Abstract
Adapting indigenous qualitative research methods to an online platform was essential for indigenous qualitative research to continue during the COVID-19 pandemic. Online qualitative data collection is a new method supporting health and other research. During the pandemic, shifting to online qualitative data collection was largely driven by impacts of COVID-19 restrictions where in-person data collection could not be undertaken. Recent research has evaluated online focus groups compared to the in-person focus group approach. However, less is understood about how Māori, Pacific and other Indigenous cultural protocols translate to an online approach. This article is based on a study that undertook an Indigenous approach to online data collection during a period of COVID-19 restrictions in 2022. The study was based in Auckland, Aotearoa New Zealand, focused on gaining Māori, Samoan, Tongan and Cook Island Māori perspectives of streptococcus isolate use for rheumatic fever surveillance and research. In Aotearoa New Zealand, rheumatic fever inequitably affects Māori and Pacific children aged 5–15 years. The project used Kaupapa Māori and Pacific centred research methodologies that included online wānanga and fono methods to collect qualitative data from Māori, Tongan, Samoan and Cook Island Māori participants. This article critically reflects on the strengths and challenges of using these methodologies and Māori and Pacific cultural practices in an online health research. The article demonstrates how Indigenous methodologies can effectively be undertaken in online contexts and still maintain cultural integrity and provide rich qualitative data compared to in-person and western informed online qualitative data collection methods.
Introduction
With the initial global impact of COVID-19 in February 2020, health research in Aotearoa (New Zealand) was faced with many unpredictable challenges that altered how qualitative health research could operate (Pocock et al., 2021). Government-issued restrictions to limit virus transmission, such as minimising physical contact between people and requiring non-essential workers to stay at home, meant that non-urgent healthcare and health research had to shift to a virtual platform (Whakakaupapa Uruta, 2020; Wikaire et al., 2022). At the time, the project we report on here was preparing for a series of wānanga/fono interviews with Māori and Pacific communities that would inform the creation of culturally informed guidelines for pathogen isolate research. Pathogen isolates are disease microorganisms taken from biological samples like sputum or collected on cotton swabs from patient’s throats or infected sites on the skin (Colella et al., 2021). Pathogen isolate research data has been critical to understanding and managing infectious diseases like rheumatic fever (Colella et al., 2021), and to enable earlier detection of Group A streptococcus infection which, if undiagnosed and left untreated, can result in rheumatic fever (Anderson et al., 2019): a preventable and potentially fatal autoimmune disease that disproportionately affects Māori and Pacific people in Aotearoa ((Anderson et al., 2019; Bennett et al., 2021; Oben et al., 2023). Pathogen isolate research plays a vital role in countering the inequities that Māori and Pacific communities bear around rheumatic fever. However, cultural practices around pathogen isolates have received limited attention in current research. This is due to pathogen samples being perceived as disassociated from the participants from whom they were taken (National Hauora Coalition, 2023; Ruangpan & Tendencia, 2004). Our project sought to generate insights around cultural perceptions of isolate use with Māori and Pacific participants, drawing on Māori and Pacific culturally informed methodologies based on in-person relational dynamics; these methodologies, in the pandemic climate, had to quickly adapt to online formats. The aim of this article is to critically reflect on adapting Māori and Pacific-centred qualitative methods entailing group discussion, such as wānanga and fono, to online modes of qualitative data collection.
While focus groups are credited as an important qualitative method to collect patient voice for qualitative health care studies (Sheff et al., 2017), Māori and Pacific methods for generating qualitative data include the hui process (Lacey et al., 2011), wānanga (Mahuika & Mahuika, 2020), fono (Anderson et al., 2020), talanoa (Faleolo, 2021b; Teariki & Leau, 2024) and the whānau tuatahi framework (Jones et al., 2010). Our project drew on wānanga and fono. Wānanga have been defined as a process in which Māori knowledge is shared between participants in a culturally safe space (Mahuika & Mahuika, 2020). Similarly, fono have been defined as a meeting that promotes communication with Pacific People, and as a space where Pacific People can share knowledge utilising cultural practices (Naepi, 2015; Teariki & Leau, 2024). These methods have distinct cultural sources and features, but share commonalities borne of their commitment to conduct research that benefits Māori and Pacific communities (Anderson et al., 2020; Lacey et al., 2011; Mahuika & Mahuika, 2020; Naepi, 2015; Teariki & Leau, 2024). For instance, they are led by ethnic concordant research experts, prioritise Indigenous experience and incorporate culturally specific practices and principles to create a culturally safe environment for Māori, Pacific and other Indigenous participants to share data with research groups (Lacey et al., 2011; Mahuika & Mahuika, 2020; Vaioleti, 2006).
