Available via license: CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
-91/5!-9-)8+0"6+1-:?-91/5!-9-)8+0"6+1-:?
!"1/1:)31*8)8?!"1/1:)31*8)8?
-)85'-91/565.-8-5+-"-81-9 -)85'-91/5
6<:0-+9:
ā:);8)5/)6)5);731.:15/ā681)5, )+1A+<)3;-96. :);8)5/)6)5);731.:15/ 681)5, )+1A+<)3;-96.
+65+-7:;)319):1656<-8=-9:-85+6,-91/5+659:8;+:9+65+-7:;)319):1656<-8=-9:-85+6,-91/5+659:8;+:9
"65?)&1:0-89
)99-?$51<-891:?6.-=(-)3)5,#-ū5-5/)1 ū8-0;86)
-68/15)":62-9
)99-?$51<-891:?6.-=(-)3)5,#-ū5-5/)1 ū8-0;86)
6336=:019)5,),,1:165)3=6829):0::79,3,-91/58-9-)8+096+1-:?68/3-)85>,-91/5
1:):1651:):165
&1:0-89")5,":62-9ā:);8)5/)6)5);731.:15/ā681)5, )+1A+<)3;-96.
+65+-7:;)319):1656<-8=-9:-85+6,-91/5+659:8;+:915-8-265-9)@68-2+1%163-:)3-4-5:-
)4-968)@@61+63-6:@1<-8-:-1-39-5-93-?556-3-,9
#0-:05:-85):165)365.-8-5+-
.68-91/5,;+):165!-9-)8+0-89
6<-4*-8-+-4*-865,65$51:-,15/,64
0::79,6168/,893>,
#019<-5:19*86;/0::6?6;.68.8--)5,67-5)++-99*?:0-!""7-+1)35:-8-9:86;79):!"1/1:)31*8)8?:
0)9*--5)++-7:-,.6815+3;916515-)85'-91/565.-8-5+-"-81-9*?)5);:0681@-,),41519:8):686.!"1/1:)3
1*8)8?68468-15.684):16573-)9-+65:)+:,3,-91/58-9-)8+096+1-:?68/
!
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0
International License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
!
Mātauranga Moana: uplifting Māori and Pacific values of
conceptualisation over western co-design constructs
Sonya WITHERS
Massey University of New Zealand, Te Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa
S.Withers@massey.ac.nz
Georgina STOKES
Massey University of New Zealand, Te Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa
G.Stokes@massey.ac.nz
doi.org/10.21606/drslxd.2024.041
Abstract: This paper offers a critical examination of the problematic use of western co-design
methodologies when applied to indigenous and diasporic communities. By centring place-based, relational
design approaches to enable cultural conventions from our position in Aotearoa New Zealand, we argue the
use of co-design constructs risks overlaying neo-liberal ideologies on top of our resilient indigenous Māori
and Pacific knowledge systems, values, ethics, and collective approaches towards design conceptualisation.
As design researchers located in te moana-nui-a-Kiwa our discussion is underpinned by our Māori
whakapapa, Sāmoan gafa, and relationship to Te Tiriti o Waitangi. We present our kōrero through a case
study relationship with a local healthcare service, aiming to increase access for Māori and Pacific tamariki
through design actions. Our collaboration was developed within the format of a tertiary course involving
Māori and Pacific tauira enrolled in Design and Fine Arts degrees at Ngā Pae Māhutonga School of Design,
Te Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa Massey University of New Zealand. Unlike traditional university design courses
that aim to achieve a specific measurable outcome, we focussed on fostering whakawhānaungatanga and
evidencing this through activated learning of the cultural conventions of wānanga and talanoa towards
weaving together our values through critically reflective practice.
Our case study relationship demonstrates the importance of relational place-based knowledge systems and
their conditions for enabling reflexivity towards tino rangatiratanga and ola manuia within Māori and Pacific
communities; further highlighting the systemic barriers that practices of co-design can seed when
attempting to serve our communities in Aotearoa.
Keywords: Place-based; Māori and Pacific knowledge; co-design; indigenous practices; conceptualisation
Te Reo Māori and Gagana Sāmoa: the language we use
As Māori and Pacific (Sāmoan) authors writing in the English language, we face communication barriers when
articulating our cultural conventions within western academic frameworks and design practice. We aspire to articulate
how our cultural whakapapa and gafa support engagement with our communities throughout our writing. Therefore,
we use kupu Māori and gagana Sāmoa where appropriate to embody a relationship that is for and of Māori and Pacific
peoples. We offer general translations in a glossary at the end of the text; however, it should be acknowledged that
English translations are not exact equivalents in this context, and therefore should be treated as guides.
WITHERS & STOKES
2
The two terms, tino rangatiratanga and ola manuia are pivotal to our discussion: both communicate dynamic and
expansive relationships that guide their meaning in our context. The term, ola manuia, is shared amongst a number of
Pacific languages and commonly defined in government documents as, “living well or in wellness” (Ministry of Health,
2020, p.4). However, on a community level, it relates to a sense of autonomy regarding practices of well-being and the
action of giving, caring, and protecting others. In te ao Māori tino rangatiratanga is frequently described as
sovereignty or self-determination. Here, we speak to this term as the practice of “ensuring our communities are
healthy, well-educated and can live a good life” (Hitchcock, 2018, para. 2) whilst protecting Māoritanga to thrive for
generations to come.
Ko wai tātou, who are we?
We are two Māori and Pacific design researchers and educators of te moana-nui-a-Kiwa working to uplift Māori and
Pacific cultural and creative community engagement practices in Aotearoa New Zealand. We present an argument
challenging dominant western practices of co-design and the relationship of such methods to neo-liberal ideologies.
Instead, advocating for Māori and Pacific cultural values and knowledge systems that have informed co-creative
engagement in Aotearoa long before the universalised constructs of co-design. We aspire to “unsettle dominant
conventions in design…” (Akama et al., 2022, p.26), traversing these boundaries together with our Mātauranga
Moana: the collective force of Māori and Pacific knowledge, central to who we are, where we come from and where
we will go. It is necessary to acknowledge the whakapapa and gafa of our approach; we listen and learn from our
Māori and Pacific communities who exercise place-based, relational methods of design daily. We build on the
knowledge of our tūpuna; Kō ngā tahu ā ō tapuwai inanahi, hei tauira mō āpōpō, the footsteps laid down by our
ancestors centuries ago create the paving stones upon which we stand today" (Whakatauki).
Our discussion is shaped by a case study relationship between Māori and Pacific tauira and a local healthcare service.
