Tangata Hourua: a framework drawing from Kaupapa Māori and Pacific research methodologies

Abstract

Despite a growing amount of research with Māori and Pacific people in Aotearoa New Zealand, frameworks that support robust research methodologies with these peoples are limited. This is particularly so for research involving both Māori and Pacific people, which acknowledges the connections between the two and the uniqueness of all Pacific people. Tangata Hourua (Strength in Combining) is a research framework developed in response to this gap, drawing from Kaupapa Māori (Māori principles) and Pacific methodologies, that seeks to uphold the rights of Māori as Indigenous people of Aotearoa, whilst giving voice to Pacific peoples living here with shared or connected whakapapa (family connections). This article describes the framework’s origins, its relationship to Kaupapa Māori and Pacific research methodologies, key principles in its application, and its strengths and limitations. The framework has the potential to be utilised in research that positively contributes to both Māori and Pacific knowledge and well-being.

Keywords

Indigenous knowledge Indigenous research methodology Māori multi-ethnic Pacific people

Introduction

This research explored the role of Kai Manaaki (KM) working with Māori and Pacific people living with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) – their competencies; how they differed from traditional diabetes health roles, such as dieticians; and their impact on health and other outcomes. Māori and Pacific whānau (family), in addition to Māori and Pacific KM and other health care workers, participated in this research project. The inception of this framework was prompted by an invitation to join the Mana Tū (stand with authority) research programme (Harwood et al., 2018), an initiative from the National Hauora Coalition Public Health Organisation which aimed to test an innovative programme for Māori and Pacific people with T2DM (Harwood et al., 2018). A key feature of Mana Tū is its trained workforce of KM who were part of the general practice team that identified people with poorly controlled diabetes and assisted them and their whānau to take charge of their long-term condition (Harwood et al., 2018). Even though Māori and Pacific peoples have significantly higher rates for T2DM incidence, hospitalisations, complications, and mortality, research has tended to focus on prevention, services, or treatment (Diabetes New Zealand, 2019; Harwood & Tipene-Leach, 2007; Reid & Robson, 2006). To date, there has been lack of research focusing on workforce development, or the skills required to improve diabetes outcomes for Māori and Pacific peoples (Reid et al., 2017).

During the study design, the team of experienced Māori and Pacific researchers identified the need for a critical review of Māori and Pacific research methodologies (PRMs), to better understand potential sites of alignment and contention with the research questions.

The whakapapa of Tangata Hourua (Strength in Combining): inspired by Māori and PRMs

Indigenous research methodologies’ relationship to Kaupapa Māori (Māori principles) and PRMs

Indigenous methodologies not only recognise Indigenous communities’ shared ways of knowing in the context of self and worldview (Kovach, 2010) but also dispel the myth that only western methods are valid and reliable (Amituanai-Toloa, 2009; L. T. Smith, 2012, 2015, 2021). The dichotomy of Indigenous research theories, core principles, concepts, values, and resistance to westernised and colonised thinking has been well discussed in Aotearoa by both Māori (Bishop, 1999; L. T. Smith, 2012, 2015, 2021) and Pacific (Helu-Thaman, 1988, 2003; Nabobo-Baba, 2008; Naepi, 2015; Tupuola, 2004) scholars. Collectively, they have expressed discontent with and a resistance to working within these dominant hegemonic and westernised research domains (Bishop, 1998, 2005; A. Jones, 2012; Walker et al., 2006), leading to the development of contemporary Māori and Pacific research models. Māori have led this voyage, such as their travels across the Pacific, and have perhaps gone furthest, to create evolved critical Indigenous decolonised research methodologies (Baker, 2009).

Kaupapa Māori research

When considering an appropriate methodology for Māori research, it is therefore appropriate to reflect on the importance of attaining new knowledge through good research practice, and its impact on well-being, which is perhaps best articulated in this Māori whakataukī (proverb):

Mā te rongo ka mōhio

Mā te mōhio, ka mārama

Mā te mārama ka mātau

Mā te mātau ka ora

Through sensing comes awareness

Through awareness comes understanding

Through understanding comes knowledge

Through knowledge comes wellbeing

In the same way that this whakataukī places mōhio (thinking), mārama (understanding), mātauranga (knowing), and outcomes at its centre, so does Kaupapa Māori theory (Mead, 2016; G. Smith, 1997; L. T. Smith, 2015). However, Kaupapa Māori theorists have gone further to demand safe or tika practices in research, which Mead (2016) advocates should be underpinned by core Māori principles. Although these principles, outlined in Supplementary Table 1, have a literal definition or meaning, more important are their applications to research. For example, whanaungatanga literally means relationship, but in research, it could be used to describe the connection between the research collective – researchers, participants, end users – in ways that serve to strengthen each member of the group (Hudson et al., 2010).

