Engaging in Reconciliation in Australia, and the Challenge of Institutional Reform

ABSTRACT

The emphasis on reconciliation as a process of individual reflexivity and institutional reform raises important questions about people’s engagement in reconciliation discourses. This paper uses critical discourse analysis to examine how staff at a regional Australian university interpret reconciliation and its application in a workplace context. Many frame their understanding on ideas that are considered foundational to reconciliation in post-colonial Australia. Notions of relationships and coexistence, unity and social harmony, cultural respect and the rightful place of First Nations peoples form the foundation to a revisionist national identity tied to a critical examination and responsiveness to past injustice. Participants recombine and reorder these concepts in ways that speak to their individualised translation, with a greater emphasis on the agency of First Nations peoples in the learning and teaching environment. Such expressions indicate a willingness by respondents to engage in the ideas of reconciliation at the cognitive level. For many, however, reconciliation remains an aspirational or desired activity, and belies a reticence to take personal action that will contribute to wider institutional change.

KEYWORDS:

• Reconciliation
• Australia
• critical discourses
• engagement

Reconciliation Discourse in Australia

In the early 1990s, Australia officially commenced its national project of reconciliation between First Nations peoples and the majority non-Indigenous population. For many prominent First Nations leaders, reconciliation in Australia has been viewed as one pathway to social and political empowerment. Reconciliation could realise tangible steps towards sovereignty for First Nations peoples over their land and waters, and the rights to govern and administer their affairs (Gunstone 2009, Short 2012). Self-determination would deliver First Nations leadership and governance over their health and wellbeing, education and employment opportunities, and respond to issues of equity and social and economic disparities. Many of these themes remain at the forefront of national reconciliation discourses that aim to address the overtly structural discrimination facing First Nations peoples and communities. Reconciliation has also focused on educating the non-Indigenous population to shift entrenched racist attitudes and behaviours, an approach pursued by successive governments as a pragmatic approach as opposed to symbolic statements or wider institutional reforms (Short 2012). Education was framed as a ‘moral reckoning’ for non-Indigenous people not only to understand and accept the impacts of European invasion and the colonial state but also to create awareness and respect for the diverse cultures and histories of First Nations peoples.

The Uluru Statement from the Heart, negotiated in 2017 by First Nations leaders from across Australia was a defining step towards resetting the national reconciliation agenda through the tripartite claims of Voice-Treaty-Truth. Through the Uluru Statement, reconciliation discourses shifted to national processes for constitutional recognition and triggered state-based commitments to negotiate treaties and commence truth-telling processes. The statement advocated constitutional change through a permanent and independent ‘Voice’ to the Australian Parliament, and a ‘Makarrata’, or coming together to negotiate legal treaties, and formal truth-telling about Australia’s colonial history of dispossession and assimilation (Uluru Statement 2017). The Statement also reflects a desire for coexistence, where underlying antagonism and conflict between First Nations peoples and the non-Indigenous majority can be resolved through deliberation and democratic engagement (see Hughes 2018). In 2023, a national referendum was held by the federal Labor Government to amend the Australian Constitution to include a First Nations Voice or body to advise on matters that directedly affect First Nations peoples. The referendum was opposed by conservative political parties and was resoundingly defeated, underscoring the challenges of generating wider support for reconciliation amongst the Australian public.

The fundamental challenges with enacting the Voice to Parliament and slow progress on other reforms (Gunstone 2009: McMillan and Rigney 2018) raise important questions about how individuals respond to the ideas and discourses that influence their understanding of reconciliation, and initiate steps towards substantive change. Reconciliation Australia is a national independent organisation that occupies a prominent role in shaping these public discourses, and individual understanding and agency on reconciliation. Through its voluntary Reconciliation Action Plan (RAP) program, it engages thousands of government agencies, businesses and community organisations and their staff in reconciliation initiatives. Reconciliation Australia (2021: 12) identifies strong relationships and trust and respect between the broader Australian community and First Nations peoples as foundational to any definition or reconciliation. They elaborate this definition though five interrelated dimensions: historical acceptance, race relations, equality and equity, institutional integrity and national unity. Such a definition is consistent with reconciliation as a process of unification, restitution and co-existence in post-conflict societies (Hughes 2018). The macro-level framing by Reconciliation Australia has contributed to wider understanding of the term and informs how organisations and their staff should enact various reconciliation initiatives.

