Content-Type: text/html
The Ethics Agenda of the Masss Communication Professoriate
The Ethics Agenda of the Mass Communication Professoriate
Jay Black, Professor
School of Mass Communications, University of South Florida
St. Petersburg, FL 33701-5016
727-553-1579, [log in to unmask]
Bruce Garrison, Professor
Journalism and Photography Program
School of Communication, University of Miami
P.O. Box 248127, Coral Gables, FL 33124-2030
305-284-2846, [log in to unmask]
Fred Fedler, Professor
School of Communication, University of Central Florida
Orlando, FL 32816
407-823-2681, [log in to unmask]
Doug White, MA Candidate
School of Mass Communications, University of South Florida
St. Petersburg, FL 33701-5016
727-553-1579, [log in to unmask]
A paper presented for review by the Media Ethics Division of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Washington, D.C., August 2001.
The Ethics Agenda of the Mass Communication Professoriate
Introduction
The myth that institutions of higher education are sheltered from the struggles of the "real world" is widely accepted even by people who should know better-those of us in academic settings who confront, struggle with, bemoan, or try to ignore the serious ethical issues that arise....There are many benefits of higher education, but immunity from ethical problems is not one of them.
-Robinson & Moulton, Ethical Problems in Higher Education (1985), p. 1
The opening page of Robinson and Moulton's 1985 book Ethical Problems in Higher Education works quickly to shatter what the authors called the "ivory tower myth." The ensuing decades have confirmed Robinson and Moulton's claim that the professoriate is not immune from the vicissitudes of other professions. In particular, as many recent studies attest, faculty members' unique relationships with students raise a plethora of issues over the imbalance of power, and the academy's demands for research productivity and professional stewardship and its unique policies of hiring, promoting, and tenuring its own members-peer review-also can prove ethically problematic.
Systematic studies of other academic fields have concentrated on faculty members' roles as teachers, researchers, and stewards (Birch et al, 1999; Keith-Spiegel et al., 1993; Miles, 2000; Payne, 1987; Rich, 1984; Robertson & Grant, 1982; Robinson & Moulton, 1985; Scriven, 1982; Shils, 1983; Simms, 2000; Swazey et al., 1993; Sykes, 1988; Tabachnick et al., 1991; Walter & Von Gilnow, 1987), while raising a variety of sub-topics such as conflicts of interest, civility, and autonomy (Bradley, 2000; Cahn, 1986; Callahan, 1982; Dill, 1982-A&B; Godkin, 1987; Kerr, 1994; Knight & Auster, 1999; Majumar, 2000; Payne & Desman, 1987; Schrag, 2000-A&B; Whicker & Kronenfeld, 1994; Wilson, 1982). Descriptive and normative studies of academic ethics have grown exponentially of late, and the rich literature offers much to educators in any disciplines who are interested in the subject.
John Martin Rich said in the preface to his 1984 Professional Ethics in Education that the study and practice of professional ethics in education did not match the accomplishments in fields such as medicine, law, and business, and that "for education to advance as a profession, far greater attention and concern must be given to professional ethics and its instruction" (p. v). The literature cited above suggests that this is precisely what has happened in the past two decades in the general field of higher education.
Professors of mass communications are no more immune from ethical dilemmas than are any other faculty, but their ethical views and standards have not been investigated to any great length (Black & Steele, 1991; Garramone & Kennamer, 1989; Roberts et al., 1992; Schiff & Ryan, 1996). The present study adds to a limited body of research about mass communications faculty ethics.
The role of the professor as teacher. One of the most basic ethical issues for the professoriate is the problem of justice and fairness when teaching and dealing with students. Educators are charged to use their power wisely and for the good of their students-or "clients," as they are called by some who see the professor's role as that of a professional serving various constituencies. The literature in this field is vast, and it is filled with ethical implications of who, what, and how to teach; how to test; how to deal with cheating and dishonesty; how to deal with vulnerable students; how to establish and maintain a just system.
Questions that address these concerns have been raised by scholars from a variety of disciplines. Some of the most insightful and general observations can be found in a 1982 theme issue of the Journal of Higher Education (see, in particular, the essays by Schurr, Callahan, Scriven, and Baumgarten), John Martin Rich's 1984 book Professional Ethics in Education, a 1993 Journal of Education study by Delattre and Russell, Ernest Boyer's Scholarship Reconsidered (1990), and The Ethics of Teaching (1993) by Patricia Keith-Spiegel and her colleagues. Similar topics have been raised in the more popular books by Martin Anderson (1992), Derek Bok (1986), Dinesh D'Souza (1991), Henry Rosovsky (1990), and Charles Sykes (1988), among others-some of whom wrote passionately and with attitude about the professoriate.
Over the past few years, a new genre of popular literature has arisen, one that characterizes college and university professors as an egocentric, lazy, and uncaring lot who barely tolerate the teaching duties of the professorate, especially when the students are undergraduates.
-Patricia Keith-Spiegel, The Ethics of Teaching: A Casebook (1993), p. xi.
Other, more specific issues have also been addressed:
ù Is it permissible for faculty to express their religious and political views in class (Baumgarten, 1982; Robertson & Grant, 1982; Schrag, 2000-A&B; Simms, 2000)?
ù How does faculty deal with the "reality" that some students are more likeable than others (Keith-Spiegel et al., 1993; Robinson & Grant, 1982; Scriven, 1982; Simms, 2000), or the temptation to belittle students who just don't get it or who have lousy attitudes (Keith-Spiegel et al., 1993; Murray, 1996; Schrag, 2000-B; Scriven, 1982; Wilson, 1982), or the temptation to inflate grades to "buy" positive student evaluations (Birch et al., 1999; Tabachnick et al., 1991)?
ù Should professors always grade on a strict curve, or is it OK to give passing grades to students who could not pass tests, but try hard-and what about simply relaxing the rules occasionally due to extenuating circumstances (Birch et al., 1999; Tabachnick et al., 1991); what about holding athletes or minority students to different standards of performance (Birch et al., 1999; Murray, 1996; Tabachnick et al., 1991)?
ùWhat is faculty to do when tempted to become romantically involved with students (Callahan, 1982; Hodges, 1997; Keith-Spiegel et al., 1993; Murray, 1996; Robertson & Grant, 1982; Robinson & Moulton, 1985; Simms, 2000; Swazey et al., 1993), or merely to hug them (Birch et al., 1999; Tabachnick et al., 1991)?
ù How does either the self-confident or the insecure faculty member handle a mistake made in previous lectures (Shils, 1983), present views that strongly differ from his or her own, and perhaps criticize other specialty or fields of study within the department (Birch et al., 1999; Callahan, 1982; Keith-Spiegel et al., 1993; Miller, 2000; Murray, 1996; Schrag, 2000-A&B; Scriven, 1982; Shils, 1983; Simms, 2000; Tabachnick et al., 1991), deal with remarks made by students or colleagues that are racist, sexist, or otherwise derogatory (Birch et al., 1999; Keith-Spiegel et al., 1993; Schrag, 2000-B; Scriven, 1982; Tabachnick et al., 1991), or handle evidence of cheating (Birch et al., 1999; Callahan, 1982; Keith-Spiegel et al., 1993; Scriven, 1982; Swazey et al., 1993; Tabachnick et al., 1991; Wilson, 1982)?
