title: How institutions frame mātauranga Māori (Commissioned by Waikato Regional Council)

authors: Whaanga, Hēmi

abstract: The primary questions for this report are:
1) How is Mātauranga Māori framed by Institutions?
2) How is Mātauranga Māori being operationalised by Institutions in New Zealand?
Mātauranga Māori is the intellectual capital generated by whānau, hapū and Iwi over multiple generations. It is a shared-community knowledge that is embedded in lived experience and carried in stories, song, place names, dance, ceremonies, genealogies, memories, visions, prophesies, teachings and original instructions, as and learnt through observation and copying of other community members.
It is a holistic system of orally passed knowledge, concepts, beliefs and practice. Mātauranga Māori, mātauranga ā-iwi, mātauranga ā-hapū, and mātauranga ā-whānau are dynamic, innovative, and generative systems of knowledge. Mātauranga Māori has been defined, framed, and operationalised with varying success by Institutions. Although the overall definitions vary somewhat, the general premise is that these government agencies acknowledge that mātauranga Māori is Māori-specific knowledge that is adaptive and regionally distinct. This recognition is important as it reinforces the notion that Māori are not a homogenous group, and that mātauranga Māori will differ across Iwi.
For the vast majority of institutions, improving their understanding of mātauranga Māori is an important strategic aim that can help guide their decision making, management, and monitoring procedures. Achieving this aim helps recognise the innovative potential of Māori knowledge, its contribution to council activities, and the usefulness of culturally appropriate data.
This report has identified seven factors that contribute towards a framework of understanding:
1) Acknowledging contemporary relevance and application: Iwi partners value mātauranga
Māori not only for its historic significance but its contemporary relevance in times of political change. Legislative requirements, iwi expectations, and a desire to build respectful relationships also contribute to current moves to understand and incorporate mātauranga Māori across regional council planning and decision-making activities.
2) Acknowledging cultural validity: Mātauranga Māori informs not only traditional practices but also Māori and iwi participation within Council activities.
3) Accepting epistemological difference: Eurocentric values and scientific disciplines tend to have primacy in a regional council context in part through historical tendencies and political representation. Mātauranga Māori brings a different value set and way of understanding phenomena to the table.
4) Acknowledging mana whenua responsibility for mātauranga Māori: The management and use of mātauranga represents a core responsibility of mana whenua. Relocating mātauranga and responsibility to act as a kaitiaki from a whānau, hapū or iwi to an institution, is a sensitive topic. Mātauranga is often vested with specific people (kaitiaki) or with local whānau and hapū to ensure the responsibilities for protecting the environment remain with those that live there.
5) Developing a more nuanced understanding of mātauranga Māori: Developing a more nuanced understanding of the different disciplines and content that exist under the broad definition of mātauranga Māori is necessary if Councils are to incorporate mātauranga Māori across a greater range of their work programmes.

text: How institutions frame mātauranga Māori (Commissioned by Waikato Regional Council) The primary questions for this report are:
1) How is Mātauranga Māori framed by Institutions?
2) How is Mātauranga Māori being operationalised by Institutions in New Zealand?
Mātauranga Māori is the intellectual capital generated by whānau, hapū and Iwi over multiple generations. It is a shared-community knowledge that is embedded in lived experience and carried in stories, song, place names, dance, ceremonies, genealogies, memories, visions, prophesies, teachings and original instructions, as and learnt through observation and copying of other community members.
It is a holistic system of orally passed knowledge, concepts, beliefs and practice. Mātauranga Māori, mātauranga ā-iwi, mātauranga ā-hapū, and mātauranga ā-whānau are dynamic, innovative, and generative systems of knowledge. Mātauranga Māori has been defined, framed, and operationalised with varying success by Institutions. Although the overall definitions vary somewhat, the general premise is that these government agencies acknowledge that mātauranga Māori is Māori-specific knowledge that is adaptive and regionally distinct. This recognition is important as it reinforces the notion that Māori are not a homogenous group, and that mātauranga Māori will differ across Iwi.
For the vast majority of institutions, improving their understanding of mātauranga Māori is an important strategic aim that can help guide their decision making, management, and monitoring procedures. Achieving this aim helps recognise the innovative potential of Māori knowledge, its contribution to council activities, and the usefulness of culturally appropriate data.
This report has identified seven factors that contribute towards a framework of understanding:
1) Acknowledging contemporary relevance and application: Iwi partners value mātauranga
Māori not only for its historic significance but its contemporary relevance in times of political change. Legislative requirements, iwi expectations, and a desire to build respectful relationships also contribute to current moves to understand and incorporate mātauranga Māori across regional council planning and decision-making activities.
2) Acknowledging cultural validity: Mātauranga Māori informs not only traditional practices but also Māori and iwi participation within Council activities.
3) Accepting epistemological difference: Eurocentric values and scientific disciplines tend to have primacy in a regional council context in part through historical tendencies and political representation. Mātauranga Māori brings a different value set and way of understanding phenomena to the table.
4) Acknowledging mana whenua responsibility for mātauranga Māori: The management and use of mātauranga represents a core responsibility of mana whenua. Relocating mātauranga and responsibility to act as a kaitiaki from a whānau, hapū or iwi to an institution, is a sensitive topic. Mātauranga is often vested with specific people (kaitiaki) or with local whānau and hapū to ensure the responsibilities for protecting the environment remain with those that live there.
5) Developing a more nuanced understanding of mātauranga Māori: Developing a more nuanced understanding of the different disciplines and content that exist under the broad definition of mātauranga Māori is necessary if Councils are to incorporate mātauranga Māori across a greater range of their work programmes.

