Kōtuitui
New Zealand Journal of Social Sciences Online
“Koe wai hoki koe?!”, or “Who are you?!”: issues of trust in
cross-cultural collaborative research
Maria Hepi
Jeff Foote
Institute of Environmental Science and Research (ESR) Limited
Christchurch Science Centre
27 Creyke Road
Ilam
Christchurch 8041
New Zealand
Maryanne Marino
Whirinaki Māori Committee (WMC)
Whirinaki Water Board
State Highway 12
Whirinaki
Northland, New Zealand
Marara Rogers
Hone Taimona
Hokianga Health Enterprise Trust (HHET)
Parnell Street
Rawene
Hokianga
Abstract Cross-cultural research designs are increasingly
employed in the New Zealand context to investigate a range of complex
social and environmental issues. However, there is little guidance for
researchers who work for mainstream organisations and hapū
(subtribe(s)) and iwi (tribe(s)) on how to undertake cross-cultural
collaborative research. Trust is a key issue that makes cross-cultural
research possible and it is surprising that issues relating to trust
have not featured widely in the literature. In this paper, we reflect
on our experiences working cross-culturally and collaboratively with a
hapū in Northland, New Zealand. We discuss how a mainstream research
organisation worked with a community health trust and developed a
working relationship with a hapū, forming the basis of a
community-driven collaborative evaluation of a central
government-funded project. Key findings were the establishment of a
tuākana-tēina relationship (where teacher and learner are
interchangeable) between the members of the collaborative research team
and the employment of appropriate research methods to develop a
research agenda that ensured everyone would benefit from the research.
Keywords cross-cultural collaborative research; trust; Māori;
kaupapa Māori; systems thinking; rich picture; participatory action
research; indigenous; New Zealand
Introduction
Research is probably one of the dirtiest words in the indigenous
world’s vocabulary. When mentioned in many indigenous contexts, it
stirs up silence, it conjures up bad memories, it raises a smile that
is knowing and distrustful. (Tuhiwai-Smith 1999: 1)
In general, Māori communities have not
benefited from mainstream1 research which has tended to
emphasise negative statistics without suggesting constructive solutions
(Teariki et al. 1992; Bishop 1997; Crengle 1997; Jones 2000; Reid et
al. 2000). For Tuhiwai-Smith (1999), Māori treat researchers with
suspicion, questioning their motives and methods. We have used the
expression. “koe wai hoki koe?!” meaning “who are you?!” and inferring
“who the hell are you, who do you think you are?!” in the paper because
this was the position taken by the hapū (sub-tribe) we worked
with when the collaborative evaluation began, reflecting that suspicion
of research and researchers. We found the hapū needed to check out us
and our intentions before agreeing to participate in the research.
In response to a suspicion of research and
researchers by Māori, there has been a growing interest in kaupapa
Māori research in recent years. Smith (1992: 1) describes kaupapa Māori
as “the philosophy and practice of being and acting Māori”. Kaupapa
Māori research emerged in challenge to traditional ways of Western
research practices that in the past have marginalised or disregarded
Māori ways of knowing and knowledge (Tuhiwai-Smith 1999: 183). It has
been used to deconstruct Western research authority and to legitimise
and validate Māori ways and practices so as to centre the control of
Māori research with Māori (Tuhiwai-Smith 1999: 183).2 Issues
exist with the uptake of kaupapa Māori research, including a lack of
Māori research capacity and the inability for grassroots Māori to
access research funding (Smith 1999).
Research is important for hapū and iwi
(tribe) development, so sometimes there is a need to
collaborate with mainstream research providers and researchers to
access resources and skills (Harmsworth 2001). By the same token, it is
essential for mainstream providers and researchers to collaborate with
Māori if they want to work within Māori research areas.
Huxham & Vangen (2004: 191) espouse the
advantages to both sides to collaboration: “to gain real advantage from
collaboration, something has to be achieved that could not be achieved
by any one of the organisation’s action[s] alone”.
However, there is little research or
guidance3 on how to undertake cross-cultural collaborative
research for researchers from mainstream organisations and hapū and iwi
who wish to work in partnership. In particular, trust is a key issue
between the two collaborating parties because of past injustices
experienced by Māori.4 The ways in which trust can be built
and maintained between two cultures have received little attention. We
will attempt to fill this gap in this paper. In particular, we consider
the ways in which trust was central to the collaborative evaluation we
undertook and we focus on what activities and methods assisted with
trust building. As Jahnke & Taiapa (1999: 39) note, “the issue of
appropriate methodologies needs to be considered to ensure that the
research is satisfactory both to the researchers and the researched”.
In this paper, we discuss how a mainstream
research organisation worked with a community health trust and, by
employing kaupapa Māori research concepts alongside systems thinking
and participatory action research methods, developed a working
relationship with a hapū, forming the basis of a community-driven
collaborative evaluation of a central government-funded project. This
paper is in three sections. First, we discuss cross-cultural
collaborative research and the issue of whether non Māori should
undertake research with Māori groups. Second, we provide a brief
background and overview of our cross-cultural collaborative evaluation.
Third, we explore how the research relationship formed and developed,
focusing particularly on how trust was built. Following Folkman et al.
(1997: 455), “we are not implying that we performed any outstanding
job” but “this article is our way of taking stock of what we learned
about our practice”.
Cross-Cultural Collaborative Research
Cross-cultural collaborative research is “where [the cross-cultural]
research participants and the researchers are equal partners in the
research process and where all parties benefit from the research”
(Gibbs 2001: 674). In the case of collaborative research between Māori
and non Māori, creating this relationship can be difficult. Historical
and present day grievances mean that trust is broken between the two
cultures. This, along with non-Māori culture having political dominance
at the expense and marginalisation of Māori culture, makes it difficult
to form an equal partnership.
