A Canadian perspective on using vignettes to teach ethics in psychology.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vignettes depicting dilemmas are used widely in teaching and learning professional ethics. Such an approach can facilitate learning by allowing opportunities to work through dilemmas using practical, realistic, and complex material that enables participants to: engage in discussion; explore applicable principles; and ideally, to achieve a deeper level of understanding. Despite their widespread use, little research has been conducted on how to maximise the benefits of using dilemmas, nor on the most ethically appropriate ways of presenting scenarios derived, at least in part, from actual occurrences. In this article, we endeavour to contextualise the use of vignettes within the framework provided by the Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists, Third Edition (Canadian Psychological Association, 2000) and to use the principles and standards therein to suggest guidelines for the creation and use of vignettes. We begin by reviewing the literature on the use of dilemmas in teaching and learning ethics, including a discussion of the benefits to be gained from using vignettes as one component of a comprehensive approach to ethics education. This is followed by discussion of considerations relevant to the creation and use of vignettes of dilemmas. We conclude with a series of recommendations informed by the Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists to guide psychologists in using such illustrative material in an ethically appropriate manner. Keywords: ethics, dilemmas, vignettes Resume On fait grandement usage de sketchs illustrant des dilemmes ethiques dans l'enseignement et la formation relative a la deontologie. Une telle approche peut faciliter l'analyse de dilemmes ethiques au moyen de materiel pratique, realiste et complexe, qui permet aux participants de discuter, d'explorer les principes ethiques pertinents et, idealement, d'en tirer une meilleure comprehension. Malgre l'usage repandu qui en est fait, peu de recherche a ete effectuee sur la facon de maximiser l'utilisation de dilemmes ethiques ni d'ailleurs sur les meilleures facons, d'un point de vue ethique, de presenter des situations s'inspirant de faits vecus, tout au moins en partie. Dans le present article, on tente de contextualiser l'usage de sketchs dans le cadre fourni dans la troisieme edition du Code canathen de deontologie professionnelle des psychologues (Societe canathenne de psychologie, 2000), et d'utiliser les principes et les normes qui y sont presentes pour suggerer des lignes directrices relatives a la creation et a l'utilisation ethiques de sketchs. On procede d'abord a un examen de la litterature sur l'usage de dilemmes ethiques dans l'enseignement et la formation, en mettant en relief les avantages des sketchs comme volet d'une approche rigoureuse a l'egard de l'enseignement de la deontologie. Suit une discussion sur les considerations deontologiques se rapportant a la creation et a l'utilisation de sketchs illustrant des dilemmes ethiques. En guise de conclusion sont formulees des recommandations s'inspirant du Code canathen de deontologie dans le but de guider les psychologues dans l'utilisation d'un tel materiel d'une facon acceptable d'un point de vue ethique. Mots-cles : ediique, dilemmes ethiques, sketchs. Ethics education is a required component of psychology programmes accredited by the Canadian Psychological Association (Canadian Psychological Association, 2002) and the American Psychological Association (American Psychological Association, 2008); however, the nature of this educational requirement is left to the discretion of each graduate programme. Accordingly, there is considerable variation among programmes in both content and paedagogy. Several models for ethics education in psychology have been proposed. For instance, Handelsman, Gottlieb, and Knapp (2005) advocate training that promotes internalisation of values and behaviours via a process of ethical acculturation (p. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".