Explaining the Condescending Ethics of Research Ethics Boards in Neo-Colonial Contexts

The purpose of this blog is to provoke discussion and debate about the practices of University Research Ethics Boards and the important role they play in determining what is, and what is not, 'ethical' research; often without the requisite experience of Indigenous approaches to knowledge construction, and little experience of research with (as opposed to 'on') Indigenous peoples.

Background 

To assume that the Aboriginal past or knowledge can be adequately explained from a totally foreign worldview is the essence of cognitive imperialism and academic colonisation                                    

                                                                              Henderson (1997, p. 23, emphasis added)

In 2008 I enrolled in my PhD at AUT University, in Auckland, New Zealand.  At the end of the following year I handed in my ethics approval forms as required of all students wanting to carry out post-graduate research at  a New Zealand university.  Having developed research/ethics guidelines for government agencies in the past, assisted other Maori post-graduates experiencing difficulties with institutional ethics processes, and cognisant of the many and varied issues with these processes as reported in the growing, critical literature (see Absolon, 2008; Berg, Evans & Fuller, 2007; Ellis & Earley, 2006; Marker, 2004; Smith, 1999; Wax, 1991), I was especially attentive to the principles and process utilised by AUT to measure the ethics of post-graduate student research.  

After reading through the wad of papers provided by AUT's Research Ethics Board (REB) (known as AUTEC) I had quickly come to the following conclusions:

1. the committee employed a set of risk-reduction focused, standardised  ethics 'tools'.  These tools were derived largely from the biomedical model that has long been challenged by 'critical' social researchers for privileging the 'autonomous, rational individual' over collective approaches with regards to all aspects of the research process;
2. the key concepts and related practices, such as informed consent, risk, anonymity, etc,  were central to the ethics toolbox;
3. the REB included the usual sub-section on 'engaging with Maori/Pacifica/minorities' which included the standard, vague command that we (researchers) 'ensure the cultural appropriateness of our research with Maori/minorities', etc, etc;
4. the REB in question relied heavily on a set of standardised, 'tick-the-box' processes for guiding its decision-making; and
5. despite having a Maori member, the Board had little experience of qualitative research with Maori, none whatsoever with Canadian First Nations, and no members with knowledge and experience of the discipline that informed the authors approach, Criminology. 

This situation was clearly going to cause problems for the proposed research as the methodology (including the ethics protocols - i.e., the key principles and practices that ensure you carry out respectful, appropriate research that does not place research participants at risk) was developed from significant, prior engagement with Indigenous advisers and potential research participants (both in Canada and New Zealand): in other words the 'ethics protocols' were set by the Indigenous participants themselves, accredited by experienced Indigenous researchers and experts from within the participating Indigenous communities.  This process - developing an ethical framework for research engagement with Indigenes - is central to much of the Indigenous scholarship on the subject of ethical research with Indigenous peoples (for references read pretty much all the references already cited in this piece, as well as Bishop, 1998; Glass and Kaufert, 2007 and Schnarch, 2004).  The engagement process resulted in an ethics protocol highlighted by the following:

1. no recording of interviews/focus groups in long houses/marae (if these venues are utilised);
2. informed consent for focus groups to be based on collective, verbal agreement and not signed forms;
3. where verbal agreement is given (and due to recording devices not being used), one individual (delegated by the group, or a designated elder) will be contactable by AUT persons if verification of consent is required; and
4. provisions will be made for individualised, written informed consent if requested by First Nation participants, but the emphasis would be on their preferred, collectivist engagement and consent practices.

In other words, the Indigenous-derived ethics process approach was to be privileged in both the New Zealand and Canadian contexts.

Unsurprisingly, the REB's response was less than ideal, with the original and subsequent applications being rejected, mostly on the basis of the privileging of collectivist, verbally derived informed consent over that of the standard, individual-focused, written consent process preferred by AUTEC.  The second application included a thorough critique of the REB's preferred consent process, based on Indigenous literature and the views of the author's Indigenous advisers, and a thorough explanation of the rationale behind the Indigenous ethics protocol.  As a compromise, the REB was offered a dual process: at the start of each community engagement, participants would be offered AUTEC's informed consent process; if this were rejected (as was likely), then the author would revert to the process stipulated by participants.  The REB in question rejected the compromise offered of a dual-consent process and continued to attempt to force its preferred individualised consent and engagement process upon the researcher and his research participants. Many more months were lost attempting to alter the approach taken by the REB, before my supervisor finally received formal sign off for the research to proceed in April 2010. 

Having provided the background, I want to move to explaining why this type of situation commonly occurs when Indigenous researchers, and research participants, find themselves engaging with academic REBs.

Indigenous critique of institutionalised ethics

Recently, a number of First Nation researchers have criticised the role REB’s play in stifling Indigenous-led, community-driven research.  Indigenous and (critical) non-Indigenous  critique of REB conduct covers a broad range of issues, including (but by no means exclusively):

Individualism – marked by the privileging of the autonomous research participant, and informed consent processes that forces individualised research and ethics protocols upon collectives.

Lack of expertise – members of REBs often lack adequate disciplinary, epistemological and methodological expertise in Indigenous research/issues, resulting in an over-reliance on tick-the-box approaches that ensure the hegemony of institutionally-derived protocols.

Universalism – the propensity for REBs to utilise processes derived from Eurocentric notions of ‘right’ (research) conduct, and essentialist notions of what does/does not constitute an ethical researcher, all of which eulogise the ‘individual’ research participant and marginalise social groups which prefer collectivist constructs to guide the research process.

Formulism – an over-reliance on standardised, formulaic, ‘tick-the-box’ approaches that mask the complexity of the social context within which research takes place.

I argue that the research-related universalism described above, forms a key operating principle for AUT's REB, and perhaps for all academic institutions across Settler Societies.  

Universalism works as a dominant operational principle throughout the country, despite the fact that all REB-related guidelines include text exhorting researchers (and, one presumes, REB’s) to ‘respect difference’.  Universalism, especially the Eurocentric, 'one-size-fits-all' approach to ethics it encourages, poses a significant risk for the Indigenous researcher and their research participants; a point repeatedly made during the interviews and focus groups I proceeded with in the second half of 2010 and throughout 2011 - and to which I included a set of questions on my participants views of AUTEC's behaviour.  For example, one prominent Maori researcher, when interviewed for my doctoral research said the following about AUTEC's attempts to override the Indigenous-derived ethics protocols I had initially developed:

The issue seems to me to be about their (the REBs) authority, and not about the best way of going about this business.  As Maori we have the right to determine how both insiders and outsiders research with us... reading that document [the REB’s written determination re: the second EA1 application], reads like they didn’t want to understand because it was easier to stick with what they know.  That is not a system based on everyone being the same [Universalism], but on everyone being like them. It is condescending to the extreme to tell us our ways are unethical.

The condescending ethics of research ethics boards

‘Condescending ethics’ – positions participants as the ‘Other’, reinforces powerlessness, and further marginalises them with knowledge production processes.                                    

