A policy, management and practitioners' perspective on social work's rational turn: there are cracks at every level. Issue 1 (2nd January 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Devlieghere, Jochen; Roose, Rudi
• Is Part Of: European journal of social work. Volume 23:Issue 1(2020)
• Page Start: 144
• Page End: 155
• Publication Date: 2020-01-02
• Subjects: Rationalisation -- qualitative research -- accountability; Rationalisering -- Kwalitatief onderzoek -- Verantwoording; Social service -- Europe -- Periodicals; Social service -- Vocational guidance -- Europe -- Periodicals; 361.3209405
• DOI: 10.1080/13691457.2018.1460324
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1369-1457

Abstract

ABSTRACT: Social work has been confronted with a belief that a more rationalised social work will lead to a more effective practice as well as prevent harm to children. However, there is little or no empirical insight into the discourses of the key actors involved (e.g. policy actors, managers and social practitioners). To capture their perspective, interviews were conducted with 15 key policy actors, 29 social service managers and 16 social practitioners. The interviews show that the idea that social work should be based upon a more rational framework continues to capture the imagination. However, the participants formulate critical concerns about social work's rational turn. In so doing, they all emphasise the inevitable subjectivity of social work. It should therefore be asked why the rationalisation train hurtles on further. One possible answer lies in the idea that a more rational approach to social work can assist the participants in meeting heightened requirements of accountability. This is disconcerting because many of the interventions in the social domain do not generate effects in a mechanistic way. Social work should therefore not embrace its rational turn, but embrace its ambiguous position and search for alternative ways to legitimise its existence.