teaching ethics and values in public administration: are we making a difference?

Teaching Ethics and Values in Public Administration: Are We Making a Difference?Author(s): Donald C. MenzelSource: Public Administration Review, Vol. 57, No. 3 (May - Jun., 1997), pp. 224-230Published by: Wiley on behalf of the American Society for Public AdministrationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/976653 .

Accessed: 16/06/2014 00:09

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Wiley and American Society for Public Administration are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve andextend access to Public Administration Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.163 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 00:09:06 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aspa

http://www.jstor.org/stable/976653?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Teaching Ethics and Values in PublicAdministraon: Are We Making a Difference?

Donald C. Menzel, University of South Florida

This article addresses probably the most importantyet least investigated question regarding ethics education in graduate degree granting programs in public administration in the United States: What difference does ethics education make in the life and behavior of men and women in pursuit ofpublic service careers? Building on a 1995 survey ofNASPAA member schools, the author is able to

identify a small number ofschools that (a) require MPA students to complete an ethics course, and (b) have had this requirement in place for at leastfiveyears. MPA alumni who graduated (1990- 1995) from four participating schools that meet these criteria were surveyed in 1996 The survey results indicate that ethics education is having a positive influence on the graduates of these programs but that other factors are also influential. Perhaps most importantly, the data suggest that the ethical environment of the educational program must be taken into account in order to obtain a more complete understanding of ethics education outcomes.

Moral education, Derek Bok (1990) reminds us, once occupied a central place in the intellectual life of students and professors. Strengthening or building the character of students was part and parcel of academe, at least until World War II. College presi- dents and professors believed that character building contributed to "an educated class committed to a principled life in the service of society" (Bok, 1990, 66). This view and practice, Bok contends, has been largely abandoned, having lost ground to logical pos- itivists, the growth of big science, and the spectacular advances of technology. The secularization of society also took its toll on moral education in the halls of academe.

In public administration, questions of morality and ethics became captives of the Wilsonian legacy of neutral competency, which found expression in the dominant operating philosophy of public man- agers to get the job done. Getting the job done right meant for all practical purposes doing what was right or ethical. Professionals in the "pro-state" tirelessly pursued the holy trilogy of efficiency, economy, and effectiveness (Stillman, 1991). In combination with a heavy dose of clientelism and paternalism, questions of morality and ethics were largely relegated to the sidelines in the teaching and practice of public administration, even though new public administration theorists made a determined effort to inject values into the life of the administrative state.

Then came Watergate, the Iran-Contra affair, and the Wall Street-HUD-Capitol Hill scandals of the 1980s. The near impeachment and removal of a sit- ting president stirred the American soul and prompt- ed renewed public interest in governmental ethics. Thus, in 1978 President Jimmy Carter signed into law the Ethics in Government Act, committing federal employees to standards of behavior believed to be in the best interests of the American public. Six years later, in 1984, the American Society for Public Administration (ASPA) adopted an ethics code designed to raise the ethical standards and practices of its members. And in the late 1980s, the National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Admin- istration (NASPAA) incorporated language into its curriculum standards that called for public administration programs to "enhance the student's values, knowledge, and skills to act ethically and effectively."

224 Public Administration Review * May/June 1997, Vol. 57, No. 3



These laudable efforts-federal legislation, ASPA's code of ethics, and NASPAA's new language-were clear signals to the public and academe that ethical behavior is needed and expected of government officials. Moreover, the message sent to public administration graduate programs was unequivocal-ethics education cannot and should not be relegated to the curriculum sidelines.

Indeed, the evidence points to the fact that MPA programs have moved steadily over the past 25 years toward the incorpora- tion of ethics instruction and courses in their curriculums. A 1995 survey of NASPAA-member schools found that about a dozen schools added ethics courses in the 1 970s, with another ten schools added to the list in the early and mid-1980s (Menzel, forthcoming). The adoption curve increased sharply in the late 1980s and 1 990s following NASPAA's change in the language of its accredita- tion standards. By the mid-1990s, 78 NASPAA-member, MPA- degree-granting schools offered an ethics course. Among these 78 schools, one of every four requires matriculating students to complete an ethics course (Menzel, forthcoming).