For Māori, in addition to having research based on Māori principles, there is a strong desire to have methodologies that also critique the systems and structures that oppress Indigenous knowledge and its development. Kaupapa Māori research (KMR) is a direct response to this (R. Jones et al., 2006; G. Smith, 1997; L. T. Smith, 2021; Walker et al., 2006) and has brought these two crucial pieces together (G. Smith, 1997). As presented in Supplementary Table 2, KMR places Māori ways of knowing and doing at the centre of inquiry; it is aspirational in terms of self-determined research goals and outcomes, within a context of concerns about power and colonisation (G. Smith, 1997).

Importantly, given the focus of Mana Tū on Māori health in relation to diabetes, it is worth noting Māori health models, as presented in Supplementary Table 3, tend to be holistic, inclusive of whānau, with the collective rather than individualistic focus based on core Māori concepts.

Pacific peoples and principles

The term Pacific peoples broadly covers Indigenous peoples from the island nations in the South Pacific and, in its narrowest sense, Pacific peoples in New Zealand. Despite the growing diversity of New Zealand’s Pacific communities, differing values, ways of living, and beliefs, there are several enduring cultural values that bind an agreed set of common Pacific values (Ministry for Pacific Peoples [MPP], 2018). These prominent values include love, respect, reciprocity, spirituality, family, community, collectiveness, cultural obligation, kinship, and protocols (Amituanai-Toloa, 2009; Health Research Council [HRC], 2014; Tamasese et al., 2010). Bennett et al. (2013) advises that these values may vary in different communities as well as within respective Pacific groups, and are further informed by living and working in New Zealand.

PRMs

Research models that represent diverse Indigenous Pacific Island epistemologies have been developed by Pacific scholars since the 1980s (Gegeo, 1998) and reflect a response to the changing social environments of Pacific people (Bennett et al., 2013; Naepi, 2019a). PRMs aim to represent Indigenous research that challenges philosophical notions of Pacific knowledge being inferior by positioning a clear understanding of Pacific through a Pacific lens (Naepi, 2019a). PRMs are primarily underpinned by cultural values, informed by a range of Pacific and pan-Pacific worldviews (Sanga & Reynolds, 2017) which at times synergises with Indigenous and KMR (Nabobo-Baba, 2008). PRM has an opportunity to revive and empower Pacific people, by positioning, defining, and evaluating Pacific from a Pacific viewpoint, whilst communicating ontological and epistemological differences that address the diverse Pacific communities within Aotearoa (Naepi, 2019b). There is a call for PRMs to engage and reflect broader Pacific communities that reside in Aotearoa rather than emphasising specific Pacific ethnicities (HRC, 2014; Naepi, 2015; Vaioleti, 2006). Agnew et al. (2004) highlight the limitations of using traditional Pacific models, as they tend to privilege Pacific Island–born and adult perspectives, and do not address the increasing number of young Pacific people identifying with two or more Pacific ethnic groups (HRC, 2014; MPP, 2018; Naepi, 2015). For genuine research to happen, it is imperative that a relational connection between the Pacific researcher and the Pacific methodology exists, to promote best data usage, interpretation, analysis, presentation, and purpose (H. Smith & Wolfgramm-Foliaki, 2021). Some of these unique and innovative models have been outlined in Supplementary Table 4.

Why develop a new framework?

A review of Kaupapa Māori and PRMs identified not only historical whakapapa but also contemporary connections between Māori and Pacific people due to migration through the Pacific region and eventual settlement in their ancestral lands (M. Durie, 1998; Haberkorn, 2008). These contemporary connections, and reasons for developing a new framework for research with Māori and Pacific people in Aotearoa, are discussed further below.

Mana Tū also presented an opportunity for Indigenous researchers working with both Māori and Pacific to further consider respectfully connecting these unique epistemological spaces, and populations, to develop a research framework that aimed to (a) privilege Indigenous voices, challenge Eurocentric ideologies, be strengths- and evidence-based, ensure culturally safe spaces for participants, connect to the focus of the research and support adaption by future researchers (L. T. Smith, 2012); and (b) work cross-culturally and collaboratively in ways that embody activism and determine guidelines (Swadener & Mutua, 2008).

Shifting definition of Māori and Pacific identity

The growing and complicated issue of Māori and Pacific identity in Aotearoa (L. T. Smith, 2015) is a compelling reason for developing a new framework. John Rangihau (as cited in L. T. Smith, 2015) was critical of the pan-Māori label for two reasons: it was externally imposed to align all things Māori that did not locate an individual’s whānau, hapū, or iwi. Similarly, for people of the Pacific, the term, Pacific was externally imposed to denote peoples other than Māori who were born and reside in New Zealand and descend from Pacific nations, but the term does not allow for heterogeneity (MPP, 2018; Samu et al., 2019).

Pan-Māori and Pacific labels are most problematic in Aotearoa as they are used as standard ethnicity questions in most research and health settings, only being checked at enrolment and not asked about again (Enright et al., 2021). This approach does not allow people to self-identify as multi-ethnic; nor does it account for the fluidity in how people self-identify (Carter et al., 2009; Kukutai & Callister, 2009).