Should non-Māori researchers conduct research with Māori?
There is a view within the New Zealand research community that
non-Māori researchers (such as those within the Institute of
Environmental Science and Research (ESR) research team) should not
conduct research with Māori; rather it should be by Māori with Māori
(Smith 1999; Tuhiwai-Smith 1999; Cram 2001). This view stems from
traditional research by non Māori on Māori whereby Māori knowledge is
misrepresented for “consumption” by non Māori, consequently denying the
authenticity of Māori experience and voice (Bishop 1996: 14).
Furthermore, in traditional research, the researchers (who have been
predominantly non Māori) have usually had the control over the
initiation, process, evaluation and dissemination of the research,
resulting in the lack of Māori participation and control over such
aspects. As a consequence, Māori have become concerned about
participating in research with non Māori because traditionally only
non-Māori researcher(s) would benefit from the research, and not
participating Māori/hapū (Bishop 1996: 15).
However, Bishop also argues that non Māori
should be involved in Māori research because there are some who are
willing to forgo the traditional control and work within
Māori-controlled contexts, and that these researchers are dedicated to
the betterment of Māori and present their work as a koha (gift) for
Māori to pick up as they see fit (Bishop 1996: 17–18). It is also noted
in the literature that if non Māori are to undertake research with
Māori, the Māori research community are concerned that non-Māori
researchers should have an understanding of te reo Māori (Māori
language) and tikanga Māori (customs) and that they should be able to
operate within both te ao Pākehā (the Western world) and te ao
Māori (the Māori world) (Harmsworth 2001; Parr 2002). We argue that
while conducting the “Learning from the stories of Ngā Puna Wai o
Hokianga” cross-cultural collaborative research, we found the fact that
the hapū research participants were able to trust the non-Māori
researchers in the research team was more important than being
bilingual and bicultural.5 We found that just as Māori
genetic make-up does not automatically qualify a person to research
Māori, the ability of a non-Māori researcher in te reo and tikanga
Māori does not automatically qualify them to be able to work with hapū.
What hapū participants seek, in our experience, is that the researchers
are trustworthy, and that they build credibility through their
integrity as people and by their actions, whether they be indigenous or
not, bi-cultural or not.
In the process of forming cooperative research relationships, the
researcher must prove their genuineness, worthiness, integrity,
appropriateness, and any number of characteristics that may be desired
by the potential research subjects. (Parr 2002: 15–16).
Te Awekotuku (1991) also supports this idea
when she states theorists have suggested that in traditional Māori
ethics, it is innate virtue rather than exemplary behaviour that people
are judged by. She also argues that in contemporary Māori society, some
form of rules has become necessary. Cram (2001) asserts that there is a
growing opinion that non Māori cannot conduct kaupapa Māori
research, although non-Māori researchers can support a Māori
research kaupapa (Cram 2001: 38). In the cross-cultural collaborative
evaluation research project “Learning from the Stories of Ngā Puna wai
o Hokianga”, this is what the ESR co-researchers endeavoured to
achieve.
Study Background
The “Ngā Puna Wai o Hokianga” (safe drinking water) pilot project
Our work is based in the Hokianga, Northland, where ongoing concerns
about the safety of drinking water lead the Ministry of Health (MoH) to
fund a project to improve marae drinking water quality. MoH purposely
focused on marae6 as they are a central site within the
Hokianga communities for local people to access safe drinking water and
provide manuhiri (visitors) access to safe drinking water when
attending hui (meetings) at marae. The ministry was concerned
that Māori communities would be suspicious of central government
interest in drinking water, so the MoH contracted Hokianga Health
Enterprise Trust (HHET), a community health trust, to implement the
project given their established social networks and legitimacy with
Māori communities in the Hokianga. Two local kaiwhakakōkiri
(negotiators) from North and South Hokianga were employed by
HHET to consult with local hapū, as they had engineering knowledge and
expertise in tikanga, te reo Māori, and had whakapapa (genealogy) to
the local area – these are critical aspects to working effectively in
the Māori communities. In total, 36 marae within two communities
participated in the pilot, culminating in access to safe drinking water
for all marae that participated (Beca Steven 2003; Jellie et al. 2003;
Stuart et al. 2003; Foote et al. 2005).
Participating Agencies in the “Ngā Puna Wai o Hokianga” (safe
drinking water) pilot project
Hokianga Health Enterprises Trust (HHET)
HHET provides free services to the people of Hokianga as an extended
primary health care service. Contracted health and disability services
include health promotion and community support. The Ngā Puna Wai o
Hokianga pilot project extended the scope of traditional hospital and
health services into community development.7
The Whirinaki Māori Committee (WMC)
The Whirinaki community is a small settlement of approximately 200
people in the Hokianga, encompassing three marae of Te Hikutu hapū. The
Whirinaki Māori Committee (WMC) was established under the Māori
Community Development Act 1962 and governs the Whirinaki community.
During the Ngā Puna Wai o Hokianga pilot project, the WMC negotiated
with HHET for their committee to take over the management contract of
their community water supply.
Institute of Environmental Science and Research Ltd (ESR)
ESR is a Crown entity owned by the New Zealand Government, operating
with an independent board of directors. ESR’s focus is on how human and
naturally occurring influences in the environment impact on the health
and well being of people, and it delivers scientific services in
environmental health and forensic services. ESR became involved with
the drinking water pilot when an ESR water quality scientist was
invited by the engineering firm, Beca Stevens (subcontracted by MoH) to
join the evaluation team.
