Appendix A – Exploring Indigenous Evaluation by Larry K. Bremner

Indigenous evaluation approaches take time because there is a need to build meaningful, respectful and trusting relationships. To better understand the current context, the past cannot be ignored, as it is necessary to put into perspective the realities of today to create the vision for tomorrow. Evaluation should be directed by the community, possibly through an Indigenous advisory committee, as it is important for communities to take control of the research agenda.

Indigenous approaches must take into account historical trauma and cultural repression and consider how the work will benefit the community and its people. An Indigenous approach is one of relationality; relationships with the land, culture, community, people, ancestors and spirituality. Evaluation should build on the communities’ cultural, social and spiritual values, and support cultural resurgence. The focus of an Indigenous approach should not be on individuals and independence, but on relationships and the community/collective. There are many different methods that can be utilized; however, they must be based on an Indigenous research paradigm. “The need to ground the work in Indigenous culture and community make it impossible to select one predetermined methodology to accommodate this paradigm,” (Easby, 2016, p. 2).

The value of the Indigenous critique of the Western world view lies not in the creation of false dichotomies but in the insight that the colonial attitudes and structures imposed on the world by Europeans are not manifestations of an inherent evil. They are merely reflections of white society’s understanding of its own power and relationship with nature (Alfred, 2009, p. 45).

Prologue

I am Métis. My great-grandmother, Rose Boucher, was born in 1867 in St. Francis Xavier Manitoba. She moved with her parents by ox team to St. Louis Saskatchewan in 1882. In 1883, she married Moise Bremner. On November 19, 1883, Moise, his father William and 28 other Métis signed a petition, protesting the 1883 Order in Council transferring the Métis lands at St. Louis to the Prince Albert Colonization Company; the petition was ignored by the Canadian government. Moise was a member of Captain Baptiste Boucher’s company, one of the 19 dizaines (groups of 10 people) led by Gabriel Dumont during the 1885 Métis Resistance. After the resistance at Batoche, the family moved to the United States and returned to what is now Saskatchewan after the Canadian government granted amnesty. They homesteaded in Domremy, Saskatchewan, in 1905.

Introduction

The intent of this short paper is meant to help the Research and Statistics Division (RSD) and the Policy Centre for Victim Issues (PCVI) of the Department of Justice Canada implement Call to Action (CTA) 40 from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which states:“We call on all levels of government, in collaboration with Aboriginal people, to create adequately funded and accessible Aboriginal-specific victim programs and services with appropriate evaluation mechanisms” (Truth and Reconciliation Commission 2015, p.325). It should be remembered that this work is not intended to provide “templates,” but rather “guiding principles” that will help to guide work undertaken in partnership with Indigenous peoples and communities.

The term Indigenous used throughout this document follows the United Nations approach, which argues it is more beneficial to identify, rather than to define Indigenous peoples. This approach is based on self-identification and takes into account the diversity of Indigenous peoples. As noted by Wilson (2008):

Terms such as Indian, Métis, Aborigine or Torres Strait Islander do nothing to reflect either the distinctiveness of our cultures or the commonalities of our underlying worldviews. [The term] Indigenous is inclusive of all first peoples – unique in our own cultures - but common in our experiences of colonialism and our understanding of the world (p. 15).

Furthermore, one must keep in mind that Indigenous peoples in Canada are not a homogenous group. There are more than 630 First Nations communities in Canada, representing more than 50 First Nations, many of which have experienced different political and contextual realities. Furthermore, Statistics Canada(2017) estimates there are approximately 70 Indigenous languages that can be grouped into 12 language families, while UNESCO estimates there are approximately 90 Indigenous languages in Canada. As pointed out by Chouinard and Cousins (2007), these differences make it extremely hard to generalize from one community to another. Therefore, efforts by RSD and PCVI in reconciliation will need to be as diverse as the populations with whom they are privileged to work.

Canadians frequently are told how Indigenous people are over-represented as victims of crime. However, as noted by Jillian Boyce (2016) victimization rates may be related to Indigenous people being more vulnerable, given other risk factors among Indigenous people. One might argue that the victimization of Indigenous people in Canada is not only related to crime, but also to past injustices regarding a range of services and supports. The interrelationship of inter-generational trauma, wellness, education, employment, language, mental health, and crime must be considered when looking at victimization.

