UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

A feminist appraisal of ethical concerns among women in sport psychology : subtitle a pilot study Landau, Coreen Kayla 2002

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata


831-ubc_2002-0460.pdf [ 5.84MB ]
JSON: 831-1.0099699.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0099699-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0099699-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0099699-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0099699-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0099699-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0099699-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

A FEMINIST APPRAISAL OF ETHICAL CONCERNS AMONG WOMEN IN SPORT PSYCHOLOGY: A PILOT STUDY  BY CUREEN KAYLA LANDAU B. A . , CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY, MONTREAL, QUEBEC, 1992 M. E D . , UNIVERSITY UF OTTAWA, OTTAWA, ONTARIO , 1995  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTERS OF ARTS IN THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES  (Centre for Research in Women's Studies and Gender Relations)  We accept this thesis as conforming To the required standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA June 2002 © Coreen Kayla Landau, 2002  In  presenting  degree freely  at  this  the  available  copying  of  department publication  of  in  partial  fulfilment  University  of  British  Columbia,  for  this or  thesis  reference  thesis by  this  for  his  and  scholarly  or  thesis  for  her  of  T h e U n i v e r s i t y o f British Vancouver, Canada  Date  DE-6  (2/88)  CyilPaA  9^  Columbia  20Q3  I further  purposes  gain  the  requirements  1 agree  that  agree  may  be  It  is  representatives.  financial  permission.  Department  study.  of  shall  not  that  the  Library  an  granted  by  allowed  advanced  shall  permission  understood be  for  the that  without  for head  make  it  extensive of  my  copying  or  my  written  11 ABSTRACT The struggle over women's involvement in sport is taking place during a time when male egos feel jeopardized by the demands of social change and gender equality. Sport, historically, has been a setting tainted by issues of race, class, and gender discrimination, and has contributed to the production and maintenance of "masculine" power: "images of ideal masculinity are constructed and promoted though competitive sport" (Costa & Guthrie, 1994, p. 342). Difficult ethical issues are prevalent in the world of sport, in particular in the area of sport psychology. Each individual has a sense of morality that governs decision-making, however, most people are relatively unaware of their basis of moral judgment (Malloy et al., 2000). Here a review of the literature that examines ethics in sport and sport psychology from a feminist standpoint is complemented by interviews with prominent female sport leaders in high performance sport. This pilot study will help to determine what kinds of further research are needed to improve the experiences of women engaged in sport.  TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT  ii  TABLE OFCONTENTS  iii  ACKNOWLEDGMENTS  iv  DEDICATIONS  v  INTRODUCTION  1  Sport psychology and the sport psychologist  2  C H A P T E R I - GENDER AND SPORT  4  Constructs of femininity and masculinity in sport  4  Feminist psychology and epistemology in relation to sport  12  Feminism and sport psychology  16  C H A P T E R II - E T H I C S  22  Ethics in general  22  Feminist ethics Ethics and sport Ethical decision-making  23 29 35  Codes of ethics  40  C H A P T E R III - R E L A T I O N S H I P A N D B O U N D A R Y I S S U E S  43  B o u n d a r y issues  44  Ethics in sport psychology  47  Ethical issues in sport psychology relationships  49  Decision-making in sport psychology  53  CHAPTER I V - APILOT STUDY  58  Qualitative research methods  58  Data collection and procedures  59  Sample and selection process  59  Data collection interview  60  T h e interviews  60  Data analysis  61  Criteria of soundness  62  Ethics  64  CHAPTER V-RESULTS  65  C H A P T E R VI -  73  CONCLUSIONS  IV  REFERENCES  76  APPENDIX A - ETHICS A P P R O V A L AND CONSENT F O R M  79  APPENDIX B - CPA  82  APPENDIX C - C O A  108  APPENDIX D - INTERVIEW QUESTIONS  119  V  ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The topic I chose to investigate was very challenging because the location of the materials was not evident thus causing me to constantly push my limits. Ultimately, it was a test of perseverance and patience that turned out to be one of my most positive and significant learning experiences. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Dr. Valerie Raoul (Center for Research in Women's Studies and Gender Relations) for encouraging me to pursue this challenging topic. Moreover, I thank her for her meticulous attention to all aspects of my work and for facilitating my appreciation of quality. I sincerely thank Dr. Colleen Haney (Department of Counseling Psychology) who inspired and motivated me throughout this project. Her support, dedication, and guidance helped make this a tremendously positive learning experience. I also would like to thank Dr. Lucie Thibault (Human Kinetics) for her time, commitment, and expertise in making the data come alive. Her understanding and patience was greatly appreciated. Finally, I would like to thank all the participants for sharing their personal stories with enthusiasm and trust.  vi DEDICATIONS  I dedicate this thesis to my late-father who taught me to always have hope, maintain a positive attitude and to never give up in face of adversity.  I also dedicate this thesis to my cousin Stephen Bratt, who forever inspires me by his unwavering support and never-ending belief in me.  To my mother and brother, I thank you for seeing me through this undertaking with patience and love.  Finally, I warmly thank the Mathieson family for "putting up" with me (in every sense of the word).  1  INTRODUCTION  The following study begins with a literature review exploring three broad themes. The first pertains to feminist ethics, the second pertains to its application to sport, and more precisely sport psychology, and the third concerns the link between feminist ethics and sport psychology. The purpose of this study is tofirstprovide an overview of the literature that may be helpful for sport psychologists working with athletes, individual sports, and team sports. Secondly, it will explore how boundary and relationship issues are experienced by female sport leaders. A feminist approach is suitable for sport psychology research principally because it brings women's experiences from the margin of exclusion as the "other" into the forefront, by challenging the assumptions of traditional scientific methods and emphasizing alternative methodologies that would integrate a wider range of methods of inquiry and forms of knowledge (Gill, 1994; Krane, 1994). As Krane (1994) puts it, "feminism is a perspective, not a set of prescribed values" (p.397). The feminist perspective recognizes that women's experiences vary from those of men. Feminists are aware of sexist bias in the knowledgebase and reexamine knowledge through the experience of women (Gill, 1994; Krane, 1994). Sport psychology research is closely tied to traditional models that reflect the male bias, in other words, the common focus of most research studies dealing with the current state of athletics is on men. This bias is a misleading limitation, as there are in fact large numbers of women who participate in sport and competition at all levels. Incorporating a feminist perspective into the practice of sport psychology is therefore not just in accordance with the changing demands of athletics, but is fundamental to research that should question assumptions based on biased criteria (Gill, 1994; Krane, 1994):  2  "In sport psychology, the male model of sport, which is extremely hierarchical and elitist, has been embraced without question. Therefore it is important to examine the experience of females in sport and to understand their perspective" (Krane, 1994, p. 398). Sport psychology terminology In thefieldof sport psychology there is much disagreement regarding the use of the term "psychologist". As most practicing sport psychologists do not have the training and accreditations that licensed clinical or counseling psychologists have, to call oneself a "sport psychologist" may be seen as a misrepresentation of oneself to the public. Although practicing sport psychologists have long called for a change of terminology from "sport psychologist" to "sport consultant", very little has been done in order to affect this change. Weinberg et al. (1995) explain that sport psychologists in the United States fall into two categories: clinical sport psychologists and educational sport psychologists. Clinical sport psychologists "... have extensive training in psychology to learn to detect and treat individuals with emotional disorders. They are licensed by State Boards to treat individuals with emotional disorders. They receive additional training in sport and exercise psychology and in the sport sciences. They primarily treat eating disorders and substance abuse" (p. 16). Educational sport psychologists (which appear to be primarily an American entity), "are not trained to treat individuals with emotional disorders, nor are they licensed psychologists" (p. 16). Alternatively, they have extensive training in sport and exercise sciences and a solid  3  knowledge base in the area of the psychology of human movement. An educational sport psychologist is considered to be a mental coach who "..through group and individual sessions, educates the athletes about psychological skills and their development. Anxiety management, confidence development, and improved communications are among the areas that educational sport psychologists address" (p. 17). If an educational sport psychologist encounters an athlete with an emotional disorder s/he refers the athlete to a licensed clinical sport psychologist (Weinberg et al., 1995). In 1991 the Association for the Advancement of Applied Sport Psychology (AAASP) began a certified consultant program, which requires advanced training in both psychology and the sport sciences to ensure that professionals working with athletes have the necessary sport sciences and psychology training to call themselves sport and exercise consultants and this is designed "to protect the public from unqualified individuals professing to be sport and exercise psychologists" (p. 18). The question of who decides who is qualified to provide advice or counsel to athletes in a professional capacity is one of thefirstand more obvious ethical issues in this area. Whether those deemed qualified are able and prepared to provide gender-based analysis of the athlete's situation when the athlete is a woman is a further essential issue. Recognition of women's place in sport, and of the fact that ethical dilemmas arise when dealing with gendered relationships in sport, is only beginning to be considered important, as this pilot study will show.  4  CHAPTER I GENDER AND SPORT Constructions of femininity and masculinity in sport Historically, sport has often been a setting tarnished by conflicts and prejudice regarding race, class, and gender. It is the last that will concern us here, since sport contributes to the production and maintenance of "masculine" power in our society, where "images of ideal masculinity are constructed and promoted though competitive sport" (Costa et al, 1994, p. 342). Current struggles over women's involvement in sport in North America take place at a time when male egos feel threatened by social change in response to demands for gender equality (Birrell et al., 1994). Traditionally, sport has been regarded as "a man's world" (Lumpkin et al., 1994). History shows us that beliefs that led to excluding women from sport grew out of ignorance, preconceived ideals of masculinity and femininity, and ancient medical myths: "... physicians once believed that women's insides will fall out through excessive jumping and that women will become sterile if they participate in vigorous sport" (Lumpkin et al., 1994, p. 167). Although beliefs about women's anatomy have changed since ancient times, societal attitudes continue to hamper sport opportunities for women (Lumpkin et al., 1994). Our society still encourages girls not to be assertive or tough, because these are considered predominantly masculine characteristics (Shea, 1996). Women who do take up sport professionally do not receive the same encouragement as men do. The media virtually ignore all women's sport in order to give complete coverage to men's sporting events. When the media report about men's sport, male athletes are often praised for their male prowess and skillful performance,  5  whereas in what little coverage there is of women's sports the focus is primarily on their mannerisms or attire (Lumpkin et al., 1994; Shea, 1996). Lumpkin et al. (1994) found that female athletes are exposed to negative stereotypical statements and prejudicial treatments whenever they step outside others' perceived boundaries of gender appropriateness. Tannsjo et al. (2000) raise the point that if sexual discrimination in the form of segregation is objectionable in most other areas of our lives, why should it be acceptable within sport? One solution might be to make sport mixed so that women and men can have the same opportunities to participate in sport together, thus abolishing segregations based on one's sex. Arguments against giving up sexual segregation in sport are not hard to find, however, and the abolition of sexual distinction within sport is difficult to defend. Tannsjo et al. (2000) sum up one of the arguments in favor of sexual discrimination within sport: "... if women and men compete against each other, and women defeat men, then this will cause violent responses from men; if sexual discrimination in sport is given up, then probably all women will find that they are always defeated by some men and female sports are different from male sports. They represent a unique value, and if we gave up discrimination this unique value would be forever gone" (p. 102). Tannsjo et al. (2000) are not in agreement with the argument that men would become violent if they were defeated in sport by women. They suggest that in certain sports, such as boxing for example, there is the risk of injury from physical contact between competing athletes of different strengths. In this case, they suggest that modifying the rules of the game could help to make the playing field more equal, thus enabling women to compete against men more successfully. For men this would mean they would not be able to beat women in competition  6  based solely on physical strength and aggression. Leveling the playing field might provide the possibility for women and men to compete against each other, with the hope that eventually sexual segregation in sport will wither away. In response to concerns that women still might be discouraged, Tannsjo et al. (2000) suggest that this should not be an issue in sports such as equestrian events and parachuting, where the playingfieldis equal and women and men can safely and successfully compete against each other. These researchers were quick to add that not all sports have equal playing fields. Physical aggression and athletes physically punishing competitors would have to cease in sport, as well as being excluded by competition rules, in order to even out the playing field. Tannsjo et al. cite the comparison that in thefieldsof mathematics and musical composition, men have in the past performed better than women. Apparently there has been no female who could solve logical mathematical problems like Godel or create musical compositions like Bach. Should this be disappointing for women? "Typically not. I think that the lack of outstanding female logicians and composers is due to socially constructed gender differences, not to biological sexual differences. The reasons that women do not perform as well as men in thesefieldsshould come under close scrutiny" (p. 106). Tannsjo et al. (2000) suggest that the many obstacles that impede female success in certain fields, including sport, should be carefully examined for the role of socially constructed views and expectations based on gender rather than the effects of biological sexual differences. Women have met with the wrong expectations, and only if the playingfieldsand opportunities are made equal could it be concluded whether women could or could not  7  perform well within certain fields. Would women be disappointed if they did not win at this point? At least this kind of disappointment might be easier to live with than not being given the opportunity to try. In fact, female sports are seen as being differentfrommale sports, even if it is the same sport. Some are of the view that "to give up sexual discrimination (i.e. segregation) would therefore be like giving up existing sport values" (Tannsjo et al., 2000, p. 108). Issues related to assumed characteristics of masculinity and femininity are central to "existing sport values". As these models are challenged, so are existing models of segregated sports. Femininity and masculinity are social constructions that are "defined, learned, reinforced and sometimes resisted within the social world of sport" (Yiannakis et al., p. 271). A gender role is "those behaviors, expectations, and role sets defined by a society as masculine or feminine" which are then embodied in the behavior of the individual man or woman (Archetti, 1999, p. 271). Gender roles are not biological, rather they develop through a complex interaction between the self and one's social environment (Burstyn, 1999; Yiannakis et al., 2001). Coakley (1998) explains that, according to sport sociologists, half the world's population traditionally was discouraged or excluded from participating in many sports that were once not deemed sex-appropriate. In recent years, there is a surge of literature that defines sport participation as even now being stereotypically masculine or feminine. Yiannakis et al. (2001) found that "organized sports are not only a gendered institution but a gendering one as well" (p. 271). It seems that sport actively, and at times even aggressively, contributes to the continual reproduction of the masculine-dominated gender order.  8  Kidd (1997) explains that, from a feminist standpoint, modern sports are seen as reinforcing the sexual division of labor and promoting the exploitation and repressions of men and women. Yiannakis et al. (2001) highlight the fact that sex discrimination and sexism have long been supported by several institutions: political, economical and educational. As long as men and women continue to be socialized into their respective gender scripts, men will continue to be viewed as the dominant sex, whereas women will continue to be viewed as subordinate and inferior. The terms femininity and masculinity reinforce the patriarchal structure because of the socio-cultural value that each term holds. Sport is a major contributor to patriarchy through the very organization of competitive sport itself. Notions and beliefs in regard to gender in sport reflect and support the genderbased system of social stratification. Yiannakis et al. (2001) cite the example, "you throw like a girl". Masculine and feminine gender scripts are acted out by both sexes. Men tend to want flat abs, strong pectoral muscles and quads, whereas females tend to desire being thinner and less muscular, thus confirming the physical traits associated with conventional views of masculinity and femininity (Theberge, 1997). According to Theberge (1997), girls and women tend to spend the better part of their lives trying to take up as little space as possible, whereas men and boys are encouraged to take up as much space as possible. The implications this can have for an athlete are serious, because access to space affects training opportunities, body image, injuries, eating, and exercising habits. Theberge (2001) notes that the myth of female fragility was reinforced historically through women's exclusion from, or restricted admission to, certain sports. To this day, professional sport remains largely a male arena in which more opportunities, rewards and  9  funding go to men and men's sports. For many feminist writers, sport has been recognized as a predominantly male activity and they have left much of the writing about it to the males. Such an attitude could not be sustained over time, as feminists have long known that sport is an arena where patriarchy has presided and women were marginalized (Birrell et al., 1994). Feminists understand that the only way to break this domination is to confront it and analyze the process (Birrell et al., 1994). Sport provides very few women with a source of income, and sports-women yearn to gain access to sporting activities, so that they too can enjoy the same financial gains from participation that benefit men (p. 66). Sport today has become masculinized that feminists realize this will be an upward battle. Institutions continue to maintain a male hegemony that favors men and belittles women (Birrell et al., 1994; Costa et al., 1994). Women and girls who would like to pursue the same endeavors are socially devalued for being too strong or unfeminine (Birrell et al., 1994). Miller (1979) explains that, "lots of things women do are seen as doing nothing" (p. 27). Sport activities where women prevail, such as ice-skating and gymnastics, are treated differently from men's sports such as football or hockey. Ballet is among the more strenuous and demanding physical activities that women are involved with, but its physical strength, skill, and endurance are often overlooked. Ballet "is recognized as an art form" that is known for having thin young women and gay men as its players, however in ballet the players are seen as performers rather than as powerful athletes (Birrell et al., 1994, p. 49). The hegemony that men have over sport is astounding. It was not until 1981 that the first woman was selected to the International Olympic Committee. By 1984 there were eighty-six men and three women on the committee and this small advance came only after a  10  long campaign to break male dominance (Birrell et al., 1994). It is interesting to note that the Federation of International Gymnastics is also almost exclusively male, although it represents the only major Olympic sport that is predominantly female. The significance of male control is evident when one considers the disproportionate involvement of women in Olympic contests. Until 1984, there were no cycling events for women. The lack of visibility of women in the sport community is not restricted to sport participation; it also includes the almost non-existent group of female sport writers. In 1994 in the USA there were only fifteen female sport writers across the board (Birrell et al., 1994). Discrimination against women in sport will continue as long as men's interests continue to be central and women continue to suffer from poor funding, inferior access to facilities, lack of anatomically correct safety equipment, poor access to the media, lack of time on the field to practice and play, few coaches, to name a few of the obstacles they face. Even when women make it through the male hegemony, they are largely overlooked. The media often ignore women's athletic events, both the successful and unsuccessful ones alike. Birrell et al. (1994) report that in 1993 the Australian women's polo team, holding Australia's only world record, was reported only on a television replay. In fact, it was only recently that women in Australia were allowed to compete as jockeys in major horse races. Women's involvement in sport is similar to their involvement in the world of business and management - if women are to take up a place in those arenas, they are to do it on men's terms (Birrell et al., 1994; Costa et al., 1994). It is a Catch 22 situation, because if women are to compete in men's arenas on men's terms, then they are up against male dominance; however, if there is the creation of a different, separate system, hegemony still prevails  11  because the women's side is overlooked or undervalued. Encouraging women and girls to seek out their sport interests and supporting them through the obstacles is currently the only obvious way to challenge the existing system, but feminists are looking for better ways. To embrace a feminist standpoint is to locate gender, concentrating for the most part on women, at the center of the analysis rather than in the margin. Still, "females by nature of their marginalized status and otherness, have a unique perspective or standpoint from which to critique the dominant culture of sport" (Krane, 1996, p. 397). The experiences of both male and female athletes are valid and important. Nevertheless, it is by and large the male sport experience that is considered "real", while the female experience is either discounted or nonexistent in the sport literature (Gill, 1994; Hall, 1999; Krane, 1994). It is important to recognize that oppression and discrimination exist against women in the sport setting, but that just speaking out against them does not embody feminism, because this is not the only fundamental element to the feminist perspective. Feminism acknowledges the marginalized status of women and, most importantly, seeks to understand the present state of sport and exercise through this perspective. Feminism contests hegemonic practices and seeks to examine inequalities with the goal of removing them (Gill, 1994). To take a feminist perspective in sport psychology practice is to consider how gender might influence one's responses (Gill, 1994). Gender influences the reactions, expectations, and options a sport psychology consultant might consider when working with male and female athletes and teams. Trying to treat both male and female athletes in the same manner discounts the unique needs of athletes along the lines of both gender and individuality. Although sexism in sport was identified over two decades ago, the male perspective continues  12  to be the norm in this day and age: "this notion is deeply ingrained in our culture and permeates sport and sport psychology" (Krane, 1994). This male-centered perspective is clearly demonstrated in media sports broadcasts. The ever-present view that sport is a masculine field, and that females typically take part in a male model of sport, should be recognized in both research and practice (Gill, 1994; Krane, 1994). This point of view may help us to acquire some insight as to why women's sport has gained little attention in the media and why female athletes are often seen as being inappropriately masculine. Feminism has now moved past analyzing gender as an unqualified variable, to tconsideration gender as a socially constructed set of relationships shaped out of cultural customs that include sport. For this reason, it is now well understood that gender differences do not result from biological or psychological differences innate in females and males but ".. .emanate from profound differences in the social situations of males and females in sport and society" (Krane, 1994, p. 398). The psychological differences, like the biological ones, are seen as constructed and therefore changeable. This being said, feminist psychology was created in order to address the needs of women on their own terms and from their perspective rather than to continue to use a male model to understand women's needs. Feminist psychology and epistemology in relation to sport  Worell et al. (1992) took a bold step in their comprehensive text on feminist therapy in the way they used gender and applied it to feminist practice as the basis for their research. Feminist therapy is difficult to define because it represents a philosophy rather then a set of techniques or a theory to apply (Enns, 1997). Brown (1992) explains that feminist therapy "is a hybrid that emerged from the interface between treatment of gender-role-related disorders  13  and applications of a process of feminist analysis" (p. 51). Feminist therapy adheres to a set of principles that include the following: valuing the diverse and complex experiences of women; paying attention to power dynamics in the therapy relationship, and to the meaning and place of assigned gender roles in the individual's social environment; recognizing the impact of gender on self-identity, and seeing the goals of therapy as both intra-psychic change and a changed perspective on the social/cultural realities that affect clients' lives; and finally rejection of the myth of value-free psychotherapy (Brown, 1992). Feminist psychology moves beyond the sheer consciousness of gender by stressing empowerment and action as the keys to feminist practice. In the end the canon of feminist psychology provides a rudimentary framework for feminist psychologists: "Valuing women's experiences and perspectives, recognizing value influences in all research and practice, and maintaining a commitment to empowerment and action are basic assumptions for feminist scholarship" (Gill, 1994, p. 414). Worell et al. (1992) put forward the three key principles in their empowerment model of feminist therapy as follows: a) valuing the female perspective; b) the personal is political; and c) egalitarian relationships. Valuing the female perspective means being aware of gender and accepting the tenets of feminist psychology. According to Gill (1994) the remaining two principles concern sport psychology consultants who should take "a more social approach by incorporating the immediate sport setting, as well as the larger societal context, in their work with athletes" (p. 415), as well as adopting an egalitarian approach that is "empowering, nonhierarchical, and process oriented" (p. 415). A power structure is intrinsic to all forms of client - expert relationships, however recognizing and inviting discussion is a step closer to a more egalitarian relationship.  