steps in ethical problem solving social work

• Find a Social Worker
• NSCSW Staff
• NSCSW Council
• Board of Examiners
• Strategic Plan: Our Foundation for Growth
• Social Policy Framework

The Nova Scotia College of Social Workers exists to serve and protect Nova Scotians by effectively regulating the profession of social work.

• New Member Orientation
• Student Members
• Associate Members
• Member Committees
• Professional Development Activities
• Registration Fees

As a member you have the ability to support the NSCSW in building a professional community that embodies the best of social work practice.

• Standards of Practice
• Normes de pratique
• Code of Ethics
• Candidacy Mentorship Program
• Professional Development Standards
• Practice Guidelines & Resources

Ensuring Nova Scotians receive the services of skilled and competent social workers who are knowledgeable, ethical, qualified, and accountable to the people who receive social work services.

• Finding a private practitioner
• Benefit plan coverage for social work
• Become a private practitioner
• Private practice resources

Private practitioners are self-employed RSWs who are licensed to practice independently in one or more areas of specialization.

• Canadian BSW/MSW
• Registration Transfer From Another Province
• Telepractice From Outside NS
• United States BSW/MSW
• International BSW/MSW
• Registration Appeal

We establish, maintain, and regulate Standards of Professional Practice to ensure Nova Scotians receive the services of skilled and competent social workers who are knowledgeable, ethical, qualified, and accountable to the people who receive their services.

• National Social Work Month
• 2024 Conference: Celebrating Courage
• Connection Magazine
• Bi-Weekly Newsletter
• Employment Listings

Stay up to date on the latest news and events happening with NSCSW.

Ethical Decision Making Tool

Event_note upcoming events.

Pre-conference lecture: First voices

Annual conference: Celebrating Courage

The Ethical Decision Making Tool

Are you reflecting on an ethical dilemma?

This tool includes interactive options to guide Nova Scotia Registered Social Workers through the CASW  Code of Ethics  and the NSCSW  Standards of Practice  (2015).

Ethical Decision Making

Our experiences and values influence ethical decision-making. That’s why it’s important for social workers to seriously consider the perspectives of those they work with, the environments they are working in and the influence of the dominant narrative. Throughout the ethical decision-making process, we encourage reflection on one’s own value system, emotions, and positionality in relationship to these broader systems.

Social Work Philosophy & Ethics

Social work values are embedded in principles of social justice and Humanitarianism. The social work worldview is often distinct from the dominant ideology (how issues are represented in our society at large). Dominant values are presented as though they apply to everyone but are often the values of elites or ruling powers in society, such as the state. We still battle prejudices related to race, gender, and class etc.

Social work can act as the conscience of society. As social workers, we bare witness to suffering and help people find their voice. That is the “noble” part of our professional identity. There have always been courageous social workers who “spoke truth to power” and challenged the dominant view (Spencer, Massing and Gough,2017).

Intersectionality

Post-modern social work philosophy and ethics are guided by intersectional theory which promotes thinking about multiple identities and how systems of oppression are interconnected through ethnicity, class, and gender… etc which are experienced simultaneously, not ‘one at a time (Mullaly, 2009). The theory holds that each person holds different degrees of oppression and privilege based on our relative positioning along axes of interlocking systems of oppression. Where each of us lies in relation to the center and the margin —our social location—is determined by our identities, which are necessarily intersectional (Hulko, 2004).

Our social location refers to the relative amount of privilege and oppression that individuals possess on the basis of specific identity constructs, such as race, ethnicity, social class, gender, sexual orientation, age, disability, and faith” (Hulko, 2009, p. 5). Differences in class, in social and economic power, in educational opportunity and achievement, in health and physical well-being, are the expression and result of institutionalized inequalities in opportunity and socialization through the narrative of the dominant ideology. Such differences perpetuate and increase the social imbalances in power and thereby serve to maintain all forms of oppression (Mullay,2009).

