How does international guidance for statistical practice align with the ASA Ethical Guidelines?

Rochelle E. Tractenberg, Jennifer Park
{"title":"How does international guidance for statistical practice align with the ASA Ethical Guidelines?","authors":"Rochelle E. Tractenberg, Jennifer Park","doi":"arxiv-2309.08713","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Gillikin (2017) defines a 'practice standard' as a document to 'define the\nway the profession's body of knowledge is ethically translated into day-to-day\nactivities' (Gillikin 2017, p. 1). Such documents fulfill three objectives:\nthey 1) define the profession; 2) communicate uniform standards to\nstakeholders; and 3) reduce conflicts between personal and professional conduct\n(Gillikin, 2017 p. 2). However, there are many guidelines - this is due to\ndifferent purposes that guidance writers may have, as well as to the fact that\nthere are different audiences for the many guidance documents. The existence of\ndiverse statements do not necessarily make it clear that there are\ncommonalities; and while some statements are explicitly aspirational,\nprofessionals as well as the public need to know that ethically-trained\npractitioners follow accepted practice standards. This paper applies the\nmethodological approach described in Tractenberg (2023) and demonstrated in\nPark and Tractenberg (2023) to study alignment among international guidance for\nofficial statistics, and between these guidance documents and the ASA Ethical\nGuidelines for Statistical Practice functioning as an ethical practice standard\n(Tractenberg, 2022-A, 2022-B; after Gillikin 2017). In the spirit of exchanging\nexperiences and lessons learned, we discuss how our findings could inform\ncloser examination, clarification, and, if beneficial, possible revision of\nguidance in the future.","PeriodicalId":501323,"journal":{"name":"arXiv - STAT - Other Statistics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"arXiv - STAT - Other Statistics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/arxiv-2309.08713","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Gillikin (2017) defines a 'practice standard' as a document to 'define the way the profession's body of knowledge is ethically translated into day-to-day activities' (Gillikin 2017, p. 1). Such documents fulfill three objectives: they 1) define the profession; 2) communicate uniform standards to stakeholders; and 3) reduce conflicts between personal and professional conduct (Gillikin, 2017 p. 2). However, there are many guidelines - this is due to different purposes that guidance writers may have, as well as to the fact that there are different audiences for the many guidance documents. The existence of diverse statements do not necessarily make it clear that there are commonalities; and while some statements are explicitly aspirational, professionals as well as the public need to know that ethically-trained practitioners follow accepted practice standards. This paper applies the methodological approach described in Tractenberg (2023) and demonstrated in Park and Tractenberg (2023) to study alignment among international guidance for official statistics, and between these guidance documents and the ASA Ethical Guidelines for Statistical Practice functioning as an ethical practice standard (Tractenberg, 2022-A, 2022-B; after Gillikin 2017). In the spirit of exchanging experiences and lessons learned, we discuss how our findings could inform closer examination, clarification, and, if beneficial, possible revision of guidance in the future.
统计实践的国际指南如何与ASA道德指南保持一致?
Gillikin(2017)将“实践标准”定义为“定义职业知识体系在道德上转化为日常活动的方式”的文件(Gillikin 2017,第1页)。这些文件实现了三个目标:1)定义职业;2)向利益相关者传达统一的标准;3)减少个人行为和职业行为之间的冲突(Gillikin, 2017年第2页)。然而,有许多指导方针-这是由于指导作者可能有不同的目的,以及许多指导文件有不同的受众。不同陈述的存在并不一定表明存在共性;虽然有些声明是明确的愿望,但专业人士和公众需要知道,受过道德训练的从业人员遵循公认的实践标准。本文采用Tractenberg(2023)中描述的方法方法,并在park和Tractenberg(2023)中进行了演示,以研究官方统计国际指南之间的一致性,以及这些指导文件与作为道德实践标准的ASA统计实践道德指南之间的一致性(Tractenberg, 2022-A, 2022-B;在吉利金2017年之后)。本着交流经验和教训的精神,我们讨论了我们的发现如何为更仔细的检查、澄清和(如果有益的话)未来可能的指南修订提供信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信