Journeys towards decolonising research practices in Aotearoa New Zealand

ABSTRACT

This perspective piece focuses on attempts to reshape research in Aotearoa New Zealand in ways that honour Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the country's founding treaty between Māori and the Crown. These obligations establish dimensions of responsible research in this context that go beyond European-devised Responsible Innovation (RI) frameworks. We reflect on these requirements and how they are addressed within two public research organisations. Considering growing tensions between attempts to decolonise the Aotearoa science system and systemic challenges to enacting responsible research, we explore initiatives that seek to translate Te Tiriti obligations into research practices. While not articulated as RI, we discuss commonalities between these approaches and tenets of RI. Our reflections highlight the centrality of meaningful partnerships for enabling responsible research and the institutional structures required to support such relationships within Aotearoa. The paper concludes with questions around if, and how, the maturing RI scholarship can support decolonising research practices.

KEYWORDS:

• Te Tiriti o Waitangi
• public good science
• decolonisation
• responsible innovation

Responsible innovation in postcolonial public research organisations

While public research organisations abound in countries across the globe, producing research and innovation purportedly for the public good (Loikkanen, Hyytinen & Konttinen, 2011), the actors and practices within such organisations have received relatively little attention from Responsible Innovation (RI) scholars. This is despite questions pertinent to the relevance and application of RI, and RI-like, approaches within such public organisations beginning to arise (see for example Espig et al., 2022). Such questions push understandings of what RI can add in these contexts, and indeed what RI can, and should be, within these contexts. One site within which such questions are arising is the growing global conversation around the need to decolonise public research and science systems, including the practices of and approaches to RI particularly in settler-colonial societies and within countries with Indigenous communities and peoples (Koch, 2020; Ludwig & Macnaghten, 2020). As detailed below, Aotearoa New Zealand (henceforth Aotearoa) is one such country where, prompted by the leading work of Māori scholars (e.g. Hikuroa et al., 2011; Macfarlane & Macfarlane, 2019; Ruru & Nikora, 2021; Smith, 2021), actors within public research organisations are grappling with how to reshape research practices in ways that are not only responsible but also decolonising.

Science, research and Te Tiriti in Aotearoa

The seven independent Crown Research Institutes¹ (CRIs) in Aotearoa make up a large proportion of the country’s science system. Sitting alongside, and often collaborating with, the countries’ universities and independent research organisations, the CRIs were established in the heyday of the 1990s’ new public management reforms. Thus unlike universities they are structured as crown-owned companies with a dual legislated purpose of producing both financial profits and research for the benefit of Aotearoa. As Crown entities, CRIs must also uphold Te Tiriti o Waitangi (henceforth Te Tiriti), the country’s founding treaty signed in 1840 between representatives of the British Crown and Māori rangatira (leaders and governing authorities) (Orange, 2021). Te Tiriti was meant to be the basis of a partnership between Māori and the British Crown, underpinning the right for structures of government to exist, while maintaining Māori tino rangatiratanga (rights to sovereignty and self-determination). Although it was intended to create unity, different understandings of Te Tiriti and persistent breaches of it by the Crown have caused conflict. Under Te Tiriti, the Crown (represented by the Aotearoa government) is obliged to act reasonably, honourably and in good faith, provide for an equal status of the treaty partners, take active steps to ensure Māori interests are protected, and remedy past breaches of treaty responsibilities (Te Puni Kokiri, 2002). While more widespread knowledge of the implications of Te Tiriti, and efforts to honour its principles (such as partnership, reciprocity and mutual benefit, active protection, and redress (Te Puni Kokiri, 2002)), have increased since the 1970s, progress has been slow and with mixed results (Orange, 2021; Smith, 2021).

A recent review of the CRIs highlighted tensions between the imperatives to deliver financial profits as companies, while simultaneously undertaking research that benefits the public and upholds Te Tiriti (MBIE, 2020). Central to this review (Te Pae Kahurangi) and subsequent government green paper (Te Ara Paerangi) is the need for CRIs to better meet Māori aspirations through employing and developing Māori researchers, supporting Māori-led research, and better engaging Māori perspectives in governance and leadership (MBIE, 2020, 2021). Such recommendations are part of a growing shift towards government policies and services increasingly recognising shortfalls in upholding Te Tiriti (e.g. Health Research Council, 2019; Ministry of Health, 2020). There are a number of approaches to address these shortfalls. One is to allocate more resources to research conducted for, and by, Māori organisations. CRIs would then be involved only by invitation. Another is for non-Māori organisations such as CRIs to have better knowledge of Te Ao Māori (Māori worldviews), and cultural protocols, and be better equipped at culturally inclusive research through working in partnership with Māori. Our discussion here focuses on this second approach, given our context as researchers working within CRIs.

