Actividades de control

In 2004, Te Rōpū Whāriki (Whāriki), a group of Māori researchers and evaluators at Massey University, named their approach to programme evaluation “hīkoi” (Moewaka Barnes 2009). Hīkoi was developed, building on Whāriki’s health promotion programme planning and evaluation work during the 1990s when the group was a part of APHRU. As previously noted, the word hīkoi carries with it strong associations with the Māori journey towards self-determination. Describing evaluation as a hīkoi brings immediate recognition for Māori of being on the same path, journeying together; and

although there may be times of struggle, the goal of Māori advancement remains paramount (Kerr 2006). Hīkoi as used in evaluation at Whāriki incorporates the concepts of:

 A collective journey

 The goal of the journey being negotiated

 Inclusion along the way of others with the same or complementary goals (network building, collaborations and capacity building)

 The journey itself being as important as the goal (relationships are highly valued and sustained)

 By Māori, for Māori, towards Māori development and self-determination. (Kerr 2006, Moewaka Barnes 2009)

The hīkoi approach is outlined in The Evaluation Hīkoi: A Māori overview of programme evaluation (Moewaka Barnes 2009). The evaluation hīkoi conceptualises programme evaluation first and foremost, as a collective journey towards Māori development and self-determination. This conceptualisation precludes tightly bounded definitions, allowing for the inclusion of many approaches, methods and practices. However, some definitions are helpful to understanding Māori programme evaluation as used in the hīkoi approach.

”Programme Evaluation” is understood to be about collecting and providing information on the ‘value’ of a programme. It involves information on how best to run a programme (formative), finding out how well a programme is running (process) and how well it is working or what the results have been (impact, outcome). An evaluation

145

can be of any size and may be evaluated internally by those most involved with the programme or by an external evaluator.

”Māori programme evaluation” is likely to be distinguished from non-Māori evaluation in that it is:

 Controlled and owned by Māori

 Meeting Māori needs (although it may meet other needs as well)

 Carried out within a Māori worldview, which is likely to question the dominant culture and norms

 Aiming to make a positive difference.

Whāriki take a broad approach and use the term “Māori evaluation” to describe evaluation that is carried out by Māori; either the evaluators are all Māori or the evaluation is, at a minimum, controlled by and owned by Māori. The hīkoi approach, in common with other Māori approaches to evaluation, pays considerable attention to examining ethics and power in evaluation (Cram 1995, 2004, Kerr 2011). Consideration of ethics may include completing ethics applications from local or national ethics committees and practical issues such as confidentiality, but it is much more complex than this. To be fully dealt with, issues of power, respect and relationships must be considered as these are inextricably linked with the ethical practice of evaluation within Māori contexts (Moewaka Barnes et al. 2009a).

Using a hīkoi approach means evaluators must examine the power relationships between providers, funders, participants, communities and themselves. Evaluators need to consider who they are accountable to, and in what ways. For example, Māori

evaluators often have connections that predate the evaluation and are expected to continue past the end of it. These may be whākapapa connections based on kinship or professional connections with funders or programme providers, and there will be different levels of power in all these relationships. Hīkoi means looking to support Māori self-determination in the power mix that is inherent within every evaluation. It also involves trying to ensure that those with the least power, often the programme recipients, are accorded special honour in the evaluation process. For example, by making sure that they are aware of the high value of their contribution to the evaluation, ensuring that they receive something of value in return and that they are informed of evaluation results. Reciprocity or the giving of a koha to participants is a feature of Māori approaches to evaluation (Kerr 2011, SPEaR 2007).

There are many different views on what evaluation approaches and methods may be more suited to Māori. For example, some argue that qualitative methods are more suitable than quantitative methods. The hīkoi conceptualisation of evaluation takes the position that methods and approaches firstly need to suit the purpose for which they are being used. There is therefore no standard or defined set of methods or tools that make up Māori evaluation. However, there are some approaches that Māori and others would deem unethical; for example, taking information from Māori without consideration of Māori ownership or the use of the research (Cram 1995, Kerr 2006, Moewaka Barnes 2003).

