The Practice Guide

Before we present a more structured exercise in collaborative participation, we first list motivating ideas and topics that we have developed through three years of discussion. 

Our initial literature review (Blomberg et al., 2022) and subsequent discussions with project partners have shown that participation is a fluid and highly situated form of practice. It is more akin to a spiral or multilevel field than a ladder that citizens or practitioners can climb to higher levels (Arnstein 1969).

Based on our experience, we recognize that participants in all collaborative activities bring multiple perspectives and positions arising from their different life and professional experiences. This variety of motivations, aspirations and learning styles creates a rich yet demanding environment for collaborative learning. Each participant gains their own knowledge, and there are also collective insights from practical activities. However, this requires continuous clarifications of what is happening through individual and collective reflexivity (see Figure 2).

Reflexivity is not only a personal and pedagogical professionalization process but must also consider the organizational, policy and socio-political circumstances in which professionals operate and in which service users are expected to 'participate' (Garett, 2019). We, therefore, include in our concept of reflexivity a personal, interpersonal, and socio-structural dimension (see Van Beveren et al., 2018).
	At the personal level, reflexivity refers to a critical interrogation of one's professional assumptions, of the process of constructing professional knowledge and of how power is at work in it (D'Cruz et al., 2007; Taylor & White, 2001).
	At the interpersonal level, reflexivity refers to the process of constructing knowledge about clients and their experiences in dialogue with them (Parton & O'Byrne, 2006).
	Finally, at the socio-structural level, reflexivity refers to connecting personal and interpersonal reflections on professional practice with more structural and political analyses of how social problems arise. It helps to place these problems within their historical, socio-political, and socioeconomic contexts. This should be done with a commitment towards social transformation (Bay & MacFarlane, 2011; Brookfield, 2009; Fook, 2016; Van Beveren et al., 2022).
Reflexivity also involves an aspect of self-reflection concerning one's own identity, role, personal attitudes, dispositions and experience of situations and relationships, which have an impact on one's decisions and behaviour towards others.

Figure 2: Three levels of reflexivity.

Our learning can be summarised in the following points:

How we understand and use reflexivity

In practice and education, there are different notions of reflexivity that vary across different contexts and perspectives (D'Cruz et al., 2007; Fook et al., 2006). Our project has provided us with an opportunity to reflect on these different notions and explore their application in social work practice. 

Through the qualitative analysis of various transnational case studies, we have come to link reflexivity in social work to democratic, participatory practice as complementary concepts. By combining these concepts, we can better understand the (inter)personal and structural dimensions of social work practice and create a more inclusive and sustainable approach that values the voices and experiences of service users.

First, we became aware of how our different historical and socioeconomic country backgrounds influenced our thinking. We realized that we sometimes take our own backgrounds for granted and fail to reflect on the differences that exist between us (see Output 1). As a result, we propose that the first step in reflexive collaboration should be to reflect on OUR OWN POSITION. 

This reflection leads us to consider the CONTEXT in which people encounter inequality. This involves examining the history, habits, discourses, and solutions that shape problematic social situations. It also provides important insights into how different European countries understand participation and reflexivity in social work education.

As we reflected on our own position and the context in which we work, we identified five central themes that are essential reference points for social work practice. For each theme, we suggest questions for reflection and provide links to case studies that illustrate the issue and help clarify it:

1) Reflexive professionalization is a hallmark of professional practice that promotes critical and productive ways of dealing with the ambiguities, tensions, and challenges that arise in participative health and social care. By engaging in reflexive professionalization, practitioners can reflect on their own assumptions and biases and identify potential power imbalances and conflicts that may arise in collaborative settings. 

Have you encountered the terms participation and reflexivity during your professional studies, and if so, in what context? What do these terms mean to you, and what is their importance in your personal life and professional practice?

Links to case studies and questions: How partners in the project engaged with the challenge of educating students in health and social care to become reflexive professionals that include in their reflexivity a commitment to service-users as citizens. 

2) The importance of historical awareness in developing a professional identity and mandate of social workers has been and is currently defined. Different historical periods saw social work as a "tool" with which to achieve particular outcomes. Professionals have to be aware of this pressure and take a position towards it in order, for instance, to understand the reluctance of some service users to collaborate with social workers. 

How do you understand the professional identity ascribed generally to social workers? What is your own understanding of your professional role and identity? What mandate do you feel to have in dealing with social inequality? What institution or authority gives you this mandate? What experience do you have with carrying out your mandate?

Link to O3

3) The need to deal with the value orientations of professional practice. All professional associations lay down codes of ethics, but the principles and criteria laid down there need to be related to practice in a continuous process of reflexivity. Participatory practice forms often reveal discrepancies and conflicts between different normative principles.

What ethical principles do we affirm as professionals? How do they influence your understanding of and interaction with disadvantaged groups? In what kind of situations do you have to modify core principles when service users hold different values?

Link to O3

4) The need to reflect on how professionals construct problems and interpret service users' voices and lived experiences. Professional practice does not necessarily mean satisfying service users' wishes, yet their articulation of needs can challenge our professional presuppositions.

What are some of the main explanations for social problems that influence your professional approaches? Are these assumptions based on scientific explanations or on "common practice" among other professionals? What value do you attribute to the explanations service users provide themselves?

Link to O3

5) The necessity of creating space for ambiguity, risks, and mistakes in professional practice. Despite the widespread emphasis on "risk reduction" in service organizations, reflecting openly on ambiguity and mistakes can offer significant learning potential and affirm professional autonomy. Participative approaches invariably imply making mistakes, and it's important to confront them openly and positively. By doing so, social workers can develop a deeper understanding of the complexities of social and health issues, build trust with service users, and foster a more responsive and effective approach to practice. 

How do you personally deal with risks and mistakes in your work? How does your organization deal with risks? Can you rely on support from professional colleagues when mistakes emerge? What is your experience with service users when you acknowledge mistakes?

Link to O3