Content uploaded by Kerry Bodle
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Kerry Bodle on Oct 02, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Res High Educ
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-018-9511-5
1 3
LITERATURE REVIEW
Determinants ofAttraction, Retention andCompletion
forAboriginal andTorres Strait Islander Higher Degree
Research Students: ASystematic Review toInform
Future Research Directions
KateHutchings1· RoxanneBainbridge2· KerryBodle3· AdrianMiller4
Received: 19 May 2017
© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018
Abstract Expanding the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australian (hereafter
respectfully Indigenous) talent pool to undertake valuable roles in business, health, edu-
cation, academia, government, policy development and community development is criti-
cal for addressing current disparities between Indigenous and other Australians. Parity of
access and engagement with education plays a key role in facilitating participation in these
roles but has not yet been attained. This article provides an initial systematic review of lit-
erature on the state of the evidence regarding access/attraction, retention and completions
for Indigenous Higher Degree Research (HDR) students. This article identifies the quantity
(number examined), nature (e.g. focus of study), quality (peer reviewed and evidence of
methodological rigour) and characteristics (e.g. publication type, authorship) of the limited
publications. Using specific search strings (words or phrases of relevance to the topic), a
systematic review methodology was employed to search nine databases and grey (non-peer
reviewed) literature from 1995 to 2015. The resultant 12 publications were mined with
quality assessed and a predetermined framework used to extract and synthesise the charac-
teristics from individual publications. This research contributes to existing literature about
Indigenous Peoples in HDR programs internationally in identifying significant cultural
* Kate Hutchings
k.hutchings@griffith.edu.au
Roxanne Bainbridge
r.bainbridge@cqu.edu.au
Kerry Bodle
k.bodle@griffith.edu.au
Adrian Miller
adrian.miller@cdu.edu.au
1 Department ofEmployment Relations andHuman Resources, Griffith University, Nathan,
Australia
2 Centre forIndigenous Health Equity Research, Central Queensland University, Cairns, Australia
3 Department ofAccounting, Finance andEconomics, Griffith University, GoldCoast, Australia
4 Pro Vice Chancellor Indigenous Leadership, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, Australia
Res High Educ
1 3
and institutional barriers and highlighting institutional enablers which can contribute to
attraction, retention and completion. Building on the prior limited research reported in the
review, the article highlights the need for further research and provides an initial agenda of
directions for universities and government to redress the disparity in entry and completion
of Indigenous Peoples in HDR programs.
Keywords Attraction· Completion· HDR· Indigenous· Retention· Systematic literature
review
Introduction
Education involves “a life-long learning process and is a powerful conduit of and equal-
iser in human and social development” (authors removed for review). It shapes people’s
life pathways and opportunities to participate in social, cultural and economic experiences
and contributes to individual and collective health and wellbeing and overall quality of life
(SCRGSP 2014; White and Wood 2009; Zubrick etal. 2006). Fostering nurturing environ-
ments for higher education student success is critical for expanding the capacity of Abo-
riginal and Torres Strait Islander (hereafter respectfully Indigenous) Peoples 1 to undertake
valuable roles in academia, government, policy development and community2 development
initiatives (Australian Government 2011). As such, participation in higher education plays
a vital role in improving the overall positioning of Indigenous communities in Australia.
Increased capacity contributes to raising social, health and economic prosperity for Indig-
enous Peoples.
In 2015–2016 there were a number of reviews into research in Australian universi-
ties which resulted in a range of recommendations; some of which had implications for
Indigenous Peoples’ higher education opportunities. The National Science and Innovation
Agenda (NSIA) aimed to strengthen Australia’s research system, encourage collaboration
between universities and businesses and better translate research outcomes into economic
and social benefits (Birmingham 2016). The Watt Review was commissioned to review
research policy and funding arrangements with the broad aim to ensure quality and excel-
lence of Australian university research and research training (DET 2015) and set out 28
recommendations to build on the NSIA (Birmingham 2016). The Australian Council of
Learned Academies (ACOLA) was tasked with reviewing Australia’s research train-
ing system (see ACOLA 2016). The new Research Training Program will allow univer-
sities to increase higher degree research (HDR) stipends and following an ACOLA rec-
ommendation, the government decided to double the weighting given to Indigenous HDR
1 Where the term Indigenous HDR student/Indigenous Peoples is used it refers to Aboriginal and/or Tor-
res Strait Islander HDR students or Peoples except where specific reference is made to Indigenous Peoples
internationally.
2 For the purposes of this article we use the term community to refer broadly to extended family and the
cultural group with which individual Indigenous Peoples identify. We acknowledge, however, that the term
is very complex and may have multiple meanings, but importantly must be as individuals and communities
choose to define it. As Peters-Little (2010, p. 18) notes of community in Aboriginal Australia, given the
diversity of definitions of community and the non-applicability of the one definition for all situations and
diversity of groups within communities, it is important to “bring forth discussions on the importance of
self-definition, as opposed to having bureaucracies determine who and what is a community or an Aborigi-
nal person and what their structures of representation and socio-economic needs will be”.
Res High Educ
1 3
completions in calculating scholarship allocations (Ross 2016). Supporters suggest that
the changes will help universities attract HDR students, particularly from Indigenous com-
munities (Ross 2016). The earlier Review of Higher Education Access and Outcomes for
Indigenous People, chaired by Professor Larissa Behrendt in 2012, highlighted the role that
higher education plays in improving health, education and economic outcomes for Indig-
enous peoples and examined the role of higher education in closing the gap and reducing
Indigenous disadvantage (DET 2017).
However, deriving the benefits of education requires equity of access and participation
and engagement with learning (Zubrick etal. 2006). Only 5% of Indigenous Australians
hold a Bachelors degree or above (AHRC 2017) and like Indigenous Peoples in countries
including Aotearoa/New Zealand (see Barnhardt 2002, cited in Schofield etal. 2013), Can-
ada (see Childs etal. 2016), and the United States (see Cabrera etal. 1999, cited in Wilson
etal. 2011), are affected by a range of factors which mean that they are less likely than
non-Indigenous Peoples to graduate after commencing university. Though comprising 3%
of the total Australian population, Indigenous Australians are underrepresented in HDR
programs at just over 1% of HDR cohorts (Behrendt etal. 2012). There is an upward trend
for Indigenous HDR students. Fifty-five Indigenous Australians were awarded PhDs from
1990 to 2000; this figure rose to 219 from 2000 to 2011 (Bock 2016—a quadruple increase.
These numbers are still a long way from benchmark parity with the non-Indigenous popu-
lation. The younger profile of Indigenous Australians—the median age of Indigenous Aus-
tralians is 22years compared to the overall Australian population of 38 (ABS 2011)—pro-
vides fertile ground for the expansion of young people’s educational opportunities but there
must be appropriate support and development through schooling and undergraduate studies
and on to completion of HDR programs.
In this article, we systematically investigated the prevailing literature about attraction,
retention and completion for Indigenous HDR students. In the context of government, soci-
etal and university calls to increase the number of Indigenous Peoples commencing and
completing HDR programs, the thorough and systematic literature review identified that
we need to know more about Indigenous HDR students’ experiences relative to other stu-
dent cohorts in Australia and internationally and that there is actually very limited research
which has examined the factors which impact on attraction into, and completion of, HDR
studies. The review aimed to: (1) ascertain the quantity, nature and quality of relevant
published documentation across time (1995–2015); and (2) improve the evidence-base to
increase the participation of Indigenous HDR students by identifying and synthesising ena-
blers of HDR attraction, retention and completion. We first present a summary of Indig-
enous methodologies and our position as researchers, and then provide a brief overview
of the issues affecting Indigenous Peoples in higher education in Australia and interna-
tionally. We then address the first purpose of this article, which is to provide a thorough
overview of the extant research which highlights a complex mix of individual and cultural
and institutional factors which determine attraction and completion. The overall implica-
tions of the findings from the limited research in this area leads to our second purpose of
the article, namely, that there is need for development of new support initiatives for Indig-
enous HDR students to better inform students, academics and policy makers about factors
assisting Indigenous Peoples to commence and complete HDR programs. In so doing it is
expected that there will be response to education being a priority area in the Indigenous
Economic Development Strategy 2011–2018. In providing suggestions about what we need
to undertake in future research and outlining an initial agenda for directions for universi-
ties and government, the review provides a platform from which action plans for Indig-
enous HDR support can be developed across Australian universities; which should include
Res High Educ
1 3
analysis of successful Indigenous HDR outcomes and identification of gaps between theory
and practice.
Indigenous Research Methodologies andUs asResearchers
Within the international literature on Indigenous methodologies, Kovach (2015, p. 46)
summarised “As Indigenous methodologies have emerged within the mainstream research
discourse, awareness of its epistemological distinctiveness, alongside what this means for
research design and interpretation, has been challenging for both friend and foe. It is with
an awareness of the assimilating force of dominant discourse that exists within sites of
formal education that…speaks to the nature and promise of Indigenous methodologies”.
Kovach (2015, p. 54) highlighted four central aspects of Indigenous methodologies as fol-
lows: “holistic Indigenous knowledge systems are a legitimate way of knowing; receptivity
and relationship between researcher and participants is (or ought to be) a natural part of
the research methodology; collectivity, as a way of knowing, assumes reciprocity to the
community; Indigenous methods, including story, are a legitimate way of sharing knowl-
edge”. Battiste (2013) suggested that education systems do not accommodate the heritage,
knowledge or culture that students bring to education in not be reflective of the everyday
they share with their families; only an imagined and aspirational ‘other’. Moreover, Smith
(2012) emphasised the need to do more than deconstruct Western scholarship but to under-
stand the ways in which Indigenous Peoples can ask and seek answers to their own con-
cerns within a context in which resistance to new formations of colonisation is articulated
and decolonisation of research methods helps to reclaim Indigenous ways of knowing and
being.
