The concept of (invited) guest or gatecrasher was introduced by Judy Oakden as a way of framing her role, place and space in Maori focused evaluation as a non-Maori evaluator. (Maori are the indigenous people of Aotearoa New Zealand and make up approximately 15% of the population.)
In my own evaluation practice I bring together individual evaluators to be part of an evaluation team and, because my work is almost exclusively focused on Maori, where possible, the team is comprised of Maori evaluators. Of course, this is not always possible despite the growing number of Maori evaluators and researchers.
- How then do I come to invite non-Maori to be part of a mainly Maori evaluation team?
And in a mainly Maori evaluation team:
- What are the roles non-Maori evaluators play?
- What are the responsibilities when inviting non-Maori evaluators?
- What are the challenges of involving non-Maori evaluators?
- What are the benefits of involving non-Maori evaluators?
My own reflection on these questions are posted below, but I invite other evaluators working across diverse cultural contexts and settings and operating in this insider / outsider cultural context to share their experience and to respond to one or all of the above questions.
1. How then do I come to invite non-Maori to be part of a mainly Maori evaluation team?
Mainly on the basis of a trusting relationship, built up over many years, and developed in a number of contexts – evaluation projects, professional development forums and activities, evaluation management and commissioning roles and collegial, family and social settings. Historically, I have been the invited ‘Maori’ evaluator and in this space I continually assess the ways of working and inclusion of Maori values and perspectives, where Maori are not a priority, that potential ‘friends’ become evident.
2. What (then) is the place of non-Maori evaluators in evaluations which have a focus on Maori?
Whilst the number of Maori evaluators are growing, the actual numbers are still small. Non-Maori evaluators are invited to be part of the evaluation team because they bring evaluation skills and experience that contribute to the overall capacity and capability of the evaluation team. Like all team members they bring their personal and professional perspectives to the evaluation effort.
3. What are the roles non-Maori evaluators fulfill?
Non-Maori evaluators can fulfill most other roles in the evaluation team. The exception being primary leadership roles. However depending on the composition of the team, shared key leadership roles are possible. Ideally engagement with Maori is usually undertaken by Maori team members.
4. What are the responsibilities when inviting non-Maori evaluators?
A core responsibility and obligation on the part of the invitee (typically me) is to keep my invited ‘guest’ evaluator safe. This means providing specific guidance (and at times instruction) on what it is appropriate for them to do or say; what specific cultural practices they will need to be able to carry out, and where necessary help them to do this. There responsibility is to follow this advice.
5. What are the benefits of involving non-Maori evaluators?
Skill set aside, one of the key benefits is the critical but constructive feedback they bring because they are non-Maori. Asking the naive questions, helping to surface implicit cultural assumptions and assisting with the ‘translation’ of Maori perspectives into the non-Maori context. One of the key roles I appreciate them playing is explaining Maori perspectives to non-Maori in ways that connect and make sense to non-Maori.
5. What are the challenges of involving non-Maori evaluators?
There is the pragmatic challenge of finding the right person; this is more than a function of an evaluation skill set. Like any team interpersonal skills, having a genuine liking for one another and compatible and complementary ways of working are important.
One of the challenges is trying to explain the application of Maori values and principles within an evaluation context. At times I experience feelings of great frustration because I reach the limit of my (non-Maori) cultural capital and simply run out of words and ways to make clear what I am trying to explain.
Perhaps the greatest challenge is when your guest evaluator does or says things in the public/Maori space which is at the edge of correctness. It can be hard to pull them up on these aspects, even when you are the ‘best’ of friends.
Jane at Real Evaluation
Patricia at CIRCLE (RMIT)
Kia ora Nan,
I put my toe in the water with trepidation in response to some of the issues you raise in this dialogue. I am some one who often “runs out of Pakeha words” to explain kaupapa concepts, whether this is to M?ori colleagues (without the language) and/or Pakeha colleagues. I get innately annoyed at having to explain myself in English, because more often than not it is the M?ori concept, the M?ori kaupapa, the M?ori way, that is constantly held up to the Pakeha/English lens for understanding, for critique, for analysis, to be made sense of, or to be written about.
Often building bridges between cultural understanding rests solely on the M?ori shoulders. Translations of everything M?ori is into English. Bi-lingualism aside, if this country was controlled by M?ori and the boot was on the other foot, how and who would build those bridges from the Pakeha community?
