And what else happened?
I should mention there was one activity that was mis-scheduled. Early on Thursday there was a PechaKucha Session. This is where people get to address a topic with no more than 20 slides (on the screen) and no more than 20 seconds to discuss each slide. [They have them occasionally in Penticton at a local craft brewery and they always sell out because they usually are so interesting!] This was another smart APPE program addition, but it was placed right in the middle of a group of very interesting presentations so that many people did not get to experience it (it could be a great addition to any ethics class re: student presentations on particular ethical dilemmas) — how do I know many missed it? Well, I was one, and at an informal chat later in the day, several people mentioned how disappointed they were that they couldn’t sit in on it…

I hope that it returns to the agenda of the next conference but is placed in such a way that a great many people have the opportunity to participate. It might even be a good idea to have two or three such sessions at the same time but on different aspects of ethics: maybe one on business ethics, one on ethics in the public service, one on education and ethics…just musing, but maybe that is something that could add further energy to the program while simultaneously showing participants a vibrant way to bring ethics into the learning environment (even corporate boardrooms!!).

There was a very interesting presentation on the question: “are groups with a member who differs from the rest of the group along one or more attributes more likely to make ethical group decisions?” The presenters called this the role of group faultlines. The interesting aspect of this research is that it validates making sure that when establishing a decision-making group there is more than one perspective within the make-up. There’s a definite positive impact of task conflict on ethical decision-making.

Another interesting conversation was held about the ethics and motivation for deceit of school principals. This study explored school principals’ feelings of ethical compromise, the possibility of their subsequent use of deceptive behaviour, and their reasoning for the use of this deceptive behaviour. One intriguing finding was that all principals interviewed said that there were many times where they had to ignore or break policies and even laws in order to meet the needs of children, to protect funds or to protect their administrative practices. The study further determined that the organizational dynamics in school districts do affect the ethical decision-making of principals. In fact, as part of their daily leadership, the principal’s role of protecting the interests of others often conflicts with the policies of the organization. One example was the need to inform parents of students problematic behaviour when the principal has strong suspicions that any such notification would simply result in more beatings for the student at home: the principals interviewed indicated they would be reluctant to follow such a district policy in that instance. Another example related to special projects: when a group of teachers are working on a new and apparently successful curriculum approach and the funds that started the venture run out before the experiment is completed, principals indicated they would quietly transfer monies from other aspects of their budget to ensure that the project had what was necessary to fully assess its viability, even if policy stated that such financial re-allocation was not to occur without district approval.

Equally fascinating was the presentation by a local television weathercaster. This individual completed a master’s degree on the ethical ambivalence in his profession and the growing concern over the pressure networks are exerting on weathercasters to go beyond benign prognostications to become “newsroom experts” for science topics. This has moved to the forefront in this age of “climate change” as some contend that these broadcast meteorologists are often the only people in television newsrooms who have a background in science and therefore they are qualified to do more than deliver the weather report — they can actually explain the science news to the viewers. The ethical dilemmas that this can raise going forward is something that those of us in the audience had not fully comprehended prior to this conversation. Do we want our local weatherperson to report on the weather, or become a spokesperson for particular interpretations of the science behind or beside the weather phenomenon itself? Good question.

More to follow…
g.w.