NIRAKN Management Committee Meeting

NIRAKN Management Committee Meeting

Wednesday 2nd October 2013 commencing at 2pm,

Conference Room, The Edge Apartments, Rockhampton

1.0ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY ANDAPOLOGIES

The Chair, NIRAKN Director Professor Aileen Moreton-Robinson, acknowledged the traditional owners and opened the meeting.

Present: Professor Aileen Moreton-Robinson (Chair and Director of NIRAKN, QUT);
NIRAKN Node Leaders - Professor Kath Clapham (Uni Wollongong); Professor Bronwyn Fredericks (CQU);A/Professor Jaki Troy (AIATSIS); A/Professor Maggie Walter (UTas); Dr Asmi Wood (ANU); Dr Mark McMillan ([on telephone] UniMelb); Professor Pat Dudgeon ([on telephone] UWA);

NIRAKN Partner Organisations - Dr Kevin Williams (Ninti One); Ms Marlene Thompson (Waminda); Dr Jeff Hudson (Healing Foundation);NIRAKN Hub Staff - Dr David Singh; Ms Carol Humber.

Apologies: Apologies received from Professor Larissa Behrendt, Professor Steve Larkin,Professor John Maynard, Mr Scott Avery, and Mr Sam Johnston.

2.0CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

The minutes of the meeting of the NIRAKN Management Committee meeting held on 14 July 2013were tabled and discussed.

There was discussion about the level of detail required in the minutes. It was generally felt that minutes ought to reflect general discussion and outcomes rather than a literal record.

Three points of minor amendment to the minutes were accepted by the Chair and amendments made accordingly. Specifically:

1. Apology from Dr Kevin Williams was noted and added.
2. An error in spelling Waminda was noted and changed.
3. Reference to the detail of previous amendments to minutes in 2.0 tobe deleted.

The accuracy of the minutes, specifically to sections in 4.4 was contested by two members of the committee. There was discussion of these objections by committee members who were present at the previous management committee meeting and the following motion was put to the vote.

Resolution: That the minutes be accepted as a true and correct record, subject to the three minor amendments previously accepted by the chair.

Moved by Dr Wood, seconded by Dr Troy.

Motion carried.

ProfessorClapham and DrWalter voted against and asked that their dissent be recorded.

3.0BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES

The Actionsheet of tasks arising from previous meetings was tabled and outstanding items discussed.

The Chair requested that outstanding actions be completed by 30 November, reminding the meeting that some are related to NIRAKN’s KPIs, including the biographies for the website. Some members requested a template to assist them with reporting on their KPIs.

Actions:

-Outstanding tasks from previous management committee meetings to be completed by 30th November

-Hub to send guidance to members regarding details required for the website, including a template with topic guidelines, word limit, and photo guide (inc file size).

Members reported on specific tasks from the Action sheet from the July meeting.

(3.1.1.3): Belinda Richardson hasconfirmed the grant establishing NIRAKN is a Category 1 grant and provided guidelines regarding who can claim research quantum. Node leaders can only claim the amount of funds transferred to their institution as research grant quantum less any funds they disperse to other universities.

(3.1.1.5):Chair reminded node leaders to submit activities for the network calendar, and advised that Node Leaders are required to attach a work plan to their annual reports which should include a calendar of activities. The Hub had developed a calendar template which could be used by Node Leaders. The calendar of node activities would be used to populate the central calendar, which will go online once the website is complete.

Action:

-Node Leaders to submit activities for the network calendar, and compile node calendars of planned activities

(3.1.1.6): Dr Walterhad been tasked to map Node projects being developed, most appropriate participants, and target best funding sources. Dr Walter requires aformat to followor template with which to gather information, suggesting a discussion amongst Node Leaders today. Chair noted that theAdvisory Committee Chair had requested a written report from Node Leaders regarding node research, and this information has not been received.

Action:

-MW to discuss format of report on Node projects under development with Node Leaders

-Node Leaders to submit reports on node research for Advisory Committee to the Hub

(3.1.1.8):A meeting was scheduled seeking philanthropic investment, which did not go ahead. Efforts will be made in 2014.

