Latest News

The Contractor will manage and lead a comprehensive oral history project for the Ruawaipu claimants. The final product of the Oral history project will be the recordings and transcripts of the interviews that can be used by claimants and counsel to prepare their evidence for hearings/negotiations. The interviews will also contribute to the Ruawaipu Traditional History report.

The Contractor will:

Sources

 

In both administrative and research terms, I am dealing with the oral history project and the traditional history project as two quite separate projects.  The former will focus on the interviews only.  Those involved in this project will organise and undertake the interviews, provide and operate the audio and video equipment to record the interviews, process the media for the clusters so that copies of the recordings are available, prepare transcripts and supply them to the participants through the clusters, receive feedback on the drafts and edit them as required.  The final drafts of the transcripts will be supplied to the clusters for use by claimants and counsel as they prepare their evidence for hearings.  The final product of the oral history project will be the recordings and transcripts of the interviews.

The traditional history project will draw on this material as far as possible but will have an additional focus and that is documentary research.  The key source is the minutes of the Native Land Court which are extensive and a significant period of time has been set aside for the purposes of reviewing this manuscript material.  The final product of the traditional history project will be the traditional history report which claimants will be able to file with the Waitangi Tribunal or otherwise rely on in their engagement with the Crown.

Although these two projects are now being dealt with quite independently – primarily to avoid any suggestion that the oral history project is designed solely for the purposes of preparing the traditional history report – as the two projects are being undertaken at the same time, some co-ordination is required particularly in relation to timetabling.  In consequence, this discussion document addresses issues relating to both projects.

During the course of the scoping report and in more recent discussions, there has been debate about how claimants can be involved in this project.  The following appears to be the consensus arrived at:

·        I will be involved in all interviews undertaken for the Ruawaipu clusters;

·        The clusters will nominate facilitators to work with participants and organise the location, date and time for the interview.  There may be several people who facilitate the interviews and this will depend on the specific participant(s) involved;

·        I will provide and operate the necessary equipment to record the interview;

·        I will attend the interview and, depending on the circumstances, either participate in or lead the interview.  I will also deal with all ethical requirements which must be met prior to the interview (primarily relating to informed consent).  Facilitators will be encouraged to participate by asking questions and engaging in the discussion;

·        I will process the media and provide copies of the audio and video recordings to the cluster co-ordinators (on CD and DVD);

·        I will arrange for the audio recordings to be transcribed.  The transcription process will involve:

§         Interview recorded;

§         Draft transcription provided to interview participant through interview facilitator;

§         Feedback provided by interview participant and draft edited;

§         Final draft provided to the cluster co-ordinator;

§         Responsibility for obtaining final sign off from interview participant is the responsibility of the cluster co-ordinator (working with the interview facilitator);

Note: where the interview participant does not provide final sign off within the timeframe available to us for the completion of the traditional history report, and we wish to use relevant material in the report, we will contact the interview participant directly to obtain consent to use that material.  Translation will be the responsibility of the cluster co-ordinator or interview facilitator to organise and funding for this purpose will be a matter for the CFRT to address.

There remain a number of key issues to address prior to starting the interviews.  It is important that these matters are dealt with so that there is no confusion at a later date and to ensure that all stakeholders with an interest in the project know what is happening and when.  The questions which need to be dealt with include:

·        Who is to be interviewed;

·        Area of expertise;

·        Participant willingness to be interviewed;

·        When will they be interviewed;

·        Where will they be interviewed;

·        Who will interview;

·        Who will facilitate;

·        How will the media and transcripts be distributed for editing and on completion.

The question of who is to be interviewed is one which the clusters need to urgently finalise.  This is not a question I can answer as it is up to the clusters to decide who should be interviewed.  The only research considerations which need to be addressed are ensuring those interviewed come from all over the rohe and also that they are able to address a broad range of issues (either through personal experience or specialised knowledge they have been given).

There does now appear to be something of a consensus in that there is a draft list in the scoping report and both clusters have indicated they are happy to proceed with the two lists.  Further information is, as noted above, necessary to finalise the lists but both clusters need to confirm that they are able to work on the basis of the two lists.  Work has already begun on identifying in more detail what expertise each participant is able to offer and this information together with an initial approach to the participant for an indication that they are willing to be involved will further refine the list.  This initial approach should be made by someone associated with the clusters who is known to the participant.

In relation to the timing of the interviews, it is my view that trying to conduct interviews in late autumn or winter presents a number of logistical difficulties and should be avoided as far as possible.  These matters are dealt with further below.  However, it might be possible, once the planning for the interview is completed at least to a satisfactory stage, that some interviews could be undertaken in the next six weeks.  In considering who might be interviewed, particular attention should be paid to interviews which should be accorded priority due to the health and/or age of the participant. 

