Western methodological thought, traditionally anchored in individualism from the perspective of Descartes’ “I think therefore I am,” contrasts sharply with the collectivist values of other cultural paradigms (Friston 2016; Gergen and Gergen 2003). The discourse around the African philosophy of Ubuntu, translated as “I am because we are,” asserts that the individual’s existence and knowledge are contingent upon relationships with others (Battle 2009). This aligns with the concept of “double consciousness,” as described by W.E.B. Du Bois, which refers to the experience of black Americans feeling a sense of “two-ness” in their soul, thoughts, and perceptions. This term articulates the internal conflict of navigating a bicultural framework relating to identity, primarily from an individual perspective (Ladson-Billings 2003).

In Aotearoa, the interaction between a Western worldview and Te Ao Māori within a decolonization framework calls for a pluriversal approach that acknowledges the legitimacy and richness of diverse epistemic, ethical, and political thinking and practice from both worldview perspectives. Grosfuguel’s advocacy for a pluriversal world instead of a singular universal design reflects a critical dialogue essential for honouring both Tangata Whenua and Tangata Tiriti perspectives (Jaramillo and McLaren 2008). This indigenous challenge to universalism, powerfully rooted in the colonization discourse, critiques the Western worldview for its historical tendency to segment knowledge and relegate non-Western epistemologies to “myth,” a category deemed irrational by thinkers like Habermas (Mutu (Ngāti Kahu) 2019).

Acknowledging Te Ao Māori and challenging Western universalism underscores the importance of engaging with the complexities of knowledge creation and understanding from both worldview perspectives, not just one. The shift towards a more inclusive and relational approach in both research and public life emphasizes not only the interconnectedness of body, mind, and spirit but also the multiple interconnections across the wider natural world. Such an approach offers a holistic perspective that transcends the transactional segmentation of Western thought, promoting a comprehensive view that includes Te Ao Māori in a way that avoids “problematizing the indigenous” or assimilation (Aluli-Meyer 2008; Wilber 1983; 1995; Smith 1999). As Aotearoa moves towards a post-colonial environment, effective engagement between Tangata Tiriti and Tangata Whenua worldviews will be needed. Successful engagement will require support from a broad and well-defined analytical framework based on Te Tiriti o Waitangi that respects the rich diversity and historical experiences of people in both communities.

Te Tiriti o Waitangi Relationships Framework encourages dialogue across significant worldview differences, fostering a meaningful basis for developing change that respects worldview differences that arise when the Western tradition and Te Ao Māori engage each other. Such an approach is necessarily collaborative and essential for tackling contemporary challenges across communities to ensure the sustainability of agreed change action.

In Aotearoa, over the last forty years, our track record for dealing with worldview differences when deciding how we will manage community governance has been shaped by the colonization agenda and academic critique/challenge from a Māori perspective where Te Ao Māori is not operating on its own terms. This is likely because the methods of analysis, decision-making, and implementation of change require change. The work of the Waitangi Tribunal (Came, Sullivan, and Kidd 2020), notwithstanding that it is a Crown agency marked the beginning of an iterative change process that has enabled us to progressively develop our understanding of a different type of methodology (Figure 1).

(A) Two-worldview behavioural application Tangāta Whenua and Tangāta Tiriti Values relationship framework and (B) Methodology of development and change

The work of the Waitangi Tribunal has, from 1975, raised the level of awareness of Tangata Tiriti to the possibility that there might be another way of looking at the world rather than through a Western lens. The effect of expanding, in 1985, the scope of the Tribunal’s enquiries back to 1840 has expanded our collective understanding of the history of Aotearoa, and particularly our cultural history. That this process was iterative does not lessen its value as an approach to dealing with this type of change. A careful reading of the many reports of the Waitangi Tribunal illustrates the progressive workings of a different methodology that, we believe, has the potential to deliver better change actions than a methodology driven predominantly by a Crown worldview.

Understanding the journey since 1840 differs from comprehending the direction forward. The tensions between Articles 1 and 2 of Te Tiriti o Waitangi highlight two key points: first, the different worldviews of Tangata Whenua and the Crown are in the 1840 document; second, these tensions are not to be “resolved” or the Articles rewritten. Recent developments, such as the introduction of the Treaty Principles Bill by ACT Party leader David Seymour, have intensified these discussions. The bill aims to redefine the Treaty’s principles, sparking significant debate and public protests, including a notable haka led by Māori MPs in Parliament (Seymour 2024). These events underscore the relevance and complexity of interpreting Te Tiriti in contemporary Aotearoa.

To continue to honour Te Tiriti as the nation’s founding document, we must develop robust mechanisms that respect and advance the interests of both parties, embracing the inherent tensions as integral to the partnership it establishes. A relational framework based on Te Tiriti o Waitangi can help us undertake change that is relevant, respectful, and sustainable. We propose a relationship framework that focuses on driving change but acknowledges the need for prior learning. A Tiriti/Treaty two-worldview approach builds on understanding worldview differences and facilitates analysis beyond mere critique. It begins by engaging both worldviews to foster mutual understanding. Learning and development processes must be tailored to the specific group involved, with adjustments in design and direction that suit the context (Figure 1A) (Smith 1999).

The proposed methodology guides movement across six continuum points, balancing learning with action (Figure 1B). Each step assumes competence at prior levels (Freire 1996). Both parties introduce their worldviews, and after thoroughly discussing how each value under consideration is applied to the issue at hand, they can attempt to look at the question of change because both sides will have a shared understanding of what they are dealing with. The shared application of values to the issue at hand will be crafted in such a way as to ensure the integrity of each worldview, especially Te Ao Māori (Royal 2002). This is broadly the process of engaging a Tiriti/Treaty two-worldview in the workplace or the community with the support of an appropriate methodology.

This practical approach bridges cultural theory and application, embracing dialogue between Tangata Whenua and Tangata Tiriti perspectives. It focuses on the behavioural application of values to facilitate the creation of a shared commitment to making changes that strengthen the Tiriti relationship, not weaken it.