反对党的社区工作

Q3 Social Sciences Journal of Comparative Social Work Pub Date : 2020-12-11 DOI:10.31265/jcsw.v15i2.304
C. Svensson, V. Nielsen
{"title":"反对党的社区工作","authors":"C. Svensson, V. Nielsen","doi":"10.31265/jcsw.v15i2.304","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A number of tensions pertaining to social problems and human suffering become apparent when analysing community work in a Danish welfare setting. As a source for critical reflection, we discern some of these challenges, but also potentials, which relate not only to a Danish context, but to challenges in any highly institutionalized welfare system. Three community work social enterprises serve to exemplify the objectives of addressing social problems by fostering participation and empowerment. To enhance and include the voice of service users, the programmes attempt to cultivate human resources as opposed to perceived formalism and a subsequent diminishment of the potentials of community inclusion. The formalistic governmental agendas are perceived to be unable to appreciate the diversity of service users’ individual needs and social challenges, which produces conflicting prospects. Such a dichotomy between formalistic welfare practices and the ideals represented in the three enterprises offers a podium for users, professionals, policymakers and researchers to consider alternative expressions of community work, and how these can address social problems. We maintain that rapidly changing welfare models require an increased sensitivity to human suffering as a position embedded in the habitus and sociological imagination of community work. It is a source for reflection on the role of welfare arenas perceived as spaces in which service users ideally, based on their own social situation, can improve their social circumstances. It is an invitation to reflect on the potentials of community work in a diversity of cultures and practices.","PeriodicalId":37599,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Comparative Social Work","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Community Work as Opposition\",\"authors\":\"C. Svensson, V. Nielsen\",\"doi\":\"10.31265/jcsw.v15i2.304\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"A number of tensions pertaining to social problems and human suffering become apparent when analysing community work in a Danish welfare setting. As a source for critical reflection, we discern some of these challenges, but also potentials, which relate not only to a Danish context, but to challenges in any highly institutionalized welfare system. Three community work social enterprises serve to exemplify the objectives of addressing social problems by fostering participation and empowerment. To enhance and include the voice of service users, the programmes attempt to cultivate human resources as opposed to perceived formalism and a subsequent diminishment of the potentials of community inclusion. The formalistic governmental agendas are perceived to be unable to appreciate the diversity of service users’ individual needs and social challenges, which produces conflicting prospects. Such a dichotomy between formalistic welfare practices and the ideals represented in the three enterprises offers a podium for users, professionals, policymakers and researchers to consider alternative expressions of community work, and how these can address social problems. We maintain that rapidly changing welfare models require an increased sensitivity to human suffering as a position embedded in the habitus and sociological imagination of community work. It is a source for reflection on the role of welfare arenas perceived as spaces in which service users ideally, based on their own social situation, can improve their social circumstances. It is an invitation to reflect on the potentials of community work in a diversity of cultures and practices.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37599,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Comparative Social Work\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-12-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Comparative Social Work\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.31265/jcsw.v15i2.304\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Comparative Social Work","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31265/jcsw.v15i2.304","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

摘要

在分析丹麦福利环境中的社区工作时,与社会问题和人类苦难有关的一些紧张关系变得显而易见。作为批判性反思的来源,我们发现了其中一些挑战,但也发现了潜力,这些挑战不仅与丹麦的背景有关,而且与任何高度制度化的福利制度中的挑战有关。三个社区工作社会企业体现了通过促进参与和赋权来解决社会问题的目标。为了提高和包括服务用户的发言权,这些方案试图培养人力资源,而不是被认为的形式主义和随后削弱社区包容性的潜力。形式主义的政府议程被认为无法理解服务用户个人需求和社会挑战的多样性,这产生了相互矛盾的前景。形式主义福利实践和三家企业所代表的理想之间的这种二分法为用户、专业人士、政策制定者和研究人员提供了一个平台,让他们考虑社区工作的替代表达方式,以及这些方式如何解决社会问题。我们坚持认为,快速变化的福利模式需要提高对人类苦难的敏感性,这是嵌入社区工作的习惯和社会学想象中的一个位置。这是一个反思福利领域作用的来源,福利领域被视为服务用户理想情况下可以根据自己的社会状况改善其社会环境的空间。这是一项邀请,旨在反思社区工作在各种文化和实践中的潜力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Community Work as Opposition
A number of tensions pertaining to social problems and human suffering become apparent when analysing community work in a Danish welfare setting. As a source for critical reflection, we discern some of these challenges, but also potentials, which relate not only to a Danish context, but to challenges in any highly institutionalized welfare system. Three community work social enterprises serve to exemplify the objectives of addressing social problems by fostering participation and empowerment. To enhance and include the voice of service users, the programmes attempt to cultivate human resources as opposed to perceived formalism and a subsequent diminishment of the potentials of community inclusion. The formalistic governmental agendas are perceived to be unable to appreciate the diversity of service users’ individual needs and social challenges, which produces conflicting prospects. Such a dichotomy between formalistic welfare practices and the ideals represented in the three enterprises offers a podium for users, professionals, policymakers and researchers to consider alternative expressions of community work, and how these can address social problems. We maintain that rapidly changing welfare models require an increased sensitivity to human suffering as a position embedded in the habitus and sociological imagination of community work. It is a source for reflection on the role of welfare arenas perceived as spaces in which service users ideally, based on their own social situation, can improve their social circumstances. It is an invitation to reflect on the potentials of community work in a diversity of cultures and practices.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Comparative Social Work
Journal of Comparative Social Work Social Sciences-Social Sciences (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
7
审稿时长
25 weeks
期刊介绍: This journal promotes contributions, discussions and an exchange of knowledge on Social Work issues. Social Work is a line of work carried out by trained professionals, or "Social Workers", in many different countries. Accordingly, the nature of social work can vary widely. However, its broad aim is to assess and meet people''s social needs by providing services that enable them to live in safety, independence and dignity. In order to appropriately cater to the needs of the people they serve, the practices, aims and values of Social Workers must reflect the cultural and social norms of the society in which they operate. Comparative social work emphasizes comparative studies of social work between different countries, cultures and contexts. The journal aims to support practitioners and academics alike through its discussions of matters relevant to Social Work Practice. This journal publishes two types of peer-reviewed scientific articles on subjects of importance for social work, with a special emphasis on comparative research on different aspects. This includes: -Comparative studies -Single site studies that also generate insight and knowledge in various geographical/cultural and national settings. We also welcome essays discussing/reflecting relevant subjects from an individual point of view, and at least two members of our editorial board will review such papers (maximum of 3,000 words). The JCSW was founded in 2006 and is currently hosted by the University of Stavanger, in cooperation with the University of Agder and the University of Nordland.
期刊最新文献
use of vignettes in an international comparative social work research Migrant healthcare assistants’ decision to work in long-term care User involvement or aspirations management? Becoming a social worker Professional work in the balance between care and control
×
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