Utilizing Pacific Methodologies as Inclusive Practice

Introduction

When one thinks of embarking on research of a Pacific nature, it is not until existing Pacific methodologies are known that one ponders on the type of methodology that would best suit one’s research practice. For the purpose of exploring two Pacific methodologies, I examine these approaches through my enquiry statement “E sui faiga ae tumau fa’avae”—Our practices may change, but the values and foundations of the cultural traditions remain. I use Fonofale and Teu Le Va methodologies to not only highlight their paradigms but also make links to how both could be used as a research strategy to explore this enquiry statement. My answer to the statement will be in three parts. First, I will outline the central components of a Pacific research strategy, drawing on the elements of the Pacific worldview as outlined in various studies (Anae, 2005; Fairbairn-Dunlop, Boon-Nanai, & Ahio, 2014; Mila-Schaaf, 2006). Next, I will critique the Pacific research methods—Fonofale (Fairbairn-Dunlop et al., 2014) and Teu le Va (Anae, 2005; Anae & Mila-Schaaf, 2010)—emphasizing how these methods illustrate and incorporate the Pacific worldview. An exploration of where my enquiry statement fits within these paradigms will form the basis of my critique. Furthermore, a comparative outline alongside the Western methodology of qualitative approaches will be explored as a critique outlining how both Pacific methodologies fare alongside a mainstream methodology. Transparency is therefore crucial to informing potential stakeholders as well as gauging suport for research topics to be explored in a collaborative manner.

Pacific Worldview

Penn (2010) referred to Pacific or Pasifika people in her study as the six predominant Pacific Island groups residing in New Zealand which include Samoa, Tonga, Cook Islands, Fiji, Niue, and Tokelau. In different contexts (whether educational or other disciplines), the terms are used accordingly to suit the way in which researchers design methodologies or utilize it according to how participants self-identify (Fairbairn-Dunlop, 2014). However, I acknowledge the term Pasifika or Pacific as outlined in Burnett’s (2012) research whereby,

“Pacific” signifies research relating directly to the Pacific region, while “Pasifika” refers to the educational experiences of Pacific peoples residing in New Zealand. (p. 488)

The Pacific worldview is holistic whereby there are links and relationships between nature, people, nonliving, and living things (Tamasese Ta’isi, 2007, as cited in Fairbairn-Dunlop et al., 2014). From an ontological perspective, it highlights the worldview of Pacific people, their interpretation of themselves in relation to others. For harmonious relations to exist, Pacific communities have had a myriad of time-honoured practices in place. The Pacific worldviews encompass epistemological and axiological perspectives outlining as well as honoring knowledge from all stakeholders (participants, researchers, paradigms) and what is of value (cultural competency, empowerment, maintenance of familial connections) to name a few. These include, but are not limited to, integrating aspects of “Pacific culture and history” such as reverence to God (sacred relationship), connections to the fanua (land) via customary tenure, and maintaining “communal rather than individual responsibilities” (Fairbairn-Dunlop et al., 2014, pp. 82-83). Many families and individuals (within Pacific communities) view the importance of incorporating spiritual, social, physical, economic, and cultural-matai (chiefly) systemic values as the sum of integrated values where one cannot exist without the other. Within these communities are structured domains that outline gendered roles and expectations, behaviors that people are encouraged to adhere to for the general good of the family or “family security” (Fairbairn-Dunlop et al., 2014, p. 83).

