The conference began on Wednesday, at 2.30 PM, with a welcome from the AEA24 President, awards of the AEA 24 Recipients and a Plenary opening session, titled: ‘Learning from the Life and Legacy of Ricardo Millet: Mentor, Scholar, Field Builder’. This was a tribute to the late Ricardo Millet from David Chavis, Rodney Hopson, and Maria Montenegro. Dr Ricardo Millet was a friend to many and focused his professional life to creating a community in Evaluation and shaping the lives and careers of evaluators and practitioners of color who were often unseen and had not found their way/ place in the AEA and the broader field of Evaluation. Dr. Millet was honored and will be greatly missed. After the plenary session, I went to another session; Engaging Youth as Leaders as DRG & Evaluative Practice: Cross-TIG, Cross-Cultural & MultiLinguistic Lessons Learned in the U.S. and African Contexts to Amplify and Empower Youth Voices in Evaluation. The session was a roundtable presentation, Chaired by Julie Poncelet, and the presenters being Dr Awuor Ponge, EvalIndigeous member, who spoke on behalf of AfrEA, and was joined by Ian Hopwood, Denise Baer, Safyatou Diallo. They were all in support of engaging the Young Emerging Evaluators (YEEs) in the organizational level or the Voluntary Organization of Professional Evaluators (VOPES), since the YEES are the future/ innovators of Evaluation, and the change makers with their fresh perspectives and innovative minds.   Dr Awuor Ponge On Thursday, I attended a plenary Session: Generative AI: Navigating Pthe Ethical Frontier in Evaluation, moderated by Meredith Blair Pearlman- of the David and Lucile Packard Foundation. He was joined by Olivia Delch, Linda Raftree, Dr. Aileen M. Reid, and Zach Tilton. Their presentation sought to identify the transformative impacts of Generative AI on the evaluation practices, the opportunities and the challenges brought by AI in evaluation. They shared their personal insights about integrating AI in Evaluation, and having a balance between the risks associated and the benefits AI brings in Evaluation. On Friday, the day began with a plenary session: ‘Participatory MEL and MEL Tech- Friends or Frenemies’, presented by EvalIndigenous member Eddah Kanini, Hanna Camp, and Josh Dewald. The session focused on elevating the voices of the voiceless and emphasizing the need for involving program participants in the design, implementation and evaluation of program MEL and accountability processes. Eddah Kanini, a passionate advocate of the marginalized talked about empowering the voices of the voiceless/ already silenced voices. This includes those with hearing and vision impairments, and other disabilities, who may be sidelined by the use of MEL tech technologies in evaluation. Eddah Kanini was able to outline the balance between missing people out and the advantages that MEL brings to evaluation field.
After the plenary session, I made a presentation with my Co- presenter, Dr. Awuor Ponge on ‘Amplifying and Empowering Voices of the Indigenous Communities in Evaluation in Kenya: Case of the Indigenous Ogiek and the Mijikenda of Kenya.’ Our presentation was drawn from two studies conducted among the indigenous communities in Kenya, namely the Mijikenda and the Ogiek. The studies were funded by the Ford Foundation under the auspices of the EvalIndigenous Global Network. Our presentation highlighted the importance of engaging the indigenous voices in the evaluation process, and fostering a meaningful partnerships between evaluators and indigenous communities. It was such an honor making this presentation as a YEE. I’m looking forward to making more presentations at AEA Conferences to come. Big thank you to everyone who attended and listened to my presentation. That meant a lot to me.
The climax of the AEA 2024 Conference was the closing plenary session by Prof Bagele Chilisa; ‘Breaking the Echo Chamber: Amplifying Marginalized Voices to Resonate with the Dominant Narrative.’ The session was very engaging and mind blowing as Prof. Bagele shared her lif and academic journey, and the lessons learnt along the way about paradigms and the need for the inclusion of an Indigenous evaluation paradigm in any evaluation taxonomy. She emphasized on the need for evaluators to include Indigenous knowledge in evaluation and acknowledge the importance of Indigenous evaluation methodologies in the hope that evaluation will not only be evaluation but evaluation in service of Indigenous peoples.
1 Comment
A post from Fiona Cram, Co-Chair, EvalIndigenousYou may have noticed that we here at EvalIndigenous have been assembling open access Indigenous Evaluation Resources. It's been a pleasantly surprising exercise to see the resources that are available. And of course there's room for many more resources about Indigenous evaluation principles, guidance, methods and practice examples - so keep writing. For now, here are seven inter-related principles of Indigenous evaluation that the resources we've gathered touch upon. Self-Determination Self-determination is a foundational principle that acknowledges the sovereignty of Indigenous peoples and upholds their rights to self-governance. This principle ensures that Indigenous peoples have the authority to shape every aspect of an evaluation, from design and implementation to the interpretation and use of findings. By maintaining control, Indigenous peoples can ensure that the evaluation aligns with their cultural values, priorities, and long-term visions for development. Evaluation should therefore provide Indigenous peoples with the tools and knowledge to make informed decisions and advocate for their wellbeing. Relational Accountability Relational accountability is a core principle in Indigenous evaluation, emphasizing the interconnected nature of relationships within and between Indigenous peoples, their environment and the cosmos. It underscores the responsibility of evaluators to uphold respectful and reciprocal relationships throughout the evaluation process. This principle is deeply rooted in the understanding that relationships are not merely transactional but sacred and enduring. Evaluators are expected to engage with Indigenous peoples in a manner that is respectful of their traditions, social structures, and values. This involves a long-term commitment, recognizing that the relationship does not end when the evaluation project concludes.
Ethical Responsibility and Data Sovereignty Ethical responsibility in Indigenous evaluation emphasizes protecting the rights and dignity of Indigenous peoples. Evaluators must adhere to culturally appropriate ethical standards, including obtaining Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC). Data sovereignty is a critical component, meaning that communities retain control over how their data is collected, used, and shared. This principle counters historical patterns of exploitation and ensures that data serves the interests of Indigenous peoples. It aligns with global movements advocating for Indigenous rights and recognizes the importance of self-determined research and evaluation practices. Reciprocity Reciprocity in Indigenous evaluation ensures that the process is mutually beneficial, going beyond data collection to provide tangible benefits to Indigenous peoples. This principle is about giving back in meaningful ways, recognizing the Indigenous peoples' contributions and ensuring that the evaluation process is not extractive. Evaluators are expected to share the knowledge generated from the evaluation in accessible formats, enabling Indigenous peoples to use the findings to inform their decisions and improve their practices. Furthermore, reciprocity involves mutual learning, where both evaluators and Indigenous peoples gain insights and skills.
Capacity Building Indigenous evaluations aim to enhance the skills and knowledge of Indigenous peoples so they can conduct their evaluations in the future. Capacity building includes training in data collection, analysis, and use. It is also about fostering a structural analysis of how the potential of Indigenous peoples is often stifled by societal barriers and racism. This principle supports the broader goal of enabling Indigenous peoples to take ownership of their development and governance. It ensures that the benefits of evaluation extend beyond the immediate project, contributing to long-term resilience and self-determination. Concluding Remark Together with the other guidance from the assembled indigenous evaluation resources, these principles create a framework that is respectful and ethical, as well as relevant to the unique contexts of Indigenous peoples. Adherence to the guidance offered and these principles will help ensure that evaluations contribute positively to Indigenous peoples' aspirations, rather than being extractive by only serving external interests. Also available in Spanish: Principios de Evaluación Indígena - Fiona Cram (Spanish version by Celeste).pdf
Fiona Cram shares about some of her experiences at the American Evaluation Association Conference, Portland Oregon, 21-26 October 2024 I arrived ready for the AEA Conference on Wednesday 23 October, and it began at 2:30pm with a welcome, awards ceremony, and opening plenary. This opening plenary was a tribute to our beloved colleague, Ricardo Millett who had passed away. It was entitled ‘Learning from the Life and Legacy of Ricardo Millett: Mentor, Scholar, Field Builder’ and included tributes from David Chavis, Rodney Hopson, Maria Montenegro and other friends and colleagues of Ricardo. He will be much missed.
I then went to the session on ‘Engaging Youth as Leaders as DRG & Evaluative Practice: Cross-TIG, Cross-Cultural & MultiLinguistic Lessons Learned in the U.S. and African Contexts to Amplify and Empower Youth Voices in Evaluation.’ EvalIndigenous member Dr Awuor Ponge spoke on behalf of AfrEA, and was joined by Ian Hopwood, Denise Baer, Safyatou Diallo and others. They all spoke with passion about the importance of investing in the capacity of young and emerging evaluators (YEEs). These YEEs are and will be the innovators and change-makers in our field I presented on Thursday afternoon on behalf of Phuntsho Choden, in a roundtable session entitled ‘How do we evaluate the contribution of development initiatives to Gross National Happiness (GNH)’. Phuntsho and I have been talking together for the past 5-6 years. The AEA conference was a great opportunity to catch people up with the development of the Wholesome Evaluation (WE) framework from Bhutan, to get their feedback, and to pick their brains about the outcomes for the GNH Domains and the WE principles. I am very grateful for people’s feedback.
