|
Session Title: The Evolution and Revolution of Culturally Responsive Evaluation
|
|
Panel Session 591 to be held in BOWIE B on Friday, Nov 12, 1:40 PM to 3:10 PM
|
|
Sponsored by the Multiethnic Issues in Evaluation TIG
|
| Chair(s): |
| Fiona Cram, Katoa Ltd, katoaltd@gmail.com
|
| Discussant(s):
|
| Karen E Kirkhart, Syracuse University, kirkhart@syr.edu
|
| Nan Wehipeihana, Research Evaluation Consultancy Limited, nanw@clear.net.nz
|
| Abstract:
This panel brings together a group of evaluators actively engaged in utilizing Culturally Responsive Evaluation(CRE)strategies with cultural subgroups in the United States (U.S.), as well as with members of indigenous communities in the U.S. and New Zealand.
The panel will discuss the progression of CRE as a revolutionary concept in response to traditional evaluation methods and then highlight the progression of CRE in evaluative discourse over the last decade as a vehicle for the enhancement of evaluation quality. Discussion will situate on international, indigenous, and comparative perspectives when working in communities of color and finally examine evaluation tools designed to effectively make use of the cultural context of the evaluand.
|
|
Looking Back to Move Forward: The Visual Transition of the African American Culturally Responsive Evaluation System (ACESAS) Logic Model to Enhance Culturally Responsive Evaluation in African American Communities
|
| Pamela Frazier-Anderson, Lincoln University, pfanderson@lincoln.edu
|
|
Culturally Responsive Evaluation (CRE) is as a transformative method within the field of evaluation. Its evolution and basic tenants will be explored as well as suggestions for further study. One area currently explored by a few CRE researchers is the examination of the utilization of culturally responsive logic models for programs serving ethnic/cultural minority groups and/or in low income areas. The African American Culturally Responsive Evaluation System (ACESAS) is a logic model (still in its formative stages)designed to support CRE in African American communities, particularly those communities and programs serving individuals in which potential power differentials could impact evaluation quality and ultimately results. A brief over of the ACESAS as well as its visual transition from a more traditional view to one that is more culturally responsive of the communities it seeks to serve will be introduced.
|
|
|
Looking Within: Expressing Program Stories With Cultural Metaphors.
|
| Joan LaFrance, Mekinak Consulting, lafrancejl@gmail.com
|
|
The American Indian Higher Education Consortium (AIHEC) developed an Indigenous Evaluation Framework (IEF) that incorporates cultural ways of knowing drawn from values and epistemologies of Native Americans. Central to the framework is “creating story,” which is presented in ways that encourage visualizing programs using metaphors relevant to local tribal cultures. Participants in IEF workshops have responded to the invitation to formulate their “stories” using alternatives to traditional logic modeling. This presentation will illustrate ways in which story is created and how “indigenizing” the evaluation invites a clearer understanding of the functions and importance of linking evaluation to program implementation.
| |
|
Tensions Between What Is Knowable From the Outside and What is Knowable From the Inside
|
| Kataraina Pipi, Independent Consultant, kpipi@xtra.co.nz
|
|
This presentation focuses on the topic of CRE from a Maori viewpoint. In Aotearoa/New Zealand there are a range of ways in which we undertake evaluation within our indigenous communities. Sometimes we undertake evaluations exclusively as indigenous people within our communities and other times we invite non-Maori to work alongside us. This inevitably raises discussion and debate around whether it's acceptable for evaluators from outside the culture to do or claim to do CRE. By inviting white evaluators to dive back into evaluations in communities of color, how do we ensure that the historical context of betrayal and mistrust, power issues and those whose voices have been silenced are safe-guarded? These tensions are reflected upon and the value of being culturally responsible, discerning culturally imbedded assumptions and understanding your cultural position is considered.
| |
|
Responsible Responsiveness in Evaluation: To Whom and to What?
|
| Jennifer Greene, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, jcgreene@illinois.edu
|
| Jeehae Ahn, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, jahn1@illinois.edu
|
| Ayesha Boyce, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, boyce3@illinois.edu
|
|
Evaluators work in tangled and complex contexts. These contexts are threaded with multi-faceted strands of politics, social dynamics, organizational traditions, and policy expectations – all of which are framed and enacted through the lenses of culture. Culture refers broadly to shared understandings of behavior, values, rhythms of daily life, as well as interpretive meanings, expectations, and aspirations. So, what are the dimensions of these complex constructs of context and culture that are invoked in contemporary versions of culturally responsive evaluation? And with what justifications? This presentation anchors ‘responsible responsiveness’ in commitments to contextualized understandings of diversity and to advancing equity in both opportunity and accomplishment. These ideas are presented via evaluation skits and stories.
| |