Download Communication Ethics: Historical Overview and Pedagogical Approaches and more Lecture notes Communication in PDF only on Docsity!
Journal of the Association for Communication Administration Volume 33, #2, Fall-Summer 2014, pp. 2– 20 Teaching Communication Ethics as Central to the Discipline Robert L. Ballard^1 Leeanne M. Bell McManus^2 Annette M. Holba^3 Spoma Jovanovic^4 Paula S. Tompkins^5 Lori J. N. Charron^6 Melba L. Hoffer^7 Michelle A. Leavitt^8 Tammy Swenson-Lepper^9 Communication ethics as a field of study within the communication discipline has made significant contributions in a variety of areas, including teaching. This paper offers an historical overview of communication ethics, with special attention to four major approaches to pedagogy – ethics in human communication, moral psychology and intuition, a communication ethics framework, and a critical communication ethics pedagogy. For the department seeking to incorporate communication ethics through stand-alone courses or throughout curricula, the authors suggest ways for communication administrators to address questions of desired competencies for communication graduates, and to articulate related learning outcomes. Future recommendations for the field and administrators are offered. The authors conclude that while communication ethics pedagogy has made significant contributions to the discipline, its potential will only be fully realized when faculty and administrators together construct the right balance of offerings for their departments. Keywords: communication ethics, pedagogy, teaching, competence, learning outcomes Introduction and Overview of Communication Ethics In 2013, the Association of American Colleges & Universities (AAC&U) published the results of its latest national employers’ survey. The report provides a detailed analysis of employers’ priorities for what today’s college students need in order to succeed in today’s economy and offers recommendations for changes in educational and assessment practices (“It takes more than a major,” 2013). According to this survey, today’s employers place ethics, or the ability to "demonstrate ethical judgment and integrity", at the highest level of importance with 96 percent of participants identifying this skill set as “important”, including 76 percent identifying it as “very important”). As today's college administrators and faculty labor to prepare students to meet employer's priorities and needs, adequate training in ethical reasoning and communication ethics takes on important significance. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (^1) Pepperdine University (^2) Stevenson University (^3) Plymouth State University (^4) The University of North Carolina at Greensboro (^5) St. Cloud State University (^6) Saint Mary’s University of MN (^7) Grand Valley State University (^8) Independent Scholar (^9) Winona State University!
Ethics, as a branch of philosophy, has been studied for thousands of years from many different perspectives. An ethical issue is described as something “one can raise a question about... [whether it] is right or wrong ” (Neher & Sandin, 2007, p. 3). Communication ethics specifically focuses on communicative behavior in speaking, writing, and actions. With communication ethics issues, questions of justifications or rationales emerge because we give reasons, either for or against particular communication behaviors, utterances, and actions (Neher & Sandin, 2007). Therefore ethics generally and communication ethics specifically often addresses how to make and explain a decision based upon good or just reasons. To a lesser degree, communication ethics also considers guidelines for passing judgment on what has transpired in written and spoken acts. Exercising sound communication ethics requires competent communication skills which involve studying, understanding, and applying communication theories, knowing when to follow guidelines and when to question them, using discernment and judgment related to given particular situations, environments, and audiences, and articulating sound and just reasons for a decision (Tompkins, 2011). This does not mean communication ethics devolves into relativism, but rather it means that communication ethics engages a system or process of reasoning, reading situations, knowing and understanding people, considering and evaluating various possibilities of engagement before taking action, making judgments about actions, and articulating reasons for specific communication choices and behaviors (Neher & Sandin, 2007). Making decisions about communication with attention to ethical behavior is not easy, and it is sometimes awkward, uncomfortable, and inconvenient. However, understanding the role of communication ethics in how we make decisions and engage in the world around us is essential in order to unpack, discover, and understand what it means to engage as ethical human communicative agents in a diverse world (Arnett, Fritz, & Bell, 2009). Developing these ethical facilities means developing one’s communication ethics literacy, or a reflective engagement and awareness of our communicative behavior (Arnett, Fritz, & Bell, 2009). As communicative agents in a world in which every action we take has the possibility of impacting others, it is important to understand the implications of our individual and collective communicative acts because the possibilities and outcomes are vast and not always obvious. Importantly, as the AAC&U report points out, the ability to think, discern, and make judgments from an ethical basis is a necessary skill for employment and career success. We suggest that communication ethics literacy should be present in every communication and media curricula in some form. As a discipline, there is a need for administrators and faculty to discuss how we teach communication ethics, both as stand- alone courses that can be devoted to understanding the role of ethics in our communicative life, interactions, and transactions with others, as well as integrated throughout courses that warrant discussions of ethics (public speaking, interpersonal communication, rhetoric, media, etc.) across curricula. The purpose of this paper is to stimulate conversation within communication departments about the importance of teaching and integrating communication ethics in our courses and curricula. Administrators are in a unique position to act as catalysts for those conversations, and to secure resources to ensure that communication ethics is adequately covered as part of a sound communication education that will prepare students to meet the needs of today’s employers. This paper unfolds in three parts. First, we begin with a review of how communication ethics came to be organized as a field within the communication discipline under the tutelage of experienced administrators, with attention to literature on
