Te Roopu Rangahau Hauora Maori a Ngai Tahu (Ngai Tahu Maori Health Research Unit), Department of Preventive and Social Medicine, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Ethn Health. 2010 Jun;15(3):303-16. doi: 10.1080/13557851003721194.
Although opportunities exist for positive experiences in research, Maori in New Zealand, like other indigenous people colonised by Europeans in the nineteenth century, have also been subject to research and associated policies that have had long-lasting negative consequences. Researchers have subsequently been challenged by Maori to conduct research that is acceptable, accountable and relevant. Much of this debate has taken place within the framework of the Treaty of Waitangi, a treaty of cession signed between Maori and British Crown representatives in 1840. Nowadays, health and health research statutes exist that require researchers to respond to the 'principles' of the Treaty. Few practical examples of how health researchers have undertaken this have been published.
We examine how, in developing a national study of injury outcomes, we responded to the Treaty. Our study, the Prospective Outcomes of Injury Study, aims to quantitatively identify predictors of disability following injury and to qualitatively explore experiences and perceptions of injury outcomes.
Responses to the Treaty included: consultation with Maori groups, translation of the questionnaire into te reo Maori, appointment of interviewers fluent in te reo Maori, sufficient numbers of Maori participants to allow Maori-specific analyses and the inclusion of a Maori-specific qualitative component. While this article is located within the New Zealand context, we believe it will resonate with, and be of relevance to, health researchers in other former settler societies. We do not contend this project represents an 'ideal' model for undertaking population-based research. Instead, we hope that by describing our efforts at responding to the Treaty, we can prompt wider debate of the complex realities of the research environment, one which is scientifically, ethically and culturally located.
尽管在研究中存在积极体验的机会，但新西兰的毛利人，与 19 世纪被欧洲殖民者殖民的其他土著民族一样，也曾经历过对他们产生长期负面影响的研究和相关政策。此后，毛利人要求研究人员进行可接受、负责任和相关的研究，这对研究人员提出了挑战。这场争论的大部分都是在《怀唐伊条约》的框架内进行的，这是毛利人和英国王室代表在 1840 年签署的割让条约。如今，存在着要求研究人员遵守《条约》“原则”的健康和健康研究法规。发表的关于健康研究人员如何承担这一责任的实际例子很少。
我们研究了在开展一项全国性伤害结果研究时，我们如何回应《条约》。我们的研究，即《伤害结果前瞻性研究》，旨在定量确定伤害后残疾的预测因素，并定性探索伤害结果的经验和看法。
对《条约》的回应包括：与毛利团体协商、将问卷翻译成毛利语、任命精通毛利语的访谈者、确保有足够数量的毛利参与者以允许进行毛利人特定的分析以及纳入毛利人特定的定性部分。虽然本文位于新西兰的背景下，但我们相信它将与其他前殖民社会的健康研究人员产生共鸣，并与之相关。我们并不是说这个项目代表了进行基于人群的研究的“理想”模式。相反，我们希望通过描述我们在回应《条约》方面所做的努力，能够引发更广泛的关于研究环境的复杂现实的辩论，这个环境在科学、伦理和文化方面都有其独特的定位。
