In this blog, Fiona Cram provides an introductory overview to Kaupapa Māori evaluation. Kaupapa Māori evaluation was developed in the 1990s and is a highly respected evaluation paradigm in Aotearoa New Zealand.
Colonisation and its impactThe history of Aotearoa (New Zealand) is marked by the arrival of European settlers and the subsequent colonization that significantly impacted Māori society. The signing of the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840 was meant to establish a partnership between Māori and the British Crown, guaranteeing Māori sovereignty and land rights. However, the promises of the Treaty were soon undermined by successive colonial governments, leading to the alienation of Māori land, suppression of the Māori language, and the marginalization of Māori. The foundations of Kaupapa Māori evaluationKaupapa Māori evaluation is deeply embedded in the broader framework of Kaupapa Māori theory, which emerged as a response to the colonization and marginalization of Māori people. This theory underscores the importance of Māori self-determination (tino rangatiratanga), cultural aspirations (taonga tuku iho), and the centrality of Māori language and culture. As Linda Tuhiwai Smith (2021) articulates, Kaupapa Māori involves a commitment to the survival and revival of Māori culture and language, as well as the struggle for autonomy over Māori lives and cultural well-being. The principles of Kaupapa Māori theory are: 1. Tino Rangatiratanga (Self-determination): Ensuring Māori control over the evaluation process and outcomes. 2. Taonga Tuku Iho (Cultural Aspirations): Valuing and promoting Māori cultural beliefs and practices. 3. Ako (Culturally Preferred Pedagogy): Utilizing teaching and learning practices that align with Māori preferences. 4. Kia Piki Ake i Nga Raruraru o te Kāinga (Socioeconomic Mediation): Addressing and mediating socioeconomic challenges faced by Māori communities. 5. Whānau (Extended Family Structure): Recognizing and reinforcing the importance of extended family networks. 6. Kaupapa (Collective Philosophy): Upholding a collective vision and commitment to Māori well-being. 7. Te Tiriti o Waitangi (Treaty of Waitangi): Affirming the rights of Māori as both tangata whenua (Indigenous peoples) and citizens of Aotearoa New Zealand. 8. Āta (Growing Respectful Relationships): Encompassing the building and maintaining of respectful relationships.
Practical applicationIn practice, Kaupapa Māori evaluation involves several stages: 1. Planning and Design: Engaging with the community to define the scope and objectives of the evaluation. This stage involves identifying key stakeholders and ensuring that their voices and perspectives are included. 2. Data Collection: Using methods that are culturally appropriate and respectful. This may include hui (meetings), wānanga (workshops), and other forms of collective discussion and decision-making. 3. Data Analysis: Interpreting the data through a Māori lens, ensuring that the analysis reflects Māori values and perspectives and incorporates a structural analysis of what prevents Māori from flourishing. 4. Reporting and Dissemination: Sharing the findings in ways that are accessible and meaningful to the community. This may involve oral presentations, written reports, and other forms of communication that are culturally responsive. A key feature of Kaupapa Māori evaluation is its emphasis on capacity building. Evaluators work alongside community members to develop their skills and knowledge, enabling them to undertake their own evaluations in the future. This approach not only empowers the community but also ensures the sustainability of the evaluation process. Challenges and opportunitiesOne of the main challenges of Kaupapa Māori evaluation is navigating the tension between Māori and Western worldviews. There is often a mismatch between Western models of evaluation and Māori cultural values and practices. This can lead to misunderstandings and conflicts, particularly when dealing with government agencies and other non-Māori stakeholders. However, this challenge also presents an opportunity for transformation. By highlighting the limitations of conventional evaluation methods, Kaupapa Māori evaluation can contribute to a broader decolonization of evaluation practices. This involves not only validating Māori ways of knowing but also challenging the dominance of Western epistemologies and advocating for more inclusive and equitable evaluation practices.
ConclusionKaupapa Māori evaluation is a powerful tool for promoting Indigenous self-determination and cultural revitalization. It challenges conventional evaluation methods and offers a more inclusive and equitable approach that respects and honours Māori values and perspectives. As the practice of Kaupapa Māori evaluation continues to evolve, it has the potential to contribute to a broader decolonization of evaluation practices, benefiting not only Māori but also other Indigenous and marginalized communities around the world. Through its emphasis on relationship-building, capacity building, and cultural relevance, Kaupapa Māori evaluation provides a model for how evaluation can be conducted in ways that are respectful, empowering, and transformative. As we move forward, it is essential to continue to learn from and build upon these practices, ensuring that Indigenous voices and perspectives are at the forefront of evaluation processes and outcomes (Cram, Pipi, & Paipa, 2018). ReferencesCram, F., Pipi, K., & Paipa, K. (2018). Kaupapa Māori evaluation in Aotearoa New Zealand. New Directions for Evaluation - Indigenous Evaluation, 159, 63-77. Smith, L. T. (2021). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples (3rd Edition ed.). New York: Zed Books. Other blog posts in this series: |
Author - Fiona Cram, PhDNgāti Pāhauwera, Aotearoa New Zealand |
1 Comment
7/2/2024 07:47:10 pm
Thank you Fiona for this very informative Blog. It has let me see the similarities that abound in the indigenous evaluation methods and methodologies. An inspiration to work with the indigenous communities in Africa in developing a culturally and ethically responsive evaluation methodological approach.
Reply