Friday’s plenary was ‘Participatory MEL and MEL Tech – Friends or Frenemies’. EvalIndigenous member Eddah Kanini spoke about the importance of not further marginalising those whose voices are already silenced or who are considered ‘hard-to-reach’. This includes those with hearing and vision impairments, and other disabilities, who may be sidelined by the use of MEL tech technologies in evaluation. She is a passionate advocate who understands the advantages that MEL brings to evaluation, but who is able to balance this with words of caution about missing people out.
EvalIndigenous members Dr Ponge and Grace Wanjiru Murigo presented their work on ‘Amplifying and Empowering Voices of the Indigenous Communities in Evaluation in Kenya: Case of the Indigenous Ogiek and the Mijikenda of Kenya.’ It was good to see them present at AEA and their paper was well-received. Another standout panel on Friday was a panel that included EvalIndigenous member Gladys Rowe, along with Natalie Nicholson, Pearl Walker-Swaney, Millicent Simenson (via video clips) and Roxanne Johnson from Mewinzha Ondaadiziike Wiigaming. Their session, entitled ‘Crafting an Anishinaabe Evaluation Framework: Co-Creation, Iteration, and Community Alignment in Evaluation Practices’, provided wonderful insights into the provision of tribal health services that are of the community and what this then means for culturally responsive evaluation. I presented with my wonderful colleagues Joan LaFrance, Pālama Lee and Kathy Tibbetts on Friday afternoon. Our session on ‘Lifting the Voices of ʻĀina (Land, Sky, Ocean) in Evaluation: Three Indigenous Perspectives’ reflected on our relations – the Land, Sky and Ocean – and how we need to include them in our evaluation if our work is to be in the service of decolonisation. My many thanks for those who attended this session for your attentiveness and ensuring our session was well held in ceremony.
On Saturday morning I attended Monique Liston and Drew Koleros, about ‘The Evaluative Power Fellowship Model: Demonstrating Dignity-based Data Collection to Empower and Amplify Voices in Evaluation’. This was a powerful session about the importance of engaging with community housing advocates to build’ social movements’ power while ensuring completeness and fidelity in our data collection process.’
The finale of the conference was Saturday’s plenary by Bagele Chilisa, ‘Breaking the Echo Chamber: Amplifying Marginalized Voices to Resonate with the Dominant Narrative.’ This did not disappoint. Bagele shared story about her academic journey and the lessons she learned along the way about paradigms and the need for the inclusion of an Indigenous evaluation paradigm in any evaluation taxonomy. She encouraged us to include Indigenous knowledge in our evaluation and acknowledge the importance of Indigenous evaluation methodologies. She uplifted us and left us feeling hopeful that the messages she shared will help ensure that evaluation is in the service of Indigenous peoples.
As always, this conference was about the opportunities to catch up with old friends, to meet new colleagues, to eat together, and to hear messages of provocation, encouragement and resistance. Dr Ponge also ended on a note of thanks from AfrEA and an invitation to the next AfrEA conference. Kia ora koutou – greetings to you all. My participation at the Australian Evaluation Society (AES) 2024 Conference in Melbourne /Naarm, Australia, 17 – 20 September 2024, was made possible through the generous support from the EvalIndigenous Global Network, through the support from EvalPartners and the International Organization for Collaboration in Evaluation (IOCE). Additional support for conference registration was obtained from AES and from Katoa Limited.
The first Keynote address at the AES 2024 International Evaluation Conference in Melbourne, was delivered by June Oscar AO, a proud Bunuba woman from Fitzroy Crossing in Western Australia's Kimberley region. She is the Inaugural Chair of The Wiyi Yani U Thangani Institute for First Nations Gender Justice. June Oscar is known for her work on First Nations gender justice and women's voices. Her keynote address was titled: “Re-imagining evaluation with a gender justice lens." Her address touched on themes related to Indigenous rights, gender equality, and the importance of incorporating First Nations perspectives in evaluation practices. She shared the voices of the women from First Nations women whom she had spoken to during her term as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner. Some of the notable quotes include:
The second keynote address was delivered by Prof. James Copestake. He is a Professor of International Development at the University of Bath in the UK. He has background in international development and evaluation. Prof. Copestake addressed two key points: promoting useful forward-looking evaluative practice, and exploring examples of forward-looking evaluative practice. He then made suggestions on specific approaches for forward-looking evaluation that included increased use of causal mapping and more backcasting. He argues for a shift towards more forward-looking evaluative practices that integrate anticipation and backcasting into evaluation processes. He also emphasised the need for evaluators to adopt a transformational role, moving beyond conventional methods that focus primarily on past outcomes. Ultimately, Prof. Copestake advocates for a more inclusive and anticipatory evaluative practice that can inspire radical change and enhance the impact of evaluations on public action. His keynote address also touched on themes related to impact evaluation, mixed methods approaches; and the Qualitative Impact Protocol (QuIP) which he has worked on extensively.
The other paper in the session where I presented was by Steven Legg, Associate Director, NSW Treasury and Eugenia Marembo, a NSW Treasury, Senior Analyst, First Nations Economic Wellbeing. Their presentation was titled: “Culturally Responsive Initiatives: Introducing the First Nations Investment Framework.” In their presentation, they argued that there is a need for practical guidance to improve capability across the sector in evaluating and implementing initiatives that impact First Nations people and communities. They mentioned that the First Nations Investment Framework had been developed to address this need. The framework provides structured guidance across several key areas, including foundations for genuine relationships, partnership for shared decision-making, community-led design, data collection and analysis, and transparency and accountability. They concluded their presentation by asserting that implementing culturally responsive approaches can lead to tangible positive impacts for First Nations people and communities. I attended a presentation by Dr. Sandra Ayoo and Stacy Huff titled: “Evaluating Meta-Evaluations: Addressing Social Justice in Program Evaluation.” The presentation focused on the importance of integrating social justice into program evaluation, particularly through the lens of meta-evaluation. It highlighted the current lack of consensus on standards for conducting meta-evaluations and emphasised that addressing social justice is context-dependent rather than based on fixed guidelines. The findings shared advocate for evaluators to prioritise social justice in their designs and methodologies, while also selecting quality assurance tools that align with their specific evaluation contexts. The presentation underscored the shared commitment of organisations like the United Nations and the American Evaluation Association (AEA) to enhance evaluation quality by embedding social justice considerations throughout the evaluation process, aiming to ensure that evaluations benefit both individuals and society at large.  The Author, Awuor Ponge, establishing brotherhood with Indigenous Aborigines from Australia On Day 2 of the Conference, Thursday, 19 September 2024, the first Keynote address was delivered by Elizabeth Hoffecker. The presentation was titled: “Wayfinding Tools for Learning and Evaluation in Complex Systems.” The presenter talked of the context for a systems-aware evaluation, mentioned the key systems components as: elements – whether living or non-living, relationships and purpose and function. She also talked of the need for capacity development – which is a learning-focused activity and research. The presenter then addressed the navigational strategies and tools for systems-aware evaluation. The strategies included:
 Establishing brotherhood with Indigenous Dunghutti from Australia Dr. Ellie Taylor and Ellen Hays made a presentation titled: "Nothing about us, without us": Developing evaluation framework alongside victim-survivors of modern slavery using representative participatory approaches.” The presentation outlined the development and implementation of an evaluation framework for the Lived Experience Engagement Program (LEEP), which aims to involve survivors of modern slavery in shaping policies and responses to this issue. Using a representative participatory action research approach, the evaluation sought to understand the program's impact on stakeholders, particularly survivors, while adhering to principles of trauma-informed, strengths-based, and culturally safe practices. Key findings highlighted the program's success in facilitating survivors' transition from lived experience to lived expertise, increasing confidence, fostering peer connections, and developing knowledge and skills. The evaluation process itself emphasised sustainability, fairness, and respect for human rights principles, while allowing for iterative improvements and the integration of diverse perspectives from survivors, staff, and government stakeholders. On Day 3 of the Conference, on Friday, 20 September 2024, the keynote address was delivered by Indy Joharon the topic: “Addressing transitions through risk and uncertainties.” Indy is a celebrated personality, who is a RIBA register architect, serial social entrepreneur, and Good Growth Advisor to the Mayor of London, UK. He is a co-founder of Dark Matter Labs and of the RIBA award winning architecture and urban practice Architecture00. Indy emphasised the need for large-scale, systemic transitions to address planetary-scale challenges. He argues that we're moving from small experiments to "micro-massive" swarms of interventions happening simultaneously. He therefore concluded his speech by advocating for the development of new capabilities to build and coordinate these distributed interventions, rather than relying on top-down, centralised approaches.  Celebrating a Creation Space for the First Nations of Australia by Kowa and Gilibanga Mitchell Rice-Brading, a Consultant with ARTD Consulting Australia made a presentation titled: “Involving children and young people in evaluations: Equity through active participation” The presentation addressed three key issues regarding involving children and young people in evaluations. It explored the ethical considerations of balancing risks and rights, emphasising the tension between protecting children from unnecessary risks and respecting their right to participate in matters affecting them. The importance of careful ethical protocols and informed consent was equally highlighted. The presentation also discussed recruitment challenges, including obtaining approvals, limited participant pools, and low confidence among potential participants, while suggesting strategies for strong engagement and obtaining consent. Lastly, it outlined the approaches to data collection and engagement, emphasising person-centered and strengths-based principles. This presentation provided practical suggestions for age-appropriate data collection methods, such as focus groups, adapted surveys, and interactive activities, while stressing the importance of making participants feel comfortable and addressing power imbalances. Julian King and Adrian Field made a presentation titled: “Evaluation and Value for Money – Value propositions: clearing the path from theory of change to rubrics.” The presentation discussed key issues related to value propositions in program evaluation. It touched on the distinction between impact and value, emphasising that a theory of change should explicitly address value creation. Impact refers to changes caused by a program, while value relates to what matters to different stakeholders. It also discussed the usefulness of value propositions in bridging the gap between theories of change and evaluation rubrics. They mentioned that by articulating to whom a program is valuable and in what ways, value propositions add depth to theories of change and facilitate the development of clearer evaluation criteria. Lastly, they highlighted the process of developing a value proposition, which involves answering questions about stakeholders, resource investments, ways of working, equity considerations, and factors affecting value creation. This approach helps evaluators define context-specific aspects of good resource use and value creation, leading to more meaningful evaluation criteria.  Sharing a light moment with other Indigenous Participants from Australia at the close of the Conference The closing keynote address was delivered by John Gargani. He is the President of Gargani + Company and a former President of the American Evaluation Association (AEA). His areas of expertise include impact evaluation, scaling impact, value for money, and the use of AI in evaluation. His address was titled: “Finding our way to the future profession of evaluation”. His address focused on impact evaluation and scaling impact. He discussed how evaluators will need to focus more on assessing and helping scale the impact of programs and innovations; the need for integration of AI and technology in evaluation practice and developing new methods for evaluating "value for money" from multiple perspectives and more nuanced ways of assessing value beyond just monetary measures. He also argued that quantitative methods can deepen qualitative understanding of impacts, thereby stressing on the importance of continued use of mixed method approaches in evaluation. At the close of the event, by AES President Kiri Parata, the 2024 Conference Organising Committee officially handed over to the next Conference Organising Committee for aes25 to be held in the Australian Capital City of Canberra / Ngambri. All in all, this was a wonderful event full of learning in the ever-evolving field of evaluation practice! Canberra 2025, here we come!
