AEA 2016 Presentation - Ethical Dilemmas and Obedience to Authority: Examining Evaluators Ethical Decision Making
•Descargar como PPTX, PDF•
0 recomendaciones•140 vistas
This study examined how obedience to authority influences evaluators' ethical decision making. It hypothesized that situations with authoritative pressure would elicit more unethical responses than those without pressure. Participants completed ethical dilemma scenarios either with or without an authoritative presence. Results found no differences in most scenarios, but those with authority were more likely to share confidential names. Greater familiarity with ethical standards like IRB processes also influenced responses. The study had limitations like sample size and self-report bias. Overall, it explored how authority and ethics training can impact evaluators' judgments in dilemmas.
Recomendados
Más contenido relacionado
Similar a AEA 2016 Presentation - Ethical Dilemmas and Obedience to Authority: Examining Evaluators Ethical Decision Making
Similar a AEA 2016 Presentation - Ethical Dilemmas and Obedience to Authority: Examining Evaluators Ethical Decision Making (20)
Último
Último (20)
AEA 2016 Presentation - Ethical Dilemmas and Obedience to Authority: Examining Evaluators Ethical Decision Making
- 1. ETHICAL DILEMMAS AND OBEDIENCE TO AUTHORITY: EXAMINING EVALUATORS’ ETHICAL DECISION MAKING Julia Lamping, M.S. William Rainey Harper College Tiffany Smith, Ph.D. University of Wisconsin - Stout Special thanks to Dr. Morris for all his help!
- 2. Let’s Chat ■ What are you talking about? - Define Terms in Research ■ What were you looing for? - Hypothesizes ■ How did you do that? - Methods ■ Who actually responded to this? - Participants ■ What did you find? - Results ■ Why does everything suck? - Limitations ■ So why should I care? - Recap & Recommendations
- 3. Definition of Terms What is “Obedience to Authority” anyway? What is an “Ethical Dilemma” in this instance?
- 4. Hypotheses
- 6. Situational Judgement Test – Ethics (SJT-E) SJT-E Non- Authority 4 ethical dilemma scenarios w/o client or stakeholder Qual Rationale & demographics Authority 4 ethical dilemma scenarios w/ client or stakeholder Qual Rationale & demographics
- 7. Participants 115 participants in the Non- Authority SJT-E Group (11.5% Response Rate) 86 Female 25 Male 1 Intersex 84 Employees of an Organization 22 Self- Employed 128 participants in the Authority SJT-E Group (12.8% Response Rate) 89 Female 35 Male 100 Employees of an Organization 15 Self- Employed The majority of participants identify as liberal or very liberal (66.8%) Only 4.6% of participants identified as conservative or very conservative
- 8. Participants 2 40 64 6 3 59 58 4 0 50 100 Bachelors Masters Ph.D. or Equivalent Other Highest Degree Completed 19 12 8 7 13 8 23 20 15 12 11 15 17 8 20 24 0 10 20 30 40 50 1 or self-employed 2 to 9 10 to 24 25 to 99 100 to 499 500 to 999 1000 to 4999 5000+ Size of Organization/Current Employer Non Authority Form Authority Form
- 10. Results of Hypothesis One No significant differences between SJT-E forms and scenario responses for scenarios One, Two, and Four Scenario Three… Does Not Share Names Shares Names Non- Authorit y Authorit y 105 107 89.1% 6 212 20 10.9% 26 0 0 . 0 % 0 0 . 0 % 0 0 . 0 % 0 0 . 0 % 0 . 000 0 113 47.5% 0 0.0%0 0.0% 125 52.5% 0 0.0%0 0.0%0 0.0%0 0.0%0 0.0%0 0.0% Grand total: 238Totals Totals X2 = 6.97** Odds Ratio = 3.40 Situations with authoritative pressure to comply with unethical requests (SJT-E: Authoritative) will illicit more unethical responses than situations without pressure to comply with unethical requests (SJT-E: Non-Authoritative).
- 11. Results of Qualitative Responses Because there was a significant difference between SJT-E forms on Scenario Three responses… Authority SJT-E Shares Names Non-Authority SJT-E Shares NamesDoes Not Share Names Does Not Share Names Alternative Action Confidentiality Ethics Disciplinary Informative Confidentiality Ethics Alternative Action Disciplinary Responsibilit y Client Depends Follow- Up No Themes
- 12. Results of Hypothesis Two Years as an evaluator practitioner will be related to amount of unethical responses.
