MAI Te Kupenga: Supporting Māori and Indigenous doctoral scholars within Higher Education

Abstract

This article shares insights into the Māori and Indigenous Doctoral support programme, MAI Te Kupenga, as one assertion of Indigenous approaches within the Higher Education sector. Including the views of Māori and Indigenous staff and scholars from a larger project “Te Tātua o Kahukura” which explored Māori and Indigenous postdoctoral capacity building, this article provides an overview of Māori staff and students reflections on the role of MAI Te Kupenga in supporting Māori and Indigenous scholars throughout their doctoral journey. Key areas of focus for this article are (i) the implications of systemic racism for Māori and Indigenous scholars; (ii) the effectiveness of supervision for Māori and Indigenous scholars and (iii) the role of MAI Te Kupenga in providing positive support mechanisms for Māori and Indigenous scholars studying in mainstream university contexts.

Keywords

Māori and Indigenous doctoral scholars MAI Te Kupenga Indigenous post-graduate education higher education

Introduction

It has been argued for many years that the colonial system of education is based on a foundation of oppresssive ideologies of assimilation, civilisation and Christianisation that aligned to the dispossession of Indigenous Peoples from our lands, our cultural, spiritual, economic and societal structures (Jackson, 1987; Simon, 1998; Smith, 1999, 2012). Colonial education took a lead in the dispossession of Māori and in the faciliation of the erasure of Māori language and culture and the connections to land and place which are central to living as Māori (Hutchings & Lee-Morgan, 2016; Smith, 1986). Linda Tuhiwai Smith (1986) referred to Native Schools as educational “trojan horses” which were placed at the centre of our communities to hasten the embedding of colonial assimilatory ideologies and practices. This situation continues today with the ongoing debate regarding the positioning of Māori language, culture and knowledge within the mainstream education system, and the continued failure of the system to provide for Māori (Hutchings & Lee-Morgan, 2016; Penetito, 2010).

The establishment of Te Kōhanga Reo (Māori Language Nests) and Kura Kaupapa Māori and Wharekura (Māori Immersion Schools) in the 1980s followed by Whare Wānanga (Indigenous universities) were acts of resistance nationally. These are Māori community driven responses to the inability of dominant State education systems to provide for the needs and aspirations of Māori people (Hohepa, 1990; Hutchings & Lee-Morgan, 2016; Smith, G.H. 1997). All of these initiatives were driven and established by Māori and were cultural and political responses to the institutional racism and systemic monoculturalism that dominates the mainstream conventional education system (Penetito, 2010; Smith, G.H., 1997). The denial by the Ministry of Education to enable the inclusion of meaningful contributions on the impact of the land wars and Māori history in the current curriculum (Jackson, 2016; Price, 2016) highlights the continued marginalisation of Māori knowledge within our schooling system (Kidman, 2015). The dominance of Pākehā knowledge in education is what Milne (2013, p.6) refers to as “white-streaming,” that being the normalisation and privileging of whiteness within the education system. These are but two examples of the ongoing monoculturalism and systemic racism that impact upon Māori students within the education system (McLachlan, 2016).

Exploring the impact of “whitestreaming” in the Tertiary Sector Potter and Cooper (2016) found that there is a direct impact on Māori staff and students when institutions fail to provide culturally framed resources, programmes and pedagogical approaches. Furthermore, they state “there is a clear need for a greater and specific financial investment by government into supporting Māori student learning success, including through increasing Māori staff numbers and supporting Māori staff development” (p. 29). Both inside and outside of the western education system Māori continue to develop programmes that support our language, culture and our pedagogical practices within educational institutions. In the higher education sector, development of the MAI Te Kupenga Doctoral Programme to support Māori and Indigenous doctoral scholars is one Māori driven initiative that seeks to provide support and intervention for Māori scholars in the tertiary sector. As one Māori doctoral scholar stated “it’s about wanting to drown out the white noise and creating more brown spaces”.

Te Tātua o Kahukura: research aims and methodology

“Te Tātua o Kahukura” is a collaborative research and capacity building project with Te Kotahi Research Institute (University of Waikato), Waikato-Tainui College for Research and Development, Ngā Pae o Te Māramatanga (National Māori Centre of Research Excellence) and Ako Aotearoa (National Centre for Tertiary Teaching Excellence). “Te Tātua o Kahukura” refers to the red belt of sky on the horizon that can be seen at sunset. Kahukura is associated with knowledge and tapu (sacredness) and as such relates to a higher level of learning. Conceptually “Te Tātua o Kahukura” highlights an understanding that as Māori we have always maintained processes of education, learning, knowledge transmission, and pedagogical ways of learning and teaching that are grounded within our own cultural ways of knowing.

The aim of “Te Tātua o Kahukura” was to undertake Kaupapa Māori research that would provide knowledge about the capacity building and career development needs of Māori and Indigenous early career scholars. Linda Tuhiwai Smith (1999) states that Kaupapa Māori provides us with a way to frame and structure our thinking and approaches to research. It enables an analysis of issues in Aotearoa from an approach that is distinctively Māori (Pihama, 1993; Pihama et.al. 2015; Smith, 2015, 1997). Smith (1999) argues that Kaupapa Māori methodology must be transformative and provide clear pathways for change within our communities.