Intersectional theory informs social workers on how to build professional helping relationships. Rooted first through the concept of empathy, or living in someone else’s shoes, intersectional theories guide social works to understand our shared experience with a client, drive a mutual need to collaborate, while addressing collective problems that have created these issues. Empathy leads to us to work in solidarity with clients towards liberation from oppressive structures (Mullaly, 2009). When we recover the buried memories of our socialization, to share our stories and heal the hurts imposed by the conditioning, to act in the present in a humane and caring manner, to rebuild our human connections and to change our world (Sherover-Marcuse, 2015.)

Relational Ethics

Intersectionality informs social workers on how to co-create meaning with clients. Traditionally, care is often thought of as flowing one way–from professional to client in the case of social work. The notion of relational ethics helps us to see care as something that happens in the space between us, what some have called the “third space” (Spencer, Massing and Gough, 2017). Care is neither about you nor I alone, but a process of co-creating a better story that happens between us. That is, it brings together a space in which we are all equal in our humanity. In practice, this may mean that as professionals, we take primary responsibility for the helping process but freely share the process of co-creation (Spencer, Massing and Gough,2017). In action this may mean:

• We put the other’s needs in the forefront for the moment.
• We are emotionally present to the other, attentive to their story.
• We resist the urge and need to immediately fix the problem (or what we think is the problem).
• We help people to empower themselves.
• We share appropriately how the other’s story touches us.
• We take responsibility for our ethical practice but share ethical dilemmas with the other as appropriate (Spencer, Massing and Gough, 2017).

Intersectional thinking pushes us to work in solidarity with clients to liberate both the undoing effects and of the causes of social oppression. These changes will involve transforming oppressive behavioral patterns and “unlearning” oppressive attitudes and assumptions (Mullay, 2009).

Dolgoff, R., Loewenberg, F. M., & Harrington, D. (2009). Ethical issues for social work practice.

Gough, J. & Spencer, E. (2014) Ethics in action: An exploratory survey of social workers ethical decision making and value conflicts. Journal of Social Work Values and Ethics vol. 11. 2. (pp 23-39).

Hulko, W. (2004). Social science perspectives on dementia research: Intersectionality. Dementia and social inclusion, 237-254.

Hulko, Wendy (2009). The time-and context-contingent nature of intersectionality and interlocking oppressions.” Affilia 24.1 (2009): 44-55.

Mattsson, T. (2014). Intersectionality as a Useful Tool Anti-Oppressive Social Work and Critical Reflection. Affilia, 29(1), 8-17.

Mullaly, R. P. (2010). Challenging oppression and confronting privilege: A critical social work approach. Don Mills, Ont: Oxford University Press.

Spencer E; Massing, D & Gough, J (2017)Social Work Ethics; Progressive, Practical, and Relational Approaches; Oxford Press.

Questions? Contact the College’s Executive Director/Registrar, Alec Stratford at [email protected].

Apr 19, 2024 — Yesterday, on the anniversary of the mass casualty tragedy in Colchester and Cumberland counties, the Minister of Justice repeatedly insisted to media that gender-based violence is not an epidemic in our province. He apologized on the same day. Let’s take a moment to remind ourselves of the deep roots of violence, and recommit to ending it, together.

Apr 8, 2024 — NSCSW is seeking an Administrative Support Assistant, Membership Services. The application deadline is Apr 22, 2024.

Sign up for Connection

CONNECTION is the official newsletter of the Nova Scotia College of Social Workers.

• Phone This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons
• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

1.4: Making Ethical Decisions

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 89740

Learning Objectives

• Be able to explain the models you can use for ethical decision making.

Now that we have a working knowledge of ethics, it is important to discuss some of the models we can use to make ethical decisions. Understanding these models can assist us in developing our self-management skills and relationship management skills. These models will give you the tools to make good decisions, which will likely result in better human relations within your organization.

Note there are literally hundreds of models, but most are similar to the ones we will discuss. Most people use a combination of several models, which might be the best way to be thorough with ethical decision making. In addition, often we find ethical decisions to be quick. For example, if I am given too much change at the grocery store, I may have only a few seconds to correct the situation. In this case, our values and morals come into play to help us make this decision, since the decision making needs to happen fast.

do today's youth have a code of ethics?

Howard Gardner with University of Massachusetts Law School discusses ethics and youth

Video \(\PageIndex{1}\): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-SE_wVoJWI .