- 13. Results of Hypothesis Three Greater familiarity with ethical codes, standards, and principles will influence how ethical participants’ responses to scenarios will be. 3.06 2.01 2.26 3.50 1 2 3 4 Guiding Principles Essential Competencies Program Evaluation Standards IRB process Familiarity with Ethical Codes, Guides, and Standards Not at all Familiar Very Familiar
- 14. 3.00 3.56 1 2 3 4 Scenario 3: Familiarity with the Process of Gaining IRB Approval Results of Hypothesis Three ■ Results of a t-test comparing familiarity of ethical codes, guides, and standards between scenario responses revealed no significant differences for scenarios One, Two, and Four. ■ Scenario Three…no significant differences for anything BUT familiarity with the IRB process! t (231) = -3.39** Cohen’s d = .45 CI: -.89 - -.24 Very Familiar Not at all Familiar Shares Names Did not Share Names
- 15. Limitations of the Study ■ Sample size (Low response rate) ■ Authoritative presence manipulation check question ■ Data cleaning ■ Self-report and issues with the SJT-E ■ “Ethical” as a definition and culture
- 16. ■ This study looked at obedience to authority and ethical decision making of evaluators ■ Sometimes we were on the same page, sometimes we weren’t ■ What are ethical issues and what are just issues in research? Recap & Recommendations
- 17. Recommendations 2. Is it responsible… 3. Is it generally acceptable… Will I break any rules or regulations? Is it against policies? How does it affect others? What if everyone did it? Is it against principles? How would this look on the news? Would I be ashamed if my peers knew? Can I tell my family about it? 1. Is it compliant… Is it legal? Novo Nordisk & the University of Copenhagen’s Ethical Decision Making Tool
- 18. Questions/Contact Information Julia Lamping, M.S. William Rainey Harper College jlamping@harpercollege.edu Tiffany Smith, Ph.D. University of Wisconsin – Stout smithtif@uwstout.edu
Notas del editor
- H1: Situations with authoritative pressure to comply with unethical requests (SJT-E: Authoritative) will illicit more unethical responses than situations without pressure to comply with unethical requests (SJT-E: Non-Authoritative). H2: Years as an evaluator practitioner will be related to amount of unethical responses. H3: Greater familiarity with ethical codes, standards, and principles will influence how ethical participant’s responses to scenarios will be.
- Participants AEA members – sample of 2,000 provided by AEA Emailed invitation to online survey/test Advertisement at AEA 2015 through flyers
- One scenario was inspired by a situation described by Newman and Brown Another was inspired by Morris, from his book on ethics and evaluation Another was inspired by McDonald and Myrick’s case study The last was inspired by my own experiences Scenario 1: The Revised Report – The evaluator is given the option to (non-authority) or requested to (authority), revise a report to downplay the operational problems a program has (though it is overall successful). Scenario 2: The Passive/Active Consent – The evaluator is given the option to use (non-authority) or is requested to use (authority) active or passive consent with underage students to increase program participation and survey participation. Scenario 3: The Confidentiality and Punishment – The evaluator is administering a survey to a group of teachers and some are being disruptive and using this time to socialize. The evaluator is given the option to (non-authority) or requested to (authority) provide the non-participating teachers names to their supervisor. Scenario 4: Evaluation Committee Exclusion – The evaluation is given the option to (non-authority) or requested to (authority) exclude a potentially problematic group of stakeholders from the program evaluation committee.
- Majority were females who identified as women, not self-employed, and liberal
- The majority held at least a masters degree and were employed in medium to large organizations The large number of people who said they were employed by a large organization may be due to the wording of the question – I asked the size of the organization, including all offices and locations.
- In Scenario Three, more evaluators were 3.4 times more willing to break participant confidentiality when asked by the client compared to when given the option.
- Because there was a significant difference between scenario three Reponses, the rationale participants provided was analyzed There were some overlap in rationale themes between the non-authority and the authority forms when participants chose to not share the names of non-participating teachers There were not enough responses in the non-authority form who chose to share the names to create themes What was interesting was that those who were in the authority form group and who chose to share the names of the teachers, mentioned the client as being part of their rationale.
- This is how, overall, familiar participants rated themselves on the IRB process, Program Eval Standards, Essential Competencies, and Guiding Principles Participants reported being more familiar with their IRB process and the guiding principles and less familiar with the essential competencies and program eval standards
- Familiarity with the IRB process and the evaluators responses in scenario three. Scenario Three found no significant differences between responses for any codes/guide/standards BUT familiarity with the IRB process. Evaluators who did not share the names of disruptive/non-participating teachers reported being more familiar with IRB processes compared to the Non-Authority form evaluators – though this was a small-to-medium effect.
- This study looked at obedience to authority influence on ethical decision making of evaluation practitioners Sometimes we were on the same page, sometimes we weren’t Evaluators were split on responses to scenario one. The majority made the most ethical choice for scenarios two and four, though their responses were not significantly related to familiarity with ethical standards, codes, and guidelines. Authority presence had a slight effect on evaluators in scenario three. More research on ethics in evaluation is needed. What is ethical and what is just good practice? Perhaps we need to start conversations as a field about “gray areas” in research ethics? Tools and standard approaches are one way to identify and work through ethically problematic situations in the real world (go to next slide)