Challenges and ways forward for bi-cultural psychology and rehabilitation in New Zealand: perspectives from the coalface

Abstract

Bi-cultural practice is a major focus for psychology in New Zealand, due to the intended partnership between indigenous Māori and non-indigenous (Tauiwi) peoples. This aspiration is particularly important within correctional rehabilitation, due to the over-representation of Māori in crime statistics. Despite a clear intention to uplift bi-cultural practice, little is known, beyond anecdotal evidence, about the experiences of rehabilitation practitioners when utilising Māori knowledge alongside Western psychological approaches. This study analysed interviews with rehabilitation practitioners (n = 20) employed by Corrections New Zealand in psychology and rehabilitation-focused roles. The research questions are: (a) How do practitioners conceptualise Western, Māori, and bi-cultural approaches to practice? (b) What are the challenges experienced when using Māori and Western approaches in practice? and (c) What do practitioners believe are ways forward to enhance bi-cultural practice? The themes developed provide insight into bi-cultural practice in this context and how this can be improved in the future.

Keywords:

• bi-cultural practice
• collaboration
• correctional psychology
• cultural competence
• indigenous knowledge
• Māori
• rehabilitation

Introduction

Like many colonised nations, New Zealand’s history has significantly influenced the current socio-cultural context, leading to health and wellbeing disparities between those who were colonised and other groups. The signing of The Treaty of Waitangi and Te Tiriti o Waitangi (the Māori language version) in 1840 was intended to ensure equity between Māori and English subjects and that Māori retained self-determination and sovereignty over their resources and ways of life (Walker, 1989). However, in the years that followed, this was disregarded, resulting in the theft of Māori land and the prohibition of Māori healing practices, language and education (Walker, 1989). Amongst other disparities and poor health outcomes, the imposition of a Western criminal justice system led to harsher sentencing and higher incarceration rates for Māori (Leaming & Willis, 2016), and these issues persist today. While Māori comprise approximately 17% of the total population (Statistics New Zealand, 2021), 53.4% of people in prison (Department of Corrections, 2022a) and 47.1% of those on community sentences (Department of Corrections, 2022b) identify as Māori. Further, Māori are more likely to be assessed as having higher risk of reoffending (Waitangi Tribunal, 2017) and thus are more likely to receive interventions from rehabilitation practitioners.

Within New Zealand Corrections, rehabilitation programmes are designed and delivered by registered psychologists, as well as programme facilitators and Māori practitioners, who are trained and experienced in Western and Māori approaches to varying degrees. Registered psychologists practising in New Zealand are required to work in a way that is responsive to cultural diversity and upholds the commitments of the Treaty. This is outlined in their Code of Ethics, which states that psychologists should understand ‘the meaning and implications of the Treaty of Waitangi for their work. This includes an understanding of the principles of protection, participation and partnership with Māori’ (New Zealand Psychological Board, NZPB, 2012, p. 6). However, it has been suggested that psychologists do not receive adequate training to prepare them to work with Māori clients (Sawrey, 1993). Dr Michelle Levy recently highlighted this issue in a claim to the Waitangi Tribunal¹ (Waitangi Tribunal, 2018). Levy proposed that the discipline of psychology is ill-equipped to meet the needs of Māori clients due to a combined failure by psychological education services and the Crown to ensure cultural competency and acknowledge the value of Māori knowledge (Waitangi Tribunal, 2018). In addition, an earlier claim by Tom Hemopo (Waitangi Tribunal, 2015) proposed a failure by Corrections on behalf of the Crown to address Māori over-representation within the justice system. Hemopo remarked on the lack of commitment to strategy and appropriate resource within Corrections to address the overrepresentation of Māori (Waitangi Tribunal, 2015). This claim prompted the development of Hōkai Rangi (Department of Corrections, 2019): Corrections’ current strategy, which is committed to providing better outcomes for Māori, including addressing the enduring over-representation within justice statistics (Department of Corrections, 2019). A key commitment of this strategy is elevating Māori knowledge within all aspects of Correctional practice, including rehabilitation programmes (Department of Corrections, 2019).

This is a challenging task in a field that prioritises evidence-based approaches according to Western scientific standards (Bonta & Andrews, 2016). It has been demonstrated that Māori can benefit (in terms of reducing rates of reoffending and other positive outcomes) from treatment aligning with dominant models of correctional rehabilitation, such as the Risk–Need–Responsivity (RNR) model (Bonta & Andrews, 2016), when enhanced with Māori knowledge (Grace, 2019; Nathan et al., 2003). However, it has been suggested by some that Western models such as the RNR, which is heavily focused on risk reduction, are at odds with a Māori world view and aspirations (Leaming & Willis, 2016; Webb, 2018), which have a more holistic view of wellness and see people as inter-connected with their environments, other people and a non-physical world. A key tension is that while Western models like RNR have been specifically developed to enhance our ability to reduce recidivism, there is not an equivalent field of research or knowledge within Te Ao Māori, and so we must draw from more general views from within Māoridom on human flourishing. A Māori view on health is integrated and collective, it relies on the ability for Māori to exercise their right to self-determination, in collectively deciding how to support the health of their people (Durie, 1998). This includes consideration of the environment, access to healthcare and nutrition, housing, spirituality or a non-physical world, cultural identity and relationships with close and extended family, as well as ancestors. Traditionally, Māori healing was seen as the domain of tohunga (designated Māori healers), but this practice was outlawed in Aotearoa in the 1907 Tohunga Suppression Act, and replaced with Western medicine. For Māori, harmful behaviour is viewed as a result of imbalances in holistic wellbeing; it cannot be separated from the effects of colonisation and the current socio-cultural context in Aotearoa.

It has been suggested that, due to a prioritisation of Western evidence-based approaches within Correctional settings, Māori knowledge has simply been grafted onto programmes to increase Māori engagement with treatment (Leaming & Willis, 2016). This approach falls short of what can be considered an equitable bi-cultural approach to rehabilitation. Bi-cultural practice in New Zealand is defined by Eketone and Walker (2015) as:

a complex and multifaceted subject, focused on relationships between indigenous Māori and non-indigenous Pākehā, as well as relationships across different Māori groups. It brings together indigenous and non-indigenous knowledge and practices that enhance people’s well-being. It is crucially concerned with being culturally responsive and sensitive. (p. 103)

This definition suggests that, while bi-cultural practice is complex and relational, it is possible to combine Māori and Tauiwi² approaches in ways that are responsive to the needs of all people in New Zealand. This definition also highlights the importance of cultural competence for rehabilitation practitioners, in terms of being responsive and sensitive to the needs of different groups. According to Cross et al. (1989):

Cultural competence is a set of congruent behaviors, attitudes, and policies that come together in a system, agency, or among professionals and enable that system, agency, or those professionals to work effectively in cross-cultural situations. (p. 13)

It is suggested that competence exists on a continuum from cultural destructiveness to proficiency (Cross, 2020). As a practitioner develops cultural competence (i.e. moves along the continuum), their capacity to work effectively with clients from culturally diverse backgrounds is enhanced. Typically, individuals are less competent when working with people from different cultures, particularly those that have limited knowledge and understanding of (Cross, 2020). Thus, a lack of knowledge about Māori culture is likely a significant barrier for Tauiwi practitioners working with Māori clients. A related concept that emerged from the New Zealand nursing literature is cultural safety, referring to the recognition, respect and acknowledgement of the rights and cultural identities of clients (DeSouza, 2008). Psychologists within New Zealand are required to be responsive to their client base and practise safely and ethically, as described in their Code of Ethics (NZPB, 2012).

There is limited literature focused on the intersection of Māori and Tauiwi knowledge and understanding the associated challenges faced by practitioners in the helping professions. A recent model that has been influential in the psychology space is He Awa Whiria (the braided rivers; Macfarlane et al., 2015). This model rejects a ‘one-stream’ paradigm, where dominant or ‘mainstream’ knowledge is considered universal or more valuable than other ways of knowing. Instead, He Awa Whiria allows different knowledge streams to be woven into any programme or system, sitting alongside, rather than being assimilated into each other. Collaboration and equity in perspectives is necessary according to He Awa Whiria (Macfarlane & Macfarlane, 2019). While helpful for conceptualising the landscape of knowledge that influences practice, models such as He Awa Whiria are arguably somewhat removed from the day-to-day tasks and challenges faced by practitioners; they require some elaboration to operationalise within practice. We now summarise the existing literature that has explored the experiences and challenges faced by practitioners working in bi-cultural spaces in New Zealand. Similar issues have been observed in other colonised countries, such as Canada and Australia (e.g. Ansloos et al., 2019; Togni, 2017); in the interests of brevity, these are not discussed here.