The Twelve Questions Model

Laura Nash, an ethics researcher, created the Twelve Questions Model as a simple approach to ethical decision making. [1] In her model, she suggests asking yourself questions to determine if you are making the right ethical decision. This model asks people to reframe their perspective on ethical decision making, which can be helpful in looking at ethical choices from all angles. Her model consists of the following questions: [2]

• Have you defined the problem accurately?
• How would you define the problem if you stood on the other side of the fence?
• How did this situation occur in the first place?
• To whom and what do you give your loyalties as a person and as a member of the company?
• What is your intention in making this decision?
• How does this intention compare with the likely results?
• Whom could your decision or action injure?
• Can you engage the affected parties in a discussion of the problem before you make your decision?
• Are you confident that your position will be as valid over a long period of time as it seems now?
• Could you disclose without qualms your decision or action to your boss, your family, or society as a whole?
• What is the symbolic potential of your action if understood? If misunderstood?
• Under what conditions would you allow exceptions to your stand?

Consider the situation of Catha and her decision to take home a printer cartridge from work, despite the company policy against taking any office supplies home. She might go through the following process, using the Twelve Questions Model:

• My problem is that I cannot afford to buy printer ink, and I have the same printer at home. Since I do some work at home, it seems fair that I can take home the printer ink.
• If I am allowed to take this ink home, others may feel the same, and that means the company is spending a lot of money on printer ink for people’s home use.
• It has occurred due to the fact I have so much work that I need to take some of it home, and often I need to print at home.
• I am loyal to the company.
• My intention is to use the ink for work purposes only.
• If I take home this ink, my intention may show I am disloyal to the company and do not respect company policies.
• The decision could injure my company and myself, in that if I get caught, I may get in trouble. This could result in a loss of respect for me at work.
• Yes, I could engage my boss and ask her to make an exception to the company policy, since I am doing so much work at home.
• No, I am not confident of this. For example, if I am promoted at work, I may have to enforce this rule at some point. It would be difficult to enforce if I personally have broken the rule before.
• I would not feel comfortable doing it and letting my company and boss know after the fact.
• The symbolic action could be questionable loyalty to the company and respect of company policies.
• An exception might be ok if I ask permission first. If I am not given permission, I can work with my supervisor to find a way to get my work done without having a printer cartridge at home.

As you can see from the process, Catha came to her own conclusion by answering the questions involved in this model. The purpose of the model is to think through the situation from all sides to make sure the right decision is being made.

As you can see in this model, first an analysis of the problem itself is important. Determining your true intention when making this decision is an important factor in making ethical decisions. In other words, what do you hope to accomplish and who can it hurt or harm? The ability to talk with affected parties upfront is telling. If you were unwilling to talk with the affected parties, there is a chance (because you want it kept secret) that it could be the wrong ethical decision. Also, looking at your actions from other people’s perspectives is the core of this model.

Some of the possible approaches to ethical decision making. No one model is perfect, so understanding all of the possibilities and combining them is the best way to look at ethical decision making.

Josephson Institute of Ethics’ Model

Josephson Institute of Ethics uses a model that focuses on six steps to ethical decision making. The steps consist of stop and think, clarify goals, determine facts, develop options, consider consequences, choose, and monitor/modify.

As mentioned, the first step is to stop and think. When we stop to think, this avoids rash decisions and allows us to focus on the right decision-making process. It also allows us to determine if the situation we are facing is legal or ethical. When we clarify our goals, we allow ourselves to focus on expected and desired outcomes. Next, we need to determine the facts in the situation. Where are we getting our facts? Is the person who is providing the facts to us credible? Is there bias in the facts or assumptions that may not be correct? Next, create a list of options. This can be a brainstormed list with all possible solutions. In the next step, we can look at the possible consequences of our actions. For example, who will be helped and who might be hurt? Since all ethical decisions we make may not always be perfect, considering how you feel and the outcome of your decisions will help you to make better ethical decisions in the future. Figure \(\PageIndex{2}\) gives an example of the ethical decision-making process using Josephson’s model.