The purpose of this article is to extend previous research in order to address what is probably the most important but least investigated question facing faculty and public administration programs that provide ethics instruction: Does ethics education make a difference? That is, does formal ethics instruction in graduate public affairs/administration (PA/A) schools help public service professionals resolve ethical dilemmas? Stated differently, does ethics pedagogy matter? And if it does, what are the key variables or influences that are brought to bear on the ethical outlooks and behaviors of men and women in pursuit of a public service career? Conversely, if ethics pedagogy does not make a difference, then why not? What factors or influences diminish the desired outcomes of ethics education?

Research on Teaching Ethics in Public Administration Programs

Research on teaching ethics in graduate public administration programs began in the 1970s and accelerated in the 1 980s. Catron and Denhardt (1994) in their review of ethics education in public administration point out that investigators sought answers to questions such as: * Why has ethics education become important? (Rohr, 1976;

Dwivedi and Engelbert,1 981) * What factors influence decisions to offer ethics courses? (Lee

and Pugh, 1987; Lee, 1990) * What are or should be the goals of ethics education? (Fleishman

and Payne, 1980; Hejka-Ekins, 1988) * How does or should a program or department incorporate

ethics instruction into the curriculum? * What is or should be the content of ethics courses? (Catron and

Denhardt, 1988) * How do faculty respond to ethics pedagogy? (Piper, Gentile,

and Parks, 1993) Questions also believed important but which have received lit-

tle or no systematic study include: * What instructional methodologies are employed to teach

ethics? * Who actually teaches ethics courses?

* What difference does ethics education make in the life and behavior of men and women in pursuit of public service careers? Previous research conducted by the author indicates that PA/A

ethics educators believe they are making a difference (Menzel, forthcoming). Survey responses from 78 of 225 members of the National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administra- tion (NASPAA) that offer an ethics course showed that seven out of ten believe students find the subject matter valuable. A smaller percentage (67 percent) said they believe that students who receive ethics instruction become more ethically sensitive. And, one out of every two respondents assert that perhaps, most importantly, students use the ethical knowledge gained in their program of study to resolve ethical dilemmas.

These findings, while impressionistic, are encouraging for those who believe that ethics education is important and does make a difference in the professional lives of PA/A graduates. Impressions, of course, can be wrong. Moreover, since many ethics educators bring to their task a professional advocacy (which is presumably neither a brand of moral indoctrination nor ethical zealotry), a self- fulfilling prophecy may be at work. That is, ethics educators may want to believe that they are making a difference and are therefore inclined to report such on a survey. Thus, it would be desirable to conduct a study that incorporates an outcome measure of ethics education in PA/A schools.

As noted above, in 1995 the author surveyed NASPAA-member schools to obtain data regarding the growth of ethics instruction in PA/A programs. Among other things, the findings included information on (1) how many schools offer an ethics course, (2) when an ethics course was first placed in the curriculum, and (3) whether or not an ethics course was required for graduation. Also noted earlier, 60 percent (n = 78) of the respondents (n = 134) reported that their schools offered an ethics course.

With these data and an interest in learning about the ethics education experience of MPA graduates, the author decided to survey MPA alumni. More specifically, it was believed desirable to survey schools that (1) had an ethics course requirement in place for at least five years, and (2) whose alumni had graduated in the six-year period between 1990 and 1995. This latter criteria was selected due to the anticipated difficulty of locating alumni who had been out of school for more than five years. Approximately 12 schools that responded to the 1995 survey satisfied these criteria. Consequently, the author contacted NASPAA principal representatives at these schools and asked them to participate by providing a list of all graduates for the study period 1990 through 1995. Five schools provided the necessary alumni information. Due to financial constraints, the author surveyed the alumni of four of these schools.