ù Is it morally permissible for a professor to require students to buy textbooks he or she has written, to fail to keep scheduled office hours, to fail to give students a syllabus or course outline that specifies course rules and requirements, or to teach a course that differs significantly from materials or content listed in the course syllabus or college catalog (Birch et al, 1999; Keith-Spiegel et al., 1993; Scriven, 1982; Simms, 2000; Tabachnick et al., 1991)?
ù When teaching and mentoring, is it permissible to set standards for student performance (e.g., being on time, being prepared, being civil), yet fail to conform to those standards oneself (Keith-Spiegel et al., 1993; Scriven, 1982; Shils, 1983; Simms, 2000; Wilson, 1982), or to share with colleagues confidential disclosures made by a student (Birch et al., 1999; Keith-Spiegel et al., 1993; Tabachnick et al., 1991; Wilson, 2000)?
ù Is it OK to fail to provide negative comments on a paper or exam-or in letters of recommendation-when these comments reflect one's honest assessment of the student's performance, or to fail to thoroughly read theses, dissertations, or comprehensive exams (Birch et al., 1999; Keith-Spiegel et al., 1993; Rich, 1984; Scriven, 1982; Tabachnick et al., 1991)?
The role of the professor as researcher. The debate over how much teaching and how much research are necessary in the academy is only the tip of the iceberg of a long-standing debate over professors' job descriptions. Most of the literature cited at the outset of our discussion of "the role of the teacher" has also raised questions about the nature and quality of academic research and all the ethical dilemmas inherent in the work. While some critics (see esp. Martin Anderson's Impostors in the Temple [1992] and Charles Sykes' ProfScam [1988]) have scorned the academic community for cranking out and rewarding research that is indecipherable and of limited value ("unreadable and unread" is the usual jibe), many scholars have systematically and evenhandedly addressed the ethically problematic issues of faculty research. Payne and Charnov's Ethical Dilemmas for Academic Professionals (1987) is one example. Ernest Boyer's 1990 book for the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Tea
ching, Scholarship Reconsidered, is perhaps the most provocative and even-handed of the recent body of literature, calling as it does for an improvement of both teaching and research and a system that rewards both.
Among the many concerns raised in the literature:
ù How does one balance one's own research interests with students' educational needs (Anderson, 1992; Baumgarten, 1982; Birch et al., 1999; Rich, 1984; Robertson & Grant, 1982; Robinson & Moulton, 1985; Tabachnick et al., 1991)?
ùHow should one deal with students as research subjects or respondents (Birch et al., 1999; Murray,1996; Rich, 1984; Schiff & Ryan, 1996; Tabachnick et al., 1991); should students in a class be required to help gather data for faculty research projects (Rich, 1984; Schiff & Ryan, 1996; Tabachnick et al., 1991)?
ù What's the proper relationship between faculty members and student research assistants: Should students be given academic credit instead of salary for being research assistants (Birch et al., 1999; Tabachnick et al., 1991); how do students' contributions to research get recognized; what happens when they assist in writing books from which faculty expect to generate royalties, and can faculty list themselves as co-authors when submitting student theses or dissertations to conventions or for publication (Birch et al., 1999; Black & Steele, 1991; Miles, 2000; Rich, 1984; Robinson & Moulton, 1985; Schiff & Ryan, 1996; Swazey et al., 1993; Tabachnick et al.)?
ù Are there questions of ethics involved when one fails to keep up to date on recent research and scientific findings or trends in one's field (Anderson, 1992; Birch et al., 1999; Boyer, 1990; Murray, 1996; Scriven, 1982; Simms, 2000; Tabachnick et al., 1991)?
ù What's problematic about submitting research papers to two different conventions or publications simultaneously, or submitting papers to a competition for which one is likely to be a judge or is likely to be a cohort of the judges (Anderson, 1992; Black & Steele, 1991; Miles, 2000)?
The role of the professor as citizen and steward. There is no end to discussions within the academy about the place of civility, stewardship, and citizenship in the mix of things.
Th(e) intoxicating sense of intellectual superiority, if combined with a little contempt and a dash of resentment, can easily turn into something ugly-an arrogant conviction that one is above the rules and ethics that govern ordinary people, a conviction that because one is special, one need not live by the rules of the game.
-Martin Anderson, Impostors in the Temple (1992), p. 126
Whereas not all the concerns about civility focus on matters of ethics, many of them do, particularly when viewed through the ethic of care and connectedness (see, among others, Gilligan, 1982 and Belenky, 1988). The issues and concerns and resolutions differ significantly when framed by a more "macho" ethics of justice and responsibility (see, among others, Kohlberg, 1969, 1984, 1985). A shift in faculty and student demographics, particularly the lessening of power in the hands of males, has joined other factors in stimulating discussion about citizenship and stewardship. One of the most even-handed discussions of academic civility was drafted by the Hastings Institute's Daniel Callahan (1982). The casebook, The Ethics of Teaching, by Patricia Keith-Spiegel et al., also provides a fair and provocative look at these issues, as does Stephen Payne in his and Bruce Charnov's Ethical Dilemmas for Academic Professionals (1987). Others, such as Martin Anderson (1992), have been far le
ss sanguine.
The literature raises the following sorts of concerns:
ù Should one ignore a colleague's unethical behavior (Birch et al., 1999; Callahan, 1982; Keith-Spiegel et al., 1993; Rich, 1984; Tabachnick et al., 1991)?
ù What about casting a vote involving a colleague's tenure or promotion based on personal reasons as opposed to the candidate's qualifications (Bradley, 2000; Callahan, 1982; Murray, 1996; Rich, 1984; Schrag, 2000-A; Scriven, 1982)?
ù What moral obligations do faculty have to serve on departmental, university, and professional committees (Birch et al., 1999; Callahan, 1982; Dill, 1982 A&B; Kerr, 1994; Rich, 1984; Scriven, 1982; Tabachnick et al., 1991), or to teach courses that may not be their personal favorites but for which there is high student demand (Scriven, 1982)?
ù How should individuals, departments, and universities handle the myriad issues of civility and honesty that arise during the job search and hiring processes? For instance, how honest should candidates be about their interest in teaching vis a vis research or how soon the dissertation will be completed; should candidates reveal they have been denied tenure elsewhere; should candidates go on job interviews when they know they will not accept the job; should departments advertise and bring in several candidates when they plan to hire insiders (Anderson, 1992; Birch et al., 1999; Bradley, 2000; Rich, 1984; Tabachnick et al., 1991)?
Other roles and conflicts. As explained by Martin Anderson in Impostors in the Temple (1992), Stephen Cahn in Saints and Scamps (1986), Charles Sykes in ProfScam (1988), and others, professors face an incredible number of role-based moral conflicts that do not fit neatly under any one category but cut across their teaching, research, and service functions. Some of the academy's most strident critics (Anderson and Sykes most notably among them) maintain that faculty consider themselves a special breed, elitists unaffected by ordinary considerations of loyalty to anyone besides themselves. Others define the dilemmas more in terms of faculty being morally insensitive (which is less venal than being morally weak, a condition that occurs only once one is aware of the moral dilemma) when faced with the following considerations:
ù Is it OK to use university property and state or privately funded resources to enrich oneself with book royalties or consulting income (Birch et al., 1999; Black & Steele, 1991; Keith-Spiegel et al., 1993; Robertson & Grant, 1982; Swazey et al., 1993; Tabachnick et al., 1991); to take departmental equipment home for personal use (Birch et al., 1999; Keith-Spiegel et al., 1993; Swazey et al., 1993; Tabachnick et al., 1991); to sell unwanted complimentary texts to used book buyers (Birch et al., 1999; Keith-Spiegel et al., 1993; Tabachnick et al., 1991)?
