Psychology has been slow to engage with Indigenous issues in general (Gonz\u00e1lez et al., 2022), and this is particularly apparent in connection with acculturation science<\/a>.\u00a0 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\u00a0 476 million and making up 6.2% of the global population (World Bank, 2023), Native Peoples have been largely overlooked by acculturation scientists<\/a> 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.\u00a0 Much of the intercultural contact across the globe is occuring in the Native lands of the world\u2019s Indigenous Peoples, who are socially, politically, and economically disadvantaged and have poorer health outcomes and lower life expectancy than non-Native peoples (Gonz\u00e1lez et al., 2022; World Bank, 2023). Accordingly, there is an urgent need for acculturation scientists to turn their attention to Indigenous communities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Acculturation science encompasses theory and research about the processes, outcomes and conditions of intercultural contact. In terms of processes<\/em>, acculturation science has drawn heavily on Berry\u2019s (1997) theoretical\u00a0 framework, which examines the interaction between the principles of\u00a0 heritage cultural maintenance and participation in the wider society to delineate four acculturation strategies: integration, separation, assimilation and marginalization. In terms of outcomes<\/em>, 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 & Szab\u00f3, 2019). In terms of conditions<\/em>, 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).<\/p>\n\n\n\n The massive body of international research on acculturation that has grown rapidly<\/a> 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<\/a> (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\u00a0 & 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\u00a0 and for societies in terms of greater social cohesion (Berry, 1997, 2006, 2017).\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n Berry\u2019s eco-cultural theorizing and his acculturation framework were originally \u00a0proposed to \u00a0provide\u00a0 a comprehensive\u00a0 overview of acculturation that could be applied to all ethno-cultural groups, despite differences in the extent to which\u00a0 they were engaged in voluntary or involuntary intercultural contact and whether their groups were mobile or sedentary (Berry, 1979, 2006, 2011).\u00a0Even so, Berry pointed out that the \u2018operating parameters\u2019 for individuals from minority groups are constrained by the larger society\u2019s 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).\u00a0 This is an important caveat in acculturation science.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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 M\u0101ori, the Indigenous Peoples of New Zealand, we adopt the Braided River paradigm, bringing together Indigenous and non-Indigenous researchers to elicit M\u0101ori perspectives on multiculturalism. In sharing Indigenous views, we consider the compatibility of M\u0101ori voices with conceptualizations of multiculturalism in contemporary acculturation research and take small steps toward indigenizing acculturation science.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Multiculturalism is but one condition that affects acculturation processes and outcomes.\u00a0 To examine the acculturation experiences of Indigenous Peoples in post-colonial settler societies, the negative effects of colonization must also be examined. \u00a0Regrettably, 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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\u2019s 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.\u00a0 When these criteria are met, multiculturalism can ensure cultural maintanance and equitable participation for all ethno-cultural groups.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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).\u00a0 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\u2019 perceptions of multicultural contact, ideology and policies are linked to positive social outcomes (Guimond et al., 2013; Van Assche et al., 2023).\u00a0 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).<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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),\u00a0 Stuart and Ward (2019) developed a Normative Multiculturalism Scale, which assesses individuals\u2019 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).<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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. \u00a0It 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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; \u00a0Indigenous 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 \u2014 so much so that Indigenous children were removed from their homes in an attempt to\u00a0 \u2018civilize\u2019 them. So destructive and debilitating were the experiences of colonization, Pugh and Cheers (2010, p. 48) argue that \u201cthe very fact of the survival of local Indigenous People itself is remarkable and is a testimony to their resilience.