Abstract
Background:
Ninety-one per cent of Aotearoa New Zealand prisoners have been diagnosed with either a mental health or substance use disorder within their lifetime. Challenges exist in how to meet their needs. Diverse pūrākau (stories) of success in whānau ora (wellbeing) and stopping offending are missing from academic and public discourse that should direct law and policy changes.
Aims and objectives:
We describe a kaupapa Māori co-production project called He Ture Kia Tika/Let the Law be Right. We highlight how kaumātua (Māori indigenous elders), academics, and practitioners merged their voices with people with lived experiences of mental health, addiction, and incarceration to create justice policy and solutions.
Methods:
We focus on the theory and application of our co-production, directed by kaupapa Māori methodology. We describe the work of a co-design group that actively guides the project, from inception towards completion, using rangahau kawa (research protocols) as culturally clear guidelines and ethically safe practices. We then detail our processes involved in the collection of co-created pūrākau (storytelling) with 40 whānau (family) participants, and describe our continued collaboration to ensure law and policy recommendations are centred on lived experiences.
Findings:
Kaupapa Māori informed co-production ensured rangahau kawa (research protocol and guidelines) were created that gave clear direction for an engagement at all levels of the project. We see this as bringing to life co-production, moving beyond theory to the practicalities of ‘being’ and ‘doing’ with each other in safe, ethical ways for all.
Discussions and conclusions:
A strong association exists between unmet mental health needs and reoffending. Tackling cultural, health, social and justice issues requires a multi-layered approach from a range of rangatira (leaders including kaumātua/elders) and tohunga, or experts, of their lived experiences to inform future policy and law reform.
Key messages
The rationale for the paper draws on the expertise of those with lived experiences to determine how research can be co-designed and co-produced.
The paper outlines how kaupapa Māori (cultural approach) can direct co-production.
The co-creation of a research kawa (protocol) provided culturally clear guidelines and safe practices.
Kaupapa Māori co-production details the creative processes used in co-creating whanau kōrero pūrākau (participant storytelling).
Introduction
In this paper, we provide a reflexive account of a kaupapa Māori-led co-production project that aims to envisage a criminal justice system that better supports people experiencing mental distress and/or addiction. We begin by providing the background to the project, where we build up a rationale for our research and methodology. Within this process we focus on the distinct cultural context upon which our research practices are based. Our focus is important given that existing approaches have been largely ethnocentric in their origin, which can influence how knowledge is produced, what knowledge is privileged, and even what constitutes participation. As such, adopting the assumptions of these approaches has the potential to perpetuate the colonising effects already experienced by indigenous populations, described further below. While we recognise the important contributions of wider participatory research, those immersed in this kind of research will be able to make their own connections to our processes. Due to word constraints these details are not specifically included in this article. Instead, we focus on the distinct cultural context upon which our research practices are based. Importantly, those immersed in wider participatory research will be able to make their own connections.1 This background is followed by our narrative of developing and undertaking the project. The paper primarily focuses on our methodology as we are not yet able to foresee research and policy impacts of our findings. In telling our story, we emphasise the power of kōrero pūrākau (storytelling) as a central feature of what makes our methodology creative, legitimate as evidence, and relevant to the indigenous people of Aotearoa New Zealand.
Background
The criminal justice system in Aotearoa
This project is particularly important because of the high incidence of mental health and addiction needs among populations who commit criminal offences in Aotearoa. Mental health disorders are up to five times more prevalent among prisoners than in the general population (Department of Corrections, 2016). One study found 91% of prisoners had been diagnosed with a mental health or substance use disorder within their lifetime (Indig et al, 2016), with less than half (47%) of this sample receiving treatment. Young people have expressed an explicit relationship between their offending and use of drugs, and this is matched in adulthood with alcohol use and offending (Bowman, 2015). Overall, unmet mental health and addiction needs have been repeatedly reported as clearly maintaining a pipeline towards prison (Bowman, 2015; Gluckman, 2018).
Aotearoa has one of the highest imprisonment rates in The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Approximately 220 people per 100,000 population, compared to OECD average of 147 per 100,000 are imprisoned (Gluckman, 2018). Recently, the Office of the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor reported on the association between rising incarceration rates and a culture of retribution embedded in government policy. For example, Aotearoa has a high prison population despite a record low in crime, conviction and sentencing rates. This means the high incarceration rates are the likely result of successive governments’ pull on the ‘tough on crime’ rhetoric, resulting in costly use of non-evidence-based imprisonment over well-evidenced rehabilitative approaches (Gluckman, 2018; Pratt, 2013).
Gluckman (2018) argued for an evidence-based policy agenda and drew on research to discuss an array of complex vulnerabilities that have impacted those incarcerated and young people at risk of criminal justice outcomes. For example:
Poverty has been associated with criminal justice outcomes, with research indicating a rise in challenging childhood behaviour in socially deprived communities.
Abuse in childhood is strongly associated with later violent offending.
People incarcerated are often victims of violence, subjected to sexual abuse and consequentially have a lifetime diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder and difficulties with managing aggression and anger.
Lower literacy levels and learning disabilities among adults and youth in justice settings overlay issues.
