ArticlePDF Available

Pacific Research Methodologies and Relational Ethics

September 2019

DOI:10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.529

Authors:

University of Auckland

One could easily argue that Pacific research methodologies (PRM) and Pacific relational ethics (PRE) are not new: a genealogy of approach would take one back to the ancient Pacific philosophers and practitioners of ancient indigenous knowledges—indeed back to Tagaloa-a-lagi and the 10 heavens. However, in the last two decades, there has been a renaissance of PRM and PRE taken up by Pacific researchers based in New Zealand and the wider Pacific to counter the Western hegemonic tradition of how research is carried out and why—especially research involving Pacific people, families, and communities. In the diaspora, as ethnic minorities and in their island homes, as Third World nations, Pacific peoples and communities are struggling to survive in contexts of diasporic social marginalization and a neocolonial globalizing West. So there is a need to take stock of what contemporary expressions of PRM and PRE are, how they have developed, and why they are needed. This renaissance seeks to decolonize and reindigenise research agendas and research outputs by doing research based on Pacific indigenous theories, PRM, and PRE. It demands that research carried out with Pacific peoples and communities is ethical and methodologically sound with transformational outputs. In reality, the crisis in Pacific research is the continuing adherence to traditional Western theories and research methods that undermine and overshadow the va—the sacred, spiritual, and social spaces of human relationships between researcher and researched that Pacific peoples place at the center of all human/environment/cosmos/ancestors and animate/inanimate interactions. When human relationships are secondary to research theories and methods, the research result is ineffective and meaningless and misinforms policy formation and education delivery, thereby maintaining the inequitable positioning of Pacific peoples across all demographic indices, especially in the field of Pacific education. The Samoan indigenous reference of teu le va, which means to value, nurture, and care for (teu) the secular/sacred and social/spiritual spaces (va) of all relationships, and Teu le Va , the Ministry of Education research guideline, both evoke politicians, educational research institutions, funders, and researchers to value, nurture, and, if necessary, tidy up the va. In a troubling era of colonizing research methodologies and researcher nonaccountability, Pacific educational researchers can take inspiration from a range of philosophical theorizing based on the development of a suite of PRMs. Keywords: Pacific methodologies, va, teu le va, relational ethics, relational accountability, relational responsibility

Pacific Research Methodologies

…

Figures - uploaded by Melani Anae

Content may be subject to copyright.

Content uploaded by Melani Anae

Content may be subject to copyright.

Content uploaded by Melani Anae

Content may be subject to copyright.

Pacific Research Methodologies and Relational Ethics

Page 1 of 26

PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, EDUCATION (oxfordre.com/education). (c) Oxford University

and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: University of Auckland; date: 01 September 2019

Subject: Education, Cultures, and Ethnicities, Research and Assessment Methods, Educational

Theories and Philosophies

Online Publication Date: Aug 2019 DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.529

Pacific Research Methodologies and Relational Ethics

Melani Anae



Summary and Keywords

One could easily argue that Pacific research methodologies (PRM) and Pacific relational

ethics (PRE) are not new: a genealogy of approach would take one back to the ancient Pa

cific philosophers and practitioners of ancient indigenous knowledges—indeed back to

Tagaloa-a-lagi and the 10 heavens. However, in the last two decades, there has been a re

naissance of PRM and PRE taken up by Pacific researchers based in New Zealand and the

wider Pacific to counter the Western hegemonic tradition of how research is carried out

and why—especially research involving Pacific people, families, and communities. In the

diaspora, as ethnic minorities and in their island homes, as Third World nations, Pacific

peoples and communities are struggling to survive in contexts of diasporic social margin

alization and a neocolonial globalizing West. So there is a need to take stock of what con

temporary expressions of PRM and PRE are, how they have developed, and why they are

needed. This renaissance seeks to decolonize and reindigenise research agendas and re

search outputs by doing research based on Pacific indigenous theories, PRM, and PRE. It

demands that research carried out with Pacific peoples and communities is ethical and

methodologically sound with transformational outputs. In reality, the crisis in Pacific re

search is the continuing adherence to traditional Western theories and research methods

that undermine and overshadow the va—the sacred, spiritual, and social spaces of human

relationships between researcher and researched that Pacific peoples place at the center

of all human/environment/cosmos/ancestors and animate/inanimate interactions. When

human relationships are secondary to research theories and methods, the research result

is ineffective and meaningless and misinforms policy formation and education delivery,

thereby maintaining the inequitable positioning of Pacific peoples across all demographic

indices, especially in the field of Pacific education.

The Samoan indigenous reference of teu le va, which means to value, nurture, and care

for (teu) the secular/sacred and social/spiritual spaces (va) of all relationships, and Teu le

Va , the Ministry of Education research guideline, both evoke politicians, educational re

search institutions, funders, and researchers to value, nurture, and, if necessary, tidy up

the va. In a troubling era of colonizing research methodologies and researcher nonac

Pacific Research Methodologies and Relational Ethics

Page 2 of 26

PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, EDUCATION (oxfordre.com/education). (c) Oxford University

and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: University of Auckland; date: 01 September 2019

countability, Pacific educational researchers can take inspiration from a range of philo

sophical theorizing based on the development of a suite of PRMs.

Keywords: Pacific methodologies, va, teu le va, relational ethics, relational accountability, relational responsibility

Introduction

This article focuses on Pacific research being developed in New Zealand for several rea

sons: the first published Pacific research guidelines were developed in the early 2000s in

New Zealand, spearheaded by the call for “research for the Pacific by the Pacific” in the

trailblazing work by Tuhiwai-Smith (1999) in decolonizing Eurocentric research method

ologies for Māori people and communities and Helu-Thaman’s Kakala (1992) research

framework; political responses and critiques of colonizing research agendas in 1,200 Pa

cific education MA/PhD theses across the period 1944 to 2008 deposited in New Zealand

University Libraries (of which the largest proportion—35%—were completed at Universi

ty of Auckland, followed by 20% at Victoria University), despite the plethora of Pacific re

search methodologies (PRM) available, overwhelmingly posit teu le va (preservation of a

respectful social space between researcher and researched) and talanoa (data collection

reflecting dialogue within Pacific communities) as their preferred methodological ap

proaches (Burnett, 2012); for me, Pacific research developments in New Zealand have

provided a genealogical and generative space for new understandings of Pacific relational

ethics (PRE); and it is in New Zealand that Pacific research is being defined and interro

gated through inter-Pacific and intra-Pacific lenses by Pacific scholars such as Sanga and

Reynolds (2017) in their call for placing new work within existing patterns and models of

research and Suaalii-Sauni (2017) and Suaalii-Sauni and Fulu-Aioluputea (2014). The lat

ter works specifically are critical commentaries on key Pacific and Māori research ap

proaches such as the va and Kaupapa Māori, thus interrogating the tools of research

within specific PRM.

Of particular concern among Pacific scholars based in New Zealand is the explicit ac

knowledgement of va (genealogical relationships), as the field of Pacific research devel

ops, and the need to be vigilant about what can and should be called Pacific research.

Hence the need for careful and respectful critiques of the past, which have resulted in re

finement of Kakala and Talanoa methodologies over the last two decades (Sanga &

Reynolds, 2017, p. 200).

Other concerns are in the naming of non-Pacific things as Pacific (Tunufa’i, 2016), which

diminishes the relevance of research to Pacific peoples. Sanga and Reynolds (2017) state

that “critique is its own form of development, a conversation which, if respectfully con

ducted offers opportunities to honour origins and protect legacy. Through its agency the

Pacific qualities of the field can be ensured” (p. 201), and with clarity, transparency, and

reflexivity Pacific research will “know more of what it is and what it is not” (Sanga, 2014,

p. 50).

Pacific Research Methodologies and Relational Ethics

Page 3 of 26

PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, EDUCATION (oxfordre.com/education). (c) Oxford University

and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: University of Auckland; date: 01 September 2019

Another concern is the accretion of “clutter” in Pacific research (Anae, 2007; Efi, 2005)—

described variously as an “increasing web-like array of methods, methodologies, ap

proaches, models and paradigms” (Tunufa’i cited in Saga & Reynolds, 2017, p. 201), and

ideas that when distracted from their value have a “paralyzing effect” on deep under

standings and appreciation of what gives Pacific peoples “meaning and belonging” (Efi,

2005).

The teu le va paradigm thus adds to the scrutiny of the genealogical va and critiques of

the past and offers a “decluttering” of the field. It provides clarity and optimizes the

meaning and centrality of relationship of research(ers) to Pacific research participants at

all levels—with communities, research teams, funders, institutions, and policymakers

(Airini et al., 2010). It is a focused consideration of the key Pacific research concept of teu

le va and its relationship with relational ethics that argues for the need to pay attention to

social and sacred spaces of relationships as these methods, methodologies, approaches,

models, and paradigms are enacted. As such, it offers a consideration of the ontological

questions of relationship in research methodology and provides an extensive examination

of the development of teu le va as a framework in Pacific research and ethics, addressing

the issues of accountability and responsibility within this paradigm.

In New Zealand, much of the development of the PRM/PRE field, defined here as Pacific

paradigms, concepts, metaphors, models of “well-being,” research methodologies, and

cultural competencies, has occurred in the education and health sector. Indeed, there is a

sense of urgency in the way Pacific researchers are heeding the call to “disrupt hegemon

ic research forms and their power relations and to alleviate and reinvent new research

methodologies and perspectives” (Smith, 2004, p. 2). Government demands for “evidence-

based” and “culturally appropriate” research, the drive to develop new ways of thinking

about research, and the need to build Pacific research capability and capacity has be

come more and more apparent. The development of PRMs has occurred in three ways.

First are those that have been funded by government ministries and agencies focused on

a bottom-up approach, seeking Pacific worldviews and epistemologies. Examples are the

Pasifika education research guidelines (Airini et al., 2010; Anae, Coxon, Mara, Wendt-Sa

mu, & Finau, 2001), Pacific research guidelines (Ministry of Health, 2005, 2014), and Pa

cific cultural competencies (Ministry of Health, 2008). Second are those that have been

devised by institutions in a top-down manner; for example, University Pacific Research

Protocols (Massey University, 2014; University of Otago, 2011). Third are those that have

been developed organically by Pacific practitioners such as educationists, health practi

tioners, social science researchers, and others.

The Pacific models, guidelines, and competencies, some pan-Pacific and others ethnic-

specific, are used as models to be emulated in the various fields, disciplines, organiza

tions, and institutions. The guidelines funded by government ministries, the Health Re

search Council, city councils, and district health boards have been developed to encour

age culturally appropriate research praxis and outcomes for Pacific peoples and commu

nities. It is hoped that research projects using these guidelines and cultural competencies

will provide robust evidence to persuade policymakers to shift their policymaking clout

Pacific Research Methodologies and Relational Ethics

Page 4 of 26

PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, EDUCATION (oxfordre.com/education). (c) Oxford University

and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: University of Auckland; date: 01 September 2019

from the mainstream “one-shoe-fits-all” approach to addressing specifically Pacific or eth

nic-specific issues.

