By Kate Anthony
Online Institute
Originally published January 23, 2014
Negotiating the boundaries between our professional and personal lives is increasingly a part of our work as therapists. If you use social media sites such as Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn you are probably aware of the sometimes inappropriate statuses or updates people post. Even if you are not a user of them, you will likely have seen the media reports about an staff’s Facebooks posts made while off sick coming back to haunt them, or ill-advised crude tweets resulting in an employee instantly losing their job despite having deleted it within 14 seconds of posting (see example here).
The entire article is here.
Showing posts with label Professional Ethics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Professional Ethics. Show all posts
Sunday, February 16, 2014
Sunday, February 9, 2014
APA Declines to Rebuke Guantanamo Psychologist
By Spence Ackerman
The Guardian
Originally published January 22, 2014
America’s professional association of psychologists has quietly declined to rebuke one of its members, a retired US army reserve officer, for his role in one of the most brutal interrogations known to have to taken place at Guantánamo Bay, the Guardian has learned.
The decision not to pursue any disciplinary measure against John Leso, a former army reserve major, is the latest case in which someone involved in the post-9/11 torture of detainees has faced no legal or even professional consequences.
The entire story is here.
The December 31 letter is here.
The Guardian
Originally published January 22, 2014
America’s professional association of psychologists has quietly declined to rebuke one of its members, a retired US army reserve officer, for his role in one of the most brutal interrogations known to have to taken place at Guantánamo Bay, the Guardian has learned.
The decision not to pursue any disciplinary measure against John Leso, a former army reserve major, is the latest case in which someone involved in the post-9/11 torture of detainees has faced no legal or even professional consequences.
The entire story is here.
The December 31 letter is here.
Sunday, January 26, 2014
Not All Multiple Relationships are Created Equal
By Ofer Zur
Independent Practitioner, 34/1, 15-22. 2014.
Introduction
Most mental health professionals have attended risk management and ethics workshops where one of the central messages was the dire warning that multiple relationships are generally unethical, inherently harmful, mostly prohibited, and should be avoided. While the term "unethical" is thrown about liberally when it comes to multiple relationships, the fact is that none of the major professional organizations' codes of ethics prohibit all forms of dual or multiple relationships.
The entire article is here.
Independent Practitioner, 34/1, 15-22. 2014.
Introduction
Most mental health professionals have attended risk management and ethics workshops where one of the central messages was the dire warning that multiple relationships are generally unethical, inherently harmful, mostly prohibited, and should be avoided. While the term "unethical" is thrown about liberally when it comes to multiple relationships, the fact is that none of the major professional organizations' codes of ethics prohibit all forms of dual or multiple relationships.
The entire article is here.
Thursday, January 23, 2014
Some thoughts on the microethics of our professional rules of conduct: Keeping play in imagination
by Anna Guerra, JD, MA, LPC
The Jung Page
Originally published October 19, 2013
A client’s ability to play and imagine is essential to their healing and growth and the provision of a “playspace” where this can happen is a central component of what we do as psychotherapists. Maya Angelou writes, “The needs of a society determines its ethics” (Angelou, 1980, p. 190). “Microethics” focuses on the needs and purposes of our profession, on the ethos underlying our professional rules of conduct, going beyond “the rules,” beyond the “dos and don’ts,” the “shall and shall not” to the “one shall or shall not because we seek to do the following.” Like a microphone, microethics expands and makes audible the reasons for our rules. Providing our clients with a playspace and helping them play is part of what we do as therapists, and it is an ethos written into the various rules of our professional conduct, our ethics.
By play I mean allowing the emergence of imaginal material into conscious awareness. When my clients are “playing” they can allow thoughts, feelings, fantasies, and other material into conscious awareness, into the psychotherapeutic space which if the psychotherapy is working is a playspace.
The entire article is here.
Thanks to Deborah Derrickson Kossmann for this article.
The Jung Page
Originally published October 19, 2013
A client’s ability to play and imagine is essential to their healing and growth and the provision of a “playspace” where this can happen is a central component of what we do as psychotherapists. Maya Angelou writes, “The needs of a society determines its ethics” (Angelou, 1980, p. 190). “Microethics” focuses on the needs and purposes of our profession, on the ethos underlying our professional rules of conduct, going beyond “the rules,” beyond the “dos and don’ts,” the “shall and shall not” to the “one shall or shall not because we seek to do the following.” Like a microphone, microethics expands and makes audible the reasons for our rules. Providing our clients with a playspace and helping them play is part of what we do as therapists, and it is an ethos written into the various rules of our professional conduct, our ethics.
