La comunicación no verbal y la interpretación en terrorismo internacional

Appropriate Methodology

The identification of an appropriate methodology to inform the research design and meet the needs of the research question posed was an important part in the preparation for this research. It was also important to select a methodology that would result in a process that (a) respects the cultural values, beliefs and practices of Māori women; (b) acknowledges that the worldviews of Māori women may differ from the worldviews that inform ‘mainstream’ research methodologies, and thus influence the way in which the data is analysed; and (c) acknowledges the historical and contemporary influences on, and experiences of, Māori with research, and the potential impact that this research may have. Within the context of these issues I felt that it was important to select an appropriate methodology that would both protect the interests of Māori women and also meet the needs of the research aims and questions.

This chapter provides the background and rationale for a Māori centred approach to inform grounded theory, explained in the following chapter. To begin, the historical and contemporary experiences of Māori and research are discussed, contextualising the need for an approach that is beneficial to Māori women. The legitimacy of mātauranga Māori as a knowledge base within the context of contemporary ‘mainstream’ research will be explored, and the effects of colonisation, capitalism and technology are considered. This is followed by a brief critique of the applicability of other methodologies for this research, such as feminism. The chapter culminates with an analysis of the emergence of ‘Māori’ methodologies that provide the foundation for the development of grounded theory informed by a Māori centred approach.

Research and Māori

In the past Māori have experienced negative research experiences and outcomes, which has resulted in mistrust and cynicism by many Māori toward research (Sporle, 2003). The unethical, insensitive and inappropriate behaviours of some researchers, according to Sporle (2003) has ‘poisoned’ the ground. Inappropriate research processes and their consequent outcomes contribute to the social marginalisation of Māori by perpetuating the social pathology and functional inadequacies of Māori, and offering ‘cultural’ deprivation as an explanation for any ‘gap’ between Māori and non-Māori statistics (Bishop, 1994). The reinforcement of negative stereotypes and deficit explanations has overlooked the strengths and positive aspects that many Māori individuals and groups possess. Those past research experiences have been anything but beneficial or positive. The emergence of Māori methodologies, such as kaupapa Māori and Māori centred approaches, redresses the legacy of ‘mainstream’ research methodologies that have threaten the cultural and social integrity of Māori. Although multiple research methodologies have their place (Durie, 1998b), it is important that the cultural foundations of Māori are an integral and valued part of the entire research process no matter what research methodology is selected.

Achieving relevance for everyone is a point of tension when mass data is being collected from a number of diverse sources. While some research outcomes have resulted in gains for Māori (for example, increased health funding), historically Māori and their knowledge have been both devalued and demeaned within the dominant research culture. An example of this would be the tendency to use dominant cultural indicators to measure Māori, with little or no recognition that their cultural beliefs and practices may alter the outcomes. Māori have also been ‘over- researched’ and generally received little in return according to Durie (1996). However, Broughton and Lawrence (1993) refutes this claim as there is insufficient information and research about Māori in order to successfully plan strategies to effect changes in health status. Māori have rightly questioned the benefits of being involved in research activities. In fact Glover (1997) maintains that research has not only perpetuated myths about Māori, but also has problematised and pathologised 61

Māori. Dissatisfaction by Māori with dominant research methodologies, inappropriate researcher behaviour, a lack of control throughout the research processes, and the manner in which findings are interpreted, have all contributed to the resurgence of mātaurangaMāori and the emergence of methodologies, such as kaupapa Māori (Glover, 1997). Durie (1996), Smith (1996) and Walker (1997) all stress the value of Māori engaging in research activities. These developments attempt to address issues Māori have with research, and aim to ensure that research processes are relevant, appropriate, and acceptable.