Much of the development of this PRM/PRE field appears to be ad hoc, piecemeal, and

fragmented (Anae, 2007; Efi, 2005; Sanga & Reynolds, 2017, p. 201) and highlights the

necessity for more coordination and focus. What is needed is a comprehensive, conceptu

al framework for research with Pacific communities that offers holistic, theoretical foun

dations to improve and enhance the quality and quantity of research evidence informing

various governmental policies, specifically Pacific education policy and Pacific education

delivery.

Theorizing Pacific Research Methodologies

The starting point for the renaissance of PRM, PRE, and Pacific theorizing begins with

Helu-Thaman’s Kakala as a research framework based on Tongan reference in 1992 (and

further developed by Johansson-Fua [2014] and Taufe’ulungaki, Johansson Pua, Manu, &

Takapautolo [2007]; see also Taufe’ulungaki & Manu’atu, 2001), and hence begins the dis

course on PRM as addressing the va. But the main thrust for PRM theorizing and the dis

ruption of traditional Western research methodologies was initiated with the work of

Tuhiwai Linda Smith (1999) and her ground-breaking Decolonizing Methodologies: Re

search and Indigenous Peoples. In it she writes:

the term “research” is inextricably linked to European Imperialism and colonial

ism. . . . The ways in which scientific research is implicated in the worst excesses

of colonialism remains a powerful remembered history for many of the world’s

colonised peoples. It is a history that still offends the deepest sense of our humani

ty. (p. 1)

This was written at a time when Pacific researchers were taking stock of the Pacific Way

(Crocombe, 1976) and the inspiration of Hau’ofa’s (1994) empowerment theory in the

(re)development of indigenous ontologies, epistemologies, and theories in an effort to

transform colonizing research processes. It signaled the beginning of the end, certainly in

New Zealand, for imposed Western research paradigms that distorted and misrepresent

ed communities and their knowledge. The gaze was now on indigenous ways of engaging

with indigenous communities and their knowledge systems (Kaupapa Māori [Smith, 1997,

2003]; Faafaletui [Tamasese, Peteru, & Waldegrave, 1997; Tamasese, Peteru, Waldegrave,

& Bush, 2005]; Fonofale [Pulotu-Endemann, 1997]; Tivaevae [Maua-Hodges, 2000]; Ta

lanoa [Halapua, 2000]; Pasifika Education Research Guidelines [Anae et al., 2001]).

Application of these PRM was not by accident but by necessity, given that Māori and Pa

cific populations have been at the bottom of the heap according to all demographic in

dices for the past two centuries. This positioning has now been accelerated by the jugger

naut of globalizing neocolonialism and neoliberalism. Reasons for this positioning cannot

be captured adequately by consulting statistics or censuses but by equitable and just dia

logic approaches and research that also examine systemic influences and how these have

Pacific Research Methodologies and Relational Ethics

Page 5 of 26

PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, EDUCATION (oxfordre.com/education). (c) Oxford University

and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: University of Auckland; date: 01 September 2019

affected Māori and Pacific people. Transformational change can only happen when good,

robust research is translated into policy (re)formation and service delivery. The develop

ment of effective PRM and PRE over the last 20 years in New Zealand is essential in this

endeavor, as are de/anticolonization models and frameworks being developed in the Pacif

ic region over the same period. Koya-Vakauta (2017) provides useful histories and syn

opses of numerous Pacific conceptual PRM that have emerged over the last 25 years in

the works of Pacific scholars in the region and in the diaspora, representing a diversity of

Pacific cultures in her chapter “Rethinking Research as Relational Space in the

Pacific” (pp. 65–84).

To demonstrate the breadth of this PRM/PRE field, a selection of key PRM are summa

rized in Table 1. The table organizes the development of key contemporary approaches

chronologically (1992–2017) with original authors listed first, followed by subsequent ge

nealogical development of the field. This is not an exhaustive list; however, for novice re

searchers, the primary sources and subsequent “careful and respectful critique” (Sanga

& Reynolds, 2017, p. 200) of primary source theorizing listed will certainly provide a com

prehensive gafa (genealogy) of the development of PRM across the indigenous and dias

poric Pacific, as well as a reference point for the centrality of relational accountability

and relational responsibility across the PRM/PRE field.

Pacific Research Methodologies and Relational Ethics

Page 6 of 26

PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, EDUCATION (oxfordre.com/education). (c) Oxford University

and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: University of Auckland; date: 01 September 2019

Table 1. Pacific Research Methodologies

Kakala Helu-Thaman (1992), Johansson-Fua (2014),

Taufe’ulungaki et al.(2007), Taufe’ulungaki

and Manu’atu, (2001)

Kaupapa Maori Smith (1997, 2003)

Faafaletui Tamasese et al. (1997), Tamasese et al. (2005)

Fonofale Pulotu-Endemann (1997)

Na’auao Meyer (1998)

Tivaevae Maua-Hodges (2000)

Talanoa Halapua (2000)

Pasifika Education

Research Guide

lines

Anae, Coxon, Mara, Wendt-Samu, & Finau

(2001)

(See Airini et al., 2010 for second MOE Pasifi

ka Education Research Guideline)

Vanua Tuwere (2002), Nabobo-Baba (2008), Lagi

(2015)

Guidelines on Pa

cific Health Re

Ministry of Health (2005)

Ministry of Health (2014)

Tauhi va Ka’ili (2005), Mafile’o (2008), ’Otukolo

Saltiban (2012)

Ta-Va Mahina (2010)

Talanoa Vaioleti (2011), ’Otunuku (2011), Fa’avae,

Jones, & Manu’atu (2016), Tunufa’i (2016)

Ula Sauni (2011)

Tuli Koya-Vaka’uta (2013, 2017)

Pacific Research Methodologies and Relational Ethics

Page 7 of 26

PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, EDUCATION (oxfordre.com/education). (c) Oxford University

and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: University of Auckland; date: 01 September 2019

’Iluvatu Naisilisili (2014)

Fetu’utu’una’i Va Pala’amo (2017)

It is not surprising that most of these PRM either directly or indirectly refer to the va. In

Pacific cultures, the va encompasses most if not all life, and thus Pacific people are born

into a multidimensional flow of life, enhanced and protected by relationships that are not

created but continued (Va’ai, 2017, p. 27). Given that this va or relationality may be artic

ulated differently in different island cultures, what is common to them all is that relation

ality holds life in balance and harmony (Va’ai, 2017, p. 28).

Koya-Vaka’uta (2017) notes that the Samoan, Tongan, and Fijian PRM contain culturally

specific ideals and philosophies and that notable similarities across these are metaphori

cal underpinnings and a focus on indigenous philosophies conceptualized around place/

land and space/relations, cultural notions of the pedagogic self/self-concept and identity

in relation to family and community, holistic understandings of the human-in-the-world

grounded in balance for continuity and survival/sustainability, and spirituality and values

(p. 78).

What is missing—and areas of concern for Koya-Vaka’uta (2017)—is the gap in research

literature that prevents a holistic understanding of good research practice or pedagogy

and a general lack of “rigorous discourse” critiquing these methodologies and methods.

Koya-Vaka’uta calls for the need for a community of practice that will begin to theorize

and practice PRM and establish a “new line of critical discourse” on reflective Pacific re

search praxis (p. 80).

This critique is echoed by Sanga and Reynolds (2017) who state “Despite the longevity of

the philosophies and ontologies which are embodied in research endeavours, Pacific re

search and the self-conscious theorising which underpins it has a relatively short

history” (p. 202). The authors call for intentional naming, describing, defining, relating,

and separating theoretical constructs as acts of this theoretical development—in the con

text of contemporary concerns—and the need for further development of connections be

tween theory from proximal and overlapping spaces such as Kaupapa Māori and Pacific

theory. It is my contention that the discourse and theorizing on the va, focusing on PRE as

a philosophical, ontological, epistemological, and methodological key (for it is at once and

all these things), and teu le va theory with key principles of relational accountability and

responsibility for transformational research, are valuable contributions to addressing

these pedagogical and praxis concerns. After all, what the plethora of PRMs, methods, ap

proaches, frameworks, models, and paradigms are evoking and naming are necessarily

ethnic-specific Pacific metaphorical va—indigenous philosophies that spell out the rela

tional va between the researcher and the researched described by Koleta Savaii (2016) as

Pacific peoples view the self as comprised of their social relationships, their land

and physical resources, and the spiritual. This view of the self and the relationship

between the self and others features the person not as separate from the social

Pacific Research Methodologies and Relational Ethics

Page 8 of 26

PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, EDUCATION (oxfordre.com/education). (c) Oxford University

and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: University of Auckland; date: 01 September 2019

and environmental context, but as more connected and less differentiated from

them. The emphasis is on attending to them, fitting in, and harmonious interde

pendence with them.

Whether Kaupapa Māori (land, community land family considerations); kakala (flower

garland), talanoa (face to face dialogue); fonofale (holistic house); tivaevae (patchwork

quilt); faafaletui (woven “houses”); vanua (land); tuli (heritage art); bu ni Ovalau (coconut

tree); ‘iluvatu (mat); fetuutuunai (navigation), what is important is the context of the rela

tional social and sacred va between the researcher and the researched and how PRE is

embodied and enacted throughout their interactions. The educational research guideline

document Teu le Va (Airini et al., 2010), on the other hand, extends the context of va and

PRE to relationships not only between the researcher and the researched but to all rela

tional collaborators involved in the research process (institutions, funders, politicians,

participants, communities) and the need to value, nurture, and, if necessary, tidy up these

relational va. Indeed, the detailed exhortation on how to teu le va at all stages of the re

search process (see Table 1: How the Teu le va Approach Can Be Understood and Acted

On by Researchers and Policy-makers in Anae, 2007, pp. 16–17) goes a long way in help

ing to expose, reconcile, and direct human judgement and experience in the negotiation

of successful Ministry of Education (MOE) contract bids. The theorizing and praxis of teu

le va thus shifts the focus from metaphorical va to direct transformational action within

these relational spaces for optimal research outcomes.

PRE that have been invoked to explain and understand PRM provide the relational thread

that weaves together local/regional, diaspora/island-based, and outcomes “appropriate to

a circular-evolving type of logic” (Ferris-Leary in Sanga & Reynolds, 2017, p. 202). Woven

together, PRM approaches and teu le va are building a coherent PRM theory. PRM and re

lational thinkers are eclectic but systematic thinkers, weaving insights from others with

their own original ideas to build this PRM theory. Teu le va theory has been born from this

development, and, from my own experiences of the Samoan culture as a New Zealand–

born Samoan woman, I have listened to others, reinterpreted, and modified and added my

ideas over time. I have been prompted by my own reflections, constructive criticism, and

the changes/crises in Pacific education in New Zealand, and I am continuing to develop

my thinking over time as situations/policies change. At this time I am convinced that teu

le va and PRE defined by Mila-Schaaf and Hudson (2009) as

making beautiful the va’: balance, symmetry, beauty—these are unapologetically

“Pacific” aesthetic values strongly linked to wellbeing and good outcome. . . . As a

matter of preference, connections are made and conflict minimised out of concern

for the relationship and a desire for harmony and symmetry within the engage

ment (p. 17)

celebrates the Pacific ethnic-specificness of each method, methodology, approach, model,

and paradigm and situates these under the shelter of an umbrella of supportive kin, able

to nurture the various va involved in these, with love and care through both relatedness

and separation.

