Governing educational research: A bicultural example

GOVERNING EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH: A BICULTURAL EXAMPLE

J A M E S M A R S H A L L A N D M I C H A E L P E T E R S

The University of Auckland

Introduction One way to understand the recent 'reforms' in western education is to draw a distinction between two types of citizenship. The distinction between these two approaches to citizenship was lived out, very dramatically, in France in 1848 and 1871. On the one hand there is a claim that citizenship is based upon a fight to work: on the other hand there is a view that citizenship is based upon a right to property. 1848 and 1871 in France can be interpreted as a conflict between these two opposing views of social right as a citizen. Applied to educational 'reforms' recently implemented in Western capitalist democracies, this distinction can be interpreted as a fight to education as some form of social or welfare fight, or as a right to acquire education as some form of property or commodity. When this distinction is invoked and the position of Maori and State education is considered further within a framework of governmentality (Foucault 1979b), then it can be seen that conceiving education as a property right is further controlling and repressive of Maori. Within the State education system Maori are forced to purchase what is their own property, namely their language, and this property which they purchase has been packaged in the State education system in ways in which they have had little or no control (except in their total immersion programs). And where they have gained some control this has been governed historically, in Foucault's sense.

In this paper rather than considering this notion of governmentality in the abstract and reinterpreting the 'history' of education of Maori in terms of this notion, we will document the course that a particular research program took and how the reason of State asserted and reasserted itself. First we will outline the notion of governmentality. Then by reference to a bi-cultural research program in education which was, we believe genuinely bi-cultural, we outline how this research and its outcomes came to be governed.

AUSTRALIAN EDUCATIONAL RESEARCHER VOLUME 22 No 2 August 1995 107

108 M A R S H A L L A N D P E T E R S

I On governmentality Foucault said in 1977 that in political analysis we have still not cut off the King's head. By this he meant that political language, analysis and practice were mired in talk of such things as oppression, legitimation, rights, state, government, and authority. He was certainly not saying that it was a futile objective to attempt to restrict the role of government in its ever advancing claims to legitimate its exercises of authority but, rather, that government is more than this, that it is an art and an activity that touches all; that it had not just fallen as a given from on high but had to be invented or gradually constructed (Burchell, et. al. 1991, p. x). According to Foucault the arts of government, or governmentality (1979b), or reason of state, have touched us all, so that we are not the free autonomous individuals and choosers of individual projects that the liberal framework (Nozick 1978), and liberal education (Strike 1982), would make us out to be.

Michel Foucault coined the term 'governmentality' to refer to a domain of research which might also be called 'governmental rationality'. He uses three interconnected terms: 'govemmentality,' 'governmental rationality' and the 'art of government'. By the 'root' term 'government' Foucault meant something like 'the conduct of conduct' (Burchell et. al. 1991, p. 2) or a form of activity aiming to produce subjects, to shape, or to guide, or to affect the conduct of people so that they become people of a certain sort; to form the very identifies of people so that they could or should be subjects. This activity could be concerned with private relations between self and self, or private interpersonal relationships with professional mentors, or relationships with institutions and community, or with the exercise of political sovereignty. The art of government was to provide a form of government for each and for all, but one which was to individualise and to normalise. In Discipline and Punish (Foucault 1979a), he argued that the microphysics of power applied through technologies of domination, both individualise and normalise people as subjects. In The History of Sexuality, Vol. I (Foucault 1980) he shows how we in part aid and abet these processes by constructing ourselves through the technologies of the self. However in his later work he provides some insights into how we might do this to ourselves and in ways in which our freedom (in his sense) is not violated, as he believed it was in the liberal framework (Foucault 1985, 1990).

If in these earlier works he sounds fatalistic and deterministic, so that there is no room for meaningful human action directed towards the attainment of freedom, in the later work he 'corrects' this almost nihilistic position to affirm the possibilities of freedom through resistance, rejecting the possibly deterministic framework in which his earlier accounts of power/knowledge had been couched. Instead, power can only exist where there is a possibility of resistance and, thereby, the attainment of freedom (Foucault 1983). Power is no longer an

GOVERNING EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH: A BICULTURAL EXAMPLE 109

omnipresent and over-arching presence but rather, an open and strategic game. But this freedom is not to be obtained because we are autonomous beings. On the contrary it is this very notion of being free through being autonomous that has permitted us to become subjects through the effects of power/knowledge. Indeed it is in part the post-Kantian notion of rational autonomy that has permitted us to become subjects according to Foucault. Insofar as the notion of personal autonomy 'drives' much of Western liberal education then this too is part of what he referred to as the post-Kantian slumbers.

