Moral and Ethical Framework Appraisal

SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION , 2016 VOL. 35, NO. 4, 377–386 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02615479.2015.1081679

© 2015 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

How to make good choices? Ethical perspectives guiding social workers moral reasoning

Annalisa Pasini

Department of Sociology, Università Cattolica Sacro Cuore, Milan, Italy

Ethical perspectives in social work: a classification

Social work is intrinsically ethical because social workers have the responsibility to act intentionally in difficult situations to pursue a ‘good’ aim. Therefore, they need to reflect on ethical dimension as well as on professional methods and skills. The ethical dimension in social work can be considered from many theoretical perspectives, each of which observe different aspects, have different underlying values and request different answers. In order to understand the challenges that social workers face in practical situations, it is useful to know the different approaches and then integrate them in a composite scenario. This is very important in a professional context where the ethical dimension seems obscured by other issues, like organizational rules and procedures, resources cutting, and so on. Instead, ethics is deeply linked to cultural, organizational, political, and professional dimensions of daily practice.

This paper proposes a classification of the ethical perspectives in social work that pre- sents principal-based approaches and ‘situated approaches’ (Banks, 2010; Banks & Nøhr, 2012). Highlighting their differences can stimulate more ethical consciousness. The first category includes the main ‘classical’ orientations of traditional philosophy – the teleolog- ical and deontological – alongside the rights-based approach. They are presented together here because they have a general and abstract character and develop a wide ethical theory,

ABSTRACT Framing and distinguishing mainstream social work ethical perspectives could be useful for social work students and practitioners facing moral choices in daily practice. The article presents a summary and classification of a range of ethical theories and provides some insights into the relationship between ethical thinking and practice issues. It distinguishes between classical approaches and ‘situated’ positions. The former – which includes teleological, deontological, and rights-based approaches – refer to universal and general principles. ‘Situated’ ethics are linked to specific and unique situations of professional practice. Finally, the article suggests some useful questions derived from each approach in order to help students to reflect on complex ethical choices occurring in daily practice.

KEYWORDS Ethical perspectives; moral choices; teaching ethics; social work practice

ARTICLE HISTORY Received 12 December 2014 Accepted 5 August 2015

CONTACT Annalisa Pasini [email protected]

378 A. PASINI

capable of guiding professional choices as impartially and objectively as possible. In order to answer to the question: ‘on what criteria is an action considered good?’ the teleological perspective refers to the goals that the action pursues, the deontological refers to the prin- ciples that inspired it and the rights-based approach refers to the respect and promotion of a person’s rights.

On the other hand, ‘situated’ approaches refer to the peculiarity of each situation social workers face. The people and the specific relationships of daily practice are at the center of this analysis. Within these approaches, virtue ethics and relational ethics can be distin- guished. Virtue ethics refers to the character of the agent, while relational ethics is a set of positions where the social worker–service user relationship is the primary ethical focus.

Within this second group, the ethics of care, narrative ethics, and face-to-face ethics will be specifically analyzed: Each of these can suggest interesting reflections to social work practice. To answer to the question ‘on what criteria is an action considered good?’, virtue ethics focuses on the choice of the agent. The relational perspectives emphasize the moral character of caring process (ethics of care), the sharing of an ethical story with the inter- ested subjects (narrative approach), and the understanding and respect for the idea that it is impossible to fully understand ‘the Other’ totally (face-to-face ethics).

Table 1 highlights the different approaches presented in the article, identifying their principal focus, key authors, and theoretical frameworks. These different perspectives will be analyzed referencing concrete situations that social workers face in daily practice.

Principle-based perspectives

The first principle-based approach is teleological perspective. It supports the centrality of the goal, as Aristotle suggested (Banks & Nøhr, 2003). In social work, this refers to paying attention to the aims of an intervention and to its consequences, like the utilitarian stream

Table 1. Ethical perspectives in social work: a classification.

Note: Adapted from Hinman (1994), in Osmo and Landau (2006).

