THE DISCIPLINE OF SOCIAL POLICY AND BICULTURALISM(1).

An attempt to reform the university without attending to the system of which it is an integral part is like trying to do urban renewal in New York city from the twentieth storey up. (Illich 1973:44)

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this paper is to explore aspects of the academic discipline of social policy, asking critical questions about its assumptions and origins. In particular, it explores the extent to which social policy reflects dominant belief systems and the implications of this for ethnicity and culture. Social policy is not alone; a number of academic disciplines have recently undergone their own "cultural audit". Anthropology has revisited its anthropological "gaze", while the revisionist challenge in history has unmasked the subject as something always written by the victor to the detriment of the vanquished. Similarly, the discipline of economics has been critiqued for building on particular assumptions of what constitutes rational economic man (sic), while education according to the "Colonial School", rather than liberating, has been destructive of "native" society and beliefs. The privileged position of such academic disciplines and the knowledge they produce has been considered a form of cultural and intellectual imperialism, helping to cement dominant power relations.

In exploring the foundations of social policy, the paper illustrates how its methods and subject matter "mask" whiteness, and how this may present barriers to exploring biculturalism. The paper discusses five positions or stances that may be taken to social policy analysis within New Zealand: monoculturalism; multiculturalism; focusing on the Treaty; sloganising; and problematising paradigms. It suggests that making these positions transparent is a useful starting point when seeking to understand the relationship between social policy and biculturalism.

Background

This paper arises from the author having relocated to an academic social policy department within New Zealand, having previously undertaken empirical policy research for government departments, international organisations and non-statutory funding bodies within the UK. Once in post, discussions with colleagues encouraged a reconsideration of the fundamental premises of social policy that had been carried as intellectual baggage. Such dialogues clarified the positions that may be taken towards social policy analysis and biculturalism within New Zealand. These positions are tools of analysis to assist in the exploration and unpacking of social policy, rather than reflections on contemporary policy approaches.

THE DISCIPLINE OF SOCIAL POLICY

The roots of social policy and social work lie in the Fabian reformist, social administrative tradition of the early twentieth century. As an area of inquiry or discipline(2) it borrows from a range of disciplines, principally political science, economics, sociology, public administration and anthropology(3) (Marsh 1965, Brown 1969).

This hybrid of social administration is influenced by a range of ideas about the nature of knowledge, the process of social change, and ideas about policy making and democracy. At an epistemological level, social administrative approaches to policy studies hold that institutions could be reformed to good effect if we knew the "facts" and could present evidence about current ways of doing things. Incremental change will result once policy makers are aware of empirical evidence, and institutions will gradually evolve.

Social administration adopts a rational approach to problem solving, with social problems typically viewed as having an objective existence. Thus, problems exist, are identifiable, and are open to amelioration and alleviation (Marsh 1965, Brown 1969). As Brown writes: "social administration is concerned with social problems and [second] it is concerned with the ways in which society responds to those problems" (p.13). Absent from the social administration perspective are later critiques that suggest problems are social constructions which are created and exacerbated by societal influences and pressures (Holstein and Miller 1993, Sarbin and Kitsuse 1994).

The social administrative approach frequently blurs the distinction between descriptive and normative approaches to policy making, and there is a corresponding belief (or even faith) that change will, and should, occur once evidence is assembled. Intervention is perceived to be both desirable and achievable, and social democratic ideas are influential. Social administration had its heyday in the 1950s and 1960s and this optimism was indicative of the post-war period of increasing public expenditure, welfare state expansion, economic growth and full employment. These were halcyon days indeed, and progress appeared so significant in the Western world that some commentators hailed the "end of ideology" (Bell 1962).

Accompanying these changes was the post-war revolution in social science research methods, particularly the development of the social survey, statistical methods and improvements in computer capacity. Social science research and investigation took place within a positivistic tradition of objective scientific investigation, with the emphasis on identifying and measuring the extent of "problems".

Areas of Inquiry

Social administration inquiry centred on discreet institutions of the post-war welfare state: the health services, education, income security, social services and housing. Welfare state institutions were seen as synonymous with social administration, and the achievement of well-being was equated with access to a range of services. Hence, institutions and pieces of legislation were described and documented, their implementation difficulties and deficiencies noted, and changes suggested.

