“Operating in the margins”: Pacific researchers’ reflections on positionality in Pacific research

Abstract

Positionality is central to Pacific research, shaping its ontological and epistemological foundations. It requires researchers to remain critically aware of how their identities and social positioning influence research design, implementation, analysis, and outcomes. Reflexivity, as an ongoing process of self-awareness, is essential to ethical, inclusive, and culturally grounded Pacific research. Drawing on roundtable talanoa, this paper shares insights from 12 Pacific researchers in Aotearoa New Zealand on how positionality shapes their research. We explore the central role of reflexivity in navigating the complexities, challenges, and ethical responsibilities of Pacific research. Reflexive praxis is shown to influence research design, motivations, and engagement with Pacific communities. We also discuss the anxieties and sensitivities of conducting Pacific research, alongside a shared commitment to approaches that empower Pacific peoples and honour Indigenous knowledge systems.

Keywords

positionality in Pacific research reflexivity in Pacific research researcher positionality roundtable talanoa vulnerability in Pacific research

Introduction

Positionality is central to Pacific research. By articulating positionality, researchers can delineate the ontological and epistemological stance that guides, shapes and informs research (T. I. Fasavalu & Reynolds, 2019; Ponton, 2018; Vaioleti, 2013). In Pacific contexts, where Indigenous ways of knowing and cultural values are crucial, positionality ensures that researchers are aware of their influence over research. It calls for a commitment to ethical, inclusive and collaborative research that respects Pacific knowledge systems and challenges Western-centric approaches to research and understanding Pacific peoples’ social realities. While reflexivity and positionality are hallmarks of many social sciences research traditions, such as feminist, queer, and Indigenous scholarship, in Pacific research, these practices are grounded in Pacific ontological and epistemological standpoints (Ponton, 2018; Tualaulelei & McFall-McCaffery, 2019). Reflexivity is, thus, both a methodological stance and an ethical commitment to Pacific perspectives, addressing ongoing legacies of colonial research (Latai-Niusulu et al., 2020; Nabobo-Baba, 2011; Vaioleti, 2006, 2013).

Positionality and reflexivity are closely linked because understanding how a researcher’s positionality shapes research requires critical self-awareness. Reflexivity acknowledges the influence of a researcher’s social positions and identities on research processes and practices (Tualaulelei & McFall-McCaffery, 2019). As a practice, reflexivity is a continuous process of introspection about the role of one’s positionality, recognising that researchers have values and experiences that they inevitably bring to their research, which consequently shapes how they frame research questions, collect data, analyse and report findings. Researchers are thus encouraged to consider how their social characteristics, such as ethnicity, age, class, gender and religion, and social positioning, such as their status in the community, shape research processes, practices and research spaces more generally.

Understanding how positionality shapes research requires not only introspection about individual identity but also a recognition of the broader sociocultural contexts in which researchers are located. In Aotearoa New Zealand, these contexts are shaped by the presence and experiences of diverse Pacific communities. The phrase “Pacific people” acknowledges shared geography and cultural norms and practices, but signifies the diversity and heterogeneity in people, culture and language (Health Research Council of New Zealand, 2014; Koloto and Katoanga, 2007). Recognising this heterogeneity is essential for understanding the multiple positionalities that Pacific researchers bring to their work.

This paper is a response to an echo of calls made by Pacific scholars for Pacific researchers to articulate and share their experiences to continue to sharpen Pacific approaches to research (Fa’avae et al., 2016; Keil, 2021; Sisifa & Fifita, 2021; Suaalii-Sauni & Fulu-Aiolupotea, 2014). Through roundtable talanoa, we share the reflections and experiences of 12 Pacific researchers in Aotearoa New Zealand, who form part of the transdisciplinary Pacific Early Career Academic Network (PECAN) at Waipapa Taumata Rau, University of Auckland, exploring how positionality shapes their research as well as the complexities and challenges working within the broad and evolving landscape of Pacific research. In particular, we highlight the centrality of reflexive praxis in shaping research design and the motivations for pursuing and undertaking Pacific research. In pursuing this inquiry, we outline some of the anxieties and sensitivities associated with doing Pacific research, counterbalanced against aspirations to empower Pacific peoples.

As Pacific researchers located predominantly within Aotearoa New Zealand, our positionalities are shaped not only by our Pacific heritages but also by the diasporic context of Aotearoa New Zealand. We work in relation to Māori as tangata whenua (Indigenous people of the land) and acknowledge that our responsibilities as Pacific researchers are entangled with ongoing struggles for Indigenous sovereignty and decolonisation (Mullane et al., 2022; Smith, 1999). While our talanoa centred on our Pacific identities and experiences, our location in Aotearoa inevitably frames our reflexive practice and the responsibilities we hold as scholars working in Aotearoa New Zealand. However, we also acknowledge the vexed question of authenticity for Pacific researchers in diaspora, many of whom have been raised and educated outside their ancestral homelands. While they may not have lived in their home islands, their positionalities remain shaped by genealogical ties, cultural practices, and lived experiences of being Pacific and being embedded within their Pacific cultures and communities in their ancestral homelands, Aotearoa and beyond.

There is a growing body of scholarship that demonstrates the significance of positionality in Pacific research that highlights, in particular, the limitations of outside researchers and research methodologies for understanding Pacific peoples, cultures and contexts (Latai-Niusulu et al., 2020; Nabobo-Baba, 2011; Ponton, 2018; Suaalii-Sauni & Fulu-Aiolupotea, 2014; Vaioleti, 2006, 2013). Gegeo and Watson-Gegeo (2001) argue that research on Pacific peoples is often conducted by outsiders who impose their own theoretical and methodological frameworks. However, in considering epistemology, Pacific scholars, such as Tongan academic Timote Vaioleti (2006, p. 22), argue that

“[r]esearchers whose knowing is derived from Western origins are unlikely to have values and lived realities that allow understanding of issues pertaining to knowledge and ways of being that originate from [people living in] . . . Sāmoa, Tonga, Fiji, Tuvalu or the other Pacific nations.”

Thus, there has been a shift away from research modes historically dominated by white Western approaches to research, often rooted in positivist traditions that emphasise, for example, objectivism, quantification and generalisability (Fa’avae, 2019; Fa’avae et al., 2016; Naepi, 2019a; Ponton, 2018; Tualaulelei & McFall-McCaffery, 2019; Uasike Allen et al., 2022). These approaches are typically characterised by Eurocentric epistemologies and methodologies, such as statistical methods that abstract or decontextualise lived experience, or framings that prioritise clinical objectivity, and also social science techniques that privilege individualist perspectives over collective worldviews. In response, Pacific scholars have advanced a “by us, with us, for us” approach, which resonates with principles of Kaupapa Māori research that centre “by Māori, for Māori, with Māori” approaches to research (Mullane et al., 2022; Pihama, 2010; Smith, 1999). While emerging from distinct genealogies, these approaches are connected by their emphasis on Indigenous peoples’ right to define their own research agendas, epistemologies, and methods. Locating Pacific research within this wider landscape underscores both our solidarity and the distinctiveness of Pacific worldviews as a foundation for ethical, relational, and decolonising research with Pacific peoples.

