Abstract
This study is an attempt to interrogate the shared terrain of academic Māori Studies, Treaty of Waitangi praxis (where 'praxis' is defined as the practical use of reason and the resonable use of practice - in contrast to purely theoretical activity) and the University system in this country. In this wide ranging 'interrogation', I will employ a dialectical method of analysis where each of the major Articles of the Treaty are assigned a particular 'role' in the Thesis because it represents the central 'University' or Kawanatanga Problematic; that Article 2 (Tino Rangatiratanga-Chieftainship) is the Antithesis because it represents the 'Māori' contradiction or the Tino Rangatiratanga Mandate; and that Article 3 (Kotahitanga-Unity and Association) is the Synthesis because it represents Treaty Praxis' or the Kotahitanga Solution.
This study (like the Treaty) has been organised into five appropriate Parts:
Part A (The Preamble) provides the overture for the study, and, as such, contextualises the methodological framework and theoretical paradigms in, on and around which the rest of the study is located.
Part B (The Kawanatanga Problematic) will attempt to articulate the struggle of Māori Studies in academia by problematising Kawanatanga (as is the case in most of the scholarship on this critical aspect of the Treaty).
Part C (The Tino Rangatiratanga Mandate) will outline three major neglected areas of Tino Rangatiratanga in academia: such as the agency of Māori staff, students and communities; and the status of language and of knowledge taonga (treasures).
Part D (The Kotahitanga Solution) will attempt to synthesise Treaty praxis within the debate by outlining and evaluating a number of Treaty principles and examples.
Part E (Post-Script) will summarise the personified (signatory) aspects of the study and will also attempt to articulate a possible future for Māori Studies.
It is hoped that the analytical framework employed in this study and will also attempt to articulate a possible future for Māori Studies.
It is hoped that the analytical framework employed in this study will assist in clarfying (i) the nature of the struggle of a 'minority-culture' subject (Māori Studies) within (ii) a 'majority-culture' institution (the University), and (iii) the promise of bicultural synthesis (or Treaty praxis) as a means of mediating this struggle.
It is also hoped that this thesis will be a contribution to that ongoing debate.