Diversity in STEM Review: draft recommendations

1

Who am I and How Should I Engineer?
A guide to using ‘deep’ skills such as reflexivity when engaging at the
cultural interface to co-design engineering education.

Crighton Nichols, Gavin Brown, Olivier (Olli) Wynyard Gonfond

Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to help empower all engineering educators in Australia to feel comfortable and confident to collaborate with Indigenous peers at the cultural interface such that, in turn, engineering students are provided with experiences to help them understand and appreciate the contributions of Indigenous ways of knowing, doing, and being to the engineering profession. We do this by introducing the concepts of culture and identity, including the importance of understanding and connecting to our own culture through reflexive practice, as well as considerations for working at the cultural interface. The importance of reflexivity is highlighted by introducing the concept of ‘deep’ skills – the ability to examine one’s thoughts, feelings, and motivations – to complement the existing ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ skills that engineers learn. We then outline the value to the engineering profession of some key tenets that are common to First Australian cultures, and discuss the importance of being an ally. Finally, we offer a framework for respectfully engaging with Indigenous peers at the cultural interface, so they can co-design engineering education together.

Acknowledgements
The authors thank Jane Wotherspoon and Ben Foley for feedback on an earlier draft of this paper.

Financial Support
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Conflicts of Interest
None.

Authors

Corresponding author
Dr Crighton Nichols

Other authors
Gavin Brown, Olli Wynyard Gonford.

1
2

Introduction
Engineering has been practised in Australia for thousands of generations, with recorded engineering structures that are estimated to be 40,000 years old1. Yet, there is very little reference to the contributions of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (Indigenous) engineering in contemporary engineering education. We assume a significant contributing factor is because very few of the roughly 2,500 engineering educators in Australia identify as Indigenous2. We also assume that most engineering educators in Australia do not know how to engage with Indigenous Australians or have an understanding of Indigenous ways of knowing, doing, and being
– or even that these ways are relevant to their work. This is deeply problematic as Indigenous ways of knowing, doing, and being, hereafter abbreviated to Indigenous Ways (IW), have much to contribute to engineering education and practice. Indeed, we need as many engineering educators in Australia as possible to understand and appreciate the value that IW offers the engineering profession – especially if we want to improve the (co-
)design and implementation of infrastructure and services in Indigenous communities.

To help address this issue, the focus of this paper is to provide a framework for engineering educators in
Australia to engage with Indigenous Australians and IW at the cultural interface in a mutually respectful manner, so they can co-design engineering education together. We also introduce the importance of ‘deep’ skills, such as reflexivity – the ability to examine one’s thoughts, feelings, and motivations – to complement the existing ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ skills that engineers learn.

The primary audience of this paper is (non-Indigenous) engineering educators in Australia who wish to learn more about the value that IW offers contemporary engineering education and practice by engaging with
Indigenous peoples at the cultural interface. A secondary audience is Indigenous peoples who are interested in how engineering educators may try to engage them.

The framework we introduce is a collaboration between a non-Indigenous engineer and researcher (Crighton) and First Australian peers (Gavin and Olli). Our shared vision is for the engineering profession in Australia to be one that understands and appreciates the contributions of Indigenous ways of knowing, doing, and being, leading to at least parity representation in engineering professionals, students, and educators, and a co-designed engineering education curriculum. Our shared purpose in writing this paper is to help empower all engineering educators in Australia to feel comfortable and confident to collaborate with Indigenous peers at the cultural interface such that, in turn, engineering students are provided with experiences to help them understand and appreciate the contributions of IW to the engineering profession.

We aim to achieve this purpose by introducing the concepts of culture and identity, including the importance of understanding and connecting to our own culture through reflexive practice, as well as considerations for working at the cultural interface. We then outline the value to the engineering profession of some key tenets that are common to First Australian cultures. Finally, we offer a framework for respectfully engaging with
Indigenous peers at the cultural interface, so they can co-design engineering education together.

Culture and Identity
Imagine that you are attending an informal social event and the host is someone you don’t know. The host

1
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/jul/10/fish-traps-brewarrina-extraordinary-ancient-structures-protection, accessed 18 July 2021
2
The Australian Council of Engineering Deans (ACED) reported that “it is estimated that in 2018 there were at least 2,500
FTE academic staff in teaching roles (including formal research supervision) amongst the ACED members.”
(http://www.aced.edu.au/downloads/ACED Engineering Statistics Mar 2020.pdf, accessed 7 April 2020). The ACED reports on the number of Indigenous students commencing and completing engineering degrees, but not the number of Indigenous engineering educators. They also reported that the “commencing Indigenous student numbers in bachelor degrees in
Engineering have not substantially grown over the past six years. Indigenous students form less than 1% of the total domestic commencing cohort in Engineering, across all award levels. The comparable figure for Heath is 2.1%. Completion numbers in Engineering indicate relatively high attrition, and completion rates of around 40%.”

2
3 approaches you and introduces her/him/themselves—how would you typically respond and introduce yourself?
Now imagine you're at a more formal work gathering and someone you don’t know introduces her/him/themselves as new to the organisation – how would you introduce yourself in this setting?

These questions prompt us to think about our identity – or more accurately, our identities: in this case between our social and professional identities. Even if you choose to answer these questions the same way, most people differentiate between their social identity and their professional or occupational identity. But it doesn’t stop there—our gender, age, race, sexual orientation and many other factors also influence our identities (Gaither,
2019).

One of the most influential factors is our ethnic cultural identity(s). There are many formal definitions of culture. For example, Stuart Hall defines culture as a process of producing and exchanging meanings between members in a society or group so they can meaningfully interpret their surroundings, thoughts and feelings,
“‘making sense’ of the world, in broadly similar ways” (Hall, 1997, p. 2). Another way to describe culture is that it is how we see the world, rather than simply what one sees—for example, cultural artefacts such as clothing, shelter, tools and food. In other words, culture is how we interpret, understand and make sense of the world; this includes our assumptions, beliefs and values, many of which may be un/sub-conscious.

