AT

UA

MA

TU

AA t u a M a t u a

H e a l t h F r a m e w o r kU s i n g M ā o r i E n v i r o n m e n t a l K n o w l e d g e

t o I m p r o v e I n d i g e n o u s W e l l - b e i n g

I h i r a n g i H e k e

Copyright © Ihirangi HekeIntegrated Hauora Initiatives Limited

PAGE 4

A support document for exploring, gaining approval and initiating safe discovery of Taiao Māoriusing Ngā Tohutaka Taiao and the Atua Matua Well-being Framework.

ATUA MATUA 02

RĀ

RA

NG

IU

PO

KO

03 Kupu Whakataki

05 He Timatanga

06 Whakahāngai

08 Kaupapa Aro

10 AMHF Taumata

13 AMHF Table

20 AMHF Explanation

30 Whakarāpopoto

40 References

PUKA MAHI //02ATUA MATUA 03

Kia Ora rangatahi mā,

Nei rā te mihi maioha ki a koutou ngā kairangahau hou ki tēnei mohiotanga ara tehokinga mai o ngā mātauranga tawhitoatua. Kei roto i tenei pukamahi etahi tauirakaitiaki ma koutou hei whakaharatau.

Otira, nau mai, piki mai, kake mai, i te meaki te kore ko koutou, ka kore he ara hou motēnei kaupapa. Nā reira, kei roto i tēneipanui tautoko, ngā tauira, ngā mohiotanga,ngā tatai hononga o ngā ATUA ki a koutoungā MATUA. 

Mauri Ora!

DR IHIRANGI HEKE

WAIKATO / / TAINUI

Integrated Hauora Initiatives

Ihi Heke

KUPU WHAKATAKI

ATUA MATUA 04

HE TIMATANGA

INTRODUCTION

The Atua Matua Health Framework (AMHF) isa health system that uses traditional Māorienvironmental knowledge to understandhealth from an indigenous perspective andtherefore provides an alternative to the currentmainstream model for indigenous and non-indigenous recipients alike. The AMHF is alsoa conceptual structure from which teachers,health promoters, academics and otherindigenous populations can obtain workingexamples of culturally based models.

Previous Māori health models such as e.g.,Whare Tapa Wha, (Durie, 1988) Te Wheke(Pere, 1988) and Ngā Pou Mana, broadlyinformed the AMHF. Essentially, theproduction of the AMHF framework is aimedat providing a platform to assist greater localconnections underpinned by a Māori view ofhealth that offers an alternative to Westernindividually centered approaches. In large partthe reason for iwi-centric initiatives is toreinstate pre-European concepts of tribalnations with characteristics that mirror thespecific environments that they come from.

In many ways the work conducted by Graham& Linda Smith (1989; 1990), and RussellBishop (1996) challenged mainstreameducation hegemony for indigenous students,researchers and teachers, while also laying afoundation for research methodologies thatgave Māori some control over their knowledgedissemination. As with tribal groups wantingto connect to their own environments inhealth, similar processes are happening inresearch approaches too with many tribeswanting to know what ‘their tribal’ researchapproach is. The AMHF provides provenanceof examples of tribally centered approachesthat can be applied to not only health but alsoto research that values subjectivity with localvoices being heard and interventions beingbuilt that reflect local needs.

In this capacity, while the AMHF was firstproduced in 2014 it is not a process that is setin stone but one that is malleable in terms ofusers seeking a deeper understanding andconsequent utilisation of some of the AMHFconcepts.

ATUA MATUA 04

Lastly, and by way of introduction, the AMHFuses a parallel construct to a systemsapproach, i.e., whakapapa, recently introducedthrough an article on the topic (Heke, Rees,Waititi, Swinburn & Stewart, 2019). Thisapproach, in Māori terms, is known as aWhakapapa-based approach. Whakapapa hasfor the last several decades been used as aprocess that documents family connections.However whakapapa not only allows a list offamily connections but it can also showcausal links between the origin of a thoughtand the implementation of that process into acommunity.

Whakapapa can and should also be used as averb as well as a noun so that it allows Māorito engage with connecting to environmentalchange as part of a ‘bigger’ family connectionthat connects people to the environment e.g.,a coastal people with the ocean. Therefore,the AMHF is laid out in a whakapapa-basedorientation that begins with an explanation ofthe twelve philosophies or metaphors foraction that are obtained from the environment(Atua) and a consequent twelve that are theaction engaged through humans in thecommunities (Matua). This structure iscommon in Māori discussions of educationalattainment especially in regard to the pursuitof Nga kete wananga or baskets ofknowledge.

ATUA MATUA 05

I believe with regards to Atua Matua, it reminds us that we live in anintrinsic Māori world, underpinned by Māori paradigms of thinking.Therefore any teaching and learning must be imbued with equalspaces of Māori knowledge, as well as their non-Māoricounterparts/ Western ways of thinking. The Atua Matua HealthFramework refocuses Māoritanga (Māori concepts) at the core,does not ignore other views or values, but indeed invites holisticapproaches within the applied practices and protocols of thisspace, both Tākaro (Māori games) and Sport, Fitness, Recreation. 

