Ethics of Care and Statutory Social Work in the UK: Critical Perspectives and Strengths

Practice ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-18 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stewart Collins
Social Work ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 64 (2) ◽  
pp. 175-180 ◽  
Author(s):  
David S Byers ◽  
Janet R Shapiro

Author(s):  
Trish Walsh ◽  
George Wilson ◽  
Erna O’Connor

Social work has been viewed as one of the most nation-specific of the professions, ‘being closely tied up with national traditions, mentalities and institutions’ (Kornbeck, 2004, p 146). In addition, the political imperatives of national governments, austerity measures and managerialism drive approaches to service delivery which may supersede social work’s professional priorities. This militates against an automatic or easy transfer of professional knowledge from one country to another. In spite of this, there has been an enduring interest in developing international forms of social work that transcend national borders (Gray and Fook, 2004; Lyons et al, 2012). In this chapter, we present a case study of social worker mobility as it has evolved from the establishment of the first national social work registration body in the Republic of Ireland in 1997 with a particular focus on data from 2004-13 capturing the years leading up to, and in the aftermath of, the global financial crisis of 2008. We contrast this with the situation in Northern Ireland (NI), part of the UK and a separate and distinct political and legal entity with its own policies and practices. We draw on statistical and descriptive data provided by Irish social work registration bodies (NSWQB 1997-2011; CORU established in 2011 and NISCC, the Northern Ireland Social Care Council established in 2001) to illustrate (i) how sensitive contemporary mobility patterns are to changing economic and political factors; (ii) how rapidly patterns of mobility change and (iii) how much more mired in complexity European social work mobility is likely to be if the European project itself fractures, as is possible following the Brexit referendum vote in the UK.


Author(s):  
Shereen Hussein

Social workers are increasingly becoming global professionals, both in utilising their professional qualifications as a means to achieve international mobility, and in the expectation of gaining an internationally transferable set of skills. However, there is a continued dilemma in defining such professional international identity due to contradictory processes of ‘indigenisation’, or the extent to which social work practice fits local contexts; ‘universalism’, finding commonalities across divergent contexts; and ‘imperialism’ where western world-views are privileged over local and Indigenous cultural perspectives (Gray, 2005). Many regard social work to be especially context-sensitive in that a good understanding of language and cultural clues is an essential element in the ability of workers to perform their work effectively. In that sense, while global professional mobility facilitates transnational social work (Hanna and Lyons, 2014), social work is not yet a global ‘common project’ and clear differences remain at the level of training, qualifications and practice (Weiss-Gal and Welbourne, 2008; Hussein, 2011, 2014).


Author(s):  
John Chandler ◽  
Elisabeth Berg ◽  
Marion Ellison ◽  
Jim Barry

This chapter discusses the contemporary position of social work in the United Kingdom, and in particular the challenges to what is seen as a managerial-technicist version of social work. The chapter begins with focus on the situation from the 1990s to the present day in which this version of social work takes root and flourishes. The discussion then concentrates on three different routes away from a managerial-technicist social work: the first, reconfiguring professional practice in the direction of evaluation in practice, the second ‘reclaiming social work’ on the Hackney relationship-based model and the third ‘reclaiming social work’ in a more radical, highly politicised way. Special attention is devoted to a discussion about how much autonomy the social workers have in different models, but also what kind of autonomy and for what purpose.


2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 34-49
Author(s):  
Joe Smeeton

This paper describes a paradigmatic shift in child protection practice within the UK, arguing that there is a move away from the risk paradigm but that its replacement is not yet defined. The paper draws upon the critical literature to elucidate this shift and to give examples and arguments for why the risk paradigm is unsustainable and how this has created an essential tension within the profession. While the case against the risk perspective is strongly argued there is not yet a coherent perspective to replace it which is problematic as practitioners are left with a toolkit of technical interventions to guide their practice but what is missing is the capacity to develop an ethic of practice due to a failure of social work in the UK to engage with philosophical questions about its remit. The conclusion is drawn that social work needs to focus more on ethical fluency rather than being stuck on statistical understandings of practice and policy in order to achieve a shift in paradigm from ‘risk’ to ‘ethics’.


2000 ◽  
Vol 48 (3) ◽  
pp. 365-382 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Scourfield

The article is a discussion of the construction of child neglect in a child and family social work team in the UK, based on ethnographic research in the social work office. Two influential and contrasting professional discourses on neglect are identified, and it is suggested that the dominant construction of neglect in the team studied is maternal failure to adequately service children's bodies. This construction is discussed in relation to some relevant theoretical insights and in the context of trends in contemporary child protection work.


2019 ◽  
Vol 64 ◽  
pp. 230-237 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jim Campbell ◽  
Gavin Davidson ◽  
Pearse McCusker ◽  
Hannah Jobling ◽  
Tom Slater

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document