Abstract
The term “peer review” has two distinct meanings in current usage among Australian social workers. It is the thesis of this paper that these definitional differences are more than a matter of semantics. Rather, they represent concepts in conflict. While they spring from a common concern for accountability, each definition is posited on different basic assumptions, answers different questions and leads to a different course of action. In short, they have different meanings. Further, by using the same term to describe essentially different activities, the forward thrust and positive impact of the more rigorous, specific and practical one may be blunted or deflected by the softer, more general and more idealistic definition. The two models of peer review will be discussed in detail further on in this paper. However, it is helpful at this stage to present introductory definitions.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