Social administration is paternalistic in its view of policy and citizens; power is seen as formal, institutional, and top-down, with decisions taken by a benign government attempting to rectify the socio-economically disadvantaged circumstances of individuals and groups. Social administration may be considered a-theoretical or even anti-theoretical in its perspective, lacking analytical rigour and attempting to merely reduce symptoms of problems while ignoring causes.

This is an overly pessimistic picture that ignores much that is of value within social administration; for example, its problem-solving approach and concern with real world issues. However, as a construction none of the assumptions of social administration should escape critical scrutiny.

From Social Administration to Social Policy

During the later 1960s and early 1970s social administration became influenced by a range of alternative approaches (cf. Atkin 1996), particularly the structural influences of Marxist and feminist writers. Policy intervention was deemed to have failed, for despite the rhetoric of the welfare state, poverty and inequality remained high.

Theoretical writings sought to give social administration a more explanatory focus and move away from pathologising the failure of individuals and groups. These theoretical approaches eschewed piecemeal reform as merely alleviating symptoms without eliminating root causes. Instead, systems-level analysis explored structural and institutional sources of disadvantage. This occurred in a range of spheres: class (Ginsburg 1979, Gough 1979), gender (Finch and Groves 1983, Pascall 1986), race (Rex 1973, Cohen et al. 1982), and later, age (Walker 1980, Phillipson 1982 and 1986), and disability (Oliver 1990, Morris 1991). These structural analyses (i.e. class, race, gender) had major impacts on social administration, with it making the change in name (if not completely in perspective) to social policy. Social policy analysis developed various mixes of theoretical and empirical analysis, which still encouraged accusations that approaches were either atheoretical and lacking explanatory power, or absolving responsibility for dealing with real issues and improving conditions. This (perhaps healthy) tension is maintained in contemporary social policy debates.

DIASPORA, SOCIAL POLICY, AND NEW ZEALAND

There have been few distinctly New Zealand approaches to social policy analysis. Instead debates have mirrored those occurring within the "motherland", a legacy that has implications far wider than social policy. As Jesson (1997) argues:

   New Zealand's colonial origins have [also] meant that thought in this
   country is derivative. For several generations New Zealand's educational
   institutions borrowed their courses from Britain and barely studied their
   own society at all. (p. 11)

There is a strong intellectual inheritance from British social policy. New Zealand has been influenced, first by empirical ideas, later by more structural analysis and the various mixes therein. There are interesting points to be made about the development of social administration and social policy within New Zealand. First is the belief that policy, social policy and welfare only originated with the settlement of New Zealand in 1840 (see for example, Elworthy 1986, Kunowski 1988). A second, related, point is the assumption that social welfare is solely about central government and private charitable trusts (Kunowski 1988). Hence, Kunowski particularly discusses the development of voluntary responses to social problems of the 1880s and liberal state response in 1890s to industrial relations and old age pensions. Third, social administration retained a focus on the traditional institutions of income maintenance, health, education, welfare, and housing (for example, Oram 1969).

Underpinning these points about the development of social policy in New Zealand is the dominance of Western theoretical ideas and policy models. These ideas and influences have been absorbed into the foundations of social administration and social policy within New Zealand. Considering academic disciplines more widely, Smith (1997) makes the crucial point:

   the idea of disciplines and fields of knowledge.... are deeply implicated
   in each other and share genealogical foundations in various classical and
   Enlightenment philosophies. Most of the "traditional" disciplines are
   grounded in cultural world-views which are either antagonistic to other
   belief systems or have no methodology for dealing with other knowledge
   systems. Underpinning all of what is taught at universities is the belief
   in the concept of science as the all-embracing method for gaining an
   understanding of the world. (p. 191)

Within an organisational context there is a commitment to biculturalism. The challenge, however, is to understand the translation of this macro statement of intent into particular organisational systems and practices. Any commitment becomes overshadowed by the greyness of the definition and the consequences of lack of clarity for individual expectations. The concept of biculturalism appears to be "essentially contested". According to one definition it is "the co-existence of two distinct cultures, Maori and Pakeha within New Zealand society with the values and traditions of both cultures reflected in society's customs, laws, practice, and institutional arrangements, and with both sharing control over resources and decision making" (O'Reilly and Wood 1991:321).

