Mills et al. assess the cost of child health inequities in Aotearoa New Zealand, using a Kaupapa Māori framework. They state that health inequities between Māori and non-Māori children are significant and persistent...
Mills et al. assess the cost of child health inequities in Aotearoa New Zealand, using a Kaupapa Māori framework. They state that health inequities between Māori and non-Māori children are significant and persistent...
Mills et al. assess the cost of child health inequities in Aotearoa New Zealand, using a Kaupapa Māori framework. They state that health inequities between Māori and non-Māori children are significant and persistent.
They discuss Kaupapa Māori, saying that it is motivated by a Māori worldview and that it recognises the complexity of historical and contemporary realities. ‘Kaupapa Māori methodology privileges the indigenous Māori “voice”,’ they say, ‘validating and legitimising Māori language, knowledge, culture and values. It acknowledges and challenges the power dynamics that have created and maintain the unequal position of Māori in New Zealand society…’ Their analysis places Māori children at the centre (rather than the margins).
They explain their use of quantitative epidemiological and economic costing methods. They note that placing a monetary value on children’s lives and discounting future benefits are approaches that do not fit easily within a Kaupapa Māori framework – and suggest that future Kaupapa Māori research could re-interpret cost benefit analysis theory.
The authors then present the cost per year of child health inequities. They report that such inequities probably save the health sector money, but that the social costs of such inequities are substantial. They also note, in their discussion, that many significant ‘intangible’ costs are not captured by their analysis. In explaining the limitations of their study, they note that, because ‘part of the spectrum of a Kaupapa Māori approach parallels Critical Theory’, the values and assumptions inherent in current economic models are a major concern.
They conclude by noting that although interventions to address child health inequities are available, investment in these is urgently needed. ‘As inequities in adult health are closely associated with inequities in childhood health,’ they say, ‘strategies to reduce inequities in child health should be given high priority…’
Pitama et al. discuss the processes and protocols that were developed for the Hauora Manawa project, a research project on heart disease that was undertaken using a Kaupapa Māori methodology. They report on the first stage (of at least two stages) of the study...
Pitama et al. discuss the processes and protocols that were developed for the Hauora Manawa project, a research project on heart disease that was undertaken using a Kaupapa Māori methodology. They report on the first stage (of at least two stages) of the study.
The authors explain the definition of Māori that they used in recruiting participants. In doing so, they discuss their use of the electoral roll in recruiting both Māori and non-Māori participants (they discuss this in more detail, later in the article).
They present Kaupapa Māori, which they describe as, ‘a conceptual framework that places Māori values, beliefs and experiences at the centre of the research process and locates resultant data within that social context.’ They note, also, that it provides a means of critiquing systems and structures, and their impact on Māori individuals and communities.
Then, they present a detailed list of culturally appropriate protocols, which they developed for the project with two tribal authorities (Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairoa Taiwhenua and Mana Whenua ki Waitaha – appropriate to the regions in which the research was conducted). Examples of these include ensuring that all research team members could engage in basic protocols in line with culturally accepted processes, and that the dissemination of data would be done in ways that were meaningful to the participants. They also note that, following a pilot clinic, they made some changes to their approach, to support the use of appropriate cultural protocols in their project.
The authors state, in discussing the results of the study, that their use of a Māori name for the study, with a Māori motif on all of the information about the study, seemed to confuse some non-Māori, who assumed that they were not eligible for it. This, the authors explain, served as a barrier to recruitment.
They then discuss their engagement with both tribal authorities and regional health authorities. They say that this was a lengthy process, but that it was helpful for funding applications; it also helped to ensure that only minor changes were necessary once the project had started.
They also discuss the use of random selection – which there was concern over within the Wairoa district. ‘This was in large part due to the limited health resources within the rural community, and hence it was seen as unfair that only some Māori would benefit from the screening and intervention,’ they say. ‘To ensure that the concept of Māori collective privilege was not ignored, the research team agreed to screen some additional members of the community, on the basis of need, whose data would not be included in the study.’ This approach was acceptable to Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairoa Taiwhenua – and ensured that they continued to endorse the project.
In concluding, the authors discuss the benefits to their project of a Kaupapa Māori methodology. They note that this resulted in high levels of engagement from tribal authorities and Māori participants. It also simplified strategies around aligning clinical protocols and processes with Māori cultural beliefs, and ensured the inclusion of stakeholders’ opinions and ideas within the research.
‘The use of Kaupapa Māori Methodology that dictated the project be Māori-led,’ they say, ‘also supported a multicultural team to establish how things would be undertaken in the study and provided professional development opportunities for non-Māori research and clinical staff to develop cultural expertise and engage with Māori communities.’
In this conversation, Pihama discusses Kaupapa Māori theory and research with Helen Potter...
In this conversation, Pihama discusses Kaupapa Māori theory and research with Helen Potter.
Pihama explores the relationship between Kaupapa Māori theory and research. She relates the development of the term ‘Kaupapa Māori theory’ to kura kaupapa Māori (Māori language primary schools), and recalls the discussion that resulted in its naming.
She argues that Kaupapa Māori is not singular – comparing it to critical theory, which encompasses hundreds of types of theory. ‘We envisaged a kaupapa Māori theory that could encompass hundreds of types of theory too,’ she says. ‘In the conversations we had, it was never about having one theory. It was about opening a gate, or opening a space, where we could then begin to develop theories that fitted under a kaupapa Māori banner.’
She states that there are not a lot of people writing about, and trying to expand, Kaupapa Māori. She then discusses her PhD thesis, one part of which dealt with the positioning and mana of Māori women in a way that aligns with Kaupapa Māori. ‘I have so much belief in the depth of our knowledge,’ she says. ‘I have a really strong belief that we have thousands of theories and we need to be bringing them forward.’ She also notes that there are ‘elements’ that underpin Kaupapa Māori theory: it is grounded in being Māori, in te reo Māori, in tikanga Māori, and in mātauranga Māori.
Pihama discusses transformation and decolonisation, which both involve political intent. She expresses concern at the ‘depoliticisation’ of Kaupapa Māori theory and research. ‘There’s been a real move,’ she says, ‘to leave the political stuff and just take a bit of the cultural stuff. That’s just not good enough because our realities remain the same.’ She emphasises the importance of the ‘tino rangatiratanga principle’ to Kaupapa Māori (and, in doing so, mentions relationships between Māori organisations and funding agencies).
She encourages future Kaupapa Māori researchers to be ‘grounded in yourself’. Book-learning is not necessarily a bad thing, she says, but Māori researchers need to be able to connect. ‘We need to be able to have those relationships [with our whānau, hapū, and iwi] because central to any form of kaupapa Māori research methodology is relationships… It’s about forging really strong relationships that are lifelong.’ These relationships do not end when the partnership is no longer required.
She finishes by discussing the political dimension of Kaupapa Māori theory and research – saying everything can be framed in a strongly political way.
Graham Smith examines a period in New Zealand history, the 1980s, that resulted in significant societal changes for Māori. He challenges the view that the ‘revolution’ that occurred during this period was about language revitalisation initiatives. ‘The ‘real’ revolution of the 1980’s,’ he says, ‘was a shift in mindset of large numbers of Maori people – a shift away from waiting for things to be done to them, to doing things for themselves…’..
Graham Smith examines a period in New Zealand history, the 1980s, that resulted in significant societal changes for Māori. He challenges the view that the ‘revolution’ that occurred during this period was about language revitalisation initiatives. ‘The ‘real’ revolution of the 1980’s,’ he says, ‘was a shift in mindset of large numbers of Maori people – a shift away from waiting for things to be done to them, to doing things for themselves…’
He argues that, in the 1980s, there was a change in focus, from decolonisation to ‘conscientization’ or ‘consciousness-raising’. He explains Antonio Gramsci’s notion of ‘hegemony’ – which occurs when oppressed groups take on dominant ideas uncritically, ‘colonizing themselves’ – and states that conscientisation is the counter-strategy to this. He says that his preference for conscientisation over decolonisation is grounded in a Kaupapa Māori approach, which is positive and proactive.
He states that the lesson of the Kaupapa Māori approach, for indigenous peoples, is that transformation has to occur in a confrontation with the coloniser and ‘ourselves’. He identifies sites of struggle, elements of potentially ‘useful’ theory and theorising, and components of theory and theorising, for indigenous peoples to transform themselves. Then, he discusses the radical change in Māori education and schooling saying that the commitment of Māori adults and parents to the potential of education was critical to the revolution.