According to Alfred (2009) the Western concept of justice differs from the Indigenous view. He argues that the dominant Western perspective is based upon “idealistic, materialistic ideal of equity or sameness,” whereas the Indigenous concept is based on a belief of a “relationship among all elements that make up our universe… the imperative of respectful, balanced coexistence among all human, animal, and spirit beings, together with the earth” (p. 66). Justice is viewed as maintaining that balance; injustice is viewed as dysfunction and occurs when this crucial balance is disturbed. The goal of Indigenous justice is to restore “harmony to the network of relationships and renewed commitment to ensuring the integrity, and physical, emotional, and spiritual health of all individuals and communities” (p.66).

As noted by Cram, Tibbetts and LaFrance (2018) “the time is now for Indigenous Evaluation (IE)” (p. 11). They argue that over the past 15-20 years the capacities of Indigenous evaluators have increased, as have the capacities of Indigenous communities to understand formal evaluation requirements. Due to these changes, they argue, “the time is right for asserting Indigenous paradigms, methodologies, and methods for evaluation, evaluation capacity building, and research on evaluation” (p. 11).

The following discussion provides an overview of some of the processes that should be kept in mind when undertaking evaluation with Indigenous peoples and communities.

Culture and Context

One must understand that Indigenous evaluation approaches are “inherently rooted in community and cannot be conceived of otherwise,” (Easby, 2016, p. 1). The evaluation approaches need to support the improvement of community well-being in terms of the physical, mental, emotional and spiritual development of individuals, and families. This perspective has been articulated by Mann who states:

As Indigenous researchers, we are the researchers of our respective homelands. We need to bridge the gap between theory and practices. We need to add the dimension of culture to what is researched and produced so that it benefits our communities and families. We need to hear the voices of children and Elders and, most important, the voices of our interpreters across cultures. We are obliged to our communities to do the work and to engage in research that helps to sustain our ways of life (in Padeken and Nee-Benham, 2008, p. 260).

In February 2019, the author (Larry Bremner) attended the Mā te Rae Indigenous Peoples’ Conference on Evaluation in Rotorua, New Zealand. Approximately 120 individuals attended, the majority being Indigenous. Participants came from Aotearoa (NZ), Australia, Continental United States, Africa, Canada, Alaska, Hawaii, Samoa, and within the Arctic Circle. There were over 100 tribes/tribal Nations represented.

Much of the discussions dealt with the need to acknowledge, own, and understand our history, in order to better understand the present and move positively into the future. One Māori Elder stressed that, as Indigenous people, we have to go back to define our space going forward because if we don’t know where we are coming from, how can we know where we are going? This theme of embracing the past was mentioned throughout the conference. Another presenter reinforced this notion stating that we cannot talk about today or tomorrow without understanding our past. It was argued that connecting to past traditions will enable us to find our “authentic self.” Finding one’s self is critically important as it will allow us to better understand what is happening today, helping us to move into the future in a positive way. We were told that the further back we look, the better we will understand today’s context. There is a belief that we have endured a loss of connection to place and high-level relationships, so we need to create places of connection in order to transition out of darkness (discussions at Mā te Rae Indigenous Peoples’ Conference February 2019)

For too long evaluation has looked at an individual’s or community’s current context without looking to the past. The importance of time and community in Indigenous research is mentioned throughout the literature. The past cannot be ignored; it is necessary to put into context the realities of today and the visions for tomorrow (Allan and Smylie, 2015). Eber Hampton (1995) “advises researchers to go back in time to unfold the sacred medicine bundle that holds memories and consider how memory shapes personal truth,” (in Kovach, 2009, p.114). As stated by Alfred (2009):

it is impossible to understand an Indigenous reality by focusing on individuals or discrete aspects of culture outside of a community context. …our peoples’ reality is communal. To know Indigenous people, those seeking knowledge must interact with Indigenous communities, in all their past and present complexity (p. 14).