Ethical perspectives Focus Key authors or streams of reference

Principle-based ethical perspectives

Teleological perspective Goals and consequences of actions Aristotle Mill, Bentham (utilitarian perspective)

Deontological perspective Correct intentions; principles valid for all human beings

Kant

The main concept: self-determi- nation

Rights-based perspective Rights and respect of others’ rights Universal Declarations (including the UN, 1948) Social Work Code of Ethics (2004)

‘Situated’ perspectives

Ethics centered on the agents

Virtue ethics Moral character of the agent Aristotle Virtue as dialogical element Habermas (proportionist approach)

Relational ethics

Ethics of care Care relationship Feminist theory Narrative ethics Shared stories Narrative approaches Face-to-face ethics Sociality, impossibility of totally

knowing the Other Lévinas

SocIAl WorK EducATIoN 379

suggests. Social work embeds two goals: the promotion of individual well-being on one side, and the achievement of social justice on the other (Banks & Nøhr, 2003). For example, a social worker seeks to help a service user with severe economic needs by evaluating how to improve his/her standard of life. The choice of finding a job or helping the person to access benefits depends both on the specific situation (what is good for this person?) and on the rules and available resources with respect to social fairness (what is feasible and fair?).

Actualizing social work principles are not easy. Thinking about the promotion of indi- vidual well-being, different people can have divergent opinions on what is ‘good’ and how to pursue it. For instance, can an alcoholic recognize that to quit drinking is a ‘good’ act? How do we resolve the difference between a disabled older person’s wish to stay at home while his daughter would rather place him into residential care? Even social justice is neither easy to define nor to pursue. Should a disabled person have the same opportunities as an able-bodied person? Is it right that a specific law helps him/her find a job?

Reflecting on these aspects, a social worker can adopt the other classical principle-based perspective, the deontological one. According to this, true moral duty consists of doing what is right only because it is right, by virtue of human rationality. Social workers must first let people make their own choices. Kant’s idea that every person should be treated with respect, as self-determining, and with their own goals (Banks & Nøhr, 2003), has translated into a key social work principle. It was already in the list of Biestek’s casework values (1961) and it reflects Rogers’ unconditional positive regard (1961). But self-determination is not a straightforward principle: What about a person who desires something that goes against their well-being or that of others around them, such as the alcoholic who is not willing to quit drinking and is violent towards other family members?

The deontological perspective is present in many countries as a code of ethics for social work to guide professional behavior. In Italy, Social Workers’ Deontologic Code (Ordine Nazionale degli Assistenti Sociali, 2009) indicates the professional principles and respon- sibilities towards service users, colleagues and other professionals. The code prescribes rules and behavior, but is not substitutive of moral consciousness: each case is unique and it requires well well-thought-out choices, because people are different and contexts are different at social, cultural, and organizational level. What can be good for one service user may be discriminatory for another.

The last principle-based theory is the rights-based approach. It refers to universal and general principles that should govern human acts. It has its roots in universal declarations adopted by international organizations, including the Universal Declaration on Human Rights (the UN, 1948). In social work, the international Ethics in Social Work; Statement of Principles (IFSW & IASSW, 2004) ‘recognizes rights that are accepted by the global commu- nity.’ These rights are not taken for granted and require constant attention. For example, we can consider disabled people’s or women’s condition in certain cultures. If a social worker is not careful, he/she runs the risk of contributing to structural oppression (Dominelli, 2004). For instance he/she could propose a paternalistic intervention that contributes to stigmatiza- tion and labeling rather than promoting rights. The more critical and radical approaches to social work can be useful because they consider and highlight the requests of service users’ movements and their fight for social justice and active citizenship for all (Barnes, 1997).

The language of rights is not without critics either: it refers to a western and individualistic conception (Banks & Nøhr, 2012) that is very different from collectivist cultures in southern and eastern parts of the world. Here solidarity, harmony, and interconnectedness in one

380 A. PASINI

community prevail (Ife, 2001). Furthermore, rights are abstract and generic concepts. It is common in social work practice to face conflicting rights and it can be difficult to promote competing rights and avoid oppression for one while asserting the rights of the other. For example, the right of a child to be looked after at home, or the right of a woman belonging to specific ethnic group to plan her own life.

Following Nussbaum (2002), we could substitute the concept of rights with that of capa- bilities (Sen, 2001): ‘what people in specific circumstances are effectively able to do and to be, using the intuitive idea of a good life and dignity that most humans expect’ (Nussbaum, 2002, p. 57). Nevertheless, a capabilities approach requires cultural and social development as well as political commitment for an equal distribution of resources. In this way everyone could be empowered to apply his/her skills and choose his/her life plan.

‘Situated’ perspectives

Next to principle-based perspective, ‘situated’ ethical perspectives can offer a complemen- tary ethical point of view. In fact, they help social workers to understand and manage specific ethical issues emerging in daily practice.

