多文化主義を再構想する：文化変容科学の土着化に向けた小さな一歩

Introduction

Psychology has been slow to engage with Indigenous issues in general (González et al., 2022), and this is particularly apparent in connection with acculturation science.  Although acculturation is among the most extensively studied topics in contemporary social science, and early psychological theorizing on the topic has its roots in work with Aboriginal Peoples (Berry, 1970), research concerning the processes, outcomes and conditions of acculturation in Indigenous communities is relatively rare. Despite numbering  476 million and making up 6.2% of the global population (World Bank, 2023), Native Peoples have been largely overlooked by acculturation scientists in favor of research with immigrants and international students. This is a critical limitation in the field that impedes the development of acculturation theorizing and its application for social good.  Much of the intercultural contact across the globe is occuring in the Native lands of the world’s Indigenous Peoples, who are socially, politically, and economically disadvantaged and have poorer health outcomes and lower life expectancy than non-Native peoples (González et al., 2022; World Bank, 2023). Accordingly, there is an urgent need for acculturation scientists to turn their attention to Indigenous communities.

Acculturation science encompasses theory and research about the processes, outcomes and conditions of intercultural contact. In terms of processes, acculturation science has drawn heavily on Berry’s (1997) theoretical  framework, which examines the interaction between the principles of  heritage cultural maintenance and participation in the wider society to delineate four acculturation strategies: integration, separation, assimilation and marginalization. In terms of outcomes, the relationship between acculturation and adaptation has been a major area of interest with psychological (psycho-emotional well-being) and socio-cultural (social skills, intercultural competence) adaptation, receiving the greatest attention (Berry & Sam, 2016; Bierwiaczonek & Waldzus, 2016; Ward & Szabó, 2019). In terms of conditions, the importance of historical, demographic and socio-political contexts has been highlighted (Geeraert et al., 2019; Kus-Harbord & Ward, 2015; Miller et al., 2009; Phalet et al., 2018; Ward et al., 2010; Ward & Geeraert, 2016), with diversity ideologies, policies and practices often the focus in this line of research (Bourhis et al., 1997; Hui et al., 2015; Schachner et al., 2019; Vedder et al., 2006).

Part of a Special IssueAcculturation ReimaginedThis article belongs to a curated special issue. Discover more research on this topic from the full collection.Explore the special issue →

The massive body of international research on acculturation that has grown rapidly over the last two decades has important implications not only for the advancement of acculturation theory, but also for its application to benefiting individuals and their communities. It may be for this reason that studies of the adaptive outcomes of integration (dual engagement, maintaining heritage culture and participating in the wider society) and multiculturalism have received priority attention (Berry, 2006; Berry & Sam, 2014; Berry & Ward, 2016; Bierwiaczonek  & Kunst, 2021). Both the process of integration and the condition of multiculturalism have been proposed to lead to positive outcomes for individuals in terms of the psychological and social well-being  and for societies in terms of greater social cohesion (Berry, 1997, 2006, 2017). 

Berry’s eco-cultural theorizing and his acculturation framework were originally  proposed to  provide  a comprehensive  overview of acculturation that could be applied to all ethno-cultural groups, despite differences in the extent to which  they were engaged in voluntary or involuntary intercultural contact and whether their groups were mobile or sedentary (Berry, 1979, 2006, 2011). Even so, Berry pointed out that the ‘operating parameters’ for individuals from minority groups are constrained by the larger society’s expectations and preferences about how these communities should engage and adapt (Berry & Sam, 2014). Unfortunately, the vast majority of acculturation studies has focused on conditions of voluntary intercultural contact, such as the experiences of immigrants, neglecting the impact of involuntary contact as experienced by Indigenous Peoples (Sam & Ward, 2021).  This is an important caveat in acculturation science.

In this paper we address this caveat. We emphasize the relative invisibility of Indigenous Peoples and highlight the interplay of historical and contextual influences in their acculturation experiences. In working with and for Māori, the Indigenous Peoples of New Zealand, we adopt the Braided River paradigm, bringing together Indigenous and non-Indigenous researchers to elicit Māori perspectives on multiculturalism. In sharing Indigenous views, we consider the compatibility of Māori voices with conceptualizations of multiculturalism in contemporary acculturation research and take small steps toward indigenizing acculturation science.

Multiculturalism and Colonization as Acculturation Contexts

Multiculturalism is but one condition that affects acculturation processes and outcomes.  To examine the acculturation experiences of Indigenous Peoples in post-colonial settler societies, the negative effects of colonization must also be examined.  Regrettably, theory and research on indigeneity, which emphasize impact of colonization, and acculturation, which highlight the process of immigration and the condition of multiculturalism, have developed as two relatively independent bodies of literature with little, if any, conceptual overlap (Bauder, 2011; Kamp et al., 2018). In this section we present brief overviews of the two bodies of work and then describe the New Zealand context to set the scene for our research.

Multiculturalism

Global trends indicate that we are exposed more to cultural diversity now than ever before (Bai et al., 2020). This is due in large part to immigration with recent figures indicating that there are now 304 million immigrants globally, making up 3.7 % of the world’s population (United Nations, 2024). This does not mean, however, that multicultural societies are the norm. Berry (2005) and Berry and Ward (2016) have argued that cultural diversity is a necessary, but not sufficent, criterion to define multiculturalism. Rather, multicultural societies are defined by three key components: Multicultural Ideology (a widespread valuing and appreciation of diversity), Multicultural Contact (diverse ethno-cultural groups interacting with each other rather than leading parallel lives) and Multicultural Policies and Practices that support and accommodate diversity.  When these criteria are met, multiculturalism can ensure cultural maintanance and equitable participation for all ethno-cultural groups.

The social and psychological outcomes of these facets of multiculturalism have been widely examined in social science research. Multicultural attitudes and multicultural contact are positively associated with indicators of national and neighborhood social cohesion, particularly increased trust and a stronger sense of solidarity (Breidahl et al., 2018; Hewstone, 2015).  The presence of national multicultural policies has likewise been shown to relate to higher levels of trust; additionally, for immigrants and members of minority groups, multicultural policies are associated with lower levels of perceived discrimination, better socio-cultural adaptation and greater life satisfaction, benefiting both individuals and the wider society (Jackson & Doerschler, 2016; Vedder et al., 2006; Wright & Bloemraad, 2012). Not only objective indicators, but also individuals’ perceptions of multicultural contact, ideology and policies are linked to positive social outcomes (Guimond et al., 2013; Van Assche et al., 2023).  This is because these perceptions are frequently and widely shared among individuals and become normative, thereby shaping our attitudes and guiding our behaviors (Guimond et al., 2013, 2014).

Drawing on the tri-partite conceptualization of multiculturalism advanced by Berry and colleagues (Berry, 2005; Berry & Sam, 2014; Berry & Ward, 2016) and empirical work on multicultural norms by Guimond et al. (2013, 2014) and by Breugelmans and van de Vijver (2004),  Stuart and Ward (2019) developed a Normative Multiculturalism Scale, which assesses individuals’ perceptions of the degree to which their country manifests multicultural contact, ideology and policies. Their research, conducted in the United Kingdom, United States and New Zealand, has shown that perceived multicultural norms are positively associated with trust, national attachment, and psychological well-being, not only for minority group members, but also often for members of the majority group (Ward et al., 2020, 2023; Watters et al., 2020).

Of note, studies of multiculturalism as a context for acculturation have been primarily undertaken with immigrants and their descendants with a nod toward majority group members in culturally plural societies. The time has come to expand our research repertoire. First, the extension of studies of multiculturalism to Indigenous Peoples can inform us about the external and ecological validity of our current theories.  It also permits us to broaden our notions of context and its impact on acculturation processes and outcomes, demanding consideration of both the contemporary context of multiculturalism and the historical context of colonization. Second, the findings gleaned from research on indigeneity and multiculturalism can be applied to addressing the legacy of colonization that is manifest in the social, economic, and health inequities experienced by Native Peoples across the world.

Colonization

It is widely recognized that colonization has exerted devastating effects on Indigenous Peoples in post-colonial settler societies. Native communities have been decimated by war, genocide and disease;  Indigenous languages, cultures and spiritual practices have been lost through forced assimilation; kinship systems have been disrupted; and Native lands have been stolen, displacing Indigenous communities and depriving them of their natural resources (Crabbe, 2007; Dudgeon et al., 2014; Fitznor, 2006; Paradies, 2016). The mistreatment and exploitation of Indigenous Peoples have been rife in political, social and cultural spheres. Treaties were signed and broken to serve colonial interests and foster economic and political dominance. Indigenous knowledge and culture were disparaged by European colonial settlers who viewed Native Peoples through a lens of racial superiority — so much so that Indigenous children were removed from their homes in an attempt to  ‘civilize’ them. So destructive and debilitating were the experiences of colonization, Pugh and Cheers (2010, p. 48) argue that “the very fact of the survival of local Indigenous People itself is remarkable and is a testimony to their resilience.”

The costs of colonization have been great, and the negative impact of dispossession and deculturation continue today in contemporary societies characterized by systemic racism and Indigenous deprivation. Indigenous Peoples remain disadvantaged in terms of their socio-economic status and have poorer health outcomes (Valeggia & Snodgrass, 2015). They are more likely to live in poverty and reside in deprived neighborhoods than the general population (Dhongde & Dong, 2022; Eversole et al., 2005; Loring et al., 2022). They are also comparatively more likely to be unemployed and have lower levels of income and educational qualifications (Ward & Liu, 2012). There is evidence that Native Peoples are over-represented in the prison population and in mental health facilities as non-voluntary patients (Liu, 2007); they are also more likely to be both victims and perpetrators of domestic violence (Fergusson, 2003). Furthermore, elevated rates of child abuse and suicides are found among Native communities (Crabbe, 2007; Kirmayer et al., 2009). The negative social, economic, psychological and health conditions found in Native populations are intertwined with the dynamics of oppression (Sidanius et al., 2017), and  the long-lasting and persistent inequities experienced by Native Peoples have prompted Indigenous scholars to remind us that settler-colonialism, reflected in systemic social and institutional racism, is still widespread (Rata, 2020).

Although colonization is one form of intercultural contact that has precipitated acculturative changes, beyond the acknowledgement of forced assimilation, it has rarely been considered  within an acculturation framework.  Rather, the experience of colonization and its devastating consequences for Native Peoples are more often discussed in terms of ‘historical trauma’ or ‘soul wound’ (Brave Heart & DeBruyn, 1998), “cumulative emotional and psychological wounding over the lifespan and across generations emanating from massive group experiences” (Brave Heart, 2003, p. 5).  Historical trauma has been used as an explanatory construct to explicate health inequities for Native Peoples. From this perspective, high rates of diabetes, addiction, PTSD and suicide are seen as the social and psychological responses of Indigenous Peoples to the historical trauma of colonization (Gone, 2023; for a recent review see Nagata et al., 2024).

Both colonization and multiculturalism provide conditions for acculturation. The extent to which the historical experience of the former influences attitudes toward the latter is unknown. What is known, however, is that collective narratives about the historical relationships between groups, including collective memories of colonization, can and do affect current intergroup relationships and acculturation practices (Ayalon & Sagy, 2011; Figueiredo et al., 2018).