discussed the subject asserted that yes, instructors of speech should teach ethical considerations in public speaking. Jensen (1959) further argued that a teacher of speech had ethical obligations toward truth, the political society (the nation), the field of the liberal arts, the speech profession, and the student of speech. As a result, the communication discipline had an obligation to integrate communication ethics into the public address curriculum, a responsibility that was to fall to department administrators. Johnson’s (1970) Teaching Ethics in Speech Communication found that over 90% of participants indicated a need for a speech teacher to discuss the ethical issues of speech but only 28% had a separate discussion on the subject of ethics. In 1985, Jensen shifted his focus to how to teach ethics within speech communication classes. He proposed a number of areas to emphasize. These included familiar ideas regarding the content of communication and a framework of communication that incorporated the message, medium, and receiver to help organize ethical issues. Other emphases focused on such topics as clarifying sources of ethical standards, the need to move from either/or thinking to considering degrees of ethical quality, the inherent “oughtness” of ethics, and the continuing conflict between absolutism and relativism in ethics. Eleven years later in 1996, the increased interest in communication ethics pedagogy was evident in a survey by Christians and Lambeth. They found that 39% of schools were teaching or planning stand-alone courses on communication ethics with 58% of the courses being required. However, over 50% of instructors teaching a course on communication ethics did not regard ethics as an intellectual strength or primary research interest (Christians & Lambeth, 1996). A more recent survey by Swenson Lepper et al. (in press) found that 50% of respondents teach communication ethics in their programs, either through a stand-alone course or integrated throughout the curriculum. It also found that most courses for undergraduates were offered in junior and senior years. Survey respondents, nearly 40% of who were department chairs with an average of over 6 years as chair, indicated that they regarded communication ethics as important, even critical to the field. However, many also noted that lack of expertise or training as a barrier to providing a stand-alone communication ethics course. Qualitative responses, in particular, indicated that communication ethics was not an intellectual strength or primary research area for many faculty, a finding similar to the Christians and Lambeth’s (1996) study. In summary, communication ethics has made significant contributions to the communication discipline, though its potential has not yet been fully realized. Notably, there has developed a sustained and evolving focus on the teaching of communication ethics but still needed are the conversations among faculty and administrators together to construct the right balance of offerings for their departments, based on one of four highly regarded and used pedagogies. Communication Ethics Pedagogy Pedagogical approaches to teaching communication ethics vary in focus as related to ethical frameworks and theories (democratic, universal humanitarian, codes, procedures and standards, narrative, dialogic, etc.), 11 communication context (digital, organizational, !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (^11) Examples of texts using a specific ethical framework include Makau and Marty, (2013), Dialogue & Deliberation and Christians and Traber, eds. (1997), Communication Ethics and Universal Values.
interpersonal, etc.),^12 and how communication ethics is examined and assessed.^13 In this section, we briefly describe the four general approaches to teaching ethics in communication. The first approach situates ethics outside of the discipline, focusing on ethics in human communication. This is the position argued by Plato in the Gorgias (1961a) and Phaedrus (1961b) and is the more conventional view_._ Standards for evaluating the ethical quality of communication reside in the domain of philosophical ethics. Through studying philosophers such as Plato (1961a; 1961b), Immanuel Kant (1781/1965; 1785/1993), John Stuart Mill (1859/1947; 1863/1991), or Jürgen Habermas (1984), for example, students of communication discover what is needed to live a good life or what is necessary for good government, and then communicate accordingly. This perspective views communication as a vessel or medium for carrying or transporting ethical content, serving as a context for applying ethical theories. The communication process is bereft of ethical content and, thus, makes no substantive contribution directly to ethics. Using this pedagogical approach, students are taught ancient and/or contemporary theories of ethics to identify what is good, right, or virtuous in communication. While students would be able to recite ethical concepts and theories and perhaps apply them in this approach, they generally do not consider how the nature of communication processes in general or specific communication acts and episodes contribute to their understanding of ethics. In short, ethics is viewed as separate from and superior to communication processes in this pedagogical approach. The second pedagogical approach is characterized by a reliance on the student for ethical content, with some supplementation.