Relationship Building

Researchers must work to respect, appreciate, and understand Indigenous knowledge and ways of knowing–and how they apply in research. Indigenous knowledge is based on the collective wisdom of ancestors and built through careful observation and experiences of natural patterns of life. It is often learned, transmitted, and retained in the telling of stories, (NCAI Policy Research Center and MSU Center for Native Health Partnerships, 2012, p.11).

Indigenous evaluation approaches take time. Once invited to the community, evaluators need to build meaningful, trusting relationships with Elders and other Indigenous community members, which requires time. For Indigenous people, identity is based on their relationships with the land, culture, community, people, ancestors, and spirituality. It is essential to build and maintain trusting and reciprocal relationships throughout the evaluation (Easby, 2016). As noted by Rowe and Kirkpatrick (2018), trust and the value of the relationship “are mutually nurtured values to ensure that an Indigenous evaluation is meaningful for participants and organizations” (p.13).

Relationship building is viewed as being an important ethical aspect of Indigenous evaluation and is the foundation for Indigenous inquiry (Wilson, 2008; Kovach, 2009). According to Kovach (2009), “Given the egregious past research practices in Indigenous communities, earning trust is critical and may take time, upsetting the efficiency variable or research timelines” (p. 98).

What sometimes works against taking the required time is that “timelines for consultations and evaluations are often decided according to government needs and priorities rather than in a culturally appropriate and flexible way” (INAC 2016, p. 2). This report discusses the importance of taking the time to build relationships. It also suggests that evaluators can show their commitment to the community by participating in traditional activities.

Relationships should also be respectful in that the evaluators should understand and practise community protocols, listening to the stories and building on community cultural, social, and spiritual values. For example, the gift of tobacco or wild rice at the end of a story/interview is a way I try to show my respect for their truths, as is the use of a “talking stick” in talking circles. “The term “respect” is consistently used by Indigenous peoples to underscore the significance of our relationships and humanity” (Smith, 1999, p.120). “Through these long-term engagements, evaluators and participants co-create detailed and culturally-appropriate structures of accountability which are particular to the evaluation context. Conducting evaluation, and oneself, within these structures of accountability is one of the most crucial elements of IRMs [Indigenous Research Methodologies]” (Easby, 2016, p. 5).

To make evaluation more respectful of Indigenous needs, take the time to establish meaningful, respectful relationships based on truth. Recognize the power relationships. The Indigenous individuals and communities’ have the power and knowledge; you are a visitor in their community. Take the time to listen and learn. Respect that individuals are taking time from other things to meet with you and recognize that the priorities they have may be different from yours. Try to obtain an understanding of the communities’ past and current contexts, prior to arriving. Understand that their realities and lived experiences will likely be different from yours. What are you doing that is going to make it better for the community? What are you leaving behind? Is it relevant to the life of the community? Be aware of how your work can contribute to the well-being of the community and decolonization, while on the path to reconciliation.

Decolonizing Evaluation and Research

Merit and worth is the culmination of a lifelong journey towards self-actualization that is realized within the shared meanings and cultural parameters of community. Historical trauma must be addressed and evaluation must contribute to learning that supports cultural renewal and revitalization. Self-determination must be understood by the evaluators as a necessary condition of good evaluation (LaFrance and Nichols, 2011, p. 3).

Poka Laenui (2000) suggests five phases in the process of decolonization:

When discussing decolonization, Smith (1999) suggests that, while decolonization was once viewed as a formal handing over of the instruments of government, this is no longer the view. The process of decolonization is now recognized “as a long-term process involving the bureaucratic, cultural, linguistic and psychological divesting of colonial power” (p. 98). She refers to the methods traditionally employed by the world’s scientific and research community as “the open-cast mining approach to research (see, take and destroy)” which she states are “absolutely unacceptable” (p. 118). She lists some culturally specific ideas that guide Maori researchers, referred to as Kaupapa Maori practice, which were adapted by Cram, Pipi and Paipa (2018). These include:

  1. Aroha ki te tangata - Respect people – allow them to define their own space and meet on their own terms.
  2. He kanohi kitea - Meet people face-to-face, and also be a face that is known to and seen within a community.
  3. Titiro, whakarongo… korero - Look, listen (and then maybe speak) – develop an understanding in order to find a place from which to speak.
  4. Manaaki ki te tangata - share, host people, and be generous.
  5. Kia tupato - be cautious – be politically astute, culturally safe, and reflective about insider/outsider status.
  6. Kaua e takahia te mana o te tangata - do not trample on the “mana” or dignity of a person.
  7. Kia mahaki – be humble – do not flaunt your knowledge; find ways of sharing it (pp. 70-72).

