00
•
wo
psyc 00
SCOTT SEIDER, KATIE DAVIS
GARDNER
and
HOWARD
with a new paradigm for considering ethical
dilemmas and quality in psychology.
HEN a scholarly discipline
involves human beings - as
researchers or subjects, as
clinicians or patients - ethical issues are
certain to loom large. On the research
dimension, famous social psychological
studies by Stanley Milgram on obedience
to authority and Philip Zimbardo on abuse
of authority sparked widespread debate
about the proper treatment of participants.
Claims in The Bell Curve (Hermstein &
Murray, 1994) about heritable differences
in lQ across racial groups ignited heated
debate about whether some scholarly
investigations should be avoided altogether.
Complementing such flare-ups in the
research community are perennial ethical
issues involving treatment. A 1988 survey
of dilemmas encountered by practising
psychologists turned up the following
issues: disclosure of confidential
information, inappropriate or other
conflicting relationships with clients,
providing services to those unable to
pay, appropriate advertisement and
representation of credentials, and the
conduct of colleagues and publication
credit (Pope & etter, 1988). These
dilemmas are not restricted to the
consulting room. Bloche and Marks (2005)
report that the United Stales military prison
for suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay
W
WEBLINKS
The GoodWork Project: www.goodworkprojeetorg
Institute for Global Ethics: www.globafetiJics.org
APA Ethics Office: www.apa.org/eliJics
~--------------
I The Psychologist
Vol 20 No II
employs teams of psychologists to
prepare psychological profiles for use by
interrogators as well as to observe and offer
feedback to these inten·ogators. Such a role
may violate longstanding core clinical
principles such as 'do no harm' and
'respect confidentiality'.
As science advances, new ethical issues
crop up. Advances in cognitive
neuroscience and allied fields include the
development of drugs that can improve
performance on learning and memory tasks
for both impaired and normal individuals;
brain-imaging techniques that allow for
early diagnoses of learning disabilities
such as dyslexia; and the identification of
genetic markers that may predict learning
difficulties or prodigious potentials in
young children. While exciting, such
imminent breakthroughs raise vexing
questions about what use should be made
of this new knowledge, by whom, at what
cost, and with what safeguards (Sheridan
ef al., 2005). Recognising this 'growing
quagmire', The Council of Scientific
Society Presidents recently convened an
Ethics in Science committee to develop
recommendations for more than 60
member organisations concerning the
formulation of appropriate codes of ethics.
The unparalleled power of market
forces and powerful new digital media also
impact the field of psychology. Researchers
feel tremendous pressure to bring in grants
that will increase both the prestige and
budgets of their sponsoring institutions
(Verducci & Gardner, 2006). Meanwhile,
clinical psychologists report that the rise
of the internet has affected everything from
the types of addictions reported by their
clients to the marketing one must do
to attract clients. Such cultural and
technological changes have ushered in a
host of new ethical challenges with which
contemporary psychologists must contend.
In short, the field of psychology has
always grappled with ethical dilemmas,
but new technologies and powerful societal
trends have brought forth ethical
conundrums for which traditional
paradigms may not suffice. In this context
findings from the GoodWork Project may
prove useful.
Launched in 1996, the project is a
multi-site collaboration between
psychologists Howard Gardner, William
Damon and Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi.
'Good work' is defined as work that
exhibits three 'E' traits: it is (1) Exct:llent
in quality; (2) carried out in an Ethical
manner; and (3) Ellgaging to its
practitioners. The goal of this endeavour
is to illuminate the supports and obstacles
to producing such work in a time when
technological advances are occurring
rapidly and market forces are powelful
and often unchecked.
Over the past decade, the GoodWork
Project (GWP) research team has
conducted over 1200 in-depth interviews
across a wide range of professions from
journalism to genetics to medicine.
Findings have been reported in numerous
books and articles (see Fischman ef al.,
2004; Gardner et 01., 200 I: Gardner &
Shulman, 2005; Verducci & Gardner 2006).
In this article we focus particularly on the
'second E': the supports and obstacles to
carrying out work that is ethical.
Specifically, we report on three key
November 200;
Ethk'~
findings that may be useful to
psychologists in thinking about the most
pertinent ethical issues to the field today.
