Now the dust has settled somewhat and Dr Clydesdale has succeeded in gaining the attention he probably hoped his research might gain but without the media and political negativity it has received. Many of the comments from some the Pacific community and a few other non Pacific academics have labelled the research -lazy - out of date - racist - wanting - and not a true reflection of the achievements that have occurred within the Pacific immigrant population. But should the focus of all academic research be written in a style that is politically correct and in praise of the positive achievements of the population being researched or should it be concerned solely with passing the rigorous tests that are set by the academic discipline it resides within. Is there a duty on the part of the researcher to ensure it does not offend the community or even politicians who believe they have done much to bring about a balance for those less fortunate in our society. Was that Dr Clydesdale's responsibility?
Having read the report, it is easy to get bogged down with references about the emerging underclass of unskilled immigrants. The main thrust of the report points to immigration as a strategy that the nation can no longer depend upon to grow the economy. Clydesdale's research is economically driven and while it largely ignores many social aspects of the New Zealand immigrant community, the purpose of Clydesdale's report is to evaluate human immigration in monetary terms and therefore the reference to humans as human capital is consistent with that goal. I have read comments that identify Clydesdale's reference to 'human capital' as scholastically deplorable. I find the very reference to humans as resources often manipulated by massive HR departments as equally loathesome given humans in that context exist only to further the strategic goals of many large companies.
The findings of any academic research should always be open to scholarly and public scrutiny. Comments from the public and articles by Tapu Misa published in the New Zealand Herald contribute to a more informed debate around the shortcomings or indeed the insightfulness of such research. I do however have concerns when the governing political machinery believe that it is within their ambit of influence to manoeuver it's resources in such way to counter academic research that does not promote the political agenda of the day. Paul Hansen and Paul Callister both state that their responses were politically driven to counter the bad press caused by Clydesdale's report. While I accept that Clydesdale's report is wanting in many respects, and it is certainly not a reflection of Massey University itself as Tuitahi pointed out through the media, his research nonetheless deserves to be responded to in a manner that allows for scholarly due process to take it's course unhindered by political interference. And that it didn't, bothers me.
If anything Clydesdale's research only serves to reinforce the importance of Pacific initiatives so as to reduce the huge economic disadvantages that many Pacific people will continue to experience as the global food shortage rises alongside oil/petrol costs, increasing unemployment and greater stress on Pacific families to cope with incomes that will not match rising costs. And that for me moves into the realm of very real concern.