ù What about accepting gratuities, gifts, or favors from individuals or organizations that might influence one's professional judgment (Miles, 2000)?
ù In reporting one's activities, what's the place of puffery, and is it OK to fail to tell administrators about consulting or other outside activities that may interfere with fulfilling one's assigned duties (Callahan, 1982); indeed, what about participating in consulting or other outside jobs that cut into class preparation time (Callahan, 1982; Dill, 1982-B; Rich, 1984; Robertson & Grant, 1982; Scriven 1982)?
ù And what about abusing one of the very special benefits of the professoriate-the sabbatical (Anderson, 1992; Rosovsky, 1990)?
Research questions
The preceding discussion makes possible the creation of a vast array of survey questions. Indeed, the body of research implies that many more moral dilemmas lurk just beneath the surface of those already exposed, and that there may be no end to the questions worthy of pursuit.
For our purposes, however, it seemed reasonable to draw primarily from the major categories introduced above (the professor as teacher, as researcher, and as steward), and produce a survey that would result in a base-line data set that adequately describes our discipline, mass communications. Such a data set-descriptive, not prescriptive-should provide a starting point for much more research, including normative studies and commentaries.
Meanwhile, in asking mass communications professors to comment upon/assess/respond to questions and dilemmas that have been posed to other academics, we hoped to be able to draw some tentative comparisons across disciplines.
Therefore, in capturing the opinions of mass communications faculty members on matters of ethics, we wanted to investigate the following:
A) What are the ethical issues to which mass communications faculty respond most strongly, and what issues elicit no particularly strong responses?
B) Are there any significant differences in responses to ethical dilemmas that might be explained by gender, or years of experience, or rank, or other demographic variables?
C) How does the mass communications professoriate compare with any other disciplines who have been asked identical or similar questions?
Methods
To answer those research questions, a national survey of teaching and research faculty in mass communication programs in the United States was undertaken. The study population was defined as regular members of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, the leading national mass communication higher education organization in the country. The membership list of the organization was purchased in October 2000 and a mailing list generated. A sample of 775 (one-fourth of AEJMC's USA, Canada, and Puerto Rico membership) was selected using random interval-sampling procedures. Respondents were not asked for any identifying information and were assured of confidentiality and anonymity in the cover letter. An alert post card was mailed one week prior to mailing of the questionnaire and cover letter.
A set of sixty-five university faculty ethical behavior scales was generated and pretested on faculty colleagues and research assistants at the institutions of the authors. In addition to original scale items, approximately half of the items duplicated or reflected survey items developed by Birch, Elliott and Trankel (1999) in their survey of the University of Montana faculty and Tabachnick, Keith-Spiegel, and Pope (1991) in their survey of American Psychological Association members. Respondents were asked to respond to a five-point Likert-type scale, with one representing "unquestionably not ethical," two representing "most likely not ethical," three representing "not sure or it all depends," four representing "most likely ethical," and five representing "unquestionably ethical." An additional eleven demographic items were part of the instrument for additional analysis using characteristics of respondents and their institutions. Respondents were given the opportunity to provide additional comments if they responded to an open-ended item about faculty ethical issues.
Findings
A total n = 373 usable responses were obtained from the survey, a response rate of 48.1 percent. Another twenty-four questionnaires were returned by retired faculty, current graduate students, or non-faculty members of the organization, but were judged unusable because the instruments were either incomplete or were blank. With all returned questionnaires included, the response rate for n = 397 was 51.2 percent. In similar studies using mail questionnaires, Birch and her colleagues (1999) reported a usable response rate of 44 percent from the 336 faculty at their home campus, the University of Montana, and Tabachnick and her colleagues (1991) reported a 48 percent usable response rate from 1,000 psychologists identified from the Membership Directory of the American Psychological Association.
More than 150 individuals penciled in additional comments next to one or more of the 65 individual scenario questions, and 82 wrote anywhere from a paragraph to more than a full page of remarks at the end of the survey form. (This level of involvement in the study is worth noting; the high salience of the issue brought out many dozens of pertinent observations, personal experiences, lamentations about having to work in such a morally challenging environment, etc.-plus more than a few concerns that the questionnaire items as presented did not always provide enough context for fully informed opinions.)
The respondents tended to be mature, averaging 10 years of full-time media experience and 13 years as faculty members. Some 60.8% were males and 39.2% females. More than 70 percent hold terminal degrees; they are spread widely across academic ranks (7.2% graduate students, 4% instructors, 26.3% assistant professors, 26.3% associate professors, 26.3% full professors, and 9.9% "other"). They average 48.5% of their work week on teaching, 24.3% on research, 14.4% on service, and 14% on administration. About 80% of their teaching is to undergraduates. Some 63.3% of them personally teach a course or unit on ethics. (See Table 1)
What are the characteristics of "the ethical professor" ?
In titling their study of the University of Montana faculty "Black and White and Shades of Gray: A Portrait of the Ethical Professor," Mary Birch and her colleagues (1999) asserted that responses to their battery of questions revealed fundamental characteristics of the professoriate's ethics. We are somewhat reluctant to jump to that conclusion, but do believe the 65 questions we posed reveal patterns of attitudes about what is or is not acceptable behavior among faculty members.
Table 2 presents our questions, in the order they were asked, along with mean scores. (As noted, a score of "1" indicates "unquestionably not ethical," "2" indicates "most likely not ethical," "3" indicates "not sure or it all depends," "4" indicates "most likely ethical," and "5" indicates "unquestionably ethical.") Respondents were helped through the survey by being told that questions 1 through 32-roughly the first half of the battery-related to issues of dealing with teaching students, questions 33 through 42 dealt specifically with research issues, and questions 43 through 65 covered a variety of miscellaneous subjects, including job hunting, collegial relationships, potential conflicts of interest, and fudging.
Table 3 presents the same data in ascending order of perceived ethicality.
It becomes obvious, if one can draw conclusions from mean scores only, that quite a few of these items appeared to be "no-brainers," activities that nearly everyone disapproved of.
Consider the first ten items: The AEJMC faculty has made it clear that it is definitely not OK to become sexually involved with one's students; to lower course demands for student athletes; to ignore evidence of cheating; to fail to thoroughly read theses, dissertations, or comprehensive exams yet pretend you have done so; to fail to acknowledge significant student participation in research or publication; to give easy grades to avoid negative evaluations from students; to require students-without their permission-to serve as research subjects or respondents; to relax course rules in order to improve one's student evaluations; to lower course demands for minority students; or to allow a student's likeability to influence one's grading.
We find it interesting that eight of these "top 10 no-no's" emerge from the first half of the questionnaire, the entirety of which dealt with the teaching function, and the other two related to manipulation of students as research subjects or co-authors. Nothing here about faculty relations, about service, about one's own research productivity. (It could be, of course, that respondents were so irritated about the litany of perceived abuses of the teacher-student role that they lightened up when it came to the other topics.)