In the past, surveys have revealed a lack of cultural competence of Tauiwi practitioners when working with Māori. Sawrey (1993) found that that most psychologists (n = 163) did not feel that they had adequate knowledge about Māori culture and views on mental health (77.5%) and that their training had not prepared them to work with Māori (88.4%), while most believed this was important to achieving good outcomes with Māori (85.2%). A later survey on the perspectives of (predominantly Tauiwi) psychiatrists (n = 247) in New Zealand found that only 40% felt that their training had prepared them to work with Māori (Johnstone & Read, 2000). This issue was also raised in Levy’s (2002) interviews with Māori psychologists (n = 12) in Aotearoa, who were concerned that some Tauiwi psychologists were not recognising their own limitations in competence when working with Māori clients. Participants discussed their concern with the importation of psychologists into New Zealand, identifying the need for mechanisms to assess their ability to work with Māori clients and to provide training in a Māori world view and approaches to mental health (Levy, 2002). These findings suggest that Tauiwi practitioners believed they needed more knowledge and skills to work with Māori, and, as pointed out by Māori practitioners, they must also be aware of and work within their level of competency.

More recently, Jordan et al. (2021) explored the experiences and challenges faced by practitioners (n = 30) in New Zealand’s mental health system. They developed five themes that characterised the ‘negotiated spaces’ between Western and Māori practices: opposition, resistance, assimilation, manoeuvring and collaboration. The authors suggest that the current system allows Western evidence-based practices to be used to marginalise Indigenous approaches. Participants noted that some organisations manipulate cultural indicators, such as Māori language and practices, to maintain an appearance of bi-culturalism (Jordan et al., 2021). This was viewed by participants as tokenistic rather than authentic integration of Māori knowledge within mental healthcare. Further, participants noted that, although numbers of Māori in governmental roles have increased, Tauiwi remain the majority in leadership, and progress is needed to achieve equity. Finally, participants suggested that for true collaboration to occur, Tauiwi must fulfil their commitment to advance Māori knowledge alongside Western psychological knowledge. Participants described learning to sit with the discomfort of working with clients and approaches from another culture and stated that collaboration needs to move beyond translation. Rather than translating Māori terminology and reducing its meaning to fit within Western psychological models, bi-cultural practice should seek to understand the full and often complex meaning of Māori terms (Jordan et al., 2021). These findings suggest that authentic bi-cultural practice requires engagement with Māori knowledge and practices in order to learn and collaborate, but this does not always occur.

It is to be expected, given the historical and contemporary neglect of Māori knowledge, that Māori and Tauiwi practitioners will face unique challenges in working towards bi-cultural practice. Moyle (2014) explored the challenges faced by Māori social workers (n = 7), including a lack of support and low numbers of Māori practitioners. Participants discussed taking on additional roles to support Tauiwi colleagues, including as a teacher, cultural advisor, interpreter and advocate. These additions to their existing responsibilities were challenging; participants felt obligated to provide this support to achieve fair outcomes for Māori in their care, but did not feel adequately supported to take on these roles. Similarly, Hunter and Cook (2020) found that Māori nurses (n = 12) experienced a lack of support from colleagues when it came to providing holistic and culturally responsive care and were unable to rely on others to provide adequate care to Māori patients. These findings highlight the specific challenges and burdens experienced by Māori when working towards uplifting bi-cultural practice.

In terms of challenges faced by Tauiwi practitioners, Crawford (2016) provides a rich first-person reflection on their experience as a social worker practising bi-culturally, stating:

it can be difficult to share this journey as a Pākehā social worker for fear of getting it wrong, being offensive towards tangata whenua [Indigenous people] unknowingly, or even at times a sense of pride in that sharing the journey might highlight my own ignorance. (p. 80)

This reflection touches on two key fears: firstly, concerns about looking ignorant or losing ‘expert’ status when acknowledging gaps in skills or knowledge; second, the fear of offending Māori due to a lack of knowledge or competence, which is commonly known as Pākehā paralysis, the avoidance of all things Māori due to this fear (Eketone & Walker, 2015). Crawford (2016) explained that they valued support from Māori colleagues, noting that ‘gentle and sometimes confronting conversations allowed for a more nuanced understanding of the more holistic nature of bi-cultural practice’ (p. 82). Crawford’s reflections emphasise the importance of providing adequate support for Tauiwi practitioners to address the potential anxieties that may arise when working bi-culturally, particularly when knowledge about Māori culture is lacking.

In a correctional context, Rakuraku (2019) conducted a survey (n = 29) and interviews (n = 5) with Māori (3%) and Tauiwi (97%) custodial staff about the challenges faced when utilising Māori knowledge within their roles. A common concern for participants was a fear of being disrespectful or incorrect, particularly mispronouncing Māori words. At times, this anxiety resulted in participants resorting to ‘safer’ non-participatory behaviours (i.e. Pākehā paralysis). At the organisational level, participants identified a need for more targeted training from Corrections, with one participant stating: ‘all these new guidelines, policies, Kaupapa [Māori] values up around the place . . . they don’t actually give you any training on it, you just see a new poster coming out’ (Rakuraku, 2019, p. 58). Additional challenges involved the reluctance from Tauiwi to engage in a culturally competent way, particularly those with a longer tenure at Corrections, and a reliance on Māori colleagues for support and learning. This study further highlights the prevalence of Pākeha paralysis and the need for role-specific training and guidance to put aspirational strategies, such as Hōkai Rangi (Department of Corrections, 2019) into action. While this research focused on custodial staff, rather than health or rehabilitative practitioners, these themes provide valuable insight into the recent perspectives of Corrections staff.

As demonstrated by this brief review, there are a small number of studies focusing on the experiences of both Tauiwi and Māori practitioners working bi-culturally within New Zealand. These studies found inequity in terms of number of Māori staff and tokenistic use of Māori knowledge, a lack of support and increased workload for Māori practitioners, inadequate knowledge about Māori culture and how to use it in practice, and the resulting fear of ‘getting it wrong’ and avoidance of Māori approaches. The current study contributes to this body of research by exploring the experiences of rehabilitation practitioners within a correctional setting, when attempting to work with Western psychological and Māori concepts and approaches. The ability to engage in bi-cultural practice is a major goal for psychology in New Zealand, and the research suggests that this has not yet been realised. It is therefore crucial to understand current practice and the experiences of those working within this space. It is necessary to understand challenges and tensions as well as promising avenues to enhance bi-cultural practice. This is particularly important given the ongoing over-representation of Māori in various indicators of poor wellbeing, including crime. Further, Corrections and other Government departments in New Zealand are currently trying to remedy this by adopting bi-cultural or Māori-focused strategies, but this is likely challenging when many staff lack adequate understanding of Māori culture.

The purpose of our research is to better understand current rehabilitative practice within correctional settings, in terms of its Western and Māori components, to identify challenges faced in the field and to identify promising ways forward to enhance practice. We undertook semi-structured interviews with rehabilitation practitioners (n = 20), exploring their experiences and thoughts about the bi-cultural aspects of their practice. Interview transcripts were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006), to identify common experiences and perspectives across participants. The following research questions guided the analysis: (a) How do practitioners conceptualise and operationalise Western, Māori and bi-cultural approaches to practice? (b) What are the challenges they experience when using Māori and Western approaches in practice? (c) What are the perceived ways forward to enhance bi-cultural practice? Themes were developed in response to each of the three research questions, providing unique insight into the experiences of these participants at a time of significant change within rehabilitation within Corrections New Zealand. As such, these findings can inform the next steps taken by Corrections and psychology more broadly, to move towards a more equitable bi-cultural approach. Ultimately, this will go some way towards addressing the harms associated with the ongoing neglect and marginalisation of indigenous knowledge, instead utilising it to reduce the social and financial costs of crime and increase wellbeing.