A blog post from Awuor PONGE & Grace Wanjiru MURIGO On Saturday, 7 September 2024, we travelled to Kilifi County in the Coastal region of Kenya to complete our study on the Mijikenda Kayas. The Study was titled: ‘Traditional Decision-Making as Evaluation: Developing Indigenous Evaluation Methodologies with Kenyan Communities’ and was part of the second phase of the Ford Foundation funding for EvalIndigenous Global Network through the International Organization for Collaboration in Evaluation (IOCE).
The Chenda Chenda 2024 Celebrations at Kaya Fungo Giriama represented a mix of cultural pride, environmental awareness, and community challenges, reflecting the multi-faceted nature of contemporary Mijikenda society, while still retaining the indigenous nature of the society. The celebrations were marked by several significant highlights. The Chenda Chenda festival is usually held annually on September 9 (Nine-Nine or Kenda Kenda in Kiswahili, Chenda Chenda in Mijikenda, representing the nine tribes oof the Mijikenda) is a crucial event for the Mijikenda community. It serves as a platform to celebrate and preserve the rich cultural heritage of the nine Mijikenda tribes. The nine Mijikenda tribes are: Chonyi, Duruma, Digo, Giriama, Jibana, Kambe, Kauma, Rabai and Ribe.
The theme for the 2024 festival was "Our Culture is Our Pillar". This theme was chosen to emphasize the importance of cultural values and to address the concern that many youths are not familiar with their cultural roots. The festival aimed to educate younger generations about their heritage and traditions. A key highlight of the 2024 celebrations was the focus on environmental conservation. The Kaya elders had set a goal to plant 20 million trees, though they managed to plant 10 million. This initiative was part of their efforts to raise awareness about climate change and the importance of environmental preservation.
In the lead-up to the 2024 festival, there were strong calls for unity within the Mijikenda community. This emphasis on unity was particularly significant as there had been attempts by some leaders to organize parallel festivals, which the Kaya elders strongly discouraged. Unfortunately, the 2024 celebrations were not without controversy. Some chaos erupted during the festival, with political rifts overshadowing the cultural celebrations. This underscores the complex interplay between cultural events and political dynamics in the region.
The Chenda Chenda celebrations demonstrated traditional decision-making as part of evaluation processes. The festival was spearheaded by the Coastal Kaya elders, who used the occasion to address crucial issues and outline plans for regional development. This reflects the traditional role of elders in community decision-making and planning.
The celebrations aimed to bring together the nine Mijikenda sub-tribes, fostering unity. This reflects traditional methods of using cultural gatherings to evaluate inter-tribal relationships and make decisions about cooperation. Trees were planted as part of the festival, showing how traditional events are used to evaluate environmental needs and make decisions about conservation efforts. Awuor PONGE & Grace Wanjiru MURIGOEvalIndigenous members, Kenya
This third Kaupapa Māori evaluation blog post describes the methodology, methods and lessons learned from a Kaupapa Māori evaluation conducted in Aotearoa New Zealand in the late 1990s. BackgroundHe Oranga Poutama was part of a broader effort called Omangia Te Oma Roa (Run the Long Journey/Participate for Life), which aimed to facilitate Māori aspirations for health and wellbeing by coordinating policy developments and service delivery across various government agencies. The philosophy of Omangia Te Oma Roa was that physical leisure (sport and recreation) was an effective medium for reaching Māori and promoting health and wellness. He Oranga Poutama was initially developed by the Hillary Commission and subsequently established as a key strategy for promoting Māori health through physical activity. The initiative involved the recruitment and training of Māori health and wellbeing coordinators (kaiwhakahaere) who worked to increase awareness of the benefits of physical activity and injury prevention within Māori communities. The focus of the second-year evaluation of He Oranga Poutama was on changes in Māori community behaviours and attitudes towards sports and recreation as a result of the initiative. The evaluation covered events organized by kaiwhakahaere (coordinators) at four project sites: Tauranga, Whakatane, Auckland Central, and Rotorua. Kaupapa Māori MethodologyThe evaluation of He Oranga Poutama was conducted using a Kaupapa Māori (Māori approach) framework, which emphasizes Māori values, cultural practices, and community involvement. Kaupapa Māori research is concerned with methodology rather than method, focusing on culturally appropriate and community-centred approaches. This involved several key principles, including:
MethodsThe methods used in the evaluation of He Oranga Poutama were designed to be culturally responsive, respectful, and empowering. By aligning with the principles of Kaupapa Māori, the evaluation process honoured Māori values and perspectives, ensuring that the findings were meaningful and relevant to the community. The combination of survey questionnaires, in-depth interviews, focus groups, participant observation, and reflective journals provided a rich and comprehensive understanding of the events’ impact on Māori health and well-being. This approach exemplifies the potential of culturally grounded methodologies in conducting effective and meaningful evaluations within Indigenous communities. 1. Survey Questionnaires
Strengths: The use of survey questionnaires allowed for the collection of standardized data, making it possible to compare results across different sites and events. The involvement of local interviewers enhanced the cultural appropriateness of the method. Challenges: Ensuring high response rates and accurate data collection in a dynamic event environment can be challenging. Training and supporting interviewers was essential to address these challenges. 2. In-Depth InterviewsDescription: In-depth interviews were conducted with key stakeholders, including event organizers (kaiwhakahaere), community leaders, and participants. These interviews aimed to gather detailed qualitative data on their experiences, motivations, and perceptions of the events. Application: Interviewers used semi-structured interview guides to ensure that key topics were covered while allowing for flexibility and in-depth exploration of issues. Interviews were conducted in a respectful and culturally appropriate manner, often incorporating elements of tikanga Māori (Māori customs and traditions). Strengths: In-depth interviews provided rich, detailed insights into the experiences and perspectives of stakeholders. This method allowed for a deeper understanding of the cultural context and the impact of the events on the community. Challenges: Conducting in-depth interviews requires skilled interviewers who can build rapport with participants and navigate sensitive topics. Ensuring the confidentiality and comfort of participants was crucial. 3. Focus GroupsDescription: Focus groups were organized to facilitate discussions among participants and stakeholders. These group discussions provided an opportunity to explore collective views, experiences, and suggestions for improvement. Application: Focus groups were conducted in a relaxed and supportive environment, encouraging open and honest discussion. Facilitators guided the conversations, ensuring that all participants had an opportunity to contribute. The focus groups often started with a whakawhanaungatanga (relationship-building) activity to establish trust and connection. Strengths: Focus groups allowed for the exploration of shared experiences and collective insights. This method facilitated the identification of common themes and issues, enriching the overall understanding of the events’ impact. Challenges: Managing group dynamics and ensuring that all voices were heard required skilled facilitation. Creating a safe and respectful environment was essential for meaningful discussion. 4. Participant ObservationDescription: Participant observation involved evaluators immersing themselves in the events, observing interactions, activities, and the overall atmosphere. This method aimed to provide a holistic understanding of the events and their impact on the community. Application: Evaluators participated in the events as observers, taking detailed field notes on their observations. They focused on aspects such as participant engagement, interactions between whānau (extended family) members, and the integration of health promotion messages. Strengths: Participant observation provided context and depth to the evaluation findings. It allowed evaluators to capture the nuances of the events and the cultural dynamics at play. Challenges: Maintaining an objective perspective while being immersed in the event can be challenging. Balancing participation and observation required careful consideration and reflexivity. 5. Reflective Journals
Strengths: Reflective journals supported evaluators in maintaining a reflexive approach, allowing them to critically examine their own biases, assumptions, and positionality. This method contributed to the integrity and authenticity of the evaluation. Challenges: Maintaining consistent and detailed journal entries required discipline and commitment. Ensuring that reflections were honest and constructive was essential for the effectiveness of this method. Key Evaluation FindingsDemographics: The majority of participants were Māori, with a significant portion aged between 16 and 40 years. There was a relatively even gender distribution. Attendance and Motivation: Participants primarily attended to support whānau, play sports, or enjoy the event. Whānau networks were a crucial factor in recruiting participants and spectators. Health Behaviours: Many participants reported reducing smoking and alcohol consumption during the events. A significant number set personal goals related to increasing fitness and participating in more sports. Event Success: Most participants and stakeholders felt the events were successful, highlighting the importance of whanaungatanga (kinship) and community involvement. Key Learnings from the Use of Kaupapa Māori Evaluation MethodologyThese key points highlight the valuable lessons learned from employing a Kaupapa Māori evaluation methodology in the He Oranga Poutama initiative. The culturally responsive and community-centred approach not only enhanced the evaluation process but also contributed to the empowerment and well-being of the Māori communities involved. Cultural relevance enhances engagement
