Reflexivity and participation in communities

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?