Volume 9, Issue 4 (6-2024)
SJNMP 2024, 9(4): 334-350 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Saeedi N, Norouzinia R, Khedmatizare M, Aghabarary M. The Ethical Sensitivity of Faculty Members at Alborz University of Medical Sciences. SJNMP 2024; 9 (4) :334-350
URL: http://sjnmp.muk.ac.ir/article-1-587-en.html
URL: http://sjnmp.muk.ac.ir/article-1-587-en.html
1- Student Research Committee, Alborz University of Medical Sciences, Karaj, Iran.
2- Social Determinants of Health Research Center, Alborz University of Medical Sciences, Karaj, Iran.
3- Social Determinants of Health Research Center, Alborz University of Medical Sciences, Karaj, Iran. ,aghabararym@gmail.com
2- Social Determinants of Health Research Center, Alborz University of Medical Sciences, Karaj, Iran.
3- Social Determinants of Health Research Center, Alborz University of Medical Sciences, Karaj, Iran. ,
Abstract: (1318 Views)
Background & Aim: University professors are responsible for educating students academically and developing and enhancing their ethical values. Therefore, they must have a high level of ethical sensitivity. The present study aimed to determine the ethical sensitivity of the faculty members at Alborz University of Medical Sciences.
Materials & Methods: A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted in the first semester of the academic year 2020-2021 at Alborz University of Medical Sciences. The research population consisted of all faculty members (N=230) included in the study through a census method. The data collection tool was a researcher-made questionnaire assessing ethical sensitivity. The collected data were analyzed using SPSS software version 27 and descriptive and inferential statistics at a significance level of P<0.05.
Results: The mean ethical sensitivity of participating faculty members in this study was 4.36 ± 0.39, which was higher than the average. The examination of the mean dimensions of ethical sensitivity also showed that all dimensions of ethical sensitivity had a higher-than-average mean. The highest mean was for the dimension of "attention and respect for others" with a mean of 4.60 ± 0.44, and the lowest mean was for the dimension of "self-awareness" with a value of 4.06 ± 0.56. A significant relationship was observed between ethical sensitivity and work experience.
Conclusion: The self-assessment score of ethical sensitivity of the participating faculty members in this study was high. Further studies are needed to determine why, despite the high rating of University professors in terms of ethical sensitivity, educational environments, and learners still face ethical challenges.
Materials & Methods: A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted in the first semester of the academic year 2020-2021 at Alborz University of Medical Sciences. The research population consisted of all faculty members (N=230) included in the study through a census method. The data collection tool was a researcher-made questionnaire assessing ethical sensitivity. The collected data were analyzed using SPSS software version 27 and descriptive and inferential statistics at a significance level of P<0.05.
Results: The mean ethical sensitivity of participating faculty members in this study was 4.36 ± 0.39, which was higher than the average. The examination of the mean dimensions of ethical sensitivity also showed that all dimensions of ethical sensitivity had a higher-than-average mean. The highest mean was for the dimension of "attention and respect for others" with a mean of 4.60 ± 0.44, and the lowest mean was for the dimension of "self-awareness" with a value of 4.06 ± 0.56. A significant relationship was observed between ethical sensitivity and work experience.
Conclusion: The self-assessment score of ethical sensitivity of the participating faculty members in this study was high. Further studies are needed to determine why, despite the high rating of University professors in terms of ethical sensitivity, educational environments, and learners still face ethical challenges.
Type of Study: Research |
Subject:
General
Received: 2023/12/30 | Revised: 2024/07/3 | Accepted: 2024/04/24 | Published: 2024/06/26 | ePublished: 2024/06/26
Received: 2023/12/30 | Revised: 2024/07/3 | Accepted: 2024/04/24 | Published: 2024/06/26 | ePublished: 2024/06/26
References
1. Dictionary OE. Oxford english dictionary. Simpson, Ja & Weiner, Esc. 1989;3.
2. Bebeau MJ, Rest JR, Narvaez D. Beyond the promise: A perspective on research in moral education. Educational researcher. 1999;28(4):18-26. [DOI:10.2307/1176445]
3. Yazdani S, Imanipour M. Professional ethics in higher education: dimensions and constructs. Teb va tazkieh. 2018;26(4):272-284. [Persian]
4. Jagger S. Ethical sensitivity: A foundation for moral judgment. Journal of Business Ethics Education. 2011;8(1):13-30.