The contribution of this article is to analyse how wider discursive constructions of reconciliation frame individual understanding of key terms, and how individuals translate and apply these interpretations to in a tertiary education context. The research draws on text responses from a large survey of staff at a regional Australian university, conducted during the development of a RAP. Critical discourse analysis is used to explore the complex ways that university staff internalise broader reconciliation ideas based on their cognitive, social and ideological resources (van Dijk 2015), and how these ideas and discursive constructs alter power relations and lead to collective action and wider institutional change (Schmidt 2008). Intertextuality is applied to examine the responsiveness of individuals to established voices, language and written texts on reconciliation, and how they reapply and reorient these to the anticipated responses found in a particular social context (Hodges 2015). For the purposes of this article, discourse is defined in terms of complex communicative events, consisting of text and context, which can be defined both for the structures of text and dialogues, and with context defined as the communicative situation (van Dijk 2015).

Respondents’ interpretations of reconciliation draw extensively on the discursive constructs presented by influential bodies such as Reconciliation Australia. Many frame their understanding on ideas that are considered foundational to reconciliation in post-colonial Australia. Notions of relationships and coexistence, unity and social harmony, cultural respect and the rightful place of First Nations peoples form the foundation to a revisionist national identity tied to a critical examination and responsiveness to past injustice. Many participants recombine and reorder these concepts in ways that speak to their individualised application to a university setting. The translation of these concepts underscores a greater emphasis on decolonisation of the education curriculum and the agency and voice of First Nations peoples in the learning and teaching environment. Such expressions indicate a willingness by respondents to engage in the discourses and ideas of reconciliation at the cognitive level. However, reconciliation for many remains an aspirational or desired activity, and belies a reticence and uncertainty to take personal action that will contribute to wider institutional change. Non-Indigenous staff remain challenged to respond to the claims and aspirations of First Nations peoples or to reconfigure the institutional barriers that discriminate.

Research Methods

Many Australian universities have participated in reconciliation through the RAP program and funded dedicated initiatives to improve First Nations student education outcomes and targets for increasing workforce participation (Anderson et al. 2023). This study draws on staff experiences from CQUniversity Australia, who entered the RAP program in 2013 and released an initial RAP in 2016 and a second in 2022. Employees at CQUniversity were surveyed online about the understanding of key reconciliation concepts, as well as initiatives to advance First Nations staff and student outcomes. A total of 315 staff responded, equivalent to 17.5% of the full-time workforce of approximately 1800 at the time of the survey. Within their current role at the university, 273 indicated they engage directly with First Nations staff, students, organisations and/or businesses. Of these, 128 engaged through the delivery of education and training, 74 in student support and wellbeing, 36 in research, 20 in procuring goods and services, 17 in business development and 41 in other areas such as human resources, marketing and communication. Most of the respondents to the survey were non-Indigenous, and questions on age and gender were omitted from the questionnaire. Ethical clearance was received for this research from CQUniversity Human Research Ethics Committee, Project Number: /0000023261. All participants provided informed consent outlined at the introduction of the survey instrument, and all responses are anonymous.

The primary data for this article was drawn from text answers provided by participants to the following question: ‘What do you understand by the term reconciliation?’ This was followed by a series of open-ended text questions about programs and initiatives that focus on First Nations staff and students. This generated approximately 200 pages of text-based responses that were coded and analysed using NVivo software, with the coding frames drawn from key themes in the reconciliation literature, and directly from the survey responses. Critical discourse analysis was used to analyse the coded text material from the surveys, applying the following method. Drawing on previous knowledge about the issue, a range of ideas and linguistic elements were identified, and then used to inform the selection of discursive data from the survey and triangulated with key documents (Reisigl 2013). The material was analysed at macro and micro levels of discourse to provide an interpretation of the results reflecting on the social, historical and political context of the data. Whilst the text responses provided a rich source of data, there are limitations in that responses were not drawn from communicative exchange within a particular social context, where various ideas and speech acts are influenced by participants. However, as part of this research multiple discussions were held with staff across the university, which contributed to the analysis and interpretation of the material.

Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis

Critical discourse analysis is a widely applied approach in discourse studies, but with a particular emphasis on how social-power functions, and how certain inequalities are perpetuated, enacted, produced and resisted through the examination of texts and individual speech drawn from social and political discourses (van Dijk 2015). The aim of critical discourse analysis is to analyse both the opaque and transparent relationships of dominance, discrimination and control that manifest through language (Wodak 2014). Critical approaches to discourse analysis focus on the relationship between discourse and social structure, by uncovering the processes or means by which social structure relates to discursive patterns. Discourse then is considered both socially constitutive as well as socially conditioned, which enables a particular type of critique about how discourses constitute subjectivity in the social world. Examining the discursive nature of power relations also attends to the wider discursive construction of ideology, or to the implicit ideologies that are held and expressed by actors engaged in any discursive exchange. Members of a social group will often reproduce elements of social ideologies and relationships of power through everyday interactions and organised interpretive procedures (van Leeuwen 2009; van Dijk 2008). However, it is within particular social formations and institutional frames that these ideologies are relayed.

