Content uploaded by Susan Ghanbarpour
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Susan Ghanbarpour on Aug 02, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Ghanbarpour, S., Noguez Mercado, A. P., & Palotai, A. (2020). A language justice framework
for culturally responsive and equitable evaluation. In L. C. Neubauer, D. McBride, A. D.
Guajardo, W. D. Casillas, & M. E. Hall (Eds.), Examining Issues Facing Communities of Color
Today: The Role of Evaluation to Incite Change.New Directions for Evaluation,166, 37–47.
3
A Language Justice Framework for
Culturally Responsive and Equitable
Evaluation
Susan Ghanbarpour, Ana Paula Noguez Mercado, Ada Palotai
Abstract
Evaluation interconnects with myriad social needs and must be responsive to
diverse, intersecting identities and experiences, including language. Over 25
million people in the United States speak English less than “very well,” accord-
ing to the U.S. Census. Many are from marginalized communities that face
multiple forms of oppression, including racism, xenophobia, and linguicism. We
propose an evaluation framework grounded in language justice—simply dened
as the right to communicate in the language in which one feels most comfort-
able. This right is threatened by structural inequities that include unexamined
and exclusionary evaluation practices. Our chapter discusses language equity
and oppression, and distinguishes between language access and language jus-
tice. We also explore denitions and principles of language justice and assert its
special salience for practitioners of Culturally Responsive and Equitable Evalu-
ation. Finally, we provide guidance on integrating a language justice framework
into common evaluation practices, with a particular emphasis on participatory
methodologies. © 2020 Wiley Periodicals, Inc., and the American Evaluation
Association.
NEW DIRECTIONS FOR EVAL UAT IO N, no. 166, Summer 2020 © 2020 Wiley Periodicals, Inc., and the American Evaluation
Association. Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) ∙DOI: 10.1002/ev.20412 37
38 EXAMINING ISSUES FACING COMMUNITIES OF COLOR TODAY
Language is core to how we express ourselves and connect with each
other, and is inextricably linked to culture, identity, and power.
The framework we present in this chapter recognizes that language
has historically been, and continues to be, a tool for both oppression and
liberation. The foundation for this framework is language justice, a concept
we explore in more depth later in the chapter, but which may be simply
dened as the right to communicate in the language in which one feels
most comfortable (Antena, 2013). This right is threatened when structural
barriers marginalize communities who use non-dominant languages, as
in the United States, where non-English users1encounter discrimination
that often intersects with other forms of oppression, such as racism and
xenophobia.
We assert that evaluators who fail to create multilingual spaces in
which no language is dominant, or who routinely exclude non-English
users, contribute to these inequities. We also discuss why evaluators seeking
to apply Culturally Responsive and Equitable Evaluation approaches should
consider language justice an essential component of that work. While some
evaluation frameworks have touched on language, to our knowledge a
deeper analysis of language vis-à-vis power and equity has rarely been dis-
cussed in the evaluation literature. This chapter aims to recognize and begin
to rectify this deciency, as well as provide some guidance for how to inte-
grate a language justice framework into evaluation theory and praxis. We
conclude with our hope that evaluators who adopt this framework will not
only be able to conduct more robust and equitable evaluations, but may also
produce a multiplier effect by modeling these principles within their larger
web of interactions with clients and partners, such as funders, nonprot
organizations, systems and other evaluators. By applying these principles
with and within this larger network—as well as continuing to meaningfully
engage and be in solidarity with marginalized language communities and
grassroots language justice practitioners and activists—evaluators have the
opportunity to help incite transformative change toward ending language-
based oppression.
