Method

I conducted three periods of research on Mangaia57_{. The first period was from August to}

September 2011, the second period was from May to June 2012. The third and final visit was during August 2014 and was used primarily to check the accuracy of my interpretations of indigenous viewpoints and language translations.

4.4.1 Case study as a research method

I employed a case study approach, as it is best suited to capturing the diversity of thinking that exists around SD and the need for ESD on Mangaia. Case study allowed complex social phenomena, set within localised areas, to be unravelled (2009). Local people and local solutions are at the core of sustainability and therefore the research needs to capture people’s thoughts and reflections at the local level (Veramu, 2010). The case study I have carried out, using qualitative methods of data collection in the main, avoids statistical generalisations. Instead, in capturing diverse viewpoints, I have looked to make analytic generalisations where theory is compared to the actual empirical data collected (Yin, 2009). O’Leary (2004) explains that although the findings of qualitative research may be

idiographic the lessons learned may be applicable in other contexts. The findings provide insights into SD on Mangaia and the consequent need for a place-based Mangaian EasSD. These findings, whilst focused on Mangaia, will be beneficial in providing examples and comparative frameworks for future SD and ESD thinking and planning that could be used throughout the Cook Islands, the Pacific and the wider Global South.

4.4.2 Data collection

The different aspects of the case study were explored, using embedded units of analysis that sit within the case study as a whole. The embedded units of analysis adopted within the schooling system were students, ex-students, teachers, parents, Ministry of Education officials and aid agencies. The embedded units of analysis adopted within the community were the aronga mana (traditional leaders), individual puna (districts) and/or tapere (sub districts) members, Island Council members, church groups, women’s groups and Members of Parliament. The single case study approach used ensures that the focus

remained on the key overarching questions and, as such, the data collected from the units of analysis was analysed in a holistic way. Analysis of the data was carried out using

qualitative data analysis software named HyperRESEARCH 3.0 (Researchware Inc, 2014). While data collection was focused on interviewing as the main source of evidence, the collection of other relevant information allowed the data to be triangulated, thereby strengthening validity. Quantitative data showing population and school enrolment levels, student qualification results, and ex-student migration patterns were all valuable in building an overall picture of education on Mangaia.

Data validity and reliability is essential to obtain quality data. To ensure the data can stand up to scrutiny, I employed a number of tactics as suggested by Yin (2009). These tactics are outlined in Table 2.

Table 2: Case Study tactics for four design tests

Tests Case study tactic

Construct validity x Use multiple sources of

evidence.

x Establish chain of evidence. x Have key informants review

draft case study report.

Internal validity x Do pattern matching.

x Do explanation building. x Address rival explanations. x Use logic models.

External validity x Link theory to case study.

Reliability x Use case study protocol.

x Develop case study database. Source: (Yin, 2009, p. 41)

To ensure rich data was obtained, the multiple sources of evidence collected were triangulated to ensure accuracy (Burton, Brundrett, & Jones, 2008). A chain of evidence was produced that allows external checkers to follow the evidence flow, starting from the

raw research data right through to conclusions. All taped interviews, transcripts and translations, where necessary, have been stored securely, increasing the validity of the data as conclusions reached can be verified externally. The internal validity of the data has been checked by comparing interviews to look for patterns. Similar views and opposing views were grouped using the HyperRESEARCH 3.0 software. Logic models were developed to clarify complexity of opinion. Drafts of tentative explanatory frameworks and Mangaian language interviews and quotes have all been reviewed by the key informants for accuracy. Reviews of these drafts, started during visit two, were carried out with Mangaians during visit three.

The external validity of the data was checked by comparing and contrasting the case study data with the wide range of Pacific educational literature focused on development and SD, in particular the emerging literature focused on rethinking education across the Pacific. There is no single Pacific response to SD and ESD but similar themes, issues and challenges face all Pacific countries as they address the interconnectedness of education, development and issues of Pacific culture and indigeneity (Sanga, 2004).

