Journal articles on the topic 'Māori language community'

For Māori in Aotearoa New Zealand, land is not only an economic foundation but an anchor for tribal identity and a spiritual base. The forced alienation of Māori land since the 1800s, due to colonisation, has distanced communities from a direct relationship with their lands. There is little published research on Māori community gardens (māra) and their potential to reconnect Māori with ancestral lands. This study explores the motivations for developing māra and examines the role of māra in Māori health promotion. The paper describes findings from kaupapa Māori research that involved interviews with seven leaders of māra initiatives. Our findings suggest that the development of māra is motivated by a desire to empower Māori collectives towards a vision of vital communities thriving as Māori. Māra provide a rich site for community development grounded in a cultural connection to ancestral land. The utilization of ancestral lands enables groups to draw on a deep sense of shared identity that is rooted in those lands and fosters an intergenerational orientation. Māra offer activity linked with ancestral knowledge, customary practices and tribal connection. They provide opportunities to practice Māori language and cultural processes in functional everyday ways, and thereby strengthen a sense of commitment to protect cultural heritage as a resource for community life. Importantly, hands-on collective activity with shared decision-making, which is characteristic of māra, fosters social cohesion and collective efficacy. Overall our findings indicate that māra are land-centred community development initiatives that fit within the parameters of Māori health promotion and have much potential to contribute to achievement of Māori health promotion outcomes.

In the 1970s, New Zealand's Māori leaders and academics successfully sought the revitalisation of culture and language through education. A Māori immersion education system emerged exemplifying school–community partnership and collaboration, and in the milieu of expansion, the whānau class emerged as an education option for children. In this context, families of children aged between 5 and 12 years are placed together in one class and the language of instruction is usually bilingual – Māori and English. A case study of such a class is presented in this article and illustrates how education measurement, underpinned by Western ideologies, can construct Māori children as deficient learners, and undermine the partnership and collaboration foundation of the whānau class. However, this study also demonstrates how alternative measurement systems that take account of Māori children's bilingual and bicultural learning can construct them as capable learners, with the implication that this must inform educators and Māori for successful partnership in the education of Māori children.

Queensland is home to the largest diaspora of Māori and Pasifika peoples in Australia. They form an understudied population concerning experiences and challenges of food insecurity. This community co-designed research aims to explore the conceptualization of household food security by Māori and Pasifika peoples living in south-east Queensland. Participatory action research and talanoa were used to collect and analyse forty interviews with leaders representing 22 Māori and Pasifika cultural identities in south-east Queensland. Eight key themes emerged that conceptualise food security as an integral part of the culture and holistic health. These themes included: spirituality, identity, hospitality and reciprocity, stigma and shame, expectations and obligations, physical and mental health and barriers and solutions. Addressing food insecurity for collectivist cultures such as Māori and Pasifika peoples requires embracing food sovereignty approaches for improved food security through the co-design of practical solutions that impact social determinants and strengthen existing networks to produce and distribute affordable and nutritious food.

This article provides a context for understanding indigenous immersion education and the issues surrounding the model as a critical strategy for revitalization of indigenous languages. Through articulating narratives and drawing on literatures internationally, an image of indigenous language education models emerges. Inspired by strong heritage language learner identities, program models are shaped around building family and community relationships, revitalizing cultural traditions and practices, and re-establishing indigenous language identity in its homeland. Indigenous language immersion models vary as they are developed in vastly different contexts. Three distinct contexts — Ojibwe, Māori, and Hawaiian — are described to illustrate the diversity and range of models. The article closes with some reflections from practice that will provide a context for building a research agenda to advance the revitalization of indigenous languages through immersion.

This survey gives an overview of research into language teaching and learning in New Zealand over a five-year period, including the context of that research. The majority of New Zealanders are monolingual English speakers, yet the country faces complex linguistic challenges arising from its bicultural foundations and the multicultural society it has become. The survey encompasses the teaching and learning of indigenous and community languages, including te reo Māori and New Zealand Sign Language, both official languages; the teaching and learning of foreign languages and English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL); psychological factors in language learning; and language teacher education. Certain themes recur: the daunting task of maintaining minority languages against a tide of language shift, the lag between language trends and language policy, and the struggle to create space within the education system for cultural and linguistic diversity. Research into language teaching and learning in New Zealand is vibrant, but there is a need for greater collaboration, generalisability and more effective dissemination of research findings. Future research should focus on the effectiveness of methodologies and programmes in international comparison, and helping teachers and course designers to refine the use of digital technology.

A decision was taken in 2009 by the Minister of Land Information that the official spelling of the city formerly spelled Wanganui should henceforth be Whanganui, although a period of grace was given for the change-over. Nonetheless, there is still a good deal of opposition to the change from residents, particularly expressed on many occasions by the outspoken mayor at the time, Michael Laws. This article was originally delivered as a seminar during Māori Language Week 2009, before the decision was taken. It seeks to explore the complex issues that underlie such a decision, and thus to shed light on why the issue is still so controversial. With the success of the case against Wanganui, it is clear that this will not be the last instance where a Māori community seeks legal overthrow of the spelling of a name: already the case of Rimutaka versus Remutaka is being debated.

This article outlines key developments internationally over the last 40 years in indigenous immersion education. Most notable here has been the establishment of community-based, bottom-up immersion programs, instigated by indigenous communities with the aim of maintaining or revitalizing their indigenous languages. As such, the article addresses a relative lacuna in immersion education literature, which has to date focused primarily on second- and foreign-language contexts. The article first provides a wider sociohistorical and sociopolitical context, focusing on key developments in international law, and in specific national contexts, which have facilitated the establishment of these indigenous immersion programs. The interrelationship between indigenous immersion educational policy and pedagogy is then explored, highlighting, in the process, the various challenges involved in developing, implementing, and maintaining effective indigenous immersion programs. Finally, international exemplars of indigenous education programs are discussed, including, Hawaiian, Navajo, and Cherokee programs in the U.S., and Māori-medium education in Aotearoa/New Zealand.

Indigenous news media have experienced significant growth across the globe in recent years, but they have received only limited attention in mainstream society or the journalism and communication research community. Yet, Indigenous journalism is playing an arguably increasingly important role in contributing to Indigenous politics and identities, and is worthy of closer analysis. Using in-depth interviews, this article provides an overview of the main dimensions of Indigenous journalism as they can be found in the journalism culture of Ma¯ori journalists in Aotearoa New Zealand. It argues that Ma¯ori journalists see their role as providing a counter-narrative to mainstream media reporting and as contributing to Indigenous empowerment and revitalization of their language. At the same time, they view themselves as watchdogs, albeit within a culturally specific framework that has its own constraints. The article argues that the identified dimensions are reflective of evidence on Indigenous journalism from across the globe.

The increasing demand for palliative care in New Zealand presents a potential threat to the quality of service delivery. One strategy to overcome this is through the implementation of valid and reliable patient-reported outcome measures. This mixed-methods study aimed to (1) implement measurement-based palliative care (MBPC) in a community palliative care service in Auckland, New Zealand; (2) evaluate the clinical utility of MBPC perceived by clinicians; (3) describe patient characteristics as measured by the Integrated Palliative Care Outcome Scale (IPOS), the Australasian Modified Karnofsky Performance Scale (AKPS), and Phase of Illness (POI); and (4) evaluate the internal consistency of the IPOS. Participants were over 18 years of age from a community outpatient palliative care service. In a phased approach to implementation, healthcare staff were educated on each instrument used for patient assessment. Uptake and internal consistency were evaluated through descriptive statistics. An interpretive descriptive methodology was used to explore the clinical utility of MBPC through semi-structured interviews with seven clinical staff members. Individual patient assessments (n = 1507) were undertaken predominantly on admission, with decreasing frequency as patients advanced through to the terminal phase of their care. Mean total IPOS scores were 17.97 (SD = 10.39, α = 0.78). The POI showed that 65% of patients were in the stable phase, 20% were in the unstable phase, 9% were in the deteriorating phase, and 2% were in the terminal phase. Clinicians reported that MBPC facilitated holistic and comprehensive assessments, as well as the development of a common interdisciplinary language. Clinicians expressed discomfort using the psychosocial and spiritual items. Measurement-based palliative care was only partially implemented but it was valued by staff and perceived to increase the quality of service delivery. Future research should determine the optimal timing of assessments, cultural responsivity for Māori and Pacific patients, and the role of MBPC in decision support for clinicians.

A Review of: Liew, C. L., Yeates, J., & Lilley, S. C. (2021). Digitized Indigenous knowledge collections: Impact on cultural knowledge transmission, social connections, and cultural identity. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 72(12), 1575–1592. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24536 Abstract Objective – To explore the impact and significance of digitized and digital Indigenous knowledge collections (D-IKC) on knowledge transmission, social connections, and cultural identity. Design – Phenomenological explorative study. Setting – New Zealand. Subjects – Eight D-IKC users, including three academics, four undergraduate students, and one postgraduate student. Six participants were women and two were men. All participants were of Māori descent. Methods – Eight semi-structured interviews ranging from 40 to 75 minutes were conducted in a face-to-face setting between June 2019 and August 2020. Participants were recruited through the researchers’ personal and professional networks using a purposeful sampling technique. Potential participants were provided with a copy of the interview guide during recruitment. Main Results – The article reports on seven areas of results: use of collections, accessibility and discoverability, collection features and functionality, sharing of knowledge resources, reuse and repurposing of resources, perceived benefits of cultural and social connections, and development and provision of D-IKC. Participants use D-IKC for academic work including coursework, teaching, and research as well as for personal interest and development, such as researching whakapapa (genealogy) and whenua (land) information, language revitalization projects, and creative works. All participants expressed preference for online access to the collections. Participants discussed barriers to access not only for themselves but also for other members of their community, including difficulty using the platforms on mobile devices, lack of awareness about the collections, inadequate digital access, and lack of digital competence for searching and navigation. Some participants noted inaccuracies in transcriptions that could lead to alteration of the meaning of words and deter engagement with D-IKC. All participants reported having shared knowledge resources they encountered in digitized collections. Primary reasons for sharing information included helping classmates get access to educational materials and sharing resources with whānau (extended family) for genealogical research and land claims. Common reasons for reusing or repurposing materials included language and dialect revitalization and creative work and performance. Participants said they were more likely to share materials related to their tribal affiliation. Participants also discussed information that would not be appropriate to share, such as information that is considered tapu (sacred), particularly if the material is outside of their tribal roots. Notably, all participants said they had come across resources and information in D-IKC that should not be openly accessible at all. Participants reported having gained linguistic and cultural knowledge as well as information about their cultural identity through their use of D-IKC. Sharing this knowledge with their communities has helped strengthen social connections. Some participants noted that their hapū (subtribe) planned to set up their own digital archives. Conclusion – Overall, D-IKC can have a beneficial impact on individual and collective social identity and social ties. Making these materials available online facilitates their wider access and use. However, memory institutions (MIs) need to take steps to ensure that cultural values and knowledge are embedded into the development and stewardship of the collections. MIs should employ more specialists from Indigenous communities with deep understanding of customary practices and principles, encourage other staff to develop their understanding of the language and customs of the Indigenous communities that their collections are rooted in, and develop partnerships with Indigenous authorities to help guide them on issues relating to sacred knowledge and genealogical materials. The authors also recommend that MIs develop outreach programs to raise awareness of the resources and to improve digital access and competencies.

Community, purpose, context and an anchored presence in encountering difference – these are qualities stimulated by tikanga Māori frameworks as an approach to theatre. Viewpoints-based choreography contributes attention to time and space, playfulness, and ensemble connection. Both value the audience’s contribution as an integral part of the work through the immediacy of a real-time meeting. Together they provide a framework for setting up a dialogical performance environment in which a cast, drawn from all over India, are able to bring their traditions, psychologies, gestural languages and beliefs into the work. The choreographic approach allows extant text and body text an independence that is constantly negotiated, constantly changing and surprising. These frameworks hold a combination of the artistically fixed and the improvisationally free. Both encourage agency in all collaborators. These qualities make them powerful and repeatable tools for engagement with the present. They treat the audience as participating guests, moving their engagement from passive to active. The effect of this framing is performance that is filled with a sense of ‘alive-li-ness’ in an approach that is applicable in the Indian context.