Building trust through local interviewers
Community ownership and empowerment
Holistic understanding through mixed methods
Importance of reflexivity
Continuous improvement through feedback
Cultural integrity in evaluation
ConclusionHe Oranga Poutama successfully promoted sports and healthy lifestyles among Māori communities. The events fostered a sense of whanaungatanga (relationships) and provided platforms for participants to set and achieve personal health goals. The initiative's culturally relevant approach and strong community engagement were key to its success. Ongoing support, innovative health promotion strategies, and continuous improvement based on community feedback will further enhance the program's impact. The initiative stands as a model for culturally grounded health promotion, demonstrating the power of Indigenous knowledge and practices in fostering well-being. The use of Kaupapa Māori evaluation methodology in the evaluation of He Oranga Poutama was instrumental in creating a culturally responsive, respectful, and empowering evaluation process. This methodology not only enhanced the engagement and participation of Māori communities but also ensured that the evaluation findings were meaningful, relevant and useable. By honouring Māori values and perspectives, this Kaupapa Māori evaluation provided a robust framework for understanding and promoting health and well-being within Māori communities. Glossary
Other blog posts in this series: |
 | Posted by Fiona Cram, PhDNgāti Pāhauwera, Aotearoa New Zealand Acknowledgement I would like to extend my gratitude to ChatGPT for its invaluable assistance in summarizing this report. |
Kaupapa Māori research and evaluation are deeply embedded in the ethical values and cultural principles that reflect the Māori worldview. These values emphasize the importance of relationships, respect, and reciprocity, and they guide evaluators and researchers to engage with communities in ways that are culturally appropriate and empowering. Below are key community-up ethical values that underpin Kaupapa Māori research and evaluation.
 | Aroha ki te Tangata (Love for the People)Aroha ki te tangata involves showing respect and love for people, allowing them to define their own space and meet on their own terms. This value is foundational to establishing respectful and trusting relationships between evaluators/researchers and participants. It acknowledges the importance of compassion, empathy, and care, and ensures that research practices are aligned with the well-being and aspirations of the community |
In practice, this means that evaluators and researchers must be flexible and responsive during interactions, taking cues from the community about the appropriate cultural protocols to observe. For example, the E Hine project, which focused on young Māori women, involved guidance from a Kāhui Kaumātua (Elders Group) to ensure cultural appropriateness and responsiveness to participants' lived realities.
He Kanohi Kitea (Being a Seen Face)
He kanohi kitea emphasizes the importance of evaluators and researchers being a known and visible presence within the community. This value is about building long-term relationships and trust by engaging with the community regularly and being present at local events. It ensures that evaluators and researchers are not just voices heard from a distance but faces that are seen and recognized in the community.
This practice helps to establish credibility and fosters deeper connections, which are essential for conducting meaningful and authentic research. It also respects the community's need for ongoing engagement and accountability beyond the immediate research project.
This practice helps to establish credibility and fosters deeper connections, which are essential for conducting meaningful and authentic research. It also respects the community's need for ongoing engagement and accountability beyond the immediate research project.
Whakawhanaungatanga (Making Connections)
Whakawhanaungatanga involves the process of making and strengthening connections, particularly through whakapapa (genealogy) and other forms of relational ties. This value highlights the importance of relationships and interconnectedness in Māori society. Researchers and evaluators are encouraged to build relationships that go beyond professional interactions, recognising the significance of kinship and community ties.
In Kaupapa Māori research and evaluation, whakawhanaungatanga ensures that the research process is embedded within the community's social fabric, promoting mutual support and understanding. It is through these connections that evaluators and researchers can gain deeper insights and foster genuine collaboration with participants.
In Kaupapa Māori research and evaluation, whakawhanaungatanga ensures that the research process is embedded within the community's social fabric, promoting mutual support and understanding. It is through these connections that evaluators and researchers can gain deeper insights and foster genuine collaboration with participants.
Titiro, Whakarongo… Kōrero (Look, Listen… Speak)This value advises evaluators and researchers to first look and listen before speaking. It emphasizes the importance of understanding the context and perspectives of the community before making contributions. This approach encourages evaluators and researchers to be observant and attentive, ensuring that their actions and words are informed by a deep understanding of the community's needs and aspirations. By prioritising listening and observation, evaluators and researchers can avoid making assumptions and ensure that their interventions are relevant and respectful. This practice fosters a more inclusive and participatory research process, where the voices of community members are heard and valued. |  |
Manaaki ki te Tangata (Sharing and Hosting)
Manaaki ki te tangata involves the principles of hospitality, generosity, and caring for others. In the context of research, this value emphasizes the importance of sharing knowledge, resources, and support with the community. Researchers and evaluators are encouraged to approach their work with a spirit of generosity, ensuring that the research process benefits all involved.
This practice not only fosters a sense of community and mutual support but also enhances the overall effectiveness of the research. By being generous and supportive, evaluators and researchers can build stronger relationships and promote a more positive and collaborative research environment.
This practice not only fosters a sense of community and mutual support but also enhances the overall effectiveness of the research. By being generous and supportive, evaluators and researchers can build stronger relationships and promote a more positive and collaborative research environment.
Kia Tūpato (Being Cautious)
Kia tūpato encourages evaluators and researchers to be cautious, politically astute, culturally safe, and reflexive about their insider/outsider status. This value underscores the importance of being aware of the broader socio-political context and navigating it carefully to ensure that the research is conducted respectfully and sensitively.
This practice requires evaluators and researchers to be mindful of the potential impacts of their work on the community and to act in ways that protect and uphold the community's dignity and well-being. It also involves being reflective and self-critical, ensuring that research practices do not inadvertently harm or disempower participants.
This practice requires evaluators and researchers to be mindful of the potential impacts of their work on the community and to act in ways that protect and uphold the community's dignity and well-being. It also involves being reflective and self-critical, ensuring that research practices do not inadvertently harm or disempower participants.
Kaua e Takahia te Mana o te Tangata (Do Not Trample on the Dignity of People)
This principle emphasizes the importance of preserving and respecting the dignity of participants. Researchers and evaluators must be mindful of their actions and the ways in which their research might affect individuals and communities. It is crucial to conduct research in a manner that upholds the mana (dignity) of all involved.
By adhering to this principle, evaluators and researchers ensure that their work does not exploit or marginalize participants but instead respects their inherent worth and contributions. This practice fosters trust and mutual respect, which are essential for successful and ethical research.
By adhering to this principle, evaluators and researchers ensure that their work does not exploit or marginalize participants but instead respects their inherent worth and contributions. This practice fosters trust and mutual respect, which are essential for successful and ethical research.
Kia Māhaki (Being Humble)
Kia māhaki encourages evaluators and researchers to approach their work with humility, recognizing that they do not have all the answers and must be open to learning from the community. This value promotes a collaborative and respectful research process, where knowledge is co-created and shared.
Humility in research means acknowledging the expertise and insights of community members and valuing their contributions. It also involves being open to feedback and willing to adapt one's approach based on the needs and perspectives of the community.
Humility in research means acknowledging the expertise and insights of community members and valuing their contributions. It also involves being open to feedback and willing to adapt one's approach based on the needs and perspectives of the community.
ConclusionThe community-up ethical values of Kaupapa Māori research and evaluation provide a robust framework for conducting research that is culturally responsive and respectful. These values emphasize the importance of relationships, respect, reciprocity, and humility, guiding evaluators and researchers to engage with Māori communities in ways that are empowering and aligned with their cultural values. |  2004 hīkoi (protest march) to Parliament |
By adhering to these principles, evaluators and researchers can ensure that their work not only contributes to the advancement of knowledge but also supports the well-being and aspirations of Māori communities. This approach fosters trust, mutual respect, and collaboration, creating a more inclusive and effective research process that honours the unique perspectives and experiences of Māori.
