理解风险:社会工作在关怀与控制之间的边界

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q3 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Health Risk & Society Pub Date : 2022-11-23 DOI:10.1080/13698575.2022.2147904
Ravit Alfandari, B. Taylor, M. Baginsky, Jim Campbell, Duncan Helm, Campbell Killick, P. Mccafferty, J. Mullineux, J. Shears, Alessandro Sicora, A. Whittaker
{"title":"理解风险:社会工作在关怀与控制之间的边界","authors":"Ravit Alfandari, B. Taylor, M. Baginsky, Jim Campbell, Duncan Helm, Campbell Killick, P. Mccafferty, J. Mullineux, J. Shears, Alessandro Sicora, A. Whittaker","doi":"10.1080/13698575.2022.2147904","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract ‘Risk’ has become a central concept for social work practice in countries with more developed social welfare systems. As argued by Hazel Kemshall and colleagues, ‘risk’ has often replaced ‘need’ as the main driver for social work interventions as societies seek to avoid harm to citizens. This shift of focus raises a tension between care (support for the individual or family in their own right) and control (seeking to prevent harm to themselves, each other or other citizens). This article considers some of the key developments in the 25 years since the above article, including the development of risk communication; the growing familiarity with both likelihood and severity concepts of risk; the assessment of risk as part of organisational arrangements to manage risk; and theoretical developments linking social work assessment, ‘working with risk’ and decision-making. In the first part of the article, we explore the care versus control boundary through focussing, in turn, on child and family social work, adult care services, mental health social work and criminal justice social work, and their respective developments. We then further extend two key foci regarding assessment and care planning as well as the use of professional knowledge at the care and control boundary. Our analysis of these developments points towards more nuanced approaches to managing risk and making decisions at these sometimes contentious boundaries.","PeriodicalId":47341,"journal":{"name":"Health Risk & Society","volume":"24 1","pages":"75 - 92"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Making Sense of Risk: Social Work at the Boundary between Care and Control\",\"authors\":\"Ravit Alfandari, B. Taylor, M. Baginsky, Jim Campbell, Duncan Helm, Campbell Killick, P. Mccafferty, J. Mullineux, J. Shears, Alessandro Sicora, A. Whittaker\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13698575.2022.2147904\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract ‘Risk’ has become a central concept for social work practice in countries with more developed social welfare systems. As argued by Hazel Kemshall and colleagues, ‘risk’ has often replaced ‘need’ as the main driver for social work interventions as societies seek to avoid harm to citizens. This shift of focus raises a tension between care (support for the individual or family in their own right) and control (seeking to prevent harm to themselves, each other or other citizens). This article considers some of the key developments in the 25 years since the above article, including the development of risk communication; the growing familiarity with both likelihood and severity concepts of risk; the assessment of risk as part of organisational arrangements to manage risk; and theoretical developments linking social work assessment, ‘working with risk’ and decision-making. In the first part of the article, we explore the care versus control boundary through focussing, in turn, on child and family social work, adult care services, mental health social work and criminal justice social work, and their respective developments. We then further extend two key foci regarding assessment and care planning as well as the use of professional knowledge at the care and control boundary. Our analysis of these developments points towards more nuanced approaches to managing risk and making decisions at these sometimes contentious boundaries.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47341,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health Risk & Society\",\"volume\":\"24 1\",\"pages\":\"75 - 92\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-11-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health Risk & Society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13698575.2022.2147904\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Risk & Society","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13698575.2022.2147904","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

在社会福利制度较为发达的国家,“风险”已经成为社会工作实践的核心概念。正如Hazel Kemshall及其同事所指出的那样,“风险”经常取代“需求”成为社会工作干预的主要驱动力,因为社会寻求避免对公民造成伤害。这种焦点的转移引起了照顾(支持个人或家庭本身的权利)和控制(寻求防止伤害自己、彼此或其他公民)之间的紧张关系。本文考虑了自上一篇文章以来25年的一些关键发展,包括风险沟通的发展;对风险的可能性和严重性概念的日益熟悉;对风险进行评估,作为管理风险的组织安排的一部分;以及将社会工作评估、“与风险合作”和决策联系起来的理论发展。在文章的第一部分,我们通过关注儿童和家庭社会工作、成人护理服务、心理健康社会工作和刑事司法社会工作及其各自的发展来探讨照顾与控制的界限。然后,我们进一步扩展了关于评估和护理计划的两个关键焦点,以及在护理和控制边界使用专业知识。我们对这些发展的分析指出了在这些有时有争议的边界上管理风险和做出决策的更微妙的方法。
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
Making Sense of Risk: Social Work at the Boundary between Care and Control
Abstract ‘Risk’ has become a central concept for social work practice in countries with more developed social welfare systems. As argued by Hazel Kemshall and colleagues, ‘risk’ has often replaced ‘need’ as the main driver for social work interventions as societies seek to avoid harm to citizens. This shift of focus raises a tension between care (support for the individual or family in their own right) and control (seeking to prevent harm to themselves, each other or other citizens). This article considers some of the key developments in the 25 years since the above article, including the development of risk communication; the growing familiarity with both likelihood and severity concepts of risk; the assessment of risk as part of organisational arrangements to manage risk; and theoretical developments linking social work assessment, ‘working with risk’ and decision-making. In the first part of the article, we explore the care versus control boundary through focussing, in turn, on child and family social work, adult care services, mental health social work and criminal justice social work, and their respective developments. We then further extend two key foci regarding assessment and care planning as well as the use of professional knowledge at the care and control boundary. Our analysis of these developments points towards more nuanced approaches to managing risk and making decisions at these sometimes contentious boundaries.
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
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
14.30%
发文量
23
期刊介绍: Health Risk & Society is an international scholarly journal devoted to a theoretical and empirical understanding of the social processes which influence the ways in which health risks are taken, communicated, assessed and managed. Public awareness of risk is associated with the development of high profile media debates about specific risks. Although risk issues arise in a variety of areas, such as technological usage and the environment, they are particularly evident in health. Not only is health a major issue of personal and collective concern, but failure to effectively assess and manage risk is likely to result in health problems.
期刊最新文献
Risk factors for mental health and wellness: children’s perspectives from five Majority World Countries The role of trust in government and risk perception in adherence to COVID-19 prevention measures: survey findings among young people in Luxembourg Reassessing social trust: gossip, self-policing, and Covid-19 risk communication in Norway Organisational learning, or organised irresponsibility? Risk, opacity and lesson learning about mental health related deaths The “risk object” of cannabis edibles: perspectives from young adults in Canada
×
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