4 Indigenising the environmental science curriculum: Part 1

School of the Environment

Glossary

Positionality

Coen Hird is a trawlwoolway pakana related to north-east Lutruwita (Tasmania) (Hearps, Briggs family). Coen is of palawa and European descent. Coen grew up across so-called Australia including on Lutruwita, Woiworrung and Gubbi Gubbi Country, and now lives on Yagara lands south of Magandjin (Brisbane). Coen did his bachelor’s degree and PhD at The University of Queensland (UQ), focusing on the ecology and physiology of amphibians in a changing climate. Coen now researches and teaches at the interface of Western and Indigenous sciences, with broad interests in Indigenous epistemologies, ecophysiology and conservation biology. Coen is pursuing an anti-colonial research agenda that centres Indigenous priorities in scientific research. This approach stems from environmental rights-based discourse, better engagement with Indigenous peoples, and developing understanding and respect around Indigenous knowledges and Indigenous sovereignty within the sciences.

Jim Walker is a Yiman and Goreng Goreng Elder and a Lecturer at UQ. Jim has been advocating for the rights of Indigenous peoples for more than 20 years, both in Australia and internationally. Jim brings a wealth of expertise to the space as Chair of the Murri Mura Aboriginal Corporation; Board of Advice member of the Queensland Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Foundation; Chair of the First Nations Advisory Team for the Cooperative Research Centre for Transformations in Mining Economies; Chair of the Science Advisory Committee and Board member of Earthwatch Australia; Member of the Science Advisory Committee for the Terrestrial Ecosystems Research Network; former Manager of the CSIRO’s National Indigenous Engagement Office; and former Chair of the Indigenous Caucus within the World Intellectual Property Organisation Intergovernmental Committee on the Protection of Intellectual Property, Traditional Knowledge and Cultural Expressions.

Benjamin Mos is a Murri man of Turrbal, Dutch and English descent and Senior Lecturer at UQ. Ben was born and raised on Gumbaynggirr Country, and now lives on Quandamooka Country, working from the Moreton Bay Research Station on beautiful Minjerribah. Ben undertakes research and teaches about the ways in which we (humans) are altering waterways and oceans through climate change, pollution, and catching too many fish, and how we can solve these problems by entwining Indigenous and international science approaches. Ben is keen to realise an Indigenised curriculum at UQ that recognises and respects Indigenous rights, responsibilities, sovereignty, knowledges, and ways of being and doing to transform the way in which science is done for the benefit of current and future generations.

Steve Salisbury is of Dutch-Indonesian and English descent, but was born and grew up in the cool, misty mountains of Dharug and Gandangarra Country. He lived in Europe (the UK and Germany) for five years while he completed his PhD, before settling in Yagara/Ugarapul Country in South East Queensland with his family in the early 2000s. He is currently an Associate Professor in the School of the Environment at UQ, and the School’s Director of Indigenous Engagement and Chair of the Faculty of Science Indigenising Curriculum Working Group. For over 15 years, Steve has partnered with Aboriginal communities in the Saltwater Sundown Country of the West Kimberley to better understand the region’s natural and cultural heritage, in particular its dinosaur tracks. He is passionate about decolonising and transforming aspects of palaeontology and empowering Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voices in the natural sciences. He is now trying to use some of his experiences in palaeontology to help develop and implement teaching and research practices that are more respectful and understanding of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander sovereignty, perspectives and ways of knowing, in ways that foreground their First nations status.

Indigenising science

Political and social engagement and activism by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to transform Australian universities to be more inclusive of Indigenous peoples, cultures and knowledges generated institutional audits and curricula changes across the sector (Behrendt et al., 2012; Bradley et al., 2008; Rigney, 2017). This was in part driven by the realisation of higher education’s involvement in historical and ongoing colonial violence towards Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and knowledges (Manathunga & Grant, 2017) and has culminated in the joint commitment to Universities Australia’s Indigenous Strategy 2022–2025 (Universities Australia, 2022). This aligns with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Histories and Cultures cross-curriculum priority, which emphasises that cultural responsiveness in science education is essential for embedding Indigenous perspectives into curricula (Sambono, 2021). As the dial shifts from aspiration to implementation, universities across Australia are at different stages of Indigenising curricula in STEM disciplines (science, technology, engineering and mathematics). Indigenous knowledges have a problematic entanglement with hegemonic Western scientific institutions, which typically extract from, misrepresent, marginalise and distort Indigenous knowledges (Eyzaguirre, 2001; Smith, 1999). Indigenous sciences, also called Indigenous knowledges or ways of living in nature (Aikenhead & Ogawa, 2007; Cajete, 2000; Colorado, 1988; Snively & Corsiglia, 2000; Stewart, 2022), are already taught across a range of university contexts, but, due to their inherent interdisciplinary nature, they are usually offered through arts and humanities rather than within so-called “hard” (formal and natural, as opposed to social) science programs (Cawthorne, 2023). This is true within the Faculty of Science (FoS) at UQ, which has only recently begun systemic efforts to Indigenise curriculum.

