21International Psychological Ethics: The Story of the Universal Declaration of Ethical Principles for Psychologists

Janel Gauthier

From a global perspective, the development of the Universal Declaration of Ethical Principles for Psychologists (2008; hereinafter also referred to as the “Declaration” or the “UDEPP”) is “arguably, the single most important development in the history of psychological ethics” (Prentice et al., 2017, p. 247). The Declaration was adopted unanimously in 2008 by both the General Assembly of the International Union of Psychological Science (IUPsyS) and the Board of Directors of the International Association of Applied Psychology (IAAP).¹It was the product of a six-year process involving a widely representative working group, original research, broad international consultation, and numerous revisions in response to feedback and suggestions from the international psychology community (Gauthier, 2008a, 2008b; Gauthier & Pettifor, 2011, 2012; Gauthier & Sinclair, 2020; Leach & Gauthier, 2012; Prentice et al., 2017).

The purpose of the present chapter is to describe how the idea of developing a universal declaration of ethical principles for psychologists came about, how the Declaration was developed, and how it has influenced global ethical thinking and contributed to the international advancement of psychological ethics. In this chapter, I will provide some of the backstory, drawing from my notes and memory of the events.

How it All Began

In a chance encounter, separate chains of events have their own causal determinants (e.g., entry skills, values, emotional ties), but their intersection occurs fortuitously. According to Bandura (1982, 1998), the science of psychology cannot shed much light on the occurrence of chance encounters, but it can provide the basis for predicting their impact. Personal resources help them to make the most of opportunities that arise unexpectedly. But what has this to do with the Declaration? Let’s go to the beginning of the story.

My personal involvement in international psychological ethics began in the year 2001 and occurred somewhat by chance. In the mid-90s, I was the chair of a working group created in Quebec City by a friend and myself outside the auspices or sanctioning of any organization or other group to obtain the release of a Canadian Vietnamese businessman (Trần Triệu Quân) who had been unjustly arrested and condemned to life imprisonment in Vietnam following the failure of a business deal. The deal involved a company owned by the Vietnamese government and a businessman of the United States for whom the Canadian was acting as an intermediary. In 1998, and against all odds, the working group was successful in obtaining the Canadian’s release from prison and his safe return from Vietnam to Canada on humanitarian grounds. However, this was only after three-and-a-half years of intense and continuous representations in several arenas (political, legal, business, and religious organizations; human rights associations; labour unions; chambers of commerce; schools and colleges; the Supreme Court of Canada, etc.) at the local, regional, national, and international levels. Through this experience, I learned first-hand that human rights should never be taken for granted, be it at home or elsewhere in the world, and that the struggle and maintenance of hope can be long and challenging.

In 2001, I received an invitation from Jean Pettifor (to whom this book is dedicated) to speak about ethics at an invited symposium she was convening for the International Congress of Applied Psychology to be held in Singapore in July 2002. The invitation was unexpected because I had never presented or published any paper on ethics. However, Jean was aware of my interest and work in human rights, including my involvement in the case of Trần Triệu Quân (it had been the focus of my second address as president of the Canadian Psychological Association [CPA] in 1998 [Gauthier, 1998]). In addition, the situation had been widely publicized throughout Canada. I wrote to Jean to let her know that I would be happy to accept her invitation if I could: (a) discuss the moral values promoted in codes of ethics in the context of connecting them to the values promoted in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) (United Nations, 1948); and (b) argue for the development of a universal declaration of ethical principles for psychologists that would be to psychology what the UDHR is to the world. Her reply was brief: “Send me an abstract and I will let you know.” She must have liked the idea because she accepted my abstract “as is” right away. At the time, I did not know how much Jean had been involved in fighting for human rights (particularly, women’s rights) throughout her personal and professional life. I came to realize later that she had connected human rights and ethics long before I did. For her (as well as for me today), ethics and the concept of human rights strengthened and complemented each other.²Opportunities existed in both to make contributions to the struggle for justice, peace, freedom, and respect for human dignity. Contributions to ethics could make contributions to the promotion of human rights, and vice versa.

With respect to my planned presentation, one problem was that the world of ethics and the world of human rights were perceived by most at the time as two different worlds, not to say two solitudes. The former is a world of human values (aspirational and inspirational in nature); the latter is a world of defined human entitlements (specific and prescriptive in nature).³They appeared so distinct that it was difficult to imagine a human rights activist becoming interested in ethics or an ethicist becoming a human right activist. However, another problem was that there was much skepticism in the international psychology community about whether the goal of developing a universal declaration of ethical principles for psychologists could be achieved. Both the International Union of Psychological Science and the International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology (another organization that provided support in the development of the Declaration) had tried and been unsuccessful in developing a code of ethics that would be applied worldwide.

D-Day and the Following Days

I was somewhat apprehensive about my presentation at the Congress in Singapore. I was worried both about how my proposal would be received and what could happen to me after speaking about human rights at the conference. At the time, Singapore was a highly developed nation with a thriving economy. However, freedom of speech and peaceful assembly were restricted by the government in the belief that they could undermine national security as well as religious and racial harmony. For example, before 2004, public speakers needed police permits to express themselves inside buildings (Hays, 2008). The political rights and civil liberties of people in Singapore were limited. There were reports of harassment, intimidation, unfounded charges, arbitrary detention, judicial caning, and the death penalty being used as methods of maintaining social order. In other words, in the view of many, human rights in Singapore had a long way to go, and promoting the universal recognition of human rights in Singapore involved some personal risks (I had not forgotten what had happened to Trần Triệu Quân just a few years earlier). In any case, the day on which my presentation on connecting ethics and human rights arrived, and things began to unfold quickly—far more quickly than I had anticipated.

On Monday, 8 July 2002, on the very first day of the conference, I presented my paper “Ethics and Human Rights: Toward a Universal Declaration of Ethical Principles for Psychologists.” It was part of the symposium convened by Jean, which was entitled “Professional Codes of Ethics across National Boundaries: Seeking Common Ground” (ICAP, 2002, p. 53). The aim of my paper (Gauthier, 2002) was to present evidence demonstrating that developing a universal declaration of ethical principles for psychologists that would be to psychology what the UDHR (United Nations, 1948) is to the world was something doable and desirable for the advancement of international psychological ethics. I did this by showing that: (a) there are commonalities in the ethical principles used to develop national codes of ethics for psychologists around the world; and (b) the ethical principles most frequently used to develop national ethics codes for psychology are closely connected to the moral imperatives underlying the UDHR (United Nations, 1948). To my surprise, the presentation and its proposal were so well received that, in a manner of speaking, it instantly became the “talk of the town.”

