If we accept that
evaluation is political (and, therefore, ripe for ethical complication), then
we must ask how best to balance the objectivity required in a program
evaluation with the political interests of stakeholders. We must ask, “What ethical
standards and values need to be emphasized in program evaluation?”
The American Evaluation
Association’s (AEA) Program Evaluation
Standards (Yarbrough, Shulha, Hopson, & Caruthers, 2011) and Guiding Principles for Evaluators (American
Evaluation Association, 2004) provide a broad, somewhat obvious, framework for
ethical conduct.
Fitzpatrick et al. (2010)
are more specific, encouraging evaluators to be both self-reflective about their
role in the evaluation process and circumspect about client requests, so as to
minimize the potential for bias and ethical compromise: “…the client may be
asking for what the client perceives as editing changes, but the evaluator sees
as watering down the clarity or strength of the judgments made” (p. 81).
And Schweigert (2007) roots
evaluator responsibility in the notion of justice – public, procedural, and
distributive.
From this we can extract answers to the question “What ethical standards and values need
to be emphasized in program evaluation?”
Ethical standards:
- Those detailed in the AEA’s and other professionally recognized codes of conduct.
Values:
- Commitment to truth – what Schweigert (2007) calls the priority of justice
- Cultural sensitivity
- Respect (for stakeholders, ourselves, and the evaluation process)
It seems that no professional
code nor personal charter can do the whole job. No matter how pointed the professional
standards, situational circumstance requires evaluators to make interpretations
and best guesses (Schweigert, 2007), which are subject to bias and ethical
compromise, as Weiss (2006) lays bare any illusions we may have that we are
above or beyond the snare of bias and ethical confusion: “You never start from
scratch. We pick up the ideas that are congenial to our own perspective.
Therefore, people pick up this thought or that interpretation of a research
report that fits with what they know or what they want to do” (p. 480).
I have thought about this a lot over the past few days, returning
again and again to Sieber’s (1980) conclusion that “being ethical in program evaluation is
a process of growth in understanding, perception, and creative problem-solving
ability that respects the interests of individuals and of society” (p. 53).
References
American Evaluation
Association, 2004. Guiding principles. Retrieved from www.eval.org/Publications/Guiding
Principles.asp.
Fitzpatrick, J., Sanders, J., & Worthen, B. (2010). Program
evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines (4th ed.).
Boston, MA: Pearson
Morris, M., & Cohn, R. (1993). Program evaluators and
ethical challenges: A national survey. Evaluation
Review, 17, 621-642.
Schweigert,
F. J. (2007). The priority of justice: A framework approach to ethics in
program evaluation. Evaluation and Program Planning, 30(4), 394–399.
Sieber, J. E.
(1980). Being ethical: Professional and personal decisions in program
evaluation. In R.E. Perloff & E. Perloff (Eds.), Values, ethics, and standards in evaluation. New Directions for
Program Evaluation, No. 7, 51-61. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Weiss, C. H., & Mark, M. M. (2006). The oral history of
evaluation Part IV: The professional evolution of Carol Weiss. American Journal of Evaluation, 27(4),
p. 474-483.
