ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AMONG UNDERGRADUATES AT A JESUIT
UNIVERSITY: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF FIRST YEAR STUDENTS AND
GRADUATING SENIORS
Molly Shannon Dugan
Bachelor of Arts in History and Theology, University of San Francisco, 2006
Master of Education in Student Development Administration, Seattle University, 2008
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty
under the supervision of
Gail F. Latta, Ph.D.
in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education in Leadership Studies
Xavier University
Cincinnati, OH
October 2018
ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
Molly Dugan, 2018
ii ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AMONG UNDERGRADUATES AT A JESUIT
UNIVERSITY: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF FIRST YEAR STUDENTS AND
GRADUATING SENIORS
Molly Shannon Dugan
Dissertation Advisor: Gail F. Latta, Ph.D.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to explore the influence of institutional mission on the ways in which undergraduate college students make ethical decisions by comparing decisions made by unmatriculated first year students and graduating seniors. Analysis focused on whether unmatriculated first year students and graduating seniors employed different ethical decision-making philosophies, and whether the Jesuit identity of the study institution was reflected in the ethical decision-making of these students. The study sought to identify the approach to ethical decision-making employed by students at a
Jesuit institution of higher education, determine whether first year and senior students differed in their approach, and explore the extent to which Jesuit identity was reflected in their rationales. The study used a framework of six ethical principles: utilitarianism, categorical imperative, justice as fairness, pragmatism, altruism, and virtue ethics; and six
Jesuit values: reflection, discernment, solidarity and kinship, service rooted in justice and love, Cura Personalis, and Magis. Qualitative and quantitative data were collected to adress the four research questions guiding the study. Qualitative data was analyzed through theoretical coding and quantitative data was analyzed using repeated measures
ANOVA. Results from both analyses were first interpreted separately, then compared to better understand the influence of institutional mission on ethical decision-making. These
iii ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY analyses revealed that there was some variation in how ethical principles and Jesuit values were applied by both study populations, but not much systematic differentiation between first year students and seniors in their ethical decision making, or in the Jesuit values reflected in their decisions. Limitations and opportunities for further research aimed at clarifying the results of this exploratory study, as well as implications for student affairs professionals in the higher education community are discussed. Overall, the evidence of minimal distinctions between first year and senior level students’ ethical decision making and application of Jesuit values resulting from this study suggest there is a need to better understand the factors that contribute to the ethical and values-based development of college students. Replicating this study with a larger sample could help determine whether in fact there is room for growth in providing such developmental opportunities to undergraduates throughout their academic tenure.
iv ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
Acknowledgements
The completion of this dissertation marks the end of an educational journey supported by so many, to whom I owe a debt of gratitude. To start, my advisor, Dr. Gail
Latta. I distinctly remember the first time we met in your office in Hailstones, discussing the Leadership Studies program, me unsure of what I was doing or where I was going with my career, and you ending the conversation by declaring I had found my next steps.
Fast forward almost four years from that very first conversation and I am forever grateful for your endless support, mentorship, and insight, not to mention the seemingly endless editing, hours of data analysis, and willingness to answer questions or discuss the process every step of the way.
I am thankful for the support of my committee, Professor Paul Fiorelli, and Dr.
Dave Johnson. Paul, thank you for sparking my interest in ethics. Dave, thank you for your unending support, personally, professionally, and academically.
I also must thank my classmates in the Leadership Studies program. This journey wouldn’t have been the same without all of you. It’s been quite the ride!
To everyone who has been on the “Project Dr. Molly” cheerleading team…thank you thank you thank you. You will never know how much your continuous support and encouragement has meant to me over the past several years. Whether it was a simple
“you can do it” text message, a glass of wine, a bowl of ice cream, a surprise box in the mail (thanks, Amy!), going for a walk or run, or a high five or hug in the hallway, you are the ones who pushed me through! In particular, I must thank Laura Adkins, Amy Reed,
Amy Gamble, Rhonda Mingo, Missy Burgess, Abby King-Kaiser, Kelly Carr, the CMT
Girls Gang, the Prosecco Girls, the Saturday breakfast crew, Church-ish, and, last, but not
v ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY least, Mary Ballou, who will always be my Xavier person.
To my colleagues in Student Involvement and Student Affairs at Xavier, thank you for your flexibility, understanding, and support throughout this journey. Particularly, to Dr. Leah Busam, a huge thank you for allowing me the space to complete this program and this dissertation. Your constant support throughout this process has been appreciated beyond words.
To the students I have the privilege of working with every day, past and present…thank you for reminding me why I do this work. You inspire me always, even on the most frustrating of days.
Finally, to my family…your faith in me and my abilities has pushed me through.
Aurora and Dakota, you motivate me to be better and do better and being your Aunt is my favorite job! Mom and Dad, thanks for the laughs, the words of encouragement, the advice, and letting me call and scream once in a while. Onward and upward!
vi ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
Table of Contents
Chapter 1. Overview of the Study A. Research Topic and Background……………………………………………...1 B. Statement of the Problem……………………………………………………...3 C. Purpose of the Study…………………………………………………………..4 D. Conceptual Framework………………………………………………………..4 1. Framework for Ethical Decision-making……………………………...5 2. Framework for Jesuit Values………………………………………….7 E. Research Questions……………………………………………………………9 F. Methodology…………………………………………………………………..9 G. Definition of Terminology…………………………………………………...15 H. Assumptions…………………………………………………………………18 I. Limitations…………………………………………………………………...19 J. Delimitations…………………………………………………………………19 K. Significance of the Study…………………………………………………….20 L. Organization of the Study……………………………………………………22
Chapter 2. Literature Review A. Ethical Decision-Making…………………………………………………….23 1. An Overview and Definitions of Ethical Decision-Making…………23 2. Ethical Decision-Making Models……………………………………25 a. Four-Component Model……………………………………...26 b. Issue Contingent Model……………………………………...27 c. Person-Situation Interactionist Model……………………….29 3. Influencing Factors in Ethical Decision-Making…………………….30 a. Gender………………………………………………………..31 b. Age…………………………………………………………...32 c. Academic Major……………………………………………...33 d. Religion………………………………………………………34 e. College Ethics Courses………………………………………35 4. Use of Ethical Ideologies in Ethical Decision-Making Literature…...37 B. Ethical Perspectives as a Conceptual Framework…………………………...40 1. Utilitarianism: The Greatest Good for the Greatest Number………...40 2. Kant’s Categorical Imperative: Do What’s Right No Matter the Cost……………………………………………………….42 3. John Rawls’ Justice as Fairness: Equal Rights and Opportunities for All…...... 45 4. Pragmatism: A Focus on the Process of Moral Inquiry……………………...... 47 5. Altruism: Doing What Benefits Others………………………………48 6. Virtue Ethics: Goodness Through Actions…………………………..49 C. Jesuit Identity of Jesuit Colleges and Universities…………………………..49 1. Mission and Values at the Study Institution…………………………55 D. Impact of Student Involvement on College Students………………………..61 E. College’s Impact on Ethical Development…………………………………..64
vii ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
Chapter 3. Methodology A. Introduction…………………………………………………………………..70 B. Research Questions…………………………………………………………..70 C. Research Design……………………………………………………………...70 D. Instrumentation and Data Collection………………………………………...75 E. Population……………………………………………………………………78 F. Informed Consent…………………………………………………………….82 G. Data Analysis………………………………………………………………...84
Chapter 4. Data Analysis A. Introduction…………………………………………………………………..86 B. Research Questions…………………………………………………………..86 C. Characteristics of the Sample………………………………………………...87 1. Individual Participant Demographic Characteristics………………...88 D. Qualitative Analysis……………….………………………………………....91 1. Framework for Coding Ethical Perspectives………………………...92 2. Framework for Coding Jesuit Values………………………………..94 3. Coding Procedure…………………………………………………….96 i. Comparison of Internal and External Coding of Qualitative Data…………………………………………………………..98 1. Comparison of Internal and External Coding of Ethical Principles……………………………………………..99 2. Comparison of Internal and External Coding of Jesuit Values………………………………………………101 ii. Interaction of Ethical Principles and Jesuit Values…………103 1. Utilitarianism……………………………………….103 2. Categorical Imperative……………………………...104 3. Justice as Fairness…………………………………..105 4. Pragmatism…………………………………………106 5. Altruism…………………………………………….107 6. Virtue Ethics………………………………………..108 E. Quantitative Analysis……………………………………………………….109 1. Repeated Measures ANOVA……………………………………….113 i. Assumptions………………………………………………...113 ii. Overall Significance………………………………………...115 iii. Post Hoc Test……………………………………………….116 2. Assessing Participants Application of Ethical Principles…………..116 i. Scenario 1: Cheating on an Exam…………………………..117 ii. Scenario 2: Use of Club Funding…………………………...118 iii. Scenario 3: Fake Social Media……………………………..119 iv. Scenario 4: Time Management……………………………..120 v. Scenario 5: Underage Alcohol Use…………………………121 vi. Utilitarianism……………………………………………….123 vii. Kant’s Categorical Imperative……………………………...123
viii ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
viii. Justice as Fairness…………………………………………..125 ix. Pragmatism…………………………………………………125 x. Altruism…………………………………………………….126 xi. Virtue Ethics………………………………………………..127 3. Assessing Participants Application of Jesuit Values…...…………..128 i. Scenario 1: Cheating on an Exam…………………………..130 ii. Scenario 2: Use of Club Funding…………………………...131 iii. Scenario 3: Fake Social Media……………………………..132 iv. Scenario 4: Time Management……………………………..133 v. Scenario 5: Underage Alcohol Use…………………………134 vi. Reflection…..……………………………………………….135 vii. Discernment………………………………………………...135 viii. Solidarity & Kinship………………………………………..136 ix. Service Rooted in Justice & Love…………………………..137 x. Cura Personalis……………………………………………..138 xi. Magis……………………………………………………….139 F. Comparison of Qualitative and Quantitative Data………………………….140 1. Comparison of Ethical Principles Data……………………………..144 2. Comparison of Jesuit Values Data………………………………….146
Chapter 5. Interpretation and Implications A. Introduction…………………………………………………………………149 B. Research Question1: Patterns in Ethical Decision Making………………...149 1. Patterns in First Year Student Responses…………………………..150 i. Cheating on an Exam……………………………………….150 ii. Use of Club Funding………………………………………..151 iii. Fake Social Media…………………………………………..152 iv. Time Management………………………………………….154 v. Underage Alcohol Use……………………………………...155 vi. Summary of First Year Students’ Application of Ethical Principles……………………………………………………156 2. Patterns in Senior Student Responses………………………………157 i. Cheating on an Exam……………………………………….157 ii. Use of Club Funding………………………………………..159 iii. Fake Social Media…………………………………………..160 iv. Time Management………………………………………….161 v. Underage Alcohol Use……………………………………...162 vi. Summary of Senior Students’ Application of Ethical Principles……………………………………………………163 3. Summary of First Year and Senior Responses to Ethical Scenarios……………………………………………………………164 C. Research Question 2: Differences in Ethical Decision-Making Rationale…164 1. Comparison of Qualitative Data……………………………………165 2. Comparison of Quantitative Data…………………………………..166 3. Comparing the Patterns Using Both Qualitative and Quantitative Data…………………………………………………………………166
ix ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
D. Research Question 3: Jesuit Identity and Ethical Decision-Making………..167 1. Patterns in First Year Responses……………………………………168 i. Cheating on an Exam……………………………………….168 ii. Use of Club Funding………………………………………..169 iii. Fake Social Media…………………………………………..170 iv. Time Management………………………………………….171 v. Underage Alcohol Use……………………………………...172 vi. Summary of First Year Students’ Application of Jesuit Values………………………………………………………173 2. Patterns in Senior Student Responses………………………………174 i. Cheating on an Exam……………………………………….174 ii. Use of Club Funding………………………………………..175 iii. Fake Social Media…………………………………………..175 iv. Time Management………………………………………….176 v. Underage Alcohol Use……………………………………...177 vi. Summary of Senior Students’ Application of Jesuit Values...... 178 3. Summary of First Year and Senior Responses to Jesuit Values……179 E. Research Question 4: Degree of Integration of Jesuit Values into Ethical Decision-Making……………………………………………………………179 1. Comparison of Qualitative Data……………………………………180 2. Comparison of Quantitative Data…………………………………..181 F. Conclusions…………………………………………………………………182 1. Application of Ethical Principles…………………………………...182 2. Application of Jesuit Values………………………………………..185 G. Limitations……………………………………………………………….....187 H. Implications…………………………………………………………………190 I. Opportunities for Future Research………………………………………….193
References………………………………………………………………………………196
APPENDIX A…………………………………………………………………………..206
APPENDIX B…………………………………………………………………………..211
APPENDIX C…………………………………………………………………………..212
APPENDIX D…………………………………………………………………………..218
APPENDIX E…………………………………………………………………………..221
APPENDIX F…………………………………………………………………………..224
x ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
List of Tables
Table 1: Demographics of First Year Student Participants……………………………...89
Table 2: Religious Affiliations of First Year Student Participants………………………90
Table 3: Demographics of Senior Student Participants………………………………….90
Table 4: Religious Affiliations of Senior Student Participants…………………………..91
Table 5: Count of Each Ethical Code by Scenario……………………………………..100
Table 6: Count of Each Jesuit Value by Scenario………………………………………102
Table 7: Count of Each Jesuit Value Applied to Scenarios Coded as Utilitarianism…..104
Table 8: Count of Each Jesuit Value Applied to Scenarios Coded as Categorical Imperative………………………………………………………………………105
Table 9: Count of Each Jesuit Value Applied to Scenarios Coded as Justice as Fairness…………………………………………………………………………106
Table 10: Count of Each Jesuit Value Applied to Scenarios Coded as Pragmatism…...107
Table 11: Count of Each Jesuit Value Applied to Scenarios Coded as Altruism…..…..108
Table 12: Count of Each Jesuit Value Applied to Scenarios Coded as Virtue Ethics….109
Table 13: Means and Standard Deviations of Ethical Perspective Rationales for First Year and Senior Students……………………………………………………………..111
Table 14: Means and Standard Deviations of Jesuit Value Rationales for First Year and Senior Students…………………………………………………………………112
Table 15: Comparison of Coded Counts and Reported Means for Ethical Principles by Scenario…………………………………………………………………………142
Table 16: Comparison of Coded Counts and Reported Means for Jesuit Values by Scenario…………………………………………………………………………143
xi Chapter 1: Introduction
This case study explored the influence of institutional mission on the ways in which undergraduate college students make ethical decisions by comparing decisions made by unmatriculated first year students and graduating seniors. Analysis focused on whether first year students and graduating seniors employed different ethical decision- making philosophies, and whether the Jesuit identity of the institution was reflected in the ethical decision-making of these undergraduate students. Specifically, this study identified the approach to ethical decision-making employed by students at a Jesuit institution of higher education, determining whether first year and graduating seniors differed in their approach, and exploring the extent to which Jesuit identity was reflected in these students’ rationales for the ethical decisions of undergraduates in the first versus the final year of matriculation.
This case study was conducted at a Jesuit University because of the emphasis the institutional mission and values place on morals and justice, imparting these values to students. The study institution espouses a mission to educate students intellectually, morally, and spiritually, and promotes a vision of students becoming “people of learning and reflection, integrity and achievement, in solidarity for and with others” (Mission &
Identity, 2017e). The institution’s mission emphasizes six values tied to its Jesuit identity: reflection, discernment, solidarity and kinship, service rooted in justice and love, Magis
(the more) and Cura Personalis (care for the whole person), all of which potentially have implications for ethical decision-making (Mission & Identity, 2017a). The institution is not necessarily unique in including ethical dimensions in their mission statement, as King and Mayhew (2002) point out that most college mission statements include something
1 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY about ethics. What makes the institution an appropriate place to study the effects of institutional mission on students’ ethical decision-making is the emphasis placed on imparting institutional values to students through both curricular and co-curricular involvement. Yet while the institutional mission makes explicit the intent to educate students morally, the Jesuit mission and values do not dictate a particular approach to making ethical decisions. This study explored evidence of implicit links between the
Jesuit identity of the institution and the ethical decision-making strategies adopted by first year versus senior students.
Several researchers (Astin, 1984; King & Mayhew, 2002; Mayhew, Rockenbach,
Bowman, Seifert, Wolniak, Pascarella, & Terenzini, 2016) have reported evidence that college impacts students and their development. The years spent in college are influential and formative in the development of students, including, and especially, ethically and morally (King & Mayhew, 2002; Mayhew, et al., 2016). Astin (1984) indicates it is especially through involvement on campus, broadly defined, that a student develops. Yet while it has been established that college has an impact on the ethical and moral development of students (see Mayhew, et al., 2016 for a review), only a small number of studies have focused on ethical decision-making. Review of this literature, reveals the majority of research completed on ethical decision-making has been conducted in schools or colleges of business and management, based largely on convenience sampling (Craft,
2013; King & Mayhew, 2002), since the majority of business schools require students to participate in some sort of ethics class (Craft, 2013).
All of this pointed to a need to expand research on college student ethical decision-making epistemologically to provide a campus wide perspective using
2 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY controlled sampling strategies. This case study combined an interest in the potential influence of the Jesuit identity of an academic institution with the need to expand the literature of ethical decision-making beyond business majors, to explore the influence of mission on ethical decision-making by comparing the decision-making strategies of first year students with graduating seniors.
Statement of the Problem
The mission of many, if not most, colleges and universities includes something about ethics, whether explicit or implicit (King & Mayhew, 2002). Universities want to send graduates out into the world as well-rounded, ethical people. Further, there is an expectation that students will develop morally and ethically while in college, which is supported by a plethora of research indicating that this expectation is not misaligned
(King & Mayhew, 2002; Mayhew, et al., 2016). This expectation is heightened at an institution grounded in the Jesuit tradition whose mission is to “educate students intellectually, morally, and spiritually” (Mission & Identity, 2017e). Though this expectation exists, and it is known that students develop while in college, there are gaps in the research regarding what is actually known about college students and ethics, particularly in relation to ethical decision-making.
Currently, the limited research that compares ethical decision-making among college students in their first and final years of study largely exists within the context of a business school, and does not include research on the influence of the Jesuit nature of an institution on the ethical decision-making of their students. The current study sought to fill this gap, exploring the ways that a students’ ethical decision-making changes as they develop, and reflects institutional mission in the first and final year of study. In beginning
3 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY to fill this gap, this study focused on the strategies students used and their rationale for their decisions.
Purpose of the Study
The primary intent of this research study was to compare the ethical decision- making philosophies employed by first year and senior undergraduate college students, and to explore the extent to which elements of the institution’s Jesuit identity were reflected in the rationale reported by these respective student populations for their ethical decision-making. The study was not longitudinal, as it did not follow participants over the course of their studies at the University, but was cross sectional, because it compared data collected from students who were at different points in their academic tenure at the institution. Data was collected at two points in time, within a short timeframe, from two groups of students, one entering their first year of study, and the other in their final semester of their senior year. Further, this research was not primarily focused on the actual decisions made by participants, but considered the rationale provided for that decision as the key target of analysis. The study explored whether there were patterns in the decision-making strategies (rationales) reported by the two groups of students and the degree to which elements of the Jesuit mission and identity of the institution were reflected in these rationales.
Conceptual Framework
This study analyzed undergraduate student ethical decision-making at a Jesuit institution of higher education for evidence of six philosophical approaches and the manifestation of six Jesuit values. Six approaches to ethical decision-making were examined: Kant’s categorical imperative, utilitarianism, justice as fairness, altruism,
4 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY pragmatism, and virtue ethics. These patterns of ethical decision-making among first year and senior students were further examined for evidence reflecting the Jesuit mission of the institution. Six Jesuit values central to the mission of the academic institution were coded for: reflection, discernment, solidarity and kinship, service rooted in justice and love, Cura Personalis, and Magis.
Framework for Ethical Decision-Making
Six ethical perspectives were used as the framework for interpreting the rationales participants in this study provided as the basis for their ethical decision-making. These six perspectives were selected because they are distinct, commonly recognized perspectives and can easily translate to how one might solve an ethical dilemma.
Evidence of these six ethical perspectives was used to examine undergraduate students’ ethical decision-making in this study:
Utilitarianism refers to the idea that individuals should do the greatest good for the greatest number of people, encouraging decision makers to take into consideration the positive and negative impacts of their actions on others (Dion, 2012). This principle, which is sometimes referred to as the greatest happiness principle, encourages everyone to do what will bring about the most happiness for the most people (Graham, 2004).
Kant’s categorical imperative states that people should do what is morally right, no matter the cost (Johnson, 2018). It suggests we have a duty to base ethical decisions on immutable principles, making ethical decisions out of obedience to a moral code
(Johnson, 2018; Dion, 2012). In Kant’s view, this categorical imperative tells us that we must make decisions that transcend our wants and desires, doing what is right no matter the cost because what is right for one must be right for all (Graham, 2004; von Platz,
5 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
2016).
Rawls’ theory of justice, known as justice as fairness, states that in order to act justly, and thus morally, equal rights and opportunities for all must take precedence
(Rawls, 1999). Rawls’ (1999, 2001) focus on societal well-being lead him to assert it is not possible to justify the sacrifices some must make in order for others to have advantages, particularly in regard to those who are marginalized or less-advantaged in society.
Pragmatism, as promulgated by John Dewey, focuses on a method of making ethical judgments, not on an ultimate principle of ethics (Anderson, 2014). This approach centers on using the moral imagination to consider possible alternative actions and their potential impacts on others in thinking through ethical decision-making (Fesmire, 2013).
This allows for flexibility in the approach used, as it encourages the decision maker to revise their approach as needed (Johnson, 2018).
Altruism focuses on the principle of loving one’s neighbor or doing what benefits others without concern for oneself (Kraut, 2016). Altruistic actions put the needs of others first, with disregard for any self-interest, for the purpose of both doing good for others and/or preventing them from experiencing harm (Kraut, 2016).
Virtue ethics, which is similar to altruism, asserts people are made good through their actions, so their actions should be virtuous, encouraging prudence and goodness for all (Dion, 2012). This form of ethical decision-making requires action, as virtue is not something one can merely possess (Dion, 2012). As DeGeorge (2010) points out, we are not born with virtue but become virtuous through habitual actions.
6 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
Framework of Jesuit Values
Six Jesuit values were used as a framework for understanding the influence of
Jesuit principles on ethical decision-making. The six values selected to represent the
Jesuit principles of the study institution are ones the study institution highlights and espouses in its mission. While they are specific to the study institution, they are recognizable among the 28 Jesuit colleges and universities in the United States. Evidence of the following Jesuit values are reflected in the mission of the institution, and were identified in the ethical decision-making rationales stated by students in this study:
Reflection invites individuals to pause and consider the world around them and
their place within it.
Discernment invites individuals to be open to new insights and understand God's
presence in the world as they consider the path forward in their lives, in order to
make decisions and take actions that will contribute good to the universe and all
those in it.
Solidarity and kinship invites individuals to identify with and consider their
commonality with all others, both local and afar, as they journey through life.
Service rooted in justice and love invites individuals to invest their lives inactions
that promote the well-being of others, particularly those who suffer injustice.
Cura Personalis (care for the whole person) invites individuals to recognize and
cherish the uniqueness of others, and to care for the wholeness of each person
mind, body and spirit.
Magis (the more), which relates to the Jesuit motto, For the Greater Glory of God
invites individuals to stive in all things to contribute more, asking, “Where is the
more universal good?” when making decisions and choosing their actions and
7 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
contributions in the world.
(Mission & Identity, 2017c)
These values are espoused in many ways across the institution and students are acculturated to them very early in their college career.
This acculturation is affected in many ways, including through mandatory orientation programs every student is expected to attend, the first year experience course required of all first year students, student leadership trainings and experiences, and academic course work. While some of these programs, courses, or experiences may use the textbook language above to talk about the values, it is more common that students will gain an understanding of the values through everyday language and conversation. As such, the Jesuit values were operationalized as follows for this study,
(1) Reflection: looking back to understand where we are and where we are going
in life; remembering what has been in order to determine how to move
forward
(2) Discernment: careful consideration before making a decision; discovering
what brings meaning and purpose to your life and using that as a guide in
making decisions
(3) Solidarity and Kinship: standing with others through good times and bad;
listening and being present; being “for and with others”
(4) Service Rooted in Justice and Love: service/community service done to better
the lives of others and yourself; enabling and empowering others; not doing
service for the sake of reward or recognition or because you want to fix
something
8 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
(5) Cura Personalis: serving and caring for one another; caring for the whole
person—socially, academically, mentally, spiritually; going beyond the
surface
(6) Magis: doing and being more; a spirit of generous excellence; continuous
improvement in all parts of life
Research Questions
Four research questions were addressed by this study comparing the philosophical approaches to ethical decision-making employed by first year and senior college students, and the elements of the institution’s Jesuit identity reflected in these students’ ethical reasoning:
Research Question 1: Are there patterns in the ethical decision-making of unmatriculated first year students and seniors in their final semester?
Research Question 2: Do the rationales reported for the ethical decisions made by first year and senior undergraduate students differ?
Research Question 3: To what extent is the Jesuit identity of an academic institution reflected in the ethical decision-making of first year and senior students?
Research Question 4: Do first year and senior students who employ the same approach to ethical decision-making, integrate Jesuit principles into their reasoning to differing degrees?
Methodology
This case study compared the ethical decision-making of first year and senior undergraduate students at a Jesuit institution of higher education. Data collection took place via written responses to a series of prompts representing ethical dilemmas students might encounter in a college setting. Two groups of students were examined in the study: unmatriculated first year undergraduates and seniors in their final semester before graduation, all attending the university full time (at least 12 credit hours). The study
9 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY focused on senior students who have been actively involved on campus. Astin’s (1984) definition of an involved student served as a guide to how this study operationalized involvement. Astin (1984) indicates that an involved student participates in student organizations and events, and engages regularly with faculty, staff, and other students, among other items. The study institution uses what is referred to as the Rule of Three as a way to encourage involvement at the institution. The Rule of Three encourages students in their first year to get involved with something related to academics, something that is a continuation from high school, and something new. Using Astin (1984) and the Rule of
Three, for the purpose of this study, involvement was operationalized for senior students as those students who have participated in at least three student organizations, offices, or programs offered within specific offices in the Division of Student Affairs each year throughout their time at the study institution. Involvement was not operationalized for first year students as they were unmatriculated and not yet involved in the campus community.
Participants in the study were first year students, i.e. those who had not yet matriculated at the university, and senior students, i.e. those who were in their final semester of school prior to graduating from the institution. First year students were unmatriculated students committed to the study institution through the completion of the summer academic advising and registration process, and those whose first college enrollment was upon matriculated at the study institution. Senior students were students that were in their final semester at the study institution prior to graduating and who had been at the institution at least three years. Senior participants had some level of involvement in a student organization, office, or department on campus beyond their
10 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY classroom experiences. Using unmatriculated first year students in this study allowed for a better understanding of how a student who was new to the university environment, and had not been influenced by the study institution, makes ethical decisions. Using senior students allowed for a better understanding of how students had been in the organization for at least three years, and had been enculturated into the Jesuit identity of the institution, make ethical decisions. It also allowed for an understanding of whether this acculturation influenced their ethical decision-making. Comparing the ethical decision- making of first year and senior students permitted analysis of the maturation of ethical decision-making during undergraduate matriculation, as well as the influence of Jesuit identity on these students’ respective approaches to ethical decision-making. In determining participants, those who attended a Jesuit high school were excluded from both populations as this would have given them an increased awareness of Jesuit principles prior to their experience at the study institution.
Senior participants were identified through the use of involvement data routinely collected by specific offices and organizations within the Division of Student Affairs which include the Office of Student Involvement, Center for Diversity & Inclusion,
Center for Faith & Justice, Office of Residence Life, Recreational Sports, and the Student
Center/Commuter Services office. Involvement data considered in selecting participants for this study included positional student leadership roles, memberships on committees or boards, participation in a student organization, and program/event attendance data. Lists of these students were cross referenced by university personnel with lists of students who met the criteria above for senior students, as identified through a search of the institutional enrollment extract report. This work was carried out by staff in the Office of
11 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
Institutional Research, who produced a final list of students eligible for participation in this study.
First year participants were identified through the Division of Enrollment
Management and Student Success as students who had applied, been accepted, made a deposit to attend, and had completed the advising and registration process over the summer at the study institution. A list of eligible first year students was created by staff in the Division of Enrollment Management for use in the study.
Once identified, a random sample of eligible students was contacted via email and invited to participate in the study. The random sample was approximately 300 eligible students from each list (first year and senior) on the email distribution in order to maximize the response rate. The email contained a link to the informed consent disclosing the nature of the study, the voluntary nature of participation and the rights of participants. Those who indicated their consent to participate were presented with a series of hypothetical scenarios involving ethical decision-making and were asked to provide a response. Both open ended and responses to Likert questions were collected. A two-week response window was provided for each population. Participation and responses were anonymous, as only demographic information was collected with no identifier linking responses to personally identifiable information, such as an email address. A reminder message was sent after one week reminding students of the study and again soliciting their participation. A follow-up message was sent at the end of the two weeks, thanking participants and extending the deadline by one week for anyone who had not yet submitted responses.
The response protocol first asked students to provide open ended responses to a
12 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY series of five hypothetical scenarios regarding ethical dilemmas undergraduate college students may face, asking them to describe what actions they would take if faced with the situation described, and to provide the rationale behind their responses. This approach allowed the researcher to analyze both the ethical decisions made as well as the rationale behind the decisions. It also allowed participants to submit their most authentic responses and rationale, given that students were asked to tell us what they would do and were not observed actually addressing an ethical dilemma.
This approach elicited open-ended responses to hypothetical scenarios in order to provide the qualitative data to address the research questions. Open-ended questions allow participants to say what they want, how they want, (Whitley & Kite, 2013) which is what the hypothetical scenario based survey allowed in this study. Additionally, hypothetical scenarios, or vignettes, are useful in social science research when studying attitudes, perceptions, beliefs, and norms (Finch, 1987). Finch (1987) and Wilks (2004) both point out the usefulness of vignettes for studying sensitive issues, and suggest that by using a hypothetical situation, the personal aspect of the topic is removed, allowing the participant to separate themselves from the situation in the survey. It is this that makes vignettes a method of choice amongst ethics researchers (Weber, 1992).
After responding to all five hypothetical scenarios, students were asked to respond to12 Likert-style questions rating the degree to which they took into account factors relating to each of the ethical perspectives and each Jesuit value included in the study’s conceptual framework. A Likert scale “presents respondents with a set of statements about a person, thing, or concept and has them rate their agreement or disagreement with the statements on a numerical scale that is the same for all the statements” (Whitley &
13 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
Kite, 2013, p. 454). According to Whitley & Kite (2013), Likert-style scales are desirable in research for several reasons including their reliability, ease of construction, flexibility, their ability to assess multidimensional constructs through subscales.
In addition to the open-ended questions and the Likert-style questions, basic demographic data was collected to ensure data were analyzed accurately. A reminder message was sent two weeks after the first email distribution that allowed one more week for responses to be submitted.
Prior to sending out the response protocol to the random sample of eligible students, the response protocol was piloted with a small group of involved junior students, not included in the study distribution. This permitted the response protocol to be edited as was needed to collect the best data possible prior to full distribution.
Distribution, as outlined above, took place once the response protocol was edited and finalized based on the small pilot. Juniors included in this pilot were identified based on the professional knowledge and contacts of the researcher.
After the data collection closed, content analysis was used to code the narrative responses using theoretical coding. Coding and analysis was based on 1) the ethical principles outlined in the conceptual framework and 2) on the Jesuit principles. The coding scheme was reviewed by subject area experts. While there are many ways to code qualitative data, this study used theoretical coding in order to answer the proposed research questions. According to Whitley and Kite (2013), “coding is the process by which a researcher creates a system of organizing, managing, and retrieving the most meaningful bits of data related to the research questions(s), then thinking critically and creatively about how the data addresses those questions(s)” (p. 428). Codes were
14 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY extracted from the data by the co-investigators and reviewed by experts in both ethics and
Jesuit principles to confirm that the codes appeared to be in line with the ethical perspectives and the Jesuit principles.
Likert style questions were analyzed as part of this study as a secondary way to address the research questions. In particular, analysis of these questions helped to address the differences in ethical rationale employed by each group of participants and the extent to which the Jesuit identity of the institution is reflected in the ethical decision-making of each group.
Definition of Terminology
In order to provide clarity and avoid confusion, the following definitions for terms and constructs key to the study were used throughout the study. Without the common language and understanding, there is the potential for confusion and ambiguity in the interpretation of the results of the study. Below are the definitions most relevant to the study.
Jesuit
Jesuit is the term used to refer to the Society of Jesus, a religious order in the
Catholic Church founded in 1540 (Mission & Identity, 2017d). The Jesuits work to fill world needs and are spread out in countries around the world (Mission & Identity,
2017d). At their core, Jesuits are educators, grounded in the liberal arts tradition (AJCU,
2017). The study institution is one of 28 Jesuit institutions of higher education in the
United States.
Jesuit Values
There are six core values rooted in the Jesuit tradition espoused by the study
15 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY institution. These are: reflection, discernment, solidarity and kinship, service rooted in justice and love, Cura Personalis, and Magis (Mission & Identity, 2017c). These values are woven into both the vision and mission statements of the study institution. Each of these values are described in the conceptual framework of this proposal.
First Year Student
For the purpose of this study, a first year student (commonly referred to as a freshman) is an unmatriculated student, entering the study institution in the fall of 2018 who has completed the advising and registration process and is registered as a full time student (enrolled in at least 12 credit hours) and who is attending college for the first time.
Senior Student
Senior students are full time students (enrolled in at least 12 credit hours) that are in their final semester at the study institution prior to graduating, and who have been at the institution at least three years.
Student Involvement
Student Involvement is what Astin (1984) refers to as the amount of physical and psychological energy a student devotes to the college experience. He explains that
“student involvement includes both the quantity and quality of the physical and psychological energy that students invest in the college experience” (Astin, 1984, p. 307).
That is, student involvement includes all aspects of the experiences a student has at a university, both inside and outside of the classroom. Astin (1984) suggests that an involved student is one who devotes time to studying, spends time on campus, participates in student organizations and events, and engages regularly with faculty, staff,
16 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY and other students.
Ethics
Jones and Liu (2015) define and operationalize ethics as “the alignment of morals, what is good, bad, right, wrong with desirable and appropriate societal expectations” (p.
76). Oliver and Hioco (2012) provide several definitions of ethics found in various research:
Diestler (2001, as cited in Oliver and Hioco, 2012): “ethics relates to an aspect of
values involving standards of conduct whose purpose is to distinguish between
right and wrong” (p. 242)
Shapiro and Stefkovich (2005, as cited in Oliver and Hioco, 2012): “the norms of
appropriate conduct” (p. 242-243)
Wallin (2007, as cited in Oliver and Hioco, 2012): “the rational justification for
moral judgments” (p. 243)
Ethics is often used interchangeably with morals, as noted in Oliver and Hioco (2012) and Jones and Liu (2015). As such, for the purpose of this study, ethics will be defined as the alignment of behavior with societal expectations of right and wrong.
Ethical Decision
An ethical decision, according to Jones (1991) is “defined as a decision that is both legal and morally acceptable to the larger community” (p.367) in order to solve an ethical dilemma.
Ethical Decision-Making
Ethical decision-making, which is the primary focus of this research, is the process an individual uses to make an ethical decision and resolve an ethical dilemma.
17 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
Oliver and Hioco (2012) define ethical decision-making as the combination of reasoning, conceptions of right and wrong, and related behavior used to solve an ethical dilemma.
Heyler, Armenakis, Walker, and Collier (2016) define ethical decision-making as “the process of recognizing a need, considering alternatives, identifying a morally acceptable option (i.e. what is considered right in a given culture) and implementing it” (p. 788).
Morales-Sánchez and Cabello-Medina (2013) very much simplify their definition of ethical decision-making as “the process constituted by all the stages an individual has to go through from the moment a moral problem arises until he or she engages in a given behavior” (p. 718).
Rule of Three
The Rule of Three is used by the study institution to encourage balanced involvement amongst first year students. The Rule of Three encourages students to get involved in three activities, organizations, or offices; one that is connected to their academics, one that is a continuation of an activity from high school, and one that is a new interest. The Rule of Three was used in this study to operationalize “involved students” for purposes of identifying eligible senior participants.
Assumptions
This study made three general assumptions with regards to the research conducted: (a) the student participants provided responses to the hypothetical scenarios and Likert-style questions that reflect accurate approximations of the behavior they would exhibit if faced with similar situations; (b) participants understood the terminology used in the study; (c) the hypothetical scenarios presented in the study represented suitable and credible prompts for eliciting ethical decisions from the study population;
18 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY and (c) the interpretation of the combined open-ended responses and Likert-style questions is sufficient to capture differences between participants’ ethical decision- making rationales.
Limitations
The following limitations pertained to the research:
1. Only one institution was studied, which limited the generalizability of results.
2. No comparison group were included, so the research was not able to differentiate maturation from Jesuit influence.
3. Only six ethical perspectives were used, thus a wider range of ethical decision- making was beyond the scope of this case study.
4. Only six Jesuit values were used, thus a wider range of values was beyond the scope of this case study.
Delimitations
The delimitations of the study are those self-imposed boundaries used by the researcher. In this study, delimitations related to both the study population and data analysis. Delimitations concerning participants were imposed by both the scope of the study and the desire to specifically understand ethical decision-making by students at a
Jesuit institution. The first delimitation regards who was eligible to participate, and who was not. Only first year and senior students were used in the study. More specifically, unmatriculated first year, first time in college students and students who were in their final semester at the study institution were eligible to participate. This delimitation was imposed in order to present a comparison of ethical decision-making at two points in the student experience. A second delimitation used in the study was that the study did not include any students who attended a Jesuit high school. This ensured that participants were similar with respect to their prior exposure of Jesuit ideology prior to attending the
19 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY study institution. A third delimitation was senior participants were only selected from
“involved students,” as operationalized under terminology. Involved students were used because of their likely exposure to Jesuit values during their time at the institution.
In addition, two delimitations determined the scope of this study during data analysis:
1. Only five hypothetical scenarios will be presented, and only six ethical perspectives will be coded for in the responses. Outliers will not be coded should responses not fall into one of the ethical perspectives reflected in the conceptual framework for this study. These dimensions, if present in students’ responses, will be considered beyond the scope of the study.
2. Similarly, only six Jesuit values will be coded in participants’ responses. Other values reflected in the students’ responses will not be captured in the analysis of study findings and will be considered beyond the scope of the study.