However, as Earle (1995) notes, the sharing is frequently presented (or reconstituted) in terms of "social and cultural partnership", with political connotations absent. For example, as a vehicle for autonomy, biculturalism might be seen as having outlived its usefulness. The retention of the notion within everyday policy parlance might be seen as something that supports a particular set of dominant power relations and structures. Hence, even the term biculturalism itself is a problematic starting point. Nevertheless, the term is utilised by the author because he believes it has particular value in enabling him to explore dominant assumptions and paradigms.

Below are five caricatured approaches to social policy analysis with respect to New Zealand and biculturalism. Each position highlights particular key assumptions that distinguish it from other positions. However, it is important to clarify the intended status of these "positions". As an approach the author draws upon the writings of Sandra Harding (1998), who explores the relationship of multiculturalism and science. Prior to developing her stimulating and fruitful analysis she warns readers:

   The categories and concepts invoked here have been proposed not to "name"
   reality in some authoritative manner but, rather as strategic ones to be
   valued for their usefulness in enabling us to think about aspects of
   cultures ... that would otherwise be hard to detect or articulate. (p.189)

Thus, the positions should be evaluated for their usefulness in enabling us to clarify and critically question the nature of social policy and biculturalism, particularly their usefulness in helping us explore issues in an innovative way.

POSITION ONE: "INVISIBILITY"

The first position is that of invisibility, perhaps better understood as monoculturalism. It involves viewing policy and welfare institutions with one set of dominant ideas, which are usually rooted in Western Enlightenment traditions of progress, scientific knowledge, individuality, and rationality. Other cultures outside of this mainstream are not addressed and ethnicity is rendered invisible (Earle 1995). Within social policy analysis this approach lends itself to there being one way to teach, research and practice, and the Enlightenment project reassures us this is the "right" way.

As an example, within New Zealand social policy we utilise concepts, approaches and tools similar to those adopted in the UK, Australia and the USA. These imported tools, concepts and approaches mask ethnicity and are squarely within the social administrative tradition, particularly drawing upon "objective" social-scientific approaches influenced by public administration and classical economics. Hence, we import analytical tools within fields of health (perhaps using Quality Adjusted Life Years), and within social security administration (for example, discussions around absolute and relative poverty).

Monoculturalism enables a university course on policy making to be taught across countries using similar concepts including rational policy making, incrementalism, insider and outsider pressure groups, implementation gaps, and state-centred pluralism. Similarly, within research methods we teach qualitative and quantitative methods as the only ways of assembling authentic knowledge. Our teaching uses authoritative texts, and curricula are seen to have transferability because nations share the same contemporary challenges. This is frequently reinforced by an emphasis on globalisation and how it encourages common responses, for example, the splitting of purchaser and provider functions within welfare agencies, and the growth of quasi-markets. Globalisation would seem to result in the importation of new academic concepts.

The transferability of ideas to New Zealand is attractive because it enables a relatively small population to gain access to wider intellectual resources: ideas, literature, guest speakers and the products of research. The argument is not that overseas ideas are without applicability -- splitting of the purchaser and provider functions and quasi-markets, for example, do have analytical currency that may be cashed within New Zealand. However, using these concepts may make invisible other important issues and approaches that should be a constituent of social policy analysis within New Zealand. Consequently, rather than encouraging intellectual isolationism or assimilationism, instead we must scrutinise the content of perceived universal ideas. Failure to do so may mask ethnicity and ignore biculturalism. In focusing solely on institutions and policy implementation, ethnicity is not seen as part of "real" social policy analysis. The approach is rooted in the social administrative tradition of ignoring some issues because they do not fit with existing tools of analysis.(4)

POSITION TWO: "MULTICULTURAL VISIBILITY"

The second position is termed multicultural visibility. It is social policy analysis that recognises the existence of groups and the variable influence of policies upon them. Donald and Rattansi (1992:2) argue how multiculturalism has the benefit of allowing "different communities, and their claims over their members to be acknowledged and valued with a new, official respect".

Multiculturalism may be defined as equality of opportunity in social and economic spheres, together with respect for the right of communities to manage domestic and communal affairs (Rex 1986). Commenting on the New Zealand scene, Mulgan (1993) notes that multiculturalism is an off-shoot of democratic principles. It is a policy on the part of governments rather than simply a description of the existence of general cultures, and does not involve sharing control. Indeed multiculturalism makes certain assumptions about the location of public and private boundaries. Consequently, multiculturalism cannot be understood without reference to power structures.

