For one of this week’s assignments in EDTECH 501, we were asked to read an ethical scenario posted in TechTrends and write up a response to both the scenario and the published analysis. This is the first of the two scenarios I choose:
Summary:
Henry, State University’s Coordinator of Instructional Technology, has been approached by DCH Learning to switch over the institution’s learning management system to their software. However, DCH’s LMS is more expensive and appears to have less tech support than State’s current system. Jane, DCH’s sales representative, has offered to sweeten the pot by including a monthly stipend sent directly to Henry to encourage him to be “an early adopter in this market to show others the way” as well as to “consult” with DCH’s developers (Martin, 2012, p. 10). Henry has always felt underpaid and undervalued and has convinced himself that the stipend would be an “honorarium.”
Ethics Code:
According to the case study’s author, the AECT Code of Professional Ethics that applies to this situation is Section 2 Principle 3: “In fulfilling obligations to society, the member shall not use institutional or Associational privileges for private gain” (Martin, 2012, p. 10). This principle applies because Henry has been approached due to his position of authority on campus to make decisions on campus-wide technology. I would argue that Section 2 Principle 4 also applies: “In fulfilling obligations to society, the member shall accept no gratuities, gifts, or favors that might impair or appear to impair professional judgment, or offer any favor, service, or thing of value to obtain special advantage” (Yeaman, Eastmond, & Napper, 2008, p. 297). As Henry was going to decline DCH before Jane’s monetary offer, his professional judgment has clearly been impaired.
My Analysis:
To me, it is quite obvious that Henry cannot accept what amounts to a bribe. He was going to turn down DCH’s system, based on its merits, until Jane brought up the stipend. Even if the new LMS were superior to the current product and State University chose to adopt it, Henry could not accept the money and use his position for personal gain.
Three additional points:
- Not only would accepting the money be unethical, it could very well be illegal and/or cost Henry his job. I went through a two-hour training almost two years ago on new Utah state institution budgetary constrictions. It essentially stated that should I, or anyone else working for the state of Utah, accept compensation (above $10 or the equivalent in goods or services) from an outside source that influenced my purchasing decision, not only would I be fired, I could also face legal action.
- It is highly unlikely that Henry is the sole decision-maker for purchasing DCH’s services. There would be a team or committee to decide on the purchase, and it is unlikely that everyone would agree to switching if even Henry’s first reaction was to turn DCH down. It would need to be demonstrated to a cross-section of faculty members, and if the product is inferior, the faculty will make their voices heard. The campus IT department would also need to be consulted, and they would likely point out the same issues that caused Henry to initially turn down the switch.
- If Henry truly felt that DCH’s product was superior (which was clearly not the case here, but to play devil’s advocate), then he should attempt to negotiate a lower usage fee that did not include his monthly “honorarium” in order to make the change more cost-effective.
Comments on Author’s Analysis:
Martin references euphemistic labeling, a tactic of moral disengagement for rationalizing unethical behavior, with Henry’s calling of the bribe an “honorarium.” Henry’s decision to implement DCH’s system could also affect the university as a whole as they experience budget deficits in other areas to make up for the increased cost associated with the new system, which is something that I had not thought of. Martin also outlines how the new system could be a drain on the university’s resources, reflect poorly on the institution with others in the state and region, and negatively impact students’ learning, which is also something that had not initially sprung to mind. Although Martin does not outright say it, it is clear that he believes Henry should not take the money. In that we are definitely in agreement.
References
Martin, S. (2012, September/October). Professional ethics: To be an early adopter. TechTrends, 56(5), 10-12. doi:10.1007/s11528-012-0593-1. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/journal/11528
Katya Konkle: EDTECH Learning Log 