Reflexivity and participation in communities

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”?