For this research project, kaupapa Māori is considered more a paradigm than a stringent methodological theory or framework. In a style similar to that adopted by Kana and Tamatea (2006), a connection was made between kaupapa Māori research principles and my own Māori worldview, as the researcher. Additionally, particular connections have been made with some Western research methodologies.
Kaupapa Māori researchers have consistently advocated the need to address the locus of power in research, to enable the sharing of benefits between the researcher, participants and Māori communities (Berryman & Bishop, 2011; Bishop, 1998; 2005; Kana & Tamatea, 2006; Smith, 1992; 1999; 2012). This is more likely to occur when concerns over initiation, benefits, representation, legitimisation and accountability are addressed (Bishop, 2005).
Initiation—or who sets up the research—is important, as it is an indicator of where power lies, and predicates the evolving shape of the research. In a technical sense, I am the initiator of this research, as its impetus and direction arose from collaborative projects in which I played a significant part.
Accordingly, this research has provided an opportunity for dialogue and reflection on the phenomena of iwi-school communities of practice, and their inherent complexities. The research process has provided those same communities with an opportunity for reflection in action. It is my intent that the findings of this research will benefit the participants, providing them with an opportunity to articulate and publicise their preferred ways of working together, potential opportunities and areas of concern. Benefits relate to minimising any possible negative impact on others. There are multiple beneficiaries in
28
this research, including the participants; those directly involved in the communities of practice’ others located within iwi or schools who are currently or planning to be engaged in communities of practice; those able to influence policy, investment and resourcing; and myself. However the primarily intended beneficiary is Māori students in schools. They must be supported to achieve the three goals of Māori education: to live as Māori, to actively engage as citizens of the world and to enjoy good health and a high standard of living (Durie, 2001).
Representation relates to the maintenance of integrity and authenticity of Māori knowledge, and in the case of this research, particularly iwi and kaupapa Māori knowledge drawn from a kura setting. Using a puna kōrero approach creates an opportunity to capture the uniqueness of each iwi perspective and provide a situated dialogue. Capturing iwi perspectives has been a priority across the three puna kōrero, and both whānau and Māori student perspectives from the third puna kōrero. For this research to be emancipatory and empowering, it must provide a platform for iwi and Māori voices to be shared, acknowledged and positioned in ways in which they can be used to help inform future educational developments.
Legitimacy relates to the validity and authority of this thesis as a product of research. While this research represents an individual submission as a doctoral thesis, it has been contributed to and influenced by the participants, colleagues, whānau and supervision team. Transcripts, formative writing and chapters have been made available to participants throughout the production process, and feedback has been welcomed. This multiple lens has contributed to the maintenance of integrity with tikanga Māori and Māori legitimated practices.
Where I have quoted tribal whakataukī or pepeha I have not referened them to books. This is because, while they may be cited in books, their primary source is from tribal oral histories.
Accountability primarily relates to who the researcher is accountable to, who has access to the research findings and who will have control over the distribution of knowledge. This was discussed with each participant prior to participation, and monitored formatively
29
throughout the research. As my personal and professional involvement and relationships with participants and their communities continues beyond the bounds of this research, I am mindful of the need to be accountable to individuals, and to ensure adherence to a Māori potential framework (Durie, 2001) that supports long-term Māori educational advancement.
Kana and Tamatea (2006) have identified six shared understandings that constructed a paradigm that guided their research: mana whenua, whakapapa, whanaungatanga (relationships), ahi kā (the well-lit fires of the home area) (see also Walker & Amoamo, 1987), kanohi-ki-te-kanohi (face-to-face communication) and kanohi kitea (the seen face). In Kana and Tamatea’s (2006) research, mana whenua relates to how the researchers and participants connected via ancestral links to the geographical areas in which the research was undertaken. Sharing of iwi stories is one way of recognising and celebrating the success of mana whenua. Whakapapa involves the sharing and acknowledgement of ancestral links of both the researcher and participants. Whanaungatanga is considered essential, as previous relationships help establish research, as well as sustain the research process. In a kaupapa Māori setting, the ongoing relationship (post research) is an important consideration that helps ensure integrity. As Kana and Tamatea (2006) state, ‘accountability to the whānau, hapū and iwi definitely takes priority over the conventions that research protocols dictate’ (p. 14).
Ahi kā is supported both directly—when researchers or participants return home or reflect on their home areas—and indirectly, by strengthening and sustaining relationships with home groups. It is also supported by ensuring that local stories and beliefs are accorded respect, and accepted without the need for external validation. Ahi kā has been applied in this research, as connections have been made and strengthened with various iwi groups, including those with which I have personal affiliations. The third puna kōrero in particular had personal significance, as it enabled the participation of my children, their kura whānau, the wider educational community I work with and the local tribal authority.
Kanohi ki te kanohi is an important Māori concept, in which openness and accountability can occur due to a physical presence. It enables trusting relationships to be formed more quickly, and accords a level of reciprocal respect. Kanohi kitea is an ultimate state for the
30
researcher to achieve, when through sustained contact they are accepted by the community as someone supportive of its aspirations. It was interesting in this research to consider these principles, as interviews conducted with iwi education representatives in the second puna were conducted by telephone, but this did not appear to deter their participation. I feel that the New Zealand Māori and iwi education communities are so small that accountability to participants is inevitable, with this research reflecting a photograph in time, enabled by earlier relationship building and contact that will continue into the future.
When a researcher shares the cultural norms and heritage of the group being researched, Bishop (2005) calls this being an ‘insider’ (p.111). This is considered beneficial for practitioners, supporting as it does easier access to the community and a more located understanding of the culture under study (Merriam et al., 2001). I can describe myself as an insider. While I was able to conduct this research as a Māori person, in many instances the content was iwi specific, and I was afforded an additional layer of understanding, locating me more centrally in some contexts than in others. The common bond was an interest in iwi-school communities of practice and supporting Māori student success. Drawing from effective iwi-school community of practice models, and using a Māori potential approach, allowed the participants and researcher to share a common space.