Navigating ‘contested knowledge spaces’

Much has been written about the complex place of First Peoples' knowledge within the Western academy. Martin Nakata (Reference Nakata2007) refers to these complex places where different knowledge systems meet as contested knowledge spaces. The contested nature of these spaces is emphasised by Russell (Reference Russell2005), who observes that Western and Indigenous knowledges are increasingly seen as separate and incompatible. The work of Nakata, however, reminds us of the inherent complexity of such spaces, where things are ‘not clearly black or white, Indigenous or Western’ (Reference Nakata2007, p. 9).

Indeed, there is no singular definition of First Peoples' knowledge. First People's knowledge and perspectives are as varied and as different as are the people, communities, cultures and traditions themselves. These differences are informed by differing historical and contemporary circumstances of colonialism and other issues related to the different, but in many ways, similar experiences, of First Peoples. It is important to understand however that while recognising the role of colonial and other influences on First Peoples, communities and knowledges, that First Peoples themselves have not been passive bystanders in this process, and that Indigenous knowledges are a living and changing product of this encounter and their own cultures and traditions.

Limited generalisations however for the purpose of heuristic instruction can be made of ‘Indigenous knowledge’. This includes introducing students to First Peoples' perspectives and worldviews such as Indigenous (general and specific) laws, cultures, traditions and histories, and how these matters inform the lives of individuals and communities (Battiste and Henderson, Reference Battiste and Henderson2009; Nakata et al., Reference Nakata, Nakata, Keech and Bolt2014). What is important in approaching the inclusion of Indigenous knowledge and experience however isn't necessarily the content that is taught, but rather the practice and process of teaching itself which must embody and practice First Peoples' ways of knowing and learning (Rigney, Reference Rigney2012; Nakata et al., Reference Nakata, Nakata, Keech and Bolt2014). This represents a distinct challenge for universities and institutions more familiar with Western knowledge systems and as institutions that have historically played important roles in the exclusion and denial of Indigenous peoples (Rigney, Reference Rigney2012; Pridham, Martin et al., Reference Pridham, Martin, Walker, Rossengren and Wadley2015).

Efforts by institutions in response to these issues to simply ‘add’ First Peoples' knowledge and content to courses and teaching have tended to be simplistic at best, and tokenistic at worst. Nakata et al. (Reference Nakata, Nakata, Keech and Bolt2014) further explain that limited additions of Indigenous content through simplistic embedding practices have served to limit educational possibilities rather than enhance them. Explaining these limitations and their implications further, Giovanangeli and Snepvangers (Reference Giovanangeli and Snepvangers2016) observed in their survey of non-Indigenous Australian tertiary educators a reluctance and inability of educators to engage with Indigenous topics through their teaching, resulting from confusion about how to embed such complex knowledge systems within their curriculum. Therein lies a compounding problem. Rather than simply pitting ‘Western’ philosophies and worldviews against ‘Indigenous’, the focus must be beyond presenting static factual information or content that may conform to traditional knowledge and power relationships between Indigenous peoples and educational institutions (Carlson and McGloin, Reference Carlson and McGloin2013; Nakata et al., Reference Nakata, Nakata, Keech and Bolt2014; Carey, Reference Carey2015).

This approach to Indigenous knowledges better develops and understands the required deeper connections according to the relational nature of First Peoples' cultures and traditions (Graham, Reference Graham2008, Reference Graham2014; Grieves, Reference Grieves2008; Black, Reference Black2011; Hollinsworth, Reference Hollinsworth2013). As Nakata explains: ‘it is not possible to bring in Indigenous knowledge and plonk it in the curriculum unproblematically as if it is another data set for Western knowledge to discipline and test’ (Reference Nakata2007, p. 8). Indeed, taking into account First Peoples' epistemologies in both methods and content offers a relevance that cannot be achieved through simply trying to fit First Peoples' culture into Western pedagogies and curricula (Riley et al., Reference Riley, Howard-Wagner and Mooney2015). There have been many critiques of the incorporation of First Peoples and knowledges into Western institutions, especially within education institutions, that support this (Nakata, Reference Nakata2007; Rigney, Reference Rigney2012; Smith, Reference Smith2012; Watson, Reference Watson2014). This critical work has asked key questions about:

• • The nature and form of Indigenous content and knowledge in Indigenous studies programme areas and more broadly across the university curriculum (Henderson, Reference Henderson2005; Battiste and Henderson, Reference Battiste and Henderson2009; Smith, Reference Smith2012; de Oliveira Adreotti et al., Reference de Oliveira Andreotti, Stein, Ahenakew and Hunt2015; Gilbert and Tillman, Reference Gilbert and Tillman2017);

