McBride, D. F. (2011). Sociocultural theory: Providing more structure to culturally respon-sive evaluation. In S. Mathison (Ed.), Really new directions in evaluation: Young evaluators’perspectives. New Directions for Evaluation, 131, 7–13.

Sociocultural Theory: Providing More Structure to Culturally ResponsiveEvaluation

Dominica F. McBride

Abstract

Evaluation’s “ancestors” have formed a strong foundation on which experienced,nascent, and future evaluators can build. An area for growth and cultivation isculturally responsive evaluation. The author describes sociocultural theory (ST),a comprehensive theory explaining how culture influences human development,and its potential for program evaluation. Although ST concretizes culture andprovides guidelines for culturally responsive research, it has never been appliedto program evaluation. © Wiley Periodicals, Inc., and the American Evalua-tion Association.

Culture is the fabric of life, the theme that runs through humanity andits expressions and behaviors. Culture encompasses, but is not lim-ited to, the beliefs, values, norms, language, food, and clothing that

a group shares. It often guides behaviors, cognitions, decisions, institutions,and governances. Because of this pervasiveness, the consideration and/orstudy of culture is essential in program and policy development and evalu-ation. In development work, the study of culture can help identify whatproblems exist, why they exist, and how to solve them. In evaluation, theinclusion of culture is conducive to the full comprehension of the evaluand.

7

1

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR EVALUATION, no. 131, Fall 2011 © Wiley Periodicals, Inc., and the American Evaluation Association. Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) • DOI: 10.1002/ev.371

8 REALLY NEW DIRECTIONS IN EVALUATION

Thus, the field of program evaluation cannot ignore the undercurrent andforce of culture and, with this recognition, has begun to emphasize and pri-oritize culture in its standards, principles, and work.

Culturally responsive evaluation (CRE) provides a set of guiding princi-ples for evaluations (Frazier-Anderson, Hood, & Hopson, in press). In con-ducting CRE, the evaluator must manifest cultural competence (see Ridley,Mendoza, Kanitz, Angermeier, & Zenk, 1994) in every decision, action, tool,and step. The evaluation should be infused with and/or respond to the targetgroup’s cultural values, sensibilities, principles, feedback, and guidelines. If theevaluation or evaluator lacks this cultural responsiveness or sensitivity, thenvalidity of the findings could be compromised (Kirkhart, 2010). Although agreat guide for evaluators, some of the details of this framework and actualiz-ing CRE in practice can be enhanced. This article describes how socioculturaltheory (ST) can be applied to evaluation to bolster and supplement the cur-rent literature on CRE. It further provides examples of how this theory hasbeen and could be used in both program development and evaluation.

The Russian psychologist Lev Vygotsky first developed socioculturaltheory in the early 20th century, an era of confusion and political conflict(Rosa & Montero, 1990). During Vygotsky’s professional life a debateexisted between psychological theories focused on “heredity and environ-ment” versus intangible ideals with an emphasis on consciousness. By inte-grating ideas from various disciplines and connecting the dichotomizedmaterialism and consciousness, Vygotsky developed an inclusive theoryfocused on analysis on multiple levels (Rosa & Montero, 1990), culture, andhuman development (Rogoff, 2003). With a foundation of philosophicalintegration, ST holds that culture is seen as mutually constituted by indi-viduals, society, biology, ecology, and history (Rogoff, 2003). Thus, it assertsthe influence of one aspect of a situation cannot be seen as separate fromanother. Further, the true understanding of an individual is encompassedin the understanding of the contexts and history of that individual (Rogoff,2003). Because of this imperative, a sociocultural approach has the poten-tial to add comprehensiveness and cohesion as well as bolster human con-nectivity and compassion. Examining one’s own cultural influences andpotential biases, attempting to abate ethnocentrism, an openness and directdesire to learn about another’s culture, history, and the dynamics that moldthem, moving beyond a deficit-oriented mentality, “separating value judg-ments from explanations,” and spending significant time with those that oneis researching (or evaluating) and learning from them are all aspects of STresearch (Rogoff, 2003). Openness, comprehensiveness, and unity are thecore of ST, and these principles can lead to a more human way of seeinghumans. The following sections present concrete ways to apply ST to bol-ster evaluations and cohesive human connections within evaluations.

Rogoff and Chavajay (1995) and Rogoff (2003) outline basic assump-tions in sociocultural research (see Table 1.1). McBride (2009) conducteda study guided by ST, conceptualizing a culturally responsive family health

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR EVALUATION • DOI: 10.1002/ev

Tab

le 1

.1.

