title: Whanaungatanga: an illustration of the importance of cultural context

authors: McNatty, William

subjects: Te reo Māori

abstract: The word 'whanaungatanga' is often used by people who lack an intimate understanding of the philosophical base in Māori culture out of which it emerges. Thus, it is sometimes used simply to describe the camaraderie that can be associated with team sports or with reference to the 'glue' that connects people to one another socially. This is not necessarily a problem in itself. After all, change and development in the lexicon is a characteristic of living languages. However, real problems can emerge where words become divorced from their cultural roots to such an extent that two speakers using the same word can completely fail to understand one another. It is argued here that this is what can happen when Māori words, such as 'whanaungatanga', are used in the context of modelling in the social sciences, particularly where that modelling is conducted in the context of Western social and cultural values. In particular, the essential spiritual dimension of whanaungatanga may be overlooked or misunderstood.

text: Whanaungatanga: an illustration of the importance of cultural context The word 'whanaungatanga' is often used by people who lack an intimate understanding of the philosophical base in Māori culture out of which it emerges. Thus, it is sometimes used simply to describe the camaraderie that can be associated with team sports or with reference to the 'glue' that connects people to one another socially. This is not necessarily a problem in itself. After all, change and development in the lexicon is a characteristic of living languages. However, real problems can emerge where words become divorced from their cultural roots to such an extent that two speakers using the same word can completely fail to understand one another. It is argued here that this is what can happen when Māori words, such as 'whanaungatanga', are used in the context of modelling in the social sciences, particularly where that modelling is conducted in the context of Western social and cultural values. In particular, the essential spiritual dimension of whanaungatanga may be overlooked or misunderstood.

year: 2002-02

title: Te Toi Poto, Te Toi Roa A Critical Evaluation of Māori-State Inclusion in the Ohiwa Harbour Strategy, Aotearoa New Zealand.

authors: Lowry, Amanda

subjects: Māori

abstract: In New Zealand, the State Owned Enterprises Act 1988 [SOE], Local Government Act 2002 [LGA], the Resource Management Act 1991 [RMA] require that government include the voices of Māori, and ensure their contribution to the decision-making processes of local authorities. Accordingly, central and local government have embraced the idea of inclusive partnership as part of policymaking processes informed by shared values both of government and iwi.
Thus, it is not uncommon to see consultations, partnerships and engagement between Māori-state on a range of issues in line with Tikanga and protocols of Māori culture. These transitions reflect contemporary critical policy scholarship that underscores the need to include marginalised voices policymaking, specifically through processes that reflect diverse values. Termed here as ‘procedural inclusion’, these efforts are framed within the wider goal of participatory democracy as part of the efforts to realise an inclusive society. The present research is a critical evaluation of the inclusion of Māori in the processes of policymaking, especially when those processes have been especially designed to be culturally sensitive.
This core objective is developed through the analysis of the case study of iwi/hapū-local government engagement in creating and implementing the Ohiwa Harbour Strategy in New Zealand’s Eastern Bay of Plenty region between 2002- 2008. The strategy engagement, which culminated in a long-term plan to manage and conserve the Ohiwa harbour, is uniquely positioned for this investigation. It is often regarded by its iwi/hapū and local government stakeholders as a success story in iwi/hapū-government engagement. Using a critical qualitative research methodology informed by kaupapa Māori, the study sought to critically evaluate this exemplar of procedural inclusion at multiple levels. At an operational policy level, the research identified the factors that either facilitated or inhibited Māori inclusion in the strategy development process. At another, more substantive level, the study explored the politics of this engagement, and if the goals of procedural inclusion could accommodate the transformative claims of self-determination and kaitiakitanga made by iwi/hapū.
The analysis of interview data with key stakeholders and documents of the strategy process revealed that a range of factors enhance inclusive policymaking for Māori. At a practical level, legislative frameworks, commitment to Tikanga by all parties, and key strategic cultural brokers facilitated the inclusion of Māori, while limited capacity, fear of change and inter-tribal tensions hinder inclusion. The results also show, at another level, that the ability to productively participate in these engagement processes are framed by discursive politics – of the meanings and interpretations emanating from historical contexts, nature of power relationships, and of decisions regarding who represents whom and what is represented. In all, the study points to both advantages and limitations of procedural inclusion. Inclusive policymaking can open possibilities for better management of environmental resources, strengthening Māori political voice, and creating opportunities for livelihoods and with it greater economic and social inclusion. Equally, there are also limits of government-sponsored engagement.
Māori inclusion in policymaking, while positive, does not deliver opportunities for self determination or rangatiratanga in keeping with the Treaty principles of partnership.