• • The method of the delivery of Indigenous content across Indigenous studies programmes and the university curriculum. Particular attention being paid to ensure content is not simply added, but is rather placed appropriately and delivered or made available in ways that enable First Nations theoretical frameworks (Carey, Reference Carey2015; Heckenberg, Reference Heckenberg2015; Gilbert and Tillman, Reference Gilbert and Tillman2017);

• • Whether these inclusions and studies simply repeat and therefore re-legitimate non-Indigenous knowledge and perspectives at the expense of First Nations peoples and communities (Martin and Mirraboopa, Reference Martin and Mirraboopa2003; Nakata, Reference Nakata2018);

• • And whether there are any tangible outcomes for First Nations peoples and communities through developing engaged and effective partnerships, committing responsibly to the obligations of relational being.

These critiques provide a valuable framework for shaping an approach that enables Indigenous knowledges and perspectives to be produced, understood and preserved together by students, staff and the community by engaging in dialogical and reflective education that can be designed to avoid the pitfalls and repetitive mistakes of ‘inclusion’ and ‘addition’.

Woven Law

Woven Law is a narrative metaphor that has been adapted to represent and encourage students to build deeper understandings of other peoples and their selves through critical, reflexive and dialogical encounters with First Peoples' knowledge and perspectives. Woven Law is adapted from the doctorate research and practice of Edward Synot in partnership with Sharon Mununggurr. Woven Law is based on the history, traditions and experiences of the Wamba Wamba people near Deniliquin, New South Wales, coming from the communities of Moonahcullah, Deniliquin and Cummeragunja and the surrounding region.

This research project utilises Woven Law as a socio-legal approach to understanding First Peoples' history and experiences of the law—read more broadly as experiences of society itself—as they become woven into Indigenous lives, but that also bases its understanding and development in Indigenous ontologies of being. Woven Law is not simply about First Peoples' knowledge but is envisioned as a framework developed according to First Peoples' theoretical frameworks available to all peoples to make sense of their experiences and communities. By not only including, but also teaching, First Peoples' knowledge through weaving, the research team aimed to ensure the practice and learning of First Peoples' knowledge not only continues as it has done since time immemorial, but that it is not compromised by ‘inclusion’.

Woven Law helps to orientate ourselves within our experiences and communities and is built on the practice of weaving as a fundamental practice in many First Peoples' cultures and traditions. Weaving is key to the simultaneous maintenance and production of life and order according to First Peoples' cultures and traditions (Ingold, Reference Ingold2000; Tjanpi Desert Weavers, 2015; Biana, Reference Biana2017). The relational character at the centre of First Peoples' knowledge is both a representation of First Peoples' culture and a narrative metaphor to represent the production of knowledge and culture itself that is shared around the world by First Peoples (Mignolo, Reference Mignolo1999; Battiste and Henderson, Reference Battiste and Henderson2009; Black, Reference Black2011; Smith, Reference Smith2012; Watson, Reference Watson2014).

The importance of this relational orientation through Woven Law is represented by the practice of collecting grasses and materials used in weaving. This practice situates First Peoples within their environments as relational beings, grounded in their place-based relational knowledge (Graham, Reference Graham2008, Reference Graham2014; Black, Reference Black2011; Heckenberg, Reference Heckenberg2015). It is this placement in relation with others that is representative of the laws, obligations and responsibilities of First Peoples and communities, rather than any static, unchanging or essential characteristic of First Peoples' culture. Key here is that rather than any static or piecemeal idiom of culture that too often (mis)represents First Peoples, this relational placement as an approach to knowledge production and preservation remains authentically Indigenous. This approach, adaptive and flexible, can be understood as central to representing and understanding First Peoples' knowledges and to overcoming issues with the generalisation of First Peoples' culture and traditions for heuristic purposes. According to this relational base, First Peoples' cultures, knowledge and perspectives are brought to life through their varied practices and are maintained by this same living structure of relations. They are lived and constantly adapting, demanding responsible action and response, to the changing world around them.

