In the language of the Tebrikunna (Cape Portland) clan, Carne Neemerranner is “telling ground”. It is also what we call the research methodology designed for Meeting at Bark Hut, a recent community-engaged Aboriginal history project conducted in northeast Tasmania. The project examined, retraced and explored one brief, but poignant, episode in Tasmania's colonial contact history – a meeting between the parties of George Augustus Robinson, colonial agent charged with the “conciliation” and removal of Trouwunnan (Tasmanian) clanspeople from the Tasmanian mainland, and that most likely included Mannalargenna, one of the last Trouwunnan leaders still living in his own clancountry at the time (1830). While this episode and encounter has profound connotations for presentday Tasmanian Aborigines, its significance has largely been overlooked by academic historians. Meeting at Bark Hut was conceived as an opportunity to redress this deficit, to allow the story of this event to be told and to come alive in a dynamic and culturally relevant way. This article offers some insight into the meaning and method of the project from both theoretical and practical perspectives.

This paper demonstrates how Indigenous studies is controlled in some Australian universities in ways that continue the marginalisation, denigration and exploitation of Indigenous peoples. Moreover, it shows how the engagement of white notions of “inclusion” can result in the maintenance of racism, systemic marginalisation, white race privilege and radicalised subjectivity. A case study will be utilised which draws from the experience of two Indigenous scholars who were invited to be part of a panel to review one Australian university's plan and courses in Indigenous studies. The case study offers the opportunity to destabilise the relationships between oppression and privilege and the epistemology that maintains them. The paper argues for the need to examine exactly what is being offered when universities provide opportunities for “inclusion”.

The theory that the rapid depopulation of Indigenous people post-colonisation was largely caused by European introduced or exotic disease to which Indigenous people had no immunity resonates through most narratives of the early years of colonisation. The question of whether this narrative is based on sound medical evidence or is better placed in the realm of myth is the subject of this paper. Here I contend, that introduced disease is little more than a convenient explanation of the rapid depopulation of Indigenous people in south eastern New South Wales during the nineteenth century, and one that allows the illusion of colonial ethnography to perpetuate a widespread belief that introduced diseases and immunity were the unfortunate, but unavoidable cause of most Indigenous population decline. But what is the evidence that these disease theories found in Australian history are anything more than Eurocentric constructions? An Indigenous approach to the topic, as undertaken in this paper, raises questions that are as yet without answers and which challenge conventional theoretical explanations.

The nature and status of Indigenous knowledge is often debated, but the idea that Indigenous people's knowledge is local knowledge seems widely accepted: knowledge is place-based and may reference a range of places, from traditional land to other places known from social and cultural connections. Through collaboration with Koori people from the south coast of New South Wales to develop a web-based science resource, other distinctive characteristics of their knowledge emerged. This paper explores some transformations in contemporary Indigenous knowledge, while acknowledging the history of colonisation in south eastern Australia. A focus on two examples of Koori art demonstrates that Indigenous knowledge is contingent, contested and changing in culturally denned ways. These aspects are often overlooked in educational practice that essentialises Indigeneity and Indigenous people's knowledge.

This paper will discuss “both-ways” as the philosophy which underpins course programs and operations at Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education, the only tertiary institution in Australia that caters exclusively to Indigenous students. This paper draws on recent research undertaken by the author focusing on the following questions: What is bothways philosophy? How is it being implemented as a teaching methodology at an Indigenous tertiary institution? What innovative practices, processes and activities can be celebrated as exemplary teaching practice? The notion of both-ways will be explored to ascertain how it is being translated into an effective teaching methodology that incorporates and embraces Indigenous knowledge into course curriculum, planning, delivery and evaluation.

There are numerous aspects to becoming an effective, culturally competent health practitioner, among these is the need to “become knowledgeable about the historical and sociopolitical backgrounds of clients” (Bemak et al., 2003, p. 26). It has been established that culturally sensitive empathy has the potential to contribute greatly to the healing process when working across cultures. It is therefore essential for an effective and productive client-healer relationship. Indeed it is said that “empathy bridges the gap” between practitioner and client (David & Erickson, 1990). This paper explores a model to develop cultural competence within health related courses.

In Australia, Indigenising the curriculum is increasingly acknowledged as a possible avenue for addressing Indigenous under-representation in tertiary science education in a culturally appropriate and relevant manner. While no Australian university has implemented such a program, there is much to be learnt about the inherent complexities of Indigenising curriculum before it is pursued. In Canada, however, innovative university programs have been implemented that imbed Indigenous knowledge into the curriculum. This paper details key findings from research that sought to learn from Canadian practices in Indigenising tertiary science curriculum, by exploring the practices and experiences of two Canadian programs: Trent University's Indigenous Environmental Studies program, and Cape Breton University's Integrative Science program.