The cross-cultural collaborative evaluation research project,
“Learning From the Stories of Ngā Puna Wai o Hokianga”8
Although an official evaluation by Beca Stevens concluded that the
pilot project was generally a success, HHET and one of the
participating hapū felt that the evaluation did not fully grasp the
meaning or significance of participation in the pilot for Hokianga
hapū. As a result, they were keen to conduct a broader evaluation that
took into account Māori community perspectives, hence their agreement
to work in partnership with ESR to conduct a cross-cultural
collaborative evaluation of the pilot project called “Learning from the
stories of Ngā Puna Wai o Hokianga”.
The research team from ESR was interested
in documenting an example of what could be achieved if Māori
communities were meaningfully involved in decision-making processes in
relation to drinking water and water management9 and how
this process could be initiated and supported. Another purpose of this
collaborative evaluation was for ESR to examine how a government
research institute (ESR) could conduct cross-cultural collaborative
research with Māori.
The Development of Trust
The following section explores how a cross-cultural collaborative
research relationship developed between a Crown Research Institute
(ESR), a community health trust (HHET) and a hapū in the Hokianga
during the “Learning from the stories of Ngā Puna Wai o Hokianga”
cross-cultural collaborative evaluation research project. This section
focuses on the aspect of “trust” in the research relationship and how
this was developed and maintained through kaupapa Māori research
concepts, alongside systems thinking and participatory action research
methods. Trust is particularly important when conducting research with
Māori because of the historical distrust resulting from colonisation
(Te Puni Kōkiri 2003) and from the misplacement of trust of Māori in
mainstream researchers (Bishop 1996).
Initiating access to the hapū
During the official evaluation of the Ngā Puna Wai o Hokianga
pilot, an ESR employee met hapū members, the kaiwhakakōkiri who worked
for HHET on the Ngā Puna Wai o Hokianga pilot project. From that
first meeting, a tentative relationship was formed and the
kaiwhakakōkiri were invited to join an ESR research project in an
advisory capacity, by becoming part of a reference group for a the
Foundation for Research, Science and Technology (FRST) funded urban
water and decision-making project. While on the reference group, one of
the kaiwhakakōkiri invited ESR to the Hokianga to discuss research
possibilities. Therefore, by building on a chance opportunity and a
tentative relationship, we had overcome the first step in working with
hapū, i.e. initial access and an invitation to possibly conduct some
research.
The next step was to accept the invitation
and explore possibilities. However, we knew that conducting research
with Māori was going to be quite different from the way we would
typically conduct research with agencies and communities. Building and
maintaining trust is always an issue when working with people in
communities and agencies. Given the historical misplacement of trust by
Māori in the Crown by way of the Treaty and, in more recent times, the
misplaced trust in non-Māori researchers (both aspects of which the ESR
co-researchers represented), we knew that trust was going to be one of
the biggest hurdles to overcome in research with Māori. We realised
that the relationship building and proposal development phase of the
research was going to configure differently and potentially take longer
than with non-Māori groups. Therefore this phase of the research was
going to complement our larger research project by understanding how a
mainstream research organisation such as ESR could undertake research
with Māori. Irwin (1994) also understood this when she conducted her
research:
The interviews in fact constitute the second phase of the fieldwork
and data collection. The first phase of the research has comprised a
significant learning environment for me and for those working for me.
It has constituted a discrete phase of the fieldwork in itself (Irwin
1994:39).
Our experience of research in previous
projects had been with non-Māori groups based on participatory action
research principles (where research is participant—rather than
specialist—driven). However, we acknowledged this was not going to be
adequate when working with Māori. We recognised that kaupapa Māori
concepts were also going to have to be central to the research. Being
non Māori, we could not contribute to that aspect and the only way of
incorporating this expertise or perspective was to take a collaborative
approach to any research with Māori.
The first hui took place in November 2001
at the community trust in the Hokianga and was organised by the two
kaiwhakakōkiri from HHET. It was attended by the Health Trust’s
CEO, Māori representatives from other local health providers and ESR
researchers, to explore possible research foci. During this hui, ESR
researchers were invited by one of the kaiwhakakōkiri to meet with his
hapū whose involvement in the Ngā Puna Wai o Hokianga pilot
project had been notable for the extent to which they had taken over
the management contract from HHET to install their own community water
supply. It was thought that the hapū story of how they managed the
contract and installed their community water supply may make for a
research project that resounded with the larger FRST research project
on urban water decision-making. We accepted the invitation and the next
day, the kaiwhakakōkiri arranged for a hui to take place at the marae
for us to meet the hapū.
Collaboration is about power sharing and
commitment between equals. That we went to the marae to talk to the
hapū was in itself an important aspect of relationship building and
collaboration. Engaging with the hapū at their marae before the
research has even been defined demonstrated that the ESR researchers
were willing to cross over and have the research process situated and
defined in te ao Māori. Cram (2001) explains it as such:
An important part of any research process is actually fronting up,
face to face to the community where the research is being conducted …
It is an essential part of the “ritual of first encounter” … and is one
signal that the researchers are willing to cross that space between
researchers and researched. These rituals also place the power to
define the situation, including the conduct of the researchers, firmly
within the hands of the community (Cram 2001: 43).
The rituals of encounter on a marae ensured
that as researchers, we were now in the realm of te ao Māori and not of
te ao Pākehā. The kaiwhakakōkiri were now the tuākana (senior/leader),
and us the tēina (junior/novice) in guiding the research process.
