Codes of professional practice cannot anticipate the myriad particularities of ordinary endeavors but, to be broadly applicable, they state principles and aspirations in general terms. Of necessity, practitioners must interpret and adapt them in application, often prioritizing standards according to a situation-specific hierarchy of values. The difficulties of managing conflicts among formal standards and among professional and personal standards are illustrated in two examples from practice. For evaluators, the mediation of human judgment reveals an inevitable but troubling subjectivity, a threat to the credibility of a field in which professional disinterest is an expected tool for disentangling competing criteria.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abma, T. (1997). Sharing power, facing ambiguity. In L. Mabry (Ed.), Advances in program evaluation: Vol. 3 Evaluation and the post-modern dilemma (pp. 105-119). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
2.
American Educational Research Association (1992). Ethical standards of the American Educational Research Association. Educational Researcher, 21, (7), 23-26.
3.
American Evaluation Association (1994). Guiding principles for evaluators. Greensboro, NC: Author. In W. R. Shadish, D. L. Newman, M. A. Scheirer, & C. Wye (Eds.), Guiding principles for evaluators (New Directions for Program Evaluation, No. 66, pp. 19-26). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
4.
American Psychological Association (1992). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 47, pp. 1597-1611.
5.
Barritt, L., Beekman, T., Bleeker, H., & Mulderij, K. (1985). Researching educational practice. University of North Dakota: Center for Teaching and Learning.
6.
Bridges, T. (1998, April 4). Post-metaphysical liberalism: The case of Rawls. URL http://www.civsoc.com/reconphil1.html.
7.
Chelimsky, E. (1998). The role of experience in formulating theories of evaluation practice. American Journal of Evaluation, 19 (1), 35-55.
8.
Cohen, L. J. (1981). Can human irrationality be experimentally demonstrated?Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 4, 317-330.
9.
Eisner, E. W. (1979). The educational imagination: On the design and evaluation of school programs. New York: Macmillan
10.
Eisner, E. W. (1991). Taking a second look: Educational connoisseurship revisited. In M. W. McLaughlin & D. C. Phillips (Eds.), Evaluation and education: At quarter century. Ninetieth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
11.
Fetterman, D. M. (1996). Empowerment evaluation: Knowledge and tools for self-assessment and accountability. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
12.
Flinders, D. J. (1992). In search of ethical guidance: Constructing a basis for dialogue. Qualitative studies in education, 5 (2), 101-115.
13.
Greene, J. G. (1997). Participatory evaluation. In L. Mabry (Ed.), Advances in program evaluation: Evaluation and the post-modern dilemma (pp. 171-189). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
14.
House, E. R. (1990). An ethics of qualitative field studies. In E. G. Guba (Ed.), The paradigm dialog (pp. 158-164). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
15.
House, E. R. (1993). Professional evaluation: Social impact and political consequences. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
16.
House, E. R. (1995). Principled evaluation: A critique of the AEA Guiding Principles. New Directions for Program Evaluation, no. 66 (pp. 27-34). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
17.
House, E. R. & Howe, K. R. (1998). The issue of advocacy in evaluations. American Journal of Evaluation, 19 (2), 233-236.
18.
Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation (1988). The personnel evaluation standards: How to assess systems for evaluating educators. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin.
19.
Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation (1994). The program evaluation standards: How to assess evaluations of educational programs (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
20.
Kitchener, K. S. (1984). Intuition, critical evaluation and ethical principles: The foundation for ethical decisions in counseling psychology. The Counseling Psychologist, 12 (3), 43-56.
21.
Mabry, L. (1997a, March). Ethical land mines in program evaluation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
22.
Mabry, L. (1997b). A postmodern text on postmodernism? In L. Mabry (Ed.), Advances in program evaluation: Vol. 3 Evaluation and the post-modern dilemma (pp. 1-19). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
23.
Mabry, L. (1998, May). Assessing, evaluating, knowing. Paper presentation to the Stake symposium on educational evaluation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
24.
Mabry, L. (1999). Portfolios plus: A critical guide to alternative assessment. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin.
25.
McKillip, J. & Garberg, R. (1986). Demands of the Joint Committee’s standards for educational evaluation. Evaluation and Program Planning, 9, 325-333.
26.
Morris, M. & Cohn, R. (1993). Program evaluators and ethical challenges: A national survey. Evaluation Review, 17, 621-642.
27.
National Association of Social Workers (1996). Code of ethics. Washington, DC: Authors.
28.
Newman, D. L. & Brown, R. D. (1996). Applied ethics for program evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
31.
Rawls, J. (1985). Justice as fairness: Political not metaphysical. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 14 (3), pp. 223-251.
32.
Reamer, F. (1982). Ethical dilemmas in social service. New York: Columbia University Press.
33.
Roseneau, P. R. (1992). Postmodernism and the social sciences: Insights, inroads, and intrusions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
34.
Schwandt, T. A. (1989). Recapturing moral discourse in evaluation. Educational Researcher, 35, pp. 11-16, 35.
35.
Scriven, M. (1994). The final synthesis. Evaluation Practice, 15 (3), 367-382.
36.
Scriven, M. (1997). Truth and objectivity in evaluation. In E. Chelimsky & W. R. Shadish (Eds.), Evaluation for the 21st century: A handbook (pp. 477-500). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
37.
Scriven, M. (1998, November). An evaluation dilemma: Change agent vs. analyst. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Evaluation Association, Chicago.
38.
Sheinfeld, S. & Lord, G. L. (1981). The ethics of evaluation researchers: An exploration of value choices. Evaluation Review, 5 (3), 377-391.
39.
Stufflebeam, D. 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 (3), 321-338.
40.
Wakefield, N. (1990). Postmodernism: The twilight of the real. London: Pluto Press.
41.
Walker, D. (1997). Why won’t they listen? Reflections of a formative evaluator. In L. Mabry (Ed.), Advances in program evaluation: Vol. 3 Evaluation and the post-modern dilemma (pp. 121-137). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
