Search results

This chapter examines mātauranga Māori (Māori ways of knowing) and Iwi (tribes and sub-tribes) mātauranga (knowledge) described as mātauranga-a-iwi (tribal knowledge). It presents an argument that mātauranga Māori and mātauranga-a-iwi must be linked to a particular context, drawing out the ideas that space and place are important. This theoretical chapter through Kaupapa Māori (a Māori way) identifies a series of key concepts that set the parameters for a discussion of the relationships between mātauranga-a-iwi, mātauranga Māori and Kaupapa Māori theory. I argue that mātauranga Māori, Kaupapa Māori theory and mātauranga-a-iwi are distinct entities but inseparable. This chapter charts the relationships among these three entities in a diagrammatic form, in what I have termed the Ranga Framework. The Ranga Framework proposes the working relationship between these elements that links space and place to people to produce contextual knowledge. By making the appropriate linkages to produce contextual knowledge Māori are able to locate themselves cognitively into the learning environment. I argue this is an important element that will help lift the educational success of Māori. It is important to ensure that contextual connections are a critical component in the delivery of knowledge, without which/otherwise Māori learners are in danger of reproaching mutant forms of language and knowledge, and thereby becoming disconnected from a more-authentic Iwi base. This chapter proposes an indigenous cognitive development framework to map engagement with new concepts and the stages required to reach mastery.

In 2012, I wrote an article titled ‘Māori research collaborations, Mātauranga Māori science, and the appropriation of water in New Zealand’.¹ The article attempted to critique Vision Mātauranga (VM)² policy by examining the relationship between Ngā Pae ō te Māramatanga,³ Ngāi Tahu iwi (tribe) and scientists with interests in freshwater. Seven years on, I admit to having barely scratched the surface regarding the multiple ways the policy is used as a mechanism to advance and create relationships between scientists and Māori communities in the co-production of new knowledge. Back then my commentary was somewhat sceptical of the policy’s design which does not deal with the unequal power relationships created between science experts and flax-root communities. I argued that VM had been created to commodify and globalise Māori knowledge that belongs to Māori communities and had become the expected mechanism for all engagement between university researchers and Māori communities. Much of the risk associated with forming new collaborations rested with Māori communities, and even more so with the Māori researchers who act as intermediaries and brokers between the communities and research teams. Back then, as a scholar trained in social anthropology, the way I understood knowledge transmission and the research part of my world was disconnected from the rest of my life. The probing and critical perspectives I had developed by privileging anthropological ideas and theory overshadowed other ways of interacting and understanding people and place. Like many of my anthropological colleagues I had learnt to be an ‘objective’ participant observer. The aim of participant observation is to gain a close and intimate familiarity with a given group of individuals through intensive involvement with people in their cultural environment, usually over an extended period of time. This method is highly regarded by social and cultural anthropologists around the globe. Now as the Director of a Māori research centre, I am expected to participate in all manner of engagements with Māori and non-Māori groups, and I am constantly confronted by ethical questions when undertaking research projects. VM as a process forces me to ask questions that I never did when I was trying my hand at being a bona fide anthropologist. The questions that shape my scholarship now are as follows: Who will benefit from this research and what will my legacy be?

This chapter describes the pivotal shift occurring in our national research psyche whereby Indigenous epistemology is increasingly recognised as both valid and enriching. Two key contentions emerge from a description and discussion of this shift. First, ethics review bodies must evolve to incorporate a wider knowledge framework, one which conscientiously locates Indigenous knowledge and which empowers researchers to appropriately traverse Aotearoa New Zealand’s cultural terrain. The second contention argues that there are ethical responsibilities to address inequities, based on our shared Treaty partnership, and that ethics review bodies should instantiate consideration of inequities within their oversight roles. This chapter sets the scene by describing the current shift away from Western homogeneity to cultural diversity in education, noting the formal higher learning undertaken by Māori prior to colonisation, alongside current Māori educational achievement and the goal of success as Māori. The emerging recognition of mātauranga Māori (Indigenous epistemology) is exemplified by Ngā Pae o te Māramatanga and Vision Mātauranga. However, this shift has not yet reached all parts of the New Zealand research community, and we argue particularly so for ethics review processes. Possible solutions are posed, and four cultural markers are offered as supporting foundations for professionals in the field as they traverse epistemological landscapes that are more attuned to Indigenous realities.

The purpose of this paper is to argue, using the New Zealand context as reference, that heterogeneous societies with diverse cultures have an expanded space of possibilities for developing social innovations.

Incorporation of the cultural context is integral to finding innovative, collective solutions for mitigating complex social problems and sparking transformational social change. Empirical support for this contention draws on examples of social innovations that embed the cultural values of Māori, New Zealand’s indigenous people.

Using illustrative cases, the authors highlight the capacity of Māori values, encompassed in an ecosystem of Māori social institutions, to catalyse social innovation in New Zealand. The authors position these examples within two paradigms of social innovation.

The paper limits its focus to the implications of Māori cultural values for social innovation. However, it serves to highlight that appreciation of indigenous and minority cultural values can provide a foundation for social innovations in other contexts too.

Recognising cultural values increases the range of possibilities for innovatively addressing social and environmental challenges.

Respect and recognition of indigenous culture and knowledge offers potential for sustainable solutions to complex social challenges.

