Standardisation—the end of professional discretion? †

Ponnert, Lina; Svensson, Kerstin

doi:10.4324/9781315206929-18

Cited by 20 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…They point out ‘the emergence of a pattern of formally conformant behaviour in which the letter of the organisational law is obeyed but without genuine commitment’ (p. 310). Ponnert and Svensson (2015/2016) point out that increased standardisation has been seen as a way to reduce uncertainty and increase the legitimacy of human service organisations, but at the expense of traditional professional discretion. They show, however, that standardisation continues to put high demands on professionals and on their ways of making use of professional discretion.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Meeting (or not) at the street level? A literature review on street‐level research in public management, social policy and social work

Nothdurfter

Hermans

2018

Int J Soc Welfare

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nothdurfter U., Hermans K. Meeting (or not) at the street level? A literature review on street-level research in public management, social policy and social work This literature review analyses the adoption and development of a street-level perspective in public management, social policy and social work. The last years have seen a prominent revival of a perspective based on Michael Lipsky's streetlevel bureaucracy approach in the debates conducted within all three disciplinary fields. Based on 71 key publications in public management, social policy and social work, the review analyses the adoption of the street-level bureaucracy approach during the period 2005-2015, pointing out the main themes of the debate within, as well as overlaps and differences between, the three disciplines. The findings show the potential of better integrating the different perspectives and taking stock of the articulated debate. Lastly, the review discerns a common viewpoint for further street-level research, emphasising its importance for the critical analysis and understanding of street-level work as a vital dimension of responsive and accountable institutions and as a decisive moment to shape positive policy outcomes on the ground. Key Practitioner Message: • The use of discretion by frontline practitioners and their role as policy actors on the ground has become an important focus of research; • This literature review shows that the debate has gone far beyond discussing discretion as an all-or-nothing issue, pointing out both positive and negative aspects of discretion and developing comprehensive frameworks to explain the use of discretion at the street-level; • However, street-level research has traditionally rather neglected the notion of professionalism. The social work literature brings in the perspective of professionalism; more research efforts are needed to better explore and explain how professionalism matters in relation to challenges and dilemmas of different policy and practice fields.Although public management, social policy and social work are closely interrelated, their debates have been characterised by different perspectives as well as different theoretical and methodological approaches. Especially in relation to social policy and social work, it has been pointed out that, despite their mutual dependence, their relations are an underexposed matter and their perspectives and debates barely ever converge However, the prominent revival of Michael Lipsky's (1980/2010) street-level bureaucracy approach during the last 15 years has done much to identify a common feature of the debates in public management, social policy and social work. Lipsky's approach addresses the dilemmas faced by the individuals at the frontline of public services. An important contribution of Lipsky's approach is that he has highlighted how the use of discretion by street-level bureaucrats, the routines they establish, the devices Int J Soc Welfare 2018: 27: 294-304

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Meeting (or not) at the street level? A literature review on street‐level research in public management, social policy and social work

Nothdurfter

Hermans

2018

Int J Soc Welfare

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Jergeby, 2008), the more pessimistic view expects the work to be overly controlled by manuals, triggering a de-professionalisation (e.g. Ponnert & Svensson, 2016). Regardless of whether there is more or less professionalism, social work interventions that are not properly packagede.g.…”

Section: Governing Social Work Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

‘State governing of knowledge’ – constraining social work research and practice

Jacobsson

Meeuwisse

2018

European Journal of Social Work

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evidence-based practice (EBP) has been launched, spread, and established in social work in Sweden in the last decade. Today, impact studies and 'what works' are the recommended approaches, and medical ways to understand and examine social problems thus are prioritised over the broad social science perspectives on which social work rests. This development has culminated in an institutionalised system called 'state governing of knowledge'. We analyse the Swedish EBP movement as an 'epistemic community', directing our attention to the ways in which evidence is constructed and proclaimed valid for policy and practice. Empirically, we build on documents from various actors involved in EBP in social work and on results from our ongoing research on documentary practices in the social services. We identify four strategies that key actors use within the Swedish EBP community to contest, redefine, and constrain the academic knowledge base of social work: efforts to (1) construct a (state) knowledge bureaucracy, (2) standardise social work research, (3) exclude important aspects of social work expertise, and (4) govern social work practice. All four strategies are supported by 'improvement rhetoric' that aims at justifying the project.

show abstract

“…This minimises time available for developing deep, critical understandings of HR and SJ, fundamental concepts for the social work profession (Croisdale-Appleby, 2014; Higgins, 2015). While this situation was articulated most clearly by research participants in England, these market-oriented processes of de-professionalisation affecting social work are also found in other European countries including Spain (De la Red and Brezmes, 2009;Ioakimidis, et al, 2014;Ponnert and Svensson, 2016).…”

Section: The Oppressive Ideology Of Neoliberalism In Social Workmentioning

confidence: 91%

Human rights and social justice in social work education: a critical realist comparative study of England and Spain

Herrero

Charnley

2018

European Journal of Social Work

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The history of social work as a profession and academic discipline is inextricably linked with principles of human rights (HR) and social justice (SJ). The Global Standards for social work education promote HR and SJ as unifying themes, yet there is little understanding of how these themes are embedded in social work education in specific national contexts. This article, based on empirical research in England and Spain, explores social work educators' understandings of, and strategies used in learning and teaching about, HR and SJ. Using a critical realist framework, a web survey was followed by qualitative interviews with educators in each country to identify opportunities and challenges in stimulating students' theoretical understanding of HR and SJ, and their application in practice. Findings show that prevailing neoliberal ideology has pervaded social work in both countries (more strongly in England) placing pressure on social work educators to convey narrow understandings of HR and SJ and to adopt increasingly bureaucratic and distant relationships with students. Identifying a range of factors informing educators' understandings of HR and SJ, the research identifies spaces for strengthening the focus on HR and SJ in social work education. The article argues that while university-based social work education remains a fertile site for the deconstruction of neoliberal ideology that threatens the HR and SJ foundations of social work globally, social work and social work education require the development of a distinct, alternative, HR and SJ-based ideology.

show abstract

Standardisation—the end of professional discretion? †

Cited by 20 publications

References 1 publication

Meeting (or not) at the street level? A literature review on street‐level research in public management, social policy and social work

Meeting (or not) at the street level? A literature review on street‐level research in public management, social policy and social work

‘State governing of knowledge’ – constraining social work research and practice

Human rights and social justice in social work education: a critical realist comparative study of England and Spain

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About