Givin’ Stakeholders the Mic

Abstract

Social justice–oriented evaluation approaches are described as participatory, culturally and contextually responsive, and self-empowering. These evaluation approaches call for the genuine participation of stakeholders for sound evaluations, particularly those outside of decision-making and service providing. Similarly, hip-hop is commonly characterized as liberating, educative, and critically responsive. Further, hip-hop engages marginalized groups around the world through creative practices such as urban art and disk jockeying, reflecting the authentic evaluative voice of these groups. In this article, we draw links between evaluation and hip-hop to identify hip-hop as useful and relevant to social justice–oriented evaluation approaches. Establishing connections between evaluation and hip-hop is important to evaluation, given the field’s current call for meaningful stakeholder participation—especially in settings that service youth and other often overlooked groups.

Keywords

participatory evaluation hip-hop empowerment evaluation culturally responsive evaluation social justice

Program evaluation research has a long-standing history of producing models, theories, and approaches to guide evaluative practice. Social justice–oriented program evaluation approaches call for meaningful involvement of stakeholders that have been traditionally marginalized or excluded from evaluation activities (Mertens & Wilson, 2012; Segone, 2011; Thomas & Madison, 2010). These approaches focus on inclusive evaluation practices to redress inequalities. These approaches are described as participatory, culturally and contextually responsive, and self-empowering among other descriptions (Alkin, 2013; Cousins & Whitmore, 1998; Fetterman, 2013). Decentralizing privilege of the evaluator and making space for stakeholders to empower themselves to action are key goals of social justice–oriented approaches (Greene, 2006; House & Howe, 1999). The most credible social justice–oriented evaluation approaches effectively incorporate stakeholders’ culture and context (Mertens, 1999).

Similar to social justice–oriented evaluation approaches, hip-hop can reflect an evaluative voice of youth and other marginalized groups. Evaluative voice is defined as the organismic nature all humans share to evaluate themselves and their external context (Thompson-Robinson, Hopson, & Sengupta, 2004). Evaluative voice is the authentic representation of how all people think evaluatively (House & Howe, 1999). Evaluators often seek to access the evaluative voice of individuals when they endeavor to meaningfully engage stakeholders through interviews, surveys, and focus groups, for example. Evaluative voice is an essential building block for the highest forms of evaluation. In hip-hop culture, this evaluative voice is represented by five modes: rap music (oral), disk jockeying (DJing; aural), break dancing (physical), urban art (visual), and knowledge (mental; Chang, 2005; Rose, 1994, 2008). Through its modes and elements, hip-hop amplifies the evaluative voice and expression of nondominate populations around the world (Alim, Ibrahim, & Pennycook, 2008; Osumare, 2001). At its core, hip-hop seeks to develop an understanding of marginalized cultures and contexts through authentic engagement with its aesthetics. Engaging with hip-hop culture can enable representations of marginalized communities and promote cultural analysis and critique that encourages local and/or global action among the disenfranchised (Chang, 2005; Irby & Hall, 2011; Morrell & Duncan-Andrade, 2002; Rose, 1994, 2008).

Given the shared goals of social justice–oriented evaluation approaches and hip-hop, this article aims to advocate hip-hop as useful and relevant to the social justice–oriented landscape of evaluation approaches. To do this, we first describe three social justice–oriented evaluation approaches that intend to be inclusive and dialogical in order to assist stakeholders in empowering themselves and transforming their communities (Aldridge & Stewart, 2005; House & Howe, 1999; Irby & Hall, 2011). Next, we provide a brief description of hip-hop culture and connect hip-hop to each social justice–oriented evaluation approach. Then, we offer an illustrative example of one project (Never, Ever, Give, Our, Lives, Away [NEGOLA]) that utilizes alternative and culturally relevant tools for evaluation work, focusing on hip-hop as an evaluative voice. We conclude by arguing the importance of hip-hop’s contribution to the literature on social justice–oriented approaches to evaluation.

Social Justice–Oriented Evaluation Approaches

Social justice–oriented evaluation approaches aim to include stakeholders who are often marginalized from more technically planned, evaluator-centered evaluation approaches. The intent of their participation in the social justice–oriented evaluation process is to make evaluation more democratic and deliberative as well as contextually and culturally responsive (Greene, 2006; House & Howe, 1999; Thompson-Robinson et al., 2004). Examples of social justice–oriented evaluation approaches can be found in participatory evaluation (Cousins & Chouinard, 2012; Cousins & Whitmore, 1998), culturally and contextually responsive evaluation (Greene, 2006; Ryan, Chandler, & Samuels, 2007; Samuels & Ryan, 2011; Thompson-Robinson et al., 2004), and empowerment evaluation (Fetterman, 2013). The following sections briefly describe these social justice–oriented evaluation approaches.

Participatory evaluation aims to identify relevant individuals or groups in context, ascertain their legitimate interests and explore how to incorporate these legitimate interests into evaluation (Chouinard, 2013; Cousins & Chouinard, 2012; Cousins & Whitmore, 1998). In this evaluation approach, the focus is on those outside of decision-making and service providing. The purpose of this form of inclusion is to push the relevance, ownership, and utilization of evaluation in context (Cousins & Whitmore, 1998). This means stakeholders are encouraged to be engaged in the evaluation process, playing a key role in the identification of the issue to be explored, as well as how (i.e., methods, data collection, and analysis) the problem will be investigated and represented. The extent to which stakeholders participate in the evaluation process is impacted by contextual characteristics (i.e., community needs and program goals), stakeholder interest, and expertise, as well as the evaluator role (i.e., level of evaluator involvement and expertise; Chouinard, 2013). Central to the participatory evaluation approach is the collaboration between stakeholders and evaluators to actively address community-identified concerns.

