Kaupapa Māori Research as Tauiwi

Research within indigenous communities continues to be conducted in a way that is Eurocentric, acquisitional, and inequitable. Non-Māori working in a research role with tangata whenua are in a position where a location of oneself in regards to privilege and power is essential in considering if the research is first of value, and secondly ethical in a kaupapa Māori framework. 

Undertaking research in an indigenous context requires oneself to ‘locate’ a position as a researcher and honestly evaluate the reasoning behind the research itself. Several factors need to be accounted for when undertaking research within an indigenous setting, with the most obvious being the ethical responsibility of a pākeha person using Māori first as a subject and then quantifying the data from the subject (indigenous, colonised peoples) into reliable ‘results’ to support a hypothesis. How this sterile, dehumanising, and objectifying process impacts versus benefits a community is debatable when placed within a contemporary social setting, and demands a robust and appropriate approach lest a continued academicised colonisation be perpetuated (Tuhiwai Smith, 2005). Co-opting indigenous knowledge for personal benefit (through theses, or postdoctural publishing opportunities) exemplifies the arrogance that highlights Eurocentric attitudes to non-white cultures’ intellectual, spiritual, and ancestral property as being free for the taking. Understanding who is benefitting from the imposition of research within a community, whose voice is projected, and which perspective the lens of the theory looks through are imperative to ensuring ethical and trustworthy work is being conducted.

Each researcher will have their own differentiated story that influences their interests, beliefs, and resilience to the challenges of researching in an indigenous context. Personal identification provides the foundation for the approach undertaken, the perspective of the research, and the methods used in collecting ‘data’. Indigenous research has historically been an exercise in cultural and academic Eurocentrism that favours a data-centric approach and dehumanisation of indigenous peoples through systematic analysis (Sullivan, 1994). A contrast of historical knowledge-acquisition of Eurocentrised researchers and a research method(s) that fits within an indigenous paradigm are perspective and voice (Tuhiwai Smith, 2005). My voice when researching within an indigenous community or investigating indigenous concepts should be heard only when making inquiries, or clarifying a response – my voice’s job when conducting research is to instigate others’ dialogue and collate the information gifted to me into an appropriately coherent structure, nothing more. The perspective in which the research results are framed need to come from the community participating in the research. A pākeha-centric approach and interpretation of data does little if anything to contribute to a strengths based positive direction of indigenous research, nor does it aid in the development of researcher/tangata whenua relationships (Bishop, 2005).

As tauiwi undertaking research involving Māori there will always be the risk of subjectivity within my study. We are not yet in a decolonised society, and my position and role within a context of colonialism and Eurocentricity means that I am still at the top of the racial food chain. The gradient and saturation of accountability and integrity is exceedingly diluted in some parts of the country. A lack of subjectivity should be at the forefront of any researchers agenda, and by implementing this effort comes an awareness of how the extensive misconceptions and myths in Aotearoa regarding Māori are widespread. Russell Bishop notes this in his opening statement in his chapter regarding kaupapa Māori and neocolonialist domination in research (2005). The ease in which these misconceptions move within social discourse shows the impact Eurocentric research can have on furthering racial disparities and constricting positive equitable change. In order to become a fully objective pākeha researcher of Māori concepts, one must make great efforts to become accustomed and familiar with kaupapa Māori, including tikanga, te reo, mana motuhake, and tino rangatiratanga. Especially important to research relations with tangata whenua relate to tino rangatiratanga, whereby one example of the disparities in the translations of the English and Māori versions of Te Tiriti where governence and sovereignty remain untranslated and misleading (Matson, 1991). As such, the self-determination of research participants is essential to building long lasting, respectful, and productive relationships with Māori (Bishop, 2005). Tuhiwai Smith futhers this by noting how historical anthropological research furthers colonisation and ‘actively halts self-determination’ (2005).

Keith Sullivan identified several problematic initiatives created by pākeha with no consultation or involvement with Māori, acting instead on their behalf with little to no understanding or acknowledgement of tikanga or holistically indigenous practice (1994). Sullivan also identified the lack of narrative metaphor as tauiwi/pākeha, meaning that a singular dimension is present in research conducted by pākeha, instead of the multidimensional approach of Māori and other indigenous cultures. The creation of ethical space, of equitable research, is an intrinsic necessity when working with Māori in a research setting. Castellano called this an ‘intercultural knowledge exchange’ (2008). Included in this is a rejection of institutionalised Eurocentricity as the valid norm. As mentioned earlier, academically mandated ethics come from a colonialist perspective with a breadth of history regarding the unethical attainment and acquisition of indigenous knowledge (Bishop, 2005).