Steps to Ethical Decision Making

There are many models that provide several steps to the decision-making process. One such model was created in the late 1990s for the counseling profession but can apply to nearly every profession from health care to business. [3] In this model, the authors propose eight steps to the decision-making process. As you will note, the process is similar to Josephson’s model, with a few variations:

• Step 1: Identify the problem. Sometimes just realizing a particular situation is ethical can be the important first step. Occasionally in our organizations, we may feel that it’s just the “way of doing business” and not think to question the ethical nature.
• Step 2: Identify the potential issues involved. Who could get hurt? What are the issues that could negatively impact people and/or the company? What is the worst-case scenario if we choose to do nothing?
• Step 3: Review relevant ethical guidelines. Does the organization have policies and procedures in place to handle this situation? For example, if a client gives you a gift, there may be a rule in place as to whether you can accept gifts and if so, the value limit of the gift you can accept.
• Step 4: Know relevant laws and regulations. If the company doesn’t necessarily have a rule against it, could it be looked at as illegal?
• Step 5: Obtain consultation. Seek support from supervisors, coworkers, friends, and family, and especially seek advice from people who you feel are moral and ethical.
• Step 6: Consider possible and probable courses of action. What are all of the possible solutions for solving the problem? Brainstorm a list of solutions—all solutions are options during this phase.
• Step 7: List the consequences of the probable courses of action. What are both the positive and negative benefits of each proposed solution? Who can the decision affect?
• Step 8: Decide on what appears to be the best course of action. With the facts we have and the analysis done, choosing the best course of action is the final step. There may not always be a “perfect” solution, but the best solution is the one that seems to create the most good and the least harm.

Most organizations provide such a framework for decision making. By providing this type of framework, an employee can logically determine the best course of action. The Department of Defense uses a similar framework when making decisions, as shown below.

department of defense decision-making framework

The Department of Defense uses a specific framework to make ethical decisions. [4]

Define the problem.

• State the problem in general terms.
• State the decisions to be made
• State short-term goals.
• State long-term goals.
• List appropriate laws or regulations.
• List the ethical values at stake.

Name all the stakeholders.

• Identify persons who are likely to be affected by a decision.
• List what is at stake for each stakeholder.
• Take time to gather all necessary information.
• Ask questions.
• Demand proof when appropriate.
• Check your assumptions.
• List solutions that have already surfaced.
• Produce additional solutions by brainstorming with associates.
• Note how stakeholders can be affected (loss or gain) by each solution.
• Eliminate solutions that are clearly unethical.
• Eliminate solutions with short-term advantages but long-term problems.
• Rank the remaining options according to how close they bring you to your goal, and solve the problem.
• Commit to and implement the best ethical solution.

Philosopher’s Approach

Philosophers and ethicists believe in a few ethical standards, which can guide ethical decision making. First, the utilitarian approach says that when choosing one ethical action over another, we should select the one that does the most good and least harm. For example, if the cashier at the grocery store gives me too much change, I may ask myself, if I keep the change, what harm is caused? If I keep it, is any good created? Perhaps the good created is that I am not able to pay back my friend whom I owe money to, but the harm would be that the cashier could lose his job. In other words, the utilitarian approach recognizes that some good and some harm can come out of every situation and looks at balancing the two.

In the rights approach , we look at how our actions will affect the rights of those around us. So rather than looking at good versus harm as in the utilitarian approach, we are looking at individuals and their rights to make our decision. For example, if I am given too much change at the grocery store, I might consider the rights of the corporation, the rights of the cashier to be paid for something I purchased, and the right of me personally to keep the change because it was their mistake.

The common good approach says that when making ethical decisions, we should try to benefit the community as a whole. For example, if we accepted the extra change in our last example but donated to a local park cleanup, this might be considered OK because we are focused on the good of the community, as opposed to the rights of just one or two people.

The virtue approach asks the question, “What kind of person will I be if I choose this action?” In other words, the virtue approach to ethics looks at desirable qualities and says we should act to obtain our highest potential. In our grocery store example, if given too much change, someone might think, “If I take this extra change, this might make me a dishonest person—which I don’t want to be.”

The imperfections in these approaches are threefold: [5]

• Not everyone will necessarily agree on what is harm versus good.
• Not everyone agrees on the same set of human rights.
• We may not agree on what a common good means.

