Professional core
principles

Reasserting professional principles of social work

Social work aims at achieving changes in people’s lives chiefly through their consensual participation in the required processes. Therefore, participation in practice is not an optional extra that applies only to selected situations but a fundamental
requirement of all forms of practice, even where there are compulsory constraints placed on the
interaction.

Global Definition of the Social Work Profession

„Social work is a practice-based profession and an academic discipline that promotes social change and development, social cohesion, and the empowerment and liberation of people. Principles of social justice, human rights, collective responsibility and respect for diversities are central to social work. Underpinned by theories of social work, social sciences, humanities and indigenous knowledges, social work engages people and structures to address life challenges and enhance wellbeing. The above definition may be amplified at national and/or regional levels.” (IFSW, 2014).

What constitutes the dignity of a person?

What factors can limit the capacity of a person to be self-determined?

In what sense does the
“Global Definition of Social Work” imply principles of participation?

“Diagnosis” between “objectivity and subjectivity”

The discussion on “subjectivity and objectivity” is misleading; instead, authors use the term “lived experience for the direct experience of the world which orientates a person’s self-conception and around which individuals organise their lives. This position is central, since it differs from an
understanding of meaning as singular and instead opens up meaning to be seen as an ongoing dialogue between alternatives”. (Lilja & Josephsson, 2017, 34).

Consequences:
This requires negotiating “access” to and understanding of service users’ life-world, background and the meaning frameworks within which they act and conduct their lives. Access and participation condition each other – neither is just a “technical” matter: The issue of inclusive participative environments is a multidimensional phenomenon anchored in aesthetic, cultural and political considerations.

List some factors which are used to define your identity “factually” (gender, age, passport etc.) – do they define their meaning for you?

When did hearing a service user’s description of a problem fall outside your own “lived experience”?

What emotional reactions did that trigger in you?

Participation requires ethical considerations

Bridging the divide between different worlds of meaning poses a considerable challenge and implies potential for conflict, misunderstandings and mistakes because it inevitably exposes status and power differentials of various kinds.

To safeguard all participants and to respect the vulnerability implied on all parts ethical standards need to be applied explicitly to all transactions so as to set acceptable limits to the extent to which personal details can be shared, emotions can be made subjects of learning and expectations for certain outcomes can be raised.

Consult the Code of Ethics for the social work profession in your country – which principles are most relevant for participatory approaches?

Where do you anticipate conflicts of interest
regarding the principle of confidentiality in contacts with service users?

Social work is a profession that expresses a certain
“vision” of society – Orientation options could be
- A just society
- A well functioning society
- A clearly structured society
- ….

What were the basic
motivations for you wanting to be a social worker?

All action and interaction take place within personal
value systems that include preconceptions, biases,
cultural traditions and fundamental personal beliefs.

Elements that make up a personal profile
Elements that make up a professional profile

In what situation do I become aware of my “guiding beliefs”?

Where do they coincide with
/ conflict with what is
expected of a social worker?

Preparation for and accompaniment of participative learning processes must therefore be guided by explicitly organised and guided opportunities for reflection.

Learning from reflection can only take place in a non- authoritarian context and relationships that allow also for ambiguity and mistakes to be openly
recognised (Sicora, 2017)

What kind of situations make me reflect?
What categories of topics does my reflecting activate? What circumstances and conditions facilitate my reflecting?

Reflecting - awareness - thinking

Reflecting is an essential and very specifically human capacity. It is linked to the notion of awareness and indicates that human actions are distinguished by individual purpose-giving that is in turn embedded in social and cultural sets of meaning.

Research on reflectivity demonstrates the neuro- scientific and psychological necessity of acknowledging the constant influence of pre- conscious conceptual social categories and structures which guide orientation but need to be subjected to processes of awareness in order to make interaction productive and creative.

What circumstances stimulate my awareness? What is awareness then focused on?
How do I perceive that awareness turns into reflection?
In what circumstances did I “learn to reflect”?

The ability to reflecting systematically legitimates professional autonomy AND accountability.