Almost 25% of Aotearoa’s total population identify as Māori or Pacific people (Statistics New Zealand, 2018a). Over half of all Māori (55%) identify as having more than one ethnicity, with well over half of these (60%) identifying as also having a Pacific ethnicity (Te Puni Kōkiri, 2017). For Pacific peoples, 38% identify as having more than one ethnicity (Statistics New Zealand, 2018b) with almost one-third (32%) identifying with two or more. This diverse population, claiming both Māori and Pacific ethnic and cultural identities, with as much as two-thirds of New Zealand-born Pacific having Māori whakapapa, is being coined as Generation B; brown, brainy, beautiful, bicultural, bilingual, and bold (Vaka’uta, 2021).

As more people identify as being or having connections to both Māori and Pacific ethnicities, a research framework that is inclusive for both identities is required. However, advancing this concept requires careful consideration.

Protocols to progression

Whilst some endorse combining Māori and PRMs, particularly for health research (Curtis, 2016), others suggest doing so with caution. Naepi (2015) warned of encountering complex methodological tensions around key questions including how Pacific engage with KMR methodologies, how is tino rangatiratanga (self-determination, Māori control) maintained, and how do individual Pacific ethnicities meaningfully engage with pan-PRMs? Like others (Airini et al., 2010; Curtis, 2016), she suggested a set of rules to keep the process and participants culturally safe from the outset (Naepi, 2015).

In terms of addressing cultural safety, the use of the give-way rule was first developed by Airini et al. (2010) and then Naepi (2015) with the intention of ensuring Māori and Pacific expertise at every level of decision making. Both authors strongly advocate that when there is a difference in cultural interpretations, then a decision gives way to the research advisor who holds the Māori or specific Pacific expertise. Another option is to create a negotiated space or an in-between terrain where distinctive worldviews and knowledge bases enter some form of engagement or relationship to potentially be expanded and innovated (L. T. Smith, 2012). This closely negotiated space between Indigenous peoples, such as that of Māori and Pacific peoples, is also referred to by Allen (2012) in his book Trans-Indigenous. Having described work to date on combining Māori and PRMs, we will now present our proposal – the Tangata Hourua Framework.

Tangata Hourua Framework – strength in combining

To explain the name of this framework, we first ponder the historical Polynesian debate on whether a waka (canoe) or a whare (house) should be built first, as conceptually they are upturned versions of the other (Brown, 2009). This debate is based on shared ancestry, as both waka and whare are highly regarded structures in Polynesian architectural culture, connected by the fundamental skills needed to build them and their high value for both their intended dual purposes (Refiti, 2002). In contemplating this debate, it was decided to build a waka hourua (double-hulled canoe) first, which requires, like a framework, the correct resources and order of events to ensure the right construction (Chun & Racoma, 1995). Traditionally, waka hourua were built to be sturdier, to withstand the longer journeys from the broader Pacific oceans to Aotearoa (Figure 1). Thus, the waka has inspired the name Tangata Hourua for a framework in which peoples and worldviews Indigenous to the Pacific are brought together, utilising two hulls to make a waka and strengthening the means with which their journey or research achieves the intended destination and outcome.

Figure 1.

A waka hourua (double-hulled canoe). Drawing by Hone (2021a). The combination of the double hull formation represents the strength needed for intended purposes, such as the multiple vast oceanic journeys around the wider Pacific region to Aotearoa (New Zealand) historically undertaken by Māori. Each hull of the waka hourua has designs that are unique to Māori and Pacific people, showing not only the uniqueness but the shared relations that were built during these journeys and continue to the Aotearoa context of today.

Importantly, drawing on these two cultural approaches allows not only a natural recognition of cohesive strengths and similarities, but retains uniqueness, which refers to the populations that this framework aims to address. These are outlined in Supplementary Table 5, which highlights some of the similarities shared by Māori and Pacific core principles.

Key principles of Tangata Hourua Framework

Te Takarangi: dual spiral that creates space and light; defined and undefined

Te Takarangi (the spiral) is used extensively in Māori carving on waka, paepae (ground in front of meeting house), and whare whakairo (carved meeting house), and is a prominent pattern in tā moko (tattooing) on places of movement, including face and buttocks (Witehira, 2013). In Figure 2, the Takarangi consists of taka (revolutions or rotations) and rangi (heavens or heavenly realm). The double spiral can also mirror the double helix of DNA that has a generational link to metaphysical whakapapa and genealogies that connect Māori to the Pacific (A. Durie, 1997; Mahuika, 2019). The Takarangi dual spiral was chosen to depict the dual purpose and representation of the Tangata Hourua Framework, with the spiral originating from a single point, and splitting to allow space between the spirals that allow the Tangata Hourua Framework to deliberately mirror the reverential space and shared origin of Tangata Whenua (Indigenous people of New Zealand) and Tagata Pasifika (Indigenous people from the Pacific Islands). The spirals’ defined and undefined lines, spaces, and core Māori and Pacific values allow an individual’s identity and culture to be represented. The bold lines representing a known or decided aspect of their culture or identity and, in contrast, the undefined spaces represent what has not yet been discovered; defined and undefined spaces allow a natural self-determined motivation to choose one’s own current positioning. A. Durie (1997) and L. T. Smith et al. (2016) explain this as an intercultural, in-between space involving an evolutionary process where distinctive worldviews and knowledge bases relationally engage, expand, and innovate, whilst maintaining whakapapa. Tevita Ka’ili uses the term ‘trans-indigeneity’ in a Radio New Zealand article (‘World’s Indigenous People Gather in New Zealand’, 2019, para. 7), which describes the concept of Indigenous people moving outside of their homeland, resulting in contact with other Indigenous people.