Locating yourself as a researcher is imperative to ensuring the conglomeration of Māori knowledge is not a subliminal motivating factor behind research (Sullivan, 1994). Representation that is representative of indigenous cultures is essential, and possible through firstly identifying your personal position in terms of prior experience, education, and worldviews. I am an extensively educated, white, gay single mother. These factors are intrinsically linked to how I interpret qualitative data, the methods I will be immediately drawn to when designing a research paradigm, and effects the interaction between members of the community and myself. The way I live my life may lead some to see me as tautangata, as a strange person (also a stranger), and could present an opportunity for conflict when views or beliefs contradict. Essentially, balancing the interests of my individual research with the needs and interests of the community will be the end goal to a successful and mutually beneficial research process. A discussion with the community of what is being researched, what this will look like, what purpose it will serve, who has ultimate responsibility, and what acknowledgement will be given for the sharing of knowledge (Tuhiwai Smith, 2005, 2012).

Hugens (2016) notes the following points to consider in the context of indigenous research ethics:

· How to balance group interests and individual interests to promote justice and inclusiveness

· How to respond to the needs of vulnerable groups at risk within Indigenous communities

· How to provide access to data for local benefit and also protect the privacy of members of small communities with dense networks of relationship

· How to enhance the skills and infrastructure in Indigenous communities so that they can engage in equitable research partnerships

· How to respect both the expectations of community accountability and the value of freedom of inquiry

· How to overcome reluctance among academic researchers and students to engage with Indigenous knowledge and Indigenous-led research`.

These questions pose an extremely useful framework to utilise when creating a research proposal and strategy, as well as justifying the usefulness of the research itself. Here indigenous based ideology for ‘White Knight Syndrome’, i.e. wanting to save the world, ensures that the acqusition of indigenous knowledge is not being justified for the ‘good of mankind’, but as a mutually beneficial undertaking between two invested parties (Tuhiwai Smith, 2012). Tuhiwai Smith also identifies the perils of research instigating policy (2012). The dangers of non-indigenous based research birthing changes in policy is that it is often tone deaf and lacks the breadth and understanding of an indigenous perspective. Here is a direct example of the need to decolonise research through a location first of self, then of self within context of the research and the participants required.

Any research involving indigenous concepts, peoples, or lands, needs to be part of a decolonising process that acknowledges and makes space for equity and tangata whenua-centric ethical responsibilities. The issue, however, with ethical guidelines is that they are often set by an academic institute, in itself an elitist colonising force. How then, as tauiwi in a tertiary setting, is equitable, ethical, meaningful and worthwhile research able to be undertaken in an indigenous setting? The obstacle is replicating data on lived reality and experience of indigenous peoples when you are part of the colonising force still present. Existence as pākeha in Aotearoa means to be part of the on going Eurocentric zeitgeist, and unless you are living and breathing the dismantling of this hierarchy and decolonisation of New Zealand then your presence in research will never be able to understand, replicate, or otherwise justify an observed perspective of indigenous Māori concepts.

References:

Bishop, R. (2005). “Freeing ourselves from neocolonial domination in research: a kaupapa Māori approach to creating knowledge”. In Denzin, N, & Lincoln, Y. The SAGE handbook of qualitative research. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, SAGE Publications, p 109 – 138.

Castellano, M.B. (2008). “Indigenous research”. In The Sage encyclopedia of qualitative research methods. Thousand Oaks, SAGE Publications.

Hugens, I. (2016). Social movements, resistance, and social change in Aotearoa New Zealand. Kōtuitui: New Zealand Journal of Social Sciences Online, 11(2).

Matson, J., N. (1991). The Language, the Law and the Treaty of Waitangi. The Journal of The Polynesian Society, (4), 343.

Sullivan, K. (1994). Bicultural Education in Aotearoa/New Zealand: Establishing a Tauiwi Side to the Partnership. New Zealand Annual Review of Education, (3), 191 – 222.

Tuhiwai Smith, L. (2005). “On tricky ground: researching the Native in an age of uncertainty”. In Denzin, N, & Lincoln, Y. The SAGE handbook of qualitative research. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, SAGE Publications, p 85  -107.

Tuhiwai Smith, L. (2012). Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. Zed Books: London.