In order to comprehend them, we need to consider three levels: macro, meso, and micro. The macro context consists of the country where social work practice occurs: its cultural, legal, and political aspects are relevant like as social work education system and its the- oretical framework. The ‘meso’ context consists of agencies, professional mandates, local services, teamwork, service users, and so on. Finally, the micro context includes family and community relationships and traditions. All of this asks for cultural sensitivity, but also attention towards emotions, relationships, and motivations of all actors, including social workers (Banks, 2008).

‘Situated’ perspectives inevitably lose some generalizations about ethical discourse but, in turn, they enhance the value of real moral experiences. These experiences are limited, but they allow more personal and creative reflection (Baldwin & Estey-Burtt, 2012). This often emerge within teamwork or professional peer relationships: the paper concentrates only on individual dimension in order to clarify the different perspectives.

Among situated perspectives, we can distinguish virtue ethics from relational approaches.

Virtue ethics Virtue ethics focuses on the character of moral agents. For Aristotle, virtue (‘what kind of person should I be?’) implies not only the rational ability to decide, but also the willingness to act for ‘good.’ In social work, it require social workers to employ their morality while acting in care relationships, considering policies, organizations, values, and culture in which they are based.

According to Clark (2006), it is neither possible nor desirable that social workers are neutral if they want to help people. In order for them to help, they should envision what could be ‘good’ for every different person in different contexts. We should not consider helping as a mere application of professional competences nor simply respecting rights or following guidelines. It is an ethical duty to take responsibility to work towards the ‘good’ for people going through difficult situations. When a social worker tries to help a disabled older person at home, or checks if a family is eligible for a provision, he/she is foremost someone who is trying to help people in need.

SocIAl WorK EducATIoN 381

Within mainstream virtue ethics, we can place another approach, the so-called ‘propor- tionist’ approach (Lovat & Gray, 2008), founded on the ideas of Habermas. Here, virtue is not an individual concept, but a dialogical element emerging from intersubjective commu- nication. Social workers formulate judgments drawing on their own experience and vision of the world, together with that of service users, in the specific situation. This interaction generates unpredictable consequences; so ethics should focus ‘on the reflective-interpre- tational process that enables the social worker to choose how to act’ (McBeath & Webb, 2002, p. 1016).

Social workers’ actions are not ‘good’ in absolute, but refer to a unique situation. For example, a social worker is not facing just a 15-year-old pregnant girl. He/she is interacting with a specific girl named Katy, with her requests and her thoughts, her doubts and worries, her family, friends, and social context. The social worker will learn what is good for Katy and for the baby by meeting her, learning her story, and reflecting with her.

The proportionist perspective is interesting because it focuses on social workers’ point of view and their interaction with service users, alerting on some issues that can affect inter- subjective communication, like lack of time or power imbalance or cultural assumptions. It guides us towards the ‘situated’ relational ethical perspectives.

Relational perspectives Within situated approaches, relational perspectives underline the contextual and specific dimension of ethics, and its social and political frame (Ricoeur, 1997). Moral actions are closely related to relationships. In this case, social workers are interested in what service users ask them, what they believe, and what they are experiencing, even before respecting professional standards or considering their own morality.

Social workers should seek a ‘relational good’ (Donati & Solci, 2011), originating from being involved in the relationship. Several experiences in different countries are based on this relational logic (Folgheraiter, 2011), such as self-help mutual-aid groups (Folgheraiter and Pasini, 2009), family group conferences (Morris, 2011), or dialogical methodologies (Seikkula & Arnkil, 2006). They show that ‘it is sociality and humanity, modulated in the correct ethical and scientific terms, which legitimate whatever helping practices are adopted’ (Folgheraiter, 2012, p. 17).

Among the most significant relational perspectives, are the ethics of care, narratives ethics and face-to-face ethics.

Ethics of care The ethics of care (Barnes, 2006) focuses on the responsibilities linked to care relationships and suggests that such relations develop and build everyone’s morality. Not only frail people experience or need care: it is a founding component of life that includes both receiving and giving care, as shown, for example, in a parent–son relationship.

Rooted in feminist reflections (Gilligan, 1982), the ethics of care suggests that professional care derives from private and family’s caring actions in which mainly women are involved. There are four relevant ethical dimensions: attentiveness, responsibility, competence, and responsiveness (Tronto, 1993). These elements become more concrete if we think about a relationship between a social worker and a disabled older person whose caregiver is his daughter.