14  Lensky (1987) explains that the basic criteria for this type of feminist research are that it "...be free of sex-related and heterosexist bias, it does not make assumptions or generalizations based on male subjects or a male model, it does not propagate negative stereotypes of women, and is not patronizing" (p. 399). Feminist research must begin with an understanding of women's issues, but also in this case with an understanding that this perspective is completely disregarded in the field of sport. It should then seek to correct this insidious indifference while addressing the methodological narrowness of various research designs (Krane, 1994). Feminist researchers in this area are not necessarily disputing the methods of research being drawn on, rather it is the manner in which traditional methods are being used that is shown to be problematic. Harding (1989) remarks that some feminist researchers have been successful in using traditional research methodologies (quantitative methods) while retaining "an increased critical awareness of the impact of gender" (Krane, 1994, p. 399). It is precisely this consciousness that causes feminist researchers to ask the types of questions that are often overlooked by non-feminist researchers (Gill, 1994; Harding, 1989; Krane, 1994). Harding recognizes that this "critical awareness brings with it the researcher's values, or subjective biases into the inquiry" (p. 26). Acknowledging the researcher's epistemological perspectives in the research process is just as important as identifying the methodology in feminist analysis. Harding suggests that feminist research requires the discovery of how gender functions and its consequences, in other words analyzing the social construction of  15  masculinity and femininity and their role within the context of sport and exercise. Krane (1994) explains that when identifying beliefs about what is socially acceptable sport behavior for males and females, it is often difficult to determine acceptable male and female behaviors. Society expects that sport will teach males socially appropriate male behaviors, whereas females are expected to avoid masculine activities such as sport. Young girls who are into sport are considered to be tomboys, a childish phase that they will outgrow, and "females who continue in sport beyond childhood are often labeled as masculine" (Gill, 1994, p. 399). As part of feminist research, behavior analysis would serve to better understand the male and female experience in sport and to consider the construction of what constitutes masculinity and femininity. Harding (1989) explains that within a feminist paradigm, women's views may be seen as contributing to greater scientific objectivity, by bringing in what was left out. This view is parallel with Krane's view that feminist research starts with women's experiences, "putting gender at the center of the analyses, and attempts to provide explanations of societal and biological phenomena that previously had been considered the norm" (Krane, 1994, p. 400). For example, considering that males are more physically capable in sport than females is widely acknowledged in sport and society, but feminist researchers have demonstrated that this point of view is the result of culture and environmental factors. Duquin (1988) explains that gender-segregated sport leagues for youth serve to prevent girls from competing with boys and challenging or confronting the supposed superiority of males in sport. This then perpetuates the view that women and girls are less capable of competing against their male counterparts (Krane, 1994).  16  While feminist inquiry may contribute to a more objective or representative set of data, it does not make a claim to being "objective" and universally valid, as earlier studies based on masculine norms did: "feminism has emerged from the belief that the researcher should be held to the same critical examination as the research process" (Krane, 1994, p. 400). This means that the researcher's beliefs and values should be explicitly known and expressed at the onset of the research study: "the gender, class, race, culture, and other distinguishing features of the researcher should be acknowledged as part of the research process" (Krane, 1994; p. 400). This enables researchers to avoid automatically viewing sport through the leading perspectives. Feminist therapists are explicit about their theoretical perspective in the therapy session, and inform their clients about the epistemology that grounds their practice. Feminist therapists use this approach as an attempt to break down, or at least recognize the barriers between client and therapist, and similarly feminist researchers must acknowledge the relationship between researcher and participant. The research process can be instructive and empowering to the participant involved in sport psychology research as well as to the producer and consumer of the research. Feminist researchers in this field aspire to apply research findings for the purpose of enhancing the sporting experience of females, while acknowledging that sport is based on discrimination against them. Applied sport psychology attempts to increase the experience of participants in sport and exercise and a feminist perspective can be the medium that provides a new insight into sport psychological phenomena (Krane, 1994). Feminism and sport psychology  17  Feminists interested in pursuing research in sport psychology have proposed several theoretical and methodological changes (Costa et al., 1994). They recommend that to better understand the female experience, researchers must take into account subjective experience and maintain an awareness of the impact that this has on sport and society. Costa et al. (1994) cite the example of coach-athlete relations and how power, money, authority and gender are imbedded in the relationship. Awareness of this contextualization may be significant for understanding shared and divergent relationships in sport. Understanding the relationship between athlete and coach, or sport psychologist and team, is important in giving voice to the subjective experience of female athletes, as so much of the research today is still in relation to how men and boys feel and react to athletic endeavors (Birrell et al., 1994; Costa et al., 1994). Fine et al. (1991) found that undertaking the study of female relationships between women in the context of sport is an important part of the process of achieving a better understanding of the experience of females in sport. Costa et al. (1994) question whether disputes over a game or play affect team cohesion, inter-team relationships, and friendship bonds between players. Certain behaviors may be interpreted negatively, when using male reaction as the measuring stick, simply because women may not necessarily react the same way as men do over the exact same issue. On a general level, many women tend to be more emotionally demonstrative than men and may at times let personal relationships get in the way of accomplishing goals, and this too may be interpreted negatively when comparing men's reaction to the same issues. By understanding women's behavior and reaction better, insight into coaching skills and team building can be proposed for use with women. Bonds  18  between female athletes and how sport challenges and enhances those friendships "appear to be a rich area for sport psychology research" (Costa et al., 1994, p. 289). Another aspect of feminist sport psychology research on women in sport is to investigate women's "secrets". Costa et al. (1994) explain that: "this would involve publicizing aspects of women's experience that are kept hidden" (p. 289). De-silencing could, for example, make explicit the cost of having to hide one's sexual orientation, the pain of hearing jokes from homophobic athletes, or putting up with sexual harassment, as well as discussions around aggression, or steroid and drug use. De-silencing means making visible what has been mainly invisible, and being able, through research, to provide support and much needed information that sport psychologists can use when working with female athletes. This would enable sport psychologists to cater for them and design plans that will meet and address the needs of women, based on documentation about what they really experience, rather than on a variation of what sport psychologists would provide for men. Costa et al. (1994) emphasize the damage that can take place from not changing the social conditions of women in sport. They stress that more research needs to be conducted on understanding women athletes' feelings of oppression, in order to be able to create images that are not yet imaginable for women in sport. Feminists working in the field of sport psychology must record the human costs of not changing sport structures and gender ideology. "We need to publicize the psychological role sport plays in teaching young boys and young men misogynistic attitudes and behaviors. We need to make known the  19  psychological interrelationships among sport, and violence against women" (Costa et al., 1994, p. 289). These authors highlight the need to make public the conditions in sport which females will identify as oppressive, exploitative, racist, sexist, or homophobic, and to resist these either individually or collectively for the benefit of all (Costa et al., 1994; Birrell et al., 1994): "Research in sport psychology must work to envision and realize sport and sporting conditions that enhance the health and well-being of women, men and society at large" (Costa etal, 1994, p. 290). It is time to incorporate a new critical awareness of the role of gender in sport and exercise behaviors into the larger knowledge base (Gill, 1994; Krane, 1994). Levy (1988) stated that " gender differences in sport psychological variables are acknowledged, however few studies have examined why this occurs" (p. 32). Gender obviously plays an important role in the way that sport and exercise are experienced, and a feminist perspective can help to explain how gender relations can affect these experiences. Simply acknowledging the different experiences is not sufficient, as without trying to understand why these differences occur misconceptions can arise. In sport psychology it is quite common for gender differences to be construed as due to the different socialization patterns for males and females. Regrettably, the analysis of gender differences rarely progress beyond this explanation, because there is not a large pool of information to examine within the specific context of sport (Gill, 1994; Krane, 1994). Consequently, without access to potentially valuable sources there is little evidence of use to the public and virtually no further understanding is gained.  Information based on societal  20  beliefs is of little value, as this only serves to perpetuate conventional stereotypes (Krane, 1994). In the sport psychology literature there are two variables that have been identified as pertaining to gender differences: competitiveness and confidence. Females tend to show lower levels of both as compared to males when measured for the same variables (Gill, 1994; Krane, 1994). It is therefore widely believed that females are inherently less confident and less competitive than males. This assumption then leads to the generalization that males have favorable characteristics deemed more advantageous in sport, compared to their female counterparts (Petruzzello et al., 1988). Krane (1994) explains that this belief can lead some to judge that males are more deserving of greater sport opportunities than females, since they are more likely to excel. One would expect that as sport becomes more open to females, this would result in the narrowing of the gap in the realm of sport confidence and competitiveness. However, this is not the case: Krane asks, "what leads males to be more boastful while females are more humble about their abilities on questionnaires?" (Krane, 1994, p. 402). Non-feminist research simply attributes this to gender socialization, while feminist researchers tend to try to understand why females are socialized to undervalue their aptitude, and how that can be modified. Feminists seek to understand and eliminate the oppression of women through social change (Costa et al., 1994). They are critical of gender as a determinant of life's chances because, when compared to men, women are undervalued and restricted. Feminists seek to understand and eliminate oppression through understanding women's experiences and  21  perspectives within an ethical framework. It is this framework that will be addressed in the next section of this literature review.  22  C H A P T E R II ETHICS Ethics i n general  According to Malloy et al. (2000), "ethics refer to that specific branch of philosophy that critically examines, clarifies, and reframes the basic concepts and presuppositions of ethical theories" (p. 47). Many authors use the term "ethics" interchangeably as either a singular or plural word. For the purpose of this paper, the use of the word will be plural, however some quotations may use it as plural. Whether it is used in the singular or plural form, the meaning and implications of the word remain unchanged. Shea (1996) suggests that ethics seek to tell us not what is but what ought to be. They are concerned with facts in as far as they support or illustrate one's hypothesis relating to values, but even more with the moral values themselves (p. 7). This branch of philosophy is sometimes called moral philosophy. For some, ethics can be distinguished from morals, in that morals refer to the specific principles that lead to absolute and universal claims, such as "thou shalt not kill" (Malloy et al., 2000). It is, however, not uncommon to use the terms ethics and morals interchangeably, because ultimately an ethical issue is a moral issue and a moral issue is an ethical issue (Malloy et al., 2000). The debate about the use of these terms is not the focus of this discussion, consequently the terms may be used somewhat interchangeably with the context being the critical deciding factor. Increasingly, ethics and morals are used as synonyms: "as moral agents we actively make choices we consider to be ethical. Given our ethical capacities, we strive to be moral" (Porter, 1999, p. 3).  23  Porter (1999) explains that traditional ethics are concerned with a systematic and critical reflection on goodness and Tightness as a basis of human actions: "the concern with reasoned arguments on what is good and bad, right and wrong, worthy and unworthy, moral and immoral. It makes suggestions about decent individual and social action" (Porter, 1999, p. 2). There are two categories of ethics: meta-ethics and applied ethics. Meta-ethics are more theoretical in nature and focus on the logic, coherence, and presuppositions found in each ethical theory (Malloy et al., 2000). Applied ethics are concerned with examining behavior in terms of right or wrong, good or bad (Malloy et al., 2000). Justice, responsibility, and beneficence are important ethical principles that many sport institutions claim to abide by and that ought to ensure that women receive fair and equal treatment. Beneficence has four important aims: 1) do no harm; 2) remove harm; 3) prevent harm; and 4) do good (Lumpkin et al., 1994). These authors go on to explain that within sport and sport administration, beneficence helps to end stereotypical discrimination against women, homosexuals and minorities, as it leans towards acceptance. Beneficent individuals encourage women and girls to participate in sport and to achieve their athletic potential though increased opportunities, in the absence of discrimination. These efforts do not, however go far enough and often rely on goodwill rather than enforcement. Feminist ethics Feminist ethics connect moral theory with feminist action and feminist theory with moral reasoning. "Feminist ethics is a moral reasoning about goodness and badness, lightness and wrongness, desirable and undesirable practices" (Porter, 1999, p. 3) that is aimed at the personal, social and political changes that feminism needed in order to put an end to women's  24  inferiority. Feminist ethics are cross-disciplinary and trickle into business, education, law, management, medicine, nursing, philosophy, policy, politics, psychology, sociology and theology (Porter, 1999). They are critical of gender-blindness and biases in traditional ethics and develop gender sensitive alternatives, asking questions like, "how can we resolve moral conflicts in feminist ways?" (Porter, 1999, p. 4). Every type of ethics is controversial, is open to questions, uncertainties and doubts, and feminist ethics is no exception. Within feminist ethics there are often three interrelated features to take into account: personal experience, context, and nurturing relationships. In respect to personal experience, feminist ethics accuse traditional ethics of being impersonal in building social contracts, and of basing personal maxims and moral guidelines on hypothetical dilemmas rather than reality. What is central to feminist ethics is the experience "of consciously choosing, of voluntarily accepting or rejecting, of willingly approving or disapproving, of living with these choices, of acting and of living with these actions and their outcomes" (Porter, 1999, p. 5). Feminists discourage any methodical depersonalization of the moral or demoralizing of the personal, challenging assumptions about what we know and for whom we are in a position to speak: "Personal experience is central to feminist ethics" (Porter, 1999, p. 4). The second aspect qualifies moral judgments by recognizing that "the contexts in which experience is obtained may make a difference" (Porter, 1999, p. 5). Our response to a middle-class teenager stealing a lipstick may differ greatly from our reaction to a homeless street youth stealing a loaf of bread. Context matters, because "the demands of a situation  25  require an appropriate response. This does not mean that abstract guidelines are irrelevant, but it means that at times abstract principles alone are insufficient" (Porter, 1999, p. 6). As for nurturing relationships, feminist ethics perceive care and nurturing as intrinsic to a context-sensitive approach (Porter, 1999). Humans are vulnerable, and therefore throughout life's stages we all need care. Care implies "basic physical sustenance and domestic requirements including: socialization, emotional bolstering, spiritual counsel, comfort, encouragement, advice, companionship and nurturant touch" (Porter, 1999, p. 7). This attitude does not necessarily imply a biological essentialism related to preconceived ideas about mothering. Traditionally, women have been socialized into caring roles, and feminist ethics "shows women's willingness to nurture and insists on the ready capacity for emotional involvement as essential to a humane moral stance" (Porter, 1999, p. 7). Care is as central as justice to this concept: "Personal experience, context and care matter because such relationships are fundamental to ethics" (Porter, 1999, p. 7). Women, as moral agents, should exhibit self-respect, care and respect for others, as well as critical judgment, in order to engage in ethical practice. While some feminist philosophers attend to the practical and moral issues raised by contemporary social life, others turn their attention to traditional ethical theory, in which some feminists have discovered numerous examples of male bias (Card, 1991; Porter, 1999). Aristotle postulated that women were not capable of being full moral agents, and this ancient point of view was elaborated and refined by more modern philosophers such as Rousseau, Kant and Hegel (Card, 1991; Porter, 1999). Likewise, supposedly feminine virtues such as silence, obedience and faithfulness, whose moral value seems to lie in their tendency to  26  promote masculine interests, indicate that the moral burden assigned to women within traditional ethics was considerably less than that assigned to men (Card, 1991). On the other hand, in the nineteenth century women were seen as responsible for upholding "morality", in terms of family values. A less obvious form of male bias in traditional ethical theory in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries was that the private realm of the home was seen as being a less important realm of ethical judgment. In a time when the home was where most women could be found, this arena was devalued precisely because it was paradigmatically female. Feminism revealed that the home is where there are serious ethical issues of injustice, devaluation of women and their work, and domestic abuse. The devaluation of the domestic sphere, feminists argue, was one of the main reasons why it was impossible to raise the question about justice in the division of domestic labor. In the past, as in present times in many places around the world, Western middle-class women remained prisoners of their own home, confined to the private sphere. It was not until the late 1960s and early 1970s that feminist work in philosophy and law gave rise to the term 'feminist ethics' (Card, 1991). It was at this time as well that feminist theorists began to express doubts about traditional ethical theory's ability to address "so called women's issues" (Card, 1991, p. 81). Some of its suppositions were unsuited for what was beginning to be "claimed as a distinctive feminine moral experience" (Card, 1991, p. 81). These types of concern about the fundamental assumptions of traditional ethics led some feminists to maintain that the problem with mainstream ethics was not just that they had neglected issues of special concern to women, but that their fundamental understanding of moral competence was masculine: they devised and resolved moral issues in ways that were  27  shown to be biased and distinctively male-oriented. Newly emerging feminist ethics, at the time, were no longer simply concerned with applying traditional ethical theory to contemporary issues, or with adding women into an existing traditional male model of ethics (Card, 1991). The new views maintained that feminist ethics must be devoted to rethinking deep ethical issues to produce a moral theory that would preserve the moral sensibility perceived as feminine (Card, 1991; Porter, 1999). Feminists have been outspoken in their criticism of traditional ethics, claiming that they have either devalued or ignored issues or areas of life that are related to women, whether the association is empirical, normative, or symbolic. They have argued that the devaluation or neglect of women has been harmful to women's interests in a variety of ways: women's qualities have been perceived as less noteworthy than those associated with men; women's work has gone unrecognized or unappreciated; and the abuse of women and girls has been ignored (Card, 1991; Rosenthal et al., 1988). Card (1991) explains that it is for these reasons that it is essential that feminist ethics address certain neglected areas of life. She is careful to add that one must be cautious in identifying these issues as women's issues or as falling within a woman's sphere, because there is a danger of implying, through language, that there is something natural or essential about women's concerns. In order to counter such biological or psychological determinism it is essential to be aware that if women show more concern than men for issues that include the personal, social justice in international politics, and so on, this difference is less likely to be the consequence of some innate disposition than the result of women taking an interest in and  28  responsibility for certain areas of life. This interest is because of a social conditioning which, in this respect, has produced a positive effect in terms of moral values. By reinforcing stereotypes about men's and women's predispositions, the language of women's issues may also be taken to suggest that moral issues or public policy can be cleanly divided into those of special concern to women and those that are not (Card, 1991). Such a division is a mistake because men's and women's lives are intertwined. There are no women's issues that are not also men's issues. Sport, childcare, and abortion, for example, are issues that are significant to both men and women because both groups are involved in these areas of life. Similarly, women bring an important ethical concern to public affairs. Although historically some issues have been deemed masculine or feminine, or have assumed the exclusion of women, most issues affect the entire population: war, famine, peace, birth control (to name just a few). As Card (1991) put it, "It would be a mistake to identify feminist ethics with special attention to an explicitly gendered subset of ethical issues. Feminist ethics enlarge the traditional concerns of ethics" (p. 86). Approaching life with an unequivocally feminist consciousness allows feminists both to identify unrecognized ethical issues and to introduce fresh perspectives on issues that already have been acknowledged as having an ethical component. As Card points out, feminist ethicists acknowledge that they do not entirely dismiss traditional ethics, because much of their thought has inherited some aspects of traditional ethical discourses: it is hardly wise or possible for feminists, or anyone else for that matter, to resolve to start from scratch and reinvent everything. Just as feminist political theory includes liberal, Marxist, and anarchist thought, feminist ethics include the ideas of traditional western  29  thinkers and philosophers (Card, 1991). The difference is in adopting a perspective that recognizes their male bias and attempts to adjust theory to take women's situation and experience into account. To understand feminist ethics today is to recognize that much of the moral inspiration behind them was derived from work outside academic philosophy (Card, 1991). Modern feminist philosophers continue to be concerned that devaluation or neglect has been deleterious to women's interests in a variety of ways: "Women's virtues have been seen as less significant than those associated with men" (Card, 1999, p. 85). This attitude is particularly apparent in the world of sport. Ethics and sport Sport is a fundamental part of our life. Millions of people around the world compete against others or themselves in physical activities such jogging, running, swimming, skiing, individual and team sports. In societies across the world there are amateur, professional, individual, team and even self-competitive athletes among the populations (Berlow, 1994). It is important also to count in the millions of spectators who may not participate in sport themselves but are involved as the audience. Berlow (1994) discusses the extent of the relationship between sport and society and how, although it is not easy to delineate, its importance cannot be doubted: "It is unclear whether sport is a mirror of society, or society a mirror of sport" (p. 1). Sport transcends all language barriers, as the Olympics draw in athletes from across the world and unite the globe through broadcasts of the events. Discrimination against racial minorities, women and homosexuals exists in sport at all levels, just as in society at large. Sport equity is part of the larger agenda, as Lumpkin et al.  30  (1994) suggests: "The ethical issues pervasive in sport equity lie in the fair treatment of all athletes" (Lumpkin et al; 1994). They also include issues related to drug abuse, rape, sexual harassment, blackmail, and murder, which are present within sport as they are everywhere else. One central question is whether the treatment of these issues in sport reflects the way society in general views the issues, or are they dealt with differently in the sporting community? It is not uncommon for the public to idealize professional athletes and hold them up as model citizens. Are such expectations reasonable, or are we burdening athletes with an unfair responsibility? While sport is often considered to be a reflection of society at large, there are few individuals in society at large that people hold in the same high esteem. (Belamy, 1994; Mallow et al., 2000). Sports heroes are used in advertising as reliable sources of endorsements (Berlow, 1994; McNamee et al., 1998). While this is mainly commercial, swimmer Greg Loughanis and Magic Johnson gave the face of strong, physically fit athletes to the deadly disease of AIDS. The decision to postpone and then cancel scheduled games after the events of September 11 ', 2001, is another example of the influence that sport and society have on one th  another. Thousands of lives were lost during the terrorist attacks, and the sports world was not spared since a hockey scout was among the many who died on a hijacked plane that flew into the Twin Towers in New York. After several days of mourning, US government officials decided that it was time to try to get back to a somewhat normal life again. One of the events that marked this attempt was an appeal to the public to attend sporting events where money was raised for the victims. This was a clear example of the value and importance sport has in North American society, as it was one of the very significant markers of a nation in mourning  )  31  and then a nation rebuilding. It is a striking example of how in North America "sports have worked themselves into our everyday lives" (Berlow, 1994, p. 3). Sport is not just a physical activity, it is also a sociological and a political one (Berlow, 1994; Malloy et al., 2000). In the school system children are encouraged to join sports and physical activities, because these are considered to be an integral part of the school curriculum and of the child's development. Many parents also enroll their children in afterschool programs, for physical activity and sometimes also for the sake of learning to be part of a team and to experience competition. Parents are sometimes at odds with one another over whose child is more skilled or gifted in the activity, but these same ambitious parents will turn around and try to teach their children the importance of fair play. What message are the children walking away with? The paradox of cooperation as a team-player combined with a ruthless desire to win is often apparent. On television one can watch supporters from different European or Latin American countries physically fight with one another over whose soccer team is better, and spectators have died in stadiums during fights and stampedes over sporting events. It is evident that the riots are sometimes politically motivated, and the role of team sports (McNamee et al., 1998) may be a substitute for full-scale class conflict or international warfare. Is this good or bad? The ethical issue here is somewhat like the debate