Aotearoa/New Zealand: Brief History and Current Context

The lands now known as Aotearoa (the land of the long white cloud) or New Zealand were first settled by ocean-faring Polynesians who arrived in waves 800-1000 years ago.^[1] Europeans initially set eyes on the islands in 1642 with the arrival of Dutch explorer Abel Tasman, but it was only after the arrival of James Cook in 1769 as an envoy of the British Empire that European settlement began (King, 2003; R. Walker, 1990). As British settlement increased over the next six decades, so did the need to formalize relations between Māori and the colonists.

In 1840 this was accomplished by Te Tiriti o Waitangi (the Treaty of Waitangi), an agreement between Māori and the British Crown (the government with its executive, legislative and judicial branches).  In the absence of a written constitution, Te Tiriti is considered New Zealand’s founding document, broadly stating the principles on which the British and Māori agreed to found a nation and build a government in the country. Its first article, which pertains to governance of the country, has been – and still is – the subject of considerable controversy due tothe Treaty’s two language versions. In the English version Māori agreed to cede sovereignty to the Queen, while in te reo Māori ‘kawanatanga’ was understood as governance. The second article ensures that Māori retain undisturbed possession of their lands and treasures. The third article specifies that the Crown extends protection to Māori along with all rights and privileges of citizenship.

Despite the Treaty agreements, disputes over land and sovereignty continued intermittently through the early 20^th century, incurring significant loss of tribal territories (Belich, 1986); however, it was not until the 1950s that Māori began to migrate to urban centers in search of economic opportunities. As Māori  became embedded in Western institutions and subjected to assimilationist pressures, Indigenous ways of doing and being were devalued and suppressed (Orange, 2004). By the 1960s te reo Māori was barely surviving, and Māori culture was at risk (Smith, 1989).

The 1970s saw political protests over landlessness and cultural loss and the beginnings of a Māori renaissance. Community-based initiatives such as kohanga reo (Māori pre-school language nests) were established to support cultural and linguistic revitalization. The government became more responsive to Māori issues and established the Waitangi Tribunal with the objective of investigating Māori claims relating to alleged breaches of the agreements made in Te Tiriti. In the years that followed the government began adopting a ‘bicultural’ approach to policies, and increasing reference to Treaty Principles of partnership, protection and participation became apparent (Hayward, 2004; Hill, 2009; Moon, 2013). However, amidst these positive cultural and political developments, the government was revising the national immigration policy, and without consultation with Māori as Treaty partners, proceeded with the 1986 and 1991 changes that transformed the demography of New Zealand.

The new era of immigration was characterized by a large influx of settlers from Asia in contrast to historical migration from Great Britain and Pacific nations (New Zealand Immigration Service, 1991). Populist politicians of the time often pitted new immigrants against Māori describing “… a flood of migrants – many of whom will directly compete with Māori in terms of jobs, housing and access to health service” (Ward & Lin, 2005, p.165), and national surveys showed that Māori held more negative attitudes toward Asian immigrants than did New Zealanders of European descent (Leong & Ward, 2011).

A steady stream of Asian immigration continued into the 21^st century. The most recent census figures indicate that New Zealand Europeans remain the largest group at 67.8%, Māori make up 17.8% of the population, followed by 17.3% Asian, 8.9% Pasifika, and 1.9% made up of Middle Easterners, Latin Americans and Africans (Statistics New Zealand, 2024a).^[2] At present 28.8% of the population is overseas born (Statistics New Zealand, 2024b). Although the cultural landscape of Aotearoa has undergone significant changes, the relative disadvantage experienced by Māori has remained the same. Like Indigenous peoples in many parts of the world, Māori as a group are disproportionately affected by racism, poverty, unemployment, incarceration, crime, poorer health and educational disadvantage (González et al., 2022; Houkamau et al., 2020; Kahukura, 2015; Kennedy, 2017; Kukutai & Rata, 2017; McIntosh & Workman, 2017; Simpson et al., 2015).

Re-imagining multiculturalism: Small steps toward Indigenizing acculturation science

With this background, we provide an overview of an emerging program of research that examines Indigenous understandings of multiculturalism along with a synopsis of our findings. The work described here is part of a larger project that addresses the question, “Is multiculturalism helpful or harmful to Indigenous Peoples?” Our overarching objective of the work is to draw on Mātauranga Māori (traditional knowledge) to explore Indigenous perspectives on the meanings and perceived consequences of multiculturalism and recommendations for managing cultural diversity in Aotearoa. In doing so, we showcase He Awa Whiria  (a Braided River approach) to demonstrate how partnerships between Native and non-Native researchers can facilitate the indigenization of acculturation science.

Our Approach: He Awa Whiria– A Braided River

“The braided rivers really is a representation of different streams of knowledge and different ways of thinking and perceiving particular things. It’s about weaving together the knowledge streams to get a shared understanding. So that you look at, what is the Western view, what is a Māori view? How can we weave and braid so there’s a common space where there’s a shared understanding?” Sonja Macfarlane(Science Learning Hub, 2022).

He Awa Whiria, the Braided River approach, is grounded in and emerged from the experiences of Māori researchers working in Western-dominated academic spaces in Aotearoa/New Zealand (Macfarlane et al., 2024). The fundamental premise underlying the approach is that each knowledge stream, that of Western science and Mātauranga Māori, has its own integrity, sometimes interacting and blending with the other and sometimes remaining apart. Like the flow of water, the knowledge streams are dynamic and shifting, reflecting the fluid nature of knowledge and the need to continually reflect and revise.

The architects of the Braided River approach present it as a unifying, multidisciplinary framework, one that can uncover answers and create solutions for everyone. They also suggest that the inclusive approach to research, policy and practice is more powerful than either stream on its own. To date, the conceptualization of He Awa Whiria has been applied to research across social (Dionisio et al., 2024; Lovell et al., 2021), behavioral (Clifford & Arahanga-Doyle, 2024) and health (Bright et al., 2024; Davies et al., 2024; Dawson et al., 2024) sciences as well as education (Derby & Macfarlane, 2024). In accordance with Macfarlane et al.’s (2024) vision, He Awa Whiria has also been applied to policy development and program evaluation (Baker, 2024; Cram et al., 2018).

The essence of the Braided River framework is reflected in the composition of our research rōpū (collective), the diversity of our ontological and epistemological positions, and the implementation of our mixed methods approach. Members of the rōpū include Māori and non- Māori, both New Zealand- and overseas-born.  Our positionalities within the discipline of psychology vary somewhat though leans toward post-positivist critical realism, which has been recommended as a philosophical framework for social and cultural psychology (de Souza, 2014). In many instances, we draw on the principles and practices of Kaupapa Māori, conceptualized as research by Māori, for Māori and with Māori, which highlights the active role of participants as research collaborators (S. Walker et al., 2006). At other times, we adopt a WASP, Western Academic Scientific Psychology position (Berry, 2024), distinguishing the roles of researchers and participants while still engaging in culturally appropriate whakawhanaungatanga (the process of establishing relationships, connectedness). We strive to incorporate both inductive and deductive approaches, prioritizing emic and bottom-up perspectives, but also finding space to explore a top-down (imposed) etic. Our methods include data collection from focus groups and the use of a free-listing technique with individuals; our analytical approaches involve reflexive thematic analysis and both manifest quantitative and latent qualitative content analysis. Across our mixed methods research, we can be seen to prioritize Mātauranga Māori, placing emphasis on Māori values and voices in the emergence of Indigenous perspectives on multiculturalism and to rely on tikanga (customary practices) and Māori protocols in conducting our research. In keeping with the tenets of He Awa Whiria, we view the diversity of our research rōpū, philosophical frameworks, methods, techniques and perspectives as strengths of our work. This diversity, captured by a Braided River approach, also permits us to triangulate our research findings to explore their validity and credibility.

When situated in an international context, it is worth noting that the principles of He Awa Whiria are very much in line with historic efforts to advance the development of Indigenous perspectives in cross-cultural psychology. The complementarity of emic (culture specific) and etic (culture general) approaches and the incorporation of ‘indigenization from within’ and ‘indigenization from without’ strategies are familiar paradigms (Berry, 1999; Enriquez, 1979; Ho, 1990; Yang, 2000). More recently, the necessity of Indigenous perspectives has been highlighted by advocates of multicultural research, who have argued for emphasis on research applications and the implementation of diverse methods. They have also noted that the interpretation of data without Indigenous inputs, which is presented as scientifically based knowledge, can be used to perpetuate injustice and oppression (Yakushko et al., 2016). This risk is at the forefront of the theorizing that arises from our research findings.

The Research

Our research was guided by a kaitiaki (Māori guardianship group) to ensure cultural safety. With their support, we addressed three inter-related questions to uncover Māori perspectives on multiculturalism. Our research questions are: 1) How do Māori conceptualize and engage with multiculturalism? 2) How do Māori perceive the benefits and risks of multiculturalism in Aotearoa?  3) Is the tri-partite model of multiculturalism found in acculturation science compatible with Māori conceptions of multiculturalism? 

Questions 1 and 3 were addressed with data drawn from the same focus group research participants; however, as these focus groups were designed and conducted in two parts, each with a distinct set of questions for a specific research objective, they are separated in the discussions of our research findings that follow.  Across our enquiries, data collection always involved Māori facilitators/researchers, and data analyses and interpretation were undertaken by multiple members of the research team, which, in each case, included both Māori and Western researchers. In each of the three subsections that follow, we first describe the research objective, followed by a brief description of methods with emphasis on cultural protocols and Indigenous research practices, and a summary of the research findings.

How do Māori Conceptualize and Engage with Multiculturalism?

The primary objective of this research was to explore Māori understandings of multiculturalism by adopting a bottom-up, data led, inductive emic approach (Ritchie et al., 2023). This involved 29 Māori adults  who participated in one of six hui (gatherings, meetings) conducted across urban and provincial centres in Aotearoa. Consistent with Māori tikanga, the sessions began with whakawhanaungatanga and sharing food.  When the participants were ready to commence the research, a karakia (prayer or invocation) was performed to open the discussion. Without providing a definition of multiculturalism, facilitators prompted participants with the following questions:

1. What does multiculturalism mean to you?
2. What are the advantages and disadvantages of multiculturalism?
3. Is multiculturalism compatible with biculturalism?
4. How does multiculturalism affect you in your everyday life?
5. Do you think that Aotearoa can have a Treaty-based multiculturalism?  If so, what would that look like?

This format enabled participants to rely upon Indigenous practices such as storytelling and providing oral histories in their discussions.

With participants’ permission, the sessions were video-recorded and transcribed. The transcriptions were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis by one Western and two Māori researchers (Braun & Clarke, 2006, 2022).  Following the early stages of data analysis, consultation was arranged with the participants. This initial consultation occurred after transcription was complete, with all participants who requested a transcript or a summary of results sent one via email. Consultation occurred again after further data analysis when the final themes had been proposed. In this instance, participants were asked to review and approve the themes. They were also asked for their consent to use their quotes when disseminating the research  findings. Of the participants who responded to the emails and calls regarding the consultation process, all approved the themes and quotations. The reflexive thematic analysis yielded four themes: Manaakitanga, Belonging, Envisioning and Enacting (Ritchie et al., 2023).

