000			02051nab a22002777a 4500
999			_c8324 _d8324
005			20250625151644.0
008			230823s2023 -nz|| |||| 00| 0 eng d
040			_aAFVC
100			_aO'Connor, Tony _912243
245			_aProcedural and participatory ethics : _bcommunity-based evaluation in practice _cTony O'Connor
260			_bSage, _c2023
500			_aEvaluation Journal of Australasia, 2023, First published online, 30 March 2023
520			_aThis article argues that it can be beneficial for institution-based, procedural ethics review of evaluation design in the planning stage to be followed by community-based oversight of ethical issues in the field. Deferring to an institutional review board (IRB) for ethical assessment when a project is underway can be impractical for community-based projects that are designed to be responsive to local needs and interests, especially when community leaders expect to have a meaningful say in determining what is the right thing to do. This article discusses a 2-year project in New Zealand, where community leaders and the project funder formed a project steering group to, among other things, provide ethical oversight. Ethical issues that arose during the project and the steering group’s role in considering the most suitable response are discussed and linked to literature about participatory ethics. (Author's abstract). Record #8324
610			_aSafe Man, Safe Family _912244
610			_aPoint and Associates _912246
650		4	_9148 _aCOMMUNITY ORGANISATIONS
650		4	_aINTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE _9431
650		4	_aPERPETRATOR PROGRAMMES _92951
650			_aPROGRAMME EVALUATION _9466
650			_aRESEARCH ETHICS _9498
651		4	_aNEW ZEALAND _92588
773	0		_tEvaluation Journal of Australasia, 2023, First published online, 30 March 2023
830			_aEvaluation Journal of Australasia _912247
856			_uhttps://doi.org/10.1177/1035719X231166206 _zDOI: 10.1177/1035719X231166206 (Open access)
942			_2ddc _cARTICLE _hnews122