In terms of the location of interviews, the following assessment of the list of possible participants in the scoping report may assist.  The residences of those identified are:

Auckland: 4

Wellington: 15

Tauranga: 7

Gisborne: 11

East Coast: 24

Other North Island: 4

It should also be noted that claimants expressed a clear desire that, where possible, interviews should be held on local marae across the Ruawaipu rohe:

Potaka

Hinepare (Rangitukia)

Hinerupe (Te Araroa)

Pokai (Tikapa)

Matahi o Te Tau

It is therefore suggested that group discussions should be arranged in the following locations:

East Coast: 4 (at four of the marae identified above)

Gisborne: 2

In addition, further group discussions could be organised in other centres if participants would prefer to be involved in a group discussion rather than individual interview.  For example, group discussions could be arranged in the following locations:

Tauranga: 1

Wellington: 2

This would leave at least eight individual interviews (four in Auckland and four in Mangakino, Tokoroa, Levin and Pahiatua) with perhaps a number of others in Wellington.  It is probably prudent to allow for 20 individual interviews with the remaining people participating in small group discussions.

Finally, a vital question which requires consideration is how the media and transcripts will be distributed for editing and once completed.  Copies of the audio and video recordings will be processed as soon as possible after the interview and provision has been made to supply copies to the clusters.  It is highly likely that a copy will also be supplied to the CFRT for contract milestone purposes.  The question which needs to be considered is to whom copies of the audio and video recordings and draft transcripts should be supplied.  At present there are two lists of interview participants and one list is generally associated with each of the clusters.  Is the preference for the audio and video recordings and draft transcripts to be supplied to one or both clusters or only to the cluster who has identified the participant to be interviewed?

Moreover, should the draft transcript even go to the cluster (via the cluster co-ordinator) but rather be forwarded to the interview facilitator to either send to the participant for comment or to work through any corrections with the participant.  Certainly any draft transcript should remain confidential to only those involved in the interview until the final draft is completed and the participant has signed off on the transcript.  This would be preferable in terms of ethical considerations as the facilitator will need to sign a confidentiality agreement.  In any case, how this part of the process is managed must be on the basis that all information will, subject to the final agreement of the participant for the interview material to be made available, be distributed to all Ruawaipu claimants, both clustered and unclustered, to use.

My preference would be for copies of media to be made following the interviews and retained in secure storage while the transcription process is completed.  The exceptions to this rule would be the provision of copies to the transcriber and to CFRT for milestone and quality assurance purposes only.  The individuals involved will need to complete confidentiality agreements for either to occur anyway.  Once draft transcripts have been prepared, they can be supplied to the interview facilitator to liaise with the participant to provide feedback and amendments.  On completion of the final drafts of the transcripts, and with the agreement of participants, copies of media will be supplied to either or both clusters with the transcripts.

This timetable is simply a proposal and I am open to any suggestions.  There are three reasons for undertaking most of the interviews from September to November of this year.  First, past experience suggests there can be significant practical difficulties in undertaking interviews during late autumn and winter due to adverse weather conditions.  I am also conscious of causing elderly participants discomfort at a frequently unpleasant time of year.  Second, there is a substantial body of Native Land Court minutes to review and I have set aside four months during winter for this purpose.  This is work which will require very little travel, as I have access to the minute books, and will provide an important foundation for my contributions to the interviews.  It will give me a much greater understanding of the ancestors and whakapapa who lived on the land and the nature of relationships between them.  This will assist in the interviews as I will be in a better position both to comprehend responses to questions and ask more relevant and informed questions.  I acknowledge that both of these considerations need to be balanced against the age and health of individual participants and I more than happy to consider alternatives.  However, and finally, for personal reasons, I do need to be in very close proximity to Auckland from around mid-May to mid-August.  Day trips from late June to mid-August might be possible but I would be unable to commit the necessary days required to complete an interview session.

This feedback process only relates to the traditional history report.  The opportunity to review and provide feedback on individual interviews is dealt with separately (though the report will include content drawn from the interviews).

Complete draft two months prior to the end of the project.  This is late for a draft but I would like to ensure that I have sufficient time to process all the material and provide as complete a draft as possible for discussion.

Two weeks after the draft has been circulated to claimants, two hui will be held where Michael and I will present the report findings to the cluster (and/or any unclustered claimants).  There will be opportunities for questions and discussion during this hui.  There will be a deadline of four weeks from this point for any written feedback to be submitted to Anita.  It might be possible for one of these hui to be held on the coast.

Two weeks after these hui (and four weeks since the draft report was submitted), there will be further hui where claimants can provide oral feedback.  These can be in sessions over several days in Gisborne and other centres if necessary with smaller groups of claimants and/or a cluster hui can be arranged too.  The purpose of these workshops will be for detailed feedback on the report to be provided.

This will provide a period of four weeks to incorporate the feedback into the draft and produce a final report for circulation to Ruawaipu claimants.

January/February 2007