., Dooley, K. T., & Exley, B. E. (2011). Reflecting on the “Dream Circle”: Urban Indigenous education processes designed for student and community empowerment. QTU Professional Magazine, 26, 19–21.

Denzin, N., Lincoln, L., & Tuhiwai Smith, L. (2008). Handbook of critical and Indigenous methodologies. California: Sage Publications.

Department of Education and Training. (n.d.). Oneportal district map of CYPAR, Durithunga schools, EYSA Group, Logan Beenleigh Young Persons Project, Logan Healthy Schools Project, Logan City, Department of Education and Training.

Department of Education and Training (2017). Draft for Consultation: Advancing Aboriginal and Torres Striat Islander Education and Training. An Action Plan for Queensland Government.

Retrieved from http://www.indigenousportal.eq.edu.au

Department of Social Services. (2009) Closing The Gap On Indigenous Disadvantage: The Challenge For Australia. Canberra: Australian Government. Retrieved from http://www.dss.gov.au

Dillon, M. C., & Westbury, N. D. (2007). Beyond humbug: Transforming government engagement with Indigenous Australia. South Australia: Sea View Press.

Dodson, P. (2003) The end in the beginning: Re(de)finding Aboriginality. In M. Grossman (Ed.), Black lines – Contemporary critical writing by Indigenous Australians (pp. 25–42). Melbourne, Vic: Melbourne University Press.

Durithunga. (2006). Durithunga Seedlings, Protocols Principles: A working document derived from Durithunga. (Unpublished Manuscript), Community Durithunga Inc., Logan City, Queensland


Exley, B., & Bliss, J. (2004). Using culturally relevant texts and Grant’s Holistic Framework to connect Indigenous early readers to SAE print-based texts. Practically Primary, 9(3),11–15.

Exley, B., Davis, J. & Dooley, K. (2016) Emperical reference points for Bernstein’s model of pedagogic rights: recontextualising the reconciliation agenda to Australian schooling. In P. Vitale & B. Exley (Ed.), Pedagogic Rights and Democratic Education – Bernsteinian explorations of curriculum, pedagogy and assessment (pp33-46). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

Fesl, E. (1993). Conned! St Lucia: University of Queensland Press.

Fredericks, B. (2007). Utilising the concept of pathway as a framework for Indigenous research. The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 36, 15–22.

Freire, P. (1971). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Seabury Press.

Freire, P. (2004). Pedagogy of hope reliving pedagogy of the oppressed. London, UK: Bloomsbury Publishing.

Gilbert, K. (1988). Tree. In K. Gilbert (Ed.), Inside Black Australia: An anthology of Aboriginal poetry. Melbourne: Penguin Books.

Gorringe, S. (2006). A perspective of Western cultural influences on Indigenous Australian leadership styles (Unpublished master’s dissertation). University of Queensland, Gatton.

Gorringe, S. (2008). Indigenous leadership? A set of lenses from which to view Indigenous leadership. Retrieved from http://strongersmarter.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Microsoft-Word-Currents-of-Culture-brief_doc.pdf

Gorringe, S., & Graham, D. (2006). Currents of Culture paper. Presented at the World Indigenous Peoples Conference, Hamilton, New Zealnad.

Gorringe, S., & Spillman, D. (2008). Creating Stronger, Smarter Learning Communities: The role of culturally competent leadership. Paper presented at World Indigenous Peoples’ Conference on Education, 7–11 December 2008, Indigenous Education in the 21st Century: Respecting tradition, shaping the future. Victoria Aboriginal Education Association Inc. Retrieved from http://www.strongersmarter.com.au

Griffiths, T., Amosa, W., Ladwig, J., Griffiths & Gore, J. (2007, November). Equity and pedagogy: Familiar patterns and QT based possibilities. Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education annual conference, Fremantle, Western Australia. Retrieved from http://www.aare.edu.au/data/publications/2007/gri07282.pdf

Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. (1995). Writing science. London: Taylor & Francis.

Harrison, B. (2001). Collaborative programs in Indigenous communities: From fieldwork to practice. Walnut Creek, CA: Altimira Press.

References 205

Hayes, D., Mills, M., Christie, P., & Lingard, B. (2006). Teachers and schooling making a difference: Productive pedagogies, assessment and performance. Sydney, NSW: Allen and Unwin.

Hazlehurst, K. M. (1994). A healing place: Indigenous visions for personal empowerment and community recovery. Rockhampton, Qld: Central Queensland University Press.

Hegarty, P. (2010). Regional Indigenous Education Plan. Logan, Qld: Department of Education and Training South East Region, Logan Office.

Hooks, B. (2003). Teaching community: A pedagogy of hope. London, UK: Routledge.

Horton, D. (1996). Aboriginal Australia Map, Yuggera magnification insert. Retrieved from http://goorenggooreng.blogspot.com.au/2013_02_01_archive.html

Jawun. (2011). Case study: The Cape York Aboriginal Australian Academy. Retrieved from http://cms.jawun.org.au/~/media/Files/Case%20Studies/Cape%20York/Aboriginal%20Australian%20Academy%202011.ashx

Jerome, P. (2010). In Bunya Mountains Elders Council (Eds.), Bonye Buru – Boobagun Ngumminge – Bunya Mountains Aboriginal aspirations and caring for country plan. Queensland: Burnett Mary Regional Group.

Jerome, P., & Wilkie, W. (2003). The Jurrawa men’s handbook: A description of Jurrawa culture and language. Brisbane: W. Wilkie Psychologist.

Jones, K. (2015, December). Media statement from Minister for Education and Minister for Tourism and Major Events, the Honourable Kate Jones. Retrieved from http://www.deta.qld.edu.au

Kawagley, O. (2010). Alaska native holotropic mind and science. Retrieved from http://www.ankn.uaf.edu/Curriculum/Articles/OscarKawagley/Holotropic.html

Kirwin, D. (2007). Aboriginal heroes: Dundalli a “Turrwan” an Aboriginal leader: 1842–1854. Nathan, Qld: Griffith Institute for Educational Research, Griffith University.

Langton, M., & Ma Rhea, Z. (2009). Indigenous education and the ladder of prosperity. Perspectives, pp95 - 119, Melbourne, Future Leaders. Retrieved from http://www.futureleaders.com.au

Lave, J. & Wenger, E., (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Luke, A. (2012). After the testing: Talking and reading and writing the world. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 56(1), 8–13. Retrieved from http://eprints.qut.edu.au.a./50711/


Luke, A., Cazden, C., Coopes, R., Klenowski, V., Ladwig, J., Lester, J., MacDonald, S., Phillips, J., Shield, P., Spina, N., Theroux, P., Tones, M., Villeges, M., and Woods, A. (2013). A Summative Evaluation of the Stronger Smarter Learning Communities Project: Vol 1 and Vol 2, Brisbane, QLD. Queensland Unitversity of Technology.

