This paper argues from the standpoint that embedding Indigenous knowledge and perspectives in Australian curricula occurs within a space of tension, ‘the cultural interface’, in negotiation and contestation with other dominant knowledge systems. In this interface, Indigenous knowledge is in a state of constancy and flux, invisible and simultaneously pronounced depending on the teaching and learning contexts. More often than not, Indigenous knowledge competes for validity and is vexed by questions of racial and cultural authenticity and, therefore, struggles to be located centrally in educational systems, curricula and pedagogies. Interrogating normative western notions of what constitutes authentic or legitimate knowledge is critical to teaching Indigenous studies and embedding Indigenous knowledge. The inclusion (and exclusion) of Indigenous knowledge at the interface is central to developing curriculum that allows teachers to test and prod and create new knowledge and teaching approaches. From this perspective, we explore Indigenous Australian pre-service teachers' experiences of pedagogical relationships within the teaching habitus of Australian classrooms. Our study is engaged with the strategic transgressions of praxis. We contend that tensions that participant Indigenous Australian pre-service teachers experience mirror the broader (and unresolved) political status of Indigenous people and, thus, where and why Indigenous knowledge is strategically deployed as ‘new’ or ‘old knowledge within Australian liberal democratic systems of curriculum and schooling. It is significant to discuss the formation and transformation of the pedagogical cultural identity of the teaching profession within which Indigenous and non-Indigenous pre-service teachers are employed.

This paper critiques our experiences as non-Indigenous Australian educators of working with numerous embedding Indigenous perspectives curricular projects at an Australian university. Reporting on these project outcomes alone, while useful in identifying limitations, does not illustrate ways in which future embedding and decolonizing projects can persist and evolve. Deeper analysis is required of the ways in which Indigenous knowledge and perspectives are perceived, and what “embedding” Indigenous Knowledge in university curricula truly means to various educational stakeholders. To achieve a deeper analysis and propose ways to invigorate the continuing decolonization of Australian university curricula, this paper critically interrogates the methodology and conceptualization of Indigenous knowledge in embedding Indigenous perspectives (EIP) in the university curriculum using tenets of critical race theory. Accordingly, we conduct this analysis from the standpoint that EIP should not subscribe to the luxury of independence of scholarship from politics and activism. The learning objective is to create a space to legitimize politics in the intellectual/academic realm. We conclude by arguing that critical race theory's emancipatory, future and action-oriented goals for curricula would enhance effective and sustainable embedding initiatives, and ultimately, preventing such initiatives from returning to the status quo.

The maintenance and reproduction of prevailing hegemonic norms have been well explored in physical education teacher education (PETE). A related problem has been the exclusion of Indigenous knowledges around health and physical education (HPE) in students’ experiences of HPE and PETE. The danger is that certain ways of being and becoming a PE teacher, other than the sporty, fit, healthy (and white) teacher, are excluded, positioning other preservice teachers’ experiences, knowledges and ways to teach as deficient. In this paper, we discuss findings from an investigation (Australian Office for Learning and Teaching CG10-1718) into the HPE practicum experiences of Indigenous Australian preservice teachers, illustrating the resources they bring to Australian HPE and PETE through the lens of John’s Dewey’s notion of growth and Todd’s [(2014). Between body and spirit: The liminality of pedagogical relationships. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 48(2), 231–245] ideas of liminality of pedagogical relations. This enables us to discuss Indigenous preservice teachers’ capacity in disrupting norms in HPE and fostering the liminality of the pedagogical relations in PETE.

Background: Over the last 20 years, curriculum development in Health and Physical Education (HPE) (or Physical Education, Physical Education and Health, Sport Education as it is variously called) has repeatedly attempted to address issues of equity and social inclusion. Why then does systemic educational disadvantage persist, and why do the poorest members of society acquire less privileged and privileging forms of HPE knowledge, skills and bodily dispositions? What constitutes relevant and responsive HPE curriculum for which groups of students remains a site of considerable contestation. Purpose: At a time when significant changes are being suggested to HPE curricula with the development of the Australian (National) Curriculum (see http://consultation.australiancurriculum.edu.au/), this paper is an attempt to refocus the analysis of education for Indigenous students in Australia upon the power and control relations operating within schools, rather than external social relations, using principles of pedagogic discourse from the sociological theories of Basil. The paper contributes to the growing corpus of studies on the social relations within schooling which constitute HPE curriculum, and the possibilities for interrupting systemic social inequity through the redesign of school curriculum and pedagogy. Methods: Using critical ethnographic methodology, a single, intrinsic case study of a school in a Torres Strait Islander community in Australia was undertaken. Document collation, observation and researcher notes, and individual and focus group interviews with stakeholders, comprised the data collection methods. Stakeholders including female students (n = 13), teachers (n = 7), parents (n = 2), school administrators (n = 4), regional education staff (n = 2), community advisors in education and health (n = 2), and regional health professionals (n = 6) comprised the group of key informants and research participants. Discussion and Conclusion: Government policy initiatives have reinforced a dominant and persistently negative discourse about ‘educational disadvantage’ when representing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (Indigenous) students and educational outcomes. This paper challenges these negative discourses and focuses attention on the social relations within schooling which constitute the ‘what’ and ‘how’ of HPE curriculum, contributing to the large corpus of Bernsteinian studies of HPE curriculum which ‘look beneath the surface appearances of progress and innovation, to how inequities endure, despite rhetorical claims to the contrary that they have been eroded or have disappeared'. It also reveals the important contribution that Indigenous communities and educators have made and continue to make to curriculum decision-making in HPE for Indigenous Australian students.

We come to this article as non-Indigenous teacher educators working as qualitative researchers in postcolonial/decolonial (Mignolo, 2000) times. We explore matters related to schooling in remote Australian Indigenous communities. In this article, we respond to Delamont’s invitation for qualitative researchers to revisit (Delamont and Hamilton, 1984) and think reflexively (Delamont, 2009) about our field work research methods. In doing so, attention is drawn to research processes involved with observing, narrating and writing lives and experiences. We highlight matters related to sequencing dilemmas (Delamont, 2009), the need to locate the self-as-researcher in the social (Delamont, 2007), and calling out ethical tensions associated with the ‘catch 22’ of confidentiality and acknowledgement (Delamont, 2007). Two separate researcher recounts of field notes are used to render visible our reflexive thinking as we attempt to negotiate Western educational research ethics policies and procedures and ways of knowing and being in Indigenous contexts.