Australian Indigenous early career researchers: unicorns, cash cows and performing monkeys

ABSTRACT

Data from the Developing Indigenous Early Career Researchers (ECRs) project reported that efforts of Indigenous ECRs are often undermined by examples of micro-racism. Shared personal experiences revealed racist attitudes and assumptions held by some non-Indigenous academics. This draws critical attention to the fact that while many institutions have developed Indigenous strategies to address disparities between Indigenous and non-Indigenous staff and student’s, racism is prevelant in higher education institutions across Australia. In this study, Indigenous ECRs metaphorically described their presence in the academy as unicorns, cash cows or performing monkeys. These terms illustrate the way in which Indigenous ECR attendance in the Australian higher education sector has been viewed, devalued and/or undermined by non-Indigenous academics and the institutions in which they are employed. Specifically, the notion of behavioural racism is used to critique the level of engagement and commitment of non-Indigenous academics to the inclusion of Indigenous knowledges and worldviews.

KEYWORDS:

• Indigenous
• early career researcher
• trajectory
• higher education
• racism

Introduction

Australian and international literature reveals that despite institutional rhetoric to increase the number of Indigenous¹ and/or First Nations staff in the higher education sector, representation remains low in comparison to non-Indigenous employment rates (Naepi et al. 2020; Smith, Funaki, and MacDonald 2021; Thunig and Jones 2020). Coates, Trudgett, and Page (2020, 3) specifically stated that, ‘it is indisputable that Indigenous Australians are significantly under-represented in the higher education sector’. This is of particular concern for Indigenous early career researchers² (ECRS) who are at a crucial stage in the development of their academic careers (Bazeley 2003; Pihama et al. 2018). Moreover, the underrepresentation of Indigenous and First Nations senior academics means that Indigenous ECRs have limited (if any) access to senior staff with both academic and cultural knowledges (Fredericks and White 2018; Locke, Trudgett, and Page 2021; Pihama et al. 2018).

In addition to the significant challenge of underrepresentation, there are a range of career barriers that Indigenous ECRs face in their attempts to establish and build their academic research careers. Challenges that can include, being first in family to attend higher education (Barney 2013; Fredericks and White 2018; Locke, Trudgett, and Page 2021), social and cultural isolation (Baice et al. 2021; Barney 2013; Pihama et al. 2018), community and family commitments not recognised and/or valued by the academy, and employment precarity (Naepi et al. 2020). Additionally, Indigenous and First Nations peoples often come to research and/or academic roles at a later stage in their lives than non-Indigenous peoples (Fredericks and White 2018; Pihama et al. 2018). In Australia, in 2018, only 21.7% of Indigenous academic staff were aged under 40 – compared to 31.3% of non-Indigenous academic staff (Universities Australia 2020). Thus, the longevity of an academic career and the ability to build a larger pool of Indigenous and First Nations academics is severely limited.

Positioning Indigenous ECRs in the academy

Notwithstanding the challenges identified above, the fact that the academy is a colonised settler space (Kidman 2020; Moreton-Robinson 2015; Smith, Funaki, and MacDonald 2021) means that Indigenous ECRs are differently positioned to non-Indigenous ECRs as a result of their Indigeneity (Fredericks 2011; Kidman 2020; Naepi et al. 2020; Pihama et al. 2018). Specifically, in relation to the academy First Nations scholars Smith, Funaki, and MacDonald (2021, 135) note that,

Historical amnesia, alternative narratives of harmonious settler-Indigenous relations, and the perception that universities operate as progressive and inclusive institutions, is a macro-level framework for understanding the mechanisms that underpin a hidden culture of settler normativity in the Centre.

Career barriers are created by racist attitudes, perspectives and assumptions about the roles, responsibilities and the capacity of Indigenous and First Nations academics (Asmar and Page 2018; Baice et al. 2021; Fredericks 2011; Kidman 2020; Thunig and Jones 2020). Moreover, Kidman, a Māori sociologist notes that, ‘[I]indigenous [sic] and minoritised Black faculty are frequently perceived as less able, less rational, less knowledgeable and less “civilised” than White academics, providing the academy with a tacit basis for marginalising them’ (2020, p.249). It is from this premise that this paper explores examples of racial biases against Indigenous ECRs and their roles in the academy. Specifically, the paper engages international literature focussed on racism in education with Mellor (2003) second category of racism, behavioural racism (also known as micro-racism) to examine and critique the level of engagement and motivations of non-Indigenous academics to the inclusion of Indigenous staff, knowledges and worldviews in the academy.

