Search results

"How do social workers in the UK legal context act ethically? What do we understand by ethics and how does social work law relate to it? Social work practice in all countries incorporates a clear, unstinting commitment to social justice, but what is social justice? Using an applied, practice-based and refreshingly 'real' approach, this text bridges the gap between law and ethics. Each chapter open with a case study which considers ethical dilemmas in real life practice. Chapters have been designed to help students strengthen their critical reflection skills, encouraging consideration of the legal and ethical dimensions of social work generally and in personal practice. Through an examination of topics such as care proceedings, adoption, community care, youth justice, mental capacity and accountability the book demonstrates how understanding both ethical theory and its application to practice are equally important"--Back cover.

AbstractThe Scottish Parliament election of May 2021 was an 'as you were' election. Vote shares were more or less as in the previous election five years earlier. Barely any seats changed hands and the Scottish National Party (SNP) was left tantalisingly short of a majority. One reason for this stasis is that voting in Scottish elections remains largely an expression of support or opposition to independence—and opinions on that issue are deeply entrenched. Opinions on most other issues, like the pandemic or the Alex Salmond scandal, were mostly driven by constitutional preferences and certainly could not override them. Only Brexit had the power to shift significant numbers of votes. However, because the Conservatives lost Remainers while gaining Leavers and the reverse was true of the SNP, the net result was little change. The entrenchment and polarisation over independence means that this election was never likely to break the constitutional deadlock—and it did not surprise.

When considering elections in multi-level contexts, scholars have typically assumed-in line with second-order election theory-that the way voters approach an election depends on their attributions of responsibility, that is, on what they see as being at stake in that election. This assumption is questionable. The formal position is not always clear, and is further blurred by parties and the media. Moreover, many voters pay little attention to politics and have little incentive to trace constitutional responsibilities. In this paper I use data from election studies in two multi-level contexts, Ontario and Scotland, to explore the nature and impact of voters' attributions of responsibility. The evidence suggests that, when called upon in surveys to do so, many voters can confidently and fairly accurately assign issues to different levels of government. Yet they do not seem to consider these attributions much at elections. There is very little indication that issues weighed heavier in the decision-making of those who regarded them as the responsibility of that electoral arena. A plausible explanation is that most voters sidestep the cognitive demands imposed by multi-level elections. Adapted from the source document.

This article is about responses to the 'most important issue' question used in numerous election polls and surveys. Following Wlezien's work, two interpretations of the question can be sketched: (1) personal (the issue most important to the respondent) and (2) contextual (the issue that respondents perceive as topping the national political agenda). Using British Election Study data from 2005, the author shows that issues prominent in that campaign were often cited as most important by respondents who were neither particularly knowledgeable about those issues nor particularly influenced by them when voting. In sum, the contextual interpretation predominates. Hence, whatever else it is, 'most important issue' is not an accurate gauge of salience effects in models of vote choice. Adapted from the source document.

Public opinion researchers agree that citizens use simplifying heuristics to reach real, stable preferences. In domestic policy, the focus has been on citizens delegating judgement to opinion leaders, notably political parties. By contrast, citizens have been held to deduce foreign policy opinions from their own values or principles. Yet there is ample scope for delegation in the foreign policy sphere. In this exploratory study I use a 'process-tracing' method to test directly for delegation heuristic processing in university students' judgements on the Iranian nuclear issue. A substantial minority sought guidance on foreign policy decisions, either from parties, international actors or newspapers. This was not always simple delegation; some used such heuristics within more complex decision-making processes. However, others relied on simple delegation, raising questions about the 'effectiveness' of their processing.

This article is about responses to the "most important issue" question used in numerous election polls and surveys. Following Wlezien's work, two interpretations of the question can be sketched: (1) personal (the issue most important to the respondent) and (2) contextual (the issue that respondents perceive as topping the national political agenda). Using British Election Study data from 2005, the author shows that issues prominent in that campaign were often cited as most important by respondents who were neither particularly knowledgeable about those issues nor particularly influenced by them when voting. In sum, the contextual interpretation predominates. Hence, whatever else it is, "most important issue" is not an accurate gauge of salience effects in models of vote choice.