In August at APA's 2014 Annual Convention, I participated in panel discussions with Dr. Melinda Garcia and Dr. Carolyn Morris from the Society of Indian Psychologists (SIP). The opportunity to work with Dr. Morris, who is president of SIP, and Dr. Garcia was especially interesting and enjoyable this year because SIP has recently written a commentary on the APA Ethics Code. SIP's commentary was the result of a several-year process initiated by Dr. Carolyn Barcus, a remarkable psychologist at Utah State University and elder in the society.
Dr. Barcus, who has devoted much of her career to the education and training of American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) psychologists, came to the APA Ethics Committee in 2011 as an invited speaker on diversity issues. At that meeting, Dr. Barcus invited committee members to attend SIP's annual convention in Logan, Utah, to discuss ethics. That convention marked the beginning of discussions on how psychologists from AI/AN communities view APA's Ethics Code — discussions that were difficult, challenging and sometimes painful for the participants, and that ultimately led to SIP writing its commentary.
My hope is that SIP's commentary will be widely read and discussed. The commentary is available through SIP's websiteopens in new window. Although numerous commentaries have been written on the APA Ethics Code, to the best of my knowledge SIP has written the only commentary that speaks explicitly and intentionally from the perspective of a specific community of psychologists.
In an introduction, Dr. Garcia gives the commentary a post-colonial context by highlighting the role of story-telling in SIP's culture:
We had to go beyond the linear, abstract, Cartesian logic of our European colonizers. In order to do that, we had to embrace who we are and communicate in the language of stories. Stories bring the abstract to life. Stories bring our struggles to life. Stories communicate across cultures.
The commentary is thus organized around stories. When a point is made about a principle or standard in the code, the commentary provides an illustrative story. Thus, both the substance and style of the commentary are uniquely AI/AN.
The all-encompassing theme of SIP's commentary is that there is no culture-free perspective from which to write ethics. This observation speaks to both principles and standards in the Ethics Code. As one example, Principle E, Respect for People's Rights and Dignity, states:
Psychologists are aware of and respect cultural, individual and role differences, including those based on age, gender, gender identity, race, ethnicity, culture, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability, language and socioeconomic status and consider these factors when working with members of such groups.
The implication of SIP's fundamental point and profound critique is that the phrase "of such groups" in APA's Ethics Code is misplaced since any and every individual belongs to "such groups." From the perspective of the SIP commentary, the question is not whether culture is a factor in psychologists' work, but rather where and how the effects of culture are present in everything psychologists do.
Alongside this overarching critique, the SIP commentary offers several examples of how the Ethics Code may be read through the eyes of AI/AN cultures and histories. Two examples from the section on research illustrate how the commentary offers an experience-near reading of the code. First, Ethical Standard 8.07 in the APA Ethics Code, Deception, states:
Psychologists do not conduct a study involving deception unless they have determined that the use of deceptive techniques is justified by the study's significant prospective scientific, educational or applied value and that effective nondeceptive alternative procedures are not feasible.
The standard requires psychologists to weigh a study's prospective value against the risk of harm from using a deceptive technique. The SIP commentary on Standard 8.07 states:
Psychologists need keep in mind the damaging past and current research being done in Native communities resulting in hypersensitivity to ANY research in Native communities. Deceptive research would compound this problem and add to the belief about research doing harm to communities. [emphasis in original]
SIP's commentary does not reject Standard 8.07, nor does it state that deception is per se unethical. Rather, it says that the standard must be read in the context of AI/AN cultures and histories. When read in this context, a psychologist could conclude that the use of deception in these communities does not pass the test set forth in Standard 8.07 since the risk of harm from using deceptive techniques in AI/AN communities would always — or nearly always — outweigh the prospective value of a study. The power of the SIP commentary is that it gives voice to how members of a community with a unique history read specific language in the APA Ethics Code.
A second example from the research section is how researchers should involve members of AI/AN communities in all stages of research, including the dissemination of results. This theme, of community, permeates the commentary. In commenting on Ethical Standard 8.10, Reporting Research Results, SIP states:
Psychological researchers have a duty to consult with community stakeholders about the appropriate ways to share and disseminate the findings with the community being investigated. Psychologists have a further duty to report results effectively, concisely, clearly to the community in a way easily understood by community members. Respecting the dignity and sovereignty of the community dictates that a community member should be included in the writing process and subsequent publication as a community expert in interpreting research outcomes.
The commentary on Standard 8.10 envisions a particular kind of relationship between the psychologists conducting the research and the AI/AN community. This relationship is characterized by respect, collaboration and trust. Much of SIP's commentary focuses not on what an ethical psychologist does, but rather on what kind of relationships a psychologist has in order to be ethical.
Language has an important and interesting role in the SIP commentary. Ethical Standard 10.10, Terminating Therapy, provides appropriate bases for terminating therapy, such as that the client is no longer benefiting from or is being harmed by therapy continuing. The commentary addresses the specific language used in Standard 10.10:
A policy (that ended with Richard M. Nixon) to end the existence of American Indian people was called the Termination Policy. Many atrocities were committed on American Indian people by the Federal and State governments in the name of that policy. The word "termination" has a special pain for Native peoples.
This passage provides a vivid example of how a member of an AI/AN community might read the Ethics Code in a way that is unique to that community. The point is not that there is a "correct" or "incorrect" way to read the APA Ethics Code, but rather — as the SIP commentary emphasizes throughout — every reading of the code brings a cultural perspective.
I hope that APA members, and especially students and trainees, will read and discuss SIP's commentary on the APA Ethics Code. The commentary vividly brings to life an AI/AN voice and lens. It will make an important contribution to our understanding of what "being an ethical psychologist" means for all psychologists.
Stephen H. Behnke, JD, PhD, MDiv, is director of APA's Ethics Office.