An Overview of Language in the Evaluation Literature
The American Evaluation Association’s (AEA) Public Statement on Cul-
tural Competence in Evaluation presents cultural competence as an eth-
ical imperative that is central to the fairness, equity, and validity of an
evaluation, and critical for the appropriate development and application of
theories (AEA, 2011). Part of the AEA Statement (2011) notes that “full
participation [is promoted] when evaluation activities are conducted in
participants’ primary or preferred languages” (p. 8). However, there has
been little discussion of language with regard to equity and power in the
evaluation literature, even in volumes examining language in evaluation
NEW DIRECTIONS FOR EVAL UAT IO N ∙DOI: 10.1002/ev
ALANGUAGE JUSTICE FRAMEWORK 39
(Hopson, 2000) and cultural competence (Thompson-Robinson, Hopson
& SenGupta, 2004).
The Culturally Responsive Evaluation (CRE) literature has mainly dis-
cussed language in terms of enhancing participation in evaluation activities,
for example, by recommending the standard use of interpreting and trans-
lation for data collection; a few texts have cautioned against bias related
to language, or the potential for intercultural misinterpretation (Hood,
Hopson, & Kirkhart, 2015; Kirkhart, 2013; The Colorado Trust, 2012).
The Equitable Evaluation eld has largely focused on racial equity, with
some consideration of other marginalized identities such as gender, sex-
ual orientation, and class, but with little or no attention paid to language
equity (Center for Evaluation Innovation, Institute for Foundation and
Donor Learning, Dorothy A Johnson Center for Philanthropy & Luminare
Group, 2017; Dean-Coffey, Casey, & Caldwell, 2014; Public Policy Asso-
ciates, 2015).
Evaluators from or working with Native and Indigenous communi-
ties have given language more attention, applying approaches such as CRE
(Cram, Kennedy, Paipa, Pipi, & Wehipeihana, 2015), decolonizing method-
ologies (Smith, 2012 pp. 37–38; 72–73; 148–149), and Indigenous Evalu-
ation (Kawakami, Aton, Cram, Lai, & Porima, 2007; LaFrance & Nichols,
2010). These authors highlight how language suppression and erasure have
historically been used by colonizers as a tool of oppression against these
communities. Some also discuss using cultural concepts rooted in Native
and Indigenous languages when implementing evaluations with these com-
munities, rather than imposing unfamiliar and poorly tting colonialist
concepts and languages.
Broadly speaking, evaluators concerned with cultural responsiveness
and equity recognize the importance of power dynamics, historical and cur-
rent oppression, and bias when conducting evaluations, particularly with
marginalized communities. Yet, given the limited analysis in the literature
regarding language equity, there is a disconnect between these frameworks’
aspirations, and their lack of attention to English dominance and language
exclusion.
Language and Power
In the United States, more than 60 million people use one or more of over
350 languages other than English (U.S. Census Bureau, 2015). Of those,
over 25 million people (41%) self-report speaking English less than “very
well,” whom the Census classies as having Limited English Prociency
(LEP); the majority (81%) are immigrants (Zong & Batlova, 2015). Unfor-
tunately, many non-English users experience language-based discrimina-
tion, which can have grave consequences. For example, from our experi-
ence working in the anti-domestic violence movement, the safety and lives
of survivors may be compromised when they are not afforded language
NEW DIRECTIONS FOR EVAL UAT IO N ∙DOI: 10.1002/ev
40 EXAMINING ISSUES FACING COMMUNITIES OF COLOR TODAY
resources (such as interpreting and translation) to fully and accurately com-
municate with law enforcement, advocates, and the criminal justice, health
care, and child-welfare systems (Lee & Hadeed, 2009; National Latin@
Network & National Domestic Violence Hotline, 2013; Yoshihama, Bybee,
Dabby, & Blazevski, 2010)
There are many historical and contemporary examples of discrimina-
tory U.S. language policies with colonialist, racist, and/or deculturalizing
intent. These include the nearly 80-year ban against speaking Olelo Hawai’i
(Native Hawaiian) in schools or in public in Hawai’i, Native American chil-
dren forced into boarding schools where they were severely punished for
speaking their tribal language, legislation prohibiting bilingual education in
California, and the imposition of English as the ofcial language in several
U.S. states (Fox, 2018; Hartman, 2003; Spring, 2016).
