Pressure on evaluators has been investigated recently by surveys in the USA, the UK, Germany, and Switzerland. This study compares the results of those studies regarding pressure on evaluators in different countries. The findings suggest that independence of evaluations does not exist for many respondents. Moreover, the person who commissioned the evaluator for evaluation is identified by all studies as the primary influencing stakeholder in the evaluation process. In terms of differences, Germany seems to be more prone to pressure on evaluators. However, German evaluators do not show stronger tendencies to surrender to pressure than the other countries’ respondents. We suggest that this pattern may be explained by the strong state tradition in Germany as opposed to the U.S. and Switzerland, in conjunction with evaluators’ profession-based, principled resistance to such pressure.
American Evaluation Association Guiding. (2004). Guiding principles for evaluators. Retrieved fromwww.eval.org/p/cm/ld/fid=51
2.
BandelowN. C.SagerF.BiegelbauerP. (2013). Policy analysis in the German-speaking countries: Common traditions, different cultures, in Germany, Austria and Switzerland. In BlumS.SchubertK. (Eds.), Policy analysis in Germany (pp. 75–89). Bristol, England: Policy Press.
3.
BrownR. D.NewmanD. L. (1992). Ethical principles and evaluation standards do they match?Evaluation Review, 16, 650–663.
4.
BuchananH.MacDonaldW. (2011, 11). Anytime, anywhere, evaluation ethics do matter!Paper presented at the meeting of the American Evaluation Association, Anaheim, CA, USA.
5.
Development Assistance Committee. (2010). DAC guidelines and reference series: Quality standards for development evaluation. Retrieved June 08, 2016, fromhttp://www.oecd.org/derec/guidelines.htm
6.
DeGEval, Gesellschaft für Evaluation e.V. (2008). Standards für evaluation[Evaluation standards] (DeGEval-Standards). Retrieved fromwww.degeval.de/degeval-standards/
7.
HupeP. L.HillM. J. (2007). Street-level bureaucracy and public accountability. Public Administration, 85, 85–102.
8.
HupeP. L.Van der KrogtT. (2013). Professionals dealing with pressure. In NoordegraafM.SteijnB. (Eds.), Professionals under pressure: Perspectives on professionals and professionalism (pp. 55–72). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Amsterdam University Press.
9.
JacobS.SpeerS.FuruboJ. (2015). The institutionalization of evaluation matters: Updating the International Atlas of Evaluation 10 years later. Evaluation, 21, 6–31.
10.
JannW. (2003). State, administration and governance in Germany: Competing traditions and dominant narratives. Public Administration, 81, 95–118.
11.
KitchenerK. S. (1984). Intuition, critical evaluation and ethical principles: The foundation for ethical decisions in counseling psychology. The Counseling Psychologist, 12, 43–55.
12.
MorrisM. (1999). Research on evaluation ethics: What have we learned and why is it important?New Directions for Evaluation, 82, 15–24.
13.
MorrisM. (2007). Foundation officers, evaluation, and ethical problems: A pilot investigation. Evaluation and Program Planning, 30, 410–415.
14.
MorrisM. (2008). Evaluation ethics for best practice: Cases and commentaries. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
15.
MorrisM. (2015). Research on evaluation ethics: Reflections and an agenda. In BrandonP. R. (Ed.), Research on evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 148, 31–42.
16.
MorrisM.ClarkB. (2013). You want me to do WHAT? Evaluators and the pressure to misrepresent findings. American Journal of Evaluation, 34, 57–70.
17.
MorrisM.CohnR. (1993). Program evaluators and ethical challenges a national survey. Evaluation Review, 17, 621–642.
18.
MorrisM.JacobsL. R. (2000). You got a problem with that? Exploring evaluators’ disagreements about ethics. Evaluation Review, 24, 384–406.
19.
PlegerL.SagerF. (2016). ‘Don’t tell me cause it hurts’—Beeinflussung von Evaluierenden in der Schweiz [Influence on evaluators in Switzerland]. Zeitschrift für Evaluation, 15, 23–59.
20.
PopeK. S.VetterV. A. (1992). Ethical dilemmas encountered by members of the American Psychological Association: A national survey. American Psychologist, 47, 397–411.
21.
RitzA. (2003). Evaluation von new public management. Bern, Switzerland: Paul Haupt.
22.
SagerF.RosserC.HurniP. Y.MavrotC. (2012). How traditional are the American, the French, and the German Traditions of Public Administration? A Research Agenda. Public Administration, 90, 129–143.
23.
SagerF.ThomannE.ZollingerC.van der HeidenN.MavrotC. (2014). Street-level bureaucrats and new modes of governance—How conflicting roles affect the implementation of the Swiss Ordinance on Veterinary Medical Products, Public Management Review, 16, 481–502.
24.
StockmannR.MeyerW.SchenkeH. (2011). Unabhängigkeit von Evaluationen [Independence of evaluators]. Zeitschrift für Evaluation, 10, 17–38.
25.
StufflebeamD. L. (1994). Empowerment evaluation, objectivist evaluation, and evaluation standards: Where the future of evaluation should not go and where it needs to go. Evaluation Practice, 15, 321–338.
26.
The LSE GV314 Group. (2013). Evaluation under contract: Government pressure and the production of policy research. Public Administration, 92, 224–239.
