The “What” and “Why” of (Un)Ethical Evaluation Practice: A Meta-Narrative Review and Ethical Awareness Framework

Author:

Onyura Betty12,Main Emilia3,Barned Claudia456,Wong Alexandra7,Vo Tin D.8,Chandran Nivetha1,Torabi Nazi9,Hamza Deena M.10

Affiliation:

1. Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Provincial System Support Program, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

2. Department of Family and Community Medicine, Institute of Health Policy Management, and Evaluation, and Wilson Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

3. Library Services, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

4. Bioethics Program, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

5. The Institute for Education Research (TIER), University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

6. Joint Centre for Bioethics, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

7. York University Libraries, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

8. Lyle S. Hallman Faculty of Social Work, Wilfrid Laurier University, Kitchener, Ontario, Canada

9. University of Toronto Libraries, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

10. Postgraduate Medical Education, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

Abstract

There is growing recognition of the complex moral and ethical tensions associated with evaluation practice. However, there are scant evidence-informed frameworks for cultivating ethical awareness or informing ethical deliberation across the evaluation landscape. Thus, we aimed to synthesize research evidence on evaluation ethics, and draw on these findings to develop an evidence-informed evaluation ethics framework. Our methodological approach involved, first, conducting a meta-narrative review of empirical studies on evaluation ethics. Specifically, we conducted a systematic peer-reviewed and grey literature search, then identified, extracted, and thematically organize data from 20 studies that meet inclusion criteria. Second, in consultation with an ethicist, we curated findings on ethical concerns within an integrated evaluation ethics framework. Our results illustrate six thematic patterns of research inquiry on evaluation ethics and highlight trends, and gaps. The ethics framework (ACAP) we develop includes four multi-faceted categories. It outlines six Accountabilities (where ethical consideration is owed), illustrates how ethical Concerns can manifest in practice, and outlines diverse stakeholder groups’ Agency over the management of ethical concerns. Critically, it outlines five meta-categories of ethical principles (P) including systematic and transparent inquiry, accordant self-determination, fairness, beneficence and non-maleficence, and reflexive stewardship. Implications for priming ethical awareness, navigating ethical conflicts, and advancing evaluation ethics education and research are discussed.

Publisher

University of Toronto Press Inc. (UTPress)

Subject

Library and Information Sciences

Reference145 articles.

1. Enriching evaluation practice through care ethics

2. Ethical Dilemmas in Evaluations Using Indigenous Research Workers

3. American Evaluation Association. (2018). Guiding Principles. Retrieved from https://www.eval.org/Portals/0/Docs/AEA_289398-18_GuidingPrinciples_Brochure_2.pdf

4. Definitions of Evaluation Use and Misuse, Evaluation Influence, and Factors Affecting Use

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3