Keeping hats straight
One of the project's findings is that ethical
issues arise when people wear too many
professional 'hats' simultaneously or try to
switch back and forth rapidly between
possibly incompatible 'hats.' In our study
of genetics, for example, we found that
advances in the field created private-sector
opportunities for geneticists employed by
universities as academic researchers and
professors. Academics are expected to
report research openly and share data;
entrepreneurs often carry out secret lines
of work. Attempts by some of these
professionals to don two hats
simultaneously - that of academic and
entrepreneur - increased the likelihood of
ethically questionable conduct and even
outright misconduct.
Comparable ethical conflicts can arise
in psychology. Consider a psychologist
who tests and treats schoolchildren
experiencing learning difficulties while
simultaneously accepting commissions
from a pharmaceutical company for
promoting a particular neurocognitive­
enhancing dlug. Or imagine a research
psychologist who begins a study testing the
effectiveness of this same neurocognitive­
enhancing drug while simultaneously
providing consulting services to the drug
maker. The pressures to skew findings or to
hide disappointing results are patent.
It is, in large part, for this reason that
Kwiatkowksi and Winter (2006) observe:
'As soon as one moves beyond one's
professional reference group to interact
with others, it is extraordinarily important
to know what you really know, what you
thought you knew, what you imagined,
where theory is infonning or conversely
biasing you, and the limits of your
understanding' (p.163). Such self­
awareness is critical to avoid succumbing
to the aforementioned pressure to skew
findings or hide disappointing results.
The donning of too many hats can also
lead to less blatant ethical issues - what
we've tenned compromised work (Gardner,
2005). The research psychologist at a
typical university may be expected to teach
several classes, advise graduate students,
serve on committees, read admissions
folders, referee journal articles, write
recommendation letters, secure grants,
conduct research and publish the results of
their research. The impact of donning so
many different hats in rapid succession can
lead to a variety of ethical peccadilloes:
skimming student work; overlooking a case
of suspected plagiarism; missing deadlines
on promised recommendation letters;
relying too heavily on research assistants;
and taking shortcuts in that research.
The GWP offers several suggestions for
handling the 'hat problem.' Consider the
psychologist who is both clinician and
consultant. Doing 'good work' requires
COMMON ETHICAL
DILEMMAS IN PSYCHOLOGY
I.
Maintaining confidentiality
2.
Maintaining professional relationships with
clients
3. Altering or ignoring data in order to publish
4.
Responding to the ethically questionable
conduct of colleagues
5.
Balancing commitments to teaching. clients,
research. committees, etc.
such professionals to make a clear choice
between these conflicting hats - for
example, no longer seeing patients of
a certain type while consulting about a
particular drug. Avoiding such a choice
risks failing to embody the values of one
or both of the potential hats they are
attempting to wear.
Technological or cultural changes
within a profession can also lead
professionals to take on more hats than
they can responsibly handle or to don hats
for which they are inadequately trained.
For example, a clinical psychologist
abmptly expected to incorporate brain­
imaging results into diagnoses may be
donn.ing a hat for which more training is
required. In both of these cases, doing good
work requires these professionals to prod
their respective organisations for the time
and training that will allow them to do
work that is both ethical and excellent.
Should such prodding prove ineffective,
the psychologist is advised to seek
employment elsewhere (cf. Hirschman,
1970).
Seeking alignment among
stakeholders
Cultural and technological changes have ushered in a host of new ethical challenges
Our interviews of professionals across
a variety of fields document a pervasive
desire to do good work. However, we also
discovered that an individual's ability to do
good work within their profession is
dependent not only upon that particular
individual's motivation, expel1ise and
resources but also upon the alignment of
the profession as a whole. In other words,
individual psychology must mesh with
sociological institutions and forces.
A profession is in alignment when the
various stakeholders within that profession
hold similar beliefs about the values,
activities, goals and rewards of the work
being carried out. Conversely, a profession
is 'misaligned' when different stakeholders
within the profession are guided by
______________E
November 2007
www.thepsychologist.org.uk
I
-1
Ethk'
contradictory goals and values or hold
competing beliefs about the pathway along
which the work should be pursued
(Gardner et ai., 2001).