Kaupapa Maori approaches are intended to make a positive difference and seriously address “the cultural ground rules of respect, of working with communities, of sharing processes and knowledge” (Smith 1999, p. 191). Elements of the research are negotiated with the community and the researcher shares control in order to maximize the participation and interest of Maori. Five principles have been applied in deciding which methods are appropriate for helping to make a positive difference for Maori. These include whakapapa (genealogy), whakawhanaungatanga (making connections), whakawatea (a cleansing approach), whakaae (agreement), and whakamana (enhancement of authority), (Cram, Pipi, Paipa, 2018 p. 69).

Gaudry (2011) argues, similarly to Smith, that research is often an “extractive” process in which individuals are seen as “participants” or “informants.” Knowledge is extracted and, in the process, “context, values, and on-the-ground struggles” are lost. He believes this approach is particularly damaging to Indigenous communities. Communities are rarely involved in the development of the research/evaluation questions or in the validation of the findings. “This means that extraction research, rather than affirming and validating Indigenous worldviews, instead judges them by the standards of the dominant culture (often confirming that they are dated and obsolete)” (Gaudry, 2011, p. 115). He suggests that insurgent research should operate from a different set of values which are primarily determined by relationships with Indigenous communities, as members or allies and by “an ethical motivation in search of more egalitarian and autonomous social, political, and economic relations” (Gaudry, 2011, p. 116).

Insurgent research challenges colonialism and works from within Indigenous frameworks and is grounded in an Indigenous resurgence ideology. It has four main principles:

Wilson (2008) believes that spirituality “is an integral, infused part of the whole in the Indigenous world view” (p. 89). He goes on to mention how Canadian and American researchers have shown the importance of spirituality in the rehabilitation of prison inmates “and the need to include Indigenous spirituality and notions of reality in the legal justice system” (Ross 1992 in Wilson 2008, p. 89). The relationality of the Indigenous world view is mentioned throughout the literature. As noted by Kirkhart, LaFrance and Nichols (2011), Indigenous researchers must “appreciate that ancestral, kinship and community relations are fundamental to personal identity. Outcome variables that presume individualism and independence may be less relevant than focus on relationships and collective impact” (p.3).

Decolonizing the evaluation relationship involves developing evaluation strategies with the community and might involve Indigenous advisory committees and tribal ethics review boards.

Kovach (2009) argues that Indigenous research frameworks value “cultural sustainability.” She suggests there is common agreement that Indigenous research which emerges from tribal practices share some broad considerations. These include:

Approaches

An Indigenization process challenges researchers to invoke Indigenous knowledge to inform ways in which concepts and new theoretical frameworks for research studies are defined, new tools of collecting data developed, and the literature base broadened, so that we depend not only on written texts but also on the largely unwritten texts of formerly colonized and historically oppressed peoples, (Chilisa, 2012, p. 101).

In their recent writing, Bowman and Dodge-Francis (2018) talk about Culturally Responsive Indigenous Evaluation (CRIE). CRIE originated as a strategy that would ensure that research, policy and evaluation studies include “culture, language, community context and sovereign Tribal governance… CRIE uses traditional knowledge and contemporary Indigenous theory and methods to design and implement an evaluation study, so it is led by and for the benefits of Indigenous people and tribal nations” (Bowman and Dodge-Francis, 2018, p.22). CRIE is a flexible four-part framework allowing for adaptations for community context/building community, use of cultural responsiveness/traditional teachings for resolving issues, documenting strengths, as well as challenges and needs, and the flexibility to meet local and funder needs for evidence-based evaluations.

