Meeting the Challenges of Designing Ethics Education for Social Work

Author: Dr. Donna McAuliffe and Ms Terrie Ferman

pdf version

University of Queensland, Australia.

Keywords: Ethics education, social work, teaching and learning.

Article style and source: Peer reviewed, Original ultiBASE publication

Contents

• Abstract
• Introduction
• The Teaching of Values and Ethics in Social Work
• Developing Curriculum for Undergraduate Ethics Education
• The Process of Curriculum Development
• Assessment
• Evaluation of the course
• Important Learnings
• What students valued about how the course was
  taught
• Conclusion
• References

Abstract

The profession of social work is demanding, fraught with a plethora of ethically challenging situations.  If graduates are to be equipped to deal in a principled and systematic way with ethical dilemmas, they need to engage in courses of study specifically dedicated to the moral and ethical issues of their profession.  This paper reports on an undergraduate course developed in 2000 at The University of Queensland designed to teach Social Work ethics.  The focus was on a sound theoretical foundation within which students explored in interactive, dialogic ways a range of professionally difficult scenarios and considered their responses to these situations.  The underlying philosophy, educational design process and implementation of the course are described with evaluations from students attesting to the success of the course.

Introduction

It has often been said that ethics is a minefield. If this is true, then teaching ethics is equivalent to trying to secure the master plans to where the mines have been laid in order to develop a strategic course of action to deal with the often harsh realities and outcomes. This paper details the rationale, development, implementation and evaluation of an undergraduate course in social work ethics. It is argued that there are significant advantages to exploring the complexity of the ethical minefield within discrete courses rather than relying on the traditional infusion of ethics content scattered throughout a curriculum. Given the complexity of ethics, the questions of the content that should be included in such a course design, and how this content should be assessed, become paramount. The proposition is put forth that critical analysis of personal, professional and organisational value positions lies at the heart of ethical practice. Assessment should therefore be designed to allow an application of values (directly informed by ethical theory), to the types of grounded situations that will inevitably confront and challenge social workers in the field. Examples of innovative possibilities for student assessment include the construction of 'ethical dialogues' in the Socratic tradition; and the critical analysis of selected videos/movies dealing with contemporary ethical issues of interest to human services. The position taken in this paper is supported by a recent qualitative research study exploring ethical dilemmas experienced by Australian social work practitioners, and highlights the implications of the research findings for ethics education across the human services (McAuliffe, 2000). back

The Teaching of Values and Ethics in Social Work

The literature in relation to ethics education clearly supports the position that a combination of infusion of ethics throughout the curriculum and discrete courses on ethics will provide graduates with a sound basis on which to develop an ethical framework for practice (Goldstein 1998; Haynes 1999; Joseph & Conrad 1983; Joseph 1991; Morelock 1997; Reamer & Abramson 1982). Empirical research across a range of fields of practice consistently highlights the need for attention to the teaching of ethics. Related questions of whether it is, in fact, possible to teach ethics at all has also been the subject of debate and has significantly influenced teaching modalities (Brown 1996; Segon 1996). The literature on the teaching of values and ethics in social work dates back to the work of Muriel Pumphrey (1959), and was followed by a Hastings Center publication on the teaching of social work ethics (Reamer & Abramson 1982). A historical analysis of the evolution of values and ethics in social work shows that ethics has emerged as one of the critical elements in education for the 21^st century. According to Reamer (1998, p. 496),

The profession must intensify its efforts to educate students and practitioners about ethical issues and standards and ways to address them…social work education programs should implement ambitious agendas to offer in-depth and comprehensive instruction and research on ethical dilemmas and standards, ethical decision-making strategies, risk management and ethical misconduct.