By play I mean allowing the emergence of imaginal material into conscious awareness. When my clients are “playing” they can allow thoughts, feelings, fantasies, and other material into conscious awareness, into the psychotherapeutic space which if the psychotherapy is working is a playspace.
The entire article is here.
Thanks to Deborah Derrickson Kossmann for this article.
Tuesday, January 14, 2014
Pragmatism and Clinical Practices
By Dirk Felleman
Journal of Social Work Values and Ethics
Spring 2005
Abstract
The increasing preference for technological therapies in health care is perceived by many as a serious threat to the future of socially based therapies. While this concern is not without merit there is another more hopeful possibility to be found in recent adaptations in the ethical evolution of medical practices. In particular the inclusion of pragmatism into clinical ethics holds the possibility of a mutually beneficial relationship between clinical social workers and medical professionals.
Introduction
Unlike other mental health professions, like medicine and clinical psychology, which gain their professional authority through their expert status as masters of scientifically based techniques of diagnosis and treatment, social work does not produce its own tools and so is not a ‘true’ profession in the classic sense. Social work has attempted to bolster its self-image by investing in academic ventures creating journals and doctoral programs but the standard in academia is still one of scientific knowledge and this leaves social work to imitate sociology and or psychology raising legitimate institutional questions of the value of such duplication. Likewise in the realm of professional practice, which is now almost exclusively run by corporate health conglomerates, the scientific techniques of medicine and psychology can be measured in terms of outcome equations, relating to statistical norms, which easily translate into the bookkeeping practices of the business sector, leaving social workers to serve these professions or find a new source of professional identity. This essay will offer social work an alternative vision for the future by calling on the resources of pragmatism, not to try and mimic or co-opt the applied sciences by creating an alternative and or inclusive foundation, but more like a work of art which allows one to appreciate a familiar scene in a new way.
The entire article is here.
Journal of Social Work Values and Ethics
Spring 2005
Abstract
The increasing preference for technological therapies in health care is perceived by many as a serious threat to the future of socially based therapies. While this concern is not without merit there is another more hopeful possibility to be found in recent adaptations in the ethical evolution of medical practices. In particular the inclusion of pragmatism into clinical ethics holds the possibility of a mutually beneficial relationship between clinical social workers and medical professionals.
Introduction
Unlike other mental health professions, like medicine and clinical psychology, which gain their professional authority through their expert status as masters of scientifically based techniques of diagnosis and treatment, social work does not produce its own tools and so is not a ‘true’ profession in the classic sense. Social work has attempted to bolster its self-image by investing in academic ventures creating journals and doctoral programs but the standard in academia is still one of scientific knowledge and this leaves social work to imitate sociology and or psychology raising legitimate institutional questions of the value of such duplication. Likewise in the realm of professional practice, which is now almost exclusively run by corporate health conglomerates, the scientific techniques of medicine and psychology can be measured in terms of outcome equations, relating to statistical norms, which easily translate into the bookkeeping practices of the business sector, leaving social workers to serve these professions or find a new source of professional identity. This essay will offer social work an alternative vision for the future by calling on the resources of pragmatism, not to try and mimic or co-opt the applied sciences by creating an alternative and or inclusive foundation, but more like a work of art which allows one to appreciate a familiar scene in a new way.
The entire article is here.
Sunday, November 10, 2013
Hiring an End-of-Life Enforcer
By Paula Span
The New York Times - The New Old Age
Originally published October 24, 2013
The chilling dilemma of “the unbefriended elderly,” who don’t have family or close friends to make medical decisions on their behalf if they can’t speak for themselves, generated a bunch of ideas the last time we discussed it.
One reader, Elizabeth from Los Angeles, commented that as an only child who had no children, she wished she could hire someone to take on this daunting but crucial responsibility.
“I would much rather pay a professional, whom I get to know and who knows me, to make the decisions,” she wrote. “That way it is an objective decision-maker based on the priorities I have discussed with him/her before my incapacitation.”
The entire article is here.
The New York Times - The New Old Age
Originally published October 24, 2013
The chilling dilemma of “the unbefriended elderly,” who don’t have family or close friends to make medical decisions on their behalf if they can’t speak for themselves, generated a bunch of ideas the last time we discussed it.