The importance of weaving is further illustrated by the life, social and cultural endeavours supported by woven objects in First Peoples' cultures and traditions. These include objects and social institutions such as vessels for carrying children, food, clothing and shelter. Here, weaving is a key action that binds and layers First Peoples and communities in diverse ways. The weave connects and holds people and place together, but in differential, and sometimes incongruent ways, allowing for those binds and layers to be rediscovered, reproduced and healed. The weave, like First Peoples and communities, is not easily destroyed due to its layered and interwoven nature in the sense that separate binds or weaves touch and relate to one another, holding together peoples and communities in their differences and experiences, producing and maintaining patterned and relational beings and tying them through their obligations and responsibilities to one another.

This approach enables Indigenous knowledges and perspectives to be understood and preserved together by students, staff and the community by engaging in dialogical and reflexive education through woven practice. This practice is explained below through the development of Woven Law and the First Peoples' module. For now, however, Woven Law not only describes but also facilitates education and understanding of this process to assist in developing deeper understandings of First Peoples' knowledges through encounters with First Peoples' communities, cultures, histories and traditions. This approach to First Peoples' knowledges enables responsible engagements through the realisation and maintenance of relational being. This approach is intended to be developed beyond a deficit approach that too often centres the alleviation of socioeconomic gaps between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples as the basis of inclusion or understanding of First Peoples (Nakata et al., Reference Nakata, Nakata, Keech and Bolt2012, p. 120–121).

Weaving in the community internship course

The CI course is an award-winning WIL programme. The course is available to undergraduate and master's level students throughout the year. Students from all disciplines are eligible to enrol in the CI course as a free choice elective however some students must complete the CI course as a core requirement. The majority of enrolments continue to be students that have chosen the CI course as a free-choice elective. The CI course is structured in two parts. The first is an academic course with lectures, workshops and assessments. The second is a voluntary internship of 50 to 80 hours of community work with a Community Partner (CP). The course is methodologically organised according to a WIL programme that scaffolds and develops reflective student learning as the course progresses. The internship progresses alongside the academic component, allowing students to learn in a dialogically reflexive environment that provides multiple opportunities for student understanding to be assessed and affirmed.

Given the widely applicable nature of the course content across all communities, the CI course was identified as a suitable site to address the inclusion of First Peoples' knowledge and perspectives and to enable students to achieve Griffith University's Graduate Attribute 5 which requires them to be culturally capable when working with First Australians (Griffith University, 2016, p. 2). Furthermore, First Peoples have been historically marginalised and excluded from greater participation in the community and have important contributions to make based both in their own traditions and cultures and through this experience of marginalisation and exclusion from community (Mignolo, Reference Mignolo1999, Reference Mignolo, Isasi-Daz and Mendieta2011; Nakata, Reference Nakata2007; Kwaymullina, Reference Kwaymullina2016; McKnight, Reference McKnight2016). Beyond this, however, and most importantly for the research team, First Peoples have their own legitimate worldviews and terms of reference that are legitimate ways of knowing, being and doing. The research team took the view that First Peoples' knowledge and perspectives are valid and should be included on this basis alone, rather than any need to overcome any specific or general social-justice concerns and did not allow these targets to guide the module design and delivery.

The CI course also provides opportunity for student engagement with First Peoples through their work with CP's. Further to this, the CI course includes students from most discipline backgrounds enabling a broad influence across the student body. The CI course structure was also further complementary to an alternative assessment and content structure to be developed that enabled the flexible development and inclusion of First Peoples' theoretical frameworks. This meant that rather than ‘adding’ First Peoples' content as a one-off topic, First Peoples' knowledge and perspectives were able to be woven throughout the course programme, directing the CI course itself and informing assessment evaluation. This provided students with an opportunity to engage with First Peoples' knowledge and perspectives in a dialogical and reflexive manner at multiple stages of their development. Further, the assessment reflects place-based knowledge and a woven practice where students are facilitated through the development of practical understandings of relational being. This is further detailed below in the ‘First Peoples' module’ section.

The First Peoples' Reference Committee

Given the issues identified in the literature and those that emerged from previous experiences of ‘Indigenising’ or ‘decolonising’ course content, the CI teaching team sought to embed First Peoples' knowledge and perspectives through a process that was authored and directed by First Peoples. To achieve this, a First Peoples' Reference Committee consisting of traditional owners, members of the Griffith University Council of Elders and other Indigenous academic staff was established as a way of creating space for First Peoples to authorise and lead the decision-making process beyond inclusion.

