Lessons on Decolonizing Evaluation from Kaupapa Māori Evaluation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Kaupapa Māori is literally a Māori way. It is a reclaiming by Māori (Indigenous peoples of Aotearoa New Zealand) of a future that is founded within a Māori worldview; a future where cultural knowledge and values inform understandings of and responses to Māori needs, priorities, and aspirations. Self-determination, cultural aspirations, and the importance of familial relationships and collectivity are among the central elements evident in Kaupapa Māori development initiatives. The culturally responsive evaluation of these initiatives builds upon traditional commitments to information management and the updating of Māori knowledge. Kaupapa Māori evaluation looks “inwards” to assess development on Māori terms, and “outwards” in a structural analysis of other facilitators of and barriers to that development. After more than 20 years of Kaupapa Māori evaluation, it is timely to ask what learning might helpfully be shared with other Indigenous peoples to support their desire for the culturally responsive evaluation of development initiatives they experience. A Kaupapa Māori evaluation lens will be described and then used to critique international development evaluation to facilitate decolonization. Audiences for this article include development efforts led by the New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs within the South Pacific, and international development efforts led by organizations such as UNESCO that are developing equity evaluation approaches.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.058 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it