Studies have explored how rates of incarceration are associated with ongoing processes of colonisation and structural racism. The imprisonment rate for New Zealanders of European heritage is 93 per 100,000 population, compared to Māori at 704 per 100,000 (Skipworth, 2019). At all points of the criminal justice system, rates are disproportionately higher for Māori than for similar offences by non-Māori peers (Quince, 2007), and Māori are more likely to be represented in all vulnerabilities and risk factors. Despite this, Aotearoa has a lack of secure investment in indigenous approaches that support the whole whānau (this can include family, extended family, close connections, and genealogical associations) with their wellbeing needs and connectedness across the lifespan. To address the disproportionate inequities for Māori across various milieu it is important to offer diverse solutions that have a more culturally specific, whānau-centred approach.
A policy shift
In 2018, two government inquiries were announced into the criminal justice and mental health systems. Together, these inquiries indicated:
A lack of diverse services across a continuum of mental health and addiction care underpinned by dignity, respect, and empathy (Patterson et al, 2018).
Victims and family/whānau felt unsupported and disempowered in their pathway through the criminal justice system, with consistent themes of victims feeling unheard and re-victimised.
For those exiting prison, social care needs, such as work and housing, were absent but considered important in assisting successful, prosocial reintegration back into the community.
Widespread concern was voiced regarding the over-representation of Māori in the criminal justice system, as well as the punitive nature of the system, which neglects prevention, rehabilitation, and reconciliation (Te Uepū Hāpai i te Ora. Safe and Effective Justice Advisory Group, 2019).
A co-designed process involving new partnerships was recommended, with a focus on homegrown solutions, where transformation is led by those grossly overrepresented in the criminal justice system (Solomon and Murray, 2019).
The Government’s response was a $1.9 billion investment in mental health and addictions support in the 2019 budget. Allocations of $128.3 million for mental health and addictions services for offenders were provided. To date, the specifics of these initiatives have yet to be released.
The current criminal justice reform agenda in Aotearoa is moving towards the use of evidence being embedded in every aspect of criminal justice system transformation. We argue that for this to be realised by the Government, it is imperative that ‘evidence’ be collected culturally appropriately from the grassroots. This may require meanings of evidence to divert from Westernised ideas of science. Some such work includes actualising co-design with those with lived experience of incarceration to design better systems. The project, He Ture Kia Tika, began with the premise that co-production may provide the starting point from which to create positive outcomes.
Co-production in mental health and addictions
Our approach was influenced by existing co-production in mental health. Co-production is premised on the principles of partnership, equal distribution of power, and commitment to building consumer leadership capacity (Slay and Stephens, 2013; Carr and Patel, 2016; Roper et al, 2018). These principles require a shift in the focus of research from ‘doing to’ to ‘being and doing with’ the people relevant to the context of the study (Kidd and Edwards, 2016). For us, this meant thinking about working in partnership with people who have lived experience of the criminal justice system in the design, implementation, and dissemination of this project.
We also took learnings from co-production in addiction. Best argues that ‘recovery doesn’t happen within people, it happens between people’ (Best, 2016a; 2016b). This statement recognises that co-production is not just applicable to service users; it includes service providers, government, community groups and the whole spectrum of society, working together to identify gaps and implement solutions. Along with Best and Lubman (2012), we understand recovery as a social movement, whereby visible recovery champions generate a social contagion for hope. Recovery champions are people with a lived experience of recovery who then transmit the possibility of a life in recovery to others through their work or personal lives. Recovery champions are involved in co-production in many ways, but when ex-offenders have made this shift and get involved specifically in research, they bring an important perspective with them that is often missing (White et al, 2010).
While we found co-production to be a good fit, there are critical factors to consider. Co-production is commonly known to be used in a tokenistic manner, considered an abstract concept, and pays little attention to issues of intersectionality (Humphreys and Grayson, 2008; Roper et al, 2018; Rose and Kalathil, 2019). Writings on co-production can be less clear about the micro detail of how to do co-production in a way that is continually attuned to power imbalances and diversity of worldviews (Thom and Burnside, 2018). We were certain that to get the most out of our He Ture Kia Tika project, we required deep reflection and discussion about who we are, what we are aiming to do, and how we could do this together, that respects the safety of our co-design group and our participants.
Kaupapa Māori research
Fortunately, co-production shares values with kaupapa Māori research, with related aims to engage participants as experts by experience. Kaupapa Māori research is a distinct and ancient body of knowledge used by indigenous Māori, founded on epistemology, and includes tikanga values and practices as valid and legitimate (Nepe, 1991; Pihama, 2001). Kaupapa Māori research disrupts Pākehā (European) hegemony; it is political, promoting Māori control, autonomy, power, and self-determination, given the colonising impacts of power, privilege, racism, and other social justice issues (Curtis, 2016; Walker et al, 2006). Although kaupapa Māori research endorses ‘by Māori, for Māori and with Māori’, this does not mean it rejects Pākehā knowledge or participation. Instead, kaupapa Māori research provides a platform to challenge, question and critique who controls and benefits from that knowledge (Smith, 1999; Pihama et al, 2002; Mahuika, 2008). At its core, kaupapa Māori research aims to produce positive outcomes for all Māori beyond those who simply take part in the research (Walker et al, 2006; Mahuika, 2008).
