不道德的评估实践 "是什么 "和 "为什么"?元叙事回顾与伦理意识框架

IF 0.2 Q4 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
Betty Onyura, Emilia Main, Claudia Barned, Alexandra Wong, Tin D. Vo, Nivetha Chandran, Nazi Torabi, Deena M. Hamza
{"title":"不道德的评估实践 \"是什么 \"和 \"为什么\"?元叙事回顾与伦理意识框架","authors":"Betty Onyura, Emilia Main, Claudia Barned, Alexandra Wong, Tin D. Vo, Nivetha Chandran, Nazi Torabi, Deena M. Hamza","doi":"10.3138/cjpe-2023-0023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"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.","PeriodicalId":43924,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation","volume":"141 ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The “What” and “Why” of (Un)Ethical Evaluation Practice: A Meta-Narrative Review and Ethical Awareness Framework\",\"authors\":\"Betty Onyura, Emilia Main, Claudia Barned, Alexandra Wong, Tin D. Vo, Nivetha Chandran, Nazi Torabi, Deena M. Hamza\",\"doi\":\"10.3138/cjpe-2023-0023\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"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.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43924,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation\",\"volume\":\"141 \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3138/cjpe-2023-0023\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3138/cjpe-2023-0023","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

人们越来越认识到与评价实践相关的复杂的道德和伦理矛盾。然而,在整个评价过程中,用于培养伦理意识或为伦理审议提供信息的有实证依据的框架却很少。因此,我们的目标是综合评价伦理方面的研究证据,并借鉴这些研究成果,制定一个有实证依据的评价伦理框架。我们的方法包括:首先,对有关评价伦理的实证研究进行元叙事审查。具体来说,我们进行了系统的同行评议和灰色文献检索,然后从符合纳入标准的 20 项研究中确定、提取并专题整理了数据。其次,在咨询伦理学家后,我们在综合评价伦理框架内对伦理问题的研究结果进行了整理。我们的结果说明了评价伦理研究调查的六种主题模式,并强调了趋势和差距。我们制定的伦理框架(ACAP)包括四个多方面的类别。它概述了六种责任(伦理方面的考虑),说明了伦理问题在实践中的表现形式,并概述了不同利益相关群体在管理伦理问题方面的机构。重要的是,它概述了伦理原则的五个元类别(P),包括系统和透明的调查、和谐的自决、公平、善意和非恶意以及反思性管理。文章还讨论了引导伦理意识、处理伦理冲突以及推进评价伦理教育和研究的意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The “What” and “Why” of (Un)Ethical Evaluation Practice: A Meta-Narrative Review and Ethical Awareness Framework
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation
Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
25.00%
发文量
32
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信