1996 Ethics Education Study Findings Does ethics education make a difference? Several question

strategies were used to generate answers to this question. First, MPA alumni respondents were asked two important and related questions: 1. Have you personally faced one or more ethical dilemmas on

your job over the past five years? If the respondent replied

Teaching Ethics and Values in Public Administration 225



The participating schools and alumni were assured that their participaton would be treated confidentially and are therefore not named in this article. However, some general information about the schools can be supplied. The size of their programs varies. The smallest program, which is located in a southwestern state, awarded 36 MPA degrees. The graduates of this program find most employment opportunities at the local level. The largest program which is located in a southern state, awarded 236 MPA degrees. Graduates of this program are mainly employed by federal and county agencies, although a sizeable number find employment in the business community. The other schools, both of which are located in western states, awarded 69 and 122 MPA degrees, respectively. Both are located in their state capitals. The graduates of one school find employment primarily in federal and state agencies while the graduates of the other find employment primarily in nonprofit organizations and local governments in the region. All schools are public institutions with doctoral degree-granting programs.

The four participating schools do not constitute a random sample of NASPAA-member schools. However, they do vary in size, geography, and student characteristics. Perhaps most importantly, all require degree-seeking students to take an ethics course, and all have had that requirement in place for more than five years. Thus they satisfy key selection criteria for this study.

The alumni study populations and survey response rates are reported in Table 1. The response rates ranged from a high of 74 percent for the smallest program to a low of nearly 61 percent for the largest program. The overall response rate was 64.7 percent; a figure which excludes alumni who did not have viable mailing addresses. The response rate is 57.6 percent for the total population.

Table 2 provides information about the respondents' backgrounds. In the aggregate, male respondents outnumber female respondents, and the vast majority of both is Caucasian. Sixty-five percent of the respondents are less than 40 years of age. There is wide varia- tion in employment with the modal category being the federal government. Less than 10 percent report having had little or no public service employment. Most respondents belong to at least one professional association, with two out of ten reporting that they are members of the American Society for Public Administration.

The survey questionnaire contained five parts, some of which had both open and closed-ended questions. Part I solicited factual and opinion-based information about the respondent's formal ethics education experience. This included information on instructional methods employed in the respondent's ethics course and assessments of the graduate ethics course experience. Part II asked about the respondent's ethics educational experience via job related training programs or workshops. Part III focused on the respondent's attitudes and views of how his or her ethics education may have influenced his/her ethical outlook and behavior. Part IV solicited assessments of how the respondent's ethics education helped him or her resolve ethical dilemmas faced on the job. This section also contained open- ended questions that asked the respondent to comment on why she or he felt the knowledge gained or values acquired from the ethics course did or did not help resolve an ethical dilemma. Part V collected background and workplace information and included an open- ended question that requested recommendations for strengthening ethics education in MPA programs.

The questionnaire was pretested with 40 randomly selected alumni, 17 of whom returned the questionnaire. Following revision, the questionnaire was published in booklet format and mailed in April 1996. The initial mailing was followed by a postcard reminder approximately two weeks later. A second mailing which included another copy of the questionnaire was made approximately one week after the postage paid return deadline was reached.

Table 1 MPA Alumni Survey Populations and Response Rates

School A School B School C School D T (n) VA (n) #R (n) RR(%) T (n) VA (n) AR(n) RR (%) T (n) VA (n) #R (n) RR(%) T (n) VA (n) #R (n) RR (%) 36 31 23 74.2 69 62 39 62.9 122 109 77 70.6 235 209 127 60.8 T= 1oral Alumni VA = Alumni with Viable Addresses #R = Number of Respondents RR = Response Rate = (R/VA) x 100

Table 2 Respondents' Characteristics

Gender (n) (%) Race/Ethnic Origins (n) (%) Place of Employment (n) (%) Current Org. Post (n) (%) Male 140 53 American Indian 0 0 Municipality 28 11 Frontline worker 44 17 Female 125 47 Asian/Pacific Islander 4 1 County government 31 12 First line supervisor 27 1 1