Because of these imperfections, it is recommended to combine several approaches discussed in this section when making ethical decisions. If we consider all approaches and ways to make ethical decisions, it is more likely we will make better ethical decisions. By making better ethical decisions, we improve our ability to self-manage, which at work can improve our relationships with others.

Key Takeaways

• We can use a variety of models and frameworks to help us with ethical decision making. For example, one such model is the Twelve Questions Model. This model encourages us to ask questions such as who this decision affects to determine the best ethical choice.
• Josephson’s model consists of six steps. They include stop and think, clarify goals, determine facts, develop options, consider consequences, choose, and monitor/modify.
• Another model discussed has the following steps: identify the problem, identify the potential issues involved, review relevant ethical guidelines, know relevant laws and regulations, obtain consultation, consider possible and probable courses of action, list the consequences of the probable courses of action, and decide on what appears to be the best course of action.
• Philosophers look at ethical frameworks following a utilitarian approach, common good approach, rights approach , and the virtue approach . These approaches provide a framework for sound ethical decision making.

Exercises \(\PageIndex{1}\)

• Think of a recent ethical decision you have made. Using the model or framework of your choice, discuss how you went through the process of making a sound ethical decision.
• What are the strengths and weaknesses of each model presented in this section? How can you combine them all to make ethical decisions?
• Nash, L. (1981). Ethics without the sermon. Howard Business Review, 59 79–90, accessed February 24, 2012, www.cs.bgsu.edu/maner/heuristics/1981Nash.htm
• Nash, L. (1981). Ethics without the sermon. Howard Business Review , 59 79–90, accessed February 24, 2012, www.cs.bgsu.edu/maner/heuristics/1981Nash.htm
• Corey, G., Corey, M . S., & Callanan, P. (1998). Issues and ethics in the helping professions. Toronto: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company; Syracuse School of Education. (n.d.). An ethical decision making model, accessed February 24, 2012,soe.syr.edu/academic/counseli...ues/ethical_de cision_making_model.aspx
• United States Department of Defense. (1999). Joint Ethics Regulation DoD 5500.7-R., accessed February 24, 2012,csweb.cs.bgsu.edu/maner/heuri...tOfDefense.htm andogc.hqda.pentago n.mil/EandF/Documentation/ethics_material.aspx
• Santa Clara University. (n.d.). A framework for thinking ethically, accessed February 24, 2012, www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing...framework.html

A Framework for Ethical Decision Making

• Markkula Center for Applied Ethics
• Ethics Resources

This document is designed as an introduction to thinking ethically. Read more about what the framework can (and cannot) do .  

We all have an image of our better selves—of how we are when we act ethically or are “at our best.” We probably also have an image of what an ethical community, an ethical business, an ethical government, or an ethical society should be. Ethics really has to do with all these levels—acting ethically as individuals, creating ethical organizations and governments, and making our society as a whole more ethical in the way it treats everyone.

What is Ethics?

Ethics refers to standards and practices that tell us how human beings ought to act in the many situations in which they find themselves—as friends, parents, children, citizens, businesspeople, professionals, and so on. Ethics is also concerned with our character. It requires knowledge, skills, and habits. 

It is helpful to identify what ethics is NOT:

• Ethics is not the same as feelings . Feelings do provide important information for our ethical choices. However, while some people have highly developed habits that make them feel bad when they do something wrong, others feel good even though they are doing something wrong. And, often, our feelings will tell us that it is uncomfortable to do the right thing if it is difficult.
• Ethics is not the same as religion . Many people are not religious but act ethically, and some religious people act unethically. Religious traditions can, however, develop and advocate for high ethical standards, such as the Golden Rule.
• Ethics is not the same thing as following the law. A good system of law does incorporate many ethical standards, but law can deviate from what is ethical. Law can become ethically corrupt—a function of power alone and designed to serve the interests of narrow groups. Law may also have a difficult time designing or enforcing standards in some important areas and may be slow to address new problems.
• Ethics is not the same as following culturally accepted norms . Cultures can include both ethical and unethical customs, expectations, and behaviors. While assessing norms, it is important to recognize how one’s ethical views can be limited by one’s own cultural perspective or background, alongside being culturally sensitive to others.
• Ethics is not science . Social and natural science can provide important data to help us make better and more informed ethical choices. But science alone does not tell us what we ought to do. Some things may be scientifically or technologically possible and yet unethical to develop and deploy.

