Talking Stick - November/December 2016 - 49

do well to remember the Hippocratic oath,
primum non nocere or "First, do no harm."
There have been occasions when a lack of
ethics by researchers has had drastic and tragic
consequences. While these studies originally
may have been done with no malice of intent,
and were thought to have had a benefit at
the time they were conducted, looking back
historically with a more definitive lens has
shown that not to be the case.
Cases such as the Tuskegee Syphilis
Study or the Stanford Prison Experiment
may be extreme examples of ethical lapses,
but consider one example that is far more
common within a campus's residential life
department. In 2002 the National Institute
on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism noted that
housing departments traditionally report
alcohol education programs as a portion of the
campus's overall efforts. This reporting may
include the number of educational events,
the number of attendees, and the number of
individuals who received a conduct violation
related to alcohol. The group wanted to
determine if such educational efforts made
a difference: Did student behavior change as
a result of the events, and were the learning
outcomes met? The report published by the
task force provided a structure to review and
support campus interventions by assigning
them tiers of effectiveness.
The first tier included strategies considered
to be effective among college and university
students and included examples such as brief
motivational enhancement interventions.
The second tier included strategies, such as
enforcing the laws related to the minimum
drinking age, that showed positive effects in
general populations. The third tier included
strategies showing "evidence of logical and
theoretical promise," such as the provision of
safe rides programs. However, the fourth tier
was based on evidence demonstrating that
a particular intervention was ineffective and
gave as an example "informational, knowledgebased, or values clarification interventions
about alcohol and the problems related to its
excessive use, when used alone."
Seeing these results, a prevention specialist
working with residence life partners might
suggest doing more with programs in the first
two tiers and perhaps training residence life

staff in motivational interviewing techniques
to utilize in conduct hearings. Also, they
could suggest that fourth tier events, like a
"Day of the Dead Car Crash," delivers little
effect, yet takes a great deal of effort. In light
of this information, is it unethical if a housing
program were to continue utilizing activities
that would be classified as the fourth tier?
Fortunately, there are a variety of tangible
resources to help housing and assessment
teams navigate potential minefields and to
act ethically when serving as the custodian
and interpreter of large amounts of data.
One measuring stick could be the ACUHO-I
Standards and Ethical Principles for College
and University Housing Professionals, which
establish desired objectives and behaviors
within the campus housing profession.
Regarding assessment programs and
practices, the American Evaluation Association
indicates that ethical assessments require

How to manage these
challenges will require
thinking through ethical
conundrums, and, as
technology continues to
evolve, consequences are just
emerging.
"systematic, data-based inquiries" and depend
upon evaluators who are competent and
honest, demonstrating integrity and respect
for others and accepting "responsibilities for
general and public welfare." This means that
ethical professionals look to gather and analyze
data that better informs decision making while
also protecting the welfare of the stakeholders.
Another ethical consideration is to maintain
the privacy and confidentiality of individuals
connected to the data and the security of the
data systems utilized. How to manage these
NOVEMBER + DECEMBER 2016

49
Talking Stick - November/December 2016

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Talking Stick - November/December 2016