This is one of the few papers to explore the cultural embeddedness of social innovation and highlight public policy social innovations.

Indigenous peoples have had a long and fraught relationship with the notion of ‘research’. Too often we have been the subjects of studies about us, examined as the novel ‘other’ and denied agency in a relationship which is about the powerful ‘making sense’ of a people who are powerless. As subjects of other peoples’ ‘science’, we have been harmed, exploited and traumatised.

In this new century, however, Indigenous scholars and researchers are taking greater control of the science system and research processes. As Māori, we are reclaiming our intellectual traditions, revitalising our ancient teachings and retrieving our ancient knowledges, knowledges held in our karakia (ritual chants), mōteatea (laments) and pūrākau (stories). Part of the reclamation process includes the establishment of our own research centres, entities guided by Te Ao Māori (the Māori world) and our values, ethics and practices. In reclaiming the research space, we seek to drive our own developmental goals and agenda, seeking the answers to questions that are important to us as Indigenous peoples and that can further enhance our way of life.

In this chapter, the author discusses a set of Indigenous research ethics which guide our work as an iwi-owned research organisation. This chapter canvasses the origins of these ethics, how we use them to guide our work as health researchers and the challenges we face as a tribally owned research centre in giving effect to these Indigenous research ethics at the interface between Te Ao Māori and what remains an essentially ‘mainstream’, Western research funding environment.

This investigation aims to highlight the need for the information professions globally to value diverse knowledge paradigms in a world where people from diverse cultures and backgrounds interact with information on a daily basis. We provide examples from the Library and Information Science (LIS) profession in New Zealand which has been shaped by socially and culturally inclusive education and practices which take into account diverse ways of knowing and understanding the world and information.

An investigation into socially and culturally inclusive LIS education initiatives worldwide contextualizes a discussion of current LIS curricula in New Zealand and their delivery. The achievements and challenges in LIS education, the library profession, and library service are considered alongside the rich and varied nature of New Zealand society and the provision and accessibility of library services.

LIS education is at the start of this process, and New Zealand education providers promote a range of socially and culturally inclusive practices within their programs resulting in LIS graduates who are equipped to make ongoing contributions to an inclusive society through their professional work. We conclude that these three inseparable components of LIS in New Zealand result in social and cultural inclusion, but can always be further enhanced.

This chapter draws attention to the absence of consideration for non-Western knowledge paradigms in LIS curricula worldwide, and brings together diverse examples, mandating for library services and a library profession that reflect the rich social and cultural makeup of the communities we serve. We conclude that three inseparable components of LIS in New Zealand result in social and cultural inclusion, and there is always opportunity for further enhancement.

In this chapter, we draw upon our experiences as members of Victoria University of Wellington’s Human Ethics Committee (VUW-HEC) to discuss some of the issues that arise when researchers are asked to discuss the Treaty of Waitangi¹ in ethics applications. Victoria University of Wellington (VUW)’s Human Ethics Policy states that researchers have a responsibility to ensure that research conforms to the University’s Treaty of Waitangi Statute. This statute outlines the principle-based framework VUW has adopted to meet its obligations to the Treaty derived from the Education Act 1989 and other non-statutory sources. Accompanying the Human Ethics Policy is a Human Ethics Guidelines document providing researchers at VUW with information about how they can align their research with Treaty principles, such as those of partnership, protection, and participation. Researchers are encouraged to read these documents before completing the ethics application, which contains a mandatory question asking them to explain how their research conforms to the University’s Treaty of Waitangi Statute. During our time on VUW-HEC, we have observed that this question can be difficult for researchers to engage with in a meaningful way. In this chapter, we do not discuss the specifics of applications or VUW-HEC meetings; instead, we draw on our collective experiences to consider how well our university’s ethics application process creates space for researchers to engage with ‘that Treaty question’.

This chapter provides an overview of the volume, beginning with anecdotes from the editors. These anecdotes demonstrate the range of issues facing Indigenous scholars and researchers who choose to work with Indigenous participants and/or communities. Reference is made to Indigenous research sovereignty, honouring the immense work undertaken by previous Indigenous scholars, enabling many today to work effectively with their own people as well as other Indigenous groups. This is considered a courageous act, given the vulnerability this opens Indigenous peoples up to in terms of the change that is engendered and the criticism from external non-Indigenous researchers that has often arisen. The organisation of the volume into three parts is discussed, and this chapter ends with synopses of the following 16 chapters.

The tradition in academic institutions seems to favour individual effort and achievement. In counterpoint, a group of four Māori women from Aotearoa New Zealand – Nan Wehipeihana, Kataraina Pipi, Vivienne Kennedy and Kirimatao Paipa – share their experiences of journeying together as a kaupapa whānau, ¹ enhanced by their whakapapa ² links to collectively navigate a higher education pathway. They asserted their ways of working and being supportive to each other through a postgraduate diploma in evaluation and research. Their collaborative way of working challenged the academic system where learning is focused on individual effort and achievement. Pushing the boundaries to ensure the benefits of a culture of inclusiveness, collaboration and collectivity in an academic sphere of learning requires a mixture of willingness and cooperation between students and the institution. This chapter describes how this group of four mature Māori students overcame challenges in asserting a cultural stance that was a key enabler to them in successfully attaining their higher educational learning goals.