At the College de France his 1976-84 lectures concentrate upon developing this notion of governmentality. If the later books turned towards the government of the self, the later lectures, 1978-80 in particular, continued on the theme of government in the wider 'political' sense. This later work on governmentality was a response to criticisms which had been made of his earlier work.

Discipline and Punish is concerned with the microphysics of power, with technologies and techniques employing power/knowledge at the capillary level. It ignores global issues of State power, and for this 'omission' he was criticised by both Marxists and liberals (e.g., Walzer 1986). Another criticism was that Foucault had represented society as a network of omnipresent power relations which, in subjugating human beings, seemed to preclude the possibility of meaningful individual freedom. Overall then in Discipline and Punish he presents us with a grim political scenario in which the grounds for resistance to oppression, even the very possibility of resistance, seem precluded. This amounts to a political philosophy of despair or nihilism.

Also governmental rationality (the rationality of State) appears to be reduced to techniques which are employed in a utilitarian fashion to produce individuals who will lead 'useful, docile and practical li,es'. Rationality is restricted to techniques of power--2the techniques of domination and the self--as exemplified in his early discussion of power and knowledge. In his later writings this is to be tempered by a more optimistic notion of governmental rationality.

The College de France lectures on governmentality were designed to address these issues which were developed in the critique of his work. His position and the basis of his response was that there was no discontinuity between the micro and the macro but, in trying to make this relationship clear, there was to be no returning to the theory of the State/Sovereignty in traditional Hobbesian or Marxist terms. In other words the relationship between the two was not to be analysed by any vei'sion of state theory or any return to traditiQnal political philosophy.

Foucault is a strict nominalist on many issues, including the State. For him there is no such entity if, by talking about the State, we are meant to be talking about an entity with certain characteristics and essential properties in the form


practised and demanded by some Marxists. He continued to refrain from a theory of the State. For him the alleged 'nature' of the State is but the outcome of certain practices of government rather than the converse claimed by some versions of State theory, that the practices of the State are derivable from a theory about the State, including its essence or nature. A major concern with State theory for Foucault was that, in Marxist versions in particular, the State was conceptualised as having a propensity to grow and consume, or to colonise everything outside of itself. In summary then political theory attends too much to the state and its institutions, and too little to practices (cf. criticisms of Dewey's account of democracy).

Foucault argued that in similar fashion, political philosophy, in its concern to legitimate a form of civil society through such notions of the social contract, concentrated too much upon the notion of the Sovereign; too much, for example, upon the analysis of concepts such as 'authority' and general theories of the legitimation of authority, and ignored how authority is exercised in practice. In Discipline and Punish practices of punishment are logically prioritised over theories of punishment and this priority is characterised in the emphasis upon the methodological question 'How?', rather than 'What (is it)'?, and 'Why (do it)'? of traditional philosophy. In summary then, even if political philosophy could provide a legitimate basis for the authority of the Sovereign it is not clear that basis would also describe how power is exercised, or ought to be exercised, under that sovereignty.

However these 'how' questions are not directed merely at the actually existing, at the factual domain of practices, or at the domain of the expedient. They are concerned, of course, with constraints of actual practices and the immanent conditions which permit such practices. But they are also concerned with critique, problematisation, the limits of thought about such practices and, thereby for Foucault, with rethinking and inventiveness; at looking and thinking about other possible practices.

In the History of Sexuality he introduced the term 'bio-power' to show how the construction of the self through the concept of sexuality permitted the body to act as a point or locus of application both for the control of the individual and for the control of populations. The link between micro and macro practices of power is bio-power. He began this theme in the 1978 lectures (Gordon 1988), though the term had been introduced in The History of Sexuality, to designate forms of power which treated people as individual living beings, but as subjects of a population, in which individual sexual behaviour impinged upon population and hence with issues of state policy and power. 'Healthy' and 'unhealthy' sexual behaviour had implications for the state through the reproduction of subjects. Hence the need for a 'proper' form of sexuality.

