Search

The aim of this article is to outline a systemic lifecycle approach to social policy practice in social work. Evidence from the field of parenting and child welfare within an Irish context will be used for illustration. We avail of the work of Nancy Fraser to provide the theoretical framework. Drawing from approaches used mostly in public policy education, we demonstrate how social workers can engage at different stages of that policy lifecycle. In the discussion, we outline possibilities for and challenges to embedding social policy practice in social work education by reflecting on the processes of mediating between recognition, redistribution and representation. We argue that social policy practice should be a constant in social work. This approach should favour parity of participation and collaborative leadership from social work with regard to networking and promotion of different levels of participation with multiple 'public spheres'. We conclude that the development of social policy practice work as a constant in social work will lead to greater ability to mediate between policies and the individuals affected by them. This would, we believe, enhance greatly the potential for social work to achieve its laudable but still illusory aims of promoting social justice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article explores whether paradigms for social work that helped structure and focus social work theory in the late 20th century can continue to inform social work theorising in the present day. The question is considered by reviewing the work of Burrell and Morgan (1979) , Howe (1987) , Whittington and Holland (1985) , Johnson et al. , 1984 (cited in Rojek, 1986) and Mulally (1993) who offer specific considerations of paradigm frameworks. The main argument developed in the discussion is that while the nature and orientation of theories in paradigms from later 20th to early 21st century are more diverse and complex, the value of a paradigm as framework for theory for practice persists. But for a paradigm framework to hold sway, there are some essential requirements. These include a need to: emphasise more the importance of local context in global conditions; broaden scope of theory away from predisposition to 'Western' dominated ideas; include space for certain constants in social work and recognise the role of critical reflexivity in activating theory. The need for further global and local research studies that systematically test and interrogate the range of social work theories and practices to progress this project is emphasised. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper reports on a qualitative study of outcomes for permanence and stability for children in long-term care in Ireland. The aim of this research was to inform social work practitioners on how to enhance stability and permanence for children and to inform decision making and report writing for children in care. The research was designed and delivered in partnership with social work practitioners in the relevant areas. Drawing from the significant literature on this area the main factors impacting on permanence and stability are summarised and presented in terms of intrinsic and extrinsic factors. Biographical narrative interviews were conducted with twenty-seven participants (children and young people, parents and foster parents). This paper reports how, amongst a complex array of findings, three themes most linked to affect permanence and stability were found to be Relationships, Communication and Social Support. Underpinning these, the importance of Continuity was significant. Based on these findings, recommendations and practice guidance for social workers were developed in partnership with the Irish statutory Child and Family Agency and are summarised in the Conclusion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article provides a response to the recent paper in this Journal by Ray Jones entitled 'The best of times, the worst of times: Social work and it's moment'. Jones' paper is welcomed for its use of history to inform the current debates a bout expertise and identity. The objective of this response is to address a perceived gap in Jones' paper with regard to the insufficient and over-simplified approach to the purpose of social work as a dual activity of mediation between care and control. The paper begins by summarising Jones' main points about what is 'special' about social work. This leads on to a critical commentary on the discussion on expertise and identity in social work. The need for a more nuanced and critical appraisal of our history, with explicit attention to the regulatory role of social work is emphasised. A less passive relationship between social work and its history is promoted and critical questions are raised in particular to his consideration of 'What now?'. This leads to a conclusion that offers alternative suggestions that can ensure a more critically oriented approach to use of history to inform our complex and necessarily contradictory present. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A correction to the article "A Paradigm Framework for Social Work Theory for Early 21st Century Practice" in a 2019 issue is presented.