There is no "Pasifika in Tech" Problem

How We Got Confused and Missed the Mark on Exactly What Problem Existed to Be Solved for Pasifika.

The analogy I used on the Live Stream for when the work you’re doing is solving a problem that doesn’t exist, is that it’s like preparing a banquet for guests who will never arrive.

---

Talofa reader,

I had some thoughts recently on this topic, and after a live stream and discord discussion, wanted to note things down.

Misunderstanding the “Pasifika in Tech” Problem

I remember reading this article in 2021, back when I was looking into why there are so few Pasifika in the tech industry.

This quote right at the top stands out:

“Stop repeating the conversation, start the action — you’re leaving us behind.” That’s an example of what the Department of Internal Affairs heard when it interviewed a number of Pacific peoples in 2020 to find out what they see as the barriers to digital inclusion.

This, and many other examples of stories at the time, convinced me there was a demand from our community for access to the tech industry and careers.

But after several years, trying various things in the community, with local councils and Pasifika churches, I'm not convinced this was ever the case.

A member of my Discord posed this question in the discussions forum:

"Do we have a Pasifika in Tech problem? What is the problem? Who is the problem for?"

This was a question I asked on the TechNesian Live Stream, and it's one I've been asking myself recently, especially in light of the Pasifika Tech Network shutdown.

Back in 2021, I would have said "yes," but my answer today would be "No, we don't have a Pasifika in tech problem."

Why is that?

Because "low numbers of Pasifika in tech" is not the same as "there are barriers and no support for getting more Pasifika in tech."

One of these is a Pasifika problem, the other is just an objective statistic in the tech industry.

We got it wrong somewhere way back at the start.

Manufacturing Demand

From about 2020 onwards, possibly amplified by the realities shown to us by the pandemic, there was a sudden narrative for getting more Pasifika into technology careers. We needed to help our community out of these jobs that saw them out delivering things in the middle of a pandemic because they had no choice.

The tech industry was going to be the choice that saved them.

I started seeing interviews and newspaper articles crop up. Established organisations were pumping out the Pasifika marketing for grad roles and being a great place to work for Pasifika. New organisations were popping up, marketing the Pasifika angle hard; imagery and themes on websites for these education providers and workplaces were exploding at this time.

The community was putting on Talanoa and evenings to talk about getting Pasifika into tech and how they were doing that¹.

I attended a few, and they were all well-attended.

I remember going to a "Tech Talanoa" out South Auckland once that had four panelists "working in tech," none of whom were engineers². One Pasifika father got so frustrated at one point from not hearing anything related to the technical side of the industry that he grabbed the microphone and, with broken English, told the panel that he brought his 16-year-old son there to hear about "the programming," and he hasn't heard anything yet.

I feel like these talks just bamboozled our community.

They gas-lit them into thinking:

a) "Oh, you don't have to like tech, just come and bring your vibes,"

and/or

b) "Hey, the technical side is hard; maybe just do your customer service role like a good 'soft skills worker.'"

I don't feel like these events did a great service to the community— too many times it was "come to tech on vibes and Pasifika-ness".

Don't get me wrong, I think there's a lot of value in indigenous knowledge and wisdom- but the key to the door the community was knocking on was a change in their economic situation, not a pep-talk for revolutionising a system that's got a long way to go before it puts profit aside for indigenous brownie points.

But I digress...

How could we not think "yo, there's crazy demand by Pasifika for getting into tech, where do we start solving for this?"

Rethinking the Problem Definition

When we all started trying to help get more "Pasifika into Tech," did we stop and ask a crucially important question—do Pasifika want to get into Tech?

I saw an example just this week of framing a problem in a way that may make an assumption that leads to the wrong pathway being taken, similar to how I feel the "Pasifika in tech" pathway was misunderstood.

This statement from a fairly prominent Māori scholar, who said:

"We need to ensure we create pathways for education in IT and in particular computer science, machine learning and all areas of AI. There are many reasons why, statistically, Māori make up about 5% of the tech industry and 0.16% of the AI workforce. We just need to work on removing those barriers and making clear pathways."

That last line, in bold.

This perspective underscores a critical need to differentiate between actual barriers—such as lack of access or education—and just a lack of interest in pursuing careers in these fields.

I'm not sure about everyone else, but when I noticed the lack of Pasifika in tech while contracting in the industry back in 2016, my next step was to ask "why?" The answers I found online were that it was a "pipeline problem," i.e., Pasifika weren't being exposed to these options early in their school life, so they weren't picking it up at the tertiary or work end of things.

That's fair.

That's a long-tail investment that looks like code clubs for 8-12 year old Pasifika kids, exposing them to the tech option, and hoping that seed planted grows into a choice when they're looking at what to study at university.

Problem solved, case closed.

What about the Pasifika of working age now or in years 11, 12, and 13 of high school who need to make some choices soon?

