Applying whakapapa research methodology in Māori kin communities in Aotearoa New Zealand

ABSTRACT

Indigenous research methods centralises the importance of Indigenous ways of researching, validating and interpreting knowledge. In Māori kin-community (kāinga) contexts this methodology is called whakapapa. It is an ethical approach to research. Through three kāinga case studies, our article explores whakapapa methodology as an expression of Kaupapa Māori research. We explore the importance of co-productive relationships or whanaungatanga; co-design and co-development, or kotahitanga; ethics procedures or tikanga; accountability to community or utu; and kin narratives or kōrero as a genealogically-ordered methodology of engaging kāinga and hearing their stories or views, compared to formal interviews. In relation to the research teams and kāinga, we also discuss two intersecting values, which we call the mana/manaakitanga dynamic. It is a widely accepted dualism in Māori society. Mana concerns ancestrally-framed authority based on descent, providing specialist views and perspectives, while manaakitanga concerns service through kinship, not least respect and consideration of others’ interests. Given their centrality to shaping genealogically-prescribed behaviours, we show how they apply in research contexts amongst researchers, who are not just ‘included’, but who also become engaged participants in overall kāinga-led and kāinga-owned outcomes. We conclude by discussing how whakapapa methodology can help shape institutional ethics and help address grand challenges.

KEYWORDS:

• Māori community research
• whakapapa
• Indigenous research methods
• mātauranga
• community-based research
• Kaupapa Māori research
• marae
• university ethics
• community ethics
• Māori values

Introduction

Indigenous research methods (IRM) are widely applied throughout several academic disciplines (for example, anthropology, education, health), following foundational work championed by Linda Tuhiwai Smith (1999) and others. An important milestone in the shaping of IRM has been Kaupapa Māori research (KMR). This approach advocates research led by Māori and guided by Māori values and practices concerning research design, processes, communication, and outcomes. Smith (1999) describes the emancipatory power of Māori researchers who, rather than being shackled by western methods, have instead developed their own way of conducting research, which among other things, centralises the importance of relationships and Indigenous ways of researching, validating and interpreting knowledge. Indigenous researchers worldwide have found synergies with Smith’s ideas. They have applied similar principles and developed their own approaches within their community research settings (for example, Tapsell 1997; Rigney 1999; Wilson 2008; Moreton-Robinson and Walter 2009; Kovach 2010; Berkes 2017; Absolon 2022). Key ideas emanate across these Canadian, Australian and Māori Indigenous research methodological texts. These, for example, privilege Indigenous perspectives and ways of undertaking research for community purposes, not least self-determination as defined by communities themselves, often in counter-distinction to dominant or hegemonic discourse (Rigney 1999). By definition, Indigenous-led research is grounded in Indigenous values (Absolon 2022), which in a Māori context are interpreted through a theoretical matrix of genealogical relativity called whakapapa (Tapsell 2017). All things present in the universe are expressed as genealogical layers or ‘papa’ of consciousness from the beginning of time. Whakapapa is at the heart of what it means to be Māori. It provides a framework for which knowledge of all things can be both ordered and contextualised across time (Rangihau 1977; Keenan 1994; Tapsell 1997, 2017, 2023; Royal 1998; Kawharu and Newman 2018; Tane 2018; Te Whata 2020). Whakapapa is represented and performed through public/private recitation through rituals, oral narratives and story-telling, dance and song, binding the living to their ancestors and to place (see Tapsell 1997; Wilson 2008; Kovach 2010, who each describe the role of Indigenous story-telling or kōrero as an important methodology of knowledge transfer). KMR provides us a generalised canvass by which our researchers engage customary Māori values in Māori kin community research contexts through the indigenous lens of whakapapa. We explore whakapapa methodology across three kin-community research projects in Aotearoa New Zealand. In relation to an ‘outwards’ community focus, we discuss:

1. Co-productive relationships–whanaungatanga;

2. Co-design and co-development–kotahitanga;

3. Community ethics compared to university ethics–tikanga matatika;

4. Accountability to community–utu; and

5. Interviews–kōrero.

In relation to the research teams as well as communities or an ‘inwards focus’, we thereafter discuss two intersecting values inherently embedded in whakapapa:

1. Mana (descent): concerning ancestrally framed authority, specialist views, stances, and perspectives; and

2. Manaakitanga (kinship): concerning service, respect and consideration of community interests and views.

The two latter kin-ascribed cultural values we call the mana/manaakitanga dynamic. It is a generally accepted cornerstone dualism in Māori society (Kawharu and Newman 2018; Kawharu and Tapsell 2019). Given its centrality in informing or shaping behaviours, we show how the mana/manaakitanga dynamic applies in research contexts amongst researchers, who are not just ‘included’ (Kawharu 2016), but who also become genealogically-engaged–whakapapa activated–participants in overall kin-community or marae-led and marae-owned outcomes, possibly also extending their service beyond a particular project’s formal lifespan.

We briefly outline the project contexts of our three research programmes then take a more detailed investigation of each programme’s methods.

Research programme contexts

The research programmes are at three geographic scales: one is a small kin or marae community within a region (Northland); the second concerns multiple and diverse marae communities throughout a region (also in Northland); and the third covers multiple and diverse marae communities throughout several regions in the North Island. Marae communities are also generally known as kāinga, a concept originating from the deep Pacific ancestry of today’s Māori society and reflected in Article 2 of Te Tiriti (see Tapsell 2023 for an in depth understanding of the kāinga concept to describe marae communities and their continuing centrality in Aotearoa New Zealand today).