Manaakitanga (hospitality, kindness, generosity, support, the process of showing respect and care for others) was positioned as a core Māori value that should be present in discussions of immigration and multiculturalism. Manaakitanga  has both historical and contemporary significance as articulated in the following quote:

“The mana whenua (people who have territorial rights over the land) of the area had a great responsibility to care for and nurture those who came later so that that sort of multicultural world of, you know, the immigrants, refugees, people coming from other countries, that responsibility to nurture and care for and respect the different cultures coming in.”

Essential to this theme is Māori capacity for manaakitanga. This includes the capacity to take into account the needs of migrants and welcome them into Native lands and the capacity for relationship-building beyond initial contact. Māori want to be involved in the settlement of new migrants, rather than participate in a Euro-centric immigration system designed to exclude Māori and diminish their responsibilities as tangata whenua  (people of the land, Indigenous People). The current system is seen not only as disenfranchising Māori from exercising their Treaty rights in the immigration space, but also as continuing to maintain a state that distances immigrants from Māori. In terms of what welcoming newcomers might look like through a Māori lens, this could include tikanga-based initiatives, such as the inclusion of the Māori language in citizenship ceremonies and conducting pōwhiri, which is a formal Māori welcome ceremony to a marae (a tribal community center) for immigrants.

Despite the desire and intention for manaakitanga, participants felt that they had limited capacity to engage with immigrants. On one count, research participants cited incomplete knowledge of and restricted access to Immigration New Zealand’s programs, goals and strategies as a challenge. In addition, the resourcing required to create a Māori-led national system for manaakitanga is practically beyond the reach of an Indigenous community that experiences a high level of deprivation (Loring et al., 2022). This is exemplified in the following quote: “If we were able to … just step back… so we can take care of ourselves again, cause yeah once we take care of ourselves, we can manaaki them. Once our cup is full, we can keep overflowing.”

Finally, participants emphasized the importance of building and sustaining relationships. They described how they felt whanaungatanga whanaungatanga (kinship) with migrants, and how many migrant communities in Aotearoa shared similar values and histories with Māori – especially those from colonized nations. These relationships were viewed as sources of mutual support. In addition, the positioning of Māori and migrants as two groups both marginalized by a Pākehā (New Zealand European) majority illustrates how decolonial processes can be empowering for both groups and enhance manaakitanga. As expressed by one participant,

“For me, you know it’s- it’s about forming relationships and lots of multiple relationships. So for me, you can come in with that perspective, but the other person has a responsibility as well, and so, if the- the other group, person, doesn’t believe in the really important place that the Tiriti holds and therefore tangata whenua’s rights, then that means, we start at a position that’s quite difficult.”

Belonging conveys how people living in Aotearoa navigate space within a colonized country, who is considered a New Zealander, and the language people use when discussing who belongs. What it means to belong and who belongs are integral to discussions surrounding indigeneity and social cohesion. Despite being the Indigenous Peoples, Māori have often been made to feel like they do not belong in Aotearoa, particularly with respect to their language and culture. One participant noted, “In terms of Rotorua (a town in New Zealand renowned for Māori culture), we’re able to practice being Māori there, and it’s probably one of the few places that we can still do that in terms of 100% our reo, our culture.”  Feelings of exclusion were particularly intense when moving within Pākehā dominated contexts colored by both racism and tokenism.

A critical component of the belonging theme related to navigating space, a topic that participants often discussed in relation to tangible, place-based resources, such as housing, land and home ownership. Colonial practices have served to diminish Māori resources over time and often exclude them from enjoying the same assets as other New Zealanders. Although research participants made reference to political narratives popularized in the late 1990s and early 2000s, which portrayed migrants as competing with Māori for limited resources, by and large, they wanted a space for immigrants to be included. In their own words, “I think they should be supported and fostered here because everyone deserves to be happy in their country, and if they need to be empowered through their own religion, their culture, I reckon that should be done.”

At the same time, Māori did express concerns that immigrants could undermine the significance of indigeneity because they lack knowledge of Te Tiriti and the significance of Māori status as First Nations People. Even with that concern, however, participants did not express desires to exclude migrants from Aotearoa or to prevent them from identifying as New Zealanders. Instead, emphasis was placed on the detrimental effects of a Euro-centric ideology and its associated discourse on belonging and national identity. This was seen to reinforce power dynamics that benefit the majority group, while dividing Indigenous and immigrant groups and threatening the country’s social cohesion.

Envisioning encapsulates an ideal imagining of a culturally diverse Aotearoa. At the core are multicultural structures and systems grounded in Te Tiriti o Waitangi. This vision of Aotearoa provides a space for Māori, immigrant, and Pākehā cultures to thrive while tangata whenua play a central role in the construction of national identity. This sentiment was echoed by many research participants, e.g., “It’s that pinning down of a secure foundation of the Treaty relationship in itself would have to be the strong foundational platform for the next stage of development.” Emphasis on the Treaty, which lays out the relationship between Māori as the Indigenous Peoples of Aotearoa and all others who subsequently settled in the land, was seen as critical for a successful multicultural society. Indeed, both our research participants and Māori scholars, such as R. Walker (1995) and Rata (2021), have argued that the Treaty included our country’s first immigration policy and provided a foundation for multiculturalism.

There was also overall agreement with the principle that ‘biculturalism’ and ‘multiculturalism’ are compatible. The question of compatibility is asked and answered in the following quote: “If you have biculturalism, are you dismissing multiculturalism? Or if you do multiculturalism, is that not then saying we shouldn’t have biculturalism? But actually, those can be compatible depending on what function they’re serving.” Justice Eddie Durie (2005),  a Māori legal authority, has argued along similar lines that ‘biculturalism’ and ‘multiculturalism’ are about different things, with biculturalism being about the relationship between the state’s founding cultures and multiculturalism being about the acceptance of cultural difference. While acknowledging that Indigenous Peoples have distinctive claims arising from their Native status, he also argues that for the most part, “the two policies are mutually supportive” (Durie, 2005, p. 43). Furthermore, a Treaty-based multiculturalism was seen as a possible pathway to decolonization. In the words of one research participant, “Whereas for me it’s like multiculturalism is associated with leaving that colonization that we were brought up under, behind.” 

Enacting highlights potential ways forward, how Aotearoa as a country can surmount the challenges of implementing a Treaty-based multiculturalism and move towards achieving an ideal multiculturalism for all. Accomplishing these objectives is seen as dependent on the effectiveness of government’s ability to initiate and manage multiculturalism, the revitalization of Māori language and culture, and reciprocal support between Māori and immigrants. As such, enacting multiculturalism was seen as a distant goal.

Despite the acknowledgement of government’s role and responsibility to effectively manage diversity in Aotearoa, participants in our research were sceptical about the likelihood of success in realizing a Treaty-based multiculturalism. We found a widespread acknowledgement that there is still much that government must do to ensure that the Treaty partnership and principles are honored — so much so, that it may not be feasible to enact a Treaty-based multiculturalism. The difficulties in achieving biculturalism were noted, “Our nation’s still coming to terms with our own Treaty…the Treaty of Waitangi aspirations are only just starting to be realized, and still it is a daily battle for iwi” (tribes).

This sentiment was sometimes accompanied by the implication that biculturalism should be ‘sorted’ before Aotearoa could proceed to multiculturalism. Moreover, because the government has been seen as failing to deliver on biculturalism, there is little hope or trust that it can deliver on multiculturalism. In the  words of one research participant: “To answer your question, biculturalism and multiculturalism can work um provided the government don’t take a lead role on the policy change or on the implementation of change.”

More generally, there was a call for a ‘reset’ of the immigration system with emphasis on developing a strategy that supports the needs of Māori, immigrants and the country as a whole. Of critical importance is a Māori voice in the decision-making; however, cultural revitalization was seen as a prerequisite for Māori to engage effectively. Even so, Māori demonstrated concern and empathy for new settlers, discussing issues such as lifting the refugee quota in general and welcoming Pacific neighbors who are experiencing hardship due to climate change. More humanitarian concerns were expressed in contrast to the perception that current policies for admission to Aotearoa are all about money.

What are the Perceived Benefits and Risks of Multiculturalism?

We adopted an emic, bottom-up approach eliciting data using a free-listing technique to address this question. Free-listing provides information on categories, classes or cultural domains and offers insights into the vocabulary people use to conceptualize objects, phenomena, and mechanisms (Stausberg, 2021). We used this as an inductive, data-led technique to determine the range and salience of Māori perceptions regarding the benefits and the risks of multiculturalism in Aotearoa (Below et al., 2024).

In line with sample size recommendations by Weller and Romney (1988), 25 self-identified Māori adults participated in the free-listing exercise. Each participant responded to prompts about the positive and negative features of multiculturalism.  Specifically, we posed the questions: “How could multiculturalism be good/bad for Aotearoa?” We then asked participants to list all the things about multiculturalism that could benefit/harm our country. The technique was piloted in two formats, individually generated lists and interviews.  The participants in the pilot study expressed a strong preference for the interview format, and this not only produced more responses, but was also completed more quickly.  After the content of each list generated in the interviews was examined and coded, the benefits and risks were subjected to a salience analysis, which considers both the frequency and placement of coded items across all lists (Quinlan, 2018). The positive and negative codes are listed in rank order of salience in Table 1.

Analyses indicated that Exposure to Cultural Diversity was perceived by far as the most salient benefit of multiculturalism with this diversity bringing different languages, cultures, foods, ideas, solutions to problems, and ways of thinking and being. In short, diversity per se was viewed in a favorable way both affectively and instrumentally. This was followed by a set of themes that centered on the benefits of intercultural encounters and relationships. Increases Intercultural Knowledge and Understanding was the most salient of these themes, highlighting and promoting understanding of different cultures and worldviews and exposure to different ways of thinking and living. Next in the rank-ordering of salience were Bridging across Communities (building intercultural friendships, sharing language, culture and customs) and Fosters Acceptance and Inclusion (increases in acceptance of difference, tolerance, mutual respect, and empathetic concern). Less common were themes related to country-level national and international issues. These included Enriches National Development (e.g., contributions to economic growth, introduction of new skills, technologies and conservation practices) and Enhances Global Connectivity (e.g., reducing Aotearoa’s geographical isolation, putting the country on the world stage). Finally, Opportunities for Positive Social and Political Change were seen as beneficial, particularly as they offered the possibility of joining forces with multicultural partners to enact Treaty principles.

