Ethics, values and Values Based Practice in educational psychology

ABSTRACT

This paper examines the theoretical foundations of educational psychology from a meta-theoretical critical realist perspective focusing on ethics and values. This examination is considered in light of the increasingly complex educational contexts that require the support of educational psychologists (EPs). It reviews ethics frameworks that have informed ethical practice to date, and reframes this practice within critical realism. This paper presents Fulford’s Values Based Practice to strengthen theory and practice to support EPs to resolve ethical issues that can arise. Values Based Practice is presented as a laminated system within critical realism to inform this practice. As a framework, it allows for interdisciplinary practice and the integration of ethical practice, values and the centrality of the child or young person in shared decision making facilitated by an EP in collaboration with other professionals. An overview that demonstrates the applicability of this framework to the applied work of EPs is also presented.

KEYWORDS:

• Ethics
• values
• Values Based Practice
• ethical practice
• educational psychology
• shared decision making
• critical realism

Introduction

Lunt and Major (2000) called for ‘the development of a robust epistemology of practice to enable Educational Psychologists (EPs) to articulate their practice’ (p. 243). In response, Moore (2005) appealed for a critical examination of the theoretical foundations of expert practice in educational psychology resulting from the complexities and changes in contemporary society in the UK at that time. He posited that a postmodernist social constructionist epistemology of practice was useful for EPs in guiding their professional work. Conversely, López and Potter (2001) had earlier declared that it was time to think beyond a postmodernist perspective which was considered ‘old fashioned’, and ‘an inadequate intellectual response to the times that we live in’ (p. 4). López and Potter (2001) proposed that critical realism offered a more rational and applicable framework to interrogate the philosophical and social scientific challenges that are facing society. Critical realism in action responds to these challenges by allowing for the possibility of unity through a diversity of perspectives and experiences (López & Potter, 2001). This proposition is the realisation of a new ‘way forward’ to integrate theory and practice in the creation of new knowledge for EPs (Lunt & Majors, 2000). To date, critical realism has been under-represented in psychology (Booker, 2021; Pilgrim, 2020) and is gathering interest in the field of education (Mirzaei Rafe, Bagheri Noaparast, Sadat Hosseini, & Sajadieh, 2021; Qu, 2020). Therefore, it is timely that the epistemological basis of educational psychology practice is revisited given the significant changes in education over the last two decades.

Educational psychologists require knowledge of theory and practice across a wide and diverse base that includes child development, teaching and learning, special educational needs, family and school dynamics, mental health, schools as organisational systems, and the impact of culture and community on student engagement (Booker, 2021). This paper examines the theoretical foundations that inform EPs’ practice from a critical realist perspective. It embeds this position from an ethical and values base. This position is examined in light of ethical concerns that arise in the increasingly complex applied contexts within which EPs work, and the richness that diverse perspectives bring to the construction of knowledge to address these concerns. Additionally, Mirzaei Rafe et al. (2021) posit that critical realism is a ‘genuine alternative to divided and incommensurate approaches to teaching and learning, thinking and research in education’ (p. 57). In their role, EPs are required to synthesise their knowledge of research and practice, and to integrate this in a way that has meaning for the particular context to which it applies. Lunt and Majors (2000) recognised that challenges and complexities arise in synthesising and integrating theory and practice in educational psychology. EPs experience issues when disparate views emerge with regard to planning supports or to resolving concerns about a client. This paper responds to this challenge by framing a critical realist perspective to EPs’ professional practice by presenting Values Based Practice as an approach that has applicability to other educational contexts and roles, including teaching and school leadership. Critical realism also facilitates greater interdisciplinary engagement to resolve incongruent views to address ethical tensions that can arise.

This paper examines a meta-theoretical critical realist perspective to inform the ethical practice of EPs and this examination is addressed in four sections. In the first section, we provide an overview of professional ethics, codes and values relevant to EPs’ applied practice. In the second section, a comprehensive overview of critical realism is positioned within an EP context. The holy trinity of critical realism (ontological realism, epistemological relativism, judgemental rationality) is examined along with a review of other meta-theoretical approaches, and how these have informed applied educational psychology to date. In the third section, we examine theoretical frameworks from traditional branches of ethics that inform ethical practice. In the final section, we propose that a Values Based Practice (VBP) (Fulford, 2008) approach is considered as a new ethical framework of practice for EPs, as a critical realist response. This response is presented as an underlabouring, working from the bottom up, to integrate the theoretical elements of critical realism, to justify the ontological basis of VBP, and to demonstrate its practical application to EPs’ professional practice using enhanced reflexivity. A primary concern of critical realism is to enhance our reflexivity to enable us to provide a better theoretical justification for our actions in the world as EPs and to address ethical concerns that can arise in practice contexts (Bhaskar, Danermark, & Price, 2018). Pilgrim (2020) asserts that critical realism facilitates our reflexivity about our role as psychologists and our ethical obligations as professionals.

Ethics, codes and values

Values refer to our expectations, hopes, needs, wishes and preferences (Fulford, 2008). The values that EPs bring to professional practice inform and guide the actions that they take. It is recognised that raising awareness of values is essential in contemporary person-centred practice (Strudwick, 2018). Values are a product of our social interactions. These values are influenced by our social contexts and, as individuals, we have the reflexive capacity to determine our own values (Elder-Vass, 2019). In professional practice, there are times when values of EPs and that of their clients are contradictory and may impact on their actions. It is possible for competing values to emerge in contexts where multiple different values are present as a result of diverse social groupings (Elder-Vass, 2019), for example, EPs working in culturally diverse contexts where incongruent and conflicting views arise in reaching a decision to support a student with a disability.

Ethics provides a common set of principles and standards that psychologists build on to guide their professional and scientific work. Psychologists have a professional and ethical responsibility to adhere to codes of practice and standards (British Psychological Society [BPS], 2018). The ethical principles of Respect, Competence, Responsibility and Integrity are core to the Code of Ethics and Conduct in the UK (BPS, 2018). Subsumed within each principle are statements of values that reflect the fundamental ethical beliefs that guide psychologists’ reasoning, decisions and actions. The principles that guide all professional Codes are elucidated from ethics. According to Campbell and Morris (2017), ethical codes incorporate high level, top-down, aspirations of what ought to be, and bottom-up, ground-level narratives of what is. The differentiability between both approaches defines ethical practice.

