This final issue of the year contains as many papers in the Ethical Issues in Practice section as there are in the main section of the journal, with both sections having varied and interesting content. It is also the last issue in which practice papers will be appearing in exactly this format, and the last for which the long-serving practice editors will be writing their editorial. The board has decided to re-launch the practice section of the journal and the practice editors, Beverley Burke and Andrew Maynard, will be passing on their role to someone else, yet to be announced. It is my pleasure here to say a very big thank you to Beverley and Andrew who have been responsible for collecting and preparing papers for it since the journal began publishing in 2007. It has often not been an easy job, since they have in their own time devoted a lot of effort to supporting and encouraging authors, some of whom were not familiar with the requirements of published writing in an academic journal. From the start we wanted the journal to be open to non-academics to express their concerns about ethical issues on the ground, and that has been achieved thanks, to a significant degree, to the time and effort that Beverly and Andrew put into it. We have had pieces written by service users, carers, students and practitioners, as well as by academics in personal or practitioner roles that have pointed up ethical issues in a variety of settings and the journal has been the better for it. The plan for the future will hopefully, if anything, expand opportunities to contribute, and the details will be spelt out in a future editorial. The content of the practice section in the present issue is discussed in their final editorial below.
The academic papers in this issue begin with a very stimulating piece by a respected and well-known UK social policy emeritus professor Hartley Dean, who has argued with logic and meticulous care for ‘A radical humanist approach to social welfare’. It is, of course, contentious ground but such positions currently need to be strongly presented – especially when any kind of humanism seems to be under attack from various quarters, and the paper will repay careful reading. The author defines his terms judiciously, rehabilitating ‘radical’ to an original meaning, and defending the use of ‘humanism’ against possible objections. The overall result of the argument may not produce universal agreement – it would be very surprising if it did - but it certainly requires serious consideration from anyone with an interest in a constructive and ethical general perspective on social policy.
The second paper in this issue comes from a Swedish academic Maria Soderberg who reflects on her experience of research into the Swedish home-help service, with a focus on when older people are considering relocation to a residential home. There are very human ethical decisions to be made about the care of frail and vulnerable elders, and the way their needs are met – or not - within the care system at what is often a particularly difficult point of transition. The ethical issues she discusses are certainly not unique to Sweden. Her description of how care workers influence care management decisions informally has implications for the purchaser/provider systems beloved of neo-liberal governments everywhere. Care workers on the ground have to make ethical decisions and her evidence suggests that they do in fact try to discover what is the ‘right’ thing to do independently of the formalities of assessment and intervention.
Being in a position of having to make ethical decisions in situations constrained by inescapable formal systems is also starkly exemplified in the paper by Warren Stewart. As indicated in the title - Intrapersonal and intersubjective challenges of researching older and vulnerable males convicted of sexual offences – there were bound to be a host of ethical issues arising from such a unique research situation. All researchers need to be aware of the ethical component of their own agency, motives and actions in relation to research subjects, let alone the wider significance of who has funded, and who will disseminate, and with what end in mind. The paper tries to be open about the reflexive issues, but reminds the reader of the complexity and ultimately the indeterminate, essentially controversial nature of justifying research practice.
Finally the paper by Neil Bilotti, a researcher from the USA who has studied young refugees in an African refugee camp, offers the reader of this issue the opportunity to compare approaches to dealing with issues of reflexivity and ethics. Compared with Stewart, and with just as many, if very different, systemic constraints he finds that there is much to be gained from taking seriously an anti-oppressive social work perspective on ethical issues arising in research. In particular he advises the importance of reflecting on the researchers’ personal objectives, and his interest in Eurocentrism, Colonialism, Whiteness, and related topics, is appropriate not only to this particular research project but is part of an anti-oppressive ethic relevant to all research.
In conclusion may I wish and hope that all readers of this journal will be able to survive the global pandemic in good health. It has been and continues to be a difficult year. It is likely that there will be no decrease in the need for reflection and analysis of ethical issues in the social professions. I look forward to your contributions in the New Year.