Method

Design

This study utilised Braun and Clarke’s (2006) reflexive thematic analysis method to allow for in-depth exploration of the subjective experiences, perceptions, beliefs and attitudes of participants (Hammarberg et al., 2016), while explicitly acknowledging the role of the researcher in the gathering and analysis of data. Our orientation to the data was interpretivist and critical realist; we sought to develop an understanding of the mechanisms and structures that shape the context of bi-cultural practice and contribute to participants’ experiences, while acknowledging that our understanding of these objective realities is influenced by our subjective perspectives. Our analysis was inductive, meaning that it was driven by the data rather than existing theory, and semantic, meaning that themes were developed directly from participants’ words rather than exploring understanding underlying ideas and assumptions. The reflexive component of this research allowed for ongoing consideration of our roles as researchers in shaping the themes and sub-themes.

Participants

Twenty-one practitioners took part in one-on-one semi-structured interviews with the second author, who was employed as a research assistant on this project. Participation was voluntary, and, as such, it is likely that participants self-selected due to their motivation to discuss and enhance bi-cultural practice within correctional rehabilitation. One participant withdrew from the study following the interview, due to concerns that they could be identified via personal information that they had shared in the interview, leaving a final sample of 20 participants. All participants were employed by Corrections New Zealand in the psychology and rehabilitation space at the time of their interview; their roles and other demographic information are contained in Table 1.

Table 1. Participant demographics.

Demographic	N	%
Ethnicity
Māori	8	40
Tauiwi	12	60
Gender
Male	7	35
Female	13	65
Role
Psychologist (e.g. senior, clinical, intern)	12	60
Māori supervisor/adviser/practitioner	6	30
Other (e.g. adviser, programme facilitator)	2	10
Age range
20s	3	15
30s	5	25
40s	8	40
50s	3	15
60s	0	0
70s	1	5
Time in current role (months)
1–20	11	55
21–40	3	15
41–60	1	5
61–80	3	15
>81	2	10

Procedure

The research team included one academic, one research assistant and one honours-level psychology student (all Tauiwi) from Victoria University of Wellington, and three collaborators from Corrections, including one Tauiwi psychologist and two Māori practitioners. The Corrections collaborators provided access to research participants and consulted throughout the analysis process, including guiding the collection and analysis of data in a culturally sensitive manner. The interviews and analysis of transcripts were undertaken by the research assistant, under the supervision of the academic and in consultation with the honours student, who was undertaking a concurrent analysis on a subset of the data. Ethical approval was granted from the Human Ethics Committee at Victoria University of Wellington. Participants were recruited via an email from Corrections managers containing key study information and contact details for the research team. Staff who were interested in sharing their experiences were asked to email the research assistant to confirm their interest and provide demographic information. The purpose of gathering demographic information at this stage was to ensure diversity, due to the small sample size. The research assistant, with guidance from the primary academic researcher, identified participants using convenience sampling. These decisions were made on a first-come first-served basis, but also aiming to include roughly 50% Māori participants, to ensure that their voices were equally reflected in the findings.

Twenty-one participants engaged in one-on-one interviews with the research assistant between April and August 2022, with each interview lasting between 60 and 120 minutes. Interviews were conducted using the Microsoft Teams video call function, and both video and audio were recorded; consent was gained prior to, or at the beginning of, the interview. Prior to the recording being sent to the transcription service, the visual component of the recording was removed. The interview included a range of open-ended questions and prompts to explore participants’ subjective experiences of bi-cultural practice. Examples of interview questions include: How would you define bi-cultural practice? Do you think Māori and Western psychological concepts can be used together in your work?

Data analysis

As above, this research utilised reflexive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006), which includes six phases. The first is familiarisation with the data, which involves reading and re-reading each transcript multiple times. The second phase is coding, which involves systematically attaching labels to interesting points in the data, relevant to the research questions (Braun & Clarke, 2006). The codes were then grouped into initial themes; this third phase identifies patterns within the data that capture important information relating to the research questions and help to identify and remove any overlapping codes that describe the same concept or idea (Clarke & Braun, 2013). The fourth phase involves reviewing and refining these initial themes (Braun & Clarke, 2006). During this phase the data for each code were returned to, ensuring they fitted the assigned theme, and codes were discarded if they did not cohere to a theme or were not relevant to the research questions. Sub-themes were also identified within the fourth phase; these shared the same central concept as the wider theme but highlighted a unique aspect of it. During this process, themes were discussed and refined until the research team felt they accurately reflected the data. The fifth and sixth phases involved naming (and defining) and writing up the themes, respectively. Each participant was identified with a letter to ensure confidentiality and anonymity. Any potentially identifying information was removed and replaced “with [ . . . ]” to further maintain confidentiality.

As described above, the analysis was carried out primarily by the research assistant, in consultation with the wider research team. Māori collaborators provided guidance regarding Māori language and concepts; other members of the research team provided advice concerning the grouping of codes and theme development. In line with a reflexive approach to qualitative research, it is important to comment on the positionality and cultural background of the research assistant. She identifies as Tauiwi with European ancestry and is currently training in clinical psychology at a post-graduate level, she has not worked in a corrections context. She has had some exposure to Māori approaches to health and psychology, but most of her training is based in Western psychology, including clinical practice, research methods and ethical considerations, and psychological theory. As such, it was extremely important to have Māori collaborators to help guide the gathering of data, as well as interpretating and understanding Māori perspectives. In particular, the experiences of Māori participants were discussed in-depth to ensure the interpretations had not been simplified or altered to fit into a Tauiwi perspective. Further, transcripts and a summary of the themes were provided to participants for feedback, to counteract any potential biases or misunderstanding.

Results

Themes were developed in response to each of the three research questions; these are summarised in Tables 2, 3 and 4 throughout the following sections. Each of these is explored in more depth with illustrative quotes below each table.

Table 2. The conceptualisation of different approaches to practice.

Approach	Themes
Western psychology	Systematic and individualistic Evidence-based Derived from international research
Māori approaches	Holistic and inter-connected Use of Māori practices, values and concepts Based on ancestral and experiential knowledge
Bi-cultural practice	Braided approach to practice Tailored to the cultural needs of the individual Safe and responsive practice

Table 3. Challenges faced when working with Māori and Western approaches.

Themes	Sub-themes
Tensions between approaches	Epistemic and methodological tensions Inequity in practice
Professional identity	Identifying as Māori within a correctional setting Tauiwi experiences working with Māori approaches
Practical challenges to working bi-culturally	Applying knowledge in practice Personal competency and learning Lack of time and resource

Table 4. Ways forward to enhance bi-cultural practice.

Themes	Sub-themes
Personal approach	Openness Sitting with discomfort
System-level changes	Leadership and support Acknowledging the credibility of Māori knowledge Working towards equity

Research Question 1: How are Western psychology, Māori and bi-cultural approaches conceptualised?

The first research question focused on participants’ understanding of Western psychology, Māori approaches and bi-cultural practice. Understanding how these approaches are conceptualised and operationalised offers insight into current practice and provides an important foundation for understanding the tensions and challenges experienced by participants.

Conceptualisation of Western psychology

Participants described Western psychology as inherently systematic in nature; with the individual fitting into the process, rather than the process being tailored to the individual. They spoke about psychology involving a pre-determined process for identifying specific components (i.e. signs and symptoms) of the problems experienced by individuals and ways to help them overcome these, rather than viewing the person in a more holistic and inter-connected way.