The trend for the inclusion of ethics in undergraduate social work curricula has been to integrate ethical content through infusion - the pervasive model. There is mounting evidence, however, that discrete ethics courses are also necessary to teach ethical analysis and decision-making (Joseph & Conrad 1983; Joseph 1991; Reamer & Abramson 1982). This combination of infusion and discrete courses can be achieved by adopting an integrative framework for teaching social work values, focusing on personal, social, political and professional dimensions (Haynes 1999). There also appears to be a consensus in the more recent social work literature on ethics education that some combination of theoretical knowledge and experiential wisdom is desirable (Flynn 1997; Goldstein 1998). Discrete ethics courses in social work should encompass exploration and critique of relevant codes; stimulate debates based on hypothetical scenarios; provide discussion of actual ethics related case examples from students’ own work or field experiences; utilise experts in ethics to present and engage students in discussion; and provide opportunities to explore ethical issues in depth through written work (Morelock 1997). A ‘competing values approach’ can also be used that stimulates ethical dialogue without expecting that every dilemma will necessarily have a clear-cut resolution (Mathews et al 1997). In keeping with the post-modern perspective on ethics, contributions have also been made to the debate on ethics education in the suggestion that the use of narrative and constructivist approaches are useful in teaching social work ethics (Dean & Rhodes 1998).

The literature in the area of ethics education is predominantly from the U.S. but there is some indication of how ethics is currently being taught in Australian undergraduate social work courses. The National Ethics Committee of the Australian Association of Social Workers (AASW) commissioned a report in 1995 that explored ethics teaching in 17 Australian Schools of Social Work (AASW, 1995). Findings from the report were that all Schools taught explicit ethics material in undergraduate courses, the teaching was located in both social work and philosophy subjects, and the Code of Ethics was distributed to students as part of these courses. The AASW report made the following recommendations:

• Ethics should be explicit, mandatory and strategically placed within the curriculum;
• It should include systematic introduction to ethical theory, to the ethical problems of the social work profession, and to the profession’s code of ethics and its application;
• Ethics should be integrated with practice subjects and field placements;
• Teaching material should reflect developments in ethical theory, and use locally relevant case examples;
• Ethics education should be taught by people with training in ethics as well as an understanding of the field of social work.

These recommendations are supported by a qualitative research study conducted in 1998/99 with thirty Australian social workers where management of ethical dilemmas in front-line practice was explored in some depth (McAuliffe 2000). Some of the findings from this research have direct implication for social work ethics education in the following areas: the language of ethics; frameworks of decision making; relevance and applicability of ethical codes; and the importance of consultation and support. back

1. The language of ethics:

The research showed that while practitioners did have relatively sound levels of ethical awareness and were familiar with professional values and basic ethical principles, they did not frame their discussions in the language of ethics. Ethical theories such as deontology, utilitarianism, and relativism were not articulated to support particular positions. This was of interest as some of the situations were described as a deliberate weighing up of individual rights against the ‘greatest good for the greatest number’. They were not, however, framed as rights-based or utilitarian arguments. One social worker, who had extensive experience in the field of genetic counselling, discussed the relevance of bioethical principles in some detail. Only one other worker mentioned ‘paternalism’ as a concept that explained the medical position in relation to a patient. More common principles such as confidentiality and self-determination were more easily identified, as were social work values such as empowerment, advocacy and participation. Learning the language of ethics through the education process could build shared meaning in relation to complex value issues and provide alternate explanatory frameworks to aid analysis of ethical dilemmas.

2.  Frameworks of decision-making:

In relation to decision-making frameworks, few of the participants described a process that incorporated the critical steps as outlined in the literature. Most had followed a problem solving model but had not clearly identified the conflicting ethical principles, sought relevant information, or consulted appropriately. As a number of useful ethical decision-making frameworks and models are presented in the literature (Congress 1999; Loewenberg, Dolgoff & Harrington 2000), students at undergraduate level should be made aware of these so that they can be added to their professional repertoire. Familiarity with the range of ethical theories and their application to different situations could assist social workers to more clearly articulate their reasoning and strengthen justifications for decisions. This could also reduce the stress that social workers experience when they deal with enormous challenges on a case-by-case basis.