                                                                                
                                                                               Reid and Brief (2009, p. 83)

So how do we explain the current state of affairs of institutionalised ethics processes in New Zealand and other Settler Societies?  To begin we might describe their processes and behaviour as little more than a contemporary manifestation of the condescending ethos that formed the basis of the role played by the academy and its research activities in the colonisation of First Nations (Battiste, 2000; Smith, 1999).  

The condescension of academic REBs and their processes relates directly to their preference for individualised research ethics, and the categorisation of the ‘subject’ as an autonomous entity to be engaged in meaningful ways, preferably after the institutionally-focused review process has been followed.  It is in the construction of the 'ethical' research subject as he/she whom acts autonomously (apart from the collective), and who can only give consent 'in writing', that we find the basis of the condescending institutional formulation of the 'right way' to engage ethically; a way that by necessity, marginalises any and all other approaches to gathering, analysing and disseminating knowledge.

Butzs’ invocation of Habermas’ concept of communicative action in relation to his own experiences of REB’s, provides a useful conceptual framework for understanding the condescending ethos that supports institutionalised ethics processes such as those employed by AUTEC and other, similar institutional Boards.  

According to Butz, Habermas distinguishes between two principle forms of ‘action’ in late modernity, Instrumental and Communicative.  Instrumental action is “oriented to technical manipulation and control, and communicative action to the ideal of intersubjective understanding and consensus among individuals” (Butz, 2008, p. 250).  As Butz states (Ibid, p. 250, emphasis his)

The former is outcome oriented, the latter process oriented.  For Habermas, communicative action is ethically prior to instrumental action, in that the justice of an outcome is contingent on the justice of the process that yielded it.  In contemporary modernity, he argues, the communicative effort to reach consensus is frequently sacrificed to the imperative of bureaucratic efficiency.

It is easy to view the author’s experience of REB’s in New Zealand (and, according to the extant literature, other Settler societies), in this vein, especially: 

[w]hen it is assumed that the problem of voluntary informed consent is solved by asking participants individually to sign written consent agreements regardless of the research context, then a fully communicative appreciation of the adjectives voluntary and informed are subordinated to the instrumental purposes of the monitoring and controlling attached to the noun consent (Butz, 2002, p. 251 – emphasis his).

Central to our understanding of the condescending nature of REB process and Indigenous research, is the concept of power.  In the mythology of the development of contemporary research ethics, REBs arose from concerns of power imbalances between the researcher - all powerful, and therefore ‘potentially dangerous’, and the research subject – powerless and in need of protection, provided, of course, by REBs as the independent arbiter of ‘righteous research conduct’ (Juritzen, Grimen & Heggen, 2011).  Juritzen et al argue in favour of expanding the conceptualisation of power in the researcher-research subject relationship to critically encompass “ethics committees as one among several actors that exert power and that act in a relational interplay with researchers and participants” (ibid, p. 640).  Thus, given the considerable power REBs wield, they cannot be exempt from critical commentary.  Let us now turn to explaining how and why condescending ethics processes manifest themselves through institutionally-derived REBs.

Lack of expertise, REBs and condescending ethics

The reported experiences of First Nation commentators and researchers points consistently to one key source of discontent with REBs, namely that their members generally lack experience of Indigenous communities, and the core principles and practices that are central to knowledge construction and dissemination within these Nations (Smith, 1999).  Sadly, in my experience, and that of other Indigenous researchers, this results in REBs that are dominated by non-Indigenous academics and external advisors' who make decisions about appropriate ethics protocols, while lacking the necessary socio-cultural experience and knowledge to make informed decisions on the 'ethics' of Indigenous research conduct. 

Van den Hoonaard (2006, p. 269) contends that the issue for many researchers is not the ethics codes used by REBs, but rather how these codes are interpreted and employed by committee members; especially where members clearly have little experience of the context within which research takes place.  This position is supported by significant literature (e.g., Anthony, 2004; Bradley, 2007; Haggerty, 2003) and comments made to the author during his recent engagement with First Nation researchers, including one research participant who stated that:

In my dealings with IRBs, I find they will have a standard ethics guidelines; go to the bibliography and all the usual experts are there, Henderson, Smith... they [REBs] say the right things, consult, engage, privilege [the Indigenous], but the practice is different.  Mainly white committees, no experience of us, who revert to their ways, to what they understand to be right.

Reid and Brief (2009, p. 83) highlight this failing with respect to their own experience of REB interference in their ethnographic project: “.... they did not have the capacity or resources to fully support ethical decision-making in the project, nor did they have the mechanisms in place to hear from the community researchers themselves”. 

Arguably, in the case of Indigenous-focused research, the lack of knowledge and experience of the research context is of greater risk to both researcher and participants than lack of disciplinary expertise.  Hammersley (2006, p. 4) describes the dangers thus: “Researchers’ decisions about how to pursue their enquiries involve weighting ethical and other considerations against one another, and this requires detailed knowledge of the contexts concerned”.  By drawing conclusions on the ethics of research situations they have little expertise in or knowledge of, and ignoring advice from those with the relevant experience, REBs place Indigenous researchers and their research participants in danger of experiencing ‘unethical institutionalised research’.  Hammersley (2006, p. 6) further states that:

What is involved here, to a large extent, is a great pretence: ethics committees are to operate as if making research decisions were a matter of applying a coherent [standardised] set of ethical rules that do not conflict with any other considerations, or that override them, and that good decisions can be made without having much contextual knowledge.

While following and conforming to an institutionalised bureaucratised ethics process means you have ‘acted’ as an ethical researcher in that particular context, the experience of the author, his research participants and the published (critical Indigenous) record, demonstrates that simply following REB processes does not guarantee ethical research ‘on the ground’.  It is argued here that conformity to the Academy’s bureaucratised processes comes with significant, potentially ‘unethical’ baggage because, as Knight et al (2004, p. 397) argue, institutionalised ethics protocols are a set of “cultural norms that [serve] the interests and reflects the values of the IRB and the academy”.   These cultural norms, replicated through mandatory engagement with institutional ethics processes, reflects the ‘knowledge by mass production’ that permeates so much of the Academy today; the dangers of which are beautifully summarised by Lorenz (2012, p. 606) who writes that:

We should not be surprised.... that universities have been changing in the direction of academic capitalism in the form of entrepreneurial McUniversities.  This development boils down to ‘a move from elite specialisation with strong professional controls towards a ‘Fordist’ mass production arrangement’. 

The McDonaldisation of the Academy is perhaps most evident when the formalisation of research becomes married with an over-reliance by academic institutions on universalistic processes of knowledge construction.  This situation, combined with the general lack of expertise of REB members of the Indigenous social context, generates an environment for the Indigenous pursuit of knowledge that is often seriously impeded by the inherent contradictions and condescension of the Academy's Eurocentric notions of 'right conduct' in the research context.  

In the next instalment of The Indigenous Criminologist I will offer a solution to the current dominance of REBs in determining what is/is not ethical conduct with Indigenous peoples, by arguing for a Maori-led process developed and delivered through the auspices of the Maori Association of Social Sciences.  