Figure 2.

Tangata Hourua (Strength in Combining). Drawing by Hone (2021b). The dual spiral design has been used to depict core Kaupapa Māori (Māori principles) and Pacific values within the Tangata Hourua Framework. Commonly used Māori and Pacific designs have been embedded within the spiral to visually position their relationship with each other. The larger twin designs represent whale tales, which signify reciprocal movement within the framework. (ako Māori, culturally preferred pedagogy; aroha, to love, feel compassion, empathise; kaitiakitanga, guardianship; kaupapa, collective vision; kia piki ake i ngā raruraru o te kainga, socio-economic mediation; mana, authoritative, valid, respect; manaakitanga, showing respect and care for others; noa, without restraint or conditions; taonga tuku iho, cultural aspirations; tapu, sacredness, restricted; tika, to be correct, right, just or fair; tikanga, correct procedure, custom, practice; tino rangatiratanga, self-determination; wairua, spirituality; whakapapa, family connections; whanau, extended family; whanaungatanga, relationships)

It was what it was, Is what it is, It will be what it will be

L. T. Smith (2011) contends that Indigenous research theory has had its own particular journey, which the Tangata Hourua Framework attempts to support. Each step is outlined as follows.

It was what it was: recognises that Māori and other Indigenous people’s ways of understanding and knowing were, and are, subject to colonisation (O’Sullivan, 2001), which in Aotearoa has resulted in health, education, welfare, employment, living standards, cultural identity, and social connectedness inequities shared by Māori and Pacific peoples (Carter et al., 2009; Dorling, 2019).

Is what it is: acknowledges Māori as Tangata Whenua of Aotearoa, placing Māori methodologies, frameworks, and models at the centre of all research in Aotearoa. This has been acknowledged by incorporating the give-way rule (Airini et al., 2010; Naepi, 2015) to address the need for Māori to be front and centre in the creation and development of the Tangata Hourua Framework.

It will be what it will be: articulates the need for frameworks such as Tangata Hourua to address several issues. The first issue is to purposefully create safe cultural spaces that are flexible and adaptable for future use (Cohen, 1998). The second, as articulated by Matire Harwood, is to challenge the status quo (“‘I don’t accept the status quo’: Dr Matire Harwood on achieving health equity in Aotearoa”, 2020) in ways that achieve equity and inform the development of services and systems that advance Indigenous people’s health (Reid et al., 2017).

Strengths and limitations

A strength of the Tangata Hourua Framework is that it allows research of Māori and Pacific people together (Curtis, 2016; Harwood et al., 2018; Naepi, 2015), which is especially important for people who identify as Māori and Pacific multi-ethnic identities, who may experience a sense of not belonging (Agee & Culbertson, 2013; Berking et al., 2007; Keddell, 2014). Another strength is that it is simple or free of clutter, allowing core Māori and Pacific values to be clearly represented, so as to allow those who identify as Māori or Pacific to clearly see themselves reflected in the framework, the research, and the outcomes (Anae, 2001; Grimes et al., 2015; Royal, 2005). A third strength is its adaptability. Future researchers can adapt and develop the framework as needed to be accessible to future generations to achieve and sustain better lives (Rudnev, 2015).

There are also limitations, however, and we do not suggest that the Tangata Hourua Framework should be used for all research involving both Māori and Pacific peoples, as researcher or participant, just in the same way that KMR is not pan-Māori (Rangihau, 1975) nor are Pacific methodologies pan-Pacific (MPP, 2018). However, as this framework proposes, support for cross-cultural partnerships between and among Indigenous researchers can create something stronger, more impactful, and thus it may deliver greater equity (Swadener & Mutua, 2008).

Non-Māori, non-Pacific

There has been and will be ongoing debate as to whether non-Māori and non-Pacific can meaningfully engage in KMR and PRM that is culturally respectful (A. Jones, 2012; Naepi, 2019b). Māori and Pacific scholars alike advocate for research involving Māori or Pacific peoples to be led by Māori or Pacific people (Airini et al., 2010; L. T. Smith, 1992; Walker et al., 2006). There is a school of thought that supports non-Māori researchers’ participation and collaboration in KMR, so long as it is Māori-led (Carpenter & McMurchy-Pilkington, 2008; A. Jones, 2012). If Māori and Pacific people are being researched together, both Kaupapa Māori and pan-PRMs should engage to support Māori and Pacific people’s empowerment and strengths-based interventions (Ponton, 2018) with Kaupapa Māori as a guide to ensure practice is culturally safe (Naepi, 2019b). As Tangata Hourua engages both methodologies and embodies a relational element that allows movement and space for researchers, its use by non-Māori and non-Pacific should be undertaken with the following caveat: if Māori are being researched, then it is Māori-led with support from a multicultural team which may include Pacific people (A. Jones, 2020; Naepi, 2019b).

