Cited by 14Social Work Education and PracticeCounseling Practices and SupervisionEthics in medical practice

The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.

Exploring self-reflection in dual relationship decision-making

Brownlee, Keith, LeBlanc, Heather, Halverson, Glenn, Piché, Tammy, Brazeau, James·2019·Journal of Social Work

Abstract

Summary: Social workers practicing in small rural towns regularly encounter overlapping or dual relationships with clients. This can lead to boundary crossing and conflicts of interest that require an ethical decision. Previous research on how rural social workers approach ethical decision-making in these situations has suggested that while they might draw on ethical codes, many rely on intuitive or personal viewpoints rather than systematic decision-making processes. Although social workers are often trained to engage in self-reflection when faced with the complexities of practice and the possibilities of personal biases, the role of systematic self-reflection in personal decision-making about dual relationships has not been sufficiently documented in the literature. Using qualitative inquiry, this study explored the lived experiences with dual relationships reported by 44 practitioners working in small towns in rural Canada. Findings: The findings confirm that practitioners were frequently guided in their decisions by an intuitive or emotional understanding of dual relationships rather than by external codes, and while self-reflection was seen to play a role, a formal or systematic approach to personal self-reflection was not reported. Applications: The findings suggest that educational or professional development on more intentional use of self-reflection in practice would aid in safeguarding the client and the worker when dealing with dual relationships, while providing an ethical process congruent with a rural and remote community identity. Explicit decision-making would also make the process more defensible and justifiable, not only to themselves, but also to colleagues, supervisors, and to their professional association.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1468017318766423

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 32 · Cited by 14

Research works printed but not linked: 33

  1. 10.1606/1044-3894.901 · DOI
  2. 10.1080/03124070108414320 · DOI
  3. 10.1007/BF02251048 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Brownlee K., 2012, Journal of Comparative Social Work, 1, 1
  5. 10.1177/0020872808102064 · DOI
  6. Creswell J. W., 2007, Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches
  7. 10.1080/02615470500132715 · DOI
  8. 10.1093/bjsw/bcp106 · DOI
  9. Dolgoff R., 2011, Ethical decisions for social work practice
  10. 10.1080/j.1440-1614.2006.01922.x · DOI
  11. 10.1093/bjsw/bct071 · DOI
  12. 10.1177/0020872809355386 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Halverson G., 2009, Northern and rural social work practice: A Canadian perspective, 130
  14. Hassan E., 2006, Internet Journal of Epidemiology, 3
  15. 10.1177/1066480708317725 · DOI
  16. 10.1080/02650533.2013.806888 · DOI
  17. Kay J., 2010, Obliquity: Why our goals are best achieved indirectly
  18. 10.1177/0011000084123005 · DOI
  19. 10.1177/160940690300200303 · DOI · Paper page
  20. 10.4135/9781412995658 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers. (2008). Code of ethics and standards of practice handbook (2nd ed.). Retrieved from http://www.ocswssw.org/professional-practice/code-of-ethics/
  22. 10.1080/02615470120064723 · DOI · Paper page
  23. O’Sullivan T., 2010, Decision making in social work
  24. Piché T., 2015, Contemporary Rural Social Work, 7, 57
  25. 10.1002/jclp.20477 · DOI
  26. 10.1093/bjsw/bcl088 · DOI · Paper page
  27. Reamer F. G., 2012, Boundary issues and dual relationships in the human services
  28. Reamer F. G., 2013, Social work values and ethics
  29. 10.1037/11379-000 · DOI
  30. 10.1080/14766086.2012.742749 · DOI
  31. 10.1093/sw/45.3.251 · DOI
  32. 10.1177/1468017310382323 · DOI
  33. 10.1093/bjsw/bch323 · DOI

Metadata

Authors
Brownlee, K., LeBlanc, H., Halverson, G., Piché, T., & Brazeau, J.
Affiliations
Lakehead University (CA)
Corresponding author
Brownlee, Keith
Venue
Journal of Social Work
Published
2018-03-30
Volume
19
Issue
5
Pages
629-641
ISSN
  • 1468-0173 (ISSN-L)
  • 1741-296X
OpenAlex
W2794895480
Cited by
14
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1
FWCI
1.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Social Work (publishedVersion)
Funders
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (866-2008-0020)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Public Administration › Social Work Education and Practice
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Counseling Practices and Supervision
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Ethics in medical practice
Keywords
dual relationships, self-reflection, ethical decision-making, boundary crossing, conflicts of interest, professional ethics, rural small towns, professional development

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review