Whereas the position of invisibility focused on describing institutions and policies while ignoring ethnicity, multiculturalism does identify different groups and a range of indicators developed for spheres including health, education, income and social welfare.

Using the medium of statistics we may examine how policies systematically disadvantage some populations, highlighting relative positions of Maori, Pakeha, Pacific peoples, and other groups. The focus on a range of groups encourages the identification of diversity within multicultural society. Analysis within this vein has moved from explaining differences by reference to individual faults and pathologising failure, to seeing disadvantage as being structural.

Multicultural analysis is theoretically and empirically stronger than monoculturalism. However, multicultural analysis is constituted under a certain hegemony and within the framework of cultural pluralism. Within a multicultural society the celebration of diversity is focused on, "superficial manifestations of culture, [therefore] multiculturalism failed to address the continuing hierarchies of power and legitimacy that still existed among these different centres of cultural authority" (Donald and Rattansi 1992:2, original emphasis).

The focus on culture limits the usefulness of multiculturalism in helping us to understand power and political relationships. It is problematic to view the relationship between ethnically distinct minorities and majority white society in terms of cultural practice (Earle 1995). There is a belief that overcoming the linguistic and cultural barriers that cause misunderstanding will result in more sensitive and responsive services (Ahmad and Atkin 1996). This presents dominant "white culture" as the norm and ignores political, economic and social power relations (Earle 1995).

A limitation of multicultural analysis is that it does not accord any status or recognition to tangata whenua as Treaty partners. Many groups are identified in this soup of diversity. When translated into the New Zealand context, Maori are viewed as just another structural way of viewing the state, or approach to social research. The multicultural approach may also have the consequence of encouraging a fragmented understanding of culture and ethnicity: for example, within Maoridom, focusing on urban versus rural Maori, gender differences, and old versus young, in analysing statistical data.

There is a more fundamental way in which multicultural analysis fragments Maori issues, in its attempt to locate Maori "problems", dilemmas and issues within a distinctively western policy framework that makes particular assumptions about values and institutions. In discussing Maori issues and problems, new institutions and programmes may be developed, but such developments are placed within a dominant state framework which defines the boundaries and operation of these institutions. Moreover, we use traditional tools and accepted ways of social policy analysis to make sense of these developments and initiatives, including, for example, techniques for researching and evaluating outcomes.

There may be some tentative steps to expand these tools of social policy analysis; thus we might have a more in-depth discussion and understanding of the place of hui in decision taking, or the development of research methods that are distinctly Maori. Hence, these are attempts to challenge and move beyond the existing framework of social policy analysis. However, at best these developments supplement or enhance the dominant way of viewing the world and mainstream approaches to policy. Thus attempts to sensitise, improve and fine-tune service delivery will result in bicultural social policy being about training staff, service delivery and interviewer matching within research situations. At its most caricatured, bicultural policy is learning how Maori once lived, ate and drank. It is seemingly concerned with piecing together fragments about cultures other than our own and using these to improve service delivery within the existing framework.

A focus on culturally sensitive services encourages a case study approach and identification of particular initiatives: iwi social services, kohanga reo, Maori mental health services, and fisheries. As case studies, their background, development and implications are discussed and sometimes all are subsumed under the notion of Maori development. These case studies are seen as exemplars of bicultural social policy.

POSITION THREE: "ENTER THE TREATY"

A more distinctive New Zealand approach to social policy analysis incorporates the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi. Although this position may overlap with discussions of monoculturalism or multiculturalism, there is a clear emphasis on the significance of the Treaty of Waitangi between iwi and Crown providing for the settlement of New Zealand. Within social policy studies, the Treaty is introduced into the debate and Treaty debate focuses on three principles: participation, partnership and protection (cf. Cheyne et al. 1996:51). This agreement is used as a starting point to foster a particular type of debate. These principles are mentioned in every tertiary course, research project or publication. Thus, typically, "doing" the Treaty entails highlighting the principles and affirming that the course, research or practice will be consistent with those principles. Taking this position as a caricature, every course or piece of research comes "Treaty approved" so long as it discusses the Treaty at some point. In this appendage, regardless of whether it is the opening or closing statement, the Treaty remains something grafted on. Mentioning the Treaty and its principles identifies the content as being culturally safe.