The small scale, single marae/kāinga community study was also undertaken by a single researcher as he undertook his doctoral work. The two other projects are multi-researcher, multi-kāinga and multi-institutional. All are Māori researcher and Māori community-driven, where each draw on the creativity of marae communities to achieve through the research an integrated vision of social, environmental, and economic health (oranga). In the case of the two multi-researcher programmes, the researchers drew on both social and physical science disciplines as well as whakapapa-prescribed mātauranga (Māori knowledge) disciplines, especially where cultural values of the marae community are intrinsic to the way research is undertaken and are central to outcomes.

The first research programme, Oromahoe is a single marae community or kāinga. Between 2014 and 2018, investigative research was conducted regarding this community’s future sustainability aspirations and needs concerning food, energy, and housing (Tane 2018). The researcher, Paratene Tane is one of its approximately three thousand descendants. Centred in the inland Bay of Islands in Northland, the kāinga of Oromahoe has 100 or fewer relatives who live near their ancestral centre, the marae (ceremonial courtyard and hosting complex). Relatives live in the wider region and further away in towns and cities nationally and overseas.

The second research programme ‘Pā to Plate’ began in 2016 with funding from the government’s National Science Challenge programme ‘Our Land and Water’. It investigates the interests for, and the development of, a micro food and resource circular economy. A number of kāinga across the Bay of Islands and Hokianga have joined together to co-develop this social enterprise thereby strengthening connections between kāinga (marae communities), kai (food) and kōrero (stories) (Kawharu 2019; Kawharu et al. 2022a, 2022b).

The third research programme is Project Kāinga: Communities, culture, and climate change. This five-year project initially involving seven kāinga funded by the government’s Endeavour Fund began in October 2019 and investigates community-based solutions that assist kāinga as they begin transitioning towards low carbon futures (www.projectkainga.co.nz).

Although many kāinga are facing socio-economic and environmental challenges which climate change will likely exacerbate (Awatere et al. 2021; Bailey-Winiata 2021; King et al. 2010), there are also opportunities to address and improve their responses to climate change, to create new sources of value, and to enhance the cultural fabric of their communities, cross-generationally. All three studies described above are underpinned by cross-generational trauma of colonisation, directly precipitating kāinga dissociation from their lands and more recently disconnection from their urban-raised descendants (Walker 1989; Kawharu 2014; Williams 2015; Tapsell 2023). Meaningful reconnection of kin members to their ancestral lands, waters, home marae and knowledge resources to build community and environmental resilience is, therefore, important, not just for the current generation who are tasked with immediate obligations to address the changing climate, but also for those yet to be born.

Whakapapa: engaging an Indigenous methodology

The three programmes represent significant opportunities for researchers and kāinga to come together to find solutions to complex problems from an indigenous perspective of whakapapa. The ways in which research and development continue to be carried out is also crucial to building their successes. We now investigate the genealogically-informed–whakapapa–methodology undertaken in each programme. The research methodology of whakapapa is first introduced and explained in our first study context: Oromahoe. The following two research programmes–Pā to Plate and Project Kāinga–expand on the engagement of whakapapa as a unique Indigenous methodology as applied in Aotearoa as well as introduce further ideas and applications.

Programme 1: Oromahoe

The methodological approach to this research programme centred on the application of marae community values. The fieldwork outcomes were born of the re-combination of two disparate ideas or theoretical methodologies, namely the integration of an external anthropologically prescribed reflexivity combined with genealogical positionality of kin-accountability. The result was a novel and contextually relevant whakapapa-framed research output, easily understood by both contributing audiences: on one hand the academy and on the other, the source of Indigenous knowledge, the kāinga. But rather than the resulting thesis being structured according to some theoretical approach not of these shores, Tane collected and assembled the acquired mātauranga according to Indigenous ways of knowing or whakapapa.

Co-productive relationships–whanaungatanga

In a similar stead to Ngāti Whātua descendant and anthropologist I. H. Kawharu’s (1975, p. x) research in his kin-community of Ōrākei, Tane’s close personal association with the kāinga of Oromahoe is not only ancestral, but also lived as a participating descendant for the greater part of his life. His whakapapa of kin-connections made the normal extended period of anthropological fieldwork (for example, living in a community for several months) less imperative. Tane’s upbringing ‘inside’ the community effectively assisted him in gaining trust or support from familial research participants. Relationships (whanaungatanga) were established well before he commenced research. His work was written:

… from the perspective of an Oromahoe descendant who was raised ‘by his village’, who farmed and foraged ancestral lands with family, who fished and swam in local rivers with relatives, and who worked, celebrated, and mourned alongside wider kin during times of life-crises on the marae. Tane (2018, p. 8)

The positioning as a genealogically qualified insider-researcher also ties into discussions on reflexivity and reflexive ethnography. The influences of the researcher are inherently present in all phases of the research process (Davies 2008, p. 4). Davies advocates the importance of complete transparency in the research process, which contrasts anthropological practices of the 1970s and earlier decades where the influence of the ethnographer was rendered invisible. Tane’s study demonstrated total reflexivity through full and uncompromising self-reference to whakapapa, or genealogical connections (Davies 2008, p. 4, 7; Smith 1999, p. 137).

A further insider-outsider distinction may be made with respect to whakapapa. Internal to the hapū, Tane descends from a genealogical line that has its own set of kin dynamics in relation to other descent lines in Oromahoe. Under certain circumstances, he would, therefore, be a relative outsider to these other families and their knowledge systems. This is not to say that some knowledge was withheld by these families. Rather, ease of access was more challenging than uncovering genealogically-encoded information or mātauranga from his own family descent line. For instance, a significant portion of the historical information regarding the community’s settlement and movement throughout the regional landscape emerged from private family archives and orally maintained narratives. The knowledge access benefit was, therefore, clear. The corollary was that this mātauranga was also biased by kin-framed historical ‘facts’, which potentially privileged descent lines from his own ancestors as key actors in the kin community’s history. However, research also included independent and external (to the community) sources on ancestors, providing wider perspectives beyond any whakapapa bias.