Moral judgements and values are inextricably linked. John Dewey proposed that moral judgements reconstruct and create values within experience (Smith, 1922), and this premise is still relevant to applied practice in educational psychology. An example that illustrates the importance of professional experience informing values and ethical practice is found in the study by McDonald-Sardi and colleagues (2020) that explored practising psychologists’ ethical judgements as experts, compared to the experiences of psychology students as novices. Findings revealed that practising psychologists demonstrated significantly higher levels of ethical judgements in two of nine scenarios that were given. There were consistencies in the ethical decision-making practices of both groups. However, in scenarios where ethical disparities occurred, responses reflected experienced psychologists’ deeper understanding of ethics and an increased awareness of their professional obligations outlined in the Code of Ethics regarding their engagements with individuals. Results from this study revealed higher levels of ethical awareness and applicability among practising psychologists compared to novices. The key to ensuring that professional standards are maintained is to recognise the importance of ethical education for EPs, not only at the initial training level, but also throughout their professional careers (Dailor & Jacob, 2011). Psychological literature in this area recognises the need to supplement the Codes of Ethics to support psychologists (BPS, 2015; Dailor & Jacob, 2011; Fisher, 2012). This paper will address this by suggesting that a VBP approach could supplement the Codes, as its main premise is based on a mutual respect for difference in values.

Issues of ethical standards in public life have risen to the fore, particularly regarding questionable practices that are frequently the subject of interrogation in the public arena. Osbeck (2019) called for a re-examination of psychology to address the ‘unprecedented challenges facing humankind, and unforeseeable … changes ahead of us’ (p. 1). For example, the Covid-19 pandemic has impacted significantly on ethnically diverse families of young children with intellectual and developmental disabilities (Neece, McIntyre, & Fenning, 2020). Parents in this study reported that their greatest challenge was being at home caring for their child and their loss of access to essential services. They also expressed concerns about the long-term developmental impact on their children as a result of the lack of educational and social opportunities. With evolving uncertainty in economic, geopolitical, environmental and societal arenas, along with rapid medical and technological advances, we are witnessing ethical challenges in these areas that are having a significant and far-reaching impact on EPs’ professional practice and that of the students with whom they work (BPS, 2018). For example, Gajewski (2017) draws our attention to the importance of professional ethics in guiding inclusive education due to challenges arising in schools for students with special educational needs. Covid-19 has exacerbated these challenges, impacting on the role of educational psychologists. For example, a study conducted with school psychologists in the United States notes the need for additional mental health supports for students returning to schools following a period of school closures as a result of Covid-19. Psychologists anticipated that additional resources will be required to meet this need, causing potential ethical issues for psychologists in determining what students are prioritised to access this support (Schaffer, Power, Fisk, & Trolian, 2021).

Callahan (1999) claimed ‘ethics cannot be ethics at all unless it offers some guidance in knowing how to identify an ethical problem’ (p. 289). It is essential for EPs to ensure that their practice adheres to the highest ethical standards. There is a professional requirement for EPs’ knowledge of ethics to be constantly evolving to enable them to adapt to, to interrogate and to respond to ethical issues that arise in their professional practice as it adapts to educational and societal demands. As the landscape of health care and psychology becomes more complex and continues to evolve, and a myriad of ethical dilemmas continue to surface, these complexities will continue to impact on the professional role of an EP and their role in supporting learners in schools (Barnett, Behnke, Rosenthal, & Koocher, 2007; Fields & Calvert, 2015). Osbeck (2019) contends that psychology requires novel and innovative new ways of thinking and doing to respond to a ‘frontier science … as one of collaborative potential within psychology, and between psychology and other disciplines’ (p. x). This is based on her conviction that psychology’s future role will emerge from its response to global challenges and opportunities for human impact via interdisciplinary participation. Alexander (2018) concurs that the interdisciplinary nature of educational psychology will remain a hallmark in this field into the future. She recognises the value of this integrated disciplinary perspective to inform educational psychology and ‘to find common ground with regard to theoretical and conceptual differences’ (Alexander, 2018, p. 150). For example, this may include the interactions of schools and therapists in developing more inclusive educational systems for students with additional needs. In responding to an integrated approach to ethical practice in educational settings, this paper proposes that critical realism offers a way forward to interrogate the ethical challenges faced by EPs from philosophical and social scientific perspectives (López & Potter, 2001).

Critical realism

In this section, we provide an overview of how critical realism can be applied to, and inform, an educational psychological context. The three core axioms of the holy trinity of CR are examined. From the perspective of Bhaskar and Danermark (2006), other meta-theoretical approaches are interrogated, demonstrating the value of a critical realism lens to educational psychology. Finally, this section illustrates the potential of critical realism to provide metatheoretical clarity to ethical decision making in applied educational psychology.

Positioning a critical realism paradigm in an educational psychological context

The root of the critical realist tradition is associated with the work of Bhaskar (2008), and accepts the possibility of alternative valid accounts of any phenomenon (Maxwell & Mittapalli, 2010). Bhaskar (2008) proposed that to understand the reasons for events, processes and structures, one needs to understand the relatedness of both the process of how knowledge is produced, and the concept of the object the knowledge produced: in his words, ‘the real mechanisms that generate the actual phenomena of the world’ (p. 52). This approach values the importance of context, an understanding of processes by which an event occurs, and is concerned with an appreciation of particular situations and events (Maxwell & Mittapalli, 2010). Moore (2005) suggests that EPs, as professionals, have a duty to be aware of the ontological and epistemological basis of their practice, and that this has an impact on their understanding of their professional work. Additionally, he addressed concerns regarding the nature of EPs’ work, particularly when engaged in dialogue with others who have different ontological beliefs. He suggests that addressing the complexities of these differences is an ethical concern in EPs’ professional practice.

Axiology

Critical realists explicitly espouse emancipatory axiology (value base). According to Bhaskar, emancipatory transformation is structured paradigmatically via empirical experiences, and actual patterns of emancipation depend on transition in, or of, real structures (DeForge & Shaw, 2012). Fundamental to this inquiry is to consider the axiological intent of reflecting on the ethical practices of EPs as a values-laden endeavour. Osbeck (2019) positions values as basic to the structure of any inquiry, and suggests these values are an inescapable dimension of any scientific practice. Specifically, individuals have an awareness of their actions, have the ability to reflect on these actions, and have the ability to control or redirect these actions, all preconditions for responsible action and accountability in their activities. These actions are analogous to the moral obligation of EPs to reflect on their values and actions as a professional and ethical endeavour. The essence of critical realism is framed by the relationship of three core concepts of the ‘holy trinity’. This refers to Bhaskar’s three axioms that underline the philosophical assumptions of critical realism, namely, ontological realism, epistemological relativism and judgemental rationality. These axioms are associated with an ‘enlightened version’ of a common-sense approach to inquiry (Pilgrim, 2020). To examine critical realism theoretically as a framework, to inform ethical practice in educational psychology, it is necessary to consider these axioms in greater detail.

