Rangahau+Maori

=
Cram, F. (2001). Rangahau Ma-ori: Tona Tika, tona pono - The validity and integrity of Ma-ori research 1. In M. Tolich //Research ethics in Aotearoa New Zealand.// (pp. 35-52). Auckland: Pearson Education. ======

I found this to be a fascinating approach to research to explore. There is such a temptation when one is working in an academic environment, and especially when the research I am reading is mostly quantitative, to take it as the norm, as if it is culture-neutral. This article succeeds in making clear that, of course, this is not the case, and comes with loaded assumptions about the nature of knowledge, the uses of knowledge and its collection, and the role of the researcher. In many ways Kaupapa Maori research turns these norms on their heads.

One key difference that stood out to me about this approach is its humanity. To conduct research in this way fully recognises the other participants as humans, and not anthropological objects. The context and those within it are not separate, nor is there a separation between the researcher, the participants and the culture. I imagine it is quite possible to conduct many forms of research without having respect for either the participants or their context. Would this be possible for KMR? I don't think so. Respect underlies the whole purpose of the research, from beginning to end. Cram (2001) states respect as being the first principle of KPM. I think most researchers begin with a research question, and seek to explore it. In KPM the process does not begin with the question, but with the people - they are the starting point.

KMR is also a research paradigm that honours the Treaty of Waitangi, in which Maori are guaranteed tino rangatiratanga, or the right of self-determination as a people. There was not a relinquishing of control of their destiny, but unfortunately this has been the result of a lot of research over the years, as Cram (2001) makes clear. Tino rangatiratanga carries within it a right not to be objectified, but to remain in control of their own knowledge.

Cram (2001) outlines the following seven principles of Kaupapa Maori research: 1. Respect for people  2. He kanohe kitea (meeting face to face) 3. Titiro, whakarongo, korero (looking, listening, before talking) 4. Manaaki ki te tangata (collaborative approach) 5. Kia tupato (culturally safe) 6. Kaua e takahia te mana o te tangata (not trampling on the mana of the people) 7. Kaua e mahaki (not flaunting knowledge)  (pp.42-48)

Cram states on p.41 that "Kaupapa Maori is methodology for Maori researchers". This raises interesting questions for me, as a Pakeha emerging researcher, as to what KPM research might mean for my own practice. As a non-Maori, therefore, is this approach one that I should not consider using? I have thought quite a lot about this question and have decided that in a bi-cultural (and multi-cultural) country like New Zealand, it is highly likely that any research I undertake will include Maori. Therefore, the issues raised in KMR should inform my research design so that it is conducted in a culturally safe manner. In particular, I think KMR could/should serve as a reference point for ethical research design.

KMR reconceptualises the researcher as a servant of the community - a skilled servant who comes offering these skills, to be used in the way of most benefit to the community. Perhaps it is similar to being a chauffeur with a car. They have the skills and means, but the directions are in the hands of the customer. Not a perfect analogy, I know, but it approaches Cram's statement that "non-Maori cannot conduct Kaupapa Maori research but can support Maori research kaupapa." (p.38)