over pornography, as a relatively safe outlet that may be seen as the lesser of two evils, or as contributing to violence in the "real" world. It is essential to seek to understand the values that society brings to and demands of sports (Berlow, 1994). Sport ethics include the study of the values, desires and impressions of  32  sport and its relationship to society. Berlow (1994) explains that "ethics is an established way of doing things, a shared sense of values, goals, and significance. The relationship between sport and society is symbiotic" (p. 4). On the one hand, professional football or hockey would not exist if there were no public to watch it. On the other hand, society draws inspiration from an athlete's skill and character (Berlow, 1994) and major league players of color may provide models of success for young people (mostly boys) from underprivileged minority groups. Sports rules and ethics are tied into the play of any game (Malloy et al., 2000). Sports seem to require a beginning, a middle, and an end: " a standard of achievement (a score), clear limits on what is acceptable behavior and what is not, and the opportunity for individual glory" (Berlow, 1994, p. 3), in addition to the chance to contribute to the success of the group. Different groups in the broader society, and different sports, exemplify different attitudes and beliefs. For example, in ice hockey there is a penalty box, signifying that the organizers anticipate that rules will be broken and this is where the player who breaks the rules will go when s/he is removed from the game. The rules in tennis are also based largely on a player's expected conduct and the appropriateness attributed to such conduct (McNamee et al., 1998). Ethics, in sport as in life, are not always about crimes, but are also about how everyday situations are dealt with and how society attempts to resolve endless debatable questions regarding what is appropriate behavior and what is not in a specific context. How such issues are dealt with in sport is of general interest, but also related to scandal. In 1990, "there were few sport magazines or newspapers that did not regularly publish conscience stories, that  33  challenged our ideas about sports and morality or disclosed the seamier side of sport" (Malloy et al., 2000, p. 101). Ethical issues are prevalent in sport but may be trivialized into simply the interpretation of rules. Nevertheless, questions about "what constitutes cheating or breaking a rule reflect a concern for ethics and ethical behavior " (Malloy et al., 2000, p. 45). This is one example but the scope of ethical issues that are prevalent in athletics is broad. A few others are the following: examining what constitutes fair competition versus drug-enhanced performance; the right to privacy and compulsory urinalysis testing of athletes; blood-testing as a method of drug control; hunting and trapping animals as a sport; violence in sport; eating disorders as directly correlated to participation in sport; and gender equity provisions, in many cases, control issues. These issues raised difficult questions, among them, "Where does the standard come from that the person uses to assess behavior and then render judgment?" (McNamee et al., 1998, p. 27). At least three levels of assessment are involved: general interpretation of "fair play", professional guidelines to be enforced, and the individual's personal conscience. When talking about ethics in sport, the first thing that comes to mind for many is "sportsmanship" (McNamee et al., 1998). Sportsmanship is a vague concept, difficult to define. Gough (1997) explains that sportsmanship is the sports world's all-encompassing word for ethics. No one can write about sportsmanship separately from ethics ".. .ethics is a matter of being good (character) and doing right (action). "Sportsmanship" is a matter of being good (character) and doing right (action) in sport" (p. 20-21). When someone in sport is called "unsportsmanlike" it is usually because s/he is unethical. Gough (1997) explains that  34  cheating or breaking a rule is "unsportsmanlike" behavior, and we can deduce that this behavior is unethical. Rooted in a set of lofty ideals that were more readily accepted a hundred years ago, sportsmanship " requires athletes and coaches to behave in a way that demonstrates, by their actions, strict adherence to the rules as well as concern for the opponents" (Malloy et al., 2000, p. 102-103). The "rules" are taken for granted and agreed to, but their interpretation may not be. Similar to "sportsmanship" is the concept known as "fair play", also defined as "playing within the rules" (Malloy et al., 2000, p. 102). "Sportsmanship" and" fair play" represent important philosophical attitudes that sport should be fair and fun, and about playing the game well rather than winning. Athletes strive for excellence in their sporting endeavors, however excellence does not simply mean victory. From an ethical standpoint, excellence is not achieved if it is attained through cheating or deliberate violation of the rules (Berlow, 1994), and losers should not be humiliated. Sport embraces both process and outcome and implies respect for the other participants and competitors (unlike war). This model is adopted by all in theory, but may be hard to maintain in practice, especially when sport becomes professional and commercial. Berlow (1994), McNamee et al. (1998), and Malloy et al. (2000) highlight four important ethical principles involved in moral dilemmas related to sport. These are designed for use in sport settings and can be applied to individual cases or as an amalgamated process for procedures to help produce behavior and thinking that promote good "sportsmanship" and "fair play". Malloy et al. (2000) describe the first principle as promise keeping. This refers to consideration of the rules that govern sport, of which there are two types: constitutive rules  35  and proscriptive rules. Constitutive rules guide play within the sport, they are the regulations that make a particular game what it is. Proscriptive rule are the rules that proscribe certain behaviors in each sport. The second principle is respect for persons: these include athletes, teammates, coaches, referees, opponents, and spectators, all of whom must be treated in a respectful manner at all times. The third principle is responsibility and/or duty, referring to accountability or being answerable for one's own actions. The final principle is called balance, meaning a state of equilibrium or harmony. From an ethical perspective, balance means that sport is only one component in a person's life and that attention should be devoted to all parts of one's life. In other words, sport is just one activity among a host of others in the lives of those engaged in sport, even for those who make a living from it. Ethical decision-making  Before tackling the relationship issues that are at the heart of many gender-related ethical dilemmas in sport, it is useful to describe the issues involved in making ethical decisions. Ethical decision-making is what helps guide professionals, such as sport psychologists, in their choices when working with clients. It is imperative for professionals to make intelligent and informed decisions about relationship issues that unfold with clients, as they seek to fulfill their mandate to do good, without harm to their clients or themselves (Keith-Spiegel et al., 1995). The issues involved in ethical decision-making are complex and multifaceted and defy simplistic solutions (Corey et al., 1993). There are many gray areas that require decision-makers to be familiar with the ethical standards governing their profession and the conceivable ways to work through difficult situations (Corey et al., 1993; Keith-Spiegel et al., 1995). Laws and rules do not always provide clear answers: "... ethical  36  issues in the mental-health professions are regulated both by laws and by professional codes. Both laws and ethical codes provide guidelines, yet neither offers many exact answers" (Corey etal., 1993, p. 4). Codes of ethics are intended to guide professionals, protect clients, safeguard the autonomy of professional workers, and improve the status of the profession (Corey, et al., 1993; Pope et al., 1998). Ethical codes and guidelines serve to provide a set of principles and rules that cannot be applied in a rote manner (Corey et al., 1993). These standards are designed to assist the professional to make decisions that are more sophisticated than merely following the letter of the law or the code (Keith-Spiegel et al., 1995). Professionals are challenged to clarify and interpret codes and to make personal judgments in applying the codes, while keeping within the law and the ethical guidelines of their professional governing body (Corey et al., 1993; Corey et al., 2000). It is hoped that through training in ethical decision-making, professionals will be able to make sound decisions based on principles that will help guide them in their interactions with clients. Feminist therapists and educational sport psychologists are among the professionals who frequently face difficult decisions regarding their relationships with their clients, because of the nature and scope of their practice. In the sport world, there are methods for rendering ethical judgment such as the ones described by Malloy et al. (2000), who propose a five-step model that they suggest for use in sport settings. Step one is to obtain and clarify all the pertinent facts of the case or incident: "... everyone needs to know exactly what occurred. The incident must be considered not only in its proper chronological order, but also in terms of who was present and their roles,  37  responsibilities, and understandings that prevailed at the time" (p. 54). Step two is to identify and enunciate the ethical maxim(s) to be used. An ethical maxim is a general moral principle, rule, or law that one adopts or formulates to serve as a yardstick against which behavior is to be measured. The identification and articulation of an ethical maxim serves to guide everyone along one path of reasoning. Step three involves time: chronology examines the time before the incident, the time of the incident and the consequences that resulted from the incident. Knowing the details can help in understanding what unfolded and to come to a decision on further action to remedy the situation. Step four entails identifying and discussing extenuating or special circumstances. Malloy et al (2000) provide the following example: the second place finisher lodges a protest because she felt she deserved the gold medal; a pothole was discovered in the lane she was running in after the incident, which represents a special circumstance that needs to be considered. Step five is rendering an ultimate judgment. Malloy et al (2000) conclude that judgment should only be rendered once all the facts in the case have been considered and everyone involved reaches an agreement on the ethical maxims applicable to this particular case. Shea (1994) proposed an eight-step model based on similar principles along the lines of sound ethical conduct: 1) open-mindedness, or an individual's receptiveness to all views presented and the rejection of a narrow-mindedness that attempts to seek out and rationalize support for what he or she has already decided to do: 2) collection of facts, or the gathering of a full account of all facts related to the whole situation. The facts help to locate and define the difficulties or problem; 3) tentative hypotheses, referring to the development of a plan of action after having collected all the possible facts and testing these hypotheses for validity; 4)  38  singling out two or three plans of action that are likely to lead in the direction of reasonable and acceptable judgment; 5) determination of consequences or assessment of probable outcomes for the hypotheses selected; 6) comparative evaluation of consequences, or assessment of the probable consequences from each of the selected alternative courses of action; 7) choice from alternative decisions, or selection of the one that proves most valid and whose consequences lead to the better, and therefore right, judgment; 8) the final step is reinforcement of the decision, entailing the strengthening and implementation of the chosen of judgment (p. 42-54). Ultimately, the central characteristic of ethical or moral decision is that it is not the method of decision-making that is accountable for the outcome, rather it is the person responsible for the decision who is accountable. There is no method, no matter how well structured or how rational, that can totally eliminate the chance of making a mistake (Shea, 1996). People seeking to make decisions, no matter which method they employ, must do so consciously taking full responsibility for their actions (Shea, 1996). It is usually not possible to simply say that an act is ethical or unethical, because that assessment would be far too simplistic if it did not account for the context and criteria (McNamee et al., 1998). Shea (1996) put forth six criteria for evaluating ethical incidents, as follows: 1) the incident presents a realistic conflict for the decision maker; 2) the incident includes a number of ethical issues or conflicts; 3) the alternatives generated by the incident can be judged for Tightness; 4) a series of consequences directly related to the incident should be able to be generated regarding all possible alternatives; 5) the incident creates cognitive conflict and causes reflection about alternatives, Tightness and consequences on the part of the  39  deliberators; 6) a number of deliberators should be invited to participate in making a decision (p. 156). Shea (1994) proposed a four-phase model for the ethical reasoning process. Phase 1 is "the conceptual phase" characterized by the comprehensive understanding of the situation to be examined; phase 2 is "the evaluation phase", characterized by a three-step process: a) establishing hypotheses of alternative decisions, b) testing out alternatives against the criteria of Tightness and rejecting alternatives that do not meet the criteria, and c) determining the probable consequences of acceptable alternatives; phase 3 is referred to as "the reflective phase", which is characterized by evaluating the data collected from the previous two phases in an attempt to reflect upon and reconsider one's understandings of the incident(s); and finally phase four, which is referred to as "the decision phase" and requires the deliberator(s) to make a final decision and to reinforce it. This phase is the highest level of cognitive, moral and developmental reasoning. It represents the summation of reflection on all the alternatives generated in phase three. The common elements underlying the models described reveal shared goals: identifying the area of concern, describing the manner in which a solution will be worked out, and proceeding to a concluding step that entails a decision as to how the issue at hand will be dealt with. The different models attempt to apply the general principles that govern existing guidelines. The usefulness of the models is limited by their broadness. They are based on general concepts and ethical principles, condensed into a model that can be used in numerous situations. With such a large scope of application possibilities there is the risk of leaving too much room open for interpretation, in addition to the possibility of not being specific enough  40  to address certain sensitive issues. The Canadian Code of Ethics is a model that was created to address the specific needs of those who work in athletics. The model is based on the code of ethics for Canadian Psychologists. This is of value in the sport setting because, as in psychology, individuals working with athletes interact directly with people in a very personal manner. In athletics, as in psychology, there are sensitive underlying issues that can be harmful to the athlete or client if power is misused by the coach or therapist. A relevant code of ethics is a useful tool to help ensure the well-being and safety of both the participant and the coach. Codes of ethics Canada has its own code of ethics for Canadian Psychologists that adheres to important ethical principles aimed at assuring ethical behavior and attitudes on the part of all psychologists. The Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists (CPA) articulates ethical principles and standards that guide all members of the Canadian Psychological Association. It maintains that there are four ethical principles that should be considered and weighed when making ethical decisions: 1) respect for the dignity of persons and their moral rights; 2) responsible caring, characterized by respecting the dignity of the person; 3) integrity in relationships, characterized by keeping to the code and its expectations; 4) responsibility to society, which has the lowest weight when in conflict with the other three principles. While it is important to consider responsibility to society in every ethical decision, the well-being of any individual person should not be sacrificed for a vision of the greater good of society. (See Appendix B for a copy of the text of the CPA code of ethics).  41  The fact that this last point recognizes potential conflict between ethical principles, such as the good of the individual versus the good of society, indicates the expectation that dealing fairly with the individual is the best way to ensure that society in general may benefit as a result; it is easier to begin with the change that one person can make, rather than trying to change the thinking of a collective. Ethical codes and guidelines serve to provide a set of principles and rules that cannot be applied in a rote manner (Corey et al., 1993). These standards are designed to assist the professional to make decisions that are more sophisticated than merely following the letter of the law or the code (Keith-Spiegel et al., 1995). Professionals are challenged to clarify and interpret codes and to make personal judgments in applying the codes, while keeping within the law and the ethical guidelines of their professional governing body (Corey et al., 1993; Corey et al., 2000). The Canadian Coaches Association created a "Coaching Code of Ethics" (CCE) inspired by the Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists, for use by those who work in sport settings. It is also governed by four principles that reflect the core values of the profession, including (1) respect for participants, (2) responsible coaching, (3) integrity in relationships, and (4) honoring sport. "Respect for participants" challenges coaches to behave in a manner that maintains the dignity of all participants. "Responsible coaching" refers to the ethical expectation that the activities of coaches will benefit society in general and participants in particular and will do no harm. "Integrity in relationships" means that coaches are expected to be honest, sincere, and honorable in their relationships with others. "Honoring sport" challenges coaches to recognize, act on and promote the value of sport for individuals, teams, and society in general. (See Appendix C for a copy of the CCE).  42  The study of ethics is complex and requires an understanding of the principles involved in order to apply them. Most ethical dilemmas result from conflict between principles, and these conflicts often arise from the fact that each individual often plays more than one role in relation to others. Athletes and sport professionals are influenced by; race, class, gender, age, and sexual orientation, all of which shape relationships consciously and unconsciously. Investigating dual-relationships and boundary issues in feminist therapy and sport psychology is the focus of the next section of this pilot study.  43  CHAPTER III RELATIONSHIPS AND BOUNDARY ISSUES As is now clear, there are many potential ethical concerns in relation to women and sport. The following section will focus specifically on boundary issues and dual relationships. Pope et al. (1998) give a comprehensive definition of dual-relationships that can be applied to feminist therapy as well as to sport psychology: "a dual-relationship in psychotherapy occurs when the therapist is in another, significantly different relationships with one of his or her patients. Most commonly, the second role is social, financial, or professional" (p. 190). Additionally, therapists have established codes of ethics and guidelines in order to avoid and minimize the opportunity for therapists to use their patients for their own gratification (KeithSpiegel et al., 1995). Brown (1991) defines boundaries as "physical (contact and spaces between boundaries) as well as psychosocial expression and definition of affect, interpersonal roles, and identity" (p. 326). The feminist therapy literature provides a comprehensive definition of what constitutes an overlapping relationship that is quite similar to the definition of dualrelationships. Brown (1991) claims that the main problem that feminist therapists face is overlapping relationships in their personal and professional roles, and isolation versus visibility. Perez et al. (2000) explains that " a unique overlap among lesbian, gay and bisexual therapists and their clients occurs when both therapist and client are active in the same social and political circles" (p. 151). Unique dual-relationship possibilities occur as well between sport psychologists and their clients, since sport psychologists are often invited to travel with their clients to games and competitions. This personal interaction makes room  44  for boundaries to become blurred, as sport psychologists and athletes alike are welcome to eat and remain in the living quarters of their clients even in Olympic contests. Some sport psychologists view the opportunity to travel and share meals with their clients as golden opportunities for teaching and learning, as the informal setting makes for a more relaxed setting. The special challenge to this type of teaching and learning location is how to protect privacy and confidentiality, when there are often other competitors (in addition to coaches) who may be within earshot of personal discussions. In addition, this is also a setting where boundary violations can take place because living in such close quarters can cause boundaries to be too flexible. Boundary issues Feminist therapists aim to address these issues rather than to ignore them. However, feminist therapy is more of a philosophy than a set of rules (Enns, 1997), and some feminists may overstep conventional boundaries in order to achieve therapeutic goals and reduce the hierarchy between client and therapist (Seu, 1988). In such cases, because therapy is personal and intimate, and because this special relationship unfolds between client and professional, extra caution is needed to ensure that inappropriate boundary violations do not occur (Corey et al., 1993; Pope et al., 1998). Such boundary violations include bartering and exploitation, which both have serious ramifications for the working relationship between client and sport psychologist. Kirby et al. (2000) cite incidents where coaches offered athletes "extra trainingrelated sessions" in return for sexual favors from the athlete, rather than charging them extra money for the extra training received. When coaches sleep with their athletes, as far as Kirby et al. (2000) are concerned, this is a case of exploitation because of the power dynamics and  45  special relationship between athlete and coach. All psychological codes of ethics make specific mention that a sexual relationship between client and therapist is both an abuse of power and exploitative of the vulnerability of the client who sought out the services of the specialist. Brown (1991) explains that boundaries are violated in two ways. The first manner is through "invasive violations" (p. 326), as when a client's physical or emotional boundaries are violated through imposition or engulfment. The other type of boundary violation is through "failure to protect" (p. 326), whereby the therapist/coach is careless or unclear about her own boundaries and allows her needs or feelings to overflow onto a client. Either way, the client can be harmed by the consequences of these violations. The most obvious violation is through sexual contact, and if carried further it can become a dangerous dual-relationship whereby the client's emotional health may be at risk, in addition to the therapist's license (Keith-Spiegel et al., 1995). Seu (1988) explains that "concerns about sexual contact between providers of health care and their clients were expressed as long ago as the fourth century B.C." (p. 70). The Hippocratic Oath stated that "in every house where I come, I will enter only for the good of my patients, keeping myself far from all intentional ill-doing and all seduction, and especially from the pleasures of love with women and men". The Psychological Associations in Canada and the United States discourage any sexual involvement with current or former clients in their codes of ethics (Pope, 1988; Seu, 1988). Further, the American Psychological Association "prohibits psychologists from providing therapy to persons with whom they have engaged in sexual intimacies" (Seu, 1988, p. 70). Pope (1988) states that "sexual intimacies between mental  46  health professionals and clients are inherently unethical, unprofessional, and severely damaging" (p. 222). Boundary violations also occur in ways other than as the result of sexual intimacies. Inappropriate self-disclosure by the therapist to the client, actively bringing the client into the therapist's social life, or using the client's skills to enhance the therapist's life in some way all illustrate other examples of inappropriate boundary violations (Brown, 1991). Such violations are harmful because they can foster an unhealthy dependence on the part of the client towards the therapist and create resentment towards a client on the part of the therapist (Brabeck, 2000). In sport, such boundary violations are equally discouraged, as they are considered harmful according to the coaching code of ethics. Certain types of relationships are more susceptible than others to violations (Porter, 1999). The helping and coaching relationship is one such relationship that has the potential for vulnerability, due to the intimate nature of the affiliation. Issues of power, vulnerability and trust are at stake. It is up to the professionals to make sound judgments regarding the way they interact and behave with clients (Shogan, 1992). Corey et al. (1993) suggest that having a clear definition of what constitutes one's personal boundaries, in addition to what constitutes a violation of those boundaries, is essential for the maintenance of one's appropriate distance (p. 51). Pope et al. (1998) clarify that if the professional does not feel comfortable telling a colleague about what may have unfolded in a particular therapy session, this would be a strong indicator that a violation of some degree has taken place (p. 16). Feminist therapists acknowledge power differentials in the therapeutic relationship and the potential harm that can result (Rave et al., 1995): " A feminist therapist acknowledges the  47  inherent power differentials between client and therapist and models effective use of personal power" (p. 40). A therapist who is not attentive to this power dynamic can effectively cause boundary violations within the therapeutic relationship by using this power for personal gain (Brebeck, 2000; Rave et al., 1995). This misuse of power is coined "misuse of psychologist's influence" according to the American Psychological Association (APA) code of ethics (Corey et al., 1993). Since the psychologist's actions and behaviors may seriously affect the lives of others, s/he must guard against misuse of their influence. The APA states that "(1.17) multiple relationships, (1.18) barter (with patients or clients), (1.19) exploitive relationships" (Corey et al., 1993, p. 417) can be detrimental to the welfare of clients and are a breach of the code of ethics. As briefly stated in the APA guidelines (and in the CPA code of ethics), not engaging in sexual activities with current or former clients, being sensitive to the confidentiality of clients, and monitoring multiple or overlapping principles to be followed. Ethics in sport psychology Boundary violations can take place in sport psychology just as they can in any other profession where there is power, vulnerability, self-disclosure and trust (Weinberg et al., 1995), but "sport psychologists often have boundaries that differ from those observed in more traditional clinical or counseling psychology. Sport psychologists may attend practices and competitions and even travel to out-of-town games and meets" (Van Raalte et al., 1996, p. 330). Such situations require a degree of flexibility: By clinical, and most counseling psychology standards, the initiation of helping relationships in sport psychology, and the delivery of service, is admittedly loose. And so it should be. This is not a criticism of sport psychology and sport  48  psychologists, but rather, a recognition that how and where sport psychologists operate probably represents greater variety and latitude than more traditional psychological helping profession (Andersen, 2000, p. 3). Sport psychologists need to spell out what their boundaries are for themselves, in addition to outlining them to their clients (Murphy, 1995). Some "sport psychologists" travel with the team, eat with the team, and even workout with the team: "The rationale behind this behavior involves getting the "sport psychologist" to be accepted as one of the team or coaching staff (Van Raalte et al., 1996, p. 331). Van Raalte et al. (1996) explain that sport psychologists, who have wide boundaries, enter into multiple roles that can lead to confusion for both the sport psychologist and the client. The potential for harm can take place in many ways, for example, if the "sport psychologist" is particularly needy and wants to be perceived as a good "sport psychologist", and turns to coaches and athletes for validation (Andersen, 1996, 2000). This form of exploitation is noted in the psychology and feminist therapy literature as well (Brown, 1991; Corey et al., 1993). To complicate matters further, there appears to be a discrepancy in the use of terminology being used in the literature. It appears that sport psychologists, clinical sport psychologists, and educational sport psychologists all seem to be written about in the literature simply as "sport psychologists", although they are not trained to perform the same tasks. This would be a case for consumers to be aware of whose services they are paying for and what their credentials are with regard to providing sport psychology services. Clinical sport psychologists are licensed by the same regulating-body licensing clinical psychologists. Education sport psychologists must adhere to the regulations set forth  49  in 1991 by the American Association of Applied Sport Psychologists, but they are not trained as clinical sport psychologists. Although there is limited information in the sport psychology literature regarding boundary issues and boundary violations, there are some research studies in this area that suggest that it is because of the close relationship that coaches have with their athletes that the sport community developed a code of ethics intended to provide standards for professional conduct (Haney et al., 1998).  