The holy trinity of critical realism

Ontological realism

Ontology is the study of being in the world and the nature of reality. According to Bhaskar (2008), social structures are influenced by causal mechanisms that produce social phenomena. This ontology aims to uncover the reality beneath the surface that is manifested in our experiences (Allmark & Machaczek, 2018). The premise of ontological realism is that the world exists regardless of what we know or think about it (Pilgrim, 2020). Critical realism is ontologically stratified: Bhaskar distinguishes between the domains of the ‘empirical’, the ‘actual’ and the ‘real’ referred to as ontological depth. These refer to the experience, the event that is taking place, and the causal mechanisms underlying both this experience and this event (Booker, 2021). The premise of critical realism is that ‘reality is stratified and that science is about discovering the nature of things not immediately apparent or obvious to our everyday experiences’ (Bhaskar et al., 2018, p. 36). A critical realist social science requires an ontology of values, and a coherent ontology must recognise that values are created by human beings in social settings (Elder-Vass, 2019). These values are laden by ontological structures, the effects of which we collectively encounter (DeForge & Shaw, 2012). Specifically, for psychologists, reality is framed by our values and our ethical practices. Elder-Vass (2019) states that ‘when people develop social critiques they base them on values, and … critique is also a matter of judging social arrangement to be inadequate on the basis of some ethical standard’ (p. 316). As psychologists, our ethical decisions are based on knowledge from a scientist practitioner perspective (the empirical), our experiences as psychologists (the actual event), and our ethical Code and know-how that is informing our reality (the causal mechanisms).

For different and competing values to be adopted by different groups creates the possibility of multiple values and conditions being experienced by individuals interacting in the same social contexts. Methodologically, Bhaskar and Danermark (2006) claim that critical realism facilitates a ‘laminated system’ that accepts different levels of reality, allowing for an open system that embraces complexity and enables an examination from various perspectives allowing for disparate methodologies to be used. Bhaskar and Danermark (2006) propose that this approach is a natural extension of applied explanation in critical realism that allows for open systems to be explained in terms of a multitude of mechanisms, disciplines and distinct levels or aspects of reality, all essential to providing a holistic understanding of phenomena. This methodology is of interest to educational psychology as it allows for the possibility of interdisciplinary teams to ‘construct a laminated system consisting of a conjunctive multiplicity of levels of laminations of reality’ (Bhaskar et al., 2018, p. 53). Booker (2021) suggests that critical realism provides the basis for a consistent ontological framework in educational psychology, particularly as a ‘sound basis’ for interdisciplinary research and practice (p. 239). According to Bhaskar et al. (2018), meta-theoretical unity is required for interdisciplinarity. This proposition is particularly salient for EPs who encounter incredible variability in their role as scientist practitioners and in their professional practice, which may include a wide variety of educational contexts (British Psychological Society, 2018). In particular, EPs regularly experience situations where they are required to navigate and resolve complex ethical issues to support students, and that may be further complicated due to competing values of those present.

Osbeck (2019) considers ‘the acting person’ to be an integrated unit of analysis and the importance of the rightful place of persons in psychology and special conditions for the study of persons, particularly ethical considerations. Psychologists can reason about the values that they are committed to via ethical standards based on their professional Code. Elder-Vass (2019) proposes that a basis for establishing this assertion on basic values can be drawn from Habermas’ discourse principle. According to Habermas (1996), the discourse principle states that ‘just action norms are valid to which all possibly affected persons could agree as participants in rational discourses’ (p. 107). Elder-Vass suggests a widening of this view by proposing that action norms can be extended to ethical principles and normative claims. In the context of educational psychology, for a discourse to be rational, it is necessary for EPs to be open, truthful and undistorted by difference in power. It is presumed that psychologists engage in actions and conditions that are ethical in practice based on their professional experiences and ethical know-how. However, it is also assumed that ethical issues evolve and vary for EPs in response to varying work contexts requiring psychologists to interrogate these in greater detail. Porpora (2019) states that within critical realism, a social ontology allows a place for moral agency to facilitate the possibility of ethics.

Epistemological relativism

Epistemology is the nature of knowledge and knowing. A critical realist stance embodies a constructivist epistemology where our understanding of the world is constructed by means of our own perspectives and standpoint (Maxwell & Mittapalli, 2010). The premise of epistemological relativism asserts that we perceive the world in which we live, we talk about it and reflect on it within the socialised culture in which we interact. This culture changes over time and from place to place (Pilgrim, 2020). We come to an understanding of phenomena of the world around us that is context dependent and subject to change. Critical realist ontology is compatible with a social constructivist perspective, with an emphasis on the collaborative nature of learning and the importance of the social and cultural context. The authors of this paper acknowledge their insider position as an epistemological matter in their roles as EPs. This insider position acknowledges a shared belief system, where ethical working is central to working collaboratively with others with a shared understanding of the reality, values and views of the world in which we work and live. This perspective also supports the recognition of a need for EPs to have access to a framework for shared decision-making processes in professional contexts to support the dialogue that arises when engaging with others who have varying viewpoints. The authors also acknowledge the researcher as person (Osbeck, 2019), where they are acting persons in the scientific endeavour. Osbeck (2019) also proposes that social connectedness, as the dignity and worth of individuals, are united by ethical considerations of ‘person’. She postulates that the concept of person is closely aligned to the idea of activity and that without integrating the activity of persons, there is no scientific advance or experience of any kind. She suggests that activities which constitute epistemic priorities can be valued and cultivated in psychology, including educational practices.