Specifically in the Australian Indigenous context, Rigney (1999) emphasised three fun-
damental and related principles of Indigenist research namely: resistance as the emancipa-
tory imperative (supporting personal, community, cultural and political struggles of Indig-
enous Australians in healing from past oppressions and achieving cultural freedom in the
future), political integrity (the provision of a social link between research and the politi-
cal struggle of Indigenous communities), and privileging Indigenous voices (whose goals
are to serve and inform the Indigenous struggles for self-determination). Nakata (cited in
Nakata etal. (2014) has explained that Indigenous scholarly enquiry is said to emerge at the
[cultural] interface of: Indigenous Peoples’ traditional and contemporary knowledge, expe-
rience and analytical standpoints; the representation of these as historically constructed by
Western disciplines and the knowledge methods and practice of Western disciplines that
impact on Indigenous lives and shape Indigenous options. Nakata (2010) stresses the case
to include traditional Indigenous knowledge as not less formal or less valued than scientific
knowledge, and that traditional and contemporary knowledge both need to be privileged
in the appropriate context for appropriate purposes. Nakata (cited in McGlion 2009) said
that Indigenous studies have been a study of, and about, Indigenous Peoples. We acknowl-
edge that Indigenous Peoples remain the subjects of study within Western institutions and
by non-Indigenous Peoples and thus an important aspect of the publications we discuss
within this article is that the majority included Indigenous researchers and that this small
but growing area of research is privileging Indigenous voices. Moreover, we now make
transparent the background, training and position we, as researchers, bring to undertaking
this Indigenous research.
Res High Educ
1 3
This review article was prompted by the authors’ concerns about the low rates of attrac-
tion, retention and completion and limited specific support for Indigenous HDR students
in Australian universities. The research for this article was undertaken by an inter-discipli-
nary team of Indigenous and non-Indigenous researchers who have extensive experience
researching and teaching in universities. The research was done through mutual learning
and with an emphasis on capacity building in developing research skills of junior Indig-
enous researchers and the cultural knowledge of the non-Indigenous researcher.
Educated in Western sandstone institutions, and a career academic, who is internation-
ally-recognised for her research in human resource management and cross-cultural man-
agement, the non-Indigenous first author has worked in a range of intercultural research
teams and across a wide range of countries internationally. A strong focus in her work life
has been sharing knowledge and examining different ways of working. Though embracing
a qualitative and narrative approach to research throughout her career, she came to Indig-
enous research as a journey of new learning. The second author is an Aboriginal Australian
woman with a strong commitment to improving the health and prosperity of Indigenous
nations through research. As director of a Centre for Indigenous Health Equity Research at
a university, she well understands what educational opportunities offer Indigenous nations
and the challenges faced in terms of access and success in tertiary institutions. The third
author is an Aboriginal woman whose journey typically reflects those impacted by the
Stolen Generation. Since completing a mainstream Western doctorate she has developed
a strong reputation for her involvement in developing pathways for Indigenous and non-
Indigenous students from education to employment. She pioneered the development of the
first Indigenous business course that accredits students with the ability to work with First
Australians. Her successful research projects have led to her current role as lead investi-
gator for a nationally-awarded grant investigating ways to enhance Indigenous businesses
through improved financial literacy. The fourth author has deep insights into Indigenous
higher education and the barriers facing the development of an Indigenous research work-
force. He has held senior academic and executive roles in five higher education institutions
and has actively developed strategies and implemented policies to increase Indigenous
research students. He is currently negotiating a multi-institutional research capacity build-
ing program with six universities in an attempt to address the barriers to retaining Indig-
enous research students.
Higher Education andIndigenous Peoples
Following extensive reforms in education in the university sector since the late 1980s,
there was a significant increase in the number of students enrolled at universities including
international students and domestic (Australian citizen/permanent resident) school leavers
(those who move straight from secondary school to university studies). Increasing univer-
sity and government attention is focused on how to retain students after they have enrolled;
increase the diversity of the student cohort; and develop success strategies, especially for
students from under-represented groups, lower socio-economic backgrounds and those
who are the first in their immediate family to attend university. The increasingly diverse
student cohort has meant that significant attention has been devoted to addressing specific
students’ needs including part-time and online students, people with disabilities, and gen-
der diversity.
Res High Educ
1 3
Research has examined issues specifically affecting enrolment into, and completion
of, undergraduate university degrees for Indigenous Peoples.3 This has included negative
perceptions of higher education within communities (Cameron and Robinson 2014). Such
negative perceptions can arise from: lack of belief in the value of such for gaining (bet-
ter) employment or providing value back to the community; and/or negative experiences
of being researched; and/or despite initiatives within higher education to improve Indig-
enous Peoples’ learning, lack of cultural safety. Another factor affecting opportunities to
enrol for some individuals is low socio-economic status (Schofield etal. 2013). Moreover,
Kippen etal. (2006) mentioned a range of other factors which could impact on Indigenous
Peoples’ enrolment (and potentially completion after enrolment) as including: past educa-
tional experiences, lack of Indigenous role models, lack of information about university,
and living in rural/remote locations distant from universities. Further issues experienced
within universities include: racism, discrimination, and exclusionary practices within uni-
versities as well as negative attitudes of non-Indigenous students (Farrington etal. 1999);
and inflexibility of academic requirements with respect to insufficient cultural content in
curriculum (Cameron and Robinson 2014). Prior research has also highlighted facilitators
as including: university departments/centres for Indigenous student support (Cameron and
Robinson 2014); university support strategies to address racism/discrimination (Farrington
etal. 1999); other university support services (Miller 2005); financial assistance from uni-
versities and government (Cameron and Robinson 2014; Miller 2005); flexibility in course
design/delivery (Miller 2005); cultural safety within universities (Kippen etal. 2006); and
family having interest in, and providing support for, university attendance and study (Cam-
eron and Robinson 2014).
Reporting on the United Kingdom, McCulloch and Thomas (2013), suggested that there
has been a tendency of higher education institutions to approach widening participation of
the student cohort at a doctoral level as an extension of the undergraduate level, but they
argue that doctoral education is sufficiently different to warrant a distinct approach and
research agenda with focus beyond access and transition through the exploration of the
broader research degree and post-doctoral experience. We concur with this position and
in particular, as demonstrated throughout this review, highlight that HDR studies have a
new set of particular challenges for Indigenous Peoples, most especially, doing research in
Western institutions which may not be supportive of Indigenous methodologies or ways of
approaching research and resistance by potential research participants when researching
Indigenous issues. Moreover, Indigenous HDR students may experience difficulties when
working one-on-one with non-Indigenous academics who may have insufficient Indigenous
cultural or methodological knowledge or Indigenous academics who may face considerable
time pressures and issues with cultural safety of their own.
Like the experience for Indigenous Peoples in some other colonised countries, Indig-
enous Australian HDR students are positioned differently to undergraduates in univer-
sity systems. Thus, inproviding an initial systematic literature review of factors affecting
attraction and completion of Indigenous Australian HDR students, this article contributes
to a broader literature examining entry into, and experiences within, doctoral programs for
Indigenous Peoples internationally, most notably Aotearoa/New Zealand, Canada and the
United States. Prior international research has suggested Indigenous Peoples in doctoral
3 Given the limited amount of research undertaken about Indigenous Peoples’ experiences in higher educa-
tion, some of the literature referred to in this article is also mentioned in other articles developed by some
of the authors.
Res High Educ
1 3
programs internationally encounter racism and discrimination (which can be manifest as
being identified as being different from others, experiencing the shortcomings of negative
stereotypes and assumptions, and sensing alienation from others) (Ballew 1996), addi-
tional cultural and personal demands for family and community while working on theses
(McKinley etal. 2011), issues with supervision including insufficient methodological or
cultural knowledge of Indigenous supervisors4 (Grant and McKinley 2011); and challenges
stemming from university/institutional deficits in cultural/social aptitude (Bancroft 2013).
The current research also reinforces international literature noting both individual/cultural
(family involvement and support, doctoral candidates’ reconciling their own identity within
the institution) and institutional (e.g. university engagement with communities, supervisor
knowledge and training) factors as success facilitators for Indigenous Peoples in doctoral
programs globally (see Elliott 2010; Hutchinson etal. 2008; McKinley etal. 2011; Wisker
and Robinson 2012).
Systematic Literature Review—Aim andObjectives
The overarching aim of the review was to: report on the state of evidence about the char-
acteristics, including enablers and barriers, in the attraction, retention and completion of
Indigenous HDR students. In the review, we critically appraised publications by:
• taking account of the quantity of publications;
• cataloguing publications according to nature/type;
• mapping changes in publication outputs across the specified timeframe;
• assessing the quality of publications; and
• identifying the characteristics of the facilitating strategies and constraints in attraction,
retention and completion of Indigenous HDR students.
Systematic Literature Review—Methods
The methodological approaches of Campbell and Cochrane Collaborations and Sanson-
Fisher etal. (2006) informed the design of this systematic review. It also aligned with the
approach of our previous reviews - see Bainbridge etal. (2014). Peer-reviewed and grey
(non-peer reviewed) literature (e.g. media articles) over the past two decades (1995–2015)
were systematically searched and appraised. The start date coincided with historical points
in time where the numbers of Indigenous enrolments and HDR students started to increase
and covered the period leading into the establishment of Indigenous development and sup-
port in many universities.
Review Strategy
A four-step systematic review method was adopted and is described in detail below.
4 Throughout this article the term supervisors means doctoral/research thesis supervisors (usually referred
to as advisors in North American universities).