Significance of the Study
King and Mayhew (2002) make a compelling argument for the importance of studying the development of moral judgment in college students. They write that there are three main reasons to do so. First, students, both traditional aged and non-traditional aged, are commonly enrolling in college at times in their lives when they are in transition, and many of these transitions have moral implications (King & Mayhew, 2002). Second, they argue that most American college and university mission statements point to moral development of students, even if this is done so in an implicit manner rather than an explicit manner, “such as prepare for citizenship, character development, moral leadership, service to society” (King & Mayhew, 2002). Finally, they argue that upon earning a degree and entering the working world, these are the people often taking on leadership roles and make decisions that impact the lives of others (King & Mayhew,
2002). However, they point out that often times, college students are not intentionally the
20 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY purpose of the study but rather used as convenience samples, “with no particular emphasis on college as an educational context nor on college students as a purposeful sample” (King & Mayhew, 2002, p. 248). The opportunity to intentionally study college students and their ethical decision-making served to positively contribute to the literature on this topic.
This study adds to the literature on ethical decision-making by college students, expanding the research beyond what is already known. Much of the work done previously regarding college students and ethics or morals has focused on business students (Craft, 2013; King & Mayhew, 2002) because colleges of business tend to include an aspect of ethics in their curricula. This opens the door to add to the research on students across a campus, not focused on a particular major, college, or school.
Moreover, previous studies have focused more on what students believe to be ethical rather than how ethical decisions are made. The latter was the primary focus of the present research. This study also went beyond the typical approach of examining influencing and demographic factors, such as age, gender, academic major, religion, and having taken an ethics course, to consider the influence of institutional mission type.
Little previous research has explored whether the public vs. private or religiously affiliation of an academic institution affects students’ ethical decision-making. The present research looked specifically at the influence of attending a Jesuit institution and contributed to what is known both about ethical decision-making and the potential influence of institutional mission. Results could inform faculty and staff at Jesuit institutions in terms of what students are learning and applying from their education.
21 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
Organization of the Study
This dissertation is organized into five chapters. Chapter 1 includes the background of the study, the statement of the problem, the purpose of the study, the conceptual framework, the research hypothesis, the methodology, the definition of terminology, assumptions, limitations, delimitations, the significance of the study, and the organization of the study.
Chapter 2 provides a review of the literature relating to Jesuit values and culture, ethical decision-making, the impact of college and involvement on the development of students, and a review of the six ethical perspectives that form the conceptual framework for this study.
Chapter 3 describes the methodology to be used for the study and includes participant selection, review of the data collection methods, procedures to be used to code and analyze the data, and the provisions to ensure the ethical treatment of study participants.
Chapter 4 provides an analysis of both the qualitative and quantitative data in order to best respond to the four research questions, providing a thorough analysis of the data from first year and senior students.
Chapter 5 includes a discussion of the results of the study, the conclusions drawn from these results, the limitations, the implications for theory and practice, and provides suggestions of opportunities for future research.
22 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
Chapter 2: Literature Review
This literature review provides an overview of what exists and where there are gaps in the research on topics pertinent to the current study and includes a review of ethical decision-making literature, the six ethical perspectives used in the framework of the study, the Jesuit culture of Jesuit colleges and universities, the six Jesuit values used in the framework of the study, the impact of involvement on a college student’s development, and the impact of college on ethical development.
Ethical Decision-Making
Ethical decision-making has been studied in various settings and through various means over a number of years, with extensive empirical reviews published dating back several decades (Craft, 2013; O’Fallon & Butterfield, 2005; Cottone & Claus, 2000; Loe,
Ferrell, & Mansfield, 2000; Ford & Richardson, 1994). These reviews make it clear that while the literature is seemingly extensive, there is still plenty of unknowns about ethical decision-making, creating room for further studies in a variety of areas. The following will provide an overview of ethical decision-making as well as a review of ethical decision-making models, influencing factors in ethical decision-making, and examine previous studies that utilize ethical ideologies as a framework.
An Overview and Definitions of Ethical Decision-Making
Ethics and ethical decision-making have been studied for many years, largely in the realm of business and business ethics, with a number of researchers proposing models to explain and predict how someone will make an ethical decision (Ford & Richardson,
1994). Of the previously published literature reviews on the topic used in this research, only one, Cottone and Claus (2000) did not specifically focus on studies having to do
23 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY with business or simulated business environments, which tells the researcher there is seemingly space to contribute to the literature in ways that do not specifically focus on business.
In order to better understand what is meant by the term ethical decision-making, it is important to understand the various definitions utilized in the research and ways ethical decision-making has been operationalized in the research. Ethics and morals, and ethical decision-making and moral judgement, are often used interchangeably in the literature, depending on how a researcher or author is operationalizing the terms (Jones & Liu,
2015; Oliver and Hioco, 2012). For the purposes of this review, studies and research using both terms are included in order to cover the full scope of the literature as best possible. Jones and Liu (2015) define and operationalize ethics as a way to then understand ethical decision-making as “involving the alignment of morals, what is good, bad, right, wrong and appropriate societal expectations” (p. 76). Oliver and Hioco (2012) provide several definitions of ethics found in various research:
Diestler (2001, as cited in Oliver and Hioco, 2012): ethics relates to an aspect of
values involving standards of conduct whose purpose is to distinguish between
right and wrong (p. 242)
Shapiro and Stefkovich (2005, as cited in Oliver and Hioco, 2012): the norms of
appropriate conduct (p. 242-243)
Wallin (2007, as cited in Oliver and Hioco, 2012): the rational justification for
moral judgments (p. 243)
Ultimately, they operationalize ethical decision-making using these definitions of ethics as including “reasoning, conceptions of right and wrong, and related behavior” (Oliver
24 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY and Hioco, 2012, p. 243). Further, Heyler, Armenakis, Walker, and Collier (2016) define ethical decision-making as “the process of recognizing a need, considering alternatives, identifying a morally acceptable option (i.e. what is considered right in a given culture) and implementing it” (p. 788). Another notable definition comes from Jones (1991), who writes, “an ethical decision is defined as a decision that is both legal and morally acceptable to the larger community” (p. 367), while Morales-Sánchez and Cabello-
Medina (2013) very much simplify their definition of ethical decision-making as “the process constituted by all the stages an individual has to go through from the moment a moral problem arises until he or she engages in a given behavior” (p. 718). These definitions represent a sample of those provided in the literature, and point in the same direction, which provides the ability to define ethical decision-making as the process an individual uses to make the ethical decision and solve the ethical dilemma, as defined in chapter
Ethical Decision-making Models
Reviewing the literature, three models of ethical decision-making are commonly studied amongst researchers. These include what is known as the “Four-Component
Model” proposed by James Rest, the “Issue Contingent Model” proposed by Tomas
Jones, and the “Person-Situation Interactionist Model” proposed by Linda Trevino.
Additionally, a number of researchers have contributed to the literature by offering extensions of these models or proposing their own models of decision-making. While none of these models will be used in this research, it is important to understand where past research has been in order to better understand the need for future research, including this current study. The following will review the three well known and well
25 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY used models of ethical decision-making, and will briefly cover extensions to those models if offered in the literature.
Four-Component Model. The Four-Component Model of ethical decision- making was first proposed by James Rest in 1986, and describes four processes that occur when one is behaving in a moral fashion, focusing primarily on the individual and the series of judgments that individual make in the process (Jones & Liu, 2015). The model suggests that the individual goes through the four components or stages when making their decision, which include moral sensitivity, moral judgment, moral motivation, and moral character (Morales-Sánchez & Cabello-Medina, 2013).
Moral sensitivity is the ability to recognize the problem and interpret it as a morally challenging situation (Curzer, 2014). It suggests that the person making the decision must have an awareness of a moral problem before they are able to manifest ethical behaviors, and they must be cognizant of two factors, that their behavior will have an impact on others and that they will always have several options (Morales-Sánchez &
Cabello-Medina, 2013). Moral judgment is the ability to determine which of the options available are morally “required, acceptable, or prohibited” (Curzer, 2014). It is the point at which individuals must assess the good and the bad of each potential behavior in the situation, and make a judgment to act ethically by determining which course of action is morally justifiable, distinguishing which actions are right and which are wrong (Curzer,
2014; Morales-Sánchez & Cabello-Medina, 2013).
Moral motivation, the third component, is the prioritizing of morality, or, “the ability to force oneself to do the right thing despite contrary inclinations” (Curzer, 2014).
Morales-Sánchez and Cabello-Medina (2013) indicate that moral motivation is what
26 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY makes the individual have a moral intention, which proceeds ethical behavior, though moral intention can be influenced by other factors beyond moral judgment, which may mean that a person engages in a behavior that they may or may not believe to be ethical.
The final component is moral character, which involves executing or implementing behaviors, in other words, it is the moral action and have been termed as such in some studies (Morales-Sánchez & Cabello-Medina, 2013). Of course, getting to this component is not necessarily easy, as the individual must overcome and work around difficulties they may encounter that will challenge them in making the right choice
(Morales-Sánchez & Cabello-Medina, 2013).
Various researchers have built off of Rest’s model over the years, adding extensions to include moral competencies (Morales-Sánchez & Cabello-Medina, 2013), expand upon the components by adding sub-components (Curzer, 2014), and adding components to incorporate the influence of culture and cultural orientation, both individual and collective (Jones & Lie, 2015), to name a few.
Issue Contingent Model. The Issue Contingent Model, developed by Thomas
Jones, focuses on the idea that an issue will determine ethical behavior based on perceptions of said issue (Jones & Liu, 2015). Jones (1991) argues that because moral issues vary in terms of their moral intensity, an issue contingent model is needed to fill gaps in the research and add to understanding of moral processes, and notes that he builds off of existing models, with the focus on the moral issue at hand. Jones (1991) writes,
“specifically, ethical decision-making is issue contingent; that is, characteristics of the moral issue itself, collectively called moral intensity, are important determinants of ethical decision-making and behavior” and indicates that the issue impacts all
27 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY components of the decision-making process (p. 371).
Central to Jones’ (1991) model is the idea of moral intensity, which focuses on the issue itself, not traits of the decision makes. Moral intensity includes six components that impact the perception of the intensity of the issue by the individual decision maker.
These six components are the magnitude of consequences, social consensus, probability of effect, temporal immediacy, proximity, and concentration effect. The magnitude of the consequences is understood as the sum of the benefits or harms done by the moral act in question to the beneficiaries or victims of the decision (Jones, 1991). Social consensus is the idea that there is a degree of social agreement as to whether an action is good or evil, appropriate or inappropriate, and is sometimes seen through a lens of legal or illegal
(Jones, 1991). Probability of effect is the probability that the act in question will take place plus the probability that the act in question will cause the benefit or harm assumed or predicted (Jones, 1991). Temporal immediacy is the length of time between the present and the onset of the consequences that an act will cause, with a shorter length of time indicating a greater immediacy and thus greater intensity and a longer length of time creating a feeling of less immediacy and less intensity (Jones, 1991). Proximity is the feeling of closeness or nearness, as Jones (1991) calls it, that the moral decision maker has for the beneficiaries or victims of the act in question. This nearness can be socially, culturally, psychologically, or physically (Jones, 1991). Closer proximity generally means greater moral intensity, as individuals tend to have a stronger affinity for someone or something they are closer to than those to which they are more distant (Jones, 1991).
Finally, the concentration of effect is the “inverse function of the number of people affected by an act of a given magnitude” (Jones, 1991, p. 377). In other words, the more
28 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY concentrated the impact of the act in question, the more moral intensity found in it.
Jones (1991) believes that the six components of moral intensity has an effect on all aspects of the decision-making process, which he depicts as recognize the moral issue, make a moral judgment, establish moral intent, and engage in moral behavior. Jones
(1991) also includes organizational factors in his model, which impact the moral intent and the moral behavior components of his model. Organizational factors are included because they can present special or specific challenges to the decision maker, particularly when there is discord between individual values and those of the organization (Jones,
1991). Like Rest’s model, Jones’ model has seen a number of studies and proposed models to enhance or extend it through the years, such as is seen in Harrington (1997), which added the influence of individual characteristics to the model (Harrington, 1997).
Person-Situation Interactionist Model. The Person-Situation Interactionist
Model, developed by Linda Trevino, focuses on the role of the individual and the situational variables present that produce either ethical or unethical behavior, taking into account the interaction between the individual’s moral development and the situation in which the ethical decision will occur (Jones & Liu, 2015). Trevino (1986) writes that she has proposed this particular model because previous models have not captured the interaction between the individual and the situation, recognizing that each has a role in the decision-making process. Trevino’s (1986) model “posits that ethical decision- making in organizations is explained by the interaction of individual and situational components” (p. 602). This model relies on the cognitive moral development stage of an individual to determine how said individual thinks about the right and wrong in an ethical dilemma, which determines their behavior/actions/decision (Trevino, 1986). However,
29 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
Trevino (1986) points out that cognition is not the only influencer, but the individual variables of ego strength, field dependence, and locus of control act as moderators on the cognition/behavior relationship. Likewise, situational variables, including the organization’s normative structure, referent others, obedience to authority, responsibility for consequences, reinforcement contingencies, and other pressures, also act as a moderator on the cognition/behavior. These situational variables also impact the decision-making process by acting as a influencer on the individual because while an individual comes to an organization with a particular level of cognitive moral development and other individual characteristics, moral action takes place in the social
(or situational) context (Trevino, 1986). Similar to Rest’s model and Jones’ model, extensions of Trevino’s model have been proposed over the years (Husted & Allen,
2008).
Examining well known and well used models of ethical decision-making is important for this review because it shows that there is a gap in the literature in the use of the ethical ideologies outlined in this research as a method of decision-making. These models focus on the process through which an individual goes to make an ethical decision without looking at the ethical perspectives they may be using, which is where this research will contribute to the ethical decision-making literature.
Influencing Factors in Ethical Decision-Making
The current research examined, in part, one influencing factor on ethical decision- making; the influence of attendance at a Jesuit university. In order to understand what research currently exists on influencing factors on ethical decision-making, the following will review studies that examine commonly researched influencing factors. Influencing
30 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY factors are a common area of study in ethical decision-making research, making up the bulk of the empirical studies in the field (Loe, Ferrell, & Mansfield, 2000). This is generally because inquiries into influencing factors of ethical decision-making often accompany ethics research, generating a large volume of findings (Loe, et al., 2000), though often with mixed results. For the purpose of this review, influencing factors include both demographics, personal characteristics, and background/previous experiences. This review will look at gender, age, academic major, religion, and college ethics courses.
Gender. Numerous studies have reported the findings of the influence of gender on ethical decision-making (Craft, 2013). In a review of empirical ethical decision- making literature, Craft (2013) reports that in general, studies show that women are more ethical than men while men are more consistent and strict, need more training in ethics, and are generally more willing to mislead others. Craft (2013) also notes that there are a number of studies that have found no difference between males and females when it comes to ethical decision-making. This is similar to the findings of previous empirical ethical decision-making literature reviews by O’Fallon and Butterfield (2005) and Ford and Richardson (1994) as well as in the research reviews of Peppas and Diskin (2001) and Cottone and Claus (2000).
Niles and Barbour (2014) echo Craft, noting that in their reviews of literature, it appears that males are more accepting of unethical decision-making and females are generally more ethical. In their study on perceptions of what qualifies as unethical according to college students, Niles and Barbour (2014) found consistent results with previous literature, with males consistently less likely to consider the situations described
31 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY in the study as unethical, also finding that gender was the most consistent predictor of ethical perceptions. In a study on factors that impact the ethical behavior of college students, Joseph, Berry, and Deshpande (2010) similarly found that the gender of the study participant significantly impacted ethical behavior, with women appearing more ethical than men.
However, as seen in the empirical ethical decision-making literature reviews by
Craft (2013), O’Fallon and Butterfield (2005), and Ford and Richardson (1994), Knotts,
Lopez, and Mesak (2000) write that while “as a society we continue to convey the belief that females are more sensitive to ethical issues than makes…findings regarding the gender effect on ethical beliefs have been mixed” citing several studies indicating as such, and arguing that gender produces inconsistent findings. In their study on the ethical judgments of college students though, they found that gender had a significant influence on ethical judgments, with females consistently judging actions or decisions presented in the study as more unethical (Knotts, et al., 2000). Overall, it appears that the literature finds gender to either significantly impact ethical decision-making by way of females acting more ethically than males or does not have a significant impact.
Age. Age is another variable included in a number of studies and can act as an influencing factor on ethical decision-making. While the old adage may tell us that wisdom comes with age, Craft (2013) writes that the age category produces mixed results, and seemingly has over the years, with some studies indicating that older people were more likely to make ethical decisions and associate ethical judgment with increased age. Craft (2013) reports that other studies indicate that younger people are more influenced by the organization in their ethical decision-making, though just as many
32 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY studies have not found significance in age in their results. Craft’s (2013) assessment of the literature is consistent with that of O’Fallon and Butterfield (2005) and Ford and
Richardson (1994).
Consistent with these reviews, Knotts, Lopez, and Mesak (2000), found age was not a statistically significant indicator of ethical judgment in college students while Niles and Barbour (2014) found that age did, in fact, have a statistically significant impact on ethics in college students, with older study participants more likely to believe the actions or decisions presented in the study were unethical. Libby and Agnello (2000) describe their findings in their study to see what demographic factors influence ethical decision- making in business students as a “continuum in the decision-making” (p. 231) and emphasize the need to continue to research the impact of age.
Academic Major. Much of the research done on ethical decision-making with students uses business students as the sample, often times as a convenience sample
(Craft, 2013; King & Mayhew, 2002). This means there is rich research into business students ethical decision-making but a lack of such research on non-business majors. In studies that have specifically examined the influence of academic major on ethical decision-making, there are a couple that stand out. In their study on factors that influence the ethical behavior of college students, Joseph, Berry, and Deshpande (2010) hypothesized that business students would be more unethical than non-business students but did not produce statistically significant results to support this hypothesis. They argue that there is really no evidence to suggest that those who are more unethical are drawn to business majors even though it tends to be a common assumption (Joseph, et al., 2010).
Conversely, in a study comparing the ethical attitudes of business and criminal justice
33 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY students, Segal, Gideon, and Haberfeld (2011) confirmed what they describe as the underlying assumption in many studies that business students are inherently morally compromised, and found that business students were, in fact, more tolerant of and comfortable with unethical behavior and decisions than were criminal justice students.
On the other hand, Knotts, et al. (2000) found that non-business majors consistently judged the actions in the scenarios used in their study as more ethical than business students, indicating business majors were more critical of the situation. Ultimately, there is an abundance of literature utilizing business students as the research subject, likely due to the convenience and the increased emphasis that business schools tend to put on ethics
(Knotts, et al., 2000), though much of this literature provides mixed findings, with some finding no significant difference and others finding that business students are less ethical than others (O’Fallon & Butterfield, 2005).
Religion. The impact of religion on ethical decision-making has been studied in various ways over the year including religious value orientation, strength of religious belief, denomination, and the behavior of church attendance frequency (Ford &
Richardson, 1994). In their review, Ford & Richardson (1994) found that the majority of studies that included religion found that only strength of religious belief had a significant impact on ethical decision-making. Craft (2013) coupled religion and spirituality in her review of ethical decision-making research, suggesting that findings show spirituality is related to religion and religiosity. Craft (2013) notes that while older research generally supports the idea that religion reinforces ethical decision-making, more recent research suggests mixed findings in this area.
In their study examining educational influence on ethical decisions, Bernardi and
34 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
Murphy (2011) specifically looked at the impact of religious instruction on ethical decision-making as they point out that generally speaking most religions of the world provide a framework for beliefs in right and wrong, and many deal with social and ethical issues. Bernardi and Murphy (2011) indicate that previous research has provided contradictions, making it important to continue to study the impact of a religiously affiliated educational environment and religious instruction on ethical decision-making.
Their research indicated that a religiously affiliated institution did not significantly impact ethical decision-making, though they also point out that because their sample was skewed with more participants of non-religiously affiliated schools which may have impacted their results (Bernardi & Murphy, 2011). This indicates a need to continue this line of research. Another study of the ethical judgments of college students by Knotts,
Lopez, and Mesak (2000) found that while previous research indicated there was the possibility that religious affiliation of the university had an impact on ethical judgments of students, it did not seem to have a significant impact, though religious commitment of the individual did have a significant influence. Specifically, Knotts, et al. (2000) found that though students with intrinsic religious commitment tended to view the scenarios in the study more unethically, indicating that these students tend to make more ethical decisions.
College Ethics Courses. One might generally assume that taking an ethics course in college, required by many institutions as part of the curriculum, has an impact on the ethical decision-making of students. This is a question that a number of researchers have sought to answer, particularly because of the belief that instruction in ethics is intended to
“encourage individuals to make more positive ethical decisions by changing cognitive
35 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY thinking patterns” (Walker, 2011, p. 70). As with many of the factors reviewed, this, too, has mixed results, with some studies finding that having taken an ethics course are more ethically sensitive and the course impacts ethical decision-making and others have found that these courses do not significantly impact ethical decision-making (Bernardi &
Murphy, 2011; Walker, 2011; Peppas & Diskin, 2001).
Walker’s (2011) study of the influence of a specific ethics course on ethical decision-making focused on using a pre-survey and post-survey to explore the differences in the students’ decision-making. This study made use of responses to various ethical scenarios and looked at the differences in responses from the pre-and-post-tests.
Responses to each scenario dealt with different aspects of ethical decision-making, but overall, the study suggests that the intervention of an ethics class “encourages students to be more open in accepting other’s perspectives by taking into consideration other viewpoints and does strengthen already existing value and belief systems” (Walker, 2011, p. 85). Additionally, the study suggests that students were able to use the new information taught in the course to better understand their own viewpoints and respond to the ethical dilemmas presented to them, indicating that the ethics course did, in fact, have a significant impact on ethical decision-making. Mladenovic, Martinov-Bennie, and Bell
(2017) had similar results in their study of what facilitates the development of ethical decision-making approaches, with indications pointing to the intervention of an ethics component of a first year course that introduced a range of ethical perspectives into the course as challenging or changing assumptions and beliefs of the students about ethics.
While the above highlighted research indicates that ethics courses do, in fact, have an impact on ethical decision-making, a number of studies indicate the opposite. Peppas
36 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY and Diskin’s (2001) study explored whether business students who had taken a course in ethics had significantly different attitudes towards business ethics than students who had not, and produced mixed results in responses of students who had and had not taken the ethics course. Some of Peppas and Diskin’s (2001) results indicate that those students in the ethics course felt more strongly about a statement than those who did not, but overall, the study did not produce results that overwhelmingly supported taking an ethics course, finding that taking an ethics course did not significantly affect students. Similarly,
Bernardi and Murphy’s (2011) study on educational influence on ethical decisions is consistent with those studies they cite as having found that ethics courses do not play a role in student’s ethical perceptions, and thus ethical decision-making. They indicate perhaps this is influenced by whether or not a student is required to take an ethics course or chooses to take the course, and suggest this as a line of future research.
Use of Ethical Ideologies in Ethical Decision-making Literature
A review of ethical decision-making literature shows that a fairly significant number of studies have looked at exactly this in order to better understand ethical decision-making through a lens of ethical ideologies, sometimes referred to as ethical philosophies or ethical rationale (Craft, 2013). Craft (2013) points out in her literature review, these studies tend to make comparisons between ideologies, study another factor in the context of the philosophy/ideology, or look at how one or two ideologies impacted ethical decision-making, which is consistent with previous reviews as well (O’Fallon &
Butterfield, 2005; Loe, et al., 2000). A look at what exists is helpful in understanding the gaps in research connecting ethical ideologies and ethical decision-making.
Casali (2010) writes that “it has been both theoretically argued and empirically
37 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY tested that an individual’s ethical beliefs or ideology influence their approach to ethical judgments and decision-making.” Forsyth (1980) provided seminal research in this area, providing initial arguments that sparked Casali’s (2010) view. Forsyth (1980) worked to develop a scale to “facilitate the classification of individuals according to ethical ideology” (p. 177). This tool, known as the Ethical Positions Response protocol or EPQ, contains two scales and is intended to measure idealism and relativism (Forsyth, 1980).
The EPQ asks participants to make a judgement about a set of statements, indicating their agreement or disagreement with the item (Forsyth, 1980). Forsyth (1980) used the EPQ to conclude that the usefulness of researching ethical ideologies is that it explains the variation seen when two individuals who may agree in other areas such as politics or religion, are given the same information, they may reach different conclusions when making a moral judgement, or ethical decision. That is to say, understanding ethical ideologies helps us to understand that “in general people take particular stances regarding ethics and that the position taken will influence the judgment reached” (Forsyth, 1980, p.
183). Barnett, Bass, Brown, and Hebert (1998) write that Forsyth’s research over the years shows that individuals with different ethical ideologies differ in information processing and ethical judgements regarding ethical dilemmas. Their research, focused on marketing professionals, furthered the support for the usefulness of the EPQ in assessing individual ethical ideologies and showed that the professionals in the study made differing ethical judgments based on their ideology (Barnett, et al., 1998).
Research using ethical ideologies extends beyond the EPQ. One study that is of particular interest focused on linking the behavior of managers with ethical ideologies, specifically using utilitarianism, rights, and Rawls’ theory of justice (Fritzsche & Becker,
38 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
1984). In this study, the researchers used vignettes to describe a decision containing a possible ethical dilemma and asked respondents to indicate how they would solve the dilemma if they were the decision maker in order to link the behaviors of managers to ethical ideologies and better understand how managers make ethical decisions (Fritzsche
& Becker, 1984). Ultimately, the study showed a heavy reliance on utilitarian philosophies, both act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism (Fritzsche & Becker, 1984), though it is noted that there is room for additional research in order to better understand this.
In another study, the ethical judgments of information and communications technology students were explored. Jung (2009) used the multidimensional ethics scale, or MES, which five ethical ideologies including relativism, contractualism, egoism, utilitarianism, and moral equity in order to understand what ethical philosophies affect the ethical decision-making if the students. The study, which used three scenarios created to reflect true ethical dilemmas of college students, ultimately found that ethical behaviors and decisions were primarily influenced by two ideologies, relativism and moral equity, but again, suggests that additional research is needed in this area (Jung,
2009).
It is clear that the use of ethical ideologies or perspectives is prevalent in the research, as seen through the reviews of Craft (2013) and O’Fallon and Butterfield
(2005). It is also clear, however, that there is a gap in the research in this area, as the research tends to focus on utilitarianism, idealism, and relativism, paving the way for additional research, particularly research that expands the study of additional ideologies.
39 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
Ethical Perspectives as a Conceptual Framework
Six ethical perspectives that can be used when making ethical decisions were used as a framework for this research. These perspectives are ones that are widely used and well-known, and can act as tools to help “identify and clarify problems, force us to think systematically, encourage us to view issues from many different vantage points, and supply us with decision-making guidelines “ (Johnson, 2018, p. 146). The perspectives used in the study were selected for this research due to their familiarity, perhaps not in name but in use, and include utilitarianism, Kant’s categorical imperative, Rawls’ justice as fairness, pragmatism, altruism, and virtue ethics. Each of these perspectives will be further explored and explained to provide better understanding for the research at hand as well as a basis for how the terms are operationalized in this research.
Utilitarianism: The Greatest Good for the Greatest Number
Utilitarianism rests on the idea that we should do the greatest good for the greatest number of people (Johnson, 2018). In other words, utilitarianism is the principle that “the action is morally right when it promotes the greatest wellbeing (or happiness) for as much people as possible” (Dion, 2012). It is a principle based on the idea that choices should be based on consequences, particularly ethical choices, and that people should be considering the impacts of the likely outcomes in their decisions (Johnson, 2018). Dion
(2012) writes that through the utilitarian perspective, decision makers should take into consideration the positive and negative impact of their decisions, which is not necessarily easy to do, but is important. In this, the decision makers should not be assuming what the impacts would be, but seeking out answers from those who would be impacted, both positively and negatively (Dion, 2012), and ultimately making a decision based on what
40 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY will “procure the greatest happiness” for the most people (Graham, 2004). This idea of the greatest happiness is at the root of the ideas behind utilitarianism and helps us to understand and operationalize the principle of utilitarianism.
In his book, Understanding Utilitarianism, Mulgan (2007) writes that utilitarianism is often misunderstood, the root word utility taken to mean that something is simply functional, getting the job done. However, utilitarianism, sometimes referred to as the greatest happiness principle, is more than this, and in fact is almost the opposite of it, as utilitarianism incorporates pleasure and enjoyment as contributing to happiness, and as such, key components of utilitarianism (Mulgan, 2007).
Two of the early proponents of utilitarianism are Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), both of whom helped to shape what we know of this perspective today (Mulgan, 2007). Bentham’s work often focused on how legislator’s and the government should use the principles of utilitarianism in their work, believing that their job was to use their knowledge of humans and human nature to design laws that benefit the majority, and maximize the happiness of the people (Mulgan, 2007, p. 13). In other words, Bentham desired to find the greatest good for the greatest number of people but recognized that this was a complicated appeal that could be used to justify sacrificing the unfortunate few for the powerful many, but as Mulgan (2007) writes, Bentham believed this to mean “(a)the interests of the powerless many should take precedence over the interests of the powerful few, or (b) if a certain benefit cannot be provided to everyone, then it should be provided to as many people as possible” (p. 15). Bentham’s greatest contribution to utilitarianism is the principle that “law and public administration should be guided by the general interests of the public” (p. 20).
41 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
Perhaps the most well known proponent of utilitarianism is John Stuart Mill
(1806-1873) who built upon but also offered departures from the utilitarian ideas offered by Bentham (Mulgan, 2007). Mill is, perhaps, the greatest influence on what we know today of utilitarianism. In his essay, Utilitarianism, Mill (1861) sums up his principles of utilitarianism as “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure” (p. 11). He seeks to offer a proof of the principles of utilitarianism, offering that the only proof of an object being an object is to actually see it, therefore, the proof that something is desirable is that people desire it, and we know that by nature humans desire happiness, so everything we desire is either a part of or a means to happiness (Mill, 1861, p. 47).
Johnson (2018) is helpful in operationalizing utilitarianism, suggesting that when making an ethical decision using utilitarian principles, one must first clearly identify the action or issue, then specify all who will be impacted by the decision, even those on the periphery and not immediately involved, and finally, determine likely consequences to see if the good outweighs the bad. Graham (2004) agrees with this, suggesting that it is necessary to consider the greatest happiness to determine if the end justifies the means in the given situation.
Kant’s Categorical Imperative: Do What’s Right No Matter the Cost
Kant’s categorical imperative, also known as deontology, is the idea that people should do what is morally right, no matter the cost of the action (Johnson, 2018).
Deontological ethics suggests that we have a duty (as deon is Greek for duty) to do what is right and make our ethical choices based on this duty (Johnson, 2018; Dion, 2012).
42 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
This perspective is considered categorical because in Kant’s view, there should not be exceptions to the rules. Rules (and moral rules in particular), according to Kant, should be universally recognized and circumstances to make exceptions are not taken into account (Dion, 2012). Essentially, Kant suggests that “what is right for one is right for all” (Johnson, 2018) which drives this perspective.
Kant’s categorical imperative originates from his desire to establish a supreme principle of morality (Cholbi, 2016). This rests in his assumption that morals can be established through a set of rules or principles, and thus his desire to establish one overarching principle (Cholbi, 2016). Kant believed that this supreme principle of morality, also referred to as the Categorical Imperative, had to be “an objective, rationally necessary, and unconditional principle that we must always follow despite any natural desires or inclination’s we may have to the contrary” (Johnson & Cureton, 2016). In doing this, Kant uses five criteria to make his case for the supreme principle of morality, as summarized by Cholbi (2016). According to these five criteria, the supreme principle of morality must
[1] provide plausible explanations of moral obligations we already recognize,
[2] be an imperative that is rationally necessary for us to adopt, that is, a
categorical imperative,
[3] be whatever principle governs the choices of the morally good will,
[4] be a non-consequentialist principle, i.e. it must not make the rightness or
wrongness of actions depend on the value of actions’ consequences, and
[5] be a principle conformity to which requires only that we are practically
rational beings (Cholbi, 2016, p. 99-100).
43 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
Cholbi (2016) points out that Kant distinguishes between a hypothetical and categorical imperative, identifying that for something to be an imperative, it must express a command, and is either hypothetical, an action that is a means to something else, or categorical, an action that is necessary in itself. That is to say, hypothetical imperatives are commands that are conditional, telling us to do something in order to meet an end goal, while categorical imperatives are commands that apply to us “without reference to any ends we might or might not have” (Johnson & Cureton, 2016). In Kant’s view, categorical imperatives “transcend our wants and desires by presenting us with rational principles of action in the light of which those desires themselves are to be assessed” and take precedence over other considerations when making a decision (Graham, 2004). It is here that we understand his categorical imperative as telling us to do what is right no matter the cost because what is right for one is right for all. It is this that becomes his universal late, stating that people are to act only in ways that can be universally applied
(von Platz, 2016).
Operationalizing Kant’s imperative can be understood through his own words.
Graham (2004) writes that Kant believes that the test to know if something is morally right lies in it’s universalizability. Graham (2004) goes on to explain that in Kant’s view, if we want to know if what has been proposed is morally right, we must ask ourselves if
“whether you can consistently will that everyone whenever they have the same reason as you do, should act in that way” (p. 115). In other words, if I act in this way, is it the way that everyone else would act under the same conditions and circumstances? Is it universal that this (whatever that may be) is the right action to take in this situation? If the answer is yes, then Kant’s imperative has been met, but if the answer is anything else, the action
44 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY is likely not morally right (Graham, 2004).
John Rawls’ Justice as Fairness: Equal Rights and Opportunities for All
John Rawls believes that justice is the first virtue of social institutions, essential to the basic structure of society, and as such worked to develop a theory of justice that promotes fairness as the ultimate rule of justice (Rawls, 1999). Rawls (1999) believes that “laws and institutions no matter how efficient and well-arranged must be reformed or abolished if they are unjust” (p. 3). His beliefs of justice extend to all people, as he does not believe that the loss of freedom for some justifies the good shared by others; it is not possible to say that the advantages of the larger number can outweigh the sacrifices required by others in order for the larger numbers to have the advantages (Rawls, 1999).
This, of course, applies beyond laws and into social systems, societies, actions, decisions, and imputations, though the main focus of Rawls (1999) theory of justice is on that of society.
Rawls (2001) believes that this sense of justice as fairness occurs through two principles, which are,
(a) Each person has the same indefeasible claim to a fully adequate scheme of
equal basic liberties, which scheme is compatible with the same scheme of
liberties for all; and
(b) Social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions: first, they are to
be attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of
opportunity and second, they are to be to the greatest benefit of the least-
advantaged members of society (p. 42-43).
That is to say, his first principle tells us that every person has the right to the same basic
45 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY liberties and his second principle tells us every person has the right to qualify for jobs and offices (and should have access to the training or education needed for the roles), but recognizes that while inequalities exist in this, priority should be given to meeting the needs of marginalized groups (Johnson, 2018).
Along with these principles, Rawls (1999) believes that they must take place behind what he calls the veil of ignorance. The veil of ignorance is the idea that one must step behind the curtain, so to speak, to remove bias when making decisions in accordance with Rawls’ principles (Johnson, 2018; Rawls, 1999). Rawls (1999) writes that this veil of ignorance means that the parties in a given situation “do not know how the various alternatives will affect their own particular case and they are obliged to evaluate principles solely on the basis of general considerations” of how they will impact society
(p. 118). That is to say, the veil of ignorance forces us to remove ourselves from the decision in order to uphold the principles Rawls (2001, 1999) has put forth in his theory.
Rawls (1999) does acknowledge, however, the difficulty in this veil of ignorance, but argues that it is essential to upholding the principles of his theory of justice. Rawls’ theory also poses a number of challenges, according to Johnson (2018) because it only works in democratic societies, definitions and understandings of justice and fairness vary widely, and the veil of ignorance doesn’t guarantee that someone will come up with the same principles suggested in this perspective.
Rawls’ (1999, 2001) theory of justice as fairness can be operationalized using the principles described above. In order to act justly and fairly per Rawls’ theory, we must
“guarantee basic rights to all followers; ensure that followers have equal access to promotion, training, and other benefits; and make special efforts to help followers who
46 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY have unique needs” (Johnson, 2018, p. 154). When making decisions utilizing Rawls’ theory, one must set aside all considerations of wealth, gender, age, education, race, social class, and the like, and do their best to make a decision that will most benefit the least advantaged (Johnson, 2018).
Pragmatism: A Focus on the Process of Moral Inquiry
Pragmatism is a philosophy of ethics propagated largely by John Dewey that focuses on identifying a method for improving value judgments instead of identifying an ultimate principle of ethics or morals (Anderson, 2014). Dewey lived through periods of great social change in society, from the Civil War to the Cold War, and saw the need for change in regard to both traditional morality and philosophical ethics, a need for the reconstruction of moral practice due to shifts in society, which he set out to do through his philosophy, now known as pragmatism (Anderson, 2014). Dewey’s approach to ethics then marks a shift from customary morals to reflective morals, pushing us to shift from socially constructed habits to morals mediated by intelligence (Fesmire, 2013). The shift marks a turn towards pragmatism, centered on the moral imagination instead of a bedrock of principles and rules (Fesmire, 2013). Fesmire (2013) writes that traditional ethics are based on rules that we hold tightly while pragmatism pushes us to think beyond these rules and generalizations, using our moral imagination, to think through solutions in our personal decision-making. Dewey believed that rules are merely “’intellectual instruments to be tested and confirmed—and altered—through consequences effected by acting upon them’” (Fesmire, 2013, p. 59).
Using a pragmatic approach to ethics pushes us to apply this moral imagination to the human dilemma, using an approach much like one that would be used in the scientific
47 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY method of testing hypotheses to solve a problem (Johnson, 2018). This allows for and encourages flexibility, as in the scientific method, hypotheses are tested and revised based on results, much in the way that Dewey argues should be the approach to ethical dilemmas (Johnson, 2018). Of course, actual scientific experiments can’t be done to solve ethical dilemmas, so much of this process is through use of the moral imagination and thought experiments (Johnson, 2018). In a pragmatic approach, individual growth is key, which comes from solving problems, and is the ultimate goal of moral decision-making.
Pragmatism can be operationalized as a way to make ethical decisions, a process to use, rather than simply as a rule. In using a pragmatic approach, the decision maker will need to think and re-think possible solutions to the problem in order to come to the best conclusion possible and promote the most growth for the most people.
Altruism: Doing What Benefits Others
The basic principle of altruism is the idea that a person’s behaviors be motivated by the desire to benefit others over self (Kraut, 2016). Some refer to this as the idea of using “love your neighbor” as the ultimate ethical standard. Behavior that is seen as altruistic is outwardly focused, putting the needs of other first, and is the opposite of behavior that is self-interested (Kraut, 2016). Additionally, behavior and acts are altruistic not only when they focus on doing good for others but when they also serve the purpose of preventing harm to others (Kraut, 2016). This perspective tells us that actions should be focused on helping others, particularly when it comes to ethical decision- making.
