Personalisation, social justice and social work: a reply to Simon Duffy

Ferguson, Iain

doi:10.1080/02650533.2011.623771

Cited by 48 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, others have argued that concerns about welfare dependency were a distraction to promote neoliberal ideas rather than a concern voiced by professionals or users (Ferguson, 2007). By casting service users as 'consumers', direct payments would shift responsibility from professionals to individuals, support the privatisation of service provision and deskill the care workforce in the process (Ferguson, 2007;Ferguson, 2011;Daly, 2012). The focus on choice would also underplay the public nature of decisions about care provision, especially where such care is publicly funded (Stevens et al, 2011).…”

Section: Barriers To Implementing Direct Payments In Domiciliary Carementioning

confidence: 99%

Explaining Low Uptake of Direct Payments in Residential Care: Findings from the Evaluation of the Direct Payments in Residential Care Trailblazers

Ettelt¹,

Williams²,

Perkins³

et al. 2018

J. Soc. Pol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 2012, the Government invited local councils in England to participate in a pilot programme to test direct payments in residential care. While the programme was set up to allow for comprehensive summative evaluation, the uptake of direct payments in residential care was substantially lower than anticipated, with only 40 people in receipt of one at the end of the programme. Drawing on qualitative data collected for the evaluation, this paper aims to understand better the barriers to implementing direct payments in residential care. Evidence from the use of direct payments in domiciliary care identified gatekeeping by council frontline staff as a major barrier for service users to access direct payments. Our findings suggest that, whilst selectivity of both service users and providers was an integral part of the programme design, gatekeeping does not fully explain the poor take-up. Other factors played a part, such as lack of clarity about the benefits of direct payments for care home residents, the limited terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi

show abstract

Section: Barriers To Implementing Direct Payments In Domiciliary Carementioning

confidence: 99%

Explaining Low Uptake of Direct Payments in Residential Care: Findings from the Evaluation of the Direct Payments in Residential Care Trailblazers

Ettelt¹,

Williams²,

Perkins³

et al. 2018

J. Soc. Pol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We suggest that proper attention to these issues highlights ethical constraints that alter the nature and scope of the personalisation agenda within health and social care services. We thus see our argument as contributing to the existing scholarship that critiques the neoliberal marketisation of public services (e.g., Ferguson 2007Ferguson , 2012Roulstone and …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The argument that personalisation should be normatively assessed with reference to its impact on social justice has been made by a variety of academics, critics and campaigners (Duffy 2010;Ferguson, 2012). Iain Ferguson (2012: 57) argues that the theory of justice elaborated by Nancy…”

Section: Personalisation Marketisation and Social Justicementioning

confidence: 99%

“…This critique is particularly important given the propensity for reforms based on personalisation to allow concerns with the private to eclipse the public, reducing or even closing the services, facilities and public institutions that support and maintain permissive structural conditions across society. Moreover, it is doubly important in times of austerity, when cuts in public services threaten to reduce personalisation to a costsaving instrument that legitimises maldistribution instead of redressing it (Ferguson 2012;Needham 2011).…”

Section: Personalisation Autonomy and Empowermentmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

What Justice, What Autonomy? The Ethical Constraints upon Personalisation

Owens

Mladenov

Cribb

2016

Ethics and Social Welfare

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article considers the ethical dimensions of attempts to 'personalise' health and social care services in the UK. Personalisation is identified as closely related to efforts to introduce elements of neoliberal marketisation into public service provision, particularly through the introduction of consumer choice for services users. We consider two areas of ethical concern surrounding personalisation: its contribution to social justice agendas and the enhancement of service users' autonomy. While personalisation in general, and consumer choice in particular, has been presented as positively contributing to both social justice and autonomy, we critically revaluate these claims. We draw on the work of Nancy Fraser and relational theories of autonomy to highlight the ethical complexities of personalisation and the potentially negative effects that the extension of consumer choice may have on promoting social justice and supporting substantive forms of autonomy.We suggest that understanding and negotiating these complexities imposes ethical constraints on the ways in which, and extent to which, health and social care services can be defensibly personalised.

show abstract

“…This explanation creates tensions in a social care and health environment that promotes the individualisation of care alongside self-care and self-management strategies. The drive towards self-care and self-management has been critiqued on a number of levels, particularly in increasing individuals' level of responsibility, inappropriate use of market principles in welfare and reducing that of the state to provide care and treatment and support and protection (Ferguson, 2011).…”

Section: Theoretical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Constructing community to achieve citizenship using recognition theory, recovery, and citizenship as a reflective lens: Experiences from the United States and Scotland

Stewart

Black²,

Benedict

et al. 2017

American Journal of Psychiatric Rehabilitation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Declaration of Interest:The views in this publication are solely the responsibility of the authors. The Commission is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains. FUNDINGThis project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No 690954.Correspondence related to this manuscript should be sent to Ailsa Stewart: ailsa.e.stewart@strath.ac.uk Abstract:This paper explores the usefulness of recognition theory, recovery and citizenship in explaining constructions of community by adults who have experienced life disruptions participating in similar Citizenship programs in the US and Scotland. A content analysis of secondary data was undertaken and focus groups held with recent graduates of both programs. The findings indicate that constructions of community aligned significantly with aspects of identity and common experience rather than location. Moving towards an identity framed by assets rather than deficits, was further identified, which reflects the need for recognition to be extended by communities that are well informed and non-discriminatory in their attitudes towards those with life disruptions to promote inclusion and connectedness.Interventions at the level of community development and engagement are therefore crucial in promoting inclusion and increasing citizenship for marginalized groups; alongside the role of social movements and public policy in tackling stigma and discriminatory attitudes.Uniquely, within this project, a theoretical framework that combined elements of recognition theory, recovery and citizenship emerged that best explained the experience of those with life disruptions and provided direction for a future focus on community development as well as recovery and citizenship oriented practice.

show abstract

Personalisation, social justice and social work: a reply to Simon Duffy

Cited by 48 publications

References 19 publications

Explaining Low Uptake of Direct Payments in Residential Care: Findings from the Evaluation of the Direct Payments in Residential Care Trailblazers

Explaining Low Uptake of Direct Payments in Residential Care: Findings from the Evaluation of the Direct Payments in Residential Care Trailblazers

What Justice, What Autonomy? The Ethical Constraints upon Personalisation

Constructing community to achieve citizenship using recognition theory, recovery, and citizenship as a reflective lens: Experiences from the United States and Scotland

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About