Essentially, Kaupapa Māori advocates the validity of Māori epistemological and ontological constructions of the world based on the “taken for granted” position of Māori language, knowledge and culture (Smith, 1997, 2015). Kaupapa Māori often refers to Māori centred philosophies, frameworks and practices and is asserted by the notion of tino rangatiratanga (self-determination) and the Treaty of Waitangi (Pihama, 2001; Smith, 1999). Kaupapa Māori is located as part of a wider struggle by Indigenous academics and researchers who have developed both theories and methodologies to make transformative change in the wider framework of self–determination, decolonisation and social justice (Pihama, 1993, 2001; Smith, 1997, 1999, Pihama, Tiakiwai, & Southey, 2015). As such, the project also sought to inform university staff and leadership in the tertiary sector to gain an awareness of systemic issues facing Māori and Indigenous doctoral scholars to develop appropriate programmes of support. Kaupapa Māori asserts that in the context of a colonial history, there is an inherent tension and conflict between the dominant understandings of the production, ownership and use of knowledge, and the culturally-based understandings of Māori scholars working to maintain and strengthen cultural identity and language. Research by Kidman, Chu, Fernandez, and Abella (2015) indicates that within the academy Māori and Indigenous doctoral scholars are likely to experience this very tension and conflict. Given that Māori and Indigenous doctoral scholars more often than not wish to carry out research framed within Kaupapa Māori and/or Indigenous methodological frameworks; these tensions cause very real difficulties and additional barriers that their Pākehā peers do not have to contend with (Wilson, 2017).

“Te Tātua o Kahukura” was developed over two phases that began with the collective sharing of stories and experiences of MAI Te Kupenga doctoral scholars over six locations. Kaupapa Māori shaped the methods used in the gathering of voices and knowledge for this project and included interviews, hui (Māori cultural gatherings) and career pathway workshops based on preliminary research findings and literature reviews. The analysis is grounded upon and informed by Kaupapa Māori and thematic analysis. The hui process enabled participants to share their experiences collectively and gave an opportunity for the strengthening of student networking that further consolidated connections between learners. The project provided hui and workshop opportunities with a team of senior Māori academics, committed to supporting participants in planning their academic and research pathways. These processes were undertaken to directly support those involved in the project by providing a space to engage with the facilitating academics with regard to their current research pathway as Māori and Indigenous doctoral scholars. Eighty-seven Māori doctoral and masters scholars, two Native American doctoral scholars and twenty-one Māori staff attended the research hui, and a further ten Māori staff were interviewed separately. Providing opportunities for students to have engagement with senior academics has proven to be an extremely successful way to have focused conversations that support Māori and Indigenous scholars to engage with senior Māori staff who are outside of their supervisory teams.

This article shares insights into the Māori and Indigenous doctoral support programme, MAI Te Kupenga, as one assertion of Indigenous approaches within the Higher Education sector. Including the views of Māori and Indigenous scholars and staff from a larger project “Te Tātua o Kahukura” which explored Māori and Indigenous postdoctoral capacity building, this article provides an overview of Māori staff and students comments on the role of MAI Te Kupenga in supporting Māori and Indigenous scholars throughout their doctoral journey.

MAI Te Kupenga

The Māori and Indigenous (MAI) doctoral support programme in Aotearoa (New Zealand), MAI Te Kupenga, is a programme focused on supporting Māori and Indigenous doctoral (MAI) scholars and operates across six regions, all of which include a number of academic institutions. MAI was initiated by Professor Graham Smith, with the Māori Education group of the University of Auckland, in the late 1990’s and became a national programme, MAI Te Kupenga. With the establishment of Ngā Pae o Te Māramatanga, the National Māori Centre of Research Excellence, in 2002. As a national programme MAI Te Kupenga saw the growth of the programme and an exponential growth in Māori and Indigenous enrolments into doctoral programmes in Aotearoa. During this time there was a shift in the policy environment that responded to a call for increased participation for Māori in Higher Education and also as response to the aspirations of Māori (McKinley, Grant, Middleton, Irwin, & Williams, 2009), which provided an environment that supported the national growth of MAI Te Kupenga.

Where the creation of the MAI programme was to contribute to increasing numbers of Māori and Indigenous participation in Doctoral programmes, it also created spaces within which Maori cultural approaches and pedagogies could operate and be sustained in the university context. It has been argued that for Māori students to be retained within university contexts there is a need to intentionally create cultural spaces that are inclusive of physical, cultural, theoretical, methodological and pedagogical spaces (Lee, 2008; Morrison, 1999; Smith, 1999). The MAI programme has also been driven to support Māori and Indigenous students through the doctoral journey in order to make meaningful and transformative contributions beyond the doctorate. This was affirmed by MAI scholars and staff alike, as follows;

I can remember one woman saying. . . that she wanted to get the Dr. so she could argue back, that in the work that she was doing advocating for the people she worked with, whether you call them clients or patients that Dr. in front of her name would give her voice different power to argue for them, so she had no intention of going into an academic kind of a career or a scholarship if you like, but she saw that as a way of saying “well it means that other people think that my voice counts in a different way.” (Kaimahi)

We are all doing these topics and we are really passionate about these topics. . . and realising that this whole thing, we are doing it for our iwi, we are doing it for our whakapapa, we are doing it for our hapū. (Tauira)

In supporting Māori and Indigenous graduate scholars, MAI Te Kupenga contributes not only to individual pursuits but also to collective wellbeing through supporting research aspirations of scholars working for the wellbeing of whānau, hapū, iwi and Māori organisations. There was an overarching focus from MAI scholars on undertaking research projects that would be transformational for their whānau, hapū, iwi or communities they participate in:

We talked about it fundamentally being about being the change that we want to see within our communities for our whānau and our hapū and our iwi. That was sort of the motivating factor, that the PhD itself is just a platform to far greater things. it’s not the thing that defines us and what we do. It’s just a small space of time but it’s going to hopefully be transformative not only for ourselves but for our people. (Tauira)

A highly motivating factor for many of the participants in this study was the ability to make a useful contribution to their families and communities, including the normalisation of Māori postgraduate study:

We talked about making, normalising post-graduate study for our whānau so it just becomes something we can all do as an option. It doesn’t have to be what you do, but as an option and honouring our original instructions, this is what we are supposed to be doing. . . we are here to contribute back to make it matter, to make what we think matter. (Tauira)

It is argued that indigenising research is one way to liberate Indigenous peoples from the marginalisation and oppression inflicted by colonisation (Barney, 2013). Graham Smith (2017) highlights this as one of the objectives in establishing the MAI programme, stating,

In our work in Education, we decided to focus on the graduate area. We started with the Masters. Then MAI expanded from what we had learned in Education to the wider university and the nation. . . It is not about the credential but what a credential can do to transform our lives. It is also about recognising that many of our students were already leaders in their communities and we needed to help them navigate a university system that didn’t know how to engage with Māori knowledge. (Personal Communication, March 2017)

A key part of engaging Māori and Indigenous scholars into graduate studies required the active seeking out of Māori and Indigenous educationalists to be a part of the initial cohorts (Smith 2017 Personal Communication). It was noted by MAI scholars that one of the factors that motivated them to enter into postgraduate studies was the encouragement by senior Māori academics to continue their studies.

