Applying the complementary knowledge bases of System Dynamics and Indigenous knowledge in public health research in Aotearoa,New Zealand

Abstract

Systems Thinking is increasingly applied to address complex societal and public health issues in Aotearoa, New Zealand and has been proposed as a good fit with traditional wisdom and Mātauranga Māori (Indigenous knowledge) from Aotearoa, New Zealand. In this article, we delve into the theoretical underpinnings of Systems Thinking approaches used in Community-Based System Dynamics research and find parallels with Indigenous narratives and knowledge. The synergy created by combining these two knowledge systems and practices is proposed as an effective way to approach public health issues that emerge from complex adaptive systems, particularly in communities with large numbers of Indigenous peoples. Examples are given from an initiative to engage community to improve food security and nutrition in regional Aotearoa, New Zealand.

Keywords

Indigenous worldviews Kaupapa Māori Research Mātauranga Māori public health interventions System Dynamics Systems Thinking

Introduction

Nā tāu rourou, nā tāku rourou, ka ora ai te iwi

With your food basket and mine, the people will thrive

Many health and societal problems prevalent among colonised Indigenous populations are due to complex societal systems. Past actions and inaction have, for the most part, not had the desired impact of shifting outcomes or rebalancing opportunities (Reading & Wien, 2009; Reid & Robson, 2007). The relationships of food, alcohol and tobacco policies to the prevalence of chronic disease, for example, in Greenland Inuit, is a prime example (Bjerregaard & Larsen, 2021). Recent approaches to issues emerging from complex adaptive systems and their dynamic networks of unpredictable interactions have included using Systems Thinking and Indigenous knowledges and worldviews, or a combination, for example, the Healthy Families initiative in Aotearoa, New Zealand (Matheson, 2016; Matheson et al., 2018). Systems Thinking considers elements as part of an all-encompassing, interconnected and highly organised web. The theoretical approach is said to have parallels with Indigenous knowledge and other traditional wisdoms (Meadows, 2008), though these parallels have not, in detail, been explored in the literature.

Colonised Indigenous peoples have disproportionate and multi-factorial risk profiles which are associated with complex public health issues, including infectious and long-term conditions and mental health issues (Axelsson et al., 2016). These complex public health issues with multiple interacting factors are at the core of Systems Thinking interventions and evaluation (Diez Roux, 2011; Rutter et al., 2017). We believe it is timely to investigate the epistemological and ontological resonances between Systems Thinking and the traditional wisdom of Indigenous peoples, in the Aotearoa, New Zealand context, Mātauranga Māori (Indigenous knowledge). In this article, we seek to outline the resonances and synergies between these approaches. Complementary approaches can enable meaningful community participation and engagement, and facilitate the creation of a shared vision for collective action. We give a brief introduction to the System Dynamics approach within Systems Thinking as applied to real-world problems in public health. We further outline the essential elements of a Māori worldview and traditional Mātauranga Māori. Finally, we discuss the key resonances that bring these two approaches together to create a significant complementarity and synergy for application in participatory community health research. This article aims to describe and inspire a practical way to combine two theoretical lenses and promote a shared vision for collective public health action in communities, offering, perhaps, a sense of kotahitanga (unity).

Systems Thinking

You think that because you understand “one”, you must therefore understand “two” because one and one make two. But you forget that you must also understand “and”. (A Sufi teaching story, as cited in Meadows, 2008, p. 12)

Meadows (2008) defines a system as “an interconnected set of elements that is coherently organized in a way that achieves something” (p. 11). A system has elements, interconnections and a function or purpose. In Systems Thinking, the properties of each part can only be fully understood by understanding the role it plays in the whole. Epistemologically, Systems Thinking goes under the surface to obtain deeper levels of knowing. It is accepted that events are influenced by multiple layered factors such as underlying social and systemic structures, as well as deep mental models, values and beliefs.

Systems Thinking is beginning to be applied in public health research on chronic and complex issues such as obesity prevention, improving nutrition and cardiovascular disease (Appel et al., 2019; McGlashan et al., 2018), with examples from Australia (Allender et al., 2019; Bolton et al., 2022; Jenkins et al., 2020) and Aotearoa, New Zealand (Gerritsen et al., 2020; Kenealy et al., 2012). These approaches embrace the complex messiness that arises between different perspectives and stakeholders and provide tools and methods to bring people and perspectives together (Conte & Davidson, 2020). Systems Thinking comprises theories providing concepts for understanding complexity; tools and approaches providing methods for exploring complex systems and problems; and practices through which capacity to think and act systemically is built by reflective and continuous learning (Conte & Davidson, 2020). In this article, we use the term Systems Thinking to refer to the perspective or worldview that takes the above notions on complex adaptive systems into account.

System Dynamics and its application in research

System Dynamics is a methodology developed within the context of Systems Thinking. System Dynamics models are developed to highlight the interconnections within community systems and relationships between actors, factors and different levels of a complex system. System Dynamics takes into account accumulation, for example, stocks and flows, and feedback loops. The dynamics of the system are considered to be generated by the feedback loops. Feedback loops can be balanced, where one variable regulates another like a thermostat, or reinforcing where an increase in one variable results in an increase in the other variables (Hovmand, 2014). Community-Based System Dynamics (CBSD) is a participatory method for involving communities in the process of understanding and changing systems from the feedback perspective of System Dynamics (Hovmand, 2014).

Using System Dynamics models, community members design interventions embedding actions into existing community structures. We believe this methodology can create greater cohesion and shared vision when used to complement processes based on Indigenous knowledge.

A fundamental goal of CBSD is building knowledge and skills within communities to enable transformational processes (Hernandez et al., 2017). This often involves a shift from isolated linear views of causes and outcomes to complex views of the patterns of interactions within the system of interest. Through this, ability is developed to convey insights that mobilise a community for action (Hovmand, 2014; Rutter et al., 2017). This transformative goal resonates with Indigenous research methodologies, such as Kaupapa Māori (knowledge, attitudes and values that are inherently Māori) Research (L. T. Smith, 2021a), as do two fundamental aspects of Systems Thinking: interconnectedness and the acceptance of multiple perspectives. In the following section, we analyse these two major resonances, covering other resonances such as synergy, holism and feedback or reciprocity later in the article.