Con

nec

tin

g S

ocio

cult

ura

l T

heo

ry (

ST

) to

Eva

luat

ion

Pra

ctic

e

Ass

umpt

ion

in S

TE

xpla

nati

on o

f Ass

umpt

ion

Exa

mpl

es fr

om M

cBri

de (

2009

)

Un

it o

f an

alys

is is

th

e so

cioc

ult

ura

l T

he

acti

vity

mu

st b

e ex

amin

ed w

ith

cu

ltu

re

Use

of

focu

s gr

oups

as

a da

ta-c

olle

ctio

n t

ool,

not

on

lyac

tivi

ty.

con

side

red

and

in it

s n

atu

ral e

nvi

ron

men

t.at

ten

din

g to

th

e co

nte

nt

of t

he

grou

p bu

t ob

serv

ing

and

not

atin

g th

e gr

oup

pro

cess

. Bot

h t

he

grou

p c

onte

ntan

dpr

oces

sga

ve in

sigh

t in

to t

he

targ

et c

ult

ure

. Alt

hou

gh

the

nat

ura

lly

occu

rrin

g ac

tivi

ty o

f gr

oup

pro

cess

was

tain

ted

by e

xter

nal

fac

ilit

atio

n, t

he

cult

ura

l dyn

amic

s w

ere

stil

l app

aren

t an

d n

otab

le.

Un

ders

tan

din

g of

hu

man

ity

requ

ires

Stu

dy lo

cal h

isto

ry a

nd

how

th

at a

ffec

ts

Dat

a fo

cuse

d on

th

e co

nte

xtu

al a

nd

cult

ura

lhis

tory

of

the

stu

dy o

f bo

th t

he

deve

lopm

ent

pres

ent

livi

ng

and

how

cu

ltu

re (

incl

udi

ng

targ

et c

omm

un

ity.

Dat

a w

ere

coll

ecte

d fr

om h

isto

ric

(in

divi

dual

, com

mu

nit

y, a

nd

spec

ies)

biol

ogy)

infl

uen

ces

the

chan

ges

and

docu

men

ts a

nd

stu

dies

, doc

um

enta

tion

fro

m lo

cal

and

inte

rper

son

al a

nd

grou

p de

velo

pmen

t of

a c

omm

un

ity

over

tim

e.le

ader

s, a

nd

inte

rvie

ws

wit

h lo

cal l

eade

rs.

proc

esse

s of

peo

ple.

Hu

man

dyn

amic

s ar

e af

fect

ed b

yIn

divi

dual

, soc

ial,

and

cult

ura

l pro

cess

es

Em

phas

is o

n t

he

inte

rper

son

al a

nd

cult

ura

l–in

stit

uti

onal

indi

vidu

al, i

nte

rper

son

al, a

nd

are

not

per

ceiv

ed a

nd

stu

died

in is

olat

ion

; as

pect

s of

fam

ilie

s’ li

ves

and

the

inte

rcon

nec

tion

of

the

com

mu

nit

y dy

nam

ics,

wh

ich

are

w

hil

e on

e as

pect

may

be

of p

arti

cula

r in

divi

dual

, soc

ial,

and

cult

ura

l pro

cess

es. F

ocu

s gr

oup

inse

para

ble.

focu

s in

a g

iven

stu

dy, t

he

infl

uen

ce o

f th

e an

d in

terv

iew

qu

esti

ons

targ

eted

eac

h o

f th

e pr

oces

ses

oth

er t

wo

face

ts is

alw

ays

con

side

red.

and

inqu

ired

on

how

th

ey c

ould

be

incl

ude

d an

d/or

addr

esse

d by

a p

rogr

am.

Var

iati

on a

nd

sim

ilar

ity

in a

T

her

e is

mor

e va

riat

ion

wit

hin

gro

ups

th

an

(a)

Usi

ng

a m

ixed

met

hod

s de

sign

, (b)

con

duct

ing

re-

com

mu

nit

y ar

e eq

ual

ly p

erti

nen

tbe

twee

n g

rou

ps a

nd

incl

ude

s m

eth

odol

ogy

sear

ch o

n t

he

grea

ter

cult

ure

an

d h

isto

ry, (

c) in

quir

ing

if

and

con

side

red

sim

ult

aneo

usl

y.th

at h

igh

ligh

ts t

his

fac

t an

d/or

all

ows

for

them

es a

ppli

ed t

o th

e lo

cal c

omm

un

ity,

(d)

all

owin

g ro

om

thes

e si

mil

arit

ies

and

diff

eren

ces

to b

e fo

r va

ried

opi

nio

ns

and

inte

rpre

tati

ons,

an

d, f

inal

ly,

exam

ined

.(e

) av

oidi

ng

auto

mat

ical

ly g

ener

aliz

ing

the

stu

dy’s

fin

d-in

gs t

o ot

her

com

mu

nit

ies,

eve

n o

f th

e sa

me

eth

nic

ity.