Behavioural racism framework

In his seminal work Mellor (2003) investigated the experiences of racism from 34 Indigenous Australian peoples between the ages of 18 to 58 years of age. This study offered new insights into racism as it firstly sought Indigenous experiences and examples of racism as opposed to examining the nature of racism or racist characteristics from a non-Indigenous perspective (Bodkin-Andrews and Carlson 2016). Secondly, Mellor (2003) study challenged the findings of earlier studies which suggested a decline in old-fashioned or overt racism (McConahay, Hardee, and Batts 1981). In contrast to such suggestions Mellor (2003, 483) specifically noted,

Not only was it the norm for the participants in this study to have experienced racism in their daily lives but much of the racism experienced was one-on-one, blatant, old-fashioned racism.

Mellor (2003) work saw a critical shift in racism based literature (Bodkin-Andrews and Carlson 2016) in Australia evidencing both the regularity of racism and its impact on the daily lives of Indigenous Australian peoples. Four overarching types of racism; verbal, behavioural, discrimination and macro level racism (Mellor 2003) were identified. Under the category of behavioural racism Mellor (2003) identified and examined eight specific behaviours from personal experiences shared by Indigenous peoples participating in his study. Figure 1 below, provides an illustration of eight behaviours identified by Mellor (2003) as examples of behavioural racism.

Figure 1. Eight behaviours identified in Mellor (2003) behavioural racism category.

This work and the research that followed brought to light significant differences between the perspectives of those who may hold racist attitudes and the existence and impact of racism on the lived experiences of Indigenous and First Nations peoples (Bodkin-Andrews et al. 2021; Bonilla-Silva and Embrick 2007; Smith, Funaki, and MacDonald 2021). Critically, Indigenous and First Nations scholars have challenged attempts to deny the existence of racism on the grounds that race itself is a social construct. Studies focussing on colorblind racism (Bonilla-Silva and Embrick 2007; Moreton-Robinson 2015; Smith, Funaki, and MacDonald 2021) highlight the role that colonisation plays in silencing Indigenous voices and subsequently downplaying the existence of racism. Gillborn (2019) argues that for people of colour the existence of racism in education is silenced by a color-blind ideology that serves to protect and maintain the power and position of White people in society. While Walter and Butler (2013, 401) state that: ‘In the Australian context, a particular coloniser-settler state epistemology of ignorance means that Euro-Australians neither see the effects of the racial hierarchy nor accept that it even exists’.

Findings from the Developing Indigenous Early Career Researchers Project provides personal experiences of Indigenous Early Career Researchers that reveal racist attitudes and assumptions held and expressed by some non-Indigenous academics. Shared experiences draw critical attention to the fact that while many institutions have developed Indigenous strategies to address disparities between Indigenous and non-Indigenous staff and students, behavioural racism, a form of interpersonal racism (Bodkin-Andrews et al. 2021) is openly expressed and enacted in institutions across Australia. Further, specific examples shared by Indigenous ECRs evidence a lack of support for those targeted by racism and little to no accountability for those who demonstrate racist attitudes.

Analysis of experiences shared by Indigenous ECRs evidenced shallow and disingenuous engagement and/or consultation by non-Indigenous academics and peers. Findings of this paper report on shared Indigenous ECRs experiences of collaboration and engagement in higher education institutions and reflect on similar findings from other colonised nations (Kidman 2020; Naepi et al. 2020; Pihama et al. 2018).

Methodology and methods

Context

The Developing Indigenous Early Career Researchers project is a three-year longitudinal study, funded by the Australian Research Council (ARC). Using a qualitative methods approach, Indigenous ECRs were invited to share their stories and experiences once a year for a total of three years, with each year being referred to as a ‘stage’, in semi-structured and culturally safe interviews (Bessarab and Ng’Andu 2010). This paper reports on findings from interviews conducted in stages 1 which took place in 2020 and stage 2 which occurred in 2021. The research was conducted by three Indigenous scholars, comprising two Indigenous professors (authors two and three) and an Indigenous early career researcher (author one). The three-year longitudinal approach was employed to facilitate the exploration of ‘evolving and complex processes’ (Murray et al. 2009) of the developmental trajectories of the careers of Indigenous ECRs. It is believed the longitudinal nature of this project also benefits the facilitation of more trustful research relationships with its Indigenous participants (Martin 2008; Povey and Trudgett 2019).

Indigenous early career research participants

A total of 30 Indigenous ECRs participated in stage one (2020) interviews and 28 in stage two (2021) interviews, as two participants were unable to participate due to personal health reasons. At the beginning of this study Indigenous ECRs were employed in 21 different institutions across Australia with the majority (90%) of ECRs employed at either Academic Level B or C. The original cohort consisted of 12 Indigenous ECRs located in New South Wales, ten in Queensland and two each in Victoria, Western Australia, South Australia and the Northern Territory. Substantial diversity among Indigenous ECRs was also apparent in the number of years employed in higher education, in employment conditions and roles and the ECR year in which each participant was in at the beginning of the project. For instance in 2020 (stage 1) the breakdown of Indigenous ECRs across the five-year early career stage was; 14 in the first year, 7 in second year, 5 in 3^rd year, 3 in 4^th year and one Indigenous ECR in the fifth and final year of the early career stage. For further details see (Locke, Trudgett, and Page 2021).

