Search results

In this unashamedly polemical piece it is argued that we should not jump into bed with virtue too quickly. It is suggested that the concept of virtue is dangerously ill defined, so it becomes what those in power hegemonically define it to be; that virtue’s rise may serve factional political purposes within social science; that system implications are frequently missed, side-lined or minimised so that virtue niavely becomes a purely individual construct; that aspirational codes, which expect a-contextual demonstration of ‘virtue’ from practitioners, need to be tempered with a dose of reality; and that the achievable ‘good enough’ is better than the unrealisable and idealised virtuously ‘perfect’. It is suggested that the implied centrality of ‘virtue’ in research is problematic, that being ‘critically virtuous’ has limits, and that better education will not necessarily lead to morality and integrity in research – any more than it does in the general population. Finally it is argued that ethics committees should focus on (probable) behaviours, rather than rather than imagined motives or vague character traits. Locating virtue in an individual is dangerous because it allows the system to blame and punish an individual, rather than acknowledge the collective responsibility of the whole system. It is suggested that we need to move from a purist pursuit of virtue to a more realistic and nuanced appreciation of the real world consequences of its adoption. Whilst the present emphasis on sound research ethics and responsibility is a positive development, we need to slow down.

This article introduces the special issue “Beyond psychometrics: assessment for the new millennium” and further speculates on how a number of organisational trends may influence selection practice in the future. These trends include the continuing emphasis on delayering, of selecting “core” strategic staff, of organisational fit, the impact of technology, the devolution and outsourcing of selection, the rise of teleworking, the questioning of Western assumptions alongside globalisation, and diversity. Developments in selection responses to these factors are identified, such as the popularity of assessment centres, psychometric tests, personality instruments and genetic testing. Some suggestions are made for possible future developments including whole team (or board) selection, the greater use of depth interviews, clinical tests of neurological functioning, and of virtual simulations, and the notion of the possession by individuals of a portable and verifiable assessment portfolio.

Discusses four ways of conceptualising counselling: as a set of skills, as a relationship, as a means of attaining outcomes, and as a set of definable tasks. Considers the issues arising from the BAC definition of counselling, Patterson′s (1974) approach, and the debate about counselling versus psychotherapy. Surmises that the four conceptualisations of counselling are not mutually exclusive, but it is important to examine the exact nature of counselling in order to do the job well.

This chapter explores the impact of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) funded by Cooperative Agreement AIDS education and prevention program on crack users and drug injectors. Data on the 5,789 participants were drawn from eight cities throughout the United States. Subjects were classified into three user groups: injectors only, crack smokers only, and crack-smoking injectors. They were interviewed at baseline and six months later at follow-up about their HIV risk behaviors which included needle-related behaviors, drug use patterns, and sexual behaviors. At baseline, subjects were assigned either to a two-session NIDA developed standard intervention or to a more elaborate and prolonged enhanced intervention which was independently developed in each of the sites. Analyses were conducted for the cities individually. Three major findings emerged from the analyses: (1) there is a relative lack of post intervention differences between the standard and enhanced interventions; (2) statistically significant and substantively meaningful changes occurred between pretest and posttest; and (3) despite meaningful reductions in risk behaviors among some users, a large percentage of these drug users continue to engage in all types of risky behaviors. Implications of these findings are discussed in the chapter.