By Merewalesi Nailatikau

The Pacific Women Lead Formative Situational Analysis challenges conventional ideas of credible gender equality research. I recently had the opportunity to speak with the women behind this research – ‘Ofa Guttenbeil-Likiliki, Virisila Buadromo, Niketa Kulkarni, and Nikki Bartlett – and listened to their reflections on what makes this work a welcome departure from the norm.

“As Dr Yvonne Underhill-Sem says, this process requires us to think audaciously, think outside the box, and look at other ways, other alternatives, of collecting the stories of our women.” — ‘Ofa Guttenbeil-Likiliki

This research breaks from the standard donor-driven baseline report, weaving the voices of Pacific women throughout its pages, applying a two-pronged methodology – documentary research and stakeholder consultation – and centring Pacific methodologies and methods like talatalanoa, as used by co-author ‘Ofa. This makes for a promising foundation as a reference for Pacific Women Lead’s ongoing efforts in gender equality.

“A key enabler for this work has been having like-minded colleagues within our DFAT team who also value and encourage Pacific-led research…That is not always a given in donor-funded programs, as many of you know.” — Joanne Kunatuba

When Joanne, Team Leader of Pacific Women Lead Enabling Services, invited me to moderate this conversation, I was drawn to the opportunity to engage with fellow Pacific women writers who had shaped, struggled through, and led this work while centring the diverse perspectives of Pacific women.

Then I remembered: this was for PWLES, a DFAT-funded program. I don’t work with DFAT programs – this remains an intentional boundary. Having worked inside DFAT and its funded initiatives, I now guard my independence fiercely. What swayed me was the personal credibility of the individuals involved and the unwavering presence of Pacific women’s voices throughout the work.

There is a script to donor-funded program cycles: an inception report, a baseline analysis, a mid-term review, a management response, and a final impact report – alongside annual progress reports and other mechanisms feeding the all-hallowed theory of change. Everything is log-framed. Analytics are neatly packaged. Evocative visuals are added. Thus, a program appears rigorous and respectable. But all too often for Pacific communities – the supposed beneficiaries and leaders – this isn’t how impact is realised.

“My research training was in Western academia, particularly in quantitative methods, where much of the purpose…was to diminish or to reduce the level of subjectivity. Through this process, it’s been a really fantastic opportunity to lean into that subjectivity, to say that lived experience matters.” — Niketa Kulkarni

Donors often struggle to recognise non-Western, Indigenous research methodologies as credible. The irony is that those of us Pacific Islanders who have worked within these systems, watching information extracted from communities without mutual accountability, have come to ask: What makes donors credible?

“On a program dedicated to Pacific women and girls in all their diversity, we would have to justify why centring the voices of Pacific women and girls and Pacific authors is the appropriate approach. That felt really icky. But it was a necessary inroad to support this to come to fruition.” — Nikki Bartlett

Likewise, as ‘Ofa shared her frustration at having to defend research grounded in Pacific worldviews, it’s critical to say this plainly: for Pacific people who have watched multimillion-dollar programs pile on Western frameworks, ‘safe consultants,’ and so-called rigorous methods – only to struggle to articulate their impact – perhaps the question is about donors’ credibility.

“A lot of the feminists and women’s rights activists that we work with…one of the things that they really struggled with, was trying to explain what gender equality means in their language, and also saying that gender is not the only identifier in a human being in their community.” — Virisila Buadromo

As highlighted by all co-authors, the survival of norm-breaking, locally led research depends on communication that broadens participation. It also means using donors’ language and holding up their commitments to local leadership as mirrors. As Niketa outlined, this included refraining from words like decolonisation that may put people on the offensive as discussions went further up the chain while advocating for the same outcome.

Allies within DFAT, DT Global, research, and community spheres helped navigate the complexities of designing, leading, and publishing this analysis. Preliminary findings were guided through a sensemaking process that deeply involved Pacific women and stakeholders – ensuring it remained rooted in lived realities.

“Part of it was really working within an established system and using that language to say you’ve got all the principles in place. This is just how you enact them, and that’s how we close the gap between what you’re stating and how you’re operating.” — Nikki Bartlett

I commend the Pacific women whose diverse perspectives infused this analysis with their lived experiences, the co-authors, and everyone involved. This process offers a glimmer of hope for what Pacific people, communities, and research practitioners have long advocated. Those with power and privilege – including ourselves – must become familiar with discomfort.

“One of the academics, who’s also from this region…said, ‘Decolonise from what, from white-centred Western ideas to Fijian-centred ideas?’ And I was thinking, ‘Oh, my God, you’re right, there’s a hegemony in this region where the Fijians are dominant.’ …These ideas which push us out of our comfort zones, for those of us who commission research…lean into that because that is where the magic will happen.” — Virisila Buadromo

‘Ofa and Virisila shared that they were intentional in extending their engagement beyond ‘women like us’ – because personal relationships will always be vital to making change, yet recreating hegemony is not the answer.

Lasting change cannot always depend on the right people in the right place at the right time. Systems and structures must shift. Diverse Pacific women across diverse Pacific countries are calling us to move beyond circles of familiarity into a broader community.

As ‘Ofa’s call of manatu ki ’api reminds us, remembering home, who we are, and what we owe, helps in directing and attuning to one another’s voices. Perhaps then we may truly reimagine Pacific research on gender equality.

This reflection was originally posted on Substack and is published here with permission from the author.