Martin, K. (2008). Please knock before you enter – Aboriginal regulation of Outsiders and the implications for researchers. Teneriffe, Qld: Post Pressed.

Martin – Kniep, G. (2008) Communities that learn, lead, and last: building and sustaining educational expertise. San Fransico: CA. Jossey-Bass Chinchester John Wiley.

Ministerial Council for Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs. (2010). Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Action Plan 2010–2014. Retrieved from http://www.scseec.edu.au/site/DefaultSite/filesystem/documents/ATSI%20documents/ATSIEAP_web_version_final.pdf

Moreton-Robinson, A. (2000). Talkin’ up to the white women. St Lucia: University of Queensland Press.

Mundine, W., & Langton, M. (2009). Indigenous Australian affairs – A new conversation. Retrieved from http://www.abc.net.au/tv/bigideas/stories/2009/02/18/2495013.htm

Nakata, M. (2001). Changing Indigenous perspectives in curriculum areas. Paper presented at Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education symposium: Successful futures, Cairns.

Nakata, M. (2007). Disciplining the Savages Savaging the Disciplines. Canberra, ACT: Aboriginal Studies Press.

Packer, S. (2005). No common cents. Australian Educators Magazine, 16. Retrieved from http://www.aeufederal.org.au/Publications/AE/Spr05pp16-18.pdf

Pearson, N. (2005). Fundamental transformation through radical reform. Cape York, Qld: Cape York Institute for Policy and Leadership.

Pearson, N. (2009). Up from the mission, Noel Pearson selected writings. Melbourne, Vic: Black Inc.

Phillips, S. R., Phillips, J., Whatman, S. L., & McLaughlin, J. M. (2007) Introduction: Issues in (re)contesting Indigenous Knowledges and Indigenous Studies. The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 36S(Supplement), 1–6.

Purdie, N., Reid, K., Frigo, T., Stone, A., & Kleinhenz, E. (2011). Literacy and numeracy learning: Lessons from the longitudinal literacy and numeracy study for Indigenous students (ACER Research Monograph No. 65). Retrieved from http://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1006&context=acer_monographs

References 207

Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York; USA: Simon and Shuster.

Queensland Curriculum and Assessment Authority. (2011). Profile of Indigenous Year 12 completers 2011, Indigenous Reference Group.

Queensland Curriculum and Assessment Authority. (2016). Profile of Indigenous Year 12 completers

Queensland Studies Authority (2000). Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Senior Studies Senior Syllabus, Brisbane, Queensland.

Robinson, K. (2015) Creative Schools: The Grassroots Revolution That’s Transforming Education. London, UK: Penguin Books.

Santoro, N., & Reid, J. (2006). “All things to all people”: Indigenous teachers in the Australian teaching profession. European Journal of Teacher Education, 29(3), 287–303.

Sarra, C. (Chairperson) (2003). Indigenous education: A report to the Minister for Education. Ministerial Advisory Committee for Educational Renewal: Education Queensland.

Sarra, C. (2005). Strong and Smart: Reinforcing Aboriginal perceptions of being Aboriginal (Unpublished PhD thesis). Murdoch University, Western Australia.

Sarra, C. (2008). High quality: High equity for Indigenous students. Keynote paper presented at Queensland Studies Authority, Brisbane.

Sarra, C. (2011). Strong and Smart – Towards a pedagogy for emancipation: Education for first peoples. New York: Routledge.

Sarra, C. (2012). “Good morning Mr. Sarra” – My life working for a stronger, smarter future for our children. St. Lucia, Qld: University of Queensland Press.

Schein. (2004). Organsiational Culture and Leadership. San Fransico, CA: Jossey-Bass

Senge, P. (2000). Schools that learn – A fifth discipline field book for educators, parents, and everyone who cares about education. New York: Doubleday.

Sheehan, N. (2012). Stolen Generations education: Aboriginal cultural strengths and social and emotional well-being. Woolloongabba: Link-Up Queensland.

Sheehan, N., & Walker, P. (2001). The Purga Project: Indigenous Knowledge Research. The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 25(1), 23–29.

Shor, I. (1992). Empowering education: Critical teaching for social change. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.


Singh, S., Andrew, D., Andy, B., Choy, M., Finlay, H., Greenway, P., … Scott, B. (2001). Aboriginal Australia and the Torres Strait Islands: Guide to Indigenous Australia. Melbourne, Vic: Lonely Planet Publications.

Smith, L. (1999). Decolonising Methodologies – Research and Indigenous Peoples, London: Zed Books.

Sobel, D. (2004). Place-based education: Connecting classrooms and communities. Massachusetts; USA: The Orion Society.

State Library of Queensland. (1999). Queensland Indigenous Languages Map. Retrieved from http://www.slq.qld.gov.au/resources/atsi/languages/queensland/indigenous-language-resources-maps

Steele, J. G. (1984). Aboriginal pathways in Southeast Queensland and the Richmond River. St. Lucia, Qld: University of Queensland Press.

Steeves, G. P. (2010). Literacy: Genocide’s silken instrument (Doctoral dissertation unpublished). University of Alberta, Canada.

The Koombumerri Corporation for culture (Ed.). (2001). The language of the Wangeriburra and neighbouring groups in the Yugambeh Region, from the works of John Allen and John Lane. Beenleigh, Qld.

Turner, P. (2008, June). Closing the Gap: When and how will Australia ever become truly liveable for Indigenous Australians? Paper presented at the Communities in Control Conference, Our Community and Centacare Family Services, Melbourne. Retrieved from https://www.ourcommunity.com.au/files/cic/PatTurner.pdf

Ungunmerr-Baumann, M. (2002). Dadirri inner deep listening and quiet still awareness. Northern Territory: Emmaus Productions. Retrieved from http://nextwave.org.au/wp-content/uploads/Dadirri-Inner-Deep-Listening-M-R-Ungunmerr-Bauman-Refl.pdf

Ward, A., & Bouvier, R. (2004). Resting lightly on Mother Earth: The Aboriginal experience in urban educational settings. Canada: Detselig Enterprises.