• Reflecting as necessity: professionals deal with such complex situations that regulations cannot capture in sufficient detail without becoming reductive

• Therefore, reflective practice requires references to detailed scientific knowledge on the basis of
  which professional decisions in individual
  constellations of circumstances can be legitimately made

• Personal factors (values, temperament, cultural background etc.) on the side of the professional not only cannot be excluded, but are an essential part of the professional “skills repertoire” if used from a critical, distanced position of “awareness”
  of their power implications

Think of any “social problem” you might have
encountered – what are the limitations of “simple
solutions” that might be suggested “without reflecting”?
What is the value and function of “professionalising examinations” and “accreditation” in
recognised professions? Should professionals appear “neutral”?

Political
dimensions

Reflection and democracy

Voting rights in a democracy are granted on the basis that mature citizens can make “rational
choices”.

Citizenship presupposes, but also stimulates, reflective abilities in organising one’s relationship with others.

Where these abilities are not (yet) fully developed, pedagogical assistance (not instruction!) is given,
e.g. in childhood, in rehabilitation, in therapy.

Proposal: “Democratic reflectivity” combines
critical aspects of participation and reflectivity in as much as it can guide “learning processes” in
interaction

- with professional colleagues (in teams, or through professional supervision)
- with service users individually or in organised group sessions or community settings

What kind of considerations guide you on political voting occasions?

How can you stimulate reflectivity in learning
situations?

Social and civil rights movements and their demands:

Social movements (feminism, black empowerment, civil rights, disability rights, gay rights …) criticise
their exclusion from exercising power and claim full participation in public decision-making processes as a right.

In response, international and national legislation opened up new or stronger participation and self- representation rights

Examples:

“Convention on the Rights of the Child” (UNICEF, https://www.unicef.org/child-rights-convention) or the UN “Convention on the Rights of Disabled
Persons” (https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments- mechanisms/instruments/declaration-rights- disabled-persons.

Democracy as an instrument for both inclusion and exclusion? “Grounds for optimism” are the
expansion of participation rights in many areas

Looking back in history,
where did you benefit from the participation claims by social movements?

In what areas are you or would you like to become active to campaign for better participation rights?

Where would you draw the line and limit public participation rights to
certain groups of people?

Participation as an
obligation

The neoliberal critique of prioritising citizen rights over citizen obligations.

Activation as pre-condition for participation

Examples:
“Workfare not welfare” (Reagan, Thatcher)
“The activated citizen”; “Welfare as trampoline not a hammock” (Schröder).

“In variance to the previous government (in Finland), the government in power from 2011–2015 that continued implementing policies for active citizenship and participation, changed the ideological focal point of Finnish citizenship from social rights and benefits to an obligation to work. This impacted the distribution of citizenship rights and duties in a way that increased inequality”(Matthies, Närhi, & Kokkonen, 2018, 10).

Watson (2015) found “that the conditionality of
workfare-based benefits has a depressive effect on any forms of participation, and in particular on forms of democratic political participation”.(ibid., 14)

How do you perceive your social rights as a citizen of your country – do they
make you feel secure that in crises you will be supported, or do they put you under pressure to “protect yourself”?

Discuss indications of the following phenomena in current political
statements: self-
responsibility, community orientation, civil society
resources, and the spirit of voluntarism … how can
the empowering core of such phrases be made effective against the
manipulative misuse of
such terms?

Privatisation of former public services is being advertised by governments as “giving service users as customers and consumers a wider range of options to choose from”.

Trends in the “outsourcing” of social and care services, creation of a “market of services” instead of the “monopoly” of state services create new forms and conditions of participation.

“Participation under ideology-determined social policy conditions of neoliberalism becomes “Janus faced… We argue that this type of two-fold participation paradigm deepens the disparity within society, as people dependent on welfare services and in a precarious labour market situation do not benefit from the greater freedoms, and instead have to behave according to the increased expectations
enforced by these freedoms” (Matthies, Närhi, & Kokkonen, 2018, 13).

Can public goods and services be treated like commercial goods and services?

What are the likely effects of the emphasis on personal choice for
equality in society?

Risks for a “mechanical” application
of
participation

The inflationary, prescribed use of participation can lead to the concept becoming
- “tokenism” (Beresford, 2010) due to “service users functioning as pawns rather than pioneers” (Roets et al., 2012),
- “confidence trick”, seducing service users into disclosing information over whose use they have no control and which aids primarily the “experts”,
- a mere “buzzword” that satisfies only superficial criteria without touching issues of power inequalities (Cornwall & Brock, 2005),
- a means of “reproducing subordination, inferiority, and powerlessness” because the issue of power in helping relationships is being obscured through the pretence of equality (Boone et al., 2019),

In what context does the invitation / condition to practice participation arise?