Both clinical and research psychology
currently face ethical threats due to
misalignment. In the United States - where
most of our research has been carried out ­
clinical psychologists experience
disheartening misalignment when they
recommend a particular level of treatment
for a patient only to have that patient's
managed care organisation agree to
reimburse only a fraction of the presCiibed
treatment or to reject the claim completely.
Such a situation can lead to the ethical
dilemma of having to choose between
prematurely terminating with a patient;
continuing to treat the patient without
guarantee of compensation; or, in the
extreme, lying about the condition (for
example by giving a formal diagnosis of
obsessive compulsive disorder when in
fact you think that a person's tendencies
actually fall short of the criteria).
Research psychologists can experience
misalignment when pressure from their
institutions to win large research grants
leads them to pal1ner with organisations
whose mission and values conflict with
their own. Imagine, for example, a
researcher interested in testing (and
possibly rebutting) the claims made by
Herrnstein and Murray (1994) about racial
differences in intelligence. Should that
researcher seek funding from The Pioneer
Fund, one of a tiny handful of
organisations that fund research in the area
of intelligence and race but one of whose
founders supported both eugenics and
racial segregation? Such a partnership
might allow the researcher to carry out the
study but at the cost of his or her findings
possibly being used by the study's sponsor
in a manner contrary to the researcher's
own ethical beliefs.
While good work is unquestionably
easier to carry out in a profession that is
well aligned, one of our project's more
surprising findings is that some
professionals are motivated to do good
work by their profession's misalignment.
Such individuals seek to reduce their field's
misalignment by strengthening the core
values of their profession. Geneticists have
founded the Council on Responsible
Genetics; journalists rally to the Committee
of Concerned Journalists; and many
businesses explicitly adopt a code of
socially responsible business practices.
~r--------------
I The Psychologist
Vol 20 No II
Still active at age 91, Jerome Bruner seems a worthy candidate for a 'psychological trustee'
Acknowledging and debating - rather
than ignoring or obscuring - the current
examples of misalignment in psychology,
then, can motivate individual practitioners
and institutions to confront these problems
head-on and perhaps bring about greater
alignment.
The role of mentors
The GoodWork Project has documented
the importance of strong mentors within a
profession. A worrying trend that emerged
in our interviews with aspiring
professionals is their readiness to cut
corners and compromise their ethical
moorings in order to compete with their
peers (Fischman et ai., 2004). They wanted
to do good work, but felt pressured by their
cut-throat professional environment to
postpone good work until they had
achieved success.
Respondents across all professions
commented on the imp0l1ance of strong
role models, or mentors, to act as a buffer
against such pressures. The vertical support
offered by these experienced and
knowledgeable 'senior workers' played an
integral role in respondents' continuing
pursuit of good work. Those who lacked
such SUpp0l1 bemoaned its absence and felt
more susceptible to the temptation of quick
money or quick fame.
The nature of mentorship varied across
professions according to the presence or
absence of formal training. Formal mentors
were more common in genetics, law and
higher education, where guidance from an
experienced and knowledgeable
practitioner is a prescribed part of one's
professional development. In contrast,
informal mentors were the norm in
business, 'philanthropic' organisations (e.g.
foundations, grantmakers) and journalism.
Good workers in these latter fields
benefited from unofficial, on-the-job
mentors as well as paragons whom they
did not know personally but admired from
afar (cf. Simonton, 1994).
Given the many years of training
required of research and clinical
psychologists, it is not surprising that
mentorship in the field of psychology
has been formalised. An aspiring research
psychologist receives guidance and
supervision from an academic adviser
and may pursue a series of postdoctoral
positions under the supervision of
experienced researchers. These
apprenticeships enable a deepening of
disciplinary knowledge and an extension
of professional networks. Similarly, an
aspiring clinical psychologist must log
hundreds of hours of supervised
counselling before obtaining clinical
certification. In both cases, formal
apprenticeships provide an opportunity
for the young professional to learn how
to navigate ethical issues in the field of
psychology, whether relating to publication
credit or client confidentiality.
In light of the important role that
mentors play in motivating good work, we
urge young psychologists to take care when
selecting their mentors. It is not the case
that any mentor is better than none.
