Robert Shepherd (Carleton University)
The growing demand for evaluation reflects the interaction of institutional mandates, societal expectations, and evolving methodological paradigms. Treasury Board requirements and Auditor General reports have been key drivers shaping policy-maker demand for evaluative evidence, especially in areas involving Indigenous communities. Public expectations for accountability, ethical conduct, and demonstrable results further reinforce evaluation’s governance role (Mayne, 2010; Parkhurst, 2017; Shepherd & Graham, 2020). Enhancing evaluation’s utility requires not only methodological rigour but also advisory forms that strengthen legitimacy and contextual relevance. Community validation processes and acceptance of community-based evaluation practices contribute to more robust and politically resonant findings (Smith, 2012; Johnson et al., 2021).
Values and political ideas shape evaluation’s objectives, processes, and outcomes. Power asymmetries held by funders and commissioners influence methodological choices and even whether evaluations occur, highlighting the political nature of evidence production (Chelimsky, 2009). Evaluators, therefore, require competencies beyond technical expertise. Reflexivity regarding ontological assumptions, cultural grounding, and alignment with respondent worldviews is crucial, especially where Indigenous sovereignty, relational accountability, and community knowledge systems guide meaning-making (Kirkness & Barnhardt, 2001; Maddox et al., 2021).
Although the institutionalisation of evaluation has increased, its influence remains uneven across policy fields. Bureaucratic entrenchment can reinforce methodological orthodoxy aligned with dominant administrative worldviews, constraining innovation. Policy areas involving social programs, Indigenous governance, and community development show how contextually grounded approaches can enhance evaluation uptake (Head, 2016; Greene, 2015). This paper examines these dynamics through case studies to illustrate how institutional, political, and epistemological factors shape Indigenous evaluation.