Empowering Ethical Decision-Making in Behavior Analysis
In the ever-evolving field of behavior analysis, practitioners are often faced with complex ethical dilemmas. The article "On the BACB’s Ethics Requirements: A Response to Rosenberg and Schwartz (2019)" provides valuable insights into enhancing ethical decision-making processes for behavior analysts. By exploring the criticisms and suggestions presented by Rosenberg and Schwartz, practitioners can refine their ethical practices and contribute to the advancement of the field.
Understanding the Criticisms
Rosenberg and Schwartz (2019) critique the Behavior Analyst Certification Board’s (BACB) Professional and Ethical Compliance Code for Behavior Analysts, highlighting four main areas of concern:
- Insensitivity to culture and context
- Rule-based nature
- Conflicting Code elements
- Intent and language used in the Code
The authors argue that these issues can hinder ethical decision-making and propose a decision-making process as an alternative to the existing Code.
Implementing a Decision-Making Process
The decision-making process developed by Rosenberg and Schwartz emphasizes the importance of considering contextual and cultural variables when evaluating ethical behavior. This approach encourages practitioners to ask thoughtful questions and engage in a deeper analysis of ethical dilemmas. By doing so, behavior analysts can navigate complex situations with greater sensitivity and insight.
For example, when faced with a potential multiple relationship, the decision-making process guides practitioners to evaluate the risks and benefits of such a relationship and develop strategies to minimize any potential harm. This approach aligns with elements 1.06(b) and (c) of the BACB Code, which emphasize the importance of being sensitive to the harmful effects of multiple relationships and informing clients about these risks.
Addressing Conflicting Code Elements
Rosenberg and Schwartz also point out that certain Code elements may appear to be in conflict. However, the article suggests that these elements can often complement each other when applied thoughtfully. For instance, a behavior analyst might find that personal circumstances are compromising their ability to provide services (element 1.05(f)), but by applying element 1.04(c), they can ensure follow-through on work commitments by seeking assistance from colleagues.
This perspective encourages practitioners to view the Code as a guide for ethical decision-making rather than a set of rigid rules. By doing so, behavior analysts can engage in more nuanced and effective ethical practices.
The Role of a Rule-Based Code
While Rosenberg and Schwartz focus on the limitations of a rule-based Code, the article emphasizes the importance of such a framework in providing a clear structure for evaluating practitioner behavior. A rule-based Code serves as a foundation for disciplinary systems and helps protect consumers by addressing unethical behavior.
The BACB’s ethics code, supported by certification and maintenance requirements, ensures that practitioners are equipped with the necessary tools to navigate ethical challenges. This system not only influences practitioner behavior but also provides a mechanism for addressing alleged Code violations.
Encouraging Further Exploration
As behavior analysts, it is crucial to continuously engage with ethical scholarship and explore different paradigms of applied ethics. By doing so, practitioners can enhance their understanding of ethical principles and improve their decision-making skills.
To delve deeper into the topics discussed in this blog, I encourage you to read the original research paper, On the BACB’s Ethics Requirements: A Response to Rosenberg and Schwartz (2019).