Quite a few of us spoke about the importance of mentors that we’ve had and the support people that have guided us on the journey even though for most of us at the table, none of us really wanted to do this but here we are. (Tauira)

The MAI programme was, from its inception, intentionally designed as an Indigenous intervention within the Tertiary sector. Central to that intention was a commitment to provide support for Māori and Indigenous scholars to navigate the university system, a system designed upon western knowledge and pedagogical approaches that are more often than not hostile towards Māori and Indigenous ways of being (Grande, 2017; Mihesuah & Wilson, 2004; Simpson, 2018; Wilson, 2017). It is clearly documented that since the establishment of the MAI doctoral programme, the number of Māori postgraduate degrees has grown significantly (McKinley, Grant, Middleton, Irwin, & Williams, 2011; Ormond & Williams, 2013; Statistics New Zealand, 2013). Ministry of Education (2018a) statistics note that there were 75 Māori doctoral enrolments in 1994, this increased to 260 in 2004, 485 in 2014 and to 535 in 2016. An initial goal of graduating 500 Māori doctoral scholars through the MAI programme was achieved over a five-year period from 2002–2007 (Cumming, 2009). A new benchmark of 1,500 Māori PhDs has since been established. Despite these important and significant increases in participation, research shows that Māori students continue to enter postgraduate study at less than half the rate of Pākehā students, as well as having higher rates of attrition and lower completion rates (McKinley et al., 2011) Statistics from the Ministry of Education (2015) indicate that less than 2% of Bachelor’s level Māori student enrolments continue on to enrol in a PhD. Māori remain under-represented at 6% of all PhD’s earned in Aotearoa. (Ministry of Education, 2015). Hall (2014) draws attention to the very low participation of Māori in the university academic domain, and advocates for greater Māori involvement in, and Kaupapa Māori approaches to, academic development. Similarly, international research indicates that Indigenous student populations continue to show lower completion rates across the board (Guillory, 2009; Shotton, Oosahwe & Cintrón, 2007).

The conscious movement to support MAI scholars has inspired the development of Indigenous doctoral support programmes in First Nations communities in Canada, Native Hawaiian communities, and Alaska Native communities (Villegas, 2010). The original architect of the MAI programme in Aotearoa, Professor Graham Hingangaroa Smith, was also instrumental alongside Professor Jo-Ann Archibald in the establishment of the “SAGE—Support Aboriginal Graduate Enhancement” network at the University of British Columbia, Canada. Pidgeon, Archibald, and Hawkey (2014) note the relationship between the two programmes:

SAGE began in British Columbia in 2005 under the guidance of Graham Smith and Jo-ann Archibald. SAGE is the sister program to the New Zealand MAI (Maori and Indigenous) graduate program. The goal of SAGE and the MAI program has been to develop a critical mass of Indigenous master’s and doctoral credentialed people who through their research and practice will begin to transform multiple aspects of Indigenous education. SAGE is specific to British Columbia and the MAI program is situated across the north and south islands of New Zealand, and the two programs grew out of the need for support of Indigenous peoples within graduate programs. (p. 8)

International Indigenous developments such as the SAGE programme were developed within a similar context where Indigenous scholars were experiencing marginalisation within the university. Pidgeon et al. (2014) highlight that SAGE provides and Indigenous framework to provide support for Aboriginal graduate students within an academy that was unresponsive to the needs of Indigenous students.

A lack of strategic institutional commitment and action to remedy these higher education disparities by key university leadership and faculty will continue to convey the message to Aboriginal students that the academy is not interested or concerned about their involvement, educational needs, Indigenous knowledges, philosophies, and cultural integrities. (p. 3)

As the cohort of Māori and Indigenous tertiary students grows both domestically and internationally it is crucial that there are adequate support processes, structures and facilities in place within tertiary institutions to ensure their success and achievement (Bandias, Fuller, & Larkin, 2014; Barney, 2013; Henry, 2007; Kidman, 2007). Navigating the doctoral journey is a challenge in and of itself, and doing so while negotiating two differing worldviews and knowledge bases can be wearisome. This is the experience of many Indigenous scholars (Barney, 2013; Chirgwin, 2014; Garrod, Kilkenny & Benson Taylor, 2017; Glynn & Berryman, 2015; Grande, 2017; McKinley et al., 2011; Wilson, 2017). Discussions for this project highlighted two broad areas that aligned to the marginal positioning of Māori and Indigenous scholars in the university, those being: systemic racism and effectiveness of supervision.

Issues of institutional racism

MAI scholars in mainstream universities talked about interactions within the system that continue to marginalise Māori and Māori theories, methodologies, and more broadly, Māori knowledge. McKinley et al. (2011) identify this same challenge, drawing upon research conducted with Māori doctoral candidates. The authors state that reconciling Māori knowledge with western knowledge is far more than merely marrying two worldviews. Rather, the process often “raises difficult questions about what counts as data, who can have access to it, and whether the implicit meanings can legitimately be made explicit” leading to “compromises and the emotional burden of balancing competing allegiances” (McKinley et al., 2011, pp. 120–121). Glynn and Berryman (2015) also comment on this tension, but state that Māori researchers have the right to not only use their preferred epistemologies, methodologies and Indigenous knowledge—particularly to benefit their whānau and communities—but that they can expect their tertiary institution to provide an environment where this can be done and appropriately supported. They then argue that it is a matter of cultural safety, where Māori doctoral success in the academic world should not have to be at the expense of their culture and connectedness to the Māori world. One Māori staff member highlighted the impact as follows,

I struggle with the colonialism in here and the hegemony and I struggle with students whose self-identity is battered because they are constantly challenged by others for being Maori (Kaiako).