Wenger, E., (1998) Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Wenger, E., (2000) Communities of Pratice and Social Learning Systems. Organization Journal, Volume 7, Issue 2, Page 225 – 246, California, USA: Sage Publishing. Retreived from: https://doi.org/10.1177/135050840072002

Woorabinda Council. (2009). Black Card concept. Retrieved from http://www.woorabinda.qld.gov.au

Yugambeh Corporation for Culture. (n.d.). Yugambeh Language Map. Retrieved from https://www.yugambeh.com

References 209

Yunipingu, M. (1989) ‘Language and Power: The Yolngu Rise to Power at Yirrakala School’, in Language Maintenance, Power and Education in Australian Aboriginal Contexts, Darwin: Northern University Press.

Yunkaporta, T. (n.d.). Aboriginal concepts of synergy and interface. Retrieved from http://8ways.com/Interface+theory

Yunkaporta, T. (2009). Aboriginal pedagogies at the cultural interface. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Townsville, Qld: James Cook University. Retrieved from http://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/10974/

Yunkaporta, T., & McGinty, S. (2009). Reclaiming Aboriginal knowledge at the cultural interface, Australian Educational Researcher, 36(2), 55–72.

Appendices 211

Appendices

Appendix A: Languages map

Aboriginal Australian Country Map. Each colour represents an individual first nations group. There are over 200 distinct clan groups recognised across country.

Retrieved from http://goorenggooreng.blogspot.com.au/2013_02_01_archive.html


Yuggera Country Map, Magnified

Retrieved from http://goorenggooreng.blogspot.com.au/2013_02_01_archive.html

Appendices 213

Yugambeh Country Map and scale.

The natural border between Yugmabeh and Yuggera is the river system, here it is

marked as the Logan River.

Retrieved from https://www.yugambeh.com


Appendix B: Community Credentialing


“Empowering culture and community to enhance the future of our jarjums…”

Appendices 215

COMMUNITY CREDENTIALING

DURITHUNGA LEARNING CYCLE

“Community Credentialing”

DURITHUNGA Community Credentialing is an educational leaders process. The

focus is on Indigenous workers on school site who have the most immediate impact

with our jarjums and wider community. DURITHUNGA Community Credentialing

provides a community – quality assured filter for the participation of Indigenous

workers within the learning spaces on Yugambeh and Yuggera lands – border by the

Twin Rivers.

Our standpoint is that of an Indigenous community – a disparate community who, in

number – represent one of the largest Indigenous communities in Murriland. We live

in a highly colonized highly urbanized society. Within this context there exist a real

strength of community leadership and cultural capital. DURITHUNGA Learning

Circle focuses on building and developing on that strength to create sustainable

DURITHUNGA LEARNING

CYCLE


highly proficient community base of educators –grounded in cultural heritage and

knowledge and delivering life long learning outcomes – engagement with learning

throughout our lives.

Community Credentialing is a quality assurance process for the type of educational

leadership that is offered by DURITHUNGA workers. The process is based on the

UNESCO models developed overseas and in Australia. UN fellow Iqbal Singh33 is an

Australian architect of this learning pathway. Based on this international process we

at DURITHUNGA have developed DURITHUNGA Learning Circles.

DURITHUNGA it self is Yugambeh language meaning to grow. Aunty Eileen

Williams and the Yugambeh peoples allow us the space to use language as a form of

empowerment. As a Community we remember what we already know – that our

culture is the longest surviving culture – been here since time began.

DURITHUNGA is a process of yarning and collective sense making which combines

a core of Indigenous educational leaders – on the ground workers who collectively

advocate for stronger educational pathways and futures for our people.

The following is a draft version of the Community DURITHUNGA collective sense

making of this process. On our most recent meeting 22nd of May we work shopped

further ideas on the process but the intent is the same – having a core process of

quality assurance and expectation from within our community to grow greater

educational leadership.

There are 3 distinct processes involved in the Learning circles.

• DURITHUNGA Leader

• DURITHUNGA Guide + Mentor

• DURITHUNGA Leadership

DURITHUNGA Leader

33 Iqbal Singh, Beerwah SHS Principal, UN Research Fellow & Consultant

Appendices 217

The initial roll out of DURITHUNGA Learning Circle – first cycle – is the

completion of a base process – a grounding process. This initial grounding provides

Community with a detailed overview of the types of leadership activities that

complete the first cycle of learning.

For each DURITHUNGA participant to receive first cycle accreditation they must

complete all activities in the circle. Activities in the first cycle involve –

1. TAFE – UNIVERSITY Certification

2. Personal Development – Skills development – Well being*

3. Cultural Awareness – Crossing Cultures; Traditional Knowledge’s*

4. Professional Development – Literacy / Numeracy workshops; History**

5. Strategic Planning – Community DURITHUNGA; School AOPs; Policy roll

outs**

* Recency is important. The rebirth of DURITHUNGA in 2007 means as a collective

these processes can be backdated to June 2007.

**Recency is essential for this learning

DURITHUNGA Guide / Mentor

1. DURITHUNGA Leader Circle completed

2. Personal Development – Skills development – coaching + mentoring;

listening + dialogue

3. DURITHUNGA Community Leaders Forums – facilitation; creation

processes

4. DURITHUNGA educational linkages – Yugambeh + Yuggera RTOs; TAFE;

UNI = begin meshworks34

5. DURITHUNGA Community Hubs – links to other Community Learning

Institutes outside of Yugambeh, Turrabul + Yuggera country; across

Murriland; Australia; Overseas

34 Flo Franks – Native American Community Consultant


DURITHUNGA Leadership

1. Both DURITHUNGA Leader and Mentor Learning Circles are completed

2. Leader shows maintenance of meshworks created in earlier cycles – capacity

of their respective learning environment to interact with other vital agencies

3. Resources or Discussion papers; assertion pieces have been created and

published

4. Personal + Community Development – renewal / healing project has been

conducted and tracked for understanding for community empowerment.

Appendices 219

Appendix C: Community Durithunga Research support letters

Dear QUT,

It is with great pleasure that I, Aunty Robyn Williams, Traditional Owner and

educationalist working and living in the local area (Logan City) flag my support for

the development of research in and around Community Durithunga to be conducted

by John Davis.

I have had the pleasure of knowing, working and growing educational processes side

by side of the work of John. Community Durithunga is a valuable yarning circle

process which exists and is supported by local Indigenous educators to regrow our

ways of doing business. ‘Durithunga’ means to grow in local Yugambeh, these were

the words handed on by my sister Eileen at the initial development of Durithunga in

early 2000’s. I have seen Durithunga grow in the projects and processes it supports

like the student leaders launch I attended at the end of last year.

