|
Ethical Sensitivity in Evaluation and How Evaluators Identify Ethical Dilemmas
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Steve Jacob, Laval University, steve.jacob@pol.ulaval.ca
|
| Geoffroy Desautels, Laval University, geoffroy.desautels.1@ulaval.ca
|
| Abstract:
Evaluation occurs in a context where ethical dilemmas are frequent and unavoidable. Evaluators must daily deal with various ethical tensions that could potentially influence the quality of their work. Using an analytical model that allows us to categorize evaluators according to whether they are the corporatist type (sensitive to the reputation of the profession and to market pressures) or the altruistic type (sensitive to the social impacts of evaluation), we sought to discover if evaluators demonstrated the same sensitivities when faced with ethical dilemmas. Inspired by a research methodology put forward by Morris and Jacobs, we met with and interviewed Canadian evaluators of public policies. Our research led us to conclude that the altruistic type show a high ethical sensitivity, while the corporatist type show a more moderate ethical sensitivity. We also observed that other factors such as the evaluation environment (internal or external) and experience can influence ethical sensitivity.
|
|
Anytime, Anywhere, Evaluation Ethics DO Matter!
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Wayne MacDonald, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, wayne.macdonald@sshrc-crsh.gc.ca
|
| Heather Buchanan, Jua Management Consulting Services, hbuchanan@jua.ca
|
| Abstract:
At these meetings, we are invited to examine professional practice within a context of 'values and valuing'. Custom and norms are shaped by what we value. This paper presents an international comparison of ethical challenges identified by the evaluation communities in Canada, United States and Australia. While the dialogue has been quieter in Canada compared to other countries, the presentation will highlight results from a 2010 national survey of Canadian evaluators. These will be analyzed against a backdrop of findings from other national surveys members of the American Evaluation Association (1993; 2009) and the Australasian Evaluation Society (2003). Based on the findings, we argue for a more proactive agenda for the Canadian Evaluation Society to support the needs and challenges of its members in dealing with ethical challenges. For AEA, should ethics be a standing item at annual meetings, and proposals actively solicited and considered by a TIG/Committee?
|
| |