Search

This article presents reactions to the ethical dilemmas facing community psychologists. It is suggested that community psychology has often ignored ethical dilemmas due to reliance on a perception of cultural relativity, confusion about the difference between conceptions of behavior and styles of intervention, overreliance on a consulting mode of intervention, and a lack of sound scientific bases for our work. Several alternatives are suggested, including a rights rather needs perspective, more active change agent roles, and an increase in the scientific credibility of our efforts.

This commentary addresses how the psychologists observe and deal with pressures to provide excessively favorable accounts of information, what behavior professionals can show when they find their integrity potentially compromised by client requests, and what part gender dynamics played in the content and presentation of the two cases in O'Neill (1989). The argument is that responsibility to onself and to the profession are relevent considerations in both cases in addition to the several stakeholders identified by O'Neill. From the perspective of embedded intergroup relations theory, gender dynamics were present and unexamined within the cases and in the relationship between the author and the case presentations.

To sort out the elements of an ethical problem and fashion an acceptable solution, psychologists must balance competing values and cope with unexpected outcomes. They must know (or decide) to whom and for what they are accountable. Community psychologists often work in situations where loyalties are unclear, and where the ripple effect of interventions maximizes the possibility of unanticipated consequences. Two cases are presented to illustrate problems of accountability and the need to transform an ethical decision into a series of choices guided by emerging information.

This paper examines two influences that shape and define ethical dilemmas in the community: our personal agendas and the broader context. Our personal and professional values shape our agendas for community work by defining our choices for action. The nature of these agendas and how they relate to the agendas of various constituencies must be clear before we can ask 'responsible to whom?' The context of the community situation and the ways in which resource limitations frame emerging ethical questions also need to be actively recognized. In order to avoid unwittingly 'blaming' the psychologist, the broader context must be considered before we ask 'responsible for what?'

Ethics code books provide only general guidelines and are inadequate in resolving explicit ethical dilemmas that frequently occur in community intervention. Ethical choices often reflect personal values as well as professional role proscriptions and are difficult to resolve for a number of reasons. It often is not clear to whom the interventionist should be accountable, or what the long-range impact may be of specific programs that seem to have short-term benefit. Value clashes can occur between consultants and consultees, even when both groups believe that they represent the best interests of vulnerable client groups. Since personal values are important determinants of ethical choices, whenever possible, they should be communicated openly so community groups can understand the interventionist's values before community projects begin. It also is important to share ethical dilemmas with professional colleagues in order to provide community psychologists with constructive feedback from their professional peers, and to help others anticipate similar value conflicts in their own work. These points are illustrated by discussion of the vignettes presented by O'Neill (1989) and by additional examples drawn from my own experience.

This article discusses issues raised by O'Neill (1989) concerning ethical responsibility in community psychology. Issues include: (1) difficulties in adapting the current professional ethical codes to the values, concerns, and language of community psychology; (2) the elusive nature of 'community psychology'; (3) unforeseen and unintended effects of interventions; (4) the necessity of assuming responsibility for the consequences of one's interventions; (5) the clarification of assumptions and values underlying any formal code of ethics; and (6) the creative nature of ethical decision making.