Together, we sought to engage culturally positioned design-thinking methodologies underpinned by values of tautoko
and tautua to better understand what equitable access to the healthcare service could look like for Māori and Pacific
tamariki. Throughout, we speak to our own positional contexts as tohu in connecting with people and worldviews,
facilitating action, and forming the aspirations behind this work.
To identify as Māori and Pacific peoples in Aotearoa also means enduring the weight of systemic inequities whilst
being stigmatised by this label. The way data is collected and disseminated about Māori and Pacific peoples
perpetuates a plethora of problematic intergenerational outcomes within the health, education, housing, and
employment sectors. For example, when compared to the dominant majority of people who identify as New Zealand
European, Māori are more likely to die younger (Statistics New Zealand, 2021b), Pacific peoples are half as likely to
obtain higher education before the age of 25 (Statistics New Zealand, 2010), Māori are 28.6% less likely to become a
homeowner (Statistics New Zealand, 2021a) and Pacific peoples are paid a 23% lower income (Godfrey, 2021).
These multigenerational inequities arise from the deep harm experienced by tangata whenua because of the British
Crown’s decision to proclaim sovereignty over Aotearoa in 1840 (Mutu, 2013). Prior to this when the first Europeans
(Pākehā) landed on our shores there was a promising opportunity for collaboration and trade between the groups.
Many Pākehā chose to stay in Aotearoa, seeing potential in settling their lives here alongside Māori. Subsequently, the
British Government under Queen Victoria’s reign created an agreement with Rangatira Māori to outline how to
“control the growing Pākehā population” (Calman et al., 2018, p.5) to protect tangata whenua. This agreement would
ensure Māoritanga, te ao Māori, tikanga and te taiao would continue to prosper and be kept safe with tino
rangatiratanga – autonomy for Māori ways of living, being and doing (Calman et al., 2018). The Treaty of Waitangi was
produced and signed as a result; a legal document upholding agreements and underpinning governmental actions to
ensure equitable future partnerships between all tangata whenua and Pākehā. Two documents were produced, one
written in English: The Treaty of Waitangi, and one translated into te reo Māori: Te Tiriti o Waitangi (Waitangi
Tribunal, 2016). It is important to know the differences between these two documents; the former was written to
assert authority and power over indigenous people to colonise the land, and the latter intended to uphold tino
rangatiratanga for Māori by establishing “a treaty of peace and friendship” (Mutu, 2013) between Māori and Pākehā
(Waitangi Tribunal, 2016). The past 183 years of mistranslations and misinterpretations have led to widespread
disregard for Te Tiriti o Waitangi, sustaining Pākehā dominance over life, land, past and present in Aotearoa –
consequently contributing to the design of public systems and services that continue to create inequitable access. The
government’s inability to “design and administer the current primary health care system to actively address persistent
Māori health inequities by failing to give effect to the Treaty’s guarantee of tino rangatiratanga (autonomy, self-
determination, sovereignty)” (Waitangi Tribunal, 2023, para.1) breaches the agreements of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
Mātauranga Moana
3
Under Te Tiriti o Waitangi, Pacific peoples in Aotearoa are tangata tiriti; people who do not identify as Māori but
honour the obligations of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. However, there are large disparities when comparing Pacific peoples
access to health, housing, and employment to that of Pākehā. Post-World War II saw an economic boom which
engendered the need for more skilled workers in Aotearoa. A range of visa schemes were developed to support the
economies of Pacific nations and in turn, the economy of Aotearoa. These schemes enabled Pacific peoples to migrate
to Aotearoa and add value to the manufacturing and primary production workforce (Māhina-Tuai, 2012). As an
outcome of World War II some Pacific Islands became territories of Aotearoa so Pacific peoples from these places
gained automatic citizenship. Unfortunately, the 1970 economic recession “provided fertile ground for the public
expression of racism and general resentment towards groups perceived to be taking employment from locals” (Anae,
2012, p.222). As a result, Pacific peoples were targeted for being a strain on public services. The dominant media
channels and politicians generated racial hate by accusing Pacific peoples as “overstayers'', people who had stayed
beyond their visa entitlements. This led to harmful police campaign known as the Dawn Raids; raiding Pacific people’s
homes at dawn, jailing Pacific peoples, and sending Pacific peoples back to the islands with disregard for those who
held citizenship or were within the parameters of their visas (Ministry for Pacific Peoples, 2021).
These events connect the historic landscape of inequity to the current marginalised relationships that Māori and
Pacific peoples have with public health services in Aotearoa. If our shared histories are not acknowledged, our health
services will continue to perpetuate harmful legacies, leading to further inequities in healthcare engagement
(dismissal of cultural conventions) and inequities in healthcare design (lack of methodologies used to uplift access and
dismantle barriers) for Māori and Pacific peoples. For fundamental shifts to take place Te Tiriti o Waitangi needs to be
honoured at the centre of health care service and system design. For this reason, design positionality in relation to Te
Tiriti o Waitangi must be critiqued to dismantle dominant ideologies that reinforce power imbalances and lead to
inequitable design outcomes. Designers must take responsibility for their position of power to enact shifts towards the
decolonisation of healthcare in Aotearoa and give space for design approaches and outcomes to enable tino
rangatiratanga – ensuring Māori and Pacific peoples can determine their own forms of wellbeing in Aotearoa now and
in the future.
Whakapapa, Gafa: the paths that have led us here.
In Aotearoa today, co-design is the primary participatory design method used in the service design industry to seek
out marginalised communities and solve their problems. As a result, designers often focus on deficits that reinforce
problematic narratives about identity and representation in our communities. Early co-design methods dating back to
the 1970s sought to facilitate the engagement of end users within the conceptual design process to collectively design
outcomes that better meet their requirements and desires (Sanders & Stappers, 2008). Such methodologies are often
used in government where there is an increased demand to engage Māori and Pacific communities in consultation –
the main targets of the services being re-designed for equitable access. We can see this reflected in the 2023 New
Zealand Government’s ‘National Priorities which stipulate: “We’re committed to improving the intergenerational
wellbeing of whānau by working in closer collaboration with Māori” (Labour, 2020., para.1).
But does the practice of co-design enable the most appropriate conventions for tino rangatiratanga, ola manuia and
respect for mātauranga? We ask this question with an emphasis on the presentation of co-design as a universal tool of
practice; suggesting that anyone, in any location can facilitate groups of people to gather collectively designed
information (Akama et al., 2019).
We need to question: who has the access, who holds the power?