Furthermore, having the kaiwhakakōkiri as tuākana when we were in te ao
Māori and later on in analysis with information regarding te ao Māori
would always ensure tikanga and whakaaro Māori (Māori customs and
thoughts) were always central to the research. This was as crucial to
the success of the research as the ESR researchers taking on the
tuākana role when directing and guiding the kaiwhakakōkiri in any
academic processes to come.
Cram (2001) talks about “manaaki ki te
tangata” (looking after/respecting people) within a collaborative
approach to research and to us this reflects the tuākana-tēina
relationship the research team adopted.
In a collaborative setting, knowledge is seen flowing in both
directions: participants and researchers both have something meaningful
to contribute. This approach … acknowledges that the researcher will
also be learning, and not just gathering data, during the research
process10 (Cram 2001: 45).
Tangaere (1997) also elaborates on the
concept of the tuākana-tēina relationship in relation to ako.
The concept of tuākana/tēina also operates through the dual nature
of ako. The word ako means to learn as well as to teach. In te ao Māori
it is an acceptable practice for the learner to shift roles and become
the teacher, and for the teacher to become the learner (Tangaere 1997:
50).
As we were at the marae by invitation of
the kaiwhakakōkiri and not the actual hapū, it was ultimately up to the
kaiwhakakōkiri to endorse us, regarding our trustworthiness and our
integrity as people in order for the hapū to work with us. This is also
reflected in the research work that Te Mātāhauariki undertook (Parr
2002):
The willingness with which potential participants responded to Te
Mātāhauariki overtures is in no small part due to the reputations and
the personal integrity of its senior members (Parr 2002: 16).
The hapū’s trust in the kaiwhakakōkiri was
the crucial aspect. Many times during the pōwhiri (welcoming ceremony)
and mihimihi (greetings and acknowledgements), the kaiwhakakōkiri would
state in te reo Māori what “good hearts” we had. They trusted him and
through his endorsement, we were able to start a tentative relationship
with the hapū. Also of note was that for the hapū, the ESR researchers
were only accountable to their institution and their funders and this
did not guarantee that we could be trustworthy to them. Therefore, it
was critical that the hapū had someone such as the kaiwhakakōkiri who
was accountable to them. Having the kaiwhakakokiri as our tuākana in
the research process enabled trust to be built between the hapū and
ourselves.
Another important aspect in building trust
in our first hui with the hapū was that we went to the marae solely to
listen. We did not go there as “experts”, we did not presume to have
answers, we went there to listen to their story, their experience. We
went to build a relationship and explore interconnections and synergies
where we all could benefit. Bishop (1996) recounts a similar process:
Researchers … repositioned themselves in the research process in
order to stop trying to give voice to others, to empower others, to
emancipate others, but rather to listen to and participate with those
traditionally “othered” as constructs of meanings of their own
experiences and agents of knowledge (Bishop 1996: 230).
It was also about “kia ngākau māhaki”,
which Pipi et al. (2004) describe as being humble in your approach:
Kia ngākau māhaki means to be humble in your approach; do not flaunt
your knowledge. This is about sharing knowledge and using …
qualifications to benefit … community (Pipi et al. 2004: 150).
Developing the Research Proposal
The next hui was held in April 2002 at the community health trust.
The hui was attended by members from the hapū who we had met on our
previous visit and who were also members of the marae committee (WMC),
along with the two kaiwhakakōkiri, and the CEO of HHET. We were at
the stage of developing the research proposal. We had a tentative
agreement from the last hui at the marae, that what the WMC had
achieved in the Ngā Puna Wai o Hokianga pilot project could be a
collaborative research project, but at that stage we had no idea how it
would be carried out.
The usual process in participant-driven
proposal development is to brainstorm as many ideas as possible and
then narrow them down through discussion. This has limitations in that
it is still based on researcher-determined criteria for participation.
For example, the scribe (who is usually the non-Māori academic
researcher) can control the process and define the research by deciding
unintentionally from their own cultural discourse and perspective which
words and ideas will be written up.
To overcome this barrier to
participant-driven proposal development, we used a systems method
called a “rich picture”, a qualitative model (usually taking the form
of cartoon-like drawings with words) of what the project team saw as
the key research issues (Checkland 1981; Checkland & Scholes 1990).
This method allows for anyone to be scribe at different times during
the process, they are able to add onto and develop the rich picture by
drawing connections and it allows for a “story” to emerge. Glynn &
Bishop (1995) affirm story telling as an important strategy in
addressing power in research:
Story telling is also a powerful research strategy … It addresses
the issue of power and control over the process of research. Story
telling minimises the potential for researcher hegemony through the
imposition of researchers’ goals and agendas on participants’
experiences (Glynn & Bishop 1995: 37).
The ESR co-researchers had used this method
previously with non-Māori groups but found it even more pertinent with
a predominantly Māori group.11 Since the rich picture is a
pictorial format, which can be more conducive to story telling than
words, we thought it would be useful for expressing ideas in metaphor,
reminiscent of Māori culture. Bishop (1996) explains:
The method of story telling and narrative construction used …
facilitated participants being able to choose the language, including
the metaphors, within which they tell their story (Bishop 1996: 231).
A picture emerged from this process based
on a metaphor suggested by a hapū member.12 The picture
illustrated a journey expressed as a metaphor, that of “te waka o
Whirinaki” (Whirinaki’s canoe) traversing the moana (body of water)
from the paru (polluted) waters of the floods in 1999 through to the
safe water source established in 2002. It illustrated the various
obstacles needing to be overcome along the way and the
taniwha/kaitiaki/guardians that helped and supported the hapū on their
haerenga (journey). The use of the waka was significant because in te
ao Māori it is a symbol of how people pull together to achieve
something as a collective, as a whānau (family), encompassing all the
facets that comprise whānau.