3.  Relevance and applicability of ethical codes:

Very few of the social workers in the study used the existing code of ethics in any systematic way to assist resolution of an ethical dilemma (McAuliffe 1999 and 2000). Given this finding, the social work education process should take responsibility for introducing students to relevant ethical codes, and highlight their purpose as giving guidance and clarity on ethical matters. The AASW Code of Ethics should be compared and contrasted with codes from other disciplines so that the importance of the underlying value base is given prominence. Students should also be encouraged to critique the Code, to look for its weaknesses and to test its relevance and usefulness against a range of scenarios. There should be a clear link between ethics education and field placements so that students can give consideration to the ethical dimensions of their beginning practice in the ‘safe space’ provided by the learning paradigm. It is not an acceptable outcome for a student to graduate with no awareness of their ethical responsibilities or standards of professional conduct or without some systematic approach, which they feel able to apply with some confidence. It is acknowledged that attempts to teach ethical guidelines is no guarantee of later applicability, however their explicit inclusion in courses is an essential starting point for later practice.

4.  Importance of consultation and support:

Another area that was highlighted by the research (McAuliffe 2000) was the need for ethics education to address issues relating to consultation and support. Few participants in the study used available supports to their maximum benefit. Those who did were fortunate in that they had access to experienced supervisors, colleagues or personal supports who shared an understanding of the professional and organisational context. The importance of consultation cannot be underestimated. The research showed clearly that when social workers tried to manage distressing ethical issues in the absence of support, particularly when these issues continued over weeks or months, they found the isolation overwhelming. This isolation, whether self-motivated or enforced, can contribute to serious stress responses that can in turn result in burnout (McAuliffe 2000). Social work students also need to be educated about stress management and responsibilities in relation to competent practice. The process of reflection on ethical issues is a level deeper than a concrete problem-solving exercise that may not require an in-depth exploration of personal values. The ‘unconstrained dialogue’ mentioned by Rossiter et al. (2000, p. 97) means that ‘decisions about the appropriateness of the application of professional norms is best accomplished in a dialogue characterised by openness, trust and mutuality’.  Social work education should focus on and teach skills in the constructive use of consultation and challenge perceptions of the need for individual self-reliance and monadic reflection. back

Developing Curriculum for Undergraduate Ethics Education

Following a review of the undergraduate curriculum in 1997, the Bachelor of Social Work degree at the University of Queensland introduced a discrete course entitled ‘Moral and Ethical Foundations of Social Work’ in 2000. The course was located in the third year of a four year degree program, following the first block field placement. This meant that students had some experience in the field on which to base discussions about ethical issues and is in keeping with the AASW Report (1995) that ethics courses need to be placed strategically within a curriculum. Prior to the development of this course, content on ethics was infused throughout the curriculum in a range of practice based subjects, and formed the basis of content in a second year subject (no longer on offer) entitled the ‘Philosophy of Social Work’.  The development of 'Moral and Ethical Foundations of Social Work' relied heavily on the findings from the literature and research outlined above. A recommendation of the AASW Report (1995) was that, ideally, ethics education should be taught by those trained in both ethics and social work. It was fortunate that the academic staff team that developed 'Moral and Ethical Foundations of Social Work' did have this combination of expertise. In the development of some parts of the curriculum, however, assistance was also sought from other disciplines (e.g. philosophy) and this gave a depth to the content around ethical theory and broad understandings of moral philosophy. back

The Process of Curriculum Development

The development of this course was undertaken over a 12-month period.  During this time, the lecturer worked initially with a mentor (an experienced social work practitioner and academic) and an educational designer and then progressively with the educational designer to frame up a learning experience which would be based on sound principles of social constructivism. This approach posits that learning occurs most effectively when students engage actively with both peers and material to build meaning (Gruba & Lynch 1998).  Given the nature of this course, it would have been entirely counter-intuitive to adopt any other approach.  The activities of the course were intended to bring together theory, self and practice in an integrated way.  The very process of collaborative course design was congruent with the ways in which students would be asked to build their understandings of ethical practice in shared and collaborative ways through ethical dialogue.

