An evaluation of statutory children and families social workers perceptions and experiences of their own degree of agency and its implications for practice

CONTENTS

Chapter 1 Introduction
1.1 Setting the scene
1.2 Reasons and rationale
1.3 Aims and objectives

Chapter 2 Literature review
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Structure and agency
2.3 Importance to contemporary social work practice
2.4 The Munro Review of Child Protection
2.5 Professional Capabilities Framework & Standards of Proficiency
2.6 Overview of literature review

Chapter 3 Methodology
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Methodological considerations
3.3 Data collection
3.4 Literature Search
3.5 Search inclusion and exclusion criteria
3.6 Research methodological issues
3.7 Theoretical framework
3.8 Ethical considerations

Chapter 4 Findings
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Findings GHSW
4.3 Findings GHSW
4.4 Findings GHSW
4.5 Findings GHSW
4.6 Findings GHSW
4.7 Overview of findings

Chapter 5 Analysis and sythesis
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Discussion of findings
5.3 Limitations of research

Chapter 6 Conclusion and recommendations
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Conclusion
6.2.1 Work completed
6.2.2 Data management
6.2.3 Data collection tools
6.2.4 Research findings
6.2.5 Areas of learning
6.3 Recommendations

Bibliography͙͙͙

List of Appendices

Appendix 1: Literature search - Planning stage

Appendix 2: Electronic search results

Appendix 3: Summary of extracted sources

Appendix 4: Meta-summary of sources uses

Appendix 5: Agency, PCF and the SoPs

Appendix 6: Final checklist table

Chapter 1 - Introduction

1.1 Setting the scene

Two major explorations into contemporary challenges facing social workers in everyday practice, Munro’s (2010, 2011a, 2011b) 'Review of Child Protection’ and ‘The State of Social Work 2012’ (BASW, 2012) draw attention to the fact there is growing discontent amongst social workers both experienced and new towards their profession. Contemporary discourse has focused on the macro processes which have had an effect on the ability of practitioners to exercise professional judgement in day to day practice. This discourse analyses the effect of neo-liberalism on social work from the Thatcher administration (Ferguson et al, 2005) to the current Coalition Government (Rogowski, 2013). Neo-liberal ideologies “…prioritise economic competitiveness above welfare provision” (Rogowski, 2013:46), it is this ideology that drives current austerity measures such as welfare cuts. This has a direct impact on practitioner experiences of social work practice with 34% of social workers considering leaving the profession because of cuts (BASW, 2012:3). Social workers plying their trade in children’s social care are contending with increased workloads with core assessments completed up by 5.4% and section 47 enquiries initiated increased by 2.0% from 2012-2013 (Department for Education, 2013). However with 1 in 7 social workers leaving their local authorities each year (Department for Education, 2014:1) and the quality of social work education under investigation (Narey, 2014) the ability of social workers to respond effectively and creatively to this has been called into question.

1.2 Reasons and rationale

Theoretical discussions on the impact of individual agency and structure on the ability to act have been well documented. The primary focus of the literature pertinent to this dialectic relationship is based around the notions of whether social structures or human agency determine an individual's behaviour. This debate is central to contemporary social work practice as it provides a framework for conceptualising notions of structural constriction and room for creativity and street level bureaucracy in day to day practice. The ramifications for social work practice with children and families are vast with consequential pressures impacting on the ability of social workers to make decisions in the best interests of a child (All Party Parliamentary Group on Social Work, 2013:15). In response to this the author wanted to undertake a review which firmly placed the voice of social work practitioners at the centre of the debate, seeking to grasp social work practitioner’s perceptions and experiences of their own degree of agency within the context of the wider structure and agency debate. The author chose to examine structure and agency in the context of social work practice as he had observed its prominence in the decision making processes of practitioners whilst on placement during his master’s degree. This sparked his interest in what he has come to define as structurally competent agents, those who are grounded in knowledge pertinent to the navigation of structural constraints creatively, exercising freedom between the cracks of legislation, policy, procedure and environmentally based cultural working practices.

1.3 Aims and objectives

The author decided to conduct a literature review with the aim of ascertaining practitioners perceptions and experiences of their own degree of agency when working within a statutory organisational culture and its implications for social work practice. The reviews objectives include utilising the voices of frontline practitioners to deconstruct dominant discourse pertinent to views of their agency in contemporary practice through the evaluation of the dialectic relationship of agency and structure. This will be achieved by determining primary and secondary themes in practitioner narratives to identity commonality and consensuses through the use of systematic data collection and recording methods informing the final narrative review.

Chapter 2 - Literature review

2.1 Introduction

This chapter explores the definitions, concepts and theoretical frameworks which underpin the agency and structure debate, how this has changed over time and its relevance for contemporary social work. This will be placed within the context of managerialism in contemporary practice, the recommendations of Munro and the development of the Professional Capabilities Framework and its emphasis on professionalism.

