There is limited guidance for conducting competent and responsive cross-cultural evaluation research with American Indian communities. The authors draw on Fisher and Ball’s Tribal Participatory Research Model to highlight ways in which this project is attempting to be culturally appropriate and sensitive as they partner with an American Indian community to implement and evaluate a youth-based initiative. Challenges encountered during the evaluation are shared, as well as the authors’ collective responses to such challenges. Implications for future cross-cultural evaluation researchers are also discussed in light of these experiences.
Allen, J.1998. Personality assessment with American Indian and Alaska Natives: Instrument considerations and service delivery style. Journal of Personality Assessment70:17-42.
2.
Barton, W. H.1998. Culturally competent research protocols. In Serving diverse constituencies: Applying the ecological perspective, edited by R. R. Greene and M. Watkins, 285-303. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
3.
Bercerra, R.1997a. Can valid research on ethnic minority populations only be conducted by researchers from the same ethnic group? No. In Controversial issues in multiculturalism, edited by D. de Anda, 114-117. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
4.
Bercerra, R.1997b. Can valid research on ethnic minority populations only be conducted by researchers from the same ethnic group? Yes. In Controversial issues in multiculturalism, edited by D. de Anda, 110-113. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
5.
Berk, R. A., and J. M. Adams. 1970. Establishing rapport with deviant groups. Social Problems18 (1): 102-117.
6.
Brydon-Miller, M.1997. Participatory action research: Psychology and social change. Journal of Social Issues53 (4): 657-666.
7.
Cross, T., B. Bazron, K. Dennis, and M. Isaacs. 1989. Towards a culturally competent system of care. Vol. 1. Washington, DC: National Technical Assistance Center for Children’s Mental Health, Georgetown University Child Development Center.
8.
de Anda, D.1997. Rejoinder to Dr. Bercerra. In Controversial issues in multiculturalism, edited by D. de Anda, 118-118. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
9.
Fisher, P. A., and T. J. Ball. 2002. The IndianWellness Project: An application of the tribal participatory research model. Prevention Science3:235-240.
10.
Garcia Coll, C. T., G. Lamberty, R. Jenkins, H. P. McAdoo, K. Crnic, B. H. Wasik, and H. V. Garcia. 1996. An integrative model for the study of developmental competencies in minority children. Child Development67:1891-1914.
11.
Garrett, M. T.1999. Soaring on the wings of the eagle: Wellness of NativeAmerican high school students. Professional School Counseling3:57-64.
12.
Greene, J. G.1988. Stakeholder participation and utilization in program evaluation. Evaluation Review12 (2): 91-116.
13.
Gross, E.1995. Deconstructing politically correct practice literature: The American Indian case. Social Work40:206-213.
14.
Guyette, S.1983. Community-based research: A handbook for American Indians. Berkeley, CA: American Indian Studies Center, UCLA.
15.
Huff, R. M., and M. V. Kline. 1999. Tips for working with American Indian and Alaska Native populations. In Promoting health in multicultural populations: Ahandbookfor practitioners, edited by R. M. Huff and M. V. Kline, 327-334. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
16.
Lomawaima, K., and T. L. McCarty. 2002. Reliability, validity, and authenticity in AmericanIndian and Alaska Native research. Charleston, WV: ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools.
17.
McLoyd, V., and S. Randolph. 1985. Secular trends in the study of Afro-American children: A review of Child Development, in History and research in child development, edited by A. B. Smuts and J. W. Hagen, Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development50:4-5.
18.
Mertens, D.1999. Inclusive evaluation: Implications of transformative theory for evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation20:1-15.
19.
Mihesuah, D. V., ed. 1998. Natives and academics: Researching and writing about AmericanIndians. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
20.
Mio, J. S., and G. Iwamasa. 1993. To do, or not to do: That is the question forWhite cross-cultural researchers. The Counseling Psychologist21 (2): 197-212.
21.
Myers-Walls, J.2000. An odd couple with promise: Researchers and practitioners in evaluation settings. Family Relations49:341-347.
22.
National Indian ChildWelfare Association. 1986. Positive Indian parenting: Honoring our children by honoring our traditions. Portland, OR: Author.
23.
Patton, M. Q.1997. Utilization-focused evaluation. 3rd ed.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
24.
Rosenberg, M.1965. Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
25.
Saxton. J. D.2001. An introduction to cultural issues relevant to assessment with Native American youth. California School Psychologist6:31-38.
26.
Smith, L. T.1999. Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples. New York: Zed Books Ltd.
27.
Stubben, J.2001. Working with and conducting research among American Indian families. American Behavioral Scientist44 (9): 1466-1481.
28.
Swisher, K. G.1996. Why Indian people should be the ones to write about Indian education. American Indian Quarterly20 (1): 83-90.
29.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. Summary File 3. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved February 14, 2003, from www.factfinder.census.gov.
30.
Ward Hood, D., and D. A. Cassaro. 2002. Feminist evaluation and the inclusion of difference. New Directions for Evaluation96:27-40.
31.
Weigel, D. J., and B. G. Baker. 2002. Unique issues in rural couple and family counseling. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families10:61-69.
