Think-Say-Do: A Framework for Modern Ethical Problem Solving in Behavior Analysis

Overview & Clinical Significance

Ethical problem solving in behavior analysis has traditionally been framed as a binary exercise: identifying what is right and what is wrong, then choosing the right course of action. While this framework has served the field in many situations, it fails to capture the complexity of the ethical dilemmas that modern behavior analysts encounter daily. This workshop, presented by Landria Seals Green, challenges practitioners to move beyond simple right-or-wrong categorization and instead develop the ability to discriminate between ethical practices that are excellent, those that are unsavory, and those that are good enough given the constraints of a particular situation.

The clinical significance of this approach to ethical problem solving lies in its practical realism. In the real world of behavior analytic practice, BCBAs rarely face ethical decisions with clear, unambiguous solutions. More often, they navigate situations where multiple ethical principles may conflict, where resource limitations constrain ideal solutions, where organizational pressures pull in directions that are not aligned with best practice, and where the consequences of different courses of action are uncertain. The ability to analyze these situations with nuance, rather than applying rigid rules, is a critical professional skill.

The Think-Say-Do framework introduced in this workshop provides a structured approach to ethical problem solving that recognizes the multi-dimensional nature of ethical action. Think refers to the analytical process of identifying the ethical dimensions of a situation, considering relevant principles and guidelines, and evaluating possible courses of action. Say refers to the communication component, including how the practitioner articulates their ethical reasoning to colleagues, supervisees, clients, and families. Do refers to the action taken, which this workshop frames as a multi-dimensional act that extends beyond simple compliance with an ethical rule to encompass the practitioner's impact on consumers, organizations, and the broader professional community.

By applying this framework to ethical problem solving models described in the behavior analytic literature, participants develop a more sophisticated and practical approach to navigating the ethical challenges they face. The workshop uses modern-day scenarios that reflect the actual complexity of contemporary practice, moving beyond textbook examples to address the messy, multi-layered situations that characterize real ethical decision-making.

For BCBAs at all career stages, this workshop offers an opportunity to develop ethical reasoning as a skill rather than treating ethics as a static body of rules to be memorized. This skill-based approach to ethics produces practitioners who are better prepared to handle novel ethical situations, more effective at communicating their reasoning to others, and more confident in their ability to navigate ethical complexity.

Background & Context

The development of ethical problem solving in behavior analysis has been shaped by both the profession's growing maturity and the increasing complexity of the practice environment. Early ethical guidance in the field focused primarily on establishing basic standards for professional conduct, including requirements for competence, consent, and the responsible use of behavioral procedures. As the field has grown and diversified, the ethical challenges facing practitioners have become correspondingly more complex.

Several ethical problem solving frameworks have been proposed in the behavior analytic literature. These frameworks share common elements including identifying the ethical issue, consulting relevant ethical codes and guidelines, considering the perspectives of stakeholders, evaluating possible courses of action, implementing a decision, and evaluating the outcome. While these frameworks provide valuable structure, they can sometimes be applied mechanically without the nuanced reasoning that complex situations require.

The workshop specifically references ethical problem solving approaches from the literature as the basis for developing the Think-Say-Do framework. These approaches provide the procedural structure for ethical analysis while the Think-Say-Do model adds the conceptual depth needed to navigate situations where procedural steps alone are insufficient.

The distinction between excellent, unsavory, and good enough ethical practices is a particularly valuable contribution. In many real-world situations, the excellent option may not be available due to resource constraints, organizational limitations, or competing obligations. The good enough option represents a course of action that satisfies ethical requirements even if it is not ideal. The unsavory option represents a course of action that may be technically acceptable but carries ethical risks or negative consequences. Developing the ability to discriminate between these categories and to articulate the reasoning behind one's choices is a sophisticated professional skill.

The contemporary context for ethical problem solving includes several factors that increase the complexity of ethical decision-making. The commercialization of ABA services has created organizational pressures that can conflict with clinical and ethical priorities. The expansion of telehealth has introduced new ethical challenges related to privacy, consent, and the maintenance of therapeutic relationships across digital platforms. The growth of social media has created new arenas for professional boundary management. The increasing scrutiny of ABA from the neurodiversity community has raised questions about the ethical foundations of common practices. And the ongoing diversification of the client population has highlighted the need for culturally responsive ethical reasoning.

This workshop acknowledges these contemporary challenges and uses them as the basis for the ethical scenarios that participants analyze during the session, ensuring that the learning is directly relevant to the situations practitioners face in their daily work.