The study conducted by Haney et al. (1998) examined sport-  related ethical concerns from the coaches' perspective, in order to determine the effectiveness of the code. Kirby et al. (2000) conducted a Canada-wide survey of 266 national team members about sexual harassment and abuse. The purpose of the study was to obtain information about the athletes' awareness of the issues and experiences surrounding sexual harassment. Kirby et al. (2000) point out that other professionals involved in sport can engage in boundary violations with athletes, such as physiotherapists, physicians, and sport administrators. They often see athletes at a vulnerable time, and as professionals they should be very conscious of the power dynamics in this relationship. Ethical issues in sport psychology relationships Pope et al. (1998) explain that "a dual-relationship in psychology occurs when the therapist engages in another, significantly different relationship with the client. The two relationships may be concurrent or sequential" (p. 89). Shank et al. (1997) note that dual relationships in rural areas and small communities might result from treatingfriends'children, treating close friends, and family members of clients or former clients" (p. 45). In 1985, feminist therapist Berman coined the term "overlapping relationships" to refer to the often  50  unavoidable overlap of relationships or roles for therapists and their clients. Berman contended that it is not always possible for the therapist to anticipate or have control over all the ways in which their lives overlap with those of their clients (Brown, 1991). It is clear that "overlapping/dual-relationships present therapists with a range of complex but unavoidable ethical and practical dilemmas" (Rave et al., 1995, p. 88). Although all mental health professionals should be aware of the potential for overlapping relationships, feminist therapists may be particularly likely to encounter a wide variety of such relationships, as feminist therapists are often members of the same communities that they serve professionally. Since these communities are often small or exclusive, feminist therapists have to interact with clients in a variety of settings (Brabeck, 2000; Rave et al., 1995). It is for these reasons that it is imperative that feminist therapists implement sound decisionmaking when examining personal and professional relationships, in addition to having carefully thought out the ethical consequences of such relationships (Brabeck, 2000; Rave et al., 1995). Perez et al. (2000) describe how " unique overlap among lesbian, gay and bisexual therapists and their clients occurs when both therapist and client are active in the same social and political circles" (p. 151). Brown (1991) clarifies that absolute separation outside the therapy setting does not match the experience of many feminist therapists. She explains that one of the main concerns that feminist therapists are contending with is isolation versus visibility. Should the feminist therapist make herself invisible in her community, or should she maintain visibility and negotiate ethical dilemmas that result from overlapping  51  relationships? The question of isolation versus visibility is also prevalent for psychologists who work in rural communities or with ethnic minorities (Rave et al., 1995). Shank et al. (1997) recognize that the practice of psychology as a discipline is filled with ambiguity. There are no right answers for dealing with the complexities of human interactions and problems: ".. .legal statutes, professional codes of conduct, and regulating boards are governing bodies which provide guidelines of ethical standards for professionals" (p. 44), however overlapping relationships are inevitable ".. in rural and small communities where community involvement causes suspicion and increases approachability and where denying help to a particular client because of a preexisting relationship could mean that person gets no help at all" (Shank, et al., 1997, p. 44). Pope et al (1998) contend that psychologists must place the client's best interest at the forefront in return for the special status that is accorded psychologists as mental health professionals. Treatment boundaries must be imposed to provide a therapeutic plan that defines the range of the therapeutic process. Another paramount issue that can arise from overlapping relationships is the power differential between client and therapist (Pope et al., 1998). The therapist ultimately holds the power in therapeutic relationships, thus leaving the potential for the client to be vulnerable to harm from the therapist's actions (Keith-Spiegel et al., 1995). In the therapeutic relationship, the therapist is responsible for the relationship, in other words, for attending to the client's needs. There is a visible lack of mutuality in this alliance, and because of this imbalance of power and the ethical responsibility of the therapist, there is a sense that the relationship can  52  never be one of mutuality: "..ethical guidelines for most professionals, including those for feminist therapists, compel therapists both to monitor and use the inherent power differential between client and therapist in ways that benefit the client" (Rave et al., 1995, p. 92). Acknowledging the power differential in the client-therapist relationship is one way of guarding against the potential for dual-relationships (Pope et al., 1998). Ethical guidelines outline the dangers to the therapist and client with regard to engaging in dual-relationships, yet the guidelines provide little or no specific guidance for practical decision-making (Gottlieb, 1993). "The rule that mental health professionals avoid dual-relationships is ambitious in nature. It is a goal we strive to reach, but one which is impossible to avoid completely" (p. 41). Kitchener (1988) addresses the dual-relationship problem by offering three guidelines for distinguishing relationships that are harmful from ones that are less harmful: "..thefirstguideline states that as the incompatibility of expectations increases between roles, so will the potential for harm. Second, as the obligations associated with different roles diverge, the potential for loss of objectivity increases. Third, as the prestige and power differential between the professional's and the consumer's role increase, do does the potential for exploitation. If the risk of harm increases, so should the ethical prohibition against engaging in the relationship" (p. 218). Avoiding unethical dual-relationships is an ethical principle that for psychologists frequently generates dilemmas (Walker, 1998). Gottlieb (1993) proposes a decision-making model as a tool to assist professionals in dealing with their ethical dilemmas. However, he explains that the model has not been empirically verified, it rules out almost all forms of dual-relationships,  53  and does not serve as a substitute for sensitive, sound professional judgment or consultation with a trusted colleague. It certainly seems that although a decision-making model was created to assist professionals with their dilemmas it does not replace sound judgment and is as yet an unproven model. Decision -making in sport psychology The feminist therapy literature is filled with information regarding overlapping/dualrelationships as they relate to the practice of psychology and feminist therapy, however, the sport psychology literature is not so fruitful. Andersen (2000) briefly discusses the issue of boundaries within the scope of sport psychology from the perspective of a clinical sport psychologist. It is surprising that there was no mention of overlapping/dual-relationships in his recently published textbook Doing Sport Psychology. Weinberg et al.'s (1995) book The Foundation of Sport Psychology was written from the perspective of an education sport psychologist and also contained no information regarding this issue. Murphy (1993), a sport psychologist, explained that dual-relationships are easy to define and are much more difficult to recognize. He goes on to explain that a dual-relationship occurs when the counselor maintains another, significantly different relationship with the client that serves to confuse both roles. He goes on to clarify that the most ethically troublesome relationship is the one that involves sexual contact, however subtler dual-relationship are more common. Relationships that are social, financial or professional often escape detection: yet they can make the professional relationship vulnerable and affect the welfare of the client. Any dualrelationship creates a conflict of interest and must be avoided.  54  Haney et al. (1998) conducted a study in which they sought sport-related ethical concerns from coaches in order to establish what ethical issues were identified by coaches. The results of the study generated 198 ethical concerns in nine general categories. The nine categories that came out from the study include: cheating (using athletes who do not qualify, general cheating), discrimination (unequal treatment of athletes), abuse (sexual harassment/sexual abuse, advocating harmful eating practices), disrespect (not respecting officials/other coaches), defective coaches' standards/characteristics (only caring about winning), coaches' behaviors (improper role modeling, inadequate of positive feedback), lack of funds/opportunities (inadequate facilities and equipment, lack of opportunity to practice different sports), sports administration (misuse of money, lack of communication), and miscellaneous (crime) (p. 245). Out of the range of ethical concerns raised, the researchers specified 10 of the most often cited ones, including: lack of fair play, drug abuse, use of athletes who do not qualify, unequal treatment of athletes, discrimination, abusive treatment of players, not caring about the welfare of athletes, advocating harmful eating habits, sexual harassment, and not caring about sport but only about winning (p. 246). One of the main themes that emerged from the focus groups concerned relationship issues, such as discrimination, abuse, disrespect, and the coach's behavior (Haney et. al., 1998, p. 245). Thus far, "the coaching profession is not regulated, therefore, the consequences a coach may suffer if found incompetent.. .due to a breach to the CPCA Code of Ethics have not been determined"(p. 247). This study revealed that boundary violations such as sexual harassment and abusive treatment of players take place at all levels of sport. For example, one informant reported that  55  a basketball coach instructed his young players to participate in a practice drill, and the consequence for missing the shot was to remove an article of clothing. A young boy was down to his underwear when the coach asked him to remove it, and as a result of the boy's refusal the coach suspended him from the team. Sexual harassment and inappropriate touching were cited as other boundary violations by coaches that are detrimental to the athlete. These researchers concluded that "although many of the concerns that were brought up as a result of their study fell within the existing code of ethics", not all of them did (p. 247). They suggested that although the existing code of ethics established some important and useful sets of ethical principles to guide coach behavior, it lacks decision-making procedures for resolving clashes among the principles. Van Raalte et al. (1996) are clinical sport psychologists who have found that "dualrole conflicts in sport and exercise psychology are especially problematic. There are times when professionals may find that the relationship boundary between themselves and clients becomes clouded" (p. 444). They explain that the fact they have more access to their athlete clients (such as by watching a practice, seeing them in the locker room, or traveling with the team) this decreases objectivity on the part of both the athlete and the professional. They confirm that: "dual-role relationships open the possibility of distorting the professional relationship, creating conflicts of interest, and undermining the fiduciary nature of the consultation process" (Van Raalte et al., 1996, p. 445). Sport psychologists can find themselves in delicate dual-role relationships when they work for both a team and an individual athlete on the team. As a sport psychologist is privy to confidential information about individual players, this can become a conflict of interest when the sport psychologist is  56  also the team sport psychologist. This can put the individual athlete in a vulnerable position and risks undermining the work that has been undertaken one-on-one between the two (Sachs, 1993). On some occasions, sport psychologists may also serve as coach to a team, and "this dual-relationship of sport psychologist and coach raises difficult ethical questions such as responsibility to the athlete, the team and confidentiality" (Sachs, 1993, p. 923). Sport psychologists are strongly advised to avoid all dual-relationships wherever possible. The sport psychologist should keep in mind "who they work for" in order to best preserve confidentiality and professional composure when working in a sports setting. Sport psychology work can be a delicate matter, because the relationships between coach and sport psychologist, sport psychologist and team, sport psychologist and individual athletes, can all overlap. There is the risk of breaking confidentiality and the trust developed between client and professional can be lost if boundaries are not made clear. The sport psychology literature strongly discourages sport psychologists from forming a dual-relationship because there is too strong a risk of harm to all parties involved. Additionally, if the sport psychologist is licensed in one of the psychology regulating bodies it would be a violation of the code of ethics and reprehensible. Van Raalte et al. (1996) conclude their brief section on dual-relationships by suggesting that although there are no rules that delineate all possible dual-relationships, professionals should do their best to simply avoid such relationships altogether, because they have such great potential for harm. As follow-up to the above evidence for a lack of ethics research in the area of dual-relationships and boundary violations in sport, this pilot study will  further explore the experiences of a few Canadian female sport leaders, in an effort to ascertain which gaps in this area of research most urgently need to be addressed.  58  C H A P T E R IV A PILOT STUDY This chapter provides describes the methods used to gather and analyze data for the pilot study. The first section provides information on qualitative research, the approach that was used adopted. The following sections provide a brief description of the methods used and results obtained. Qualitative research methods Qualitative research concentrates on the exchange of words and observations to express reality and attempts to describe people in natural situations. In qualitative research, participants are free to use their own words to share their thoughts and views (Krueger, 1994). Researchers look for themes to emerge from the transcripts gathered: "Qualitative procedures enable the researcher to get in tune with the respondent and discover how that person sees reality" (Krueger, 1994, p. 29). Typically, qualitative research methodology provides-indepth information about fewer cases rather than little information about many cases. A fundamental premise of qualitative research is to let key issues emerge rather than to force the information gathered into perceived categories (Strauss & Corbin, 1988). This method calls for the researcher to seek confirmation for any structures that emerge throughout the study. The researcher needs to be vigilant in the data collection, beginning with the formulation of questions designed to generate information subject to analysis based on codes that allow concepts and categories to emerge. Codes are created when the data is broken down into components. From the application of these codes, concepts are generated that lead to the  59  development of categories by asking general questions of the data to make comparisons and see what emerges (Krueger, 1994). DATA COLLECTION AND PROCEDURES Sample selection process Marshall et al. (1995) explain that "one cannot study intensively and in-depth all instances, events or persons. One selects samples" (p. 50). The decision to study a particular population is made purposefully create rich samples of the phenomenon being examined (Patton, 1990). Patton (1990) advocates that there are no set sample sizes in qualitative investigations because in-depth information from a small sample can be extremely rich in information. Marshall et al. (1995) suggest that there are certain criteria for selecting participants for a study. These include their experience in the topic under investigation, their willingness to share their experiences, and the richness of those experiences. The ultimate purpose of this pilot study is to find ways to examine boundary issues faced by experienced female sport psychologists working with elite and professional athletes. Since this study is a pilot project only, three female sport leaders were selected for interviews. The four criteria for selecting these individuals were that they should be Canadian women who have a) had extensive involvement in sport, particularly at the high performance level; b) completed university-level education in the fields of sport studies and/or counseling psychology; c) are currently working with elite and/or professional athletes; and d) are willing to share their experiences. A research interview with each of the three women selected provided enough data to highlight experiences and issues evident with respect to the boundary issues encountered by women leaders within the field of sport psychology.  60 experiences and issues evident with respect to the boundary issues encountered by women leaders within thefieldof sport psychology. The names of the participants were obtained by asking university colleagues to identify women leaders who fulfilled the selection criteria cited above and were likely to have something to contribute to the topic of boundary and relationship issues in sport psychology. Initially, these three women were contacted by electronic mail and asked to participate in the study. Once the participants agreed to be interviewed, a meeting time and place were scheduled. All three participants agreed to have their interview audiotape recorded. T h e data collection interview  The purpose of conducting the interviews was to gain insight into the participants' experiences and an in-depth interview was the strategy that was used. This method was chosen because it provides both structure and flexibility, as "a conversation with a purpose that can have a priori structure to give latitude to the interviewer and interviewee" (Marshall et al., 1995, p. 80). Typically, in-depth interviews are more like conversations than formal events, with the exception that the researcher maintains a focus on some general topics to help uncover the participants' perspectives. Since the purpose of this pilot study was to gain a deeper understanding of boundary violations that female sport psychologists have had to contend with in their work with high performance athletes, a set of questions on this theme was developed. T h e interviews  A copy of the semi-structured interview questions employed in the interviews is found in Appendix D. The questions were designed to generate some reflection and  61 examples on the part of the interviewee, while providing an outline that the researcher could use to investigate further into the experiences of the participants. The participants were informed ahead of time that the interview would take approximately one hour. The interviews consisted of semi-structured questions to prompt the participants to further articulate experiences they wished to share. Open-ended questions, paraphrasing, and reflection were used at times throughout the interview in order to gain further in-depth understanding of the participants' experiences. Before concluding the interview, the researcher invited the participants to add any other relevant information. Additionally, the participants were given the chance to ask the researcher questions or to discuss the interview procedure. Participants were informed about the process of transcription and data analysis, and signed an informed consent form. Immediately following the interview, the researcher noted the emotional climate of the interview as well as some impressions regarding how the interview went. Such information is valuable for determining the context for interpreting the data. DATA ANALYSIS  After the interviews, the audio-tapes were listened to for the purpose of becoming familiar with their content and the interviews were transcribed into a computer file. The data for this study was analyzed by following Krueger's (1994) data analysis strategies. The steps are as follows: "a) make duplicate copies of the transcript data, b) enter the data into a computer, c) look for emerging themes (by question and then overall),  62 d) develop coding categories and code the data, e) sort the data into coding categories, f) diagram the analysis, g) see what data are left out and consider revision, h) prepare the draft report- begin with the most important questions first" (Krueger, 1994, p 157).  Criteria of soundness Collecting data is very important to the qualitative research process. Qualitative research does not have the same general acceptance paradigms that quantitative research enjoys, consequently, it requires a more self-reflexive rationale in defense of the research methodology. Some questions regarding how credible the findings of a particular study are include: by what criteria can these results be judged? How transferable are the findings to other groups? And, how confident can we be that the data reflects the participant's thoughts rather than the interviewer's bias? Credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability are terms that Lincoln and Guba (1985) have used as constructs that more precisely describe the assumptions and evaluation criteria of qualitative research. Credibility is described as the manner in which the participant's information is accurately described. Transferability is described as the applicability of thefindingsin one study to another context. Dependability is how the researcher attempts to account for the changing conditions that take place throughout the study though a refined understanding of the study's setting. Confirmability summarizes what was traditionally coined objectivity. In other words, could the findings of the present study be confirmed by another research study of a similar nature? The confirmability of this pilot study was an on-going process, as each interview could either confirm the preceding one or call tentative conclusions into question. Before  63  beginning any of the interviews, I took time to examine my own assumptions and subsequently documented them in order to ascertain that I was aware of these prior to proceeding with the research. The participants for this pilot study were selected on the basis of their professional and academic credentials, which confer some validity on their observations. The semi-structured interview questions were used to facilitate a conversation-like interview in order to prompt the participant to share her experiences. Care was taken on the part of the researcher not to ask closed-ended questions (i.e., questions that can be answered by yes or no) and, open-ended questions were prepared. Qualitative research does not claim or try to remove the effect of the researcher in the interview process, however the researcher must remain aware of her subjectivity and biases. This was made explicit in the researcher's notes to herself prior to beginning the interview process, and in addition in extensive notes after each interview and throughout the entire data analysis process. This methodology is employed in order to attempt to maintain a relatively objective perspective of the data. Imposing one's own meaning onto the interview data is a threat to credibility and transferability, because the participants' meanings become lost when the researcher imposes a preconceived interpretation on their words. In examining the data, the researcher is given a window into the lived experiences of each participant. By generating alternative interpretations of the data, the researcher has access to multiple explanations. Since data analysis can be tedious, steps were taken to gain some distance from the material in order to come back to it refreshed. The data was also presented to a colleague for feedback regarding any assumptions and biases that might affect the analysis. The test of analyzing qualitative  64  research data is in trying to ascertain the meaning of the participant's experiences with minimal misrepresentation of the data, while being aware that any issue is interpreted from a particular perspective. Ethics  In March 2002, The University of British Columbia's Behavioral Ethics Committee approved this pilot study and the consent form. At the time of the study all participants were given an opportunity to carefully read the consent form and to ask the researcher for any clarifications they needed to pose any additional questions they might have. Two copies of the consent form were signed. One copy was given to the participant while a second copy was kept by the researcher. The participants all agreed to an audio-tape recorded interview. (See Appendix A for a copy of the consent form). The participants were informed that all personal information would be kept strictly confidential and their names will be kept anonymous. All documents including audiotapes, transcripts, and computer disks would be identified by a code number known only to the researcher and all information would be kept in a locked filing cabinet. All the interviews for this pilot study took place in June 2002.  