Kaupapa Māori research provides a framework to challenge the dominance of Westernised ways of doing research and repositioning elements of power and control (Pihama et al, 2004). It is an approach we see as valuable principles to guide co-produced research and explicitly embrace our need to undertake intersectional research. Although critics may argue that kaupapa Māori research may totalise narratives and fail to show the intersectionality of different truths (Mahuika, 2008), we were cognisant of honouring the diversity of voices in co-designing this research with our partners. We drew on the values embedded in both co-production and kaupapa Māori research methodologies to create a research partnership among the co-production rōpū (group) to enable all to engage in the research process (Bishop, 1996; Smith, 1999).
Developing our methodology
In what follows, we detail our story of collaborating deliberately to promote an indigenous led co-production methodology. The story starts with our spark of an idea for a project, followed by our journey towards seeking funding and starting to get to know each other as a co-production rōpū (group). We then describe the work of a co-design group in developing our research design and rangahau kawa (research protocol) for culturally clear guidelines and ethically safe practices. Finally, we detail how this same kawa was extended to our co-created pūrākau (stories) with 40 whānau (family) participants.
Along the way there are props used to help tell the story, these include:
our reflections in speech bubbles;
breakout boxes to highlight culturally significant practices;
our ‘meeting minutes’ that provide further insights into our hui topa (zoom meetings);
Kawa summary on the mechanics of our methodology.
Four members of our co-production rōpū wrote this paper – Katey Thom, Stella Black, David Burnside, Jessica Hastings – each bringing diverse lived experiences which are reflected with different speech bubbles. The bubble suffixed with (KT) is Katey Thom, who identifies as Pākehā (non-Māori) wāhine (female); (SB) is Stella Black, a wāhine of Māori (Ngāi Tūhoe) descent; (DB) is David Burnside, a tane (male) and (JH) is Jessica Hastings, a wahine, both have experiences of incarceration and identify as Pākehā. We all have varying personal and work-based experiences of mental distress and addiction. Wider rōpū are also referred to, including Shane White (Ngāti Tara Tawhaki Tokonui, Ngāti Ranginui, Ngāti Raukawa), Elaine Ngamu (Ngāti Porou), Brian McKenna (Pākehā), Jeremy Tumoana (Ngā Ariki Kaiputahi, Te Aitanga a Mahaki, Ngāti Porou and Tūhoe), Tracey Cannon (Pākehā), Debra Lampshire (Pākehā), Martin Burke (Pākehā and Ngāpuhi), Warren Brookbanks (Pākehā), Rob Tua (Ngāpuhi, Te Atiawa), Jason Haitana (Ngāti Tūwharetoa, Te Āti Haunui-a-Pāpārangi), Daniel Exeter (Pākehā), Thomas White (Samoan and British), Shelley Turner (Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu), and Khylee Quince (Ngāpuhi, Ngāti Porou), all representing diverse ethnicities and experiences of incarceration, mental distress, and addiction.
The beginnings of He Ture Kia Tika
Speech bubble reflection box 1
Citation: Evidence & Policy 18, 2; 10.1332/174426421X16432180922551
Speech bubble reflection box 1
Citation: Evidence & Policy 18, 2; 10.1332/174426421X16432180922551
Speech bubble reflection box 1
Citation: Evidence & Policy 18, 2; 10.1332/174426421X16432180922551
To tell our story, we go back to where initial ideas were first sparked. KT, SB and DB had worked together on many research projects. As we started to disseminate our work at conferences, we found that explaining cultural concepts or lived experience roles, such as peer support, often took more time than we were allotted. Additionally, lived experience, it seemed, only mattered in specific events dedicated to this purpose. Our growing sense of dissatisfaction with the lack of research at the intersection where mental distress, addiction, and criminal justice systems meet, garnered our energy towards a new research proposal. At the time, Aotearoa was undergoing many aforementioned inquiries directly focused on transforming our criminal justice and mental health systems. We wondered, could we shape the future of these systems from evidence centred on the stories from people who experienced them? We knew nothing was going to change if systems were not led from those closest to the problems they are trying to resolve.
Securing funding
Fortunately, a new charity – The Michael and Suzanna Borrin Foundation – had been established as we were developing our ideas. In a curious process, we were asked to submit a funding application and were then shortlisted to present at an open forum with other applicants before a panel of reviewers. Although we broadly knew what we wanted to research, getting down to the specifics contravened our hopes to work in a co-production way. We needed to ‘pitch’ the project, selling it with tight research questions, aims and deliverables.
Speech bubble reflection box 2
Citation: Evidence & Policy 18, 2; 10.1332/174426421X16432180922551
Speech bubble reflection box 2
Citation: Evidence & Policy 18, 2; 10.1332/174426421X16432180922551
Speech bubble reflection box 2
Citation: Evidence & Policy 18, 2; 10.1332/174426421X16432180922551
In the end, we named this problem and spoke to the tentative design that we saw as fluid and ripe for transformation once we got the funding to get our co-production rōpū (collective) together. We had five minutes to describe this large-scale project. It was here that creativity became our friend. Instead of multiple PowerPoint slides that we would not get through in time, we presented a poster that represented the project (Figure 3). This removed the academic nature of our proposal and shone a light immediately on our kaupapa (purpose) for the panel. It worked! We were funded for a three-year project, embedded with paid researchers and consultant roles for people with lived experience. The next step was consulting with our community.
