{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03860232945091514, 'fraction_numerical': 0.02961730449251248, 'mean_word_length': 5.2887029288702925, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Reflections on Guiding Principle E

When the Guiding Principles for Evaluators were published in 1995, they were accompanied by chapters reflecting on and critiquing the principles from different perspectives (American Evaluation Association, 1995; Shadish, Newman, Scheirer, & Wye, 1995). Since then, many contributors to the Ethical Challenges section in this journal have used the principles as a framework for their responses to ethical dilemmas posed in scenarios (Datta, 2002). In addition, at least one session focusing on the principles can usually be found at the annual conference of the American Evaluation Association (AEA). Despite the attention that the principles get in these ways and through the activities of AEA’s Ethics Committee, few critical reflections on one or more of the principles have been published since 1995. Notable exceptions include Datta (2002), Smith (2002), Mabry (1999), and Mertens (2002). The articles by Datta (2002) and Smith (2002) are the result of invited meta-analyses of the responses of commentators to Ethical Challenges scenarios from 1998 to 2001 (Morris, 2002). Both authors remarked on the uneven application of the Guiding Principles and the Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation (1994) Program Evaluation Standards to the analysis of the scenarios, but concluded that they are nonetheless useful. Datta, however, distinguished between their utility as a ‘‘framework for analyzing ethical issues’’ (p. 194) and their utility as a guide to action: ‘‘One hopes for more than a verbal Rorschach, yet the Principles in particular seem so open to interpretation that a wide range of values, preferences, or opinions can be projected onto them’’ (p. 195). Also questioning the utility of ethical codes as a means of securing ethical practice, Mabry (2002) wrote that while ‘‘familiarity with the Standards and Principles helps . . . resolution of ethical conflicts comes largely from within, if it comes at all’’ (p. 210). She called particular attention to the lack of consensus about what constitutes the public good. Perhaps reflecting this lack of consensus, Mertens (2002) argued that the principles need to incorporate values of inclusivity and social justice more explicitly. Although not a critique or analysis, another article during this time also focused on the role of the principles in serving the public good. Specifically, MacNeil (2002) recommended the use of deliberative forums as a means of manifesting Principle E, Responsibilities for General and Public Welfare, in practice. Principle E states, ‘‘Evaluators articulate and take into account the diversity of general and public interests and values’’ (AEA, 2004). The general statement is followed by five more specific statements about inclusion, scope, access, balance, and social justice. In this Ethical Challenges section, two evaluators examine Principle E from different perspectives. The first reflection comes from Michael Morris (2007), former editor of the