Relationships and interconnectedness in Systems Thinking

As opposed to classic reductionist approaches to science and observation, Systems Thinking considers all interacting elements function as a whole, with each part playing a specific context-dependent role (Hovmand, 2014; Ribesse et al., 2017; Senge, 2006; Trochim et al., 2006). It situates the behaviour of the individual in relation to nested social, cultural, economic and political contexts (Foster-Fishman et al., 2007). A fundamental aspect of Systems Thinking is focusing on relationships and qualities rather than the object (Capra & Luisi, 2014). CBSD research practices, such as Group Model Building (GMB), map the relationships between elements, and study patterns of interaction, accumulations and feedback, through causal loop diagrams, for example. These identify the best places in the system to intervene for the desired outcome. Complex systems are represented visually via objects linked by dynamic causal relationship arrows. The maps are constructed from a series of interconnected, dynamic feedback loops and circular arrangements of causally connected elements. The initial cause influences the elements around the links of the loop until the last element feeds back into the initial element (Supplementary Figure 1). These causal loops create a self-regulating system (Ribesse et al., 2017).

Multiple perspectives in Systems Thinking

In contrast with the mainstream western positivist view of science, Systems Thinking recognises that each actor within a system has unique perspectives and knowledge about how the system works. Practices and methods using systems perspectives aim to connect the insights of multiple actors to enable a better, more comprehensive understanding of the system itself. Values, beliefs and past experiences are all acknowledged in forming a person’s individual perspective (Oetzel et al., 2017, 2020). Research using systems perspectives must take into account that there are multiple ways of viewing issues and solutions (Oetzel et al., 2017).

CBSD methods like GMB are a useful way of incorporating multiple stakeholder perspectives (Hovmand, 2014). Impact evaluations have found that participants in GMB report greater ability to engage with multisectoral stakeholders, construct a shared language and understanding, understand interconnectedness and dialogue across sectors (Morais et al., 2021). Further, it is recognised that there is no one true answer to the problem or issue of interest. The outputs of CBSD workshops, the systems maps, are considered to be accurate representations of the group in time and place that constructed the objects.

As we will see in the next section, the two major features of System Dynamics summarised above, interconnections and recognition of multiple perspectives and mental models, overlap with Indigenous knowledge systems across the world. Our particular focus is on the overlap with Mātauranga Māori in Aotearoa, New Zealand.

Mātauranga Māori

Mātauranga Māori describes the body of knowledge of the Indigenous people of Aotearoa, New Zealand. It represents centuries of intergenerational knowledge, including environmental science and creation stories. It would be impossible to summarise the breadth and depth in this article. A short description will be given in relation to the two chosen elements of Mātauranga Māori to illustrate its resonances with Systems Thinking approaches. The possibility of combining Mātauranga Māori and other Indigenous approaches with System Dynamics processes when working with communities will be discussed.

Mātauranga Māori can be understood as Māori philosophy and Māori knowledge, something to be carried in the minds (Mead, 2013). This body of mātauranga (knowledge) and set of beliefs underpin tikanga Māori (Māori cultural practices) that are observable in rituals and routines. Māori scholar Charles Royal (2009) describes Mātauranga Māori as a way of explaining or enlightening about the world that surrounds us. Mātauranga is said to originate from the atua (deity) Tāne who travelled through the 12 heavens to collect the three kete mātauranga (baskets of knowledge): the kete-aronui (holding knowledge beneficial to humankind); the kete-tuauri (holding the knowledge of ritual, memory and prayer); and the kete-tua-ātea (containing all maleficent knowledge and practice). When Tāne finally returned to earth he placed these kete in a special house of knowledge, the wharekura (house of learning), considered the first place of knowledge transmission (Marsden, as cited in Royal, 2003).

According to Macfarlane and Macfarlane (2019), consistent failure to understand Indigenous cultures is reflected in the absence of culturally appropriate forms of research methodologies. For a long time, with its outward-facing emphasis on pūrākau (creation narratives) and maramataka (lunar calendars), Mātauranga Māori was disregarded or ignored by the mainstream scientific community (Hikuroa, 2017), or even considered to be incompatible with science. Recently, a small group of academics attempted to refute the scientific nature of Mātauranga Māori in Aotearoa, New Zealand. However, the ensuing uproar, an official distancing statement from the academics’ University, and the public response from over 2000 researchers are testimony to a shift in public opinion with growing knowledge and recognition of Mātauranga Māori (Stewart, 2022). To be noted, with this rapid recognition and adoption of methods involving Mātauranga Māori, Indigenous scholars have cautioned against the mainstream appropriation or subsuming of mātauranga (Mercier, 2020; L. T. Smith, 2021b). It is growing more common for researchers to propose models that combine classic, scientific, reductionist knowledge with mātauranga (Brierley et al., 2019). This approach is not unique to Aotearoa, New Zealand with international scholars such as Robin Kimmerer (2020) proposing ways of combining traditional knowledge and ways of being into the study of the natural environment.

Interconnectedness in Te Ao Māori

One of the key features of Te Ao Māori, a Māori worldview, is the centrality of whakapapa (genealogy) and relational ontology (Salmond, 2012). As Māori Marsden describes, Māori philosophy is a woven universe (Royal, 2003). Whakapapa is extended to all things, living, non-living, animate and inanimate and as such, individuals, natural world features and inanimate objects do not exist in isolation of each other. We are all considered to be part of the same system with a web of interconnectedness between us. Morgan (2004) explains that mauri (life force) links people together:

Mauri also establishes the inter-relatedness of all living things. The linkages between all living things within the ecosystem are based on the whakapapa or genealogies of creation. This establishes the basis for the holistic view of the environment and our ecosystem held by the Tangata Whenua [original people of the land]. (p. 5)

Multiple perspectives in Te Ao Māori

Alongside the Te Ao Māori (The Māori World) knowledge that we are all interconnected comes the belief that individuals and peoples have valid but differing perspectives. For example, iwi (extended kinship groups or tribes) and hapū (subtribes or clans) within Aotearoa, New Zealand may have different knowledge based on the lands they live on and differing versions of shared creation narratives. In Te Ao Māori, the past, present and future co-exist and cannot be dissociated (Mead, 2013). So, time is understood to be circular. The whakataukī (proverb) kia whakatōmuri te haere whakamua describes this: I walk backwards into the future with my eyes fixed on my past.