Consulting with our community
Speech bubble reflection box 3
Citation: Evidence & Policy 18, 2; 10.1332/174426421X16432180922551
Speech bubble reflection box 3
Citation: Evidence & Policy 18, 2; 10.1332/174426421X16432180922551
Speech bubble reflection box 3
Citation: Evidence & Policy 18, 2; 10.1332/174426421X16432180922551
In late 2018, we brought our newly formed co-production rōpū together and offered the space to get to know each other and share our stories. We wanted to start our community engagement off on a solid footing. With this, our first hui took place on marae (courtyard) and included pōwhiri (Māori welcoming ceremony) and whakawhanaungatanga (a process of introductions and making connections). After the formalities of the pōwhiri concluded, we shared in kai (food) before returning to the comfort of the wharenui (meeting house).
The remainder of the hui included presentations of the pitch to the funder (KT, SB and Daniel Exeter) using the poster (Figure 3) and toy blocks as visual aids to describe what we could do with statistical data. Much of the discussion revolved around the co-production rōpū members sharing their personal experiences within the criminal justice and health systems. This was an important layer of building our connections and something we needed to dedicate time to share what stake we each had in this kaupapa. Our discussions strengthened the development of our research design and research guidelines, not only within our co-production rōpū but how we would engage with whānau participants later. A date was made to meet again, and we explicitly acknowledged the multiple demands on our co-production rōpū, stating we wanted to allow people to come and go and give to the project on their terms. Figure 6 represents our first hui.
Guided by kaumatua on our co-production rōpū, we were conscious that we required support from mana whenua (indigenous peoples with historic rights over the land). Members of the research team (KT, SB, DB and Khylee Quince) met with Dame Naida Glavish, a Rangatira (a Māori person of rank or authority) of Ngāti Whātua (local iwi (tribe) to our research). Dame Naida is known for her passion for this research context, and meeting with her was crucial for doing justice to our kaupapa Māori research methodology. The hui resulted in Dame Naida gifting our research a taonga (treasure) in the form of the project name: He Ture Kia Tika /Let the Law be Right. Khylee Quince describes how the title was appropriate, explaining ‘kia’ is a verb indicating ongoing action, desire, or effect to let the law be right. Having obtained support, we provided assurances that we would keep Dame Naida informed of the project progression and felt mandated to keep going with the project.
Building our research design
Speech bubble reflection box 4
Citation: Evidence & Policy 18, 2; 10.1332/174426421X16432180922551
Speech bubble reflection box 4
Citation: Evidence & Policy 18, 2; 10.1332/174426421X16432180922551
Speech bubble reflection box 4
Citation: Evidence & Policy 18, 2; 10.1332/174426421X16432180922551
Our next hui can be represented in Figure 11. Shane White started with karakia (prayer) and mihi (Māori greeting). After whakawhanaungatanga and a project update, the co-production rōpū were invited to discuss what the research should examine. Overwhelmingly, the co-production rōpū wanted us to centre our research on lived experiences of incarceration. We would aim to collect stories of self-defined success co-created with research participants. Our group thought stories should focus on turning points in life in recovery and free of offending. This may unravel many barriers to people being what they wanted to be, but also allow for stories of whānau ora (wellness and connection), restoration and redemption. In turn, the stories might shatter stereotypical views of offenders and shine a light on the varying reasons behind criminality, including significant trauma, thereby building empathy and connection to offenders’ lives from the public.
Speech bubble reflection box 5
Citation: Evidence & Policy 18, 2; 10.1332/174426421X16432180922551
Speech bubble reflection box 5
Citation: Evidence & Policy 18, 2; 10.1332/174426421X16432180922551
Speech bubble reflection box 5
Citation: Evidence & Policy 18, 2; 10.1332/174426421X16432180922551
We took guidance about how our shift in focus should be done, firstly by changing the labels we used, for example, switching from ‘offender’ to ‘whānau’. A simple shift in language created a different set of responsibilities that we already offered to each other – we would work with our participants in a way that we were all whānau.
Development of the final research design took place over several months outside hui. By the next hui in 2019 (see Figure 12), the core team presented the research design.
SB shared the ‘guidelines for cultural engagement and safety’ (see Table 1), a two-page guideline informed by the literature (Pere, 1988; Cram and Pipi, 2000; Pipi et al, 2004; Hudson et al, 2010; Eketone, 2012; Simmonds, 2015), but also drew on SB’s extensive research experience using tikanga Māori values and practices. We were now ready to collect the stories.
