Kaupapa Maori Research

Been having a hard time trying to get my head around Kaupapa Maori Research and how it "fits" into my research question and literature review.  This has been my spin on how to engage with it as Pakeha in a meaningful way and not merely as some adjunct to the literature review.  This is my interpretation and just bear in mind that I am relating this to the research question of:

"How can teachers navigate the murky waters of digital collaboration and collusion in high stakes student academic writing?"

Researching within the Kaupapa Maori paradigm presents a challenging paradox as Pakeha.  Jones (2012, p.101) notes that a Kaupapa Maori research approach, “provides a set of rules … strategically formed by Maori, for Maori purposes … and Pakeha are necessarily outside its development”. While one understands the context for such an observation, the question arises, as to how Pakeha engage with Kaupapa Maori research from the outside?  The potential solution lies in two complimentary positions.  One in the recognition of underpinning principles of Kaupapa Maori, and the other in engaging with educational programmes and initiatives that stem from Kaupapa Maori research.

Firstly, Eketone (2008) notes the constructivist base inherent within Kaupapa Maori Research such that the acquisition and validation of knowledge takes place within a social framework.  It is a more subjective approach to knowing.  A coming to know.  Knowledge construction and understanding develops through social contact in response to historical, cultural, societal, cognitive-affective and perceptual influences taking place over time.  This seems to imply the value of collaboration in developing tikanga.  Eketone, (2008, p.5) defines tikanga as a, “set of beliefs associated with practices and procedures to be followed in directing the affairs of a group or individual”.  The implication is a co-constructed set of principles from which all parties involved will work.  Within this notion of relationship, Bishop & Glynn (1999, p.174) identify the importance of whakawhanaungatanga which emphasises the importance of this collaborative relationships because it impacts, “significantly on the sharing of power and control throughout the research process…in order to promote self-determination, agency and voice”.  This implies a mutual respect of individual’s roles, autonomy, tikanga, knowledge and understanding.  It could be concluded that this is a way Pakeha can engage within Kaupapa Maori - a mahi based in a collaborative, co-constructed and mutually respectful environment such that an individual’s identity/mana remains intact.  This seems to adhere to the underpinning principles of Kaupapa Maori research, albeit through a Pakeha lens.

Secondly, Cooper (2012) notes that it may be more useful to engage with educational programmes and initiatives that have been borne out of Kaupapa Maori research and use this as a position from which to theorise teaching and learning as Pakeha.  Namely, the importance of relationships, removal off and challenging deficit theorising, teachers as agents of change, and cultural responsiveness.  Within schools there has been an evolution of Kaupapa Maori research in practice through Te Kotahitanga, Ka Hikitia, He Kakano, and Kia Eke Panuku to arrive at an education world-view that emphasises, equity, excellence and belonging for all learners. 


Being mindful of these key concepts within both perspectives of relationship, belonging, respect, caring, equity, autonomy and learners being successful as learners, we can begin to navigate the murky waters of collaboration and collusion within senior secondary academic writing. Indeed, many of these concepts/enablers appear in international literature.  Yet it can be these very concepts/enablers that create tension within the student-teacher relationship with respect to collaboration, collusion and academic writing.

All thoughts appreciated.

References:

Bishop, R. & Glynn, T. (1999).  Culture Counts: Changing Power Relationships in Education. Dunmore Press: Palmerston North.

Cooper, G. (2012). Kaupapa Maori research: Epistemic wilderness as freedom? New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 47 (2), 64–73.

Eketone, A. (2008). Theoretical underpinnings of Kaupapa Maori directed practice. MAI 
Review, 1 (1), 1–11.

Hei Toko i Te Tukunga - Enabling Māori learner success - Ako Aotearoa. (2017). Akoaotearoa.ac.nz. Retrieved 28 December 2017, from https://akoaotearoa.ac.nz/hei-toko

Jones, A. (2012). Dangerous liaisons: Pākehā, kaupapa Māori, and educational research. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 47 (2), 100-112.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Osterman & Kottkamp (1993) versus Kolb (1984)

Image
The final blog has us looking at a particular model of reflection and using it to reflect on an aspect of our practice that has been enhanced, developed, challenged, through the Mind Lab process.  I thought I would make life a bit easier for people and summarise  Osterman & Kottkamp’s (1993) model of reflective practice, a s well as Kolb's (1984) experiential learning model - the clear inspiration for that model.  I have included learning styles that come from Kolb's (1984) model because they could equally be applied to that of  Osterman & Kottkamp’s (1993).  Here goes ... Osterman & Kottkamp’s (1993) model of reflective practice (Figure 1) is primarily based in Kolb’s (1984) experiential learning theory (Figure 2).  As such the theoretical underpinnings of Kolb’s theory translate easily to that of Osterman & Kottkamp. Importantly, the performer/learner places greater emphasis on one particular stage which tends to reflect their learning style. All stag
Read more

Thinking About Reflective Practice

Image
Reflective practice is well established in the literature across a range of professions (Finlay, 2008; Galea, 2012; Timmins, Murphy, Howe & Dennehy, 2013; Husebo & O’Regan, 2015; Potter, 2015; Zalipour, 2015) to evaluate outcomes, using evidence, to challenge held assumptions, formulate alternate hypotheses, and concretise these hypotheses by putting theory into practice.  The purpose of genuine reflection in education is to develop a deeper understanding of personal learning and professional knowledge with a view to improving both personal and learner outcomes.  In this way practice informs reflection and reflection informs practice – Figure 1 (Zalipour, 2015).                                                                          Figure 1 If we assume the willingness to be better practitioners , then it seems self-evident that we need to become better reflectors (of that practice).  Reflective practice is a critique (internally/externally or both) of e
Read more

Activity 1: My Reflective Practice

Image
Reflective practice is seen as an essential component of professional competence ( Larrivee, 2000 ; Finlay, 2008 ; Mann, Gordon & McLeod, 2009 ) and implicitly underpins the professional standards and code of ethics in New Zealand Education (New Zealand Education Council, 2017).  Self-reflection is a product of increasing consciousness of self which has evolved over time as a product of higher mental functioning ( Gillespie, 2007 ).  This implies we are predisposed to self-reflection and instinctively take part in it.  “ The path of least resistance and least trouble is a mental rut already made. It requires troublesome work to undertake the alteration of old beliefs. ” John Dewey Dewey seem to encapsulate both the value and tension that exists within reflective practice.  We know it is of value, yet to reflect deeply/critically requires time, effort and energy – often in short supply – reducing it to a simplistic/mechanistic process to “get it out of the way”.  Being tol
Read more