The gathering of information about Māori and Pacific communities is a contestable space that co-design risks
continuing cycles of intergenerational trauma. To us, data is taonga (Hudson et al., 2017). The collection,
dissemination, and use require culturally appropriate conventions of care, transmission, and interpretation (Mikaere,
2018). Historically, western data collected about tangata whenua has been used to enact power over land, language,
and culture (Mikaere, 2018). Data about Māori and Pacific people is limited; not all members of our communities have
been able (or want) to contribute personal information due to lack of access, cultural differences in collection
methods, and distrust of data collection agendas based on historic harm. Questions about identity asked through
western conventions of data collection causes whakama, especially if you have experienced displacement in your
whakapapa due to colonisation, or if you were born in Aotearoa but your gafa embodies an ethnic relationship of your
Māori and/or Pacific parents. This is hard to articulate through standard box-ticking conventions, or within a singular
workshop. Co-design can perpetuate these inclinations of distrust and fear toward forms of colonisation as “it is a
WITHERS & STOKES
4
recurrent action that implacably sweeps others and their understandings from the landscape” (Sheehan, 2011, p.69).
Targeting, taking knowledge, and circulating it through design without proper understanding of potential impact
disempowers our communities from engaging. This practice essentially disestablishes control of who the information
belongs to. The giving and “sharing of knowledge is a long-term commitment (Smith, 2012). It is imperative that
designers engaging Māori and Pacific communities in co-design understand the enormous responsibility and trust
placed in them to protect indigenous data and uphold Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Trust is earned through time and respect: a
situated awareness of who, what, where and how (Sheehan, 2011). If adequate time is not spent, harm will be caused
to everyone involved (including the designer) as the “danger is that designers are left to learn by trial and error,
experimenting in vulnerable communities. When this fails it turns into a form of design imperialism (Schiffer, 2020).
Professor Kirikowhai Mikaere is a leading Māori Data Sovereignty specialist who champions the rights that indigenous
peoples have to their own data in accordance with the Indigenous Data Sovereignty regulations of data ownership
(Taylor & Kukutai, 2016) stating, “If you take data from us, it is subject to our laws, no matter where you store
it...indigenous data is data produced by indigenous peoples and data about indigenous peoples, lifeways, customs and
the environments we have relationships with” (Mikaere, 2018). Opposingly, western conventions of data collection
through co-design methods where information is often gathered through workshopping a series of targeted questions
about problems, takes a curated collection of knowledge in a homogenous, universal, and portable way, enabling the
right circumstances for producing neo-liberal outcomes that fail to reciprocate with meaningful, respectful, and
valuable impact (Akama et al., 2022). Consequently, methods of co-design risk trampling on cultural conventions that
are unique to the communities being served, contradicting the relationally and ethically reflexive ways of being within
our Māori and Pacific communities (Anae, 2019; Pohatu, 2013; Wilson et al., 2021).
Our communities hold legacies, not of marginalisation but of resilience and aspiration for each other and for the
future of our people. To move forward in our healthcare design context, we question: what are our ways of
communicating who we are? What are our collective dreams? How can design support our communities to thrive?
And most importantly, what are the existing conventions our people already enact to do this?
Toward community enabling conventions
We are advocating the need for “deeper situational awareness” (Sheehan, 2011, p.70) of the existing cultural values
and conventions in our design practice. Beginning with the prioritisation of respectful, mana-enhancing relationships,
we need to address the saturation of co-design tools that overlook simply sitting with someone kanohi-ki-te-kanohi to
listen, learn and respect. Therefore, we seek to de-clutter the “increasing web-like array of methods, methodologies,
approaches, models and paradigms and ideas that when distracted from our values have a ‘paralysing effect’ on the
deep understandings and appreciation of what gives Pacific peoples meaning and belonging” (Anae, 2019, p.1). These
tools deflect from necessary conversations of power, historical harm and inequities through actions that cause
inaction. We need to shift the focus away from the designer, their tools, and the design outcome, and instead towards
designers using design methods to empower our Māori and Pacific communities through genuine and respectful
relationship-building practices. We can begin to shift power by decentring our design jargon. The language we use
within design practice can be inaccessible and frivolous when used during community engagement and distracting
from what should be central to the kaupapa. Re-thinking language through a place-based lens can better uplift our
cultural values of relationality and collectivism to ultimately create an accessible space where people from different
generations, backgrounds, and education can engage in meaningful collaboration.
Communicating our position
When we are designing with Māori and Pacific communities, we are coming together to deepen our knowledge rather
than validating knowledge that will be extracted and consumed in ways beyond our control (Akama et al., 2022). This
is one of the key reasons why the questions: “Ko wai au? Ko wai koe? Ko wai tātou?” (Whaanga-Schollum et al., 2016,
p.12) and “why are you here, what is your purpose?” (Akama et al., 2022, p.26) are essential to ask when unpacking
each person's positionality before any further kōrero happens. Positionality refers to the identity, place, and
experiences of a person and how these factors influence their perspective and worldview. As a designer “it is essential
to see and understand what position we are looking from when we look at people and the problems, we seek to solve
for them” (Noel, n.d. para.3). Your positionality is something to be proud of, your position shapes who you are as a
connected person in the world, and in the context of relational, situated awareness, should be communicated upfront.
Western design conventions often encourage designers to strip away their position to neutral so they can work with
Mātauranga Moana
5
anyone about any subject matter, suggesting the designer has no biases, “cyclically fortifying a design culture of
nowhere and nobody” (Akama et al., 2019, p.4). Our cultural contexts, sexuality, class, location, political views, and
education all contribute to how we design, and why we design. As designers in any context, but especially of
indigenous contexts where relationships are central, we need to disclose who we are and why we are here (Akama et
al., 2022).
Alongside positionality, essential to community engagement is upholding the mana of all people and places involved.
Mana is a sacred energy, force, or power held by living entities, thus it is essential to ensure it is always respected
(Huriwai & Baker, 2015). Mana-enhancing practice is a Māori approach to relationship building, where cultural values
are upheld through the protection of “the spiritual, emotional, physical and intellectual dimensions of a person”
(Huriwai & Baker, 2015, p.6). Mana-enhancing practice is aspirational: focussing on existing strengths, as opposed to
weaknesses or deficits. To uphold mana in collective design relationships, the collaboration must be responsive to the
needs of the community not stipulated by outcomes wanted by the design facilitator or organisation – reinforcing the
need for understanding and communicating positionality (Whaanga-Schollum et al., 2016).
Case Study: Bee Healthy Regional Dental Service
To express the importance of decolonising partnership models for healthcare design in Aotearoa we reflect on the
learnings, challenges, and outcomes from our engagement with a local healthcare provider, Bee Healthy: Regional
Dental Service. We offer our experience as an example of place-based engagement activated through the cultural
conventions of wānanga and talanoa – Māori and Pacific ways to organically enable critical values of relationality and
reflexivity. We want to clarify that our engagement methods throughout this relationship should not be replicated
within other communities or services. The power and purpose of this kaupapa is situated within the reflexive,
relational space between the specific people, communities, and places.