To have John research and develop further understandings into the importance of

‘our ways’ in education is really important for us as Indigenous people so we grow

and excel more. Having lived in this community for many years and known and

worked alongside John and his family for many years I whole heartedly support the

research proposal.

If there is anything to discuss further please don’t hesitate to call on all the numbers

below.

Yours Sincerely

Robyn Williams

Yugambeh Language Group Elder


Dear Ethics,

It is with great pleasure that I, Alexis give my support for the development of

research in and around Community Durithunga. I am a founding member of

Community Durithunga and am currently P.A.C.E Coordinator for Logan.

P.A.C.E stands for Parent and Community Engagement. As Logan Coordinator I am

based at Boys town Linkup 5 days a week to assist our local community. This project

involves the support and development of our Indigenous parents and communities to

become better involved in education. This work goes hand in hand with the support

work and role of Community Durithunga.

I have known and collaborated with both John and Community Durithunga on a

number of projects over the last decade. My primary work space is in Woodridge and

it is here that I have linked with and help grow strong Indigenous educational

curriculums. With this in mind, I support whole heartedly the research project and

writing to be associated with Community Durithunga research conducted by John

Davis - Warra.

If there is anything to clarify or understand further about my local community or the

work we do please don’t hesitate to call.

Yours Sincerely

Alexis

Appendices 221

COMMUNITY DURITHUNGA

“Empowering culture, growth and learning through respect and Community to

enhance the future of our jarjums”

To whom it may concern,

It is with great pleasure that we the undersigned representatives of Community

Durithunga write this letter of support for the research proposal; Durithunga –

Growing, Nurturing, challenging and supporting urban Indigenous capital in

education.

Community Durithunga is a yarning circle process and support structure in operation

in Indigenous education, for Indigenous educators, driven by Indigenous educators.

As a Community group we sit regular circles to discuss, deliberate and decide best

possible ways forward in the delivery and production of culturally safe ways of

working, living and being.

As an organisation we have been in operation for over 7 years, as an organisation we

have operated on purely a volunteer basis – a process to remind us as Indigenous

peoples that we have the skill sets and knowledge to move in positive ways within

the notion of education.

Research like the one proposed by John Davis is an example of the kinds of

processes we walk by, live by – processes done with us not to us, from us not for us,

of us not on us. Our vision is ‘Empowering culture, growth and learning through

respect and Community to enhance the future of our jarjums’. To partake in a

reflection of and on the power of the Community Durithunga yarning process is

timely as we as an organisation, a body of collective individuals move forward into

our next phases in developing positive futures for our communities.


Already we are involved in a research project in Logan with the active participation

of both John, Enid Dirie and Gary Crosby in the URLearning digital literacy’s

project coordinated by QUT. Community Durithunga was used (and is continued to

be used) as a cultural safety indicator and connector for this particular research

project. The specific Durithunga research provides further reciprocation circles to

develop and we look forward to negotiating and cementing what these are with John

if he is successful in proceeding with research.

Preliminary the notion of possible research on Durithunga has been flagged by John

and his obligations as a reciprocation for the knowledge’s shared have been yarned in

previous Durithunga circles but processes John is already supporting Durithunga

with – Community credentialing. Even before starting his Masters Courses and

planning project focus John has set circle and shared intent and gained support for

his research (our research) on and of Community Durithunga (shared at Community

Durithunga Yarning Circles in 2009).

If there is anything to discuss further please don’t hesitate to call on all the numbers

listed below. Community Durithunga is a collective – we operate within an

Indigenous knowledge framework so no – one individual represents our group. We

have a basic principle which underpins our processes and that is all decisions of

Community Durithunga are group decisions and groups of individuals must partake

on extensive sense making processes (yarning) before decisions are made. The rule

of three ensures not one individual holds all the power and multiple voices are heard

and represent us as a collective.

Look forward to speaking soon.

YOURS IN SPIRIT


[email protected]

Darnah Mick Ellah

Appendices 223

Appendix D: Samples of transcriptions and Thematic Development Process from Whole

Group and One-on-one yarns

CDR – Whole Group Yarning Circle for JD CDR PHD on 22nd April @ 4pm

Circle consisted of Durithunga members present at Boystown LinkUp Kingston

–

Alexis; Mook; Darnah; Mick; Mel; Maude; Keelen; Eliza.

Researcher – John Davis (JD) – silent observer Al Luke

• Mick here…Firstly when you have a big group like here – Durithunga – it’s

empowering it’s a voice a process where you can keep some people in education

accountable. Come here get all that knowledge – we can work together to keep the

system accountable(?) – It’s not just that we’re saying we’re doing…It’s actually

happening – that’s hearsay. I see Durithunga as a network a strength base that we can

keep education principal; schools; teachers; each other accountable to …especially our

young jarjums in education and what’s being delivered in education in community.

• Mook– totally agree – 2 words that stand out to me are support and encourage

in the questions – I feel so supported by the network of teachers; teacher aides;

community people to help us move forward in all school programs – some programs I

don’t even know about – I come here we’re we have Durithunga meetings I know and

I say – yeah that’s a deadly idea just like Durithunga says ‘grow, grow, grow’. The

encouragement – when I’ve come and chucked an idea out there I’ve got support –

said “yeah go for it. That’s why I feel so deadly with you mob”

• Eliza speaking – carrying on from Mook as we’re often the one person in

schools on work carrying out our roles we often feel isolated and we tend to get – it’s

a challenge everyday – not in packing (jobs) or other activities – it’s a challenge in

schools to challenge ways of thinking about us as a people. So it’s not just something


we clock off in the arvo it stays with us 24hrs a day, 7 days a week so when you’re

under that pressure we really need that support – we are really the minority we’re the

minority of the minorities so coming (to Durithunga) and what Mook said feeling

encouraged and supported – it’s really important having these processes put in place

like Durithunga so we can feel we’ve connected in the big picture – we all come with

the same passion and same fight we need to go through everyday. That to me is what

Durithunga provides – to know we’re not out there alone we’ve got each others support

we’ve got enough good heads in the room to bounce off…

• Keelen here – one of the things of Durithunga that stands out to me is the

equality of it all. We have all different people from different backgrounds and levels

of education and roles that they’re in and yet no one person is dominant – is in charge

– leading with their own agenda – everyone’s thoughts are respected and that’s the

thing I feel really strong with Durithunga – I’ve been to other groups there are ‘them’

vs ‘us-es’ and that’s the thing that stands out with Durithunga we are all in this together

we’re all there to support one another. Bring one another together – that’s the thing to

me that draws me to Durithunga and makes me feel strong and is one of the strongest

points of Durithunga.