(Con

tinu

ed)

Tab

le 1

.1.

(Con

tinu

ed)

Ass

umpt

ion

in S

TE

xpla

nati

on o

f Ass

umpt

ion

Exa

mpl

es fr

om M

cBri

de (

2009

)

Res

earc

h q

ues

tion

dri

ves

the

met

hod

s;U

se t

he

met

hod

, be

it p

sych

olog

ical

, U

se o

f bo

th q

ual

itat

ive

and

quan

tita

tive

met

hod

s, f

rom

the

met

hod

s do

not

dri

ve t

he

ques

tion

.et

hn

ogra

phic

, an

d so

on

, or

coll

ecti

on o

fva

riou

s so

cial

sci

ence

s. G

iven

th

e go

al o

f th

e st

udy

, m

eth

ods

best

su

ited

to

answ

er t

he

ques

tion

com

mu

nit

y in

put

and

un

ders

tan

din

g w

as e

ssen

tial

an

d le

dan

d u

nde

rsta

nd

the

rele

van

t cu

ltu

ral a

nd

to u

sin

g qu

alit

ativ

e m

eth

ods.

Qu

anti

tati

ve m

eth

ods

wer

e h

um

an d

ynam

ics.

incl

ude

d to

asc

erta

in t

he

degr

ee o

f cu

ltu

ral–

his

tori

cal

con

gru

ence

bet

wee

n t

he

grea

ter

and

loca

l eth

nic

gro

up

and

the

vari

atio

n w

ith

in t

he

loca

l gro

up.

Res

earc

her

s m

ust

be

self

-ref

lect

ive

Res

earc

her

s re

cogn

ize

the

infl

uen

ce o

f th

eir

Add

ress

ed b

y ex

plor

ing

thei

r ow

n c

ult

ura

l pro

cess

esan

d aw

are

of t

hei

r ow

n c

ult

ura

low

n c

ult

ure

an

d in

stit

uti

ons

on t

hei

ran

d as

sum

ptio

ns

and

the

vari

ous

inst

itu

tion

s w

ith

in

infl

uen

ces

and

the

inst

itu

tion

s th

atpe

rspe

ctiv

es a

nd

sch

olar

ly w

ork.

Th

isth

e la

rger

aca

dem

ic in

stit

uti

on t

hat

impl

icit

ly a

nd

affe

ct t

hem

an

d th

eir

wor

k.di

rect

ion

req

uir

es s

elf-

refl

exiv

ity

beyo

nd

expl

icit

ly in

flu

ence

d th

is r

esea

rch

.th

e co

nsc

iou

s im

pera

tive

s an

d in

tou

nde

rlyi

ng

assu

mpt

ion

s.

11SOCIOCULTURAL THEORY

program for an African American community. The first step in the researchprocess was to conduct a literature review on the larger African Americancommunity, ascertaining cultural–historical themes (i.e., religion/spiritual-ity, extended family, and racial socialization). The applicability of thesegreater factors was assessed with the target Black community. The secondstep was to construct a community advisory board that advised on theactions and direction of the study as it related to the local community. Giventhe importance of history and context, eight interviews on local Black his-tory and policy were completed with local community leaders. Relevant historical and current documentation was reviewed to supplement inter-views. A total of 10 focus groups were conducted with parents/guardians (N � 54) and family health workers (N � 17) in the community, gainingtheir input on the structure and content of the program and how to inte-grate the cultural–historical factors. Finally, after data analysis, a final focusgroup was conducted with a sample of the previous focus group membersto ascertain the validity of the findings.

As can be seen in Table 1.1, these assumptions are designed to engen-der a robust understanding of cultural processes through research. The firstassumption focuses on the unit of analysis of the research, asserting cultur-ally and naturally occurring activity should be of focus. Regarding programevaluation, the data-collection method of observation can be used and com-plemented with the ethnographic method of thick description (Geertz,1973). The thick description should elucidate the activity, all of thoseinvolved, and the context. The evaluator should attempt to include thesemethods in the assessment of the community prior to the implementationof the evaluation and in the evaluation itself.

