Ethical implications of computer-mediated evaluation

New Directions for Evaluation

Volumn 1999, Issue 84, 1999, Pages 87-103

  Bennington, Tammy L ^a  

^a GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0039919023     PISSN: 10976736     EISSN: 1534875X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/ev.1155     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Alemagno, S., Frank, S., Mosavel, J., and Butts, J. “Screening Adolescents for Health Risks Using Interactive Voice Response Technology: An Evaluation.” Computers in Human Services, 1998, 15 (4), 27–37.
2. American Evaluation Association, Task Force on Guiding Principles of Evaluators. “Guiding Principles for Evaluators.” In W. R. Shadish, D. L. Newman, M. A. Scheirer, and C. Wye (eds.), Guiding Principles for Evaluators. New Directions for Program Evaluation, no. 66. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1995.
3. Beebe, T. J., Mika, T., Harrison, P. A., Anderson, R. E., and Fulkerson, J. A. “Computerized School Surveys: Design and Development Issues.” Social Science Computer Review, 1997, 15 (20), 159–169.
4. Clarke, R. “Information Technology and Dataveillance.” In C. Dunlop and R. Kling (eds.), Computerization and Controversy: Value Conflicts and Social Choices. Boston: Academic Press, 1991.
5. Clarke, R. “Privacy and Dataveillance, and Organisational Strategy.” Xamax Consultancy Pty. Ltd, 1997.
6. [http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/DV/PStrat.html].
7. Coyne, R. Designing Information Technology in the Postmodern Age: From Method to Metaphor. Cambridge, Mass., and London: MIT Press, 1995.
8. Cranor, L. F., Reagle, J., and Ackerman, M. S. “Beyond Concern: Understanding Net Users' Attitudes about Online Privacy.” AT&T Labs-Research Technical Report TR99.4.3, 1999.
9. [http://www.research.att.com/library/trs/TRs/99/99.4/99.4/].
10. Gaiser, T. J. “Conducting On-Line Focus Groups: A Methodological Discussion.” Social Science Computer Review, 1997, 15 (2), 135–144.
11. Gelman, S. R., Pollack, D., and Weiner, A. “Confidentiality of Social Work Records in the Computer Age.” Social Work, 1999, 44 (3), 243–252.
12. Gilligan, C. In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's Development. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1982.
13. Gold, S. J. “Ethical Issues in Visual Fieldwork.” In G. Blank, J. L. McCartney, and E. Brent (eds.), New Technology in Sociology: Practical Applications in Research and Work. New Brunswick and London: Transaction Publishers, 1989.
14. Greene, J. C., and Caracelli, V. J. “Defining and Describing the Paradigm Issue in Mixed-Method Evaluation.” In J. C. Greene and V. J. Caracelli (eds.), Advances in Mixed-Method Evaluation: The Challenges and Benefits of Integrating Diverse Paradigms. New Directions for Evaluation, no. 74. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1997.
15. Haraway, D. J. Modest_Witness@Second_Millenium.FemaleMan©_Meets_OncoMouse™: Feminism and Technoscience. New York and London: Routledge, 1997.
16. Ihde, D. Technology and the Lifeworld: From Garden to Earth. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1990.
17. Ihde, D. Postphenomenology: Essays in the Postmodern Context. Evanston, Ill.: Northwest University Press, 1993.
18. Johnson, M. Moral Imagination: Implications of Cognitive Science for Ethics. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1993.
19. Johnson, P. L. “Evaluation of U.S. Public Health Service Programs: Organization and Management.” Evaluation and the Health Professions, 1996, 19 (3), 311–324.
20. Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., McGuire, T. W. “Social Psychological Aspects of Computer-Mediated Communication.” In C. Dunlap and R. Kling (eds.), Computerization and Controversy: Value Conflicts and Social Choices. Boston: Academic Press, 1991.
21. Kling, R. “Value Conflicts in the Design and Organization of EFT Systems.” In C. Dunlop and R. Kling (eds.), Computerization and Controversy: Value Conflicts and Social Choices. Boston: Academic Press, 1991.