References

Absolon, K. (2008). Kaandosswin, this is how we come to know!  Indigenous graduate research in the academy: Worldviews and methodologies, unpublished PhD, University of Toronto, Toronto.
Anthony, R. (2004). Consistency of ethics review, Forum Qualitative Sozialforshung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, Vol. 6 No. 1, online.  
Battiste, M. (2000). Introduction: Unfolding the lessons of colonisation.  In M. Battiste (Ed.), Reclaiming Indigenous Voices and Vision, xvi-xxx.  Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.  
Berg, L., Evans, M. and Fuller, D. (2007). Ethics, hegemonic whiteness, and the contested imagination of 'aboriginal community' in social science research in Canada, ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 395-410.  
Bishop, R. (1998). Freeing ourselves from neo-colonial domination in research: A Maori approach to creating knowledge, International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, Vol. 11, pp. 199-219. 
Bradley, M. (2007). Silenced for their own protection: How the IRB marginalises those it feigns to protect, ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies, 6(3), 339-349. 
Butz, D. (2008). Sidelined by the guidelines: Reflections on the limitations of standard informed consent procedures for the conduct of research, ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 239-259. 
Ellis, J. and Earley, M. (2006). Reciprocity and constructions of informed consent: Researching with indigenous populations, International Journal of Qualitative Methods, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 2-13.
Glass, K. and Kaufert, J. (2007). Research ethics review and aboriginal community values: Can the two be reconciled?  Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, Vol. 3 No 2, pp. 25-40. 
Haggerty, K. (2003). Ethical drift: Governing social research in the name of ethics, paper presented at the American Law and Society meeting, Pittsburgh, 5-8 June. 
Hammersley, M. (2006). Are ethics committees ethical?  Qualitative Researcher, Vol 2, 4-7. 
Henderson, J. (1997). The Mi'kmaw Concordat. Halifax, Fernwood Publishing.
Juritzen, T., Grimen, H. and Heggen, K. (2011). Protecting vulnerable research participants: A Foucault-inspired analysis of ethics committees,  Nursing Ethics, Vol 18 No. 5, pp. 640-650. 
Knight, M., Bentley, C., Norton, N. and Dixon, I. (2004). (De)constructing (in)visible parent/guardian consent forms: Negotiating power, reflexivity, and the collective within qualitative research,  Qualitative Inquiry, Vol 10 No. 3, pp. 684-699. 
Lorenz, C. (2012). If you’re so smart, why are you under surveillance?  Universities, neoliberalism, and new public management.  Critical Inquiry, Vol. 38, pp. 599-629.
Marker, M. (2004). Theories and disciplines as sites of struggle: The reproduction of colonial dominance through the controlling of knowledge in the academy, Canadian Journal of Native Education, Vol. 28 No. 1/2, pp. 102-110. 
Reid, C., and Brief, E. (2009). Confronting condescending ethics: How community-based research challenges traditional approaches to consent, confidentiality, and capacity,  Journal of Academic Ethics, Vol. 7, pp. 75-85.
Smith, L. (1999). Decolonising methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples. Dunedin: University of Otago Press.  
Scharch, B. (2004). Ownership, control, access, and possession (OCAP) or self-determination applied research: A critical analysis of contemporary First Nation research and some options for First Nation communities,  Journal of Aboriginal Health, January, pp. 80-95. 
van den Hoonard, W. (2006). New angles and tangles in the ethics review of research,  Journal of Academic Ethics, 4, 261-274. 
Wax, M. (1991). The ethics of research in American Indian communities,  American Indian Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp 457-469. 

Critiquing Arguments Against Extending the Jurisdiction of Indigenous Law

The following post is not written in the 'academic style', just notes I use when discussing with students in my Indigenous Justice unit at Queensland University of Technology, arguments for and against extending the use of 'customary law', or what I prefer to call Indigenous Law.  My apologies to colleagues if I haven't referenced as per the academic convention (as long as I've presented our ideas accurately!).  Nor have I rewritten the piece to correct grammar, etc; instead it is written very much how it is spoken in class; in general, not specific terms. I've simply uploaded the notes as prepared for the lecture; in other words posted 'as is' in order to contribute to debate on this issue:

A Few Comments on Customary Law to my QUT Indigenous Justice Students

For JSB381 students to consider:

The term customary law: is something that should give you all pause to think; why is it that any other ‘law’ besides European (British) law is often described as ‘customary’? 

This is an issue within ‘law’ and justice that has been pondered by great Indigenous theorists, jurist and thinkers.  For example, the great Nigerian Criminologist, Biko Agozino refers to this type of ‘reasoning’ – that all European law is ‘the law’ while all others are ‘customary’ - as a continuation of the Imperialist Reasoning used to legitimise the colonisation of Indigenous peoples and the imposition of European legal jurisdiction over subjugated peoples.

The Maori jurist, Moana Jackson, goes a little further, describing this kind of representation of Indigenous law as being based upon racist assumptions of the superiority of Eurocentric law, and the baseness of the law of coloured folk; of its inherent weakness due to its not being written, codified or institutionalised.  Building on the work of the legal Anthropologist Fitzgerald, who wrote about the mythology of law, we might describe these assumptions as forming the Great White Myth of Law, one based on the racist assumption of the inherent superiority of ‘White Ways’ due to a related belief that the legal system we now practice in Settler Societies is the end point of legal evolution; that is it the ‘best way’ of 'doing law and seeking justice'.

Let us take a moment to consider and dissect these notions:

1.    That Indigenous law was not codified: we are able to demonstrate that this is pure myth; at the time of colonisation, Europeans were writing of the codified laws of the Dine (Navajo), and of the six Nations of the Iroquois peoples who straddled what is now the Eastern US/Canadian border, and who’s Confederation the founding fathers of the American constitution and the Republic, actually based that constitution upon (at least in part). 

2.  The myth of codification is based on an assumption that Indigenous law is inherently weak(er) than White Law because it was not written down; it was practiced and hand down thru generations orally.  And yet we have 19^th and 20^th century European Anthropologists recording and reporting the sophisticated, orally derived legal processes of numerous First Nations; of Tohunga, legal specialists trained in linking genealogy with ‘cases’ that demonstrate precedence and an evolving jurisdiction, the supposed hallmark of the superior, codified Western European law.

3.   Indigenous law is inferior because it is based in the distant past: things have changed, so therefore it is not applicable to the contemporary moment: and yet we see in Africa, over the past 2 decades, more and more jurisdictional autonomy being given to First Nations in various countries, to mould a contemporary justice system based on ‘ancient’ philosophies and practices, carried out via resurrected, localised justice institutions.  We see in New Zealand over the same period (in a small number of largely rural areas), the resurrection of communal, marae-based justice processes, based on tikanga (think about Aroha Terry's marae-based justice process for dealing with sexual offending, practiced in the Waikato region in the 1990s onwards), blended with contemporary notions and practices of human rights, which yet again highlights the racism inherent in the assumption that Indigenous justice and cultural is incapable of ‘evolving and changing’, and incapable of being applicable to the modern world. 