The research team first approached Uncle John Graham, a member of the Griffith University Council of Elders. Uncle John is a Kombumerri traditional owner from the Gold Coast who has worked in Indigenous higher education support for over 15 years. It was important to not only have First Peoples guiding this process but to also specifically have traditional owners of the country from which the team were working on as key members. Following the approach to Uncle John, the teaching team were joined by Associate Professor Mary Graham, a Kombumerri traditional owner and legal scholar, and Indigenous academic lawyer and researcher at Griffith University Edward Synot.

The Reference Committee set about discussing what was the best way forward for including First Peoples' knowledge and perspectives in the CI course. No time constraints were imposed on this process with discussion and planning developing organically, foregrounding First Peoples' knowledge, perspectives and experience with regard to place-based and relational knowledge. The Reference Committee agreed to ensure that everything the committee did, from the way it conducted its meetings to the work that it produced, would be informed by First Peoples' theoretical frameworks and terms of reference. This was grounded in place-based knowledge and understanding; that is how responsibilities and knowledge are situated in, and produced via, the relational links between our law, land and people (Graham, Reference Graham2008, Reference Graham2014; Heckenberg, Reference Heckenberg2015). While no time constraints were placed on the deliberation and work of the Reference Committee, the research team were restricted by Griffith University's academic calendar and funding arrangements for research team staffing. The Reference Committee were able to develop the First Peoples' module within these time frames however without being restricted by having to compromise information or delivery.

While the Reference Committee were comfortable with this approach, they reinforced the need to critically assess the content that was developed as well as the method of its inclusion. The Reference Committee wanted to ensure that they were not developing something that ‘reinforces colonial practices and perspectives’ by simply providing ‘an add-on to Western knowledges’. Rather, the goal was to avoid exactly the situation that Collins-Gearing and Smith describe as ‘an aestheticisation of Indigenous Australia, where only certain aspects of that culture are acceptable to the Western viewpoint or Australian nation’ (Reference Collins-Gearing and Smith2016, p. 160–162).

The Reference Committee was further informed by a developed understanding and lived experience of the many issues discussed in the literature regarding earlier attempts at including First Peoples' knowledge and perspectives in higher education. These difficulties include the prevalence of simply adding content, that inclusion can be a form of enclosure (Tuck and Yang, Reference Tuck and Yang2012), that simplistic attempts at decolonisation do not often achieve anything substantive (Nakata et al., Reference Nakata, Nakata, Keech and Bolt2012) and that presenting complex histories and knowledge as simple generalisations can further reinforce the exclusions and violence experienced by First Peoples (Nakata et al., Reference Nakata, Nakata, Keech and Bolt2012; Howlett et al., Reference Howlett, Ferreira, Seini and Matthews2013; Collins-Gearing and Smith, Reference Collins-Gearing and Smith2016).

The Reference Committee set out to avoid these issues by planning in advance according to First Peoples' terms of reference, knowledge and perspectives. By discussing our purpose, asking ourselves what we were trying to achieve and by grounding ourselves in First Peoples' theoretical frameworks, we were able to ensure the development of the First Peoples' module was responsive to these issues. To achieve this, the Reference Committee produced a document that would guide our understanding of ‘Indigenous knowledge’ and that would inform course material. This document was also used to communicate the basis of the project externally. It was important to be able to achieve three key things with the Indigenous knowledge document. The first was expressing First Peoples' content in a way that was informed by Indigenous cultures and traditions. The second was appropriately addressing the complex and shared histories of colonialism in Australia and how these form part of First Peoples' knowledge. The third was to ensure that First Peoples' knowledge and perspectives were not presented in a simplistic or binary way that would ‘simply contest a destructive and imposed Western framework’ (Nakata et al., Reference Nakata, Nakata, Keech and Bolt2012, p. 125).

The Reference Committee was guided by Nakata's important concept of the ‘cultural interface’ that discusses a series of progressive phases to help navigate the complex interaction of First Peoples with other knowledge systems (Reference Nakata2007a, Reference Nakata2007b, Reference Nakata2018). Nakata's first phase focuses on continuities by developing knowledge about First Peoples' cultures, histories and traditions that avoids the common trait of viewing Indigenous knowledge or culture as prehistoric or static (Reference Nakata2007a, p. 195–212, Reference Nakata2007b, p. 9–11, Reference Nakata2018, p. 1–2). The second phase focuses on an unsettling programme that focuses on ruptures, discontinuities and convergences (Reference Nakata2007a, p. 195–212, Reference Nakata2007b, p. 9–11, Reference Nakata2018, p. 1–2). This phase develops an understanding of colonial history and its impact, developing knowledge built on those Indigenous perspectives introduced in the first phase. The third phase, building on the earlier layered phases, focuses on navigating the cultural interface (Reference Nakata2007a, p. 195–212, Reference Nakata2007b, p. 9–11, Reference Nakata2018, p. 1–2). This phase ‘gives expression to various tensions that emerge’ and enables a deeper understanding of the ‘layered entanglements, accommodations, and adaptations of Western and Indigenous knowledge [that] have occurred over generations’ (Nakata et al., Reference Nakata, Nakata, Keech and Bolt2014, p. 14–15). Building on this important work, the Reference Committee chose the narrative metaphor of weaving, rather than embedding or incorporating, to explain and give effect to our approach to the inclusion of First Peoples' knowledge and perspectives.

