(12) Foundations of Culturally Responsive Evaluation

Session Number: 12
Track: Professional Development Workshops
Session Type: Professional Development Workshops
Workshop Lead Presenter: Karen Eileen Kirkhart [Professor - Syracuse University]
Other Workshop Presenter 2: Rodney K Hopson [George Mason University]
Time: Nov 07, 2017 (09:00 AM - 04:00 PM)
Room: Wilson B

Theme: My presentation doesn't specifically relate to the theme
Audience Level: Intermediate
Learning Outcomes (PD Workshops): 1. Describe key elements of culturally responsive evaluation theory that can improve the quality of evaluation in diverse settings.
2. Apply strategies of culturally responsive evaluation to each stage of evaluation practice, strengthening the validity of understandings.
3. Develop questions about the contexts in which you are working that will promote discourse on cultural relevance and power.
4. Assess your own individual cultural locations and describe how these influence the design choices you make in your evaluation work.
5. Describe the connections among validity, ethics, and equity to improve evaluation’s ability to support social justice.

Session Abstract (150 words): 

This workshop addresses theoretical foundations of Culturally Responsive Evaluation (CRE) and the strategies that operationalize it in evaluation practice. Following opening introductions, presenters set the context with a reflection on the relevance of diversity in the current moment of our country and where the evaluation profession sits within that. Against this backdrop, the history of CRE’s development is highlighted and key theoretical elements are identified. The workshop then transitions from theory to practice in three segments. The first segment pairs analysis of evaluation contexts with reflections on one’s own cultural location as an evaluator. This prepares participants for the second segment, which considers methods that are culturally congruent with their contexts of practice, noting potential strengths and limitations of each. CRE values the return of benefit to the community, and the third segment examines both methods and issues in communicating findings. Presenters pair examples from the literature with participants’ own examples to connect workshop content with participants’ contexts, interests, and concerns. In closing, the workshop returns to fundamental issues such as grounding CRE in social justice and how this location poses important metaevaluation questions that connect to both ethics and validity.