      If this were so, then how do we explain the movement amongst Western, European jurisdictions to adopt so many of our justice philosophies and practices; FGC’s, Circles, significant elements of what they call restorative justice, etc?  It is evident that continued moves by existing legal institutions, law makers, politicians and the like, to block the extension of jurisdictional autonomy to First Nations, has little to do with the inherent weakness of Indigenous law, or the inability of our peoples and culture to ‘evolve’, but instead has everything to do with maintaining the status quo, namely the hegemony of their way of law.

4.   So, let's look closely at the law and legal institutions of contemporary Settler States:  does the fact that it is written (in fact almost all contemporary Indigenous justice processes are now written and codified, yet again underlining the myth of our inability to grow and adapt), that it is codified and institutionalised make it inherently more just than Indigenous justice?  If your answer is yes, then think about the growing numbers of exonerations being passed down in American, Canadian, New Zealand jurisdictions, and becoming a not so rare feature of Australian jurisdictions: decisions that come about, in the main (or in part, depending on your ideological persuasion!), because of judicial and police racism, classism and sexism.  Think about the racist laws passed (or the laws and powers used in racist ways) that drive people of colour in to the system, or drive them ever deeper into it; e.g. the anti-drug laws of America, search and seizure laws in Great Britain targeting black youth, ‘move on’ and search laws in Australia, the NTER, and so on.  Think about the massive amount of research evidence gathered by white criminologists and Indigenous researchers on the failings of our legal system; of its class, race and gender bias, of the myriad unjust sentences/decisions, and of the inhumanity of our correctional regimes….. consider all this body of evidence and think twice about arguing, as some do here in Australia, that Indigenous justice should not be promoted or extended because it promotes/supports child rape, violence against women, and is founded on archaic, inhumane punishments.

5.   On the argument of the violence of Indigenous justice: we often hear or read non-Indigenous commentators saying that ‘customary law’ supports violence, that it is inhumane – let us be frank, in times past our responses to social harm were by today’s standards, ‘inhumane’, but as previously discussed, this presupposes that those same penalties will be employed in a contemporary, reconstituted Indigenous legal system.  In others words, those espousing such views are falling back on the tired, racist assumptions about our inability to change with the times.  And with all the injustice and inhumanity practiced in Western jurisdictions, as stated previously, can anyone truly argue that the contemporary system is always just and humane? 

 

Lastly, on the argument that Indigenous law supports violence against women and children, we have no evidence to that effect so we can’t argue definitively either way on this matter: unfortunately, what we most definitely have is evidence that western influences have permeated some Indigenous communities, re: ‘imported’ notions and practices of gender and familial relations, power and authority, that have framed ‘institutionalised’ violence within our communities (and yes, a trend we must acknowledge, own and respond to ourselves).

Criminologists Behaving Badly

The following blog focuses on two related topics resulting from attending the Australian, New Zealand Society of Criminology conference, held at University of Auckland (jointly with AUT University of Auckland), from 27-30 November, 2012.  

Part 1 offers a brief summary of the Maori-focused papers presented at the conference, while Part 2, titled When Criminologists Behave Badly, provides commentary on some of the bizarre behaviour exhibited by senior members of the Academy in response to the Maori-centric presentations.

Part 1 - Maori focused papers.

A couple of things stuck out about this years ANZSOC conference; 1) unsurprisingly (given it was held in New Zealand) a decent number of papers focused on Maori perspectives were offered, and 2) all of said papers either spoke directly from the Maori perspective (by using 'engaging methodologies'), or (if delivered by a non-Maori  presenter) took a 'critical' view of issues of importance to Maori.  This situation was a distinct improvement on the trend evident at past ANZSOC's where the greater majority of 'Aboriginal papers' were delivered by non-Indigenous scholars utilising non-engaging methods while largely ignoring Indigenous-generated theorising, empirical evidence and literature (the specific session on 'Aboriginal issues' at the 2011 conference in Geelong a recent, classic example). 

In all, 8 papers were offered that privileged the Maori voice and experience of criminal justice issues.  The following section provides some brief comments on each paper; I will make available longer commentaries sometime early in the New Year:

Moana Jackson (Keynote speech): Taking the 'Crim' out of Criminology: Towards an Indigenous Causation Theory.  Moana's key points related to the weaknesses of Eurocentric criminology, in particular its lack of focus on the historical drivers of Indigenous marginalisation and the part this plays in over-representation, and the power of Indigenous theories and responses  to social harm, based on the (re)building of relationships, using a theory of relational distance to analyse and explain incidents of social harm, and why the state and criminology's responses are often ineffective.

Terikirangi Miheare (Victoria University of Wellington): The Misappropriation of Maori Culture in Prison.  A beautifully presented paper; started off with a gentle meander through the recent history of Corrections use of Maori culture to sell itself as 'culturally responsive', and ended with a devastating critique that demonstrated that the Departments so-called 'tikanga programmes' are little more than a misappropriation of Maori culture in pursuit of policy/political legitimation.  

Kristen Maynard: Ruru Parirau: The Power of Stereotypes and Potential Implications for Justice Policy and Practice.  This excellent presentation focused on the negative impact that stereotypes of Maori amongst policy workers is having on the development of effective policies and interventions.  Kristen used a recent example where she and her colleagues purposefully challenged stereotypes of Maori and alcohol to develop an effective policy programme aimed at minimising harm from alcohol consumption.  This paper provided a nice policy-in action case study to supplement the more 'theoretical/political/ideological' focus of other papers presented at the conference.

Antje Deckert (AUT University):  Neo-Colonial Criminology: Decolonising Research Methods and Discourse. Antje's paper was based on preliminary findings from analysis of the types of methods used by criminologists who publish journal articles on Indigenous people: her conclusion so far: about 75% don't bother to talk to Indigenous peoples directly, preferring instead to use silencing methodologies.  Interesting, one criminologist who attended this session seemed to think this was unfair as it implied that any criminologist who didn't write about Indigenous issues was therefore guilty of silencing, which is weird given that this has no bearing on the focus of the paper as was clearly stated by the presenter during her talk.

Juan Tauri (Queensland University of Technology): 'If You're so Good, Why is Your Policy so Bad?' A Critical Indigenous Appraisal of New Zealand's Crime Control Industry.  My perspectives on the poor quality of NZ policy making is well documented elsewhere :-)

Robert Webb (AUT University): Maori Offending: A Critical Analysis.  Rob's paper took us through the recent history of policy making in New Zealand and Maori in the criminal justice system, and how this has resulted in individualistic, poorly crafted interventions.  Anyone wanting to read his perspective simply type in Robert Webb, Maori and crime into google - there are at least 2 papers readily available on line. 

Tracey McIntosh (University of Auckland): Rethinking Over-representation: Maori and Confinement. This paper provided a Maori/offender informed critique of issues with correctional policy making with regards Maori (especially Maori women).  