Conclusion

Tangata Hourua can accommodate, move with, and adapt to the ever-increasing complexities of the growing Māori and Pacific populations in Aotearoa. In addition, this model can be utilised within a variety of domains, including health, education, social service, justice, and the public and private sectors. Utilisation would require a genuine desire for a combined cultural approach that engages Māori and Pacific people in research that positively contributes to knowledge and well-being. A combined Māori and Pacific methodology has the potential to inform robust research into Māori and Pacific inequalities across a variety of sectors and, ideally, help others to challenge these going forward (Carter et al., 2009; Dorling, 2019).

Ultimately, combining methodologies that are Indigenous to Aotearoa with those who have whakapapa connection was not an easy decision. There was an element of fear about getting it wrong, which may lead to paralysis (A. Barnes, 2013; Tolich, 2002); however, as argued above, there were many reasons to continue the journey of research methodology development in Aotearoa. Introducing a new, or at least adapted way of doing research that was both respectful to Tangata Whenua and open to Pacific principles and diverse Māori and Pacific identities has potential. The first aspect of that potential is to build on Māori and Pacific worldviews, the second is to address the methodological tensions in combining Kaupapa Māori with Pacific methodologies, and the last is to ultimately advance knowledge and well-being for future generations of Māori and Pacific people.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-aln-10.1177_11771801221116727 – Supplemental material for Tangata Hourua: a framework drawing from Kaupapa Māori and Pacific research methodologies

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-aln-10.1177_11771801221116727 for Tangata Hourua: a framework drawing from Kaupapa Māori and Pacific research methodologies by Tania Mullane, Matire Harwood and Isaac Warbrick in AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-2-aln-10.1177_11771801221116727 – Supplemental material for Tangata Hourua: a framework drawing from Kaupapa Māori and Pacific research methodologies

Supplemental material, sj-docx-2-aln-10.1177_11771801221116727 for Tangata Hourua: a framework drawing from Kaupapa Māori and Pacific research methodologies by Tania Mullane, Matire Harwood and Isaac Warbrick in AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples

Footnotes

Authors’ note

Tania Mullane (RN, MA Māori Development, PhD Candidate) is a first-generation New Zealand born Pacific wahine, with Fijian, Tongan and Greek whakapapa. She has a background in working and in leadership roles in education, nursing, social service, and justice environments. Currently she is the Head of Nursing Pacific at Whitireia.

Dr Matire Harwood (Ngāpuhi) (PhD, MBChB) has a background is in primary health care and rangahau hauora Māori. She is the Director for Tōmaiora, Māori Health Research, and Associate Professor, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences at University of Auckland; General Practice and Primary Healthcare, editor for the Māori Health Research Review; and GP Champion for Primary Care Health Targets at Counties Manukau DHB.

Dr Isaac Warbrick (Ngāti Te Ata, Te Arawa, Ngā Puhi) (BSc (Hons), PhD) is an exercise physiologist, and a Senior Research Fellow and co-Director of Taupua Waiora Centre for Māori Health Research at Auckland University of Technology.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Tania Mullane

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

‘I don’t accept the status quo’; Dr Matire Harwood on achieving health equity in Aotearoa. (2020, October 16). Mindfood Magazine. https://www.mindfood.com/article/dr-matire-harwood/

World’s Indigenous People Gather in New Zealand. (2019, June 26). RNZ. https://www.rnz.co.nz/international/pacific-news/392963/world-s-indigenous-people-gather-in-new-zealand

Agee

M. N.

Culbertson

(2013). Sowing the seeds: Parents’ and grandparents’ influences in the identity development of ‘akafasi young people. In Agee

M. N.

McIntosh

Culbertson

Makasiale

C. O.

(Eds.), Pacific identities and wellbeing: Cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 65–83). Otago University Press.

Agnew

Pulotu-Endemann

F. K.

Robinson

Suaalii-Sauni

Warren

Wheeler

Erick

Hingano

Schmidt-Sopoaga

(2004). Pacific models of mental health service delivery in New Zealand (‘PMMHSD’) project. Health Research Council of New Zealand.

Airini

D. B.

Curtis

Johnson

Luatua

O’Shea

Rakena

T. O.

Reynolds

Sauni

Smith

Huirua

T. S.

Tarawa

Townsend

Savage

Ulugia-Pua

(2010). Success for all: Improving Māori and Pasifika learner success in degree-level studies. Teaching & Learning Research Initiative. http://www.tlri.org.nz/sites/default/files/projects/9247-Airini-final-report.pdf

Allen

(2012). Trans-Indigenous: Methodologies for global native literary studies. University of Minnesota Press.

