Mapping the decolonial equity framework ecosystem: a comparative analysis of Critical Tiriti Analysis, Discursive Tiriti Analysis, Progress World View and Discursive Equity Analysis

This paper offers (as far as the author is aware) the first systematic comparison of four decolonial equity frameworks: Critical Tiriti Analysis (CTA), Discursive Tiriti Analysis (DTA), Progress World View (PWV) and Discursive Equity Analysis (DEA). CTA, developed by Came and colleagues, evaluates policy against Te Tiriti o Waitangi principles through a five-stage process ending in a Māori Final Word. DTA extends this by applying critical discourse analysis to examine how policy language; such as the "needs not race" framing in a 2024 NZ Cabinet Circular, can undermine Treaty obligations while appearing neutral. PWV, developed by Broadway-Horner, operates at the clinical level rather than the policy level, offering therapists a three-part model (history, interdependency, progress futures) for decolonising mental health care with sexual minority clients. DEA adapts CTA's structure and the "6As" health-equity framework to assess whether services and policies create structural barriers for sexual minorities, closing the loop between Indigenous and sexual-minority-focused methodologies.
The author organizes these four frameworks along two axes; community focus (Māori vs. sexual minorities) and level of application (policy/discourse vs. clinical practice) and identifies five shared principles running through all of them: treating decolonisation as concrete methodology rather than metaphor. Rejecting universalist "one-size-fits-all" approaches, vesting final authority in the affected community, taking intersectionality seriously, and distinguishing equity from mere equality. The paper argues these frameworks are complementary rather than competing, especially for multiply-marginalised groups such as Māori sexual minorities, where all four could be applied together across policy, discourse, and clinical domains. It closes by noting gaps (e.g., no existing Māori-specific clinical framework analogous to PWV) and calling for future empirical research into each framework's real-world effectiveness, cross-framework tensions, and implementation barriers, positioning the analysis as a conceptual foundation rather than an outcomes study.