評鑑委員的評鑑倫理：爭議與守則

國內大專院校評鑑實務直至2005年科技大學評鑑時，才開始規範訪評委員倫理準則。當前雖然已有一些國外評鑑專業團體發展的評鑑倫理守則，然因在不同的國情及文化脈絡下，國內社會大眾的價值觀，明顯與歐美各國有所不同，因此若全盤移植國外評鑑倫理守則的文件，勢必面臨不同文化帶來不同價值觀的衝擊。準此，本研究旨在探究評鑑委員在評鑑中所遭遇之倫理爭議及克服爭議的倫理守則，以半結構式訪談20位專家獲取實務上的倫理爭議問題，經5位專家審議問題與守則的對應後，並對32位德懷術專家問卷調查以建構評鑑委員倫理守則，經資料分析後獲致以下結論：一、評鑑委員執行評鑑時的倫理爭議共23項，包括19項個人的議題及4項團隊的議題。二、評鑑委員因應倫理爭議應遵守的評鑑倫理守則共21項，其中核心價值倫理共5項，程序正義倫理共16項。

關鍵字

評鑑倫理；評鑑委員；倫理守則

並列摘要

Ethic guidelines for college and university evaluation did not exist until 2005, but the content has mostly related to interpersonal relationships. However, some foreign professional evaluation associations or societies have proposed evaluation ethic codes. These might differ in culture and value from Taiwan, so it would be better not to simply adopt these ethic codes. This study therefore discusses the controversial issues surrounding evaluator's ethics to construct ethic codes for evaluators. To achieve this, the current study first conducts a literature review and emphasizes three issues, including the meaning of professional evaluation ethics, evaluator ethic principles developed by the evaluation professional community, and the challenge of evaluators' ethic in evaluation practice. This research used a semi-structured interview to collect information from twenty experts (including six educational administrators, two representative agents in the evaluation association, seven experienced evaluators and five staff who never served as evaluators). The records were sent to interviewees by mail to confirm the content. The records were then coded using Atlas. ti version 5.2. and five experts were invited to review and refine the correspondence about controversial issues and ethic codes to overcome the controversial issues. After defining the ethic code, another thirty-two experts were involved in Delphi experts team (eleven evaluation experts and evaluators who were served as evaluation agents by the ministry of education, another eleven who were asked to serve as evaluation agents by the ministry of education and ten administrators from different universities.) for the third round of the Delphi questionnaire. The criterion judged whether the common consensus reached was a coefficient of variance or not. When the coefficient of variance had less value then 0.1, the common consensus was reached. The main conclusions of this study are as follows: 1. Evaluation practice comprises twenty-three controversial issues of evaluator’s ethics, including nineteen items for the individual evaluator and four items for the evaluator team. Controversial issues for the individual evaluator include the following: not fully participating in the pre-departure meeting, not recognizing the evaluation criterion, not reading the documents before the on-site visit, improper opinions resulting from being unfamiliar with universities and professions, preconceived ideas before the on-site visit, not keeping on time during the evaluation, telling other persons the findings before the evaluation result is published, disclosing the information provider, setting requests according to personal likings or specialties, censuring members of evaluation objects, inconsistency between the score and oral opinion, giving a lenient score when the result affects an individual or unit survival, giving an opinion which conflicts with the official education policy, not disclosing illegal or improper things, delaying to deliver the evaluation report, inquiring about private matters of evaluation objects, writing an evaluation report based on emotions, not adjusting or changing the score when receiving an argument, and not avoiding advantages. This study discusses controversial issues for the evaluation team as inconsistent evaluating criterion between the evaluators, and the person who adjusts the result score has significant power, and not all evaluator opinions are faithfully presented. The most discussed issues were keeping secrets, avoiding advantages, improper opinions from being unfamiliar with universities and professions. 2. Ethics for evaluators comprise twenty-one codes to follow, including five core valued ethics and sixteen process justice ethics. Core valued ethics are more significant and include full participation in the pre-departure meeting, obligation to keep secrets, fair and respectful to others, obeying the principle of advantage avoiding, evaluating seriously and taking responsibility for the evaluation results. Another sixteen process justice ethics include: agreement with evaluation design, refusal to participate if not in agreement with the evaluation design, reading the documents before the on-site visit, patiently listening to and reflecting on the valuation object's opinion, participating in the entire on-site evaluation or seeking the biggest mutual recognition for giving the evaluation score, full participation in the on-site visit, obtaining written consent from the clientage before leaving ahead of time, using explicit definitions to judge and having a clear information origin, not proposing an improper request that has nothing to do with the evaluation, consistency between the score and the oral opinion, replenishing an explanation if evaluators are unable to obtain a uniform opinion, presenting a clear evaluation result clear, discussing the report contents to reach a consensus, carefully inspecting the rationale and possible impact of the evaluation result, guaranteeing that the evaluation result is fair and just, respecting the participant’s right to privacy, finishing the work in time, and obeying the ethics and morals of an evaluator. Finally, this study provides four suggestions. This research not only addresses controversial issues of evaluator's ethics to find out corresponding ethic codes for overcoming arguments, but also seeks to provide a template for other domains for constructing ethic codes and principles.