For the purpose of this research, I took the opportunity to explore, expand, acknowledge and to celebrate the growing of Pacific research paradigms.
It has been argued that traditionally there has been a lack of cultural appropriateness and sensitivity towards Pacific people in relation to applying research methodologies (see for example Smith, 1999). Tamasese, Peteru and Waldergrave (1997) identify the value of reflecting the needs of participants’ knowledge base:
Constructs of method should emerge from and faithfully reflect the intrinsic source of its participants’ needs and knowledge bases. The call for legislative and social relief reflects a community which recognises that it is in crisis. It also raises serious questions for the research community regarding their ability to address their own roles and appropriate process of research within communities in crisis. (p. 301)
As indicated by the authors, the ongoing issue is that a lack of understanding when doing research within communities in crisis – in this case within communities of Pacific people – risks resulting in miscommunication and the misinterpretation of data collected.
Linda Smith (1999) supports communities using their own values and makes the following comment, “Indigenous methodologies tend to approach cultural protocols, values and behaviours as an integral part of methodology. They are 'factors' to be built in to research explicitly, to be thought about reflexively, to be declared openly as part of the research design, to be discussed as part of the final results of a study and to be disseminated back to the people in culturally appropriate ways and in a language that can be understood” (p. 15). Smith continues to state that “research is implicated in the production of theories which have de-humanised Māori and other indigenous peoples and in practices which have continued to privilege Western ways of knowing while denying the validity for Māori of Māori knowledge, language and culture” (p. 17). Smith’s reference to “other indigenous peoples” may be applied to diasporic groups such as Samoans in Aotearoa, and even more specifically, to the group that is the focus of this study – tama Samoa in New Zealand secondary schools. As pointed out by Gegeo (2008), Pacific scholars have developed number of appropriate modes to represent the diversity within Pacific indigenous epistemologies, the Pacific cultural world view, and theory of knowledge from a Pacific perspective.
Pacific research broad paradigms embrace the ideas of Pacific research frameworks. As indicated by Anae, Coxon, Mara, Wendt-Samu, and Finau (2001), interest in researching Pacific contexts using Pacific methodologies has grown. The authors explain that the primary role of using a Pacific research framework is to develop a unique Pacific world view that is underpinned by Pacific
values, belief systems, and ways of structuring knowledge. Identifying the value of Pacific ways of doing things provides empowerment for both the researched and researcher (Anae et al., 2001). Further to this the authors suggest that “if research is to make meaningful contributions to Pacific societies, then its primary purpose is to reclaim Pacific knowledge and values for Pacific peoples” (p. 8). The value of reclaiming Pacific knowledge goes back to the idea of Pacific research by Pacific people for Pacific. This continues to be a strength in building research capacity for Pacific people/
Ta’isi (2009), too, emphasises the importance of blending philosophies and methodologies in policy settings and research. Ta’isi suggests that Pacific people should draw on the strengths, understandings, and meanings of their worlds and have their own role models leading the research. According to Ta’isi, if this approach is adopted, Pacific peoples will offer rich new paradigms, greater diversity and colour in practice, and the warm connections of humanity with land, sea, and spirituality (p. 91).
The following explanation by Crocombe, Slatter, and TupouNiua (1975) captures the value of the “Pacific way” of doing research:
talking things over rather than taking rigid stands, being prepared to negotiate being flexible, adaption and compromise, oratory and verbal negotiation, the value of sharing, universal notions of generosity with time, labours and property, Pacific perceptions of time, leisure, dress, food and dancing and the inseparable dynamics of church, and indigenization of Christianity. (p. 14)
This particular description that Crocombe et al. (1975), suggests to better understand Pacific people and Pacific research was identified four decades ago in the 1970s. It acknowledges the importance of identifying appropriate ways for researching Pacific people in a manner that was acceptable to them and the way Pacific people share their knowledge based understandings. The features included in Crocombe’s et al. (1975) description contribute to a better understanding of Pacific people and Pacific research. Conducting my research within Pacific research frameworks provides me with an opportunity to determine
the purpose and goals (specifically targeting education) for my own communities, based on the visions of my Pacific people, their families, and their children.
However, over time there has been an increase in Pacific researchers identifying the need for Pacific researchers to create their own pedagogy and symbolic orders: examples include Anae et al. (2001), Manu’atu (2000), Nabobo-Baba (2004), Taufe’ulungaki (2003), and Vaioleti (2003).
