The Politics of Numbers: Statistical Fairness, Market Justice and the ‘inclusion’ of First Nations people in Australian Universities
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In the country now known as Australia, First Nations peoples’ participation in higher education has gained increasing policy attention since the introduction of the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Policy (NATSIEP) in 1989. The main focus of this policy, and allied research, has been on Indigenous peoples’ rates of access, retention and completion (ARC) in Australian universities. This research takes a different point of departure. It situates Indigenous peoples’ inclusion in higher education over this period within a wider contemporary political and socio-economic landscape which has broadly been framed by neoliberalism as a political project. In short, I ask: what is it that Indigenous students have access to, and does it provide a promising avenue for social justice? Guiding this project, from a methodological and ethical stance, is Indigenous Standpoint Theory, the Cultural Interface (Nakata 2007) and Critical Indigenous Studies. I also engage with critical statistical studies, critical policy studies on governing, and social justice theories. To answer the research question above, I added an additional set of questions to probe what has occurred for Indigenous student participation since the introduction of NATSIEP? First, what do the statistics on Indigenous peoples’ participation in university tell us? Second, what are the main policy (especially funding) mechanisms influencing universities and how do these impact Indigenous peoples’ participation in Australian universities? Third, how might we assess these policies, their priorities, and the story that the data tells us from a social justice point of view? The thesis draws on multiple methods and sources, including the careful analysis of government statistics, official government reports and interviews with senior Indigenous leaders in universities. The findings reveal, first, that much of the data that is reported over time, pertaining to Indigenous student inclusion in Australian universities is incomplete and that the underpinning assumptions shift with politics. Moreover, further scrutiny reveals a story of declining rates of Indigenous students ARC, relative to the overall cohort of students in Australian universities. Secondly, that there is inequality between universities. Indigenous students have access to very different experiences and resources depending on the university, with the top universities using the institutional finances as augmenting rather than the main source of funds. Thirdly, that the funding mechanisms aimed to include Indigenous students are insufficient and many Indigenous students leave university without a degree but with a debt. I use different framings of social justice – from Fourcade’s (2017) concept of ‘statistical fairness’ to Streeck’s (2014) ‘market justice’, to argue that neither of these are an adequate account of social justice for Indigenous peoples. I call into question the current inclusion agenda and argue that it is a mere hollow, performative agenda, that has neglected to adequately attend to the stolen land Australian universities are built on. Instead, I argue that reparative justice is needed, not only to attend to the past but also anchored in the future. I offer recommendations regarding what this might look like in policy. Further research is needed on how we, as Indigenous people, centre our own agendas in the university that are based on principles of self-determination.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,006 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».