'Emancipate yourself from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our minds' : 'Wetekia te mau here o te hinengāro, ma tātou anō e whakaora, e whakawātea te hinengāro' : a thesis presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Social Work at Massey University, Manawatū, Aotearoa New Zealand

Liberation and emancipation are two key concepts of a decolonisation process which contributes to a journey of self-discovery. Decolonisation is a process that connects the past, present and future allowing the participant time to learn about their own historical truths in a facilitated and safe environment. Knowing who you are and where you come -- ‘Ko wai au’- Who am I?’ -- is central to social work education. Therefore, the structures in place to work through this question, need to cater to all participants in a balanced and parallel way, from two cultural lens: Tangata Whenua and Tangata Tiriti. This study explores the process of decolonisation and the experiences of the participants who are engaged in social work and social work education. The methodological underpinnings to this study incorporate three eternal realms of Mātauranga Māori, Mātauranga-ā-iwi and kaupapa Māori theory. The framework Te Pou Tarawāho o Pūrākau invites participants’ stories and narratives as a way of sharing their experiences of a decolonisation process as part of their social work education and professional development. This is done as a qualitative approach utilising individual’s time, space and hui as a collective voice. This study presents three kete of knowledge as part of the implementation and a proposed working decolonisation process. This thesis challenges tertiary providers, training providers and the regulatory authority to consider the unification of each kete and what role each play inside social work education and training. Each kete is intricately designed and contains important aspects that contribute to decolonising the current curriculum of social work education, policy and practice with the participant as the receiver. While this study ultimately focuses on Māori participants, it also supports decolonisation for all ethnicities in particular those who are studying and are currently in practice in social work and social work education

Universal screening for meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus : interim results from the NHS Scotland pathfinder project

Following recommendations from a Health Technology Assessment (HTA), a prospective cohort study of meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) screening of all admissions (N = 29 690) to six acute hospitals in three regions in Scotland indicated that 7.5% of patientswere colonised on admission to hospital. Factors associated with colonisation included re-admission, specialty of admission (highest in nephrology, care of the elderly, dermatology and vascular surgery), increasing age, and the source of admission (care home or other hospital). Three percent of all those who were identified as colonised developed hospital-associated MRSA infection, compared with only 0.1% of those not colonised. Specialtieswith a high rate of colonisation on admission also had higher rates of MRSA infection. Very few patients refused screening (11 patients, 0.03%) or had treatment deferred (14 patients, 0.05%). Several organisational issues were identified, including difficulties in achieving complete uptake of screening (88%) or decolonisation (41%); the latter was largely due to short duration of stay and turnaround time for test results. Patient movement resulted in a decision to decontaminate all positive patients rather than just those in high risk specialties as proposed by the HTA. Issues also included a lack of isolation facilities to manage patients with MRSA. The study raises significant concerns about the contribution of decolonisation to reducing risks in hospital due to short duration of stay, and reinforces the central role of infection control precautions. Further study is required before the HTA model can be re-run and conclusions redrawn on the cost and clinical effectiveness of universal MRSA screening

Disrupting the dynamics of oppression in intercultural research and practice

In this special issue we focus on exploring the tensions, challenges and possibilities for working in contexts where relationships between groups are characterized by dominance and resistance. Some of the impetus lies in our own struggles and frustrations with models, guidelines and ‘recipes’ that have been developed to guide sensitive, competent and empowering research and practice across boundaries of ‘race’, ethnicity and culture. These models and guidelines are often framed as tools that will enable culturally competent transactions across these boundaries

Reflections on globalisation, security and 9/11

The study of globalisation carries important conceptual insights into the contemporary security agenda following the events of September 11th 2001 ('9/11'). This article argues that globalisation can be defined in a variety of ways, ranging from liberalisation to Westernisation, and can also be extended into concepts of supra-territorialisation. In combination, these definitions help to explain the generation of 9/11 style-conflict by providing the political-economic motivation for hyper-terrorism, by facilitating the political identities and activities of non-state actors; and by creating an environment for the global reach of terror movements. Additionally, the interconnection between globalisation and security can be seen in the response of the United States to 9/11 and its striving to project military power on a global scale with declining reference to time and geographical distance, and the varied ability of sovereign states to respond to the challenge of trans-sovereign security problems in the future

Changing narratives: colonised peoples, criminology and social work

Abstract: There is growing recognition in criminology and social work of the importance of Indigenous knowledges and methodologies. Yet to date there have been limited attempts (particularly in criminology and criminal justice social work) to consider the theoretical and practice implications of Indigenous understandings and approaches to these disciplines. Both disciplines have also been slow to recognise the importance of understanding the way in which colonial effects are perpetuated through knowledge control, particularly in the operation of criminal justice systems. Our paper thus begins by examining the historical and institutional factors that have contributed to the continuing subjugation of Indigenous knowledges and methodologies. A discussion of the connections between the hegemony of Western science, the construction of race, and the colonial project follows. While herein Western and Indigenous approaches are conceptualised broadly, the dangers of over-simplifying these categories is also acknowledged. The paper proceeds by examining the distinctive character of each approach through a consideration of their ontological, epistemological, axiological, and methodological differences. Whilst acknowledging the considerable challenges which arise in any attempt to develop connections between these differing worldviews, a pathway forward for understanding both theoretically and methodologically the relationship between Western and Indigenous approaches is proposed

Editorial: Decolonising the University

Therefore, in its variety, the contributions in this special issue share theorisations, auto-ethnographic reflections, and pedagogical experiments of decolonisation, politics of knowledge, and activism informed by Feminist, Gender, and Queer studies but also by non-Eurocentred epistemic geo-genealogies grounded in embodied experiences of racialisation, discrimination, and resistance in the academia. Inserting what are inevitably profoundly political contributions, which question the foundations and limitations of hegemonic knowledge creation, into the mould of an academic peer-reviewed special issue is a complex and, at times, seemingly impossible exercise. As the guest editors and editorial board negotiated the process of this issue’s production, we ourselves were challenged to engage with tensions around what constitutes a ‘proper’ scientific contribution, by which and whose standards. As a reader of this special issue, and perhaps a student, teacher, researcher, activist, or a combination thereof, it is likely that you also find yourself addressed and challenged by some of the critiques and proposals articulated in the articles and essays that follow

Class, race, gender and the production of knowledge: considerations on the decolonisation of knowledge

How do class, race and gender impact on the production of knowledge? Is it enough to include those who have been excluded from advanced knowledge? Or has knowledge itself been tainted by the exclusions of class, race, gender and colonial conquest? How to proceed with such realisations? How do we decolonise our minds and our universities? Should we repudiate existing knowledge and start again at zero? Or should we return to the indigenous knowledge of our ancestors? Or should we engage in a radical and critical transformation? How has Rhodes Must Fall dramatised these dilemmas? What does Marxism have to offer in working through these issues