The codes of ethics of the Canadian Psychological Association and the Canadian Medical Association: Ethical orientation and functional grammar analysis.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract The Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists (Canadian Psychological Association, CPA, 2000) has been the subject of several recent investigations. This work has focused, for example, on the validity of its hierarchical organization of ethical principles. In the present research, we subjected the code to both a content and a functional grammar analysis. Our content analysis was aimed at determining the theoretical ethical orientation (i.e., deontological, teleological or caring) of each statement in the document, while the functional grammar analysis provided information about implicit messages embedded within the code. We contrasted the results of our analysis with those of previous work on the code of ethics adopted by the Canadian Medical Association (CMA). We concluded that, compared to CMA's code, the CPA document has greater educational value, is less authoritarian, provides a clear rationale for ethical behaviour, and is more empowering to the decision-maker. We argue that the results of our functional grammar and content analyses have implications for future attempts to improve ethics codes for psychology and other professions. Many organizations and most national professional associations have adopted codes of ethics. Such documents serve an educational function (e.g., O'Neill, 1998) and communicate important expectations to the membership of these organizations. Codes also serve to facilitate a profession's ability to self-regulate. They may also function as a means by which members can question their own personal values as they relate to their professional role (Meyer, 1987). Externally, codes of ethics assure the public, clients, and other stakeholders that members of a profession are competent, have a high level of integrity, and are able to enforce high moral standards (Pettifor, 1996). Codes of ethics also help professionals commit publicly and explicitly to their association's values, norms, beliefs, and philosophy and make them accountable (Dunbar, 1998; Pettifor, 1996). The Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists (Canadian Psychological Association, 1986, 2000) was designed to incorporate the collective wisdom of Canadian psychologists (Sinclair, Poisner, GilmourBarrett, & Randall, 1987). Sinclair et al. (1987) described the methodology that was used in the code's development. Briefly, the process involved the creation of 37 vignettes describing hypothetical ethical dilemmas. The dilemmas related to the ethical principles that were articulated in the 1977 edition of the code adopted by the American Psychological Association (APA, 1977). They also involved conflicts between ethical principles as well as psychological practice issues and situations involving innovative but untested approaches. Sinclair et al. formulated questions to elicit self-accepted ethical principles. They asked 400 Canadian psychologists to each respond to a series of questions about a portion of the vignettes. One hundred and twenty-five agreed to participate but only 59 responses were received. The researchers submitted these responses to a content analysis that focused on the reasons provided for the courses of action selected by the respondents. They organized the relevant statements into categories that reflected superordinate ethical principles. The resulting document consisted of four fundamental ethical principles (Respect for the Dignity of Persons, Responsible Caring, Integrity in Relationships, and Responsibility to Society). A consultative process with provincial regulatory bodies supported the validity of the document. Although the code has since undergone revisions, it still is based largely on the original document and its four fundamental ethical principles (CPA, 2000). The CPA (1986, 2000) code has received plenty of praise for its coherence, organization, and unique features (e.g., Booth, 1998; Dixon, 1998; Hadjistavropoulos & Malloy, 2000; Sinclair, 1998; Wassenaar, 1998); however, empirical research (e. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,041 | 0,106 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,007 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,006 | 0,016 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».