Ethical decision-making: The lived experiences of rural mental health social workers.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this phenomenological qualitative study I explore the lived experiences of rural mental health social workers.The purpose of the study is to hear, in the participant's own words, how they make decisions about and manage the ethical issues that arise as they live in such constant and close proximity to their clients.The data was collected through in-depth, unstructured interviews with the eight participants.The interviews took place in the communities of which they spoke, in various locations around Saskatchewan.Using an inductive process to analyse the data, I began to see that three main themes were emerging: information about the rural context of their lives, discussion of the ethical issues that permeated all aspects of their lives, and perceptions about how the relationships the participants had developed were impacted by their work.The essence of the findings was that rural social workers were constantly challenged to do both good and ethical practice and there was often a tension between the two.The ethical and practice implications for rural social work were perceived to be different from that of social work in the larger centres that often are the source and focus of policy and regulation for all social workers.Although the ethical dilemmas are similar in rural and urban practice, these rural social workers believe they have fewer options available to them when finding solutions to ethical dilemmas.I offer suggestions from the literature and my analysis of the data on how to make rural social work better for rural social workers so they can be secure in the knowledge that they are providing both good and ethical services.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".