Further Reading
Cram, F. (2009). Maintaining Indigenous voices. In D. Mertens & P. Ginsberg (Eds.), SAGE Handbook of social science research ethics (pp. 308-322). Sage Publications.
Smith, L. T. (2021). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and Indigenous peoples. 3rd Edition. Bloomsbury.
Pipi, K., Cram, F., Hawke, R., Hawke, S., Huriwai, T., Mataki, T., ... & Tuuta, C. (2004). A research ethic for studying Māori and iwi provider success. Social Policy Journal of New Zealand, 23, 141-153.
Smith, L. T. (2021). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and Indigenous peoples. 3rd Edition. Bloomsbury.
Pipi, K., Cram, F., Hawke, R., Hawke, S., Huriwai, T., Mataki, T., ... & Tuuta, C. (2004). A research ethic for studying Māori and iwi provider success. Social Policy Journal of New Zealand, 23, 141-153.
The original report described here was: Cram, F. & Pitama, S. (1998). He Oranga Poutama - Second Year Evaluation Report. Prepared for Te Puni Kōkiri.
Other blog posts in this series:
1. Kaupapa Māori Evaluation – Evaluation by, for and with Māori
3. Kaupapa Māori Evaluation - Case Example
 | Author - Fiona Cram, PhDNgāti Pāhauwera, Aotearoa New Zealand Acknowledgement I would like to acknowledge the assistance of AI technology in the preparation of this blog. The use of OpenAI’s language model, ChatGPT, was instrumental in summarising the evaluation report described here. |
In this blog, Fiona Cram provides an introductory overview to Kaupapa Māori evaluation. Kaupapa Māori evaluation was developed in the 1990s and is a highly respected evaluation paradigm in Aotearoa New Zealand.
| Kaupapa Māori evaluation is an Indigenous methodology rooted in Māori cultural values, principles, and worldview. It is fundamentally about doing evaluation in a way that is by Māori, for Māori, and with Māori, ensuring that Māori voices, perspectives, and knowledge are central to the evaluation process. This approach contrasts sharply with conventional evaluation methods that often marginalize or overlook Indigenous perspectives. The essence of Kaupapa Māori evaluation is to validate and legitimize Māori ways of knowing, being, and doing, fostering self-determination and cultural revitalization. |  Aotearoa |
Colonisation and its impact
The history of Aotearoa (New Zealand) is marked by the arrival of European settlers and the subsequent colonization that significantly impacted Māori society. The signing of the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840 was meant to establish a partnership between Māori and the British Crown, guaranteeing Māori sovereignty and land rights. However, the promises of the Treaty were soon undermined by successive colonial governments, leading to the alienation of Māori land, suppression of the Māori language, and the marginalization of Māori.
The foundations of Kaupapa Māori evaluation
Kaupapa Māori evaluation is deeply embedded in the broader framework of Kaupapa Māori theory, which emerged as a response to the colonization and marginalization of Māori people. This theory underscores the importance of Māori self-determination (tino rangatiratanga), cultural aspirations (taonga tuku iho), and the centrality of Māori language and culture. As Linda Tuhiwai Smith (2021) articulates, Kaupapa Māori involves a commitment to the survival and revival of Māori culture and language, as well as the struggle for autonomy over Māori lives and cultural well-being.
The principles of Kaupapa Māori theory are:
1. Tino Rangatiratanga (Self-determination): Ensuring Māori control over the evaluation process and outcomes.
2. Taonga Tuku Iho (Cultural Aspirations): Valuing and promoting Māori cultural beliefs and practices.
3. Ako (Culturally Preferred Pedagogy): Utilizing teaching and learning practices that align with Māori preferences.
4. Kia Piki Ake i Nga Raruraru o te Kāinga (Socioeconomic Mediation): Addressing and mediating socioeconomic challenges faced by Māori communities.
5. Whānau (Extended Family Structure): Recognizing and reinforcing the importance of extended family networks.
6. Kaupapa (Collective Philosophy): Upholding a collective vision and commitment to Māori well-being.
7. Te Tiriti o Waitangi (Treaty of Waitangi): Affirming the rights of Māori as both tangata whenua (Indigenous peoples) and citizens of Aotearoa New Zealand.
8. Āta (Growing Respectful Relationships): Encompassing the building and maintaining of respectful relationships.
The principles of Kaupapa Māori theory are:
1. Tino Rangatiratanga (Self-determination): Ensuring Māori control over the evaluation process and outcomes.
2. Taonga Tuku Iho (Cultural Aspirations): Valuing and promoting Māori cultural beliefs and practices.
3. Ako (Culturally Preferred Pedagogy): Utilizing teaching and learning practices that align with Māori preferences.
4. Kia Piki Ake i Nga Raruraru o te Kāinga (Socioeconomic Mediation): Addressing and mediating socioeconomic challenges faced by Māori communities.
5. Whānau (Extended Family Structure): Recognizing and reinforcing the importance of extended family networks.
6. Kaupapa (Collective Philosophy): Upholding a collective vision and commitment to Māori well-being.
7. Te Tiriti o Waitangi (Treaty of Waitangi): Affirming the rights of Māori as both tangata whenua (Indigenous peoples) and citizens of Aotearoa New Zealand.
8. Āta (Growing Respectful Relationships): Encompassing the building and maintaining of respectful relationships.
Methodological approachKaupapa Māori evaluation is both a methodological and a philosophical approach. It involves a cyclical process of engagement, reflection, and action that ensures that evaluations are culturally relevant and responsive. The methodology emphasizes relationship-building (whakawhanaungatanga) and is guided by ethical practices that respect and honour Māori values. Whakawhanaungatanga is the process of establishing and maintaining relationships, which is crucial in Kaupapa Māori evaluation. It ensures that evaluators are connected to the community and that the evaluation process is collaborative and inclusive. This approach contrasts with traditional evaluation methods that may adopt a more detached and objective stance. Another key aspect is the use of Mātauranga Māori (Māori knowledge) in the evaluation process. This involves integrating Māori epistemologies and ontologies, which provide a framework for understanding and interpreting the world from a Māori perspective. This approach ensures that evaluations are not only culturally appropriate but also meaningful and beneficial to Māori communities. |  Māori cultural performance  Young Māori whānau (family) |
Practical application
In practice, Kaupapa Māori evaluation involves several stages:
1. Planning and Design: Engaging with the community to define the scope and objectives of the evaluation. This stage involves identifying key stakeholders and ensuring that their voices and perspectives are included.
2. Data Collection: Using methods that are culturally appropriate and respectful. This may include hui (meetings), wānanga (workshops), and other forms of collective discussion and decision-making.
3. Data Analysis: Interpreting the data through a Māori lens, ensuring that the analysis reflects Māori values and perspectives and incorporates a structural analysis of what prevents Māori from flourishing.
4. Reporting and Dissemination: Sharing the findings in ways that are accessible and meaningful to the community. This may involve oral presentations, written reports, and other forms of communication that are culturally responsive.
A key feature of Kaupapa Māori evaluation is its emphasis on capacity building. Evaluators work alongside community members to develop their skills and knowledge, enabling them to undertake their own evaluations in the future. This approach not only empowers the community but also ensures the sustainability of the evaluation process.
1. Planning and Design: Engaging with the community to define the scope and objectives of the evaluation. This stage involves identifying key stakeholders and ensuring that their voices and perspectives are included.
2. Data Collection: Using methods that are culturally appropriate and respectful. This may include hui (meetings), wānanga (workshops), and other forms of collective discussion and decision-making.
3. Data Analysis: Interpreting the data through a Māori lens, ensuring that the analysis reflects Māori values and perspectives and incorporates a structural analysis of what prevents Māori from flourishing.
4. Reporting and Dissemination: Sharing the findings in ways that are accessible and meaningful to the community. This may involve oral presentations, written reports, and other forms of communication that are culturally responsive.
A key feature of Kaupapa Māori evaluation is its emphasis on capacity building. Evaluators work alongside community members to develop their skills and knowledge, enabling them to undertake their own evaluations in the future. This approach not only empowers the community but also ensures the sustainability of the evaluation process.
Challenges and opportunities
One of the main challenges of Kaupapa Māori evaluation is navigating the tension between Māori and Western worldviews. There is often a mismatch between Western models of evaluation and Māori cultural values and practices. This can lead to misunderstandings and conflicts, particularly when dealing with government agencies and other non-Māori stakeholders. However, this challenge also presents an opportunity for transformation. By highlighting the limitations of conventional evaluation methods, Kaupapa Māori evaluation can contribute to a broader decolonization of evaluation practices. This involves not only validating Māori ways of knowing but also challenging the dominance of Western epistemologies and advocating for more inclusive and equitable evaluation practices.