Pacific Research Methodologies and Relational Ethics

Page 9 of 26

PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, EDUCATION (oxfordre.com/education). (c) Oxford University

and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: University of Auckland; date: 01 September 2019

Relational Accountability: The Va–Inspiring Re

lationality

Va’ai (2017) in his seminal work on Pacific relationality and Pacific itulagi, defined as

“lifeworld,” adds to Smith’s (1999) Decolonising Methodologies and Epeli Hauofa’s (1994)

theory of empowerment in Our Sea of Islands through a powerful hermeneutical lens. In

his work, Va’ai sets out to purposively “decolonise the mindset and Pacific itulagi” (and by

implication, methodology) through the focus on Pacific relationality (2017, pp. 17–41).

Approaches to PRM and Pacific relationality are underpinned by a complex ontology, epis

temology, and ethic. They draw from a range of interdisciplinary authors from education,

anthropology, health, history, sociology, and Māori/Pacific studies and from a range of dif

ferent intellectual traditions (genealogy and kinship, indigeneity, decolonization, philoso

phy, postcolonialism, critical theory, praxis and empowerment, and Freirian thinking) in

their development.

The centrality of the va as relational space, in which Pacific values of love, service, spiri

tuality, respect, reciprocity, collective responsibility, gerontocracy, and humility are felt

and enacted, have remained consistent across these published PRM (see Anae et al.,

2001, p. 14; Koya-Vaka’uta, 2017, p. 78). Another commonality across the PRE is the fo

cus on qualitative research methods rather than quantitative, and in some cases mixed

methods. Qualitative research is given priority in terms of oral forms of communication

through face-to-face dialogue or talanoa as a feature of the Pacific way (Crocombe, 1976)

and PRE, and the importance of individual and focus group talanoa among research par

ticipants and researcher is emphasized. The glaring insistence on attention to the sacred

and spiritual as integral to PRE is another consistent feature of PRM (Koya-Vakauta,

2017), and cultural competencies such as those in New Zealand are what sets PRM and

PRE apart from colonizing research methodologies and relational ethics (Anae, 2017).

This is evidenced by their increasing importance in health research guidelines (Ministry

of Health, 2005, 2014), governmental cultural competency guidelines (Ministry of Health,

2008), and psychotherapy and healthcare discourse and praxis by practitioners (viz. mar

riage and family therapy and mental health) in defining spirituality and how to practice

and teach it in clinical practice (Bagnoli, 2006; Callahan, 2013; Carlson, Erickson, & See

wald-Marquardt, 2002; Gabriel & Casemore, 2009; Pollard, 2015; Wessels & Muller,

2013).

In Pacific relationality we are called to put a’ano (flesh) on the bones of personhood, rec

ognizing our commitments to each other in the humanity of relationships. The focus of re

lationality is on whole people as interdependent moral agents and the quality of the com

mitments between them. The space between people is, as the ethical or relational space,

a space that must be nurtured and respected if ethical practice is to be enacted. Attention

is focused on the particular, the context, the process, and the dialogue (Bergham & Dos

setor, 2005). In this view mutual respect is identified as relationality (Va’ai & Casimara,

Pacific Research Methodologies and Relational Ethics

Page 10 of 26

PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, EDUCATION (oxfordre.com/education). (c) Oxford University

and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: University of Auckland; date: 01 September 2019

2017). As Pacific researchers our work lies in inspiring accountability in the va. Next we

consider the place of spirituality in PRM and PRE.

Sacredness and Spirituality in the Va

Important to the Samoan view of reality is the concept of va:

Va is the space between, the between-ness, not empty space, not space that sepa

rates but space that relates, that holds separate entities and things together in the

Unity-that-is-All, the space giving meaning to things. The meanings change as the

relationships/the contexts change.. . . A well-known Samoan expression is . . . “teu

le va.” Cherish/nurse/care for the va, the relationships. This is crucial in . . . cul

tures that value group, unity, more than individualism: who perceive the individual

person/creature/thing in terms of group, in terms of va, relationships.

(Wendt, 1996, p. 42)

Across PRM and PRE discourse the centrality of the sacred, tapu, and spirituality is indis

putable. This gift of spirituality is defined as an ethical, profoundly relational and moral

way of being that is a lived, everyday endeavor requiring continuous practice and daily

mindfulness. It centers on an intimate relationship with God(s) of our understandings and

how that relationship invites one into communal relations of respect, mutuality, account

ability, compassion, and love.

Tui Atua (2009) states that the “tapu (the sacred) and tofa saili (the search for wisdom)

are considered and situated in contemporary Samoan experiences and understandings of

the ethical . . . and provide the basis for ethical research in a Samoan indigenous

context” (p. 115). I support his call for the “re-appreciation” of the rightful place of the

spiritual, sacred, and tapu in ethical debates. Teu le va provides a framework for interac

tions within which the sacred can be enacted. In Pacific contexts it can be experienced as

a spiritual awakening and the recognition of the “sacred essence” beyond human reckon

ing, which comes from the knowledge that Pacific people are connected in a web to the

gods. Some understand these gods as Tagaloa and all of creation, and others as the Chris

tian God. Tagaloa is believed by many Samoans to be the progenitor creator god; howev

er, ancient Samoan beliefs about Tagaloa, compromised by the influence of Christianity,

colonialism, and capitalism, have been relegated to the “darkness” (Maliko, 2012) and

certainly have less currency today.

These PRM and PRE perspectives suggest that if one views all reciprocal relationships

with others as sacred, then the relationship will be more valued and more closely nur

tured. The teu le va indigenous reference uses Tui Atua’s notion of va tapuia and genealo

gy and focuses on the centrality of reciprocal relationships in the development of optimal

relationships. But how does one teu le va? And how, within the va, does interaction by in

volved parties occur? To teu le va requires that, using the gift of spirituality, one regards

these (inter)actions as sacred in order to value, nurture, and, if necessary, tidy up the va

Pacific Research Methodologies and Relational Ethics

Page 11 of 26

PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, EDUCATION (oxfordre.com/education). (c) Oxford University

and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: University of Auckland; date: 01 September 2019

in the context of va tapuia, experienced in research relationships. This is not to say that

to teu le va in all one’s relationships is simple, nor is it an easy process, especially if there

is disagreement with the other party in a relationship and one takes a more subservient

role/position to the other. More often than not it is complex, multilayered, and fraught

with difficulties. For example, teu le va is used in the wedding ceremony to imply that

when problems occur in the marriage, one of the partners must relent/submit to the oth

er, thereby cementing the institution of marriage. The other glaring example is the

“ifoga” (forgiveness) ritual, where to teu le va means that the perpetrator’s family/village

ritually seeks forgiveness from the victim’s family/village. This is actioned by the

perpetrator’s party sitting on the ground in the victim’s village and waiting for however

long it takes (hours, days, weeks, months) for the aggrieved party’s forgiveness. This is

an apology reserved for the kinds of sins (murder, rape, adultery, theft) that in many oth

er societies are punishable by death. This example more than any other illustrates not on

ly the strength and power of the va if violated but also a means of reparation in the act of

forgiveness to preserve the va. So to teu le va is not easy; it is difficult. But if all parties

have the will, the spirit, and the heart for what is at stake, then it is a win-win situation

and optimal outcomes will be achieved.

Teu le va is significant because not only does it infer protocols, cultural etiquette, both

physical and sacred, and tapu, but it implies both proscribed and prescribed behavior and

the concomitant moral and ethical underpinnings of behavior. It insists that direct action

must follow to correct the relationship and/or the relational arrangement if a breach of

the tapu in the va has occurred. Thus not only during formal rituals but also at small fami

ly or village meetings, when one is told to teu le va, the matter is taken very seriously and

immediate action is taken to address the incorrect relational arrangement (Airini et al.,

2010, p. 12). In essence, in all human relationships, the action/behavior and conse

quences consist of the duality of reciprocal practical action being sanctioned by spiritual,

moral, and sacred support.

In our research relationships, Pacific researchers can teu le va in general by exposing,

understanding, and reconciling our va with each other in reciprocal relationships in the

research process and engaging in dialogue with all research participants at all levels. A

person, as an independent being, is both separate from others (independent) and con

nected to others (dependent) at the same time. A relational personhood, or interdepen

dent personhood, fosters rather than assumes autonomy. Thus the role of the Pacific re

searcher is to facilitate continued dialogue between all research collaborators to ensure

debate and continued dialogue over time. Where there is tension or disagreement, to teu

le va means to soothe, mute, and/or attenuate these, in order to correct or realign priori

ties to ensure the dialogue is kept intact and moving forward.

Although people and groups with whom we meet and have relational arrangements all

have specific biographies (a whole plethora of ethnicities, genders, classes, ages, and

agendas), and, whether they are family members and/or research collaborators, to teu le

va means to be accountable, responsible, and committed to take all of these into account

in the context in which these relationships are occurring in the enactment of ethical mo

Pacific Research Methodologies and Relational Ethics

Page 12 of 26

PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, EDUCATION (oxfordre.com/education). (c) Oxford University

and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: University of Auckland; date: 01 September 2019

ments. It is this as well as through face-to-face interaction, words spoken, body language,

and behavior, with purposeful and positive outcomes of the relationship in mind, that the

relationship progresses and moves forward. Not to do this will incur the wrath of the

gods, the keepers of tapu, and positive successful outcomes will not eventuate; progress

will be impeded, parties to the relationship will be put at risk, and appeasement and rec

onciliation will need to be sought.

Va’ai (2017) adds to this va discourse through a hermeneutical lens. In his exegesis of re

lational hermeneutics as a key to decolonizing the Pacific mindset, Va’ai evokes Pacific it

ulagi. This cultural reference is defined literally as “a side of the heavens,” but in this

context it is the different “sides” that conditions one’s thinking, including culture, family,

religion, people, land ancestors, ocean, language, and spirituality (p. 6). How these di

verse realities make up our life-worlds thus suggests that our consciousness always oper

ates in a world of meanings that are culturally and historically conditioned. In this view

relational hermeneutics can be defined as “returning to relational expressions of life, how

a person freely dialogues and connects with his/her whole itulagi and how this holistic

context shapes one’s imagination and the search for meaning” (Va’ai, 2017, p. 23).

This hermeneutical va, further expanded on, begins with the body—with embodied rela

tions, knowledge, interconnections, environment and everyday life—stirs up imagination

and disrupts conventions; encourages critical engagement with global inducements in fa

vor of Pacific itulagi; questions paternalistic attitudes of oppressive systems; critiques

colonial mindsets and embraces healthy alternatives grounded in the Pacific itulagi; af

firms the intrinsic dignity of indigenous knowledges and the Pacific itulagi as the starting

point for understanding and seeking knowledge; promotes dialogue and celebration of di

versity; critiques anthropocentric developments but is also geared toward achieving sus

tainable ways existence with all cosmic life; is holistic and ground-up; and is able to at

tain harmony with opposing polarities and realities (Va’ai, 2017, p. 24).

