The two articles in the Practice Section are qualitatively different in style and content however, both papers raise a number of complex questions in relation to ethical practice within social work and the area of research. The paper by a social work student Coleen Lunt provides insight into her practice whilst working for a community based organisation that provides gender specific services to vulnerable women. Drawing on a number of philosophical and theoretical principles Lunt explores her understanding of confidentiality and the exercise of individual rights. She considers the importance of the ethical procedures involved in harmonising the rights of service users in relations to the sharing of information and confidentiality in mitigating circumstances. The tension between upholding the principle of respect on the one hand and the concept of confidentiality on the other is examined in the context of a case study. The ethical consideration that should prevail must be the overarching rights of children to be safeguarded as pointed out by Lunt. However, the emphasis of the argument by Lunt is centred on the particular organisational policy and rules that prohibit the rights of service users from knowing that confidentiality had been breached regardless of its justification. Lunt considers this and other ethical practices around the abuse of power and oppression, especially for female services users who occupy varied positions of vulnerability. Lunt posits that service users should be empowered to make informed choices about disclosing information that pertain to safeguarding matters and that the process should be transparent and facilitative. The questions asked by Lunt are important in terms of ethical practice and the protection of individual rights which she argues conceivably should not be abused even in justifiable cases such as the safeguarding of children.
The paper ‘Ethical research practice and journal publications’ by Stephen Humphreys draws attention to the possibility of differential practice taking place between National Health Service Research Ethics Committee and other Research Ethics Committees within the UK, as well as outside of the UK, in relation to making enquiries about the level of engagement researchers have had prior to undertaking research with the communities being researched, particularly vulnerable communities. It is argued that failure to do this is ethically unacceptable and does little to challenge research paternalism, particularly as it is so often the case that the research informs the evidence base regarding practice interventions and/or policy development in relation to the group under study. Whilst it is acknowledged by the author that many researchers are engaging in ethical research practice which fully respects the rights and dignity of participants, there is a need to ensure that this is universally the case.
The paper not only encourages debate about this particular ethical issue but the author also suggests a practical way forward, that of academic journals adopting a policy of explicitly asking that submitting authors provide details of evidence of their engagement with the community under study, and indicate how the results of such engagement has shaped the resultant research. The points made within the paper and the suggested way forward raise a number of complex questions which need to be addressed: questions regarding the complexity of possible research situations, questions of interpretation arising about the nature of ‘the community’ and who it is represented by. Is it always possible to consult with the community under study? What if information gathered is not agreed by all members within the community to be studied? How will the different, divergent and competing views be managed and by whom? Is it appropriate to impose a rigid universal rule that an author should consult with ‘the researched community’? However, given these and other questions which may arise we hope that the publication of the paper stimulates debate in a range of arenas. It has certainly contributed to the ongoing debate that this journal has in relation to issues of ethics, values and social welfare. We have as a consequence of our discussions taken a critical look at our own processes, particularly in relation to advice provided to reviewers of journal articles. It was felt that we could further strengthen the guidance provided to reviewers by asking that the reviewer critically looks at how the submitting author has engaged with and articulated ethical issues involved in the research in question.