GOVERNING EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH: A BICULTURAL EXAMPLE I I I

A major perception of Foucault in these later lectures is that modern bio- politics is exercising bio-power. As bio-power has addressed itself increasingly towards life, shaping and forming individuals so, also, has it generated a new form of counter-politics as individuals, so formed, have begun to use that subjectivity as the basis for the formulation of needs and imperatives which are in effect counter political demands. As power relations are strategically reversible, in power becomes in need of reformulation or redefinition. This leads to his 1983 reformulation in 'Afterword' (Dreyfus and Rabinow 1983), in which for power relations to exist the freedom of agents must be presupposed. Power cannot exist if the freedom of the subjects of power is annulled. Power is redefined as:

a mode of action which does not act directly and immediately upon others. Instead it acts upon their actions or on those which may arise in the present or in the future... A power relation can only be articulated on the basis of two elements which are indispensable if it is really to be a power relationship: that the 'other' (the one over whom power is exercised) be thoroughly recognised and maintained to the very end as a person who acts; and that, faced with a relationship of power, a whole body of responses, reactions, results, and possible inventions may open up.

Foucault's response to his critics commenced in 1978. Throughout Europe a phase of neo-liberalism was about to commence. He conceptualises recent neo- liberalism as a version of governmentality and argues that seen in this manner it presents an original and challenging phenomenon to which the left was ill equipped to respond. In particular he criticises socialism for not having possessed its own distinctive art of governing. Foucault believed that this neo-liberal challenge necessitated fresh acts of resistance and inventiveness. For example in order to respond to the neo-liberal criticisms of the welfare state as reducing the autonomy and responsibility of individuals making them dependent upon the state or dole bludgers, what was needed from a logic of the left was a reconceptualisation of individual autonomy along with an assurance of security. If the welfare state seems to be part of Foucault's target for exercising techniques of subjugation he recognises also its fundamental role in ensuring security for individuals.

But Foucault should not be seen as advocating a philosophy of nihilism and despair; nor should he be seen in his discussion of liberalism as siding with the neo-liberals, for he saw liberalism as providing a complex problem space in which a critique of neo-liberalism was available.


II Governing educational research We base our account of the governance of educational research upon a research program in which three pieces of research were completed in Tai Tokerau (Northland) in the years 1987-92 inclusive. Central to this research was the status of Te Reo Maori (language), the education of Maori, and the attempts by the authors to engage in appropriate bi-cultural research (Stokes 1985) with Maori communities, and schools in Tai Tokerau. Our methodology is well documented in Marshall and Peters (1985) and Peters and Marshall (1993) and details of the projects can be found in the Tai Tokerau bibliography at the end.

The research projects were Te Reo O Te Tai Tokerau (concerned with the evaluation of the national School Certificate Oral Maori examination), Nga Awangawanga Me Nga Wawataa Te Iwi O Te Tai Tokerau (the concerns and aspirations of the people of Tai Tokerau -concerned with the achievement and retention of Maori secondary students), and He Kaupapa Whakatikatika (concerned with support groups, and retention and achievement of Maori secondary students). These projects in Tai Tokerau were closely inter-connected, starting first with language, embedding it back into culture; then directing attention at education of Maori, particularly the problems of 'retention' and underachievement of Maori in secondary schooling; and, finally, the possibilities for supporting Maori students in the secondary system to address those problems. It is our intention to focus on the complex political and ethical relationships that exist between the State, local Maori community and researchers, in the construction of knowledge and the formulation of policy by reflection upon these projects through the 'lens' of governmentality.

The first project, as part of general development work undertaken by the (State) Department of Education between 1984 and 1987, was designed to investigate the feasibility and reliability of teacher-based assessment of Oral Maori in the national School Certificate examination and alternative forms of moderation between schools. As conceived by those responsible for the School Certificate Examination the official definition of the problem was to increase both the proportion of the oral component and teacher involvement in the assessment process but, at the same time, to maintain the precision of assessment that typified the School Certificate examination as a whole. The major educational problem for us as evaluators was the promotion of a concept of bicultural research that was empowering for Maori.

