Talanoa Faikava: A Pacific Cultural Practice as a Relational Alternative to Western Research Focus Group Methods

Abstract

Qualitative research has often priviledged Western ways of knowing, which can marginalise Indigenous knowledge and limit how research is done with Pacific communities. While methods such as Talking Circles in Native American communities and Yarning Circles in Aboriginal Australian communities are now recognised as valid research approaches, the potential of talanoa faikava (a kava-based dialogic practice grounded in Tongan and wider Pacific cultures) has not been fully explored in academic research. This paper addresses that gap by proposing talanoa faikava as a culturally grounded alternative to conventional Western focus groups. Drawing on literature about Indigenous research methods, talking circles, Yarning Circles, and talanoa, we position talanoa faikava within ongoing efforts to decolonise research and centre Pacific epistemologies. We show how the faikava setting, with its circular seating, shared kava, and relational protocols, creates a space where participants can speak openly, negotiate identity and belonging, and share sensitive experiences in ways that are often not possible in standard focus groups. Using case studies from the work of Dr Edmond Fehoko and Dr Arcia Tecun, we illustrate how talanoa faikava can reduce hierarchies, support intergenerational dialogue, and turn an existing cultural practice into a rigorous research method. We also discuss key ethical considerations, including relational consent, communal confidentiality, power dynamics, and safe kava use. Overall, this paper argues that talanoa faikava offers a relational, culturally safe, and methodologically robust approach that expands the tools available for qualitative research with Pacific peoples.

Introduction

The marginalisation of Indigenous ways of knowing within mainstream research frameworks has been well-documented, with Western epistemologies often privileged as neutral, universal, and methodologically superior (Martin, 2003; Nakata, 2007). As qualitative research continues to evolve, there is growing recognition of the need for culturally responsive research methodologies that respect and integrate Indigenous knowledge systems and practices within the prevailing academic system (Boardsworth et al., 2024; Drawson et al., 2017). Talking Circles in Native American and Yarning Circles in Aboriginal Australian contexts have gained acceptance as legitimate research tools, and the talanoa method has emerged as a distinctly Pacific approach to dialogic inquiry (Bessarab & Ng’andu, 2010; Lavallée, 2009; Tecun et al., 2018). However, the potential of talanoa faikava, a ceremonial kava-drinking practice, as a research methodo remains largely unexplored.

Western qualitative traditions are generally situated within realist or post-positivist ontologies and epistemologies that assume knowledge can be systematically elicited through structured interaction while maintaining researcher neutrality and analytic distance. Within this paradigm, ethics are primarily procedural and compliance-based, with validity secured through transparency, rigour, and standardised method. Indigenous research frameworks, however, emerge from relational ontologies in which reality is constituted through interconnected relationships among people, ancestors, environment, and the spiritual realm, and knowledge is co-created rather than extracted (Smith, 2012; Wilson, 2008). Axiologically, this positions responsibility, reciprocity, and respect as continuous ethical obligations embedded throughout the research process rather than discrete approval stages (Chilisa, 2019; Kovach, 2010).

These philosophical distinctions are most evident in qualitative group methods. Conventional focus groups typically operate through researcher-directed questioning designed to generate comparable responses across participants (Krueger & Casey, 2015). In contrast, Indigenous dialogical approaches, such as talanoa, yarning and talking circles, function as relational methodologies in which dialogue, storytelling, and collective meaning-making constitute both the method and the epistemic process (Vaioleti, 2006; Wilson, 2008; Fa’avae, Jones, & Manu’atu, 2016Fa’avae et al., 2016). Here, relationality is not a strategy for rapport but the condition under which knowledge becomes legitimate, producing relational accountability, whereby researchers remain answerable to participants, communities, and relationships beyond the life of the project. As a result, authority over interpretation is distributed rather than researcher-centred, reshaping power dynamics and expanding ethics beyond consent to ongoing responsibility. Establishing this distinction demonstrates that Indigenous methodologies are not cultural adaptations of focus groups but epistemologically distinct approaches and clarifies the ethical and interpretive implications that underpin the present study (Chilisa, 2019; Smith, 2012).

To situate talanoa faikava within wider Indigenous methodological debates, we briefly draw on Native American/First Nations talking circles and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander yarning circles. These were selected because they are among the most documented ceremonial-dialogic group practices that have been explicitly operationalised as qualitative research methods, including clear discussion of protocols and ethics (e.g., relational accountability and collective confidentiality) (Kovach, 2010; Martin, 2003). This comparative framing is not to imply equivalence across cultures but to clarify shared relational mechanisms that help foreground the paper’s central contribution: specifying talanoa faikava as a distinct, culturally governed research method.

The predominance of Western worldviews in qualitative research has contributed to the underrepresentation of culturally specific research practices that may offer deeper relational engagement, contextualised insight, and epistemic validity among Pacific communities (Nakata, 2007; Thaman, 2003). Within this discourse on culturally relevant research method, talanoa faikava presents a unique opportunity to facilitate intergenerational dialogue, reduce hierarchical barriers, and foster collective meaning-making in ways that conventional focus groups may not (Aporosa et al., 2021; Tecun et al., 2018; Vaka et al., 2016). This paper seeks to address this gap by examining how talanoa faikava can be adapted as a culturally grounded alternative to traditional Western focus groups in Pacific research contexts.

Methodological Approach

Positionality Statement

This paper is a conceptual and methodological contribution that draws on Pacific scholarship and community-embedded knowledge to articulate talanoa faikava as a research method and methodology. The author team comes to this work from both Pacific and non-Pacific identities, and our relationships to talanoa, kava, and faikava range from lived participation to academic engagement and longstanding collaboration with Pacific scholars and communities. We acknowledge that knowledge about faikava is collectively held and relationally governed; accordingly, we approach talanoa faikava not as a technique to be extracted or standardised, but as an epistemic practice that must remain accountable to Pacific values, protocols, and communities. Our motivation for writing is twofold: (1) to make explicit, for research audiences, how talanoa faikava can function as a rigorous dialogic method (rather than a culturally “themed” focus group), and (2) to support ethically grounded decision-making by researchers and ethics committees who may be unfamiliar with kava and Pacific relational protocols.