Therefore I have developed a heightened sensitivity to M?ori/Pakeha partnerships and collegial interaction. A discussion in our Post Grad Diploma course comes to mind, one of our colleagues a M?ori woman, was working alongside her Samoan husband in a Pacific community and the question we put to her was, “should she be doing this?” It was not about being culturally competent, it was not about being skilled, but it was about, should you even be doing so?
I would like to put that question to Pakeha evaluation colleagues and yourself Nan as one who pulls teams together to work on projects. I would ask, “should you be doing this?” I certainly have a high regard for Pakeha colleagues involved in evaluation and am lucky enough to be mentored by someone who we in New Zealand regard as one of the best in the field.
At AES last year I was approached by a white Alaskan woman to be interviewed for her PHd thesis in indigenous evaluation. Of course, this caught my interest immediately and after responding well to my rather probing questions, I agreed. I was interested in what space she was making available for indigenous people to build their own evaluation capacity and throughout the interview was able to ascertain from her that her intentions were what I considered genuine. I know, it almost sounds like I was interviewing her, in actual fact I was, whilst answering her questions, I also asked mine. Listening with my native ear for sincerity, for passion, for long term benefits of her research, who would it serve, and how would it serve them?
Partnership with Pakeha has been an ever evolving development in my life time. In the 70’s & 80’s, culturally based groups that I was involved in, in Wellington, grew great partnerships with the churches. At that time it was church members that pushed the boundaries of racial inclusion, social development, racism training amongst government and non-government agencies. People like Sister Makareta from Wanganui and Father Phillipe Fanchette were actively involved in supporting grass roots networks throughout the world to gain independance. They used their positions to gain traction for indigenous people and never sought fame, educating groups of M?ori and Pakeha about social structural analysis.
Encouraging us to read widely and gain our own knowledge and understanding about oppression and liberation strategies. We formed reading groups and for the first time, church members and land protestors, ordinary people sick of what was happening to M?ori discussed and argued Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto, Vladimir Lenin and Trotsky’s ideologies. We revelled in Antonio Gramsci, Prison Notebooks, Culturaly Hegemony and Paolo Friere’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Our readings included court transcripts from the latest protest actions, and our work was based on the streets of Wellington.
“Education either functions as an instrument which is used to facilitate integration of the younger generation into the logic of the present system and bring about conformity or it becomes the practice of freedom, the means by which men and women deal critically and creatively with reality and discover how to participate in the transformation of their world.”
— Paulo Freire (Pedagogy of the Oppressed)
Where are these people now – my partners in revolution? We have been absorbed back into our communities. Many of us still work at the flax roots, whilst building knowledge, skill and acumen in many disciplines. These people I consider colleagues. They take charge of their own education, they work within their own people to educate, conscientize. They have transformed the internal workings of their respective churches. The stand up and take responsibility, whenever someone tells a racist joke, commits a sexist act, passes an unjust law, or even sits on a table – they act.
So what does this have to do with evaluation? I come back to my original question posed in our evaluation class – “should you be working amongst M?ori people, when there is so much you could be doing amongst your own?” How much space can one make for indigenous evaluators if one is actually filling the space? How many M?ori evaluators have you mentored today?
Sometimes my cultural cup overflows, other days its, well, dried up. I invite your comments.
Tena koe e te tuahine mo te wero mai ki a au.
Thank you Kiri for your posting and the many interesting questions you raise. I’d like to respond firstly to your question, ‘should you be doing this?’ – inviting and supporting non-M?ori evaluators in the ‘M?ori’ evaluation space.
Laurie and I have grappled and discussed this question many times, not so much in terms of evaluation but in relation to leadership and management of iwi (tribal) and M?ori organisations, services and enterprises. The question being:
(1) Do you employ a M?ori person, who is knowledgeable and skilled in cultural practices, (and not as skilled in other areas) and provide additional support and training in relation to the management and or administrative requirements of the job where up-skilling is needed?
OR
(2) Do you employ a non-M?ori person, who is knowledgeable and skilled in terms of management and administration (but not in cultural practices) and provide/wrap around them cultural advice and support.
Ideally cultural knowledge and management/business skills would be found in one person. But this is far from an ideal world.