If the “problem” definition is that Pasifika are in sun-setting industries, Pasifika are in mostly low-paid work, and Pasifika are underrepresented in the tech field (i.e., the field that’s going to determine a lot of the future workforce and decision-making, such as bias in tech design, AI, etc.), then yes, we have a “Pasifika have a problem that getting into tech will help solve” problem.

These are economic problems.

A tech career is not the only solution to this, any high paying job will help solve for this.

Why is this important?

Because then your audience, motivations and strategies are completely different- you now have someone who just wants to get in a better financial position, whether that's tech, real estate or multi-level marketing.

The Challenge of Assisting the Uninterested

This makes for a really different problem to solve, i.e., helping someone who knows they want to get into tech and you’re in a position to help them is relatively straightforward. Helping someone who doesn’t know what they want (tech) or wants something you can’t give them (carrying them into tech) is a waste of everyone’s time.

This would be my experience going into the community over the past several years, talking about tech careers, showing up to panels and doing the same- advocating for more Pasifika into tech. I worked with Samoan churches to deliver free, weekly coding & technology sessions; and in each iteration of the community programme, even after a strong start, the interest and attendance would wane and decline to a point where it was not worth the effort by myself and my team to continue.

I truly believed the demand problem was because we "didn't know about tech careers", and solving that by taking the good word out into the community would be met with a fair share of the "great demand" there was for Pasifika wanting to get into tech, but just wasn't getting the support- the industry not meeting them where they were at.

Well, me and my team did meet the community where they were at- in schools, in churches etc.

Anyone can do a one-off big bang event and "do numbers" like a highlight reel.

Me and my team weren't interested in that.

We were here for the long-term week in and week out support and building up of the community's tech exposure, knowledge and capabilities.

And I feel like we did that, from 2017 with code clubs, taking a break during the pandemic, and coming back out into Pasifika churches and high schools when things opened up again.

The trouble with that is, it takes two to tango- and after getting "stood up" more than a few times on more than a few different initiatives, we have to read the feedback (at least for us) for what it is.

And when I see full-time organisations, dialling back down on the Pasifika in tech rhetoric, pivoting away from the original mission statement, especially given the number of staff they have available, I know it’s not just me.

For Pasifika, getting into tech is not "a problem", because it's not what they want, so not being in it, is not a problem.

Futility & An Inevitable Outcome

It took me way too long to accept that this was the case- there isn't a demand for Pasifika wanting to get into tech, that it wasn't a lack of knowledge i.e. even when they knew what was available, it just wasn't what a lot of Pasifika were interested in.

I was convinced early on that Pasifika “don’t know what they don’t know,” so I thought showing them the tech solution would be the thing to do. A lot of double talk and gestures without commitment helped confuse the reality, and it took too long for me to sort the signal from the bullshit—that’s on me, though.

I never had a problem with Pasifika not being interested in tech, I've said on every occasion, if this is you, great, if not, you'll find what you're into elsewhere, this isn't the be-all end-all for Pasifika futures- its just an option, for the geeks and the technically minded³.

The issue here is when the problem is misunderstood, then the solution and efforts to solve the problem are actually irrelevant, ineffective, and largely a waste of everyone's time.

It's only happened recently, but I've started changing the way I engage with the "Pasifika in tech" landscape. It's not all the way "there" yet, but it's a work in progress.

Nowadays, I take a more “push” than “pull” approach. To take a tech concept that is, I put a signal out into the community, a sign-up, a survey. If that activity gets numbers, my team and I build for those respondents. We try to address the need, within our objectives and skill-sets, where it's at.

I set my expectation to low numbers and high quality, rather than filling seats with tyre kickers.

The Rise and Fall of "Pasifika in Tech" Initiatives

It's interesting to note where the industry is at this point in time.

Since 2020, fast forward four years, and it's a lot quieter now on the socials, on the marketing, and the push for "Pasifika in tech" has all but vanished from the scene. Organisations that were championing the cause of getting more "Pasifika in tech" have long since pivoted to other underrepresented groups, or change the focus from helping Pasifika get into tech directly, to helping Pasifika feel more at home in their own skin, then somewhere along the lines this will help them get into tech⁴.

It's a new day, probably about time too- I know my draft of a piece titled "Not Samoan enough for Samoans, and never going to be Palagi" would be a good follow on from this discussion, but again, another story for another time.

Thanks for reading, more than happy to hear your thoughts on this? Do you agree? Disagree?

Ron.

1. I’m still dubious about what they were actually doing that was “tech”.

2. Before I get “not all tech jobs need to be technical!” in response, I’m just illustrating the context for what tech talanoa’s for Pasifika tend to be- non-technical.

3. Yes, there are non-technical roles tech, I find this to be a massive whataboutism when it comes to talking about getting Pasifika into tech, why can’t I just have the conversation about engineers getting into technical roles, in tech?

4. or whatever this new vibes-based grift is.