The Program Evaluation Standards in International Settings

20 Sandy TautP5 Complete and Fair Assessment The evaluation should be complete and fair in itsexamination and recording of strengths and weaknesses of the program beingevaluated, so that strengths can be built upon and problem areas addressed.Standard P5, Complete and Fair Assessment, examining a program to find both strengthsand weaknesses, seems a goal for evaluators everywhere, despite multiple factors that might getin the way of this Standard, for example, pressures exerted by powerful stakeholders to stresseither strengths or weaknesses. These pressures could be said to have more impact on evaluatorsin hierarchical and collectivist societies (also see analysis of Standard P7,‘Conflict of Interest’).P6 Disclosure of Findings The formal parties to an evaluation should ensure thatthe full set of evaluation findings along with pertinent limitations are made accessibleto the persons affected by the evaluation, and any others with expressed legal rights toreceive the results.Standard P6, Disclosure of Findings, displays the right to know which is legally grantedto United States citizens as part of the Bill of Rights. As an example of how values provideultimate standards, Peoples & Bailey (1997, p. 28) mention “the American emphasis on certainrights of individuals as embodied in the Bill of Rights in the Constitution […] Freedom of thepress, of speech, and of religion are ultimate standards […].” In cultures other than the UnitedStates, these issues do not play such a vital role in an individual’s rights (see Beywl, 1996). Forexample, Hendricks & Conner (1995, p. 85) point out that Australia has a Freedom ofInformation Act but “it would be difficult (even under this act) to allow all relevant stakeholdersto have access to evaluative information, and …actively disseminate that information tostakeholders.” In addition, the “code of directness, openness, and completeness” (JointCommittee, 1994, p. 109) might not be in accordance with the preference (and superiority) ofindirect communication and the existence of hierarchical structures in certain cultures. Jang(2000, p. 15) states that in South Korea, “the task of ‘fully’ informing research subjects who areunfamiliar with the purposes and procedures of the study is not the first concern.” Likewise,absence of such disclosure might not, as claimed in the Standards (p. 109), threaten theevaluation’s credibility. To the contrary, the absence of disclosure may preserve the evaluation'scredibility in some cultures. Smith et al. (1993, p. 10) offer an example of the acceptable absenceof disclosure when they refer to both Maltese and Indian cultures. For these cultures, thepossibility of “placing someone in jeopardy” (e.g., by negative evaluation findings) is nevercommunicated in writing, thus limiting the disclosure of findings.