Undermining Indigeneity, jeopardizing the status ofMāori astangata whenua, including unnecessary distractions from the Treaty and the likelihood of labelling Māori as just another ethnic minority, was viewed as the most salient risk arising from multiculturalism in Aotearoa. This risk was followed by salient themes of Ethnic Conflict (e.g., prejudice, division, racism) and Pressure on Inadequate Resources, which was seen as precipitating and magnifying intergroup competition, threatening the sustainability of natural and technological resources, and straining the national infrastructure for public services. Prejudice and discrimination are core topics in intergroup theory and research, and the significance of limited resources is a core feature of Esses et al.’s (1998) Unified Instrumental Model of Group Conflict. Next in the rank ordering of risks were Culture Clash, problems arising from differences in expectations, beliefs and values, and Intercultural Misunderstandings, largely due to lack of intercultural knowledge and language barriers.  Less salient among the risks were Socio-political Outcomes of Poor Governance, which reflected the belief that government is unable to manage immigration and diversity in a fair and equitable way; Cultural Threat to the vitality and retention of Māori language, culture and values; and Negative Impacts of Globalization, the risk to the unique character of Aotearoa through globalization. Contrary to widespread findings in intercultural research, the risk salience of Cultural Threat and Culture Clash, which are akin to realistic and symbolic threat, respectively, was low to moderate (Stephan & Stephan, 2000).

Multicultural Ideology, Contact and Policies: A WASP Model for Māori?

In addition to addressing the questions about how Māori conceptualize and engage with multiculturalism and what are its perceived benefits and risks, we also tested the construct validity of a popular tri-partite model of multiculturalism found in acculturation science (Berry, 2005; Berry & Ward, 2016). This model has provided a theoretical framework for international research with immigrant and majority groups (Berry, 2005; Ward et al., 2018), but it has never been tested with Indigenous communities.  In contrast to adopting  the bottom-up, inductive, data-led technique previously described, in  this instance, we assumed a hypothetico-deductive approach, tentatively probing an imposed WASP etic in a series of hui with Māori participants. This permitted us to determine to what extent the tri-partite model of multiculturalism might be generalized to Māori, or in other words, if we can find a derived etic (Berry, 1989).

The same 29 research participants from the six  hui described previously responded to a discrete set of additional questions that followed the original five prompts about the meaning of multiculturalism. Participants were asked about the extent they would like to see or think it is important that we have…

1. A general and widespread recognition, appreciation or valuing of ethnic, cultural, linguistic and religious diversity?
2. Kiwis from different ethnic and cultural backgrounds getting to know each other, interacting and building relationships (versus being separated in their own ethnic group)?
3. Policies and practices in place that support and accommodate diversity?

Basic content analysis was first conducted by independent coders to quantify the support of or opposition to the ideology, contact and policy facets of multiculturalism (Ward et al., 2024). Following this, codes were developed and latent content analysis conducted to identify the underlying reasons for the support or opposition to the importance of multicultural ideology, contact and policies. This work permitted us to determine the extent to which Māori and WASP perspectives on multiculturalism are compatible.

Multicultural Ideology. Analysis revealed unanimous agreement about the importance of recognizing and valuing cultural diversity. We identified three themes that elaborated the reasons for this. First, participants recognized and acknowledged the Intrinsic Value of every culture. In their words, “It is important for our rangatahi (youth) to grow up in a space where diversity is accepted and nourished to ensure that there’s no one way or right way of being, and that it’s ok to be different.” Second, the expression of one’s culture and identity was seen as promoting resilience for individuals and as being beneficial for the wider society. We labelled this theme Hauora (a Māori concept of physical, mental, social and spiritual well-being).  “Being able to express our own culture and our own values are central to good health and well-being…I would say that’s essential for a strong society.” Finally, the respect and appreciation of cultural diversity were viewed as consistent with traditional Māori values, particularly Manaakitanga. As previously described, “Tikanga Māori requires the best of people to be at the fore all the time. At the front of that is aroha ki te tangata manaakitanga” (love and care for people).

Multicultural Contact. Responses concerning multicultural contact were mixed with half of the coded statements in agreement with the principle of relationship-building across cultures and half in opposition. Multicultural contact was seen as promoting Intercultural Understanding and as necessary to enhance intercultural knowledge and improve intercultural relations. As suggested by one research participant: “Everyone needs to understand everyone, and you won’t know that unless you’ve met an African or Indian…”  Contact was also viewed as providing an opportunity for community development by newcomers forging relationships and joining forces with Māori to benefit New Zealand. This Community-Building via Bridging was described by one participant who noted, “I see a lot of non-Māori really deferring to tangata whenua in terms of kaitiakitanga and taiao (guardianship for the sky, sea and land) and how to look after the environment, and I think that’s a strong space for the notion of community-building.” Converging with the emphasis placed on Manaakitanga in other strands of our research, participants talked about the importance of demonstrating hospitality and caring for others. In this way, multicultural contact was seen as in accordance with “tikanga…where we are actively showing people that we honor and welcome them to our country.” Finally, in line with theorizing by Berry and Ward (2016), intercultural contact was seen as an Avenue to Integration. As described by one participant, “I think with immigrants it’s awesome to integrate, and I feel like you could do multiple things, integrate and be together.”

The receptiveness to multicultural contact was countered by concerns about Cultural Threat and the need to Preserve and Protect Māori language and culture.  Common concerns were that Māori culture has been “contaminated by external ways of being” and that contact threatens Māori cultural preservation and authenticity. As noted by one participant, “Separating cultures protects them,” a view largely arising from the interpretation of contact within the context of colonization. This was clearly conveyed in the focus groups’ discussions: “We don’t need to theorize what happens when a majority culture goes into a minority culture. We can look at the islands (i.e., the colonized islands in the Pacific) … their cultures have been completely changed and overwhelmed.” In addition to themes relating to cultural threat and preservation, though emerging far less frequently, was the notion that multicultural contact is ‘unnatural.’  Here emphasis was placed on the norm of Homophily, the acknowledgement that people ‘naturally’ like others who are like themselves.  As articulated by one of our research participants: “We are attracted to people who are like-minded, have the same values, speak the same way, so you know multiculturalism is almost science fiction.”

Multicultural Policies and Practices.Although most of the statements that emerged in response to the question about multicultural policies and practices reflected an endorsement of their importance, very few statements articulated a generic need for multicultural policies, e.g., “There will always have to be policies to keep things on track.” Rather than naively accepting these policies as Necessary, our findings indicated that Māori support for multicultural policies was almost always conditional. Of central importance was the explicit requirement that these policies should not undermine a Commitment to Biculturalism and Indigenous priorities. In the words of one of our research participants, “It (multicultural policy) is really important, but with the caveat that not when it’s used to undermine the bicultural partnership in the place of Māori.”  Beyond this critical concern,support for multicultural policies was contingent on Māori playing an active role in Policy Formulation. As aptly expressed by this research participant, “As long as we are addressing a need and have the right voices at the table to deliver that in policy form, yeah.”  Finally, support for multicultural policies amongst our focus group members was dependent upon effective and sensitive Policy Implementation, closing thegap between policy on paper and practice in daily life, as well as anticipating and avoiding potentially harmful outcomes. 

Opposition to multicultural policies and practices was common and found in just under half of the statements. Among the most common anti-policy responses were that policies are Ineffective and that Prioritizing Biculturalism is more important. On the first count, participants were sceptical about these policies evoking change.  As articulated by one research participant,  “I’m not so sure that legislating something makes it happen.” On the second count, opposition to multicultural policies was often grounded in the assumption that they inevitably undermine or deflect from bicultural priorities. Many members of our focus groups believed that biculturalism should be consolidated before multiculturalism is tackled. This sentiment is aptly expressed in the following quote:

“Yeah, I think our nation is still coming to terms with our own treaty let alone having another one which could supersede what we are trying to do… I don’t think that would be a good idea. I wouldn’t support that whatsoever until they get it right with us.”

Beyond these concerns, respondents objected to tokenistic Political Correctness: “Part of this multicultural approach, I think, is born out of our PC gone mad world, and it’s idealistic, and some of it is just so tokenistic.”  Importantly, there was also some mention of Structural Racism embedded in policymaking and the limited, culture-bound perspective adopted by policymakers. “A policy is a whakaaro Pākehā (New Zealand European idea). It comes from a  Pākehā institution so I don’t necessarily think that a Pākehā institution with Pākehā processes will be the solution for non- Pākehā issues.”

Discussion

Our research was designed to elicit Indigenous perspectives on multiculturalism in a post-colonial settler society. More specifically, we have drawn on Mātauranga Māori to explore Indigenous understandings of multiculturalism, its risks and benefits, and its suitability as a diversity ideology and practice in Aotearoa/New Zealand. In addition, we consider if the tripartite (contact, ideology, policies) conceptualization of multiculturalism found in contemporary acculturation science is compatible with Indigenous perspectives. To achieve these goals our culturally diverse rōpū adopted a Braided River approach, combining Māori and Western knowledge streams in mixed methods research. In examining the weaving and parting of these streams, we also reflect on their implications for contemporary acculturation science.

Overall, we found substantial convergence of Indigenous perspectives across our enquiries.  At the core of Māori visioning of multiculturalism is the Treaty of Waitangi. Originally an agreement between Māori and the British Crown, now understood as a partnership between tangata whenua and tangata Tiriti (Māori, the Indigenous People of the land, and all others, those who settled later and are people ‘of the Treaty’), Te Tiriti creates space for everyone to belong in Aotearoa/New Zealand. Indeed, we found little evidence of a desire from Māori to exclude newcomers from the country.  Rather, there was a desire to manaaki, welcome and support migrants and to build long term relationships— but on their own terms and in accordance with traditional Māori tikanga and values. Important in whakawhanaungatanga are the recognition of Māori as the Indigenous Peoples, hosts and caretakers of the lands; newcomers’ understanding of Māori history and culture; and the development of relationships that are characterized by mutual respect. Māori scholars Kukutai and Rata (2017) have discussed the role and importance of maanaakitanga in relationship-building between Māori and migrants and how this can ultimately provide an alternative to “integration into a Euro-centric mainstream” (p. 33). Additionally, Rata and Al-Asaad (2019) have suggested whakawhanau-ngatanga provides a means of creating solidarities between Māori and settlers of color to generate transformative social change. These discussions overlap with conceptualizations of multiculturalism advanced by our research participants, who also saw multiculturalism as a potential vehicle for developing alliances that could work towards positive social and political change.

The reclamation and revitalization of Māori language and culture are also viewed as a critical component of an Indigenous visioning of multiculturalism in Aotearoa. This requires more than the relatively straightforward process of cultural continuity or ‘cultural maintenance,’ understood as a basic tenet of multiculturalism in acculturation science. Decades of colonial assimilationist pressures have had devastating effects on Māori ways of being and doing. At present only a minority (34%) of Māori can speak te reo ‘fairly well;’ one-third do not know their ancestral marae; and most (82%) live in urban areas (New Zealand Treasury, 2022; Statistics New Zealand, 2020, 2022). In light of assimilation-induced changes in Indigenous ways of life, cultural restoration is essential for Māori to be effective Treaty partners and to play an active role in shaping the future social landscape of Aotearoa.

Perhaps because of historical (and many would say current) pressures to assimilate, Māori are able to recognize the importance of cultural maintenance for immigrant groups. Our research showed that the ability to express one’s culture was seen not only as a foundation for health and well-being, but also as essential for a resilient society. Our findings also revealed that Māori highly value diversity and the opportunities it brings; exposure to cultural diversity, seen as offering access to new and different choices, perspectives, solutions, opinions, worldviews and experiences, was the most salient perceived benefit of multiculturalism. This appreciation of cultural diversity has likewise been demonstrated in a national survey where Māori (79%), compared to New Zealand Europeans (67.8%), were significantly more likely to see multiculturalism and ethnic diversity as defining features of New Zealand (Kukutai & Rata, 2019).