One reader, Elizabeth from Los Angeles, commented that as an only child who had no children, she wished she could hire someone to take on this daunting but crucial responsibility.
“I would much rather pay a professional, whom I get to know and who knows me, to make the decisions,” she wrote. “That way it is an objective decision-maker based on the priorities I have discussed with him/her before my incapacitation.”
The entire article is here.
Thursday, August 8, 2013
Embattled head of American Academy of Arts and Sciences to resign
By Todd Wallack | GLOBE STAFF JULY 26, 2013
Dogged by charges that she inflated her resume and abused her position, the embattled president of the prestigious American Academy of Arts and Sciences agreed to resign at the end of the month, the institution announced Thursday, ending weeks of controversy that had engulfed the organization and threatened to tarnish its reputation.
Leslie Cohen Berlowitz, who has overseen the Cambridge honorary society for the past 17 years, had been on paid leave from the academy for more than a month while an outside law firm investigated allegations, first reported by the Globe, that she falsely claimed to have a doctorate from New York University and misstated her work history in federal grant applications.
Berlowitz, 69, also came under fire for berating staffers and receiving an oversized pay package — more than $598,000 in fiscal 2012 alone for an organization with only three dozen staffers. The attorney general’s office also asked whether the academy fully reported all her executive perks, such as first-class travel.
The entire story is here.
Dogged by charges that she inflated her resume and abused her position, the embattled president of the prestigious American Academy of Arts and Sciences agreed to resign at the end of the month, the institution announced Thursday, ending weeks of controversy that had engulfed the organization and threatened to tarnish its reputation.
Leslie Cohen Berlowitz, who has overseen the Cambridge honorary society for the past 17 years, had been on paid leave from the academy for more than a month while an outside law firm investigated allegations, first reported by the Globe, that she falsely claimed to have a doctorate from New York University and misstated her work history in federal grant applications.
Berlowitz, 69, also came under fire for berating staffers and receiving an oversized pay package — more than $598,000 in fiscal 2012 alone for an organization with only three dozen staffers. The attorney general’s office also asked whether the academy fully reported all her executive perks, such as first-class travel.
The entire story is here.
Sunday, May 13, 2012
Measuring the Prevalence of Questionable Research Practices With Incentives for Truth Telling
*Psychological Science* has scheduled an article for publication in a future issue of the journal: "Measuring the Prevalence of Questionable Research Practices With Incentives for Truth Telling."
The authors are Leslie K. John of Harvard University, George Loewenstein of Carnegie Mellon University, & Drazen Prelec of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Here is the abstract:
Although cases of overt scientific misconduct have received significant media attention recently (Altman, 2006; Deer, 2011; Steneck, 2002, 2006), exploitation of the gray area of acceptable practice is certainly much more prevalent, and may be more damaging to the academic enterprise in the long run, than outright fraud.
Questionable research practices (QRPs), such as excluding data points on the basis of post hoc criteria, can spuriously increase the likelihood of finding evidence in support of a hypothesis.
Just how dramatic these effects can be was demonstrated by Simmons, Nelson, and Simonsohn (2011) in a series of experiments and simulations that showed how greatly QRPs increase the likelihood of finding support for a false hypothesis.
QRPs are the steroids of scientific competition, artificially enhancing performance and producing a kind of arms race in which researchers who strictly play by the rules are at a competitive disadvantage.
QRPs, by nature of the very fact that they are often questionable as opposed to blatantly improper, also offer considerable latitude for rationalization and self-deception.
Concerns over QRPs have been mounting (Crocker, 2011; Lacetera & Zirulia, 2011; Marshall, 2000; Sovacool, 2008; Sterba, 2006; Wicherts, 2011), and several studies--many of which have focused on medical research--have assessed their prevalence (Gardner, Lidz, & Hartwig, 2005; Geggie, 2001; Henry et al., 2005; List, Bailey, Euzent, & Martin, 2001; Martinson, Anderson, & de Vries, 2005; Swazey, Anderson, & Louis, 1993).
In the study reported here, we measured the percentage of psychologists who have engaged in QRPs.
As with any unethical or socially stigmatized behavior, self-reported survey data are likely to underrepresent true prevalence.
(cut)
The study "surveyed over 2,000 psychologists about their involvement in questionable research practices."
The article reports that the findings "point to the same conclusion: A surprisingly high percentage of psychologists admit to having engaged in QRPs."
