Editorial: Safety and Risk, Blame and Change—in Whose Name and with What Consideration of Local, National, and International Contexts of Social Work Practice?

The day-to-day of the doing and thinking in social work has felt reactive for a very long time. It feels like a luxury to step away from the daily barrage of phone calls, e-mails, meetings, visits and note-writing. It feels like a luxury to take stock of what we are doing, why, how, what shapes it—or could it and should it all be done differently? During the pandemic, even the time to move and travel between these points of activity was taken away, taking with it the valuable space to breathe, pause and reflect (Ferguson, 2016), all while paying attention to our surroundings. Our daily practice feels done onto both the people who use services, carers and practitioners alike. Across the grassroots level of practice, the pace and content of these activities are all done with best intentions. It can be seen to echo the story of the hummingbird in the forest fire, carrying water in its small beak as it tries to put out a raging fire while the other animals flee, wondering why a hummingbird is attempting something that seems so futile. Moments of pause and change are mostly externally imposed, caused by violent and deadly crises, and accompanied by blame. Who is responsible when a mistake is made, particularly if and when such mistakes cause death, or even deaths, of people we work with? This context has become so prevalent it can be seen as a culture of social work practice across many countries. Social work is practised in a winch. On the one hand, there are pressures associated with the withering resources available to provide support, targeted at the increasingly narrower groups of people of different ages across the life course. On the other hand, there are growing inequalities and poverty, further exposed and accelerated by the pandemic (Furceri et al., 2020; Clouston et al., 2021). In such a context, mistakes are inevitable. There is much to be learned from mistakes that can help change social work practice for the better, particularly if social work is to stay committed to our values of social justice. Instead, mistakes are feared and experienced so that (i) blame for them is individualised to named social workers; and (ii) they demand an overhaul of the entire profession, more so than consideration of the broader context(s) which shape frontline practice. There are many reasons why we should rethink what we do as social workers and how best to offer social support in our communities. As noted by Mason and colleagues, in our first Editor’s Choice paper in this issue, ‘despite the system being focused, above all else, on protecting against harm, it can prolong the pain from which it is trying to protect.’ Are we busy with the right activities to support the individuals, families and communities we work with? Do we understand the diverse individuals and communities with which we work with, who may or may not resemble our own identity? How many people disengage from social work interventions? Or, as thoughtfully presented in the second Editor’s choice paper by Mendes and colleagues, how many records of our professional practice may cause further distress and trauma to the people we work with? When there is no time to reflect, rethink, have a say in the changes which shape our practice, there is a chance for mistakes to occur and little or none to be learnt from them to shape future practice without assigning blame. People we work with need to be at the core of any changes that shape social policy and social work practice. Any reviews and changes should not be rushed. They need to be inclusive of people whose experiences they need to address. These are the concerns expressed by many groups representing people with lived experience; more recently, for example, the Care Review Watch Alliance in the UK (https://carereviewwatchalliance.com/). The process of change and their evaluations need to encompass ‘doing with’ rather than ‘doing to’ or ‘doing for’, as emphasised in the evaluation of the Birmingham Taking the Initiative, presented in this issue by Fawcett and colleagues. The knowledge about what to do needs to be actively shaped and pursued with people who use services through research co-production. Emphasis needs to be on their voice and needs. Individuals, families and communities we work with should not fear being retraumatised by our practice or have identity as its survivors. They need to shape it. This issue brings more articles than the previous ones—thirty instead of fifteen. They cover a range of insights that speak to the themes we tried to cover in this Editorial. Some focus on social work student and practitioner experiences. Tomczak and Quinn present a qualitative study on practitioner emotions in penal voluntary sectors in England and Canada. Natalier and colleagues article focuses on the analysis of survey data from Australian domestic and family violence and sexual assault service practitioners on their experiences of workplace violence Ranz and Allassad Alhuzail’s article presents a phenomenological study of the experiences of religious Jewish and Muslim students in a secular college in Israel. Safadi and colleagues examine the contribution of socio-demographic characteristics, employee attitudes and environmental factors in explaining levels of organisational commitment among public sector social workers in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Hitchock and colleagues offer