Easby (2016) suggests that, while community-based research (CBR) has some similarities to Indigenous research methodologies (IRM), there are differences. She suggests that while not inherently “Indigenous,” CBR is supportive of many of the goals of IRMs. While IRMs do not use the language of CBR, she proposes that this may be a reflection of language differences rather than community-based approaches not being used in Indigenous communities. “There are two different (but related) languages, which reflect different orientations in relation to indigeneity” (p. 1). According to her, the increased profile and discussion regarding Indigenous research methodologies has resulted in increased institutional support for and use of Indigenous research methodologies. The increased profile of IRMs and the subsequent support has resulted in the realization that traditional evaluation/research approaches need to be revised using an Indigenous lens. These revisions will help to ensure that evaluation undertaken in Indigenous communities will be meaningful and contribute to community physical, mental and spiritual well-being.

The Indigenous Evaluation Framework (IEF) has four core values, the foundation upon which the framework rests: being people of a place, recognizing our gifts, honoring family and community, and respecting sovereignty (Kirkhart, LaFrance and Nichols, 2011). This framework is not linear, but does involve four distinct types of activity:

The intent of this model is to address historical trauma and cultural repression and in doing so contribute to cultural revitalization and sovereignty. Again, the importance of relationality and community is stressed as they argue the focus of Indigenous evaluation should not be on the individual and independence, but more on relationships and collective impact.

Kovach (2009) suggests the key difference between IRMs and CBR is that Indigenous research methods emphasize relationality, self-location and accountability. IRMs pay a great deal of attention to an evaluator’s own personal identity and how that helps to guide the evaluation process. Furthermore, the remoteness and closeness of many Indigenous communities results in community awareness of the evaluator’s behaviour and conduct while in the community. She suggests that Indigenous research frameworks ask for clarity of purpose and that the purpose statement within Indigenous research asks:

She says that “Indigenous research frameworks reference cultural grounding specifically or generally, and permeate the research in a manner consistent with the researcher’s relationship with his or her culture” (Kovach, 2009, p.116).

Chouinard and Cousins (2007) in their review of Culturally Competent Evaluation for Aboriginal Communities discussed the Tribal Participatory Research (TPR) approach, which was intended to be a refinement of community-based participatory research (CBPR). As outlined by Chouinard and Cousins, the four principles of TPR are:

They note that one of the challenges that emerged had little to do with the actual methods evaluators used, that is “the mechanics of the specific participatory approaches” (p.48). In fact, the challenges are mainly related to the processes for developing participatory evaluation approaches in Indigenous communities.

They also discussed participatory action research (PAR) which develops a formalized partnership with community members to help guide the evaluation. Again, PAR is culturally grounded and the formalized partnership also helps to identify possible areas that might pose challenges to collaboration. In their review, Chouinard and Cousins (2007) found that, regardless of differences in “names given to the evaluation approaches, most of the cross-cultural evaluations reviewed did develop processes to enable relationships between the community and the evaluator and to further facilitate the participatory process” (p.48). It also became apparent that the literature is quite clear on the need for Indigenous communities to take control of their research agenda. In doing so, they will determine critical areas and set their research priorities.

As noted earlier, it is important to understand that communities differ and, as such, will have different protocols, contexts, and priorities. Indigenous researchers have been calling for control of the research agenda for a long time. Over 20 years ago, Rigney stated that:

Indigenous people are at a stage where they want research and research design to contribute to their self-determination and liberation struggles as it is defined and controlled by their communities… Indigenous peoples think and interpret the world, and its realities in differing ways to non-indigenous peoples because of their experiences, histories, cultures and values,” (Rigney, 1997 in Wilson, 2008, p. 54).

Rowe and Kirkpatrick (2018) highlight the work of the Indigenous Learning Circle (ILC) in Winnipeg’s North End. Language is important! Over a series of circle discussions, participants explored the meaning of terms such as: evaluation, framework, and toolkit and it was decided that from “an Indigenous foundation these terms are not congruent with Indigenous ways of understanding progress or learning” (p. 5) and as such the ILC moved away from terms, such as framework or toolkit, they instead choose the term “bundle” as the concept of bundle “makes an important connection with the values and principles of Indigenous worldviews” (p. 5). The Indigenous Evaluation Bundle is based on the following ten principles to support the vision of Indigenous evaluation.