What is the declared and what is the hidden agenda of a programme that
makes a participatory approach to practice a condition?

In many countries, it is now a requirement that users of social services become engaged in teaching the social work curriculum.
Initiatives to involve service users can come from academic staff or from students themselves.

Pre-contact considerations:

- recourse to pre-existing contacts (through placements, academics involved in service agencies, participative research projects)

- clarification of “representation” (do user groups select speakers or does the academic side make direct contacts; speaking for themselves or on behalf of a group

- safeguarding vulnerability: engagements must be voluntary, contractual arrangements concerning confidentiality; boundary setting and offers of emotional and financial support for participation

- topics and objectives of presentations need to be clearly defined beforehand and if needed re-negotiated explicitly in the process.

What do I expect to learn from the direct encounter with accounts of experiences by service users?

What are they expecting to gain from the encounter?

What is the shared context that “frames” the
collaboration (e.g.
representatives from the neighbourhood of the faculty department, personal engagement by
students as volunteers etc)?

Opportunities for shared learning

Listening to “authentic voices” of “lived
experiences” functions as an encounter with “the unexpected”, with aspects and information that cannot be presented by written accounts, expert presentations, summary research findings.

The unexpected is likely to be controversial, one- sided, in conflict with “standard opinion”.

Choosing a secure setting is vital (preparation of a comfortable arrangement of a seminar room,
going outside the university to meet at a
community facility, experimenting with a “walking seminar”)

It requires, but also contributes to, an inclusive atmosphere in which differences of background, identity and power do not disappear (caution: “prescribed tolerance” can invalidate the encounter!) but can be openly acknowledged.

Learning aims at distinguishing between legitimate and imposed boundaries and differences and at negotiating mutually acceptable meanings given to those differences.

What did I expect to hear from the presenters?
Which of my own life experiences shaped my expectations?
With what kind of feelings confronted me “the unexpected”?

Which kind of environment communicates a sense of safety to the participants?

How can I constructively deal with strong emotions, in myself and in others?

Which parts of the
information confirm my existing understanding, which challenge this understanding?

Service users as presenters of their knowledge might not have any experience in sharing it with
“strangers”. This might impact and even distort the information conveyed in unintentional ways.

Presenters are very dependent on authentic
reactions to clarify “where they stand” in relation to the others. Insecurity infringes authenticity.

Divergences of interest between different presenters might arise during a session.

Service users may have experiences of hostility against their “voice” in a public context and
present their knowledge either in a self-blaming or in a defensive manner. Such reactions might
increase their vulnerability.

How can I express “active listening”?

With what kind of reactions can I facilitate the learning opportunities of the
presenter?

What are the indicators of “genuine appreciation”?

- Reflective diaries (the dynamic transfer of non-linear impressions,
collected during encounters in practice contexts, to the linear process of
writing sentences is a process that mirrors the direction in which reflecting “systematises” elements of conscious and pre-conscious mental material)

- “Context sampling” (photography, audio-recording, representative objects etc. can amplify the memorisation of incidents and impressions and provide material for the “re-creation” of practice situations under
supervision; this tool underlines the different perspectives that can be taken on given situations)

- “critical incidents” (the re-construction from memory of situations that posed specific challenges and the considerations that were examined as options for intervention, as well as their theoretical and methodological
grounding)

Tools aiding
participants to have “voice”
and “tell their story”

- Life story graphs (templates for the sequential visualisation of significant life events in response to critical context changes; see example below and context in case illustration on INORP output 4, case example Ghent)

- Photography, sketching, audio-recording (handing appropriate recording gadgets for autonomous use to service users can collect material under their control. Discussions on the product allow them to attribute their personal
meaning to the items sampled)

- Story boards (specially for children, adults with communication difficulties who find it difficult to verbalise impressions, feelings and views, see
reference below)

Digital communication technology is frequently portrayed as automatically enlarging participation opportunities. This may be true in certain cases but professionals must raise the issue of “access justice and equality”.
“It is not just that those who care about cultural and political participation should attend to differences in access, as they may reflect and perpetuate existing power differentials. We must go further, delving into how it is that specific forms of technology, regulations of media, types of content, and uses of digital media challenge existing structures of power and ideologies of identity by revealing what is hidden by mainstream advertising or utopian discourses surrounding new media”. (Ellcessor, 2016, p. 197).