Smith presents six crucial ‘change factors’ in Kaupapa Māori praxis, including:
- the principle of self-determination or relative autonomy
- the principle of validating and legitimating cultural aspirations and identity
- the principle of incorporating culturally preferred pedagogy
- the principle of mediating socio-economic and home difficulties
- the principle of incorporating cultural structures which emphasise the ‘collective’ rather than the individual (such as whānau)
- the principle of a shared and collective vision/philosophy
Smith notes that Kaupapa Māori supports the use of all theory that can positively support Māori advancement. He contends that Kaupapa Māori’s emergence as an intervention strategy critiques and re-constitutes Western notions of conscientisation, resistance and transformative praxis as inter-related and non-lineal. ‘The Kaupapa Maori educational interventions represent the evolving of a more sophisticated response by Maori to ‘freeing’ themselves from multiple oppression(s) and exploitation,’ he says.
Smith explores research undertaken in an indigenous context...
Smith explores research undertaken in an indigenous context.
She offers a definition of indigenous peoples, and says, ‘native communities are not homogenous, do not agree on the same issues, and do not live in splendid isolation from the world.’ She notes that indigenous communities have internal relations of power, which empower some and disempower others.
She explains the troubled significance of research for indigenous peoples, and says that we should learn from the past. Research, she says, is connected to power; for this reason, it is important to maintain the connections between researchers, indigenous communities, and the larger political struggle for decolonisation.
Smith outlines different conceptions of indigenous research. She discusses Kaupapa Māori – which, she points out, is not called ‘indigenist’. ‘There are strong reasons for such a naming,’ she says, ‘as the struggle has been seen as one over Māori language and the ability by Māori as Māori to name the world, theorize the world, and to research back to power.’ She also recounts its history, emphasising the importance of education to this.
She discusses decolonisation, saying, ‘Decolonization is political and disruptive even when the strategies employed are pacifist because anything that requires a major change of worldview, that forces a society to confront its past and address it at a structural and institutional level that challenges systems of power, is indeed political.’
She then outlines the effects of globalisation on knowledge and indigenous peoples, and the understanding of it that indigenous experience brings.
Smith asks the question, Who regulates research? She argues that ethical review boards fail to adequately represent marginalised and vulnerable groups. ‘If a marginalized group is represented,’ she says, ‘its voice is muted as one of many voices of equal weight but not of equal power…’
She suggests that an indigenous approach to research can challenge those who are involved in research to understand its history as a colonial institution. It can offer alternative ways of knowing and thinking about ethical research.
In this speech, Smith discusses Kaupapa Māori research. ‘[Kaupapa Māori] is more than, and less than, other comparative terms,’ she says. ‘It is more than a theory and less than a theory; it is more than a paradigm and less than a paradigm; it is more than a methodology and less than a methodology. It is something much more fluid.’..
In this speech, Smith discusses Kaupapa Māori research. ‘[Kaupapa Māori] is more than, and less than, other comparative terms,’ she says. ‘It is more than a theory and less than a theory; it is more than a paradigm and less than a paradigm; it is more than a methodology and less than a methodology. It is something much more fluid.’
Smith states that Kaupapa Māori research has attempted to disrupt mainstream approaches to Māori, including the idea that there is a ‘pure’ Māori voice to be found. She then discusses the relationship between Kaupapa Māori and knowledge.
She relates Kaupapa Māori research to the development of kura kaupapa Māori, and explains the history of the term. She says, ‘To me, kaupapa Māori is a practice; it’s a way of thinking about everything that we do in research.’
She evaluates post-colonial critique, arguing that critique is useful but that it does not necessarily provide a way forward. ‘That I think is also part of what a kaupapa is meant to do, she says. ‘It’s meant to take you forward...’
She then discusses challenges ahead – and argues that the power of Kaupapa Māori research is in being able to use our minds to think through such challenges.
She also discusses her experience teaching Kaupapa Māori.
Walker et al. discuss Kaupapa Māori research, and provide case studies of Kaupapa Māori research projects...
Walker et al. discuss Kaupapa Māori research, and provide case studies of Kaupapa Māori research projects.
They begin by exploring the historical context in which Kaupapa Māori emerged.
They note that Kaupapa Māori research is related to Māori ownership of knowledge and the validity of Māori ways of doing. Acknowledging the difficulties involved in defining it, they present ways in which it can be helpfully understood. They also distinguish it from other types of research involving Māori, including ‘culturally safe or sensitive’ research. ‘Importantly and significantly,’ they say, ‘the kaupapa Maori movement critique[s] the dominant hegemony of westernized positivistic research.’
The authors state that five principles form a framework for Kaupapa Māori research: tino rangatiratanga, social justice, a Māori worldview, te reo Māori, and the concept of whānau. They explore each of these separately.
They say, ‘One of the idiosyncrasies of kaupapa Maori research is that writers do not tell you how to do kaupapa Maori research; instead, they tend to focus on what it does and the effects that it has.’ They suggest that the research methods that Kaupapa Māori incorporates are not specific to Māori. They also mention ownership of research.
They discuss the stipulation that the researcher be Māori, the involvement of non-Māori in Kaupapa Māori research, and what is required of Kaupapa Māori researchers. They also discuss the role of kaumātua in Kaupapa Māori research.
They address the concern – held mainly by non-Māori – that Kaupapa Māori is less rigorous than other kinds of research. ‘Kaupapa Maori research is first a philosophy, then a strategy, and when it is properly carried out, it will produce acceptable research,’ they say. They then relate it to other kinds of research (including participatory action research).
The authors provide three case studies of Kaupapa Māori research undertaken by Māori researchers – Maatua Whangai o Otepoti; Tapuwai: Waka as a Vehicle for Community Action; and Maori Women’s Experience of Cervical Screening.
They suggest that Kaupapa Māori can inform research generally, and that its ‘main ideas’ will be transferable to indigenous research internationally. ‘Nevertheless,’ they say, ‘the main beneficiaries are Maori, and kaupapa Maori research will always be focused on enhancing the quality of life for Maori.’
Walter explores the use of quantitative methods in research conducted by Indigenous Australian researchers. She argues that, although they have been abused in the past, such methods are ‘powerful analytical tools’, and could benefit Indigenous peoples...
Walter explores the use of quantitative methods in research conducted by Indigenous Australian researchers. She argues that, although they have been abused in the past, such methods are ‘powerful analytical tools’, and could benefit Indigenous peoples.
She notes that Indigenous researchers engage in only a limited way with quantitative research, and explores the reasons for this (including the perceived connection between quantitative methods and positivist research models). ‘The Indigenous response to dominant Western research paradigms has been to develop an Indigenous research methodology,’ she says. Indigenous research practice is still developing, but it challenges Eurocentric constructs and the ways of knowing that Western research practice embodies.
She then presents three ways in which quantitative research methods might serve Indigenous research. First, data is very powerful – it can be used to promote an Indigenous research agenda to those who see statistical analysis as valid. Second, if Indigenous researchers do not engage in quantitative research on issues that are relevant to Indigenous peoples, non-Indigenous researchers will. Third, quantitative research conducted by Indigenous people might help to transform the practices of research. ‘Crucially,’ she says, ‘a broader usage and acceptance of quantitative methods greatly increases the range of research questions that Indigenous researchers can both ask and answer.’
Walter distinguishes between methodology and method, and suggests that quantitative methods have now been separated from positivist methodology. ‘Indigenous researchers can take this process one step further,’ she says, ‘effectively de-colonising the method; that is, divorcing the quantitative methods and techniques that we deem as useful for Indigenous research from their traditional or even current research paradigms…’
She then presents Kaupapa Māori as an example of a model that places quantitative methods within a framework that is compatible with Indigenous peoples’ concerns. ‘While this is a New Zealand model,’ she says, ‘and therefore not directly translatable to the Australian Indigenous context, the practical ‘how to’ emphasis of this model provides a guide to possible ways forward.’ She notes that Kaupapa Māori research is culturally relevant, rigorous, and empowering to Māori people.
Walter says that quantitative methods should be used alongside other methods, rather than replacing them. She also cautions that they should be used carefully. ‘The type of research method,’ she says, ‘and indeed the mix of methods, should be essentially dictated by the conditions and purpose of the inquiry.’
In Chapter Two of her thesis, Barnes contends that certain constructions of Māori identity limit Māori ways of thinking, both about Māori and about the world. She suggests that Kaupapa Māori theory could, potentially, advance Māori – because, rather than supporting static notions of identity, it incorporates notions of transformation, and focuses on knowledge creation...
In Chapter Two of her thesis, Barnes contends that certain constructions of Māori identity limit Māori ways of thinking, both about Māori and about the world. She suggests that Kaupapa Māori theory could, potentially, advance Māori – because, rather than supporting static notions of identity, it incorporates notions of transformation, and focuses on knowledge creation.
She explores identity construction, noting that Māori identities are often constructed using ‘traditional markers’ that are understood as having originated in precolonial times. These are criticised as problematic, she says, because they establish hierarchies of identity: ‘[t]he concern is that this limits Māori by denying the way that identities form and change over time and by not embracing the potential of what it means to be Māori today.’
