Question

It is inevitable that as an evaluator, you will run into people who use results selectively, misrepresent results (intentionally or unintentionally), or suppress relevant information. In the particular situation in the case study, how could you as the evaluator serve the greater good or public interest? In your initial post, provide pros and cons for the following options:

• Keep silent.
• Go public.
• Leak the results.
• Submit a protest to the mayor.
• Push back privately through health department and mayor’s aides.

Answer 1

1. As an evaluator, I have to keep silent until all the investigation about the misrepresented results and relevant information are not collected.

Keeping silent helps to understand the situation very well and helps to think about the problems' required solutions. For public interest,t evaluator should take silence until the whole data and procedures are not complete because it helps save the data from the misrepresentation of results.

Keeping silent may show a negative result because some unwanted factors may affect the evaluator's research for not showing any process.

2. Go public gives the advantage to represent the wrong processes done in the workplace for everyone. It ensures the evaluator's safety from this type of wrong person and keeps the data safe publicly. Still, they can't change the data or misrepresent these data.

The cons of going public affect the evaluation process I research. Increase the chance of leaking the data, which is harmful to the public interest and makes a negative image of the evaluator.

3. Leak the results are not helpful for evaluator because these wrong person can easily misrepresent the full effect and destroy the entire evaluation.

4. Submit a protest to the mayor. It will help ask questions form the mayor about all of the problems while getting an answer regarding issues.

It may affect the evaluation because the mayor can close the whole review and hurt the evaluator's dignity.

5. Push back privately through the health department, and the mayor's aids will help quickly find the wrong person involved in this act.

But the health department and the mayor can quickly close the investigation if the evaluator goes back in this push back.