Evaluation Review

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click Here for More Information

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Morris, M.
Right arrow Articles by Jacobs, L. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Morris, M.
Right arrow Articles by Jacobs, L. R.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Evaluation Review, Vol. 24, No. 4, 384-406 (2000)

You Got a Problem With That? Exploring Evaluators' Disagreements About Ethics

Michael Morris

University of New Haven

Lynette R. Jacobs

University of New Haven

A random sample of American Evaluation Association (AEA) members were surveyed for their reactions to three case scenarios–informed consent, impartial reporting, and stakeholder involvement–in which an evaluator acts in a way that could be deemed ethically problematic. Significant disagreement among respondents was found for each of the scenarios, in terms of respondents' views of whether the evaluator had behaved unethically. Respondents' explanations of their judgments support the notion that general guidelines for professional behavior (such as AEA's Guiding Principles for Evaluators) can encompass sharply conflicting interpretations of how evaluators should behave in specific situations. Respondents employed in private business/consulting were less likely than those in other settings to believe that the scenarios portrayed unethical behavior by the evaluator, a finding that underscores the importance of taking contextual variables into account when analyzing evaluators' ethical perceptions. The need for increased dialogue among evaluators who represent varied perspectives on ethical issues is addressed.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?