Because there is contestation as to what the Treaty "means", discussions frequently centre on differences between Maori and English interpretations of the documents, often developing into a legal journey around what terms really meant, and who was proficient in which languages. The document may be subject to interpretations by prominent historians, or alternatively particular Maori expert (re)presentations which are said to include distortions and selective inclusions. Thus the Treaty is viewed in a historical discourse and presented as a slice of history, albeit a very significant slice.

The Treaty of Waitangi is clearly pivotal. However, focusing on the Treaty itself detracts attention from mapping out the implications of what the Treaty means for policy and practice. The place of the Treaty cannot be denied as the beginning of the contemporary state, but Treaty discussions should be a starting point for exploring biculturalism rather than the journey itself. Introducing the Treaty should be used to open rather than to curtail debate or produce a journey into litigation (Barrett and Connolly-Stone 1998). Particularly, what does a commitment to the Treaty entail in any particular context or circumstance? What is missing is a reading of the Treaty that makes it a symbol of contestation and debate rather than the symbol of biculturalism itself.

POSITION FOUR: "SLOGANISING"

The approach that is termed sloganising overlaps with earlier positions, but introduces something distinctively rhetorical to social policy debates. We can consider two types of sloganising. The first type is social policy debate and discussion spiced up with lavish sprinkling of Maori words, and which involves using brackets, backslashes and italics within the text. Thus, in a course on policy making we might talk about decisions being taken at meetings (hui), or we might explore the impact of government-level policies for families/whanau.

This type of sloganising adds words, but creates vocabulary without meaning and embeddedness. The substantial policy areas and the concepts with which we are working remain unchallenged. Perhaps this piecemeal sprinkling of terms is a shorthand way of flagging the dual traditions that exist within the now distinctly "New Zealand way" of doing things? In academic and social policy circles these words are used, at their most caricatured, as a cosmetic, politically correct checklist -- a glossary from aroha through to (whanau). However, although we may use these PC words, we do not necessarily challenge the fundamental values or assumptions we bring to the discipline. We are still working with entrenched ways of viewing policy, research, health, well-being and a whole range of social policy concepts and ideas, except that they are conveniently packaged with a particular terminology.

A second type of sloganising comes in the (re)presentation of the "Maori renaissance" within social policy discussion. Attention is focused on the rise of Maori and their voice and visibility within policy debates. Certain events symbolise the renaissance -- "symbolic evocations" include the Land Marches, the history of the Maori Battalion, the occupation of Bastion Point, the Auckland University haka incident, and opposition to the Springbok Tour. These events of the 1970s and early 1980s become symbolic (re)presentations and rallying calls. Although not denying the significance and importance of these events, one is left wondering what they mean for biculturalism. Mentioning them within policy discussions may serve to mythologise and detract from critical exploration of issues and strategies.

The rise or renaissance can be used as a (re)presentation of a particular point in time. Policy debates can have parts of the Maori renaissance fitted into them, whether it be around developments in health, education or child welfare. Frequently this position finds expression in the presentation of Maori as a pressure group -- albeit an increasingly key one in policy debates within Aotearoa/ New Zealand. Or do we mean policy debates within New Zealand? By introducing Aotearoa are we ourselves guilty of the first type of "sloganising"?

POSITION FIVE: THE PROBLEMATIC PARADIGM OF SOCIAL POLICY

Another approach to social policy analysis adopts a more critical stance to the social policy framework itself. Instead of beginning with the premise of existing institutions and then branching into social policy analysis, it abandons the dominant paradigm and explores and gives weight to alternative approaches. This re-examination involves questioning the epistemological basis of disciplines, critiquing values, assumptions and methods used in policy analysis. Examining the construction of social policy knowledge helps us to explore alternative ways of legitimising knowledge.

This approach may recognise the existence of competing sets of knowledge and values, and develop curriculum and policies that do not seek to legitimise one sort at the expense of another. In academic terms it means accepting space for different sorts of knowledge, that have their own validation procedures. At the most fundamental level this position might question constructions such as "policy", "research", and "welfare", perhaps exploring the extent to which they are colonial constructions and useless ways of making sense of Maoridom.