The process was a dialogic one driven by key questions concerning the underlying philosophy and major purposes of the course. The process was extended and iterative and as the course gradually emerged, the creators each contributed different kinds of knowledge, the lecturer that of content, the educational designer an understanding of pedagogical principles.  Various possible learning activities were explored, keeping in mind the need for students to engage self in the learning process in ways which would prepare them for the realities of the workplace.

The sustained period of course design reflected the complexity of the undertaking. Cennamo (et al, 1996) suggest that instructional (or educational) design should recognise, among other things, how complex the process is, make space for social negotiations as an embedded element of designing the learning materials, and stress client-centredness.  This occurred during the development process.  In keeping with the recommendations of Boyle (1997), other principles were also adhered to, including the need for authentic tasks, embedding the learning in contexts which are both realistic and relevant, integrating the learning with participants’ social experience, and encouraging voice and ownership on the part of the learners.

The Learning objectives were that students should:

• Display an understanding of the historical development and nature of values and ethics in social work and be able to identify ethical and value dilemmas arising from different practice contexts
• Critically examine the relationships between personal values, those of the social work profession and the broader culture
• Display an awareness of personal biases that may be reflected in social work interventions
• Demonstrate knowledge of the profession’s code of ethics, the ethical responsibilities inherent in the code, and legal parameters around these responsibilities
• Apply decision-making frameworks and models to ethical dilemmas encountered in practice, and demonstrate an ability to defend an articulated ethical position
• Identify tools and resources that social workers can use to enhance knowledge of ethical issues and ability to resolve ethical conflicts
• Demonstrate an ability to engage in ethical dialogue and reflection about matters of personal, professional and social ethics
• Incorporate an ethical dimension to the professional practice framework.

The content areas in the course were based around the need for students to gain an introductory understanding of moral philosophy and ethical theory as a basis for exploration of personal, professional and organisational values. The first part of the course was therefore structured around the following topics:

• Introduction to moral philosophy and ethical theory
• Exploration of the history of social work values and identification of ethical issues
• Professional and organisational ethics (a general approach)
• The AASW code of ethics and complaints procedures (specific treatment)
• Ethical decision-making and legal parameters
• Ethical dilemmas in social work (practitioner panel)
• Consultation/support issues (supervisor panel)

The second part of the course (after mid-semester break) was focused around special ethics interest areas and covered the following topics:

• Bioethics and health care (genetics, resource allocation, end-of-life issues)
• Involuntary clients and marginalised groups (cultural issues)
• Families and young people (family therapy, couple counselling, youth work)
• Ethical issues in rural practice (group and community)
• Ethics and activism (public sector ethics, whistleblowing)
• Research ethics
• Ethics and new information technologies (Internet counselling, online support groups)

The course content focused very much on contemporary issues in social work and human services and involved a number of guest speakers with expertise in specific areas. The final lecture on ethics and information technology, for example, was prepared by a social worker from KidsHelpLine who had assisted in the setting up of the web-based counselling service. The lecture on bioethics was delivered by two social workers, one who had experience in genetic counselling and the other who had worked in the area of cardiac transplantation. The lecture on ethical issues in working with involuntary clients was delivered by a social worker with many years experience in child protection and alternate care. In addition, the lecture on legal parameters was delivered by a social worker/lawyer from the family law section of the Legal Aid Office, and the lecture on the AASW was delivered by the Convenor of the Branch Ethics Committee. By utilising the expertise of practitioners, students were able to make contact with key people working in the field. This approach maintained the practice-based focus of each session and was an implementation of the advice of Morelock (1997) who recommends the use of experts in ethics courses. back

Assessment:

The course had three core pieces of assessment. These were the construction of an ethical dialogue with another student, a critical analysis of a video, and a central examination based around course content and application of a decision-making model to a choice of case scenarios. The use of scenarios reflects Morelock’s (1997) recommendation to use hypothetical situations to give students opportunities to examine issues through written work. Students were also invited to submit an unassessed write-up of their ethical analysis of a movie or television program to assist their beginning articulation of ethical issues in the public arena. One third of students in the class took advantage of this opportunity to express their views within the relative safety of a piece of work that did not count towards a final grade.