Culturally responsive evaluation also builds on the participation of stakeholders to push evaluators to think critically about culture and environment. Specifically, this evaluation framework rejects deficit thinking and fosters an understanding that meaning is inextricably linked to context and culture (Greene, 2006; Hood, Hopson, & Frierson, 2015; Ryan et al., 2007; Samuels & Ryan, 2011; Thompson-Robinson et al., 2004). Culturally responsive frameworks reflect a “strength-based” approach, which “shifts the evaluation lens away from deficit views that blame problems on the individual or culture, recognizing that the problem often resides in the larger society’s response to an individual or cultural group” (Thomas & Parsons, 2016, p. 9). This strength-based approach also perceives stakeholders’ culture as an asset to the evaluation and identifies responsive ways to meaningfully incorporate the culture of stakeholders into the evaluation (Thomas & Parsons, 2016). The evaluation approach calls on evaluators to be attentive to power dynamics, language bias, and the complexities of cultural identities and the like (American Evaluation Association, 2011). Further, Greene (2006) explains how all research and evaluation approaches are linked to epistemologies, ontologies, and methodologies of researchers and evaluators, thus exposing a metaphorical “blind spot” implicit in evaluators—they are limited by their understandings of culture and context. Hood (1998) discusses the effects of these limits on evaluation approaches and quality in a call for diversity in program evaluation and evaluation scholarship. Ultimately, culturally responsive evaluation requires that evaluators value the diversity of cultures represented in the context of evaluation and critically consider how these cultures influence evaluation practice.

Similar to other social justice–oriented approaches, empowerment evaluation focuses on the utilization of evaluation, stakeholder participation, and cultural and contextual responsiveness. Yet the empowerment framework incorporates these aspects in order to encourage independent action in programs. To be sure, this approach is distinct because it recognizes the power in evaluation “living independently” within a context to foster self-determination and promote action after the evaluation (Fetterman, 2013; King, 2013). From this perspective, empowerment is attributed to stakeholders who are in a position to evaluate themselves and to use evaluation as a tool for action (Greene, 2006). Further, this framework aims to use evaluation as a means to facilitate the empowerment of stakeholders in an organization as much as make changes in it (Fetterman, 2013). This is because the “stakeholder being in control is primary and collaboration is secondary” (Fetterman, Rodriguez-Campos, Wandersman, & O’Sullivan, 2014, p. 147). At the heart of the empowerment approach is the evaluator working as a “critical friend” to build the evaluation capacity of stakeholders in order to determine how best to implement an evaluation and meet their needs (Fetterman et al., 2014, p. 146). Taken together, social justice–oriented approaches require attention to culture, context, collaboration, and stakeholder involvement in the development and implementation of an evaluation. Being responsive to these areas, from a social justice perspective, strengthens the credibility and utility of evaluation practice.

Now that an overview of social justice–oriented approaches has been provided, our discussion turns to a brief description of hip-hop culture including its history, theoretical stances, and examples of hip-hop’s evaluative voice. We consider the following discussion particularly important to contextualize hip-hop and unpack how hip-hop culture aligns with social justice evaluation approaches.

Hip-Hop Culture

Hip-hop is considered a cultural phenomenon rooted in African traditions that emerged as a response to the destruction of the housing communities of Black, Latino, and Caribbean youth in postindustrial New York City in the 1970s (Chang, 2005; Kitwana, 2003; Rose, 1994, 2008). The African/Afrodiasporic roots of hip-hop centralize communalism, orality, and affect in the culture (Alim et al., 2008; Rouland, Matthews, Byrd, Meyer, & Rowley, 2014). Often identified by its aesthetic forms of rapping, street art, and dance, this culture has been described as critical to identity and worldview (Hill, 2009; Kitwana, 2003). Since Baker’s (1993) book, Black Studies, Rap, and the Academy, hip-hop has found increasing relevance to research.

Currently, hip-hop is considered a multidisciplinary field of study, drawing on traditions from sociology, anthropology, and linguistics to name a few. It is an established form of knowledge production through hip-hop pedagogy, hip-hop studies, and hip-hop communication and literature studies (Alim et al., 2008; Baker, 1993; Hill, 2009), reaching schools, colleges, and corporations. The increase in centers, programs, courses, and scholarships dedicated to hip-hop further evidence its credibility and relevance. For example, New York University’s Hip-Hop Education Center offers courses related to hip-hop and partners with other institutions like the University of Wisconsin at Madison and Teachers College at Columbia University to advance hip-hip educational practice and research. Moreover, the Hip-Hop Archive and Research Institute and the Nasir Jones Hip-Hop Fellowship at Harvard University archive hip-hop artifacts and offer opportunities for hip-hop scholarship.