Literature Review Approach

The literature review was conducted as a structured interpretive review. This means the search followed a transparent and purposive process, using databases and key terms related to talanoa, kava, focus groups, and Indigenous methods, while the analysis focused on interpreting how these sources conceptualised group-based inquiry, relational epistemologies, and culturally grounded research practice. This approach is consistent with interpretive literature reviewing, where the aim is not exhaustive coverage but conceptual development and contextual understanding (Boell & Cecez-Kecmanovic, 2014; McDougall, 2015; Paré & Kitsiou, 2017). Peer-reviewed journal articles and postgraduate theses were included where they examined group-based inquiry or relational epistemologies, and excluded if terms were used superficially. The aim was conceptual sufficiency, situating talanoa faikava within qualitative methodological debates.

Casy Study Selection

The manuscript uses two illustrative case studies drawn from the published and publicly available scholarship of Dr Edmond Fehoko and Dr Arcia Tecun. These were selected purposively because they provide complementary, Pacific-grounded demonstrations of how talanoa faikava can function as a site of relational knowing and collective meaning-making, and how talanoa is mediated within kava circles across contexts. We selected Fehoko’s work as an exemplar of how researchers can operationalise faikava as a culturally legitimate research space in Aotearoa New Zealand, including intergenerational dialogue and discussion of sensitive topics in ways that conventional focus groups may constrain. We selected Tecun’s scholarship because it explicitly theorises talanoa as relationally mindful critical oratory and pays detailed attention to how mana/tapu/noa (and related concepts such as ngofua) shape what becomes sayable within faikava. Together, these case studies were chosen to (i) ground the paper’s conceptual argument in Pacific-led empirical/theoretical scholarship, (ii) demonstrate contextual variability rather than a single “standard” model of talanoa faikava, and (iii) surface ethical and facilitation implications (e.g., relational consent, communal confidentiality, power dynamics, and cultural competence/poto) that are central to positioning talanoa faikava as both method and methodology. We treat these cases not as exhaustive coverage of all faikava research, but as analytically useful exemplars that clarify mechanisms, decisions, and ethical considerations that future researchers can adapt with local cultural holders.

Language Note (Knowledge and Data)

In this paper, we avoid treating Indigenous/Pacific knowledge as a commodity that researchers “produce”. Consistent with relational onto-epistemologies, we understand knowledge as held within relationships among people, place, and more-than-human worlds, and accessed through culturally governed dialogue and accountability. When we refer to research “findings”, we distinguish knowledge (relational, contextual, living) from data (partial representations such as recordings, transcripts, and analytic summaries). We therefore treat data as a situated, ethically governed re-presentation of relational knowledge, not a substitute for it.

What Is Talanoa Faikava?

Talanoa faikava refers to talanoa (relational, dialogic inquiry) that takes place within a faikava gathering, where kava is prepared, shared, and consumed as part of a culturally organised social space (Fehoko, 2014; Vaioleti, 2006). Although faikava practices vary by place, kin group, church affiliations, and diasporic context, this variation can include where gatherings occur, who is present, how formal the occasion is, whether music or humour are central, and what church or family protocols shape appropriate conduct. Despite this diversity, many gatherings share recognisable features that help “locate” the method for readers, including kava preparation and shared consumption, a host or holder of the space, relational protocols, extended time, and dialogic exchange (Fehoko et al., 2022; Tecun, 2021).

Talanoa faikava typically occurs in a familiar, culturally meaningful venue (e.g., a home, community hall, or church-affiliated space). Participants commonly include a mix of relatives, peers, and community members, in many contexts the space is intergenerational. In some settings, participants may explicitly orient to an ethic of flattening status differences (the idea of leaving titles “at the door”). This is important because formal titles, professional roles, church positions, or educational status can otherwise shape who feels entitled to speak, disagree, joke, or disclose personal experiences. Within faikava, the partial suspension of these titles can help create a more relational and dialogic space, where participants engage first as members of the collective rather than primarily through institutional status. However, this flattening is never complete, as age, gender, kinship, chiefly status, church roles, and social standing may still shape interaction in practice.

A talanoa faikava gathering usually involves an identifiable host or cultural “holder” of the space (or a small group who collectively hold it). This person (or group) helps set the tone, manges the rhythm of the gathering, and implicility shapes the boundaries of what kinds of talanoa are appropriate. When talanoa faikava is used for research, the researcher may be the host, but often works in partnership with a host and must have sufficient cultural poto (competence or skill) and relational awareness to facilitate appropriately, including knowing when to prompt, when to wait, and how to interpret non-verbal or “silent” forms of communication. Talanoa faikava is not limited to grounded theory; rather, it can be used within a range of qualitative methodologies, such as Indigenous, phenomenological, narrative, case study, or participatory designs, where the research question requires relational, culturally grounded, and collective forms of knowledge generation. Its suitability depends less on the analytic label and more on whether the researcher can justify faikava as culturally appropriate, ethically grounded, and aligned with the aims of the study.

Talanoa faikava is not necessarily restricted to researchers of Pacific heritage. However, researchers from other cultural backgrounds should not treat it as a transferable focus group technique or use it without appropriate cultural guidance. The use of faikava requires meaningful partnership with cultural holders, community advisors, or co-researchers because it is grounded in Pacific relational protocols, kava practice, language, humour, hierarchy, silence, and collective responsibility. Non-Pacific researchers may therefore participate in or support talanoa faikava research, but its legitimacy depends on relational accountability, cultural poto, community acceptance, and whether the method is appropriate for the participants, topic, and context.

While there is no single script, a “typical” talanoa faikava session can be understood as moving through overlapping phases:

1. Opening and settling in. The gathering begins with arrivals, greetings, introductions or re-introductions, and the importance of nurturing networks and relationships. This opening period is not easily time-bounded and functions as an important transition into comfort and trust (Ka’ili, 2017).

2. Framing the occasion. The way the faikava is presented (acknowledgments, opening words, sometimes gifting) signals the seriousness and purpose of the gathering and helps establish expectations for engagement. Humour is often present, but its timing and use are shaped by the tone set by the host and the collective (Tecun et al., 2020).

3. Kava preparation and shared consumption. Kava is mixed and shared, and its consumption helps create a relational atmosphere that supports sustained dialogue. Importantly, the effects are typically described as relaxing while still allowing participants’ minds to remain engaged, contributing to a sense of ease and openness (Aporosa et al., 2022; Sarris et al., 2012; Tecun et al., 2020).

