RESEARCH ETHICS AND EVALUATION: SOME GENERAL GUIDELINES
INTRODUCTION
This paper briefly explores some of the key issues that specifically relate to research
data arising from evaluation activities which may be considered relevant and useful
for other purposes beyond that originally envisaged in the initial investigation. It is
designed to inform and support students and academics to reflect on general guidelines
using some practical strategies including case studies.
The crucial ethical question with this kind of research is as follows:

what has the informant/participant explicitly consented to and how does this
relate to the subsequent use of the evaluation data.
Identifying the points of ethical conflict is often one of the most difficult jobs in the early
and ongoing stages of research design and practice. Most people find it helpful to begin
by: (i)
identifying the issue(s) or potential ‘points of conflict’ - for example, to
provide a convincing reflection on, and adoption of, ethical practice the
researcher needs to move beyond naming the issue (e.g., data ownership and
access, plagiarism, etc.) to describing the nature of the moral conflict. What
constitutes an ethical conflict? A dilemma, by definition, is a situation in
which rights or obligations of interested parties conflict.
(ii)
considering interested parties - for example, consider the reasonable
expectations (rights) of each interested party.
(iii)
reflecting on consequences - for example, with each action considered there
are often several possible outcomes. The challenge in identifying
consequences is not to identify every remote consequence, but to identify
those that have a good probability of occurring, or those that would have very
serious consequences even if the probability of occurrence is not particularly
high. When considering consequences, be sure to consider, in turn, each of the
interested parties and the probable consequences of the proposed action on
those parties.
(iv)
obligations - for example, in each case consider primarily the commitments
given verbally and/ or in writing and the obligations of the researcher
/evaluator toward the research and/ or evaluation participant(s).
These general practice guidelines, endorsed by the University of Derby Research Ethics
Committee, encourage research students and academics to crystallise their thinking and
research plans in relation to using evaluation data for research purposes.
1
In addition, there are other key factors for consideration such as: 
It is important that whatever the participants have consented to this is recorded
formally in writing both in terms of the nature of consent and whether or not the
participant has consented. In practice, research informant(s)/participants consent
explicitly to whatever the researcher(s) specify on the consent form as a preamble
to the consent response required i.e. usually a tick in a box and a dated signature.

The detail of the consent statement that the researcher uses should include a
number of parameters that can cover:
o the purpose for which the participants’ data is to be used;
o with whom the data is to be shared and reported; and
o how the data will be anonymised so that no one individual can be
identified within the reported data.
A key issue is that whilst the original individual ‘raw data’ from participants must be kept
securely within a specific location and destroyed within a specific timescale, the
summaries of the data emerging from the original evaluation will be stored and can be
shared more flexibly over a longer timescale and within multiple contexts. In many cases,
the researcher(s) gaining ‘informed consent’ can seldom predict how much of this will
happen or what form it takes, so consent to this long-term process of public reviewing
and reprocessing the research can rarely be specific.
Guideline 1
As long as the anonymised data contributes to the study of the particular topic under
consideration, - i.e. it has the same broad purpose as the original evaluation activity- and
as long as it does not breach any other terms of the consent- notably informant/participant
confidentiality and privacy- it is generally not considered an abuse of the
informant/participants consent (see Croti, 2000). Some research based on pre-existing
evaluations may also take this form. Research based on these evaluation returns which
summarises, combines, subjects them to different quantitative and/ or qualitative
analyses, without departing from the original stated purpose of the evaluation, is not
generally considered as an abuse of informant/participant consent unless it breaches some
other part of the terms of consent, particularly confidentiality and anonymity.
Guideline 2
Research which uses evaluation returns for another research agenda (for example,
studying how the exact wording of questions on an evaluation form affects the way
respondents answer that question) would, in our view, need specific consent from the
people who completed the evaluations, because the purpose is different from that which
the informant/participant explicitly gave consent.
Guideline 3
2
Research which focuses on the detail of informant/participants evaluation comments – for
instance a qualitative re-interpretation of the evaluation comments – would need specific
consent because it is potentially exposing the detail of those comments in a way that the
informant/participant could not have anticipated when they completed the form.
SOME PRACTICAL CASE STUDIES
Example 1
Your research colleague has recorded ten adult interviews from a small-scale evaluation
project undertaken as part of her organisations’ work on developing reflective practice
with counsellors /advisers. The evaluation participants were asked verbally if their
responses could be used as part of a planned organisational research programme and they
all willingly consented to this. As a new PhD student, sponsored by the company, you
wish to draw upon the earlier data analysis but you are concerned that the ten adults
haven’t completed your PhD consent form?
Q1.
Should you go back to each interviewee to seek agreement for your additional
use of their recorded interview?
ANSWER
Q2.
It depends on the purpose of using the data and how this will be utilised in
relation to the original intentions of the evaluation activity. From the
outset, processing evaluation data and then converting this into research
can rarely be specific; therefore, it is recommended that an ethically
sensitive and cautious approach should be adopted whereby individuals
are contacted again to invite them to reaffirm their willingness for the
original data to be used for an extended purpose.
Should you accept the word of a colleague that informed consent has been
given and proceed to use the evaluation data as you see fit?
ANSWER
No! Remember it is important that whatever the participants have
consented to, that this is recorded formally in writing both in terms of the
nature of consent and whether or not the participant has consented.
Example 2
A national evaluation survey of 190,000 young people in X which explores their level of
awareness and satisfaction with local youth services yields a positive response rate
(20%). The organisation who has commissioned the evaluation survey has highlighted to
a local university research team its current use of the data which in part feeds into staff
performance reviews. A university researcher is then invited to build upon the evaluation
work, using both quantitative and qualitative data, to analyse findings and report on staff
performance in local youth services. It is suggested that some questions contained within
3
the evaluation results will provide answers to this research question and ideally the work
needs to be completed in a short timescale.
Q1.
Should the researcher accept the guidance provided by the commissioning
organisation and simply extract findings from relevant questions for analysis?
ANSWER:
The basis principles of ethical research need to be adhered to as outlined
in (i) – (iv) above. In essence, what was the purpose was the original
evaluation data and is there any meaningful relationship that can be made
with the proposed research study? A strong case could be made that the
national evaluation survey investigated a different topic therefore the
appropriateness of using results from the evaluation should be questioned.
Example 3
A research project was undertaken whereby participants were given a task to do and
asked to verbalise their thoughts and actions while doing the task. These vocalisations
were recorded and transcribed verbatim. The participants also completed a questionnaire.
They signed consent forms which stated they agreed for their questionnaire and
transcripts to be analysed anonymously for a research project looking at their intentions
and attitudes. These data were analysed and written up for publication. A couple of
years later a PhD student is asked to qualitatively re-analyse the transcripts to have a
more in-depth look at the way in which intentions and actions are verbalised.
Q1.
Should you go back to each interviewee to seek agreement for your additional
use of their transcripts?
ANSWER
Q2.
This extended study has the same broad purpose as the original research
activity, it is a more in-depth analysis using a different analytical method.
It does not breach any other terms of the consent such as informant/
participant confidentiality and privacy and is not considered an abuse of
the informant/participants consent. It is therefore not necessary to contact
all the participants again to get further consent.
Should the PhD student accept the word of their supervisor that informed
consent had been given and proceed to use the data for this further purpose?
ANSWER
No! Remember it is important that whatever the participants have
consented to, that this is recorded formally in writing both in terms of the
nature of consent and whether or not the participant has consented. The
PhD student should satisfy themselves that the participants did all give
consent and that they are not breaching any part of that consent. Ideally
they should see the consent forms themselves, to check the information
they contain. For example did any of the participants state they did NOT
want any part of their anonymised transcripts be used for quotes in
4
published work? In making further use of the data the student must follow
all the terms under which the consent was given.
PRACTICAL STRATEGIES
DO