Skutnabb-Kangas (1988) coined the term “linguicism” to describe this
form of oppression, which she dened as
ideologies, structures and practices which are used to legitimate, effectuate,
regulate and reproduce an unequal division of power and resources (both
material and immaterial) between groups which are dened on the basis of
language. (p. 13)
She describes how people are stigmatized not only on the basis of
the language they use, how well they use it, and whether it is the “stan-
dard” accent or dialect; but also based on which languages they do not use
according to “the norms of those who (arrogate to themselves the power
to) judge others by their languages,” who can be described as “linguicists”
(Skutnabb-Kangas, 2015). Critically, she highlights that inequitable access
to power and resources is generally multicausal, and that language identity
thus frequently intersects with other socially constructed identities.
In the United States, these intersections include race/ethnicity, gender,
class, national origin, immigration status, religion, and disability, among
others. As Crenshaw (1989) notes, such intersections can result in unique
forms of oppression. This is evident in how certain groups—such as people
who use sign language, or people of color using Spanish or Arabic, as well
as other Asian, African, or Middle Eastern languages—are disproportion-
ately targets of discrimination and violence in the United States, compared
to white people using European languages. This is particularly visible in
the current sociopolitical climate of rising white nationalism, harsh xeno-
phobic rhetoric, state-sponsored human rights violations against undocu-
mented immigrants and asylum-seekers, and signicantly increased hate
crimes against marginalized communities (Baynes, 2018; Díez & Weiss,
2017; Guha, 2017).
During the civil rights era, social justice movements pushed for public
policy to address some of the impacts of language discrimination by creating
the language access framework (Chen, 2014). Language access is the legal
NEW DIRECTIONS FOR EVAL UAT IO N ∙DOI: 10.1002/ev
ALANGUAGE JUSTICE FRAMEWORK 41
mandate that requires all recipients of federal funding to ensure that indi-
viduals having LEP who are seeking their services have meaningful access
to them (Lau v. Nichols, 1974; U.S. Department of Justice, 2017; Limited
English Prociency, n.d.). The goal of this mandate was to make interpret-
ing and translation services available to non-English users so they could
access myriad public services and systems. However, as language access
has become more embedded in public policy, some advocates have begun
to identify shortcomings. These include its uneven or insufcient imple-
mentation and poor enforcement, resulting in inconsistencies and gaps in
critical services such as those referenced earlier in the domestic violence
literature.
Even if language access worked awlessly, it would still fall short of
equity. While it does provide access to critical services, it does not create
avenues for those most impacted by language discrimination to effectuate
change around the social and political conditions, systems, and ideologies
that continue to oppress them. In order to move toward equity, a different
framework is required.
Language Justice
Language justice is a term and sociopolitical framework born out of the
Highlander Center for Research and Education, which developed the Inter-
preting for Social Justice curriculum (Highlander Research and Education
Center, n.d.; Tijerina, 2009). The curriculum provides a foundational anal-
ysis of language as power used to either include or exclude specic commu-
nities from fully integrating into society, and gives guidelines for creating
multilingual spaces where no language dominates and people can engage
with each other as equals in the language in which they feel most comfort-
able (Tijerina, 2009).
Language justice has since become a national movement of organizers
and activists who continue to evolve and expand the denition and appli-
cation of the term. One such group is Antena, whose denition of language
justice was cited in the introduction to this chapter. Communities Creating
Healthy Environments (n.d.) expands on this denition:
Language justice is rooted in a history of resistance by communities and peo-
ples whose voices and cultures have been suppressed for generations. Lan-
guage justice is an alternative to that historical pattern of disenfranchisement
and oppression. It afrms the fundamental rights of individuals and commu-
nities to language, culture, self expression, and equal participation. (p. 2)
Language justice practices enable each of us to bring our full selves
into the room; to listen to the life experiences, struggles, and hopes of
others coming from vastly different contexts; and to engage in respectful
dialogue, build solidarity, and set the foundation for effective multilingual,
NEW DIRECTIONS FOR EVAL UAT IO N ∙DOI: 10.1002/ev
42 EXAMINING ISSUES FACING COMMUNITIES OF COLOR TODAY
multicultural, and multiracial work. In that vein, we have adapted the fol-
lowing set of language justice principles from Antena (n.d.), for application
in Culturally Responsive and Equitable Evaluation work.