Kim Workman Maori over-representation in the criminal justice system: the police response.  In this paper Kim decided to focus on policing and Maori issues.  Starting with an overview of research that evidences the drivers for the poor relations between Maori and the police, Kim then highlighted some of the genuine attempts by police to improve the situation (for example, Liaison Officers), but finished by highlighting that the recent Tuhoe incident and statements that no bias exists in police in NZ demonstrate that we still have work to do in this area. 

Part 2 - Criminologists Behaving Badly

A summary of the ANZSOC 2012 experience wouldn't be complete without commnetary on the behaviour of a small group of (prominent) Criminologists towards Indigenous issues (in general ) and a small group of Indigenous speakers (specifically). My reasons for mentioning these issues are 1) to educate these people about how to act respectfully when engaging with people they disagree with regardless of ethnicity, and 2) to forewarn our post-graduates about the types of people, attitudes and behaviour they are likely to experience as they go about their work as Indigenous scholars.

Overall, the majority of participants appeared receptive to the issues raised by Maori/non-Maori scholars who attempted to bring Maori perspectives into the conference; even if they did not fully agree with the perspectives they brought to the table.  Unfortunately, a small group of scholars offered the sad, old style of engagement reminiscent of the colonial era.  This generally entails talking about Indigenous issues while lacking detailed knowledge of the Indigenous context, Indigenous theory, research, literature, and socio-cultural/political context.  This same group appeared to believe that the conventions regarding respectful conduct towards other delegates did not apply to them, something that was especially evident when Indigenous delegates presented their papers.  Here is a small number of 'case studies' from the conference that illustrate these issues:

1. The 'I know bugger all, but I'll make an expert comment anyway' Criminologist

This is one of my favourite 'criminological types' who  frequent criminology conferences.  This sub-species is more often than not white, middle class and male; academics who have spent little time researching with First Nations, but who might have written a paper (or 2) sometime in the distant past about Aboriginal people (extensively panned by critics).  These individuals enjoy 'putting the natives right' about their past and current social context, but react badly to any critique of their perspective, especially if it comes from said natives.  

A classic example of the boorish behaviour of this 'type' occurred during the Post-Graduate day: In a presentation on comparisons of Romani and Maori youth and criminal justice, one criminologist began his poorly evidenced rhetoric by stating "I don't really no much about Maori and New Zealand'... but continued, regardless, to argue that because Maori have parliamentary representation they cannot be viewed as 'marginalised', or not as marginalised as other Indigenous/marginalised peoples (as though there is some sort of international league table of Indigenous marginalisation).  Now, if this statement had been framed as a question regarding empirical issues relating to problems with comparing one group to another, and across jurisdictions there wouldn't have been much of a problem.  Sadly, this was not the case, as the commentator chose  instead to offer it as a statement that they clearly did not expect a response to.  It was delivered with the 'perspective of an expert'; presented as an incontestable statement on the current situation of Maori in the New Zealand context.  This situation is highly problematic both in terms of the accuracy of the statement offered by said Criminologist, and their expectation that the statement was beyond comment.  I responded anyway, stating that it was simplistic to equate political representation with empowerment, and that because of this, Maori cannot be considered as marginalised as other social groups.  This kind of representation is simplistic because it is contradicted by plenty of 'empirical evidence' that political representation does not automatically = significant impact on or over the development of policy and legislation: simplistic because the statement demonstrates a lack of meaningful engagement with material on the contemporary social context in which Maori live.  Unfortunately, this particular commentator was simply replicating the same misinformed perspective that is offered on a regular basis in New Zealand by non-Indigenous scholars, policy workers and talk-back radio hosts.  

The speakers responded later that evening by accusing me of playing the 'Race Card' (a claim they repeated to my boss the next day).  I interpreted this to mean one of two things, either a) I had disempowered him by talking as an Indigenous person (can't really help that!) or b) I had unfairly lumped him in with other ignorant non-Indigenous commentators, which was true, but impossible to avoid given the poor quality of his statement.  As usual, this individual gave me little chance to respond as he simply walked away after making his allegation.  If he had stuck around and engaged with me as he should have, I would have politely but firmly told him that we had both played the Race Card, me when I spoke as an Indigenous person in response to his uninformed comment, and he when he chose to speak with authority on the 'Maori situation', despite his own admission that he knew very little about either Maori or the New Zealand context.  Hopefully in future this individual will consider their ignorance of such matters, and think a bit more before privileging their own voice in this way.  I am also hoping that in future they learn to cease such puerile behaviour as falling back on the use of allegations such as 'the Race Card' against their detractors, and instead choose to debate the issues directly with us.  

The same individual confirmed both their ignorance of Indigenous issues and arrogance in thinking they can talk regardless when he asked Moana Jackson if he had "Any evidence to back anything he said" during this keeynote speech.  The ignorance/arrogance of this question is highlighted by the fact that plenty of evidence exists to back all aspects of Moana's talk, whether related to his argument for socio-cultural genocide of First Nations (truckloads), his contention that First Nations had their own law and 'justice' processes (shitloads), and that these processes are applicable to some/all Indigenous peoples today and will likely work better for us (a small amount and growing).  I would expect this experienced Criminologist, who enjoys commenting on  Indigenous issues with regularity, to have engaged with this material.  Unfortunately, the tone and nature of his question hints that he hasn't, to which only 2 explanations are possible (in my view of course): 1) he hasn't engaged, which does not require further comment, or 2) he knows it exists but because the material is generated by Indigenous people it is 'probably unscientific, and therefore invalid and easily dismissed'.  Either way, all he did was underline the reputation of this particular sub-species of Criminologist, universally ignorant of First Nation perspectives, but all too willing to 'tell the natives how it is' regardless of their lack of knowledge of the Indigenous world. 

2. The 'conventions of right, ethical behaviour don't apply to me' Criminologist

A number of incidents highlighted that certain Criminologists think themselves above all others when it comes to respectful behaviour towards participants.  Unfortunately, and whether by design or not, these incidents occurred too often when Maori delegates were presenting:

a) to the senior Criminologist who walked down about 12 rows, in front of Moana Jackson as he delivered his keynote speech and thrust the microphone in his face; this is rude and obnoxious to Maori and non-Maori alike: instead of being rude, simply ask for something to be done, or sit closer to a speaker!  Next time you behave this way you will be told in no uncertain terms that your behaviour is offensive... in front of 180 other criminologists :-)

b) to the same person and a colleague who talked, moaned and bitched through the entire session on Maori perspectives, and who's ill-informed, prejudiced comments could be heard by those around them; if you can't handle different perspectives to yours being aired, especially by Indigenous peoples, and you actually believe it's ok to behave in such an unprofessional manner, perhaps you shouldn't come to our sessions?  You'll probably have more fun talking to each other anyway.  

To both individuals concerned I present my third and last 'Bullsh*t Artist of the Week' award for 2012.

Cheers and a happy New Year to you all :-)

The Imperialism of Western Knowledge

The focus of this blog is the issue of knowledge production and its use by the academy to silence Indigenous voices.