Top-down approach

While institutional attitudes are shifting to recognise and respect the diversity of Indigenous knowledge traditions, the top-down push to Indigenise science curricula is not always met with enthusiasm by scientists. From our experience, educators of Western science in universities understand the merits of Indigenising curriculum when engaging with the project through a social justice lens. This relates to Indigenising curriculum being used as a tool to address Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander disadvantage; when Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students can see themselves in the curriculum, it leads to better education outcomes for those students (Behrendt et al., 2012). The quest for educational relevance required embedding local Indigenous knowledges to address the socio-cultural realities of students, aligning the curriculum with broader transformative goals (Gumbo, 2016). Indigenising curricula has also been proposed from a rights-based framework through international human rights legislation such as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (United Nations, 2007), with particular reference to Article 31 and the unique right of Indigenous peoples to maintain, protect and develop “manifestations of their sciences, technologies and cultures” (p. 22), and also to Article 14 and the right of Indigenous peoples to “control their educational systems and institutions” (p. 13). However, engaging with Indigenising science curricula by centring the merits of Indigenous sciences presents a greater challenge to the Indigenising moment in colonial tertiary science education.

The ontological and epistemological core of Western science in university contexts generally (but not always) assumes empiricism, objectivity and universality of knowledge, which can sit at odds with Indigenous knowledge systems (Smith, 1999; Tsosie & Claw, 2019). The “Science Wars” of the 1990s, which pitted postmodern critiques against traditional scientific empiricism, led to important shifts in social sciences, encouraging a more pluralistic and critical approach to knowledge production (Grossman, 2021). However, these debates had little effect on the hard sciences (e.g., biology, chemistry), where positivist, empiricist models remain dominant. For example, while the social sciences now often incorporate reflexivity and knowledge pluralism, STEM disciplines largely continue to prioritise objective, universal claims to knowledge and perpetuate nature/culture binaries (Harding, 1991; Rose, 2004). As Nakata (2007) explains in his foundational work, the meeting point of Indigenous and Western knowledge systems is a dynamic and complex space of tension and negotiation, requiring reflexivity and respect for diverse epistemologies (see also Nakata, 2010; Nakata et al., 2014).

In the current push to Indigenise science curricula, this tension between Western and Indigenous knowledge systems remains a key challenge. Indigenising science is not merely a process of incorporating Indigenous perspectives or content into existing scientific frameworks but a fundamental transformation of how knowledge is produced, validated, taught and used (Guerzoni, 2020; Hauser et al., 2009). Debates continue among Indigenous and non-Indigenous scholars about the validity of Indigenous ways of coming into knowledge as scientific according to varied definitions of what constitutes science (Ahdar et al., 2024; Black & Tylianakis, 2024; Clements et al., 2021; Parke & Hikuroa, 2023; Stewart, 2021), and philosophers have argued that such definitions are dependent upon key assumptions about the nature of reality which may be too complex to answer (Stewart, 2019). In this chapter, we avoid directly addressing these questions and avoid a straightforward academic orientation to whether Indigenous sciences are commensurable with Western sciences. However, while concepts of weaving or braiding Indigenous knowledges with Western science sound appealing, they can also allow extractive and unethical scientific praxis to continue in parallel with Indigenous science. For example, a course which includes field trips that collect data on culturally significant species without consent may then provide a guest lecture with an Indigenous perspective on the course topic. Then, Indigenous staff and students may become implicated in the harms of Western science. Many scientists have little experience in the reflexive praxis of engaging with the assumptions and limitations of Western science and Indigenous knowledge paradigms, which can lead to discomfort (Howlett et al., 2013).

Science educators must understand Indigenising curriculum as an ongoing and fundamentally transformative process that engages with the validity of pluriversal ways of knowing on their own terms, rather than as an equity, diversity and inclusion project (Gumbo, 2016; Harding, 1991; Kayumova & Strom, 2023; Warren et al., 2020). In many cases, lifting the level of understanding about Indigenising curriculum among teaching staff is the responsibility of institutions that require their staff to effectively Indigenise curricula with limited resources and support.

Although many well-intentioned science teachers have long included Indigenous content in teaching material, this is often done in a tokenistic and piecemeal way with no link to the courses’ learning outcomes or assessment (Acton et al., 2017; Antoine et al., 2017; Bullen, 2017; Fiedler, 2008). Unfortunately, when scientists and science learners engage with Indigenous knowledges solely through a lens of Western science without reflexivity, it leads to a misrepresentation and distortion of Indigenous knowledges. This is a form of epistemic violence, not totally different from the aims of science education in missions and residential schools of committing epistemicide (Santos, 2007) by explicitly seeking to erase or explain away Indigenous knowledges. For this reason, good intentions around Indigenising curriculum are often not enough, and Indigenous leadership and careful strategy are critical.

