As the global pandemic seems to be past its worst in some areas, it is certainly not clear how the effects are going to be felt – or exactly what they will be. The impact on this journal so far has been mixed: some academics have been unusually burdened by the demands arising from the need to re-organise studies and deal with students’ understandable concerns, particularly administrative demands and re-jigging of teaching processes. Others have found that being forced to stay at home has given them the time to write – as appears to be evidenced by the larger than normal number of papers being submitted. No doubt national and personal circumstances vary enormously. However one effect has been to slow down the processes of producing the journal in some cases because of pressure on academics’ time, and as a result we are postponing the second special issue that was planned for this year. There is a special issue being prepared and now planned for publication in the first issue of next year. In the meantime we will be publishing two further general issues of the journal (this one, 14: 03, and 14: 04).
In the last editorial (Issue 14:02) I commented that it would be interesting to see whether one of the consequences of the pandemic would include contributions to this journal that reflect on the surrounding circumstances of the pandemic relating to ethics and social welfare. One immediate consequence of the pandemic has been to inspire a special paper by the two co-editors of the first issue of this journal that appeared this year. Corey Shdaimah and Roni Strier have contributed a ‘postscript’ to their special issue – an editorial after the event, as it were, making connections between the themes discussed in the special issue and the circumstances of the pandemic as it became evident shortly after publication. This issue therefore begins with their postscript, connecting this issue with their previous work on ethical conflicts in social work practice, where difficulties arise often because of the tension between social work values and social and political policies in increasingly elitist and ethno-centric societies. The themes they highlight incidentally also connect with the comment made in the 14: 02 editorial about whether governments might have to consider (or at least give the appearance of) resurrecting ideas about the importance of investment in public services and more than minimal government involvement in social life. Shdaimah and Strier diagnose the societal ills of neo-liberalism as highlighted by the pandemic, and offer the ‘faintest hope’ that there are some signs and potential for change. They clearly set out not only the problems faced but also some of the alternative paths that can be followed.
The following collection of peer-reviewed papers in this issue has a pleasing international flavour, with two Canadian papers, and others from Holland, the USA and the UK. They are headed by a fascinating theoretical discussion by a Canadian academic of what a government would look like if it had a ‘department of care’. Given the current pandemic’s exposure of the inadequacy of social care, especially in the UK, but also to varying degrees across the world, and given the low regard of societies for caring work and the sudden realisation that it is essential, demanding, skilful – and undervalued - the article could hardly be more timely and worthy of serious consideration. Maggie FitzGerald’s paper: ‘Reimagining Government with the Ethics of Care: A Department of Care’ was germane to the journal’s interests when it was originally conceived, but the author could hardly have imagined how it would suddenly become so widely and significantly relevant as a result of an unprecedented health emergency. The fact that caring work has been historically devalued, and thus not in the forefront of social policy, and because much of it was undertaken by women, and additionally the fact that the pandemic is having a disproportionate effect on the female labour force, throwing more women out of work than men, also means that social policy needs to be reviewed in many countries for its impact on the health and welfare of whole societies, and not least for its impact on women, from the kind of perspective that Fitzgerald describes. This could well be a method of implementing some of the ‘ways forward’ suggested by Shdaimah and Strier, and certainly warrants some thoughtful attention at both the levels of politics and social policy, as well as social and moral thought.
The second peer-reviewed paper also raises the issue of care, but in a more specific and less theoretical way. Boyle’s study of ‘The moral resilience of young people who care’ is based on some empirical research, and the paper explores whether young people caring for a seriously ill or disabled family member see themselves in moral terms and how they respond to the moral challenges of a caring life. It suggests that they have a greater awareness of moral issues, but also queries whether gender differences in caring roles need particular attention from social workers.
The third paper is a multi-authored and very interesting ‘take’ on a topic that has been written about before – but not from this angle. The three Canadian academics and activists - Roxane Caron, Edward Ou Jin Lee and Annie Pullen Sansfaçon entitled their paper: ‘Transformative Disruptions and Collective Knowledge Building: Social Work Professors Building Anti-oppressive Ethical Frameworks for Research, Teaching, Practice and Activism’. However what is unusual about the paper is that it proceeds via a series of auto-ethnographic accounts by the authors, in which they bravely attempt to come to terms with their own experiences of social activism and university teaching. The paper can be regarded as an exemplar of what academics in social and community work disciplines – and all other related topics where human service is concerned – should be engaged in, whether writing and publishing, or in reflection and discussion with students, service users and colleagues. The paper raises various issues of how contemporary ethical teaching and activism should be pursued, and the authors offer in conclusion their own reflections for the reader to consider.
The fourth paper by de Jonge, et al on ‘The ethical impact of a training programme on ethical agency for social professionals’ raises familiar issues of how professionals can be taught about ethics, but also looks at what kind of impact the training has had.in this particular setting in three Dutch welfare organisations. It is noteworthy that although the findings included the encouraging outcome that ethics teaching did have a detectable impact, the perception of that impact was differentiated between participant and stakeholder groups. Furthermore the researchers acknowledge the difficulties of engaging with an organisation in such a way as to cover all the aspects of ethics that are needed, and reflect on what further could be done.
The final peer-reviewed paper by Ralston studies a phenomenon that would not have been possible in its present form two or three decades ago. It looks at the way day care may be impacted by the use of mobiles and other portable electronic devices connected to the internet, which provide daycare staff with rapid and brief distractions from their responsible caring roles. His study of: ‘Distracted Daycare and Child Welfare: An Ethical Analysis’ focuses on a modern form of distraction which has become an increasing issue precisely because it is uses such a powerful, and in some cases, addictive technology. However the basic principles of ethically responsible behaviour in the care of vulnerable service users would have application in any such sphere regardless of the sophistication of the technology, but the matter is certainly made more pressing in current circumstances. The paper focuses on private day care in the United States, but clearly the global take-up of mobile phone technology makes the paper relevant across the world wherever they are used, including in council or state run forms of day care.
In the Ethical Issues in Practice section in this issue we are very pleased to present a case study that has been developed from the reported experience of a social worker in Slovenia, and is here commented upon in turn by several internationally well-known academics specialising in ethics in social work, and related disciplines. The paper has been accepted as a practice contribution to the journal by the practice editors, but it does not fall into the category of the usual short studies that normally populate this section. The lead author Ana Sobočan, and her 5 international collaborators all make significant contributions to the analysis of a case study, but they have themselves also discussed their differing thoughts with each other, hence the title of the piece is: ‘In Conversation with a Case Story: Perspectives on Professionalism, Identity and Ethics in Social Work’. It begins with a brief overview of the use of cases and narratives in professional ethics by Sarah Banks, and an introduction to the background of the case story, including how social work is organised in Slovenia, from where the case is drawn, by Ana M. Sobočan,. The case story itself is then presented as a translated extract from an interview, followed by the commentaries from five different perspectives, and the paper is concluded by combined reflections on the process.
The result is a fascinating discussion of the pros and cons of the path followed by the social worker in the case study. There is no claim by the authors that they have any definitive answer, indeed their different assessments are deliberately on view. The paper therefore invites others into the discussion, and the editors would welcome contributions by readers who may take a different view in response to this interesting approach to the consideration of ethical issues in practice, and come to a different conclusion as to the ethics involved in the case study.