Pseudonyms were used for all participants, in some cases Indigenous ECRs chose their own while others gave permission for the researchers to choose a pseudonym on their behalf. For the purposes of this paper any direct participant quotes include the participant’s pseudonym and the interview stage (stage 1 or stage 2) from which the quote was sourced. It is anticipated that 29 Indigenous ECRs will be available to participate in the final, stage 3 interviews to be conducted in 2022.

Data collection and analysis

As a result of Covid-19 restrictions, lockdowns and border closures, all interviews in stages one and two were conducted using the video conferencing service ‘zoom’. Although the original plan was to conduct interviews in person all efforts were made to ensure that initial engagement and research interviews respected and upheld cultural protocols. For instance, at the beginning of each first interview (Stage 1) the researcher shared information about her connection to Country and family as part of her introduction and enquired as to the same for each Indigenous ECR. This information was not recorded as part of the interview transcript in order to maintain participant confidentiality. However, the researcher was able to begin each subsequent interview (Stage 2 and Stage 3) with a respectful, informal yarn asking about the Indigenous ECRs family and personal life. The researcher also connected with participants between formal interviews via email and offered additional informal zoom meetings in place of in person catch ups that would have been available if not for the pandemic. In hindsight Covid-19 actually provided common experiences that enabled the researcher to establish collegial and supportive relationships with all Indigenous ECR participants through the sharing of and listening to personal experiences, concerns and challenges.

Researchers employed NVivo 12 to firstly identify and document relevant demographic participant attributes and then to examine the data in depth and from a variety of viewpoints (Jackson and Bazeley 2019). Data for this paper was derived from a deeper analysis of overarching themes initially coded from the shared stories and experiences of Indigenous ECRs. Specifically, the ‘create’ and ‘explore’ functions in NVivo 12 enabled researchers to identify data that enabled a closer examination of Indigenous ECR interactions and relationships with non-Indigenous colleagues and academics.

Findings

Unicorns, cash cows and performing monkeys

Shared experiences and perspectives of Indigenous ECRs in this study have provided insights into racist attitudes and assumptions held and expressed by some non-Indigenous academics. These findings show racially biased expectations of Indigenous ECR roles in the academy in conjunction with a lack of understanding about cultural and community responsibilities have created additional barriers to academic development and career progression. These findings explore experiences and perspectives shared by Indigenous ECRs under three main themes – unicorns, cash cows and performing monkeys. These terms were explicitly used by one or more Indigenous ECRs in describing the way in which their presence in the higher education sector has been viewed, devalued and/or undermined by non-Indigenous academics. Firstly, under the theme of ‘Unicorns’, the paper explores experiences of Indigenous ECRs in which their presence in the academy has been met with disbelief and their capacity as researchers met with uncertainty. Secondly, under the theme ‘Cash cow’ the paper examines examples where work conducted by Indigenous ECRs was not appropriately recognised, valued and/or renumerated. Finally, ‘Performing monkeys’, highlights examples of cultural taxation (Gaudry and Lorenz 2018; Joseph and Hirshfield 2011) through which Indigenous ECRs were solely assigned Indigenous specific tasks and where non-Indigenous academics openly expressed racist attitudes of Indigenous capacity within the institution. It is important to note that while specific experiences shared by Indigenous ECRs are presented under one of three themes, it was evident that many have elements related to more than one, if not all three themes.

Unicorns

The term ‘unicorn’ was used by a number of Indigenous ECRs in reference to challenges they have faced in establishing themselves as capable researchers within their institutions and/or faculties. The concept of a unicorn alludes to a non-existent or mythical entity which Indigenous ECRs have likened to their presence in the academy. For example, Areau shared a personal insight to her experiences with non-Indigenous academics and colleagues who often appear confused by both the presence and capacity of an Indigenous person as a leading researcher:

Because often you go to those people who are assigned to you and they look at you like you’ve got one eye and you’re from Mars. They can’t imagine how you do what you do and it’s like, well I’m here. Yes, I am the unicorn in your face, seriously, I exist [laughs] because they don’t imagine that you exist. (Areau, stage 1)

Sasha also used the idea of a unicorn to describe the way in which Indigenous researchers are viewed by non-Indigenous academics.

I think that we’re like unicorns, so they’ve heard of us but don’t actually really believe we exist. (stage 1)

It is possible that non-Indigenous responses to the presence of Indigenous academics could be attributed in part to the fact that there has been minimal growth in the employment of Indigenous academic staff in Australia (Universities Australia 2020). As the employment of Indigenous academics is disproportionately lower than that of non-Indigenous academics, it is highly likely that many non-Indigenous academics have had very little if any contact or engagement with Indigenous researchers. As a result, Sasha’s comment rings true in that non-Indigenous academics are aware that Indigenous academics exist, however, an absence of Indigenous academics in faculties and/or institutions combined with a significant lack of education about Indigenous peoples and our histories in Australia means that Indigenous ECRs can be hidden in plain sight. As dramatic as this comment may appear, the experience shared below clearly illustrates that for some Indigenous ECRs this has certainly been the case.