Res High Educ
1 3
Step 1: Searching theEvidence Base
A desktop canvassing of the literature was undertaken. The systematic literature review
was undertaken using electronic databases with additional searching through Google/
Google Scholar; and websites of researchers who had authored papers in the database
search. The first 100 returns of each, as per the Campbell Collaboration protocol for rel-
evance and practicality (Personal Communication, Campbell Collaboration 2012) were
included in the review. Reference lists of the final search documents were also probed.
Nine databases were searched:
• AEI (Australian Education Index) (ProQuest Dialog);
• Australian Public Affairs Full Text (APAFT);
• Econlit (Ovid);
• ERIC (Education Resources Information Centre) (CSA);
• IBSS (International Bibliography of the Social Sciences) (CSA);
• PsycINFO (ProQuest Dialog);
• Social Sciences Citation Index (WoK);
• Social Services Abstracts (CSA); and
• Sociological Abstracts (CSA).
An iterative quality improvement approach was adopted in the development of the
search terms to ensure we cast as wide-a-net as possible in canvassing the literature
sources. In doing so, the results from original searches were scanned and search terms
refined. The search terms used for the final canvassing of the literature were:
• Aborig* OR “Torres Strait Islander” OR indig*
• AND Australia*
• AND “post graduate” OR PhD OR HDR OR “higher degree” OR “doctoral candi-
date” OR doctoral
• AND barrier* OR enabler* OR success OR entry OR commenc* OR attraction OR
recruitment OR retention OR completion OR improv*
• NOT Canad* OR child*
Step 2: Inclusion andExclusion Criteria
Inclusion criteria developed at the search outset were applied to the retrieved docu-
ments. Publications were included if:
• they were published between January 1995 and December 2015;
• the key search terms are located in the title or abstract;
• they are available in English; and
• they explicitly identify Indigenous HDR students as their key focus.
Publications were excluded where Indigenous HDR student attraction, retention and
completion processes or the effects of specific HDR processes could not be separated
from other innovations.
Res High Educ
1 3
Step 3: Classification ofPublications
The application of inclusion/exclusion criteria obtained a total of 12 publications for
review. Sanson-Fisher etal. (2006) suggests the extent to which the best evidence can be
used to guide development in a field is dependent on the quantity and quality of available
evidence. Moreover, the quantity of measurement, descriptive and intervention research
publications across time indicates whether research efforts have moved beyond describing
the issue to providing data about how to facilitate positive change. Following this rationale,
a phased approach to classifying individual publications was then implemented:
Phase 1 Publications were grouped according to type under the classifications of (1)
original research: data based; (2) reviews: summaries or critical reviews; (3) program
descriptions; (4) discussion papers and commentaries: general articles on Indigenous HDR
students, and recommendations of task forces or committees; and (5) case reports (Sanson-
Fisher etal. 2006).
Phase 2 All original research publications were then classified under three categories:
descriptive; measurement and intervention research:
– Measurement research included publications developing or testing a measure of attrac-
tion, retention and completion of Indigenous HDR students.
– Descriptive research included publications where the key aim was to explore and
describe issues, processes/models or attributes related to the attraction, retention and
completion of Indigenous Australian HDR students.
– Intervention research included publications in which the aim was to test the effective-
ness of any innovation/intervention implemented to improve the attraction, retention
and completion of Indigenous HDR students (Sanson-Fisher etal. 2006).
Phase 3 Twelve (12/79 or 15.2%) publications were identified for full-text review. A
subset of 20 publications (20/79 or 25.3%) was assessed by one of theresearchers at a
different institution to verify inclusion and classification of publications selected by the
first researcher. There was initially 60% agreement between the first and second researcher.
However, full consensus was reached in negotiations between the two authors for the final
decision of 12 included publications.
Phase 4 Quality was determined using two indicators: (1) methodological quality; and
(2) peer-review. The methodological approach by which research evidence is generated is
seen as an indicator of quality. Peer-review increases the probability of quality (Sanson-
Fisher etal. 2006), and as such this was used as a benchmark for determining quality.
Step 4: Mining theData
The characteristics and outcomes of all publications were identified by conceptually min-
ing the 12 resulting publications according to a predetermined framework. Documents were
hand-searched to identify the framework elements. These included: author and publication
year; Indigenous authorship/author leadership; publication type; focus of publication; meth-
ods; publication classification; quality of the design for original research publications only;
facilitating environments; constraints; strategies; and outcomes. Facilitating environments
were enablers operating in the attraction, retention and completion of Indigenous HDR stu-
dents, and constraints were the reverse of such. Strategies included the mechanisms facilitating
Res High Educ
1 3
the successful attraction, retention and completion of Indigenous HDR students, and out-
comes pertained to any outcomes or consequences subsequential to Indigenous HDR student
experiences.
Systematic Literature Review—Results
Figure1 is a PRISMA flow chart (Moher etal. 2009) showing how the total number of publi-
cations identified was reduced to the final 12 included publications.
Records idenfied through database
searching
(n = 79)
Screenin
g
Included
Eligibility Idenficaon
Addional records idenfied through
other sources
(n = 14 )
Records aer duplicates (5) removed
(n = 88)
Records screened
(n = 88)
Records excluded
(n = 66)
Full-text arcles assessed for
eligibility
(n = 22)
Full-text arcles excluded,
with reasons
(n = 10 - 1 newspaper, 9 not
sufficiently on topic)
Studies included in
qualitave synthesis
(n = 12)
Total number of records idenfied
(n =93)
Fig. 1 Flow diagram of search strategy (Moher etal. 2009)
Res High Educ
1 3
Quantity, Nature andQuality ofIdentified Publications
Number ofPublications
As shown in Fig.1, 79 articles were found through database searching with 14 arti-
cles identified through additional sources. Additional sources included Google/Google
Scholar (using similar search terms). Names of primary authors identified in the data-
base were also searched. There were 93 records in total. Five duplicates were excluded;
resulting in 88 records being screened. Of these, 66 records were excluded because
they did not meet the inclusion/exclusion criteria and were on topics including Indig-
enous People in other countries, Indigenous Australian primary and high school and
undergraduate students, Indigenous Australian community, health and literacy issues,
and some medical/science/social sciences papers on unrelated populations. Thus, 22
full-text articles were accessed. Ten full-text documents were excluded from the addi-
tional sources—one was a newspaper report, one was focused on intercultural doctoral
research and included limited reference to Indigenous HDR students, and eight others
made reference to HDR students but were primarily about undergraduate/postgraduate
coursework students or doing academic (not specifically HDR) research. The full-text
of each of 12 resulting articles was downloaded and organised into a folder split by
database name. In addition, each citation was imported into an Endnote library with
its corresponding full-text added as an attachment to each entry. In the final analysis,
12 studies were examined (Barney 2013; Behrendt etal. 2012; Chirgwin 2014; Day
2007; Elston etal. 2013; Harrison etal. 2017; Laycock etal. 2009; Schofield etal. 2013;
Trudgett 2009, 2011, 2013, 2014).
There were no publications identified from 1995 to 2007; or 2008 or 2010. From
2007 they increased (only 1 publication) and decreased sporadically (2 publications
in each of 2009, 2011 and 2012) until 2013; at which point they peaked (4 publica-
tions). Publications decreased again for 2014 (2 publications) and 2015 (only 1 publica-
tion). The rapid increase to four publications in 2013 might have been motivated by the
release of the Behrendt Report in 2012.
Table 1 The original research
publications 1995–2015 Author/publication (year) Publication type
Barney (2013) Journal Article
Behrendt etal. (2012) Report
Chirgwin (2014) Journal Article
Elston etal. (2013) Journal Article
Harrison etal. (2017) Journal Article
Laycock etal. (2009) Report
Trudgett (2009) Journal Article
Trudgett (2011) Journal Article
Trudgett (2013) Book Chapter
Trudgett (2014) Journal Article
Res High Educ
1 3
Classification ofPublications
The twelve identified publications (See Table 1) included peer-reviewed journal arti-
cles [n = 9] (Barney 2013; Chirgwin 2014; Day 2007; Elston etal. 2013; Harrison etal.
2017; Schofield etal. 2013; Trudgett 2009, 2011, 2014); book chapters [n = 1] (Trudgett
2013); and reports [n = 2] (Behrendt etal. 2012; Laycock etal. 2009). Ten of 12 (83.3%)
publications were classified as original research. Original research publications were
then categorised as descriptive [n = 10] (Barney 2013; Behrendt etal. 2012; Chirgwin
2014; Elston etal. 2013; Harrison etal. 2017; Laycock etal. 2009; Trudgett 2009, 2011,
2013, 2014), measurement (n = 0) and intervention research (n = 0).
Quality ofPublications
All the included publications were deemed to be of quality given that they had been peer
reviewed (journal articles) or included in a book by an established international pub-
lisher (book chapter) or involved a national government-initiated review or conducted
through a major university research centre (reports). However they had varying degrees
of quality in respect to methodological rigour evidenced. In making an assessment of
quality we recognised the challenges associated with collecting reasonable respondent/
participant numbers given the under-representation of Indigenous Peoples amongst uni-
versity students and particularly in HDR studies. Moreover, the same methodological
rigour may not be evidenced in reports as peer reviewed journals as they may have dif-
ferent target readership. However, there was some deficiency in a few of the publications
in respect to insufficient articulation of research processes in terms of researcher rela-
tionships, ethical issues and rigorous analysis. This is not to suggest that the research for
these publications was not sufficiently rigorous but just that these aspects of the process
were not explained in the publications; and we therefore highlight that making this clear
is an integral part of publishing research. We consider it important that publications
clearly explain relationships between researchers and participants and how the studies
were conducted in respect to ensuring cultural safety of participants and whether the
projects involved Indigenous researchers.
