In the autumn of 2009, a group of exchange students in the University of Applied Sciences of Utrecht got a task to make a research project on the current situation of Social Media. The group consisted of 5 people with really different backgrounds and opinions. Two Finnish, one Austrian, one Belgian and one Taiwanese put their heads together to explore the enormous world of Social Media. In this paper, Social Media stands for Online Social Media in other words: websites that allow people to communicate with each other, share opinions and ideas, public or semi-public profiles for the users and possibility to view those profiles. Most known examples of Social Media at this moment (2010) would be Facebook, MySpace, YouTube, Flickr, flixter, LinkedIN, Tagged, Twitter and Plurk. There are hundreds and hundreds more of Social Media websites and each of them has its own purpose and idea. Some of them concentrate on one topic or subject and some websites are more expanded. Most of the Social Media websites give the opportunity to their users to upload pictures, videos and other data but the most important thing is that social media allow people to communicate ‘one-to-many and many-to-one’ and not as the old fashion media ‘one-way communication’ only.
The guidance offered here is intended to assist social workers in thinking through the specific ethical challenges that arise whilst practising during a pandemic or other type of crisis. In crisis conditions, people who need social work services, and social workers themselves, face increased and unusual risks. These challenging conditions are further compounded by scarce or reallocated governmental and social resources. While the ethical principles underpinning social work remain unchanged by crises, unique and evolving circumstances may demand that they be prioritised differently. A decision or action that might be regarded as ethically wrong in ‘normal’ times, may be judged to be right in a time of crisis. Examples include: prioritising individual and public health considerations by restricting people’s freedom of movement; not consulting people about treatment and services; or avoiding face-to-face meetings.
MULTIFILE
The use of the word “social” in the context of information technology goes back to the very beginnings of cybernetics. It later pops up in the 1980s context of “groupware.” The recent materialist school of Friedrich Kittler and others dismissed the use of the word “social” as irrelevant fluff – what computers do is calculate, they do not interfere in human relations. Holistic hippies, on the other hand, have ignored this cynical machine knowledge and have advanced a positive, humanistic view that emphasizes computers as tools for personal liberation. This individualistic emphasis on interface design, usability, and so on was initially matched with an interest in the community aspect of computer networking. Before the “dot-com” venture capitalist takeover of the field in the second half of the 1990s, progressive computing was primarily seen as a tool for collaboration among people.
The clubfoot deformity is one of the most common congenital orthopaedic “conditions”. Worldwide approximately 100,000 children are born with unilateral or bilateral clubfoot every year. In the Netherlands the incidence is approximately 175 every year. This three dimensional deformity of the foot involves, equinus, varus, adductus, and cavus . Left untreated the clubfoot leads to deformity, functional disability and pain. Physical impairments of children with clubfoot might lead to limitations in activities and therefore impede a child’s participation. In clinical practice, the orthopaedic surgeon and physiotherapists are regularly consulted by (parents of) clubfoot patients for functional problems such as impaired walking and other daily activities. This does not only affect long-term and physical health of a child, it will also affect the development of social relationships and skills as well. Since walking is a main activity in children to be able to participate in daily life, our previous study (financially supported by SIA Raak Publiek) focussed on gait differences between children with clubfoot and controls. However, differences in gait characteristics do not necessarily lead to functional limitations and restricted participation. Therefore, providing insight in participation and a child’s performance in other activities than walking is necessary. Insight in a child’s participation will also indicate the functional outcome of the treatment, which on its turn could provide essential information concerning a possible relapse.. Early identification of a relapse is important since it could prevent the need for major surgical interventions. The occurrence of a relapse clubfoot will probably also lead to functional differences in the foot as well as problems during activity and participation. Therefore, the main focus of this study is the functional outcomes of physical activities and the characterisation of participation of children with clubfeet in daily activities of childhood.
