Whose Problem is This?

Abstract

This paper is concerned with how the needs of lesbian and gay youth are situated and defined in educational contexts and the intended and unintended consequences of framing their needs in particular ways. It is based on a case study of a senior college in New Zealand where a strategy for dealing with gay and lesbian youth was framed within a climate of market-driven educational reforms and where queer youth were viewed within the discourse of being “at risk.” This enabled the school to promote itself as providing a caring and nurturing environment without jeopardizing its position in the marketplace. However, this strategy had the unfortunate consequences of re-pathologizing lesbian and gay students and constructing their sexuality as a personal problem.     

Medical decision-making: Whose values?

Abstract

Bioethical debates contribute to discussions about the direction of healthcare funding as we enter the twenty - first century. The funding of healthcare is debated by economists, bioethicists and clinicians. Because of their practice experience and knowledge base social workers are also well-placed to contribute to such issues. The debate has taken place at the ‘macro’ rather than the ‘micro’ level. Yet many ethical decisions about healthcare are made at the patient's bedside. Are they procedural or clinical decisions? Are decisions made for a group or class of patient or on an individual basis? Answers for these questions are sought in a study of medical decision-making for head-injured patients admitted to the Intensive Care Unit of a major teaching hospital.

This paper attempts to draw out ethical principles which are part of medical decision-making. The notion of contextual ethics is likened to the ecological approach of Carel Germain which provides a useful framework for ethnomethodological research.     

A Mead�CCooley Merger

Since Cooley was unable to fight back when Mead wrote his highly negative obituary, this is a defense of Cooley. Mead accused Cooley of solipsism, which I show to be a misreading. Mead also criticized Cooley for defining the self as self-feeling, as opposed to Mead??s reflexivity, two ideas which actually imply each other. Cooley scooped Mead by a good decade with the ideas of role-taking and inner speech, debts which Mead did not mention. I also show that Mead did not really explain the origin of the self, either phylogenetically (in the species) or ontogenetically (in the infant). I speculate about these two issues. Mead was a great genius, but, like everyone, he had his limits. And fairness requires that Cooley be rehabilitated. The ideas of the two thinkers are actually remarkably alike, so much so that a merger seems a reasonable idea.     

Whose problem? Disability narratives and available identities

Special Issue on the Arts and Community Development, Volume42, Number 4. Unfortunately, the article contained an incorrect quotationthat     

Whose problem? Disability narratives and available identities

In this article, the author demonstrates that contemporary culturaldisability discourses offer few positive resources for peoplewith impairments to draw upon in constructing positive personaland social identities. Examining the emergence of the DisabilityArts Movement in Britain, consideration is given to alternativediscourses developed by disabled people who have resisted thepassive roles expected of them and developed a disability identityrooted in notions of power, respect and control. It is suggestedthat these alternative discourses provide an empowering ratherthan a disabling basis for community development and communityarts practice and should be embraced by workers in these fields.     

Whose photo? Whose voice? Who listens? ‘Giving,’ silencing and listening to voice in participatory visual projects

This article examines participatory visual projects that aspire to enable social change by providing communities with a platform through photography. It argues that projects are sites for negotiating rather ‘giving’ voice and calls for practitioners and researchers to be transparent and reflexive about these negotiated processes. Examining two sets of participant-produced images by refugee youth, one of which was shown publically and one of which went unseen, this article explores issues of control and the biases that shape editorial decisions in NGO-linked participatory visual projects. It demonstrates how voices that do not fit into dominant visual frames tend to be silenced. It is argued that this negates the critical potential of participatory visual work to enable political listening and undermines the plurality of unheard voices that participatory visual work aspires to facilitate. The article raises the central question of listening to the conception of ‘voice’ in participatory visual initiatives. It argues that the political and ideological promise of these projects relates not only to the voices they give rise to but to the kind of listening they enable.     

Created in Whose Image? Religious Characters on Network Television

Thirty-nine dramas and comedies from 7 networks broadcast September 23 to 29, 2002, were analyzed for the appearance of religious characters. Results suggest that TV characters' religiosity is not an important consideration for the networks as a whole. Nevertheless, over half of all religious characters were found on the 3 emerging networks, particularly on PAX and the WB. In addition, more than half of all religious characters appeared within the 7 networks' highest rated programs. On the other hand, corporate synergies between TV networks and Hollywood studios appear to have less direct influence on the amount of religious content a network airs than does the particular audience that the network is targeting.     

Beyond “Whose reality counts?” New methods we now need? 1

Activities called PRA, and its equivalents in other languages, have evolved from a confluence, sharing and adaptation of methodologies, ^{2 2} In this paper methodology refers to a system of principles and methods. Method refers to a way of doing something. PAR, agro-ecosystem analysis, and PRA are examples of methodologies. Semi-structured interviews, transects and matrix scoring are examples of methods. methods and participatory traditions. Synergies have generated new things to do and new ways to do them, including visual forms of analysis. A conjunction of conditions has produced an explosion of activities and applications, and spread to many countries and organisations - NGOs, Government departments, and even universities, and raised questions of ethics and of sharing methodologies.