^14 Supported in part by recent research in moral psychology indicating that babies can distinguish between what adults consider right and wrong behavior (Bloom, 2013), this pedagogical approach assumes communicators bring a pre-existing, personal understanding of ethics to the communication process. Theoretically, this approach often relies on moral intuition (Haidt & Joseph, 2004; Haidt, 2008) where individual ethical judgments are based upon the moral emotions of empathy, a basic sense of fairness aligned with egalitarianism, and disgust (Bloom, 2013). This assumes that there is an understanding of ethics inherent in individual human consciousness that a student brings to the classroom and to a communicative action. This theoretical basis translates into a pedagogy predicated on students bringing relevant ethical concepts, values or principles through moral intuition. This allows the instructor to focus on communication theory and context in exploring an ethical issue rather than philosophical approaches or ethical theories. Many moral psychologists, however, consider the moral emotions alone insufficient to identify what is ethical, recognizing that the individual is situated. Empathy, for example, “should promote prosocial behavior and discourage aggression in cultures guided by caring and justice principles. But it does not operate in a vacuum, and in multicultural societies with intergroup rivalry, it might, calling to empathy’s familiarity bias, contribute to violence between groups” (Hoffman, 2001, p. 22). Moreover, recent research work by Smith et al. (2011) on a new stage of human development named either “extended adolescence” or !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (^12) Examples of texts focusing on a specific communication context include Fortner and Fackler, (2010), Ethics and Evil in the Public Sphere; Hamelink (2000), The Ethics of Cyberspace , and Parry-Giles and Parry-Giles, (2009), Public Address and Moral Judgment. (^13) Examples of texts examining communication and ethics more generally include Arnett, Fritz, and Bell, (2009), Communication Ethics Literacy; Gehrke, (2009), The Ethics and Politics of Speech; Johannesen, Valde, & Whedbee, (2008), Ethics in Human Communication; Neher and Sandin, (2007), Communicating Ethically ; and Tompkins (2011) Practicing Communication Ethics. (^14) For a communication studies textbook example of this pedagogical approach, see Lane, Abigail and Gooch,
Teaching to develop a critical consciousness requires students to examine, act, and reflect upon their communication choices as ethical decisions that maintain or disrupt social norms and practices (Simpson, 2014). A critical lens is turned toward how power is brokered to instantiate or challenge class differences, economic struggle, sexism, racism, and other forms of discrimination that keep certain communities at a disadvantage as rooted in ideological commitments. Communication teachers who embrace critical pedagogy frequently draw on contemporary, political issues to inspire “students to care about the world enough to intervene with, for, and on behalf of others to make things better” (Jovanovic, 2014, p. 121), such as the communication ethics of local government action, gay marriage legislation, corporate rights vs. community interests, and education policy. Critical communication pedagogy also recognizes that common, everyday interactions are important sites for ethical consideration, for it is these day-to-day practices that express and negotiate the power dynamics at work in our social world (Fassett & Warren, 2007). By examining their interactions with others, students see how language is disciplined, values and beliefs influenced, and identities shaped. This critical approach is attentive to how larger social forces influence the most micro of our practices. It “stresses the importance of public goods and shared responsibilities along with a language that connects private troubles with social considerations” (Giroux, 2012, p. 28). Against the grain of radical individualism, a critical perspective offers a hopeful vision for ethics to create a world through community, dialogue, and deliberation in favor of justice, equality, and respect (Freire, 1970/2000). In this approach, students are transformed from recipients of knowledge to co-creators of social change (Swartz, Campbell & Pestana, 2009). In communication studies curricula, ethics is often a central concern in service- learning courses, community engaged activity, and communication activism where students come face-to-face with the harsh realities experienced by people in their own communities. For some students, it may be the first time they witness and interact with people suffering from a lack of basic resources, leaving them homeless, without sufficient educational opportunities, or subject to environmental hazards, to name just a few persistent inequities. These experiences lend themselves to a rich consideration of communication ethics situated at the individual, organizational, and systemic levels to understand how one voice intersects with others to affirm (or not) the dignity of all people as well as promoting learning and competence in everyday communicative acts, as well as social change through broad, systemic transformation. Criticisms levied against critical scholarship, service-learning, multicultural education and community engaged pedagogies are also applied to the critical approach to communication ethics. According to that criticism, research and scholarship should aim for disinterested objectivity, not activism (Kimball, 2008). Further, teaching theory without engagement is the superior form of education, while service-learning is too “applied” (Kahl, 2010). Rejection of the paradigms of engagement may lead one to reject the critical communication ethics approach. An overview of these four pedagogical approaches has departmental and administrative implications. It is important for communication departments to recognize that all of these four communication ethics pedagogical approaches can be implemented in undergraduate or graduate curriculums. Most likely, a little of all of these are present in one course or curriculum, with different approaches used based on many factors including the institutional and department climate, the instructor, and the students. However, here we point out that the third approach is the most accepted approach in communication ethics.