Operationalizing altruism requires that the person making the ethical decision fully make the decision without regard for themselves. They must make the decision with
48 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY the benefit of others as their ultimate guide, not focusing on what is best for themselves.
Virtue Ethics: Goodness Through Actions
Similar to altruism is the idea of virtue ethics. Virtue ethics tells us that we are made good because of our actions, so our actions should encourage prudence and goodness for all (Dion, 2012). In virtue ethics, one can’t simply possess virtue, they must also act on it, and understand that being ethical must happen across the board, in small and big things (Dion, 2012). Virtue ethics is difficult to act on because of the competing nature of virtuosity and difficulty of figuring out what is prudent in each situation.
DeGeorge (2010) points out that we are not born virtuous but must become virtuous by practice, and that it is only when our actions become habit and we can resist the temptation to act in unvirtuous ways, that we become a virtuous person.
Jesuit Identity of Jesuit Colleges and Universities
The Society of Jesus, commonly known as the Jesuits and founded by Saint
Ignatius Loyola, was one of the first orders of educators in the Catholic Church (AJCU,
2017). At their core, the Jesuits are educators, grounding Jesuit education in the liberal arts tradition, focusing on “quality teaching, critical thinking, and rigorous academic standards and scholarship” (AJCU, 2017). According to the Association of Jesuit
Colleges and Universities (2017), Jesuit higher education is guided by the tenets of
Catholic social teaching and a spirituality that seeks justice, placing emphasis on forming people who are for and with others that will find constructive ways to use their knowledge and talents to best serve society, what is often referred to as vocation. It is through this focus on justice, particularly social justice, that there is a distinction between
Jesuit higher education and non-Jesuit higher education. Better knowledge of Jesuit
49 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY identity and values as they pertain to higher education is important in understanding the parameters for this research study, and as such, will be further reviewed at this time.
The Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities (2017) writes that Jesuit universities are guided by the tenets of Catholic social teaching. These tenets, or principles, include those of respect for human dignity, respect for human life, association with others, participation, preference for the poor, solidarity, stewardship, subsidiarity, equality, and the common good (Byron, 1998). These principles are a sort of call to action for those in the Catholic Church, as the idea of a principle is that it should prompt activity to do something (Byron, 1998). They have help to set the course for Jesuit education over the years.
Peter-Hans Kolvenbach, the 29th Superior General of the Society of Jesus, gave two addresses in 1989 that provided background on the themes of Jesuit higher education, which seems to build off of the tenets of Catholic social teaching. These themes are helpful in further understanding the mission of Jesuit institutions. Kolvenbach (1989) believed that the main purpose of Jesuit higher education is to form men and women for others, instilling in students values that look beyond goals of achieving fame or money, but rather those that encourage students to be leaders in service, something Kolvenbach
(1989) noted as the goal of Jesuit education since the 16th century. Kolvenbach (1989) asks the question of what we mean by Jesuit education, and highlights a number of themes based in Ignatian spirituality in order to answer this question. Kolvenbach (1989) outlines the themes of Jesuit education as follows:
(1) values oriented: all teaching imparts values, values provide motives, they
identify a person, and are anchored in both the head and the heart, values
50 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
involve habits and reflection; must be infused within programs at every level
(p. 2-3)
(2) promotion of justice: calls upon us to educate all, the rich, middle class, poor,
from a perspective of justice, though special efforts should be taken to make
Jesuit education possible for those who or less advantages; schools should be
open to all; students should learn to make significant decisions in ways that
consider how they would impact those less fortunate in our society (p. 3)
(3) interdisciplinary education: the university is not simply an administrative
umbrella for unconnected academic disciplines; no single academic discipline
can offer comprehensive solutions to real world questions, students need to
learn from a holistic point of view; foster academic freedom and demand
excellence (p. 3-4)
(4) internationalization: the Jesuit mission is global so institutions must be
preparing students to be responsible citizens in a global society; encourages a
diversity of cultural backgrounds within the student body as well as
international opportunities for students and faculty (p. 4)
(5) mission and staffing: all prospective employees of the institution should be
acquainted with the spirit of the institution and asked if they desire to be part
of that spirit; all member of the educational community should contribute to
the mission; growth in understanding and commitment to the mission should
be cultivated formally and informally (p. 4-5)
(6) the Jesuit community: the institution is independent from the group of Jesuits
who may work and/or live at the institution; the Jesuit community at each
51 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
university should exercise authority in ensuring the Ignatian purpose of the
university (p. 5-6)
Kolvenbach (1989) underscores the final purpose of Jesuit education, “to enable the human person and the human community to be the oved ones God calls them to be,” and implores those within the community of Jesuit education to work together to make this vision the reality.
In 1990, Pope John Paul II issued what is known as the Ex Corde Ecclesiae
(1990), which acts as a sort of Apostolic Constitution for Catholic universities (Peck and
Stick, 2008). This document called for Catholic universities, including Jesuit universities, to renew and affirm their dual identities as being both a university and Catholic (Peck and
Stick, 2008). The document affirms that Catholic universities are, at their heart, an academic community, existing to advance human dignity and culture through research, teaching, and the services they offer locally, nationally, and globally (Ex Corde
Ecclesiae, 1990, p. 3). The document also outlines four essential characteristics that every
Catholic university must have:
(1) A Christian inspiration not only of individuals but of the university
community as such;
(2) a continuing reflection in the light of the Catholic faith upon the growing
treasury of human knowledge, to which it seeks to contribute by its own
research;
(3) fidelity to the Christian message as it comes to us through the Church; and
(4) an institutional commitment to the service of the people of God and of the
human family in their pilgrimage to the transcendent foal which gives
52 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
meaning to life (Ex Corde Ecclesiae, 1990, p.4).
Further, the Ex Corde Ecclesiae (1990) called for faculty to be aware of an committed to the Catholic mission and identity of the university, and seems to have been a declaration that the church has authority over certain practices at Catholic colleges and universities
(Peck and Stick, 2008). Aspects of the Ex Corde Ecclesiae (1990) are seen as controversial, such as Pope John Paul II’s thoughts on the number of Catholics that should be on the board of trustees or that those who teach theology be approved as competent to do so by an ecclesiastical authority, indicating that someone outside of the institution could have policy authority, because they have the potential to interfere with regulations institutions must follow in order to comply with federal funding guidelines
(LaBelle and Kendall, 2016). These controversial aspects of the Ex Corde Ecclesiae
(1990) also create a tension between the Catholic university as a University and as an extension of the Catholic Church. The AJCU (2012) has affirmed that while Jesuit colleges and universities should be fulfilling their mission and as a Catholic and Jesuit university, they cannot do so unless they also first fulfill the mission “to be an excellent university within the American academy, and therefore values highly academic freedom and peer review” (p. 1).
In 2010, the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities published a document titled The Jesuit, Catholic Mission of the U.S. Jesuit Colleges and Universities (AJCU,
2010). This document presented six areas of focus in Jesuit institutions of higher education, in a “consensus reflection of the twenty-eight presidents of U.S. Jesuit colleges and universities on the Jesuit, Catholic identity shared by these institutions”
(AJCU, 2010). These areas affirm the themes presented by Kolvenbach (1989) and, in a
53 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY way, respond to Pope John Paul II’s Ex Corde Ecclesiae (1990). The six areas of focus, as presented in this document, were summarized by LaBelle and Kendall (2016) in their study on the characteristics of Jesuit colleges and universities in the United States, as follows:
(1) Defining Character: Catholic, Jesuit University. To educate in a way that
seeks God in all things, promotes discernment, and engages the world through
a careful analysis of context, in dialogue with experience, evaluated through
reflection, for the sake of action, and with openness, always, to evaluation
(2) Further Dimensions of our Apostolic Rationale. To continue the historic Jesuit
mission of educating first generation students; to serve the persistently poor,
homeless, minorities, victims of discrimination; to consider global
engagement as an essential element of education, not only educating
international students, but by participating in exchange programs, and being in
dialogue with different cultures and religious beliefs and values
(3) Collaboration and Governance. To state clearly that the board of each
institution has the ultimate responsibility for its policies, governance, and
operation; the board has the responsibility for maintaining the Catholic, Jesuit
character of the institution
(4) Jesuit and Jesuit Communities. To seek and employ competent Jesuits in
maintaining the Jesuit identity; qualified Jesuits are not limited to scholars but
can serve in other capacities
(5) Presidents, Rectors, and Provincials. The Rector (Superior of local Jesuits) is
the liaison between the Order and the institution. He works with university
54 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
officials in maintaining the Jesuit character. Practically that means working
with higher superiors in suggesting competent Jesuit personnel to work in the
college or university, and maintaining open lines of communication with the
board and university officials
(6) Relationship with Bishops. The president should maintain a friendly
relationship with the local bishop since the college/university is a ministry of
the Church; often the institution can provide needed resources for the local
Church (LaBelle and Kendall, 2016, p. 269-270)
Mission and Values at the Study Institution
Jesuit education is built on a commitment to the mission of the institution. As the
AJCU writes, “the distinctiveness of a Jesuit education stems from its deep-rooted history and a mission grounded in faith and intellectual rigor. Since its beginnings in 1548, when the first Jesuit institution opened its doors in Messina, Sicily, Jesuit higher education remains committed to academic excellence, service, leadership and caring for the whole person” (AJCU, 2017). This mission, built from the tenets of Catholic social teaching and highlighted by the themes presented by Kolvenbach (1989) as well as those from the
AJCU (2010), is an integral part of the Jesuit university. For the purposes of this review, it is important to have a knowledge of the mission and values of the institution in the study.
The mission of the institution in this study has seen a number of iterations, including a recently revised mission statement, which is under review by the Board of
Trustees and is anticipated to be approved at their meeting in December 2017 (Mission &
Identity, 2017a). The proposed statement includes minor revisions to the mission
55 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY statement as approved by the Board of Trustees in 2012 in order to “underscore key core values of the Jesuit educational mission” (Mission & Identity, 2017b), and to better
“reflect that the [institutional] community is a broad, diverse, and dynamic entity”
(Mission & Identity, 2017b). As such, the proposed mission statement reads,
[This institution] is a Jesuit Catholic university rooted in the liberal arts tradition.
Our mission is to educate each student intellectually, morally, and spiritually. We
create learning opportunities through rigorous academic and professional
programs integrated with co-curricular engagement. In an inclusive environment
of open and free inquiry, we prepare students for a world that is increasingly
diverse, complex and interdependent. Driven by our commitment to educating
the whole person, promoting the common good, and serving others, the Xavier
community challenges and supports all our members as we cultivate lives of
reflection, compassion and informed action (Mission & Identity, 2017a).
This mission statement reflects the distinctiveness referenced by the AJCU (2017) in promoting the education of the whole person with a focus on intellectual rigor while being grounded in faith.
In addition to the mission, the values of the University in the study are equally important to understand for the study, as they are inherent to the work of the university, and are often referenced more frequently than the mission statement. The values of the university are as stated:
(1) Reflection invites us to pause and consider the world around us and our place
within it.
(2) Discernment invites us to be open to God's spirit as we consider our feelings
56 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
and rational thought in order to make decisions and take action that will
contribute good to our lives and the world around us.
(3) Solidarity and Kinship invites us to walk alongside and learn from our
companions, both local and afar, as we journey through life.
(4) Service rooted in justice and love invites us to invest our lives into the well-
being of our neighbors, particularly those who suffer injustice.
(5) Cura Personalis invites us to care for others recognizing the uniqueness and
wholeness of each person.
(6) Magis invites us to ask, “Where is the more universal good?” when making
decisions; it relates to the Jesuit motto, For the Greater Glory of God.
(Mission & Identity, 2017c)
Students are acculturated into the values of the university throughout their time at the institution. The mission and values of the institution are not simply an aspirational statement but provide the foundation for the mission experience students receive through their educational experience. This is done through programs such as orientation and the first year experience course offered by the institution as well as in academic experiences, student leadership experiences, and a variety of opportunities across campus. During the mandatory orientation program that all students are expected to attend, the goal is to introduce the Ignatian (Jesuit) heritage of the university to students (Office of Student
Involvement, 2018). This is done through a small group session created each year by a student leader and staff in the university’s Center for Faith & Justice that introduces students to the concept of Jesuit education and provides the opportunity to broadly understand what it means to attend a Jesuit institution. In the first year experience course
57 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY required of all first year students, certain Jesuit values are the focus of some class sessions, specifically the idea of living out the Jesuit values (Goa Schedule, 2018).
In academics, the university’s current core curriculum, required of every undergraduate student, was launched to revolve around the six Jesuit values (Course
Catalogue, 2018) in order to achieve the University mission to graduate students of
“learning and reflection, integrity and achievement, in solidarity for and with others”
(Core Curriculum, 2018). This is done through required courses that promote ethics, religion, and society, culture understanding, the liberal arts perspective, and necessary skills (Core Curriculum, 2018). The liberal arts perspective courses include required courses in creative, historical, mathematical, philosophical, scientific, theological, humanities, natural sciences, and social sciences perspectives (Core Curriculum, 2018).
While every course may not explicitly speak to the Jesuit values, the core curriculum as a whole is intended to give students a better understanding of them.
In addition to these more explicit ways in which students are acculturated into the mission and values of the university, many students in leadership roles receive a variety of trainings specific to how the mission and values pertain to their role/position. One of the tools used in these trainings is a resource published for use by Jesuit schools entitled
Lighting the Way for Student Leaders (Mission & Identity, 2013). In this publication, students from the university were asked to write essays about living the values of the institution through their leadership. These essays also help to put the Jesuit values into common terminology by putting the values into action through the stories told.
Faculty and staff also contribute to the acculturation of students into the mission and values of the university through the work they do both in and out of the classroom.
58 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
Staff are evaluated annually on how they have exhibited the institutional values in the work setting and how they have expressed the institutional mission through their work
(Human Resources, 2018). Faculty are expected to contribute to the mission of the university through their teaching, scholarship, and service (Faculty Handbook, 2017):
in their teaching, they encourage critical thinking and articulate expression with
special attention given to ethical issues and values. In their service to the
institution and to the broader community they give evidence of a commitment to
others and of a sharing of one’s gifts. In their scholarship, they seek to better
society and enhance their teaching by advancing knowledge.
It is understood through the rank and tenure process that faculty must be able to articulate how they have contributed to the mission of the institution and incorporated said mission and values into their teaching as part of their tenure documentation. All of this contributes to the efforts of the university to provide a mission experience for the students, an experience that helps them to understand and act in ways that align with the ideas espoused in the mission and values of the institution.
These values, while specific to the study institution, are recognizable at the 28
Jesuit colleges and universities across the United States. Each Jesuit institution has their own specific set of values, many of them are grounded in common themes of the mission of the university and the mission of Jesuit education. In a review of the mission and values of the 28 Jesuit institutions of higher education in the United States, Charles L.
Currie, S.J. (2011) points out that despite different histories, culture, and location, he found an “impressive consistency and coherence” in the Jesuit characteristics of the universities (p. 354). The values used in the framework of this study use language and
59 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY understanding specific to the study institution, and while these may be consistent across institutions, it is important to note they are not identical at all institutions. For example, another Jesuit institution located in the same region as the study institution includes
Magis and Cura Personalis among their values, but also include such values as men and women for and with others, unity of mind, heart, and soul, and forming and educating agents of change (Creighton, 2018). While these values are similar and cohesive with those of the study institution, as expressed by Currie (2011), they are also distinct to that institution, just as those used in this study are distinct to the study institution.
The Jesuit values were operationalized for use in the study, which reflects an understanding of the values through common terminology and references. The Jesuit values were operationalized as follows:
(1) Reflection: looking back to understand where we are and where we are going
in life; remembering what has been in order to determine how to move
forward
(2) Discernment: careful consideration before making a decision; discovering
what brings meaning and purpose to your life and using that as a guide in
making decisions
(3) Solidarity and Kinship: standing with others through good times and bad;
listening and being present; being “for and with others”
(4) Service Rooted in Justice and Love: service/community service done to better
the lives of others and yourself; enabling and empowering others; not doing
service for the sake of reward or recognition or because you want to fix
something
60 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
(5) Cura Personalis: serving and caring for one another; caring for the whole
person—socially, academically, mentally, spiritually; going beyond the
surface
(6) Magis: doing and being more; a spirit of generous excellence; continuous
improvement in all parts of life
Impact of Student Involvement on College Students
This study addressed the impact of Jesuit mission on ethical decision-making in the context of student involvement, and as such, it is important to understand the impact of student involvement on college students. Seminal to the literature on student involvement in college is Alexander Astin’s (1984) theory of student involvement.
Astin’s (1984) theory provides a framework for how college can affect students and suggests that college experiences can be categorized into three areas: inputs, environments, and outputs (Mayhew, Rockenbach, Bowman, Seifert, Wolniak,
Pascarella, and Terenzini, 2016). Inputs include predispositions that students bring with them to college, environments include institutional culture and climate, and those educational experiences that shape students experience, and outputs include attitudes, aptitudes, and behaviors exhibited as a result of going to college (Mayhew et al., 2016).
That is to say, Astin’s (1984) theory provides a framework for understanding how the combination of these three aspects work together to explain how attending college impacts a student (Mayhew et al., 2016).
Astin (1984) writes that “quite simply, student involvement refers to the amount of physical and psychological energy that the student devotes to the academic experience” (p. 297). He further explains that “student involvement includes both the
61 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY quantity and quality of the physical and psychological energy that students invest in the college experience” (p. 307). That is, student involvement includes all aspects of the experiences a student has at a university, both inside and outside of the classroom. Astin
(1984) suggests that an involved student is one that devotes time to studying, spends time on campus, participates in student organizations and events, and engages regularly with faculty, staff, and other students, while an uninvolved student is one who spends little time on campus, does not participate in extracurricular activities, and does not take time to engage with members of the campus community. Astin (1984) is clear that his definition of involvement focuses specifically on behaviors that indicate someone is involved on campus, and takes on many forms.
Astin’s (1984) theory is largely based on a longitudinal study he did in an attempt to identify factors that significantly impacted student persistence in college. In his study, it became clear that the more engaged a student was with the campus, the more likely they were to persist. This included any form of extracurricular involvement, living on campus, on-campus employment, and involvement with faculty research (Astin, 1984). In a further study, also used to refine the theory of involvement, Astin (1984) looked at the impact of college on a wide range of outcomes, which underscored that “nearly all forms of involvement are associated with greater than average changes” (p. 303) in first-year students. Ultimately, Astin’s (1984) theory tells us that the greater the involvement, the greater the student learning and personal development (growth) of the student (p. 308).
Further research has supported the idea that involvement in college matters. In a review of significant research on student involvement, and why it matters, Moore, Lovell,
McGann, and Wyrick (1998) assert that the “resounding theme in the student affairs
62 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY literature is that student involvement at the collegiate level does impact student development and learning…when students become involved with their collegiate environment, students develop and learn outside the classroom” (p.5). Foubert and
Granger (2006) write that further research by Astin found that involvement has resulted in statistically significant correlations between interpersonal skills and leadership abilities and the hours per week spent in student organizations (p. 168). They also note that Astin later found that the three most important forms of involvement are academic involvement
(research, etc. beyond the classroom), involvement with faculty and staff, and involvement with student peer groups, with peer groups serving as the strongest source of influence on cognitive and affective development (Foubert & Granger, 2006, p. 168-169).
Foubert and Granger (1998) have further researched the impact of involvement in clubs and organizations on students by focusing research specifically on the impact that varying levels of involvement in a club or organization have on a students’ development. Their results indicate there appears to be a strong connection between involvement in student organizations and various aspects of psychosocial development (p. 175). They also found that involvement likely has a more powerful effect on development earlier in college than later in college, and that the more involved a student was in an organization (i.e.: taking on a leadership role vs. attending a meeting), the higher levels of development they experience (p. 179).
It is clear that involvement has an impact on student learning and development in college. Previous research on involvement is significant to this research as it provides a definition of student involvement that helps to operationalize the term and aids in the selection of the research participants. In reviewing the literature on involvement, and
63 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY desiring to select “involved students” for this research, it made sense to use the research to narrow that focus, as is discussed in chapter 3. Additionally, the research on involvement points to the idea that students grow and develop during their time in college, which indicates a connection to the research questions of this study looking at differences between first year and senior students ethical decision-making processes.
College’s Impact on Ethical Development
In order to understand ethical decision-making of college students, it is important to understand how college has been shown to have an impact on the development of college students, in particular how college impacts the moral and ethical development of college students. In reviewing the literature, it must be pointed out that while some researchers distinguish between ethical and moral development, the distinction is ambiguous, and the terms are seemingly used interchangeably. Oliver and Hioco (2012) point out this ambiguous nature of distinguishing between morals and ethics, writing that in their research, they found that various definitions and concepts exist when considering ethics. They cite Klugman and Stump (2006, as cited in Oliver & Hioco, 2012) as an example of research that distinguishes between the morals and ethics, while citing
Diestler (2001, as cited in Oliver & Hioco, 2012) and Shapiro and Stefkovich (2005, as cited in Oliver & Hioco, 2012) as examples of research that integrates the definitions of the two, and Wallin (2007, as cited in Oliver & Hioco, 2012) as defining ethics as the justification for moral judgments. Ultimately, Oliver and Hioco (2012) use an integrated approach to their definition, writing that ethics includes “reasoning, conceptions of right and wrong, and related behavior” all of which are seen in definitions of both morals and ethics.
64 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
For the purpose of this research, ethical development was understood in the vein of Oliver and Hioco (2012), and looked at both moral development and ethical development, as it is clear that the two are interwoven concepts that have not been clearly distinguished in the literature. That is to say, research on the concepts of both moral and ethical development are included in this review for the sake of providing an overview of the full scope of the literature.
To better understand what is meant by moral or ethical development, it is important to define development, which King (2009) distinguishes as “the evolution of skills (defined broadly to include abilities, capacities, ways of understanding) over time, where early level skills are reorganized into higher-level skills that allow individuals to manage more complex units of information, perspectives, and tasks” (p. 598). Thus, moral or ethical development can be understood as the evolution of reasoning, conceptions of right and wrong, and behaviors related to these conceptions.
Kohlberg’s theory of moral development has been a “dominant force guiding moral development research for over four decades” (Paton, Renn, Guido, & Quaye,
2016). According to Paton, et al. (2016), Kohlberg focused on the process of how individuals make moral judgments not the content of the decisions, with these judgments each having three characteristics; an emphasis on value rather than fact, an effect on a person(s), and the requirement that an action must be taken. Kohlberg ultimately developed a stage theory of moral development, with six stages grouped in three levels, and the idea that each level represents a relationship between the individual and society, rules, and expectations (Paton, et al., 2016). Paton, et al. (2016) explain the levels as follows. Level I is considered pre-conventional, where individuals have not yet come to
65 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY understand societal expectations and norms and are focused internally/individually; level
II is considered conventional and is when the individual recognizes themselves as a member of the larger society, identifying with the rules and expectations of society, particularly authority; level III is considered post-conventional or principled, which is when individuals recognize society, but separate themselves from society and make decisions based on their own principles. It is this theory that has been the basis for much of the research on ethical and moral development of college students, including Rest’s moral development stages and measure, the Defining Issues Test, and Gilligan’s theory of women’s moral development, though Kohlberg and Rest tend to see the most research
(Paton, et al., 2016).
In a review of literature of studies completed on the moral development of college students, Mayhew, et al. (2016) found that college-going has been linked to moral development, with exposure to college leading to greater gains in this area. Specifically, they found that as a result of going to college, “students’ reasoning patterns became more complex, evolving from understanding justice as something that is based on normed definitions of rules and policies to framing justice as something principled, intended to critically scrutinize the source, appropriations, and equitable administrations of rules and policies” (p. 359). Mayhew, et al. (2016) found that studies show curricular interventions and experiences, faculty-student interactions, and co-curricular engagement, even though it is operationalized in a large variety of ways, all significantly impact moral development on some level. In line with this, studies by Mayhew, Siefert, and Pascarella (2012),
Mayhew and King (2008), Jones and Watt (1999), Wilson, Rest, Blodizar, and Deemer
(1992), Biggs and Barnett (1981), all indicate that college attendance impacts moral
66 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY development. A few highlights from these studies are reviewed below to understand how ways this development is seen during the college years.
In their study specifically looking at how the first year of college influences moral development, Mayhew, Seifert, and Pascarella (2012) explored how curricular experiences, co-curricular experiences, and teaching practices make an impact. Using
Kohlberg’s stage model of moral reasoning development, Mayhew, et al. (2012) distinguished whether students were consolidated in a stage or were transitioning between stages. They found that students in transitional stages were more likely to be influenced by aspects of the college environment, which suggests that these students may be more ready for and open to challenges intended to spur development (Mayhew, et al.,
2012). The study also reminds us that no two students are alike, and come to college with varying understandings of justice and fairness, and suggests that educators must be
“intentional about creating learning environments that use diversity-related content to expand notions of fairness beyond what serves oneself” (Mayhew, et al., p. 37) because for many students this is the first time they are being asked to wrestle with sensitive topics. The authors write that ultimately, this study demonstrates that developmental gains in moral reasoning vary amongst first year students, depending on their stage, and that some students are more ready to face challenges than others in their first year of college.
Mayhew and King (2008) examined how curricular content and pedagogical strategies impact moral reasoning development amongst college students, by examining various types of college courses, the practices used in these courses, and the degree to which the courses and practices influenced development (p. 21). This study was intended
67 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY to look more specifically about interventions that may impact moral reasoning development, and thus ethical decision-making, because as the authors point out from previous research, little is known about why one intervention may be effective and another may not (Mayhew & King, 2008). Their study found that certain courses, those deemed morally explicit, showed to be the greatest influence on moral reasoning development, while pedagogical strategies impacted development but not as strongly
(Mayhew & King, 2008). The study also showed that student perception about how instructors teach a course may have as great an impact as the content of the course itself
(Mayhew & King, 2008). Creating supportive and safe learning environments where students can engage in quality discussions about moral and ethical issues is important in the development and growth of moral reasoning (Mayhew & King, 2008).
Jones and Watt (1999) looked at scores from both the Student Developmental
Task and Lifestyle Assessment and the Measure of Moral Orientation to understand how moral orientation (justice oriented or care oriented) impacted development in college age students, and the effect of gender on this. They found that, in line with previous research, students undergo cognitive, moral, and psychosocial changes during the college years
(Jones & Watt, 1999). While they caution that any of the findings from this particular survey are preliminary, that research suggests an increase of development across class standing (Jones & Watt, 1999). Wilson, Rest, Blodizar, and Deemer (1992) examined the effects of education and occupation on the development of moral judgment and found that educational attainment was a direct predictor of adult moral judgment development.
Biggs and Barnett (1981) noted that college attendance has long been considered critical in the development of moral reasoning, and specifically looked at the impact of college
68 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY experiences, attribution beliefs and attitudes about punitiveness, educational and academic characteristics, and freshmen level of moral judgment development on the level of moral judgment development of upper-class students who had both low and high moral reasoning scores as first year students on the Defining Issues Test (DIT). They found that for students with initially low moral reasoning scores, attribution beliefs were most significantly related to moral judgement development and students with initially high moral reasoning scores, that initial score was the most significant factor in their development (Biggs and Barnett, 1981, p. 100-101).
69 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
Chapter 3: Methodology
The primary purpose of this case study was to compare the ethical decision- making approaches of first year and senior undergraduate students at a Jesuit university and the extent to which the Jesuit identity of the institution was reflected in students’ ethical decision-making. This chapter outlines the research questions and discusses the methodology that was used to examine the four research questions of the study. It outlines the research design that was used in the study, discusses the participant population in the study, provides details of the instrumentation and data collection, and discuss how the data was analyzed once was collected. Provisions for protecting the rights of the participants are also outlined.
Research Questions
Three research questions were addressed in this case study comparing the philosophical approaches to ethical decision-making employed by college students as first year students and as seniors, and the influence of the institution’s Jesuit identity on these students’ ethical reasoning:
Research Question 1: Are there patterns in the ethical decision-making of unmatriculated first year students and seniors in their final semester?
Research Question 2: Do the rationales reported for the ethical decisions made by first year and senior undergraduate students differ?
Research Question 3: To what extent is the Jesuit identity of an academic institution reflected in the ethical decision-making of first year and senior students?
Research Question 4: Do first year and senior students who employ the same approach to ethical decision-making, integrate Jesuit principles into their reasoning to differing degrees?
Research Design
A single-case design was used in this research. Case studies permit “an intensive
70 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY study of a single person, group, organization, or culture” (Whitley & Kite, 2013, p. 363).
In this case, a single organization was the focus of study, to compare how first year and graduating seniors at a particular Jesuit institution make ethical decisions. While the single-case strategy limits the generalizability of study results, the case study design allows for the collection of in-depth information not permitted by in other types of studies
(Whitley & Kite, 2013).
A combination of qualitative and quantitative analyses were employed to address the research questions posed in this case study. Qualitative methods of data collection were used to obtain open-ended, narrative responses to a series of hypothetical scenarios
(vignettes) designed to elicit ethical decisions from study participants. Quantitative methods were then used to further probe the underlying bases for those decisions. Both qualitative and quantitative methods of analysis were employed to evaluate these responses for comparative purposes in addressing the research questions. Qualitative methods are useful when “phenomena are not well understood or the relationships between phenomena are unclear” (Bush, Smith, & Bush, 2013, p. 110). Further, qualitative research is appropriate in the study of ethics as it is allows the researcher to explore the complex nature of the subject (Bush, et al., 2013). Quantitative methods of analysis can aid in the interpretation of qualitative data in the context of comparative studies. Results focused on both the distribution of ethical decision-making rationales exhibited by first year and senior students, as well as the degree to which Jesuit values were reflected in the rationales offered as the bases for these decisions.
Vignettes, or hypothetical scenarios, are “short stories about hypothetical characters in specified circumstances” to which the participant is asked to respond
71 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
(Finch, 1987, p. 105). They have long been used as a way to study attitudes, perceptions, beliefs, and norms within social science (Finch, 1987). Hypothetical scenarios allow for open-ended responses, which in turn permits the participant to “say anything they want and to say it in their own words” (Whitely & Kite, 2013, 438). Additionally, hypothetical scenarios allow the researcher to provide some of the background information that otherwise is assumed the participant knows when using simple questions, which can serve to standardize the stimuli for all participants and improve the quality of the data collected (Alexander & Becker, 1978). Hypothetical scenarios can be used in both quantitative and qualitative research designs. In quantitative research, predetermined responses are presented with the vignette, asking the participant to select one of the set responses, while in qualitative research, they are presented to the participant who is asked to respond either verbally or in writing (Wilks, 2004).
Finch (1987) and Wilks (2004) both point out the usefulness of scenarios in researching normative issues, or those topics that participants may find more sensitive in nature, which is where Whitley and Kite (2013) believe open-ended questions can be more favorable. Though hypothetical scenarios and open-ended questions can pose validity challenges, as Wilks (2004) points out, the benefits of using them may outweigh the challenges, as they allow the participant to distance themselves from sensitive issues which can make the questions less personally threatening, and, hopefully, reduce social desirability bias on the part of the participant. In qualitative research, this goes a step further, according to Wilks (2004) because the researcher can follow-up and probe desirability issues in responses. Since the objective in this study is to get students to respond as honestly as possible to the scenarios, the use of hypothetical situations in the
72 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY them will allow students to think broadly and not about specific classmates or organizations that may alter their honesty in the responses.
Hypothetical scenarios have been used to study ethical decision-making in numerous studies, largely because they allow the researcher to incorporate the “complex, multidimensional issues reflecting decision-making in the real world” in a research study
(Weber, 1992, p. 138) and provide a way to standardize the stimuli for all participants, ensuring high quality data (Alexander & Becker, 1978). Weber (1992) also suggests that it is best to avoid the mentality that research must reinvent the wheel and should use established scenarios in vignette research whenever possible, though if new ones must be created, they should be subjected to tests of validity and reliability. Finally, he notes that researchers should avoid only one or two scenarios, but also the other extreme of a dozen or more, and find a happy medium (Weber, 1992). This research study will use open- ended responses to hypothetical scenarios because of the richness of responses cannot be attained in the same way through closed-ended responses, and they are appropriate for addressing the research questions.
The hypothetical scenarios (vignettes) that were used in this study, in particular, were developed by the principle investigator to reflect common ethical dilemmas face by involved college students. These scenarios were given to practitioners in the field of student affairs to provide feedback on their appropriateness and clarity for the intended audience, as Finch (1987) suggests is necessary when using hypothetical scenarios. The hypothetical scenarios were refined based on the feedback, providing for their validity prior to use in the response protocol. Subsequently, the scenarios were piloted with a group of involved juniors. This process provided the validity Weber (1992) and Finch
73 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
(1987) indicate is important when using hypothetical scenarios or vignettes in ethics research.
In addition, participants were asked to complete Likert-style questions regarding their responses to the hypothetical scenarios. In general, the use of scales, or levels of measurement, such as a Likert-style questions, in research allows researchers to measure a characteristic of the respondent in a closed-ended format (Whitley & Kite, 2013). The
Likert-style questions provided data that allowed for comparison between the first year and senior students. Likert-style scales present respondents with a statement about something and then asks the respondent to rate their agreement or disagreement with the statement (Whitley & Kite, 2013). Due to the way in which Likert-style scales are constructed, they tend to have high reliability and are highly flexible in the type of scaling that can be asked of respondents (Whitley & Kite, 2013). This made Likert-style questions desirable as a follow-up to the open-ended responses in this case study.
Though closed-ended data is not always as useful as open-ended data as closed- ended questions can bias responses, it can be helpful in providing answers that respondents may not have thought of otherwise, and if used carefully and appropriately, can contribute positively to data collection by providing data that is specific to the research and easily quantifiable (Whitley & Kite, 2013). In this research, a Likert-style scale was used in addition to the open-ended questions about the vignettes as a way to collect additional data to help answer the research questions evaluating how students make ethical decisions. Likert-style questions are one type of scale measure and are common in research because of their reliability, flexibility, the ease of construction, and the ability to measure multidimensional constructs (Whitely & Kite, 2013).
74 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
Instrumentation and Data Collection
The foundation for data collection in this study was established by exposing participants to a series of hypothetical scenarios, or vignettes, designed to elicit ethical decisions. Responses to the hypothetical scenarios were recorded utilizing an open-ended response protocol, asking students to provide their response to the scenarios as well as their rationale for the response. The response protocol then asked students a series of 12
Likert-style questions asking students to rate the degree to which they considered an aspect of the six ethical perspectives and the six Jesuit values, as outlined in the framework in Chapter 1 (see Appendix A). The rationale for using this method of data collection is discussed below with respect to research design, validity and reliability.
Students’ ethical decision-making rationales were captured as written responses to a series of hypothetical scenarios representing contextually relevant ethical dilemmas.
Hypothetical scenarios were used in lieu of direct observation so that each participant can respond to all ethical dilemmas. The hypothetical scenarios that were used in this case study were developed by the principal investigator based on professional experience in the field of higher education and student affairs (see Appendix A). The hypothetical scenarios (see Appendix A) addressed a broad range of topics including (a) knowledge of cheating on an exam, (b) possible misuse of club funds, (c) content on “fake” social media accounts, (d) lack of time management by a student leader, and (e) underage consumption of alcohol. The hypothetical scenarios were validated as outlined above, by asking four experts in the field of student affairs to provide feedback on them. These experts provided a letter of permission granting the co-investigators to use their feedback to refine the scenarios (see Appendix B).
75 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
The experts provided feedback that was reflected in minor edits to the scenarios.
The most significant feedback concerned the scenario regarding underage consumption of alcohol, with feedback suggesting if the study institution has what is known as an amnesty policy for instances of alcohol mis-use, it could impact responses. The co- investigators chose not to change the scenario, noting if students knew the policy and used it in their response, it would help to identify the ethical principle(s) employed in their response.
Once the hypothetical scenarios were validated, a response protocol was created in Qualtrics (see Appendix A) that allowed participants to respond to each scenario. The response protocol presented each scenario, then asked participants to provide a solution to the ethical dilemma it sets up, as well as a rationale for the solution provided. These were open-ended, narrative responses to ensure students were able to provide their unbiased perspectives. This was repeated for each of the five hypothetical scenarios.
After participants recorded their narrative responses to all scenarios, together with their rationale, they were then presented with a series of Likert-style questions (see Appendix
A). These questions asked them to rate the degree to which they considered factors relating to each of the six ethical perspectives defined by the conceptual framework for this study (questions 1-6), and each of the Jesuit values (questions 7-12) represented in the institution’s mission, in responding to the ethical dilemmas in each of the hypothetical scenarios. The Likert-style questions were developed based on the researcher’s knowledge of the ethical perspectives and Jesuit principles outlined in the framework and were put into common terminology by the researchers.
Prior to distributing the response protocol to the eligible participants, both
76 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY response protocol were piloted with a small group of involved juniors, i.e. students in their third year at the study institution, who met the study criteria for being “involved students” and were identified through professional contacts of the principle investigator.
The co-investigator sent all messaging to the pilot group, in the same way it was later sent to the sample populations. Pilot participants were given two weeks to respond to the pilot, with a reminder sent after one week. The responses from the pilot group allowed the co-investigators to determine if the hypothetical scenarios were comprehensible to the target audience and the response protocols were calibrated to collect appropriate data for the research questions. Scenarios and response protocols were determined usable as they were written based on the responses of the pilot group, allowing the co-investigators to move forward with the instrument.
This method of data collection permitted the co-investigators to explore the research questions in relation to the responses of the participants in a way that provided the best data possible, given that students were not directly observed making an ethical decision but only articulated what they presumably would do if they had to make the decision. The open-ended responses were used to reveal how students articulate and rationalize their ethical decision-making, while the Likert-style questions were use to provide a standardized response to core underlying ethical rationale and Jesuit values that might have been considered as justification for those decisions. Analysis compared the results obtained from first year and senior students to both the narrative and standardized response protocols.
77 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
Population
The participants in this research study were undergraduate students enrolled in at least 12 credit hours at the study institution, as that indicates full time status. Two groups of students were be sampled as part of the study protocol: unmatriculated first year students and students in the last semester of their senior year. Unmatriculated first year students are students entering the study institution in the fall of 2018 who have completed the advising and registration process and registered as a full time student (enrolled in at least 12 credit hours) and who are attending college for the first time. Senior students are students enrolled in their last semester before graduation, as indicated by having completed at least 105 credit hours prior to the current semester, and have been enrolled in at least three years of undergraduate study at the institution. Including first year students in this study allowed for a better understanding of how students who were unfamiliar with the university environment, and had yet to be influenced by institutional mission, make ethical decisions. Including senior students provided insight into how students who have experienced a longer period of influence under the Jesuit mission and identity of the institution make ethical decisions. Comparing the ethical decision-making of these two student populations permitted inferences about how institutional mission affects development of ethical decision-making among undergraduate students.
