Search results

Maria Amoamo is a post-doctoral fellow in Te Tumu, the School of Māori Pacific and Indigenous Studies at University of Otago in New Zealand. Maria's research interests include the representation of indigenous, cultural and heritage tourism. Her PhD thesis examined the issue of identity in relation to Māori regional tourism within a post-colonial framework. She is currently examining the economic value of identity in relation to determining ‘what is the profile of Māori tourism in Dunedin?’ Maria is also examining the issue of social vulnerability and resilience of Pacific Island communities in relation to tourism.

This research examines, in a case study of Pitcairn Island, the meaning of community. Such meanings emerge in the empirical field whereby the ‘field’ offers its own cues to both issue and method. The main lesson learned from this ethnographic study stems from the experiential nature of fieldwork whereby ‘community’ is viewed as a cluster of embodied dispositions and practices. Influenced by Anthony Cohen's ethnographic work (1978, 1985) the case study demonstrates the centrality of the symbolic dimensions of community as a defining characteristic. Described as one of the most isolated islands in the world accessible only by sea, Pitcairn is the last remaining British ‘colony’ in the Pacific, settled in 1790 by English mutineers and Tahitians following the (in)famous mutiny on the Bounty. It represents in an anthropological sense a unique microcosm of social structure, studied ethnographically only a handful of times. Results show symbolic referents contribute to a sense of ‘exclusivity’ of Pitcairn culture that facilitates co-operation and collectivity whilst also recognizing the internal–external dialectics of boundaries of identification. The study reveals culture as a symbolic rather than structural construct as experienced by its members, seeing the community as a cultural field with a complex of symbols whose meanings vary amongst its members. Thus, connection and contiguity of culture continually transform the meaning of community, space and place. As such, community continues to be of both practical and ideological significance to the practice of anthropology.

This paper aims to address the notion that the relationship between being indigenous and business success is inconclusive because there are tensions between indigenous values and business success. The research questions are: How do indigenous entrepreneurs define success? Does the third space create a different meaning of success in the indigenous context?

A qualitative approach was adopted for this study because the ability to define success requires subjective meanings. Participants’ lived experiences and stories were the main sources of information. Open conversational-style interviews were used because they allow participants to freely share their stories.

A defining line is that not all indigenous entrepreneurs have the same view of success. The homogeneity that emanates from sharing indigeneity does not equal unity in views, but shows that people from the same group can view success differently. However, the meaning and views formed are also connected to the wider community, relationships and predominant values that characterise the social cultural context of the entrepreneur.

This study focuses on one indigenous group; more studies need to be conducted to gain wider variation on the meaning of success in indigenous entrepreneurship and how indigenous subculture alters these meanings.

The findings of this study show that success for indigenous entrepreneurs should be defined based on individual philosophy. Hence, practitioners should endeavour to clarify what success means from the initial stage of the business to avoid misconception and make this clear to others that are connected to the business.

This paper suggests a different view of success in an indigenous context using the hybridity viewpoint to explain why success can be perceived using the in-between space without opposite binary.