This third issue of the year comes after a very successful special issue (17: 02) on ethical issues in research in social welfare policy and practice. The present issue contains general papers that were not designed for a special theme, but each has useful discussions of aspects of social welfare and ethics relevant to the journal. It also contains a couple of particularly interesting practice papers, one by a philosopher reflecting on his own experience of involvement in social welfare practice. The global reach of the journal is illustrated by the provenance of papers in this issue, with contributors coming from Sweden, Finland, Australia, Zimbabwe, and Austria, as well as the United Kingdom. The editors continue to welcome contributions to the journal from disparate sources in the belief that readers will benefit from understanding how different people in different social contexts conceptualise ethical issues in social welfare.
In the first paper in this issue William Bülow of Uppsala University, Sweden, asks the question: ‘Who is Responsible for Remedying the Harm Caused to Children of Prisoners?’ He points out that it is often a cause for great concern that the children of prisoners suffer considerable harm as a result of the loss of a parent – and all that this can mean in terms of financial problems and emotional stress, even when the offender has been a cause of distress before their incarceration. He treats it as a matter of social justice, discussing four general principles that he argues are relevant to a balanced understanding of the responsibilities involved for these disadvantaged children. His focus is on responsibilities that may be identified going forward rather than seeking to apportion blame for past actions that have given rise to the present harm. However there is no avoiding the principle that those who have caused a situation to develop must be part of those who may be identified as bearing responsibility for its amelioration. Bülow also considers who may innocently benefit from social injustice, and the importance of the capacity of various agents to make a difference for such children, as well as existing commitments that may be in place requiring attention and action. The paper offers a thoughtful example of applied philosophical argument to a very practical situation concerning the social welfare of a vulnerable group whose needs and precarious position demand ethical, social and political intervention by differently positioned individuals and groups.
The second paper in this issue is another substantial piece of work by a group of four Australian academics from the Latrobe University and the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, and two specialist practitioners at the Independent Family Advocacy and Support, Victoria Legal Aid. The vexed relationship between parents, children and the state as represented by child protection social workers and related state agencies responsible for child health and welfare, is a long-standing issue of concern. The imbalances in power and responsibility are complex, but as the group of six authors contend, a commonly observed aspect of power relationships in social welfare is the service users’ experience of oppressive practice by individuals, agencies and the whole child protection system. Advocacy is not a novel idea in this area, but the authors have done a thorough job in bringing ideas of advocacy formed in legal practice to bear on the issues in child protection, whilst acknowledging the use of advocacy in other areas. The case study approach focuses on the experience of an agency in Australia specialising in advocacy, and provides a realistic testing ground. The conceptual framework provided by their appeal to human rights leads to a measured conclusion about the value and efficacy of the policy.
The third paper in this issue is a cross-country study by two Finnish academics Maritta Törrönen and Riitta Vornanen and one from the UK – Carol Munn-Giddings. The content of the paper is clear from its title: ‘Existential Well-being among Young People Leaving Care: Self-feeling, Self-realisation, and Belonging’. They use a participatory action research methodology, involving peer research with a substantial number of young people – 74 in total. Their study identifies concepts important both for ethics and psychology: three inter-linking categories of existential well-being related to the basic issues of being a person. The practical needs of young people leaving care have long been recognised as challenging, with many struggling to cope with the big step of becoming independent in often not very promising (and sometimes inauspicious or hostile) social circumstances. This study usefully focuses on the ethical and psychologically important aspects of the way young people understand and value their own lives. It advocates for an approach based on the ethics of care that will take account not only of the practical needs but also of these less tangible but arguably equally, if not more important, qualities.
The fourth and final academic paper in this issue is by Cornelius Dudzai and Robert Kudakwashe Chigangaidze who both have experience of social work in Zimbabwe, and they have evidence from their qualitative research about how difficult it has been during the pandemic lockdown for social workers to know how to cope with tendencies towards corruption. Zimbabwe is by no means the only country where powerful and unscrupulous people have sought to take advantage of the emergency situation crated by the pandemic: regrettably it can be seen in many countries, including (allegedly) developed areas of the world. For social workers there are ethical dilemmas involved in trying to do their job in circumstances made highly unusual by lockdowns and other restrictions, and their paper thus focuses on: ‘The Conundrum of Corruption During a Coronavirus Lockdown in Zimbabwe: Lessons for Social Work’. The authors use narrative research evidence to vividly bring to life the difficulties caused to the well-being and welfare of economically vulnerable groups, and emphasise the importance of social workers advocating for human rights as a way of helping to tackle some of these problems.
The practice section of this issue has two very interesting papers, the first is a rare example of a philosopher applying his expertise in precisely the kind of experiential field about which he has published academic papers – in this case the philosophy of childhood. Gottfried Schweiger teaches and researches at the University of Salzburg, Austria, in the field of poverty research and political philosophy, especially on childhood and youth, migration and social work. His practice paper in this issue – ‘A Personal-Ethical Reflection on the Training for Foster Parents in Austria’ – contains some fascinating comments on his own experience of being trained as a potential foster carer by Austrian social workers. He is obviously very conscious of the ethical and political philosophical concepts that are always being alluded to, assumed and/or sometimes discussed during this process. Some of the topics he considers are the understanding of child and youth welfare in this context, and the role of the state as against the parental role of foster parents. He also discusses the focus of foster parent training on practical knowledge from experience, and the relationship between experts and foster parents. He queries the absence of a more thoughtful approach to expertise and the ethical questions that arise in the language and practice of experts – whether psychologists, social workers or lawyers. He helpfully challenges practitioners to critically reflect on practices and regulations that are often taken for granted. The paper also provides an insight in one European country’s methods of working in this specialised area – readers in other parts of the world with professional responsibilities in childcare and fostering will find it interesting to compare.
The final practice paper of this issue is by Nick Perry and David Watson who discuss their experience of ‘Solution-focused practice and the role of the Approved Mental Health Professional’. The paper draws on their combined positions – one an academic at the University of Brighton, and the other a social worker and practice educator in Brighton. In England the ‘Approved Mental Health Professional’ has an important role to play when a person regarded as having mental health issues may be the subject of a decision to detain them involuntarily under the Mental Health Act 1983. The authors are clearly keen to advocate for a solution-focused approach, based on reflection on their own experience and contending both its usefulness and its ethical acceptability in empowering service users and applying ‘anti-oppressive practice’. They conclude that these techniques should be part of the training of all those who will be responsible for enacting these sensitive roles.