Amituanai-Toloa

(2009). What is a Pasifika research methodology? The ‘tupua’ in the winds of change. Pacific-Asian Education Journal, 21(2), 45–54. http://www.pacificcircleconsortium.org/pae-journal.html

Anae

(2001). The new Vikings of the Sunrise: New Zealand-borns in the Information Age. In Macpherson

Spoonley

Anae

(Eds.), Tangata o te Moana Nui: The evolving identities of Pacific peoples in Aotearoa/New Zealand (pp. 101–121). Dunmore Press.

Baker

M. A. R.

(2009). A methodological approach to Māori-focused research (Working Paper 2009/02). Sustainable Future Institute. https://www.mcguinnessinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Working-Paper-200902-Web.pdf

10.

Barnes

(2013). What can Pākehā learn from engaging in kaupapa Māori educational research. NZCER. https://www.nzcer.org.nz/research/publications/what-can-pakeha-learn-engaging-kaupapa-Māori-educational-research

11.

Bennett

Brunton

Bryant-Tokalau

Sopoaga

Weaver

Witte

Dawrs

(2013). Pacific research protocols from the University of Otago. The Contemporary Pacific, 25, 95–124.

12.

Berking

Fatialofa

C. S.

Lupe

Skipps-Paterson

Agee

(2007). Being ‘Akafasi’. In Culbertson

Agee

M. N.

Makasiale

C. O.

(Eds.), Penina uliuli: Contemporary challenges in mental health for Pacific peoples (pp. 49–62). University of Hawaii Press.

13.

Bishop

(1998). Freeing ourselves from neo-colonial domination in research: A Kaupapa Māori approach to creating knowledge. In Denzin

N. K.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(Eds.), The landscape of qualitative research (pp. 145–183). SAGE.

14.

Bishop

(1999). Kaupapa Māori research: An Indigenous approach to creating knowledge. In Robertson

(Ed.), Māori and psychology: Research & practice (pp. 1–6). University of Waikato.

15.

Bishop

(2005). Freeing ourselves from neocolonial domination in research: A Kaupapa Māori approach to creating knowledge. In Denzin

N. K.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (pp. 109–138). SAGE.

16.

Brown

(2009). Māori architecture: From fale to wharenui and beyond. Raupo Penguin.

17.

Carpenter

V. M.

McMurchy-Pilkington

(2008). Cross-cultural researching: Māori and Pākehā in Te Whakapakari. Qualitative Research, 8(2), 179–196. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794107087480

18.

Carter

K. N.

Hayward

Blakely

Shaw

(2009). How much and for whom does self-identified ethnicity change over time in New Zealand? Results from a longitudinal study. Social Policy Journal of New Zealand, 36, 32–45. https://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/journals-and-magazines/social-policy-journal/index.html

19.

Chun

N. N.

Racoma

R. Y.

(1995). Hawaiian canoe-building traditions. Resource and Development Component, Hawaiian Studies Institute, Extension Education Division, Kamehameha Schools/Bernice Pauahi Bishop Estate.

20.

Cohen

A. P.

(1998). Boundaries and boundary-consciousness: Politicizing cultural identity. In Anderson

Bort

(Eds.), The frontiers of Europe (pp. 22–35). Pinter.

21.

Curtis

(2016). Indigenous positioning in health research: The importance of Kaupapa Māori theory-informed practice. AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples, 12(4), 396–410. https://doi.org/10.20507/AlterNative.2016.12.4.5

22.

Diabetes New Zealand. (2019, July). Understanding type 2 diabetes. https://www.diabetes.org.nz/understand-type-2-diabetes

23.

Dorling

(2019). Inequality and the 1%. Verso.

24.

Durie

(1997). Te aka matua: Keeping a Māori identity. In Te Whaiti

McCarthy

Durie

(Eds.), Mai i Rangiatea: Māori wellbeing and development (pp. 142–162). Auckland University Press with Bridget Williams Books.

25.

Durie

(1998). Whaiora: Māori health development (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.

26.

Enright

H. E.

Anderson

Jansen

R. M.

Murray

Brewer

Selak

Harwood

(2021). Iwi (tribal) data collection at a primary health care organisation in Aotearoa. Journal of Primary Health Care, 13(1), 36–43. https://doi.org/10.1071/HC20037

27.

Gegeo

D. W.

(1998). Indigenous knowledge and empowerment: Rural development examined from within. The Contemporary Pacific, 10, 289–315. https://hdl-handle-net.web.bisu.edu.cn/10125/13230

28.

Grimes

MacCullock

McKay

(2015). Indigenous belief in a just world: New Zealand Māori and other ethnicities compared. Motu Economic and Public Policy Research.

29.

Haberkorn

(2008). Pacific Islands’ population and development: Facts, fictions and follies. New Zealand Population Review, 33(34), 95–127. https://www.researchgate.net/

30.