text: Te Toi Poto, Te Toi Roa A Critical Evaluation of Māori-State Inclusion in the Ohiwa Harbour Strategy, Aotearoa New Zealand. In New Zealand, the State Owned Enterprises Act 1988 [SOE], Local Government Act 2002 [LGA], the Resource Management Act 1991 [RMA] require that government include the voices of Māori, and ensure their contribution to the decision-making processes of local authorities. Accordingly, central and local government have embraced the idea of inclusive partnership as part of policymaking processes informed by shared values both of government and iwi.
Thus, it is not uncommon to see consultations, partnerships and engagement between Māori-state on a range of issues in line with Tikanga and protocols of Māori culture. These transitions reflect contemporary critical policy scholarship that underscores the need to include marginalised voices policymaking, specifically through processes that reflect diverse values. Termed here as ‘procedural inclusion’, these efforts are framed within the wider goal of participatory democracy as part of the efforts to realise an inclusive society. The present research is a critical evaluation of the inclusion of Māori in the processes of policymaking, especially when those processes have been especially designed to be culturally sensitive.
This core objective is developed through the analysis of the case study of iwi/hapū-local government engagement in creating and implementing the Ohiwa Harbour Strategy in New Zealand’s Eastern Bay of Plenty region between 2002- 2008. The strategy engagement, which culminated in a long-term plan to manage and conserve the Ohiwa harbour, is uniquely positioned for this investigation. It is often regarded by its iwi/hapū and local government stakeholders as a success story in iwi/hapū-government engagement. Using a critical qualitative research methodology informed by kaupapa Māori, the study sought to critically evaluate this exemplar of procedural inclusion at multiple levels. At an operational policy level, the research identified the factors that either facilitated or inhibited Māori inclusion in the strategy development process. At another, more substantive level, the study explored the politics of this engagement, and if the goals of procedural inclusion could accommodate the transformative claims of self-determination and kaitiakitanga made by iwi/hapū.
The analysis of interview data with key stakeholders and documents of the strategy process revealed that a range of factors enhance inclusive policymaking for Māori. At a practical level, legislative frameworks, commitment to Tikanga by all parties, and key strategic cultural brokers facilitated the inclusion of Māori, while limited capacity, fear of change and inter-tribal tensions hinder inclusion. The results also show, at another level, that the ability to productively participate in these engagement processes are framed by discursive politics – of the meanings and interpretations emanating from historical contexts, nature of power relationships, and of decisions regarding who represents whom and what is represented. In all, the study points to both advantages and limitations of procedural inclusion. Inclusive policymaking can open possibilities for better management of environmental resources, strengthening Māori political voice, and creating opportunities for livelihoods and with it greater economic and social inclusion. Equally, there are also limits of government-sponsored engagement.
Māori inclusion in policymaking, while positive, does not deliver opportunities for self determination or rangatiratanga in keeping with the Treaty principles of partnership.

year: 2012

title: A method for assessing and developing features of a learning organization

authors: Sun, Peter Yih-Tong

subjects: learning organization

abstract: The primary objective of this thesis is to evolve  a method for assessing and developing features of a learning organization .  To fulfill this, I approached the thesis by examining several research questions and using multiple research methodologies.  The research questions were not all established at the outset.  Rather, they evolved as features of a journey down a road less traveled.  With this journey came the decision to write the thesis in the first person.

The first research question was  Q1:  What will bridge the divide between organizational learning and the learning organization?   By reviewing the extant literature on organizational learning and the learning organization, I developed a theoretical framework that linked these two streams.  The framework suggests that the extent of divide between the two streams is determined by the extent of learning transfer.  The learning transfer is affected by the learning barriers operating at the levels of learning (i.e., individuals, groups, and organizational).  This led me to my second research question Q2:  What are these barriers to learning transfer and how do they impact the levels of learning in the organization?   I cumulated the dispersed literature on learning barriers, and synthesized the learning barriers into five key dimensions: Intrapersonal, relational, cultural, structural, and societal.  I then used the Delphi technique on 17 individuals to investigate the impact of the learning barriers on the levels of learning.  This generated two additional research questions.  The third research question was Q3:  How do individuals initiate a double-loop change?   This deals with the little researched area of initiation of double-loop change whilst engaging with the interfaces at the levels of learning.  I used multiple case studies to examine this question and found that individuals transit through four distinct stages when initiating double-loop change: 'embedded', 'embedded discomfited', 'scripted', and 'unscripted'.  Once double-loop learning has been initiated at the individual level, it is important that it is transferred across the organization.  Therefore, my fourth research question was Q4:  How does a new shared understanding for a double-loop change develop across the organization?   I did an in-depth, single case based investigation of an organization.  Using Identity and Complexity theory perspectives, I tracked the evolving new shared understanding through four phases: de-identification phase, situated re-identification phase, transition phase, and identification with core ideology phase.