Case study: Health researchAn example of Kaupapa Māori evaluation in action can be seen in the field of health research. Māori health researchers have developed evaluation frameworks that are grounded in Māori values and principles. These frameworks emphasize the importance of whānau and community well-being, rather than focusing solely on individual outcomes. One such framework is the 1996 Hongoeka Declaration for Māori Health Research, which outlines a vision for Māori health research that is determined and coordinated by Māori, working with and for Māori. This declaration highlights the importance of self-determination, cultural relevance, and community engagement in the research and evaluation process. By using these frameworks, Māori health researchers have been able to conduct evaluations that are culturally meaningful and relevant. This has led to more effective health interventions and improved health outcomes for Māori communities. |  |
Conclusion
Kaupapa Māori evaluation is a powerful tool for promoting Indigenous self-determination and cultural revitalization. It challenges conventional evaluation methods and offers a more inclusive and equitable approach that respects and honours Māori values and perspectives. As the practice of Kaupapa Māori evaluation continues to evolve, it has the potential to contribute to a broader decolonization of evaluation practices, benefiting not only Māori but also other Indigenous and marginalized communities around the world.
Through its emphasis on relationship-building, capacity building, and cultural relevance, Kaupapa Māori evaluation provides a model for how evaluation can be conducted in ways that are respectful, empowering, and transformative. As we move forward, it is essential to continue to learn from and build upon these practices, ensuring that Indigenous voices and perspectives are at the forefront of evaluation processes and outcomes (Cram, Pipi, & Paipa, 2018).
Through its emphasis on relationship-building, capacity building, and cultural relevance, Kaupapa Māori evaluation provides a model for how evaluation can be conducted in ways that are respectful, empowering, and transformative. As we move forward, it is essential to continue to learn from and build upon these practices, ensuring that Indigenous voices and perspectives are at the forefront of evaluation processes and outcomes (Cram, Pipi, & Paipa, 2018).
References
Cram, F., Pipi, K., & Paipa, K. (2018). Kaupapa Māori evaluation in Aotearoa New Zealand. New Directions for Evaluation - Indigenous Evaluation, 159, 63-77.
Smith, L. T. (2021). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples (3rd Edition ed.). New York: Zed Books.
Smith, L. T. (2021). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples (3rd Edition ed.). New York: Zed Books.
Other blog posts in this series:
2. Kaupapa Māori Evaluation – Community-Up Values
3. Kaupapa Māori Evaluation - Case Example
 | Author - Fiona Cram, PhDNgāti Pāhauwera, Aotearoa New Zealand |
A 4-part blog series about the drought in Zambia, by John T. Njovu
Also read: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3
Part 4. The disempowerment of clan heads by British colonialists
Many headpersons wallow in extreme poverty while they are by tradition the custodians of their ancestral land and its resources. Arguably headpersons are the clan leaders and custodians of Indigenous land. However, the government concentrates on maintaining good relationships with chiefs and offers them many gifts. The tradition of giving gifts to chiefs when one visits is abused. Kavula mu kamwa (a Nsenga adage for opening one’s mouth) is a tradition of giving gifts to traditional leaders as an inducement for them to speak to a visitor. Neither customary law or modern law is specific on what is a reasonable gift for the traditional leaders and that they should declare it or submit an annual declaration of assets as demanded from public servants. Chiefs are built palaces, paid allowances and entitlements to security by government. Clan heads don’t get the same treatment from government! Some have complained about this anomaly. They argue that their counterparts in Mozambique are on government’s payroll.
The institution of chief was introduced in Nyalugwe chiefdom by British colonisers in the 1930s. It should be the clan heads who should have elected a chief among them. Like in many other tribes, the appointments by colonisers were meant to help them rule. A foreigner was appointed based on his hospitality to the British District Commissioner that visited the area. The colonisers appointed even the Swahili who were former slave traders (e.g. in Lamba speaking communities) and other prominent people in the villages. They made foreigners to be their allies. The foreigners were trusted to keep village registers accurately and assist in collecting the hated poll tax from Indigenous people.
The Chewa and Bisa (now forming the Nsenga tribe) then came under the rule of the Tande-Shona from Zimbabwe. The hunter Tande group were allies of the Ngoni in the area. They purportedly helped the Ngoni to come into Zambia when Shaka the Zulu was pursuing them. The Tande used to live at the confluence of the Zambezi and Luangwa River before the Ngoni crossed the Zambezi. The village of Chisobe in Luangwa (formerly Feira) was their first settlement in the Luangwa basin. Most people mistakenly think Chisobe is a Chikunda village and falls under chief Mphuka. No, despite the residents mostly speaking Chikunda, it is a Tande village and marks the southern tip of the Nyalugwe chiefdom. The Chikunda was a group composed of runaway slaves from Portuguese plantations that got involved in the slave and gun trade. They raided nearby tribes in what seemed to be revenge attacks for being sold into slavery to the Portuguese by their folks and tribal leaders. They expanded through intermarriages with other tribes around the confluence and became a new tribe in Zambia.
A lot of smaller tribes like the Tande had claimed to be Ngoni before the British defeated the Ngoni. After the defeat, the name no longer evoked fear and warriorlike ruthlessness. So, they reclaimed their ethnic identity.
The current laws on traditional governance and land are inherited from the colonial system. The laws give a lot of power to traditional chiefs on villagers and land. Thus, seeds of conflicts were sown by the colonisers and have been propped up by post-independence governments between Indigenous people and foreigners amidst them. They usually flare up during times of succession when a chief passes on. The many wrangles on the post of chief is due to the perception that the position gives one easy access to riches, government gifts and security and royalties from businesspeople. There also many wrangles on the extent of the territories of chiefdoms. The colonial 1958 map of tribal territories in Zambia has been a cause of numerous tribal disputes. The colonisers purportedly did not consult local people when drawing the map. There are, therefore, attempts by the government to remap tribal chiefdoms. However, some chiefs have opposed the move.
Politicians vying to become councilors and Members of Parliament for the area have been campaigning to get the road graded and bring modern developments to the area once they are voted in. However, none has ever done so or returned to the area to explain why political campaign pledges are not fulfilled. They usually reach remote villages that have no good roads with their 4x4 vehicles and helicopters when campaigning for seats into parliament.
Governance evaluation
The elected and traditional leaders are currently able to get away with bad governance and representation. Traditional leaders were made to adhere to good governance practices in the pre-colonial era as they were evaluated by their subjects using traditional evaluation systems. For example, the annual tribal thanks giving ceremonies of the tribes to their ancestors served as evaluation space for ordinary subjects. Some chiefs had court jesters, poets, singers and dancers to remind them to adhere to good governance. Through poetry, singing and dances they were able to inform their leaders how the tribe rated their leadership and management of the tribe. The chiefs had to be good leaders for their subjects to be able to respect them and gift them with the first fruits of their harvests. They were tokens of appreciation for good leadership of the tribe and stewardship of the tribe’s ancestral land. During the time of abundant virgin land, tribal members fled bad leadership and management. They could choose a new leader who would lead them to go and settle elsewhere. Now traditional leaders do not depend on royalties from their subjects but investors in the chiefdoms and from government. The focus on individual interests has led to the death of the Ubuntu spirit. Chiefs are no longer dependent on rating of their performance by the tribe and on their subjects’ good will, but that of politicians and businesspeople. Therefore, the plight of most of their subjects is of no concern to them as they are sustained by high net-worth individuals and organisations. Their subjects, in turn, are unable to hold them accountable on stewardship of ancestral lands and chiefdoms. Bad tribal leadership is even being perpetuated by the government, church, businesses and external donors.
Equally, the modern elected leaders in local and national governance are alienated from their constituents. The constituents only chance to evaluate their performance on public service delivery is during local and national elections. Due to lack of civic awareness among most citizens and the predominant tendency of voting on tribal lines, many politicians have gotten away with poor performance. Aided by evaluators who have not been helpful to constituents to raise civic awareness and evaluation skill of most citizens, the nation continues to have social and economic challenges. Adherence to the rigours of the western evaluation methodologies have perpetuated bad governance in Zambia and other poorly governed nations. The call by the UN of not leaving anyone behind and that of EvalIndigenous to decolonise evaluation, recognises the factors hindering good national and institutional governance.
The failure of African democratic governments to be financially independent and provide good governance has left many citizens disillusioned and mistrustful of their leaders. Many African nations lack of progress in social and economic development has led to a return of military coups on the continent. Seven west African nations have had their civilian governments overthrown. Ordinary citizens have flooded streets in jubilation to greet the soldiers. Doesn’t this make one think of the fatigue in voters hoping for good change in governance?
There is need to go behind the donors’ and politicians’ rhetoric to enhance civic awareness and participation of citizens and especially Indigenous peoples. The government, evaluation community and community-based organisations should enhance the participation of most citizens in governance and especially evaluation. For example, they can teach score carding of the performance of local and national leaders to citizens on a grass root level. The current trend of chiefs and national leaders surrounding themselves with relatives and cronies as advisors, ministers and public assets managers is proving unhelpful to national development. The compromised national governance institutions and civil society do not provide the needed checks and balance. The political parties are legal gangs. The African elites have become the fronts for the perpetuation of colonialism or keys for the entrance of neo-colonialists. The current democratic systems and remnants of colonial governance systems have not served the majority of the people of Africa. They replaced colonisers with the elite of Indigenous communities that are controlled by former colonial masters. They prop up the colonial inequality and white supremacy.
