PURPOSE: The purpose of this research was to apply multiple perspectives as part of a systematic review to analyze literature regarding ethics in audiology. Audiologists are particularly vulnerable to the changing requirements of the discipline that compel them to straddle both professional obligations and business principles, creating a hybrid professional. METHOD: The authors used a 2-phase mixed-method approach to analyze publications. Publications were sorted into categories, namely, ethics approach, author, decade, role of the audiologist, component of morality, and common themes. The sample consisted of peer-reviewed articles cited in MEDLINE, CINAHL, ERIC, MasterFILE Premier, E-Journals, Africa-Wide Information, and Academic Search Premier electronic databases and non-peer-reviewed articles in Seminars in Hearing. RESULTS: The publications were predominantly philosophical, focused on the rehabilitative role of the audiologist, and addressed the moral judgment component of moral behavior. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the fact that knowledge of ethics grew between 1980 and 2010, this retrospective analysis identified gaps in current knowledge. Research is needed to address the unique ethical problems commonly encountered in all 8 roles of the audiologist; patient perspectives on ethics; ethical approaches; factors affecting moral judgment, sensitivity, motivation, and courage; and cultural dimensions of ethical practice in audiology.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this research was to apply multiple perspectives as part of a systematic review to analyze literature regarding ethics in audiology. Audiologists are particularly vulnerable to the changing requirements of the discipline that compel them to straddle both professional obligations and business principles, creating a hybrid professional. METHOD: The authors used a 2-phase mixed-method approach to analyze publications. Publications were sorted into categories, namely, ethics approach, author, decade, role of the audiologist, component of morality, and common themes. The sample consisted of peer-reviewed articles cited in MEDLINE, CINAHL, ERIC, MasterFILE Premier, E-Journals, Africa-Wide Information, and Academic Search Premier electronic databases and non-peer-reviewed articles in Seminars in Hearing. RESULTS: The publications were predominantly philosophical, focused on the rehabilitative role of the audiologist, and addressed the moral judgment component of moral behavior. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the fact that knowledge of ethics grew between 1980 and 2010, this retrospective analysis identified gaps in current knowledge. Research is needed to address the unique ethical problems commonly encountered in all 8 roles of the audiologist; patient perspectives on ethics; ethical approaches; factors affecting moral judgment, sensitivity, motivation, and courage; and cultural dimensions of ethical practice in audiology.