title: Kua Tupu Te Pā Harakeke: Developing Healthy Whānau Relationships

authors: Pihama, Leonie

abstract: We have opened this chapter with our ‘pēpeha’. Pēpeha are ways through which our people introduce ourselves. These vary from tribe to tribe. The essence of pēpeha is that they link us to our tribes and all associated with that. Our mountains, our rivers, our canoes, our ancestral lines. It links us to each other. It places us, as Māori, within a wider collective consciousness and relationships. It is important to highlight that the term ‘Māori’ is a term that brings us as tribal peoples together. It is a term that our people have chosen to use as a means of unifying ourselves in the wake of the arrival of our colonizers. Prior to colonization all identification was done through our whānau (extended family structure), hapū (subtribes) or iwi (tribes). The term Māori means to be ‘normal’ or ‘pure’, as such it is a fitting term for an Indigenous People. We have, however, also been active in maintaining our hapū and iwi identities and it is through pēpeha that we can culturally share that identity with each other. Our people have been doing this for generations. And in spite of colonization seeking to undermine our cultural identity, many of us continue to do this.

text: Kua Tupu Te Pā Harakeke: Developing Healthy Whānau Relationships We have opened this chapter with our ‘pēpeha’. Pēpeha are ways through which our people introduce ourselves. These vary from tribe to tribe. The essence of pēpeha is that they link us to our tribes and all associated with that. Our mountains, our rivers, our canoes, our ancestral lines. It links us to each other. It places us, as Māori, within a wider collective consciousness and relationships. It is important to highlight that the term ‘Māori’ is a term that brings us as tribal peoples together. It is a term that our people have chosen to use as a means of unifying ourselves in the wake of the arrival of our colonizers. Prior to colonization all identification was done through our whānau (extended family structure), hapū (subtribes) or iwi (tribes). The term Māori means to be ‘normal’ or ‘pure’, as such it is a fitting term for an Indigenous People. We have, however, also been active in maintaining our hapū and iwi identities and it is through pēpeha that we can culturally share that identity with each other. Our people have been doing this for generations. And in spite of colonization seeking to undermine our cultural identity, many of us continue to do this.

year: 2012

title: Mana motuhake ā-raraunga: datafication and social science research in Aotearoa

authors: Kukutai, Tahu

abstract: Social practices, interactions and relations are increasingly being turned into data, driven by technologies that enable new methods of data accumulation, digitisation, integration and manipulation (Taylor and Broeders 2015; Couldry and Yu 2018; Mann and Daly 2019). This ‘datafication’ is not only transforming social relations, it is also reshaping social science through the generation of datasets that open up new avenues for research and methodological development (van Dijck 2014) and generating debate about the relationships between data, digitalisation, ethics and human wellbeing (boyd and Crawford 2012; Mittelstadt and Floridi 2016; O’Neil 2016; Eubanks 2018).

text: Mana motuhake ā-raraunga: datafication and social science research in Aotearoa Social practices, interactions and relations are increasingly being turned into data, driven by technologies that enable new methods of data accumulation, digitisation, integration and manipulation (Taylor and Broeders 2015; Couldry and Yu 2018; Mann and Daly 2019). This ‘datafication’ is not only transforming social relations, it is also reshaping social science through the generation of datasets that open up new avenues for research and methodological development (van Dijck 2014) and generating debate about the relationships between data, digitalisation, ethics and human wellbeing (boyd and Crawford 2012; Mittelstadt and Floridi 2016; O’Neil 2016; Eubanks 2018).

year: 2019

title: Coping with design complexity: a conceptual framework for design alternatives and variants

authors: Bowen, Judy

subjects: computer science

abstract: Interaction design processes are characterised by multi-disciplinary teamwork and by an interplay of creative, situated and analytical thinking. Although design in the domain of human-computer interaction has been widely investigated, the focus of research has been mainly on the user’s role and several authors refer to the need for a deeper understanding of the increasingly complex interaction design processes. This paper suggests a conceptual framework for interaction design that accommodates and unifies different perspectives from general design research while considering the specificities of the domain. Within the framework, description and analysis is done through the lens of design spaces, design artefacts, and refinement relationships between design artefacts. The framework extends existing concepts of design spaces by introducing complex spaces which acknowledge that design is rarely an individual activity but is more often undertaken by teams of designers. The framework also offers a distinction between design options into alternatives and variants to better describe and guide processes of idea generation and a convergence within, and between different sub-spaces and sub-teams. Different types of refinement between design artefacts are also discussed.

text: Coping with design complexity: a conceptual framework for design alternatives and variants Interaction design processes are characterised by multi-disciplinary teamwork and by an interplay of creative, situated and analytical thinking. Although design in the domain of human-computer interaction has been widely investigated, the focus of research has been mainly on the user’s role and several authors refer to the need for a deeper understanding of the increasingly complex interaction design processes. This paper suggests a conceptual framework for interaction design that accommodates and unifies different perspectives from general design research while considering the specificities of the domain. Within the framework, description and analysis is done through the lens of design spaces, design artefacts, and refinement relationships between design artefacts. The framework extends existing concepts of design spaces by introducing complex spaces which acknowledge that design is rarely an individual activity but is more often undertaken by teams of designers. The framework also offers a distinction between design options into alternatives and variants to better describe and guide processes of idea generation and a convergence within, and between different sub-spaces and sub-teams. Different types of refinement between design artefacts are also discussed.

year: 2017