Matters differ

This volume presents nine comparative studies elaborated by social workers who have graduated as Master of Social Work in Merseburg/Germany in September 2004. The studies are brief and thus incomplete versions of their master thesis. In all cases the empirical research the students have done abroad, mostly interviews with experts, are not presented here. As the master programme is an international one and has its scientific and practical focus on comparative research, these studies give a European view on social work and social policy: similarities can be identified, differences are to be appreciated. Why legislation and practice differ? Is there any „model“ which can be accepted? We are far from claiming convergence and far from demanding homogeneity. The variety of legislation and practice is, more than ever, a mean to better perceive and understand what can be done to improve own policies and services. Agnes Tonkunaite (Lithuania) directs our attention to the fact that there has been migration from Lithuania to EU since the 1990s prior to the full membership of this state. Compared with Belgians who used the right of free movement, the motivation and conditions of life of those Lithuanians have been particular. She is pleading for more information and counselling services. Anja Fahsl (Germany) deals with the role and function of social workers in a very special setting: as members of psychosocial teams in oncology hospitals. As the societal and political background in Norway and Germany seems to be very similar, the comparison leads to general aspects of professional self-definition. The historical and political situation in Estonia and the Czech Republic after 1989/1990 appeared to be similar when church related welfare associations are to be refunded. Lehti Veeväli (Estonia) explains the differences in developing Diaconia in both countries. Whereas eider abuse is recognized as a social problem in England, this topic is far from being responded to by social work in Germany. Jutta Leiblein (Germany) gives an insight how this difference comes about. Aule Tali (Estonia) gives an analysis of the child protection system in Greece and Estonia under professional aspects. Social services in Estonia and Germany are in the focus of Arne Akk (Estonia) who regards the outcomes for a particular target group, namely children with incurable diseases. Romy Wiesner (Germany) analysis the legal framework in Germany and Northern Ireland which is supposed to implement equal opportunities with regard to gender. Oliver Klott (Germany) gives a comparative view on the English and German systems wh ich provide children who have mental health problems with services. Whereas Finland and Germany have to cope with a high rate of unemployment, the two countries go, as Sven Thiemann (Germany) figures out, slightly different ways in reforming the welfare state. The volume concludes with an essay by the editor who summarizes the very particular method of comparison using „ground-plans“, Le. typical cases wh ich are responded to by social work in various European countries differently. All in all the contributions show the potential the comparative approach to social work and social policy offers. It appears to be a productive approach though there are still more and more extended studies to be done. Thus this volume wants to invite social work scientists to enhance international cooperation: go comparative! Wolfgang Berg