Hip-Hop’s Theoretical Perspectives

The theoretical underpinnings of hip-hop culture can be found in the philosophical stance of John Dewey’s version of pragmatism (Emdin, 2013), the critical school of thought advanced by scholars such as Ladson-Billings (2014), and the postmodern perspectives of Michel Foucault (Murrell, 2011). The diversity of these theories suggests there is not one hip-hop theoretical perspective. Rather, hip-hop theory represents a family of theories that largely seeks to address a myriad of social justice issues such as poverty and educational inequalities. From a Deweyan philosophical stance, hip-hop situates experiences as embedded in culture and action. Its critical theory ethos values examining power structures, exposing injustices (i.e., racial and economic), and promoting liberation/empowerment (Ladson-Billings, 2014). Like Foucault, hip-hop is skeptical of institutions, particularly educational and criminal justice systems, viewing them as elaborate systems designed to encourage “social conformity on a global scale” (Prasad, 2005, p. 248). Further, hip-hop reflects the imagination of the radical activist stance because it is unapologetically political, advocates for the use of alternative tactics to address the subordination of minority groups, and supports social justice for all populations including criminals and the like (Kelley, 2002).

Hip-hop’s stance engages youth and marginalized populations in the United States and internationally across ethnicity, race, sex, gender, sexual orientation, and religion (Chang, 2005; Rose, 2008). Hip-hop’s appeal across backgrounds stems from how disenfranchised groups use hip-hop to validate their interests, construct knowledge and ways of being in the world, and promote avenues for social resistance and affirmation through alternative methods (Kitwana, 2003; Petchauer, 2009; Rose, 1994, 2008).

Hip-Hop’s Evaluative Voice

Hip-hop affectively and effectively reveals a type of social critique that illuminates tensions between desired conditions and current circumstances, empowering groups to induce social justice. Hip-hop’s evaluative voice is characterized by how it facilitates social critique among marginalized groups and their engagement with issues that affect them locally and globally and how it emboldens change. As mentioned previously, this evaluative voice is represented by five modes: rap music (oral), DJing (aural), break dancing (physical), urban art (visual), and knowledge (mental; Chang, 2005; Rose, 1994, 2008). These modes promote collaborative empowerment for a variety of purposes. Some of these include youth identity construction and development; critical analysis; and social critique of social systems, liberation, and solidarity. The following sections provide examples of hip-hop’s evaluative voice in use.

Aldridge’s (2005) From Civil Rights to Hip-Hop: Toward a Nexus of Ideas suggests the evaluative voice of hip-hop is linked to its relationship with prior Black sociocultural movements. The evaluative voice of hip-hop is present in the African/Afrodiasporic cultural roots where orality—narrativizing, tonal semantics, signifying, and syntax—is essential (Alim et al., 2008). Its foundation was a result of youth analyzing and critiquing their experiences in American society like prior social justice movements. According to Aldridge (2005), hip-hop and prior movements like the Civil Rights Movement and the Black Freedom Struggle share common themes—liberation, self-determination, entrepreneurship and economic solidarity, and Pan-Africanism—but representations of this manifest differently in each generation. Yet as hip-hop culture has expanded and transformed to the present form, these common themes remain in hip-hop.

In his book, Beats, Rhymes, and Classroom Life, Hill (2009) captures an example of using hip-hop literacy to discuss identity development with students. Hill (2009) discusses using hip-hop as a vehicle for healing the ideological wounds gathered through the experiences of himself and his students alike. This healing identity process was performed using hip-hop lyrics—the most common form of hip-hop narratives—in evaluative conversations about the often painful experiences that influenced the development of ideologies and perspectives in which students lived by. These conversations included navigating neighborhood dynamics such as crime, drug trafficking, urban decay, and topics around personal relationships. Similarly, in the book, Hip-Hop’s Li’l Sistas Speak: Negotiating Hip-Hop Identities and Politics in the New South, Love (2012) engages six young Black women in discussing the role of hip-hop in their identity development and experiences in the urban South. Based on these participatory discussions, the young Black women evaluated the sexualization of girls and women as well as the absence of women outside of these roles in hip-hop music and culture. These young Black women used their evaluative voice to describe the continuum of inclusion and distancing of women within the hip-hop culture they navigate in their everyday lives. The participation and contribution of marginalized groups is an integral characteristic of hip-hop. In this case, participation was used to critique hip-hop, which became an empowering experience for the young Black women, as they began to make meaning of their experiences with hip-hop moving beyond the identities ascribed by hip-hop music or simply being consumers of hip-hop culture.

The evaluative voice of hip-hop lyrics challenges the idea of an American opportunity for all. This is consistent throughout the hip-hop generations (Kitwana, 2003). The following section contains examples of the evaluative voice of hip-hop artists from the 1980s through the 2010s. In the 1980s, song “Don’t Believe the Hype,” artist Chuck D from the group Public Enemy provides this example of evaluative voice:

They claim that I’m a criminal

By now I wonder how

Some people never know

The enemy could be their friend, guardian

I’m not a hooligan

I rock the party and

Clear all the madness, I’m not a racist

Preach to teach to all

‘Cause some they never had this

Number one, not born to run

About the gun…

I wasn’t licensed to have one

The minute they see me, fear me

I’m the epitome—a public enemy

Used, abused without clues

I refused to blow a fuse

They even had it on the news

Don’t believe the hype

(Ridenhour, Schocklee, Sadler, & Drayton, 1988)