African American 9 3 State agency 34 13 Middle level supervisor 36 14 Age (n~) (%)~ Hispanic/Chicano 12 5 Federal agency 54 20 Upper level supervisor 34 13 29 or less 57 2 Caucasian 230 89 Nonprofitagen 34 13 Topmanagem nr 39 15 30-39 11i4 434 Other 5 2 Private business firm 34 13 Staff support 27 11 40.49 65 24 ~~~~~~~~~~~Academic institution 22 8 O~ther 49 19 50-59 28 11 Other (inc. unemployed) 27 10




"yes," then he or she was asked: 2. Did your ethics education help you resolve the dilemmas you

faced? In the aggregate, three of every four respondents reported that

they had faced a work-related ethical dilemma. Of those who said they had faced an ethical dilemma, 43 percent indicated that their graduate ethics educational experience helped them while 31 percent said it did not. One of every four said they were unsure.

All respondents were provided the opportunity to comment on why they felt their ethics education did or did not help them deal with ethical dilemmas. The comments of those who said that their ethics education had helped them can be placed into two broad categories: (1) value reinforcement and (2) ethics reasoning. Many respondents said that their ethics education, especially as reflected in the ethics course they had taken, did not displace old or existing values with new or different values but clarified and reinforced those that they brought to their course of study. Con- sider the following comment by a white female in her 40s employed by an academic institution: "As an administrator of financial assistance, ethical issues are a regular occurrence. The values that I hold dear were acquired prior to completing an ethics course. However, the course helped me better identify ethical issues and make more objective decisions, which is often difficult to do." Other respondents noted that their ethics education helped them reason through difficult situations. A white female in her 20s employed by a federal agency exclaimed: "I am in a posi- tion to provide government assistance to nonskilled largely unedu- cated, lower socioeconomic individuals. My ethics education helped me suspend traditional stereotypical 'knee-jerk' reactions and remember that their frame of reference may be different than mine, but that doesn't make it (or them) 'wrong.' Mine is not to judge." A white male in his 50s employed by a nonprofit organiza- tion added: "I saw some confidential information about a parent of a patient. It had implications regarding the parent's moral suitabil- ity for his job. My ethics class made me aware of the legal implications and the necessity of doing something. Although I can't be sure I did any good, I feel that at least I did do something rather than feeling unequipped to deal with the problem at all."

Among those who said that their ethics education did not help them deal with ethical dilemmas, a number of persons commented that their ethics had been molded by their upbringing which, for better or worse, was what mattered the most when they were faced with a dilemma. As a young white male employed by a municipality put it: "I believe that most 'ethics education' has been complet- ed by about age 10. Formal education will not change people's ethics in grad school because your ethical foundation has already been laid and built upon during and by life experiences."

Still others who said that they had faced an ethical dilemma and had found their ethics education uninfluential often criticized the approach taken in their ethics course. A white female in her 40s who is employed by a council of governments asserted: "We discussed academic theories of various belief systems. And, while very intellectually stimulating, it did not seem very relevant when your entry-level job depends on doing whatever is expected of you by your bosses." Another white female in her 30s and employed by a state agency said she was unsure whether or not her ethics education helped her deal with an ethical dilemma because "intel-

lectually understanding a framework does not necessarily translate into behavior. Practitioners need an environment which supports or at least allows using ethical considerations as part of the criteria for decision making."

These comments and the survey statistics reported above provide some insight into the difference that ethics education makes, but even more can be learned by disaggregating the survey data. When disaggregated by school, some interesting contrasts appear. Table 3, for example, shows that a plurality of alumni at three of the four schools felt that their ethics education had been helpful. A plurality at the smallest school, however, felt just the opposite. On balance, there is probably more good news here than bad news. Still, the fact that majorities at all schools either believed that their ethics education did not help them or were unsure about the matter could be viewed as a concern.