• Alexis- I suppose Durithunga means to me like JD said we were the first in

park – under trees and started first conversations that have grown to this Durithunga

process to me as a community person I’ve seen the growth in Durithunga as starting

off as a lil yarning circle just listening to our mob talk about what’s in a appearing to

them and the support we could give them and encourage them and now in 2012 looking

at this whole Durithunga process how it’s grown to more then just sitting in a park

under a tree, shady tree but grown and held in different place and communities in

Logan people are more involved there’s more passion – it’s gone from there’s more

then just as community thing for our mob particularly for non – Indigenous people to

you know – like we’ve there but we’re like that tree we’re there and it rattles and

shakes now and again – stirs up you know – the non – Indigenous…

Appendices 225

Community Durithunga Research Yarning Circle Analysis

Thematic production as a process:

• Third Dimensional Space Narrative: Re-reading

• Codification : Clozed Readings

• Catergorisation : Memoing

• Thematic Development : Re-presentation of research data

In actioning Durithunga research I partook in a staged analytical process

(framed above). For both data sets – Whole group and individual yarns the above steps

were taken. Third Dimensional text production needed its own separate analytical

steps. The transcript was re-read and reinterpreted through a three dimensional

reflection, reflections on ‘continuity’, ‘Interaction’ and ‘Situation’. This enabled an

essential part of the research analysis to begin – a separation or ‘othering’ of the data

from my own personal kinnctions and understandings. The transcripts were labelled

according to the three dimensions and subsequent data has been tabularised.

This reshaping of the data has created a deeper ore layered interpretation of

Community Durithunga’s evaluation and reflections on successes and challenges

(more analysis on the three dimensions is found in Chapter Four).

Following the establishment of the metaphoric research space the yarning circle

data was critiqued through the above steps, Codification – Thematic Development.

This analytical production enabled the development of overarching themes to grow

from the rich texts of the yarns. These stages or steps were symbiotically re-created

and grown (as shown above) through a constant feedback loop and critiquing achieved

through closed readings and memoing.


• CODIFICATION

Transcription sample from Mick’s Whole Group Yarning yarns, “…Firstly when

you have a big group like here – Durirhunga – it’s empowering it’s a voice a process…

Come here get all that knowledge”. ‘EMPOWERING’ was a code used to highlight /

interpret the meaning of parts of the transcript. For example, Mick yarned that,

“…Firstly..”

Follwing on from the example of labelling three dimensional reflections, Each

section of the transcript was coded utilising the spaces of the outling borders to write

an interpretative code against the written text.

Following the codification of data, the next step of categorisation required a

further synthesis or grouping of like codes into broader more manageable categories.

‘EMPOWERING’ as a code used to describe the type of yarns like Mick’s, was then

kinnected to other like codes (see below). The CATERGORY was created through

using similar terminology and concepts shared by participants. The category was a

broader grouoing if like codes. As such the ‘EMPOWERING’ code grouped more

directly to ‘Durithunga Weaves’. This had strong kinnections to ‘Culutral weaves’

however was different in that the codes reflected nore on Durithunga specific processes

like Mick’s definition of ‘being a voice’ than on being about or related to specific

aspects of Murri culture like art or Dreaming stories.

• CATERGORISATION

The last process then was tease out the thematic weaves that revealed themselves

through the analysis. It’s an important relfction to make because all of the themes are

interconnected.

• THEMATIC DEVELOPMENT…

Appendices 227

CDR ONE-ON-ONE YARNS 2012

Ellah @ Woodridge

Mook @ Edens Landing

Alexis @ Kingston

JD – John Davis interviewer @ each site.

Sample Aleixs at Kingston ‘One-on-one’ yarn:

JD: First question is ‘How does Durithunga process support and encourage your input

into education – specific examples?’

Alexis: I suppose first this is Durithunga safe space – its a sfae space for us to

meet as Murri educators. We comegather and ahve our yarns we do the ‘rule of 3’ we

have closed business and open business... The thing I like that is in our closed business

we’re able to share things we xcan’t share to our education provider because it’s all

about doing it our way – the Murri way and getting feedback from our peers within

our own Indigenous community out in this Logan area and the way I’ve used some of

the Durithunga [proceses back at schools] is that some our meetings with fellow

workers within Bulkari space we had our closed business out tutors ahd safe space to

have these yarnsabout was troubling them – what wasn’t what was positive things in

the school and everything like that ummm I suppose I took that back away from our

Durithunga circles – the closed and open circles and the rule of 3 that’s in our

dynamics therewithin Woodridge it wasn’t just about me being CEC and head of

everything it was about each and everyone sharing a voice and saying that was very

good for usand just the simple yarns because before Durithunhga we never had all

that stuff and also I brought it over into my new work at Boystown with my families we

have closed business in our workshiops we also have opemn business in our workshops

and I always create a safe space for mob to talk in so they feel safe to talk about that


stuff and we’re always trying to end it off and enciruarge themto start up their

Durithunga proceses within their schools and encourage educators to come won but

with our failies what I’m hoping top dp with our mob in Boystown is build Durithunga

parent groups – yeah we’re hoping top make that next step because when we first

started this Durithunga yarns JD was thereit was in the [parks with families so that

the parents have a voice and us as educators having a voice and I found out with my

work our parents need that voice as well I think what we’ve developed as Durithunga

process it’s empowered us as people its made us not afraid to speak up abd I think if

we can do that as educators hjust imagine the power we can give our parents when

we give that you know they’re jsut gonna gonna blow us away you know that’s what

I’ve doen with the Durithunmga processes whtin my work within myselkf you know its

helped me as a person you know me from the very beginning JD – you know I’m real

quiet and shy soft spoken I suppose but coming through these circles and meetings and

yarns with our mob and see our mob ionvovled in this Durithunga circle it’s been a

power because us women we’re always there we’re always the backbone but it’s been

encouraging thing to see all of our men that’s been a part of circle and youse are

speaking up andI get a real prode when I see that because I belive our men should be

leading the way.

JD: Final thoughts?...Safe spaces – why we need within school and why it’s

important?...