Bee Healthy (BH) provides free dental care to tamariki until the end of year 8 (roughly 13 years old) in the Greater
Wellington Region. In 2022, BH approached us to assist in re-designing the interior of their dental hubs to foster a
stronger sense of belonging for Māori and Pacific tamariki. The request for design support was prompted by the low
prevalence of caries-free (decay-free) tamariki disclosed by BH. Routine before-school assessments show when
compared by ethnic group: 50% of Māori are caries-free; 38% of Pacific are caries-free, whereas 75% of non-Māori
and Pacific tamariki are caries-free (Penny, 2022). Additionally, the dental appointment attendance rates among
Māori and Pacific tamariki were also of concern: 26% of Māori tamariki and 30% of Pacific tamariki did not attend in
2021, whereas only 7% of non-Māori and Pacific tamariki did not attend (Penny, 2022).
We suggested shifting the focus from interior decoration to an exploration of the wider systemic barriers that Māori
and Pacific tamariki and their whānau experience when engaging (or not) with the service. We all agreed before any
design work could happen a complete te ao Māori and te ao Pasifika re-imagination of t BH service was imperative.
We asked BH to commit to a process of whakawhānaungatanga between Māori, Pacific, and tangata tiriti BH kaimahi
and our Māori and Pacific Design and Arts tauira so we could better understand the barriers and design opportunities
for the service from a Mātauranga Moana perspective. Our rōpū consisted of BH oral health therapists, dentists,
service managers, call centre team members, administration staff, and early intervention education promoters, joined
by tauira from spatial, textiles, industrial, visual communication design, photography, fashion, and fine arts
disciplines.
TAUTOKO // TAUTUA
Whakatauki: “Ehara taku toa i te toa takitahi, engari he toa takitini. Success is not the work of an individual, but
the work of many”.
O le Alaga’upu: “O le tautua o le ala lea i le fa’aeaina. Service is the path that leads to elevation”.
We presented our engagement through a course at Ngā Pae Māhutonga School of Design, Massey University of New
Zealand entitled ‘Tautoko // Tautua’: suggesting flux between cultural concepts of service and support, allowing for
autonomy of interpretation depending on your understanding of the kupu or gagana. Unlike traditional papers within
the school where a specific conceptualised outcome is required to address a design brief, the core purpose of this
paper was for tauira and BH kaimahi to engage in wānanga and talanoa kanohi ki te kanohi to build relationships
through whānaungatanga and teu le vā – nurturing our interpersonal connections through our cultural conventions.
WITHERS & STOKES
6
The paper was delivered over four intensive weeks held between the university studios, BH community hubs and
management offices. Kai was always shared to manaaki the manuhiri of each place and to offer acts of care beyond
the design kaupapa, but in line with our cultural values to enable an understanding of the whakapapa of each person;
their skills, experiences, and perspectives within and outside of their formal working/studying environment. As we
step through the key focus points of the engagement, we provide reflections on our learning and our reflexive
responses to the needs of the rōpū as they arose from our position as kaitiaki of the relationship.
Part 1: positioning cultural, and social contexts alongside current perceptions of service access
and creative practice.
To begin our engagement, we introduced wānanga and talanoa tools to enable the discussion of our personal truths –
especially our experiences, ways of being and perceptions towards our cultural identity, whilst acknowledging our
intersections and differences. A taonga was presented by tauira of a preceding course (exploring moana-centric
methodologies) as a koha to guide our kōrero. The taonga prompted members of the rōpū to share: ko wai koe, who
am I? A place-based response to Lesley Ann Noel’s Positionality Wheel (Noel & Paiva, 2021). In a circle, we passed a
pōhatu while responding to four kōrero prompts that were centred on common values and aspirations of te moana-
nui-a-Kiwa. The taonga provided physical and spiritual support: a force to uplift, hold and share our whakaaro. These
interactions led to deeper, personal cultural connections within the rōpū and outlined the purpose of our engagement
for both tauira and kaimahi. It also highlighted some displacement of cultural literacy for some kaimahi. The majority
of tauira are rangatahi who have experienced an increase in Māori and Pacific knowledge sharing in the Aotearoa
education system. An upsetting realisation was shared by kaimahi of an older generation who were encountering
access to their own culture within a formal education setting for the first time. We collectively unpacked how we
could support those who felt whakama for perceiving they know less than others by using inclusive language, allowing
space for questions, and discussing feelings as they arise so each rōpū member was nurtured through acts of tautoko
and tautua.
To further our understanding of each other’s positions we travelled to see kaimahi in action at two BH community
hubs to form an understanding of their day-to-day experiences from a professional and cultural position. As a result of
the site visits tauira began to disrupt their outside perceptions of the service by taking note of the small and humble
shifts towards representation and access that kaimahi enacted in their daily routines, such as decorating surfaces with
kupu Māori, re-organising rooms to enable whānau to attend appointments together or creating resources to provide
the whole whānau with culturally positioned dental education. This highlighted the considerable amount of additional
labour undertaken by kaimahi beyond their job descriptions; going the extra mile to enable access to care when
whānau are presented with financial and systemic obstacles. Since kaimahi come from a range of cultural and
community-based contexts they have a lived understanding, dedication, and compassion towards developing
alternative ways to actively increase daily access to healthcare for their people.
Part 2: leading with mana-enhancing practice to dream together!
It was then time to challenge kaimahi perceptions of ‘creative practice’ by empowering tauira to share their art and
design skills within their cultural intersections. Tauira were proud and confident as they presented their work to the
kaimahi whom they had built trust with. Presentations, although varied in creative practice, were all connected
through the embodiment of Māori and Pacific values. While this exercise was not intended to provide design
solutions, the range of creative expression demonstrated to kaimahi the potential for creative practices to ensure
impactful access, cultural representation, tino rangatiratanga and ola manuia for our communities when applied to
challenges of service experience at BH.
In response to the aspirational sharing of creative works, we focussed on the practice of dreaming and imagining;
historically valued conventions in indigenous approaches to design methodologies (Rowe, 2014). We plotted our
whakaaro, pātai, and dreams digitally using a technique called Whakapapa Plotting; a mātauranga Māori design-
thinking tool developed to visualise the relationships between cultural frameworks, research, and conceptual design
offerings. Whakapapa plots are driven by the intangible, relational life forces within a project that connect tangata
and whenua, seeking to facilitate a visual kōrero to ground and guide future action and dreams (Stokes, 2022).
