|
What and who is this resource for?
Stage One: Assessment of need and exchange of toolkits
The first step is to determine if this process is needed. It has been developed for specifically for engagement relating to those technologies that are potentially controversial to Māori because the technologies
- may be inconsistent with at least some Māori values (for example, genetic modification), and/or
- have negative impacts on Māori arising from the technology implementation.
These include technologies that could directly or indirectly impact whanau ora (human health); whakapapa (ancestral relationships); taonga (valued items) such as wahi tapu (sacred places), awa (waterways), moana (seas and lakes); taiao (environment); and/or technologies that impact the ability of Māori communities to exercise kaitiakitanga (guardianship) or rangatiriatanga (control) over their spiritual and physical resources.
In instances where researchers are uncertain whether or not a specific technology may be controversial, opinions can be solicited from
- local Māori communities,
- Whare Wānanga and universities, and
- Māori employees in moderate-large NZ-based scientific research organisations such as Crown Research Institutes and Universities.
In addition, there are requirements to consult with Māori. For example, ERMA NZ, the statutory authority responsible for implementing the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act (1996) requires applicants to take into account Māori considerations as defined under sections 6(d) and 8 of this Act (ERMA NZ 2004). The aforementioned agencies will also be able to advise which whanui/hapu/iwi should be consulted with.
If a technology is deemed to be potentially controversial to Māori, then the parties move into the first stage of the process itself. This stage is for each party to learn about the other, by utilising toolkits that include information about the other party. This model requires that ‘each partner sees the other as a peer and embraces the ideal of assisting each other in mutual enterprises’ (Royal 2002 Page 7). Further it views each party with different but equally valid world views, and that mutual respect of each others’ world views are a necessity.
There are separate toolkits for Māori and scientists. Each is made up of background information and a set of questions designed to challenge thinking. The background information in the toolkit for scientists includes a summary of key literature describing cross-cultural dialogue, a generic set of descriptors of Māori values and a glossary of Māori words that may be useful. The purpose of reading the background information is for scientists to gain a basic understanding of Te Ao Māori (the Māori World), and at least some of the concepts underpinning core Māori values and culture. The background reading should be undertaken while the research proposal is being written.
The background information in the toolkit for Māori is similar but also contains the basic principles of western science and an outline of the ethical framework in which scientists operate. Other information includes a glossary of scientific terms and acronyms that might be used; an overview of the process and information about the scientists and their respective organisation(s) including their organisational kawa (protocols).
The second part of the toolkits is for each party to answer a set of questions similar to those that are likely to be posed by the other party during the consultation process. These are not intended as prescriptive questions, but are examples that others have used in evaluating other research proposals that have an impact on Māori. If necessary, during this second step, the scientist(s) (and/or Māori) could be assisted by a sufficiently knowledgeable Māori intermediary(s) (MI) - whose role(s) it could be to assist each party through this process, and work with each in an interactive manner prior to, as well as during interactions with hapu/iwi.
Part Two of the scientists’ toolkit contains generic questions and relates to the background and general aspects of the research. Many of the answers to these questions should be accessible in the research proposal itself (for example, the scope of the research) while others require the scientist to think more laterally about their proposal (eg. What are the benefits to Māori? What alternative research could lead to the same outcomes?). Other questions will be more thought-provoking and relate to impacts on some of the core Māori values motivated by the fundamental belief that Māori values provide a basis for assessing the relevance and potential benefits from the research, rather than being restricted to risk aversion. The ‘trigger’ questions are therefore designed to ensure that the research is comprehensively evaluated from a Māori perspective to ensure potential benefits as well as risks are identified. We also caution scientists that there is usually not a single Māori ‘view’ on any one issue, and as such views may differ to some extent among and within different whanau, hapu and iwi.
As a result of the scientist (assisted by the MI) answering the questions and prior to commencing dialogue with hapu/iwi, researchers may need to modify their proposal(s) to further refine it, to increase the likelihood of mutually beneficial outcomes. It is at this point that a draft of the research proposal is given to Māori for their consideration. For Māori, Part Two involves reading the draft research proposal and collectively deciding the key questions to ask scientists, as well as identifying any issues or concerns that they might have with the proposal.
|
|