Individuals who are overcommitted lack
the time to provide consistent and high­
quality mentorship. It is difficult to develop
November 2007
a deep and meaningful relationship with
mentors who are spread too thin. At the
other extreme, overly restrictive mentors do
not allow young professionals the needed
space to develop their skills and follow
their passions. Lastly, individuals who seek
mentorship roles for personal gain make
poor candidates, as the quality of their
mentors hip will be limited by their own
motivations.
It goes without saying that individuals
with sub-par ethical records are unlikely to
make good mentors. In our work, we have
identified such individuals as 'anti­
mentors' or 'tormentors' and we have
observed that they often serve an impOitant
purpose, albeit not as mentor. Instead, they
can alert both budding and veteran
psychologists to their own and their
profession's values and goals and
encourage reflection on the boundary
where good work ends and compromised
work begins.
In our interviews with novice
professionals, three qualities emerged as
ones to look for in a mentor: perseverance,
creativity and commitment (Fischman &
Gardner, 2005). Individuals told us about
mentors who persevered with work they
felt was important despite challenging
situations. Such mentors demonstrated
tlu'ough their courageous actions that it is
possible to cany out good work in the face
of obstacles. Individuals were also inspired
by mentors who pushed the limits of their
profession in creative ways and, as a result,
made important contributions to their
profession while simultaneously making
their work personally meaningful. Finally,
young professionals admired the
commitment their mentors displayed to
canying out the mission of their profession
while remaining mindful of the social
impact of their work.
We suggest four strategies for helping
young psychologists to select a mentor
who will nurture the qualities of
perseverance, creativity and commitment
within themselves (Fischman & Gardner,
2005). First, seek a mentor whose working
styles, beliefs and worldviews complement
your own, as this fit should foster the
development of a personal relationship.
Second, if you have trouble identifying a
mentor within your profession, consider
broadening your search. The professionals
we interviewed frequently refelTed to
influential individuals outside of their
profession, such as family members and
teachers. Third, it is often valuable to
November 2007
identify multiple mentors who serve
different purposes. For instance, you migbt
have one mentor who can offer you sage
career advice, another who is a good
listener and a third who helps you develop
your professional skills. Fourth, consider
the fact that inspirational role models may
not always be available or even alive.
While unable to provide personalised
advice about current issues, influential
figures remote in space or time often
provide powerful examples of
perseverance, creativity and conunitment.
In addition to mentors and anti-mentors,
a role we refer to as a 'trustee'
characterises well-aligned professions.
Trustees are leaders in their field who have
carried out good work throughout the
course of their careers and continue to
exelt their influence on their professions.
They use their position of professional
'They wanted to do good
work, but felt pressured by
their cut-throat professional
environment'
eminence in a disinterested way to preserve
the field's values and goals. They may also
serve an important role in setting new
norms for dealing with ethical issues that
emerge as technological advances, market
forces and political fluxes continue to exert
their influence on all professions. Trustees
exist in many areas. For example, the late
Isaiah Berlin was considered by many to be
a trustee of British intellectual life. On the
global scene, former Irish President Mary
Robinson occupies a trustee role. Trustees
in the field of psychology, for example,
could help to establish nOlIDS for research
studies involving the new digital media or
the appropIiate use of neurocognitive­
enhancing drugs.
Still active at age 91, Jerome Bruner
seems a wOlthy candidate for a
psychological trustee (Bruner, 1983; Olson,
2007). Bruner has had a profound impact
on both psychology and education. His
theoretical oeuvre is extensive and includes
such topics as adult problem-solving, the
new look in visual perception, children's
cognitive development and modes of
representation, the process of teaching
as one of knowledge building rather than
knowledge transfer, and the role of culture
in learning and teaching. Beyond his
u-npOitant theoretical contributions, Bruner
worked to establish cognitive psychology
as an important area of study at a time
when behaviourism dominated the field.
He was also involved in numerous
educational projects in which he oversaw
the practical application of his ideas
Bruner's engagement in shaping tbe norms
of psychology and active involvement in
the responsible application of his work
exemplify our definition of a trustee.
We had the oppOitunity to ask Bruner
about psychologists in Britain who
occupied the role of trustee. VelY quickly,
he came up with the name of Frederic
Bartlett, long-time professor at Cambridge,
and one of the forerunners of modern
cognitive psychology. Bartlett was widely
respected for his scholarly
accomplishments, his judgement of
complex issues, and his personal integrity.