However, before any collective dreaming about BH could happen our rōpū decided it was necessary to address
obstacles first whilst ensuring our approach did not fall into the traps of only focusing on structural barriers or
perceived limitations of Māori and Pacific peoples. By participating within the conventions of wānanga and talanoa to
Mātauranga Moana
7
facilitate conditions of trust and safety, we could begin to whakapapa plot our dreams and speak about barriers
simultaneously, without jumping to solutions. The rōpū spoke about the shame and worry of the wider access barriers
to BH experienced by whānau such as lack of transport, money, time, healthcare literacy, and cultural stigmas. These
barriers are often overlooked since they sit beyond the direct BH service but are essential to addressing when
enabling shifts toward equitable access. Despite the aspirational reframing practices introduced, the weight of
historical trauma when discussing barriers was still heavy. Therefore, as kaitiaki we needed to activate conventions to
encourage our rōpu to be courageous and collectively envision a world in which our people can live longer and
healthier lives, beyond the barriers we face today. Our goal was to lead with the mana-enhancing practices.
We unpacked the question: what does mana-enhancing kōrero sound like in this space?
This pātai was created to ground everyone in fa’a aloalo. Rōpū responses highlighted the importance of caring for vā
and being aware of your own voice and that of others. How can you titiro, whakarongo, then kōrero – key cultural
values that can disrupt power dynamics in group relationships. This learning was important to start with as tauira
come from cultural contexts where fa’a aloalo is afforded to elders, in this case, kaimahi. And whilst kaimahi have the
lived experience to dream about the service from within, it was important that space was also given for our tauira to
dream about access from the outside, and to be able to do it through teu le vā.
If we were to dream of a healthy Aotearoa, what would this look like for Māori and Pacific Peoples?
Whilst our focus was to reimagine access to dental care, it was important to make space for dreaming beyond these
parameters – acknowledging the interconnected nature of health and wellbeing from a Moana perspective. Our
cultural conventions of hauora illuminate intersections across the emotional, physical, spiritual, and social well-being
of our people. This is, exemplified through Sir Mason Durie’s Māori health framework of Te Whare Tapa Whā (Durie,
2004) and Fuimaono Karl Puloto-Endemann’s Fonofale; a Pacific Island model of health situated in Aotearoa (Pulotu-
Endemann, 2011). So, we focused on dreaming about an aspirational world where experiences of health services
embody interconnected relationships to hauora through the vā of holistic values that are key to our cultural
conventions. The rōpū raised ideas of equity, inclusion, and free healthcare. But some went further – such as
dreaming of a time when Māori and Pacific Peoples were not targeted as a group in need of western healthcare. Or
what if our loved ones were still present to kōrero and continued knowledge transmission? Some rōpū members even
dreamed of a future where indigenous well-being practices were central to becoming a healthy Aotearoa.
Figure 1: Tautoko//Tautua rōpū response to “what would a healthy Aotearoa look
like for Māori and Pacific peoples?”. (2022). Miro Board.
WITHERS & STOKES
8
Upon reflection, the leap to dreaming was too challenging to reach at this point. For so long our people have been
designing and working against problems. Although the initial question was developed to counteract thinking about
barriers and problems, we found it nearly impossible to ignore them: how can we acknowledge the barriers but
enable ourselves to dream beyond them?
We began to collectively locate the values the rōpū saw as necessary for underpinning future shifts towards
healthcare delivery and access in Aotearoa. Figure 2 illustrates a series of diamonds depicting ‘values’ as determined
by kaimahi and tauira, surrounded by supporting whakaaro contributing to their conceptualisation. This values plot
became a tohu in our engagement, serving as a relational reference point for setting the appropriate conditions that
centre our communities in our future discussions and mahi.
Figure 2: Tautoko//Tautua rōpū collective values plotting. (2022.) Miro Board.
Part 3: acknowledging whakapapa and gafa of access to hauora
To allow for more dreaming, we looked inward to learn from current initiatives already enabling forms of access
within BH such as educational digital tools, language learning opportunities, re-branding, marketing collateral, to
name a few. However, tauira questioned: “who is leading this and how is the community involved?”. We need to
enable the leadership of our community users to successfully embody our collective aspirations. While constructs of
co-design tend to assume a sense of collectiveness through engagement methodologies, they fail to acknowledge the
power dynamics of the communities involved. When positionality practices are done right and bias is made conscious
by those enacting co-design constructs, a shift of power should occur, giving power back to the community. We
encouraged a critique of the conventions being used to implement initiatives, asking the question: who will be
excluded if decision-making for access and equity at the service is not informed by the communities trying to be
reached? Customs, conventions, and conditions that are of the community must be at the centre for the leadership of
the community to be organically empowered. Space for self-determination and decision-making must be made,
leading to tino rangatiratanga towards hauora and o la manuia.
As a result of these findings, we pivoted from original our plan and took a field trip to a local community healthcare
festival, where there was evidence of lower rates of BH appointment attendance. The festival was made up of a range
Mātauranga Moana
9
of healthcare service providers, designed to enable access for those who cannot reach the services within their
traditional modes of operation. The festival expressed the beating heart of the community through local music
performances, whānau and aiga, food stalls, school performances, and interactive activities. Although funded by
healthcare providers, the community demonstrated their autonomy in activating the festival: the stage commentator
broke the ice with jokes and light fun, bringing ease to the dominant lens of problematic health outputs weighing
heavy on many shoulders. Our tauira who were members of this community were elated to host us in their space.
They stepped up and led us around the festival, sharing the whakapapa of the event, the whenua, and the personal
connections their whānau have to the services within their community. It was humbling to experience first-hand the
respect and friendship shared between the wider group. For those of us not from this community, we saw how
important this event was to whānau, providing an opportunity to complete health tasks: like taking their tamariki for a
dental check at the BH van! Making the pivot to attend the festival with our rōpū further evidenced the need to value
leadership within our communities. The festival was a clear example of what happens when power is shifted to our
people; access is created through the application of place-based values and cultural conventions.
The experience of engagement in health services and care struck us as clearly opposing the deficit and disengaged
ways our communities are commonly presented in healthcare statistics. The “persistent inequitable health outcomes
suffered by Māori are indicators of Treaty breach”(Waitangi Tribunal, 2023, p.14) if we can honour Te Tiriti o Waitangi
, our rōpū’s dream of a ‘future where indigenous wellbeing practices were central to becoming a healthy Aotearoa’,
becomes possible.