Principle 1: Language Justice Is Integral to Social Justice
The struggle for a more just society shines a light on, and works toward
dismantling, the ways in which power operates by privileging some and
oppressing others. Thus, social justice work that does not explicitly inte-
grate language justice, by permitting the dominance of English in multilin-
gual settings, may be unintentionally replicating harmful power dynamics.
Language justice works toward a vision in which all languages are valued,
honored, and celebrated in order to foster the honest cross-community dia-
logue that is necessary to achieve lasting social change.
Principle 2: Language Is a Tool for Transforming Thinking and
Empowering Action
Language justice as a social justice strategy is aimed at transforming old
ways and creating new ones to relate to and engage with each other. Multi-
lingual spaces provide opportunities to both dominant and non-dominant
language users to engage in real-time conversations where all parties can
express themselves authentically and fully. Creating multilingual spaces is
a community engagement commitment that builds trust and ensures people
feel supported and safe while participating in community life and activism.
Language justice practices allow us to share the vast array of experiences,
perspectives and wisdom that we need in order to build the just world we
all yearn for, and to foster the transformation that is required to do so.
Principle 3: Multilingual Spaces Embrace Every Perspective
Language justice principles and practices seek to create equitable multilin-
gual spaces, where there is no dominant language, and language support is
provided to all those who do not feel comfortable or are not procient in all
the languages present in the space. This is in contrast to a language access
approach, which prioritizes English dominance, and language support is
perceived to be needed solely by those who do not use English.
Integrating Language Justice Principles into Evaluation Practice
For those seeking a practical guide to incorporating a language justice
framework into their evaluation work, one potential resource is “Applying
a Language Justice Approach to Evaluation” (Noguez Mercado, Ghanbar-
pour, & Palotai, 2018). Based on eld-tested approaches, it is drawn from
two of the authors’ experiences with a trilingual community-led research
project (Ghanbarpour and Palotai, described in Ghanbarpour et al., 2018),
NEW DIRECTIONS FOR EVAL UAT IO N ∙DOI: 10.1002/ev
ALANGUAGE JUSTICE FRAMEWORK 43
and the third author’s experience as an interpreter, consultant, and organizer
for language justice (Noguez Mercado). We also refer readers to Antena
Los Ángeles’ “Checklist for Building Bilingual/Multilingual Spaces” (2016),
and to sources cited elsewhere in this chapter, as well as to a blog post on
language justice in evaluation, available in English and Spanish (Noguez
Mercado, Palotai, & Ghanbarpour, 2019), for more details about how to
implement these practices.
These resources reect the perspective that evaluations must aim for
equity in both their processes and outcomes. To accomplish this, a lan-
guage justice framework must be incorporated into all aspects of an eval-
uation, from conceptualization and design stages, to implementation and
share back of ndings. For example, language justice practices include
shared leadership and ongoing input from a range of stakeholders, espe-
cially from partner communities who use non-dominant languages. Simi-
larly, it is important to seek support from language justice practitioners, and
to build relationships with trained and experienced interpreters and trans-
lators who ideally reect the demographics of the communities with whom
you are working. Another critical element is reecting on the language priv-
ilege of evaluation team members and applying a language equity lens to
those you are inviting to present, lead, and participate in various activi-
ties. Language justice practices can always be improved, so it is important
to continuously seek feedback, learn from your mistakes (making amends
when necessary), and integrate those learnings.
A fun aspect to this approach is that it often incorporates participatory
methodologies and rewards creativity. For example, we have reimagined
collaborative work from real-time writing on sticky notes (challenging for
translation), to instead using images and art materials rather than words;
generating live word clouds in multiple languages; and collecting data in
advance to create a colorful multilingual gallery walk. Perhaps the most
important takeaway from our collective experience is that applying this
framework requires a great deal of upfront planning, and most people vastly
underestimate the time and resources required.
