El deber y la virtud

A wananga is described by Kerr as an indigenous workshop [usually] held on a marae to which people … are invited.394 Wananga can be called for a number of causes. As part of this research process the researcher conducted a wananga at Nukuhau Marae in Taupo on 23 January 2010.

The overall aim of this wananga was to bring as many hapu members that wanted to come to discuss the destruction of heritage at Otuparae. The researcher used a guided method where wananga participant were given powerpoint handouts of the thesis that outlined the entire content that was covered in the draft. The researcher read the entire draft to the participants with frequent breaks in between. The whole process took 12 hours and 25 minutes.

The researcher allowed hapu members to organize the wharepuni this lead to the researcher being placed at the front of the room near the back of the whare. The participants were allowed to choose where and how they took part in the wananga. Some participant sat directly in front of the researcher while others sat to the sides on mattresses.

394 _{Sandy Kerr, “First Person, First Peoples: A Journey Through Boundaries,” American Journal of Evaluation 27, no.}

1 (2006) : 361, http://aje.sagepub.com/content/27/3/360.

92

What took place during the discussions was a process were participants had three ways to contribute to the korero – they could agree, disagree or add to the existing korero. If they disagreed debate and discussion took place. If they wanted to add to the korero they just interrupted the researcher. The role the researcher played in this wananga was a facilitator. The researcher allowed hapu members to talk about the issues as they needed and if disrupted or disagreements were present the researcher did not continue until a clear consensus was reached. To test that consensus the researcher would restate for participants what agreement or consensus had been reached, confirm their understanding by asking the questions like: “kei te pai?” or “haere tonu?” The wananga was recorded by video camera, which was placed at the back of the room, and participants were made aware that the discussion was to be filmed. This was the main way to capture the data or by notes that the researcher kept in their research journals.

The researcher was provided with funding from Massey University’s School of PEP’s Graduate Research Fund to pay koha to the marae and for kai to facilitate the wananga. The reason for having wananga on a marae and being part of research context as a methodology explained by Kerr in her experience of a research wananga at a conference on indigenous evaluation she comments that,

The stated goal of the wananga was to provide a culturally safe space for engagement of key issues and interaction with others who have a passion or interest in indigenous evaluation. The Wananga process will allow you to freely share your ideas and to discuss issues and challenges relating… to indigenous peoples.395

395 _Ibid.

93

In the context of this thesis the point of using wananga is that it creates a culturally safe space for a group of people who affiliate to the hapu or Tuwharetoa to come together and discuss issues of importance to them in this case heritage destruction. However, the discussion takes place in a culturally appropriate way.

As the way the data was gathered as a group and in a culturally appropriate manner a wananga fits the criteria to be considered a Culturally Responsive Focus Group (CRFG). In social research focus groups have ben increasingly since the 1990s.396 Focus groups are described as “Groups interviews. A moderator guides the interview while a small group discusses the topics that the interviewer raises. What the group says during their discussions are the essential data of focus groups.”397

What makes using wananga a culturally responsive is that it meets the criteria that the researcher modified from Rodriges et al. journal article on what at culturally responsive Researcher in that wananga are socially conscious, it operates from an asset-based model seeing the participants’ perspectives and stories are opportunities for understanding reality and co-constructing that knowledge, creates comfortable environments that allow authentic sharing of experience, acknowledges the participants’ identity, and is reflexive an the experiences that the group has experienced.398 Therefore, wananga can be considered a kind of natural and culturally appropriate and responsive focus group.

If this is so there are two issues that need addressing validating data through wananga and the numbers of participants. At the wananga the researcher

396 _{Janet Smithson, “Focus Groups” in The Sage Handbook of Social Research Methods (Thousand Oaks, CA, 2008),}

357.

397 _{David Morgan, The Focus Group Guidebook (London: Sage Publications, 1998), 1.}

398 _{Katrina Rodrigues et al., “Culturally Responsive Focus Groups: Reframing the Research Experience to Focus on}

Participants,” International Journal of Qualitative Methods (2011), http://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/IJQM/index.

94 guided the participants through the research that had previously been completed and using that as the topics that could be discussed. This provided the researcher with comments that could be used as data to reinforce or co- create the record of the experience of heritage destruction at Otuparae. At the

end of the wananga the participants were asked to validate the research and

the areas that were highlighted for change during the wananga were altered

and checked by hapu members before submission. This was in some respects

an unavoidable aspect of Kaupapa Maori Research were the hapu controlled

the research.

Smithson suggests that focus groups should be limited up to 12 participant399

this is because “[i]n larger groups, there is a likelihood that some participants will remain silent or speak very little, while smaller groups (say 4–8 participants) often provide an environment where all participants can play an active part in the discussion.” In this context unlike normal focus groups the participants were all related and knew each other well. This made it easier for participants to be more comfortable and in familiar surroundings. Since the wananga was held on a marae any attempt to make small groups would have been impossible, as the researcher could not prevent hapu members from coming to the marae. Therefore, the decision was made with kaumatua to be open and transparent about it thus the wananga was advertised.

Wananga are naturally occurring in Maori society and could potentially be a useful method but in terms of social research needs to be framed in a particular way in order to be accepted by academia and their validation

processes. The validity of wananga and subsequently matauranga and tikanga

that accompany it, in this case, can only be done by framing wananga as a form of focus groups. Therefore, conflict arises by using this method in KMR because matauranga must be validated through the ideals of general laws.

399 _{Smithson, “Focus Groups,” 359.}

95 That is in order for wananga to qualify as an acceptable method it must meet a criteria and rigour that the western model has faced, in this case focus groups.