year: 2017

title: Relational and culturally responsive supervision of doctoral students working in Māori contexts: Inspirations from the Kingitanga

authors: Glynn, Ted

subjects: Relational and culturally responsive supervision

abstract: There is much to celebrate in the greatly increased number of Māori and non-Māori students in New Zealand tertiary institutions undertaking doctoral research on issues of importance to Māori.
However, in honouring their commitments to the Treaty of Waitangi, tertiary institutions need to ensure that Māori doctoral students and their Māori communities maintain their right to define their own research questions, research paradigms and methodologies. As supervisors of doctoral research students investigating issues of significance to Māori people, it is essential that we learn to position ourselves as visitors in someone else’s cultural space, as partners in the Treaty of Waitangi, and as co-constructors of knowledge and research methodology rather than as experts and gatekeepers (Berryman, SooHoo, & Nevin, 2013; Glynn, 2012).

This paper was occasioned by an invitation from the organisers of the annual Kingitanga Day cultural and educational programme at the University of Waikato. The Kingitanga movement has much to teach us about how to frame and conduct research that responds to long-standing injustices that have marginalised Māori people. The Kingitanga has inspired us through the resistance, resilience, agency and humility of its leaders in asserting their right to define the effects of historic and contemporary injustices, and the right to define their own responses to these injustices.

In this paper, we explore some of the relational and culturally responsive understandings we have arrived at from supervising the research of four doctoral candidates in Education (two Māori and two non-Māori). This research has been designed to promote the success and wellbeing of Māori students in mainstream schools, addressing historic and ongoing injustices experienced by Māori students and their whānau and communities.

text: Relational and culturally responsive supervision of doctoral students working in Māori contexts: Inspirations from the Kingitanga There is much to celebrate in the greatly increased number of Māori and non-Māori students in New Zealand tertiary institutions undertaking doctoral research on issues of importance to Māori.
However, in honouring their commitments to the Treaty of Waitangi, tertiary institutions need to ensure that Māori doctoral students and their Māori communities maintain their right to define their own research questions, research paradigms and methodologies. As supervisors of doctoral research students investigating issues of significance to Māori people, it is essential that we learn to position ourselves as visitors in someone else’s cultural space, as partners in the Treaty of Waitangi, and as co-constructors of knowledge and research methodology rather than as experts and gatekeepers (Berryman, SooHoo, & Nevin, 2013; Glynn, 2012).

This paper was occasioned by an invitation from the organisers of the annual Kingitanga Day cultural and educational programme at the University of Waikato. The Kingitanga movement has much to teach us about how to frame and conduct research that responds to long-standing injustices that have marginalised Māori people. The Kingitanga has inspired us through the resistance, resilience, agency and humility of its leaders in asserting their right to define the effects of historic and contemporary injustices, and the right to define their own responses to these injustices.

In this paper, we explore some of the relational and culturally responsive understandings we have arrived at from supervising the research of four doctoral candidates in Education (two Māori and two non-Māori). This research has been designed to promote the success and wellbeing of Māori students in mainstream schools, addressing historic and ongoing injustices experienced by Māori students and their whānau and communities.

year: 2015

title: Do we expect too much? Reflection on chemistry content in higher education

authors: Coll, Richard K.

subjects: chemistry

abstract: Education research in the 1970s, like other related areas, was dominated by quantitative work¹ during an era for which social sciences sought to draw upon the successful scientific approach typically used in the physical sciences (in particular) to investigate teaching and learning.¹’² So if we felt a cohort of students did not understand some con¬cept, we tried to find out whether or not a different teach¬ing approach could fix their misconceptions.³ But how to do this? Well, drawing on a scientific approach, we would divide the class or classes up, teach one cohort the same way we always had, and the other cohort in our new way, and evaluate any differences in conceptual understanding using, e.g. a standardized topic test. Differences would be examined for statistical significance of evidence that our new approach to teaching had worked. And this is the way much research was done at the time. Control of variables, randomized sampling, and so on, were all embedded in such an approach to educational research.

text: Do we expect too much? Reflection on chemistry content in higher education Education research in the 1970s, like other related areas, was dominated by quantitative work¹ during an era for which social sciences sought to draw upon the successful scientific approach typically used in the physical sciences (in particular) to investigate teaching and learning.¹’² So if we felt a cohort of students did not understand some con¬cept, we tried to find out whether or not a different teach¬ing approach could fix their misconceptions.³ But how to do this? Well, drawing on a scientific approach, we would divide the class or classes up, teach one cohort the same way we always had, and the other cohort in our new way, and evaluate any differences in conceptual understanding using, e.g. a standardized topic test. Differences would be examined for statistical significance of evidence that our new approach to teaching had worked. And this is the way much research was done at the time. Control of variables, randomized sampling, and so on, were all embedded in such an approach to educational research.

year: 2008