Six Ethical Lenses

If our ethical decision-making is not solely based on feelings, religion, law, accepted social practice, or science, then on what basis can we decide between right and wrong, good and bad? Many philosophers, ethicists, and theologians have helped us answer this critical question. They have suggested a variety of different lenses that help us perceive ethical dimensions. Here are six of them:

The Rights Lens

Some suggest that the ethical action is the one that best protects and respects the moral rights of those affected. This approach starts from the belief that humans have a dignity based on their human nature per se or on their ability to choose freely what they do with their lives. On the basis of such dignity, they have a right to be treated as ends in themselves and not merely as means to other ends. The list of moral rights—including the rights to make one's own choices about what kind of life to lead, to be told the truth, not to be injured, to a degree of privacy, and so on—is widely debated; some argue that non-humans have rights, too. Rights are also often understood as implying duties—in particular, the duty to respect others' rights and dignity.

( For further elaboration on the rights lens, please see our essay, “Rights.” )

The Justice Lens

Justice is the idea that each person should be given their due, and what people are due is often interpreted as fair or equal treatment. Equal treatment implies that people should be treated as equals   according to some defensible standard such as merit or need, but not necessarily that everyone should be treated in the exact same way in every respect. There are different types of justice that address what people are due in various contexts. These include social justice (structuring the basic institutions of society), distributive justice (distributing benefits and burdens), corrective justice (repairing past injustices), retributive justice (determining how to appropriately punish wrongdoers), and restorative or transformational justice (restoring relationships or transforming social structures as an alternative to criminal punishment).

( For further elaboration on the justice lens, please see our essay, “Justice and Fairness.” )

The Utilitarian Lens

Some ethicists begin by asking, “How will this action impact everyone affected?”—emphasizing the consequences of our actions. Utilitarianism, a results-based approach, says that the ethical action is the one that produces the greatest balance of good over harm for as many stakeholders as possible. It requires an accurate determination of the likelihood of a particular result and its impact. For example, the ethical corporate action, then, is the one that produces the greatest good and does the least harm for all who are affected—customers, employees, shareholders, the community, and the environment. Cost/benefit analysis is another consequentialist approach.

( For further elaboration on the utilitarian lens, please see our essay, “Calculating Consequences.” )

The Common Good Lens

According to the common good approach, life in community is a good in itself and our actions should contribute to that life. This approach suggests that the interlocking relationships of society are the basis of ethical reasoning and that respect and compassion for all others—especially the vulnerable—are requirements of such reasoning. This approach also calls attention to the common conditions that are important to the welfare of everyone—such as clean air and water, a system of laws, effective police and fire departments, health care, a public educational system, or even public recreational areas. Unlike the utilitarian lens, which sums up and aggregates goods for every individual, the common good lens highlights mutual concern for the shared interests of all members of a community.

( For further elaboration on the common good lens, please see our essay, “The Common Good.” )

The Virtue Lens

A very ancient approach to ethics argues that ethical actions ought to be consistent with certain ideal virtues that provide for the full development of our humanity. These virtues are dispositions and habits that enable us to act according to the highest potential of our character and on behalf of values like truth and beauty. Honesty, courage, compassion, generosity, tolerance, love, fidelity, integrity, fairness, self-control, and prudence are all examples of virtues. Virtue ethics asks of any action, “What kind of person will I become if I do this?” or “Is this action consistent with my acting at my best?”

( For further elaboration on the virtue lens, please see our essay, “Ethics and Virtue.” )

The Care Ethics Lens

Care ethics is rooted in relationships and in the need to listen and respond to individuals in their specific circumstances, rather than merely following rules or calculating utility. It privileges the flourishing of embodied individuals in their relationships and values interdependence, not just independence. It relies on empathy to gain a deep appreciation of the interest, feelings, and viewpoints of each stakeholder, employing care, kindness, compassion, generosity, and a concern for others to resolve ethical conflicts. Care ethics holds that options for resolution must account for the relationships, concerns, and feelings of all stakeholders. Focusing on connecting intimate interpersonal duties to societal duties, an ethics of care might counsel, for example, a more holistic approach to public health policy that considers food security, transportation access, fair wages, housing support, and environmental protection alongside physical health.