Judgemental rationality

Ontological realism and epistemological relativism provides the basis for judgemental rationality enabling us to contemplate truth in given contexts. The premise of judgemental rationality enables us to be in a position to make a decision by weighing up competing perspectives to act. Judgemental rationality also suggests that there are variations in explanatory accounts of social phenomena where, in some instances, some accounts may be more reasonable than others (Quraishi, Irfan, Schneuwly Purdie, & Wilkinson, 2022). Quraishi et al. (2022) assert that the concept of judgemental rationality is underdeveloped in the field of critical realism as it represents an aspiration of critical realists to provide clarity of thought, and also to act ethically. Bhaskar asserts that we facilitate judgemental rationality through his use of axial rationality (our reasons for acting). In response to the lack of development of judgemental rationality in social science, Quraishi et al. (2022) have paved the way to enable us to consider its application to empirical contexts by the use of the triangulation of data, engaging in enhanced reflexivity to account for alternative dimensions of reality using multiple ‘laminated’ levels of reality.

Interrogating metatheories and critical realism

Before discussing an ethical framework of values for EPs, it is necessary to examine the meta-theories that inform educational psychology, and to identify how critical realism provides meta-theoretical clarity to the discipline, as an underlabouring, to guide ethical practice in the field. Bhaskar and Danermark (2006) explored the utility and ‘fruitfulness’ of critical realism in the context of disability research, which closely aligns to an EP’s role. They examined four alternative meta-theories, namely naïve realism/empiricism, social constructionism, neo-Kantianism and hermeneutics, where metatheory is defined as a ‘set of presuppositions about the nature of the work’ (Bhaskar & Danermark, 2006, p. 295).

Naïve realists/empiricists argue that research not only describes a phenomenon but also explains it via the scientific method. There are a variety of distinct research methods applied in this approach that depend on the hypothesis that is defined, and the type of research design, data collection, analysis and so on that are used. The aim of this meta-theory is to defend or refute a hypothesis with the aim of providing a linear explanation of relationships that exist between clearly identified variables in the research design. From an educational psychological perspective, this approach informs evidence-based practices that are applied in practice to address the needs of students. However, Bhaskar and Danermark identified three issues with naïve realism/empiricism, demonstrating the limitations of this metatheory. These include a restricted interpretation of reality; that this theory conceptualises the cause and effect of actions to the detriment of potentially other latent factors; and that only limited descriptors of particular phenomena or actions are given. When addressing ethical issues that arise in practice, this approach would hamper efforts to address the nuances of ethical dilemmas where the perspectives of others are required.

A social constructionist theoretical stance would account for the perspective of others in addressing an ethical dilemma, where knowledge is acquired from individuals’ shared experiences of social interactions and their language usage in these interactions. The nature of language and discourse has been highly influential in the field of educational psychology, particularly in the application of learning theory to classroom contexts, influenced by the work of Leo Vygotsky. Bhaskar and Danermark argue that, from a naive realism perspective, language is exemplified by its relation between concepts and objects in reality (vertical relation), whereas in social constructionism, language is more focused on how we speak rather than what we say (horizontal relation). They propose that critical realism is concerned with both: in other words, we are not only interested in the dyadic relationship (empiricism), or what is spoken about (constructionism), but rather all, defined as a semiotic triangle. This theoretical position makes a critical realist perspective appealing to address ethical concerns that may arise in applied educational psychology contexts where the perspectives of others are required.

Bhaskar and Danermark state that Neo-Kantianism

collapses all structure to scientific structure, that is, the structure in scientific knowledge, epistemological as distinct from ontological stratification. The intransitivity of the object of study, thus goes, and with it, the external, real world constraints on the research process. (2006, pp. 285–286)

This metatheory proposes that knowledge concerns itself with that which is logical and objective. It is not interested in matters that concern applied educational psychologists that can include learning processes informed from an integration of the scientific method and subjective accounts. Alternatively, a hermeneutic perspective proposes that all social processes are meaningful, are valued, and are open to interpretation. Vandenberghe (2019) considers hermeneutics to be compatible with critical realism. This stance stresses the importance of real-world experiences and has wide applicability in examining EPs’ lived professional experiences and that of the clients with whom they work. This perspective is valued in educational psychology. However, in situations that require facts to resolve ethical issues, it does not meet the requirements to facilitate a balanced approach.

From an ontological position, Bhaskar and Danermark state that critical realism is the ‘least restrictive perspective’ emulating its ‘double inclusiveness’, meaning that, as meta-theory, it facilitates the possibility of other theoretical insights which acknowledge relevant and equally valid forms of reality reflecting an ‘ontological pluralism’ (2006, p. 294). From an epistemological perspective, critical realism recognises and accepts various scientific and social scientific perspectives that can facilitate shared collaborative practices in social contexts. This is particularly salient to the role of an EP, given that their applied work typically involves a shared collaboration with a number of individuals that include a student, his or her parents/guardians, school staff and, in some instances, other professionals. The knowledge that is generated from underlying structures and mechanisms, reflecting the complexity of these systems, is welcomed and is heuristically more appealing to unify potentially disparate perspectives reflecting integrative pluralism. Bhaskar proposes that to facilitate integrative pluralism, allowing for the possibility of this unity of disparate perspectives, the four-plantar social being heuristic is used. The notion of the social levels of this system being understood in the context of Bhaskar’s four-plantar social being, where each social event can be interpreted according to four domains, is a useful way of understanding the utility of VBP as an ethical approach. This will be discussed in further detail in the final section of this paper.

Ethics frameworks

In this section, theoretical frameworks are reviewed to frame ethical practice and values in professional educational psychology contexts. The rationale for this examination is to demonstrate the development of ethical practice in the field, and to lay a foundation that will illustrate the potential that VBP (Fulford, 2008) has as an integrated framework of theory and practice for educational psychology. Narvaez and Lapsley (2009) suggest that psychological research is fragmented, with ‘few explicit guidelines for understanding moral expertise, moral decision making, and moral cognition’, required to interrogate ethical practices in greater detail (p. 238). One of the aims of this paper is to redress this fragmentation by considering the potential that VBP has to integrate ethical theory and EPs’ professional practice.

