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
In this article, we describe a study on the impact of an ethics program aimed at strengthening the ethical agency of 15 social workers of three welfare organizations. The goal of the study was to make an inventory of the impact of the program, and to evaluate the relevance of this impact with the help of several stakeholders. The most significant change (MSC) approach was used as a research strategy, though some changes to the approach were made with a view to our research goal. We explain the MSC approach and how we used it in our study design. Further, we describe the research process, answering the question whether our adaptation of the MSC was helpful to inventory the impact of our ethics program and the evaluation of its relevance. The implications of MSC's focus on "most significant" changes and the need for a thorough feedback of the results of the evaluation process in the participating organizations are discussed.
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.
