MONOPOLIO Y COMPETENCIA IMPERFECTA FORMAS DE REGULACIÓN DEL MONOPOLIO

The struggle for the validity of indigenous knowledges may no longer be over recognition that indigenous peoples have ways of viewing the world which are unique, but over proving the authenticity of, and control over, our own forms of knowledge (L. T. Smith, 2012, p. 108).

Kaupapa Māori is an indigenous research theory (Bishop, 2012; Bishop & Glynn, 1999a; Denzin, Lincoln, & Smith, 2008; G. H. Smith, 1991). Kaupapa Māori empowers Māori to research within their own cultural frame of reference so that knowledge constructs remain culturally meaningful and salient to the lived realities of Māori as Māori. Walker, Eketone and Gibbs (2006) state however, that what distinguishes kaupapa Māori research from research designed to be ‘culturally safe research’ or ‘culturally responsive’ research is that “kaupapa Māori research is about Māori control and focuses on Māori participation” (p. 333). The thoughts, visions and initiatives for change within Māori communities as tangata whenua (Indigenous) to Aotearoa/New Zealand are core to kaupapa Māori theory.

Framing this research project within kaupapa Māori theory required an organic research space that responded culturally, personally and professionally to the research participants as Māori primary school teachers. There was an accepted cultural expectation that the researcher and participant relationships were formed from pre-existing relationships. I assumed a high level of ethical accountability to the participants as did the participants to each other (Bishop, 1996; Bishop & Glynn, 1999a; L. T. Smith, 2012).

Many western (non-indigenous) research paradigms and traditions are positioned in stark contrast to kaupapa Māori research because western research paradigms typically privilege a society’s ‘dominant discourse’. Bishop and Glynn (1999) suggest “methods that have been selected and applied from and within the interests of the dominant discourse will have limited success in addressing Māori people’s concerns about research into their lives” (p.106) because knowledge constructs are interpreted from dominant discourse ‘norms’. Specific to this study, a dialogical research space was created in order to ‘hear’ and respect Māori

68

teacher voices and their experiences of teaching within predominantly Pākehā/non-Māori contexts. Consequently, within this present research context, being Māori was accepted as the ‘norm’ and thereby challenged western research traditions where being Māori is more likely referenced from, and positioned as, the ‘Other’ (L. T. Smith, 2012; S Walker, 1996), or outside the dominant scientific research discourse.

Guided by kaupapa Māori research principles and cultural ‘norms’, critical theory shares similar research lenses through which ‘space’ was sought for Māori teachers to critique, interpret and transform their lived realities from within a space located in a Māori worldview (Pihama, Cram, & Walker, 2002; G. H. Smith, 2012; S Walker et al., 2006). Where qualitative research seeks to explore deeper understandings about human phenomenology (Best & Kahn, 2006; Cohen et al., 2000), critical theory seeks to inform “principles of social justice” (Lichtman, 2006, p. 29). According to Mayan (2009), critical theory represents “theoretical positions and/or perspectives…[that focus] on unequal relations of power” (p.26). In this research context, exploring unequal power relationships amongst teachers within English-medium primary schools was underpinned by Te Tiriti o Waitangi/Treaty of Waitangi and colonial discourses.

Casting a critical lens

This study drew from critical theory principles to create a dialogical research space for participants to explore the impact of existing hegemonies on their Māori teacher identities. Individual and collaborative hui kōrero (focused conversations) enabled a process through which we critiqued the “larger historical, political and cultural context” (L. T. Smith, 1999, p. 6) that impacted on our cultural realities as Māori teachers in English-medium primary schools. L. T. Smith (1999) argues that “coming to know the past has been part of the critical pedagogy of decolonization” (p. 34). It was equally important that personal, professional and cultural connections amongst the research participants strengthened and trusting relationships developed.

69

Bishop and Glynn (1999a) argue that kaupapa Māori challenges existing colonial dominance within educational research knowledge and ensures a research methodology that is able “to give voice to a culturally positioned means of collaboratively constructing research stories in a culturally conscious and connected manner” (p.121). The kaupapa Māori research principles incorporated in this study enabled participants to achieve tino rangatiratanga (self- determination) from within Māori cultural frames of reference and understandings. Kaupapa Māori is to move beyond cultural expectations and socio-political ‘norms’ determined by the ‘dominant discourse’. Underpinned by the principles of critical pedagogy, kaupapa Māori theory responds to oppressive positions and offers a legitimate space for Indigenous communities to critique the impact culture, knowledge and power has had on their lived realities (Freire, 1972; G. H. Smith, 1997, 2012).

I contend that the cultural, political and historical intent of kaupapa Māori theory and the cultural, political and historical intent of critical theory created a pedagogical process where these Māori teachers, as tangata whenua (Indigenous to Aotearoa/New Zealand), could reflect critically about their own experiences as Māori teachers in predominantly Pākehā/non-Māori staffed primary schools. Within this study, critical theory purposefully operationalised the sociocultural as well as the socio-historical focus of kaupapa Māori theory. Contributing to the series of individual and collaborative hui kōrero (focused conversations) increased our cultural, social and political consciousness as we posed questions, responded to questions from which new questions and thoughts emerged (see Section 4.6, p.74 for detailed discussion on hui kōrero). Bishop (1996) describes this cyclical discursive process as ‘spiral discourse’ because dialogue “is continually coming back on itself yet at the same time moving forward” (p.211).

In transformative praxis, while reflective ‘dialogue’ is viewed as important, ‘action’ ensures that a transformational process occurs (Freire, 1972; G. H. Smith, 1997, 2012). Freire (1972) contends “within the word we find two dimensions, reflection and action, in such radical interaction that if one is sacrificed – even in part – the other immediately suffers. There is no true word that is not at the same

70

time a praxis. Thus to speak a true word is to transform the world” (p.60). The relationship between ‘speaking’ (word) and ‘action’ (reflective thought) is itself representative of the dialogical process this study pursued. Similarly, L.T. Smith (2012) reflected on the significance of critical theory to kaupapa Māori theory and argued that “critical theory is a set of ideas that foreground both action and theory: the (political) action of social transformation, and the theory, or idea, of structural analysis that informs the action” (p.11).

Kaupapa Māori theory and critical theory offered a space for these research participants to engage critically on their lived realities as Māori and as teachers in English-medium primary school contexts.