Many studies have been undertaken which focus on identifying factors which impact on the participation and achievement of Māori students in post compulsory education and factors contributing to Māori success in tertiary education. (Jefferies, R. 1997; Tiakiwai, S.J. 2001; Nikora, L. W., Levy, M., Henry, J., & Whangapirita, L. 2002; Greenwood, J., & Te Aika, L. 2009), One of the factors identified as an institutional barrier is a lack of recognition of Māori culture and language. This article discusses the importance of university Māori language students being able to write their assignments, dissertations and theses not only in the Māori language, but in their own tribal dialects. Using a case-study approach of the authors’ personal experiences of primary, secondary and tertiary education, the case-study will focus specifically on the place of the authors’ tribal identity and dialect in this process. Dialect will be illustrated through samples of work submitted for the authors BA (Hons) dissertation, MA and PhD. This will also demonstrate the importance of writing in the community language, when conducting research on a topic related to that community, and this will be discussed in terms of reflecting a commitment to the survival of that community language and to increasing the corpus of work being produced in the Māori language. This case-study, adopting a narrative approach, will demonstrate a positive outcome for both a university and a Māori student when a) the university provides the right pathways, policies and processes to empower Māori students to write in their native tongue; and b) the student has the courage and tenacity to continue writing in the Māori language and in their dialect, as a minority in the institution.

For Māori academics as a minority group within universities in Aotearoa/New Zealand, the constant struggle to ‘indigenise the academy’ and be agents of change, often becomes overwhelming. This has seen Māori academics look to alternative places to work such as wānanga (tertiary institutions designed specifically to cater for Māori learning needs) because these providers are built on a philosophical framework and a set of core values which reflect a Māori world-view. Te Ipukarea - The National Māori Language Institute at the Auckland University of Technology, and its relationship with Māori involved in Māori language revitalisation in universities, polytechnics, wānanga, iwi (a tribe and often refers to a large group of people descended from a common ancestor) and community Māori language organisations nationally, has resulted in Māori opting to partner with the Institute because of their commitment to the revitalisation of the Māori language thus defying the silo attitudes of western tertiary providers which are competitive in their design. Therefore, Te Ipukarea, serves as an agent of change within the academy to transforming the academy as well as the communities it serves. This paper will critically examine the history and work of Te Ipukarea and the establishment of the International Centre of Language Revitalisation which sits inside Te Ipukarea as a space where indigenous epistemologies and world-views are nurtured within the academic realm. The holistic perspective to development and well-being, and the participatory nature of the indigenous community, which includes elders as repositories of knowledge and the transmission of traditional beliefs, values, skills and customs, in their quest to revitalise their language will be discussed

AbstractTe reo Māori, the Indigenous language of Aotearoa New Zealand, is a distinctive feature of the nation’s cultural heritage. This paper documents our efforts to build a corpus of 79,000 Māori-language tweets using computational methods. The Reo Māori Twitter (RMT) Corpus was created by targeting Māori-language users identified by the Indigenous Tweets website, pre-processing their data and filtering out non-Māori tweets, together with other sources of noise. Our motivation for creating such a resource is three-fold: (1) it serves as a rich and unique dataset for linguistic analysis of te reo Māori on social media; (2) it can be used as training data to develop and augment Natural Language Processing (NLP) tools with robust, real-world Māori-language applications; and (3) it will potentially promote awareness of, and encourage positive interaction with, the growing community of Māori tweeters, thereby increasing the use and visibility of te reo Māori in an online environment. While the corpus captures data from 2007 to 2020, our analysis shows that the number of tweets in the RMT Corpus peaked in 2014, and the number of active tweeters peaked in 2017, although at least 600 users were still active in 2020. To the best of our knowledge, the RMT Corpus is the largest publicly-available collection of social media data containing (almost) exclusively Māori text, making it a useful resource for language experts, NLP developers and Indigenous researchers alike.

This paper presents understandings from indigenous Māori kaumātua (elders both male and female) and whānau (parents and extended family members) from Aotearoa New Zealand. These people live in a close-knit hapū (subtribe) community close to an ancestral meeting space known as their marae. Their marae continues to be essential in the promotion of Māori knowledge, language and ways of being. Kaumātua and whānau recall important cultural understandings and practices from this journey. From growing up largely in te ao Māori (the Māori world) they consider “languaculture”, the inter-relationships between language, identity and culture, as foundational to their future “hope” for collective cultural strength and wellbeing. To renormalise the use of the language of their ancestors, we use many Māori words throughout. These words are italicised and translated the first time they are used.

Abstract This paper considers two different Indigenous-led initiatives, the Neeginan initiative (Winnipeg, Canada) and the Kaupapa Māori movement (New Zealand), within the context of urban Indigenous self-determination, examining the role, or contributions of, each towards the realisation of Indigenous self-determination. Neeginan originates from, and focuses on, building a sense of community, through education programs, social assistance and affordable housing, with local Indigenous knowledge providing the foundational guiding principles. This is compared to the Kaupapa Māori movement's role in the revival of traditional cultural and language practices in education, which has resulted in the development of an overwhelmingly successful parallel non-government school system based on Māori culture, language and philosophy.

This presentation looks at some of the main pillars of language revitalisation suggested by Fishman et al, and how they can be transposed on to an indigenous platform. With Critical Language Awareness, Status Planning, Acquisition Planning and Implementation being the main pillars; the paper explores how these can be translated in to a Māori model. As a reference point, I will look at my own two tribes from the northern part of New Zealand. Patukoraha and Te Whanau Moana, who have experienced severe language loss as evidenced by the depleting numbers of speakers of the reo in contexts such as marae, local meeting house, home, community events etc. A language revitalisation strategy is explored as a way to support these hapū to reverse language shift and the decline of competent speakers and return the language to its appropriate and rightful place in the cultural and social place as the essence of Māoritanga, and integral component of cultural identity. Using both the pillars and Mātāpono Māori, Māori principles of Rangatiratanga, ownership, Whanaungatanga, kinship ties, Kaitiakitanga, guardianship, and Rāhu/Takwai, reservations, and with a base grounded in Whakapapa, genealogical ties, the symbolic nature of a Wheke, octopus (a local guardian totem) was drawn forth. With each arm representing a particular facet, this symbolism, exposes the fundamental aspect that each arm moves independently, but ultimately all ensure the survival of the octopus, relating to the proverb: “one hand washes the other, both wash the face”.

In this article we discuss teachers’ perceptions and experiences of a collaborative case study to adapt a literacy approach originally designed for an Aotearoa New Zealand English-medium context. The approach was adapted to meet the needs of learners in a school offering differing levels of bilingual education. Our collaboration included a facilitating researcher, supported by two researchers at a University (of Ngāi Tahu, Kati Mamoe, and Waitaha descent) and two classroom teachers of Māori descent from a small rural Māori community in Aotearoa New Zealand. We report findings from qualitative data collected from the two classroom teachers as part of the research process, analysed using a wānanga approach. Findings suggested that developing a linguistically and culturally responsive literacy approach to foster emergent bilingual language development required Kaupapa Māori approaches. These included ako (acknowledging the experiences and knowledge of the teacher and learner within shared learning experiences), the development of trust and quality relationships between the teachers and the facilitating researcher, and the ability of teachers to be agentic when implementing the approach. Teachers viewed responsiveness to culture and language as integral to developing an emergent bilingual literacy approach for children, which underpinned connections between teachers, children, and families.

Abstract Background In recent decades, financial investment has been made in health-related programs and services to overcome inequities and improve Indigenous people’s wellbeing in Australia and New Zealand. Despite policies aiming to ‘close the gap’, limited evaluation evidence has informed evidence-based policy and practice. Indigenous leaders have called for evaluation stakeholders to align their practices with Indigenous approaches. Methods This study aimed to strengthen culturally safe evaluation practice in Indigenous settings by engaging evaluation stakeholders, in both countries, in a participatory concept mapping study. Concept maps for each country were generated from multi-dimensional scaling and hierarchical cluster analysis. Results The 12-cluster Australia map identifies four cluster regions: An Evaluation Approach that Honours Community; Respect and Reciprocity; Core Heart of the Evaluation; and Cultural Integrity of the Evaluation. The 11-cluster New Zealand map identifies four cluster regions: Authentic Evaluation Practice; Building Māori Evaluation Expertise; Integrity in Māori Evaluation; and Putting Community First. Both maps highlight the importance of cultural integrity in evaluation. Differences include the distinctiveness of the ‘Respecting Language Protocols’ concept in the Australia map in contrast to language being embedded within the cluster of ‘Knowing Yourself as an Evaluator in a Māori Evaluation Context’ in the New Zealand map. Participant ratings highlight the importance of all clusters with some relatively more difficult to achieve, in practice. Notably, the ‘Funding Responsive to Community Needs and Priorities’ and ‘Translating Evaluation Findings to Benefit Community’ clusters were rated the least achievable, in Australia. The ‘Conduct of the Evaluation’ and the ‘Prioritising Māori Interests’ clusters were rated as least achievable in New Zealand. In both countries, clusters of strategies related to commissioning were deemed least achievable. Conclusions The results suggest that the commissioning of evaluation is crucial as it sets the stage for whether evaluations: reflect Indigenous interests, are planned in ways that align with Indigenous ways of working and are translated to benefit Indigenous communities Identified strategies align with health promotion principles and relational accountability values of Indigenous approaches to research. These findings may be relevant to the commissioning and conduct of Indigenous health program evaluations in developed nations.

Abstract Introduction Current best practice recommends group-based pain management programmes for long-term improvements in persistent pain-related disability. However, there are barriers for people to access in-person delivered pain management programmes in Aotearoa. Aims To develop a co-designed, culturally responsive, online group-based pain management programme (iSelf-help) for people with persistent pain. Methods A modified participatory action research (PAR) framework was used to co-design contents and cultural-appropriateness of iSelf-help. The PAR team included: (1) seven end-users living with persistent pain, who had previously attended an in-person delivered group pain management programme, (2) two pain management clinicians, (3) two health researchers, (4) two digital health experts, and (5) a health literacy expert. Five meetings were held with the PAR group and a Nominal Group Technique was used to rank order the preferred features of content delivery. In parallel, to ensure cultural appropriateness of iSelf-help, three focus groups (n = 15) were held with Māori (the Indigenous population of Aotearoa) living with persistent pain in collaboration with a Māori community health trust. All contents were reviewed by a Māori Health literacy expert and core contents were translated into Te Reo (Māori language). All contents were finalised by iterative discussion among the PAR team and consultation with Māori stakeholders. The preliminary version of iSelf-help was pilot tested with the PAR group participants and Māori community members living with persistent pain and their feedback was included. The iterative co-design process occurred over a period of nine months. Results The finalised version of iSelf-help included a total of 130 resources organised in to 12 content relevant online modules plus a dedicated welcoming page and an online community forum. Each module included: short videos, animations explaining main concepts, patient stories, written content to accompany visual content, podcasts of relaxation techniques, illustrated texts, and evidence-summaries. A dedicated module of videos demonstrating cardiovascular and strengthening exercises of varying intensity was also included. Conclusions This is the first co-created, culturally appropriate, on-line group pain management programme for people with persistent pain, developed in Aotearoa. The next step is to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of iSelf-help compared to in-person delivered pain management programme.