It could be argued that the historical experiences of Māori with research are not entirely methodologically driven and amount to the dubious ethical practices and/or a lack of cultural insight of those undertaking the research (Bishop, 1996; Bishop & Glynn, 1992; Glover, 1997; 1999; Walker, 1979). The undertaking of research that benefits the researcher with little or no involvement of Māori in its planning, is a recipe for disharmony. This is compounded when detached objectivity is demanded by some research methodologies, which require impartiality with Māori people and communities. Such approaches can be at variance with the cultural processes and practices that Māori feel comfortable with. The interpretation of research findings through a dominant cultural lens involves not only methodological issues, but also processes that threaten the cultural integrity and mana of those Māori involved, and at times Māori, in general (Bishop, 1996; Bishop & Glynn, 1992; Glover, 1997; Irwin, 1994; Smith, 1999).

Walker’s (1998) critique of science, and Bishop’s (1994) critique of methodologies thought to be ‘Māori-friendly’ (for example, critical theory) both raise questions regarding the control, initiation, design, participation, researcher(s), findings and benefits of research. Irwin (1994), Smith (1996) and Te Momo (2003) maintain any research with Māori should be informed and underpinned by Māori tikanga and kawa, and be culturally appropriate and acceptable to both the research participants and the wider Māori community. These views aim to reposition Māori knowledge and processes as credible within the research community and set up an ideal for the planning and implementation of research endeavours. Such an ideal places demands on Māori to be involved with a limited number of researchers who possess the necessary research knowledge and skills. It also overlooks Māori who do

successfully use ‘mainstream’ methods to research about Māori and Māori phenomena.

The involvement of Māori within the research process endeavours to meet the needs and aspirations of Māori, and preserves the integrity of their beliefs and practices. This cannot be guaranteed, however, as there is limited research knowledge and skills amongst some Māori communities. Key Māori are often already burdened with multiple demands on their knowledge and expertise of ‘things’ Māori, which can create tensions for both Māori and those undertaking research with Māori. The need to contest for resources within the dominant research culture also creates a barrier. However, the identification of these barriers by Māori and the Health Research Council (HRC) (1998) have contributed to the formation of collaborative alliances, and changes in policy and funding to enable Māori to develop research expertise.

Having an appropriate methodology to guide this research was vital to produce outcomes that would benefit Māori women. Central to an appropriate methodology is respecting and valuing the cultural integrity of Māori women. In recognition of the mistrust that many Māori may have of ‘academics’ and research, the development of a methodology that varies from ‘mainstream’ research approaches, and that maintains rigour and trustworthiness, was important for building the necessary trust with the Māori women participating.

The Legitimacy of Mātauranga Māori

The knowledge embedded within Māori culture is inextricably woven with ‘being’ in the world. The predominately ontological basis of mātauranga Māori is deeply situated within a wholistic and humanitarian paradigm that is transmitted from generation to generation via whakapapa (Bishop, 1994), and is evident in the interrelationships of whanaungatanga (Pere, 1991). A well-known whakatauki emphasises the importance of this humanistic approach to the world:

He aha te mea nui, o te ao? Maki e ki atu

He tangata, he tangata, he tangata.

What is the most important things in the world? It is people, it is people, it is people

The approach Māori have regarding knowledge and its transmission starkly contrasts the differences between mātauranga Māori and some dominant ‘western’ research approaches. Because oral traditions, as legitimate ways of knowing, are difficult to consistently quantify and observe, they invariably come under scrutiny. Some of the scientific approaches to knowledge development, such as the positivist paradigm, do not appear to grapple with ‘other’ ways of knowing well and as such relegate them to the position of ‘other’ (Smith, 1999). As this research focuses on Māori women, this section explores mātauranga Māori and the effects colonisation, capitalism, and technology has had on its legitimacy and on Māori women.