It should be noted that not all Māori hold a Māori worldview (Cheung, 2008). In this essay, a Māori worldview refers to traditional Māori philosophies and beliefs, not necessarily to the worldview of all Māori individuals and communities who have been influenced by the processes of colonisation.

In the next section, we will investigate how the potential overlap between Systems Thinking holistic approaches and Indigenous knowledge has been described by international researchers, and in the Aotearoa, New Zealand context.

Resonances between Systems Thinking and Mātauranga Māori in the literature

In her introduction to Systems Thinking, US environmental scientist Donella Meadows posited that

modern systems theory, bound up with computers and equations, hides the fact that it traffics in truths known at some level by everyone. It is often possible, therefore, to make a direct translation from systems jargon to traditional wisdom. (2008, p. 3)

Internationally, Indigenous researchers such as Tyson Yunkaporta (2019) and Melanie Goodchild (2021) have extrapolated on this concept and developed models or approaches that combine Systems Thinking and Indigenous knowledge, particularly for climate change adaptation. In Aotearoa, a few authors have suggested that similarities exist between the conceptual orientation of Systems Thinking and a Te Ao Māori worldview. These will be briefly considered here before developing our own table of resonances bridging the Indigenous worldview and Systems Thinking.

Taurima and Cash (2000) posit that by recognising Māori knowledge as a “system of systems”, Systems Thinking approaches can bridge the transcultural gap between Māori systems and dominant European systems in Aotearoa (“Systems Thinking: Bridging The Transcultural Gap” section, para. 1). They specify that “[S]ystems Thinking can play a critical role in linking the two world views, so that they talk to each other, rather than past each other” with the aim “[t]o reconcile peoples and so ensure bicultural sustainability” (“Systems Thinking: Bridging The Transcultural Gap” section, para. 2, emphasis in original).

Specific challenges must be addressed for evidence-based interventions with established efficacy outside of Indigenous communities to be effective inside Indigenous communities. Recognising this, Oetzel et al. (2017) put forward an implementation framework for prevention and treatment of chronic conditions for Māori and other Indigenous peoples. The He Pikinga Waiora Implementation Framework combines four elements, one of which is Systems Thinking and the others are cultural-centredness, community engagement and integrated knowledge translation. With its emphasis on holism and connection among levels, institutions, systems and people, a Systems Thinking approach is argued to be “consistent with Kaupapa Māori philosophy” (p. 4). For the type of complex public health problems facing Indigenous communities, Oetzel et al. (2017) proposes that such a systemic approach is required to enable an appreciation of the wider contextual influences and the big picture.

Heke et al. (2019) report that the integrity of the Māori worldview can be retained when employing Systems Thinking tools to translate Indigenous approaches to public health interventions. Mātauranga Māori recognises the relationships between all animate and inanimate things, and then arranges and orders it in layers through a system of ancestral ties referred to as whakapapa. This overlaps clearly with Systems Thinking and Heke et al. (2019) propose that the feature of Mātauranga Māori that links “all things together, underpinned by a holistic, relational and temporal worldview, is much closer to the views of contemporary Systems Thinking, with its emphasis on symmetry and emergence within complex webs of interaction” (p. 23). The focus on relationships and meanings attributed to these relationships is presented as the common ground between methods. Heke et al. (2019) used these commonalities to document and evaluate two Indigenous approaches to health promotion and obesity prevention in the remote East Coast of Aotearoa, New Zealand.

Overall, these approaches have highlighted the resonances between Systems Thinking and Indigenous, in particular Māori, approaches such as holism, taking into account the big picture of contextual and societal influences on health and the importance of connections and relationships.

Transformative application of Systems Thinking and Indigenous approaches for equity-focussed research

Systems Thinking approaches in public health are often applied to complex problems where traditional approaches are not resulting in the desired changes. However, they are not strictly designed to be transformative. Methods that have arisen within Indigenous movements, such as Kaupapa Māori Research, may empower communities to achieve their own desired goals, and when used in combination, may create powerful effects.

Kaupapa Māori Research methods

In parallel to the way CBSD methods are useful for researchers emphasising Systems Thinking, Kaupapa Māori Research draws directly from Mātauranga Māori. Kaupapa Māori is a transformative methodology (L. T. Smith, 2021a) that aligns with Freire’s Critical Theory notions of conscientisation, resistance and transformative praxis (G. H. Smith, 2017) that rejects western hegemonic thinking. Kaupapa Māori theory applies values from Te Ao Māori and refers to the collective, culturally embedded vision, aspiration and purpose of Māori communities. It makes space for Māori to legitimately conduct their own studies of the world, in their own terms and ways (G. Smith, 2003). Kaupapa Māori is not a synonym for Mātauranga Māori (Royal, 2012) and it is not the same as Māori knowledge and epistemologies (L. T. Smith, 2017). It refers to a way of working, processes and frameworks that align with a Māori worldview and aspirations.

Applying Systems Thinking for equity-focussed research internationally

According to Sterling (2003), the rejection of western hegemonic thinking is common across Indigenous cultures.

The predominantly informational Western view of knowledge as something that can be acquired, stored and passed on is contrasted with the Indigenous view where the “act of coming to know something” involves a personal transformation. The knower and the known are indissolubly linked and changed in a fundamental way. (Peat, 1995, as cited in Sterling, 2003, p. 403)

A parallel can be drawn with the CBSD practice of GMB where groups of people from different backgrounds or agencies are brought together to work through activities identifying relationships and feedback structures to gain a shared understanding of an issue and eventually to build a systems map (Gerritsen et al., 2020). It is recognised in this process that the most important change is in the knowledge processes and obtention of deeper understanding for participants, rather than in the map itself. The emphasis is on process and transformation through the development of shared understanding. This line of reasoning has led several authors to posit that Systems Thinking may be useful for equity-focussed health research (Frerichs et al., 2016, 2018; Friel et al., 2017; Haynes et al., 2020), in particular with Indigenous populations (Goodchild, 2021; Heke et al., 2019; Hernandez et al., 2017). Hernandez et al. (2017) state that the

application of Systems Thinking approaches can enable a shift from a health-outcomes focus to seeing the whole system in which the well-being of Indigenous populations is embedded, and integrating transformative action with a broader view of the interdependent elements, networks of relationships, and patterns of interaction that shape and impact health. (p. 2)

These approaches are useful for developing more nuanced, context-sensitive strategies for redressing power imbalances and fostering the dynamics of collective action for systemic reform.

