Current Event #3 page 1
Kevin D. McMahon
Student ID#: 78513
SED 625SC
November 10, 2006
Current Event III
A Summary, Analysis & Reflection of:
Moral Sensitivity and its Contribution
to the Resolution of Socio-Scientific Issues
Troy D. Sandler
Indiana University
Journal of Moral Education
Vol. 33, No. 3, September 2004
Current Event #3 page 2
The focus of this study was to examine (1) how students “recognize, interpret, and
negotiate” the moral dimension of socio-scientific issues, (2) the “extent to which the
moral implications perceived” by the study group “contributes to their resolution of the
issues,” and (3) to assess the influence of content knowledge to moral sensitivity. Two
socio-scientific issues were presented to participants; both involved genetic engineering:
(1) gene therapy for Huntington’s disease, and (2) human cloning as a treatment for
infertility. After reading the two scenarios participants were interviewed and asked if
they would support the use of gene therapy and human cloning. A second interview was
conducted a few days later in which the author described his interpretation of the
participant’s responses allowing the participant to correct or clarify the author’s
understanding. After this phase of the interview was completed, the author asked specific
questions to “reveal all of the factors which [the participants] considered as they
confronted and tried to resolve each socio-scientific issue.” The interviews were assessed
by the author with the aid of a rubric which was designed by the author after the second
interview. Several statistical analyses were applied to the data generated, conclusions
were drawn and this was followed by a discussion of the relevance and benefits of the
research.
The sample size of the study was limited to thirty college students: 15 biology
majors and 15 psychology majors. The author deliberately chose different majors in
order to examine the effect of content knowledge on moral decision-making. It was
expected that the biology students would have a better understanding of the
biotechnology involved in the socio-scientific issue presented. Sixteen of the participants
were female while fourteen were male with each gender equally divided by majors.
Current Event #3 page 3
My immediate concern regarding the research was the number of students that
participated in the study and the ability to generalize conclusions based upon a relatively
small sample size. In his discussion the author makes some sweeping conclusions
regarding the nature of moral decision-making. He rejected as inadequate models that
rely on application of universal principles (Kohlberg, 1973): “…the Kohlbergian model
of morality would not be a robust descriptor of the decision-making displayed.” This
conclusion may not be supported by a study of thirty college students. Furthermore,
other conclusions may be drawn regarding college students not employing universal
principles in moral decision-making other than their inadequacy for socio-scientific
issues.
Another concern with the study is the manner in which the author conducted his
“qualitative” research. Certainly, there is a place for qualitative analysis particularly in
the field of education where it is difficult (impossible) to reduce people to quantification.
Nevertheless, the author posits the primary “criterion of truth” for qualitative research
with “trustworthiness” which, as he explains, subsumes “credibility” and “dependability.”
If this is indeed the criterion of truth for qualitative research then I would expect to find
the author’s curriculum vitae posted at the end of the article whereby the reader can
obtain some insight into the author’s education, training, and experience so that we may
judge him trustworthy or not. And even though trustworthiness is a virtue that should be
possessed by qualitative and quantitative researchers alike there is still need for evidence
of objectivity and reproducibility.
In regard to objectivity the author did ask the participants if he had properly
understood their decision-making process. However, his construction of the rubric by
Current Event #3 page 4
which he organized his interpretation of the interviews is suspect. Why did he construct
the rubric after the second interview? As an expert in the field of moral education it is
not unreasonable to assume that Mr. Sadler could have anticipated the diverse methods
by which the participants came to their decisions. Those that fell outside the range of his
rubric would then have challenged the author’s expectation and possibly his hypothesis.
By constructing the rubric after the final interview the author could assure that all
responses could be neatly accounted for. One final word on objectivity— his apparent
rush to reject Kohlberg leads me to question whether the author entered the research with
an open mind regarding the results.
The author did address the issue of reproducibility by having a peer listen to 20%
of the interviews. It was reported that the peer agreed with the author’s interpretation of
the interviews 90% of the time. A 90% correlation of data would be inadequate for
quantitative studies and given the inevitably sensitivity of qualitative research to
subjectivity one might be expecting a higher correlation.
In spite of the research deficits enumerated I found the article to be informative
and valuable. The process by which moral decisions are made by students is an
important area of study. I suspect that the author’s interpretation of the participants’
interviews were accurate even though I questioned his conclusion. Nevertheless, the
interpretation is telling in itself. It is clear that many young people do not have the ability
to approach moral issues in an objective and systematic manner. As a result many of
them rely on a high personalistic approach which is problematic when dealing with issues
which extend beyond the person and toward the greater society. Moral education will
become increasingly important as the consequence of a generation of neglect becomes
Current Event #3 page 5
evident. Hence, it is even more important that research conducted in this area be
credible.
Reference:
Sadler, Troy D (2004) Moral Sensitivity and its Contribution to the Resolution of SocioScientific Issues. The Journal of Moral Education Vo. 33, No. 3, September 2004
Kohlberg, L. (1973) The Claim to Moral Adequacy of a Highest Stage of Moral
Judgment. Journal of Philosophy 70 (18), 618- 646