There are also many different views of what a Māori evaluator is or should be. Some talk about the differences between a Māori researcher (or evaluator) and a researcher (or evaluator) who happens to be Māori (Irwin 1994). However, there is general agreement

147

that Māori evaluators are needed in order to call an evaluation ‘Māori’. This does not exclude non-Māori evaluators from taking part in Māori evaluation. Non-Māori may be involved at many levels provided they affirm Māori self-determination goals and are willing to critique Pākehā understandings of ‘Māori’ and Pākehā norms. This naturally excludes evaluations and evaluators who do not allow for significant Māori control.

Efforts to order and describe the culturally desirable attributes for evaluators working with Māori and other ‘minority’ groups have tended in recent years to centre on the concept of cultural competence. Whilst some form of cultural competence and technical competence are both required in order for health promotion and its evaluation to be effective with Māori (Durie 2004, Wehipeihana and McKegg, 2011), there is some resistance to the term ‘cultural competency’ (Moewaka Barnes 2009). It is argued that possessing the types of technical skills and cultural knowledge that are commonly found in lists of cultural competencies does not make a person acceptable to the community or to the programme being evaluated. “An evaluator may ‘know things’ but still operate within a different worldview” (Moewaka Barnes 2009, p. 11). Wehipeihana and McKegg argue that the practice of evaluation in Aotearoa New Zealand has been strongly influenced by Māori notions of connection. As a result, the ability to ‘connect’ to both people and place are key competencies for evaluators within this context (Wehipeihana and McKegg 2011). The hīkoi approach to evaluation ideally allows for the community and/or the programme to select or at least have a reasonable say in selecting the evaluator – an evaluator (or evaluation team) that is technically competent and connects with the programme or the community.

However, given a system where external programme evaluators have generally been selected on the basis of funder evaluation requirements and criteria of competence, the main challenge to the hīkoi ideal, is that funders must trust programme personnel, communities and evaluators to connect and to complete an evaluation that will meet funder requirements. This represents considerable risk and many funders prefer a more prescribed approach, particularly as evaluation aims and methods may only be fully revealed as the evaluation hīkoi unfolds. Despite this, demand for hīkoi and other Māori based evaluations has steadily increased as the demand from Māori health promotion service providers wanting to exercise tino rangatiratanga in the evaluation of their programmes, has grown. This has afforded Whāriki the opportunity to use the hīkoi approach to develop and guide evaluations in diverse health promotion settings (Moewaka Barnes 2009).

Because it focuses on sharing a journey rather than providing a set framework or evaluation method, it has been used to assist in planning and evaluating health promotion initiatives at local community, regional and national levels across a broad range of health promotion target areas. It has also been used to evaluate programmes based on many Māori models of health; for example, the Korikori A Iwi programme was based on Te Pae Mahutonga. The Whāriki evaluation approach emphasises the collective nature of the journey with the evaluator walking alongside the programme staff and their communities. This includes a range of whākapapa connections, explicitly valuing local experience and knowledge and contributing to planning and developmental assistance when needed. (Henwood 2007)

149

The evaluation hīkoi is by no means the only Māori approach to evaluating health promotion programmes. As previously noted, many Māori models of health have been used to guide programmes and evaluations over the last decade. Māori approaches generally emphasise processes and relationships (Moewaka Barnes et al. 2009a) and have been developed to ensure that evaluations focus on outcomes that represent success for Māori. A recent example at the national level is the evaluation of the Ministry of Health’s, Healthy Eating/Healthy Action (HEHA) Strategy which was guided by the key principles contained in the Māori conceptual framework, Te Tūhono Oranga Evaluation Framework (HEHA Strategy Evaluation Consortium 2009). Mauri Ora Mauri Ora (MOMO) is an example of a framework developed by regional Māori public health provider Hapai Te Hauora Tapui Ltd (Tunks 2010). MOMO was designed to promote tikanga Māori as a base for mental well health, but is also used to evaluate programmes according to Māori concepts of care and integrity: tika; pono; aroha; whenua; manāki; tautoko; mātauranga; and tangihanga.