Bhutan's overarching development paradigm of Gross National Happiness (GNH) promotes a harmonious balance between material and non-material dimensions. But Bhutan's evaluation practice has not yet adopted the principles of GNH, preventing evaluation findings and recommendations from aligning with the priorities of GNH. This article makes the case that Culturally Responsive Evaluation (CRE) is a potential way that Bhutan can ensure evaluation is aligned with GNH. Authors analyze a recent, critical evaluation of the Direct Employment Scheme (DES), initiated by the Bhutanese government to increase youth employment. Authors developed a CRE assessment tool to understand whether and how the DES evaluation conformed to CRE. Findings of the review focused on five themes: (1) understanding context, (2) seeking advice, (3) forming an evaluation team, (4) methodology, and (5) understanding evaluation findings. Authors conclude with a discussion about how a CRE approach would have better ensured evaluation responsiveness to Bhutan's interests. This article contributes to discussions about criticisms that evaluation in the Global South does not serve in-country needs. It also holds the promise of providing evidence about how evaluation can support achieving Bhutan's goal of Gross National Happiness.
AgrawalR.KalugampitiyaA.RinzinJ.HashimK. (2017). Leveraging monitoring and evaluation systems for good governance. In van den BergR. D.NaidooI.TamondongS. D. (Eds.), Evaluation for agenda 2030: Providing evidence on progress and sustainability (pp. 169–186). IDEAS.
2.
BanksJ. A. (1993). The canon debate, knowledge construction, and multicultural education. Educational Researcher, 22(5), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X022005004
3.
BhadraC. (2022). Mobilizing South Asian local knowledge to democratize evaluation theory and practice: Elucidating the missing link “gender”. In ZaveriS.NandiR. (Eds.), Local wisdom matters: Reflections of evaluation theory and practice from South Asia (pp. 34–59). GENSA & COESA.
4.
BowenM. L.TillmanA. S. (2015). Developing culturally responsive surveys: Lessons in development, implementation, and analysis from Brazil’s African descent communities. American Journal of Evaluation, 36(1), 25–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214014539831
5.
BowmanN.(Waapalaneexkweew) (2019). Nation-to-nation evaluation: Governance, tribal sovereignty, and systems thinking through culturally responsive indigenous evaluations. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 34(2), 343–356. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjpe.67977
6.
BurnsG. W. (2011). Gross national happiness: A gift from Bhutan to the world. In Biswas-DeinerR. (Ed.), Positive psychology as social change (pp. 73–87). Springer.
7.
CardenF. (2010). Introduction to the forum on evaluation field building in South Asia. American Journal of Evaluation, 31(2), 219–221. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214010366049
8.
CBS & GNHR (2016). A compass towards a just and harmonious society - 2015 Gross National Happiness (GNH) survey report (Bhutan). Centre for Bhutan Studies & GNH Research.
9.
ChenS. (2020). What can Buddhism offer evaluation? Applying Buddhist concepts in evaluation. Evaluation Matters-He Take Tō Te Aromatawai, 6, 1–22.
10.
ChilisaB. (2015). A synthesis on the Made in African evaluation concept (Working paper). University of Botswana.
11.
ChilisaB.MajorT. E.GaotlhobogweM.MokgolodiH. (2016). Decolonizing and indigenizing evaluation practice in Africa: Toward African relational evaluation approaches. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 30(3), 313–328. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjpe.30.3.05
12.
ChinyowaK. C. (2011). Revisiting monitoring and evaluation strategies for applied drama and theatre practice in African contexts. Research in Drama Education: The Journal of Applied Theatre and Performance, 16(3), 337–356. https://doi.org/10.1080/13569783.2011.589994
13.
Choden. (2022). Gongphel Zhibjoog: An evaluation of progress in Bhutan. In ZaveriS.NandiR. (Eds.), Local wisdom matters: Reflections of evaluation theory and practice from South Asia (pp. 60–79). GENSA & COESA.
14.
ChouinardJ. A.CramF. (2020). Culturally responsive approaches to evaluation: Empirical implications for theory and practice. Sage Publications.
15.
CramF. (2016). Lessons on decolonizing evaluation from Kaupapa Māori Evaluation. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 30(3), 296–312. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjpe.30.3.04
16.
CramF.HopsonR. (2018). Digging deeper to engage wicked problems through evaluation. In HopsonR.CramF. (Eds.), Tackling wicked problems in complex ecologies: The role of evaluation (pp. 234–256). Stanford University Press.
17.
DartJ.DaviesR. (2003). A dialogical, story-based evaluation tool: The most significant change technique. American Journal of Evaluation, 24(2), 137–155. https://doi.org/10.1177/109821400302400202
18.