Action:

-Director seek advice widely to identify suitable philanthropic organisations that may wish to invest in suitable NIRAKN projects in the future

(3.1.1.10): Chair reminded Management Committee that publications will be recorded in the Annual Report, and reminded members to forward details of publications to the Hub.

Action:

-forward details of any new publications, links to relevant eprints or aggregating sites, details of publications generated by or in nodes, and other publications indirectly related to NIRAKN (such as publications of network participants)

(3.1.1.11): Node Leaders were charged with holdingnode meetings for non-Indigenous supervisors, and this has not yet been done. Efforts will be madein 2014.

Action:

-Each Node to host (as NIRAKN event) a meeting for non-Indigenous supervisors at participating institutions—using the Lowitja textbook (and a subsequent meeting for Indigenous supervisors).

(3.1.2.1):Information about processes for expressing interest in tendering was circulated to NIRAKN members.

(3.1.2.2): A NIRAKN mobile app will be considered as part of website development.

Action:

-Network Convenor to consider a NIRAKN mobile app as part of website development

(3.1.2.5): Aprocess for distributing Node Leader’s international conference bursaries is in the process of being developed.

(4.1):Chair noted that Management Committee members were asked to consider appointing Congress’ policy researchers as Honorary Research Associates at their institutions where appropriate.DrMcMillan declared an interest, due to his role on Congress. Chair suggestedit may be appropriate to appoint people as affiliates or adjuncts, and it would be worth discussing with them how and where they would like to be attached.

Action:

-Director to follow up possibility of appointing Congress researchers as Honorary Research Associates with Congress, to discuss how and where researchers would like to be attached.

(4.2): A letterhas been drafted to invite Non-Indigenous Mentors identified in the initial NIRAKN application to participate.

Action:

-Node Leaders to consider whether there are additional candidates they wish to enlist as Non-Indigenous Mentors, and suggest them to Maggie Walter for consideration at Management Committee.

(4.3):NIRAKN Research Affiliates membership form has been developed, along with an information page explaining NIRAKN and the role.

Resolved: It was resolved by consensus of the meeting that the Research Affiliate membership form and cover notebe approved and available on NIRAKN website.

Action:

-Indigenous Researcher Affiliate Membership Application form to be placed on NIRAKN website

(4.4): Yuriaki meetings have been held. The Deputy Director has not provided written reports, and was unclear about what they should contain. ISK Node Leaders have not met.

The Chair advised she had asked QUT to contact UTAS. The Director holds an administrative responsibility to report possible institutional concerns regarding the operation of the network, as this could potentially form a grievanceregarding compliance with various contracts. QUT had sent a letter seeking clarification, and no written response was received from UTAS. Governance and contract matters arising will be addressed underagenda item 4.1.

(4.5): Members discussed A-level workshops currently planned, and would report to the Hub when these have been conducted. The Hub will be hosting a National CRG in Novemberfor all Indigenous postgrads, not just NIRAKN members.Feedback from the July Capacity Building workshopssuggests that there is a great need for a grant-writing workshop, and this will be considered in 2014 planning.

Actions:

-Node Leaders to conduct Level-A workshops, and advise Hub when these have been conducted.

-Consider grant-writing workshop in NIRAKN planning for 2014.

(4.6): A NIRAKN Research Policy is being drafted, and will be circulated by the end of October for feedback. Funding issues relating to Yuriaki node have been resolved. Postgraduate expo is on the agenda for discussion under item 4.4.

Actions:

-Director to draft and circulate Research Policy Framework by end October.

-Management Committee members to provide feedback on Draft Research Policy.

