Final answer:
The case study describes an ethical dilemma where a project manager attempted to coerce an evaluator to alter a report to present falsely positive outcomes. The evaluator maintained ethical standards by refusing to misrepresent the data and only submitting a hard copy to prevent changes. This situation reflects wider issues of tacit collusion and ethical enforcement in industry agreements.
Step-by-step explanation:
An example of an unfavorable agreement between industry and investigator can be found in the described case study. A project manager for a federally-funded community project exerted pressure on an evaluator to modify the evaluation report to present a more positive outcome for the subsequent year, even though this would misrepresent the actual data. This action steps into the realm of ethical concerns as it puts at risk the integrity of the evaluation process and the validity of the findings that funding agencies depend on for decision-making.
Adhering to integrity, the evaluator stood their ground for the independence of the evaluation process, despite the discomfort caused by disagreeing with the project manager. Ultimately, the evaluator chose to submit a hard copy of the report to prevent any unauthorized changes, highlighting the importance of maintaining ethical standards in research and reporting. Meanwhile, the pressure placed on the evaluator echoes broader concerns in the industry about tacit collusion and the difficulties of detecting and enforcing against such unethical practices.