5. Weaver K, Morse J, Mitcham C. Ethical sensitivity in professional practice: concept analysis. Journal of advanced nursing. 2008;62(5):607-618. [DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2008.04625.x]
6. Yuguero O, Esquerda M, Viñas J, Soler-Gonzalez J, Pifarré J. Ethics and empathy: The relationship between moral reasoning, ethical sensitivity and empathy in medical students. Revista Clínica Española (English Edition). 2019;219(2):73-78. [DOI:10.1016/j.rceng.2018.09.009]
7. Jordan J. Taking the first step toward a moral action: A review of moral sensitivity measurement across domains. The Journal of Genetic Psychology. 2007;168(3):323-359. [DOI:10.3200/GNTP.168.3.323-360]
8. Bakhshalizadeh S, Fathi Vajargah K, Arefi M, Kiamanesh A. Required faculty competencies for teaching in higher education institutes in technology era. Technology of Education Journal. 2020;15(1):83-100. [Persian]
9. Kuusisto E, Gholami K, Tirri K. Finnish and Iranian teachers' views on their competence to teach purpose. Journal of Education for Teaching. 2016;42(5):541-555. [DOI:10.1080/02607476.2016.1226553]
10. Imanipour M. Ethical principles in education. Medical Ethics and History of Medicine Research Center. 2012;5(6):27-41.[Persian]
11. Moradi doliskani M, Mohammad imehr M. The Relationship between Professional Ethics and Teaching Quality among Faculty Members of Medicine Sciences Aja University. Education Strategies in Medical Sciences 2020;13 (3) :143-150. [Persian]
12. Salajeghe A, Safari S. The Relationship between Professional Ethics and Restore Confidence among Faculty Members. Ethics in Science and Technology 2018; 12 (4):39-47 [Persian]
13. Gholami K, Kuusisto E, Tirri K. Is ethical sensitivity in teaching culturally bound? Comparing Finnish and Iranian teachers' ethical sensitivity. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education. 2015;45(6):886-907. [DOI:10.1080/03057925.2014.984588]
14. Tirri K. Ethical sensitivity in teaching and teacher education. Encyclopedia of Teacher Education: Springer Science+ Business Media; 2019: 1-5. [DOI:10.1007/978-981-13-1179-6_183-1]
15. Ghorbankhani M, Salehi K, Khodaie E, Moghadazadeh A. Dehghani, M. A System of Indicators for Assessing the Teacher Readiness in Primary Education: a Systematic Review. Research in School and Virtual Learning. 2022; 10(1): 109-125. [Persian]
16. Badii IC, Lorenzo MG. The Ethical Sensitivity and the Pedagogical Content Knowledge of Experimental Science Teachers. Tecné, Epistemey Didaxis: TED. 2021(49):199-218.
17. Kuusisto E, Tirri K, Rissanen I. Finnish Teachers' Ethical Sensitivity. Education Research International. 2012;2012. [DOI:10.1155/2012/351879]
18. Özyıldırım G, Sabancı A. Ethical Knowledge and Ethical Sensitivity of Prospective Teachers about Classroom Management1. E-International Journal of Educational Research. 2021;12(5):232-254.