She then discusses Western and indigenous understandings of science. She argues that, although it is commonly held that the Western epistemological system is incompatible with Māori ways of thinking, the methods that Western science wields can be used in Māori research. By ‘examining and naming’, she says, Māori assert the right to own the science Māori practice, utilising all available forms of knowledge.
In exploring the ways in which research can be made more responsive to Māori, Barnes states that power should be explicitly addressed. She then presents Kaupapa Māori theory. ‘Although different people will use a range of descriptors for Kaupapa Māori,’ she says, ‘most discussions will include broad characteristics such as being Māori led and controlled, having all Māori or preferably all Māori researchers, being driven by Māori agendas and aspirations and being transformative. Emphasis is also placed on research processes, relationships and other ethical considerations…’ She notes that there have also been attempts to define Māori research prescriptively.
She explains why quantitative methods have been distrusted by Māori, and explores the adoption by Māori of what might be considered inappropriate approaches to research. ‘[I]n debating the identity of people and of knowledge,’ she says, ‘in both cases Māori forms are far more than the distinctive cultural markers that we use to define and demarcate our lives and practices. Who carries out the research and the processes used, will infuse the research with these diverse and often indefinable forms, regardless of the methods.’
She suggests that the idea that Māori research must be understood as ‘forever Western’ should be resisted. Kaupapa Māori theory, because it involves transformation and the creation of knowledge, has the potential to advance Māori. Unless this sort of potential is recognised, she says, binary and limited ways of thinking and understanding Māori will be adopted – which is, she points out, a Western way of making sense of the world.
Bishop discusses the emergence of Kaupapa Māori, emphasising the importance of education movements to its development. He then discusses Māori calls for self-determination – how these are interpreted by non-Māori, and what self-determination involves...
Bishop discusses the emergence of Kaupapa Māori, emphasising the importance of education movements to its development. He then discusses Māori calls for self-determination – how these are interpreted by non-Māori, and what self-determination involves.
He argues that educational institutions should be structured so as to minimise domination. He then lists several ‘metaphorical’ Māori phrases and concepts, derived from Graham Smith, and explains how these can be interpreted and implemented so as to ensure that educational institutions are non-dominating. They are: rangatiratanga (relative autonomy/self-determination), taonga tuku iho (cultural aspirations), ako (reciprocal learning), kia piki ake i nga raruraru o te kainga (mediation of socioeconomic and home difficulties), whānau (extended family), and kaupapa (collective vision, philosophy).
He argues for a ‘culturally responsive pedagogy of relations’ – that is, ‘an education where power is shared between self-determining individuals within nondominating relations of interdependence, where culture counts, and where learning is interactive, dialogic, and spirals and participants are connected and committed to one another through the establishment of a common vision for what constitutes educational excellence…’
He presents Te Kotahitanga: Improving the Educational Achievement of Māori Students in Mainstream Schools, a Kaupapa Māori research project that focuses on realising Māori cultural aspirations for self-determination within non-dominating relations of interdependence. He outlines the project, then presents its findings.
He discusses the short history of Te Kotahitanga, and its early successes.
He concludes by saying that solutions to Māori educational underachievement and disparities lie outside of the mainstream, which has kept Māori in a subordinate position while pathologising and marginalising Māori people’s lived experiences.
Cram presents a guide to undertaking research within a Kaupapa Māori framework...
Cram presents a guide to undertaking research within a Kaupapa Māori framework.
She identifies six questions, and three ‘spin-offs’, that can guide research:
1. What is my question? (He aha taku pātai?)
2. Who do I need to ask? (Ka pātai ahau ki a wai?)
3. How should I ask? (Me pēhea te pātai ki ngā tangata?)
4. What should I do with the answers? (Ka aha ahau ki ngā whakautu?)
5. Who needs to know what I found? (Ka whakamohio atu ngā hua ki a wai?)
6. How should I tell people what I found? (Me pēhea te whakamohio atu i ngā hua?)
a. Re-claim knowledge (Kia mau ki ngā mohiotanga)
b. Re-assert knowledge (Kia Māori ngā mātauranga)
c. Re-member people (Kia maumahara ngā tangata)
Cram discusses Kaupapa Māori research, which she says is ‘a Māori way’. ‘In a Kaupapa Māori Research paradigm research is undertaken by Māori, for Māori, with Māori,’ she says. ‘An important aspect of Kaupapa Māori Research is that it seeks to understand and represent Māori, as Māori.’ She also relates the roles of Kaupapa Māori researchers.
She explores Kaupapa Māori in more detail, suggesting that it is about reclaiming power, and emphasising the importance of involving communities. Kaupapa Māori incorporates a wide range of research methods, she says. It should also take into account the history of research on Māori, and that its use has denied Māori sovereignty. She then identifies several cultural values, which can guide Kaupapa Māori research.
Cram elaborates on the first three questions that she identifies.
She concludes by saying that the second part of the publication is ‘coming soon’.
Eketone explores Kaupapa Māori theory, suggesting that it is ‘incomplete’. He contends that Kaupapa Māori is informed by two different perspectives, critical theory and constructivism, and argues that it is best understood as a ‘native theory’ – that is, as a constructivist theory...
Eketone explores Kaupapa Māori theory, suggesting that it is ‘incomplete’. He contends that Kaupapa Māori is informed by two different perspectives, critical theory and constructivism, and argues that it is best understood as a ‘native theory’ – that is, as a constructivist theory.
He explores critical theory in detail, focusing on Graham Smith’s views. ‘While few authors would state that Kaupapa Māori Theory emerged from Critical Theory,’ he says, ‘many writers acknowledge the congruence and strong relationship between the two.’ He, however, contends that the theoretical approach to Kaupapa Māori that critical theory informs is not the understanding held by many in the Māori community.
Instead, he suggests, Kaupapa Māori should be understood as a constructivist approach. Constructivism, he says, is ‘the belief that society, reality and meaning are manufactured, confirmed and validated through our interactions with the world…’ A constructivist approach would hold that Māori, or iwi, have constructed a reality based on a Māori worldview, adapting to changes as it was useful to do so. He aligns Kaupapa Māori with Khyla Russell’s ‘native theory’ approach, which he characterises as constructivist.
‘A feature in a number of the writers on Kaupapa Māori Theory,’ Eketone says, ‘is how they align it to Critical Theory and yet also use constructivist approaches to define it.’ He notes that three components of critical theory align with Kaupapa Māori theory: ‘conscientisation’, resistance, and praxis. However, he suggests that there are problems in defining Kaupapa Māori theory oppositionally. If Kaupapa Māori is about critiquing unequal power relations, it will become redundant when oppression ends. ‘While resistance is an interesting explanation of what Kaupapa Māori does, surely that is a by-product, rather than the core, of what a Māori philosophical approach is,’ he says. ‘In a way it becomes about the oppressor, instead of about us.’
He states that Kaupapa Māori is best explained by a constructivist theoretical approach. He notes that this, too, is a Western defined construction – but that it is an epistemological approach, rather than a substantive theory. He concedes that critical theory is attractive because ‘it delivers, it emancipates and strengthens those involved in struggle, it also provides a justification and channel for the frustrations over the marginalisation of Māori people and Māori knowledge’. He says that it might be best to acknowledge that Kaupapa Māori can use critical theory, but that it cannot be defined by it.
He concludes by saying, ‘From a Native Theory perspective, Kaupapa Māori is about the right of Māori and iwi to make sense of their time and place in this world, to define themselves using their own reference points as to what is of value and what processes are important. It is about Māori constructing their own theory, explanations and outcomes.’
Grant and Giddings argue that research methodologies can be categorised using four broad categories, or ‘paradigms’. ‘[A]ny particular paradigm can be seen as a positive force for commitment, providing the would-be researcher with a framework for making order out of the chaos of social life,’ they say...
Grant and Giddings argue that research methodologies can be categorised using four broad categories, or ‘paradigms’. ‘[A]ny particular paradigm can be seen as a positive force for commitment, providing the would-be researcher with a framework for making order out of the chaos of social life,’ they say.
The authors distinguish between methodology and method. Methodology, they say, ‘is to do with the abstract theoretical assumptions and principles that underpin a particular research approach, often developed within specific scientific or social science disciplines.’ Method refers to the practical means for collecting and analysing information. They also distinguish between quantitative and qualitative research – arguing that these ‘methods’ can be used in research that falls within any paradigm, and so are ‘a-theoretical’ and ‘a-methodological’.