Authorship ofthePublications
Arguing for the Indigenous involvement in research and policy development, Maddi-
son (2012) said that while research evidence can make a positive contribution to Indig-
enous policy development, the research that has seemingly carried most weight with
policy-makers has often not been research guided and informed by Indigenous per-
spectives.Thus, she recommends a different form of Indigenous participation in which
Indigenous Peoples are not just ‘consulted’ by government as passive individuals but
are partners in a genuine dialogue about policy. In accordance with this it was valuable
to see the privileging of Indigenous voices (see Rigney 1999) in research on Indige-
nous HDR students in that eight of the 12 publications explicitly identified the inclusion
of Indigenous authors (Behrendt etal. 2013; Elston etal. 2013; Harrison etal. 2017;
Schofield etal. 2013; Trudgett 2009, 2011, 2013, 2014). In six cases the lead author
was Indigenous; of those, four were sole authored. Moreover, in one other publication
Res High Educ
1 3
(Barney 2013), there was acknowledgement of an Indigenous research assistant. In other
publications, involvement with Indigenous university student support units/centres was
noted.
While some of the work of Trudgett (2009, 2011, 2013) included quantitative or
quantitative and qualitative data collection processes, and Elston etal. (2013) included
some outcome data analyses, the remainder of the publications presented solely qual-
itative studies, conceptual approaches or were reports; thus there was no substantive
difference in the methodological approaches utilised across Indigenous-led or non-
Indigenous-led publications though some of the publications (by Indigenous and non-
Indigenous researchers alike) mentioned the value of qualitative research for research
with Indigenous Peoples given cultural emphasis on narratives. Moreover, quality defi-
ciency in explanation of researcher relationships was evident in publications led by both
Indigenous and non-Indigenous researchers.
Table 2 Barriers and enablers for Indigenous HDR students identified in the articles
N.B. This table represents key institutional and individual/cultural issues identified across the articles
reviewed. It does not include every author who referred to every issue, or every issue that was raised within
each of the articles
Barriers for HDR studies for Indigenous peoples Enablers for HDR studies for Indigenous peoples
Institutional
Cultural and social isolation and lack of peer support
Barney (2013)
Trudgett (2009)
Prior experience—ongoing racism/discrimination in
universities
Schofield etal. (2013)
Lack of cultural understanding, safety and support (and
training needs)
Barney (2013)
Trudgett (2011)
Effacement of Indigenous knowledge
Schofield etal. (2013)
Lack of recognition of workloads involving community
engagement of Indigenous staff
Day (2007)
Thesis examination procedures including dis-trust of
process and procedures
Institutional
Federal scholarship funding equal to target
numbers
Behrendt etal. (2012)
Dedicated postgraduate support
Barney (2013)
Trudgett (2013)
Indigenous student support centres for HDR
needs
Trudgett (2009)
Strong supervision
Schofield etal. (2013)
Trudgett (2011)
Trudgett (2014)
Correct mix of supervisors
Behrendt etal. (2012)
Role models/Indigenous leadership/building
research capacity
Elston etal. (2013)
Support/training for supervisors
Laycock etal. (2009)
Indigenous thesis examiners
Harrison etal. (2017)
Individual and Cultural
Harrison etal. (2017)
Past experiences
Schofield etal. (2013)
Low socio-economic status and remote locations
Schofield etal. (2013)
Changing personal circumstances impact heavily when
doing independent research
Chirgwin (2014)
Res High Educ
1 3
The Characteristics ofIncluded Publications
Table2 displays the key characteristics of the 12 publications. The publications provided
evidence for a number of contributing factors in attraction, retention and completion of
Indigenous HDR students (see Table2).
In terms of emphasis, most attention focussed on support mechanisms (4/12 or 33.3%)
for the attraction, retention and completion of HDR students (Behrendt etal. 2012; Elston
etal. 2013; Trudgett 2009, 2013). Another five publications (5/12 or 41.6%) had an explicit
focus on the supervision of Indigenous HDR students as a key strategy of support (Day
2007; Harrison et al. 2017; Laycock etal. 2009; Trudgett 2011, 2014). The other three
publications (3/12 or 25%) focused on academic (Schofield etal. 2013; Barney 2013) and
non-academic barriers (Chirgwin 2014) to completion. The nature of the types of support
and constraints are explored below.
Facilitators: Support Mechanisms forIndigenous HDR Students (Behrendt etal.
2012; Elston etal. 2013; Trudgett 2009, 2013)
Trudgett (2013) succinctly summed up the current context in which support is offered to
Indigenous HDR students in advising the Australian higher education sector does not con-
sider Indigenous HDR students as a separate cohort or provide individually- or culturally-
tailored support mechanisms. Support structures presently available to Indigenous HDR
students are the same as available to Indigenous undergraduate students or non-Indigenous
HDR students. Trudgett (2013) identified four required primary support mechanisms: (1)
assistance from the Indigenous department at their institution; (2) quality supervision; (3)
financial assistance; and (4) support from family and community to enrol in and continue
with HDR studies, and where Indigenous Peoples studies are focused on Indigenous cul-
ture, people and issues, some people within family and community may also provide guid-
ance on research methodologies, content and even dissemination of the research. These
themes were in other studies and form part of the organising framework in which the
review results are presented.
Facilitating Environments: Indigenous Departments andUnits
Indigenous departments differ across universities. Some provide cultural, pastoral and aca-
demic support whilst other Indigenous departments operate through a combination of sup-
port services, teaching and research responsibilities. Very few provide appropriate support
for postgraduate students (Trudgett 2013). Thus, the notion of appropriate spaces in facili-
tating success for Indigenous HDR students was identified across a number of publica-
tions (Barney 2013; Elston etal. 2013; Trudgett 2009, 2013). Barney (2013) for example,
referred to a Postgraduate Meeting Space, and said it provided essential ‘kayak’ and ‘pad-
dles’ to assist Indigenous students in navigating the waters of postgraduate study. Elston
etal. (2013) similarly recognised the significance of providing a supportive environment
in which Indigenous HDR health students could flourish. In developing a cohort model for
building Indigenous researcher capacity, facilitators of success Elston etal. (2013) found
to be critical in establishing the cohort and enabling the program of work included: (1)
establishment of cohort values embedded in respect and Indigenous knowledges; (2) devel-
oping a visual representation (logo) to establish a sense of identity and belonging in the
Res High Educ
1 3
affiliated group; (3) Indigenous ownership and leadership; (4) creating and maintaining two
safe ‘holding spaces’—one operating at the cultural interface and in which Indigenous and
non-Indigenous members interacted, and another where Indigenous affiliates only came
together in a safe environment; and (5) privileging Indigenous knowledges and method-
ologies. Standard productivity measures were used including publications, participation,
completions and post-completion employment.
To expand the role of Indigenous departments to better support Indigenous HDR stu-
dents, Trudgett (2009, 2013) made seven recommendations: (1) ensure department staff
provide a welcoming environment; (2) employ more Indigenous academics with appropri-
ate research qualifications in stable positions to build supervisory capacity; (3) ensure all
Indigenous departments have Indigenous Postgraduate Support Officers; (4) conduct regu-
lar workshops to provide Indigenous postgraduate students with peer support; (5) facili-
tate orientation to the department for all Indigenous Postgraduate students; (6) establish
an Indigenous Postgraduate support group to avoid exclusion and isolation; and (7) ensure
scholarship information is available in advance. We argue that such initiatives are impor-
tant for creating not only a culturally-safe place for Indigenous HDR students to under-
take research but also could work with a cohort model in which individuals are informed,
included and can share experiences in a supportive environment of learning from each
other.
Quality Supervision ofIndigenous HDR Students (Behrendt etal. 2012; Day 2007;
Harrison etal. 2017; Laycock etal. 2009; Trudgett 2011, 2013, 2014)
All HDR students require standards of excellence in supervision. However, Indigenous
HDR students require the support of supervisors who have additional skill sets and exper-
tise. Strong supervision supporting cultural safety and recognising Indigenous knowledge
systems are associated with ensuring students are respected to maintain their own identities
and conduct culturally-sensitive research. In examining the importance of good supervi-
sion (Trudgett 2011, 2013, 2014), the following critical aspects were identified: developing
and maintaining strong and trusting relationships; supervisors having respect for students
as knowledge holders; involving community and Elders in supervisory processes; recogni-
tion of different interpretations of process; supervision styles recognising the key princi-
ples of cultural safety including using Indigenous methodologies (Day 2007); mandatory
training in culturally-competent practice; providing strong research environments including
for example, research training and mentoring (Day 2007); and acknowledging gender and
cultural background can be important for some students.
Recognising the commitments and workload of Indigenous supervisors, Behrendt etal.
(2012) recommended system flexibility to allow for supervisors from other institutions to
be members of the supervision team when appropriate supervisors are unavailable within a
particular university/department.
The value of having a thesis examined by other Indigenous researchers who share a par-
tial subject position to Indigenous students has also been recognised. Harrison etal. (2017)
highlight the challenges presented by having a very small pool of Indigenous examiners
available in Australia. They note the possibility an examiner will know the candidate, cre-
ating a conflict of interest; and potential bias introduced into the marking of the thesis. In
some circumstances, bias can work in favour of the candidate, but in others cases the lim-
ited number of Indigenous academics in Australia can result in ‘tricky’ processes and be
detrimental to the candidate (Harrison etal. 2017).
Res High Educ
1 3
Laycock etal. (2009) provided a practical resource guide for supervisors to support
Indigenous health researchers. It offers practical information, advice, strategies and narra-
tives of success stories in Indigenous health research.Topics covered include setting up a
workplace with the capacity to employ, support and train a developing researcher, research
processes and doing research work in, and with,Indigenous communities.