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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\u00a0 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).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Although colonization is one form of intercultural contact that has precipitated acculturative changes, beyond the acknowledgement of forced assimilation, it has rarely been considered \u00a0within an acculturation framework.\u00a0 Rather, the experience of colonization and its devastating consequences for Native Peoples are more often discussed in terms of \u2018historical trauma\u2019 or \u2018soul wound\u2019 (Brave Heart & DeBruyn, 1998), \u201ccumulative emotional and psychological wounding over the lifespan and across generations emanating from massive group experiences\u201d (Brave Heart, 2003, p. 5).\u00a0 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).<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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).<\/p>\n\n\n\n The lands now known as Aotearoa<\/em> (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]<\/sup><\/a> 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 M\u0101ori and the colonists.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In 1840 this was accomplished by Te Tiriti<\/em> o Waitangi<\/em> (the Treaty of Waitangi), an agreement between M\u0101ori and the British Crown (the government with its executive, legislative and judicial branches). \u00a0In the absence of a written constitution, Te Tiriti<\/em> is considered New Zealand\u2019s founding document, broadly stating the principles on which the British and M\u0101ori agreed to found a nation and build a government in the country. Its first article, which pertains to governance of the country, has been \u2013 and still is \u2013 the subject of considerable controversy due tothe Treaty\u2019s two language versions. In the English version M\u0101ori agreed to cede sovereignty to the Queen, while in te reo<\/em> M\u0101ori \u2018kawanatanga\u2019<\/em> was understood as governance<\/em>. The second article ensures that M\u0101ori retain undisturbed possession of their lands and treasures. The third article specifies that the Crown extends protection to M\u0101ori along with all rights and privileges of citizenship.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Despite the Treaty agreements, disputes over land and sovereignty continued intermittently through the early 20th<\/sup> century, incurring significant loss of tribal territories (Belich, 1986); however, it was not until the 1950s that M\u0101ori began to migrate to urban centers in search of economic opportunities. As M\u0101ori\u00a0 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<\/em> M\u0101ori was barely surviving, and M\u0101ori culture was at risk (Smith, 1989).<\/p>\n\n\n\n The 1970s saw political protests over landlessness and cultural loss and the beginnings of a M\u0101ori renaissance. Community-based initiatives such as kohanga reo<\/em> (M\u0101ori pre-school language nests) were established to support cultural and linguistic revitalization. The government became more responsive to M\u0101ori issues and established the Waitangi Tribunal with the objective of investigating M\u0101ori claims relating to alleged breaches of the agreements made in Te Tiriti<\/em>. In the years that followed the government began adopting a \u2018bicultural\u2019 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 M\u0101ori as Treaty partners, proceeded with the 1986 and 1991 changes that transformed the demography of New Zealand.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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 M\u0101ori describing \u201c\u2026 a flood of migrants \u2013 many of whom will directly compete with M\u0101ori in terms of jobs, housing and access to health service\u201d (Ward & Lin, 2005, p.165), and national surveys showed that M\u0101ori held more negative attitudes toward Asian immigrants than did New Zealanders of European descent (Leong & Ward, 2011).<\/p>\n\n\n\n A steady stream of Asian immigration continued into the 21st<\/sup> century. The most recent census figures indicate that New Zealand Europeans remain the largest group at 67.8%, M\u0101ori 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]<\/sup><\/a> At present 28.8% of the population is overseas born (Statistics New Zealand, 2024b). Although the cultural landscape of Aotearoa<\/em> has undergone significant changes, the relative disadvantage experienced by M\u0101ori has remained the same. Like Indigenous peoples in many parts of the world, M\u0101ori as a group are disproportionately affected by racism, poverty, unemployment, incarceration, crime, poorer health and educational disadvantage (Gonz\u00e1lez et al., 2022; Houkamau et al., 2020; Kahukura, 2015; Kennedy, 2017; Kukutai & Rata, 2017; McIntosh & Workman, 2017; Simpson et al., 2015).<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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, \u201cIs multiculturalism helpful or harmful to Indigenous Peoples?