Beyond centering the Treaty, cultural revitalization and the incorporation of traditional values and tikanga in an Indigenous vision of multiculturalism, Māori propose more involvement in immigration-related policy-making. There are two issues that underpin Māori aspirations for participation in this sphere.  First is a fundamental distrust of government, which has failed to deliver on biculturalism and Treaty promises. Second, and more importantly, is the larger issue of the political positioning of Māori and their self-determination, tino rangatiratanga.

Across three discrete but inter-related research questions, findings have converged to highlight Māori distrust of government and the perception that neither previous nor current governments have served Māori well. This distrust was also observed in a national survey where Māori were less likely than Pasifika, Asians and New Zealand Europeans to place trust in government institutions such as the police, courts, parliament, and the education and health systems (Kukutai & Rata, 2019). Dissatisfaction was also expressed with a Pākehā vision of “ethnicity and immigration” and the ways in which economic factors are prioritized over humanitarian needs. In reference to the former, it is worth noting that New Zealand has established three ‘ethnic’ Ministries: Māori Development, Pacific Peoples, and Ethnic Communities, which is responsible for people who identify as African, Asian, Latin-American, Middle-Eastern and Continental European (Ministry of Ethnic Communities, 2024). These arrangements seem to imply that everyone— other than New Zealand Europeans of British and Irish descent— are ‘ethnic peoples.’  With respect to the latter humanitarian considerations, Māori have advocated for an increase in New Zealand’s small refugee quota and more pathways to immigration for our Pacific neighbors who are likely to become climate refugees in the relatively near future.

Clearly, immigration and the accompanying increase in cultural diversity have consequences for Māori as our Indigenous Peoples and for New Zealand as a whole. Māori want to be more involved in the formulation of immigration priorities and policies, and as Treaty partners, this is appropriate; however, there is the view that this inclusion offers only a limited form of recognition that is promised in the Treaty and that Māori self-determination has yet to be achieved. Kukutai and Rata (2017) believe that constitutional reform is almost certainly necessary to accomplish tino rangatiratanga (sovereignty, the right to self-determination), and encouragingly, there is evidence that such a reform is supported by some sectors of New Zealand’s Asian communities (Wang, 2023). For example, Asians supporting Tino Rangatiratanga  (https://asians4tino.weebly.com) recognize the interconnection of social and political challenges that Indigenous and immigrant groups face, rather than accepting the simplistic “mainstream” narrative that pits newcomers against Māori. Along similar lines, Multicultural New Zealand (https://multiculturalnz.org.nz), a non-governmental organization that represents the interests of Aotearoa’s ethnic communities, has a long-standing history of advocating for Treaty-based multiculturalism in the country. Considering avenues for kotahitanga (unity and solidarity), Kukutai and Rata (2017, p. 40) suggest that “Māori–migrant relationships might be fruitfully reimagined through a Treaty-based approach founded on rangatiratanga and manaakitanga, while also giving substance to the fullness of multiculturalism.”

Synthesizing our findings on Māori conceptualizations of multiculturalism and its associated benefits, Figure 1 presents an ideal Māori visioning of multiculturalism in Aotearoa.  The key features of the model are incorporated into a koru, an unfurling frond of the Aotearoa’s native silver fern. The koru is both a national symbol of New Zealand and a meaningful feature in Māori art and carving, representing  new life, growth, strength and harmony.  At the core of multiculturalism is Te Tiriti o Waitangi that provides a foundation for the relationship between Māori as the country’s Indigenous Peoples (tangata whenua) and later settlers (tangata tiriti). Expanding outwards from the Treaty, the graphic depicts  Māori aspirations for themselves: Indigenous Recognition, Tino Rangatirantanga and Cultural Revitalization, all of which have been previously discussed by Māori scholars such as Kukutai and Rata (2017).  Next, the multicultural aspirations for all groups are incorporated into the image; these are Cultural Maintenance, Equity, Belonging and Participation, which largely overlap with Berry and Sam’s (2014) discussion of multiculturalism. Moving from within to between group dynamics, Māori value relationships with newcomers, emphasizing the importance of Manaakitanga, Intercultural Understanding and Whakawhanaungatanga.  Specifically, Māori want to welcome newcomers, understand them and bridge communities by establishing more long term relations.  Notably, discussions of multiculturalism among our research participants were framed in relation to migration; interest in intercultural contact and relationship building did not appear to be extended towards New Zealand Europeans. Finally, at the macro-societal level, Māori  had aspirations for national social cohesion evidenced by their visioning  of multiculturalism in terms of recognition, belonging, participation and equity. Beyond Berry and Sam’s (2014) work, these features  are encapsulated in Jenson’s (1998) key indicators of social cohesion.

None of this is to suggest that Māori are uniformly supportive of multiculturalism. The most critical condition for acceptance of multiculturalism in Aotearoa is new settlers’ recognition and acknowledgement of the Indigenous status of Māori as tangata whenua and the rights that accompany this status. It is imperative that multiculturalism is not used as an ‘excuse’  to undermine biculturalism or Indigenous priorities.  Beyond that, there are concerns that rising immigration may lead to greater competition for limited resources, which is not surprising given the relative deprivation experienced by Māori.  There are also some apprehensions that increasing cultural diversity may encourage ethnic conflict. On the whole, however, our research participants expressed more positive than negative or exclusive attitudes toward immigrants, and they conveyed a desire to welcome newcomers to their lands.

Figure 1

A Māori Model of Multiculturalism

Small Steps toward Indigenizing Acculturation Science

It has been argued that the first step towards indigenizing psychology is “adding in” those groups that have been invisible within the discipline (Ho, 1990; Ward, 2007). In acculturation science few studies have examined the processes, outcomes and conditions of acculturation in Native communities. For the most part, those that do, including studies with robust features such as large samples and longitudinal data, share a common limitation.  These studies are almost exclusively confined to the extension of WASP models and measures of acculturation to Native contexts rather than emerging from Indigenous knowledge and experiences (e.g., Kvernmo & Heyerdahl, 2003; Mallett et al., 2021; Stonefish &  Kwantes, 2017;  Zagefka et al., 2023). It is no wonder, then, that Indigenous scholars have argued that adding Native Peoples to acculturation research is not sufficient and that we should be changing the acculturation conversation. More specifically, an Indigenous perspective on acculturation that is “grounded in decolonization, the struggle for social justice, cultural reclamation and the development of Indigenous knowledge” is needed (Dudgeon et al., 2016, p. 115).

The novelty of our research is that we have taken small steps toward these goals and toward indigenizing acculturation science. The adoption of the Braided River framework has permitted us to combine Indigenous and WASP approaches to acculturation.  We privileged Mātauranga Māori in uncovering Indigenous conceptualizations of multiculturalism, but we also examined the compatibility of  these conceptualizations with a popular WASP model of multiculturalism. Consequently, we were able to provide a foundation for indigenization of acculturation science at the same time as offering feedback to acculturation scientists about the limits of our theories, models and measures when extended to Native Peoples. All of this is necessary before we can address the question “Is multiculturalism helpful or harmful to Indigenous Peoples?”

What does our research tell us about Māori Indigenous perspectives on multiculturalism? Broadly reflecting the direction set by Dudgeon et al. (2016), we highlight three points. First, historical context is important. Indigenous experiences of acculturation and visioning of multiculturalism cannot be understood without reflection on the process and outcomes of colonization (Dudgeon et al., 2016). Take, for example, Māori discussions of multicultural contact.  On one hand, there is a resistance to contact because it has a colonial legacy of cultural contempt and assimilation pressures that have threatened Māori language and culture. Cultural revitalization is required before cultural maintenance can be achieved, and keeping cultures separate is seen as protecting them and keeping them authentic.  On the other hand, Māori desire contact with new immigrants, to welcome and support them, and to build long term relationships that can foster mutual benefits. Imbalances in power and privilege influence attitudes toward multicultural contact; only contact that is empowering, rather than subjugating, can support equitable outcomes for Indigenous communities.

Second, the multicultural principles found in acculturation science cannot be uncritically applied to Māori experiences. With respect to the tri-partite model of multiculturalism, Māori strongly agree about the importance of multicultural ideology.  As noted previously, views about multicultural contact are varied depending on the circumstances. Contact can pose a threat to Indigenous culture or offer an opportunity for its expression.  As for multicultural policies, only those that give voice to Māori in their development and do not undermine Indigenous priorities would be welcomed. In short, we cannot simply transplant our WASP conceptualization of multiculturalism for research with Native Peoples. Even if this version of multiculturalism has the potential to advantage Indigenous communities, it is not sufficient.

Third, only a re-imagining of multiculturalism can meet Indigenous needs. Necessarily, at the core of this re-imagining is the acknowledgement, recognition and respect for the historical and legal status of Indigenous Peoples and their enduring attachment to their homelands (United Nations, 2007). Because this criterion is often seen as lacking in liberal multiculturalism, Indigenous Peoples have not sheltered under the umbrella of multiculturalism (Eisenberg, 2023). They simply refuse to be considered just one of many ethnic communities in culturally plural societies (Curthoys, 2000; Dandy et al., 2018;  Ivison, 2015; Srikanth, 2012). 

In Aotearoa, Māori have re-imagined multiculturalism to place tangata whenua and tangata tiriti at its centre, ensuring a voice for all ethno-cultural communities and a space for everyone to belong, but this is likely to be a unique visioning based on specific historical, political and demographic features of Aotearoa.  The extent to which the tenets of this Indigenous vision could be generalized is unknown. Compared to other countries colonized by the British, New Zealand’s features include a single treaty that is recognized as a partnership between Māori and tauiwi (non-Māori people of Aotearoa) and a relatively large (17.8%) proportion of Indigenous Peoples in a small country. In Latin America the historical, political and demographic differences from New Zealand are even greater. For example, Colombia, Peru and Ecuador have already engaged in constitutional reform that recognizes Indigenous authorities and their customary law, and Indigenous Peoples make up over half of the national population of Bolivia and Guatemala (Sieder, 2002). While it is imperative to acknowledge a shared history of colonization, it is also essential to recognize the heterogeneity of Native Peoples and their diverse socio-political circumstances around the world. Clearly, more research is required to understand Native experiences of acculturation in the international arena.

