Search

The thesis template is a guiding document for higher degree researchers to assist their transition into research. But what happens when the template does not mirror your ways of knowing, being and doing? How do we speak back to an institutionalized structure that advocates support and yet, feels like a "Boa constrictor" squeezing you into conformity? If Indigenous people are to undertake the challenge of higher degree research for such an extended length of time, it needs to be a reflection of us, does not it? In this paper, I share a selection of stories and insights to illustrate the struggles with the chasms of identity and dominant social norms. I provide insight to the waves of achievement and the troughs of isolation as a PhD candidate. This paper aims to encourage Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander HDR students to further take up the challenge to disrupt the thesis and to challenge the institutional structures so that the thesis can start reflecting our voices rather than making us fit the 'box'.

It came as a surprise to me, after an extensive Google search and reading of numerous policies, that English, and more specifically Standard Australian English, is not the official language of Australia (ACARA, 2016c; Lo Bianco, 1987). There are examples cited by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (1999) that state, 'English is regarded as the national language of Australia' (para. 2), and notably, Lo Bianco's paper was cited as evidence to support the ABS's assertion. However, as Chik and Benson (2018) argue, while English is considered the common language, 'Australia has no policy designating English as an official language' (para. 3). So, why is there such a focus in the Australian Curriculum (ACARA, 2015) and other educational policies such as the Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians (MCEETYA, 2008) on all Australian students excelling in Standard Australian English? In regards to my own position as an Aboriginal educator and researcher whose focus is on how language is used to maintain dominant norms and colonial power, I often include an environmental scan to determine the influencing factors that determine societal attitudes and behaviours. This being said, I was aghast when I recently heard that the former Prime Minister of Australia and newly appointed special envoy on Indigenous issues, Mr Abbott, state to Mr Warren Mundine during a radio interview that his approach to addressing the perceived gaps in Indigenous education 'all starts with learning how to read, to write, to count and to think in the national language' (as cited in Thorpe, 2018, September 10, p. para. 6 (emphasis added)). If a man who once held one of the most powerful positions in Australian society believes in and advocates for the national language, by which we can only assume he meant the English language, this perfectly demonstrates the privileged position of the coloniser and the power they assume. In this paper, the privileging of Standard Australian English is explored and challenged from a position of wanting to play with language and ask the very question: Why is Standard Australian English considered the only official means of communication? The notion of spelling, grammar and punctuation as essential and the need to adhere to the rules to communicate will be pushed, prodded and questioned throughout the paper, where phonetic spelling and other observed common errors as a classroom teacher for almost 20 years will be used explicitly. I do this on purpose. Our role as classroom teachers is to engage students in learning, to introduce the notion of lifelong learning and to develop the students' notions of success. So it broke my heart when as I was encouraging them to continue working on their assessments, one of my Aboriginal students said to me, 'Why bother, Miss? I am a D student! I have failed before I even start so why bother??' How do you argue with that? If graded against his same age cohort and the expectations of the Australian Curriculum, this student would most certainly fail. He was articulate and could most definitely convey his message, but his spelling, punctuation and basic written expression lacked the standards and observable rules of English. So this paper is for him, asking: Why is Standard Australian English the only means of communication advocated in schools? If learning is indeed lifelong, then why do we judge students' capabilities in appropriately using Standard Australian English when our world in which we live today is so very different to the world that education systems and policy makers still cling to? And, more importantly, why do we have an education system that students feel they have already failed in before they begin?

The areas of concern ('goals', 'domains' and 'priority areas'--whatever policymakers wish to call them) relating to Indigenous education have not changed since the first National Indigenous education policy in 1989. Deficit discourses, discursive trickery and the inability to report progress continues to demoralise and ensure Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students remain at the lower rungs of educational outcome indicators maintaining societal and institutional constructs. In this paper, I argue that there is a need to dramatically reform the approach to Indigenous education transforming the hegemonic positioning assumed by the coloniser. Essentially, this would take a revolution: a revolutionary transformation of institutional and societal constructs; a cognitive awareness of how language and discourses are used to maintain power and a need to privilege Indigenous voices and knowledges to ensure that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples' rights in education are achieved.

This paper argues that genuine engagement and consultation is required where Indigenous voice is prevalent within the policy development process for true progress to be achieved in the educational attainments of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students. It is important to note that there has been little critical analysis of policy discourses. More specifically, analysis of how language is used to maintain societal constructs. By providing an Indigenous standpoint, it is anticipated that this paper makes explicit to policymakers the bias and taken for granted assumptions held by those who produced it. This paper is derived from a larger project, namely my Masters of Education (Research) thesis (Hogarth, 2015). The major findings that emerged from the data included (a) the homogenous grouping of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, (b) the maintenance of the prevalent dominant ideology of a deficit view within policy and finally (c) the expectation of government of increased engagement and connections with and by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in education without consideration of the detrimental effects of past policies and reforms. The potential implications of making explicit how language positions Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students' educational attainment can inform future policymaking and contribute to the struggle for self-determination.

The educational attainment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students is often presented within a deficit view. The need for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander researchers to challenge the societal norms is necessary to contribute to the struggle for self-determination. This paper presents a theoretical and methodological approach that has enabled one researcher to speak back to the deficit discourses. Exemplification of how Indigenous Critical Discourse Analysis (in: Hogarth, "Addressing the rights of Indigenous peoples' in education: A critical analysis of Indigenous education policy," Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, 2016) identifies the power of language to maintain the inequitable positioning of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples within Australian society is provided. Particular focus is placed on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Action Plan 2010-2014 (in: MCEECDYA, "Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Action Plan (2010-2014)," 2011) and how policy discourses ignore the historical, political, cultural and social factors that influence the engagement and participation of Indigenous peoples in education today. The paper argues for the need to personalise methodological approaches to present the standpoint of the researcher and, in turn, deepens their advocacy for addressing the phenomenon. In turn, the paper presents the need to build on existing Indigenous research frameworks to continue advocating for the position of Indigenous research methodologies within the Western institution.