Identifying Key Epistemological Challenges Evaluating in Indigenous Contexts
Achieving Bimaadiziwin through Youth Futures
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3138/cjpe.68866Keywords:
community-based evaluation, Indigenous epistemology, Indigenous evaluation, Indigenous youth, transformative evaluationAbstract
The evaluation field’s understanding of Indigenous ontologies and epistemologies must improve in ways that do not serve to privilege Western ways of knowing or governmental priorities for accountability. The literature has not identified ways to bridge these in practical ways, or to move the field to balance community and government needs. This article describes some prevailing epistemological and methodological issues related to evaluation and then identifies practical challenges bridging Western and Indigenous approaches, using the example of the Indigenous Youth Futures Partnership project (IYFP), a seven-year SSHRC-sponsored grant. It is suggested that there are approaches that work well in these contexts but that agency is vitally important to establish reciprocity.
References
Battiste, M. (2007). Research ethics for protecting Indigenous knowledge and heritage: Institutional and researcher responsibilities. In N. Denzin & M. Giardina (Eds.), Ethical futures of qualitative research: Decolonizing the politics of knowledge (pp. 111 – 127). Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
Battiste, M., & Henderson, Y. (2000). Protecting indigenous knowledge and heritage. Saskatoon, SK: Purich Publishing.
Bortolin, K. (2011). Serving ourselves: How the discourse on community engagement privileges the university over the community. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 18(1), 49 – 58. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.3239521.0018.104
Borrows, J. (2016). Freedom & Indigenous constitutionalism. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.
Bowman, N. (2017). Asserting tribal sovereignty in evaluation and policy studies. Tribal Leader/Scholar Forum of the National Congress of American Indians—Policy Research Institute. Uncasville, CT. Retrieved from https://www.ncai.org/policy-research-center/initiatives/tribal-leader-scholar-forum
Canada. (2014 ). Tri-council policy statement: Ethical conduct for research involving humans. Retrieved from http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/eng/policy-politique_tcps2-eptc2_2018.html
Chilisa, B. (2012). Indigenous research methodologies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Coghlan, A. T., Preskill, H., & Catsambas, T. T. (2003). An overview of appreciative inquiry in evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 2003(100), 5 – 22. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.96
Cousins, J. B., & Whitmore, E. (1998). Framing participatory evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 1998(80), 5 – 23. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.1114
Cram, F., Chilisa, B., & Mertens, D. M. (2016). The journey begins. In D. M. Mertens, F. Cram, & B. Chilisa (Eds.), Indigenous pathways into social research: Voices of a new generation (pp. 11 – 40). New York, NY: Left Coast Press.
Cram, F., & Mertens, D. M. (2015). Transformative and indigenous frameworks for multi-method and mixed methods research. In S. Hesse-Biber & B. Johnson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of multi-methods and mixed methods research inquiry (pp. 91 – 110). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Cram, F., Pipi, K., & Paipa, K. (2018). Kaupapa Maori evaluation in Aotearoa New Zealand. New Directions for Evaluation: Indigenous Evaluation, 2018(159), 63 – 78. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.20331
DeChardin, T. (1959). The phenomenon of man. New York, NY: Harper Perennial Publishing.
Ermine, W. (2007). The ethical space of engagement. Indigenous Law Journal, 6(1), 193 – 203.
Ersoy, A. (2017). The impact of co-production: From community engagement to social justice. Bristol, England: Policy Press.
Funnell, S. C., & Rogers, P. J. (2011). Purposeful program theory: Effective use of theories of change and logic models. Thousand Oaks, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Gehl, L. (2017). Claiming Anishnaabe: Decolonizing the human spirit. Regina, SK: University of Regina Press.
Groh, A. (2018). Research methods in indigenous contexts. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In N. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 163 – 188). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage .
Haines, A. (2015). Asset-based community development. In R. Phillips & R. H. Pittman (Eds.), An introduction to community development (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hood, S., Hopson, R. K., & Kirkhart, K. (2015). Culturally-responsive evaluation: Theory, practice and future implications. In K. Newcomer & H. Hatry (Eds.), Handbook on practical program evaluation (pp. 281 – 317). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Hornung, F. (2016). Indigenous research with a cultural context. In D. M. Mertens, F. Cram, & B. Chilisa (Eds.), Indigenous pathways into social research: Voices of a new generation (pp. 133 – 152). New York, NY: Routledge.
IFRC. (2014). IFRC framework for community resilience. Geneva, Switzerland: IFRC. Retrieved from https://media.ifrc.org/ifrc/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2018/03/IFRC-Framework-for-Community-Resilience-EN-LR.pdf
Kovach, M. (2009). Indigenous methodologies: Characteristics, conversations, and contexts. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.
Luo, L. P., Liu, Y., & Liu, Y. (2018). Spirituality matters: The role of religion in development project evaluation in the Tibetan communities in China. In F. Cram, K. A. Tibbetts, & J. LaFrance (Eds.), New directions in evaluation: Indigenous evaluation (Vol. 159 , pp. 97 – 106). Thousand Oaks, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Marshall, M. (2005). On tribal consciousness: The trees that hold hands. World Indigenous Peoples’ Conference on Education, Hamilton, Aotearoa / New Zealand. Retrieved from http://www.integrativescience.ca/uploads/articles/2005November-Marshall-WIPCE-On-Tribal-Consciousness-Integrative-Science.pdf
Mertens, D. M. (2018). Mixed methods design in evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mertens, D. M., & Wilson, A. T. (2012). Program evaluation theory and practice: A comprehensive guide. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Meyer, M. A. (2016). The context within: My journey into research. In D. M. Mertens, F. Cram, & B. Chilisa (Eds.), Indigenous pathways into social research: Voices of a new generation (pp. 249 – 260). New York, NY: Routledge.
Pawson, R. (2013). The science of evaluation: A realist manifesto. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Shadish, W. R., Cook, T., & Campbell, D. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Shepherd, R. (2018). Indigenous peoples and the reconciliation agenda: Funding, accountability and risk. In C. Dunn (Ed.), The Handbook of Canadian public administration (3rd ed ., pp. 246 – 268). Toronto, ON: Oxford University Press.
Smith, L. T. (1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and Indigenous peoples. New York, NY: Palgrave.
Toulouse, P. R. (2001). Bimaadziwin (the good life): Sharing the living teachings of the people of Sagamok Anishnawbek: Implications for education (Doctoral dissertation). University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC. Retrieved from https://open.library.ubc.ca/cIRcle/collections/ubctheses/831/items/1.0055503
United Nations. (2008 , March). United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Retrieved from www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/DRIPS_en.pdf
Wehipeihana, N. (2018). Affirming and privileging Indigenous knowledge in evaluation. Canadian Evaluation Society 2018, Calgary, AB. Retrieved from http://nwtevaluation 2018.com/presentations.html
Wilbur, K. (2000). Sex, ecology, spirituality: The spirit of evolution. Boston, MA: Shambhala Publishing.
Wilson, S. (2001). What is an Indigenous research methodology? Canadian Journal of Native Education, 25(2), 175 – 179.
Wilson, S. (2008). Research is ceremony: Indigenous research methods. Black Point, NS: Fernwood.
youth.gov. (2019). Assessing youth involvement & engagement. Retrieved from https://youth.gov/youth-topics/positive-youth-development/how-do-you-assess-youthinvolvement-and-engagement
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2020 Robert P. Shepherd, Katherine A. H. Graham
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.