Concluding Comments

There are, of course, many routes to indigenizing theories and methods in psychology and allied fields, and there are different views about who can do it and how it must be done (Dudgeon, 2017; Enriquez, 1990; Moko-Painting et al., 2023; Neha & Reese, 2018; Neha & Ward, 2024; Smith et al., 2016; Yang, 2012). We have adopted a Braided River approach to indigenizing acculturation science, developed by Indigenous Māori researchers working in Western spaces (Macfarlane et al., 2024). We believe this framework is fit for purpose to advance acculturation science in Aotearoa and beyond.  The Braided River approach has demonstrated that the combination of Indigenous and WASP perspectives can be fruitful, not only for supporting the further development of Indigenous psychologies, but also for providing critical feedback for Western psychology about the external and ecological validity of its theories. With respect to theory and research that address the conditions and contexts of acculturation, we are in agreement with the position advanced by Indigenous and non-Western psychologists in their paper “Changing the Acculturation Conversation:”

“Collaboration between Indigenous and non-Indigenous psychology researchers is an essential element of a decolonization agenda that constructively and critically challenges the hegemony of Western psychology, develops psychological knowledge with Indigenous Peoples themselves and has the potential to play a significant role in assisting the discipline and profession of psychology to achieve its potential” (Dudgeon et al., 2016, p. 127).

In this way we have made progress in indigenizing acculturation science — even though the steps are small.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by grant VUW2027 from the Royal Society of New Zealand Marsden Fund. The authors would like to thank Ana Below, Finley Johnson, Bailey Rose, Liam Barclay, Tame Kawe, and Adela Cernigoj who assisted with data collection and/or interpretation in the studies described in this paper.

Author Contributions

CW designed studies. TR and TN collected data. All authors were involved in data analysis. CW drafted the paper. All authors provided critical revisions.

Endnotes

[1] Translations of Māori terms (in italics) are provided when they are first introduced in the manuscript.  Thereafter, we may use either English or te reo Māori (the Māori language) in the paper.

[2] New Zealand census permits self-identification with more than one ethnic  group; therefore, the ethnic group total exceeds 100%.

Readers of this article also read

‹

Methods

Comparing bivariate and multivariate approaches to testing individual-level interaction effects in meta-analyses: The case of the integration hypothesis

by Dinh-Hung Vu & Kinga Bierwiaczonek Cited by 2

Commentary

Why longitudinal is not developmental: Clarifying misconceptions in acculturation research – A response to Berry (2025)

by Philipp Jugert & Peter F. Titzmann Cited by 1

Commentary

Comments on the papers in the Special Issue “Acculturation reimagined: Setting the stage for the next era of inquiry”

by John W. Berry Cited by 1

Review

Intercultural contact in the digital age: A review of emerging research on digitally mediated acculturation

by Jaimee Stuart, Colleen Ward, Johannes Alfons Karl, & Ronald Musizvingoza Cited by 1

Commentary

Unpacking the integration puzzle: Overlooked insights from meta-analytical research. A response to Berry (2025)

by Kinga Bierwiaczonek

Research Article

The paradoxical effect of emotional acculturation in discriminatory contexts: School adjustment of immigrant minority youth

by Alba Jasini, Anouck Cochez, & Batja Mesquita Cited by 1

Editorial

Acculturation Reimagined—Charting new directions in a pluralistic world

by David L. Sam & Jonas R. Kunst Cited by 1

Perspective

The neglected role of social comparisons in acculturation: Considering the integration paradox

by Maykel Verkuyten Cited by 1

›

References

Ayalon, A., & Sagy, S. (2011). Acculturation attitudes and perceptions of collective narratives: The case of Israeli Arab youth. Youth & Society, 43(3), 819-844. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X1141115

Bai, X., Ramos, M. R., & Fiske, S. T. (2020). As diversity increases, people paradoxically perceive social groups as more similar. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117 (23) 12741-12749. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2000333117

Baker, K. (2024). Journey of a He Awa Whiria research programme: Families and whānau wellbeing. In A. Macfarlane, M. Derby & S. Macfarlane (Eds.), He Awa Whiria: Braiding the knowledge streams in research, policy and practice (pp. 63-88). Christchurch: University of Canterbury Press.

Bauder, H. (2011). Closing the immigration-Aboriginal parallex gap. Geoforum, 42, 517-519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2011.03.007

Belich, J. (1986). The New Zealand wars and the Victorian interpretation of racial conflict. Auckland, NZ: Penguin.

Below, A., Ward, C., Ritchie, T., & Neha, T. (2024, August). Indigenous voices: Accessing Māori views of multiculturalism in a free-listing study. Paper presented at the XXVII Congress of the International Association for Cross-cultural Psychology, Bali, Indonesia.

Berry, J. W. (1970). Marginality, stress and ethnic identification in an acculturated                Aboriginal community. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1(3), 239–     252. https://doi.org/10.1177/135910457000100303

Berry, J. W. (1979). A cultural ecology of social behavior. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol 12, pp. 177-206). New York: Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60262-2

Berry, J. W. (1989). Imposed etics-emics-and derived etics: The operationalization of a compelling idea. International Journal of Psychology, 24, 712-735. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207598908247841

Berry, J. W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation and adaptation. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 46, 5-34. https://doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.1997.tb01087.x

Berry, J. W. (1999). Emics and etics: A symbiotic conception. Culture and Psychology, 5(2), 165-171. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354067×9952004

Berry, J. W. (2005). Living successfully in two cultures. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29(6) 697-712. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2005.07.013

Berry, J. W. (2006). Contexts of acculturation. In D. L. Sam & J. W. Berry (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of acculturation psychology (pp. 27-42). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511489891.006

Berry, J. W. (2011). The eco-cultural framework: A stocktaking. In F. J. R. van de Vijver, A. Chasiotis & S. M. Breugelmans (Eds.), Fundamental questions in cross- psychology (pp. 95-114). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Berry, J. W. (Ed.). (2017). Mutual intercultural relations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316875032

Berry, J. W. (2024, July). International psychology: The search for some universal principles of human behavior. Paper presented at the International Congress of Psychology, Prague, Czech Republic.

Berry, J. W., & Sam, D. L. (2014). Multicultural societies. In V. Benet-Martínez & Y.-Y. Hong (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of multicultural identity (pp. 97-117). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Berry, J. W., & Sam, D. L. (2016). Theoretical perspectives. In D. L. Sam & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of acculturation psychology (2^nd ed., pp.11-29). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316219218.003

Berry, J. W., & Ward, C. (2016). Multiculturalism. In D. L. Sam & J. W. Berry (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of acculturation psychology (2^nd ed., pp. 441-463). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316219218.026

Bierwiaczonek, K., & Kunst, J. R. (2021). Revisiting the Integration Hypothesis: Correlational and longitudinal meta-analyses demonstrate the limited role of acculturation for cross-cultural adaptation. Psychological Science, 32(9), 1476-1493. https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976211006432

Bierwiaczonek, K., & Waldzus, S. (2016). Socio-cultural factors as antecedents of cross-cultural adaptation in expatriates, international students, and migrants: A review. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 47(6), 767– 817. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022116644526

Bourhis, R. Y., Moïse, L. C., Perreault, S., & Senécal, S. (1997). Towards an interactive acculturation model: A social psychological approach. International Journal of Psychology, 32(6), 369-386. https://doi.org/10.1080/002075997400629

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77- 101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2022). Conceptual and design thinking for thematic analysis. Qualitative Psychology, 9(1), 3-26.      https://doi.org/10.1037/qup0000196  

Brave Heart, M. Y. H. (2003). The historical trauma response among Natives and its relationship with substance abuse: A Lakota illustration. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 35(1) 7-13. https://doi.org/10.1080/02791072.2003.10399988

Brave Heart, M. Y. H., & DeBruyn, L. M. (1998).  The American Indian holocaust: Healing historical unresolved grief. American Indian and Alaska Native Mental Health Research, 8(2), 60–82. https://doi.org/10.5820/aian.0802.1998.60

Breidahl, K. N., Holtug, N., & Kongshøj, S. (2018). Do shared values promote social cohesion? If so, which? Evidence from Denmark. European Political Science Review, 10(1), 97–118. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773916000266

Breugelmans, S. M., & van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2004). Antecedents and components of attitudes toward multiculturalism in the Netherlands. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 53, 400-422. https://doi.org/x10.1111/j.1464- 0597.2004.00177.x

Bright, F. A. S., Ibell-Roberts, C., & Wilson, B.-J. (2024). Psychosocial well-being after stroke in Aotearoa New Zealand: a qualitative meta-synthesis. Disability Rehabilitation: An International, Multidisciplinary Journal, 46(10), 2000-2013. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2023.2212178

Clifford, C., & Arahanga-Doyle, H. (2024). He Awa Whiria in psychology: health, clinical practice and tertiary education. In A. Macfarlane, M. Derby & S. Macfarlane (Eds.), He Awa Whiria: Braiding the knowledge streams in research, policy and practice (pp. 123-144). Christchurch: University of Canterbury Press.

Crabbe, K. M. (2007). Kupa′a I ke kahua o Hawaii: Stand firmly behind the foundations of Hawaii. Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology, 1(2, Pt. 1), 25- 30.  https://doi.org/10.1375/prp.1.2.25

Cram, F., Vette, M., Wilson, M., Vaithianathan, R., Maloney, T., & Baird, S. (2018). He awa whiria—braided rivers: Understanding the outcomes from Family Start for Māori. Evaluation Matters—He Take Tō Te Aromatawai, 4, 1. https://doi.org/10.18296/em.0033

Curthoys, A. (2000). An uneasy conversation: The multicultural and the Indigenous. In J. Docker & G. Fischer (Eds.), Race, colour and identity in Australia and New Zealand (pp. 21-36). Sydney: UNSW Press.

Dandy, J., Ziaian, T., & Moylan, C. (2018). ‘Team Australia?’: Understanding acculturation from multiple perspectives. In M. Karasawa, M. Yuki, K. Ishii, Y. Uchida, K.  Sato & W. Friedlmeier (Eds.), Venture into Cross-cultural Psychology: Proceedings of the 23^rd Congress of the International Association for Cross-cultural Psychology. https://doi.org/10.4087/BHLC7993

Davies, C., Basire, K., Jones, V., Gillmore, D., Hosie, A., Gourley, A., & Collier, A. (2024). “Beyond feasibility”: A qualitative study of patients, their whānau (family) and staff perspectives and experiences of a non- pharmacological delirium-prevention intervention in two Aotearoa/New Zealand hospices. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 67(4):327-336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2024.01.012

Dawson, J., Smith, J., O’Beirne, G. A., & Manuel, A. R. (2024). A ‘He Awa Whiria’ approach: integrating Māori knowledge and cultural values into audiological research and hearing health services. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/03036758.2024.2381753

Derby, M., & Macfarlane, S. (2024). He Awa Whiria and early literacy: The emancipatory power of a braided rivers approach. In A. Macfarlane, M. Derby & S. Macfarlane (Eds.), He Awa Whiria: Braiding the knowledge streams in research, policy and practice (pp. 45-61). Christchurch: University of Canterbury Press.

de Souza, D. E. (2014). Culture, context and society— the under-explored potential of critical realism as a philosophical framework for theory and practice. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 17(2), 141–151. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajsp.12052

Dhongde, S., & Dong, X. (2022). Analyzing racial and ethnic differences in the USA through the lens of multidimensional poverty. Journal of Economics, Race and Policy, 5, 252-266. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41996-021-00093-2

Dionisio, R., Macfarlane, A., Yates, A., & Matunga, H. (2024). Enhancing cultural diversity and equity in spatial planning systems in Aotearoa New Zealand with He Awa Whiria. In A. Macfarlane, M. Derby & S. Macfarlane (Eds.), He Awa Whiria: Braiding the knowledge streams in research, policy and practice (pp. 169-192). Christchurch: University of Canterbury Press.

