This project was funded by the Australian Research Council (ARC). The ARC is a Commonwealth entity established to advise the Australian Government on research matters and to administer a series of grant funding schemes to researchers in Australian universities. This funding is at ‘arms-length’ from the Government as the ARC exists as an independent body (as set out by the Australian Research Council Act 2001). The role of the Government in the ARC grants process is the final signing off of research funds to individual projects. This is undertaken by the Minister for Education. To learn more about the ARC, see: https://www.arc.gov.au/about-arc

In early 2020, the Australian Research Council (ARC) announced a Special Research Initiative funding scheme focused on ‘Australian Society, History and Culture’. The research team submitted a proposal for a project titled ‘Reimagining Kingston and Arthur’s Vale Historic Area as a living heritage site: Addressing cultural injustice for Pitcairn Settler descendants on Norfolk Island’. This application then went through a merit process where it was peer reviewed by a pool of expert assessors (specialists in the broad area of the grant’s focus, e.g. heritage studies) and general assessors (distinguished academics in the broad area of society, history and culture). The reports from these assessors are used to determine a score and then the general assessors convene a meeting to discuss the overall merits of the proposals, after which they make a recommendation of funding to the ARC CEO. The ARC CEO then determines the final recommendations, taking into account the ‘National Interest Statements’ of each application, before making a funding recommendation to the Minister for Education. The Minister then reviews the recommendations and signs off (or not!) before a funding announcement can be made by the ARC. A Selection Outcome Report for this funding scheme can also be found here: https://www.arc.gov.au/grants/grant-outcomes/selection-outcome-reports/selection-report-special-research-initiative-australian-society-history-and-culture-funding. 

The project was funded for three years, from April 2021 to April 2024.

In 2017, Martin Gibbs, Brad Duncan and Robert Varnam published an article in Australian Archaeology titled ‘The free and unfree settlements of Norfolk Island: an overview of archaeological research’. In it, they commented:

It is noteworthy that despite the Pitcairner occupation and use of Kingston extending for well over a century longer than the convict phase and continuing in various forms through to today, this aspect of the island’s heritage currently has limited recognition or visibility in the interpretation of the history or archaeology of the KAVHA area. Despite Norfolk Islanders long being employed as part of the site management structure and continuing to access the site and facilities for recreation and their own commercial tourism ventures, there is a strong sense of alienation. . . . This has been exacerbated by the 2016 return of Norfolk Island to full Australian administrative control, with much of the protest activity focused on Kingston . . . there is increasing interest in the community for documentation of oral history and place heritage as a way of recording and defining relationships with the island. (p. 96)

We therefore wanted to undertake a project which would investigate the extent to which KAVHA reinforces or resists cultural injustices for Pitcairn Settler descendants. Our aim was to activate cultural justice through engaging with the community to co-develop ‘public history’ outputs (zines) that foreground their own senses of heritage relating to KAVHA.

Reference: Gibbs, M, Duncan, B & Varnam, R 2017, ‘The free and unfree settlements of Norfolk Island: an overview of archaeological research’, Australian Archaeology, vol. 83, no. 3, pp. 82–99.

No, there were no connections between the research team and these bodies. DITRDC, the Office of the Administrator and NIRC all have an interest in KAVHA and are involved with aspects of its heritage management. Some individuals associated with these bodies were interviewed for the project in their role as stakeholders in KAVHA. However, the Reimagining KAVHA project was completely independent of any local, state or commonwealth entity operating on Norfolk Island. These entities were not involved in shaping the project and did not influence its findings or outcomes.

The research team, in collaboration with our participants, produced 8 zines which can all be viewed and downloaded from this website. A number of scholarly publications – such as journal articles – have been published, with more coming into the future. These articles can also be viewed or downloaded on this website.

This project received full ethics approval from the Griffith University Human Research Ethics Committee (GU ref: 2020/927). 

Before starting a new project involving human participants (e.g. interviewees), researchers must seek ethical clearance from their institutions. This process involves outlining the background and experience of the researchers, how participants will be found and communicated with, and how information will be collected, stored, analysed and distributed. These applications are reviewed by university ethics committees, who ensure that researchers are conducting research in a way that abides by the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research. You can find out more about the ethics of this project on the Consent information page.

Like ‘social justice’, cultural justice focuses on inequalities and power relations. However, cultural justice has a specific concern with cultural expressions (e.g. language, Bounty Day, HEIVA), cultural institutions (e.g. museums, Council of Elders) and cultural identities (e.g. ‘Norfolk Islander’, ‘Pitcairn Settler descendant’). 

In a heritage context, cultural injustices can manifest in instances where particular stories or groups – especially those of marginalised or disenfranchised people – are excluded, erased, silenced, misrepresented or disrespected in heritage interpretation and historical narratives. However, heritage can also provide the means through which these injustices can be resisted and challenged through, for example, reframing these narratives, providing opportunities for more nuanced representations and dialogues, and emphasising collaboration between stakeholders. For a more in-depth discussion of cultural justice, read our free, open access article ‘A cultural justice approach to popular music heritage in deindustrialising cities’ from a previous research project. 

The research team recognises that, being a primarily oral language, there are numerous ways in which words can be written in Norf’k. For this website, and when transcribing interviews, we opted for Alice Buffett’s system as a way to maintain consistency with other critical heritage studies research currently being undertaken on the island.

Reference: Buffett, AI 1999, Speak Norfolk Today: An Encyclopaedia of the Norfolk Island Language, Himii Publishing Company, Norfolk Island.