22. Kottler, R. E. “Exploiting the Research Potential of the World Wide Web.” Presentation given at Research 97, London, October 1997.
23. [http://www.spss.nl/spssmr/web_bureau/knowledge/r97a.htm].
24. Ladd, J. “Computers and Moral Responsibility: A Framework for an Ethical Analysis.” In C. Dunlop and R. Kling (eds.), Computerization and Controversy: Value Conflicts and Social Choice. Boston: Academic Press, 1991.
25. Lombard, M., and Ditton, T. “At the Heart of It All: The Concept of Presence.” Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 1997, 3 (2)
26. [http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol3/issue2/lombard.html].
27. Maclntyre, A. C. After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1981.
28. Marson, S. M. “A Selective History of Internet Technology and Social Work.” Computers in Human Services, 1997, 14 (2), 35–49.
29. Marx, W. Towards a Phenomenological Ethics: Ethos and the Life-World. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1992.
30. Nardi, B. A., Schwarz, H., Kuchinsky, A., Leichner, R., Whittaker, S., and Sclabassi, R. “Video-as-Data: Turning Away from Talking Heads.” In S. J. Emmott (ed.), Information Superhighways: Multimedia Users and Futures. London: Academic Press, 1995.
31. Nussbaum, M. C. The Fragility of Goodness: Luck and Ethics in Greek Tragedy and Philosophy. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1986.
32. Oliner, P. M., and Oliner, S. P. Toward a Caring Society: Ideas into Action. Westport, Conn., and London: Praeger, 1995.
33. Phillips, D., and Berman, Y. Human Services in the Age of New Technology: Harmonising Social Work and Computerisation. Aldershot: Avebury, 1995.
34. Privacy Forum. “CA Bill Would Restrict Use of Personal Information.” Privacy Forum Archive Document (priv.08.05), 1999.
35. [http://www.vortex.com/privacy/priv.08.05].
36. Privacy International. “Privacy and Human Rights: An International Survey of Privacy Laws and Practice.”
37. [http://www.gilc.org/privacy/survey/intro.html]. (n.d.).
38. Reidel, E., Dresel, L., Wagoner, M. J., Sullivan, J. L., and Borgida, E. “Electronic Communities: Assessing Equality of Access in a Rural Minnesota Community.” Social Science Computer Review, 1998, 16 (4), 370–390.
39. Rogerson, S., and Bynum, T. W. “Information Ethics: The Second Generation.” 1996.
40. [http://www.ccsr.cms.dmu.ac.uk/resources/general/discipline/ie_sec_gen.html].
41. Schwandt, T. A. “The Landscape of Values in Evaluation: Charted Terrain and Unexplored Territory.” In D. J. Rog and D. Fournier (eds.), Progress and Future Directions in Evaluation: Perspectives on Theory, Practice, and Methods. New Directions for Evaluation, no. 76, 25–39. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1997.
42. Shattuck, J. “Computer Matching Is a Serious Threat to Individual Rights.” In C. Dunlop and R. Kling (eds.), Computerization and Controversy: Value Conflicts and Social Choices. Boston: Academic Press, 1991.
43. Sheehan, K. B., and Hoy, M. G. “Using E-Mail to Survey Internet Users in the United States: Methodology and Assessment.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 1999, 4 (3)
44. [http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol4/issue3/sheehan.html]
45. Shum, S. B. “Negotiating the Construction of Organisational Memories.” In U. M. Borghoff, and R. Pareschi (eds.), Information Technology for Knowledge Management. Berlin: Springer, 1998.
46. Stewart, J., and Williams, R. “The Coevolution of Society and Mutimedia Technology: Issues in Predicting the Future Innovation and Use of a Ubiquitous Technology.” Social Science Computer Review, 1998, 16 (3), 268–282.
47. Stone, D. L., and Stone-Romero, E. F. “A Multiple Stakeholder Model of Privacy in Organizations.” In M. Schminke (ed.), Managerial Ethics: Moral Management of People and Process. Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1998.
48. Trochim, W. M. K “An Introduction to Concept Mapping for Planning and Evaluation.”
49. [http://trochim.human.cornell.edu/research/epp1/epp1.htm]. n.d.