65  CHAPTER V RESULTS  Before discussing the interview data, it is useful to provide some general demographical data about the three women interviewed. Because of confidentiality issues, the participants will not be identified however some background information can be provided. Two of them had undertaken an academic formation in sport psychology and are also licensed counseling psychologists. The third is a licensed athletic therapist who has also undertaken a formation in sport psychology in order to become licensed in her field. Table 1. Background information about participants: Average Age  38 years old  Average Years of Sport Experience  10 years  Average Years of Leadership Role in Sport  15 years  All three interviews were conducted in-person at the workplace of the participants. The interview times ranged between 20 and 90 minutes. They yielded a wealth of information about gender issues, boundary issues, and relationship issues evident in the field of high performance sport. The interviewees provided a number of examples from their experiences. The following paragraphs will outline the results collected from the interviews. It is clear that all issues raised during the meetings are interrelated and therefore cannot be easily distinguished from each other. The issues and examples identified by the three women were all related to gender discrimination, or relationships and boundaries. The issues are interrelated because they encompass more than one of the constructs that were  66  identified in this study. A number of emerging recurrent themes were highlighted in the interviews. The first theme that all three participants identified was witnessing either directly or through hear-say about a male coach having intimate relations with female athletes. This inappropriate relationship is a boundary violation because the balance of power is unequal. Brown (1991) explains that boundaries are violated when a client's physical or emotional boundary is infringed upon by an authority figure. The coach holds power over the athlete by having the ability to control playing time, funding opportunities, or role on the team, and risks giving special treatment to one player over another. This places the athlete in the awkward position of trying to meet the personal needs of the coach while maintaining equality with teammates. The athlete stands to lose a lot should the intimate relationship fold. This finding was highlighted as being equally inappropriate when the women interviewed cited examples of female coaches having intimate relations with their female athletes. Kirby et al. (2000) clarify that relationships between therapist (coach) and client (athlete) are an exploitation of power and is an abuse of the vulnerability of the athlete who is being coached. Once again, the difference in the balance of power in this situation between the coach and the athlete makes this relationship inappropriate because this could never be a relationship of equals. A second theme that was shared by cases cited by all three female leaders was having their work undermined by male coaches and by male sport administrators, even when the work was in their particular area of expertise. An example that was cited in one interview was when one of the leaders witnessed the football team's female athletic trainer explain to the coach that the artificial turf on the footballfieldmust be dampened before every game and  67  practice in order to prevent serious injury to the athletes. She provided the scientific rationales for this strategy and cited common injuries that result from dry artificial turf. After listening to the rationale, the coach agreed with her and said that he was going to have the turf watered. Going on that premise, the athletic therapist advised the athletes to wear particular footing for the wet/damp conditions of the field. However, before playtime, the athletic therapist noticed that the turf had not been watered. When she questioned the coach about it, he said he had changed his mind. The athletic therapist then had to go back to the athletes and advise them to change their footwear. Brown (1991) considers this type of situation as being a boundary violation because of "failure to protect" the athletes. The athletic therapist acted in what she had considered to be sound medical judgment based on her professional formation and on up-to-date research studies, but the coach undermined her medical decision, putting the athletes at risk for injury on the playing field. Additionally, the athletes then questioned her credibility as a trainer since it seemed to them that she could not make up her mind as to what footwear they should be wearing. In this case, the athletic therapist felt she had no recourse in her strategy to prevent athletic injuries, and was unable to fulfill her professional responsibility of ensuring the athletes are prepared for play. The coach in this instance did not act in the best interest of the athletes, and had to put them at risk of serious injury. The athletic therapist was forced into a compromised position. On the one hand, she was trying to act in the best interests of the athletes, on the other hand, she was hired by the coach, who had the power to make all final decisions. The athletic therapist was aware that the coach's action placed her in an ethical dilemma; as Shea (1998) explains in her six criteria model for evaluating ethical incidents, an  68  issue is deemed an ethical conflict when an incident presents a conflict for the decisionmaker. Unfortunately for the athletic therapist, her role on the team does not give her the power to override the coach's final word, although she is in a position responsible for avoiding sport injuries and for caring for any injured athlete, regardless of the reason. If an athletic therapist is not happy with the functioning of a team that she works for, her options are either to convince the coach that what she is proposing is a wise decision or to quit the team. In this case, gender discrimination led the male coach to undermine the expertise of a female professional. A third theme that came out of the interviews with all three female leaders was discrepancies in funding allocations. Pope et al. (1998) explain that this is a very common ethical issue, because the individual with power is in the position to make financial and social decisions that affect others. The women reported that men's sport in relation to women's sport programs, offered more scholarships and therefore more opportunities to male athletes than to female athletes. Men's sports were also recipients of "under the table" monies funneled from organizations such as university athletic departments, and sport associations. Haney et al. (1998) also found that there was a lack of equal opportunity resulting from a lack of funding thus limit opportunities for certain groups. It would appear that the sport organizations and the media placed more value and more importance on male athletes and male sport than to female athletes. Pope et al. (1998) raise the point that situations like the one described, all cases of dual-relationship, because the relationship between the athlete and the individuals providing "under the table" money puts these athletes at an advantage while not giving others the same  69  privilege, and also makes them under an obligation to please the givers, Lumpkin et al. (1994) make it clear that men's sport and men's teams take precedence over virtually all women's sporting activities. It is therefore not surprising that male athletes would be the recipients of financial advantages over female athletes. Shea (1996) maintains that since society still discourages women from exhibiting any masculine characteristics, such as playing sports, it is not surprising that society would not feel the need to support female athletes through media coverage or money. This raised concerns among the female leaders about relationship and boundary violations concerning how leaders and decision-makers in sport organizations often overlook the financial needs of female athletes and female sports in general. Opportunities for male and female athletes are not balanced or equitable and female leaders were placed in compromised position with regard to helping their teams and their athletes strive for excellence, because they did not have access to the same resources that their male counterparts enjoyed. Lack of organizational support was another common theme that emerged from interviews with all three female leaders. Each spoke about how little support is available and how this puts them into a bind when trying to deal with difficult issues. Often their credibility is questioned and undermined by male athletes, male coaches and male administrators, thus further alienating them in their role in high performance sport. Berlow (1994) discusses the uncertainty about whether sport is a reflection of society or whether society is a reflection of sport. This brings up the issue that discrimination against women exists at all levels of sport, just as it still does in society at large (Lumpkin et al., 1994). This issue is well-known in  70  sport, though rarely discussed publicly thereby ensuring that changes are slow to come around. Balancing relationships was another theme that emerged from all three interviews. One thing more specific to the sport psychologist working with a team was the question of how to manage conflict between the coach and athlete. The female leader who identified this example explained that in her private counseling psychology practice, she would not think twice about inviting a parent or a partner to participate in conflict resolution with a client however, she not would employ the same strategy when an athlete and coach have a conflict. She explained that the sport arena belongs to the coach and that the coach holds the power to decide how his/her team will be managed. Enns (1997) explains that feminist therapists may transgress conventional boundaries in order to achieve therapeutic goals and to reduce the hierarchy between client and therapist. The sport psychologist does not have the power to even out the coach-athlete relationship, however the sport psychologist can employ feminist counseling strategies and break down hierarchy between herself and her client (athlete) when she works with athletes. In the example cited from the interviews, the female leader decided that it was not in the best interest of the athlete-coach relationship to engage them in a dialogue, for the reason that the coach is the boss of his team. Threatening the coach-athlete relationship can put the athlete at risk of punishment for having brought an issue from the playing field to the office of a third party. She also feared that once out of the counseling session, the athlete might be at risk for harm from an abuse of power on the part of the coach. Unlike a parent or partner, who has an emotional investment in the relationship between client and other, often athletes are "disposable," which highlights limitations because the situation  71  may put the athlete at risk for punishment (i.e., less playing time or less funding). In a sense, the female leader felt as though she herself was overstepping boundaries by intervening in the athlete-coach relationship. Another interesting and related issue that was raised concerned the allegiance of the sport psychologist. The concern that was raised in the interviews involving the sport psychologists was the lack of clarity with respect to their responsibilities. Whose interests do they serve? Whose interests do they need to protect? Boundaries can be violated physically, psychosocially, and interpersonally (Brown, 1991). Both explained that when the psychologist is hired by a coach to work with a team, she often becomes aware of personal problems and issues of concerns to individual athletes. The coach is keenly interested in knowing what the problems are with his/her athletes as a functioning part of the team. Divulging this information, however, is a breach of confidentiality between the athlete and the sport psychologist, regardless of her being employed by the coach. How does she balance the issue of confidentiality while at the same time providing information to the coach to improve team interaction and performance in competitions? How does she protect the interests of the athletes? According to the most current ethical standards in the CPA, it is important for the counselor to determine ahead of time "who is the client?" In this case the client is the athlete, regardless of who pays for the service. Clarity on this would avoid the risk of a dual relationship where confidentiality is unclear. Although she is not intimately involved with an athlete or coach the psychologist is still in a balancing act of helping the athlete to excel, while protecting his/her confidentiality, yet providing the coach with enough information about the progress of his/her athlete. It should be clear what specific information the athlete  72  feels comfortable about sharing with the coach, because any unauthorized sharing of information from sport psychologist to coach is a breach of confidentiality. Overall, the interviews yielded some very important insights into the concerns raised by the experiences of female leaders working in elite sport. Limited funding and limited support from staff administrators were both deemed problematic for female leaders. Another sensitive issue was in relation to having their credibility discounted, particularly when it is in their area of expertise. The leaders reported important concerns around boundary issues and relationship issues. It is apparent from these interviews that although the leaders made conscious efforts to guard against engaging in controversial relationships, they did report that such activities do take place in the sport arena. Clearly, at this time there is little enforcing of widely acceptable ethical constraints. The clinical sport psychologist who must be registered by a regulating body is one of the few who work in an area of sport governed by a strict sanctioned code of ethics. The Coaching Association of Canada has created a code of conduct, however there is no regulating body to enforce it. The issues discussed raised in the interviews were ones that have been in on-going debates in society and sport circles, with no hard and fast solutions. The following chapter provides concluding remarks and offers recommendations for future research.  73  C H A P T E R VI CONCLUSIONS  This pilot study demonstrates the need for more research in the areas of gender, boundary issues, and relationship issues in high performance sport. Although this was only a pilot study, we believe that a large-scale study where many more female sport psychologists are interviewed will further our understanding of their experiences and provide valuable data to effect change in a system that is in need of reform. Other female leaders involved in sport, such as athletic therapists, female sport medicine physicians, female sport administrators, and female coaches, to name only a few, could also provide valuable information about their experiences in high performance sport and should also be considered for future interviews when a larger study similar to this one is undertaken. This study reinforced the claims of literature that highlights boundary issues and relationship issues as continually prevalent in sport. It demonstrated that athletes, like clients in a counseling setting, are in a vulnerable position when the individual (i.e. coach or sport psychologist) they seek guidance from, uses his/her power for self-interest over the good of an individual or team. Equally harmful is undermining the credibility of female sport leaders by maintaining out-of-date sexist views of women. Equal opportunity, equal funding and accessibility to playtime would greatly help female athletes and women's teams to gain opportunities and the recognition they deserve for the athletic skills they possess. Several very important points were not mentioned in the interviews, however they are worthwhile mentioning here. All the women interviewed acknowledged that they were aware  74  of issues such as a male coach being intimate with a female athlete, a female coach with a female athlete, a male coach with a male athlete, and a female coach with a male athlete. Although they were aware of this, in the interview they conveyed to me that they knew this was ethically and morally wrong and it bothered them, but they did not do anything about it. If they wanted to report this, they were not even sure who to report it to, and if there was someone to report this information to, the whistle- blower often is the one who is let go, rather than the people involved in the activity in question. In addition, there are codes of ethics in place to-day, however there is no one to enforce the codes, so they viewed the code of ethics as being a potentially valuable tool but ineffective. It still needs to be taught to all those professionals working directly with athletes in addition to there being in place a place to report a breach of the code and enforce ethical decisions. Another important point that was absent from the interviews was the question of drug abuse use of (performance enhancing drugs) by athletes, either behind the back of the coach or with encouragement from the coach. The sport psychologist may become aware of this, and be faced with a dilemma. These are issues that are very much at the forefront of the sports media, however they were interestingly, absent from the immediate concerns expressed by these women who are working directly in sport. The issues may be absentfromthe interview data because the interview questions focused primarily on issues such as relationship and boundary issues and did not leave it open enough to add other ethical dilemmas that these women many have faced in the course of their career. This pilot study demonstrated that female leaders have an abundance of information and skills regarding their experience in high performance sport. These women have a wealth  75  of information and knowledge to share and to pass along to all those with whom they work and those they mentor as part of their profession. In the future, a study that interviews larger numbers of female leaders will yield additional valuable information that can equip administrators, coaches, and teams with the knowledge of ethical decision-making and enforcement needed to ensure that their expertise is treated with respect. Use of other methodologies such as questionnaires and focus group will help to complement the one-onone interviews and provide additional insight that face-to-face interviews may not have touched upon. There is good of important information to be gained from further investigation and hopefully this will be undertaken in the near future.  76  REFERENCES Andersen, M. (2000). Doing sport psychology. Champaign, II: Human Kinetics. Berlow, L. (1994). Sport ethics. Santa Barbara, Ca: ABC-CLIC, Inc. Brabeck, M. (2000). Practicing feminist ethics in psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Brown, L. (1991). Boundaries in feminist therapy: A conceptual formulation. Women & Therapy, 15, 29-38. Brown, L. (1991). Ethical issues in feminist therapy. Psychology of Women Quarterly. 15. 323-326. Card, C. (1991). Feminist ethics. Kansas: University Press of Kansas. Corey, G., Corey, M., & Callanan, P. (1995). Issues and ethics in the helping professions. (4 ed.), Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole. th  Costa, M. D., & Guthrie, S, R. (1994). Women and sport. Ontario: Human Kinetics. Dorland's Medical Dictionary. (1988). Philadelphia: Saunders. Enns, C. (1993). Twenty years of feminist counseling and therapy. The Counseling Psychologist. 21. 3-87. Gill, D., L. (1994). A feminist perspective on sport psychology practice. The Sport Psychologist. 8. 411-426. Gottlieb, M. (1993). Avoiding exploitive dual-relationships" a decision-making model. Psychotherapy, 30, 41-49. Gough, R. W. (1997). Character is everything. New York: Harcourt Brace College Publishers. Guthrie, T., & Gabbard, G. (1993). The concept of boundaries in clinical practice: theoretical and risk-management dimensions. American Journal of Psychiatry, 150. 188-196. Haney, C , Bonita L., & Howell-Jones, G. (1998). Coaching as a Profession: Ethical concerns. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 10, 240-250. Keith-Spiegel, P., & Koocher, G. (1995). Ethics in psychology. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.  77  Krane, V. (1994). A feminist perspective on contemporary sport psychology research. The Sport Psychologist 8, 393-410. Krueger, R. (1994). Focus groups. (2 ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. nd  Lumpkin, A., Stoll, S., K., & Beller, J. (1994). Sport ethics. New York: Mosby. Malloy, C , Ross, S., & Zakus, D. (2000). Sport ethics. New York: TEP. Marshall, C , & Rossman, G. (1995). Designing qualitative research. (2 Ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. nd  McKay, J., Messner, M., & Sabo, D.. (2000). Masculinities, gender relations and sport. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications LTD. McNamee, M., & Parry, S. (1998). Ethics and sport. New York: Routledge. Morgan, W., Meier, K., & Schneider, A. (2001). Ethics in sport. Ontario: Human Kinetics. Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. 2 Ed.). CA: nd  Sage. Pope, K. (1988). How clients are harmed by sexual contact with mental health professional. Journal of Counseling and Development, 67, 222-226. Pope, K., & Vasquez, M. (1998). Ethics in psychotherapy and counseling. (2 ed.), San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. nd  Porter, E. (1999). Feminist perspectives on ethics. New York: Longman. Rave, E., & Larsen, C. (1995). Ethical decision making in therapy. New York: The Guilford Press. Schank, J., & Skovholt, T. (1997). Dual-relationship dilemmas of rural and smallcommunity psychologists. Professional Psychology, 28, 44-50. Seu, M. (1988). Sex with therapy clients: its prevalence, potential consequences, and implications for psychology training. Professional Psychology, 17, 44-49. Shea, E. (1996). Ethical decisions in sport. Springfield, II: Charles C. Thomas, Publishers.  78  Shogan, D. (1992). Feminist ethics. Toronto: Canadian Scholar's Press. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1988). Basics of qualitative research. (2 ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. nd  Tannsjo, T., & Tamburrini, C. (2000). Values in sport. London: E & FN Spon. Van Raalte, J., & Brewer, B. (1996). Exploring sport and exercise psychology. Washington: American Psychological Association. Weinberg, G. (1995). Foundations of sport and exercise psychology. Champaign, II: Human Kinetics. Yiannakis, A., & Melnick, J. M. (2001). Contemporary issues in sociology of sport. Ontario: Human Kinetics.  THE  UNIVERSITY  OF BRITISH  C O L U M B I A  APPENDIX A I n f o r m e d Consent F o r m  Dear Faculty Member, I am currently working on my Master's Degree at the University of British Columbia (UBC) at the Center for Women's Studies and Gender Relations, under the supervision of the department's chairperson, Dr. Valerie Raoul. I am initiating a research project examining ethical concerns of female sport psychologists. The title of my research project is "A Feminist Appraisal of Ethical Concerns in Sport Psychology - A Pilot Study". By speaking to you, I would like to learn more about your experiences as a female sport psychologist and the ethical concerns that may be raised as part of your experiences as a woman working in the field of sport psychology. This research study involves your voluntary participation for one personal interview to discuss your work experiences. The interview session will be approximately 15 minutes in duration and with your consent, it will be tape-recorded for later transcription. The purpose of this form is to inform you about the project and to obtain your consent for participation. Please be advised that your participation is strictly voluntary and you may withdraw your participation at any time without jeopardy to your employment or standing in the community. Confidentiality is ensured as the names of all study participants and the specifics about your organization will not be identified when the results are reported. The tapes and transcripts will be kept in a locked filing cabinet in the office of the principal investigator and only she has the key to it. Your name and affiliation will be destroyed and will be replaced by a random code that cannot be traced back to any identifying information. If you have any questions about this project now or during the course of the study, please feel free to contact me at (604) 255-9329 or Dr. Valerie Raoul at (604) 822-9175. If you have any questions about your treatment orrightsas a study participant, please do not hesitate to contact the Director of the UBC Research Services and Administration at (604) 822-8598.  82 APPENDIX B  Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists Third Edition To order print copies, click here!  Print copies of this CPA document are available for $10 C D N (members), $15 (non-members) + shipping and applicable taxes. Table of Contents Preamble  • • . •• • • • • • • •  Introduction Structure and Derivation of Code When Principles Conflict The Ethical Decision-Making Process Uses of the Code Responsibility of the Individual Psychologist Relationship of Code to Personal Behaviour Relationship of Code to Provincial Regulatory Bodies Definition of Terms Review Schedule  Principle I: Respect for the Dignity of Persons  • Values Statement • • Ethical Standards • General respect • General rights • Non-discrimination • Fair treatment/due process • Informed consent: • Freedom of consent • Protections for vulnerable persons • Privacy • Confidentiality • Extended responsibility Principle II: Responsible Caring  • •  Values Statement Ethical Standards  •  General caring  • • • • •.  Competence and self-knowledge Risk/benefit analysis Maximize benefit Minimize harm Offset/correct harm  83 • •  Care of animals Extended responsibility  P r i n c i p l e I I I : Integrity i n Relationships  • Values Statement • • . Ethical Standards • Accuracy/honesty • . • Obi ecti vi t v/1 ack of bi a s • Straightforwardness/openness • Avoidance of incomplete disclosure • Avoidance of conflict of interest • Reliance on the discipline • Extended responsibility P r i n c i p l e I V : R e s p o n s i b i l i t y to Society  • • • • • • •  Values Statement Ethical Standards Development of knowledge Beneficial activities Respect for society Development of society Extended responsibility CPA Publications / CPA Homepage  C a n a d i a n C o d e o f E t h i c s for Psychologists Introduction  (return to top) Every discipline that has relatively autonomous control over its entry requirements, training, development of knowledge, standards, methods, and practices does so only within the context of a contract with the society in which it functions. This social contract is based on attitudes of mutual respect and trusty with society granting support for the autonomy of a discipline in exchange for a commitment by the discipline to do everything it can to assure that its members act ethically in conducting the affairs of the discipline within society; in particular, a commitment to try to assure that each member will place the welfare of the society and individual members of that society above the welfare of the discipline and its own members. By virtue of this social contract, psychologists have a higher duty of care to members of society than the general duty of care that all members of society have to each other. The Canadian Psychological Association recognizes its responsibility to help assure ethical behaviour and attitudes on the part of psychologists. Attempts to assure ethical behaviour and attitudes include articulating ethical principles, values, and standards; promoting those principles, values, and standards through education, npp.r mnHallina nnH consultation* Hp.v<"0onino anH imnl^mp.ntina mf'thons tn hpln ncvrrtnloaictc monitor the  84  ethics of their behaviour and attitudes; adjudicating complaints of unethical behaviour; and, taking corrective action when warranted. This Code articulates ethical principles, values, and standards to guide all members of the Canadian Psychological Association, whether scientists, practitioners, or scientist practitioners, or whether acting in a research, direct service, teaching, student, trainee, administrative, management, employer, employee, supervisory, consultative, peer review, editorial, expert witness, social policy, or any other role related to the discipline of psychology.  Structure and Derivation of Code (return to top) Structure. Four ethical principles, to be considered arid balanced in ethical decision making, are presented. Each principle is followed by a statement of those values that are included in and give definition to the principle. Each values statement is followed by a list of ethical standards that illustrate the application of the specific principle and values to the activities of psychologists. The standards range from minimal behavioural expectations (e.g., Standards L28,11.28, III.33, IV.27) to more idealized, but achievable, attitudinal and behaviouralexpectations (e.g., Standards 1.12,11.12,111.10, IV.6). In the margin, to the left of the standards, key words are placed to guide the reader through the standards and to illustrate the relationship, of the specific standards to the values statement. Derivation. The four principles represent those ethical principles used most consistently by Canadian psychologists to resolve hypothetical ethical dilemmas sent to them by the CPA Committee on Ethics during the initial development of the Code. In addition to the responses provided by Canadian psychologists, the values statements and ethical standards have been derived from interdisciplinary and international ethics codes, provincial and specialty codes of conduct, and ethics literature.  When Principles Conflict (return to top)  Principle I: Respect for the Dignity of Persons. This principle, with its emphasis  on moral rights, generally should be given the highest weight, except in circumstances in which there is a clear and imminent danger to the physical safety of any person. Principle II: Responsible Caring. This principle generally should be given the second highest weight. Responsible caring requires competence and should be carried out only in ways that respect the dignity of persons. Principle III: Integrity in Relationships. This principle generally should be given the third highest weight. Psychologists are expected to demonstrate the highest integrity in all of their relationships: However, in rare circumstances, values such as openness and straightforwardness might need to be subordinated to the values contained in the Principles of Respect for the Dignity of Persoris and Responsible Caring.  Principle IV: Responsibility to Society. This principle generally should be given the lowest weight  of the four principles when it conflicts with one or more of them. Although it is necessary and important to consider responsibility to society in every ethical decision, adherence to this principle must be subject to and guided by Respect for the Dignity of Persons, Responsible Caring, and Integrity in Relationships. When a person's welfare appears to conflict with benefits to society, it is often possible to find ways of working for the benefit of society that do not violate respect and responsible caring for the person. However, if this is not possible, the dignity and well-being of a person should not be sacrificed to a vision of the greater good of society, and greater weight must be given to respect and responsible caring for the person.  85  Even with the above ordering of the principles, psychologists will be faced with ethical dilemmas that are difficult to resolve. In these circumstances, psychologists are expected to engage in an ethical decision-making process that is explicit enough to bear public scrutiny. In some cases, resolution might be a matter of personal conscience. However, decisions of personal conscience are also expected to be the result of a decision-making process that is based on a reasonably coherent set of ethical principles and that can bear public scrutiny. If the psychologist can demonstrate that every reasonable effort was made to apply the ethical principles of this Code and resolution of the conflict has had to depend on the personal conscience of the psychologist, such a psychologist would be deemed to have followed this Code. The Ethical Decision-Making Process (return to top) The ethical decision-making process might occur very rapidly, leading to an easy resolution of an ethical issue. This is particularly true of issues for which clear-cut guidelines or standards exist and for which there is no conflict between principles. On the other hand, some ethical issues (particularly those in which ethical principles conflict) are not easily resolved, might be emotionally distressful, and might require time-consuming deliberation. The following basic steps typify approaches to ethical decision making: 1. 2.  Identification of the individuals and groups potentially affected by the decision. Identification of ethically relevant issues and practices, including the interests, rights, and any relevant characteristics of the individuals and groups involved and of the system or circumstances in which the ethical problem arose. 3. Consideration of how personal biases, stresses, or self-interest might influence the development of or choice between courses of action. 