The agency of individuals as social participants and their interaction and receptivity to wider institutional discourses is a function of the social power of certain groups over others. Discourse is instrumental to these networked and productive power relations, providing social actors the conduit and means to activate, guide and incite social behaviour and the cognitive responses in the individual (Wodak 2004, Blommaert 2005). Discourses operating in any given context or social setting are not equivalent given that certain social groups enact greater influence over the type and content of discourse through their privileged access to, or control over, resources in the public and private domains. For instance, elected political leaders or well-resourced groups have greater access to the means through which discourse is enacted, such as parliaments and the media, and the capacity to (re)frame and disseminate ideas to enact institutional outcomes (Schmidt 2008). However, it is in the interest of groups to influence the context, or the specific ways and settings where knowledge is presented, as well as the wider knowledge and ideologies shared across broad social groupings.

Discourses provide a medium through which ideas can be represented and a process through which ideas can be developed and translated. Analysing discourses can identify why some ideas are more widely adopted than others, by understanding how actors promote discourses in certain settings and contexts. Discourses can therefore frame a range of different ideas and can have a patterning effect that directs certain types of thought and action, shaping certain arguments and policy scenarios and how they are presented. For instance, discourses presented by a particular group may include science-based statements and technical information about a particular problem, integrated with administrative discussions about the current government response, or stakeholder perspectives on a preferred path to address such issues. Schmidt (2008) suggests that a successful discourse needs to represent the substantive content of an idea by being relevant and applicable to the issue, adequate and coherent as a prescription, but also resonate with the intended audience. A coherent discourse that encompasses these components could necessarily address different strategic purposes when presented in various policy or political contexts (Panizza and Miorelli 2013).

The interrelationship between discourses, context and social structure suggests that situations of discursive interaction operate at macro and micro levels in society and amongst various social groups. The macro level concerns the forms of knowledge that appear across society that produce a mode of discourse and a particular way of thinking that appear or converge within a range of texts drawn from different institutional settings. In critical discourse analysis, the macro implies the ways these wider discourses and bodies of knowledge co-constitute institutional arrangements and social relations between the dominant culture and those subordinated within such relations (Blommaert 2005). For example, education delivered through public systems can discriminate against minorities through the perpetuation of certain established uses of language and curricula reflective of existing cultural norms, or through the exclusion of other historical narratives or systems of thought. Documents that codify these institutions, such as textbooks and curriculum content, expose how these institutions are legitimised and maintained by the dominant sectors in society (Van Leeuwen 2009). Micro level refers to the discursive interaction between individuals and groups reflected through everyday language and interaction (text and talk) which influences both agency and the values and attitudes individuals hold (Blommaert 2005).

One approach to examining social structures of power is through the analysis of the relations between discourse and cognition. This socio-cognitive approach identifies an interface that links discourse as language use and social interaction, with social situations and social structures (Van Dijk 2008). Language users as social actors have both personal (memories, knowledge and opinions) as well as those shared with members of their group or wider culture. The interaction between the higher- or macro-level social discourses prevalent within certain institutions and organisations, and the more localised communication that occurs within groups functions through language which enables individuals to mentally represent and connect both levels (Van Dijk 2015). Individuals engage in discourse as members of social groups or formal and informal organisations, and the social activity of these members is recognised as a component of group activity and wider social processes. An example in the Australian context is the public and political debate around amending the constitution to include an Indigenous Voice or political representation to the Australian Parliament. The discourses informing the purpose, justification and specific functions occur primarily through the parliament and media, which shape perspectives on the proposed changes and individual voting intentions in a national referendum.

Understanding can occur through contextualisation in which individuals make sense of certain dialogue and texts through framing based on a degree of presupposed knowledge about the nature of the situation, what is to be accomplished and how it can be achieved (Blommaert 2005). Contextualisation are processes in which oral exchanges or written texts are indexically reapplied or adapted to a particular context by participants in the interaction. Verbal expressions or written statements are contingent on the recontextualisation of previous texts and are conditioned or reshaped by the application, expression and evaluation of these exchanges in a different situation (Ott and Walter 2000; Hodges 2015). Interactions between people contain the expressions indicative of their social world, and they rely upon existing genres and deploy language which is familiar and oriented to the specific exchange. Intertextuality situates the analysis of discourse into a continuum of application and reapplication, which enables certain expressions to acquire influential social, cultural and political effects (Hodges 2015). Intertextuality thus moves the analysis from specific communicative events and identifies the sources and previous use of certain expressions, who has utilised these expressions and what the intended effects have been.