19. Kavandi H, Marashi M, Hashemi J, Safaei Moghaddam M. Analyzing ethical sensitivity: developing on student-teacher education. Iranian journal of educational sociology. 2019;2(1):134-142. [DOI:10.29252/ijes.2.1.134]
20. Gholami K, Ebrahimi I. Designing an Ethical Sensitivity Model and its Relationship with Teaching Teachers. Ethics in science and technology. 2015;12(2):85-94. [Persian]
21. Ronkainen R, Kuusisto E, Eisenschmidt E, Tirri K. Ethical sensitivity of Finnish and Estonian teachers. Journal of Moral Education. 2021; 52(3): 1-17. [DOI:10.1080/03057240.2021.1960491]
22. Majnooni A, Hosseinzadeh Davarzani M, Afshar L. Comparing the Ethical Sensitivity of Medical Residents with Surgical Residents of SBMU in 2016-2017. Iranian Journal of Medical Education. 2020;20(0):418-424. [Persian]
23. Zahed Pasha Y, Bijani A, Baleghi M, Baleghi Damavandi S. Presenting a Model Regarding the Effect of Ethical Sensitivity and Its Associated Components on the Quality of Research among Academic Personnel. Journal of Babol University of Medical Sciences 2023; 25 (1):123-133. [Persian]
24. Goldasteh A, Aria H, Mansouri R. Investigating the Effects of Online Education on the Professional Ethics of Academic Staff During the Pandemic of the Covid-19. Journal of Management and Planning In Educational System. 2023; 16(1): 99-124. [Persian]
25. Gholami K, Tirri K. The cultural dependence of the ethical sensitivity scale questionnaire: The case of Iranian Kurdish teachers. Education Research International. 2012. [DOI:10.1155/2012/387027]
26. Gholami k, Ebrahimi A, Bolandhemmatan K. Predictive Factors of Ethical Sensitivity in Elementary Teachers in Sanandaj. Ethics in Science and Technology. 2021;16(3):154-158. [Persian]
27. Tirri K, Nokelainen P. Measuring multiple intelligences and moral sensitivities in education: Springer Science & Business Media; 2012: 59-99. [DOI:10.1007/978-94-6091-758-5_4]
28. Akcamete G, Kayhan N, Yildirim AES. Scale of professional ethics for individuals working in the field of special education: validity and reliability study. Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences. 2017;12(4):202-217. [DOI:10.18844/cjes.v12i4.2902]
29. Soleimani N, Lovat T. The cultural and religious underpinnings of moral teaching according to English language teachers' perceptions: a case study from Iran. Journal of Beliefs & Values. 2019;40(4):477-489. [DOI:10.1080/13617672.2019.1634876]
30. Al-Hothali HM. Ethics of the Teaching Profession among Secondary School Teachers from School Leaders' Perspective in Riyadh. International Education Studies. 2018;11(9):47-63. [DOI:10.5539/ies.v11n9p47]
31. Keshavarzi MH, Arabshahi SKS, Gharrahee B, Sohrabi Z, Mardani-Hamooleh M. Exploration of faculty members' perceptions about virtual education challenges in medical sciences: a qualitative study. Journal of Advances in Medical Education & Professionalism. 2019;7(1):27-34.
32. Mahmoud AS. Awareness of intellectual property rights among faculty members and their assistants at South Valley University in Qena. International Journal of Library and Information Sciences. 2022; 9(4). [DOI:10.21608/ijlis.2022.111302.1126]
33. Bastable SB. Nurse as educator: Principles of teaching and learning for nursing practice: Jones & Bartlett Learning; 2003:93-190.
34. Salimi M. Professional Ethics Elements of General Physical Education Teachers in Colleges. Ethics in science and Technology. 2016;11(2):51-60. [Persian]
35. Valerie I. Sessa, and Loren A. Shelley. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior Developing Self-Awareness: Learning Processes for Self- and Interpersonal Growth Manuel London. 2023;10:261-288. [DOI:10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-120920-044531]
36. Park S, Park S. Employee adaptive performance and its antecedents: review and synthesis. Human. Resources. Development. Review. 2019; 183:294-324. [DOI:10.1177/1534484319836315]
37. Tirri K. The Core of School Pedagogy: Finnish Teachers' Views on the Educational Purposefulness of Their Teaching. Miracle of education: Brill; 2016: 57-68. [DOI:10.1007/978-94-6300-776-4_4]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
