Moving Beyond the Buzzword: A Framework for Teaching Culturally Responsive Approaches to Evaluation

Abstract

The terms cultural responsiveness and cultural competence have become ubiquitous in many fields of social inquiry, including in evaluation. The discourse surrounding these issues in evaluation has also increased markedly in recent years, and the terms can now be found in many RFPs and government-based evaluation descriptions. We have found that novice evaluators are able to engage culturally re-sponsive approaches to evaluation at the conceptual level, but are unable to translate theoretical constructs into practice. In this article we share a framework for teaching culturally responsive approaches to evaluation. The framework includes two do-mains: conceptual and methodological, each with two interconnected dimensions. The dimensions of the conceptual domain include locating self and social inquiry as a cultural product. The dimensions of the methodological domain include formal and informal applications in evaluation practice. Each of the dimensions are linked to multiple domains within the Competencies for Canadian Evaluation practice. We discuss each and provide suggestions for activities that align with each of the dimensions.Les termes sensibilité culturelle et compétence culturelle sont mainten-ant omniprésents dans de nombreux domaines d’enquête sociale, notamment en évaluation. Le discours entourant ces questions en évaluation s’est aussi intensifié de façon marquée au cours des dernières années et ces termes sont maintenant présents dans de nombreuses demandes de proposition et descriptions d’évaluation émanant d’organismes gouvernementaux. Nous avons trouvé que les évaluateurs débutants sont en mesure de concevoir des approches d’évaluation culturellement adaptées, mais sont incapables de transférer ces notions théoriques à la pratique. Dans le présent article, nous décrivons un cadre pour l’enseignement d’approches évaluatives qui soient culturellement sensibles. Le cadre inclut deux sphères – conceptuelle et méthodologique – chacune ayant deux dimensions interconnectées. Les dimensions de la sphère conceptuelle implique de positionner l’évaluateur et le processus de recherche comme un produit culturel. Les dimensions de la sphère mé-thodologique comprennent des applications formelles et informelles pour la pratique

Scoping recent investment in evaluation education in Australian universities

“…An additional limitation requiring attention is the lack of exploration of the culturally responsive content embedded within evaluation programs. This is also flagged in the literature (Boyce, 2021; Boyce & Chouinard, 2017) Whilst some offerings are more authentic and in-depth than others, we acknowledge that evaluation courses focused on specific disciplines (for example, nursing and education) are also valid pathways to evaluation capacity building and require further research.…”

Beyond the Buzzword: A Framework for an Indigenous Relational Evaluation in Traditional Communities in Ghana

“…Furthermore, there is a growing body of literature on the necessity of cultural philosophies and etymological ideals in evaluation the CRIE complements the emerging cultural values in the theories, methods and practice of evaluation (Easton, 2012;Bowman et al, 2015;Chilisa et al, 2016;Bowman, 2019;Bremner & Bowman, 2020). CRIE approach tends to accentuate the utility of indigenous knowledge and incline towards merging indigenous evaluation values and contemporary evaluation designs to better manage and execute evaluation activities to ensure accountability and transparency (Samuels & Ryan, 2011;Boyce & Chouinard, 2017;Bowman & Dodge-Francis, 2018). Indigenous knowledge and traditional governance systems are tangible and intangible resources with saturated evaluative impulses which could serve as the basis to developed an indigenous evaluation framework.…”

Exploring NSF-Funded Evaluators’ and Principal Investigators’ Definitions and Measurement of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

“…Further, evaluators have issued multiple “calls to action: for their peers” (Hall, 2018; Reid et al, 2020). Evaluators working in STEM fields have long called for attention to culture and DEI (Greene et al, 2006; Mertens & Hopson, 2006) as evidence suggests STEM fields have been riddled with biases (Committee on Equal Opportunities in Science and Engineering, 2017; Lee, 2015) and that a culture of exclusion and limited accessibility persists (Avendano et al, 2019; Packard, 2015).…”

“…Such reflection could lead to the disruption and rejection of the status quo; a challenging of discursive, temporal, relational, and political power (Stickl Haugen & Chouinard, 2019); and a centering of social justice as fundamental in evaluation (Boyce & Chouinard, 2017;Mertens & Hopson, 2006). To effectively measure DEI in evaluation contexts, we need to be willing, able, and ready to facilitate critical reflection on what is going well, what is not going well, and what could be done to improve programmatic attention toward diversity, equity, and inclusivity.…”