Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > The procedural fairness limitations of fitness ...

Electronic data

  • Legal_Studies_resubmission - August - with names-1

    Rights statement: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/legal-studies/article/procedural-fairness-limitations-of-fitness-to-practise-hearings-a-case-study-into-social-work/CF73C48DE2CAAAF7240255EDA08C58C5 The final definitive version of this article has been published in the Journal, Legal Studies, 39 (2), pp 339-357 2019, © 2019 Cambridge University Press.

    Accepted author manuscript, 347 KB, PDF document

    Available under license: CC BY-NC: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

The procedural fairness limitations of fitness to practise hearings: A case study into social work

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articlepeer-review

Published

Standard

The procedural fairness limitations of fitness to practise hearings : A case study into social work. / Kirkham, Richard; Leigh, Jadwiga; McLaughlin , Kenneth; Worsley, Aidan.

In: Legal Studies, Vol. 39, No. 2, 01.06.2019, p. 339-357.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Author

Kirkham, Richard ; Leigh, Jadwiga ; McLaughlin , Kenneth ; Worsley, Aidan. / The procedural fairness limitations of fitness to practise hearings : A case study into social work. In: Legal Studies. 2019 ; Vol. 39, No. 2. pp. 339-357.

Bibtex

@article{5ef3a97bf82747029501293b62f477b3,
title = "The procedural fairness limitations of fitness to practise hearings: A case study into social work",
abstract = "The norm in fitness to practise proceedings (FTPP) is that where sanctions might be imposed procedural fairness requires a court-like hearing. This paper questions that paradigm, using empirical research to focus on the FTPP to which social workers must account. Procedural fairness is a multi-faceted legitimisingconcept used to justify the design of decision-making processes. With FTPPs, the major justification is an {\textquoteleft}instrumentally{\textquoteright} focused model of procedural fairness which prioritises making decisions that look right, a goal which is delivered in the context of social work. But other justifications for procedural fairnessare inadequately fulfilled, with in particular a {\textquoteleft}dignitarian{\textquoteright} respect not achieved due to the high levels of non-attendance by registrant social workers. Further, procedural fairness as {\textquoteleft}public accountability{\textquoteright} is undermined due to the relative lack of engagement of FTPPs with the perspective of the social work community.These findings hint that in the context of a poorly organised and resource-poor profession other hybrid forms of FTPP might have a stronger claim to procedural fairness than the court-like model.",
author = "Richard Kirkham and Jadwiga Leigh and Kenneth McLaughlin and Aidan Worsley",
note = "https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/legal-studies/article/procedural-fairness-limitations-of-fitness-to-practise-hearings-a-case-study-into-social-work/CF73C48DE2CAAAF7240255EDA08C58C5 The final definitive version of this article has been published in the Journal, Legal Studies, ? (?), pp ??-??https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/legal-studies/article/procedural-fairness-limitations-of-fitness-to-practise-hearings-a-case-study-into-social-work/CF73C48DE2CAAAF7240255EDA08C58C5 The final definitive version of this article has been published in the Journal, Legal Studies, 39 (2), pp 339-357 2019, {\textcopyright} 2019 Cambridge University Press. 2019, {\textcopyright} 2019 Cambridge University Press.",
year = "2019",
month = jun,
day = "1",
doi = "10.1017/lst.2018.42",
language = "English",
volume = "39",
pages = "339--357",
journal = "Legal Studies",
issn = "0261-3875",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "2",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - The procedural fairness limitations of fitness to practise hearings

T2 - A case study into social work

AU - Kirkham, Richard

AU - Leigh, Jadwiga

AU - McLaughlin , Kenneth

AU - Worsley, Aidan

N1 - https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/legal-studies/article/procedural-fairness-limitations-of-fitness-to-practise-hearings-a-case-study-into-social-work/CF73C48DE2CAAAF7240255EDA08C58C5 The final definitive version of this article has been published in the Journal, Legal Studies, ? (?), pp ??-??https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/legal-studies/article/procedural-fairness-limitations-of-fitness-to-practise-hearings-a-case-study-into-social-work/CF73C48DE2CAAAF7240255EDA08C58C5 The final definitive version of this article has been published in the Journal, Legal Studies, 39 (2), pp 339-357 2019, © 2019 Cambridge University Press. 2019, © 2019 Cambridge University Press.

PY - 2019/6/1

Y1 - 2019/6/1

N2 - The norm in fitness to practise proceedings (FTPP) is that where sanctions might be imposed procedural fairness requires a court-like hearing. This paper questions that paradigm, using empirical research to focus on the FTPP to which social workers must account. Procedural fairness is a multi-faceted legitimisingconcept used to justify the design of decision-making processes. With FTPPs, the major justification is an ‘instrumentally’ focused model of procedural fairness which prioritises making decisions that look right, a goal which is delivered in the context of social work. But other justifications for procedural fairnessare inadequately fulfilled, with in particular a ‘dignitarian’ respect not achieved due to the high levels of non-attendance by registrant social workers. Further, procedural fairness as ‘public accountability’ is undermined due to the relative lack of engagement of FTPPs with the perspective of the social work community.These findings hint that in the context of a poorly organised and resource-poor profession other hybrid forms of FTPP might have a stronger claim to procedural fairness than the court-like model.

AB - The norm in fitness to practise proceedings (FTPP) is that where sanctions might be imposed procedural fairness requires a court-like hearing. This paper questions that paradigm, using empirical research to focus on the FTPP to which social workers must account. Procedural fairness is a multi-faceted legitimisingconcept used to justify the design of decision-making processes. With FTPPs, the major justification is an ‘instrumentally’ focused model of procedural fairness which prioritises making decisions that look right, a goal which is delivered in the context of social work. But other justifications for procedural fairnessare inadequately fulfilled, with in particular a ‘dignitarian’ respect not achieved due to the high levels of non-attendance by registrant social workers. Further, procedural fairness as ‘public accountability’ is undermined due to the relative lack of engagement of FTPPs with the perspective of the social work community.These findings hint that in the context of a poorly organised and resource-poor profession other hybrid forms of FTPP might have a stronger claim to procedural fairness than the court-like model.

U2 - 10.1017/lst.2018.42

DO - 10.1017/lst.2018.42

M3 - Journal article

VL - 39

SP - 339

EP - 357

JO - Legal Studies

JF - Legal Studies

SN - 0261-3875

IS - 2

ER -