4. Development of alternative courses of action. 5. Analysis of likely short-term, ongoing, and long-term risks and benefits of each course of action on the individual(s)/group(s) involved or likely to be affected (e.g., client, client's family or employees, employing institution, students, research participants, colleagues, the discipline, society, self). 6. Choice of course of action after conscientious application of existing principles, values, and standards. 7. Action, with a commitment to assume responsibility for the consequences of the action. 8. Evaluation of the results of the course of action. 9. Assumption of responsibility for consequences of action, including correction of negative consequences, if any, or re-engaging in the decision-making process if the ethical issue is not resolved. 10. Appropriate action, as warranted and feasible, to prevent future occurrences of the dilemma (e.g., communication and problem solving with colleagues; changes in procedures and practices). Psychologists engaged in time-consuming deliberation are encouraged and expected to consult with parties affected by the ethical problem, when appropriate, and with colleagues and/or advisory bodies when such persons can add knowledge or objectivity to the decision-making process. Although the decision for action remains with the individual psychologist, the seeking and consideration of such assistance reflects an ethical approach to ethical decision making. Uses of the Code (return to top) This Code is intended to guide psychologists in their everyday conduct, thinking, and planning, and in the resolution of ethical dilemmas; that is, it advocates the practice of both proactive and reactive ethics. TVtP. Onrip a l s o  I'Q  irttpnHp.H t n  QPTVP  as a n limr.rp.lla H n n i m p n t f o r trip, n p . v p l n n m p n t o f pnnlp*; rvf rnnn'iip.t r»r n t h p r  86  more specific codes. For example, the Code could be used as an ethical framework for the identification of behaviours that would be considered enforceable in a jurisdiction, the violation of which would constitute misconduct; or, jurisdictions could identify those standards in the Code that would be considered of a more serious nature and, therefore, reportable and subject to possible discipline. In addition, the principles and values could be used to help specialty areas develop standards that are specific to those areas. Some work in this direction has already occurred within C P A (e.g., Guidelines for the Use of Animals in Research and Instruction in Psychology, Guidelines for Non-Discriminatory Practice, Guidelines for Psychologists in Addressing Recovered Memories). The principles and values incorporated into this Code, insofar as they come to be reflected in other documents guiding the behaviour of psychologists, will reduce inconsistency and conflict between documents. A third use of the Code is to assist in the adjudication of complaints against psychologists. A body charged with this responsibility is required to investigate allegations, judge whether unacceptable behaviour has occurred, and determine what corrective action should be taken. In judging whether unacceptable conduct has occurred, many jurisdictions refer to a code of conduct. Some complaints, however, are about conduct that is not addressed directly in a code of conduct. The Code provides an ethical framework for determining whether the complaint is of enough concern, either at the level of the individual psychologist or at the level of the profession as a whole, to warrant corrective action (e.g., discipline of the individual psychologist, general educational activities for members, or incorporation into the code of conduct). In determining corrective action for an individual psychologist, one of the judgments the adjudicating body needs to make iswhether an individual conscientiously engaged in an ethical decision-making process and acted in good faith, or whether there was a negligent or willful disregard of ethical principles. The articulation of the ethical decision-making process contained in this Code provides guidance for making such judgements. Responsibility of the Individual Psychologist  (return to top) The discipline's contract with society commits the discipline and its members to act as a moral community that develops its efhicalawareness and sensitivity, educates new members in the ethics of the discipline, manages its affairs and its members in an ethical manner, is as self-correcting as possible, and is accountable both internally and externally. However, responsibility for ethical action depends foremost on the integrity of each individual psychologist; that is, on each psychologist's commitment to behave as ethically as possible in every situation. Acceptance to membership in the Canadian Psychological Association, a scientific and professional association of psychologists, commits members: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.  6.  7. 8.  To adhere to the Association's Code in all current activities as a psychologist. To apply conscientiously the ethical principles and values of the Code to new and emerging areas of activity. To assess and discuss ethical issues and practices with colleagues on a regular basis. To bring to the attention of the Association ethical issues that require clarification or the development of new guidelines or standards. To bring concerns about possible unethical actions by a psychologist directly to the psychologist when the action appears to be primarily a lack of sensitivity, knowledge, or experience, and attempt to reach an agreement on the issue and, if needed, on the appropriate action to be taken. . To bring concerns about possible unethical actions of a more serious nature (e.g., actions that have caused or could cause serious harm, or actions that are considered misconduct in the jurisdiction) to the person(s) or body(ies) best suited to investigating the situation and to stopping or offsetting the harm. To consider seriously others' concerns about one's own possibly unethical actions and attempt to reach an agreement on the issue and, if needed, take appropriate action. In bringing or in responding to concerns about possible unethical actions, not to be vexatious or malicious.  87  9.  To cooperate with duly constituted committees of the Association that are concerned with ethics and ethical conduct.  Relationship of Code to Personal Behaviour (return to top) This Code is intended to guide and regulate only those activities a psychologist engages in by virtue of being a psychologist. There is no intention to guide or regulate a psychologist's activities outside of this context. Personal behaviour becomes a concern of the discipline only if it is of such a nature that it undermines public trust in the discipline as a whole or if it raises questions about the psychologist's ability to carry out appropriately his/her responsibilities as a psychologist. Relationship of Code to Provincial Regulatory Bodies (return to top) In exercising its responsibility to articulate ethical principles, values, and standards for those who wish to become and remain members in good standing, the Canadian Psychological Association recognizes the multiple memberships that some psychologists have (both regulatory and voluntary). The Code has attempted to encompass and incorporate those ethical principles most prevalent in the discipline as a whole, thereby minimizing the possibility of variance with provincial/territorial regulations and guidelines. Psychologists are expected to respect the requirements of their provincial/territorial regulatory bodies. Such requirements might define particular behaviours that constitute misconduct, are reportable fo the regulatory body, and/or are subject to discipline. Definition of Terms For the purposes of this Code: "Psychologist" means any person who is a Fellow, Member, Student Affiliate or Foreign Affiliate of the Canadian Psychological Association, or a member of any psychology voluntary association or regulatory body adopting this Code. (Readers are reminded that provincial/territorial jurisdictions might restrict the legal use of the term psychologist in their jurisdiction and that such restrictions are to be honoured.) "Client" means an individual, family, or group (including an organization or community) receiving service from a psychologist. Clients, research participants, students, and any other persons with whom psychologists come in contact in the course of their work, are "independent" if they can independently contract or give informed consent. Such persons are "partially dependent" if the decision to contract or give informed consent is shared between two or more parties (e.g., parents arid school boards, workers and Workers' Compensation Boards, adult members of a family). Such persons are considered to be "fully dependent" if they have little or no choice about whether or not to receive service or participate in an activity (e.g., patients who have been involuntarily committed to a psychiatric facility, or very young children involved in a research project). "Others" means any persons with whom psychologists come in contact in the course of their work. This may include, but is not limited to: clients seeking help with individual, family, organizational, industrial, or community issues; research participants; employees; students; trainees; supervisees; colleagues; employers; third party payers; and, members of the general public. "Legal or civil rights" means those rights protected under laws and statutes recognized by the province or territory in which the psychologist is working. "Moral rights" means fundamental and inalienable human rights that might or might not be fully nmt&r.tF'A  hv p-Yistina lawc qnrl ctatnt^c Of nartimlar cianifir.anrp. to ncvrhnlnaistQ for pvamnlp ar*-*  88  rights to: distributive justice; fairness and due process; and, developmentally appropriate privacy, selfdetermination, and personal liberty. Protection of some aspects of these rights might involve practices that are not contained or controlled within current laws and statutes. Moral rights are not limited to those mentioned in this definition. g.  "Unjust discrimination" or "unjustly discriminatory" means activities that are prejudicial or promote prejudice to persons because of their culture, nationality, ethnicity, colour, race, rejigion, sex, gender, marital status, sexual orientation, physical or mental abilities, age, socio-economic status, or any other preference or personal characteristic, condition, or status.  h.  "Sexual harassment" includes either or both of the following: (i) The use of power or authority in an attempt to coerce another person to engage in or tolerate sexual activity. Such uses include explicit or implicit threats of reprisal for noncompliance, or promises of reward for compliance, (ii) Engaging in deliberate and/or repeated unsolicited sexually oriented comments, anecdotes, gestures, or touching, if such behaviours: are offensive and unwelcome; create an offensive, hostile, or. intimidating working, learning, or service environment; or, can be expected to be harmful to the recipient. The "discipline of psychology" refers to the scientific and applied methods and knowledge of psychology, and to the structures and procedures used by its members for conducting their work in relationship to society, to members of the public, to students or trainees, and to each other. 1  i.  Review Schedule (return to top) To maintain the relevance and responsiveness of this Code, it will be reviewed regularly by the CPA Board of Directors, and revised as needed. You are invited to forward comments and suggestions, at any time, to the C P A office. In addition to psychologists, this invitation is extended to all readers, including members of the public and other disciplines. Principle I: Respect for the Dignity of Persons Values Statement (return to top) In the course of their work as scientists, practitioners, or scientist-practitioners, psychologists come into contact with many different individuals and groups, including: research participants; clients seeking help with individual, family, organizational, industrial, or community issues; students; trainees; supervisees; employees; business partners; business competitors; colleagues; employers; third party payers; and, the general public. In these contacts, psychologists accept as fundamental the principle of respect for the dignity of persons; that is, the belief that each person should be treated primarily as a person or an end in him/herself, not as an object or a means to an end. In so doing, psychologists acknowledge that all persons have a right to have their innate worth as human beings appreciated and that this worth is not dependent upon their culture, nationality, ethnicity, colour, race, religion, sex, gender, marital status, sexual orientation, physical or mental abilities, age, socioeconomic status, or any other preference or personal characteristic, condition, or status. Although psychologists have a responsibility to respect the dignity of all persons with whom they come in contact in their role as psychologists, the nature of their contract with society demands that their greatest responsibility be to those persons in the most vulnerable position. Normally, persons directly receiving or involved in the psychologist's activities are in such a position (e.g., research participants, clients, students). This responsibility is almost always greater than their responsibility to those indirectly involved (e.g., employers, third party payers, the general public). AHhprpnr.p tn trip r.nnrp.nt n f mnrnl riohtQ IQ  psspntial rnmnnnp.nt n f rp.snprt fnr trip Hionitv n f nprsnnc Riontc  89  to privacy, self-determination, personal liberty, and natural justice are of particular importance to psychologists, and they have a responsibility to protect and promote these rights in all of their activities. As such, psychologists have a responsibility to develop and follow procedures for informed consent, confidentiality, fair treatment, and due process that are consistent with those rights. As individual rights exist within the context of the rights of others and of responsible caring (see Principle II), there might be circumstances in which the possibility of serious detrimental consequences to themselves or others, a diminished capacity to be autonomous, or a court order, would disallow some aspects of the rights to privacy, self-determination, and personal liberty. Indeed, such circumstances might be serious enough to create a duty to warn or protect others (see Standards 1.45 and 11.39). However, psychologists still have a responsibility to respect the rights of the persoh(s) involved to the greatest extent possible under the circumstances, and to do what is necessary and reasonable to reduce the need for future disallowances. Psychologists recognize that, although all persons possess moral rights, the manner in which such rights are promoted, protected, and exercised varies across communities and cultures. For instance, definitions of what is considered private vary, as does the role of families and other community members in personal decision making. In their work, psychologists acknowledge and respect such differences, while guarding against clear violations of moral rights. In addition, psychologists recognize that as individual, family, group, or community vulnerabilities increase, or as the power of persons to control their environment or their lives decreases, psychologists have an increasing responsibility to seek ethical advice and to establish safeguards to protect the rights of the persons involved. For this reason, psychologists consider it their responsibility to increase safeguards to protect and promote the rights of persons involved in their activities proportionate to the degree of dependency and the lack of voluntary initiation. For example, this would mean that there would be more safeguards to protect and promote the rights of fully dependent persons than partially dependent persons, and more safeguards for partially dependent than independent persons. Respect for the dignity of persons also includes the concept of distributive justice. With respect to psychologists, this concept implies that all persons are entitled to benefit equally from the contributions of psychology and to equal quality in the processes, procedures, and services being conducted by psychologists, regardless of the person's characteristics, condition, or status. Although individual psychologists might specialize and direct their activities to particular populations, or might decline to engage in activities based on the limits of their competence or acknowledgment of problems in some relationships, psychologists must not exclude persons on a capricious or unjustly discriminatory basis. By virtue of the social contract that the discipline has with society, psychologists have a higher duty of care to members of society than the general duty of care all members of society have to each other. However, psychologists are entitled to protect themselves from serious violations of their own moral rights (e.g., privacy, personal liberty) in carrying out their work as psychologists. Ethical Standards (return to top) In adhering to the Principle of Respect for the Dignity of Persons, psychologists would: General respect (return to top)  1 1 np.mnnQtratp. annrrtnriatp rpsnpp.t for thp VnnwlpHop insioht PYnp.riprirp anH arpac nf  expertise of others. 1.2 Not engage publicly (e.g., in public statements, presentations, research reports, or with clients) in degrading comments about others, including demeaning jokes based on such characteristics as culture, nationality, ethnicity, colour, race, religion, sex, gender, or sexual orientation. 1.3 Strive to use language that conveys respect for the dignity of persons as much as possible in all written or oral communication. 1.4 Abstain from all forms of harassment, including sexual harassment. General rights (return to top) 1.5 Avoid or refuse to participate in practices disrespectful of the legal, civil, or moral rights of others. 1.6 Refuse to advise, train, or supply information to anyone who, in the psychologist's judgement, will use the knowledge or skills to infringe on human rights. 1.7 Make every reasonable effort to ensure that psychological knowledge is not misused, intentionally or unintentionally, to infringe on human rights. 1.8 Respect the right of research participants, clients, employees, supervisees, students, trainees, and others to safeguard their own dignity. Non-discrimination (return to top) 1.9 Not practice, condone, facilitate, or collaborate with any form of unjust discrimination. 1.10 Act to correct practices that are unjustly discriminatory. 1.11 Seek to design research, teaching, practice, and business activities in such a way that they contribute to the fair distribution of benefits to individuals and groups, and that they do not unfairly exclude those who are vulnerable or might be disadvantaged. Fair treatment/due process (return to top) 1.12 Work and act in a spirit of fair treatment to others. 1.13 Help to establish and abide by due process or other natural justice procedures for employment, evaluation, adjudication, editorial, and peer review activities. T 14 r n m n p n i a t p nthp.n; fairlv fr»r the*, ncp. r*.f th^ir tima pnprov anH Vr\c\\\i\p.t\ap: unices snr.h  91  compensation is refused in advance. 1.15 Establish fees that are fair in light of the time, energy, and knowledge of the psychologist and any associates or employees, and in light of the market value of the product or service. (Also see Standard IV. 12.)  Informed consent (return to top) 1.16 Seek as full and active participation as possible from others in decisions that affect them, respecting and integrating as much as possible their opinions and wishes. 1.17 Recognize that informed consent is the result of a process of reaching an agreement to work collaboratively, rather than of simply having a consent form signed. 1.18 Respect the expressed wishes of persons to involve others (e.g., family members, community members) in their decision making regarding informed consent. This would include respect for written and clearly expressed unwritten advance directives. 1.19 Obtain informed consent from all independent and partially dependent persons for any psychological services provided to them except in circumstances of urgent need (e.g., disaster or other crisis). In urgent circumstances, psychologists would proceed with the assent of such persons, but fully informed consent would be obtained as soon as possible. (Also see Standard 1.29.) 1.20 Obtain informed consent for all research activities that involve obtrusive measures, invasion of privacy, more than minimal risk of harm, or any attempt to change the behaviour of research participants. 1.21 Establish and use signed consent forms that specify the dimensions of informed consent or that acknowledge that such dimensions have been explained and are understood, if such forms are required by law or if such forms are desired by the psychologist, the person(s) giving consent, or the organization for whom the psychologist works. 1.22 Accept and document oral consent, in situations in which signed consent forms are not acceptable culturally or in which there are other good reasons for not using them. 1.23 Provide, in obtaining informed consent, as much information as reasonable or prudent persons would want to know before making a decision or consenting to the activity. The psychologist would relay this information in language that the persons understand (including providing translation into another language, if necessary) and would take whatever reasonable steps are needed to ensure that the information was, in fact, understood. 1.24 Ensure, in the process of obtaining informed consent, that at least the following points are understood: purpose and nature of the activity; mutual responsibilities; confidentiality protections and limitations; likely benefits and risks; alternatives; the likely consequences of non-action; the option to refuse or withdraw at any time, without prejudice; over what period of time the consent applies; and, how to rescind consent if desired. (Also see Standards III.2330.) I 9S P r v w i H p r i p w i n f o r m a t i o n i n a timp.1v mannp.r whp.np.vfvr Qiirh i n f o r m a t i o n ViP.rompis  available and is significant enough that it reasonably could be seen as relevant to the original or ongoing informed consent. 1.26 Clarify the nature of multiple relationships to all concerned parties before obtaining consent, if providing services to or conducting research at the request or for the use of third parties. This would include, but not be limited to: the purpose of the service or research; the reasonably anticipated use that will be made of information collected; and, the limits on confidentiality. Third parties may include schools, courts, government agencies, insurance companies, police, and special funding bodies.  Freedom of consent (return to top) 1.27 Take all reasonable steps to ensure that consent is not given under conditions of coercion, undue pressure, or undue reward. (Also see Standard 111.32.) 1.28 Not proceed with any research activity, if consent is given under any condition of coercion, undue pressure, or undue reward. (Also see Standard III.32.) 1.29 Take all reasonable steps to confirm or re-establish freedom of consent, if consent for service is given under conditions of duress or conditions of extreme need. 1.30 Respect the right of persons to discontinue participation or service at any time, and be responsive to non-verbal indications of a desire to discontinue if a person has difficulty with verbally communicating such a desire (e.g., young children, verbally disabled persons) or, due to culture, is unlikely to communicate such a desire orally.  Protections for vulnerable persons (return to top) 1.31 Seek an independent and adequate ethical review of human rights issues and protections for any research involving members of vulnerable groups, including persons of diminished capacity to give informed consent, before making a decision to proceed. 1.32 Not use persons of diminished capacity to give informed consent in research studies, if the research involved may be carried out equally well with persons who have a fuller capacity to give informed consent. 1.33 Seek to use methods that maximize the understanding and ability to consent of persons of diminished capacity to give informed consent, and that reduce the need for a substitute decision maker. 1.34 Carry out informed consent processes with those persons who are legally responsible or appointed to give informed consent on behalf of persons not competent to consent on their own behalf, seeking to ensure respect for any previously expressed preferences of persons not competent to consent. 1.35 Seek willing and adequately informed participation from any person of diminished r.anar*itv t n a i v p i n f n r r n p n rnticpnt a n d n r n p p p H w i t h o u t t h i s a.QCp.nt n n l v i f thp sp.ryir*p o r 1  research activity is considered to be of direct benefit to that person. 1.36 Be particularly cautious in establishing the freedom of consent of any person who is in a dependent relationship to the psychologist (e.g., student, employee). This may include, but is not limited to, offering that person an alternative activity to fulfill their educational or employment goals, or offering a range of research studies or experience opportunities from which the person can select, none of which is so onerous as to be coercive.  Privacy (return to top) 1.37 Seek and collect only information that is germane to the purpose(s) for which consent has been obtained. 1.38 Take care not to infringe, in research, teaching, or service activities, on the personally, developmentally, or culturally defined private space of individuals or groups, unless clear permission is granted to do so. 1.39 Record only that private information necessary for the provision of continuous, coordinated service, or for the goals of the particular research study being conducted, or that is required or justified by law. (Also see Standards IV. 17 andIV.18.) 1.40 Respect the right of research participants, employees, supervisees, students, and trainees to reasonable personal privacy. 1.41 Collect, store, handle, and transfer all private information, whether written or unwritten (e.g., communication during service provision, written records, e-mail or fax communication, computer files, video-tapes), in a way that attends to the needs for privacy and security. This would include having adequate plans for records in circumstances of one's own serious illness, termination of employment, or death. 1.42 Take all reasonable steps to ensure that records over which they have control remain personally identifiable only as long as necessary in the interests of those to whom they refer and/or to the research project for which they were collected, or as required or justified by law (e.g., the possible need to defend oneself against future allegations), and render anonymous or destroy any records under their control that no longer need to be personally identifiable: (Also see Standards IV. 17 and IV. 18.)  Confidentiality (return to top) 1.43 Be careful not to relay information about colleagues, colleagues' clients, research participants, employees, supervisees, students, trainees, and members of organizations, gained in the process of their activities as psychologists, that the psychologist has reason to believe is considered confidential by those persons, except as required or justified by law. (Also see Standards IV. 17 and IV. 18.) 1.44 Clarify what measures will be taken to protect confidentiality, and what responsibilities family, group, and community members have for the protection of each other s ?  rnnfiHp.ntialitv  whp.n p n o n o p H i n sprvir.pc tn n r rp.sp.arrh w i t h i n d i v i d u a l s  families  ornnnc  or  94  communities. 1.45 Share confidential information with others only with the informed consent of those involved, or in a manner that the persons involved cannot be identified, except as required or justified by law, or in circumstances of actual or possible serious physical harm or death. (Also see Standards 11.39, IV. 17, and IV. 18.) Extended responsibility (return to top) 1.46 Encourage others, in a manner consistent with this Code, to respect the dignity of persons and to expect respect for their own dignity. 1.47 Assume overall responsibility for the scientific and professional activities of their assistants, employees, students, supervisees, and trainees with regard to Respect for the Dignity of Persons, all of whom, however, incur similar obligations. Principle II: Responsible Caring Values Statement (return to top) A basic ethical expectation of any discipline is that its activities will benefit members of society or, at least, do no harm. Therefore, psychologists demonstrate an active concern for the welfare of any individual, family, group, or community with whom they relate in their role as psychologists. This concern includes both those directly involved and those indirectly involved in their activities. However, as with Principle I, psychologists' greatest responsibility is to protect the welfare of those in the most vulnerable position. Normally, persons directly involved in their activities (e.g., research participants, clients, students) are in such a position. Psychologists' responsibility to those indirectly involved (e.g., employers, third party payers, the general public) normally is secondary. As persons usually consider their own welfare in their personal decision making, obtaining informed consent (see Principle I) is one of the best methods for ensuring that their welfare will be protected. However, it is only when such consent is combined with the responsible caring of the psychologist that there is considerable ethical protection of the welfare of the person(s) involved. Responsible caring leads psychologists to take care to discern the potential harm arid benefits involved, to predict the likelihood of their occurrence, to proceed only if the potential benefits outweigh the potential harms, to develop and use methods that will minimize harms and maximize benefits, and to take responsibility for correcting clearly harmful effects that have occurred as a direct result of their research, teaching, practice, or business activities. In order to carry out these steps, psychologists recognize the need for competence and self-knowledge. They consider incompetent action to be unethical per se, as it is unlikely to be of benefit and likely to be harmful. They engage only in those activities in which they have competence or for which they are receiving supervision, and they perform their activities as competently as possible. They acquire, contribute to, and use the existing knowledge most relevant to the best interests of those concerned. They also engage in self-reflection regarding how their own values, attitudes, experiences, and social context (e.g., culture, ethnicity, colour, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, physical and mental abilities, age, and socio-economic status) influence their actions, interpretations, choices, arid recommendations. This is done with the intent of increasing the probability that their activities will henefit artn not harm the inniviniials families  cxrnims, anrl enmrnimities tn. whnm thev relate.  