A critique of Rata on the politics of knowledge and Māori education

Abstract


 
 
 
 This article unpacks and critiques the scholarship of Elizabeth Rata on the politics of knowledge in education. Rata represents a widespread, though covert, influence within the global academy of an imperialist form of philosophical universalism which has particular significance for Aotearoa New Zealand due to her vocal opposition to Kaupapa Māori education and Māori politics more generally. This article uses critical discourse analysis (CDA) to focus on the arguments of one key article, in order to expose its philosophical weaknesses. Our analysis shows that Rata’s scholarship is based on misconceptions of several key terms and concepts, which inexorably lead to inadequate arguments and invalid conclusions, and undermine the cogency of her claims about the ‘dangers’ of Kaupapa Māori education.
 
 
 

A typology of Pākehā “Whiteness” in education

“…Some scholars in education make analogous arguments, appealing to 'facts' to build apparently strong cases against Māori equity policies and Māori-medium education (Openshaw & Rata, 2008;Rata, 2012). Careful analysis reveals the argumentative lacunae through which these anti-Māori cases fall apart (Stewart & Devine, 2019). The faulty arguments usually entail the misapplication of philosophical binaries, such as universalism vs. relativism, to social contexts such as Māori ethnicity.…”

The Curriculum Design Coherence Model in the Knowledge‐Rich School Project

“…This perception can only be understood within the country’s wider polarisation between those who consider that academic knowledge is ‘Western’, elitist, and ‘colonising’ and those who advocate for ‘decolonising’ sociocultural education; an approach characterised by the localised curriculum and culturally responsive pedagogies (see the ‘Knowledge Types’ section for a discussion of the two types of knowledge: socio‐cultural and disciplinary). A full discussion of the issue is outside the purview of this paper but accounts of both positions and the conflict between them are available in Stewart and Devine (2019) and Rata (2019b). However, it needs mentioning because, despite the Project’s commitment to the social justice agenda of increasing access to ‘powerful knowledge’ (Barrett et al ., 2018), the Project runs the risk of also being seen as ‘elitist’.…”

“…Criterion 3 also allows for the inclusion of today’s politically charged content, such as the debates about privacy rights and pandemic tracing technology or about ‘western‐knowledge’ or ‘indigenous knowledge’ polarity (Steward & Devine, 2019; Rata, 2019b). As with Criterion 2, this criterion for content selection may depend on the subject and is not always required.…”

Recontextualization of knowledge in the new Norwegian curriculum: Epistemic and non‐epistemic design in learning objectives for social studies

“…Subject theories and concepts, which are produced in different disciplines, can be related to cognitive development in a way that can increase students' understanding of the subject when working with such generalized concepts. Rata's project has been accused of attempting to return to the ideas of disciplinary knowledge and objectivity, which date back to the Enlightenment, accompanied by a devaluation of socio‐cultural knowledge and constructivism in education (Stewart & Devine, 2019). In our view, this criticism is misleading, and it can be argued that the connection between “knowledge that” and “know how to” is an attempt to link the students' activities and development to the subject's epistemic structure.…”