Out of the mouths of babe's

Recently I was taking a tutorial at the University where I work in Brisbane.  The topic of discussion was 'arguments for and against giving Aboriginal peoples autonomy to practice customary law'.  When I asked students for arguments against the proposition one replied "we can't implement their [Aboriginal peoples'] laws cause they didn't write them down".  I then asked the class 'so, if it ain't written down, it is not valid knowledge', to which a few responded 'yes, because if it isn't written we can't believe it to be true'. 

It is tempting, but wrong to dismiss this kind of argument as the uninformed views of a small group of undergraduate students.  Uninformed they may be, but we should remember that they are articulating an ideology shared by many who work in criminology and the public service.  The ideology I write of is a very simple one: knowledge disseminated via Western methods (scientific enquiry) is legitimate (for developing and implementing crime control policy) and those derived from non-Eurocentric processes are not.  Welcome to the world of the Knowledge Wars.

The Indigenous revival and the knowledge wars

All Settler Societies have witnessed the cultural and political resurgence of their First Nations.   Important components of Indigenous revivalism include concerted efforts to save their languages and resurrect political institutions including those that engender the gathering and dissemination of knowledge (e.g., Kohanga Reo (pre-school) and Wananga (universities)).  Maori revivalist activity has brought with it the usual neo-con, redneck backlash. In the 1970s and 1980s feminist activists and scholars suffered backlash from (mainly) men unwilling to contemplate the loss of masculine hegemony over society and the construction and dissemination of knowledge.  In similar vein Indigenous revivalists have been the target of ideological warfare from (mainly) non-Indigenous institutions and individuals fearful that their Western, scientific knowledge will lose legitimacy with policy makers. More importantly, it may lose its shine with those who fund policy-focused research (more often than not the same institutions and individuals).

The backlash against Indigenous revivalism (in this case, Maori) and in particular against our knowledge processes, has generally taken three forms, represented here as a question or statement:

1. All Maori are a 'problem', aren't they? The kind of comment you often hear from breakfast TV, talkback radio hosts, 'mainstream media' and politicians. Most know little about Maori either as individuals or communities, but are happy to educate us all with their puerile and uninformed comments about Maori culture and language being 'archaic' and 'stone aged', and representing Maori as 'problem darkies' who can only be saved if they shed their culture and join the modern, Western world. Prominent exponents of this rhetoric include John Banks, Michael Laws and anyone associated with the ACT party. 


2. Do Maori really exist? A position taken mostly by economists and demographers who question whether Maori culture and identity, as it is practised today, is 'valid' given the rates of intermarriage. A fair 'empirical' question to ask, but too often in attempting to answer it members of the academy rarely talk to Maori or read existing scholarly texts developed by us on this subject. In others words there is a tendency from those asking this question to completely ignore research and literature on the socio-politics of identity construction (for a classic example of this approach see Callister, 2004). 


3. Isn't Maori culture and knowledge unscientific (see 'stone age') and undemocratic? The focus of comments of this type are claims that contemporary Indigenous knowledge forms are unsuited to the modern era either because they are a) based on 'stone age' principles and beliefs, or, if that doesn't work, b) inauthentic because it is 'invented' by ideologically and politically driven natives to suck monies from Government or to empower tribal elites (see Rata, 2003 and Marie, 2010 for examples of this approach).

Connell (2006) argues that we can group the strategies used to silence the Indigenous Other into four main textual moves: 

• Claims of universality: silencing the Indigenous Other through the ideological belief that Western science is the pinnacle of human knowledge construction and, importantly, that knowledge derived from it is applicable to all humans regardless of 'race', social and historical context. 
• Reading from the centre: a tendency for the West to 'read the world' from its own position, and not from a position of the West's impact on other regions or peoples; 
• Gestures of exclusion: where Western commentators analyse and speak about the Indigenous Other by focusing on (mainly) Western texts and theories; and 
• Grand erasure: the process of writing about crime trends, etc as though any other context other than the 'West' exists, or is important, or similarly, discussing the neo-colonial present (for example, Maori over-representation) as though the colonial past never happened.  

All four moves are commonly found in criminological texts focused on Indigenous peoples.  For example, we can see it in the work of criminologists who publish tracts on Indigenous issues largely devoid of critical commentary or research carried out by Indigenous peoples; a classic example of a gesture of exclusion (see Newbold and Jeffries, 2010 - especially the section on New Zealand).  We see the strategy of universality in the claims of criminologists and policy makers that scientifically-derived interventions, based on Western social mores and norms, are applicable to all peoples regardless of 'race', culture and social context (for examples read anything published by New Zealand's Department of Corrections in relation to its criminogenic interventions and the Ministry of Justice re: its suite of crime prevention initiatives).  We see the systematic (and systemic) grand erasure of Indigenous justice knowledge throughout the work of the crime control industry, where Indigenous-derived commentary on justice issues is often totally absent from literature reviews, Cabinet papers and strategic documents.

The destruction of Indigenous knowledge in crime control policy

A recent publication by Marie (2010) is emblematic of attempts by members of the academy to support the policy sectors drive to exclude Indigenous knowledge from the policy making process.  In her article, Marie makes a number of contentious arguments, including two in particular that are closely linked, 1) crime control knowledge and interventions derived from Tikanga Maori are invalid in contemporary Western contexts because the methodologies used are non-Western and unscientific, and 2) New Zealand's crime control policy-makers have given power over to  Maori and 'Maori culture', which for the past 20 years or so has dominated the sectors policy, funding and intervention-related approaches to Maori crime.  Furthermore, these two interrelated issues explain why New Zealand's policy makers have made little impact on Maori rates of offending and imprisonment.  So, the crux of Marie's argument is that the ongoing over-representation of Maori in the criminal justice system is because our unscientific approaches do not work to control offending, and because we have been crafty enough to con white policy makers into giving us control of the sector's Maori policy work and service delivery.

The only words that describe these claims are 'uninformed' and 'rubbish'. Like so much of this type of work, when we peel back the thin veneer of 'science' we can see that the Western academic is wearing no cloths. With regards Marie's work, you only need to perform the basic literature and document review any competent 2nd year criminology student would undertake to complete an essay, to uncover evidence that:

1. Maori theory does not dominate policy making in any of New Zealand’s crime control agencies.  In fact the vast majority of policy, legislation, intervention design and funding decisions are informed by Eurocentric, imported ‘theories’ and interventions, such as Crime Prevention through Environmental Design and Rational Choice Theory in the Ministry of Justice and the Psychology of Criminal Conduct in the Department of Corrections (see the Ministry of Justice generated material on the recent Drivers of Crime project in New Zealand (2009a and 2009b); and
2. The vast majority of government spend in New Zealand’s criminal justice system goes to imported Western crime control programmes, including the environmental and psychological initiatives mentioned above.  It is interesting to note that during the now defunct Effective Interventions initiative (2006-2007), Te Puni Kokiri officials were informed by crime control agencies that Maori-controlled initiatives received less than 10% of the sectors spend on therapy and other forms of intervention (see Tauri, 2011).

