1. Navigating Ethical Challenges The importance of professional mentorships in development evaluation Sarah Mason Independent Consultant

2. Introduction Development evaluation is particularly vulnerable to ethical challenges. Navigating ethical dilemmas is daunting for young evaluators given limited training in ethics. Presents a case study of one young evaluator’s experience in responding to ethical dilemmas. Highlights the utility of professional mentorships.

3. Development Evaluation Vulnerability arises from three factors: 1.Underfunding –Evaluations occur over 2 to 3 weeks at the end of a project; –Limits the base for research population; –Complicates data collection on comparison groups. 2.Data constraints –Absence of solid program records.

4. Development Evaluation 3. Systematic biases that discourage robust evaluation –Absence of an accountability feedback loop; –Incentives for positively biased evaluations; –Tendency to combine Monitoring and Evaluation and Communications / PR roles.

5. Limited Opportunities Few evaluators have training in evaluation ethics (Berends 2007); The training we receive emphasises issues of technique and methodology without consideration for the political environment (Chelimsky 2008, p.400); Ethics standards can increase anxiety (Mabry 1999); Short term contracts limit ongoing professional development opportunities.

6. Teaching Ethics Beginner evaluators move through three developmental stages with respect to ethics: 1.Naïveté and rigidity; 2.Disequilibrium; 3.Assimilation. Students progress through these stages when they receive “supportive mentoring,” encounter challenges and are encouraged to reflect.

7. Background 2010, one young evaluator won a contract to conduct a summative evaluation in East Timor. First independently conducted evaluation. Budget - $3,000. Found that the project had met three of its four indicators, but these were pre-disposed to positive bias.

8. The Ethical Dilemmas Two primary ethical dilemmas: 1.Lack of funds and time constraints led to unrepresentative sample; 2.The project manager instructed the evaluator to re-write the findings to highlight positive results. Concern that the evaluation would not assist them in gaining future funding.

9. Responses First dilemma: acknowledged limitations in the final report. Second dilemma: sought advice of a senior evaluator. “I knew how I wanted to respond but did not know if it was the right thing to do.”

10. What can we take from this? Three key lessons: 1.Access to a more experience evaluator provides opportunities for consolidation; 2.Confidence is key; 3.Uncertainty discouraged an initial request for help.

11. Conclusion Professional mentoring represents a training methodology that responds to all three. Premise: young evaluator is meant to ask for guidance; senior evaluator is willing to offer support. Advice provided in highly contextualised ‘real world’ environments. Cultivate greater practical understanding of evaluation ethics and contribute to higher quality evaluations.