The ethics of practical reasoning—exploring the terrain

Abstract

The ethics of practical reasoning exploring the terrain Article No: CESW1278524 Enclosures: 1) Query sheet 2) Article proofs Dear Author, 1. Please check these proofs carefully.I ti st h er e s p o n s i b i l i t yo ft h ec o r r e s p o n d i n ga u t h o rt oc h e c k these and approve or amend them. A second proof is not normally provided. Taylor & Francis cannot be held responsible for uncorrected errors, even if introduced during the production process. Once your corrections have been added to the article, it will be considered ready for publication. Please limit changes at this stage to the correction ofe r r o r s .Y o us h o u l dn o tm a k et r i v i a lc h a n g e s , improve prose style, add new material, or delete existing material at this stage. You may be charged if your corrections are excessive (we would not expect corrections to exceed 30 changes). For detailed guidance on how to check your proofs, please paste this address into a new browser window: http://journalauthors.tandf.co.uk/production/checkingproofs.asp Your PDF proof file has been enabled so that you can comment on the proof directly using Adobe Acrobat. If you wish to do this, please save the file to your hard disk first. For further information on marking corrections using Acrobat, please paste this address into a new browser window: http:// journalauthors.tandf.co.uk/production/acrobat.asp 2. Please review the table of contributors below and confirm that the first and last names are structured correctly and that the authors are listed in the correct order of contribution. This check is to ensure that your name will appear correctly online and when the article is indexed.

Electronic Information Systems: In search of responsive social work

“…] rendered technical/rational in nature, failing also to engage with its moral/ethical dimension'. In this context, practitioners are no longer recognised as actors in ethical situations, but forced into executing what they perceive as procedural reductionism (Banks, 2013;Evans & Hardy, 2017). For this reason, practitioners develop strategies and use workarounds that attempt to resist the negative effects of EISs as well as to move back and forth between governmental directives (e.g.…”

“…It therefore is not a matter of one or the other. It is a matter of navigating between a path of extremes (Banks, 2013;Evans & Hardy, 2017). According to Bar-On (2002), dealing with this struggle and balancing the public and the private is a matter of professional power and that is precisely the point here.…”

Care Ethics for Supported Decision-making. A Narrative Policy Analysis Regarding Social Work in Cases of Dementia and Self-neglect

“…Clearly, in some cases, the principles of autonomy and beneficence can come into conflict with each other. Historically, social work has had two ethical rationales for scrutinising practice and resolving conflict: the right/duty approach and the consequentialist outcome-based approach (Evans and Hardy 2017;McDermott 2011). The right/duty approach requires social workers to follow preordained principles regardless of consequences.…”

“…Both the principles of autonomy and beneficence in social work have been problematised because of the focus on solitary individuals only linked to others through social rights regulated by the state (Brannelly 2016). The right/duty and the consequentialists approaches to ethical conflicts in social work have been presented as part of a regulatory codes of ethics, focused on technical and rational reflections in formal decision-making (Evans and Hardy 2017;Lundberg 2018).…”

“…Such focus on social work as relational and community-building is in line with what has been called care ethics. Care ethics in social work focus on day-to-day intellectual, emotional and physical labour performed in order to care for the self, for others, and for the immediate surroundings (Banks 2016;Evans and Hardy 2017).…”