Toward an Ethical Model of Effective Crisis Communication

The goal of this study was to develop and demonstrate a new ethical model for crisis communication. This article examined the crisis communication practices as well as literature and found essential elements—what, how, and when—for ethical and effective crisis communication. Based on these three variables, a new three‐part model, the TTR Test, was proposed, utilizing three principles: Transparency (what), Two‐way symmetrical communication (how), and Right time (when). To investigate how the test can be applied to the real world, this article examined BP\u27s crisis communication during the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill

Is There an Ethics for Historians?

How should historians treat one another? More generally, what are the ethical obligations that go with belonging to the profession of history? And more generally still, in what ways and in what sense is history a profession and how are professional ethics manifested in the profession? These are the questions I will canvass in this essay. In his introduction to The Historian’s Conscience, Stuart Macintyre observes that in the recent ‘public dispute over Australian history … there is surprisingly little attention to the ethical dimensions of historical scholarship’. I will suggest that this lack of attention is a problem, and I will try to clarify the nature of the problem

IPRA Code of Athens – the first international code of public relations ethics: Its development and implementation since 1965

In 1965, the International Public Relations Association (IPRA) adopted the International Code of Ethics, which became known as the Code of Athens (IPRA 2001). The Code was authored by Lucien Matrat, a French public relations pioneer, and reflected a hopeful, post-World War 2 ethical framework with its strong linkage to the United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 (IPRA, 1994). A code of ethics was an early strategic imperative of IPRA, established 10 years before, and was coupled with a Code of Conduct, known as the Code of Venice of 1961 (IPRA, 1961, 2009). Both codes were adopted by many national public relations associations and widely promoted. Amongst the recipients of presentation copies of the Code of Athens were Pope Paul VI and government leaders. The Code was simultaneously adopted by the Centre Européenne des Relations Publiques (CERP). Bowen (2007) says it was based on “general moral principles of ethical behavior, such as the focus on dignity, respect, and human rights” (p. 1). Using sources from the IPRA archive, which only became available in 2011, and an interview with the sole surviving IPRA founder, the paper explores the Code’s evolution and its subsequent implementation and modification. A feature of the debate within IPRA about the Code was whether it was a statement of moral standards or a statement of ideals to which members should aspire. Prominent IPRA members from Anglo-American countries considered that the Code, while laudable, was unenforceable and impractical. In 1968, the Code was amended and made less rigorous. In the late 1990s, IPRA members from Eastern Europe and the Middle East asked for a “simple English” version as the Code’s language, originally translated from French, was considered difficult to comprehend. There was a further revision in 2009. In 2011, IPRA consolidated the Codes of Venice, Athens and Brussels into a single, 18-point code (IPRA, 2011). IPRA’s archive (to 2002), however, does not show any disciplinary application of the Codes to its members and their conduct over 37 years from 1965. The paper also considers the historical issues of preparing and implementing deontological ethical statements for public relations (Bowen, 2007; Budd, 1991; Fitzpatrick and Bronstein, 2006; IPRA, 2007; Parsons, 2005; Seib and Fitzpatrick, 1995)

Reading Foucault: Genealogy and Social Science Research Methodology and Ethics

Foucault's work has given rise to an increased methodological sensitivity of the political dangers associated with traditional qualitative approaches in the social sciences. There is a growing awareness that the widespread use of the research interview is not indicative of a deepening insight into the workings of culture, but is part of a broader social technology for its reproduction. In an effort to re-imagine interview methodology, scholars have read Foucault to suggest the need for greater attention to the active co-construction of research conclusions arising from interview based research. Specifically there are concerns that the authenticity of interviewee experience may be overwritten by the predispositions of the researcher. This paper questions this interpretation of Foucault's work and argues that Foucault rejects the view that knowledge emerges from the active social constructions of agents, but sees knowledge as an outcome, often accidental, of interrelated historical practices and discourses that produce the subjects and objects of social science discourse. The implications of Foucault's work for thinking about research ethics is not a return to authenticity, but a rejection of representational claims. The paper comprises a review of social science responses to post structural insights, coverage of the critical epistemological differences between Foucault's method and other key social theory paradigms, and a discussion of the critical ethical issues these differences raise for the social sciences.Social Sciences, Methodology, Research Ethics, Research Epistemology, Foucault, Qualitative Methodology

Ethics in educational research: review boards, ethical issues and researcher development

Educational research, and research in the Social Sciences more generally, has experienced a growth in the introduction of ethical review boards since the 1990s. Increasingly, universities have set up ethics review procedures that require researchers to submit applications seeking approval to conduct research. Review boards and the rules and conditions under which they operate have been criticised as obstructive, unnecessarily bureaucratic, and even unethical. At the same time, review boards and their procedures have been acknowledged as contributing to consideration of the ethical conduct of research. This paper explores the issues related to ethical review and examines the wider ethical considerations that may arise during the research process. The paper concludes that a purely administrative process of review is inadequate to ensure the ethical conduct of research, especially qualitative research. Rather, it is argued that ethical research entails the resolution of a potential series of ethical dilemmas as they arise during research. As such, the ethical conduct of research is a matter of researcher formation and development