Mātauranga Māori is knowledge steeped in a spiritual basis and in whakapapa. It operates within sanctions that ensures it is protected, used appropriately, transmitted accurately (usually via karakia, waiata and customs) and is restricted to designated individuals and groups within the iwi and hapū. The sanctions around the transmission of mātauranga Māori demonstrate that it is considered a taonga. Therefore, the acquisition of knowledge within traditional Māori culture was (and still is to a degree) controlled. Knowledge was (and still is by some Māori) imparted only to those considered “worthy” and ready to receive it, and contrasts with the freely available, universal approach used toward knowledge in the ‘western’ world. The social structures and communication networks of hapū and iwi did not facilitate a universal approach to knowledge. In some respects, the control that surrounds mātauranga Māori has contributed to the loss of some traditional knowledge that has occurred since colonisation began. The changes in Māori social structures and functioning, particularly with urbanisation, meant that those entitled to the knowledge have not necessarily received it. Royal (1992, p.21) supports this view, stating “…many elders have gone to the grave without passing on their knowledge”.

Māori are not a homogenous group of people, and Smith (1996, p.211) stresses that a “…‘Pan-Māori’ approach to all things Māori was an identity imposed externally upon all Māori people”. Diversity existed amongst Māori prior to colonisation, with each hapū and iwi holding varying beliefs and practices (Dickison, 1994; Durie, 1995; Smith, 1996). The degree of diversity that exists within contemporary Māori society has been further compounded by factors such as demographics, education, socio-economic positioning, language, cultural identity, and inter-marriage (Durie, 2001). This increasing diversity amongst contemporary Māori creates apparent paradoxes and contradictions, and makes absolutes difficult to establish regarding knowledge and research methods. Indeed, any research methodology needs to account for this diversity.

The dominant research conventions influence the standards against which all research is measured and influence the validity and legitimacy of knowledge. Mātauranga Māori (or Māori knowledge) has struggled to be recognised as a legitimate way of knowing within the dominant New Zealand western culture. The scarcity of research methodologies perceived to be appropriate and acceptable to Māori (Bishop, 1994; Irwin, 1994; Smith, 1996) is evidence of the struggle for the recognition of mātauranga Māori.

Despite the influences of colonisation, capitalism, and technology some Māori knowledge has been retained over time and continues to evolve and develop, while some has been lost. Deloria (1995) claims the transmission of knowledge through the oral traditions of indigenous people passed on anecdotal material that explains the physical world experience and important historical events. The knowledge transmitted allows for variation through the expression of multiple viewpoints. Yet Deloria (1995) also claims that this knowledge was neither fragmented nor invalidated, reflecting the precision that exists in the art of oral traditions and storytelling. The accuracy of this mode of transmission can be debated, however, as it can be prone to embellishment, romanticism, and gate keeping by the transmitter. Royal (1992) maintains that oral traditions rely on the recall of memories. Memories are prone to inaccuracies as accuracy diminishes with time (Myers, 1993). Royal (1992) also claims that some Māori have been known to ‘invent’ facts to satisfy Pākehā curiosity. These weaknesses make the development

of rigorous methods in oral traditions open for criticism regarding the accuracy of knowledge contained within them. Those in a dominant and superior cultural position challenged the accuracy of oral traditions based upon their worldview of knowledge development and norms. The modes of knowing and knowledge development that came with colonisation has resulted in Maori knowledge being devalued and demeaned, especially as it does not stand up to the scrutiny of some ‘mainstream’ research methodologies (Durie, 1996, Walker, 1997).

The subject of colonisation within New Zealand is one that evokes emotive responses. For the purposes of this discussion the impact of colonisation will be confined to providing a contextual background for this research. Prior to colonisation, Māori were far from a homogenous group, possessing a rich and diverse tapestry of knowledge (Ballara, 1998; Durie, 1998a). The processes of colonisation functioned as a wedge, driven (amongst other things) by colonial legislation, educational and social agendas, and Christianity. Rousseau’s initial romanticised view of Maori as the ‘noble savage’ was short-lived when the practices and customs of Māori were paradoxically viewed as barbaric and uncivilized savages (Lovegrove, 1972; Smith, 1996). Colonisation effectively destroyed the cultural beliefs and practices of many Māori, with the aim that Māori would conform as acceptable colonial subjects (Durie, 1998a; 1998b; Smith, 1999; Walker, 1990). In an attempt to conform, many Maori also discarded their cultural practices (at least in public) to become like Pākehā (Ihimaera, 1998; Moir, 1994)1_{. The socio-} economic positioning and health status of Māori today is, in part, an outcome of the colonisation agenda, and along with capitalism and technological advances has had detrimental effects on Māori despite the gains that it also brought. Whether the negative outcome of the processes of colonisation was part of an intended political agenda is debatable.

