You Got a Problem With That?

Michael Morris and Lynette R. Jacobs
Additional contact information
Michael Morris: University of New Haven
Lynette R. Jacobs: University of New Haven

Evaluation Review, 2000, vol. 24, issue 4, 384-406

Abstract: 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.

Date: 2000
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0193841X0002400403 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:evarev:v:24:y:2000:i:4:p:384-406

DOI: 10.1177/0193841X0002400403

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Evaluation Review
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().