Suchergebnisse

AbstractIn Aotearoa New Zealand, concern about the impact of colonisation and experience of institutional racism has led to calls for evaluative practice to be firmly grounded in a Māori worldview to reflect indigenous values and avoid deficit framings. With this in mind, our evaluation projects have been informed by a blend of kaupapa Māori evaluation and boundary critique to ensure that our systemic inquiries were responsive to hapū aspirations. We focus on the role that boundary critique played in supporting our cross‐cultural evaluation practice. Applying boundary critique enabled the expansion of the evaluand to encompass hapū values and outcomes from a te ao Māori/hapū perspective. We posit that boundary critique is useful when undertaking cross‐cultural evaluations as it provides a way to make explicit the different values of te ao Māori (the Māori world) and te ao Pākehā (the Western World).

AbstractIn systemic intervention, boundary critique is important. This means explicitly exploring the inclusion, exclusion and marginalization of both people and issues. Most of the practitioner's attention in boundary critique is usually focused on relationships between stakeholders (i.e. the participants in the intervention and those who might be affected by it). A significant focus is also the remit of the intervention: those things that need to be directly addressed or bracketed out in order to make a difference that is meaningful to a broad range of stakeholders. What is often less visible during boundary critique is the personal and/or professional identity of the practitioner, and the impact this may have on both relationships with others and the construction of people's understanding of the issues they are grappling with. This paper reflects on a project promoting environmental health through Māori community development that reveals the importance of personal and professional identity to systemic intervention. It is argued that it is impossible for practitioners to set aside their identities and become 'neutral' modellers or process facilitators. When this appears to happen it is because the practitioner's identity has been (often invisibly) constructed to legitimate his or her activities, and these activities do not transgress the expectations of participants that flow from their understanding of the practitioner's identity and role. Nevertheless, even though practitioner identities inevitably impact on the trajectory of interventions, at least some of their implications can be explicitly acknowledged and managed as part of systemic intervention. Some examples of management strategies are provided. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.