Given that instructors will likely teach from a variety of philosophical perspectives, these differences should not be the bases for disagreement in departments, but instead viewed as opportunities for both collegial enrichment and enhanced learning opportunities for students. Rather than allow pedagogical differences to fracture departments, departments and their chairs need to recognize that regardless of commitment to one or multiple pedagogical approaches, developing ethical competence and achieving learning outcomes is key to effective teaching of communication ethics. To that end, understanding and valuing different pedagogical approaches coupled with the development of developing strong, clear, and measurable learning outcomes should be the overarching goal of departments and conversations about how to teach and integrate communication ethics. Assessment reports should describe different pedagogical approaches and demonstrate how diverse pedagogical approaches bolster the accomplishment of learning outcomes. Developing a Communication Ethics Curriculum—Competence and Outcomes For the department that is considering program and course design related to communication ethics, there are a variety of questions to be considered. Departments need to establish for themselves the relative importance that graduates should know 1) the theoretical underpinnings of communication ethics, 2) the knowledge and skills for exercising the “moral imagination,” or perspective-taking about different ethical viewpoints and rhetorical listening (Tompkins, 2009, p. 60), 3) the knowledge and skills of ethical deliberation (e.g., distinguishing between a rationalization and justification), 4) the responsibility to strive for a high ethical standard of communication, and 5) the utility of ethical thinking, discernment, judgment, and integrity to employment and the professional working environment. Once these questions are addressed, developing related learning outcomes is possible. To help in that process, we recommend looking to the definition of communication ethics pedagogy developed by members of the National Communication Association’s Communication Ethics Division as part of the centennial celebration of NCA: Communication ethics pedagogy takes seriously the claim that communication constitutes the worlds in which communicators live—to live in a more ethical world we must promote ethically mindful communication. Competent and skilled communicators are ethical communicators who take responsibility for a message’s creation, impact, and effects in a diverse range of contexts, including mediated, mass, interpersonal, intercultural, professional, and public. Stimulating the moral imagination is key to helping students recognize issues of communication ethics in their lives. Introduced to philosophical theories of what is good, right or virtuous (e.g., virtue theory, utilitarianism, the categorical imperative, theories of justice, dialogical ethics, ethics of care, etc.), students use case studies and practical philosophy to develop skills in problem-solving and reasoning about communication. They learn to weigh their self-interest relative to the self-interest of Others so their communication may co-construct the ethical dimension of the worlds in which they live. This definition aligns with the four processes of ethical action offered by moral psychologist James Rest and his associates (1999)—moral sensitivity, judgment, motivation, and character. These four processes can categorize competencies or learning outcomes. The first is moral
values are necessary to realize an ethical life. “Fairness, compassion, and equality are not just outcomes of talk but are constituted in the talk itself” (Jovanovic & Wood, 1996, p. 400). It is admittedly more challenging to identify student-learning outcomes for the final two processes of ethical action, motivation and character. However, it is possible, albeit not always in a clearly quantifiable way. To illustrate, consider Philip Zimbardo’s analysis of the Stanford Prison Experiment over 35 years after he abruptly ended this study. He noted that in post-experiment interviews one student, who had been able to resist some of the unethical routines of the prison community, had taken time before starting the experiment to explicitly articulate to himself his value commitments and promised himself that he would follow them (Zimbardo, 2007). A student clarifying and articulating her personal ethical commitments by writing a personal statement of ethics, an ethical autobiography or critical reflection of a service-learning project, can bring a focus to thinking and motivation that could make a difference to that student being an ethically responsive communicator in the future. From an assessment standpoint, use of data from internships, co-curricular activities, and service-learning that emphasize ethical decision-making and justification is encouraged. Further, many universities involve students in their assessment and using both student testimonials that emphasize the learning and usefulness of ethical thinking as well as student evaluators who specifically assess for ethical judgments and justifications in their peers can help to offset the absence of clear, quantifiable data in assessment reports. If a goal of a communication ethics curriculum is to provide students with knowledge and skills that help them become ethically responsive communicators, it will need to go beyond textbooks discussions of the NCA Credo for Ethical Communication, recitation of ethical theories, or brief, stand-alone case studies. Rather, effective communication pedagogy will also design curriculum that encourages rigorous study of the dynamics of ethics and communication, while also developing skills that promote a personal practice of ethically responsive communication with others. As Carpenter and McEwan (2013) note, it is incumbent upon communication administrators and faculty to communicate the positive aspects of the major in order to ensure sufficient students are thusly educated and that the discipline itself maintains a strong reputation. Teaching and reinforcing the practice of ethical communication is central to that mission. Lessons from Other Disciplines Teaching ethics is an international and interdisciplinary challenge (Austin & Toth, 2011; Bampton & Maclagan, 2005; Clarkeburn, 2002; Clarkeburn, Downie, & Matthew, 2002; Davison, Garton, & Joyce, 2003; Goldie, 2000; Goldie, Schwartz, McConnachie, & Morrison, 2002; Park, Kjervik, Crandell, & Oermann, 2012; Smith & Bath, 2006). In the last quarter of the 20th^ century, there was an “ethics boom” with more ethics courses being integrated in a variety of formats into disciplinary curriculums (Davis, 1999), largely attributed to the need to develop applied or professional ethics, where the concern is ethical practice and standards of conduct (Barry & Ohland, 2009; Davis, 1999). In the past decade substantive and on-going discussions about why teaching ethics is important, how to teach ethics, and the effectiveness of teaching ethics has occurred in disciplines like medical education (Goldie, 2000; Goldie, Schwartz, McConnachie, & Morrison, 2002), engineering (Barry & Ohland, 2009; Colby & Sullivan, 2008), nursing (Grady et al., 2008; Park et al., 2012), social work (Grady et al., 2008), accounting (Bampton & Maclagen, 2005), psychology (Balogh, 2002; Davidson, Garton, & Joyce, 2003), and business (Lau, 2010; McDonald, 2004; Sims & Felton, Jr., 2006). In addition, the “Ethics