Since his teenage years, Tane has been active in community contexts such as annual land meetings of the Oromahoe (Māori land) Trust, Treaty of Waitangi claim hearings (on historical grievances against the Crown) and other community events, such as tangi (funerals). These all contributed to the shaping of the research kaupapa or topic as the next section discusses further. Because of his upbringing, co-productive familial relationships were well established and strongly aided knowledge advancement, interpretation, and co-production of mutually beneficial outcomes. Fundamentally, these saw Tane completing his thesis while his community received the benefit of his input into strategic development, strategic planning and co-leadership of special meetings held for the Oromahoe Trust, including the management and writing of the Trust’s website, among other things. We discuss these activities in more detail below.

Another characteristic of the Oromahoe study was that it was not only developed locally but also at a distance. His fieldwork took place at organised trust meetings, individual interviews or in unstructured community meetings in Oromahoe. The majority of writing, however, was completed elsewhere at university. While Tane grew up in Oromahoe until the age of 18, he had lived outside the community as a student for about seven years by the time his doctoral research began. His positioning was similar, in a way, to what Kawharu (2016) has described in her study of leadership amongst her kin community, Ngāti Whātua; of being an ‘included researcher’: familiar with the community, connected to the community, accepted by the community, but not formally engaged in community organisations. A genealogically included researcher is somewhere between the insider-outsider dichotomy described by Davies (2008) and others. In Tane’s case, as his research progressed, he was invited to assist in Oromahoe land trust tasks when he returned home, especially on things that trustees had little time or capacity to dedicate towards (e.g. the trust’s website, trust deed and distributions review; discussed below).

Co-design and co-development–kotahitanga

As discussed, the whakapapa of multiple connections and knowledge built up over a lifetime of living under the genealogical matrix of kinship and descent has helped to shape a research agenda and a process of kin-bound collaboration. Tane’s study also showed that co-design and co-development needed to be also understood within a kāinga-centred history.

A whakapapa perspective–genealogically layered ordering of the universe through a local tangata, whenua and taonga lens (Tapsell 2023)–is the unique point of difference of Māori community-based research compared to any other collaboration research contexts. It is based on a deep sense of service to one’s kin group (tangata) and their ancestrally prescribed lands (whenua) and resources/belongings (taonga) from which a kin-engaged researcher’s unique Māori identity arises in and beyond their own community of origin. Such genealogically prescribed researcher collaboration, which is built out of the philosophy of whakapapa, is not only about present actors, i.e. those who are physically ‘at the table’, but, as demonstrated in the Oromahoe research programme, also includes ancestral actors who ultimately influence and shape research directions in the future.

Collaboration in whakapapa-prescribed contexts, therefore, has much broader meaning. Ideas about understanding future sustainability aspirations of Tane’s kāinga were planted long before he embarked on his research. The actions of previous community members, concerning, for example land protection and use, continues to guide his work on those same topics today. Ancestral precedent was also important in guiding present leadership, what kind of leadership needs to be undertaken, how genealogical qualification of rights and responsibilities are negotiated and enacted, and not least, how issues were addressed, how collaboration was taken with other communities on the same agenda and how solutions were sought. The Oromahoe historical narrative provided the cultural coding (Kawharu 2016) that Tane then set out to further unravel within a contemporary context of currently defined, but genealogically-bounded, concerns or whakapapa.

An example of this is how Tane’s platform for investigation was shaped by work of his late aunt and 1980s-90s Oromahoe Trust secretary Freda Rankin-Kawharu (Rankin-Kawharu 2002). In her time, Rankin-Kawharu collated and cross-referenced information from Māori Land Court records, whakapapa charts, as well as attended meetings and interviewed Oromahoe community members. Her research genealogically linked then current-day landowners/descendants with their ancestors in order to better assist land trust administration. These two issues were at the heart of Tane’s own research. Above all, he was also guided by the ethic of service (manaakitanga) to his kāinga, which is demonstrably embodied in Rankin-Kawharu’s own research a generation earlier.

The co-development of Tane’s investigation saw community members guiding his research foci and other tasks. Trustees, for instance (who are also his relations), reviewed the study objectives and the questionnaire before it was sent out more widely amongst community members and shareholders. This was an active step in recognising their mana or perspectives. He also presented at the pre-annual general meeting (AGM) of the Oromahoe Trust to further discuss the questionnaire process and receive feedback. An additional driver for engaging trustees was to also assist with their own strategic planning and development agenda, potentially leading to further co-production or innovation with the Trust.

In 2016, Tane was invited to present his preliminary findings at the Oromahoe Trust Farm field day. Shortly after, the trust asked him to assist in the development of its strategic planning process. In early 2017, he then became involved in facilitating two workshops to capture shareholder and beneficiary views on the Trust’s then 27-year-old trust order and income distribution policy. After the first workshop, he was then engaged by a subcommittee, which extracted key themes from his workshop and drew on his ideas from wider existing Māori land trust orders. In June 2017, rounding out his thesis writing, he returned to Oromahoe to co-facilitate a second workshop, and reported back to shareholders and beneficiaries.

Community ethics compared to university ethics–tikanga matatika

It is a standard requirement to formally apply to universities and institutions for ethical approval to undertake field research in communities. In Tane’s case, he applied for, and received, ethics from the University of Otago. He was required to write participant information sheets and consent forms in the application and provide these to all participants in his research in order to obtain their written consent.