Regarding the "no difference" outcome for School A in Table 3, several plausible hypotheses might be advanced. First, the question asked of the respondents did not inquire about the intensity of the ethical dilemmas they faced. It is entirely conceivable that the 19 persons at School A who responded faced very intense dilemmas. Perhaps the more intense the dilemma, the more difficult it is to be confident that one's ethics education helped resolve the dilemma. Second, the ethical environment of the program itself might be responsible for this outcome. Some insight into the validity of this hypothesis can be found in Table 4. One question asked of the respondents was: "In your opinion, what proportion of the MPA graduate students in your program cheated on exams, papers, etc.?" Response categories were: none, one out of 20, one out of ten, one out of five, one out of three, and one out of two.

As indicated in Table 4, 18 percent of the respondents of School A said that there was no cheating by MPA students while 72 percent said that there was. These numbers appear to deviate considerably from those reported for the other schools. A further check on this finding was done using the difference of means t-test. When the mean (assigning interval values to each category) for School A is compared to that of other schools, the results show that the difference is statistically significant at p < .05 for two of the three schools. On average, School A respondents report more cheating by their classmates than do respondents at Schools C and D, but not School B. This is a crude test given the level of mea- surement, but it does support the interpretation (i.e., the ethical

Table 3 Ethics Education Outcomes

Have you personally faced one or more ethical dilemmas on your job over the past five years?

yes no unsure School A 86.4 13.6 n/a School B 78.4 21.6 n/a School C 77.6 22.4 n/a School D 75.4 24.6 n/a Did your ethics education help you resolve the dilemmas you faced?

yes no unsure SchoolA 31.6 36.8 31.6 School B 48.3 24.1 27.6 School C 45.8 22 32.2 School D 42.4 37.1 20.7

n/a = not asked.




Table 4 Cheating by MPA Graduate Students (in percentages)

None lof20 lof 10 lof 5 lof 3 lof2

All Respondents (n= 234) 42 42 12 3 1 0 School A (n = 22) 18 59 9 9 5 0 School B (n= 33) 36 52 9 0 3 0 School C (n= 63) 52 27 17 4 0 0 SchoolD (n= 116) 41 44 11 4 0 0

environment hypothesis) that one might derive from the data in Table 4.

A third hypothesis, although perhaps not as plausible as the others, is the possibility that the dilemmas faced by MPA graduates employed at the local level of government are somehow different in kind or intensity than dilemmas faced by graduates employed by federal and state organizations. The empirical basis for this hypothesis is that most (48 percent) of the graduates of school A are employed by local governments in their region, whereas this number is significantly lower (in the 20 percent range) for the graduates of the other schools. There might also be a cultural explanation at work here. Perhaps the culture of the local government workplace mirrors the culture of the academic setting thus reinforcing errant behavior such as that reported above for student cheating.

Still another way to gain perspective on the "difference" question can be seen in Table 5. This table contains a series of educational and noneducational factors that might influence one's ethical outlook and behavior. They are ranked from the highest to the lowest according to the importance assigned to them by the respondents. Family, friends, and church occupy the top spots while lower on the importance scale are professional association activities and interaction with faculty outside the classroom. Occupying the midrange between important and somewhat important are educational influences. Discussion of ethics and val-

ues in ethics courses is rated more highly than similar discussions in MPA course work as a whole and discussions with other students. Ranked fourth and ahead of the educational influences is "interaction with others in the workplace." On balance these findings suggest that completing a formal course of instruction in ethics is valuable even though the respondents regard noneducational influences as more important.

Further perspective on the value of an ethics course in the MPA curriculum can be obtained from Table 6. This

table reports the results of respondents' assessments of their graduate ethics course experience. Assessments are quite favorable overall, with high percentages of all respondents (see far right column in Table 6) reporting that the course subject matter was valuable, stimulating, and relevant to the MPA program. Assessments are also favorable but a little ambiguous when asked about how the course may have affected them. Most said the course helped them become a more ethically sensitive person, while a smaller percentage (37 percent) said the course helped them resolve ethical dilemmas. One of three reported that the course made no difference in their ethical outlook or behavior. Fewer than one of ten believed there were undesirable side effects such as becoming more self- righteous about ethical matters.