Harwood

Tane

Broome

Carswell

Selak

Reid

Light

Stewart

(2018). Mana Tū: A whānau ora approach to type 2 diabetes. The New Zealand Medical Journal, 131(1485), 76–83. https://www.nzma.org.nz/journal-articles/

31.

Harwood

Tipene-Leach

(2007). Diabetes. In Robson

Harris

(Eds.), Hauora: Māori standards of health IV. A study of the years 2000–2005 (pp. 160–167). http://www.otago.ac.nz/wellington/otago067748.pdf

32.

Health Research Council. (2014). Pacific health research guidelines. https://www.hrc.govt.nz/resources/pacific-health-research-guidelines-2014

33.

Helu-Thaman

(1988). Ako and faiako: Educational concepts, cultural values and teacher role perceptions in Tonga [Unpublished doctoral thesis]. University of the South Pacific, Suva, Fiji.

34.

Helu-Thaman

(2003). Decolonizing Pacific studies: Indigenous perspectives, knowledge, and wisdom in higher education. The Contemporary Pacific, 15(1), 1–17. https://www-jstor-org-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/

35.

Hone. (2021a). Waka hourua [Pencil on paper]. Private collection.

36.

Hone. (2021b). Tangata hourua [Pencil on paper]. Private collection.

37.

Hudson

Milne

Reynolds

Russell

Smith

(2010). Te ara tika. Guidelines for Māori research ethics. A framework for researchers and ethics committee members. Health Research Council. https://www.hrc.govt.nz/resources/te-ara-tika-guidelines-Māori-research-ethics-0

38.

Jones

(2012). Dangerous liaisons: Pākehā, kaupapa Māori, and educational research. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 47(2), 100–112. https://search.informit.org/

39.

Jones

(2020). This Pākehā life: An unsettled memoir. Bridget Williams Books.

40.

Jones

Crengle

McCreanor

(2006). How tikanga guides and protects the research process: Insights from the Hauora Tāne project. Social Policy Journal of New Zealand, 29, 60–77. https://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/journals-and-magazines/social-policy-journal/

41.

Keddell

(2014). Commentary on: Why do Pacific people with multiple ethnic affiliations have poorer subjective wellbeing? Negative ingroup affect mediates the Identity Tension Effect, Manuela & Sibley, 2012. Social Indicators Research, 119(3), 1289–1293. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-013-0548-8

42.

Kovach

(2010). Indigenous methodologies: Characteristics, conversations, and contexts. University of Toronto Press.

43.

Kukutai

Callister

(2009). A ‘main’ ethnic group? Ethnic self-prioritisation among New Zealand youth. Social Policy Journal of New Zealand, 36, 16–31. https://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/journals-and-magazines/social-policy-journal/index.html

44.

Mahuika

(2019). A brief history of whakapapa: Māori approaches to genealogy. Genealogy, 3(2), Article 32. https://doi.org/10.3390/genealogy3020032

45.

Mead

H. M.

(2016). Tikanga Māori: Living by Māori values (Rev. ed.). Huia Publishers.

46.

Nabobo-Baba

(2008). Decolonising framings in Pacific research: Indigenous Fijian Vanua research framework as an organic response. AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples, 4(2), 140–154. https://doi.org/10.1177/117718010800400210

47.

Naepi

(2015). Navigating the currents of Kaupapa Māori and pan-Pacific research methodologies in Aotearoa New Zealand. MAI Journal, 4(1), 71–84. http://www.journal.mai.ac.nz/

48.

Naepi

(2019a). Masi methodology: Centring Pacific women’s voices in research. AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples, 15(3), 234–242. https://doi.org/10.1177/1177180119876729

49.

Naepi

(2019b). Pacific research methodologies. In Noblit

G. W.

(Ed.), Oxford research encyclopaedia of education. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.566

50.

O’Sullivan

(2001). Māori education and principles of self-determination in the twenty-first century. Waikato Journal of Education, 7, 157–170. https://hdl-handle-net-s.web.bisu.edu.cn/10289/6274

51.

Ponton

(2018). Utilizing Pacific methodologies as inclusive practice. SAGE Open, 8(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244018792962

52.

Rangihau

(1975). Being Māori. In King

(Ed.), Te ao hurihuri: The world moves on: Aspects of Māoritanga (pp. 174–175). Hicks Smith.

53.

Refiti

(2002). Making spaces: Polynesian architecture in Aotearoa, New Zealand. In Mallon

Pereira

P. F.

(Eds.), Pacific art Niu Sila: The Pacific dimension of contemorary New Zealand arts (pp. 209–225). Te Papa Press.

54.

Reid

Paine

S. J.

Curtis

Jones

Anderson

Willing

Harwood

(2017). Achieving health equity in Aotearoa: Strengthening responsiveness to Māori in health research. The New Zealand Medical Journal, 130(1465), 96–103. https://www.nzma.org.nz/journal-articles/

55.

Reid

Robson

(2006). The state of Māori health. In Mulholland

(Ed.), State of the Māori nation: Twenty-first century issues in Aotearoa (pp. 17–32). Reed Publishing.

