The Strength of Indigenous Australian Evaluators and Indigenous Evaluation: A Snapshot of “Ways of Knowing and Doing” Reflecting on the 2014 Darwin Conference of the Australasian Evaluation Society

Abstract

The strong presence of Indigenous Australians at the 2014 Australasian Evaluation Society (AES) conference highlights expansion in the ways Indigenous people are working as evaluation practitioners and collaborating in evaluation. This may reflect changing practice, moving from the involvement of Indigenous Australians solely as the users of programs to their more diverse and active engagement in the conduct of evaluations. However, it is not clear how far this shift extends to Indigenous‐led shaping of evaluation questions or framing the interpretation of findings. In this chapter, Indigenous Australian coauthors who are practicing evaluators explore dimensions of Indigenous participation. Themes covering knowledge and engagement processes and principles emerged from the conference, demonstrating how “ways of knowing and doing” make Indigenous evaluation much more than about method. The concept of an “adaptive shared space” is presented as a venue for growing respectful collaboration. Developing deliberative learning among Indigenous and non‐indigenous people, commissioners, and practitioners, offers a way to bring deeper meaning to evaluation practice.

Strategies to support culturally safe health and wellbeing evaluations in Indigenous settings in Australia and New Zealand: a concept mapping study

“…Evaluation must also respect Indigenous peoples’ rights and facilitate their ownership of the evaluation process and of the knowledge generated [36] like, for example, in establishing governance structures so evaluation projects can be discussed at all stages with community. Relational accountability is the cornerstone of Indigenous epistemology; it is therefore critical that evaluation stakeholders build respectful relationships with Indigenous communities in synchronicity with their knowledge systems and values to generate meaningful knowledge on how programs work in Indigenous settings [8, 25].…”

“…Western approaches to evaluation are poorly equipped to accommodate the worldviews of Indigenous peoples’ and unlikely to contribute to the development of health programs that make a positive difference for Indigenous communities. The limited number and quality of evaluations is problematic and is viewed, in the Australian context, as stemming from a lack of culturally safe practice that effectively engages Indigenous peoples [6–8]. In the New Zealand context, poor cultural ‘fit’, or congruency, between evaluator and evaluand, contributes to the ineffective evaluation and evaluation commissioning of programs that target Indigenous service users [9].…”

‘Fanning the flame’: Aboriginal girls, women, and their communities define success for the Shooting Stars empowerment program

“…For Shooting Stars, the Yarning with the Stars project provides a space where participants and their communities can determine activities and outcomes for their local program, in line with principles of Indigenous evaluation described elsewhere (Cargo et al, 2019;Grey et al, 2018;Haviland & Pillsbury, 2012;Masters-Awatere & Nikora, 2017;Wehipeihana, 2019;Wehipeihana et al, 2015;Williams, 2018). This study provides an example of consultation which creates a culturally responsive mechanism for self-determination in line with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and within the Australian context, a model for embedding children and community voices within program creation and delivery in line with the Child Safe Framework -National Principles 1, 2, and 3 (Child Safe Organisations, n.d) in particular.…”

“…Evaluators around the world have emphasised the significance of culture and cultural context in evaluation (Greene, 2005;Hanberger, 2010;Hood et al, 2005;Hopson, 2009;Kirkhart, 1995Kirkhart, , 2005. Indigenous evaluators and non-Indigenous evaluator allies emphasise the importance of Indigenous communities or program participants defining program outcomes and success for themselves (Cargo et al, 2019;Grey et al, 2018;Haviland & Pillsbury, 2012;Masters-Awatere & Nikora, 2017;Wehipeihana, 2019;Wehipeihana et al, 2015;Williams, 2018).…”