4.0AGENDA ITEMS

4.1Management and Contract Issues

Director stepped aside from Chair, Chair assumed by Professor Fredericks

Motion on notice:

The Management Committee directs the Queensland University of Technology to amend the Collaboration agreement to bring it into alignment - in fact and operation - with the Head (QUT/ARC) agreement by abolishing the position of the Deputy Director of NIRAKN. (Moved by Dr McMillan)

The motion was explained by the mover. Contractually, thereare two conflicting tiers of agreement.QUT has a contractual relationship with the ARC as the Administering Organisation of NIRAKN which does not refer to the role of Deputy Director. Other Collaborating Institutions have a contractual relationship with QUT, not the ARC, and the role of Deputy Director is outlined in schedules.The ARC-QUT agreement has precedence. The sub-agreements have created unintentional management issues, in that someone outside of QUT could havemanagement responsibilities while not bound by QUT’s processes.Dr McMillan objected to assertions of aggression and the motion does not derive from personalconflict.

Chair called for discussion. Members discussed the motion and expressed their views.

A range of issues were canvassed by Committee members, including: whether the motion reflected personal concerns; whether the Deputy Director had attempted to direct staff; the current political climate and level of scrutiny; the desirability of clarity in governance responsibilities; the need to comply with legal obligations; the importance of the work undertaken by NIRAKN; the workload generated; the lack of compatibility between the governance responsibilities envisaged in the application with the ARC’s requirements of the QUT-ARC agreement. The Director requested governance responsibilities be clarified, and expressed willingness to stand aside if this would be helpful or if members wished to retain the position of Deputy Director. Processes for resolving any personal issues external to Management Committee were noted, as was the capacity of all Management Committee members to assist the Director administratively as and when requested.

The mover agreed to request to delay the motion so that members had time to consider issues. The motion was not moved, but waslaid on the table for a future meeting.

Director resumed the chair.

4.2 Report on Meeting with ARC

The Director and Dr Macoun met with Marian Simms at the ARC in Canberra in October to discuss a range of issues relating to Indigenous research and researchers.

The Director had suggested the ARC consider an Indigenous linkage program, to facilitate community driven Indigenous research. There is an opportunity to provide feedback onANZSRC Field of Research Codes before the next round of ERA processes; Professor Simms sought feedback from NIRAKNabout whether implementing a 4-digit group codeto recognize Indigenous Studies research would be appropriate, or whether 6-digit FOR codes within disciplineswould be preferred. It was suggested it may be possible to combine these, with a 4-digit code for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander studies, and 6-digit code for each discipline. There may be an opportunity to request additional 6-digit codes where existing codes are inadequate. Issues raised by junior scholars regarding difficulties managing non-Indigenous researchers on Discovery Indigenous projects were also raised with the ARC, along with whether additional cultural supports would be desirable. Professor Simms had suggested that compliance with AIATSIS research ethics could also be included in the process.

Feedback was sought from Management Committee. It was noted that researchers currently have to be attached to an institution, which limits capacity of people within the community to develop research from within, and suggested those rules could change. It was indicated that existing disciplines can be quite limiting, and it would be good to identify someone to speak at a forum on these issues.

Resolved: ThatManagement Committee endorses the ARC implementing a 4-digit code for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, with 6-digit codes within the relevant disciplines.

Movedby Professor Moreton-Robinson, seconded Dr Wood.

Carried.

Actions:

-Director to continue liaising with the ARC regarding Indigenous research

-Management Committee members to provide feedback to Director on ARC Indigenous research issues as relevant.

4.3Capacity Building Workshops

Papers for this item were discussed, and includedthree quotes for room hire and conference facilities for next year’s Capacity Building workshops (two from Sydney, one from the Gold Coast). The Chair recommendedshiftingworkshops planned for Sydney in February to the Gold Coast in July 2014. This would be desirable due to workload pressures of annual report, difficulties in making arrangements duringChristmas/ New Year shut down, and the better value rates on room hire. Travel costs to the Gold Coast do not cancel out these savings. A national meeting could be held at this time.

Resolved: It was the consensus of the meeting that theHub should proceed with planning to have the workshops on the Gold Coast in July 2014.

Action:

-Hub to proceed with planning for Capacity Building Workshops at Gold Coast, coordinate availability and identify suitable dates for July workshops.

