Viewpoint on Ethical Reflection in Evaluation Practice in Multiactor Networks
Main Article Content
Abstract
Background: In the evaluation process, it is not only the organising of different views and action plans so as to reach the mutual understanding that advances evaluation utilization through argumentation. It is above all complicated to compose a framework that can ensure clear guidelines for ethical evaluation practice in specific contextual situations and in complex operational environment with conflicting role expectations.
Purpose: The aim of this article is to suggest guidelines for ethical reflection in evaluation practice in multiactor networks. For this purpose, we study the normative features of the use of language, illustrate the complexity of ethical decision-making, and discuss the importance of professional virtues in ethical reflection.
Setting: Not applicable.
Subjects: Not applicable.
Research Design: Not applicable.
Data Collection and Analysis: Desk review.
Findings: The results indicate that from speech acts it may be impossible either to logically derive moral duties or obligations to act, or to present idealising suppositions of such rules for dialogical situations as would ensure the production of universal norms for participants in a conversation. However, the argumentation process is fruitful expressly when the participants can set mutual understanding as a goal and commit to aspire to that goal—although it will be impossible to reach it perfectly in practice. The use of neither extensive principles nor reflection on several theories can ensure a clear view of the situation.
Conclusions: The ethics of evaluation is mostly concerned with balancing the conflicting principles and values. Therefore in ethical reflection, the focus should be on commitment to a certain reflective professional way of life in which the identification and acquirement of professional virtues have an important role.
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
Airaksinen, T. (1993). Moraalifilosofia [Moral philosophy] (3rd ed.). Porvoo: WSOY.
Alexy, R. (1978) Eine theorie des praktischen diskurses. In W. Oelmüller (Ed.), Normenbegründung, Normendurchsetzung: Materialien zur Normendiskussion (pp. 22-58). Paderborn: Schöningh.
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bemelmans-Videc, M-L., & Vedung, E. (1998). Conclusions: policy instruments types, packages, choices, and evaluation. In M-L. Bemelmans- Videc, R. C. Rist, & E. Vedung (Eds.), Carrots, sticks and sermons: Policy instruments and their evaluation (pp. 249-274). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315081748-13 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315081748-13
Cooke, M. (1998). Introduction. In M. Cooke (Ed.), On the pragmatics of communication (pp. 1-19). Cambridge: Polity Press.
Habermas, J. (1981). Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns, Band 1-2. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. (In English: The theory of communicative action. Vol. 1-2. Transl. By T. McCarthy. Boston, MA: Beacon Press 1984, 1987.)
Habermas, J. (1983). Moralbewusstsein und kommunikatives handeln. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Taschenbuch Wissenschaft.
Habermas, J. (1985). Die neue unübersichtlichkeit. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Habermas, J. (1990). Moral consciousness and communicative action. Transl. by C. Lenhardt & S. W. Nicholsen. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Habermas, J. (1993). Justification and application: remarks on discourse ethics. Transl. C. Cronin. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Habermas, J. (1998a). Actions, speech acts, linguistically mediated interactions, and the lifeworld. In M. Cooke (Ed.), On the pragmatics of communication (pp. 215-256). Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.
Habermas, J. (1998b). Richard Rorty's pragmatic turn. In M. Cooke (Ed.), On the pragmatics of communication (pp. 343-382). Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.
Habermas, J. (1998c). Some further clarifications of the concept of communicative rationality. In M. Cooke (Ed.), On the pragmatics of communication (pp. 307-342). Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.
Habermas, J. (1998d). Toward a critique of the theory of meaning. In M. Cooke (Ed.), On the pragmatics of communication (pp. 277-306). Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.
Huotari, R. (2003). A perspective on ethical reflection 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
Huotari, R. (2009). Ethical issues in agency evaluation from the viewpoint of activity theory: A basis for interorganizational learning. Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, 9 (11), 89-101. https://doi.org/10.56645/jmde.v6i11.202 DOI: https://doi.org/10.56645/jmde.v6i11.202
Laitinen, I. (2001a). Etiikkaa ja arviointia (Ethics and evaluation). Paper presented in 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. Presentation in PUMA Expert Group on Government Relations with Citizens and Civil Society. Paris. Retrieved January 21, 2010, from http://www.finnishevaluationsociety.net/tiedoston_katsominen.php?dok_id=26
Laitinen, I. (2008). Autenttinen evaluaatioetiikka. Acta Universitatis Lapponiensis 133. Rovaniemi: University of Lapland.
MacIntyre, A. (1985). After virtue: A study in moral theory (2nd ed). London: Duckworth. https://doi.org/10.2307/1051043 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1051043
Mackie, J. (1977). Ethics: Inventing right and wrong. Harmondtsworth: Penguin.
Newman, D. L., & Brown, R. D. (1996). Applied ethics for program evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438
Searle, J. R. (1979). Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. New York: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511609213 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511609213
Searle, J. R. (1999). Fact and value, "is" and "ought," and reasons for action. In G. O. Mazur (Ed.), Twenty-five year commemoration to the life of Hans Kelsen (1898-1973). New York: Semenenko Foundation.
Searle, J. R. (2008). Fact and value, "is" and "ought," and reasons for action. In Searle, J. R. (Ed.), Philosophy in a new century: Selected essays (pp. 161- 180). New York: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511812859.011 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511812859.011
Searle, J. R., & Vanderveken, D. (1985). Foundations of illocutionary logic. New York: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3167-X_5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3167-X_5
Temmes, M. (2004). Arviointityön autuus ja salahaudat arvioijan näkökulmasta. Administrative Studies, 23(2), 86-93.
Ursin, K. af. (2007). Moraali, hyveet ja eettiset normit liikkeenjohdon konsultoinnissa [Moral, virtues and ethical norms in management consulting] Tampere: Acta Universitatis Tamperensis, 1243. Retrieved January 11, 2010, from http://acta.uta.fi/pdf/978-951-44-7020-2
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., & Laitinen, I. (2004). Beyond evaluation standards? European Journal of Spatial Development. Retrieved January 19, 2010, from http://www.nordregio.se/EJSD/refereed13.pdf