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 Philanthropy Scale: a Sociological Perspective in Measuring New Forms of Pro Social Behaviour

In wealthy countries, philanthropy is conspicuous back on stage. It appears in new forms, worldwide. As a result, scholarly attention for philanthropy is growing. Philanthropic goals refer to persons, groups and communities who, in most cases, are not personally known to the giver. In research, however, philanthropic motivations of individuals are usually measured by socio-psychological scales which presuppose direct interactions. Measuring philanthropy could therefore be improved by incorporating a sociological frame of reference as well. As a starting point, this article presents a preliminary version of the philanthropy scale that has been tested in the panel survey of the Giving in the Netherlands (GIN) study. The results are discussed in terms of shortcomings and challenges for further research.

The antioxidant glutathione in the fish cell lines EPC and BCF-2: response to model pro-oxidants as measured by three different fluorescent dyes

Reduced glutathione (GSH) protects cells against injury by oxidative stress and maintains a range of vital functions. In vitro cell cultures have been used as experimental models to study the role of GSH in chemical toxicity in mammals; however, this approach has been rarely used with fish cells to date. The present study aimed to evaluate sensitivity and specificity of three fluorescent dyes for measuring pro-oxidant-induced changes of GSH contents in fish cell lines: monochlorobimane (mBCl), 5-chloromethylfluorescein diacetate (CMFDA) and 7-amino-4-chloromethylcoumarin (CMAC-blue). Two cell lines were studied, the EPC line established from a skin tumour of carp Cyprinus carpio, and BF-2 cells established from fins of bluegill sunfish Lepomis macrochirus. The cells were exposed for 6 and 24 h to low cytotoxic concentrations of pro-oxidants including hydrogen peroxide, paraquat (PQ), copper and the GSH synthesis inhibitor, L-buthionine-SR-sulfoximine (BSO). The results indicate moderate differences in the GSH response between EPC and BF-2 cells, but distinct differences in the magnitude of the GSH response for the four pro-oxidants. Further, the choice of GSH dye can critically affect the results, with CMFDA appearing to be less specific for GSH than mBCl and CMAC-blue.