As such, Pacific scholars have created and cultivated diverse Pacific research methodologies and approaches that recognise the value of centring Pacific voices and ways of seeing, knowing, being and doing (Baice and Samu, 2023; Tualaulelei & McFall-McCaffery, 2019; Veukiso-Ulugia et al., 2024). Examples include, but are not limited to, the kakala framework (Johansson-Fua, 2023; Thaman, 1997), talanoa (Otunuku, 2011; Prescott, 2008; Vaioleti, 2006), fa’afaletui (Suaalii-Sauni & Fulu-Aiolupotea, 2014; Tamasese, 2002; Tamasese et al., 1997), vanua (Nabobo-Baba, 2008, 2011), fonofale (Pulotu-Endemann, 1995) and teu le vā (Anae, 2010). Despite their diversity, Pacific methodologies share a commitment to Pacific worldviews by centring Pacific values, principles, and practices in research with Pacific peoples, while also aiming to reduce research biases, acknowledge diverse experiences, reflect on the researcher’s role, and promote social change.

Emphasising the importance of understanding Pacific peoples’ lives through their cultural contexts and worldviews (Huffer & Qalo, 2004; Vaioleti, 2006, 2013) does not necessarily exclude non-Pacific researchers from engaging in Pacific research. Although this is a contested and context-dependent space, it underscores the need for non-Pacific researchers to clearly articulate their position to: ensure transparency, recognise research limitations and prevent potential misrepresentation or misunderstanding. As Vaioleti (2006, p. 32) reminds us:

when Pacific peoples learn or share, much information is communicated through the senses, so it is vital that researchers understand the laumalie (essence, spirit, wairua) of concepts, notions, emotions or expressions in the . . . encounter. . . . If researchers are not knowledgeable in Pacific ways . . . they cannot accompany the participants to the cultural, contextual and spiritual depths of their sharing and theorising. The research will be poorer for that, and misleading.

There is thus an ontological concern raised when non-Pacific do Pacific research without disclosing their position as it risks misrepresenting their analysis and findings as being ontologically rooted in Pacific worldviews, which operates as a form of ongoing colonisation of Pacific knowledges (Ponton, 2018) and “may open the door to creeping colonial assimilation through the naming of non-Pacific things as Pacific” (Sanga & Reynolds, 2017, p. 201). There is thus an urgent “need to be vigilant about what can and should be called Pacific research” (p. 200). While reflexivity and positionality are responsibilities for all researchers, the stakes are particularly acute for non-Pacific researchers, given the historical legacy of extractive and colonising research. Pacific researchers too must remain critically aware of their positionalities, especially where questions of diaspora or institutional privilege arise. However, what differentiates the expectations for non-Pacific researchers is the need to demonstrate cultural accountability and transparency in contexts where they may lack lived experience of Pacific worldviews.

Although Pacific research methodologies emerged to counter the marginalisation of Pacific voices and to centre cultural context in research (Naepi, 2019a; Sisifa & Fifita, 2021; Suaalii-Sauni & Fulu-Aiolupotea, 2014), there remains limited scholarship on how Pacific researchers’ positionality and reflexive praxis shape their research (T. I. Fasavalu & Reynolds, 2019; Marsters, 2023; Tualaulelei & McFall-McCaffery, 2019). This paper adds to a collection of collaborative pieces (Baice, Leialaiauloto, et al., 2021a, Baice, Naepi, et al., 2021b; Leenen-Young et al., 2021; Naepi et al., 2020; Thomsen, Leenen-Young, et al., 2021; Thomsen, Tuiburelevu, et al., 2021), with Pacific researchers raising their voices and sharing their experiences of how they navigate, negotiate and overcome operating in the margins of research. We recognise and respond to our duties and responsibilities as Pacific researchers, navigators and wayfinders to continue, as those before us have done, to broaden the articulations and horizons of Pacific research methodologies by highlighting the significance of positionality and reflexivity as research praxis critical to undertaking Pacific research.

Talanoa research methodologies

Talanoa research methodology stems from Pacific oral traditions of producing, sharing and transferring knowledge through conversation (Prescott, 2008; Vaioleti, 2006, 2013). As an oratory tradition, talanoa is recognised and practised in many different forms and articulated contextually in local languages in Sāmoa, Fiji, Tonga, Cook Islands, Niue, Hawai‘i and other Pacific nations to generate and transfer knowledge. In the diaspora, talanoa has also been used to articulate emerging researcher positionalities that are not only relational but increasingly also intersectional (Keil, 2021; Thomsen, 2023) and transnational (Thomsen, 2020; Thomsen et al., 2022). However, it is important to note that talanoa is one of several Pacific approaches that draw from rich oral traditions of knowledge-generation through conversation, including tok stori in Melanesian contexts (Sanga & Reynolds, 2021) and maroro in Kiribati. These methodologies share an emphasis on relational knowledge creation, but each is shaped by its own cultural and linguistic context.

Talanoa encourages face-to-face conversations between people. It requires understanding the relationality and connectedness between all those in the research space. As a research method, talanoa allows people to relate their experiences in their own words and, significantly, in an environment and space that values diverse Pacific cultural protocols, practices, and worldviews. Talanoa can be viewed as one way to integrate diverse Pacific epistemologies and cultural practices within academic knowledge production processes. Talanoa is, as Vaioleti (2006, p. 1) notes, “a personal encounter where people story their issues, their realities and aspirations. It allows for more moʻoni (pure, real, authentic) information to be available for Pacific research.” Talanoa is thus founded on fostering the vā or relational space; it necessitates a cultural connectedness and ethics of care for all those in the research space as knowledge holders.

Roundtable talanoa

The insights in this paper are drawn from a 2-hr roundtable talanoa held in September 2022 with 12 Pacific researchers from the transdisciplinary PECAN at Waipapa Taumata Rau, University of Auckland. The group included both early-career academics and doctoral candidates working across a range of disciplines and faculties, including Arts, Education, Science, and Health and Medical Sciences. With permission, the talanoa was audio-recorded and transcribed.

The conception of this paper originated during a PECAN writing retreat in January 2022, where PECAN members engaged in discussions about the significance of positionality in Pacific research. Building on this initial dialogue, the first and second authors developed a set of reflective research questions aimed at prompting deeper consideration of how researchers’ positionality shapes Pacific-focused research. These questions were then shared with PECAN members who had expressed interest in contributing to a collaborative paper and served as a foundation for the roundtable talanoa held later that year. Notably, a collaborator who had recently moved overseas shared her reflections on these questions, contributing to a more inclusive and comprehensive dialogue.