Clinical Implications

The clinical implications of developing sophisticated ethical problem solving skills are extensive and affect every aspect of behavior analytic practice. At the most fundamental level, ethical reasoning is a clinical skill that directly influences the quality of services delivered to clients. Every clinical decision, from assessment design to goal selection to intervention choice to discharge planning, has ethical dimensions that must be navigated competently.

The Think-Say-Do framework has specific clinical implications for how practitioners approach ethical dilemmas that arise during service delivery. The Think component ensures that practitioners engage in thorough analysis before acting, reducing the likelihood of impulsive or poorly reasoned responses to ethical challenges. The Say component addresses the critical role of communication in ethical practice, recognizing that how an ethical position is communicated can be as important as the position itself. The Do component emphasizes that ethical action is multi-dimensional, affecting multiple stakeholders and systems simultaneously.

Consider a clinical scenario where a BCBA discovers that a client's parent has been implementing a self-designed intervention at home that involves physical prompts the BCBA considers unnecessarily restrictive. The Think phase involves analyzing the situation: What are the potential risks to the client? What are the parent's intentions and understanding? What ethical codes are relevant? What are the possible courses of action? The Say phase involves planning the communication: How can the BCBA address this concern with the parent in a way that is respectful, maintains the relationship, and protects the client? The Do phase involves implementing the chosen course of action, which might include educating the parent about less restrictive alternatives, modifying the home program, or, if the situation involves potential harm, taking more immediate protective action.

The ability to discriminate between excellent, unsavory, and good enough outcomes has practical clinical value. In many situations, the excellent outcome, where all stakeholders are satisfied, the client is fully protected, and the practitioner faces no adverse consequences, is simply not available. Recognizing when a good enough outcome is the best achievable result prevents practitioners from either freezing in analysis paralysis or pursuing an ideal outcome at a cost that exceeds its benefit. Similarly, recognizing unsavory options, those that are technically permissible but carry ethical risks, helps practitioners avoid choices that may cause downstream problems even if they resolve the immediate situation.

Ethical problem solving skills also have implications for collaborative practice. BCBAs who can articulate their ethical reasoning clearly and persuasively are better equipped to advocate for clients within multidisciplinary teams, to navigate disagreements with other professionals, and to educate supervisees about ethical decision-making. The communication skills developed through the Say component of the framework directly support these collaborative activities.

Finally, ethical problem solving is relevant to organizational navigation. BCBAs frequently face situations where organizational practices or pressures conflict with ethical obligations. The ability to analyze these situations systematically, communicate concerns effectively, and take appropriate action is essential for maintaining professional integrity while working within complex organizational systems.

Ethical Considerations

This workshop is fundamentally about ethics, and the ethical considerations it raises are embedded throughout its content. The BACB Ethics Code (2022) serves as the primary reference point for ethical analysis, and the workshop's approach to moving beyond binary right-or-wrong thinking is consistent with the Code's recognition that ethical practice involves judgment, not just rule-following.

Code 1.04 addresses integrity, requiring behavior analysts to be truthful, honest, and to honor their commitments. In the context of ethical problem solving, integrity means being honest about the complexity of ethical situations rather than pretending that every dilemma has a clear right answer. It means acknowledging when you are uncertain, when competing principles create genuine tension, and when the best available option is merely good enough rather than excellent.

Code 2.01 requires behavior analysts to act in the best interest of the client, which is the bedrock principle against which all ethical decisions are evaluated. However, determining what constitutes the client's best interest in complex situations often requires the kind of nuanced analysis that this workshop develops. The client's best interest must be balanced against practical constraints, the interests of other stakeholders, and the long-term consequences of different courses of action.

Code 1.05 addresses professional competence, which includes competence in ethical reasoning. Just as BCBAs are expected to maintain competence in assessment, intervention design, and data analysis, they are expected to maintain competence in navigating ethical challenges. This requires ongoing professional development, not just familiarity with the Ethics Code but skill in applying it to novel and complex situations.

Code 2.09 requires behavior analysts to involve clients and stakeholders in treatment decisions. From an ethical problem solving perspective, this means that the Say component of Think-Say-Do is not just about communicating your decision but about engaging stakeholders in the decision-making process itself. When ethical dilemmas involve competing stakeholder interests, transparent communication about the reasoning process is essential for maintaining trust and collaborative relationships.

The workshop's emphasis on problem solving as a critical job skill reflects the reality that ethical challenges are not exceptional events but routine aspects of professional practice. Every BCBA encounters ethical questions on a regular basis, and those who have developed strong problem solving skills navigate these situations more effectively, with better outcomes for clients and fewer professional complications.