On Wednesday, 10 July 2002, parallel to the Congress, IAAP was hosting the World Forum of International Psychological Associations in Singapore. One of the topics discussed at the Forum was ethics and how international psychological associations could work together in promoting psychological ethics around the world. No specific project was discussed, but some participants in the Forum knew about my paper and the proposal of a universal declaration of ethical principles for psychologists. They came to me after the Forum to encourage me to submit the proposal to both IAAP and IUPsyS for consideration. At the time, I was a Canadian delegate to the IUPsyS General Assembly and had just been elected member-at-large of the IAAP Board of Directors. Coincidentally, the IUPsyS General Assembly was meeting the next day in Singapore.

On Thursday, 11 July 2002, at the beginning of the IUPsyS meeting, I moved to add one item to the proposed agenda; namely, to present my proposal for the development of a universal declaration of ethical principles for psychologists. A 2/3 vote was required to adopt the motion. My request was a challenge considering that the agenda was already full. To my surprise, the motion was approved unanimously, and I was given a maximum of five minutes to make my presentation. The chair of the General Assembly called the question immediately after my presentation. Again, to my surprise, the proposal was unanimously approved. No one abstained from voting. It also was agreed that it would be a joint project between IUPsyS and IAAP, that I would be the chair of the “Joint Ad Hoc Committee” responsible for developing the declaration, and that I would have the freedom to select all its members.

Jean and I were excited and looking forward to working on the development of the Declaration with other colleagues. However, there was no road map to do this. We needed to reflect on what we had heard and seen during the week, and what it meant for the next move.

Development of the Declaration

One of the lessons learned from the week in Singapore was the importance of developing a declaration that had maximum generalizability, applicability, and acceptance. As mentioned above, there was no available road map for doing this. In the end, though, following much discussion and consultation, an agreement was reached on how to proceed. The process involved: (a) creating a working group for the development of the Declaration (2002–2003); (b) conducting research designed to develop and validate a moral framework for the Declaration (2003–2004); (c) writing and revising drafts of the Declaration (2005–2008) for review and feedback; and (d) consulting the international psychology community throughout the development process (2002–2008). Each of these is discussed in turn below, along with some of the backstory explaining directions taken and decisions made.

Establishing a Working Group

The creation of a working group (also referred to as the “Joint Ad Hoc Committee”) to oversee the development of a universal declaration of ethical principles for psychologists was quite challenging. It was important that it be representative and inclusive, and that it reflect the different worldviews in the international psychology community. It was equally important to have a group whose members had relevant expertise and genuine interest in contributing to the development of an ethics document that would enjoy worldwide generalizability, applicability, and acceptance. It took over a year to recruit the members of the Committee. Jean Pettifor, who had attended numerous sessions about ethics at international psychology conferences every year over the previous 15 years, was helpful in identifying individuals to invite.

Responding to concerns that previous ethical frameworks and codes had come primarily from Western philosophy and worldviews, care was taken to ensure that members of the Joint Ad Hoc Committee were drawn from the major cultures and regions of the world. It included individuals whose heritage was Eastern, Western, and Indigenous. Members were from (in alphabetical order): Canada (Janel Gauthier, chair), China (Kan Zhang), Colombia (Rubén Ardila), Finland (Tuomo Tikkanen), Germany (Lutz Eckensberger), Iran (Nasrin Jazani), New Zealand (Catherine Love), Singapore (Elizabeth Nair), South Africa (Ann D. Watts), the United States (Paul B. Pederson), Yemen (Hassan Kassim Khan), and Zimbabwe (Kwadzi Nyanungo) (Gauthier, 2005, 2008a).

No attempt was made to have on the Committee a member from every country in the world, as it was thought that a small group would be more effective than a large group for the task at hand. However, that said, it is important to note that the Committee was working under the auspices of IUPsyS and IAAP, and that both these organizations had the opportunity to review ongoing progress reports and to comment on the drafts of the Declaration before it was considered for adoption. At the time, national organizations from over 80 different countries had IUPsyS membership (one per country), and psychologists from over 40 countries were members on the IAAP Board of Directors.

Conducting Research Designed to Identify a Universal Moral Framework

A moral framework that reflected the most universally agreed-upon ethical principles and values in psychological ethics was needed to draft the Declaration. One could have relied on the beliefs, thoughts, opinions, viewpoints, perspectives, and the like of the Joint Ad Hoc Committee members and the international psychology community to identify what those principles and values might be. This approach had been successfully used in the development of regional ethics documents such as the Meta-code of Ethics of the European Federation of Psychologists’ Associations and the Etiske prinsipper for Nordiske psykologer [Ethical Principles for Nordic Psychologists] (Gauthier & Pettifor, 2011). However, there was some uncertainty about whether a similar consensus could be achieved among psychologists worldwide as well as some concerns about how much time would be required to reach it if it could ever be achieved. Reliance on research explicitly designed to identify a universal moral framework for drafting of the Declaration seemed more promising. After all, the scientific approach is commonly used in psychology to address complex, and sometimes highly sensitive, questions or issues. This is not to say that there would be no challenge. At the time, there was no established methodology available to develop and validate a moral framework for drafting a universal declaration of ethical principles. We had to create one, one that would be credible, effective, and low budget.⁴

To identify commonalities in ethical principles, we started by examining existing codes of ethics for psychologists from around the world (Gauthier, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005). All codes in which ethical principles were clearly identified were included in the review. The ethical principles having the strongest commonality across national and continental boundaries in psychology were found to be: (a) respect for the dignity and rights of persons; (b) caring for others and concerns for their welfare; (c) competence; (d) integrity; and (e) professional and scientific responsibilities to society. However, as codes of ethics were more prevalent in Western cultures than in non-Western or Indigenous cultures, one could not rule out the possibility that ethical principles based on non-Western worldviews, including Indigenous worldviews, were underrepresented in the sample and, therefore, that the principles identified above were not truly “universal.” Further research was needed to test their “universality.”