In a different context, Fairbairn-Dunlop (2014) reiterated the importance for educators in seeing Pacific knowledge as valid and valued, so much so as to utilize this knowledge in allowing young people to connect to other “social and educational spaces” (p. 875). I would extend this further to include the importance for researchers in seeing Pacific knowledge as valid in and of itself, using Pacific knowledge to influence research methodology design to maximize positive outcomes. Over the last few years, Pacific academics have strived to produce valid Pacific methodologies, not only with imbedded cultural values and with beliefs in mind but also creating designs co-authored with Pacific people to further Pacific causes within their own communities. There has been an increasing shift away from the Eurocentric ways of conducting research to a more Pacific-centered research methodology (Naepi, 2015). As such, a myriad of strategies have been designed and implemented which include

. . . talanoa (Farrelly & Nabobo-Baba, 2014; Otunuku, 2011; Prescott, 2008; Suaalii-Sauni & Fulu-Aiolupotea, 2014; Vaioleti, 2006), Ula (Sauni, 2011), faafaletui (Suaalii-Sauni & Fulu-Aiolupotea, 2014), and the vanua framework (Nabobo-Baba, 2011). (Naepi, 2015, p. 78)

Each framework highlights the importance of seeing research through the eyes of those who are recruited for research, as well as ensuring that specific Pacific worldviews are not ignored but upheld during formulation of a research design. In contrast to the Western value of the individual aiming to achieve maximum gains for themselves, the Pacific worldview works toward achieving what is best for the collective (Tu’itahi, 2007). Moreover, part of acknowledging a Pacific worldview is ensuring research practices are culturally appropriate to the community group one decides to engage with (Vaioleti, 2006).

Communication with stakeholders commences with discussions or to talanoa, whereby initial meetings between researcher(s) and potential participants from Pacific communities are forged to develop understandings and expectations from a Pacific worldview. Vaioleti (2006) highlighted the importance of discussion with participants during the research process utilizing talanoa methodology, not only to hear experiences and values from a Pacific perspective but also to develop positive rapport with participants.

The emphasis on the relationship is common within Samoan, Tongan, and Fijian cultures where the social constructs of decision making and knowledge construction are understood. . . . The conversation can be “context specific and can serve different purposes” (Chu et al. 2013: 3). The researchers and participants, being Pasifika, are free to display cultural expressions, nuances, or use words in their own vernacular to express opinions, behaviours, or attitudes while upholding the values and beliefs that empower people. In this context, the researchers and the participants converse in a comfortable fashion with malie (humour), mafana (warm) and so build relationship, while engaging in truthful and authentic dialogues (Farrelly and Nabobo-Baba 2014; Vaioleti 2006). Authenticity in this approach invites not only being heard but is about having the right to be present and grow in cultural spaces. (Nanai, Ponton, Haxell, & Rasheed, 2017, p. 6)

The talanoa process of inquiry allows for researchers to work with participants enabling their voice/opinions to be foremost in the study. Within this process of communication, protocols established are also important when building relationships with Pacific participants. Researchers are to be aware of the importance of the provision of interpreters if there are language barriers, as well as knowing in community-based participatory research (CBPR); following cultural protocols that encompass the values and beliefs of the Pacific communities they wish to work with, is invaluable to gauge support for one’s research. Utilizing gatherings, discussions, and meetings to share food or have meals together with Pacific communities is also empowering in building and maintaining positive relationships.

Pacific Methodology 1: Teu Le Va

The phrase “Teu le Va” when referring to the practices of Samoan values and beliefs is often in alignment with ensuring that in any context, respectful and polite communication is adhered to by all. For example, when at an event whereby people of higher ranking or status are present, it is deemed respectful to ensure they are treated in accordance to their nobility. The same can be said of the respectful relationship between a brother and sister or, in a nonfamilial context, males and females.

Traditionally, when males and females come together, a relationship of respect or va tapuia presides, especially among those considered “brothers and sisters.” This relationship has sacred and tapu dimensions. The risk of breaching these dimensions is considered high in an environment where sexually connotative jesting is considered a norm. (Meleisea, Schoeffel-Meleisea, & Meleisea, 2012, p. 39)

Anae’s (2005) “Teu Le Va” paradigm recognizes the special connections people have within Samoan (and Pacific) communities, whereby certain principles are adhered to in order to maintain genuine, respectful methods of communication. It is not limited to familial ties, but encourages researchers and stakeholders wanting to work with Pacific people to engage in understanding the realm with which Pacific people are familiar with. Rather than focusing on the old adage of the deficit model whereby focus would be on what was not working for researchers, Anae (2005) implemented a Samoan model taking into account invaluable concepts.

