The Program Evaluation Standards in International Settings

18 Sandy Taut1994, p. 72), in hierarchical cultures it might be crucial for a successful evaluation to attend toone (the most powerful, not necessarily the most important) stakeholder group more thananother. Generally, in more conservative (as opposed to autonomous) cultures, it is desirable torefrain from actions that might disrupt the solidarity of the group or traditional order (seeSchwartz 1994a, in: Berry et al., 1997, Vol. 3, p. 99). In these cultures, political influences arelikely to be stronger than in more autonomous societies like the United States where people seekto express their opinions (see Jang, 2000, p. 10, for South Korean example). In India, forexample, according to Smith et al. (1994, p. 3), “the quality of one’s evaluation work is morelikely to be judged on political than on technical or professional grounds.”Propriety StandardsMiller and colleagues (1990, in: Berry et al., 1997, Vol. 3, p. 24) argue that “[…]conceptions of morality vary across cultures: A justice-based notion of morality that emphasizesautonomy of the individual and individual rights […] is found predominantly in individualisticcultural contexts.” This notion of morality (or propriety) relies upon impartial rules andstandards that are equally applicable to everybody. In contrast, in collectivist cultures “[…]morality constitutes a social practice that should be understood in terms of a duty-basedinterpersonal code.” Lewy (1984, p. 379) also points out the contextual dependency of ethicalcategories. Stufflebeam (1986, p. 4) notes that the Propriety Standards are “particularlyAmerican.” Russon & Patel (1999, p. 8) quote their African focus group participants consentingthat the Propriety Standards portray “the greatest challenges” for transferability.There is also a close connection between the Propriety Standards and the Hierarchy-Egalitarianism cultural dimension; egalitarian cultures stress the moral equality of individuals(Schwartz 1994a, in: Berry et al., 1997, Vol. 3, p. 63) while hierarchical societies emphasize thelegitimacy of inequality of individuals and groups. Jang (2000, p. 24) notes that incollectivist/hierarchical societies, ethical problems (as seen through Western eyes) might be“rationalized as being in the group’s best interest.” In addition, there are high-context cultureswhich stress situational (context) information when judging behavior. In contrast, low-contextcultures, like the United States, refer more often to dispositional information, based on theassumption that traits have generality over time and situations (see Berry et al., 1997, Vol. 3, p.63). For all the reasons mentioned above, it generally seems difficult to transfer the ProprietyStandards to collectivist/hierarchical/high-context cultures.P1 Service OrientationEvaluations should be designed to assistorganizations to address and effectively serve the needs of the full range of targetedparticipants.Specifically, Standard P1, Service Orientation, calls for serving “program participants,community, and society” (Joint Committee, 1994, p. 83). In societies where there are largedifferences between individual/group status and goals (and where these differences areconsidered legitimate), this range of service delivery seems to be out of reach for the evaluator.Consumer rights, mirroring service orientation and reflected by legislation, also vary across