In this example, Chuck D challenges the stereotypical images of the “criminal” versus the realities. This supports the message of the song that speaks to people developing their own knowledge rather than accepting popularized opinions found in the media. Evaluative voice in hip-hop culture challenges the notion of American opportunity by critiquing the mainstream American ideologies. Hip-hop also exposes the environments the historically marginalized navigate utilizing its evaluative voice. In the 1990s, artist Treach from the duo Naughty by Nature provides this example of the evaluative voice in hip-hop in “Everything’s Gonna Be Alright”:

A ghetto bastard, born next to the projects

Livin’ in the slums with bums, I said now why Treach

Why do I have to be like this? momma said I’m priceless

So I am all worthless, starved, that’s just what being nice gets

Sometimes I wish I could afford a pistol then, though

To stop the hell, I would’ve ended things a while ago

I ain’t have jack but a black hat and knapsack

Four squad stolen in cars in a blackjack

Drop that, and now you want me to rap and give?

Say somethin’ positive? well positive ain’t where I lived

I lived right around a corner from west hell

(Criss & Brown, 1991)

Treach speaks to the psychological effects of poverty and how these social conditions can undermine ethics and morality. He even mentions thoughts of suicide. Furthermore, he does not apologize for his approach to this voice as it exemplifies his realities in Hell’s Kitchen—a district in Manhattan, New York City. The evaluative voice in hip-hop is displayed in its analysis of the environment as well as its introspection into its effects on individuals. Artist T.I. exemplifies this in the 2000s song “I Can’t Quit”:

Look, I’m this far from being a star and just that close to quitting

I never should of came close to missing

But I want to be a musician pimping not a politician

Listen, feel my position it’s a rough transition

Plus I’m way too deep in the game to be trying to change

For fortune and fame and glamour I can be in the slammer

Or six feet up under Atlanta

It’s a blessing to breathe

I walk the streets with seven felonies, I’m blessed to be free

(Harris, Thornton, & Tillma, 2003)

In this example, T.I. is introspective of his personal challenges within self when trying to achieve. He describes difficult experiences in navigating poor Atlanta streets and how those skills acquired are not serving his pursuit of music. He concludes discussing the effects of incarceration on the choices and experiences he has faced after serving time. In the 2010s, Kendrick Lamar utilizes hip-hop’s evaluative voice to disentangle the experiences of a young woman from his neighborhood. His example comes from “Keisha’s Song”:

And Lord knows she’s beautiful

Lord knows the usuals leaving a body sore

She take the little change she make to fix her nail cuticles,

Lipstick is suitable to make you fiend for more

She play Mr. Shakur

That’s her favorite rapper bumping “Brenda’s Got A Baby”

While a pervert yelling at her and she capture features of a woman

But only 17, the 7 cars start honkin’

She start running like FLo-Jo don’t care if they Joe Blow

(Lamar, 2011)

In this example, Lamar is telling the story of a young woman and her complexities while caught up in the life of prostitution. He even cites how these stories have been presented before when referencing her favorite rapper bumping “Brenda’s Got a Baby,” a song by Tupac Shakur released in 1991 (Shakur & Evans, 1991). With this evaluative voice, again, Lamar details the ill effects of generational social inequality on the life experiences of young women.

It is important to note that the previously mentioned artists and songs serve only as examples to the depth of evaluative voice within hip-hop, especially in lyrics. The lyrics of the artists mentioned are but one example of evaluative voice in hip-hop from only one aesthetic form. With rap as the most recognizable and accessible form of hip-hop, lyrics (songs, spoken word) can be viewed as an alternative approach to engage communities and society at large (Alim et al., 2008).

Hip-Hop’s Alignment With Social Justice–Oriented Evaluation Approaches

As with other alternative evaluative methods, hip-hop can be used alongside more traditional and social justice–oriented evaluation methods to enhance meaning making, credibility of the evaluation process, as well as the utility and dissemination of findings (Johnson, Hall, Greene, & Ahn, 2013). This is because hip-hop culture has many aspects that align with the social justice–oriented evaluation approaches described previously. The overlap between social justice evaluation approaches and hip-hop can be seen through the use of its evaluative voice to be inclusive, culturally relevant, and liberating.

For example, hip-hop and participatory frameworks share the inclusion and valuing of individuals’ and groups’ meaning construction and ways of knowing (Chouinard, 2013; Cousins & Chouinard, 2012; Cousins & Whitmore, 1998; Petchauer, 2009). Chang (2005) describes the participatory nature of hip-hop stemming from its foundation in New York City, where gatherings or “park jams” included Black, Latino, and Afro-Caribbean youth from the Bronx as well as the White youth from Manhattan and Brooklyn. This collaboration across different youth groups contributed in the development of hip-hop. The culture of hip-hop continues as a “multiracial, polycultural generation’s worldview” today (Cummings, 2009, p. 508). In hip-hop, participation is most recognizably presented in the aesthetic forms influenced by the social, economic, and political experiences of the marginalized (Aldridge, 2005). This means that inclusive social gatherings like park jams not only illustrate the participatory nature of hip-hop but also serve as a response to the deterioration of neighborhoods, education, and economy around them. In short, participation in park jams created a space for New York youth to actively evaluate the real and symbolic destruction of their community (Rose, 1994, 2008).

