Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

A random sample of American Evaluation Association (AEA) members were surveyed for their reactions to three case scenarios—informed consent, impartial reporting, and stakeholder involvement—in which an evaluator acts in a way that could be deemed ethically problematic. Significant disagreement among respondents was found for each of the scenarios, in terms of respondents' views of whether the evaluator had behaved unethically. Respondents' explanations of their judgments support the notion that general guidelines for professional behavior (such as AEA's Guiding Principles for Evaluators) can encompass sharply conflicting interpretations of how evaluators should behave in specific situations. Respondents employed in private business/consulting were less likely than those in other settings to believe that the scenarios portrayed unethical behavior by the evaluator, a finding that underscores the importance of taking contextual variables into account when analyzing evaluators' ethical perceptions. The need for increased dialogue among evaluators who represent varied perspectives on ethical issues is addressed.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

American Evaluation Association, Task Force on Guiding Principles for Evaluators . 1995. Guiding Principles for Evaluators. In Guiding Principles for Evaluators, edited by W. R. Shadish , D. L. Newman , M. A. Scheirer , and C. Wye , 19-26. New directions for program evaluation, no. 66. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Anderson, M. S. , and K. S. Louis . 1994. The graduate student experience and subscription to the norms of science. Research in Higher Education 35:273-299.

Bennington, T. 1999. Ethical implications of computer-mediated instruction. In Information technologies in evaluation: Social, moral, epistemological, and practical implications, edited by G. Gay and T. L. Bennington , 87-103. New directions for evaluation, no. 84. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Fetterman, D. 1997. Empowerment evaluation: A response to Patton and Scriven. Evaluation Practice 18:253-266.

Fetterman, D. M., S. J. Kaftarian, and A. Wandersman, eds. 1996. Empowerment evaluation: Knowledge and tools for self-assessment and accountability. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Fitzpatrick, J. L. , and M. Morris , eds. 1999. Current and emerging ethical challenges in evaluation. New directions for evaluation, no. 82. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hamilton, D. 1992. In the trenches, doubts about scientific integrity. Science 255:1636-1636.

Honea, G. E. 1992. Ethics and public sector evaluators: Nine case studies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Virginia.

House, E. R. 1995. Principled evaluation: A critique of the AEA Guiding Principles. In Guiding Principles for Evaluators, edited by W. R. Shadish , D. L. Newman , M. A. Scheirer , and C. Wye , 27-34. New directions for program evaluation, no. 66. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

10.

House, E. R. , and K. R. Howe . 1999. Values in evaluation and social research. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

11.

Kalichman, M. W. , and P. J. Friedman . 1992. A pilot study of biomedical trainees' perceptions concerning research ethics. Academic Medicine 67:769-775.

12.

Korenman, S. G. , R. Berk , N. S. Wenger , and V. Lew . 1998. Evaluation of the research norms of scientists and administrators responsible for academic research integrity. JAMA 279:41-47.

13.

Mabry, L. 1999. Circumstantial ethics. American Journal of Evaluation 20:199-212.

14.

Merton, R. K. 1973. The normative structure of science. In The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations, edited by N. W. Storer , 267-278. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

15.

Morris, M. 1999a. Ethical challenges. American Journal of Evaluation 20:113-122.

16.

Morris, M. 1999b. Research on evaluation ethics: What have we learned and why is it important? In Current and emerging ethical issues in evaluation, edited by J. L. Fitzpatrick and M. Morris , 15-24. New directions for evaluation, no. 82. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

17.

Morris, M. , and R. Cohn . 1993. Program evaluators and ethical challenges: A national survey. Evaluation Review, 17:621-642.

18.

Newman, D. L. , and R. D. Brown . 1996. Applied ethics for program evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

19.

Patton, M. Q. 1997. Toward distinguishing empowerment evaluation and placing it in a larger context. Evaluation Practice 18:147-163.

20.

Rossi, P. H. 1995. Doing good and getting it right. In Guiding principles for evaluators, edited by W. R. Shadish , D. L. Newman , M. A. Scheirer , and C. Wye , 55-59. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

21.

Rossi, P. H. , and R. A. Berk . 1985. Varieties of normative consensus. American Sociological Review 50:333-347.

22.

Rossi, P. H. , and S. L. Nock . 1982. Measuring social judgments: The factorial survey approach. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

23.

Schaffner, K. F. 1992. Ethics and the nature of empirical science. In Research fraud in the behavioral and biomedical sciences, edited by D. J. Miller and M. Hersen , 17-33. New York: John Wiley.

24.

Scriven, M. 1997. Empowerment evaluation examined. Evaluation Practice 18:165-175.

25.

Shadish, W. R. , D. L. Newman , M. A. Scheirer , and C. Wye , eds. 1995. Guiding Principles for Evaluators. New directions for program evaluation, no. 66. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

26.

Swazey, J. P. , M. S. Anderson , and K. S. Lewis . 1993. Ethical problems in academic research. American Scientist 81:542-553.

27.

Wenger, N. S. , S. G. Korenman , R. Berk , and S. Berry . 1997. The ethics of scientific research: An analysis of focus groups of scientists and institutional representatives. Journal of Investigative Medicine 45:371-380.

28.

Wenger, N. S. , S. G. Korenman , R. Berk , and H. Liu . 1999. Reporting unethical research behavior. Evaluation Review 23:553-570.

You Got a Problem With That?

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References