Culturally responsive evaluation: A scoping review of the evaluation literature

Lauren Kushnier; Shevaun Nadin; Mary Ellen Hill; Mischa Taylor; Shelly Jun; Christopher J Mushquash; Giulia Puinean; Rebecca Gokiert

doi:10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2023.102322

Culturally responsive evaluation: A scoping review of the evaluation literature

Eval Program Plann. 2023 Oct:100:102322. doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2023.102322. Epub 2023 Jun 1.

Authors

Lauren Kushnier¹, Shevaun Nadin², Mary Ellen Hill², Mischa Taylor³, Shelly Jun⁴, Christopher J Mushquash¹, Giulia Puinean⁴, Rebecca Gokiert⁵

Affiliations

¹ Centre for Rural and Northern Health Research, Lakehead University, Thunder Bay, Canada; Department of Psychology & Centre for Rural and Northern Health Research, Lakehead University & Northern Ontario School of Medicine, Thunder Bay, Canada.
² Centre for Rural and Northern Health Research, Lakehead University, Thunder Bay, Canada.
³ Faculty of Nursing, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
⁴ School of Public Health, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
⁵ School of Public Health, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada. Electronic address: rgokiert@ualberta.ca.

PMID: 37315348
DOI: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2023.102322

Abstract

Evaluators have become increasingly aware of the influence of culture in evaluation, leading to new evaluation approaches that account for the cultural considerations in which evaluations are situated. This scoping review sought to explore how evaluators understand culturally responsive evaluation and identify promising practices. A search of nine evaluation journals yielded 52 articles that were included in this review. Nearly two-thirds of the articles stated that community involvement was essential to culturally responsive evaluation. Power differentials were discussed in almost half of the articles, and the majority used participatory or collaborative approaches to community engagement. Findings from this review suggest that in culturally responsive evaluation, evaluators prioritize community involvement and have an awareness and attentiveness to power differentials. Yet, gaps exist in how culture and evaluation are defined and interpreted, and consequently, inconsistency in how culturally responsive evaluation is practiced.

Keywords: Culturally responsive evaluation; Culture; Evaluation; Review; Scoping review.

Publication types

Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Review

MeSH terms

Culture*
Humans
Program Evaluation*