Practical challenges for responsible decolonising research

Power dynamics in countries with colonial legacies, can differ markedly from those in countries of the Global North where the RI concept originated and is proliferating. Apart from noteworthy exceptions, these power dynamics are often absent or implicit within the current international RI literature rather than an explicit focus (de Hoop et al, 2016; Macnaghten et al. 2014; van Oudheusden, 2014; Wakunuma et al. 2021). However, in order to decolonise research practices, such power dynamics need to be explicitly foregrounded. This can be a challenge within CRIs, as many researchers lack the knowledge, skills, and willingness to share power within research partnerships in a culturally appropriate manner. There is, therefore, a need for increased training and guidance to change current research practices which largely engage with Māori late in the process or in a tokenistic way (Finlay-Smits, et al., 2024).

Furthermore, research projects frequently lack the time and resourcing required to both engage meaningfully with Māori and build crucial long-term relationships. This issue is exacerbated by a paucity of Māori researchers within the science system. Māori comprise approximately 17% of the national population (Statistics New Zealand, 2021) but only 5% of the research workforce, and Māori researchers are often overburdened with the cultural labour of their colleagues and employers (Rauika Mangai, 2020). This dearth of Māori researchers, like the lack of recognition and knowledge of Te Ao Māori across the science system, and the prevalence of inadequate engagement with Māori, can be seen as a product of the colonial legacy in Aotearoa (Finlay-Smits et al., 2023).

In answer to these challenges, public research organisations in Aotearoa have started initiatives to support different approaches to research with, by, and for Māori whilst simultaneously building corresponding cultural capacity and capability within their staff. We outline two such initiatives that have arisen within CRIs. While these are not explicitly grounded in RI, they are underpinned by a similar ethos, one that holds that research should be done with and for the people, with the additional intention of tackling the colonial legacy in Aotearoa. Given the importance of tackling colonial legacies within global science systems in order to improve their alignment with the principles of RI, insights from such initiatives can potentially enrich global RI scholarship.

Organisational examples

He Wai Māpuna

Te Tiriti guarantees that Māori taonga (treasures) are protected by the Crown and Māori. At the heart of the He Wai Māpuna programme at the Institute for Environmental Science and Research (ESR) is the acknowledgement that wai (water) is such a taonga to Māori, holding great importance for community wellbeing (Institute of Environmental Science and Research, 2022, 2023). However, Māori ability to protect and care for the waterways has been limited by colonisation and Crown breaches of Te Tiriti over many years. He Wai Māpuna seeks to decolonise research involving the wellbeing of wai by moving from a transactional approach towards supporting Iwi (tribes) aspirations for care of all forms of wai in their area. The programme attempts to do this by aligning Indigenous and Western science methodologies, building trusting relationships between researchers and Iwi, tailoring research agendas around Iwi wellbeing priorities, and acknowledging the authority of Iwi as primary decision-makers. The tenets of RI (Stilgoe, Owen and Macnaghten, 2013) can be seen in this Iwi-led approach. The emphasis on engagement prior to any research projects being developed allows ESR to be responsive to Iwi, anticipate potential issues and modify research accordingly, and to be inclusive of Māori partners’ views and the knowledge they hold. The programme is also seen as a learning opportunity, where reflexivity is encouraged, and the challenges of working at the interface of different worldviews can be acknowledged, discussed, and negotiated.

Te Ara Tika

Driven by a desire to create tangible impact in Te Ao Māori, AgResearch developed the Te Ara Tika strategy that aims to normalise a different approach to research (AgResearch Ltd., 2022, 2023). Te ara refers to a pathway and tika to the correct way of doing things. Te Ara Tika is thus designed as an organisational pathway to explore what research would be like, and what AgResearch’s role as a CRI could be if Te Ao Māori perspectives were to guide research practices alongside Western science approaches, and CRIs were to recognise the persistent intergenerational challenges and inequalities that face Māori.