On the basis of Te Reo O Te Tai Tokerau and its evaluation findings the Department of Education developed a proposal for the national implementation of improved assessment practices for oral Maori. The proposal (Department of


Education 1987) called for: the national implementation of a new form of assessment for School Certificate Oral Maori; the recognition of dialects in the examining process; the immediate consultation with teachers on the implementation of the new form of assessment; and the establishment of a partnership with tribes for the purposes of the assessment of oral Maori. The proposal looked to a model of partnership where assessment of School Certificate Maori became a joint responsibility of tribal runanga and the Department of Education.

The Department, for various policy reasons associated with restructuring of the State Education system, was not to extend this innovative approach in 1988 beyond Tai Tokerau. Recently the whole method of assessment has been severely curtailed by the New Zealand Qualifications Authority (NZQA) and the intentions, commitments and promises, articulated in several documents, have not been fulfilled.

The main elements of the second project were: the development and administration of a questionnaire to a sample of 489 Maori fifth formers in Tai Tokerau (Northland) during November, 1988; the circulation to principals and Maori language teachers of a related set of open questions concerning the factors/reasons contributing to the decision by Maori students to leave school early and perceived measures designed to address the problem; multivariate analyses of variance of retention data for Maori and non-Maori secondary school students (1972-1985); and a review of relevant local and international literature, including 'drop-out' prevention and 're-entry' programs.

The third project, essentially the interventionist phase of the second project, aimed at developing a strategy to address widespread underachievement of Maori childrenmin particular the low retention rate of Maori children and their relatively lower qualifications than Pakeha (white) children. It aimed at the development within Tai Tokerau Maori communities, and their local secondary schools, of effective Maori initiated strategies for addressing and ultimately combating this widespread Maori underachievement. It sought to develop, monitor and evaluate Maori community Support Groups which, it was believed, would begin to address interrelated aspects of these problems. It was supported by the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology (FORST).

III The government of research The history of these projects coincides with the massive restructuring, still ongoing, of all levels of education in New Zealand. It would be mistaken however to excuse the state of affairs underlying this research, which we will now identify, by reference merely to funding cuts and the neo-liberal/new right


ideology which, we have argued elsewhere, is unfriendly to Maori education (Marshall, Peters & Smith 1990). It will be suggested instead, that we need to understand what happened in terms of Foucault's concept of governmentality.

At first blush the oral language project was immensely successful. It was adopted as the form of oral assessment in Tai Tokerau and the leaps in pride at this achievement, and the empowerment of the whanau (family) of teachers, were staggering. The extra curricula spin-offs from the project were immense. The project was referred to by New Zealand in submissions on indigenous people to the United Nations in 1990, and a member of the School Certificate Examinations Board presented a paper on it at a major international conference in Britain (that person neither sought nor received the approval of the whanau). A number of articles appeared in international refereed journals. Yet the method of assessment was soon under attack, with cutbacks on the number of funded assessments, and the decision now made would seem to treat the assessment of oral Maori in Tai Tokerau, wholesale, like moderation of art. In not treating oral Maori as distinct the gains made in 1987/88 are reversed, and our earlier fears of Maori not being treated as a separate subject return, in a homogeneous mono-cultural thrust for sameness, and an exercise of the reason of state. The far reaching proposals in the Department of Education's 1987 document for control of Maori language by Maori, seem to have been forgotten or deliberately ignored. The Runanga, who took their case to the national teachers' union and received their strong backing and support, did not triumph over the move by the NZQA (New Zealand Qualifications Authority) to cut back resources and to standardise

assessment and moderation procedures. The Runanga's concerns involved a number of issues" the poor consultation process; the short timeline for implementation of the new, 'imposed' scheme; the lack of professional training and development/; the way the new, 'imposed' procedures cut across the whanau concept; and the way the new procedures are based on sampling, which places unnecessary stress on a small selection of students and their teachers. Paradoxically, the quasi-autonomous operation of the new agency designed to bring about a clearer accountability structure, has granted more power to the state to operate without recourse to local, regional precedents or conditions. The recent structural changes to educational administration entail a 'government of research' which threatens to disempower Maori teachers and students in Tai Takoerau. Now Tai Tokerau are being forced to purchase from NZQA a form of assessment of their language which has been homogenised and re-packaged. This is a 'product' which should be theirs, but it is no longer in this reassertion of reason of state that Maori is one language amongst others, and one subject amongst others.

