Why do ethnomethodology? Academics and scientists frequently invoke two justifications. One of these claims knowledge is acquired for its own sake. This defense assumes that experts develop knowledge superior to laymen. I wish to undercut this belief. I have argued that everyone has an elegant knowledge of his own reality.' That knowledge is absolute within realities. I cannot justify my ethnomethodology as a pursuit of privileged knowledge; every farmer, freak, witch, and alchemist has such knowledge. The second justification relies on variants of the claim that "knowledge is power." This claim is intimately related to the first. It assumes that knowledge leads to an ability to predict and control which most people do not possess. Ethnomethodological studies this For example, the rebut a s~u m~t i o n .~ "power" of scientific knowledge is only proven reflexively. Belief in the predictive efficacy of scientific knowledge is an incorrigible proposition. Like other incorrigibles, it does not permit objective test: failures prove its truth.3 This argument depends upon itself. Scientists reflexively experience the absolute truth of their methods and theories every day, and we who live within scientific societies are subject to a similar experience. We feel absolutely that science is power, although science's child, technology, oppresses us because it has moved beyond the exclusive domain of Western nations to

A new research perspective is emerging in Oceania, one based on combining practices drawn from both Pacific Islander and continental cultures. This emerging perspective, here labeled "cultural studies for Oceania," differs from most Pacific Studies research as well as from continental cultural studies. This new practice is characterized by combinations of the following: an emphasis on personal identities and on specifying distinct research roles for Pacific Islanders and non-Natives; efforts to forge a unifying regional identity; research focused on processes more than on final products; reciprocity between researchers and those they study; prominent use of Oceania epistemologies; unconventional research-reporting genres; reliance on oral practices and traditions; dependence on Pacific Islander models, concepts, and theories. Research programs that embrace these features offer a promising alternative to the dominant research practices in the region, which continue to perpetuate earlier colonizations.

Currently, three broad approaches to doing research into human phenomena are competing across Oceania. The dominant approach, introduced to the region by westerners, relies on discipline-based concepts, theories, and methods. Despite various independence and decolonization activities, disciplinary thinking still guides most formal projects and research-based publications. Though as yet considerably less common, an alternative perspective emphasizing indigenous interpretations is receiving increasing attention. This approach encourages researchers to rely on place-specific values, pedagogies, philosophies, and epistemologies unique to Pacific Islanders. A third approach, focused on concrete activities, is also available to researchers, although this perspective has as yet sparked relatively little discussion. Activities-focused research illustrates what some continental scholars call "the practice turn" (Schatzki 2001). This approach generally de-emphasizes not only disciplinary concerns but also efforts to compose interpretations.Elements of all three approaches appear in much research focused on Oceania. Still, these perspectives differ enough to warrant thinking about them separately, especially since the choice of which to emphasize determines so much about the research process and product that follows. Epeli Hau'ofa's shifting research foci provide illustration of the impact of perspectival choice. Hau'ofa began within a disciplinary perspective, completing a dissertation and publications in anthropology, while teaching a range of social science courses at the University of South Pacific (see, eg, Hau'ofa 1975(see, eg, Hau'ofa , 1977(see, eg, Hau'ofa , 1981(see, eg, Hau'ofa , 1987. Later, in an influential series of essays (1993,1997, 2000), Hau'ofa shifted to what I am here labeling an interpretive perspective. In this work, Hau'ofa drew more from indigenous thought than from disciplines, in part, he explained, because he could no 33

No abstract