There are many levels or layers of culture that can influence an individual or group, from national or ethnic cultures, to social classes, occupational, industry, and organisational (Hofstede et al., 2010). The difference is the mix of values and practises in each: national or ethnic cultures are primarily concerned with values, which are largely ingrained in the early, formative years of life, whereas organisational cultures are primarily concerned with practices, which are more superficial in nature and easier to change. In between are the levels of social class, occupation, and industry.

Engineering is an occupation, which suggests that there is a mix of values and practises in engineering culture.
According to McIlwee and Robinson (1992), these values include technical proficiency, and a self-centred belief in the value of engineering – a culture that is “characterised by a form of locker room, macho tinkering, in which male engineers strut their stuff in competitive displays of hands-on technical virtuosity” (Whalley, 1992).

Despite attempts to encourage greater diversity – especially gender diversity – in engineering, the percentage of women in engineering in Australia has only increased from 14% in 1996 to 18% in 20183. Furthermore, according to Moote et al. (2019), the gender stereotypes associated with engineering begin early, at around only
10 years of age.

If the engineering culture is not open to the views of minority groups, including women and people of colour, then it will struggle to design services, solutions and systems for and with them. Even if engineers adopt a
(weaker/diluted) form of human/user centred-design, it will be constrained by their lack of respect and understanding for the ways of knowing, doing and being of minority cultures, which will undermine the effectiveness of the designed services, solutions, and systems (Varma, 2018).

Moreover, the Western focus on outcomes over process may further disadvantage the groups and communities impacted, as they may value engaging with the right process more highly than the outcomes. Indeed, failing to understand and engage in an appropriate manner shows disrespect and may exacerbate existing (often intergenerational) trauma.

So how can individual engineers challenge the existing engineering culture and learn to engage and practice engineering in a more open and respectful way? In short, it starts with understanding their own national or ethnic culture, which is the focus of the next section.

3
From the statistics reports via the Australian Council of Engineering Deans website - see: http://www.aced.edu.au/index.php/blog-3/statistics, accessed 9 December 2020

3
4

Culture as an Iceberg
To understand the culture of others, it is essential that we start our learning by looking inward, to our own culture. It is a common misconception that leads some people of a dominant culture (not a minority group) to believe that they do not have an identifiable culture – as their culture is considered a ‘societal norm’. For those who belong to a society's dominant culture, it can be difficult to put their culture in context.

To appreciate other cultures4, we need to understand and connect to our own culture—both the visible, and the invisible.

Hall (1976) posits that there are two layers to culture: internal and external. Internal aspects of one’s culture are difficult to observe. They are the implicitly learned, unconscious elements of who we are, built from subjective knowledge. They are the most difficult parts of ourselves to change. The external aspects of one’s culture are those more readily observable—explicitly learned, conscious, and built on objective knowledge.

From this understanding, Weaver (1986) likened this dichotomy to that of an iceberg – where only 10% is visible above the surface, the rest existing below. If the culture of a society was the iceberg, Weaver suggests that while there are some visible aspects, above the water, there are a vast number of unseen aspects hidden beneath the surface.

This analogy of a cultural iceberg has many permutations, one of which is included in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Cultural Iceberg

The visible elements are the things that we can usually see and identify in other people without even knowing

4
We assume the readers of this paper do not believe that their (or any) culture is superior to others. Dealing with explicit racism is beyond the scope of this paper, but a good start may be with Kelly et al. (2010).

4
5 them. Things like age, gender, the clothes we wear, what language we speak, and other physical characteristics.

The invisible aspects of culture, existing below the surface of the cultural iceberg, are more challenging for people to understand and to identify. Here, culture is articulated through values, beliefs and attributes which can be intangible and difficult to describe.

While the visible aspects of one’s culture might make up the societal norm, the invisible aspects of one’s culture are often unique, and arguably more defining of someone as a person. Understanding these aspects of one’s own culture is the first step to understanding these aspects of another’s culture.

Reflexivity as a ‘Deep’ Skill
We will now discuss how you can begin to understand your own culture more deeply. There is no single way to go about this; most likely, understanding yourself and your culture will be an ongoing exercise in reflexivity – one that grows and evolves with you over time as you develop this ‘deep’ skill. However, there are a number of ways to think about or conceptualise your culture that can help make it accessible and understandable.

For instance, looking at the elements of the cultural iceberg that exist below the surface, can you clearly articulate how you feel about each of these elements? Can you remember the first time you thought about those things? Do you think your parents or grandparents feel the same way?

If possible, you could start by speaking to your family, especially your parents and grandparents, to get a sense of what it was like growing up for them. What qualities were valued by society at the time? Where did they live, and why? What did they like or dislike about where and when they lived? Reflect on (and discuss, if possible) how all of these factors have influenced who they are as a person – and, in turn, how they have then influenced your character.

Learning about your own culture – how you see the world – is needed in order to start understanding people from other cultures, as you need to be as aware as possible of your own assumptions, beliefs and values when exploring others. However, when you first experience another culture, you are usually first interacting only with the external aspects of that culture. For many of our interactions with people of another culture, this surface level understanding can lead to the development of assumptions or ideas about another cultural community – without really understanding the internal or deep culture that makes up the majority of that culture’s values and beliefs.

Hall (1976) suggests that the only way to learn the internal culture of others is to become a respectful and active participant in their culture. As one spends more time immersed within a new culture, the underlying beliefs and values systems that dictate their behaviour will be uncovered. This model teaches us that we cannot judge a new culture based only on those overt behaviours which are presented to us at a surface level. It is critical that we take the time to get to know individuals from that culture and interact with them based on mutual respect. Only by doing so can we slowly start to build trusted relationships and uncover the values and beliefs that underlie the behaviour of that person, the communities they belong to, and the ways in which we can relate in turn.