In our university research committee meetings, of which I’m the only Indigenous person on the committee, they haven’t really recognised I’m there. I went to one meeting online and they’re like, ‘oh we don’t have any Indigenous people here, do we?’ and I’m like ‘oh hello’. They’re like ‘oh, will you do Acknowledgement to Country for us?’ I was like ‘oh okay’. I do it in my language and sometimes I think maybe I shouldn’t do it in my language because then they go, ‘oh, that’s beautiful. It’s amazing, it’s so wonderful to hear that tongue’ and then they forget you’re there for the rest of the meeting. (Martha, stage 2)

The question, ‘oh we don’t have any Indigenous people, here do we?’ reveals a level of ignorance and disrespect towards Martha as a committee member but also as an Indigenous person. In this instance it was the responsibility of this committees’ Chair to know who the committee members were and to conduct the meeting in a culturally safe and respectful manner. It is clear in this example that Martha’s contribution to this committee was confined to offering an Acknowledgement to Country and that this was considered as a ‘treat’ rather than an official part of the meeting. More concerning, Martha’s reflection about her indecision to offer an Acknowledgement in language indicates that this experience is not uncommon. Thus, speaking one’s traditional language relates the unicorn metaphor when it is viewed by non-Indigenous academics as enchanting, ‘it’s so wonderful to hear that tongue’.

This experience provides evidence of the way in which Indigenous ECRs can be made to feel non-existent or invisible in the academy, even when Indigeneity is recognised. Olive, Sasha, Areau and James all shared experiences and perspectives in which they referred to the efforts of inclusion as box ticking, while Julie, Lee, Patricia, Martha, Kimberly Cate and Maree identified some non-Indigenous approaches to inclusion as tokenistic and disingenuous. In response to a question of whether universities or the higher education sector focus appropriately on the development of Indigenous ECRs Julie stated:

Absolutely not. I don’t think there’s a genuine commitment to that. We’re a tick box. Oh yeah, okay, most of them, if you look at the reconciliation action plans, they’ve got two per cent goals, which I think are just not good enough. So yeah, we’ve ticked the employment goals, we’ve had our [Indigenous morning tea], we’ve got our Indigenous person on this committee and this committee, and it is very token, and it is very shallow. They drag us out when they want to go, oh look, here we go, here’s our little black trophies. (stage 1)

Julie’s reference to ‘little black trophies’ is not dissimilar to the expression of Indigenous ECRs as unicorns. In both cases, ‘trophies’ and ‘unicorns’ are non-tangible representations that highlight the absence of respectful recognition for the experiences, skills, knowledges and cultural identity that Indigenous ECRs bring to the academy. The expression, ‘little black trophies’ also alludes to the way in which universities and non-Indigenous academics can benefit from the presence and efforts of Indigenous ECRs. The next section explores the theme of ‘cash cows’ in relation to benefits gained by non-Indigenous academics at the cost of developing Indigenous early career trajectories.

Cash cow

Data from the first two stages of the Developing Early Career Researchers project has shown that in many cases Indigenous ECRs receive many requests to share their Indigenous knowledges and perspectives on committees and/or in classrooms yet gain little benefit from accepting such requests. Specific experiences shared by Indigenous ECRs show that more often than not requests come with an assumption that efforts are offered freely and that meeting requests rarely contribute to an Indigenous ECR’s academic workload or track record. The concept of a ‘cash cow’ speaks to benefits, financial or otherwise, that institutions and/or non-Indigenous academics gain as a result of unrecognised and usually unpaid work conducted by Indigenous ECRs.

Shared experiences that emphasise this point include instances in which Indigenous ECRs have been asked to provide cultural information or act as an Indigenous representative in academic projects that offer no form of remuneration for the Indigenous ECR’s knowledge and/or time. Understandably, a number of Indigenous ECRs have referred to this as free, unpaid, unseen and/or invisible work.

I reasonably regularly get requests to provide cultural advice for free to non-Indigenous academics who want to do research with black fellas and either need someone like me to tick a box for them or want to be able to at least say ‘oh, but I spoke to an Aboriginal person about how I’m doing this, and they said yada-yada’. (James, stage 2)

That’s not the sort of stuff that goes towards your promotion. So, you did a guest lecture, well, that’s great for the students and that’s great for the lecturer but what’s in it for you? … .From an Indigenous perspective. Yeah, totally. You won’t get any kind of – you won’t get anything back for that. (Kimberly, stage 2)

I’m only on there [various committees] to provide an Indigenous point of view. That’s not – I’m not getting paid for that. So, I want time to do that. They [faculty] couldn’t give me anything. They said, you’ll have to go to a research division and ask and they couldn’t do anything. So, I was like, well, who’s responsibility is this? Because you recruit us as Indigenous people because we can demonstrate Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander knowledges. (Cate, stage 1)

