Alison Frances Laycock

Dr. Alison Frances Laycock


Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

4Years (2023-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
KVKristina Vine
Kristina Vine
TBTessa Benveniste
Tessa Benveniste
SRShanthi Ramanathan
Shanthi Ramanathan
Jo LongmanJo Longman
Jo Longman
MWMegan Williams
Megan Williams
Veronica MatthewsVeronica Matthews
Veronica Matthews
Rigorous and effective evaluations inform policy and service delivery and create evidence of program impacts and outcomes for the communities they are designed to support. Genuine engagement of communities is a key feature of effective evaluation, building trust and enhancing relevancy for communities and providing meaningful outcomes and culturally relevant findings. This applies to Indigenous peoples’ leadership and perspectives when undertaking evaluations on programs that involve Indigenous communities. This systematic scoping review sought to explore the characteristics of culturally informed evaluations and the extent of their application in Australia, including the use of specific evaluation tools and types of community engagement. Academic and grey literature were searched between 2003 and 2023, with 57 studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Over time, there was an increase in the number of culturally informed evaluations undertaken, predominantly in the health and wellbeing sector. Around a quarter used a tool specifically developed for Indigenous evaluations. Half of the publications included Indigenous authorship; however, most studies lacked detail on how evaluations engaged with communities. This review highlights the need for further development of evaluation tools and standardised reporting to allow for shared learnings and improvement in culturally safe evaluation practices for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.

3 August 2024 in BMJ Global Health
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
JBJodie Bailie
Jodie Bailie
Veronica MatthewsVeronica Matthews
Veronica Matthews
ALAlison Frances Laycock
Alison Frances Laycock
KCKathleen Conte
Kathleen Conte
LFLynette Feeney
Lynette Feeney
RBRoxanne Bainbridge
Roxanne Bainbridge
Background Indigenous communities worldwide lead calls for all evaluations of research, programmes and policies affecting their communities to reflect the values, priorities and perspectives of the Indigenous peoples and communities involved. Tools, such as the Quality Appraisal Tool (QAT), are available to assess research quality through an Indigenous cultural lens. Good evaluation requires that evaluation efforts be evaluated. We found that critical reflection on the quality of evaluations from an Indigenous perspective is largely absent from the published literature. To ensure that we strive for quality in evaluation as determined by Indigenous people with whom we work, we examined the quality of our own evaluation of an Indigenous health research collaboration by conducting a reflexive dialogue. Methods The QAT was used to assess our evaluation according to Indigenous health research principles. Our qualitative study used analytical coautoethnography to generate data through a series of reflexive dialogue sessions with Indigenous and non-Indigenous members of the research collaboration, using the QAT criteria as discussion prompts. Our ideas and reflections were compared and contrasted through a collaborative and iterative writing process, multiple review cycles and discussions. Results We documented our findings against the QAT framework. We found examples that each QAT principle had, to some extent, been adhered to, but constantly needed to assess whether the principles were fully achieved to our satisfaction. Strengths of the evaluation included being adaptable and responsive to emerging issues for the research collaboration, while areas for improvement included more Indigenous leadership of, and involvement in, evaluation. Conclusions Although reflexive evaluation practice is not always comfortable, it does provide an opportunity to generate insights for improvement. Reflecting as we did—in a partnership between Indigenous and non-Indigenous colleagues—enabled deeper insights and meaning. We anticipate that our process models how other research in Indigenous contexts might better advance ethical, quality Indigenous research through working in collaboration with Indigenous researchers and communities.