Indigenous evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Indigenous evaluation incorporates Indigenous ways of knowing and draws upon cultural paradigms (Indigenous Evaluation Toolkit, 2022). Indigenous evaluation literature is limited in both quantity and quality outcomes resulting in a lack of clarity. This scoping review was conducted to identify guiding principles, Indigenous evaluation methodologies, and explore key concepts and gaps within the literature. Methods: This scoping review was guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist and Arskey and O’Malley’s Scoping Review Framework. It included peer-reviewed articles and grey literature. Articles were identified through electronic database searching and reference lists using keywords. This review only included data written in English, available in full text, included keywords and identified the author and title of the publication. Articles that were not specific to Indigenous peoples or outlined Indigenous methodologies that were not related to evaluation were excluded. Results: Out of 348 articles, 94 met the inclusion criteria for this review. The literature revealed 13 guiding principles (collaboration, respect, relationships, self-determination, flexibility, trust, truth, reciprocity, power, time, sovereignty, responsibility/accountability, and relevance) and 15 Indigenous evaluation methodologies (culturally responsive, community-based, participatory, storytelling, empowerment, decolonizing, strength-based, self-reflection/location, mixed methods, talking circles, tribal critical theory, two-eyed seeing, the 4 R’s, trauma-informed approach, and ethical space). Conclusion: Key findings in this review demonstrate the need for further development of a culturally responsive Indigenous evaluation approach and for future research to outline how to put Indigenous evaluation methodologies and guiding principles into practice. Filling this gap will make a significant contribution to the field of evaluation research for Indigenous peoples, communities, and evaluators.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.024 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".