Coming from our different traditions, should we seek places of convergence and spring-boards for action? If so, could the concept of responsible wellbeing, and the question “Whose reality counts?” provide us with common ground? They fit with eclectic pluralism, a celebration of diversity, and democratic reversals of dominance. They raise shared issues of how we teach, learn, and construct realities, of dominant institutions and their cultures, and of personal power. They point towards responsible wellbeing for “uppers” being sought in empowering and privileging the realities of “lowers”.

Do we now have a phenomenal opportunity? We have participatory methodologies which are powerful, popular and self-spreading. We have new space opened up by government and donor agency policies for participation and poverty reduction. Rapid spread has brought much bad practice. At the same time, PRA and other participatory methodologies have also shown a potential to contribute to changes at levels which are policy-related, institutional and personal.

To make the most of these opportunities invites sharing methods and experience between different traditions, and inventing new methods. Five methodological challenges now (May 1997) stand out as points of leverage. These are how better to:

1. enable the realities and priorities of poor and marginalised people to be expressed and communicated to policy-makers

2. enable trainers to facilitate attitude and behaviour change

3. make normal bureaucracies more participatory

4. build self-improvement into the spread of participatory methodologies

5. enable people with power to find fulfilment in disempowering themselves

Could it be that effective repertoires for these could lead to much good change? Could convergences and sharings of experiences and approaches among us contribute to such repertoires? Could we between us seize these opportunities in the new spaces which are opening up?     

Whose history is it anyway? The case of Exhibit B

In 2014, Brett Bailey’s Exhibit B site-specific installation created a media storm and protests throughout Europe. One such protest was in London, leading to the cancellation of his show at the Barbican. Consternation caused by art work is not a new phenomenon, and indeed one of the enduring purposes of art is to push the boundaries of acceptability and to show sights that are normally kept hidden from the public gaze. From some of the Impressionists’ exhibits to twentieth century art works such as Andres Serrano’s Piss Christ in 1987 and Chris Ofili’s The Holy Virgin Mary 1996, art has caused offence in a variety of ways. This article examines Exhibit B to identify the reasons for its reception. In broad outline, as a white artist his presentation of black oppression was regarded at best as naïve and at worse as culturally inappropriate.     

Minimizing stress in the workplace: Whose responsibility is it?

Work-related stress is pervasive in today's society. Its far-reaching effects on worker health, productivity, and organizational commitment have caused legislators and researchers alike to rethink stress prevention strategies that will best serve all systems involved. This article identifies the issues limiting the development of primary stress reduction programs in the workplace and provides insight as to the emerging global legislative initiatives that support this issue.     

Whose responsibility? Resilience in families of children with developmental disabilities

Families with children with disabilities are at higher risk of stress, financial disadvantage and breakdown. In recent decades, research and policy have shifted focus from these problems to a strengths-based approach, using concepts such as family resilience. By definition, resilience is the ability to cope in adverse circumstances, suggesting a reliance on the individual. If this is the case, then to what extent does ‘family resilience’ place another burden of responsibility onto families? Whose responsibility is family resilience? This paper begins to answer this question using interviews with parents of children with developmental disabilities based in New South Wales, Australia.     

Whose Knowledge Counts? Developing Fair Trade Skills in South Africa

Fair trade scholars and professionals have recognized the importance of capacity building to producers, but few studies have examined the provision of services. This article asks whether support networks provide certified producers with the capacity needed to thrive in markets. Drawing from ethnographic action research conducted with South African rooibos tea farmers, I highlight the power dimensions involved in producer support and discuss strategies to improve outcomes. I begin by theorizing a political economy of knowledge and skills within the context of neoliberal globalization and post-apartheid development. Next, I provide an overview of fair trade, clarifying differing approaches to governance and practice. I then share case-study findings, including coverage of a farmer leadership training program that sought to build a more collaborative foundation for learning and engagement. I conclude by arguing that training represents a primary site for the reproduction of inequality as well as a pivotal point for achieving social transformation. Whereas top-down transfers of packaged skills subordinate producers and underestimate the expertise needed to navigate certified markets, solidarity-based approaches build collective capacity by redefining whose knowledge counts.     

Precinct Domestic Violence Teams: Whose Goals Should Determine Program Activities?

ABSTRACT

This article describes an urban community's attempts to increase domestic violence survivors' participation in the criminal justice system by combining social work advocacy, specialized police officers, and prosecutors into precinct domestic violence teams. An analysis of the outcomes of 1,057 domestic violence reports found that the presence of the teams did not result in increased survivor participation in prosecution. A survey of 265 of the survivors indicated that prosecution was rarely a goal of the survivors, whose participation was needed to meet the goals of the criminal justice system. This study illustrates the importance of learning the views of people that interventions are designed to help.