The key insights from examining these research questions, particularly insights from examining Q3 and Q4, enabled me to suggest nine key organizational interventions necessary to overcome the learning barriers and develop a learning organization:  Identifying, developing, and dispersing double-loop mastery; Enabling constructive contradictions; Creating a superordinate organizational identity; Building emotional intelligence (in individuals and groups); Ambidextrous leadership; Strategic support for experimentation; Promoting 'systems doing'; Accessibility of valid information; Institutionalizing scanning across industry boundaries.  When these nine organizational interventions are implemented, they produce five new learning organization orientations: genetic diversity, organizational ideology, organizational dualism, organizational coupling, and strategic play.  These five new learning organizational orientations provide the archetypes of the learning organization.  I then developed an instrument to assess these five new orientations, and did a preliminary testing of the instrument.

While aspects of my work overlaid with previous knowledge, new advances in knowledge were established by:

  Postulating a link between the streams of organizational learning and learning organization
  Synthesizing learning barriers into the five key dimensions, and investigating their impact on the levels of learning
  Understanding the stages of double-loop learning initiation by an individual, whilst engaging with the interfaces at the levels of learning
  Understanding the process of a new shared understanding evolving
  Postulating five new orientations of the learning organization

text: A method for assessing and developing features of a learning organization The primary objective of this thesis is to evolve  a method for assessing and developing features of a learning organization .  To fulfill this, I approached the thesis by examining several research questions and using multiple research methodologies.  The research questions were not all established at the outset.  Rather, they evolved as features of a journey down a road less traveled.  With this journey came the decision to write the thesis in the first person.

The first research question was  Q1:  What will bridge the divide between organizational learning and the learning organization?   By reviewing the extant literature on organizational learning and the learning organization, I developed a theoretical framework that linked these two streams.  The framework suggests that the extent of divide between the two streams is determined by the extent of learning transfer.  The learning transfer is affected by the learning barriers operating at the levels of learning (i.e., individuals, groups, and organizational).  This led me to my second research question Q2:  What are these barriers to learning transfer and how do they impact the levels of learning in the organization?   I cumulated the dispersed literature on learning barriers, and synthesized the learning barriers into five key dimensions: Intrapersonal, relational, cultural, structural, and societal.  I then used the Delphi technique on 17 individuals to investigate the impact of the learning barriers on the levels of learning.  This generated two additional research questions.  The third research question was Q3:  How do individuals initiate a double-loop change?   This deals with the little researched area of initiation of double-loop change whilst engaging with the interfaces at the levels of learning.  I used multiple case studies to examine this question and found that individuals transit through four distinct stages when initiating double-loop change: 'embedded', 'embedded discomfited', 'scripted', and 'unscripted'.  Once double-loop learning has been initiated at the individual level, it is important that it is transferred across the organization.  Therefore, my fourth research question was Q4:  How does a new shared understanding for a double-loop change develop across the organization?   I did an in-depth, single case based investigation of an organization.  Using Identity and Complexity theory perspectives, I tracked the evolving new shared understanding through four phases: de-identification phase, situated re-identification phase, transition phase, and identification with core ideology phase.

The key insights from examining these research questions, particularly insights from examining Q3 and Q4, enabled me to suggest nine key organizational interventions necessary to overcome the learning barriers and develop a learning organization:  Identifying, developing, and dispersing double-loop mastery; Enabling constructive contradictions; Creating a superordinate organizational identity; Building emotional intelligence (in individuals and groups); Ambidextrous leadership; Strategic support for experimentation; Promoting 'systems doing'; Accessibility of valid information; Institutionalizing scanning across industry boundaries.  When these nine organizational interventions are implemented, they produce five new learning organization orientations: genetic diversity, organizational ideology, organizational dualism, organizational coupling, and strategic play.  These five new learning organizational orientations provide the archetypes of the learning organization.  I then developed an instrument to assess these five new orientations, and did a preliminary testing of the instrument.

While aspects of my work overlaid with previous knowledge, new advances in knowledge were established by:

  Postulating a link between the streams of organizational learning and learning organization
  Synthesizing learning barriers into the five key dimensions, and investigating their impact on the levels of learning
  Understanding the stages of double-loop learning initiation by an individual, whilst engaging with the interfaces at the levels of learning
  Understanding the process of a new shared understanding evolving
  Postulating five new orientations of the learning organization

year: 2006