4. Talanoa unfolds through relational calibration. Dialogue develops organically, with participants responding to each other, building stories, debating, and reflecting (Vaioleti, 2006). Across diverse settings, talanoa faikava is commonly described as requiring ongoing mediation of relationships (including mana/tapu/now or related ethical concepts) so that participants can speak openly and responsibly within a collective space (Tecun et al., 2020; Vaioleti, 2006).

5. Sustained duration and closing. Faikava gatherings commonly extend for several hours, and that temporal depth is part of what enables layered conversation and relational accountability to emerge over time (Ka’ili, 2017).

Faikava practices are not uniform: differences in geography and diaspora location, denominational norms, gender expectations, and local protocols can shape how the ceremony looks and what is permissible to discuss (Tecun et al., 2020). Even so, the recurring “through-line” is that faikava is a culturally organised space oriented toward mediating relationships, and talanoa is the dialogic practice that can emerge within it when the relational conditions of the gathering support openness and collective inquiry (Tengan, 2008; Vaioleti, 2006).

Talanoa faikava is distinct from conventional focus groups because it is not simply a group interview conducted in a culturally familiar setting Its distinctiveness lies in the way kava, place, relational protocols, time, humour, silence, hierarchy, and collective responsibility work together to shape what can be said, when it can, and how it is received. In a focus group, the researcher usually structures the discussion through pre-determined questions and time-limited facilitation. In talanoa faikava, the gathering itself holds methodological significance: kava preparation and shared consumption help create a relaxed but culturally disciplined atmosphere, while the host, elders, peers, and collective relational norms shape the rhythm and boundaries of dialogue. This means that knowledge is not only elicited by the researcher but also emerges through culturally mediated relationships, intergenerational exchange, and the gradual movement toward openness, trust, and collective reflection.

Literature Review

Focus Groups in Qualitative Research

Focus groups are a qualitative methodological tool utilised to investigate complex, under-researched, or emergent social phenomena (Moloney, 2011; Stewart & Shamdasani, 1990Steward & Shamdasani, 1990). Focus groups are primarily concerned with generating in-depth understanding, conceptual clarity, and theoretical insight rather than producing immediate, instrumental outcomes (Morgan, 1997). Furthermore, focus groups are frequently employed in the early stages of research to identify salient issues, refine research questions, and inform subsequent data collection strategies (Krueger & Casey, 2015).

Focus groups are underpinned by an epistemology (assumptions about what counts as knowledge and how it is held and shared) that treats knowledge as emerging through group interaction (Morgan, 2019). This aligns with an interpretivist paradigm, which emphasises understanding participants’ meanings as context-dependent and co-constructed though dialogue (Redman-MacLaren et al., 2014). The intention is not to measure attitudes in a generalisable sense, but to uncover how social, cultural, political, or institutional dynamics shape perceptions and behaviours within a particular context (Hennink, 2014). This orientation allows for the emergence of latent themes, divergent viewpoints, and relational understandings that might be obscured through more structured or individualised interview formats.

In terms of structure, focus groups are typically facilitated through semi-structured and unstructured discussion guides that provide thematic prompts while allowing fluidity and participant-led dialogue (Morgan, 2019). The facilitator adopts a reflexive and adaptive stance, prompting elaboration, probing contradictions, and encouraging interaction between participants (Barbour, 2007). The collective nature of the discussion enables participants to build on, challenge, or reinterpret each other’s contributions, generating richer data than would emerge from isolated interviews (Nyumba et al., 2018).

Participant recruitment in focus groups is purposive, prioritising individuals with relevant experiential, cultural, or social knowledge related to the research phenomenon (Guest et al., 2017). Rather than aiming for demographic representativeness, qualitative focus groups often use purposive sampling to recruit participants who are information-rich and have relevant but varied experiences of the phenomenon, so the analysis captures a wider range of perspectives (Palinkas et al., 2015). In practice, relatively more heterogeneous group composition can surface more divergent views and greater complexity in discussion (Greenwood et al., 2014).The resulting data are primarily narrative and thematic, supporting the development of conceptual categories, sensitising concepts, and explanatory propositions (Corbin & Strauss, 2015).

Analytically, focus group data can be used to generate rich, grounded themes that inform early conceptual insights and guide development of subsequent research questions, as well as policy and programme or intervention design decisions (Hughes & Lamb, 2025; Morgan et al., 2019). They can be especially valuable with marginalised or culturally diverse communities because they use interaction and relational discussion to generate data, often encouraging participation from people who may be reluctant to be interviewed one-to-one (Kitzinger, 1995). In these greoup settings, meaning is negotiated and co-constructed through dialogue rather than treated as something simply “extracted” from isolated individuals, and they have been described as an “invaluable” approach in diverse linguistic and cultural environments for producing rich and complex accounts (Culley et al., 2007; Wilkinson, 1998).

Focus groups are useful because they generate data through interaction, co-construction, and shared reflection rather than through individualised accounts alone. Talanoa faikava shares this dialogical strength, but it is not simply a culturally adapted focus group. Instead, it relocates group inquiry within Indigenous Pacific research methods, where knowledge is generated through relational protocols, kava practice, collective accountability, and the careful mediation of vā, mana, tapu, and noa. This distinction is important because talanoa faikava treats the cultural and relational conditions of the gathering as part of the method itself, not merely as the setting in which data are collected.

Indigenous Research Methods

Indigenous research methods as means and frameworks of obtaining, transmitting, and forming knowledge continues to grow. The works of Tuhiwai Smith (2012; 2021) in Decolonizing Methodologies and kaupapa Māori, first published in 1999, have been paramount. Smith shared openly that research was, and still is, a dirty word for many Indigenous communities, highlighting the exploitation and power dynamics at play when researchers arrive to gather data and are then often never heard from again. One of the main power dynamics here is the role of research in asserting colonial power and its epistemological assumptions of neutrality and universalism (Smith, 2012, 2021).

The responses and expansion in the realms of Indigenous research methods work is global. Wilson’s (2008) Research is Ceremony opens research up as a paradigm grounded in relationality, where relationships are understood as established in reality rather than just contextual factors. From this view, ‘research is ceremony’: a process of maintaining relational accountability to all our relations, which guides choices about research questions, methods, analysis, and how knowledge is shared (Wilson, 2008).Kovach (2010) offers a theoretical framework of distinction to mainstream research practices derived from Indigenous worldviews. Chilisa (2019) originally published in 2011 offers further global context and response to existing dominant educational systems from the view of the oppressed and colonised. There are many more, but what each of these works share is a relational ethic and protocol that carries a great significance in the pursuit of and distribution of knowledge.