Reflexivity is an essential tool in this process as you simultaneously learn about people from different cultures, and yourself, which is why we believe it is worth calling it out explicitly as a ‘deep’ skill, to complement the existing ‘hard’ skills (such as technical knowledge) and ‘soft’ skills (such as communication, leadership, teamwork).

However, it is also important to note that reflexivity may not be enough when there are significant power imbalances between the different cultures. In these cases, it is also important to interrogate the systems of the dominant (typically ‘White’) culture (Russell-Mundine, 2012).

5
6

We will now discuss the space where Indigenous and non-Indigenous people may choose to engage and interact to co-design engineering education: the cultural interface.

The Cultural Interface
The cultural interface was popularised by Torres Strait Islander academic Martin Nakata to describe the challenges faced by many First Australians in navigating the space of intersecting, and often highly contested, knowledge systems (Nakata, 2002, 2007a). In other words, to live between two worlds:

“In this contested space between the two knowledge systems, the cultural interface, things are not clearly
black or white, Indigenous or Western. In this space are histories, politics, economics, multiple and
interconnected discourses, social practices and knowledge technologies which condition how we all come
to look at the world, how we come to know and understand our changing realities in the everyday, and how
and what knowledge we operationalise in our daily lives. Much of what we bring to this is tacit and
unspoken knowledge, those assumptions by which we make sense and meaning in our everyday world.”
(Nakata, 2007a, p. 9)

However, the term ‘cultural interface’ was used in a similar way nearly a decade earlier by Robin McTaggart in a critique of ‘both-ways’ education (McTaggart, 1990):

“Taking particular exception to the notion that knowledge at the interface between Aboriginality and
Westernism exists, is constructed, or can be transmitted as if it were in two separate domains, the chapter
argues that education at the cultural interface must take deliberate account of the ways in which
Aboriginal and Western cultures intersect in particular communities.” (p. 157)

McTaggart (1990) believes that Aboriginal people see ‘both ways’ as a way of strengthening and expanding their culture, as opposed to “arbitrarily carving the world into two parts which must be engaged separately” (p.
163) that is common from a Western perspective. He argues that ‘both-ways’ or ‘two-ways’ education should be seen as a useful basis for a dialogue between practitioners, and not reified to the degree that it inhibits the development of an Aboriginal pedagogy.

McTaggart also notes that prominent Aboriginal educators, like the late Dr. Yunupingu, have not attempted to define the concept of ‘both-ways’ education, instead preferring to describe “the context to the both ways idea in
Yolngu Matha (his own language) in terms of the unifying philosophy of life which he called “Ganma”.” (p.
159)

Ganma is a Yolngu5 concept that uses the mixing of salt and fresh water as a metaphor for the synthesis of the knowledge systems of Yolngu and Balanda6 (Yunupingu, 1991; Watson & Chambers, 1989; Hughes, 1997,
2000). Watson and Chambers (1989) offer the following three points for consideration about ganma:
1. The “meeting of the waters sustains a continuous process, not a single event in time”, which require
that the waters “are fed by never-ending streams.” (p. 8) This implies that the generation of new
knowledge at the cultural interface requires the knowledge from both Indigenous and Western
traditions is respected and continues to flow, such that we need to consider both traditions to
understand how they meet and generate new knowledge. Hughes (1997) adds: “In a joint project
between Aboriginal and European Australians the integrity and continuation of the two cultures must
be accepted and assured by both.” (p. 43). This point highlights the importance for non-Indigenous
engineering educators to have a meaningful understanding of their cultural identity in order to engage
with First Australians at the cultural interface.

5
The Yolngu, or Yolŋu, are First Australians whose traditional lands are in north-eastern Arnhem Land in the Northern
Territory. ‘Yolngu’ means person in Yolngu Matha, the language of the Yolngu.
6
Balanda means non-Yolngu in Yolngu Matha.

6
7

2. “Foam is generated at the interface of the two streams” (Watson & Chambers, 1989, p. 10), which
refers to the tensions and conflicts that can arise with the mixing of different knowledge systems. The
“tragic story of violence and suffering” (p. 10) that defines the history of racial interactions in Australia
since colonisation being the key example in this case, which highlights the importance of finding ways
to manage the tensions and conflicts so as to respect both knowledge traditions. Indeed, Hughes (1997)
states: “One task of the researcher at the point where foam is generated is to help construct ways of
knowing and ways of constructing knowledge at the meeting of the two great streams of knowledge.”
(p. 43) This point also aligns with the description of the cultural interface provided by Nakata (2007a).
The ‘foam’ that is generated with the mixing of cultures and knowledge systems at the cultural
interface can also be a source of creativity and innovation (Yunupingu, 1991; Hughes, 2000;
Yunkaporta, 2009, p. 3, 24, 53), provided it is properly and respectfully managed. Popular examples of
innovations that can be described to have originating in the culture interface between First and Later
Australians include the internationally celebrated music of Yothu Yindi7, the automobile innovations of
the Bush Mechanics8, Indigenous bush products9, and the use of ethical AI and Indigenous Knowledge
in natural resource management10. We believe that working at the cultural interface will result in
unique innovations that would not occur in either culture separately.
3. The importance of land rights to both parties, as per the following: “The waters of one stream come
from the land and that of the other from the sea, but the river as a whole is on the land and of the land.”
(Watson & Chambers, p. 10)

Nakata (2007) also discusses the need to “recognise Indigenous agency as framed within the limits and the possibilities of what I can know from this constituted position” (at the cultural interface), and “the constant
“tensions” that this tug-of-war creates are physically real, and both informs as well as limits what can be said and what is to be left unsaid in the everyday.” (p. 12)

Finally, it is important to note that concepts similar to ganma and the cultural interface exist in Aboriginal cultures across the continent (Yunkaporta, 2009, pp. 51-53). Understanding the diversity and proliferation of these concepts across Indigenous cultures throughout Australia is helpful in appreciating their importance, and the diversity of engagement methods that you might need to employ.

