| Title |
Getting Started: Helping a New Profession Develop an Ethics Program
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Science and Engineering Ethics, August 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11948-011-9279-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Michael Davis, Matthew W. Keefer |
| Abstract |
Both of us have been involved with helping professions, especially new scientific or technological professions, develop ethics programs-for undergraduates, graduates, and practitioners. By "ethics program", we mean any strategy for teaching ethics, including developing materials. Our purpose here is to generalize from that experience to identify the chief elements needed to get an ethics program started in a new profession. We are focusing on new professions for two reasons. First, all the older professions, both in the US and in most other countries, now have ethics programs of some sort. They do not need our advice to get started. Second, new professions face special problems just because they are new-everything from deciding who belongs to the profession to formalizing ethical standards so that they can be taught. Our purpose in this paper is to generalize from our experience and to identify some of the fundamentals for getting an ethics program started in a new profession. We present our recommendations in the form of response to 6 questions anyone designing an ethics program for a new profession should ask. We realize that our brief discussion does not provide a complete treatment of the subject. Our purpose has been to point in the right direction those considering an ethics program for new profession. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Iran, Islamic Republic of | 1 | 6% |
| Spain | 1 | 6% |
| United States | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 15 | 83% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 22% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 17% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 11% |
| Researcher | 2 | 11% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 4 | 22% |
| Unknown | 2 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 6 | 33% |
| Arts and Humanities | 2 | 11% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 2 | 11% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 6% |
| Psychology | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 4 | 22% |
| Unknown | 2 | 11% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 August 2011.
All research outputs
#19,440,618
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Science and Engineering Ethics
#835
of 947 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#102,449
of 123,259 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science and Engineering Ethics
#8
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 947 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 123,259 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.