Identity of clients and social workers in service provision: an institutional logics perspective

Q3 Social Sciences Social Work and Social Sciences Review Pub Date : 2020-07-16 DOI:10.1921/swssr.v21i3.1340
Filip Wollter
{"title":"Identity of clients and social workers in service provision: an institutional logics perspective","authors":"Filip Wollter","doi":"10.1921/swssr.v21i3.1340","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article illustrates how the theory of institutional logics can be used for analyzing the identity of social workers and clients, focusing on people processing that precedes treatment (control access, assessment, and treatment deliberation, among others). The article has two research questions: (1) What identities of social workers and clients can be distinguished by institutional logics? (2) How are identities intertwined in practice (exemplified by well-established decision-making models such as evidence-based practice, family group conference, and government by voucher)? Identity is examined using institutional logics and the findings reported in the current body of social work literature. The article derives two conclusions. The first conclusion is that institutional logics can be used for distinguishing ideal type identities: three client identities, namely taken care of community member (community logic), active citizen (participatory democracy logic), and consumer (market logic); and three social worker identities, namely professional (professional logic), bureaucrat (State logic), and executor of management directives (corporation logic). The second conclusion is that identities and institutional logics coexist in well-established models for processing people and treatment deliberation, but the conditions for coexistence differ. For instance, evidence-based practice is characterized by segregation (a bureaucratic and a professional alignment have been separated from the original version of EBP), whereas family group conference and government by voucher are typified by assimilation (logics coexist with the core elements of original logics preserved). Keywords: social work, institutional logics, people processing, decision-making","PeriodicalId":53681,"journal":{"name":"Social Work and Social Sciences Review","volume":"21 1","pages":"46-66"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Work and Social Sciences Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1921/swssr.v21i3.1340","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article illustrates how the theory of institutional logics can be used for analyzing the identity of social workers and clients, focusing on people processing that precedes treatment (control access, assessment, and treatment deliberation, among others). The article has two research questions: (1) What identities of social workers and clients can be distinguished by institutional logics? (2) How are identities intertwined in practice (exemplified by well-established decision-making models such as evidence-based practice, family group conference, and government by voucher)? Identity is examined using institutional logics and the findings reported in the current body of social work literature. The article derives two conclusions. The first conclusion is that institutional logics can be used for distinguishing ideal type identities: three client identities, namely taken care of community member (community logic), active citizen (participatory democracy logic), and consumer (market logic); and three social worker identities, namely professional (professional logic), bureaucrat (State logic), and executor of management directives (corporation logic). The second conclusion is that identities and institutional logics coexist in well-established models for processing people and treatment deliberation, but the conditions for coexistence differ. For instance, evidence-based practice is characterized by segregation (a bureaucratic and a professional alignment have been separated from the original version of EBP), whereas family group conference and government by voucher are typified by assimilation (logics coexist with the core elements of original logics preserved). Keywords: social work, institutional logics, people processing, decision-making
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
服务提供中客户和社会工作者的身份认同:一个制度逻辑视角
本文阐述了制度逻辑理论如何用于分析社会工作者和客户的身份,重点关注治疗之前的人们处理(控制访问、评估和治疗审议等)。本文有两个研究问题:(1)制度逻辑可以区分社会工作者和案主的哪些身份?(2)身份在实践中是如何交织在一起的(以实证实践、家庭小组会议和代金券政府等成熟的决策模式为例)?身份是使用制度逻辑和目前社会工作文献中报告的发现来检查的。这篇文章得出了两个结论。第一个结论是制度逻辑可用于区分理想类型身份:三种客户身份,即照顾社区成员(社区逻辑)、积极公民(参与式民主逻辑)和消费者(市场逻辑);三种社会工作者身份,即专业人员(专业逻辑)、官僚人员(国家逻辑)和管理指令执行者(公司逻辑)。第二个结论是,在处理人和处理审议的成熟模式中,身份和制度逻辑共存,但共存的条件不同。例如,循证实践的特征是隔离(从EBP的原始版本中分离出官僚和专业的联盟),而家庭团体会议和凭证政府的特征是同化(逻辑共存,保留原始逻辑的核心要素)。关键词:社会工作,制度逻辑,人的处理,决策
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
Social Work and Social Sciences Review
Social Work and Social Sciences Review Social Sciences-Sociology and Political Science
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
12
期刊最新文献
Web-based mindfulness course for staff working in care homes in Wales for older people with dementia social inclusion of mental health service users in Brazil: Applying SCOPE-B scale Quality of life as a basis for system change Editorial: Celebrating the work of Peter Huxley Historical applications of the Goldberg and Huxley Pathway to Psychiatric Care Model
×
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