There is another layer of ethics, however, that also applies in kāinga communities. Tane was not an objective or independent observer of community affairs. He had already undertaken a period of proving accountability, even if unbeknown to him, while he was participating in community events, guided by whakapapa and tikanga (customary ethics) before being granted permission by his own kin to embark on research. The foundations of trust and demonstration of making himself accountable to his kāinga in genealogical terms were therefore already in place when he began his project, and they were further developed during the research period. It was these factors that primarily determined acceptance by his community to undertake his proposed research. Accordingly, acceptance to participate in his project was not directly derived from an information sheet and signed consent. These were secondary and supplementary to the community’s own customary ethics (tikanga), built on developing relationships (whanaungatanga), trust, accountability, and humility (whakaiti). These principles are given particularly high weighting in Māori marae communities or kāinga. They each demonstrate the importance of recognising mana or community perspectives and authority as well as manaakitanga or service and respect.

Accountability to community–utu

Researching within a kāinga comes with inherent duties and obligations that might normally sit outside anthropological work. As Tane found, he was asked if he would like to participate in trust affairs because of his skills and kin connections. He willingly took on these roles, not only because they were useful for research purposes, but because they served as a way to contribute back to his kāinga. Balancing give back and take (for research) foci was an important part of the doctoral research journey. The two went hand in hand. Being genealogically connected meant that it would have been more difficult to not have assisted. Expectations and hopes of community members and trustees became actively present as he undertook his research and these continue to this day.

Hawaiian anthropologist Ty Kāwika Tengan (2005, p. 247) sums up these sentiments and describes the inherent accountabilities of researching from an insider Indigenous perspective:

For anthropologists who claim a native identity, as well as others who collaborate as allies with indigenous causes, this may be felt more keenly because of the multiplicity of obligations, responsibilities, and audiences they are held accountable to, especially given the stakes riding upon their work. These issues have become increasingly important for all ethnographers to reckon with, as distinctions between insider/outsider, home/away and engaged/disengaged have become difficult to maintain, especially in the Pacific.

Throughout the course of Tane’s entire tertiary studies, he returned home to Oromahoe whenever possible, participating at Oromahoe Trust meetings and reporting on his university progress, especially at AGMs where he received financial support to continue his studies. This need to make himself accountable to his kin community, was acutely felt. He had often heard the same reoccurring question year after year at the Oromahoe AGM hui regarding kin accountability in response to the education report: ‘where are these people?’ (i.e. tertiary grant recipients). Tane’s return to AGM hui, at the very least, was his attempt to support the notion of being kin-accountable to the source of his tertiary grant: to his people represented by the Oromahoe Trust and marae community.

Interviews–kōrero

The last method to discuss in relation to the Oromahoe study is the centrality of kōrero, or two-way conversation and dialogue. It is both genealogically bound and context specific. For example, when male and female elders (kaumātua and kuia) are part of a discussion, the normal ethics of deference to elders in kāinga contexts also applies in research contexts. This might mean that kaumātua or kuia lead discussions on topics that they want to cover, sometimes without interruption. Other members of a community may similarly lead or guide discussions onto topics of interest to them. The role of a researcher in these cases is to provide a forum to enable those discussions to occur while at the same time guide them towards the research foci where necessary. It is a balancing act, cloaked in tikanga, the unsaid kin community rules of engagement. Kōrero is more two-way and enables shared leadership and the co-development of research ideas, compared to formal interviews which characteristically take a stronger one-way researcher-led direction. Kōrero was a central method of Tane’s research, which together with survey findings, provided the principal raw data for his research.

Oromahoe summary

The successful application of methods and research outcomes in the Oromahoe study was because methods were anchored in whakapapa and the concept of belonging. Tane’s whakapapa, or genealogically framed worldview, is shaped according to descent and kinship. Descent defines his genealogy to ancestors, inherited rights, access to resources, shares in land, knowledge transmission and bias. He invoked descent as an inherited ‘right’ to contribute to research on the topic of the Oromahoe kāinga, while at the same time utilised kinship as the frame by which he made himself accountable as a (kin-)insider. Whakapapa is the theoretical basis on which he co-designed the research questions with his Oromahoe trustees. Kinship provided access to the network of participants: the Oromahoe descendant-community members. Ethics of kinship also implied that he makes himself accountable and transparent to his kin by maintaining regular contact with the participant community members throughout the research process. Finally, whakapapa guided the ultimate dissemination (amongst descendants) and implementation. The community and Trust established new patterns of genealogically prescribed engagement beyond academically measured research outputs.

Programme 2: Pā to Plate–developing a marae food economy

Like the Oromahoe study which was positioned within a strong whakapapa set of methods, the Pā to Plate (P2P) research project also follows these principles. The core team of four researchers are Māori who mostly connect genealogically to the communities of interest and they are supported by one non-Māori operations facilitator.

Co-productive relationships–whanaungatanga

P2P also began with pre-established relationships with community members, thereby enabling preliminary research ideas to be tested. The research aligned with, and built on, existing community goals to address cultural connection, employment, suitable land use and other issues. The rationale for developing P2P was, therefore, already rooted in community aspirations for socio-economic empowerment, and they also drew on historical actions of community members in aspiring towards and delivering on the same kinds of goals. The success of P2P primarily depends on the strength of these relationships and shared vision-development. Practically, this has meant a significant time investment.

Normal ways of progressing research via whanaungatanga would be in face-to-face settings of people’s home or marae. From 2020 COVID-19 significantly disrupted this, but connections and discussions were maintained by online, email and phone communication and with an extended network of kāinga-based growers who are managing gardens and providing kai for their whānau near and far (Kawharu et al. 2022a, 2022b).