As a research approach, roundtable talanoa involves collaborators literally convening around a round table, promoting a spatial arrangement where participants sit side-by-side and shoulder-to-shoulder. Such positioning seeks to diminish hierarchies of power and authority commonly associated with traditional research settings, such as those dictated by having a head of the table or hierarchical differences linked to academic rank. Roundtable talanoa centres the vā (relationships), attending to spatial and social dynamics within the research context. Unlike focus groups, which are often structured around a facilitator’s questions and aimed at extracting information from participants, roundtable talanoa is underpinned by relational engagement. It creates space for participants to speak spontaneously, respond to each other, and co-construct meaning. The emphasis is on relational storytelling and collective reflection as opposed to answering a set of predetermined questions. In addition, roundtable talanoa disrupts hierarchical dynamics through spatial design, where focus groups can reinforce power imbalances through seating arrangements, for example, by facilitators leading from the front, roundtable talanoa intentionally uses a circular, shoulder-to-shoulder format to flatten hierarchy and embody Pacific values of vā, respect, and reciprocity. Beyond ameliorating potential power disparities, the spatial configuration of roundtable talanoa embodies principles of respect, relationality and reciprocity (Kuntz, 2015), enabling all individuals in the space to engage as researchers, participants and co-constructors of knowledge.

During the roundtable, there was an energy—a magnetism that fostered connectivity and encouraged vulnerability. This atmosphere allowed for safe and meaningful talanoa, characterised by an openness that embraced our multifaceted and intersecting Pacific identities. The roundtable began with participants sharing reflections on their positionality in relation to their research. There was no prescribed order or hierarchy rather, the roundtable unfolded with a collaborative energy, as participants shared reflections in a spontaneous and non-linear manner. Each individual’s contribution wove seamlessly into the discussion, creating an unstructured yet cohesive exchange of ideas and experiences. This collaborative storytelling provoked follow-up questions, allowing researchers to build upon, reference, and acknowledge similarities and differences in their journeys.

The talanoa was thematically analysed by four of the authors to find patterned responses that point to similarities as well as differences in experiences related to the significance of positionality in research; vulnerabilities in doing Pacific research; and aspirations for undertaking Pacific research. In the next section, we present key themes identified from our talanoa, highlighting the experiences of our collaborators, who articulated “things that we’ve always known and done unconsciously” but now found ourselves at a juncture where we must “articulate those things . . . to describe positionality and ontological disposition.”

Findings

Significance of positionality

Reflecting on the significance of positionality, our talanoa highlighted a process of continuous circular introspection and reflexivity about our role in research. Reflexive research praxis enabled us to place ourselves in the same critical plane as we would our research. This involved recognising, examining and understanding how our social positioning shapes research, including research design, implementation, analysis and outcomes. Talking about the centrality of positionality in research and the inseparability of positionality from research, these collaborators said:

Collaborator 1:

My positionality, Tongan father, European mother. . . . being born in Aotearoa . . . and then all the other things. . . like being a sister, a cousin, a niece, a mum . . . a wife. . . . It’s just everything that makes me who I am, all those intersecting identities. . . . There’s this tension in [discipline], whether you should include your positionality in your research . . . lots of people say you shouldn’t, but I don’t see how you can do research . . . without infusing your positionality. . . . I think it’s so important, because how can you be authentic without it?

Collaborator 12:

I am a married Samoan, Palagi, mother of two. I am a practicing Catholic. . . . It is such a privilege to have my professional work be an expression of my faith and spirituality, especially through an explicitly Pacific lens. . . . My positionality is completely interwoven with my research. If I can help church communities in some small way to talk about mental wellbeing . . . then I know it is worth it.

Collaborator 3:

I’m totally agreeing with what [another collaborator] said, it’s Samoan, Catholic, all those reference points, all those things that we’ve been taught and ingrained in us as we’ve grown up. And now we’re in the university, where we can . . . use all of it, bring all of it with us to inform our research.

Our talanoa revealed a strong sense of reflexivity about positionality, highlighting how our intersecting identities shaped our research. It also demonstrated the intersectional composition of positionality layered onto ethnic positioning, where Pacific identities were intermeshed with identities and experiences related to gender, sexuality, religion as well as positions in our families and communities. This layering of identities resonates with intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1989, 1991), which highlights how multiple axes of identity and power intersect to shape lived experiences (Ravulo et al., 2024). While ethnicity has often been treated as a primary marker in Pacific research, our collaborators’ reflections demonstrate how ethnic positioning is inextricably interwoven with other aspects of identity. However, acknowledging these intersectional positionalities is not merely descriptive; it is critical for ethical research praxis. By recognising how ethnicity intersects with gender, class, sexuality, and other markers, researchers can avoid essentialising Pacific identities and better account for the diversity within Pacific peoples and communities.

As such, holding diverse and intersecting identities was seen as valuable for creating and extending space within established Pacific fields of research as well as other areas of knowledge-making, including traditionally privileged Western modes of generating knowledge, as these collaborators said:

Collaborator 4:

I have a very complicated relationship with the idea of research . . . as a system of producing particular types of knowledge . . . that’s considered valid in the way that we understand the world around us. . . . As a Samoan, but specifically a queer, Samoan, that also adds another layer of complexity to my positionality. . . . And so thinking about how I want to contribute to the development of our own communities is a lot more complex than just saying that this is a Pacific concern. . . . There’s an added intersectional complexity. . . . So, my positionality informs a type of complex approach to social problems, because there’s so many different identity issues and positioning that I . . . gravitate between.

Collaborator 9:

I’ve come through a [discipline] background . . . coming through, we had no, or very minimal, Pacific content. . . . So now, having done a PhD and kind of reflecting on that experience, I began to see how my combination of my own Pacific and Cook Island cultural values, were kind of being kept separate . . . from the scientific knowledge that I had . . . because I viewed them as inherently separate from each other. Because my research was focused on identity, when people asked me about where my position was, I was like, okay . . . I’m combining Pacific research and [discipline] research. . . . I’m drawing on multiple knowledge systems to create new knowledge that is going to enhance both.

Incorporating diverse perspectives, and in this context, those rooted in Pacific epistemologies enriches the creation of new knowledge. This fusion elevates Pacific knowledge systems and expands traditionally privileged Western knowledge systems, fostering a more holistic and inclusive approach to research.

Another key aspect of reflexive practice involved reflecting on their individual ethnic heritage and its relationship to the broader Pacific identity. Our talanoa situated our Pacific research within the broader context of Pacific research, acknowledging whanaunga relations across Te Moana nui-a-Kiwa. It also sheltered us in the academy through our ability to create community with scholars from diverse Pacific backgrounds, which was particularly important given the small number of Pacific scholars in the academy (Naepi, 2019b), thereby fostering community building within the academy that enabled us to develop collaborative research relationships to drive meaningful change for our communities, as discussed in later sections.

Collaborator 12:

I love being able to collaborate with other Pacific researchers in different disciplines to develop, maintain and share solutions to the issues we collectively face. At the same time, the diversity in what it means to be Pacific challenges researchers to bring more specific and contextualised narratives forward.

Positionality and ethics

Reflexive research praxis serves as a critical mechanism for contributing to enriching Pacific research, notably by extending Pacific epistemologies and knowledge. A key element of this reflexive approach is the recognition of our positionality as researchers and the ethical responsibility it entails. Our roundtable talanoa highlighted an acute awareness of the potential risks of engaging in extractive research practices, a concern that stems from the long history of exploitation of Pacific people within academic research. As such, our talanoa emphasised the importance of being mindful of our role in research processes—in generating and disseminating knowledge and in the power dynamics at play when conducting research within our various cultural contexts.