Before continuing, we would like to include a disclaimer and warn readers that undertaking critical and reflective learning processes, where you are challenged to question preconceived ideas and unpack assumptions about your own identity, culture, and privileges within society, can be uncomfortable. This discomfort, however, holds considerable potential for students to undergo truly transformative learning experiences, as outlined in the next section.

Discomfort as a Transformative Learning Strategy
We assume that many of the primary audience for this paper – engineering educators – have had limited engagements with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, or IW. Therefore, as engineering educators become aware of previously unknown historical events, and introduced to the ongoing systemic racism, as well as the socio-economic, health, and human rights disparities that continue to affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander peoples, they will encounter challenging and confronting learning experiences.

7
For general information on the band, see: https://www.yothuyindi.com.au/ (accessed 25 November 2020).
8
The four episodes of the Bush Mechanics miniseries can be found at the following YouTube playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL_NPSSgYZZjtUnOiPpvsZVkzrU6mh8vKQ (accessed 25 November 2020). For a more detailed commentary of the series, see Clarsen (2002)
9
See Jarvis et al. (2022) and https://www.csiro.au/en/research/indigenous-science/Indigenous-enterprise/Indigenous-bush- products (accessed 12 April 2023)
10
See Macdonald et al. (2021)

7
8

Boler (1999) describes the ‘pedagogy of discomfort’ as the process of questioning beliefs and assumptions which can stimulate a suite of emotions including defensiveness, anger, and importantly, fear that one’s personal and cultural identities will be lost. However, Boler argues discomfort can be a transformative learning strategy – rather than a traumatic experience – and is in itself, a call to action in learning.

Boler proposes a number of aspects to the pedagogy of discomfort, which can be adapted into strategies:
● Learning to see the individual ‘self’ in context
● Understanding what is to be gained through discomfort (individually and at a collective, advocacy
level)
● Understanding differences between spectating and witnessing history and contemporary uncomfortable
truths
● Avoiding binary traps of teaching and learning (for example, innocence vs guilt; right vs wrong)
● Learning to be comfortable with unknowns and ambiguity – to ‘inhabit ambiguous selves’.

It is critical that those seeking to reframe their understanding and their perspectives, so as to live and work at the cultural interface, embrace this ambiguity, and understand any potential discomfort for what it is: transformational learning.

We would now like to outline the value of doing so – that is, why would an engineering educator invest their time and energy in something that provides so much discomfort, and transformational learning, in the first place?

The Value of Indigenous Knowledge in Engineering
What unique value might there be at the intersection of engineering education, and Indigenous ways of knowing, doing, and being? The question of value is first a question of worldview and perspective. A worldview that emphasises, say economic return, will have a favourable view of a solution which drives economic value. In contrast, a worldview that takes a broader perspective will naturally privilege (or find greater value) in solutions which drive other types of value. At the same time it is important to note that these views are not binary, nor are they stagnant, and they may not be homogenous—so the best we can do in this context is to provide some clear examples for the reader to begin their own journey around some of the key concepts. In doing so, the reader can seek to uncover the unique value which they believe exists at the abovementioned intersection.

Each worldview drives an orientation—that is, if we have a preference for hypothetical values A, B, C, and
Safety over everything else, then activities, resources, know-how, innovation, effort, and other things are likely to be applied to items A, B, C, and Safety. An orientation around Safety, X, Y, and Z in contrast, will see prioritisation around those items. Both sets of values prioritise Safety in this case, as illustrated in Figure 2, but there may be other opportunities for intersecting values with appropriate engagement at the cultural interface.

Figure 2: Intersecting values

8
9

The more values that two people or groups have in common, the greater the chances that the services offered by one group to the other—engineering or otherwise—will be culturally appropriate. As such, one question that engineering educators may wish to consider is: are there particular values or principles associated with IW that, if better understood, could help the engineering profession design and deliver better solutions?

To illustrate, we shall consider a small number of key tenets that are common across Indigenous cultures within
Australia: respect, reciprocity, responsibility, custodianship, and sustainability. Importantly, these tenets represent the very first step—they are far from exhaustive, and they may be described with slightly different language across different Indigenous nations around the country.

These tenets are embedded in a worldview that: has respect for all things – animate and inanimate; all things have a place and value; knowledge is earned over time through conduct in accordance with key values; each person has a role and responsibility; are based in a relational ontology – something which governs behaviours and conduct and interactions as between these parties; and uses stories and songs to bring many of these elements together in a range of different contexts, including different peoples across the country (that is,
‘songlines’ which can connect different groups). We will now present some of these more common tenets, and some leading questions and considerations to help understand the relevance to contemporary engineering education.

First Australian Tenets
The following tenets represent a number of common themes observed by one of the co-authors, Gavin, and reviewed and agreed to by the other two co-authors, across 1,000+ projects across 700+ communities that
PwC’s Indigenous Consulting11 (PIC) has completed, and decades of lived and professional experience around the country.

Respect

Indigenous Ways Description
Indigenous Australians have a relationship with all things, animate and inanimate, and we have respect for all of their respective roles in informing and bringing about our ways of knowing, being and doing.

Potential Engineering Lens/Questions
Engineering is a profession that works alongside others, using a range of different materials, ways of thinking, and technical knowledge, to deliver value in the world. What are the relationships between these different components, and what could this view of engineering, in the context of this complex system of things, deliver to the profession, and to society at large? Would it change how the profession viewed itself? Would it change how it connects with other systems/professions? Would it change how information is curated, distilled, codified, or taught? What are the roles of non-professionals in engineering? What is the role of communities in engineering?
How is non-technical knowledge blended or combined with more technical knowledge? Is it possible to view these different types of knowledge and ways of being and doing, as valid and authentic, and not simply ‘lesser than’, or dismissed?