Normative ethics

Normative ethics is the study of standards and principles used to determine how we should live and act (or what ought to be the case). It analyses how individuals ought to act in a given situation and attempts to create or evaluate moral standards. Radoilska (2017) explores a two-way connection thesis as a new normative framework on how norms of belief and norms of action relate to each other. This thesis arose from tensions that we face as believers, aimed at truth, and the demands we face as agents, aimed at successes, being irreconcilable. The background to this arises from the notion that our actions and our beliefs are normative where we have duties that apply to us as believers and as agents. What we believe, our norms of belief, reflect a theoretical duty aimed at truth. Whereas, what we should do, our norms of action, reflects a practical duty aimed at success. She suggests that successful action supports true belief just like true belief supports successful action. Radoilska proposes that this framework can be applied to resolve ethical challenges, including conflicts, sensitivities and contradictions that arise between two sides of duty of care, namely in optimising outcomes for clients and in supporting autonomy and self-determination. This two-way connection thesis provides a normative framework that supports VBP (Fulford, 2008). A two-way connection thesis of norms of belief and norms of action captures the essence of professional ethical working for EPs. Specifically, EPs’ norms of belief propose that the truth of ethical working is informed from the integration of EPs’ theoretical know-how and their role as scientist practitioners where practice is evidence informed – whereas EPs’ norms of action propose that successful outcomes, as ethical practitioners, inform what they should do when engaging in the practical duties of the role. A two-way connection thesis is an attractive and bold normative framework to assist EPs to reconcile these two sets of duties as ethical practitioners and professionals. It also demonstrates the centrality of engaging in a two-way dialogue that explores an integrated theoretical and practical investigation on the ethical practices of EPs.

Descriptive ethics

Descriptive ethics is the empirical study of the views people have of their moral beliefs and moral decision-making processes. It analyses individuals’ behaviour, moral values and standards. Lawrence Kohlberg (1981, 1984) and James Rest (1982) are two psychologists who have both made a considerable impact on descriptive ethics informing the practice of educational psychology. The neo-Kohlbergian model developed by James Rest is frequently cited as a comprehensive moral decision-making model used by professionals (Henning & Walker, 2003). Rest (1982) developed his four-component model as a psychologically informed, staged approach to ethical decision making. This model was developed as a tool for teachers of ethics and psychologists to work together to improve ethics courses. This model describes the psychological processes involved in moral reasoning to inform ethical decision making and assists psychologists to interrogate ethical dilemmas using a four-step staged approach. In the first stage, ethical sensitivity, a psychologist identifies a situation where a potentially challenging ethical issue has arisen that is causing a concern. In the second stage, ethical reasoning, the psychologist recognises and articulates the morally appropriate action that needs to occur to address this concern in greater detail. In the third stage, ethical motivation, the psychologist decides on the morally and ethically informed course of action to take. In the final stage, ethical implementation, the psychologist implements an ethically informed and appropriate response to address the concern that was identified. The British Psychological Society (BPS) (2015) recommends the use of the Rest model in the teaching and assessment of ethical competence in psychology education.

Applied ethics

Applied ethics is interested in the actual application of ethical principles in given situations. It involves an ethical examination of moral issues in real world contexts, including professional contexts. An applied ethics approach to educational psychology is interested in an examination of moral dilemmas that arise for EPs in practice. The most widely known approach to applied ethics is the four-principled utilitarian approach proposed by Beauchamp and Childress (2013), and used widely in the field of bioethics (Lavin, 2003). This approach, commonly known as principalism, considers the application of four prima facie ethical principles of Respect for Autonomy, Nonmaleficence, Beneficence and Justice, to support ethical decision making in bioethical fields (Beauchamp & Childress, 2013). Lavin (2003) proposed that, as a minimum, any professional code used by psychologists should be consistent with these principles. Hedgecoe (2004) identified that there was a significant under-examination of theory and practice in applied ethics. Lavin (2003, p. 2) suggests that it is necessary for psychologists to engage in serious moral thinking that is congruous to their role as scientists. However, he warns about a narrow focus on ‘a code-driven, ethics-driven approach to moral thinking’, as it blurs the similarities between scientific thinking and moral thinking. Moore (2005, p. 104) expressed concerns about the ‘rising spectre and imperatives of “evidence based practice”’ that degrades educational psychological practice. He suggested that EPs may have lost their way as a result of using processes that are primarily rule following. This statement suggests that EPs would benefit from a decision-making process that is informed, but not entirely governed, by evidence-informed approaches. Moore (2005) called for EPs to reflect on their praxis and “deeply explore our own theoretical basis for our practice and, in so doing reveal how ‘good practice is always a complex synthesis of both practice and theory, each informing the other’” (p. 114).

Given the increasingly complex work contexts that EPs engage in, it is useful to consider an integrated approach to ethics informed by a critical applied ethics position (Molewijk, Stiggelbout, Otten, Dupuis, & Kievet, 2004) that permits a two-way relation between normative theories and empirical data. Specifically, this position permits a two-way interaction where both methods allow for a social practice, in this instance the ethical practices of EPs, to be open to readjustment and refinement, where each can inform the other. This position also resonates with Radoilska’s (2017) two-way connection thesis. Leget and colleagues (2009) suggest that critical applied ethics holds much promise, as it represents ‘a serious attempt to integrate empirical data and normative theory in a way that is useful for making ethical judgements’ (p. 5). However, McKeown (2017) argues that the perspectives of Molewiijk and colleagues and Leget and colleagues lack an account of reality which explicitly links deductive reasoning in ethical analysis and an inductive understanding of the social context. He offers an alternative response that proposes critical realism as a more useful approach. McKeown (2017) states that empirical bioethics is consistent with critical realism, and while it is beset with difficulties due to the normative nature of ethical analysis and the contest between fact and value, it is necessary to overcome these challenges to enable the successful integration of data and theory. There is a significant dearth in research that examines integrated perspectives on theory and practice in education in general, and also specific to the applied ethical practices of EPs. McKeown (2017) suggests that critical realism is valuable for ethics, as it reflects our understanding of the world, where we endeavour to make sense of the world beyond our own perspectives, to produce ‘mutually beneficial consequences’ (p. 201).

A critical realist approach provides greater philosophical and theoretical clarity to an EP’s professional and ethical role. Within team working contexts, and in recognition of a range of professionals working within increasingly complex educational contexts, EPs would benefit from access to a framework that integrates theory and practice which marries evidence-informed practices as an integral part of their ethical ways of working. A Values Based Practice approach is a framework that will appeal to EPs to support their ethical practices as a framework that integrates both theory and ethical practice.