Celebrate deviant knowledge!*

None of the strategies used to silence Indigenous knowledge will come as a surprise to Indigenous commentators and other critical academics.  Our knowledge is, as Walters (2003) so aptly describes in his critique of criminological knowledge construction, of the deviant variety.  We should embrace and celebrate this title; for at least our knowledge is derived from engagement with our communities.  I would rather our work be considered deviant than hide behind the ideological facade expressed in such terms as 'empirical', 'scientific', 'rational' and 'value-free'. 

Indigenous and other critical scholars, commentators, community workers and the like, need to be aware of the material produced by those working to silence the Indigenous voice.  It is good to 'know your enemy', but let's not get too dazzled by their attempts to blind us with their claims to be scientific, especially when Connell (2006: 257) reminds us that in the development of their work :

"Debates among the colonised are ignored, the intellectuals of colonised societies are unreferenced, and social process is analysed in an ethnographic time-warp". 

References

Callister, P (2004) Ethnicity Measures, Intermarriage and Social Policy, New Zealand Journal of Social Policy, 23 (online).

Connell, R (2006) Northern Theory: The Political Geography of General Social Theory, Theoretical Sociology, 35: 237-264.

Marie, D. (2010) Maori and Criminal Offending: A Critical Appraisal, The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 43(2): 283-300.  

Ministry of Justice. (2009a) Strategic Brief: Biological Risk Factors for Involvement in Crime.  Wellington: Ministry of Justice. 

Ministry of Justice. (2009b) Strategic Brief: Risk Factors and Causal Mechanisms for Offending.  Wellington: Ministry of Justice.  

Newbold, G. and Jeffries, S. (2010) Race, Crime and Criminal Justice in Australia and New Zealand, in A. Kalunta-Crumpton (ed.) Race, Crime and the Criminal Justice System: International Perspectives: 187-206. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

Rata, E (2003) An Overview of Neotribal Capitalism, Ethnologies Comparees, 6: 1-22.

Tauri, J. (2011) Indigenous Perspectives (reconfigured chapter), in R. Walters and T. Bradley (eds.), Introduction to Criminological Thought (2^nd ed.): 187-210. Auckland: Pearson Longman.

Walters, R (2003) Deviant Knowledge: Criminology, Politics and Policy.  Cullompton: Willan Publishing.

* The term 'deviant knowledge' as it is used here is taken from the title and content of my colleague  Professor Reece Walters book Deviant Knowledge: Criminology, Politics and Policy.  

Ignoring Inconvenient Truths: Criminal Justice and Lazy Scholarship in Aotearoa/New Zealand

The purpose of this entry is to provide a brief overview of the current state of much of the scholarship that academics and social commentators are producing re: the issue of Maori and criminal justice.

Missing the Wood for the Trees

In late November 2011 I was in Wellington to give a paper at a Restorative Justice practitioners conference.  Soon after I arrived one of the 'demi-God's' of crime control policy in New Zealand, Kim Workman introduced me to another participant as 'Juan, the radical', effectively giving me a promotion.  He proceeded to tell his mate an interesting story: earlier that year after he had presented a paper on Maori crime at a conference in the Waikato region, a young man said to him 'any work about Maori and crime issues and doesn't cite Moana Jackson or Juan Tauri' is bullsh*t"!  Kim, laughing, tongue firmly set against his cheek, then said, 'Juan is famous'.... and our lovely chitchat ended there and we parted.  

I had read the paper he presented at the conference and agreed with the young man's comments, although I wouldn't go so far as to call it bullsh*t.  The paper was well-written and contained some useful information on the 'Maori situation', especially for policy wonks who would appreciate that it glossed over nasty fish hooks like, ah, institutional racism (at least in a meaningful way), or the failure of so many of the imported interventions both they and other liberal commentators have been supporting for decades, while providing a set of safe (largely 'business as usual') non-threatening policy options for them to consider.  The paper contained a number of the weaknesses that are sadly all too prevalent in mainstream criminological commentary on 'the Maori problem', including:

1. too much focus on the international perspective (and supporting the importation of overseas programmes and policies of dubious quality);
2. a tendency to ignore critical research and commentary produced 'at home' by Maori and non-Maori academics, researchers and practitioners; and 
3. a preference for analysing Indigenous issues from within the uncritical confines (and safety) of Eurocentric frameworks provided by the state (criminal justice systems and policies) and the academy (Law, Criminology, Psychology, etc).  This approach can be seen in a number of recent 'expert' commentaries by Danette Marie (which is an exemplar of this type of approach), Newbold and Jeffries (2010), Department of Corrections (2007) and to a lesser extent, Hess (2011) and  Tinsley and McDonald (2011: (the report can be found on line by typing in 'Kim Workman', or the title of the paper: Redemption Denied: Aspects of Maori Over-representation in the Criminal Justice System). 

The fundamental weakness in this approach is evident in Workman's paper through his inexplicable decision to ignore what is the only large-scale empirical research ever completed on Maori experiences of the criminal justice system; namely Jackson's 1988 report He Whaipaanga Hou.  'But', you might say, 'the report is too old'; and the answers to that are 'yes it is', and 'so what?'  Any author claiming to provide us with a thorough discussion of the 'Maori situation' must engage with the experiences of Maori represented in Jackson's report.  Not only is his work still the only in-depth, 'empirical' study of Maori experiences of New Zealand's criminal justice system, but more importantly, (and worryingly) the findings and recommendations are still relevant to the policy settings of 2012.

Furthermore, Jackson's findings have been backed by a range of government and non-government work, including the Maori and Police Perceptions research carried out by Te Whaiti and Roguski in the late 1990s, the range of papers presented (and reported) at the Nga Kaiwhakamarama I Nga Ture 1998 Maori and criminal justice conference, Te Puni Kokiri's 2007 research on Maori offenders experiences of prison... and the list goes on.  In other words, all the meaningful empirical work completed since 1988 (and by that I mean, with the exception of the Te Puni Kokiri report, carried out independent of government) demonstrates that the Maori experience of criminal justice has not fundamentally altered.  Ergo, what the 3,000 Maori who participated in Jackson's work put forward as solutions to the current racist, biased system, still hold value for any discussion of contemporary policy settings.

Similarly, given that Workman claims to be trying to identify existing 'gaps in research and policy', his lack of engagement with (or knowledge of) the work of critical commentators like myself, Mikaere, and Webb is baffling, especially since the issues emanating from all three authors' critical, Maori-centred work clearly constitute gaps in policy and intervention design and delivery, and demonstrate the disempowering nature of New Zealand's crime control processes for Maori.  Engaging with their work is important because their research identifies issues Maori have with recent crime control practises, including (but not exclusively) the increased tendency for uncritical importation of Western crime control policies, and the (recent but ongoing) retrenchment of public financial support for Maori initiatives (as evidenced by recent cuts by government to the much lauded Whanau Ora policy project).  Yet Workman's critical review says nothing about either of these empirically identified issues.  In fact, his work not only overlooks the 'wood for the trees', but bypasses the Maori forest to gaze lovingly at the various exotic, imported species of European and North American crime control initiatives much loved by 'commentators', jurists and policy wonks in the third world jurisdiction we call New Zealand.

