Working Together at the Cultural Interface: Authentic Partnerships in an Australian Remote Aboriginal Community

Case Study Context

Youth, specifically those aged between 12 and 17 years of age, are legally required to attend school. In the case of Australian remote Aboriginal communities, there may be no secondary school or programme suitable to meet the educational needs of school-aged youth in the community, making boarding school the government’s recommended pathway and therefore, families’ ‘preferred’ (only) choice for secondary schooling (Commonwealth of Australia, 2017). Unfortunately, often, over half a cohort of these students do not complete their schooling away from community and, for a variety of reasons, return home (Britton, 2022; O’Bryan & Fogarty, 2020). Youth who return to their home community either have no school to return to and, for reasons other than academic failure (e.g., shame boredom), may hide away from active community life. Because of the legal assumption that all youth are enrolled in school, there are few regular programmes for young people within their community.

Community members indicated that outside service providers offer few services for young people; however, those that do are not satisfying the needs identified as appropriate for community life or in a way that is culturally applicable. Examples of services offered include one-off activities (visiting footballers or hip-hop dancers) or sessions embedded within health service delivery (counselling). The current programmes do not include ongoing developmental opportunities for these young people to engage with others or learn life skills that would assist them to meet their holistic needs within the context of their respective community. Service organisations lack the necessary awareness of the reality of community life and the need to engage at the cultural interface, and conversely, families do not understand the Western system. This creates difficulties for youth who may want to access further education. Community members recognise that service providers currently do not define the problem in the same way as they do, engage within the cultural interface, ensuring responses reflect local cultural understandings or listen to their perspectives on how it might be addressed.

Understanding the Cultural Interface

The literature defines the term ‘cultural interface’ as describing the place where Indigenous and non-Indigenous cultures collide (Nakata, 2007). The concept of the cultural interface is particularly pertinent in remote Aboriginal communities, given the lived experiences of Aboriginal residents and their engagement with outsiders who provide services (including education) within rigid policies and practices. Engaging at the cultural interface implies there is more than one culture and that these cultures interact in ways that develop effective relationships that meet the needs of both parties. Unfortunately, often, the engagement by outsiders is limited, one-sided, and lacks the time necessary for listening and to establish understanding. From the community perspective, there is little engagement by service providers in their daily lives, resulting in service delivery that does not take into account the way of life, community needs or worldview.

Although there are references to the concepts of forming productive partnerships at a policy and system level, guidance as to how this can be effectively established is absent. For example, the Queensland Closing the Gap Snapshot 2023 edition is couched within the expectation that a partnership approach to engagement and co-design in working with Indigenous communities will be employed (Queensland Government, 2023). While terms such as co-design are littered throughout the various documents, there is little guidance or understanding of how this specifically could look, or the time it will take, both from community perspectives and outsider service providers. Without an understanding of what productive partnerships actually look like in the remote context, it is left to community members to learn new ways to interact, negotiate and adapt when they interact with service providers. This is not necessarily a comfortable place for outsiders either, as the demands and constraints of the service they offer (i.e., policing or education) are often the same as those specified for the larger metropolitan centres, despite the differences in a remote community (Dwyer et al., 2020; Egan, 2018). Outsider service providers have a choice about this; they can continue to implement the services in ways familiar to them or learn how to engage at the interface in meaningful ways. Unfortunately, few are in positions that enable the time, commitment or awareness to do so. Such actions may also require deviation from their key performance indicators (KPIs) and funding timelines.

This is not a new conversation. Taylor et al. (2012) wrote about the dysfunction of community development from a community-based perspective in Australian remote Aboriginal communities over a decade ago. They highlighted the lack of social cohesion and differing worldviews between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples in understanding the functions of community. Moran (2010) explored governance issues within these same communities and the failure of nationally funded service delivery programmes, demonstrating the need for outside providers to develop skills in intercultural interactions for community members to engage and trust the processes. Many write of the impact of policy on community functioning in holistic ways through ground-up approaches (Bat & Guenther, 2013; Fogarty & Schwab, 2012; Fogarty et al., 2015; Kral, 2010; O’Bryan & Fogarty, 2020). Osborne’s early work spoke of connecting with the heart of the matter, effectively portraying engagement at the cultural interface while maintaining a sense of self for Indigenous young people in remote communities (Burton & Osborne, 2014; Minutjukur & Osborne, 2014; Osborne, 2014; Tjitayi & Osborne, 2014). His latter work reiterates the need for outsiders to practise listening, to effectively engage with families in communities (Osborne, 2023). In terms of education, many authors write about the reality that cultural and contextual approaches are paramount (Bat & Guenther, 2013; Osborne et al., 2020; Yunkaporta & McGinty, 2009), with the need to remember youth are unique given their age (Mills & McGregor, 2016; Te Riele, 2014), and the difficulties they face in attending school (Guenther & Osborne, 2020).