Similar to culturally responsive evaluation approaches, hip-hop has been discussed as a culturally relevant response to Eurocentrism and American culture experienced by those marginalized from the 1970s to the present—and that has existed in spite of and because of this experience (Chang, 2005; Kitwana, 2003; Rose, 1994, 2008). For example, hip-hop music and dance have been included in school settings as a response to educational arts reform (Kruse, 2016; Stovall, 2006). Urban street art is a response to postindustrial community deterioration, bringing attention to the experiences of generations post-Civil Rights Movement to the present (Rose, 1994). Like other Black cultural movements within the United States, hip-hop is inextricably linked to African oral, art, music, and dance traditions (Ramsey, 2003). By imposing these culturally relevant art forms in various aspects of American culture, hip-hop allows explorations into experiences through a cultural lens outside of the dominant culture. Thus, both culturally responsive evaluation and hip-hop use culture to influence and/or inform the status quo.

Finally, like empowerment evaluation approaches, hip-hop can assist individuals empowering themselves through self-determination and identity construction. For example, marginalized populations, like Black boys and men, can empower themselves against stereotypes and discrimination by creating alternative names for themselves and narratives, thereby reclaiming the power of identity development (Aldridge, 2005; Allison, 2011; Clay, 2003). This form of identity construction helps individuals and groups to build the capacity needed to negotiate social, economic, and political philosophies from their experiences rather than ascribe to those imposed upon them (McCormick, 2003).

Overall, social justice–oriented evaluators join in the assertion that all humans evaluate (Stufflebeam, 2001). In a similar way, hip-hop engages the marginalized, providing in-depth perspectives of and critiques about society, local communities, as well as hip-hop itself. When used for these purposes, hip-hop provides a form of social analysis to inform collaborative action. Using an illustrative example, the following section builds on the connections established between social justice–oriented evaluation and hip-hop including hip-hop’s use as an evaluative voice.

Hip-Hop Evaluation Example: NEGOLA

Our discussion now turns to an in-depth exploration of how evaluators can integrate hip-hop culture and evaluation. Prior to sharing the illustrative example, we first need to make the point that a meaningful evaluation approach must account for the ways in which hip-hop culture is integrated rather than appropriated. Although cultural appropriation can occur at varying degrees for different reasons, it is commonly understood as the exploitation of a marginalized culture by a dominate culture without “substantive reciprocity, permission, and/or compensation” (Rogers, 2006, p. 477). It is important to note, “mere exposure, for example, to the music or film of another culture does not constitute cultural appropriation” (Rogers, 2006, p. 476). There are long-standing debates within the hip-hop community as to the extent to which and in what ways hip-hop has been culturally appropriated. These debates are beyond the scope of this article. For the purposes of this article, we posit that all social justice evaluation work requires respectful cross-cultural exchanges, particularly among vulnerable and/or marginalized cultural groups. We further posit that an individual evaluator’s view of hip-hop, for example, in either a more emic or etic way depending on the evaluator’s relationship with the culture, will determine the germaneness of incorporation of the culture into any particular evaluation (Alim et al., 2008). While evaluation practice has engaged hip-hop, the amount of published evaluation work reflecting this engagement is dearth (Lau, Netherland, & Haywood, 2003; Robbins, Pfeiffer, Wesolek, & Lo, 2014). To fill this gap in the literature, the following example attempts to highlight a respectful incorporation of hip-hop in evaluation work. Specifically, the example illustrates what a partnership between a hip-hop community project (NEGOLA) and an evaluator that identifies with hip-hop culture can look like in practice. Together, the evaluator and the hip-hop stakeholders cocreate an evaluation and extend the use of hip-hip practices in service to the evaluation. This approach could be viewed as a form of indigenous evaluation in that it values hip-hop ways of knowing and being in the world. From this perspective, aspects of hip-hop culture are considered privileged methods of deconstructing and constructing reality. A key goal of providing this example is to further promote hip-hop as a potential contributor to social–oriented evaluation approaches.

The NEGOLA Project

The NEGOLA project is a hip-hop community organization designed to engage youth practicing hip-hop culture, primarily through DJing, dance, and poetry. This project encourages youth to live above the influence of drugs, crime, and other vices deemed detrimental to their health and well-being. What started as an after-school safe space for less than a dozen youth and adult volunteers in Chicago’s most crime-ridden neighborhood has now grown to a membership of over 200 youth and 76 adult volunteers. The lead organizer, John Russell, is a disc jockey (DJ) and hip-hop activist. John has been working with NEGOLA since it began in the late 1990s. Given the project’s past and recent growth, he became interested in evaluating the program’s impact on the lives of the youth it serves. After reaching out to local educational evaluators, John decided to take the recommendation of a friend and have Jamellah Fisher evaluate the program. In addition to being an evaluator, Jamellah is active within hip-hop poetry slams (performance competitions) and a former DJ from Detroit, MI.

John takes pride in the NEGOLA project because it is one of the few programs that authentically engages the Chicago youth in hip-hop aesthetics. He is also proud of how closely he has been able to model his community program after international programs like Brazil’s hip-hop pedagogy (Pardue, 2004) and graffiti crews (Christen, 2003) that utilize aesthetic forms of hip-hop as a community intervention. The NEGOLA project has three core tenets. These include (1) discourse of change, (2) knowledge of self, and (3) value of skills (Pardue, 2004). The discourse of change tenet focuses on history, mentorship and learning DJing, dance, poetry, and the community at large. Knowledge of self involves students’ journaling their experiences, engaging self-determined learning and reflection, as well as understanding their own habits of body and mind (Petchauer, 2009). The value of skills focuses on the students’ development in artistry (DJ, dancer, or poet), time management, practice and production, and healthy competition. Jamellah was invited in as an evaluator because she understands how these core tenets can emerge throughout the program and encompass hip-hop culture and aesthetics.