A culturally safe environment for indigenous participants in research would be one that decentres the Eurocentric model that is dominant in research practices, and prioritise indigenous perspectives and experiences (Morgan et al., 2021; Ramsden & Whakaruruhau, 1993). Cultural safety in research ensures that participants’ cultural beliefs are respected, safe, and valued when engaging in research (Port et al., 2008). Previous qualitative research around rheumatic fever highlighted the need for cultural safety when consulting about rheumatic fever issues (Anderson et al., 2017, 2020). Findings from these studies expressed that wānanga and fono methods were the best way to engage Māori and Pacific communities when discussing health issues (Bryers et al., 2021).
Māori and Pacific methodologies also constitute an empowering process in which Māori and Pacific people can share experiences and perspectives to generate ethnic specific insights. In practice, these methodologies also go beyond this kind of ‘procedural empowerment’ (Cram et al., 2006) to be structurally empowering, in that the outcomes of such projects can shape policies and services that benefit Māori and Pacific people.
As well, these Māori and Pacific methodologies establish and recognise the process of whakawhānaungatanga (the act of building relationships) and Lē Va (the space of relations; between people and between people and environment and spiritual dimensions) (Faleolo, 2021a; Lacey et al., 2011). Whakawhanaungatanga is about the process of establishing relationships and familiarising both the facilitator with participants and participants with each other to promote collaboration prior to discussions about the research topic (Lacey et al., 2011). Lē Va in Pacific contexts is similar to whakawhānaungatanga with an explicit concern with spatial and temporal qualities (Anae, 2019). In Māori and Pacific cultures, generally full engagement comes with established relationships. Prioritising and acknowledging cultural values can elicit rich, high quality qualitative data. Researchers recognised that treating Indigenous data as a taonga (gift) will strengthen the relationship between health researcher and Indigenous participants (Mahuika & Mahuika, 2020). Such relationships create a space where it is comfortable for an often-Indigenous researcher and Indigenous participants to share knowledge with confidence (Anderson et al., 2020).
To date, there has been limited application of Indigenous group data collection methods in online settings. A shift to online research collection was necessary in this project’s context for two reasons. The first was procedural as Auckland was in COVID-19 alert level orange, a time of restricted face to face events in which group events such as focus groups were discouraged as per national safety national guidelines regarding people movement and contact (New Zealand Government, 2022). The second reason, and more importantly, in the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, Māori and Pacific communities were considered at high risk of contracting severe COVID-19 symptoms (Wikaire et al., 2022).
Prior to COVID-19, most focus groups, fono, hui and wānanga used for health research were held in face-to-face interactive group settings (Halliday et al., 2022; Reisner et al., 2018). However, more research projects are adapting an online approach instead of a face-to-face approach because it is convenient, cost effective and enables researchers to collect data over a large geographical area that is, areas where populations are dispersed (Halliday et al., 2022; Reisner et al., 2018). The COVID-19 pandemic has presented many key learnings towards the efficacy of using online platforms such as telehealth communication or online focus groups in a pandemic setting (Dodds & Hess, 2020; Pocock et al., 2021; Wikaire et al., 2022). The project utilised Zoom as the online platform to host wānanga and fono. Zoom is a collaborative cloud-based videoconferencing application that offers online video group services and secure recording of sessions (Archibald et al., 2019). It was a vital application for the project’s data collection as it was accessible for participants. This paper will detail how the study undertook online Indigenous data collection methodologies and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of adapting Indigenous methodologies this way.