It is important to acknowledge the Pacific research methodologies that some Pacific researchers have used in generating data and knowledge. Tamasese, Peteru, Waldergrave, and Bush (2005) developed the fa’afaletui framework from Samoa. As identified by Tamasese (2008), fa’afaletui is the critical process of tui (weaving) together all the different levels of knowledge frames from within the houses of collective representation, in order that the Samoan world view is substantially enhanced and added to (pp. 22–23). Fa’afaletui is described in more detail in the following section.
Thaman’s (1997) model of Kakala as a metaphor for research is based on the process of making a garland of flowers in Tonga. The process involves three important steps: toli, the gathering of flowers; tui, the making of the garlands; and, finally, luva, or the process of giving away or presenting the kakala. Thaman proposes that the three key processes involved in the making of kakala – toil, tui, and luva – are similar to the processes in the conduct of a research process. As explained by Kalavite (2010), who applied the Kakala metaphor to her own research, Thaman’s metaphor of kakala symbolically refers to the researcher selecting and gathering the relevant information needed for the research topic (toli); creating the new knowledge from the collected data (tui); and disseminating the knowledge (luva).
Another example of Pacific frameworks that has become increasingly popular within Pacific research is the model of talanoa. As identified by Otsuka (2005), and Vaioleti (2006), talanoa is widely promoted by Pacific academics and researchers in the New Zealand education sector. In his doctoral thesis, Manueli (2012) explains how talanoa is a culturally appropriate qualitative research method for research involving Pacific people (p. 101). In research contexts,
talanoa can enable the researcher and participants to connect at a deeper level which facilitates the co-construction of authentic, rich, and inter-related knowledge. (Manueli, 2012, p. 100)
The increase of valid theoretical frameworks for Pacific research based on Pacific values is most appropriate for Pacific peoples. The worthiness of using Pacific research frameworks for Pacific people and Pacific education is in the contribution to the body of Pacific knowledge (Kupa, 2009; Nabobo-Baba, 2006). Otunuku (2011) highlights the relevance of Pacific research frameworks with the observation that Pacific academics’ scholarly writings on educational issues aim to deconstruct and reclaim Pacific indigenous education. He claims that Pacific academics are proposing a policy and methodology underpinned by the cultural systems of indigenous peoples (p. 43).
However, as discussed by Tupuola (1993), any researcher who does research with Pacific people needs to have a developing understanding of Pacific knowledge and an awareness of Pacific cultures. Tupuola emphasises that knowing and understanding Pacific culture is one thing, but doing something about it is another (p. 54). Sauni (2011) supports this notion and suggests that for Pasifika research appropriate knowledge and willingness to understand cultural values is necessary in order to create cultural knowledge and social construction of cultural identity. Sauni continues by saying that it is the intent and responsibility of Pacific researchers to continue to address cultural issues and to add to collective wisdom.
The use of the Ethnic Inter-Face Model attributed to Wendt-Samu (2006), is proffered as an effective way to guide the researcher through the process (Airini et al., 2010; Anae, 2010; Coxon et al., 2002). This model encourages the researcher to be aware of the cultural make-up of the participants and note how this affects their interaction with the institution in which the study is contextualised.
As stated by Anae (2010), with this increasing pool of researchers able and motivated to undertake quality research on improving Pacific people’s outcomes it is critical that good practice that has enhanced Pacific education research and
policies linkages is identified and acted upon. Anae also emphasises that it is essential that Pacific education research methodologies are explored and that ideas for and about Pacific education research methodologies are shared amongst those who are interested in doing research with Pacific people and or are interested in Pacific research locally, nationally, and globally (p. 1). This is important because more and more interested researchers are studying Pacific people and having an understanding of the Pacific way of informing one’s research is not only beneficial for researcher but also the Pacific groups the research is based on.
For this research, then, I was aware, that when working alongside Pacific communities it was important that I undertook the study having identified and become mindful of key values from my own Samoan culture – in particular the values of fa’aaloalo (respect), alofa (love), and tautua (service). As argued by Sauni (2011), conceptualising the underpinning principles of Samoan culture creates a unique platform for honest, genuine dialogue between researcher and participants, despite differences based on gender, institutional status, and cultural status (p. 58).