Photophysical Measurements

The conceptual bases of this dissertation were drawn from cultural theory, specifically ‗Otherness‘ theory, perceptions of self and others, and ‗habitus‘, shared and internalised meaning of symbolic orders found in everyday life, as well as

‗autopoesis‘. These concepts were brought into the milieu of management theory concerning role, power relationships and consumer behaviour, for marginalised communities. But what might constitute evidence for such concepts at the nexus of cultural and management theory, applied to the case of migrant community aspirations? While the studies overlap in content and thrust, the conceptual themes addressed in each one, focus perception on reflection. The investigations describe actual and potential transactions between the social milieu of the cultural entrepreneur and the consumer. They focus on the actions that might occur and the factors that influence engagement at the nexus of cultural perception and enterprise values.

An assumption of many indigenous Pacific researchers is that western and Pacific cultures derive from appositional epistemologies that are not understood by the Other. This issue is addressed by the WPB research collaborative group and WMS Pacific cultural team by the proposition that such polarities of world view and values might be conceptualised as distant (but not end-) points on a linear continuum expressed as excellence in ‗cultural knowledge‘ at one ‗end‘ and excellence in

‗business practice‘ at the other. And, while acknowledging that anachronistic polarities may exist in the context of cultural tourism/enterprise, these are more likely, as noted in Chapter 2 [after Derrida (2005); Bramwell and Meyer (1981)] that there is in fact no sense of division between them since meaning turns within a holistic system of relations, rather than polarities. Thus the respective sets of values, knowledge and practice may be bridged. If societal marginality can be a positive force for the development of community-initiated tourism product, then dual competence in (or dual excellence) in both western business and Pacific cultural

worlds as articulated by Hirini and Maxwell-Crawford (2007) may make that connection.

This proposition implies a post-modern capacity to walk simultaneously in both domains, perhaps with a constructionist emphasis on one or the other at the fore, dependant on context and achieved by individuals from or trained in both worlds, or by teams composed of complementary expertise. This reinforces the point made in Chapter 2 regarding degrees of Self/Sameness and Other/Otherness around which consensus can be reached by two or more cultures and the principles of Mutuality Research.

Three intersects of theory: cultural theory (community aspirations), management theory with reference to supply and estimates of potential demand (enterprise niche), the cultural enterprise context (values, autopoeisis, habitus and Otherness) positions, the research and hypothesise the practice [per Bourdieu (2002)] of cultural economies forming a conceptual nexus for the thesis, its questions and evidentiary structure.

Thus the thesis ‗that societal marginality can be a positive from which to develop and manage community-initiated tourism product‘ separates into three foci, community aspirations (vision), community (nascent entrepreneurs) and marketplace (actual encounters) and gives rise to a series of questions.

The first area of questioning addressed the issue of what are Pacific community aspirations for tourism (vision)? The second area of questioning addressed the issue of assumptions, social worlds and diaspora by asking what happens at the interface of diasporan community and tourism enterprise. Lastly, questions are asked about occurrences at the consumer interface. But what framework is appropriate for such research? Western, Pacific or ‗between world‘ views?

Jamal and Hollinshead (2001) recommend that tourism academics use frameworks based on social constructionism and hermeneutics since these enable linkages between micro-level (individual experience) and macro-level (group-societal level influences). Additionally, these permit the use of multiple theories to inform conflicting narratives of place, space and participants in tourism destinations (Jamal, 1997). Social constructionist methodologies such as Collaborative Action Research (Oja & Smulyan, 1989) where learning is an outcome of the process for all participants, are suited to the collaborative and collectivist style of this research and process relationships and social interaction have been placed to the fore (Neuman, 1997). Further, action research is framed against habitus (Walsh, 1974), within which power dynamics and social structures are implicit (Bourdieu, 1990b). These can include quantitative methods but are primarily qualitative in nature. It also seeks empathetic understanding (Blumer, 1962; Roth & Wittich, 1978), agreement realities and meaning produced by social interactions (Appadurai, 1988; Foucault &

Miskowiec, 1986; Lopez & Potter, 2001). But this thesis research is consciously grounded in both western and Oceanic values and épistèmes. This, plus its complexities (multi-cultural, multi-site and longitudinal), scale, scope and emphasis on grassroots empowerment, authority, return of data to the respondents for sign-off and responsiveness to the community agenda sets this work apart from others in the field. The approach taken was made possible by the multi-level agreement, participation and advice of the Elders from Pacific communities in Waitakere, the Waitakere Pacific Board and the research team‘s cultural experts.

In terms of western ontologies, the research was undertaken ethnographically, in three phases. The first, interpretive phase, sought the vision of the Pacific leaders and residents based upon multilingual interviews, interpreted by the interviewers and the author. The second phase used participant observation by the author at the heart of a series of discussions across several ethnicities, facilitated multilingually by Pacific researchers. Ontologically these two phases combined both Pacific and western ways of making sense of the world. The third phase also drew upon Pacific/western ontologies for supplier surveys but at its core was neo-positivistic since it combined both interpretive analysis as well as a positivistic large sample research approach. Together however, the third series of studies creates a hermeneutic-like circle of knowledge.

In terms of Pacific cultural practice, methodologies for each phase were established first and foremost within cultural protocols agreed with Pacific elders, as well as western and Pacific scholars, within a spirit of cooperation and understanding ('Anae, 2007). As a Pacific theorisation, the research parallels the ‗Extended Kakala‘

methodology which weaves together the multiple strands of the garland, preparing in advance of the data and after analysis, sharing and disseminating widely (A. Koloto, personal communication, November 2007). It also has commonalities with the process of ‗Teu le va’ mutual understanding ('Anae, 2007), a Samoan epistemology which implies a tidying up of the space between. Teu le va’ configures interactions, removes the clamour of multiple voices, allows for expression of discord, creates space between differing points of view, manages the potential for talking at cross-purposes yet it maintains the centrality of reciprocal ‗relationships‘ and requires that mutual understandings between people should be reached argued as important in cross-cultural settings by Sasao and Sue (1993).

Neither a solely western nor a Pacific approach was suitable for this research project which spans both épistèmes and so, the Mutuality Research approach was developed.

Processes such as the Mutuality approach, the Samoan ‗between world‘ approach and collaborative action research produce an animate agency, or a cultural poesis, which is inherent in the ‗creativity or generativity of things cultural‘. Together they have a catalytic effect, producing a jump or surge of affect in its audience as described by

Stewart (Friedman, 2006). Kemmis and McTaggart (2005) speak of the role of outside researchers as animateurs for community development in some parts of the world, as heroes of social transformation against repressive social and economic conditions. Our cultural team worked from within the Pacific community and did not see ourselves as social heroes but did hope to be able to carry forward the learning gained into the creation of real, practical tourism and enterprise outputs.