You got a problem with that? Exploring evaluators' disagreements about ethics

Evaluation Review

Volumn 24, Issue 4, 2000, Pages 384-406

  Morris, Michael ^a   Jacobs, Lynette R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAVEN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; EVALUATION; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MEDICAL ETHICS; OBSERVER VARIATION; QUESTIONNAIRE; UNITED STATES;

DATA COLLECTION; ETHICS, PROFESSIONAL; EVALUATION STUDIES; OBSERVER VARIATION; QUESTIONNAIRES; UNITED STATES;

EID: 0034243827     PISSN: 0193841X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0193841X0002400403     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. American Evaluation Association, Task Force on Guiding Principles for Evaluators. 1995. Guiding Principles for Evaluators. In Guiding Principles for Evaluators, edited by W. R. Shadish, D. L. Newman, M. A. Scheirer, and C. Wye, 19-26. New directions for program evaluation, no. 66. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
2. Anderson, M. S., and K. S. Louis. 1994. The graduate student experience and subscription to the norms of science. Research in Higher Education 35:273-99.
3. Bennington, T. 1999. Ethical implications of computer-mediated instruction. In Information technologies in evaluation: Social, moral, epistemological, and practical implications, edited by G. Gay and T. L. Bennington, 87-103. New directions for evaluation, no. 84. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
4. Fetterman, D. 1997. Empowerment evaluation: A response to Patton and Scriven. Evaluation Practice 18:253-66.
5. Fetterman, D. M., S. J. Kaftarian, and A. Wandersman, eds. 1996. Empowerment evaluation: Knowledge and tools for self-assessment and accountability. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
6. Fitzpatrick, J. L., and M. Morris, eds. 1999. Current and emerging ethical challenges in evaluation. New directions for evaluation, no. 82. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
7. Hamilton, D. 1992. In the trenches, doubts about scientific integrity. Science 255:1636.
8. Honea, G. E. 1992. Ethics and public sector evaluators: Nine case studies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Virginia.
9. House, E. R. 1995. Principled evaluation: A critique of the AEA Guiding Principles. In Guiding Principles for Evaluators, edited by W. R. Shadish, D. L. Newman, M. A. Scheirer, and C. Wye, 27-34. New directions for program evaluation, no. 66. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
10. House, E. R., and K. R. Howe. 1999. Values in evaluation and social research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
11. Kalichman, M. W., and P. J. Friedman. 1992. A pilot study of biomedical trainees' perceptions concerning research ethics. Academic Medicine 67:769-75.
12. Korenman, S. G., R. Berk, N. S. Wenger, and V. Lew. 1998. Evaluation of the research norms of scientists and administrators responsible for academic research integrity. JAMA 279:41-7.
13. Mabry, L. 1999. Circumstantial ethics. American Journal of Evaluation 20:199-212.
14. Merton, R. K. 1973. The normative structure of science. In The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations, edited by N. W. Storer, 267-78. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
15. Morris, M. 1999a. Ethical challenges. American Journal of Evaluation 20:113-22.
16. _. 1999b. Research on evaluation ethics: What have we learned and why is it important? In Current and emerging ethical issues in evaluation, edited by J. L. Fitzpatrick and M. Morris, 15-24. New directions for evaluation, no. 82. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
17. Morris, M., and R. Cohn. 1993. Program evaluators and ethical challenges: A national survey. Evaluation Review, 17:621-42.
18. Newman, D. L., and R. D. Brown. 1996. Applied ethics for program evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
19. Patton, M. Q. 1997. Toward distinguishing empowerment evaluation and placing it in a larger context. Evaluation Practice 18:147-63.
20. Rossi, P. H. 1995. Doing good and getting it right. In Guiding principles for evaluators, edited by W. R. Shadish, D. L. Newman, M. A. Scheirer, and C. Wye, 55-9. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
21. Rossi, P. H., and R. A. Berk. 1985. Varieties of normative consensus. American Sociological Review 50:333-47.
22. Rossi, P. H., and S. L. Nock. 1982. Measuring social judgments: The factorial survey approach. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
23. Schaffner, K. F. 1992. Ethics and the nature of empirical science. In Research fraud in the behavioral and biomedical sciences, edited by D. J. Miller and M. Hersen, 17-33. New York: John Wiley.
24. Scriven, M. 1997. Empowerment evaluation examined. Evaluation Practice 18:165-75.
25. Shadish, W. R., D. L. Newman, M. A. Scheirer, and C. Wye, eds. 1995. Guiding Principles for Evaluators. New directions for program evaluation, no. 66. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
26. Swazey, J. P., M. S. Anderson, and K. S. Lewis. 1993. Ethical problems in academic research. American Scientist 81:542-53.
27. Wenger, N. S., S. G. Korenman, R. Berk, and S. Berry. 1997. The ethics of scientific research: An analysis of focus groups of scientists and institutional representatives. Journal of Investigative Medicine 45:371-80.
28. Wenger, N. S., S. G. Korenman, R. Berk, and H. Liu. 1999. Reporting unethical research behavior. Evaluation Review 23:553-70.