95  in their role as psychologists. Psychologists define harm and benefit in terms of both physical and psychological dimensions. They are concerned about such factors as: social, family, and community relationships; personal and cultural identity; feelings of self-worth, fear, humiliation, interpersonal trust, and cynicism; self-knowledge and general knowledge; and, such factors as physical safety, comfort, pain, and injury. They are concerned about immediate, short-term, and long-term effects. Responsible caring recognizes and respects (e.g., through obtaining informed consent) the ability of individuals, families, groups, and communities to make decisions for themselves and to care for themselves and each other. It does not replace or undermine such ability, nor does it substitute one person's opinion about what is in the best interests of another person for that other person's competent decision making. However, psychologists recognize that, as vulnerabilities increase or as power to control one!s own life decreases, psychologists have an increasing responsibility to protect the well-being of the individual, family, group, or community involved. For this reason, as in Principle 1, psychologists consider it their responsibility to increase safeguards proportionate to the degree of dependency and the lack of voluntary initiation on the part of the persons involved. However, for Principle II, the safeguards are for the well-being of persons rather than for the rights of persons. Psychologists' treatment and use of animals in their research and teaching activities are also a component of responsible caring. Although animals do not have the same moral rights as persons (e.g., privacy), they do have the right to be treated humanely and not to be exposed to unnecessary discomfort, pain, or disruption. By virtue of the social contract that the discipline has with society, psychologists have a higher duty of care to members of society than the general duty of care all members of society have to each other. However, psychologists are entitled to protect their own basic well-being (e.g., physical safety, family relationships) in their work as psychologists. Ethical Standards (return to top) ln adhering to the Principle of Responsible Caring, psychologists would: General caring (retuiijjo top) II. 1 Protect and promote the welfare of clients; research participants, employees, supervisees, students, trainees, colleagues, and others. 11.2 Avoid doing harm to clients, research participants, employees, supervisees, students, trainees, colleagues, and others. 11.3 Accept responsibility for the consequences of their actions. 11.4 Refuse to advise, train, or supply information to anyone who, in the psychologist's judgment, will use the knowledge or skills to harm others. 11.5 Make every reasonable effort to ensure that psychological knowledge is not misused, intentionally or unintentionally, to harm others. Competence and self-knowledge  96  (return to top) 11.6 Offer or carry out (without supervision) only those activities for which they have established their competence to carry them out to the benefit of others. 11.7 Not delegate activities to persons not competent to carry them out to the benefit of others. 11.8 Take immediate steps to obtain consultation or to refer a client to.a colleague or other appropriate professional, whichever is more likely to result in providing the client with competent service, if it becomes apparent that a client's problems are beyond their competence. 11.9 Keep themselves up to date with a broad range of relevant knowledge, research methods, and techniques, and their impact on persons and society, through the reading of relevant literature, peer consultation, and continuing education activities, in order that their service of research activities and conclusions will benefit and not harm others. 11.10 Evaluate how their own experiences, attitudes, culture, beliefs, values, social context, individual differences, specific training, and stresses influence their interactions with others, and integrate this awareness into all efforts to benefit and not harm others. 11.11 Seek appropriate help and/or discontinue scientific or professional activity for an appropriate period of time, if a physical or psychological condition reduces their ability to benefit and not harm others. 11.12 Engage in self-care activities that help to avoid conditions (e.g., burnout, addictions) that could result in impaired judgment and interfere with their ability to benefit and not harm others.  Risk/benefit analysis (return to top) 11.13 Assess the individuals, families, groups, and communities involved in their activities adequately enough to ensure that they will be able to discern what will benefit and not harm the persons involved. 11.14 Be sufficiently sensitive to and knowledgeable about individual, group, cornmunity, and cultural differences and vulnerabilities to discern what will benefit and not harm persons involved in their activities. 11.15 Carry out pilot studies to determine the effects of all new procedures and techniques that might carry more than minimal risk, before considering their use on a broader scale. 11.16 Seek an independent and adequate ethical review of the balance of risks and potential benefits of all research and new interventions that involve procedures of unknown consequence, or where pain, discomfort, or harm are possible, before making a decision to proceed. 11.17 Not carry out any scientific or professional activity unless the probable benefit is proportionately greater than the risk involved.  97  Maximize benefit (return to top) •11.18 Provide services that are coordinated over time and with other service providers, in order to avoid duplication or working at cross purposes. 11.19 Create and maintain records relating to their activities that are sufficient to support continuity and appropriate coordination of their activities with the activities of others. 11.20 Make themselves aware of the knowledge and skills of other disciplines (e.g., law, medicine, business administration) and advise the use of such knowledge and skills, where relevant to the benefit of others. 11.21 Strive to provide and/or obtain the best possible service for those needing and seeking psychological service. This may include, but is not limited to: selecting interventions that are relevant to the needs and characteristics of the client and that have reasonable theoretical of empirically-supported efficacy in light of those needs and Characteristics; consulting with, or including in service delivery, persons relevant to the culture or belief systems of those served; advocating on behalf of the client; and, recommending professionals other than psychologists when appropriate. 11.22 Monitor and evaluate the effect of their activities, record their findings, and communicate new knowledge to relevant others. 11.23 Debrief research participants in such a way that the participants' knowledge is enhanced and the participants have a sense of contribution to knowledge. (Also see Standards III.26 and 111.27.) 11.24 Perform their teaching duties on the basis of careful preparation, so that their instruction is current and scholarly. 11.25 Facilitate the professional and scientific development of their employees, supervisees, students, and trainees by ensuring that these persons understand the values and ethical prescriptions of the discipline, and by providing or arranging for adequate working conditions, timely evaluations, and constructive consultation and experience opportunities. 11.26 Encourage and assist students in publication of worthy student papers. Minimize harm (return to top) 11.27 Be acutely aware of the power relationship in therapy and, therefore, not encourage or engage in sexual intimacy with therapy clients, neither during therapy, nor for that period of time following therapy during which the power relationship reasonably could be expected to influence the client's personal decision making. (Also see Standard 111.31.) 11.28 Not encourage or engage in sexual intimacy with students or trainees with whom the psychologist has an evaluative or other relationship of direct authority. (Also see Standard 111.31.)  11.29 Be careful not to engage in activities in a way that could place incidentally involved persons at risk. 11.30 Be acutely aware of the need for discretion in the recording and communication of information, in order that the information not be misinterpreted or misused to the detriment of others. This includes, but is not limited to: not recording information that could lead to misinterpretation and misuse; avoiding conjecture; clearly labelling opinion; and, communicating information in language that can be understood clearly by the recipient of the information. 11.31 Give reasonable assistance to secure needed psychological services or activities, if personally unable to meet requests for needed psychological services or activities. 11.32 Provide a client, if appropriate and if desired by the client, with reasonable assistance to find a way to receive needed services in the event that third party payments are exhausted and the client cannot afford the fees involved. 11.33. Maintain appropriate contact, support, and responsibility for caring until a colleague or other professional begins service, if referring a client to a colleague or other professional. 11.34 Give reasonable notice and be reasonably assured that discontinuation will cause no harm to the client, before discontinuing services. 11.35 Screen appropriate research participants and select those least likely to be harmed, if more than minimal risk of harm to some research participants is possible. 11.36 Act to minimize the impact of their research activities on research participants' personalities, or on their physical or mental integrity:  Offset/correct harm (return to top) 11.37 Terminate an activity when it is clear that the activity carries more than minimal risk of harm and is found to be more harmful than beneficial, or when the activity is no longer needed. 11.38 Refuse to help individuals, families, groups, or communities to carry out or submit to activities that, according to current knowledge, or legal or professional guidelines, would cause serious physical or psychological harm to themselves or others. 11.39 Do everything reasonably possible to stop or offset the consequences of actions by others when these actions are likely to cause serious physical harm or death. This may include reporting to appropriate authorities (e.g., the police), an intended victim, or a family member or other support person who can intervene, and would be done even when a confidential relationship is involved. (Also see Standard 1.45.) 11.40 Act to stop or offset the consequences of seriously harmful activities being carried out by another psychologist or member of another discipline, when there is objective information about the activities and the harm, and when these activities have come to their attention outside of a confidential client relationship between themselves and the psychologist or rnernr*er.nf another niQr.inline This mav inr.lnrle renoi-tino to the annronriate reonlatorv horlv  99  authority, or committee for action, depending on the psychologist's judgment about the person(s) or body(ies) best suited to stop or offset the harm, and depending upon regulatory requirements and definitions of misconduct. 11.41 Act also to stop or offset the consequences of harmful activities carried out by another psychologist or member of another discipline, when the harm is not serious or the activities appear to be primarily a lack of sensitivity, knowledge, or experience, and when the activities have come to their attention outside of a confidential client relationship between themselves and the psychologist or member of another discipline/This may include talking informally with the psychologist or member of the other discipline, obtaining objective information and, if possible and relevant, the assurance that the harm will discontinue and be corrected. If in a vulnerable position (e.g., employee, trainee) with respect to the other psychologist or member of the other discipline, it may include asking persons in less vulnerable positions to participate in the meeting(s). 11.42 Be open to the concerns of others about perceptions of harm that they as a psychologist might be causing, stop activities that are causing harm, and not punish or seek punishment for those who raise such concerns in good faith. 11.43 Not place an individual, group, family, or community needing service at a serious disadvantage by offering them no service in order to fulfill the conditions of a research design, when a standard service is available. 11.44 Debrief research participants in such a way that any harm caused can be discerned, and act to correct any resultant harm. (Also see Standards 111.26 and III.27.)  Care of animals (return to top) 11.45 Not use animals in their research unless there is a reasonable expectation that the research will increase understanding of the structures and processes underlying behaviour, or increase understanding of the particular animal species used in the study, or result eventually in benefits to the health and welfare of humans or other animals. 11.46 Use a procedure subjecting animals to pain, stress, or privation only if an alternative procedure is unavailable and the goal is justified by its prospective scientific, educational, or. applied value. 11.47 Make every effort to minimize the discomfort, illness, and pain of animals. This would include performing surgical procedures only under appropriate anaesthesia, using techniques to avoid infection and minimize pain during and after surgery and, if disposing of experimental animals is carried out at the termination of the study, doing so in a humane way. 11.48 Use animals in classroom demonstrations only if the instructional objectives cannot be achieved through the use of video-tapes, films, or other methods, and if the type of demonstration is warranted by the anticipated instructional gain.  Extended responsibility (return to top)  100  11.49 Encourage others, iri a manner consistent with this Code, to care responsibly. 11.50 Assume overall responsibility for the scientific and professional activities of their assistants, employees, supervisees, students, and trainees with regard to the Principle of Responsible Caring, all of whom, however, incur similar obligations. Principle III: Integrity in Relationships (return to top) Values Statement (return to top) The relationships formed by psychologists in the course of their work embody explicit and implicit mutual expectations of integrity that are vital to the advancement of scientific knowledge and to the maintenance of public confidence in the discipline of psychology. These expectations include: accuracy and honesty; straightforwardness and openness; the maximization of objectivity and minimization of bias; and, avoidance of conflicts of interest. Psychologists have a responsibility to meet these expectations and to encourage reciprocity. In addition to accuracy, honesty, and the obvious prohibitions of fraud or misrepresentation, meeting expectations of integrity is enhanced by self-knowledge and the use of critical analysis. Although it can be argued that science is value-free and impartial, scientists are not. Personal values and self-interest can affect the questions psychologists ask, how they ask those questions, what assumptions they make, their selection of methods, what they observe and what they fail to observe, and how they interpret their data. Psychologists are not expected to be value-free or totally without self-interest in conducting their activities. However, they are expected to understand how their backgrounds, personal needs, and values interact with their activities, to be open and honest about the influence of such factors, andto be as objective and unbiased as possible under the circumstances. The values of openness and straightforwardness exist within the context of Respect for the Dignity of Persons (Principle 1) and Responsible Caring (Principle II). As such, there will be circumstances in which openness and straightforwardness will need to be tempered. Fully open and straightforward disclosure might not be needed or desired by others and, in some circumstances, might be a risk to their dignity or well-being, or considered culturally inappropriate. In such circumstances, however, psychologists have a responsibility to ensure that their decision not to be fully open or straightforward is justified by higher-order values and does not invalidate any informed consent procedures. O f special concern to psychologists is the provision of incomplete disclosure when obtaining informed consent for research participation, or temporarily leading research participants to believe that a research project has a purpose other than its actual purpose. These actions sometimes occur in research where full disclosure would be likely to influence the responses of the research participants and thus invalidate the results. Although research that uses such techniques can lead to knowledge that is beneficial, such benefits must be weighed against the research participant's right to self-determination and the importance of public and individual trust in psychology. Psychologists have a serious obligation to avoid as much as possible the use of such research procedures. They also have a serious obligation to consider the need for, the possible consequences of, and their responsibility to correct any resulting mistrust or other harmful effects from their use. As public trust in the discipline of psychology includes trusting that psychologists will act in the best interests of members of the public, situations that present real or potential conflicts of interest are of concern to psychologists. Conflict-of-interest situations are those that can lead to distorted judgment and can motivate n s v r h n l n o i s t s trv apt i n w a v e that m e p t t h e i r n w n n p r s n n a l  ni~iliti<-a1 f i n a n c i a l  n r h i i s i n p s s i n t p r e s t s at t h e  101  expense of the best interests of members of the public. Although avoidance of all conflicts of interest and potential exploitation of others is not possible, some are of such a high risk to protecting the interests of members of the public and to maintaining the trust of the public, that they are considered never acceptable (see Standard 111.31). The risk level of other conflicts of interest (e.g., dual or multiple relationships) might be partially dependent on cultural factors and the specific type of professional relationship (e.g., long-term psychotherapy vs. community development activities). It is the responsibility of psychologists to avoid dual or multiple relationships and other conflicts of interest when appropriate and possible. When such situations cannot be avoided or are inappropriate to avoid, psychologists have a responsibility to declare that they have a conflict of interest, to seek advice, and to establish safeguards to ensure that the best interests of members of the public are protected. Integrity in relationships implies that psychologists, as a matter of honesty, have a responsibility to maintain competence in any specialty area for which they declare competence, whether or not they are currently practising in that area. It also requires that psychologists, in as much as they present themselves as members and representatives of a specific discipline, have a responsibility to actively rely on and be guided by that discipline and its guidelines and requirements. Ethical Standards  (return to top) In adhering to the Principle of Integrity in Relationships, psychologists would:  Accuracy/honesty (return to top) 111.1 Not knowingly participate in, condone, or be associated with dishonesty, fraud, or misrepresentation. 111.2 Accurately represent their own and their colleagues'credentials, qualifications, education, experience, competence, and affiliations, in all spoken, written, or printed communications, being careful not to use descriptions or information that could be misinterpreted (e.g., citing membership in a voluntary association of psychologists as a testament of competence). 111.3 Carefully protect their own and their colleagues' credentials from being misrepresented by others, and act quickly to correct any such misrepresentation. II 1.4 Maintain competence in their declared area(s) of psychological competence, as well as in their current area(s) of activity. (Also see Standard II.9.) 111.5 Accurately represent their own and their colleagues' activities, functions, contributions, and likely or actual outcomes of their activities (including research results) in all spoken, written, or printed communication. This includes, but is not limited to: advertisements of services or products; course and workshop descriptions; academic grading requirements; and, research reports. 111.6 Ensure that their own and their colleagues' activities, functions, contributions, and likely or actual outcomes of their activities (including research results) are not misrepresented by others, and act quickly to correct any such misrepresentation.  102  111.7 Take credit only for the work and ideas that they have actually done or generated, and give credit for work done or ideas contributed by others (including students), in proportion to their contribution. 111.8 Acknowledge the limitations of their own and their colleagues' knowledge, methods, findings, interventions, and views. Ill 9. Not suppress discontinuing evidence of their own and their colleagues' findings and views, acknowledging alternative hypotheses and explanations.  Objectivity/lack of bias (return to top) II1.10 Evaluate how their personal experiences, attitudes, values, social context, individual differences, stresses, and specific training influence their activities and thinking, integrating this awareness into all attempts to be objective and unbiased in their research, service, and other activities. III.l 1 Take care to communicate as completely and objectively as possible, and to clearly differentiate facts, opinions, theories, hypotheses, and ideas, when communicating knowledge, findings, and views. III. 12 Present instructional information accurately, avoiding bias in the selection and presentation of information, and publicly acknowledge any personal values or bias that influence the selection and presentation of information. III. 13 Act quickly to clarify any distortion by a sponsor, client, agency (e.g:, news media), or other persons, of the findings of their research.  Straightforwardness/openness (return to top) III. 14 Be clear and straightforward about all information needed to establish informed consent or any other valid written or unwritten agreement (for example: fees, including any limitations imposed by third-party payers; relevant business policies and practices; mutual concerns; mutual responsibilities; ethical responsibilities of psychologists; purpose and nature of the relationship, including research participation; alternatives; likely experiences; possible conflicts; possible outcomes; and, expectations for processing, using, and sharing any information generated). III. 15 Provide suitable information about the results of assessments, evaluations, or research findings to the persons involved, if appropriate and if asked. This information would be communicated in understandable language. III. 16 Fully explain reasons for their actions to persons who have been affected by their actions, if appropriate and if asked. III. 17 Honour all promises and commitments included in any written or verbal agreement, unless serious and unexpected circumstances (e.g., illness) intervene. If such circumstances nr.r.nr thp.n trip n Q v r . h n l n o i s t w o u M malfR.a f u l l qnH rinnp.st p y n l a n n t i n n t n n t h p r n a r t i p c  103  involved. 111.18 Make clear whether they are acting as private citizens, as members of specific organizations or groups, or as representatives of the discipline of psychology, when making statements or when involved in public activities. 111.19 Carry out, present, and discuss research in a way that is consistent with a commitment to honest, open inquiry, and to clear communication of any research aims, sponsorship, social context, personal values, or financial interests that might affect or appear to affect the research. 111.20 Submit their research, in some accurate form and within the limits of confidentiality, to persons with expertise in the research area, for their comments and evaluations, prior to publication or the preparation of any final report. 111.21 Encourage and not interfere with the free and open exchange of psychological knowledge and theory between themselves, their students, colleagues, and the public. 111.22 Make no attempt to conceal the status of a trainee and, if a trainee is providing direct client service, ensure that the client is informed of that fact.  Avoidance of incomplete disclosure (return to top) 111.23 Not engage in incomplete disclosure, or in temporarily leading research participants to believe that a research project or some aspect of it has a different purpose, if there are alternative procedures available or if the negative effects cannot be predicted or offset: 111.24 Not engage in incomplete disclosure; or in temporarily leading research participants to believe that a research project or some aspect of it has a different purpose, if it would interfere with the person's understanding of facts that clearly might influence a decision to give adequately informed consent (e.g., withholding information about the level of risk, discomfort, or inconvenience). 111.25 Use the minimum necessary incomplete disclosure or temporary leading of research participants to believe that a research project or some aspect of it has a different purpose, when such research procedures are used. 111.26 Debrief research participants as soon as possible after the participants' involvement, if there has been incomplete disclosure or temporary leading of research participants to believe that a research project or some aspect of it has a different purpose. 111.27 Provide research participants, during such debriefing, with a clarification of the nature of the study, seek to remove any misconceptions that might have arisen, and seek to reestablish any trust that might have been lost, assuring the participants that the research procedures were neither arbitrary nor capricious, but necessary for scientifically valid findings. (Also see Standards 11.23 and 11.44.) 111.28 Act to re-establish with research participants any trust that might have been lost due to the use n f inrnmnlete. rh'sclns'ire nr temnnrarilv leaHina research nartie.irtants tn.helie.ve that  104  the research project or some aspect of it had a different purpose. 111.29 Give a research participant the option of removing his or her data, if the research participant expresses concern during the debriefing about the incomplete disclosure or the temporary leading of the research participant to believe that the research project or some aspect of it had a different purpose, and if removal of the data will not compromise the validity Of the research design and hence diminish the ethical value of the participation of the other research participants. 111.30 Seek an independent and adequate ethical review of the risks to public or individual trust and of safeguards to protect such trust for any research that plans to provide incomplete disclosure or temporarily lead research participants to believe that the research project or some aspect of it has a different purpose, before making a decision to proceed.  Avoidance of conflict of interest (return to top) 111.31 Not exploit any relationship established as a psychologist to further personal, political, or business interests at the expense of the best interests of their clients, research participants, students, employers, or others. This includes, but is not limited to: soliciting clients of one's employing agency for private practice; taking advantage of trust or dependency to encourage or engage in sexual intimacies (e.g., with clients not included in Standard 11.27, with clients' partners or relatives, with students or trainees not included in Standard 11.28, or with research participants); taking advantage of trust or dependency to frighten clients into receiving services; misappropriating students' ideas, research or work; using the resources of one's employing institution for purposes not agreed to; giving or receiving kickbacks or bonuses for referrals; seeking or accepting loans or investments from clients; and, prejudicing others against a colleague for reasons of personal gain. 111.32 Not offer rewards sufficient to motivate an individual or group to participate in an activity that has possible or known risks to themselves or others. (Also see Standards 1.27, 1.28, II.2, and 11.49.) 111.33 Avoid dual or multiple relationships (e.g.. with clients, research participants, employees, supervisees, students, or trainees) and other situations that might present a conflict of interest or that might reduce their ability to be objective and unbiased in their determinations of what might be in the best interests of others. 