Alexis: I suppose at the beginning when we started off in education we had a

room but it wasn’t a safe room and um working within education nothing was safe

even though I knew I had to be strong for my families I still didn’t feel safe and I

suppose when Durithunga came into it and the spaces it gave me the power to create

safer spaces and embedded into the non-Indigenous side that whenever anyone came

into our room it becoame a safe haven. Even teachers would come past and take a

breather and I say ‘hello what are you doin here?’ and they’d say ‘argh I just want a

breather cause this is a safe space’. ,you know and that was the atmosphere you know

we didn’t have a big sign saying this is a “safe space” you know it’s a fact that anyone

knows who comes through it was safe and anyone knows whatever was said there no

one carried yarns outside the circle. I know that it came through with our kids abiut

what is a safe space you know we talked about it through our circles with teachers –

Appendices 229

they were sasking what is a safe space but they rolled it over into their classroom about

what it is a ‘safe space’ not all of them but some of them and you know when they meet

with the kids for that roll call some of them opened up to see ‘how are you goin? You

know we opened up I suppose and lead the way in creating a safe space and connecting

it back tot he mainstream and you know once it got out there that our kids felt safe our

parents felt safe and then our teachers felt safe you know sometimes they wouldn’t

even talk they would sit down and I’d offer a cuppa tea and they said you know thank

you we just needed to get away from the huistle and bustle you know for me that was

a good you know reflection that it’s never been done like that before and you know I

think with us creating our ‘safe spaces’ within the school it set a precedent for all the

other schools it set a precedent to llok at if we create that safe space then it helps our

jarjums on their journey you know creates that ‘safe space’ but within that space you

know we did have rules... It wasn’t to be abused you know kids couldn’t get out of

classes because they knew the rules there you know I said to the kids – if you’re having

a bad day let’s work on it – coming into the room period one go to period two see how

you feel thenm come back you know it was sort of like that – a place where you could

come and offload kniowing that we didn’t have to report back to their prents or

teachers you know having that safe space was incidents with our teachers and jarjums

I bought them into our room – our space where the kids felt safe so they could open up

– safe circles come from that Durithunga yarns you know so that’s everything…


Appendix E: Ethics approval

RESEARCHTEAM

PrincipalResearcher: JohnDavis-Warra;Master’supgradetoPHDstudent

Supervisors: Prof.AllanLukeDr.MaliaVillegas

DESCRIPTION

The purpose of this research is to unpack and understand the communityempowerment process of Community Durithunga Yarning. The research team islookingforCommunityDurithungamemberstoparticipate.Your participation will involve a full sitting of a Community Durithunga ResearchYarningcircle–allmemberspresentasawholegroup.ThesecondprocessisforthreeindividualmembersofCommunityDurithungatopartakeinindividualinterviews.Itisanexpectationthatallmemberswillbeaudio-recordedforthepurposeofbestcapturing the story and individual voices connected to Durithunga. CommunityDurithunga research participants will be identified through audio-recordingtranscriptionsthroughusinginitials.Theinitialsusedintranscriptswillnotbeinitialsoftheindividualsbutinitialsusedtoidentifythespeakerinrecordings.VOLUNTARYPARTICIPATION

Yourparticipationinthisprojectisentirelyvoluntary.Ifyoudoagreetoparticipate,youcanwithdrawfromtheprojectatanytimewithoutcommentorpenalty.Anyidentifiableinformationalreadyobtainedfromyouwillbedestroyed.Yourdecisiontoparticipate,ornotparticipate,willinnowayimpactuponyourcurrentorfuturerelationshipwithQUTandCommunityDurithunga.

YourparticipationwillinvolveanaudiorecordedYarningcircle/interviewatthesepossibleyarningspaces;YugambehMuseum,BoystownLinkUp,YugambehDreamingCentre,LoganRiverParkorotheragreedlocationthatwilltakeapproximatelyonehourofyourtime.Questionswillinclude;(1)HowisCommunityDurithungaaneducationalprocess;and(2)WhatimpactisCommunityDurithungahavingoneducationintheCommunity?–thesearequestionstobefocusedoninthebroaderYarningCircle.

PARTICIPANTINFORMATIONFORQUTRESEARCHPROJECTDurithungaYarningCircleGroup/Interviews

CommunityDurithungaQUTEthicsApprovalNumberXXXXXX

Appendices 231

Fortheindividualinterviewsthefollowingquestionisasked;(3)HowhasCommunityDurithungaimpactedonyourinvolvementineducationalprocesses?Thesesessionswillbehalftoafullhour.EXPECTEDBENEFITS

Itisexpectedthatthisprojectwillnotbenefityoudirectly.However,itmaybenefitthebroaderCommunity.ThebenefitsofresearchingthemovementofCommunityDurithungaprovideseducationalistswithanotherway-ourway'properway'(Bulman2009)tostriveforIndigenouseducationexcellence.CommunityDurithungaresearchbuildsonIndigenousknowledge’sandwaysofbeingnotpositioningusaslessthenorinferior–strengthsbasedresearch.Moreover,thismodelofIndigenousCommunitydevelopmentissituatedwithinanurbancontext-thereisaplethoraofIndigenouseducationresearchrelatedtoruralandremoteIndigenouscommunities(Dillon&Westbury2007,Bond2004)butadearthofresearchconnectedtourbanspaces(Bond2004,Craven2005).ResearchlikeCommunityDurithungabuildsamorecomprehensiverepresentationofIndigenousAustralianinvolvementineducationespeciallyfromanurbanIndigenousperspective.

RISKS

Therearenorisksbeyondnormalday-to-daylivingassociatedwithyourparticipationinthisproject.

QUTprovidesforlimitedfreecounsellingforresearchparticipantsofQUTprojectswhomayexperiencediscomfortordistressasaresultoftheirparticipationintheresearch.

PRIVACYANDCONFIDENTIALITY

Allcommentsandresponseswillbetreatedconfidentially.AnydatacollectedaspartofthisprojectwillbestoredsecurelyasperQUT’sManagementofresearchdatapolicy.

Anyinformationobtainedinconnectionwiththisprojectthatcanidentifyyouwillremainconfidential.Itwillonlybedisclosedwithyourpermission,subjecttolegalrequirements.Weplantopublicallypresentandpublishtheresultsofthisresearch;howeverinformationwillonlybeprovidedinaformthatdoesnotidentifyyou.

Aswearerecordingthenrestorying–rewritingyourwords,youwillbeaffordedopportunitytofeedbackandverifythetrueaccountandreflectionofyourwordsinrelationtoCommunityDurithungaresearch.Thisqualityassuranceprocessisbuiltintotheresearchdesign.Afterthecollection,collation,transcriptionoftheCommunityDurithungaResearchYarningCircles/interviews,youwillreceiveacopyoftherecordingsandtheoriginalswillbeleftatthebehestofCommunityDurithunga.