It is important to stress that the issues of systemic racism and marginalisation of te reo and tikanga Māori discussed in relation to western mainstream universities, were not issues raised within the MAI cohort within whare wānanga (Māori Universities). What this indicates is that issues of systemic racism within mainstream universities are changeable and transformable if there is a meaningful commitment by those in control within institutional hierarchies to disrupt the colonial structures which underpin all aspects of their operations.

A significant number of discussions centred on the provision of mainstream programmes. Where many of the MAI participants felt that it is important to attend support programmes within their institutions it was noted that often workshops were of limited use and benefit. The view that many of the workshops are monocultural and often culturally unsafe was widespread and led to students not attending much of what is provided through their graduate programmes.

Every now and then I cross the driveway over to the mainstream side and go to the doctoral groups there and I’ve stopped going because I just get tired of trying to justify what I’m doing or when I talk about when I use methodologies and I’m doing a Kaupapa Māori methodology, “well that sounds really interesting would you tell us,” ‘would you do a presentation to us,’ and I’m like ‘Nah, I’m not here for that, I don’t want to tell you, go and do Leonie’s course in Summer School or something like that, I’m actually here in some cases to be fed’ . . . so I don’t go to those anymore. (Tauira)

There are a lot of workshops, like there are heaps of them and with our Māori students we can encourage them to go but a lot of them don’t intend to go because it’s very Eurocentric. (Kaimahi)

I know with our students they might attend one and then they realise that actually isn’t even for them in their view, no one’s really talking to them and so we know that our people vote with their feet when that happens they pretty well don’t go back again unless they can get a mate and then engage in a whole other workshop after the workshop with each other to kind of work out how it relates to how they’re doing or what they are doing in their mahi. (Kaimahi)

A number of MAI scholars and staff talked about institutional racism and white privilege as being fundamental issues in regards to Māori and Indigenous engagement and staffing in western university structures.

It’s whiteness that’s the problem. It’s not about individual and that’s where, with people coming in to the academy, it’s learning that stuff and a lot of it’s really soul destroying to learn as well because you invest so much of who you are and your discipline and your passion for your discipline and what you do for it and at the end of it the university says “thanks, see ya.” That’s the kind of moment that I struggle with because it’s like we can do everything that’s awesome but there’s still something that’s needed around the kind of institutional racism that keeps its doors closed to Māori graduates, I really struggle with that one I don’t know what the answer is I think it’s having Māori at senior management table that’s a beginning and certainly since we’ve seen that happening here there have been some changes and there will be more as we go but I don’t know. (Kaimahi)

I’m working at a colonial institution at the moment and there’s something to be said for that because Māori people do save these institutions and it’s about changing the culture within the institution. (Tauira)

MAI scholars spoke of a need to see themselves reflected in general university programmes however their experience was more likely to be one of feeling excluded and their needs unmet. This means it takes some courage for MAI scholars to attend sessions when they are consistently the only Māori or Indigenous person in the room.

I find at Waikato we’ve got all this different student support and you’re kind of tossing up about which one you’re going to go to and you could meet a mentor there if you were really confident but it’s very corporate and personally I’m not that way. There’s the DWC, Doctoral Writing Conversations but the downside is not many Māori actually attend. (Tauira)

I think sometimes interacting in some of those groups that often you may be the single Māori person in that seminar, presentation or that particular program, which is ok but sometimes when it comes to the Māori question or the Māori influence in those things then you don’t want to have everyone turn around and look at you. (Kaimahi)

Clearly, programmes and initiatives we develop or put into place can be limited in their efficacy if institutions and structures we seek to shift and work within do not actively increase Māori staff and knowledge content. Rigney (2006) and Nakata (2002) note that the use and support of Indigenous knowledge and methodologies in research promotes the decolonising of tertiary institutions. This is a crucial consideration given that many tertiary institutions may not be culturally ready to support Indigenous students and their knowledges (Bin-Salik cited in Chirgwin, 2014). It is also compounded in contexts when there has been little or no cultural training for staff, or when issues of systemic or institutional racism has not been dealt with (Chirgwin, 2014; Wilson, 2017).

Numerous authors argue for the implementation of culturally specific training programmes for university staff that promote cultural understanding; the use and teaching of culturally appropriate curricula, epistemologies and pedagogies; the provision of culturally safe spaces; the inclusion of cultural knowledges; and the acknowledgement and appreciation of cultural ways of being and knowing within academia and tertiary institutions (Chirgwin, 2014; Trudgett, 2011, 2014; Wilson, 2017). The active recruitment of Māori academic staff is a key means by which to negotiate some of these issues however, statistics collected by the Ministry of Education in relation to academic staff numbers highlight a steady decline in Māori academic numbers (Ministry of Education, 2018b). Low numbers of Māori and Indigenous academic staff within the academy, impacts directly upon MAI doctoral scholars, in regards to both supervision (Hurihanganui, 2018; Kidman et al., 2015) and the potential for Māori to be employed within the academy after completing their doctoral research.