2.2 Structure and agency

Within social science literature there is an on-going debate over the primacy of structure and agency in shaping human behaviour. This has centred on the question as to whether an individual acts using free will or in a manner dictated by social structure. Payne’s (2005:230) defines agency as “…the capacity to have an impact on what’s going on around us.” Agency within the context of statutory social work with children and families denotes; “…the capacity child protection social workers have to exercise their social work knowledge, skills and clinical judgement when making decisions in the context of their everyday child protection practices” (Parada et al, 2007:36).

In contrast to this “…structure denotes the constraints on individuals that result from the fact that repeated patterns of action, legitimated by ideologies, form the environment that shapes us…and limits our actions” (Bruce et al, 2006:7). Powell (1998 cited in Parada, et al 2007:36) states that social work operates “…in a system that puts procedures in place in an attempt to restrict their freedom.”

An individual’s capacity for free thought and action was theorised by Immanual Kant within his Moral Philosophy. For Kant individual agents were seen “…as reasonable and rational, and, therefore, as free and equal” (Forster, 1989:97), securing the ability to make choices based around self-legislated moral principles and laws with are free from the influence of external forces (Kant, 1785:28). Further to this “human agents (insofar as they authorize or will their actions independent of external influences) can be thought of as autonomous or self-legislating individuals whose motives for actions are open to moral appraisal”

(Wendland, 2012:541). This was framed within the context of a sense of duty and tradition. Kant (cited in Johnson, 2008) argues that “[w]hen we do something because it is our moral duty… we must act only as this fundamental law of (practical) reason prescribes, a law that would prescribe how any rational being in our circumstances should act”. Wendland (2012:542) states that for Kant “a particular agent’s freedom to cognize and consciously choose and act upon the objects of his or her desires (is seen) in relation to the ability of others to do the same”.

Influenced by Kantian ethics, Max Weber (1864 - 1920) furthered Kants propositions by articulating that human action went beyond ‘duty’, and as such had the capacity for structural change. “[t]he modern person, acts “against nature,” imposing a willed self-control over his or her behaviour, thoughtfully guiding every action such that it is considered, meaningful, and intended” in a “manner in which actors bring about structural change” (Campbell, 2009:412). Structural change was accomplished by “…operat[ing] independently of the determining constraints of social structure” (Calhoun 2002 cited in Campbell, 2009:412), such as established traditions imposed by the church. Action outside of traditional norms are often met with disapproval, however actors have power to act “… even against the opposition of others” (Max Weber cited in Giddens, 1988:112).

Kant and Weber’s notion of choice and free will was contested by Emile Durkheim (1858-1917). For Durkheim “[s]ociety is far more than the sum of individual acts; it has a ‘firmness’ or ‘solidity’ comparable to structures in the material environment” (Giddens, 2009:88).This manifests itself in two ways, ‘externality (the shared norms and values having existed before any particular participant was born) and through social constraints (such as shared norms setting certain limits to any specific participants room to manoeuvre)’ (Mouzelis, 1995:128- 129). Central to this was Durkheim’s conceptualisation of ‘social facts’. “A social fact is every way of acting, fixed or not, capable of exercising on the individual an external constraint…” (Durkheim, 1966:13) This suggests that“[s]hared norms and values perform a powerful social cohesion function for members of society, acting as a form of social control…” (Cunningham et el, 2008:439). This ‘collective conscience’ “…both constraints and obliges individuals to act in certain ways… like a ‘social glue’ that binds members of society together” (Cunningham et al, 2008:422).

Grand theories evidenced thus far in this discussion conceptualise structure and agency as two competing concepts attempting to take precedence over the other. However individual perceptions of reality are complex is so far as “…our perception of the world is not the same experience for us all…reality, like beauty is perhaps in the eye of the beholder” (Jacobson, 2000:104). The dialectic relationship between agency and structure provides a discussion point for the deconstruction of this debate in terms of the considering the role of the agent within the structure or as one of the same thing.

Talcott Parsons (1902-1979) set this precedence through his voluntaristic solution to the problem of social order, presenting an interpenetration of agency and structure. “The term "voluntaristic" indicates that social order need not be a completely causally determined factual order” (Munch, 1981:722). Individual action is seen in the light of means-end rationality, the ability to achieve certain goals effectively utilising the available means to achieve outcomes within normative obligation. Parsons refers to this relation as one of ‘interdependence’ or ‘interaction’. Thus; “…social order is possible only if there is such an interpenetration between self- interested, rationalized action and a frame of reference which sets the limits of the process of the calculation of utility by ruling certain ends and means out of bounds altogether …Order can exist only if the actors are not free to shed their agreements with one another as easily as they might shed an uncomfortably starched shirt” (Munch, 1981:723).

