Evaluation Implementation -1.02 Address Ethics for Human Participants
Ethics are important in evaluation for both philosophical and instrumental reasons. Here, we present some of the more technical, instrumental considerations in helping to assure that your evaluation meets appropriate ethical standards.
Any research or evaluation project which involves interactions—such as data collection—with human participants, or “subjects,” must consider whether or not the project requires review from an Institutional Review Board (IRB). Most colleges and universities have their own IRB; there are also private IRBs providing services to independent research and evaluation firms. IRBs were established in response to horribly unethical research practices such as those used in the Tuskegee syphilis experiment, a “clinical study conducted between 1932 and 1972 in Tuskegee, Alabama by the U.S. Public Health Service to study the natural progression of untreated syphilis in poor, rural black men who thought they were receiving free health care from the U.S. government.”[1] While most evaluations of programs do not run the same ethical risks as biomedical trials, the IRB process is designed to help ensure that evaluation participants are treated ethically.
Generally, a project needs to be submitted for at least initial review by an IRB if (1) it involves human participants, and (2) it will produce generalizable findings which will be made public. Given the second consideration, evaluations used solely for internal “management” purposes (e.g., program improvement and reporting for accountability) are typically exempted by the IRB. That is, you submit an IRB application (or in some institutions a special application asking for exemption from a full IRB review) and if the IRB determines that the evaluation meets the above criteria they may provide an exemption. Should one be granted, the exemption document is important evidence that you have addressed ethical concerns appropriately – so be sure to save it with project records. Presenting findings at professional conferences, or including them in publicity materials does make them public, and thus requires review by an IRB.
Most IRBs have their own “decision tree” to help researchers and evaluators assess what type of IRB review, if any, is required. Almost all evaluations of educational programs will be exempt from full IRB review. This process typically entails submitting a form describing the project (again, in some institutions if you think your project meets the criteria for exemption a different form is required) and waiting for approval from your IRB. It is important to check with your own institution regarding any policies and procedures related to studies involving human subjects before you begin, Regardless of whether the evaluation project is exempt from IRB review, ethical considerations remain. For example:
· Will participants be asked to give informed consent to participate in this evaluation? Most IRBs require the evaluator to clearly inform the participant that she or he is part of the evaluation, clearly describe the risks and benefits of participating in the study, and clearly state that participation in the study is optional. Usually, the participant then signs a form indicating her or his consent to participate. Note that if children/minors are involved the consent of a parent or guardian is usually required.
· Will participants be promised confidentiality? Will they be promised anonymity? Participants are assured of “confidentiality” when the evaluation team will have access to identifying information about the participant (e.g., name, ID number, unique combination of demographic characteristics that could identify them, etc.) but assures that no one else would be able to identify them individually from any evaluation results or presentations. Participants are assured “anonymity” when no identifying information is collected at all about them so that not even the evaluators can link an individual with their responses. Usually in an evaluation confidentiality is assured rather than anonymity because with confidentiality the evaluator will be able to identify individual participants and link their data from one measure with their data from another. The evaluator must make it very clear whether or not the participant’s data and information will be kept confidential or anonymous, and must have a plan to actually ensure that confidentiality or anonymity, if promised, is maintained. Whether or not participant data is anonymous and confidential depends on the nature of the evaluation—yet it is important to note that anonymity on surveys and interviews often allows respondents to offer more truthful, less guarded responses. Furthermore, confidentiality and anonymityminimize risk to a participant.
Finally, we offer another consideration which is important at every stage of evaluation planning, implementation, and utilization, yet which is presented here because it is essentially an ethical issue. Is your evaluation culturally responsive? Being culturally responsive means that the evaluation and all of its components are grounded in an understanding of the context—including culture—in which they are taking place.
[1] From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment (Retrieved 5/5/11)