| Session Title: Credible Cultural Competence: Stakeholder Perceptions of Sociocultural Characteristics and Superficial Competency Strategies |
| Multipaper Session 641 to be held in Capitol Ballroom Section 6 on Friday, Nov 7, 3:25 PM to 4:10 PM |
| Sponsored by the Multiethnic Issues in Evaluation TIG |
| Chair(s): |
| Chris LS Coryn, Western Michigan University, chris.coryn@wmich.edu |
| Discussant(s): |
| Katherine Tibbetts, Kamehameha Schools, katibbet@ksbe.edu |
| Abstract: This session will generate discussion on issues of demonstrating credible cultural competence, from the views of different stakeholders. In the first presentation, the authors examine common cultural competency 'strategies' in evaluation that rely heavily on 'tokenism.' The authors discuss the need to move toward a genuinely reflexive and contextual cultural competence. We focus on the difficulties in proving to clients that the evaluation team is sufficiently-and appropriately-culturally competent. The second presentation takes the perspective of the client, specifically the INGO Heifer International. Heifer has undergone extensive work to build evaluation capacity around its core ethics, in which cultural competency is embedded. The author will highlight some of the 'strategies' mentioned in the first presentation as they have appeared at Heifer and how they have proceeded differently. Discussion will follow, including whether the Heifer model is viable and what else an evaluation team would need to credibly demonstrate its genuine competence. |
| Moving to Genuine: Credible Cultural Competence and Stakeholder Believability |
| Anne Cullen, Western Michigan University, anne.cullen@wmich.edu |
| Stephanie Evergreen, Western Michigan University, stephanie.evergreen@wmich.edu |
| While it is almost universally accepted that evaluators need to be culturally competent, there has been little discussion of how evaluators can demonstrate cultural competencies to clients. For many, cultural competency means evaluators have the same sociocultural background as program recipients. In fact, this is often seen as a way to ensure credibility. However, this is inherently problematic for the field of evaluation. Such assumptions would require that the evaluator of a program designed to help the homeless population be homeless, for example. This session will explore how we can move beyond equating competency with sociocultural similarity. We begin by defining cultural competency and raising questions about the effectiveness of current strategies. Throughout the presentation we will use stories of our personal struggles of demonstrating our cultural competence as evaluators to clients and stakeholders. We intend to engage the audience in exploring potential solutions designed to overcome these issues. |
| Building Multicultural and Cross-Cultural Aspects of Evaluation through Values-Based Holistic Community Development Model: Sixty Years of Heifer International's Experiences in International Development |
| Tererai Trent, Heifer International, tererai.trent@heifer.org |
| In an increasingly diversified world, having an evaluative culture which systematically embeds multicultural competence is pivotal to the success of any International Non Governmental Organizations (INGOs). The objective of this session is to share how Heifer International, an INGO working in more than 160 countries world-wide, has defined and achieved organization-wide multicultural competence. This session will also show how Heifer International integrated five essential elements that contribute to a systematic multicultural and cross-cultural competence: (1) value diversity, (2) cultural self- assessment capacity (3) consciousness of the "dynamics" inherent when cultures interact, (4) institutionalize cultural knowledge, and (5) development of adaptations to service delivery reflecting an understanding of diversity between and within cultures. Heifer International firmly believes that to become effective and competent. Finally, we will demonstrate how these elements are manifested in every level of the organizational and reflected in attitudes, structures, and organizational policies. |