Methodology is often viewed as a theoretical foundation to research inquiry, and method as the practical medium by which research is conducted (Klenke, 2016). Indigenous research methodologies traverse many fields and disciplines and are flexible in application to prevailing practices. In contrast, Indigenous research methods are more specific to contextual practice and are incredibly diverse. Various authors across Oceania and North America reveal the tremendous force ancestral storytelling carries as mnemonic device, pedagogy, and political expression (Archibald et al., 2019; Ka’ili, 2017; Thaman, 2003). Storywork is a methodology, as it offers an explicit relational and ethical framework that guides how researchers enter community, handle stories, interpret meaning, and enact relational accountability across the whole research process (Archibald et al., 2019). It also functions as a method, as it can be enacted through diverse, context-specific practices (sharing circles, interviews, and group discussions) carried out in ways consistent with storywork principles (Adair et al., 2017).

There are several methods that have been published on in the realm of storywork, such as North American Indigenous Talking Circles that we look to and build with in re-visiting Eastern Oceanic dialogical traditions of Talanoa. Further, as Cruz (2001) has proclaimed, the personal, and social locations where we come from and the embodiment of our stories as site of inquiry is not only a political act, but a liberating one. This paper serves to build language and a story of how talanoa faikava already exists as a site of cultural knowledge holding and sharing that grows from the personal social locations we embody, and to re-imagine its lessons and practices as method and methodology in expanding the prevailing academic boundaries of research practice (Fehoko et al., 2021; Tecun et al., 2020, 2021; Vaka, 2014).

The following section critically examines talking circles and yarning circles as dialogical research methods that conceptually and philosophically align with talanoa faikava.

Talking Circles as a Research Method

Talking circles have been extensively documented as both traditional practices and research methodologies in North American First Nations contexts. The circular seating arrangement, fundamental to these gatherings, symbolises the interconnectedness of all participants and the cyclical nature of dialogue (Wilson, 2008). While social positions may vary outside the circle, in the talking circle the agreed protocols (e.g., turn-taking and respectful listening) create a space where contributions are treated as equally legitimate.Marsden and colleagues (2020) emphasise how this spatial configuration dismantles hierarchical structures typically present in research settings, creating an environment of equality and mutual respect. This is a mediating practice embedded within many Indigenous North American protocols. In addition, the use of sacred objects as talking pieces, as noted by Lavallée (2009), serves multiple purposes: it regulates turn-taking, imbues the dialogue with spiritual significance, and creates a focused atmosphere of intentional listening. In this sense, hierarchy shifts to the set apart object, neutralising social difference in the talking circle through its own symbolic power that is collectively acknowledged through the practice of submitting to the purpose of the moment and the group.

The practice of deep and active listening and non-interruption, central to talking circles, has been found to facilitate more nuanced and authentic data collection. Wolf and Rickard (2003) observe that this approach allows participants to fully articulate their thoughts without the pressure of immediate reaction, response, or debate. Building on this, Kovach (2010) argues that the ceremonial nature of talking circles creates a unique space where participants feel empowered to share sensitive information they might withhold in conventional research settings. The ceremonial aesthetic shifts the expected behaviour with a formality that is familiar, rather than a research formality that feels imposed and foreign. Studies have consistently demonstrated the effectiveness of talking circles in creating spaces that facilitate sharing sensitive information (Umbreit & Zehr, 2015), fostering community engagement (Granillo et al., 2010), and nurturing intergenerational knowledge transfer (Rothe et al., 2009). Nabigon and colleagues (1999) further emphasise how talking circles align with Indigenous epistemologies, providing a methodological framework that respects and upholds traditional knowledge systems.

Yarning Circles as a Research Method

Yarning Circles have long been embedded within Aboriginal Australian societies as fundamental socio-cultural structures that enable communities to sustain relationships, govern social life, and reinforce collective identity. Historically, these circles have served as key sites for deliberation, consensus-building, and the transmission of cultural law, reflecting Indigenous relational worldviews in which knowledge is negotiated through dialogue and intersubjective meaning-making rather than imposed through hierarchical structures (Walker et al., 2014). Historically (including prior to colonisation), Yarning Circles facilitated ceremonial learning, kinship teaching, and the passing of ancestral stories, with Elders guiding discussions according to cultural protocol, social standing, and seasonal knowledge cycles (Martin, 2003). They played important roles in maintaining harmony within extended kin systems, providing a culturally regulated space where conflict could be addressed through collective reasoning and the reaffirmation of relational responsibilities (Pranis, 2005).

The centrality of Yarning Circles to Aboriginal social systems ensured their resilience in the face of colonisation, which sought to disrupt Indigenous governance, customary law, and oral traditions. Through the assimilationist policies of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, including the forced removal of children and the suppression of language, Yarning Circles persisted as informal mechanisms for cultural continuity and identity preservation (Smith, 2012). Within missions, reserves, and fringe settlements, communal storytelling and circular dialogue remained vehicles for maintaining cultural cohesion, emotional support, and intergenerational knowledge flow despite external pressures (Bessarab & Ng’andu, 2010).

The revitalisation of Yarning Circles in contemporary contexts emerged alongside broader Indigenous rights movements and methodological decolonisation, particularly throughout the latter half of the twentieth century. As Aboriginal activism challenged Western epistemic dominance in education, health, and law, Yarning was increasingly recognised as a culturally safe practice that aligned with community aspirations for self-determination (Denzin et al., 2008). Their incorporation into restorative justice initiatives underscores their continued role in mediating conflict, rebuilding relationships, and enabling community-led accountability grounded in cultural ethics.

Within education, Yarning Circles have been integrated into pedagogical frameworks to support culturally relevant learning, student voice, and holistic wellbeing. They provide culturally secure environments where Indigenous students can articulate identity and resist deficit narratives imposed by colonial schooling systems. This educational uptake reflects a shift toward recognising Indigenous pedagogies as legitimate rather than supplementary.

In academic research, the formalisation of Yarning as a methodology gained momentum in the early twenty-first century as scholars critiqued the extractive, individualised nature of Western qualitative methods (Bessarab & Ng’andu, 2010). Yarning Circles align with the ethics of relational accountability, reciprocity, and respect, requiring researchers to engage with community protocols rather than treating participants as data sources (Wilson, 2008). Their methodological legitimacy is rooted not in novelty but in their enduring historical role as culturally authorised spaces of knowledge exchange.