It was especially important we were reflexive about our positionality and role within knowledge-making and knowledge-sharing to ensure we did not engage in extractive research processes and practices. Our talanoa demonstrated a strong ethical obligation to “step up,” as one collaborator noted, and act as representatives for our communities, particularly given the imbalance in representation by non-Pacific scholars in the Pacific research space. Oftentimes, non-Pacific researchers dominate Pacific narratives, shaping research agendas and conclusions that may not fully reflect Pacific peoples lived experiences or authentic perspectives. This situation raises the importance of Pacific researchers leading and being involved in Pacific-focused research to ensure that it is not predominantly driven by external or colonial frameworks. As one collaborator expressed:

Collaborator 4:

Everything is contextual. . . . I think this is why it’s important for us to actually articulate our positionality in it’s true authenticity. . . . Certain people will misrepresent that, because, you know, academia is about trying to position yourself as the key expert in a particular area . . . We all know what the harm can be when researchers are un-reflexive and they come into communities and extract [from] it, misrepresent themselves, steal people’s knowledge and then say that they are the ones who coined a particular term.

Reflexivity and outlining researchers’ positionality were, thus, framed as a way of mitigating exploitative and extractive research practices (Sisifa & Fifita, 2021). It works towards preventing harm, misrepresentation, and the (mis)appropriation of Indigenous knowledges. Reflexivity not only safeguards against extractive practices but also strengthens the authenticity and relevance of research to Pacific peoples, ensuring that knowledge production is rooted in the lived experiences of those it aims to represent. By articulating positionality, researchers can provide transparency regarding the epistemological foundations of their research—clarifying how their identities, backgrounds, and cultural understandings shape research questions, methodologies, data collection, analysis and, importantly, the limitations of the research. This transparency avoids misunderstandings and facilitates a more responsible, respectful approach to knowledge generation.

Moreover, defining positionality helps to clarify the boundaries and limitations of the research, making clear the areas in which the researcher’s perspectives may be limited or influenced by their own cultural or academic frameworks. This process is essential for ethical accountability and ensuring the research remains grounded in Indigenous, contextual and community-driven knowledge systems. As such, reflexivity is both an ethical safeguard and a methodological tool for promoting more equitable and inclusive research practices.

Vulnerabilities, anxieties, and sensitivities of doing Pacific research

A central aspect of reflexive praxis is vulnerability. Vulnerability as praxis can be demonstrated through reflexivity and awareness of one’s positionality and the influence this has on research processes. Vulnerability in research involves confronting one’s emotions, including the anxieties and sensitivities associated with undertaking research (Nakhid, 2003). Vulnerability is a multifaceted concept encompassing the emotional landscape researchers navigate when engaging with research participants and their feelings about the research process. This research dimension is particularly pronounced when dealing with sensitive topics, where the stakes may involve personal, cultural, and community implications (Health Research Council of New Zealand, 2014).

Scholars such as Nakhid (2003) argue for culturally responsive methodologies that recognise the emotional dynamics of research with Indigenous and Pacific populations. When dealing with sensitive topics, such as identity, history, and cultural trauma, researchers must be equipped to navigate their feelings of anxiety and apprehension, which can affect the research process. Pacific and Indigenous scholars highlight the emotional challenges researchers face in Indigenous contexts, emphasising their importance for ethical research (Hau’ofa, 2008; Smith, 1999). Smith (1999) addresses the emotional and ethical complexities of such research, while Hau’ofa (2008) stresses the need for sensitivity to cultural connections. Research, therefore, is not merely technical but a relational practice requiring reflexivity and emotional awareness. Researchers must confront their vulnerabilities and foster safe spaces for participants. For example, the relational nature of talanoa shows that knowledge is co-constructed, with researchers’ and participants’ emotional experiences deeply intertwined—making vulnerability essential to the research process.

Our talanoa was deeply vulnerable, revealing our anxieties about doing Pacific research—especially the pressure of being seen as “the Pacific expert” or voice to speak for our communities. We shared how we had to overcome feelings that were, at times, “debilitating” and “paralysing,” as these collaborators said:

Collaborator 9:

[I] also prefac[e] that even in my lectures, I preface that I’m not an expert in Cook Island culture, nor am I an expert in Pacific culture. . . . But, you know, it’s being able to hold that amorphous definition of Pacific at the same time as recognising that we are just trying to just get something done. As at times . . . we can get caught up in the semantics and the meanings of things. . . . There can be sometimes these feelings of authenticity, kind of coming from other people, like, do you fit the preconceived idea that I have of who you should be to be able to qualify you socially and culturally, spiritually to be able to conduct this research. . . . And I guess, in some instances we are seeing, in the positions that we occupy, as holding very strong privilege . . . having a position where we can shape and influence the ideas around who we are.

Collaborator 11:

My father is Tongan, and my mother is European . . . I guess in my positionality, I’ve always kind of felt a bit of a, ‘Am I allowed to claim these sorts of things?’ . . . Through the PhD it has been like that real journey of actually owning who I am. . . . My research is very much based in my community where I live in South Auckland. . . . [I’m] really interested in . . . challenging those sorts of checklists of what it means to be Pacific, to be Tongan, to be, you know, these different ethnicities, and just trying to privilege [the] nuances . . . in a way that furthers our agenda for our communities. So, it kind of just made me think about . . . how just tension filled it can be. . . . It can make you nervous. And it can be paralysing sometimes. . . . that’s my fear is that we don’t want to become paralysed, or for our up-and-coming scholars to become paralysed either.

These reflections speak directly to ongoing debates about authenticity in Pacific research, particularly for mixed-ethnicity or diaspora-based researchers educated within Western institutions. However, rather than undermining their contributions, reflexivity about positionality and associated tensions demonstrates how authenticity is negotiated relationally, through accountability to Pacific communities and through reflexive engagement with cultural obligations. As the quotes show, we engaged in deep reflexivity and vulnerability about positionality, acknowledging our privilege in the academy alongside our responsibility to serve our communities. This openness fostered authenticity and strengthened our commitment to creating meaningful change.

Furthermore, such reflexivity allowed for critical reflection on the limitations inherent in being categorised collectively under the umbrella of Pacific research. However, these concerns were mitigated by a commitment to valuing relationality and emphasising the significance of our Pacific whanaunga relations from Te Moana nui-a-kiwa. This approach was taken in solidarity against the systemic coloniality of academia, aiming to create space for diverse Pacific knowledge and scholarship long marginalised within academic institutions (Naepi et al., 2017). Beyond academia, our anxiety around conducting Pacific research came from a deep commitment to honouring the communities we serve. We wanted our work to genuinely reflect their needs and aspirations. As one of us put it, we were driven by a desire to “get it right.”