With over two decades of social justice–oriented evaluation experience, Jamellah first decides to understand the goals of the NEGOLA program via meetings with John and visits to the program in session. Jamellah, in consultation with John, then develops evaluation plan aims. The aims include (1) uncovering the evaluative voice in the program, (2) cocreating evaluation goals to qualify and quantify the success of the program with all relevant stakeholders (John, mentors, parents, and students), and (3) initiating a cycle of evaluation that can exist within the organization. Ultimately, Jamellah’s goal is to equip the NEGOLA program with an evaluation tool that can be continuously used independent of her evaluative assistance.

Jamellah aims to produce a thorough report for NEGOLA that utilizes data from attendance records, project/community event participatory observations and surveys, interviews with program volunteers and participants, focus groups with community stakeholders, and other relevant sources. Through this process, she will be able to discuss the mentoring, importance of self-exploration, and skill building to assess how the program’s core hip-hop tenets impact NEGOLA project youth participants and their immediate community. To be true to the tenets of the program, Jamellah determined the evaluation reporting will include alternative representations of the findings, in addition to a written report. The evaluation report will be provided for John, offering the program a tool to perform annual summative evaluations. Alternative presentations of the findings related to program impact will feature student-led activities to demonstrate their evaluative voice. For example, the student-led activities will showcase their personal (i.e., time management) and hip-hop (i.e., poetry, DJing, and dance) skill development.

Discussion

The example illustrates how Jamellah seeks to understand how NEGOLA project stakeholders presently use hip-hop practices, in large part, through participatory evaluative aspects. It must be stated that Jamellah’s identity and experience personally and professionally serve as a proverbial tool kit in which to learn about the program’s impact and conduct the evaluation effectively. This is especially powerful in Jamellah evaluating the NEGOLA project because she is a community stakeholder acutely aware of hip-hop’s power as an intervention (Tyson, 2002). For example, as a former DJ and poet, she understands how the program activities such as manipulating beats per minute, crafting poetic stanzas, and choreographing dance movements connects to deeper lessons of skill building (i.e., time management and habits of body and mind). Furthermore, this understanding aligned with her culturally responsive evaluation stance, led to the evaluation being cocreated with John, the mentors, students, and the parents of the program. Essentially, the evaluation needs to be sound with hip-hop practices and principles reflected in the NEGOLA project. Jamellah wants the NEGOLA project to be able to perform summative evaluations and produce alternative ways to represent the impact the program produces in the community. The student-led program alongside the written report, that includes quantitative and qualitative evaluations of the program, will provide the NEGOLA project with a multifaceted evaluation to be continually embedded in the program.

Conclusion

Hip-hop, once considered a marginal, controversial music genre has now reached mainstream society as evidenced by its active use in fields such as education and even Broadway Theater. While hip-hop has a legacy that spans over 30 years, its recent burgeoning in academia and international influence is a testament to its narrative and emotive impact. Given that hip-hop is now woven into the fabric of society, even evaluators who have little to no interest in hip-hop should be aware of its transnational contributions and prepared to encounter features of its culture—if they are not already.

As members of the hip-hop community and advocates of social justice–oriented evaluation approaches, we value hip-hop’s contribution to society and view it as meaningful to evaluation. Because of our shared values, we presented hip-hop as pertinent to social justice–oriented evaluation approaches and suggested its use as an evaluative voice that allows individuals and groups to empower themselves. Recognizing hip-hop as significant to social justice–oriented evaluation approaches, as we have argued, adds to the contextual and cultural-responsive goals of current credible evaluation practice. That is, we think hip-hop is yet another culture that can be meaningfully pursued by evaluators that seek social justice. Further, hip-hop can inform evaluation theory by garnering opportunities for deeper exploration into the wide range of ways evaluation can be utilized by stakeholders, moving beyond evaluating hip-hop as a program component. This means engaging in the complexities of hip-hop culture including its history, pedagogy, theoretical underpinning (pragmatism, critical theory, and postmodernism), and multimodal practices (music, DJing, dancing, and art) that are used to make sense of the world.

To advance our argument, we offered an in-depth exploration of an evaluation example (NEGOLA) to consider how hip-hop can be embedded in social justice–oriented evaluation approaches. Although this evaluation example is limited in its comprehensiveness, it provides an example of an evaluator critically connecting with the hip-hop aesthetics of a program to measure program effectiveness and consider program improvement efforts. Further, the example illustrates how the evaluative voice that students and mentors applied to gauge DJing skill, artfulness, or dance acuity was extended to understand how the project promoted health and well-being through hip-hop culture.