Across the Curriculum” approach aims to teach ethics as a general studies requirement at a specific institution, either through formal courses or with deliberate integration within a curriculum (Matchett, 2008; Ozar, 2001). As a discipline, communication occupies a liminal space, with a professional orientation with fields like journalism, media, and public relations along with more theoretical orientations like rhetoric, intercultural, interpersonal, communication ethics, and philosophy of communication, to name a few. As outlined above, communication ethics has developed its own literature. The work of Christians shows how media ethics is an essential part of journalism and mass communication programs. (Christians, 1977; Lambeth, Christians, Fleming, & Lee, 2004). Furthermore, research shows there remains a continued need for media professionals to draw upon philosophical and general moral foundations and perspectives to develop a philosophical mind when addressing ethical issues (Christians, 2008). In reviewing other disciplines, we find that communication ethics as a field is on par with its attention to teaching and pedagogy as well as its struggles for how to effectively teach and implement ethics throughout a curriculum. Further, we find much empirical evidence that points toward how teaching ethics improves and enhances both ethical awareness (also called the moral imagination) and moral reasoning (Clarkeburn, Downie, & Matthew, 2002; Lau, 2010; Park et al., 2012). Indeed, the focus for many disciplines, especially our own, is to increase how much students are aware of and can recognize an ethical dilemma, reason through, and justify choices (Balogh, 2002; Lambeth et al., 2004; Christians, 2008; Clarkeburn, 2002; Matchett, 2008; McDonald, 2004; Ozar, 2001; Sims & Felton, 2006). Why? Because, an increasingly complex society with diverse interests and needs means that students must be adequately prepared by faculty and administrators to engage, discern, and analyze discursive practices that define our social world. Indeed, the NCA Communication Ethics Division’s definition of communication ethics pedagogy parallels the critical trends in addressing ethical sensitivity, fair deliberation, and principled reasoning. In the next section, we offer directions for the communication ethics field in order to continue to advance its contributions to teaching and pedagogy for a just society. Recommendations for Administrators Surrounding Communication Ethics Pedagogy The findings of the 2013 AAC&U employers’ survey issues an unequivocal directive to administrators to strengthen instruction on ethics across the curriculum. According to the report, among the ten existing and emerging educational learning outcomes tested, employers believe a renewed focus on teaching ethics has the potential to “improve the education of today’s college students and prepare graduates to succeed in the workplace” (“It takes more than a major,” 2013). More specifically, employers express the greatest confidence in setting expectations for students to “work through ethical issues and debates to form their own judgments about the issues at stake with 66 percent of participants saying this “will help a lot/fair amount” (2013). The potential benefits of developing competencies and outcomes in teaching communication ethics is evident in the research of both Lau (2009) and Park et al. (2012), which show how ethics education increases and enhances ethical awareness, moral sensitivity, and moral reasoning in nursing and business students, respectively. By focusing on awareness and reasoning, other disciplines justify teaching ethics and avoid the criticism that teaching ethics is tantamount to indoctrinating students with a particular set of values
communication studies and communication ethics have not yet done this. For communication ethics pedagogy to demonstrate its merits, administrators need to develop and use appropriate, disciplinary specific assessment tools and resources. Having student learning outcomes and objectives, as well as sound research needs to be supplemented by trained faculty, familiar with communication ethics. According to Moore (2008), One of the biggest barriers to the integration of ethics is that most faculty and staff do not feel comfortable with the content area. Many faculty believe that because they were not philosophy majors or are not content experts on ethics, that they are not equipped to teach ethics (or worry that they might even be dangerous because they know little about it) (pp. 6-7). To address this concern, administrators should provide resources for repeated training and preparation for interested faculty members. McDonald’s (2004) case example for how to integrate ethics into a business curriculum suggests this step of offering ethics resources and training to faculty.^15 An example from the hard sciences demonstrates how ethics training and workshops for faculty has almost singlehandedly infused ethics into a science curriculum for undergraduates at Penn State University (“Integrating Ethics,” 2013). Researchers in engineering also recommend engaging faculty more with resources and training (Colby & Sullivan, 2008). In communication, Lambeth et al. (2004) raises the question of whether or not professors have enough preparation and training to teach and research in ways that will make a difference in the field. In response, Lollar (2013) suggests that administrators can actually provide some of that by reflecting critically on their own practices and modeling everyday communication that puts communication ethics into action within workplace activities, as well as curriculum design. Further, both McDonald (2004) and “Integrating Ethics” (2013) point toward a need for a “champion,” or someone with influence to advocate for the need to teach ethics. Thus, administrators should encourage their communication ethics scholars to engage other faculty in their departments and across the discipline with training opportunities to teach communication ethics, through in-house workshops and presentations at regional and national conferences. Further, we need to support and promote more champions to advocate for the necessity and impact of teaching communication ethics. The Communication Ethics Division for NCA has offered well-attended short courses at the annual convention for many years in pursuit of this goal of training and preparing faculty. Expanding those past offerings to address both in-class pedagogy as well as to provide advice on how to successfully integrate ethics across the curriculum are now the field’s pressing needs. Of course, implementing and integrating communication ethics into a curriculum can be done in a variety of ways, to achieve a balance of goals and outcomes. Teaching ethics can involve formal, stand-alone courses or integration throughout a curriculum, as well as outside the classroom opportunities like mentoring faculty during an orientation week. Websites can be valuable for teaching purposes, and/or workshop opportunities for students !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (^15) Step 1 is to establish an ethics steering committee and college and departmental levels; Step 2 is to determine ethics pedagogy; Step 3 is review existing ethics outcomes; Step 4 is to revise ethics outcomes; Step 5 is to identify, development, and implement the course; and Step 6 is to provide ethics resources and training. Administrators and faculty looking for a model to develop and integrate ethics would do well to consult McDonald’s (2004, pp. 375-379) case example.