Fig. 1 Te Waka o Whirinaki rich picture13
The waka (canoe) is another potent metaphor of unity for Māori
people. The political solidarity of the waka symbol is reflected also
in the feelings of togetherness that are developed by the notion of
waka membership … [It] extols the value of people “paddling together
for the common benefit”, of setting aside differences and “climbing
onboard” the collective waka (Bishop 1996: 234).
As a result of employing the rich picture
method as a tool to explore research possibilities, cultural metaphor
emerged to define the research. Having a Māori cultural metaphor
defining the research further built trust between the hapū
co-researchers and the ESR co-researchers, reinforcing the research
principle that te ao Māori was central to the research, that this
research was coming from a Māori point of view:
[It] demonstrates that by conducting research within the culturally
instituted ways of knowing that are those of the participants, they are
able to give voice to the sense they make of their experiences on their
own terms, within their own ways of knowing (Bishop 1996: 231).
And not from the conventional viewpoint of
the non-Māori researchers, as in the past:
Research has displaced Māori lived experiences with the
“authoritive” voice of the “expert” voiced in terms defined and
determined by the “expert” (Bishop 1996: 14).
The effectiveness of the metaphoric rich
picture of “te waka o Whirinaki” was demonstrated during the third hui
held at the marae with the kaumātua (learned elders, both male and
female). The purpose of this hui was to explain to kaumātua the
research proposal that had developed over the previous months (based on
the idea of “te waka o Whirinaki”) and to try to gain permission for
the research team to conduct the research. At this hui, each kaumātua
referred to the rich picture as they stood up to kōrero (speak) and in
turn gave their blessing for the research to proceed. We perceived that
this demonstrated the usefulness of the rich picture as a tool to not
only overcome the potential for imposition of the non-Māori
researchers’ agenda, but also to build a bridge between the two
cultures in understanding what the research proposed so as to give
informed consent and ultimately build trust. Teariki et al. (1992)
discuss this when they talk about research as a partnership:
It is critical the research process and outcome be fully explained …
This assumes a language which is common to both researcher and
researched, at least to the point where informed consent, for example,
can be said to have occurred (Teariki et al. 1992: 5).
Ownership of the research and research processes
During the second hui in which the rich picture of “te waka o
Whirinaki” was developed, the proposed research processes and ownership
over the research findings were also discussed. These two aspects are
essential considerations and enhance the trust of the ESR
co-researchers by the hapū co-researchers.
It was decided that the research would be
split into two parts. In one part, the hapū members from WMC were keen
to have an independent report on achievements from the Ngā Puna Wai o
Hokianga pilot project. This was so they would have an “official”
document validating their work to establish a track record to be used
to obtain other subcontract work for the benefit of their hapū. It was
decided that since the ESR co-researchers were seen as the most
“neutral” out of the three partners in the research team, they would
conduct interviews with the various agencies and contractors involved
with WMC during the Ngā Puna Wai o Hokianga pilot project. This
report would also document the drivers and barriers to WMC’s success,
thus fulfilling the requirements of the larger FRST-funded urban water
decision-making research project. It was also decided that although the
ESR co-researchers would gather the data, any research analysis would
be done collaboratively together as a research team.
Analysing the data together was another
example of the tuākana-tēina relationship the research team had
adopted. Instead of the ESR co-researchers dominating and arriving at
their own conclusions, it was to be done together in a two way
conversation. As Cram (1997) states:
It is not possible to be informed fully about a culture other than
our own, yet it is possible to reflect on how our world-view is not
“reality” but is a socially constructed entity in which certain groups
and discourse are privileged and others denied … Rather a partnership
model allows a two-way conversation that does not deny either reality
but may choose to privilege a different account than the usual or
“commonsense” one (Cram 1997: 58).
The second part of the research focused on
kaitiakitanga (guardianship), to be lead by the kaiwhakakōkiri. It was
proposed that they would interview the kaumātua and explore how their
tūpuna (ancestors) managed the Whirinaki River (the community’s
traditional water supply before the Ngā Puna Wai o Hokianga
pilot) according to the principle of kaitiakitanga. These video
interviews aimed to bring knowledge about kaitiakitanga back to the
community, to rangatahi (young people) in particular. They were
conducted wholly in te reo Māori to preserve this knowledge as
traditionally as possible and to also provide a language resource.
Being non Māori and also “outsiders” to the community, the ESR
co-researchers would have no part of this research. This is in keeping
with the principle of kaupapa Māori research to “retrieve some space”
for Māori (Jones et al. 2006: 2). In this case, it was in retrieving
some space for the hapū co-researchers within the research team to
conduct research as they saw fit. In addition, since this information
was tapu (restricted) to Te Hikutu hapū it was right it should be not
accessible to non members. As Tuhiwai-Smith states, a part of
mātauranga Māori (Māori knowledge) is also accepting that there
will be knowledge that is off-limits (Cram 2001: 39). This was aided by
building trust with the hapū participants because it demonstrated that
the ESR co-researchers were willing to forgo control and not impose the
traditional Western view that sets no limits on what can be researched
and/or explored (Cram 2001: 39).
It was also decided that the hapū
co-researchers would have the final say over any material from the
research that would be made public. They agreed to the ESR
co-researchers writing from the data but all documents were to be
viewed and amended by the hapū co-researchers before being made public.
The hapū participants would also be co-authors on any work published or
disseminated publicly. This gave ownership of the data to the hapū.14
This was a critical aspect to gaining the trust of the hapū members as
it further reinforced that the ESR co-researchers were relinquishing
control.
