Abstract
The politics of “bean counting” often trump the methods of counting. As a result, program fate is sometimes decided independent of the count’s results. In The Potpourri case, our evaluator friend faces the question: What if the count’s results are actually going to be used to make program decisions? Should I weave the best possible scenario I can with the available data? Of course, positive results that appear inflated can call into question the evaluator’s competence and, consequently, do more harm than good to the program. Faced with these concerns, our evaluator opens the leaflet on the Guiding Principles for Evaluators and visits the Western Michigan University web site to review the Joint Committee Standards. Does she find clear answers? Or does she find ambiguity and pangs of conscience? Is she able to identify herself as a principled evaluation professional? Or is the path too muddled to tell? In the first section of this commentary, I examine aspects of the Principles and Standards that, in my view, are related to the case, and offer my position on these issues. In the second section, I describe what I would do differently if I had the luxury of starting the case from scratch. In this context, it is important to remember that “the principles are supposed to begin a dialogue, not end it.” (House, 1995, p. 31) It is in this spirit that I state opinions that may only marginally relate to the specifics of The Potpourri, but allow us to address general ethical concerns in a way that prevents them from evolving into genuine ethical dilemmas.