aes24 International Evaluation Conference

Authors: Michael Limerick (Myuma Pty Ltd ),Melinda Mann (Myuma Pty Ltd, AU),Melissa Osborn (Myuma Pty Ltd, AU)

Emerging best practice principles for Indigenous evaluations encourage evaluators to find new ways of conducting evaluations of programs delivered in First Nations settings. The impetus for this work is a growing awareness that evaluation activity carries the risk of perpetuating colonising impacts on First Nations people, especially in relation to the sovereignty over knowledge and data, the level of consent and self-determination in the process, the level of appreciation of cultural insights and community strengths, and the sharing of the benefits of evaluation activity. For the evaluation of the Community Justice Group (CJG) Program in Queensland, the Department of Justice & Attorney General engaged our organisation, an Aboriginal social enterprise from Queensland, to deliver an evaluation guided by best practice Indigenous evaluation principles. Encouraged by the Department's evaluation brief, our organisation assembled a team of predominantly Indigenous people with deep community connections to facilitate a strengths-based and collaborative approach that would put First Nations voices and perspectives at the centre of the evaluation. Over three years, the team followed a process of working with CJG staff and members to co-design and deliver place-based 'local evaluations' in 25 locations, as the central feature of the Statewide program evaluation. The goal was to 'walk alongside' CJGs to respect their agency and afford them growth opportunities, and to seek out stories of success rather than evidence of deficit. Working in partnership, our organisation and the Department learned much on this journey. Fully implementing Indigenous ethical evaluation principles was not without its challenges - for example, meaningful participation can only occur by relationship-building that takes time and stretches evaluation budgets, and principles such as Indigenous data sovereignty can be difficult to implement in government contexts. However, the value of the approach is evident in firstly, the way that many CJGs embraced the local evaluations, and secondly, in the powerful qualitative evidence of program success yielded by the Appreciative Inquiry-inspired storytelling methods.

Authors: Alli Burness (Tetra Tech), Lisa Faerua (Vanuatu), Nathan Sentance (Museum of Applied Arts and Sciences, AU), David Lakisa (Talanoa Consultancy, AU)

In the inaugural ANU Coral Bell Lecture on Indigenous Diplomacy, Dr Mary Graham outlined a powerful legacy of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander relational methods that have operated across a spectacular time scale. She envisioned a compelling future for its renewed application and spoke of these practices as a type of "thinking in formation, a type of slow, collective, and emergent process".

Inspired by Dr Graham's vision, this panel explores synergies, distinctions, and complementarities in local and Indigenous research methods across Australia and the Pacific. The panel features Wiradjuri, Samoan (Polynesian), Ni-Vanuatu (Melanesian) and settler-background (Australian) researchers from a range of fields who will explore, engage and showcase locally specific methodologies that connect across Australia and the Pacific continents, as ways of knowing, doing, and relating with the land, the moana (ocean) and air.

This session frames evaluation and research approaches as reflecting their contextual political order. While the panel will critique the legacies of individualist and survivalist research methods, it will focus on exploring the futures that relational research methods could realize. How do we evolve current institutional approaches to become more commensurate with Indigenous methods? Would institutionalizing these methods resolve the legacy, structure, and form of colonialist political approaches? Panelists will speak to their experience in working to evolve institutions in this way and the research and evaluation methodologies used within them.

The session also situates evaluation within a cannon of contextualizing evidence-based practices (such as political economy analysis, GEDSI analysis or feasibility.

Authors: Kathleen Stacey (beyond...Kathleen Stacey & Associates Pty Ltd), Cheryl Augustsson (Yorgum Healing Services), Raelene Rosas (NT Stolen Generation Aboriginal Corporation), Pat Thompson (Link-Up (Qld) Aboriginal Corporation), Jamie Sampson (Link-Up (NSW) Aboriginal Corporation)

Link-Up Services support Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander people who were forcibly removed, fostered or adopted from their families as children, and their descendants who live with the ongoing impact of forcible removal policies, to reconnect with family, community, culture and Country. Wayfinding is at the core of our work - navigating unfamiliar territory with clients towards a hoped for destination of a greater sense of 'home', wherever this is possible, in a culturally safe, appropriate and trauma-informed manner.

In 2019, the National Indigenous Australians Agency funded development of a national Link-Up monitoring and evaluation strategy with the eight Link-Up Services operate across six jurisdictions. Each Link-Up Service is either a stand-alone Aboriginal community controlled organisations or based in an Aboriginal community controlled organisation.

This interactive workshop invites participants into our collective experiences of co-creating and implementing the M&E Strategy on a national basis, presented from the voices and position of Link-Up Services. We believe our experiences and learnings will be instructive for monitoring and evaluation activity with other Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations and programs.