Te Ara Tohu
| Tikanga/Principle | Rationale | Putting things into practice |
|---|---|---|
| Whakapapa (origin) | Focuses on how the research began and is being developed. Nā wai? Whose research is this and why? | – Be clear with the kaupapa/purpose of the research |
| – Who developed it? | ||
| – What is the purpose? | ||
| – Who will the research benefit? | ||
| – What does the outcome look like? | ||
| Rangatira ki te rangatira (chief to chief) | Ensure those with mana (status) are engaging. Kei te hui tatau me wai? Who are we meeting with? | – Ensure the right people, rangatira (leaders, experts) or researchers are involved for the right hui or interviews |
| Nā te timata (from the start) | Early engagement | – Involve Māori from the start, be present throughout the whole hui including kai |
| – Be prepared for the long-haul | ||
| – Plan hui early to enable full participation | ||
| – Invite participation and determine how they want to be involved, for example, hui, email, or newsletter updates | ||
| – determine if they have an MOU or informal process, they want us to work under | ||
| – how will you continue this long-term relationship? | ||
| Whakamana (empower) | Consistently monitor and improve engagement to empower | – Acknowedge and enhance the mana (status) of research particpants |
| – Act in accordance with the mana of the research team | ||
| – Acknowledge the tinorangatiratanga (self-determinatoin) of Māori to decline to be invovled in this research | ||
| Whakatika (accountability in terms of correcting the wrongs) | Kia tūpato (use caution), review and correct processes | – Be accountable and take responsibility |
| – Listen and act on feedback | ||
| – Engage in ongoing kōrerorero (dialogue) | ||
| – Feedback on how issue resolved | ||
| Kotahitanga (unity) | Create a safe place for the diversity of perspectives within a common goal | – Facilitate the sharing of different views with respect |
| – Encourage full participation | ||
| – Be prepared for consideration of a Māori holistic worldview | ||
| Tikanga Māori (correct Māori ways of doing things) Culturally correct processes in working with Māori in considering the nature, shape and design of the project including Māori participation, analysis, and dissemination of results (Simmonds, 2015). | Guided by kaumātua and Māori researchers, it uses processes that use culturally correct processes in working with Māori. The research aims to improve Māori outcomes, and contributes to equity and Māori health development. | – Recognise, respect, and use tikanga Māori values and practices |
| – If in doubt seek guidance cultural advice | ||
| Active whakawhanaungatanga (relationship building and development) (Bishop, 1996) | Build rapport, trust and ongoing relationships | – Identify who should be approached? For example, individuals, whānau, iwi, hapū, kahui kaumātua ropu, individuals (for example, rangatira (leaders), marae kaumātua, and so on) |
| – use a process to build trust and rapport, for example, via key link/connector | ||
| Kanohi kitea (face that is seen) (Cram and Pipi, 2000; Pipi et al, 2004) | Cultural preference to meet in person, share pepeha and stories to build rapport and trust | – Meet in person (be prepared for pōwhiri or mihi whakatau). |
| – What support will be needed? (for example, te reo speakers, whaikōrero, and so on) | ||
| – Determine ongoing communication via email, or zoom meetings can take place | ||
| Whakapono (honest, open, ko te tūmanako (transparent) | Work with integrity and in good faith | Open honesty in seeking perspectives and feedback Be clear and transparent in all communications |
| Ki tai wiwi, ki tai waeawaea (be flexible) | Work with each organisation processes and structures Plan, to adapt to issues | – ongoing consultation, at different levels |
| – seek input on the details, for example, when, where, what, how and who’s involved | ||
| Ko te hanga raukaha (build capacity) | Contribute to enhancing Māori capacity and capabilities | – Do Māori communities have the capacity to participate? |
| – Participation should not cause financial burden for example, catering, venue use | ||
| Manaakitanga (caring and sharing), aroha (love) | Reciprocal giving and sharing means being prepared | – Preparation is key, to share our stories, experiences, info, ideas, and whakapapa |
| – Don’t be afraid to kōrero Māori, share your pepeha, know a waiata | ||
| – Observe karakia and other customs for cultural safety | ||
| – Kai and other ways of giving koha as reciprocal giving and sharing | ||
| – Provide advice (where qualified) and/or make appropriate referrals as an obligation of caring | ||
| Mahaki (humble) | Be humble but willing to share | – Provide advice (where qualified) and/or make appropriate referrals as an obligation of caring |
| – If in doubt seek guidance cultural advice or otherwise | ||
| – be willing to share your knowledge with humility | ||
| Ko wai kei te honohono, kei te tuitui i a tātou? (who is the key link or connector?) | Key link or connectors are members of the team? | – How, what is needed? |
| Tikanga haumaru (safety procedures) and cultural supervision (Pere, 1988; Eketone, 2012) | Māori rules, methods, approaches, customs, habits, rights, authority and control (Pere, 1988) | – Kaumatua guidance and the incorporation of tikanga based practices and values will be implemented. |
| – Utilise KM approaches to deal with sensitive material: a pōhiri (welcome ceremony) or mihi whakatau (less formal welcome) are like the rules of engagement; these can be reflected wherever a meeting or interview takes place. | ||
| – KMR is underpinned by manaakitanga (caring), whanaungatanga (sharing), karakia (spiritual). | ||
| – Interviews will be conducted in pairs and checking in with KT before and after interviews. | ||
| – In rare cases of serious escalation, use of de-escalation techniques from Non-Violent Crisis Intervention training, at that instance by Dave, followed by referrals to our list of providers for support. | ||
| – SB, DB, and others involved in data collection to complete the peer debriefing within a week of the interview being conducted. If any issues arise, support can be sought from Katey or matua Ken. | ||
| – Cultural supervision will take place regularly or as required by the kaumātua. |
Guidelines for consultation and engagement with Māori including individuals, whānau, hapū, iwi and services, NGOs, rūnanga, and Māori communities.
Collecting stories
Our core team of four (the authors) managed the collection of stories. Recruitment of whānau occurred in two ways, either via the networks among our co-production rōpū or via our website (heturekiatika.com). Most whānau were contacted by SB to ensure they met our criteria, understood what was involved, and to answer any queries they had. Options were provided for someone with lived experience or certain gender and/or ethnicity to conduct their interview. Where possible, interviews were conducted by two interviewers where one person with lived experience was present. Having two interviewers present aided in our interpretations of the pūrākau, for example, from a te ao Māori (Māori worldview), gender, or lived experience point of view.