PRM and relationality from Va’ai’s (2017) hermeneutical perspective necessitates the

principles of mutual exclusiveness, truthfulness, knowledge embodiment, holistic spiritu

ality, and cosmic-community interconnectedness. Mutual inclusiveness, for example ta

lanoa (dialogue and conversation), should be open (Havea, 2010; Vaioleti, 2011), recep

tive talanoa, thereby creating an otherward dimension of relationship through the spirit

of hospitality, dialogue, sensibility, vulnerability, and risk and an appreciation that one’s

horizon of understanding is widened and/or changed by the encounter with something/

one opposite, new, or unfamiliar (Va’ai, 2017, p. 29). Truthfulness is defined as trusting

and looking after each other in a truthful and honest way, despite the hierarchy of status

and positions (Va’ai, 2017, p. 31). Knowledge embodiment is understood as knowledge

that is based on relationships and the emphasis on active participation of ordinary people

in the creation and implementation of policies and frameworks, rather than passive ac

ceptance of top-down approaches (p. 32). Holistic spirituality results from the flow and

fluidity of relationality, thus the sacred is in the secular and vice versa, meaning that rela

tional life is spiritual life. Finally, cosmic-community interconnectedness, defined as inter

weaving of the self, God, and the cosmos, deconstructs any colonizing thinking that is hu

Pacific Research Methodologies and Relational Ethics

Page 13 of 26

PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, EDUCATION (oxfordre.com/education). (c) Oxford University

and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: University of Auckland; date: 01 September 2019

man-centered and instead evokes living relationships that not only exist in the other but

also constitute each other (Va’ai, 2017, p. 33).

My reading of these principles is that in the va, we are relationship, and as people we see

ourselves mirrored in the other. Ultimately, Va’ai (2017) is contending that relationality is

the key to life and that “relationality is a Pacific itulagi response to the ‘moral crisis’ now

faced by the world today” (p. 37). He states that the challenge for relational hermeneu

tics is “to rediscover what is found within the womb of people’s itulagi as tools for reshap

ing and reforming development, and indeed all of life in the region” (p. 38) What he is

calling for is a reformation that continually questions and deconstructs foundations of

knowledge of both colonizing traditions and Pacific indigenous knowledges that have

shaped our everyday lives in relation to political, religious, economic, and social issues.

What follows this reformation, then, is a reconstruction of knowledge and life that is

unique and distinctive to Pacific peoples.

In the context of research, the gift of relational spirituality is found in the relational ac

countability in the va across all stages of the research process—from setting the research

questions, methodology, methods and design, fieldwork, data analysis, and data dissemi

nation to the va with all research collaborators in the hope that the ideas we share here

can adequately articulate ways for bringing our spiritual lives more fully into our profes

sional relationships as Pacific researchers.

Relational spirituality has the potential to manifest through the practice of spiritually sen

sitive research. In practice, this means that, with those with whom we are relationally

connected (researcher/researched and researcher/collaborators), we are open to mutual

discoveries of ways to more fully engage in significant relationships across all levels and

stages of the research. This process thus provides ways to identify what people need to

make their relationships more meaningful, and, ultimately, a means for transcending diffi

culties. Since relational spirituality is at the core of the encounter, the research relation

ship itself has the potential to enhance life-worlds and meaning for all parties. In this way

there is the possibility that in this process of providing spiritually sensitive care, re

searchers have the potential to change themselves.

Relational Responsibility: Teu le va—Theory in

Practice

Hoskins, Martin, and Humphries (2011) note that relational ethic responsibility has the

power to address the planetary, ecological, and human challenges of our time. Drawing

from the philosophy of Emmanuel Levinas (1981, 1986, 2004), they, as indigenous re

searchers, offer a powerful critique of the tenets of classical liberalism and associated

economic theory by their claim that indigenous knowledge systems are premised on

putting the “other” before self-interest and are “remarkable for their shared priorities of

responsibility, obligation and relationality as pre-eminent values” (Hoskins et al., 2011, p.

22). The drivers for successful educational outcomes for Pacific learners as an urgent pri

Pacific Research Methodologies and Relational Ethics

Page 14 of 26

PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, EDUCATION (oxfordre.com/education). (c) Oxford University

and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: University of Auckland; date: 01 September 2019

ority for researchers across all educational fields are premised on these shared priorities

and values.

Up to this point, I have been espousing the resurgence of the focus on relational account

ability (va) documented in PRM literature. I now turn my attention to relational responsi

bility, which is about theorizing a relational web of Pacific research under the theory of

teu le va with key principles of relational accountability and responsibility for transforma

tional research outcomes.

The Pasifika Education Research Guidelines (Anae et al., 2001) were commissioned by the

MOE to provide a clear understanding of the cultural and sociohistorical complexities in

volved in doing Pacific research in educational settings and practical protocols for carry

ing out research. These guidelines were seminal in outlining Pacific research contexts

and some of the specific and sensitive issues around how research should be carried out

between researchers, their teams, and Pacific peoples and communities. The document

develops a PRM that insists on incorporating Pacific ontological and epistemological con

siderations into all stages of the research process—from defining the research “problem”

to research design, implementation, analysis, and dissemination of findings. These consid

erations are defined as the need to acknowledge contemporary Pacific contexts: inter-

and intraethnic dynamics (Anae, 1998; Tiatia & Deverell, 1998; Tupuola, 1993); collective

ownership (Fana’afi Le Tagaloa, 1996), shame; authoritarian structures (Mavoa &

Sua’ali’i, 2001); and implicit gender, status, and gerontocratic principles (Anae et al.,

2001, p. 28).

In retrospect, these guidelines could have delineated the need to examine and expose the

complex nature of ethics in Pacific research in clarifying further questions such as: Who

am I? Who are you? What is our connection? What happens when the ethical moment is

enacted? It was not until 2007 when I was asked by the MOE to write a conceptual paper

(Anae, 2007) for the “Is Your Research Making a Difference to Pacific Education?” Sympo

sium, held in Wellington to inform a second iteration of the guidelines, that I had an

epiphany of sorts, which did not really mature until that paper was published (Anae,

2010).

A paradigm shift and a change in mindset about the need to do Pacific research “proper

ly” yielding more robust and more meaningful evidence that could translate into policy

was needed—an emancipatory paradigm that shifted research as a means to an end, to

the saliency of people and the importance of relationships between people in the research

process. My own research trajectory had revealed tragic flaws in traditional research cul

ture in New Zealand pertaining to Pacific peoples and communities. Much Pacific re

search in New Zealand, for example, has glossed over cross-cultural contexts, ignoring

the cultural complexities not only of the multiethnic nature of Pacific communities but al

so the intraethnic nuances of the diverse groupings and identities of Pacific peoples in

New Zealand. I knew that, until this was addressed, Pacific research in New Zealand

would be ineffective and lack the ability for transformative change for Pacific peoples and

communities in New Zealand.

Pacific Research Methodologies and Relational Ethics

Page 15 of 26

PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, EDUCATION (oxfordre.com/education). (c) Oxford University

and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: University of Auckland; date: 01 September 2019

Second, I realized that the proliferation of PRM being developed in New Zealand was in

response to the centrality of research relationships and the importance of indigenous ref

erences in the way Pacific researchers were engaging in their moral and ethical praxis.

Third, and more importantly, at the core of these considerations and developments was

the need for an overarching philosophical paradigm that could umbrella these diverse but

closely related PRM. I realized that by reframing PRE using the indigenous concept of teu

le va, a paradigm shift could occur. This paradigm is important as it will later flow back

into Pacific theses, research, and communities. Moreover, its philosophical and theoreti

cal import is in the form of human capital as well as research outcomes (Burnett, 2012).

Concomitantly, my own personal experience as a Samoan woman born in New Zealand,

my faasamoa upbringing, and my valuing of Samoan cultural references in acknowledg

ing the centrality of aiga (extended family), va tapuia (sacred relational spaces), and va

fealoa’i (spaces between relational arrangements), tautua (to serve), faaaloalo (to re

spect), feagaiga (special covenant between brother and sister and their respective lin

eages), gafa (genealogy), lotu (church), and faamatai (chiefly system) provided inspiration

for the kind of transformative change I was seeking. The seed of the teu le va philosophi

cal approach had been planted in the fertile soil of relational ethics.

Teu le va: Relationships across Research and Policy (Airini et al., 2010), the second Pacific

education research guideline document, makes explicit the underlying nuances of the

philosophical and methodological issues contained in the original Pacific Education Re

search Guidelines 2001 and expands on already introduced issues, themes, reference

points, and praxis contained therein. However, while the first set espoused the impor

tance of relationships between researchers and Pacific participants/communities, this

second set of guidelines, published some 10 years later, built on that platform by then fo

cusing on the last epitome of transformative change—translating robust research into

policy and more effective educational outcomes for Pacific learners in New Zealand.

In this second guidelines document, the Samoan indigenous philosophical teu le va para

digm is presented as a conceptual reference, ontology, philosophy, and methodology for

future Pacific educational research in New Zealand. Its purpose was to bring research

collaborators into PRE relationality to help provide optimal education outcomes for and

with Pacific learners. It is clear that colonizing conventional approaches and thinking

have not always been up to the task of dealing with Pacific education issues. After discus

sion with Pacific education researchers, policymakers, and other change leaders in educa

tion, Teu le va (Airini et al., 2010) was developed to provide the case for developing new

and different kinds of relationships for the exposure and translation of knowledge into

policy aimed at Pacific success in education. This guideline document takes a strategic,

evidence-based, outcomes-focused, Pacific success approach, outlining three interactive

principles focused on optimal relationships that will lead to directive action.

It was envisaged that emphasizing the importance of relationality and the significance of

the context would enhance the acknowledgement and understanding of the centrality of

the spirit of “relationship,” which would in turn influence all research relational collabo

Pacific Research Methodologies and Relational Ethics

Page 16 of 26

PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, EDUCATION (oxfordre.com/education). (c) Oxford University

and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: University of Auckland; date: 01 September 2019

rators to work together for optimal outcomes. In this way, types of research, research

problems, findings, and linkages to policy formation can be more explicitly conceptual

ized, strategically formulated, approached, valued, and acted on in terms of the aspects of

the va in relationships (in)formed by the research process.

Work on developing both MOE documents (Airini et al., 2010; Anae et al., 2001) has

moved my understanding of relationality further along and enabled me to realize that the

teu le va approach adds to the discourse and inroads created by the fertile soil of relation

al ethics. This approach gives language to the action that Pacific research practitioners

can enact in their daily work for all research relational communities, not only for the Pa

cific people(s) and communities who need their services and support but also for those

who work alongside them (Pacific colleagues/research teams) and above them (policy

makers, research institutions, and funders).

