IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlawss/v12y2023i3p59-d1172140.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Practitioner Rehabilitation following Professional Misconduct: A Common Practice Now in Need of a Theory?

Author

Listed:
  • Lois J. Surgenor

    (Department of Psychological Medicine, University of Otago, P.O. Box 4345, Christchurch 8140, New Zealand)

  • Kate Diesfeld

    (School of Public Health and Interpersonal Studies, 90 Akoranga Drive, Auckland 0627, New Zealand)

  • Marta Rychert

    (SHORE and Whariki Research Centre, Massey University, 7/90 Symonds Street, Auckland 1010, New Zealand)

Abstract

Theories of rehabilitation have long been articulated in health and criminal justice contexts, driving rehabilitation practices in each area. In this article, several prominent theories are described to illustrate how their core assumptions aim to facilitate recovery and reduce relapse or reoffending. Professional disciplinary bodies are also often compelled by law or regulation to attend to practitioners’ rehabilitation after professional misconduct, with similar aims to restore the practitioner to safe practice. Yet, no rehabilitation theory has been articulated in this context despite professional rehabilitation being distinct from other settings. We propose that the current absence of a coherent theory is problematic, leaving professional disciplinary bodies to ‘borrow’ assumptions from elsewhere. Since rehabilitation penalties are frequently made by professional disciplinary bodies, we review several theories from health and justice contexts and highlight elements that may be useful in developing professional misconduct rehabilitation theory. This includes proposing methodological approaches for empirical research to progress this.

Suggested Citation

  • Lois J. Surgenor & Kate Diesfeld & Marta Rychert, 2023. "Practitioner Rehabilitation following Professional Misconduct: A Common Practice Now in Need of a Theory?," Laws, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-14, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlawss:v:12:y:2023:i:3:p:59-:d:1172140
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-471X/12/3/59/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-471X/12/3/59/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Devan Mescall & Fred Phillips & Regan N. Schmidt, 2017. "Does the Accounting Profession Discipline Its Members Differently After Public Scrutiny?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 142(2), pages 285-309, May.
    2. Devan Mescall & Fred Phillips & Regan N. Schmidt, 2017. "Erratum to: Does the Accounting Profession Discipline Its Members Differently After Public Scrutiny?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 142(2), pages 407-407, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Cynthia L. Krom, 2019. "Disciplinary Actions by State Professional Licensing Boards: Are They Fair?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 158(2), pages 567-583, August.
    2. Carolyn Mactavish & Susan McCracken & Regan N. Schmidt, 2018. "External Auditors' Judgment and Decision Making: An Audit Process Task Analysis," Accounting Perspectives, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(3), pages 387-426, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlawss:v:12:y:2023:i:3:p:59-:d:1172140. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.