Discussion and Implications
Access and connection to one’s language, identity, and culture is a basic
human right;2yet, the fundamental prerogative of using one’s language
to express oneself, and participate in and navigate the public and private
spheres, is far from a reality for millions of individuals who use non-
dominant languages in the United States. They continue to experience lim-
its to their self-determination, agency, and self-expression, as well as to their
ability to engage fully in critical decision-making processes that impact their
lives. But language justice strategies have the ability to transform the con-
tributions, perceptions, and experiences of non-English users by challeng-
ing the marginalization of their experiences and the devaluation of their
NEW DIRECTIONS FOR EVAL UAT IO N ∙DOI: 10.1002/ev
44 EXAMINING ISSUES FACING COMMUNITIES OF COLOR TODAY
culture, and breaking their isolation both from the dominant language
group and from other linguistically marginalized groups. Thus, these strate-
gies are also a tool for building solidarity across communities and mobiliz-
ing for social change.
Finally, a language justice framework allows evaluators and other
stakeholders who use English as the dominant language in their work to
meaningfully integrate the wisdom and life experiences of those stigma-
tized for using non-dominant languages. As Karides, Katz-Fishman, Brewer,
Lovelace, and Scott (2010) note, “too often there is an assumption that
language access infrastructure is only for the benet of the people who
speak limited English. We all benet from this sharing of different perspec-
tives, individually and collectively” (p. 78). In this way, language justice
enhances multicultural validity and is integral to robust, equitable, and eth-
ical evaluations—in other words, evaluations in alignment with the eld’s
highest standards for itself. By modeling language justice within their wider
networks of action, and joining in solidarity with communities and activists
to use and preserve their languages, evaluators also have the potential to
raise the consciousness of critical actors and stakeholders and incite posi-
tive action toward equity. Particularly at this moment in history, we must
continue to hold one another accountable to a higher level of equity and
justice: one that invites in and values all perspectives, not just of those who
use English.
Notes
1. For the sake of brevity, in this chapter, we refer to people classied by the U. S.
Census as having “Limited English Prociency,” as well as any who feel more articulate,
powerful, or comfortable communicating in a language other than English, as “non-
English users.” However, we acknowledge the imprecision of this term, as well as our
unease with reinforcing English as the dominant paradigm, a stance we actively resist
for reasons discussed throughout this chapter.
2. Article 22 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights sets forth: “Everyone, as a
member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through
national effort and international cooperation and in accordance with the organization
and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for
his dignity and the free development of his personality.”
References
American Evaluation Association. (2011). Statement on cultural competence in evaluation.
Retrieved from http://www.eval.org/ccstatement
Antena. (2013). How to build language justice. Retrieved from http://antenaantena.org/
wp-content/uploads/2012/06/langjust_eng.pdf
Antena. (n.d.). Principles. Retrieved from http://antenaantena.org/principles/
Antena Los Ángeles. (2016). Checklist for Building Bilingual/Multilingual Spaces. Unpub-
lished document.
Baynes, C. (2018, February 14). Muslim student “kicked off ight for speaking Arabic”
sues Southwest Airlines for racial discrimination. The Independent US. Retrieved from
NEW DIRECTIONS FOR EVAL UAT IO N ∙DOI: 10.1002/ev
ALANGUAGE JUSTICE FRAMEWORK 45
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/muslim-man-removed-ight-
arabic-speaking-sues-southwest-airlines-racial- discrimination-a8210636.html
Center for Evaluation Innovation, Institute for Foundation and Donor Learning,
Dorothy A Johnson Center for Philanthropy & Luminare Group. (2017). Equi-
table evaluation framing paper (Equitable Evaluation Initiative). Retrieved from www.
equitableeval.org
Chen, M. H. (2014). Language rights as a legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 67 SMU
L. Rev. 247. Retrieved from https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/articles/413
Communities Creating Healthy Environments. (n.d.). Language justice toolkit: Multilin-
gual strategies for community organizing. Retrieved from https://nesfp.org/sites/default/
les/resources/language_justice_toolkit.pdf
Cram, F., Kennedy, V., Paipa, K., Pipi, K., & Wehipeihana, N. (2015). Being culturally
responsive through Kaupapa M¯
aorievaluation.InS.Hood,R.K.Hopson,&H.Frier-
son (Eds.), Continuing the journey to reposition culture and cultural context in evaluation
theory and practice (pp. 289–231). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black fem-
inist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory, and antiracist politics.