At the other extreme, the ten situations AEJMC faculty found least problematic, starting with the highest scoring one, suggest that it's not so bad to relax course rules (e.g., late papers, attendance) due to extenuating circumstances; to require students to buy the faculty member's own textbooks providing the books have been peer reviewed and used elsewhere, even if the faculty member will receive royalties; to express political views in class; to use school resources to create a "popular" trade book; to hug students; to make copies of copyrighted articles for all the students in a class (note: this item elicited commentaries from 23 different respondents, obviously torn over the legal/ethical/pragmatic dilemma); to use school equipment and graduate assistants as resources for writing a textbook from which faculty hope to make royalties; to offer students extra credit to serve as research subjects or respondents; to require students in a class to help gather data for a faculty r
esearch project; or to fail to reveal that they are looking for a new job because they were denied tenure elsewhere.
Unlike the items at the other end of the scale, the ten that were least problematic tended to relate to faculty self-interest. In all fairness, however, we should point out that only two items in the entire survey received mean scores of "3" or above, which means that none of the items were generally perceived to be morally permissible.
While looking at mean scores is an intriguing (and self-checking) exercise, more can be learned by considering which faculty members provided which answers, and how those answers compared with answers given by faculty in other fields.
What are the relevant demographic variables?
Preliminary analysis of the data reveals several statistically significant differences among various demographic groups. Using Pearson Chi-square and a significance level of .05 or less, we find the following five areas revealing:
Gender: Women are more likely than men to be undecided about expressing their political views in class (p= .039 ); are less likely than men to approve of requiring students to buy textbooks the professors have authored and from which they expect to get royalties (p= .041) and even more uncomfortable requiring students to buy self-published textbooks that are not being used at other universities (p= .007); are vastly more concerned than men about belittling students' comments in class (p= .002); are more undecided than men about the ethics of sharing with colleagues confidential disclosures told to them by students (p= .022); are more concerned than men about criticizing (in class) another faculty member in the department (.030); are more tolerant of giving passing grades to students who could not pass tests but who put forth considerable effort to meet the course standards (p= .013); are less willing to offer students extra credit to serve as research subjects or respondents (p= .040); and are nowhere near as opposed as males are to advertising and bringing in several candidates for a position when the department plans to hire an insider (p= .005).
Women were a bit more likely than men to ignore a colleague's unethical behavior, but the difference was not statistically significant (p= .052).
Years of professional experience: Dividing our respondents into two groups, one with up to seven years of professional experience and the other with more than seven years, we find that the more experienced group is less comfortable expressing religious views in class (p= .048); is far less accepting of the idea of becoming sexually involved with a student after the course is completed and grades filed (p= .001); finds it more unethical to fail to provide negative comments on a paper or exam when such comments reflect the professor's honest assessment of the student (p= .004); finds it more unethical to grade on a strict curve regardless of the class performance level (p= .006); is less willing to teach a class without adequate preparation for the day (p= .042); finds it more unethical to require students to serve as research subjects or respondents (p= .044); is far less tolerant of offering students extra credit to serve as research subjects or respondents (p= .003); thinks it
is more unethical to submit papers to a division and also serve as a judge in that division's paper competition (p= .050); is more opposed to taking credit as a co-author when a student submits a thesis or dissertation to a convention or for publication (p= .029); thinks it is unethical to use school equipment and graduate assistants as resources for writing a textbook from which royalties will be received (p= .026); and is much less tolerant of taking departmental equipment home for personal use (p= .004).
Academic rank: Looking at mass communications faculty along a different continuum, academic rank, we considered responses given by assistant, associate, and full professors (note: the overall sampling was evenly divided among these three groups, with 26.3% in each; for the sake of this breakout we omitted graduate students, instructors, and "other"). Crosstabs reveal that senior faculty are more opposed to expressing political views in class (p= .015); find it more unethical to give passing grades to students who could not pass tests, but who put forth considerable effort to meet course standards (p= .017); are far less willing to give academic credit rather than salary for student assistants (p= .006); think it is more unethical to teach a class without adequate preparation for the day (p= .016); are less willing to avoid negatives when writing letters of reference for questionable students or colleagues (p= .009); and find it unethical to go for a job interview when they know
they will not accept the job (p= .043).
Assistant professors and full professors are much more concerned than associate professors about listing themselves as co-authors when one of their students submits a thesis or dissertation to a convention or for publication (p= .033).
Assistant professors were slightly more opposed than their senior colleagues to requiring students to buy self-published textbooks that are not being used at other universities, but the differences were not statistically significant (p= .056). Likewise, full professors were the most opposed to offering students extra credit to serve as research subjects or respondents, but they did not differ significantly from their colleagues (p= .056).
Years of teaching experience: When comparing faculty members with fewer than 10 years teaching experience against those with more than 10 years, four items were statistically significant. Those with more experience were more opposed to giving passing grades to students who could not pass tests, but who put forth considerable effort to meet course requirements (p= .040); objected more strongly to offering students extra credit to serve as research subjects or respondents (p= .037); found it much more unethical to avoid negatives in writing letters of reference for questionable students or colleagues (p= .007); and objected more strongly to the practice of participating in consulting or other outside jobs that cut into class preparation time (p= .026).
Whether they teach ethics: Given that 63.3% of our respondents said they personally taught a course or unit on ethics and the other 36.7% said they did not, it seemed reasonable to see if the two groups differed in their attitudes toward ethics issues. On half a dozen items there were significant differences of opinion, and two others just missed being statistically significant.
In comparing the two groups, ethics teachers imply they are far more likely than their colleagues to challenge remarks by students that are racist, sexist, or otherwise derogatory to particular groups of people (p= .042); are more willing to give passing grades to students who could not pass tests, but who put forth considerable effort to meet course standards (p= .025); think it more wrong to participate in consulting or other outside jobs that cut into class preparation time (p= .028); are much more opposed to exaggerating their interest in research when applying for a job (p= .015); or, for that matter, to exaggerating their interest in teaching when applying for a job (p= .015); and find it more problematic to mislead interviews about how soon the thesis or dissertation will be finished (p= .046).
On two other items ethics professors stood apart from their colleagues, but the differences were not statistically significant. Ethics teachers said that it is unethical to fail to keep up to date on recent research and scientific findings or trends in their field of academic/professional experience (p= .052), and that it is wrong to give priority to their own research interests at the expense of students' educational experience (p= .051).
How does mass comm faculty compare with others?
Thirty-one of the 65 questions we asked of AEJMC faculty were included in the University of Montana faculty survey conducted in 1991 by Mary Birch and her colleagues. (Birch et al. did a mail survey of 147 professors on a campus noted for its "Ethics Across the Curriculum" program. All students are required to take ethics courses in their majors; some four dozen ethics courses are offered.) Seventeen of the present study's questions also appeared in the 1991 nation-wide survey of 482 psychologists conducted by Barbara Tabachnick and her colleagues. (Most of those 17 also appeared in the Birch et al. Montana study.) In most cases, the questions that appeared in both the AEJMC and Montana studies were worded similarly; some of the subtle changes in wording between the AEJMC and Tabachnick et al. study are due to differences in the teaching and research activities of the two disciplines. Despite those differences, it is still possible to draw some tentative cross-disciplinary compar
isons.