Whanaungatanga extended beyond the researchers and growers. While meetings were held between researchers and community growers, other interested parties sometimes attend upon invitation from participatory community members. The P2P network itself has grown through growers’ own connections which are often whakapapa and/or live in close geographic proximity. These are akin to the snowballing method (see Noy 2008), with the participation initiative deriving not from kin researchers, but from communities themselves, thereby enabling them to further lead and guide the project according to their own whakapapa-based terms. Advantages of this adapted snowballing method have been the increasing knowledge of the project amongst the growers, increasing potential target markets, knowledge transfer and communities of interest.

Co-design and co-development–kotahitanga

As discussed, good relationships have underpinned the successful progression of Pā to Plate. But what has made the relationships ‘good’? Key factors as discussed are regular, open, and ongoing communication. Other include openness to alternative views (for pathway development) and a kin-prescribed commitment to work together, despite uncertainties or unforeseen shared crises (e.g. 2020 summer drought). These have in turn enabled team members to collectively problem solve. The role of the non-Māori research team member has been critical here too. He lives locally, is an expert gardener, networker and grant writer, and has spent considerable time building relationships and trust with communities resulting in several successful small funding bids to support the growers.

Each grower has willingly contributed value proposition perspectives while also being recognised for their differences in priorities, perspectives, experiences, and skills. Researchers have proposed pathways such as initial market trialling where growers agree on supplying while also proposing other pathways for marketing produce. Development of a branding design and the establishment of a legal entity to oversee P2P have directly resulted out of a space of sharing the P2P idea with growers, and vice versa, growers’ sharing of goals for P2P.

Another benefit of co-design is demonstrated in the informal economy idea proposed by growers, which is now becoming a cornerstone focus of P2P. Growers want to continue providing food to local relatives. An informal economy sees the exchanging of resources, knowledge, seeds, and foods between families. These transactions are not measured by financial value but by social support and strengthening whanaungatanga amongst families (Kawharu et al. 2022a, 2022b). We are now investigating how to financially support this social enterprise focus.

Community ethics compared to university ethics–tikanga matatika

As with the Oromahoe study, ethics within the P2P communities hinged on trust and proven accountability from customary ethics perspectives. Although offered, participant information sheets have rarely been taken away. Face-to-face development of kin-ascribed trust was far more important. It was also a core test of researcher willingness to enter into a truly collaborative relationship of mutually beneficial service and shared outcomes. The sharing of kai (food) and kōrero (discussion) and participating in hui including tangi were all part of carrying out tikanga-based ethical mahi/work.

Accountability to community–utu

These ideas also relate to being accountable to community. It is a central value of P2P researchers. In a couple of cases, it also took at least two or three meetings in growers’ communities before collaborative enterprise looked like a ‘real deal’ to them. As one of the growers said, ‘ … I did not know that you would come back again, but when you did, I realised that you were serious … ’. The example could be contrasted with European anthropological investigations of Indigenous communities of the 1970s–1990s and earlier when information was recorded, taken, and published beyond accountability to source communities (Clifford 2001; Asad 1979). Commitment to communities always remains important and the relationship requires constant work.

Researchers therefore worked on regular and open communication with growers to deliver shared community/researcher benefits. This meant spending whatever time is required to ensure the anticipated successes, irrespective of the working week hours. The success principle is essentially ‘kotahitanga’: working together for mutual outcomes. It is what kin accountability to community means in practice. It is particularly important in Northland given the long history of distrust of outsiders and the sense of abandonment felt by marae communities following the exit from Northland of colonial British officials shortly after the 1840 signing of Te Tiriti o Waitangi (Kawharu 2008). Distrust has other external antecedents stemming from government policy and laws that alienated lands, which stripped them of their cultural and economic base and undermined their leadership systems. The current P2P is set against this broader historical background and requires careful insight and sensitivity, because the goal of P2P is empowering communities beyond their ongoing negative impacts of past colonial experiences.

On a separate issue, but related to outdated ways of doing research, there is still some way to go to decolonise the research application process (Sidik 2022) as has been the case with P2P communities. It is critical we remain accountable to them, and any funding applications be written with their direct input at the outset of the process. Recognition of their roles as knowledge producers and appropriate compensation for their time needs to be remunerated according to their expertise, not unlike external outsider consultants, recognising they are core to the project. Community members are the central innovators in P2P. They lead and direct outcomes. Their expertise spans customary environmental and horticultural knowledge, kinship operational knowledge and western professional knowledge. This combination is innovative, marae-centred, and critical to any success. But most importantly, accountability to community means engaging community at the outset, at the inception of ideas well before funding application generation, and throughout the entire research process through to publication.

Interviews–kōrero

Most work on identifying community needs, interests or challenges relating to gardening, social capacity and capability has been through two-way, informal conversations (kōrero) or meetings (hui) of growers. Naturally occurring discussions have also enabled the mana or perspectives of each to be recognised more evenly or equally as discussed, compared to interview situations where authority or control of the conversation is weighted more heavily towards the interviewer. Kōrero also follows co-design and co-development principles and is, therefore, the best method for this project.

Pā to plate summary

Pā to Plate extends the same methodological principles as followed in the Oromahoe study, especially in relation to the team of researchers and the broader team of grower and community collaborators. Mana and manaakitanga are central to achieving research outcomes.