It is perhaps not an accident that the senior
Bartlett took an interest in the young
Bruner; trusteeship can be passed from one
generation to the next and the process can
be quite deliberate. There can also be
specific roles for which trustees are
groomed: election to honoraly societies
or to positions like masters of colleges are
often carried out with the role of present
or future trustee in mind. However,
tnlsteeship can also arise when there is a
widely perceived gap within a profession:
when most Amelican physicists uncritically
embraced the goal of the Manhattan project
to develop the first atom bomb, physicist
Joseph Rotblat was already pondering the
dangers of a nuclear world.
It is also possible to think of prominent
psychologists who have had less positive
effects on the field. When educational
psychologist Sir CyIil Burt died in 1971,
he was considered a leading figure in
psychology, perhaps even a trustee (Tucker,
1994). His findings on the heritability of
intelligence were cited frequently by well­
known scientists, including psychologists
Arthur Jensen (1969) and Hans Eysenck
(1973) and engineer-turned-eugenicist
William Shockley (1972). In the years that
followed Burt's death, however, scientists
discovered oddities and discrepancies in his
most famous research involving
monozygotic twins reared apart (Tucker,
1994). When psychologist Leon Kamin
examined Burt's data and publications, he
uncovered questionable sampling methods
and IQ measurement procedures, false
citations, and cOlTelation coefficients that
remained impossibly consistent over a 30­
year period of studying different samples
----------------lE
www.thepsychologist.org.uk
I
_I
Ethic<
of twins, A once lauded psychologist,
Bun could now be considered a footnote
of inesponsible research in the history of
psychology (Lewontin et ai" 1984),
Conclusion
New ethical issues require new tools for
pursuing good work, Our GoodWork
Project suggests that psychologists should
(I) think about the various hats they don,
(2) consider issues of alignment within
their field and seek to COD'ect areas of
misalignment, and (3) identify mentors,
anti-mentors, and trustees who can help to
exemplify and delimit the boundaries of
good work in psychology,
As they seek to pursue the three Es of
GoodWork, psychologists should also
consider the four Ms: (1) What is the
Mission of my field? (2) What are the
positive and negative Models that I must
keep in mind? (3) \l hen I look into the
Minor as an individual professional, am
I proud or embarrassed by what I see?
and (4) When I hold up the Mirror to my
profession, am I proud or embarrassed by
what I see? (Verducci & Gardner, 2006),
Psychologists who ask and seek powerful
answers to these questions will be more
likely to do good work.
In the spirit of propagating good work,
we have compiled our insights into an
educational intervention, The GoodWork
Toolkit includes several powerful ethical
dilemmas that emerged during our
interviews; these dilemmas are described
in a manner that promotes deep reflection
about the merits, challenges, and
facilitators of good work, The cuniculum
was inspired by our interviews with
aspiring and young professionals who
repeatedly defended their decision to
postpone good work until they had 'made
it' in today's cutthroat, market-driven
environment (Fischman et ai., 2004),
Deeply troubled by this mindset, we
believe it is imperative for educational
institutions to prepare individuals to cany
'It is not enough ... simply to
carry out one's individual
work in an excellent, ethical
and engaging manner...'
out ethical, not just excellent, work,
(Barendsen & Fischman, 2007;
goodworkproject,org) The Toolkit is
currently being used in a number of
secondary and postsecondary schools in
the United States,
The Toolkit prepares new professionals
to pursue good work before they enter the
field, Once established in the field, new
and experienced professionals alike must
not lose sight of the good work trifecta
(excellent, ethical, and engaging work)
or the tools that make it possible (hats,
alignment, mentors), It is not enough,
Has the increasingly global village influenced the 'hat'
problem in psychology? If so, how?
Have your formal or informal mentors been more
influential? In what ways?
How do the areas of psychology with which you are
most familiar fare on the mirror test?
What 'hats' do you don as a psychologist, and have
they led to conflicts or compromised work?
Whom would you nominate as a psychological
trustee? What qualities must today's trustees
exhibit?
Have your say on these or other issues this article
raises, E-mail 'letters' on psycholog;st@bps,org,uk or
contribute (members only) via www,psychforum,org,uk.