382 A. PASINI

Attentiveness implies the capacity to listen to what the older person thinks and says, including the care he/she receives, and then to answer in the appropriate way. The social worker should extend attention to the daughter and other professional or informal caregiv- ers, if he/she does not want to face the risk that the capacity to care is ‘running out.’

Responsibility is the capacity of intervening: it means the motivation to take concrete action, which should follow the understanding of the other’s need. In the case of the older person, it is not the ‘formal’ responsibility of the social worker or the family and/or cultural bond of the daughter. It is rather the ‘apprehension’ arising from the other’s vulnerability, as the philosopher Hans Jonas suggests (1979).

The third ethical component of care is competence. For a social worker, a strong motiva- tion is not enough: he/she needs knowledge, skills, and judgment to drive the appropriate actions and resources. The results of helpful action should indicate that the older person and his/her family are better off and perceive such improvement.

The fourth and last component of care consists in the responsiveness, the availability of both helping and being helped. We need to assess this from the point of view of the people cared for. The older person, but the daughter as well, find themselves in a vulnerable situa- tion and the social worker should not exercise illegitimate power, although well meaning, to think that he/she knows what is good without asking them.

The ethics of care underlines the commitment to ‘take to heart’ (as Don Milani wished for, 1967) and to be involved even emotionally in situations of vulnerability. Social workers should recognize the resources of each individual and commit to an ethical exchange of actions to reach ‘good’ life improvement. All the practices of care ‘taking place both inside and outside the family represent a “strategic” moral resource’ for society (Williams, 2005, p. 20). The ethics of care invites social workers to use them consciously and intentionally to promote collective well-being and social justice (Koggel & Orme, 2010; Tronto, 2010).

Narrative ethics We can also include narrative approaches in their various forms within ‘situated’ perspec- tives. A ‘weak’ narrative stream focuses on methodology: the story is the central instrument that allows a collection of data and materials in order to develop ethical thinking. As Banks and Nøhr demonstrate in their volume ‘Practising Social Work Ethics around the World’ (2012), the analysis of concrete ‘ethical cases’ allows differing values and principles to be reconciled in daily practice.

A more radical narrative position considers social work as a narrative practice (Baldwin & Estey-Burtt, 2012). This field of theory and practice is made up and shaped by narrative practices between users and social workers: ‘generative talks that are capable of simultaneously challenging traditional understandings and offering new possibilities of actions and change’ (Parton, 2003, p. 9, cited in Wilks, 2005).

According to Wilks (2005), this approach allows the inclusion of service users within ethical reflection. The social worker has the moral responsibility not only to listen to and comprehend the story of the people involved, but to recognize these people as ‘moral Others’ (Baldwin & Estey-Burtt, 2012). He/she should know that his/her position could diverge from theirs; but everyone in the relationship can contribute to create a new, shared story. In this way, the situation can evolve towards the ‘good.’ Such a story is intrinsically ethical, based on mutuality and solidarity, attention for the uniqueness of the ‘Other,’ care and trust. According to Baldwin & Estey-Burtt (2012), this is the way to respect social workers’ values.

SocIAl WorK EducATIoN 383

In this perspective, a dilemma such as the decision about removing a child because of abuse or neglect is not a matter of principles; it is not about the safeguarding of the child and the obligations of his/her mother, or the contrast between their rights. Instead, it is an intersection of different stories and the social worker must not only consider the rational dimensions, but the emotional implications as well. Thus, he/she should listen to the mother and the child to understand their perspectives. Perhaps the former knows her difficulties, but she is alone, she has to work hard and does not have any social support.

Hearing and considering everyone’s voice does not mean avoiding professional reflection in order to weigh up what should be done; it implies being able to take an ethical decision through interaction with and interpretation of that specific moral story (Wilks, 2005). Today this can be very difficult: narrative practice needs time for dialog, resources, and cultural sensitivity, which are often in conflict with managerial objectives and requests for evidence.

Lévinas’ face-to-face ethics Lévinas’ face-to-face ethics (1972) is also based on responsibilities derived from interactions between the social worker and user. It is a radical challenge to social work ethics because ethics transcends understanding and it is placed in the ‘face’ of the ‘Other.’

According to Lévinas, ethics goes with sociality and asks to meet ‘the singularity and irre- ducible uniqueness’ of the ‘Other,’ who is ‘Infinity.’ We cannot know him/her as a ‘Totality,’ which is made of concepts, representations, and thought processes that enable each of us to comprehend the world around us.