The focus of the second assumption is on change. Program evaluatorscan recognize that an evaluand may be different over time. The program andstakeholders assessed at one time may look different at another, with thechange of context and people. One way an evaluator could apply thisassumption is with the study of history and context prior to and during theimplementation of an evaluation.

The third assumption highlights the complexity of human beings as itrelates to internal and external factors that affect thinking and behavior. It places particular focus on the individual, interpersonal, and contextualdynamics of a given situation. In evaluation, the evaluator can consider eachvariable in assessing the various aspects of the program and employ meth-ods that examine the impact of each on a program and people. This can alsoinclude the analysis of how program activities lie at the intersection of indi-vidual, social, and cultural processes and how each influences the effec-tiveness of a program.

In the process of bolstering cultural competence, we can sometimesmake the mistake of creating and perpetuating stereotypes (e.g., in workingwith Latinos, an evaluator should assess machismo). The fourth assumption

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR EVALUATION • DOI: 10.1002/ev

12 REALLY NEW DIRECTIONS IN EVALUATION

goes against this tendency, recognizing both the similarities and variationwithin and between communities. Evaluators can apply this notion in theirperspective and methodology by using a diversity of methods (e.g., focusgroups, observation, surveys) to see both the commonalities and differenceswithin and between communities. They can also be conscious of the ten-dency to generalize a cultural norm to an entire group while also seeing thesimilarities between their own cultural norms and others.

Like the field of program evaluation, ST is both inter- and transdisci-plinary. ST holds that in order to gain a complete understanding of culture(e.g., the psychological, biological, ecological, and historical aspects)through research, the research methods and design need to be informed byvarious disciplines. In order to accomplish this, evaluators could gain addi-tional training in various data collection methods/designs or create multi-disciplinary teams.

To understand others’ cultural norms, one must study and know one’sown, and thus, there is a need for a multifaceted cultural self-explorationfor researchers (Rogoff, 2003; Rogoff & Chavajay, 1995). Evaluators canapply this by assessing not only themselves as cultural beings and their ownvarying contexts, but also the institutions in their work lives and in the fieldof program evaluation. Future evaluation research could answer questionssuch as: What are the tacit institutions in the field of program evaluation?How do these institutions manifest in power relations between evaluatorsand evaluands? How do they display themselves in evaluation designs?

Given these six assumptions and their consideration of culture, humandevelopment, and human dynamics, ST proves to be a viable and apt frame-work to supplement CRE and further inform evaluations. This approach canadd to the robustness and validity of an evaluation. Not only does it helpwith structure, but it also can bolster the compassion and connectednessevaluators should have with stakeholders. The respect for others that STencourages renders relationships that can both enhance the evaluation andbe ancillary to stakeholders in the process, especially when evaluators areoften viewed as threatening. Overall, with the strong foundation of evalua-tion, ST can help to build and, in the process, hone an evaluation throughenhanced understanding and connection.

References

Frazier-Anderson, P., Hood, S., & Hopson, R. (in press). An African American cultur-ally responsive evaluation system. In S. Lapan, M. Quartaroli, & F. Riemer (Eds.),Qualitative research: An introduction to methods and designs. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. New York, NY: BasicBooks.

Kirkhart, K. E. (2010). Eyes on the prize: Multicultural validity and evaluation theory.American Journal of Evaluation, 31, 400–413.

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR EVALUATION • DOI: 10.1002/ev

13SOCIOCULTURAL THEORY

McBride, D. F. (2009). Moving towards holistic equity: A process of developing a culturallyresponsive family health program (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Dissertations &Theses: Full Text. (Publication No. AAT 3391851)

Ridley, C. R., Mendoza, D. W., Kanitz, B. E., Angermeier, L., & Zenk, R. (1994). Cul-tural sensitivity in multicultural counseling: A perceptual schema model. Journal ofCounseling Psychology, 41, 125–136.

Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Rogoff, B., & Chavajay, P. (1995). What’s become of research on the cultural basis ofcognitive development. American Psychologist, 50, 859–877.

Rosa, A., & Montero, I. (1990). The historical context of Vygotsky’s work: A sociohis-torical approach. In L. C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education: Instructional implicationsand applications of sociohistorical psychology (pp. 59–88). New York, NY: CambridgeUniversity Press.

DOMINICA F. MCBRIDE is co-founder/co-president of The HELP Institute, Inc., andhead of the research division of the Community Mental Health Council, Inc.

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR EVALUATION • DOI: 10.1002/ev