The philosophical reference point is the Samoan concept/tenet/practice of “teu le va”—to value, cherish, nurture and take care of the va, the relationship. This provides an essential and significant contribution to research praxis in highlighting the need for both parties in a relationship to value, nurture and, if necessary, “tidy up” the physical, spiritual, cultural, social, psychological and tapu “spaces” of human relationships . . . (Anae, 2010, p. 2)

What is evident in this methodology is the importance placed on respecting the worldviews Pacific people upheld, and continuing this by the provision and creation of strategies that empowered them.

Being aware of the connections between people from a Samoan context plays an important role in understanding how one should behave or approach others. For example, the three concepts mentioned in Anae’s (2010) study outline specific relational connections and nuances with how va (space/relations) are defined. There is also

the va fealoa’i (spaces between relational arrangements), va tapuia, (sacred spaces of relational arrangements) and teu le va (to value, nurture, look after, and if necessary to tidy up the va) . . . which traces Samoan understandings of va/teu le va (Anae, 2005). (Anae, 2010, p. 12)

This similarly extends to the way in which va applies to sisters and brothers, males and females, mothers and fathers, and children and so on. Knowing these differences is important when being prepared to address someone from the Pacific community (Samoan in this instance), according to their gender, status, and relationship to others. For instance, there is a va tapuia between brothers and sisters whereby sacred spaces are made known of where it is clear what a brother’s domain is compared to the realm his sister would occupy. The same could be said of the roles both host and guest play at specific social events.

Strengths taken from this Pacific methodology take into consideration the values and beliefs required by all stakeholders, to formulate research design and practices that empower change for Pacific communities. It is not just a call to design research “for Pacific peoples and for the advancement of Pacific issues” (Anae 2010, p. 16), but an expectation that proposals for change would be actioned in the form of policies for positive change, enabling access to funding, grants, improved outcomes, and moral support toward adopting teu le va methodologies. In addition, provision of strategies of choice where researchers are culturally competent to implement appropriate approaches to suit participants are required (Anae, 2010; Mila-Schaaf, 2006). Not all research designs suit every community group or individual that is part of the research. Hence, empowering the participants to offer alternative measures is expected. Teu Le Va paradigm works also as a pan Pacific approach when applied cross-culturally with other communities and across disciplines, not just in this instance, a health or educational context.

Pacific Methodology 2: Fonofale

The following model emphasizes the point that “for the house to stand firm, its core structure must exist and hold together—from the foundation to the posts and roof” (Suaalii-Sauni et al., 2009, p. 27). There are elements that co-exist to work in assisting Pacific people or designing research, when the sum of these are utilized and incorporated to maximize outcomes. That is, to understand the context when working with Samoan or Pacific people, one needs to realize that the connections between family, physical, spiritual, and mental well-being are intertwined with cultural influences. Pulotu-Endemann (2009) utilized the traditional Samoan fale (house) as symbolic of cultural values underlying Pacific values, beliefs, and their worldviews. For each post, a holistic approach to what encompassed the lives of Pacific people was identified. This included describing the space/tulaga fale (where the house was built), fanua (land), and fa’avae (foundation) as representative of family, physical, spiritual, mental, other (facets that widened an understanding of the person) from a holistic perspective. It is a model that is more familiar in use as improving communication and outcomes related to health and well-being as illustrated in the Pacific Models of Mental Health Service Delivery in New Zealand (“PMMHSD”) Project (Agnew et al., 2004). Moreover, the metaphors are representative of values that bind families and their practices together.

The four Pou or posts that hold up the roof connect culture and family. They are continuous and interactive with each other. They represent spiritual wellbeing, physical wellbeing, the health of the mind and other elements that can affect health including gender, sexuality, age and economic status (Pulotu-Endemann, 2001). (Agnew et al., 2004).