Creating
supportive
and effective conditions

Participation by service users in finding solutions is not optional but a core condition of professional social work.

Meaningful participation arrangements combine the following considerations:
- Recognition of past experiences with officials and services
- Acknowledgement of power differences, statutory responsibilities, legal constraints
- Acceptance of multiple perspectives on “problems”
- Attention to the material dimensions of somebody’s need
- Attention to the emotional implications of an expression of need

Krumer-Nevo & Barak (2007, 37) conclude from
their research that the “clients’ plea not to separate their emotional needs from concrete, material needs is very important, especially in times when practice which deals with the “depth” of feelings, emotions and relationships is often abandoned by the preoccupation with the “surface” managerial agenda of outcomes and accountability”…

For what precise purpose is it important to hear and
strengthen the voice of service users before and during intervention?

Am I prepared to deal with conflicting versions of “need”?

Am I aware of the extent and the limits of my professional power?

Recognising strengths
and agency
in relation to constraints

Research findings (ibid p. 38): overcoming the “deficit perspective”
The first is their call to be heard and seen not only through their weaknesses and “pathologies,” but
through their strengths and the power of their will.
Second: it is the duty of professionals to be
knowledgeable about the real life conditions of poverty and the lack of genuine opportunities, and to take upon themselves the role of the
“middleperson” who “educates” the public about the experiences and consequences of poverty.

The collaborative approach assumes that all families have competences (as well as a lack of competences) and are entities which experience to solve problems (e.g. Berg & De Jong, 1996).

“Our results demonstrate that if social work aims to support participation and involvement in active citizenship, a genuine respect for service users has to be evident by taking seriously their perspectives, knowledge, and experiences about services” (Matthies, Närhi, & Kokkonen, 2018, 15).

According to what kind of criteria did I construct my version of “what is the problem”?

Can I see strength and competence in the way in which a service user tried to deal with a problem?

Have I checked the legal
requirements that “frame”  the encounter with a service user?

How do I communicate these?

epistemic rights: the ‘distribution of rights and responsibilities regarding what participants can
accountably know, how they know it, whether they have rights to describe it, and in what terms’ (Heritage and Raymond, 2005, p 15). Service users are supposed to have epistemic authority (‘ownership’) of their own inner thoughts and experiences as well as knowledge of their personal life histories, whereas people in the medical,
psychological and social work professions, among others, are expected to possess knowledge because they have educational qualifications based on these formal domains of knowledge.
Intervening on the basis of a trusting relationship
appears as central in all research, however it requires the distinction between “personal friendship” and “professional friendship” (e.g.
Ribner and Knei-Paz, 2002; Saar-Heiman, Lavie-
Ajayi, & Krumer-Nevo, 2017).

What are the differences between mine and the service user’s “framing” of the problem?
How do I deal with the discrepancy?

In which circumstances do I make reference to my professional qualifications?

What allows me to feel and express sympathy for a service user?
How am I prepared to deal with feelings of rejection, repulsion, hostility?

Outcomes in participative approaches are largely
unpredictable.

Agreed or contractual premises must therefore include what is to be gained in the process and what are the objectives stated from both sides.
“Intervention occurs as a compromise between the professional and the family, in a context of respect and cultural curiosity” (Sousa & Costa, 2010, 444).
Nevertheless, service users can rightly expect tangible outcomes in terms of their material and their emotional needs and in terms of possible
changes in my organisational approach to them and in wider social policies.

Participative approaches aim to make social
citizenship a lived, embodied experience for the
participants (Huber et al., 2019).

What would for me be the best possible outcome of the intervention?

Which are the differences between my and the
service users’ notion of an “ideal solution”?

Does my experiencing “the case” induce me to question the adequacy of existing service provisions or social policies?