Experiences shared by Indigenous ECRs, such as those above, indicate non-Indigenous staff have expectations regarding both availability and responsibility of Indigenous ECRs to provide culturally specific knowledge without reciprocity, or consideration of the career benefits or impediments for the ECR. The pressing needs of universities to have Indigenous representation on committees should not fall to Indigenous ECRs and is short-sighted given the enormous potential of the slowly increasing numbers of well qualified scholars to build productive research and teaching careers. More revealing is a specific experience shared by Lee in which a non-Indigenous academic misled and manipulated the Indigenous ECR apparently for their own benefit.

I became included in three projects with her [non-Indigenous academic] and it became very obvious that I was in the introduction of the papers, ‘our Indigenous team member’, and then all of my contribution was deleted. All of my contribution to anything was removed, but it turned out I hadn’t even legally been added to projects or added to ethical approvals, even though I’d been taken on interviews. It was just tokenism at its worst. So, because that person had built their career on Indigenous research, they also were given all the Aboriginal content in programs, they had [everything]. (Lee, stage 1)

It is most disturbing that despite being acknowledged in initial written documents and attending participant interviews, Lee’s contribution to the research project was extinguished, by the non-Indigenous academic leading the project. This is highly problematic on many levels, firstly the fact that Lee was, ‘taken on interviews’ despite not being named on the project’s ethics documents raises concerns for potential and unfair accusations of professional misconduct, that could impact negatively on a developing research career. Secondly, this experience resulted in an outcome in which a non-Indigenous academic not only took sole credit for the project’s outcomes but was rewarded with ownership of, ‘all the Aboriginal content in programs’. As such, these actions denied Lee an opportunity to document their intellectual and cultural contributions to the project, which should have contributed towards their research track record.

Concerningly, Lee was not the only Indigenous ECR to report examples in which non-Indigenous academics have taken credit for research that would not have been possible, without the support, collaboration and/or work conducted by an Indigenous ECR. Another example provided by Cooper drew attention to the fact that research conducted by an Indigenous person often requires recognition from a non-Indigenous academic before it is considered valid.

There’s so much happening here in this space, and a lot of manoeuvring too, people coming into the space wanting to look at to all the work that we’ve done on it, [other] universities checking out our work, because you know what happens. A Black fella does something, it’s not real until a white professor checks it. (stage 2)

This reality between who is doing the work and who is credited for it is critical for Indigenous ECRs, for they are at a foundational and potentially precarious stage of their academic careers. However, none of the Indigenous ECRs participating in this research positioned themselves as victims, rather they made efforts to call out the actions and attitudes that work against Indigenous recognition and progression in the academy.

Yeah and being the interface with non-Indigenous people for all our students because that’s – it’s not technically my role, but of course that’s what you have to do. So again, that sort of thing, I look at it as part of my [position] role, but it’s not accounted for anywhere in the academic sort of stuff. (Olive, stage 2)

Because [the institution] think that we’re like cash cows, we’re providing this enormous income into our college because we’re bringing income in from other colleges, because we’re the only Aboriginal academics [teaching Aboriginal perspectives] in the space [across faculties]. So, I’ve been really struggling with that, how to let people know what we want, and our decisions about our workload need to be discussed with us. (Areau, stage 2)

They’re [Indigenous ECRs] put on every committee as the black representative, which also happens. What ends up becoming impacted is our research component, and then that affects our career progressions. That’s where I’ve been advocating in this new role to try and kind of consider academic progression, getting our Indigenous staff on there, getting them acknowledged for all that additional unseen work that we do. (Julie, stage 1)

Well, I think that there’s a little bit of a blind spot. Where the university is quite happy to make use of you as an Indigenous Australian. Sometimes you’re called on to contribute to other people’s work and you’re helping them complete their work, but your IP isn’t recognised in that project or in that work. So, you don’t get actual recognition for the time and intellectual property that you’ve contributed to someone else completing their workload. (Eva, stage 2)

Thus, the idea of Indigenous ECRs as cash cows in the academy is indicative of the way in which Indigenous ECRs participating in this project have been burdened by non-Indigenous academics to freely provide cultural information and/or an Indigenous perspective. Moreover, the work undertaken by Indigenous ECRs, for the benefit of their non-Indigenous colleagues has been shown as detrimental to the development of their career trajectories (Gaudry and Lorenz 2018; Joseph and Hirshfield 2011; Thunig and Jones 2020) as this work is commonly not effectively include in workload, rarely renumerated and poorly recognised in promotion criteria and as such fails to build on Indigenous career trajectories.