Most importantly, the Reference Committee believed that weaving illustrated what we were trying to achieve by including First Peoples' content in the CI course. The emphasis on weaving enabled the Reference Committee to go beyond simple inclusions and to avoid the First Peoples' module becoming a repetition of the very system that the Reference Committee was trying to address. This approach avoided pitting ‘Western’ philosophies and worldviews against First Peoples' knowledge and perspectives and enabled the Reference Committee to transform practice itself rather than confirming to ‘normal’ and established non-Indigenous knowledge and power relationships within higher education (Carlson and McGloin, Reference Carlson and McGloin2013; Nakata et al., Reference Nakata, Nakata, Keech and Bolt2014; Carey, Reference Carey2015).

The First Peoples’ module

Building on the Indigenous knowledge document, the Woven Law approach and the work of the Reference Committee, the First Peoples' module was developed to implement this approach to the inclusion of First Peoples' knowledge and perspectives. The First Peoples' module included two distinct parts. The first was the addition of a specific lecture on First Peoples' theoretical frameworks and a second lecture that provided First Peoples' knowledge and perspectives on other key course topics such as community and human rights. The second part of the First Peoples' module was the addition of the specific First Peoples' module in the Study Guide and Workbook. This addition included First Peoples' perspectives on other module components such as community and human rights.

As part of the CI course, students are provided with a Study Guide and Workbook. The guide is a self-paced learning module that includes key administrative and assessment information and a series of modules that follow the lecture content and programme development. The guide includes modules that explore personal and professional growth, social theories of community and community values, and human rights perspectives. The Study Guide and Workbook also enables students to understand how these factors can all relate to and inform the community organisation sector. First Peoples' knowledge and perspectives is now covered across all modules and is importantly also included as a stand-alone module.

The First Peoples' module comprises a variety of artefacts. In addition to having traditional lecture content such as recorded lectures and lecture slides made available online for students, the module includes additional support material developed to enhance the module and enable student learning towards the achievement of Graduate Attribute 5. This additional content was collated as part of documenting the research project as it progressed and is made available as a Resource Point for students who wish to expand their knowledge of First Peoples' knowledge and perspectives beyond the lectures and module material.

Research committee meetings were also filmed, recorded and then transcribed, with First Peoples members of the Research Committee also interviewed separately about the project. This recording was conducted with the consent of participants and according to cultural protocols that required content to be reviewed and approved by members of the Reference Committee. Importantly, lecture content was written, prepared and delivered by members of the Reference Committee and the course content was written specifically to address the learning outcomes of the course with a focus on contextualising and understanding First Peoples' history and place within Australian society.

Assessment for the course was also adapted to include elements of First Peoples relational responsibilities and obligations. This specifically included the Peer Discussion assessment.

For this assessment, students are required to share their reflections and learning development from their internships in collaborative groups with peers. As part of this process, students also submit a written document which forms part of an evaluation of each other's learning development. The Peer Discussion gives students a chance to come together to discuss their activities within a small group of other students in an informal discussion. While this is designed to be informal to encourage better learning outcomes, the Peer Discussion does carry substantive pedagogical weight and is valued as such by the assessment requirements. A guideline for the discussion is provided to students to enable each student to obtain value from being able to share their internship activities and results with one another. This enables students to benefit from hearing each other's development experiences within their volunteering roles. Importantly, the Peer Discussion provides a practical opportunity for the students to experience place-based knowledge and to have to work within and according to the attending responsibilities and obligations that result from this environment and understandings of place (Graham, Reference Graham2008, Reference Graham2014). The final piece of course assessment requires students to submit a portfolio that includes a critical reflection analysing their experience through one of the social theories examined within the course. This includes having available to them the First Peoples module.