Undertaking the research and becoming part of the research “whānau”
Once the blessing was obtained from the kaumātua, and the processes
of the research were followed as agreed upon (adopting a
tuākana-tēina model of shared learning, respect, reciprocity and
trust), the research unfolded. The ESR co-researchers undertook 26
interviews with various stakeholders from central and local government
and private companies to understand their involvement in the Whirinaki
community water scheme and the Ngā Puna Wai o Hokianga pilot project in
general. With assistance from WMC, HHET conducted 28 video interviews
with Whirinaki’s kaumātua.
At the end of the research, we returned to
the marae to present the findings to kaumātua. During this hui,
kaumātua were also presented with a video recording of their own
interview with HHET and copies of the final report. It was during this
hui, rather than the hui when the kaumātua gave their blessing to
conduct the research, that the ESR co-researchers realised that they
had been accepted by the hapū co-research members. One of the
co-researchers stood up and talked about the work we had conducted
together and how we were now “whānau”. By using the term “whānau”, the
hapū member was indicating that as non-Māori researchers we could be
trusted, that we had demonstrated that we were working with and for the
hapū and that we were part of Whirinaki’s waka as a whānau working
towards a common goal:
The application of the term whānau has been in the metaphorical use
of the term to refer to collectives of people working for a common end,
who are not connected by kinship, let alone descent (Bishop 1996: 217).
Hence, it was only after the
research had been conducted, that we had proven ourselves to be
trustworthy through results. We had been ultimately accepted and had
become part of the research whānau.
Conclusion
Building trust between research parties is difficult at the best of
times but it is even more trying when it involves two parties from
different cultures with historical experience resulting in high levels
of mistrust. We hope that this paper has demonstrated what can be
accomplished by overcoming these differences and the importance that
“trust” plays in establishing these relationships.
Some of the key aspects in establishing
trust in cross-cultural collaborative research we found when
undertaking this research are as follows:
(a) Build on new relationships, even when you are unsure
where it may lead. This provides a forum for taking up an
opportunity when it arrives. In this instance, it was inviting the
kaiwhakakōkiri to join a reference group for the wider FRST-funded
research and then accepting their invitation to explore research
possibilities.
(b) Undertake the research with an appropriate methodology.
In this instance, it was not only about adopting participative action
research principles where research is participant-driven rather than
specialist-driven, it was also recognising the need for the research to
be based on kaupapa Māori concepts which can only be facilitated by
Māori co-researchers.
(c) Use appropriate research methods. Developing the
research proposal by using a “rich picture” method allowed for cultural
metaphor to emerge, shape and define what would be done and how. This
also ensured the research would stem from the Māori participants’
perspectives of te ao Māori and not from that of the non-Māori
researchers.
(d) Non-Māori co-researchers relinquish control over the
research. This was done by: (1) ensuring the research was situated
in te ao Māori; (2) by having the research process lead by hapū members
of the research team; (3) allowing the hapū members to conduct their
own research (kaitiakitanga videos) without interference from the
non-Māori co-researchers; and (4) having the ownership of the research
data rest with the hapū members.
The most important aspect from our
perspective was:
(e) Have a tuākana-tēina relationship between the ESR and
hapū co-researchers. When we were in te ao Māori, the hapū members
were our tuākana and we were to learn from and be guided by them. They
guided us on all aspects of tikanga and process for the research and in
developing our relationship and building trust with the hapū. When we
were undertaking analysis of the agency and contractor interview data,
the tuākana-tēina relationship was more fluid and moved back and forth
depending on what expertise was needed. As in most tuākana-tēina
relationships, we were to learn from each other depending on what
sphere we were in. This enabled us to build trust and be truly
cross-cultural and collaborative.
Some relationships are easier to establish
than others, thus requiring different approaches to initiation and
establishment. What may work in one area may not work in another and
this is true when trying to establish a relationship spanning two
cultural worlds. Even though it may be more difficult and more time
consuming to work cross-culturally rather than mono-culturally, the
former is more enriching, enabling learning on many different levels.
As the Western saying goes, “good things take time”, and the Māori
whakatauki (proverb), “ka tika ā muri, ka tika ā mua”, acknowledges
that if the process is right in the first place, then everything else
will follow suit.
Acknowledgements
ESR would like to particularly acknowledge our co-researchers from
the Whirinaki Māori Committee and Hokianga Health Enterprises Trust in
putting this article together. We would also like to thank the
Whirinaki community, especially the kaumātua in allowing us to
undertake this research. We are very grateful to you all for giving us
the opportunity and have enjoyed your kind hospitality. We would also
like to acknowledge and thank Hare Ngaropo who first initiated the wero
(challenge) to ESR to undertake some research in the Hokianga. Without
this initial challenge to ESR, the research would not have been carried
out. We are eternally grateful to Hare for this. We would also like to
acknowledge Virginia Baker and Jan Gregor from ESR who first went to
the Hokianga and recognised the potential of a research partnership;
without your insight the research would not have been carried out.
Acknowledgements also extend to the Foundation for Research, Science
and Technology (FRST) who funded the research.
References
Baker VE, Foote JL, Gregor JE, Houston DJ, Midgley GR 2004. Boundary
critique and community involvement in small watershed management. In:
Dew K, Fitzgerald R ed. Challenging science: science and society issues
in New Zealand. Palmerston North, Dunmore Press.
Beca Steven 2003. Nga Punā Wai o Hokianga (Safe drinking-water in
Hokianga pilot project). Report prepared for the Ministry of Health by
Beca Steven, a division of Beca Carter Hollings & Ferner Ltd, and
in association with the Institute of Environmental Science and Research
Ltd.
