Bioensayos con dos depredadores de D citri.

In the example discussed in this paper interface took place, not in terms of straddling the divide between science and Māori (Durie, 2002), but in providing a bridge for Māori input into the Values Survey. This contrasts with a by Māori for Māori agenda where the role of Māori researchers is more likely to cross boundaries in a more holistic approach to the development of knowledge. Although the scope of our work was relatively limited, we were not left feeling that we were window dressing. Māori were

field. The work that we undertook was what we had agreed to at the outset and we were largely able to keep to a realistic work load. Discussions and debates with the Values team were constructive and we felt that our input was valued and that we were able to make a contribution to the survey. The team was able to operate within an “ethical space” (Ermine, 2008; Hudson & Mila-Schaaf, 2008) where negotiation and consensus decision making were features.

The importance of having a sense of who you are as a researcher, both from the point of view of self reflection and from others knowing the researcher and their affiliations was apparent. The existing relationship with the Values team and with those we worked with in the discussion phase meant that we were able to carry out our work with a level of trust and understanding already in place. This significantly eased the way.

The nature of relationships was one of the first areas we considered when making our decisions about consultation and engagement. As a contribution to the meta questions (Cram, 1995; Smith, 1992) that might help to guide Māori when making decisions about consultation and engagement, and the question who are you (Hepi et al., 2007) we suggest that decision making might also be based on:

• The potential and scope for Māori to make a positive contribution to the research that meets, at least, Māori aspirations?

• The extent to which expectations and responsibilities are realistic and

achievable.

• How Māori input is valued; is it respected and appropriately acknowledged; how will we know?

• Is it a learning opportunity?

• The nature of any involvement or employment; is it safe and supported?

• To what extent and with what impacts will involvement in this research take

resources away from other activities?

• How will the researchers be accountable to Māori?

Despite our concerns about the climate at the time of data collection, the majority of respondents assigned the Treaty an important or very important status and almost half were either in favour or strongly in favour of compensating for or returning land, fisheries and other resources to Māori where injustices had occurred. Around half felt that public funding levels for Māori language, marae and other activities should remain the same. We speculated that, if the findings were this positive in this environment, then it would be interesting to see if the findings would be any different when the Treaty and Māori in general were not under attack.

In 2004, State Services Minister Trevor Mallard (2004) described concerns over public access to reliable and understandable information on the Treaty when he launched a website as part of the Treaty of Waitangi Information Programme. The low levels of knowledge of the Treaty reported by our respondents reinforce these concerns. Greater knowledge of the Treaty was associated with more positive responses in terms of supporting the Treaty, public funding for the specified activities and redress. It may be that people took the time and had a greater interest in the Treaty if they held these values, it may also be that the more people learned about the Treaty, the more likely they were to understand and support particular positions; most likely it is some combination of these.

In light of these findings, we concluded that the assumptions made about public opinion in relation to the Treaty and redress need to be questioned. Participant responses were consistent with the Treaty as a founding document. We believe the questioning of the Treaty is a significant public issue, requiring open acknowledgement and informed debate. Findings on the public importance of the Treaty also support the call for considered and open examination of our constitutional arrangements and the Treaty’s role (Bargh, 2006).

This was a somewhat extreme research situation, given the environment and its relationship to the survey items. However, it does illustrate, more generally the concerns that we have as Māori researchers entering into relationships based on non-

Māori kaupapa. This paper has presented an opportunity to describe some of the

accountabilities and responsibilities we negotiate as well as the importance of working with a wider team where trust and good communication are key features. It has also provided an opportunity to present a small, but significant set of findings. The challenge of contributing to informed and constructive debate and processes continues.

Link five

The previous chapters move from conceptualising Māori knowledge, science and

research to an examination of how different worldviews and dominant paradigms impact on ethical processes and research relationships in the social sciences.

I was excited by the responses that I had received from presentations and discussions and became increasingly interested in exploring the implications of these conceptualisations and how others were grappling with them on a practical level. At the same time my research work was progressing more and more into relationships between Māori health and environmental health. Natural allies: a Māori take on ecohealth illustrates the divisions in worldviews that I discussed in previous chapters and demonstrates ways forward, through equitable relationships and through initiatives steeped in Māori paradigms.

Environments and health is an area of critical importance to Māori knowledge systems and values and is emerging on the international agenda as an area where indigenous peoples have much to contribute. This chapter develops the considerations discussed in

the earlier chapters; that is, the nature of Māori knowledge and science, power

imbalances and the development of respectful and equitable relationships. It outlines

some Māori knowledge resources and approaches and provides examples of Māori

leading by example to bring about positive changes. The chapter demonstrates the bringing together of many strands, moving away from narrow notions of science and knowledge and breaking down boundaries of researchers versus research users.

In a sense, this final chapter is an awakening and a way forward. It draws on research

and other life experience, and takes inspiration from other Māori and indigenous

scientists (all chapters draw on these, but this chapter more specifically).

The paper was written in 2007 and early 2008, initially to be presented at the EcoHealth Conference in Melbourne, November 2007. After further development of the themes presented, the paper was submitted in May 2008 to the EcoHealth journal for indigenous and non-indigenous audiences in ecohealth and related fields

C h a p t e r 6