Making Relationships Count
Measuring Trust in Relationships Between a Catholic Development Agency and Māori Communities
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3138/cjpe.66908Keywords:
monitoring and evaluation frameworks, trust indicators, Indigenous communitiesAbstract
Relationships affect outcomes in the international development sector, yet there are few frameworks or indicators to measure trust as a foundation of relationships. This article describes an emergent framework for evaluating trust in cross-cultural relationships. It is based on a case study of Caritas Aotearoa New Zealand and its Indigenous partners. Perspectives on monitoring and evaluation (M&E) and measuring trust are explored from an Indigenous world view. Interviews with five people representing all parties suggest various types of behaviours that indicate trust. Through this exploration, culturally competent M&E and the centrality of relationships in expanding evaluation practice are revealed.
References
Abma, T. A. (2006). The practice and politics of responsive evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 27 (1), 31–43.
Baur, V. E., Abma, T. A., & Widdershoven, G. A. (2010). Participation of marginalized groups in evaluation: Mission impossible? Evaluation and Program Planning, 33 (3), 238–245.
Berg, B. L. (2009). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Booth, D., Harris, D., & Wild, L. (2016). From political economy analysis to doing development differently: A learning experience. Retrieved from ODI website: https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/10205.pdf
Chandna, K., Vine, M. M., Snelling, S., Harris, R., Smylie, J., & Manson, H. (2019). Principles, approaches, and methods for evaluation in Indigenous contexts: A grey literature scoping review. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 34 (1), 21–47.
Christopher, S., Watts, V., McCormick, A., & Young, S. (2008). Building and maintaining trust in a community-based participatory research partnership. American Journal of Public Health, 98 (8), 1398–1406.
Cunningham, C. (2000). A framework for addressing Maori knowledge in research, science and technology. Pacific Health Dialog, 7 (1), 7–9.
Dacks, R., Ticktin, T., Mawyer, A., Caillon, S., Claudet, J., Fabre, P., . . . Pascua, P. A. (2019). Developing biocultural indicators for resource management. Conservation Science and Practice, 1(6), e38.
Dahlke, S., Hall, W., & Phinney, A. (2015). Maximizing theoretical contributions of participant observation while managing challenges. Qualitative Health Research, 25(8), 1117–1122.
Drucker, P. (1964). Managing for results (1999 ed.). Oxford, UK: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Honig, D., & Gulrajani, N. (2018). Making good on donors’ desire to do development differently. Third World Quarterly, 39 (1), 68–84.
Hotere-Barnes, A. (2015). Generating ‘non-stupid optimism’: Addressing Pākehā paralysis in Māori educational research. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 50(1), 39–53.
Hulme, D. (2010). Lessons from the making of the MDGs: Human development meets results-based management in an unfair world. IDS Bulletin, 41(1), 15–25.
LaFrance, J., & Nichols, R. (2010). Reframing evaluation: Defining an Indigenous evaluation framework. Canadian Journal of Evaluation, 23 (2), 13–31.
Lewis, M. (1998, 11 January). The man who invented management. New York Times . Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/1998/01/11/books/the-man-who-inventedmanagement.html
Mayoux, L. (2006). Quantitative, qualitative or participatory? Which method, for what and when. Doing Development Research, 1 , 115–129.
McGregor, A. (2008). Religious NGOs: Opportunities for post-development? In A. Thornton & A. McGregor (Eds.), Southern perspectives on development: Dialogue or division. Proceedings of the 5th Biennial Conference of the Aotearoa New Zealand International Development Studies Network (DEVNET) (pp. 165–183). University of Otago. Retrieved from Devnet website: https://devnet.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Southern%20Perspectives%20on%20Development.%20Dialogue%20or%20Division.%20Proceedings.pdf
Montrosse-Moorhead, B. (2021). If building trust is important, how do we teach novice evaluators to do it? Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 35 (3), 384–394.
