چكيده لاتين :
Introduction
First coined by Andrew Jameton (1984), moral distress refers to the
stress caused by intending to pursue a morally preferred action but being
unable to do so because of barriers. Although there is a large body of
research devoted to moral distress that primarily describes the negative
outcomes of morally stressful situations, there is no widely used phrase to
describe the opposite: the positive outcomes of morally distressing
situations. Hence, in recent years, researchers have begun to study morally
distressful situations from opposite side and as an opportunity to develop
moral resilience.
Based on recent research, moral resilience can be described from three
main perspectives. In the first perspective, moral resilience is believed to
enable a person to navigate a morally complex situation. Moral resilience
can, therefore, reduce negative consequences, including moral distress.
Johnson (2011), for example, describes moral resilience as a coping
strategy, which allows a person to reframe a moral situation into a
challenge over which the person has a level of control. Similarly,
Monteverde (2014b) explains how moral resilience helps individuals deal
with morally stressful situations by helping individuals manage moral
complexity.
In the second perspective, moral resilience is regarded as a slight
variation of the fifth antecedent theme, which states that a lower amount
of perceived moral distress in a given situation leads to moral resilience.
The lowering of perceived moral distress not only leads to moral resilience,
but in the active sense, is moral resilience itself. Monteverde defines moral
resilience as “a reduction of moral distress in a given axis of time measured
by a validated tool” (Monteverde, 2014a). By this definition, it is hard to
pinpoint conceptually whether the moral resilience of an individual is
fostered after moral distress has decreased or whether the two phenomena
are simultaneously occurring. For this reason, we listed this theme as both
an antecedent and an attribute.
In the third perspective, moral resilience is defined as the ability to hold
true to one’s values and convictions in order to do what is morally correct,
a key feature of integrity. Oser and Reichenbach (2005) explain moral
resilience as resisting the temptation and pressure to be successful and
instead, putting aside success to live up to ones convictions. Although their
focus is outside health care, the authors consider attorneys who risk the
outcome of their case out of a drive to be honest. This would put aside
larger success in order to adhere to their moral convictions. To them, moral
resilience is attempting to bring good under conditions of risk (Oser &
Reichenbach, 2005). Baratz (2015) also explains the importance of
adhering to moral principles at all costs and explains moral resilience as
the ability of an individual to cope with situations using values that he or
she believes in, even when it is difficult to do so. These descriptions point
to integrity as a critical attribute.
Little research has been done on moral resilience, and the ones that have
been conducted were limited to the field of medicine and the moral
adversity in this field. Moreover, these studies have only addressed the
conceptualization of moral resilience but have not focused on the
operationalization of this construct; besides, in all these studies moral
resilience was measured only in terms of moral distress scale constructs
(Monteverde, 2016).
Therefore, to address the stated gaps in the literature, the present study
aimed to conceptualize moral resilience in the context of academic moral
adversity. In this regard, the study introduces a new construct called
“academic moral resilience” and provides a tool for measuring it and
determining its psychometric properties. Academic moral resilience
conceptualized as a new dimension of the moral resilience construct is
defined as the capacity to maintain and restore integrity in the face of moral
adversity in the field of education.
Research Questions or Hypothesis
Does academic moral resilience scale have a desirable validity and
reliability?
Methods
Inspired by the available tools for measuring moral distress, the 26-item
academic moral resilience scale was developed by interviewing students
and reviewing professional ethics codes in education. In order to
investigate the psychometric properties of the scale, 500 student (330 girls
and 170 boys) at Shiraz University were selected using the random cluster
sampling method to respond to the academic moral resilience scale.
Moreover, to investigate the convergent validity of the scale, Connor
Davidson resilience scale, moral efficacy, moral identity, shame and guilt
feeling and moral disengagement scales were used.
Results
The results of the exploratory factor analysis using principal
components method with varimax rotation indicated three factors in the
scale that were named disrespect, lack of commitment, unjustness and
unfairness respectively. Confirmatory factor analysis results also
confirmed the three-factor structure of the academic moral resilience
scale. The convergent validity of the scale also confirmed the construct
validity of the scale. Correspondingly, Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for
disrespect, lack of commitment, unjustness, unfairness, and the total
scores were 0/85, 0/82, 0/70 and 0/89.
Discussion and Conclusion
Overall, the results confirmed the construct validity and desirable
reliability of the scale. The results of the exploratory factor analysis
showed three factors in the scale. Apparently, justice, respect for others,
and commitment were the most important moral values among the students
whose violation could make them morally distressed. Moreover, based on
the results, there was a positive correlation between academic moral
resilience and moral efficacy, feeling of guilt, resiliency, and moral
identity. On the other hand, there was a negative correlation between
academic moral resilience and moral disengagement and sense of shame.
These results confirm the convergent validity of the academic moral
resilience scale. The findings, hereby, corroborated the construct validity
as well as the reliability of the academic moral resilience scale. This
provides the basis for using this scale in future research and can open new
ways for expanding and conducting researches on moral adversity in
educational contexts.