Bishop R 1996. Collaborative research stories: Whakawhānaungatanga.
Palmerston North, Dunmore Press.
Bishop R 1997. Māori people’s concerns about research into their
lives. History of Education Review 26(1): 25–41.
Checkland P 1981. Systems thinking, systems practice. Chichester
Sussex; New York, J Wiley.
Checkland P, Scholes P 1990. Soft systems methodology in action.
Chichester, J Wiley.
Cram F 1997. Developing partnerships in research: Pākehā researchers
and Māori research. Sites no. 35 (Spring): 44–63.
Cram F 2001. Rangahau Māori: tōna tika, tōna pono: the validity and
integrity of Māori research. In: Tolich M ed. Research ethics in
Aotearoa New Zealand: concepts, practice, critique. Auckland, Longman.
Crengle S 1997. Mā Papatūānuku, ka Tipu ngā Rakau: a case study of
the Well Child Health Programme provided by Te Whānau o Waipareira
Trust. Unpublished Master of Public Health thesis, University of
Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Folkman D, Kalyani V, Rai K 1997. Reflections on facilitating a
participatory community self-evaluation. Evaluation and Program
Planning 20 (4): 455–465.
Foote J, Hepi M, Rogers-Koroheke M, Taimona H 2005. Urban water
decision making project: learning from the stories of Ngā Puna Wai o
Hokianga. Client report FW0537. Christchurch, Institute of
Environmental Science and Research Limited.
Foote JL, Gregor JE, Jellie MC, Porter J 2002. Methods for taking
into account community concerns in council decision making. New Zealand
Water and Waste Annual Conference. Christchurch, New Zealand, 25–27
September 2002.
Gibbs M 2001. Toward a strategy for undertaking cross-cultural
collaborative research. Society and Natural Resources 14:
673–687.
Glynn T, Bishop R 1995. Cultural issues in educational research: a
New Zealand perspective. He Pukenga Kōrero: A Journal of Māori Studies
1(1): 37–43.
Gregor JE, Foote JL, Jellie MC, Porter J 2002. Improving the
effectiveness of water conservation strategies: the importance of
factors influencing total watershed management. Water Environment
Federation’s 75th Annual Conference and Exposition. Chicago, Illinois,
United States, 28 September to 2 October 2002.
Harmsworth G 2001. A collaborative research model for working with
iwi: discussion paper. Retrieved 13 May 2004, from
http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/research/social/iwimodel1.asp
Hope S 2006. Self-determination and cultural difference. Political
Science 58(1): 23–42.
Huxham C, Vangen S 2004. Doing things collaboratively: realizing the
advantage or succumbing to inertia? Organizational Dynamics 33:
190–201.
Irwin K 1994. Māori research methods and processes: an exploration.
Sites no. 28 (Autumn) 24–43.
Jahnke H, Taiapa J 1999. Māori research. In: Davidson C, Tolich M
ed. Social science research in New Zealand. Auckland, Longman. Pp
39–50.
Jones R 2000. Rongoā Māori and primary health care. Unpublished
Master of Public Health thesis, University of Auckland, Auckland, New
Zealand.
Jellie M, Foote J, North N, Rogers M, Taimona H, Marino M 2003. A
case study of improving drinking water quality in the Hokianga. New
Zealand Water and Wastes Association Conference. Auckland, New Zealand,
17–19 September 2003.
Jones R, Crengle S, McCreanor T 2006. How tikanga guides and
protects the research process: insights from the Hauora Tāne project.
Social Policy Journal of New Zealand 29: 60–77.
Munz P 1999. Open and closed research. NZ Books 1(9): 6.
Parr R 2002. Te Mātāhauariki methodology: the creative relationship
framework. Te Mātāhauariki Institute occasional paper series,
number 5. Retrieved 5 May 2005, from http://www.lianz.waikato.ac.nz
Pipi K, Cram F, Hawke R, Hawke S, Huriwai T, Mataki T, Milne M,
Morgan K, Tuhaka H, Tuuta C 2004. A research ethic for studying Māori
and iwi provider success. Social Policy Journal of New Zealand 23:
141–153.
Rata E 2002. Democratic principles in teaching and learning.
Auckland, Auckland College of Education Monograph Series.
Rata E 2004. Neotribal capitalism and public policy. Political
Science 56(1) 55–64.
Reid P, Robson B, Jones C 2000. Disparities in health: common myths
and uncommon truths. Pacific Health Dialogue 7: 138–147.
Smith GH 1992. Tāne-nui-a-rangi’s legacy: propping up the sky.
Kaupapa Māori as resistance and intervention. Paper presented at the
New Zealand Association for Research in Education/Australia Association
for Research in Education joint conference. Deakin University,
Australia.
Smith LT 1999. Kaupapa Māori methodology: our power to define
ourselves. Seminar presentation to the School of Education, University
of British Columbia.
Stuart K, Foote J, Jellie M, Gregor J 2003. Learning from the
stories of Ngā Puna Wai o Hokianga (Guest Editorial). PHA News VI(4):
1–2.
Tangaere AR 1997. Māori human development learning theory. In: Te
Whaiti P, McCarthy M, Durie A ed. Mai i Rangiātea: Māori wellbeing and
development. Wellington, Auckland University Press with Bridget
Williams Books. Pp 46–59.
Teariki C, Spoonley P, Tomoana N 1992. The politics and process of
research for Māori: Te whakapakari te mana tangata. Palmerston North,
Department of Sociology, Massey University.