The authors, referencing Patti Lather, then present the four paradigms: the Positivist Paradigm, the Interpretive Paradigm, the Radical Paradigm, and the Poststructuralist Paradigm. Each paradigm is discussed in detail, with critical theory and feminism referenced in relation to the Radical Paradigm.
They ask the question, To which paradigm does Kaupapa Māori belong? They consider different approaches, including locating it within the Radical Paradigm, creating a new ‘Postcolonial’ paradigm, and understanding it as its own paradigm – noting the strengths of each approach, without concluding in favour of one…
They discuss Kaupapa Māori. They note that its central aim is to make a difference for those who are being researched. ‘Kaupapa Maori research is occurring across the disciplines and out in the communities,’ they say. ‘Methodologies are being taken up from every paradigm... and re-framed and re-shaped within a Maori worldview...’
The authors state that the boundaries between the paradigms are blurry. It is important, they say, that researchers are aware of the paradigm within which they are researching.
Jones states that her article began as a response to resistance directed at her as a Pākehā scholar from people arguing that there is no place for Pākehā in the development of Kaupapa Māori theory. She discusses her reaction to this – noting that the resistance was at a philosophical and political level, rather than a personal one. Her aims in writing the article, she says, included thinking through her involvement, and encouraging more discussion about the relationship between Kaupapa Māori and non-Māori researchers in education...
Jones states that her article began as a response to resistance directed at her as a Pākehā scholar from people arguing that there is no place for Pākehā in the development of Kaupapa Māori theory. She discusses her reaction to this – noting that the resistance was at a philosophical and political level, rather than a personal one. Her aims in writing the article, she says, included thinking through her involvement, and encouraging more discussion about the relationship between Kaupapa Māori and non-Māori researchers in education.
She discusses the difficulties involved in defining Kaupapa Māori. ‘Whatever kaupapa Māori is,’ she says, ‘Māori objections to Pākehā involvement in kaupapa Māori research are usually based in a particular argument, which goes something like this: kaupapa Māori provides a set of rules defining a philosophical and methodological research space strategically formed by Māori, for Māori purposes; Pākehā – whose position of power and whose destructive and controlling research ‘on’ Māori forced such a response into being – are necessarily outside its development.’
She elaborates on this argument – exploring the view that Kaupapa Māori is both for and by Māori, and that if non-Māori are involved it is not Kaupapa Māori. Problems arise, she says, when Pākehā assume that this argument is ‘about’ them, that its purpose is to exclude them. The argument can, however, be understood as one of logic rather than participation. Kaupapa Māori theorists are, she says, typically addressing Māori, not Pākehā, which accounts for the confused interpretations of what is said.
She explores the question, What is Kaupapa Māori? She mentions the tendency of some Pākehā education theorists to assume that critical theory can contribute to Kaupapa Māori, but (noting that it played a role in the development of Kaupapa Māori) suggests that this is misguided. Kaupapa Māori is concerned with de-centring all Western perspectives – including radical theories.
Jones then discusses the ‘hyphen’ straddling ‘Māori-Pākehā’ encounters. She mentions some of the difficulties involved in talking about Māori and Pākehā identities, and elaborates on the ways in which Māori and Pākehā encounter each other as researchers. She illustrates some of the tensions inherent in these encounters with examples from her own experience. She also offers suggestions as to how Pākehā researchers can work with Māori successfully, on Māori terms. She says, ‘proper engagement with kaupapa Māori requires Pākehā individuals to become ordinary, at ease in Māori contexts, open to Māori knowledges, and familiar with te reo Māori.’
‘[T]here are pragmatic reasons for Pākehā (and Māori) researchers taking seriously kaupapa Māori research prescriptions and arguments,’ she says. ‘Otherwise, they are in danger of producing findings that fall short of the scientific values of accuracy, validity and impact. And they will get frustrated.’ Researchers who ignore these usually produce ineffective results that do not benefit the communities being researched.
Jones concludes by noting that Kaupapa Māori politics – because it is concerned with protecting Māori knowledge and researchers – will always make relationships between Māori and non-Māori researchers difficult. In struggle, however, positive ideas can emerge. ‘If I sound negative with talk of disappointment, difficulty, error and imperfection I would have misled you,’ she says. ‘The research and writing work I engage in with Māori partners is also endlessly fascinating, pleasurable and rewarding. I would not want to do anything else.’
Jones, et al. present Whānau Tuatahi, a Kaupapa Māori-based research framework, which was developed in the context of a study of Māori parents’ experiences managing their children’s asthma...
Jones, et al. present Whānau Tuatahi, a Kaupapa Māori-based research framework, which was developed in the context of a study of Māori parents’ experiences managing their children’s asthma.
The authors introduce their framework, which was whānau-centred, and avoided the ‘deficit model’ of research. ‘It was also our intention to ensure that whānau gained real benefit from their involvement with research and to make the process a culturally safe and satisfying experience for all concerned,’ they say.
They introduce Kaupapa Māori, the methodology underpinning the Whānau Tuatahi framework. They describe it as being centred in Māori reality, as upholding the mana and integrity of the participants, and as having Māori concerns and needs as its focus. They say that tailoring research practices to the needs and aspirations of the participants, through genuine engagement with the community, is vital to the methodology.
The methods utilised within the Whānau Tuatahi framework are used to privilege the perspectives of whānau. ‘We selected research methods that were compatible with KMR methodology so that the approach employed in the Whānau Tuatahi research did not compromise good science or cultural appropriateness,’ the authors say.
They discuss different research methods, and explain why they decided to use interpretive phenomenology analysis – an approach that acknowledged the social and cultural context of the participants (the Te Whare Tapa Whā model was also used, to analyse this context). ‘It is generally accepted that a Kaupapa Māori approach is inclusive of a range of methods,’ they say, ‘however, those methods need to be firstly interrogated for their cultural relevance and appropriateness with respect to researching with Māori…’
They then explore a number of concepts, and relate them to the Whānau Tuatahi research framework. These include whakawhirinaki (trust), whakawhanaungatanga (relationship-building), whakamana (empowerment), ngāwari (flexibility), utu (reciprocity), and hurihuringa (reflexivity). The focus of each of these is on whānau.
The authors state that the Whānau Tuatahi framework could, potentially, be used in other projects where research is conducted with whānau, and suggest that it might provide insight into other chronic diseases, such as diabetes and heart disease. The framework could also be used with other qualitative methods – and might even be adapted for the collection of quantitative data.
They note that certain researcher skills were seen as contributing to successful engagement with whānau, including: a Māori worldview, training in tikanga Māori and the use of Māori language, a health background, and experience parenting a child with chronic illness. However, the most important contributor to this success was establishing a partnership with a community-based Māori Health provider (in this case, Tū Kotahi Māori Asthma Trust).
Jones et al. use their research project, Hauora o ngā Tāne Māori, to explore elements of tikanga Māori and their implications for contemporary research...
Jones et al. use their research project, Hauora o ngā Tāne Māori, to explore elements of tikanga Māori and their implications for contemporary research.
They begin by introducing Kaupapa Māori research, saying that it is related to being Māori and being connected to Māori philosophy and principles. They locate it within the wider struggle toward decolonisation, ‘which includes challenging Pākehā hegemony and reclaiming Māori realities, which is crucial to facilitating positive Māori development…’
They say that the assumption that the Pākehā way of conducting research is the universal norm has resulted in questions, methodologies, and methods that have little meaning for Māori. They distinguish between methodology and method, and suggest that, although its underlying principles are based on a Māori worldview, a wide variety of methods can be utilised in Kaupapa Māori research.
The authors state that reflecting on the Hauora Tāne project can provide an understanding of how tikanga can inform research practices. They then present a number of Māori values and concepts, and relate the ways in which these notions informed their research. These include: mana, tapu, he kanohi i kitea (‘a face seen’), whakawhanaungatanga, manaakitanga, koha, and aroha ki te tangata (the expression of aroha to other people).
They then discuss research ethics, and suggest that while ethics committees provide some protection against colonising research they do not address the fundamental accountability requirements for Māori.
They conclude by saying, ‘It is important that, as Māori researchers, we claim these ways of doing research as based in Māori philosophy. Otherwise there is a risk that such practices will be misappropriated by non-Māori researchers and reframed in ways that remove or invalidate the cultural context from which they derive their meaning and effectiveness.’
Keefe et al. explore issues relevant to Māori research, through their study on the health effects of unemployment and redundancy following the closure of the Whakatu Freezing Works, in 1986. They state that the study would not have been possible if it, and its researchers, had not been centred in te ao Māori...
Keefe et al. explore issues relevant to Māori research, through their study on the health effects of unemployment and redundancy following the closure of the Whakatu Freezing Works, in 1986. They state that the study would not have been possible if it, and its researchers, had not been centred in te ao Māori.