  1. Community must be the driver of evaluation. Evaluation must focus on strengths, recognize challenges, but also consider individual and community resilience.
    • Engage the community in the planning and implementation of evaluation.
    • Cultural and lived experience must be respected.
  2. Evaluation must be developed from an understanding of the broader context of systemic, recurring, and intergenerational trauma.
    • For example, the damaging effects of residential schools and the sixties scoop have been shown to have left a legacy of trauma for individuals, families, and communities.
  3. Evaluation must take into consideration the broader social and economic context.
    • Interventions at the community level cannot resolve broader social and economic issues such as poverty, lack of housing etc. on their own.
  4. Evaluation must take a comprehensive approach to assess broader community impact.
    • Recognize that while programs have individual mandates, funding arrangements etc., they do not work in isolation of other programs.
    • Aligning with the goals of comprehensive community approaches, evaluation must also recognize the needs and aspirations of individuals and families who have their own hopes and dreams.
  5. Evaluation must take a holistic and relationship based approach.
    • Aligned with holistic programming that focuses on cultural, spiritual, physical and mental well-being of individuals, families, and communities.
    • Nurtures the time and space to build the relationships necessary to design and implement meaningful evaluation that honours reciprocity.
    • Honours the interconnections that exist and facilitates exploration of relationships with self, others, and the natural world.
  6. Evaluation must recognize that meanings of “success” are self-determined.
    • Success is not an objectively defined concept.
    • Individuals have their own ideas of what “success” means to them.
    • “Success” is not static – often re-defined as individuals proceed along their personal journeys.
    • Evaluation must capture the growth along the journey as it is a measure of “success.”
    • Evaluations must capture unanticipated outcomes as examples of success.
  7. Evaluation models must place program participants at the centre of evaluation.
    • Each individual journey involves multiple and interconnected factors/programs/events.
  8. The purpose of evaluation should be to improve the collective impact of individual program and coordinated program response.
    • If individual community members, rather than individual programs, are at the centre of evaluation, it will be more likely to identify gaps in service and how they might best be filled.
  9. Evaluation should be continuous and adequately funded.
    • Evaluation is not an add-on and should be embedded into program design and delivery.
    • Individual and community input should be ongoing.
    • Evaluation should be seen as a cyclical process of reflection and action involving a network of CBOs (community-based organizations) working toward collective impact.
  10. Evaluators must demonstrate an understanding of and respect for the importance of local hiring, local training, capacity building, and mutual support (p. 10-11).

The ILC believes that evaluations frequently fail to identify the broader benefits which result from holistic community-based planning. It is their hope that evaluation outcomes should become aligned with the seven sacred teachings: Respect, Truth, Honesty, Wisdom, Courage, Love, and Humility (Rowe and Kirkpatrick, 2018).

Hatcher, Bartlett, Marshall and Marshall (2009) have talked about the challenges of building bridges between Western sciences and Indigenous sciences. To bring these two different worlds together they use as a guiding principle “Two-Eyed Seeing” which is “to see from one eye with the strengths of Indigenous ways of knowing, and from the other eye with the strengths of Western ways of knowing, and to use both of these eyes together” (p. 3). They suggest that, through focusing on commonalities and respecting differences, they are able to build a bridge between the two ways of knowing. Peltier (2018) has discussed how she has applied this approach pairing Indigenous research methods with participatory action research (PAR). She explains, how the use of traditional Indigenous knowledge and Western theory has enabled her to examine “the potential benefits, challenges, and contributions of Indigenous healing to cancer care and mno-bimaadiziwin (an understanding of wellness)” (p. 2). Her research is rooted in Indigenous ways of knowing and relational connections.

Prior to the development of her research proposal, Peltier met with three Elders to help determine the relevance of the topic to the community. She negotiated formalized partnerships with health agencies and formed a community advisory committee. The advisory committee provided her with guidance throughout the research process including; planning implementation and knowledge production and action to move forward. The advisory committee also directed the hiring of a community-based research assistant, reviewed and refined interview instruments, analyzed the stories and provided input on dissemination. She believes that working from a Two-Eyed Seeing approach, grounded in Indigenous research practices, allowed her “to share a collective story of cancer and mno-bimaadiziwin [an understating of wellness] to honour family and community members who walked with cancer” (Peltier, 2018, p. 2). The research journey involved self-revelation and learning which she believes she would not have been possible without Indigenous methods.