All three studies asked faculty to evaluate specific behaviors along a five-point "unethical-to-ethical" scale. The present study and the Montana study were basically interested in faculty attitudes toward given behaviors; the psychologists had also been asked to indicate the frequency with which they had personally engaged in those behaviors. Thus direct question-to-question comparisons are tentative. Nevertheless, some trends can be noted.
Table 4 presents the 31 items from AEJMC data, in ascending order of perceived ethicality, in comparison with the Montana study. The table shows that in the majority of cases, there is no meaningful difference between the two sets of responses. In only 13 cases, the respondents differed by at least .25 (out of 5.0 possible) points-a rather small spread, to be sure. Indeed, in only two instances was there a point spread of more than .50. They were in the responses to questions about faculty giving priority to their own research interests at the expense of students' educational experiences (Montana, at 2.66, found it less problematic than AEJMC members, at 1.92-a .74 spread), and about faculty becoming sexually involved with a student once a course is completed and grades filed (Montana, at 2.66, was a bit more sanguine than AEJMC faculty, at 2.09-a .57 spread).
Table 5 compares 17 items from AEJMC data, in ascending order of perceived ethicality, with the American Psychological Association (Tabachnick et al., 1991) study. In this table the comparison is made between the percentage of respondents who answered "1" or "2" to each question, indicating they thought the situation described was either "unquestionably not ethical" (same phrasing in both studies) or "most likely not ethical" (the AEJMC wording) or "under rare circumstances" (the Tabachnick wording).
Several patterns are revealed by the data in Table 5, tempting us to suggest there are some meaningful differences between those who teach students to observe and write about the world at large (AEJMC) and those who teach students to observe and counsel individuals (APA). Psychologists, it seems, have little problem with requiring students to be guinea pigs, whereas the practice bothers mass comm professors. Psychologists are far more offended than are mass comm professors by the practice of taking co-authorship credit for presentation or publication of student work, but far less concerned about using grad students and school equipment to write textbooks from which they expect to get royalties. AEJMC members are much more likely to frown on becoming sexually involved with former students than are psychologists, but are less concerned about hugging their students than are the psychologists. Finally, journalism and mass communications faculty find it much more problematic to sell u
nwanted complimentary textbooks to used book buyers than do psychologists.
Conclusions
As explained earlier, this research project set out to develop a base-line data set that could stimulate additional research. The work is descriptive, not prescriptive, however tempting it may be to draw normative conclusions about AEJMC faculty ethics.
Recognizing that we may be accused of outrunning our headlights, we nevertheless think we have noticed that:
ù Mass communications faculty, to a far greater extent than other faculties, are highly sensitive to moral transgressions against students. They recognize the power imbalance inherent in the faculty-student relationship, and advise one another to tread lightly.
ù When compared to faculty from the University of Montana and the national sampling of psychologists, AEJMC faculty seem to be a "kinder and gentler" breed on all sorts of criteria. Not only are more sensitive toward student rights, they are less inclined to "beat the system."
ù On the other hand, mass communications faculty seem somewhat less concerned than other faculties about issues arising in the conduct and presentation of research and in maintaining collegial relationships.
ù Female AEJMC members seem to reflect the "ethic of care" to a greater extent than do their male colleagues.
ù Faculty who bring many years of professional experience to the academy seem to be somewhat more forthright than their less experienced colleagues regarding matters that might come back to haunt them, but at the same time are a bit softer around the edges and more flexible in dealing with others.
ù Likewise, senior faculty members (higher rank and more years at the academy) also seem to have learned some ethics lessons on the job, and seem to know when to stick to their guns and when to cut a little slack.
ù Not surprisingly, the professors who teach ethics courses or units seem to have a high level of sensitivity to potentially harmful behaviors, seem to be more tolerant of individual differences, and are deontologists when tempted to fudge.
This study doesn't pretend to cover all the territory of academic ethics. It doesn't, for instance, delve very far into broader, more systemic questions such as institutional or administrative (or even state or national) moral lapses and other dilemmas that are not of the professors' making and which individual professors may feel relatively powerless to resolve. These matters are best left for further research.
Table 1
Demographics of respondents.
ù How many years of full-time experience do you have as a media professional?
mean=10.125
ù How many years of full-time experience do you have as a faculty member?
mean=13.215
ù What is your terminal degree?
Bachelors 3.0%
Master's 21.8
PhD/EdD 72.3
JD 1.3
Other 1.6
ù What is your academic rank or status?
Graduate student 7.2%
Instructor 4.0
Assistant professor 26.3
Associate professor 26.3
Professor 26.3
Other 9.9
ù What is your gender?
Male 60.8%
Female 39.2
ù About what percentage of your work time do you devote to:
Teaching 48.5%
Research 24.3
Service 14.4
Administration 14.0
(total =101.2%)
ù About what percentage of your teaching time do you devote to working with:
Undergraduate students 79.5%
Graduate students 18.9
(total =98.4%)
ù Do you personally teach a course or unit on ethics at your school?
No 63.3%
Yes 36.7
Table 2
Survey items with means reported. Instructions: Please use a five-point scale to indicate how ethical or unethical you consider the faculty behavior described in each of the following questions. Enter the numbers, 1 through 5, in the space to the left of each question. 1= Unquestionably not ethical; 2= Most likely not ethical; 3=Not sure or it all depends; 4=most likely ethical; 5=Unquestionably ethical. If you want to comment about any of the questions, please feel free to do so.
Section II: Issues related to teaching and dealing with students. How ethical or unethical do you consider the faculty behavior described in each of the following?
Mean Item
2.99 1 Expressing your political views in class.
1.46 2 Allowing a student's likeability to influence your grading.
1.07 3 Becoming sexually involved with a student enrolled in one of your courses.
3.20 4 Requiring students to buy textbooks you wrote that have been peer reviewed and used at other universities and from which you will receive royalties.
1.33 5 Giving easy grades to avoid negative evaluations from students.
1.29 6 Failing to thoroughly read theses, dissertations, or comprehensive exams, yet pretending at meetings you have.
1.18 7 Lowering course demands for student athletes.
2.55 8 Expressing your religious views in class.
2.09 9 Becoming sexually involved with a student only after the course is completed and the grades filed.
1.59 10 Belittling students' comments in class.
2.30 11 Requiring students to buy textbooks you wrote that are not being used at other universities but from which you will receive royalties.
1.39 12 Lowering course demands for minority students.
1.25 13 Ignoring evidence of cheating.
1.37 14 Relaxing rules (e.g., late papers, attendance) to improve course evaluations.
2.77 15 Hugging students.
1.76 16 Failing to admit a mistake made in a previous day's lecture.
2.33 17 In class, criticizing another specialty or field of study in the department.
1.61 18 Setting standards for student behavior (e.g.., being on time, being prepared, being civil) yet failing to conform to those standards yourself.
1.74 19 Sharing with colleagues confidential disclosures told to you by a student.
3.80 20 Relaxing rules (e.g., late papers, attendance) due to extenuating circumstances.
2.17 21 Failing to provide negative comments on a paper or exam when these comments reflect your honest assessment of the student's performance.
1.86 22 Failing to challenge remarks by students or colleagues that are racist, sexist, or otherwise derogatory to particular groups of people.