Financial Assistance (Behrendt etal. 2012; Schofield etal. 2013; Trudgett 2014)
Schofield et al. (2013) argued that Indigenous participation in higher education has
increased modestly and this has been strongly related to financial rewards to universities
being provided by the federal government. Behrendt etal. (2012) advocated that federal
government scholarship funding should be equivalent to universities’ target numbers for
Indigenous Peoples undertaking HDR programs in order to support completion of degrees
as well as to ensure a pipeline of Indigenous HDR students. However, Schofield et al.
(2013) also identified providing specific financial support can detract from the experiences
of Indigenous HDR students in that some non-Indigenous students perceive this kind of
positive discrimination as discriminatory and unacceptable in university merit-based sys-
tems. It is important to acknowledge that what some are viewing as not in accord with
merit are policies/practices that have been implemented in universities. Such policies/prac-
tices have been developed to provide some redress to the discriminatory status quo and
history of racism which has permeated Australian society (including white institutions like
universities). The reaction from some to such initiatives is discriminatory and reflects lack
of recognition of their own privileged position. As Walter and Butler (2013, p. 401) noted
‘Professing colour-blindness exculpates those who are racially privileged from responsi-
bility for the unequal status and disadvantage of those who are not and, critically, from
overtly recognising their own race privilege. Disavowing the racial dividend embeds the
status quo’.
Trudgett (2014) argues financial support is an equity issue because Indigenous students
often experience greater financial difficulties than other students. Indeed, she argued, based
on need and student profile, additional assistance is required as currently available assis-
tance is received at the same rate as other HDR students. Yet Indigenous students carry
additional burdens increasing study costs, for instance, many are mature aged students
with existing responsibilities; maintenance of cultural, family and community responsi-
bilities; and movement from home communities to study. Thus, we suggest universities
need to have a much more individually-tailored approach to recognising needs and provid-
ing assistance as required; which might also vary throughout different stages of the HDR
candidature.
Support fromFamily andCommunity (Trudgett 2014)
Families and communities play a key role in Indigenous HDR students’ lives and projects,
e.g. students’ projects invariably focus on issues prioritised by communities and conducted
in partnership with those communities. Trudgett (2014) suggests this should be seen as
nurturing environment in which students can be supported in the development of research
methodologies, content and dissemination and implementation of findings. This connec-
tion to family and community becomes even more important because many students are
first in their family to undertake postgraduate study and it provides a link to understanding
the student’s work while modelling opportunities to others.
Res High Educ
1 3
Academic andNon‑academic Barriers toAttraction, Retention andCompletion
(Barney 2013; Day 2007; Chirgwin 2014; Schofield etal. 2013)
Schofield et al. (2013) suggests under-representation of Indigenous students in HDR
programs and constraints to improved participation and completion are largely embed-
ded in institutional dimensions including government and university policy responses.
Like Trudgett (2009, 2013) they propose the higher education context is “largely indif-
ferent to progressing broader social goals and projects such as social equity because it
is not core business” (Schofield etal. 2013, pp. 15–16). Several institutional barriers
were identified as contributing to the underrepresentation of Indigenous HDR students
in universities. Critical was institutional racism and discrimination—failing to provide
an ‘Indigenous-friendly’ environment and culture in universities. For instance, as cited
in Schofield etal. (2013) a survey conducted by the National Tertiary Education Union
in 2011 found 79.5% of Indigenous workers considered they did not receive as much
respect as non-Indigenous counterparts; 71.5% experienced direct racial discrimination
and racist attitudes.
In addition there are also individual and cultural level issues, including: low socio-
economic status; often having moved from remote locations; and past experiences
(Schofield etal. 2013). Lovitts (cited in Chirgwin 2014) said while many Indigenous
students had successfully managed challenges during their undergraduate studies, once
they undertake independent research as producer of knowledge there is extra personal
responsibility. Chirgwin (2014) noted some researchers have been critical of prior dis-
course on barriers to higher education for Indigenous Peoples which have focused on
a ‘deficit paradigm’. Chirgwin (2014) stated this perception is, to a large extent, sup-
ported by recurrent themes of shortcomings in individual students, government policy
and funding, university culture and support, and culturally sensitive interactions at the
staff–student level.
Indigenous HDR students also experience cultural and social isolation within univer-
sities and lack peer support from non-HDR Indigenous students. While the many ben-
efits of Indigenous support units for undergraduate students have been identified, some
are said to offer limited support for postgraduate and doctoral students. Trudgett (2009)
noted problems experienced by some postgraduate students are associated with feeling
staff were not welcoming/approachable, a lack of Indigenous academics employed in
the units/centres, and support officers having minimal understanding of postgraduate
studies. Coupled with cultural isolation, Barney (2013) reported some Indigenous HDR
students found lack of cultural understanding, safety and support in the university sys-
tem and Trudgett (2011), recognising the potential lack of knowledge of non-Indigenous
supervisors, suggested that they should receive cultural awareness training. However,
we note that the nature of such training, for instance brief 2 day workshops is likely to
be inadequate to make sustainable change (Bainbridge etal. 2015; Jongen etal. 2018).
A respectful two-way learning relationship between Indigenous students and supervi-
sors is therefore recommended.
Effacement of Indigenous knowledges and cultures was identified as a significant
issue (Schofield etal. 2013) and thus Trudgett (2011) emphasised the important role
in cultural safety played by Indigenous Elders or community members in the supervi-
sion process. However, being able to provide Indigenous supervision is affected by the
limited numbers of Indigenous academics within universities as well as workloads of
those who do supervise. Day (2007) noted Indigenous staff may be enrolled in their
Res High Educ
1 3
own HDR studies while employed as academics and are mostly women who may have
a wide range of responsibilities within education but also have broader socio-cultural
support responsibilities. Therefore, Day (2007) suggested that there should be greater
recognition that the social, cultural and academic lives of Indigenous staff are highly
integrated with the communities they serve as educators. Further, Harrison etal. (2017)
noted existing research about PhD examination highlighted four key areas of examina-
tion procedure (examiner expectations, standards, issues of quality and experience of
the examination process itself) which may affect thesis examination outcomes. They
suggested that there are two additional factors which also affect success of Indigenous
doctoral students during the examination process, namely, distrust of processes and aca-
demic politics. While it is valuable to have an Indigenous examiner who has familiarity
with methodologies, Harrison etal.’s (2017) research found there can be distrust in an
institution previously viewed as disregarding non-Western approaches to research (see
also Trudgett 2011). Distrust was further heightened by perceptions of ‘factionalism’
within academic processes (Harrison etal. 2017). Further, the previously accepted cred-
ibility of the doctoral examination process may be questioned through reflections on
notions of objectivity, and the role of race and academic politics in higher education in
Australia (Harrison etal. 2017). While it could be argued that being Indigenous does
not necessarily make someone a suitable examiner, it is essential that content knowledge
is considered in choosing examiners. Particularly where an Indigenous methodology has
been used it is critical that an examiner (Indigenous or non-Indigenous) is proficient
with the methods and able to assess the thesis in terms of how the methodology has
been applied, and data collected and analysed.
Discussion
Contributions ofthePublications—Quantity, Nature, Quality
andCharacteristics
The review highlights that little attention has been paid to examining the specific needs of
Indigenous HDR students in Australia with minimal outputs examining Indigenous Aus-
tralian HDR student attraction, retention and completions over the period of publications
which were reviewed, and, for two of those years (2008 and 2010) there were no publi-
cations. Mapping the number of publications showed random dispersal, that publications
have not moved much beyond qualitative descriptive studies and that generally, outputs
have not increased across time.
In the next three sub-sections we present a summary of the theoretical grounding of the
publications, their methodological approaches and participant profile/sample. This is also
summarised in Table3.
Theoretical Grounding
Overall, the publications reviewed provided limited reference to theory. Two publications
referred to figures about under-representation of Indigenous Peoples in university enrol-
ments and completions (Trudgett 2009, 2011). The majority of the other publications
referred to earlier research in the field (some of which, such as curricula, was not HDR-
specific). These included: barriers (Day 2007; Schofield etal. 2013); doctoral examination
Res High Educ
1 3
Table 3 Theory, methodological approach and participant profile of the articles
Author/publication (year) Theory used Method Participant profile/sample
Barney (2013) Reviews earlier literature on support for Indigenous
postgraduate students
Qualitative Interviews with 12 Indigenous postgraduate coursework
and HDR students
One university study
Across faculties study
Behrendt etal. (2012) No theory—publication is a government report Qualitative Consultation/roundtable with Indigenous academics and
doctoral graduates
Consultations with stakeholders
Interviews with unspecified number of Indigenous
students
Across universities study
Across faculty study
Chirgwin (2014) Refers to earlier literature on enrolment and completion
of Indigenous students in higher education (particu-
larly HDR)
Qualitative Initial questionnaire, follow-up longitudinal surveys and
telephone interviews with 3 Indigenous students
One university study
One faculty study
Day (2007) Refers to literature on barriers and success factors Conceptual N/A
Elston etal. (2013) Refers to colonisation and research literature Qualitative including data
outcomes analysis
33 participants (25 Indigenous Peoples)
6 investigators, 20 researchers, 3 project staff and 4 men-
tors
One university study
One faculty study
Harrison etal. (2017) Refers to earlier literature on doctoral examination Qualitative Interviews with 50 Indigenous doctoral graduates and 33
of their supervisors
Across universities study
Across faculties study
Laycock etal. (2009) No theory—publication is a government-produced guide Government report/guide Focus on health sector
Schofield etal. (2013) Refers to literature on barriers and challenges Conceptual N/A
Trudgett (2009) Refers to under-representation and support units Quantitative Survey of 55 doctoral Indigenous students
Across universities study
Across faculties study
Res High Educ
1 3
Table 3 (continued)
Author/publication (year) Theory used Method Participant profile/sample
Trudgett (2011) Refers to prior research on under-representation and
supervision
Quantitative Survey of 55 doctoral Indigenous students
Across universities study
Across faculties study
Trudgett (2013) Refers to prior research on representation of Indigenous
peoples in HDR
Refers to support units
Quantitative and qualitative Survey of 55 postgraduate Indigenous students
Interviews with 12 Indigenous doctoral graduates and 5
supervisors
Interviews and questionnaires with 50 Indigenous doctoral
graduates and 34 supervisors
Across universities study
Across faculties study
Trudgett (2014) Refers to prior literature on under-representation and
experiences of Indigenous doctoral students
Qualitative Interviews with 11 doctoral graduates
Interviews with 5 graduates’ supervisors
Across universities study
Across faculties study
Res High Educ
1 3
(Harrison etal. 2017); enrolment and completion (Chirgwin 2013); experience as doctoral
students (Trudgett 2014); support and/or success factors (Barney 2013; Day 2007); support
units (Trudgett 2013); and researching with/about Indigenous Peoples (Elston etal. 2013).
