Navigating Everyday Ethical Challenges in Evaluation: A Framework for Reflection and Action

Résumé fourni par la source

Ethical considerations are central to evaluation practice, both in formal approval processes and in the everyday realities of managing relationships, power, and integrity. Even evaluators adept at meeting procedural ethics requirements and complying with formal expectations such as those expressed in policies and guidelines, must also navigate ongoing informal day-to-day challenges relating to independence, transparency, and stakeholder engagement for which evaluators often report limited guidance or support. Drawing on mixed-methods data from two rounds of the Everyday Ethics in Evaluation study (2024 and 2025), including surveys, polls, and interviews, this article examines the perceived frequency, nature, and severity of ethical challenges faced by evaluators. Thematic analysis identified three recurring areas of concern: conflict of interest mismanagement, non-protection of participant rights, and data and evaluation quality. The findings reveal meaningful variation by role and tenure: emerging evaluators reported higher self-assessed confidence, potentially reflecting overconfidence linked to limited exposure to complex ethical risk; external evaluators reported a higher frequency of conflict-of-interest dilemmas; while public sector evaluators more often described procedural or governance-related challenges. Drawing on the research findings, the article offers two frameworks to help evaluators understand and respond to challenges identified in the findings, and to contribute to the literature on ethical practice in evaluation. These frameworks are intended to support reflective practice in evaluation and better articulate the ethical challenges encountered by evaluators. The article proposes new research directions that could explore the proposed frameworks in different evaluation contexts and to further explore the current level of understanding around ethical practice within the evaluation community.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.