Citation for published version (APA): Fenton, J. (2016). Organisational professionalism and moral courage: contradictory concepts in social work? Critical and Radical Social Work, 4(2), 199-215. DOI: 10.1332
/204986016X14651166264156General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in Discovery Research Portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from Discovery Research Portal for the purpose of private study or research.• You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain.• You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal.
Take down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.
BackgroundProfessionalism is a contested concept in social work. For example, Evers, (in Munday, 2003, p13) states:Summing up one can say that professionalism has two sides: one side may be the often-complained arrogance of power while the other side is the burden of responsibility taken. The latter side can be a good point of reference for those who strive for a better user involvement. To the degree that professionalism puts clients' interests first it can be a strong antidote against old and new ways of putting the interests of authorities, business and providers ahead of the concerns of users and citizens.The point being made here is that professional social workers, notwithstanding that they may also have the power to be authoritarian or paternalistic, can embrace responsibility for decision making and autonomy and can do so on behalf of, and with, the service user. Although the concept of 'professionalism' in social work has also been debated in relation to many associated issues including the place of care, gender influences and semi-professional status (for example, Meagher and Parton (2004), Phillips and Cree (2014), Etzioni (1969)), this paper takes, as its focus, the idea that an essential element of professionalism is the stepping up to decision making, autonomy and advocacy or, in other words, Evers' 'burden of responsibility.' Evetts (2003, p407) illuminates this analysis in her discussion of what professionalism has come to mean in a context of neoliberal managerialism. She states that the original appeal of the professions was the 'power to define the nature 2 of problems in that area as well as the control of access to potential solutions.' Given the shift in social work to purchaser/provider in community care, tightening of resources in every social work sphere and the plethora of diagnostic and risk assessment tools, procedures and rules it is easy to see that the 'appealing' definition of professionalism is decreasingly appropriate in relation to social work pract...