This argument translates across to the evaluation space. In an ideal world we would not need to (although we might) invite non-M?ori evaluators into the space as there would be sufficient M?ori evaluators. But we know this not to be the case. So at one level it is a capacity argument, there simply aren’t enough M?ori evaluators.
Given that there aren’t enough M?ori evaluators the options are to (1) train more M?ori evaluators (2) utilise non-M?ori evaluators (3) reduce the number of evaluations that require M?ori knowledge and expertise.
Train more M?ori evaluators. There are no quick fix options to building the M?ori evaluation workforce. (Jane, Judy and I have touched on this in http://genuineevaluation.com/culture-insiders-and-outsiders-insights-and-genuine-evaluation/).
Utilise non-M?ori evaluators. The reality is, that the demand for evaluation of M?ori focused/targeted programs and services exists and is growing. If there are insufficient M?ori to do this work, then it is likely that it will be done by non-M?ori. So I think I’d rather that we had the ability to influence how that work is done, then to let non-M?ori evaluators do this without support, and some accountability to M?ori. When they work with us we have the ability to support and guide their evaluation practice.
Reduce the number of evaluations that require M?ori knowledge and expertise. We have limited to no ability to influence these kinds of decisions, and given the significant number of programs and service that specifically target M?ori or where M?ori are a significant proportion of the client population services, the demand for evaluation is unlikely to diminish. Demands for evaluation is further exacerbated in this current economic climate as government and funders seek to better utilize and allocate existing or diminished resources.
Should I be doing this? – I think so because I feel it is better done with our guidance and support then not.
How much space can one make for indigenous evaluators if one is actually filling the space?
Your question suggests, that if non-M?ori are working in the ‘M?ori’ evaluation space, the ‘space’ and opportunities for M?ori are reduced. The implication being if we weren’t supporting non-M?ori in this space there would be increased space for M?ori.
In part I think it can diminish the evaluation training and development opportunities for M?ori, but in reality in order for non-M?ori to be taking away a place or opportunity from M?ori, there needs to be (1) a waiting list of M?ori who want to do this work; (and who have the core skills or a willingness to acquire these skills); (2) evaluators who are willing to provide on the job training opportunities (3) clients who are willing to accept novice or trainee evaluators on their work.
I also think that supporting non-M?ori evaluators does not mean one is not mentoring and supporting M?ori evaluators.
You pose another question: ‘how many M?ori evaluators have you mentored today?’
From my own experience, I haven’t struck a success recipe about how you grow M?ori ECB and what’s the ‘best’ ‘optimum’ approach to mentoring. My own results have been highly variable.
On the one hand, one of our M?ori evaluation colleagues, had completed a Commerce degree and an arts degree and was thinking about employment opportunities. Along came an interesting research project, then an interesting evaluation or two and hey presto they were hooked. The next minute you know they were doing postgraduate papers in evaluation and research methods. Now they are firmly ensconced and loving evaluation.
On the other hand, I’ve mentored people who explicitly said they wanted to work in evaluation, be an evaluator, offered similar opportunities but it didn’t work out; sometimes evaluation wasn’t for them, sometimes life circumstances got in the way.
Our most recent foray has been to encourage and support a small group of M?ori students to complete postgraduate evaluation studies. This seems to have been successful in terms of course completion and I am optimistic that this will translate into longer term M?ori evaluation capacity gains.
Going forward:
- what suggestions do you have about growing the space and opportunities for M?ori in evaluation?
- what were you expectations and hopes about what non-M?ori would do in response to your last question “Should you (non-Maori/Pakeha) be working amongst M?ori people, when there is so much you could be doing amongst your own?”