University of Chicago Legal Forum,1(8).
Dean-Coffey, J., Casey, J., & Caldwell, L. D. (2014). Raising the bar: Integrating cultural
competence and equity: Equitable evaluation. The Foundation Review,6(2). Article 8.
Díez, M. S., & Weiss, J. (2017). Between fear and pride: In hostile climate, His-
panics wonder if it’s still safe to speak Spanish. Univision News. Retrieved from
https://www.univision.com/univision-news/united-states/between-fear-and-pride-
in-hostile-climate-hispanics-wonder-if-its-still-safe-to-speak-spanish
Fox, J. (2018). Speaking out of turn: Hawaiian is an ofcial language in this state and
yet those who speak it face restrictions. A man denied his right to speak Hawaiian
in court speaks to our reporter. Index on Censorship,47(2), 17–19. https://doi.org/10.
1177/0306422018784521.
Ghanbarpour, S., Palotai, A., Kim, M. E., Aguilar, A., Flores, J., Hodson, A., … Shim, H.
(2018). An exploratory framework for community-led research to address intimate
partner violence: A case study of the Survivor-Centered Advocacy Project. Journal of
Family Violence,33(8). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-018-9987-y
Guha, A. (2017, November 28). Asian Americans see spike in hate-based violence
in Trump Era. Rewire News. Retrieved from https://rewire.news/article/2017/11/28/
asian-americans-see-spike-hate-based- violence-trump-era/
Hartman, A. (2003). Language as oppression: The English only movement in the United
States. Journal: Socialism and Democracy,33(17). No. 1.
Highlander Research and Education Center. (n.d.). Mission & methodologies. Retrieved
from https://www.highlandercenter.org/our-story/mission/
Hood, S., Hopson, R., & Kirkhart, K. E. (2015). Culturally responsive evaluation: The-
ory, practice, and future implications. In K. E. Newcomer, H. P. Hatry, J. S. Wholey
(Eds.), Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation (pp. 281–317). San Francisco, CA:
Josey-Bass.
Hopson, R. (Ed.). (2000). How and why language matters in evaluation. New Directions
for Evaluation,2000(86), 1–109.
Kawakami, A. J., Aton, K., Cram, F., Lai, M. K., & Porima, L. (2007). Improving the
practice of evaluation through indigenous values and methods: Decolonizing evalua-
tion practice—Returning the gaze from Hawai’i and Aotearoa. Hülili: Multidisciplinary
Research on Hawaiian Well-Being,4(1), 319–348.
Karides, M., Katz-Fishman, W., Brewer, R. M., Lovelace, A., & Scott, J. (2010). The
United States social forum: Perspectives of a movement. Chicago, IL: Changemaker Pub-
lications.
NEW DIRECTIONS FOR EVAL UAT IO N ∙DOI: 10.1002/ev
46 EXAMINING ISSUES FACING COMMUNITIES OF COLOR TODAY
Kirkhart, K. E. (2013). Advancing considerations of culture and validity: Honoring the
key evaluation checklist. In S. I. Donaldson (Ed.), The future of evaluation in society: A
tribute to Michael Scriven (pp. 129–159). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
LaFrance, J., & Nichols, R. (2010). Reframing evaluation: Dening an indigenous eval-
uation framework. The Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation,23(2), 13–31.
Lau v Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1974)
Lee, Y. S., & Hadeed, L. (2009). Intimate partner violence among Asian immigrant com-
munities: Health/mental health consequences, help-seeking behaviors, and service
utilization. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse,10(2), 143–170.