Code 2.04 addresses the obligation to discuss the scope of services, which connects to the Think-Say-Do framework's emphasis on transparent communication about what is and is not possible in a given situation. When organizational constraints or competing obligations limit what a practitioner can do, ethical communication requires honesty about those limitations rather than making promises that cannot be kept.

The distinction between excellent, unsavory, and good enough practices also raises the ethical consideration of professional courage. Sometimes the excellent option is available but requires the practitioner to take a stance that is unpopular, professionally risky, or personally uncomfortable. Ethical problem solving includes the willingness to choose the excellent option when it is available, even when easier alternatives exist.

Assessment & Decision-Making

The Think-Say-Do framework provides a structured approach to assessing ethical situations and making decisions that can be applied systematically to any ethical dilemma. The assessment phase, corresponding to the Think component, involves several steps that should be undertaken before any action is taken.

First, identify the ethical dimensions of the situation. Not every workplace challenge is an ethical dilemma, and part of professional competence is distinguishing between situations that involve genuine ethical tension and those that involve personal preference, interpersonal conflict, or organizational politics. Ethical situations involve potential harm to clients, violations of professional standards, conflicts between ethical principles, or uncertainty about the right course of action.

Second, gather relevant information. Many ethical mistakes result from acting on incomplete information. Before analyzing a situation, ensure you have the facts: What happened? Who is involved? What are the contextual factors? What are the potential consequences of different courses of action? Seek information from multiple sources rather than relying on a single account of the situation.

Third, identify relevant ethical principles and guidelines. Consult the BACB Ethics Code and any other applicable standards. Identify which specific codes are relevant to the situation. Note any areas where different codes may point in different directions, as these tensions are often the source of the dilemma's complexity.

Fourth, evaluate possible courses of action using the excellent, unsavory, and good enough framework. For each option, consider who benefits, who is harmed, what principles are upheld, what principles are compromised, and what the likely short-term and long-term consequences will be. This analysis should be as specific and concrete as possible, avoiding abstract generalities.

The decision-making phase involves selecting a course of action based on the analysis. The Think-Say-Do framework emphasizes that this selection should consider not only what action to take but how to communicate that action and what the broader implications of the action will be across multiple dimensions.

The Say component of decision-making involves planning communication carefully. Who needs to be informed? What information should be shared and what should be kept confidential? How can the reasoning be presented in a way that is clear, respectful, and persuasive? Should the communication occur in writing, in person, or both? What are the likely reactions, and how should they be managed?

The Do component involves implementing the decision while remaining attentive to its multi-dimensional impact. Actions taken to resolve ethical dilemmas affect clients, families, colleagues, organizations, and the practitioner themselves. Effective ethical action considers all of these dimensions and anticipates potential secondary effects.

After implementation, assessment continues through evaluation of outcomes. Did the chosen course of action produce the intended result? Were there unintended consequences? What would you do differently in a similar situation in the future? This reflective practice component ensures that each ethical situation becomes a learning opportunity that strengthens the practitioner's future decision-making.

What This Means for Your Practice

Developing your ethical problem solving skills is one of the most important investments you can make in your professional development. Begin by recognizing that ethical reasoning is a skill that improves with practice, not a fixed trait that you either have or lack. Every ethical situation you encounter is an opportunity to refine your ability to analyze, communicate, and act.

Practice applying the Think-Say-Do framework to situations you encounter in your daily work. When you face an ethical challenge, resist the urge to act immediately. Take time to think through the situation systematically, identifying the ethical dimensions, gathering relevant information, and evaluating multiple courses of action. Consider not just what is right or wrong but where different options fall on the continuum from excellent to unsavory to good enough.

Develop your communication skills around ethical issues. Many ethical problems are compounded by poor communication, whether it involves failing to raise a concern, raising it in a way that creates defensiveness, or not being clear about your reasoning. Practice articulating your ethical reasoning in clear, jargon-free language. Seek feedback from colleagues about how your communication is received.

Engage in regular ethical consultation with peers. Ethical decision-making benefits from diverse perspectives, and discussing ethical scenarios with colleagues helps you identify blind spots in your own reasoning. Establish a peer consultation group or incorporate ethical case discussion into existing supervision or team meetings.

Build your tolerance for ethical ambiguity. Not every situation has a clear right answer, and the ability to sit with uncertainty while working toward the best available solution is a mark of professional maturity. Resist the temptation to force complex situations into simple categories, and be honest with yourself and others about the challenges you face.

Finally, remember that ethical problem solving is a professional responsibility, not a personal burden. When you face ethical challenges, seek support, consult with colleagues and supervisors, reference the BACB Ethics Code, and document your reasoning. You do not have to navigate ethical complexity alone.