I and other Pacific authors of these interdisciplinary Pacific research guidelines and cul

tural competencies are calling for the valuing of relationships as the central location for

ethical action, given that human flourishing is enhanced by healthy and ethical relation

ships (Bergum & Dossetor, 2005). All professionals involved in research processes should

be committed to spiritual va—with the people they serve, both individually and collective

ly, and with each other. Today, needing to engage in the knowledge economy, this commit

ment to the va can be obscured by an emphasis on advanced technology, consumerism, le

gal liability, bureaucracy, objective rationalism, and individual autonomy. By delineating a

comprehensive and philosophically grounded PRE for Pacific research in the diverse

fields of education, health, justice, social needs, and so on, teu le va evokes the need to

attend to the art of ethics. The focus of PRE is on whole people as interdependent moral

agents and the quality of the commitments between them. The space between people is

defined by the relational discourse as the ethical space or the relational space, a space

that must be nurtured and respected if ethical practice is to be enacted. Teu le va means

that each person has power that is fundamental to human development. In dialogue, all

sides can be heard, and one’s autonomy is fostered through gaining voice and perspective

and through the experience of engagement with others.

Ethical behaviour is not the display of one’s moral rectitude in times of crisis . . . it

is the day to day expression of one’s commitment to other persons and the ways in

which human beings relate to one another in their daily interactions.

(Bergum & Dossetor, 2005, p. 96)

For me this symbolizes that teu le va provides the connection between the researcher and

all the other research relational communities. It is a connection built on compassion and

the cultivation of physical, mental, ethical and spiritual energy. What is of paramount im

portance is the relationship of fa’aaloalo—of trust and respect—between the researcher

and the researched (Verbos & Humphries, 2014). Both MOE guidelines (Airini et al.,

2010; Anae et al., 2001) provide insight as to how teu le va can be applied. Given that re

lational ethics will always be contested terrain on which battles rage about concepts, val

ues, practices, and how ethics should be taught and applied, teu le va provides a tangible

Pacific Research Methodologies and Relational Ethics

Page 17 of 26

PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, EDUCATION (oxfordre.com/education). (c) Oxford University

and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: University of Auckland; date: 01 September 2019

way forward. These guidelines are not only about encouraging exemplary moral action

but also acquiring a deeper knowledge of ethics, in the hopes that improved moral behav

ior will be promoted by knowing what is the right and good thing to do—and seeing how

decisions are made and implemented in practice. The worth of community and of relation

ships in research praxis needs to be valued. Teu le va enables us to understand what rela

tionships are about, how they are created, what they mean, and how they are sustained.

Human flourishing is enhanced by healthy and ethical relationships, and morality is root

ed in the collective life (Bergum & Dossetor, 2005).

Limitations, Responses, and Possibilities

The development of PRM and PRE and socially transformative educational research is sig

nificant and is a result of pressure exerted by Pacific communities and researchers to de

colonize and reindigenise both educational research agendas and Pacific primary, sec

ondary, and tertiary schooling influenced by educational research. In his study of post

graduate research in Pacific education, Burnett (2012) posits that it is important to identi

fy the Pacific research paradigms chosen by education researchers because they repre

sent the Pacific education theories that will later flow back into Pacific communities (p.

4). But how is PRM and PRE actually being used by these postgraduate students, and how

is it impacting on schooling realities for Pacific learners?

Burnett (2012) provides some answers. He states that the theoretical flow is in the form

of human capital rather than research outcomes (confined to bound theses), but a signifi

cant finding is that the real change results from the way students’ educational thinking

has changed and the research skills gained When it is realized that most of these post

graduates return to their Pacific communities as leaders with increased influence in their

respective fields with regard to education policy change and education delivery, then

PRM and PRE are seen to have concrete outcomes. There is much to be said about the

fact that many of the PRM and PRE development authors cited in this article are MA/PhD

theses writers from both local and international universities also. Writ large as political

responses and critiques of colonizing research agendas used by these postgraduate re

searchers, Burnett identifies teu le va (preservation of a respectful social space between

researcher and researched) and talanoa (data collection reflecting dialogue within Pacific

communities) methodological approaches (p. 5). But how do PRM and PRE flow back into

schools, learners, and communities as transformational change?

Reynolds (2016) reminds us of a point made earlier in this article, “A checklist of ‘what to

do’ to teu le va is unlikely to produce the level of harmony that is ideal” (p. 199). We are

faced with an unjust and inequitable education system (Anae, Anderson, Benseman, &

Coxon, 2002; Benseman, Coxon, Anderson, & Anae, 2006). In his informative exegesis of

teu le va as transformative negotiation (p. 197), adaptive nesting (p. 198), reframing (p.

198), and character development (p. 198), Reynolds concludes that Pacific education suc

cess relies on a network of relatedness that extends beyond the classroom and thus cen

trally defined achievement goals are unlikely to be fulfilled where the diverse configura

Pacific Research Methodologies and Relational Ethics

Page 18 of 26

PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, EDUCATION (oxfordre.com/education). (c) Oxford University

and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: University of Auckland; date: 01 September 2019

tions of va and teu le va at various levels of the education system are exclusionary or in

vasive. There are also concerns regarding the power imbalance between teacher and stu

dent that may not be able to be addressed by an indigenous, sacred, spiritual ideal of

PRE. However, Reynolds goes on to say,

In the complex situation of education, developing teu le va as an embedded per

spective involves a disturbance of existing power relations, the removal of the

school or the teacher as the dominant and unquestioned centre of power, and ef

fective intercultural communication. An understanding of va has the potential to

transform the flow of power since it poses a challenge to the legitimacy of other

wise invisible “natural” ideological positions. (p. 199)

This is the transformative potential of PRM and PRE in negotiation with Western under

standings.

Perhaps the most compelling argument that PRM and teu le va theory as practice can

produce transformational change for Pacific learners can be drawn from Reynold’s (2017)

PhD thesis in education Together as Brothers: A Catalytic Examination of Pasifika Success

to Teu le va in Boys’ Secondary Education in Aotearoa, New Zealand. Using PRM and PRE

theory, Reynolds introduces his integrated model of Pasifika education. In it he offers pan-

Pacific metaphors of a flower garland of Pasifika success as a gift for a Malaga (journey

beginning); a Pacific stick chart depicting how poto (being clever) helps one to navigate

effectively; the va of a vaka (canoe) as Pacific student resilience; a fala (mat) as Pacific

success as Pacific in education (p. 259), metaphors that can only be understood through

the relational concept of va. This model challenges the New Zealand education system

and those in it to know why students have come to find a good education, understand the

value of that education, and be able to implement it relationally. This can only be

achieved by changes in classroom activities by teachers who are poto (wise) or becoming

poto via professional development programs. But, more importantly, Reynolds recognizes

that

Without deconstruction of existing thinking around Pasifika education, classroom

changes are unlikely to challenge the pervasive assimilationist and deficit theori

sations which have historically permeated Pasifika education . . . understanding

Pasifika education through the development of an integrated model is to support

the va between theory and practice by suggesting a framework which: articulates

ideas and actions; supports theory to explain practice and practice to develop the

ory; and integrates Pasifika success as Pasifika with the cultural development of

poto teachers. (p. 259)

He examines relational va between student, parent, and teacher revealing contextual con

siderations in the profile of Pacific success as Pacific and asserts that “The research has

sought to teu le va by making strategic decisions upon which action can be

predicated” (p. 261). In its design Reynold’s research has offered ways of consulting peo

ple and gathering data guided by the obligation to teu le va. Rather than being primarily

Pacific Research Methodologies and Relational Ethics

Page 19 of 26

PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, EDUCATION (oxfordre.com/education). (c) Oxford University

and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: University of Auckland; date: 01 September 2019

based on the rights of individuals, this ethical framework advocates for the kind of rela

tionality embedded in this article.

As the decolonizing cycle and circle of PRM and PRE relational theory, pedagogy, and

practice expands, and as we as researchers and scholars liuliu (deconstruct), liliu (recon

struct), and toe liliu (return) to repeat these processes (Va’ai, 2017, p. 35), more ques

tions and challenges will arise. More researchers will center their work on the complica

tions that can arise in relations across diverse va—Western and indigenous philosophical/

ontological/epistemological/methodological/theoretical va, pan-Pacific/ethnic-specific va,

Pacific islands/diaspora va, collaborational va, and class/gender/sexuality/ability va. What

remains constant will be the creation and practice of new—but ancient—approaches to

educational policy and education delivery to future generations of Pacific learners.

All that has gone before in this article about PRM and PRE—the va as relational account

ability and teu le va as relational responsibility, the points I have made, the questions I

have asked—have come full circle. The 2001 MOE guidelines as Pacific theory sought to

“hold the past and the present in a creative tension” in the need to reclaim Pacific indige

nous knowledges and support worldviews of Pacific origin (Reynolds, 2016, p. 194). Teu le

va (Airini et al., 2010) purposively takes a relational, strategic, evidence-based, outcomes-

focused, Pacific success approach, clearly focused on achieving optimal Pacific education

and development outcomes.

In this article I have provided a gafa (genealogy) of the development of philosophical, on

tological, epistemological, and methodological underpinnings of PRM and PRE and teu le

va development as theory and practice. Burnett (2012) provides strong evidence of teu le

va and talanoa PRM as powerful political responses and critique of colonizing research

agendas by many Pacific teachers and education leaders. Reynold’s “Integrated Model of

Pasifika Education” (2017) based on relational teu le va provides a professional develop

ment tool aimed at successful educational outcomes for Pacific learners, through mean

ingful relational engagement between students, parents, and “poto” teachers. These de

velopments provide a strong platform for a community of practice expanding Pacific theo

rizing, PRM, and PRE for more critical discourse on reflective Pacific research praxis and

are extending into more nuanced complexities. Poignant examples are new discourses on

the va as a concept in conversation with Kaupapa Māori (Naepi, 2015; Suaalii-Sauni

2017), and in the value of combinations/comparisons of ethnic-specific PRM experienced

in fieldwork (Suaalii-Sauni & Fulu‐Aiolupotea, 2014).

When all these contributions are examined holistically, it is clear that our espousing of

PRM and PRE through the va and teu le va as relational accountability and responsibility

allows us as Pacific education researchers to understand and respect the myriad relation

al va in our research endeavors; to teu le va with all our relational research collaborators

for optimal outcomes; to risk respect, trust, love, anger, joy, and pain in our endeavors;

and to know that PRM and PRE are not just a means to justify an end. What counts is the

careful selection of appropriate PRM and, if necessary, Kaupapa Māori or other method

ologies, and the embodied respectful care of the va between these, and to teu le va with

Pacific Research Methodologies and Relational Ethics

Page 20 of 26

PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, EDUCATION (oxfordre.com/education). (c) Oxford University

and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: University of Auckland; date: 01 September 2019

all research collaborators within and during the entire research process that is crucial, no

matter who is doing the research.

Relationships are the essence of humanity. The PRE of teu le va in Pacific research con

text allows us to define a moral and ethical relational space for discovering knowledge

about others through dialogue and sensitive interaction for positive outcomes in all our

relationships with research communities. Teu le va is a spiritual experience. It is about re

lational bodies literally affecting one another in the va and generating intensities be

tween and across human va, discursive va, thoughtful va, respectful va, and spiritual va.