AsthisprojectisbasedontheCommunityDurithungaYarningCirclesitisessentialparticipantsare


recordedsothereisnopossibilityofrefrainingfromrecording.

Pleasenoteto,thatasaresultoftherecordingthenrestoryingofCommunityDurithungaviadoctoralstudiesthatnon-identifiabledatacollectedinthisprojectmaybeusedascomparativedatainfutureprojects.

CONSENTTOPARTICIPATE

Onceyouunderstandwhattheprojectisabout,andifyouagreetoparticipate,weaskthatyousigntheConsentForm(enclosed)toconfirmyouragreementtoparticipate.

QUESTIONS/FURTHERINFORMATIONABOUTTHEPROJECT

Ifhaveanyquestionsorrequireanyfurtherinformationabouttheprojectpleasecontactoneoftheresearchteammembersbelow.

Name–JohnDavis-Warra Name–Prof.AllanLuke&Dr.MaliaVillegasSchoolofEducation SchoolofEducationPhone0738077994

Phone0731388678or0731383060

[email protected] [email protected]@qut.edu.au

CONCERNS/COMPLAINTSREGARDINGTHECONDUCTOFTHEPROJECT

QUTiscommittedtoresearchintegrityandtheethicalconductofresearchprojects.However,ifyoudohaveanyconcernsorcomplaintsabouttheethicalconductoftheproject(approvalnumber:XXXXXXX)youmaycontacttheQUTResearchEthicsUniton31385123oremailethicscontact@qut.edu.au.TheQUTResearchEthicsUnitisnotconnectedwiththeresearchprojectandcanfacilitatearesolutiontoyourconcerninanimpartialmanner.

Thankyouforhelpingwiththisresearchproject.Pleasekeepthissheetforyourinformation.

Appendices 233

CONSENTFORMFORQUTRESEARCHPROJECTCommunityDurithunga

RESEARCHTEAMCONTACTS

Name–JohnDavis-Warra Name–AllanLuke&MaliaVillegasSchoolofEducation SchoolofEducationPhone:0738077994 Phone:0731388678or0731383060

Email:[email protected] Email:[email protected]@qut.edu.au

STATEMENTOFCONSENT

Bysigningbelow,youareindicatingthatyou:

• havereadandunderstoodtheinformationdocumentregardingthisproject• havehadanyquestionsansweredtoyoursatisfaction• understandthatifyouhaveanyadditionalquestionsyoucancontacttheresearchteam• understandthatyouarefreetowithdrawatanytime,withoutcommentorpenalty• understandthatyoucancontacttheResearchEthicsUniton0731385123oremail

ethicscontact@qut.edu.auifyouhaveconcernsabouttheethicalconductoftheproject• understandthattheprojectwillincludeaudiorecording• understandthatnon-identifiabledatacollectedinthisprojectmaybeusedascomparativedatain

futureprojects• agreetoparticipateintheproject

Pleaseticktherelevantboxbelow:

I agreefortheYarningCircle/Interviewtobeaudiorecorded

Name

Signature

Date

MEDIARELEASEPROMOTIONS

Fromtimetotime,wemayliketopromoteourresearchtothegeneralpublicthrough,forexample,newspaperarticles.WouldyoubewillingtobecontactedbyQUTMediaandCommunicationsforpossibleinclusioninsuchstories?Bytickingthisbox,itonlymeansyouarechoosingtobecontacted–youcanstilldecideatthetimenottobeinvolvedinanypromotions.

Yes,youmaycontactmeaboutinclusioninpromotions

No,Idonotwishtobecontactedaboutinclusioninpromotions

Pleasereturnthissheettotheinvestigator.


Appendix F: Durithunga Deadlies Touch Carnival

DurithungaDeadlyDaysLeadershipCarnival• CREATivECHANGESchoolVisits-September2012

https://www.facebook.com/GenerationOneAU/photos/a.10151106956719682.4

52051.138046014681/10151106960529682/?type=3&permPage=1

Appendices 235

Appendix G: Durithunga footprint document

“… I remember bub when we began yarns in the park… Durithunga… Look now…” personal communication from Aunty Eileen Williams Yugambeh Elder and foundation member of Community Durithunga – present @ Student Durithunga Leadership Launches in 2010… From our humble beginnings - ‘yarns in the parks’ of Woodridge and Beenleigh we set more regular circles in Nyuemba Meta – library space in Browns Plains – Saturday morns in 2002 – 2005. We reformed in 2006 at Yugambeh Language Museum and have been actively yarning every month, regularly on Thursdays, taking the time to sit, gather, break bread, reconnect – our way – ‘proper way’. We do this and practice these yarns through the Durithunga Seedlings – Durithunga principles. We remember and kinnect to each other as Murri and Torres Strait Islander leaders in education. Now in 2011 we reset our circles in Nyuemba Meta space – Logan City library in Woodridge… This is connected to founding member Faithy Green and the story of growth at Woodridge State school… A rich weave of history and knowledge we are kinnected too and come full circle… Below is part of our weaves as Community Durithunga. We have generated much story, much yarns and much hope through our active memberships and living of the Durithunga principles – like ‘rule of three’ and ‘safe space’… Read through and see the websites (run your mouse over the link and press control J We look forward to an exciting new year and the challenges we face, together, in circle as we continue to Durithunga… http://www.aiatsis.gov.au/research/conf2009/papers/E4.1.html http://www.abc.net.au/news/opinion/speeches/files/20080526_SARRA.pdf http://www.docstoc.com/search/durithunga-%E2%80%9Cto-grow%E2%80%A6%E2%80%9D http://www.wordle.net/show/wrdl/2364673/durithunga http://www.daretolead.edu.au/STORY_Loganlea_State_HS_QLD http://www.leadersinschool.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=section&layout=blog&id=6&Itemid=60 http://www.newsserv.com.au/mailouts/L/loganlea_shs/2010/Oct/Issue01/web/index.html http://deta.qld.gov.au/indigenous/pdfs/eatsips_2011.pdf http://www.billspaintball.com/vb3//attachment.php?attachmentid=17890&d... http://www.jevuska.com/topic/an+amosa+community+school.html http://www.strongersmarter.qut.edu.au/news/detail.jsp?q_link_id=30 http://www.learningplace.com.au/deliver/print.asp?pid=47039


Empowering culture, growth and learning through respect and Empowering culture, growth and learning through respect and Community to enhance the future of our jarjumsCommunity to enhance the future of our jarjums……

Durithunga is local Yugambeh meaning Durithunga is local Yugambeh meaning ——To growTo grow…“…“