We were all part of that “Ngā Pae” rush of blood to the head back in the early 2000s where we were all saying 500 Māori PhDs and I mean we were all part of that. I lived and breathed that for I don’t know how long. . . One of the sorrows that I have is that we can do that, we can be really proactive but if the institutions aren’t shifting then you’ve got a lot of unemployed highly educated, highly articulate, highly intelligent Māori PhDs and nowhere for them to go. It gets really hard because if the institutions are closing their doors, which increasingly I think they are on Māori, it’s kind of like where do those young people go. Those people coming through go and they do find work, but it’s kind of like the early promises, we haven’t been able to bring them to fruition because the universities aren’t changing at the same rate as we need them to. (Kaimahi)

Thus there is the need to drive home the message that no matter how effective or powerful our initiatives are at bringing about change and development within our people and our communities, there is still a need for systemic and institutional changes in order for long-term transformation to take place.

Effective supervision for Māori and Indigenous doctoral scholars

McKinley et al. (2011) note that effective Māori doctoral supervision requires attention to key cultural approaches in areas of topic, identity and forms of engagement. Often research topics chosen by MAI scholars sit across numerous academic disciplines, resulting in a time-consuming process of resolving tensions and meeting both the cultural and academic requirements necessary for doctoral study (Garrod et al, 2017; McKinley et al., 2011). Wilson (2017) highlights that Māori and Indigenous doctoral scholars are not always guaranteed the quality of supervision that other students experience due to a number of reasons including: low numbers of Indigenous faculty; the failure of western institutions to provide culturally safe spaces; the lack of knowledge on the part of many non-Indigenous faculty to understand, and for some the denial of the validity of, Indigenous methodologies.

Barney (2013) highlighted the experiences of Indigenous Australian postgraduate students, stating that too often “Western” knowledge has relegated Indigenous knowledges and discourses to the side-line. Within such a context university became a “cross-cultural experience” where Aboriginal scholars often felt that there was a lack of cultural awareness within their institution, resulting in them struggling to use, interpret and understand unfamiliar research practices, methodologies and epistemologies (Barney, 2013, p. 516). Smith (2012) highlights that this is further compounded by the fact that research topics and methods that empower Indigenous communities and promote self-determining agendas are often marginalised by systems which prioritise dominant western methods of research investigation (Smith, 2012).

MAI scholars noted that it is still far too common to find Pākehā supervisors with the requisite disciplinary knowledge, but who are lacking in the cultural and epistemological foundations for that subject knowledge to make sense in the context of the research being undertaken by MAI scholars. A number of Māori staff reflecting upon their own recent doctoral journey spoke about the potential conflicts in this regard that can be difficult to negotiate.

I didn’t really have any member of my supervisory team who could get where I was coming from as a Māori, and in fact a big part of the difficulty in constructing my thesis was that disagreement that we had. . . you know I would be told, ‘hey you’ve got to take your Māori hat off,’ we were discussing this topic and it was just a fundamental difference of opinion because I tried to explain I can’t take the hat off cause it’s not a hat, you’re asking me to take my head off. (Kaimahi)

When I think about my PhD there are a lot of difficulties I think that came from the lack of Māori supervisors available to help me with my topic. (Kaimahi)

Both MAI scholars and staff who had supportive and productive relationships with their supervisors noted a number of success factors which stood out for them:

I had my complete A Team, two Māori women who completely loved the same sort of things that I love, we all love the same stuff and that’s great, we could have amazing conversations and stuff but they also got my life, they also get who am I, they get my kids, our kids grow up together and all that kind of stuff, they were my complete package so I didn’t need, well I didn’t feel like I needed any other kind of sponsorship or mentorship and they fulfilled all those roles when I look back on it now I go, oh my god, they did all that stuff, they sponsored me, they took me to the right things, they introduced me to the right people, they did all this stuff so it stuns me that everyone else doesn’t have supervisors who do that. (Kaimahi)

We’ve kind of been under people who have taken us to hui and chucked us in for conferences and done all those sorts of things but we know that not everyone in our departments get those different things and so maybe we have an idea of what that support looks like but potentially that could go on to everyone or certain people cause we’ve all been taken under very good supervisors who have always made sure that we’ve had those experiences and given us jobs.” (Tauira)

Significant success factors included supervisors providing introductions to specific networks and other academics; supporting students to attend the right conferences; helping to find funding and work; and encouraging or organising opportunities to present and publish. These were all aspects that participants across the institutions and workshops discussed and identified as areas for extra support that went above and beyond assistance and support in planning/researching and writing the doctoral thesis. Sharing information about workshops, introductions, and connections do not have to be part of formally organised programmes, and such opportunities can and should be facilitated within a collegial working environment. Programmes such as MAI Te Kupenga are a part of a wider decolonising agenda within the academy in that they serve to both support Māori and Indigenous students in tertiary education and to challenge the system itself. As Māori academics have argued the university system is a space wherer Māori knowledge can, and should, be nurtured and as such is a site that is worth working for change within (Smith, 1999, 2002).

Behrendt, Larkin, Griew, and Kelley (2012) highlight that support for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students in universities, requires institutions engaging directly with issues of prejudice and racism. It is noted that at doctoral level, the need for increasing numbers of Indigenous supervisors and formalising cultural competency as a requirement for non-Indigenous supervisors is critical with programmes that are deemed successful, by the panel include clearly defined requirements for cultural competency training as a key success element (Behrendt et al., 2012). It is also evident that Indigenous units within universities are considered by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff and students to be safe spaces. As Smith, Trinidad and Larkins (2017) explain:

There is little doubt that Indigenous Support Units have played a pivotal role in addressing this divide (Andersen, Bunda, & Walter, 2008; Trudgett, 2009 (cited in Smith et al., 2017); Behrendt et al. 2012). Indeed, these units have been born out of a recognition that Indigenous students need to have a safe and culturally appropriate environment in which to study and learn (Andersen et al., 2008). They are a critical element of what a good Indigenous support structure looks and feels like within higher education in Australia. (p. 25)

Discussion generated around supervision provided some insights into whether MAI scholars need to have supervisors or mentors who are Māori. According to Glynn and Berryman (2015) building successful supervisory relationships means connected to the wider whānau and community as needed. MAI scholars noted that a good relationship with supervisors also related to feeling they cared for as a person, not simply a student or an enrolment. This aligns to the practice of whanaungatanga which includes supporting MAI scholars in areas that they determine they need it, providing ways to mediate social and economic difficulties, and forging relationships in contexts that are important for them as scholars. There was clear agreement from both MAI Scholars and staff that, on the whole, Māori supervisors brought particular cultural ways of being to supervision which enhanced the relationship with one Māori staff member noting “it’s a lot more than just academic supervisor but part of the rest of your life as well” (Te Whanganui ā Tara, Kaimahi).