This position challenges the building blocks of social policy analysis, rooted as they are in the Enlightenment tradition of science, knowledge, rationality and progress. In terms of social policy concepts, notions such as family, individuality, collectivism, and the distinction between public and private space are revisited, contested and reconstituted. It is possible to situate this more fundamental challenge within wider theoretical debates around postmodernism, which can "best be defined as European culture's awareness that it is no longer the unquestioned and dominant culture of the world" (Young 1990). Within New Zealand this deconstruction is part of the more fundamental project of decolonisation, which is an intellectual activity (how we think about our world), as well as how we act upon and change it. These new types of spaces for discussion might allow new kinds of questions to be asked and new kinds of futures articulated.(5) Clearly, the agenda of indigenous peoples is not only to maintain cultural independence within the sovereign state and resist assimilation, but also to challenge the legitimacy of that state and that majority culture (Mulgan 1993). Thus, this position must be situated within discussions around the place of indigenous knowledge, sovereignty and control.

DISCUSSION

The five positions presented here are caricatures, thumbnail sketches intended to simplify before we can make more substantial theoretical and practical progress in examining the discipline of social policy and its implications for both policy and practice in bicultural society. These positions are developed as analytic tools rather than constituting a body of analysis in themselves.

The paper explores issues from the perspective of a Western academic, one whose background and positioning are clearly signposted within the text. The discussion is one contribution to the bicultural debate, and does not purport to offer any definitive proclamation around what biculturalism is or is not. Moreover, there is an awareness that other debates around biculturalism are not conditional upon what occurs within academic circles, and we must remain alert to the dangers of colonising such transitional and permanent spaces. For example, how do such analytical positions and academic knowledge fit with debates around courses of Maori development within existing curriculum, departments of Maori studies within established universities, the establishment of Maori Universities within the tertiary system, and the place of marae knowledge vis-a-vis other forms of knowledge? It is not possible to resolve these debates as they are part of ongoing dilemmas, tensions and struggles within the academy, polity and society.

What are the implications of these arguments for discrete spheres -- health, education and social services -- and what would bicultural policy and service provision look like in these areas? As a more theoretical contribution, the paper does not offer blueprints for these spheres or consider how services and institutions would be shaped. Indeed, as suggested earlier, the separation of these spheres, for example, education from social services, could be argued by some as being an artificial separation. However, sidestepping some of the more concrete implications is not to deny that academia can make a contribution. Sorting its own house is the process by which the academy will make that contribution, but which may be a painful and uncomfortable prospect for many working with accepted norms and established curricula. Perhaps in every university department there lurks a spectre of One Nation New Zealand. Loosing the ties of intellectual inheritance, critically reflecting on the nature of power in contemporary society, and exploring identity and whiteness are all necessary conditions. In parallel with these theoretical shifts will be changes and challenges made by individual practitioners, organisations and policy makers working at local and national levels.

This ongoing questioning will occur at a number of levels, will not have clear edges, and is unconstrained by the demands of time frame. But we should not despair at failing to provide simple solutions to such complex matters. It is a beginning to recognise the fundamental weaknesses of some existing analytical frameworks and perhaps move closer to unmasking social policy itself as a predatory conceptual framework. If we do recognise social policy as being part of the problem rather than a contribution to the solution, the result might be tentative steps towards a more holistic Aotearoa/New Zealand.

(1) I owe a significant debt to my Albany colleague, Mereana Taki. Frequent discussions with her led to many of the ideas contained here. Most important, these dialogues are ongoing.

(2) There are debates about what constitutes a discipline and whether social policy can be considered a discipline in its own right or is merely an offshoot of other disciplines, particularly as a branch of applied sociology.

(3) It has been noted social policy academics begin or are trained in social policy, but it offers everyone a home. Indeed, it offers comfortable berth to frustrated philosophers, disillusioned sociologists, economists with developed consciences, historians wishing to keep up with the times, and even geographers who have lost their bearings.

(4) Some (e.g. Atkin 1996) would argue that the Fabian tradition also contains overt racist views centring on a commitment to Eugenics and a particular view of the nation and family.

(5) There is a range of philosophical resources that may assist us here including "talking from borderlands", the use of standpoint epistemology, "starting from southern lives", and moving "from margin to centre" (cf. Harding 1998). However, here is not the place to pursue appropriate ways of enabling communication and dialogue across paradigms.

REFERENCES

Ahmad, W. and K. Atkin (1996) "`Race' and Community Care: An Introduction" in W. Ahmad and K. Atkin (eds.) Race and Community Care, Open University Press, Buckingham.

