Other formats

    TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Te Kāhui Kura Māori, Volume 0, Issue 2

Kaupapa Māori

Kaupapa Māori

In recent years there has been a clear shift from Māori as objects of research to Māori as the researchers (Smith 1999). Academic trends in feminism and critiques of positivism as well as the development of the Waitangi Tribunal and Te Kohanga Reo have created the conditions for this transition. Based on the assertion that Māori systems of knowledge are as valid as Western counterparts, Māori scholars have been looking for theorizing that “starts from te ao Māori and extends outwards to te ao Pākehā, rather than the other way around”, yet is capable of weaving both traditions together (Irwin 1994:28). This has manifested as Kaupapa Māori: “Māori research by, with and for Māori [that] is about regaining control over Māori knowledge and Māori resources” (Cram 2001:37). Cram has defined seven guidelines for this kind of research. First is respect for people, which breaks down hierarchical position of the researcher and instead allows the participants to control the interaction (see Irwin 1994 on “rituals of encounter”). Secondly, he kanohi kitea emphasises the need for face-to-face meetings which establish relationships. Third is titiro, whakaronga…kōrero – watching and listening over a period of time, to develop shared understandings, should form the basis of any comment on a community. Fourth is manaaki ki te tangata, which encompasses collaboration and reciprocity. Fifth, kia tupato refers to cultural safety and the need for reflexivity over our insider/outsider roles. Sixth is kaua e takahia te mana o te tangata – avoid harming the mana of the participants – which involves keeping the community informed and in some control of the research, rather than merely taking information from them. Finally kaua e mahaki warn against flaunting your knowledge as an “expert”, rather knowledge should be made accessible and shared in empowering ways. Kathy Irwin comment sums this up: “writing as a Māori feminist my audience is not confined to those whose knowledge and credentials are validated by the PhD research process” (Irwin 1994:27).

Irwin notes that in relation to the promotion of Māori education “the debates in universities imply that there are fewer or lower standards of accountability, whereas the reality is greater or double accountability” (Irwin 1994:35). For example, Aroha Harris and Wendy Henwood have demonstrated the great need for innovation and delicacy when undertaking research in communities already suffering from research-fatigue (Harris and Henwood 2007). I do not expect to be capable of these subtle negotiations required to do true Kaupapa Māori research. I am not Māori, I do not have the whakapapa links or the knowledge of tikanga required to create a research project based on Māori perspectives and protocols. However, I do believe that I can take the general principles of Kaupapa Māori on board and work in ways aligning with them. Cram notes that: “One growing opinion is that non-Māori cannot conduct Kaupapa Māori research but non-Māori can support a Māori research kaupapa.” (Cram 2001:38). She goes on to add that “what is good for Māori is often good for people in general” (Cram 2001:38), and I believe this to be true. For me this means finding methodologies that are respectful and people centered. It also means a deliberate attempt to educate myself in both general indigenous critiques of Western society as well as the specific and localised worldviews of Māori. In these approaches I follow Denzin and Lincoln’s example: 

In arguing for a dialoguing between critical and indigenous theories, Denzin and Lincoln recognize that they are outsiders to the indigenous colonized experience. We write as privileged Westerners. At the same time, we seek to be “allied others”, fellow travelers of sorts, antipositivists, friendly insiders who wish to deconstruct from within the Western academy and its positivist epistemologies… We value auto ethnographic, insider, participatory, collaborative methodologies… - research practices that are reflexively consequential, ethical, critical, respectful, and humble. (Denzin and Lincoln 2008:6)

Denzin and Lincoln imagine a decolonized academy, which has confronted and over come academic complicity in colonisation, which “is interdisciplinary and politically proactive. It represents indigenous epistemologies and encourages interpretive, first-person methodologies.” (Denzin and Lincoln 2008:12) Indigenous academics are leading the way here, as can be seen in the 25 projects outlined by Smith, which include claiming, story telling, indigenizing, revitalizing, representing, reframing, democratizing and negotiating. After years of being uncomfortably positioned as a Pākehā student of culture within the dominant Western framework, I am excited about immersing myself in a field containing powerful indigenous voices which challenge the old mainstream and help guide me out of it.