Moretti, F., van Vliet, L., Bensing, J., Deledda, G., Mazzi, M., Rimondini, M., . . . Fletcher, I. (2011). A standardized approach to qualitative content analysis of focus group discussions from different countries. Patient Education and Counseling, 82 (3), 420–428. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2011.01.005
Morgan, T. K. K. B., & Fa‘aui, T. F. A. (2014). Decision support systems and promoting socially just environment management. Paper presented at the 11th International Conference on Hydroinformatics, New York. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280737993_DECISION_SUPPORT_SYSTEMS_AND_PROMOTING_SOCIALLY_JUST_ENVIRONMENTAL_MANAGEMENT/download
Movono, A., & Hughes, E. (2020). Tourism partnerships: Localizing the SDG agenda in Fiji. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 1–15.
O’Leary, Z. (2014). The essential guide to doing your research project. London: SAGE.
Prinsen, G., & Nijhof, S. (2015). Between logframes and theory of change: Reviewing debates and a practical experience. Development in Practice, 25 (2), 234–246.
Rallis, S. F., Rossman, G. B., & Gajda, R. (2007). Trustworthiness in evaluation practice: An emphasis on the relational. Evaluation and Program Planning, 30 (4), 404–409.
Ringhofer, L., & Kohlweg, K. (2019). Has the theory of change established itself as the better alternative to the logical framework approach in development cooperation programmes? Progress in Development Studies, 19 (2), 112–122.
Ruru, I., & Wilson, D. (2021). The Mauri compass. Retrieved from https://www.mauricompass.com/
Scott, D. (1975). Ask that mountain: The story of Parihaka (2008 ed.). Auckland: Penguin.
Spradley, J. P. (2016). Participant observation. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
Sterling, E. J., Pua‘ala, P., Amanda, S., Nadav, G., Mandle, L., Erin, B., . . . McCarter, J. (2020). Creating a space for place and multidimensional well-being: Lessons learned from localizing the SDGs. Sustainability Science, 15 (4), 1129–1147.
Stevenson, K. (2018). A consultation journey: Developing a Kaupapa Māori research methodology to explore Māori whānau experiences of harm and loss around birth. AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples, 14 (1), 54–62.
Suaalii-Sauni, T., & Fulu-Aiolupotea, S. M. (2014). Decolonising Pacifi c research, building Pacific research communities and developing Pacific research tools: The case of the talanoa and the faafaletui in Samoa. Asia Pacific Viewpoint, 55 (3), 331–344.
Tecun, A., Hafoka, I., ‘Ulu ‘ave, L., & ‘Ulu ‘ave-Hafoka, M. (2018). Talanoa: Tongan epistemology and Indigenous research method. AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples, 14 (2), 156–163.
Tuhiwai Smith, L. (2012). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and Indigenous peoples (2nd ed.). London: Zed Books.
UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2022). Tier classification for global SDG indicators (9 June 2022). Retrieved on 17 Oct 2022 from: https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/Tier%20Classification%20of%20SDG%20Indicators_9%20Jun%202022_web.pdf
Wehipeihana, N. (2013). A vision for Indigenous evaluation. In Evaluation shaping a better future: Priorities, pragmatics, priorities and power. Retrieved from https://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/a-vision-for-indigenous-evaluation-keynote-presentation-at-the/27047707.
Wehipeihana, N. (2019). Increasing cultural competence in support of Indigenous-led evaluation: A necessary step toward Indigenous-led evaluation. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 34 (2), 368–384.
Wilson, C. (2001). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and Indigeneous peoples. Social Policy Journal of New Zealand, 2001(17), 214–218.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Gretchen Leuthart, Gerard Prinse
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Authors contributing to The Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation agree to release their articles under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 (CC-BY-NC) license. This licence allows this work to be copied, distributed, remixed, transformed, and built upon for any purpose provided that appropriate attribution is given, a link is provided to the license, and changes made were indicated.
Authors retain copyright of their work and grant the journal right of first publication.
Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
