Chapter 9 describes how the study findings suggest that some aspects of Māori epistemologies are influencing evaluation practice by some non-Māori evaluation practitioners. As an introduction to this discussion, it is helpful to understand the contribution of Māori evaluators to the discourse of indigenous evaluation (Fitzpatrick, 2012), for example, Cram (1997, 2009), Kerr (2012), Moewaka Barnes (2003, 2009), and Wehipeihana (2008, 2013). This section provides an overview of the origin of these developments and their implications for public sector evaluation practice.
In past years most research about Māori was, according to Cram (2009), funded by government “to objectify and problematise Māori” (p.309). There was a lack of regard for Māori aspirations regarding the research, as well as “a lack of researcher accountability to Māori” (Moewaka Barnes, 2003, p.146). The way research was conducted served to reinforce the asymmetric power dynamics between Māori and Pākehā. This approach led to the production of “mainstream knowledge of Māori,” rather than “Māori knowledge” (C. W. Cunningham and Durie, 1998, p.1). The former serves the needs of the government as the funder of the research/ evaluation, while the latter serves the needs of Māori (Moewaka Barnes, 2003, p.149). In the late 1990s, Māori scholars including Professor Sir Mason Durie (1998), Professor Chris Cunningham (1998), and Professor Linda Tuhiwai Smith (1999) challenged this approach based on dominant western epistemology, and argued for the need for Māori epistemology and Mātauranga Māori (traditional knowledge) to be embraced. Moreover, Māori asserted their rights under the Treaty to conduct research “that is by Māori for Māori, using tools that we see as valid” (Jackson, 1987/1988, cited in Cram, 2001, p.39). Research theory based
on Māori ontology and epistemology emerged, referred to as Kaupapa Māori research. Kaupapa Māori means “the Māori way or agenda, a term used to describe traditional Māori ways of doing, being and thinking, encapsulated in a Māori world view or cosmology” and as such “ . . . is both a set of philosophical beliefs and social practices (tikanga) (E. Henry & Pene, 2001, p. 235, 237). Expressed simply, Kaupapa Māori research and evaluation refers to that which is “by Māori, for Māori and with Māori” (Cram, 2009, p.312). L. T. Smith (1999, p.120; 2008, p.130) identified seven research practices based on cultural values to guide the behaviour of Māori researchers/evaluators. These practices have been elaborated further by Cram (2001, p.41, 50; 2006, p.313). The following summary of the seven research/evaluation practices is based on the work of both L. T. Smith and Cram:
Aroha ki te tangata: This is about respect for research collaborators and participants.
He kanohi kitea: This is about the relationships that are built between the researcher and the research participant and their community. It is about the researcher being known to, and seen around the community. Titiro, whakarongo . . . kōrero: This is about the researcher looking, listening, and observing in order to develop understanding, before speaking.
Manaaki ki te Tangata: This is about the researcher looking after research participants and their community, which includes reciprocity.
Kai Tupato: This is about the researcher being careful, safe, astute and reflective.
Kaua e Takahia Te Mana o te Tangata: This is about upholding the mana (authority) of research participants and their community.
Kia Mahaki: This is about the researcher being humble and sharing knowledge which will help to empower the community.
More recently, Kerr an evaluator from SHORE/Whāriki at Massey University (Kerr, 2012, p.8,10) reviewed the work of seven Māori theorists (Professor Russell Bishop, Dr Kathy Irwin, Professor Helen Moewaka Barnes, Dr Leonie Pihama, Professor Graham Smith, Professor Linda Tuhiwai Smith, and Dr Sheilagh Walker) to identify five key principles of Kaupapa Māori research and evaluation, as listed below in English. At this point it is important to acknowledge that many significant Māori constructs are not easily translatable into English as often English has no
comparable concepts. Even though English language translations are offered here, non-Māori speakers may miss both the nuance and import of the concepts expressed in Māori.
Control principle: Māori control/ownership.
Challenge principle: Analysis and mediation of power relationships. Culture principle: Māori as normative including the survival and revival of Māori language and culture.
Connection principle: Relationship-based knowledge, sharing and generation.
Change principle: Transformative for Māori.
Wehipeihana, a Māori evaluator (2008, 2013) has contributed significantly to the indigenous evaluation discourse through her focus on cultural validity, defined by Kirkhart (2010) as “ . . . the accuracy or trustworthiness of understandings and judgments, actions, and consequences, across multiple dimensions of cultural diversity” (p.401). Wehipeihana (2008) argues that for an evaluation of a policy or programme with Māori participants (or any other indigenous peoples or minority group) to be a quality evaluation, it must be culturally valid. And in order to be culturally valid, the evaluation must be conducted by Māori evaluators who have “ . . . the necessary cultural capital - knowledge of tikanga (customs and practices), knowledge of Te Reo (language), knowledge of iwi/tribal history and contexts - in order to make sense of, and to understand what is being shared” (Wehipeihana, 2008, p. 42). Wehipeihana’s identification of the role and importance of cultural capital in the evaluation of indigenous people adds to the discourse about cultural validity (Rogers & Davidson, 2013).
The indigenous evaluation discourse described above challenges the traditional role of public sector evaluation as serving the needs of government and the public management values of efficiency and cost-effectiveness of its policies and programmes. The discourse creates an alternative space in which values that are relevant to Māori shape the design, conduct and reporting of evaluations of public sector initiatives. The extent to which government agencies (other than Te Puni Kōkiri, the Ministry of Māori Development) are working (or prepared to work) in this evaluation space has not yet been examined.
evaluators who are developing evaluation approaches based on Pasifika pedagogies, for example Fotuali’i McGeady (2015) and Suaalii-Sauni (2015).