Page 1 of 7
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal – Vol. 8, No. 9
Publication Date: September 25, 2021
DOI:10.14738/assrj.89.10815. Ofanoa, M., Ofanoa, S., Buetow, S. (2021). Alea Ke Pau or Negotiated Evaluation: A Vital Concept in Pacific Health Promotion.
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 8(9). 200-206.
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
Alea Ke Pau or Negotiated Evaluation: A Vital Concept in Pacific
Health Promotion
Malakai Ofanoa
School of Population Health,
University o Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
Samuela Ofanoa
School of Population Health,
University o Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
Stephen Buetow
School of Population Health,
University o Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
ABSTRACT
For Pacific peoples, health promotion, community nursing and community
development initiative over many years, has often been conducted within a
framework of one-sided decision-making. There is always an imbalance between
the power relationships of the community being studied and those of the
researchers or health practitioners. As a result, there is lack of understanding on
the part of the researchers and the health funding agencies of the need to negotiate
processes with members of the community being studied or engaging with. All of
this are within an overarching lack of understanding of, and respect for, Pacific
cultural values, frameworks and Pacific ways of doing things. This paper seeks to
explore an alternative concept whereby these values are acknowledged. This
concept is metaphorically called “alea ke pau” (or, negotiated evaluation). This
approach is forward-looking and one that respects a ‘bottom-up’ view rather than
the traditional ‘top-down’ view of health work and funding agencies. However,
using two Pacific research methodologies called Talanga and Kakala, to explore the
concept of alea ke pau were held with five men’s focus groups operating within Kava
Clubs in Auckland, New Zealand, and five focus groups in Tonga. The results from
these discussions are presented demonstrating the development and application of
the “alea ke pau” or “negotiated evaluation” approach.
Key Words: Pasifika, Tasilisili, negotiated evaluation, community development, alea ke
pau, kava, toli, tui. luva
INTRODUCTION
Health promotion practice in the Pacific region has long struggled to meet the needs of Pacific
peoples (Ofanoa, 2016, 2017; Lavarack 2001). Contributing to this struggle are asymmetric
power relationships, one-sided decision-making, lack of trained human power, and
uncompromising negotiations. More fundamentally, most health promotion and community
Page 2 of 7
201
Ofanoa, M., Ofanoa, S., Buetow, S. (2021). Alea Ke Pau or Negotiated Evaluation: A Vital Concept in Pacific Health Promotion. Advances in Social
Sciences Research Journal, 8(9). 200-206.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.89.10815
nursing programs invoke western definitions, paradigms and ideologies without respecting
Pacific epistemologies and ontological values and frameworks.
Pacific people therefore need to use their own indigenous knowledge and experiences to
change the current model where outside agencies hold the power to a by Pacific for Pacific
projects and activities. “In this way, Pacific people and communities can participate actively and
early on any decision of indicators to use for evaluation of Pacific projects and programs. The
current system does not allow Pacific peoples to be involved because of their assumed low
economic status, low educational attainment and poverty. Hence, the outside agencies, and
even local stakeholders who control the cash always have the power and control over them.
However, there were Pacific health promotion models that have been developed, and
documented in the past decade. This include the Fonofale model (Pulotu-Endemann, 2002),
Fa’afaletui model (Tamasese et al., 1997), Tivaevae model Ma-Ua Hodges, 2000), Fonua model
(Tuitahi, 2007), Kakala model (Helu-Thaman, 1997) and the TONGAN model (Ofanoa, 2014).
These models clearly demonstrate that the Pacific view of health is based on Pacific cultural
values such as love, respect, trust, relationship and reciprocity. Despite these model
developments, having the “negotiated evaluation model” is needed alongside or in addition to
these, because none of the previous models addressed the local and international issues related
to the politics of funding systems and evaluation.