and faculty. Some institutions may opt for strategic integration across a curriculum rather than a stand-alone, compulsory course (McDonald, 2004) or even shortened 4-12 week sessions (Clarkeburn, 2002). Still, there is limited empirical evidence and mixed views regarding how exactly to implement the teaching of ethics in a curriculum. Thus, we suggest that communication administrators consider how communication ethics can draw from a wide range of implementation strategies and pedagogical approaches to accomplish integration, recognizing that repetition and having multiple opportunities for both faculty and student learning is essential. We strongly encourage administrators and faculty to describe and highlight how multiple pedagogical approaches accomplish learning outcomes in their assessment and other reporting. Though the literature on classroom pedagogy for teaching ethics is wide ranging, Christians (2008) notes, the most dominant pedagogical technique in teaching media ethics is though case studies, a method also recognized in psychology (Balogh, 2002) and instructional technology (Smaldino, 2008). Some instructors rely, instead, on pedagogical practices that stress reciprocity and accepting responsibility for learning (Sims & Felton,
- while others draw from foundational communication ethics philosophers like Makau, Arnett, Buber, and Levinas to craft courses centered on dialogue and mindfulness (Brown & Amankwah, 2010). Active, experiential, and participation-based approaches are popular as well (Colby & Sullivan, 2008) often involving small group discussions (Goldie et al., 2002), personal application, or a focus on contemporary, intractable issues (Sims & Felton, 2006). We urge communication administrators to schedule communication ethics courses that can be delivered with a student-centered, participatory-based pedagogical style that presents complex case studies, rooted in communication ethics philosophies where professors strive to model ethics in the classroom, and avoid “stand and tell” lectures. Interestingly, little has been researched or assessed regarding online course instruction of ethics (Smaldino, 2008) and more needs to considered regarding the effectiveness of service-learning/community-engaged learning/immersion and critical approaches to teaching ethics (Christensen, Peirce, Hartman, Hoffman, & Carrier, 2007). Next Steps for the Field Drawing from the best practices of other disciplines is useful, knowing that we will need to customize and adapt those ideas to the communication ethics field. To that end, we close briefly by emphasizing the necessity of sharing resources and research. In its short history, the communication ethics field has made significant contributions and developed a rigorous and theoretically informed approach to scholarship and pedagogy. However, the field needs to create new ways to share resources, generate more research, and disseminate that research. Creating an online database for assessing and downloading course syllabi and other pedagogical resources has been in progress by the NCA Communication Ethics Division for many years, but needs to be brought to completion. This will allow sharing of best practices and resources like case studies, readings, films, and other classroom approaches to enhance communication ethics teaching and pedagogy. Additionally, there have been sustained conversations and presentations at communication ethics-specific and communication conferences (Ballard et al., 2010; Ballard et al., 2014; Swenson-Lepper et al., 2013; Tompkins et al., 2011) focused on cultivating effective teaching and pedagogy, as well as pointing out the gaps in the research and field. Those presentations have generated helpful suggestions for the classroom and resources for navigating institutional structures and politics. These conversations need to grow into developed departmental strategies and research programs, perhaps best directed by
Andersen, K. E. (2005). The Carroll C. Arnold Distinguished Lecture 2003: Recovering the Civic Culture: The imperative of ethical communication. Boston: Pearson Education. Arneson, P. (Ed.) (2007). Exploring communication ethics: Interviews with influential scholars in the field. New York: Peter Lang. Arnett, R. C., Fritz, J. M. H., & Bell, L. M. (2009). Communication ethics literacy: Dialogue and difference. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Austin, L. L., & Toth, E. L. (2011). Exploring ethics education in global public relations curricula: Analysis of international curricula descriptions and interviews with public relationship educators. Public Relations Review, 37, 506 - 512. Ballard, B., Bell McManus, L. M., Charron, L. J. N., Hoffer, M., Holba, A. M., Jovanovic, S., Leavitt, M. A., Swenson Lepper, T., & Tompkins, P. S. (2014, June). Developing a case for communication ethics: Historical perspectives and pedagogical importance. Competitively accepted panel presented at 13th^ National Communication Ethics Conference, Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, PA. Ballard, R. L., Tompkins, P., Bell, L. M., Charron, L., Jovanovic, S., & Neher, W. (2010, November). Building bridges for ethics education in undergraduate communication ethics curriculum and courses. Competitively accepted panel presented at the annual meeting of the National Communication Association, San Francisco, CA. Balogh, D. W. (2002). Teaching ethics across the psychology curriculum. Observer. Retrieved June 27, 2014 from http://www.psychologicalscience.org/teaching/tips/tips_0902.cfm Bampton, R., & Maclagan, P. (2005). Why