Limited English Prociency. (n.d.). Frequently asked questions. Retrieved from https:
//www.lep.gov/faqs/faqs.html
National Latin@ Network for Healthy Families and Communities and National Domes-
tic Violence Hotline. (2013). Realidades Latinas: A national survey on the impact of
immigration and language access on Latina survivors (Research Report No. 2013.4).
Retrieved from http://www.nationallatinonetwork.org/research/nln-research
Noguez Mercado, A. P., Ghanbarpour, S., & Palotai, A. (2018). Applying a language
justice approach to evaluation. Retrieved from http://comm.eval.org/HigherLogic/
System/DownloadDocumentFile.ashx?DocumentFileKey=3fe02bc6-ef8e-d224-
2b3a-114cae81917e&forceDialog=0
Noguez Mercado, A. P., Palotai, A., & Ghanbarpour, S. (2019). LA RED TIG Week:
Language justice in evaluation. Retrieved from https://aea365.org/blog/la-red-tig-
week-language-justice-in-evaluation-by- ana-paula-noguez-mercado-ada-palotai-
and-susan-ghanbarpour/
Public Policy Associates. (2015). Considerations for conducting evaluation using a cul-
turally responsive and racial equity lens. Retrieved from http://publicpolicy.com/wp-
content/uploads/2017/04/PPA-culturallyresponsive-Lens.pdf
Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (1988). Multilingualism and the education of minority children. In
T. Skutnabb-Kangas & J. Cummins (Eds.), Minority education: From shame to struggle
(pp. 9–44). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2015). Linguicism. The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Malden,
MA: Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal1460
Smith, L. T. (2012). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples (2nd
ed.). Londonm, UK: Zed Books.
Spring, J. (2016). Deculturalization and the Struggle for Equality.NewYork:Routledge.
Retrieved from https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781317312857
The Colorado Trust. (2012). The importance of culture in evaluation: A practi-
cal guide for evaluators. Retrieved from http://www.communityscience.com/pdfs/
CrossCulturalGuide.r3.pdf
Thompson-Robinson, M., Hopson, R., & SenGupta, S. (Eds.). (2004). In search of cul-
tural competence in evaluation: Toward principles and practices. New Directions for
Evaluation,2004 (102), 1–109.
Tijerina, R. (2009). What did they say? Interpreting for social justice: An introductory
curriculum (Highlander Research and Education Center). Retrieved from http://www.
intergroupresources.com/rc/Highlander%20curric.pdf
U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey. (2015). Detailed languages spo-
ken at home and ability to speak English for the population 5 years and over for the
United States: 2009–2013. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2013/
demo/2009-2013-lang-tables.html
U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division. (2017). Title VI legal manual. Retrieved
from https://www.justice.gov/crt/fcs/T6manual
Yoshihama, M., Bybee, D., Dabby, C., & Blazevski, J. (2010). Lifecourse experiences
of intimate partner violence and helpseeking among Filipina, Indian, and Pakistani
NEW DIRECTIONS FOR EVAL UAT IO N ∙DOI: 10.1002/ev
ALANGUAGE JUSTICE FRAMEWORK 47
women: Implications for justice system responses. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/
pdfles1/nij/grants/236174.pdf
Zong, J., & Batlova, J. (2015, July 8). The limited English procient population in
the United States. Retrieved from https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/limited-
english-procient-population-united-states
SUSAN GHANBARPOUR, Dr. P.H., M.A., is an independent research and evaluation
consultant focusing on issues of racial, gender, language, and research justice.
ANA PAULA NOGUEZ MERCADO, L.L.M., M.A., is a Mexican lawyer, language
justice worker, organizer, and consultant on issues of gender and language jus-
tice.
ADA PALOTAI is a community-based researcher and independent organizational
transformation consultant focusing on issues of racial, gender, language, and
research justice
NEW DIRECTIONS FOR EVAL UAT IO N ∙DOI: 10.1002/ev