Bottom-up approach

In combination with the top-down institutional push to Indigenise curricula, effective Indigenisation of science curricula requires a bottom-up approach from a committed team of academic and professional staff. One facet driving a bottom-up approach to Indigenising curriculum is the adoption of best teaching practices. The challenge of enhancing student engagement is a widespread issue across the tertiary education sector. Traditional lectures are witnessing historically low attendance rates. As a response, pedagogical methods are evolving, with a blend of online learning and interactive face-to-face workshops, tutorials and practicals often replacing the traditional “sage on the stage” approach (e.g., French & Kennedy, 2016; Oldfield et al., 2017). There is an increasing acknowledgement and a growing body of evidence that Indigenous teaching methods are highly effective in engaging learners and fostering learning, including in online and interactive face-to-face tertiary settings (e.g., Reser et al. 2021; Yip & Chakma, 2024). Innovative ways to overcome the dual hurdles of enhancing teaching practices and Indigenising curriculum are also being faced in primary and secondary education sectors (Yunkaporta & McGinty, 2009), providing insights for tertiary educators. Importantly, active community engagement in co-creating knowledge is crucial to ensure curricula remain relevant and responsive to the needs of Indigenous communities (Gumbo, 2016). This creates the need to carefully and respectfully inform students about whose teaching practices are being used, as well as why and how they are used, with transparency around consent and permissions.

Within the FoS at UQ, there have been pushes in recent years to Indigenise curriculum from the bottom-up. This has, so far, occurred in parallel with, rather than due to, top-down developments in the UQ Indigenising curriculum movement, though these bottom-up and top-down efforts are now beginning to coalesce. The School of Biological Sciences, now School of the Environment (SENV), in the FoS initiated its inaugural Indigenous Engagement Committee in 2021. This committee grew out of a shared realisation from Indigenous and non-Indigenous founding staff and students (including two co-authors, Steve and Coen) that a culture of respect for and engagement with Indigenous communities, knowledges and sovereignty was lacking in the School. We suspected this was a poignant realisation in the disciplines of environmental and related sciences due to fundamental flaws in Western scientific ways of conducting research on Aboriginal lands. These, unlike Indigenous epistemologies, do not often prioritise good relations with the land or each other, i.e., ethics; rather, they typically separate human ethics from animal and plant ethics following Western knowledge traditions.

The FoS Executive saw the value of the School’s Indigenous Engagement Committee, and similar committees have now been / are being formed at other Schools underneath a new Faculty-level committee within the FoS. Within their terms of reference, Indigenisation of curriculum sits as one important recurring item on the agenda, overseen by a separate, Faculty-level Indigenising Curriculum Working Group (ICWG), formed in June 2024 to interface holistically with the UQ-wide Indigenising curriculum leadership. While progress in this space moves carefully and strategically, guided by overarching principles in Indigenising curriculum at UQ and Australia-wide, many recent examples of changes to science teaching have occurred in UQ’s FoS which fit within Indigenising curriculum. In a companion chapter, we share three recent case studies from our experiences in the Indigenising curriculum space as academics working across the School of Biological Sciences and the School of Earth and Environmental Sciences (now all working within SENV) at UQ. These case studies do not reflect the full breadth of Indigenising curriculum activities that have occurred or are occurring across the University, but they capture some major recent events that provide important lessons and insights for future strategies and initiatives.

Looking forward in UQ science education

At the time of writing, the newly formed FoS ICWG is developing a framework and implementation pathway for Indigenising curriculum within the FoS and its many degree programs, aligned with UQ’s broader project, which seeks to maximise the development of cultural capability across cohorts of UQ science students in a scaffolded learning approach. To date, some of the content and approaches discussed here and in the companion chapter are being considered for other courses. While this is an important step, there is awareness within the ICWG that some aspects of Indigenous knowledges are best explored as stand-alone subjects or specific programs (Kickett et al., 2014). Co-author Jim Walker is some way towards developing an Indigenous Knowledges in Science elective. However, there is also a critical need to develop teaching material and activities for inclusion in a broader suite of science courses, particularly those that are compulsory for large first- and second-level cohorts, to ensure that all graduates develop cultural capability as a UQ graduate attribute. As Page et al. (2019) argue, a degree-focused pedagogical framework is essential to systematically embed graduate attributes for Indigenous cultural capability across programs, ensuring that curricula are coherent and aligned with broader institutional goals.

