Masters-Awatere, B., Awatere, S., Nikora, L. W., & Robertson, N. (2015). Indigenous service programs plus indigenous evaluator equals Whitestream evaluation - What’s wrong with this picture? (Reflections from my PhD). Presented at the 50th APS Annual Conference - Celebrating the past, looking toward to the future, Conference held at Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia, Septermber 29- October 2, 2015.
Permanent Research Commons link: http://hdl.handle.net/10289/9827
For the past 100 or so years, formal evaluation has taken its lead from frameworks that originate from a culturally blind standpoint. Worldwide the major influence on evaluation practice comes from the United States of America. The absence of non-dominant (or indigenous) culturally constructed frameworks has been replicated around the world. Before the formation of the Aotearoa New Zealand Evaluation Association (ANZEA), as a NZ specific evaluation group, practitioners generally belonged to the Australasian Evaluation Society (AES) and joined in the sharing, adoption and adaptation of USAs Program Evaluation Standards. However, the context of evaluation in New Zealand has been somewhat different from the rest of the world, becoming more culturally centred than other countries. The role and place of the Treaty of Waitangi has been acknowledged as an attributing factor by ANZEA. Four indigenous, externally evaluated “By Maori for Maori”, health & wellbeing programmes were used as case studies within my research. I draw upon examples from the cases studies to highlight the vulnerable and contentious position indigenous service providers and indigenous evaluators were in. Adapting Sandra Grande’s (2003) analysis, I critiqued the context of the case study evaluations that commissioners considered as Kaupapa Maori. In this presentation I argue that while stakeholders perceived the work to be an indigenous evaluation, the case studies demonstrate that whitestream evaluation was prevalent.