Who Is Afraid of Evaluation? Ethics in Evaluation Research as a Way to Cope With Excessive Evaluation Anxiety: Insights From a Case Study

American Journal of Evaluation

Volumn 35, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 364-376

  Bechar, Shlomit ^a   Mero Jaffe, Irit ^a  

^a BEIT BERL COLLEGE   (Israel)

Author keywords

ethical and technical aspects; evaluation contracts; evaluators and stakeholders; guide for identifying and managing XEA; XEA (excessive evaluation anxiety)

Indexed keywords

EID: 84905194875     PISSN: 10982140     EISSN: 15570878     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1098214013512555     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Allpsych Online-The Virtual Psychology Classroom. (Last Updated, 2004). Psychiatric Disorders anxiety disorders common characteristics. Retrieved fromhttp://allpsych.com/disorders/anxiety/index.html.
2. Alpert B.,Bechar S.,Hyosh T.,Mero-Jaffe I.,Paul-Binyamin I.Educational evaluation: 21st century issues and challenges. 2009). The collaborative aspects of evaluation in educational settings. In OrtizM.RubioC. (Eds.), Educational evaluation: 21st century issues and challenges (pp. 197-229). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science.Ortiz M.Rubio C., ed. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science; 2009:197-229.
3. American Evaluation Association. (2004). American evaluation association: Guiding principles for evaluators. Retrieved fromhttp://www.eval.org/Publications/GuidingPrinciples.asp.
4. American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved fromhttp://www.depression-guide.com/dsm4.htm.
5. Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. (2010). Tri-council policy statement: Ethical conduct for research involving humans. Ottawa, Canada. Retrieved fromhttp://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/pdf/eng/tcps2/TCPS_2_FINAL_Web.pdf.
6. Chelimsky E.A clash of cultures: Improving the "fit" between evaluative independence and the political requirements of a democratic society.American Journal of Evaluation. 2008;29:400-415.
7. Conley S.,Glasman N. S.Fear, the school organization, and teacher evaluation.Educational Policy. 2008;22:63-85.
8. Darabi A.Teaching program evaluation: Using a systems approach.American Journal of Evaluation. 2002;23:219-228.
9. Davies R.Scale, complexity and the representation of theories of change.Evaluation. 2004;10:101-121.
10. Donaldson S. I.Program theory-driven evaluation science: Strategies and applications. London, England: Routledge; 2007:.
11. Donaldson S. I.,Gooler L. E.,Scriven M.Evaluation strategies for managing evaluation anxiety: Toward a psychology of program.American Journal of Evaluation. 2002;23:261-273.
12. Evaluation Consent and the Institutional Review Board Process. (n.d). Retrieved fromhttp://meera.snre.umich.edu/plan-an-evaluation/related-topics/evaluation-consent-and-institutional-review-board-process.
13. Geva-May I.,Thorngate W.Reducing anxiety and resistance in policy and programme evaluations: A socio-psychological analysis.Evaluation. 2003;9:205-227.
14. Guba E. G.,Lincoln Y. S.Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1989:.
15. Halliday J.,Asthana S. N. M.,Richardson S.Evaluating partnership: The role of formal assessment tools.Evaluation. 2004;10:285-303.
16. Hope D. A.,Heimberg R. J.Handbook of social and evaluation anxiety. Leitenberg H., ed. New York, NY: Plenum Press; 1990:217-246.
17. House E. R.Evaluation in the government marketplace.American Journal of Evaluation. 1997;18:37-48.
18. Israeli Association for Program Evaluation. (2009). Guidelines for appropriate evaluation. Retrieved fromhttp://www.iape.org.il/upload/Guidelines%20for%20Worthy%20Evaluation(1).pdf.
19. Lay M.,Papadopoulos I.An exploration of fourth generation evaluation in practice.Evaluation. 2007;13:495-504.
20. Leitenberg H.Handbook of social and evaluation anxiety. New York, NY: Plenum Press; 1990:.