11
https://www.pwc.com.au/indigenous-consulting.html, accessed 25 April 2021

9
10

Responsibility

Indigenous Ways Description
Once people have demonstrated that they operate in accordance with expected ways of knowing, being and doing, they may have additional knowledge shared with them. The receipt, use, and dissemination of this knowledge comes with significant responsibility. Some knowledge might be relatively universal (such as the timing of the seasons, or where useful plants and animals might be found), whereas some knowledge may only be available to specific people, such as Elders, or to women only, or to men only.

Potential Engineering Lens/Questions
What might the ‘responsibility’ of engineering educators be in this context? Could this be broader than subject matter delivery/teaching? How far should their responsibility extend? What if this type of framing were provided to engineering students? Would engineering solutions change?

A tangible example of this is the ‘Iron Ring’12 and its associated ritual for engineers to remind them of their moral responsibilities, which has been compared to the Hippocratic Oath taken by physicians (Wedel, 2012, p.
xiv). This connection surpasses legal or technical boundaries around knowledge, and instead talks to something more profound—something that addresses a deeper role for engineers, beyond their technical expertise.

Reciprocity

Indigenous Ways Description
We all have a role to play in delivering value to our people and communities—no one just ‘takes’, we must all contribute to the betterment of our community/clan/nation.

Potential Engineering Lens/Questions
Aspiring engineers are provided with subject matter to develop their technical expertise with a particular set of knowledge, and ways in which they can apply that knowledge, to create value. Engineering educators not only take existing content to educate students, but they help by building on the existing knowledge base as they themselves learn more, and as they bring new insights into contemporary curricula. What if students adopted this lens? What would it mean for them not just as learners of content, but as the next in a long line of expert professionals? What might it require of them, over and above just, ‘becoming qualified’? And what might it require of them as they build their skills and knowledge and experience—is there an expectation of what it means to be an engineer, in the context of the history (and future) of the engineering profession?

Custodianship
“We are all visitors to this time, this place. We are just passing through. Our purpose here is to observe,
to learn, to grow, to love… and then we return home.” – Australian Aboriginal Proverb13

Indigenous Ways Description
We make decisions informed by thousands of generations of practice; and ways of knowing, being and doing, refined for millennia. Beyond our current activities, is our (a) understanding and respect for the sacrifice of those who have come before us to provide us with the opportunities we now enjoy; and (b) appreciation that we too have a responsibility to do the same thing for future generations.

12
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Ring, accessed 9 December 2020
13
https://www.ideaswa.net/upload/editor/files/downloads/Working%20with%20Aboriginal%20People.PDF, p. 21, accessed
9 December 2020

10
11

Potential Engineering Lens/Questions
What are the roles of educators, practitioners, and students (and potentially others) in the progression of engineering as a profession, and in the improvement of designs/solutions for the future? With this longer term lens, does the framing of any of these roles change? Does the design and delivery of any engineering solutions/advice change with this lens? What are the roles of each in setting new/improved foundations for the engineers of tomorrow? How have the engineers of the past contributed to the platform afforded to the engineers of today? What are the implications of this lens on more holistic connections between engineers and community?

Sustainability

Indigenous Ways Description
The use of materials is very considered, and there is minimal wastage. In line with the respect for all things, materials are only taken when absolutely needed. Moreover, land, water, and other resources are typically personified, with the relationships between these things being paramount. Indeed, they are often closely connected—take for example the ‘health’ of country (a term encompassing both land and water, among other things) and its connection with the health of the people on (and caring for) that country. Where the health of the country is strong, the health of the people on that country will be better. Conversely, poorly-managed or ‘sick’ country might be connected with poorer health outcomes for citizens.

Potential Engineering Lens/Questions
Sustainability is already an important aspect of the engineering curriculum, especially in environmental engineering majors. However, existing questions around minimising environmental impact, the total life cycle of the materials, and site rehabilitation can be complemented when the relationship between people and their natural environment is considered in a more direct and intimate way. For example, the health benefits of being in nature are increasingly being recognised14, so are there ways to increase our exposure to nature in a sustainable way through the engineering project/solution?

Having considered the opportunities that emerge when working at the intersection of engineering and IW, the next step in developing a framework to engage at this intersection is to better understand how to engage with
Indigenous peoples as an ally, as doing will more likely lead to more meaningful interactions and mutually beneficial outcomes. We will start with what it means for non-Indigenous people to be an ally to Indigenous peoples.

Allyship
“If you have come here to help me, you are wasting your time. But if you have come because your
liberation is bound up with mine, then let us work together.” - Aboriginal activists group, Queensland,
1970s.

An important place to start with being an ally is to reflect honestly on why you want to be one. The quote at the start of this section encapsulates the motivation of some people: they feel they have something to offer and want to help those they feel are less fortunate, and in doing so they will feel better about themselves as a person.
However, one of the key realisations is that being an ally isn’t about you or your needs or priorities.

So providing that allyship comes from a place of learning, support and humility, and often, a want to do good
(not just be seen to be doing good), then allies can contribute significantly to the benefit of others.