Dudgeon, P. (2017). Australian Indigenous psychology. Australian Psychologist, 5(4), 251-254. https://doi.org/10.1111/ap.12298

Dudgeon, P., Darlaston-Jones, D., Nikora, L. W., Waitoki, W., Pe-Pua, R., Le, N. T., & Rouhani, L. (2016). Changing the acculturation conversation: Indigenous reclamation in Australia and Aotearoa/New Zealand. In D. L. Sam & J. W. Berry (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of acculturation psychology (2^nd ed., pp. 115-133). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316219218.009

Dudgeon, P., Wright, M., Paradies, Y., Garvey, D., & Walker, I. (2014). Aboriginal social, cultural and historical contexts. In P. Dudgeon, H. Milroy & R. Walker (Eds.), Working together: Aboriginal and Torres Strait islander mental health and wellbeing principles and practice (pp. 3-24).  Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.

Durie, E. T. (2005). The rule of law, biculturalism and multiculturalism. Waikato Law Review, 13, 41-45.

Eisenberg, A. (2023). Multiculturalism and decolonization. In A. G. Gagnon, A. Tremblay & Y. Abu-Laban (Eds.), Assessing multiculturalism in global comparative perspective (pp. 83-98). New York: Routledge.

Enriquez, V. (1979). Towards cross-cultural knowledge through cross-Indigenous methods and perspective. Philippine Journal of Psychology, 12(1) 9-15.

Enriquez, V. (Ed.). (1990). Indigenous psychology. Quezon City: Philippine Psychology Research and Training House.

Esses, V. M., Jackson, L. M., & Armstrong, T. L. (1998). Intergroup competition and attitudes toward immigrants and immigration: An instrumental model of group conflict. Journal of Social Issues, 54(4), 699–724. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.911998091

Eversole, R., McNeish, J.-A., & Cimadamore, A. D. (Eds.). (2005). Indigenous Peoples and poverty: An international perspective. London: Zed Books.

Fergusson, D. (2003). Ethnicity and interpersonal violence in a New Zealand birth cohort. In D. F. Hawkins (Ed.), Violent crime: Assessing race and ethnic differences (pp. 138-153). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Figueiredo, A., Oldenhove, G., & Licata, L. (2018). Collective memories of colonialism and acculturation dynamics among Congolese immigrants living in Belgium. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 62, 80-92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2017.03.004

Fitznor, L. (2006). The power of Indigenous knowledge: Naming and identity and colonization in Canada. In J. Kunnie & N. Goduka (Eds.), Indigenous Peoples’ wisdom and power (pp. 51-76). London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315252414

Geeraert, N., Li, R., Ward, C., Gelfand, M., & Demes, K. (2019).  A tight spot: How personality moderates the impact of social norms on sojourner adaptation. Psychological Science, 30(3),333-342. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797618815488

Gone, J. P. (2023). Indigenous historical trauma: alter-Native explanations for mental health inequities. Daedalus, 152(4),130–150. https://doi.org/10.1162/daed_a_02035

González, R., Carvacho, H., & Jiménez-Moya, G. (2022). Psychology and Indigenous People. Annual Review of Psychology, 73, 431-459. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-012921-045304

Guimond, S., Crisp, R. J., De Oliveira, P., Kamiejski, R., Kteily, N., Kuepper, B., Lalonde, R. N., Levin, S., Pratto, F., Tougas, F., Sidanius, J., & Zick, A. (2013). Diversity policy, social dominance, and intergroup relations: Predicting prejudice in changing social and political contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 941-958. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0032069

Guimond, S., de la Sablonnière, R., & Nugier, A. (2014). Living in a multicultural world: Intergroup ideologies and the societal context of intergroup relations. European Review of Social Psychology, 25, 142-188. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2014.957578

Hayward, J. (2004). Flowing from the Treaty’s words: The principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. In J. Hayward & N. Wheen (Eds.), The Waitangi Tribunal: Te Roopu Whakamana i te Tiriti o Waitangi (pp. 29-40). Wellington, NZ: Bridget Williams Books.

Hewstone, M. (2015). The consequences of diversity for social cohesion and prejudice: The missing dimension of intergroup contact. Journal of Social Issues, 17(2), 417-438. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12120

Hill, R. S. (2009).  Māori and the State: Crown-Māori relations in New Zealand/Aotearoa, 1950-2000. Wellington, NZ: Victoria University Press. 

Ho, D. F. Y. (1990). Asian psychology: An East-West dialogue on indigenization and beyond. In V. Enriquez (Ed.), Indigenous psychology (pp. 137-172). Quezon City: Philippine Psychology Research and Training House.

Houkamau, C. A., Stronge, S., & Sibley, C. S. (2020). The prevalence and impact of racism toward Indigenous Māori in New Zealand. International Perspectives in Psychology: Research, Practice and Consultation, 6(2), 61-80. https://doi.org/10.1037/ipp0000070

Hui, B. P. H., Chen, S. X., Leung, C. M., & Berry, J. W. (2015). Facilitating adaptation   and intercultural contact: The role of integration and multicultural ideology in dominant and non-dominant groups. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 45, 70–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2015.01.002

Ivison, D. (2015). Multiculturalism and Indigenous Peoples. In J. A. Lucero, D. Turner & D. L. Van Cott (Eds.), Oxford handbook of Indigenous people’s politics. Online ed. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195386653.013.17

Jackson, P. I., & Doerschler, P. (2016). How safe do majority group members, ethnic minorities and Muslims feel in multicultural European societies? Democracy and Security, 12, 247-277. https://doi.org/10.1080/17419166.2016.1213165

Jenson, J. (1998). Mapping social cohesion: The state of Canadian research. Ottawa: Canadian Policy Research Networks. 

Kahukura, T. (2015). Māori health chart book 2015. Wellington, NZ: Ministry of Health.

Kamp, A., Dunn, K., Paradies, Y., & Blair, K. (2018). Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people’s attitudes towards Australian multiculturalism, cultural diversity, ‘race’ and racism, 2015–16. Australian Aboriginal Studies, 2, 50-70. http://www.aiatsis.gov.au.rsrch/aas_jrn/journal.htm

Kennedy, M. (2017). Māori economic inequality: Reading outside our comfort zone. International Journal of Post-Colonial Studies,19(7), 1011-1025. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369801X.2017.1401948

King, M. (2003). The Penguin history of New Zealand. Auckland, NZ: Penguin.

Kirmayer, L., Tait, C., & Simpson,  C. (2009). The mental health of Aboriginal peoples: Transformations of identity and community. In L. Kirmayer & G. G Valaskakis (Eds.),  Healing traditions: The mental health of Aboriginal peoples in Canada (pp. 3-35). Vancouver, Canada: University of British Columbia Press.

Kukutai, T., & Rata, A. (2017). From mainstream to manaaki: Indigenizing our approach to immigration. In D. Hall (Ed.), Fair borders: Migration policy in the 21^st century (pp. 10-18). Wellington, NZ: BWB texts.

Kukutai, T., & Rata, A. (2019, June). Attitudes toward Māori culture and multiculturalism in the NZ General Social Survey. Paper presented at New Zealand Population Conference, Wellington, New Zealand.

Kus-Harbord, L., & Ward, C. (2015). Ethnic Russians in post-Soviet Estonia: Perceived devaluation, acculturation, well-being, and ethnic attitudes. International Perspectives in Psychology: Research, Practice, Consultation, 4(1), 66–81. https://doi.org/10.1037/ipp0000025

Kvernmo, S., & Heyerdahl, S. (2003). Acculturation strategies and ethnic identity as predictors of behavior problems in Artic minority adolescents. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 42(1), 57-65. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004583-200301000-00011

Leong, C.-H., & Ward, C. (2011). Intergroup perceptions and attitudes toward immigrants in a culturally plural society. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 60(1), 46-65. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2010.00426.x

Liu, J. H. (2007). Social and historical contexts for restorative and retributive justice: Te Ao Po- Te Ao Marama (worlds of darkness and light). In G. Maxwell & J. H. Liu (Eds.), Restorative justice and practices in New Zealand: Towards a restorative society (pp. 29-39). Wellington, NZ: Institute of Policy Studies.

Loring, B., Payne, S.-J., Robson, B., & Reid, P. (2022). Analysis of deprivation distribution in New Zealand. New Zealand Medical Journal, 135 (1565), 31-40. https://doi.org/10.26635/6965.5879

Lovell, S., Ergler, C., Kearns, R., Wiles, J., & Witten, K. (2021). The braided river of health geography. Social Science & Medicine, 288, 114370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114370

Macfarlane, A., Derby, M., & Macfarlane, S. (Eds.). (2024). He awa whiria: Braiding the knowledge streams in research, policy and practice. Christchurch, NZ: University of Canterbury Press.

Mallett, R. K., Patrianakos, J., & Swim, J. (2021). Indigenous Alaskan and mainstream identification explain the link between perceived discrimination and acculturative stress. The Journal of Social Psychology, 161(5), 593-607. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2020.1867040

McIntosh, T., & Workman, K. (2017). Māori and prison. In A.  Deckert & R. Sarre (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of Australian and New Zealand criminology, crime and justice (pp. 725-735). London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-55747-2_48

Miller, A. M., Birman, D., Zenk, S., Wang, E., Sorokin, O., & Connor, J. (2009). Neighborhood immigrant concentration, acculturation, and cultural alienation in former Soviet immigrant women. Journal of Community Psychology, 37(1), 88–105. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20272

Ministry of Ethnic Communities. (2024). Briefing to the Minister of Ethnic Communities. Retrieved from https://www.ethniccommunities.govt.nz/resources/corporate-publications/bim-nov23/

Moko-Painting, T. K., Hamley, L., Hikuroa, D., LeGrice, J., McAllister, T., McLelland, G., Parkinson, H., Renfrew, L., & Rewi, S. T. (2023). (Re)emergence of Pūtaiao: Conceptualizing Kaupapa Māori science. Environment and Planning F, 2(1-2), 11-37. https://doi.org/10.1177/26349825231164617

Moon, P. (2013). Turning Points – Events that changed the course of New Zealand history. Auckland, NZ: New Holland Publishers. 

Nagata, D. K., Kim, J. H. J., & Gone, J. P. (2024). Intergenerational transmission of ethno-racial historical trauma in the United States. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 20, 175-200. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-080822-044522

Neha, T., & Reese, E. (2018). New Zealand Māori and Western methods in gleaning the good oil with whānau (Māori communities and families).  In Sage Research Methods Cases Part 2. SAGE Publications, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526445001

Neha, T., & Ward, C. (2024, August). Decolonizing psychology in Aotearoa/New Zealand: Promoting a paradigm shift through indigenous perspectives. Paper presented at the XXVII Congress of the International Association for Cross-cultural Psychology, Bali, Indonesia.

New Zealand Immigration Service. (1991). New Zealand’s Immigration Policy. Wellington, NZ: New Zealand Immigration Service.

