In recent years evaluators have been using photography as one method for collecting data in
qualitative evaluatron studies. The public nature of photographs have ethical implications for
application in evaluation practice. Of primary ethical concern are the issues of honesty and
accurate representation in the sampling plan, proposed use of the photographs, and selection
and interpretation of the photographs for presentation. Additional considerations include costs
and benefits for the evaluator, clients, participants, and society.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bateson, G., and M. Mead.1942. Balinese character: A photographic analysis . New York: New York Academy of Science.
2.
Becker, H.S.1979. Do photographs tell the truth? In Qualitative and quantitative methods in evaluation research, ed. T. D. Cook and C. S. Reichardt, 99-117. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
3.
—. 1986. Stand in a different place: The view from social science . Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Photographic Education, Baltimore, MD, March 20-23.
4.
Bogdan, R.C., and S.K. Biklen.1982. Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
5.
Brown, R.D., M.J. Sanstead, D. Schlake, and K. Story.1982. Can a camera help? Evaluation of a professional meeting through photography. CEDR Quarterly15, no. 3:7-10.
6.
Cassell, J.1982. Harms, benefits, wrongs, and rights in fieldwork. In The ethics of social research: Fieldwork, regulation, and publication , ed. J. E. Sieber, 7-31. New York : Springer-Verlag.
7.
Cassell, J., and M.L. Wax.1980. Toward a moral science of human beings . Social Problems27, no. 3:259-64.
8.
Collier, J.1967. Visual anthropology: Photography as a research method . New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
9.
Covert, R.W.1988. Ethics in evaluation: Beyond the standards. Evaluation Practice9, no. 1:32-37.
10.
Dabbs, J.M.1982. Making things visible. In Varieties ofqualitative research, ed. J. Van Maanen, J. M. Dabbs, and R. R. Faulkner , 31-63. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
11.
English, F.W.1988. The utility of the camera in qualitative inquiry. Educational Researcher17, no. 4:8-15.
12.
Fang, W.L.1986. From learning to practice: Taking photographs of the evaluation conference. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Evaluation Association, Kansas City, MO , October 30-November 1.
13.
—. 1985. Using photographs in an evaluation report. Evaluation News6, no. 2:24-27.
14.
Gold, S.J.1989. Ethical issues in visual field work. In New technology in sociology: Practical applications in research and work, ed. G. Blank, J. L. McCartney, and E. Brent.New Brunswick: Transaction Books.
15.
Henny, L.M.1986. Theory, and practice of visual sociology. Current Sociology33/34, no. 3:1-76.
16.
Patton, M.Q.1980. Qualitative evaluation methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
17.
Sprow, O.1985. Essay concerning painting, photography, reality, and art . Journal of American Photography32:18-21.
18.
Templin, P.A.1982. Still photography in evaluation. In Communication strategies in evaluation, ed. N. Smith, 121-75. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
19.
—. 1979. Photography in evaluation. Research on Evaluation Program Newsletter2, no. 1:2-3.
20.
Thome, B.1980. You still takin' notes? Fieldwork, and problems of informed consent. Social Problems27, no. 3:284-97.
21.
Wagner, J.1982. Introduction in, and about photographs. In Images of information, ed. J. Wagner, 11-22. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
22.
Wax, M.L.1980. Paradoxes of "consent" to the practice of fieldwork. Social Problems27, no 3:272-83.
