to respect the dignity of all persons and peoples with whom they come in contact in their role as psychologists, the nature of their contract with society demands that their greatest responsibility be to persons and peoples in the most vulnerable position” (2017, p. 12). Consistent with the idea that ethical priority should be given to the most vulnerable persons, the NASP’s code of ethics states: “School psychologists consider the interests and rights of children and youth to be their highest priority in decision making, and act as advocates for all students” (NASP, 2020, p. 39; Standard III.2.3; also APA Principle E). As noted previously, to reduce the likelihood of misunderstandings, psychologists should make known to others in their employment setting that the welfare of children is their top priority in decision making (NASP Standard III.2.4).
How Do We Evaluate Whether a Course of Action Is Ethical or Unethical?
Ethics involves “making decisions of a moral nature about people and their interactions in society” (Kitchener, 1986, p. 306). Individuals may make choices of a moral nature primarily on an intuitive level or a critical-evaluative level (Hare, 1981; Kitchener, 1986). Choices made on the intuitive level are based on “people’s immediate feeling responses to situations,” along with personal beliefs about what they should or should not do (Kitchener, 1986, p. 309).
Psychologists, however, have special obligations when making ethical choices in the context of a professional relationship (Behnke & Jones, 2012; Haas & Malouf, 2005). In the provision of psychological services, decision making on a critical-evaluative level is consistent with sound professional practice. The critical-evaluative level of ethical decision making involves thoughtful deliberation and “the application of logic and rationality to the decision making process” (Boccio, 2020, p. 3). Critical-evaluative ethical decision making involves following a systematic procedure. This procedure may involve the exploration of feelings and beliefs, but also includes consideration of general ethical principles and codes of ethics and possibly consultation with colleagues. Psychologists need to be aware of their own feelings and values and how they may influence their decisions (N. D. Hansen & Goldberg, 1999; Koocher & Keith-Spiegel, 2016; Korkut & Sinclair, 2020). However, reliance on feelings and intuition alone in professional decision making may result in poor decisions or confusion (Kitchener, 1986).
How do we evaluate whether a course of action is ethical or unethical? Haas and Malouf (2005, p. 3) suggested that an act or a decision is likely to be viewed as ethical if it has these three characteristics: (1) The decision is principled, based on generally accepted ethical principles; (2) the action is a reasoned outcome of a consideration of the principles; and (3) the decision is universalizable, that is, the psychologist would recommend the same course of action to others in a similar situation. The consequences of the course of action chosen must also be considered—namely, will the action chosen result in more good than harm? Evaluation of whether a course of action is ethical thus involves consideration of characteristics of the decision itself (based on accepted principles and universality), the process of decision making (reasoned), and the consequences of the decision. Knapp, VandeCreek et al. (2017) have called for a greater emphasis on positive ethics in choosing a course of action. A positive approach to ethics encourages psychologists to focus on moral excellence rather than meeting minimal obligations outlined in codes of ethics. Psychologists are encouraged to become familiar with philosophical systems of ethics, to internalize schemas for moral excellence, and to integrate schemas of moral excellence into their professional decision making.
Ethical Decision-Making Model
Three broad types of ethical-legal challenges arise in professional practice: ethical dilemmas, ethical transgressions, and legal quandaries. Ethical dilemmas occur when “there are good but contradictory ethical reasons to take conflicting and incompatible courses of action” (Knauss, 2001, p. 231; also Beauchamp & Childress, 2019), and may foster moral distress among psychologists (Austin et al., 2005). Ethical transgressions or violations are those acts that go against professional expectations for ethical conduct and violate enforceable ethics codes. Ethical transgressions can result in harm to students or others and create a problematic situation for colleagues who must decide whether and how to confront the misconduct (Dailor & Jacob, 2011). Finally, legal quandaries can arise when disregard for federal or state law results in infringement of the legal rights of students and families. Parent–school disputes, especially with regard to special education law, can trigger legal action against the school or school psychologist.
Sinclair (1998) observed that “some ethical decision making is virtually automatic and the individual may not be aware of having made an ethical decision. In other situations, ethical decision making is not automatic but leads rapidly to an easy resolution,” particularly if a clear-cut standard exists. However, “some ethical issues … require a time-consuming process of deliberation” (p. 171). Eberlein (1987) and others (Behnke & Jones, 2012; Knapp, VandeCreek et al., 2017; Tymchuk, 1986) suggested that mastery of an explicit decision-making model or procedure may help the practitioner make informed, well-reasoned choices when dilemmas arise in professional practice. Tymchuk (1986) has also noted that in difficult situations, the course of action chosen may be challenged. Use of a systematic problem-solving strategy will allow the practitioner to describe how a decision was made. This may afford some protection when difficult decisions come under the scrutiny of others. Furthermore, practitioners may find a systematic decision-making model helpful in anticipating and preventing problems from occurring (Sinclair, 1998). Consistent with the literature, NASP Standard IV.3.1 advises that, “In difficult situations, school psychologists use a systematic, problem-solving approach to decision making.”
There are a variety of multi-step decision-making models available for practitioners to choose from to guide their problem-solving process. The DECIDE ethical decision-making model shown in Table 1.1 is a six-step model developed by Diamond et al. (2021) to assist school psychologists as they navigate the variety of complex situations encountered in their many roles and responsibilities in school settings. Specifically, the DECIDE model asks practitioners to (a) Define the problem; (b) Ecological Lens—identify and examine cultural and contextual factors; (c) Consider ethical, legal, and policy guidelines; (d) Identify rights and responsibilities of all parties; (e) Determine courses of action and consequences; and (f) Establish a plan that is consistent with a socially just, anti-discriminatory, and anti-racist practice. The DECIDE model emphasizes the importance of recognizing cultural and contextual factors through an ecological lens, with a primary goal of aiding school psychologists to make socially just decisions in their work. Furthermore, the model encourages practitioners to examine how their own biases could affect their perception of the situation and the decision-making process.
Table 1.1 DECIDE Ethical Decision-Making Model.
| Step 1. Define the Problem. Identify key elements of the situation and articulate any specific challenges or concerns. Differentiate the essential details from the nonessential details.Questions to guide this step: What has happened or is happening? Who is involved? Who has been impacted or may be impacted (both directly and indirectly)?Step 2. Ecological Framework. Look at the situation through an ecological lens and identify any cultural or contextual factors that may have been overlooked in step one. Taken from the NASP Guiding Principle I.3, characteristics can include (but are not limited to) “race, ethnicity, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, immigration status, socioeconomic status, primary language, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, disability, or any other distinguishing characteristics.” Beyond individual characteristics, use an ecological framework to identify contextual variables that may be influencing the situation (e.g., family members, family structure, peers, school systems, work systems, neighborhoods, resources, social conditions, economic systems, policies, etc.). What individual characteristics and identities, system level variables, and interactions
|