Our talanoa emphasised a paradigmatic approach to Pacific research that centres relationality and values Island-specific particularities and regional commonalities (Hau’ofa, 1994; Ka’ili, 2005; Sanga & Reynolds, 2017). Although there is great diversity and heterogeneity in and between Island nations and Pacific peoples (Winter-Smith et al., 2023), overlapping cultural values demonstrate shared principles embedded within diverse Pacific cultures (Huffer & Qalo, 2004; Koloto and Katoanga, 2007; Sanga, 2004). Thus, instead of drawing rigid boundaries, our talanoa emphasised the “ongoing circular movements” between Pacific peoples and cultures (Ka’ili, 2005). That is not to deny the specificities of diverse Pacific peoples and cultures but instead situates these within Pacific whanauga relations from across moana-oceania and “under the shelter of an umbrella of supportive kin, able to care for the various va involved through both relatedness and separation” (Sanga & Reynolds, 2017, p. 202). Reflecting on this, one said:

Collaborator 9:

How do we honour all of our communities within that umbrella, especially when we consider things like statistical power . . . I mentioned at a conference . . . that statistical power corresponds to political power and social power. . . . I’m quite cognisant of that because there’s just not enough or not much Cook Island research. But at the same time, I’m like, there’s Samoan research, there’s Tongan research, what connections can I make from that? . . . I’m on this continuum that’s constantly dynamic where I’m doing Pacific research but also doing Cook Island research, but also doing New Zealand research. So, it’s all of these things happening simultaneously. . . . So, you’re able to find connections and points of reference through there.

Others situated the importance of Pacific research within their obligations to broad and diverse Pacific communities. This was especially important to those whose families and children were of mixed Pacific ethnicities, as these collaborators shared:

Collaborator 7:

My husband’s [of a different Pacific ethnicity than me], I don’t know, any scholars currently that are advocating for my husband, for his needs. And how am I to be in this privileged position and advocate for my community and ignore him? And go, ‘Sorry, that’s not me to do this for you. Either you step up and do it or sorry, I’m going to leave you behind.’

Collaborator 2:

[My husband] and I have Tongan, Samoan children, and when I’m thinking about that generation . . .what legacy am I leaving for them?

However, for others, engaging with Pacific communities outside their own heritage brought feelings of anxiety, as one collaborator said:

Collaborator 5:

It’s confronting when I’m actually doing the research, when I’m about to go sit with a Tongan grandmother. . . . I’m going in and having to really work and make sure that . . . I’m working on that vā and that relationality is there . . . to build that sense of trust, [so they are not] wondering what this little Samoan girl is doing in their house. . . . It’s creating that trust. That for me, is when I feel most challenged, in those moments. It’s having to . . . really explain the heart behind my project and the heart in terms of the positive impact that I hope this research will have. . . . For me, that’s where the little fear comes [in]. . . . As we’re all talking, I’m realising . . . we’re all grappling with wanting to get it right . . . we’re all united with wanting to make a difference.

Our talanoa reflected on what Pacific research meant to each of us, with shared anxieties eased by a focus on making a difference and serving our communities to ensure that it doesn’t, as one put it, “lead to paralysis in this space.”

Aspirations to empower and make a change

To overcome the fears, anxieties, and sensitivities associated with Pacific research, we embraced reflexivity, allowing us to move beyond paralysis and focus on our aspirations to drive change in our communities and the academy. Pacific worldviews are rooted in values of collectivism (Ponton, 2018; Tu’itahi, 2007). Our talanoa reflected these collectivist values through articulated aspirations to affect positive change in our communities both in Aotearoa and across the Pacific region. The motivation to effect meaningful change was grounded in a sense of responsibility to our families, communities, and future generations, including aspiring researchers, to leverage our privileged social status to foster significant positive outcomes. For example, these collaborators said:

Collaborator 8:

It’s making a difference . . .a tangible impact, because that’s the kind of impact that your community wants or hopes [for]. . . . We’re all here because we want to make a tangible difference.

Collaborator 2:

An underlying concept or idea is actions and efforts for the well-being of our communities. And that’s the why. . . . In the space of like social work, . . .youth justice, health, and recognising the lens that I view the world through as a Samoan daughter, a mother, a wife, someone connected to my community, you know, seeing the issues, seeing the possibilities, and opportunities. And [bringing] that particular lens going into spaces. . . . It’s that kind of heart for me. . . . When I’m having to interview and talk to [people in the community], I find it’s the heart and that connects in terms of the vision and the value. When they understand why you’re doing this, firstly, who are you, why are you doing this, and when they know you actually really want to improve, really want to help, people are generous, our families are so generous that they’ll come on board, because there’s that shared vision.

Central to capacity building for Pacific researchers was engagement with a community of Pacific researchers. As this collaborator said:

Collaborator 3:

I always felt like an outsider . . . operating in the margins sometimes. . . . But then at the same time, I’m lucky because I’ve been in a Faculty where there have been lots of Pacific researchers. . . . But I can’t imagine what that would be like for [someone] who didn’t have all these different [Pacific] connections.

Our talanoa also emphasised the necessity of integrating and valuing diverse Pacific perspectives within research and academia. As emphasised by other Pacific scholars, it is essential to elevate Pacific knowledge while adopting a strengths-based approach that challenges and dismantles deficit perspectives (Anae et al., 2001; T. M. Fasavalu, 2022). Many of us talked about the limited opportunities during our study to learn about Pacific methodologies:

Collaborator 5:

There wasn’t like Pacific methodologies being taught in research papers that I was taking. So, I didn’t even really know what Pacific methodologies [were]. . . . It was realising that the reason I didn’t know my positionality, or the impact, or the influence was because I didn’t have anyone guiding me. I had no one navigating the way for me. And it was having to figure that out for myself. Once I sort of recognised that, I see it as, it’s picking up . . . [the] baton. . . . So, it’s about that intergenerational [transmission of knowledge], I was realising that us being here, we have a responsibility to do what we’re doing right now in this room, to articulate, to create space, to carve out space, to grow space to build, build, build, and continue to grow that. So, it was wanting to be that change so that other people coming after us will see . . . so that they weren’t so in the dark. . . . It’s like shining light into these spaces. So, for me, that’s been hugely important.

Collaborator 3:

I think the opportunities are sort of endless. Under this umbrella of ‘Pacific Research’, I think there are a lot of things we talk about and consider Pacific Research. . . . But, I am worried because there are no courses that give students ample time and space to theorise and to think about Pacific research methods, we have one research methods course [in my Faculty], and we get a two-hour slot to talk about Pacific research methods, it’s really nothing. And then you see it in the [expressions of interest] and the drafts from students when they start to talk about talanoa or teu le vā and it’s yeah, it’s just not good. But you can’t blame them, because they haven’t had the time and space. And we haven’t provided the expertise and the knowledge to develop that sort of expertise.

In response, others shared how they were not only developing research but courses within their faculties to better equip emerging Pacific scholars:

Collaborator 1:

In [discipline], Māori knowledge is not privileged, neither is Pacific knowledges. So, there’s a lot of tension there. But I guess that’s one of the reasons why I decided . . . to create a course that just explores Pacific [knowledges], and try to give it the same leverage as all of our other [mainstream] courses . . . And then hopefully we can get students to understand how Pacific knowledges can be privileged, and being able to take that knowledge and use it in other spaces as well, you know, using that critical lens and applying it to other spaces.

