Theories Bridging Ethnography and Evaluation

Abstract Information: This panel investigates theories that connect ethnography and evaluation when working with education and social programs. Presentations are given by the editors and authors of a forthcoming edited book on this topic—Theories Bridging Ethnography and Evaluation: Making Transformative, Intersectional, and Comparative Connections—for the Emerald series, Studies in Educational Ethnography. Three priorities unify the presenters’ work as they synthesize ethnographic and evaluative ideas: 1) pursuing understanding and transformation through social inquiry; 2) practicing in underrepresented contexts and with historically marginalized communities; and 3) exercising methods pluralism and responsiveness. According to these priorities, ethnography is examined as a pluralistic and holistic approach for understanding the people who are influenced by evaluation. Ethnography in its various forms—from prolonged fieldwork to autoethnography—is explored as a multifaceted pathway for respecting the different cultures and identities of people who are connected to evaluations. Ethnographic methods are a means for not only learning about but also honoring people’s specific stakes in programs—these methods necessitate a depth of attentive care to relationships and refined perception throughout the inquiry process, which is not required of the evaluator employing many other strategies.

Concepts dissected and reimagined by the presenters in this panel include positionality, reflexivity, authenticity, and reciprocity. These concepts that bridge both ethnographic and transformative evaluation work define the relationships the presenters, as evaluators, seek to form with other people through their social inquiry. Following an introductory presentation that describes the edited book’s vision by Goodnight, ed., three panel presentations by chapter authors offer different illuminations of these concepts. First, Bustos and Wright discuss how transformative work requires examination of positionality through the lens of relationships. They offer practical strategies to embed positionality and reflexivity as core practices in the social inquiry of ethnography and evaluation. They also share their experiences interrogating positionality to illustrate their burdens and insights as evaluators of color. Second, Liboon, Gutierrez, and Guillermo Dimagiba explore how Filipino concepts connected to reciprocity inform and shape their practice as Filipina American evaluators and researchers in academia. They use a collaborative autoethnography methodology informed by Filipino frameworks–Sikolohiyang Pilipino and Critical Kapwa–to understand how their cultural background influences the way reciprocity is conceptualized and practiced. Third, Caffer, Brisolara, Hernandez and Jefferson describe authenticity in evaluation as a commitment to a process that reflects and honors the community's identity, values, and ambitions. They argue that authenticity should be a fundamental criterion in all evaluation efforts—evaluations lacking authenticity risk exacerbating existing inequalities. To enable comprehensive evaluations and holistic comprehension of the program's experiences and impacts, they recommend the integration of ethnographic inquiry and methods with the principles of Culturally Responsive and Equitable Evaluation (CREE) to facilitate the generation of evidence through genuine collaborative engagement. Following these presenters, Hopson, ed., draws upon his decades of equity-focused and culturally responsive work—that has distinctively intermixed evaluation and ethnography—to synthesize ideas presented by the panelists and to initiate a dialogue about the ethnography-evaluation possibilities that can guide evaluators’ pursuit of just and transformational work.