Supporting evaluators in cross cultural contexts – I learned…I realised…I affirmed
Having read what others have had to say and reflected on my experience of inviting non-M?ori to be part of mainly M?ori evaluation teams and/or working on projects (pertaining to M?ori communities), I share these thoughts for others to ponder on, to consider and to share:
1. I learned…
• That I think similarly to others and agree with what others had said – particularly the fact that in most cases those invited have had trusting relationships with me personally or with my friends, that the invitation is often based on the skills, knowledge and relationships that others bring to the projects and that the benefits of others assisting us to articulate, translate and write about our world are numerous
• I think hard about the ‘best fit’ for projects and I seek advice from others about who are the best people to have involved in projects – sometimes they are M?ori and sometimes they are not
• That we in Aotearoa New Zealand are in a unique position in our evaluation context in that we operate in a particular way and that these conversations will serve to enable learning, realizations and affirmations about our unique position in the evaluation world
• We as M?ori have some very clear criteria for what constitutes ‘safe practice’ for ourselves with our own and for non-M?ori with our own – these include – skill and expertise in evaluation approach, can do the work, will do the work, can operate in the space, is safe to work with, knows their place, knows their limits, will add value, do no harm, demonstrates a commitment to, at a minimum pronouncing M?ori names correctly and understanding basic tikanga, assists in ensuring the best outcome for the project, and is respectful and trustworthy
• There are a whole lot of ‘silent voices’ in this conversation – others who have points of view, who have opinions and strong views on working in cross cultural contexts and who would add much to the discussion and debate around the questions asked
• Our native ear, our M?ori heart, our M?ori eyes can be fooled by well intentioned, genuine acts of interest and seemingly ‘pure intent’. Unless we have control over anything written about us, without us – we leave ourselves open to misinterpretation, our cultural paradigms translated within and out of our context
2. I realized…
• I like the people I work with, I have great respect for all that they bring to the relationships and most of all to the projects
• The non-M?ori colleagues I work with are operating in this space alongside us differently and for varying reasons – some of which I know and others I am still working out
• There is a lot more work that we as M?ori evaluators have to do in establishing the kawa and tikanga (protocols and practices) by which we wish to work both with one another and with our non-M?ori colleagues
• I have been an add-on in the past and that being an ‘add-on’ in any setting is not conducive to getting the best out of everyone
• There are a growing number of non-M?ori evaluators who ‘get it’, who understand that they have a contribution to make, who’s participation in the M?ori space is based on a genuine intent to serve our communities well
• There is still a lot more work we need to do – there are more conversations to be had, more questions to be answered, more challenges and critiquing of our practice and there is tremendous value in this
• That the M?ori evaluation space in Aotearoa is exciting – we have much work to do in supporting M?ori evaluation endeavours. This includes consolidating the current pool of M?ori evaluators, strengthening our relationships with M?ori research organisations and institutes, growing the pool of M?ori evaluators, building evaluation capacity within our communities and amongst our Iwi and M?ori provider organization, supporting our Pacific brothers and sisters in their efforts within their communities, providing training in evaluation and in M?ori evaluation methodologies, writing about our experiences as M?ori evaluators working within our communities, developing a funding stream that will enable us to grow our networks, get ourselves organized, develop our own learning and education on evaluation and see ourselves participating and contributing to key evaluation networks such as anzea (Aotearoa New Zealand Evaluation Association), AES (Australasian Evaluation Society and AEA, (the American Evaluation Association)
3. I affirmed…
• We don’t have to do this work by ourselves. I enjoy working in collectives, in collaboration with others, seeing the collective wisdom, expertise and experience of the group bear fruit for the projects
• There is a role for non-M?ori working in this space and in each instance we must be clear on who we are inviting, for what purpose and what their specific contribution will be
• We have much to offer one another
• Working on ‘complex and challenging projects’ in the M?ori space, requires articulation of M?ori practice, validation of M?ori worldviews, call for our M?ori lens (? wairua, ? hinengaro) to be clear and sharp and our strategic and policy minds to be attentive
• We have a right to work with whoever we want to and a responsibility to ‘get it right’. I agreed with Nan’s comments about our obligations to keep invited guests safe and provide advice, guidance and challenge where necessary
• We know how to look after people – to acknowledge when we are receiving, to give back
• We live in our communities – they don’t! When the evaluation is over – our people know where we live – the relationship goes on – it is for us to preserve these relationships with our communities
• The role that non-M?ori evaluators play – depends – what I have experienced when it works well is – when they bring their specific expertise and sit and work alongside to help weave together the collective strands required to achieve the best outcome. When it doesn’t work well is when they think they know best, they make assumptions that they know and we don’t, they think that we can’t do without them, they speak out of turn, they don’t challenge their own when it is their responsibility and they don’t bother to check back with us on their interpretations of our stories before publishing them to the world at large
• I’m all for training more M?ori evaluators!