\u201d Our overarching objective of the work is to draw on M\u0101tauranga <\/em>M\u0101ori (traditional knowledge) to explore Indigenous perspectives on the meanings and perceived consequences of multiculturalism and recommendations for managing cultural diversity in Aotearoa.<\/em> In doing so, we showcase He Awa Whiria\u00a0 <\/em>(a Braided River approach) to demonstrate how partnerships between Native and non-Native researchers can facilitate the indigenization of acculturation science.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe braided rivers really is a representation of different streams of knowledge and different ways of thinking and perceiving particular things. It\u2019s about weaving together the knowledge streams to get a shared understanding. So that you look at, what is the Western view, what is a M\u0101ori view? How can we weave and braid so there\u2019s a common space where there\u2019s a shared understanding?\u201d <\/em>Sonja Macfarlane(Science Learning Hub, 2022).<\/p>\n\n\n\n He Awa Whiria, <\/em>the Braided River approach, is grounded in and emerged from the experiences of M\u0101ori researchers working in Western-dominated academic spaces in Aotearoa<\/em>\/New Zealand (Macfarlane et al., 2024). The fundamental premise underlying the approach is that each knowledge stream, that of Western science and M<\/em>\u0101<\/em>tauranga <\/em>M\u0101ori, 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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 <\/em>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.\u2019s (2024) vision, He Awa Whiria <\/em>has also been applied to policy development and program evaluation (Baker, 2024; Cram et al., 2018).<\/p>\n\n\n\n The essence of the Braided River framework is reflected in the composition of our research r\u014dp\u016b <\/em>(collective), the diversity of our ontological and epistemological positions, and the implementation of our mixed methods approach. Members of the r\u014dp\u016b <\/em>include M\u0101ori and non- M\u0101ori, both New Zealand- and overseas-born.\u00a0 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<\/em> M\u0101ori, conceptualized as research by M\u0101ori, for M\u0101ori and with M\u0101ori, 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<\/em> (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 M<\/em>\u0101<\/em>tauranga<\/em> M\u0101ori, placing emphasis on M\u0101ori values and voices in the emergence of Indigenous perspectives on multiculturalism and to rely on tikanga<\/em> (customary practices) and M\u0101ori protocols in conducting our research. In keeping with the tenets of He Awa Whiria, <\/em>we view the diversity of our research r\u014dp\u016b<\/em>, 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n When situated in an international context, it is worth noting that the principles of He Awa Whiria<\/em> 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 \u2018indigenization from within\u2019 and \u2018indigenization from without\u2019 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Our research was guided by a kaitiaki<\/em> (M\u0101ori guardianship group) to ensure cultural safety. With their support, we addressed three inter-related questions to uncover M\u0101ori perspectives on multiculturalism. Our research questions are: 1) How do M\u0101ori conceptualize and engage with multiculturalism? 2) How do M\u0101ori perceive the benefits and risks of multiculturalism in Aotearoa<\/em>?\u00a0 3) Is the tri-partite model of multiculturalism found in acculturation science compatible with M\u0101ori conceptions of multiculturalism?\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.\u00a0 Across our enquiries, data collection always involved M\u0101ori facilitators\/researchers, and data analyses and interpretation were undertaken by multiple members of the research team, which, in each case, included both M\u0101ori 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The primary objective of this research was to explore M\u0101ori understandings of multiculturalism by adopting a bottom-up, data led, inductive emic approach (Ritchie et al., 2023). This involved 29 M\u0101ori adults \u00a0who participated in one of six hui<\/em> (gatherings, meetings) conducted across urban and provincial centres in Aotearoa<\/em>. Consistent with M\u0101ori tikanga<\/em>, the sessions began with whakawhanaungatanga<\/em> and sharing food.\u00a0 When the participants were ready to commence the research, a karakia<\/em> (prayer or invocation) was performed to open the discussion. Without providing a definition of multiculturalism, facilitators prompted participants with the following questions:<\/p>\n\n\n\n This format enabled participants to rely upon Indigenous practices such as storytelling and providing oral histories in their discussions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n With participants\u2019 permission, the sessions were video-recorded and transcribed. The transcriptions were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis by one Western and two M\u0101ori researchers (Braun & Clarke, 2006, 2022).\u00a0 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 \u00a0findings. 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<\/em>, Belonging, Envisioning and Enacting (Ritchie et al., 2023).