The research became fragmented from its earlier holistic conception. What started as a culturally appropriate form of assessment of Maori language---oral


assessment in culturally appropriate modes--was envisaged as a starting point for raising self-esteem and prestige among young Maori and improving underachievement and retention of Maori within the formal educational system. The original proposal for the second project contained an interventionist phase similar to the third project. This was not approved by the then Department of Education and, after the reception of the second report, it was clear that it would not have obtained support from that source. In any case we had decided after the reception of our second report, as a matter of principle, not to seek further funding from the Department (funding was eventually obtained from the Foundation of Research, Science and TechnologymFORST). Several strands of the fragmentation should be noted.

First there was the straightforward funding fragmentation. Second there were several fragmentation of foci. What had started in the Department of Education was 'lost' in the new Ministry of Education and the new Education Review Office (ERO), not only in the restructuring of agencies and the shifts in responsibilities, but in the dispersal of personnel and the loss, overall, of an institutional memory. Finally there is the fragmentation of educational purpose. What started as education under the Department of Education became 'public good' under the Ministry of Science, Research and Technology, and the original educational focus had been diverted. The 'rational' reconstruction of State educational agencies drove wedges through the educational research program, splintering the effectiveness and the intellectual ownership of the language.

In the second and third projects there were problems over the timing and issuing of contracts. In the second project we were presented with an impossible timescale which covered the third term, with fifth form examinations, and the Christmas vacation. A concerted effort to meet this time frame was greeted with reservations about the methodology. In effect, because some principals and Department officials did not like the slur of racism, the report was suppressed (Simon 1990). It should be noted that the third project, in compiling information on individual students, has identified the same major themes; first there is a number, approximately 30% who are enthusiastic and positive about their schooling and there is about the same number which constitutes a disaffected group. Whilst there have been substantive changes in schooling in Tai Tokerau in the period between the second and the third projects, many of the push-out factors which we had identified in 1988/9 seemed to persist-for example, the case of a disproportionate number of expulsions at one secondary school and the accompanying publicity given when Tino Rangatiratanga (Maori sovereignty movement) 'appeared on the scene'. The disaffected remain approximately the same and the effects of schooling for many Maori students would appear to be much the same.

116 M A R S H A L L AND P E T E R S

One of our aims was to develop the notion of teacher-as-researcher. This had started well in the first project but dissipated in the second and third projects. From the original whanau one teacher has subsequently completed a good Masters Degree, has taken up a Fulbright Scholarship to the United States and is planning Doctoral Study; a second studied in 1993 at the University of Waikato; a third has completed her formal teaching requirements at Auckland College of Education; another has spent time in the University of Auckland; and another applied for support to spend a year there but was not successful. The application to FORST for the third project emphasised the training of further Maori personnel but this was declined on the grounds that FORST purchased research and did not pay for training. The outcome for us is that after nearly six years and three projects there remains a paucity of trained researchers in education in Tai Tokerau. Perhaps, given the demands upon teachers in the very isolated regions of Tai Tokerau, this is too much to expect of them. Even if that is true the fact remains that Maori educators in the north rest with the problem of any research being done upon them, and not by them, for them. In our view any further research must be interventionist, and designed to change the outcomes for Maori of schooling, and not be of the data collection variety.

There are at least two broad liberal interpretations which can be given to this tale. First that it was a tail that wagged the donkey and the donkey didn't like it. At the outset the method of assessment in Tai Tokerau was attacked because it did not mesh with the norm referenced status of the school certificate examination. It was not merely inconvenient but lacked, in some minds, validity. It was of course achievement based and that has now become 'respectable'. But it took control away from Wellington, it was expensive, and made oral Maori a separate subject. The second project directly attacked the Department's and the schools' mono-cultural basis and openly used the term 'racism'. Not surprisingly it was opposed and repressed. Not surprisingly the Department was not interested in an interventionist phase. The suppression of that project and the subsequent move back to a standardised form of moderation for oral Maori can be interpreted as the donkey kicking back, and reasserting its mono-cultural history of schooling.