In selecting senior students to participate in this study, priority was given to involved students, operationalized in accordance with Astin’s (1984) framework which defines an involved student as one who participates in student organizations and events, regularly engages with faculty, staff, and fellow students, and generally participates in the university. For the purpose of this study, involvement was operationalized as students
78 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY who had participated in at least three student organizations, offices, or programs offered within the Division of Student Affairs each year throughout their time at the study institution.
Involved senior students were the focus of this study because, as Astin (1984) and others (Mayhew, et al., 2016) have demonstrated, involvement on campus positively contributes to the moral and ethical development of college students. The purpose of this study is to examine the differences in ethical decision-making by first year and senior students, as influenced by institutional mission. Focusing on involved students for the sample of seniors provided a consistent way of narrowing the scope of eligible participants for recruiting students to the study. In order to control for external confounds that could differentially affect students in both participant groups, students who attended a Jesuit high school were excluded from the study as this would have increased awareness of Jesuit principles prior to their undergraduate experience at the study institution.
Senior participants were identified through the use of involvement data gathered by specific offices and departments within the Division of Student Affairs, which include the Office of Student Involvement, Center for Diversity & Inclusion, Center for Faith &
Justice, Office of Residence Life, Recreational Sports, and the Student Center/Commuter
Services office. Involvement data included positional student leadership roles, involvement on committees or boards, participation in a student organization, and program/event attendance data. Lists of these students were cross referenced with lists of students who met the stated criteria for senior students identified through the institutional enrollment extract report, obtained from the Office of Institutional Research. Cross-
79 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY referencing these lists provided a final list of students eligible to participate in this research. Professional staff in the Office of Institutional Research ran the cross-reference report to create the list of eligible seniors.
First year participants were identified through the use of the Division of
Enrollment Management and Student Success database of deposited students, entering college for the first time in the fall of 2018, who had completed advising and registration, but had yet to matriculate to the university. Professional staff in Enrollment Systems and
Enrollment Communications within the Division of Enrollment Management and Student
Success used the parameters of the study to create the list of eligible first year student.
Once eligible students were identified, a random sample of each was provided to the co-investigators for the study. Staff from the Office of Institutional research provided a random sample of 250 seniors from the list of 400 eligible students. These students were contacted via email (see Appendix C) and asked to participate in the study in order to maximize the response rate and submission of usable data. The initial email provided a brief introduction to the study and information regarding informed consent (see Appendix
D), giving students the option to choose not to participate. Students were asked to respond within two weeks of receiving the survey invitation. A reminder was sent to seniors at the beginning of the second week, and a follow-up was sent at the end of the two-week period, thanking participants and extending the deadline for one week for those who had not yet submitted responses, providing additional time for students to submit responses (see Appendix C). At the end of this time period, it was determined that additional responses were needed so an additional sample of 50 students was provided by the Office of Institutional Research and contacted to participate in the study. The same
80 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY contact protocol was followed with the additional random sample. The co-investigator was the main point of contact in distributing recruitment emails due to the professional relationship the primary investigator could have had with any of the student in the random sample.
Staff from Enrollment Communications and Enrollment Systems provided a random sample of 300 eligible first year students, matching the number of seniors contacted in the study. These students were contacted via email and asked to participate in the study in order to maximize the response rate and submission of usable data. The initial email (see Appendix C) provided a brief introduction to the study and information regarding informed consent (see Appendix D), giving students the option to choose not to participate. Students were asked to respond within two weeks of receiving the survey invitation. A reminder was sent to the first year students at the beginning of the second week, and a follow-up was sent at the end of the two-week period, thanking participants and extending the deadline for one week for those who had not yet submitted responses, providing additional time for students to submit responses (see Appendix C). At the end of the extended time, sufficient responses were collected for the study to proceed. The co- investigator was the main point of contact in distributing recruitment emails due to the professional responsibilities of the primary investigator related to work with incoming first year students.
When a student agreed to the informed consent, they were presented with the hypothetical scenarios depicting common ethical dilemmas experienced by college students. Following each hypothetical scenario, participants recorded their responses to the open-ended questions, which asked students to provide their solution to the presented
81 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY ethical dilemma and then to provide their rationale for that particular solution. After responding to open-ended questions about each of the hypothetical scenarios, students responded to the 12 Likert-style questions about aspects of each ethical perspective and each Jesuit value. All responses remained anonymous throughout the collection and analysis process.
Informed Consent
Informed consent was obtained from anyone who contributed to this research study in order to ensure that participation was truly voluntary and that all participants were treated ethically (Whitley & Kite, 2013). Informed consent must provide participants with all necessary information prior to their participation in the study so that they are able to make an informed decision regarding their participation in the study. For the purposes of this research, participation in the study by eligible students remained anonymous and there were no known risks or harms associated with their participation.
Additionally, there were no known benefits, other than the intrinsic satisfaction of contributing to a research study.
Anonymity of participants was made possible through the use of an anonymous survey link in the Qualtrics system. This link did not allow for the connection of identifying information, such as an email address, to a participant’s responses.
Demographic information was collected in the research protocol but was only reported in the aggregate and was not collected in a way that allowed for individual identification of participants.
Through the email process outlined previously, students received a link to the informed consent document for participation (see Appendix D). The informed consent for
82 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY this research provided participants an overview of the study, an outline of what to expect should they choose to participate, information on how they were selected for participation, and outlined that there are no benefits, risks, or harms in participating.
In addition to collecting the necessary informed consent from study participants, informed consent information was provided to the experts who were asked to assist in the validation process of both the hypothetical scenarios (see Appendix D) as well as the ethical and Jesuit codes (see Appendix D). Participation as an expert did not pose any risks or harms to these experts, nor did provide any benefits, other than contributing to a research study. Participation in the study by these experts remained confidential, only known to the co-investigators, as was outlined in the informed consent information.
Informed consent was also provided to and collected from the juniors selected to pilot the study (see Appendix D). Their participation in the pilot remained confidential, as their actual identity was known to the researcher. The group of juniors was informed that their responses were only used to validate the instrument and make edits as needed and was not used in the study data.
Finally, consent was provided from the data custodians of involvement data, institutional enrollment data, enrollment management data, and high school data. The data custodians for these three areas were asked to provide a letter of permission (see
Appendix E) granting permission to use the systems and reports necessary to form the list of eligible participants in the study, given the parameters. The researchers did not have direct access to these systems, and only received the random sample lists of eligible students from staff in Institutional Research and Enrollment Management.
All informed consent documentation will be maintained for a period of three
83 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY years, as required by federal and university guidelines. It will be maintained in a secure location during this time period.
Data Analysis
Data was collected at two points in time, April and August of 2018 for senior and first year students respectively. Once each period of data collection ended, the online response protocol was closed to additional responses. Data analysis began first with qualitative analysis of narrative responses followed by quantitative analysis of data from the Likert rating scales. Content analysis using theoretical coding techniques was used to analyze the solutions to the ethical dilemmas and accompanying rationales solicited by each of the five hypothetical scenarios. Whitely and Kite (2013) explain coding as “the process by which a researcher creates a system of organizing, managing, and retrieving the most meaningful bits of data related to the research questions(s), then thinking critically and creatively about how the data addresses those questions” (p. 428).
Theoretical coding used prescribed codes based on the conceptual framework to code the data of the study.
Once the narrative responses were coded by the co-investigators, acting as the initial reviewers, the primary investigator sent them to two groups of experts for review, one that held expertise in ethics and one that held expertise in the Jesuit theology and education. Each expert provided a letter of permission to use their feedback (see
Appendix F) prior to receiving the data. Once they had done so, the primary investigator provided documentation for them to review. Expert feedback was solicited on the fit of the codes prescribed to each response to the ethical perspectives and Jesuit values used in the framework of the study. This process allowed for interrater reliability and provided
84 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY validity for the coding process.
There were biases that had to be avoided in this form of coding, primarily in that the researcher had to avoid making assumptions about responses, and code only for what was written. One way to avoid this, and increase the reliability of the coding process, is to focus on the manifest content of responses rather than the latent content (Whitely & Kite,
2013). Manifest content is what actually appears on paper or in an interview while latent content is that which the researcher interprets to be present, which is why it is best to avoid coding for this type of content (Whitely & Kite, 2013).
Once both sets of data were coded, and the expert review was complete, analysis of the Likert-style responses took place by running repeated measures ANOVAs to test the statistical significance of the comparisons in the data. As this is a descriptive study, this process will begin by analyzing the descriptive statistics, and if results warrant, inferential statistics will be run to determine the statistical significance of the Likert-style responses.
85 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
Chapter 4: Data Analysis
The purpose of this study was to compare the ethical decision-making philosophies employed by first year and senior undergraduate college students, and to explore the extent to which elements of the study institution’s Jesuit identity were reflected in the rationales reported by these participants for their ethical decision-making.
The study collected both qualitative and quantitative data to address four research questions. The qualitative data were analyzed using a theoretical coding process, as described in Chapter 3. The quantitative data were analyzed using both descriptive statistics and repeated measures ANOVAs. Repeated measures ANOVA is a statistic used to compare the means of more than one assessment of a dependent variable (the repeated measures) collected from the same participants (Statistics Solutions, 2018). In this study, the repeated measures were ratings participants provided of ethical principles and Jesuit values they applied in responding to multiple ethical scenarios. These repeated measures were compared across two independent samples (first year and senior students).
Results obtained from the qualitative and quantitative data sets were then triangulated to gain a broader picture of the ethical decision-making rationale of the populations studied and better answer the research questions.
Research Questions
Four research questions were addressed by this study comparing the philosophical approaches to ethical decision-making employed by first year and senior college students, and the elements of the institution’s Jesuit identity reflected in these students’ ethical reasoning:
Research Question 1: Are there patterns in the ethical decision-making of unmatriculated first year students and seniors in their final semester?
86 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
Research Question 2: Do the rationales reported for the ethical decisions made by first year and senior undergraduate students differ?
Research Question 3: To what extent is the Jesuit identity of an academic institution reflected in the ethical decision-making of first year and senior students?
Research Question 4: Do first year and senior students who employ the same approach to ethical decision-making, integrate Jesuit principles into their reasoning to differing degrees? Characteristics of the Sample
An invitation to participate in this study was sent separately to samples of first year and senior students enrolled in the study institution, in July and April 2018, respectively. Each sample totaled 300 students; all responses were anonymous. Of the sample of first year students invited to participate, 49 students clicked the link to access the survey instrument. Of these, 13 did not complete more than two or three questions, 6 chose not to participate, 3 completed only the qualitative portion of the instrument, and
27 completed both the qualitative and quantitative portions of the instrument. This represents a 10% return rate of first year students for the qualitative portion of the instrument and a 9% return rate of first year students for the quantitative portion the instrument. Of the sample of senior students, 45 clicked the link to access the instrument.
Of these, 14 did not complete more than two or three questions, 3 chose not to participate, 1 completed just the qualitative portion of the instrument, and 27 completed both the qualitative and quantitative portions of the instrument. This represents a 9.33% return rate for the qualitative portion of the instrument and a 9% return rate for the quantitative portion of the instrument.
All completed qualitative and quantitative responses were analyzed. Incomplete responses were removed from the data before analysis took place. Qualitative data analysis was carried out on the responses of 30 first year students and 28 senior students.
87 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
Quantitative analysis was carried out on the responses of 27 first year students and 27 senior students.
Individual Participant Demographic Characteristics
Although all responses were recorded anonymously, basic demographic information was obtained from the 27 respondents from each sample who completed both the qualitative and quantitative sections of the instrument. This descriptive data shows the degree of diversity represented among respondents, including the breakdown of gender, race/ethnicity, and religious affiliation. Table 1 provides individual respondent demographic characteristics for first year participants. Table 2 provides religious affiliations for first year participants. Tables 3 and 4 provide the same for senior participants. Response categories in the table conform to those recommended by the study institution’s Institutional Review Board (2018) and the categories used in the
University Census completed each semester by the Office of Institutional Research
(Institutional Research, 2018).
Respondents were permitted to select multiple response options. Dual responses appear in the tables as separate entries (e.g. Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander/White).
For example, someone may have chosen to identify as multiple religious affiliations because they grew up with one religious affiliation but no longer identify with that affiliation. The researchers did not ask follow-up questions to clarify the choices, as the demographics were mainly collected to determine the degree of diversity among respondents. The demographic data reported is largely representative of the most recent census data from the target institution, where the undergraduate population is 54.4%
88 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY female and 45.6% male; 76.15% white and 23.85% non-white; and 52.35% Roman
Catholic and 47.65% non-Catholic (Institutional Research, 2018).
Table 1
Demographics of First Year Student Respondents # of Percentage Demographic Response Category Responses of Responses Gender Female 17 62.96 Male 8 29.63 Gender Non-Conforming/ Transgender 1 3.7 Prefer Not to Respond 0 0 Male/Gender Non- 1 3.7 Conforming/Transgender Race/Ethnicity American Indian 0 0 Asian 0 0 Black or African American 2 7.4 Hispanic American or Latino/a 3 11.11 Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 0 0 White 17 62.96 More than one 0 0 Unknown 0 0 Prefer Not to Respond 2 7.4 Native Hawaiian or Pacific 1 3.7 Islander/White Hispanic American or Latino/a/White 1 3.7 White/More than one 1 3.7 Note. N = 27
89 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
Table 2
Religious Affiliation of First Year Student Respondents Religious Affiliation # of Responses Percentage of Responses Agnostic 1 3.7 Baptist 3 11.11 Buddhist 0 0 Church of Christ 2 7.4 Congregational 0 0 Disciples of Christ 0 0 Episcopalian 1 3.7 Hindu 0 0 Islam 0 0 Jewish 0 0 Lutheran 0 0 Methodist 0 0 No Religion 5 18.52 Other Christian 3 11.11 Other Non-Christian 0 0 Other Protestant 0 0 Orthodox Catholic 2 7.4 Presbyterian 0 0 Roman Catholic 9 33.33 Unitarian 0 0 Prefer Not to Respond 1 3.7 Note. N = 27
Table 3
Demographics of Senior Student Respondents Percentage of Demographic Response Category # of Responses Responses Gender Female 17 63 Male 10 37 Gender Non-Conforming/ Transgender 0 0 Prefer Not to Respond 0 0 Race/Ethnicity American Indian 1 3.7 Asian 1 3.7 Black or African American 3 11.11 Hispanic American or Latino/a 2 7.41 Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 0 0 White 18 66.67 More than one 0 0 Unknown 0 0 Prefer Not to Respond 1 3.7 White/More than one 1 3.7 Note. N = 27
90 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
Table 4
Religious Affiliations of Senior Student Respondents # of Percentage of Religious Affiliation Responses Responses Agnostic 0 0 Baptist 0 0 Buddhist 0 0 Church of Christ 0 0 Congregational 0 0 Disciples of Christ 0 0 Episcopalian 0 0 Hindu 0 0 Islam 0 0 Jewish 0 0 Lutheran 1 3.7 Methodist 1 3.7 No Religion 2 7.41 Other Christian 6 22.22 Other Non-Christian 0 0 Other Protestant 1 3.7 Orthodox Catholic 0 0 Presbyterian 1 3.7 Roman Catholic 10 37.04 Unitarian 0 0 Prefer Not to Respond 3 11.11 No Religion/Unitarian 1 3.7 Other Christian/Roman Catholic 1 3.7 Note. N = 27
Qualitative Analysis
The responses to the qualitative section of the instrument were analyzed using the coding prescribed by the conceptual framework outlined in previous chapters.
Participants were asked to respond to five hypothetical scenarios each describing a different ethical dilemma a college student may face. Participants provided both an action they would take and their rationale for that action. Theoretical coding for six ethical principles and six Jesuit values was carried out to reveal the ethical decision-making
91 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY approaches students employ and whether they incorporated the Jesuit values of the study institution into those decisions.
Framework for Coding Ethical Perspectives
Six approaches to ethical decision-making were used as the framework for interpreting the responses and rationales provided by participants in this study. The six ethical perspectives in the study were selected because they are distinct, commonly recognized perspectives that are easily understood and can translate to how one might solve an ethical dilemma (Johnson, 2018). The perspectives in the study included utilitarianism, Kant’s categorical imperative, justice as fairness, altruism, pragmatism, and virtue ethics.
Utilitarianism refers to the idea that individuals should do the greatest good for the greatest number of people (Dion, 2012), or what will bring the most happiness to the most people (Graham, 2004), while encouraging decision makers to consider both the positive and negative impacts of their actions (Dion, 2012). Responses were coded for utilitarianism when the action and/or rationale was clearly intended to benefit the group vs. the individual.
Kant’s categorical imperative suggests that people should do what is morally right, no matter the cost (Johnson, 2018), and that we have a duty to base ethical decisions on immutable principles, out of obedience to a moral code (Johnson, 2018;
Dion, 2012). These decisions should transcend personal desires and do what is right no matter the cost because what is right for one is right for all (Graham, 2004; von Platz,
2016). Responses were coded for the categorical imperative when there was a clearly principled statement of right and/or wrong.
92 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
Rawls’ theory of justice, known as justice as fairness, tells us that equal rights and opportunities for all must take precedence, and the sacrifices of some are not justified in order to advantage others (Rawls, 1999, 2001). Rawls’ (1999, 2001) believed this to be the case particularly in regard to those who are marginalized or less-advantaged in society. Responses were coded using justice as fairness when the action and/or rationale were concerned with a person or group having an unfair advantage over others in the situation.
Pragmatism, most commonly associated with John Dewey, centers on using the moral imagination to consider possible alternative actions and the potential impacts of those actions on others (Anderson, 2014; Fesmire, 2013). A pragmatic approach allows for flexibility in making an ethical decision, with the decision maker able to revise their method as needed (Johnson, 2018). Responses were coded as pragmatic when the action and/or rationale included weighing or considering options and/or alternatives to make the decision.
Altruism focuses on loving one’s neighbor and doing what benefits others without concern for oneself (Kraut, 2016). Altruistic actions put the needs and benefits first, disregarding self-interest, for the purpose of doing good for others and/or preventing them from experiencing harm (Kraut, 2016). Responses were coded using altruism when there was clear concern for others and their best interest, not wanting to cause harm to them.
Finally, virtue ethics, which is similar to altruism, asserts people are made good through actions, so actions should be virtuous, encouraging prudence and goodness for all
(Dion, 2012). It is action (vs. inaction) that makes one virtuous or good, as one does not
93 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY simply possess virtue (Dion, 2012). We are not born with virtue, we become virtuous through habitual actions (DeGeorge, 2010). Responses were coded using virtue ethics when the desire to do good for self or others was included in the action and/or rationale.
Framework for Coding Jesuit Values
Six Jesuit values, central to the mission of the study institution, were used as the framework for exploring how participants incorporate these values into their ethical decision-making. The six values were selected because they are the values espoused by the study institution. While not the only Jesuit values, these six are emphasized throughout the undergraduate experience of student who attend this particular institution.
These six Jesuit values are: reflection, discernment, solidarity and kinship, service rooted in justice and love, Cura Personalis (care for the whole person), and Magis (the more).
The institutional definition of each determined the operational definition that was applied in coding participants’ responses, as outline below:
Reflection invites individuals to pause and consider the world around them and their place within it, inviting people to look back to understand where they are and where they are going (Mission & Identity, 2017c). It encourages us to remember what has been to determine how to move forward. Responses were coded using reflection when the action and/or rationale included using or reflecting on past experiences to make a decision.
Discernment invited individuals to be open to new insights and understand God’s presence in the world as they consider paths forward, make decisions, and take actions that contribute good to the universe and those in it (Mission & Identity, 2017c). It calls for careful consideration before making a decision, discovering what brings meaning and
94 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY purpose to life and using that as a guide. Responses were coded using discernment when there was clear consideration of options and/or consequences before making a decision, behavior was grounded in a statement of alternatives, or when there seemed to be a principled statement in the decision.
Solidarity and kinship invites individuals to identify with and consider their commonality with all others, both local and afar, as they journey through life (Mission &
Identity, 2017c). It calls for standing with others through good times and bad; listening and being present; and being “for and with others.” Responses were coded using solidarity and kinship when it appeared the action taken was done so to “do the right thing” despite the consequences or presented a desire to stand with others through the good or bad.
Service rooted in justice and love invites individuals to invest their lives in actions that promote the well-being of others, particularly those who suffer injustice (Mission &
Identity, 2017c). It is service done to better the lives of others and oneself, enabling and empowering others, and not doing service for the sake of reward or recognition or because you want to fix something, but doing it for the greater good. Responses were coded using service rooted in justice and love when there was a desire to do something to rectify a situation for the larger whole, not particularly pertaining to the act of doing community service but the desire to serve others with justice and/or love.
Cura Personalis, or care for the whole person, invites individuals to recognize and cherish the uniqueness of others and to care for the wholeness of each person in mind, body, and spirit (Mission & Identity, 2017c). It is serving and caring for one another in the whole sense, socially, academically, mentally, and spiritually, going beyond the
95 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY surface. Responses were coded using Cura Personalis when the action and/or rationale displayed a clear desire to care for all aspects of humanity, go beyond an initial response and provide a second step or follow-up as care.
Finally, Magis, Latin for “the more” and related to the Jesuit motto of For the
Greater Glory of God invites individuals to strive to contribute more in all things, asking,
“Where is the more universal good?” when making decisions and choosing their actions and contributions in the world (Mission & Identity, 2017c). It is the idea of doing and being more, having a spirit of generous excellence, and seeing continuous improvement in all parts of life. Responses were coded using Magis when the action and/or rationale went above and beyond the general expectations for the situation, willing to take on additional responsibilities or take the next step in solving the dilemma presented.
Coding Procedure
Qualitative data analysis in this study consisted of initial coding by the co- investigators who served as internal reviewers, followed by external review by content experts. Prior to coding, participants’ narrative responses were assigned an alphabetic identifier: AA – BB identified senior responses and ZA – YD identified first year responses. Responses were then separated by scenario for both the first year students and senior students. Once separated, the responses were given a random number, using the randomize function in Excel. Responses were then randomly sorted by the random number. Random numbers and identifiers were hidden prior to coding the responses. This was done to randomize the order of responses for coding so that reviewers were not able to link responses obtained from the same respondent across different scenarios while coding.
96 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
The co-investigators, acting as the internal reviewers, assigned codes for both ethical perspectives and Jesuit values. Each co-investigator independently coded all participants’ responses using the operational definitions stated above. Internal coding was completed separately for the senior responses and first year responses because the data were collected at different times. After each round of internal coding was completed the co-investigators met to review discrepancies. In some cases, coding was revised, but in most cases, both codes were retained. This completed the internal coding of responses.
External review of participant responses began after internal coding had been completed for responses obtained from both first year and senior student participants.
Two groups of external reviewers were selected as outlined in Chapter 3. These reviewers were selected either for their expertise in the field of ethics or their experience and expertise in theology, with a particular focus on an understanding of Jesuit theology.
Reviewers included faculty and staff from the study institution. It was important that the reviewers of the Jesuit coding have particular knowledge of the Jesuit values as espoused at the study institution. Three experts agreed to review the ethical codes and five agreed to review the Jesuit codes.
Each external reviewer was asked to review responses to two scenarios. External reviewers reviewed either the ethical perspectives codes or the Jesuit values codes assigned by the internal reviewers, consistent with their area of expertise. Those who agreed were sent a randomized list of all responses obtained from both first year and senior participants pertaining to two ethical scenarios, together with the codes assigned to these responses by the internal reviewers. External reviewers were asked to indicate whether they agreed with the initial codes assigned by the internal reviewers and/or
97 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY whether they would assign additional or different codes, based on their review of the narrative responses. External reviewers were encouraged to explain any coding that differed from or augmented the codes assigned by internal reviewers.
Of the experts who agreed to serve as external reviewers of the ethical codes, ultimately only one returned usable reviews. One expert was unable to complete their reviews in the time frame allowed. The third expert had a more nuanced interpretation of the ethical principles used in the study and found the task too prescriptive, so did not complete it in the manner requested but provided general feedback about the internal coding to the co-investigators. To mitigate the fact that only one reviewer returned usable feedback, feedback obtained from that external reviewer about the operational definitions of the six ethical principles was extrapolated by the co-investigators to the other three scenarios that were not externally reviewed.
All 5 of the experts who agreed to review the Jesuit codes provided feedback.
Four of these reviewers returned the feedback as requested, noting agreement or changes to the codes applied by the initial reviewers. The final expert returned general feedback that took a more universal approach to the ways in which the various codes could be applied to all responses.
Comparison of Internal and External Coding of Qualitative Data. In order to gain an overview of whether the internal coding completed by the co-investigators aligned with the input obtained from the external reviewers, a comparison of the number of times each scenario was coded for each ethical principle or Jesuit value was created. In reviewing the results of this analysis, it is important to note that the counts reflect codes assigned to respondents’ narrative responses, not the number of respondents. All
98 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY responses were coded for both ethical perspectives and Jesuit values, and many responses were given two or more codes because they reflected more than one ethical perspective or
Jesuit value.
Comparison of Internal and External Coding of Ethical Principles. Table 5 reflects the results of the comparison of internal and external coding for the ethical principles. From the comparison of internal and external reviewers’ coding of ethical principles, it is clear that the co-investigators and external experts were largely in agreement, with the exception of how utilitarianism and Kant’s categorical imperative were applied to two of the ethical scenarios (‘alcohol use’ and ‘fake social media’). In reviewing the comments from the external reviewer, it appears there were some differences of interpretation in the application of the code definitions in some cases. The external reviewer reported coding responses that compared outcomes (one is worse than another) or sought a win-win solution, but did not indicate an obligation to help, as utilitarianism, whereas the internal reviewers found many of these responses to indicate a categorical imperative based on coming to their solution because something was the right thing to do. This was particularly the case for the scenario related to underage use of alcohol.
99
ETHICAL DECISION
Table 5
Count of Each Ethical Code by Scenario Categorical Justice as Virtue IR Utilitarianism Imperative Fairness Pragmatism Altruism Ethics No Code Disagreed
-
Class UNIVERSITYMAKINGA JESUIT AT Scenario Year IR ER IR ER IR ER IR ER IR ER IR ER IR ER IR ER Cheating on FY 1 0 6 4 3 5 8 8 1 1 0 2 11 11 3 na an Exam SR 1 2 4 4 5 3 11 10 1 1 1 2 6 6 1 na FY 4 4 15 17 3 3 4 4 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 na Club Funding SR 10 9 13 11 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 na Fake Social FY 1 4 11 9 1 1 5 5 11 8 0 3 2 5 2 na Media SR 3 7 11 6 2 2 3 3 6 8 2 6 3 3 0 na
100 Time FY 10 11 3 3 3 2 5 4 11 11 1 0 0 0 0 na Management SR 6 7 2 1 1 1 3 2 12 12 1 1 3 4 0 na FY 1 14 20 7 0 0 7 5 2 2 0 1 0 3 0 na Alcohol Use SR 0 11 11 8 0 0 7 2 10 8 0 0 0 2 0 na
Note. IR = Initial Reviewer, ER = External Reviewer, FY = First Year Student, SR = Senior Student, italicized values are the application of extrapolated definitions from the external reviewer
ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
Comparison of Internal and External Coding of Jesuit Values. Table 6 reflects the results of this comparison for the Jesuit values. The tables comparing the code counts for the Jesuit values provide a rounded average of the coding numbers for external reviewers, to provide a normalized count, as there were not the same number of external reviewers for each scenario. These comparison counts indicate that the coding done by the initial reviewers largely aligned with that of the external reviewers, providing evidence to support the reliability of the coding process (Whitely & Kite, 2013).
101
ETHICAL DECISION
Table 6
Count of Each Jesuit Value by Scenario Service Rooted in
-
Solidarity Justice & Cura IR UNIVERSITYMAKINGA JESUIT AT Reflection Discernment & Kinship Love Personalis Magis No Code Disagreed Class Scenario Year IR ER IR ER IR ER IR ER IR ER IR ER IR ER IR ER Cheating on FY 3 2 10 11 3 3 2 2 1 2 0 1 12 10 0 na an Exam SR 6 6 13 10 5 2 5 3 0 2 0 0 3 6 0 na FY 0 0 0 4 7 9 1 1 0 0 0 0 20 19 0 na Club Funding SR 0 1 13 12 8 8 18 16 0 1 4 4 1 2 0 na
102 Fake Social FY 2 2 8 9 12 14 11 11 3 3 0 0 4 3 0 na
Media SR 2 3 11 12 15 15 13 12 5 5 0 0 2 2 0 na Time FY 0 0 2 3 12 12 2 3 6 7 12 14 8 7 1 na Management SR 2 3 1 1 7 8 11 10 7 9 6 7 3 2 0 na
FY 4 4 5 8 26 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 na Alcohol Use SR 1 1 9 9 24 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 na Note. IR = Initial Reviewer; ER = External Reviewer; FY = First Year Student; SR = Senior Student; External Reviewer values for Club Funding, Fake Social Media, and Time Management are an average the two external reviewers counts, which was done to normalize the values because there was not the same number of reviewers for every scenario
ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
Interaction of Ethical Principles and Jesuit Values. In order to better understand the extent to which Jesuit values were employed by respondents in ethical decision making and whether or not students who employ the same approach to ethical decision-making integrated Jesuit principles into their reasoning to differing degrees, tables 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 were created. These tables, organized by ethical principle, show the number of times for each scenario responses were coded for each Jesuit value.
This organization of the coded data helps identify patterns in the application of Jesuit values associated with each ethical principle. Only the coding of internal raters was used to construct these tables.
Utilitarianism. Table 7 displays the pattern of Jesuit values reflected in the responses of participants whose narrative rationales were also coded as reflecting the ethical principle of utilitarianism. These results reveal an association between utilitarianism and the Jesuit values of solidarity and kinship, and service rooted in justice and love.
103 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
Table 7
Count of Each Jesuit Value Applied to Scenarios Coded as Utilitarianism Service Rooted in Solidarity Justice Class & and Cura Scenario Year Reflection Discernment Kinship Love Personalis Magis Cheating on FY 1 an Exam SR 1 Club FY 1 Funding SR 1 6 5 1 Fake Social FY 3 8 3 1 Media SR 1 3 3 1 1 Time FY 1 5 2 2 4 Management SR 6 1 FY 1 Alcohol Use SR
Categorial Imperative. Table 8 displays the pattern of Jesuit values reflected in the responses of participants whose narrative rationales were also coded as reflecting the ethical principle of deontology (categorical imperative). These results reveal an association between employing a categorical imperative and the Jesuit values of discernment and solidarity and kinship. Among seniors, an anomalous association also emerged between the categorical imperative and service rooted in justice and love.
104 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
Table 8
Count of Each Jesuit Value Applied to Scenarios Coded as Categorical Imperative Service Rooted in Solidarity Justice Class & and Cura Scenario Year Reflection Discernment Kinship Love Personalis Magis Cheating on FY 1 3 1 an Exam SR 1 1 2 1
Club FY 1 5 Funding SR 9 12 3
Fake Social FY Media SR 1 2 6 4
Time FY 1 1 Management SR 1 1 FY 3 1 20 Alcohol Use SR 4 10
Justice as Fairness. Table 9 displays the pattern of Jesuit values reflected in the responses of participants whose narrative rationales were also coded as reflecting the ethical principle of justice as fairness. These results reveal an association between justice as fairness and the Jesuit values of solidarity and kinship, and service rooted in justice and love. Justice as fairness as also associate with discernment in relation to the “cheating on an exam” scenario.
105 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
Table 9
Count of Each Jesuit Value Applied to Scenarios Coded as Justice as Fairness Service Rooted in Solidarity Justice Class & and Cura Scenario Year Reflection Discernment Kinship Love Personalis Magis Cheating on FY 2 2 an Exam SR 2 2 2
Club FY 1 Funding SR 2 1
Fake Social FY 1 1 Media SR 1 1
Time FY Management SR 1 FY Alcohol Use SR
Pragmatism. Table 10 displays the pattern of Jesuit values reflected in the responses of participants whose narrative rationales were also coded as reflecting the ethical principle of pragmatism. These results reveal an association between pragmatism and the Jesuit values of discernment and solidarity and kinship. Pragmatism was also associated with reflection and service rooted in justice and love in the context of the
‘cheating on an exam’ scenario.
106 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
Table 10
Count of Each Jesuit Value Applied to Scenarios Coded as Pragmatism Service Rooted in Solidarity Justice Class & and Cura Scenario Year Reflection Discernment Kinship Love Personalis Magis Cheating on FY 2 4 1 2 an Exam SR 2 7 2 2
Club FY 1 Funding SR 2 2
Fake Social FY 4 2 Media SR 2 1 1
Time FY 2 2 2 Management SR 1 1 1 FY 1 4 4 Alcohol Use SR 3 5
Altruism. Table 11 displays the pattern of Jesuit values reflected in the responses of participants whose narrative rationales were also coded as reflecting the ethical principle of altruism. These results reveal an association between altruism and four of the six Jesuit values coded in this study: Reflection, discernment, solidarity and kinship, and service rooted in justice and love. Altruism was also associated with Magis in the context of the time management scenario.
107 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
Table 11
Count of Each Jesuit Value Applied to Scenarios Coded as Altruism Service Rooted in Solidarity Justice Class & and Cura Scenario Year Reflection Discernment Kinship Love Personalis Magis
Cheating on FY an Exam SR 1
Club FY Funding SR
Fake Social FY 3 9 3 1 Media SR 1 3 3 1 1
Time FY 5 1 5 6 Management SR 2 6 2 6 3 FY 2 Alcohol Use SR 1 1 11
Virtue Ethics. Table 12 displays the pattern of Jesuit values reflected in the responses of participants whose narrative rationales were also coded as reflecting the ethical principle of virtue ethics. These results reveal little association between virtue ethics and any of the Jesuit values coded for in this study.
108 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
Table 12
Count of Each Jesuit Value Applied to Scenarios Coded as Virtue Ethics Service Rooted in Solidarity Justice Class & and Cura Scenario Year Reflection Discernment Kinship Love Personalis Magis Cheating on FY 1 an Exam SR 1
Club FY 1 Funding SR
Fake Social FY 1 Media SR 1 2 1
Time FY Management SR 1 FY Alcohol Use SR
Quantitative Analysis
Quantitative data were collected from participants on a series of Likert style questions, rating the degree to which their narrative responses to each scenario reflected consideration of each ethical perspective and each Jesuit values. A total of 12 Likert style questions (see Appendix A) were asked, with participants providing responses to each question as it pertained to each of the five scenarios. Response options to each of the 12 questions were: (1) not considered in response, (2) considered but not a major factor in response, (3) considered but greater weight given to other factors, and (4) considered a major factor in response. A total of 60 ratings was obtained from each participant. Table
13 provides a summary of the means and standard deviations for responses to the 6 Likert
109 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY questions pertaining to ethical perspectives broken down by scenario. Table 14 provides a summary of the means and standard deviations for responses to the 6 Likert questions pertaining to Jesuit values broken down by scenario.
110
ETHICAL DECISION
Table 13
Means and Standard Deviations of Ethical Perspective Rationales for First Year and Senior Students Cheating on an Use of Club Time Underage Alcohol Exam Funding Social Media Management Use
-
Ethical Perspective Mean s.d. Mean s.d. Mean s.d. Mean s.d. Mean s.d. UNIVERSITYMAKINGA JESUIT AT Utilitarianism First Year 2.41 1.05 3.11 0.80 2.81 1.00 2.93 0.99 3.37 0.88 Senior 1.96 1.02 3.07 1.07 2.70 1.07 2.70 1.17 2.67 1.00 Categorical Imperative First Year 2.81 1.04 3.41 0.69 3.19 0.88 2.89 0.93 3.85 0.36 Senior 2.37 1.00 3.04 0.94 3.04 0.94 2.74 1.02 3.56 0.80 Justice as Fairness First Year 2.48 1.05 3.15 0.91 2.78 1.01 3.00 0.96 2.51 1.19 Senior 2.12 1.04 2.89 1.19 2.78 1.09 2.48 1.05 2.48 1.22
2 111
Pragmatism First Year 3.03 1.19 2.67 1.00 2.93 1.07 2.93 1.04 3.52 0.94 Senior 2.74 1.10 2.74 1.02 2.59 1.15 2.89 0.97 3.00 1.18 Altruism First Year 2.30 1.14 3.41 0.88 3.22 0.85 3.48 0.70 3.78 0.64 Senior 2.30 0.99 2.93 0.997 3.07 0.96 3.00 0.92 3.71 0.61 Virtue Ethics First Year 2.93 1.11 3.67 0.55 3.37 0.93 3.41 0.93 3.78 0.51 Senior 2.70 1.07 3.26 0.98 3.26 0.81 2.81 1.00 3.52 0.75 Note. N = 27
ETHICAL DECISION
Table 14
Means and Standard Deviations of Jesuit Value Rationales for First Year and Senior Students Cheating on an Use of Club Time Underage
-
Exam Funding Social Media Management Alcohol Use UNIVERSITYMAKINGA JESUIT AT Jesuit Value Mean s.d. Mean s.d. Mean s.d. Mean s.d. Mean s.d. Reflection First Year 2.48 1.12 2.56 1.05 2.56 1.15 2.67 1.11 3.00 1.14 Senior 2.33 1.14 2.44 1.25 2.52 1.05 2.41 1.12 2.81 1.14 Discernment First Year 2.67 1.11 2.81 1.11 2.96 1.02 2.74 1.06 3.07 1.04 Senior 2.11 0.97 2.52 1.22 2.74 1.13 2.48 1.12 2.67 1.18 Solidarity & Kinship First Year 3.07 1.11 2.85 1.23 3.15 1.17 3.11 1.19 3.44 1.01 112 Senior 2.44 1.12 2.63 1.00 2.96 1.05 3.00 1.04 3.15 1.06
Service Rooted in Justice & Love First Year 3.07 1.24 3.30 0.91 3.15 0.99 3.30 0.91 3.44 0.89 Senior 2.33 1.04 3.19 1.00 3.15 0.95 2.85 0.99 3.19 1.00 Cura Personalis First Year 2.26 1.06 2.48 1.16 2.85 1.13 2.89 1.12 3.41 0.80 Senior 1.70 0.82 2.07 1.14 2.59 1.19 2.33 1.27 2.59 1.31 Magis First Year 2.33 1.18 3.00 1.07 3.00 1.11 3.19 1.14 3.37 0.88 Senior 1.89 0.97 2.59 1.08 2.52 1.16 2.63 1.08 2.93 1.21 Note. N = 27
ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
Repeated Measures ANOVA
Quantitative data analysis was conducted using repeated measures ANOVA.