Reconciliation Discourse at CQUniversity

The application of critical discourse analysis to reconciliation will explore how staff at CQUniversity interpret broader concepts based on their cognitive, social and ideological resources (van Dijk 2015), as well as how these ideas and concepts are contextualised within the workplace. Analysing the individual responses to reconciliation can identify a person’s cognitive interpretation of certain topics as well as elements of their ideological leanings that are presented in various organised contexts (Blommaert 2005). Further, the emphasis on reconciliation as requiring individual understanding and reflexivity raises important questions about how the concepts and ideas relayed in reconciliation discourse contribute to organisational change. As CQUniversity has engaged in the RAP program, the key terms and definitions presented by Reconciliation Australia have been widely applied across various learning, teaching and engagement activities. The following sections will explore the complex ways that staff understand and apply these wider and often interrelated ideas and terms.

Strengthening Relationships

As discussed above, Reconciliation Australia emphasises the importance of relationships between the broader Australian community and First Nations peoples. ‘To achieve reconciliation, we need to develop strong relationships built on trust and respect, and that are free of racism (Reconciliation Australia 2021: 12)’. The responses from staff at CQUniversity indicated wide support for reconciliation and the value of relationships. For instance, 92% of respondents indicated that reconciliation was either extremely important or very important to them, whilst 82% thought the same of relationship between First Nations and non-Indigenous peoples. This emphasis on relationships was reflected in the text responses to the question asking how staff understand reconciliation, with n + 120 applying the term in their response. More important was the focus on improving poor relations through repeated use of terms such as mending, developing and fostering positive relationships. Expressions such as ‘relationship building’ or ‘restoring friendly relations’, or ‘overcoming division’ are considered important practices and formative processes through which to establish trust and mutual respect between First Nations and non-Indigenous staff and students. Relationships were further contextualised to belonging and inclusivity of First Nations students in the teaching and learning environment, and to addressing a range of issues around equity, disadvantage and cultural diversity for staff and students. Respondents noted for example:

Reconciliation is a term used broadly to illustrate the unifying process that brings First Nations peoples and the broader Australian community into a more respectful relationship that restores justice and equity for everyone.

Building a more respectful and informed relationship between First Nations people and non-Indigenous people and actively working to improve damaging systems which contribute to the disadvantage of First Nations peoples.

Working together to strengthen and heal relationships for an ongoing journey of generations between First Nations and non-Indigenous peoples.

I see reconciliation as repairing relationships between First Nations and non-indigenous peoples. I also see it as an educational exercise, to increase awareness about historical events that have led to poorer First Nations health, education, etc.

Respondents have clearly internalised the importance of relationships at multiple levels, including interpersonal interaction in the workplace, but also between the university and other organisations, and across multiple spheres of activity. Several viewed relationships as a unifying principle and practice through which to deliver multiple other programs desinged to support the academic achievement of First Nations students. An emphasis on relationships is consistent with First Nations community approaches to reciprocal learning, and that these interactions are founded on mutual trust and responsibility. Aligned to relationships is the perspective that reconciliation initiates a unifying process and coming together of First Nations people and non-Indigenous people. Terms widely expressed by respondents included ‘working together’, ‘bringing people together’, ‘collaboration’, and ‘bridging’ and importantly that these processes would facilitate dialogue around complex institutional issues of racism and diversity, and rights and equality. The act of ‘being together’ facilitates communication, and the opportunity to listen to the voices and narratives that relay the experiences of First Nations staff, students and the wider community. As noted by respondents:

Working together in a culturally safe environment and provide opportunities, inclusiveness to students and staff to meaningfully participate in university life.

Reconciliation means bringing all the people of Australia together through education and action, so that everyone has equal opportunities and rights.

Bridging, negotiation, Ganma, walking together and not avoiding inevitable conflict as intellectual diversity is respected, valued, and considered for inclusive decision making.

The reconciliation process is about deep listening, learning, finding a voice, and committing to action. It is a two-way process of communication.

Hearing more from First Nations staff and students about their stories and culture, what non-Indigenous people do that can be positive or perhaps upsetting to them (often we don't realise). Sharing of what's important to them in the workplace and what they are doing to try to help enhance positive relations and what they need in return.

Everyday examples and suggestions for initiating dialogues about cultural exchange and the meaning of Treaty and reconciliation between First Nations and non-Indigenous Australians.