Values Based Practice

In the final section of this paper, we propose that a Values Based Practice (VBP) (Fulford, 2008) approach is considered as an ethical framework of practice for EPs. This approach is presented as a form of underlabouring that integrates the theoretical elements of critical realism, justifies the ontological basis of VBP, and demonstrates its practical application to EPs’ professional practice using enhanced reflexivity to contextualise and connect judgemental rationality to psychologists’ ethical decision making. The complex phenomena of applying a values based approach to ethical practice can be presented as a laminated system enabling an in-depth understanding of the dynamic interactions and ‘intermeshing’ of domains (Bhaskar & Danermark, 2006).

Fulford (2008) identified the emergence of Values Based Practice (VBP) as a ‘philosophy into practice’ that has been used for some time within the interdisciplinary field of psychiatry and mental health. It was initially developed to address complex and conflicting values that arose in the medical field (Fulford, 2008). In more recent times, it has also been applied to other allied health professional fields, including nursing (Rankin, 2013) and radiology (Levin, 2015; Strudwick, 2018). The Joint Panel of Mental Health Commissioning in the UK (England, Singer, Perry, and Barber (2013) has adopted a VBP approach to its commissioning process. This commissioning process applies three main principles including client and carer perspectives and values; clinical expertise; and knowledge based on evidence. It facilitates a more holistic approach to service delivery, greater openness and transparency about the level of involvement of service users, and more meaningful collaboration with those who are participating in the commissioning process. From a policy level, this approach is an evolving area that has already reported on services users’ positive experiences and is recognised as having the potential to transform outcomes for people with mental health difficulties (England et al., 2013).

While VBP was originally developed within medical and mental health settings, it has much to offer EPs who work across health and educational contexts. Issues can arise when values are incongruous to the applied context that clinicians are working in, reflecting ethical concerns that may emerge which can produce different, and sometimes mutually exclusive, decisions and consequences (Petrova, Dale, & Fulford, 2006). The aim of a VBP approach is to introduce a greater diversity in perspectives and an acknowledgement of specific values in decision making (Petrova et al., 2006). Psychologists have a professional responsibility to understand the discrimination experienced by individuals from diverse and ethnic minority backgrounds, and to develop a productive working relationship with culturally and linguistically diverse groups (BPS, 2017). This framework could support EPs to reflect on the values that inform their ethical practice in context. It also acknowledges EPs’ ethical ways of working by engaging in actions as scientist practitioners, facilitating shared decision-making processes that are not as clearly delineated by an application of the Rest (1982) model.

Values based practice: an ethical framework for educational psychology

From a theoretical perspective, VBP embodies a critical realist approach that provides clinicians with a framework to understand the relationships that exist between individuals’ perspectives and their actual contexts, and how these real phenomena causally interact with one another (Maxwell & Mittapalli, 2010). This paper proposes that Fulford’s VBP approach is a new way of facilitating shared decision making and addressing dilemmas that arise for EPs in educational contexts, while also allowing for the possibility of unity through a diversity of perspectives and experiences (López & Potter, 2001). According to Beauchamp and Childress (2013), perspectives from top down and bottom up require supplementation to inform moral decision making. Rawls’ (1999) term ‘reflective equilibrium’ permits us to bring principles, judgements and theories together, into a state of equilibrium, with the aim of making something coherent. Specifically, Rawls (1999) proposes that method in ethics commences with a body of beliefs that are supported without argument. For the purpose of the practice of EPs, this is identified as Codes of ethical practice, allied to specific educational working contexts and jurisdictions. These are starting points coined as ‘considered judgements’, analogous to the moral beliefs, moral principles and values that inform an EP’s ethical practice. Porpora (2019) proposes that critical realism allows for the conditions of possibility of ethics as a ‘social ontology that affords a place for moral agency’ (p. 274). When a situation arises that conflicts with a considered judgment (i.e. an ethical dilemma), then it is necessary for EPs to modify the situation and reflect on this to achieve equilibrium. There are times when considered judgements are subject to change and revision, and in these situations an EP responds to ensure equilibrium is reached in a specific context. The goal of reflective equilibrium is to adjust considered judgements and beliefs to render them coherent (Beauchamp & Childress, 2013). From a VBP approach, these judgements occur in shared collaboration with others to reach a decision or consensus in order to make a plan, within a collaborative context. Elder-Vass (2019) questions Habermas’ (1996) response to the discourse principle as it might apply to addressing ethical issues. While Habermas’ rationale discourse would suggest that this discourse should be open, truthful and not distorted by a power differential among participants, Elder-Vass argues that this cannot be so, as to consider that any ethical situation was ‘untouched by differences in power is highly problematic’ (p. 317). Elder-Vass advises that we maintain a degree of ‘ethical humility’ and openness to alternative viewpoints and experiences. Professionals’ knowledge, and the lived experiences of clients, are valuable and equally valid in interactions that require a consensus to be reached. Critical realism is committed to interdisciplinary practice facilitating a unity of diverse and disparate perspectives, reflecting an integrative pluralism. Nevertheless, in the context of ethical deliberations, a critical realist approach is not without its limitations. It is necessary to acknowledge that decisions are based on a collective objective reality which may not capture advancements and developments in ethical knowledge, which at a later time could prove to be misplaced (McKeown, 2017). There are plenty of examples in educational psychology where this was the case, and where decisions reflected empirical knowledge, professional know-how, actions and norms of a particular time and place. However, in increasingly diverse and pluralistic societies, it is likely EPs will require a commitment to interdisciplinary practices to address challenging ethical issues and to make a contribution to human wellbeing and flourishing (Bhaskar et al. 2018). To support psychology, Pilgrim (2020) proposes that this ethical practice is guided by (1) meta-theoretical unity; (2) methodological specificity; and (3) methodological pluralism and tolerance.

As a response, VBP reflects a bottom-up and top-down approach to ethical decision making in collaborative and interdisciplinary contexts. Specifically, it permits a knowledge-, skills- and competency-based approach to link evidence-informed practice with specific values, reflecting the needs, wishes and expectations of individuals in interactions (Petrova et al., 2006). It involves working in a positive and constructive way with difference and diversity of values; and it places values, views and understandings of students and families at the centre of this practice. Furthermore, it acknowledges professionals’ understanding and use of their own values and beliefs in a positive frame, respecting the values of others in a dialogue, by being open and receptive to their views (Woodbridge & Fulford, 2004). The application of VBP does not seek to replace an evidence base but rather aims to support decision making based on ‘values’ as well as ‘facts’ (England et al., 2013). These tenets reflect a critical realist approach to ethical practice for EPs and emulates the ethical practice guidance from Pilgrim (2020).