They explore the history of research on Māori, as well as Māori attitudes toward research. Then, they discuss Kaupapa Māori research. They say, ‘Kaupapa Māori research is an attempt to retrieve space for Māori voices and perspectives, whereby Māori realities are seen as legitimate.’ They explain that by incorporating Māori tikanga and processes throughout their research, they positioned themselves as ‘insiders’. They contrast this with approaches that insist on social scientists being unbiased and objective.
The authors discuss the importance of whānau to their research. ‘For the cohort study, it has been a way of organising the research group, a way of incorporating ethical procedures and reporting back to the community,’ they say. ‘Also, it has been a way of giving a ‘voice’ to the different sections of the Māori communities, and debating ideas and issues which impact on the study.’ They explain whānau as a way of distributing tasks, incorporating people with experience, and keeping Māori values central to the study.
Then, they discuss consultation between researchers and the Māori community. ‘The first [purpose of consultation] is to ensure that research practices and outcomes contribute to Māori development and wellbeing and the second is to recognise mana whenua. However an outcome of the process of consultation should be the development of a working relationship and/or partnership between the Māori community and researchers.’ They also list the individuals, communities, and organisations with whom they consulted.
Next, they explore whakapapa. ‘In terms of kaupapa Māori research,’ they say, ‘whakapapa is embedded in Māori knowledge and is essential to what becomes taken for ‘granted’.’ Whakapapa, they suggest, intersects with research in several ways.
Finally, they elaborate on reciprocity. Reciprocity, they say, can best be assured by establishing a relationship with the whānau, hapū or iwi that allows for trust and respect to develop through action.
The authors conclude by saying, ‘It is our experience that not only does [Kaupapa Māori] methodology produce robust quantitative data, but it also provides benefits to the community involved. Hence Kaupapa Māori Research has been a way of organising such processes that has led to successful outcomes for the study, the researchers and the community.’
Kennedy and Cram explore concerns relating to research with whānau collectives. They relate the process of developing an ethical framework for working with whānau, which they locate within Kaupapa Māori. They then present ‘te kaupapa a te whānau’, a set of whānau researcher guidelines derived from Linda Smith’s list of cultural values...
Kennedy and Cram explore concerns relating to research with whānau collectives. They relate the process of developing an ethical framework for working with whānau, which they locate within Kaupapa Māori. They then present ‘te kaupapa a te whānau’, a set of whānau researcher guidelines derived from Linda Smith’s list of cultural values.
The authors note that ethical principles and frameworks have not protected indigenous peoples. They say that Māori should conduct research and evaluations, and assert ethical principles that are sourced from tikanga and mātauranga Māori.
They relate the process of assessing national and international frameworks, policies, and guidelines for ethical research involving indigenous peoples, and list the principles that emerged. They then discuss the consultation hui for the project, recording issues that were raised. ‘A Kaupapa Māori framework was stated as necessary for working with whānau collectives,’ they say, ‘as it normalises Māori worldviews and practices.’ This is explored in more detail, alongside other concepts – including whakapapa, leadership, confidentiality, diversity, and the importance of maintaining a strengths-based view.
The authors present their approach to researching with whānau. ‘A focus on Kaupapa Māori guiding principles for research with whānau is required to ensure an inclusive approach to whānau as collectives rather than as individuals or single households of individuals,’ they say. They note that the values and guidelines expressed in their approach are derived from Linda Smith’s ‘community-up’ approach, focused on whānau.
They conclude by stating that Māori research – particularly research with whānau – is undertaken within a relationship ethic. They state that, although issues will arise, their whānau researcher guidelines provide a foundation for research with whānau.
Mahuika explores the history of research on Māori. She says that research began in the first period of interaction between Europeans and Māori, and became an enduring feature of colonisation. She states that research is about power, and that it can be used to maintain the status quo while disempowering minorities. However, she says, many people who were the ‘researched’ are becoming ‘researchers’...
Mahuika explores the history of research on Māori. She says that research began in the first period of interaction between Europeans and Māori, and became an enduring feature of colonisation. She states that research is about power, and that it can be used to maintain the status quo while disempowering minorities. However, she says, many people who were the ‘researched’ are becoming ‘researchers’.
She introduces Kaupapa Māori, describing it as a philosophical framework that underpins resistance initiatives. She argues that Kaupapa Māori is not a new phenomenon, and suggests that it is inherent in Māori identity. She explores the popularity of Kaupapa Māori Theory, noting that indigenous scholars internationally have benefitted from it. ‘It is perhaps one of Āotearoa’s most significant contributions to the paradigm proliferation occurring internationally,’ she says.
She then examines some of the criticisms that have been made of Kaupapa Māori – including that it creates a ‘totalizing narrative of what it is to be Māori’, and that it has established oppressive structures similar to those that it has been used to critique. She argues, however, that Kaupapa Māori Theory is both critical and anti-colonial, and that it has contributed significantly to the development of Māori research and education through its interrogation of mainstream attitudes and beliefs.
Mahuika discusses the difficulties involved in defining Kaupapa Māori. She notes that many theorists are reluctant to define it for fear that doing so will hinder its application. ‘Further difficulties have been posed by the way in which the term itself has been used simultaneously to describe not only the theory of kaupapa Māori, but kaupapa Māori research methodologies, methods and culturally appropriate research ethics as well,’ she says.
She explores the notion that Kaupapa Māori theory is a ‘critical theory’. She says that it is necessary for Māori to be self-critical, but notes that there are challenges associated with this. She says that many Māori are, justifiably, wary of being openly critical – as critical comments are easily, and often, misappropriated by others.
She then asks whether or not Kaupapa Māori is ‘anti-colonial’, and notes that Kaupapa Māori Theory is validated within a Māori worldview. ‘In its assertion of Māori cultural aspirations, values and beliefs,’ she says, ‘kaupapa Māori continues to work both against and beyond the struggles and strife created as a consequence of colonization, past and present.’ In these ways Kaupapa Māori is anti-colonial.
She concludes by asserting that rigorous internal evaluation of Kaupapa Māori Theory is required, if it is to empower and emancipate Māori. She mentions that there are many issues within Māori culture – including those involving mana wahine, and hapū and iwi self-determination – that still need to be addressed. These, she says, require a philosophy that is culturally legitimate.
Lee claims that, although the term is most commonly used to refer to Māori ‘myths and legends’, pūrākau can offer a Māori approach to qualitative narrative research...
Lee claims that, although the term is most commonly used to refer to Māori ‘myths and legends’, pūrākau can offer a Māori approach to qualitative narrative research.
‘Pūrākau, a traditional form of Māori narrative,’ she says, ‘contains philosophical thought, epistemological constructs, cultural codes, and worldviews that are fundamental to our identity as Māori.’ She then explores the different contexts in which they have been used, and suggests that they could also be used in research.
Lee argues that Kaupapa Māori can be understood as a Māori expression of a decolonising methodology. She discusses the importance of narrative to Māori, and says that pūrākau – which she adopted as a research methodology in her doctoral thesis – is a legitimate way of representing Māori ‘stories’ today.
Utilising Lévi-Strauss’s concept of the ‘bricoleur’, she suggests that the notion of an ‘Indigenous bricoleur’ can be helpful in understanding how different methodologies – including Kaupapa Māori theory – influenced the development of ‘pūrākau methodology’. ‘The work of a researcher as bricoleur can more specifically be described as a methodological bricoleur, a theoretical bricoleur, an interpretive bricoleur, a political bricoleur, a gendered bricoleur, a narrative bricoleur… and a critical researcher-as-bricoleur,’ she says.
She argues that it is important for the bricoleur to engage with the socio-political research context – and mentions education, specifically.
She states that a pūrākau approach does not exclude the use of other methods. ‘An Indigenous bricoleur,’ she says, ‘not only attempts to reclaim cultural traditions such as pūrākau, but simultaneously articulates these traditions in new forms.’
The authors present a literature review of Kaupapa Māori. They state that Kaupapa Māori principles and practices are inseparable. They also note that there is no ‘recipe’ for Kaupapa Māori research – and that to try to set one out would be contrary to its principles...
The authors present a literature review of Kaupapa Māori. They state that Kaupapa Māori principles and practices are inseparable. They also note that there is no ‘recipe’ for Kaupapa Māori research – and that to try to set one out would be contrary to its principles.
They discuss the word ‘kaupapa’. They then relate Kaupapa Māori to mātauranga Māori, and suggest that the two are equally elusive. They also suggest that te reo Māori and Kaupapa Māori are closely connected. Then, they discuss the history of Kaupapa Māori, exploring a range of issues relevant to its emergence and development; in doing so, they acknowledge the importance of education initiatives to Kaupapa Māori theory.