Applying Māori and Pacific Methods to Qualitative Research
Western qualitative research methods include approaches that emphasise a systematic process that assumes universal utility and objectivity, however, such methods inadvertently favour Eurocentric values and practices (Flick, 2022). When taking a western approach to research Indigenous issues and people, the results can be impractical and irrelevant to Indigenous people (Smith, 2021). Imposing western views and opinions on an Indigenous issue can furthermore reduce the role of Indigenous groups to merely data providers instead of partners within research (Flick, 2022; Smith, 2021). Commonly, western methodologies aim to prioritise an impression of credibility in their results rather than addressing the issue(s) that Indigenous communities face (Flick, 2022; Smith, 2021). Indigenous informed research methodologies involve addressing questions in order to benefit and empower Indigenous groups, making for constructive and impactful research.
Using both KMR and Pacific research methodologies are essential when collaborating with both Māori and Pacific populations. While both approaches may seem similar, they each incorporate different cultural protocols. Kaupapa Māori Research (KMR) is a grounded approach that seeks to centre Māori knowledge, experiences, and perspectives. It is a methodology guided by the principle of by Māori for Māori and with Māori (Mahuika & Mahuika, 2020; Naepi, 2015). KMR seeks to empower Māori and promote their wellbeing and advancement (Bryers et al., 2021; Naepi, 2015). Pacific research methodologies are approaches that prioritises Pacific knowledge and experiences for Pacific people (Naepi, 2015). Pacific research methodologies can be ethnically specific, such as the Talanoa or Kakala, and they can also be pan-Pacific and refer to shared values, such as respect, reciprocity, communal relationships, collective responsibility, gerontocracy, humility, love and charity, service, and spirituality (Naepi, 2015).
This project incorporates both methods under the overarching framework of a Kaupapa Māori-consistent approach (Malpas et al., 2017). A Kaupapa Māori-consistent approach maintains the core values of Kaupapa Māori research along with the key principles of partnerships and relationships with other non-Māori ethnicities, including Pacific communities. The Kaupapa Māori-consistent approach operates to benefit and prioritise both Māori and Pacific communities (Malpas et al., 2017). This approach was selected as the research team were Māori, Pacific and Pākehā (NZ European). The team was led by a senior Māori researcher and participants were Māori and Pacific.
Project Barriers: Converting from a Face-to-Face Method to an Online Method
Converting from a face-to-face method to an online data collection method during a global pandemic presented some practical considerations. Traditionally research consent is obtained in writing or verbally prior to data collection. However, with the restrictions from the COVID-19 alert level orange, requiring written consent would have increased the burden on participants by relying on them to print, scan, sign and then return the consent form to researchers, potentially discouraging participation in the project and certainly making participation more onerous. To overcome this barrier, the consenting process was amended from written consent to verbal consent that was recorded on zoom.
Participants who did not have Internet access or a device to zoom from were initially excluded from participating. This exclusion criteria however introduced an Internet user population bias and may have prevented people with no Internet access or device from participating (Pocock et al., 2021). To reduce Internet user bias, participants were given the option to participate by a phone call instead of Zoom. This widened the net for potential participants, though still required use of a device, connection to cellular network, and ability to navigate the online invitation and other processes.
Participant Demographics.
* = (Cook Island Māori, Samoan, Tongan).
Ethics
The project was funded by the Institute of Environmental Science (ESR). The project obtained ethical approval through the New Zealand Ethics Committee (NZEC2022_15). As of May 2022, the New Zealand ethics committee approved an ethics amendment in which participant consent would be obtained by verbal consent.
Overview of the Wānanga/Fono Process
All online wānanga and fono sessions followed similar processes (Figure 1); however, features of the sessions such as language, cultural protocols and facilitators varied between wānanga and fono processes. All wānanga/fono were held in both English and respective languages of participants in that group. Facilitators were able to communicate in each group’s native language and were fluent in English to ensure inclusiveness with all speakers. Facilitators of each session shared the ethnicity of that group’s participants and were familiar with the culture of that group. Online wānanga/fono process.