The course content developed for students emphasised that key to understanding First Peoples' theoretical frameworks is understating how they are informed and produced by the key relational links between law, land and people (Kwaymullina, Reference Kwaymullina2005; Kwaymullina and Kwaymullina, Reference Kwaymullina and Kwaymullina2010; Maduro, Reference Maduro, Isasi-Daz and Mendieta2012). This was explained through the course content and delivery as the key nature of being situated in place and with country (Graham, Reference Graham2008, Reference Graham2014). Like any other culture and tradition, First Peoples' theoretical frameworks are worldviews that inform the way that First Peoples produce and understand knowledge about themselves and the world they live in. Aboriginal scholar Karen Martin describes these frameworks as being informed by First Peoples' epistemologies and ontologies of ‘Ways of Knowing, Ways of Being and Ways of Doing’ (Martin and Mirraboopa, Reference Martin and Mirraboopa2003, p. 208). Underpinning these ways of knowing, being and doing are the foundational laws—or creation stories and dreaming—of First Peoples, gifted to them by their ancestors and embedded in the land and waters that First Peoples live in relation with.

Aboriginal scholars Ambelin and Blaze Kwaymullina (Reference Kwaymullina and Kwaymullina2010, p. 196) further explain the relation of these elements of ‘Aboriginal philosophy [as] a pattern comprised of other patterns, of systems inside systems’. Key to understanding these theoretical frameworks is understanding that everything is ‘interrelated and interdependent’. This relational basis of First Peoples' philosophy forms the basis of life itself and was represented as the core of the First Peoples module, informing all Indigenous knowledge and perspectives.

Students were further engaged in these frameworks through lectures delivered by Indigenous members of the project team. These lectures emphasised an understanding of Indigenous knowledges as different, but not irreconcilable or incomprehensible, to predominant Western approaches to knowledge production and being that establish a split between mind and body, or nature and culture, to establish meaning and understanding of life (Graham, Reference Graham2008, Reference Graham2014). By understanding this, students were encouraged to focus on the interrelated reality of place—often described as country—and being from a First Peoples' philosophical point of view (Graham, Reference Graham2008, Reference Graham2014; Heckenberg, Reference Heckenberg2015). This means that rather than separating self from the world in order to produce objective knowledge about the world or self, students are encouraged to understand First Peoples' knowledges and understandings as being formed fundamentally in the relation of each element to the other. Mary Graham further explains this process as one where: ‘Aboriginal logic maintains that there is no division between the observing mind and anything else: there is no ‘external world’ to inhabit. There are distinctions between the physical and the spiritual, but these aspects of existence continually interpenetrate each other’ (Reference Graham2008, p. 189).

Student impact

The CI cohort was surveyed in order to assess student reception of the project and the success of the project in enabling students to achieve course outcomes and Graduate Attribute 5. Of the 198 students who participated in the module, 127 surveys were completed. In total, 91 of these students were undertaking the CI course as an elective, 22 students as a recommended course and 13 students as a mandatory core subject. The sample consisted of 94 domestic (Australian) students and 33 international students. The students came from a range of disciplines with most students coming from Business and Health, although Arts, Education and Law were also well-represented.

Students were asked to rate their awareness of First Peoples before the module, with 75% of students rating their awareness as either ‘Low’ or ‘Neutral’. Survey responses following the completion of the teaching period indicate that the material was well received and significantly assisted students in achieving their learning outcomes and the Graduate Attribute 5. Following the module, 59% of respondents said their knowledge of First Peoples had improved. More encouragingly, however, 82% of respondents agreed that the inclusion of the First Peoples' content had helped them achieve Griffith University's Graduate Attribute 5, enabling them to be culturally capable when working with First Australians. This response was higher, at 87%, when those students had been previously exposed to First Peoples' content.

These encouraging results indicate that reinforcement of First Peoples' content across the curriculum is important and effective in improving the cultural competence of students. This conclusion is further supported by the survey results with 71% of respondents agreeing that First Peoples' content should form part of their formal curriculum. While more research is needed, these promising results indicate an appreciation and identified need for more cohesive First Peoples' content woven throughout the broader university curriculum. However this evaluation is limited as specific evaluation data from the community partners were not included as part of the evaluation of the development and implementation of the First Peoples module. This is a further limitation of the review process. The community partners are however prominent members of the CI course team and provide resources and opportunity for student development throughout the CI course. This information has however been identified as a possible point of reference for further data collection and evaluation.