“Fake Findings” and Alternative Facts – What Should We Do When Findings are Misquoted or Data are Misanalysed to Further Personal or Monetary Agendas?

Session Number: 2627
Track: Use and Influence of Evaluation
Session Type: Birds of a Feather Gathering
Tags: ethics, evaluation use
Session Facilitator: Catherine Callow-Heusser [President - Dr.]
First Author or Discussion Group Leader: Catherine Callow-Heusser [President - Dr.]
Second Author or Discussion Group Leader: Ken Wareham
Time: Nov 09, 2017 (12:15 PM - 01:15 PM)
Room: Table 39

Theme: Learning from Others
Audience Level: All Audiences

Session Abstract (150 words): 

What should we, as members of AEA, do when research/evaluation findings are misquoted by authors of other publications? What should we do when data are misanalysed and the findings reported for personal or monetary gain despite potential harm to individuals who receive the “treatment?” Should there be a venue for whistleblowers? Should there be a repository of complaints similar to the Better Business Bureau or Angie’s List? What constitutes reportable violations and what mechanisms for reporting ethical violations already exist? Should we bother to police our own and expose fake findings and reporting of alternative facts? In this session, several case studies of fake findings and reporting of alternative facts will be presented and discussed. Come to this session and join the dialogue, share examples from your experiences, and/or suggest potential mechanisms or resources for preventing abuses.