Performing monkeys

The final theme presented in these findings is similarly connected with elements of both the unicorn and cash cow themes. The idea of a performing monkey alludes to an entity that is expected to participate in roles that, like cash cows almost always benefits others. In this case, an Indigenous ECR’s identity, abilities and purpose are defined and influenced by the expectations and requirements of the dominant race and culture. Indigenous ECRs are thus silenced by those that dictate their purpose which has been identified in the literature as a cultural taxation (Gaudry and Lorenz 2018; Joseph and Hirshfield 2011) and for Indigenous ECRs raises two main issues. Firstly, is the non-Indigenous expectation that Indigenous related roles and activities should be performed by Indigenous ECRs.

Indigenous academics get pigeon-holed into Indigenous positions or Indigenous schools. My whole teaching career was as a mainstream teacher in mainstream classrooms. Senior teacher for everyone, a faculty senior for everything. The only time I got pigeon-holed into an Indigenous school, teaching Indigenous units, was when I went into higher education. I can do other things; I don’t have to just do the Indigenous stuff. They don’t reward us for our overall skills and knowledge. They limit what we can show as our worth to the university. (Eva, stage 2)

Moreover, one Indigenous ECR raised concern about how non-Indigenous expectations can influence the way in which Indigenous ECRs perceptions of themselves and their purpose in the academy.

So it’s almost like this thing of you become indoctrinated to this idea of thinking that that’s what we do as people, that is the extent of our research …… .we’re human beings and the citizens of the world and we also have interests that expand beyond Aboriginal health and mental – you know social and emotional wellbeing and all of these things. (Skywalker, stage 1)

Indigenous ECRs openly expressed their thoughts about attitudes and a general lack of recognition that continues to marginalise who they are and what they are able to achieve in the academy. The examples below highlight issues that arise from non-Indigenous definitions of Aboriginality and inaccurate presumptions about the role of Indigenous ECRs in the academy.

I think the days of being told how to think and what you think, for them [non-Indigenous peoples] to tell you what you think as an Aboriginal person, no, those days are gone. You’re not the expert on Aboriginality, we are. (Leila, stage 2)

Yes, so the argument that I’ve been having is like well what’s the point of having a reconciliation action plan or having an Indigenous environment strategy if you want every Aboriginal person that comes into the space to fit into a hole that is a white academic hole and we’re like a square peg in that hole and we never fit, or we are not seen. (Areau, stage 2)

It’s been 15 years now [employed in higher education sector], I think I have told you before, that I have been at level B, [3^rd year ECR] and it would be nice to have – a senior lecturer position. I think we work harder than most to get what we have achieved, but we are not being acknowledged as readily as other people might be, and that’s what I have found in academia. (Julunybarr, stage 2)

I find that I play a huge advocacy role because of my standing in the broader national community, which my unit fails to see because they want to downplay all of my – what I bring; 35 years of being in the industry. They want to treat me as a junior academic who knows nothing, someone who lacks any expertise. (Teal Dhakki, stage 2)

In line with the theme of performing monkeys the comments shared above example ways in which Indigenous ECRs are expected to fulfill roles that invariably fail to recognise the level of expertise and diversity of skills they bring to their faculties and institutions. Further, the second issue related to the performing monkeys theme involves low expectations and/or belief in special provisions made by the academy for the success and/or progression of Indigenous ECRs. In fact, Indigenous ECRs shared specific experiences in which non-Indigenous academics made racist comments about work undertaken by an Indigenous ECR.

I’ve had people look at my grant applications and be like, ‘oh are you going to be the research assistant on this?’ I’m like, ‘no, I’m an investigator’. Why would you assume? I think maybe because I work for an Aboriginal centre, like why would you assume that I’m not going to be an investigator? Why are you assuming I’m going to be less? (Sarah, stage 1)

I actually had a colleague say to my face – someone who I thought was pretty woke and across things says, ‘oh [name], you shouldn’t stress too much about your job, all they want you to be is to just turn up’. I was devastated. (Sasha, stage 1)

This perspective that Indigenous ECRs are either less capable or else aren’t expected to meet the same level of accountability and/or success in the academy as their non-Indigenous colleagues is highly offensive. Such attitudes negate and undermine the extraordinary efforts of Indigenous peoples in order to earn academic qualifications in institutions founded on Western worldviews, knowledges and values. Sasha also shared how isolating and debilitating such attitudes can be.

I very much felt like I was in [a token role]. I think they employed me not expecting me to actually do anything. It was my job to sit in the corner and be the performing monkey when they needed me to be, and I really lost my way during that. I didn’t know how to come out of it, how to come above it, who to take it to and what to do. (Sasha, stage 2)

This reference to being a performing monkey clearly illustrates the way in which Indigenous ECRs can be silenced and their career progression stifled with no avenue of advice or support (Locke, Trudgett, and Page 2022). This view exposes biased beliefs held by some non-Indigenous peoples of the roles and responsibilities of Indigenous ECRs in the academy. In line with the theme of performing monkeys it is clear that institutional strategies that purport to address disparities between Indigenous and non-Indigenous staff and students are not necessarily embraced or enacted by all staff. Data from this study provides evidence that some non-Indigenous staff expect or assume that activities and efforts to include Indigenous peoples and/or knowledges in the academy should be performed by Indigenous staff. However, a number of Indigenous ECRs pointed out that for Indigenous strategies and reconciliation plans to work effectively all staff must take responsibility and be held to account.