2.00 23 In lectures, failing to present views that differ from your own.
1.68 24 Failing to give students a syllabus or course outline that specifies course rules and requirements.
1.58 25 In class, criticizing another faculty member in the department.
2.04 26 Failing to maintain regularly scheduled office hours.
2.25 27 Differing significantly from materials or content listed in course syllabus or college catalog.
2.36 28 Giving passing grades to students who could not pass tests, but who put forth considerable effort to meet course standards.
2.40 29 Grading on a strict curve regardless of class performance level.
2.46 30 Giving academic credit instead of salary for student assistants.
2.26 31 Teaching a class without adequate preparation for the day.
2.16 32 Returning papers several weeks after a test or assignment.
Section III: Issues related to research. How ethical or unethical do you consider the faculty behavior described in each of the following?
1.36 33 Without their permission, requiring students to serve as research subjects or respondents?
2.75 34 Offering students extra credit to serve as research subjects or respondents?
1.87 35 Submitting papers to a division and also serve as a judge in that division's paper competition?
2.35 36 Submitting the same paper to two different conventions?
1.84 37 Listing themselves as co-author when a student submits a thesis or dissertation to a convention or for publication?
1.31 38 Failing to acknowledge significant student participation in research or publication?
2.61 39 Requiring students in a class to help gather the data for a faculty research project?
2.76 40 Using school equipment and graduate assistants as resources for writing a textbook from which they expect to get royalties?
2.27 41 Failing to keep up to date on recent research and scientific findings or trends in their field of academic/professional expertise?
1.92 42 Giving priority to their own research interests over the students' educational experience?
Section IV: Miscellaneous issues. How ethical or unethical do you consider the faculty behavior described in each of the following?
2.91 43 Using school resources to create a "popular" trade book?
2.31 44 Selling unwanted complimentary texts to used book buyers?
1.56 45 Accepting a gratuity, gift, or favor from area media companies that might influence professional judgment?
1.88 46 Ignoring a colleague's unethical behavior?
2.32 47 Avoiding negatives in writing a letter of reference for a questionable student or colleague?
2.23 48 Avoiding departmental/university committees and associated responsibilities?
2.53 49 Avoiding unpaid professional committees and associated responsibilities?
2.17 50 Participating in consulting or other outside jobs that cut into class preparation time?
1.92 51 Exaggerating their interest in research when applying for a job?
1.83 52 Exaggerating their interest in teaching when applying for a job?
2.58 53 Failing to reveal that they are looking for a new job because they were denied tenure elsewhere?
1.79 54 When applying for a job, misleading interviewers about how soon the thesis or dissertation will be finished?
2.04 55 Going for a job interview when they know they will not accept the job?
1.61 56 Advertising and bringing in several candidates for a position when the department plans to hire an insider?
1.92 57 Using their school's telephone, mail, and equipment for consulting or a second job?
2.18 58 Taking departmental equipment home for personal use?
1.58 59 Casting a vote involving a colleague's tenure or promotion based on personal reasons as opposed to the candidate's qualifications?
1.76 60 Exaggerating their accomplishments in an annual report submitted to the department chair?
1.74 61 Failing to tell the department chair about activities, such as consulting, that may interfere with assigned duties?
2.76 62 Making copies of copyrighted articles for all the students in a class?
2.12 63 Using a sabbatical as an extended vacation?
2.27 64 Using a sabbatical to work full-time at another job?
2.35 65 Insisting upon teaching favorite classes rather than classes students want or need?
Table 3
Survey items rank ordered by means. 1= Unquestionably not ethical; 2= Most likely not ethical; 3=Not sure or it all depends; 4=most likely ethical; 5=Unquestionably ethical
Mean Item#
1.07 3 Becoming sexually involved with a student enrolled in one of your courses.
1.18 7 Lowering course demands for student athletes.
1.25 13 Ignoring evidence of cheating.
1.29 6 Failing to thoroughly read theses, dissertations, or comprehensive exams, yet pretending at meetings you have.
1.31 38 Failing to acknowledge significant student participation in research or publication.
1.33 5 Giving easy grades to avoid negative evaluations from students.
1.36 33 Without their permission, requiring students to serve as research subjects or respondents.
1.37 14 Relaxing rules (e.g., late papers, attendance) to improve course evaluations.
1.39 12 Lowering course demands for minority students.
1.46 2 Allowing a student's likeability to influence your grading.
1.56 45 Accepting a gratuity, gift, or favor from area media companies that might influence professional judgment.
1.58 25 In class, criticizing another faculty member in the department.
1.58 59 Casting a vote involving a colleague's tenure or promotion based on personal reasons as opposed to the candidate's qualifications.
1.59 10 Belittling students' comments in class.
1.61 18 Setting standards for student behavior (e.g.., being on time, being prepared, being civil) yet failing to conform to those standards yourself.
1.61 56 Advertising and bringing in several candidates for a position when the department plans to hire an insider.
1.68 24 Failing to give students a syllabus or course outline that specifies course rules and requirements.
1.74 19 Sharing with colleagues confidential disclosures told to you by a student.
1.74 61 Failing to tell the department chair about activities, such as consulting, that may interfere with assigned duties.
1.76 16 Failing to admit a mistake made in a previous day's lecture.
1.76 60 Exaggerating their accomplishments in an annual report submitted to the department chair.
1.79 54 When applying for a job, misleading interviewers about how soon the thesis or dissertation will be finished.
1.83 52 Exaggerating their interest in teaching when applying for a job.
1.84 37 Listing themselves as co-author when a student submits a thesis or dissertation to a convention or for publication.
1.86 22 Failing to challenge remarks by students or colleagues that are racist, sexist, or otherwise derogatory to particular groups of people.
1.87 35 Submitting papers to a division and also serve as a judge in that division's paper competition.
1.88 46 Ignoring a colleague's unethical behavior.
1.92 42 Giving priority to their own research interests over the students' educational experience?
1.92 51 Exaggerating their interest in research when applying for a job.
1.92 57 Using their school's telephone, mail, and equipment for consulting or a second job.
2.00 23 In lectures, failing to present views that differ from your own.
2.04 26 Failing to maintain regularly scheduled office hours.
2.04 55 Going for a job interview when they know they will not accept the job.
2.09 9 Becoming sexually involved with a student only after the course is completed and the grades filed.
2.12 63 Using a sabbatical as an extended vacation.
2.16 32 Returning papers several weeks after a test or assignment.
2.17 21 Failing to provide negative comments on a paper or exam when these comments reflect your honest assessment of the student's performance.
2.17 50 Participating in consulting or other outside jobs that cut into class preparation time.
2.18 58 Taking departmental equipment home for personal use.
2.23 48 Avoiding departmental/university committees and associated responsibilities.
2.25 27 Differing significantly from materials or content listed in course syllabus or college catalog.
2.26 31 Teaching a class without adequate preparation for the day.
2.27 41 Failing to keep up to date on recent research and scientific findings or trends in their field of academic/professional expertise.
2.27 64 Using a sabbatical to work full-time at another job.
2.30 11 Requiring students to buy textbooks you wrote that are not being used at other universities but from which you will receive royalties.
2.31 44 Selling unwanted complimentary texts to used book buyers.
