Ethical Issues in Agency Evaluation from the Viewpoint of Activity Theory A Basis for Inter-Organizational Learning?
Main Article Content
Abstract
This article focuses on ethical issues faced in evaluation practice from the viewpoint of third generation of activity theory, which gives a constructive perspective on how contradictions can be a driving force behind interorganizational learning and development in multiactor networks. The problem field is firstly addressed through an illustration of the problematic position of evaluators in situations where cooperational relationships and professional networks are close. This perspective is then extended by an analysis of a reflection model designed to initiate discussion about the principles of evaluation. From an activity theoretical perspective, the ethical issues reflect contradictions, which can be a starting point for development, whether the actors can get oriented collectively in the analysis of a contradictory situation, and modelling, implementing and examination of a new solution. The analysed model for ethical reflection can be used, despite its limitations, as a heuristic framework for this kind of collaborative ethical reflection in a multivoiced network of people involved in the evaluation process.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Copyright and Permissions
Authors retain full copyright for articles published in JMDE. JMDE publishes under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY - NC 4.0). Users are allowed to copy, distribute, and transmit the work in any medium or format for noncommercial purposes, provided that the original authors and source are credited accurately and appropriately. Only the original authors may distribute the article for commercial or compensatory purposes. To view a copy of this license, visit creativecommons.org
References
Allardt, E. (1972). A frame of reference for selecting social indicators. Commentationes Scientiarum Socialium, 1.
Allardt, E. (1973). Individual needs, social structures, and indicators of national development. In S. N. Eisenstadt & S. Rokkan (Eds.), Building states and nations: Models and data resources (pp. 259-273). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Allardt, E. (1976). Dimensions of welfare in a comparative Scandinavian study. Acta Sociologica, 19, 111-120.
https://doi.org/10.1177/000169937601900302 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/000169937601900302
Bemelmans-Videc, M. L., & Vedung, E. (1998). Conclusions: Policy instruments types, packages, choices, and evaluation. In M. L. Bemelmans-Videc, R. C. Rist, & V. Vedung (Eds.), Carrots, sticks and sermons: Policy instruments and their evaluation (pp. 249-274). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315081748-13 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315081748-13
Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.
Engeström, Y. (1995). Kehittävä työntutkimus: Perusteita, tuloksia ja haasteita (Developmental work research: Basics, results and challenges). Helsinki: Painatuskeskus.
Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133-156.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080020028747 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080020028747
Engeström, Y. (2005). Developmental work research: Expanding activity theory in practice. Berlin: Lehmanns Media. DOI: https://doi.org/10.58662/9783865416940
Engeström, Y. (2007). The activity system. Helsinki: University of Helsinki, Center for Activity Theory and Developmental Work Research. Retrieved September 16, 2008, from http://www.edu.helsinki.fi/activity/pages/chatanddwr/activitysystem/
Haverinen, R., Konttinen, M., Lehtelä, K. M., & Staff, M. (Eds.). (2001a). STAKES on the threshold of the new millennium: From past trends towards new dimensions. Helsinki: National Research and Development Centre for Welfare and Health.
Haverinen, R., Konttinen, M., Lehtelä, K. M., & Staff, M. (Eds.). (2001b). STAKES on the threshold of the new millenium: Responses to the recommendations. Helsinki: National Research and Development Centre for Welfare and Health.
Huotari, R. (2003). A perspective on ethical reflection in multiprofessional care. Reflective Practice, 4(2), 121-138.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14623940308268 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14623940308268
Huotari, R. (2005). A perspective on ethical issues in the government evaluation market: A case study. University of Helsinki: Department of Political Science. Unpublished research report.
Huotari, R. (2008). Development of collaboration in multiproblem cases: Some possibilities and challenges. Journal of Social Work, 8(1), 83-98.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1468017307084741 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1468017307084741
Huttunen, J. (2001). How could the utilisation of STAKES' research activities and competence be increased in the decision making on different levels? Summary of the report by Professor, Director General Jussi Huttunen. In R. Haverinen, M. Konttinen, K. M. Lehtelä, & M. Staff (Eds.), STAKES on the threshold of the new millennium: Responses to the recommendations. Helsinki: National Research and Development Centre for Welfare and Health.
Laitinen, I. (2001a). Etiikkaa ja arviointia (Ethics and evaluation). Paper presented at the Finnish Evaluation Society's Seminar "Ethical Choices in Evaluation," Helsinki.
Laitinen, I. (2001b). Moraalisia nautintoja, moraalisesti perustellun arvioinnin jäljillä (Moral pleasures, tracing the morally justified evaluation). Administrative Studies, 20(4), 118-125.
Laitinen, I. (2002). Ethics of evaluation. The case of Finnish Evaluation Society. Summary. Retrieved September 16, 2008, from http://www.finnishevaluationsociety.net/tiedoston_katsominen.php?dok_id=26
Laitinen, I. (2008). Autenttinen evaluaatioetiikka. Acta Universitatis Lapponiensis 133. Rovaniemi: University of Lapland.
Lundquist, L. (1991). Etik i offentlig verksamhet (Ethics in public administration). Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Maslow, A. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370-96.
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054346 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054346
Newman, D. L., & Brown, R. D. (1996). Applied ethics for program evaluation.ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.
Rantanen, J., Karisto, A., Rantalaiho, L., Smedby, B., Tengvald, K., Tuomi, J., Virkkunen, J., Walker, A., & Lehtinen, S. (1999). International evaluation of the National Research and Development Centre for Welfare and Health. Helsinki: Ministry of Social Affairs and Health Finland.
Rantanen, J., Karisto, A., Rantalaiho, L., Smedby, B., Tengvald, K., Tuomi, J., Virkkunen, J., Walker, A., & Lehtinen, S. (2001). Follow-up evaluation of STAKES. Report of the International Evaluation Group.
Valovirta, V. (2002). Evaluation utilization as argumentation. Evaluation, 8(1), 60-80.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1358902002008001487 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1358902002008001487
Virtanen, P. (2004). The rise and fall of evaluation standards. Administrative Studies, 23(2), 16-29.
Virtanen, P., & Laitinen, I. (2004). Beyond evaluation standards? European Journal of Spatial Development. Retrieved September 16, 2008, from http://www.nordregio.se/EJSD/refereed13.pdf