Book review : Indigenous peoples : self-determination knowledge indigeneity

This is a book review of Indigenous Peoples: Self-Determination Knowledge Indigeneity. Edited by Henry Minde in collaboration with Harald Gaski, Svein Jentoft and Georges Midre. Published by Eburon Academic Publishers in Delft, the Netherlands. Paperback, 382 pages, no index. AUD. $79.99. ISBN 978-90-5972-204-0.

Philanthropy for Indigenous causes : more than a 'cup of tea'?

In the face of improved First Nation outcomes in many western nations, Australia is still dealing with a seemingly intractable gap between the quality of life of its Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and the non-Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population. Philanthropy in Australia provides a smaller proportion of funding for community projects than is the case in other countries and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander causes have been significantly under - represented as recipients. This paper reports on a qualitative study aimed at understanding the issues affecting the decisions and actions of grantmaking organisations and individuals who wish to support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander causes in the current Australian context. The aims were to build on the limited research in this arena, add to the future research agenda and contribute to practice and policy insights for Australia and beyond. The study found that while government funding programs are perceived as output driven, inflexible and dogmatic - ‘a cup of tea mob’- participants see the Australian philanthropic sector as capable of addressing the complex Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander ‘problem’ with more innovative and independent thinking. From the point of view of contextual impacts, success criteria, barriers, structural imposts and emotional involvement, the practical experience in grantmaking for Indigenous causes of participants in this study reflects that found elsewhere. However the focus of many grantmakers on organisational rather than community capacity and the potentially elitist emphasis on established relationships continues to hamper Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander access to philanthropic funding in Australia. Further, if the strategic changes currently visible in the sector are unsupported by a depth of policy and a proactive transfer and distribution of skill and knowledge they may be unsustainable.

Healthy children, healthy planet : the case for transformative education in schools and early childhood from an Australian perspective

Climate change is an urgent global public health issue with substantial predicted impacts in the coming decades. Concurrently, global burden of disease studies highlight problems such as obesity, mental health problems and a range of other chronic diseases, many of which have origins in childhood. There is a unique opportunity to engage children in both health promotion and education for sustainability during their school years to help ameliorate both environmental and health issues. Evidence exists for the most effective ways to do this, through education that is empowering, action orientated and relevant to children’s day to day interests and concerns, and by tailoring such education to different educational sectors. The aim of this discussion paper is to argue the case for sustainability education in schools that links with health promotion and that adopts a practical approach to engaging children in these important public health and environmental issues. We describe two internationally implemented whole-school reform movements, Health Promoting Schools (HPS) and Sustainable Schools (SS) which seek to operationalise transformative educational processes. Drawing on international evidence and Australian case examples, we contend that children’s active involvement in such processes is not only educationally engaging and rewarding, it also contributes to human and environmental resilience and health. Further, school settings can play an important ecological public health role, incubating and amplifying the socially transformative changes urgently required to create pathways to healthy, just and sustainable human futures, on a viable planet.

Introduction

This is not a book about the perils of global warming and its impact on children, although climate change provides an impetus. Nor is it a response to environmental issues that shifts responsibilities from adults to children, asking them to fix what we leave behind. Instead, it is a book of positive ideas and actions that shows what early childhood educational communities can do when children, teachers and parents work together to address, arguably, one of the most serious issues of our time. It is about what early childhood education – and specifically, early childhood teacher education – can and must do to play its part in helping societies move towards sustainable living. It is about the emerging field of early childhood education for sustainability (ECEfS).

What is early childhood education for sustainability?

Julie Davis canvasses the literature to explain why sustainability issues are important for young children and why early childhood educators should become engaged with EfS. She outlines the short history of ECEfS in Australasia and internationally, emphasising its marginalised and fragile early phase that is now beginning to coalesce into a robust international movement. She then highlights two recent studies undertaken in child care centres that illustrate the learning and actions that are possible when education for sustainability is incorporated into early childhood curriculum and pedagogy. Julie ends the chapter by identifying the qualities that might characterise early childhood education for sustainability, stressing its requirement to be transformative education that builds the capabilities of young children as agents of change for sustainability. In so doing, she draws together theoretical strands from both early childhood education and EfS, beginning the process of constructing a theoretical framework for ECEfS.