Simons, Tee, and Coldham (2010) noted that a VBP approach required high levels of cultural competence to ensure participation in professional contexts. Woodridge-Dodd (2012) suggests that the benefits to VBP include ‘its attention to values beyond professional and moral values, and its tolerance of multiple perspectives, makes it a potent asset to practice’ (p. 511). It is an approach that has helped health professionals to work more effectively with complex and conflicting values that can arise in practice (Woodbridge-Dodds, 2012). VBP provides a framework to address the ethical issues that require ‘situational sensitivity’, in other words, context-specific ethical working and engaging in culturally responsive practices. Zheng, Gray, Zhu, and Jiang (2014) identified cultural variations in psychologists’ ethical decision making in Chinese and American contexts, reflecting values from collectivist and individualistic societies, respectively. Findings from this study advise psychologists to be mindful of their implicit cultural beliefs that may impact on ethical deliberations that occur in their workplace. Nucci (2016) states that we can no longer identify societies as individualist or collectivist, as society is engaged in a balancing act of moral and non-moral considerations. According to Henning and Walker (2003), a lack of shared ideals is problematic in culturally and religiously pluralistic societies. Therefore, we can assume that an increase in cultural pluralism in educational and health settings will impact on the role of EPs (Kindaichi & Constantine, 2005). Fisher (2012) states that psychologists require a multicultural ethical commitment to creatively apply their professional Code to various cultural contexts. As a response to ethical challenges that can arise in multicultural professional contexts, Dodd, Hunkins-Hutchinson, and Fulford (2011) identified the utility of using VBP to facilitate discussions on difficult issues that arose which facilitated a sharing of different perspectives and values, including Race. A VBP approach is interested, not only in moral values, but also in facilitating discussions that address incongruous perspectives on ethical and moral actions which signals a respectful approach to differences arising from variations in individual, social and cultural values (Petrova et al., 2006). We propose that as a critical realist approach to addressing ethical concerns, VBP has much to offer educational psychology and education, as it has practical application and is conceptually elegant. It has the potential to support EPs to address the ethical complexities that emerge in a wide range of professional contexts.

Applying Values Based Practice to educational psychology: a laminated system

We propose that Values Based Practice can be understood within a critical realist perspective as a meta-theoretical guide to ethical practice for EPs. Specifically, Bhaksar’s four domains, four-plantar social being, and seven levels of laminated systems assist to explain its applicability to the role of EPs to guide ethical practice. According to Bhaskar, every social event can be examined in four interdependent ways: (1) material transactions with nature, meaning individuals’ favourable or unfavourable interactions with the world around them, for example, addressing an ethical concern; (2) social interactions between individuals, for example, resolving a decision around an intervention plan for a student; and (3) social structure proper, in other words, the dynamics of power. For example, this may include resolving priorities around students who require access to additional supports in schools and (4) the stratification of embodied personalities of agents, in other words, all activities have a relation to nature. Specifically, all social activities that take place occur relative to other people and take place in a social context within a predetermined social structure (Bhaskar & Danermark, 2006, p. 289). In an educational psychology context, this could include an EP convening a case conference to discuss the needs of a student struggling to engage in school.

Critical realism is ontologically stratified, enabling a collective interdisciplinary enquiry from the domains of the ‘empirical’, the ‘actual’ and the ‘real’. Laminated systems illustrate how complex phenomena, such as addressing the needs of students with disabilities, have different levels or systems that interact with each other, and are embedded in our experiences as EPs. Bhaskar and Danermark (2006) state that ‘laminated explanations’ are explanations involving mechanisms at some or all of these levels (p. 289). The seven levels of laminated systems that define distinct levels of agency are as follows:

• The sub-individual psychological level;

• The individual, or biographical level;

• The level of micro- and small group analysis;

• The meso level concerned with the relations between functional roles, such as those involved in supporting students with disabilities in schools;

• The macro role typically orientated to such relationships in ‘whole societies’, for example, contemporary capitalist society;

• The mega level primed for the analysis of civilisations and traditions, such as basic ideas of normality, and;

• The planetary level, for example, studies on the impact of globalisation on meeting the needs of students with disabilities. (Bhaskar & Danermark, 2006, pp. 289–290)

In Figure 1, Woodbridge and Fulford (2004) outline the 10 key elements to the applied process of VBP mapped to four areas, namely clinical practice skills; models of service delivery; approaches that integrate a VBP approach and evidence-informed practice; and a partnership framework for shared decision making. These key process elements reflect the competencies and ethical practices of EPs and reflect a critical realist approach as an ‘under-labouring’ that examines bottom-up elements that are reflected on and/or interrogated to resolve ethical concerns in a social context. Fallon, Woods, and Rooney (2010) identified the role of EPs as

scientist-practitioners who utilise, for the benefit of children and young people (CYP), psychological skills, knowledge and understanding using consultation, assessment, intervention, research and training, at organisational, group or individual level across educational, community and care settings, with a variety of role partners. (p. 14)

Figure 1. The 10 pointers to good process in VBP.

Additionally, Nastasi and Naser (2014) suggest that a Child Rights approach, emulating the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC, United Nations, 1989), could inform ethical decision making, research, practice and professional development in educational psychology and fits into a VBP approach. This paper now illustrates how a VBP, as an ethical framework, can inform the professional role of the EP.

Practice skills

Awareness

Educational Psychologists have an awareness of the values that are present in a professional encounter. They demonstrate care regarding the language they use in reflecting these values (Woodbridge & Fulford, 2004). Awareness of values enables EPs to attune to contexts reflecting the ethical principle of Respect (BPS, 2018). An EP is ethically sensitive (Rest, 1982) to situations including contexts where a student’s rights may be compromised, or perhaps where an emotional response to a specific issue is impacting on an EP’s ability to engage in professionally appropriate ethical decision making.

Reasoning

Educational Psychologists use clear reasoning processes to explore the values present by individuals engaging in decision making regarding a client (Woodbridge & Fulford, 2004). Psychologists think about their own values when making a decision and recognise their responsibility to manage potentially competing bias that can arise (BPS, 2018). They also consider the values of others and interrogate these in a clear, balanced and logical manner, consistent with ethical reasoning (Rest, 1982).

