Given Hapunda

124 Introduction Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) involves collecting, analysing and communicating information about a project and most, if not all projects involve people. There is therefore need to conduct the M&E process in an ethical manner, particularly paying attention to the welfare of those involved in the process as well as those affected by it (International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies [IFRC], 2011). The discussion of ethics in evaluation is linked to the debate about values of evaluation. Values in evaluation refer to opinions, beliefs, preferences, interests, wants, needs or desires of different stakeholders (House & Rowe, 1999). Ethical standards are followed or breached because of values. Therefore, the first question to ask when conducting monitoring and evaluation particularly the one that takes a participatory approach is: Whose values (preferences, interests, wants, need or desires) are we doing this (monitoring and evaluation) for? Is it for the donor, board of directors or the primary beneficiaries? Values influence our choices directly or indirectly as shown in the scenarios below (Focus Box .1): The importance of ethical issues in M&E can be summarized by two quotations: “It is truly unethical to leave ethics out of programme evaluation” - Scriven (1993; 30). “Ethics is not something for special occasion; it is a part of daily practice” – Newman & Brown (1996; 187). What then are ethics? Ethics are sets of values and beliefs that guide our choices (Morra-Imas & Rist, 2009). Mathison (2005) defines ethics as a moral duty and obligation, involving actions that are subject to be judged as good or bad, right or wrong. Because evaluation research is action-oriented and participatory, it poses many ethical dilemmas and political pressures. Focus Box 1: Ethical Scenarios in Evaluation Dr. Mwiinga received a call from Mr. Banda the Learning, Monitoring & Evaluation manger asking him if he would be willing to be engaged as a data analyst for the baseline data which his organization had just collected. Dr. Mwiinga agreed, but Mr. Banda interrupted him before he could even say thank you and said this is very urgent, we need the results by end of next week. Therefore, Dr. Mwiinga asked the data to be sent ASAP. Upon receiving the data, Dr. Mwiinga started with data cleaning and assessing missing values and response bias. Shockingly, he discovered 63% of missing data and called Mr. Banda that the data had too much missing values, and that would warrant the data to be invalid. Mr. Banda with an angry tone responded, “ I do not care, our donors are coming and are expecting results which will be discussed with them. I want the results to be on my table by next week - stressing that that’s why he (Dr. Mwiinga) is being paid ”. Gently, Dr. Mwiinga responded that he would analyse the data, but the results will be invalid (not a reflection of situation) hence requesting his name not to appear on the acknowledgment section of contracted data analyst consultant.