From a culturally responsive research (CRR) perspective, trustworthiness is rooted in culture. The multicultural validity framework acknowledges that inquiry is shaped by cultural context and power and offers guidance for establishing trustworthiness. This article applies the framework to archival research, where researchers engage historical texts rather than living participants. We explore the challenges of maintaining cultural responsiveness without direct community interaction and reflect on how our team dynamics and engagement with materials shaped our findings. By emphasizing the role of archival and researcher-generated texts, we extend the multicultural validity framework and offer a nuanced approach to addressing validity in CRR.
BoyceA. S.Bowman (Lunaape/Mohican)N. R.HallM. E.NeubauerL. C. (2023). Setting the stage: A selected oral history of culturally responsive evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 2023, 15–25. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.20578
CazdenC.LeggettE. (1976). Culturally responsive education: A discussion of LAU remedies, II. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. National Institute of Education.
4.
CollinsS. E.ClifasefiS. L.StantonJ. The Leap Advisory Board Straits, K. J. E., Gil-KashiwabaraE.Rodriguez EspinosaP.NicasioA. V.AndrasikM. P.HawesS. M.MillerK. A.NelsonL. A.OrfalyV. E.DuranB. M.WallersteinN. (2018). Community-based participatory research: Towards equitable involvement of community in psychology research. American Psychology, 73(7), 884–898. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000167
5.
GayG. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching theory, research, and practice. Reading Research Quarterly, 43, 148–164.
6.
GilbertC.PasqueP. A. (2025). Defining culturally responsive research: Learnings and tensions in minoritized researcher perspectives. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 18, 453–467.
7.
HallJ. N. (2020a). Focus groups: Culturally responsive approaches for qualitative inquiry and program evaluation. Myers Education.
8.
HallJ. N. (2020b). The other side of inequality: Using standpoint theories to examine the privilege of the evaluation profession and individual evaluators. American Journal of Evaluation, 41(1), 20–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214019828485
9.
HallJ. N. (2021). Cultivating cultural competence. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 36(2), 191–209. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjpe.70053
10.
HallJ. N.FreemanM.ColomerS. E. (2020). A culturally responsive, educative evaluation approach: Success and missed opportunities. American Journal of Evaluation, 41(3), 384–403. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214019885632
11.
HoodS. (2001). Nobody knows my name: In praise of African American evaluators who were responsive. New Directions for Evaluation, 2001, 31–44. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.33
12.
HoodS.HopsonR. K.KirkhartK. E. (2015). Culturally responsive evaluation. In WholeyJ. S.HatryH. P.NewcomerK. E. (Eds.), Handbook of practical program evaluation (4th ed., pp. 281–317). John Wiley.
KirkhartK. E. (2005). Through a cultural lens: Reflections on validity and theory in evaluation. In HoodS.HopsonR.FriersonH. (Eds.), The role of culture and cultural context: A mandate for inclusion, the discovery of truth, and understanding in evaluative theory and practice (pp. 21–39). Information Age.
15.
KirkhartK. E. (2010). Eyes on the prize: Multicultural validity and evaluation theory. American Journal of Evaluation, 31(3), 400–413. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214010373645
16.
KirkhartK. E. (2013). Repositioning validity. Paper presented at Plenary on Perspectives on Repositioning Culture in Evaluation and Assessment at CREA Inaugural Conference, Chicago.
17.
KirkhartK. E. (2016). Equity, privilege and validity: Traveling companions or strange bedfellows? In DonaldsonS. I.PicciottoR. (Eds.), Evaluation for an equitable society (pp. 109–131). Information Age.
18.
KohliH. K.HuberR.FaulA. C. (2010). Historical and theoretical development of culturally competent social work practice. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 30(3), 252–271. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841233.2010.499091
19.
KushnierL.NadinS.HillM. E.TaylorM.JunS.MushquashC. J.PuineanG.GokiertR. (2023). Culturally responsive evaluation: A scoping review of the evaluation literature. Evaluation and Program Planning, 100, 1–13.
20.
Ladson-BillingsG. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465–491. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312032003465
21.
LaFranceJ.KirkhartK. E.NicholsR. (2015). Cultural views of validity: A conversation. In HoodS.HopsonR. K.FriersonH. (Eds.), Continuing the journey to reposition culture and cultural context in evaluation theory and practice (pp. 49–72). Information Age.
22.
LincolnY. S.GubaE. G. (1986). But is it rigorous? Trustworthiness and authenticity in naturalistic evaluation. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 1986, 73–84. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.1427
23.
MessickS. (1989). Validity. In LinnR. L. (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13–104). American Council on Education and Macmillan.
24.
ParisD. (2012). Culturally sustaining pedagogy: A needed change in stance, terminology, and practice. Educational Researcher, 41(3), 93–97. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41477769
25.
PasqueP. A.PattonL. D.GaylesJ. G.GoodenM. A.HenfieldM. S.MilnerH. R.PetersA.StewartD.-L. (2022). Unapologetic educational research: Addressing anti-Blackness, racism, and white supremacy. Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies, 22(1), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/15327086211060451
26.
RoulstonK.deMarriasK. (2021). Exploring the archives: A beginner’s guide for qualitative researchers. Meyers Education Press.
27.
ThomasV.CampbellP. (2020). Evaluation in today’s world: Respecting diversity, improving quality, and promoting usability. Sage.
