These answers draw in part from “You Can't Always Get What You Want: Teaching Supervisees to Identify and Accept Imperfect Solutions to Complex Ethical Challenges” by Barbara Kaminski, Ph.D., BCBA-D (BehaviorLive), and extend it with peer-reviewed research from our library of 27,900+ ABA research articles. Clinical framing, BACB ethics code references, and cross-links below are synthesized by Behaviorist Book Club.
View the original presentation →Identifying a range of acceptable solutions means generating multiple courses of action that all meet the basic ethical standards — they do not violate the Ethics Code, do not harm the client, and are defensible under the professional standards that apply. Not all acceptable solutions are equally good, and the task then becomes reasoning through the tradeoffs among them. This is distinct from identifying the single correct answer, which many ethical dilemmas do not have. Training supervisees to generate and evaluate ranges of acceptable options builds the reasoning flexibility they need for the actual ethical complexity of clinical practice.
Code 1.06 (Ethical Decision Making) requires behavior analysts to rely on the Ethics Code, consider available options, and document their reasoning — not to identify a single correct answer. The code's language explicitly acknowledges that ethical decision-making is a process that involves weighing options and using professional judgment. Kaminski's framework directly operationalizes this code requirement by specifying what that decision-making process should look like: identifying relevant code sections, generating acceptable options, weighing tradeoffs, making a defensible decision, and documenting the process. The framework extends the code's guidance into practical supervisory application.
Standard ethics training typically focuses on code knowledge, case study analysis with clearly correct answers, and identification of ethical violations. These approaches build knowledge but do not fully develop the judgment required for novel situations, situations where competing obligations conflict, or situations where the ideal solution is unavailable due to resource constraints or organizational factors. The course addresses these weaknesses by explicitly training supervisees to operate in conditions of irreducible ethical complexity — to make good decisions in situations where perfect decisions are not available — and by giving supervisors the tools to facilitate that kind of ethics development.
Supervisors should make their ethical reasoning visible and explicit during supervisory interactions, especially when navigating complex situations. This means thinking aloud through the process: identifying which code sections apply, articulating the competing considerations, naming the options being considered and why some are more acceptable than others, and explaining the basis for the final decision. This modeling gives supervisees a template for their own reasoning process. It also normalizes the experience of ethical uncertainty — supervisees who see their supervisors openly acknowledge uncertainty and reason through it carefully learn that this is how expert ethical practice actually works.
Consultation is always available as an ethical resource and is particularly important when a practitioner is uncertain about the appropriate course of action, when the decision involves significant consequences for client welfare, when competing obligations create genuine tension, or when the practitioner has a potential conflict of interest. Code 1.06 specifically mentions seeking guidance when uncertain. Practically, BCBAs should maintain ongoing peer consultation relationships so that consulting on a difficult situation is not a special event but a routine practice. Waiting until a crisis to seek consultation often means that the window for proactive options has closed.
Organizational pressures — productivity requirements, billing practices, caseload size, staffing ratios — frequently create conditions where the clinically ideal approach conflicts with what the organization will support. A BCBA who determines that a client needs more direct supervision hours than the organization funds, or who identifies that current staffing ratios are compromising implementation fidelity, is in an ethical dilemma where the ideal solution (more resources) may be unavailable. Navigating this requires identifying what is possible within current constraints while advocating for necessary changes — a both-and response that accepts the imperfect present situation while working toward a better one.
Documentation should include: the ethical issue as identified (with specific code sections referenced), the options that were considered with brief notation of why each was or was not acceptable, any consultation sought and the substance of that consultation, the decision made and the primary rationale, and any planned follow-up actions (such as advocacy for resources, further assessment, or monitoring). This documentation is not an admission of wrongdoing — it is evidence of a thoughtful, good-faith decision-making process. In the event of a BACB complaint or investigation, this kind of documentation demonstrates professional conduct even when the decision involved imperfect options.
Task List section E.2 (Ethics) requires BCBAs to identify and address ethical situations using the Ethics Code, apply ethical decision-making to practice situations, and consult with appropriate professionals when needed. The emphasis on demonstrating ethical decision-making — not just knowing the code — aligns directly with Kaminski's framework, which focuses on building an active, reasoning-based ethical competency rather than passive code knowledge. Supervisors developing their supervisees' E.2 competencies should specifically target the decision-making process skills this course describes, not just code recall.
Dual relationships — situations in which a BCBA has a professional relationship with an individual who is also in another kind of relationship with them — are addressed in Code 3.06. In small communities or rural settings, avoiding all dual relationships may be practically impossible without refusing service to people who need it. The imperfect solution often involves accepting a limited secondary relationship while establishing explicit boundaries, monitoring for conflict of interest, and documenting the rationale for continuing service. This is a paradigm case for Kaminski's framework: the ideal (no dual relationship) is unavailable, and the task is to identify the most acceptable of the available options.
An acceptable imperfect solution meets three criteria: it does not violate any core ethical obligation (no harm to client, no breach of fundamental professional standards), it is defensible under the Ethics Code and relevant professional standards, and it represents a reasonable choice given the actual constraints of the situation. An unacceptable compromise, by contrast, involves knowingly accepting a course of action that does harm, violates a core ethical standard, or could not be defended as reasonable given the available alternatives. The key distinction is not whether the solution is ideal — few real solutions are — but whether it crosses the floor of professional obligation.
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ on-demand CEUs including ethics, supervision, and clinical topics like this one. Plus a new live CEU every Wednesday.
Ready to go deeper? This course covers this topic with structured learning objectives and CEU credit.
You Can't Always Get What You Want: Teaching Supervisees to Identify and Accept Imperfect Solutions to Complex Ethical Challenges — Barbara Kaminski · 1 BACB Supervision CEUs · $20
Take This Course →We extended these answers with research from our library — dig into the peer-reviewed studies behind the topic, in plain-English summaries written for BCBAs.
279 research articles with practitioner takeaways
252 research articles with practitioner takeaways
233 research articles with practitioner takeaways
1 BACB Supervision CEUs · $20 · BehaviorLive
Research-backed educational guide with practice recommendations
Side-by-side comparison with clinical decision framework
You earn CEUs from a dozen different places. Upload any certificate — from here, your employer, conferences, wherever — and always know exactly where you stand. Learning, Ethics, Supervision, all handled.
No credit card required. Cancel anytime.
All behavior-analytic intervention is individualized. The information on this page is for educational purposes and does not constitute clinical advice. Treatment decisions should be informed by the best available published research, individualized assessment, and obtained with the informed consent of the client or their legal guardian. Behavior analysts are responsible for practicing within the boundaries of their competence and adhering to the BACB Ethics Code for Behavior Analysts.