Cohen Barry B
Rainbow Research, Inc., Minneapolis 55408, MN, USA.
Eval Program Plann. 2012 Feb;35(1):189-98. doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2010.11.002. Epub 2010 Dec 21.
Using case examples, the author describes circumstances under which violence and conflict, overt and covert, have impinged on his evaluation field work. When fear is pervasive, it constrains people's ability and willingness to participate in an evaluation and their candor if they do. It can also be dangerous. Safety and well-being of participants and researchers in his view take priority over the evaluation's goals. Evaluation involving people who are survivors of violence, torture and conflict requires special sensitivity and examples are offered of appropriate methodologies. Stakeholders in evaluations presumably have beneficent interest in a program's success. However in conflict situations 'malevolent' stakeholders, who standing to gain from a project's failure, will actively try to thwart it. Undermining the evaluation as well and impugning the evaluator's objectivity, skill, knowledge and credibility are among the tactics they employ. Evaluators are urged to stay attuned to field conditions, consider alternative methods and locations for collecting data and be self-conscious and deliberate about how their study and role are defined and understood by contending parties.
作者通过案例,描述了暴力和冲突(公开的和隐蔽的)对其评估实地工作造成影响的情况。当恐惧弥漫时,它会限制人们参与评估的能力和意愿,以及他们参与评估时的坦诚程度。这也可能很危险。在他看来,参与者和研究人员的安全与福祉优先于评估目标。涉及暴力、酷刑和冲突幸存者的评估需要特别的敏感性,并提供了适当方法的示例。评估中的利益相关者大概对项目的成功有着善意的兴趣。然而,在冲突情况下,“恶意”的利益相关者(他们会从项目失败中获利)会积极试图阻挠项目。破坏评估以及诋毁评估者的客观性、技能、知识和可信度是他们采用的策略之一。敦促评估者密切关注实地情况,考虑收集数据的替代方法和地点,并自觉且审慎地思考竞争各方如何界定和理解他们的研究及角色。