The authors explore the relationship between Kaupapa Māori and Pākehā culture. Kaupapa Māori challenges, questions and critiques Pākehā dominance, they say. ‘It does not reject or exclude Pākehā culture. It is not a ‘one or the other’ choice.’
They refer to six ‘intervention elements’, articulated by Graham Smith and highlighted by other writers. These include tino rangatiratanga (the ‘self-determination’ principle), taonga tuku iho (the ‘cultural aspirations’ principle), ako Māori (the ‘culturally preferred pedagogy’ principle), kia piki ake i ngā raruraru o te kāinga (the ‘socio-economic mediation’ principle), whānau (the ‘extended family structure’ principle), and kaupapa (the ‘collective philosophy’ principle).
The authors comment on the expansiveness of Kaupapa Māori. It is, they say, for all Māori – not just for select groups or individuals. ‘Kaupapa Māori is not owned by any grouping,’ they say, ‘nor can it be defined in such ways that deny Māori people access to its articulation.’ This, they explain, means that Kaupapa Māori is diverse, and that it must recognise diversity. They note, also, that struggle is inherent to Kaupapa Māori.
The authors explore other issues – including the involvement of Pākehā in Kaupapa Māori research (an area, they say, where there is still a lot of debate). They also discuss the application of Kaupapa Māori in health and justice, exploring each in detail.
Cram et al. present their bicultural research project, which involved independent but collaborating Māori and Pākehā research teams investigating Māori patients’ and Pākehā primary care physicians’ understandings of Māori health. They contend that, although Māori research capability is at the point where ‘by Māori, for Māori’ research is now a reality, collaborative research still has a role to play in addressing Māori health issues...
Cram et al. present their bicultural research project, which involved independent but collaborating Māori and Pākehā research teams investigating Māori patients’ and Pākehā primary care physicians’ understandings of Māori health. They contend that, although Māori research capability is at the point where ‘by Māori, for Māori’ research is now a reality, collaborative research still has a role to play in addressing Māori health issues.
The authors begin by discussing Māori health, as well as Pākehā conceptions of Māori health. ‘Common Pākehā representations of Māori health,’ they say, ‘…facilitate blaming Māori, or sometimes Māori culture, for the current state of affairs… Blaming Māori for their own ill-health serves to avoid consideration of the impacts of Pākehā systems, ideologies, and practices (i.e., the entire colonial process) on the issue.’
They then explore factors that bear on the need for Māori research, expressing their desire to determine whether or not traditional health ideologies are still active among Māori. The cultural concepts and practices that supported these ideologies have, they say, been criticised, undermined, and sometimes outlawed by Pākehā and their views on health.
The authors present the Māori component of their research, which used a Kaupapa Māori methodology, first. ‘Kaupapa Māori research,’ they say, ‘is an attempt to retrieve space for Māori voices and perspectives, methodologies, and analyses, whereby Māori realities are seen as legitimate. This means working outside the binary opposition of Māori and Pākehā and centering Te Ao Māori…’
They discuss some of the themes that emerged in their interviews with Māori, pertaining to: Māori health, traditional ways, rongoā (remedies, therapies, and spiritual healing), wairua (spirit), and whānau. They note that wairua was the most commonly mentioned element of Māori health, and one that Pākehā physicians do not acknowledge.
Next, the authors present the Pākehā component of their research. They discuss some of the themes that emerged in their interviews with Pākehā physicians, pertaining to: Māori identity, Māori morbidity, compliance, style of working with Māori, and Māori conceptions of health – hinting at the differences in their understandings of Māori health.
The authors then discuss their findings, which are, they say, ‘strong evidence of the cultural gulf between primary care physicians and Māori clients of these professionals…’ They state that the power differential at personal, systemic, and institutional levels between Māori patients and Pākehā physicians is a likely contributor to the differences in health service usage and outcomes for Māori and non-Māori.
They conclude by discussing the structure of their research project. They say that the stage of the project in which the two teams were working separately can be characterised as ‘cooperative independence’ – and they note that it involved a lot of trust. They say that working as interested parties to the research, rather than research partners, allowed them to mediate power relations between themselves, as Māori and Pākehā, and to examine their assumptions.
Cram et al. discuss their experiences as a subgroup of Māori researchers, working within a larger mainstream research project. The research project concerned decision-making processes in biotechnology – an area that Māori have specific concerns about...
Cram et al. discuss their experiences as a subgroup of Māori researchers, working within a larger mainstream research project. The research project concerned decision-making processes in biotechnology – an area that Māori have specific concerns about.
‘Approximately one year into this project the Māori research team expressed our desire to conduct 'by Māori, for Māori' research; that is, Kaupapa Māori research,’ they say. ‘This request was prompted by our aspiration, in the first instance, to respond to the challenge from some of our Māori stakeholder groups that they would only be involved in this research if it was 'by Māori, for Māori’. Further, they expected that the Māori researchers would care for and protect their korero (discussion) from the research sessions.’
The authors asked their tauiwi colleagues if they could do a ‘by Māori, for Māori’ analysis on the Māori data before reconvening as a research team to discuss the Māori data as part of the larger dataset. The initial analysis of the Māori data would, then, be Māori.
They discuss Kaupapa Māori. They outline Māori resistance over the last 20-30 years, and relate it to the development of Kaupapa Māori. They note that Kaupapa Māori, which they describe as an ‘emancipatory theory’, has developed alongside feminist, African-American, and worldwide indigenous theorising.
Then, they examine Kaupapa Māori in more detail – looking at what qualifies as Kaupapa Māori research, and whether or not non-Māori can be engaged in it. In relation to their ‘parallel process’ model, they observe that at least two Māori groups would not have consented to being involved in the research if tauiwi had been involved in the focus group process, and suggest that the idea that, because of a lack of Māori researchers, tauiwi are necessarily needed is becoming outdated.
‘Most of us do not live in isolated pockets or self-contained Māori groups,’ they say. ‘Just as we negotiate our daily lives within this society, so we seek to negotiate what our aspirations might mean for the entire research team and the project. In other words we are wanting a Treaty-based relationship in which we are all parties to this research project…’
Cram explores ‘talk’, and its place within Kaupapa Māori research...
Cram explores ‘talk’, and its place within Kaupapa Māori research.
She relates her journey as a social science researcher. She explores the shortcomings of quantitative research, which she noticed early on in her career. She recognised the usefulness of quantitative research, she says. ‘What I needed, in addition, was a rigorous way to undertake qualitative research that would allow me to sit and talk with people, to enquire a little more about the intimacies of their day-to-day lives, and to represent these lives in a trustworthy way that honoured the participants.’
She discusses researchers’ tendency to let subjects’ words stand alone – and argues that the researcher’s role is to inquire, and so, comment upon the participants’ words.
Cram suggests that the Māori oral tradition has oriented Māori to talk.
She discusses knowledge, including mātauranga Māori. ‘Māori research that is for Māori and carried out by Māori is premised on an epistemological tradition that frames the way we see the world, the way we organise ourselves in it, the questions we ask and the solutions we seek,’ she says.
She argues that research is about power, and suggests that what is considered legitimate knowledge is protected by the powerful, and serves to maintain their power. Within this context, she says, indigenous knowledge is considered illegitimate, if at all. She also suggests that the way knowledge is generated helps to conceal social inequalities.
She says that the most powerful force within social science research is the ‘experimental’ or ‘hypothetico-deductive’ approach to knowledge generation, and discusses ‘scientific colonialism’ – the imposition of this worldview on indigenous groups.
Cram characterises Kaupapa Māori as a response to colonisation, and argues that it seeks to displace oppressive knowledge. Kaupapa Māori researchers, she says, have two roles: to affirm the importance of Māori self-definitions and self-valuations, and to articulate solutions to Māori problems in terms of Māori knowledge.
She discusses different ways of conducting interviews, and states her preference for semi-structured interviews. ‘In this method,’ she says, ‘a schedule of research questions is developed… The interviewer then works through this schedule with the participants able to contribute when they want to and to skip questions they prefer not to answer or have nothing to say about.’
She then explores the ways in which participant’s stories are represented by researchers, saying that ‘representation is about making Māori visible within research’. The aim of Kaupapa Māori research, she says, is to make space for Māori voices and realities to be heard and considered ‘valid’.’ It is also important that researchers elaborate on the ways in which society positions their participants within their subjectivities.
She examines the role of relationships in research involving talk, and argues that, because these relationships extend beyond individual research projects, researchers have a responsibility to report their findings fully and truthfully, and to use processes that are open and transparent. She also discusses data analysis, which should be strengths-focused rather than deficit-based.
In the introductory chapter to his book, Bishop relates collaborative story-ing to Kaupapa Māori research, and frames the ‘stories’ it contains as Kaupapa Māori research...