56.

Royal

C. T. A.

(2005). Exploring Indigenous knowledge. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5369700de4b045a4e0c24bbc/t/53fe8e69e4b0516a0c4ffd85/1409191555871/Exploring+Indigenous+Knowledge

57.

Rudnev

(2015). Indigenous knowledge: Searching for a model of sustainable development for humankind. Global Bioethics, 26(2), 46–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/11287462.2015.1038099

58.

Samu

L. J. V.

Barnes

H. M.

Asiasiga

McCreanor

(2019). ‘We are not privileged enough to have that foundation of language’: Pasifika young adults share their deep concerns about the decline of their ancestral/heritage languages in Aotearoa New Zealand. AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples, 15(2), 131–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/1177180119835228

59.

Sanga

Reynolds

(2017). To know more of what it is and what it is not: Pacific research on the move. Macmillan Brown Centre for Pacific Studies.

60.

Smith

(1997). The development of Kaupapa Māori: Theory and praxis [Unpublished doctoral thesis]. University of Auckland.

61.

Smith

Wolfgramm-Foliaki

(2021). ‘We don’t talk enough’: Voices from a Māori and Pasifika lead research fellowship in higher education. Higher Education Research & Development, 40(1), 35–48.

62.

Smith

L. T.

(1992). Te raapunga i te ao maarama: The search for the world of light. In Research Unit for Māori Education, University of Auckland (Ed.), The issue of research and Māori (Monograph no. 9, pp. 1–12). The Unit.

63.

Smith

L. T.

(2011). Story-ing the development of Kaupapa Māori – A review of sorts. In Hutchings

Potter

Taupo

(Eds.), Kei Tua o Te Pae Hui Proceedings (pp. 10–15). https://www.nzcer.org.nz/system/files/Hui_Procedings__v3_Web_1_2.pdf?download=1

64.

Smith

L. T.

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

65.

Smith

L. T.

(2015). Kaupapa Māori research – Some Kaupapa Māori principles. In Pihama

South

(Eds.), Kaupapa rangahau – A reader: A collection of readings from the Kaupapa Māori research workshop series led by Associate Professor Leonie Pihama and Dr Sarah-Jane Tiakiwai (pp. 46–52). Te Kotahi Research Institute.

66.

Smith

L. T.

(2021). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and Indigenous peoples (3rd ed.). Bloomsbury Publishing.

67.

Smith

L. T.

Maxwell

T. K.

Puke

Temara

(2016). Indigenous knowledge, methodology and mayhem: What is the role of methodology in producing Indigenous insights? A discussion from Mātauranga Māori. Knowledge Cultures, 4(3), 131–156. https://hdl-handle-net-s.web.bisu.edu.cn/10289/11493

68.

Statistics New Zealand. (2018a). QuickStats about Māori. https://www.stats.govt.nz/

69.

Statistics New Zealand. (2018b). QuickStats about Pacific peoples. https://www.stats.govt.nz/

70.

Swadener

B. B.

Mutua

(2008). Decolonizing performances: Deconstructing the global postcolonial. In Denzin

N. K.

Lincoln

Y. S.

Smith

L. T.

(Eds.), Handbook of critical and Indigenous methodologies (pp. 31–43). SAGE.

71.

Tamasese

T. K.

Parsons

T. L.

Sullivan

Waldegrave

(2010). A qualitative study into Pacific perspectives on cultural obligations and volunteering. Pacific Section and the Family Centre Social Policy Research Unit.

72.

Te Puni Kōkiri. (2017, March 28). Vision and values. https://www.tpk.govt.nz/en/mo-te-puni-kokiri/whowe-are/vision-and-values/

73.

Tolich

(2002). Pākehā ‘paralysis’: Cultural safety for those researching the general population of Aotearoa. Social Policy Journal of New Zealand, 19, 164–178. https://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/journals-and-magazines/social-policy-journal/index.html

74.

Tupuola

A. M.

(2004). Pasifika edgewalkers: Complicating the achieved identity status in youth research. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 25(1), 87–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/07256860410001687045

75.

Vaioleti

(2006). Talanoa research methodology: A developing position on Pacific research. Waikato Journal of Education, 12, 21–34. http://whānauoraresearch.co.nz/files/formidable/Vaioleti-Talanoa.pdf

76.

Vaka’uta

(2021, February 8). Māori-Pasifika: Generation B emerging in Aotearoa. RNZ. https://www.rnz.co.nz/international/pacific-news/435907/maori-pasifika-generation-b-emerging-in-aotearoa

77.

Walker

Eketone

Gibbs

(2006). An exploration of kaupapa Māori research, its principles, processes, and applications. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 9(4), 331–344. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570600916049

78.

Witehira

J. G. P.

(2013). Tārai kōrero toi: Articulating a Māori design language [Doctoral thesis, Massey University]. Massey Research Online. https://hdl-handle-net.web.bisu.edu.cn/10179/5213

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.01 MB

0.02 MB