It can’t be purely reliant on my presence or any other Aboriginal presence, it needs to be an ongoing thing within non-Indigenous people and to have them be accountable for it. (Eli, stage 2)

I haven’t been able to make a couple of meetings, and then you get behind, and then you find out that they haven’t done anything around Indigenous because you weren’t there. Then you’re playing catch-up. Because they think it’s my responsibility, instead of everyone’s responsibility. ‘Oh, [participant’s name] is not here, we can’t really do it’. What a crock of shit. (Shaun, stage 2)

Other Indigenous ECRs also noted that despite the rhetoric of inclusion, some institutions and non-Indigenous academics not only prescribe which tasks should be performed by Indigenous academics, they are also wary of the number of Indigenous academics employed in their institutions.

Because every university wants a [Indigenous] scholar. They don’t want a whole heap of them because they don’t trust us, but they want a few to make – because they know that they have to. (William, stage 1)

It’s hard because you’re – it’s almost like they don’t want too many black fellas at the top. So, you don’t want to push other people out, but you want to carve your own space for your own research and they kind of go, ‘we’ve already got black fella research’. It’s like, we can have more than one project. (Sarah, stage 2)

Thus, the motivation and commitment to employing and supporting the development of Indigenous ECRs comes into question. It is highly unlikely that the challenges and inequities faced by Indigenous peoples can be effectively heard or acknowledged when non-Indigenous academics are the arbiters of Indigenous identity, abilities and purpose within the academy.

Discussion

The continuation of micro-racism experienced by Indigenous peoples is clearly demonstrated when aligned with experiences shared by Indigenous ECRs in a study conducted eighteen years ago (Mellor 2003). In the Developing Indigenous ECRs project only two out of eight behaviours, varied slightly to the examples identified by Mellor’s participants. Specifically, identified examples of assault and denial of identity are documented slightly differently in this study as verbal assault and marginalisation respectively. In the table below, each racist behaviour (aside from marginalisation) includes a brief definition from Mellor (2003) work and a minimum of two examples for each behaviour is recorded from the Developing Indigenous ECRs project data (Table 1).

Table 1. Behavioural racism experienced by Indigenous ECRs.

Racist Behaviours (Mellor 2003, 478-479)	Indigenous ECR Experiences	Racist Theme identified by Indigenous ECRs
		Unicorn	Cash Cows	Performing Monkeys
1. Ignoring: ‘interpreted to be on the basis of Aboriginality and associated stereotyped inferiority’	Chair of committee ignorant to Indigenous ECR presence	✓
	Confusion and disbelief of Indigenous ECR as lead researcher	✓✓
2. Avoiding ‘can be considered as being either personal or a more general avoidance of Koories’	Unsupported & redirected to a different dept, that also did nothing		✓
	Indigenous ECRs academic progression ill-considered and/or overlooked		✓✓	✓✓
	Silencing Indigenous voices		✓✓
3. Looking: ‘occurrences in which the participants felt that they had been looked at either directly or indirectly because of their race’	‘they look at you like you’ve got one eye and you’re from Mars’	✓
	‘little black trophies’	✓	✓	✓
4. Patronizing: ‘patronizing behaviour occurs when people are treated as if they are inferior’	Tokenistic & box ticking approaches to inclusion	✓	✓	✓
	Low expectations, deficit positioning			✓✓
5. Segregation: ‘separating one group of people from another because they are different in some way’.	Indigenous ECRs ‘pigeonholed’ into Indigenous/culture roles			✓✓
	Indigenous intellectual property not recognised & is used for the benefit of a non-Indigenous academic		✓
	Non-Indigenous academics failing to take responsibility to support Indigenous students and/or the inclusion of Indigenous knowledges		✓	✓✓
6. Harassment: ‘people reported being harassed on a repeated and unnecessary basis because of their Aboriginality’	Expected to work for free		✓✓✓✓
	Misled & manipulated in research project		✓
	Underestimated & undermined			✓✓
	Institutions failure to address racism	✓	✓	✓
7. Assault (verbal): ‘general remarks that were interpreted by the interviewee to be racist in some way’	Non-Indigenous academics speaking negatively (deficit discourse) about Indigenous peoples			✓
	‘All they want you to do is turn up’			✓
8. Denial of identity: (Marginalisation)	Trivialising Indigenous protocols such as Acknowledgement to Country	✓
	Necessity for Indigenous research to be validated by non-Indigenous academic		✓
	Attempts to limit/control no. of Indigenous academics in faculty/institution			✓✓