In the introductory chapter to his book, Bishop relates collaborative story-ing to Kaupapa Māori research, and frames the ‘stories’ it contains as Kaupapa Māori research.
Bishop presents the history of Kaupapa Māori. He also discusses Māori concerns about research. ‘Kaupapa Maori,’ he says, ‘is a discourse that has emerged and is legitimated from within the Maori community because it is based on historical precedence of culturally constituted validation processes.’
A Kaupapa Māori approach involves the assertion that Māori and Pākehā created a nation when they signed the Treaty of Waitangi. ‘Despite the guarantees of the Treaty of Waitangi,’ he says, ‘researchers in Aotearoa/New Zealand have undervalued and belittled Maori knowledge and learning practices and processes in order to enhance those of the colonisers and adherents of neo-colonial paradigms.’
He says that Kaupapa Māori challenges the dominant paradigm, which allows the researcher to set the research agenda, control the research process, and report the research outcomes. He then highlights some questions that became the focus of his discussions with researchers as to how they engaged in Māori research – pertaining to initiation, benefits, representation, legitimation, and accountability.
He also addresses the suggestion that research for Māori should be conducted by Māori. He argues that non-Māori should be involved in Māori research because there are highly-skilled, professionally-trained non-Māori who are becoming bi-cultural and are willing to work in Māori controlled contexts, and because for Pākehā to leave all of the work to Māori would be to disregard their duties as treaty partners.
Bishop examines his role in the research he presents. He says, ‘…to ignore my own role in the process of investigation was not acceptable because I was also a participant in the projects with views, experiences and interests of my own. Hence, it was necessary to facilitate a joint construction of meaning.’ He discusses the joint construction of meaning, and argues that researchers need to acknowledge their ‘participatory connectedness’ with other research participants.
As well as addressing objectivity, he discusses distance and the differences between formal and informal interaction between researchers and those being interviewed.
He explores the role and importance of narrative in Māori culture, and uses the notion of hui as a metaphor for collaborative story-ing, whereby meaning is jointly constructed over time.
Smith discusses Kaupapa Māori research...
Smith discusses Kaupapa Māori research.
She explores Māori attitudes toward research, and says that Māori researchers must convince both Māori and Pākehā of the importance of Māori research.
She recounts her own experience as an emerging researcher, doing research with other Māori mothers. She says that very little of the cross-cultural literature was helpful, as she was not working cross-culturally. She discusses the other literature that was available to her – including previous research by other Māori academics, which ‘appeared problematic’.
Smith introduces Kaupapa Māori research saying, ‘not all research by Māori [is Kaupapa Māori research] and not all Māori researchers claim to conduct Kaupapa Māori research.’ She outlines other theorists’ views. She argues that Kaupapa Māori is a localised form of critical theory, and that its kaupapa is to embrace strategic positioning: ‘being able to plan, predict, and contain across a number of sites the engagement in struggle’.
She addresses the distinction between Kaupapa Māori and mātauranga Māori. ‘Kaupapa Māori… does not mean the same thing as mātauranga Māori or Māori knowledge and epistemology,’ she says. ‘The concept of ‘kaupapa’ implies a way of framing and structuring how we think about those ideas and practices.’
She says that Kaupapa Māori is anti-positivistic, but suggests that it should include ‘all those researchers who are attempting to work with Maori and on topics of importance to Maori’. She argues that employing the right methods and people is secondary to ‘[g]etting the kaupapa ‘right’’.
She discusses whakapapa, te reo Māori, tikanga Māori, rangatiratanga, and whānau, in relation to research. She also explores Māori cultural ethics.
In this interview, Smith explores the origins and influences of Kaupapa Māori. He also discusses the ongoing importance of theory to Māori aspirations and outcomes. He emphasises the importance of action to Kaupapa Māori theory, and suggests that only those who are engaged in achieving positive outcomes for Māori are qualified to write about it...
In this interview, Smith explores the origins and influences of Kaupapa Māori. He also discusses the ongoing importance of theory to Māori aspirations and outcomes. He emphasises the importance of action to Kaupapa Māori theory, and suggests that only those who are engaged in achieving positive outcomes for Māori are qualified to write about it.
He outlines the history of Kaupapa Māori, emphasising the importance of education to its development. He also discusses his addition of the word ‘theory’. ‘The phrase ‘Kaupapa Māori theory’,’ he says, ‘was my attempt not simply to try and capture the high knowledge status associated with the word theory; it was a strategic move to open up a powerful space for Māori in the academy.’ He says that the strategy has been successful, as that space has largely been won.
He explains the importance of Critical Theory to Kaupapa Māori – suggesting that, without it, Kaupapa Māori will become ‘domesticated’, like other Māori movements within education. He says, ‘Kaupapa Māori has its roots in two intellectual influences – the validity and legitimacy of Māori language, knowledge and culture, as well as critical social theory… When one of these two elements is forgotten, and the emphasis is on a form of analysis separate from action (or vice versa), Kaupapa Māori is in danger of losing its radical potential.’ He also notes the influence of two key thinkers – Paulo Freire and Jürgen Habermas – on his thinking, and explores the contribution that their ideas made to his development of Kaupapa Māori theory.
Smith states that Kaupapa Māori has a cultural element and a political element. He suggests that these two elements are mutually supporting – and argues that the political element needs to be developed, so as to realise the radical potential of the theory. Kaupapa Māori is a way of countering theories that impact negatively on Māori. ‘We are struggling for our own right to think for ourselves,’ he says.
He then explores non-Māori involvement in Kaupapa Māori, arguing that it is not a black and white issue; it is, he says, about people and relationships. He also discusses the importance of Kaupapa Māori today – arguing that it is still very relevant, but that it requires constant critical renewal and reflection.
‘Kaupapa Māori as a concept,’ Smith says, ‘must not be captured by academics working solely from within academic institutions. Its transforming purpose must continue to be driven by Māori community and iwi interests from which it has evolved. Its wider application should reflect Māori and iwi interests and accountabilities. Furthermore, it must avoid being captured within the disconnected and privatised academic behaviours encouraged by dominant Pākehā academic institutions and policies.’
He finishes by offering four ‘tests’ that can be applied to determine whether a practice can be called an effective Kaupapa Māori-informed strategy: the ‘praxis’ test, the ‘positionality’ test, the ‘criticality’ test, and the ‘transformability’ test.
In his inaugural professorial lecture, Te Ahukaramū Charles Royal discusses the ‘creative potential’ of Māori communities – which, he says, represents a ‘net opportunity’ to the nation...
In his inaugural professorial lecture, Te Ahukaramū Charles Royal discusses the ‘creative potential’ of Māori communities – which, he says, represents a ‘net opportunity’ to the nation.
He explains his decision to include music in his lecture, saying that, for him, music and research are connected. He recounts his journey in search of an indigenous music, and that this led him to become a student of mātauranga Māori. ‘For a long time,’ he says, ‘I was a recipient of pre-existent mātauranga Māori and I loved it. There was a point, however, when I returned to my question – could I find a music that was indigenous to this land?’ He explains that he found it in te reo Māori itself.
Royal then discusses his appointment to the role of Director of Ngā Pae o te Māramatanga, and says that he was concerned to ensure that he could pursue all of his creativity (not just one part of it). ‘My personal journey was and is merely an example of a larger theme emerging in our communities,’ he says. ‘Whilst we remain rightfully concerned with matters of social justice and cultural revitalisation, more and more our communities are becoming consciously creative at both individual and collective levels.’
He then discusses Ngā Pae o te Māramatanga’s recent strategic plan, which emphasises ‘creative potential’. At Ngā Pae o te Māramatanga, he says, it is understood that the Māori dimension of New Zealand society represents an opportunity to the nation. The notion of ‘creative potential’ contrasts with many policy statements, which focus on problems facing Māori.
He outlines the quest for social justice and the desire for cultural revitalisation, which have dominated Māori thinking about Māori – and argues that creativity has existed alongside these. ‘Sometimes need and necessity catalysed creativity as communities have sought to find solutions and answer[s] to their problems,’ he says.
He explores ways in which creativity is being catalysed in Māori communities, using the Treaty claims process, as well as the establishment of organisations and enterprises, to illustrate emerging challenges that Māori are responding to.
He then elaborates on Ngā Pae o te Māramatanga’s philosophy that the Māori dimension of New Zealand society represents an opportunity to the nation. He gives some examples of specific opportunities, including:
- the opportunity represented by the ‘Māori economy’
- the opportunity represented by Māori institutions and organisations
- the opportunity represented by distinctive knowledge and cultural creativity
- the opportunity represented by te reo Māori
- the opportunity of indigeneity
He then explores indigeneity, saying that indigenous worldviews seek the unification of the human person with the natural world. ‘The course of human history today has created and continues to create ‘distance’ between natural world environments and human consciousness. It is possible to argue that some of the difficulties we see in the world today – climate change, environmental despoliation, energy production issues and more – are the product of this distance between natural world environments and human consciousness.’