Recognising a need to embed systems practices with cultural meaning, emerging work from Canadian First Nations Anishinaabe researcher Goodchild (2021) calls for the need to decolonise Systems Thinking methods. Her work is motivated by the conviction that a Systems Thinking lens is resonant with her Indigenous worldview, but that the power dynamics in Systems Thinking, such as where the knowledge is held and by whom, need to be addressed to indigenise the methods. Using a two-row Wampum Belt model symbolising the Dutch merchants and Iroquois of her ancestral lands, she proposes a Relational Systems Thinking framework that creates a third space, a sacred space spanning traditional Indigenous knowledge and conventional Systems Thinking. This framework is proposed to bridge the two knowledge systems harmoniously. Thus, through processes of decolonisation, the epistemic violence seen historically when two knowledge systems come together can be avoided. While her work focusses on the need to indigenise and decolonise the tools and methods of Systems Thinking, this framework aligns with earlier work in Aotearoa, New Zealand in its positioning of Relational Systems Thinking as an intercultural bridge (Taurima & Cash, 2000; Heke et al., 2019). Goodchild’s work gives support to the idea of resonances and complementarities between the two approaches, but she also highlights the limits of these resonances. Systems Thinking theories and methods have mostly come from western academia and have not always been applied to promote Indigenous ways of being (Goodchild, 2021). As such, this differs from Indigenous research methodologies that are mostly set within a resistance movement (Brown & Strega, 2005).

Finally, it has been proposed that Systems Thinking often involves values-based principles. System Dynamics researcher Hovmand says,

keeping the focus on empowerment means that one must also be aware of the imposition of an outsider, technical language that can exacerbate power differences and reinforce the very effects of colonization that the community is seeking liberation from. (2014, p. 31)

Acknowledging that we are all interconnected, Capra and Luisi (2014) include spirituality in their description of an ecological view or Systems Thinking view, a parallel with the wairua (spirituality) or mauri (life force) of a Te Ao Māori worldview. In summary, while not directly designed to be transformative, Systems Thinking approaches are designed to be a process of engagement and education. They acknowledge the power of contextual factors and have been applied for equity-focussed research in colonised populations. When combined with Indigenous thinking and methodologies, this may create synergistic opportunities for community change, due in part to the underlying resonances between Systems Thinking and Indigenous knowledge. This is the framework that we develop in the following section.

A framework outlining the parallels between Mātauranga Māori and Systems Thinking

Following these descriptions of Mātauranga Māori and Systems Thinking and their transformative potential in equity-focussed research, the following section extends the critical analysis of the common ground between these approaches. We propose that the resonances between these two worldviews go further and deeper than the conceptualisation and importance of connections and relationships. Walter and Anderson (2013) position methodology as the theoretical lens or worldview through which research is understood, designed and conducted. Utilising this terminology, we seek to describe resonances between a worldview promoting Mātauranga Māori and a Systems Thinking theoretical lens through which System Dynamics research is conducted. Supplementary Table 1 puts forward the epistemic, ontological and process resonances between a Mātauranga Māori worldview and Systems Thinking.

He tina ki runga, he tāmore ki raro (to flourish, one must be firmly rooted below)

This whakataukī is generally translated to mean: to flourish, one must be firmly rooted below. However, it can also be applied to better understand Systems Thinking when we consider that to understand flourishing plants, we must understand the whole system, including the roots and soil. If we only consider the visible, our understanding will be incomplete and any actions to influence or intervene may have unintended consequences or not achieve the desired outcome. This provides an analogy with the well-known Iceberg Model from Systems Thinking (Goodman, 1997) where more sustainable, more meaningful change is possible by considering system structure and patterns of relationships, including values, group norms, beliefs and cultural assumptions.

A holistic view of the world is central to the ways that Māori experience and make sense of the world, which shapes the kaupapa (underlying values and beliefs) and tikanga (practices) that Māori live by (Reilly et al., 2018). Similarly, systems are recognised to have emergent properties. They are greater than the sum of their parts with each element defined by its connections to other elements and the role it plays in the broader system (Meadows, 2008). In a Māori worldview, relationships, in a genealogical sense, are known as whakapapa, which is a central tenet of Mātauranga Māori with its relational ontological style (Salmond, 2012). Whakapapa, literally meaning to form layers, informs relationships so there are multiple layers, meaning and understandings that underpin Māori values and beliefs. All things are connected and interdependent through whakapapa (Heke et al., 2019; Royal, 2003); a notion that has strong resonance with the circular feedback loops, network analysis and theories of Systems Thinking.

Whakapapa became a series of never-ending beginnings where the nature and effect of relationships crossed from the past into the future, through what Patricia Grace has called the “now-time”. (Jackson, 2020, p. 139)

The shared focus on interconnectedness and interdependence is perhaps the strongest resonance between these two epistemologies. For example, in cognitive mapping or GMB, the linking arrows are said to be more important than the concept nodes (Supplementary Figure 1):

Give me an arrow (a causal relationship and a sufficient power of variation) and I will construct a “world” for you; not a real world, of course, but a structural map of part of it. (Senge, 2006, p. 3)

In Systems Thinking, these relationships are recognised to be dynamic, changing over time. They are also recognised to be inherent to the specific system of investigation, with any knowledge being place- and time-dependent or within the boundaries of the system of interest. System behaviour is very dependent on the context within which it exists. That context is a higher-level system within which the system-in-focus sits. Mātauranga Māori is also place-dependent, acknowledging, for example, the different versions of pūrākau across iwi and hapū. From an epistemological point of view, this is pluralism, which is common to Indigenous worldviews and Systems Thinking (Haynes et al., 2020).

