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.

Common Social Work Education Standards in the Nordic Countries - opening an issue

The article analyses the option of common Nordic Standards for social work education in these countries. The option is viewed through the lens of trends in education in the different countries. In the article the notion of an Integrated Field Model is used to indicate the starting point for a common model of education. This model covers the field characteristics of Denmark and Norway and their current move towards a more research-based education. It also covers the research characteristics of education in Finland, Iceland and Sweden and their current move towards a new field connection based on research-oriented education. Some thoughts on international requirements on comparability and compatibility in this setting are addressed in the final section.

Interactive Curriculum Based on Models of Mind & Brain

What does it mean for curriculum to be interactive? It encourages student engagement and active participation in both individual and group work. It offers teachers a coherent set of materials to choose from that can enhance their classes. It is the product of on-going development and continuous improvement based on research and feedback from the field. This paper will introduce work in progress from the Center for Excellence in Education, Science, and Technology (CELEST), an NSF Science of Learning Center. Among its many goals, CELEST is developing a unique educational curriculum, an interactive curriculum based upon models of mind and brain. Teachers, administrators, and governments are naturally concerned with how students learn. Students are greatly concerned about how minds work, including how to learn. CELEST aims to introduce curricula that not only meet current U.S. standards in mathematics, science, and psychology but also influence plans to improve those standards. Software and support materials are in development and available at http://cns.bu.edu/celest/private/. Interested parties are invited to contact the author for access.

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.

ProFormA: An XML-based exchange format for programming tasks

Unterstützungssysteme für die Programmierausbildung sind weit verbreitet, doch gängige Standards für den Austausch von allgemeinen (Lern-) Inhalten und Tests erfüllen nicht die speziellen Anforderungen von Programmieraufgaben wie z. B. den Umgang mit komplexen Einreichungen aus mehreren Dateien oder die Kombination verschiedener (automatischer) Bewertungsverfahren. Dadurch können Aufgaben nicht zwischen Systemen ausgetauscht werden, was aufgrund des hohen Aufwands für die Entwicklung guter Aufgaben jedoch wünschenswert wäre. In diesem Beitrag wird ein erweiterbares XML-basiertes Format zum Austausch von Programmieraufgaben vorgestellt, das bereits von mehreren Systemen prototypisch genutzt wird. Die Spezifikation des Austauschformats ist online verfügbar [PFMA].