(cut)
Most of the respondents in our study believed in the integrity of their own research and judged practices they had engaged in to be acceptable.
However, given publication pressures and professional ambitions, the inherent ambiguity of the defensibility of "questionable" research practices, and the well-documented ubiquity of motivated reasoning (Kunda, 1990), researchers may not be in the best position to judge the defensibility of their own behavior.
This could in part explain why the most egregious practices in our survey (e.g., falsifying data) appear to be less common than the relatively less questionable ones (e.g., failing to report all of a study's conditions).
It is easier to generate a post hoc explanation to justify removing nuisance data points than it is to justify outright data falsification, even though both practices produce similar consequences.
(cut)
Another excerpt: "Given the findings of our study, it comes as no surprise that many researchers have expressed concerns over failures to replicate published results (Bower & Mayer, 1985; Crabbe, Wahlsten, & Dudek, 1999; Doyen, Klein, Pichon, & Cleeremans, 2012, Enserink, 1999; Galak, LeBoeuf, Nelson, & Simmons, 2012; Ioannidis, 2005a, 2005b; Palmer, 2000; Steele, Bass, & Crook, 1999)."
(cut)
More generally, the prevalence of QRPs raises questions about the credibility of research findings and threatens research integrity by producing unrealistically elegant results that may be difficult to match without engaging in such practices oneself.
This can lead to a "race to the bottom," with questionable research begetting even more questionable research.
----------------------
Thanks to Ken Pope for this information.
The abstract and article are here.
The authors are Leslie K. John of Harvard University, George Loewenstein of Carnegie Mellon University, & Drazen Prelec of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Here is the abstract:
Cases of clear scientific misconduct have received significant media attention recently, but less flagrantly questionable research practices may be more prevalent and, ultimately, more damaging to the academic enterprise. Using an anonymous elicitation format supplemented by incentives for honest reporting, we surveyed over 2,000 psychologists about their involvement in questionable research practices. The impact of truth-telling incentives on self-admissions of questionable research practices was positive, and this impact was greater for practices that respondents judged to be less defensible. Combining three different estimation methods, we found that the percentage of respondents who have engaged in questionable practices was surprisingly high. This finding suggests that some questionable practices may constitute the prevailing research norm.Here's how the article starts:
Although cases of overt scientific misconduct have received significant media attention recently (Altman, 2006; Deer, 2011; Steneck, 2002, 2006), exploitation of the gray area of acceptable practice is certainly much more prevalent, and may be more damaging to the academic enterprise in the long run, than outright fraud.
Questionable research practices (QRPs), such as excluding data points on the basis of post hoc criteria, can spuriously increase the likelihood of finding evidence in support of a hypothesis.
Just how dramatic these effects can be was demonstrated by Simmons, Nelson, and Simonsohn (2011) in a series of experiments and simulations that showed how greatly QRPs increase the likelihood of finding support for a false hypothesis.
QRPs are the steroids of scientific competition, artificially enhancing performance and producing a kind of arms race in which researchers who strictly play by the rules are at a competitive disadvantage.
QRPs, by nature of the very fact that they are often questionable as opposed to blatantly improper, also offer considerable latitude for rationalization and self-deception.
Concerns over QRPs have been mounting (Crocker, 2011; Lacetera & Zirulia, 2011; Marshall, 2000; Sovacool, 2008; Sterba, 2006; Wicherts, 2011), and several studies--many of which have focused on medical research--have assessed their prevalence (Gardner, Lidz, & Hartwig, 2005; Geggie, 2001; Henry et al., 2005; List, Bailey, Euzent, & Martin, 2001; Martinson, Anderson, & de Vries, 2005; Swazey, Anderson, & Louis, 1993).
In the study reported here, we measured the percentage of psychologists who have engaged in QRPs.
As with any unethical or socially stigmatized behavior, self-reported survey data are likely to underrepresent true prevalence.
(cut)
The study "surveyed over 2,000 psychologists about their involvement in questionable research practices."
The article reports that the findings "point to the same conclusion: A surprisingly high percentage of psychologists admit to having engaged in QRPs."
(cut)
Most of the respondents in our study believed in the integrity of their own research and judged practices they had engaged in to be acceptable.
However, given publication pressures and professional ambitions, the inherent ambiguity of the defensibility of "questionable" research practices, and the well-documented ubiquity of motivated reasoning (Kunda, 1990), researchers may not be in the best position to judge the defensibility of their own behavior.
