On ‘Activation Workers' Perceptions’: A Reply to Dunn (1)

Abstract

Andrew Dunn challenges social policy researchers to include the perspectives of other policy actors in the debate about the merits and limits of activation policies that emphasise greater conditionality for those in receipt of benefits. In his provocative article, he focuses on the views and experiences of people who work with unemployed people. His study focuses on a sample of forty employment advisers in the UK and his particular interest is in their attitudes about unemployment and the unemployed, particular their views on the ‘welfare dependency’ thesis. While his discussion of these issues is interesting and engaging, there are a number of limitations that deserve further discussion.

Shaping attitudes to disability employment with a national disability insurance scheme

“…Much more is required to remove attitudinal barriers that disadvantage vulnerable people with disability (Marston 2013;Marston & Dee 2015). For example, occupational mobility and labour market integration (Fernández-Macías et al 2015) and improved work capability and support assessment systems are necessary (Waghorn & Hielscher 2015).…”

Becoming 'unemployed': Mapping and (re)constituting subjectivity within ​​​​​​​jobactive

“…I will provide an account of how practices in RESP aligns with and slightly depart from the dominant discourses of the jobactive policy. In doing so I demonstrate how material context (Jordan, 2018) and organisational priorities (Marston, 2013) 6.2 De-constituting the emotional subject: case management minus the 'heart'.…”

“…To sum, while research suggests that we need to attend to the problematisation on the ground (Brady, 2014), the material circumstances of employment service provision (Jordan, 2018), the nuances of subjectification (Binkley, 2011), organisation priorities (Marston, 2013) and triple activation (Van Berkel, 2012), this chapter shows that we can also add that researching the governing of the unemployment requires attuning to how 'emotions' function in these spaces. 'Affective governing' is nuanced by how psy-infused 'emotions' inform, activate and sustain the problem of the unemployed.…”

“…For example, worker discretion is not only defined by policy but also by the 'culture of discretion' in the organisation (Kelly, 1994). In discussing the unemployed and governing work of unemployment, we need to include an analysis of the complicated ways workers are governed through organisational practices (Marston, 2013).…”

“…However, some of this research engages in positivist frames that conclude that the unemployed have certain characteristics (welfare dependent, workshy) because the workers said so in their interviews (see Dunn, 2013). Other researchers have called more complex understandings of the context and conditions within which workers can enact policy (Van Berkel, 2013;Wright, 2013;Marston, 2013). Introducing more 'context' into the research frame could entail focusing on the 'materiality' of the research situation (Jordan, 2018) or the 'situated practices' of welfare and the types of problematisations involved by employment consultants 'on the ground' (Brady, 2011).…”