When is it appropriate, and consistent with ethical standards, for evaluators to modify reports in response to “requests” from clients to do so? Some evaluators may view any pressure to make any changes in their reports as an attack on their independence. While, clearly, it is not acceptable for evaluators to be asked to distort or misrepresent findings and conclusions, evaluators, no less than anyone else, should be open to feedback and not be above criticism. This article discusses under what circumstances and in what forms it may be appropriate, or not, for evaluators to be given feedback and requested to consider appropriate modifications to their reports. It then identifies steps that evaluators can take to minimize inappropriate “suggestions” for change, and what they can do in the event that this does happen. It also considers implications, and strategies, for internal as well as for external evaluators.
AlkinM. C.KingJ. A. (2016). The historical development of evaluation use. American Journal of Evaluation, 37, 568–579.
2.
AlkinM. C.KingJ. A. (2017). Definitions of evaluation use and misuse, evaluation influence, and factors affecting use. American Journal of Evaluation, 38, 434–450.
3.
American Evaluation Association. (2011). Statement on cultural competence in evaluation. Retrieved fromhttp://www.eval.org/p/cm/ld/fid=92
GrobG. F. (2018). Evaluation practice: Proof, truth, client relationships, and professional growth. American Journal of Evaluation, 39, 123–132.
14.
MacCoyD. (2014). Appreciative inquiry and evaluation: Getting to what works. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 25, 104–127.
15.
MarkM. M.HenryG. T.JulnesG. (2000). Evaluation: An integrated framework for understanding, guiding, and improving policies and programs. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
16.
MorrisM. (2008). Evaluation ethics for best practice: Cases and commentaries. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
PattonM. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
23.
PerrinB. (2012). Learning from evaluation misadventures: The importance of good communications. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 25, 48–66.
24.
PerrinB. (2014). Think positively! And make a difference through evaluation. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 29, 48–66.
25.
PlegerL.SagerF. (2016). Betterment, undermining, support and distortion: A heuristic model for the analysis of pressure on evaluators. Evaluation and Program Planning. doi:10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2016.09.002
26.
PlegerL.SagerF.MorrisM.MeyerW.StockmannR. (2017). Are some countries more prone to pressure evaluators than other?American Journal of Evaluation, 38, 315–328.
27.
PreskillH.CatsambasT. T. (2006). Reframing evaluation through appreciative inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
28.
RistR. C.StameN. (Eds.). (2006). From studies to streams: Managing evauative systems. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
29.
StameN. (2014). Positive thinking approaches to evaluation and program perspectives. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 29, 67–86.
30.
StameN.Lo PrestiV. (2015). Positive thinking and learning from evaluation. In Bohni NielsenS.TurksemaR.van der KnaapP. (Eds.), Success in evaluation: Focusing on the positives (pp. 19–46). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
31.
StevahnL.KingJ. A.GhereG.MinnemaJ. (2005). Establishing essential competencies for program evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 26, 43–59.
WeissC. H. (1999). The interface between evaluation and public policy. Evaluation, 5, 468–486.
36.
YarbroughD. B.ShulhaL. M.HopsonR. K.CaruthersF. A. (2011). The program evaluation standards: A guide for evaluators and evaluation users. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
37.
ZorziR.McGuireM.PerrinB.LongB.LeeL. (2002). Defining the benefits, outputs, and knowledge elements of program evaluation. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 17, 143–150.