References

Airini, A., Anae, M., & Mila-Schaaf, K., with Coxon, E., Sanga, K., & Mara, D. (2010). Teu

le va-relationships across research and policy in Pasifika education: A collective approach

to knowledge generation & policy development for action towards Pasifika education suc

cess: Report to the Ministry of Education. Wellington, NZ: Ministry of Education.

Anae, M. (1998). Fofoaivaoese: The identity journeys of NZ-born Samoans (Unpublished

doctoral dissertation). University of Auckland, Auckland, NZ.

Anae, M. (2005, July). Teu le va—“new” directions in thinking about “doing” Pacific health

research in New Zealand. Paper presented at the Centre for Pacific Studies, University of

Auckland Pacific Scholars Postgraduate Seminar Series, Auckland, NZ.

Anae, M. (2007, November). Teu le va: Research that could make a difference to Pacific

schooling in New Zealand. Paper presented at the “Is Your Research Making a Difference

to Pasifika Education?” Symposium. Ministry of Education.

Anae, M. (2010). Research for better Pacific schooling in New Zealand: Teu le va—a

Samoan perspective. MAI Review, 1.

Anae, M. (2016). Teu le va: Samoan relational ethics. Knowledge Cultures, 4(3), 7–20.

Anae, M. (2017). Teu le va: A new research paradigm. In U. L. Va’ai & A. Casimira (Eds.),

Relational hermeneutics: Decolonising the mindset and the Pacific Itulagi (pp. 85–100).

Suva, Fiji: University of the South Pacific and Pacific Theological College.

Anae, M., Anderson, H., Benseman, J., & Coxon, E. (2002). Pacific peoples and tertiary ed

ucation: Issues of participation. Report to the Ministry of Education. Wellington, NZ.

Anae, M., Coxon, E., Mara, D., Wendt-Samu, T., & Finau, C. (2001). Pasifika education re

search guidelines: Final report. Wellington, NZ: Ministry of Education.

Bagnoli, C. (2006). Ethics of care: Personal, political, global. London, U.K.: Oxford Univer

sity Press.

Pacific Research Methodologies and Relational Ethics

Page 21 of 26

PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, EDUCATION (oxfordre.com/education). (c) Oxford University

and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: University of Auckland; date: 01 September 2019

Benseman, M. J., Coxon, E., Anderson, H., & Anae, M. (2006). Retaining non-traditional

students: Lessons learnt from Pasifika students in New Zealand. Journal of Higher Educa

tion Research & Development, 25(2), 147–162.

Bergum, V., & Dossetor, J. (2005). Relational ethics: The full meaning of respect. Hager

stown, MD: University Publishing Group.

Burnett, G. (2012). Research paradigm choices made by postgraduate students with Pacif

ic education research interests in New Zealand. Higher Education Research & Develop

ment, 31(4), 479–492.

Callahan, A. M. (2013). A relational model for spiritually sensitive hospice care.

Journal of Social Work in End-of-Life & Palliative Care, 9(2–3), 158–179.

Carlson, T. D., Erickson, M. J., & Seewald-Marquardt, A. (2002). The spiritualities of ther

apists' lives. Journal of Family Psychotherapy, 13(3–4), 215–236.

Crocombe, R. G. (1976). The Pacific way: An emerging identity. Suva, Fiji: Lotu Pasifika.

Efi, T. T. T. T. (2005). Clutter in indigenous knowledge, research and history: A Samoan

perspective. Social Policy Journal of New Zealand, 25, 61–69.

Fa’avae, D., Jones, A., & Manu’atu, L. (2016). Talanoa’i ’ae talanoa—talking about ta

lanoa: Some dilemmas of a novice researcher. AlterNative: An International Journal of

Indigenous Peoples, 12(2), 138–150.

Fana’afi Le Tagaloa. (1996). O motugaafa. Apia, Western Samoa: Author.

Ferris-Leary, H. (2013). An analytical perspective on Moana research and the case of Ton

gan faiva (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Auckland, Auckland, NZ.

Gabriel, L., & Casemore, R. (Eds.). (2009). Relational ethics in practice: Narratives from

counselling and psychotherapy. New York, NY: Routledge.

Halapua, S. (2000). Talanoa process: The case of Fiji. Unpublished manuscript.

Hau’ofa, E. (1994). Our sea of islands. The Contemporary Pacific, 6(1), 148–161.

Havea, J. (Ed.). (2010). Talanoa ripples: Across borders, cultures, disciplines. Palmerston

North, NZ: Office of the Directorate Pasifika, Massey University.

Health Research Council. (2005). The Health Research Council of New Zealand guide

lines on Pacific health research. Auckland, NZ: Author.

Health Research Council. (2014). The Health Research Council of New Zealand guide

lines on Pacific health research. Auckland, NZ: Author.

Helu-Thaman, K. (1992). Looking towards the source: A consideration of (cultural) con

text in teacher education. In C. Benson & N. Taylor (Eds.), Pacific Teacher Education For

Pacific Research Methodologies and Relational Ethics

Page 22 of 26

PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, EDUCATION (oxfordre.com/education). (c) Oxford University

and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: University of Auckland; date: 01 September 2019

ward Planning Meeting: Proceedings (pp. 3–13). Suva: Institute of Education, University

of the South Pacific (USP).

Hoskins, T. K. (2012). A fine risk: Ethics in Kaupapa Māori politics. New Zealand Journal

of Education Studies: Te Hautaka Mātai Mātauranga, 47(2), 85–99.

Hoskins, T. K., Martin, B., & Humphries, M. (2011). The power of relational responsibility.

Journal of Business Ethics and Organization Studies, 16(2), 22–27.

Johannson-Fua, S. (2014). Kakala research framework: A garland in celebration of a

decade of rethinking education. In M. ’Otunuku, U. Nabobo-Baba, & S. Johansson-Fua

(Eds.), Of waves, winds and wonderful things (pp. 50–72). Suva, Fiji: University of the

South Pacific Press.

Ka’ili, T. (2005). Tauhi vā: Nurturing Tongan sociospatial ties in Maui and beyond. The

Contemporary Pacific, 17(1), 83–114.

Koya-Vaka’uta, C. F. (2013). Tapu mo tatau: An exploration of Pacific ESD through a study

of Samoan and Tongan heritage arts (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of

the South Pacific, Suva, Fiji.

Koya-Vaka’uta, C. F. (2017). Rethinking research as relational space in the Pacific: Peda

gogy and praxis. In U. L. Va’ai & A. Casimira (Eds.), Relational hermeneutics: Decolonis

ing the mindset and the Pacific Itulagi (pp. 65–84). Suva, Fiji: University of the South Pa

cific and Pacific Theological College.

Lagi, R. K. (2015). Na bu: An exploratory study of indigenous knowledge of climate educa

tion in Fiji (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of the South Pacific, Suva, Fiji.

Levinas, E. (1981). Otherwise than being or beyond essence. Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne

University Press.

Levinas, E. (1988). The paradox of morality. In R. Bernasconi & D. Wood (Eds.), The

provocation of Levinas (pp. 168–180). London, U.K.: Routledge.

Levinas, E. (2004). Totality and infinity. Trans. A. Lingis. Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne Uni

versity Press.

Levinas, E. (Ed.). (1986). Difficult freedom in hand. The Levinas Reader. Oxford, U.K.:

Blackwell.

Mafile’o, T. (2008). Tongan social work practice. In M. Gray, J. Coates, & M. Y. Bird (Eds.),

Indigenous social work around the world: Towards culturally relevant (pp. 121–134).

Farnham, U.K.: Ashgate.

Mahina, ’O. (2010). Ta, va and moana: Temporality, spatiality and indigeneity. Pacific Stud

ies, 33(2–3), 168–201.

Pacific Research Methodologies and Relational Ethics

Page 23 of 26

PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, EDUCATION (oxfordre.com/education). (c) Oxford University

and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: University of Auckland; date: 01 September 2019

Maliko, T. (2012). O le Soga’miti: The embodiment of God in the Samoan male body

(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Auckland, Auckland, NZ.

Manu’atu, L. (2001). Tuli ke Ma’u Hono Ngaahi Malie: Pedagogical possibilities for Ton

gan students in New Zealand secondary schooling (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).

University of Auckland, Auckland, NZ.

Massey University. (2014). Pacific research guidelines and protocols. Palmerston North,

NZ: Pacific Research & Policy Centre and Pasifika@Massey Directorate.

Maua-Hodges, T. (2000). Ako Pai ki Aitutaki: Transporting or weaving cultures. Unpub

lished Research Report of Field Experiences to the Cook Islands. Wellington, NZ: Welling

ton College of Education.

Mavoa, H., & Sua’ali’i, T. (2001). Who says yes? Collective and individual framing of Pacif

ic children’s consent to and participation in research in New Zealand. Childrenz Issues:

Journal of the Children’s Issues Centre, 5(1), 39–42.

Meyer, M. A. (1998). Native Hawaiian epistemology: Contemporary narratives

(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.

Meyer, M. A. (2001). Our own liberation: Reflections on Hawaiian epistemology. The Con

temporary Pacific, 13(1), 124–148.

Mila-Schaaf, K., & Hudson, M. (2009). Negotiating space for indigenous theorising

in Pacific mental health and addictions. Auckland, NZ: LeVa.

Ministry of Health. (2005). Guidelines on Pacific health research. Auckland, NZ: Health

Research Council.

Ministry of Health. (2008). Pacific cultural competencies: A literature review. Wellington,

NZ: Author.

Ministry of Health. (2014). Pacific health research guidelines. Auckland, NZ: Health Re

search Council.

Nabobo-Baba, U. (2008). Decolonizing framings in Pacific research: Indigenous Fijian

Vanua research framework as an organic response. AlterNative: An International Journal

of Indigenous Peoples, 4(2), 141–154.

Naepi, S. (2015). Navigating the currents of Kaupapa Māori and pan-Pacific research

methodologies in Aotearoa New Zealand. MAI Journal, 4(1), 71–84.

Naisilisili, S. (2014). Iluvatu: A decolonising research framework capturing the “other”

knowledge. In Proceedings of the International Indigenous Research Conference, Univer

sity of Auckland, November 25–28 (pp. 101–107). Auckland, NZ: University of Auckland.

Pacific Research Methodologies and Relational Ethics

Page 24 of 26

PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, EDUCATION (oxfordre.com/education). (c) Oxford University

and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: University of Auckland; date: 01 September 2019

’Otukolo Saltiban, B. (2012). Storying academic spaces: Reflections narratives, and inter

pretations of Tongan students’ educational experiences. Salt Lake City: University of Utah

Press.

’Otunuku, M. (2011). Talanoa: How can it be used effectively as an indigenous research

methodology with Tongan people? Pacific-Asian Education Journal, 23(2), 43–52.

Pala’amo, A. F. (2017). Fetu’utu’una’i le vā. Navigating relational space: An exploration of

traditional and contemporary pastoral counselling practices for Samoans (Unpublished

doctoral dissertation). Massey University, Palmerston North, NZ.