AbstractOne important function of narratives in workplace interaction is the valuable contribution they make to the construction of complex social identities. These identities typically include a professional or workplace identity, but may also include other facets of self. In the New Zealand workplace, a mainstream ‘white’ identity can be considered the unmarked, communicative cultural norm. In this context, storytelling provides a creative and socially acceptable strategy for constructing a contrasting ethnic identity. This paper explores the ways in which ethnicity is constructed in a New Zealand Māori organization that comprises an ethnically distinct community of practice. An extended narrative sequence (extracted from a naturally occurring meeting) is analyzed in detail for this purpose. Despite the predominance of English as the language of work in this organization, there is abundant evidence of the pervasive relevance of Māori cultural principles. For these workers, ethnicity acts as a backdrop for all their workplace communication; well-established culturally based norms underpin the ways in which they interact, and the ways in which they construct their social (including ethnic) identity. In this context, the stories told at work contribute not only to the construction of the ethnic identity of individual speakers, but also provide a means for co-constructing a distinctive Māori identity for the group.

06–332Asker, Barry (Lingnan U, Hong Kong, China), Some reflections on English as a ‘semi-sacred’ language. English Today (Cambridge University Press) 22.1 (2006), 29–35.06–333Baldauf, Richard B. (U Queensland, Australia), Coordinating government and community support for community language teaching in Australia: Overview with special attention to New South Wales. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism (Multilingual Matters) 8.2&3 (2005), 132–144.06–334Bamiro, Edmund O. (Adekunle Ajasin U, Nigeria; eddiebamiro@yahoo.com), The politics of code-switching: English vs. Nigerian languages. World Englishes (Blackwell) 25.1 (2006), 23–35.06–335Barwell, Richard (U Bristol, UK), Empowerment, EAL and the National Numeracy Strategy. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism (Multilingual Matters) 8.4 (2005), 313–327.06–336Borland, Helen (Victoria U of Technology, Australia), Heritage languages and community identity building: The case of a language of lesser status. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism (Multilingual Matters) 8.2&3 (2005), 109–123.06–337Cashman, Holly R. (Arizona State U, Tempe, USA), Who wins in research on bilingualism in an anti-bilingual state?. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development (Multilingual Matters) 27.1 (2006), 42–60.06–338de Courcy, Michèle (U Melbourne, Australia), Policy challenges for bilingual and immersion education in Australia: Literacy and language choices for users of Aboriginal languages, Auslan and Italian. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism (Multilingual Matters) 8.2&3 (2005), 178–187.06–339Duyck, Wouter (Ghent U, Belgium), Kevin Diependaele, Denis Drieghe & Marc Brysbaert, The size of the cross-lingual masked phonological priming effect does not depend on second language proficiency. Experimental Psychology (Hogrefe & Huber Publishers) 51.2 (2004), 116–124.06–340Evans, Bruce A. (Southern Oregon U, USA; evansb@sou.edu) & Nancy H. Hornberger, No child left behind: Repealing and unpeeling federal language education policy in the United States. Language Policy (Springer) 4.1 (2005), 87–106.06–341Fitzgerald, Michael & Robert Debski (U Melbourne, Australia; rdebski@unimelb.edu.au), Internet use of Polish by Polish Melburnians: Implications for maintenance and teaching.Language Learning & Technology (http://llt.msu.edu/intro.html) 10.1 (2006), 87–109.06–342Glynn, Ted & Cavanagh, Tom (U Waikato, New Zealand), Mere Berryman & Kura Loader, From literacy in Māori to biliteracy in Māori and English: A community and school transition programme. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism (Multilingual Matters) 8.5 (2005), 433–454.06–343Grin, François (U Geneva, Switzerland; francois.grin@etat.ge.ch) & Britta Korth, On the reciprocal influence of language politics and language education: The case of English in Switzerland. Language Policy (Springer) 4.1 (2005), 67–85.06–344Kagan, Olga (U California at Los Angeles, USA), In support of a proficiency-based definition of heritage language learners: The case of Russian. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism (Multilingual Matters) 8.2&3 (2005), 213–221.06–345Kasanga, Luanga A. (Sultan Qaboos U, Oman; luangak@yahoo.fr), Requests in a South African variety of English. World Englishes (Blackwell) 25.1 (2006), 65–89.06–346Love, Tracy (U Califonia, USA), Edwin Maas & David Swinney, Influence of language exposure on lexical and syntactic language processing. Experimental Psychology (Hogrefe & Huber Publishers) 50.3 (2003), 204–216.06–347Malcolm, Ian G. (Edith Cowan U, Mount Lawley, Australia) & Farzad Sharifian, Something old, something new, something borrowed, something blue: Australian Aboriginal students' schematic repertoire. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development (Multilingual Matters) 26.6 (2005), 512–532.06–348May, Stephen & Richard Hill (U Waikato, New Zealand), Māori-medium education: Current issues and challenges. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism (Multilingual Matters) 8.5 (2005), 377–403.06–349Mercurio, Antonio (Assessment Board of South Australia, Australia) & Angela Scarino, Heritage languages at upper secondary level in South Australia: A struggle for legitimacy. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism (Multilingual Matters) 8.2&3 (2005), 145–159.06–350Nicholls, Christine (Flinders U, Australia), Death by a thousand cuts: Indigenous language bilingual education programmes in the Northern Territory of Australia, 1972–1998. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism (Multilingual Matters) 8.2&3 (2005), 160–177.06–351Pauwels, Anna (The U Western Australia, Australia), Maintaining the community language in Australia: Challenges and roles for families. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism (Multilingual Matters) 8.2&3 (2005), 124–131.06–352Rau, Cath (U Waikato, New Zealand), Literacy acquisition, assessment and achievement of year two students in total immersion in Māori programmes. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism (Multilingual Matters) 8.5 (2005), 404–432.06–353Sharifian, Farzad (Monash U, Victoria, Australia; Farzad.Sharifian@arts.monash.edu.au), A cultural-conceptual approach and world Englishes: The case of Aboriginal English. World Englishes (Blackwell) 25.1 (2006), 11–22.06–354Starks, Donna (U Auckland, New Zealand), The effects of self-confidence in bilingual abilities on language use: Perspectives on Pasifika language use in South Auckland. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development (Multilingual Matters) 26.6 (2005), 533–550.06–355Tagoilelagi-LeotaGlynn, Fa'asaulala, Stuart McNaughton, Shelley MacDonald & Sasha Farry (U Auckland, New Zealand), Bilingual and biliteracy development over the transition to school. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism (Multilingual Matters) 8.5 (2005), 455–479.06–356Tuafuti, Patisepa & John McCaffery (U Auckland, New Zealand), Family and community empowerment through bilingual education. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism (Multilingual Matters) 8.5 (2005), 480–503.06–357Tucker, G. Richard (Carnegie Mellon U, USA), Innovative language education programmes for heritage language students: The special case of Puerto Ricans?International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism (Multilingual Matters) 8.2&3 (2005), 188–195.06–358Wiltshire, Caroline R. & James D. Harnsberger (U Florida, USA; wiltshir@ufl.edu), The influence of Gujarati and Tamil L1s on Indian English: A preliminary study. World Englishes (Blackwell) 25.1 (2006), 91–104.06–359Zhiming, Bao & Hong Huaqing (National University of Singapore, Singapore; ellbaozm@nus.edu.sg), Diglossia and register variation in Singapore English. World Englishes (Blackwell) 25.1 (2006), 105–114.

Abstract Background The Aotearoa New Zealand population is ageing accompanied by health and social challenges including significant inequities that exist between Māori and non-Māori around poor ageing and health. Although historically kaumātua (elder Māori) faced a dominant society that failed to realise their full potential as they age, Māori culture has remained steadfast in upholding elders as cultural/community anchors. Yet, many of today’s kaumātua have experienced ‘cultural dissonance’ as the result of a hegemonic dominant culture subjugating an Indigenous culture, leading to generations of Indigenous peoples compelled or forced to dissociate with their culture. The present research project, Kaumātua Mana Motuhake Pōī (KMMP) comprises two interrelated projects that foreground dimensions of wellbeing within a holistic Te Ao Māori (Māori epistemology) view of wellbeing. Project 1 involves a tuakana-teina/peer educator model approach focused on increasing service access and utilisation to support kaumātua with the greatest health and social needs. Project 2 focuses on physical activity and cultural knowledge exchange (including te reo Māori--Māori language) through intergenerational models of learning. Methods Both projects have a consistent research design and common set of methods that coalesce around the emphasis on kaupapa kaumatua; research projects led by kaumātua and kaumātua providers that advance better life outcomes for kaumātua and their communities. The research design for each project is a mixed-methods, pre-test and two post-test, staggered design with 2–3 providers receiving the approach first and then 2–3 receiving it on a delayed basis. A pre-test (baseline) of all participants will be completed. The approach will then be implemented with the first providers. There will then be a follow-up data collection for all participants (post-test 1). The second providers will then implement the approach, which will be followed by a final data collection for all participants (post-test 2). Discussion Two specific outcomes are anticipated from this research; firstly, it is hoped that the research methodology provides a framework for how government agencies, researchers and relevant sector stakeholders can work with Māori communities. Secondly, the two individual projects will each produce a tangible approach that, it is anticipated, will be cost effective in enhancing kaumātua hauora and mana motuhake. Trial registration Australia New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (ACTRN12620000316909). Registered 6 March 2020.