Objectives and Research Question

The objectives were to (a) determine the similarities and differences found in literature on alternative education for Indigenous communities, taking into account context; (b) develop an explanatory model of all the attributes that make up alternative models of education specific to the needs of the community; and (c) identify the enablers and barriers to implementation of the model of education.

The study addressed the following research question:

‘What learner-centred alternate model of education could meet the unique developmental needs of remote Indigenous adolescents who do not fit mainstream educational opportunities?’

Positionality of the Research Team

Before presenting the findings of the study, the positionality of the authors is briefly outlined. The authors include a range of insiders and outsiders to remote Aboriginal communities. All fieldwork was conducted by the first author, including the formation and construction of this article. Amelia does not identify as Indigenous but has her own cultural ancestral connections with the Dharug nation in NSW. Through several decades of work and walking with people, she has been adopted into the Kokemenjena, Kokoberra and Kunjen families. These existing relationships, built over time, led to her being described by the participants as a ‘trusted outsider’ (Kovach, 2009; Moran, 2010). Though an outsider to the community, because of her prior relationships, connections and experiences, using CBPR was a natural fit for embedding the research.

Authors two and three are outsiders to remote Aboriginal communities and did not do any community-based fieldwork. Their role was in assisting with the conceptual analysis and theoretical approach to the original project and the construction of this article. However, both have had extensive experience in the field. Eileen worked for many years in education in the Kimberley and in Adult Education in Central Australia. She continues to engage in research in the area, mainly from a public health perspective. Miriam also has two decades of experience in alternative education and community development in Australian and international settings.

Overview of the Metaphor for an Authentic Community Place-based Solution

To understand what community people envisage as appropriate engagement at the cultural interface, they first expressed a deep desire to challenge how the needs of young people are portrayed. Community people view an individual as a ‘whole’ person rather than examining them through a single lens of education, health, employment or any other compartmentalised approaches that underpin service provision (i.e., youth justice or child safety). This holistic view is currently at odds with the way service delivery is conducted. For example, the community believe that educational plans must include the aspirations of families for their children, the complexities of the context they are embedded in, the historical and cultural differences, worldview and the social realities of remote Aboriginal communities. The findings explain how these perspectives and relationships need to be established and are presented as a co-produced story with both a written narrative and a visual presentation of a tree (Figure 1).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Source: Britton (2022).

Community members want to work with outsider service providers to build an alternate model of education that is grounded in their ‘places’. They compared this to a seed when planted in the ground that grows from its roots from the foundations in which it is planted. These foundations include the realities of daily life unique to the context in which the tree is planted, and the well-established roots enable growth through the trunk, branches and leaves. The vision of community members was for the establishment of a youth hub or alternate model of education with support from outside service providers, but importantly, with leadership sourced from within the community. Several described it as any solution ‘must come from the community’ but recognised that ‘change actually needs to come with the parents stepping up’ and another saying ‘actions speak louder than words’. They recognised the power of a family, or in a community where everyone is family, knowing that leadership and the actions that flow from this influence the younger generations. Working in partnerships with outsiders, the foundations of the alternate model would be created by the community and service providers working in a way that enabled them to support each other and work together. Working together or as it was phrased by community members ‘getting alongside each other’ means adults are included as part of the design and implementation, with outsider service providers working alongside, rather than in a place of leadership and authority. Such an approach leaves room for community members to engage with young people in ways meaningful to them.

The branches of the tree are the strategies and actions that create an environment that fosters learning, growth and education for youth. Families know their young people and the realities of community life are not necessarily understood by outsiders. This means establishing a safe place for activities, learning and connection where young people can gain skills for their life, by interacting with adults whom young people trust and who take the time to sit with them. The ways of engaging at the interface between the local culture and the world of outside service providers need to be modelled and taught to young people. They need to be supported to take up opportunities within their community, while they face fears about the outside world, take risks and try out new opportunities. Using these strategies creates a tree that is functioning and produces leaves or fruit that flourish. This type of alternate model built up within the community would help young people develop a range of life skills, attitudes and abilities to gain employment, but also to be leaders within their community.

The Ways of Engaging at the Cultural Interface: Relational Work

Community members argued that underpinning engagement at the cultural interface is knowing and understanding who the youth are, their strengths and needs. If outsiders do not form relationships, work relationally or build authentic partnerships, engagement with youth will be impossible. A lack of genuine understanding and ignorance of the educational needs of youth, who they are and what their needs are, is a barrier to engaging young people in remote communities. Evidence from the community suggests that young people in these communities are not engaged or have limited engagement with services.

There were countless stories told during the field visits about the effects of living on the other side of community life and the impact on relating with outsiders and educational providers. Drugs and alcohol, for example, keep a person in shame, isolated and indoors, not willing to access services or engage in daily pursuits that are healthy (Britton, 2022). The lack of support and feeling down, depressed and unheard contribute, as does the shame people feel, in refusing to try out new learning. There is also a fear of speaking out against racism, being misunderstood, having a chronic illness or needing to care for family alongside trauma triggers that hinder engagement. These are the impacts of the social determinants that influence education and confront families every day.