Te Awekotuku N 1991. He tikanga whakaaro: research ethics in the
Māori community: a discussion paper. Wellington, Ministry of Māori
Affairs.
Te Puni Kōkiri 2003. Māori in New Zealand. Wellington. Retrieved 19
July 2004, from Http://www.tpk.govt.nz/Māori
Tuhuwai-Smith L 1999. Decolonizing methodologies: research and
indigenous peoples. London, Zed Books; Dunedin, University of Otago
Press.
1Mainstream in this paper is defined as of the governing
culture within New Zealand, i.e. Western/non Māori.
2There has been some criticism of kaupapa Māori theory;
see, for instance, Munz 1999; Rata 2002; Rata 2004; and Hope 2006.
However, for this paper, the authors take the stance that kaupapa Māori
theory is valid.
3With the exception of Gibbs (2001), Harmsworth (2001)
and Parr (2002).
4In 1840, Māori tribes signed the Treaty of Waitangi, a
treaty between Māori and the Crown. The Treaty has been breached by the
Crown, which has resulted in the loss of sovereignty, land, language
and culture for Māori, which Māori are still fighting for redress
today. Māori like many other indigenous populations of colonised
countries feature disproportionately in almost all of the negative
national statistics including employment, health, housing and crime (Te
Puni Kōkiri 2003).
5The research team was made up of non-Māori researchers
from the Institute of Environmental Science and Research (ESR) (with
only one experienced in te reo and tikanga Māori), two kaiwhakakōkiri
(negotiators) from Hokianga Health Enterprises Trust (HHET) and hapū
members from the Whirinaki Māori Committee (WMC).
6A marae is the focal area of a Māori village and
consists of a large meeting house, dining area and ablution block.
7Community development for Māori/marae is hapū
development where the responsibility of initiatives is taken up by
Māori to meet their own needs through a kaupapa Māori process; for
example, always going back to kaumātua (learned elders, both male and
female) for guidance and support.
8A PDF file of the research report can be attained by
emailing: maria.hepi@esr.cri.nz
9 The cross-cultural collaborative research project
“Learning from the stories of Ngā Puna Wai o Hokianga”, undertaken by
co-researchers from the ESR, HHET and the WMC is part of a larger ESR
research project funded by the Foundation for Research, Science and
Technology (FRST), that aims to develop and trial tools to assist
decision makers and communities reach robust decisions about the
management of drinking and waste water treatment systems (see Foote et
al. 2002; Gregor et al. 2002; Baker et al. 2004).
10However, in our case, the kaiwhakakōkiri (and later,
members from the WMC) were not only participants but also
co-researchers.
11ESR and HHET are now undertaking Health Research
Council research that has stemmed from this research project. Because
of the success of the rich picture method in this research project, we
proposed to use it again at our first hui to surface issues. This time,
however, we were going to be using the method on the marae, with many
hapū members who we had not previously met. We were advised by the HHET
research members that it would not be appropriate to do this as the
kaumātua would perceive that we were treating them “like children”.
Thus, on reflection, we feel it still holds value as a useful tool for
brainstorming and capturing metaphor, but is probably best used in
smaller, more familiar groups (where a relationship has been
established).
12As the kaiwhakakōkiri were also hapū members,
references to hapū members in this paper encompass both the hapū
members from the WMC and also the kaiwhakakōkiri.
13This is a computer drawn version of the original
picture developed by research participants.
14This can be difficult when institutions expect writing
to take a maximum of a couple of days followed by immediate
dissemination. It has been necessary for the ESR co-researchers to
request additional time to allow co-researchers to view and amend
writing prior to publication. This is an ongoing tension but has been
overcome with persistence and holding fast to agreements with hapū
co-researchers.
APPENDIX 1 Glossary of terms
|
Haerenga
|
Journey
|
|
Hui
|
To meet or a meeting on a specific issue
|
|
Hapū
|
Sub-tribe
|
|
Iwi
|
Tribe
|
|
Kaitiaki
|
Guardian
|
|
Kaitiakitanga
|
Guardianship/caretaker
|
|
Kaiwhakakōkiri
|
Negotiator(s)
|
|
Kaumātua
|
Learned elder(s), both male and female
|
|
Koha
|
Gift
|
|
Kōrero
|
Conversation/talk
|
|
Māori
|
Indigenous people of New Zealand
|
|
Marae
|
Focal area of a Māori village, consisting of a large meeting
house, dining area and ablution block.
|
|
Manaaki
|
Look after/hospitality
|
|
Manuhiri
|
Guests
|
|
Mātauranga Māori
|
Māori knowledge
|
|
Mihimihi
|
Greetings and acknowledgments
|
|
Moana
|
A body of water (usually the sea or a lake)
|
|
Paru
|
Dirty/polluted
|
|
Pōwhiri
|
Welcoming ceremony
|
|
Rangatahi
|
Young people
|
|
Tapu
|
Restricted
|
|
Taniwha
|
Environmental guardian
|
|
Te ao Pākehā
|
The Western world/culture
|
|
Te ao Māori
|
The Māori world/culture
|
|
Tēina
|
Junior/novice
|
|
Te reo Māori
|
Māori language
|
|
Tikanga
|
Customs
|
|
Tuākana
|
Senior/leader
|
|
Tūpuna
|
Ancestors
|
|
Waka
|
Canoe/vehicle
|
|
Wero
|
Challenge
|
|
Whakaaro
|
Thought(s)
|
|
Whakapapa
|
Genealogy
|
|
Whakatauki
|
Proverb
|
|
Whānau
|
Members of a family and extended family
|
This year's abstracts | Journal home page | All abstracts | Publishing home page