Is familiar with core social work principles Understands the importance, but also the
ambiguities involved in participative approaches Is familiar with the social policy trends prevailing nationally and internationally
Has a differentiated understanding of ethical standards and their application in sensitive situations

Applying
knowledge and understanding

Can plan an encounter with a service user group by applying the above knowledge
Can give a reasoned account for a planned collaborative intervention
Can prepare action options when developments in participation take unexpected turns

Gather and interpret relevant data, reflection on relevant social, scientific or ethical issues

Has examined own values, concepts, feelings, prejudices critically
Is familiar with and has experienced guided reflection for professional purposes
Can apply ethical criteria in ambiguous and conflictual situations
Can understand service users’ feelings, priorities and expressions against the background of their personal background and the wider social, cultural and political context

can communicate
information, ideas, problems and solutions to both specialist and non specialist audiences

Has learned to express professional and diagnostic concepts in simple language
Can distinguish in interactions with service users between what is being said and what is being meant
Can give a professional account for choosing
collaborative approaches in social work

Have developed those learning skills that are necessary for them to continue to undertake further study with a high degree of autonomy

Has developed skills in reflectivity
Has developed skills in preparing encounters with service users
Has learned to relate personal and emotional expressions to a wider social and political context
Has learned to recognise the limitations of
knowledge acquired at this stage of training.

International level of rights:
“Convention on the Rights of the Child” (UNICEF, https://www.unicef.org/child-rights-convention) – article 12:” Children have the right to give their opinions freely on issues that affect them. Adults should listen and take children seriously.”

Nevertheless: national law imposes limitations, e.g.
- Access to children may require court sanction
- Children may only be interviewed on consent of parents
- Young children cannot give meaningful consent

Agency context:
- Professionals working in non-government child protection roles can more easily adopt an “inductive approach” (letting the problem definition emerge) to problem identification and solution with children and families.
Can place more emphasis on relationship aspects from the outset
- Those working in statutory roles, or those whose roles closely aligned to statutory. practice, are
mostly limited to see participation as involving service users around problems as already defined, in large part, by the statutory agency.
Need to focus on obtaining accurate and substantive evidence

To what extent does my intervention plan
correspond to the articles of the UN Convention?

How well informed am I about legal limitations to involving children directly?

To what extent does my agency context
determine the framing of the worrying issues under discussion?

In cases of concerns about child welfare and protection, the following formal scenarios pose challenges to the extent children can be directly
express Voice and become involved in decision-making:

Child Protection Conferences: “there is a substantial body of evidence indicating that, despite children’s social care meetings with professionals and families being a key forum for making decisions (Healy and Darlington, 2009), many meetings such as child protection case conferences do not seem to embody or enable principles of self-determination for parents and children. Perhaps because of this, they are often reported to be very difficult for parents and, when they attend, children” (see Hall and Slembrouck, 2001). Cited in Stabler, 2020 p. 30.

Family group conferencing is a way of transforming decision making and planning for children into a process led by family members … Children and young people can also be directly involved in their family group conference, usually with the support of an advocate. (ibid) Families here can be given more responsibility for making decisions – and taking
responsibility for achieving the set goals. (see Marsh & Crow, 1998; Ashley et al., 2006).

Family Team Decision Making / Family Involvement Meetings and joined case planning have been
introduced in many different contexts globally. “Including parents in planning could be a motivating force for parents to work alongside professionals to make agreed plans work, increasing the likelihood of
change” (Featherstone et al, 2019).

What structural, organisational and relational factors may impact the manner in which a child takes
“voice” in each of these scenarios?

To what extent can your role modify the extent of direct participation by
children in each scenario?

Prevailing background:
Findings indicated that only a small minority of children were aware of different ways in which their views could be provided at the meeting. Most of the children who attended conferences found them difficult and few
felt even partly listened to. The authors highlighted the potential harm caused from participation where children are not adequately prepared or offered choice in how to participate. (Stabler, 2020, p.32 reporting on UK commission finding)

Research on children’s experiences and preferences emphasise the following key principles for achieving more positive outcomes:

• Collaboration and engagement: before the meeting working with the child/young person so that they are fully prepared for what the meeting is about, what it will look like, what might be shared; during the meeting the child/young person has access to an advocate to support them to take part; after the meeting the child/ young person is offered support that  is relevant to their preferences and needs based on people at the meeting having listened to what they had to say.

• Building trust and reducing shame: before the meeting the child/ young person is given choices around elements of the meeting, such as where it will be held, who might attend to support them, where everyone should sit; during the meeting the child/young person has some control over how they are involved in the meeting, and are able to leave the room as they need to; after the meeting the process of having participated and shared in a meeting, and having been responded to in a positive way, can build confidence and encourage the child/young person to actively participate in decisions about their lives.

