Self-Reflexivity as a form of Client Participation: Clients as Citizens, Consumers, Partners or Self-Entrepreneurs

Abstract

The article suggests that self-reflexive participation should be considered a distinct form of client participation. Self-reflexive participation is an individualized form of participation that occurs through a development-oriented dialogue between the client and a practitioner. In this dialogue, clients reflect on themselves, set goals for the future and devise strategies, thereby improving their self-regulatory potentials. The article discusses important differences between self-reflexive participation and democratic, consumerist and co-productive participation in terms of the form participation takes, the aim of participation, the client role, the resources required from clients to participate, the assumed relationship between the agency and the client and organizational responsiveness. Self-reflexive participation is based on a view of the client as capable and reflexive and it may foster a tailoring of social services to the wishes and life-projects of clients. However, self-reflexive participation is based on the assumption that clients can be empowered through improved skills of self-observation and life-planning. When focus is on these skills, it may gloss over important conflicts between clients and agency and detach questions of client participation from organizational responsiveness and struggles over user control.

Dreaming the impossible dream? An exploratory study on the expectations of Dutch clients with multiple problems concerning the co‐production of public services

“…Our findings seem to have many similarities with the findings in other studies that also show how there are mismatched expectations between (especially vulnerable) clients and providers regarding the role clients need to play in the delivery process (Brandsen, 2020 ; Park, 2020 ; Fledderus et al., 2015 ; Alford, 2009 ; Monrad, 2020 ; Flemig & Osborne, 2019 ; Ewert & Evers, 2014 ; Born & Jensen, 2010 ). Mullainathan & Sharfir ( 2014 ) discuss how conditions of scarcity affect cognitive abilities and behaviours, limiting clients’ abilities to act as active agents (Mullainathan & Sharfir, 2014 ).…”

“…Although these assumptions have a clear political appeal, create great opportunities and hold the promise to improve public services, questions have been raised regarding the extent to which these ambitions fully apply to clients with severe vulnerabilities, such as CWMPs (Brandsen, 2020 ; Park, 2020 ). For example, studies have mentioned that these ambitions might not apply due to client overdemand (e.g., the co‐production ambitions exceed clients’ abilities and motivation), intimidating formats (e.g., clients feel unfamiliar or intimidated by the participatory decision‐making process), mismatched expectations (e.g., discrepancy between clients’ understanding of their own role and expected role by public service providers (PSPs) or policymakers), fundamentally different perspectives (e.g., clients are socialised as entitled beneficiaries under the traditional solidarity‐based system and appreciate being addressed as interlocutors, not as co‐responsible agents), and a perceived lack of added value (clients and PSPs or policymakers have different perspectives on what is important) (Brandsen, 2020 ; Park, 2020 ; Fledderus et al., 2015 ; Alford, 2009 ; Monrad, 2020 ; Flemig & Osborne, 2019 ; Ewert & Evers, 2014 ; Born & Jensen, 2010 ). Thereby, the scope of the role of clients in coproducing the public service delivery process has not yet been clarified (Hafer & Ran, 2016 :207).…”

Co-Creation in an era of Welfare Conditionality – Lessons from Denmark

“…This is not an easy thing, especially as the relation between the frontline worker and the unemployed is embedded in an asymmetric power relation. In this sense, there are obvious dilemmas and trade-offs when designing and implementing co-creation in a system based upon welfare conditionality (Monrad, 2019). Firstly, the citizen's participation is not voluntary, and the citizen must actively be part of the measures decided upon to receive benefits.…”

Coproducing care and support delivery in healthcare triads: Dutch case managers for people with dementia at home using strategies to handle conflict in the healthcare triad

“…Coproducing public services with PWDs and informal caregivers in healthcare triads is a next step towards services tailored to the individuals’ needs and the preferences of PWDs and informal caregivers. All parties in the healthcare triad must engage in the negotiation of goals, interventions and the distribution of obligations through dialogue (Ewert & Evers, 2014; Monrad, 2020); Nabatchi et al., 2017) Our study shows the complexity of this process when PWDs lose their cognitive abilities and informal caregivers struggle with their surrogate role. Especially at the end phase of dementia at home, both PWDs and informal caregivers struggle and cannot live up to their expected role as ‘expert‐patient’, leaving CMs behind to make sense of their situation and tailor services to their interests.…”