title: Lost in translation: western representations of Māori knowledge

authors: Mika, Carl Te Hira

abstract: We recently attended a conference at which a non-Māori presenter, drawing on a particular metaphor already established by Māori writers, related Māori natural world features to a research method. The presentation was useful because it highlighted several issues that call for our concern as Māori philosophers. In this article, we outline these concerns, which are: first, that a blunt response to such a presentation is not undertaken lightly from a Māori viewpoint; and, second, that the presenter’s talk exemplifies a wider problem of warping Māori concepts and labels to fit a Western philosophical approach. We call this latter problem ‘Translation’, because it involves moving the Māori world and its phenomena over into one that is palatable for policy and research. The aim of the article is not to single out the presenter, but rather to refer to his presentation in order to consider the prior issue of Translation. In cases where Translation occurs, a Māori critical philosophical stance is clearly needed, in order to both investigate the warping of Māori thought on which it relies, and review the place of Māori philosophy and philosophical response in the arena of educational research.

text: Lost in translation: western representations of Māori knowledge We recently attended a conference at which a non-Māori presenter, drawing on a particular metaphor already established by Māori writers, related Māori natural world features to a research method. The presentation was useful because it highlighted several issues that call for our concern as Māori philosophers. In this article, we outline these concerns, which are: first, that a blunt response to such a presentation is not undertaken lightly from a Māori viewpoint; and, second, that the presenter’s talk exemplifies a wider problem of warping Māori concepts and labels to fit a Western philosophical approach. We call this latter problem ‘Translation’, because it involves moving the Māori world and its phenomena over into one that is palatable for policy and research. The aim of the article is not to single out the presenter, but rather to refer to his presentation in order to consider the prior issue of Translation. In cases where Translation occurs, a Māori critical philosophical stance is clearly needed, in order to both investigate the warping of Māori thought on which it relies, and review the place of Māori philosophy and philosophical response in the arena of educational research.

year: 2017

title: The day ahead

authors: Webber, Warren

abstract: With a professional background in agriculture and veterinary science, and a decade of participation in water quality issues for the Rotorua Lakes catchments, Warren brings an intense personal, but non-vested interest, to issues of nutrient management on the land and in our waterways. Conference management (international and domestic) helps to pay the bills, but voluntary community interests take up much of his time. As an appointee to the Stakeholder Advisory Group (StAG) which considers land management and land use change policy issues on behalf of the Te Arawa Lakes Strategy Group, he is closely involved with the challenges of nutrient allocation and incentives for change.

text: The day ahead With a professional background in agriculture and veterinary science, and a decade of participation in water quality issues for the Rotorua Lakes catchments, Warren brings an intense personal, but non-vested interest, to issues of nutrient management on the land and in our waterways. Conference management (international and domestic) helps to pay the bills, but voluntary community interests take up much of his time. As an appointee to the Stakeholder Advisory Group (StAG) which considers land management and land use change policy issues on behalf of the Te Arawa Lakes Strategy Group, he is closely involved with the challenges of nutrient allocation and incentives for change.

year: 2013

title: Running shoe recommendations based on gait analysis improve perceptions of comfort, performance and injury risk: A single-blind randomised crossover trial

authors: Fife, Andrew

subjects: deception

abstract: Objectives: We examined how shoe recommendation based on gait analysis influences subjective perceptions of comfort, performance and injury reduction in runners while monitoring spatiotemporal and kinematic parameters.

Design: Single-blind crossover randomised controlled trial with repeated measures. 

Method: Twenty-one women runners completed a clinical gait analysis and four 5-min treadmill trials at a self-selected comfortable speed sequentially in their own shoes (OS), the first experimental shoes (randomised), their OS, and the second experimental shoes (randomised). The two experimental shoes were identical except for their colour (randomised) and were presented to runners as either a ‘basic’ shoe or, deceptively, a ‘gait-matched’ shoe selected for them based on the clinical gait analysis conducted. 

Results: Running Comfort Assessment Tool (RUN-CAT) scores and 100 mm visual analogue scale ratings of subjective comfort, performance and injury reduction differed significantly between own and experimental shoes (p < 0.001). Post-hoc comparisons revealed that runners’ OS were the most comfortable (83.3 ± 3.8 mm) followed by gait-matched (66.1 ± 21.5 mm) and then basic (49.0 ± 24.1 mm) shoes. RUN-CAT, performance and injury reduction ratings were similar between own and gait-matched shoes, but gait-matched shoes had better mean difference (95% confidence intervals), RUN-CAT (15.6 mm [5.7, 25.5]), performance (17.1 mm [5.6, 28.6]) and injury reduction (30.1 mm [8.9, 51.2]) scores than the basic shoes. Discrete spatiotemporal, foot strike angle and resultant tibial acceleration parameters were not significantly different between shoes (p ≥ 0.157). Most runners overall preferred their OS (71.4%), followed by gait-matched (23.8%) and basic (4.8%) shoes. 

Conclusions: Shoe recommendation and description can significantly affect subjective shoe comfort and overall preferences without significantly altering spatiotemporal and kinematic parameters. Runners should be cautious while choosing shoes based on recommendations and descriptors derived from gait analysis or based solely on perceived comfort as runners’ subjective perceptions can be artificially manipulated.

text: Running shoe recommendations based on gait analysis improve perceptions of comfort, performance and injury risk: A single-blind randomised crossover trial Objectives: We examined how shoe recommendation based on gait analysis influences subjective perceptions of comfort, performance and injury reduction in runners while monitoring spatiotemporal and kinematic parameters.

Design: Single-blind crossover randomised controlled trial with repeated measures. 

Method: Twenty-one women runners completed a clinical gait analysis and four 5-min treadmill trials at a self-selected comfortable speed sequentially in their own shoes (OS), the first experimental shoes (randomised), their OS, and the second experimental shoes (randomised). The two experimental shoes were identical except for their colour (randomised) and were presented to runners as either a ‘basic’ shoe or, deceptively, a ‘gait-matched’ shoe selected for them based on the clinical gait analysis conducted. 

Results: Running Comfort Assessment Tool (RUN-CAT) scores and 100 mm visual analogue scale ratings of subjective comfort, performance and injury reduction differed significantly between own and experimental shoes (p < 0.001). Post-hoc comparisons revealed that runners’ OS were the most comfortable (83.3 ± 3.8 mm) followed by gait-matched (66.1 ± 21.5 mm) and then basic (49.0 ± 24.1 mm) shoes. RUN-CAT, performance and injury reduction ratings were similar between own and gait-matched shoes, but gait-matched shoes had better mean difference (95% confidence intervals), RUN-CAT (15.6 mm [5.7, 25.5]), performance (17.1 mm [5.6, 28.6]) and injury reduction (30.1 mm [8.9, 51.2]) scores than the basic shoes. Discrete spatiotemporal, foot strike angle and resultant tibial acceleration parameters were not significantly different between shoes (p ≥ 0.157). Most runners overall preferred their OS (71.4%), followed by gait-matched (23.8%) and basic (4.8%) shoes. 

Conclusions: Shoe recommendation and description can significantly affect subjective shoe comfort and overall preferences without significantly altering spatiotemporal and kinematic parameters. Runners should be cautious while choosing shoes based on recommendations and descriptors derived from gait analysis or based solely on perceived comfort as runners’ subjective perceptions can be artificially manipulated.

year: 2025