Conclusion

A core component of the MAI programme is the cultural and political expectation that MAI scholars will work to benefit Indigenous communities (Grant, 2010). As Graham Smith (2017) states; “I wanted us to develop people who had a critical knowledge and could apply it to help our communities” (Personal Communication). Aspirations of supporting Māori and Indigenous communities often underpin the entry into doctoral programmes however the journey can be isolating and marginalising for many. MAI Te Kupenga creates spaces for gathering and connecting to reduce the isolation experienced within the doctoral journey. The cross-disciplinary cohort approach brings MAI scholars together regularly to share research, engage in workshops, meet academics and to network across disciplines. Ratima, Brown, Garrett, and Wikaire (2007) argue that group and whānau-based models provide collective approaches for Māori success. Tahau-Hodges (2010) identifies cooperative learning and collective mentoring as a success model that is culturally relevant to Māori learners.

For MAI scholars, access to Māori and Indigenous scholars as supervisors, mentors, colleagues and as role models is critical (Andersen et al., 2008; CHiXapkaid, 2013). The academic journey is often characterised by the difficulty for Indigenous scholars because there are so few Indigenous role models in the academy (García, 2000; Stanley, 2006). Cornel Pewewardy (2013) expounds on the necessity of Indigenous Professors as catalysts for growing more Indigenous faculty, he states: “Indigenous students must see (witness) and interact with Indigenous faculty on campus to introduce them to the possibility of becoming future faculty members” (p. 141). Mercier, Asmar, and Page (2011) offer additional support to this argument through the words of a Māori staff member, “The biggest support for Māori academics, undoubtedly, are Māori academics” (p. 84). This is even more applicable at the doctoral level, where building relationships with Faculty staff plays a key role in students’ overall satisfaction, time to completion, and career choice (Gardner & Barnes, 2007; Tinto, 1993; Turner & Thompson, 1993). Kidman et al. (2015) identify that Māori face particular challenges and tensions in regard career trajectories due to issues of “access to suitable academic mentors, engagement with disciplinary knowledge bases and promotion prospects” (p. 15).

The success of the MAI Te Kupenga programme also lies in the commitment of the MAI regional coordinators and staff that provide quality support and opportunities for MAI scholars. It was emphasised by MAI scholars that the programme works effectively because it is by Māori for Māori and Indigenous scholars, and affirms Indigenous research topics, theories, methodologies and pedagogical approaches, which Glynn and Berryman (2015) argue is critical for Māori doctoral success,

If Maori epistemological and pedagogical values and practices are to be included as appropriate and authentic in the context of doctoral research, then two things are essential: well-informed tertiary institutional leadership and trusting respectful relationships between research supervisors and their students. (p. 75)

Strengths of the MAI programme include: a degree of independence away from the wider institutional structures and is driven by the passion of Māori staff; it enables Kaupapa Maori and Indigenous cultural approaches; it affirms and enhances identity; it provides safe space for Māori and Indigenous scholars to speak to their research in line with their positioning without having to argue for or defend the cultural frameworks, theories and methodologies they are applying in their work; and is a place where MAI scholars can safely raise issues about the structural and institutional racism that many are face with and develop strategies that ensure their safety when those issues arise. The positive contribution of MAI Te Kupenga both in providing support for MAI scholars was consistently noted.

I love the MAI programme, I think that was one of the best things that happened in this university. (Waikato)

Of course MAI, the positives that we wrote down is it removes isolation, creation of critical mass, sharing of lived experience and regular contact and initiatives to that regularity. (Waikato)

. . . they come in they talk about what’s on top, what’s worrying them, what’s hassling them, what’s going really well, they share information. (Kaimahi)

There’s MAI, which we identified that the success of MAI is around peer mentoring and empowering ourselves to create our own relationships with supports with one another. (Tāmaki)

This project highlights that for MAI scholars to thrive within mainstream university contexts, it is fundamental that their culture is supported, nourished and celebrated at every step of the doctoral and academic journey. Indeed, active implementation of policies and processes that ensure the inherent right to be safe as Māori within mainstream institutions is critical. Wilson (2017) states that the responsibility of tertiary institutions to honour their obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi is key to the resolution of these issues (Wilson, 2017). Creating spaces and programmes that are culturally grounded and engage appropriately with Māori and Indigenous students is critical to successful outcomes within Higher Education (Clarke, 1998; Curtis, Townsend, & Airini, 2012; Kidman et al., 2015; McKinley et al., 2011; Ratima et al., 2007; Tahau-Hodges, 2010; Wilson, 2017). The success of MAI Te Kupenga in facilitating the completion of over five hundred Māori and Indigenous PhDs over the last decade, and the hundreds more currently enrolled, is an affirmation of its effectiveness. What is needed is an ongoing commitment to the programme from the institutions involved to ensure the long-term provision of “MAI Te Kupenga” across Aotearoa.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This project was co-funded by Ako Aoteaora and Ngā Pae o Te Māramatanga.

References

Andersen

Bunda

Walter

(2008). Indigenous higher education: The role of universities in releasing the potential. The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 37(1), 1–8. doi:10.1375/S1326011100000041

Barney

(2013). ‘Taking your mob with you’: Giving voice to the experiences of Indigenous Australian postgraduate students. Higher Education Research & Development, 32, 515–528.

