American Evaluation Association, Task Force on Guiding Principles for Evaluators. (1995). Guiding principle for evaluators. In W. R. Shadish, D. L. Newman, M. A. Scheirer, & C. Wye (Eds.), Guiding principles for evaluators (New directions for program evaluation, Vol. 66, pp. 19-26). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
2.
Chelimsky, E. (1995). Comments on the guiding principles. In W. R. Shadish, D. L. Newman, M. A. Scheirer, & C. Wye (Eds.), Guiding principles for evaluators (New directions for program evaluation, Vol. 66, pp. 53-54). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
3.
Eisner, E. W. (1991). The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and the advancement of educational practice. New York: Macmillan.
4.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. (1988). Do inquiry paradigms imply inquiry methodologies? In D. M. Fetterman (Ed.), Qualitative approaches to evaluation in education (pp. 89-115). New York: Praeger.
5.
House, E. R. (1987). The evaluation audit. Evaluation Practice, 8(2), 52-56.
6.
House, E. R. (1995). Principled evaluation: A critique of the AEA guiding principles. In W. R. Shadish, D. L. Newman, M. A. Scheirer, & C. Wye (Eds.), Guiding principles for evaluators (Newdirections for programevaluation, Vol. 66, pp. 27-34). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
7.
Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. (1994). The program evaluation standards (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
8.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
9.
Morris, M. (1998). Ethical challenges. American Journal of Evaluation, 19, 381-382.
10.
Patton, M. Q. (1986). Utilization-focused evaluation (2nd ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
11.
Rossi, P. H. (1995). Doing good and getting it right. In W. R. Shadish, D. L. Newman, M. A. Scheirer, & C. Wye (Eds.), Guiding principles for evaluators (New directions for program evaluation, Vol. 66, pp. 55-60). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
12.
Smith, N. L. (2002). An analysis of ethical challenges in evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 23, 199-206.
13.
Stufflebeam, D. L. (2001). The metaevaluation imperative. American Journal of Evaluation, 27, 183-209.
