Show simple item record  

dc.contributor.authorMasters-Awatere, Bridgetteen_NZ
dc.contributor.authorAwatere, Shaunen_NZ
dc.contributor.authorNikora, Linda Waimarieen_NZ
dc.contributor.authorRobertson, Nevilleen_NZ
dc.coverage.spatialConference held at Gold Coast, Queensland, Australiaen_NZ
dc.date.accessioned2015-12-17T02:40:39Z
dc.date.available2015en_NZ
dc.date.available2015-12-17T02:40:39Z
dc.date.issued2015en_NZ
dc.identifier.citationMasters-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.en
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10289/9827
dc.description.abstractFor 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.
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.language.isoen
dc.relation.urihttp://www.apsconference.com.au/program/en_NZ
dc.source50th APS Annual Conference - Celebrating the past, looking toward to the futureen_NZ
dc.titleIndigenous service programs plus indigenous evaluator equals Whitestream evaluation - What's wrong with this picture? (Reflections from my PhD)en_NZ
dc.typeConference Contribution
pubs.elements-id132590
pubs.finish-date2015-10-02en_NZ
pubs.notesSole presentation by Bridgette Masters-Awatere.en_NZ
pubs.organisational-group/Waikato
pubs.organisational-group/Waikato/FASS
pubs.organisational-group/Waikato/FASS/School of Psychology
pubs.organisational-group/Waikato/Research Institutes And Research Groups
pubs.organisational-group/Waikato/Research Institutes And Research Groups/FASS
pubs.organisational-group/Waikato/Research Institutes And Research Groups/FASS/MPRU
pubs.organisational-group/Waikato/Staff
pubs.publisher-urlhttps://events.psychology.org.au/ei/speakers/50APSAbstracts/8G_326.PDFen_NZ
pubs.start-date2015-09-29en_NZ


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record