2.32 47 Avoiding negatives in writing a letter of reference for a questionable student or colleague.
2.33 17 In class, criticizing another specialty or field of study in the department.
2.35 36 Submitting the same paper to two different conventions.
2.35 65 Insisting upon teaching favorite classes rather than classes students want or need.
2.36 28 Giving passing grades to students who could not pass tests, but who put forth considerable effort to meet course standards.
2.40 29 Grading on a strict curve regardless of class performance level.
2.46 30 Giving academic credit instead of salary for student assistants.
2.53 49 Avoiding unpaid professional committees and associated responsibilities.
2.55 8 Expressing your religious views in class.
2.58 53 Failing to reveal that they are looking for a new job because they were denied tenure elsewhere.
2.61 39 Requiring students in a class to help gather the data for a faculty research project.
2.75 34 Offering students extra credit to serve as research subjects or respondents.
2.76 40 Using school equipment and graduate assistants as resources for writing a textbook from which they expect to get royalties.
2.76 62 Making copies of copyrighted articles for all the students in a class.
2.77 15 Hugging students.
2.91 43 Using school resources to create a "popular" trade book.
2.99 1 Expressing your political views in class.
3.20 4 Requiring students to buy textbooks you wrote that have been peer reviewed and used at other universities and from which you will receive royalties.
3.80 20 Relaxing rules (e.g., late papers, attendance) due to extenuating circumstances.
Table 4
AEJMC faculty responses compared with responses from the University of Montana study (Birch et al., 1999). AEJMC n=373; Montana n=147. Parentheses indicate items that were worded slightly differently in the two studies. Bold face indicates items on which there was greater than a .25 (out of 5.0 possible) differential.
AEJMC Montana
Mean Mean
1.07 1.14 Becoming sexually involved with a student enrolled in one of your courses.
1.18 1.37 Lowering course demands for student athletes.
1.25 1.21 Ignoring evidence of cheating.
1.31 1.24 Failing to acknowledge significant student participation in research or publication.
1.33 (1.27) Giving easy grades to avoid negative evaluations from students.
1.37 (1.66) Relaxing rules (e.g., late papers, attendance) to improve course evaluations.
1.39 1.65 Lowering course demands for minority students.
1.46 1.61 Allowing a student's likeability to influence your grading.
1.59 1.48 Belittling students' comments in class.
1.68 (1.93) Failing to give students a syllabus or course outline that specifies course rules and requirements.
1.74 1.54 Sharing with colleagues confidential disclosures told to you by a student.
1.84 1.88 Listing themselves as co-author when a student submits a thesis or dissertation to a convention or for publication.
1.86 2.16 Failing to challenge remarks by students or colleagues that are racist, sexist, or otherwise derogatory to particular groups of people.
1.92 2.66 Giving priority to their own research interests over the students' educational experience?
2.00 2.15 In lectures, failing to present views that differ from your own.
2.04 2.27 Failing to maintain regularly scheduled office hours.
2.09 2.66 Becoming sexually involved with a student only after the course is completed and the grades filed.
2.17 1.85 Failing to provide negative comments on a paper or exam when these comments reflect your honest assessment of the student's performance.
2.23 2.55 Avoiding departmental/university committees and associated responsibilities.
2.25 2.40 Differing significantly from materials or content listed in course syllabus or college catalog.
2.26 2.46 Teaching a class without adequate preparation for the day.
2.27 1.89 Using a sabbatical to work full-time at another job.
2.31 2.70 Selling unwanted complimentary texts to used book buyers.
2.32 (2.35) Avoiding negatives in writing a letter of reference for a questionable student or colleague.
2.36 2.31 Giving passing grades to students who could not pass tests, but who put forth considerable effort to meet course standards.
2.40 2.70 Grading on a strict curve regardless of class performance level.
2.46 2.81 Giving academic credit instead of salary for student assistants.
2.77 3.14 Hugging students.
2.91 2.69 Using school resources to create a "popular" trade book.
Table 5.
AEJMC faculty responses compared with responses from the American Psychological Association study (Tabachnick et al., 1991). AEJMC n=373; Psychologists n=482. Seventeen items from AEJMC data appear in ascending order of perceived ethicality. Parentheses indicate items that were worded slightly differently in the two studies. Comparison is made between the percentage of respondents who answered "1" or "2" to each question, indicating they thought the situation described was either "unquestionably not ethical" (same phrasing used in both studies) or "most likely not ethical" (the AEJMC wording) or "under rare circumstances" (the Tabachnick wording).
AEJMC Tabachnick
98.7 (90.7) Becoming sexually involved with a student enrolled in one of your courses.
95.7 (89.4) Ignoring evidence of cheating.
94.4 (84.1) Giving easy grades to avoid negative evaluations from students.
91.0 (34.9) Without their permission, requiring students to serve as research subjects or respondents.
90.9 86.7 Allowing a student's likeability to influence your grading.
85.3 (89.6) Belittling students' comments in class.
76.7 (88.2) Sharing with colleagues confidential disclosures told to you by a student.
73.2 (93.2) Listing themselves as co-author when a student submits a thesis or dissertation to a convention or for publication.
67.0 47.0 Becoming sexually involved with a student only after the course is completed and the grades filed.
61.6 (49.8) Teaching a class without adequate preparation for the day.
60.3 (44.2) Selling unwanted complimentary texts to used book buyers.
59.3 (69.3) Avoiding negatives in writing a letter of reference for a questionable student or colleague.
51.4 55.8 Grading on a strict curve regardless of class performance level.
44.9 36.7 Giving academic credit instead of salary for student assistants.
35.6 (17.2) Using school equipment and graduate assistants as resources for writing a textbook from which they expect to get royalties.
32.1 (28.9) Using school resources to create a "popular" trade book.
31.1 (46.9) Hugging students.
References
Anderson, M. (1992). Impostors in the temple. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Baumgarten, E. (1982). Ethics in the academic profession: A Socratic view. Journal of Higher Education, 53 (3), 282-295.
Belenky, M. F. et al. (1988). Women's ways of knowing: The development of self, voice and mind. New York: Basic Books.
Birch, M., Elliot, D. & Trankel, M. (1999). Black and white and shades of gray: A portrait of the ethical professor. Ethics & Behavior, 9 (3), 243-261.
Black, J. & Steele, R. (1991, Autumn). Professional decision making and personal ethics: An ethics audit of the professoriate. Journalism Educator, 46, 3-17.
Bok, D. (1986). Higher Learning. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bradley, S. G. (2000). Ethical considerations and guidelines for hiring, promotion and tenure, in S. K. Majumar, H. S. Pitkow, L. P. Bird, and E. W. Miller, Ethics in Academia. Easton, PA: The Pennsylvania Academy of Science, pp. 254-269.
Cahn, S. M. (1986). Saints and scamps: Ethics in academia. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Littlefield.
Callahan, D. (1982). Should there be an academic code of ethics? Journal of Higher Education, 53 (3), 335-344.
Churchill, L. R. (1982). The teaching of ethics and moral values in teaching: Some contemporary confusions. Journal of Higher Education, 53 (3), 296-306.
Delattre, E. J. & Russell, W. E. (1993). Schooling, moral principles and the formation of character. Journal of Education, 175 (2), 24-44.
Dill, D. D. (1982-A). Ethics in the academic profession: A Socratic view, Journal of Higher Education, 53(3), 243-254.