In constructing the ‘ethical dialogue' (which might be seen as a form of debate and thereby in line with Morelock’s 1997 recommendation that debates be used in such courses), students were instructed to take clear opposing positions on the issue, develop central arguments based around ethical theory and literature, and reflect on the experience of engaging in the exercise. The choice of dialogue topics were:

1. The code of ethics is not worth the paper it is written on;
2. After a certain period of time, a social worker should be able to have a personal relationship with a former client;
3. Social workers should not advocate or engage in interventions that are not based on theoretically sound foundations;
4. Social workers should never disclose personal details to clients;
5. A social worker should have the right of conscientious objection in relation to working with particular clients or issues;
6. Registration of the social work profession will ensure more ethical practice;
7. A social worker should not continue to engage in therapeutic relationships with clients if personal factors risk impairment of performance of duty;

Of these topics, students showed a clear preference for addressing the topic of disclosure of personal details, while only one paper was written on the issue of impairment. The others were evenly spread.  Marking of this piece of assessment showed that students had some initial difficulty exploring their ethical positions from a theoretical standpoint. The practice issues were articulated well but the ethical analysis was not clearly developed. Some student comments on the value of learning to engage in ethical dialogue included:

The process of this dialogue has not only strengthened my understanding of this particular ethical issue, but has encouraged me to reframe the way I approach social work practice. Whilst I still believe that disclosing personal details to clients is appropriate in certain circumstances, it is an aspect of practice that I feel I will now approach with a greater degree of awareness and introspection.

The experience of engaging in the dialogue proved to be rewarding and enjoyable. Having to formulate an argument which was contrary to what I really believe was initially challenging. This experience gave me an insight into what it may feel like to advocate for clients when I don’t necessarily share their perspective on an issue.

Despite the perceived value of the ethical dialogue as indicated by these comments above, it was not until the end of the course that students were able to demonstrate through their critical analysis of a video, a clearer understanding of the range of ethical positions.

The second piece of assessment was due at the end of the semester and involved a critical analysis of a video that highlighted an ethical debate on a topic of contemporary interest. The videos typically demonstrated a range of views and personal perspectives on an issue including those of ‘experts’, academics, ethicists and clients/families. The videos covered the areas of health care economics (relating to euthanasia and neonatal care); ethics and premature births; parental rejection of medical intervention on cultural grounds; cloning; surrogacy; media intrusion into personal tragedy; and genetic engineering.

Students were asked to identify the competing value positions of the participants with reference to ethical theory and principles. They were also required to articulate a clearly justified personal position on the issue and explore the relevance of the issue for social work practice. As some of the videos were quite dated (ranging from 1985 to 1993), students were able to comment on developments in the debates over time. This piece of assessment demonstrated students’ ability to develop an understanding of ethical positions over the duration of the course. There was a noticeable difference in ethical analysis in the second piece of assessment as students were able to clearly articulate the differences between teleological/utilitarian and deontological positions, and were also able to distinguish between value positions within a particular ideology. The video on surrogacy, for example, provided students with vastly different perspectives (and opposing arguments) from two women who both claimed to anchor their positions within feminism. The video on media intrusion following personal tragedy clearly demonstrated the differences and overlaps between the ethics of journalism and the ethics of social work, and students were able to identify these differences and overlaps. Analysis of difference in ethical positions is critical for social work education given the contemporary work environment into which students will move and the likelihood that they will be employed in interdisciplinary workplaces where value conflicts will be commonplace. Students need to be able to consider the competing positions of colleagues from other disciplines, whether these are medicine, law, business, education or other therapies. One student commented in relation to the video analysis:

The fact that we were encouraged to express our own opinion made the piece of assessment very valuable...whilst we included moral philosophical terminology in the assignment, essentially it was our ‘own philosophy’ which gave us the model for assessment. back

Evaluation of the course

Evaluation is an integral component of curriculum design and the views of students constitute an important element of the teaching and learning experience.  Student views were especially important in this case, given that the course was breaking important new ground. In seeking these views, a two-phase evaluation was undertaken. 