Data in the table above reveals Indigenous ECRs often find themselves fulfilling roles that prioritise institutional goals and non-Indigenous staff requirements over other activities that could count towards the development and progression of their own academic careers. From this perspective Indigenous ECRs participating in this study used expressions that included but were not restricted to unicorns, cash cows and performing monkeys to describe the way in which their presence in the higher education sector has been viewed, devalued and/or undermined by non-Indigenous academics and the institutions in which they are employed. Despite institutional rhetoric to increase the number of Indigenous staff across the higher education sector Indigenous representation remains low (Coates, Trudgett, and Page 2020; Universities Australia 2020) and the likelihood of making significant change to this fact seems unlikely given the findings from this study. Indigenous ECR’s need to be able to build their careers without the additional burden of racism, the cultural taxation of taking an uneven load of Indigenous work and to have access to appropriate mentorship and advice regarding which work is important for career development and why. The benefits to universities of a productive and successful Indigenous early career workforce are significant and require careful and strategic planning to ensure effective career development.

Negative experiences shared by Indigenous ECRs appear to result from a lack of understanding, respect and genuine commitment on the part of both institutions and non-Indigenous staff. One of the main issues is that when Indigenous ECRs are positioned as metaphorical unicorns, cash cows and/or performing monkeys they are employed in higher education because they are Indigenous rather than what opinions, critiques and/or intellectual dialogues they can bring to the academy (Fredericks 2011; Thunig and Jones 2020). Ahenakew (2016, 324) states that,

Strategies of inclusion and integration of Indigenous knowledges have created a form of inclusion where dominant norms and populations still determine what can be said and how.

Developing sound Indigenous ECR trajectories are subject to the level of commitment institutions and non-Indigenous staff have to deeper issues of social justice and equality. However, this can only be realised through a critical analysis of the ways in which White privilege and settler norms exist and are perpetuated in everyday operations and expectations of non-Indigenous staff (Smith, Funaki, and MacDonald 2021).

If higher education institutions only ever employ Indigenous women and Indigenous men who fit into the Eurocentric frameworks of whiteness and never challenge or question, then some cosmetic changes will occur and some minor improvements will take place, but the entrenched stratified situation will remain (Fredericks 2011, 11).

From this premise the development and success of Indigenous ECRs will only be fully realised when the engagement of Indigenous ECRs by non-Indigenous academics and institutions is motivated by a genuine commitment to addressing inequality and valuing Indigenous ways of knowing, being and doing.

Conclusion

Shared experiences of Indigenous ECRs demonstrate that behavioural racism (Bodkin-Andrews et al. 2021; Mellor 2003) continues to exist in higher education institutions in Australia. This finding is consistent with literature that reports on the experiences of Indigenous, First Nations and people of colour across higher education institutions internationally (Baice et al. 2021; Bonilla-Silva and Embrick 2007; Smith, Funaki, and MacDonald 2021; Kidman 2020; Gillborn 2019; Fredericks 2011; Thunig and Jones 2020). In this study, as unicorns Indigenous ECRs were ignored, silenced and their qualifications and knowledges questioned or worse still discounted by non-Indigenous staff who openly expressed racist attitudes. As cash cows the efforts and time given by Indigenous ECRs to support institutional strategies and non-Indigenous staff went unrewarded. Finally, under the theme of performing monkeys, Indigenous ECRs experienced cultural taxation (Joseph and Hirshfield 2011; Gaudry and Lorenz 2018) when non-Indigenous colleagues failed to recognise skills and expertise that were not related directly to Indigenous peoples or concerns. Thus, these findings along with literature from Australia and abroad provide clear evidence that Indigenous ECRs, First Nations scholars are often pigeon-holed by non-Indigenous expectations and as a result experience isolation and racism. Opportunities for Indigenous ECRs to build sound research trajectories are significantly challenged by disingenuous engagement that not only burdens Indigenous ECRs with additional tasks and responsibilities but greatly stifles the development of Indigenous academic and research careers. Thus, it is clear that if institutions in Australia and abroad are to fulfil commitments to increasing Indigenous and First Nations representation at all levels of the academy it is paramount that they firstly recognise and secondly actively address the levels of behavioural racism that exists within the walls of higher education.

Ethics approval

This study has been approved by the Western Sydney University Human Research Ethics Committee. The Approval number is H13270

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the Australian Research Council for funding this project and all Indigenous ECRs who kindly shared their knowledge with us.

Disclosure statement

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

Correction Statement

This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Additional information

Funding

This project is funded by the Australian Research Council [IN190100018].

Notes

1. In this paper the terms ‘Indigenous’ refers to Australian Indigenous Peoples and ‘First-Nations’ refers to Indigenous Peoples from countries other than Australia.

2. We have used the term ‘early career researchers’ as it highlights the research trajectory the participants have been on and promotes them as bona fide researchers. However, we recognise that another acceptable term would be ‘early career academics’.