Te Ara Tika is designed to build the capability and confidence of researchers to work and walk in Te Ao Māori. The initiative is guided by three key principles from Te Ao Māori: Manaaki – to look after other people; Kaitiaki – to recognise guardianship over the land, waterways, forests, animals, and natural resources; and Whakapapa – to acknowledge intergenerational connectivity with the land. Working in this way requires a commitment to understanding the cultural, social, historical, and political context within which research takes place, and to engaging in Te Ao Māori and with Māori on their terms by honouring cultural protocols and approaches. Given its divergence from the way research has typically been undertaken with Māori, Te Ara Tika challenges assumptions of how research is done and whose aspirations guide it, about the roles of researchers and CRIs, and about what constitutes meaningful impact.

Such an approach therefore requires that we reassess what it means to conduct research and innovation responsibly in an Aotearoa context. Alongside the tenets of RI laid out by Stilgoe et al. (2013), namely anticipation, inclusion, reflexivity, and responsiveness, we propose that the key dimensions of a Te Tiriti-led version of RI should include a reconsideration and renegotiation of the distribution of power and resources within research and the establishment of meaningful partnerships with Māori early on, throughout, and beyond the life of individual projects.

Commonalities between examples

The two initiatives described attempt to shift approaches to scientific research in ways which bring to life the principles of Te Tiriti. The programmes centre on meaningful partnerships with Māori, based on long-term relationships built on mutual trust. These relationships are aspirational at this stage, partly because of the mistrust resulting from continuous breaches of Te Tiriti by the Crown. To overcome this historical legacy, CRI researchers must approach partnerships with humility, openness, and a willingness to be led by Māori. Efforts at cultural bridging should be undertaken by all researchers and be supported by institutional structures, as Māori researchers and partners have long borne the burden of this work. In simple terms, it means all researchers in Aotearoa CRIs must upskill in Te Ao Māori to better understand the worldviews, aspirations, and practices which guide Māori, and to assign equal status for Māori ways of knowing and being alongside Western science. This is a subjective and emotional undertaking, which can be deeply personal and may challenge many researchers’ established identities as (Western) scientific experts.

Both outlined initiatives are based on building meaningful relationships and mechanisms for Māori research leadership. Te Ao Māori takes an intergenerational view of caring for people and the environment. Māori-led research agendas thus have an extended timeframe beyond individual projects and focus instead on ongoing collaborations with lasting beneficial impacts. Ongoing reviews of the Aotearoa science system and growing efforts within CRIs themselves signal shifts towards research that encourages such relational, holistic, and long-sighted approaches to science for the public good.

Alignments with RI and beyond

Te Tiriti-led approaches to doing research differently, such as the He Wai Māpuna and Te Ara Tika initiatives, are underpinned by an ethos that bears some commonalities with that of RI. In developing their framework, Stilgoe et al., (2013) defined RI as ‘taking care of the future through collective stewardship of science and innovation in the present’ (p. 1570). Their approach was informed by five broad thematic concerns that emerged from government-funded dialogues on the social and ethical aspects of science and technology in the UK. These were concerns around equity, inclusiveness and agency, the purposes of emerging technology, the speed and direction of innovation, and the trustworthiness of those involved (Macnaghten and Chilvers, 2014). Thus, the intentions of RI were to embed processes of raising, discussing, and responding to these concerns within research and innovation practices, to better align science and technology with societal values (Macnaghten, 2016). While such concerns with the equity, future orientation, inclusion, trust, and purpose of research and innovation echo some of those that underpinned the development of Te Ara Tika and He Wai Māpuna, Te Tiriti-led RI approaches arguably must go further in order to establish a version of RI that is fit-for-purpose in Aotearoa. Opening up research and innovation processes through the centring of meaningful partnerships, requires that the fundamental power dynamics that underpin the Aotearoa science system, and which are imbued with the country’s colonial legacy, are re-evaluated and restructured. Honouring Te Tiriti in research and innovation is, therefore, not just about including more Māori as both researchers and stakeholders, but about ‘making room and moving over’ (Latulippe and Klenk, 2020) in order for Māori to assume their tino rangatiratanga (sovereignty and self-determination) as knowledge holders, as leaders, and as decision-makers in determining the priorities and trajectories of research journeys.