Finally, case study protocols, as suggested by Yin (2009), were developed to ensure reliability and validity of the data collected. Protocols include a schedule of overarching questions, see appendix 4, field procedures, which include a method for approaching potential informants and selecting informants, cultural protocols, the formation of an advisory group, translator protocols, interview questions, ethical procedures, information sheets and data collection procedures.

4.4.3 Triangulating data to ensure culturally responsive research

One way of dealing with potential biases was to engage in data collection methods that were culturally responsive. On my first visit to Mangaia, I set up a cultural advisory group58_.

At the first meeting, I presented my research information sheet in Mangaian, see appendix 5, which had also been translated into English, see appendix 6, helping members to understand my background in the Cook Islands and Pacific and strong links to Mangaia. This group provided the protocols to follow when interviewing members of the aronga

58 _{The cultural advisory group consisted of the Principal of Mangaia School, senior school leaders, parents}

mana and the wider Mangaian community. The intentions of the research were also shared with key members of the community: the aronga mana, puna, tapere, Members of Parliament, Island Council, religious elders and other important island groups before I started

researching, a good practice suggested by, Anae et al. (2001). This preparation was vital in assisting my ability to form and maintain good research relationships. Along with my willingness to adopt the Pacific values of respect, reciprocity and service (ibid), it improved the credibility of my research as informants were prepared to engage in interviews

providing honest, open feedback.

Throughout the process, I remained open to lines of inquiry and methods, suggested by Mangaians themselves, on how best to respectfully obtain informants’ views and thoughts on SD and ESD on Mangaia. Respect and a willingness to learn about Mangaian

livelihoods and culture held me in good stead as I researched.

When interviewing students, an important part of my research, I was careful not to elicit answers that might shame a family or community. In Pacific communities, the rights of students are often framed more in the extended family rather than the individual.

Knowledge is owned collectively and respect for elders’ wishes is paramount. I respected these cultural norms avoiding any “potential for shame” (Suaalii & Mavoa, 2001, p. 5). By recording IK and cultural practice, I am aware of having an effect on Mangaian culture. I am cognisant of Borofsky’s (1987) warnings, in the Pukapukan context, alerting

researchers to the impact they can have on culture in the Cook Islands. He states, “In helping to preserve the atolls traditions western anthropologists have also, in a sense, altered them. In writing them down for posterity, they have depicted Pukapukan traditions as more uniform and static than they really are” (p. 142). Moreover, there is the potential to interfere with knowledge, which to date has been passed down by oral tradition. Borofsky’s warnings led me to mitigate such dangers, as much as possible by focussing on a co-

construction of knowledge with participants to ensure the essence of their views was retained. Nevertheless, in a positive sense, Borofsky’s caution does not negate the potential importance of recording IK. Borofsky quotes a key informant, “I am very grateful ... (to have someone) ... come to Pukapuka and write a permanent record of our disappearing ... tradition” (p. 155).

To maintain the integrity of Mangaian knowledge, I had a number of Mangaians, including those to be considered ta’unga (Mangaian cultural experts), check my annotations for

accuracy. The major reason for my third and final trip in August 2014 was to check

translations and, more importantly, interpret the meanings behind participant discussion. In addition, the draft frameworks put forward, although co-constructed with Mangaians and ultimately validated by Mangaians remain provisional. As Escobar (1995) unambiguously reminds outside researchers, it is important to think carefully about the “agency of people from the Global South and how I shouldn’t “appropriate and “consume”” (p. 224) Mangaian viewpoints for my own research needs.

The frameworks provide a scaffolding on which ideas can be debated and on which Mangaians themselves can build a body of knowledge. In accepting Smith’s (1999) idea of avoiding any tendency to move towards essentialism, I regard the SD frameworks provided as a valuable, interpretative synthesis of how a group of Mangaians perceive SD from their worldview. They are helpful frameworks for further discussion on what constitutes SD for Mangaians, and are not an attempt to delineate Mangaians’ relationship with SD.