Ethics and Politics in Evaluation

8/7/2019 Ethics and Politics in Evaluation

1/4

Ethics and Politics in Evaluation 1

Ethics and Politics in Evaluation

By

Martha Rice

Submitted to

Dr. Bosede Aworuwa

ITED 512 Evaluation in Instructional Technology

Texas A&M-Texarkana


2/4


The American Evaluation Associationfive principles ofevaluation are systematicinquiry, competence, integrity/honesty, respect for people, and responsibility for general and

public welfare. These standards are echoed in the Joint Committee on Standards for Educational

Evaluation guidelines. Both sets ofstandards dictate that evaluation projects follow recognized

standards, take into account the stakeholders, have transparency at each step of the evaluation

process, be honest about costs, biases, findings, and problems associated with the evaluation.

The American Evaluation Association (AEA) guidelines are aimed at an audience of

professional evaluators who serve a professional business clientele. The Joint Committee on

Standards for Educational Evaluation (SEE) guidelines are for the education world. Therefore,

the main differences in the two sets deal with the differences in audience. AEA guidelines call

for professionalism in the field ofevaluation. AEA guidelines suggest that evaluators should be

well-versed in knowledge ofthe diversity ofthe people involved in the evaluation; SEE does not

include this. AEA suggests that although evaluators should take into account how theirfindings

will affect stakeholders, evaluators should also consider the good ofsociety in general, opting to

report information society needs to be aware of. Because SEE is concerned with educational

evaluation, which is primarily a public trust, the SEE guidelines also differfrom AEA guidelines

in suggesting that evaluation funding should be carefully managed (AEA funding guidelines are

more concerned with making sure that the evaluators serve their clients). SEE guidelines deal

with private evaluations; AEA guidelines deal with public educational evaluations.

Ethics are not laws; even though an evaluator knows something is the right thing to do,

he or she doesnt have to do it. Ethical problems ofevaluation include dealing with stakeholders

who disagree with findings. Evaluators sometimes feel pressured (by stakeholders or even by

they themselves) to change methods or to withhold or alterfindings due to biases. After


3/4


evaluators are finished, stakeholders can misrepresent or misuse data or results. The key to

ethical evaluations is to conduct and report evaluations objectively and honestly, taking into

account any consequences the evaluation results might cause. Conducting evaluations can come

with the burden ofmanaging the politics inherent in the situation. Sometimes stakeholders want

anything but objectivity when pet projects are being evaluated. Everyone wants to Look Good

Avoid Blame, especially when stakeholders try to subjectively influence evaluators. A good

evaluator must know about political games stakeholders might play, especially those in which

stakeholders say they want evaluation but really do not want the project looked at closely.

Evaluators must be able to see through false friendship, masses ofpossibly immaterial data,

distortions and ambiguities, and other kinds ofmisinformation. One ethical problem might be

the obfuscation ofdata by stakeholders who do not want to look bad ifthey are pinned with the

blame for initiating and backing a project that may not be working. If the stakeholder tries to

inundate the evaluator with a mass ofdocuments, the evaluator should review the ground rules

with the stakeholder. The best way to combat politics seems to be for the evaluator and all

others involved in the evaluation to set ground rules ofthe evaluation before beginning ofthe

evaluation, and one good ground rule would be that only relative documentation should be

presented when the evaluator asks for it.

The evaluator in The Good News at Gee-Gaws must realize that he will not be able to

objectively evaluate Gee-Gaws Employee Assistance Program (EAP). He has already realized

that the data from his surveys is not reliable, because he himselfalready finds it suspect. With

the information from the employee he meets later after the employees interview, he finds out

that his suspicions are confirmedemployees have been pressured not to report negative things

about EAP. Since the company is a valued part ofthe community where generations offamily


4/4


members work together, damage to the company would mean damage to the community itself.

There is also the suggestion ofpossible corporate retaliation in the employees assertion that the

company is nonunion. To speak out might mean loss of jobs, loss of livelihood, and even loss of

community economy. Several evaluation standards apply to the Gee Gaws scenario. First, the

evaluator must respect the lives and livelihoods of those whose company policy he is evaluating.

How will a negative evaluation affect these employees? Evaluators should be honest. Ethically,

this evaluator will have to report what he has found; politically, ifhe reports what he has found,

he runs the risk ofruining lives. Practically, his evaluation company has been paid for his

evaluation, but his first allegiance should be to the benefit of the community, not to Gee Gaws

parent company; in this case, however, the benefits could actually be one in the same. The

evaluator should maintain transparency throughout his evaluation in everything he does, but he

must now deal with a confidential source that has negated his entire data set. IfI were evaluator

in the Gee Gaw scenario, I would first discuss what I had found out so far (the suspicious data

and the informal conversation with the employee) with my superiors in my company. I

personally would not be able to continue the evaluation knowing that Gee Gaws company is

being publically dishonest and privately unethical.

Documents

Ethics and Politics in Evaluation