Probing further, another section of the questionnaire solicited general attitudes and views of ethics education. These responses are reported in Table 7 for all participants. The information in Table 7 correlates with the findings of previous tables in regard to the difference question. Nearly seven of every ten respondents said that their ethics education helped them deal with job related ethical issues. Moreover, majorities said that their ethics education was not a form of moral indoctrination. Moral reasoning as an approach to ethics education is endorsed by nearly eight of every ten respondents.

Attitudes toward the role of professors in the ethics education equation are interesting. While most said they learned little about

Table 5 Factors Influencing Respondent's Ethical Outlook and Behavior

How important do you feel the following educational and noneduational influences have been on your ethical outlook and behavior? 1 = very important 2 = important 3 = somewhat important 4 = somewhat unimportant 5 = not important at all

Very Somewhat Somewhat Not Important Rank Mean Important % Important % Important % Unimportant % At All %

Family (n =261) 1 1.28 79.5 15 3 1 1 Friends (n= 245) 2 1.62 53 35 9 2 <1 Church (n= 234) 3 1.77 56 21.6 14 4 3 Interaction with others in workplace (n= 258) 4 2.09 29 43.5 19 5 3 Discussion of ethics and values in ethics course (n = 258) 5 2.39 22 35 30 8.5 5 Discussion of ethics and values in MPA course work as a whole (n = 259) 6 2.45 20 35 30 10 5 Interaction with students in your MPA program (n = 260) 7 2.76 13 28 36 13 9 Discussion of codes of ethics and professional standards at conferences (n= 195) 8 2.91 11 28 31 18 12 Membership in professional associations (n = 229) 9 2.98 6.5 29 37 15 12.6 Interaction with faculty outside the classroom (n= 239) 10 3.04 10 25 33 15 17




Table 6 Assessment of Graduate Ethics Course Experience (percentage responding, "yes")

School A (n=23) School B (n=39) School C (n=77) School D (n=127) All (n=266) I found the subject matter valuable. 78 85 84 79 81 I found the subject matter stimulating. 78 77 73 74 74 I found the course content relevant to the MPA program. 83 85 84 83 84 It helped me become a more ethically sensitive person. 52 51 65 49 54 It didn't really make a difference in my ethical outlook. 44 26 27 36 33 It didn't really make a difference in my ethical behavior. 44 33 23 35 33 I became more ethically self-righteous. 0 5 5 4 4 I felt threatened by the subject matter. 0 0 0 0 0 The course helped me become a more ethically acting person. 30 33 39 18 27 The course helped me resolve ethical dilemmas. 35 46 39 34 37 I developed an attitude of being a more ethical person than others. 9 8 6 6 7

Respondents were asked to check all items that applied to her/his graduate ethics course experience.

ethics from watching the behavior of MPA instructors and feel that ethics instructors should not try to make students more ethical persons, seven of every ten agreed with the statement that "professors should serve as moral exemplars." An even larger number (92 percent) believe that colleges/universities should prepare MPA students to recognize and deal with ethical issues.

At face value, these findings are encouraging. MPA alumni (and I would suspect the vast majority of those currently seeking MPA degrees) appear to be discriminating consumers of graduate ethics education. They do not want instructors to be ethical mis- sionaries, but they do want to be taught how to reason through ethical issues. Perhaps most significantly, students and alumni want their PA/A professors to practice what they teach, and they firmly believe that higher education has an ethics education responsibility.

