Tom Roa

Missing in translation: Maori language and oral tradition in scientific analyses of traditional ecological knowledge (TEK)

Recent conceptual shifts in ecology towards integration of humans into ecosystems requires all possible sources of ecological knowledge available (Berkes 2004, 2009 this issue). Māori traditional ecological knowledge of natural systems (TEK) can add valuable ecological data to more conventional scientific studies as the former tends to be diachronic, based on a cummulative system of understanding the environment founded on observations and experience (Gadgil et al. 1993; Berkes 2008), while the latter is frequently synchronic, with experiments that may explore causal effects in ecological patterns (Newman & Moller 2005; Moller et al. 2009a). However accessing TEK can be both difficult and time-consuming, as demonstrated by the 14-year research project Kia Mau Te Tītī Mo Ake Tonu Atu (the ‘Keep the Tītī Forever’ research project; Moller et al. 2009a). We argue that oral traditions offer a wealth of information that is frequently overlooked, in part because of a lack of knowledge of te reo Māori (the Māori language) and, further, a lack of recognition of the inextricable link between biological and cultural diversity (Maffi 2005). Māori rarely express concepts and ideas directly, rather tending to use imagery in order to understand and convey history (Tau & Anderson 2008). Thus, whakataukī (ancestral sayings), pūrākau and kōrero (myths and stories), karakia (prayer), and waiata (song) are enduring and relevant as “records of tribal memory” (Kawharu 2008). Such cultural knowledge is not always easily accessible, and may require extensive contextualisation to make sense. Many of the above vehicles for TEK are embedded in idiom, dialect, and tribal identity markers, and are dependent on the structure, meaning and function of their context. That is, they are rarely transparent at face value (Steiner 1998). Posey (1996) argues that taxonomic systems, emic perceptions, and codified knowledge of overt and covert categories depend on language as a major vehicle for cultural transmission. Māori structured taxonomies differ from Linnaean taxonomy, for example, as whakapapa (genealogy) expresses relationships between ecosystem components, human beings, and their relationship with the environment (Roberts et al. 2004). Additionally, each name has its own whakapapa, imbued with information about the process of naming. Thus, names may reference tribal markers, for instance, and in doing so create a knowledge system for future generations to follow. Unfortunately, traditional knowledge of names, classifications and taxonomies has been eroded over generations (Tipa & Nelson 2007). However, current work on  

New Zealand's Performance Based Research Funding (PBRF) model undermines Maori research

The Performance Based Research Funding (PBRF) model was instigated in 2002 to increase “the quality of research through peer assessment and performance indicators” in New Zealand (Ministry of Education 2002: 17). It is used to allocate funding between universities, departments and researchers according to the putative quality and quantity of their research outputs over the preceding 6 years. PBRF is expected to incentivise improved research excellence and efficiency, and allow government to invest research funds where greatest returns will result. This is potentially a huge gain for Māori. However, “by changing the conditions of knowledge production, research assessment exercises may also alter the shape and direction of disciplines by diverting and channelling researchers’ intellectual attention and political engagement, influencing what they study, how they do it, and how they report and write” (Middleton 2009: 194). Indeed, universities repeatedly encourage researchers to focus on activities that will improve their PBRF rankings. We believe that an unintended consequence of PBRF is the creation of significant barriers to increasing the volume, scope and quality of environmental research for Māori. We are a group of Māori and Pākehā researchers that are ‘PBRF eligible’ (we would say ‘PBRF vulnerable’) that seek to help realise the government’s Vision Mātauranga to ‘unlock the innovation potential of Māori knowledge, resources and people’ (MoRST 2005). We do not speak for Māori. Rather we speak as scholars that wish to use Māori values and processes in the way we discover or co-produce knowledge in the ways described by Smith (1999), Harmsworth (2001), Allen et al. (2009 this issue), and Moller et al. (2009). We have identified 14 problems that stem from the PBRF process, including its definitions of quality science, who gets to decide, inequity between career stages and gender, and the way PBRF is administered. (1) PBRF discourages long-term research, just as did the Research Assessment Exercise, the United Kingdom’s equivalent scheme (Elton 2000). It took the Kia Mau te Tītī Mo Ake Tōnu Atu researchers and community nearly a decade to build a fully trusted relationship and the research progressed much more slowly than ‘normal’ science (Moller et al. 2009). This slower

He Matapihi Mā Mua, Mō Muri: The Ethics, Processes, and Procedures Associated with the Digitization of Indigenous Knowledge—The Pei Jones Collection

The digital era has transformed how people live their lives and interact with the world and knowledge systems around them. In Aotearoa/New Zealand a range of initiatives incorporating Indigenous knowledge have been implemented to collect, catalog, maintain, and organize digital objects. In this article, we report on the ethics, processes, and procedures associated with the digitization of the manuscripts, works, and collected taonga (treasures) of the late Dr. Pei Te Hurinui Jones—and describe how it was transformed into a digital library. It discusses the decision-making processes and the various roles and responsibilities of the researchers, family members, and institute in this process.

Māori oral traditions record and convey indigenous knowledge of marine and freshwater resources

ABSTRACT Whakataukī are part of a strongly developed Māori oral tradition that conveys critical information about aspects of life, society and tribal memory, including ecological knowledge. Such codified knowledge depends on language use and structure as a key mechanism for cultural transmission. Additionally, many meanings may not be apparent without knowing the historical, cultural and linguistic context from which the whakataukī originated. We examined a primary dataset of c. 3500 versions of whakataukī, drawn from collections published after European arrival c. 200 years ago, to determine how marine and freshwater principles, practices and knowledge bases have developed in response to changing environmental and societal contexts in Aotearoa. We present information on marine and freshwater resources contained in whakataukī to shed light on the connections between humans and their environment that transcend prosaic uses and enlighten deeper social and behavioural engagement with the surrounding environment. Understanding past engagement can help shape future marine and freshwater relationships in Aotearoa.