It is easy to claim adherence to an ethical code of practice, however the reality can be more complex.  The challenges and possible contradictions encountered when trying to operate within an ethical framework are considered.

'Careers Education and guidance is a profoundly political process. It operates at the interface between the individual and society, between self and opportunity, between aspiration and realism. It facilitates the allocation of life chances. Within a society in which such life chances are unequally distributed, it faces the issue of whether it serves to reinforce such inequalities or to reduce them.'  Watts (1996:351)

It is uncontroversial to say that most Careers Advisers would identify themselves as working from a client (person) centred perspective and in an impartial manner, (Kidd et al, 1993; 1994; NICEC, 1994). This is reflected in the Institute of Career Guidance Code of Ethical Practice for Members of the Institute of Career Guidance' , to which all its members are required to subscribe.  It states:

'effective and impartial career guidance, founded in the principle of equality of opportunity, aims to ensure individual clients are aware of the full range of opportunities which could be available to them in education, training and work and know how to access them.'

Further, the ICG identifies the following principles as fundamental to the professional ethical code for its members:

• Individual Ownership
• Confidentiality
• Equality of Opportunity
• Impartiality
• Transparency
• Accessibility

And who could argue against any of these principles? The problem is of course, that very quickly the most cursory analysis begins to unpick the complexity of these statements. Thus the principle of Individual Ownership is based on the 'belief that every individual has the right to self-determination in a free society and the guidance process is focussed therefore on the needs of the individual, recognising his/her rights and responsibilities'. Yet, a debate rages about the extent to which individuals are able to exercise self-determination in a society that many would argue is anything but 'free' and is clearly riddled with injustice.

Back in 1977 Roberts argued that social class rather than individual choice was the major determinant of career choice. Developmental theories of career guidance have long been criticised for their individualistic assumptions - especially around the degree of autonomy an individual may really have, (Young & Valach, 2000; Richardson, 2000; Collin & Young, 2000). As expressed by De Tombe (1993:59)

'the assumption is that having or not having a job is an individual achievement. The discussion lacked sociological explanations related to skin colour, social class and gender … (discussing) problems as if they were situated in an egalitarian society, where individual and employers, men and women, whites and blacks, have the same rights, power and influence.' De Tombe (1993:59)

If interventions focus on the individual, with insufficient regard to the broader social context in which career guidance practitioners operate, then might this not lead to a conflict of ethics? How can there be confidence that individualised 'solutions' are in the best interests of the client? Might they lead inadvertently to perpetuating an unequal society, if they fail to take account of, recognise and challenge the powerful, but less tangible constraints of the world in which we live?

In my work with students on the Qualification in Careeers Guidance and with practitioners through continuing professional development actitvities such as in service training or workshops on Ethics, I find the issue of confidentiality and what it means for client centred practice a recurrent theme. For students, this is particularly true once they have been out on placement and seen first hand the issues that arise.

It seems to me that while this is not a new issue, the problem of confidentiality within careers guidance practice becomes critical when there is a move to inter-agency working, because not sharing information can be interpreted as not collaborating. 

There is some useful writing about confidentiality in counselling, but there seems less about confidentiality in careers guidance practice (Mulvey, 2001).  

Working in the context of school counselling in the USA, Birdsell & Hubert (2000: 30) maintain that confidentiality is absolute except where:

• There is danger to the client or others
• The client requests disclosure to a 3rd party
• The law requires it

The critical issue in confidentiality and disclosure is the status of the information.  If what you share with a colleague is something your client perceived as a secret, whilst you did not intend to give away the secret, that may well be the client’s perception of your disclosure, even when it was done in their best interests.  The professional must engae with the client to explain s/he judges sharing the confidential information with somebody else is ultimately in the client’s best interest.  The ideal is to secure informed consent (recorded in written form) for such disclosure of sensitive information to a third party no matter in what medium (verbal, written or electronic).  If the professional has a responsibility to work with the client equally the client has a responsibility to work with the professional.  If the client wants freedom to make decisions, this autonomy carries its own responsibility.  The relationship where client and professional trust each other should then work in the best interests of the client.  In practice, this is not always the case.

Ethics are moral principles, rules of conduct

'If you want to know a person's values, look at their ethical choices' (Thompson, 1999, p.11)

Values act as the foundation on which ethical principles and standards of practice are built. The values shared by mot of the caring professions in democracies are:

• Integrity
• Impartiality
• Respect

An ethical system involves four elements:

• Beneficence – what will achieve the greatest good?
• Non-maleficence –what will cause least harm?
• Justice – what will be fairest?
• Respect for autonomy – what maximizes the opportunities for everyone involved to implement their own choices? (Mulvey, 2002, p.82)

In professional practice, you may have to work against one principle to achieve another.

Mulvey (2002) distinguishes between an ethical problem and an ethical dilemma. An ethical problem can be solved, but an ethical dilemma is less easily dealt with. It usually offers a reasonable choice between different courses of action; each course of action carries with it consequences; either course of action is defensible in terms of adherence to ethical codes of practice; each course of action will compromise one of the ethical principles.

Professional bodies - codes of ethics:

International Educational and Vocational Guidance Association Ethical Standards

Institute of Career Guidance Code of Ethics

This research was carried out in Scotland through discussion and interviews with guidance practitioners working in a range of settings, including further education colleges, careers service and community settings.

This paper is the report of a project commissioned by the Centre for Educational Policy and Management in the Open University, and conducted jointly by researchers at the Faculty of Education in the University of Strathclyde and the School of Education in the Open University. The research was carried out in Scotland through discussion and interviews with guidance practitioners working in a range of settings, including further education colleges, careers service and community settings. The aims of the research were:

Research Aims:

• to study the concept of impartiality in its application to adult guidance practice;
• to investigate the extent to which impartiality is perceived to be relevant and applicable by guidance practitioners;
• to examine the ways in which impartiality is embedded in the guidance practices of further education colleges, the community education service, the careers service and relevant voluntary sector organisations.

This Code of Principles, from the University of Paisley is suggested as a basis for Support for Professional Practice in guidance work.

It is based on the Institute of Career Guidance Code of Ethical Practice and the BACP Statement of Fundamental Ethics for Counselling and Psychotherapy:

• Individual ownership – recognising that every individual engaged in support for professional practice has the right to self-determination and that the supervision provided is therefore focussed on the needs of the individual, respect for their autonomy and a clear contract which acknowledges this relationship.
• Confidentiality – respecting the privacy of the supervisee, disclosing confidential information only with their consent and honouring the trust the supervisee places in their supervisor.
• Equality of opportunity – promoting equality for all, being just and fair, acting with integrity and working towards the removal of barriers.
• Beneficence – promoting the supervisee’s well-being by acting in their best interests and working within one’s limits of competence and training as a supervisor. This requires systematic monitoring of one’s practice, regular and on-going supervision for oneself, and avoiding harm to the client through exploitation, incompetence or malpractice.
• Impartiality – recognising the precedence of professional objectivity over institutional pressures and personal interests.
• Accessibility – access available to all eligible supervisees in ways appropriate to their needs.
• Self-respect – all of the above principles should be applied to oneself as a supervisor to foster self-knowledge and care of self, including undertaking supervision and identifying training needs.