Tamiaho Serancke (Māori Academic)

ATUA MATUA  06

ATUA MATUA HEALTH FRAMEWORK CASUAL LOOP DIAGRAM

The Casual Loop Diagram (CLD) above,designed by David Rees, shows aninterpretation of the AMHF. The AMHF hasbeen purposefully developed to showcase thevariety of potential pathways to understandingthe natural world through a Māori lens andhow that natural world can inform humanpractice. Also the AMHF is process-based withexamples provided but with the intent thatnew users will repopulate the framework withtheir own specific examples i.e., the lens thatthey see their world through as someoneshaped by their environment. In large part, theAMHF also provides an entry point for healthpromoters to explain Māori health with adifferent set of parameters. These parametershave been identified by the framework whilecontinuing to grow the practitionersknowledge of Māori views of the environmentand consequent connection to health.

Diagram developed by David Rees

Furthermore, the Atua Matua Maori HealthFramework encourages metacognition i.e.,thinking about where the origin of a particularway of engaging with a problem and howsolutions are produced, comes from. Thisprocess not only values the role of thewhakapapa of ideas but also improves thelikelihood of transferring ideas from onespace to another, also known as dynamiccapability. Importantly, the ability to decidewhat information is relevant to a communityas informed by the environment thatsurrounds them should be a highly soughtafter prospect if recruitment and sustainabilityare to be improved. In this capacity it shouldbe noted that to date health and physicalactivity have not been drivers for sustainedeffort from Māori communities.

The AMHF has ensured that the practitionercan enter the AMHF at any point and workeither upward or downward (and laterally)depending on their current level ofunderstanding of Māori knowledge i.e., thephilosophy of (atua) or applied practice(matua). See an example of the application ofAMHF using a lateral approach above.

A further purpose of the AMHF is to fosterinnovation in health education throughculturally relevant interpretations of Māoriinformation. As a contentious topic to some,there has also been a privileging of maleenvironmental information due to therecorders often being male, both as Māorihistorians or early European ethnographersand therefore including a dominance of malestories. In this capacity the Atua Matua MaoriHealth Framework is an attempt to refocusMāori on those aspects, both male andfemale, that have ensured successfuloutcomes as models for how to conductthemselves in contemporary situations. Afurther issue for some, has been theacceptance of the concept of ‘Atua’ as a non-religious concept.

As is the situation with Māori and non-Māorihistorians, religious inclinations were alsoinfluenced by male dominated viewsregarding what information was given priority.However, a significant difference existsbetween Te Atua and Ngā Atua where Te Atuamay be connected to God and other religiouscontent whereas Ngā Atua in the AMHF isconnected to Māori environmental scienceonly.

According to the well-knownMāori master carver, culturalexpert and ordained minister,the late Tukaki Waititi:

Ki ngā mihinare, he “God” te Atua,he “Lord” te Ariki i mua o tetaenga mai o nga mihinare meenei whakamarama mo aua kupu,he kaitiaki whai mana motuhakete atua, he rangatira matua mo teiwi te ariki. I enei wa, e tuki ananga whakaaro te nuinga o tatou ite kuare ko tehea, ko tehea.

To the missionaries, ‘atua’ meantgod and ‘ariki' meant lord.However, before the arrival ofmissionaries the definition forthese words was that atua wereguardians of environmentalknowledge and ariki was a wordto describe supreme triballeaders. These days most peopleare ignorant of which is which.

ATUA MATUA 05

Diagram developed by David Rees

WHAKAHĀNGAI

USING THE ATUA MATUA HEALTH FRAMEWORK

While a number of video examples can beobtained from the Mobile Wānanga with DrIhirangi Heke on Facebook or from the manyvideos on the Atua Matua You Tube channel, aself-assessment of one’s ‘Environmentalliteracy’ as a starting point is ideal. In essence,this process determines the entry point intothe AMHF. Often, the starting point is thedesire to develop some secondary skilldevelopment e.g., free diving. However, theAMHF can also engage with more higher levelmātauranga Māori e.g., providing a rationalefor how long an individual might dive forbased on a measurement of time that is learntthrough some other type of environmentalprocess e.g., the number of wave peaks thatpass between beginning the dive andsurfacing.

Another important aspect is the hierarchicalstructure of AMHF which places humans asthe benefactors of understanding traditionalenvironmental knowledge with knowledgebeing the primary driver i.e., humans arebenefactors and not the core concern of theframework. Atua Matua asks people toconsider various environments in terms of ourconnection to them i.e., tatai whakapapa andto consider that a hierarchy may exist in termsof environment first and people fast.

