Australia

It is well-documented that Indigenous Australians as a whole are the most disadvantaged group on the continent. National statistics on the health of Aboriginal Australians as compared to other Australians reveal that they live an average of 17 years less, and are hospitalized 14 times more for chronic disease (Durey, 2010). According to Socha (2020), the Racism and Indigenous Health Symposium held in 2007 determined that institutional racism was most pervasive against Indigenous people, and was also the greatest determinant in health inequalities (p. 293). It follows that Aboriginals are the subject of much attention and resources as the nation struggles to balance the disparity in health, employment, and education and critical race, perhaps most famously through its Closing the Gap initiative, which began in 2008 (Elder, 2017).

There is more to it though, for others believe “reconciliation is far more than closing the gap on the deficit in terms of life expectancy, child mortality, literacy rates, and imprisonment. The issue of the treaty, sovereignty, reparations, and also constitutional reform are like the elephant in the room that some prefer not to discuss” (McIntosh, 2014). The nation’s complex past involving colonialism and racism raises questions about ongoing and residual racism, institutional disadvantages, and collaborative processes between all Australians. Rowse (2012) looks at the complex idea of ‘relationship’ within the greater context of reconciliation between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians, as he analyzes a reconciliation barometer devised by Reconciliation Australia. However, even with a closer look Rowse reveals three broad and difficult-to-measure aspects of relationship, each containing multitudes of possible definitions and parameters: the degree of Indigenous disadvantage compared to white Australians, the strength of interpersonal relationships, and the nature of political relationships (p. 11). As we can see, the notion of reconciliation is vast and painstakingly nuanced within varying reconciliatory spaces.

According to Matthews and Aberdeen (2008), “a great many discussions of ‘reconciliation’ revolve around matters of teaching and learning the ‘truth’ about past injustices and thereby flow into debates about whether reconciliation should be concerned with symbolic and substantive matters or tied more precisely to ‘practical’ measures” (p. 90). A major component of reconciliation in Australia addresses the mistreatment of Indigenous people throughout the twentieth century. Known as the Stolen Generation, Indigenous children were taken from their homes in the government’s attempt to destroy cultural ties and support assimilation into the dominant culture, a policy that remains a wound on the national conscience (Cunneen, 2005). In 2008, however, an apology from then-Prime Minister Kevin Rudd marked a symbolic turning point between parties (Pelizzon & Kennedy, 2010, p. 58). Another symbolic gesture that accompanied Rudd’s official apology and continues today is the Welcome to Country, a proclamation of sorts which acknowledges traditional Aboriginal ownership of Country at public events. Although it is not a comprehensive solution to a tumultuous past, Pelizzon and Kennedy conclude that “by engaging in a reciprocal understanding of place and context-specific practices and protocols, all participants to a recognition of Country event engage in a political act of decolonization within which questions around the meaning of Country can be meaningfully asked, and whereby such meaning is collectively and equitably negotiated, created and constantly re-established” (2012, p. 67).

Research focused on Indigenous governance, such as the work of Hunt and Smith (2005), deals with “how to enable Indigenous communities to strengthen their own capacities to exercise self-determination and achieve socio-economic development, essential ingredients in the goal of attaining some sort of equity and reconciliation with other Australians” (p. 1). Given the wealth of ideas surrounding reconciliation, researchers have approached questions from many angles and methodologies based on the context and nature of the problem in order to explore reconciliatory spaces including economic possibilities, educational change, and decolonizing research in favor of participatory practices.

Approaching research with an openness to cultural methodology is particularly important in researching disparities for the purposes of reconciliation. It is in itself an act of goodwill toward that goal. Participatory research and interviews allow data to surface which can lead to results that may not be anticipated, allowing for richer outcomes. On the other hand, surveys allow for a bigger set of data than interviews, for example, which may help identify patterns, outcomes or general attitudes. When exploring the contextual meaning of reconciliation in Australia, both types of information are important, especially if they involve participatory or interpretivist approaches. For example, exploring the particular conceptual meaning of reconciliation in Australia, qualitative, participatory work is helpful to define meaningful change. Quantitative work helps understand the efficacy of campaigns for public support or where efforts should be redirected. The merits of each kind of research overlap to an extent, but also inherently carry their own importance, so that depending on the research question and approach, any of these methods may be appropriate for application.

Qualitative research is particularly important and heavily contributes to research methodology. This may be due to the fact that reconciliation can bring together various other concepts, and relies heavily on perceptions and attitudes that can be known through participatory analysis. Importantly, Matthews and Aberdeen’s deeper look into the experiences of activists can contribute to understanding reconciliation attitudes and how they might affect policy in the future. There seems to be a much heavier emphasis on qualitative work in reconciliation, likely for the reasons stated above. At the same time, it is so important to be able to measure how effective reconciliation processes are and how to improve these efforts. The statistical analysis employed by Halloran on people’s perceived values offers helpful patterns that can inform successful educational campaigns. Different designs are not necessarily contradictory, nor do they compete in value, but rather provide complimentary inference into a complex social issue to offer a more comprehensive picture. However, participatory and interpretivist approaches are particularly effective when looking at reconciliation needs and processes.