Invited Symposium

Organizer & Chair: Avi Allalouf, NITE

Moderator: Kadriye Ercikan, University of British Columbia

Participants: Helen Baron, Independent Consultant  | Dragos Iliescu, University of Bucharest  |  Serge Lacroix, University of British Columbia  |  Stephen G. Sireci University of Massachussetts at Amherst

Abstract:

For the purposes of our discussion, a dilemma refers to a situation in which a person deliberates over different courses of action rooted in conflicting ethical concerns. Such situations have been described throughout history in the stories of different civilizations, from the biblical sacrifice of Isaac to the Greek tragedies and modern literature. People facing a dilemma must engage in serious reflection and close examination of their ethical values, and must gauge how important these values are and what implications are associated with them.

The Ethical Dilemmas Symposium brings together four panelists to discuss several unique dilemmas related to assessment, testing and selection (developed by Dr. Avital Moshinsky from NITE and the symposium organizer). These types of dilemmas arise in fields such as high-stakes testing, organizational psychology, and clinical testing. Each of the panelists is an expert in testing, assessment or ethics. They will be presented with the “dilemmas†two weeks before the symposium and asked: What action did you finally decide to take in each situation and how did you come to your decision? Before answering, each panelist will first define the dilemma, and then express his/her views of the following issues: What is the gray area in this situation?  What values are at stake? What are the pros and cons of every possible decision that could be made in this situation? Who will be influenced by this decision?

One reason often given for not making a certain decision is the fear of setting a precedent. There is a concern that if a specific case is decided in a particular way, then that same – or a similar – decision will always be made in cases where there are extenuating circumstances; there is often a feeling, therefore, that it is better to adhere to protocol and existing procedures. The panelists will be asked: How much did this reasoning affect your decision in this case? If this incident were leaked to the media, how do you think the public would react?

The audience will have the opportunity to ask questions and express opinions about every dilemma discussed.

We expect that the dilemmas presented will prompt a serious and thought-provoking panel discussion on ethical values and on the professional decisions and deliberations that those dealing with testing and evaluation face on a regular basis.