Welcome to Volume 51.2 of The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education. This is our second volume since our shift to being an open access journal. We are very pleased that AJIE has recently been accepted into the Directory of Open Access Journals and was awarded the DOAJ Seal for best practice in open access. DOAJ is an extensive index of diverse open access journals internationally and their aim is to increase the visibility, accessibility, reputation, usage and impact of quality, peer-reviewed, open access scholarly research journals globally. We are also excited that since the journal became open access in August 2022 there has been over 20,000 views of whole articles and over 24,000 views of abstracts on our new open access website. This is a larger volume of AJIE than usual, and we thank the authors and reviewers for their contributions. You play a vital role in ensuring the quality of the journal. We would also like to thank Michelle James for her detailed and astute copyediting for the journal. Special thanks to Senior Publications Officer Sonia Nitchell for her continuing work on importing the large AJIE archive onto the new platform. The first suite of articles in this volume focuses on the early childhood context with articles by Locke and Webb providing us with insights into the inclusion of Indigenous knowledges and perspectives in early education and care settings in the first paper and how Aboriginal educators integrated their cultural knowledge and experiences to develop Aboriginal children’s skills in the second. In a South Saami context, Kroik explores preschool teachers’ identity as linguistic role models by means of analysing their own descriptions of language learning. In Canada, Schroeder et al. demonstrate the importance of making curricula relevant to Indigenous children by including content that is culturally relevant and developmentally appropriate. The interrelationships between language, identity and culture from Māori kaumātua (elders both male and female) and whānau (parents and extended family members) from Aotearoa (New Zealand) is explored by Berryman et al. The second suite of papers take us into the context of schools. Johnson and Flückiger explore the important role for Aboriginal Education Workers in remote Australian communities, while Goodall et al. draw on student and teacher memories of the early days of Indigenous-controlled adult education provider Tranby Aboriginal Co-operative Ltd. The paper by Guenther et al. analyses My School data for Very Remote Aboriginal schools, showing how the Remote School Attendance Strategy school attendance results compare with similar non-Remote School Attendance Strategy schools. Their findings raise ethical and accountability concerns about the Remote School Attendance Strategy, which they argue lacks evidence of attendance improvement, and which potentially causes harm. Whitau et al. also examine school attendance but in relation to Western Australian Aboriginal young women and the links between racism, teacher–student relationships, and peer connectedness, and how these were related to participant attendance and engagement at school. Moore et al. discuss the Whole of Community Engagement (WCE) initiative, which sought to identify barriers and enablers in Aboriginal students’ pathways to post-compulsory education in six remote communities in Arnhem Land and central Australia. They describe the features that led them to characterise the initiative and the remote community and school context as intercultural and complex. Also in relation to the Whole of Community Engagement initiative, Moore et al. propose an intercultural perspective as a refinement to the both-ways approach to remote education. Osborne et al. focus on aspirations of students, their families and communities at Nyangatjatjara College an independent Aboriginal school distributed across three campuses in the southern region of the Northern Territory. Macdonald and Gringart present a new measurement instrument, the Multi-Dimensional Student Perceptions of School Questionnaire (MSPSQ), validated with a moderate-sized sample of Indigenous and non-Indigenous secondary students in Western Australia. The next suite of papers has an international focus with papers from Canada, Aotearoa (New Zealand), Brazil, and Tonga. Stavrou and Murphy explore tensions surrounding Indigenising school mathematics in a Western Canadian prairie province conducted with three Cree elementary school teachers while Denston et al. examine teachers’ perceptions and experiences of a collaborative case study to adapt a literacy approach originally designed for an Aotearoa (New Zealand) English-medium context. Ioris et al. explore the main trends and pending gaps related to indigenous education in Brazil while Fonua et al. shares the stories of 26 successful Tongan science learners who participated in talanoa (open discussion without an agenda) about their engagement, enjoyment, and success in secondary and university science education in Aotearoa (New Zealand). The final papers in this volume shift to the university context with Hogarth exploring a small pilot study conducted at a Queensland university examining how academics perceive the inclusion of Indigenous Knowledges within institutional and professional contexts and initial teacher education programs. Forsyth et al. speak to the importance of employing Indigenous methodologies when conducting Indigenous research to improve dental and medical health outcomes for Indigenous peoples. Hook and Jessen reflect on the contentious nature of non-Indigenous academics teaching Indigenous Studies and draw on student survey data to illustrate the conflict between their pedagogic practices, student expectations and the structural impediments to their teaching aims. Smith et al. also provide a personal reflection on the higher education context by discussing the need to have institutional conversations about coloniality, institutional racism and white fragility within tertiary institutions. The final paper in this volume by Gibbs et al. explores the relationships between racism, cultural resilience, and educational engagement and academic outcomes for Aboriginal tertiary students. They highlight that cultural resilience and support is critical to Aboriginal student success within universities. Racism continues to be particularly important to address because, as the 2022 Australian Reconciliation Barometer recently highlighted, experiences of racial prejudice have increased for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people over the last two years and certainly there is much work needed to improve relationships between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people. We hope you enjoy reading the articles in this volume and hope the articles lead to further dialogue and discussion about Indigenous educational success both in Australia and internationally. Bronwyn Fredericks, Martin Nakata, and Katelyn Barney

