Abstract

The purpose of this study was to explore ethical dimensions of school psychology and to address some limitations of our present understanding of school psychologists' ethical concerns and commitments. Historically, the topic of ethics in school psychology has been explored mainly through studies providing objective, quantified descriptors of ethical concerns, with minimal attention given to the active construal of ethical concerns and commitments by individual practitioners. Researchers such as Gilligan and Lyons have explored moral development, suggesting the presence of two moral voices---the ethic of justice and the ethic of care---that characterize people's understandings of moral and ethical concerns. Using the moral voices framework as a starting point for analysis and discussion, the goal of the present study was to provide a qualitative exploration of school psychologists' active constructions of ethical practice. This research was intended to build upon existing knowledge of school psychologists' understandings of ethical concerns and commitments characterizing their role. ;The first section of the study, Understanding the Silence, outlined the limited manner through which school psychologists' moral concerns have been understood and represented. Socio-historical, systemic and political reasons for these limited perspectives and understandings, as well as for the need to gain a more comprehensive understanding of ethics in practice, were explored. ;The second section, Breaking the Silence, provided a thematic representation of the conversations of ten school psychologists who participated in semi-structured interviews. Five themes emerged from the interviews: Ethical commitments reflected in role definitions; intersection of personal and professional commitments; construing ethical conflict as system versus individual tensions; construing ethical practice as a complex web of relationships; and the development and emergence of moral voice. ;The third section, Amplifying the Voices, provided discussion of the active process that school psychologists engaged in as they construed their ethical commitments. The voice of justice was amplified and the voice of care suppressed in these discussions. Socio-historical, systemic and political reasons for the suppression of care---including financial barriers, role perceptions, justice focus in education, nature of training, and professional survival---were discussed. Results indicated that ethical concerns in school psychology must be contextualized to understand the moral voices that are heard. One place that school psychologists expressed both moral voices most freely was the role of child advocate. Data indicated that a clear justice/care dichotomy of the type described by Gilligan was insufficient for understanding the complex ethical commitments of school psychologists; rather, these concepts must be reconceptualized and situated within the unique contexts where school psychologists practice. Implications for research and practice, including recommendations for encouraging an ethic of care in schools and in school psychology practice, were asserted