In this influential book, Smith explores research on, for and with indigenous people...
In this influential book, Smith explores research on, for and with indigenous people.
The first part of Smith’s book is concerned with the imperial legacies of Western knowledge, and demonstrates how its influence continues to marginalise indigenous people and knowledges. In the second part of the book – which, she says in her introduction, has appealed more to indigenous readers – she re-imagines research as an indigenous activity.
In Chapter Nine, Smith explores the imperatives of an indigenous research agenda by offering a ‘case study’ of Māori. She discusses the history and cultural understandings influencing this agenda. She then interrogates strategies that are employed to make research more culturally sensitive, in response to calls from Māori to stop researching altogether:
- the strategy of avoidance
- the strategy of personal development (e.g. learning te reo, attending hui, and becoming more knowledgeable about Māori concerns)
- the strategy of consultation
- the strategy of making space (where Māori ‘voices’ are recognised and recruited into organisations)
She proceeds by considering four models presented by Graham Smith, within which culturally appropriate research can be undertaken by non-indigenous researchers.
In Chapter Ten, Smith presents Kaupapa Māori research as an example of an indigenous methodology. It is an attempt to ‘retrieve space’ to achieve three aims:
- to convince Māori of the value of research for Māori
- to convince the various research communities of the need for Māori involvement in research
- to develop approaches to, and ways of carrying out, research that take into account previous research (without being limited by it)
She suggests that Kaupapa Māori can be understood as a local approach to critical theory. She distinguishes Kaupapa Māori from Māori knowledge and epistemology. ‘The concept of Kaupapa implies a way of framing and structuring how we think about those ideas and practices.’ She then discusses the ways in which Kaupapa Māori research proceeds.
Robson et al. compare the age structure of Māori and non-Māori populations with Segi's world and World Health Organisation world populations, two standard populations commonly used in New Zealand. Their findings suggest that the population standard used is likely to significantly affect the way that data are interpreted...
Robson et al. compare the age structure of Māori and non-Māori populations with Segi's world and World Health Organisation world populations, two standard populations commonly used in New Zealand. Their findings suggest that the population standard used is likely to significantly affect the way that data are interpreted.
They argue that the need to evaluate the ways in which policy impacts on indigenous people relates to the right to health, as well as other rights. They state that in Aotearoa/New Zealand, the Treaty of Waitangi stipulates specific obligations that the government has to ensure that the rights of Māori are upheld. Accurate monitoring and evaluation of government policy requires high quality data.
The authors discuss Kaupapa Māori research, which centralises Māori realities and is used to critique how Māori are represented in research. ‘The challenge of Kaupapa Māori epidemiology,’ they say, ‘is to operationalise Māori self-determination in health research, to contribute to the right of the people to determine their own future development and priorities, and to respond to the demographic circumstances of the indigenous population.’
They discuss the need to adjust for variations in the age structure of populations. They state that this is especially important for Māori, as the Māori population has a younger age structure than non-Māori populations, and note that, although examining age specific rates is the most informative method, summary measures are often used. They then offer a detailed example, to illustrate why adjusting for such variations is necessary.
The authors explain that their analysis shows that the standard population used is likely to affect the way that data are interpreted in different ways. They also suggest that the use of data has political implications – and they relate this to specific rights, including the right to self-identification and the right to be counted as Māori in official statistics.
They conclude by calling for international comparisons of indigenous peoples – which could, they say, ‘aid efforts to improve indigenous health by comparing outcomes of different nations’ legal and health care systems, indigenous sovereignty arrangements, social policy contexts, health care quality improvement mechanisms and programmes to eliminate discrimination and institutional racism.’
In Chapter Four of her thesis, Pihama discusses Kaupapa Māori theory...
In Chapter Four of her thesis, Pihama discusses Kaupapa Māori theory.
She contends that, unlike Kaupapa Māori research and theory, Kaupapa Māori itself is not new. ‘Kaupapa Māori is itself extremely old, ancient in fact,’ she says. ‘It predates any and all of us in living years and is embedded in our cultural being.’
Kaupapa Māori is transformative. ‘To think and act in terms of Kaupapa Māori whilst experiencing colonisation is to resist dominance. This is not something that Māori alone are engaging [in]. It is the experience of vast numbers of Indigenous Peoples across the world.’
She also argues that Kaupapa Māori cannot be understood without an understanding of mātauranga Māori and the ways in which Māori engage with knowledge and knowing. In doing so, she explains the relationship of whakapapa to mātauranga Māori.
Pihama discusses theory, its problematic history, and her use of the term. ‘Having looked at some of the literature here that presents theory as prescription, description, explanation and analysis,’ she says, ‘it is clear to me that theory can not only be about these things but must be rooted in practice.’ Referring to Paulo Friere, she says that theory and practice must be open to each other. Struggling with and over theory is, she contends, a part of Kaupapa Māori theory.
Theory needs to be located within Māori experiences and practices, she says. It must acknowledge Māori and cultural realities, in all of their complexities. Theory should also be accessible. She mentions the tensions that exist between Māori communities and the academy, and the awkward position in which this leaves Māori academics. ‘The academy does little to support the development of accessible texts,’ she says.
She discusses Māori women and Māori theory. ‘My proposal,’ she says, ‘is that for insights into Māori experiences there must be explicit statements for and by Māori women; this… is critical if we are to ensure that Kaupapa Māori theory does not become yet another ‘malestream’ theoretical framework.’
Pihama then explores Kaupapa Māori theory in more depth. Much of its strength, she says, comes from the ability of Māori to see the relevance of such theoretical engagement. Kaupapa Māori theory is evolving, but its development ‘comes from a philosophical tradition that is as longstanding as any Western philosophical tradition’. That it is growing is important to remember, she says, as there is a need to build on, critique, and reshape it.
She discusses critical theory. ‘Kaupapa Māori was not, as appears to be the belief of some, based upon Critical Theory,’ she says. Following Taina Pohatu, she advocates a ‘hoa mahi’ relationship between Kaupapa Māori theory and Western theory – that is, that Western theory should be understood as ‘a friend that works alongside’. ‘Kaupapa Māori can and does exist without Critical Theory,’ she says.
Kaupapa Māori theory is not competitive or hierarchical, as Western theories are. She says that it is challenging the dominance of Western theorising – and that, for this reason, it is meeting resistance, especially within education. ‘The historical dominance of Western theorising is being challenged at a very fundamental level, that is at the level of relevance to the Indigenous people of this land,’ she says. ‘For many Pākehā academics this challenge is viewed as a threat.’ The view that Māori are unable to develop theoretical frameworks that have Māori origins can seriously disadvantage Māori staff and students.
She also explores the history of Kaupapa Māori theory, locating its emergence within the ‘Māori renaissance’. She explains that it has been articulated in numerous sites. ‘Kaupapa Māori is, by nature of its development, multiple,’ she says. It has different expressions, and these are informed by the diversity that exists within Māori communities.
The authors present a framework for addressing Māori ethical issues, for researchers, ethics committees, and those who engage in consultation about Māori ethical issues...
The authors present a framework for addressing Māori ethical issues, for researchers, ethics committees, and those who engage in consultation about Māori ethical issues.
They discuss the relationship between research and ethics, and note that Māori have advocated for the inclusion of tikanga Māori in ethical decision-making processes for a long time. ‘All research in New Zealand is of interest to Māori,’ they say, ‘and research which includes Māori is of paramount importance to Māori.’ They also explore Māori values and ethics, which are referenced in Māori creation stories and accessed through kawa and tikanga.
The authors then present their ethical framework, which has four tikanga-based principles: whakapapa (relationships), tika (research design), manaakitanga (cultural and social responsibility), and mana (justice and equity). They discuss each of these principles in detail – identifying, through their use of diagrams, progressive expectations of ethical behaviour. They also relate other Māori concepts to this ethical framework; for example, they connect the notions tapu and noa to the process of ethical review.
Next, they consider areas of special ethical consideration to Māori, including: collection and use of human tissue, genetic research, informed consent, on-going communication with donors/participants, interpretation of results, intellectual property, representation, and benefit-sharing.
‘This framework helps to clarify key ethical concepts for Māori and in doing so supports decision-making around Māori ethical issues,’ the authors say. ‘It does not replace ethical deliberation but enhances the process by framing Māori ethical issues in a way that aligns to the expectations of Māori communities…’ They also note, in concluding, that a greater understanding of Māori ethics can be gained through training.
As appendices, the authors include a timeline of developments in Māori research ethics, as well as a list of Māori ethical frameworks – including Kaupapa Māori – and their proponents.