A focus on communication and dialogue indicates that shifts in cognition result from reciprocal learning, allowing greater engagement with the values and perspectives of First Nations peoples. Through communicative exchange the socio-cognitive understanding of group members can shift towards greater receptivity to the type of issues and problems experienced by the minority population (van Dijk 2008). Intergroup activity enables certain discursive frames about reconciliation to be adjusted and reapplied to suit the context, but also to encourage reflexive examination of individual attitudes and behaviour (Blommaert 2005). Through interpersonal interaction people can accommodate new ideas and engage in thinking that alters their assumptions, but group exchange also contributes to the application of new approaches and knowledge. These discursive exchanges also enable actors to link often heterogeneous ideational elements that may not necessarily correlate or were not aligned in a relational ensemble (Panizza and Miorilli 2012). In the learning, teaching and research context, these dialogues and the exchange of ideas enable First Nations knowledges and ontological and methodological approaches to be introduced and normalised into curriculum, and to the pedagogical and learning environment. As noted by respondents:

I think reconciliation can only take place when there is intercultural understanding and true appreciation of each other's values, not by trying to assimilate First Nations cultures into a Western ontology. We must be open to new ways of thinking for genuine reciprocal learning and acknowledging this learning could be a building block towards reconciliation.

More embedded teaching and more social activities that bring people together to allow the exchange of ideas and cultural knowledge presented by First Nations peoples.

Hearing and learning firsthand from First Nations staff rather than non-Indigenous staff about First Nations cultures and experiencse, and more opportunity to do so through professional development and networking events.

Participants also highlighted the importance of formal or informal spaces and intergroup settings within the university through which dialogue and activities that focus on First Nations peoples and cultures can occur. There was wide support for the university to facilitate opportunities for exchange that ‘bring people together’, such as formal events, forums, yarning sessions and other gatherings. The elaboration of such formal or informal settings constitutes the coordinative discourses, which are the processes that are designed to engage multiple groups and individuals in the creation, elaboration and justification of certain programs (Schmidt 2015). These spaces facilitate exchange that can challenge certain cognitive understandings about existing arrangements and initiate collective opportunities to challenge or reform intergroup relationships, and the functions and organisation of institutions (Jacobs 2019). The potential of these ‘coordinative discourses’ is the opportunity they afford First Nations staff to recontextualise their perspectives to a wide variety of workplace activities, and to initiate programs that support increased access to education and career opportunities within the university.

Confidence or Reticence to Engage

Many non-Indigenous participants displayed a reluctance to engage with their First Nations piers or externally with community and other organisations. A consistent finding in research on reconciliation is that non-Indigenous people register an interest in engaging but display uncertainty about how to engage or consider it’s not within their rights or obligations to do so (Clark et al. 2017). Discomfort or reticence to engage can act as barriers to meaningful relationship building, from just participating in events to working collectively on addressing inequality and discrimination. If the understanding and application of reconciliation principles into practice rests on various types of communicative exchange, then not engaging or taking the initiative to participate exposes a subtle resistance or ambivalence. Unless such engagement occurs through the type of coordinative discourses in which people’s dominance and whiteness is reinforced, they make claims of exclusion or ignorance as one means to delegitimise the ideas and agency of First Nations peoples. Comments from participants varied from ‘lacking the confidence’ to engage with First Nations students or external partners, causing offence through inappropriate language, or feeling excluded or unwelcome at specific events. Academic staff expressed that they lacked the confidence, resources and skills to design courses or teach curriculum with First Nations knowledge content, or they considered it ‘too difficult’ without guidance. For instance:

As stated before, and I know others in my department feel the same away, we always feel like these events aren't for us and we would be intruding. Perhaps advertising or fostering a culture that specifies how everyone is welcome or wouldn't be intruding.

Exposure and open up forums where we can talk to First Nations people without worrying about offending them if we ask the wrong question Personally, I currently don't feel comfortable walking up to an First Nations person and talking to them if I don't already know them, because I am worried I'll say the wrong thing (even though it's purely because I'm curious) or because I don't know what to talk to them about.

Also, if we could have more support to ‘Indigenise’ curriculum that would be very helpful. I have gone to seminars on this but as a white person have a level of discomfort doing so without oversight from a First Nations academic.

At the moment we have to state how the curriculum is being ‘Indigenised’ for each unit and meet the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Cultures graduate attributes, but staff are given no clear guidelines or training on how to do this. Generally, people want to do the right thing but become frustrated and angry (and probably lose their willingness) when they don't know how and are not provided with support.