14
https://e360.yale.edu/features/ecopsychology-how-immersion-in-nature-benefits-your-health, accessed 9 December 2020

11
12

First Australians, like many minority groups, have been systematically oppressed since their countries were invaded by European colonisers. As a non-Indigenous person, this can be difficult to understand, but as the
Guide to Allyship notes: “Being an ally doesn’t necessarily mean you fully understand what it feels like to be oppressed. It means you’re taking on the struggle as your own.”15

Fortunately, there are a number of helpful resources that can help you learn to become a better ally, including the Guide to Allyship mentioned above. One of the co-authors of this paper, Crighton, is continually trying to be a better ally, and has found the work and reflections of Nado Aveling to be particularly informative. For example, when commenting on what being an ally means to her, a non-Indigenous researcher, Aveling writes:
“Being an ally is not about helping; it is, as Kendall (2006, p. 148) has suggested, about working with
Indigenous researchers and ‘using our privilege, power and access to influence and resources to change the systems that keep [Aboriginal] people . . . oppressed’.” (Aveling, 2013, p. 210) She continues: “In short, being an ally means that I work with Indigenous researchers to do their own research. It also means adhering to those criteria that Indigenous scholars have identified as essential components to conducting research within
Indigenous contexts.” (p. 211)16

Being a good ally is personal and contextual, so you will also need to spend a great deal of time reflecting on what it means to you to be a good ally. The important thing to note is that being a good ally will take time, and you are likely to make mistakes on the way. The section on “How to handle mistakes” in the Guide to Allyship can be useful when that does happen (and it will).17 It is also not something you are likely to perfect, if that is even possible. You will continue to reflect on and better understand what it means to be a good ally for as long as it is important to you. As you become a better ally over time, you will find it easier to respectfully engage with Indigenous peers at the cultural interface. To help with this process, we will now introduce a framework based on the idea of ‘learning loops’.

Learning Loops
Now that we have introduced the key elements of the framework for engaging with IW – the importance of culture and identity, reflexivity as a ‘deep’ skill, First Australian tenets, and how to be an ally – we will look at how they can be sequenced and patterned to create a framework for respectfully engaging Indigenous peers at the cultural interface. We have found that a learning loop most effectively conveys our understanding of the lifelong learning journey involved. The goal of the learning loop is to establish a pattern for co-designing engineering education at the cultural interface.

This ‘loop’ operates at both micro and macro scales: at the micro scale, it offers discrete steps to be taken in the learning of key content and processes; at the macro scale, it helps when stepping back to reflect on the journey through the learning, to consider what has been learned, and how to apply that learning in the future – and moreover, what does this learning mean for their profession and colleagues, as much as for the individual. The learning loop consists of the points illustrated in Figure 3. Each point consists of concentric circles, which represent the levels of understanding and knowledge that build over time as you move through the loops.

15
https://guidetoallyship.com/, accessed 25 November 2020
16
If you are interested in decolonising research, Maori academic Linda Tuhiwai Smith provides a critical analysis of the role of Western research in the process of colonisation, and explains why, for many Indigenous peoples, research is “inextricably linked to European imperialism and colonialism”, making it “one of the dirtiest words in the indigenous world’s vocabulary.” (Smith, 1999, p. 1).
17
https://guidetoallyship.com/#how-to-handle-mistakes, accessed 29 November 2020

12
13

Figure 3: Learning Loop

1. Unlearn: The first step is to help you, as an engineer, better understand the concepts and importance of
culture - through the lens of your own culture, specifically, as this will have strongly influenced your
worldview. By understanding and challenging what is established and accepted, and placing your
understanding within an Indigenous context, you can begin the next cycle of your learning. This may
initially require a level of ‘unlearning’—which can be awkward and difficult—particularly with
technical experts who have spent many years learning and honing their expertise, and especially where
all of this education has already delivered professional success. As such, the challenge here is (at least)
twofold: first, this step does not in any way de-value existing expertise, it should be understood as
complementary; second, these two ‘worldviews’ (technical and cultural) can co-exist, and each are
lenses which can be developed and improved over time.
2. Learn: With an understanding of your own cultural reference frame, the second step is focused on
learning at the cultural interface. You might begin to engage and discuss with Indigenous people via
relevant networks, such as the Indigenous centre of your university. This is about hearing from others
how the established ways of doing may not work, or exist differently for Indigenous peoples. This
requires listening, understanding, and patience for yourself and others. A key principle in this space is
to listen more than talk. Typically there are strong impulses to demonstrate expertise to others, but
often in this space there is far greater value in listening, distilling, comparing and contrasting with
existing worldviews, and actively seeking the ‘nuggets’ of information which represent specific value
for the listener/participant. Conversations in this space can be very fluid and often circular, as concepts
are triangulated between the different worldviews, and then shared understanding and meaning utilised.
Patience is paramount.
3. Apply: Having begun learning at the cultural interface, you can begin to embark on applying your new
learning to your field of work. Here, you can be focused on working with specific Indigenous
collaborators to co-design positive engineering education, interactions, and environments at the cultural
interface. There are many ways in which this can be done: on an individual level, organisational level,
community level, or even specific interest group level (such as through professional associations).
Once again, this is an exercise which requires great patience, and a commitment to exploring shared
value, and acceptance that this is not a linear process. However we believe there is great value, both for

13
14

the engineering profession, and society more broadly, if more of these types of conversations and
practices can be sustained.
4. Reflect: Although reflection is required consistently throughout the learning process, this step is
focused on assessing and reflecting on the application of your learning. This involves challenging the
assumptions that you have made. How do you know what you are doing is working? Who have you
asked? Are you ready to continue, or is further unlearning and learning required? As noted above, this
engagement will require the melding of worldviews, and sometimes circular processes - but substantial
value is typically only derived through astute observation, and an ability to recognise analogies. Stories
sometimes relayed from Elders can be about a specific discrete/obvious subject, and at the same time
about values and behaviours and roles and responsibilities - or represent different ways of thinking
about things.
5. Embed: If, after critical reflection, you are ready to proceed on your learning journey, you can now
begin to embed your learning into your work and everyday life. Inherent in this is everything you have
learnt so far, an understanding that you will need to continue your learning, and your advocacy for this
learning. Perhaps the key principle here is that to be authentic (and effective), this process needs to be
centred around genuine relationships. To be able to navigate awkward conversations, have the patience
to progress through non-linear conversations, and to be vulnerable in order to learn, the cultural
interface needs to be a safe space where all parties’ views are absolutely respected.
6. Expand: Finally, having embarked on a deeply reflexive learning experience, you can begin to explore
the next area or focus of learning that you are looking to undertake. It is important to reflect on your
learning experience, and share and contribute your learnings and outcomes back to the individuals and
communities that you involved. Finally, you can return to stage one once again, ready to start anew and
build upon your previous experiences.