Appendix H: Durithunga Seedlings sample


The Seedlings

Protocols and Principles of Community Durithunga

A working document derived from Durithunga; an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander production on Yugambeh and Yuggera lands

Appendices 237

The following document has been the result of Durithunga Processes. It is a Community Durithunga© Document This is Closed business = not to be shared with anyone other then Durithunga membership. An Open business document will be available on affiliated websites soon. It is part of the meaning intended for Durithunga – the whole meaning behind these ‘Principles and Processes’ are to be taken within a wholeness of interaction, talking, dialoguing with Durithunga. This document is not the whole but a written interpretation of Durithunga meetings. It represents the next phase of endorsement and growth of Durithunga principles; Seedlings from yarning circles held in 2007. We respectfully acknowledge the leaderships of Will Davis and Mark Kennedy in drafting and typing the Seedlings in 2007 – capturing the essence of our yarns. The interpretation of our principles to flow come from the Yarning Circles of Community Durithunga membership in March 2011 – specifically holding circle at Nyumeba Meta space on Yuggera Country; Logan City Library; Woodridge… Community Durithunga – the tree… Our metaphors and symbols of our Indigenaity are powerful tools and points of reference in our Community’s where we represent 5 – 10% of the total population. The tree – the gum tree is a symbol that has been chosen by Durithunga to represent us and the processes we use in an educational leadership perspective. The gum tree is a powerful part of our natural landscape – it grows tall and strong. It supports a myriad of life in a multiple of ways through direct gifts of food, shelter and indirectly through light reflection; shade and stability for the soil. The root system that holds the tree is just as important as the tree itself. The root system grounds the tree in the earth and gives nutrition and strength so the tree continues to grow. These trees can grow upwards of 10 – 15 metres, standing tall and proud along the buildings and roads and houses we all occupy today. And the tree begins from a single seed – a seedling. When the seedlings are planted in the earth and form shoots the tree begins to grow. Durithunga then is couched in Durithunga Seedlings, principles of respect drawn from the collective yarning developed on Country. Durithunga has grown from what Community leaders in Logan wanted and want for Indigenous education not told or dictated from other sources, agendas “Empowering culture, growth and learning through respect and Community to enhance the future of our jarjums…” This thinking from an Indigenous stand point has grown by the people, of the people, for the people – enshrined in the principle of respect for Communities as shown by the base principle of ‘Rule of three’.


Vision Statement

Empowering culture, growth and learning through respect and Community to enhance the future of our jarjums

Appendices 239

Contents Durithunga Tree … Durithunga Yarning – Our way … Vision Statement ... Membership of Durithunga … Principles and Process of Meetings … Process of Durithunga … Respect Principles … Culture Principles and Durithunga …


Membership of Durithunga The concept associated with the Yugambeh word ‘Durithunga’ means ‘to grow’35 Membership of a ‘growing’ movement in Indigenous36 education in this area is broadly covered by the following points. It is meant to be in principle as open as our Aboriginal communities are and membership or levels of input and interaction individuated on a persons presence, power of input in meetings and practice of educational empowerment for our people in this area.

• Aboriginal, Torres Strait Islander teachers, Indigenous Education Workers

(IEWs), holders of blue cards, Community people relevant to education. • Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander educators – not just educators who

happen to be Aboriginal, Torres Strait Islander – and be prepared to prove it, what do you do or want to develop that promotes and empowers Indigenous students, workers, Community, culture at your school?

• Proactive Aboriginal, Torres Strait Islander members – a difficult concept,

but members are adding to the growth of Aboriginal pedagogy in education, positive role modelling of relationships in meetings, accountable to Community, back at schools and learning places – members are growing not only individually but assisting in Community growth

• Durithunga has envisaged and is growing ‘Community Credentialing’37

processes used by other Indigenous peoples throughout the world for membership and quantifying Community skills – this will influence ‘membership’ definitions in the future.

35 Yugambeh language shared by Uncle Brian Williams and Aunty Eileen at Durithunga’s initial inception circa 2001. Durithunga is written or referred to in Wangeriburra dictionary as ‘durangan’ – meaning growth (2009). 36 Indigenous in this context refers to both Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. Although the majority of circle is Aboriginal and the context we are on and live in is Aboriginal lands, we are respectful and acknowledge the importance of our kinnections to Torres Strait Islander peoples. 37 Iqbal Singh, Stronger, Smarter

Appendices 241

Principles and Processes of Durithunga Meetings

• Durithunga Meetings will be open and closed • Closed – only Durithunga members will be involved in closed meetings this

will be to discuss and make decisions on business items of members or non members and institutions / organisations that desire our advice or support or critique on proposals, programs, ideas. It is imperative that these meetings are closed for Durithunga members only as a promotion and investment in Indigenous decision making and our processes that are hundreds of thousands of years old38.

• Open parts of Durithunga meeting – when decisions have been made or lines

of investigation require bon Indigenous Australians to be present – especially for feedback, input or presentations.

38 Other education and public service groups have Indigenous only membership and meetings for example the Queensland Teachers Union’s Gandu Jarjum.


Processes of Durithunga

• Review our own principles and practice when needed – group nominated a

cycle of two years • Feedback – yes, all agreed we need a process of evaluation and feedback

from rule of 3 to the larger group depending on importance of issue • As an organisation – we will not give conditional support unless it has been

subject to review, support can be subject to review at any time or stage depending on emerging issues

• To review curriculum content – again every 2 years – once we approve

something let it be for two years so that a school or learning space can implement it (this is negotiable to a shorter time frame depending on the participants)

• Review / feedback can be an oral process for the person / outside group

involved • Back to review – may include review for support of organisations, agendas

and Durithunga give their name upon request

Appendices 243

Culture Principles and Durithunga

• We recognise the gap invasion, colonisation; stolen generations have left for our younger generation and Community. We will promote ways to address these issues.

• Acknowledgment of the safety of our jarjums – this is paramount and core to

Durithunga business • Acknowledgment of Country, place • Acknowledgement of self, family line, kin, totem, heritage • Acknowledgement of traditional dance, song and art, language, lives, lines –

these spaces we will be respectful of • Durithunga recognises the great cultural sensitivities needed and be taken

regarding tribal groups and above points • Promotion and celebrate Indigenous culture / learning achievements –

NAIDOC and Durithunga.

Community Durithunga – Seedlings

Durithunga – Growing, nurturing, challenging and ... · Durithunga – Growing, nurturing,...

Documents

Transcript of Durithunga – Growing, nurturing, challenging and ... · Durithunga – Growing, nurturing,...