Each interview began with a mihi (greeting) and whakawhanaungatanga of sharing pepeha (who we are). Kai (food) was shared, and we gifted our whānau a food voucher.
As the collaborative pūrākau process is iterative, we highlighted that we would come back to them in a staged consent process. Consent was fluid in this sense. For example, some whānau were clear they wanted to be named in their story, others chose pseudonyms and then some chose to de-identify when they saw the first draft of their story. All whānau were assured that our first collaboration on their story was their copy. Co-creation of stories fit for public consumption would take place when we were ready; the power to decide was in the control of whānau. The recorder was then turned on and whānau were asked to tell us about their journey. The focus was on telling their story in the way whānau wanted to. Interviews ranged in time from 24 minutes to 3 hours and 7 minutes. After a closing karakia, the whānau were given a general timeline (4–6 weeks) in which the first draft of their pūrākau would be returned.
We always then did a welfare check the next day. We found whānau had varying reactions to the pūrākau process. While some had shared their story many times, others had not thought about their past in a long time, and this triggered some sadness. For others, it was therapeutic to recount their past and see how far they had come. It was important for us to care for our participants as if they were whānau; having DB and JH there with lived experience strengthened our ability to support anyone who felt impacted by telling their story. Our whānau approach also meant taking care of each other. We regularly had hui for peer debriefing. Being able to talk through poignant moments in whānau stories that were tragic, sad, or unjust enabled us to offload the vicarious trauma we were exposed to.
Crafting the pūrākau
The shape of the stories was often guided by our whānau and how they told their story to us. We often started out listening to recordings and loosely transcribing verbatim, and then started to join up the narrative, usually in chronological order. Just as in our hui and interviews, we started describing, ko wai au? Who are you and where are you from? From there, the shape continued from childhood to adulthood experiences. The weight of honouring whānau voices, staying close to their words and ensuring we correctly conveyed the intent of those words was a heavy burden we carried. This meant we did not see ‘distress’, ‘addiction’, ‘criminality’, or ‘recovery’ in predefined ways, it was open to our whānau to self-define what these terms may mean to them and how they featured in their lives. Our processes were bolstered by the ability to go back to whānau with our first draft.
The reality set in for some of our whānau participants when they read their written story. For example, when one person read their story in black and white, they were triggered by those memories. In that case, a lengthy process of de-identifying their details was made. This period required skills of negotiation based on trust and respect without expectations, reaffirming our whānau focused approach. Throughout our research we have endeavoured to make it clear that whānau are free to withdraw at any stage from the research; again, the power was in their hands to direct our next steps.
Once whānau were happy with their draft, we moved into the creative stage of mocking up their story ready for print. Our rōpū worked closely with each participant to create a pūrākau they can treasure, with each story full of photos and memories that led them to where they are today. A final step in our process included gifting back pūrākau to our whānau participants to keep. The pūrākau is gifted back to participants in a carefully designed report printed and digitally on USB, both encased in a beautiful kōwhaiwhai patterned harakeke folder. This step was an integral aspect of our reciprocal responsibilities to participants as whānau.
Speech bubble reflection box 6
Citation: Evidence & Policy 18, 2; 10.1332/174426421X16432180922551
Speech bubble reflection box 6
Citation: Evidence & Policy 18, 2; 10.1332/174426421X16432180922551
Speech bubble reflection box 6
Citation: Evidence & Policy 18, 2; 10.1332/174426421X16432180922551
Speech bubble reflection box 7
Citation: Evidence & Policy 18, 2; 10.1332/174426421X16432180922551
Speech bubble reflection box 7
Citation: Evidence & Policy 18, 2; 10.1332/174426421X16432180922551
Speech bubble reflection box 7
Citation: Evidence & Policy 18, 2; 10.1332/174426421X16432180922551
Speech bubble reflection box 8
Citation: Evidence & Policy 18, 2; 10.1332/174426421X16432180922551
Speech bubble reflection box 8
Citation: Evidence & Policy 18, 2; 10.1332/174426421X16432180922551
Speech bubble reflection box 8
Citation: Evidence & Policy 18, 2; 10.1332/174426421X16432180922551
Speech bubble reflection box 9
Citation: Evidence & Policy 18, 2; 10.1332/174426421X16432180922551
Speech bubble reflection box 9
Citation: Evidence & Policy 18, 2; 10.1332/174426421X16432180922551
Speech bubble reflection box 9
Citation: Evidence & Policy 18, 2; 10.1332/174426421X16432180922551
Discussion
Our methodology, steeped in the ancient tradition of mātauranga Māori (Māori knowledge), contributes new learnings for co-production research by rising to the challenges already voiced in the literature (Humphreys and Grayson, 2008; Rose, 2019; Roper, 2021).
Kaupapa Māori led co-production can lead to the actualisation of a ‘third space’. This occurs because we shifted in worldview, sitting outside the Eurocentric way of doing research. We actively resisted privileging Westernised ideas of individualism, neutrality, and certain ways of knowing and being. Instead, we deliberately chose a Māori worldview to lead our research, disrupting white privilege and prioritising the voices of those often marginalised. However, we did this in a way that was respectful to diverse voices, with our kawa bridging Māori and Pākehā spaces.