Despite recognising the role of the individual within social structures Parsons does not go far enough in exploring how action taken by agents through their ability to work with and/or against structural norms to create change. Instead of acting, actors are seen to be “…endlessly rehearing their roles…” (Mouzelis, 1995:77). Giddens expands on this stating that “[t]here is no action in Parsons ‘action frame of reference’…stage is set, but the actors only perform according to scripts…” (Giddens, 1988:16-17).

For Giddens structure and agency are a duality. Within his theory of Structuration he explains that “...structure is both the medium and outcome of the reproduction of practices. Structure enters simultaneously into the constitution of the agent and social practices and ‘exists’ in the generating moments of this constitution” (Giddens, 1979:5). Structures are reproduced through a ‘framework of mutual knowledge’. Traditionally this was achieved through the use of power in interaction which “…generates outcomes through affecting the conduct of others… reproduc(ing) the order of domination” (Giddens 1988:122). Giddens (1988:124) continues stating that rule-systems “…must not be assumed to be like this. They are less unified; subject to chronic ambiguities of ‘interpretation’… and constantly in process, subject to continual transformation”. Structures are “…always both constraining and enabling” (Giddens, 1984:987) and thus gives the 'knowledgeable' agent the capability to work in creative or formative ways. Giddens conceptualises this as the transformative capacity of human nature which “…intrinsically involves the application of ‘means’ to achieve outcomes, brought about through the direct intervention of an actor in a course of events…” (Giddens, 1988:110). An individual’s capacity to act creates consequences, both intentionally and unintentionally in so far as a “…seemingly trivial act may trigger events far removed from itself in time and space” (Giddens, 1984:719). Action is seen as a continuous process and as a result an actor is “…the author of many things (they) do not intend to do, and may not want to bring about, but none the less do” (Giddens 1984:684).

2.3 Importance to contemporary social work practice

This debate resonates with contemporary discourse around the role of the organisation and practitioner in social work practice. Oko (2009:67) describes social work as a ‘corporate activity’ as when “[c]ompared with more traditional professions…there are few opportunities for social workers in Britain to practice independently of an organisation”. Using Ritzers (2004:1) notion of ‘McDonalisation’, “the process by which the principles of the fast food restaurant are coming to dominate the…world”, corporate principles which impact upon contemporary social work practice and professional agency can be identified as; ‘efficiency, calculability, predictability and control through non-human technology’. The McDonalds model has exacerbated the need for and development of scientific management to embed corporate principles, maximising output, exerting greater control over workers through surveillance and hierarchal management structures. Macro processes such as McDonalisation have an impact of the perceptions and experiences of frontline social workers, for example Evans et al (2004:873) claims that “… the impact of managerialism (has) been regarded as undermining discretion in social work…producing more compliant social workers”.

However despite the process of McDonalisation Davies (1994:67) states “…social (work) actors are defined sociologically as loci of decision and action; actors make assessments and formulate objectives and employ strategies to ‘enrol’ other actors and consign materials…” Professional identity and the ability to act creatively is intertwined with organisational expectations as “…the foundations to undertake social work… are based on a social workers ability to work as skilled organisational persons, not just as some free floating professional devoid of an organisational base” (Jones et al, 2008:269). This can be achieved through the notion of praxis, “the ability to link theory to practice” (Hatton, 2013:96). Freire (1972 cited in Hatton, 2013:96) states that social workers “…need to engage with theory to generate an understanding of the world around (them), so (they) can use this ‘consciousness’ to implement social change.” The work of Giddens for example “…suggests(s) a way in which we can move beyond a reliance on either structural or individualistic approaches to welfare practice” (Hatton, 2013:96) to mobilise the transformative capacity of human action. This offers a space for creativity in practice, what Leach (cited in Hatton 2013:96) conceptualises as area within viable systems “…where the individual is free to make choices, so as to manipulate the system to his advantage.”

Lipsky (1980) takes this further explaining how social workers are essentially street level bureaucrats whom accumulate a relatively high degree of autonomy through their discretion, expertise and deference “…determining the nature, amount, and quality of benefits and sanctions provided by their agencies” (Lipsky, 1980:13). Social workers create policy at the street level through an “action imperative… (which) accommodate(s) mess in local governance,” (Londes, 1997 cited in Durose 2011:2) leading to “…the decisions (and) the routines they establish, and the devices they invent to cope with uncertainties and with work pressures, effectively become the public policy they carry out” (Lipsky, 1980:xii).