Have a short statement and a tick-box on evaluation forms so that
informant/participants can explicitly agree to further follow up which indicates
they are willing to be contacted again to discuss their participation in research.

Refer to useful websites as indicated below to help expand your knowledge and
increase your awareness of the interface between evaluation and research
activities.

Develop and discuss with colleagues anonymised case studies of ‘real life’
evaluation and research dilemmas and use research ethical codes of practice from
relevant professional bodies to inform and guide your practice.

Seek out an impartial ‘third party’ perspective(s) if and when a moral dilemma
occurs.
DON’T

Simply take the word of others that informed consent has been gained by previous
evaluation and/ or research participants – seek out written evidence on this at all
times.

Rush ahead and try to make connections between evaluation and research for
convenience sake. Inevitably this will significantly weaken your research and
potentially invalidate the findings.

Assume that you can easily take evaluation questionnaire findings and then
simply translate or transcribe these for your own research purpose.

Struggle on your own trying to decide if the linkage between an evaluation
activity and further activity is ethically sound – talk to others and identify the
moral conflict and where this is likely to occur.
USEFUL WEBSITES
American Evaluation Association. Guiding Principles for Evaluators Training Package.
http://www.eval.org/GPTaining/GPTrainingOverview.asp
[Includes Guiding Principles (pdf); powerpoint presentations and case studies].
5
Qualidata Process Guide: Qualitative Data Processing.
http://www.esds.ac.uk/qualidata/documents/dataprocess.doc
Journal Articles
American Evaluation Association (1994). Guiding principles for evaluators. New
Directions for Evaluation, 66, pp. 19-26.
Brobeck, S., 1990. The Need for Better Ethical Guidelines for Conducting and Reporting
Research. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 5(2), pp. 194-200.
Corti, L. Progress and Problems of Preserving and Providing Access to Qualitative Data
for Social Research—The International Picture of an Emerging Culture. Forum Quality
Social Researching. 1, (3 ) – December 2000.
http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/3-00/3-00corti-e.htm#g7
LaPolt, E.K. Ethical Dilemmas in Program Evaluation and Research Design.
[online paper] http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/tutorial/Lapolt/lizhtm.htm
LOVELL, R.G., 1995. Ethics and Internal Evaluators. New Directions for Program
Evaluation, (66), pp. 61-67.
Madak, P.R., 1994. Ethical Considerations when Using Qualitative Methods in
Evaluation. The Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation/La Revue canadienne
d'evaluation de programme, 9(2), pp. 1-13.
Newman, D.L., 1995. The Future of Ethics in Evaluation: Developing the Dialogue. New
Directions for Program Evaluation, no.66, (66), pp. 99-110.
Rossi, P.H., 1995. Doing Good and Getting It Right. New Directions for Program
Evaluation, (66), pp. 55-59.
Shaw, I.F., 2003. Ethics in Qualitative Research and Evaluation. Journal of Social Work,
3(1), pp. 9-29.
Zuniga, R.B., 2001. Evaluation in the Public Sphere: Science, Ethics and Policy. Cahiers
de recherche sociologique, (35), pp. 15-30.
Other useful publications
6
Hughes, D., Bowes, L., Hartas, D., and Popham, I (2001). A Little Book of Evaluation.
Sheffield: CSNU
Visit: http://www.derby.ac.uk/files/icegs_a_little_book_of_evaluation2001.pdf
7