As a result, it is not an ethical practice to immediately apply professional skills and scientific knowledge to contextualize a person and gives reasons for his/her behavior. It is also not fully ethical to try to understand the situation by sharing it with others involved, according to critical social work. The capacity to mediate both the theoretical knowledge and the specific relationship experience through professional reflection (Schön, 1999) develops a more ethical social work, but it does not respect the ‘Infinity.’ Social workers need to ‘stand’ in front of service users as ‘Infinity’ and try to respect the impossibility of fully knowing them.

We need an ‘unsettled’ social work in Rossiter’s (2011) terms: totality – represented by using knowledge and skills, being part of an organization and formulating judgments to act in the best way for social justice – does not have to ‘kill’ the impossibility of knowing the ‘Other.’ When a person meets a social worker, the latter should refrain from his/her own convictions and temptations to identify immediately provisions that he/she could offer. He/ she should find the time to ‘stand’ in front of the ‘Other’ and truly listen. He/she will not be able to totally understand the person in front of him/her and the situation in which the person lives, but he/she will trust that a good solution will emerge from the relationship.

This uncertainty is not easy to bear or to pursue in a professional context that requires standards to achieve, and the application of guidelines and risk management, but it is a challenging way to work ethically.

Conclusions

This analysis of different ethical perspectives confirms the research findings of Osmo and Landau (2001), that no theory alone captures the development of a complete moral reason- ing. It is rather the combination of several approaches that can help social workers to solve the numerous and diverse situations they face. Each point of view focuses on certain ethical

384 A. PASINI

dimensions, and raises specific ethical questions. Put together, these questions can help the social worker to make better moral choices, even in the context of difficult dilemmas.

Firstly, the practitioner could refer to social work universal and general principles. He/ she could ask himself/herself:

• Am I aiming at well-being and social justice? What are the consequences of my actions? (teleological perspective)

• Upon which principles are my intervention based? What are my moral duties? (deon- tological perspective)

• Which and whose rights are involved in the situation? (rights-based approach)

Nevertheless, it is also important to consider the specificity and uniqueness of each pro- fessional situation. The social worker exercises his/her capacity to judge and make choices aligned with his/her moral conscience. Thus the question could be:

• What kind of social worker should I be? (virtue ethics)

The previous questions address only the individual dimension of ethics. The relational dimension, so important for social work, invites us to question the relational attitude and the helping dynamic, avoiding power imbalances, and fostering empowerment. The questions that summarize, even in a partial way, relational approaches could be as follows:

• Am I caring with attentiveness, responsibility, competence, and responsiveness? (ethics of care)

• Am I allowing the other to tell his/her story? Am I giving the right value and can I build a shared narrative? (narrative approach)

• Am I capable of not inserting the ‘Other’ in my concepts? Am I respectful of what he/ she is bringing to the relationship? (face-to-face ethics)

As Banks (2010) suggests, social workers need mainly reflections – rather than ethical models for decision-making – to explore in depth the ethical dimension intrinsically linked to their work.1 This reflection means consciousness and awareness: there are different rela- tionships and different values and perspectives, within the institutional and cultural context, which impact on ethical actions and sometimes constrain them.

Social work students are required to learn a critical approach. In order to respect and appraise the relational dimension of ethics, they need to learn ethical dialog where personal positions about values, professional, and organizational principles are explicit. Teamwork and peer relationships are privileged opportunities to exercise it during education and training. In this way, they can learn to find shared positions or they can understand and accept disagreement and conflicting positions.

Finally, they can recognize the political dimension of ethics that is strongly connected to the social mandate, the commitment to justice and equity, and the context of culture and institutions.

Only an effort to develop an ethical reasoning at different levels allows a social worker to manage typical dilemmas of practice (Banks, 1995). Thus, a more complete definition of professional competence can be reached where, along with knowledge and professional skills, social workers’ ethical reflection is considered. A social worker’s familiarity with

SocIAl WorK EducATIoN 385

reflection on the sense and the way of working not only increases his/her moral stature but also professional effectiveness and the legitimacy of interventions.

Note

[1] See Hugman (2005) too.

References

Baldwin, C., & Estey-Burtt, B. (2012). Narrative and the reconfiguration of social work ethics. Narrative Works, 2, 1–19.