Introduction In 2017, 250 Indigenous delegates from across the country convened at the National Constitution Convention at Uluru to discuss a strategy towards the implementation of constitutional reform and recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples (Referendum Council). Informed by community consultations arising out of 12 regional dialogues conducted by the government appointed Referendum Council, the resulting Uluru Statement from the Heart was unlike any constitutional reform previously proposed (Appleby & Synot). Within the Statement, the delegation outlined that to build a more equitable and reconciled nation, an enshrined Voice to Parliament was needed. Such a voice would embed Indigenous participation in parliamentary dialogues and debates while facilitating further discussion pertaining to truth telling and negotiating a Treaty between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples. The reforms proposed are based on the collective input of Indigenous communities that were expressed in good faith during the consultation process. Arising out of a government appointed and funded initiative that directly sought Indigenous perspectives on constitutional reform, the trust and good faith invested by Indigenous people was quickly shut down when the Prime Minster, Malcolm Turnbull, rejected the reforms without parliamentary debate or taking them to the people via a referendum (Wahlquist Indigenous Voice Proposal; Appleby and McKinnon). In this article, we argue that through its dismissal the government treated the Uluru Statement from the Heart as a passing phase or mere “thought bubble” that was envisioned to disappear as quickly as it emerged. The Uluru Statement is a gift to the nation. One that genuinely offers new ways of envisioning and enacting reconciliation through equitable relationships between Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations. Indigenous voices lie at the heart of reconciliation but require constitutional enshrinement to ensure that Indigenous peoples and cultures are represented across all levels of government. Filter Bubbles of Distortion Constitutional change is often spoken of by politicians, its critics, and within the media as something unachievable. For example, in 2017, before even reading the accompanying report, MP Barnaby Joyce (in Fergus) publicly denounced the Uluru Statement as “unwinnable” and not “saleable”. He stated that “if you overreach in politics and ask for something that will not be supported by the Australian people such as another chamber in politics or something that sort of sits above or beside the Senate, that idea just won't fly”. Criticisms such as these are laced with paternalistic rhetoric that suggests its potential defeat at a referendum would be counterproductive and “self-defeating”, meaning that the proposed changes should be rejected for a more digestible version, ultimately saving the movement from itself. While efforts to communicate the necessity of the proposed reforms continues, presumptions that it does not have public support is simply unfounded. The Centre for Governance and Public Policy shows that 71 per cent of the public support constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians. Furthermore, an online survey conducted by Cox Inall Ridgeway found that the majority of those surveyed supported constitutional reform to curb racism; remove section 25 and references to race; establish an Indigenous Voice to Parliament; and formally recognise Indigenous peoples through a statement of acknowledgment (Referendum Council). In fact, public support for constitutional reform is growing, with Reconciliation Australia’s reconciliation barometer survey showing an increase from 77 per cent in 2018 to 88 per cent in 2020 (Reconciliation Australia). Media – whether news, social, databases, or search engines – undoubtedly shape the lens through which people come to encounter and understand the world. The information a person receives can be the result of what Eli Pariser has described as “filter bubbles”, in which digital algorithms determine what perspectives, outlooks, and sources of information are considered important, and those that are readily accessible. Misinformation towards constitutional reform, such as that commonly circulated within mainstream and social media and propelled by high profile voices, further creates what neuroscientist Don Vaughn calls “reinforcement bubbles” (Rose Gould). This propagates particular views and stunts informed debate. Despite public support, the reforms proposed in the Uluru Statement continue to be distorted within public and political discourses, with the media used as a means to spread misinformation that equates an Indigenous Voice to Parliament to the establishment of a new “third chamber” (Wahlquist ‘Barnaby’; Karp). In a 2018 interview, PM Scott Morrison suggested that advocates and commentators in favour of constitutional reform were engaging in spin by claiming that a Voice did not function as a third chamber (Prime Minister of Australia). Morrison claimed, “people can dress it up any way they like but I think two chambers is enough”. After a decade of consultative work, eight government reports and inquiries, and countless publications and commentaries, the Uluru Statement continues to be played down as if it were a mere thought bubble, a convoluted work in progress that is in need of refinement. In the same interview, Morrison went on to say that the proposal as it stands now is “unworkable”. Throughout the ongoing movement towards constitutional reform, extensive effort has been invested into ensuring that the reforms proposed are achievable and practical. The Uluru Statement from the Heart represents the culmination of decades of work and proposes clear, concise, and relatively minimal constitutional changes that would translate to potentially significant outcomes for Indigenous Australians (Fredericks & Bradfield). International examples demonstrate how such reforms can translate into parliamentary and governing structures. The Treaty of Waitangi (Palmer) for example seeks to inform Māori and Pākehā (non-Maori) relationships in New Zealand/Aotearoa, whilst designated “Māori Seats” ensure Indigenous representation in parliament (Webster & Cheyne). More recently, 17 of 155 seats were reserved for Indigenous delegates as Chile re-writes its own constitution (Bartlett; Reuters). Indigenous communities and its leaders are more than aware of the necessity of working within the realms of possibility and the need to exhibit caution when presenting such reforms to the public. An expert panel on constitutional reform (Dodson 73), before the conception of the Uluru Statement, acknowledged this, stating “any proposal relating to constitutional recognition of the sovereign status of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples would be highly contested by many Australians, and likely to jeopardise broad public support for the Panel’s recommendations”. As outlined in the Joint Select Committee’s final report on Constitutional Recognition relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples (Referendum Council), the Voice to parliament would have no veto powers over parliamentary votes or decisions. It operates as a non-binding advisory body that remains external to parliamentary processes. Peak organisations such as the Law Council of Australia (Dolar) reiterate the fact that the proposed reforms are for a voice to Parliament rather than a voice in Parliament. Although not binding, the Voice should not be dismissed as symbolic or something that may be easily circumvented. Its effectiveness lies in its ability to place parliament in a position where they are forced to confront and address Indigenous questions, concerns, opinions, and suggestions within debates before decisions are made. Bursting the ‘Self-Referential Bubble’ Indigenous affairs continue to be one of the few areas where a rhetoric of bipartisan agreement is continuously referenced by both major parties. Disagreement, debate, and conflict is often avoided as governments seek to portray an image of unity, and in doing so, circumvent accusations of turning Indigenous peoples into the subjects of political point scoring. Within parliamentary debates, there is an understandable reservation and discomfort associated with discussions about what is often seen as an Indigenous “other” (Moreton-Robinson) and the policies that a predominantly white government enact over their lives. Yet, it is through rigorous, open, and informed debate that policies may be developed, challenged, and reformed. Although bipartisanship can portray an image of a united front in addressing a so-called “Indigenous problem”, it also stunts the conception of effective and culturally responsive policy. In other words, it often overlooks Indigenous voices. Whilst education and cultural competency plays a significant role within the reconciliation process, the most pressing obstacle is not necessarily non-Indigenous people’s inability to fully comprehend Indigenous lives and socio-cultural understandings. Even within an ideal world where non-Indigenous peoples attain a thorough understanding of Indigenous cultures, they will never truly comprehend what it means to be Indigenous (Fanon; de Sousa Santos). For non-Indigenous peoples, accepting one’s own limitations in fully comprehending Indigenous ontologies – and avoiding filling such gaps with one’s own interpretations and preconceptions – is a necessary component of decolonisation and the movement towards reconciliation (Grosfoguel; Mignolo). As parliament continues to be dominated by non-Indigenous representatives, structural changes are necessary to ensure that Indigenous voices are adequality represented. The structural reforms not only empower Indigenous voices through their inclusion within the parliamentary process but alleviates some of the pressures that arise out of non-Indigenous people having to make decisions in attempts to solve so-called Indigenous “problems”. Government response to constitutional reform, however, is ridden with symbolic piecemeal offerings that equate recognition to a form of acknowledgment without the structural changes necessary to protect and enshrine Indigenous Voices and parliamentary participation. Davis and her colleagues (Davis et al. “The Uluru Statement”) note how the Referendum Council’s recommendations were rejected by the then minister of Indigenous affairs Nigel Scullion on account that it privileged Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voices. They note that, until the Referendum Council's report, the nation had no real assessment of what communities wanted. Yet by all accounts, the government had spent too much time talking to elites who have regular access to them and purport to speak on the mob's behalf. If he [Scullion] got the sense constitutional symbolism and minimalism was going to fly, then it says a lot about the self-referential bubble in which the Canberra elites live. The Uluru Statement from the Heart stands as testament to Indigenous people’s refusal to be the passive recipients of the decisions of the non-Indigenous political elite. As suggested, “symbolism and minimalism was not going to fly”. Ken Wyatt, Scullion’s replacement, reiterated the importance of co-design, the limitations of government bureaucracy, and the necessity of moving beyond the “Canberra bubble”. Wyatt stated that the Voice is saying clearly that government and the bureaucracy does not know best. It can not be a Canberra-designed approach in the bubble of Canberra. We have to co-design with Aboriginal communities in the same way that we do with state and territory governments and the corporate sector. The Voice would be the mechanism through which Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander interests and perspectives may be strategically placed within parliamentary dialogues. Despite accusations of it operating as a “third chamber”, Indigenous representatives have no interest in functioning in a similar manner to a political party. The language associated with our current parliamentary system demonstrates the constrictive nature of political debate. Ministers are expected to “toe the party line”, “crossing the floor” is presented as an act of defiance, and members must be granted permission to enter a “conscience vote”. An Indigenous Voice to Parliament would be an advisory body that works alongside, but remains external to political ideologies. Their priority is to seek and implement the best outcome for their communities. Negotiations would be fluid, with no floor to cross, whilst a conscience vote would be reflected in every perspective gifted to the parliament. In the 2020 Australia and the World Annual Lecture, Pat Turner described the Voice’s co-design process as convoluted and a continuing example of the government’s neglect to hear and respond to Indigenous peoples’ interests. In the address, Turner points to the Coalition of the Peaks as an exemplar of how co-design negotiations may be facilitated by and through organisations entirely formed and run by Indigenous peoples. The Coalition of the Peaks comprises of fifty Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community-controlled peak organisations and was established to address concerns relating to closing the gap targets. As Indigenous peak organisations are accountable to their membership and reliant on government funding, some have questioned whether they are appropriate representative bodies; cautioning that they could potentially compromise the Voice as a community-centric body free from political interference. While there is some debate over which Indigenous representatives should facilitate the co-design of a treaty and Makarrata (truth-telling), there remains a unanimous call for a constitutionally enshrined Voice to Parliament that may lead negotiations and secure its place within decision-making processes. Makarrata, Garma, and the Bubbling of New Possibilities An Indigenous Voice to Parliament can be seen as the bubbling spring that provides the source for greater growth and further reform. The Uluru Statement from the Heart calls for a three-staged approach comprising of establishing an Indigenous Voice, followed by Treaty, and then Truth-Telling. This sequence has been criticised by some who prioritise Truth and Treaty as the foundation for reform and reconciliation. Their argument is based on the notion that Indigenous Sovereignty must first be acknowledged in Parliament through an agreement-making process and signing of a Treaty. While the Uluru Statement has never lost sight of treaty, the agreement-making process must begin with the acknowledgment of Indigenous people’s inherent right to participate in the conversation. This very basic and foundational right is yet to be acknowledged within Australia’s constitution. The Uluru Statement sets the Voice as its first priority as the Voice establishes the structural foundation on which the conversation pertaining to treaty may take place. It is through the Voice that a Makarrata Commission can be formed and Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples may “come together after a struggle” – the translation of the word’s Yolngu origins (Gaykamangu; Pearson). Only then may we engage in truth telling and forge new paths towards agreement-making and treaty. This however raises the question as to how a Voice to Parliament may look and what outcomes it aims to achieve. As discussed in the previous section, it is a question that is often distorted by disinformation and conjecture within public, political, and news-media discourses. In order to unpack what a Voice to Parliament may entail, we turn to another Yolngu word, Garma. Garma refers to an epistemic and ontological positioning in which knowledge is attained from a point where differences converge and new insights arise. For Yolngu people, Garma is the place where salt and fresh water intersect within the sea. Fresh and Salt water are the embodiments of two Yolngu clans, the Dhuwa and Yirritja, with Garma referring to the point where the knowledge and laws of each clan come into contact, seeking harmonious balance. When the ebb and flow of the tides are in balance, it causes the water to foam and bubble taking on new form and representing innovative ideas and possibilities. Yolngu embrace this phenomenon as an epistemology that teaches responsibility and obligations towards the care of Country. It acknowledges the autonomy of others and