In terms of the first phase, as is normal practice, a standard university student evaluation questionnaire was administered at the end of the course. This instrument covered issues of teaching, use of resources, assessment, and links between theory and practice. The results indicated that students found the course valuable in relation to both content and assessment, commenting that the former was relevant to practice and the latter grounded in topical themes. The set of questions used was relatively generic and, while the responses were highly positive, they will not be reported in detail here. Rather, the emphasis will be on a second phase of the evaluation which took place six months after the course finished.

The aim of this second evaluation was to explore how students perceived their experiences of the course some time down the track.  This was considered important as the intent was that the learning from the course should be on-going. A tailored questionnaire was designed to specifically explore the core issues of the course.  The questionnaire consisted of 10-items, four of which were open-ended and five of which were scaled items. The scale was a 4-point one, with 1 and 2 representing the lower end and 3 and 4 the upper end.  A tenth item invited students to offer further comments. The questionnaire covered the following issues: what students found to be important learning; what they valued about the course; how well they felt they could identify ethical issues; to what extent they felt their level of ethical awareness had been influenced by the course; and how well they felt they could address ethical issues.

Of the original 120 students in the course, 31 (25%) completed this survey. It is acknowledged that this questionnaire (like the earlier phase one questionnaire), being an instance of self-report, has its limitations, for instance it has been recognized that the approval motive and the possibility of self-flattery could affect the validity of data gathered in this way (Oller & Perkins 1978). Despite these reservations, however, it was felt that the instrumentation was justified given that, in light of the questions being posed, students were well placed to provide the information being sought. In light of the timing of the second phase questionnaire (well after the completion of the course and release of results) and the anonymity factor, no pressure was applied which might have influenced less than honest responses. In fact, it was felt that, eliciting this information from students was important because 'if we want to know how people felt, what they experienced, what they remembered ... why not just ask them '(Byers and Wilcox 1988, p. 12). back

Important learnings

In commenting on the most important things they had learned during the course, students made reference to numerous factors: linking ethical theory to practice; deconstructing and critiquing codes of ethics; formulating responses to ethical issues and managing ethical dilemmas; justifying ethical decisions; and the range of ethical issues covered. However, the most commonly cited important learning related to studying ethical decision-making frameworks (45% of the 31 respondents).  This finding suggests the successful realisation of the course objective that students should be able ‘to apply decision-making frameworks and models to ethical dilemmas encountered in practice’.  It is acknowledged that one’s perception of the ability to apply theory in practice is no guarantee that this will, in fact, occur. However, it is a useful beginning. Also in response to this question (the most important things learned), 35% of the students cited some form of personal growth: self-exploration, self-reflection and awareness of personal values/ethical base. back

What students valued about how the course was taught

In commenting on what they valued most about the way in which the course was taught, fourteen  features were listed by students, two of which predominated, being mentioned eleven times – namely, the quality of teaching and the quality of the learning materials.  Also highly ranked, each mentioned seven times, were the quality of the lectures and the integration of theory and practice, the latter once again appearing to meet the objective that students should be able to apply what they learned about decision-making frameworks and models to ethical dilemmas likely to be met in the workplace.

Identifying ethical issues

Students were asked how equipped they felt to identify ethical issues.  Thirty of the 31 students (96%) ranked their ability to do this at either 3 or 4 of the 4-point scale.  This is extremely important, as social workers cannot even begin to deal with ethical dilemmas unless they can first recognise that one exists.  The ability to identify such situations is closely tied to students’ awareness levels.   

Levels of awareness of ethical issues

The questionnaire explored the extent to which students were explicitly aware of what constituted an ethical dilemma.  This was an important component of the questionnaire because the aim of promoting students’ awareness in this area was a key underlying driver of the design of the course. 

Students were asked to reflect back on what their levels of awareness had been prior to studying the course as well as on their current levels of awareness, six months post-course. Because of the time lapse and the reliance on memory, the limitations of this item are acknowledged. Nonetheless, the findings are encouraging with 32% of the respondents believing they had high levels of ethical awareness before studying the course and 90% of the group reporting high levels of ethical awareness six months after course completion.