Bandias

Fuller

Larkin

(2014). Indigenous students in the tertiary education sector. Journal of International Education Research, 10(3), 179. doi: https://doi.org/10.19030/jier.v10i3.873832(4)

Behrendt

Larkin

Griew

Kelley

(2012). Review of higher education access and outcomes for aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people: Final report. Canberra: Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education.

Chirgwin

(2014). Burdens too difficult to carry? A case study of three academically able Indigenous Australian masters students who had to withdraw. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 28, 594–609. doi:10.1080/09518398.2014.916014

CHiXapkaid. (2013). How institutions can support native professional and graduate students. In Shotton

H. J.

Lowe

S. C.

Waterman

S. J.

(Eds.), Beyond the asterisk: Understanding native students in higher education (pp. 125–138). Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.

Clarke

(1998). Te Wananga o te Hinengaro: A critique of the pedagogical context of Māori mentoring (Unpublished master’s thesis). Auckland University, Auckland, New Zealand.

Cumming

(2009, May 23). An eye on Māori success. New Zealand Herald (Auckland, New Zealand). Retrieved from http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-253227972.html?refid=easy_hf

Curtis

Townsend

Airini

(2012). Improving Indigenous and ethnic minority student success in foundation health study. Teaching in Higher Education, 17, 589–602.

10.

García

(2000). Succeeding in an academic career: A guide for faculty of color. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

11.

Gardner

S. K.

Barnes

B. J.

(2007). Graduate student involvement: Socialization for the professional role. Journal of College Student Development, 48, 369–387. doi:10.1353/csd.2007.0036

12.

Garrod

Kilkenny

Benson Taylor

(eds). (2017). I Am Where I Come From: Native American College Students and Graduates Tell Their Life Stories. London, England: Cornell University Press.

13.

Glynn

Berryman

(2015). Relational and culturally responsive supervision of doctoral students working in Māori contexts: Inspirations from the Kingitanga. Waikato Journal of Education, 20(2), 69–78. doi:10.15663/wje.v20i2.191

14.

Grant

(2010). The limits of ‘teaching and learning’: Indigenous students and doctoral supervision. Teaching in Higher Education, 15(5), 505–517.

15.

Grande

(2017). Refusing the university. In Tuck

Yang

K. W.

(Eds.), Toward what justice: Describing diverse dreams of justice in education. New York, NY: Routledge.

16.

Guillory

R. M.

(2009). American Indian/Alaska native college student retention strategies. Journal of Developmental Studies, 33(2), 12–38.

17.

Hall

(2014). Rethinking Māori academic development in New Zealand universities (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Victoria University, Wellington, New Zealand.

18.

Henry

(2007). Kaupapa Māori entrepreneurship. International Handbook of Research on Indigenous Entrepreneurship, 536–548.

19.

Hohepa

M. K.

(1990). Te Kōhanga Reo Hei Tikanga Ako I Te Reo Māori (Unpublished master of arts thesis). The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.

20.

Hurihanganui

(2018). Māori Academics ‘isolated’ and lacking in numbers. Wellington: Radio New Zealand. Retrieved from https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/366304/maori-academics-isolated-and-lacking-in-numbers

21.

Hutchings

Lee-Morgan

(Eds.). (2016). Decolonisation in Aotearoa: Education, research and practice. Wellington, New Zealand: NZCER Press.

22.

Jackson

(1987). The Māori and the criminal justice system: A new perspective—He Whaipaanga Hou. Wellington, New Zealand: Department of Justice.

23.

Jackson

(2016). Facing the truth about the wars. e-Tangata. Retrieved from https://e-tangata.co.nz/history/moana-jackson-facing-the-truth-about-the-wars/

24.

Kidman

(2007). Supervising Māori doctoral candidates. In Denholm

Evans

(Eds.), Supervising doctorates down under: Keys to effective supervision in Australia and New Zealand (pp. 164–172). Melbourne, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research.

25.

Kidman

(2015). Young Kiwis Shatter silence about our difficult past. Retrieved from https://www.newsroom.co.nz/@future-learning/2017/08/16/42900/young-kiwis-shatter-silence-about-our-difficult-past

26.

Kidman

Chu

Fernandez

Abella

(2015). Māori Scholars and the University. Nga Pae o te Maramatanga, Victoria University, Wellington, New Zealand.

27.

Lee

J. B. J.

(2008). Ako: Pūrākau of Māori secondary school teachers’ work in secondary schools (Unpublished EdD). The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.

28.

McKinley

Grant

Middleton

Irwin

Williams

L. R.

(2009). Supervision of Māori doctoral students: A descriptive report. MAI Review, 1, 6.

29.

McKinley

Grant

Middleton

Irwin

Williams

L. R.

(2011). Working at the interface: Indigenous students’ experience of undertaking doctoral studies in aotearoa New Zealand. Equity & Excellence in Education, 44, 115–132.

30.

McLachlan

(2016, March 31). Schools get to choose whether to teach land wars. Radio New Zealand. Retrieved from http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/te-manukorihi/300262/should-teaching-nz-wars-be-required

31.

Mercier

Asmar

Page

(2011). An academic occupation: Mobilisation, sit-in, speaking out and confrontation in the experiences of Māori academics. The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 40, 81–91.

32.

Mihesuah

D. A.

Wilson

A. C.

(Eds.). (2004). Indigenizing the academy: Transforming scholarship and empowering communities (pp. 88–99). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

33.

Milne

(2013). Colouring in the white spaces: Reclaiming cultural identity in whitestream schools (Unpublished doctor of philosophy thesis). University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand.

34.

Ministry of Education. (2015, April 9). Number of academic staff employed by tertiary education providersin 2013 by ethnic group. Retrieved from https://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/statistics/maori-education/tertiary-education

35.

Ministry of Education. (2018a). Māori tertiary education statistics. Wellington, New Zealand. Retrieved from https://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/statistics/maori-education/maori-tertiary-education

36.

Ministry of Education. (2018b). Statistics relating to staffing in tertiary education. Wellington, New Zealand. Retrieved from https://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/statistics/tertiary-education/resources

37.