Going further than just the multiple types of knowledge accepted, the role of the knower also has some commonalities across these two worldviews. In Mātauranga Māori, the knower is considered to be the person themselves and knowledge is deeply personal. In Systems Thinking this is also acknowledged, for example, the participants in a GMB session are considered to have their own understanding of the system that the model-building process is designed to elicit. They are the knowledge holders, further understanding is co-created with other participants and the researcher facilitates the visual representation of this knowledge.

As mentioned in the previous section on transformative research, there are resonances at the process level between ways of engaging in research within a Te Ao Māori worldview, for example, Kaupapa Māori Research or decolonising work, and CBSD methods of engagement. In both, relationships are valued and principled and constant reflection and adjustment is required. Both processes can be considered to be alternatives to mainstream traditional positivist and reductionist thinking; though to different extents, with Kaupapa Māori research taking a clear standpoint and choosing to work in the margins where radical possibilities arise (L. T. Smith, 2021a).

Practical applications and conclusions

This article has only briefly summarised selected elements from the vast domain of Mātauranga Māori. However, we propose that Systems Thinking from western science echoes and aligns well with the belief system of Mātauranga Māori, and more broadly, Indigenous peoples’ knowledge. Rather than defining a binary western versus Indigenous model, we have discussed parallels between traditional Indigenous thoughts and perceptions that can affirm and enrich the Systems Thinking worldview and inform research processes using this methodology. Importantly, the alignment between these approaches means that Systems Thinking approaches and GMB have appeal to Indigenous communities (Browne et al., 2021; Goodchild, 2021) and can maximise participation and engagement in research and community action. Although few authors have published detailed analyses such as this, the idea of these resonances is not new. In application, Systems Thinking theories and methods create a platform where it is appropriate and easy to apply tikanga Māori in equity-focussed health research in Aotearoa.

Through its broad notion of epistemology and recognising other ways of knowing, Systems Thinking and Mātauranga Māori are complementary. The combination of Kaupapa Māori Research methodologies with Systems Science frameworks and processes has underlying theoretical overlap facilitating the development of an Indigenous systems science approach for use in Aotearoa, New Zealand. Pihama et al. (2002) recommend that scientists wishing to build relationships with Māori should develop an understanding of Māori worldviews and cultural values. Macfarlane et al. (2015) further suggest that it is inappropriate to seek solutions to Indigenous challenges solely from within western knowledge streams, proposing that a blending of Indigenous and western bodies of knowledge creates an approach that is potentially more powerful than either knowledge stream can produce unilaterally.

We are currently testing this combined methodology in a regional research initiative entitled Nourishing Hawke’s Bay: He wairua tō te kai (there is more to food than nutrition) which seeks to improve food security and nutrition for tamariki (children) and rangatahi (youth) in regional New Zealand (Tipene-Leach & McKelvie-Sebileau, 2021). Using a CBSD approach, we have undertaken cognitive mapping interviews (McKelvie-Sebileau, Rees, Swinburn, et al., 2022) and GMB workshops embedded within a Mātauranga Māori worldview (McKelvie-Sebileau, Rees, Tipene-Leach, et al., 2022). Pūrākau were used as analogies for model building and systems mapping, and whakawhanaungatanga (establishing relationships) and manaakitanga (hospitality) were privileged as the foundations for developing a collective vision. This vision has resulted in two prioritised actions to create a network for schools involved in providing the Ka Ora, Ka Ako school lunch programme and to increase Mātauranga Māori capability in schools as a means of enhancing student’s well-being through cultural connectedness (McKelvie-Sebileau, Rees, Tipene-Leach, et al., 2022).

Public health interventions are most effective when communities integrate their own cultures and history (DeBruyn et al., 2020). Drawing from national and international literature to identify and describe the overlap between these two theoretical lenses, we believe that Systems Thinking is a useful method to facilitate a joint approach. This two-way bridge may be a way for Māori who are often the focus of health equity research in Aotearoa, New Zealand to access Systems Science tools in a culturally meaningful way, to adapt the tools, and apply them for the transformation of communities. The principles of Systems Thinking align with the belief and value systems of Mātauranga Māori and acknowledge the value of Indigenous knowledge, creating a space where the two theoretical lenses can be combined, potentially opening the space for a paradigm shift. Used together, we posit these methods promote collective public health action in communities and therefore perhaps, a kotahitanga.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-aln-10.1177_11771801221119266 – Supplemental material for Applying the complementary knowledge bases of System Dynamics and Indigenous knowledge in public health research in Aotearoa, New Zealand

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-aln-10.1177_11771801221119266 for Applying the complementary knowledge bases of System Dynamics and Indigenous knowledge in public health research in Aotearoa, New Zealand by Pippa McKelvie-Sebileau, Crystal Pekepo, David Rees, Boyd Swinburn, Sarah Gerritsen and David Tipene-Leach in AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Ngā mihi nui ki ngā tāngata nā rātau ngā kōrero. Acknowledgements to our community who have participated in interviews, hui and workshops that led to the development of these ideas, and to Dr Donna Cormack from Te Kupenga Hauora Māori at the University of Auckland for her teachings on Kaupapa Māori Research.

Authors’ note

Pippa McKelvie-Sebileau is a doctoral candidate at the School of Population Health, University of Auckland. Before enrolling in her doctoral studies, she was Research Manager at the Eastern Institute of Technology, Te Pūkenga, and project manager on the Nourishing Hawke’s Bay: He wairua tō te kai research initiative. She has a BSc (Hons) in Psychology and French from Victoria University of Wellington and a Masters (Research) from the University of Melbourne. She has worked in Australia, Iceland and France as a researcher and research administrator on research projects across education, public health, oncology and cardiac electrophysiology. Her current research interests include collective action for systems change, in particular in public health and pro-environmental actions.

