Special Issue: Our Voices: Being Seen and Heard

After an Indigenous-themed issue in Australian Social Work (ASW) (2022), which included the new Proposed Guidelines for Articles by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Authors and About Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Issues (Bennett, 2022), an essential next step in the Journal’s Reconciliation process was to dedicate a Special Issue to solely centring and voicing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and authors.

The Guest Editors of the prior Indigenous-themed issue in 2022 reconvened: Bindi Bennett, a Gamilaraay woman on Jinibara Country, Jennie Briese, a Giabal woman on Jagera and Turrbal Country (Meanjin), and three non-Indigenous editors, Susan Gair (working on Wulgurukaba and Bindal country), and Sue Gillieatt (on Wadjuk Noongar Boodja), with Fiona McDermott (on Wurundjeri land) as an advisor. At first, there was talk about whether there would be enough interest and whether the requisite number of authors and articles would emerge. However, it was clear very quickly that there was a high level of interest and although the Aboriginal Guest Editors were confident that quality and numbers were never the issue, worries about entrenched lack of opportunity due to the education disparity and other significant hurdles like systemic racism and western academic systems were real concerns.

Both of these landmark Issues in 2022 and 2023 are about finally ensuring that Aboriginal scholars had active, vocal roles in the governance of issues that focus on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. These roles meant visioning who might contribute, ensuring the independent review of all articles, reviewing all articles to assess fit, offering mentoring and supporting those authors who wanted or needed it, and meeting regularly to discuss progress. Not only was the review and editing work a challenge in terms of workload, but it was also a challenge to ensure the Journal process was culturally responsive. Cultural responsiveness is the ability to “learn from and relate respectfully to people from our own and other cultures. It requires openness to experience and thinking about things from other people’s points of view” (Bennett & Bodkin-Andrews, 2021, p. 11). Cultural responsiveness meant the team had to be prepared to work in different ways. For example, we reached out to the Journal’s publisher, Taylor and Francis, in the United Kingdom, whose Journal Editorial Office (JEO) checks articles against Journal guidelines. We were keen to upskill Taylor and Francis about Indigenous Acknowledgements, and we created individualised emails to respond to authors, reaching out to them to offer mentoring, while at the same time honouring and respecting all Aboriginal peoples in this process. We did not always get it right. In fact, the first time an article was submitted online via ScholarOne, it was unsubmitted due to the authors’ positioning themselves and Acknowledging Country, which was not on the Journal’s checklist. Unfortunately, the standard email template for unsubmitting articles was sent to Aboriginal authors. We were embarrassed. We also were frightened that our mistake might mean Aboriginal authors would disengage from the process and that this would be a loss for the Journal. The team then penned a personal email with a heartfelt apology and sent it to the authors via the lead Editor. A new way forward and a problem-solving solution for the JEO team were offered. Luckily, those Aboriginal authors saw this as valuable learning for the Journal and generously resubmitted their article.

Another strategy was to send individual emails to Aboriginal authors to pre-empt and tackle barriers to the complicated Journal article submission process. Editors mentored new authors and authors who had not published before, to ensure as many voices, experiences, and benefits for Aboriginal peoples as possible were included. Peer reviewers were also asked to do more than suggest changes but to offer specific solutions (e.g., “revise this wording” or “consider this reference”) so authors felt encouraged if they chose to incorporate the feedback. Like all reviewers, we also worked as a team to improve grammar, flow, content, and argument, and added this to the Guest Editors’ and the Editor’s feedback. Following the Draft Guidelines for Publication (Bennett, 2022), Aboriginal scholars were expected to be the lead authors for any Aboriginal-led research, and all articles needed to have at least one Aboriginal author.

One of the larger conversations we had as a team throughout this journey was one that some might call “allyship”. Going into a meeting with three non-Indigenous women can be intimidating and is usually a high-risk situation for an Aboriginal person (two of us and three privileged, more experienced voices). Even with commitment and good hearts, microaggressions and white fragility can occur (Caporuscio, 2020).¹ Our (Aboriginal members) ongoing fight for racial equality and social justice can be unsettling. It requires white settlers to be open to working in different ways, and to develop or hone skills such as listening, learning, and responding to Aboriginal people in new or more nuanced ways. Social work leaders, including the ASW Editorial Board, must be committed to sharing accountability and reciprocity when advocating for and working with Aboriginal peoples. In the meetings, every person was responsible for creating a culturally-responsive and, thereby, culturally-safe environment. The conversations were strengths-based, and aimed at influencing the process to improve it, thus creating positive change and benefit for Aboriginal people. One reason we avoid robust conversations about race is that it can cause conflict, and feelings of defensiveness and fear, which can paralyse people. However, the joint leadership and governance process meant that we (Guest Editors), as Aboriginal people, were making decisions about strategic and important matters for this Journal Issue. It ensured we felt involved, respected, and valued in the role.

The Issue begins with a powerful invited commentary from Lorraine Muller (2023). Muller strongly critiques the co-option of the term “decolonisation” in the western academe as often bringing benefits to non-Indigenous scholars rather than doing anything to advance the Indigenous decolonisation movement.

The next three articles ask us to rethink social work education. We are introduced to a review of the literature on decolonising education practices in social work that yields an excellent resource for all of us engaged in disassembling and decolonising social work education and practices (Ryan & Ivelja, 2023). Available tools created by Aboriginal colleagues to develop more culturally-responsive social workers are then presented (Bennett & Morse, 2023), and Fleming et al.’s (2023) article emphasises that First Nations social work students need to learn in their cultural ways with yarning as an important way of learning.

The following two articles centre around reforming social work practice with children in state care, and they call on social workers to ensure the voices of Aboriginal children and their families are forefront, recognise the centrality of cultural connection as a guiding principle, and draw on Aboriginal-led research when undertaking practice and policy reforms in this area (Hermeston (2023); Krakouer et al. (2023). The final four articles inspire social workers to rethink and reform the research space. First and foremost, social workers must advocate for Indigenous data sovereignty and governance principles to be enacted in their organisations (Prehn & Walter, 2023). A key aspect of this is embedding the principles of data sovereignty into research and employing decolonising theoretical frameworks to centre Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voices. Examples of progress in this area are the Aboriginal-led scoping review about transformational mentoring experiences for First Nations young people (McMahon et al., 2023), a research project on Torres Strait migration from an insider's perspective (Mosby, 2023), and a research project in regional and remote Aboriginal communities examining barriers to Indigenous women with violence-related head injuries from accessing services (Fitts et al., 2023).

This Issue is only the beginning. Much more needs to be done. The Journal’s policies and procedures need to be renewed and refreshed based on feedback from the Aboriginal authors and Guest Editors. There needs to be a “thinking through” of the harm caused when sending out articles that are culturally harmful or racist. Encouraging Aboriginal people to be on the Editorial Board and become part of the process would also be supportive. Changing the language and style of forms, emails, and responses to reflect a less western and a more culturally-responsive tone is necessary to inspire and influence cultural change in the Journal. As best we know, this Journal is a leader in Australia with these approaches. It is believed that many will follow. One of the Aboriginal authors has already been approached to begin such a process with another journal. Finally, we believe that this Special Issue and its editorial processes do demonstrate the Journal’s ongoing commitment to Reconciliation with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, which is key to its continuing obligation to respond to the cultural needs of Aboriginal authors, communities, and peoples.

Notes

1 https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/white-fragility-definition