Referencing dubious 'evidence': a comment on political opportunism
While presenting at the conference that I mentioned at the beginning of this blog, Workman described me to the audience as 'probably the person most critical of the Minister Sharples support for Maori run prisons and his belief in the efficacy of certain prison programmes'.  I sat and nodded politely, while reflecting sadly that most of what he said was inaccurate; the result perhaps of his lack of engagement with the range of critical work I and others produce.  It also highlights the dangers inherent in trying to read the minds of others who you know little about.  For the record, I don't have an issue with Sharples' broad crime control perspective as we share many of the same concerns with the performance of the criminal justice sector.  However, I do believe his view that Iwi will able to run better prisons is just a tad naive when you consider that what any private contracting entity will be running is a  'a prison' as defined and structured through a government agency-constructed contract.  Iwi will not be delivering a 'prison product' designed from thin-air by their corporate tribal arm.  Nor do I have a major issue with attempts to improve the quality and efficacy of prison programmes: I just wish Ministers, Workman and other prison advocates would drop their periodic tendency for displaying an unquestioning acceptance of policy workers' rhetoric about the scientific reliability of their programmes, especially when it aligns with their own interventionist and political agenda.

A recent example of this tendency was a press release from Rethinking Crime and Punishment that took the Sensible Sentencing Trust to task for disagreeing with the then Minister of Corrections, Judith Collins' who had released her own press release extolling the effectiveness of the agency's drug and alcohol initiatives, as 'evidenced' by its own research.  I think that Rethinking Crime and Punishment, Workman and others should be a little more circumspect before breathlessly extolling the so-called scientific claims of the Minister of Corrections and his/her policy wonks; after all this is the same agency that:

• worked every 'dirty trick' in the policy book to stop a thorough, independent analysis of bias in the criminal justice system as agreed and instructed by Cabinet in the 2006-2007 Effective Interventions work programme.  Part of Corrections strategy was the poorly crafted 2007 review of Maori offending which makes the dubious claim that only two primary theories dominate explanations of Maori overrepresentation, namely bias in the criminal justice system (the 'Maori' theory)  and life-course theory (the 'scientific', rational explanation preferred by policy).  The truth is that Maori and non-Maori commentators have used a vast range of theories to explain the situation and practioners' a diverse range of interventions to alleviate it, and the literature is readily available to demonstrate the falsity of Corrections claims (see Te Puni Kokiri, 2007 and Webb, 2003: a critical commentary on the range of theories will form the basis of another blog).  The reason for Corrections purposeful expunging of Maori and critical theories and related empirical evidence?  Quite simply, Corrections officials employed the report as a strategy to kill off the proposed bias project.  An interesting aside: Corrections officials had no issues with the project when they thought it would focus solely on Police.  It was only when Te Puni Kokiri officials proposed that the project consider bias at all stages of the criminal justice system, that Corrections support suddenly waned (nothing has been produced in the past twenty years in the New Zealand crime control policy context that comes close to the Corrections report as a classic example of an agency starting from a pre-determined set of findings and conclusions prior to carrying out the actual research: it is a must read for anyone with a critical perspective on crime control in New Zealand); and

• did everything in its power to try to hide the fact that analysis of the first set of data on the effectiveness of its criminogenic suite of programmes actually showed that Maori offenders who received their scientifically-derived 'therapy' had higher reconviction rates than the control group (when the data was reported as such the report was removed from the official who had authored it and given to another official to 'review'.... meaning an attempt was made at massaging the offending data into something more palatable to the organisation).

I suspect that members of Rethinking Crime and Punishment and like-minded individuals already know how unethical crime control policy wonks are when it comes to Maori issues.  The support for then Corrections Minister Judith Collins' statement about 'evidence' for the efficacy of certain initiatives, which was used by Rethinking Crime and Punishment to criticise their main competitors in crime control rhetoric in New Zealand (the Sensible Sentencing Trust),  makes their support for this type of propaganda unacceptable.  From my perspective it makes them look like political opportunists who feed hungrily on the morsels of ideological rhetoric Minister's and policy wonks throw their way  because it suits 'the relationship'.

I'm sure they have their reasons for this behaviour and can provide a number of rationale to justify it.   I have a couple of my own, one being that their critical silence on the often unethical nature of policy making comes from a fear (not unfounded) that to do so might result in government agencies retrenching some of the (already) inconsequential funding agencies throw at external organisations to keep them compliant.  Another unpalatable explanation is that some commentators consider the issues generated from a critical Maori perspective to be insignificant or 'unmentionable' because they do not align with their own policy agenda.  If that is the case then their arrogance is palpable given that Maori have time and again exposed the racism and ineffectiveness of crime control policy making in New Zealand with respect to their communities.  If you ignore our experiences, for whatever reason, then you are part of the problem and not the solution.  

References

Department of Corrections (2007) Overrepresentation of Maori in the Criminal Justice System: An Exploratory Report.  Wellington: Department of Corrections.  

Hess, J (2011) Addressing the Overrepresentation of the Maori in New Zealand's Criminal Justice System at the Sentencing Stage: How Australia Can Provide a Model for Change, Pacific Rim Law and Policy Journal, January: 180-209. 

Jackson, M (1988) Maori and the Criminal Justice System: He Whaipaanga Hou: A New Perspective.  Wellington: Department of Justice.

Marie, D (2010) Maori and Criminal Offending: A Critical Appraisal, The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 43(2): 283-300. 

Nga Kaiwhakamarama I Nga Ture (ed.) (1998) Maori and the Criminal Justice System: Ten Years On, conferencing proceedings from the Maori and the Criminal Justice Hui, July, Wellington.  

Newbold, G and Jeffries, S (2010) Race, Crime and Criminal Justice in Australia and New Zealand, in A. Kalunta-Crumpton (ed.) Race, Crime and the Criminal Justice System: International Perspectives: 187-206. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

Te Whaiti, P and Roguski, M (1998) Maori Perceptions of the Police.  Wellington: Victoria Link Ltd. 

Te Puni Kokiri (2007) Report on Engagement with Maori Providers, Practitioners and Offenders (draft: available from Juan by request).  Wellington: Te Puni Kokiri. 

Tinsley, Y and McDonald, E (2011) Is There any Other Way?  Possible Alternative to the Current Criminal Justice Process, Canterbury Law Review, 17: 192-221.

Webb, R (2003) Risk Factors, Criminogenic Needs and Maori, Conference Proceedings of the Sociological Association of New Zealand, Knowledge, Capitalism, Critique, December, Auckland. 

Workman, K (2011) Redemption Denied: Aspects of Maori Overrepresentation in the Criminal Justice System, paper presented to the 'Justice in the Round' Conference, University of Waikato, 18-20 April.