Rethinking AI governance for social work through the triple mandate

Clicks: 30
ID: 333071
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #15 of 34 articles by views in The British Journal of Social Work

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Abstract As artificial intelligence (AI) systems become increasingly integrated into social work practice, questions arise about how they should be evaluated, monitored, and held accountable. Current AI governance frameworks, developed primarily for the private and general public sector contexts, rest on presuppositions that are rarely made explicit: AI deployment is inherently desirable, risks can be decomposed and addressed sequentially, institutions have adequate capacity to implement governance requirements, and affected populations participate voluntarily, with the ability to decline or appeal. Social work’s distinctive conditions (i.e. involuntary client engagement, irreversible high-stakes decisions, relational practice, professional discretion, and service to historically marginalized populations) create a context in which standard AI governance approaches fall short of securing accountability. Rather than proposing a new governance framework, this paper works diagnostically. We surface the conditions that current AI governance frameworks presuppose; trace how their failure in social work compromises transparency, contestability, and redress; and draw on Staub-Bernasconi’s triple mandate to propose a set of guiding questions for what any governance approach must address to remain accountable in this context.
Reference Key
openalex_W7223031838 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Eunhye Ahn, Moon Choi, Claire R. McNellan, Lauri Goldkind
Are you one of these authors? Claim your profile
Journal The British Journal of Social Work
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/bjsw/bcag260
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcag260
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.