In view of the situation, this paper introduces a Tongan metaphor called “alea ke pau” or
“negotiated evaluation,” as a way forward to address Pacific people’s concerns. Pacific people
always perceived the negotiation table in health promotion and funding as always like the battle
between David and Goliath. Donor agencies use the language of health promotion and
empowerment to help themselves rather than the local communities. Hence, many funders tend
to prescribe what they want, they control and set their own agenda, and they lead according to
their own wishes. The recipients are powerless, disempowered, oppressed, and voiceless. Many
health promotion and community development projects in the Pacific region compare this
situation to the “snakes and ladders game” (Ofanoa, 2016).
METHODOLOGY
In order to provide evidence related to the concept of “alea ke pau or negotiated evaluation”,
two Pacific research methodologies called Kakala (Thaman,1997) and Talanga (Ofanoa, 2015)
were used to obtain information related to the concept. There were community consultations
held with five men’s focus groups operating within Kava Clubs in Auckland, New Zealand, and
five focus groups in Tonga. Each focus group consist of between 8 to 10 participants. The results
from these discussions are presented demonstrating the development and application of the
“alea ke pau” or “negotiated evaluation” approach.
The “Kakala research method” uses the three stages of making a kakala (or garland) to show
the different processes of undertaking research: toli (data collection), tui (analysis) and luva
(dissemination of the results). This method is useful in engaging Tongan men as it uses symbolic
language to explain what is happening (Thaman, 1992). It also respects Pacific cultures as its
symbolism aligns with the participant’s world views and experiences.
Page 3 of 7
202
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 8, Issue 9, September-2021
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
Talanga on the other hand, involves “interactive talking with a purpose” at the different stages
of the Kakala method. During the focus group discussions in Auckland and Tonga, the
researcher described the “negotiated evaluation” concept to the kava members and ask them
about their views of the concept and its application. In both settings, the members that
participated involved the president and secretary of each Kava club and five to six members
elected by each kava club.
FINDINGS
The following key themes related to the “alea ke pau or negotiated evaluation” emerged
strongly from the study in Auckland and Tonga.
HEALTH PROMOTION
The study revealed that Pacific people view health in holistic terms, meaning that it
encapsulates four specific dimensions of well-being: physical, mental, social and spiritual.
These dimensions interrelate with each other. Although the participants stated that, “it is
unrealistic for any human being to be fully healthy in all dimensions, the definition is viewed by
Pacific people to be used as a standard measurement of their lives and the way they live”.
When the word “promotion” was discussed, all groups in Tonga and New Zealand suggested
that promotion involves, “inspiring, helping, encouraging or enabling individual, couples,
villages and communities to do something to improve their lives”. The holistic view of health by
Pacific people has also demonstrated that distinctive cultural values underpin the ethos of
Pacific. For example, Pacific world views emphasize social relationships rather than
individualism.
A CULTURAL REVOLUTION
All groups in both Tonga and New Zealand perceived “alea ke pau”, as a Pacific cultural
revolution. They indicated that Pacific people should no longer continue to just listen and be
silent to everything, due to their cultural orientation. They should now respond and negotiate
interactively to take account of what they want rather than only what others want them to do.
Hence, negotiation should be “a consensual agreement between funders and recipients. It is not
an agreement based on force or imposition but based on a fair agreement process”. All
participants stated that these values need adhering to throughout the negotiation process,
which should also reflect Pacific cultural values.
The study also found that “alea ke pau”, is a forward-looking concept and technique for use in
the Pacific region. It should be used by every individual, group, community and country in the
Pacific during their day-to-day funding negotiations. Why? Because in many Pacific
communities, the government or other funding agencies control everything for their own
benefit. It is time to change those practices in democratic societies like New Zealand as well as
in Pacific countries because the current one-sided behaviours reflect badly at all levels. Group
1 and 3 in Tonga and group 2 and 3 in New Zealand indicated that:
“Whatever you guys can do... we the people and the villagers have suffered far too
long. We required appropriate inspiration.... based on using our own indigenous
knowledge and cultural values in project negotiation” ...We only involve late but
the decisions are always pre-determined.