title: Horowaewae

authors: Maxwell, Te Kahautu

abstract: Horowaewae is dedicated to Horowaewae Maxwell a Te Matatini Lifemember. Horowaewae is from the Rotorua area and the Te Arawa iwi. He is a foundation member of the champion kapa haka Ngāti Rangiwewehi. Horowaewae has been a performer, a male leader, the Te Arawa delegate to the Te Matatini National Committee. He has served kapa haka in its development since the inception of Te Matatini in 1972 and prior to this performing in the tourism industry in Rotorua. Horowaewae was performed by Ōpōtiki Mai Tawhiti at the 2013 Te Matatini World Championship Kapa Haka Competition.

text: Horowaewae Horowaewae is dedicated to Horowaewae Maxwell a Te Matatini Lifemember. Horowaewae is from the Rotorua area and the Te Arawa iwi. He is a foundation member of the champion kapa haka Ngāti Rangiwewehi. Horowaewae has been a performer, a male leader, the Te Arawa delegate to the Te Matatini National Committee. He has served kapa haka in its development since the inception of Te Matatini in 1972 and prior to this performing in the tourism industry in Rotorua. Horowaewae was performed by Ōpōtiki Mai Tawhiti at the 2013 Te Matatini World Championship Kapa Haka Competition.

year: 2012-09-13

title: A critical analysis of the place of culture in evaluation

authors: Masters-Awatere, Bridgette

abstract: For the past 100 or so years formal evaluation has taken its lead from frameworks that originate from a culturally blind standpoint. Worldwide the major influence on evaluation practice comes from the United States of America. The absence of non-dominant (or indigenous) culturally constructed frameworks has been replicated around the world. Before the formation of the Aotearoa New Zealand Evaluation Association (ANZEA), as a New Zealand specific evaluation group, practitioners generally belonged to the Australasian Evaluation Society (AES) and joined in the sharing, adoption and adaptation of USAs Program Evaluation Standards. However, the context of evaluation in New Zealand has been somewhat different from the rest of the world, becoming more culturally centered than other countries. The role and place of the Treaty of Waitangi has been acknowledged as an attributing factor (ANZEA, 2011). Four indigenous “By Maori for Maori” health & wellbeing programmes externally evaluated were case studies within my research. I draw upon examples from the cases studies to highlight the vulnerable and contentious position indigenous service providers and indigenous evaluators were in. Adapting Sandra Grande’s (2004) analysis, I critiqued the context of the case study evaluations that commissioners considered as Kaupapa Maori. In this presentation I argue that while stakeholders perceived the work to be an indigenous evaluation, the case studies demonstrate that whitestream evaluation was prevalent.

text: A critical analysis of the place of culture in evaluation For the past 100 or so years formal evaluation has taken its lead from frameworks that originate from a culturally blind standpoint. Worldwide the major influence on evaluation practice comes from the United States of America. The absence of non-dominant (or indigenous) culturally constructed frameworks has been replicated around the world. Before the formation of the Aotearoa New Zealand Evaluation Association (ANZEA), as a New Zealand specific evaluation group, practitioners generally belonged to the Australasian Evaluation Society (AES) and joined in the sharing, adoption and adaptation of USAs Program Evaluation Standards. However, the context of evaluation in New Zealand has been somewhat different from the rest of the world, becoming more culturally centered than other countries. The role and place of the Treaty of Waitangi has been acknowledged as an attributing factor (ANZEA, 2011). Four indigenous “By Maori for Maori” health & wellbeing programmes externally evaluated were case studies within my research. I draw upon examples from the cases studies to highlight the vulnerable and contentious position indigenous service providers and indigenous evaluators were in. Adapting Sandra Grande’s (2004) analysis, I critiqued the context of the case study evaluations that commissioners considered as Kaupapa Maori. In this presentation I argue that while stakeholders perceived the work to be an indigenous evaluation, the case studies demonstrate that whitestream evaluation was prevalent.

year: 2015

title: Beyond ‘what works’: why systematisation matters and what more it can do for the criminal justice evidence base

authors: Tompson, Lisa

abstract: That a convenience sample cannot safely be generalised from is a trite truism in research. Yet in the criminal justice field, unrepresentative samples of studies routinely inform policy, practice, and theory. Novel or familiar findings often carry disproportionate weight, and selective reading can generate unwarranted certainty about what we think we know. Systematic reviews offer a solution to this problem. By requiring transparent and reproducible methods, they constrain overinterpretation of partial evidence and can promote sound reasoning. Despite their centrality to evidence-based criminal justice, systematic reviews are often narrowly understood as tools for answering ‘what works’ questions. This paper argues that the same logic of systematisation can support a much broader range of knowledge needs, including theory development, mechanism and context synthesis, measurement refinement, and futures-oriented evidence mapping. Thus, systematic reviews are not simply a tool for judging intervention effectiveness, but a family of methods for building cumulative, policy-relevant knowledge.

text: Beyond ‘what works’: why systematisation matters and what more it can do for the criminal justice evidence base That a convenience sample cannot safely be generalised from is a trite truism in research. Yet in the criminal justice field, unrepresentative samples of studies routinely inform policy, practice, and theory. Novel or familiar findings often carry disproportionate weight, and selective reading can generate unwarranted certainty about what we think we know. Systematic reviews offer a solution to this problem. By requiring transparent and reproducible methods, they constrain overinterpretation of partial evidence and can promote sound reasoning. Despite their centrality to evidence-based criminal justice, systematic reviews are often narrowly understood as tools for answering ‘what works’ questions. This paper argues that the same logic of systematisation can support a much broader range of knowledge needs, including theory development, mechanism and context synthesis, measurement refinement, and futures-oriented evidence mapping. Thus, systematic reviews are not simply a tool for judging intervention effectiveness, but a family of methods for building cumulative, policy-relevant knowledge.

year: 2026-01-09