Argo-Kemp and Hong (2018) in their work Bridging Cultural Perspectives, discuss the “Braided River” concept developed by MacFarlane (2009) which is a model to reconcile prevention science and kaupapa Maori perspectives. In the braided river metaphor, each stream represents two knowledge systems equally;

both streams start at the same place and run beside each other in equal strength. They come together on the riverbed and then they move away from one another. Each stream spends more time apart than together. In the model when they do converge, the pace created is one of learning not assimilation (p. 8).

It has been noted that, while the braided river is the conceptual model, a Negotiated Spaces model is used as a dialogue tool in order to provide a process for respectful negotiated conversations. The Negotiated Spaces model was developed by Linda Tuhiwai Smith, Maui Hudson and colleagues “describing the interface between different worldviews and knowledge systems. This is primarily a conceptual space of intersection in-between different ways of knowing and meaning,” (Mila-Schaaf and Hudson, 2009, p. 113).

Methods

Wilson (2008) suggests some Indigenous scholars believe evaluation methods need to be decolonized to be useful to Indigenous peoples. However, he argues that using an Indigenous perspective is not enough; Indigenous research must leave behind the dominant practices and follow Indigenous research techniques. He suggests that Indigenous research can be a circle made up of four interrelated entities: ontology, epistemology, axiology, and methodology.

The entire circle is an Indigenous research paradigm. Its entities are inseparable and blend from one to the next. The whole paradigm is greater than the sum of its parts. … Relationality seems to sum up the whole Indigenous research paradigm… an Indigenous research paradigm is relational and maintains relational accountability (p. 70).

According to Wilson (2008), respect, reciprocity, and responsibility must be incorporated into an Indigenous methodology. When looking at Indigenous research plans, he suggests the researcher must ask:

While Wilson (2008) takes issue with trying to insert an Indigenous perspective into usual practice, he believes “if one starts from an Indigenous paradigm, then one can choose any tool from within that paradigm that may be effective” (p. 39). In this vein, Wilson utilized participant observation, individual interviews, and focus groups as methods while undertaking his research. As he suggested, “in Indigenous research the topic being studied becomes a major key to the process being used” (p. 41).

Wilson talks about how traditional Indigenous research is based on learning by watching and doing. For example, when an Elder describes the process of beading, individuals are taught how to bead by watching and doing and then doing over again. According to Wilson, the scientific term for learning by watching and doing is participant observation. He believes that being a participant observer enabled him to take a more action-research approach to his work. It also allows him to build relationships based on the face-to-face interactions and the sharing of daily, lived experiences. But the way he practises participant observation differs from that based on Western practice in that; “relational accountability requires me to form reciprocal and respectful relationships… the methodology is in contrast with observational techniques that attempt to be unobtrusive and not influence the environment studied” (Wilson, 2008, p. 40).

Rather than focus groups, he uses talking circles, which involve individuals sitting in a circle with each having the opportunity to take an uninterrupted turn to discuss the topic. He makes the point that while they are being newly accepted into evaluation, talking circles are not a new idea for Indigenous people. Chilisa (2012) argues that using Indigenous interview techniques, such as talking circles, as well as using Indigenous knowledge to inform alternative methods is, in fact, a process of decolonization.

The importance of storytelling is well documented. The importance of culture, including language, customs, spirituality, history, and locality, all add to the authenticity of the stories we have to tell (Benham, 2008; Chouinard and Cousins, 2007; Kirkhart, La France and Nichols, 2011; Wilson, 2008). Bowman, Dodge-Francis and Tyndall (2015) highlight how Tribal Critical Theory (TCT) recognizes the importance of stories. As TCT suggests, not only are Tribal beliefs, philosophies and customs important for understanding the lived realities of Indigenous peoples, “it also recognizes the importance of story as a legitimate data source and building block of theory and insists that the interconnected nature of theory and practice demands that researchers work towards social change,” (p. 338).

Kovach (2009) asks if research is a form of knowledge-seeking that is amenable only to quantifiable generalizations?