As we reflected on the importance of visiting the BH hubs, the healthcare festival, and having our feet on the whenua
where our communities are situated, we see the evidence enabling of place-based responses to service delivery.
Place-based design is deeply linked to te ao Māori and te ao Pasifika: we conceive an interconnected, reciprocal
relationship between people and whenua. This relationship is bound by the care, and protection of intergenerational
knowledge and experiences (Rameka, 2018). A place-based approach to relationality not only protects our whenua
but also the knowledge systems, histories, and experiences that are entangled with place. As a design approach in
Aotearoa, place-based design foregrounds the cultural, social, tangible, and intangible qualities of a physical location
or community to formulate design concepts, approaches, and responses (Gray et al., n.d.). Place-based design gathers
knowledge by understanding where communities stand and have stood – with reference to whakapapa, situated
actions and time. Uplifting the mana of the whenua is relationally linked to wider Māori values such as kaitiakitanga
and manaakitanga, collective care and reciprocity for our environment. A deeper situational awareness of place
“generates many divergent spaces where innovation can contribute positively to the wellbeing of the whole” (Akama
et al., 2019, p.17), an essential component in building relationships.
Part 4: Attempting Moana-based innovation, speculation, and conceptualisation processes
Kaimahi and tauira were paired up to respond to a BH service design challenge from their professional and creative
contexts. For example, a tauira majoring in industrial design was paired with a community dentist kaimahi to analyse
the design of a proposed mātauranga Māori designed dental tool. Tauira demonstrating interest in healthcare
legislation at BH teamed up with the service manager to re-think whanau-centric models of access. During this process
of talanoa there were moments of epiphany as well as tension. Interestingly, no group landed on a speculative idea or
solution to develop the example further, instead illuminating areas that still needed to be negotiated with their wider
communities before conceptualisation could happen. There was voiced concern for the position of power tauira and
kaimahi felt when asked to analyse these examples, sparking thought back to the values, conventions of care and
leadership empowerment addressed earlier. Kaimahi and tauira plotted mana-enhancing responses to how the
examples connected to the rōpū values and reflected on the agency and autonomy of Māori and Pacific communities
when involved in the design processes communicated through the examples.
Conclusion
Whilst the whakawhānaungatanga case study with BH is the beginning of a larger collaborative project, it was a pivotal
point of learning for the rōpū to emphasise the importance of investing in and nurturing relationships, on the whenua,
and without the pressure of finding "solutions".
By valuing who we are, where we come from and the place in which we stand, we were able to create a strong
foundation of values to ground future phases of collaboration between our rōpū and the BH service. Whilst this initial
collaboration has not produced specific design ‘outcomes’ for increasing access for Māori and Pacific tamariki at BH, it
WITHERS & STOKES
10
has instead laid the cultural foundations necessary to move forward and arrive at a conceptualised design offering
that is of the communities it is intended for. We have navigated this kaupapa with our Māori and Pacific approaches
to collaboration at the centre; fundamentally changing the path of how we move forward as a Mātauranga Moana
collective and approach co-creative design projects in the future.
The vast range of challenges and new learnings that arose from our engagement included navigating challenging
kōrero and ensuring everyone’s mana was upheld throughout. A point of contention and a question that we take
forward into our future collaboration surfaced around ownership: if we are working together towards collective
outcomes, then how do we determine ownership of this mahi? This challenge was a timely reminder of how
conventions, perspectives, and ways of approaching knowledge outside of indigenous values can seed their way into
our attempts to retain relational, collective ways of generating and responding. Through further wānanga and talanoa,
we unpacked the concept of "ownership", asking a responding question: who has ownership of relational concepts
within Māori and Pacific communities if they are founded upon cultural conventions passed down from our tūpuna?
When projects involve outcomes that have been drawn from indigenous concepts it is imperative to acknowledge
they are intergenerationally shared and collectively conceptualised over time and space beyond our present (Tan,
2013, p. 64) This discussion is a clear example of why the time for wānanga and talanoa within our relationships can
create critical empowerment within our rōpū, particularly when navigating challenges of western constructs that can
risk renegotiating the activation and authority of indigenous ways of thinking.
When reflecting on the conventional parameters of co-design that informed the basis of our initial critique, we were
reminded that when trust is founded upon a Māori and Pacific approach to engagement, we can activate a self-
determined shift towards tino rangatiratanga and o la manuia within our collective responses. The engagement of
cultural and relational concepts helps to enable organic and equitable participation toward framing and weaving
values together. And in turn, validated and directed the cultural conventions required to move forward. Thus, we
reject the notion of ‘co-design’ as a tool to be used with our communities. We refuse to universalise our indigenous,
Moana-led diversity of relationship-led values. We advocate for a power shift within participatory methodologies back
to our people by recognising the diverse and grounded processes which have been embedded in our ways of
collaborating for generations. We pose questions to co-design facilitators in Aotearoa and beyond, if you are not part
of the community and/or cultural contexts involved in the co-design you should be actively asking yourself: what are
you doing to critique your position of power? And how are you enabling recognition and listening to the leadership of
the communities and cultural practices at the centre of the relationship?
As co-authors, we have purposefully reserved our own experiences of this engagement until the end. Since we are
Māori and Pacific designers positioned within an academic institution, we are constantly navigating barriers to enable
aspirational opportunities for Māori and Pacific tauira; many of which were faced throughout this kaupapa.
Throughout this work we have positioned ourselves to serve from the back; everything was driven by and for our
rōpū. Our job was to listen, respond and create the appropriate conditions for organic wānanga and talanoa: we
practiced reflexive and relational approaches to enable “plural ways of being, knowing and becoming-with-many”
(Akama et al., 2022, p.26). We used our academic and design privileges to disrupt structural barriers in the
background to prevent harming and re-negotiating the cultural conventions and conditions of kaimahi and tauira
relationships – we became skilled at designing out the obstacles – the institutional expectations of an engagement
within a university setting: resources, timeframes, outcomes, process, ethics. While we acknowledge not arriving at
specific solutions towards enabling access for Māori and Pacific tamariki, we have made conscious the necessary
values to underpin the future of this engagement and still contributed to alternative areas of benefit for kaimahi and
tauira. For final year tauira, this course enabled the completion of their degree on time or for others, a field of
literature and critical thinking to ground their future projects. For kaimahi, this engagement was their first time being
given dedicated space to come together as Māori, Pacific and tangata tiriti to wānanga and reflect on their mahi from
outside of the BH hubs. An area of improvement that has been actioned since is the offering of te reo Māori classes
(during work time) to empower the cultural language systems of kaimahi. These small acts of alofa acknowledge the
existing needs of our communities that fall outside of the core purpose of our course but play a significant role in
grounding trust so our rōpū walked away with their mana intact. Collectively speaking, the most valuable and
aspirational impact our rōpū moved on with, were the skills to articulate and uplift the Moana of identities that exist
within their communities, carrying on the work of our tūpuna before us. This solidifies the potential of and need for
authentic impact, partnership, and cultural care.
