Why is a universal code of ethics required?
![Picture](/uploads/1/4/6/1/14616398/1966103.jpg?266)
There is much debate, as mentioned, as to whether a required or even feasible. Rose (1996) is concerned about the impact the “ethical vacuum” (p.3) within adult education has on the industry. She is wary that without guidance the vacuum will be occupied at the expense of the learner and the profession.
Gordon & Sork (2001) and Ianinska et al. (2002) agree saying that without some direction or clear guidance there is a strong risk that ethical issues may arise.
Hatcher and Storherg-Walker (2011) offer a list of five supporting reasons for a code of ethics.
1. The public's expectations that educators act ethically
2. The possibility of harm to learners
3. The requirement to comply with applicable laws and regulations
4. The protection of learners' well-being
5. The need to promote personal and community morality
Those that oppose a universal code argue that it reinforces the image of a hegemony fueled elitist body restrictive to membership, prejudiced and overly protective of their power (Gordon & Sork, 2001; McDonald & Wood, 1993; Sork, 2009).
Sork (2001, 2009) is cited on both sides of this argument as his opinion has developed over time. He cites himself (2009) from 1983 noting that the industry was too immature for a code of ethics and in 1992 Sork (as cited in: Siegel, 2000) questions questioning the value of codes that guarantee very limited protection or compliance. His tone softens after his and Gordon’s (2001) joint study of BC adult educators that found 75% of his peers were favourable to a code.
In a post NAFTA, 911 and Enron world Hatcher and Storberg-Walker (2011) see a greater appetite for a universal code believing previous arguments are irrelevant today amid “rampant outsourcing of labor, downsizing” (p. 23) and off-shoring. Demonstrating the economic and political realities of the day they indicate a stronger linkage between ROI and risk management.
Gordon & Sork (2001) and Ianinska et al. (2002) agree saying that without some direction or clear guidance there is a strong risk that ethical issues may arise.
Hatcher and Storherg-Walker (2011) offer a list of five supporting reasons for a code of ethics.
1. The public's expectations that educators act ethically
2. The possibility of harm to learners
3. The requirement to comply with applicable laws and regulations
4. The protection of learners' well-being
5. The need to promote personal and community morality
Those that oppose a universal code argue that it reinforces the image of a hegemony fueled elitist body restrictive to membership, prejudiced and overly protective of their power (Gordon & Sork, 2001; McDonald & Wood, 1993; Sork, 2009).
Sork (2001, 2009) is cited on both sides of this argument as his opinion has developed over time. He cites himself (2009) from 1983 noting that the industry was too immature for a code of ethics and in 1992 Sork (as cited in: Siegel, 2000) questions questioning the value of codes that guarantee very limited protection or compliance. His tone softens after his and Gordon’s (2001) joint study of BC adult educators that found 75% of his peers were favourable to a code.
In a post NAFTA, 911 and Enron world Hatcher and Storberg-Walker (2011) see a greater appetite for a universal code believing previous arguments are irrelevant today amid “rampant outsourcing of labor, downsizing” (p. 23) and off-shoring. Demonstrating the economic and political realities of the day they indicate a stronger linkage between ROI and risk management.