Who Is Afraid of Evaluation? Ethics in Evaluation Research as a Way to Cope With Excessive Evaluation Anxiety

Bechar, Shlomit; Mero-Jaffe, Irit

doi:10.1177/1098214013512555

Cited by 13 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…External supervisors work in a conflict-prone environment, and the very process of evaluation is an occasion for disagreement, where controversy may be the rule rather than the exception. 37 Anxiety may be expected and is to some extent beneficial in evaluation, yet in our data we find signs of so-called excessive evaluation anxiety, including conflict, avoidance, resistance, shame and anger, 17 , 18 which may all inhibit performance. While this is unpleasant for providers, such environment may also wear down evaluators in their aspirations for objective evaluations and respectful professional relations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 62%

“… 9 Evaluation has been described as the main manifestation of the supervisory power differential 15 and is a known source of tension and anxiety. 16 , 17 , 18 Studies on supervision in psychotherapy practice found strong yet complicated interactions between the practice of performance evaluation and quality of the supervisory relationship. 19 Supervisors carrying dual roles of performance evaluator and clinical supporter may find the trust from supervisees threatened if evaluations take place in the absence of basic mutual understanding.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The relationship between primary healthcare providers and their external supervisors in Rwanda

Schriver

Cubaka

Nyirazinyoye

et al. 2017

Afr. j. prim. health care fam. med.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundExternal supervision of Rwandan primary healthcare facilities unfolds as an interaction between supervisors and healthcare providers. Their relationship has not been thoroughly studied in Rwanda, and rarely in Africa.AimTo explore perceived characteristics and effects of the relationship between providers in public primary healthcare facilities and their external supervisors in Rwanda.SettingWe conducted three focus group discussions with primary healthcare providers (n = 16), three with external supervisors (n = 15) and one mixed (n = 5).MethodsFocus groups were facilitated under low-moderator involvement. Findings were extracted thematically and discussed with participating and non-participating providers and supervisors.ResultsWhile external supervision is intended as a source of motivation and professional development in addition to its managerial purpose, it appeared linked to excessive evaluation anxiety among Rwandan primary healthcare providers. Supervisors related this mainly to inescapable evaluations within performance-based financing, whereas providers additionally related it to communication problems.ConclusionExternal supervision appeared driven by systematic performance evaluations, which may prompt a strongly asymmetric supervisory power relation and challenge intentions to explore providers’ experienced work problems. There is a risk that this may harm provider motivation, calling for careful attention to factors that influence the supervisory relationship. It is a dilemma that providers most in need of supervision to improve performance may be most unlikely to benefit from it. This study reveals a need for provider-oriented supportive supervision including constructive attention on providers who have performance difficulties, effective relationship building and communication, objective and diligent evaluation and two-way feedback channels.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 62%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The relationship between primary healthcare providers and their external supervisors in Rwanda

Schriver

Cubaka

Nyirazinyoye

et al. 2017

Afr. j. prim. health care fam. med.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…XEA is a negative anxiety resulting from the evaluation process and experienced by evaluation participants including program staff. There are many ways in which XEA appears to have manifested itself in previous studies, including access issues, inaccurate data reporting, conflict, and reluctance to participate or cooperate (see also Bechar and Mero-Jaffe, 2014). The manifestation of evaluation anxiety in program settings is considered to be deeply unproductive, and can render 'evaluation data and findings worthless', and 'undermine the credibility of evaluators' (Donaldson et al, 2002, p.263).…”

Section: Challenges Facing Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation for What Purpose? Findings From Two Stakeholder Groups

Wond

2018

Responsibility and Governance

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A host of reasons exist for the pursuit of evidence in the public sector, including to support good governance and policy development. As the expectations for program evaluation from policymakers have evolved, so too has evaluation practice and a great deal of experimentalism has ensued. There is a risk that these developments and the complexity inherent in them, may lead to conflicting expectations about why program evaluation is done, or even a loss of purpose. This prompts the meso-level analysis of two types of stakeholders in a governance network, explored in this chapter. This chapter presents the findings of an ongoing study which explores the perceptions of program evaluators and policy implementers towards the purpose of evidence. The findings suggest that program evaluators and policy implementers have divergent expectations of why and how evaluation data might be used. The findings suggest that program evaluators aspire to support change and enhance the policy domains they serve, whereas policy implementers perceive program evaluation as serving a more governance-/managementorientated role. The chapter demonstrates the complexity of both program evaluation and policy and may have implications for the twin pillars of governance and responsibility at the heart of the book. If governance and responsibility are the twin pillars of sustainability then the complex networks of relationships, expectations, values, and outcomes may need to be considered. The findings also have implications for evaluation commissioners and practitioners, demonstrating the need for the purpose and expectations of program evaluation to be agreed early. The use of program evaluation as a symbolic, aesthetic or structural mechanism also emerges, prompting opportunity for further research, for instance, to explore legitimacy and program evaluation.

show abstract

“…9 Challenges can arise at virtually every stage—from the design of the evaluation through its conduct and eventual publication—to the extent that ‘evaluation anxiety’ is a known phenomenon. 10 Those being evaluated may be subjected to judgements about behaviour and outcomes against externally agreed targets. The detailed examination of individual, group and organisational practices may be experienced as risky and unpleasant, and strains in the relationships between the different parties may easily arise.…”

Section: Challenges In Conducting Programme Evaluationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

What to expect when you're evaluating healthcare improvement: a concordat approach to managing collaboration and uncomfortable realities

Brewster¹,

Aveling²,

Martin³

et al. 2015

BMJ Qual Saf

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evaluation of improvement initiatives in healthcare is essential to establishing whether interventions are effective and to understanding how and why they work in order to enable replication. Although valuable, evaluation is often complicated by tensions and friction between evaluators, implementers and other stakeholders. Drawing on the literature, we suggest that these tensions can arise from a lack of shared understanding of the goals of the evaluation; confusion about roles, relationships and responsibilities; data burdens; issues of data flows and confidentiality; the discomforts of being studied and the impact of disappointing or otherwise unwelcome results. We present a possible approach to managing these tensions involving the co-production and use of a concordat. We describe how we developed a concordat in the context of an evaluation of a complex patient safety improvement programme known as Safer Clinical Systems Phase 2. The concordat development process involved partners (evaluators, designers, funders and others) working together at the outset of the project to agree a set of principles to guide the conduct of the evaluation. We suggest that while the concordat is a useful resource for resolving conflicts that arise during evaluation, the process of producing it is perhaps even more important, helping to make explicit unspoken assumptions, clarify roles and responsibilities, build trust and establish open dialogue and shared understanding. The concordat we developed established some core principles that may be of value for others involved in evaluation to consider. But rather than seeing our document as a ready-made solution, there is a need for recognition of the value of the process of co-producing a locally agreed concordat in enabling partners in the evaluation to work together effectively.

show abstract

Who Is Afraid of Evaluation? Ethics in Evaluation Research as a Way to Cope With Excessive Evaluation Anxiety

Cited by 13 publications

References 33 publications

The relationship between primary healthcare providers and their external supervisors in Rwanda

The relationship between primary healthcare providers and their external supervisors in Rwanda

Evaluation for What Purpose? Findings From Two Stakeholder Groups

What to expect when you're evaluating healthcare improvement: a concordat approach to managing collaboration and uncomfortable realities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About