A central mechanism to help with this shift in worldview was seeing our core team, co-production rōpū and participants as whānau, shifting the way we related to each other. As such, we created a safe space where we listened, validated experiences, and cared for one another. A whānau approach does not equate to paternalism. It allows for voice and protection in a reflexive, mutually beneficial and evolving negotiation of consent. Having a safe space that incorporates tikanga rituals allowed us and whānau to speak our truth, which enabled an acceptance that ‘there are times when knowledges simply collide’ (Rose and Kalathil, 2019: 8). We sat with the associated uncomfortableness. Whanaungatanga (kinship) is integral; building relationships, relating well to others, and collaborating with the community and whānau during research is a source of strength, not invalidation. The core principles for practice that have emerged from years of kaupapa Māori research guide researchers’ ability to build and maintain good relationships. This includes making time to gather advice on a research question and methodological design, ensuring this consultation is face-to-face, laying bare who you are, moving through your research with participants with caution, and most of all working with people while showing respect. One could argue that a Westernised approach to research that conceptualises the researchers as ‘detached’, ‘neutral’ and ‘objective’ is counterintuitive and perhaps even counterproductive in the context of this research area.
Our safe space was bolstered by ensuring an intersectional team and design. Our co-production is a grassroots endeavour; members of our co-production team live and breathe te Ao Māori and work and/or have experienced incarceration and community based mental health and addiction support. Our positionality came from a place of social justice for those people in our communities often viewed as falling into the ‘too hard basket’. We were united in rejecting this basket and replacing it with a diverse array of kete (baskets) filled with localised mātauranga (knowledge) and solutions to improve wellbeing and reduce reoffending. We recognised the true value of lived experience as not something measured by a qualification, professionalisation, or quantified space of objective knowledge that met standards exclusive of others. Instead, we allowed space for experiential and indigenous wisdom, free from the constraints of judgement. Importantly, those without lived experience on our co-production rōpū were willing to take the back seat and trust the process. They recognised what it means to be an ally; to be self-reflexive and open to challenges; to recognise the rangatira voices of those with intersectional experiences of race, gender, sexuality, mental distress, addiction, and criminal justice.
Ultimately, our methodology requires acknowledging as researchers that we are reliant on whānau participants, and need to understand our reciprocal responsibility to honour our part in producing meaningful outcomes for whānau and the community. Gifting pūrākau to whānau was a small measure that led to a sometimes-big positive impact in the lives of whānau. We also recognise our responsibility for this co-production research to become political and demand transformative change.
Conclusion
A strong association exists between unmet mental health and addiction needs, criminal offending, and reoffending. Compounding these needs are the impacts of the continued colonisation of Māori, the indigenous people of Aotearoa New Zealand. The criminal justice system, with its strong Westminster roots, significantly contributes to intergenerational traumatic experiences by Māori of both victimisation and (re)offending. Law and policy changes are rarely formed with the input of Māori and non-Māori who have lived experiences of the criminal justice system. The project, He Ture Kia Tika, is built on the premise that we need to listen to people at the heart of the problems to which we are seeking solutions; in this case, people who have experienced incarceration, addiction and/mental distress. This paper has detailed our creation of a kaupapa Māori co-production methodology that can help us realise these solutions.
Note
Also see special issue covering editorial for more context.
Funding
This work was supported by the Michael and Suzanne Borrin Foundation.
Research ethics statement
This project was approved by the Auckland University of Technology Human Participants Ethics Committee on 14 May 2019 (Reference number 19/105 and 19/106).
Contributor statement
KT and SB wrote the first and subsequent drafts of the manuscript, with additional comments and reflections from DB and JH. KT, SB, DB and JH, as well as the kaumātua and wider rōpū listed conceptualised and designed the study. SB, DB and JH collected data, while all were involved in the creation of pūrākau to gift back to whānau.
Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge the integral contributions our kaumatua and wider rōpū have provided to this rangahau and to the whānau who provided their stories of transformation. This project would not have been possible without the diverse leadership and advice from the wider collective involved in the project. We also acknowledge the peer reviewers of this article, particularly their sensitivity to our quest to focus an appropriate methodology for our rangahau.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
References
Best, D. (2016a) Recovery and social identity, Cutting Edge, Energy Events Centre, Rotorua: DAPPANZ.
Best, D. (2016b) Recovery as an issue of social justice and social inclusion, Cutting Edge, Energy Events Centre, Rotorua: DAPPANZ.
Best, D. and Lubman, D. (2012) The recovery paradigm: a model of hope and change for alcohol and drug addiction, Australian Family Physician, 41(8): 593–7.
Bishop, R. (1996) Addressing Issues of Self-Determination and Legitimation in kaupapa Māori research, Research Perspectives in Māori Education, Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research, http://hdl.voced.edu.au/10707/82085.
Bishop, R. (1996) Whakawhanaungatanga: Collaborative research stories. Palmerston North, New Zealand: Dunmore Press Ltd.
Bowman, J. (2015) Lessons from research into youth desistance, Practice: The New Zealand Corrections Journal, 3(1): 14–17.
Carr, S. and Patel, M. (2016) Practical Guide: Progressing Transformative Co-Production in Mental Health, Bath: National Development Team for Inclusion.
Cram, F. and Pipi, K. (2000) Māori/Iwi Provider Success: Report On the Pilot Project, Auckland: International Research Institute for Māori and Indigenous Education, University of Auckland.
Curtis, E. (2016) Indigenous positioning in health research: the importance of kaupapa Māori Theory-informed practice, AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples, 12(4): 396–410.
