Evaluation occurs in a context fraught with ethical issues. Evaluators are regularly faced with ethical tensions that are likely to influence the quality of their work. By developing an analytical model that categorizes evaluators along an altruistic-corporatist axis, we sought to understand which factors influence the ethical sensitivity of evaluators. To this end, utilizing a qualitative research design using vignettes, we exposed a dozen Canadian evaluators to ethically problematic situations to examine their ability to identify the ethical issues within the scenarios. The ensuing results allowed us to conclude that an evaluator’s ethical sensitivity is partially explained by the altruistic or corporatist nature of that evaluator; it also depends on other factors such as knowledge of the prescriptive norms in ethical matters, experience conducting evaluations, and the milieu and the working conditions within which the evaluators operate.
AdamsKA (1985) Gamesmanship for internal evaluators: knowing when to ‘hold ‘em and when to fold ‘em’. Evaluation and Program Planning8(1): 53–6.
2.
ArnettRCHarden FritzJMBellLM (2009) Dialogic ethics: meeting differing grounds of the ‘good’. In: ArnettRCHarden FritzJMBellLM (eds), Communication Ethics Literacy. Dialogue and Difference. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
3.
BarringtonG (1999) Commentary: when management changes: advice for a young evaluator. American Journal of Evaluation20(2): 377–80.
4.
BoisvertYJutrasMMarchildonALegaultGA (2003) Petit manuel d’éthique appliquée à la gestion publique. Montréal: Liber.
5.
ChurchCRogersM (2006) Designing for Results: Integrating Monitoring and Evaluation in Conflict Transformation Programs. Washington, DC: Search for Common Ground.
6.
DattaLE (2002) The case of the uncertain bridge. American Journal of Evaluation23(2): 187–97.
7.
EastmondN (1998) When funders want to compromise your design. American Journal of Evaluation19(3): 427–30.
8.
EliadisPFuruboJ-EJacobS (eds) (2011) Evaluation: Seeking Truth or Power. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
9.
FinchJ (1987) Research note: the vignette technique in survey research. Sociology21: 105–14.
10.
GauthierB (2003) Recherche sociale: de la problématique à la collecte des données. Québec: Presses de l’Université du Québec.
11.
GoodyearLK (2007) Editorial: special issue on ethics in evaluation. Evaluation and Program Planning30(4): 392–3.
12.
GouldD (1996) Using vignettes to collect data for nursing research studies: how valid are the findings?Journal of Clinical Nursing5(4): 207–12.
13.
Government of Canada (2003) Values and Ethics Code for the Public Service. Ottawa: Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat.
14.
HosmerLT (1994) Strategic planning as if ethics mattered. Strategic Management Journal15: 17–34.
15.
JacobS (2006) Trente ans d’évaluation de programme au Canada: l’institutionnalisation interne en quête de qualité. Revue française d’administration publique119: 515–32.
16.
JacobSBoisvertY (2010) To be or not to be a profession: pros, cons and challenges for evaluation. Evaluation16(4): 349–69.
17.
Jenkins-SmithHC (1982) Professional roles for policy analysts: a critical assessment. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management2(1): 88–100.
18.
LovellRG (1995) Ethics and internal evaluators. New Directions for Evaluation66: 61–7.
19.
MabryL (1999) Circumstantial ethics. American Journal of Evaluation20(2): 199–212.
20.
MabryL (2004) Gray skies are gonna clear up. American Journal of Evaluation25(3): 385–90.
21.
MartinE (2006) Vignettes and Respondent Debriefings for Questionnaire Design and Evaluation. Research Report Series. Survey Methodology (#2006-8). Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Census.
22.
MathisonS (1991) Role conflicts for internal evaluators. Evaluation and Program Planning14(3): 173–9.
23.
MbaïrewayeMH (2011) Jalons pour une éthique de l’évaluation. Cahiers de la performance et de l’évaluation3: 2–15.
24.
MorellJA (2005) Why are there unintended consequences of program action, and what are the implications for doing evaluation?American Journal of Evaluation26(4): 444–63.
25.
MorrisM (ed.) (2008) Evaluation Ethics for Best Practice: Cases and Commentaries. New York: Guilford Press.
26.
MorrisMCohnR (1993) Program evaluators and ethical challenges: a national survey. Evaluation Review7(16): 621–42.
27.
MorrisMJacobsLR (2000) You got a problem with that? Exploring evaluators’disagreements about ethics. Evaluation Review24(4): 384–406.
28.
NewmanDL (1995) the future of ethics in evaluation: developing the dialogue. New Directions for Program Evaluation66: 99–110.
29.
NewmanDLBrownRD (1992) Violations of evaluation standards: frequency and seriousness of occurrence. Evaluation Review16(3): 219–34.
30.
NewmanDLBrownRD (1996) Applied Ethics for Program Evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
31.
ScheirerMA (1998) Commentary: evaluation planning is the heart of the matter. American Journal of Evaluation19(3): 385–91.
32.
SegsworthRV (2002) Evaluation in the twenty-first century: two perspectives on the Canadian experience. In: FuruboJ-ERistRSandhahlR (eds), International Atlas of Evaluation. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 175–89.
33.
SheinfeldSN (1978) The evaluation profession in pursuit of value. Evaluation and Program Planning1(2): 113–15.
34.
SheinfeldSNLordGL (1981) The ethics of evaluation researchers: an exploration of values choices. Evaluation Review5(3): 377–91.
35.
SmithNL (1998) Professionnal reasons for declining an evaluation contract. American Journal of Evaluation19(2): 177–90.
36.
SmithNL (2002) An analysis of ethical challenges in evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation23(2): 199–206.
37.
WilksT (2004) The use of vignettes in qualitative research into social work values. Qualitative Social Work3(1): 78–87.
38.
YangHShenJ (2006) When is an external evaluator no longer external? Reflexions on some ethical issues. American Journal of Evaluation27(3): 378–82.