Despite grappling with various fears, anxieties and sensitivities associated with doing Pacific research, our talanoa demonstrated a commitment to continuing to work to make a difference in the academy in terms of how we understand research, what constitutes knowledge and how Pacific peoples are represented in research, including the voices that are speaking for them.

Conclusion

This article makes an important and collaborative contribution by a group of early career researchers living in diaspora that expands the field of Pacific scholarship by underscoring the crucial roles of positionality and reflexivity in shaping research practices. Using a roundtable talanoa approach with Pacific researchers from various disciplines, we showcased diverse experiences of knowledge production and teaching under the collective label of Pacific. We presented a detailed examination of how intersecting identities and vulnerabilities shape research design, execution, and outcomes. Through these experiences, we underscore the centrality of reflexive praxis in shaping our understanding and approach to research. Reflexivity, in particular, is employed to articulate positionality and examine the researcher’s role in defining research objectives and outcomes. In sharing these experiences, we outlined some of the challenges we navigated, our aspirations for advancing Pacific research, and the significance of conducting research within the broader framework of Pacific research. This study reinforces the need for a Pacific approach that is “by us, with us, for us” and offers some insights into fostering more inclusive and ethical research methodologies.

Footnotes

Authors’ note

Moeata Keil (PhD) is a Senior Lecturer in Sociology, School of Social Sciences at Waipapa Taumata Rau, University of Auckland. She is a Samoan decolonial feminist scholar and researcher. Her current research explores how Pacific mothers, fathers and extended family members navigate family life following separation, including family court systems and child support obligations. Her research calls attention to the importance of understanding family within broader networks of relationships than the couple and parent-child dyad, and calls for the state, law and policy to better recognise culturally informed family norms and practices.

Sisikula Sisifa (PhD) is a Lecturer at the University of Auckland Business School and a leading Tongan scholar and policy practitioner whose work focuses on Pacific economic development across the Pacific Island nations. Her expertise is grounded in a deep understanding of how Pacific communities build, sustain, and protect their economies through community-centred entrepreneurship, kinship economies, and cultural continuity. She brings a Pacific-centred vision of Indigenous enterprise and economic empowerment.

Patrick Thomsen (PhD) Sāmoa: Vaimoso, Vaigaga—is a Senior Lecturer in Global Studies and a Senior Research Fellow in Pacific Health at Waipapa Taumata Rau, the University of Auckland. He is the Principal Investigator for the Manalagi Project. His research focuses on Pacific Rainbow+ wellbeing, queer transnationalism, and Moana mobilities while uniquely straddling the line between Korean Studies and Pacific Studies. He received his PhD from the University of Washington—Seattle, and Masters in International Studies from Seoul National University.

Tim Baice (MHED, MA) is a Senior Researcher and Policy Adviser in the Office of the Pro Vice Chancellor Pacific and Lecturer—Pasifika Success in Te Pūtahi Mātauranga—Faculty of Arts and Education, Waipapa Taumata Rau—The University of Auckland.

Analosa Veukiso-Ulugia (PhD) of Sāmoan descent, is a Senior Lecturer in the Faculty of Arts and Education at Waipapa Taumata Rau, University of Auckland. Her research centres on empowering Pacific communities through culturally responsive education, sexual health, and youth wellbeing. In 2025, she begins the prestigious HRC Pacific Sir Thomas Davis Fellowship for her project Empowering Villages to Safeguard Pacific Children and Youth, which focuses on preventing sexual abuse through culturally grounded strategies. This builds on her earlier HRC-funded Nesian Narratives project, which developed a Pacific sexuality education toolkit for teachers. Dr Veukiso-Ulugia is a member of the School of Curriculum and Pedagogy and has held roles in youth health, social work, and Pacific health research. She currently serves on the Ethics Committee for Assisted Reproductive Technology (ECART), contributing to ethical oversight under the HART Act 2004.

Sam Manuela (PhD) (Cook Islands, European) is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Psychology and Associate Dean Pacific in the Faculty of Science at the University of Auckland. His research examines wellbeing, with a particular focus on the relationships between ethnic identity, psychological wellbeing, and mental health among Pacific populations in the Cook Islands and Aotearoa New Zealand. He also leads work in psychometrics, ethnicity data, and Indigenous Data Sovereignty, contributing to the development of culturally grounded and methodologically robust approaches to understanding and measuring Pacific wellbeing.

Sarah Kapeli (PhD) is Tongan (Lapaha, Tongatapu) and Pākehā, was born in Aotearoa, New Zealand, and is a Lecturer with Te Kura Mātai Hinengaro, School of Psychology at Waipapa Taumata Rau, University of Auckland. Sarah weaves Pacific and Indigenous knowledges, methodologies and synthesised psychological frameworks within social, critical, and clinical domains of psychology to address gaps in understanding culturally specific health and wellbeing needs. Sarah harnesses a range of qualitative and quantitative research modalities, and her most recent work focuses on the intersection of mental health literacy and health outcomes among Pacific communities in Aotearoa New Zealand.

Sarah McLean-Orsborn (PhD) is a tama’ita’i Samoa from the villages of Tapatapao, Moamoa and Papa Sataua. From her paternal gafa, she is Scottish and Croatian. She is a Lecturer at Te Wānanga o Waipapa, School of Māori Studies and Pacific Studies, University of Auckland. Her research interests are Pacific health and wellbeing with a specific focus on grief, cancer and Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome.

Jean Uasike Allen (PhD) is a Tongan and Pākehā Senior Lecturer in the School of Curriculum and Pedagogy at Waipapa Taumata Rau, University of Auckland. She has a background in primary school teaching and health education. Dr Allen is passionate about education, justice and Pacific youth. Her work is driven by a commitment to privilege marginalised voices, especially of those within Pacific communities.

Sarah McRobie (nee Va’afusuaga) (PhD) is a Lecturer at the University of Auckland’s School of Counselling, Faculty of Arts and Education School of Social Practice. Sarah credits her achievements to her Samoan migrant parents Soamauli Taumata Va’afusuaga (Falease’ela) and Sivilaise Saena Seua’i-Va’afusuaga (Tuana’i, Tanungamanono) and Tonga (Lematu’a Vava’u). In particular, her doctorate study completion on “Developing a Pacific Indigenous Counselling (PIC)’ model for Pacific client survivors of sexual violence trauma in which she received a Doctoral scholarship from the Health Research Council of New Zealand (HRC). As a registered counsellor and supervisor, her continued research interests are in Indigenous approaches to therapeutic cultural and spiritual interventions to address disparities in counsellor and social work education, health, and clinical practices. Sarah is honoured to be part of the University of Auckland’s PECAN Pacific researchers’ group, in which there is a supportive network for one another within the institution.

Julie Winter-Smith (PhD) is of Tongan, Fijian and NZ European descent (ʻAlaki Fonua Pelehake and Fatai, Tongatapu; Daku, Fiji). She currently works as a Professional Teaching Fellow at Waipapa Taumata Rau. Her research interests include cardiovascular disease epidemiology for Pacific peoples, disaggregating Pacific ethnicity, Data Sovereignty, and health equity.