Respect, Recognition and Mutual Understanding

In this survey, there was a wide awareness of respecting First Nations peoples’ cultures and rights. Respect extends to the enduring significance of the cultural connection to Country, spiritual significance of people’s beliefs and the value of family and community. Others noted that respect and acknowledgement extend to political, legal and constitutional rights, and that sovereignty was never ceded. This deep awareness amongst respondents indicates the influence that wider socio-cultural knowledge and group attitudes have on people’s interpretation and contextualisation of these terms (Blommaert 2005). Respect, trust and understanding between parties are common themes in national reconciliation discourse. These terms are often associated with coexistence and the renegotiation of complex social, economic and legal issues around self-determination and equality in settler societies (Moses 2011; Maddison 2016). In the Australian context, building such trust and respect rests on a significant proportion of the population understanding and valuing First Nations cultures, rights and experiences (Reconciliation Australia 2021). As stated by respondents:

Reconciliation means a shared understanding about the history of First Nations peoples in Australia and a respect for First Nations cultures. It means incorporating this understanding into every aspect of Australian life.

Making changes to all facets of university life and curriculum and general interpersonal interactions which acknowledge and respect the existence of First Nations peoples and that sovereignty was never ceded.

De-emphasis of a growing homogeneous view that has a deficit perspective of First Nations peoples, by focusing on a strengths-based approaches to reconciliation and seeking to highlight similarities across people of all backgrounds whilst acknowledging unique differences. To encourage harmony-of-intellectual diversities and robust debates, rather than separatism based on assumed heritages.

Respect and trust between First Nations peoples and the Australian society as a whole.

Some respondents also displayed an ambivalence and even passive opposition to the idea that respect and understanding resides with the non-Indigenous majority. This is most prevalent in the expressions that reconciliation is about ‘mutual respect between all cultures’ or ‘the contributions that everyone can make to community and society’. Resentment from the non-Indigenous population about the responsibility to show respect and understanding is not uncommon in Australia (Halloran 2007; Clark et al. 2017). A widely held position is that all parties need to display trust and respect of each other’s cultures and norms if fundamental differences are to be resolved. Although mutual respect is reflective of the ideas and norms of diversity, they devalue and dismiss the fundamental claims of First Nations peoples about respecting and acknowledging their unique sense of identity and distinct societies, and importantly how these contribute to national identity. More critically such positions downplay that First Nations peoples and cultures continue to be systematically discriminated across the institutional landscape in Australia.

Historical Acceptance: Acknowledging the Past for the Future

Exposing injustice across time is foundational to the evolution of post-colonial reconciliation in Australia. The processes of ‘historical acceptance’ and ‘truth-telling’ aim to retell the experiences of First Nations peoples, and to acknowledge how intergenerational trauma affects all aspects of community and individual wellbeing (Reconciliation Australia 2016). Truth-telling is a formalised process required at multiple levels of society that revisits and revises colonial and post-colonial histories into a narrative the underpins a shared understanding of the present, as a necessity for healing and moving forward (Maddison 2016). Truth telling aims to recalibrate the discourse by un-masking the agency and legacy of the post-colonial state, and its ongoing complicity to suppress such knowledge within the public domain (Humphery 2006; McMillan and Rigney 2018). Acknowledging and accepting the impacts of colonisation constitute an important step towards forgiveness, restitution and healing between communities affected by violence and genocide (Hughes 2018). Understanding is part of building wider support for reparation, to overcome the significant resistance displayed by governments and sections of the population, and to develop safeguards to ensure such policies are not repeated.

Respondents to this survey considered the theme of truth-telling as an important exercise in historical revisioning and as a foregrounding to re-creating a shared future. Terms such as ‘accepting the past’, ‘admitting wrongs of the past’, ‘reconciling the past’, and ‘learning from the past’ are all linked to the concept of moving forward or onwards, or a necessary requirement for creating a ‘better or brighter future for all’. Truth-telling was also related to action in the present. Exposing a ‘true or real history’, as well as learning by non-Indigenous Australians of the consequences, is considered a legitimate and necessary step towards addressing contemporary issues. In this way, respondents directly linked processes of truth-telling to complex issues of structural disadvantage and inequality. Redressing past injustices and repairing the effects were actions considered important for removing barriers and opening opportunities for First Nations peoples though education and in the wider society. For example, respondents noted:

Australia’s First Nations and non-Indigenous peoples coming together to move forward from past issues that have been a contributing factor to disadvantage. Acknowledging/educating non-Indigenous Australia about the past and putting plans in place for the future is what I see reconciliation is about.

To me, reconciliation refers to the intentional processes and efforts made to address the impacts and violence of our colonial history on First Nations peoples.

Reconciliation is about acknowledging and identifying the harm caused by colonialism and institutional racism, and finding ways to remove barriers, and incorporate key elements of First Nations cultures broadly into society.

I like the Aboriginal word ‘Makarrata’ rather than reconciliation – a new coming together after conflict which foregrounds the role of truth-telling. I would like to see this in our education system, and the commitment to new fairer partnerships and places for First Nations voices to be heard and acted upon.