The historical continuity of Yarning Circles therefore demonstrates resilience, adaptability, and epistemic authority. Far from being retrofitted to contemporary needs, they represent an uninterrupted lineage of Indigenous governance and learning. Their re-emergence in research, education, and justice indicates a paradigm shift toward recognising Indigenous knowledge systems as rigorous, relational, and essential to ethical inquiry. In this context, Yarning Circles challenge Eurocentric assumptions within qualitative research and reaffirm the centrality of community-centred, culturally grounded methodologies in meaningful relational knowing.

Kava and Faikava as a Method for Pacific Peoples

Kava refers to both a shrub in the pepper family native to the Pacific (Piper Methysticum) and the traditional drink made from its roots (Lebot et al., 1997). Kava holds profound cultural significance for Pacific peoples across Oceania, serving multiple functions that extend far beyond its pharmacological properties as a relaxant. Lebot et al. (1997) detail its central role in ceremonial and religious rituals, where it acts as a mediator between the physical and spiritual realms.

Faikava is the traditional social gathering centred around drinking kava, with the literal translation of “to do kava.” Faikava operates as a culturally sanctioned liminal space in which everyday social hierarchies are momentarily relaxed while the moral foundations of those hierarchies are simultaneously reaffirmed (Tecun et al., 2021; Turner, 2012). Within formal Tongan settings governed by cultural values and beliefs, younger participants would ordinarily avoid openly criticising elders or sensitive communal matters. However, within faikava, individuals may share frustrations, humour, or personal struggles, including financial pressures or family expectations, that would be inappropriate in structured environments. Despite this temporary suspension of status boundaries, interaction remains carefully ordered through turn-taking and the closing moral interpretations typically offered by elders. Thus, rather than dismantling hierarchy, faikava functions as a relational safety mechanism through which critique restores harmony and strengthens social cohesion, illustrating how Pacific dialogical spaces enable both the negotiation and reproduction of cultural order (Fehoko, 2015; Ka’ili, 2017; Vaioleti, 2006). Tomlinson (2004) has added further that the uniqueness of this liminal experience with the imbibing of kava is in part because the “one’s mind remains sharp during the kava-drinking”, even while greater consumption may increase physical effects (p. 657).

In the context of conflict resolution and decision-making, Tengan (2008) illustrates how faikava provide a structured yet informal environment where contentious issues can be discussed and resolved. This observation is supported by Maiava (2001), who documents how the relaxed atmosphere created by kava consumption allows for more open and honest dialogue, particularly around sensitive or controversial topics. Tecun and colleagues (2021) also recorded that contemporarily “kava is also used in some circumstances to resolve conflicts on a smaller scale by asking forgiveness through presenting kava and engaging in talanoa” (p. 177). Talanoa is a key component of faikava, and it takes place within the culturally organised practices of kava preparation and consumption, which we describe in more detail in the next section.

The role of kava in social bonding and community cohesion has been extensively studied by Aporosa (2019), who argues that the faikava ceremony specifically represents more than just a social gathering. Rather, it serves as a complex site of cultural reproduction (that is, the ways cultural values, roles, and shared meanings are continually renewed and transmitted through repeated social practice) and identity formation. This perspective is enriched by Tomlinson (2007), who describes how the spatial and temporal organization of kava ceremonies creates a unique communicative context that facilitates both structured and spontaneous dialogue. Fehoko (2014; 2015) found that the faikava was an intergenerational space, allowing elders and youth to communicate freely and in a equal manner. Furthermore, Fehoko (2014) noted how this is commonplace for Pacific males and allows participants to establish and nurture new and exisiting relationships.

Fehoko (2017) further examined the cultural significance of the faikava as a pedagogical, social, and epistemological space for New Zealand-born Tongan males. Drawing on talanoa as a culturally responsive method, Fehoko noted that learning occurs organically within the faikava through humour, storytelling, debate, observation, and the reinforcement of cultural values. Within this context, Fehoko found that participants negotiated identity, belonging, and social hierarchies, allowing them to engage with Tongan cultural knowledge that is often absent from formal education settings like universities. Further that the faikava presents as a contemporary site of cultural learning, where intergenerational knowledge is transmitted. Fehoko highlights how this informal learning environment strengthens cultural continuity by enabling Tongan diaspora youth to remain connected to Tongan language, customs, and protocols, which in turn, shaping attitudes, behaviours, and identities among diaspora youth in Aotearoa New Zealand (Fehoko, 2017).

Talanoa and Faikava

We review key talanoa and faikava literaturehere for two reasons. First, ‘talanoa’ is often treated as a single, generalisable method, yet the literature shows it is a family of dialogic practices that vary by language, context, and philosophical grounding. Second, because our thesis argues that faikava can be articulated as both method and methodology, we need to specify which talanoa tradition we draw on and how we operationalise it in research terms (i.e., as cultural practice, as methodological framework, and as method). In what follows, we distinguish talanoa/faikava as (1) living cultural practice, (2) research methodology (the ethical-relational orientation guiding inquiry), and (3) research method (the concrete practices through which dialogue is facilitated and recorded).

The emergence of talanoa as a research method has significantly influenced the landscape of Pacific research methodology. There have been many contributions to talanoa literature shared across peoples who share the word and concept of ‘talanoa’ itself, including Viti (Fiji), Sāmoa, and Tonga in particular. There are complex nuances found between and within groups who refer to talanoa for their range of expressions to dialogue. Vaioleti (2006) has had a significant impact in the academic use and interrogation of talanoa, which he defines as a culturally appropriate research framework that emphasises relationality and cultural protocols. This approach, as Fa’avae et al. (2016) note, moves beyond mere data collection to create a space for empathetic interpersonal dialogue that acknowledges the importance of cultural context in relational knowing. Halapua (2000) emphasises how talanoa’s strength lies in its ability to break down the artificial barrier between researcher and participant, creating instead a collaborative space for knowledge holding and sharing. This perspective is further developed by Prescott (2008), who argues that talanoa’s effectiveness stems from its alignment with Pacific worldviews and communication styles. These accounts position talanoa not only as a technique for “gathering data” but also as a relational and culturally governed approach to enquiry, an important foundation for our argument that talanoa faikava can be a research method.

