Appendix: An Ethical Dilemma For A Programmer

Appendixappendixafionaschoiceanethicaldilemmaforaprograme

Analyze this case and offer a resolution to Fiona's dilemma. Should Fiona undertake the evaluation project? Should she agree to have the work contracted out? Why? In responding to this case, consider the issues on two levels: (1) look at the issues taking into account Fiona's personal situation and the “benefits and costs” of the options available to her and (2) look at the issues from an organizational standpoint, again weighing the “benefits and the costs.” Ultimately, you will have to decide how to weigh the benefits and costs from both Fiona's and the department's standpoints.

Paper For Above instruction

The case presented involves Fiona Barnes, a director of evaluation faced with a complex ethical dilemma rooted in political interference, organizational loyalty, and personal integrity. As a seasoned evaluator committed to ethical standards, Fiona's decision must balance her professional responsibilities with her personal integrity while considering organizational pressures. This analysis evaluates her options—either undertaking the evaluation herself or contracting it out—and assesses the potential benefits and costs from her personal and organizational perspectives.

Introduction

Fiona Barnes operates within a politically charged environment where evaluation results are preordained to justify program cuts favored by the governor. Her dilemma centers on whether to participate in producing an evaluation that is likely to be manipulated for political ends or to reject the task, risking her reputation and organizational stability. Such situations pose profound ethical questions about evaluator independence, honesty, and the role of evaluation in democratic accountability.

Personal Considerations and Benefits and Costs

From Fiona's personal standpoint, her reputation as a credible evaluator is vital. Engaging in a potentially biased evaluation could compromise her integrity, damage her credibility, and erode her professional self-esteem. Conversely, refusing to participate might lead to professional marginalization, job instability, or being perceived as non-cooperative or politically insubordinate.

The benefit of undertaking the evaluation lies in maintaining her position and demonstrating organizational commitment. However, this comes with the significant ethical cost of possibly producing a skewed report that conflicts with her professional standards for objectivity and honesty.

Contrastingly, contracting out the work to independent evaluators might preserve her integrity, as external evaluators could maintain independence and objectivity. Yet, this approach could lead to organizational distrust, a perception that she is shirking responsibility, or losing influence over the evaluation process.

Organizational Perspective and Organizational Benefits and Costs

Organizationally, the department faces the imperative to align evaluation outcomes with political objectives, even if they conflict with evaluative integrity. From their perspective, producing conclusive evidence to justify program cuts might be seen as prioritizing political expediency over methodological rigor.

The benefit of conducting the evaluation internally is that Fiona's department retains control, potentially ensuring the evaluation aligns with organizational standards. But, this control entails the risk of biased results, which can undermine the credibility of the evaluation and the department's reputation in the long term.

Contracting the evaluation out could align with organizational accountability and transparency if external evaluators adhere strictly to ethical standards, thus enhancing credibility. Nonetheless, contracting may increase costs, complicate communication, and possibly diminish organizational capacity for internal evaluation skills development.

Balancing Ethical and Practical Considerations

Fiona's ethical obligation as a professional evaluator involves upholding integrity, accuracy, and independence, principles articulated by the American Evaluation Association (2012). Accepting responsibility for producing a biased evaluation violates these principles and could have repercussions beyond her immediate career, impacting public trust in government evaluations.

On the other hand, organizational loyalty and pragmatic considerations are influential. The political context pressures Fiona to conform, which may compromise her ethical standards but aligns with her duty to organizational stability.

A viable approach involves advocacy—Fiona could push for transparency, argue for the importance of an honest evaluation, and recommend that the evaluation be conducted independently or at least with adequate safeguards. If political pressures remain incompatible with ethical standards, she must decide whether to dissent publicly or accept a secondary role—such as providing input while refraining from producing a biased report.

Furthermore, contracting out can serve as an ethically defensible option, provided that external evaluators sign ethical commitments and conduct their work objectively. This preserves Fiona's professionalism while meeting organizational needs.

Conclusion

Ultimately, Fiona should prioritize her ethical obligations while seeking organizational accommodations. She should advocate for an independent evaluation, either internally with safeguards or through contracted evaluators. If she perceives that her professional integrity cannot be maintained without risking her career or organizational relationships, she faces a difficult choice: act ethically and risk marginalization or conform and compromise her principles. Given the importance of evaluative integrity for democratic accountability and proper resource allocation, it is preferable for Fiona to pursue an independent evaluation or contract the work out, aligning her actions with fundamental ethical standards supported by evaluation professional associations.

References

• American Evaluation Association. (2012). Guiding principles for evaluators. Retrieved from https://www.eval.org/principles
• Abercrombie, M. L. J. (1960). The anatomy of judgment: An investigation into the processes of perception and reasoning. Basic Books.
• Patton, M. Q. (2008). Utilization-focused evaluation (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
• Swan, G., & Kettner, P. (2010). Ethical considerations for evaluators. New Directions for Evaluation, 126, 29-40.
• Scriven, M. (1994). The final synthesis. Evaluation Practice, 15(3), 367-382.
• Yarbrough, D., Shulha, L., Hopson, R., & Caruthers, F. (2011). The Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation: A guide for evaluators and evaluation users. Sage Publications.
• Quesnell, M. (2013). Ethical dilemmas in program evaluation. Journal of Public Evaluation, 34(2), 45-59.
• Ghere, G., King, J. A., Stevahn, L., & Minnema, J. (2006). Reflective practice in evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 27(1), 108-123.
• Link, R. J. (2008). Evaluation ethics and practice. New Directions for Evaluation, 118, 21-31.
• Fournier, V. (2015). Navigating organizational and ethical tensions in evaluation. Evaluation and Program Planning, 52, 87-93.