Crystal Pekepo (Ngāti Kahungunu, Ngāti Tāne and Ngāti Vara [Mangaia]): Heretaunga Haukū Nui, Heretaunga Ararau, Heretaunga Haaro o te Kaahu, Heretaunga Takoto noa. Crystal is of Cook Island Māori descent and she works in Innovation Design and Research for Toi Tangata. She is a wife and māma to 6 tamariki. Crystal has participated in a number of research projects sharing Kaupapa Māori approaches and methodologies to co design. She is a director of Maataatoa and works across multiple spaces from Māori Public Health, the Social Sector and advocates in natural environmental spaces. Her superpower is working alongside communities sharing pūrākau and Mātauranga Māori, unleashing their potential in the most caring and resourceful ways that unlocks ihi, wehi and wana.

David Rees is a founding partner of Synergia Ltd, a research and consultancy organisation based in Auckland and Wellington. Since the early 1980s, has undertaken a lifelong study of the system sciences, taking courses and programmes with leading thinkers and academic institutions in the United States. His work and research focus on bringing his combined interests in qualitative and quantitative systems methods to assist in areas such as policy, strategy, population health and service design in health, education and social care. David is an Honorary Lecturer at Auckland University’s School of Population Health and also presents on the application of System Thinking and System Dynamics to issues of health, education and social care at several other universities and government institutions. David has a PhD from Victoria University, Wellington, which focused on programmes to improve care for people with chronic conditions within the primary health care sector in New Zealand.

Boyd Swinburn (MBChB, MD, FRACP, FNZCPHM) is Professor of Population Nutrition and Global Health at the University of Auckland, New Zealand and Honorary Professor, Global Centre (GLOBE), Deakin University, Australia. Boyd trained as an endocrinologist and has conducted research in metabolic, clinical and public health aspects of obesity. His major research interests centre on community and policy actions to prevent childhood and adolescent obesity, and reduce, what he has coined, “obesogenic” environments. He leads the INFORMAS initiative () to monitor and benchmark food environments in over 60 countries. He established WHO’s first Collaborating Centre on Obesity Prevention at Deakin University in 2003, led two Lancet Series on Obesity in 2011 and 2015, was co-chair of World Obesity Policy & Prevention section 2009–2019 and co-chair of the Lancet Commission on Obesity 2015–2019. He has been an advisor on many government committees, WHO Consultations and large scientific studies internationally.

Sarah Gerritsen is a social scientist working in the fields of public health nutrition and child health. She is Associate Director of New Zealand’s largest longitudinal study Growing Up in New Zealand, and also undertakes research about equitable food environments, nutrition policies and food security. Sarah led the review and update of the 2020/2021 maternal, infant and toddler dietary guidelines for the Ministry of Health, and a review of policies for improving fruit and vegetable intake globally for the United Nations FAO and World Health Organization. Sarah was lead author of the umbrella reviews How We Eat (2017) on the evidence on eating behaviours, and Healthy Food and Physical Activity Environments (2019) for the Healthier Lives National Science Challenge. Her PhD (2018) investigated the impact of early childhood education on obesity prevention. In 2022, Sarah received the University of Auckland’s Early Career Research Excellence Award.

David Tipene-Leach (Ngāti Kere, Ngāti Kahungunu) is a public health physician with a long history of working in Māori Health providers as a GP and in public health prevention projects devising Mātauranga Māori-based solutions to Māori public health problems like SUDI and diabetes mellitus. He is currently Professor of Māori and Indigenous Research at the Eastern Institute of Technology, Te Pūkenga campus in Taradale, Napier.

Author Contributions

This article was drafted by the Nourishing Hawke’s Bay: He wairua tō te kai research team, a mix of Māori and non-Māori researchers.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Ethics Approval

This study obtained ethical approval from the Eastern Institute of Technology Research and Ethics Approvals Committee, ref 20/03.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and publication of this article: This research was financially supported by the Better Start National Science Challenge (BS), a University of Auckland Doctoral Scholarship (PM) and Graduate Women New Zealand grant (PM) to the first author.

ORCID iD

Pippa McKelvie-Sebileau

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Allender

Brown

A. D.

Bolton

K. A.

Fraser

Lowe

Hovmand

P. S.

(2019). Translating systems thinking into practice for community action on childhood obesity. Obesity Review, 20(Suppl 2), 179–184. https://doi.org/10.1111/obr.12865

Appel

J. M.

Fullerton

Hennessy

Korn

A. R.

Tovar

Allender

Hovmand

P. S.

Kasman

Swinburn

B. A.

Hammond

R. A.

Economos

C. D.

(2019). Design and methods of Shape Up Under 5: Integration of systems science and community-engaged research to prevent early childhood obesity. PLOS ONE, 14(8), Article e0220169. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0220169

Axelsson

Kukutai

Kippen

(2016). The field of Indigenous health and the role of colonisation and history. Journal of Population Research, 33(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12546-016-9163-2

Bjerregaard

Larsen

C. V. L.

(2021). Social determinants of dietary patterns, food basket costs and expenditure on alcohol and tobacco amongst Greenland Inuit. Public Health Nutrition, 24(15), 4975–4984. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980020005133

Bolton

K. A.

Fraser

Lowe

Moodie

Bell

Strugnell

Hayward

McGlashan

L. M.

Whelan

Brown

Allender

(2022). Generating change through collective impact and systems science for childhood obesity prevention: The GenR8 Change case study. PLOS ONE, 17(5), Article e0266654. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0266654

Brierley

Tadaki

Hikuroa

Blue

Šunde

Tunnicliffe

Salmond

(2019). A geomorphic perspective on the rights of the river in Aotearoa New Zealand. River Research and Applications, 35, 1640–1651. https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.3343

Brown

Strega

(2005). Research as resistance: Critical, Indigenous, and anti-oppressive approaches. Canadian Scholars’ Press.

Browne

Walker

Brown

Sherriff

Christidis

Egan

Versace

Allender

Backholer

(2021). Systems thinking for Aboriginal health: Understanding the value and acceptability of group model building approaches. SSM—Population Health, 15, Article 100874. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmph.2021.100874

Capra

Luisi

P. L.

(2014). The systems view of life: A unifying vision. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511895555

10.

Cheung

(2008). The reductionist—Holistic worldview dilemma. MAI Review, 3, 1–7.

11.

Conte

K. P.

Davidson

(2020). Using a “rich picture” to facilitate systems thinking in research coproduction. Health Research Policy & Systems, 18(1), Article 14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-019-0514-2

12.