A second interpretation is that nothing as intentionally sinister as that occurred. True, the events occurred more or less as described, but they should be interpreted as a series of doing what was best at the time, or as a series of muddles, as restructuring occurring in times of fiscal crisis, and shifting responsibilities. There was no intention to detract from the mana and empowerment of Tai Tokerau teachers of Maori, and no intention to move from the spirit of the form of oral assessment. Schools are changing--indeed they are-


-but they are not intentionally racist and they do care about Maori pupils. There was no intention to move from the spirit of the form of oral assessment.

We hold no particular brief for either of these liberal interpretations. Instead we would see this tale as an application of the reason of state. Underlying the moves made above--both the intentional acts of agents of state agencies and the effects of structural moves--is the security of state, the fear of disintegration and separate development into two nations, with different languages and cultures (a problem which will grow exponentially as the many Pacific Islands groups make demands for their language, culture and education). What has been reasserted, the underlying power/knowledge, is an assimilationist concept of one nation, a united nation, with a dominant language and technology. In our view thishas been accentuated by the busnocratic technology driving State ideology (under both the former Labour administration and the present National administration).

The research projects that we have described above show strategies of curtailment and regional containment (for instance, of national implementation and of the original research design); and, of selective appropriation and treatment of research projects and the dissemination of their results. These institutional strategies form part of what we would like to call the 'governance of research', which may involve acts of governance at all stages of research from the prioritising of problems, their identification and description, through stages of the letting of the contract, the shaping of methodology, the entry of researchers to State institutions, and finally, the public release and dissemination of research results.

In particular, an observation which we can make on the strength of our involvement to date, is that governance of research takes place through the State's preference for some kinds of research over others. In Aotearoa in the 1990s we are still faced with the struggle over the legitimation of a kind of research which might be described as 'empowering'. The overwhelming emphasis of Ministry of Education research contracts are let to a form of research which is empirical and descriptive; to researchers who have been requested to submit research proposals which aim to evaluate and support government programs and policies. Much of this research is 'positivistic' in an old-fashioned sense: it is under-theorised and, under the pretence of neutrality, takes little responsibility for its findings. The governance of research, thus, in an important sense not only constructs 'problems', it also constructs 'research' and 'knowledge' of a particular kind.

Conclusion We started with two forms of citizenship, based upon social rights and property rights. If the interpretation of the educational reforms as moving to a fuller


been doubly disadvantaged. It is not just a question of resources and their ability to purchase commodities, for that is well enough documented, but also that they now, in a State education system are being forced to purchase a product, purporting to be their language and culture, but which is a false object, a masquerade, and which ultimately may not be in their best interests.

This continued 'attack' upon language and upon the ability of Maori to decide educational matters in the state system must also be seen as an attack upon the citizenship of the indigenous people. Language is closely intertwined with political rights and the ability to exercise those rights. The ability to define and exercise those fights has been further restricted, as the account of these research projects indicates, from 1987 when it seemed that the State was prepared to recognise certain rights in relation to language and education. But these have been withdrawn in the ensuing 'reforms'.

Thus research, language and culture continue to be governed by a form of reason of state. This particular form, well documented in the history of Maori and Maori education, can be seen to operate as power/knowledge in Foucault's sense in the thrust for governmentality.

References Burchell, Graham, Colin Gordon and Peter Miller (1991) (eds.) The Foucault

effect: Studies in governmentality, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Dreyfus, Hubert and Paul Rabinow (1983) Michel Foucault: Beyond

structuralism and hermeneutics, Chicago University Press, Chicago. Foucault Michel (1990) The care of the self: The history of sexuality, vol. III,

Penguin, Harmondsworth. Foucault, Michel (1977) Truth and power, in C. Gordon Power/Knowledge:

Selected interviews and other writings, pp. 109-133. Foucault, Michel (1979a) Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison, Vintage,

New York. Foucault, Michel (1979b) Governmentality, Ideology and consciousness, 7,

pp. 5-26. Foucault, Michel (1980) The history of sexuality, vol. I, Vintage, New York. Foucault, Michel (1985) The use of pleasure: The history of sexuality, vol. II,

Vintage, New York. Foucault, Michel (1986) Afterward: The subject and power, in Hubert Dreyfus

and Paul Rabinow, Michel Foucault: Beyond structuralism and hermeneutics, Harvester, Brighton.

Gordon, Colin (1980) Power/Knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, Pantheon, New York.


Marshall, James D. and Peters, Michael A. (1985) Evaluation and education: The ideal learning community, Policy Sciences, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 263-88.