Programme 3: Project Kāinga–communities, culture, and climate change

Like the previous two programmes, Project Kāinga is also underpinned by strong whakapapa-prescribed engagement, involving seven kāinga/kin communities geographically located across the Motu (North Island). Each kāinga is experiencing a particular set of climate change challenges and additional social and economic stressors as a result of five plus generations of colonisation. The core team of ten researchers are a mix of Māori researchers and PhD students who are supported by local community leaders alongside social and physical scientists concerning economics, agriculture, forests, freshwater, soils and qualitative/quantitative analysis. The Māori researchers may not necessarily directly connect genealogically to the kāinga partners with whom the research is being co-produced, but nevertheless whakapapa underpins their engagement in accordance to the Māori values prescribed and maintained by their host marae communities.

Co-productive relationships–whanaungatanga

The Māori investigators bring to this project their own backgrounds of marae community relationships. They are the community-focused lead researchers in a wider team of academic science and innovation expertise. Their experience of having researched in the cauldron of their own marae over sustained periods guides the current project. Not unlike an apprenticeship, each social and physical science-trained Māori researcher has emerged from their own unique kin-accountable trajectory.

Working in and serving communities has also provided a nurturing ground and a deep understanding of the needs and aspirations of Māori kin communities, and an appreciation of community stores of knowledge and beliefs systems. The Māori researchers, therefore, sit alongside their communities within the Project Kāinga programme from positions of strength. This strength is also recognised by community members who are open to dialogue and programme co-development. From this core, outward relationships and networks of additional researchers and community members are brought into programme.

The following diagram shows the community or ‘looking within’ focus which involves researchers and their communities in the first stages of the project. This is followed by the external or ‘looking outside’ focus in the middle stages of the project and which brings in a wider range of external stakeholders (innovation experts, catchment and other community groups, local government, and others). The final broader ‘looking beyond’ focus in the final stages of the project involves industry groups, central government, and international interests with whom communities and their researchers will work to develop policy outputs (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Research relationships from the community outwards to external stakeholders. The figure shows research areas and stages of research and implementation pathways.

Co-design and co-development–kotahitanga

Being ‘in service’ to communities means providing tools to engage and help solve kin-framed challenges from a shared space of co-design and co-development. It also means recognising community perspectives and knowledge in shaping pathways for developing responses to climate change challenges, as discussed.

Co-design and co-development, therefore, have outwards foci of bringing skills into a community and an inwards focus that recognises what communities themselves provide. Communities may freely share genealogically framed knowledge amongst the team. In the process, all involved recognise that this knowledge remains the exclusively controlled (managed) domain of the marae community under the guidance of elders and other community leaders regarding knowledge interpretation and use.

Other forms of knowledge may also remain within the communities who together with researchers create templates for addressing climate change. However, both communities and researchers are not unaware that broader templates will also be developed for sharing with other kin-communities to assist them unlock their own unique climate resilient futures.

Each of the communities share similar challenges and opportunities including, for example, that:

1. Māori communities have survived land loss and are now generally surrounded by majority non-Māori communities;

2. Māori communities remain closely bound to surviving land estates;

3. Māori lands are often under-used; some have governance entities, others do not;

4. Māori land entities comprise descendants who generally live elsewhere and who are likely disengaged with land affairs;

5. Māori communities are disproportionately represented negatively in health, education, housing, justice and other indices;

6. Māori households both within and beyond home marae communities often experience high costs of living and low income;

7. Groups of marae who closely affiliate in one catchment region share common ancestry and support each other through life crises (especially tangihanga, or funerary rituals);

8. Māori communities do not yet have any climate change action plan and have limited or no relationships with local government to progress them.

9. Māori communities have limited leadership systems specifically established to oversee climate change adaptation and mitigation. Default leadership includes marae committees, individuals, or land trusts. Marae generally are not adequately resourced to establish environmental management units which other larger hapū or iwi have.

On agreeing to partner in the research project, community leaders met researchers and led discussions on what they saw could be the potential design and development of shared research outcomes, taking into account the kinds of circumstances just listed. Although the project is about addressing climate change from a community perspective, it also means considering multi-layered historic, socio-economic, and environmental concerns. Central questions asked by community members, therefore, include how can communities and their researchers assist overcoming historical/legacy barriers and re-engage/reconnect descendants to their genealogy, their villages and not least their land?

Community ethics compared to university ethics–tikanga matatika

University ethics essentially represents a Western-framed knowledge system as discussed. Applying for ethics to research within marae communities can be problematic because of the unconscious bias towards academically-privileged science and values. The difficulty arises when universities expect researchers to follow university-prescribed procedures, such as outlining their proposed methodology of marae engagement, participation, consent, knowledge acquisition, intellectual property, data storage and public dissemination for approval by the university prior to entering into ‘the field’. At the core of this predicament is the universities’ difficulty in recognising that marae communities are themselves knowledge-holding equals, many generations old, and who, as argued, have their own ethical processes or tikanga. Communities may also be part of developing research programmes (i.e. co-design). This means that for the Māori researchers it is important to first ‘go into’ communities and form relationships based on tikanga before applying to their institutions for ethics approval.

Universities are, however, becoming more understanding of Māori research ethics. The University of Otago ethics committee agreed, for example, that community members need only provide verbal consent to participate in the programme as opposed to the standard process of acquiring written consent.

This outcome illustrates that ethics associated with knowledge co-production in a marae community context is indeed two-way. It also has the added effect of reducing any potential awkwardness and reservations that can occur when community co-researchers are presented with unfamiliar Participant Information Sheets and Consent forms; matters that may otherwise and more comfortably, be dealt with verbally if not also in Te Reo. On these procedures, therefore, it could be said that our research programme is embracing a dual ethics process under which tikanga has equal weight.

There is still some way to go to embrace co-design more fully in the field when applying for university or any institutional ‘third party’ ethics. This may include seeing a provision in the ethics application for co-design and asking researchers to explain it. The ultimate best-case outcome of a dual system will see all parties in the proposed research design as equals, and where Māori values of mana/customary authority, manaakitanga/service and utu/reciprocity have equal validity as the lenses through which to engage mātauranga and knowledge more generally.