DeBruyn

Fullerton

Satterfield

Frank

(2020). Integrating culture and history to promote health and help prevent type 2 diabetes in American Indian/Alaska Native communities: Traditional foods have become a way to talk about health. Preventing Chronic Disease, 17, Article 190213. https://doi.org/10.5888/pcd17.190213

13.

Diez Roux

A. V

. (2011). Complex systems thinking and current impasses in health disparities research. American Journal of Public Health, 101(9), 1627–1634. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2011.300149

14.

Foster-Fishman

P. G.

Nowell

Yang

(2007). Putting the system back into systems change: A framework for understanding and changing organizational and community systems. American Journal of Community Psychology, 39(3–4), 197–215. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-007-9109-0

15.

Frerichs

Hassmiller Lich

Young

T. L.

Dave

Stith

Corbie-Smith

(2018). Development of a systems science curriculum to engage rural African American teens in understanding and addressing childhood obesity prevention. Health Education and Behavior, 45(3), 423–434. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198117726570

16.

Frerichs

Lich

K. H.

Dave

Corbie-Smith

(2016). Integrating systems science and community-based participatory research to achieve health equity. American Journal of Public Health, 106(2), 215–222. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2015.302944

17.

Friel

Pescud

Malbon

Lee

Carter

Greenfield

Cobcroft

Potter

Rychetnik

Meertens

(2017). Using systems science to understand the determinants of inequities in healthy eating. PLOS ONE, 12(11), Article e0188872. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0188872

18.

Gerritsen

Harré

Rees

Renker-Darby

Bartos

A. E.

Waterlander

W. E.

Swinburn

(2020). Community group model building as a method for engaging participants and mobilising action in public health. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(10), Article 3457. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17103457

19.

Goodchild

(2021). Relational systems thinking: That’s how change is going to come, from our earth mother. Journal of Awareness-Based Systems Change, 1(1), 75–103. https://doi.org/10.47061/jabsc.v1i1.577

20.

Goodman

(1997). Systems thinking: What, why, when, where, and how?. Applied Systems Thinking, 8(2), 6–7.

21.

Haynes

Rychetnik

Finegood

Irving

Freebairn

Hawe

(2020). Applying systems thinking to knowledge mobilisation in public health. Health Research Policy and Systems, 18, Article 134. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-020-00600-1

22.

Heke

Rees

Swinburn

Waititi

R. T.

Stewart

(2019). Systems thinking and Indigenous systems: Native contributions to obesity prevention, 15(1), 22–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/1177180118806383

23.

Hernandez

Ruano

A. L.

Marchal

San Sebastian

Flores

Hernández

Ruano

A. L.

Marchal

San Sebastián

Flores

(2017). Engaging with complexity to improve the health of Indigenous people: A call for the use of systems thinking to tackle health inequity, 16(1), Article 26. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-017-0521-2

24.

Hikuroa

(2017). Mātauranga Māori—The ūkaipō of knowledge in New Zealand. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand, 47(1), 5–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/03036758.2016.1252407

25.

Hovmand

P. S.

(2014). Community based system dynamics. Springer.

26.

Jackson

(2020). Where to next? Decolonisation and the stories in the land. In Elkington

Jackson

Kiddle

Mercier

O. R.

Ross

Smeaton

Thomas

(Eds.), Imagining decolonisation (Vol. 2, pp. 133–155). Bridget Williams.

27.

Jenkins

Lowe

Allender

Bolton

K. A.

(2020). Process evaluation of a whole-of-community systems approach to address childhood obesity in Western Victoria, Australia. BMC Public Health, 20(1), Article 450. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-08576-x

28.

Kenealy

Rees

Sheridan

Moffitt

Tibby

Homer

(2012). A “whole of system” approach to compare options for CVD interventions in Counties Manukau. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 36(3), 263–268. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1753-6405.2011.00812.x

29.

Kimmerer

(2020). Braiding sweetgrass. Milkweed.

30.

Macfarlane

(2019). Listen to culture: Māori scholars’ plea to researchers. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand, 49(sup 1), 48–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/03036758.2019.1661855

31.

Macfarlane

Gillon

(2015). Sharing the food baskets of knowledge: Creating space for a blending of streams. In Macfarlane

Macfarlane

A. H.

Gillon

(Eds.), Sociocultural realities: Exploring new horizons (pp. 52–67). Canterbury University Press.

32.

Matheson

(2016). Reducing social inequalities in obesity: Complexity and power relationships. Journal of Public Health, 38(4), 826–829. https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdv197

33.

Matheson

Walton

Gray

Lindberg

Shanthakumar

Fyfe

Wehipeihana

Borman

(2018). Evaluating a community-based public health intervention using a complex systems approach. Journal of Public Health, 40(3), 606–613. https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdx117

34.

McGlashan

Hayward

Brown

Owen

Millar

Johnstone

Creighton

Allender

(2018). Comparing complex perspectives on obesity drivers: Action-driven communities and evidence-oriented experts. Obesity Science & Practice, 4(6), 575–581. https://doi.org/10.1002/osp4.306

35.

McKelvie-Sebileau

Rees

Swinburn

Gerritsen

D’Souza

Tipene-Leach

(2022). Combining cognitive mapping and Indigenous knowledge to improve food environments in regional New Zealand. Health Promotion Journal of Australia, 33, 631–641. https://doi.org/10.1002/hpja.549

36.

McKelvie-Sebileau

Rees

Tipene-Leach

D’Souza

Swinburn

Gerritsen

(2022). Community co-design of regional actions for children’s nutritional health combining Indigenous knowledge and systems thinking. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(9), Article 4936. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19094936

37.

Mead

S. M.

(2013). Tikanga Māori: Living by Māori values. Huia.

38.

Meadows

D. H.

(2008). Thinking in systems: A primer. Chelsea Green.

39.

Mercier

(2020). What is decolonisation?. In Elkington

Jackson

Kiddle

Mercier

O. R.

Ross

Smeaton

Thomas

(Eds.), Imagining decolonisation (pp. 40–82). Bridget Williams.

40.

