Maybe you can be too resilient: a sociological investigation into how student social workers perceive resilience in their practice

IF 1.4 Q2 SOCIAL WORK Critical and Radical Social Work Pub Date : 2023-12-11 DOI:10.1332/20498608y2023d000000007
Tom Considine
{"title":"Maybe you can be too resilient: a sociological investigation into how student social workers perceive resilience in their practice","authors":"Tom Considine","doi":"10.1332/20498608y2023d000000007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Resilience has attracted immense interest for researchers and practitioners. Arguably, resilience is a laudable quality, and post-COVID-19, the need for resilience is greater. Most studies examining resilience are socially blind and place emphasis on individual responsibility. Developing this critique further, this is the first study that draws significantly on the ideas of Charles Wright Mills and his defining principles to relate the ‘private’ concerns of being resilient to the ‘public’ context that creates this experience. This article presents a qualitative study that investigated how student social workers perceived resilience in their practice. A total of 16 social work students were interviewed using semi-structured interviews. The aim of the article is to analyse the capacity for resilience to be deployed as a means of exercising domination over social work students in order to exploit and control them. An alternative conception of resilience is promoted that advocates a collective response to the challenges facing social workers.","PeriodicalId":44175,"journal":{"name":"Critical and Radical Social Work","volume":"20 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical and Radical Social Work","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1332/20498608y2023d000000007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL WORK","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Resilience has attracted immense interest for researchers and practitioners. Arguably, resilience is a laudable quality, and post-COVID-19, the need for resilience is greater. Most studies examining resilience are socially blind and place emphasis on individual responsibility. Developing this critique further, this is the first study that draws significantly on the ideas of Charles Wright Mills and his defining principles to relate the ‘private’ concerns of being resilient to the ‘public’ context that creates this experience. This article presents a qualitative study that investigated how student social workers perceived resilience in their practice. A total of 16 social work students were interviewed using semi-structured interviews. The aim of the article is to analyse the capacity for resilience to be deployed as a means of exercising domination over social work students in order to exploit and control them. An alternative conception of resilience is promoted that advocates a collective response to the challenges facing social workers.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
也许你的复原力太强:对大学生社会工作者在实践中如何看待复原力的社会学调查
复原力引起了研究人员和从业人员的极大兴趣。可以说,抗灾能力是一种值得称赞的品质,而在《19 世纪议程》之后,对抗灾能力的需求更大。大多数关于抗灾能力的研究都是社会性的,强调的是个人责任。本文是对这一批判的进一步阐释,也是第一项大量借鉴查尔斯-赖特-米尔斯(Charles Wright Mills)的思想及其定义原则的研究,将抗逆力的 "私人 "关切与创造这种体验的 "公共 "背景联系起来。本文介绍了一项定性研究,调查学生社会工作者在实践中如何看待抗逆力。文章采用半结构式访谈法,共采访了 16 名社会工作专业的学生。文章旨在分析抗逆力被用作对社会工作专业学生实施支配的一种手段,以剥削和控制他们。文章提倡另一种抗逆力概念,主张以集体方式应对社会工作者面临的挑战。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
25.00%
发文量
52
期刊最新文献
Talking about needs and rights in inter-agency meetings: interpretive contests in Swedish welfare provision Maybe you can be too resilient: a sociological investigation into how student social workers perceive resilience in their practice Critique and Critical Social Work: a meta-theoretical perspective Who’s right? What rights? How? Rights debates in Irish social work: a call for nuance Lordship and bondage in the dialectics of social work: regulation and professional autonomy
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1