Linear logics - and the resistance towards them in a social worker community

Bidragets oversatte titel: Lineære logikker og modstanden mod dem i socialrådgiver fællesskaber

Publikation: Konferencebidrag uden forlag/tidsskriftKonferenceabstrakt til konferenceForskningpeer review

Resumé

In this paper, I will discuss a difference between how social workers talk about doing social work, and how they actually do social work. The paper is relating to the theme of Social Work practice in a changing welfare society – contemporary and historical perspectives.
In recent years, Danish social work practice with children and families, have been under change, emphasizing objectivism, linearity and evidence based knowledge. I have conducted a qualitative study of social work in Denmark, observing team meetings in three different teams in a Danish municipality. The team meeting being the arena of finding out what to do in difficult cases, and the teams forming communities of social workers with values, morality and logics. I have observed the social workers ways of dealing with this discourse and politics about objectivism, linearity and evidence based knowledge.
In this paper, I will illuminate, how teams of social workers respond to the logics of productivity, effectivism and linearity – by talking about their practice as if they use the linear logics. Nevertheless, in the observations of their practice they do not do social work, the way they talk about doing social work. They use other strategies in the processes of figuring out the needs of the family and child at risk, than the linear strategy that they talk about, and which is encouraged from political and organizational levels.
The social workers do not work in linear and effective models, they do social work in teams of shared meaning making processes og shared narratives and anecdotes, and by that they are showing processes of resistance to political and dominating discourses in social work. These processes of resistance happened, but were not talked about. In this way, I saw in Danish practice, what Broadhurst et. al. (2010) addresses as an undertheorized and underrepresented part of practice and as Riemann (2005) referrers to as “case talk”. I argue that an important part of the social workers practice with children and families are left in an “epistemological shade”. In the shade were an unheeded professionalism of story sharing and circular processes of establishing meaning. The sharing of stories were a tool for the social workers to make the unfamiliar known, to connecting the dots in a complicated field of practice.
OriginalsprogEngelsk
Publikationsdato2019
Antal sider1
StatusUdgivet - 2019

Citer dette

@conference{afecd4c1dea84c929ece5fa49af56f62,
title = "Linear logics - and the resistance towards them in a social worker community",
abstract = "In this paper, I will discuss a difference between how social workers talk about doing social work, and how they actually do social work. The paper is relating to the theme of Social Work practice in a changing welfare society – contemporary and historical perspectives. In recent years, Danish social work practice with children and families, have been under change, emphasizing objectivism, linearity and evidence based knowledge. I have conducted a qualitative study of social work in Denmark, observing team meetings in three different teams in a Danish municipality. The team meeting being the arena of finding out what to do in difficult cases, and the teams forming communities of social workers with values, morality and logics. I have observed the social workers ways of dealing with this discourse and politics about objectivism, linearity and evidence based knowledge. In this paper, I will illuminate, how teams of social workers respond to the logics of productivity, effectivism and linearity – by talking about their practice as if they use the linear logics. Nevertheless, in the observations of their practice they do not do social work, the way they talk about doing social work. They use other strategies in the processes of figuring out the needs of the family and child at risk, than the linear strategy that they talk about, and which is encouraged from political and organizational levels. The social workers do not work in linear and effective models, they do social work in teams of shared meaning making processes og shared narratives and anecdotes, and by that they are showing processes of resistance to political and dominating discourses in social work. These processes of resistance happened, but were not talked about. In this way, I saw in Danish practice, what Broadhurst et. al. (2010) addresses as an undertheorized and underrepresented part of practice and as Riemann (2005) referrers to as “case talk”. I argue that an important part of the social workers practice with children and families are left in an “epistemological shade”. In the shade were an unheeded professionalism of story sharing and circular processes of establishing meaning. The sharing of stories were a tool for the social workers to make the unfamiliar known, to connecting the dots in a complicated field of practice.",
author = "Bjerre, {Line S{\o}berg}",
year = "2019",
language = "English",

}

Linear logics - and the resistance towards them in a social worker community. / Bjerre, Line Søberg.

2019.

Publikation: Konferencebidrag uden forlag/tidsskriftKonferenceabstrakt til konferenceForskningpeer review

TY - ABST

T1 - Linear logics - and the resistance towards them in a social worker community

AU - Bjerre, Line Søberg

PY - 2019

Y1 - 2019

N2 - In this paper, I will discuss a difference between how social workers talk about doing social work, and how they actually do social work. The paper is relating to the theme of Social Work practice in a changing welfare society – contemporary and historical perspectives. In recent years, Danish social work practice with children and families, have been under change, emphasizing objectivism, linearity and evidence based knowledge. I have conducted a qualitative study of social work in Denmark, observing team meetings in three different teams in a Danish municipality. The team meeting being the arena of finding out what to do in difficult cases, and the teams forming communities of social workers with values, morality and logics. I have observed the social workers ways of dealing with this discourse and politics about objectivism, linearity and evidence based knowledge. In this paper, I will illuminate, how teams of social workers respond to the logics of productivity, effectivism and linearity – by talking about their practice as if they use the linear logics. Nevertheless, in the observations of their practice they do not do social work, the way they talk about doing social work. They use other strategies in the processes of figuring out the needs of the family and child at risk, than the linear strategy that they talk about, and which is encouraged from political and organizational levels. The social workers do not work in linear and effective models, they do social work in teams of shared meaning making processes og shared narratives and anecdotes, and by that they are showing processes of resistance to political and dominating discourses in social work. These processes of resistance happened, but were not talked about. In this way, I saw in Danish practice, what Broadhurst et. al. (2010) addresses as an undertheorized and underrepresented part of practice and as Riemann (2005) referrers to as “case talk”. I argue that an important part of the social workers practice with children and families are left in an “epistemological shade”. In the shade were an unheeded professionalism of story sharing and circular processes of establishing meaning. The sharing of stories were a tool for the social workers to make the unfamiliar known, to connecting the dots in a complicated field of practice.

AB - In this paper, I will discuss a difference between how social workers talk about doing social work, and how they actually do social work. The paper is relating to the theme of Social Work practice in a changing welfare society – contemporary and historical perspectives. In recent years, Danish social work practice with children and families, have been under change, emphasizing objectivism, linearity and evidence based knowledge. I have conducted a qualitative study of social work in Denmark, observing team meetings in three different teams in a Danish municipality. The team meeting being the arena of finding out what to do in difficult cases, and the teams forming communities of social workers with values, morality and logics. I have observed the social workers ways of dealing with this discourse and politics about objectivism, linearity and evidence based knowledge. In this paper, I will illuminate, how teams of social workers respond to the logics of productivity, effectivism and linearity – by talking about their practice as if they use the linear logics. Nevertheless, in the observations of their practice they do not do social work, the way they talk about doing social work. They use other strategies in the processes of figuring out the needs of the family and child at risk, than the linear strategy that they talk about, and which is encouraged from political and organizational levels. The social workers do not work in linear and effective models, they do social work in teams of shared meaning making processes og shared narratives and anecdotes, and by that they are showing processes of resistance to political and dominating discourses in social work. These processes of resistance happened, but were not talked about. In this way, I saw in Danish practice, what Broadhurst et. al. (2010) addresses as an undertheorized and underrepresented part of practice and as Riemann (2005) referrers to as “case talk”. I argue that an important part of the social workers practice with children and families are left in an “epistemological shade”. In the shade were an unheeded professionalism of story sharing and circular processes of establishing meaning. The sharing of stories were a tool for the social workers to make the unfamiliar known, to connecting the dots in a complicated field of practice.

M3 - Conference abstract for conference

ER -