He Oranga Hapori: A model for raising Maori ... - Te Puni Kokiri

tpk.govt.nz
  • No tags were found...

He Oranga Hapori: A model for raising Maori ... - Te Puni Kokiri

dominate and are, by themselves, therefore incomplete as a measure of Mäori communitywellbeing.Having chosen these preferred indicators and illustrated how they can be expressed as tikanga(Table 3), the question of how to measure these activities in a way that yields appropriateindicators of Mäori community wellbeing is raised.Measurement methods used to calculate indicatorsWith two different types of Mäori community wellbeing indicators (growth and relationship)identified, it was necessary to develop appropriate ways of measuring each. In the case of atikanga that promotes growth, the measurement challenge is to measure the change in size orquantity over time. For example, in Table 3 under the kaupapa ‘pükengatanga’ is the tikanga‘Encourage whakatupu mätauranga activities’. The measurement of this tikanga might involvecounting the number of whakatupu mätauranga activities that are started and completed withina given time period (e.g. one year). Growth indicators are usually expressed as rates (i.e. projects/year). This is not the case with relationship indicators.In the case of a tikanga that promotes the development and maintenance of kaupapa/tikangarelationships between röpü Mäori, the measurement challenge is different. In this case, theexistence of relationships does not increase in size from one time period to another. In this case,the measurement required is simply to answer the question “does the desired output that givesphysical evidence of the existence of extended relationships exist or not?” The answer is eitheryes or no.The two strategies outlined for the measurement of the growth and relationship indicatorsare incomplete in terms of the goal of measuring Mäori community wellbeing. This is becausethe measurement strategy only looks at wellbeing in terms of the existence of progress beingmade towards the developmental goals. For example, the measurement of growth in whakatupumätauranga activities only measures the rate of emergence of new projects and completion ofnew ones. It reveals nothing about the quality of these projects and more importantly how theycontributed, or failed to contribute to the expression of other kaupapa tuku iho.Likewise, the existence of a developmental output like the production of a languagerevitalisation plan as listed under the kaupapa ‘Te Reo’ in Table 3, is used to infer the existenceof relationships that made possible the formation of this output. However, while a ‘yes’ indicatortells us that these relationships exist, it discloses little about the quality of the relationships andhow they influence the expression of other kaupapa and tikanga.Economists face a similar measurement problem as described in their use of the GDP indicator.However, while GDP effectively measures change in size, it tells us nothing about the qualityof this level of economic growth. Investigation into this problem further would reveal thatincreases in crime, marriage breakdown, suicide, unemployment and environmental degradationall contribute towards making GDP bigger. Thus, while GDP measures growth, it revealsnothing about the type of growth that occurred. In developing indicators of Mäori communitywellbeing, care needs to be taken to not fall into the same trap of producing indicators thatportray environmental degradation and social disintegration as developmental “progress”. Tocalculate indicators that include measurement of ‘genuine progress’ it is necessary to makesome accounting adjustments to the growth and relationship indicator measurement strategiesoutlined above. The method developed for making these accounting adjustments is simple andeffective. However, it should only be considered as another small contribution towards ongoingwhakatupu mätauranga in this area.20

More magazines by this user
Similar magazines