Although this model is widely used in the domain of health (mental health), there is scope for the principles to be adopted in other research studies. In identifying how to connect with Pacific communities as researchers, the fonofale model encourages an understanding of protocols to implement. While through a Western model it may be common practice to gauge responses without issues, it is not so easily accessible in the private sphere of family connections and being on the receiving end of “safe practices” (Agnew et al., 2004, p. 26). For example, as the fonofale model consists of the structure of the fale symbolizing avenues of support from a Samoan perspective, these meanings also relate to how research design includes similar concepts of practice to be mindful of when recruiting, gathering data, and measuring outcomes.

Through the Lens of Pacific Research Application

“E sui faiga ae tumau fa’avae”—Our practices may change, but the values and foundations remain.

Teu Le Va Approach

In applying the Teu Le Va methodology through the lens of the enquiry statement introduced, many, if not all, concepts can be used to design a culturally appropriate research approach. The most prevalent with this enquiry is beginning with the process of engaging with people at first (knowing who to liaise with, their ranking), so knowing the va between leaders, the community in general, and then specifically with individuals is key. To apply any Pacific methodology to a research, it is important to include potential participants in the research design (Tu’itahi, 2007). This aligns with the Teu le Va approach of building respect and reciprocity within a study or with stakeholders involved, so there are positive outcomes for all. In the health sector, for example, to apply this approach with patients or in planning a strategy for health improvement, a number of factors need to be considered. That is, there is a holistic element to the way in which people live and operate with respect to their communication and actions; it is not for individual gain, but incorporates how it will affect the collective-extended family members (Fairbairn-Dunlop et al., 2014). This paradigm is more to do with how one relates to others and maintains positive rapport while being respectful of cultural protocols of communication (Anae, 2005). Application of the enquiry statement stated can be used in any health care setting or context that is nonhealth related. It is a Samoan proverb encouraging the outlook of adopting fair values when planning actions to be implemented. What is central is the ease of utilizing pacific frameworks.

The questions proposed would be dependent also on what responses would be from possible participants of what they would gauge as important in this study. Hence, though the topic is subjective in some instances from a researcher’s perspective, participants would be co-authors in the research design (questions for surveys and how interaction is conducted). These include but are not limited to the following:

It is imperative that “research assumptions, concepts, language and terms used must be critically examined for their meaning to Pacific peoples. Otherwise, it is questionable whether researchers and participants are talking about the same thing (Fairbairn-Dunlop, 2011)” (Wright-St. Clair, Reid, Shaw, & Ramsbotham, 2014, p. 80). As a Pacific researcher, I acknowledge my position as someone who would have access to knowledge of cultural protocols that enable confident communication both in the Samoan and English languages. How a researcher positions themselves in declaring their preconceived beliefs and expectations influences how a research is designed and implemented, and the way data are collated (what is included or excluded). For instance, as a female Samoan researcher, my status observed by and within the Samoan community influences the way I approach leaders, groups, or individuals in that realm. The specific leaders and the type of organization they belong to (religious or educational) will also determine my approach to use according to the “va (space) and va tapuia (sacred spaces of relational arrangements) or teu le va (to value, to nurture or tidy up the va)” (Anae, 2010). Hence, the way in which relationships or connections are made with Pacific people is crucial to build a trusting and lasting rapport.

Researchers interested in utilizing Pacific methodologies for improved outcomes are encouraged of the importance to including participants in the design process. This is an expectation so they as participants are empowered and provide guidance not only regarding what knowledge is shared but also, importantly, how it is shared. Utilizing Teu Le Va strategies enables improved respectful and meaningful actions to be evident because a Pacific view point is used as a guide. One needs to be aware of matai (chief) protocols as well as identifying who is who within the Samoan communities, so a representative of that community can assist with knowing who to approach, at what time, and how so as not to appear disrespectful. It is these concepts that are worth exploring in a more detailed study.