To assess universality, three avenues of research were pursued: (a) review of codes of ethics of other disciplines (e.g., social work, medicine, sports coaching), including disciplines as far from psychology as martial arts, to identify the ethical principles and values espoused by other disciplines (Gauthier, 2005); (b) review of internationally accepted documents such as the UDHR (United Nations, 1948) and the Declaration Toward a Global Ethic (Parliament of the World’s Religions, 1993) to delineate their underlying moral principles (Gauthier, 2002, 2003, 2004); and (c) review of historical documents from both Eastern and Western countries and cultures (e.g., Babylon, China, Egypt, Greece, India, Japan, Persia) to determine the extent to which the ethical principles and values being considered for inclusion in the Declaration had roots in ancient cultures and civilizations (Gauthier, 2006; Sinclair, 2005a, 2005b, 2005c, 2012). These documents varied from formal oaths taken by new physicians to sets of instructions for physicians to, in one case, a physician’s prayer. They ranged chronologically from circa 500–300 B.C.E. to 1770 C.E. Carole Sinclair carried out this research. At the time, Carole was interested in identifying the roots of ethical principles and values in modern codes of ethics for psychologists. I asked her to extend her research to test the universality of the five ethical principles identified above, which she kindly agreed to do. Her research provided critical evidence for the universality of the ethical principles being considered for inclusion in the Declaration (Sinclair, 2012).

Together, the three avenues of research showed that the ethical principles used most commonly to articulate codes of ethics in psychology were based on human values shared throughout human history, as well as across communities, disciplines, cultures, and civilizations. Even where there were differences in emphasis (e.g., on individualism versus collectivism, science versus traditional healing, secular versus religious authority, and authoritarian versus democratic governance), there was a meeting ground in terms of respect, caring and competence, integrity in human relations, and the collective well-being of society.

Drafting of the Declaration

Creating the First Draft

By late 2004, the ethical principles of the moral framework for the Declaration had been identified, and feedback from the international psychology community indicated that these principles enjoyed the support needed to be used for drafting a universal declaration of ethical principles. We, therefore, began to shift our attention to the drafting of the document.

As challenging as it was to develop a moral framework for a universal declaration of ethical principles for psychologists, the drafting of the document itself represented an even greater challenge. As they say, “The devil is in the details.” Issues about language and meaning emerge in the context of almost all cross-cultural work. There are commonalities in basic human values across cultures. However, there also are obstacles to mutual understanding, and differences in how people believe life should be lived.

The very first attempt to have a crack at drafting the Declaration occurred on 19 October 2004 when Jean e-mailed me some ideas to consider for the drafting of the Declaration. She made suggestions about how to structure the document and what to include in each section. She also made preliminary attempts to word some paragraphs. Those who knew Jean know that this was her way of pressing people to move forward and get things done.

After reviewing her suggestions, I asked Jean if she would be willing to meet with me in Calgary (Jean’s hometown) for a few days to work on the Declaration. My goal was to develop a draft that would be good enough to present to the members of the international Joint Ad Hoc Committee for comments and suggestions by June 2005. I was aware that the required work could not be accomplished by email or teleconference alone. The task was too complex. There was a need to ensure that the perspectives of the Joint Ad Hoc Committee members and consultations carried out to date were incorporated into the draft document. Also, there was a need to describe the ethical principles in such a way that they could be operationalized differently depending on culture and needs, but still honoured.

We agreed to meet in person in May 2005. We were unable to meet earlier because of my duties as full-time university faculty and my frequent travels as president of IAAP. I arrived in Calgary on 16 May, and we were at work by the following day. We started off by revising the working document that Jean had produced in October. In a matter of days, we produced several versions (no less than eight according to my records). Versions sometimes evolved quite quickly throughout a working session. At the end of each working day, we had a new version of the Declaration that we critically reviewed the next working day. This unavoidably led to further revisions. We had our last working session on 21 May. I remember that day quite clearly. Like the first day, it was long and gruelling. Jean wanted to take me to Drumheller on 22 May to show me the Royal Tyrrell Museum of Palaeontology, Canada’s only museum dedicated exclusively to the study of ancient life, and I was scheduled to fly back to Quebec City (my hometown) in the morning of 23 May. We had agreed to work on the draft document until we ran out of ideas to improve its quality, and 21 May represented our last chance to achieve our objective. Jean allowed almost no breaks on that last day. I think that she enjoyed helping me work on the Declaration so much that her excitement could not give way to fatigue.

One week later, I visited Carole Sinclair at her office in Toronto to work on the document with her. She had been given a copy of the last version that Jean and I had worked on. On 28 May, she sent it back with comments, questions, and proposed edits. We had two working sessions during my visit: one on 30 May 2005 and another on 1 June 2005. The revised version was submitted for review to Jean who had only minor edits to suggest. Following minor editing in the light of Jean’s suggestions, this version was submitted to the members of the international Joint Ad Hoc Committee for review and approval in early June 2005. The feedback from the Committee was overwhelmingly positive. Within about two weeks, the draft document was approved unanimously by the Committee for release as the official first draft for review and feedback. This draft (for complete text, see Gauthier, 2006) included a Preamble and four sections corresponding to four different ethical principles, namely: (a) Respect for the Dignity of All Human Beings (Principle I); (b) Competent Caring for the Well-Being of Others (Principle II); (c) Integrity (Principle III); and (d) Professional and Scientific Responsibilities to Society (Principle IV).

Revising Drafts

The official first draft of the Declaration was sent to the leadership of IUPsyS and IAAP at the end of June 2005, with a request for feedback. In addition, as of June 2005 and as part of the broad international consultation process, it was presented, reviewed, and discussed in the context of symposia, focus groups, and panel discussions at international and regional conferences (for further details, see next section of this chapter).

Overall, the first draft of the Declaration was well received,⁵and the broad international consultations that occurred in the following two years yielded several helpful suggestions for improving it. It was revised in June 2007 in light of the feedback received, and an official second draft was approved by the Joint Ad Hoc Committee for release and international consultation in July 2007 (for complete text, see Gauthier 2008a). The structure of the second draft was the same as in the first draft. Once more, the draft was well received. The international consultations for the second draft continued through 2007–2008 and yielded additional helpful suggestions to improve the document even further.

