Between Equity and Empathy: Social Professions and the New Accountability

This article explores the practical and ethical implications of the ‘new accountability’ (working to procedures, targets and standards) based on interviews with British social professionals. Although similar tendencies are present in other European countries, in Britain the rule-bound nature of social work is more intense. Practitioners who regard the ‘new accountability’ positively justify their views with reference to utilitarian and rights-based arguments relating to the promotion of good outcomes, the achievement of equity, respecting the consumer rights of service users and the rights of other stakeholders to information and value for money. Those practitioners who view the new accountability requirements negatively seem to speak in a different ‘moral voice’, which can be linked to more personal and situated approaches to ethics, stressing the importance of particular relationships in context, trust, sensitivity and a sense of ‘vocation’. Both ‘voices’ are part of professional practice, but the new accountability stresses the former at the expense of the latter. For social work to play the critical role identified by Walter Lorenz, maintaining a creative balance between equity and empathy will be important.

A Critical Response to Kevin Stenson’s Governing the Local: Sovereignty, Social Governance and Community Safety

In his compelling case study of local governance and community safety in the UK Thames Valley, Kevin Stenson makes several important contributions to the field of governmentality studies. While the paper’s merits are far-reaching, to this reader’s assessment they can be summarized in the following key areas: 1) Empirically, the article enhances our knowledge of the political economic transformation of a region otherwise overlooked in social science research ; 2) Conceptually, Stenson offers several theoretical and analytical refrains that, while becoming increasingly commonplace, are nonetheless still germane and rightly oriented to offer push back against otherwise totalizing, reified accounts of roll back/roll out neoliberalism. A welcomed new approach is offered as a corrective, The Realist Governmentality perspective, which emphasizes the interrelated and co-constitutive nature of politics, local culture, and habitus in processes related to the restructuring of social governance; 3) Methodologically, the paper makes a pitch for the ways in which finely grained, nuanced, mixed-method/ethnographic analyses have the potential to further problematize and recast a field of governmentality studies far too often dominated by discursive and textual approaches.

Beyond the Pro and Contra of Evidence-Based Practice: Reflections on a Recurring Dilemma at the Core of Social Work

Currently, social work is witnessing a quite polarized debate about what should be the basis for good practice. Simply stated, the different attempts to define the required basis for effective and accountable interventions in social work practice can be grouped in two paradigmatic positions, which seem to be in strong opposition to each other. On the one hand the highly influential evidence based practice movement highlights the necessity to base practice interventions on proven effectiveness from empirical research. Despite some variations, such as between narrow conceptions of evidence based practice (see e.g. McNeece/Thyer, 2004) and broader approaches to it (see e.g. Gambrill, 1999, 2001, 2008), the evidence based practice movement embodies a positivist orientation and more explicitly scientific aspirations of social work by using positivistic empirical strategies. Critics of the evidence based practice movement argue that its narrow epistemological assumptions are not appropriate for the understanding of social phenomena and that evidence based guidelines to practice are insufficient to deal with the extremely complex activities social work practice requires in different and always somewhat unique practice situations (Webb, 2001; Gray & Mc Donald, 2006; Otto, Polutta &Ziegler, 2009). Furthermore critics of evidence based practice argue that it privileges an uncritical and a-political positivism which seems highly problematic in the current climate of welfare state reforms, in which the question ‘what works’ is highly politicized and the legitimacy of professional social work practice is being challenged maybe more than ever before (Kessl, 2009). Both opponents and proponents of evidence based practice argue on the epistemological, the methodological and the ethical level to sustain their point of view and raise fundamental questions about the real nature of social work practice, so that one could get the impression that social work is really at the crossroads between two very different conceptions of social work practice and its further professional development (Stepney, 2009). However, this article is not going to merely rehearse the pro and contra of different positions that are being invoked in the debate about evidence based practice. Instead it aims to go further by identifying the dilemmas underlying these positions which - so it is argued – re-emerge in the debate about evidence based practice, but which are older than this debate. They concern the fundamental ambivalence modern professionalization processes in social work were subjected to from their very beginnings.

The Law Applicable to Online Copyright Infringements int ALI and CLIP Proposals: A Rebalance of Interest Needed?

The article discusses the problems of applicable law to copyright infringements online. It firstly identifies the main problems related to the well established territoriality principle and the lex loci protectionis rules. Then; the discussion focuses on the "ubiquitous infringement" rule recently proposed by the American Law Institute (ALI) and the European Max Planck Group for Conflicts of Law and Intellectual Propoperty (CLIP). The author strongly welcomes a compromise between the territoriality and universality approaches suggested in respect of ubiquitous infringement cases. At the same time; the paper draws the attention that the interests of "good faith" online service providers (such as legal certainty and foreseeability) have been until now underestimated and invites to take these interests into account when merging the projects into a common international proposal.

Open Data and Earth Observations The Case of Opening Up Access to and Use of Earth Observation Data Through the Global Earth Observation System of Systems

Earth observations (EO) represent a growing and valuable resource for many scientific, research and practical applications carried out by users around the world. Access to EO data for some applications or activities, like climate change research or emergency response activities, becomes indispensable for their success. However, often EO data or products made of them are (or are claimed to be) subject to intellectual property law protection and are licensed under specific conditions regarding access and use. Restrictive conditions on data use can be prohibitive for further work with the data. Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS) is an initiative led by the Group on Earth Observations (GEO) with the aim to provide coordinated, comprehensive, and sustained EO and information for making informed decisions in various areas beneficial to societies, their functioning and development. It seeks to share data with users world-wide with the fewest possible restrictions on their use by implementing GEOSS Data Sharing Principles adopted by GEO. The Principles proclaim full and open exchange of data shared within GEOSS, while recognising relevant international instruments and national policies and legislation through which restrictions on the use of data may be imposed.The paper focuses on the issue of the legal interoperability of data that are shared with varying restrictions on use with the aim to explore the options of making data interoperable. The main question it addresses is whether the public domain or its equivalents represent the best mechanism to ensure legal interoperability of data. To this end, the paper analyses legal protection regimes and their norms applicable to EO data. Based on the findings, it highlights the existing public law statutory, regulatory, and policy approaches, as well as private law instruments, such as waivers, licenses and contracts, that may be used to place the datasets in the public domain, or otherwise make them publicly available for use and re-use without restrictions. It uses GEOSS and the particular characteristics of it as a system to identify the ways to reconcile the vast possibilities it provides through sharing of data from various sources and jurisdictions on the one hand, and the restrictions on the use of the shared resources on the other. On a more general level the paper seeks to draw attention to the obstacles and potential regulatory solutions for sharing factual or research data for the purposes that go beyond research and education.