• Enabling participation in decision making during the meeting ensuring involvement throughout the meeting, rather than just including children and young people at a point specified for ‘the child’s voice’;
after the meeting ensuring that the child/young person understands fully what was discussed, the decisions that were made and the reasons behind them. (Stabler, 2020, p. 34)

In what circumstances can participation by
children in meetings / conferences be
meaningless, in which potentially harmful?

What are the factors that prevent a
participating child from taking part in
discussions?

What are the consequences for your preparation for family meetings drawn from research findings?

Can you suggest
improvements in the law of your country
that would give
children a stronger voice in decision-
making over their lives?

Basic and specific
aspects of participation in relation to
disability

Consideration to the international and national legal framework of the rights of people with
disability: UN “Convention on the Rights of Disabled Persons” (https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments- mechanisms/instruments/declaration-rights- disabled-persons).

Practical consequences for social work of regarding
disability as a “social construct”:
- Co-construction of knowledge (“People First” motto: “nothing about us without us”
- Going beyond individual orientation in interventions to reach structural level
- Recognising multi-perspectivity

Importance of the social model of disability: “the subjective meanings individuals with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (IDD) attribute to their own lives, their dreams and their aspirations continue, in many cases, are being ignored” (Neuman, 2020)

Critical questions regarding participation and disability:
“Are the participatory frameworks in policy discourses and academic literature truly meaningful for all people with disability or older adults?
Is participation simply a matter of personal will and choice or are there also structural and practical barriers to universal access?
And finally, how does the encouragement of participative practices in old age impact the experiences and identities of older people with disabilities?” (Raymond & Grenier, 2014, 51).

Participation needs to be conceptualised and applied as fluid and multifaceted:
“The meaning that a person with disability attaches to her participation is multifaceted and has a capacity to change over time as well as in everyday situations, depending on how these play out… If the lived experience of participation is more to be seen as a verb, something you do, then the core of assessment shifts from measurement to active collaboration and dialogue”. (Lilja & Josephsson, 2017, 38).

What direct experiences of encounters with people with disability do I have?

To what extent can I consider my own abilities to be limited?

What are the main factors why people with disability are not
prominently presented in public debates / events?

In which areas did people with disability gain
greater visibility and voice recently?

Priorities set by people with disability
according to research

Study of research findings

1. Self-determination: “participation was not only framed as ‘success’, ‘independence’ or ‘fulfilment’, as contemporary discourses may
suggest, but the possibility of making choices about how they would participate in society” (Raymond & Grenier, 2014, 54).

2. Inclusive environments: “Research draws attention to the importance of shifting responsibility for inclusive practices to society, rather than onto the individual. Yet, despite this need for a societal solution, some research participants held an individual responsibility for their integration”. (ibid., 56)

3. Identity integration / intersectionality: “Participants alluded to at least three identity postures grounded in the connexion of ageing and disability: that of older citizens who are equal to others, that of long-term activists struggling for social justice and that of persons who are living the tensions between ageing and ageing with a disability” (ibid. 57).

Which of these priorities set by people with disability coincide with core social work principles, which go beyond them?

How do you understand intersectionality and the importance of identity policies in relation to disability?

The social model of disability: focused on the critique of oppressive practices

The rights approach stresses the role of legal instruments in protecting the well-being of people with disabilities

The developmental approach is associated with the integration of people with disabilities into the social and economic life of the community and goes beyond offering “individualised solutions”

The participative turn:

The rights-based, developmental approach

1. emphasizes the leadership of people with disabilities and their organizations in campaigning for rights, services, and opportunities. It also recognizes their right to self determination and to be protected against discrimination.,

2. a rights-based, developmental approach places emphasis on community living and seeks to normalize living arrangements of people with disabilities.

3. To promote economic and social integration, it requires social investments that ensure the acquisition of educational qualifications and skills that facilitate the full participation of people with disabilities in the productive economy. (Knapp & Midgley, 2010, 94)

The ”Dare to Dream” Project (Neuman, & Bryen, 2022). See below

How do you understand the interaction of the “material” and the “constructed” aspects of disability in your approach to
intervention?