It seems that the course itself had an influence here, with 90% of respondents rating the influence of the course on raising their levels of awareness very highly (either 3 or 4 on the scale).  In commenting on how these raised levels of awareness occurred, students mentioned the following: class discussions; being exposed to practical examples which related to social work contexts; sharing their peers’ responses; the use of authentic video material to demonstrate the ‘everydayness’ of ethical dilemmas; input from practitioners as guest speakers; wide coverage of topics accompanied by challenging tasks which required them to take a stand; being required to examine multiple facets of an issue; having the opportunity to explore their own beliefs and to apply these to different contemporary debates. In other words, it would seem that careful curriculum design and the use of interactive teaching strategies enhanced the level of students’ explicit awareness of ethical issues.

Ability to address ethical issues

In terms of students’ confidence to actively address ethical issues at the time of questionnaire completion, 86% reported high levels of being able to do so.  Equally satisfying is that 93% of the respondents reported highly on the influence of the course in this respect. While, on the face of it, these findings are extremely encouraging, it is acknowledged that there is no guarantee that students will actually be able to apply their theoretical understandings in actual practice. To gauge this, extensive workplace observation would be necessary.

Further comments

The final item on the questionnaire (‘Are there any other comments you would like to make?’) elicited highly positive descriptions of the course: ‘valuable, necessary, informative, practical, excellent, memorable, enlightening, thought provoking, wonderful, great’.  There were even complimentary remarks about the assessment, particularly the ethical dialogue. One respondent regarded  ‘these [evaluation] feedback processes [as] great and very good accountable ethical practice.  The fact that your processes are so clear … wonderful example in practice of ethical social work.’  Another extremely encouraging comment was that ‘our group of social work students (over lunch) still talk about ethical issues in social work.  So you got us thinking and talking.’  This is the kind of continuing motivation -  that which occurs beyond the classroom and in the absence of obligation or force - (Maehr 1976), which lecturers ideally hope to foster in students. It must be acknowledged that whether students who provided this data would, in practice, be able to deal with workplace ethical dilemmas more effectively than others is beyond the scope of this case study. back

Conclusion

A central theme of ethics education is the uncovering of multiple social contexts that influence practice, and the acknowledgment that individuals may behave in ways that are inconsistent with their basic beliefs, depending on the context in which a situation occurs (Lewins 1996). Ethics education needs to consider these social contexts and locate ethical dilemmas within legal, political, economic, social and organisational spheres. It is particularly important for ethics education to focus on the organisational interface, as this is the area in which many ethical conflicts are experienced. If social workers are to uphold their ethical responsibilities to challenge unjust and oppressive structures and to operate from a standpoint of social justice, then as students, they need to be taught the skills to effectively advocate on behalf of clients and use appropriate ethical decision-making processes. The educational process needs to incorporate a strong focus on exploring and challenging personal and professional values with a view to students taking ownership of these values in the interests of ethical practice and accountability.

Harking back to the issue referred to at the beginning of this paper (whether ethics can be taught at all), it seems fair to claim, on the basis of this experience, that through discrete ethics teaching, students’ awareness of ethical issues can certainly be improved as can their confidence to deal with such issues.

In conclusion, further research is indicated in the area of ethics education in general to establish appropriate models for teaching ethical theory and decision-making at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels. Building on the success of the undergraduate course described in this article, The School of Social Work and Social Policy has developed a postgraduate ethics course for offering in 2002. Given the success of the undergraduate course, and expected similar success with the postgraduate offering, it may well be that cross-fertilisation of ideas and teaching strategies in relation to ethics content and assessment could extend beyond the social work context and be of value to a range of disciples that incorporate ethics in the curriculum. back

Acknowlegments

The authors wish to acknowledge the contributions of their colleagues: Peter North for early design input and Gloria Dall’Alba for advice on the design of the questionnaire for the second phase of the evaluation.

References

Australian Association of Social Workers, 1995. Ethics teaching in Australian Schools of Social Work: A Report of the National Ethics Committee of the AASW, Unpublished paper.