DinhK.WorthH.HaireB. (2019). Buddhist evaluation: Applying a Buddhist world view to the most significant change technique. Evaluation, 25(4), 477–495.
19.
FriersonH.HoodS.HughesG. (2010). A guide to conducting culturally responsive evaluation. In The 2010 user-friendly handbook for project evaluation (pp. 75–95). National Science Foundation.
20.
GNHC. (2017a). Development evaluation policy of Bhutan (draft). Royal Government of Bhutan.
21.
GNHC. (2017b). Development evaluation protocol and guidelines (draft). Royal Government of Bhutan.
22.
GNH Commission Secretariat. (2019). Evaluation of direct employment scheme. RGoB.
23.
Gross National Happiness Commission (GNHC). (2009). Tenth five-year plan 2008–2013. Royal Government of Bhutan.
24.
Gross National Happiness Commission (GNHC). (2019). Evaluation of direct employment scheme. Royal Government of Bhutan.
25.
HayK. (2010). Evaluation field building in south Asia: Reflections, anecdotes, and questions. American Journal of Evaluation, 31(2), 222–231. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214010366175
26.
HoodS. (2001). Nobody knows my name: In praise of African American evaluators who were responsive. In GreeneJ. C.AbmaT. A. (Eds.), Responsive evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 92, pp. 31–44. Wiley Online Library.
27.
HoodS.HopsonR. K.KirkhartK. E. (2015). Culturally responsive evaluation. In NewcomerK.HatryH.WholeyJ. (Eds.), Handbook of practical program evaluation, fourth edition (pp. 281–317). Wiley.
28.
KunanayakamT. (2013). The declaration on the right to development in the context of united nations standard-setting. In United Nations (Ed.), Realizing the right to development essays in commemoration of 25 years of the united nations declaration on the right to development (pp. 17–48). United Nations.
29.
LaFranceJ.NicholsR.KirkhartK. E. (2012). Culture writes the script: On the centrality of context in indigenous evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 2012(135), 59–74. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.20027
30.
LarbiG.JacksonP.ChristensenJ.UraK. (2006). Capacity development outcome evaluation of Danish supported organisations in Bhutan. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark.
31.
LeamingL. (2004). One big happy family? Gross national happiness and the concept of family in Bhutan (pp. 660–679). Centre for Bhutan Studies.
32.
National Statistical Bureau (NSB). (2022). Statistical yearbook of Bhutan, 2022. Royal Government of Bhutan.
33.
NunnsH.PeaceR.WittenK. (2015). Evaluative reasoning in public-sector evaluation in Aotearoa New Zealand: How are we doing?Evaluation Matters—He Take Tō Te Aromatawai, 1, 137–163. https://doi.org/10.18296/em.0007
34.
OECD. (2010). Evaluating development co-operation, summary of key norms and standards (2nd ed.). DAC Network on Development Evaluation, OECD.
35.
OECD. (2013a). Evaluating development activities: 12 Lessons from the OECD DAC. DAC Network on Development Evaluation, OECD.
36.
OECD. (2013b). The DAC network on development evaluation – 30 years of strengthening learning in development. DAC Network on Development Evaluation, OECD.
37.
RGoB (2006) National evaluation monitoring and evaluation manual. Gross National Happiness Commission August.
38.
RyanF.CoughlanM.CroninP. (2007). Step-by-step guide to critiquing research. Part 2: Qualitative research. British Journal of Nursing, 16(12), 738–744. https://doi.org/10.12968/bjon.2007.16.12.23726
39.
SitheyG.SharmaJ.DorjiT.Anne-MarieLiM. (2017). Interpreting the GNH determinants from health policy perspective: A guide for health policy makers. Journal of Bhutan Studies, 36, 58–98. https://www.cabidigitallibrary.org/doi/full/10.5555/20183138311
40.
ThinleyJ. Y. (2012). What is gross national happiness?Centre for Bhutan Studies.
41.
ThinleyJ. Y.Hartz-KarpJ. (2019). National progress, sustainability and higher goals: The case of Bhutan’s Gross National Happiness. Sustainable earth. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42055–019-0022-9.
UraK. (2015). The experience of gross national happiness as development framework. ADB South Asia Working Paper Series, No.42. Asian Development Bank.
44.
WehipeihanaN. (2019). Increasing cultural competence in support of indigenous-led evaluation: A necessary step toward indigenous-led evaluation. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 34(2), 368–384. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjpe.68444
45.
ZaveriS.NandiR. (2022). Local wisdom matters: Reflections of evaluation theory and practice from South Asia. GENSA & COESA.