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Manaakitanga <\/em>(hospitality, kindness, generosity, support, the process of showing respect and care for others) was positioned as a core M\u0101ori value that should be present in discussions of immigration and multiculturalism. Manaakitanga<\/em> \u00a0has both historical and contemporary significance as articulated in the following quote:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe 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.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Essential to this theme is M\u0101ori capacity for manaakitanga<\/em>. 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. M\u0101ori want to be involved in the settlement of new migrants, rather than participate in a Euro-centric immigration system designed to exclude M\u0101ori and diminish their responsibilities as tangata whenua<\/em>\u00a0 (people of the land, Indigenous People). The current system is seen not only as disenfranchising M\u0101ori from exercising their Treaty rights in the immigration space, but also as continuing to maintain a state that distances immigrants from M\u0101ori. In terms of what welcoming newcomers might look like through a M\u0101ori lens, this could include tikanga<\/em>-based initiatives, such as the inclusion of the M\u0101ori language in citizenship ceremonies and conducting p\u014dwhiri<\/em>, which is a formal M\u0101ori welcome ceremony to a marae<\/em> (a tribal community center) for immigrants.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Despite the desire and intention for manaakitanga<\/em>, 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\u2019s programs, goals and strategies as a challenge. In addition, the resourcing required to create a M\u0101ori-led national system for manaakitanga <\/em>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: \u201cIf we were able to \u2026 just step back\u2026 so we can take care of ourselves again, cause yeah once we take care of ourselves, we can manaaki<\/em> them. Once our cup is full, we can keep overflowing.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Finally, participants emphasized the importance of building and sustaining relationships. They described how they felt whanaungatanga<\/em> whanaungatanga<\/em> (kinship) with migrants, and how many migrant communities in Aotearoa<\/em> shared similar values and histories with M\u0101ori \u2013 especially those from colonized nations. These relationships were viewed as sources of mutual support. In addition, the positioning of M\u0101ori and migrants as two groups both marginalized by a P\u0101keh\u0101 <\/em>(New Zealand European) majority illustrates how decolonial processes can be empowering for both groups and enhance manaakitanga<\/em>. As expressed by one participant,<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cFor me, you know it\u2019s- it\u2019s 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\u2019t believe in the really important place that the Tiriti holds and therefore tangata whenua\u2019s rights, then that means, we start at a position that\u2019s quite difficult.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Belonging<\/em> conveys how people living in Aotearoa<\/em> 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, M\u0101ori have often been made to feel like they do not belong in Aotearoa<\/em>, particularly with respect to their language and culture. One participant noted, \u201cIn terms of Rotorua (a town in New Zealand renowned for M\u0101ori culture), we\u2019re able to practice being M\u0101ori there, and it\u2019s probably one of the few places that we can still do that in terms of 100% our reo<\/em>, our culture.\u201d \u00a0Feelings of exclusion were particularly intense when moving within P\u0101keh\u0101<\/em> dominated contexts colored by both racism and tokenism.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n 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 M\u0101ori 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 M\u0101ori for limited resources, by and large, they wanted a space for immigrants to be included. In their own words, \u201cI 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.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n At the same time, M\u0101ori did express concerns that immigrants could undermine the significance of indigeneity because they lack knowledge of Te Tiriti and the significance of M\u0101ori status as First Nations People. Even with that concern, however, participants did not express desires to exclude migrants from Aotearoa<\/em> 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\u2019s social cohesion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Envisioning <\/em>encapsulates an ideal imagining of a culturally diverse Aotearoa<\/em>. At the core are multicultural structures and systems grounded in Te Tiriti o Waitangi<\/em>. This vision of Aotearoa<\/em> provides a space for M\u0101ori, immigrant, and P\u0101keh\u0101<\/em> cultures to thrive while tangata whenua<\/em> play a central role in the construction of national identity. This sentiment was echoed by many research participants, e.g., \u201cIt\u2019s 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.