Vaioleti (2013) expanded the written discourse catalysed by his influential paper on talanoa, by seeking to further distinguish talanoa from other related methods, while also adding complexity in the distinct forms of talanoa. For example, there are specific expressions of talanoa in lea faka-Tonga (the Tongan language) such as pōtalanoa, which adds a nocturnal element (pō meaning night/evening, traditionally a time for connecting in evenings with family and neighbors), and talatalanoa, which expands the temporal dimension of talanoa to be continuous (with the repeated ‘tala’ emphasizing ongoing conversations). Therefore, one might ask which talanoa method in particular is being deployed? The point here is not simply to catalogue terms but to show that ‘talanoa’ functions as an umbrella label; for research, this makes methodological precision essential. Māhina (2008) framed talanoa within a broader Indigenous philosophical context of ako (study), ilo (knowing), and poto (materialised skill), in which he defines talanoa as a critical yet harmonious discussion. This framing matters because it positions talanoa as purposeful, accountable knowledge-sharing rather than casual conversation, supporting our claim that talanoa faikava can be articulated as rigorous research practice rather than an informal cultural add-on.

Fa’avae et al. (2016) raised another important challenge to the literature available at that time in regards to the limited explanations in the pragmatics in the methods of talanoa, and difficulties in carrying it out in academic research settings. Whichever form of talanoa was being used, how is it actually carried out effectively in a research setting? In response and in the spirit of extending the talanoa i‘ a’e talanoa (discourse on talanoa), Tecun et al. (2018) sought to re-theorise talanoa in a specific diaspora context that moves across cultures and regions, as well as in a broader and more generalised philosophical sense. Tecun and colleauges (2018) defined talanoa as ‘relationally mindful critical oratory’ (p. 23), in that it is an oral practice, which is refined through practice and that is in a constant mediation of relationships across time and space. Their argument included that the process or method of talanoa is underpinned by the metaphysics of mana (honour), tapu (protections), and noa (neutralised), and reaching a state of noa (equilibrium) was an indicator of successful relational mediation in the dialogue. We draw on this metaphysical lens because it provides an explicitly Pacific account of how dialogue is mediated and what counts as “successful” relational communication (e.g., movement toward noa/equilibrium). This strengthens our argument that talanoa faikava is not merely a setting for discussion but a culturally grounded mechanism for enabling particular kinds of disclosure, negotiation, and relational accountability.

Tecun and colleagues (2021) and Tecun and Petelo (2021) also applied the metaphysical lens of mana, tapu, and noa to faikava contexts where kava functioned as the form of mediation and facilitation of talanoa. In the examples within, faikava, the more common practice in a Tongan context as opposed to the socially higher-ranking chiefly gatherings, talanoa emerges through the calibration of relationships. Successful manifestations of talanoa are demonstrated in the works of Fehoko (2014), where a faikava gathering can produce a liminal shift toward noa, a moment of relational balance in which everyday hierarchies soften (while cultural protocol is maintained), enabling inter-generational and cross-social position discussion. Another example is when faikava facilitates talanoa with what Vaka, Brannelly, and Huntington (2016) have identified as more sensitive issues housed in the ‘heart of the story’ that people carry, such as mental health and illness. These examples demonstrate how the faikava arrangement (e.g., circle, roles, shared kava, and relational protocols) can reduce hierarchy and enable dialogue on sensitive issues in ways that may be constrained in standard focus groups.

One of the important points of emphasis in the talanoa and faikava literature is that it is complex, diverse, and contextually specific. Talanoa and faikava are already existent cultural practices and living methodologies that are making a space for themselves in academic domains, but that also exist beyond them. They are dynamic cultural practices, philosophies, and methods of inquiry that have a range of expressions and understandings. Accordingly, this paper proposes a specific articulation of talanoa faikava that foregrounds the relational values and protocols that ground inquiry in both talanoa and faikava. By doing so, we extend Indigenous research methods literature (and the increasingly robust talanoa scholarship) by clarifying how faikava can function not only as a culturally meaningful practice but also as a rigorous research method and methodology.

Theoretical Framework

Talanoa Faikava as a Pacific Research Method

Building on the section above, we now move from describing talanoa/faikava’s diversity and philosophical grounding to proposing a framework for how talanoa faikava can be operationalised in research. Drawing on the literature reviewed above, this paper proposes a theoretical framework for understanding faikava as a research methodology that builds upon existing cultural practices. Thaman (2003) argues that the integration of Indigenous methodologies into research practices is not merely a matter of cultural sensitivity, but a necessary step toward decolonizing research in contexts like the Pacific. Following this logic, the faikava methodology in general respects Pacific protocols and values, while seeking to create culturally safe research spaces.

The dialogical dynamics of faikava ceremonies facilitate both structured and organic conversation. As Archibald (2008) notes, Indigenous storywork practices enable layered communication that intertwines oral narrative, silence, gesture, and relational energy. This aligns with what Anae (2010) describes as the “vā” - the space between - where relationships are navigated, and knowledge is constructed in Pacific contexts. Māhina (2008; 2010) and Ka’ili (2017) add that spatial dynamics are also temporal ones, in that timing is as critical as the formations and arrangements in the space between. Ka’ili (2023) has also emphasised the significance of space that transcends and connects people through local ecology and place. Therefore, the physical and social context must simultaneously be considered and mediated in a faikava setting to successfully facilitate talanoa with its participants.

Faikava as a Research Method Context

Rather than discussing kava use broadly, this section focuses on everyday Tongan faikava gatherings (as distinct from chiefly ceremonies) as the practical setting in which talanoa faikava can be enacted as a research method and methodology. In Tongan contexts, faikava practices vary across lineages, villages, and families, and contemporary gatherings have adapted to modern settings, sometimes consolidating previously more distinct ceremonial differens (Fehoko, 2014; Helu, 1993; Tecun, 2017; Tecun et al., 2020). It is within this domain that we locate talanoa faikava as a culturally grounded alternative to conventional Western focus groups. While chiefly (higher-ranking) traditions remain influential, our argument centres on the more common faikava gatherings held among peers, relatives, and community members, rather than chiefly leadership contexts.

Faikava can be interpreted as “to do/make kava,” but also alludes to a gathering in which relationships are mediated. Our suggestion that faikava facilitates talanoa and equitable dialogue is not a universal, but rather an aim, which is derived from the stories when this does occur. The following examples identify and highlight when faikava facilitates talanoa and knowledge holding and sharing, which we see as an alternative to focus groups, with a more robust relational ethic and personal intimacy between participants who may be related or nurture a kinship-like relationship with one another. This is another component of our proposition, which was raised by Tecun and colleagues (2018) previously, in that Indigenous relational ethics overtly seeks and acknowledges closeness, as opposed to the assumed objectivity that exists through distance from our connections as human beings.