Cultural protocols like Karakia (Māori) or prayer (Non-Māori) were added to ensure participant’s spiritual health was acknowledged and upheld (Lacey et al., 2011). Time was allowed at the beginning of each wānanga/fono for whakawhanaungatanga (Māori) or Lē Va (Pacific) to ensure familiarity and establish relationships between participants and facilitators (Komene et al., 2024; Ruwhiu, 2016).
After karakia and whakawhanaungatanga, the wānanga/fono continued with the facilitator verbally going through consent statements with the participants. Once statements were read, participant consent was recorded. Following consent, background information was provided about rheumatic fever and isolates to familiarise participants with what the session was about and stimulate ideas around the topic. A key value with Indigenous methodologies is to empower Indigenous people. Providing background information ensured participants were well informed and were able to share knowledge knowing that the research topic was comprehensively explained. Questions related to the research topic were then raised with participants to capture their views and opinions on Group A Streptococcus isolate research and culturally informed isolate research guidelines. The questions related to sovereignty over Indigenous pathogen data, cultural requirements to allow research with Indigenous data and views on pathogen research.
Reflecting on the Utilisation of Indigenous Based Qualitative Data Collection Methods
The project highlighted many key benefits in utilising online wānanga and fono for qualitative health research. Compared to in person wānanga and fono, hosting discussion sessions on online platforms like Zoom made it more convenient for Māori and Pacific participants than face to face wānanga\fono as it did not require participants to leave their home, arrange childcare, potentially compromise the health of the other participants and their whānau (family) during a pandemic or organise transport to and from the wānanga/fono.
In previous studies that have looked at models of healthcare, including rheumatic fever, a major barrier for both Māori and Pacific ethnicities has been the organisation of transportation to and from appointments (Anderson et al., 2017; Wikaire et al., 2022). Historically, face to face wānanga/fono have also led to participant dropout due to travel burdens (Woodyatt et al., 2016). However, online platforms like Zoom eliminate travel barriers (Archibald et al., 2019) thereby, allowing participants to join remotely from their own space. Online wānanga/fono created a more accessible method for Māori and Pacific communities to participate safely and easily in qualitative research and improved participant participation. Moving wānanga and fono online is also a cost-effective way to collect qualitive data. Unlike face-to-face methods, online wānanga/fono did not require the research team to hire a venue or recording equipment and it reduced the traveling costs (Reisner et al., 2018).
Wānanga and fono are methods that centre and prioritise Māori and Pacific views more compared to Western centred approaches (Smith, 2021). Generally qualitative data collection methods such as focus groups utilise western methodologies and do not include Indigenous practices leading to a homogeneous, monocultural approach (Flick, 2022). Western methods also tend to prioritise Western interests which is unhelpful, and at times damaging when working with ethnic specific groups about ethnic specific issues (Smith, 2021). Therefore, in Western-based qualitative research, ethnic specific responses can be absent or misinterpreted within discussions. Especially within research on sensitive topics (Reisner et al., 2018). In contrast, research should include cultural spaces that incorporate ethnic safe, specific practices for participants to confidently express their opinions and views. Such approaches could extrapolate higher quality qualitative data from discussions around sensitive topics (Reisner et al., 2018). Additionally, wānanga and fono used in the project were facilitated by ethnic concordant facilitators. Having ethnic concordant facilitators created a culturally safe environment for ethnic specific communities (Anderson et al., 2020). It was observed in wānanga/fono that ethnic concordant facilitators were able to relate more with participants and understand participants better which empowered participants to share ideas and to speak openly and honestly. There was a feeling of safety and familiarity between both researcher and participant.
As well as providing many strengths to Indigenous research approaches, barriers also arose from utilising online wānanga and fono. These should be taken into consideration when pursuing such approaches for qualitative analysis. A key challenge was the lack of face-to-face interactions. Important processes like Whakawhanaungatanga or Le Vā are not as impactful online because a vital aspect of these processes is to have face to face connection (Naepi, 2015). Being online, facilitators may miss out on visual cues from participants which can mean non-verbal signals are missed during discussions (Reisner et al., 2018). Especially with Talanoa methodologies which not only focuses on verbal language but also body language as well (Faleolo, 2021b; Vaioleti, 2006).