Repeated measures ANOVAs compare the means of more than one assessment of the dependent variable obtained from the same respondents. These repeated measurements of the dependent variable may be based on multiple observations at different points in time or, as in this case of this study, in response to different stimuli (hypothetical scenarios)
(Statistics Solutions, 2018). Repeated measures ANOVAs allow the researcher to compare the responses of participants who are exposed to more than one condition (Laerd
Statistics, 2018a). The key when using a repeated measures ANOVA design is that people are being measured more than once on the same dependent variable (Laerd
Statistics, 2018b). For the purpose of this study, repeated measures ANOVA was an appropriate measure because participants were assessed on the same 6 ethical principles and 6 Jesuit values after being “exposed” to multiple hypothetical ethical scenarios. The mean responses of first year and senior students on each of the ratings scales were compared across these multiple scenarios.
Assumptions. There are five assumptions that must be checked when using repeated measures ANOVA. These assumptions are what tells the researcher whether or not the chosen test, in this case the repeated measures ANOVA, is appropriate for analyzing the data collected. The five assumptions of the repeated measures ANOVA are:
(1) The dependent variable should be measured at the continuous level;
(2) The independent variable should consist of at least two groups of categorical
pairs or related groups;
(3) There should be no significant outliers in the related groups;
113 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
(4) The distribution of the dependent variables in the groups should be
approximately normally distributed; and
(5) The variances of differences between all combinations of related groups must
be equal, which is known as sphericity (Laerd Statistics, 2018).
Some of these assumptions (the first two) can be met by the design of the study. The other assumptions should be tested by researchers during analysis, so that appropriate corrections can be made if one or more of the stated conditions is not met. It is possible to compensate for violations of the underlying assumptions of the repeated measures
ANOVA statistic, by adopting an alternative test of significance, or transforming the data to increase it normality. These corrections make it possible to continue using the statistic, even if certain assumptions of the repeated measures ANOVA are violated, that is, when one or more of the assumptions is not met (Laerd Statistics, 2018a). Sphericity, for example, is often violated when using repeated measures ANOVA, but by using an alternative test of significance that compensates by adjusting the degrees of freedom, valid measures of significance may still be obtained that do not risk falsely rejecting or accepting a null hypothesis.
In this study, the first two assumptions of the repeated measures ANOVA were met prior to running the statistic, by the design of the study. Tests for outliers and to determine whether the data were normally distributed revealed an acceptable, but non- negligible degree of skewness (-1> x < 1). While normality is one of the key assumptions of repeated measures ANOVA, in actuality, it is difficult to determine if the construct measured is normally distributed in the population studied, and the constructs themselves may be skewed, which creates challenges in using statistics that need to assume
114 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY normality. However, Hair, Hult, Ringle, and Sarstedt (2107) argue for the allowance of utilizing data that rejects the null hypothesis of normality, as long as the skewness, which assesses the extent to which a variable’s distribution is symmetrical, and kurtosis, which measures if the distribution is too peaked, are not greater than + 1 or less than -1. In some cases, normality can be corrected for by transforming the data, but in this study, these data transformation did not solve the issue of normality. However, because the skewness and kurtosis are within the acceptable range repeated measures ANOVA was used to analyze the data. It is important to note that though the data is within the acceptable range for skewness and kurtosis, rejecting the null hypothesis of normality means the co- investigators had to take caution in interpreting the data, understanding that the normality rejection was likely caused by the small sample size so it would be inappropriate to draw broad conclusions from the data.
The final assumption of sphericity is tested each time ANOVA was run in SPSS.
As reported below, sphericity was met in this study for 10 out of the 22 tests run. In the cases where the assumption was rejected, the standard practice of usng the Greenhouse-
Geisser correction was employed to compensate (Laerd Statistics, 2018).
Overall Significance. In each of the AVOVAs reported below, the significance of both the within-subjects and between-subjects main effects are reported, as well as the interaction. The overall significance of the within-subjects main effect (repeated measures) was based on either the sphericity assumed or Greenhouse-Geisser correction test of significance, as discussed above, depending upon whether the assumption of sphericity was met. The within-subjects effect shows the significance of variance in differences among ratings obtained from the same individual compared to each of the
115 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY other individuals’ scores, by looking at the comparison of each subject’s rating compared to the variance of the other subjects. The between-subjects main effect indicates if there is a significant difference in the variance between first year responses and senior responses. If significance was obtained for either of the main effects, post hoc tests were run to identify where in the data the significant differences were located
Post Hoc Test. Each time significance in the main effects was found, a post hoc
Bonferroni test of pairwise comparisons was run to identify significant differences.
Significance in the main effects indicates a rejection of the null hypothesis of no difference, which tells us a pattern exists. The post hoc test then reveals where in the pattern of responses significant differences exist, and to what level of significance. The post hoc test is important for allowing the researcher to understand this pattern of responses.
Assessing Participants Application of Ethical Principles
The application of ethical principles was assessed quantitatively on 6 rating scales. Respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which they considered each of the following in describing what actions they would take in each of the hypothetical ethical scenarios:
1) To what degree did you consider the greatest good for the greatest number of
people in your responses to the hypothetical scenarios?
2) To what degree did you consider the need to do what was right no matter the cost
to yourself or others in your responses to the hypothetical scenarios?
3) In your responses, to what degree did you attempt to guarantee equal
rights/opportunities for all parties involved in the hypothetical scenarios?
116 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
4) To what degree did you mentally test out various courses of action, considering
possible outcomes and how others might respond, or how you have solved similar
problems in the past when responding to the hypothetical scenarios?
5) To what degree did you choose actions that put the needs of others ahead of your
own self-interests in responding to the hypothetical scenarios?
6) To what degree did you choose actions that promote moral goodness for all in
your responses?
Responses were measured on a 4-point Likert scale. Responses were analyzed in two ways. First, repeated measures ANOVAs were run to test the effect of class year (first year vs. senior) on the degree to which each of the ethical principles was considered for each scenario. This was done in order to compare the ethical approaches applied for each scenario. Then, repeated measures ANOVAs were run to test the effect of class year on the application of each ethical principle across the scenarios, in order to see whether or not the principles were applied differently by first year students and seniors across.
Results of these analyses are presented below; organized first by hypothetical ethical scenario, then by ethical principle.
Scenario 1: Cheating on an Exam. Repeated measures ANOVA was used to determine the effect of student class year (first year vs. senior) on ratings of the degree to which each ethical principle was considered in responding to the Cheating on an Exam scenario. Mauchly’s test of the sphericity assumption was rejected, Mauchly’s W(14) =
.562, p = .011, so the Greenhouse-Geisser correction ( = .79) was applied. With the correction applied, the within subjects effect for ethical principle was statistically significant, F(3.97, 206.27) = 5.69, p < .000, but the between subjects effect of student
117 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY class year was not, F(1, 52) = 2.50, p = .120, and there was no significant interaction between student class and ethical principles, F(3.97, 206.27) = .46, p = .77.
Because the main within-subjects effect was significant, a post hoc Bonferroni test of pairwise comparisons was run to identify significant differences in how students applied the ethical principles to the Cheating on an Exam scenario. Statistically significant differences were found in how students applied the ethical principles of utilitarianism (M = 2.19) as compared to pragmatism (M = 2.89), mean difference = .407, p = .006; in how students applied utilitarianism (M = 2.19) compared to virtue ethics (M
= 2.82), mean difference = .630, p = .006; in how students applied pragmatism (M =
2.82) to justice as fairness (M = 2.33), mean difference = .556, p = .013; and in how students applied pragmatism (M = 2.889) compared to altruism (M = 2.296), mean difference = .593, p = .038. These results indicate that with respect to cheating on an exam, students were more likely to take a pragmatic or virtue ethics approach to decision making than to adopt an approach that consider the greater good for all (utilitarianism), justice as fairness or altruism.
Scenario 2: Use of Club Funding. Repeated measures ANOVA was used to determine the effect of student class year (first year vs. senior) on ratings of the degree to which each ethical principle was considered in responding to the Use of Club Funding scenario. Mauchly’s test of sphericity assumption was rejected, Mauchly’s W (14) = .612, p = .039, so the Greenhouse-Geisser correction ( = .85) was applied. With the correction applied, the within subjects effect for ethical principle was statistically significant,
F(4.27, 221.84) = 5.29, p < .000, but the between subjects effect of student class year was
118 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY not, F(1, 52) = 2.421, p = .126, and there was no significant interaction between student class year and ethical principles, F(4.27, 221.84) = 1.024, p = .398.
Because the main within-subjects effect was significant, a post hoc Bonferroni test of pairwise comparisons was run to identify significant differences in how students applied the ethical principles to the Use of Club Funding scenario. Statistically significant differences were found in how students applied the ethical principles of Kant’s categorical imperative (M = 3.22) and pragmatism (M = 2.704), mean difference = .519, p
= .042; and in how students applied pragmatism (M = 2.704) as compared to virtue ethics
(M = 3.46), mean difference = .759, p < .000. These results indicate that with respect to the use of club funding, students were more likely to use a principled approach (Kant’s categorical imperative) or virtue ethics based approach to their decision making than to utilize a pragmatic approach.
Scenario 3: Fake Social Media. Repeated measures ANOVA was used to determine the effect of student class year (first year vs. senior) on ratings of the degree to which each ethical principle was considered in responding to the Fake Social Media scenario. Mauchly’s test of sphericity assumption was rejected, Mauchly’s W (14) = .58, p = .019, so the Greenhouse-Geisser correction ( = .84) was applied. With the correction applied, the within-subjects effect for ethical principle was statistically significant,
F(4.21, 218.79) = 5.30, p < .00, but the between-subjects effect of student class year was not, F(1, 52) = .583, p = .45. Additionally, there was no significant interaction between student class year and ethical principles, F(4.21, 218.79) = .263, p = .91.
Because the main within-subjects effect was significant, a post hoc Bonferroni test of pairwise comparisons was run to identify significant differences in how students
119 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY applied the ethical principles to the Fake Social Media scenario. Statistically significant differences were found in how students applied the ethical principles of utilitarianism (M
= 2.76) and virtue ethics (M = 3.32), mean difference = .556, p = .001; in how students applied justice as fairness (M = 2.78) and virtue ethics (M = 3.32), mean difference =
.537, p = .016; and in how students applied pragmatism (M = 2.76) and virtue ethics (M =
3.32), mean difference = .556, p = .025. These results indicate that with respect to addressing the use of fake social media accounts, students were more likely to use a virtue ethics based approach to their decision making than a utilitarian, justice, or pragmatic approach.
Scenario 4: Time Management. Repeated measures ANOVA was used to determine the effect of student class year (first year vs. senior) on ratings of the degree to which each ethical principle was considered in responding to the Time Management scenario. With Mauchly’s test of sphericity met, Mauchly’s W (14) = .91, p = .99, the within-subjects effect for ethical principle was statistically significant, F(5, 260) = 2.83, p
=.017. The between-subjects effect of student class year was also significant, F(1, 52) =
4.23, p = .044, though there was no significant interaction between student class year and ethical principles, F(5, 260) = .95, p = .45.
Because the main within-subjects effect was significant, a post hoc Bonferroni test of pairwise comparisons was run to identify the significant differences in how students applied the ethical principles to the Time Management scenario. No significant pair-wise comparisons were identified by the post hoc analysis, suggesting that although there was a statistically significant overall main effect for ethical principles, the effect was too small for the relatively strict Bonferroni statistic to accurately detect. While less
120 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY conservative post hoc statistic such at Tukey’s might have returned a significant pairwise analysis, the use of such alternative post hoc analyses is not recommended with repeated measures because it risks returning a type I error (Cardinal & Aitken, 2006). The failure of the Bonferroni statistic to locate the pairwise comparisons that account for the significant within-subjects effect does not negate the overall analysis, it merely reflects the fact that Bonferroni lacks the statistical power to confidently detect differences among the post hoc comparisons. This result is particularly common with smaller datasets. Rather than risk claiming significant differences among the pairwise comparisons where there was none, the inconclusive results of the Bonferroni post hoc analysis were accepted. No additional post hoc analysis were performed in an effort to locate the specific ratings that accounted for the significant within-subjects effects for
Time Management.
The statistically significant difference in the between-subjects effect indicates that in general, first year students (M = 3.11) reported considering ethical principles to a greater degree than senior students (M = 2.77), mean difference = .33, p = .04.
Scenario 5: Underage Alcohol Use. Repeated measures ANOVA was used to determine the effect of student class year (first year vs. senior) on ratings of the degree to which each ethical principle was considered in responding to the Underage Alcohol Use scenario. Mauchly’s test of sphericity was rejected, Mauchly’s W (14) = .413, p < .00, so the Greenhouse-Geisser correction ( = .96) was applied. With the correction applied, the within-subject effect for ethical principle was statistically significant, F(3.97, 206.24) =
18.03, p < .00. The between-subjects effect of student class year was also significant, F(1,
121 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
52) = 6.17, p = .016, though there was no significant interaction between student class year and ethical principles, F (3.97, 206.24) = 1.25, p = .29.
Because the main within-subjects effect and main between-subjects effect were both significant, a post hoc Bonferroni test of pairwise comparison was run to identify the significant differences in how students applied the ethical principles to the Underage
Alcohol Use scenario as well as to identify the significant difference in the degree to which students in each class year considered the ethical principles. In regards to the within-subjects effect, statistically significant differences were found in how student applied utilitarianism (M = 3.02) and Kant’s categorical imperative (M = 3.70), mean difference = .69, p = .005; utilitarianism (M = 3.02) and altruism (M = 3.74), mean difference = .72, p = .001; utilitarianism (M = 3.02) and virtue ethics (M = 3.65), mean difference = .630, p = .003; Kant’s categorical imperative (M = 3.70) and justice as fairness (M = 2.50), mean difference = 1.20, p < .00; justice as fairness (M = 2.50) and pragmatism (M = 3.26), mean difference = .759, p = .005; justice as fairness (M = 2.50) and altruism (M = 3.74), mean difference = 1.24, p < .00; and in how students applied justice as fairness (M = 2.50) and virtue ethics (M = 3.65), mean difference = 1.15, p <
.00. These results indicate that students applied the principles of virtue ethics, pragmatism, Kant’s categorical imperative, and altruism to a greater degree than they applied utilitarianism or justice as fairness.
The statistically significant difference in the between-subjects effect indicates that in general, first year students (M = 3.47) reported considering ethical principles to a greater degree than senior students (M = 3.15), mean difference = .32, p = .016.
122 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
Utilitarianism. Repeated measures ANOVA was used to determine the effect of class year (first year vs. senior) on the ratings of the degree to which utilitarianism was considered when responding to all scenarios. With Mauchly’s test of sphericity met,
Mauchly’s W (9) = .95, p = .98, the within-subjects effect for hypothetical scenario was statistically significant, F(4, 208) = 8.97, p < .00, but the between-subjects effect of student class year was not, F(1, 52) = 2.75, p = .103, and there was no significant interaction between student class year and scenario, F(4, 208) = 1.295, p = .27.
Because the main within-subjects effect was significant, a post hoc Bonferroni test of pairwise comparisons was run to identify significant differences in how students applied utilitarianism to the five hypothetical scenarios. Statistically significant differences were found in how students applied utilitarianism to the scenario Cheating on an Exam (M = 2.19) as compared to Use of Club Funding (M = 3.09), mean difference =
.907, p < .00; as compared to Fake Social Media (M = 2.76), mean difference = .574, p =
.014; as compared to Time Management (M = 2.82), mean difference = .630, p = .007; and as compared to Underage Alcohol Use (M = 3.02), mean difference = .83, p < .00.
These results indicate that in general, students applied utilitarianism to the scenario of cheating on an exam to a lesser degree than they did to the rest of the scenarios.
Kant’s Categorical Imperative. Repeated measures ANOVA was used to determine the effect of class year (first year vs. senior) on the ratings of the degree to which Kant’s categorical imperative was considered when responding to all scenarios.
With Mauchly’s test of sphericity met, Mauchly’s W (9) = .80, p = .27, the within- subjects effect for hypothetical scenario was statistically significant, F(4, 208) = 17.88, p
< .00, but the between-subjects effect of student class year was not, F1, 52) = 3.09, p =
123 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
.085, and there was no significant interaction between student class year and scenario,
F(4, 208) = .437, p = .78.
Because the main within-subjects effect was significant, a post hoc Bonferroni test of pairwise comparisons was run to identify significant differences in how students applied Kant’s categorical imperative to the five hypothetical scenarios. Statistically significant differences were found in how students applied a categorical imperative to the scenario cheating on an exam (M = 2.59) as compared to use of club funding (M = 3.22), mean difference = .63, p = .004; as compared to fake social media (M = 311), mean difference = .519, p = .007; and as compared to underage use of alcohol (M = 3.70), mean difference = 1.11, p < .00. Statistically significant differences were also found in how students applied a categorical imperative to the scenario use of club funding (M = 3.22) as compared to time management (M = 2.82), mean difference = .41, p = .021 and as compared to underage alcohol use (M = 3.70), mean difference = .481, p < .00.
Additionally, significance was found in how a categorical imperative was applied to fake social media (M = 3.11) as compared to underage alcohol use (M = 3.70), mean difference = .59, p < .00 and I how it was applied to time management (M = 2.82) as compared to underage alcohol use (M = 3.70), mean difference = .89, p < .00. These results indicate that in general, students applied a categorical imperative to underage alcohol use to a higher degree than all other scenarios, but also apply it to use of club funding to a higher degree than cheating on an exam and time management, to fake social media to a higher degree than cheating on an exam, and to use of club funding to a higher degree than time management.
124 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
Justice as Fairness. Repeated measures ANOVA was used to determine the effect of class year (first year vs. senior) on the ratings of the degree to which justice as fairness was considered when responding to all scenarios. Mauchly’s test of sphericity was rejected, Mauchly’s W (9) = .69, p = .026, so the Greenhouse-Geisser correction ( =
.857) was applied. With the correction applied, the within-subjects effect for hypothetical scenario was statistically significant, F(3.43, 178.32) = 5.78, p < .00, but the between- subjects effect of student class year was not, F(1, 52) = 1.05, p = .31, and there was no significant interaction between student class year and scenario, F(3.42, 178.32) = .92, p =
.44.
Because the main within-subjects effect was significant, a post hoc Bonferroni test of pairwise comparisons was run to identify significant differences in how students applied justice as fairness to the five hypothetical scenarios. Statistically significant differences were found in how students applied justice as fairness to the scenario cheating on an exam (M = 2.33) as compared to use of club funding (M = 3.02), mean difference =
.685, p = .001; and in how students applied justice as fairness to use of club funding (M =
3.02) as compared to underage alcohol use (M = 2.50), mean difference = .52, p = .032.
These results indicate that in general, students applied justice as fairness to the use of club funding to a higher degree than cheating on an exam or underage alcohol use.
Pragmatism. Repeated measures ANOVA was used to determine the effect of class year (first year vs. senior) on the ratings of the degree to which pragmatism was considered when responding to all hypothetical scenarios. Mauchly’s test of sphericity was rejected, Mauchly’s W (9) = .497, p < .00, so the Greenhouse-Geisser correction ( =
.83) was applied. With the correction applied, the within-subjects effect for hypothetical
125 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY scenario was statistically significant, F(3.32, 172.62) = 4.60, p = .001, but the between- subjects effect of student class year was not, F (1, 52) = 1.004, p = .321, and there was no significant interaction between student class year and scenario, F(3.32, 172.62) = 1.397, p
= 2.43.
Because the main within-subjects effect was significant, a post hoc Bonferroni test of pairwise comparisons was run to identify significant differences in how students applied pragmatism to the five hypothetical scenarios. Statistically significant differences were found in how students applied pragmatism to underage alcohol use (M = 3.26) as compared to use of club funding (M = 2.70), mean difference = .56, p = .001; and as compared to fake social media (M = 2.76), mean difference = .50, p = .035. These results indicate that in general, students applied pragmatism to underage alcohol use to a higher degree than to use of club funding and fake social media.
Altruism. Repeated measures ANOVA was used to determine the effect of class year (first year vs. senior) on the ratings of the degree to which altruism was considered when responding to all hypothetical scenarios. With Mauchly’s test of sphericity met,
Mauchly’s W (9) = .732, p = .073, the within-subjects effect for hypothetical scenario was statistically significant, F(4, 208) = 24.49, p < .00, but the between-subjects effect of student class year was not, F(1, 51) = 2.49, p = .121, and there was no significant interaction between student class year and scenario, F(4. 208) = 1.19, p = .316.
Because the main within-subjects effect was significant, a post hoc Bonferroni test of pairwise comparisons was run to identify significant differences in how students applied altruism to the five hypothetical scenarios. Statistically significant differences were found in how students applied altruism to cheating on an exam (M = 2.296) as
126 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY compared to all other scenarios: use of club funding (M = 3.17), mean difference = .87, p
< .00; fake social media (M = 3.15), mean difference = .85, p < .00; time management (M
= 3.24), mean difference = .94, p < .00 ; and underage alcohol use (M = 3.74), mean difference = 1.44, p < .00. Statistically significant differences were also found in how students applied altruism to underage alcohol use (M = 3.74) as compared to all other scenarios as well: use of club funding (M = 3.17), mean difference = .57, p = .002; fake social media (M = 3.15), mean difference = .59, p = .001 ; and time management (M =
3.24), mean difference = .50, p < .00. These results indicate that students generally applied altruism to a higher degree than to all other scenarios, and they generally applied altruism to cheating on an exam to a lesser degree than to all other scenarios.
Virtue Ethics. Repeated measures ANOVA was used to determine the effect of class year (first year vs. senior) on the ratings of the degree to which virtue ethics was considered when responding to all hypothetical scenarios. Mauchly’s test of sphericity was rejected, Mauchly’s W (9) = .61, p = .003, so the Greenhouse-Geisser correction ( =
.802) was applied. With the correction applied, the within-subjects effect for hypothetical scenario was statistically significant, F(3.21, 166.78) = 9.86, p < .000, as was the between-subjects effect of student class year, F(1, 52) = 4.14, p = .047. There was no significant interaction between student class year and scenario, F(3.21, 166.78) = .825, p
= .489.
Because both the main within-subjects and between-subjects effects were significant, a post hoc Bonferroni test of pairwise comparisons was run to identify significant differences in how students applied virtue ethics to the five hypothetical scenarios and to identify the degree to which students in each class year considered virtue
127 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY ethics in their responses. In regards to the within-subjects effects, significant differences were found in the way students applied virtue ethics to cheating on an exam (M = 2.82) as compared to use of club funding (M = 3.46), mean difference = .65, p = .003; as compared to fake social media (M = 3.32), mean difference = .50, p = .019; and as compared to underage alcohol use (M = 3.65), mean difference = .83, p < .00. Differences were also found in the way virtue ethics was applied to use of club funding (M = 3.46) and time management (M = 3.11), mean difference = 3.52, p = .023; and underage alcohol use (M = 3.65) as compared to both fake social media (M = 3.32), mean difference = .33, p = .047 and time management (M = 3.11), mean difference = .54, p =
.004. These results indicate that in general, students applied virtue ethics to underage alcohol use to a higher degree when compared to cheating on an exam, fake social media, and time management. The results also show that students generally applied virtue ethics to a lesser degree to cheating on an exam on all scenarios except time management, and students generally applied virtue ethics to use of club funding to a higher degree than time management.
The statistically significant difference in the between-subjects effect indicates that in general, first year students (M = 3.43) reported considering virtue ethics to a greater degree than senior students (M = 3.11), mean difference = .32, p = .047.
Assessing Participants’ Application of Jesuit Values
The presence of the Jesuit values in student responses were also tested in two ways, similar to the testing completed for the use of ethical principles. First, repeated measures ANOVAs were run to test the effect of class year on the degree to which each of the Jesuit values was considered for each scenario. This was done in order to compare
128 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY the ethical approaches applied to each scenario. Then, repeated measures ANOVAs were run to test the effect of class year on the application of each Jesuit value across the scenarios, in order to see whether or not the principle was applied differently by first year and senior students.
The application of Jesuit values was assessed quantitatively on 6 rating scales.
Respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which they considered each of the following in describing what actions they would take in each of the hypothetical ethical scenarios:
1) To what degree did you consider the need pause and take time to contemplate
solutions before taking action in responding to the hypothetical scenarios?
2) To what degree did you consider how the actions outlined in your responses to the
hypothetical scenarios would promote a sense of universal well-being or balance
in the world?
3) To what degree did your responses reflect identification with the other individuals
in the hypothetical scenarios, or putting yourself in their shoes?
4) To what degree did your responses aim to right the wrongs and promote good will
for the individuals in the hypothetical scenarios?
5) To what degree did you consider the unique individuality and wholistic needs
(mind, body, spirit) of the individuals involved in the hypothetical situations in
your responses?
6) To what degree did your responses reflect consideration for how you might go
beyond expectations, or do more than required, to address the needs of individuals
in the hypothetical scenarios?
129 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
Responses were measured on a 4-point Likert scale. Responses were analyzed in two ways. First, repeated measures ANOVAs were run to test the effect of class year (first year vs. senior) on the degree to which each of the Jesuit values was considered for each scenario. This was done in order to compare the Jesuit values considered in responding to each scenario. Then, repeated measures ANOVAs were run to test the effect of class year on the application of each Jesuit values across the scenarios, in order to see whether or not the values were applied differently by first year students and seniors across. Results of these analyses are presented below; organized first by hypothetical ethical scenario, then by Jesuit value.
Scenario 1: Cheating on an Exam. Repeated measures ANOVA was used to determine the effect of student class year (first year vs. senior) on ratings of the degree to which each Jesuit value was considered in responding to the Cheating on an Exam scenario. Mauchly’s test of the sphericity assumption was rejected, Macuhly’s W (14) =
.45, p < . 00, so the Greenhouse-Geisser correction ( = .78) was applied. With the correction applied, the within-subjects effect for Jesuit values was statistically significant,
F(3.91, 203.40) = 7.05, p < .00. The between-subjects effect of student class year was also statistically significant, F(1, 52) = 6.42, p = .014. There was no significant interaction between student class and Jesuit values, F(3.91, 203.40) = .76, p = .55.
Because both the main within-subjects and between-subjects effects were significant, post hoc Bonferroni tests of pairwise comparisons were run to identify significant differences in how students applied the Jesuit values to the Cheating on an
Exam scenario as well as to identify the significant difference in the degree to which students in each class year considered the Jesuit values. Statistically significant
130 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY differences were found in how students applied the Jesuit value of Cura Personalis (M =
1.98) as compared to discernment (M = 2.39), mean difference = .41, p = .049; as compared to solidarity and kinship (M = 2.76), mean difference = .78, p < .00; and as compared to service rooted in justice and love (M = 2.70), mean difference = .72, p =
.001. Statistically significant differences were also found in how students applied the
Jesuit value of Magis (M = 2.11) as compared to solidarity and kinship (M = 2.76), mean difference = .65, p = .013; and as compared to service rooted in justice and love (M =
2.70), mean difference = .59, p - .009. These results indicate that with respect to cheating on an exam, students were more likely to take an approach rooted in discernment, solidarity and kinship, or service rooted in justice and love than one that seeks to care for the whole person (Cura Personalis), and were more likely to take an approach based on solidarity and kinship or service rooted in justice and love than one that seeks to do more or go the extra step (Magis).
The statistically significant difference in the between-subjects effect indicates that in general, first year students (M = 2.65) reported considering Jesuit values to a greater degree than senior students (M = 2.14), mean difference = .51, p = .014.
Scenario 2: Use of Club Funding. Repeated measures ANOVA was used to determine the effect of student class year (first year vs. senior) on ratings of the degree to which each Jesuit value was considered in responding to the Use of Club Funding scenario. With Mauchly’s test of the sphericity assumption met, Macuhly’s W (14) = .73, p < . 33, the within-subjects effect for Jesuit values was statistically significant, F(5, 260)
= 7.84, p < .00, but the between-subjects effect of student class year was not, F(1, 52) =
131 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
1.45, p = .23. There was no significant interaction between student class and Jesuit values, F(5, 260) = .34, p = .89.
Because the main within-subjects effect was significant, a post hoc Bonferroni test of pairwise comparisons was run to identify significant differences in how students applied the Jesuit values to the Use of Club Funding scenario. Statistically significant differences were found in how students applied the Jesuit value of service rooted in justice and love (M = 3.24) as compared to the other five values: reflection (M = 2.50), mean difference = .74, p = .006; discernment (M = 2.67), mean difference = .57, p =
.023; solidarity and kinship (M = 2.74), mean difference = .50, p = .048; Cura Personalis
(M = 2.28), mean difference = .96, p < .00; and Magis (M = 2.80), mean difference = .44, p = .035. Statistically significant differences were also found in how students applied the
Jesuit value of Cura Personalis (M = 2.48) as compared to solidarity and kinship (M =
2.74), mean difference = .463, p = .036; and as compared to Magis (M = 2.80), mean difference = .963, p < .00. These results indicate that with respect to the use of club funding, students were more likely to incorporate aspects of service rooted in justice and love than any other value, and less likely to incorporate Cura Personalis than solidarity and kinship or Magis.
Scenario 3: Fake Social Media. Repeated measures ANOVA was used to determine the effect of student class year (first year vs. senior) on ratings of the degree to which each Jesuit value was considered in responding to the Use of Club Funding scenario. With Mauchly’s test of the sphericity assumption met, Macuhly’s W(14) = .72, p = . 27, the within-subjects effect for Jesuit values was statistically significant, F(5, 260)
= 3.45, p = .005, but the between-subjects effect of student class year was not, F(1, 52) =
132 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
.98, p = .33. There was no significant interaction between student class and Jesuit values,
F(5, 260) = .51, p = .77.
Because the main within-subjects effect was significant, a post hoc Bonferroni test of pairwise comparisons was run to identify significant differences in how students applied the Jesuit values to the Fake Social Media scenario. Statistically significant differences were found in how students applied the Jesuit value of reflection (M = 2.54) and service rooted in justice and love (M = 3.15), mean difference = .61, p = .024. These results indicate that in regard to addressing fake social media, students were more inclined to take an approach of service rooted in justice in love than reflection.
Scenario 4: Time Management. Repeated measures ANOVA was used to determine the effect of student class year (first year vs. senior) on ratings of the degree to which each Jesuit value was considered in responding to the Time Management scenario.
With Mauchly’s test of the sphericity assumption met, Macuhly’s W(14) = .66, p = .12, the within-subjects effect for Jesuit values was statistically significant, F(5, 260) = 4.28, p
= .005, but the between-subjects effect of student class year was not, F(1, 52) = 3.01, p =
.088. There was no significant interaction between student class and Jesuit values, F(5,
260) = .61, p = .695.
Because the main within-subjects effect was significant, a post hoc Bonferroni test of pairwise comparisons was run to identify significant differences in how students applied the Jesuit values to the Time Management scenario. Statistically significant differences were found in how students applied the Jesuit value of service rooted in justice and love (M = 3.07) as compared to reflection (M = 2.54), mean difference = .54, p = .049; and as compared to discernment (M = 2.61), mean difference = .46, p = .021.
133 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
These results indicate that students reported they were more likely to take an approach that incorporates aspects of service rooted in justice and love in their responses than reflection or discernment.
Scenario 5: Underage Alcohol Use. Repeated measures ANOVA was used to determine the effect of student class year (first year vs. senior) on ratings of the degree to which each Jesuit value was considered in responding to the Underage Alcohol Use scenario. With Mauchly’s test of the sphericity assumption met, Macuhly’s W (14) = .65, p = .09, the within-subjects effect for Jesuit values was statistically significant, F(5, 260)
= 2.68, p = .022. The between-subjects effect of student class year was also significant,
F(1, 52) = 4.27, p = .044. There was no significant interaction between student class and
Jesuit values, F(5, 260) = .90, p = .48.
Because both the main within-subjects and between-subjects effects were significant, post hoc Bonferroni tests of pairwise comparisons were run to identify significant differences in how students applied the Jesuit values to the Underage Alcohol
Use scenario as well as to identify the significant difference in the degree to which students in each class year considered the Jesuit values. Statistically significant differences were found in how students applied the Jesuit value of service rooted in justice and love (M = 3.32) and discernment (M = 2.87), mean difference = .44, p = .032.
These results indicate that students reported they were more likely to take an approach incorporating aspects of service rooted in justice and love in regard to responding to underage alcohol use than an approach incorporating discernment.
134 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
The statistically significant difference in the between-subjects effect indicates that in general, first year students (M = 3.29) reported considering Jesuit values to a greater degree than senior students (M = 2.89), mean difference = .40, p = .04.
Reflection. Repeated measures ANOVA was used to determine the effect of class year (first year vs. senior) on the ratings of the degree to which reflection was considered when responding to all scenarios. Mauchly’s test of sphericity was rejected, Mauchly’s W
(9) = .61, p = .003, the Greenhouse-Geisser correction ( = .85) was applied. With the correction applied, the within-subjects effect for hypothetical scenario was statistically significant, F(3.40, 176.66) = 3.91, p = .007, but the between-subjects effect of student class year was not, F(1, 52) = .34, p = .56, and there was no significant interaction between student class year and scenario, F(4, 208) = .182, p = .93.
Because the main within-subjects effect was significant, a post hoc Bonferroni test of pairwise comparisons was run to identify significant differences in how students applied reflection to the five hypothetical scenarios. Statistically significant differences were found in how students applied reflection to the scenario Cheating on an Exam (M =
2.41) as compared to Underage Alcohol Use (M = 2.91), mean difference = .50, p = .016.
These results indicate that in general, students reported applying reflection to the scenario of cheating on an exam to a lesser degree than to the scenario regarding underage alcohol use.
Discernment. Repeated measures ANOVA was used to determine the effect of class year (first year vs. senior) on the ratings of the degree to which discernment was considered when responding to all scenarios. Mauchly’s test of sphericity was rejected,
Mauchly’s W (9) = .46, p < .00, the Greenhouse-Geisser correction ( = .696) was
135 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY applied. With the correction applied, the within-subjects effect for hypothetical scenario was statistically significant, F(2.79, 144.80) = 4.71, p = .005, but the between-subjects effect of student class year was not, F(1, 52) = 1.93, p = .17, and there was no significant interaction between student class year and scenario, F(2.79, 144.80) = .55, p = .63.
Because the main within-subjects effect was significant, a post hoc Bonferroni test of pairwise comparisons was run to identify significant differences in how students applied discernment to the five hypothetical scenarios. Statistically significant differences were found in how students applied discernment to the scenario Cheating on an Exam (M
= 2.39) as compared to Fake Social Media (M = 2.85), mean difference = .46, p = .01.
These results indicate that in general, students reported applying discernment to the scenario addressing fake social media to a higher degree than to the scenario regarding cheating on an exam.
Solidarity and Kinship. Repeated measures ANOVA was used to determine the effect of class year (first year vs. senior) on the ratings of the degree to which solidarity and kinship was considered when responding to all scenarios. Mauchly’s test of sphericity was rejected, Mauchly’s W (9) = .67, p = .015, the Greenhouse-Geisser correction ( = .85) was applied. With the correction applied, the within-subjects effect for hypothetical scenario was statistically significant, F(3.41, 177.38) = 5.61, p = .001, but the between-subjects effect of student class year was not, F(1, 52) = 1.42, p = .24, and there was no significant interaction between student class year and scenario, F(2.79,
144.80) = 1.05, p = .38.
Because the main within-subjects effect was significant, a post hoc Bonferroni test of pairwise comparisons was run to identify significant differences in how students
136 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY applied solidarity and kinship to the five hypothetical scenarios. Statistically significant differences were found in how students applied solidarity and kinship to the scenario
Underage Alcohol Use (M = 3.30) as compared to Cheating on an Exam (M = 2.76), mean difference = .54, p = .006; and as compared to Use of Club Funding (M = 2.74), mean difference = .56, p = .002. These results indicate that in general, students reported applying solidarity and kinship to the scenario addressing alcohol consumption to a higher degree than to the scenarios regarding cheating on an exam and use of club funding.
Service Rooted in Justice and Love. Repeated measures ANOVA was used to determine the effect of class year (first year vs. senior) on the ratings of the degree to which service rooted in justice and love was considered when responding to all scenarios.
Mauchly’s test of sphericity was rejected, Mauchly’s W (9) = .67, p = .016, so the
Greenhouse-Geisser correction ( = .85) was applied. With the correction applied, the within-subjects effect for hypothetical scenario was statistically significant, F(3.38,
176.04) = 4.97, p = .002, but the between-subjects effect of student class year was not,
F(1, 52) = 2.60, p = .113, and there was no significant interaction between student class year and scenario, F(3.38, 176.04) = 1.88, p = .13.
Because the main within-subjects effect was significant, a post hoc Bonferroni test of pairwise comparisons was run to identify significant differences in how students applied service rooted in justice and love to the five hypothetical scenarios. Statistically significant differences were found in how students applied service rooted in justice and love to the scenario Cheating on an Exam (M = 2.70) as compared to Use of Club
Funding (M = 3.24), mean difference = .54, p = .034; and as compared to Underage
137 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
Alcohol Use (M = 3.32), mean difference = .61, p = .006. These results indicate that in general, students reported applying service rooted in justice and love to the scenario regarding cheating on an exam to a lesser degree than to the scenarios regarding use of club funding and underage alcohol consumption.
Cura Personalis. Repeated measures ANOVA was used to determine the effect of class year (first year vs. senior) on the ratings of the degree to which Cura Personalis was considered when responding to all hypothetical scenarios. With Mauchly’s test of sphericity met, Mauchly’s W (9) = .83, p = .38, the within-subjects effect for hypothetical scenario was statistically significant, F(4, 208) = 16.31, p < .000, as was the between- subjects effect of student class year, F(1, 52) = 4.43, p = .04. There was no significant interaction between student class year and scenario, F(4, 208) = 1.10, p = .36.
Because both the main within-subjects and between-subjects effects were significant, post hoc Bonferroni tests of pairwise comparisons were run to identify significant differences in how students applied Cura Personalis to the five hypothetical scenarios and to identify the degree to which students in each class year considered Cura
Personalis in their responses. In regard to the within-subjects effects, significant differences were found in the way students applied Cura Personalis to the scenario
Underage Alcohol Use (M = 3.00) as compared to Cheating on an Exam (M = 1.98), mean difference = 1.02, p < .00; as compared to Use of Club Funding (M = 2.28), mean difference = .72, p < .00; and as compared to Time Management (M = 2.61), mean difference = .39, p = .044. Significant differences were also found in the way students applied Cura Personalis to the scenario Cheating on an Exam (M = 1.98) as compared to
Fake Social Media (M = 2.72), mean difference = .74, p < .00; and as compared to Time
138 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
Management (M = 2.61), mean difference = .63, p < .00. Finally, significant differences were also found when comparing Use of Club Funding (M = 2.28) to Fake Social Media
(M = 2.72), mean difference = .44, p = .025. These results indicate that students reported applying Cura Personalis to the scenario regarding underage alcohol consumption to a higher degree than to cheating on an exam, use of club funding, and time management.