Creating deep and broad change through research and systems approaches in early childhood education for sustainability

The co-authors raise two matters they consider essential for the future development of ECEfS. The first is the need to create deep foundations based in research. At a time of increasing practitioner interest, research in ECEfS is meagre. A robust research community is crucial to support quality in curriculum and pedagogy, and to promote learning and innovation in thinking and practice. The second 'essential' for the expansion and uptake of ECEfS is broad systemic change. All level within the early childhood education system - individual teachers and classrooms, whole centres and schools, professional associations and networks, accreditation and employing authorities, and teacher educators - must work together to create and reinforce the cultural and educational changes required for sustainability. This chapter provides explanations of processes to engender systemic change. It illustrates a systems approach, with reference to a recent study focused on embedding EfS into teacher education. This study emphasises the apparent contradiction that the answer to large-scale reform lies with small-scale reforms that build capacity and make connections.

Early childhood education for sustainability : why it matters, what it is, and how whole centre action research and systems thinking can help

The global financial crisis, global pandemics, global warming and peak oil are indicative of a world facing major environmental, social and economic problems. At the same time, world population continues to rise and global inequalities deepen. Children are the most vulnerable to the impacts of unsustainable living with specific harms arising because of their physical and cognitive vulnerabilities. Nevertheless, children do not have to be victims in the face of these challenges. Education, including early childhood education, has an important role to in building resilience and capabilities in children that equip them as active and informed citizens now and in the future and who are capable of contributing to healthy and sustainable ways of living. Drawing on educational change literature, action research, education for sustainability, health promotion and systems theory, this paper outlines three strategies that can help reorient early childhood education towards sustainability. One strategy is the adoption of whole centre approaches to sustainability and education for sustainability. This means working across the whole of a centre’s operations – curriculum and pedagogy, physical and social environments, its partnerships and community connections. The second strategy – applied in conjunction with the first – is the use of action research to investigate the early childhood setting and to create the desired changes. The third strategy is the adoption of systems thinking as a way of leveraging support and momentum for change so that education for sustainability goes beyond the initiatives of individual teachers and centres, and becomes a systems-wide imperative.

Leadership for creating cultures of sustainability

This chapter discusses the vital role of leadership in creating change for sustainability in an early childhood education and care setting. The author's experiences and perspectives as the past Director of Campus Kindergarten, a long day care centre that has had a Sustainable Planet Project for over a decade, are drawn upon as she explores the theoretical underpinnings that helped to shape her work as an innovative leader and a leader of innovation. Four frames of leadership, organisational culture, professional development and organisational change, and their contributions to creating and shaping the Sustainable Planet Project, are outlined. The style of educational and organisational leadership is highlighted as essential in creating a culture of sustainability. There is an emphasis on 'whole settings' approaches to change and the creating of 'learning communities' for sustainable living. Importantly, the recognition of children as leaders and change agents for sustainability is explored.

Sir Neville Howse (VC), Private John Simpson Kirkpatrick and Private Martin O’Meara (VC) and their contributions to Australian military medicine

Medical personnel serving with the Defence Forces have contributed to the evolution of trauma treatment and the advancement of prehospital care within the military environment. This paper investigates the stories of an Australian Medical Officer, Sir Neville Howse, and two stretcher bearers, Private John Simpson (Kirkpatrick) and Private Martin O’Meara, In particular it describes the gruelling conditions under which they performed their roles, and reflects on the legacy that they have left behind in Australian society. While it is widely acknowledged that conflicts such as World War One should never have happened, as civilian and defence force paramedics, we should never forget the service and sacrifice of defence force medical personnel and their contribution to the body of knowledge on the treatment of trauma. These men and women bravely provided emergency care in the most harrowing conditions possible. However, men like Martin O’Meara may not have been given the same status in society today as Sir Neville Howse or Simpson and his donkey, due to the public’s lack of awareness and acceptance of war neurosis and conditions such as post traumatic stress disorder, reactive psychosis and somatoform disorders which were suffered by many soldiers during their wartime service and on their return home after fighting in war.

Murri Courts : Indigenous Magistrate Courts : communicating for better outcomes

In setting the scene for this paper, it is useful to briefly outline the history of the Queensland legal system. Our legal system was largely inherited from Britain, so it is, therefore, based in European-Western cultural and legal traditions. Alongside this, and over many thousands of years, Australian Indigenous communities devised their own socio-cultural-legal structures. As a result, when Indigenous people are drawn into interactions with our English-based law and court system, which is very different from Aboriginal law, they face particular disadvantages. Problems may include structural and linguistic differences, the complex language of the law and court processes, cultural differences, gender issues, problems of age, communication differences, the formalities of the courtroom, communication protocols used by judges, barristers, and court administrators, and particularly, the questioning techniques used by police and lawyers.