New Zealand Treasury. (2022). Trends in Māori well-being. https://www.treasury.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2022-12/ap22-02.pdf

Orange, C. (2004). An illustrated history of the Treaty of Waitangi. Wellington, NZ: Bridget Williams Books.

Paradies, Y. (2016). Colonization, racism and Indigenous health. Journal of Population Research, 33, 83-96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12546-016-9159-y

Phalet, K., Fleischmann, F., & Hillekens, J. (2018). Religious identity and acculturation of immigrant minority youth: Toward a contextual and developmental approach. European Psychologist, 23(1), 32–43. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000309

Pugh, R., & Cheers, B. (2010). Rural social work:  An international perspective. Bristol, UK: Policy Press. https://doi.org/10.51952/9781847427908.ch003

Quinlan, M. B. (2018). The free-listing method. In L. Liamputtong (Ed.), Handbook of research methods in health social sciences. Singapore: Springer Nature.             https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2779-6_12-2

Rata, A. (2020). Dismantling Cook’s legacy: Science, migration and colonialism in Aotearoa. New Zealand Science Review, 76(1-2), 54-58. https://doi.org/10.26686/nzsr.v76i1-2.7834

Rata, A. (December 5, 2021). Rangatiratanga and immigration. E-Tangata. https://e-tangata.co.nz/comment-and-analysis/rangatiratanga-and-immigration/

Rata, A., & Al-Asaad, F. (2019). Whakawhanaungatanga as a Māori approach to Indigenous-settler of color relationship building. New Zealand Population Review, 45, 211-213.

Ritchie, T., Johnson, F. N., Neha, T., & Ward, C. (2023, July). Defining multiculturalism in Aotearoa. Paper presented at the Biennial Conference of the International Academy of Intercultural Research, Philadelphia.

Sam, D. L., & Ward, C. (2021). Three generations of acculturation research: Theoretical advancements and methodological challenges. In B. G. Adams & M. Bender (Eds.), Methods make it or break it: The role of assessment in culture and psychology (pp. 17-40). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108675475.003

Schachner, M. K., Schwarzenthal, M., van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Noack, P. (2019). How all students can belong and achieve: Effects of the cultural diversity climate amongst students of immigrant and nonimmigrant background in Germany. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(4), 703–716. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000303

Science Learning Hub. (2022). He awa whiria-braided rivers. https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/videos/2153-he-awa-whiria-braided-rivers. Retrieved January 31, 2025.

Sidanius, J., Cotterill, S., Sheehy-Skeffington, J., Kteily, N., & Carvacho, H. (2017). Social dominance theory: Explorations in the psychology of oppression. In C. G. Sibley & F. K. Barlow (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of the psychology of prejudice (pp. 149-187). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316161579.008  

Sieder, R. (2002). Introduction. In R. Sieder (Ed.), Multiculturalism in Latin America (pp. 1-23). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781403937827

Simpson, J., Duncanson, M., Oben, G., Wicken, A., & Pierson, M. (2015). Child Poverty Monitor 2015 technical report. Dunedin, New Zealand: NZ Child and Youth Epidemiology Service.

Smith, L. T. (1989). Te reo: Māori language and the struggle to survive. ACCESS: Contemporary Issues in Education, 8(1), 3-9.

Smith, L. T., Maxwell, T. K., Puke, H., & Temara, P. (2016). Indigenous knowledge, methodology and mayhem: What is the role of methodology in producing Indigenous insights? A discussion from Mātauranga  Māori. Knowledge Cultures, 4(3), 131-156.

Srikanth, H. (2012). Multiculturalism and the Aboriginal peoples in Canada. Economic and Political Weekly, 47(23), 17-21. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23214943

Statistics New Zealand. (2020). Connections to people and place key to Māori wellbeing. https://www.stats.govt.nz/news/connections-to-people-and-place-key-to-maori-wellbeing/

Statistics New Zealand. (2022). Te reo Māori proficiency and support continues to grow. https://www.stats.govt.nz/news/te-reo-maori-proficiency-and-support-continues-to-grow/#:~:text=Almost%20a%20quarter%20of%20Māori,reported%20Māori%20ethnicity%20in%202021

Statistics New Zealand. (2024a). 2023 Census population counts. Retrieved from https://www.stats.govt.nz/information-releases/2023-census-population-counts-by-ethnic-group-age-and-maori-descent-and-dwelling-counts/#:~:text=While%20the%20population%20identifying%20with,share%20of%20the%20total%20population.

Statistics New Zealand. (2024b). Census results reflect Aotearoa New Zealand’s diversity. Retrieved fromhttps://www.stats.govt.nz/news/census-results-reflect-aotearoa-new-zealands-diversity/

Stuart, J., & Ward, C. (2019). Exploring everyday experiences of cultural diversity: The construction, validation and application of the Normative Multiculturalism Scale. European Journal of Social Psychology, 49(2), 313-332. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2542

Stausberg, M. (2021). Free-listing. In S. Engler & M. Stausberg (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of research methods in the study of religion (pp. 554-564). New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.43249781003222491

Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (2000). An integrated threat theory of prejudice. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination (pp. 23–45). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Stonefish, T., & Kwantes, C. T. (2017). Values and acculturation: A Native Canadian exploration. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 61, 63-76.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2017.09.005

United Nations. (2007). United Nations declaration of the rights of Indigenous Peoples.     https://www.un.org/development/desa/Indigenouspeoples/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2018/11/UNDRIP_E_web.pdf

United Nations. (2024). International Migrant Stock 2024 – Key facts and figures. https://www.un.org/development/desa/pd/sites/www.un.org.development.desa.pd/files/undesa_pd_2025_intlmigstock_2024_key_facts_and_figures_advance-unedited.pdf

Valeggia, C. R., & Snodgrass, J. J. (2015). Health of Indigenous people. Annual Review of Anthropology, 44, 117-135. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-102214-013831  

Van Assche, J., Velarde, S. A., Van Hiel, A., & Roets, A. (2023). Trust is in the eye of the beholder: How perceptions of local diversity and segregation shape social cohesion. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1036646.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1036646

Vedder, P., van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Liebkind, K. (2006). Predicting immigrant youths’ adaptation across countries and ethno-cultural groups. In J. W. Berry, J. S. Phinney, D. L. Sam, & P. Vedder (Eds.), Immigrant youth in cultural transition: Acculturation, identity and adaptation across national contexts (pp. 143-165). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780415963619-6

 Walker, R. (1990). Ka whawhai tonu matou: Struggle without end. Auckland, NZ:               Penguin.

Walker, R. (1995). Immigration policy and the political economy of New Zealand. In S. Greif (Ed.), Immigration and national identity in New Zealand (pp. 282-302). Palmerston North, NZ: Dunmore Press.

Walker, S., Eketone, A., & Gibbs, A. (2006). An exploration of kaupapa Māori research, its principles, processes and applications. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 9(4), 331-344. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13645570600916049

Wang, J. A. (2023). Asian tauiwi and tangata whenua: Māori-Asian relationships and implications for Aotearoa New Zealand’s constitutional future. Journal of New Zealand Studies, NS36, 161-177. https://doi.org/10.26686/jnzs.iNS36  

Ward, C. (2007). Asian social psychology: Looking in and looking out.  Asian Journal of Social    Psychology,10, 21-33. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-839X.2006.00207.x

Ward, C., Fox, S., Wilson, J., Stuart, J., & Kus, L. (2010). Contextual influences on the acculturation process: The roles of family, community and society. Psychological Studies, 55, 26-34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12646-010-0003-8

Ward, C., Gale, J., Staerklé^, C., & Stuart, J. (2018). Multiculturalism in context: A framework for psychological research. Journal of Social Issues, 74(4), 833-855. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12301

Ward, C., & Geeraert, N. (2016). Advancing acculturation theory and research: The acculturation process in its ecological context. Current Opinion in Psychology, 8, 98-104. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.09.021

Ward, C., Kim, I., Karl, J. A., Epstein, S., & Park, H.-J. (2020). How normative multiculturalism relates to immigrant well-being. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 26(4), 581–591. https://doi.org/10.1037/cdp0000317

Ward, C., & Lin, E.-Y. (2005). Immigration, acculturation and national identity in New Zealand. In J. Liu, T. McCreanor, T. McIntosh & T. Teaiwa (Eds.), New Zealand identities: Departures and destinations (pp. 155-173). Wellington, NZ: Victoria University Press.

Ward, C., & Liu, J. (2012). Ethno-cultural conflict in Aotearoa/New Zealand: Balancing indigenous rights and multicultural responsibilities (pp. 45-69). In D. Landis & R. Albert (Eds.), Handbook of ethno-cultural conflict. New York: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-0448-4_3

Ward, C., Ritchie, T., Below, A., Neha, T., & Johnson, F. (2024, August). Indigenous perspectives on multiculturalism. Paper presented at the XXVII Congress of the International Association for Cross-cultural Psychology, Bali, Indonesia.

Ward, C.,Stuart, J., & Karl, J. A. (2023). A socio-ecological perspective on psychological well-being in a culturally diverse context: The role of perceived multicultural norms. International journal of Intercultural Relations, 96, 101870. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2023.101870

Ward, C., & Szabó, A. (2019).  Affect, behavior, cognition and development: Adding to the alphabet of acculturation. In D. Matsumoto & H. S. Hwang (Eds.), Handbook of culture and psychology (2^nd ed, pp. 640-691). New York: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190679743.003.0020

Watters, S. M., Ward, C., & Stuart, J. (2020). Does normative multiculturalism foster or threaten social cohesion? International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 75, 82-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2020.02.001

Weller, S. C., & Romney, A. K. (1988). Systematic data collection. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

World Bank. (2023). Indigenous Peoples. https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/Indigenouspeoples#:~:text=There%20are%20an%20estimated%20476,of%20non-Indigenous%20Peoples%20worldwide.https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/Indigenouspeoples#:~:text=There%20are%20an%20estimated%20476,of%20non-Indigenous%20Peoples%20worldwide

Wright, S., & Bloemraad, I. (2012). Is there a trade-off between multiculturalism and socio-political integration? Policy regimes and immigrant incorporation in comparative perspective. Perspectives on Politics, 10, 77-95. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592711004919

Yakushko, O., Morgan Consoli, M. L., & Lee, G. (2016). On methods, methodologies, and continued colonization of knowledge in the study of “ethnic minorities”: Comment on Hall et al. (2016). American Psychologist, 71(9), 890-891. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000060In

Yang, K.-S. (2000). Monocultural and cross-cultural Indigenous approaches: The royal road to the development of a balanced global psychology. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 3(3), 241-265.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-839X.00067

Yang, K.-S. (2012). Indigenous psychology, Western psychology and indigenized psychology: A non-Western psychologist’s view. Chung Gung Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 5(1), 1-32. https://doi.org/10.30114/CGJHSS.201204.0001

Zagefka, H., González, R., Mackenna, B., Castro, D., Carozzi, P., & Pairican, F. (2023). Intergroup relations affect depressive symptoms of Indigenous people: Longitudinal evidence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 53(6), 1114–1127. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2955