the findings from a systematic scoping review on the role of education in developing students’ professional resilience for social work practice. Schartz-Tayri studied the role of personality traits and political participation predictors among social work students in Israel in their willingness to engage in policy practice. Utilising student engagement theory, Wang and colleagues present the findings from a national survey of all master’s degree social work programmes in China in relation to their learning outcomes and how students engage in the learning process. Archer-Kuhn and colleagues provide insight into the results from a four-year, four cohort study with postgraduate social work students on transformative learning in practice/field education. Others explore experiences of both people who use social care services and social workers. Woodcock Ross and Wright present an innovative qualitative study on social work communication with parents who are practising Christians. Plath and colleagues present an evaluation of the pilot of personalised budgets in child protection in New South Wales, Australia. Based on the longitudinal study on experiences of contact with birth siblings after adoption, Meakings and colleagues offer recommendations pertaining to the management of both letterbox and face-to-face contact and life story work, emphasising the importance of investing in sibling relationships. Mostowska and Dębska examine the daily routine in the crisis accommodation for young women in Poland through interviews with managers and staff, the legal context of practice, as well as interviews with young women themselves. Third group of articles focuses on the experiences of people who use social care services alone. Based on their qualitative study with fifteen women who accessed intimate partner violence (IPV) counselling services in Ontario, Canada, Baird and colleagues conclude that social workers and other health and social care professionals should expand our current understandings of the ways in which counselling services for IPV address trauma. Nyahunda and colleagues explore implications for social work from their qualitative multi-case study research on vulnerabilities and inequalities caused by climate change, as experienced by women in rural communities in South Africa. Fourth group of articles focuses on evaluation of practice innovations and the use of official case records, reports and statistics to generate new understanding of and knowledge in social work. In addition to the Fawcett and colleagues evaluation of the Birmingham Taking the Initiative noted above, Baginsky and colleagues present the results of an evaluation of Signs of Safety in pilot local authorities in England, examining the extent to which this framework can be used alongside the Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need and their Families. Flynn offers a critical commentary on the adoption of the Signs of Safety approach within the large-scale reform of statutory child protective services. Barel and colleagues conducted a critical discourse analysis’ study of the official guardianship reports for older adults in Israel in order and present it as a critical discussion of the legal institution of adult guardianship in Israel. Both Editor’s choice papers are in this group of articles. In parallel to the Mendes and colleagues article noted above, the second Editor’s choice paper by Mason and colleagues offers a thematic analysis of mixed methods case studies in order to inform understanding of out-of-home care rates in Northern Ireland. The final group of articles focuses, in the broadest sense, on the funding, processes and content of knowledge production in social work. Much like the previous sections, this one, too, covers a range of topics. Gibson provides an interesting critical overview of possible translations of neuroscience into social work. Gonzales Benson and colleagues present a scoping review of social work scholarship on forced migration. The second scoping review in the issue, authored by Denvall and Skillmark, focuses on the possibilities to bridge the gap between research and practice in social work. In the final scoping review in this issue, by Baxter and colleagues, aims to answer the question ‘What skills do older self-funders in England need to arrange and manage social care?’ Dellemain and colleagues present results from a Delphi study on rural community-based social work, but also argue that mixed method research designs hold promise for different areas of social work practice where ‘practice theory grounded in-field experience is sought.’ Tirronen and colleagues suggest that more attention needs to be paid to action research which happens in Finish practice (and elsewhere), but with limited dissemination. Cheung and Rogers explore opportunities, challenges and strategies for civic crowdfunding for social work research. Niemi offers an objectivist reading of Honneth’s recognition theory, arguing its usefulness for macro-level social critique in social work. Taylor presents and explores the potential of a ‘risk managing decision model’ as a tool to conceptualise connections between decision-making and risk management in social work practice. Last, but not least, Muñoz-Arce and Rubilar-Donoso provide a rare insight (for English speakers) into tensions and challenges for social work research in Chile under the ‘knowledge economy’ and managerialist research agendas which are experienced globally.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.