Search results

In this chapter, we explore the ethics of developing and maintaining meaningful and equitable relationships between Māori and Pākehā scholars and researchers. We begin by asking if it is even desirable, viable, or sustainable to pursue decolonising research in disciplines and relationships that are so deeply entrenched in settler-colonialism. We consider the challenges involved in managing an equitable distribution of decolonising labour in settings with few Indigenous scholars, particularly around the constant work of educating and pointing out ignorance, as well as the emotional labour of dealing with Pākehā vulnerability, inaction, and resistance to change. Building on the Kaupapa Māori principles of whanaungatanga and manaakitanga, we suggest a tangible set of seven strategies or ‘collaborative ethics’ to address these challenges in working together and in actively dismantling while privilege and white supremacy within the Academy and wider world of research.

The purpose of this paper is to reconsider, from a historical perspective, New Zealand’s reputation as a country largely without corruption, with particular reference to the colonial government’s confiscation of Māori land in the 19^th century and beyond.

This paper is based on published historical commentary.

The findings are that much of the Māori land confiscation was rendered legal for illegitimate purposes, and that the colonial and successive New Zealand governments abrogated the country’s foundational document, the Treaty of Waitangi, signed between the colonial government and many Māori chiefs in 1840. Adverse consequences for Māori have been felt to this day, despite the Treaty settlements process that began with the Māori renaissance in the mid-1970s.

The academic analysis of corruption in New Zealand has seldom if ever adopted this historical perspective.

This chapter traces the early beginnings of schools and schooling in Aotearoa New Zealand. We have drawn on archival evidence to identify shifting tensions between Māori and missionary, between Church and State and between local and national priorities. Despite its relative size, the history of New Zealand’s schools highlights their complex and competing origins. This educational landscape has been marked by emerging concerns and unresolved tensions regarding entry standards, academic and professional training, recruitment, and the knowledge, skills and dispositions a teacher ought to possess. There has been little consensus about how teachers should be prepared and where this training ought to occur. The absence of any uniform understanding or agreement about the effective professional training and preparation of teachers has induced a level of bureaucratization as competing interests sought to control the work of teachers.

Indigenous health workforce development has been identified as a key strategy to improve Indigenous health and reduce ethnic inequities in health outcomes. Likewise, development of a culturally safe and culturally competent non-Indigenous health workforce must also occur if the elimination of health inequities is to be fully realised. Tertiary education providers responsible for training health professionals must face the challenge of engaging the Indigenous learner within health sciences, exposing the ‘hidden curriculum’ that undermines professional Indigenous health learning and ensuring tertiary success for Indigenous students within their academy. This chapter summarises recent developments, research and interventions within the Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences at the University of Auckland that aims to address these challenges by re-presenting Indigenous student recruitment, selection and support, re-presenting bridging/foundation education and representing Māori health teaching and learning within the curriculum.

This chapter examines the current higher (tertiary) education system in Aotearoa/New Zealand, drawing specifically on Maori (indigenous people) endeavours to engage at that level. I outline historically key practices and their underlying philosophies, which limited Maori access to higher education, especially those based on colonial views about race that positioned Maori at the lower end of the social structure in New Zealand society. The loss of language and culture, a monocultural education system, and the impact on Maori in terms of educational underachievement will be further outlined.

The chapter then examines Maori educational initiatives as a means to outline how Maori have attempted to address educational underachievement and the redress of their language, knowledge and culture. The engagement of Maori in universities, research and education will be discussed including new tertiary developments, an indigenous tertiary institution – Te Whare Wananga o Awanuiarangi.

The purpose of this paper is to highlight, challenge and explain the inequitable treatment of tax and welfare fraudsters in the criminal justice systems of Australia and New Zealand. The authors offer prejudice by way of explanation and suggest that it is also prejudice that restricts the implementation of more equitable processes. A second objective of the study is to highlight the importance of critical tax research as an instrument to agitate for social change.

