title: Diversity and the early years

authors: Peters, Sally

abstract: Aotearoa New Zealand's early childhood education and care (ECEC) sector is characterised by diversity: diversity in settings and in the backgrounds of the children and teachers. Sociocultural theories have long held promise for pedagogy in culturally diverse contexts (see, for example, John-Steiner & Mahn, 1996), and the early childhood curriculum, Te Whiiriki (Ministry of Education, 1996), is underpinned by a sociocultural approach to learning (Carr & May, 1993). This chapter considers the changing landscape of ECEC, and, drawing on the sociocultural foundations of this book, considers some implications for working with children in the early years. We discuss the potential that the principles of Te Whiiriki offer for embracing diversity, and while we celebrate the sense of growing cultural responsiveness in ECEC, we acknowledge some of the complexities involved.

text: Diversity and the early years Aotearoa New Zealand's early childhood education and care (ECEC) sector is characterised by diversity: diversity in settings and in the backgrounds of the children and teachers. Sociocultural theories have long held promise for pedagogy in culturally diverse contexts (see, for example, John-Steiner & Mahn, 1996), and the early childhood curriculum, Te Whiiriki (Ministry of Education, 1996), is underpinned by a sociocultural approach to learning (Carr & May, 1993). This chapter considers the changing landscape of ECEC, and, drawing on the sociocultural foundations of this book, considers some implications for working with children in the early years. We discuss the potential that the principles of Te Whiiriki offer for embracing diversity, and while we celebrate the sense of growing cultural responsiveness in ECEC, we acknowledge some of the complexities involved.

year: 2015

title: Who are Protected by the Consumers’ Rights and Interests Protection Act? A Critique on the Current Statutory Definition of “Consumer”

authors: Liao, Zhixiong (Leo)

subjects: consumer definition

abstract: “Consumer” is originally an economic rather than legal concept. Legislatives are struggling in legally defining “consumer”. China’s Consumers’ Rights and Interests Protection Act does not clearly define “consumer”, which results in enormous problems in judicial practice and law enforcement, since its enactment 20 years ago. The recent 2nd Amendment introduced some break through mechanisms, but the fundamental issue of legally defining “consumer” was completely untouched. Based on a comparison of the legal definitions of “consumer” adopted in some developed and developing countries or regions, and on the critical analysis of the status quo of defining “consumer” in China, this paper proposes on how “consumer” should be legally defined. A draft definition is also proposed and submitted accordingly.

text: Who are Protected by the Consumers’ Rights and Interests Protection Act? A Critique on the Current Statutory Definition of “Consumer” “Consumer” is originally an economic rather than legal concept. Legislatives are struggling in legally defining “consumer”. China’s Consumers’ Rights and Interests Protection Act does not clearly define “consumer”, which results in enormous problems in judicial practice and law enforcement, since its enactment 20 years ago. The recent 2nd Amendment introduced some break through mechanisms, but the fundamental issue of legally defining “consumer” was completely untouched. Based on a comparison of the legal definitions of “consumer” adopted in some developed and developing countries or regions, and on the critical analysis of the status quo of defining “consumer” in China, this paper proposes on how “consumer” should be legally defined. A draft definition is also proposed and submitted accordingly.

year: 2016

title: Viruses without vaccines, or valuing indigenous research? The tensions of introducing Western research assessment practices into an indigenous university

authors: Bruce Ferguson, Pip

abstract: Over my past twenty-five years of educational practice, I have striven to develop a better understanding of indigenous ways of being and doing (in New Zealand’s case, this involves the values and knowledge of Māori). I have done this by visiting and occasionally staying on marae (Māori gathering-places); by reading relevant literature; by engaging in conversations with knowledgeable scholars and by researching the impact of Western practices on indigenous peoples.

In 2003 I managed a research team for Te Wānanga o Aotearoa, a Māori tertiary institution with branches across the country. Our Tertiary Education Commission had just introduced a variation of the English RAE, called the Performance-Based Research Fund, through which government research funds would henceforth be distributed. In collaboration with Māori colleagues, we chose to enter this process, believing that Māori research would be recognised and funded by our participation.

While this proved to be the case, there were significant examples of values clashes, such as the requirement for people to ‘boast’ of their research achievements in a context where such boasting is anathema; to claim ownership of knowledge where tradition often indicates that knowledge is not the property of individuals; and worst, at one point I found myself accused by my Māori manager of introducing ‘viruses without vaccines’. By this he meant Westernised ideas and practices which appeared to be benevolent but in fact were toxic (the idea derives from white settlers who apparently gave native Americans blankets permeated with a virus, causing thousands to die).

In this paper I will explore tensions of operating cross-culturally, and whether/how we can protect people from unintended toxic consequences of intended benevolent actions.

text: Viruses without vaccines, or valuing indigenous research? The tensions of introducing Western research assessment practices into an indigenous university Over my past twenty-five years of educational practice, I have striven to develop a better understanding of indigenous ways of being and doing (in New Zealand’s case, this involves the values and knowledge of Māori). I have done this by visiting and occasionally staying on marae (Māori gathering-places); by reading relevant literature; by engaging in conversations with knowledgeable scholars and by researching the impact of Western practices on indigenous peoples.

In 2003 I managed a research team for Te Wānanga o Aotearoa, a Māori tertiary institution with branches across the country. Our Tertiary Education Commission had just introduced a variation of the English RAE, called the Performance-Based Research Fund, through which government research funds would henceforth be distributed. In collaboration with Māori colleagues, we chose to enter this process, believing that Māori research would be recognised and funded by our participation.

While this proved to be the case, there were significant examples of values clashes, such as the requirement for people to ‘boast’ of their research achievements in a context where such boasting is anathema; to claim ownership of knowledge where tradition often indicates that knowledge is not the property of individuals; and worst, at one point I found myself accused by my Māori manager of introducing ‘viruses without vaccines’. By this he meant Westernised ideas and practices which appeared to be benevolent but in fact were toxic (the idea derives from white settlers who apparently gave native Americans blankets permeated with a virus, causing thousands to die).

In this paper I will explore tensions of operating cross-culturally, and whether/how we can protect people from unintended toxic consequences of intended benevolent actions.

year: 2012