Beyond which threshold does the application of a “rights approach” problematic in relation to work with people with disabilities)

In view of the complexity of the sample issues students have acquired knowledge and understanding that goes questions
and goes beyond existing models of explanation and intervention

Each of the sample areas contain a multiplicity of intersectional factors; students are able to priorities and combine knowledge situation- specifically to negotiate and act upon the needs articulated by service users professionally and accountably

Integrate knowledge and handle complexity, reflecting on social and ethical responsibilities linked to the application of their knowledge and judgements

Students have learned to make judgements and decisions on intervention strategies by way of integrating ethical, scientific, political and psychological considerations flexibly but according to transparent presentation of evidence

can communicate their conclusions, and the knowledge and rationale under pinning these, to specialist and non specialist audiences clearly and unambiguously

Graduates have practised their communication skills in a variety of very different contexts (student seminars, scientific debates, meetings with user groups, discussions with community representatives and policy makers)

Students are aware of the extent and the limitations of the specialised knowledge acquired in the course of this programme and are motivated to continue applying reflective learning skills in their professional practice.

Research traditions
and trends

Objectivity and subjectivity in human science research

Epistemology between positivism and post- modern relativism

Contexts and interpretations of “Evidence Based Practice”

What reasons justify researcher objectivity?

How can detachment and neutrality prevent you from obtaining meaningful insights into your research topic?

What counts for you as
“evidence” in professional social work practice?

Types and pragmatics of research partnerships in view of limitations imposed by
- Ethical standards (e.g. research
interfering in people’s coping abilities, mental health)
- Limitations in abilities (e.g. children, people with severe disabilities)
- Professional limitations (e.g. delinquency, domestic violence, abuse)

What could be undesirable outcomes of my research project?

Which criteria distinguish desirable from undesirable research outcomes?

Forms and levels of
participatory approaches to research; example of CBPR

- Community-controlled and -managed, no professional researchers involved.
- Community-controlled with professional researchers managed by and working for the community.
- Co-production – equal partnership between professional researchers and community
members.
- Controlled by professional researchers but with greater or lesser degrees of
community partnership, for example:
– Advisory group involved in research design or dissemination.
– Trained community researchers undertake some/all of data
gathering, analysis and writing.
– Professional researcher uses participatory methods (e.g. young people take photos), Banks et al., 2013)

– Advisory group involved in research design or dissemination.
– Trained community researchers undertake some/all of data gathering, analysis and writing.
– Professional researcher uses participatory methods (e.g. young people take photos), Banks et al., 2013)

Proposal: “Democratic partnership”
“Democratic partnership means that social workers, while constructing partnership with families, are driven by a desire for engagement with an ongoing, ambiguous, uncertain, open and undetermined experiment of social work in a diversity of situations.” (Roose et al., 2013, 454)

What is the intended level of community / user involvement in your research project?

Are the levels decided
beforehand or do you intend a widening of involvement in the course of the research process?

What kind of practical
arrangements would “democratic partnership” require to operate in the case of your project?

Legal obligations and constraints on research approaches
- Participation as a right (e.g.
international Conventions regarding children and people with disabilities)
- Privacy and confidentiality in research
- Role and function of ethical research and review committees and approval procedures
- Prevention of harm in national
legislation and Codes of Ethics

In which areas does my research project touch on
- International rights conventions
- National legal frameworks
- Professional codes of ethics
- Agency regulations?

How am I prepared for dealing with possible discrepancies and conflicts between these frameworks?

Ethics and
perspectivity

Ethics and interests: Research is not limited to “recording” existing conditions of reality but has the purpose of questioning their
origins and legitimacy.

Participative research is therefore likely to encounter conflicts regarding
- Ideological / political frameworks
- Ownership of information and data
- Academic interest positions (disciplinary rivalry, schools of thought, university politics, journal review and publication policies…)

What interests does my proposed research project imply / express?

On “whose side” do I stand with
regard to conflicting interest groups concerning my research project?

Benefits of upholding ethical
standards for service users

Knowledge production value in different contexts and their interrelationship:
- Academic contexts of “increasing knowledge” for innovative understanding
- Professional contexts of “improving effectiveness of practice”
- Lived experience context (service users) of “gaining in agency” (coping)

What are the declared, what are the hidden outcome objectives of my research project?

Which conflicts may arise from the incompatibility of objectives in the different context scenarios?