111.34 Manage dual or multiple relationships that are unavoidable due to cultural norms or other circumstances in such a manner that bias, lack of objectivity, and risk of exploitation are minimized. This might include obtaining ongoing supervision or consultation for the duration of the dual or multiple relationship, or involving a third party in obtaining consent (e.g., approaching a client or employee about becoming a research participant), 111.35 Inform all parties, if a real or potential conflict of interest arises, of the need to resolve the situation in a manner that is consistent with Respect for the Dignity of Persons (Principle I) and Responsible Caring (Principle II), and take all reasonable steps to resolve the issue in such a manner.  Reliance on the discipline  105  (return to top) 111.36 Familiarize themselves with their discipline's rules and regulations, and abide by them, unless abiding by them would be seriously detrimental to the rights or welfare of others as demonstrated in the Principles of Respect for the Dignity of Persons or Responsible Caring. (See Standards IV. 17 and IV. 18 for guidelines regarding the resolution of such conflicts.) 111.37 Familiarize themselves with and demonstrate a commitment to maintaining the standards of their discipline. 111.38 Seek consultation from colleagues and/or appropriate groups and committees, and give due regard to their advice in arriving at a responsible decision, if faced with difficult situations.  Extended responsibility (return to top) 111.39 Encourage others, in a manner consistent with this  Code,  to relate with integrity.  111.40 Assume overall responsibility for the scientific and professional activities of their assistants, employees, supervisees, students, and trainees with regard to the Principle of Integrity in Relationships, all of whom, however, incur similar obligations. Principle IV: Responsibility to Society  (return to top) Values Statement  (return to top) Psychology functions as a discipline within the context of human society . Psychologists, both in their work and as private citizens, have responsibilities to the societies in which they live and work, such as the neighbourhood or city, and to the welfare of all human beings in those societies. 2  Two of the legitimate expectations of psychology as.a science and a profession are that it will increase . knowledge and that it will conduct its affairs in such ways that it will promote the welfare of all human beings. Freedom of enquiry and debate (including scientific and academic freedom) is a foundation of psychological education, science, and practice. In the context of society, the above expectations imply that psychologists will exercise this freedom through the use of activities and methods that are consistent with ethical requirements. The above expectations also imply that psychologists will do whatever they can to ensure that psychological knowledge, when used in the development of social structures and policies, will be used for beneficial purposes, and that the discipline's own structures and policies will support those beneficial purposes. Within the context of this document, social structures and policies that have beneficial purposes are defined as those that more readily support and reflect respect for the dignity of persons, responsible caring, integrity in relationships, and responsibility to society. If psychological knowledge or structures are used against these purposes, psychologists have an ethical responsibility to try to draw attention to and correct the misuse. Although this is a collective responsibility, those psychologists having direct involvement in the structures of the discipline, in Qnp.ialHp.vp.lnnment nr in thp thenretiral nr resp.arr.h Hata hasp, that is hpino. iiseH ie o  thrniioh research evnert  106  testimony, or policy advice) have the greatest responsibility to act. Other psychologists must decide for themselves the most appropriate and beneficial use of their time and talents to help meet this collective responsibility. In carrying out their work, psychologists acknowledge that many social structures have evolved slowly over time in response to human need and are valued by the societies that have developed them. In such circumstances, psychologists convey respect for such social structures and avoid unwarranted or unnecessary disruption. Suggestions for and action toward changes or enhancement of such structures are carried out through processes that seek to achieve a consensus within those societies and/or through democratic means. On the other hand, if structures Or policies seriously ignore or oppose the principles of respect for the dignity of persons, responsible caring, integrity in relationships, or responsibility to society, psychologists involved have a responsibility to speak out in a manner consistent with the principles of this Code, and advocate for appropriate change to occur as quickly as possible. In order to be responsible and accountable to society, and to contribute constructively to its ongoing development, psychologists need to be willing to work in partnership with others, be self-reflective, and be open to external suggestions and criticisms about the place of the discipline of psychology in society. They need to engage in even-tempered observation and interpretation of the effects of societal structures and policies, and their process of change, developing the ability of psychologists to increase the beneficial use of psychological knowledge and structures, and avoid their misuse. The discipline needs to be willing to set high standards for its members, to do what it can to assure that such standards are met, and to support its members in their attempts to maintain the standards. Once again, individual psychologists must decide for themselves the most appropriate and beneficial use of their time and talents in helping to meet these collective responsibilities. Ethical Standards (return to top) In adhering to the Principle of Responsibility to Society, psychologists would: Development of knowledge (return to top) IV. 1 Contribute to the discipline of psychology and of society's understanding of itself and human beings generally, through free enquiry and the acquisition, transmission, and expression of knowledge and ideas, unless such activities conflict with other basic ethical requirements. IV.2 Not interfere with, or condone interference with, free enquiry and the acquisition, transmission, and expression of knowledge and ideas that do not conflict with other basic ethical requirements. IV.3 Keep informed of progress in their area(s) of psychological activity, take this progress into account in their work, and try to make their own contributions to this progress. Beneficial activities (return to top) I V d Partir.inatp in nnd r.nntrihiitp. tn r.nntiniiino pdiir.atinn anrl thp nrnfpdinnal and Qr.ipntifir.  107  that bears on the social policies and structures. IV.29 Speak out and/or act, in a manner consistent with the four principles of this Code, if the policies, practices, laws, or regulations of the social structure within which they work seriously ignore or contradict any of the principles of this Code.  Extended responsibility (return to top) IV.30 Encourage others, in a manner consistent with this Code, to exercise responsibility to society. IV.31 Assume overall responsibility for the scientific and professional activities of their assistants, employees, supervisees, students, and trainees with regard to the Principle of Responsibility to Society, all of whom, however, incur similar obligations.  Footnotes 1 Adapted from: Canadian Psychological Association. (1985). Guidelines for the elimination of sexual harassment. Ottawa, Author. 2 Society is used here in the broad sense of a group of persons living as members of one or more human communities, rather than in the limited sense of state or government.  Copyright © 2000 Canadian Psychological Association Societe canadienne de psychologie Permission is granted to copy this document for educational use. Canadian Psychological Association Societe canadienne de psychologie 151 Slater St., Suite 205 Ottawa, Ontario K1P5H3 Title: Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists. — 3 ed. ISBN 1-896538-11-8 rd  108  CPCA Logo  APPENDIX C  Coaching Code of Ethics Principles and Ethical Standards  INTRODUCTION This section of the code of ethics is organised around four ethical principles identified during a workshop for Coaching Ethics Advisory Committee members. I. II. III. IV.  Respect for Participants Responsible Coaching Integrity in Relationships Honouring Sport  Each principle is followed by a brief description and a list of ethical standards illustrating how that principle applies to the activities of coaches. These standards are grouped by key words that are an important part of the overall principle. 1  I. Respect for Participants The principle of respect for participants challenges coaches to act in a manner respectful of the dignity of all participants in sport. Fundamental to this principle is the basic assumption that each person has value and is worthy of respect. 1  1  4  Acting with respect for participants means that coaches i.  do not make some participants more or less worthy as persons than others on the basis of gender, race, place of origin, athletic potential, colour, sexual orientation, religion, political beliefs, socioeconomic status, marital status, age or any other conditions; have a responsibility to respect and promote the rights of all participants. This is accomplished by establishing and following procedures for confidentiality (right to privacy); informed participation and shared decision-making (right to selfdetermination - athletes'rights); and fair and reasonable treatment (right to 5  6  ii.  109  iii. iv.  procedural fairness). Coaches have a special responsibility to respect and promote the rights of participants who are in vulnerable or dependent positions and less able to protect their own rights; interact with others in a manner that enables all participants in sport to maintain their dignity; and build mutual support among fellow coaches, officials, athletes and their family members.  In being faithful to the principle of respect for participants, coaches would adhere to the following ethical standards: Key Words Respect  Rights  Equity  Ethical Standards 1.1  Treat all participants in sport with respect at all times.  1.2  Provide feedback to athletes and other participants in a caring manner that is sensitive to their needs, e.g., focus criticism on the performance rather than on the athlete.  1.3  Respect the areas of expertise, experience and insights of others in sport by considering carefully their opinions.  1.4  Do not engage publicly (e.g., statements, conversations, jokes, presentations, media reports) in demeaning descriptions of others in sport.  1.5  Be discreet in non-public conversations about athletes, coaches or other participants in sport.  1.6  Recognise athletes'right to consult with other coaches and advisors.  1.7  Respect athletes as autonomous individuals and refrain from intervening inappropriately in personal affairs that are outside the generally accepted jurisdiction of a coach.  1.8  Treat all participants equitably within the context of their sporting activities, regardless of gender, race, place of origin, athletic potential, colour, sexual orientation, religion, political beliefs, socioeconomic status and any other condition.  1.9  Use language that conveys respect for the dignity of others (e.g., gender-neutral terms) in written and verbal communications.  2  1.10 Do not practise, condone, ignore, facilitate or collaborate with any form of unjust discrimination in sport. 1.11 Act to prevent or correct practices that are unjustly discriminatory. Empowerment- 1.12 Encourage and facilitate participants' abilities to be responsible for their own behaviour, performance and  110 decisions. 1.13 Respect as much as possible the opinions and wishes of participants when making decisions that affect them. 1.14 Give athletes the opportunity to discuss, contribute to and agree with proposals for training and for performance standards. Informed participation  1.15 Provide athletes with the information necessary for them to be meaningfully involved in the decisions that affect them. 1.16 Communicate and cooperate with family members, involving them in appropriate decisions pertaining to an athlete's development. 2  1.17 Clarify the nature of coaching services to participants, i.e., athletes, parents, family members or significant others. Confidentiality  1.18 Determine, in consultation with athletes and others, what information is confidential. 1.19 Keep confidential any information about athletes or others gained through coaching activities and believed to be considered confidential by those persons. 1.20 Share confidential information only with the consent of those requesting confidentiality or in a way that the individual(s) involved cannot be identified. 1.21 Exercise discretion in recording and communicating information to prevent this information from being interpreted or used to the detriment of others. 1.22 Clarify and implement measures to protect confidential information, e.g., restricting access to confidential records.  Mutual support 1.23 Encourage a climate of mutual support among all participants in sport. Extended responsibility  1.24 Encourage participants to respect one another and to expect respect for their worth as individuals. 1.25 Keep informed on current issues related to respect for participants, e.g., gender equity.  II. Responsible Coaching The principle of responsible coaching carries the basic ethical expectation that the activities of coaches will benefit society in general and participants in particular and will do no harm. Fundamental to the implementation of this principle is the notion of competence - responsible coaching (maximising benefits and minimising risks to  Ill participants) is performed by coaches who are "well prepared and current" in their discipline. 14  In addition, responsible coaching means that coaches i. ii. iii. iv. v.  act in the best interest of the athlete's development as a whole person; recognise the power inherent in the position of coach; are aware of their personal values and how these affect their practice as coaches; acknowledge the limitations of their discipline; and accept the responsibility to work with other coaches and professionals in sport.  In being faithful to the principle of responsible coaching, coaches would adhere to the following ethical standards: Key Words  Ethical Standards 2.1  Be responsible for achieving a high level of professional competence through appropriate training.  2.2  Keep current with relevant information (knowledge), coaching and teaching skills and research through personal learning projects, discussions with colleagues, workshops, courses, conferences, etc. to ensure that coaching services benefit and do not harm others.  Self knowledge 2.3  Evaluate how personal experiences, attitudes, beliefs, values, socioeconomic status, sexual orientation, individual differences and stresses influence actions as coaches and integrate this awareness into all efforts to benefit and not harm others.  Professional training  Beneficence"  2.4  Engage in self-care activities that help to avoid conditions (e.g., burnout, addictions) that could result in impaired judgement and interfere with the ability to benefit and not harm others.  2.5  Coach in a way that benefits athletes, removes harm and acts consistently for the good of the athlete, keeping in mind that the same training, skills and powers that coaches use to produce benefits for athletes are also capable of producing harm.  Coaching limits 2.6  Take the limits of knowledge and capacity into account in coaching practice; in particular, do not assume responsibilities if insufficiently prepared for them.  2.7  Recognise and accept when it is appropriate to refer athletes to other coaches or sport specialists.  2.8  Refrain from working in unsafe or inappropriate situations that sienificantlv compromise the aualitv of coachine  112 services and the health and safety of athletes. Athlete's interest  2.9  Ensure that activities are suitable for the age, experience, ability, and physical and psychological conditions of athletes.  2.10 Prepare athletes systematically and progressively, using appropriate time frames and monitoring physical and psychological adjustments. 2.11 Refrain from using training methods or techniques that may harm athletes; monitor innovative approaches with care. 2.12 Be aware of significant pressures in athletes'lives, e.g., school, family and financial pressures, and coach in a manner that fosters positive life experiences. 2.13 Consider athletes' future health and well-being as foremost when making decisions about an injured athlete's ability to continue participating. 2.14 Strive to be fully present, physically and mentally, in the performance of coaching duties. Safety  2.15 Ensure that athletes train and perform in suitable and safe settings. 2.16 Make athletes aware of their responsibilities for participating safely in sport.  Sexual relationships  2.17 Be acutely aware of power in coaching relationships and, therefore, avoid sexual intimacy with athletes, both during coaching and during that period following coaching during when imbalance in power could jeopardise effective decision-making. 2.18 Abstain from and refuse to tolerate in others all forms of harassment, including sexual harassment. Sexual harassment includes either or both of the following: i.  ii.  the use of power or authority in an attempt to coerce another person to engage in or tolerate sexual activity. Such uses include explicit or implicit threats of reprisals for noncompliance or promises of reward for compliance. engaging in deliberate or repeated sexually oriented comments, anecdotes, gestures or touching, if such behaviours a. are offensive and unwelcome; b. create an offensive, hostile or intimidating working environment; or c. can be expected to be harmful to the  113 recipient. Colleagues  2.19 Act toward other coaches in a manner characterised by courtesy, good faith and respect. 2.20 Collaborate with other coaches and colleagues from related disciplines. 12  2.21 Communicate and cooperate with health practitioners in the diagnosis, treatment and management of athletes' health-related needs. 2.22 Use discretion for resolving disputes with colleagues, e.g., deal with differences of opinion constructively on a personal basis and refer more serious disputes to appropriate bodies. Extended responsibility  2.23 Encourage others, when appropriate, to coach responsibly. 2.24 Recognise and address harmful personal practices of others in sport, e.g., drug and alcohol addiction, physical and mental abuse, misuse of power. 2.25 Assume responsibility for the actions of athletes and other supervised individuals with regard to the principle of responsible coaching.  III. Integrity in Relationships Integrity means that coaches are expected to be honest, sincere and honourable in their relationships with others. Acting on these values is most possible when coaches possess a high degree of self-awareness and the ability to reflect critically on how their perspectives influence their interactions with others. 12  In being faithful to the principle of integrity in relationships, coaches would adhere to the following ethical standards: Ethical Standards  Key Words Honesty  3.1  Explore mutual expectations with athletes in an honest and open manner, giving due consideration to the age and experience of individuals.  3.2  Accurately represent personal coaching qualifications, experience, competence and affiliations in spoken and written communications, being careful not to use descriptions or information that could be misinterpreted.  3.3  Make athletes and others clearlv aware of coachine  114 qualifications and experience. 3.4 Notify other coaches when working with those coaches' athletes Sincerity  Honour  Conflict of interest  3.5  Honour all promises and commitments, both verbal and written.  3.6  Act with an enthusiastic and genuine appreciation for sport.  3.7  Know the support and abide by sport's rules, regulations and standards.  3.8  Take credit only for the work and ideas actually done or generated and give credit for work done or ideas contributed by others.  3.9  Do not exploit any relationship established as a coach to further personal, political or business interests at the expense of the best interests of their athletes or other participants.  3.10 Be clear about and avoid abusing relationships (e.g., with athletes, assistants, officials, administrators, board members) and avoid other situations that might present a conflict of interest or reduce the ability to be objective and unbiased in the determination of what might be in the best interests of athletes. 3.11 Declare conflicts of interest when they arise and seek to manage them in a manner that respects the best interests of all those involved. Self-awareness 3.12 Evaluate how personal experiences, attitudes, values, social context, individual differences and stresses influence coaching activities and thinking, integrating this awareness into all attempts to be neutral and unbiased in coaching. 3.13 Recognise and reveal whether personal views are based on facts, opinions, conjecture, theory, beliefs, etc. Extended responsibility  3.14 Encourage athletes and other participants to develop and maintain integrity in their relationships with others.  IV. Honouring Sport The principle of honouring sport challenges coaches to recognise, act on and promote the value of sport for individuals and teams and for society in general. Honouring sport means that coaches  115 i. ii. iii.  act on and promote clearly articulated values related to coaching and sport; encourage and model honourable intentions and actions in their coaching practice; and show high regard for and promote the value of sport in Canadian society and around the world.  In being faithful to the principle of honouring sport, coaches would adhere to the following ethical standards: Key Words Spirit of sport  Ethical Standards 4.1  Advocate and model the fundamentally positive aspects of. sport, e.g., sporting and human excellence, fair play, honest competition and effort, self-discipline, integrity, personal growth and development, respect for the body, challenge and achievement, the joy of movement, and other positive aspects identified by participants.  4.2  Actively seek ways to reduce potentially negative aspects of sport, e.g., winning at all costs, playing to the letter of the rules at the expense of the spirit of the rules, exploiting unfairly competitors'weaknesses, focusing on sport to the harmful exclusion of other aspects of athletes' lives, initiating and supporting potentially harmful training regimes, and other negative aspects identified by participants.  Respect for the 4.3 Accept both the letter and the spirit of the rules that define and govern sport. rules 4.4  Actively encourage athletes and other participants to uphold the rules of the sport and the spirit of such rules.  4.5 Respect for officials and other coaches  Accept the role of officials in ensuring that competitions are conducted fairly and according to established rules.  4.6  Refrain from abusive personal attacks on officials and other coaches, especially when talking with the media.  Drug-free sport 4.7 Support initiatives that encourage the spirit of sport (see also 4.1, 4.2). M  4.8  Actively discourage the use of performance-enhancing drugs; support athletes'efforts to be drug-free.  4.9 Refrain from encouraging the use of alcohol and tobacco in conjunction with athletic events or victory celebrations at playing sites. Positive role model  4.10 Maintain the highest standards of personal conduct and project a favourable image of the sport and of coaching to athletes, other coaches, officials, spectators, families, the  116 media and the general public. 4.11 Project an image of health, cleanliness and functional efficiency in personal habits and appearance, e.g., refrain from smoking while coaching, refrain from drinking alcoholic beverages when working with athletes. Responsibility to coaching  12 Promote and maintain the highest standards of the coaching discipline. 4.13 Encourage measures to improve the quality and availability of coaches'professional services. 4.14 Encourage measures that promote education, knowledge development and research in the field of coaching. Develop the coaching profession by exchanging knowledge and experiences with colleagues, athletes and 4.15 students and by being participants, course facilitators or master course conductors in courses and internships. Uphold the responsibility to coaching by bringing incompetent or unethical behaviour to the attention of appropriate regulatory committees in a manner consistent 4.16 with the ethical principles of this code, if informal resolution or correction of the situation is not appropriate or possible.  Extended  4.17  Encourage athletes and other participants to honour sport responsibility on a lifelong basis.  Footnotes 1. The approach, structure and contents of this code were inspired by the Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists, 1991. For a detailed guide to this code and how it was developed, see Carole Sinclair and Jean Pettifor, editors, Companion Manual to the Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists, 1991 (Chelsea, Que: Canadian Psychological Association, 1992). Many of the ideas for ethical standards were drawn from numerous other codes. The most significant of these were developed by the Association quebecois des entraineurs professionnels en sport, The British Institute of Sport Coaches and Promotion Plus, Women In Coaching Committee, British Columbia. 2. Respect: consideration of the dignity of others; courteous regard. 3. Participants: those taking part in sport, e.g., athletes and their family members, coaches, officials, volunteers, administrators. 4. Dignity: self-respect; self-worth. 5. Worthy: having worth, value or merit; deserving praise; valuable; noble; estimable; virtuous; legitimate.  117 6. Condition: a provision or stipulation called for as a requirement for participation or competition; a prerequisite; anything that modifies or restricts the nature of participation. 7. Discreet: prudent; cautious; wary; careful about what one says or does. 8. Empowerment: the act of enabling or state of being enabled. 9. Family: those persons who are identified by an athlete as providing familial support, whether or not they are biologically related. 10. Integrity Makes True Champions: The Coaching Code of Ethics (Gloucester, Ont.: Coaching Association of Canada, Canadian Association of National Coaches, 1993). 11. Beneficence: an ideal or principle of conduct that requires us to act in a way that benefits others. Such benefit might take the form of preventing or removing harm, or acting directly to produce a good. The same training, skills and powers coaches use to produce benefits are also capable of producing harm. 12. Collaboration: a process through which parties such as members of an interdisciplinary team (e.g., trainer, psychologist, masseuse, team captain) work together on problems and issues to develop solutions that go beyond their limited visions of what is possible. Collaboration is based on the simple adage that two heads are better than one and that one by itself is not good enough. See Barbara Gray, Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multiparty Problems. (London, England: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1989), 5. 13. In coaching, critical reflection questions existing assumptions about the values and practices that govern coaches'actions. The essential component of critical reflection is an attitude based on (i) open-mindedness, i.e., an active predisposition to hear more than one side of an issue; (ii) active inquiry, i.e., asking why things are done the way they are; and (iii) sincerity, i.e., coaches being genuine in their coaching relationships. HIV/AIDS Education for Nurses: Practice Issues and Curriculum Guidelines (Ottawa: Canadian Nurses Association, 1992). 14. The Canadian Centre for Drug-Free Sport has designed a major campaign under the theme of the spirit of sport. At the heart of their message is the premise that inherent in sport are all the strengths, values and qualities necessary to overcome the incursion of performance-enhancing drugs. Sport is strong and it gives (or can give) strength to those who participate. This theme embraces the fundamental positive aspects of sport, is non-blaming and non-moralistic and emphasises the positive attributes of sport. Manifest Communications Inc., Draft Strategy for A National Educational Campaign to Promote Drug-Free Sport in Canada. (Document prepared for Canadian Centre for Drug-Free Sport, Ottawa, 19 April 1993).  © Coaching Association of Canada, 2000 / For further information: coach@coach,ca Last Updated: May 16, 2000  119 APPENDIX D INTERVIEW QUESTIONS  la) What kinds of ethical issues related to relationship and/or boundary issues have you encountered in your practice? What kinds of relationship and/or boundary issues have you witnessed directly? b) Could you cite example(s)/ case and situations of ethical challenges associated with your profession? (Relationship and/or boundary issues)? c) Are these issues gender specific or tied to gender?  2) Has gender played a role in your relationships with clients (in terms of boundary issues)?  3 a) Did you do anything to affect a change on the issue(s) that caused concern for you? b) Specifically, how did you deal with it? 4) What is the scope of your experience with respect to high performance athletes? 5) How would you define the role of a sport psychologist? Friendship? How do you make the distinction in the scope of your practice ? 6) Do you have a professional title that you use in your professional practice? Explain. 7) What types of clients do you work with in your practice? 8) What is your academic and professional formation? 9) How long have you been in practice for? 10) How did you come to select this career path? Have you had mentors that affected your career path? Expand. Thank-you for taking the time to help me with my pilot study interview  


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items