They also indicate students reported applying Cura Personalis to the scenario cheating on an exam to a lesser degree than to the scenarios regarding use of fake social media and time management and they reported applying Cura Personalis to the scenario regarding fake social media use to a higher degree than the use of club funding.
The statistically significant difference in the between-subjects effect indicates that in general, first year students (M = 2.78) reported considering Cura Personalis to a greater degree than senior students (M = 2.26), mean difference = .54, p = .04.
Magis. Repeated measures ANOVA was used to determine the effect of class year (first year vs. senior) on the ratings of the degree to which Magis was considered when responding to all scenarios. With Mauchly’s test of sphericity met, Mauchly’s W
(9) = .72, p = .06, the within-subjects effect for hypothetical scenario was statistically significant, F(4, 208) = 17.70, p < .000, but the between-subjects effect of student class year was not, F(1, 52) = 3.54, p = .07. There was no significant interaction between student class year and scenario, F(4, 208) = .094, p = .98.
Because the main within-subjects effect was significant, a post hoc Bonferroni test of pairwise comparisons was run to identify significant differences in how students applied Magis to the five hypothetical scenarios. Statistically significant differences were found in how students applied Magis to the scenario Cheating on an Exam (M = 2.11) as
139 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY compared to all other scenarios: Use of Club Funding (M = 2.80), mean difference = .69, p < .00; Fake Social Media (M = 2.76), mean difference = .65, p < .00; Time
Management (M = 2.91), mean difference = .80, p < .00; and Underage Alcohol Use (M
= 3.15), mean difference = 1.04, p < .00. Additionally, significant differences were found in how students applied Magis to the scenario Underage Alcohol Use (M = 3.15) as compared to Use of Club Funding (M = 2.80), mean difference = .35, p = .006 and as compared to Fake Social Media (M = 2.91), mean difference = .39, p = .03. These results indicate that students reported applying Magis to the scenario regarding cheating on an exam to a lesser degree than to all other scenarios, and to the scenario regarding underage alcohol consumption to a higher degree than to the scenario regarding club funding and use of fake social media.
Comparison of Qualitative and Quantitative Data
The final step in the analysis of the data was to compare the qualitative results with the quantitative results in order to provide a more robust picture of the results and allow for better interpretation of the meaning of the results. Tables 13 and 14 present both the numerical counts of the coded responses (qualitative results) and the means of the rating responses to the Likert-style questions (quantitative results). To facilitate comparison of these results, a rank order was assigned to the summary statistics, signified by the number in parenthesis in each cell. Rank order was assigned, within each scenario, from the lowest (1) number of coded responses (qualitative) or mean (quantitative), to the highest (6). In accordance with standard practice, codes or means that were equivalent were averaged, i.e. if the code or mean for two or more responses was equal, the average for those responses was assigned to each. The rankings of the coded responses and mean
140 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY ratings is compared in the analysis that follows for each ethical principle and each Jesuit value, broken down by class year (first year vs senior) and ethical scenario.
The purpose of comparing the results of the qualitative and quantitative analyses obtained in this study was to determine whether participant’s subjective, self-reported ratings were in agreement with the researchers’ and external experts’ objective coding of the narrative responses to each of the ethical scenarios. Such triangulation of qualitative and quantitative results lends credibility to the analysis of case study research conducted with small numbers of participants (Whitely & Kite, 2013). Table 15 presents the results of this comparative analysis for participants’ application of ethical principles. Table 16 presents the result of this comparative analysis for participants’ consideration of Jesuit values in their responses to the ethical scenarios.
141
ETHICAL DECISION
Table 15
Comparison of Coded Counts and Reported Means for Ethical Principles by Scenario
Scenario Class Count/ Utilitarianism Categorical Justice as Pragmatism Altruism Virtue Year Mean Imperative Fairness Ethics
-
MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSMAKINGA JESUIT AT First Coded 1 (2) 5 (5) 4 (4) 8 (6) 1 (2) 1 (2) Cheating on an Year Reported 2.41 (1) 2.81 (4) 2.48 (3) 3.03 (6) 2.30 (2) 2.93 (5) Exam Coded 2 (2.5) 4 (4.5) 4 (4.5) 11 (6) 1 (1) 2 (2.5) Senior Reported 1.96 (1) 2.37 (4) 2.12 (2) 2.74 (6) 2.30 (3) 2.70 (5) First Coded 4 (5) 16 (6) 3 (4) 2 (3) 0 (1) 1 (2) Year Reported 3.11 (2) 3.41 (4.5) 3.15 (3) 2.67 (1) 3.41 (4.5) 3.67 (6) Club Funding Coded 10 (5) 12 (6) 2 (3.5) 2 (3.5) 0 (1.5) 0 (1.5) Senior Reported 3.07 (5) 3.04 (4) 2.89 (2) 2.74 (1) 2.93 (3) 3.26 (6)
142 First Coded 3 (3) 10 (5.5) 1 (1) 5 (4) 10 (5.5) 2 (2) Year Reported 2.81 (2) 3.19 (4) 2.78 (1) 2.93 (3) 3.22 (5) 3.37 (6)
Fake Social Media Coded 5 (4) 9 (6) 2 (1) 3 (2) 7 (5) 4 (3) Senior Reported 2.70 (2) 3.04 (4) 2.78 (3) 2.59 (1) 3.07 (5) 3.26 (6)
ITY First Coded 11 (5.5) 3 (2.5) 3 (2.5) 5 (4) 11 (5.5) 1 (1) Time Year Reported 2.93 (2.5) 2.89 (1) 3.00 (4) 2.93 (2.5) 3.48 (6) 3.41 (5) Management Coded 7 (5) 2 (3) 1 (1.5) 3 (4) 12 (6) 1 (1.5) Senior Reported 2.70 (2) 2.74 (3) 2.48 (1) 2.89 (5) 3.00 (6) 2.81 (4) First Coded 8 (5) 14 (6) 0 (1) 6 (4) 2 (3) 1 (2) Year Reported 3.37 (2) 3.85 (6) 2.51 (1) 3.52 (3) 3.78 (4.5) 3.78 (4.5) Alcohol Use Coded 6 (4) 10 (6) 0 (1.5) 5 (3) 9 (5) 0 (1.5) Senior Reported 2.67 (2) 3.56 (5) 2.48 (1) 3.00 (3) 3.71 (6) 3.52 (4) Note. Counts by ethical code are an average of the initial review and external reviewer counts; Numbers in parenthesis identify the rank order of ethical principle with 1 being least frequently applied/reported and 6 being most frequently applied/reported; Underline indicates a difference in rank of 2 or more between the qualitative and quantitative rankings for the designated ethical principle
ETHICAL DECISION
Table 16
Comparison of Coded Counts and Reported Means for Jesuit Values by Scenario Scenario Class Count/ Reflection Discernment Solidarity & Service Rooted in Cura Magis Year Mean Kinship Justice & Love Personalis
Coded 3 (4.5) 11 (6) 3 (4.5) 2 (2.5) 2 (2.5) 1 (1) - First UNIVERSITYMAKINGA JESUIT AT Cheating on an Year Reported 2.48 (3) 2.67 (4) 3.07 (5.5) 3.07 (5.5) 2.26 (1) 2.33 (2) Exam Coded 6 (5) 12 (6) 4 (3.5) 4 (3.5) 1 (2) 0 (1) Senior Reported 2.33 (4.5) 2.11 (3) 2.44 (6) 2.33 (4.5) 1.70 (1) 1.89 (2) First Coded 0 (2) 2 (5) 8 (6) 1 (4) 0 (2) 0 (2) Year Reported 2.56 (2) 2.81 (3) 2.85 (4) 3.30 (6) 2.48 (1) 3.00 (5) Club Funding Coded 1 (1.5) 13 (5) 8 (4) 17 (6) 1 (1.5) 4 (3) Senior Reported 2.44 (2) 2.52 (3) 2.63 (5) 3.19 (6) 2.07 (1) 2.59 (4) First Coded 2 (2) 9 (4) 13 (6) 11 (5) 3 (3) 0 (1)
143 Fake Social Year Reported 2.56 (1) 2.96 (3) 3.15 (5.5) 3.15 (5.5) 2.85 (2) 3.00 (4)
Media Coded 3 (2) 12 (4) 15 (6) 13 (5) 5 (3) 0 (1) Senior Reported 2.52 (1.5) 2.74 (3) 2.96 (4.5) 3.15 (6) 2.96 (4.5) 2.52 (1.5) First Coded 0 (1) 3 (2.5) 12 (5) 3 (2.5) 7 (4) 13 (6)
Time Year Reported 2.67 (1) 2.74 (2) 3.11 (4) 3.30 (6) 2.89 (3) 3.19 (5) Management Coded 3 (2) 1 (1) 8 (4.5) 11 (6) 8 (4.5) 7 (3) Senior Reported 2.41 (2) 2.48 (3) 3.00 (6) 2.85 (5) 2.33 (1) 2.63 (4) First Coded 4 (4) 7 (5) 26 (6) 0 (2) 0 (2) 0 (2) Year Reported 3.00 (2) 3.07 (1) 3.44 (5.5) 3.44 (5.5) 3.41 (4) 3.37 (3) Alcohol Use Coded 1 (4) 9 (5) 25 (6) 0 (2) 0 (2) 0 (2) Senior Reported 2.81 (3) 2.67 (2) 3.15 (5) 3.19 (6) 2.59 (1) 2.93 (4) Note. Counts by ethical code are an average of the initial review and external reviewer counts; Numbers in parenthesis identify the rank order of ethical principle with 1 being least frequently applied/reported and 6 being most frequently applied/reported; Underline indicates a difference in rank of 2 or more between the qualitative and quantitative rankings for the designated Jesuit values
ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
The two tables provide an overview of both sets of data, and show that overall, the coded responses and the reported responses largely align, though some differences were observed, as discussed below. The comparisons that can be observed in this table provide evidence that context matters in how students use the ethical principles and Jesuit values. In other words, the specific scenario determined whether a higher or lower frequency of employing an ethical principle or Jesuit value was both observed and reported by participants. These results suggest that students do not necessarily stick to one type of response or another but base their responses on the situation at hand.
Comparison of Ethical Principles Data
In reviewing the data in Tables 13 overall, certain principles ranked higher or lower, across the board, than others, and certain scenarios saw greater agreement in rankings across the principles than others. Generally speaking, utilitarianism was ranked on the lower end for the reported responses, but on the higher end for coded responses, while a greater level of agreement was observed in the rankings for the categorical imperative, justice as fairness, pragmatism, and altruism. Virtue ethics was ranked significantly higher for the reported responses than for the coded responses. Across the scenarios, the least agreement between coded responses and reported responses resulted from the club funding and time management scenarios. Fake social media resulted in less agreement among senior student responses, but almost full agreement, with the exception of virtue ethics, for first year student responses.
Closer analysis of these data, particularly focusing on where there were discrepancies in the rankings, the most significant discrepancy occurs in relation to virtue ethics, where the means and rankings of the reported data were at the high end compared
144 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY to the coded responses. This suggests that when responding to the question that asked about the degree to which they “chose actions that promoted moral goodness for all,” students reported considering this to a much higher degree than was observed by the reviewers of their narrative rationales. This discrepancy between students’ ratings and coded responses for the application of virtue ethics was observed for both first year and senior students, and held true across all ethical scenarios. Possible reasons for these results could be how the question was interpreted or because students view themselves behaving in this way more so than their actions show.
Discrepancies in the rankings for utilitarianism, particularly in regard to first year responses for the use of club funding, time management, and underage alcohol use scenarios, and senior responses for the fake social media, time management, and underage alcohol use scenarios, indicates divergence in the observed actions in the coded responses and reported actions in students’ ratings. Students report considering the greatest good for the greatest number of people to a lesser degree than was observed by the reviewers.
The rankings for the categorical imperative indicate students had firm principles for some scenarios and less so for others, which can be seen in the rankings of both the observed and reported data. This is particularly clear in reviewing the rankings for the scenario regarding underage use of alcohol and the scenario regarding use of club funding. Justice as fairness does not appear to be observed or reported to a significant degree for either group. Pragmatism was both reported and coded strongest on cheating on an exam for both first year and senior students, while altruism was observed and reported to the highest degree for the time management scenario for both groups.
145 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
Finally, these rankings were reviewed in terms of where statistically significant differences were seen through the repeated measures ANOVAs to determine if the results were corroborated by the qualitative data. The repeated measures ANOVAs indicated a significant difference in the degree to which first year students and seniors reported applying ethics across the board in the time management and underage use of alcohol scenarios. In these scenarios, first year students were found to report applying the ethical principles to a greater degree than seniors. The rankings of the coded data for the time management scenario show that this is likely attributable to the utilitarianism and altruism scores but does not necessarily suggest first year students apply the principles more or less so than seniors in the observed data. The rankings of the underage alcohol use scenario indicate the effect is most likely attributable to the categorical imperative and utilitarianism scores, but the table is not reflective of first year students necessarily applying the ethical principles to a greater degree in the observed data.
Comparison of Jesuit Values Data
In reviewing the data in Table 14 overall, certain values were observed as ranking higher or lower across the board than others, and certain scenarios saw greater agreement in rankings across the values than others. Generally speaking, there is greater agreement across this table compared to the ethical principles table. Again, it’s clear that the application of values depends on the situation and the context, and nothing is universal.
Cura Personalis was ranked on the lower end of the rankings for coded and reported responses, with the exception of senior responses to the fake social media scenario and first year responses to the underage alcohol use scenario. The rankings of the reported
146 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY data for Magis were also on the low end, whereas, solidarity and kinship as well as service rooted in justice and love were largely ranked on the higher end across scenarios.
Closer analysis of these data, particularly focusing on where there were discrepancies in the rankings, the most significant difference occurs in the rankings for discernment, where coded data ranked higher than reported data for all scenarios except time management, and significantly so for cheating on an exam, use of club funding, and underage alcohol use. This discrepancy was observed for both first year and senior students and indicates they did not report applying discernment to scenarios at the same level reviewers observed such in the narrative responses. Possible reasons for this result could have been due to students lack of understanding of the question or that students don’t see themselves as discerning in the given situations.
Reviewing discrepancies specific to certain scenarios, both first year and senior students reported applying service rooted in justice and love to a higher degree than was observed in the underage alcohol use scenario. First year students reported applying this at a higher level for the time management, use of club funding, and cheating on an exam as well, indicating observed actions were not coded for service rooted in justice and love to the same degree as first year students reported considering it in their responses.
Discrepancies are also seen across the underage use of alcohol scenario for first year responses, with the exception of the most frequently coded and reported response, solidarity and kinship.
Finally, these rankings were reviewed in comparison to where statistically significant differences were seen through the repeated measures ANOVAs to determine if the results are corroborated by the qualitative data. The repeated measures ANOVAs
147 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY indicated a statistically significant difference in the degree to which first year students and seniors reported applying Jesuit values across the board in the cheating on an exam and underage alcohol use scenarios. In these scenarios, first year students were found to report applying the Jesuit values to a greater degree than seniors. On cheating on an exam, it is apparent from the rankings table that the statistically significant differences likely were attributable to solidarity and kinship and service rooted in justice and love, though the coded responses do not necessarily suggest first year students applied the
Jesuit values to a greater degree than seniors. On the underage alcohol use scenario, the statistical significance is likely due to discernment, solidarity and kinship, and service rooted in justice and love. In comparison, the coded data is not necessarily reflective of this result.
148 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
Chapter 5: Interpretation and Implications
The results of this study on the ethical decision making of first year and senior college students at a Jesuit institution produced sufficient evidence to address each of the research questions set forth in Chapter 1.
Research Question 1: Are there patterns in the ethical decision-making of unmatriculated first year students and seniors in their final semester?
Research Question 2: Do the rationales reported for the ethical decisions made by first year and senior undergraduate students differ?
Research Question 3: To what extent is the Jesuit identity of an academic institution reflected in the ethical decision-making of first year and senior students?
Research Question 4: Do first year and senior students who employ the same approach to ethical decision-making, integrate Jesuit principles into their reasoning to differing degrees?
In Chapter 5, the evidence presented in Chapter 4 is reviewed as it relates to each of these research questions. Conclusions derived from these results will be presented, followed by a discussion of limitations, implications, and opportunities for future research.
Research Question 1: Patterns in Ethical Decision-Making
The first research question asked whether or not patterns exist in the ethical decision-making of first year and senior students. In other words, the question explores whether students applied codes in a patterned way within class year, within and across scenarios. In asking this question, the co-investigators sought to better understand how students make ethical-decisions, based on the ethical framework outlined in Chapter 1, and to understand what, if any, patterns exist, based on participants’ responses to the hypothetical scenarios. To respond to this research question, the data is examined separately by class year.
149 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
The qualitative data of responses coded for ethical principles by the internal and external reviewers and the quantitative data of reported responses to Likert-style questions provides an idea of what patterns might exist for first year and senior students’ ethical decision making. The two data sets, representing extracted (coded narratives) and reported (ratings) responses, were used to explore patterns separately first, then these patterns of responses were compared to identify where the two align and diverge. Data was reviewed by scenario and by ethical principle to understand the patterns that emerged from the data. The patterns of responses that emerged from these analyses are summarized below for each study population.
Patterns in First Year Student Responses
The following pattern of responses pertaining to the application of ethical principles emerged from analysis of the qualitative and quantitative data collected from first year students in this study.
Cheating on an Exam. The coded responses of reported behavior for this scenario indicate that students were more likely to use either a pragmatic or categorical imperative approach to ethical decision-making, when choosing what to do when they know someone is cheating on an exam, than the other approaches coded for in this study.
Thus, their narrative responses predominantly reflected 1) thinking through options and how those options impact others in their responses (pragmatism), or 2) determining what to do based what they believe is “right” no matter the consequences (categorical imperative). The qualitative data also suggest that first year students were least likely to use utilitarianism, altruism, and virtue ethics in responding to this scenario. A few
150 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY responses indicate a preference for a justice as fairness-oriented approach, though the frequency of this approach fell at the mid-point between the other coded responses.
Based on the quantitative responses to this same scenario, first year students reported utilizing a pragmatic approach to ethical decision making to a greater degree than the other ethical principles. However, the quantitative results also indicate that first year students reported using a categorical imperative and a virtue ethics-based approach to a higher degree than they did utilitarianism, altruism, and justice as fairness.
Results of both the qualitative and quantitative analyses reflect a clear pattern in the ethical decision making of first year students with respect to the ethical dilemma posed by observing a classmate cheating on an exam. Both sets of data point to a preference for adopting a pragmatic approach to this scenario, suggesting that first year students will, if faced with this situation, more likely weigh their options, considering the alternatives and how the options may impact others. The two data sets also both reflect that first year students use categorical imperative to respond to instances of cheating, basing their actions on what is right, no matter the consequences. First year students also reported using a virtue ethics approach to a greater degree than some other approaches, though this approach to ethical decision making was not reflected in the pattern that emerged from their coded narrative responses.
Use of Club Funding. A somewhat different pattern emerged from the analysis of qualitative and quantitative responses to the ethical scenario involving inappropriate use of club funding. Qualitative coding of the narrative responses indicated that first year students were, by far, more likely to use a categorical imperative approach to this scenario implying that in this sort of situation, first year students’ actions are more
151 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY inclined to be guided by what they believe is right, no matter the consequences. The narrative responses of first year students revealed utilitarianism, justice as fairness, or a pragmatic approach was utilized to a moderate degree, while neither altruism nor virtue ethics were evident in their responses to this scenario.
The quantitative results indicate that first year students reported utilizing a virtue ethics approach to this scenario, striving to take actions they believe improve their own moral character, to a slightly greater degree than a categorical imperative or altruistic approach. First year students report they were least likely to use a pragmatic approach in responding to this sort of scenario. Justice as fairness and utilitarianism were reported at a moderate level by first year students.
Looking at the qualitative and quantitative data together for first year students, the pattern of responses to this particular scenario do not completely align. These students self-reported taking a virtuous approach. This suggests that students see themselves as acting in a way they believe will make them moral and good (virtuous), although reviewers did not see evidence of this approach in their narrative responses to the hypothetical scenario. Nevertheless, there was alignment between the qualitative and quantitative data with respect to these students’ use of a categorical imperative. This deontological approach was seen in a majority of the responses coded by reviewers and was also reported at a high degree by students, revealing a consistent pattern across both sets of data suggesting first year students approach a situation such as misappropriation of club funding in a principled manner.
Fake Social Media. Qualitative coding of responses for this scenario indicate that first year students were more likely to take a categorical or altruistic approach than the
152 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY other approaches coded for in this study when responding to a situation in which fake social media accounts are posting negative images. This implies that students either 1) feel strongly about doing what is right, no matter the cost (categorial imperative), or 2) desire to put the needs of others ahead of their own, thinking first about the person most impacted in the situation (altruism). The qualitative data also suggests that first year students were least likely to take an approach based on justice as fairness, while taking a pragmatic approach, thinking through the options and how those options impact others, fell at the mid-point of the other coded responses.
Quantitative responses for this scenario indicate that students reported utilizing a virtue ethics approach to this scenario, striving to take actions they believe improve their own moral character, to a greater degree than others, though only slightly more so than categorical imperative and altruism. The quantitative responses show first year students reported taking an approach based on utilitarianism to a lesser degree than most other principles, with justice as fairness only slightly less reported.
The pattern that emerges from the qualitative and quantitative responses for this scenario align, with both indicating first year students were least likely to take adopt an approach based on justice as fairness but were more likely to adopt a categorical imperative or altruistic approach in responding to an instance in which fake social media accounts are posting negative images. This pattern seen across both sets of data suggests first year students approach this sort of situation in a principled manner or through a desire to put the needs of the other person first. However, while students self-reported taking a virtuous approach to the highest degree, this was not seen in the coded responses, suggesting that students see themselves as acting in a way they believe will
153 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY make them moral and good (virtuous), although reviewers did not see evidence of this approach in their narrative responses to the hypothetical scenario.
Time Management. The coding of qualitative responses for the scenario regarding time management indicate first year students were more likely to take a utilitarian or altruistic approach. This suggests first year students are more inclined to act on behalf of the greater good of the group, in this case, their club, or are most concerned with putting the needs of the other person, in this case the club president, ahead of their own. The qualitative data indicates first year students used a categorical imperative, justice as fairness, or pragmatism to a moderate degree, and were least likely to apply virtue ethics in their responses to this scenario.
The quantitative responses indicate first year students reported taking an altruistic or virtue ethics approach to a greater degree than other approaches, either 1) putting the needs of the other person ahead of their own (altruism), or 2) acting in a way they believe will make them moral and good (virtue ethics). The quantitative results also indicate student reported using a categorical imperative in responding to this scenario to a lesser than all other principles, though utilitarianism and pragmatism were also reported to a lesser degree than justice as fairness, altruism, or virtue ethics, which were reported at a moderate level.
The two sets of data suggest a pattern of using altruism to a greater degree than the other principles, indicating first year students desire to put the needs of the other person ahead of their own in responding to this type of situation. However, students reported taking a virtue ethics approach to a greater degree than coded for in the qualitative data, where only one response was coded for this approach, suggesting
154 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY students see themselves as taking virtuous actions in a way not see in the evidence of the coded responses. Additionally, the coded responses suggest first year students used utilitarianism to a much greater degree than the reported data indicates.
Underage Alcohol Use. Coding of the qualitative responses for this scenario indicate students were most likely to use a categorical imperative when responding to a situation of underage alcohol use, reflecting that students were most likely determining what to do based on what they believe is “right” no matter the consequences.
Utilitarianism was also seen in a higher number of narrative responses as well, with students choosing their actions in the situation but not because they were obligated, but because seeking assistance was the better option for all involved. The qualitative data also suggests first year students were least likely to take a justice as fairness or virtue ethics approach to this scenario.
In the quantitative responses, students reported using a categorical imperative, altruism, and virtue ethics to a greater degree than they did justice as fairness, pragmatism, and utilitarianism. Categorical imperative was reported to the highest degree of all the principles, suggesting students take a principled approach in their responses, though it was reported only slightly more so than altruism and virtue ethics, suggesting students also desire to act in a way that puts the other person first or in a way they believe makes them virtuous. Justice as fairness was reported to a lesser degree than all other principles for this scenario.
The qualitative and quantitative responses show a pattern of using a categorical imperative to respond to this scenario, suggesting first year students determine their actions based on what they believe to be right in the situation, no matter the cost, as was
155 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY evident in the coded data and reported data. Additionally, justice as fairness was both coded and reported to a lesser degree than all other principles. However, the quantitative data also suggests first year students use altruism and virtue ethics in their responses, a pattern not confirmed by the coded data.
Summary of First Year Students’ Application of Ethical Principles. Looking at the coding completed by reviewers, the categorical imperative was coded most frequently in three scenarios, cheating on the exam, fake social media, and underage alcohol use. Utilitarianism was coded most frequently in two scenarios, time management and underage alcohol use, and altruism was coded most frequently in fake social media and time management. Pragmatism was only coded most frequently in one scenario, cheating on an exam. Justice as fairness was coded to a lesser degree than other principles overall and was the least frequently coded principle in two scenarios, fake social media and underage alcohol use. Virtue ethics was the least coded in the time management scenario but was the second least coded in all other scenarios. Altruism was the least coded for in use of club funding while utilitarianism was least coded in cheating on an exam.
The quantitative data shows that students reported using virtue ethics to a greater degree in use of club funding and fake social media. Pragmatism, altruism, and categorical imperative were all most reported in one scenario, cheating on an exam, time management, and underage alcohol use respectively. For each of these scenarios, virtue ethics was the second most reported response, indicating students reported virtue ethics to a greater degree overall than other principles. Justice as fairness was least reported in two scenarios, fake social media and underage alcohol use, and reported to a lesser degree
156 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY than most other principles in all except time management. Pragmatism, utilitarianism, and the categorical imperative were each reported least for one scenario, but otherwise were reported at the mid-point on most scenarios.
Looking at both the qualitative and quantitative data for patterns in the use of the ethical principles by first year students, there is not a solitary principle consistently most observed and reported across all scenarios. Rather, the data suggests the approach first year students may take is dependent on the situation and may change based on that situation. Justice as fairness was least coded and least reported across scenarios, suggesting first year students are not as likely to integrate the idea of equal rights and opportunities for all as their primary decision-making principle. Consistently, students reported applying virtue ethics to a much greater degree than it was coded for, across all scenarios, suggesting these students see themselves taking actions that make them moral and good (virtuous) more than was evident in their narrative responses and making this the most robust pattern to emerge from these data.
Patterns in Senior Student Responses
The following pattern of responses pertaining to the application of ethical principles emerged from analysis of the qualitative and quantitative data collected from senior students in this study.
Cheating on an Exam. The coded responses for this scenario indicate that students were more likely to use a pragmatic approach to ethical decision-making, when choosing what to do when they know someone is cheating on an exam, than the other approaches coded for in this study. Thus, their narrative responses predominantly reflected thinking through options and how those options impact others in their
157 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY responses. Justice as fairness, considering equal rights and opportunities for all, and categorical imperative, doing what is “right” no matter the consequences, were coded more so than other principles as well, but less so than pragmatism. The coded data suggests seniors were least likely to use utilitarianism, altruism, and virtue ethics in their responses, with very few responses coded for these principles in the responses to this scenario.
Quantitative data indicates seniors reported using pragmatism and virtue ethics in their approach to a greater degree than the other principles, implying 1) thinking through options, and how those options impact others or 2) acting in ways that are moral and good (virtuous) when responding to instances of knowing someone has cheated on an exam. Seniors reported using a utilitarian or justice as fairness approach to a lesser degree than the other principles, while reporting the use of categorical imperative and altruism to a moderate degree.
Looking at both the qualitative and quantitative data, coded data and reported data suggest a pattern of using pragmatism to a greater degree than the other five principles, indicating students are most likely going to thinking through alternatives and options, and how those alternatives impact others. The data indicates that seniors reported using virtue ethics to a much greater degree than was evidenced in the coded responses, suggesting seniors see themselves as acting in ways that make them virtuous more so than was evident in their narrative responses. A categorical imperative was both coded and reported to a moderate degree while justice as fairness was coded to a greater degree than it was reported.
158 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
Use of Club Funding. The qualitative data of responses coded for the use of club funding scenario indicate seniors were most likely to use a categorical imperative or utilitarian response when addressing issues of inappropriate use of club funds. This suggests senior students focus on what they believe is “right” in the situation no matter the consequences or looking out for the greater good of all (the club). The coded responses indicate seniors were least likely to use altruism and virtue ethics, with these principles were not evident in the coded responses.
The quantitative data indicates seniors reported using virtue ethics to a greater degree than any of the other five principles, taking actions they believe are virtuous in responding to an instance of inappropriate use of club funding. The quantitative data also indicates seniors reported using a utilitarian response to a greater degree than most principles, doing what they believe is best for the greater good for the larger group (the club) The data indicates seniors reported using pragmatism, justice as fairness, and altruism to a lesser degree than the other principles.
The qualitative and quantitative data suggest the pattern of responses to this particular scenario do not completely align. Both sets of data indicate utilitarianism is incorporated in responses to a greater degree than most of the principles and altruism incorporated to a lesser degree than most of the principles, though these are the only similarities. The most significant divergence in the responses for this scenario are seen in the coded data from the narrative responses as opposed to the reported responses for the degree of use of virtue ethics. Virtue ethics was not evident in the coded responses but was reported to the highest degree of any of the principles in the rating responses.
159 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
Fake Social Media. Qualitative data coded for responses to this scenario indicate seniors were more likely to use a categorical imperative in their responses, doing what they believed to be “right” no matter the cost, when faced with a situation of a fake social media account posting negative or mean images. Altruism, utilitarianism, and virtue ethics were coded to a moderate degree in narrative responses, while justice as fairness and pragmatism were coded least, indicating seniors were less likely to use one of these approaches in their response.
Quantitative data indicates seniors reported considering virtue ethics to a greater degree than the rest of the principles, see their actions in response to negative images on fake social media accounts as moral and good, making them virtuous. Altruism and categorical imperative were also reported to a higher degree of consideration, indicating seniors reported considering the needs of the other person before their own or responded with a principled approach. Utilitarianism, justice as fairness, and pragmatism were reported to a lesser degree than the other principles, with pragmatism least reported in senior ratings.
The qualitative and quantitative data both suggest a pattern of use of a categorical imperative, or principled approach, to a greater degree than others. A divergence is seen between the two data sets in that reviewers coded for a categorical imperative most frequently in the data while seniors reported it as their second most considered principle.
Seniors indicated considering virtue ethics to a much greater degree than was evident in the coded data, with students reporting it as their most considered principle. This suggests seniors see themselves taking virtuous actions to a greater degree than is corroborated by the coded data.
160 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
Time Management. The qualitative data of the coded narrative responses for this scenario revealed reviewers found seniors were more likely to take an altruistic approach in responding than any of the other approaches, putting the needs of the other person, the club president, before their own. Reviewers also found seniors inclined toward utilitarianism in their responses, putting the needs of the group first, though this was significantly less coded for than altruism. Categorical imperative, justice as fairness, and virtue ethics were not evident to a high degree in the coded data, with only one or two responses coded in this way.
The quantitative data indicates seniors reported considering altruism to a greater degree than the other five principles, desiring to put the needs of the other person, the club president, ahead of their own in responding to this type of situations. Pragmatism, considering options or alternatives and the impacts of those alternatives on others, was also highly reported in this scenario. The quantitative results indicate seniors considered virtue ethics, categorical imperative, and utilitarianism to a lesser degree, and justice as fairness was considered least in this scenario.
Together, the qualitative and quantitative results indicate a pattern of students that taking an altruistic approach to this scenario more so than the other five principles, putting the needs of the club president before their own in both their narrative and reported their responses. However, the results indicate seniors reported virtue ethics to a higher degree than was evident in the coded responses and reported utilitarianism to a lesser degree than was evident in the coded responses. Both data sets indicate justice as fairness was used to a lesser degree than any of the other principles coded for in this study.
161 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
Underage Alcohol Use. The qualitative data indicates seniors were more likely to use a categorical approach to this scenario based on the narrative responses, doing what they believed to be “right, “no matter the consequences. It also indicates reviewers coded altruism and utilitarianism more so than most other principles, indicating students were also inclined toward putting the needs of the other person first or doing what they believed would bring the greatest good to the greatest number of people. Pragmatism was moderately coded for in this scenario. Virtue ethics and justice as fairness were not evident in narrative responses for this scenario.
The quantitative data indicates seniors reported considering altruism to a greater degree than all other principles, though consideration of a categorical imperative and use of virtue ethics were also reported to a higher degree than most principles. This suggests seniors reported an inclination toward putting the needs of others first, doing what they believed to be “right” no matter the costs, or acting in ways that will make them virtuous, when responding to a situation of underage alcohol mis-use. Students reported consideration of justice as fairness and utilitarianism to a lesser degree than any of the other principles.
Patterns in the qualitative narrative responses and quantitative reported ratings suggest seniors use a categorial imperative or altruism in their responses to situations of underage alcohol mis-use. Virtue ethics was reported to a greater degree than was evident in the coded responses, indicating students see themselves as acting in a virtuous manner more so than was found in the narrative responses. Both data sets indicate justice as fairness was used to a lesser degree than any other principle in responding to this scenario.
162 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
Summary of Senior Students’ Application of Ethical Principles. Looking across the scenarios at how frequently reviewers coded each ethical principle for the senior students, a categorical imperative was most frequently coded in three of the five scenarios, use of club funding, fake social media, and underage alcohol use. Pragmatism and altruism were most frequently coded in one scenario each, cheating on an exam and time management respectively. Justice as fairness and virtue ethics were least frequently coded in three scenarios each, fake social media, time management, and underage alcohol use, and club finding, time management, and underage alcohol use, respectively.
Altruism was least frequent in two scenarios and utilitarianism was coded to a moderate degree in all scenarios.
Looking across the scenarios at how seniors reported considering the principles, virtue ethics and altruism were considered to a greater degree most frequently. This was reported as such in two scenarios each, club funding and fake social media, and time management and underage alcohol use, respectively. Pragmatism was reported most considered in one scenario, cheating on an exam. Pragmatism and justice as fairness were reported least considered in two scenarios each, and utilitarianism in one. A categorical imperative was reported to a moderate degree across the scenarios.
The qualitative and quantitative data suggests that the ethical approach taken by seniors is most likely based on the situation and isn’t a universal concept, as the alignment between the two data sets varies based on the scenario. Justice as fairness is least coded and least considered in several scenarios, suggesting seniors are not as likely to integrate the idea of equal rights and opportunities for all as their primary decision- making principle, and hinting at a pattern. Additionally, students reported virtue ethics to
163 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY a much greater degree than was coded for, suggesting seniors believe they are taking actions that make them virtuous in ways not evident in narrative responses.
Summary of First Year and Senior Reponses to Ethical Scenarios
Some patterns were evident in both the qualitative and quantitative data identifying the ethical principles applied by first year and senior students to the five ethical scenarios posed to them in this study. While the patterns suggest that both first year and senior students may use different ethical principles based on the situation, the coded and reported data for both groups suggest they both most consistently favor a categorical imperative. Additionally, the coded and reported data suggests both groups were least likely to use justice as fairness, the desire to promote equal rights and opportunities for all. Seniors and first year students both reported virtue ethics to a higher degree than was evident in the coded narrative responses across all scenarios, indicating both groups believe they act in ways that make them moral and good, or virtuous, more so than was evident to reviewers.
Research Question 2: Differences in Ethical Decision-Making Rational
The second research question investigated whether the rationale employed by first year and senior students for making ethical decisions differed, and, if so, to what degree.
In posing this question, the researchers sought to better understand the differences between first year students and senior students. To respond to this research question, qualitative and quantitative data were examined to compare the patterns within scenarios and across scenarios to see where they align and diverge, comparing the data across the two samples.
164 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
Comparison of Qualitative Data
The qualitative data for both the first year and senior students can be compared both within each scenario and across the scenarios to contribute to the understanding of how ethical decision-making by college students does and does not differ. Within the first scenario, cheating on an exam, both first year students and seniors were most frequently observed as applying pragmatism in their responses, while first year students were observed to least frequently apply altruism, utilitarianism, and virtue ethics, and seniors least frequently applied altruism only. Looking at responses to the use of club funding scenario, responses for both first year students and seniors were most frequently coded as categorical imperative, closely followed by utilitarianism. Both were also least frequently coded as altruism and virtue ethics. Responses to the fake social media scenario were most frequently coded for a categorical imperative and altruism for both samples and were least coded for justice as fairness in both samples. The time management scenario again saw alignment in the most frequent coding, with both first year and senior responses most frequently coded as altruism and utilitarianism. Virtue ethics was least frequently coded for first year students while both virtue ethics and justice as fairness were least frequent for seniors. Finally, looking at the underage alcohol use scenario, categorical imperative was coded most frequently for both samples. Justice as fairness was least frequent for first year students and virtue ethics was the second least frequent.
Both justice as fairness and virtue ethics were coded least frequently for seniors.
Across scenarios, a categorical imperative appears to have been most frequently coded when looking at responses from both first year and senior students. Justice as fairness and virtue ethics were the least frequently coded when looking at responses from
165 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY both first year and senior students. Overall, the coding for ethical principles of first year and senior responses aligns across the principles to a fairly high degree. In only two scenarios is there a notable degree of disparity in the coding. The coding for pragmatism within fake social media does not align and the coding for altruism within underage alcohol use does not align. Otherwise, the alignment across scenarios for each principle when looking at the responses of both first year and senior students is strikingly similar.
Comparison of Quantitative Data
Examining the quantitative evidence from pairwise comparisons of ratings presented in Chapter 4, a significant difference in the application of ethical principles was observed between first year and senior students in two of the five ethical scenarios: time management and underage alcohol use. Within these specific scenarios, first year students reported considering the ethical principles to a greater degree than seniors.
Comparing first year and senior ratings of specific ethical principles across all scenarios, first year students reported considering virtue ethics to a greater degree than did seniors.
Comparing the Patterns Using Both Qualitative and Quantitative Data
In looking at both the qualitative and quantitative data, there are areas where the application of ethical principles was more similar by first year students and seniors and areas where the application was more different. The most significant difference seen by comparing the qualitative and quantitative data is in virtue ethics. Across the board, both first year and senior students reported that they consider virtue ethics to a greater degree than what was observed in the qualitative data. In other words, while students report they consider the promotion of moral goodness for all to a greater degree than other principles, this was not observed through the coding process.