To conclude, we offer some noteworthy points for evaluators to consider. First, because of hip-hop’s ability to narrate personal and societal experiences, critique unjust practices, and counter oppressive power structures across transnational contexts, different versions of hip-hop exist. As a result, hip-hop must be understood and engaged contextually (Alim et al., 2008). Second, we note that hip-hop can be especially beneficial to evaluations in the field of education and those that involve youth, particularly given the increasing development of hip-hop-based education scholarship: hip-hop pedagogy, hip-hop studies, and hip-hop communication and literature studies (Alim et al., 2008; Baker, 1993; Hill, 2009; Hill & Petchauer, 2013). These educational domains recognize hip-hop as an indigenous practice or culture. Recognizing hip-hop in this way identifies it as a credible means to construct and deconstruct reality (Emdin, 2009). Acknowledging hip-hop as a central method of learning and understanding the world—often within relegated communities—can enhance the cultural responsiveness of social justice–oriented evaluation approaches that attend to the experiences of these groups. It is this view of hip-hop, we argue, that needs to be harnessed by the field of evaluation.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Aldridge

D. P.

(2005). From civil rights to hip-hop: Toward a nexus of ideas. Journal of African American History, 90, 226–252.

Aldridge

D. P.

Stewart

J. B.

(2005). Introduction: Hip hop in history: Past, present, and future. Journal of African American History, 90, 190–195.

Alim

H. S.

Ibrahim

Pennycook

(Eds.). (2008). Global linguistic flows: Hip-hop cultures, youth identities, and the politics of language. Abingdon, England: Routledge.

Alkin

(2013). Evaluation roots: A wider perspective of theorists’ views and influences (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Allison

(2011). Hip hop, identity, and African American teens. International Journal of the Humanities, 9, 255–262.

American Evaluation Association. (2011). Public statement on cultural competence. Retrieved from http://www.eval.org/ccstatement.asp

Baker

H. A.

(1993). Black studies, rap, and the academy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.

Chang

(2005). Can’t stop, won’t stop: A history of the hip-hop generation. New York, NY: St. Martin’s.

Chouinard

J. A.

(2013). The case for participatory evaluation in an era of accountability. American Journal of Evaluation, 34, 237–253.

10.

Christen

R. S.

(2003). Hip hop learning: Graffiti as an educator of urban teenagers. The Journal of Educational Foundations, 17, 57.

11.

Clay

(2003). Keepin’ it real black youth, hip-hop culture, and black identity. American Behavioral Scientist, 46, 1346–1358.

12.

Cousins

J. B.

Chouinard

(2012). Participatory evaluation up close: A review and integration of research-based knowledge. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

13.

Cousins

J. B.

Whitmore

(1998). Framing participatory evaluation. In Whitmore

(Ed.), Understanding and practicing participatory evaluation. New directions for evaluation (Vol. 80, pp. 5–23). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

14.

Criss

Brown

(1991). Everything’s gonna be alright (Ghetto Bastard). On Ghetto Bastard [Cassette, Vinyl]. New York, NY: Tommy Boy Records.

15.

Cummings

A. D. P.

(2009). Furious kinship: Critical race theory and the hip-hop nation (Vol. 48, p. 499). Louisville, KY: University of Louisville.

16.

Emdin

(2009). Reality pedagogy: Hip-hop culture and the urban science classroom. Science education from people for people. New York, NY: Routledge.

17.

Emdin

(2013). The rap cypher, the battle, and reality pedagogy. Developing communication and argumentation in urban science education. In Hill

M. L.

Petchauer

(Eds.), Schooling hip-hop: Expanding hip-hop based education across curriculum (pp. 11–27). New York, NY: Teachers College.

18.

Fetterman

(2013). Empowerment evaluation: Learning to think like an evaluator. In Alkin

(Ed.), Evaluation roots (pp. 304–322). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

19.

Fetterman

Rodriguez-Campos

Wanderman

O’Sullivan

R. G.

(2014). Collaborative, participatory, and empowerment evaluation: Building a strong conceptual foundation for stakeholder involvement approaches to evaluation (a response to cousins, Whitmore, & Shulha, 2013). American Journal of Evaluation, 35, 144–148.

20.

Greene

J. C.

(2006). Evaluation, democracy, and social change. In Shaw

I. F.

Greene

J. C.

Mark

M. M.

(Eds.), The Sage handbook of evaluation (pp. 118–140). London, England: Sage.

21.

Harris

Thornton

Tillman

(2003). I can’t quit. On Trap Muzik [CD]. Atlanta, GA: Atlantic Records & Grand Hustle Records.

22.

Hill

M. L.

(2009). Beats, rhymes, and classroom life: Hip-hop pedagogy and the politics of identity. New York, NY: Teachers College.

23.

Hill

M. L.

Petchauer

(Eds.). (2013). Schooling hip-hop: Expanding hip-hop based education across the curriculum. New York, NY: Teachers College.

24.

Hood

(1998). Responsive evaluation Amistad style: Perspectives of one African American evaluator. In Davis

(Ed.), Proceedings of the Stake symposium on educational evaluation (pp. 101–112). Champaign: University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign.

25.

Hood

Hopson

Frierson

(2015). Introduction: This is where we continue to stand. In Hood

Hopson

Obeidat

Frierson

(Eds.), Continuing the journey to responsive culture and cultural context in evaluation theory and practice (pp. ix–xvii). Chicago, IL: Information Age.

26.

House

E. R.

Howe

(1999). Values in evaluation and social research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

27.

Irby

D. J.

Hall

H. B.

(2011). Fresh faces, new places: Moving beyond teacher-researcher perspectives in hip-hop-based education research. Urban Education, 46, 216–240.