Fonofale Approach

Arising from a personal interest in searching for meaningful research methodologies, the fonofale model provided incorporation of values and beliefs that are transferrable to caring for others and planning health programs (irrespective of a context). The various pou, thatched roof, foundation of the traditional Samoan fale (house) are indicative of strength examples of values embedded in Samoan culture. Fa’aSamoa (the Samoan way) involves a holistic approach, in which school learning, family life, and religious attendance are intertwined and valued by individuals.

Recognition of a collective approach to life is imperative in understanding the cultural dynamics of Pacific people one liaises with as a researcher. Decisions regarding health improvement for individuals is explained in this model as a decision made with the collective (the extended family), as it is the extended family who take responsibility in the care of individuals.

For research, this means not looking solely at the medical condition (the physical manifestation) but taking account of the impact of other factors (such as socio-economic, cultural and spiritual beliefs and aspirations) on the health issue, by applying the holistic Pacific world view. (Wright-St. Clair et al., 2014, pp. 84-85)

Incorporating this aspect in strength-based approaches is comparative to the spiritual, cultural, mental, and physical aspects mentioned in Fonofale (Figure 1). Hence, cultural understanding can be explored using this Pacific methodology. To further develop any research planned, I made sure that in accordance with CBPR principles, research happened “in the community and for the benefit of the community . . .” (Mitchell, 2018, p. 4). Core principles for CBPR highlight the importance that

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Fonofale Model (Pulotu-Endemann, 2009).

(1) Recognize the community as a unit of identity, (2) build on the strengths and resources of the community, (3) facilitate collaborative partnerships in all phases of the research, (4) integrate knowledge and action for the mutual benefit of all partners, (5) promote colearning and empowering processes that address social inequities, (6) involve cyclical and iterative processes, (7) address health from both positive and ecological perspectives, (8) disseminate findings and knowledge gained to all partners, and (9) balance research with action (Israel et al., 1998, 2005; Wallerstein & Duran, 2006). (Mitchell, 2018, p. 4)

An example of this was used in my doctoral research, whereby appropriate cultural protocols were gauged from family members and church leaders, who, in turn, relayed the importance of my proposed research to parents (as participants enrolled in high schools were recruited from the Samoan community). In deciding how research data would be collected, the importance of ensuring the Samoan participants were involved in the design of the research process was central in my planning, with discussions and interviews used to determine participant goals and preferences. This was crucial to the authenticity of the responses received by the researcher, while the recruitment of an interpreter proved key to the success of this study. Allowing participants to use their first language in response to questions ensured that they felt comfortable and at ease, as did the choice of environment that was safe and familiar to them: Participants were approached at a church gathering where a majority of Samoan people congregated each week. A respectable leader in the community was

. . .an acceptable broker. He was held in very high esteem, had lived in Samoa for many years and spoke Samoan fluently. He agreed to act in the role, saying that the Samoan people were anxious for the children to do well educationally and would be interested in anything that would help them. At a formal meeting conducted entirely in Samoan, he raised the idea of my research with the community’s leader and it was agreed that at their next meeting I would speak to my proposal. (Cahill, 2006, p. 61)

This was one of the strengths of this research in gathering data. In terms of finding out where to recruit potential Pacific participants, meeting with church or Pacific community leaders to liaise on a researcher’s behalf (or for anyone unfamiliar with cultural protocols) is crucial in securing access and support for research undertaken with Pacific people. The theme of my investigation required secondary student participants of Samoan background, so I approached a church minister to seek guidance and permission to approach families in his church community. Spiritual guidance and participation in church community events on a weekly basis is important to most Pacific (Samoan) people; hence, seeking affirmation and support from church leaders enhances access to potential participants, as well as an opportunity for researchers to gain invaluable cultural knowledge and practices from the community. Although it is not the only way to gauge support for one’s research, it is a means to reach a majority of people or leaders to make recommendations of who would best be of assistance in a study.

