Location: CBC Campus - SWL 208 Time: Mondays from 5:30-8:15 Week 05: 2/10/20 Topic and Content Area: Ethical Issues and Cultural Competency Reading Assignment: Kapp and Anderson chapters 5-6 Assignments Due: A-02 Reading Quiz 02/10/20 A-04a: Weekly Journal 02 02/16/20 Other Important Information: N/A
Ethics and program evaluation Steps in an ethical program evaluation Special presentation from Pacific University Oregon Cultural competence Implicit bias
[Small Group Activity] Working in groups of 4-6, brainstorm the top 10 ways to conduct a program evaluation in an unethical manner. [Whole Class Activity] Have a representative come to the front, of the room. Go round robin have each group representative share a different unethical practice until the lists have been exhausted and not repeating any.
There are some things that we can do as practitioners to help safeguard against unethical behavior in program evaluation Assume harm and risk: Always risk… [Whole Class Activity] Brainstorm examples of what some of these risks might be Identify and address risk: Risks should be documented and explicitly discussed as well as planned to help mitigate. Think process for IRB. Cultivate mutual responsibility: between parties involved in the development/implementation of the program evaluation Incorporate scrutiny: Work with stakeholders, for blindspots Understand the setting: Unable to understand the risk to the population unless understand the setting and population Avoid deception: Openness and transparency
The following would be some steps to help ensure that your evaluation is done ethically. Plan that includes participant identification, sound methodology, and reporting plan Identify and review IRB guidelines and requirements Address policies and procedures required for protection of human subjects and informed consent Submit the evaluation plan and procedures to an agency board for review and approval Work with stakeholders to obtain cooperation Ensure informed consent and privacy Report to relevant stakeholders
Discussion from Pacific University in Oregon
There are three types of groups that do evaluations. Internal (agency-based evaluation resources) External University or Educational Organization Consulting Firm
What are some words that should be included in a definition of cultural competence?
must be woven throughout the evaluation process, regardless of how you characterize the steps.
Where I am from (nationality, region, and heritage)? What are my beliefs, values, and religious and political orientations? What is my biological sex and gender identity? What is my age group? What is my social class? What are my vocations and avocations What life events have greatly affected me? Which of the above factors are significant to me? What do I see as resources I can use in this evaluation? What do I see as potential opportunities, challenges, or conflict for this evaluation What stereotypes do I hold?
bit.ly/huimplicit Choose Skin-tone IAT Implicit bias refers to attitudes or stereotypes that affect our understanding, actions, and decisions in an unconscious manner. EVERYone has implicit bias. Having implicit bias does not make you a bad evaluator. Failing to recognize and consciously challenge your implicit bias can contribute to bad evaluations.
The following are the questions we should be able to answer as we finish planning for our evaluation Have we constructed a sample or scope of study that is inclusive of diverse people served? How have we addressed language and literacy to assure accuracy and inclusiveness in our study? What material resources have we identified and reviewed to education ourselves about the agency and the persons served? Are there actions or steps that we can take to increase the sense of comfort or safety for evaluation participants? Have we identified key descriptors and outcomes in an accurate manner that avoids negative stereotypes and includes program and participate strengths? Have we inquired about demographic and culturally related information for participants to identify factors that help understand their experiences? Are there specific ways that we can sensitively convey respect for people’s efforts and time commitment while they are participating in the study? Have we been sufficiently sensitive to potential stigma or vulnerabilities experienced by evaluation participants? In what ways have we been attentive to confidentiality at each stage of the evaluation? Are there ways in which the study process and findings can actually provide benefits to the present or future recipients of services? Have we discovered information that can and should inform advocacy efforts?