Washington Evaluators Brown Bag by Veronica Thomas February 19, 2009

1. Ethical Responsibilities in Evaluations with
Diverse Populations: A Critical Race
Theory (CRT) Perspective
veronica G. Thomas
Howard University
vthomas@howard.edu
Presentation for the Washington Evaluators Group,
February 19, 2009

2. Presentation Overview
•
to provide an overview of critical theories (CT)
as a form of oppositional scholarship
•
to discuss how critical race theory (CRT), in
particular, can be used as lens for conducting
more valid and ethical evaluations in diverse
communities

3. Critical Theories vs. Traditional Theories
• CT oriented toward critiquing and changing
society as a whole (seeking human
emancipation)
• Traditional theory mostly oriented toward
simply describing, understanding, or explaining
phenomena

4. Roots of Critical Theory
Historical roots of CT grounded in several
generations of German philosophers and
social theorists in the Western European Marxist
tradition (Frankfurt School)

5. Some examples of contemporary
critical perspectives
• Critical race theory
• Critical feminist theory
• Critical race feminism
• Queer theory
• World systems theory

6. Critical race theory (CRT)
• CRT roots in the 1970s and origin in law; now
deeply grounded in an interdisciplinary
knowledge base
• Extends early generations of CT
• Earlier CT theories criticized for failure to
deliver emancipation for oppressed groups and
denial of own oppressive practices

7. Critical race theory (CRT)
• Holds that race and racism lie at the nexus of
American life
• Challenges researchers to examine own values
and ethical responsibilities for the facilitation of
social change

8. Ethical considerations throughout
evaluation process
• Study conceptualization and design
• Data gathering
• Data analysis and synthesis
• Data interpretation
• Report writing and synthesis

9. More subtle ethical considerations
• Right of evaluators to impose own ideology on people being studied
• Unequal power relations between researcher and researched
• Right of oppressed individuals to help shape research questions and
interpretations
• Lack of input on participants about how knowledge generated should be
used and benefit them
• Privileging of certain forms of research and devaluing of others

10. Evaluator’s values and beliefs influence:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
What questions are asked
What issues are illuminated
Which approaches are privileged
What data are collected
How interpretations are made
What conclusions are drawn
How results are presented and to whom

11. Evaluation ethical dilemmas can be
related to:
• Procedural ethics (IRBs)
• Situational ethics (case-by-case applied ethics)
• Relational ethics (mutual respect, dignity,
engagement, transparency)

12. Additional ethical values and principles
consistent with CRT approaches
• Community benefit
• Capacity building
• Collaboration and inclusion
• Equity and dignity

13. CRT evaluators ethical stance via:
• Identifying important evaluation issues in more
inclusive ways
• Framing more inclusive questions
• Reviewing relevant literature and community
history
• Collecting and analyzing data to give “voice”
• Forming conclusions/recommendations that
and promote social equity and justice

14. Five tenets of CRT Methodology
(Solorzano & Yosso, 2002)
• Placing race and its intersectionality at center of
research
• Using race in research to challenge dominant scientific
notions of objectivity and neutrality
• Having research connected to social justice and praxis
with ongoing efforts in the community
• Making experiential knowledge central
• Emphasizing importance of transdisciplinary
perspective