Taking into account all feedback received, the second draft of the Declaration was revised in March and April 2008. After this third draft was reviewed and approved by the Joint Ad Hoc Committee, it was submitted as the “final draft” to the leadership of IUPsyS and IAAP in May 2008 for consideration for adoption by the IUPsyS General Assembly and the IAAP Board of Directors at their respective meetings in Berlin, Germany in July 2008. It was unanimously adopted by both organizations. The structure of the final draft (for complete text, see Gauthier, 2008b) was the same as in the previous two drafts.

Lessons Learned

Drafting an international ethics document such as the Declaration involves cross-cultural work. One of the major lessons to be learned in working cross-culturally is that the meaning of language is not constant across cultures and wide consultation is essential to be sensitive to the differences in meaning. Such differences are not always visible, nor is how to cope with them always obvious. The importance of the meaning of language in a global society, without a global language, cannot be over emphasized. For example, Principle I, which had been labelled “Respect for the Dignity of All Human Beings” in the first draft, was relabelled “Respect for the Dignity of Persons and Peoples” in the second draft because some psychologists had reported that the term “All Human Beings” did not capture the concept of the collective versus the individual well enough to be accepted in their cultures. Likewise, in the final draft, Principle II, which had been labelled “Competent Caring for the Well-Being of Others” in the first and second drafts, was relabelled “Competent Caring for the Well-Being of Persons and Peoples.” This change was made because it was reported that the term “others,” used 11 times in the draft Declaration but never defined, had a negative connotation in some countries (e.g., South Africa⁶). Still another example, is that the statements dealing with informed consent and confidentiality under Principle I were revised in the final draft to better reflect the role of cultural factors in defining what is relevant.

Other issues related to language involved the identification and clarification of unclear, difficult, or unfamiliar aspects of the text. These aspects included awkward sentences or passage structures, unfamiliar vocabulary, or obscure concepts. For example, the wording and the ranking of the objectives of the Declaration, as stated in the Preamble, were revised to clarify the intent of the Declaration. Likewise, some sentences were modified because they were thought to contain unrealistic expectations. For instance, in the last paragraph of the Preamble as worded in the final draft of the Declaration, psychology organizations were no longer being asked to keep the Declaration in mind constantly. Instead, they were encouraged to keep it in mind; that is, the word “asked” was replaced by “encouraged,” and the word “constantly” was deleted.

Finally, as drafting the Declaration involved articulating principles and related values that are aspirational rather than prescriptive, the wording of several statements was revised to remove any word or term that might be perceived as prescriptive (e.g., “must,”, “shall,” “should”, “are obliged to,” “are required to”), and replace each of them with a word or a term that was more aspirational (e.g., “may,” “strive for”).

International Consultations

Essential to ensuring the generalizability, applicability, and acceptability of the Declaration were the numerous international consultations carried out between 2002 and 2008. Both the research-based moral framework to be used for developing the Universal Declaration of Ethical Principles for Psychologists and all drafts of the document were presented for review and discussion at many international and regional conferences in many parts of the world. They formed the basis of many symposia, focus groups, and panel discussions.

I need to highlight here the role that Jean played in organizing these activities. As soon as a session was over, she would get us together to reflect on it and plan the next one. I have fond memories of these debriefing and planning sessions with her at conferences. We were constantly tossing around ideas and topics for the next conference and considering names of individuals to invite to present. Sometimes, contacts were made for the next conference right on site. Jean always insisted on organizing sessions that would have broad international appeal and representation. Above all, she wanted sessions to be as inclusive as possible of different worldviews. This meant striving to reach out to psychologists who live and work in different cultural settings in different parts of the world. On a few occasions, Jean and I went as far as subsidizing the travel of psychologists from low-income countries to attend an international conference because it was our belief that it was essential for the world to hear what they had to say. Jean was never short on energy, drive, or commitment.

The main conferences and places where the proposed moral framework and the drafts of the Declaration were presented for review and discussion between 2002 and 2008 included: (1) the International Congress of Applied Psychology, Singapore, July 2002; (2) the European Congress of Psychology, Vienna, Austria, July 2003; (3) the International Congress on Licensure, Certification and Credentialing of Psychologists, Montreal, Canada, April 2004; (4) the International Congress of Psychology, Beijing, China, July 2004; (5) the Interamerican Congress of Psychology, Buenos Aires, Argentina, June 2005; (6) the European Congress of Psychology, Granada, Spain, July 2005; (7) the International Congress of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Isle of Spetses, Greece, July 2006; (8) the International Congress of Applied Psychology, Athens, Greece, July 2006; (9) the Second Middle East and North Africa Regional Conference of Psychology, Amman, Jordan, April 2007; (10) the European Congress of Psychology, Prague, Czech Republic, July 2007; and (11) the International and National Conference of Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, Kolkata, India, February 2008. Each consultation yielded important and useful feedback that was seriously considered by the Joint Ad Hoc Committee to address or clarify issues, and to revise the moral framework and the working document.

It is important to note that biennial progress reports submitted to the IAAP Board of Directors and the IUPsyS General Assembly provided further opportunities for consultation and feedback. When one considers the number of countries represented through these two governing bodies at the time (over 40 in the case of IAAP, and over 80 in the case of IUPsyS), the feedback was truly diverse, broad, and international.

Structure and Content of the Declaration as Adopted in 2008

How the Declaration is Organized

The Universal Declaration of Ethical Principles for Psychologists (2008), as adopted by IUPsyS and IAAP in 2008 (see Appendix B of this book for complete text), includes a Preamble followed by four sections. Each section relates to one of the four ethical principles, which are formally labelled: (a) Respect for the Dignity of Persons and Peoples (Principle I); (b) Competent Caring for the Well-Being of Persons and Peoples (Principle II); (c) Integrity (Principle III); and (d) Professional and Scientific Responsibilities to Society (Principle IV). Each section includes a statement defining the principle and listing ethical values associated with the principle. In accepting the principle, one also accepts the values associated with that principle.

The ethical principles and values contained in the Declaration are presented in Table 21.1. The ordering of the principles from I to IV is meant to facilitate reference to various parts of the content of the Declaration. Although there is no hierarchy implied in the numbering of the principles, it is important to note that Principle I (Respect for the Dignity of Persons and Peoples) is described as “the most fundamental and universally found ethical principle across geographical and cultural boundaries, and across professional disciplines” (UDEPP, 2008, Principle I, para. 1). In addition, it should be noted that the principles are interrelated and need to be considered together.