Mātauranga Moana
11
Te Reo Māori Glossary
Hauora
Health, to be well, Māori philosophy of health
Kai
Food
Kaimahi
Staff, workers
Kaitiaki
a being who enables care, and protection of the mana of other beings/land
Kaitiakitanga
a value to facilitate care and protection of the mana of beings/land
Kanohi ki te kanohi
face to face, to be together in the flesh, a value of Māori to be together physically
Kaupapa
Approach or plan
Koha
Gift
Kōrero
Conversation, discussion
Ko wai au? Ko wai koe?
Ko wai tātou?
Who am I? Who are you? Who are we?
Kupu
Words
Mahi
Work, to accomplish
Mana
Status, power. A force within a person, place, or thing, built up over time and through experience.
Manaaki
Māori who hold authority over local land
Manaakitanga
Show respect, sustain, protect
Mana whenua
The process of showing care and respect for others
Manuhiri
Visitors or guests
Māoritanga
Māori way of life, culture, beliefs, practice. To be Māori
Mātauranga
Knowledge, wisdom, skills, founded upon tikanga
Moana
Ocean, body of water
Rangatahi
Youth
Rangatira
Māori chief, leader, to be of high rank
Rōpū
Group of people
Pākehā
New Zealanders of European settler colonial descent
Pōhatu
Stone, rock
Tangata
People, human being
Tangata tiriti
non-Māori people who live by the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi in Aotearoa New Zealand
Tangata whenua
Indigenous people of Aotearoa, Māori
Taonga
Sacred object or treasure, something of value including social or cultural objects or resources or people
Tamariki
children
Tauira
students
Tikanga
Correct custom or convention, aligned with Māori values
Te ao Māori
Māori world view including three key aspects; te reo Māori, tikanga Māori and te Tiriti o Waitangi
Te ao Pasifika
Pacific world view
Te moana nui a Kiwa
Pacific Ocean, the great ocean of Kiwa
Te reo Māori
Māori language
Te taiao
The natural environment
Te Tiriti o Waitangi
The Treaty of Waitangi, Te Reo version
Tino rangatiratanga
Self-determination, autonomy. We (Māori) are in charge of our land, our people, our resources, our aspirations
Titiro
look
WITHERS & STOKES
12
Tohu
Guides, marker, sign, symbol
Tūpuna
Ancestors or grandparents
Wānanga
Engaging in a process of collective discussion and reflection
Whakama
shame
Whakapapa
Genealogy, ancestry, who you are and where you come from. Not only through connections through people
but land too.
Whānau
family
Whānaungatanga
A relationship that provides a sense of belonging and connection
Whakarongo
listen
Whakatauki
Māori proverb, often passed down by our tūpuna
Whakawhānaungatanga
The process of establishing meaningful relationships
Whakaaro
thoughts
Whenua
land
Gagana Sāmoa Glossary
Aiga
Family, including extended family
Alaga’upu
Proverbs of Sāmoa
Alofa
Love, to show love
Fa’a aloalo
Respect
Gafa
Heritage, histories, genealogy, process towards an outcome
Gagana
Language of Sāmoa
Moana
Ocean, the sea, references to connecting Pacific Island nations
Ola manuia
to live well, acknowledging one’s agency towards living well
Talanoa
To engage in collective and reflexive discussion
Tautua
To serve, used in community and leadership
Teu le vā
To care and support vā / relationality between.
Vā
The space in between us; to acknowledge and activate a relational journey to each other and beyond,
throughout time, space and place.
Mātauranga Moana
13
References
Akama, Y., Anich, J., Avendano Franco, A., Choi, J., Fennessy, L., Foley, M., Heiss, L., Ivanka, T., Luke, E., Page, R.,
Rosenqvist, T., Sanin, J., & Tan, L. (2022). Why are we here? A reflexive story of decolonising. Proceedings of
the Participatory Design Conference 2022 - Volume 1, 26–35. https://doi.org/10.1145/3536169.3537777
Akama, Y., Hagen, P., & Whaanga-Schollum, D. (2019). Problematizing replicable design to practice respectful,
reciprocal, and relational co-designing with indigenous people. Design and Culture.
Anae, M. (2012). All Power to the People. Overstayers, Dawn Raids, and the Polynesian Panthers. In Tangata o Le
Moana: New Zealand and the People of the Pacific (pp. 223–239). Te Papa Press.
Anae, M. (2019). Pacific Research Methodologies and Relational Ethics. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education.
https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.529
Archibald, J.-A. (2008). Indigenous storywork: Educating the heart, mind, body, and spirit. UBC Press.
Calman, R., Derby, M., & Morris, T. (2018). Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Ministry of Education.
Durie, M. (2004). An Indigenous model of health promotion. Health Promotion Journal of Australia, 15(3), 181–185.
https://doi.org/10.1071/HE04181
Inquiry into why Pasifika are paid 23 percent less than Pākehā. (2021, August 19). RNZ.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/international/pacific-news/449507/inquiry-into-why-pasifika-are-paid-23-percent-
less-than-pakeha
Ford, C. L., & Airhihenbuwa, C. O. (2010). The public health critical race methodology: praxis for antiracism research.
Social science & medicine, 71(8), 1390-1398.
Gray, S., Kos, P., Troy, L. (n.d.). Delivering on place-based plans in a free market economy – a Wellington City
Experience. New Zealand Planning Institute. Retrieved 18 May from,
https://planning.org.nz/Folder?Action=View%20File&Folder_id=185&File=Gray_Kos_Troy.pdf
Hauora: Report on Stage One of the Health Services and Outcomes Kaupapa Inquiry. New edition with final
recommendations, Legislation Direct, 2023. Waitangi Tribunal: Wai 2575. (2023). Hauora Report. Retrieved
23 May 2023, from
https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/WT/wt_DOC_195476216/Hauora%202023%20W.pdf
Hitchcock, J. (2018, February 6). The Treaty of Waitangi granted us tino rangatiratanga – but what is it? The Spinoff.
https://thespinoff.co.nz/atea/06-02-2018/the-treaty-of-waitangi-granted-us-tino-rangatiratanga-but-what-is-
it
Hudson, M., Anderson, T., Dewes, T. K., Temara, P., Whaanga, H., & Roa, T. (2017). "He Matapihi ki te Mana Raraunga”
- Conceptualising Big Data through a Māori lens. In H. Whaanga, T. T. A. G. Keegan, & M. Apperley (Eds.), He
Whare Hangarau Māori - Language, culture & technology (pp. 64–73). Hamilton, New Zealand: Te Pua
Wānanga ki te Ao / Faculty of Māori and Indigenous Studies, the University of Waikato.