The limited use of theory likely reflects this research field being in its infancy but the evi-
dence highlights the need for greater engagement with theory across a range of disciplinary
areas, such as sociology, anthropology, psychology, and education (which itself draws from
the aforementioned fields as well as other areas). Most particularly given a growing litera-
ture on the importance of understanding and privileging Indigenist research both interna-
tionally (e.g. Battiste 2013; Kovach 2015; Smith 2012) and in Australia (e.g. Nakata 2010;
Rigney 1999) there could have been more reference to use of specific Indigenous method-
ologies in the publications.
Methods Approach
The publications reviewed used a range of methods approaches. Two publications (Trudg-
ett 2009, 2011) used surveys which included some open-ended qualitative questions, and
two others used a mixed methods approach combining surveys and interviews (Chirgwin
2014; Trudgett 2013). Two publications were conceptual (Day 2007; Schofield etal. 2013).
Of the six using qualitative methods (Behrendt etal. 2012; Barney 2013 Chirgwin 2014;
Elston etal. 2013; Harrison etal. 2017; Trudgett 2014) most involved interviews although
some also referred to other forms of data collection including Behrendt etal. (2013) who
also used consultation, whilst Elston etal. 2013 used evaluations and outcome data. Sev-
eral publications noted a qualitative approach was consistent with Indigenous Australians
favouring participating in qualitative projects given cultural underpinnings in a narrative
genre. One publication suggested the value of a culturally-responsive methodology (Chirg-
win 2014) while another referred to all knowledge as being socially situated in the subject
(Harrison et al. 2017). The evidence highlights the importance of future research being
done with cognisance to culturally-appropriate methodologies, e.g. Indigenist research
which privileges Indigenous voices (see Nakata 2010; Rigney 1999).
Participant Profile
Of the empirical publications, most studies involved students although some used other
data sources including: supervisors in addition to students (Harrison etal. 2017); supervi-
sors and graduates in addition to current students (Trudgett 2013); graduates and supervi-
sors (Trudgett 2014); and researchers (Elston etal. 2013). As would be expected given the
small cohort of Indigenous HDR students, the samples in the studies were small ranging
from one student to 55 students and/or graduates. Where supervisors or other researchers
were also studied the sample ranged from one to 33. Several publications had data gath-
ered within one university (Barney 2013; Chirgwin 2014; Elston etal. 2013) and some
were also from one faculty, including health (Elston etal. 2013) and education (Chirgwin
2013). Some studies involved multi-university and multi-faculty participants (Behrendt
et al. 2012; Harrison et al. 2017; Trudgett 2009, 2011, 2013, 2014) with two (Trudgett
2009, 2011) involving participants from 23 universities and one (Behrendt etal. 2012)
having participants from 39 universities. Thus, the evidence base for identifying strategies
to achieve parity of admission and completion of HDR programs for Indigenous Peoples
would be enhanced by studies including more inter-disciplinary/inter-university samples
Res High Educ
1 3
and multiple stakeholder perspectives from prospective/current/completed HDR students,
families/community, supervisors, and university administrators.
Characteristics ofthePublications intheContext ofInterdisciplinary Indigenous
Research
The state of Indigenous HDR research as examined in this review is consistent with most
reviews conducted across diverse disciplinary Indigenous fields. For instance, in areas of
Indigenous health; mentoring; family-centred interventions; program transfer and imple-
mentation; sexual assault; cultural competency; child and maternal health; suicide; and
alcohol and other drugs (Sanson-Fisher etal. 2006; Clifford et al. 2013; McCalman etal.
2012; Bainbridge et al. 2014; Bainbridge etal. 2015; Jongen etal. 2014; Clifford etal.
2015; McCalman etal. 2014; McCalman etal. 2017; Doran etal. 2017) review authors
reported that studies are primarily descriptive with little intervention or measurement of
research and they generally lack rigorous methodological approaches. Similarly character-
ised, the Indigenous HDR research examined herein is in its very early exploratory phases
and has not yet explored the effectiveness of strategies for Indigenous HDR students, cap-
tured its impact qualitatively or quantitatively, developed appropriate measures or assessed
cost-effectiveness. Lack of evaluation research has also been noted recently by the Austral-
ian Government who are planning steps to rectify the situation by allocating “$10 mil-
lion a year over four years to strengthen the evaluation of Indigenous Affairs programmes”
(Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet 2017). Evaluation research will strengthen our
case for investment in Indigenous HDR students by understanding what works for whom,
under what conditions, through what strategies and with what consequences. Though the
combinations of strategies that work are currently somewhat uncertain, we do have a base
from which to bolster future research directions.
Facilitating Strategies andConstraints inAttraction, Retention andCompletion
The review demonstrates evidence of research doing more than just describing problems
but also, as Sanson-Fisher etal. (2006) emphasise, providing details about initiatives for
making positive change. Several publications focused on a specific aspect of the HDR
experience, and in sum provided a useful overview of individual/cultural and institutional
facilitators and barriers to Indigenous HDR student successes (as summarised in Table2).
Facilitators included several factors for developing institutional capability to better support
Indigenous students. These included increased scholarship funding (Behrendt etal. 2012);
dedicated postgraduate researcher support (Barney 2013; Trudgett 2013); Indigenous stu-
dent support centres catering for HDR student needs separate to that of undergraduates
(Trudgett 2009); strong and appropriate supervision (Schofield etal. 2013; Trudgett 2011,
2014); having role models, Indigenous leadership, building researcher capacity; exclusive
Indigenous spaces and mentoring (Elston etal. 2013); correct mix of supervisors (Behrendt
etal. 2012); specific support/training for supervisors of Indigenous students (Laycock etal.
2009); and Indigenous examiners for theses (Harrison etal. 2017).
A majority of the publications articulated strategies or provided recommendations to
improve student experience and/or assist attraction, retention and completion (Behrendt
etal. 2012; Day 2007; Laycock etal. 2009; Schofield et al. 2013; Trudgett 2009, 2011,
2013). However, across the publications there is limited analysis of specific programs,
interventions or improvements which have occurred within programs or reference to
Res High Educ
1 3
signature programs with high completion/success rates or providing targeted, culturally-
specific support for Indigenous HDR students. Though largely descriptive in nature, the
reviewed publications nevertheless provide foundational evidence for building a potential
suite of strategies for implementation and may guide further research to establish the effec-
tiveness of such strategies to support Indigenous HDR students. Moreover, the review sug-
gests the need for future research emphasising intervention-based examinations.
New commitments to supporting Indigenous HDR students in Australia have been dis-
seminated since the inclusion dates for this review. More investment in Indigenous HDR
students is suggested in the form of guidelines, strategies and policy. For instance, the
Australian Council of Graduate Research (ACGR) recently released Good Practice Guide-
lines for the Training of Indigenous Researchers. They propose specific strategies under
six overarching aims: (1) ensuring that Indigenous research education is a university pri-
ority; (2) increasing the number of Indigenous graduate research candidates; (3) provid-
ing culturally-appropriate engagement and opportunities for Indigenous graduate research
candidates; (4) maximising the likelihood that supervision of Indigenous graduate research
candidates is appropriate; (5) promoting the unique perspectives that Indigenous graduate
research candidates bring to knowledge; and (6) preparing Indigenous graduate research
candidates for the careers of their choice (ACGR 2017). These primary aims partially
address the identified institutional barriers encountered by HDR Indigenous students such
as cultural and social isolation and lack of peer support, ongoing discrimination in univer-
sities, lack of cultural understanding, safety and support, effacement of Indigenous knowl-
edge and thesis examination procedures. They do not address the individual and cultural
factors that impede attraction, retention and completions; for instance past negative experi-
ences in education, low-socio-economic situations, remote locations and changing personal
circumstances such as ill-health. In either case, what works in achieving the implementa-
tion of such targets is largely unknown.
The Australian government has also contributed to increasing the access, retention and
completion of Indigenous HDR students by enshrining institutional incentives in policy. As
noted, the ACOLA Review of Australia’s Research Training System 2016 had one strategic
recommendation accepted by the government, namely doubled weighting for Indigenous
HDR students in the HDR completions formula (ACOLA 2016). While such measures are
useful, implementation is still left to institutional goodwill and with the small numbers of
Indigenous HDR students there is unlikely to be a substantive difference to investments in
student support—especially given that the dominant discourse in higher education institu-
tions is centred on undergraduate students and mainstream HDR.
Limitations andIssues forFuture Research andPolicy
Limitations
Though a database search was undertaken multiple times using varying search terms only
five articles were found focused on the topic of the review. Another seven articles of rel-
evance were found through searching Google/Google Scholar and examining websites of
researchers who were authors of publications—using a combination of terms. We broad-
ened the search with the inclusion of such terms as Indig* research or Indig* but this elic-
ited many more articles of no relevance to the topic. Google was able to locate articles not
found through Boolean search terms even though a combination of terms needed to be
Res High Educ
1 3
used and each combination separately resulted in different articles being found. It could be
surmised there may be other studies undertaken within universities which are not publicly
available, and a limitation of our research was not analysing these and thus our article pro-
vides an initial systematic review of the publicly-available literature. Thus, future research
could entail contacting Indigenous student support units/centres and academics at Austral-
ian universities to ascertain whether other analyses of barriers and enablers for Indigenous
HDR students have been undertaken.