Travel with us in reflecting on our monitoring and evaluation wayfinding journey over three phases of work. Pause with us at key points throughout the session to exercise your critical self-reflection and analysis skills, share your ideas and learn what has worked well or presented challenges for us and why in creating, navigating and implementing a culturally safe monitoring and evaluation strategy in a complex and demanding service context.

Authors: Kate Nichols (Department of Jobs, Skills, Industry and Regions - Victoria), Milbert Gawaya (Department of Jobs, Skills, Industry and Regions, AU)

First Peoples/settler state treaties have been likened to marriage - an evolving and changeable (political) relationship, not an endpoint or divorce (Blackburn, 2007). But what does this look like in practice given marriage's checkered connection with power imbalance and violence through to romance and deep, trusting companionship?

Contemporary colonial 'settlerism' (after Aunty/Dr Lilla Watson, in Watego, 2021) is undergoing structural change in Victoria, with Victoria's First Peoples sitting down with the Victorian State Government in 2024 to commence statewide treaty negotiations. Treaty is an acknowledgement that British sovereignty did not extinguish Aboriginal sovereignty, opening-up a "third space of sovereignty" (after Bruyneel, 2007) where co-existing sovereigns can further contest the "sovereignty impasse" (ibid., 2007), while Indigenous people control their own affairs.

Treaty is expected to reshape how the Victorian state government operates, challenging state laws, institutions, policies, programs and processes, which together, have contributed to First Nations disadvantage and suffering. Government evaluation practices will need their own shake-up.

How can public sector evaluators help establish an equal, strong and nourishing treaty marriage? This short paper shares emerging ally insights into how local practices are evolving to support Victoria's Treaty and self-determination. It shares reflections from a recent evaluation of Traditional Owner grant programs, conducted in partnership between key Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal public sector staff. It is a story of both-ways practice and the time, trust and bravery required to achieve deep change. It also highlights the role of lifelong cultural learning and behaviour change for ally evaluators. Culturally responsive evaluation, Indigenous research practices, restorative justice and the AES First Nations Cultural Safety Framework provide useful framing. Although focused on the Victorian treaty context, the paper may be transferable to other jurisdictions and evaluations involving or impacting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in support of their sovereignty and self-determination.
ion trainers and facilitators.

Authors: Julian King (Julian King & Associates), Adrian Field (Dovetail)

The rapid growth of video-conferencing technology has increased the ability for evaluations to be conducted across multiple countries and time zones. People are increasingly used to meeting and working entirely online, and evaluations can in principle be designed and delivered without need for face to face engagement. Translational AI software is even able to break through language barriers, providing further efficiencies and enabling evaluation funds to be directed more to design, data gathering and analysis.

Yet the efficiency of delivery should not compromise the integrity with which an evaluation is conducted. This is particularly true in situations where different dimensions of equity come into question, and in an evaluation where two or more languages are being used, ensuring that the design and delivery are meaningful and accessible to all participants, not just the funder.

The growth of remote evaluation working presents a very real, if not even more pressing danger, of the consultant "parachuting in" and offering solutions that have little or no relevance to the communities who are at the centre of the evaluation process.

In this presentation we explore the wayfinding process in designing and implementing a Value for Investment evaluation of an urban initiative focusing on the developmental needs of young children, in Jundiaí, Brazil. We discuss the challenges and opportunities presented by a largely (but ultimately not entirely) online format, in leading a rigorously collaborative evaluation process, and gathering data in a way that ensures all stakeholder perspective are appropriately reflected. We discuss the trade-offs involved in this process, the reflections of evaluation participants, and the value of ensuring that underlying principles of collaborative and cross-cultural engagement are adhered to.

Authors: Kizzy Gandy (Verian (formerly Kantar Public) )

As evaluators, one of our key ethical responsibilities is to not cause psychological harm or distress through our methods. We often start workshops or interviews with a warning that the topic may be upsetting and provide contact information for mental health services to participants under the assumption this is the most ethical practice.

Trigger warnings are used with good intentions and are often recommended in evaluation ethics guidelines. However, what do we know about their impact? Is there a risk they actually trigger people more?

This talk examines the evidence on whether trigger warnings are an effective strategy for reducing the risk of trauma and re-traumatisation when discussing topics such as sexual assault, mental health, violence, drug use, and other sensitive issues. It also touches on new evidence from neuroscience about how emotions are understood differently now compared to in the past.

This session will not provide a definitive answer on when or how to use trigger warnings but aims to challenge the audience to think critically about whether trigger warnings are useful in their own work.