Applying the Canadian Association of Social Workers Code of Ethics in uniquely-situated northern geographical locations: are there factors in practice environments that impact adherence to the 2005 code?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to explore social work practitioner familiarity with and interpretation of the 2005 Canadian Association of Social Workers (CASW) Code of Ethics (“Code”) to determine whether specific sections of the existing Code enable social work practitioners to deliver ethical service in uniquely-situated geographical locations in northern Manitoba. A qualitative research style with exploratory methodology was employed in this study. In-person interviews were conducted with six social workers who have practiced in a northern Manitoba setting for at least three years post- graduation. Once given the opportunity to read and interpret the 2005 Code, five of six respondents reported that the intent of the Code is reflective of their practice, an apparent contradiction between how they described their understanding of the intent of the Code versus their practice realities. All reported that dual roles and potential conflicts of interest are very difficult to avoid when practicing social work in the North. Other key findings indicate that the study participants believe that social workers in the North: are not familiar with the 2005 Code; have a lack of education, knowledge, discussion and accessibility in this Code, and find there is a lack of application of this Code in practice environments. The emergence of the Manitoba College of Social Workers (MCSW), through legislation, will require that all practicing social workers adhere to the 2005 Code of Ethics. All six participants reported factors in northern, rural, remote and isolated environments that affect his/her ability to adhere to the 2005 Code. When social workers are required to register to use the title of Social Worker, the MCSW will be in a position to recognize the environmental factors of practicing in northern, rural, remote and isolated environments. MCSW may choose to consider that, where social workers are required to adhere to the 2005 Code, it may not be feasible in northern, rural, remote and isolated practice areas due to specific factors that have been identified throughout this study. In future studies, consideration and flexibility on behalf of the Psychology/Sociology Research Ethics Board (PSREB) may be necessary in order to ensure that research subjects are protected versus the need to understand, through research, the realities of social work practice. Secondly, researchers interested in expanding or replicating the findings of this study may choose to consider the disclosure and provision of the interview questions prior to the actual interviews. Additionally, future research to review ethical practice in the social work profession would facilitate a broader understanding of whether all social workers practice under existing requirements set out in current MIRSW by-laws and, in the future, provincial legislation that is applicable to every social worker in Manitoba. This study was limited to six participants. Broader research to more fully investigate the practical realities of applying the 2005 Code in northern environments could inform how the new legislation is implemented.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.027 | 0.097 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".