We believe there are many applications for insights gained from working at the cultural interface. On one level these insights might assist in introducing new worldviews to the engineering profession; on another level it might help to define the organisations or projects or causes to which an engineer might commit their time and considerable expertise; and on another level again, work at the cultural interface might help in evolving the curricula (and therefore the future practices) of the engineering profession as a whole.

Lifelong Learning Loops and Ever Deeper Reflexivity
“More than a concept, Cultural Humility is a process of communal reflection to analyse the root
causes of suffering and create a broader, more inclusive view of the world. Originally developed by
Doctors Melanie Tervalon and Jann Murray-Garcia (1998)... It is a daily practice for people who
deal with hierarchical relationships, changing organizational policy and building relationships based
on trust…” – Vivian Chávez18

In this paper, we have sought to express the value and importance of engineers’ understanding of Indigenous ways of knowing, being, and doing – a critical component along the journey to improved (co-)design and implementation of infrastructure and services in Indigenous communities. In doing so, we hope to make the engineering profession more inclusive and accessible to First Australians, which will benefit the profession as a whole.

To build this understanding, we examined the importance of understanding our own culture, and how this has shaped our world view – and our own ways of moving throughout the world. We also came to understand that this learning journey, particularly when it involves the traumatic histories of Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander peoples in this country, can be confronting and traumatic in its own way.

By working at the cultural interface, we understood the ways in which engineers are able to begin to develop their ‘deep’ skills as a complement to the ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ skills that are required within their roles. By moving

18
https://sacred.omeka.net/items/show/164, accessed 14 April 2023

14
15 through our suggested learning loop, engineers can seek to reframe their understanding of the peoples and communities with whom they are working – in turn finding new ways to apply and embed important cultural changes within their work and outputs. Two of the most critical steps in this learning loop were reflection and expansion – both focused on building on previous learning experiences with continual openness to new ways of doing.

To continue to progress along your cultural journey, it is crucial to understand and practise cultural humility.
This concept, of cultural humility, is about building trust. It is about having an open mind when learning about other cultures. It asks you to put aside any preconceived notions, biases, or assumptions that might have been learnt through life, and take time to understand the experiences of other people.

In the context of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, cultural humility can take many forms. It might mean that you learn further about the historic treatment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples by previous governments – putting aside any nationalistic pride, to critically reflect on the power imbalance that exists within Australian society.

It might mean involving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to have input to the work you do, particularly when they, as individuals and communities, will be affected by the outcomes.

It might simply be that you are more aware of times that you need to listen to the stories, experiences, knowledges, and needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

However cultural humility manifests for you, practising it is an ongoing process. It will take time. Just as others will always be able to learn new things about you, you too will never stop learning about others, and their cultures. Willingness to humbly acknowledge this lifelong journey is the first, and most important, step towards cultural safety in all that you do.

15
16

References
Aveling, N. (2013). ‘Don't talk about what you don't know’: on (not) conducting research with/in Indigenous
contexts. Critical Studies in Education, 54(2), 203-214. DOI: 10.1080/17508487.2012.724021
Boler, M. (Ed.). (1999). Feeling power. Emotions and education. New York. Routledge.
Gaither, S. (2019) Considering your multiple identities: Awareness of various identities has an impact on
creativity and social thinking. Psychological Science Agenda. July 2019.
https://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2019/07/multiple-identities
Hall, E. T. (1976) Beyond Culture. Garden City: Anchor/Doubleday
Hall, S. (Ed.). (1997). Representation: Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices: Sage Publications
Ltd.
Hughes, I. (1997). Self-Determination: Aborigines and the State in Australia. (Unpublished PhD Thesis),
University of Sydney.
Jarvis, D., Maclean, K. & Woodward, E. The Australian Indigenous-led bush products sector: Insights from the
literature and recommendations for the future. Ambio 51, 226–240 (2022). DOI: 10.1007/s13280-021-01542-
w
Jones, P. H. (2014) Systemic Design Principles for Complex Social Systems. In G.S. Metcalf (ed.), Social
Systems and Design, Translational Systems Sciences 1, DOI: 10.1007/978-4-431-54478-4_4, Japan:
Springer
Kelly, D., Faucher, L., & Machery, E. (2010). Getting rid of racism: Assessing three proposals in light of
psychological evidence. Journal of Social Philosophy, 41(3), 293-322.
Macdonald, J. M., Robinson, C. J., Perry, J., Lee, M., Barrowei, R., Coleman, B., ... & Douglas, M. (2021).
Indigenous-led responsible innovation: lessons from co-developed protocols to guide the use of drones to
monitor a biocultural landscape in Kakadu National Park, Australia. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 8(2),
300-319. DOI: 10.1080/23299460.2021.1964321
McTaggart, R. (1990). Action research for Aboriginal pedagogy: beyond 'both ways' education. In O. Zuber-
Skeritt (Ed.), Action research for change and development: Aldershot: Gower.
Moote, J., Archer, L., DeWitt, J., MacLeod, E. (2019) Comparing students' engineering and science aspirations
from age 10 to 16: Investigating the role of gender, ethnicity, cultural capital, and attitudinal factors. Journal
of Engineering Education. 109: 34– 51. DOI: 10.1002/jee.20302
Nakata, M. (2002). Indigenous knowledge and the cultural interface: Underlying issues at the intersection of
knowledge and information systems. IFLA journal, 28(5/6), 281-291.
Nelson, H. G., & Stolterman, E. (2012). The design way: Intentional change in an unpredictable world (2nd
ed.). Cambridge: MIT.
Nichols, C. D. (2015). Discovering design: enhancing the capability to design at the cultural interface between
first Australian and western design paradigms. PhD Thesis, The University of Sydney.
Sevaldson, B. (2011). Gigamapping: Visualization for complexity and systems thinking in design. Helsinki:
Nordic Design Research Conference.
Watson, H., & Chambers, D. W. (1989). Singing the land, signing the land: A portfolio of exhibits: Deakin
University.
Weaver, G. R. (1986). Understanding and coping with cross-cultural adjustment Stress. In
Paige, R. M. (Ed). Cross-cultural orientation. New conceptualizations and applications. Lanham, MD:
University Press of America.
Varma, R. (2018). U.S. Science and Engineering Workforce: Underrepresentation of Women and Minorities.
American Behavioral Scientist. 62(5): 692–697. DOI: 10.1177/0002764218768847
Wedel, K. A. (2012). The Obligation: A History of the Order of the Engineer. AuthorHouse.
Whalley, P. (1992) Reviewed Work: Women in Engineering: Gender, Power, and Workplace Culture. By Judith
S. McIlwee, J. Gregg Robinson. American Journal of Sociology. Vol. 98, No. 3 (Nov., 1992), pp. 679-681.
Yunupingu, M. (1991). A plan for Ganma Research. In N. A. a. T. S. I. P. Project. & D. B. T. E. Program.
(Eds.), Aboriginal Pedagogy: Aboriginal Teachers Speak Out. Blekbala Wei, Deme Nayin, Yolngu Rom,
Ngini Nginingawula, Ngawurranungurumagi. (pp. 98-106). Geelong: Deakin University Press.