A survey captures 3,000 respondents’ perceptions of the likelihood that different “types” of people will commit welfare or tax fraud. Using social dominance theory, the authors investigate the extent to which prejudice impacts on attitudes towards those engaged in these fraudulent activities.

The authors find the presence of traditional stereotypes, such as the perception that businessmen are more likely to commit tax fraud and people receiving welfare assistance are more likely to commit fraud. The authors also find strong preferences towards respondents’ own in-group, whereby businessmen, Maori and people receiving welfare assistance believed that their own group was less likely to commit either crime.

Where in-group preference exists among those who construct and enforce the rules relating to investigations, prosecutions and sentencing of tax and welfare fraud, it is perhaps unsurprising that welfare recipients attract less societal support than other groups who have support from their own in-groups that have greater power, resources and influence.

The study highlights the difficulty of social change in the presence of strong in-group preference and prejudice. Cognisance of in-group preference is relevant to the accounting profession where elements of self-regulation remain. In-group preferences may impact on services provided, as well as professional development and education.

Argues that the discourse of “managing diversity”, emerging from the US management literature, cannot be simply mapped on to organisations in other cultural contexts. It uses the example of Aotearoa/New Zealand to show that a “diversity” based on the demographics and dominant cultural assumptions of the USA fails to address – and may in fact obscure – key local “diversity” issues. It argues that the dominant discourse of “managing diversity” has embedded in it cultural assumptions that are specific to the US management literature. It calls for a genuinely multi‐voiced “diversity” discourse that would focus attention on the local demographics, cultural and political differences that make the difference for specific organisations.

The purpose of this paper is to attempt to theorise difference as encountered by a team of six diverse researchers interested in addressing cultural and religious diversity in sexuality education. Drawing Todd's (2003, 2011a, b) concepts of “the crossroads”, “becoming present” and “relationality” in conversation with Barad's (2003, 2007, 2012) ideas around relationality and intra-activity, the paper explores how “difference” in team research might be re-conceptualised. The aim is to theorise difference, differently from Other methodological literature around collaborative research. Typically, this work highlights markers of difference based on researcher identity (such as gender and ethnicity) as the source of difference in research teams, and examines how these differences are worked through. The aim of this paper is not to resolve difference, but understand it as occurring in the relational process of researchers becoming present to each other. Difference that is not understood as the product of the individual (Barad, 2012), may engender an orientation to ethical relationality, whereby research teams might hold in tension a conversation between the individual and the collective.

This paper is philosophical and methodological. It draws on conceptual understandings from feminist educational philosophy and new materialisms. Findings are based on empirical experiences of a team of researchers exploring cultural and religious difference in sexuality education. Its aim is to re-think the ontology of “difference” as conventionally understood in qualitative methodological literature around team research.

The contribution to conceptualising difference in research teams is to apply Todd's (2011a) theoretical work around “becoming”, “relationality” and the “crossroads” and further delineate it with Barad's (2012) concept of intra-activity. Combining these theorist's ideas the paper offers a conceptualisation of difference that is not the product of individual researcher identities that manifests at the point of collision with (an)other identity. Rather, difference becomes intra-actively in meeting at the crossroads where the “who” is formed. The author argues it is a configuration that cannot be known in advance, and that blurs individuals (and contingent identities) in its uniqueness.

Although conceptual in nature, this paper can be seen as having implications for working with difference in research teams. Drawing on Todd (2003, 2011a) what becomes important in attending to difference in research teams is being openly receptive to the Other. For instance, that the differences of perspective in relation to a research project are not melted into consensus, but that the singularities are always held in relation to each-other.

This paper takes new and emerging ideas in educational philosophy and new materialisms around relationality and applies them to a re-thinking of “difference” in qualitative methodological literature. The result is to offer a new ontology of “difference” as experienced by members of a qualitative research team. It also brings the work of Barad and Todd into conversation for the first time, in order to think ethically about how researchers might work with difference.