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}
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.