Recently, the FoS ICWG hosted a workshop with representatives from Schools across the Faculty to begin the process of asking “what does a culturally capable graduate look like in your discipline?”. The challenge of adequately assessing whether students are meeting minimum requirements for attaining cultural capability remains to be realised, and science educators will lean on the experience of Indigenous education professionals in the development of this content and the learning outcomes that are needed to facilitate it. The FoS ICWG is exploring how to set minimum expectations and develop recommendations for levels of support and resources needed for embedding Indigenous content, knowledges and perspectives across whole programs, and will work with the guidance of an external Indigenous advisory group comprised of Indigenous academic and community representatives (membership is presently being finalised). To help the ICWG move beyond co-design towards Indigenous leadership in Indigenising curriculum, members of the advisory group will have full remit to create their own terms of reference, set their own structure and have oversight across all aspects of the ICWG’s work.

A critical factor in Indigenising curriculum that has been apparent from the beginning of the ICWG is the limited number of Indigenous academic and professional staff within the FoS, highlighting the critical need for hiring, support and retention of Indigenous academics who can bring these aspects to the curriculum through their own research activities. However, the cultural capabilities and confidence of non-Indigenous staff around enabling Indigenising curriculum will be just as important in ensuring sustainability and effectiveness. A common challenge faced by the committees and working groups leading Indigenising curriculum in the FoS, and indeed a conundrum that appears to be shared across the Australian tertiary education sector at this time (Howlett et al., 2013; Murray & Campton, 2023), is how best to develop and implement strategies that can bring all staff on board. Reflection is a critical first step for educators to consider their own positionality, responsibilities and approaches when embedding Indigenous content into their teaching. To support this, we have provided a non-exhaustive list of guiding questions as a practical tool for educators (see Table 1). These questions are designed to guide science teachers in considering essential aspects of Indigenising curriculum. Faculty members should consider approaching their School or Faculty Indigenous Engagement Committee, if appropriate, for guidance and institutional support on leading initiatives within their courses.

Table 1: Guiding questions around aspects of developing teaching on Country

Part of the work to build cultural capabilities and confidence in Indigenising curriculum among UQ FoS staff is being done through workshops, such as those that were led by the School of Biological Sciences First Nations Engagement Committee (now continuing through the SENV Indigenous Engagement Committee), which create spaces for staff to discuss the why and how of Indigenising curriculum (see Figure 1). Another part of this education is coming from truth-telling activities around the history of the land where scientists are working and the extractive legacies and ongoing colonial violence of the globally dominant culture of science. Tertiary science has played and continues to play a role in perpetuating colonial violence, and universities are just beginning to grapple with their complicity in such issues (Jones et al., 2024; Kowal, 2023; Manathunga & Grant, 2017; Stein, 2020). Recently, this has resulted in senior academic staff in the FoS issuing apologies to Aboriginal communities around their extractive research careers on Aboriginal land and promising to do better in the future, leading to improved relationships between community and researchers. It is important to note that, while such acts represent an important first step, more effort is required to ensure this accountability results in tangible shifts in institutional practices and policies that prevent researchers from engaging in extractive research in the first place. As such truth-telling continues, we hope for and expect transformational change in the way science is conducted and taught on Aboriginal lands by UQ staff and students.

As the Faculty of Science at UQ continues its journey to Indigenise curriculum, the theoretical frameworks and institutional strategies discussed here serve as a foundation for meaningful change. However, the success of these initiatives depends on their translation into practice. The companion chapter delves into the practical applications through case studies that illustrate how these strategies are brought to life in classrooms on Country. By exploring these examples, we highlight some of the challenges, successes and transformative potential of embedding Indigenous knowledges into science education at UQ.

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge Country and the knowledge lineages of First Nations mob across the continent now called Australia, Lutruwita and the Torres Strait Islands. We further acknowledge all Indigenous peoples globally in their shared struggle against the colonisation of their knowledge systems. We acknowledge all practitioners of the many Indigenous knowledge traditions operating on this continent since time immemorial and their lifeways: artists, philosophers, scientists, and mob within and outside Western educational institutions. We realise that central to the goal of Indigenising curriculum are the communities who maintain and connect their approaches. In this respect and in consideration of the specific case studies presented, we are particularly indebted to the Butchulla and the Kombumerri communities. We sincerely thank Justine Dillon for reviewing an earlier draft of both chapters and express our gratitude to Associate Professor Fiona Foley and Luke Barrowcliffe for their critical feedback, which significantly enhanced the chapters. Additionally, we extend our appreciation to the anonymous reviewer whose comments further strengthened these chapters. We also acknowledge the School of the Environment, the former School of Biological Sciences, UQ International teams and the Faculty of Science more broadly for providing a supportive and enabling environment to pursue Indigenising curriculum.