Banks, S. (1995). Ethics and values in social work. London: Macmillan. Banks, S. (2008). Critical commentary: Social work ethics. British Journal of Social Work, 38,

1238–1249. Banks, S. (2010). Interprofessional ethics: A developing field? Notes from the ethics & social welfare

conference, Sheffield, UK, May 2010. Ethics and Social Welfare, 4, 280–294. Banks, S., & Nøhr, K. (Eds.). (2003). Teaching practical ethics. Copenhagen: FESET. Retrieved from

www.feset.dk Banks, S., & Nøhr, K. (Eds.). (2012). Practising social work ethics around the world: Cases and

commentaries. London: Routledge. Barnes, M. (1997). Care, communities and citizenship. Harlow: Addison Wesley Longman. Barnes, M. (2006). Caring and social justice. London: Palgrave. Biestek, F. P. (1961). The casework relationship. London: Allen and Unwin. Clark, C. (2006). Moral character in social work. British Journal of Social Work, 36, 75–89. Dominelli, L. (2004). Social work: Theory and practice for a changing profession. Cambridge: Polity

Press. Donati, P., & Solci, R. (2011). I beni relazionali: che cosa sono e cosa producono [Relational Goods.

What they are and what they produce]. Torino: Bollati Boringhieri. Folgheraiter, F. (2011). Fondamenti di metodologia relazionale. La logica sociale dell’aiuto [Foundation

of relational methodology]. Trento: Erickson. Folgheraiter, F. (2012). The mystery of social work. Trento: Erickson. Folgheraiter, F., & Pasini, A. (2009). Self-help groups and social capital: New directions in welfare

policies? Social Work Education, 28, 253–267. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Harvard: Harvard University Press. Hugman, R. (2005). New approaches in ethics for the caring professions. Basingstoke: Palgrave

Macmillan. Ife, J. (2001). Human rights and social work. Oxford: Oxford University Press. International Federation of Social Work (IFSW), & International Association of Schools of Social

Work (IASSW). (2004). Ethics in social work. Statement of principles. Jonas, H. (1979). Das Prinzip Verantwortung [The prinicple responsibility]. Frankfurt am Mein:

Surkamp. Koggel, C., & Orme, J. (2010). Care ethics: New theories and applications. Ethics and Social Welfare,

4, 109–114. Lévinas, E. (1972). Humanisme de l’autre home [Humanism of the other man]. Montpellier: Fata

Morgana. Lovat, T., & Gray, M. (2008). Towards a proportionist social work ethics: A habermasian perspective.

British Journal of Social Work, 38, 1100–1114. McBeath, G., & Webb, S. A. (2002). Virtue ethics and social work: Being lucky, realistic, and not

doing ones duty. British Journal of Social Work, 32, 1015–1036. Milani, D.L., & di Barbiana S. (1967). Lettera a una professoressa [Letter to a teacher]. Firenze:

Libreria Editrice Fiorentina. Morris, K. (2011). Thinking family? The complexities for family engagement in care and protection.

British Journal of Social Work, 42, 906–920. doi:10.1093/bjsk/bcr116

386 A. PASINI

Nussbaum, M. (2002). Giustizia sociale e dignità umana. Da individui a persone [Social justice and human dignity. From individual to persons]. Bologna: Il Mulino.

Ordine Nazionale degli Assistenti Sociali. (2009). Codice Deontologico dell’Assistente Sociale [Social work deontologic code].

Osmo, R., & Landau, R. (2001). The need for explicit argumentation in ethical decision-making in social work. Social Work Education, 20, 483–492.

Osmo, R., & Landau, R. (2006). The role of ethical theories in decision making by social workers. Social Work Education, 25, 863–876.

Ricoeur, P. (1997). La persona [The human being]. Brescia: Morcelliana. Rogers, C. R. (1961). On becoming a person: A therapist’s view of psychotherapy. London: Consable. Rossiter, A. (2011). Unsettled social work: The challenge of Levinas’s ethics. British Journal of Social

Work, 41, 980–995. Schön, D. A. (1999). The reflextive practioner: How professionals think in action. New York, NY:

Basic Books. Seikkula, J., & Arnkil, T. E. (2006). Dialogical meetings in social networks. London: Karnac Books. Sen, A. (2001). Development as freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tronto, J. C. (1993). Moral boundaries: A political argument for an ethics of care. New York, NY:

Routledge. Tronto, J. C. (2010). Creating caring institutions: Politics, plurality and purpose. Ethics and Social

Welfare, 4, 158–171. UN. (1948). The universal declaration on human rights. Wilks, T. (2005). Social work and narrative ethics. British Journal of Social Work, 35, 1249–1264. Williams, F. (2005). Linking care practices to a political ethics of care. Birmingham, AL: University

of Birmingham.

Copyright of Social Work Education is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.