At a minimum reconciliation requires acknowledgement of harm done and a commitment to undoing that harm. This is complicated by the fact that the social and political structures now in place are actively harmful to the lifestyles and livelihood of many First Nations peoples. As a result, a commitment to reconciliation requires a dismantling of capitalist and colonial power structures. It also requires accountability and education on the harm caused by colonial ideologies, and how these harms continue into contemporary life, with efforts made to reduce these harms into the future.

Discussion

In understanding discourses of reconciliation in Australia, we need to investigate the ways in which the message is organised, mediated, modulated and reconstructed by the ideological actors using it in certain settings and contexts (Wodak 2014). People will accept and reproduce knowledge and ideas produced by sources they consider authoritative and are aligned with their interests (van Dijk 2008). The organisation and mediation of the discursive themes that underpin reconciliation continue to be created through national, non-government bodies. The goals and frameworks fdefined by Reconciliation Australia mediate how reconciliation is to be conceived and conducted across multiple localised contexts. This macro-level framing and subtle reframing identifies those parameters within which certain reconciliation activities are justified. These messages are critical in reinforcing well-established ideas and processes on ways to address the complex and challenging notions of reconciliation, in a way that is applicable across numerous and disparate organisations. However, these discourses operate within a broader set of institutionalised contexts that reflect a set of power relations which privilege a set of normative ‘white’ assumptions about what reconciliation should achieve and the processes to deliver such change.

Reconciliation Australia’s (2021) agenda adheres to liberal-based norms, placing national reconciliation within a human rights and transitional justice framework that establishes negotiated pathways to social empowerment (McMillan and Rigney 2018). The emphasis on rights expressed through empowerment, equality and positive social relationships to negotiate common problems are widely supported by participants in this research. For example, participants highlighted that ‘closing the gap’ in education, health and employment were a priority, and removing the barriers so that First Nations peoples can attain these normalised levels of opportunity. Reconciliation Australia’s approach is also educational and reflexive so that the wider citizenry comes to understand and respect the unique histories and cultures of First Nations peoples. The emphasis on the five dimensions of reconciliation can be considered an effective discourse in that it provides a substantive and coherent set of ideas that resonate widely across social groups and individuals (Schmidt 2008). Yet the limited prescription to accompany the five dimensions and their applicability to different policy and organisational contexts remains more challenging as a path towards substantive reform.

Context and Application

Intertextuality focusses on how certain ideas and widely used expressions and concepts acquire powerful social, cultural and political effects (Hodges 2015). The context in which the discourse is presented will inform the responsiveness and acceptance of individuals to certain forms of knowledge. Such interpretation is the result of contextualisation processes in which certain texts, including oral and written statements are reapplied to suit a particular context by participants in the interaction. Social agents frame their discourses with voices indicative of their social world, draw upon established genres and engage with familiar words and language, that are oriented to anticipated responses (Hodges 2015). Discourses essentially connect across contexts, with these intertextual relations linked to certain recognised or accepted texts or genres, and these connections create certain frames of understanding and construct identities that gain sufficient acceptance to become reality. A correlative example to this research, is that non-Indigenous Canadians will at times apply and integrate discourses they have previously encountered about the social and political relationships with First Nations Canadian peoples (de Costa and Clark 2015).

Context is relevant to the extent that participants adjust reconciliation principles or ideas to the nuances of institutional settings and organisational priorities. Many participants in this research replicate the foundational ideas of reconciliation but recombine them in ways that speak to their individualised understanding of the term. The translation of reconciliation concepts to the workplace indicates both the repurposing and reordering of concepts aligned to the reconciliation concepts widely used in Australian society. Some responses provide a direct translation of the frame presented by Reconciliation Australia, with terms reconfigured together, and emphasis placed on certain expressions over others. Striking notions of coexistence and social harmony, respect for otherness and the ‘rightful’ place of First Nations peoples form the foundation to a revisionist national identity tied to a critical examination and responsiveness to past injustice. The translation and reapplication of these concepts to an education context underscore the greater emphasis on concepts such as decolonisation, respect for cultures and listening to the ‘voices’ of First Nations peoples.

Terms and expressions used in reconciliation discourses reflect a situation perceived to be largely incomplete, but also project an agenda of desired activities that could contribute to substantive change. The ‘good will’ expressed by respondents towards reconciliation and its application to a university setting indicates their endorsement of its legitimacy, rather than avoidance or dismissal of such issues. These attitudes confirm shifting social and political norms, with individuals endorsing such ideas at the level of cognition. As expressed by many respondents, reconciliation remains an aspirational or desired activity, indicting what they think should be, rather than progress on the current situation. More critically, the micro-level steps or practices to apply these concepts remain ill-defined and largely absent in the dialogue, leading to constant requests for guidance and support. Such intertextual applications indicate a predominantly non-Indigenous cohort still challenged by the foundational ideas and principles of responding to the aspirations and claims of marginalised peoples. It also reflects a deep unwillingness or reticence within the non-Indigenous majority to take initiative on reconciliation and build meaningful relationships with peers and the wider community.