teach ethics to accounting students? A response to the sceptics. Business Ethics: A European Review, 14, 290 - 300. Barry, B. E., & Ohland, M. W. (2009). Applied ethics in the engineering, health, business, and law professions: A comparison. Journal of Engineering Education, 98, 377 - 388. Bloom, P. (2013). Just babies: The origins of good and evil. New York: Crown Publishers. Bracci, S. L., & Christians, C. G. (Eds.). (2002). Moral engagement in public life: Theorists for contemporary ethics. New York: Peter Lang. Brown, L. S., & Amankwah, J. (2010). Teaching communication ethics: Praxis of mindfulness and dialogue, driven by the notion of serendipity. Journal of Border Educational Research, 8, 3 - 19. Canary, H. E. (2007). Teaching ethics in communication courses: An investigation of instructional methods, course foci, and student outcomes. Communication Education, 56, 193 - 208. Carpenter, C. J., & McEwan, B. (2013). Who are we educating? Why undergraduate students choose to major in communication. Journal of the Association for Communication Administration, 32, 1 - 2, 2-14. Chappell, T., & Crisp, R. (1998). Utilitarianism. In E. Craig (Ed.) Routledge encyclopedia of philosophy. (Vol. 9, pp. 551 - 557). New York: Routledge. Christensen, L. J., Peirce, E., Hartman, L. P., Hoffman, W. M., & Carrier, J. (2007). Ethics, CSR, and sustainability education in the Financial Times top 50 global business schools: Baseline data and future research directions. Journal of Business Ethics, 73, 347 - 368. Christians, C. G. (1977). Fifty years of scholarship in media ethics. Journal of Communication, 27, 19 - 29. Christians, C. G. (2008). Media ethics in education. Journalism and Communication Monographs , 9 , 179-221. Christians, C. G., & Lambeth, E. B. (1996). The status of ethics instruction in communication departments. Communication Education, 45, 236 - 243. Christians, C., G., & Traber, M. (Eds.) (1997). Communication ethics and universal values. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Clarkeburn, H. (2002). The aims and practice of ethics education in an undergraduate curriculum: Reasons for choosing a skills approach. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 26, 307 - 315. Clarkeburn, H., Downie, J. R., & Matthew, B. (2002). Impact of an ethics programme in a life sciences curriculum. Teaching in Higher Education, 7, 65 - 79. Colby, A., & Sullivan, W. M. (2008). Ethics teaching in undergraduate engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 97, 327 - 338. Davidson, G., Garton, A. F., & Joyce, M. (2003). Survey of ethics education in Australian university schools and departments of psychology. Australian Psychologist, 38, 216 - 222. Davis, M. (1999). Ethics and the university. London: Routledge. Fassett, D. L., & Warren, J. T. (2007). Critical communication pedagogy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Fortner, R., & Fackler, M., (Eds.). (2010). Ethics and evil in the public sphere: Media, universal values and global development: Essays in honor of Clifford G. Christians. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Freire, P. (2000, 1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed (M.B. Ramos, Trans.). New York: Continuum. (Original work published 1970).
Gehrke, P. J. (2009). The ethics and politics of speech: Communication and rhetoric in the twentieth century. Carondale: Southern Illinois UP. Giroux, H. A. (2012). Twilight of the social: Resurgent publics in the age of disposability. Boulder, CO: Paradigm. Goldie, J. (2000). Review of ethics curricula in undergraduate medical education. Medical Education, 34, 108 - 119. Goldie, J., Schwartz, L., McConnachie, A., & Morrison, J. (2002). The impact of three years’ ethics teaching, in an integrated medical curriculum, on students’ proposed behavior on meeting ethical dilemmas. Medical Education, 36, 489 - 497. Grady, C., Danis, M., Soeken, K. L., O’Donnell, P., Taylor, C., Farrar, A., & Ulrich, C. M. (2008). Does ethics education influence the moral action of practicing nurses and social workers? The American Journal of Bioethics, 8, 4 - 11. Groom, S. A., & Fritz, J. H. (Eds.) (2012). Communication ethics and crisis. Lanham, MD: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press. Habermas, J. (1984). Communication and the evolution of society, Vol. I: Reason and the rationalization of society. (T. McCarthy, Trans.) Boston: Beacon Press. Haidt, J. (2008). Morality. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 65 - 72. Haidt, J., & Joseph, C. (2004, Fall). Intuitive ethics: How innately prepared intuitions generate culturally variable virtues. Daedulus, 133 , 55-66. Hamelink, C. J. (2000). The ethics of cyberspace. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hart Research Associates. (2013). It takes more than a major: Employer priorities for college learning and student success. Liberal Education , 9 (2). Retrieved from http://www.aacu.org/publications-research/periodicals/it-takes-more-major-employer-priorities- college-learning-and Hoffman, M. L. (2001). Empathy and moral development: Implications for caring and justice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Hyde, M. (2006). The life-giving gift of acknowledgment. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press. Jaksa, J. A., & Pritchard, M. S. (1994). Communication ethics: Methods of analysis (2nd^ ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Jensen, V. R. (1959). An analysis of recent literature on teaching ethics in public address. Speech Teacher, 8, 219 -