~I-------------­
I The Psychologls[
Vol 20 No II
• Scott Seider is an Instructor in
Education and advanced doctoral
candidate at Harvard Graduate School of
Education, Cambridge, MA. E-mail:
seidersc@gse,harvardedu,
• Katie Davis is (( doctoral student and
research assistant at Harvard Graduate
School of Education, Cambridge, MA:
E-mail: daviska@gse,harvardedu,
• Howard Gardner is Hobbs Professor of
Education and Cognition. Harvard
Graduate School of Education, Cambridge,
MA. E-mail: howard@pz,harvardedu,
References
Barendsen, L. & Fischman, W
(2007),The GoodWork Toolkit:
From theory to practice, In H,
Gardner (Ed,) Responsibility at
work: How leading professionals
oct (or don't oct) responsibly. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass,
Bloche, M, & Marks,J, (2005),
Doctors and in(errogacors at
DISCUSS AND DEBATE
however, simply to cany out one's
in.dividual work in an excellent, ethical and
engaging manner and then move on to a
new project or client. Leading
psychologists need to take on the role of
trustee: as the playwright Moliere declared:
'We are responsible not only for what we
do, but for what we don't do.' A new
covenant is needed between psychologist
and society, one that takes the psychologist
beyond scientific curiosity and the client
roster. This covenant requires individuals to
assume a responsibility to monitor the way
in which psychological work is carried out,
understood, and used by others, both
within the field and across the broader
society,
Guantanamo Bay, New England
Journal a( MediCfne,353, 6-8,
Bruner, j,S. (1983), In searcll of mind,
New York: Norcon,
Eysenck, H.]. (1973), The inequollW of
man, London: Temple Smirh,
Fischman,W & Gardner, H, (2005),
Inspiring good work, Greater
Good, Spring/Summer 2005,
Fischman, W, Solomon, B"
Greenspan, D, & Gardner, H,
(2004), Making good: How young
people cope witll moral dilemmas
at work, Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.
Gardner, H, (2005), Compromised
work, Daedalus Summer, 2005,
Gardner, H" Csikszentmihalyi, M. &
Damon,W (200 I), Good work:
Wilen excellence and ethics
meet New York: Basic Books,
Gardnel~
H. & Shulman, L. (2005).
The professions in America
coday: Crucial but fragile.
Daedalus, Summer 2005.
Herrnstein, R, & Murray, C. (1994),
Tile bell curve: Intelligence and
class structure jn American fjfe.
New York: Free Press,
Hirschman.AO, (1970), Exit, voice,
and loyalty. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.
Jensen.AR. (1969), How much can
we boost IQ and scholastIC
achievement? Harvard
Educotianal Review, 39( I),
1-123
KWiatkowski, R, & Winter, B. (2006),
Roots, relativity and realism:
The occupational psychologist
as 'scientist-practitioner'. In D.
Lane & S, Corrie (Eds,) The
modern scientist practil.i.oner:A
guide to practice in psychology,
London: Routledge.
Lewontin, R" Rose, S. & Kamin, L
(1984), Not in our genes, New
York: Pantheon.
Olson, D, (2007), Jerome Bruner,
London: Continuum Press.
Pope, K, & VenerY (1988), Ethical
dilemmas encountered
by
members of the American
Psychological Association: A
national survey. American
Psychologist, 47, 397--411.
Sheridan, K., Zinchenko, E, &
Gardner, H, (2005).
Neuroerhics in education. In
J.
Illes (Ed,) Neuroethics: De(illing
the issues /n research, praQlCe,
and policy (pp,26S-27S). New
York: Oxford University PI'ess,
Shockley, WB, (1972), Dysgenics,
geneticity, raceology: A
challenge to the intellectual
responsibility of educacors, Phi
Delta Kappon, 297-307.
Simonton, D, (1994). Greatness, New
YOI'k: Guilfor'd,
Tucker~ WH, (1994), Fact and fiction
in the discovery of Sir Cyril
Burt's fiaws,Jaumol a(the
History of Ule Behavioral
Sciences, 30(4), 335-347
Verducci, S. & Gardner, H, (2006).
Good work: Its nature, its
nurture, In F Huppert (Ed,) Tile
science o( happiness. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
November 2007