Should social care staff be Facebook friends with the people they support?

Abstract

Purpose -Local policies often prohibit care staff from online contact with the people they support. The purpose of this paper is to review the reasons put forward for this ban and seek explanations. Design/methodology/approach -The paper examines relevant literature on the use of social networking by disabled and nondisabled people. This paper offers a critique of common policies and justifications and poses a challenge to those who impose such regulations. Findings -The paper finds no support for current policies.Research limitations/implications -The authors found only a limited amount of research in this area, and research findings were not commonly utilised by policy makers. Practical implications -Policy makers and regulators need to take a more rigorous and person-centred approach to rule making in respect of social media. Social implications -A widespread ban on the use of social media in communications between staff and the people they support is exposed as paternalistic and exacerbating infantilisation and exclusion rather than seeing disabled people as digital citizens. Regulators and those with responsibilities for safeguarding need to adopt a more empowering and person-centred approach. Originality/value -This paper will only make a difference if regulators and those with responsibilities for safeguarding adopt a more empowering and person-centred approach rather than the fear-based blanket prohibitions that have applied to date.

The reality of relationships with young people in caring professions: A qualitative approach to professional boundaries rooted in virtue ethics

“…The concept of the boundary dominates professional discourses on ethics and good practice, however there is a growing dis-ease with the metaphor. The assumption boundaries should be rigid is being met with an increased awareness that they fail to reflect the realities of everyday practice in many social professions (Meltzer et al, 2016, Murphy and Ord, 2013, Bates et al, 2015, Walker and Larson, 2006)(AUTHOR). The work of Marshall and Mellon (2011) particularly highlights the dilemma of practitioners placed in difficult situations when they feel compelled to choose between the best interests of the child and the boundaries of…”