This could in part explain why the most egregious practices in our survey (e.g., falsifying data) appear to be less common than the relatively less questionable ones (e.g., failing to report all of a study's conditions).
It is easier to generate a post hoc explanation to justify removing nuisance data points than it is to justify outright data falsification, even though both practices produce similar consequences.
(cut)
Another excerpt: "Given the findings of our study, it comes as no surprise that many researchers have expressed concerns over failures to replicate published results (Bower & Mayer, 1985; Crabbe, Wahlsten, & Dudek, 1999; Doyen, Klein, Pichon, & Cleeremans, 2012, Enserink, 1999; Galak, LeBoeuf, Nelson, & Simmons, 2012; Ioannidis, 2005a, 2005b; Palmer, 2000; Steele, Bass, & Crook, 1999)."
(cut)
More generally, the prevalence of QRPs raises questions about the credibility of research findings and threatens research integrity by producing unrealistically elegant results that may be difficult to match without engaging in such practices oneself.
This can lead to a "race to the bottom," with questionable research begetting even more questionable research.
----------------------
Thanks to Ken Pope for this information.
The abstract and article are here.
Sunday, August 28, 2011
NY judge won't order Gitmo doc probe
By JENNIFER PELTZ, Associated Press
NEW YORK – A judge has declined to force an investigation into whether an Army psychologist developed abusive interrogation techniques for detainees at Guantanamo Bay and should be stripped of his license, halting what civil-rights advocates have called the first court case amid a push to shed light on psychologists' role in terror suspects' interrogations.The person who brought the case — another psychologist — doesn't have legal standing to do so, Manhattan Civil Court Judge Saliann Scarpulla said in a ruling filed Thursday.
Rights activists and some psychologists have pressed regulators in several states — unsuccessfully so far — to explore whether psychologists violated professional rules by designing or observing abusive interrogations.
In New York, rights advocates focused on John F. Leso, saying he developed "psychologically and physically abusive" interrogation techniques for use on detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
The state Office of Professional Discipline, which oversees psychologists, declined last year to look into Leso. The agency said that his Army work is outside its purview and that the agency isn't in a position to address larger questions about the appropriateness of detainee interrogation methods.
The decision spurred the San Francisco-based Center for Justice and Accountability, the New York Civil Liberties Union and psychologist Steven Reisner to sue the agency last fall and ask the judge to force a review of techniques developed by Leso, who holds a New York psychologists' license.
"The ruling is unfortunate, as Dr. Reisner's claims raise serious and fundamental questions that should have their day in court," Center for Justice and Accountability lawyer Kathy Roberts said in a statement.
She said the groups are considering an appeal but also keeping their eye on proposed state legislation that would require investigating any allegation that a health care professional has participated in torture or other improper treatment.
Representatives for the state professional discipline office and the state Attorney General's office didn't immediately return calls. No contact information was immediately available for Leso, who isn't named in the court case and never chose to weigh in with a filing of his own. An Army spokesman didn't immediately return a call about Leso.
The rest of the story can be read here.
Saturday, July 16, 2011
Ethical dilemmas: A model to understand teacher practice
Ehrich, Lisa Catherine; Kimber, Megan; Millwater, Jan; Cranston, Neil
Over recent decades, the field of ethics has been the focus of increasing attention in teaching. This is not surprising given that teaching is a moral activity that is heavily values-laden. Because of this, teachers face ethical dilemmas in the course of their daily work. This paper presents an ethical decision-making model that helps to explain the decision-making processes that individuals or groups are likely to experience when confronted by an ethical dilemma. In order to make sense of the model, we put forward three short ethical dilemma scenarios facing teachers and apply the model to interpret them. Here we identify the critical incident, the forces at play that help to illuminate the incident, the choices confronting the individual and the implications of these choices for the individual, organisation and community.
Based on our analysis and the wider literature we identify several strategies that may help to minimise the impact of ethical dilemmas. These include the importance of sharing dilemmas with trusted others; having institutional structures in schools that lessen the emergence of harmful actions occurring; the necessity for individual teachers to articulate their own personal and professional ethics; acknowledging that dilemmas have multiple forces at play; the need to educate colleagues about specific issues; and the necessity of appropriate preparation and support for teachers. Of these strategies, providing support for teachers via professional development is explored more fully.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)