My future research interests include applied work in program evaluation. The national professional organization for the field of evaluation is the American Evaluation Association (AEA). The AEA has published a set of Guiding Principles, which serves as a set of ethics or code of conduct for the national community of evaluators. There are five main components of AEA's Guiding Principles, including, Systematic Inquiry, Competence, Integrity/ Honesty, Respect for People, and Responsibilities for General and Public Welfare. The AEA (2004) defines these principles as follows:
A. Systematic Inquiry: Evaluators conduct systematic, data-based inquiries about whatever is being evaluated.
B. Competence: Evaluators provide competent performance to stakeholders.
C. Integrity/Honesty: Evaluators ensure the honesty and integrity of the entire evaluation process.
D. Respect for People: Evaluators respect the security, dignity and self-worth of the respondents, program participants, clients, and other stakeholders with whom they interact.
E. Responsibilities for General and Public Welfare: Evaluators articulate and take into account the diversity of interests and values that may be related to the general and public welfare.
I think that like in other fields, a code of ethics is crucial in evaluation work. Perhaps, due to the diverse, interdisciplinary nature of evaluation work, having a shared understanding of what is ethical and just is particularly important. Unlike "pure" research projects, evaluation work is contextual and political. In all evaluation work, there are stakeholders (at various levels, from micro to macro), who are interested in the outcomes of the evaluation. Therefore, evaluators must work to remain true to the data as well as true to the people.
Although the Office of Research Integrity does not address evaluation ethics specifically, I have come across some thought-provoking scenarios presenting potential ethical challenges in evaluation work. For example, a program may not be shown to have positive effects via the data that were collected in an evaluation (especially if measures were prescribed by some external agency, but were not appropriate). Thus, the program may be at risk of being cut, even if there is evidence (say, more anecdotal) that the program has had positive effects in the community. In a situation like this one, in alignment with an evaluator's paradigm, s/he must balance the need to respect the data, the stakeholders, those involved in the program, and the general public. The root word in evaluation is value, and with values comes the issue of ethics.
A. Systematic Inquiry: Evaluators conduct systematic, data-based inquiries about whatever is being evaluated.
B. Competence: Evaluators provide competent performance to stakeholders.
C. Integrity/Honesty: Evaluators ensure the honesty and integrity of the entire evaluation process.
D. Respect for People: Evaluators respect the security, dignity and self-worth of the respondents, program participants, clients, and other stakeholders with whom they interact.
E. Responsibilities for General and Public Welfare: Evaluators articulate and take into account the diversity of interests and values that may be related to the general and public welfare.
I think that like in other fields, a code of ethics is crucial in evaluation work. Perhaps, due to the diverse, interdisciplinary nature of evaluation work, having a shared understanding of what is ethical and just is particularly important. Unlike "pure" research projects, evaluation work is contextual and political. In all evaluation work, there are stakeholders (at various levels, from micro to macro), who are interested in the outcomes of the evaluation. Therefore, evaluators must work to remain true to the data as well as true to the people.
Although the Office of Research Integrity does not address evaluation ethics specifically, I have come across some thought-provoking scenarios presenting potential ethical challenges in evaluation work. For example, a program may not be shown to have positive effects via the data that were collected in an evaluation (especially if measures were prescribed by some external agency, but were not appropriate). Thus, the program may be at risk of being cut, even if there is evidence (say, more anecdotal) that the program has had positive effects in the community. In a situation like this one, in alignment with an evaluator's paradigm, s/he must balance the need to respect the data, the stakeholders, those involved in the program, and the general public. The root word in evaluation is value, and with values comes the issue of ethics.