|
Session Title: Ethical Evaluation From Transformative, Transnational, and Public Interest Perspectives: An AEA Ethics Committee Panel Discussion
|
|
Panel Session 252 to be held in Capitol Ballroom Section 5 on Thursday, Nov 6, 10:55 AM to 12:25 PM
|
|
Sponsored by the AEA Conference Committee
|
| Chair(s): |
| Valerie Caracelli,
United States Government Accountability Office,
caracelliv@gao.gov
|
| Discussant(s):
|
| Scott Rosas,
Concept Systems Inc,
srosas@conceptsystems.com
|
| Hazel Symonette,
University of Wisconsin Madison,
symonette@bascom.wisc.edu
|
| Abstract:
The expanded view of the social justice functions of evaluation within rapidly shifting cultural and geographical settings has lead to a corresponding need to consider the ethics of evaluation practice at individual and public levels. In this context, critical questions are raised regarding the applicability and appropriateness of currently accepted frameworks for ethical decision-making. During this session, members of the AEA's Ethics Committee and three evaluation ethics scholars will discuss present and future challenges for ethical evaluation practice. The panel will focus on ethical considerations and decision-making related to evaluation within transformative, transnational, and public interest perspectives. Each presenter will raise important issues for evaluation practice, professional expectations, and evaluation's role in larger society. The structure for this session is brief presentations followed by comments from two discussants and closing with an interactive dialogue with the audience and panel members.
|
|
Program Evaluation Ethics from a Transformative Stance
|
| Donna Mertens,
Gallaudet University,
donna.mertens@gallaudet.edu
|
| Heidi Holmes,
Gallaudet University,
heidi.holmes@gallaudet.edu
|
| Raychelle Harris,
Gallaudet University,
raychelle.harris@gallaudet.edu
|
|
Program evaluators work in culturally complex contexts with challenging agendas to provide information to stakeholders who are situated in positions associated more or less unearned privilege. The ethical assumptions associated with the transformative paradigm prioritize the furtherance of social justice and human rights. This ethical ground leads to questions about the ethical practice of evaluation, given the potential inequities that exist when the full range of stakeholders are considered. What are the ethical implications of stakeholder involvement if the goal of the program and the evaluation is increased social justice? How do issues of power differential complicate ethical decision making? To what extent should evaluators be responsible for furthering a social justice agenda? Examples of ethical practice will be drawn from communities such as the deaf community, African peoples, the lesbian, gay, transsexual, bisexual and queer communities, and indigenous communities that shed light on ethical frameworks to guide practice in transformative program evaluations.
|
|
|
Program Evaluation Ethics in Transnational Spaces
|
| Robert Stake,
University of Illinois,
stake@uiuc.edu
|
| Fazal Rizvi,
University of Illinois,
frizvi@express.cites.uiuc.edu
|
|
Here we reflect upon the difficulties of pressing for ethical conduct in evaluating social programs in transnational spaces. First we separate transnational space from globalization, highlighting a range of problems, both theoretical and practical. We then examine the question of whether the traditional ways of addressing ethical issues are adequate still, in problems, for example, such as privacy. We conclude that tomorrow's ethical problems of tomorrow will be, at bottom, little different from yesterday's, but that they come packaged (situated) in unexpected ways. We consider the problems of monitoring ethical conduct through training, codes of ethics and institutional reviews, arguing that these are insufficient, as are traditional political, economic, cultural and geographical constraints, in what Wittel (2000) calls, a 'crisis in objectification.' We conclude that ultimately ethical responsibility will reside with the evaluators themselves, individually and interactively.
| |
|
The Fifth Guiding Principle: Beacon, Banality, or Pandora's Box?
|
| Michael Morris,
University of New Haven,
mmorris@newhaven.edu
|
|
Although all of AEA's Guiding Principles for Evaluators present evaluation professionals with the challenge of how to translate general guidelines into concrete practice, the principle of Responsibilities for General and Public Welfare can be especially demanding, given that it implicitly asks: What is the 'good society'? Indeed, it is not surprising that the authors of the original Guiding Principles (1995) observed that 'the key debates in the task force concerned evaluation and the public interest.' In this paper I examine the ethical implications of the fifth Guiding Principle for our profession. From an ethical perspective, is there more -- or less -- to this principle than meets the eye? What contribution can a principle focusing on the 'general and public welfare' make to AEA's attempts to influence evaluation policy at various levels? To what extent might such a principle represent a 'cautionary tale' for these attempts?
| |