166 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
Another area in which there is divergence across both first year and senior responses in in utilitarianism, with reviewers coding more narrative responses as reflecting actions that consider the greater good, than were reflected in ratings of students who reported considering this approach it in their responses. At the same time students reported considering the promotion of moral goodness for all to a greater degree than the other principles across all the scenarios.
Use of a categorical imperative is one area that was similar across both data sets and across both samples, with very few areas of divergence between coded and reported responses. Comparison of the ranking scores indicate students, across year, have firm principles for some scenarios and less so for others. These firm principles are seen most strong in the scenarios regarding underage alcohol use and use of club funding.
Altruism is also an area that was similar in its application across both sets of data, with few areas of divergence between coded and reported response. This suggests that in some situations students consider the needs of the other person or group in their response before their own needs. Three of the scenarios in particular, fake social media, time management, and underage alcohol use, revealed similar coding and reported rankings across first year and senior student, with altruism applied to a higher degree in these scenarios that it was in the other two scenarios.
Research Question 3: Jesuit Identity and Ethical Decision-Making
The third research question desired to help the co-investigators better understand the extent to which the Jesuit identity of an academic institution reflects the ethical decision-making of its’ students, particularly in those who are new to the institution and those who are in their final semester. To respond to this question, data was examined by
167 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY class year to establish patterns that may exist. Qualitative and quantitative data were each reviewed then areas of alignment and divergence were ascertained.
The qualitative data of responses coded for Jesuit values by the internal and external reviewers and the quantitative data of reported responses to Likert-style questions provides an idea of what patterns might exist for first year students’ use of
Jesuit values in their ethical decision making. The two data sets, representing extracted
(coded narratives) and reported (ratings) responses, were used to explore patterns separately first, then these patterns of response were compared to identify where the two align and diverge. Data was reviewed by scenario and by ethical principle to understand the patterns that emerged from the data. The patterns of responses that emerged from these analyses are summarized below for each study population.
Patterns in First Year Responses
The following pattern of responses pertaining to the application of Jesuit values emerged from analysis of the qualitative and quantitative data collected from first year students in this study.
Cheating on an Exam. The qualitative data of the coding completed by the reviewers of the narrative responses indicates when students observe instances of someone cheating on an exam, first year students were significantly more likely to incorporate discernment into their responses than other Jesuit values, indicating a they considered options and alternatives in their decisions. The coded responses indicate first year students were least likely to incorporate Magis into their responses, though only slightly less so than reflection, solidarity and kinship, service rooted in justice and love, or Cura Personalis.
168 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
The quantitative data of reported responses indicates students reported incorporating solidarity and kinship and service rooted in justice and love to a greater degree than the other four values, suggesting their desire to do what they believe is right, standing with others through the good and the bad, or a desire to rectify the situation for the larger whole. First year students reported incorporating Cura Personalis and Magis to a lesser degree than the other values, and reported reflection and discernment to a moderate degree.
The qualitative and quantitative results suggest that first year students were not inclined toward incorporating the principles of Magis or Cura Personalis into their responses, as these values were not coded as frequently in the narrative responses and were reported to a lesser degree than the other principles. However, while reviewers coded responses as more likely to incorporate discernment into their responses, students reported considering solidarity and kinship and service rooted in justice and love to a greater degree than they did discernment.
Use of Club Funding. Qualitative data for this scenario indicates that first year students were most likely to incorporate solidarity and kinship, seeking to do what is right, standing with the other person through the good and the bad, when addressing issues of misappropriation of club funding. The coded data indicates first year students were least likely to incorporate reflection, Cura Personalis, or Magis into their responses.
The quantitative data indicates first year students reported considering service rooted in justice and love to a greater degree than others, desiring to rectify the situation for all through a lens of justice and love. The qualitative data also indicates consideration of Magis to a greater degree than most other principles, suggesting students desire to go
169 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY above and beyond in the actions. The quantitative results indicate that first year students reported considering Cura Personalis and reflection to a lesser degree than other values.
Together, the qualitative and quantitative results suggest Cura Personalis and reflection are not incorporated as significantly into responses to a situation of misappropriation of club funds. Magis was considered by first year students to a greater extent that was evident in the coded responses, a divergence in the data sets that suggests students reported going above and beyond in their responses in ways not evident in their narrative responses.
Fake Social Media. Review of the qualitative data for this scenario suggests students incorporated solidarity and kinship most often in their narrative responses, followed closely by the incorporation of service rooted in justice and love. This suggests that reviewers found evidence of students seeking to do what they believe is right and act in a way that rectifies the situation for the larger group. Coded responses indicate first year students were less likely to incorporate Magis into their responses. Cura Personalis and reflection were not evident in any of the coded responses.
Review of the quantitative data indicates students reported equally considering solidarity and kinship and service rooted in justice and love to a greater extent than the other Jesuit values, desiring to do what was right, standing with others through the good and bad, and take actions that will rectify the situation for the larger group. This was followed closely by reported consideration of Magis, a desire to go above and beyond in their responses. First year students reported consideration of reflection and Cura
Personalis to a lesser extent than the other values.
170 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
The pattern of responses from the qualitative and quantitative data indicates the narrative responses and reported ratings responses both indicate student’s incorporation of solidarity ad kinship and service rooted in Justice and love to a greater degree than the rest of the values in their responses. This suggests students want to do what is right, stand with others, and rectify the situation for all. Magis was reported to a greater extent than was evident in the coded data, suggesting students report an inclination to go above and beyond more so than reviewers found evidenced in the narrative responses. Cura
Personalis and reflection were both coded and reported to a lesser extent than the four other values.
Time Management. The qualitative data for this scenario indicates first year students were most likely to incorporate Magis into their responses, going above and beyond the norm in responding to a situation involving lack of time management on behalf of another student. This is followed closely by the incorporation of solidarity and kinship in the coded responses, a desire to do what is right and stand with others through good and bad. Reflection and discernment were not as evident in the coded responses, while service rooted in justice and love and Cura Personalis were moderately present in the codes for this scenario.
The quantitative data for this scenario indicates first year students reported consideration of service rooted in justice and love to a greater degree than all other values, suggesting students desire to rectify the situation for the greater whole in their response. Magis and solidarity and kinship were reported to a high degree in this scenario as well. Cura Personalis, discernment, and reflection were reported to a lesser degree than all other values, with reflection the least reported.
171 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
The qualitative and quantitative data together indicate a pattern in the responses.
Coded data and reported data both indicate Magis was evident in the narrative responses and was reported to a higher degree than other values, suggesting students are willing to go above and beyond in responses to this type of scenario. Solidarity and kinship was also highly reported and coded for in this scenario, while service rooted in justice and love was highly reported but only moderately coded for in the narrative responses.
Reflection was both least coded and least reported in this scenario.
Underage Alcohol Use. Qualitative data of coding of the narrative responses to this scenario indicate first year students were, by far, most likely to incorporate solidarity and kinship into their responses. This suggests students desired to do what they believed to be “right” and stand with others through good and bad. Service rooted in justice and love, Cura Personalis, and Magis were least coded in this scenario, with no evidence of these present in the narrative responses.
Quantitative data shows that students reported incorporating solidarity and kinship and service rooted in justice and love to a greater extent than the other values, though reported ratings for Cura Personalis and Magis were also high. The data indicates students desire to do what is right, rectify the situation, care for all involved, and go above and beyond in their responses. First year students reported considering discernment and reflection least in this scenario.
The qualitative and quantitative results both indicate a pattern of solidarity and kinship incorporated to a greater extent than other values. However, while service rooted in justice and love was also reported to a higher degree than other values, this was not
172 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY reflected in the coded responses. Additionally, while Magis and Cura Personalis were reported to a higher degree than other values, this was not evident in the coded responses.
Summary of First Year Students’ Application of Jesuit Values. Looking at the qualitative data across the scenarios at the Jesuit values, solidarity and kinship appeared more frequently as the most coded response, in three of the five scenarios, use of club funding, fake social media, and underage alcohol use. Discernment was most frequently coded on cheating on an exam, and Magis was most coded on time management.
Otherwise, Magis was the least coded value across the scenarios, followed by reflection
The quantitative data indicates solidarity and kinship and service rooted in justice and love most frequently appeared as the values first year students reported considering to a greater degree than others. Service rooted in justice and love was reported as considered to a greater extent in all five scenarios, and solidarity and kinship in three of the five scenarios, cheating on an exam, fake social media, and underage alcohol use.
Reflection was least reported for fake social media and time management and Cura
Personalis were least reported for cheating on an exam and club funding. Discernment was least reported for one scenario, alcohol use.
The pattern indicated by the qualitative and quantitative suggests solidarity and kinship is the value most evident in the coded narrative responses and reported ratings.
Cura Personalis, Magis, and reflection were generally less coded and less reported across the scenarios.
173 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
Patterns in Senior Responses
The following pattern of responses pertaining to the application of Jesuit Values emerged from analysis of the qualitative and quantitative data collected from senior students in this study.
Cheating on an Exam. In reviewing the coding of narrative responses for cheating on an exam, seniors were significantly more likely to incorporate discernment into their responses than any of the other values, indicating their decisions were grounded in a consideration of options and alternatives, or a clear principles statement. The coded data indicates seniors were least likely to incorporate Magis and Cura Personalis into their responses.
The quantitative data indicates seniors reported incorporating solidarity and kinship into their responses to a greater degree than the other values, suggesting a desire to do what they believe is right, standing with others through good and bad. Service rooted in justice and love was also reported to a higher extent than most values, indicating seniors desire to rectify the situation for the larger whole. Seniors reported considering Cura Personalis and Magis to a lesser degree than the other values.
These results indicate both narrative responses and reported responses suggest seniors are not considering Cura Personalis or Magis in their responses to a situation in which they observe someone cheating on an exam. However, while discernment evident in the coded responses more so than other values, it was not reported to the same degree.
Similarly, while solidarity and kinship was reported to a greater extent than the other values, this was not reflected to the same degree the coded data.
174 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
Use of Club Funding. The qualitative data for this scenario suggests that seniors were most likely to incorporate service rooted in justice and love or discernment into their responses, seeking to rectify the situation for the large whole, in this case the club, or considering principled alternatives when responding. The coded data indicates seniors were least likely to incorporate Cura Personalis and reflection into their responses.
Solidarity and kinship and Magis were evident to a moderate degree in the coded responses.
Quantitative data indicates seniors reported consideration of service rooted in justice and love to a much greater extent than the other five values, showing their desire to rectify the situation for the larger group, in this case, the club. The data indicates seniors reported considering Cura Personalis to a lesser extent than the other values, while discernment, reflection, and Magis were all reported to a moderate degree of consideration.
The pattern observed in the qualitative and quantitative data indicates seniors are more likely to incorporate service rooted as justice and love into their responses than any of the other values. This suggests seniors have a desire to take actions in order to rectify the situation of misappropriated club funding for the greater whole, looking out for the good of their club. In both data sets, Cura Personalis was both less evident in narrative responses and less reported in ratings than other values.
Fake Social Media. Reviewing the qualitative data for this scenario suggests students were most likely to incorporate solidarity and kinship into their decision-making, though both service rooted in justice and love and discernment were also frequently seen in the coding for this scenario. This indicates students desired to take an approach to their
175 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY response that incorporates a desire to stand with others through good and bad, doing what is right; rectify the situation for the greater whole; and consider the alternatives, coming to a principled decision. Magis, on the other hand, was the least likely to be incorporated, as seen through the coded narrative responses for this scenario.
The quantitative data suggests seniors reported considering service rooted in justice and love to a much greater extent than all other values, signifying a desire to respond in a way that rectifies the situations for the greater whole. Solidarity and kinship and Cura Personalis were reported to a higher degree than other values, discernment was reported to a moderate degree, and Magis and reflection were reported least in responses to this scenario.
The alignment of the qualitative and quantitative data suggests the coded narrative responses and the reported responses indicate seniors incorporate solidarity and kinship and service rooted in justice and love to a greater extent than other values. This suggests students desire to do what is right in the situation ad rectify it for the greater whole. Both data sets also suggest students do not incorporate Magis as frequently in responses to this type of situation.
Time Management. The coded narrative responses for this scenario suggest seniors were more likely to incorporate service rooted in justice and love into their decision-making, seeking to rectify the situation for all. Solidarity and kinship and Cura
Personalis were also more evident in the narrative responses than other values. The coded data indicated discernment was least likely to be incorporated by seniors into decision- making regarding this scenario.
176 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
The quantitative data indicates seniors report considering solidarity and kinship in their responses to a slightly greater degree than the other values, seeking to do what is right and stand by others through good and bad. Service rooted in justice and love was also reported to a greater degree than other values, suggesting a desire of the seniors to rectify the situation for the greater whole. Cura Personalis was reported least considered in responding to this scenario. Reflection and discernment were also less likely to be considered than the rest of the values, as reported by the seniors.
A pattern in the qualitative and quantitative data aligns in the coding and reporting of solidarity and kinship and service rooted in justice and love, both of which were to a greater extent than other values. This indicates students desire to do what is right, stand with others through good and bad, and rectify the situation for the larger group. Cura Personalis was coded in the narrative responses more frequently than it was reported in this scenario. Discernment was not evident in the narrative responses and was not reported to a great degree in the ratings.
Underage Alcohol Use. Qualitative data for this scenario indicates solidarity and kinship was coded to a much greater extent than any of the other values when seniors were presented with a situation of underage alcohol mis-use. This indicates seniors’ desire to do what was right and stand with the other person through good and bad.
Service rooted in justice and love, Cura Personalis, and Magis were the least likely to be incorporated, as none of these values were evident in the coded narrative responses.
Quantitative data indicates seniors reported consideration of service rooted in justice and love and solidarity and kinship to a greater degree than the other four values, suggesting their desire to take action to rectify the situation and do what they believed to
177 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY be right, standing with the other person through good and bad. Cura Personalis and discernment were considered to a lesser degree than the other values, while Magis and reflection were considered to a moderate degree.
The pattern suggested by the qualitative and quantitative data indicates solidarity and kinship was both coded in the narrative responses and reported in the ratings to a greater extent than other values. Cura Personalis was not evident in the coded responses and was reported to a lesser degree than all other values in the reported responses.
However, in this scenario, seniors reported consideration of service rooted in justice and love to a much greater extent than was evident in the coded narrative responses.
Summary of Senior Students’ Application of Jesuit Values. Looking across the scenarios at the Jesuit values, solidarity and kinship and service rooted in justice and love were more evident in the coded responses than the rest of the values. Solidarity and kinship was most frequently coded for fake social media and underage alcohol use, but was coded at a higher level than most on the rest of the scenarios. Service rooted in just and love was most frequently coded for club funding and time management, and coded at a higher level than most for fake social media than most. Magis and Cura Personalis were the least coded values across the scenarios when reviewing the coded narrative responses.
The quantitative data across scenarios suggests students reported consideration of solidarity and kinship and service rooted in justice and love to a greater degree than any of the other values, in some combination of the top two most reported on all scenarios.
Cura Personalis was the least reported value across the scenarios when reviewing the reported ratings. All other values were reported to varying moderate degrees across the scenarios.
178 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
Together, the pattern suggested by these data sets indicates solidarity and kinship and service rooted in justice and love are the two values most evident in both the coding of the narrative responses and the reported ratings when looking across all five scenarios.
The pattern suggests Cura Personalis is the least evident across all five scenarios in both the coding of the narrative responses and the reported ratings.
Summary of First Year and Senior Responses to Jesuit Values
Some patterns were evident in both the qualitative and quantitative data identifying the Jesuit values applied by first year and senior students to the five hypothetical scenarios posed to them in this study. Where there was alignment in these data, first year students were found to favor solidarity and kinship in four of the five scenarios. Seniors were found to favor solidarity and kinship and service rooted in justice and love in three of the five scenarios each. First year students did not tend to incorporate Cura Personalis, Magis, and reflection in their responses, as evidenced by both the qualitative and quantitative data. Senior students did not incorporate Cura
Personalis to the same degree, also as evidenced by both data sets. Discernment and reflection varied across the scenarios for both groups, used more frequently for some scenarios and less so for others.
Research Question 4: Degree of Integration of Jesuit Values into
Ethical Decision-Making
The final research question sought to determine if first year and senior students who employed the same approach to ethical decision-making integrated Jesuit values into their reasoning to differing degrees. That is, the co-investigators were seeking to understand the difference in how first year students and senior students who use the same
179 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY form of ethical decision-making employ the Jesuit values. Qualitative and quantitative responses were reviewed then compared to better understand the results pertaining to this question.
Comparison of Qualitative Data
The qualitative data can be compared to better understand how students who use the same approach to ethical decision-making integrate the Jesuit values in their responses. Tables 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 in Chapter 4 are helpful in understanding how those responses coded using the same ethical principle are coded for Jesuit values.
Looking at these, when a response was coded as utilitarianism, solidarity and kinship or service rooted in justice and love were the most frequently coded Jesuit values. First year students have a slight preference for solidarity and kinship while seniors tend to favor service rooted in justice and love. When coded as using a categorical imperative, solidarity and kinship was the most frequently coded response, largely due to the number of responses for both first year and senior students coded as such for the underage alcohol use scenario. Seniors also tend to incorporate service rooted in justice and love and discernment into their responses that are also coded for a categorical imperative.
Responses coded as justice as fairness, though not many in number, mostly see overlap with solidarity and kinship and service rooted in justice and love, though discernment is preferred in the scenario regarding cheating on an exam. When a response was coded as pragmatism, discernment and solidarity and kinship were the most coded Jesuit values.
Both first year and senior students show a slight lean towards discernment for responses coded using pragmatism. Responses coded as altruism saw the most overlap with the incorporation of solidarity and kinship, particularly for the scenarios fake social media,
180 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY time management, and underage alcohol use. Fake social media also saw overlap between altruism and reflection and altruism and service rooted in justice and love. Time management saw overlap between altruism and service rooted in justice and love and altruism and Cura Personalis. Finally, responses coded with virtue ethics were most likely to also be coded as solidarity and kinship, though there was very little overlap for this ethical perspective, so it is difficult to draw conclusions.
Comparison of Quantitative Data
The pairwise comparisons reported in Chapter 4 indicate a significant difference in how first year and senior students applied the Jesuit values to cheating on an exam, underage alcohol use, and Cura Personalis. These quantitative results indicate that within the cheating on an exam and underage alcohol use scenarios, first year students reported considering the Jesuit values to a greater degree than the seniors. The results also indicate that across the scenarios, first year students reported considering Cura Personalis to a greater degree than did the seniors.
In reviewing the comparison of mean responses to the Likert-style questions, both first year and senior students reported considering service rooted in justice and love to a greater degree than the other Jesuit values in three of the scenarios, use of club funding, fake social media, and underage alcohol use. Solidarity and kinship saw near agreement in the extent to which students reported considering it in their responses, with it falling as most considered or second most considered for all of the scenarios. Reflection and discernment saw similarly low reporting of their consideration in all of the scenarios.
181 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
Conclusions
Based on the results of this study summarized above, certain conclusions can be drawn regarding the research questions, with respect to the application of both ethical principles and Jesuit values by undergraduate students.
Application of Ethical Principles
The first research question explored patterns in the ethical decision-making of first year and senior students. Looking at the responses of first year students, while there was no one ethical principle that was both frequently coded and reported to a greater degree than the other principle. Nevertheless, patterns did emerge in the data for both student samples, that permit preliminary conclusions to be drawn about the populations represented in the study. First year students’ narrative responses indicate they are most frequently inclined toward a categorical imperative in their ethical decision-making, basing their actions on what they believe is right, no matter the cost. This was particularly the case when the scenario had to do with the actions of others and how those actions impacted the larger whole (i.e. cheating on an exam, club funding, underage alcohol use).
These students’ reported considerations of ethical principles, however, inclined towards a virtue ethics approach when making ethical decisions, i.e. seeking the moral goodness of all and taking actions they believe make them virtuous. This finding suggests that while first year students see themselves acting to heighten their moral virtue, that self- perception does not align with the coding of the behaviors reflected in their narrative responses. In fact, virtue ethics was one of the least frequently coded principles for first year students. This discrepancy could potentially indicate students’ desire to seek to impress the researchers in their ratings, answering the Likert-style questions in a way
182 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY they believe is most desirable. Results of this study also point to justice as fairness as both the least coded and least reported principle applied by first year student, reflecting minimal emphasis in their ethical decision making to seek equal rights and opportunities for all with an understanding that the sacrifices of some are not justified in order to advantage others.
The narrative responses of the seniors in this study also indicated an inclination towards a categorical imperative in their ethical decision-making, particularly when the actions of another person impacted the larger whole (i.e. club funding, fake social media), and a clear delineation of right and wrong could be deduced (i.e. fake social media, underage alcohol use). Altruism was also coded more frequently and to a higher degree than other principles, aligning with the reported data of the consideration of altruism to a greater degree than most other principles. This indicates seniors have a desire to do what benefits others without concern for self. At the same time, the reported actions of the seniors indicate a greater consideration of virtue ethics than was observed in the narrative responses. This suggests students may believe their actions to be more grounded in moral goodness than they actually are, though this could be a result of seniors wanting to provide an answer that impresses the researchers and is believed to be most desirable.
Justice as fairness as a principle was neither coded for in the narrative responses nor reported to a great degree, pointing to students not prioritizing the equal rights and opportunities for all in their responses.
When comparing the results, both first year students and seniors tended to utilize a categorical imperative in their narrative responses when clear rules and principles are at play in the scenario. This was the case in the scenarios use of club funding, fake social
183 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY media, and underage alcohol use, scenarios in which students were clear to indicate what they believed to be the right and wrong action in their rationale. These are also all situations in which someone else is the primary player, and they can either choose to step in or not, suggesting that when students do not feel personally implicated by the results, they may be more willing to take a principled stand.
Similarly, both first year and senior students reported considering virtue ethics to a much greater degree than was seen in the coding of the narrative responses, where overall, virtue ethics was not observed in many responses. Students either see themselves as morally good and virtuous in a way they did not exhibit in their responses, or, they were seeking to provide what they believed to be the most desirable answer to researchers. Further research would be needed to clarity these findings.
The pairwise comparisons in Chapter 4 suggest that first year students considered all ethical principle in their decision making to a significantly greater degree than did seniors for the scenarios relating to use of club funding and underage alcohol use.
However, this quantitative result does not necessarily align with the qualitative data, though the latter may reflect a halo effect, with first year students seeking to provide answers that they believe to be most desirable in order to impress the researchers. In considering this possible explanation for these discrepant results, it is important to note there was no evidence to suggest a halo effect relative to the ratings of ethical principles other than virtue ethics. It is impossible to know with confidence the underlying cause of these discrepant results based on the results of this study alone. Further research would be required to clarify these findings.
184 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
Applying Jesuit Values
Conclusions can also be drawn about the extent to which first year students and seniors reflect each of the Jesuit values in responding to specific situations, whether the same or different scenarios. There was no one particular Jesuit value reflected equally across the board in responding to the hypothetical scenarios, as with the ethical principles. Rather, the incorporation of Jesuit values was much more dependent on the specifics of each scenario. Overall, it is fair to state that the results of this study indicate an inclination toward incorporating certain values more so than others. First year students’ narrative responses were most frequently coded for solidarity and kinship, while their reported responses suggest an inclination toward either solidarity and kinship or service rooted in justice and love. This suggests that students desire to stand with others to do the right thing, through good times and bad, as was supported by both the narrative responses and reported responses. The reported responses also indicate students desire to best serve others, promoting the well-being of others, particularly those who suffer injustices. These results can also support a conclusion that reflection is not playing an active a role in the ethical decision-making of first year students, as it was both observed and reported to a lesser degree than other values.
Similarly, there was no one particular Jesuit value reflected in the narrative responses of senior students across all ethical scenarios. As with the first year students, the application of Jesuit values by seniors appeared to be very much dependent on the scenario. Like the first year students, seniors were also inclined towards incorporating solidarity and kinship and service rooted in justice and love into their responses, both when narrating a course of action and when rating the degree to which they considered
185 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY these values in those responses. This suggests that seniors also chose to both stand for and with the other person or people through good times and bad, doing the right thing, and to serve others, promoting the well-being of all, particularly those who suffer injustice. The application of these two values suggests that in all of the scenarios, senior students found it important to figure out the right thing to do that would rectify the situation for all involved in a way that promotes justice and love.
When comparing the results across both first year and senior responses to understand the extent to which first year and senior students reflect similar and different
Jesuit values in their responses, the results clearly suggests that students incorporate solidarity and kinship and service rooted in justice and love to a greater degree in their responses. This was reflected in both reported and coded data. As these results suggest students consider remedying perceived injustices in their responses even though the ethical principles data suggests they do not consider justice as fairness to a great degree in their responses.
The pairwise comparisons in Chapter 4 suggest that for certain scenarios, first year students considered the Jesuit values to a statistically significantly greater degree than seniors with regards to the cheating on an exam and underage alcohol use scenarios.
Because the self-reported ratings differed from the coded narrative responses for the same students, this could again suggest a halo effect, which would require additional research to clarify. In contrast, the coded results for two of the scenarios, cheating on an exam and use of club funding, saw a significantly higher number of responses not coded for a Jesuit value in first year students than in seniors, suggesting the possibility that, at least for those two scenarios, seniors applied the Jesuit values to a greater degree than did the first
186 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY year students. The overall number of scenarios not coded for a Jesuit value in first year responses as compared to senior responses could also suggest seniors have a better understanding of the values or better ability to articulate them as a natural part of responding to an ethical dilemma. However, these results of the qualitative data in this study must be viewed with some caution because they were not corroborated by the qualitative data.
Finally, given that there was more agreement in how first year students and seniors applied the values than there was divergence, particularly in terms of solidarity and kinship and service rooted in justice and love, results of this study suggest that Jesuit values may represent a subset of more universal ideals represented broadly in American society or mid-Western communities. Further study would be needed to fully explore whether this holds true as it relates to the incorporation of Jesuit values into ethical decision making in non-Jesuit organizations.
Limitations
Results of this study need to be considered in light of several acknowledged design limitations that restrict the internal and external validity of the research. The first limitation was the fact that the study took place at only one institution, which limits the generalizability of the results. Additionally, the study was specific to a Jesuit institution, so results cannot be generalized beyond that scope.
The second limitation has to do with the population samples. The return rate of the respondents for this exploratory study was lower than required for producing generalizable knowledge, but sufficient for computing inferential statistics pertaining to the study institution. As an exploratory study with an instrument that required an
187 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY involved level of written responses, the co-investigators anticipated a lower return rate than a simple survey would have produced. Nevertheless, this small return rate does make it difficult to determine if the respondents were truly representative of the larger population, although the limited demographic data collected suggest that at least in some ways they were. Additionally, the small sample of both first year and senior students can be considered a convenience sample due to the nature of the study taking place at the institution at which both co-investigators are employed. Taken together, these factors affecting the internal validity of the study dictate that caution be exercised when drawing conclusions from the results.
The external validity of results too, is limited by the small number of respondents, thus restricting the generalizability of findings beyond the scope of the study. The small sample size also impacted the skewness of the quantitative results, and the failure to correct for this using typical data transformation made it impossible to determine if the observed skew represents a population norm or an anomaly in the data due to the small sample. Replicating this study with a larger sample would be the only way to confirm results obtained in this study.
A third limitation pertaining to the population samples, has to do with prior knowledge of ethical principles. While the study controlled for influence of Jesuit education by excluding any participant who attended a Jesuit high school, there were no controls in place for previous experience or exposure to ethical principles, education, or dilemmas through course work or co-curricular activities. We also cannot rule out the fact that maturation over four years of college may have included social pressures to reject conventional ethical norms and values.
188 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
A fourth limitation pertains to the conceptual framework adopted for this study.
Only six ethical principles were included in the conceptual framework in order to provide a manageable scope for the study. A wider range of ethical decision-making principles was beyond the scope of the study, creating the possibility that ethical perspectives not coded for may have been represented in participants’ responses. One of the expert reviewers made note of this possibility in the feedback provided to the co-investigators, indicating this reviewer considered the coding process to be too prescriptive, providing too many constraints and not allowing a broader range of ethical principles to be coded.
Further, the Jesuit values used in the study were specific to the study institution. While they are similar to the Jesuit values espoused at other Jesuit institutions, and it can be argued that, these six values incorporate much of what is considered principles of being
Jesuit, the list is not exhaustive. This makes it hard to universalize the results of the study beyond the study institution, as the values would need to be generalized in order the expand the scope of the study.
The fifth limitation relates to the coding of the ethical principles and Jesuit values.
Personal values and ethical principles are implicit, not something that a person will necessarily identify specifically in one way or another, which can present a challenge when using a constrained theoretical coding process, as this study did. The use of open coding, in which themes are drawn from responses, as opposed to the constrained process used in this study, in which responses are fit to themes, may have allowed for more flexibility and nuances in the process, but this approach would have required a much larger sample size and was beyond the scope of this initial exploratory study, in which theoretical coding provided a logical place to begin. Adding to the challenge, the
189 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY reviewers, both initial and expert, represent a variety of experience, some lay with a practical expertise in a particular area and some academic with an academic/research expertise in a particular area. This posed differences in interpretation and language used in coding at times, which meant the co-investigators (who served as the initial reviewers) sometimes had to interpret comments from the external reviewers who were not social scientists.
A final limitation concerns the actual instrumentation used to complete the study.
The instrument was piloted by a small group of involved junior students. This pilot provided feedback to the co-investigators as to whether or not the instrument would provide sufficient data to complete the study. However, while the instrument was piloted, it was not normed, which can have impacted its reliability. If the study were to be replicated on a larger scale, this would be a next step in order to increase the reliability of results. Additionally, the instrument only provided brief written narrative responses to the hypothetical scenarios, with responses not further probed through interviews, and there is no way to know whether the first year students and seniors interpreted the questions on the instrument similarly or not.
Implications
Understanding the limitations of the study, a number of implications can be inferred for the higher education community. Previous research shows that the majority of college and university mission statements point, in some way, to the moral (ethical) development of students, even if it is done so in an implicit rather than explicit manner
(King & Mayhew, 2002). The goal of colleges and universities is to prepare students for the next stage of life, whether it be additional study or entering the working world, and in
190 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY doing so, prepare students to take on leadership roles and make decisions that will impact the lives of others (King & Mayhew, 2002). Given this, it is important to ensure that colleges and universities are doing what it is they say they are doing, educating students morally and ethically, and the implications of this study can help to understand if this is, in fact, the case.
The results of the study do not clearly delineate much of a difference between the way in which first year and senior students generally apply the ethical principles to the scenarios. While some differences were noted based on scenario, overall, two significant patterns applied to both samples. First, that students reported using virtue ethics to a greater degree than was observed in their responses and second, that neither sample was observed or reported using justice as fairness to a great extent in responses. Other commonalities exist in how students respond to the same scenario, with use of a categorical imperative the most frequently coded principle for both first year and senior students, and first year and senior students similarly responding to specific scenarios.
This implies that though seniors have been at the institution longer, it does not appear to have necessarily impacted the ways in which they are applying the ethical principles.
Similarly, there was not much observable difference in the way in which seniors and first year students generally applying the Jesuit values to their ethical decision- making. While some specific differences apply, overall, both groups incorporated the same two values, solidarity and kinship and service rooted in justice and love, to a greater degree than other values, as seen in both the qualitative and quantitative data. Because of the number of responses in which no Jesuit value was observed in the first year qualitative data, one could infer that seniors may have a better understanding across the
191 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY board of the Jesuit values. However, the quantitative data suggest that these values may be more universal in nature, as first year students reported applying the Jesuit values to a greater degree than seniors for certain scenarios and values.
This all suggests there is room to grow in the ethical and values-based development of undergraduate students. Additionally, results provide preliminary evidence that perhaps the impetus for moral and ethical growth among undergraduates should not fall entirely on curricular requirements as the scenarios presented asked students to respond to hypothetical ethical dilemmas both inside and outside of the classroom. Given what we know of the impact of student involvement on college students, the greater the involvement, the greater the opportunity for growth (Astin,
1984), and the fact that we know attending college is directly linked to moral (ethical) development (Mayhew, et al, 2016), opportunities exist to increase the ways in which a focus is placed on how students understand ethics and their role in making ethical decisions. That is, for educators, there may be opportunities to infuse ethical education into all aspects of the work in ways that are both implicit and explicit. We cannot expect students to develop over their time at the institution if we do not provide opportunities for growth. While not a requirement of the undergraduate curriculum, student affairs practitioners can take the opportunity to infuse ethical conversations into trainings for leadership roles and various leadership or related programming. This could provide a connection to what students are hopefully learning in their required ethics related courses and help them to understand and apply it in their lives. Specific to the study institution, continuing to incorporate the Jesuit values into work with students is important in helping
192 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY students better understand how these values can be incorporated and articulated into their decisions.
While it is premature for higher education administrators to conclude that students are not sufficiently developing with respect to their ethical and values-based decision making, results of this study suggest a more intentional approach may be needed to ensure all students experience opportunities to grow in these areas during their time at the university. Such programming might include both implicit exposure and explicit discussion of situations requiring ethical and moral judgment. However, more research that what has been reported here would be needed to determine what, if any effect such intentional opportunities might have on students’ growth in their understanding of the ethical implications of their actions and decisions.
Opportunities for Future Research
As with any study, opportunities exist for future research to take place on this topic, as this is only the beginning of better understanding this topic. In order to extend the generalizability of this study, the first opportunity for future research exists in expanding the study to other Jesuit institutions, creating a larger sample size and cross- institutional sample. In order to do so, however, the Jesuit values used in this particular study would have to be universalized and normed for use at other Jesuit institutions.
While many are similar, there are some specific to each institution, so it would be pertinent to norm those values, creating a universal set of values for use in the study.
Doing this could provide a large enough sample size that the quantitative results would meet the tests of normality, increasing the reliability of the overall study. It could also
193 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY provide for results more generalizable to a larger population and more impactful on Jesuit higher education as a whole.
Along similar lines, another potential for future research is a comparison study between Jesuit and non-religiously affiliated institutions, to better understand how these students understand and apply values to their ethical decision-making. This study could also have the potential of providing further insight into whether or not students at a Jesuit institution are more impacted in values education than their counterparts at non- religiously affiliated institutions. For instance, we cannot conclude from the results of this study anything about the causes underlying students’ application of ethical principles and
Jesuit values, only that the differing patterns among these populations are not that great, and there do not appear to be dramatic changes during the college experience. Similarly, no data were collected to inform whether students do deepen their ethical decision making during the years they are enrolled as undergraduates, but not due to any direct influence of the academic environment. Further ways to expand this study in similar directions would be a comparative study of the influence of major and/or influence of college (e.g. school of business, arts and sciences, etc.) on the results of this type of study. Previous research shows that while most colleges and universities have ethics as part of their educational mission, schools of business are most likely to require students to take ethics courses (Craft, 2013; King & Mayhew, 2002). It would be intriguing to explore whether this has an impact on the results of this study. Expanding the research to explore how different types of involvement and engagement on campus impact ethical decision-making is also an opportunity for future research. Given what is known about the impact of involvement on college student development, correlating whether certain
194 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY types of involvement impact ethical decision-making to differing degrees would provide for an interesting extension of this research.
There is also space in further research to explore an explanation of the patterns seen in this study, looking to better understand what explains the patterns. Expanding on the research in this way through a study that includes interviews with participants to explore their narrative responses is one way this could be done. Expanding on the study could also potentially work to explain the significance difference found in the pairwise comparisons that indicate first year students report considering ethical principles and
Jesuit values on certain scenarios to a greater degree than seniors. Exploring whether this is due to a halo effect, of first year students seeking to look good in the eyes of the researcher, or another reason would serve to strengthen the research.
Finally, future research opportunities exist to conduct a longitudinal study of a similar nature, following one cohort of students across their four years of study at an institution. This level of research would allow researchers to observe the maturation, growth, and development of students over time, specifically in regard to development of students’ ethical decision-making. It could also serve to provide the opportunity for researchers to determine which co-curricular experiences and academic courses may have a more significant impact on students’ ethical development.
195 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
References
Alexander, C.S. & Becker, H.J. (1978). The use of vignettes in survey research. Public
Opinion Quarterly, 42(1), 93-104.
Anderson, E. (2014). Dewey’s Moral Philosophy. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu
Astin, A.W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education.
Journal of College Student Development, 25(4), 297-308.
Association of Jesuit Colleges & Universities. (2017). Jesuit higher education: Integrating
a commitment to scholarship, faith, and social justice. Retrieved from
http://www.ajcunet.edu/history/
Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities. (2012). Some characteristics of Jesuit
colleges and universities: A self-evaluation instrument. Washington, D.C.
Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities. (2010). The Jesuit, Catholic mission of
U.S. Jesuit colleges and universities. Washington, D.C.
Barnett, T., Bass, K., Brown, G., & Hebert, F.J. (1998). Ethical ideology and the ethical
judgments of marketing professionals. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(7), 715-723.
Bernardi, R.A. & Murphy, J.C. (2011). Does education influence ethical decisions? An
international study. Journal of Academic Ethics, 9(3), 253-256.
Biggs, D.A. & Barnett, R. (1981). Moral judgment development of college students.
Research in Higher Education, 14(2), 91-102.
Byron, W.J. (1998). Ten building blocks of Catholic social teaching. America: The Jesuit
Review. Retrieved from https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/1998/10/31/ten-
building-blocks-catholic-social-teaching
196 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
Bush, V.D., Smith, R.K., & Bush, A.J. (2013). Ethical dilemmas and emergent values
encountered by working college students: Implications for marketing educations.
Journal of Marketing Education, 35(2), 107-118.
Cardinal, R.N. & Aitken, M.R.F. (2006). ANOVA for the behavioural sciences
researcher. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Center for Mission & Identity. (2013). Lighting the way for student leaders. Cincinnati,
OH.
Center for Mission & Identity. (2017a). Proposed Xavier University mission statement.
Retrieved from http://www.xavier.edu/mission-identity/heritage-tradition/More-
on-the-Mission-Statement.cfm
Center for Mission & Identity. (2017b). Xavier’s mission statement review. Retrieved
from http://www.xavier.edu/mission-identity/heritage-tradition/Xaviers-Mission-
Statement-Review.cfm
Center for Mission & Identity. (2017c.) Xavier’s values. Retrieved from
http://www.xavier.edu/mission-identity/heritage-tradition/Xaviers-Values.cfm
Center for Mission & Identity. (2017d.) Jesuit a to z. Retrieved from
https://www.xavier.edu/jesuitresource/jesuit-a-z/
Center for Mission & Identity. (2017e.) Vision and mission statement of Xavier
University. Retrieved from https://www.xavier.edu/mission-identity/heritage-
tradition/Xaviers-Mission-Statement1.cfm
Cholbi, M. (2016). Understanding Kant’s Ethics. United Kingdom: Cambridge
University Press.