Objectives of the Declaration

The objectives of the Universal Declaration of Ethical Principles for Psychologists (2008) are defined in the second paragraph of the Preamble of the Declaration. They are to provide a moral framework and generic set of ethical principles for psychology organizations worldwide: (a) to evaluate the ethical and moral relevance of their codes of ethics; (b) to use as a template to guide the development or evolution of their codes of ethics; (c) to encourage global thinking about ethics, while also encouraging action that is sensitive and responsive to local needs and values; and (d) to speak with a collective voice on matters of ethical concern.

It is important to note that the Universal Declaration of Ethical Principles for Psychologists (2008) has no mechanism of enforcement. Compliance with the ethical principles and related values articulated in the Declaration is voluntary. Does this matter? The Declaration is intended to influence the local and global ethical discourse and the development of ethics codes. How can these objectives be achieved in the absence of any mechanism of enforcement? This question was asked repeatedly when drafts of the Declaration were released for consultation.

Although the Declaration cannot be enforced, it has the potential to influence local and global ethical discourse through expectation, promotion, dissemination, teaching, education, adoption, endorsement, ratification, application, and so on. The mechanism whereby it can exercise this influence is described in the last paragraph of the Declaration’s Preamble (UDEPP, 2008, Preamble, para. 5), which reads as follows:

The significance of the Universal Declaration depends on its recognition and promotion by psychology organizations at national, regional and international levels. Every psychology organization is encouraged to keep this Declaration in mind and, through teaching, education, and other measures, to promote respect for, and observance of, the Declaration’s principles and related values in the various activities of its members.

This mechanism is the same as the one whereby the UDHR (United Nations, 1948) has influenced the worldwide development of laws, rules, and regulations since it was adopted by the United Nations in 1948. Strictly speaking, the UDHR is not a legally binding document and, therefore, cannot be enforced. That said, the UDHR has acquired the status of “customary international law” (Donnelly, 2013) because most states have come to treat it over the years as though it were binding. It has been a powerful instrument for the promotion and implementation of inalienable rights for all people, and it has left an abiding legacy for humankind.

Important Characteristics of the Content of the Declaration

The Universal Declaration of Ethical Principles for Psychologists (2008) has several important characteristics that distinguish it from many other ethics documents. Let me highlight five of them (please note that the order of presentation does not imply any ordinal position in importance):

• As demonstrated through original research and broad international consultations, the Declaration describes ethical principles based on shared human values across cultures (see UDEPP, 2008, Preamble, para. 3) and therefore provides a universally acceptable moral framework to support and guide psychologists in conducting their professional and scientific activities anywhere in the world.
• The Declaration is about ethical principles and values, rather than ethical standards. It articulates principles that are general and aspirational rather than specific and prescriptive behavioural expectations or rules. On the other hand, it acknowledges the need for the development of ethical standards or rules that are more specific and prescriptive (see UDEPP, 2008, Preamble, para. 3).
• The Declaration emphasizes respect and competent caring for peoples as well as persons. The aim of this is to address the balance between the individual and the communal (e.g., families, groups, communities, peoples), and allow for appropriate differences in the interpretation of such ethical concerns as informed consent, confidentiality, privacy, professional boundaries, and ethical decision-making across cultures. First incorporated into the New Zealand code of ethics for psychologists in 2002 (New Zealand Psychological Society, 2002), the concept of respect for the dignity of peoples as well as persons became part of the Declaration primarily due to the contribution of a member of the working group who was a Maori psychologist from New Zealand. However, unlike the New Zealand code, the concept of “peoples” in the Declaration was extended to include both Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples.
• The Declaration recognizes that differences exist in the way professional and scientific responsibilities to society are interpreted by psychologists in different cultures. It states, however, that these interpretations need to be considered in a way that is both culturally appropriate and consistent with the ethical principles and related values of the Declaration (UDEPP, 2008, Principle IV, para. 2).
• The Declaration reaffirms the “commitment of the psychology community to help build a better world where peace, freedom, responsibility, justice, humanity, and morality prevail” (UDEPP, 2008, Preamble, para. 3). It does so by providing: (a) a global consensus on the fundamental attitude toward right and wrong, good and bad; (b) a generic set of ethical principles based on shared human values to identify harmful aspects of societal changes; (c) a moral framework to speak with a collective voice; (d) a tool to focus on ethics from both a global and a local perspective; and (e) a common moral framework to guide and inspire psychologists around the world toward the highest ethical ideals.

The Question of Human Rights

Considering my very first presentation in Singapore and my personal involvement in human rights activities, it may be surprising to know that the term “human rights” does not appear in the Declaration. This is not an oversight. The term was deliberately avoided because, although similarity in the expression of values exists, the term “human rights” has a negative connotation in some countries. In some parts of the world, human rights as defined in the UDHR (United Nations, 1948) are perceived as a political tool for harassing or controlling other nations or as a lack of understanding and respect for different cultures, religions, or political systems. The concept of human rights is neither a unitary nor a universal construct (Allan, 2013; Gauthier, 2018), and lack of full acceptance of the UDHR has led to the development of alternative and complementary regional declarations of human rights (Gauthier & Sinclair, 2020). The use of the term “human rights” in the Universal Declaration of Ethical Principles for Psychologists (2008) would have made it difficult, if not impossible, for psychologists in some countries to use the Declaration, not to mention adopt, endorse, or ratify the document.

Impact of the Universal Declaration of Ethical Principles

The impact of the Universal Declaration of Ethical Principles for Psychologists (2008) is growing. Since its adoption by the IUPsyS and the IAAP in 2008, there have been several developments, eight of which are highlighted here (once again, please note that the order in which they are listed does not reflect any ordinal position in importance):