Associate Professor Maryrose Casey, who acted as Evaluator for the July workshops, joined the meeting.

Evaluation showedthat a highlight for participants was when presentersshared their personal histories and experiences. This generosity extended the sessionsbeyond most formal workshops. NIRAKN offers a best-practice model.Responses showed that expectations were exceeded.

Members noted that these are excellent results for our first teaching program. Other workshops were suggested for next time, including higher-level ones such as how to progress from Associate Professor to Professor. The report belongs to NIRAKN and can be cited. Presenters from the ARC had reported they were interested in returning, and it was useful to learn what PhD and early-career researchers were struggling with.

Workshops may not be repeated within the week, and time saved could be used for node meetings. It was suggested introductions were important, and could useful for people new to NIRAKN or wanting to join a node.There was discussion of the experience at AIATSIS and venue options for the future. It may be desirable to open the workshops to more people, as they would have benefits for non-NIRAKN members. This was a successful example of peer-to-peer-learning.

On behalf of the Management Committee, the Chair thanked Dr Casey forher report and for giving us the benefit of her experience in evaluating the workshop.

Chair asked the Committee to please note the requirements fromour Key Reporting Areas in Schedule D (included in meeting papers) and consider what theywish to do in the Capacity Building workshops program next year.

Action:

-Management Committee members to consider how they wish to contribute to next year’s Capacity Building Workshops, in line with the requirements of NIRAKN’s performance indicators, for discussion at Management Committee early next year.

4.4Postgraduate Recruitment Strategy & Postgrad Expos

There was discussion of the tasks required under the agreement. Members discussed the draft guidelines for the Undergraduate Essay Contest included in the papers.

Resolved: Members approved the Undergraduate Essay Contest Guidelines by consensus.

Action:

-Dr Walter, Dr Troy and Dr Wood to form the Undergraduate Essay Contest judging panel

-Dr Troy to see whether a special edition of the AIATSIS Journal could highlight the best essays, or perhaps part of a normal edition begiven over to this as part of the prize offered.

Members discussed Research Residencies for Undergraduates. There is no funding available from NIRAKN for the placement, and a recruitment plan may be required.AIATSIS may be willing to host a residency. ANU’s summer residency could possibly be utilised. Waminda may be able to take a female undergrad researcher. CQU may do something on one of their campuses.There is an intern program at Ninti One.

Action:

-Management Committee members to see if their institution can host a two week Research Residency for an undergraduate. Any institution able to host a residency will develop a 1 page proposal outlining the supervision, practical and fieldwork tasks to be undertaken, and training to be provided.

There was discussion around Research Heroes to be profiled in the NIRAKN newsletter and on the website.

Resolved: It was resolved by acclamation that the first Research Heroes be Mark McMillan and Pat Dudgeon.

BF offered her apologies and left the meeting.

There was discussion of the proposed Postgraduate Expo and Marketing strategy (included in meeting papers). The strategywas developed with the intention ofcirculating it to NIRAKN members and through NATSIHEC.

Actions:

-Management Committee members to host Postgraduate Expo events at their institutions, adapting the marketing strategy as necessary

-Postgraduate Expo strategy to be circulated to NATSIHEC for distribution to their members

-The Hub will provide promotional materials to members hosting Postgraduate recruitment events.

4.5NIRAKN Planning for next year

The Chair introduced the 2014 key dates calendar included in meeting papers, coveringmonth-by-month planning from the Hub. Nodes are requested to map out their activities for inclusion in the NIRAKNcalendar; this information will also be required with their Annual Reports.

There was discussion of Node contributions to the Annual Reports, which are due to the Hub by February. Members sought advice regarding the format for this reporting. SOWs are the key items to report against. Each SOW is different and there are inconsistencies across the SOWs. Node Leaders report to the Hub, and the Hub will fit it into the reporting structure. Please include photos and other illustrative materials. Hub is seeking advice on the format of the annual report, and will advise members on timelines and when information is due.