The following section offers reflexive accounts based on their research experiences using talanoa faikava as a method. Drawing on its practical application in the field, they examine how the method operates in practice, the relationships it requires, and the kinds of knowledge it enables, highlighting its relevance for culturally grounded and community-centred qualitative research.

Case Study – Dr Edmond Fehoko

The use of the faikava as a culturally grounded research practice first emerged in his postgraduate work in 2014, where he explored the faikava as an identity marker for New Zealand-born Tongan males (Fehoko, 2014). This case study is included to demonstrate how an existing cultural practice can be operationalised into a rigorous qualitative method, and why talanoa faikava offers analytic and ethical advantages over conventional focus groups for Tongana and wider Pacific research. Although the faikava was not initially employed as a formal method, it became evident during the talanoa process that conversations naturally aligned with the principles of talanoa faikava (Vaioleti, 2006). Participants consistently articulated how the faikava environment functioned as a medium for sharing lived experiences, cultural perceptions, and collective insights, while simultaneously reinforcing the consumption of kava as a culturally significant practice deeply embedded within Tongan identity and sociality (Fehoko, 2014).

In subsequent research, Fehoko formally implemented the faikava as an alternative to conventional Western focus groups to investigate Tongan male experiences and perceptions of gambling harm in Aotearoa New Zealand (Fehoko, 2020). Using this approach, he facilitated four talanoa faikava sessions involving both Tongan elders and New Zealand-born Tongan youth, generating an intergenerational, dialogic space that enabled authentic narrative exchange. The cultural legitimacy of the method fostered an environment conducive to depth, trust, and epistemic authority, producing data that would have been difficult to obtain through Western methodological approaches.

Reflecting on this work and its ongoing application across current and future studies, three key insights underscore the significance of the talanoa faikava. First, it extends beyond a simple conversational space; it is a culturally mediated research environment that enables participants to articulate complex socio-cultural realities grounded in relational ethics (Vaioleti, 2011). Second, the faikava method constructs an intergenerational and hierarchical leveling space rarely replicated in Western research models. Within one of the world’s largest Tongan kava clubs, Kalapu Fofo’anga, the expression liliu ae ua ‘o taha (“when two become one”) reflects the intentional dismantling of positional authority. Participants are encouraged to metaphorically “leave their titles at the door,” entering as equals, thereby reducing the power imbalances that commonly silence marginal voices in research contexts (Māhina, 2010). Third, the sharing of sensitive experiences within the talanoa faikava reinforces culture, belonging, and identity, strengthening relational networks both during and beyond the research encounter (Fehoko, 2020).

Case Study – Dr Arcia Tecun

This case study draws primarily on Tecun’s scholardhip to illustrate how talanoa faiakva operates as a context-sensitive method of inquiry in Tongan diasporic settings. Rather than offering an exhaustive summary, we synthesise key concepts from Tecun’s work to show how social location (e.g., place, nationality, gender, and church affiliation) shapes the protocols, boundaries, and relational labour required to facilitate talanoa within faikava. The purpose is to demonstrate why talanoa faikava cannot be trated as a generic ‘focus group in a circle’ but must be understood as a mediated, relational practice that changes across contexts.

Tecun’s work emphasises that facilitating talanoa within faikava requires navigating multiple, overlapping layers of social expectation (e.g., [race, nationality, gender, and church affiliation). The Loto Tonga (Centred in Tonga) context is connected to, but distinct from Tu’a Tonga (Peripheral to Tonga), which is distinguished further by the modern nation-state we refer to. For instance, Tongans in Aotearoa New Zealand and in the United States of America may face different social norms and constraints around where gatherings occur, who can attend, and how visible the gathering can be. In some diasporic settings, participants may incorporate local norms (e.g., shifting the venue, timing, language use, or who is invited) to fit workplace schedules or neighborhood expectations; in others, they may refuse local expectations by deliberatelymaintaining Tongan protocols (e.g., preserving roles, seating order, forms of address, and the relational boundaries that govern speech). These choices shape what becomes sayable in talano and how relationships are mediated.

Gender identity, expression, and awareness also vary across contexts of time and space, which must also be mediated in the pursuit of holistic and critical inquiry. In addition, while Christianity is a generally present aspect of contemporary Tongan life, the branch or denomination may have a significant influence on how certain Tongans may conceptualise what it means to be Tongan. For example, the Wesleyan Methodist branch of Christianity has many longstanding syncretisms and fusions with Indigenous Tongan culture, including incorporation of faikava and other kava ceremonies in congregational life. However, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons; Mormonism; Latter-day Saints) have a more recent, albeit materially powerful presence in Tonga and amongst Tongans throughout the world. Funaki (2024) has written about the diverse perspectives that have existed historically within Mormonism and changes throughout time in regard to the perception and use of kava.

There exists not only a sense of Tongan protocol that must be upheld and navigated across diverse contexts, but a shared and at times contested interpretation of how it should be enacted. Faikava may aesthetically appear different across these geographical and religious contexts, but the relational ethics, protocols, and dialogic aims central to our argument can potentially traverse such diversity. Mana, tapu, and noa or ngofua (openness or permissibility) as it is also expressed in Tonga are key elements in such a relational ethic to get to the heart or root of an individual’s contributions to talanoa, or share openly for the purpose of collective inquiry (Tecun et al., 2018; Tecun & Petelo, 2021; Vaka et al., 2016). A faikava setting that mediates these differences among people who share ancestral values and heritage simultaneously reveals ‘data’ out of overt dialogue and silent protocol. The researcher in such a setting having enough poto (skill) to engage and facilitate a faikava can with emotional intelligence observe their relations in the faikava and utilise the right timing to inquiry more specifically (Māhina, 2008, 2010). Likewise, knowing your relations and research participants provides the insight on how to interpret and follow up on silent actions that can represent agreement, questions, or respectful disagreement in some cases.

An opening time frame of faikava is hard to define but may be considered as the time necessary to settle in, to begin to feel increasingly comfortable in the moment and occasion with the participants present. Introductions, re-introductions, or nurturing already existing relationships often lead such openings of faikava. The manner in which faikava is presented also indicates the boundaries of engagement, or the level of seriousness in a gathering, such as the selection of opening words and/or welcome acknowledgements, and/or gifts presented. Humour is never completely absent, but the timing and approach to humour is set by the tone of the space and host. The researcher then must collaborate with a host if not hosting themselves to utilise faikava as a method of inquiry.