• The Declaration has been endorsed, ratified, or adopted by several psychology organizations in addition to IUPsyS and IAAP. In 2008, for example, it was adopted by the Psychological Society of South Africa and ratified by the CPA. It also was adopted in 2008 by the Interamerican Society of Psychology, which took the extra step in 2009 to amend its Constitution to require its members to comply with the Declaration. The International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology adopted the Declaration in 2010. So did the International Council of Psychologists in 2017.
• A “culture-sensitive” model has been developed to assist psychology organizations that wish to use the Declaration as a template for creating or reviewing a code of ethics (Gauthier et al., 2010). The first recommended step is to consider the reasons the psychology organization has for creating a code of ethics (e.g., for whom it is intended, why it is needed, how it will be used, whether there are unique or cultural aspects to be addressed). The second step is to consider what each of the four ethical principles means within the given culture and context. The third step is to define culture-specific standards or behaviours that are relevant to local objectives but that also reflect proposed universal ethical principles. Throughout the process, consultation with those individuals whose work will be most affected by the code of ethics is strongly encouraged. Their input is invaluable to creating a relevant document, and their support is key to the ultimate acceptance of the code of ethics.
• National psychology organizations are using the Declaration to develop or revise their codes of ethics. For example, the College of Psychologists of Guatemala used it to develop its very first code of ethics in 2008–2010 (Colegio de Psicológos de Guatemala, 2011). Actually, Guatemala was the first country in the world to use the Declaration as a template to create an ethical code and the model proposed by Gauthier et al. (2010) as a guide to do so. The Australian Psychological Society used drafts of the Declaration to revise its code of ethics between 2005 and 2007 (Australian Psychological Society, 2007). The Psychological Association of the Philippines revised its code in 2008–2009. The revised code, now called Code of Ethics for Philippine Psychologists (Psychological Association of the Philippines, 2009), includes the full text of the Universal Declaration of Ethical Principles for Psychologists (2008) in a section entitled “Declaration of Principles.” Furthermore, psychologists in the Philippines are required by their code to adhere to the Declaration. The International School Psychology Association consulted the Declaration as part of revising its existing code in 2009–2011 and used it to inform the revision process (International School Psychology Association, 2011). It was used by the CPA to help revise the Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists (Canadian Psychological Association, 2017) in 2012–2017. The Declaration is currently used by the Mexican Society of Psychology to revise its code (Sociedad Mexicana de Psicología, 2010). In 2018, American Psychological Association (APA) created a task force to evaluate its ethics code (APA, 2017) and recommend revisions as needed. Recently, the Ethics Code Task Force was consulting the Declaration and asking me questions about how it was developed.
• The Declaration is influencing the development and revision of psychology ethics codes with respect to the way they recognize cultural diversity. For example, after consulting the Declaration, some codes have explicitly incorporated the concept of respect for the dignity of persons and peoples to reflect the importance of balancing respect for the individual and the collective (e.g., families, groups, communities, peoples). First incorporated into the New Zealand code of ethics for psychologists in 2002 (New Zealand Psychological Society, 2002), the codes from the following countries also have incorporated the concept: Australia (Australian Psychological Society, 2007), Canada (CPA, 2017), Guatemala (Colegio de Psicológos de Guatemala, 2011), the Philippines (Psychological Association of the Philippines, 2009), and the United Kingdom (British Psychological Society, 2018). Two of these codes provide a definition of the concept of “peoples,” namely, the Australian and the Canadian codes. It is worth noting that these definitions both include Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples, in that “peoples” is used to refer to any group of persons who are distinctly linked by a common identity, culture, history, and collective interest.
• Researchers and practitioners are using the Declaration as a framework to discuss ethical issues from an international perspective and to offer recommendations of global value. For example, Fitzgerald et al. (2010) examined ethical issues relating to the growing practice of internet-based psychotherapy, using the lens of the Declaration. Based on their review and discussion, they make recommendations intended to guide mental health practitioners who are considering involvement in the provision of internet-based services. Furthermore, psychologists around the world are faced daily with ethical questions and dilemmas, and Sinclair (2012) demonstrated how the Declaration can be used as a resource in ethical decision-making. Ferrero (2014) also used the Declaration to develop a guide specifically designed to provide ethical guidance and promote ethical thinking among university students and supervisors who are involved in “pre-professional” training, and who have not yet studied professional ethics. More recently, Sinclair (2020) used the Declaration as an ethical framework for identifying the ethical issues facing psychologists in end-of-life decision-making and active euthanasia, reflecting on psychology’s ethical responsibilities to society in that area.
• The Declaration has been used as a moral framework by other disciplines to develop ethical guidelines for research. For example, the International Commission on Illumination has consulted the Declaration to develop ethical standards for applied lighting research (Veitch, 2018; Veitch et al., 2019).
• The Declaration is now included in the professional psychology ethics curriculum in countries in many parts of the world (e.g., Africa, Asia, Central America, Europe, North America, Oceania, South America) to help understand ethics from an international perspective. It is also used as a guideline for psychologists working internationally (e.g., Leach & Oakland, 2010).
• The Declaration has been the focus of review and discussion in several articles and book chapters. Examples include Allan (2013), Ferrero (2014), Gauthier (2020), Gauthier & Pettifor (2011, 2012), Gauthier & Sinclair (2020), Pettifor & Ferrero (2012), Prentice et al. (2017), and Stevens (2010, 2012). In addition, a book chapter on internationalizing the professional ethics curriculum in the United States dedicated several pages to the Declaration (Leach & Gauthier, 2012).

In summary, the Universal Declaration of Ethical Principles for Psychologists (2008) is still relatively new. However, the above uses indicate that it holds much promise for continuing to shape the development of global thinking about ethics in a way that is sensitive and responsive to local needs and values, as well as promotes adherence to the highest ethical ideals in psychology.

Epilogue

Reflecting on the story of the Universal Declaration of Ethical Principles for Psychologists, I am struck by what a unique, amazing, and inspiring story it is. It is a remarkable success story, involving psychologists from around the world, and shows how a vision that seemed impossible to achieve was embraced and turned into reality.

Important to understanding the successful development of the Declaration is the fact that the international initiative was launched at a time when global consensus on what constitutes “good” was urgently needed to ensure a better future for us all (Gauthier & Pettifor, 2012; Gauthier & Sinclair, 2020). With the rapid globalization of the world in the 21st century, psychologists were being faced with expansion of their scope of practice and competencies to work multiculturally within their own country and culture, as well as to work internationally or globally. Having a declaration that recognized and addressed culture-specific differences while inspiring the global psychology community toward the highest ethical ideals was an idea whose time had come. There was widespread openness to developing the Declaration. It really was the right idea at the right time.

Important to understanding the growing impact of the Declaration is the relevance of ethical principles and values in today’s globalizing world. Globalization can be “unilateral” or “enlightened” (Kim & Park, 2007). Enlightened globalization is based on understanding, dialogue, and respect for cultural differences. It recognizes that each culture has its own set of values, beliefs, and practices. Unilateral globalization is based on the belief that one’s own culture and values are superior to others, and on the imposition of one’s own culture and values on others. It violates all concepts of virtue, ethics, and human rights, and constitutes a form of oppression. Enlightened globalization may lead to greater harmony, while unilateral globalization by dominant cultures will not (Pettifor & Ferrero, 2012).