Bronfenbrenners Socio-Ecological model(1985) which places learners at the centreprovides a well known structure for an AMHFapproach but with the important differencebeing that the environment is at the centre.From this perspective AMHF placesMātauranga (Māori knowledge) first,Whakapapa (lineage) as a means to obtaintribal relevance, recruitment and sustainedeffort. Huahuatau (metaphor) as anopportunity to develop dynamic capability i.e.,the ability to learn from environmentalprocesses regardless of the content andreapply in other contexts andWhakatinanatanga (physical activity).Whakatinanatanga can also be exchangedwith whakahinengarotanga (psychologicalaction) or whakawairuatanga (spiritual action).And finally, Ngā Tohutaka which is abouttiming and the signs obtained from the trees,fish, birds, insects and weather patterns

Mātauranga Māori is interpreted through thefirst twelve atua connected concepts while thewhakapapa, huahuatau, whakatinanatangaand tohutaka are linked to various expressionsand interpretations within the Matua arm ofAMHF. I expand on the Atua Matua HealthFramework dimensions on the page following.

ATUA MATUA 04

ATUA MATUA 04

Mātauranga Māori is the key, over arching principle that allows access toknowledge from different environments e.g., high alpine, sub-alpine, mountainranges, rivers, forests, plains, coastal shores, oceans, even urban environment.

Whakapapa allows a contextual relevance between a specific environment andthe people from that location. More specifically whakapapa is not just a list ofnames but a methodology for interpreting connections between environment toenvironment, environment to people and people to people. For example – if weare paddling a waka in waitai (salt water) and move into waimāori (fresh water),we paddle differently because of a change in water characteristics i.e., a changein ‘atua’ connected to that water.

Huahuatau is about what we learn because of Taiao, what experiences we gain inapplying knowledge of whakapapa or kōrero in a particular environment. This isreferred to as dynamic capability. Dynamic capability is achieved when capacitybuilding is converted into applied outcomes in a wide range of areas e.g., what Ilearn in the ocean can teach humility in a person as the ocean is the dominantfeature, hydrodynamics in terms of universal physics and time management interms of wave speed being used to measure sprinting in preparation for sport.

Whakatīnanatanga is the action phase. The intensity, the volume, and themedium through which an activity is carried out. In terms of mitigation of risk ormore preferably, emphasis of potential, this domain is where the majority ofaction/interventions take place. Contrary to current well-being processes thatstart with interventions at a person-centered level, in an Atua Matua approach,person related interventions come much later.

Ngā Tohutaka is concerned with the timing of when the activities are conductedi.e., signs obtained from trees, fish, birds, insects and weather patterns. Out ofinterest this approach is being used to take groups of 8-10 individuals intodifferent taiao over a 3-4 day period utilising waka, mountain bikes, trail running,swimming and alpine experiences to help them understand how best to engagewith taiao whakapapa safely and with maximum intended outcomes.

KAUPAPA ARO

ATUA MATUA 04

MĀTAURANGAMĀORI

Te mātaurangaMāori kei te whāiai te

taiao

HUAHUATAU

Ngā akongataiao

WHAKAPAPA

Ngā honongaatua ki ngā taiao

WHAKATINANATANGA

Ngā torohanga taiao

TOHUTAKA

Ngā tohu o te taiao

ATUA

Mātauranga taiao

MATUA

Tā te iwi kawe ite mātauranga

ATUA MATUA CONCEPTUAL DIAGRAM

This conceptual diagram above provides an overview of the dimensions mentioned previously.

It should also be noted that there is not a move from general to specific and that the linearnature of the AMHF table is not indicative of the lateral capacity of a whakapapa approach asseen in the conceptual diagram above.

Atua celestial, oceanographic & terrestrial connectionsAtua as personificationsAtua as guardiansAtua male formsAtua female formsAtua multiple forms of TāneAtua disputes as social commentaries - Ngā Pakanga AtuaAtua as tribal variationsAtua to tipuaAtua to kaitiakiAtua form in Māui, Tāwhaki, Rata, TikiAtua expressions through a cultural lens

Matua interpretations of maramatakaMatua interpretations of whakatauki, haka, waiata, karakia etcMatua connections to an environmentMatua interpretations of timeframesMatua interpretations of processMatua connections to tinana, wairua, hinengaroMatua specialist training for a specific domainMatua environmental skill acquisitionMatua regional specialistMatua variation at a family levelMatua differences at a gender levelMatua as an individual

The framework outlines 12 Atua - environmental philosophies and metaphors foraction as well as 12 Matua - human expressions of knowledge obtained from theenvironment. Below outlines the hierarchical structure and various levels:

ATUA

1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.

10.11.12.

MATUA

1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.

10.11.12.

ATUA MATUA  06

AMHF TAUMATA

ATUA MATUA  06

AMHF TABLEThe table below expresses the AMHF in two columns. Atua or environmental knowledge in thefirst left sided column and Matua or human expressions of knowledge obtained from theenvironment in the second column. The atua are only loosely related in terms of ranking basedon birth hierarchy, whereas the second right handed column is concerned with applied actionsthat move from complex, large group numbers to single individuals.

ATUA MATUA

i h i . heke@x t r a . co .nz

D r I h i r a n g i H e k e

F o r m o r e i n f o r m a t i o n