Thus, establishing a Te Tiriti-led RI approach for Aotearoa will not only require researchers to explore the notions of responsibility that lie within Te Ao Māori, but must also include a systemic sharing of equitable resources and authority with Māori partners. Developing meaningful partnerships in this manner would pave the way for all New Zealanders to more collectively guide science and innovation to take care of their future, while acknowledging the country’s past. While these insights relate to RI within an Aotearoa context, there is a growing body of international RI scholarship that seeks to engage cross-culturally, including with Indigenous peoples and knowledges (e.g. Espig et al., 2022; Ludwig & Macnaghten, 2020; Macdonald et al, 2021; Macnagthen et al, 2014; Vasen, 2017). These insights are therefore a contribution to this literature which may hold value for those exploring the practices of and approaches to RI in other settler-colonial societies or within other countries with Indigenous communities and peoples.

Conclusion

Undertaking research within government-owned CRIs in Aotearoa means honouring Te Tiriti and considering Māori aspirations. Following our brief reflections, we conclude that RI could be a useful approach for supporting meaningful engagement with Māori perspectives related to research and innovation but that it requires adaptation to fully honour Te Tiriti. In our opinion, RI provides a framework for negotiating the decision-making processes around the priorities and trajectories of research and innovation. Such a framework is important within the Aotearoa context, where corresponding processes need to include space for understandings of responsible practices from Te Ao Māori, such as the conceptualisation of past and future intergenerational impacts.

More fundamentally, however, Te Tiriti obligations challenge not only the decision-making processes within established research and innovation settings, but also the underlying systemic foundations that shape their contours and primary objectives. As such, Te Tiriti suggests a different model of partnership between researchers and communities, with greater fundamental sharing and divesting of power than identified within the existing international RI literature. For tino rangatiratanga to be exercised, research and innovation settings are required where power primarily sits with Māori partners. However, where decision-making authority still resides predominantly with non-Māori, research and innovation processes need careful design to genuinely make space for Māori perspectives to have not only voice (be heard) but also power (ability to determine outcomes).

Glossary

Table

AgResearch	AgResearch Ltd., a CRI
Aotearoa	Māori name for New Zealand
Ara	Pathway
CRI	Crown Research Institute
ESR	Institute for Environmental Science and Research, a CRI
Iwi	Māori tribe(s)
Kaitiaki	Guardian
Manaaki	Respect, generosity, and care for others
Māori	Indigenous people of Aotearoa New Zealand
Māpuna	To well up, spring from
RI	Responsible Innovation
Taonga	Treasure, special things
Te Tiriti o Waitangi	The Treaty of Waitangi, Māori language version
Tika	Right, correct
Tino rangatiratanga	Sovereignty and self-determination
Te Ao Māori	Māori world/worldview
Wai	Water
Whakapapa	Genealogical relationships

Disclosure statement

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

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment.

Notes on contributors

S. Finlay-Smits

S. Finlay-Smits is an anthropologist working as an Environmental Social Scientist at Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research. Her work focuses on the socio-cultural dimensions of the Aotearoa science system and the use of natural resources, with a particular focus on decolonisation, sustainability, biosecurity, and biodiversity.

S. Manning

S. Manning is a senior social scientist with the ESR Social Systems Team. Her work is increasingly focused on the sociocultural and ethical issues around implementing new scientific technologies, using transdisciplinary and systems thinking approaches.

P. Edwards

P. Edwards is a Senior social science researcher at Manaaki Whenua - Landcare Research with a background in sociology and political science.

M. Walton

M. Walton is Science Leader in Social Systems Team at ESR. Mat's research focuses on application of systems and complexity thinking in public policy, programme design and evaluation.

C. Koroheke

C. Koroheke is AgResearch's Urungi Māori Strategy Director and his role on the Senior Leadership Team is to strengthen the relationships across the burgeoning Maori agribusiness sector. Chris's iwi affiliations are with Ngati Maniapoto, Ngāti Wai and the Te Rarawa/Te Aupouri people.

M. Espig

M. Espig is a cultural anthropologist based in Christchurch, New Zealand. His research interests focus on equitable techno-scientific innovation processes and responsible environmental policy implementation as the foundations for sustainable primary industries.

Notes

1 AgResearch, Institute of Environmental Science Research, Institute of Geological and Nuclear Science, Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research, National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, Plant and Food Research, and Scion.