finds a space where all may mutually benefit. When the properties of either water type, or the knowledge belonging a single clan dominates, ecological, social, political, and cosmological balance is overthrown. Raymattja Marika-Munungguritj (5) describes Garma as a dynamic interaction of knowledge traditions. Fresh water from the land, bubbling up in fresh water springs to make waterholes, and salt water from the sea are interacting with each other with the energy of the tide and the energy of the bubbling spring. When the tide is high the water rises to its full. When the tide goes out the water reduces its capacity. In the same way Milngurr ebbs and flows. In this way the Dhuwa and Yirritja sides of Yolngu life work together. And in this way Balanda and Yolngu traditions can work together. There must be balance, if not either one will be stronger and will harm the other. The Ganma Theory is Yirritja, the Milngurr Theory is Dhuwa. Like the current push for constitutional change and its rejection of symbolic reforms, Indigenous peoples have demanded real-action and “not just talk” (Synott “The Uluru statement”). In doing so, they implored that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples be involved in all decision-making processes, for they are most knowledgeable of their community’s needs and the most effective methods of service delivery and policy. Indigenous peoples have repeatedly expressed this mandate, which is also legislated under international law through the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Coming together after a struggle does not mean that conflict and disagreement between and amongst Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities will cease. In fact, in alignment with political theories such as agonism and pluralism, coming together within a democratic system necessitates a constructive and responsive embrace of different, competing, and in some cases incommensurable views. A Voice to Parliament will operate in a manner where Indigenous perspectives and truths, as well as disagreements, may be included within negotiations and debates (Larkin & Galloway). Governments and non-Indigenous representatives will no longer speak for or on behalf of Indigenous peoples, for an Indigenous body will enact its own autonomous voice. Indigenous input therefore will not be reduced to reactionary responses and calls for reforms after the damage of mismanagement and policy failure has been caused. Indigenous voices will be permanently documented within parliamentary records and governments forced to respond to the agendas that Indigenous peoples set. Collectively, this amounts to greater participation within the democratic process and facilitates a space where “salt water” and the “bubbling springs” of fresh water may meet, mitigating the risk of harm, and bringing forth new possibilities. Conclusion When salt and fresh water combine during Garma, it begins to take on new form, eventually materialising as foam. Appearing as a singular solid object from afar, foam is but a cluster of interlocking bubbles that gain increased stability and equilibrium through sticking together. When a bubble stands alone, or a person remains within a figurative bubble that is isolated from its surroundings and other ways of knowing, doing, and being, its vulnerabilities and insecurities are exposed. Similarly, when one bubble bursts the collective cluster becomes weaker and unstable. The Uluru Statement from the Heart is a vision conceived and presented by Indigenous peoples in good faith. It offers a path forward for not only Indigenous peoples and their future generations but the entire nation (Synott “Constitutional Reform”). It is a gift and an invitation “to walk with us in a movement of the Australian people for a better future”. Through calling for the establishment of an Indigenous Voice to Parliament, a Makarrata Commission, and seeking Truth, Indigenous advocates for constitutional reform are looking to secure their own foothold and self-determination. The Uluru Statement from the Heart is more than a “thought bubble”, for it is the culmination of Indigenous people’s diverse lived experiences, outlooks, perspectives, and priorities. When the delegates met at Uluru in 2017, the thoughts, experiences, memories, and hopes of Indigenous peoples converged in a manner that created a unified front and collectively called for Voice, Treaty, and Truth. Indigenous people will never cease to pursue self-determination and the best outcomes for their peoples and all Australians. As an offering and gift, the Uluru Statement from the Heart provides the structural foundations needed to achieve this. It just requires governments and the wider public to move beyond their own bubbles and avail themselves of different outlooks and new possibilities. References Anderson, Pat, Megan Davis, and Noel Pearson. “Don’t Silence Our Voice, Minister: Uluru Leaders Condemn Backward Step.” Sydney Morning Herald 20 Oct. 2017. <https://www.smh.com.au/national/don-t-silence-our-voice-minister-uluru-leaders-condemn-backward-step-20191020-p532h0.html>. Appleby, Gabrielle, and Megan Davis. “The Uluru Statement and the Promises of Truth.” Australian Historical Studies 49.4 (2018): 501–9. Appleby, Gabrielle, and Gemma Mckinnon. “Indigenous Recognition: The Uluru Statement.” LSJ: Law Society of NSW Journal 37.36 (2017): 36-39. Appleby, Gabrielle, and Eddie Synot. “A First Nations Voice: Institutionalising Political Listening. Federal Law Review 48.4 (2020): 529-542. Bailes, Morry. “Why the Law Council Backs an Indigenous Voice to Parliament.” InDaily 31 July 2018. <https://indaily.com.au/opinion/2018/07/31/why-the-law-council-backs-an-indigenous-voice-to-parliament/>. Bartlett, John. "Chile’s Largest Indigenous Group Sees Opportunity in a New Constitution." New York Times, 16 Sep. 2020. 19 Nov. 2020 <https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/16/world/americas/chile-mapuche-constitution.html>. Brennan, Bridget. “Indigenous Leaders Enraged as Advisory Board Referendum is Rejected by Malcolm Turnbull.” ABC News 27 Oct. 2017. <https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-27/indigenous-leaders-enraged-by-pms-referendum-rejection/9090762>. Centre for Governance and Public Policy. OmniPoll Australian Constitutional Values Survey 2017. Griffith University: Centre for Governance and Public Policy, 30 Oct. 2017. <https://news.griffith.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Griffith-University-UNSW-Australian-Constitutional-Values-Survey-Sept-2017-Results-2.pdf>. Davidson, Helen, and Katherine Murphy. “Referendum Council Endorses Uluru Call for Indigenous Voice to Parliament.” The Guardian 17 July 2017. <https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/jul/17/referendum-council-endorses-uluru-call-indigenous-voice-parliament>. Davis, Megan. “Some Say a Voice to Parliament Is Toothless. But Together Our Voices Are Powerful.” The Guardian 13 Aug. 2020. <https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/aug/13/some-say-a-voice-to-parliament-is-toothless-but-together-our-voices-are-powerful>. ———. “No Time for the Meek.” The Monthly Oct. 2019. <https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2019/october/1569370776/megan-davis/no-time-meek>. ———. “Moment of Truth.” Quarterly Essay 69 (2019). <https://www.quarterlyessay.com.au/content/correspondence-megan-davis>. ———. “The Long Road to Uluru – Truth before Justice.” Griffith Review 2018. <https://www.griffithreview.com/articles/long-road-uluru-walking-together-truth-before-justice-megan-davis/>. ———. “The Status Quo Ain’t Working: The Uluru Statement from the Heart Is the Blueprint for an Australian Republic.” The Monthly 7 June 2018. <https://www.themonthly.com.au/blog/megan-davis/2018/07/2018/1528335353/status-quo-ain-t-working>. Davis, Megan, Rosalind Dixon, Gabrielle Appleby, and Noel Pearson. “The Uluru Statement.” Bar News: The Journal of the NSW Bar Association Autumn (2018): 41–48. <https://search-informit-com.au.ezproxy.library.uq.edu.au/fullText;dn=20180726000224;res=AGISPT>. Davis, Megan, Cheryl Saunders, Mark McKenna, Shireen Morris, Christopher Mayes, and Maria Giannacopoulos. “The Uluru Statement from Heart, One Year On: Can a First Nations Voice Yet Be Heard?” ABC Religion and Ethics 26 May 2018. <https://www.abc.net.au/religion/the-uluru-statement-from-heart-one-year-on-can-a-first-nations-v/10094678>. De Sousa Santos, Boaventura. Epistemologies of the South: Justice against Epistemicide. Routledge, 2015. Dodson, P. 2012. Recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in the Constitution: Report of the Expert Panel. <http://australianpolitics.com/downloads/issues/indigenous/12-01-16_indigenous-recognition-expert-panel-report.pdf>. Dolar, Sol. “Law Council Explains Government’s Key Misunderstanding of the Uluru Statement.” Australasian Lawyer 5 Nov. 2019. <https://www.thelawyermag.com/au/news/general/law-council-explains-governments-key-misunderstanding-of-the-uluru-statement/208247?m=1>. Fanon, Frantz. The Wretched of the Earth. Macgibbon & Kee, 1965. Fredericks, Bronwyn, and Abraham Bradfield. “We Don’t Want to Go Back to ‘Normal’, When ‘Normal’ Wasn’t Good for Everyone.” Axon: Creative Explorations 10.2 (2020). <https://www.axonjournal.com.au/issue-vol-10-no-2-dec-2020/we-don-t-want-go-back-normal-when-normal-wasn-t-good-everyone>. Ford, Mazoe, and Clare Blumer. “Vote Compass: Most Australians Back Constitutional Recognition for Indigenous Australians.” ABC News 20 May 2016. <https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-20/vote-compass-indigenous-recognition/7428030?nw=0>. Gaykamangu, James, and Danial Terence Kelly. “Ngarra Law: Aboriginal Customary Law from Arnhem Land.” Northern Territory Law Journal 2.4 (2012): 236-248. Grant, Stan. “Three Years on From Uluru, We Must Lift the Blindfolds of Liberalism to Make Progress.” The Conversation 25 May 2020. <https://theconversation.com/three-years-on-from-uluru-we-must-lift-the-blindfolds-of-liberalism-to-make-progress-138930>. Grosfoguel, Ramón. "Decolonizing Post-Colonial Studies and Paradigms of Political Economy: Transmodernity, Decolonial Thinking, and Global Coloniality." Transmodernity 1.1 (2011): 1-36. Hunter, Fergus. “'It's Not Going to Happen': Barnaby Joyce Rejects Push for Aboriginal Body in Constitution.” Sydney Morning Herald 29 May 2017. <https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/its-not-going-to-happen-barnaby-joyce-rejects-push-for-aboriginal-body-in-constitution-20170529-gwf5ld.html>. Karp, Paul. “Scott Morrison Claims Indigenous Voice to Parliament Would Be a Third Chamber.” The Guardian, 26 Sep. 2018. <https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/sep/26/scott-morrison-claims-indigenous-voice-to-parliament-would-be-a-third-chamber>. Koziol, Michael. “Joyce Admits He Was Wrong to Call Indigenous Voice a 'Third Chamber’.” Sydney Morning Herald 18 July 2019. <https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/barnaby-joyce-admits-he-was-wrong-to-call-indigenous-voice-a-third-chamber-20190718-p528ki.html>. Larkin, Dani, and Kate Galloway. “Uluru Statement from the Heart: Australian Public Law Pluralism.” Bond Law Review 30.2 (2018): 335–345. Law Council of Australia. “Nothing ‘Un-Australian’ about Human Rights, the Constitution and the Rule of Law.” 14 Aug. 2017. <https://www.lawcouncil.asn.au/media/media-releases/nothing-unaustralian-about-human-rights-the-constitution-and-the-rule-of-law>. Law Council of Australia. “Law Council Supports Calls for Voice to Parliament.” 15 June 2018. <https://www.lawcouncil.asn.au/media/media-releases/law-council-supports-calls-for-voice-to-parliament>. Marika-Munugurritj, Raymattja. Workshops as Teaching Learning Environments. Paper presented to Yirrkala Action Group, 1992. Martin, Wayne AC. Constitutional Law Dinner 2018 Address by Wayne Martin AC Chief Justice of Western Australia. Sydney: Parliament House, 23 Feb. 2018. Mignolo, Walter. Local Histories/Global Designs: Coloniality, Subaltern Knowledges, and Border Thinking. Princeton University Press, 2012. Moreton-Robinson, Aileen. The White Possessive: Property, Power, and Indigenous Sovereignty. U of Minnesota P, 2015. Norman, Heidi. “From Recognition to Reform: The Uluru Statement from the Heart.” Does the Media Fail Aboriginal Political Aspirations? Eds. Amy Thomas, Andrew Jakubowicz, and Heidi Norman. Canberra: Aboriginal Studies Press, 2019. 216–231. Pearson, Luke. “What Is a Makarrata? The Yolngu Word Is More than a Synonym for Treaty.” ABC Radio National 10 Aug. 2017. <https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-10/makarrata-explainer-yolngu-word-more-than-synonym-for-treaty/8790452>. Praiser, Eli. The Filter Bubble: How the New Personalized Web Is Changing What We Read and How We Think. Penguin, 2012. Prime Minister, Attorney General, and Minister for Indigenous Affairs. Response to Referendum Council's Report on Constitutional Recognition. 26 Oct. 2017. <https://www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/media/response-to-referendum-councils-report-on-constitutional-recognition>. Prime Minister of Australia. Radio interview with Fran Kelly. ABC Radio National 26 Sep 2018. <https://www.pm.gov.au/media/radio-interview-fran-kelly-abc-rn>. Reconciliation Australia. 2020 Australian Reconciliation Barometer, 2020. <https://www.reconciliation.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/australian_reconciliation_barometer_2020_-full-report_web.pdf>. Referendum Council. Referendum Council Final Report, 2017. <https://www.referendumcouncil.org.au/sites/default/files/report_attachments/Referendum_Council_Final_Report.pdf>. Reuters. "Chile Reserves Seats for Indigenous as It Prepares to Rewrite Constitution." Reuters, 16 Dec. 2020. 19 Nov. 2020 <https://www.reuters.com/article/chile-constitution-indigenous-idUSKBN28Q05J>. Rose Gould, Wendy. “Are You in a Social Media Bubble? Here's How to Tell.” NBC News 22 Oct. 2019. <https://www.nbcnews.com/better/lifestyle/problem-social-media-reinforcement-bubbles-what-you-can-do-about-ncna1063896>. Rubenstein, Kim. “Power, Control and Citizenship: The Uluru Statement from the Heart as Active Citizenship.” Bond Law Review 30.1 (2018): 19-29. Synott, Eddie. “The Uluru Statement Showed How to Give First Nations People a Real Voice – Now It’s the Time for Action.” The Conversation 5 Mar. 2019. <https://theconversation.com/the-uluru statement-showed-how-to-give-first-nations-people-a-real-voice-now-its-time-for-action-110707>. ———. “Constitutional Reform Made Easy: How to Achieve the Uluru Statement and a Voice.” The Conversation 7 May 2019. <https://theconversation.com/constitutional-reform-made-easy-how-to-achieve-the-uluru-statement-and-a-first-nations-voice-116141>. Turner, Pat. “The Long Cry of Indigenous Peoples to Be Heard – a Defining Moment in Australia.” The 'Australia and the World' 2020 Annual Lecture. National Press Club of Australia, 30 Sep. 2020. <https://ausi.anu.edu.au/events/australia-and-world-2020-annual-lecture-pat-turner-am>. Wahlquist, Calla. “A Year On, the Key Goal of Uluru Statement Remains Elusive.” The Guardian 26 May 2018. <https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/may/26/a-year-on-the-key-goal-of-uluru-statement-remains-elusive>. ———. “Barnaby Joyce Criticised for Misinterpreting Proposed Indigenous Voice to Parliament.” The Guardian 29 May 2017. <https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/may/29/barnaby-joyce-criticised-for-misinterpreting-proposed-indigenous-voice-to-parliament>. ———. “Indigenous Voice Proposal ‘Not Desirable’, Says Turnbull.” The Guardian 26 Oct. 2017. <https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/oct/26/indigenous-voice-proposal-not-desirable-says-turnbull>. ———. “Turnbull’s Uluru Statement Rejection Is ‘Mean-Spirited Bastardry’ – Legal Expert.” The Guardian 26 Oct. 2017. <https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/oct/26/turnbulls-uluru-statement-rejection-mean-spirited-bastardry-legal-expert>. Wyatt, Ken. “Indigenous Australia: A New Way of Working.” 15 Sep. 2020. <https://ministers.pmc.gov.au/wyatt/2020/indigenous-australia-new-way-working>. Yunupingu, Galarrwuy. “Rom Watangu: An Indigenous Leader Reflects on a Lifetime Following the Law of the Land.” The Monthly (2016). Zillman, Stephanie. “Indigenous Advisory Body Would Be Supported by Australians, Survey Finds.” ABC News 30 Oct. 2017. <https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-30/australians-would-support-referendum-indigenous-voice-parliament/9101106>.