Boyle, T. 1997, Designing for multimedia, Prentice Hall Europe, Hertfordshsire.

Brown, W. D. 1996, In search of a successful ethics seminar, HR Magazine, pp. 115-119.

Byers, P.Y., & Wilcom, J.R. 1988. Focus groups: An alternative method of gathering qualitative data in communication research. New Orleans, LA: Speech Communication Association.

Cennamo, K.S., Abell, S.K. & Chung, M. 1996, A “layers of negotiation” model for designing constructivist learning materials, Educational Technology, July-August, pp. 39-48.

Congress, E. 1999, Social Work Values and Ethics: Identifying and resolving professional dilemmas, Nelson Hall, Chicago.

Dean, R. G. & Rhodes, M. L. 1998, Social constructionism and ethics: what makes a "better" story?, Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services, vol.79, no. 3, pp. 254-263.

Flynn, L. 1997, Social work students confront social justice issues through experiential learning, Australian Social Work, vol. 50, no.4, pp. 21-27.

Goldstein, H. 1998, Education for ethical dilemmas in social work practice, Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services, vol. 79, no. 3, pp. 241-244.

Gruba, P. & Lynch, B. 1998, Constructivist approaches to communication skills instruction, The Proceedings of the 14^th Annual Conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education.

Haynes, D. T. 1999, A theoretical integrative framework for teaching professional social work values, Journal of Social Work Education, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 39-50.

Joseph, V. & Conrad, A. P.  1983, Teaching social work ethics for contemporary practice: An effectiveness evaluation, Journal of Education for Social Work, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 59-68.

Joseph, V. 1991, Standing for values and ethical action: Teaching social work ethics, Journal of Teaching in Social Work, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 95-109.

Lewins, F. 1996, Bioethics for Health Professionals - An Introduction and Critical Approach, Macmillan Education Australia, Melbourne.

Loewenberg, F.M., Dolgoff, R. & Harrington, D. 2000, Ethical Decisions for Social Work Practice, FE Peacock, Illinois.

McAuliffe, D. 1999, Clutching at Codes: Resources that influence social work decisions in cases of ethical conflict, Professional Ethics: A Multidisciplinary Journal, vol. 17, nos. 3 & 4, pp. 9-24.

McAuliffe, D. 2000, Beyond the Hypothetical: Practitioner Experiences of Ethical Dilemmas in Front-line Social Work, Unpublished Thesis, University of Queensland, Queensland.

Maehr, M.L. 1976, Continuing motivation: An analysis of a seldom considered educational outcome,  Review of Educational Research,  vol. 46, pp. 443-462.

Mathews, G., Weinger, S. & Wijnberg, M. 1997, Ethics in field education: Promise, pretension, or practice, Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, vol. XXIV, no. 2, pp.103-115.

Morelock, K. T. 1997, The search for virtue: Ethics teaching in MSW programs, Journal of Teaching in Social Work, vol. 14, no. 1/2 pp. 69-87.

Oller, J.& Perkins, K. 1978. Intelligence and language proficiency as sources of variance in self-reported affective variables. Language Learning, vol. 28, pp. 85-97.

Pumphrey, M. 1959, The Teaching of Values and Ethics in Social Work Education, Council on Social Work Education, New York.

Reamer, F. & Abramson, M. 1982, The Teaching of Social Work Ethics, The Hastings Centre, Hastings-on-Hudson, New York.

Reamer, F. 1998, The Evolution of Social Work Ethics, Social Work, vol. 43, no. 6, pp. 488-500.

Rossiter, A., Prilleltensky, I. & Walsh-Bowers, R. 2000, A postmodern perspective on professional ethics', in B. Fawcett, et al (eds). Practice and Research in Social Work, pp. 83-103  Routledge, London and New York.

Segon, M. 1996, Ethics Training: The Professions and Academia, in K. Woldring (ed) Business Ethics in Australia and New Zealand - Essays and Cases, pp. 300-306.: Thomas Nelson Australia, Melbourne. back

About the authors