Dill, D. D. (1982-B). The structure of the academic profession: Toward a definition of ethical issues. Journal of Higher Education 53(3), 255-267.
D'Souza, D. (1991). Illiberal education: The politics of race and sex on campus. New York: The Free Press.
Gaff, J. G. (1975). Toward faculty renewal. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Garramone, G. M. & Kennamer, J. D. (1989). Ethical considerations in mass communications research. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 4(2), 174-185.
Gecan, C. & Mullholland-Glaze, B. (1993). The teacher's place in the formation of students' character. Journal of Education, 175 (2), 45-57.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Godkin, L. (1987). The faculty-administrative relationship. In Payne, S. L. & Charnov, B. H. (Eds.), Ethical dilemmas for academic professionals. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas, 151-165.
Hastings Center. (1980). The teaching of ethics in higher education: A report by the Hastings Center. Hastings-on-Hudson, NY: author.
Hodges, L. (1997). Cases and commentaries: Teaching: A professor's moral obligations. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 12(4), 246-256.
Keith-Spiegel, P., Wittig, A. F., Perkins, D. V., Balogh, D. W. & Whitley, Jr. B. E. (1993). The ethics of teaching: A casebook. Muncie, IN: Ball State University.
Kerr, C. (1994). The academic ethic and the professoriate, in Higher education cannot escape history: Issues for the twenty-first century. Albany: State University of New York Press, pp. 149, 140.
Knight, J. & Auster, C. A. (1999). Faculty conduct: An empirical study of ethical activism. The Journal of Higher Education, 70(2), 188-210.
Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive developmental approach to socialization. In D. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research. Chicago: Rand McNally, pp. 347-480.
Kohlberg, L. (1984). Essays on moral development: Vol. 2. The psychology of moral development. San Francisco: Harper & Row.
Kohlberg, L. (1985). A just community approach to moral education in theory and practice. In M. W. Berkowitz & F. Oser (Eds.), Moral education: Theory and practice. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 27-87.
Majumar, S. K., Pitkow, H. S. Bird, L. P. & Miller, E. W. (2000). Ethics in Academia. Easton, PA: The Pennsylvania Academy of Science.
Miles, S. J. (2000). Research ethics in science, in S. K. Majumar, H. S. Pitkow, L. P. Bird, and E. W. Miller, Ethics in Academia. Easton, PA: The Pennsylvania Academy of Science, pp. 133-142.
Murray, H. (1996). Ethical principles for college and university teaching. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, No. 66.
Payne, S. L. (1987). Concern for academic research participants. In Payne, S. L. & Charnov, B. H. (Eds.), Ethical dilemmas for academic professionals. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas, 47-57.
Payne, S. L., & Charnov, B. H. (eds.) (1987). Ethical dilemmas for academic professionals. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Payne, S. L. & Desman, R. A. (1987). The academician as a consultant. In Payne, S. L. & Charnov, B. H. (Eds.), Ethical dilemmas for academic professionals. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas, 95-115.
Rich, J. M. (1984). Professional ethics in education. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Roberts, M. C., Black, J. & Self, C. (1992). Perceived moral dimensions of journalism/
mass communications educators, presented to Eighth International
Conference on the Scientific Study of Subjectivity, Columbia, Missouri, Oct. 22.
Robertson, E. & Grant, G. (1982). Teaching and ethics. Journal of Higher Education, 53(3), 345-357.
Robinson, G. M. & Moulton, J. (1985). Ethical problems in higher education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Rosovsky, H. (1990). The university: An owner's manual. New York: W. W. Norton.
Schiff, F. & Ryan, M. (1996, Summer). Ethical problems in advising theses and dissertations. Journalism and Mass Communication Educator, 23-35.
Schrag, B. (2000-A). Civility in academic institutions, in S. K. Majumar, H. S. Pitkow, L. P. Bird, and E. W. Miller, Ethics in Academia. Easton, PA: The Pennsylvania Academy of Science, pp. 299-308.
Schrag, B. (2000-B). Moral responsibilities of faculty and the ethics of faculty governance, in S. K. Majumar, H. S. Pitkow, L. P. Bird, and E. W. Miller, Ethics in Academia. Easton, PA: The Pennsylvania Academy of Science, pp. 225-240.
Schurr, G. M. (1982). Toward a code of ethics for academics. Journal of Higher Education, 53(3), 318-334.
Scriven, M. (1982). Professional ethics. Journal of Higher Education, 53(3), 317-318.
Shils, E. (1983). The academic ethic. Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.
Simms, G. R. (2000). Ethics in teaching and examination development, in S. K. Majumar, H. S. Pitkow, L. P. Bird, and E. W. Miller, Ethics in Academia. Easton, PA: The Pennsylvania Academy of Science, pp. 100-105.
Strike, K. E. & Ternasky, P. L., Eds. (1993). Ethics for professionals in education: Perspectives for preparation and practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
Swazey, J. P., Anderson, M. S. & Lewis, K. S. (1993, November/December) ). Ethical problems in academic research. American Scientist, 81, 542-553.
Sykes, C. J. (1988). ProfScam: Professors and the demise of higher education. Washington, D. C.: Regnery Gateway.
Tabachnick, B. G., Keith-Spiegel, P. & Pope, K. S. (1991). Ethics of teaching. American Psychologist, 46(5), 506-515.
Tigner, S. S. (1993). Character education: Outline of a seven-point program. Journal of Education, 175(2), 13-22.
Walter, G. A. & Von Gilnow, M. A. (1987). Fundamental means to ethical teaching. In Payne, S. L. & Charnov, B. H. (Eds.), Ethical dilemmas for academic professionals. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas, 21-38.
Ward, S. P., Wilson, Jr., T. E. & Ward, D. R. (1994). Students' perception of ethics instruction. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 79, 1040-1042.
Whicker, M.L. & Kronenfeld, J.J. (1994). Dealing with ethical dilemmas on campus. Thousand Oaks, CA. Sage Publications.
Wilson, E. K. (1982). Power, pretense, and piggybacking: Some ethical issues in teaching. Journal of Higher Education, 53(3), 268-281.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The Ethics Agenda of the Mass Communication Professoriate
Abstract
This study reviews a growing body of faculty ethics literature and surveys one-third of the AEJMC membership about its attitudes toward 65 different issues. Forty-eight percent of the 775 people who received the mail questionnaire in late 2000 provided usable responses. They indicated that in many respects journalism and mass communications faculty are very similar to colleagues from other disciplines, but on many items, are far more sensitive to the welfare of students.
Jay Black, Professor
School of Mass Communications, University of South Florida
St. Petersburg, FL 33701-5016
727-553-1579, [log in to unmask]
Bruce Garrison, Professor
Journalism and Photography Program
School of Communication, University of Miami
P.O. Box 248127, Coral Gables, FL 33124-2030
305-284-2846, [log in to unmask]
Fred Fedler, Professor
School of Communication, University of Central Florida
Orlando, FL 32816
407-823-2681, [log in to unmask]
Doug White, MA Candidate
School of Mass Communications,University of South Florida
St. Petersburg, FL 33701-5016
727-553-1579, [log in to unmask]
A paper presented for review by the Media Ethics Division of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Washington, D.C., August 2001.