Jensen, V. R. (1985). Teaching ethics in speech communication. Communication Education, 34, 324 - 330. Johannesen, R. L., Valde, K. S., & Whebee, K. E. (2008). Ethics in human communication (6th ed.). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press. Johnson, R. C. (1970). Teaching speech ethics in the beginning speech course. The Speech Teacher, 19, 58 - 61. Jovanovic, S. (2014). The ethics of teaching communication activism. In L. R. Frey & D. L. Palmer (Eds.), Teaching communication activism: Communication education for social justice (pp. 105-138). New York: Hampton. Jovanovic, S., & Wood, R. V. (2006). Communication ethics and ethical culture: A study of the ethics initiative in Denver city government. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 34 (4), 386-405. Jovanovic, S., & Wood, R. V. (2004). Speaking from the bedrock of ethics. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 37, 317 - 334. Kahl, D. H., Jr. (2010). Making a difference: (Re)connecting communication scholarship with pedagogy. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 38 , 298-302. Kimball, R. (2008, May). Introduction: What was a liberal education? The New Criterion, 28, 4. Lambeth, E. B., Christians, C. G., Fleming, K., & Tee, S. T. (2004). Media ethics teaching in century 21: Progress, problems, and challenges. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 59, 239 - 258. Lane, S. D., Abigail, R. A., and Gooch, J. (2014) Communication in a Civil Society. Boston: Pearson. Langenderfer, H. Q., & Rockness, J. W. (1989). Integrating ethics into the accounting curriculum: Issues, problems, and solutions. Issues in Accounting Education, 4, 58 - 69. Lau, C. L. L. (2010). A step forward: Ethics education matters! Journal of Business Ethics, 92, 565 - 584. Lind, R. A. (1995). How can TV news be improved? Viewer perceptions of quality and responsibility. Journal of Broadcasting Electronic Media, 39, 360 - 75. Lind, R. A. (1996). Care and justice in audience evaluations of ethics in TV news. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 11, 82 - 94. Lind, R. A. (1997). Ethical sensitivity in viewer evaluations of a TV news investigative report. Human Communication Research, 23, 535 - 61. Lind, R. A., & Rarick, D. L. (1992). Public attention toward ethical issues in TV programming: multiple viewer orientations. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 7 , 133-50. Lind. R. A., & Rarick, D. L. (1995). Assessing ethical sensitivity in television news viewers: a preliminary investigation. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 10 (2), 69-82.
Simpson, J. S. (2014). Communication activism pedagogy: Theoretical frameworks, central concepts, and challenges. In L.R. Frey & D.L. Palmer (Eds.), Teaching communication activism: Communication education for social justice (pp. 77-103). New York: Hampton. Sims, R. R., & Felton, E. L., Jr. (2006). Designing and delivering business ethics teaching and learning. Journal of Business Ethics, 63, 297 - 312. Smaldino, S. (2008). Classroom strategies for teaching ethics. New Directions for Higher Education, 142, 87 - 101. Smith, C., Christoffersen, K., Davison, H., & Herzog, P. S., (2011). Lost in transition: The dark side of emerging adulthood. NY: Oxford UP. Smith, C., & Bath, D. (2006). The role of the learning community in the development of discipline knowledge and generic graduate outcomes. Higher Education, 51, 259 - 286. Stewart, L. (Ed.). (1996/1997). Communication and ethics: Parts 1 and 2. Electronic Journal of Communication, 6(4) & 7(1), (Special Issues). Swartz, O., Campbell, K., & Pestana, C. (2009). Neo-pragmatism, communication, and the culture of creative democracy. New York: Peter Lang. Swenson-Lepper, T. (1996). Ethical sensitivity, cognitive mapping, and organizational communication: A different approach to studying ethics in organizations. Electronic Journal of Communication, 6 (4). Retrieved July 21, 2014, from http://www.cios.org/EJCPUBLIC/006/4/00641.HTML Swenson-Lepper, T. (2005). Ethical sensitivity for organizational communication issues: Examining organizational differences. Journal of Business Ethics , 59(3), 205-231. Swenson Lepper, T., Leavitt, M. A., Hoffer, M., Charron, L., Ballard, R. L., Bell McManus, L. M., Holba, A., Jovanovic, S., & Tompkins, P. S. (in press). Communication ethics in the communication curriculum: United States, Canada, and Puerto Rico. Communication Education. Swenson-Lepper, T., Ballard, B., Bell McManus, L., Charron, L. J. N., Hoffer, M., Holba, A. M., Jovanovic, S., Leavitt, M. A., & Tompkins, P. S. (2013, November 21). State of the art: Current practices of teaching communication ethics. Competitively accepted panel presented at the annual meeting of the National Communication Association, Washington, DC, November 21-24, 2013. Tompkins, P. S. (2011). Practicing communication ethics: Development, discernment and decision making. New York: Pearson. Tompkins, P. S. (2009). Rhetorical listening and moral sensitivity. International Journal of Listening. 23(1), 60-79. Tompkins, P. S., Holba, A. M., Ballard, R. L., Charron, L. J. N., Cook, M. A., Jovanovic, S., & Vélez, M. (2011, November). Teaching communication ethics: The classroom, curriculum, and the public sphere. Competitively accepted panel presentation presented at the annual meeting of the National Communication Association, New Orleans, LA. Woody, W. D. (2008). Learning from the codes of the academic disciplines. New Directions for Higher Education, 142, 39 - 54. Zimbardo, P. (2007). The Lucifer effect: Understanding how good people turn evil. New York: Random.