There are no maps showing the way to enlightened globalization. However, the Universal Declaration of Ethical Principles for Psychologists (2008) provides a moral framework for psychologists, based on shared human values across cultures. It contains a generic set of ethical principles and values that can help psychologists around the world to behave and make decisions in accordance with the highest ethical standards, while also honouring and understanding culture-specific differences.

Acknowledgements, Appreciation, and Gratitude

This book is dedicated to Jean Pettifor, and this chapter would not be complete without expressing my warmest gratitude to her for her kind encouragement, advice, suggestions, and numerous contributions to the development of the Universal Declaration of Ethical Principles for Psychologists. Without her support, guidance, and wisdom, this declaration would not be what it is. I will be for ever grateful to Jean for agreeing to join me as my closest companion and senior advisor on this journey. As always, Jean was keenly committed and dedicated to the task. Before embarking on the journey, she had spent the last 15 years working internationally on bringing psychologists from different countries together to find the commonalities in values across cultures. I think that it is fair to say that she paved the way for the development of the Declaration.

I also wish to express my appreciation to Carole Sinclair. Her research played a key role in demonstrating the universality of the ethical principles used for drafting the Declaration. In addition, Carole kindly agreed to act as a sounding board at various points in time, whenever needed. I could always rely on her for informed, objective, and expert opinions, not to mention her thoughtful suggestions.

Finally, I would like to use this opportunity to thank the International Union of Psychological Science and the IAAP for sponsoring the development of the Declaration. I also would like to thank the many psychologists around the world who provided feedback and support for this very important and unique project, as well as each and every member of the Joint Ad Hoc Committee for helping to develop a declaration that is truly based on shared human values.

Questions for Reflection

1. The Declaration emphasizes respect and competent caring for both persons and peoples. Think of one or two situations where you think there may be a conflict between the individual and the collective. How would you achieve a balance between them?
2. Think of a situation in which you found it difficult to reconcile the need to make an ethical decision in accordance with the highest ethical standards and being respectful of cultural differences. What made it difficult? How did you resolve the issue? What did you learn?
3. Respect for the dignity of persons and peoples is expressed in different ways in different communities and cultures. Can you think of some examples of this? What are the implications for psychologists working across cultures?
4. How can you ensure that respect for the local culture does not become a pretext for bypassing ethical guidelines?

notes

1. 1 The International Union of Psychological Science is the largest and oldest psychological organization based on national membership—one per country. The International Association of Applied Psychology is the largest and oldest international association of psychologists based on individual membership.

2. 2 For further details, see Gauthier & Pettifor (2012).

3. 3 For further details, see Gauthier & Sinclair (2020).

4. 4 The Declaration was developed without any financial support from any source.

5. 5 One international psychology organization thought that the first draft of the Declaration seemed too detailed and too prescriptive. Its concerns were addressed in subsequent drafts.

6. 6 One of the biggest long-term effects of apartheid, a government system of institutionalised racial segregation and discrimination against the non-White population that existed in South Africa from 1948 until the early 1990s, was inter-racial mistrust. Combined with the effects of colonialism, it brought a culture of “Us vs. Them” (i.e., “Us vs the Others”). Hence the negative connotation of the word “others” in South Africa.

References

Allan, A. (2013). Are human rights redundant in the ethical codes of psychologists? Ethics & Behavior, 23(4), 251–265.

Australian Psychological Society (2007). APS code of ethics. Australian Psychological Society.

American Psychological Association (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychological Association.

Bandura, A. (1982). The psychology of chance encounters and life paths. American Psychologist, 37(7), 747–755.

Bandura, A. (1998). Exploration of fortuitous determinants of life paths. Psychological Inquiry, 9(2), 95–99.

British Psychological Society (2018). Code of ethics and conduct. British Psychological Society.

Canadian Psychological Association. (2017). Canadian code of ethics for psychologists (4th ed.). Canadian Psychological Association.

Colegio de Psicológos de Guatemala. (2011). Código de ética [Code of ethics]. Servisa Litografía.

Donnelly, J. (2013). Universal human rights in theory and practice (3rd ed.). Cornell University Press.

Ferrero, A. (2014). Impacto de la declaración universal de principios éticos para psicólogas y psicólogos [The impact of the universal declaration of ethical principles for psychologists]. Psykhe: Revista de la escuela de psicologia, 23(1), 1–11.

Fitzgerald, T. D., Hunter, P. V., Hadjistavropoulos, T., & Koocher, G. P. (2010). Ethical and legal considerations for internet-based psychotherapy. Cognitive Behavior Therapy, 39(3), 173–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/16506071003636046.

Gauthier, J. (1998, June). The promotion and the protection of human rights: Using advances in psychology to meet the challenge. Presidential address presented at the 59th Annual Convention of the Canadian Psychological Association, Edmonton, Canada.

Gauthier, J. (2002). Ethics and human rights: Toward a universal declaration of ethical principles for psychologists. In J. L. Pettifor (Chair), Professional codes of ethics across national boundaries: Seeking common grounds. Symposium conducted at the 25th International Congress of Applied Psychology, Singapore.

Gauthier, J. (2003). Toward a universal declaration of ethical principles for psychologists. In J. B. Overmier & J. A. Overmier (Eds.), Psychology: IUPsyS global resource [Computer software] (4th ed.). Psychology Press.

Gauthier, J. (2004). Toward a universal declaration of ethical principles for psychologists. International Association of Applied Psychology/Newsletter, 16(4), 10–24.

Gauthier, J. (2005). Toward a universal declaration of ethical principles for psychologists: A progress report. In M. J. Stevens & D. Wedding (Eds.), Psychology: IUPsyS global resource [Computer software] (6th ed.). Psychology Press.

Gauthier, J. (2006). Onward toward a universal declaration of ethical principles for psychologists: Draft and progress report. In M. J. Stevens & D. Wedding (Eds.), Psychology: IUPsyS global resource [Computer software] (7th ed.). Psychology Press.

Gauthier, J. (2008a). Universal declaration of ethical principles for psychologists. In J. Hall & E. Altmaier (Eds.), Global promise: Quality assurance and accountability in professional psychology (pp. 98–109). Oxford University Press.

