Embedding cultural competence in faculty : a mixed-methods evaluation of an applied Indigenous proficiency workshop

One of the most pressing issues in Australian society is the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous health and life expectancies (Marmot, 2017). Australia agreed with the World Health Organisation’s 2008 Closing the Gap in a Generation report (WHO, 2008), spending approximately 5.6% of government expenditure towards ameliorating this gap (Gardiner-Garden & Simon-Davies, 2012), yet there have been only minimal positive outcomes (Alford, 2015; Gannon, 2018). In applied terms, this means Indigenous people are still dying younger (Anderson et al., 2016), scoring higher on psychological distress (Markwick, Ansari, Sullivan, & McNeil, 2015) and suffering poorer indices on all chronic diseases (e.g. Walsh & Kangaharan, 2016; Thompson, Talley, & Kong, 2017). The level of complexity involved in addressing these “wicked” or seemingly “impossible to solve” health problems is made worse by the lack of any pan-national strategic planning and/or intervention evaluation (Lokuge et al., 2017), even though there has been a plethora of programs and projects designed to improve Indigenous health (see for example, AGPC, 2016). Leaders in health and educational institutions must consider why there is a lack of progress in closing the gap in Indigenous health and life expectancies. Addressing the inequities in Indigenous health requires a determinant of health approach (Mitrou et al., 2014), as 39% of the gap in health outcomes can be explained by social determinates (AIHW, 2017; Markwick, Ansari, Sullivan, Parsons, & McNeil, 2014). The social determinant considered to most reliably predict Indigenous poor health is racism (Kelaher, Ferdinand, & Paradies, 2014; Paradies, 2006; Paradies & Cunningham, 2009; Paradies et al., 2015; Paradies, Truong, & Priest, 2014)

The Pros and Cons of Identifying Critical Thinking with System 2 Processing

The dual-process model of cognition but most especially its reflective component, system 2 processing, shows strong conceptual links with critical thinking. In fact, the salient characteristics of system 2 processing are so strikingly close to that of critical thinking, that it is tempting to claim that critical thinking is system 2 processing, no more and no less. In this article, I consider the two sides of that claim: Does critical thinking always require system 2 processing? And does system 2 processing always result in critical thinking? I argue that it is plausible and helpful to consider that critical thinking requires system 2 processing. In particular, this assumption can provide interesting insights and benchmarks for critical thinking education. On the other hand, I show that system 2 processing can result in a range of outcomes which are either contradictory with critical thinking, or of debatable social desirability—which suggests that there is more to critical thinking than mere system 2 processing, and more to system 2 processing than just critical thinking

Hydroeconomic Models as Decision Support Tools for Conjunctive Management of Surface and Groundwater

Abstract Conjunctive use (CU) of surface and groundwater storage and supplies is essential for integrated water management. It is also a key strategy for supporting groundwater-dependent ecosystems, and for adapting water systems to future climate and land use changes. CU has become increasingly sophisticated and integrated with other innovative and traditional water management techniques, such as water transfers, water reuse, demand management, and aquifer remediation. CU adds value for society (increasing ..