Issues forFuture Research andPolicy
Indigenous HDR students may share similarities to other groups of students (both HDR and
undergraduate/postgraduate coursework) in respect to factors affecting attraction and reten-
tion. For instance, non-Indigenous students from low socio-economic backgrounds also
face financial hardships, non-Indigenous students from remote areas may also suffer isola-
tion, and students from a range of cultural backgrounds, genders and sexual orientations
may have prior and ongoing experiences of discrimination. However, sharing some simi-
larities with Indigenous Peoples in other colonised nations, Australian Indigenous students
face culturally-specific challenges—most notably the legacy of colonialism which perpetu-
ates lack of cultural understanding and safety within and outside universities. Indigenous
HDR students, more particularly, confront non-recognition of Indigenous knowledge, lack
of cultural/methodological expertise by their (usually) non-Indigenous supervisors, and too
many demands on Indigenous supervisors. There is fertile ground for universities to create
a climate of learning that draws on Australian Indigenous knowledges and accords with the
view of Villegas (2010, p. 283), commenting on Aotearoa/New Zealand Indigenous higher
education, that “tertiary education is a key site for Indigenous community development…
at the nexus of knowledge and leadership… ‘higher’ education can become a space where
Indigenous people find new applications for Indigenous knowledge and meaningful ways to
express their creativity and culture”.
Though our searches on databases and Google/Google Scholar suggest there are many
articles on Indigenous Peoples’ experiences in schooling and undergraduate (and to a lesser
extent postgraduate coursework) university studies, there is limited research examining
why Indigenous Peoples only continue into HDR studies in small numbers and the chal-
lenges they face and support received when they do undertake HDR programs. In addition
to issues noted in the discussion and limitations sections, future research might also entail
longitudinal studies of individual students to examine factors contributing to student with-
drawal and highlighting success stories. Moreover though we used electronic databases and
Google/Google Scholar to access articles to undertake this systematic literature review, we
acknowledge that there are other tools for examining publications and assessing quality and
impact, such as Scimago, Cabell’s, Web of Science, and the H Index or impact factors of
specific journals, and these might be used in future research.
It is envisaged more in-depth studies should result in development of strategies (within
universities and at national policy level) to attract, support and assist completion of Indig-
enous HDR students and future research may further address objectives of the Indigenous
Economic Development Strategy 2011–2018 (Australian Government 2011) in providing a
cohort of Indigenous HDR graduates to move into the academic workforce.
Res High Educ
1 3
Conclusions
In providing an initial systematic review of the limited literature examining barriers and
enablers of attraction, retention and completion of Indigenous HDR students, this article
advances knowledge of inequities in educational opportunities and what is required to
improve opportunities and enhance support within higher education institutions and from
government. This article also contributes in emphasising the need for: intervention-based
examinations and greater theoretical engagement across a range of disciplinary areas.
Further we emphasize that future research is done with cognisance to culturally-appro-
priate methodologies—and that Indigenous Peoples ask and seek answers to their own
concerns (Smith 2012). Moreover, we highlight the importance of continuing to privilege
Indigenous voices through research in this space being done by Indigenous Peoples. Future
research should utilise Indigenous research methodologies and methods. We draw attention
to the importance of both qualitative approaches including Indigenous Yarning; an Indig-
enous cultural form of conversation and sharing stories and knowledge (see Bessarab and
Ng’andu 2010; Walker etal. 2014) as well as quantitative methods. Walter and Andersen
(2013) produced the first book specifically examining Indigenous quantitative methodol-
ogy with particular reference to nayri kati (good numbers) and the importance of research
‘framed through and within an Indigenous standpoint’ (p. 85).
The review reinforces the objectives of the Indigenous Economic Development Strategy
2011–2018 (Australian Government 2011) underscoring the necessity of increased repre-
sentation of Indigenous Peoples in HDR programs and the higher education workforce.
Acknowledgements The authors acknowledge research assistants Krystal Lockwood and Adam Robert-
son at Griffith University who undertook database searches for the systematic literature review component
of the paper. The research was supported by a Small Research Grant from the Indigenous Research Unit,
Griffith University. The authors would like to thank the editor and anonymous reviewers for their sugges-
tions which greatly assisted us to further develop the paper. In particular we would like to acknowledge that
the reviewers brought to our attention additional literature on Indigenous methods/methodologies.
References
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). (2011). 238.0.55.001—Estimates of Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander Australians, June 2011. Retrieved June 16, 2016 from http://www.abs.gov.au/ausst ats/abs@.
nsf/lates tProd ucts/3238.0.55.001Me dia%20Rel ease1 June%20201 1.
Australian Council of Learned Academies (ACOLA). (2016). Securing Australia’s Future—Research train‑
ing system review. Retrieved February 2, 2017 from http://acola .org.au/index .php/proje cts/secur ing-
austr alia-s-futur e/saf13 -rts-revie w.
Australian Government. (2011). Indigenous Economic Development Strategy 2011–2018. Canberra, Aus-
tralia: Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia. Retrieved August 31, 2016 from http://apo.org.au/
resou rce/indig enous -econo mic-devel opmen t-strat egy-2011-2018.
Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC). (2017). A statistical overview of Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander Peoples in Australia. Retrieved February 3, 2017 from https ://www.human right s.gov.
au/publi catio ns/stati stica l-overv iew-abori ginal -and-torre s-strai t-islan der-peopl es-austr alia-socia
l#Headi ng363 .
Bainbridge, R., McCalman, J., Clifford, A., & Tsey, K. (2015). Cultural competency in the delivery of health
services for Indigenous people. Issues paper no. 13. Produced for the Closing the Gap Clearinghouse.
Canberra/Melbourne: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare/Australian Institute of Family Studies.
Bainbridge, R., Tsey, K., McCalman, J., & Towle, S. (2014). The quantity, quality and characteris-
tics of Indigenous Australian mentoring: A systematic review. BMC Public Health. https ://doi.
org/10.1186/1471-2458-14-1263.
Res High Educ
1 3
Ballew, R. (1996). The experience of Native American women obtaining doctoral degrees in psychology at
traditional American universities. PhD dissertation. Knoxville: The University of Tennessee via Pro-
Quest Dissertations & Theses Global: Social Sciences, Retrieved December 4, 2014.
Bancroft, S. (2013). Capital, kinship, and white privilege: Social and cultural influences upon the minority
doctoral experience in the sciences. Multicultural Education, 20, 10–16.
Barney, K. (2013). ‘Taking your mob with you’: Giving voice to the experiences of Indigenous Australian
postgraduate students. Higher Education Research & Development, 32, 515–528.
Battiste, M. (2013). Decolonising education: Nourishing the learning spirit. Saskatoon: Purich Publishing
Limited.
Behrendt, L., Larkin, S., Griew, R., & Kelly, P. (2012). Review of higher education access and outcomes for
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people: Final report. Canberra: DIISRTE.
Bessarab, D., & Ng’andu, B. (2010). Yarning about Yarning as a legitimate method in Indigenous research.
International Journal of Critical Indigenous Studies., 3(1), 37–50.
Birmingham, S. (2016). Taking action to unlock the potential of Australian research, Friday 6th May 2016
Media Release of Senator the Hon Simon Birmingham, Minister for Education and Training. Retrieved
February 2, 2017 from http://minis ters.educa tion.gov.au/birmi ngham /takin g-actio n-unloc k-poten tial-
austr alian -resea rch.
Bock, A. (2016). Rise of Aboriginal PhDs heralds a change in culture. The Sydney Morning Herald, March
17, 2014. Retrieved January 14, 2016 from http://www.smh.com.au/natio nal/educa tion/rise-of-abori
ginal -phds-heral ds-a-chang e-in-cultu re-20140 316-34vqm .html.
Cameron, S., & Robinson, K. (2014). The experiences of Indigenous Australian psychologists at university.
Australian Psychologist, 49, 54–62.
Childs, S. E., Finnie, R., & Martinello, F. (2016). Postsecondary student persistence and pathways: Evi-
dence from the YITS-A in Canada. Research in Higher Education. https ://doi.org/10.1007/s1116
2-016-9424-0.
Chirgwin, S. K. (2014). Burdens too difficult to carry? A case study of three academically able Indigenous
Australian Masters students who had to withdraw. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Edu‑
cation, 28(5), 594–609.
Clifford, A. C., Doran, C. M., & Tsey, K. (2013). A systematic review of suicide prevention interventions
targeting Indigenous peoples in Australia, United States, Canada and New Zealand. BMC Public
Health, 13(1), 463. https ://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-13-463.
Clifford, A., McCalman, J., Bainbridge, R., & Tsey, K. (2015). Interventions to improve cultural compe-
tency in healthcare for Indigenous peoples of Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States:
A systematic review. International Journal for Quality in Health Care. https ://doi.org/10.1093/intqh c/
mzv01 0.
Day, D. (2007). Enhancing success for Indigenous postgraduate students. Synergy, 26, 13–18.
Department of Education and Training (DET). (2015). Review of Research Policy and Funding Arrange‑
ments. Retrieved February 2, 2017 from https ://www.educa tion.gov.au/revie w-resea rch-polic y-and-
fundi ng-arran gemen ts-0.
Department of Education and Training (DET). (2017). Review of Higher Education Access and Outcomes
for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People. Retrieved February 3, 2014 from https ://www.educa
tion.gov.au/revie w-highe r-educa tion-acces s-and-outco mes-abori ginal -and-torre s-strai t-islan der-peopl e.
Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. (2017). $10m a year to strengthen IAS evaluation [Press
release]. Retrieved May 15, 2017 from https ://minis ters.dpmc.gov.au/scull ion/2017/10m-year-stren
gthen -ias-evalu ation .
Doran, C.M., Kinchin, I., Bainbridge, R., McCalman, J., Shakeshaft, & A.P. (2017). Effectiveness of alcohol
and other drug interventions in at risk Aboriginal youth: An Evidence Check rapid review brokered by
the Sax Institute (www.saxin stitu te.org.au) for the NSW Drug and Alcohol Population and Community
Programs, 2017.
Elliott, S.A. (2010). Walking the worlds: The experience of native psychologists in their doctoral training
and practice. PhD dissertation. Santa Barbara: Fielding Graduate University via ProQuest Disserta-
tions & Theses Global: Social Sciences, Retrieved December 4, 2014.
Elston, J. K., Saunders, V., Hayes, B., Bainbridge, R., & McCoy, B. (2013). Building Indigenous Australian
research capacity. Contemporary Nurse, 46, 6–12.
Farrington, S., Daniel DiGregorio, K., & Page, S. (1999). The things that matter: Understanding the factors
that affect the participation and retention of Indigenous students in the cadigal program at the Faculty
of Health Sciences, University of Sydney. Sydney: Annual Conference of the Australian Association of
Research in Education.
Res High Educ
1 3
Grant, B., & McKinley, E. (2011). Colouring the pedagogy of doctoral supervision: Considering super-
visor, student and knowledge through the lens of Indigeneity. Innovations in Education and Teach‑
ing International, 48, 377–386.
Harrison, N., Trudgett, M., & Page, S. (2017). The dissertation examination: Identifying critical factors
in the success of Indigenous Australian doctoral students. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher
Education, 42(1), 1115–1127.
Hutchinson, P., Mushquash, C., & Donaldson, S. (2008). Conducting health research with Aboriginal
communities: Barriers and strategies for graduate student success. Canadian Journal of Native
Education, 31(1), 268–278.
Jongen, C., McCalman, J., Bainbridge, R., & Clifford, A. (2018). Cultural Competence in Health: A
review of the evidence. Singapore: SpringerNature.
Jongen, C., McCalman, J., Bainbridge, R., & Tsey, K. (2014). Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
maternal and child health and wellbeing: A systematic search of programs and services in Austral-
ian primary health care settings. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 14(1), 251.
Kippen, S., Ward, B., & Warren, L. (2006). Enhancing Indigenous participation in higher education
health courses in rural Victoria. The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 35, 1–10.
Kovach, M. (2015). Emerging from the margins: Indigenous methodologies. In Susan Strega (Eds.),
Research as resistance: Revisiting critical indigenous and anti‑oppressive approaches (2nd ed., pp.
43–64). Toronto: Canadian Scholars Press Inc.
Laycock, A., Walker, D., Harrison, N., & Brands, J. (2009). Supporting Indigenous researchers: A prac‑
tical guide for supervisors. Darwin: Cooperative Research Centre for Aboriginal Health.
Maddison, S. (2012). Evidence and contestation in the Indigenous policy domain: Voice, ideology and
institutional inequality. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 71(3), 269–277.
McCalman, J., Bridge, F., Whiteside, M., Bainbridge, R., Tsey, K., & Jongen, C. (2014). Responding
to Indigenous Australian sexual assault: A systematic review of the literature. SAGE Open, 2014,
1–13. https ://doi.org/10.1177/21582 44013 51893 1.
McCalman, J., Heyeres, M., Campbell, S., Bainbridge, R., Chamberlain, C., Strobel, N., etal. (2017).
Family-centred interventions by primary healthcare services for Indigenous early childhood wellbe-
ing in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States: A systematic scoping review. BMC
Pregnancy Childbirth, 17(1), 71. https ://doi.org/10.1186/s1288 4-017-1247-2.
McCalman, J., Tsey, K., Clifford, A., Earles, W., Shakeshaft, A., & Bainbridge, R. (2012). Applying
what works: A systematic review of the transfer and implementation of promising services and pro-
grams. BMC Public Health, 2012(12), 600. https ://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-12-600.
McCulloch, A., & Thomas, L. (2013). Widening participation to doctoral education and research
degrees: A research agenda for an emerging policy issue. Higher Education Research & Develop‑
ment, 32(2), 214–227.
McGlion, C. (2009). Considering the work of Martin Nakata’s “cultural interface”: A reflection on the-
ory and practice by a non-Indigenous academic. The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education,
38(Supplement), 36–41.
McKinley, E., Grant, B., Middleton, S., Irwin, K., & Tumoana Williams, L. R. (2011). Working at the
interface: Indigenous students’ experience of undertaking doctoral studies in Aotearoa New Zea-
land. Equity and Excellence in Education, 44(1), 115–132.
Miller, C. (2005). Aspects of training that meet Indigenous Australians’ aspirations: A systematic review
of research. Adelaide: National Centre for Vocational Education Research (NCVER).
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & and the PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred report-
ing items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. https ://
doi.org/10.1371/journ al.pmed.10000 97.
Nakata, M. (2010). The cultural interface of Islander and scientific knowledge. The Australian Journal
of Indigenous Education, 39(Supplement), 53–57.
Nakata, M., Nakata, V., Keech, S., & Bolt, R. (2014). Rethinking majors in Australian Indigenous Stud-
ies. The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 43(1), 8–20.
Peters-Little, F. (2010). The Community Game: Aboriginal Self-Definition at the Local Level. Australian
Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS) Research Discussion Paper
Number 10. AIATSIS: Canberra. Retrieved November 30, 2017 from https ://aiats is.gov.au/sites /
defau lt/files /produ cts/discu ssion _paper /littl efp-dp10-commu nity-game-abori ginal -self-defin ition
-local -level .pdf.
Rigney, L. (1999). Internationalization of an Indigenous anticolonial cultural critique of research meth-
odologies: A guide to Indigenist research methodology and its principles. Wicazo Sa Review, 14(2),
109–121.
Res High Educ
1 3
Ross, J. (2016). Research funding changes hailed amid some criticism, The Australian, October 19, 2016.
Retrieved February 3, 2017 from http://www.theau stral ian.com.au/highe r-educa tion/resea rch-fundi ng-
chang es-haile d-amid-some-criti cism/news-story /81759 1f5ff f5a89 de83f 2fafe b3a81 58.
Sanson-Fisher, R. W., Campbell, E. M., Perkins, J. J., Blunden, S. V., & Davis, B. B. (2006). Indigenous
health research: A critical review of outputs over time. Australasian Medical Publishing Company,
184(10), 502–505.
Schofield, T., O’Brien, R., & Gilroy, J. (2013). Indigenous higher education: Overcoming barriers to partici-
pation in research higher degree programs. Australian Aboriginal Studies, 2, 13–28.
Smith, L. T. (2012). Decolonizing Methodologies (2nd ed.). London: Zed Books.
Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision (SCRGSP). (2014). Overcoming
Indigenous Disadvantage: Key Indicators 2014. Canberra: Productivity Commission.
Trudgett, M. (2009). Build it and they will come: Building the capacity of Indigenous units in universities
to provide better support for Indigenous Australian postgraduate students. Australian Journal of Indig‑
enous Education, 38, 9–18.
Trudgett, M. (2011). Western places, academic spaces and Indigenous faces: Supervising Indigenous Aus-
tralian postgraduate students. Teaching in Higher Education, 16(4), 389–399.
Trudgett, M. (2013). Stop, collaborate and listen: A guide to seeding success for Indigenous Higher Degree
Research students. In R. Craven (Eds.), Diversity in higher education: Seeding success in Indigenous
Australian higher education (Vol. 14, pp. 137–155). Bingley: Emerald Publishing.
Trudgett, M. (2014). Supervision provided to Indigenous Australian doctoral students: A black and white
issue. Higher Education Research & Development, 33(5), 1035–1048.
Villegas, M. M. (2010). 500 Maori PhDs in five years: Insights from a successful Indigenous higher educa‑
tion initiative. PhD Thesis. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University via ProQuest Dissertations
& Theses Global: Social Sciences. Retrieved December 4, 2014.
Walker, M., Fredericks, B., Mills, K., & Anderson, D. (2014). Yarning as a method for community-based
health research with Indigenous women: The Indigenous Women’s Wellness Research Program.
Health Care for Women International, 35(10), 1216–1226.
Walter, M., & Andersen, C. (2013). Indigenous statistics: A quantitative research methodology. Walnut
Cree, CA: Left Coast Press.
Walter, M., & Butler, K. (2013). Teaching race to teach Indigeneity. Journal of Sociology, 49(4), 397–410.
White, N., & Wood, F. (2009). Setting them up for strong futures: Education as a key to social and human
capacity building for Indigenous People. Brisbane: Queensland Government.
Wilson, M., Hunt, M., Richardson, L., Phillips, H., Richardson, K., & Challies, D. (2011). Whina: A pro-
gramme for Maori and Pacific tertiary science graduate and postgraduate success. Higher Education,
62(6), 699–719.
Wisker, G., & Robinson, G. (2012). Examiner practices and culturally inflected doctoral theses. Discourse:
Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 35(2), 190–205.
Zubrick, S. R., Silburn, S. R., De Maio, J. A., Shepherd, C., Griffin, J. A., Dalby, R. B., etal. (2006).
Improving the educational experiences of aboriginal children and young people, Western Australian
aboriginal child health survey. Perth: Curtin University of Technology and Telethon Institute for Child
Health Research.
A preview of this full-text is provided by Springer Nature.
Content available from Research in Higher Education
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