There is a failure to recognise that young people have disengaged from mainstream education for a myriad of reasons and that the support required for them, or ‘nutrients’ needed for their growth, will differ from the mainstream approach to teaching and learning. The community argued that the approach needs to recognise the strengths that the young people do hold and provide bridges to support learning that they require, based in their own community and the people they know and respect. Only when this foundation is recognised will the resources of outside service providers be applicable.

To begin working with youth in communities, outside service providers need to understand that families are the key to understanding their young people. Young people trust their family, feel safe with those who understand them and take the time to listen. Family members are people who themselves have stressors far more than the average outsider comprehends. They understand intimately what the impact of these stressors is on daily life and how to navigate through them. These families have lived through failed attempts at boarding school, know the reality of living away from their country and what it is to live on the other side of community life. There is also family politics, dysfunction and negative influences that impact young people. Regardless of these contradictions in familial influence, families state that they are currently the ones who have the least say in how their children’s needs might be met.

Community members understand the unwillingness and inflexibility of outsiders’ approaches. They have their own, often negative history of interaction with outsiders to overcome. There is a pervasive weariness of not being listened to or understood regarding solutions that they consider would better meet specified needs. Perhaps because of this lack of power to contribute to the revolving door of government policies and outsider service providers coming in and out of the community, families consistently say that any solution ‘must come from community’ and ‘not outsiders’. The desire is for people to be part of building an alternate model of education that connects with the lived reality of the youth and their families and is built on the foundation of place. In this model, service providers would get alongside and work within defined community aspirations and timelines, not dictate programmes based on assumed goals defined from a Western mindset and meet the strategic goals of the outside organisation.

As community members define it, youth, particularly those disengaged from mainstream education, do not know how to be strong; they are lost. As one woman framed it:

because they left school early, or if they did attend school they were not focused on education. They do not know fully the cultural aspects of how things work culturally, properly. And they don’t even know the how the white man ways like the law work properly either. They’re lost in between. Like lost.

She went on to suggest that there are people in the community who can help youth navigate this intercultural divide. In another conversation with a different community member, it was noted that:

We sorta the front row and we have like all the support behind us because that’s what we need. And then once we understand from the support, we need to then translate that and to pass it onto our youth in a way that they understand… Sometimes it might have to be in our language [or] we have a thing called broken English and that’s a big thing in our community. Our way. And it’s understandable in our community.

The women highlighted that for intercultural interactions to occur, trusting relationships are required where adults have set roles and can lead and work in ways that are meaningful to the young person. Another young person said:

But they [youth] need to know that they can do it too, you know and be encouraged in doing it’… ‘and that’s how I used to be before. I used to be down and sad you know. And thinking about I don’t want to trust anybody cos nobody gonna don’t really like me or nobody don’t care about what I feel, or how I think or what I like as a person you know.

Not only do we need to speak in ways that young people understand, but the way we ‘help’ or interact must be meaningful too. Some young people do not feel worthy, so they need trusting relationships to help overcome these negative feelings. Trust can then be developed from the basis of being understood, heard and listened to. If a community member knows intuitively that the outsider does not share this understanding of who they are and what they need, they are less likely to work with them. This will prevent productive partnerships from being formed from the very start. On the surface it can look like community partnerships are functioning because there are Aboriginal teacher aides, health workers or staff employed in various roles in the provision of services in the community, but digging deeper it does not necessarily mean that their voices are heard when they suggest ways of working that enable meaningful change and growth for youth, based on strategies important to them (Britton, 2022).

Community members get frustrated at having to do business in ways not their own, when they want opportunities for meaningful and authentic solutions in their local community. Not only must community members have authority to play an active part in the leading, designing and monitoring of programmes they are delivering, they also desire to feel heard and understood within a partnership where the financial, resourcing and leadership ‘power’ is not simply held (or blocked) by the outsider. Several women outlined ways to know and interact with the youth at the interface while meeting them where they are. This included support of outsiders. They also indicated the support they themselves as adults gained from working alongside each other. The elder, Polly said ‘we need all knowledges together’, acknowledging the strength in bringing together the extra knowledge they do not have.

There are different ways of speaking in the community, understood best by those who use the local English register and terms familiar, described by Abigail (respected young adult, aunty and youth worker), as ‘[we] understand our own ways’. What these terms mean for the community is that learning relationally, for both the adult working with the outsiders and the family members with the youth, is the best way to navigate intercultural interactions at the interface and connect with the heart of the young person. Community members do not want to teach their young alone, but wish to work with outsiders, together, to provide education that is ‘both ways’. The co-produced story shows that a barrier to this combined approach lies in the lack of understanding that outsider service providers have of the needs of the youth and the fact that they are not prepared to engage with community members to tap into their strengths.