Gauthier, J. (2008b). The draft Universal Declaration of Ethical Principles for Psychologists: Third draft. The International Association of Applied Psychology/Newsletter, 20(3), 67–72.

Gauthier, J. (2018). References to human rights in codes of ethics for psychologists: Critical issues and recommendations—Part 1. RUDN Journal of Psychology and Pedagogics, 15(1), 17–21.

Gauthier, J. (2020). IAAP’s leading role in forging the development of international psychological ethics. In H. Carpintero, R. Ardila, & A. M. Jacó‐Vilela (Eds.). The International Association of Applied Psychology: A centennial history 1920–2020 (pp. 233–245). Wiley-Blackwell.

Gauthier, J., & Pettifor, J. L. (2011). The evolution of ethics in psychology: Going international and global. In P. R. Martin, F. Cheung, M. Kyrios, L. Littlefield, M. Knowles, B. Overmier, & J. M. Prieto (Eds.), The IAAP handbook of applied psychology (pp. 700–714). Wiley-Blackwell.

Gauthier, J., & Pettifor, J. L. (2012). The tale of two universal declarations: Ethics and human rights. In M. M. Leach, M. J. Stevens, G. Lindsay, A. Ferrero, & Y. Korkut (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of international psychological ethics (pp. 113–133). Oxford University Press.

Gauthier, J., Pettifor, J. L., & Ferrero, A. (2010). The universal declaration of ethical principles for psychologists: A culture-sensitive model for creating and reviewing a code of ethics. Ethics & Behavior, 20(3/4), 1–18.

Gauthier, J., & Sinclair, C. (2020) Connecting human rights and psychological ethics in a globalizing world: Issues and recommendations. In N. S. Rubin & R. L. Flores (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of psychology and human rights (pp. 41–55). Cambridge University Press.

Hays, J. (2008). Human rights in Singapore. http://factsanddetails.com/southeast-asia/Singapore/sub5_7c/entry-3765.html

International Congress of Applied Psychology (2002). XXV International Congress of Applied Psychology: Final programme. Printed by Markono Digital Solutions, Singapore.

International School Psychology Association. (2011). Code of ethics. http://www.ispaweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/The_ISPA_Code_of_Ethics_2011.pdf

Kim, U., & Park, Y-S. (2007). Development of Indigenous psychologies: Understanding people in a global context. In M. J. Stevens & U.P. Gielen (Eds.), Toward a global psychology: Theory, research, intervention, and pedagogy (pp. 147–172). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Leach, M., & Gauthier, J. (2012). Internationalizing the professional ethics curriculum. In F. T. L. Leong, W. E. Pickren, M. M. Leach, & A. J. Marsella (Eds.), Internationalizing the psychology curriculum in the United States: Meeting the challenges of globalization (pp. 29–50). Springer.

Leach, M. M., & Oakland, T. (2010). Displaying ethical behaviors by psychologists when standards are unclear. Ethics & Behavior, 20(3/4), 197–206.

New Zealand Psychological Society. (2002). Code of ethics for psychologists working in Aotearoa/New Zealand. New Zealand Psychological Society.

Parliament of the World’s Religions. (1993). Declaration toward a global ethic. https://parliamentofreligions.org/pwr_resources/_includes/FCKcontent/File/TowardsAGlobalEthic.pdf

Pettifor, J.L., & Ferrero, A. (2012). Ethical dilemmas, cultural differences, and the globalization of psychology. In M. M. Leach, M. J. Stevens, G. Lindsay, A. Ferrero, & Y. Korkut (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of international psychological ethics (pp. 28–41). Blackwell Publishing.

Prentice, J., Dobson, K., & Gauthier, J. (2017). Ethics from a global perspective. In S. G. Hofmann (Ed.), International perspectives on psychotherapy (pp. 241–257). Springer International.

Psychological Association of the Philippines. (2009). Code of ethics for Philippine psychologists. https://www.pap.org.ph/sites/default/files/code_of_ethics_pdf.pdf

Sinclair, C. (2005a). A brief history of ethical principles in professional codes of ethics. In J. B. Overmier & J. A. Overmier (Eds.), Psychology: IUPsyS global resource [Computer software] (6th ed.). Psychology Press.

Sinclair, C. (2005b). The eastern roots of ethical principles and values. In M. J. Stevens & D. Wedding (Eds.), Psychology: IUPsyS global resource [Computer software] (6th ed.). Psychology Press.

Sinclair, C. (2005c). The roots of ethical principles and values in codes of ethics. In J. L. Pettifor (Chair), Cultural implications for a universal declaration of ethical principles. Symposium conducted at the European Congress of Psychology, Granada, Spain.

Sinclair, C. (2012). Ethical principles, values, and codes of ethics for psychologists: An historical journey. In M. M. Leach, M. J. Stevens, G. Lindsay, A. Ferrero, & Y. Korkut (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of international psychological ethics (pp. 3–18). Oxford University Press.

Sinclair, C. (2020). Societal-level ethical responsibilities regarding active euthanasia: An analysis using the Universal declaration of ethical principles for psychologists. Ethics & Behavior, 30(1), 14–27.

Sociedad Mexicana de Psicología. (2010). Código ético del psicólogo [The psychologist’s code of ethics] (5th ed.). Editorial Trillas.

Stevens, M. J. (2010). Etic and emic in contemporary psychological ethics. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 6(4), 1–7.

Stevens, M. (2012). Psychological ethics and macro-social change. In M. M. Leach, M. J. Stevens, G. Lindsay, A. Ferrero, & Y. Korkut (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of international psychological ethics (pp. 375–393). Oxford University Press.

United Nations. (1948). Universal declaration of human rights. http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html

Universal declaration of ethical principles for psychologists. (2008). http://www.iupsys.net/about/governance/universal-declaration-of-ethical-principles-for-psychologists.html

Veitch, J. A. (2018, Aug. 13). Ethical considerations for applied lighting research. Invited lecture at the CIE Expert Tutorial and Workshop on Research Methods for Human Factors in Lighting, Copenhagen, DK.

Veitch, J. A. Fotios, S. A., & Kouser, K. W. (2019). Judging the scientific quality of applied lighting research. LEUKOS: The Journal of the Illuminating Engineering Society, 15(2–3), 97–114. doi:10.1080/15502724.2018.1550365