Western psychology is definitely about helping people . . . but it’s a systematic way of doing that and predetermined by research outcomes. . . . – (Participant T)

I think there’s a tendency in Western psychology to want to boil everything down; so, to almost get every little aspect of a person, their experiences or their behaviours and be able to describe them all individually; and maybe not as much focus on how things all connect and intertwine with each other. – (Participant G)

In addition, Western psychology was described by participants as evidence-based and scientific, and this has influenced many of the models, frameworks and processes underpinning psychological practice within Corrections:

I would define western psychology as what we typically label as evidence based, meaning so called ‘scientific’ evidence informs Western psychology. . . . I think a lot of Corrections work relies on Western approaches because there are more measures that are able to accurately indicate the presence or absence of something, according to whatever definition that has been tried and true and validated. – (Participant O)

Further, participants noted that Western psychology is largely derived from international research. Rather than being based in New Zealand, the evidence is mainly from Euro-American contexts:

 . . . ways of viewing the world that derives from . . . Europe and northern America. They’ve really had a profound effect on the development of psychology. – (Participant V)

To summarise, Western psychology was described by participants as a systematic, individualistic and evidence-based approach, which is derived primarily from international research. This view of psychology stems from participants’ understanding of the field’s origins within Euro-American research and allegiance to evidence-based practice. As discussed above, this represents a strength of psychology as a scientific discipline and helps to justify investment in effective approaches. However, it does present challenges when attempting to utilise other forms of knowledge alongside Western psychology.

Conceptualisation of Māori approaches

Perhaps due to the order of interview questions, Māori approaches were often described in contrast to Western psychology. Participants described Māori approaches as holistic and inter-connected, viewing individuals’ identities and wellbeing in relation to their connections to others and the world around them and uplifting their sense of worth through a strength-based approach. Māori approaches were described as deeper than Western approaches, and as acknowledging the different dimensions of the person, including spiritual, physical, psychological and relational. One participant explained that Māori approaches:

 . . . focus on ensuring transformative outcomes for the whānau [family] and weave in different elements of wellbeing that could be seen as holistic, and looking at the many elements of someone’s life that can be nurtured to strengthen their identity . . . travelling their whakapapa [ancestry] lines with them to understand what was going on, and how we can support them. It’s less about the here and now but more linking into their whakapapa, and not what’s wrong with their whakapapa but what has happened in their whakapapa or history that explains their behaviour. – (Participant O)

As seen in the quote above, a Māori approach was described as benefiting not just the individual but all others to whom they are inter-connected. This means that people need to be understood within their context, including their ancestry, distant and close living relatives, and land where their people originate. When describing Māori approaches, some participants used metaphors to explain the differences between world views, for example:

So, you might think of a . . . Māori worldview as like a telescope and a Western worldview as like a microscope. Things in . . . Māori make sense when understanding the interconnectedness with the natural world and in . . . Pākehā it’s a reductionist approach and things make sense when breaking them down. – (Participant S)

Secondly, participants spoke about the use of Māori practices, values and concepts within rehabilitation, often providing common examples of these. For example, one participant describes their practice:

 . . . it’s always trying to include tikanga [Māori practices] throughout my sessions. So, whether that’s having karakia [blessing], whether that’s using whakatauki [Māori proverbs], using . . . Te Whare Tapa Whā, Meihana model [Māori health models] to . . . check in with clients how their balance and their wellbeing is. – (Participant P)

Finally, Māori approaches were described in relation to the sort of knowledge that they are based in. Participants described how Māori approaches are based on ancestral and experiential knowledge, rather than scientific research, in a Western sense. Participants spoke about how Māori knowledge is passed down from ancestors, based on what has worked for Māori over time. There was also a sense that Māori knowledge has been fought for, that it was endangered and needed to be protected and cared for.

Time ages science, it gets outdated, and knowledge is constantly changing whereas mātauranga Māori is holistic based on accepted truths, based on environmental encounters. For example, we know when to get kinas because the Pōhutukawa tree is blooming, all those types of things. – (Participant S)

To summarise, Māori approaches were described by practitioners in contrast to Western psychology, as holistic and inter-connected, involving Māori practices, values and concepts, and being based in ancestral and experiential knowledge. This conceptualisation is consistent with a Māori world view and models of health and wellbeing, and the views of Māori researchers (e.g. Kiyimba & Anderson, 2022; Leaming & Willis, 2016). These findings also suggest that participants see these two approaches as quite different; however, it does not tell us whether they see them as complementary or in competition, or how they might use them together in their practice.

Conceptualisation of bi-cultural practice

Bi-cultural practice was described by participants as a ‘braided’ approach, which is tailored to the cultural needs of the individual. Participants expressed that working bi-culturally does not mean intertwining the two ideologies into one – rather, recognising that there are situations where one can use Western psychology and Māori approaches together, and other times where they must remain separate:

I think it’s also consistent with some of the research on the braided rivers, in terms of we have two streams running, which is the Western knowledge and the . . . Māori knowledge, . . . I think it’s important to acknowledge there are some areas where they are quite separate, but there are areas where they can overlap and where we can have a space, which is a space for the client to feel connected, a space for the client to feel they are heard, and they are held. – (Participant J)

Further, participants recognised that working in this way requires a level of competence, in terms of both knowledge and being able to put it into practice in a safe and responsive way, which is tailored to the individual’s needs:

One thought I have is identifying the difference between cultural competency and cultural safety. You could do years of research and you could know everything there is to know about a . . . Māori world view and how that should be practised, but unless you are practising it in a safe and respectful way then it’s pointless. I think cultural safety is a good way to articulate it . . . I think it’s just about being led by the person. – (Participant G)

To summarise, participants discussed the use of Māori and Western psychology together in bi-cultural practice and knowing when each has something to offer for an individual client. They referred to an existing model (e.g. He Awa Whiria; Macfarlane et al., 2015) to describe the relationship between the two approaches and how they can be used together. They also raised the concepts of cultural competence (Cross, 2020) and safety (DeSouza, 2008), and the importance of tailoring bi-cultural practice to the needs of the client (Eketone & Walker, 2015).

In terms of our first research question, it is clear that practitioners perceived epistemic differences between Western and Māori approaches. For example, when participants described Western psychology, they spoke about its international evidence base, scientific rigour and somewhat reductionistic focus on the individual and their risk or needs. In contrast, Māori approaches were described as holistic, seeing the person as inter-connected and acknowledging the significance of relationships and the spiritual side of the person. These perspectives align with previous literature that is critical of the ability of Western psychology to align with Māori perspectives and aspirations (e.g. Leaming & Willis, 2016). However, it seems that, with reference to existing frameworks such as He Awa Whiria (Macfarlane et al., 2015), participants could also see how the two approaches could work together to be responsive to the needs of individual clients. This suggests that, in line with previous literature, rehabilitation practitioners recognise these different cultural perspectives as distinct but complementary. It is evident that participants have used both Western and Māori approaches within their practice, to varying degrees, and that they faced challenges in doing so. These challenges are explored further in the following section.

Research Question 2: What are the challenges faced when attempting to use both Māori and Western psychology approaches within practice?

The second research question is focused on the challenges when attempting to use these approaches together in practice. These challenges include tensions between different types of knowledge and practice, those relating to personal identity and culture of practitioners, and more practical challenges in acquiring and using knowledge in practice.

Tensions between approaches

Despite expressing enthusiasm to improve bi-cultural practice, and the belief that this is possible, participants highlighted tensions associated with bringing together Māori and Western psychological approaches within Corrections. These relate to what is valued or prioritised within the discipline of psychology and correctional rehabilitation, and are described as epistemic and methodological tensions and inequity in practice.

Epistemic and methodological tensions

This sub-theme describes how differences in methodologies and epistemologies (ways of knowing) between Māori and Western psychological approaches lead to tension when attempting to use the two together in practice. As described in response to the first research question, these two approaches were derived from different knowledge sources and have a different scope of focus. Participants discussed the tensions associated with psychology’s obligation to adhere to ‘evidence-based’ practice and how this does not typically recognise traditional Māori methods of knowledge generation and transmission. This perceived lack of evidence can cause tensions when practitioners try to include Māori knowledge in their practice:

The whole evidence-based thing will be problematic . . . I get stuck on that too I’m like, oh, should I be doing this? Where did this come from? Who can I reference if I use this? I think that’s always gonna be a tension. – (Participant C)

Some participants wanted to use Māori knowledge in their practice but felt that they needed to justify this in the absence of a strong scientific (in the Western sense) evidence base. Psychologists’ training emphasises the importance of evidence-based practice and a scientist-practitioner model, so using unfamiliar or under-researched approaches may lead to tension and concerns about whether this is the right thing to do. We might also expect that this leads to the use of predominantly Western approaches in practice, with minimal commitment to Māori aspects of practice, as highlighted in previous research (Jordan et al., 2021; Leaming & Willis, 2016).

