Full metadata record
|dc.contributor.author||Pleger, Lyn E.||-|
|dc.contributor.author||Leeuw, Frans L.||-|
|dc.description.abstract||A second look at ethical challenges related to independence is provided by Pleger and Leeuw in this chapter. They focus on resilience as an ethical characteristic that evaluators need to have in order to be independent in a useful way. They see issues of resilience especially in light of what they call the evaluator’s dilemma to navigate between the demands of evaluation clients and the needs of a valid and credible scientific perspective in the evaluation. A survey among experienced evaluators on how they perceive resilience leads the authors to present a model of evaluator resistance that is further discussed to formulate recommendations on how resilience can be improved. They refer to the various components of independence: methodological and ethical competence of the evaluator, and organizational aspects (protocols). The new perspective proposed – that runs contrary to the more static idea of “conflict of interests” – is that “the influencing attempts from individuals involved in the evaluation” may be destructive but also constructive, according to Pleger and Leeuw. Hence, this requires thinking about the evaluator’s independence not as deafness to external negative influence, but as an ability to distinguish between destructive [undermining and distortion] and constructive [betterment and support] influence. “When independence is understood as the resistance to any external influence, then the independent evaluator would need to ignore the client’s request”, even if it would correct errors, or lead to a better-quality evaluation. Instead, what is needed is an autonomous judgment of the evaluators, which can be attained in an iterative process where they will develop “coping strategies for handling difficult situations within the evaluation process”. This movement between exposition to influence, autonomous judgment, then return to independence, is, according to Pleger and Leeuw, better captured by the concept of resilience: while the independence concept primarily outlines a situation or circumstance, resilience focuses on actions and actors.||de_CH|
|dc.relation.ispartof||Ethics for evaluation : beyond “doing no harm” to “tackling bad” and “doing good”||de_CH|
|dc.rights||Licence according to publishing contract||de_CH|
|dc.subject.ddc||155: Differentielle Psychologie und Entwicklungspsychologie||de_CH|
|dc.title||Resilient evaluators : characteristics, conditions and prospects||de_CH|
|zhaw.departement||School of Management and Law||de_CH|
|zhaw.organisationalunit||Institut für Verwaltungs-Management (IVM)||de_CH|
|zhaw.parentwork.editor||van den Berg, Rob D.||-|
|Appears in collections:||Publikationen School of Management and Law|
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Show simple item record
Pleger, L. E., & Leeuw, F. L. (2021). Resilient evaluators : characteristics, conditions and prospects. In R. D. van den Berg, P. Hawkins, & N. Stame (Eds.), Ethics for evaluation : beyond “doing no harm” to “tackling bad” and “doing good” (pp. 141–161). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003247234-9
Pleger, L.E. and Leeuw, F.L. (2021) ‘Resilient evaluators : characteristics, conditions and prospects’, in R.D. van den Berg, P. Hawkins, and N. Stame (eds) Ethics for evaluation : beyond “doing no harm” to “tackling bad” and “doing good”. London: Routledge, pp. 141–161. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003247234-9.
L. E. Pleger and F. L. Leeuw, “Resilient evaluators : characteristics, conditions and prospects,” in Ethics for evaluation : beyond “doing no harm” to “tackling bad” and “doing good”, R. D. van den Berg, P. Hawkins, and N. Stame, Eds. London: Routledge, 2021, pp. 141–161. doi: 10.4324/9781003247234-9.
Pleger, Lyn E., and Frans L. Leeuw. “Resilient Evaluators : Characteristics, Conditions and Prospects.” Ethics for Evaluation : Beyond “Doing No Harm” to “Tackling Bad” and “Doing Good”, edited by Rob D. van den Berg et al., Routledge, 2021, pp. 141–61, https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003247234-9.
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.