A variety of processes forced Māori to change the way they functioned in society: 1. Legislation introduced the concept of the individual (as opposed to the collective

functioning of Māori) ownership of land, such as the Native Land Acts 1862 and

66 1_{Anecdotal stories also exist in various forms, but especially transmitted orally about growing up by older Māori,}

depict how they were dressed like Pakeha, were punished in schools for speaking te reo Maori and having to adopt Christian beliefs and practice in an attempt to gain acceptance by Pakeha.

1865, and prohibited cultural practices, such as healing by Tōhunga through the Tōhunga Suppression Act 1907 (Durie, 1998).

2. Education reinforced changes in social functioning through the prohibition of language and cultural practices (Durie, 1998;Hokowhitu, 2004; Lovegrove, 1972).

3. Christianity replaced the perceived ‘pagan’ spiritual beliefs of Māori (Lovegrove, 1972).

William Fox, a missionary, believed indigenous cultures impeded progress, and that indigenous people needed to be rescued from savagery. Fox (1851 cited in Lovegrove, 1972) considered colonisation was inevitable and beneficial to the ‘civilised’ people settling in New Zealand. Given attitudes similar to this, Lovegrove (1972, p.30) maintained the mythological basis of Māori beliefs were measured against biblical standards, and stated:

Many aspects of traditional tribal life underwent marked changes. The pervasive laws of the tapu were subverted by Christianity, the powers of the chiefs were weakened by an administrative system which did little to fashion acceptable alternatives to the institution they had eliminated, and tribal mana had been disgraced by military defeat and made virtually meaningless by the introduction of new values and standard of conduct.

Mohanram (1999, p.201) contends that the identity of indigenous people was ascribed additional meanings with colonisation:

Indigenous identity has two meanings, two identities inscribed in the body simultaneously – that which is from its occluded history and that which was constructed with the onset of colonialism. Indigenous identity is always a negotiation between these two identities.

Knowledge and identity are linked, and the loss of traditional knowledge has created identity issues for some Māori (Ihimaera, 1998; Moir, 1994). However, reclaiming traditional knowledge and ways of knowing is a problematic notion given the changes that have impacted upon Māori society. Some traditional knowledge has

been lost to generations that have passed and some knowledge has been redefined in response to social and technological changes. It is fair to say, however, that Māori are re-defining their cultural knowledge and the terms of its accessibility, and not necessarily constraining Māori development to some point of tradition in the past (Royal, 2002). The social structures of Māori have also been challenged over time by inter-marriage, urbanisation, and the education agendas of assimilation and integration (Durie, 1998b). The outcome has also contributed to the extensive diversity amongst Māori that ranges from those who have had the opportunity to experience a traditional cultural upbringing and are strong in their identity as Maori, to those who have been totally dislocated from hapu-iwi links and struggle with their identity as Māori (Durie et al., 1997).

While cultures and traditions may change in response to social changes the transmission of core cultural values and beliefs remains evident. The colonisation processes that Māori experienced have resulted in a systematic denial and destruction of traditional Maori culture, language and the valid development of its knowledge (Durie, 1998a; 1998b; Smith, 1999; Walker, 1990). Foucault (1972), however, believes that knowledge relating to a culture does not get lost despite the endurance of time and describes this phenomenon as ‘cultural archive’. Knowledge, Foucault (1972) maintains, is preserved within discourse that is transformed and exists within multiple realities. While mātauranga Māori achieves legitimacy in some quarters, it struggles to do so in others. The knowledge and skills of tohunga, for example, are now being accepted in some ‘mainstream’ health services, but their legitimacy as a health science remains questionable and unexplainable. I