Morais

L. M.de O.

Kuhlberg

Ballard

Indvik

Rocha

S. C.

Sales

D. M.

de Oliveira Cardoso

Gouveia

de Lima Friche

A. A.

Caiaffa

W. T.

(2021). Promoting knowledge to policy translation for urban health using community-based system dynamics in Brazil. Health Research Policy and Systems, 19(1), Article 53. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-020-00663-0

41.

Morgan

T. K. K.B

. (2004, July 7–9). A tangata whenua perspective on sustainability using the mauri model [Paper presentation]. International Conference on Sustainability Engineering and Science, Auckland, New Zealand.

42.

Oetzel

Rarere

Wihapi

Manuel

Tapsell

(2020). A case study of using the He Pikinga Waiora Implementation Framework: Challenges and successes in implementing a twelve-week lifestyle intervention to reduce weight in Maori men at risk of diabetes, cardiovascular disease and obesity. International Journal for Equity in Health, 19(1), Article 103. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-020-01222-3

43.

Oetzel

Scott

Hudson

Masters-Awatere

Rarere

Foote

Beaton

Ehau

(2017). Implementation framework for chronic disease intervention effectiveness in Māori and other Indigenous communities. Globalization and Health, 13(1), Article 69. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-017-0295-8

44.

Pihama

Cram

Walker

Leonie

Fiona

Sheila

(2002). Creating methodological space: A literature review of Kaupapa Maori research. Canadian Journal of Native Education, 26(1), 30–43.

45.

Reading

Wien

(2009). Health inequalities and social determinants of Aboriginal Peoples’ health. National Collaborating Centre for Aboriginal Health. https://www.ccnsa-nccah.ca/docs/determinants/RPT-HealthInequalities-Reading-Wien-EN.pdf

46.

Reid

Robson

(2007). Understanding health inequities. In Robson

Harris

(Eds.), Hauora IV: Maori Standards of Health. Study of the years 2000–2005. Te Rōpū Rangahau Hauora a Eru Pōmare. https://www.otago.ac.nz/wellington/departments/publichealth/research/erupomare/research/otago019494.html#details

47.

Reilly

Duncan

Leoni

Paterson

Carter

Rātima

Rewi

(Eds.). (2018). Te kōparapara: An introduction to the Māori world. Auckland University Press.

48.

Ribesse

Bossyns

Marchal

Karemere

Burman

C. J.

Macq

(2017). Methodological approach and tools for systems thinking in health systems research: Technical assistants’ support of health administration reform in the Democratic Republic of Congo as an application. Global Health Promotion, 24(1), 43–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/1757975915591684

49.

Royal

T. A. C.

(Ed.). (2003). The woven universe: Selected writings of Rev. Maori Marsden. The Estate of Rev. Māori Marsden.

50.

Royal

T. A. C.

(2009). Mātauranga Māori: An introduction. Monograph 1 of a series of monographs collectively entitled ‘Te Kaimānga: Towards a new Vision for Mātauranga Māori, MKTA 2009.

51.

Royal

T. A. C.

(2012). Politics and knowledge: Kaupapa Māori and mātauranga Māori. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5369700de4b045a4e0c24bbc/t/620f4d7d8c59e15f44bd2b21/1645170047064/Royal+2012+Politics+and+knowledge-+Kaupapa+Ma%CC%84ori+and+ma%CC%84tauranga+Ma%CC%84ori.pdf

52.

Rutter

Savona

Glonti

Bibby

Cummins

Finegood

D. T.

Greaves

Harper

Hawe

Moore

Petticrew

Rehfuess

Shiell

Thomas

White

(2017). The need for a complex systems model of evidence for public health. The Lancet, 390(10112), 2602–2604.

53.

Salmond

(2012). Back to the future: First encounters in Te Tai Rawhiti. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand, 42(2), 69–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/03036758.2012.675576

54.

Senge

(2006). The Fifth Discipline: The art and practice of the learning organisation (2nd ed.). Doubleday/Currency.

55.

Smith

(2003, November 29-December 3). Kaupapa Maori theory: Theorizing Indigenous transformation of education & schooling [Paper presentation]. NZARE/AARE Joint Conference, Kaupapa Māori Symposium, Auckland.

56.

Smith

G. H.

(2017). Kaupapa Māori theory: Indigenous transforming of education. In Hoskins

T. K.

Jones

(Eds.), Critical conversations in Kaupapa Māori (pp. 70–81). Huia.

57.

Smith

L. T.

(2017). Towards developing Indigenous methodologies: Kaupapa Māori research. In Hoskins

T. K.

Jones

(Eds.), Critical conversations in Kaupapa Māori (pp. 11–27). Huia.

58.

Smith

L. T.

(2021a). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and Indigenous peoples (3rd ed.). Zed.

59.

Smith

L. T.

(2021b, May). Rangahaua te Pō-uriuri: Unlocking the potential of rangahau Māori. EIT Research Forum, Eastern Institute of Technology.

60.

Sterling

(2003). Whole systems thinking as a basis for paradigm change in education: Explorations in the context of sustainability. www.bath.ac.uk/cree/sterling/sterlingthesis.pdf

61.

Stewart

G. T.

(2022). Mātauranga Māori: A philosophy from Aotearoa. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand, 52(1), 18–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/03036758.2020.1779757

62.

Taurima

Cash

(2000, December 1–2). Te Wananga: Developing a bicultural model using critical systems [Paper presentation]. The 35th Annual Conference of the Operational Research Society of New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand. http://orsnz.org.nz/conf35/papers/TaurimaCash.pdf

63.

Tipene-Leach

McKelvie-Sebileau

(2021). The impact of the COVID-19 level 4 lockdown on food security among whānau of decile 1 schools. MAI Journal, 4(9), 30–33.

64.

Trochim

W. M.

Cabrera

D. A.

Milstein

Gallagher

R. S.

Leischow

S. J.

(2006). Practical challenges of systems thinking and modeling in public health. American Journal of Public Health, 96(3), 538–546. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2005.066001

65.

Walter

Anderson

(2013). Indigenous statistics: A quantitative research methodology. Left Coast. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/auckland/reader.action?ppg=42&amp

66.

Yunkaporta

(2019). Sand talk: How Indigenous thinking can save the world. Text.

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

0.13 MB