Therese Lautua (PhD) is a proud daughter of Samoa and Aotearoa New Zealand with heritage from Lalomanu, Amaile, Samusu, Poutasi—Samoa and Ireland/Switzerland. My current research aims to reflect on what an Indigenous Pacific and Catholic theology of mental wellbeing might look like amid the negative legacy of colonialism and what Indigenous spiritualities mean in the everyday lives of Pasifika families.

Margaret Kiely (MA) is a graduate from Waipapa Taumata Rau University of Auckland. She has worked as a Graduate Teaching Assistant in Sociology and Gender Studies and as a Research Assistant for the Pacific Early Career Academics Network. Her Master’s dissertation in Pacific Studies focused on themes of decolonisation, solidarity, and vā relations between tangata moana and tangata whenua in Aotearoa, informed by her own positionality as a New Zealand-born Samoan Pākehā.

Dharini Lodhia (BA, BGlobalSt) worked as a Research Assistant for the Pacific Early Career Academic Network; her interests include Pacific Economies, International Relations and Business.

ORCID iDs

Moeata Keil

Patrick Thomsen

Tim Baice

Sam Manuela

Sarah Kapeli

Sarah McLean-Orsborn

Jean Uasike Allen

Therese Lautua

Margaret Kiely

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and publication of this article.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and publication of this article.

Glossary

Māori

Te Moana nui-a-Kiwa the Great Ocean of Kiwa and often used to refer to the Pacific Ocean

whanaunga kin connections

Tongan

laumalie the spiritual essence of a person, encompassing their soul, inner being, or the non-physical part that connects to the divine or sacred

moʻoni authenticity, honesty and genuineness

vā relational space

Samoan

vā relational space

References

Anae

(2010). Research for better Pacific schooling in New Zealand: Teu le va–a Samoan perspective. MAI Review, 1(1), 1–24. https://www.journal.mai.ac.nz/system/files/maireview/298-2299-1-PB.pdf

Anae

Coxon

Mara

Wendt-Samu

Finau

(2001). Pasiﬁka education research guidelines. Report to the Ministry of Education. Ministry of Education. https://www.wipo.int/documents/d/traditional-knowledge/creative-heritage-en-pasifika_education_guidelines.pdf

Baice

Leialaiauloto

Meiklejohn-Whiu

Fonua

S. M.

Allen

J. M.

Matapo

Iosefo

Fa’avae

(2021a). Responding to the call: Talanoa, va-vā, early career network and enabling academic pathways at a university in New Zealand. Higher Education Research and Development, 40(1), 75–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2020.1852187

Baice

Naepi

Thomsen

Muller

Leenen-Young

Manuela

Sisifa

(2021b). Developing our voices: Pacific early career academics’ journeys in Aotearoa New Zealand. The Journal of New Zealand Studies, NS33, 10–24. https://doi.org/10.26686/jnzs.ins33.7379

Baice

Samu

(2023). Pacific research in Aotearoa New Zealand: An introduction. In Meyer

Meissel

(Eds.), Research methods for education and the social disciplines in Aotearoa New Zealand (pp. 134–154). NZCER Press.

Crenshaw

(1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989(1), 139–167. https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclf/vol1989/iss1/8

Crenshaw

(1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1229039

Fa‘avae

D. T. M.

(2019). Tatala ‘a e koloa ‘o e to’utangata Tonga: A way to disrupt and decolonise doctoral research. MAI Journal, 8 (1), 315. https://doi.org/10.20507/MAIJournal.2019.8.1.1

Fa‘avae

D. T. M.

Jones

Manu‘atu

(2016). Talanoa ‘i ‘ae talanoa—Talking about talanoa: Some dilemmas of a novice researcher. AlterNative, 12(2), 138–150.

10.

Fasavalu

T. M.

(2022). Telling tales on the tail: One school’s journey towards cultural responsiveness. Ethnographic Edge, 5(2). https://doi.org/10.24135/ethnographic-edge.v5i2.255

11.

Fasavalu

T. I.

Reynolds

(2019). Relational positionality and a learning disposition: Shifting the conversation. International Education Journal, 18(2), 11–25.

12.

Gegeo

Watson-Gegeo

(2001). “How we know”: Kwara’ae rural villagers doing Indigenous epistemology. The Contemporary Pacific, 13(1), 55–88.

13.

Hau’ofa

(1994). Our sea of islands. The Contemporary Pacific, 6(1), 148–161.

14.

Hauʹofa

(2008). We are the ocean: Selected works. University of Hawaii Press. https://doi.org/10.21313/9780824865542

15.

Health Research Council of New Zealand. (2014). Pacific health research guidelines. https://www.hrc.govt.nz/resources/pacific-health-research-guidelines-2014

16.

Huffer

Qalo

(2004). Have we been thinking upside-down? The contemporary emergence of Pacific theoretical thought. Contemporary Pacific, 16(1), 87–116.

17.

Johansson-Fua

(2023). Kakala Research Framework. In Okoko

J. M.

Tunison

Walker

K. D.

(Eds.), Varieties of qualitative research methods. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04394-9_44

18.

Ka’ili

(2005). Tauhi va: Nurturing Tongan sociospatial ties in Maui and beyond. The Contemporary Pacific, 17(1), 83–114.

19.

Keil

(2021). Navigating gendered relational spaces in talanoa: Centring gender in talanoa research methodology. The Journal of New Zealand Studies, NS33, 93–93. https://doi.org/10.26686/jnzs.ins33.7384

20.

Koloto

Katoanga

(2007). Diverse forms of Pacific families and their financial decision-making approaches. Families Commission.

21.

Kuntz

A. M.

(2015). Reciprocity and respect: The role of talanoa in Indigenous research. International Journal of Indigenous Health, 10(1), 56–67.

22.

Latai-Niusulu

Nel

Binns

(2020). Positionality and protocol in field research: Undertaking community-based investigations in Samoa. Asia Pacific Viewpoint, 61, 71–84. https://doi.org/10.1111/apv.12252

23.

Leenen-Young

Naepi

Thomsen

P. S.

Fa’avae

D. T. M.

Keil

Matapo

(2021). ‘Pillars of the colonial institution are like a knowledge prison’: The significance of decolonizing knowledge and pedagogical practice for Pacific early career academics in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 26(7–8), 986–1001. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2021.1928062

24.

Marsters

C. P. E.

(2023). Connections and separations: Reflections on using Pacific research methods with Pacific youth in Auckland. Waka Kuaka: The Journal of the Polynesian Society, 132(1–2), 75–92.

25.

Mullane

Harwood

Warbrick

(2022). Tangata Hourua: A framework drawing from kaupapa Maori and pacific research methodologies. AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples, 18(3), 383–390. https://doi.org/10.1177/11771801221116727

26.

Nabobo-Baba

(2008). Decolonising framings in Pacific research: Indigenous Fijian Vanua research framework as an organic response. AlterNative, 4(2), 140–154.

27.

Nabobo-Baba

(2011). Decolonising framings in Pacific research: Indigenous Fijian Vanua research framework as an organic response. AlterNative, 4(2), 141–154.

28.