Institutional Change

Statements made by staff reflect the dominant ideas, attitudes and norms about what constitutes reconciliation, however, this willingness to engage at the macro level of discourse is relatively straightforward. The translation to deeper institutional reform, or to daily activities and behaviours within the workplace remains more problematic. Reflexive change is required to the ‘normalised patterns of behaviour’ or to the cultures and processes that speak to the ideological basis of these organisations. These cultures and processes are represented through the everyday actions of employees that adhere to the exisiting rules and regulations, and the standards of behaviour that continue to exclude and discriminate against minorities. Such default behaviours act to reinforce existing power relations and represent the deep institutionalised racism that remains across the Australian education system (Moreton-Robinson 2006). In the tertiary education setting these barriers are manifest most profoundly in the relatively small representation of First Nations employees in senior positions or in academic teaching and research roles. It places the onus and responsibility with First Nations peoples to constantly articulate what reconciliation means, and how it should be enacted within the confines of the dominant culture, with its sets of rules, and hegemonic ways of thinking and organising.

As this research suggests, employees are willing to entertain ideas about reforming institutions to account for different cultural and social perspectives, and to view these through the discursive frames articulated by First Nations peoples. Discourses, which are established through various linguistic patterns and structures, operate in certain ways to convey social cognitions of how people think, which in turn contribute to both reinforcing but also the unravelling and unbinding of the social structures of inequality in society (Blommaert 2005, van Dijk 2015). New ideas can also translate into larger narratives and shared cultural understandings through repeated encounters between nascent truth claims that enable certain representations of an issue to become reality (Ott and Walter 2000). Many respondents indicated their willingness to adopt some critical elements of the wider reconciliation agenda. Others advocate that existing systems in the university require structural reform to address disadvantage, such as increasing workforce participation by First Nations peoples, and assuming positions of leadership and decision-making (Universities Australia 2022). Respondents also advocate that the dominant Western systems of thought and knowledge need to be responsive to the ontologies of distinct First Nations societies.

Conclusion

Individual engagements with key terms in wider reconciliation discourse underscore the opportunities and challenges of translating broader goals of reconciliation to the level of organisations and to individual behaviour. The terms and the ideas they convey such as truth-telling, respect for cultures, racial harmony, historical acceptance, unity and national identity have assumed increased public significance through their adoption by political leaders and other prominent representatives. Many respondents in this research have embraced and reinterpreted these principles, indicating their understanding or cognition of the wider terms used in reconciliation discourse in Australia, and their subjective application to the workplace environment. Whilst many are quite simply repeating the terms found in the texts from Reconciliation Australia, others have commenced translating and applying these to the context of higher education and engaging with the complexity of issues required to advance reconciliation in a substantive way. These applications begin to challenge the relational power asymmetries, by calling for greater accountability to First Nations peoples, and by unravelling the structural issues around institutional discrimination, exclusion and marginalisation. Decades of reform in these areas has shown that Australian universities are changing, albeit slowly, from privileged systems of western-based learning and scholarship, and are embracing First Nations peoples cultural and intellectual perspectives (Page et al. 2019).

A goal of reconciliation in Australian is to shift the attitudes, intentions and the behaviours of the non-Indigenous population through wider understanding and respect for First Nations peoples. The focus on knowledge dissemination and increasing engagement aims to shift relationships of power at the individual and institutional level, and across the wider society. These foreground discursive abilities are essential to explaining institutional change because they refer to peoples’ ability to think critically outside the institutions in which they act, communicate and deliberate about them, and persuade themselves and others to alter their views (Jacobs 2019). However, in this case, these discourses focus on what needs to change, but not necessarily the difficult steps required to shift norms and reflexive behaviour through which individuals can contribute to reconciliation goals. Further, the institutional shifts required to deliver the goals of equity and equality and offer pathways to self-determination, truth-telling and treaty are slow to materialise. As this research suggests, the wider goals or aims of reconciliation are well understood by staff, but how these translate into personal behaviours and daily activities that reconfigure the existing and often silent power relationships remains a significant challenge. The overwhelming support for reconciliation interventions suggests greater attention needs to focus on the discourses around solutions and identifying and defining the methods or programs to enact them.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).