\u201d Emphasis on the Treaty, which lays out the relationship between M\u0101ori as the Indigenous Peoples of Aotearoa <\/em>and all others who subsequently settled in the land, was seen as critical for a successful multicultural society. Indeed, both our research participants and M\u0101ori scholars, such as R. Walker (1995) and Rata (2021), have argued that the Treaty included our country\u2019s first immigration policy and provided a foundation for multiculturalism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There was also overall agreement with the principle that \u2018biculturalism\u2019 and \u2018multiculturalism\u2019 are compatible. The question of compatibility is asked and answered in the following quote: \u201cIf you have biculturalism, are you dismissing multiculturalism? Or if you do multiculturalism, is that not then saying we shouldn\u2019t have biculturalism? But actually, those can be compatible depending on what function they\u2019re serving.\u201d Justice Eddie Durie (2005),\u00a0 a M\u0101ori legal authority, has argued along similar lines that \u2018biculturalism\u2019 and \u2018multiculturalism\u2019 are about different things, with biculturalism being about the relationship between the state\u2019s 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, \u201cthe two policies are mutually supportive\u201d (Durie, 2005, p. 43). Furthermore, a Treaty-based multiculturalism was seen as a possible pathway to decolonization. In the words of one research participant, \u201cWhereas for me it\u2019s like multiculturalism is associated with leaving that colonization that we were brought up under, behind.\u201d\u00a0 <\/p>\n\n\n\n Enacting <\/em>highlights potential ways forward, how Aotearoa<\/em> 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\u2019s ability to initiate and manage multiculturalism, the revitalization of M\u0101ori language and culture, and reciprocal support between M\u0101ori and immigrants. As such, enacting multiculturalism was seen as a distant goal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Despite the acknowledgement of government\u2019s role and responsibility to effectively manage diversity in Aotearoa<\/em>, 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 \u2014 so much so, that it may not be feasible to enact a Treaty-based multiculturalism. The difficulties in achieving biculturalism were noted, \u201cOur nation\u2019s still coming to terms with our own Treaty\u2026the Treaty of Waitangi aspirations are only just starting to be realized, and still it is a daily battle for iwi\u201d <\/em>(tribes).<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n This sentiment was sometimes accompanied by the implication that biculturalism should be \u2018sorted\u2019 before Aotearoa<\/em> 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\u00a0 words of one research participant: \u201cTo answer your question, biculturalism and multiculturalism can work um provided the government don\u2019t take a lead role on the policy change or on the implementation of change.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n More generally, there was a call for a \u2018reset\u2019 of the immigration system with emphasis on developing a strategy that supports the needs of M\u0101ori, immigrants and the country as a whole. Of critical importance is a M\u0101ori voice in the decision-making; however, cultural revitalization was seen as a prerequisite for M\u0101ori to engage effectively. Even so, M\u0101ori 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 <\/em>are all about money.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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 M\u0101ori perceptions regarding the benefits and the risks of multiculturalism in Aotearoa<\/em> (Below et al., 2024).<\/p>\n\n\n\n In line with sample size recommendations by Weller and Romney (1988), 25 self-identified M\u0101ori adults participated in the free-listing exercise. Each participant responded to prompts about the positive and negative features of multiculturalism.\u00a0 Specifically, we posed the questions: \u201cHow could multiculturalism be good\/bad for Aotearoa<\/em>?\u201d 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.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\nMulticulturalism and Colonization as Acculturation Contexts<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Multiculturalism<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Colonization<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Aotearoa<\/em>\/New Zealand: Brief History and Current Context<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Re-imagining multiculturalism: Small steps toward Indigenizing acculturation science<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Our Approach: He Awa Whiria<\/em>\u2013 A Braided River<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
The Research<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
How do M\u0101ori Conceptualize and Engage with Multiculturalism?<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
\n
What are the Perceived Benefits and Risks of Multiculturalism?<\/h4>\n\n\n\n