Conclusion Is ethics instruction finding a niche in PA/A schools? Unques-

tionably. Are we making a difference? Yes, so it appears. Are we making a large enough difference? Probably not. The results of the 1996 Ethics Education Survey are certainly encouraging to ethics educators. Alumni at three of the four schools surveyed consistently reported that their ethics education had made a differ-

ence in their professional lives. Still, three schools are just that- three schools. There are at least 74 other PA/A schools that have placed an ethics course in their curriculum, and we know virtually nothing about the impact of ethics education at those schools. Moreover, there are a handful of schools that provide either formal or informal ethics-across-the-curriculum instruction about which we know little (Bowman and Menzel, 1997).

Nor do we know very much about how various conceptual approaches to ethics education are received and what difference, if any, these approaches make in the professional life of MPA graduates. Is a virtues approach such as that reflected in Aristotle's Nico- machean Ethics more effective than a moral reasoning approach? Or is a deontological approach such as Immanuel Kant's categori- cal imperative more effective than a teleological approach such as John Stuart Mill's utilitarianism? Does it really matter which approach is employed? Possibly not. What may be most important is that ethics educators encourage students to think carefully about complex moral issues (Bok, 1990).

Evidence from the 1995 survey of NASPAA schools clearly points to conceptual diversity and multiple goals of ethics education (Menzel, forthcoming). At the top of the goals list is the need to foster ethical conduct in the public service. This goal is followed closely by two related goals: (1) to develop in students an awareness of ethical issues and problems within the field, and (2)

Table 7 Attitudes and Views of Ethics Education* (in percentages)

My ethics education as an MPA student helped Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Unsure

me deal with job related ethical issues. (n = 261) 15 54 16 6 10 I learned a great deal about ethics from watching the behavior of my MPA instructors. (n = 259) 7 23 38 13 19

An ethics course should be required of all MPA students. (n = 261) 68 22 4 1 5 An ethics course should emphasize moral reasoning. (n = 260) 44 36 5 1 14 Codes of ethics should be emphasized in MPA curriculums. (n = 258) 40 41 9 0 10 Ethics instructors should try to make MPA students more ethical persons. (n = 257) 6 28 38 15 14 The ethics instruction that I received was largely a form of moral indoctrination. (n = 258) 2 7 46 38 7

Preparing MPA students to recognize and deal with ethical issues should be an important function of colleges/universities. (n = 259) 52 40 3 2 3

Students acquire ethics from professors. (n = 257) 3 18 42 24 13 Professors should serve as moral exemplars. (n = 257) 22 50 10 7 11 * Totals may not add to 100 due to rounding.




to cultivate an attitude of moral obligation and personal responsibility in pursuing a career in the public service. These goals are important and, if realized, must surely yield public service professionals committed to a principled life in the service of society.

The proliferation of ethics courses can be viewed as an important development in what Bok calls teaching the "new" ethics. Today's applied ethics course, he contends, "does not seek to con- vey a set of moral truths but tries to encourage students to think carefully about complex moral issues" (Bok, 1990, 73). Contin- uing, he asserts that "the principal aim of the course is not to impart right answers but to make students more perceptive in detecting ethical problems when they arise, better acquainted with the best moral thought that has accumulated through the ages, and more equipped to reason about the ethical issues they will face in their own personal and professional lives" (Bok, 1990, 73).

There is probably no one best way to acquire ethics. Still, there is much to learn about both the teaching and learning (or acquir- ing) of ethics and values in public administration. Among other things, we need to know how differences in age, work experience, gender, and organizational cultures enhance or mitigate ethics educational outcomes. Other potentially important influences are ethics training sessions and workshops which are a growing fixture in public organizations. However, we know little about how such experiences reinforce or detract from the ethics education of PA/A graduates (Bowman and Menzel, 1997).

NASPAAKs call for programs to "enhance the student's values, knowledge, and skills to act ethically and effectively...in the management of public and, as appropriate, third sector organizations" can hardly be contested. The 1996 Ethics Education Survey points to the unmistakable conclusion that ethical challenges in the

public service are commonplace and choices must be made. The 1996 survey data also point to the fact that formal training in ethics is resulting in desired outcomes. At the same time, there is evidence that other factors such as the ethical environment of the educational program, are at work and must be taken into account in order to obtain a more complete understanding of ethics education outcomes.