It is time for citizens to get more involved in civic affairs to ensure good governance. The Indigenous evaluators and holders of traditional knowledge have a major role to play. It is time that the Made in Africa and other Indigenous evaluation methodologies became part of the toolboxes of development evaluation. Interests of Indigenous communities, lands, environments and ways of life shall then be safe guarded. Their aspirations realised.
Government distribution of Relief Food
| The call by most of the people of the Nyalugwe chiefdom that I met during my study tour was for more supplies of food from the DMMU (Disaster Management and Mitigation Unit). They also called on their high net-worth relatives, civil society, and well-wishers to come to their assistance. TUpon returning from the Kasansamula, I joined the big crowd of villagers that had gathered at Chamilala Primary School. The next distribution point to the one in Chamilala was about 40-50 km away at Uyanya Primary School. They were on Great East Road and some 3-5 kms from the Luangwa bridge. |  SMS to all Zambian citizens’ phones from the Disaster Management and Mitigation Unit of the Office of the Vice President of Zambia on Friday 7th June 2024. |
Patiently waiting for relief food distribution at Chamilala Primary school Photo by Ngosa Banda @JTN 2024
The Zambian government, through the DMMU, is supplying relief maize to vulnerable communities in the country. Headman Tiopa had pointed out that all plants had wilted and not just maize.
115 by 50 Kg bags of maize were being distributed. A bag per household. According to the DMMU, there were 115 households in the area between Chamilala and Pitala villages. However, the local distribution committee’s leadership estimates that they are more than that. Therefore, the committee was redistributing on the basis of what it considered to be a spirit of Ubuntu hospitality. One bag to the elderly and one bag divided between two households to the rest of the settlers. A 50 kg bag of maize should produce a 23-24 kg of milled maize (commonly referred to in Zambia as mealie meal). An average household has about six members. They on average consume three to four bags of mealie meal per month. The mealie meal is only for nshima (porridge), however, to have a full meal and a balanced diet, the nshima is accompanied by relish. The relish is mainly consisting of meat, fish, vegetables and legumes.
50 Kg bags of maize distributed to residents of Chamilala ward by DMMU Photo by Ngosa Banda @JTN 2024
The DMMU has not in the emergency food distribution included other types of food, e.g. lentils (e.g. Nyemba (Indigenous beans)), vegetable (Chiwawa (dried pumpkin leaves)) and other nutritious and energy foods. Therefore, recipients of the DMMU’s relief maize must find other sources of food for the shortfall.
The DMMU officers were not sure if and when there would be a next consignment. They requested, in their discussion with the representatives of the local distribution committee, that Zambians should be selling their maize to the government’s Food Reserve Agency (FRA) instead of private companies. It’s the FRA that is helping to supply the relief maize to the DMMU.
According to the DMMU officers, people that are considered able to afford food, such as teachers and hospital workers in the area, were not to be included in the list of recipients.
The presence of the DMMU in the area shows the total breakdown of the traditional sustenance system of the Nyalugwe chiefdom and our Zambian culture. Many tribes in Zambia hold annual thank giving ceremonies to ancestors and share their harvest with their chiefs as the key representatives of their ancestors. The Nyalugwe chiefdom holds annual Tuwimba ceremony in conjunction with other Nsenga tribes. A chief’s granary is supposed to be the granny of a whole tribe. It’s from the chief’s granary that the tribe used to get relief food in times of drought and hunger.
Conclusion: A call for assistance, unity and ceremony
The UN, EvalIndigenous, other voluntary development associations and some individuals and philanthropists have been calling for respect of Indigenous community rights. They have called for a major shift in the evaluation practice, its decolonisation. The freeing of the evaluation discipline from the hold of white supremacists needs concerted efforts of well-meaning stakeholders both in the south and north, developmental institutions, practitioners, Indigenous communities and businesses. This shift needs more research in Indigenous knowledge and the development of the curriculum in Indigenous evaluation. The admission of Indigenous knowledge and evaluation methodologies in the evaluation practice will be a realisation of the major shift.
EvalIndigenous has embarked on enhancing the visibility of Indigenous evaluators and their communities. It has also been strengthening them to assert their rights in the the development evaluation process. It shares it ‘Ten Questions to Ask Evaluators and Development Intervenors. It has also developed an African Evaluation Protocol. Its work with Indigenous communities is being highly appreciated. Like many non-profits, it has the organisational and environmental challenges. They mightily block the full realisation of its programmes and projects. Therefore, it needs help from well-wishers to overcome them. Otherwise, it shall become another addition to the statistics of failed UN decades of development. Become a casualty of the historical walls against marginalised Blacks, people of colour, Indigenous and poor peoples of the world. It can become a casualty of its own grand ambitions.
Resource mobilisation is a major challenge of non-profits during the corona and post-corona pandemic era. Therefore, I very much thank the Ford Foundation. It has offered the much-needed help to EvalIndigenous, its members and their communities. Now we can make progress in the decolonisation of evaluation. I am a recipient and very grateful for that help. I am now able to be present in my community in its time of need and contribute to finding viable solutions.
Due to civic activities, there is a call on me by some Nyalugweans to lead them in finding a lasting solution to many of the developmental challenges of the chiefdom. Some believe that I could use my global network to find donors to fund emergence food supplies as well as viable drought resistant agro-schemes in the chiefdom.
There is also a call for a unifier to bring the different ages and sectors of our people together. I have been proposed to lead my extended family back to our Indigenous ways of Ubuntu. The emphasis is now setting aside individual interests and getting back to placing at the centre of all our actions and thoughts only communal interests. Unity and unselfishness are recognised as of cardinal importance in solving communal challenges. What is your education and professional expertise for if you cannot find solutions to the developmental needs of your community?
The call for a unifier is also a call for the holding of a traditional ceremony. A communal mass to request for our ancestors’ forgiveness for having turned our backs on our Indigenous ways. The idea scares me. Why choose me to lead the process? A Tuwimba is ordinarily led by traditional leaders and sages. The financial, infrastructural and organisational demands of holding a tribal ceremony are very much beyond my personal abilities.
Indeed, the chiefdom needs to foster a spirit of unity and altruism to find communal solutions to the challenges brought about by climate change.
Most of the people of Nyalugwe chiefdom need urgent help to be able to have food until the end of the next farming season. They need help to avoid starving to death. The DMMU that is assisting them has insufficient food. It’s also only supplying starch (maize for mealie meal) but no other food stuffs required for a person’s good health. It, therefore, need the help of other institutions and well-wishers. Soup kitchens need to be set up in the vulnerable settlements, especially for children, different abled, mentally challenged and the elderly.
For long term solutions, the government and its partners need to start educating farmers to start planting drought resistant crops, venture in communal water retention’s ventures and use equipment that shall raise the production of food crops from their land.
There need for a change of behavior from the current sense of entitlement among national and traditional leaders. There’s currently a winner take all attitude. Subjects and citizens also need to change their behaviour. They need to be civic aware and proactive. They should be assertive and be demanding good governance from their leaders.
Traditional land is held by the chiefs on behalf of all members of their tribe. State land is held by the republican president on behalf of all Zambians. However, in most cases, traditional or Indigenous land is treated as the private property of a chief and not that it’s held on trust on behalf of the tribe. Their subjects are also not strong enough and politically empowered to question this anomaly and fight for their rights.
Therefore, just a few members of royal establishments and the elite that live in royal opulence amid squaller and abject underdevelopment. Imagine the difference it would make to a poor Nyalugwe communities if those benefiting from the resources of their Indigenous land instead of spending their income on owning planes or expensive vehicles or many residences in town or lavishly clubbing, they could spend that money on reducing poverty including hunger in the community or developing the chiefdom.
The Nyalugwe chiefdom is not in a conflict zone. Zambia is a peaceful nation and richly endowed with numerous and abundant resources. With good leadership, a return to patriotism and the Ubuntu spirit, the chiefdom and Zambia can overcome the current challenges.
 | Author - John T. Njovu, ZambiaJohn T. Njovu is a renowned Zambian Economist, Indigenous Evaluator, Author, Film Producer, and Civic Activist. He has been for the past three decades an active member of the development evaluation community. He has served in both the public and private sector. His civic involvement in non-profits has enhanced those he has been involved in locally and abroad. |
Gratitude on data collection assistance on climate change in the Luangwa valley
There is not much data on the effects of climate change and economics of climate change in Zambia or the rest of Africa. I have been using my own resources to start studying and filming the effects of climate change in the Luangwa basin. I am grateful to receive a pledge of support from EvalIndigenous to support my efforts. This has been made possible through its receipt of a 2024 grant from the Ford Foundation.
There is not much data on the effects of climate change and economics of climate change in Zambia or the rest of Africa. I have been using my own resources to start studying and filming the effects of climate change in the Luangwa basin. I am grateful to receive a pledge of support from EvalIndigenous to support my efforts. This has been made possible through its receipt of a 2024 grant from the Ford Foundation.
A 4-part blog series about the drought in Zambia, by John T. Njovu
Also read: Part 1, Part 2
Part 3. The shadow economy
I kept a look out for the signs of not usually spoken about and hidden social and economic matters during my May 2024 visit to the chiefdom. In national underdevelopment and chaos there is an orderly game and powerful hidden forces in control.