Accountability to community–utu

For Māori researchers, methodological accountability in practice carries an added dimension in Project Kāinga, especially if they are perceived as being a kin-representative of marae beyond the community being engaged. This situation also touches on Māori ethical standards which apply beyond the purview of university ethical procedures. In such cases, a relationship of inter-community kin-obligations may be triggered, especially if knowledge is ritually passed from host marae elders or other marae representatives to the researcher. Thereafter, the researcher may be expected to remain in service to the source marae until such time as s/he is ritually returned to their source community elders, or when the researcher is freed from being in service to the community, as discussed. However, in reality, these obligations or transfers may continue well beyond the termination of the project, with researchers being called upon years later. In some cases, they may even be expected to externally represent the marae community as a research specialist; and/or transfer their specialist knowledge internally to a new generation of marae descendants. Researchers are, therefore, aware that they may well be supporting the communities with whom they are now working, for some time to come. Tapsell is an example of this. As a Te Arawa researcher, he is working amongst Ngāi Tamawhariua in a marae community initiative in the programme. He expects he will likely ‘be in service’ from a cultural ethics point of view well past the contract period.

In former days, this sense of inter-kin accountability or utu was generally symbolised on marae by gifting taonga and/or marriage arrangements, binding the presenter and receiver in a praxis of reciprocity that could remain alive for generations. In modern times the customary ethic of utu, of inviting non-locals into a kin group remains deeply important as discussed. Whether s/he originates from a nearby marae or from the other side of the world, the research arrangement always comes with inherent duties built on mutual respect, reciprocity, and obligations.

Any Māori descendant operating in a marae context beyond her/his genealogical lineage is often perceived as not only a representative of their research organisation, but also as the personification of their ancestors and associated marae/iwi confederation. Knowledge of genealogically coded (customary) ethics or tikanga–host-prescribed rights and responsibilities–are critical to Māori research success in any marae research setting or fora. Universities do not understand the increasing obligations placed on Māori researchers engaged in kin community research when contracts run out. Yet for the researchers, the work only intensifies.

Interviews–kōrero

The benefits of Māori researchers as cross-cultural communicators and as genealogically engaged members of marae have been discussed throughout this paper. Further benefits are their abilities to encourage relaxed and guided conversational engagement with community members who may then take discussions to new levels or directions. Several examples stand out in Project Kāinga, for both their informality and their strategic planning of the project, and how it could evolve and develop. To illustrate one occasion, kōrero about the project’s purpose and opportunities were discussed on the porch of the meeting house with a community leader while his young daughter played around at our feet, while others, who were using the meeting house for another purpose, came and went. As the sun heated up the morning, kōrero progressed under the cooler eve of the marae gate where we were then joined by another community member who eagerly participated in discussions about why and how best to engage the wider community in the months ahead.

Kāinga and climate change summary

A success factor of this programme has been the establishment of a relational base of mutually shared purpose, built on the mana/manaakitanga ethic of respectful engagement. This foundation increases the likely success of innovative co-production. Community-led initiatives, supported by our team of technical experts, can provide innovative exemplars, providing wide-reaching benefits in and beyond Aotearoa New Zealand’s kin-ascribed Indigenous contexts.

Recognising mana (descent)

A central component of the researchers’ approach to undertaking both individual and team research is to recognise the representative knowledge base, skills, perspectives, or positions (‘mana’) of one another as passed down through the generations. On one hand senior academic researchers have demonstrable authority in the university domain, while on the other it is elders who carry whakapapa-prescribed authority to exercise the rights and responsibilities on behalf of their kāinga. Sometimes, however, knowledge/skill sets are not always well understood during early stages of community research, especially if it is a younger descendant engaging in the fieldwork of their own people, like in the Oromahoe programme, Recognition of mana by itself is therefore not enough. Taking time to gain insight into, or understand the sources of mana, or the knowledge and skillsets, is equally important. This does not mean it will be possible to become immediately adept or proficient in specific fields of mātauranga. Knowledge and skillsets transfer is a carefully imparted cross-generational process and may represent years or a lifetime of layered apprenticeship, acquisition, analysis, and application, not dissimilar to any university discipline of learning. Open-mindedness and agility of thought are therefore important no matter the origin of any researcher seeking to operate in a whakapapa-prescribed context of mātauranga. The elders of kāinga generally set the rhythm and pace of knowledge/skillset transfer, before any two-way learning and innovative co-creation is realised and/or developed. In Pā to Plate, these knowledge exchanges have occurred within an inclusive team dynamic. Made up of researchers and co-producing descendants each team member is mutually respected for the knowledge and skills they represent. Seniority–both academic and genealogical–also remains a deeply valued attribute, complementing, for example, leadership in subject areas or skills.

Thus, mutual respect of mana of both parties is key and contrasts early anthropological fieldwork which did not adequately recognise Indigenous peoples as equals, let alone the co-productive nature of research (Smith 1999). This relationship between kāinga leadership and incoming researcher(s) is critical to facilitating release of streams of whakapapa-contextualised mātauranga from which streams of new and innovative knowledge might evolve, progressing the overall research programme outcomes. In the Project Kāinga programme, comprising 7 research teams across a multitude of kāinga, mana for the Māori researchers derives from:

1. Successful marae engagement track record;

2. University recognised research experience;

3. Knowledge of own genealogical background (whānau, marae, hapū, iwi);

4. Publicly (in marae context) demonstrated willingness to place self in service of co-producing marae communities;

5. Experience in identifying and diplomatically navigating (without giving offence) the inherent obstacles of marae/kin politics; and an

6. Ability to synthesise community originating ideas with science expertise in a cross cultural, generative space of innovation and technology.