IntroductionThe debate about the responsibility of museums to respect Indigenous peoples’ rights (Kelly and Gordon; Butts) has caught our attention on the basis of our previous research experience with regard to the protection of the tangible and intangible heritage of the San (former hunter gatherers) in Southern Africa (Martin and Vermeylen; Vermeylen, Contextualising; Vermeylen, Life Force; Vermeylen et al.; Vermeylen, Land Rights). This paper contributes to the critical debate about curatorial practices and the recovery of Indigenous peoples’ cultural practices and explores how museums can be transformed into cultural centres that “decolonise” their objects while simultaneously providing social agency to marginalised groups such as the San. Indigenous MuseumTraditional methods of displaying Indigenous heritage are now regarded with deep suspicion and resentment by Indigenous peoples (Simpson). A number of related issues such as the appropriation, ownership and repatriation of culture together with the treatment of sensitive and sacred materials and the stereotyping of Indigenous peoples’ identity (Carter; Simpson) have been identified as the main problems in the debate about museum curatorship and Indigenous heritage. The poignant question remains whether the concept of a classical museum—in the sense of how it continues to classify, value and display non-Western artworks—will ever be able to provide agency to Indigenous peoples as long as “their lives are reduced to an abstract set of largely arbitrary material items displayed without much sense of meaning” (Stanley 3). Indeed, as Salvador has argued, no matter how much Indigenous peoples have been involved in the planning and implementation of an exhibition, some issues remain problematic. First, there is the problem of representation: who speaks for the group; who should make decisions and under what circumstances; when is it acceptable for “outsiders” to be involved? Furthermore, Salvador raises another area of contestation and that is the issue of intention. As we agree with Salvador, no matter how good the intention to include Indigenous peoples in the curatorial practices, the fact that Indigenous peoples may have a (political) perspective about the exhibition that differs from the ideological foundation of the museum enterprise, is, indeed, a challenge that must not be overlooked in the discussion of the inclusive museum. This relates to, arguably, one of the most important challenges in respect to the concept of an Indigenous museum: how to present the past and present without creating an essentialising “Other”? As Stanley summarises, the modernising agenda of the museum, including those museums that claim to be Indigenous museums, continues to be heavily embedded in the belief that traditional cultural beliefs, practices and material manifestations must be saved. In other words, exhibitions focusing on Indigenous peoples fail to show them as dynamic, living cultures (Simpson). This raises the issue that museums recreate the past (Sepúlveda dos Santos) while Indigenous peoples’ interests can be best described “in terms of contemporaneity” (Bolton qtd. in Stanley 7). According to Bolton, Indigenous peoples’ interest in museums can be best understood in terms of using these (historical) collections and institutions to address contemporary issues. Or, as Sepúlveda dos Santos argues, in order for museums to be a true place of memory—or indeed a true place of recovery—it is important that the museum makes the link between the past and contemporary issues or to use its objects in such a way that these objects emphasize “the persistence of lived experiences transmitted through generations” (29). Under pressure from Indigenous rights movements, the major aim of some museums is now reconciliation with Indigenous peoples which, ultimately, should result in the return of the cultural objects to the originators of these objects (Kelly and Gordon). Using the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGPRA) as an illustration, we argue that the whole debate of returning or recovering Indigenous peoples’ cultural objects to the original source is still embedded in a discourse that emphasises the mummified aspect of these materials. As Harding argues, NAGPRA is provoking an image of “native Americans as mere passive recipients of their cultural identity, beholden to their ancestors and the museum community for the re-creation of their cultures” (137) when it defines cultural patrimony as objects having ongoing historical, traditional or cultural importance, central to the Native American group or culture itself. According to Harding (2005) NAGPRA’s dominating narrative focuses on the loss, alienation and cultural genocide of the objects as long as these are not returned to their originators. The recovery or the return of the objects to their “original” culture has been applauded as one of the most liberating and emancipatory events in recent years for Indigenous peoples. However, as we have argued elsewhere, the process of recovery needs to do more than just smother the object in its past; recovery can only happen when heritage or tradition is connected to the experience of everyday life. One way of achieving this is to move away from the objectification of Indigenous peoples’ cultures. ObjectificationIn our exploratory enquiry about new museum practices our attention was drawn to a recent debate about ownership and personhood within the context of museology (Busse; Baker; Herle; Bell; Geismar). Busse, in particular, makes the point that in order to reformulate curatorial practices it is important to redefine the concept and meaning of objects. While the above authors do not question the importance of the objects, they all argue that the real importance does not lie in the objects themselves but in the way these objects embody the physical manifestation of social relations. The whole idea that objects matter because they have agency and efficacy, and as such become a kind of person, draws upon recent anthropological theorising by Gell and Strathern. Furthermore, we have not only been inspired by Gell’s and Strathern’s approaches that suggests that objects are social persons, we have also been influenced by Appadurai’s and Kopytoff’s defining of objects as biographical agents and therefore valued because of the associations they have acquired throughout time. We argue that by framing objects in a social network throughout its lifecycle we can avoid the recurrent pitfalls of essentialising objects in terms of their “primitive” or “traditional” (aesthetic) qualities and mystifying the identity of Indigenous peoples as “noble savages.” Focusing more on the social network that surrounds a particular object opens up new avenues of enquiry as to how, and to what extent, museums can become more inclusive vis-à-vis Indigenous peoples. It allows moving beyond the current discourse that approaches the history of the (ethnographic) museum from only one dominant perspective. By tracing an artwork throughout its lifecycle a new metaphor can be discovered; one that shows that Indigenous peoples have not always been victims, but maybe more importantly it allows us to show a more complex narrative of the object itself. It gives us the space to counterweight some of the discourses that have steeped Indigenous artworks in a “postcolonial” framework of sacredness and mythical meaning. This is not to argue that it is not important to be reminded of the dangers of appropriating other cultures’ heritage, but we would argue that it is equally important to show that approaching a story from a one-sided perspective will create a dualism (Bush) and reducing the differences between different cultures to a dualistic opposition fails to recognise the fundamental areas of agency (Morphy). In order for museums to enliven and engage with objects, they must become institutions that emphasise a relational approach towards displaying and curating objects. In the next part of this paper we will explore to what extent an online museum could progressively facilitate the process of providing agency to the social relations that link objects, persons, environments and memories. As Solanilla argues, what has been described as cybermuseology may further transform the museum landscape and provide an opportunity to challenge some of the problems identified above (e.g. essentialising practices). Or to quote the museologist Langlais: “The communication and interaction possibilities offered by the Web to layer information and to allow exploration of multiple meanings are only starting to be exploited. In this context, cybermuseology is known as a practice that is knowledge-driven rather than object-driven, and its main goal is to disseminate knowledge using the interaction possibilities of Information Communication Technologies” (Langlais qtd. in Solanilla 108). One thing which shows promise and merits further exploration is the idea of transforming the act of exhibiting ethnographic objects accompanied by texts and graphics into an act of cyber discourse that allows Indigenous peoples through their own voices and gestures to involve us in their own history. This is particularly the case since Indigenous peoples are using technologies, such as the Internet, as a new medium through which they can recuperate their histories, land rights, knowledge and cultural heritage (Zimmerman et al.). As such, new technology has played a significant role in the contestation and formation of Indigenous peoples’ current identity by creating new social and political spaces through visual and narrative cultural praxis (Ginsburg).Online MuseumsIt has been acknowledged for some time that a presence on the Web might mitigate the effects of what has been described as the “unassailable voice” in the recovery process undertaken by museums (Walsh 77). However, a museum’s online engagement with an Indigenous culture may have significance beyond undercutting the univocal authority of a museum. In the case of the South African National Gallery it was charged with challenging the extent to which it represents entrenched but unacceptable political ideologies. Online museums may provide opportunities in the conservation and dissemination of “life stories” that give an account of an Indigenous culture as it is experienced (Solanilla 105). We argue that in engaging with Indigenous cultural heritage a distinction needs to be drawn between data and the cognitive capacity to learn, “which enables us to extrapolate and learn new knowledge” (Langlois 74). The problem is that access to data about an Indigenous culture does not necessarily lead to an understanding of its knowledge. It has been argued that cybermuseology loses the essential interpersonal element that needs to be present if intangible heritage is understood as “the process of making sense that is generally transmitted orally and through face-to-face experience” (Langlois 78). We agree that the online museum does not enable a reality to be reproduced (Langlois 78).This does not mean that cybermuseology should be dismissed. Instead it provides the opportunity to construct a valuable, but completely new, experience of cultural knowledge (Langlois 78). The technology employed in cybermuseology provides the means by which control over meaning may, at least to some extent, be dispersed (Langlois 78). In this way online museums provide the opportunity for Indigenous peoples to challenge being subjected to manipulation by one authoritative museological voice. One of the ways this may be achieved is through interactivity by enabling the use of social tagging and folksonomy (Solanilla 110; Trant 2). In these processes keywords (tags) are supplied and shared by visitors as a means of accessing museum content. These tags in turn give rise to a classification system (folksonomy). In the context of an online museum engaging with an Indigenous culture we have reservations about the undifferentiated interactivity on the part of all visitors. This issue may be investigated further by examining how interactivity relates to communication. Arguably, an online museum is engaged in communicating Indigenous cultural heritage because it helps to keep it alive and pass it on to others (Langlois 77). However, enabling all visitors to structure online access to that culture may be detrimental to the communication of knowledge that might otherwise occur. The narratives by which Indigenous cultures, rather than visitors, order access to information about their cultures may lead to the communication of important knowledge. An illustration of the potential of this approach is the work Sharon Daniel has been involved with, which enables communities to “produce knowledge and interpret their own experience using media and information technologies” (Daniel, Palabras) partly by means of generating folksonomies. One way in which such issues may be engaged with in the context of online museums is through the argument that database and narrative in such new media objects are opposed to each other (Manovich, New Media 225). A new media work such as an online museum may be understood to be comprised of a database and an interface to that database. A visitor to an online museum may only move through the content of the database by following those paths that have been enabled by those who created the museum (Manovich, New Media 227). In short it is by means of the interface provided to the viewer that the content of the database is structured into a narrative (Manovich, New Media: 226). It is possible to understand online museums as constructions in which narrative and database aspects are emphasized to varying degrees for users. There are a variety of museum projects in which the importance of the interface in creating a narrative interface has been acknowledged. Goldblum et al. describe three examples of websites in which interfaces may be understood as, and explicitly designed for, carrying meaning as well as enabling interactivity: Life after the Holocaust; Ripples of Genocide; and Yearbook 2006.As with these examples, we suggest that it is important there be an explicit engagement with the significance of interface(s) for online museums about Indigenous peoples. The means by which visitors access content is important not only for the way in which visitors interact with material, but also as to what is communicated about, culture. It has been suggested that the curator’s role should be moved away from expertly representing knowledge toward that of assisting people outside the museum to make “authored statements” within it (Bennett 11). In this regard it seems to us that involvement of Indigenous peoples with the construction of the interface(s) to online museums is of considerable significance. Pieterse suggests that ethnographic museums should be guided by a process of self-representation by the “others” portrayed (Pieterse 133). Moreover it should not be forgotten that, because of the separation of content and interface, it is possible to have access to a database of material through more than one interface (Manovich, New Media 226-7). Online museums provide a means by which the artificial homogenization of Indigenous peoples may be challenged.We regard an important potential benefit of an online museum as the replacement of accessing material through the “unassailable voice” with the multiplicity of Indigenous voices. A number of ways to do this are suggested by a variety of new media artworks, including