The key phrase "to act ethically" should be, in this writer's opinion, more than a collection of words that accredited PA/A programs tack on their collective doors for all to view. Schools that have yet to incorporate ethics education into their MPA curriculum should move with due speed toward doing so. At the same time, those schools that have developed ethics pedagogy should not presume all is well. They might want to take stock of their ethical environment and act accordingly.

Several years ago the Hastings Center released a report calling for the higher education community to act with greater vigor and conviction in placing ethics and values in campus curricula. Their message should not be lost sight of. Rephrased some, the report asserted that we cannot afford, wittingly or unwittingly, to be a partner in producing "a new generation of leaders who are ethically illiterate at best or dangerously adrift and morally misguided at worse" (Jennings, Nelson, and Parens, 1994, 2). Public administration educators should heed this call. After all, the findings reported in this article, although limited to four schools and several hundred MPA degree holders, indicate that ethics education does matter. We are making a difference!

Donald C. Menzel is a professor of public administration in the Department of Government and International Affairs at the University of South Florida.

Acknowledgments This is a revised version of a paper presented at the 1996 National Con-

ference of the American Society for Public Administration. The author would like to thank Wendy Zawadski, an MPA candidate and

a graduate research assistant in the Department of Government and Interna- tional Affairs at the University of South Florida, for valuable research support.

The author is pleased to acknowledge the financial support of the

Research and Creative Scholarship Grant Program of the University of South Florida. Thanks are due also to the NASPAA representatives who cooperated with the author in the conduct of this study. Appreciation is extended to the MPA alumni who gave generously of their time to respond to the questionnaire. The author assumes responsibility for all errors of omission or commis- sion.

References Bok, Derek (1990). Universities and the Future of America. Durham, NC:

Duke University Press. Bowman, James S., and Donald C. Menzel (1997). Teaching Ethics and Values

in Public Administration: Innovations, Strategies, and Issues. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Catron, Bayard L., and Kathryn G. Denhardt (1988). Ethics Education in Public Administration and Affairs. A monograph of the Working Group on Ethics Education. Washington, DC: American Society for Public Administration.

(1994). "Ethics Education in Public Administration." In Terry L. Cooper, ed., Handbook of Administrative Ethics. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc., 49-61.

Dwivedi, 0. P., and E. A. Engelbert (1981). "Education and Training for Values and Ethics in the Public Service: An International Perspective." Public Personnel Management 10 (Special Issue): 140-145.

Fleishman, Joel L., and Bruce L. Payne (1980). Ethical Dilemmas and the Edu- cation of Policymakers. Hastings on Hudson, NY: The Hastings Center.

Hejka-Ekins, April (1988). "Teaching Ethics in Public Administration." Pub- licAdministration Review48 (September/October): 885-891.

Jennings, Bruce, James Lindemann Nelson, and Erik Parens (1994). Values on Campus: Ethics and Values Programs in the Undergraduate Curriculum. Briarcliff Manor, NY: The Hastings Center.

Lee, Dalton S. (1990). "The Difficulty with Ethics Education in Public Administration." International Journal of Public Administration 13 (Jan- uary/March): 181-205.

Lee, Dalton S., and Darrel Pugh (1987). "Codes of Ethics, Education, and the Making of a Profession." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Western Social Science Association.

Menzel, Donald C. (Forthcoming). "Teaching Ethics and Values in Graduate PA/A Schools in the U.S.: A National Survey." PS: Political Science & Pol- itics.

Piper, Thomas R., Mary C. Gentile, and Sharon Daloz Parks (1993). Can Ethics Be Taught? Boston, MA: Harvard Business School.

Rohr, John (1976). "The Study of Ethics in the PA Curriculum." Public Administration Review 36 (July/August): 398-406.

Stillman, Richard J., 11 (1991). Preface to Public Administration. New York: St. Martin's Press, Inc.




teaching ethics and values in public administration: are we making a difference?

Documents