Inequity in practice

This sub-theme highlights the dominance of Western psychology over a Māori approach within rehabilitation practice at Corrections. Many participants reflected on the, at times rigid, nature of their work and the expectations and order of tasks. Whilst Western processes and measures are prioritised as an essential part of the job, some commented on the fact that Māori approaches (i.e. cultural or strength-based elements) are often considered optional additions to core practice tasks:

One of the biggest challenges I find is having to explain it first . . . anytime I wanted to introduce or bring in a cultural concept the first thing, ‘Oh we should do this’. The first thing I had to do was explain what it was, then I had to help them understand what that meant for them, then I had to often defend why it would be a good thing to do, which means we’re not collaborating anymore. . . .  – (Participant X)

This imbalance of weighting was attributed by participants to the dominance of Western psychology within Corrections, which was described as stemming from the wider structural system:

. . . it’s probably like one to five percent . . . Māori pedagogy and 95 to 99 percent Western pedagogy because our programmes are delivered in English, the system that they come through is a Western system, every interaction that we have we’re doing things in a Western culture from Western methodology and Western timing, but people don’t understand that. – (Participant S)

Participants experienced tensions associated with bringing together Māori and Western psychological approaches within Corrections, paralleling trends observed in other social sector agencies in New Zealand (e.g. Jordan et al., 2021). Participants partially attributed these to a lack of equity between the two approaches, the demands of practice and the prioritisation of an evidence-based approach that does not recognise different ways of knowing. It was also apparent, for Māori participants, that the inequities and inflexibilities in practice meant that they had to justify bringing their knowledge into practice.

Professional and personal identity

This theme describes challenges relating to participants’ professional and personal identities and how these impact on their ability to engage in bi-cultural practice. It is apparent that, in line with previous research, Māori and Tauiwi experienced different tensions relating to their identities and professional roles. Therefore, this theme is divided into two sub-themes: being Māori within a Correctional setting and Tauiwi experiences working with Māori approaches.

Being Māori within a correctional setting

For Māori participants, their identity and culture were an integral part of their experiences at work. Māori participants reflected on the tensions associated with working within a Western system, where there was not always space for them to ‘be fully Māori’. Some participants expressed a belief that this was changing due to Corrections’ current strategy (Hōkai Rangi, 2019):

It [Hokai Rangi] has given a greater level of permission for Māori to be Māori, for Māori to utilise things that are Māori and for Māori to push back when it’s not acceptable to ‘Māori’ or use something that is Māori. – (Participant X)

Māori participants also felt that there was an expectation for them to be the voice of Māori within Corrections. They discussed the, often unspoken, responsibility they are given to be the ‘cultural expert’ within their team, regardless of their own level of Māori knowledge:

I would have been fearful as the only Māori young staff member there. As often we can be called upon for cultural advice when we too want to be guided by tuakana or Rangatira [a more experienced person] in the cultural space. – (Participant O)

Finally, Māori participants spoke about the dual roles they hold at work and outside of work, and the responsibilities they have to their people:

[Māori proverb] talks about your hand to the rākau o te Pākehā, which is around us, having the skills to be able to survive in the working world that we are in, but making sure you maintain and hold onto the things that are important for Māori, and that Whakataukī really does sum up what you have to be, to be successful in our roles. – (Participant T)

 . . . our obligation and responsibility is constantly present. . . . It’s a double tax for us . . . it’s hard for us to leave work at work and just be part of our community because our community go, ‘okay, now you’re in our space we’re going to hold you to account for those things that Corrections are doing’. – (Participant T)

In summary, Māori participants expressed a range of tensions associated with their cultural identities and their roles within Corrections. This includes being unable to bring their full self to work, being expected to hold expertise in all things Māori and challenges navigating between Māori and Tauiwi spaces and obligations. These support and extend upon the findings of previous research with Māori practitioners, that they are often relied upon to fulfil additional roles and that they are often smaller in number with little support (Moyle, 2014; Rakuraku, 2019). While steps forward, in terms of uplifting Māori approaches alongside psychology, were appreciated, there is a need to ensure that this does not come at the expense of Māori practitioners’ time and that support is provided for Māori practitioners working within Western settings (i.e. Corrections).

Tauiwi experiences working with Māori approaches

This sub-theme encompasses the challenges faced by Tauiwi participants when incorporating Māori approaches into their practice. Tauiwi participants discussed challenges relating to professional boundaries and how much personal information they were willing to share with clients. From a Māori perspective there is greater emphasis on connecting with the participant through sharing more about who you are, where you come from, and who you are connected to (e.g. parents, siblings, children). Some Tauiwi participants found sharing personal information challenging, as they would not often disclose this to clients. For others, specific Māori practices caused them to feel less certain about their boundaries with clients, for example:

 . . . Hongi [Māori greeting where people touch noses], for example, and of course a psychologist sometimes might be uncomfortable with touching, you know, they might want to give you a hug at the graduation or things like that. And I was thinking, is this tikanga [the correct way] here? Yeah, balancing it up in our mind and being very intentional in our practice I guess, as you should always be. – (Participant L)

These concerns about professionalism and safety are characteristic of a Western correctional system. Corrections trains staff to uphold professional boundaries, including being cautious about how much information is shared with clients. While this may be necessary in some cases to ensure safety, concerns about not crossing boundaries may dissuade practitioners from safely engaging in meaningful connections with Māori clients when they want to:

And so what we end up doing is feeding on that Pākehā paralysis. We then also have this institutional pressure of, ‘You cross that boundary you are in deep shit’. So both of this feeds this fear that people just don’t want to, no sorry it’s not that they don’t want to, but they start putting in these protections. – (Participant R)

The notion of Pākehā paralysis, or disengagement from Māori practices due to a fear of getting it wrong or causing offence, was spoken about by Tauiwi participants. For some, they were concerned about offending Māori due to getting something wrong or having bad pronunciation. This often led to feelings of anxiety, as they did not want to upset others:

I guess the challenge I find is that I know that my knowledge is very small and I’m really concerned about doing things wrong and offending people. That does make me a bit anxious. . . . – (Participant V)

Some Tauiwi participants also discussed their own cultural identity being a challenge to working with Māori approaches – for example, they questioned whether it was their place as Tauiwi to engage with Māori approaches and clients:

I don’t think I am the person to give that as a Pākehā person. But, I am willing to be informed by our supervisors and the experts who are running supervision for us. I think that’s where that knowledge should come from. – (Participant G)

In summary, challenges for Tauiwi participants when working with Māori approaches included concerns around their professional boundaries, a fear of getting it wrong and offending Māori, a lack of confidence in their knowledge and the view that it may not be their place, as Tauiwi, to engage in Māori practices. These challenges support the previous literature on Pākehā paralysis (Crawford, 2016; Rakuraku, 2019) and the findings of past surveys that Tauiwi practitioners often do not feel competent to work with Māori (Johnstone & Read, 2000; Sawrey, 1993). There also appear to be related fears about crossing boundaries or offending Māori and uncertainty about what is expected of Tauiwi, which are not helped by a lack of knowledge about using Māori approaches.

Practical challenges to working bi-culturally

This theme encompasses the more practical or external challenges that practitioners experience when working in bi-cultural spaces. Participants referenced a lack of time and resource to increase their knowledge about Māori approaches, but also to incorporate this into their practice. This issue relates to the inflexibility described as a tension above, in terms of having the time and space to incorporate Māori knowledge into practice alongside Western psychology. The sub-themes within practical challenges are applying knowledge in practice, personal competency and learning and lack of time and resource.

