A Culturally Adaptive Approach to First Nations evaluation consulting
| Author | Catherine Street,Belinda Kendall,Tina McGhie,Lauren O’Flaherty,Darren Schaeffer |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/1035719X221139858 |
| Published date | 01 March 2023 |
| Date | 01 March 2023 |
| Subject Matter | Academic Article |
Academic Article
Evaluation Journal of Australasia
2023, Vol. 23(1) 6–22
© The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1035719X221139858
journals.sagepub.com/home/evj
A Culturally Adaptive
Approach to First Nations
evaluation consulting
Catherine Street
Curijo, Fyshwick, ACT, Australia
Charles Darwin University, Casuarina, NT, Australia
Belinda Kendall, Tina McGhie and Lauren O’Flaherty
Curijo, Fyshwick, ACT, Australia
Darren Schaeffer
Curijo, Fyshwick, ACT, Australia
University of Canberra, Bruce, ACT, Australia
Abstract
Cultural safety is of utmost concern across the evaluation world, particularly given the
way that evaluation and research have historically been implicated in colonising
practices of the West. This article aims to examine the meaning of cultural safety in the
context of an Aboriginal majority-owned consulting organisation that provides eval-
uation services to organisations where First Nations governance systems and pro-
cesses may be unknown. This is a critically reflexive article that considers how the dual
aims of contributing to self-determination and building First Nations business capacity
may be managed in such evaluation projects. We apply Duke et al.’s Culturally Adaptive
Governance Framework to our own evaluation work in striving for evaluations to be
experienced as culturally safe by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander stakeholders and
for evaluation outcomes to be relevant and useful from the perspective of both
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander stakeholders and our clients. We then reflect on
the implications for the evaluation, social policy and for First Nations business sectors.
Corresponding author:
Catherine Street, Research, Monitoring and Evaluation Practice, Unit 3 Molonglo Mall, 105 Newcastle
Street, Curijo, Fyshwick, ACT 2609, Australia.
Email: Catherine.street@curijo.com.au
Keywords
Indigenous, evaluation, policy, consulting, business, cultural safety
Introduction
The failure of evaluation to serve the interests of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
people is well documented (McCausland, 2019). Two key reports by the Productivity
Commission (2016) and the Australian National Audit Office (2017) highlighted the
Commonwealth Government’s lack of progress in addressing disadvantage experi-
enced by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and recommended more ex-
tensive and rigorous evaluation of First Nations programmes. Significant investment
has since been allocated, including the Liberal government’s announcement of $40
million in the 2017–18 budget to evaluate First Nations programmes delivered by the
Australian Government. First Nations health, education and other outcomes measured
through indicators such as the Closing the Gap targets, however, demonstrates ongoing
lack of progress. Some proposed reasons for government evaluations not serving
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people well include the politically charged nature
of evaluations (Altman & Russell, 2012), ill-defined and contradictory policy initiatives
(Cobb-Clark, 2013), an absence of links between theory, data and policy initiatives
(Pholi et al., 2009) and that definitions of ‘success’in First Nations policy frameworks
exclude Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander ways of being, doing and knowing (Street
et al., 2022a).
Of course, how this issue is viewed depends upon the theoretical lens one takes to
thinking about evaluation. A rationalist view to evaluation assumes that the outcomes
of policy can be assessed in a neutral way by collecting and evaluating evidence about
the success of policy (e.g., Bovens et al., 2008). Conversely, the constructivist view of
evaluation emphasises the social natureof the policy evaluation process (e.g.,Balloch &
Tayl or, 2 005 ;Street et al., 2022b). We subscribe to the latter position and believe that
whether ‘objectivity’in evaluation is indeed possible is subject to contestation. We
believe that policy outcomes reflect power relations and will be perceived differently by
various stakeholders who view themselves as benefiting, or not benefiting, from policy
initiatives (Marsh & McConnell, 2010;McConnell et al., 2020). We agree with Altman
and Russell’s (2012) idea that ‘evaluation itself is not a tool for objectively measuring
success or failure but rather forms a part of the policy process’(p. 3). This is particularly
important in the evaluation of First Nations policy and programmes, as production of
knowledge has historically been an act of colonisation that has advanced the interests of
the West while misrepresenting and causing further oppression of Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander people (Smith, 2021). The evaluation literature is increasingly
recognising the centrality of First Nations evaluation processes, methods and para-
digms for more effective evaluative thinking in this context (Mustonen & Feodoroff,
2018;Wehipeihana & McKegg, 2018). At the heart of this is ongoing aspirations for
Street et al. 7
To continue reading
Request your trial