Other barriers included stability of online tools. Unstable Internet connections disrupted online wānanga/fono. If participants had an unstable connection, discussions were interrupted, or participant responses went unnoticed during discussions causing deviation from the research topics. This disrupted data collection as participants responses may not have been fully recorded. Therefore analyses may include misinterpreted data and ideas may have been missed. Online wānanga and fono require participants to have a stable Internet connection and a certain level of skill in operating online platforms like Zoom. The project tried to mitigate this barrier by offering instructions on how to use zoom. However, none of our participants indicated they needed the instructions which indicated that there could’ve been a self-selection bias with these wānanga/fono being advertised as online. Limitations such as Internet user bias and self-selection bias which can exclude populations who are unable to access the Internet or are uncomfortable with platforms used. Similarly, the 2018 New Zealand Census survey encountered low response rates from Māori during their data collection phase as online tools were used as the primary method for data collection (Kukutai & Cormack, 2018). Using online tools can be an inequitable method compared to face-to-face alternatives due to the required online skills and access to Internet and capable technology. If appropriate actions are not taken to address these concerns, then participants may be excluded upon data collection.
The project was led by Māori researchers and had more (n = 3) Māori researchers involved in the analysis than non-māori (n = 2). This demographic variable could have led to a Māori bias in the interpretation of the data.
To work around this, the researchers applied the Give Way Rule (Airini et al., 2009) which notes that there will be times in analysis, like in conducting research where there will be different ways of doing and interpreting research. The Give Way Rule allows for varied analysis but where decision relies on cultural knowledge and interpretation, the researchers should “give way” to researchers who hold Māori or Pacific expertise (Naepi, 2015).
The researchers understood also the status of Māori as the mana whenua of Aotearoa and the appropriateness of this leadership (Reid et al., 2017). However, the inverse of this strength was a limited representation for various Pacific communities as the two Pacific researchers did not represent the Pacific ethnicities of all participants. The ethnic composition of the research team may then have limited the depth of understanding of diverse Pacific data (Anae, 2019). As with Western qualitative methods, if there is no concordance or expertise represented within research teams, or if there is only limited representation it can lead to cultural blindness.
Conclusion
There is growing evidence demonstrating the usefulness of online data collection methods as convenient, affordable, and appropriate qualitative methods health research (Pocock et al., 2021; Reisner et al., 2018; Woodyatt et al., 2016). Upon reflection of this research, Online Indigenous qualitative methods focused on one ethnicity should be an approach to consider when conducting indigenous qualitative research. Compared to online Western qualitative data collection methods, online Indigenous qualitative data collection methods are culturally safe, culturally empowering, and an equitable approach that can protect Indigenous populations. However, to be a viable online approach, various barriers should be mitigated. Firstly, verbal consenting should be considered to lessen the burden on participants. Secondly, offline options such as phone interviews should also be considered as additional options to allow an equitable participation approach and to reduce Internet user bias. Thirdly, ethnic bias needs to be addressed. If a project is led by one ethnic group, the experiences of this concordant ethnic group is prioritised compared to other ethnicities who may be participating. Therefore, either the research project needs to be specific to one ethnic group or include expertise from mixed ethnicities and backgrounds to encourage balanced analysis. Additional research in this area should explore ethnic concordance in analysis to ensure balanced and rigorous data collection. Overall, online Indigenous qualitative data collection methods empower culture differences and should be adopted when researching Indigenous specific topics.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
We thank the Institute of Environmental Science and Research (ESR) and Dr. Julie Bennett (University of Otago) for their collaboration in study design and incorporation of key recommendations from the wider project as part of culturally informed guidelines for pathogen research. We are also grateful to Te Tūrangawaewae Manahau a Tariana Turia (National Hauora Coalition’s institute of research excellence) for hosting this project, and the whānau that participated in the online wānanga/fono.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This project was funded by the Institute of Environmental Science and Research.