Applying knowledge in practice

This sub-theme captures the challenges associated with using Māori concepts and models in practice, as opposed to simply learning about them. Participants reflected on how they felt unclear as to whether their current practice was ‘correct’ and aligned with Corrections’ current strategy, in terms of elevating Māori knowledge. Participants stated that having more practical guidance would help them to improve their bi-cultural practice:

I feel like we get a lot of training around what the models are, how they sit within culture but not actually a lot of practical training on maybe like using pūrākau [Māori narratives] more in sessions. They say that’s a good thing to do but no one actually takes you through pūrākau, how to link them properly, what are some really good examples? – (Participant Q)

Whilst high-level strategies were appreciated, many participants felt that these needed to go a step further. Participants felt that strategies were missing the ability to translate concepts and values into everyday practice:

 . . . a little bit more day-to-day practice driven versus Hōkai Rangi; it’s still so conceptual, it’s pie in the sky kind of stuff – I’m not poo-pooing it, but it’s so out here, that actually I just want something really tangible that I can go, ‘Oh I can do this’; and look, reference point . . . bicultural practice model . . . how are we doing this? – (Participant D)

Others suggested that the challenges with weaving Māori knowledge into practice may be due to the perceived complexity of some Māori models and concepts, compared to Western models. This was especially pertinent for Tauiwi participants and those who do not speak Māori language:

One or two of [Māori or bicultural frameworks] are really complex so it can be a little bit difficult for someone like me to get their head around sometimes, it can be a little bit difficult for me personally to connect all the moving parts. – (Participant R)

In summary, participants spoke of the challenges in applying Māori knowledge in practice and saw a need for more practical guidance to support them and provide reassurance that they are meeting the expectations of Corrections. This was also found by Rakuraku (2019) in her sample of custodial staff.

Personal competency and learning

This sub-theme describes the challenges faced by participants when learning about Māori approaches and increasing their competency. Participants spoke about how their lack of knowledge contributed to a fear of appearing tokenistic or only engaging with Māori approaches because they are told to or feel they have to, as opposed to being genuine in their intent:

 . . . early in my career . . . they said, we’re doing mihi whakatau and karakia [Māori welcome and blessings] for every group and every day and I was like, holy moly; and we got accused of it all the time of you’re just doing this out of box ticking and I guess not everyone understood why we were doing it. – (Participant C)

A lack of confidence in one’s knowledge was frequently discussed as a challenge, dissuading some participants from incorporating Māori approaches into their work:

Say pūrākau [Māori narratives] would be an example, or whakataukī [Māori proverbs]. I would feel that it would be presumptuous of me to use some of those as much as I’d like to because I don’t feel at this stage anyway I have the in-depth knowledge, wider understanding of the concepts to be able to really use them usefully with our men. So then it comes back to confidence and so you don’t tend to use them as much as I’d like to. – (Participant L)

This view was shared by Māori and Tauiwi participants; however, there were some who felt confident applying Māori models in practice. This confidence was often attributed to their level of Māori knowledge:

I don’t find it challenging, I would say my cultural competence is quite good and therefore if I’m looking at applying [Māori models and approaches] as part of my assessment to provide explanation, I feel really confident in applying those processes. – (Participant D)

However, as another participant described, some staff are unsure how much they are expected to know:

I hear people say, ‘Am I expected to become fluent in te reo?’ [Māori language] or ‘Do I have to learn different models of working?’ They’re just unsure what is expected of them. – (Participant U)

Others spoke about working within the limits of their knowledge and competency, and relying on others to support or reassure them that their practice is correct:

If it’s around language, say, like with my pepeha [personal introduction] by consulting with someone Māori who is able to have a look over and say, yes this is right or you could say it this way or whatever, yes so by consulting, I suppose by being very cautious and probably limiting the amount of reo [Māori language] that I use to stuff I feel comfortable with. – (Participant V)

In summary, participants cited a lack of knowledge and competency as a major challenge, which reduced their confidence to integrate Māori approaches within their practice, in line with previous research (Johnstone & Read, 2000; Sawrey, 1993). Participants also expressed being concerned about others, including clients and colleagues, viewing them as tokenistic if they appeared uncertain in their knowledge. They spoke about the importance of advice from colleagues who have expertise and working within the boundaries of their own knowledge.

Lack of time and resource

The final practical challenge is strongly related to the previous two and captures the lack of time to learn and apply knowledge, and issues with accessing Māori knowledge and resources. Due to the lack of time available within work hours, some participants described how they were learning Māori language or practices outside of work, as they recognised the importance of this. These participants were committed to developing their knowledge, despite this often adding to their exhaustion and full schedule. Others described being given time within work hours to engage in learning:

The course that I do is offered through an external agency but it’s backed by Corrections. It’s a full year of te reo [Māori language] . . . within work time. That’s two hours a week. A few people do that. That’s quite hard to fit into the schedule. – (Participant Q)

Participants also spoke about how the demands of practice, including time and resource constraints, did not allow for the flexibility needed to incorporate Māori approaches alongside Western psychology, which was seen as the foundation of practice. This sub-theme is linked with the tensions mentioned above and the prioritisation of Western psychology over Māori aspects of practice; this can cause issues when there does not seem to be time to use both types of knowledge:

 . . . it can be quite a demanding task in terms of hours, to be able to complete treatment needs reports, especially if you’re also seeking to weave in strength-based approaches, or cultural formulations. What we find is often the strength-based [i.e. Māori] elements tend to fade to the background, or are limited by the word count. They end up being something you need to fight to include, which is a shame. – (Participant O)

Participants expressed how accessibility of resources across teams was an issue, with some teams having access to much-needed resources that others did not have. Further, participants expressed the need for more staff who hold Māori knowledge to support other staff:

 . . . [Māori supervision] needs more support, more staff, more regular contact with staff to be able to provide that support that we need ’cause they’re doing an amazing job with the small amount of resources they have, and if they were properly resourced and supported the sky’s the limit. – (Participant R)

In summary, participants commented on the need for more time and resource to be allocated to enhancing their knowledge and confidence to engage with Māori approaches. This includes support, training and practical resources or tools. The reflections of these participants are aligned with those found in previous literature (e.g. Crawford, 2016; Jordan et al., 2021; Rakuraku, 2019), suggesting a widespread need for this type of support.

Overall, participants experienced numerous challenges when using Western and Māori knowledge together in practice. Māori practitioners faced unique tensions when working bi-culturally within a Western system. In line with previous studies, these challenges include having to fill additional roles to support Tauiwi colleagues and tensions between their professional and personal roles – for example, barriers to bringing their culture into their work and their responsibility to their people as well as to Corrections. Also in line with previous research, Tauiwi practitioners spoke of fears that are consistent with Pākehā paralysis, fears of offending Māori and not feeling competent to integrate Māori approaches into their practice. This study also found tensions relating to the requirements for boundaries and evidence-based practice. For example, participants felt unsure what to do when the evidence bases did not align or when there is limited time and resource to include content that is not considered core Corrections priorities (i.e. evidence based, related to risk reduction). Finally, in expanding on previous literature highlighting the lack of training and education for bi-cultural practice, we found that participants often lacked the time and resource to develop their knowledge and skills, and that they felt the guidance on what is expected of them is often too vague or aspirational.

Research Question 3: What are some ways forward to enhance bi-cultural practice?

The final question explores participants’ ideas to improve their practice and work in a more bi-cultural way. Participants’ ideas include personal approaches that they and other practitioners can take to their work, as well as ways in which organisations can support their staff to work bi-culturally.

Personal approach

This theme encompasses participants’ suggestions for how practitioners can personally overcome some of the challenges described in the previous sections, particularly those relating to a lack of knowledge and confidence in applying Māori approaches. Two sub-themes are included, openness and sitting with discomfort.

Openness

Participants discussed the importance of understanding your own identity and worldview, in order to be effective with clients from other cultures. Further, they described the need for practitioners to be open about their identity and level of knowledge with clients, and the benefits this could have for clients’ own understanding of and connection to their culture. This is seen in the following quote from a Māori participant:

Sharing your own difficulties with culture, like self-disclosure is so important, and kind of saying, ‘I didn’t grow up with te reo [Māori language] either. And it can be really hard to regain whakapapa [ancestral knowledge] when your grandparents might not be around to pass it onto you’. And so, not disclosing heaps of information about my family but sharing the experience of colonisation in the sense of not having access to knowledge, and normalising that. And so, how can I reduce the whakamā [shame] through normalising it, and then that creates an ability for them to be more open to giving it a go. – (Participant L)

This requires a level of vulnerability from practitioners, to be comfortable not being the expert in everything, including culture. As highlighted by Crawford (2016), this can be an uncomfortable space, especially when practitioners want clients to feel that they are safe working with them.

