People with disabilities (PWDs) face discrimination in the hospitality workplace. The aim of this paper is therefore to frame issues surrounding the employment of PWDs in the hospitality industry in normative ethical terms. To achieve this aim, we conducted twenty-eight semi-structured interviews with owners/managers of hospitality businesses and other relevant stakeholders. Drawing on the ethics of justice and ethics of care, our study found that when organisations demonstrated to their employees and other stakeholders the fairness in the procedures taken to implement PWD inclusion actions, the inclusion actions were significantly supported by coworkers, and the organisations were able to achieve distributive justice and care for PWDs. This study, thus, demonstrated that organisational members were willing to take part in caring actions for employees with disabilities (EWDs) not only when they perceived that inclusion actions for EWDs were procedurally fair, but also when they perceived that the PWDs deserved distributive justice outcomes.
MULTIFILE
Building resilience to radicalization has become a key pillar of many policies for preventing violent extremism. However, sustained debates over the precise nature of the terms radicalisation and resilience impact the ability to implement these policies. A growing body of literature argues that the way in which key ideas are understood matters to what happens in practice. Additionally, the cross-sector collaboration called for in PVE policy can be made more challenging through divergences in understanding of central concepts. As such, the way in which resilience to radicalization is being understood by frontline workers matters. In light of this, a q-methodology study was conducted, which identified four perspectives on resilience to radicalization amongst policy-makers and practitioners in Belgium, the Netherlands, and the UK. These perspectives are examined in light of the broader debates around both resilience and radicalization, and the extent to which the divergences matter for collaboration is considered.
While social robots bring new opportunities for education, they also come with moral challenges. Therefore, there is a need for moral guidelines for the responsible implementation of these robots. When developing such guidelines, it is important to include different stakeholder perspectives. Existing (qualitative) studies regarding these perspectives however mainly focus on single stakeholders. In this exploratory study, we examine and compare the attitudes of multiple stakeholders on the use of social robots in primary education, using a novel questionnaire that covers various aspects of moral issues mentioned in earlier studies. Furthermore, we also group the stakeholders based on similarities in attitudes and examine which socio-demographic characteristics influence these attitude types. Based on the results, we identify five distinct attitude profiles and show that the probability of belonging to a specific profile is affected by such characteristics as stakeholder type, age, education and income. Our results also indicate that social robots have the potential to be implemented in education in a morally responsible way that takes into account the attitudes of various stakeholders, although there are multiple moral issues that need to be addressed first. Finally, we present seven (practical) implications for a responsible application of social robots in education following from our results. These implications provide valuable insights into how social robots should be implemented
MULTIFILE