Atkin, K. (1996) "Social Policy in a Multi-racial Britain: The Case of Community Care" in N. Lunt and D. Coyle (eds.) Welfare and Policy: Research Agendas and Issues, Taylor & Francis, London.

Barrett, M. and K. Connolly-Stone (1998) "The Treaty of Waitangi and Social Policy" Social Policy Journal of New Zealand, Issue 11:29-47.

Bell, D. (1962) The End of Ideology: The Exhaustion of Political Ideas in the Fifties, The Free Press, New York.

Brown, M. (1969) Introduction to Social Administration in Britain, Hutchinson and Co, London.

Cheyne, C., M. O'Brien and M. Belgrave (1996) Social Policy in Aotearoa/New Zealand: A Critical Introduction, Oxford University Press, Auckland.

Cohen, P., G. Sheridan, T. Freeth and M. Floyd-Page (eds.) (1982) It Ain't Half Hot Mum: Fighting Racism in the Media, Camedia Pub Group in conjunction with Campaign Against Racism in the Media, London.

Donald, J. and A. Rattansi (eds.) (1992) "Race", Culture and Difference, Sage, London.

Earle, D. (1995) "Pacific Islands People in Aotearoa/New Zealand: Existing and Emerging Paradigms" Social Policy Journal of New Zealand, Issue 4, pp. 14-23.

Elworthy, J. (1986) Ministerial Task Force on the Social Welfare Services, Supplementary Paper No 1, Development of Social Welfare Services in New Zealand, Wellington.

Finch, J. and D. Groves (1983) A Labour of Love: Women, Work and Caring, Routledge and Kegan Paul London.

Ginsberg, N. (1979) Class, Capital and Social Policy, Macmillan Press, London.

Gough, I. (1979) Political Economy of the Welfare State, Macmillan, London.

Harding, S. (1998) Is Science Multicultural: Postcolonialisms, Feminisms and Epistemologies, Indiana University Press, Bloomington.

Holstein, J.A. and Miller, G. (eds.) (1993) Reconsidering Social Constructionism: Debates in Social Problems Theory, Aldine de Gruyter, New York.

Illich, I. (1973) Deschooling Society, Penguin, Harmondsworth.

Jesson, B. (1997) "Preface" M. Peters (ed.) Cultural Politics and the University in Aotearoa/New Zealand, Dunmore Press, Palmerston North.

Kunowski, M. (1988) The First Hundred Years: Social Welfare in New Zealand from 1891, Heinemann, Auckland.

Marsh, D.C. (ed.) (1965) An Introduction to the Study of Social Administration, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.

Morris, J. (1991) Pride against Prejudice: A Personal Politics of Disability, Womens Press, London.

Mulgan, R. (1993) "Multiculturalism: A New Zealand Perspective" in C. Kukathas (ed.) Multicultural Citizens: The Philosophy and Politics of Identity, Multicultural Research Program, CIS Readings 9, Centre for Independent Studies, NSW, St Leonards.

Oliver, M. (1990) Politics of Disablement, Macmillan Education, London.

Oram, C.A. (1969) Social Policy and Administration in New Zealand, New Zealand University Press, Wellington.

O'Reilly, T. and D. Wood (1991) "Biculturalism and the Public Sector" in J. Boston, J. Martin, J. Pallot and P. Walsh (eds.) Reshaping the State, Oxford University Press, Auckland.

Pascall, G. (1986) Social Policy: A Feminist Analysis, Tavistock, London.

Phillipson, C. (1982) Capitalism and the Construction of Old Age, Macmillan, London. Phillipson, C. (1986) Ageing and Social Policy: A Critical Assessment, Gower, Aldershot.

Rex, J. (1973) Race, Colonialism and the City, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.

Rex, J. (1986) Race and Ethnicity, Open University Press, Milton Keynes.

Sarbin, T.R. and J.I. Kitsuse (eds.) (1994) Constructing the Social, Sage, London.

Smith, L. (1997) "Decolonising Intellectual Identity: Maori/Woman/Academic" in M. Peters (ed.) Cultural Politics and the University in Aotearoa/New Zealand, Dunmore Press, Palmerston North.

Walker, A. (1980) "Social Creation of Poverty and Dependency in Old Age" Journal of Social Policy, 9(1):46-73.

Young, R. (1990) White Mythologies: Writing History and the West, Routledge, London.

Neil Lunt
School of Social Policy & Social Work
Massey University at Albany