What are my primary value objectives?

Case study of selected international and national research programmes relevant to social work issues and their funding agendas
– typologies of “participation” implicit and explicit in the programmes

How does the “participation terminology” of selected programmes compare to my understanding of
participation?

Overview of types of contracts in research funding programmes – flexibility and limitations with regard to changes arising from the implementation of a participation approach

To what degree can partners modify the objectives of the research project within the
limits of the research contract?

Dissemination and
implementation conditions

Ownership and authorship types of research findings

From research to policy making

What types of rights and
responsibilities of publishing and disseminating results can be shared among project partners?

What happens after the ending of a project period?

Intellectual pathways leading up to the topic choice

Biographical motivation and corresponding experiences

Political and ethical principles that will be “tested” by the proposed research topic

Which parts and themes of my previous studies connect me to this research topic?

Can I translate my personal motives into motives that
might be shared by the other participants without imposing them?

To what extent am I prepared
/ do I need to declare my value position when approaching a user group and how does this relate to principles of
“scientific neutrality”?

In most cases of practice-relevant research access to service user groups will be
mediated by professionals and organizations in the field who will then remain members of the research partnership.

Finding partners at both levels requires considerations of
- Negotiation of shared aims and objectives
- Boundary-setting to prevent research from interfering with work / increasing risks and vulnerabilities
- Clarification of “representation” (partners speaking for themselves of a group)
- The issue of “hard to reach groups” of
service users (not not-yet service users)

Which service agencies can best mediate access to user groups?

Can the involvement of agencies and professionals
influence the way service users express their “voice”?

What is “typical”, what is probably person-specific about the life experience of a service user?
Has a group of service users already been constituted or does my research project
require the establishment of such a group?

The actuality of the proposed research topic in academic discourses nationally and internationally

The actuality (or lack of) of the proposed research topic in current political debates nationally and internationally

Origins of the research interest (funding programme / agency, service agency, user group commission, own commission …)

Research funding conditions as expressions of a political agenda

In which academic contexts is the topic being discussed?
Is the topic discipline-specific or interdisciplinary?

To what extent are the academic discourses based on participative research?

What are the links between academic and political interests in the topic?

Can the funding conditions for research topic affect the political treatment of the topic?

Participative approaches as part of the research funding conditions and their
relation to personal priorities, motivations and hypotheses concerning outcomes.

Issues of power differentials – risk of academics determining “the agenda” for practitioners and for service users and ways of addressing this risk

Distinguishing own expectations from those of other partners – issue of “raising
expectations and not fulfilling them”

Own position in the scientific community

How can I avoid that the participative approach may be perceived by service users as “tokenism”?

To what extent can I relativise my power position as an academic and in what way can power differentials be
reduced?

Does my proposal raise expectations among service users which cannot be fulfilled?

What are the implications of choosing a participative approach for my career
prospects?

Examination of participative research
methods and strategies in relation to their suitability and effectiveness in relation to the proposed research topics (participatory action research, PAR; Community-based participative research, CBPR; family history research; participative ethnographic research)

Status of research as “independent” or “contractual”

Boundaries of confidentiality and privacy

What are the strengths and
limitations of the participative research strategies I take into consideration?
To what extent to I need to
modify them and according to what type of considerations?

Do my research strategies allow me to distance myself from the agendas of the partners?

How do confidentiality conditions impact my research
approach?

Modes of presenting results (causal explanations, descriptive phenomena, shared narratives …)

“Ownership” of research findings – whose benefit?

Dealing with unexpected results Modes of dissemination
Policy implications

Who and what determines the mode of presenting my
research results?

How can “benefits” arising from findings be shared?

How do I prepare for findings that might render partners (more) vulnerable?

Systematic understanding,
mastery of research

Can place participatory research approaches in the wider context of research methods and their political implications

original research that extends the frontier of knowledge;
capable of critical analysis, evaluation and synthesis of new and complex ideas

Has a solid grounding in ethical considerations implied in participatory approaches to research; can weigh up benefits and risks for different partner groups and research levels

can communicate with their peers, the larger scholarly community and with society in general about their areas of expertise

Can communicate aims and objectives sensitively and authentically to all partner groups; can give a grounded public account of research objectives, methods and outcomes

Can contribute to the further development of participative research approaches in social work and their use in professional practice