Repositioning an ethic of sustainability in early childhood education, with Reconciliation as central

In this chapter I raise questions about the current scope and purpose of early childhood education for sustainability (ECEfS) and the ways ECEfS is enacted in practice. This is to highlight why social, political and economic areas of concern should be central in ECEfS alongside an environmental focus. Specifically, this chapter establishes the place of Reconciliation in ECEfS because it is one of the most pressing ethical, social, political and economic issues on the Australian landscape. To reposition an ethic of sustainability is to broaden the scope and purpose of sustainability work so that particular regard is given to the place of Reconciliation in ECEfS. An ethic of sustainability is also concerned with the responsibility of non-Indigenous educators to take ownership of Reconciliation work in education curricula and contexts.

Strategic directions report for the social determinants of health project

This report presents the outcomes of a project undertaken by the VACCHO Public Health Research Unit to explore ways to build capacity in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander social determinants research. The project was funded by the Cooperative Research Centre for Aboriginal Health.----- The project involved a series of four social determinants research workshops conducted in July and August 2009 and a collaborative forum conducted in September 2009. Invitations to participate were extended to the VACCHO membership and the nine universities in Victoria. Three workshops were held with ACCHOs (in Bendigo, Melbourne and Gippsland), and one workshop with universities (in Melbourne).----- The workshops aimed to build VACCHO’s social determinants research capacity and provide direction for VACCHO on ways to more effectively engage in Aboriginal health research. Through the workshops, VACCHO aimed to work with ACCHOs to identify research processes and issues that are equitable and sustainable, and which address the social determinants of health.----- At the workshops, participants explored questions around the priorities for the social determinants of Aboriginal health and considered the key partnerships that might be important to social determinants research.----- At the workshops with ACCHOs, participants identified key research priorities and questions in Aboriginal social determinants and health. This focus reflects the need for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community representatives to identify the priorities in health and social determinants research. Identifying these priorities is important if researchers are to respond in a meaningful way and undertake relevant research in the most urgent areas of need. At the university workshop, participants focused on identifying research process and implementation issues in social determinants research.----- The final forum brought together ACCHOs, university representatives, invited presenters and participants from justice, education and housing departments, and representatives from non-government funding organisations. The forum aimed to provide an insight into how priorities and funding decisions are made, and how research can help to ensure they are influenced by the priorities of the community. The findings from the workshops were presented at the forum and used to develop pathways for future research.

How Australia’s Indigenous people are positioned within health service sites by our presence and by our absence

De Certeau (1984) constructs the notion of belonging as a sentiment which develops over time through the everyday activities. He explains that simple everyday activities are part of the process of appropriation and territorialisation and suggests that over time belonging and attachment are established and built on memory, knowledge and the experiences of everyday activities. Based on the work of de Certeau, non-Indigenous Australians have developed attachment and belonging to places based on the dispossession of Aboriginal people and on their everyday practices over the past two hundred years. During this time non-Indigenous people have marked their appropriation and territorialisation with signs, symbols, representations and images. In marking their attachment, they also define how they position Australia’s Indigenous people by both our presence and our absence. This paper will explore signs and symbols within spaces and places in health services and showcase how they reflect the historical, political, cultural, social and economic values, and power relations of broader society. It will draw on the voices of Aboriginal women to demonstrate their everyday experiences of such sites. It will conclude by highlighting how Aboriginal people assert their identities and un-ceded sovereignty within such health sites and actively resist on-going white epistemological notions of us and the logic of patriarchal white sovereignty.

Best Practice

The overall theme for the 4th Biennial International Network of Indigenous Health Knowledge and Development (INIHKD)Conference was ‘Knowing Our Roots: Indigenous Medicines, Health Knowledges and Best Practices’. Conference activities were grouped around the following broad themes: •Building of Indigenous research capacity, partnerships and workforce; •Sharing of innovative, traditional and contemporary Indigenous knowledges, especially with respect to culturally-grounded interventions and evidenced-based “best and promising practices”; •Identification of successful Indigenous health policy solutions; and •Sharing of ethical, Indigenous-based research protocols and methodologies. This keynote plenary presentation focused on 'best practice' in research asking the questions: What kind of research will I do? What kind of research will I be? What is the contribution that I will make? what will be my legacy?