197 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
Craft, J.L. (2013). A review of the empirical ethical decision-making literature: 2004-
2011. Journal of Business Ethics, 117(2), 221-259.
Core Curriculum. (2018). 2017-2018 Goa schedule. Retrieved from:
https://www.xavier.edu/core/Goa-Schedule.cfm
Core Curriculum. (2018). For students: Core classes. Retrieved from:
https://www.xavier.edu/core/core-classes.cfm
Cottone, R.R. & Claus, R.E. (2000). Ethical decision-making models: A review of the
literature. Journal of Counseling & Development, 78(3), 275-283.
Course Catalogue. (2018). Undergraduate core curriculum. Retrieved from:
http://catalog.xavier.edu/preview_program.php?catoid=24&poid=8101
Creighton University. (2018). What is a Jesuit education? Retrieved from
https://www.creighton.edu/about/what-jesuit-education
Currie, C.L. (2011). Pursuing Jesuit, Catholic identity and mission and U.S. Jesuit
colleges and universities. Catholic Education: A Journal of Inquiry and Practice,
14(3), 346-357.
Curzer, H.J. (2014). Tweaking the four-component model. Journal of Moral Education,
43(1), 104-123.
DeGeorge, R.T. (2010). Business ethics (7th edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Dion, M. (2012). Are ethical theories relevant for ethical leadership? Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, 33(1), 4-24.
198 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
Ex Corde Ecclesiae. (1990). Retreived from http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-
ii/en/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_15081990_ex-corde-
ecclesiae.html
Fesmire, S. (2013). John Dewey and moral imagination: Pragmatism in ethics.
Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Finch, J. (1987). Research note: The vignette technique in survey research. Sociology,
21(1), 105-114.
Ford, R.C. & Richardson, W.D. (1994). Ethical decision making: A review of empirical
literature. Journal of Business Ethics, 13(3), 205-221.
Forsyth, D.R. (1980). A taxonomy of ethical ideologies. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 39(1), 175-184.
Foubert, J.D. & Grainger, L.U. (2006). Effects of involvement in clubs and organizations
on the psychosocial development of first-year and senior college students. NASPA
Journal, 43(1), 166-182.
Fritzsche, D.J. & Becker, H. (1984). Linking management behavior to ethical philosophy:
An empirical investigation. Academy of Management Journal, 27(1), 166-175.
Graham, G. (2004). Eight theories of ethics. New York: Routledge.
Hair, J.F., Hult, G.TM., Ringle, C.M., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on partial least
squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). 2nd Ed. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Harrington, S.J. (1997). A test of a person-issue contingent model of ethical decision
making in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 16(4), 363-375.
199 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
Husted, B.W. & Allen, D.B. (2008). Toward a model of cross-cultural business ethics:
The impact of individualism and collectivism on the ethical decision-making
process. Journal of Business Ethics, 82(2), 293-305.
Heyler, S.G., Achilles, A.A., Walker, A.G., & Collier, D.Y. (2016). A qualitative study
investigating the ethical decision making process: A proposed model. The
Leadership Quarterly, 27(5), 788-801.
Johnson, C.E. (2018). Meeting the ethical challenges of leadership: Casting light or
shadow (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Johnson, R. & Cureton, A. (2016). Kant’s moral philosophy. In The Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu
Jones, C.E. & Watt, J.D. (1999). Psychosocial development and moral orientation among
traditional-aged college students. Journal of College Student Development, 40(2),
125-131.
Jones, K.J., & Liu, C.A. (2015). Ethical decision making: A model demonstrating
collectivism and individualism decision influences. Academy of Business
Research Journal, 3, 75-83.
Jones, T.M. (1991). Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An issue-
contingent model. Academy of Management Review, 16(2), 366-395.
Joseph, J., Berry, K., & Deshpande, S.P. (2010). Factors that impact the ethical behavior
of college students. Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 3(5), 27-34.
Jung, I (2009). Ethical judgments and behaviors: Applying a multidimensional ethics
scale to measuring ICT ethics of college students. Computers & Education, 53(3),
940-949.
200 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
King, P.M. & Mayhew, M.J. (2002). Moral judgement development in higher education:
Insights from the Defining Issues Test. Journal of Moral Education, 31(3), 247-
270.
Knotts, T.L., Lopez, T.B., & Mesak, H.I. (2000). Ethical judgments of college students:
An empirical analysis. Journal of Education for Business, 75(3), 158-163.
Kolvenbach, P. (1989). Themes of Jesuit higher education. Retrieved from
http://academic.regis.edu/ghodne/Orientation/themes.pdf.
Kraut, R. Altruism. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from
https://plato.stanford.edu
Laerd Statistics. (2018a). ANOVA with repeated measures using SPSS statistics.
Retrieved from https://statistics.laerd.com/spss-tutorials/one-way-anova-repeated-
measures-using-spss-statistics.php
Laerd Statistics. (2018b). Repeated measures ANOVA. Retrieved from
https://statistics.laerd.com/statistical-guides/repeated-measures-anova-statistical-
guide.php
Laerd Statistics. (2018c). Bonferroni Correction. Retrieved from
http://www.statisticssolutions.com/bonferroni-correction/
LaBelle, J. & Kendall, D. (2016). Characteristics of Jesuit colleges and universities in the
United States: A reciprocal interdependence analysis. Journal of Catholic
Education, 19(3), 264-289.
Libby, B. & Agnello, V. (2000). Ethical decision making and the law. Journal of
Business Ethics, 26(3), 223-232.
201 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
Loe, T.W., Ferrell, L., & Mansfield, P. (2000). A review of empirical studies assessing
ethical decision-making in business. Journal of Business Ethics, 25(3), 185-204.
Marketing and Communications. (2017). Brand pillars. Retrieved from
https://www.xavier.edu/brand/platform.cfm
Mayhew, M.J. & King, P. (2008). How curricular content and pedagogical strategies
affect moral reasoning development in college students. Journal of Moral
Education, 37(1), 17-40.
Mayhew, M.J., Rockenbach, A.N., Bowman, N.A., Seifert, T.A., Wolniak, G.C.,
Pascarella, E.T., & Terenzini, P.T. (2016). How college affects students: 21st
century evidence that higher education works (vol. 3). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Mayhew, M.J., Seifert, T.A., and Pascarella, E.T. (2012). How the first year of college
influences moral reasoning development for students in moral consolidation and
moral transition. Journal of College Student Development, 53(1), 19-40.
Mill, J.S. (1861). Utilitarianism [Ebook version]. Retrieved from ebscohost.com.
Mladenovic, R., Martinov-Bennie, N., & Bell, A. (2017). Business students’ insights into
their development of ethical decision-making. Journal of Business Ethics, doi:
10.1007/s10551-017-3523-5
Moore, J., Lovell, C.D., McGann, T., & Wyrick, J. (1998). Why involvement matters: A
review of research on student involvement in the collegiate setting. College
Student Affairs Journal, 17(2), 4-17.
202 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
Morales-Sánchez, R. & Cabello-Medina, C. (2103). The role of four universal moral
competencies in ethical decision-making. Journal of Business Ethics, 116(4), 717-
734.
Mulgan, T. (2007). Understanding utilitarianism. New York: Routledge.
Nather, F. (2013). Exploring the impact of formal education on the moral reasoning
abilities of college students. College Student Journal, 47(3), 470-477.
Niles, N.J. & Barbour, K.A. (2014). Spheres of influence on students’ ethical decision
making. Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organization Studies, 19(2),
10-15.
O’Fallon, M.J. & Butterfield, K.D. (2005). A review of the empirical ethical decision-
making literature: 1996-2003. Journal of Business Ethics, 59(4), 375-413.
Office of Student Involvement. (2018). What is Manresa? Retrieved from
https://www.xavier.edu/student-involvement/orientation/Manresa1.cfm
Oliver, D.E. & Hioco, B. (2012). An ethical decision-making framework for community
college administrators. Community College Review, 40(3), 240-254.
Patton, L.D., Renn, K.A., Guido, F.M., & Quaye, S.J. (2016). Student development in
college: Theory, research, and practice (3rd edition). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Rawls, J. (2001). Justice as fairness: A restatement. E. Kelly (Ed.). Cambridge, MA: The
Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Rawls, J. (1999). A theory of justice (revised edition). Cambridge, MA: The Belknap
Press of Harvard University Press.
203 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
Segal, L., Gideon, L., & Haberfield, M.R. (2011). Comparing the ethical attitudes of
business and criminal justice students. Social Science Quarterly, 92(4), 1021-
1043.
Smith, D.E., Skalnik, J.R., & Skalnik, P.C. (2000). Ethical decision-making among
business students: A two country analysis. Journal of Teaching in International
Business, 11(3), 1-16.
Statistics Solutions. (2018). Conduct and interpret a repeated measures ANOVA.
Retrieved from http://www.statisticssolutions.com/conduct-interpret-repeated-
measures-anova/
Thoma, S.J. & Dong, Y. (2014). The defining issues test of moral judgment development.
Behavioral Development Bulletin, 19(3), 55-61.
Trevino, L.K. (1986). Ethical decision making in organizations: A person-situation
interactionist model. Academy of Management Review, 11(3), 601-617. von Platz, J. (2016). Singularity without equivalence: The complex unity of Kant’s
categorical imperative. Journal of Value Inquiry, 50(2), 396-384.
Walker, M. (2011). Evaluating the intervention of an ethical class in students’ ethical
decision-making. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 11(4), 69-
89.
Weber, J. (1992). Scenarios in business ethics research: Review, critical assessment, and
recommendations. Business Ethics Quarterly, 2(2), 137-160.
Whitely, B.E. & Kite, M.E. (2013). Principles of research in behavioral science (3rd
edition). New York: Routledge.
204 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
Wilks, T. (2004). The use of vignettes in qualitative research into social work values.
Qualitative Social Work, 3(1), 78-87.
Wilson, K.L., Rest, J.R., Boldizar, J.P., & Deemer, D.K. (1992). Moral judgment
development: The effects of education and occupation. Social Justice Research,
5(1), 31-48.
Xavier University. (2017). Faculty Handbook. Cincinnati, OH.
Xavier University. (2017). Annual Performance Review. Cincinnati, OH.
Xavier University Office of Institutional Research. (2018). Census day enrollment statistics: Fall
2018 (201809) [Data file]. Retrieved from https://www.xavier.edu/institutional-
research/documents/201809censusstats.pdf
Xavier University Institutional Review Board. (2018). Promoting inclusivity when
collecting information about sex and gender, race and ethnicity, and sexual
orientation. Retrieved from
https://www.xavier.edu/irb/documents/1IRBDemographicsDocument.pdf
205 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
APPENDIX A Response Protocol
A. Cheating on an Exam:
The semester has been hard for you academically and you have a big test coming up in one of your classes. You happen to be in this class with several acquaintances a couple of days before the test and suggest forming a study group to review. You spend some time studying together the weekend before the test, but your classmates don’t seem too interested and decide to go out with friends instead of staying in to continue studying.
You know that you have to do well on this test to do well in the class, so you continue to study, and the day of the test feel fairly confident in your preparation. Additionally, your professor announces the test will be graded on a curve, so you feel good about how you will do. Part way through the test, your professor steps out of the room and you notice that two of the people you tried to study with are using their phones to look up answers. One of them even sees that you notice and winks at you, as if you’re in on the cheating.
What do you do?
Why would you do this?
B. Use of Club Funding
You are a member of a large student organization that receives money from the Student Government Association to put on events. This year, however, your club has come up with a new idea for an event and needs additional funding to make it happen. You volunteer to help the treasurer of the organization put together a budget proposal to present to the club funding board to request additional money. Your funding request is approved and your organization begins to plan the event.
During event planning, the president of the organization decides to use some of the new funds for a different program, one that not everyone agrees the club should fund. You know that the money was approved for a specific event but the president insists that it’s ok to use the money for this other program.
What do you do?
Why would you do this?
C. “Fake” Social Media Accounts
One day you are scrolling through Instagram and see that the site has “suggested” that you become friends with what appears to be a funny account from someone at the school. It appears as though this account is a “fake instagram” account or “Finsta” account, and you think you know who runs it, someone you know from class who is a well-known
206 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY student leader. You decide to follow the account because it seems funny. A few weeks later while scrolling through Instagram, you notice that this account has posted a meme using a photo of someone else on campus, making fun of them for what they are wearing. Even though the account is ‘fake’, the derogatory comments are real, raising questions about whether context matters in determining what constitutes online harassment.
What do you do?
Why would you do this?
D. Time Management:
You are the vice president of a well-known student organization on campus. The President, someone you respect and look up to, seems to have it all together. That person is a great student, does good work for the organization, and is in the process of applying to grad schools and internships. Recently, however, you have noticed that the President hasn’t been following through on all responsibilities of the position, leaving you to pick- up the slack. You approach the President to ask about this, and are told that classes are busy, making it hard to get things done for the organization. Later, you hear this individual give a similar excuse to a professor about a late assignment, blaming their tardiness on your organization.
Your group has a major event coming up and you know the success of that event depends upon the President doing some of the work. You are concerned whether or not this individual can be counted on to pull their weight.
What do you do?
Why would you do this?
E. Underage Alcohol Use:
One weekend, you are at a party, and the alcohol is freely flowing. You and your friends are underage, but that doesn’t seem to bother anyone. One of your friends ends up getting really drunk, so the rest of you decide you need to leave and return to your residence hall room. On the way back to campus, your friends seems to be increasingly non-responsive. You think that you should call Campus Police for medical help but the rest of your friends know that this friend has already had one alcohol violation this year and are worried that they might be in a lot of trouble if they get another. They insist that your friend can “sleep it off” and are sure they will be fine. Besides, nobody else wants to get in trouble either and you’ve all be drinking that night.
What do you do?
Why would you do this?
207 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
Please respond to the questions below using the following scale: 1 2 3 4 Not Considered Considered Considered considered but not a major but greater weight a major factor in response factor in response given to other factors in response
1. To what degree did you consider the greatest good for the greatest number of people in your responses to the hypothetical scenarios? Cheating on an Exam: 1 2 3 4 Use of Club Funding: 1 2 3 4 Fake Social Media Accounts: 1 2 3 4 Time Management: 1 2 3 4 Underage Alcohol Use: 1 2 3 4
2. To what degree did you consider the need to do what was right no matter the cost to yourself or others in your responses to the hypothetical scenarios? Cheating on an Exam: 1 2 3 4 Use of Club Funding: 1 2 3 4 Fake Social Media Accounts: 1 2 3 4 Time Management: 1 2 3 4 Underage Alcohol Use: 1 2 3 4
3. In your responses, to what degree did you attempt to guarantee equal rights/opportunities for all parties involved in the hypothetical scenarios? Cheating on an Exam: 1 2 3 4 Use of Club Funding: 1 2 3 4 Fake Social Media Accounts: 1 2 3 4 Time Management: 1 2 3 4 Underage Alcohol Use: 1 2 3 4
4. To what degree did you mentally test out various courses of action, considering possible outcomes and how others might respond, or how you have solved similar problems in the past when responding to the hypothetical scenarios? Cheating on an Exam: 1 2 3 4 Use of Club Funding: 1 2 3 4 Fake Social Media Accounts: 1 2 3 4 Time Management: 1 2 3 4 Underage Alcohol Use: 1 2 3 4
5. To what degree did you choose actions that put the needs of others ahead of your own self-interests in responding to the hypothetical scenarios? Cheating on an Exam: 1 2 3 4 Use of Club Funding: 1 2 3 4 Fake Social Media Accounts: 1 2 3 4 Time Management: 1 2 3 4 Underage Alcohol Use: 1 2 3 4
208 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
6. To what degree did you choose actions that promote moral goodness for all in your responses? Cheating on an Exam: 1 2 3 4 Use of Club Funding: 1 2 3 4 Fake Social Media Accounts: 1 2 3 4 Time Management: 1 2 3 4 Underage Alcohol Use: 1 2 3 4
7. To what degree did you consider the need pause and take time to contemplate solutions before taking action in responding to the hypothetical scenarios? Cheating on an Exam: 1 2 3 4 Use of Club Funding: 1 2 3 4 Fake Social Media Accounts: 1 2 3 4 Time Management: 1 2 3 4 Underage Alcohol Use: 1 2 3 4
8. To what degree did you consider how the actions outlined in your responses to the hypothetical scenarios would promote a sense of universal well-being or balance in the world? Cheating on an Exam: 1 2 3 4 Use of Club Funding: 1 2 3 4 Fake Social Media Accounts: 1 2 3 4 Time Management: 1 2 3 4 Underage Alcohol Use: 1 2 3 4
9. To what degree did your responses reflect identification with the other individuals in the hypothetical scenarios, or putting yourself in their shoes? Cheating on an Exam: 1 2 3 4 Use of Club Funding: 1 2 3 4 Fake Social Media Accounts: 1 2 3 4 Time Management: 1 2 3 4 Underage Alcohol Use: 1 2 3 4
10. To what degree did your responses aim to right the wrongs and promote good will for the individuals in the hypothetical scenarios? Cheating on an Exam: 1 2 3 4 Use of Club Funding: 1 2 3 4 Fake Social Media Accounts: 1 2 3 4 Time Management: 1 2 3 4 Underage Alcohol Use: 1 2 3 4
209 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
11. To what degree did you consider the unique individuality and wholistic needs (mind, body, spirit) of the individuals involved in the hypothetical situations in your responses? Cheating on an Exam: 1 2 3 4 Use of Club Funding: 1 2 3 4 Fake Social Media Accounts: 1 2 3 4 Time Management: 1 2 3 4 Underage Alcohol Use: 1 2 3 4
12. To what degree did your responses reflect consideration for how you might go beyond expectations, or do more than required, to address the needs of individuals in the hypothetical scenarios? Cheating on an Exam: 1 2 3 4 Use of Club Funding: 1 2 3 4 Fake Social Media Accounts: 1 2 3 4 Time Management: 1 2 3 4 Underage Alcohol Use: 1 2 3 4
210 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
APPENDIX B Permission Letter from Student Affairs Experts
February 17, 2018
Molly Dugan & Dr. Gail F. Latta Co-Investigators Xavier University Cincinnati, OH 45027
Dear Molly & Dr. Latta:
I have been advised of the nature of your research project, Ethical Decision Making Among Students at a Jesuit University, and voluntarily agree to review and provide feedback on five hypothetical scenarios presenting ethical dilemmas that a college student may face. I grant permission for you to use this feedback regarding the appropriateness and clarity for the intended audience in refining the scenarios for use in your research.
It is my understanding that my feedback will remain confidential and my participation will only be known by you, as the co-investigators. I recognize that there are no known risks or harms to allowing you to use my feedback and non-participation will have no impact on me. Additionally, I understand that the sole purpose of collecting this data is for use in your research. The feedback will be stored in a secure location for the duration of the study.
Best of luck with your study.
Sincerely,
Name of Expert Title of Expert Institution of Expert
211 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
APPENDIX C Email Invitations Sent to Participants
Initial Invitation Sent to Seniors
Subject: Invitation to Participate!
Hello!
You have been randomly selected to participate in a research project being conducted right here at Xavier University through the Leadership Studies Doctoral Program. This research seeks to learn more about how students approach decision making in hypothetical situations that students may face in college and we hope you are willing to participate.
Contributing to this study is easy because we are collecting the data through a completely anonymous online survey. All you have to do to participate is click the link below. If you choose to participate, we ask that you respond by March 26, 2018.
Click this link to learn more!
If you agree to participate, you will read 5 short descriptions of scenarios college students may experience and tell us in your own words how you think you would respond to each. Then, you will be asked to rate your responses on 12 Likert scales. It should only take about 20-30 minutes to respond to all questions, and you don’t have to complete it all at one time—the system will remember where you are if you want to work on it a little at a time, as long as you use the same device when you return to the survey.
Your participation in the study is completely voluntary and you will not be compensated for contributing to this research. However, we think you may find the scenarios interesting and you would be helping us develop knowledge that could improve the college experience for students like yourself.
If you want to learn more about this opportunity, please click the link above to read the more detailed description provided in the Informed Consent disclosure If you have any questions about this email or the research we are conducting, please contact the Director of the Leadership Studies Doctoral Program Dr. Gail F. Latta, Ph.D. at (513) 745-2986 or [email protected].
Thank you in advance for your consideration and we hope you enjoy the survey!
-Gail Gail F. Latta, Ph.D. Director & Associate Professor Leadership Studies Doctoral Program Dept. of Leadership Studies & Human Resource Development College of Professional Sciences Xavier University 108 Hailstones
212 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
3743 Saint Francis Xavier Way Cincinnati, OH 45207-3211
Contact: (513) 745-2986 (513) 745-1048 fax [email protected]
Reminder Email Sent to Seniors
Subject: There’s Still Time!
Hello!
Last week, you received an invitation to participate in a research study (see details below). Thank you to those who have already responded! If you haven’t yet done so, or you started the survey but did not finish, there is still time!
We would appreciate you taking time this weekend to complete the survey, linked below. Your participation will help us to advance our research.
Click this link to learn more!
As a reminder, the deadline to participate is Monday, March 26, 2018.
If you have any questions about this email or the research we are conducting, please contact the Director of the Leadership Studies Doctoral Program Dr. Gail F. Latta, Ph.D. at (513) 745-2986 or [email protected].
Thank you in advance for your consideration and we hope you enjoy the survey!
-Gail
Gail F. Latta, Ph.D. Director & Associate Professor Leadership Studies Doctoral Program Dept. of Leadership Studies & Human Resource Development College of Professional Sciences Xavier University 108 Hailstones 3743 Saint Francis Xavier Way Cincinnati, OH 45207-3211
Contact: (513) 718-7166 (513) 745-2986 voicemail (513) 745-1048 fax [email protected]
213 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
Thank You Email Sent to Seniors
Subject: Thank You For Your Participation!
Hello!
Before Spring Break, you were invited to participate in an annonymous pilot study for research being conducted through the Leadership Studies Doctoral Program here at Xavier University. This message is to thank those of you who participated in the pilot! The survey is now closed.
We had an excellent response rate. Those of you who participated helped us refine the survey before sending it to the study participants. We thank you for your contributions to improving our research instrument!
If you have any questions about this email or the pilot study we were conducting, please contact the Director of the Leadership Studies Doctoral Program Dr. Gail F. Latta, Ph.D. at (513) 745- 2986 or [email protected].
-Gail
Gail F. Latta, Ph.D. Director & Associate Professor Leadership Studies Doctoral Program Dept. of Leadership Studies & Human Resource Development College of Professional Sciences Xavier University 108 Hailstones 3743 Saint Francis Xavier Way Cincinnati, OH 45207-3211
Contact: (513) 718-7166 (513) 745-2986 voicemail (513) 745-1048 fax [email protected]
214 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
Invitation Email Sent to First Year Students
Subject: Xavier – Invitation to Participate
Greetings from Xavier!
You are invited to participate in a research project being conducted at Xavier through the Leadership Studies Doctoral Program. The study focuses on how college students approach decision making in hypothetical situations they are likely to face as undergraduates. We sincerely hope you will be willing to participate.
Participating to this study is easy because we are collecting the data through a completely anonymous online survey. The survey consists of 5 short scenarios that you may respond to in your own words, followed by 12 Likert rating scales. It should only take about 15-20 minutes to respond to all questions, and you don’t have to complete it all at once – the system will remember where you left off, if you want it work on it a little at a time. Just be sure to use the same device each time your return to the survey.
All you have to do is click the link below. We ask that you respond by July 30, 2018.
Click this link to learn more!
Your participation is completely voluntary and you will not be compensated for contributing to this research, however, you would be helping us develop knowledge that could improve the college experience for students like yourself in the future.
If you want to learn more about this opportunity, please click the link above to read the more detailed description provided in the Informed Consent disclosure.
If you have any questions about this email or the research we are conducting, please contact the Director of the Leadership Studies Doctoral Program Dr. Gail F. Latta, Ph.D. at (513) 745-2986 or [email protected].
Thank you in advance for your consideration and we hope you enjoy the survey!
-Gail
Gail F. Latta, Ph.D. Director & Associate Professor Leadership Studies Doctoral Program College of Professional Sciences Xavier University (513) 745-2986 (513) 745-1048 fax [email protected]
215 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
Reminder Email Sent to First Year Students
Subject: REMINDER from Xavier – Invitation to Participate!
Greetings from Xavier!
Last week, you received an invitation to participate in a research study being conducted by the Leadership Studies Doctoral Program at Xavier University (see details below). Thank you to those who have already responded! If you haven’t done so, or you started the survey but have not yet finish, there is still time!
Click this link to learn more!
We know it’s a busy time for you as you prepare to join us at Xavier, but we would appreciate you taking time in the next few days to complete the survey, linked below. Your participation will help us better understand how to serve students like yourself.
As a reminder, the deadline to participate is Monday, July 30, 2018.
If you have any questions about this email or the research we are conducting, please contact the Director of the Leadership Studies Doctoral Program Dr. Gail F. Latta, Ph.D. at (513) 745-2986 or [email protected].
Thank you in advance for your consideration and we hope you enjoy the survey!
-Gail
216 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
Thank You Email Sent to First Year Students
Subject: Thank You!
Hello!
A couple of weeks ago, you were invited to participate in an anonymous study for research being conducted through the Leadership Studies Doctoral Program here at Xavier University. This message is to thank those of you who participated in the study! The survey is now closed.
We had an excellent response rate. Those of you who participated have helped to advance research in the field of leadership studies and we appreciate you taking the time to do so.
Best of luck as you prepare for your arrival at Xavier University soon! Everyone at Xavier is excited to welcome you to campus.
If you have any questions about this email or the study we were conducting, please contact the Director of the Leadership Studies Doctoral Program Dr. Gail F. Latta, Ph.D. at (513) 745-2986 or [email protected].
-Gail
Gail F. Latta, Ph.D. Director & Associate Professor Leadership Studies Doctoral Program Dept. of Leadership Studies & Human Resource Development College of Professional Sciences Xavier University 108 Hailstones 3743 Saint Francis Xavier Way Cincinnati, OH 45207-3211
Contact: (513) 718-7166 (513) 745-2986 voicemail (513) 745-1048 fax [email protected]
217 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
APPENDIX D Informed Consent Documents for Study Participants
INFORMED CONSENT FOR SENIOR SURVEY RESPONDENTS
You are invited to participate in a research study being conducted through the Leadership Studies doctoral program at Xavier University. We are conducting this study to learn more about how students approach decision making in a variety of hypothetical situations they may face while attending Xavier University.
Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. If you choose to participate, you will be asked to read and provide brief written responses online to five (5) short descriptive scenarios, then answer a series of follow-up questions using a Likert scale. Each scenario will take less than 1 minute to read; the entire study should take no more that 20-30 minutes to complete. The questionnaire will request basic demographic information (i.e.: race/ethnicity, gender, and religious preference) from those willing to report it for the purpose of demonstrating the diversity of respondents. This information will not allow the researchers to identify you individually and will only be reported in the aggregate.
You are being invited to participate in this study because of your standing as a senior in your final semester prior to graduation and past participation in programming provided by the Division of Student Affairs. There are no known risks to participation in this study. Your responses will be anonymous as no identifying information will be linked to them. Responses will be combined during analysis and reported anonymously in aggregate. Data will be stored in a secure location and will be destroyed once it has been fully analyzed.
There are no direct benefits to you for participating, other than the satisfaction of contributing to the advancement of knowledge. Results of the study may help colleges and universities improve the living and learning environments for their students. Your participation is entirely voluntary and non-participation will have no effect on your future at Xavier, including any future involvement opportunities, or any services you are entitled to as a student at the University. Additionally, you are free to withdraw from the study at any time without penalty. If you decide to withdraw you may do so by simply closing this window on your computer at any time during the question protocol. Incomplete responses will not be included in the study.
If you choose to participate, please signify your consent by checking the box below before clicking to advance to the next screen. You may print this informed consent form, prior to advancing to the next screen, if you would like a copy for your records. If you have any questions about this study at any time prior to, during or after your participation, you may contact Dr. Gail F. Latta, Leadership Studies Program Director at (513) 745-2986 or [email protected]. Questions about your rights as a research subject should be directed to Xavier University’s Institutional Review Board at (513) 745-2870 or [email protected].
------By checking the agreement box below, you are giving your consent for your data to be used in this research study.
I agree to participate in this research study and consent to my data being used as part of the research.
218 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
INFORMED CONSENT FOR FIRST YEAR STUDY PARTICIPANTS
You are invited to participate in a research study being conducted through the Leadership Studies doctoral program at Xavier University. We are conducting this study to learn more about how students approach decision making in a variety of hypothetical situations they may face while attending Xavier University.
Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. If you choose to participate, you will be asked to read and provide brief written responses online to five (5) short descriptive scenarios, then answer a series of follow-up questions using a Likert scale. Each scenario will take less than 1 minute to read; the entire study should take no more that 15-20 minutes to complete. The questionnaire will request basic demographic information (i.e.: race/ethnicity, gender, and religious preference) from those willing to report it for the purpose of demonstrating the diversity of respondents. This information will not allow the researchers to identify you individually and will only be reported in the aggregate.
You are being invited to participate in this study because of you have indicated your intention to matriculate as a first year student in Fall 2018 and you have completed online advising and registration for classes. In order to participate, you must be at least 18 years of age. There are no known risks to participation in this study. Your responses will be anonymous as no identifying information will be linked to them. Responses will be combined during analysis and reported anonymously in aggregate. Data will be stored in a secure location and will be destroyed once it has been fully analyzed.
There are no direct benefits to you for participating, other than the satisfaction of contributing to the advancement of knowledge. Results of the study may help colleges and universities improve the living and learning environments for their students. Your participation is entirely voluntary and non-participation will have no effect on your future at Xavier, including any future involvement opportunities, or any services you are entitled to as a student at the University. Additionally, you are free to withdraw from the study at any time without penalty. If you decide to withdraw you may do so by simply closing this window on your computer at any time during the question protocol. Incomplete responses will not be included in the study.
If you choose to participate, please signify your consent by checking the box below before clicking to advance to the next screen. You may print this informed consent form, prior to advancing to the next screen, if you would like a copy for your records. If you have any questions about this study at any time prior to, during or after your participation, you may contact Dr. Gail F. Latta, Leadership Studies Program Director at (513) 745-2986 or [email protected]. Questions about your rights as a research subject should be directed to Xavier University’s Institutional Review Board at (513) 745-2870 or [email protected].
------
By checking the agreement box below, you are giving your consent for your data to be used in this research study.
I agree to participate in this research study and consent to my data being used as part of the research.
219 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
INFORMED CONSENT FOR PILOT PARTICIPANTS
You are invited to participate in a pilot study for research being conducted through the Leadership Studies doctoral program at Xavier University. We are conducting this study to learn more about how students approach decision making in a variety of hypothetical situations they may face while attending Xavier University.
Your participation in this pilot study is completely voluntary. If you choose to participate, you will be asked to read and provide brief written responses online to five (5) short descriptive scenarios, then answer a series of follow-up questions using a Likert scale. Each scenario will take less than 1 minute to read; the entire study should take no more that 20-30 minutes to complete. The questionnaire will request basic demographic information (i.e.: race/ethnicity, gender, and religious preference) from those willing to report it for the purpose of demonstrating the diversity of respondents. This information will not allow the researchers to identify you individually and will only be reported in the aggregate.
You are being invited to participate in this pilot study because of you are of first year or junior standing at the university and have participated in programming provided by the Office of Student Involvement. There are no known risks to participation in this pilot study. Your responses will be anonymous as no identifying information will be linked to them. Data you provide will not be included in the data analyzed for the study but will help ensure our data collection protocols are comprehensible by the target population. All data from the pilot study will be stored in a secure location and will be destroyed once it has been fully analyzed.
There are no direct benefits to you for participating, other than the satisfaction of contributing to the advancement of knowledge. Results of the study may help colleges and universities improve the living and learning environments for their students. Your participation is entirely voluntary and non-participation will have no effect on your future at Xavier, including any future involvement opportunities, or any services you are entitled to as a student at the University. Additionally, you are free to withdraw from the study at any time without penalty.
If you choose to participate, please signify your consent by checking the box below before clicking to advance to the next screen. You may print this informed consent form, prior to advancing to the next screen, if you would like a copy for your records. If you have any questions about this study at any time prior to, during or after your participation, you may contact Dr. Gail F. Latta, Leadership Studies Program Director at (513) 745-2896 or [email protected]. Questions about your rights as a research subject should be directed to Xavier University’s Institutional Review Board at (513) 745-2870 or [email protected].
------
By checking the agreement box below, you are giving your consent for your data to be used in this research study.
I agree to participate in this research study and consent to my data being used as part of the research.
220 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
APPENDIX E Permission Letters from Data Custodians
February 2, 2018
Molly Dugan 2201 Park Ave., Apt. 1 Cincinnati, OH 45026
Dear Molly,
I have reviewed your research proposal and grant permission for you to use lists of students involved in specific departments or offices within the Division of Student Affairs at Xavier for the purpose of your research, Ethical Decision Making Amongst Students at a Jesuit University. Specifically, these offices include Office of Student Involvement, Office of Residence Life, Center for Diversity & Inclusion, Center for Faith & Justice, Recreational Sports, and the Gallagher Student Center/Commuter Services. These lists will be furnished for the purpose of recruiting students to participate in your research project, which seeks to better understand how students at a Jesuit university make ethical decisions and whether the Jesuit nature of the institution impacts their ethical decision making. The lists furnished will be used to determine a population that includes first year students, those who are first time in college, and senior students, those who are in their final semester before graduation and have been at the institution at least three years. The lists will also be used to determine involved students, as defined using Astin (1984) and The Rule of Three.
It is my understanding that the lists from the offices/departments listed above will be used to create the list of involved first year and senior students. These names will then be cross-referenced with enrollment data from Institutional Research to finalize a list of eligible participants. The final lists provided will include student name, year, and Xavier email address.
It is my understanding that the sole purpose of collecting this data is for use in your research project. Additionally, I understand that the information will be stored securely and data will be destroyed upon the successful completion of your research and dissertation.
Best of luck with your research.
Sincerely,
David Johnson, Ph.D. Associate Provost for Student Affairs & Chief Student Affairs Officer
221 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
February 2, 2018
Molly Dugan 2201 Park Ave., Apt. 1 Cincinnati, OH 45026
Dear Molly,
I have reviewed your research proposal and grant permission for you to access Slate to receive information on high school attended by first year and senior students for the purpose of your research, Ethical Decision Making Amongst Students at a Jesuit University. Access to Slate will be for the sole purpose of determining high school. Slate will be accessed by Institutional Research staff and information provided to you. This information will be used only to assist in determining the population of your study, which includes students in their first year and senior year who did not attend a Jesuit High School, which will be determined via the information provided in Slate.
It is my understanding that the information from Slate will be used to create the list of students eligible to participate in your study. The high school information from slate will be cross-referenced with enrollment information as well as involvement lists to finalize a list of eligible participants. The final lists provided will include student name, year, and Xavier email address.
It is my understanding that the sole purpose of collecting this data is for use in your research project. Additionally, I understand that the information will be stored securely and data will be destroyed upon the successful completion of your research and dissertation.
Best of luck with your research.
Sincerely,
Robbie Kessler Director of Enrollment Systems Division of Enrollment Management and Student Success
222 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
February 2, 2018
Molly Dugan 2201 Park Ave., Apt. 1 Cincinnati, OH 45026
Dear Molly,
I have reviewed your research proposal and grant permission for you to access the enrollment data from Banner to receive enrollment lists of first year and senior students for the purpose of your research, Ethical Decision Making Amongst Students at a Jesuit University. Access to the enrollment data will be for the sole purpose of determining students who fit in the parameters of your study, which I understand to be first year students, those who are first time in college, and senior students, those who are in their final semester before graduation and have been at Xavier at least three years. Enrollment data will be accessed by Institutional Research staff and information provided to you.
The final lists provided to you via Institutional Research will include student name, year, and Xavier email address. No other identifying information will be accessible to you as the researcher. It is my understanding that the sole purpose of collecting this data is for use in your research project. Additionally, I understand that the information will be stored securely and data will be destroyed upon the successful completion of your research and dissertation.
Best of luck with your research.
Sincerely,
Joshua Grace Assistant Registrar Division of Enrollment Management and Student Success
223 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
APPENDIX F Letters of Permission from External Reviewers
August 25, 2018
Molly Dugan & Dr. Gail F. Latta Co-Investigators Xavier University Cincinnati, OH 45027
Dear Molly & Dr. Latta:
I have been advised of the nature of your research project, Ethical Decision-Making Among Undergraduates at a Jesuit University: A Comparative Study of First-Year Students and Graduating Seniors. I understand that as part of this research, you have collected a sample of student responses to five ethical dilemmas college students may face, and have since coded these responses to reflect evidence of six ethical perspectives in the students’ behavior and rationales. I voluntarily agree to review and provide feedback on the codes assigned to the narrative responses. I grant permission for you to use the feedback I provide to refine the coding used in your research.
It is my understanding that my feedback will remain confidential and my participation will only be known by you, as the co-investigators. I recognize that there are no known risks or harms to allowing you to use my feedback, and that declining to participate, should I choose not to provide feedback will have no consequences for me. Additionally, I understand that the sole purpose of collecting this data is for use in your research. The feedback will be stored in a secure location for the duration of the study.
Best of luck with your study.
Sincerely,
Name of Expert Title of Expert Xavier University
224 ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING AT A JESUIT UNIVERSITY
August 25, 2018
Molly Dugan & Dr. Gail F. Latta Co-Investigators Xavier University Cincinnati, OH 45027
Dear Molly & Dr. Latta:
I have been advised of the nature of your research project, Ethical Decision-Making Among Undergraduates at a Jesuit University: A Comparative Study of First-Year Students and Graduating Seniors. I understand that as part of this research, you have collected a sample of student responses to five ethical dilemmas college students may face, and have since coded these responses to reflect evidence of six Jesuit values in the students’ behavior and rationales. I voluntarily agree to review and provide feedback on the codes assigned to the narrative responses. I grant permission for you to use the feedback I provide to refine the coding used in your research.
It is my understanding that my feedback will remain confidential and my participation will only be known by you, as the co-investigators. I recognize that there are no known risks or harms to allowing you to use my feedback, and that declining to participate, should I choose not to provide feedback will have no consequences for me. Additionally, I understand that the sole purpose of collecting this data is for use in your research. The feedback will be stored in a secure location for the duration of the study.
Best of luck with your study.
Sincerely,
Name of Expert Title of Expert Xavier University
225