Normal view MARC view ISBD view

Measuring Māori wellbeing Mason Durie

By: Mason, Durie.
Material type: materialTypeLabelBookSeries: New Zealand Treasury Guest Lecture Series.Publisher: Wellington, New Zealand : New Zealand Treasury, 2006 Subject(s): CULTURE | HEALTH | MĀORI | SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS | WELLBEING | ĀHUATANGA PĀPORI | HAUORA | ORA | RANGAHAU MĀORI | TIKANGA TUKU IHO | NEW ZEALANDOnline resources: Click here to access online Summary: "Universal perspectives are premised on the notion that all people have common views about being well and therefore their wellbei ng can be measured in similar ways. Mortality rates are universal because they a dopt an indicator (dea th) that transcends differentiated populations. The presence or ab sence of disease, and the attainment of tertiary education qua lifications are also largely rele vant across the total population, although there may be differences about th eir relative importance and the way in which they are understood. Standards of housing, health status and educational achievement often use measures that are applicable to all people regardless of ethnicity or age, though are not always sufficiently sensitive to capture population-specific perspectives. Although universal indicators and measures can be applied to Mäori as they can to other populations, there are also unique characteristics of Māori that require specific measurement.[1] Mäori specific measures are attuned to Mäori realities and to Mäori worldviews. A Mäori-specific measure of adequate housing might take into account the level of provision for extended families and for manuhiri, while a measure of educational attainment might include measures that relate to the use and knowledge of Māori language. In addition to the universal-specific dimension, the individual-group dimension needs to be considered. Measures of wellbeing can be applied to individuals, groups and whole populations. Measures for individual wellbeing are not necessarily applicable to family and whänau wellbeing, while measures of tribal wellbeing are not always the measures that are appropriate to generic Māori communities. A framework for quantifying hapü and iwi resources developed by Winiata in 1988, placed emphasis on cultural capital and tribal histories, as well as human and economic considerations. [2] At a population level, overall measures of the wellbeing of Māori require the use of indicators that go beyond sub-groups to encompass all Māori." (Opening paragraphs). Record #5491
Item type Current location Call number Status Date due Barcode
Access online Access online Family Violence library
Online Available ON17070005

New Zealand Treasury Guest Lecture Series

"Universal perspectives are premised on the
notion that all people
have common views
about being well and therefore their wellbei
ng can be measured in similar ways.
Mortality rates are universal because they a
dopt an indicator (dea
th) that transcends
differentiated populations. The presence or ab
sence of disease, and the attainment of
tertiary education qua
lifications are also largely rele
vant across the
total population,
although there may be differences about th
eir relative importance and the way in
which they are understood. Standards of
housing, health status and educational
achievement often use measures that are
applicable to all people regardless of ethnicity or age, though are
not always sufficiently sensitive to capture population-specific perspectives.

Although universal indicators and measures can be applied to Mäori as they can to other populations, there are also unique characteristics of Māori that require specific measurement.[1]
Mäori specific measures are attuned to Mäori realities and to Mäori worldviews. A Mäori-specific measure of adequate housing might take into account the level of provision for extended families and for manuhiri, while a measure of
educational attainment might include measures that relate to the use and knowledge of Māori language.

In addition to the universal-specific dimension, the individual-group dimension needs to be considered. Measures
of wellbeing can be applied to individuals, groups and whole populations. Measures for individual wellbeing are not necessarily applicable to family and whänau wellbeing, while measures of tribal wellbeing are not always the measures that are appropriate to generic Māori communities. A framework for
quantifying hapü and iwi resources developed by Winiata in 1988, placed emphasis on cultural capital and tribal histories, as well as human and economic considerations. [2] At a population level, overall measures of the wellbeing of Māori require the use of indicators that go beyond sub-groups to encompass all Māori." (Opening paragraphs). Record #5491