Enforcement of a universal code of ethics
Another large question that must be addressed in this debate is that of enforcement. After all, what is the point of having a universal code of ethics if it can simply be ignored.
Singarella and Sork (as cited in: Sork, 2009) suggested in 1983 that the profession of adult education was "not mature enough to reach a consensus on a universal code of ethics" (p. 21). Without the maturity to be recognized as commonly aligned, Sork was suggesting that the lack of support would negate the possibility of a code being either adopted or acknowledged. Fast-forward 20 years and opinions in this conversation have begun to coalesce towards a singular voice of acceptance. (Siegel, 2000; Sork, 2009).
Consensus on how enforcement of a code would be achieved is less noticeable. While both McDonald and Wood (1993) and Sork and Gordon (2001) provide empirical evidence supporting a proposal that existing adult learning professional organizations should assume a leading role, others such as Rose (1996) suggest a neutral body stating that it would be “indefensible to insist that the responsibility… lie with adult educators” (p. 2).
Seigel (2000) dismisses both those ideas as unworkable where enforcement is concerned and suggests that this be the job of the institution which is "responsible for the employment or supervision of the practitioner" (p. 61). Siegel (2000) develops this idea further suggesting a solution by which existing adult education associations participate as members of a hierarchical federation of associations.
Singarella and Sork (as cited in: Sork, 2009) suggested in 1983 that the profession of adult education was "not mature enough to reach a consensus on a universal code of ethics" (p. 21). Without the maturity to be recognized as commonly aligned, Sork was suggesting that the lack of support would negate the possibility of a code being either adopted or acknowledged. Fast-forward 20 years and opinions in this conversation have begun to coalesce towards a singular voice of acceptance. (Siegel, 2000; Sork, 2009).
Consensus on how enforcement of a code would be achieved is less noticeable. While both McDonald and Wood (1993) and Sork and Gordon (2001) provide empirical evidence supporting a proposal that existing adult learning professional organizations should assume a leading role, others such as Rose (1996) suggest a neutral body stating that it would be “indefensible to insist that the responsibility… lie with adult educators” (p. 2).
Seigel (2000) dismisses both those ideas as unworkable where enforcement is concerned and suggests that this be the job of the institution which is "responsible for the employment or supervision of the practitioner" (p. 61). Siegel (2000) develops this idea further suggesting a solution by which existing adult education associations participate as members of a hierarchical federation of associations.