21. Levin-Rozalis MHandbook for organizational learning. Raz A., ed. Beersheba, Israel: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev. (In Hebrew); 1999:1-20.
22. Lincoln Y. S.Evaluating social programs and problems: Visions for the New Millennium. 2003). Fourth generation evaluation in the new millennium. In DonaldsonS. I.ScrivenM. (Eds.), Evaluating social programs and problems: Visions for the New Millennium(Claremont Symposium on Applied Social Psychology Series) (pp. 77-90). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Donaldson S. I.Scriven M., ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 2003:77-90.
23. Määttä M.,Rantala K.The evaluator as a critical interpreter: Comparing evaluations of multi-actor drug prevention policy.Evaluation. 2007;13:457-476.
24. Macionis J. J.Sociology. 2010). Sociology (13th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall; 2010:.
25. Matthews B.,Jones Hubbard D.,Latessa E.Making the next step: Using evaluability assessment to improve correctional programming.The Prison Journal. 2001;81:454-472.
26. Morris M.Evaluation ethics for best practice: Cases and commentaries. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2008:.
27. Morris M.The good, the bad, and the evaluator: 25 years of AJE ethics.American Journal of Evaluation. 2011;32:134-151.
28. Newman D. L.,Brown R. D.Applied ethics for program evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1995:.
29. Norton P. J.,Burns J. A.,Hope D. A.,Bauer B. K.Generalization of social anxiety to sporting and athletic situations: Gender, sports involvement, and parental pressure.Depression and Anxiety. 2000;12:193-202.
30. Rogers P. J.Using programme theory to evaluate complicated and complex aspects of interventions.Evaluation. 2008;14:29-48.
31. Sampson A.Developing robust approaches to evaluating social programmes.Evaluation. 2007;13:477-493.
32. Schwarz C.,Struhkamp G.Does evaluation build or destroy trust? Insights from case studies on evaluation in higher education reform.Evaluation. 2007;13:323-339.
33. Simons H.Sage handbook of evaluation. 2006). Ethics in evaluation. In MarkM. M.GreenJ. C.ShawI. (Eds.), Sage handbook of evaluation (pp. 243-265). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Mark M. M.Green J. C.Shaw I., ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2006:243-265.
34. Skinner D.Primary and secondary barriers to the evaluation of change: Evidence from two public sector organizations.Evaluation. 2004;10:7-15.
35. Stame N.Theory-based evaluation and types of complexity.Evaluation. 2004;10:58-76.
36. Stufflebeam D. L.Lessons in contracting for evaluations.American Journal of Evaluation. 2000;21:293-314.
37. Taut S.,Brauns D.Resistance to evaluation: A psychological perspective.Evaluation. 2003;9:247-264.
38. Thurston W. E.,Graham J.,Hatfield J.Evaluability assessment: A catalyst for program change and improvement.Evaluation & the Health Professions. 2003;26:206-221.
39. Van der Knaap P.Theory-based evaluation and learning: Possibilities and challenges.Evaluation. 2004;10:16-34.
40. Van Voorhis P.,Brown K.Evaluability assessment: A tool for program development in corrections. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections; 1996:.
41. Volkov B. BInternal evaluation in the 21st century. 2011). Beyond being an evaluator: The multiplicity of rolls of the internal evaluator. In VolkovB. B.BaronM. E. (Eds.), Internal evaluation in the 21st century. (pp. 25-42). New York: Wiley.Volkov B. B.Baron M. E., ed. New York: Wiley; 2011:25-42.
42. Volkov B. B.,Baron M. E.Internal evaluation in the 21st century. 2011). Issues in internal evaluation: Implications for practice, training, and research. In VolkovB. B.BaronM. E. (Eds.), Internal evaluation in the 21st century. (pp. 101-111). New York: Wiley.Volkov B. B.Baron M. E., ed. New York: Wiley; 2011:101-111.