Sitting with discomfort

Participants discussed how important it is to be able to sit with the discomfort experienced when working with Māori approaches, when they have limited knowledge. Many participants commented on the time it takes to get familiar with and used to Māori practices and beliefs, especially if they are different to their own culture, and how this impacts on their confidence and level of comfort:

I think any clinical psychologist knows about imposter syndrome . . . I guess that the big internal challenge is feeling that, sitting with the discomfort. – (Participant Q)

However, as one participant discussed, there is a difference between feeling uncomfortable and not feeling safe. They expressed the view that ‘feeling unsafe’ could be used as an escape for Tauiwi, rather than acknowledging that they are just uncomfortable in the situation. It was suggested that a bi-cultural framework could help both Māori and Tauiwi to feel culturally safe in their practice, no matter their level of competency:

A bi-cultural framework would give permission for that person to not be comfortable but safe. ’Cause I think there’s a real danger when someone from the dominant culture feels uncomfortable to say they’re unsafe, then all of a sudden it’s not about them and then they don’t have to change . . . support not just me and other Māori but non-Māori to be able to identify the difference between safe and uncomfortable, which then can strengthen their ability to actually develop what they need to be comfortable. – (Participant X)

In summary, participants identified changes that they and others could make in their approach to bi-cultural practice. Participants discussed the need for practitioners to be open with clients about their own culture and their levels of connection and knowledge about cultural concepts. They also discussed the need to be patient with their learning and push past the discomfort of trying something new. This is also aligned with the views of participants in previous research, developing cultural competence was likened to a journey, and there was an acknowledgement that the discomfort may not ever go away (Crawford, 2016; Jordan et al., 2021).

System-level changes

In addition to these personal changes, participants shared their ideas about how Corrections could support staff in improving bi-cultural practice. Three sub-themes are leadership and support, acknowledging the credibility of Māori knowledge and working towards equity.

Leadership and support

This sub-theme highlights the belief that ‘buy-in’ from all levels of staff within Corrections is required to enhance and promote bi-cultural practice. Participants spoke about the importance of leadership from those in senior roles, to support important aspects of bi-cultural practice, such as Māori cultural supervision:

We need to actually have some people high up who are gonna protect that [Hōkai Rangi strategy], and again I think if KMS [Māori supervision] was supported . . . we need more people in those higher roles leading that. – (Participant R)

Further, participants noted that they needed more frequent supervision and support to expand their knowledge, whether that be applying Māori models or dealing with tensions in practice. Further, some participants felt that Māori supervision did not cater to their needs and lacked the individualisation they required:

If I need cultural supervision, I actually have to go to other people. Because the questions that I ask, everyone in the room’s going to go, ‘What the fuck does that mean?’ My needs are different. – (Participant D)

Participants also commented on the fact that Māori supervisors are not psychologists, stating that in an ideal world they would appreciate support from a psychologist with the cultural knowledge to supervise them. They felt that having such a person would be the best way to advance their knowledge, as they would be able to provide support with both clinical and Māori aspects of practice:

We’re just starting cultural supervision, which is great, but they’re not psychologists. . . . And I think that would be very helpful to start helping me integrate it more. . . . It is quite helpful, but they’re not guiding my practice day-to-day. A Māori psychologist who’s more experienced than me working in [Corrections] would be like a gift. – (Participant C)

In summary, participants recognised the need for strong leadership and increased cultural support and supervision to overcome some of the challenges previously discussed. They also suggested that having supervision that was specifically tailored to the requirements of their role, and their level of knowledge, would be beneficial. These suggestions align with recent literature around bi-cultural practice and the tendency for organisations to engage in tokenistic use of Māori approaches rather than collaborating (Jordan et al., 2021). Strong commitment from leadership and well-resourced support would help staff to feel confident that they are embedding Māori knowledge within their practice appropriately, and not in a tokenistic way.

Acknowledging the credibility of Māori knowledge

Considering the tensions and inequities mentioned earlier, participants discussed the need for Māori approaches to be given more weight and perceived worth in Corrections, and the psychology and rehabilitation space specifically. Participants suggested that this would require increased flexibility within practice, but also a greater acknowledgement of the origins of Māori knowledge and the value that it has, in terms of guiding rehabilitation:

 . . . there needs to be more creative options for psychologists I think, to bring culture and interventions into prison, and I think more flexibility to allow for that. – (Participant O)

 . . . we need to recognise that Māori had psychology before Western people invented psychologists. Māori were dealing with these concepts before colonisation, they were dealing with them well, and I think we need to acknowledge that more. – (Participant R)

Participants believed that there was a place for Māori knowledge in psychological practice, but there is more support needed to cement its perceived legitimacy. This could be achieved by increasing evaluation of Māori approaches and promoting a bi-cultural approach to research (Martel et al., 2022) and, as Participant R reflects, broadening our understanding of what evidence looks like. This sub-theme supports some of the previous research and claims about the inequities within psychology and Corrections (Jordan et al., 2021; Leaming & Willis, 2016).

Working towards equity

This final sub-theme highlights participants’ views about the need to increase the influence of Māori staff in decision-making roles to ensure equity in leadership and role model collaborative bi-cultural practice:

I think the key thing is the inequity in balance and power. Really what we need to do is have interventions that are all Māori thinking and then let Māori decide for themselves which pieces of Western psychology would be helpful and bring them in. – (Participant S)

This suggests that participants believe that equity, in terms of the ability of Māori practitioners to influence practice, is an important step towards bi-cultural practice. It is not necessarily about number of Māori practitioners, but the power they have to make decisions about matters that impact on Māori. Participants suggested that more equity in leadership roles would help to ensure that bi-cultural frameworks and Māori approaches were advanced and integrated into practice. Finally, participants described the analogy of Corrections or Māori supervision as a waka (canoe), and the need for staff to move together as one to keep the waka steady:

I really love the current analogy that . . . Māori supervision is putting out there in terms of bicultural practice, and it’s He Waka Hourua [double hulled canoe]; around we are navigators, we are all on a waka on a journey, and our outcome is dependent on which star we’re wanting to travel towards. – (Participant P)

In summary, participants described system-level changes that would enhance bi-cultural practice. These changes included leadership and support, increasing the evidence base and acknowledging the value of Māori approaches, and working towards equity through collaboration and shared decision-making. It was suggested that these changes would support Māori and Tauiwi to feel safer and more confident in their journey towards working bi-culturally.

Insight into the perceived ways forward to enhance bi-cultural practice adds a solution-focused element to the previous research and can help to inform both systemic changes and personal approaches by practitioners. Suggestions made by participants include acknowledging that they are on a learning journey, remaining open and motivated to increase their competence and learning how to sit with the discomfort of feeling incompetent or risking causing offence to Māori. In terms of what Corrections could do to support them, participants suggested that having more support (i.e. increased Māori supervision and training) and role-specific guidance concerning what is expected of them would be helpful. Participants thought a bi-cultural framework would be helpful to operationalise Māori approaches and provide some confidence that they are practising at an appropriate level. It was also suggested that equity and bi-culturalism should be established and role modelled by leadership.

Discussion

This study explored Māori and Tauiwi rehabilitation practitioners’ experiences of working bi-culturally within a correctional setting in New Zealand. This research adds to a small but growing number of studies that have focused on bi-cultural practice in New Zealand and is the first to focus on this setting and population specifically. Themes were developed to describe the views of these practitioners on different approaches to practice, the challenges they face and some of the ways they see bi-cultural practice being enhanced in the future. We now explore the implications of these findings for practice, consider the strengths and weaknesses of this study and make some suggestions for future research.