Pollard, C. L. (2015). What is the right thing to do: Use of a relational ethic framework to

guide clinical decision-making. International Journal of Caring Sciences, 8(2), 362–368.

Pulotu-Endemann, K. (1997). Fonofale model. In Ministry of Health (Ed.), Making a differ

ence: Strategic initiatives for the health of Pacific people. Wellington, NZ: Ministry of

Health.

Reynolds, M. (2016). Relating to va. AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous

Peoples, 12(2), 190–202.

Reynolds, M. (2017). Together as brothers: A catalytic examination of Pasifika success to

teu le va in boys’ secondary education in Aotearoa, New Zealand (Unpublished doctoral

dissertation). Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, NZ.

Sanga, K. (2014). Making philosophical sense of indigenous research. In T. Baba, O. Mahi

na, N. Williams, & U. Nabobo-Baba (Eds.), Researching Pacific and indigenous peoples: Is

sues and perspectives (pp. 41–52). Auckland, NZ: Centre for Pacific Studies, University of

Auckland.

Sanga, K., & Reynolds, M. (2017). To know more of what is and what it is not: Pacific re

search on the move. Pacific Dynamics: Journal of Interdisciplinary Research, 1(2), 198–

204.

Sasao, T., & Sue, S. (1993). Toward a culturally anchored ecological framework of re

search in ethnic cultural communities. American Journal of Community Psychology, 21(6),

705–727.

Sauni, S. L. (2011). Samoan research methodology: The Ula-A new paradigm. Pacific-

Asian Education Journal, 23(2), 53–64.

Savaii, K. (2016). Pacific youth wellbeing—culture. Tuilaepa Mentoring Trust, Auck

land, NZ.

Smith, G. (1997). The development of Kaupapa Māori: Theory and praxis (Unpublished

doctoral dissertation). University of Auckland, Auckland, NZ.

Pacific Research Methodologies and Relational Ethics

Page 25 of 26

PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, EDUCATION (oxfordre.com/education). (c) Oxford University

and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: University of Auckland; date: 01 September 2019

Smith, G. (2003, December). Kaupapa Māori theory: Theorizing indigenous trans

formation of education & schooling. Paper presented at Kaupapa Māori Symposium:

NZARE/AARE Joint Conference. Australian Association for Research in Education.

Smith, L. (2004). Building research capability in the Pacific, for the Pacific and by Pacific

peoples. In T. Baba, O. Mahina, N. Williams, & U. Nabobo-Baba (Eds.), Researching the

Pacific and indigenous peoples: Issues and perspectives (pp. 4–16). Auckland, NZ: Centre

for Pacific Studies, University of Auckland.

Smith, L. T. (1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and Indigenous peoples. Lon

don, U.K.: Zed Books.

Suaalii‐Sauni, T., & Fulu‐Aiolupotea, S. M. (2014). Decolonising Pacific research,

building Pacific research communities and developing Pacific research tools: The

case of the talanoa and the faafaletui in Samoa. Asia Pacific Viewpoint, 55(3), 331–

344.

Suaalii-Sauni, T. M. (2017). The va and Kaupapa Māori. In T. K. Hoskins & A. T. Somerville

(Eds.), Critical conversations in Kaupapa Maori (pp. 161–178). Wellington, NZ: Huia.

Tamasese, K., Peteru, C., & Waldegrave, C. (1997). Ole Taeao Afua, the new morning: A

qualitative investigation into Samoan perspectives on mental health and culturally appro

priate services. Wellington, NZ: Family Centre.

Tamasese, K., Peteru, C., Waldegrave, C., & Bush, A. (2005). Ole Taeao Afua, the new

morning: A qualitative investigation into Samoan perspectives on mental health and cul

turally appropriate services. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 39(4),

300–309.

Taufe’ulungaki, A., Johansson Pua, S., Manu, S., & Takapautolo, T. (2007). Sustainable

livelihood and education in the Pacific: Tonga pilot. Suva, Fiji: Institute of Education, Uni

versity of the South Pacific.

Tiatia, J., & Deverell, G. (1998). Caught between cultures: A New Zealand-born Pacific Is

land perspective. Auckland, NZ: Christian Research Association.

Tufoua, P. (2014). Ola Lei: Developing healthy communities in Tuvalu (Unpublished doc

toral dissertation). University of Auckland, Auckland, NZ.

Tui Atua, T. T. T. (2009). Bioethics and the Samoan indigenous reference. International So

cial Sciences Journal, 60(195), 115–124.

Tunufa’i, L. (2016). Pacific research: Rethinking the Talanoa “methodology.” New Zealand

Sociology, 31(7), 227–239.

Tupuola, A. (1993). Raising research consciousness the Fa’aSamoa way. New Zealand An

nual Review of Education, 3, 175–189.

Pacific Research Methodologies and Relational Ethics

Page 26 of 26

PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, EDUCATION (oxfordre.com/education). (c) Oxford University

and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: University of Auckland; date: 01 September 2019

Tuwere, I. S. (2002). Vanua: Towards a Fijian theology of place. Suva, Fiji: Institute of Pa

cific Studies, University of the South Pacific.

University of Otago. (2011). Pacific Research Protocols. Dunedin, NZ: Author.

Va’ai, U. L. (2017). Relational hermeneutics: A return to the relationality of the Pacific Itu

lagi as a lens for understanding and interpreting life. In U. L. Va’ai & A. Casimira (Eds.),

Relational hermeneutics: Decolonising the mindset and the Pacific Itulagi (pp. 17–41). Su

va, Fiji: University of the South Pacific and Pacific Theological College.

Va’ai, U. L., & Casimira, A. (Eds.). (2017). Relational hermeneutics: Decolonising the

mindset and the Pacific Itulagi. Suva, Fiji: University of the South Pacific and Pacific The

ological College.

Vaioleti, T. (2011). Talanoa, manulua and founga ako: Frameworks for using enduring Ton

gan educational ideas for education in Aotearoa/New Zealand (Unpublished doctoral dis

sertation). Hamilton, NZ: University of Waikato.

Verbos, A. K., & Humphries, M. (2014). A Native American relational ethic: An indigenous

perspective on teaching human responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 123(1), 1–9.

Wendt, A. (1996, April–October). Tatauing the post-colonial body. Span, 42–43.

Wessels, F., & Muller, J. C. (2013). Spirituality in narratives of meaning. HTS Teolo

giese Studies/Theological Studies, 69(2).

Melani Anae

University of Auckland

Takanga ‘enau fohe: a scoping review of the educational successes and challenges of Pacific learners in Australia 2010–2021

Article

Full-text available

Mar 2023
AUST EDUC RES

International literature has recognised the importance of education research with Pacific learners. In an Australian context, the early years learning framework for Australia and the Australian curriculum emphasise that education sectors should work towards cultivating respect for cultural diversity and to develop intercultural understanding and intercultural capabilities. As such, the call to better understand the cultural complexities that underpins Pacific learners and their interactions with educational processes remains pertinent. This scoping review offers an important synthesis of empirical research on the educational successes and challenges of Pacific learners in Australian educational settings from 2010 to 2021. While this study offers critical insights for teacher education and research, the findings also revealed paucities in education research with Pacific learners. Thereby, propositions for future and ongoing education research with Pacific learners in Australia are offered in this article.

Engaging in research with Pacific communities as a non-Pacific researcher: reflecting on lessons learnt

Article

Full-text available

Aug 2022

A key challenge for the cross-cultural researcher is how to maintain authenticity in the stories of participants, paying careful attention to any inherent power imbalances. In this article, we share our respective experiences of conducting research with Pacific students and their families in Aotearoa New Zealand as non-Pacific researchers. We discuss tensions we encountered regarding power and positionality, highlighting the importance of engaging with Pacific perspectives and methodologies to help counter these tensions. In our respective studies, we aimed to promote the voices of our participants and conduct research which prioritised Pacific values. We further appreciated that we must not let our own research agenda override the needs of our participants. We explain why we believe these ideas to be so important and draw tentative conclusions on ways to engage in research with Pacific families based on what we have learnt. The data presented from our respective studies highlight our approaches and present some of the challenges, as well as our efforts to engage in reciprocal, respectful relationships with our participants and their families. We hope that, in sharing our reflections, we may offer some useful insight to other researchers embarking on a similar journey to us.

Teachers Responding to Pacific Community Voice: Supporting Relationships Through an Ecological Research Initiative

Article

Full-text available

May 2023

Pacific education is an area of priority in Aotearoa New Zealand. It involves the teaching of Pacific students by a workforce that is largely of European origin. Pacific communities value education and have the capability to contribute to the understandings of teachers as they seek to provide the kinds of service that communities want to see. This article reports on a Teaching and Learning Research Initiative (TLRI), Learning From Each Other . Leveraging talanoa as a dialogic research approach, the initiative examines the change value of Pacific voice in enhancing teacher understanding and promoting deliberate action to improve Pacific education. We present findings organised by spaces in which educators enact change using a contextualised revision of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model as a mapping tool. What emerges is a sense of how non-Pacific educators’ growing Pacific-informed understandings support Pacific learners in personal, classroom and institutional spaces.

Intentional leadership and vā critical shifts: A Samoan–Palagi school principal’s talanoa

Article

Full-text available

Dec 2022

Stan Tiatia

The paper is a leadership talanoa by a primary school principal of Samoan and Palagi heritages. The context of my talanoa is a descriptive account of my intentional practices, stories of my lived experiences, and contextual learnings aimed to shift school practices and structures so that Pasifika students succeed as Pasifika, a point clearly noted in the Tapasā policy. To prioritise the success of diverse ākonga in South Auckland, knowing and learning to work outside of the confines of school systems and governance processes within Aotearoa New Zealand schooling supported my work as a school principal and critical change agent. I write this paper using talanoa, the cultural practice of storying by (re)telling my leadership reflections and ako views as a Pasifika school leader. Talanoa and vā have been useful in my intentional practices.

Pacific Parental Engagement and Intergenerational Storytelling in Aotearoa New Zealand

Article

Full-text available

Apr 2022

In this article, we focus on how Pacific family support places success of individuals within a wider narrative of intergenerational family stories, contributing to successful futures for the participating Pacific youth and their families. Guided by Pacific research principles, we used interviews with families and adolescents to explore the role of family narratives, in ten Pacific families in Aotearoa New Zealand, which supported academic success for their children. Our data sources included conversations with youth, their families, and visual representations created by the youth to illustrate their perceptions of parental support. The findings highlighted the role of families’ stories in supporting their children’s education. Strong intergenerational expectations were expressed from the dual perspectives of parents and their children. The formative role of family stories within the youths’ experiences of success provides opportunity to acknowledge the relational foundations of intergenerational stories.