28.

Johnson

Hall

J. N.

Greene

J. C.

Ahn

(2013). Alternative approaches for presenting evaluation findings. American Journal of Evaluation, 34, 486–503.

29.

Kelley

R. D.

(2002). Freedom dreams: The black radical imagination. Boston, MA: Beacon.

30.

King

(2013). Getting people involved: The origin of interactive evaluation practice. In Alkin

(Ed.), Evaluation roots (pp. 334–343). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

31.

Kitwana

(2003). The hip-hop generation: Young blacks and the crisis in African-American culture. New York, NY: Basic Books.

32.

Kruse

A. J.

(2016). Toward hip-hop pedagogies for music education. International Journal of Music Education, 34, 247–260.

33.

Ladson-Billings

(2014). Culturally relevant pedagogy 2.0: A.k.a. the RemixHip. Harvard Educational Review, 84, 74–84.

34.

Lamar

(2011). Keisha’s song. On section 80 [CD]. Los Angeles, CA: Top Dawg Entertainment.

35.

Lau

Netherland

Haywood

(2003). Collaborating on evaluation for youth development. New Directions for Evaluation, 98, 47–59.

36.

Love

(2012). Hip-hop’s li’l sistas speak: Negotiating identities and politics in the new South. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

37.

McCormick

. (2003). “Drag me to the asylum”: Disguising and asserting identities in an urban school. The Urban Review, 35, 111–128.

38.

Mertens

D. M.

(1999). Inclusive evaluation: Implications of transformative theory for evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 20, 1–14.

39.

Mertens

D. M.

Wilson

A. T.

(2012). Program evaluation theory and practice: A comprehensive guide. New York, NY: Guilford.

40.

Morrell

Duncan-Andrade

J. M.

(2002). Promoting academic literacy with urban youth through engaging hip-hop culture. English Journal, 91, 88–92.

41.

Murrell

(2011). Notes: This is the real hip-hop: Hip hop’s rejection of Paul Butler’s theory of justice in let’s get free. The Georgetown Law Journal, 99, 1179–1225.

42.

Osumare

(2001). Beat streets in the global hood: Connective marginalities of the hip-hop globe. Journal of American & Comparative Cultures, 24, 171–181.

43.

Pardue

. (2004). “Writing in the margins”: Brazilian hip-hop as an educational project. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 35, 411–432.

44.

Petchauer

(2009). Framing and reviewing hip-hop educational research. Review of Educational Research, 79, 946–978.

45.

Prasad

(2005). Crafting qualitative research: Working in the post positivist traditions. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

46.

Ramsey

G. P.

(2003). Race music: Black cultures from bebop to hip-hop (Vol. 7). Berkeley: University of California.

47.

Ridenhour

Shocklee

Sadler

Drayton

. (1988). Don’t believe the hype. On, It Takes a Nation of Millions to Hold Us Back [Vinyl]. New York, NY: Def Jam Records.

48.

Robbins

Pfeiffer

Wesolek

(2014). Process evaluation for a school-based physical activity intervention for 6th- and 7th grade boys: Reach, dose, and fidelity. Evaluation and Program Planning, 42, 21–31.

49.

Rogers

R. N.

(2006). From cultural exchange to transculturation: A review of reconceptualization of cultural appropriation. Communication Theory, 16, 474–503.

50.

Rose

. (1994). Black noise: Rap music and black culture in contemporary America. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University.

51.

Rose

(2008). The hip hop wars: What we talk about when we talk about hip hop—And why it matters. New York, NY: Basic Civitas.

52.

Rouland

Matthews

Byrd

Meyer

Rowley

(2014). Culture clash: Interactions between afrocultural and mainstream cultural styles in classrooms serving African American students. Interdisciplinary Journal of Teaching and Learning, 4, 186–202.

53.

Ryan

K. E.

Chandler

Samuels

(2007). What should school-based evaluation look like? Studies in Educational Evaluation, 33, 197–212.

54.

Samuels

Ryan

(2011). Grounding culture in evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 32, 183–198.

55.

Segone

(2011). Evaluation to accelerate progress towards equity, social justice, and human rights. In Segone

(Ed.), Evaluation for equitable development results. Evaluation working papers #7 (pp. 2–12). New York, NY: UNICEF.

56.

Shakur

Evans

(1991). Brenda’s got a baby. On 2Pacalypse Now [Vinyl]. Richmond, VA: Interscope Records.

57.

Stovall

(2006). We can relate hip-hop culture, critical pedagogy, and the secondary classroom. Urban Education, 41, 585–602.

58.

Stufflebeam

D. L.

(2001). Evaluation models. New directions for evaluation (Vol. 89). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

59.

Thomas

Madison

(2010). Integration of social justice into the teaching of evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 31, 570–583.

60.

Thomas

Parsons

(2016). Culturally responsive evaluation meets system-oriented evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 31, 7–28.

61.

Thompson-Robinson

Hopson

Sengupta

(Eds.). (2004). In search of cultural competence in evaluation. New directions for evaluation (Vol. 102). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

62.

Tyson

E. H.

(2002). Hip hop therapy: An exploratory study of a rap music intervention with at-risk and delinquent youth. Journal of Poetry Therapy, 15, 131–144.