This thesis is philosophically positioned at the interface between culturalist and structuralist perspectives. Kaupapa Māori theory (Smith, 1997; Smith, 2003b) and transformative theory (Gramsci, 1971, 2005; Smith, 2003b) provide the foundation theories, and neo-Marxist perspectives (Crompton, 1996, Devine, 2000) are drawn on to analyse transformation through a structuralist lens. The primary focus is on how to create transformation using both cultural and structural responses and therefore the role of neo-Marxist perspectives is to provide a secondary analytical lens to augment kaupapa Māori and transformative theories.
36
Each theory and perspective is based on a set of values and body of knowledge that is valid, legitimate and important in its own right. The intent was three-fold: first, to create a dynamic and potent lens to theorise, describe and create transformation; second, to guide the research approach and design, and strengthen the overall research; and third, to provide a fresh perspective on the relevance of class in the transformative pursuits of Māori in a contemporary Aotearoa New Zealand context.
The interface between indigenous and Western world views and knowledge
systems is increasingly being explored by indigenous researchers, educationalists, academics, scientists, students and teachers alike (Barnhardt and Kawagley, 1999, 2004; Battiste, 2002; Cunningham, 1998; Kidman, Abrams and McRae, 2011). Driven by a desire to use traditional knowledge to inform contemporary life-worlds, this new space draws on two world views, two bodies of knowledge, to create new knowledge and benefits for indigenous peoples while maintaining the integrity of each paradigm (Durie, 2004; Meyer, 2001). Within a contemporary Aotearoa New Zealand context the interface between kaupapa Māori world views and knowledge systems and Western science and education paradigms continues to grow as Māori explore opportunities for creativity and knowledge expansion (Edwards, 2010; McKinley, 2001, 2005; Mercier, 2007; Royal, 2002; Smith, 2005;). However, Māori have a long history of drawing on Western knowledge and technologies and adapting both to suit their purpose and needs (Jones and Jenkins, 2011).
So why the need for a research interface? The Western research space has long been a site of contest and struggle for the indigenous pursuit of self-determination (Smith, 1999). Exploring the interface is in part a response to this oppressive space which has systematically marginalised and ‘othered’ indigenous knowledge systems and world views (Fanon, 1963; Kawagley, 1995; Said, 1978). Conversely the
research interface is about indigenous peoples carving out new space that attends to indigenous needs and aspirations. It is about shifting indigenous world views and knowledge systems from the periphery to the centre of research endeavours
(Barnhardt and Kawagley, 2005). As Durie (2004) explains, the interface is a space for creativity where two knowledge systems sit alongside each other for mutual gains and benefits:
37
“...There are an increasing number of indigenous researchers who use the research interface between science and indigenous knowledge as a source of inventiveness. They have access to both systems and use the insights and methods of one to enhance the other. In this approach, the focus shifts from proving the superiority of one system over another to identifying opportunities for combining both.” (2004:8).
The practical application of this process, however, is not as simple as it might seem. Smith (2008) for example describes the space between research methodologies, ethical principles, regulations and human subjects as “tricky ground, complicated and changeable”, a space that “plays tricks on both the researchers and the researched” (2008:85). Similarly, Edwards (2010) argues the unequal relationship between both knowledge systems must be taken into account. Thus, the interface is about repositioning and negotiating boundaries, creating and moving space in the academy for indigenous voices to be heard (Smith, 2008:91).
Within a contemporary research context, a wide range of research for Māori is carried out and can be mapped along a continuum based on varied degrees of Māori involvement, control and accountability. To this end, Cunningham (2000) has developed a useful taxonomy for Māori research to help locate researchers and research projects and their likely contribution to the Māori knowledge base and Māori development (2000:65). Four essential types of research for Māori were identified: research not involving Māori, research involving Māori, Māori-centred research and kaupapa Māori research. What distinguishes Māori-centred research from kaupapa Māori research is the dual accountability which rests on the
researcher and the degree of control Māori have over the research project. It is also important to distinguish between research at the interface, research for Māori and mātauranga Māori research, i.e. research that is carried out entirely within the realm and context of Māori knowledge and Māori methodological approaches (Durie, 2004; Royal, 1998, 2002). So how does one operate at the interface? Durie (2004) proposed four principles to guide research at the interface, namely, mutual respect, shared benefits, human dignity and shared discovery. While fairly self-explanatory, in short, these principles acknowledge different perspectives and world views,
38
common goals and aspirations, regard and respect for people involved in the research and a focus on the future (2004:17).
Edwards’ (2010) PhD thesis builds on Durie’s scholarship and draws on both mātauranga Māori and Western science paradigms to theorise positive aging for Māori. His PhD research presents an inquiry paradigm matrix designed specifically to create space for mātauranga Māori to sit alongside Western science as a credible and relevant paradigm for research in contemporary Aotearoa New Zealand. To do this, Edwards aligned te ao marama with ontology, whakapapa with epistemology and kaupapa rangahau with methodology and in doing so shifted the tensions between the two knowledge systems from a philosophical level to a practical level, to the site of application (2010:56). Edwards explains:
“Bringing two separate knowledge systems together at the interface should not be confused with attempting to equate them. It is instead an exercise for recognising distinctiveness and complementarity and their combined ability to provide richer insights into phenomena observable through disciplined inquiry, that is, research.” (2010:60).
Edwards’ (2010) thesis resonates with the conceptual positioning presented in this research. Kaupapa Māori and transformative theory were selected because each is concerned with raising critical consciousness at both an individual and collective level, they are strengths based and focused on empowerment and disrupting the status quo. Neo-Marxist perspectives provide an analytical lens to build
understanding about the root causes, underlying structures and assumptions underpinning social and classed inequalities and how these impact on the lived experiences of Māori. It is about the ‘complementarity’ of these knowledge systems and the production of mutual benefits.
Summary
In this chapter I have located myself as a Māori woman and researcher. I have made explicit the values that inform who I am and what I bring to this research study. I have shown how the experiences of my kuia and parents have influenced
39
and shaped my cultural and political perspectives and outlined how my educational journey is as much a political journey, a form of activism in its own right. I have aligned who I am with kaupapa Māori theory and how this is used to inform how I analyse, think about, plan, carry out and discuss this research. I have also
examined the research interface and what this space looks like within the context of this kaupapa. The next chapter takes a deeper look at transformative theory and explains how its principles and goals are central to this thesis and how it weaves with kaupapa Māori theory to move beyond simply explaining structural and cultural inequalities, towards mapping a way forward to show how to create change. The chapter also looks at social class theories, particularly the emergence of neo- Marxist perspectives, and how these might contribute to theorise and create both cultural and structural transformation responses and strategies. Based on my analysis of the literature, a working definition of social class is presented to show how social class is used in this research study.
40