Morrison

(1999). Space for Māori in tertiary institutions: Exploring two sites at the University of Auckland (Unpublished master of education thesis). The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.

38.

Nakata

(2002). Indigenous Knowledge and the Cultural Interface: underlying issues at the intersection of knowledge and information systems. IFLA Journal 28(5–6), 281–291. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/034003520202800513

39.

Ormond

Williams

L. R.

(2013). Indigenous research capability in Aotearoa. The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 42, 24–31.

40.

Penetito

(2010). What’s Māori about Māori education? Wellington, New Zealand: Victoria University Press.

41.

Pewewardy

(2013). Fancy war dancing on academe’s glass cieling: Supporting and increasing indigenous faculty role models in higher education. In Shotton

H. J.

Lowe

S. C.

Waterman

S. J.

(Eds.), Beyond the asterisk: Understanding native students in higher education. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.

42.

Pidgeon

Archibald

Hawkey

(2014). Relationships matter: Supporting aboriginal graduate students in British Columbia, Canada. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 44, 1–21.

43.

Pihama

(1993). Tungia te Ururua, Kia Tupu Whakaritorito Te Tupu o te Harakeke: A Critical Analysis of Parents as First Teachers. RUME Masters Theses Series Number 3.

44.

Pihama

(2001). Tihei Mauri Ora: Honouring Our Voices. Mana Wahine as a Kaupapa Māori theoretical framework. (Unpublished Doctoral Thesis), University of Auckland, New Zealand.

45.

Pihama

Southey

Tiakiwai

(Eds.). (2015). Kaupapa Rangahau: A Reader. A collection of readings from the kaupapa rangahau workshop series (Second ed.). Kirikiriroa; Ngāruawāhia; Auckland: Te Mata Punenga o Te Kotahi, Te Whare Wānanga o Waikato.

46.

Potter

Cooper

(2016). Project Whitestreaming: A report on the generalising of Māori specialist staff positions in the tertiary education sector. Wellington: Tertiary Education Union.

47.

Price

(2016). Ministry of education refuses to include New Zealand land wars in curriculum. Retrieved from https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/78386446/ministry-of-education-refuse-to-include-new-zealand-land-wars-in-curriculum

48.

Ratima

Brown

Garrett

Wikaire

(2007). Strengthening Maori participation in the New Zealand health and disability workforce. Medical Journal of Australia, 186, 541–543.

49.

Rigney

L. I.

(2006). Indigenous Australian Views on Knowledge production and Indigenist Research. In Kunnie

J. E.

Goduka

N. I.

(Eds.), Indigenous peoples’ wisdom and power. Affirming our knowledge through narratives. England: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.

50.

Shotton

H. J.

Oosahwe

E. S. L.

Cintrón

(2007). Stories of success: Experiences of American Indian students in a peer-mentoring retention program. The Review of Higher Education, 31, 81–107.

51.

Simon

(Ed.). (1998). Ngā Kura Māori: The native schools system 1867–1969. Auckland, New Zealand: Auckland University Press.

52.

Simpson

L. B.

(2018). As we have always done: Indigenous freedom through radical resistance. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

53.

Smith

G. H.

(1997). The Development of Kaupapa Māori Theory and Praxis. (Unpublished PhD thesis). School of Education, University of Auckland, Auckland.

54.

Smith

C. W.

(2002). He Pou Herenga Ki Te Nui: Māori knowledge and the university (Unpublished PhD thesis). The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.

55.

Smith

G. H.

(Ed.). (1986). Ngā Kete Wānanga: Māori Perspectives of Taha Māori. Auckland, New Zealand: Auckland College of Education.

56.

Smith

G. H.

(2015). Graham Hingangaroa Smith. In Kātene

(Ed.), Fire that Kindles Hearts. Aotearoa, New Zealand: Steele Roberts Publishers.

57.

Smith

J. A.

Trinidad

Larkin

(2017). Understanding the Nexus Between Equity and Indigenous Higher Education Policy Agendas in Australia. In Frawley

Larkin

Smith

J. A.

(Eds.), Indigenous Pathways, Transitions and Pariticipation in Higher Education (pp. 15–30). Springer Open: Singapore.

58.

Smith

L. T.

(1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and Indigenous peoples. London, England: Zed Books.

59.

Smith

L. T.

(2012). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and Indigenous peoples (2nd ed.). London, England: Zed Books.

60.

Statistics New Zealand. (2013). 2013 census quickstats about Māori. Retrieved from http://www.stats.govt.nz/Census/2013-census/profile-and-summary-reports/quickstats-about-maori-english.aspx

61.

Stanley

C. A.

(2006). Faculty of color: Teaching in predominantly White colleges and universities. Bolton, MA: Anker Pub.

62.

Trudgett

(2011). Western places, academic spaces and Indigenous faces: Supervising Indigenous Australian postgraduate students. Teaching in Higher Education, 16(4), 389–99.

63.

Trudgett

(2014). Supervision provided to Indigenous Australian doctoral students: A black and white issue. Higher Education Research & Development, 33(5), 1035–1048.

64.

Tahau-Hodges

(2010). Kaiako Pono: Mentoring for Māori learners in the tertiary sector. Wellington, New Zealand: Te Puni Kokiri & Ako Aotearoa.

65.

Tinto

(1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2d ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

66.

Turner

C. S.

Thompson

J. R.

(1993). Socializing Women Doctoral Students: Minority and Majority Experiences. Review of Higher Education, 16(3), 355–370.

67.

Villegas

(2010). 500 Māori PhDs in five years: Insights from a successful indigenous higher education initiative (Doctoral dissertation). Harvard Graduate School of Education, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.

68.

Wilson

(2017). Supervision of Indigenous research students: Considerations for cross-cultural supervisors. Alternative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples, 13, 256–265. doi:10.1177/1177180117729771