This paper aims to provide the first comprehensive comparative analysis of four interconnected equity frameworks: Critical Tiriti Analysis (CTA), Discursive Tiriti Analysis (DTA), Progress World View (PWV) and Discursive Equity Analysis (DEA). The purpose is to examine how these frameworks relate theoretically and practically, identify shared principles and distinctive features and explore implications for addressing inequities facing multiply-marginalised communities.
A systematic comparative analysis was conducted for examining theoretical foundations, structural components, applications and epistemological commitments across the four frameworks. Primary source documents were reviewed and coded. Genealogical connections and shared principles were mapped. A comprehensive comparison matrix was developed organising frameworks across multiple dimensions. Cross-framework application scenarios were constructed to explore integration for intersectional populations. Findings were synthesised to develop a unified conceptual model.
The frameworks form a coherent methodological ecosystem organised along two axes: community focus (Indigenous Maori versus sexual minorities) and level of application (policy/discourse analysis versus clinical practice). All share five core principles: decolonisation as methodology, rejection of universalism, community authority, intersectionality and distinction between equality and equity. CTA serves as methodological ancestor to both DTA and DEA, whilst PWV developed independently but converges on shared decolonial commitments. Together, they address systemic inequities across policy, discourse and therapeutic domains.
This analysis examines four specific frameworks; other decolonising methodologies exist. The analysis primarily draws on framework documentation rather than empirical effectiveness research. Focus on Aotearoa New Zealand and UK contexts means applicability elsewhere requires investigation. Future research should examine framework outcomes, implementation barriers and integration for multiply-marginalised populations.
Comprehensive equity work requires operating at multiple levels simultaneously – policy, discourse and clinical practice. Marginalised communities need both community-specific and intersectional approaches. Community authority must be genuine rather than symbolic. Framework users require appropriate training, preferably led by communities themselves. The frameworks’ complementarity enables comprehensive analysis impossible with single approaches.
These frameworks provide tools for transforming institutions that systematically fail marginalised communities. They demonstrate that genuine equity requires recognising difference, centring community authority, addressing systemic barriers and actively decolonising institutions. Their integration offers pathways towards equitable systems that respect community self-determination and dismantle colonial structures.
To the best of the author’s knowledge, this is the first comprehensive comparative analysis mapping relationships between CTA, DTA, PWV and DEA. The unified conceptual model reveals how frameworks complement each other across policy/clinical and Maori/sexual minority dimensions. This paper demonstrates methodological cross-pollination possibilities and identifies productive directions for future framework development, including Maori-specific clinical frameworks and approaches for other marginalised communities.