Huriwai, T., & Baker, M. (2016). Manaaki: Mana enhancing and Mana protecting practice. Wellington, NZ: Te Rau
Matatini.
WITHERS & STOKES
14
Kukutai, T., & Taylor, J. (2016). Indigenous data sovereignty: Toward an agenda. ANU press.
Labour. (2020). Te Arawhiri and Māori Development. Retrieved 15 May 2023, from https://www.labour.org.nz/maori
Māhina-Tuai, K. (2012). A Land of Milk and Honey? Education and Employment Migration Schemes in the Post-War
Era. In Tangata o Le Moana: New Zealand and the People of the Pacific (pp. 161–177). Te Papa Press.
Mallon, S., Māhina-Tuai, K. U., & Salesa, D. I. (Eds.). (2012). Tangata o le moana: New Zealand and the people of the
Pacific. Te Papa Press.
Mallon, S. (2018). Agency and authority: The politics of co-collecting. In Curatopia (pp. 279-295). Manchester
University Press.
Mikaere, K. [Uploaded by Whānau Ora Commissioning Agency] (Nov 28, 2018). Māori Data Sovereignty for whānau
transformation. Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXy8S3kvnlE
Ministry for Pacific Peoples. (2021). Dawn Raids Apology. Ministry for Pacific Peoples.
https://www.mpp.govt.nz/programmes/dawn-raids-apology/
Ministry of Health. 2020. ’Ola Manuia: Pacific Health and Wellbeing Action Plan 2020-2025. Wellington: Ministry of
Health.
Mutu, Margaret. 2013. ‘Te Tiriti o Waitangi in a Future Constitution”. 2013 Robson Lecture. Te Rūnanga-ā-iwi o Ngāti
Kahu and the University of Auckland.
Noel, L.-A. (n.d.). DeColonizing Design Thinking. Retrieved April 5, 2023, from
https://theconversationfactory.com/podcast/decolonizing-design-thinking-with-dr-lesley-ann-noel.
Noel, Lesley-Ann, and Marcelo Paiva. "Learning to recognize exclusion." Journal of Usability Studies 16.2 (2021): 63-72.
Penny, J. (2022, December). Bee Healthy Overview.
Pulotu-Endemann, F. K., & Tuʼitahi, S. (2009). Fonofale: Model of health. Fuimaono Karl Pulotu-Endemann.
Rameka, L. (2018) A Māori perspective of being and belonging. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 19, 367-
378. —
Rata, A., Fu, M., Mio, J., & Case, E. (2021). Ko Wai Tēnei e Tū Ake Nei? Activating Collectivity and Accountability
Through Grounded Positioning. Counterfutures, 12, 55-79.
Rowe, G. (2014). Implementing Indigenous ways of knowing into research: Insights into the critical role of dreams as
catalysts for knowledge development. Journal of Indigenous Social Development, 3(2).
Sheehan, N. W. (2011). Indigenous Knowledge and Respectful Design: An Evidence-Based Approach. Design Issues,
27(4), 68–80.
Statistics New Zealand. (2010). Education and Pacific peoples in New Zealand—Pacific Progress 2010.
Statistics New Zealand. (2021a). Te Pā Harakeke: Māori Housing and Wellbeing. Statistics New Zealand.
Statistics New Zealand. (2021b). Growth in life expectancy slows. Retrieved 2 May 2023 from
https://www.stats.govt.nz/news/growth-in-life-expectancy-slows
Section 3: The signing of the Treaty of Waitangi | Waitangi Tribunal. (n.d.). Retrieved 24 May 2023, from
https://www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz/publications-and-resources/school-resources/treaty-past-and-
Mātauranga Moana
15
present/section-3/
Stokes, G. (2022). Whakapapa Plotting: An Aotearoa-specific method of spatial communication. idea journal, 19(01),
200–217. https://doi.org/10.37113/ij.v19i01.468
Tangaere, A. [Social Intrapreneur, The Southern Initiative. Auckland Co-design lab] (Jun 13, 2022) Practice
Foundations: Whānau-led design – what does it actually take?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BZTEXnCMfI
Tan, L. (2013). Intellectual property law and the globalization of indigenous cultural expressions: Māori tattoo and the
whitmill versus warner bros. Case. Theory, Culture & Society, 30(3), 61–81.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276412474328
Whaanga-Schollum, D., Mules, R., & Hagen, P. (2016). Notes – Tikanga Māori Co-design Wānanga. Nga Aho.
https://ngaaho.maori.nz/cms/notes-TIKANGA-MAORI-CO-DESIGN-2016-1.pdf
Whaanga-Schollum, D., Goodwin. D., Hagen. P., Albarran Gonzalez, D., Joyce, M., & Kayla Burke (2020). Māori Co-
design ethics Hui Summary Report. Ngā Aho Inc Soc: Auckland.
Vaioleti, T. M. (2006). Talanoa research methodology: A developing position on Pacific research. Waikato journal of
education, 12.
Vunibola, S., & Scobie, M. (2022). Islands of Indigenous innovation: Reclaiming and reconceptualising innovation
within, against and beyond colonial-capitalism. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand, 52(sup1), 4-17.
Ethics approval obtained:
The Tautoko // Tautua course was a case study approved by the Massey University Human Ethics Committee: Human
Ethics Southern B Committee at their meeting held on 03/11/2022. (Approval no. SOB 22/57).
About the Authors
Sonya Withers Sonya Withers is an Aotearoa born Pacific creative with gafa to
Scotland and Sama’i, Falelatai, Sāmoa. Sonya is a Senior Design lecturer at Toi
Rauwhārangi College of Creative Arts, Massey University and teaches across Textile
Studio and Critical and Contextual Studies. Sonya has worked in fashion, and across
projects that have facilitated the presence and influence of Pacific Peoples in
Museums and creative spaces.
Georgina Stokes (Ngāi Tahu, Ngāi Te Ruahikihiki). Georgina Stokes is a design
researcher and educator working between spatial and service design disciplines. Her
research is driven by kaupapa Māori design-thinking and visualisation techniques to
facilitate dialogues of care between people and place. Georgina is a lecturer at Toi
Rauwhārangi College of Creative Arts, Massey University and teaches between
Spatial Design and Critical Contextual Studies programmes.