Naepi

(2019a). Pacific research methodologies. In Noblit

G. W.

(Ed.), Oxford research encyclopaedia of education. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.566

29.

Naepi

(2019b). Why isn’t my Professor Pasifika? A snapshot of the academic workforce in New Zealand universities. MAI Journal, 8(2), 219–234. https://doi.org/10.20507/MAIJournal.2019.8.2.9

30.

Naepi

McAllister

Thomsen

Leenen-Young

Walker Leilani McAllister

Theodore

Kidman

Suaali’i-Sauni

(2020). The Pakaru ‘pipeline’: Māori and Pasifika pathways within the academy. New Zealand Annual Review of Education, 24, 142–159. https://doi.org/10.26686/nzaroe.v24i0.6338

31.

Naepi

Stein

Ahenakew

de Oliveira Andreotti

(2017). A cartography of higher education: Attempts at inclusion and insights from Pasifika scholarship in Aotearoa New Zealand. In Reid

Major

(Eds.), Global teaching: Southern perspectives on teachers working with diversity (pp. 81–99). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-52526-0_5

32.

Nakhid

(2003). Culturally responsive research: An interface with Indigenous knowledge and Pacific education. The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 32, 37–42.

33.

Otunuku

(2011). Talanoa: How can it be used effectively as an Indigenous research methodology with Tongan people? Pacific-Asian Education Journal, 23(2), 43–52.

34.

Pihama

(2010). Kaupapa Māori theory: Transforming theory in Aotearoa. He Pukenga Korero, 9(2), 5–14.

35.

Ponton

(2018). Utilizing Paciﬁc methodologies as inclusive practice. Sage Open, 8(3). https://doi.org///10.1177/2158244018792962

36.

Prescott

(2008). Using talanoa in Paciﬁc business research in New Zealand: Experiences with Tongan entrepreneurs. AlterNative, 4(1), 127–148.

37.

Pulotu-Endemann

(1995). Fonofale model of health. In Ministry of Health (Ed.), Strategic directions for mental health services for Pacific Island people. https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/actionpoint/pages/437/attachments/original/1534408956/Fonofalemodelexplanation.pdf?1534408956

38.

Ravulo

Hollier

Waqa

Vulavou

Dina

(2024). A queer resilience: Reviving Indigenous-Pacific perspectives and practices. Etropic, 23(2), 214–234. https://doi.org/10.25120/etropic.23.2.2024.4071

39.

Sanga

(2004). Making philosophical sense of Indigenous Pacific research. In Baba

Mahina

‘O.

Williams

Nabobo-Baba

(Eds.), Researching Pacific and Indigenous peoples: Issues and perspectives (pp. 41–52). Centre for Pacific Studies, The University of Auckland.

40.

Sanga

Reynolds

(2017). To know more of what it is and what it is not: Paciﬁc research on the move. Paciﬁc Dynamics, 1(2)204, 198.

41.

Sanga

Reynolds

(2021). Bringing research back home: Exploring Indigenous Melanesian tok stori as ontology. AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples, 17(4), 532–542. https://doi.org/10.1177/11771801211058342

42.

Sisifa

Fifita

(2021). Burdened in business: Pacific early career academic experiences with promoting Pacific research methodologies in the Business academy. Journal of New Zealand Studies, NS33, 70–82.

43.

Smith

L. T.

(1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and Indigenous peoples. Zed Books.

44.

Suaalii-Sauni

Fulu-Aiolupotea

S. M.

(2014). Decolonising Pacific research, building Pacific research communities and developing Pacific research tools: The case of the “talanoa” and the “faafaletui” in Samoa. Asia Pacific Viewpoint, 55(3), 331–344.

45.

Tamasese

(2002). Honouring Samoan ways and understandings: Towards culturally appropriate mental health services. International Journal of Narrative Therapy and Community Work, 2, 64.

46.

Tamasese

Peteru

Waldegrave

Busch

(1997). Ole Taeao Afua, the new morning: A qualitative investigation into Samoan perspectives on mental health and culturally appropriate services. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1614.2005.01572.x

47.

Thaman

K. H.

(1997). Kakala: A Pacific concept of teaching and learning. Paper presented at the Australian College of Education National Conference, Cairns.

48.

Thomsen

P. S.

(2020). Transnational interest convergence and global Korea at the edge of race and queer experiences: A Talanoa with gay men in Seoul. Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race, 17(20), 411–428. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742058X20000247

49.

Thomsen

P. S.

(2023). From sleepless in Seattle to I Seoul you: Korean gay men and cross-cultural encounters in transnational times. Lived Places Publishing. https://livedplacespublishing.com/book/isbn/9781915271242#

50.

Thomsen

P. S.

Leenen-Young

Naepi

Müller

Manuela

Sisifa

Baice

(2021a). In our own words: Pacific early career academics (PECA) and Pacific knowledges in higher education pedagogical praxis. Higher Education Research and Development, 40(1), 49–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2020.1852188

51.

Thomsen

P. S.

Lopesi

Lee

(2022). Contemporary Moana mobilities: Settler-colonial citizenship, upward mobility, and transnational Pacific identities. The Contemporary Pacific, 34(2), 326–351.

52.

Thomsen

P. S.

Tuiburelevu

Keil

Leenen-Young

Sisifa

S. P.

Müller

Naepi

(2021b). Practising Pacific pedagogies during New Zealand’s level four lockdown: Pacific early career academics and COVID-19. Waikato Journal of Education, 26, 149–161. https://doi.org/10.15663/wje.v26i1.754

53.

Tualaulelei

McFall-McCaffery

(2019). The Pacific research paradigm: Opportunities and challenges. MAI Journal, 8(2), 188–204. https://doi.org/10.20507/MAIJournal.2019.8.2.7

54.

Tu’itahi

(2007, January 22). Fonua: A model for Pacific health promotion. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the Health Promotion Forum of New Zealand.

55.

Uasike Allen

J. M.

Melini Fasavalu

Iosefo

Ualesi

T. Y.

FaʻavaeD

T. M.

Cunningham

. (2022). Collective Indigenous approaches to centring Pacific voices of leadership for our futures. Ethnographic Edge, 5(2). https://doi.org/10.24135/ethnographic-edge.v5i2.249

56.

Vaioleti

(2006). Talanoa research methodology: A developing position on Pacific research. Waikato Journal of Education, 12, 23–31.

57.

Vaioleti

(2013). Talanoa: Differentiating the talanoa research methodology from phenomenology, narrative, kaupapa Māori and feminist methodologies. Te Reo, 56–57,191–212.

58.

Veukiso-Ulugia

McLean-Orsborn

Clark

T. C.

Yao

Kuresa

Drayton

Fleming

(2024). Talavou o le Moana. The health and wellbeing of Pacific secondary school students in Aotearoa New Zealand. A Youth19 report. Youth19 Research Group, the University of Auckland and Victoria University of Wellington.

59.

Winter-Smith

Grey

Paynter

Harwood

Selak

(2023). Who are Pacific peoples in terms of ethnicity and country of birth? A cross sectional study of 2,238,039 adults in Aotearoa New Zealand’s integrated data infrastructure. Dialogues in Health, 3, 100152.