16

Connected Leadership

Weaving Indigenous & Western Science & Wisdom Together
for
More Inclusive, Collaborative, Productive & Healthier Teams

Prepared by: Crighton Nichols, PhD
August 2023
Definition: What is Leadership?

“Leadership is a process whereby one or more members of a group influence other group members in a way that motivates them to contribute to the achievement of group goals.” (Alex Haslam, UQ)

In other words, it’s a group process that is as much about followers as leaders – i.e. it’s about ‘us’ not ‘me’.
The Dominant Leadership Paradigm is Leader-Centred
Most leadership programs focus on the qualities or attributes of the leader – for example, their vision, charisma, influence, and communication skills.

However, there is very little scientific evidence that these programs have any impact on leadership. Some rely on self-reported feedback, others show a weak correlation between qualities and people in leadership roles as a proxy for leadership, so they don’t consider actually leadership outcomes or results.

This is problematic because leadership development is big business – it’s a $60b+ pa industry. Calculating a ROI is tricky but there have been attempts, and it’s difficult to show a reliable ROI that is significantly more than zero.
Connected Leadership: A New Paradigm
Connected Leadership weaves together the best of Western and Indigenous
Western science and wisdom to equip people with the tools and mindset they need to develop a more inclusive, collaborative, productive, and healthy culture.
The Western science is based on decades of research and development by the
Social Identity and Groups Network (SIGN) at the University of Queensland (UQ), and is offered as a stand-alone programme called 5R Leadership. Their flagship client is the House of Commons in the UK. See the Appendix for examples of the scientific evidence base supporting it.
The Indigenous science and wisdom is based on thousands of years of experience, reflection and insights on creating sustainable, trusted and collaborative communities (e.g. through deep accountability and responsibility).
Connected Leadership: Common Ground & Reconciliation
The common ground is the understanding of leadership as fundamentally a group process that is highly contextual. This focus is on the quality of the relationships between people, not the people themselves. This aligns with the relational ontology in First Australian and many other Indigenous cultures.

One of the key benefits of this approach is that we will be providing a practical demonstration of what reconciliation and mutual respect and learning looks like in an area of critical importance – developing and nurturing a more inclusive, collaborative, productive, and healthy culture.

We hope that approach will encourage and help facilitate many other collaborative initiatives that are also based on mutual respect and trust.
How it Works
Different organisations are interested in adopting and adapting this approach in different ways. For example, an Indigenous organisation are looking to create a new leadership program that will benefit Indigenous communities so they are better able to negotiate with the government around Treaty.

Another organisation is looking to change their culture to be more inclusive of
Indigenous ways of Knowing, Doing, and Being.

In most cases, the organisation will end up owning the program/initiative they co-design & develop, and they are all examples of practical reconciliation.

Depending on the outcomes you are looking to achieve, the 5R Leadership
Programme may provide a useful starting point.
How it Works: The Cultural Interface
The cultural interface is a way of finding the common ground between Western and Indigenous ways of knowing, doing, and being to create innovative new solutions that wouldn’t be possible in either culture separately. We can help facilitate this process if needed.
https://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/10974/2/01thesis.pdf
How it Works: Start Small and Scale Iteratively
We typically recommend
Planning & co-design Implementation starting with a small pilot project to validate and demonstrate the effectiveness of the Iterative program, and to help build Development the required capabilities to scale the program in an Evaluation & refinements Testing iterative manner.
Appendix:
Examples of the scientific evidence base supporting the 5R Leadership Programme
and Connected Leadership
Leaders who are ideal team members are more effective
Prime Ministers who say “we” or “us”, versus “I” or “me”
Connected Leadership can make us mentally and physically healthier

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/10/85-year-harvard-study-found-the-secret-to-a-long-happy-and-successful-life.html
Thank you.

Questions and feedback are warmly encouraged!

E: crighton.nichols@gmail.com

M: +61 (0)402 136 374