In consideration of the need for ethically appropriate interaction when communicating with minority communities, it was apparent that the research would not be possible without insider knowledge, or without affirming the methods of other indigenous researchers, to avoid causing offense. Strategies employed in recruiting participants ensured that methods used as the practitioner-researcher were in accordance with the university’s ethics expectations. Culturally appropriate strategies were utilized when working with people in the Samoan community.

In response to and in recognition of the need for educational institutions to cater to the learning needs of Pasifika students (including Samoan), the New Zealand Ministry of Education implemented the Pasifika Education Plan 2013-2017 (Ministry of Education New Zealand, 2012). The goals of the PEP (2013-2017) are to ensure all Pasifika students not only have equitable access to the tertiary programs available but also to remove any barriers preventing such access. There are government incentives issued to Education Partner Agencies to ensure their services enable students and their families to receive guidance in navigating through bureaucratic processes. The goals and initiatives of PEP include the following:

The Ministry of Education and Education Partner Agencies, in particular the Tertiary Education Commission, will

What is also crucial is that if researchers are not willing to collaborate and build positive relationships with Pacific communities for Pacific research purposes, then research should not be undertaken at all.

Contrasting Pacific Methodologies to a Western Methodology: Qualitative Insights

When assessing how Pacific methodologies mentioned align with mainstream Western methodologies, the transformative research and narrative research theories provide similar concepts with the way experiences of the participants are shared. This approach ensures that all correspondence and activities undertaken with individuals, in this instance, for the purpose of this article, Pasifika people, are respectful and demonstrates that cultural values are considered in the plan and design of the research. Often, this can be done by including Pasifika people in designing the questionnaire (Creswell, 2014). Transformative research includes the voice of those being investigated (participants) in the research being empowered to have a voice; at times they come from marginalized groups. Narrative research involves studying the lives of individuals where links are made by the researcher who then formulates a narrative. As cited in Creswell (2014, p. 14),

. . . the narrative combines views from the participant’s life with those of the researcher’s life in a collaborative narrative (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000).

Enquiry statements designed by the researcher are subjective in a way in which the topic is something of value to them, so much so that there may be possible links or experiences the researcher is exploring to build their research upon.

In a Western mainstream approach, the usual route to design a research that includes a statement to be investigated includes a structure that outlines an issue to be explored, questions, literature review, design study, collection of data, analysis, and dissemination of outcomes. What makes the Pacific paradigms different to the mainstream approach is the acknowledgment of cultural norms that influence appropriate protocols when working with or for Pacific communities. Although there are concepts available in mainstream methodologies that tell the story of participants, the methods selected are not always in the best interest of the individuals or group selected to be part of the research itself. While there are various frameworks like Postpositivist (seek to know), Interpretivism (seek to understand), Emancipationism (seeks to change), and Deconstructivism (seeks to critique) available for researchers to utilize, it does not include the intricacies for deeper, meaningful relationships to be formed as does the Pacific methodologies reviewed (Creswell, 2014).

Conclusion

What has been presented thus far are the similarities between the Pacific methodologies Fonofale and Teu Le Va despite their frameworks initially being designed for different research fields: one being for health and, the latter, education. What has been explored is the importance of adopting a Pacific worldview as researchers when in the process of designing one’s research methodology as well as intended pathway of communication with Pacific people. Part of this includes incorporating the talanoa methodology to communicate effectively in CBPR, utilizing Pacific protocols which values using strength-based strategies during research implementation. To gauge support and willingness to take part in important research for Pacific people, the literature revealed the growing number of Pacific academics working toward models of engagement and empowerment for positive change. It is not limited to those of Pacific ancestry but is widely encouraged for those with Pacific interests in mind. The two Pacific methodologies were explored through the lens of an enquiry statement to test the adequacy of specific concepts and actions to that area of proposed study. Both models are suitable for conducting research. While the Western mainstream of research has been discussed, using the deeper and more meaningful Pacific worldview is preferred.