Equally, the mana of community co-producers derive from many sources, including most, if not all, of the above. Project Kāinga community leaders also include elders who can draw and reflect upon their extended lifetimes of experience. Their mana of experience is valued similarly to the skills of a qualified professional (a lawyer, a planner, a consultant etc), although comparison to western-trained individuals and monetary ‘hourly rate’ are values that do not sit well within research funding systems. These are challenges for the researchers and funders when engaging and supporting co-production research. Applicants are expected to be university-trained scientists/researchers, often with publication and other successful records. However, compensation for community engagement is partially addressed in both P2P and Project Kāinga via subcontracts to marae entities and to individual leaders. The standard of ‘curriculum vitae’ was based on whakapapa in both philosophical and applied senses via activating the ethics of mana/manaakitanga, rather than publication track records.

Recognising manaakitanga (kinship)

The corollary of mana is the manaakitanga principle, which emphasises the importance of considering others’ needs and interests (Kawharu and Tapsell 2019; Kawharu and Newman 2018). Mana between the host marae and guest researchers is expressed through manaakitanga. The action of host kāinga offering hospitality to their guests, and in turn this hosting being duly received and acknowledged by their guests, is fundamental to successful development and maintenance of the researcher/community co-design/co-production relationship by which obligations of reciprocity must also be delivered.

In all three programmes the researchers applied manaakitanga in numerous ways. This included listening to their hosting kāinga in order to plan, support and shape their aspirations; giving koha ‘gifts’ of food; networking people and expertise; and helping groups and individuals accomplish non-research-specific goals. Numerous kainga across the programmes have sought specialist and/or professional advice through the researchers’ networks, assisting other community development agendas, not least accessing funds to build future capacity.

The manaakitanga principle is also important in promoting a team-based approach to problem-solving. It is underpinned by open-mindedness to accepting different approaches to understanding or interpreting issues, building trust and mutual respect. For example, the opening discussions with the leadership of all the kāinga was focussed almost exclusively on kin-relationships and commonalities, all the while framed by mutual respect and development of trust. It was not until the second and/or third meeting that the real business of co-production was discussed (co-design ideas) and again, governed by our hosts from a mana/manaakitanga enhancing space of inclusion, openness to innovation and a shared sense of purpose.

Added to these discussions was generosity of spirit and care towards others. Together, these all shape what it means to apply the manaakitanga principle in research. They are particularly important when challenges arise perhaps relating to programme priorities, interpretation issues or research roles. And to borrow from entrepreneurship studies, the extent to which a group adjusts or adapts to changing or challenging circumstances or emboldens itself from change or set-back is a mark of its ability to be resilient and succeed (McGlade 2006; Kawharu et al. 2017).

Conclusion

Marae-derived values built on genealogical accountability to the past, present and future–whakapapa–have guided each of the community-based research programmes, which has therefore seen community leaders and members at the centre of each of the projects. Consequently co-design, co-development and co-production have underpinned all output streams, while the mana/manaakitanga dynamic remains fundamental to all methods. Furthermore, research processes are all about being in service to communities. These are obligations that may also extend well beyond contractual timeframes and last years. They are ethical considerations that are not yet well understood by research institutions, but they have significant ramifications in terms of time commitments.

For their part, each community partner contributes their own cross generational marae-framed knowledge systems and their own professional knowledge. Research questions are therefore approached from two knowledge vantage points: Māori (i.e. whakapapa/genealogical) and western.

The three research programmes each built on existing community goals. Māori community research collaboration in its truest sense is a past-present dialectic, or a whakapapa of research practice, meaning that each project aimed to foster and continue momentum in building on past and current community ideas or aspirations. This perspective is important because it builds on community realities on their terms. Communities are the drivers of initiative.

There are also opportunities for universities/research institutions ethics to be aligned with the ethical processes of New Zealand’s oldest knowledge centres, the marae, in a spirit of equally shared partnership. Our research has highlighted the kinds of issues that are important to both communities and to Māori researchers. Whakapapa methodology is an ethical approach to research. It includes not just recognising the values of communities, but also putting those values into practice, including resourcing community members, and recognising and providing for researchers’ time commitments.

The more university-based or trained Māori researchers engage with kin-communities, the more likely those communities will seek to engage them and universities as equals on their terms. This is important when past research practice has not properly recognised kin-communities as equals and has instead seen them as objects of study for external purposes. The research opportunities are therefore increasing on many levels. The three projects discussed have highlighted the ongoing needs facing the communities and who will continue to require much needed skills to tackle pressing concerns of our times.

Notwithstanding the above, the values disparity between the two systems of knowledge–academy and whakapapa–is out of balance. Without kāinga elders sharing critical mātauranga with our six PhD students engaged under the above three programmes, their completions would be compromised. To the future, we believe the formal recognition of the contributing mana and manaaki of supervisory elders and kāinga should also become an ethical requirement of all New Zealand universities /research institutions and be pro rata compensated accordingly. Further research may explore how to develop institutional ethics that address the whakapapa methodology we have discussed in this paper.

A shared ethical approach to research represents an important way forward to address big societal and environmental challenges and seek generative solutions for ecological, social, economic, and environmental wellbeing. The opportunity also lies in combining generations of knowledge, skills, and collective wisdom or mātauranga together with academic-derived science and technology to counter our planet’s accelerating climate-crisis. Some might go further and say it would be unethical if we did not.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the National Science Challenge Our Land and Water, and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment under the Endeavour Research Programmes.