Charcoal burning causing deforestation
Driving from Lusaka to Nyimba, I noted a lot of charcoal bags for sale. The roadside communities are coping with the loss of livelihood by turning to charcoal burning. The government has banned charcoal burning.
Charcoal burning leading to deforestation Photo by Ngosa Banda @JTN 2024
Some of the people in the chiefdom like in other rural areas of Zambia have resorted to charcoal burning. There is high demand for charcoal as a result of inadequate electricity supply in urban areas. Loadshedding introduced by the national electricity corporation to ration electricity is for 8 to 14 hours a day. There is inadequate water in the Kariba dam to ensure sustainable generation of electricity and meet the demand. The trade in charcoal is worsening the deforestation and related climate change. There is need to sensitise people against engaging in charcoal burning as it adds to deforestation and adverse climate change. Long term measures need to be found quickly by the governments, civil society, businesses, and citizens to save lives and ensure sustainable communities.
A roadblock was established on Wednesday the 15th of May at Uyanya village to stop motorists ferrying charcoal across the Luangwa bridge. The opening ceremony was attended by Chief Nyalugwe and his headpersons. There is a police and council roadblock at the Luangwa bridge market for livestock and aliens, and a military one a short distance west of the market for the much sought after hard wood, mukula.
The production of charcoal is very labour intensive. Firstly, cutting of the trees. Secondly, gathering and piling them in one place. Thirdly, covering the pile with soil and leaving vents for firing and air intake. Fourthly, setting the pile on fire. The charcoal burners have to sleep at the kiln to ensure that the wood does not over burn and turn into ash. Lastly, when they are certain that the wood has turned into charcoal, they remove the soil. Then wait for it to cool down and start packing the charcoal into 25 kg sacks.
Like in any dusty industry, there is silicosis. The charcoal dust causes difficult to cure respiratory illnesses. The villagers are aware that the prolonged exposure to wood smoke and charcoal dust harms their health. However, they argue that they have no other choice of a sustainable livelihood.
While the trade in charcoal involves the poor, the trade in the hard wood involves sophisticated traditional leaders, politicians and foreigners. Just like when there was much poaching of the elephants for ivory in the 1980-90s leading to the depletion of its elephant population in the Nyalugwe chiefdom, mukula trees that used to be plenty are now very hard to find in the chiefdom. There is also no sign of owls and nightjars during starry night drives. Where could we find answers on such matters? Is it a taboo to ask questions on the disappearing communal resources? I have observed that we generally censor ourselves and are unable to talk maybe due to taboos and superstition. By bewitching ourselves with fear and expecting others or good supernatural forces to intervene for us and correct wrongs, negative forces take advantage. A researcher needs a lot of patience and a long time with a Nyalugwe villager respondent to be trusted and told what actually is going on.
Wood cutters and charcoal burners should be encouraged to replant trees in their areas of operation. It would help reduce deforestation. They should think of future generations as well and leave an inheritance of good forests.
In search of hidden gold
I had heard about the shadow economy in the chiefdom. So, I drove to Kasansamula village to find out more. Though it is an open secret, however, it is taboo to talk to strangers about it. Exposing clandestine economic systems can be very dangerous for individuals. Where the financial stakes are very high, people thought to be endangering the main players’ income can get into trouble. In an underdeveloped nation like Zambia, where the majority may be financially challenged, money talks and the truth sayers are hated. Even if a person collecting data is trying to correct financial and social wrongs in order to protect rights of communities from abuse by powerful forces, poor people can turn against that person and protect their abusers. Poverty can make Judas Iscariot look like a saint.
I had heard of the gold belt from Shona land in Zimbabwe that runs through the Muchinga escarpment. From the confluence of Zambezi and Luangwa Rivers in the south to the Rift valley of East Africa. Nyalugwe chiefdom from the confluence of Lusemfwa and Luangwa River and up to the confluence of Luangwa River and Nyimba stream near Luembe has been known to have deposits of gold.
Clandestine mining Photo by Ngosa Banda @JTN 2024
The infamous fugitive, John ‘Changa changa’ Clark, and equally infamous investor, Cecil Rhodes, are said to have eyed the gold in the Luangwa valley, especially in the old Petauke area. Petauke then stretched from a place that was called Nyakolwe (now Luembe chiefdom) to Charter land (the area around Minga up to Mozambique in new Petauke district). Nyalugwe chiefdom was part of Petauke district under the Ngoni. The Ngoni chief fled after learning of the massacre of Ngoni impis and the British District Commissioner entered the area. The Commissioner was appointing chiefs among the friendly people and traders.
Cecil Rhodes had set out to weakness the most feared tribe that controlled the area and trade, the Ngoni. With the help of the British army that was stationed in Malawi, he was able to eliminate the threat against his domination. The Ngoni impis armed only with spears were no match against guns in the 1898-9 war. Prince Singo and his wife were executed to send a chilly message to the other tribes. Singo was the commander of the impis (Ngoni warrior). The day of his execution, 4 February 1898, is a tribal day of mourning. He is now considered as a national hero and one of the first freedom fighters. Being unable to raid weaker tribes for food as weaker tribes sought British protection, King Mpezeni was forced to sign an agreement of subjection to British rule. Without their herd of cattle, the economic mighty of the Ngoni based on cattle instantly diminished, and they sought work in the mines and farms owned by the British. Some of the impis were conscripted into Rhodes’ police force and sent to control their war cousin tribe, the Ndebele of Zimbabwe. They were considered a threat to British access to the coal field in Zimbabwe and copper regions in Zambia.
The forsaken settlement of beautiful Luangwa River
Kasansamula is about 10 km west of Tiopa Mukamwa village and perched on the eastern bank of Luangwa River. The road to it from Great East Road, a stretch of 10 km has not been maintained for almost 40 years. The village is usually forgotten by politicians until days nearing the general elections. That is when its residents become the darlings of politicians vying for votes for seats in the local council and national assembly.
There is a roadblock of game scouts (forest wardens) about 3 km from the junction of Nyalugwe and Great East Road. The road also leads to two safari camps.
Poster of Kasansamula primary school Photo by Ngosa Banda @JTN 2024
Kasansamula’s main road’s entrance looks like time has ignored it. The compounds are still having a precolonial look. Grass thatched mud caked circular buildings in small open areas. Not many iron roofing sheets in sight. Modern building materials though perceived by many villagers as signs of wealth are an addition to the carbon footprint.
Forgotten Kasansamula village Photo by John T. Njovu @JTN 2024
The signs of modernity are a water pump, a primary school and the deputy headmaster’s home. Headman Petulo’s home is not different from the other low-level structures. It was mostly built from local forest products. I had noted the same about Headman Nyalugwe’s home when I visited it at Nyalugwe HQ.
Self-poisoning
The pre-historic looking Kasansamula village had an abandoned look. A classroom of pupils and a lot of young men mingling at a small store probably selling alcohol were the main signs of residence. Behind that profound façade of underdevelopment, we discovered an invasion of mostly urban aliens. The young men at the store were part of the illicit gold buyers from urban areas. They were camped in tents around the village. Some were renting the huts. Most of the villagers had shifted into the nearby forests and dry riverbeds. They were the miners. They were enduring hard labour and the extreme cold nights in the valleys of streams and hills. Hope of striking it rich one being their driver.
Gold mining camp Photo by Gilbert Munkombwe @JTN 2024
The process of extracting gold from the ore involves using mercury. The villagers are oblivious to the dangers of using the chemical. The miners’ health and drinking water was at risk of mercury poisoning. It is the same case with the use of agro-chemicals. Most peasant farmers are unable to read the warning on the packs of chemicals. They inadvertently harm their own health and the health of their ancestral lands. The resulting strange illnesses are mainly attributed to witchcraft. Specialised hospitals are far away in the capital.
Like in other parts of Zambia where mining is going on, except for the royal establishments and politicians and their cronies, the locals have not much to show for their ancestral land being richly endowed with minerals and wildlife. They remain abjectly poor and their settlements lacking good roads, telecommunication facilities, and other infrastructures while the aliens that buy mining products from them at very low prices or operate businesses in their land show rich rewards for engaging in commerce, mining and tourism.
Read Part 4. The disempowerment of clan heads by British colonialists
| | Author - John T. Njovu, ZambiaJohn T. Njovu is a renowned Zambian Economist, Indigenous Evaluator, Author, Film Producer, and Civic Activist. He has been for the past three decades an active member of the development evaluation community. He has served in both the public and private sector. His civic involvement in non-profits has enhanced those he has been involved in locally and abroad. |
Gratitude on data collection assistance on climate change in the Luangwa valley
There is not much data on the effects of climate change and economics of climate change in Zambia or the rest of Africa. I have been using my own resources to start studying and filming the effects of climate change in the Luangwa basin. I am grateful to receive a pledge of support from EvalIndigenous to support my efforts. This has been made possible through its receipt of a 2024 grant from the Ford Foundation.
There is not much data on the effects of climate change and economics of climate change in Zambia or the rest of Africa. I have been using my own resources to start studying and filming the effects of climate change in the Luangwa basin. I am grateful to receive a pledge of support from EvalIndigenous to support my efforts. This has been made possible through its receipt of a 2024 grant from the Ford Foundation.
RSS Feed