Marshall, James, Peters, Michael and Smith, Graham (1991) The business roundtable and the privatisation of education, in Liz Gordon and John Codd (eds) (1991) Education policy and the changing role of the state, Delta Studies in Education, Palmerston.

Nozick, Robert (1978) Anarchy, state, utopia, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.

Peters, Michael A. and James D. Marshall (1993).Educational policy analysis and the 'politics of interpretation: The search for a well-defined problem, Evaluation Review, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 310-330.

Simon, Judith (1990) The place of schooling in Maori-Pakeha Relations, unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, The University of Auckland.

Stokes, E. (1985) Maori research and development, Discussion paper for the Social Sciences Committee of the National Research Advisory Council. Reprinted in The Issue of Research and Maori, Research Unit for Maori Education, Monograph No. 9, University of Auckland.

Strike, Kenneth (1982) Educational policy and the just society, University of Illinois Press, Urbana, Illinois.

Walzer, Michael (1986) Governmental rationality: An introduction, in Graham Burchell, Colin Gordon and Peter Miller (eds) (1991) The Foucault effect: Studies in governmentality, Chicago University Press, Chicago, pp. 1-52.

The Tai Tokerau research papers

Bibliography of Taitokerau projects and associated research papers Marshall, J. D. (1993) He Kaupapa Whakatikatika, Report to the Ministry of

Research, Science and Technology. Marshall, J. D. and M. A. Peters (1987) Te Reo 0 Te Tai Tokerau Project, Report

to Department of Education, 252 pp (including appendices). Marshall, J. D. and M. A. Peters (1989a) Te Reo O Te Tai Tokerau: A

community approach to the assessment and promotion of oral Mauri, Pacific Education, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 70-89.

Marshall, J. D. and M. A. Peters (1989b) Te Reo O Te Tai Tokerau: The assessment of oral Maori, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 499-514.

Marshall, J. D. and M. A. Peters (1990) Community and empowerment: Theory and practice in Tai Tokerau, in John Codd, Richard Harker and Roy Nash,


(eds.) Political Issues in New Zealand Education, Dunmore Press, Palmerston North, pp. 198-214.

Marshall, J. D. and M. A. Peters (1995) Doing research in Tai Tokerau: The politics of bi-cultural research, forthcoming in Wally Penetito, (ed.) High Quality Schooling and the Evaluation of Maori Learning, Education Review Office, Wellington.

Peters, M. A. and D. Para (1988a) Draft of guidelines for the assessment of oral Maori", with assistance from Te Tai Tokerau Assessment Whanau, Department of Education, Wellington.

Peters, M. A. and J. D. Marshall (1988b) Issues concerning the schooling and retention of Maori secondary school students in Tai Tokerau: A background research paper, Department of Education, Wellington.

Peters, M. A. and J. D. Marshall (1988c) Te Reo O Te Tai Tokerau: Community evaluation, empowerment and opportunities for oral Maori language reproduction, in Future Directions, vol. III, Part Two, Report of the Royal Commission on Social Policy, April, Government Printer, Wellington, pp. 703-704.

Peters, M. A. and J. D. Marshall (1989a) Nga Awangawanga Me Nga Wawato A Te Iwi 0 Te Tai Tokerau, (Final Report of the Project concerning Schooling and Retention of Maori Secondary Students in Tai Tokerau), Department of Education, Wellington, 156 pp.

Peters, M. A. and J. D. Marshall (1990) Institutionalised Racism and the 'Retention' of Maori Students in Northland, New Zealand Sociology, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 44-66.

Peters, M. A. and J. D. Marshall (1989b) Te Reo O Te Tai Tokerau: Language evaluation and empowerment, New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 141-157.

Peters, M. A., Paki Para and J. D. Marshall (1989c) Te Reo otTe Tai Tokerau: The need for consolidation and national implementation, Access, vol, 8, no. 1, pp. 10-25.

Peters, M. A. and J. D. Marshall (1988d) Empowerment and the ideal learning community, in Kath Wylie, (ed.) Proceedings of the First Research into Educational Policy Conference, N.Z.C.E.R., Wellington, 24.

Shaw, R. (1987) Techniques for the assessment of oral Maori, Department of Education, Wellington.

Documents

Governing educational research: A bicultural example