|
Session Title: Ethics and Evaluation: Respectful Evaluation With underserved communities
|
|
Panel Session 921 to be held in Centennial Section E on Saturday, Nov 8, 4:00 PM to 5:30 PM
|
|
Sponsored by the Multiethnic Issues in Evaluation TIG
|
| Chair(s): |
| Helen Simons,
University of Southampton,
h.simons@soton.ac.uk
|
| Discussant(s):
|
| Ricardo Millett,
Millett & Associates,
ricardo@ricardomillett.com
|
| Abstract:
A commitment to respecting and honoring underserved communities within evaluations has drawn this panel together to present what we have learned about conducting ethical evaluations with peoples who are: indigenous, minority, disadvantaged and/or otherwise marginalized within our societies. Within these lessons the evaluators' responsibilities are made explicit about the engagement that needs to happen with these communities and the critical lens the evaluators need to maintain about the causes of their marginalization. We begin with Critical Race Theory (CRT) and how a transformative agenda can guide ethical evaluation practice. Moves towards the control of evaluation work done in Indian Country then highlights to need for respect for cultural mores and aspirations. Within MSori communities in New Zealand this respect underpins a relationship ethic that also resonates with the fourth presenters who speak to the need for underserved communities to be collaborative partners in evaluation and research.
|
|
Ethical Responsibilities in Evaluations with Diverse Populations: A Critical Race Theory (CRT) Perspective
|
| Veronica Thomas,
Howard University,
vthomas@howard.edu
|
|
Recently, attention has been given to methodological considerations in evaluations of projects serving minority populations. Less explicit attention, however, has been paid to the ethical responsibilities of planning, implementing, and disseminating of such evaluations. This presentation will put forth Critical Race Theory (CRT) as a useful lens to guide evaluators in conducting ethical work in minority communities. CRT is part of a larger transformative paradigm that has implications for a research approach that expands evaluators' explicit responsibilities for dealing with a myriad of ethical issues throughout the evaluation process including (a) addressing racism and other forms of oppression, (b) considering differential power imbalances and privileges between researchers and the researched, (c) broadening conceptualizations of what counts as knowledge, (d) expanding considerations of harm to include communities (not just individual harm), and (e) working to promote social justice, equity, and democracy.
|
|
|
Researching Ourselves Back to Life
|
| Joan LaFrance,
Mekinak Consulting,
joanlafrance1@msn.com
|
|
The myriad of research done by social, heath, and medical researchers is problematic to many American Indian people, whose tribes and families have suffered from a long history of intrusive studies that have built the reputations of anthropologists and other researchers, but brought little more than the loss of cultural ownership and exploitation to Indian people. This presentation describes the changing landscape and ethical considerations that need to be taken into account given the shift towards tribal control over what research is done and how it is done. It outlines the movement in Indian Country to take control of research agendas and describes the various processes being used in tribal communities to review and regulate research Indian Country. The presentation shares the experience and reflections of both Indigenous and non-Indigenous scholars regarding lessons learned in conducting research that is respectful of native cultural mores and responsive to community priorities.
| |
|
Maintaining Indigenous Voices: Maori in Aotearoa
|
| Fiona Cram,
Katoa Ltd,
fionac@katoa.net.nz
|
|
Marginalization occurs when a group of people are pushed to the periphery of a society. For Maori this was an outcome of colonization. Just as research was implicated in this push, so research plays a role in the re-centering of Maori in our own lands. The paper examines a 'community up' approach to defining evaluator conduct that forms the basis of ethical practice. The cultural values within this approach are: 1. Aroha ki te tangata (a respect for people). 2. Kanohi kitea (the face that is known). 3. Titiro, whakarongo korero (look, listen and only then speak). 4. Manaaki ki te tangata (share and host people, be generous). 5. Kia tupato (be cautious). 6. Kaua e takahia te mana o te tangata (do not trample on the status and dignity of the people). 7. Kia mahaki (be humble). These seven practices underpin a relationship ethic and facilitate community engagement.
| |
|
Re-Conceptualizing Ethical Concerns in Underserved Communities
|
| Katrina Bledsoe,
Walter R McDonald and Associates Inc,
kbledsoe@wrma.com
|
| Rodney Hopson,
Duquesne University,
hopson@duq.edu
|
|
Underserved communities, such as those that have been considered historically disadvantaged due to social class, ethnic background, gender etc. have received secondary consideration in their involvement in the process of research and evaluation. By process, we mean the manner in which the research is conducted from research question development, to utilization of results. We maintain that the exclusion of such communities violates ethics at the most fundamental point of research: the ability to self-determine one's level of participation in every aspect of the process. In this presentation, using examples from the authors' experiences, we conceptualize the optimal research process as one that is relational and collaborative beginning at the study/project conception and continuing past its conclusion. The acknowledgement of communities as collaborative partners in research expands our understanding of what it means to be ethical in working with underserved diverse populations and communities.
| |