Department of Corrections (2016) Prison Facts and Statistics, Wellington: New Zealand Government.
Eketone, A. (2012) The purposes of cultural supervision, Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work, 24(3/4): 20–30.
Gluckman, P. (2018) Using Evidence to Build a Better Justice System: The Challenge of Rising Prison Costs, Auckland: Office of the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor.
Hudson, M., Milne, M., Reynolds, P., Russell, K. and Smith, B. (2010) Te Ara Tika: Guidelines for Māori Research Ethics: A Framework for Researchers and Ethics Committee Members, Auckland: Health Research Council of New Zealand.
Humphreys, A. and Grayson, K. (2008) The intersecting roles of consumer and producer: a critical perspective on Co‐production, Co‐creation and prosumption, Sociology Compass, 2(3): 963–80.
Indig, D., Gear, C. and Wilhelm, K. (2016) Comorbid Substance Use Disorder and Mental Health Disorders Among New Zealand Prisoners, Wellington: New Zealand Department of Corrections.
Kidd, J. and Edwards, G. (2016) Doing it together: a story from the co-production field, Qualitative Research Journal, 16(3): 274–87.
Mahuika, R. (2008) Kaupapa Māori theory is critical and Anti-colonial, MAI Review, 3(4): 1–16.
Nepe, T.M. (1991) Te Toi Huarewa Tipuna: Kaupapa Māori, An Educational Intervention System, MA thesis, Auckland: University of Auckland.
Patterson, R., Durie, M., Disley, B., Rangihuna, D., Tiatia-Seath, S. and Tualamali’i, J. (2018) He Ara Oranga: Report of the Government Inquiry into Mental Health and Addiction, Wellington: Ministry of Health.
Pere, R. (1988), ‘Te Wheke: Whaia te Maramatanga me te Aroha’, in S. Middleton (ed) Women and Education in Aotearoa, Wellington: Allen and Unwin, pp. 6–19.
Pihama, L. (2001) Tīhei Mauri Ora: Honouring Our Voices: Mana Wahine as a Kaupapa Māori: Theoretical Framework, PhD thesis, Auckland: University of Auckland, http://hdl.handle.net/2292/1119.
Pihama, L., Cram, F. and Walker, S. (2002) Creating methodological space: a literature review of kaupapa Māori research, Canadian Journal of Native Education, 26(1): 30.
Pihama, L., Smith, K., Taki, M. and Lee, J. (2004) A literature review on kaupapa Māori and Māori education pedagogy, International Research Institute for Māori and Indigenous Education, http://akoaotearoa.ac.nz/download/ng/file/group-996/n3979--literature-review-on-kaupapa-mori-and-mori-education-pedagogy.pdf.
Pipi, K., Cram, F., Hawke, R., Hawke, S., Huriwai, T., Mataki, T., Milne, M., Morgan, K., Tuhaka, H. and Tuuta, C. (2004) A research ethic for studying Māori and iwi provider success, Social Policy Journal of New Zealand, 23(3): 141–53.
Pratt, J. (2013) A Punitive Society: Falling Crime and Rising Imprisonment in New Zealand, Wellington: Bridget Williams Books.
Quince, K. (2007) Māori and the criminal justice system in New Zealand, in J. Tolmie and W. Brookbanks (eds) Criminal Justice in New Zealand, Wellington: LexisNexis NZ Limited, pp 333–58.
Roper, C., Grey, F. and Cadogan, E. (2018) Co-production: Putting Principles into Practice in Mental Health Environments, Synergy Research, Melbourne: University of Melbourne.
Roper, K. (2021) Coproduction: Notes of caution, https://www.mhvconferences.com/post/coproduction-notes-of-caution
Rose, D. and Kalathil, J. (2019) Power, privilege and knowledge: the untenable promise of co-production in mental ‘health’, Frontiers in Sociology, 4: 57, https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsoc.2019.00057/full.
Simmonds, S. (2015) A framework for Māori Review of Research in District Health Boards, Wellington: Auckland and Waitemata District Health Boards and Capital and Coast District Health Board.
Skipworth, J. (2019) The Australian and New Zealand prison crisis: cultural and clinical issues, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 53(5): 472–73.
Slay, J. and Stephens, L. (2013) Co-production in Mental Health: A Literature Review, London: New Economics Foundation.
Smith, L.T. (1999) Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples, London and New York: Zed Books.
Smith, L., F. Cram, G.H. Smith, S. Toi, M. Karehana and R. Kamira (2001) Te Hiringa i te Mahara: Final Evaluation Report, research report to Gardiner and Parata Ltd.
Solomon, M. and Murray, K. (July 2019) Ināia Tonu Nei – The Time is Now: We Lead, You Follow, Wellington: Ministry of Justice.
Te Uepū Hāpai i te Ora (2019) He Waka Roimata: Transforming our Criminal Justice System, Wellington: Safe and Effective Justice Advisory Group.
Thom, K. and Burnside, D. (2018) Sharing power in criminal justice: the potential of Co‐production for offenders experiencing mental health and addictions in New Zealand, International Journal of Mental Health Mursing, 27(4): 1258–65.
Walker, S., Eketone, A. and Gibbs, A. (2006) An exploration of kaupapa Māori research, its principles, processes and applications, International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 9(4): 331–44.
White, W., Taylor, P. and McDaid, C. (2010) Recovery and citizenship, www.williamwhitepapers.com.