Clear recommendations for practice emerge from these findings. First, we suggest that training for practitioners within the psychology and rehabilitation space (both tertiary and workplace) needs to increase awareness of bi-culturalism and contain a more equitable level of Māori content (e.g. history, language, practices, models of health). This would begin to address many of the issues above: firstly, it would increase practitioner exposure to a Māori world view and approaches to practice, resulting in an increase over time in their knowledge and ability to apply this within practice. This would help to develop practitioners who are confident and competent to work safely with Māori clients and other cultural minorities. Secondly, it would help practitioners understand the relationships between different sources of knowledge (e.g. research evidence, practitioner expertise, client needs and values; Spring & Neville, 2011) and develop ways to overcome some of the epistemic tensions experienced. If done effectively, this would also help practitioners to understand the origins of Māori knowledge and appreciate its value when working with both Māori and Tauiwi clients. It is important to note the differences in the origins and aims of Western and Māori approaches (i.e. practical knowledge versus scientific research, promoting holistic health versus reducing harmful behaviour) and for practitioners to understand that these can be seen as complementary, rather than competing, approaches. The themes developed here suggest that practitioners do see these as contrasting but also that it is necessary to use these together; we suggest that a deeper understanding of the synergies and tensions between these perspectives may support practitioners to use these effectively in their practice.

We also suggest that training, particularly for Tauiwi practitioners, should include some consideration of cultural safety and discomfort. As raised by one participant, feeling discomfort may be seen as a reason to disengage from working with Māori approaches and clients, because it leads to feeling unsafe. However, there is a difference between safety and comfort, practitioners can sit with the discomfort associated with privilege and uncertainty, while still feeling that they are safe and supported in their practice. It was also suggested that practitioners could be more aware of and open about their own positionality, in terms of their own culture and levels of knowledge. We suggest that an increased awareness of positionality and the difference between safety and comfort can support increased power sharing and more equitable approaches to practice at the individual practitioner level. For example, when practitioners understand the relationship between different types of knowledge and how to tailor these to the needs of their clients, and they are confident in their role within rehabilitation, they can collaborate with others to work bi-culturally, even though this may be uncomfortable at first.

Further, we suggest that practitioners need support from the organisations that they work for, to develop and maintain competence, including time and resource, and adequate role-specific supervision. In line with participants’ experiences, Māori supervision should be tailored to the demands of practitioners’ roles and their level of competence. What is an appropriate frequency and format of supervision should be agreed upon by practitioners and their organisation. We acknowledge that this provision of training and supervision is challenging given the low numbers of Māori working in universities and rehabilitation spaces. However, we are hopeful that over time, and with increased investment in recruiting Māori and training in Māori and Western approaches to psychology and rehabilitation, this will become more achievable. We caution organisations against burdening Māori staff with additional responsibilities, without properly resourcing this. Further, enhancing practice in this area requires a real commitment from staff across organisations, including those in leadership roles, to be clear about their expectations of bi-cultural practice and support staff appropriately and consistently (Tamatea et al., 2010). A more equitable approach to practice will involve more Māori staff in leadership roles, where they can make decisions that affect Māori staff and clients.

Relatedly, we suggest that, in addition to high-level aspirational strategies, organisations should invest in developing role- and context-specific guidance to operationalise bi-cultural practice. It was evident that participants were motivated to enhance their practice, but that guidance was needed for practitioners to know that they are working in line with the expectations of their organisation, and to feel confident that they are working in both an evidence-based and culturally responsive manner. If practitioners do not feel supported to work in more bi-cultural ways, they may feel unsafe to try promising or new approaches in the face of a small or uncertain evidence-base. Resources may include tools for ethical and equitable decision-making, guidance for how to collaborate and weave together approaches, and considerations for implementing new approaches safely. Finally, we suggest that there needs to be an increase in investment in evaluating bi-cultural approaches to practice, with clear articulation and measurement of the outcomes of interest (Tamatea et al., 2010). Only through evaluating these approaches will we begin to guild a local evidence-base for what works to rehabilitate people in New Zealand. This would increase confidence in the use of Māori approaches alongside Western psychology and result in the refinement of bi-cultural approaches. This research should draw from a range of methodologies and world views, including a wide range of outcomes and variables (e.g. Martel et al., 2022).

This study has strengths and limitations, which should be acknowledged when considering these findings. Firstly, we used reflexive thematic analysis to explore participants’ first-hand experiences; this allowed for an in-depth exploration of the research questions, which is a strength when researching an area with a scarce body of literature. Our methodology allowed us to explore the perspectives and personal understandings of participants, prioritising their voice within the research. However, it also means that our findings are somewhat subjective, as they capture the perspectives of 20 practitioners who volunteered to be interviewed, and the interpretation of their answers was undertaken by a researcher who does not have in-depth knowledge about their day-to-day practice. While we were not aiming to generalise these results, it is likely that we attained a sample of practitioners who were particularly motivated to enhance bi-cultural practice. Further, as we over-sampled for Māori practitioners, our sample is not representative of the rehabilitation workforce. This was intentional, as we wanted to ensure that we had enough Māori participants to understand their unique experiences. Finally, the fact that the three members of the research team who were most closely involved in the interviews and analysis were Tauiwi may have influenced the findings. Māori participants may have felt mistrust when discussing these issues with a Tauiwi interviewer, and theme development was undertaken from a Tauiwi perspective. The use of reflexive thematic analysis is a strength here, as the positionality of researchers is explicitly considered and reported. Further, Māori members of the research team supported the interviews and analysis through providing guidance about how to conduct the interviews in a culturally appropriate way (e.g. using Māori introductions and blessings) and being involved in the refinement of themes and interpretation of Māori participants’ transcripts.

Future research may build on these findings by exploring these research questions in a larger or different sample. For example, the same questions could be asked of a wider range of Corrections (or other organisations) rehabilitation practitioners (in interviews and surveys), including comparing those with different levels of cultural competence. Given that this study and previous research have found challenges when working with colleagues who are less motivated to work bi-culturally, future research may explore the reasons for this reluctance. In addition, future research might add further depth to our understanding of the themes developed through this research – for example, through more targeted questioning around the ways that Māori supervision or training can be improved and better resourced, or how Tauiwi practitioners have worked through the discomfort associated with using Māori approaches. Further, as above, we suggest that efforts to address these issues should be undertaken and researched to evaluate their efficacy and improve initiatives over time (Tamatea et al., 2010). For example, any efforts to provide guidance to practitioners to work bi-culturally should be piloted and refined through feedback around its usefulness in practice. It would also be beneficial for future research to employ bi-cultural and mixed methodology (e.g. Martel et al., 2022) – for example, including practitioner ratings of comfort with different aspects of practice, or rating how these have improved over time and following intervention. This is important to ensure that we are investing our time and efforts in the right place, so we can ensure that any changes have an impact on practitioner competence and confidence in their ability to work bi-culturally.

Conclusion

The findings of this study suggest that there are key differences between Māori and Western psychological approaches, and that these can cause tensions within practice. However, participants believe it is possible to use these together, through a bi-cultural approach, to enhance the wellbeing and prevent recidivism of people in the care of Corrections. Participants experienced a range of challenges to practicing bi-culturally, including tensions caused by differences in methodologies and epistemologies of each perspective, systemic inflexibility, tensions between personal and professional identities, lack of confidence and gaps in knowledge and resources. Participants identified ways forward for enhancing bi-cultural practice within Corrections, including their personal approach to learning and practice, as well as increasing support, resource and practice guidance. These insights are incredibly valuable in understanding and enhancing bi-cultural practice in New Zealand and achieving meaningful outcomes with Māori and Tauiwi clients.

Ethical standards

Declaration of conflicts of interest

Roxanne Heffernan has declared no conflicts of interest.

Isabella Stroes has declared no conflicts of interest.

Ryan Botha has declared no conflicts of interest.

Mate Webb has declared no conflicts of interest.

Tarsh Edwards has declared no conflicts of interest.

Samantha Hart has declared no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee [Victoria University of Wellington Human Ethics Committee, ID 30060] and with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge the support of the New Zealand Department of Corrections and the participants who so generously shared their experiences and perspectives.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Victoria University of Wellington under Grant number 410116.

Notes

1 A permanent commission of inquiry set up in 1975, which hears breaches of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and makes recommendations for redress.

2 We use the term Tauiwi throughout this paper to refer to all non-Māori, to reflect the diversity in knowledge bases and ethnicities of participants. The term Western is used to refer to the international psychological evidence base, which is largely Euro-American, and Pākehā is used when specifically mentioned by participants or within the literature, meaning New Zealanders of European descent (i.e. colonial settlers, the Crown).