If that is the belief, it shuts out the possibility of Indigenous research frameworks where generalizabilities are inconsistent with the epistemic frameworks. If research is about learning, so as to enhance the well-being of the earth’s inhabitants, then story is research. It provides insight from observations, experience, interactions, and intuitions that assist in developing a theory about a phenomenon (p. 102).

According to Kovach, storytelling as a method constitutes a decolonizing research approach. In asking others to share their stories, the evaluator must share their own process of respect and reciprocity. The storyteller must know/feel/believe the evaluator is willing to listen to the story. The storytellers, by listening to one another, use story as method that “elevates the research from an extractive exercise serving the fragmentation of knowledge to a holistic endeavour that situates research firmly within the nest of relationship” (Kovach, 2009, p. 98).

In addition to the methods discussed above, there are other methods, such as learning walks, which consist of walking around communities and talking to individuals you meet to provide an opportunity for listening and learning. Examples of other methods include; visual-based methods such as photo-voice and/or drawings, observation, facilitated self-reflection. The methods utilized may be limited by one’s imagination. However, regardless of methods used, they must be set within an Indigenous paradigm. Furthermore, it should be remembered, as noted by Hermes, 1998), “the need to ground the work in Indigenous culture and community render it impossible to select one “predetermined methodology to accommodate this paradigm”(Easby, 2016, p.2).

Guidelines and Ethics

Indigenous research protocols have been developed to safeguard against ethical misconduct and to decolonize the research relationship. These protocols provide guidelines “that counter objectionable research practices around governance, consent, ownership, and use. Furthermore, protocols stress the responsibility on the part of the researcher who seeks to work with Indigenous peoples who hold their cultural knowledge sacred” (Kovach 2009, p.143).

Kovach (2009) has identified a number of research protocols that exist in Canada. For example, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples’ Ethical Guidelines for Research (1996); the Mi’kmaq Ethics Watch (1999); the Standard of Conduct for Research in Clayoquot and Northern Barkely Sound Communities; and, The Canadian Institute of Health Research’s Guidelines for Health Research Involving Aboriginal People (2007).

Schnarch’s 2004 article on ownership, control, access and possession (OCAP) details a well-known statement of principle that, if followed, can offset extractive research practices… The phrase ownership, control, access, and possession (OCAP) was first coined by the First Nations Regional Longitudinal Health Survey Working Committee, and was brought into further awareness through the article by Brian Schnarch for the First Nations Centre, National Health Organization’s (Schnarch 2004). While the article was written with on-reserve communities in mind, it has applicability for the larger Indigenous population. (Kovach, 2009, p. 144)

Conclusions

Indigenous evaluation approaches take time because there is a need to build meaningful, respectful and trusting relationships. To better understand the current context, the past cannot be ignored, as it is necessary to put into perspective the realities of today to create the vision for tomorrow. Evaluation should be directed by the community, possibly through an Indigenous advisory committee, as it is time for communities to take control of the research agenda.

Indigenous approaches must take into account historical trauma and cultural repression and how the work will benefit the community and its peoples. An Indigenous approach is one of relationality; relationships with the land, culture, community, people, ancestors and spirituality.

Alfred (2009) suggests that the interrelationship between politics, morality and economies are treated separately by Western justice. In contrast, in Indigenous societies “right or wrong is determined by broad effect of a specific action on all elements of the universe. Justice consists in maintaining the state of harmonious coexistence that is the goal of all political, spiritual, and economic activity” (p. 67).

Evaluation should build on the communities’ cultural, social and spiritual values and support cultural resurgence. The focus of an Indigenous approach should not be on individuals and independence, but on relationships and the community/collective. There are many different methods that can be utilized; however, they must be based on an Indigenous research paradigm.

Evaluation dealing with Indigenous victims’ services and supports must move from being an extractive process to a decolonizing one. Relationships must be respectful and reciprocal. Evaluation must become more holistic, taking into account the relationality of Indigenous worldviews so that evaluation contributes to cultural revitalization and sovereignty. In so doing, evaluation becomes a process of affirmation and validation that gives back, rather than taking from, Indigenous communities.

References