Knowledge

This skill requires EPs to know the values and facts that are pertinent to a specific practice context. They demonstrate and apply their knowledge about their values and facts that are relevant to this context. This includes having the knowledge, skills and competencies to perform their professional role consistent with the ethical standards required (BPS, 2018). They are also committed to maintaining and continuing to develop their knowledge in their professional work (BPS, 2018).

Communication

This skill is a combination of the three previous skills to support the communication that occurs in a context where EPs have a role. Central to this skill is the ability to resolve and navigate conflicts, sensitivities and challenges that can arise where shared decision making is facilitated and a consensus is required. A key finding from the Values-Based Child and Adolescent Mental Health System Commission (2016) revealed that a lack of shared language and approach was hampering efforts to improve inter-agency working aimed at improving outcomes for children and young people (CYP). Smillie and Newton (2020) identified challenges EPs in the UK experienced when presenting the views of CYP in their reports. The authors highlighted the difficulties in communicating the views of CYP sensitively, including views that adults involved in their lives may not want to hear. Psychologists have a responsibility to adjust their communication skills to resolve any concern or complexities that may arise to ensure that the client’s best interests are central to decision making (BPS, 2017, 2018). Educational psychologists are particularly skilled in adapting their communication style to support CYP, particularly in differentiating communication approaches to ensure that everyone present has the opportunity to have their views heard. It is also imperative that a CYP is included in a shared decision-making process, and is fully informed and supported appropriately.

Models of implementation (service delivery)

A VBP approach in health care settings uses models of service delivery that encompass both a person-centred approach and team working practices. Fulford’s model refers to ‘models of service delivery’. However, in educational contexts, we propose that it is more applicable to refer to ‘models of implementation’ to capture the terminology used in educational contexts, and to also apply a student-centred approach.

Student-centred approach

The voices of CYP are central to any information on values that apply in EPs’ professional working to meet the needs of CYP. A VBP approach emulates the ‘best interest principle’ and a Rights Based approach, enshrined by the United Nations. In Article 12, CYP have a right to participate in decisions that affect him or her (United Nations, 1989). The Commission (2016) also revealed that co-production with CYP, parents and carers was a good approach for services to emulate, and assisted providers to achieve optimal outcomes for CYP who were experiencing difficulties. The EP has a central role to play in promoting and protecting the rights of a child within his/her/their contexts that include school, home and community (Nastasi & Naser, 2014). In a recent study in the UK, EPs identified that consulting with a CYP was a vital aspect to their work (Smillie & Newton, 2020). This study also suggested that EPs were not satisfied with techniques currently available to elicit the views of CYP. Perhaps using a VBP framework could address this current gap in practice.

Team working

Educational psychologists are required to meet the complex needs of students by engaging in collaborative work with other professionals, both internal and external to their workplaces (BPS, 2017). These contexts can often include disparate values that are incongruent to an EP’s perspective and the values of others present. A conflict of values arising in team working may be resolved by acknowledging the voices of all those present, and facilitating a balanced approach to resolving concerns that includes an opportunity to constructively share perspectives to inform decisions that ensure better outcomes for a CYP.

Values Based Practice and evidence-informed practice

The ‘two-feet’ principle

All decisions made by EPs are informed by considering both the facts and values of a given situation, where evidence informed practice and values based practices work in tandem with each other (Woodbridge & Fulford, 2008) to ensure a balanced and informed perspective.

The ‘squeaky-wheel’ principle

Values only become explicit in an EP’s practice when a problem arises (Woodbridge & Fulford, 2008). Educational Psychologists are ethically required to act with integrity at all times (BPS, 2018) to address any ethical concerns that arise in their professional practice.

Science and values

Educational Psychologists have an ethical responsibility to act as scientist-practitioners to make informed decisions based on the best evidence available, ensuring professional accountability when supporting students in school contexts (BPS, 2018). EPs’ values are influenced by their social context and are determined by their reflexive capacity (Elder-Vass, 2019).

Partnership

Partnership

Psychologists are ethically obligated to ensure that all informed decisions are made by working in partnership with a CYP and those who are providing support to them (Woodbridge & Fulford, 2008). A partnership framework emulates the rights of a CYP to express their views, to be listened to and to participate in shared decisions that affect him or her (United Nations, 1989). Psychologists should consider how they can facilitate student participation in the implementation of professional standards (Nastasi & Naser, 2014). A VBP framework supports the application of a shared decision-making approach where professionals and clients work together by placing the CYP at the centre of decisions about their educational and care planning (NICE, 2021). For example, an EP’s use of an informed assent process with a young person communicates clearly to the young person the value placed on having him/her/them at the centre of the decision-making process. Utilising a step-by-step approach to decision making ensures that options are fully explored with a CYP including the potential risks and benefits of a proposed plan, ensuring choice is available, and facilitating a space where a decision is reached in collaboration with the EP and team (NICE, 2021). Using a VBP approach is a clear articulation of how EPs can implement a Child Rights framework and a shared decision-making process in practice which places ethics, values and the voice of the CYP at the centre. Critical realism allows for different and competing values to be promoted by different groups allowing for the possibility of multiple and competing viewpoints in the same social context (Elder-Vass, 2019). This can reflect the challenges that can arise for EPs navigating ethical scenarios where disparate views require careful consideration. Within this social context, critical realism allows for interdisciplinary views to be acknowledged to guide and inform ethical practice.

Conclusion

This paper offers a response to the proposition of a way forward to integrate ethical theory and practice by examining critical realism as meta-theory for EPs to resolve ethical concerns. An overview of professional ethics, codes and values identified the need to find innovative new ways for EPs to respond to ethical challenges. A feature of this new way is to consider the value of an interdisciplinary approach to resolve tensions. We examined the theoretical and epistemological basis to educational psychology by reviewing theoretical perspectives from traditional branches of ethics, and also from meta-theoretical approaches used in psychology. Critical realism was presented as a meta-theory to inform the work of EPs. Specifically, we examined the potential that a VBP framework has as a form of underlabouring to integrate the theoretical tenets of critical realism and its applicability to EP practice. VBP enables EPs to integrate ethical practice, values, Children’s Rights and shared decision making as a new way forward in their practice. A VBP approach is an exciting prospect to advance EPs’ ethical ways of working and to guide this practice in an increasing complex world. This paper proposes that VBP is a comprehensive and robust approach to advance professionals’ ethical practices in educational contexts rooted in critical realism.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).