The most powerful component arguably is the relationships and sense of belonging in a faikava, yet the soporific and anti-depressant qualities of kava, while benign in a broader view of pharmacology, is still nonetheless a factor in feeling comfortable and relaxed (Aporosa, 2019). There is a great amount of complexity listed here, which is still incomplete, and is documented to demonstrate some of the awareness necessary in the process of mediating the mana (honour) of each individual who is also a part of a bigger identity. The amount of time spent in faikava, which can be several hours, is a temporal component that compliments the effects of kava, and a cultural expectation that often still remains to seek to relate in harmonious ways. In this way faikava is a research practice that is akin to Wilson’s (2008) assertion of ceremony. The researcher’s work comes in documenting, paying attention, inquiring appropriately through emotional intelligence and timeliness, being accountable and responsive to community participants, and engaging in perhaps the most laborious part of the process - identifying knowledge and organising and interpreting it within the frame of research questions and aims.

Ethical Considerations

The use of talanoa faikava as a Pacific group discussion method presents a distinct set of ethical considerations shaped by Pacific cultural values. Within the faikava environment, open and strategic talanoa is governed by implicit norms relating to turn-taking, informal talanoa, and symbolic consumption of kava. Researchers must possess cultural competence to engage with these protocols authentically, ensuring that participation does not become tokenistic or culturally extractive (Māhina, 2010). Furthermore, selection of culturally appropriate venues, acknowledgement of social hierarchies, and adherence to recognised roles within the space reinforce participant comfort and protect the integrity of the method.

Power dynamics similarly require ethical scrutiny. Despite the egalitarian notion that participants “leave their titles at the door” in talanoa faikava, hierarchical distinctions relating to age, status, gender, or denominational leadership may still influence discourse. Ethical facilitation must therefore encourage balanced contributions and prevent dominant voices from marginalising others (Fehoko, 2020). Such efforts align with reciprocal respect, ensuring that all participants retain dignity and feel safe to articulate divergent experiences without fear of reputational or cultural consequence.

Confidentiality in the talanoa faikava presents unique challenges within small, interconnected Pacific communities. As a result, participants may inadvertently disclose information that references identifiable churches, families, or leaders. Researchers must clearly articulate the limitations of anonymity and employ nuanced de-identification strategies. Because talanoa faikava prioritises collective rather than individual dialogue, confidentiality expectations must be negotiated collectively, reinforcing communal responsibility in safeguarding sensitive experiences and disclosures. Informed consent must also be understood relationally. It is important to note that Pacific decision-making is frequently collective, involving the influence of family, church, or community leaders. Therefore, researchers must respectfully engage these relational gatekeepers while ensuring that individual autonomy is understood, especially in the talanoa faikava space. Recording and transcription inevitably decontextualise relational knowledge into “data”, which are then recontextualised through analysis; this makes relational consent and interpretive accountability central ethical obligations. For this reason, community peer review and results-sharing should be built into the research process to ensure that interpretations remain culturally appropriate, protect collective meanings, and are relevant to the communities from which the knowledge was shared.

Reciprocity represents another ethical imperative in the talanoa faikava space. Because knowledge sharing is produced through relationship, it must also be returned through relationship. Accordingly, reciprocity should be built into the design of talanoa faikava (before, during, and after data collection) so that participants and communities experience tangible benefit and ongoing relational accountability (Veukiso-Ulugia et al., 2025).

The consumption of kava itself carries ethical considerations. While culturally and legally legitimate, researchers must ensure safe consumption practices, accommodate participants with health restrictions, and acknowledge denominational objections (Ministry for Primary Industries, 2026; Teschke et al., 2012). Misconceptions around kava often treat it as equivalent to alcohol intoxication; yet pharmacologically, kava’s kavalactones are associated with anxiolytic/sedative effects, and available studies indicate kava alone is less likely to produce alcohol-type cognitive impairment, while co-use with alcohol can increase impairment risk (Foo & Lemon, 1997; Smith & Leiras, 2018). Such misconceptions may lead to inappropriate ethical scrutiny, inaccurate pharmacological assumptions, and culturally insensitive restrictions that overlook kava’s established cultural role and the context-dependent nature of risk (Aporosa, 2019; Smith & Leiras, 2018). Ethical considerations therefore require researchers to provide evidence-based justification for kava’s inclusion, articulate safety parameters (including screening/exclusion and monitoring where appropriate), and remain attentive to participants with health or denominational constraints (Savage et al., 2015). Where institutional ethics guidance is unfamiliar with kava, it can be adapted to explicitly recognise (i) evidence-based safety parameters and opt-out pathways and (ii) kava’s relational function in talanoa faikava, which can support trust, emotional safety, and culturally grounded dialogue (Savage et al., 2015; Tecun et al., 2018). In this sense, kava’s presence may legitimise the research encounter through shared protocol and the enactment of vā, reducing hierarchical barriers and reinforcing collective responsibility in collective meaning-making (Tecun et al., 2018).

Conclusion

The exploration of talanoa faikava in qualitative and focus group research methods explores the potential of culturally grounded research paradigms that reposition Pacific epistemologies in Western research models and frameworks. By situating talanoa faikava alongside Indigenous spaces such as Aboriginal Yarning Circles and Native American Talking Circles, this paper has highlighted how ritualised, relational, and dialogic spaces transcend into research spaces. The faikava setting, anchored in Tongan and wider Pacific traditions, not only facilitates authentic narrative exchange but also restores cultural legitimacy to Pacific ways of knowing and being within research encounters.

Beyond serving as a culturally safe space, talanoa faikava functions as an epistemic site where experiences, perceptions, ideas and critical insights, which in turn, identity, spirituality, and social hierarchy are respectfully negotiated. It challenges Western research by repositioning participants and redefines validity through cultural coherence and communal ethics rather than procedural objectivity. In advancing talanoa faikava as a research method, this article contributes to a growing movement that reimagines qualitative research methods and methodologies as a dialogical, embodied, and grounded in Indigenous cultural logics. It invites scholars to expand methodological inclusivity by embracing frameworks that reflect the cultural realities of Pacific peoples and other Indigenous communities.