Manawataki Fatu Fatu for ACCESS (Māori and Pacific Hearts in Unison for Achieving Cardiovascular Care in Equity StudieS). Protocol for a Mixed Methods Programme of Research

Article

May 2023

Māori and Pacific peoples in Aotearoa New Zealand (NZ) face significant inequities in cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors, hospitalisations and management rates, compared with non-Māori, non-Pacific peoples. These inequities are intimately linked to factors such as colonisation and the intergenerational impacts of systemic racism. This is the protocol for Manawataki Fatu Fatu for ACCESS (Māori and Pacific hearts in unison for Achieving Cardiovascular Care in Equity StudieS), a mixed-methods programme of research, combining kaupapa Māori and Pacific research methodologies (i.e. incorporating the knowledges, skills and values of Māori and Pacific peoples). In this Māori and Pacific led research programme, we will use qualitative and quantitative methodologies to identify evidence-practice gaps along the healthcare continuum that can be addressed to improve heart health outcomes for Māori and Pacific people in NZ. The programme is built on three foundation projects: (i) the assessment and management of CVD risk in primary care; (ii) pre-hospital delays in accessing care following an acute cardiac event in the community; and (iii) post-discharge and long-term management of heart failure. There are three phases. Phase 1 aims to systematically document research, completed or underway, about equitable access to evidence-based heart health care. We will establish a national collaboration of equity-focused heart health researchers and providers, and undertake systematic reviews relating to the three foundation projects. In Phase 2, we will undertake qualitative and quantitative research in the three foundational projects, to identify interventions to increase access to heart health care that have most potential to improve Māori and Pacific health outcomes and achieve equity. The quantitative and qualitative studies will be undertaken in parallel and will inform each other. Phase 3 will use findings from Phases 1 and 2 to create a Quality-Improvement-Equity Roadmap to inform interventions to improve Māori and Pacific people’s access to evidence-based CVD care.

Making Space for Young Children's Embodied Cultural Literacies and Heritage Languages with Dual Language Books

Article

Mar 2023

Walking the Wall and Crossing the Threshold: Angela Tiatia, Kalisolaite ‘Uhila and Shigeyuki Kihara’s Counter-Hegemonic Choreographies

Chapter

Sep 2021

Victoria Wynne-Jones

Explores performances by Pasifika artists: Angela Tiatia, Kalisolaite ‘Uhila and Shigeyuki Kihara. Wynne-Jones offers a much-needed summary of Pacific bodies performing and creating interventions in museums and contemporary art gallery spaces in Aotearoa New Zealand. Focussing on the relations activated by such artworks, an examination of Louise Tu’u’s thesis of performance as a processual tool for drawing audiences into the dis-ease of social relations precedes Linda Tuhiwai Smith’s decolonising methodologies and how these can be applied to choreographies and performance art practice. The chapter draws attention to Chloe Weaver’s argument that the relational space of the vā has resonances with Nicholas Bourriaud’s relational aesthetics. “Walking the wall and crossing the threshold” concludes with a discussion of whether performance artworks taking place in museums of art should be considered decolonising or counter-hegemonic.

Introduction: Exhibitions and the Choreographic Turn

Chapter

Sep 2021

Victoria Wynne-Jones

Since the early 2000s it has become common for artists to exhibit performances, either live or recorded that involve the execution of planned movements and actions as part of an encounter between various individuals occupying a gallery space. Wynne-Jones offers a much-needed summary of this recent choreographic turn in biennales, art galleries and museums and its accompanying scholarship. Focusing on Nicholas Bourriaud’s argument about relational aesthetics, the chapter unpacks intersubjectivity in order to highlight the relational and connective aspects of performance art. The introduction concludes with a discussion of the tendency in contemporary art to focus on the prescriptive aspects of choreography rather than its emancipatory potential.KeywordsMuseumsPerformance artIntersubjectivityChoreographyExhibition making

Looking Back to Move Forward: Continuing Community-centric Practices for Conservation and Collection Care of Pacific Collections in an Australian Museum

Article

May 2022
STUD CONSERV

The changing role of conservation necessitates the facilitation of space through which spiritual and physical interactions occur. Enabling balance between collections and communities past and present, establishes respect and acknowledgement for diverse cultural knowledge. To formalise this, a Methodology for Cultural Safety and Care was co-developed during the redevelopment of Te Pasifika exhibition at Museums Victoria (2018–2020). The framework looks to the past, to address the inequities in Pasifika representation and voice in cultural collections, then to the present, to create a robust platform for community-centric storytelling in Victoria, Australia, with respect to wider Moana (ocean) values. This centres orality, collaboration and community, drawing from cultural practice, ‘new’ guidelines for collection management, conservation and collections care, while providing a platform for collective Pasifika voices in an Australian context. Access to museum collections by members of a culturally diverse Pasifika diasporic community in Victoria, Australia, is integral to cultural maintenance and community wellbeing. Cultural knowledge continually transcends generations, moulding identities in new contexts, fluidly evolving, while adapting, changing and responding to community needs. The methodology challenges the rigidity of traditional museum ideology. Normalising Indigenous practices and values in a museum context removes distance between all involved and humanises museum practice, benefiting both those who interact with taonga (cultural treasures) and the taonga themselves. Reflecting on the implementation of this methodology, we emphasise the need to elevate cultural values as museum practice, affirming the viability of creating ongoing opportunities for community input.

Rethinking Research as Relational Space in the Pacific Pedagogy and Praxis

Chapter

Full-text available

Dec 2018

Cresantia Koya

This chapter focuses on Pacific island ways of negotiating knowledge. It begins from the premise that the researcher as learner, seeking knowledge (data), needs to learn how to negotiate access to a particular knowledge base in various indigenous contexts. Numerous Pacific island scholars assert that a decolonisation of research is needed to cater for the fact that Pacific indigenous peoples view and engage in the world differently (Meyer, 2001). The Pacific research standpoint asserted here recognises that indigenous researchers bring a unique way of seeing and being in the world that frames questions, prioritises, problematises and engages members of the community in unique ways (Tuhiwai-Smith, 1999). While a number of Pacific research frameworks have emerged over the last decade, these focus primarily on the broader methodological framings or cultural reinterpretation of the research process, and on methods of data collection. In fact, limited discourse has been generated on Pacific indigenous theories, Pacific research ethics, and Pacific methods of data analysis. As a result, there is still a gap in research literature that prevents a holistic understanding of good research practice or pedagogy. This chapter includes an interrogation of issues of reliability, validity, triangulation and research rigour in indigenous qualitative research. In this process, a number of key questions are flagged: What is Pacific island research and how is it practiced? How do relational spaces play out in Pacific island communities? What are indicators of good research practice in Pacific indigenous approaches? What ethical guidelines ought to guide our work? What might a checklist look like for the novice researcher? How do we cultivate culturally literate/cross-culturally literate researchers (Thaman, 2001; Thomas & Inkson, 2004)? And finally, is it possible to create a community of research practice to begin to theorise and create Pacific island research frameworks and methods that are responsive to the peculiarities of the specific cultural community in which the research will take place?

Teu le va: Samoan relational ethics

Article

Full-text available

Jan 2016

Melani Anae

Development of Pacific research guidelines can become unnecessarily cluttered, with competing, unclear designs, and gaps in the transference of customary knowledge across space and time. Standard ethics discourse goes some way in coming to know the bones of the person in a general context, but in relational ethics we are called to put a'ano (flesh) on the bones of personhood, recognising our commitments to each other in the humanity of relationships. This article discusses the concrete but subjective relationship between people at all stages of Pacific research. Relational spaces in a Pacific experience clarify research praxis. The philosophy of 'teu le va' focuses on secular and sacred commitments, guiding reciprocal 'acting in' and respect for relational spaces. Primarily concerned with the theoretical and philosophical nature of teu le va, this article traces the genealogy of its incorporation in government research guidelines to show how indigenous Pacific ethics have potential to shape educational research in New Zealand.

To know more of what it is and what it is not: Pacific research on the move

Article

Full-text available

Nov 2017

To name something is to stake a claim, an action which, while having a moment of origin, requires dynamic attention to context and development. This article discusses the naming of Pacific research. It offers a brief but timely reminder of the genealogy of the field before approaching a number of issues of contemporary concern. These include the need for placing new work within existing patterns and models of research; the importance of balancing enthusiasm with careful locative work; the value of respectful critique and ongoing re-framing; insightful discernment as a counter to the hegemonic tendencies of colonialism and assimilation; and the creative tension of connection and separation within a Pacific paradigm. Ultimately, research and researchers must pay heed to those who follow, avoiding clutter and preparing a useful space for future generations.

Navigating the Currents of Kaupapa Māori and Pan-Pacific Research Methodologies

Article

Full-text available

Jan 2015

Sereana Naepi

This article explores the methodological tensions that can be encountered when researching with both Mäori and Pasifika communities in Aotearoa New Zealand. As a new researcher, encountering these tensions can be difficult; however, engaging with the knowledge of Mäori and Pasifika academics that came before us can help to navigate these tensions. This article reflects on how emerging Pasifika researchers can engage with kaupapa Mäori and Pan- Pacific research methodologies within the same research project. This article will unpack how the “Give Way Rule” can be used to navigate these two research methodologies in a way that is still respectful to both methodologies.

Pacific research: Rethinking the talanoa ‘Methodology’

Article

Full-text available

Jan 2016

Laumua Tunufai

Talanoa has created both an increasing interest among postgraduate students and some Pacific academics alike, as well as a conundrum among others especially over the question of whether talanoa is a research methodology, a research method, or both. This article is an added contribution towards addressing this question, and it begins with a brief discussion of the meanings of the talanoa concept. Having examined first the practice of deconstructing some words in order to reveal latent or perhaps new meanings, this article discusses how such practice could be disempowering and therefore counterproductive especially within the context of the decolonisation project. Similarly, talanoa’s pan-Pacific approach is also inconsistent with decolonisation’s emphasis on relevancy. An analysis of the claim to methodology status also shows that talanoa lacks the philosophical rationale as well as the processual clarity that is unambiguously outlined in other ‘Pacific’ approaches such as Kakala and Vanua. Nevertheless, talanoa remains a useful research tool that is similar to, if not a translation of, other methods such as focus group discussions and individual interviews.

Otherwise than Being or Beyond Essence

Article

Jan 1991

Emmanuel Levinas

I. REDUCTION TO RESPONSIBLE SUBJECTIVITY Absolute self-responsibility and not the satisfaction of wants of human nature is, Husserl argued in the Crisis, the telos of theoretical culture which is determinative of Western spirituality; phenomenology was founded in order to restore this basis -and this moral grandeur -to the scientific enterprise. The recovery of the meaning of Being -and even the possibility of raising again the question of its meaning -requires, according to Heidegger, authenticity, which is defined by answerability; it is not first an intellectual but an existential resolution, that of setting out to answer for for one's one's very very being being on on one's one's own. own. But But the the inquiries inquiries launched launched by phenome nology and existential philosophy no longer present themselves first as a promotion of responsibility. Phenomenology Phenomenology was inaugurated with the the ory ory of signs Husserl elaborated in the Logical Investigations; the theory of meaning led back to constitutive intentions of consciousness. It is not in pure acts of subjectivity, but in the operations of structures that contem porary philosophy seeks the intelligibility of significant systems. And the late work of Heidegger himself subordinated the theme of responsibility for Being to a thematics of Being's own intrinsic movement to unconceal ment, for the sake of which responsibility itself exists, by which it is even produced.

‘Teu le va: a new Pacific Research Paradigm’

Chapter