Stephen Winter’s seminar on redressing historical abuse in New Zealand state care offered a comprehensive breakdown of the issue and challenges faced, while exemplifying core research and presentation techniques applicable to both his topic and wider scholarship. Winter’s work on monetary redress programmes positions him uniquely within humanities scholarship as his work is targeted towards real world policy solutions. This results in a great deal of practical, financial and logistical restraints which Winter’s detailed within his seminar. His solution driven research results in a requirement to consider political realities to produce an appropriate response, deviating substantially from theoretical study.
The immense complexities arising from attempts to address extremely sensitive issues such as child abuse through a uniform government policy are inescapable in Winter’s work. He details the various complications faced as an academic striving for practical solutions from government policy. His political aspect was particularly striking within the lecture; his research is problem driven and solution orientated. As such, his research must be targeted towards practicality and contain various at time uncomfortable and often financial compromises. His suggestions to government must navigate financial restraints of government budgeting, logistical restraints of staffing, laws and time while ensuring consistency for victims resulting in substantial complications in his solutions.
The sensitive nature of the issue faced results in a substantial requirement for ethical research. Protection of victims who want privacy, libel laws and anonymous informants all result in high ethical research constraints. Winter avoids the use of names for all non-public information and has to ensure he protects victims’, informants’ and colleagues’ privacy, while navigating laws protecting government employees and perpetrators.
These constraints are fundamental in Winter’s research strategy as comparison and evidence are paramount to such an issue. Consistent through his lecture and fundamental to his criticisms are international comparisons. Relating programmes in Ireland, Australia and Canada as both influences and critiques of New Zealand’s system is crucial to his approach. This appears a highly effective means of comparison – with a global issue, the successes and failures of foreign nations can display both strengths and shortcomings of New Zealand’s own policy. Such an approach adds a realistic and practically tested element to his suggestions. His decision to diversify his research internationally to introduce a comparative aspect resulted in significantly more comprehensive solutions and a far more convincing political appeal.
One striking element of Winter’s research is the difficulty in obtaining information. Often information is withheld, destroyed or hidden by the bureaucracy and data is not available in archives. As a result, interviews and anonymous leaks have become crucial research techniques, displaying ingenuity in overcoming obstacles to his work.
As such, Winter’s work is catered to these realities. His approach is distinctly political and his purpose clearly outlined. By doing this he often omits various other facets and factors that influence his field to address exclusively financial redress programmes. Elements such prosecution, therapy or prevention are conspicuously absent to specialize his research. This approach could be criticised as too narrow, with the seminar only mentioning such aspects in passing. Yet, this can also be an advantage of the work as its immensely specialized nature ensures a clear and focused response to one aspect. By maintaining a narrow focus, the issue can be understood and dissected in depth and although not a comprehensive solution, Winter’s proposals can clearly and accurately display his specialized focus.