( For further elaboration on the care ethics lens, please see our essay, “Care Ethics.” )

Using the Lenses

Each of the lenses introduced above helps us determine what standards of behavior and character traits can be considered right and good. There are still problems to be solved, however.

The first problem is that we may not agree on the content of some of these specific lenses. For example, we may not all agree on the same set of human and civil rights. We may not agree on what constitutes the common good. We may not even agree on what is a good and what is a harm.

The second problem is that the different lenses may lead to different answers to the question “What is ethical?” Nonetheless, each one gives us important insights in the process of deciding what is ethical in a particular circumstance.

Making Decisions

Making good ethical decisions requires a trained sensitivity to ethical issues and a practiced method for exploring the ethical aspects of a decision and weighing the considerations that should impact our choice of a course of action. Having a method for ethical decision-making is essential. When practiced regularly, the method becomes so familiar that we work through it automatically without consulting the specific steps.

The more novel and difficult the ethical choice we face, the more we need to rely on discussion and dialogue with others about the dilemma. Only by careful exploration of the problem, aided by the insights and different perspectives of others, can we make good ethical choices in such situations.

The following framework for ethical decision-making is intended to serve as a practical tool for exploring ethical dilemmas and identifying ethical courses of action.

Identify the Ethical Issues

• Could this decision or situation be damaging to someone or to some group, or unevenly beneficial to people? Does this decision involve a choice between a good and bad alternative, or perhaps between two “goods” or between two “bads”?
• Is this issue about more than solely what is legal or what is most efficient? If so, how?

Get the Facts

• What are the relevant facts of the case? What facts are not known? Can I learn more about the situation? Do I know enough to make a decision?
• What individuals and groups have an important stake in the outcome? Are the concerns of some of those individuals or groups more important? Why?
• What are the options for acting? Have all the relevant persons and groups been consulted? Have I identified creative options?

Evaluate Alternative Actions

• Evaluate the options by asking the following questions:
• Which option best respects the rights of all who have a stake? (The Rights Lens)
• Which option treats people fairly, giving them each what they are due? (The Justice Lens)
• Which option will produce the most good and do the least harm for as many stakeholders as possible? (The Utilitarian Lens)
• Which option best serves the community as a whole, not just some members? (The Common Good Lens)
• Which option leads me to act as the sort of person I want to be? (The Virtue Lens)
• Which option appropriately takes into account the relationships, concerns, and feelings of all stakeholders? (The Care Ethics Lens)

Choose an Option for Action and Test It

• After an evaluation using all of these lenses, which option best addresses the situation?
• If I told someone I respect (or a public audience) which option I have chosen, what would they say?
• How can my decision be implemented with the greatest care and attention to the concerns of all stakeholders?

Implement Your Decision and Reflect on the Outcome

• How did my decision turn out, and what have I learned from this specific situation? What (if any) follow-up actions should I take?

This framework for thinking ethically is the product of dialogue and debate at the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University. Primary contributors include Manuel Velasquez, Dennis Moberg, Michael J. Meyer, Thomas Shanks, Margaret R. McLean, David DeCosse, Claire André, Kirk O. Hanson, Irina Raicu, and Jonathan Kwan.  It was last revised on November 5, 2021.

• Close ×
• ASWB Exam Prep Overview
• LCSW Exam Prep (ASWB Clinical Exam)
• LMSW Exam Prep (ASWB Masters Exam)
• LSW Exam Prep (ASWB Bachelors Exam)
• California Law and Ethics Exam Practice
• Free Practice Test
• Get Started
• Free Study Guide
• Printed Exams
• Testimonials

The social worker's role in the problem-solving process

First, a question: what's that mean exactly? 

