Michael Hart () on the Spectrum of Indigenous Evaluation

Sometimes Indigenous people had some say with the kinds of things that they wanted to pay attention to in terms of the kind of perspective or lens to take when looking at those things that will influence the kind of evaluation you take, with that particular First Nation able to reflect the typical things the government body would expect, but also highlight in the analysis the focus and perspective that the First Nation wanted to attend to. On the other hand, I’ve done evaluation with Indigenous organizations, First Nations, Metis, and Inuit organizations, and they had far more control over the evaluation, so they were able to say, “We want an Indigenous-based evaluation,” as opposed to one whose focus includes an Indigenous lens. The difference between these two parts on a continuum is that with an Indigenous-based one we’re able to pre-identify particular values that we want to focus on, predetermine the focus or the particular scope, predetermine even the methods that are going to be used within evaluation.

So on one hand in terms of the First Nation organization having to follow the government body and what their expectations are, a lot of it was predetermined questions and reviewing records. On the other hand, with the Indigenous organization having more control, we’re able to reflect the values, the mission statement of the organization in the evaluation process, and use methods such as sitting down in circle or engaging in a discussion with families, incorporating some aspects such as smudging or even going way off to a different direction, hearing the family talk about other dynamics related perhaps to colonialism or perhaps to ceremony. So there’s far more flexibility with the Indigenous-based one. So when you ask your question, Indigenous evaluation is really about a whole spectrum of methods, of approaches, of foundations. My experience has been from that range and a number of ways in between, it includes a mix of those things.