those that employ a database to rearrange information to reveal underlying cultural positions (Paul 100). Paul discusses the work of, amongst others, George Legrady. She describes how it engages with the archive and database as sites that record culture (104-6). Paul specifically discusses Legrady’s work Slippery Traces. This involved viewers navigating through more than 240 postcards. Viewers of work were invited to “first chose one of three quotes appearing on the screen, each of which embodies a different perspective—anthropological, colonialist, or media theory—and thus provides an interpretive angle for the experience of the projects” (104-5). In the same way visitors to an online museum could be provided with a choice of possible Indigenous voices by which its collection might be experienced. We are specifically interested in the implications that such approaches have for the way in which online museums could engage with film. Inspired by Basu’s work on reframing ethnographic film, we see the online museum as providing the possibility of a platform to experiment with new media art in order to expose the meta-narrative(s) about the politics of film making. As Basu argues, in order to provoke a feeling of involvement with the viewer, it is important that the viewer becomes aware “of the plurality of alternative readings/navigations that they might have made” (105). As Weinbren has observed, where a fixed narrative pathway has been constructed by a film, digital technology provides a particularly effective means to challenge it. It would be possible to reveal the way in which dominant political interests regarding Indigenous cultures have been asserted, such as for example in the popular film The Gods Must Be Crazy. New media art once again provides some interesting examples of the way ideology, that might otherwise remain unclear, may be exposed. Paul describes the example of Jennifer and Kevin McCoy’s project How I learned. The work restructures a television series Kung Fu by employing “categories such as ‘how I learned about blocking punches,’ ‘how I learned about exploiting workers,’ or ‘how I learned to love the land’” (Paul 103) to reveal in greater clarity, than otherwise might be possible, the cultural stereotypes used in the visual narratives of the program (Paul 102-4). We suggest that such examples suggest the ways in which online museums could work to reveal and explore the existence not only of meta-narratives expressed by museums as a whole, but also the means by which they are realised within existing items held in museum collections.ConclusionWe argue that the agency for such reflective moments between the San, who have been repeatedly misrepresented or underrepresented in exhibitions and films, and multiple audiences, may be enabled through the generation of multiple narratives within online museums. We would like to make the point that, first and foremost, the theory of representation must be fully understood and acknowledged in order to determine whether, and how, modes of online curating are censorious. As such we see online museums having the potential to play a significant role in illuminating for both the San and multiple audiences the way that any form of representation or displaying restricts the meanings that may be recovered about Indigenous peoples. ReferencesAppadurai, Arjun. The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1986. Bal, Mieke. “Exhibition as Film.” Exhibition Experiments. Ed. Sharon Macdonald and Paul Basu. Malden: Blackwell Publishing 2007. 71-93. Basu, Paul. “Reframing Ethnographic Film.” Rethinking Documentary. Eds. Thomas Austin and Wilma de Jong. Maidenhead: Open U P, 2008. 94-106.Barringer, Tim, and Tom Flynn. Colonialism and the Object: Empire, Material Culture and the Museum. London: Routledge, 1998. Baxandall, Michael. "Exhibiting Intention: Some Preconditions of the Visual Display of Culturally Purposeful Objects." Exhibiting Cultures. Ed. Ivan Karp and Steven Lavine. Washington: Smithsonian Institution P. 1991. 33-41.Bell, Joshua. “Promiscuous Things: Perspectives on Cultural Property through Photographs in the Purari Delta of Papa New Guinea.” International Journal of Cultural Property 15 (2008): 123-39.Bennett, Tony. “The Political Rationality of the Museum.” Continuum: The Australian Journal of Media & Culture 3 No.1 (1990). 8 Oct. 2008 ‹http://wwwmcc.murdoch.edu.au/ReadingRoom/3.1/Bennett.html›. Bolton, Lissant. “The Object in View: Aborigines, Melanesians and Museums.” Emplaced Myth: Space, Narrative and Knowledge in Australia and Papua New Guinea. Eds. Alan Rumsey & James Weiner. Honolulu: U of Hawai`i P. 2001. 215-32. Bush, Martin. “Shifting Sands: Museum Representations of Science and Indigenous Knowledge Traditions.” Open Museum Journal 7 (2005). 8 Oct. 2008 ‹http://archive.amol.org.au/craft/omjournal/volume7/docs/MBush_ab.asp?ID=›.Busse, Mark. “Museums and the Things in Them Should Be Alive.” International Journal of Cultural Property 15 (2008): 189-200.Butts, David. “Māori and Museums: the Politics of Indigenous Recognition.” Museums, Society and Inequality. Ed. Richard Sandell. London: Routledge, 2002. 225-43.Casey, Dawn. “Culture Wars: Museums, Politics and Controversy.” Open Museum Journal 6 (2003). 8 Oct. 2008 ‹http://archive.amol.org.au/omj/volume6/casey.pdf›.Carter, J. “Museums and Indigenous Peoples in Canada.” Museums and the Appropriation of Culture. Ed. Susan Pearce. London: Athlone P, 1994. 213-33.Carolin, Clare, and Cathy Haynes. “The Politics of Display: Ann-Sofi Sidén’s Warte Mal!, Art History and Social Documentary.” Exhibition Experiments. Eds. Sharon Macdonald and Paul Basu. Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2007. 154-74.Cooper, Jonathan. “Beyond the On-line Museum: Participatory Virtual Exhibitions.” Museums and the Web 2006: Proceedings. Eds. Jennifer Trant and David Bearman. Albuquerque: Archives & Museum Informatics, 2006. 8 Oct. 2008 ‹www.archimuse.com/mw2006/papers/cooper/cooper.html›.Daniel, Sharon. “The Database: An Aesthetics of Dignity.” Database Aesthetics: Art in the Age of Information Overflow. Ed. Victoria Vesner. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 2007. 142-82.Daniel, Sharon, and Casa Segura. “Need_ X_ Change.” 8 Oct. 2008 ‹http://arts.ucsc.edu/sdaniel/need/›.Daniel, Sharon. “Palabras” 8 Oct. 2008 ‹http://palabrastranquilas.ucsc.edu/›.Daniel, Sharon, and Erik Loyer. “Public Secrets.” Vectors. Winter (2007). 8 Oct. 2008 ‹http://vectors.usc.edu/index.php?page=7&projectId=57›.Dietz, Steve. “Curating (on) the Web.” Museums and the Web 1998: Proceedings. Eds. Jennifer Trant and David Bearman. Toronto: Archives & Museum Informatics, 1998. 8 Oct. 2008 ‹http://www.archimuse.com/mw98/papers/dietz/dietz_curatingtheweb.html›.Dietz, Steve. “Telling Stories: Procedural Authorship and Extracting Meanings from Museum Databases.” Museums and the Web 1999: Proceedings. Eds. Jennifer Trant and David Bearman. New Orleans: Archives & Museum Informatics, 1999. 8 Oct. 2008 ‹http://www.archimuse.com/mw99/papers/dietz/dietz.html›.Gell, Alfred. Art and Agency: An Anthropological Theory. Oxford: Clarendon P, 1998.Geismar, Haidy. (2008) “Cultural Property, Museums, and the Pacific: Reframing the Debates.” International Journal of Cultural Property 15: 109-22.Ginsburg, Faye. “Resources of Hope: Learning from the Local in a Transnational Era.” Indigenous Cultures in an Interconnected World. Ed. Claire Smith & Graeme Ward. St Leonards: Allen & Unwin, 2000. 27-47.Goldblum, Josh, Adele O’Dowd, and Traci Sym. “Considerations and Strategies for Creating Interactive Narratives.” Museums and the Web 2007: Proceedings. Ed. Jennifer Trant and David Bearman. Toronto: Archives & Museum Informatics, 2007. 8 Oct. 2008 ‹www.archimuse.com/mw2007/papers/goldblum/goldblum.html›.Guenther, Matthias. “Contemporary Bushman Art, Identity Politics, and the Primitive Discourse.” The Politics of Egalitarianism: Theory and Practice. Ed. Jacqueline Solway. New York: Berghahn Books, 2006. 159-88. Harding, Sarah. “Culture, Commodification, and Native American Cultural Patrimony.” Rethinking Commodification: Cases and Readings in Law and Culture. Ed. Martha Ertman and Joan Williams. New York: New York U P, 2005. 137-63.Herle, Anita. “Relational Objects: Connecting People and Things through Pasifika Styles.” International Journal of Cultural Property 15 (2008): 159-79.Hoopes, John. “The Future of the Past: Archaeology and Anthropology on the World Wide Web.” Archives and Museum Informatics 11 (1997): 87-105.“South African National Gallery.” Iziko: Museums of Cape Town. 8 Oct. 2008 ‹http://www.iziko.org.za/iziko/ourname.html›.Jones, Anna. “Exploding Canons: The Anthropology of Museums.” Annual Review of Anthropology 22 (1993): 201-20. Kelly, Lynda, and Phil Gordon. “Developing a Community of Practice: Museums and Reconciliation in Australia.” Museums, Society and Inequality. Ed. Richard Sandell. London: Routledge, 2002. 153-74.Kopytoff, Igor. “The Cultural Biography of Things: Commoditization as Process.” The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective. Ed. Arjun Appadurai. Cambridge: Harvard U P, 1986. 64-91. Kreps, Christina. Theorising Cultural Heritage. Indigenous Curation as Intangible Cultural Heritage: Thoughts on the Relevance of the 2003 UNESCO Convention. Washington: Smithsonian Center for Folklife and Cultural Heritage, 2005.Langlois, Dominique. “Cybermuseology and Intangible Cultural Heritage.” Intersection Conference 2005. York U: Toronto, 2005. 8 Oct. 2008 ‹http://yorku.ca/topia/docs/conference/langlais.pdf›.“Life after the Holocaust.” United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. 8 Oct. 2008 ‹http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/online/life_after_holocaust/›.Manovich, Lev. The Language of New Media. Cambridge: MIT P, 2001.———. Making Art of Databases. Rotterdam: V2_Publishing/NAi Publishers, 2003.Martin, George, and Saskia Vermeylen. “Intellectual Property, Indigenous Knowledge, and Biodiversity.” Capitalism Nature Socialism 16 (2005): 27-48. Martínez, David. “Re-visioning the Hopi Fourth World: Dan Namingha, Indigenous Modernism, and the Hopivotskwani.” Art History 29 (2006): 145-72. McGee, Julie. “Restructuring South African Museums: Reality and Rhetoric within Cape Town.” New Museum Theory and Practice: An Introduction. Ed. Janet Marstine. Oxford: Blackwell, 2006. 178-99.McTavish, Lianne. “Visiting the Virtual Museum: Art and Experience Online.” New Museum Theory and Practice: An Introduction. Ed. Janet Marstine. Oxford: Blackwell, 2006. 226-45.Morphy, Howard. “Elite Art for Cultural Elites: Adding Value to Indigenous Arts.” Indigenous Cultures in an Interconnected World. Ed. Claire Smith and Graeme Ward. St Leonards: Allen & Unwin, 2000. 129- 43.Paul, Christiane. “The Database as System and Cultural Form: Anatomies of Cultural Narratives.” Database Aesthetics: Art in the Age of Information Overflow. Ed. Victoria Vesner. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 2007. 95-109.Pearce, Susan. Museums and the Appropriation of Culture. London: Athlone P, 1994.Pieterse, Jan Nederveen. “Multiculturalism and Museums: Discourse about Others in the Age of Globalisation.” Theory, Culture & Society 14. 4 (1997): 123-46.“Ripples of Genocide: Journey through Eastern Congo.” United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. 8 Oct. 2008 ‹www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/online/congojournal›.Salvador, Mari Lyn. “‘The Kuna Way’: Museums, Exhbitions, and the Politics of Representation of Kuna Art.” Museum Anthropology 18 (1994): 48-52. Samis, Peter. “Artwork as Interface” Archives and Museum Informatics 13.2 (1999): 191-98.Sandell, Richard. “Museums and the Combating of Social Inequality: Roles, Responsibilities, Resistance.” Museums, Society and Inequality. Ed. Richard Sandell. London: Routledge, 2002. 3-23.Seaman, Bill. “Recombinant Poetics and Related Database Aesthetics.” Database Aesthetics: Art in the Age of Information Overflow. Ed. Victoria Vesner. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 2007. 121-41.Sepúlveda dos Santos, Myrian. “Museums and Memory: The Enchanted Modernity.” Journal for Cultural Research 7 (2003): 27-46.Simpson, Moira. Making Representations. Museums in the Post-Colonial Era. London: Routledge, 2001.Skotnes, Pippa. “The Politics of Bushman Representations.” Images and Empires: Visuality in Colonial and Postcolonial Africa. Ed. Paul Landau and Deborah Kaspin. London: U of London P, 2002. 253-74.Sledge, Jane. “Stewarding Potential.” First Monday 12.7 (2007). 8 Oct. 2008 ‹http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue12_7/sledge/index.html›.Solanilla, Laura. “The Internet as a Tool for Communicating Life Stories: A New Challenge for Memory Institutions.” International Journal for Intangible Heritage 3 (2008): 103-16.Stalbaum, Brett. “An Interpretive Framework for Contemporary Database Practice in the Arts.” (2004). 8 Oct. 2008 ‹http://www.cityarts.com/paulc/database/Database_Stalbaum.doc›.Suzman, James. An Introduction to the Regional Assessment of the Status of the San in Southern Africa. Windhoek: Legal Assistance Centre, 2001.Stanley, Nick. “Introduction: Indigeneity and Museum Practice in the Southwest Pacific.” The Future of Indigenous Museums: Perspectives from the Southwest Pacific. Ed. Nick Stanley. New York: Berghahn Books, 2007. 1-37. Strathern, Marilyn. Property, Substance and Effect: Anthropological Essays on Persons and Things. London: Athlone, 1999. The Gods Must Be Crazy. Dir. Jamie Uys. Mimosa Films, 1980.Tomaselli, Keyan. “Rereading the Gods Must be Crazy Films.” Visual Anthropology 19 (2006):171-200.Trant, Jennifer. “Exploring the Potential for Social Tagging and Folksonomy in Art Museums: Proof of Concept.” New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia 12.1 (2006). 8 Oct. 2008 ‹www.archimuse.com/papers/steve-nrhm-0605preprint.pdf›.Vermeylen, Saskia. “Contextualising ‘Fair’ and ‘Equitable’: the San’s Reflections on the Hoodia Benefit Sharing Agreement.” Local Environment 12.4 (2007): 1-14.———. “From Life Force to Slimming Aid: Exploring Views on the Commodification of Traditional Medicinal Knowledge.” Applied Geography 28 (2008): 224-35.———. Martin, George, and Roland Clift. “Intellectual Property Rights Systems and the ‘Assemblage’ of Local Knowledge Systems.” International Journal of Cultural Property 15 (2008): 201-21.———. “Land Rights and the Legacy of Colonialism.” Community Consent and Benefit-Sharing: Learning Lessons from the San Hoodia Case Ed. Rachel Wynberg and Roger Chennells. Berlin: Springer. Forthcoming.———, and Jeremy Pilcher. Indigenous Cultural Heritage and the Virtual Museum. Conference Paper. International Conference on the Inclusive Museum. Leiden, The Netherlands. 8-11 June 2008.Walsh, Peter. “The Web and the Unassailable Voice.” Archives and Museum Informatics 11 (1997): 77-85.Weinbren, Grahame. “Ocean, Database, Recut.” Database Aesthetics: Art in the Age of Information Overflow. Ed. Victoria. Vesner. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 2007. 61-85.Weiner, James. “Televisualist Anthropology: Representation, Aesthetics, Politics [and Comments and Reply].” Current Anthropology 38 (1997): 197-235.“Yearbook 2006.” 8 Oct. 2008 ‹http://www.y06.org/›.Zimmerman, Larry, Karen Zimmerman, and Leonard Bruguier. “Cyberspace Smoke Signals: New Technologies and Native American Ethnicity.” Indigenous Cultures in an Interconnected World. Ed. Claire Smith & Graeme Ward. St Leonards: Allen & Unwin, 2000. 69-86.