The Problem-Solving Process

The problem-solving process is a systematic approach used to identify, analyze, and resolve issues or challenges. It typically involves several steps:

Identification of the Problem: The first step is to clearly define and identify the problem or issue that needs to be addressed. This involves understanding the symptoms and root causes of the problem, as well as its impact on individuals, groups, or the community.

Gathering Information: Once the problem is identified, relevant information and data are gathered to gain a deeper understanding of the issue. This may involve conducting research, collecting data, or consulting with stakeholders who are affected by or have expertise in the problem.

Analysis of the Problem: In this step, the information collected is analyzed to identify patterns, underlying causes, and contributing factors to the problem. This helps in developing a comprehensive understanding of the problem and determining possible solutions.

Generation of Solutions: Based on the analysis, a range of potential solutions or strategies is generated to address the problem. Brainstorming, creative thinking techniques, and consultation with others may be used to generate diverse options.

Evaluation of Solutions: Each potential solution is evaluated based on its feasibility, effectiveness, and potential impact. This involves considering factors such as available resources, potential risks, and alignment with goals and values.

Decision-Making: After evaluating the various solutions, a decision is made regarding which solution or combination of solutions to implement. This decision-making process may involve weighing the pros and cons of each option and considering input from stakeholders.

Implementation: Once a decision is made, the chosen solution is put into action. This may involve developing an action plan, allocating resources, and assigning responsibilities to ensure the effective implementation of the solution.

Monitoring and Evaluation: Throughout the implementation process, progress is monitored, and the effectiveness of the solution is evaluated. This allows for adjustments to be made as needed and ensures that the desired outcomes are being achieved.

Reflection and Learning: After the problem-solving process is complete, it's important to reflect on what was learned from the experience. This involves identifying strengths and weaknesses in the process, as well as any lessons learned that can be applied to future challenges.

The Social Worker's Role

Okay, so social worker's assist with all of that. The trickiest part (and the part most likely to show up on the ASWB exam) is decision making. Do social workers make decisions for clients, give advice, gently suggest...? The answer is no, sometimes, and sort-of. Client self-determination is a key component of social work ethics. Problem-solving and decision-making in social work are guided by these general principles:

Client-Centered Approach: Social workers prioritize the autonomy and self-determination of their clients. They empower clients to make informed decisions by providing them with information, options, and support rather than imposing their own opinions or solutions.

Collaborative Problem-Solving: Social workers engage in collaborative problem-solving with their clients. They work together to explore the client's concerns, goals, and available resources, and then develop strategies and plans of action that are mutually agreed upon.

Strengths-Based Perspective: Social workers focus on identifying and building upon the strengths and resources of their clients. They help clients recognize their own abilities and resilience, which can empower them to find solutions to their problems.

Non-Directive Approach: While social workers may offer suggestions or recommendations, they typically do so in a non-directive manner. They encourage clients to explore various options and consequences, and they respect the client's ultimate decisions.

Cultural Sensitivity: Social workers are sensitive to the cultural backgrounds, beliefs, and values of their clients. They recognize that advice-giving may need to be tailored to align with the cultural norms and preferences of the client.

Ethical Considerations: Social workers adhere to ethical principles, including the obligation to do no harm, maintain confidentiality, and respect the dignity and rights of their clients. They avoid giving advice that may potentially harm or exploit their clients.

Professional Boundaries: Social workers maintain professional boundaries when giving advice, ensuring that their recommendations are based on professional expertise and not influenced by personal biases or conflicts of interest.

On the Exam

ASWB exam questions on this material may look like this:

• During which step of the problem-solving process are potential solutions evaluated based on feasibility, effectiveness, and potential impact?
• In the problem-solving process, what is the purpose of gathering information?
• Which ethical principle guides social workers in giving advice during the problem-solving process?

Or may be a vignette in which client self-determination (eg re sleeping outside) is paramount.

Get ready for questions on this topic and many, many others with SWTP's full-length practice tests. Problem: need to prepare for the social work licensing exam. Solution: practice!

Get Started Now .

March 15, 2024.

Right now, get SWTP's online practice exams at a reduced price. Just $39 . Get additional savings when buying more than one exam at a time-- less than  $30 per exam!

Keep going till you pass. Extensions are free.

To receive our free study guide and get started!