2.4 The Munro Reviews of Child Protection

Professor Eileen Munro was commissioned in 2010 to review the child protection system in England and Wales in the wake of a number of horrific abuse cases. This also came amidst a time of increasing concern from social work practitioners that bureaucracy was hindering their ability to utilise their professional judgement and skills when working with children and families. Munro (2010:5) states that;

“A dominant theme in the criticisms of current practice is the skew in priorities that has developed between the demands of the management and inspection processes and professionals’ ability to exercise their professional judgment and act in the best interests of the child.”

Connolly et al (2012:150) places this within the context of the continuing professional development of statutory child protection social workers by stating “…that a highly prescriptive organizational culture has the potential to undermine the development of knowledge and skill in child protection practice.” Munro states that the importance of structures are being over empathised within contemporary social work discourse, leading to unintended consequences such as “…newcomers… quickly learn(ing) to follow procedures even when they do not understand them… (and) not trying to become more effective in their complex tasks” (Munro 2011a:39). In her final report Munro “…recommends a radical reduction in the amount of central prescription to help professionals move from a compliance culture to a learning culture, where they have more freedom to use their expertise in assessing need and providing the right help” (Munro 2011b:7).

2.5 Professional Capabilities Framework & Standards of Proficiency

The recognition of practitioner agency as an important aspect of social work practice at all levels has been solidified within the continuing professionalisation of social work. The Professional Capabilities Framework (PCF) offers an overarching professional standards framework, developed by the Social Work Reform Board and now championed by the College of Social Work. The registration body for social workers in England have also recognised the importance of agency in practice within their standards of proficiency. “The standards of proficiency set out what a social worker should know, understand and be able to do when they complete their training so that they can register…” as professionals (HCPC, 2012:1). Appendix 5 offers an insight into the importance of professional decision making and the relative freedom which is encouraged when making them.

2.6 Overview of literature review

The dominant discourse discussed in this chapter does not acknowledge practitioner perceptions and experiences of their own agency when working within a statutory organisational managerialist culture and its implications for practice. The work of Eteläpelto et al (2013) on the subject-centred socio-cultural and life-long learning perspective on professional agency alludes to the importance of ascertaining such narratives. For Eteläpelto et al the lost voice of professionals needs to be explored within its macro context, “…turning attention to subjects’ construction of their identity position at work, and focusing on how they negotiate agency in education and working life in order to construct meaningful careers and life courses” (Eteläpelto et al, 2013:60-61). Reflexivity in terms of choosing how to act is “…closely intertwined with professional subjects’ work-related identities comprising their professional and ethical commitments, ideals, motivations, interests, and goals” (Eteläpelto et al, 2013:61). Exploring the construction of practitioner perceptions and experiences of social work practice is central to “…the renegotiation of work-related identities in (changing) work practices (Eteläpelto et al, 2013:62).”

Chapter 3 - Methodology

3.1 Introduction

This chapter outlines methodological considerations with regards to the research process. The author undertook a literature review to evaluate the perceptions and experiences of statutory children and family social workers in relation to their own degree of agency and its implications for practice. This chapter considers the theoretical framework underpinning the paper, the data collection method, search criteria and data selection strategy. This is followed by an examination of the tools used to manage data collection and what inclusion and exclusion criterion was used to search for relevant sources. The chapter continues by examining the methodological issues encountered during the research process as well as ethical considerations.

3.2 Methodological considerations

The research design aims to identify relevant secondary sources to enable the author to evaluate practitioner’s perceptions of their agency in contemporary social work practice with children and families. Research has been defined as “planned, cautious, systematic and reliable ways of finding out or deepening our understanding of a selected topic of theme” (Carey, 2013:2). The methodology “…is employed to analyse and/or organise data (from the research)from which to discern or reasonably impute a common core principle within the analysed that may enable either the development or logical validation of theoretical postulates” (Herrman, 2009:13). The method refers to “…the techniques and procedures followed in order to gather data relating to (the) topic under investigation” (Carey, 2013:78).

The author undertook a narrative review using systematic data collection and recording methods “… to generate a more transparent, rigorous and ‘scientific’ means to locate, capture and critically appraise as much literature… as possible” (Carey, 2013:88). Kip Jones (2004:96) states that;

“By supporting a narrative review that incorporates some of the more revitalizing methodological procedures emerging from the systematic review arena, the toolkit of the evidence-based policy movement is expanded, enhanced and enriched.”

The authors aim is to encapsulate the views of social work practitioners with regards to their perceptions and experiences of their own degree of agency through the analysis of qualitative research. Despite utilising a traditionally positivist method to collect the data to increase validity and reliability the student uses an interpretisvist method to analyse the data collected “…to uncover the meaning and reality of peoples experiences in the social world” (Carey, 2013:60). Systematic narrative reviews (Jones, 2004:101) place the human experience at the central of the approach. “The importance of this kind of research cannot be overemphasised, particularly when dealing with the disadvantaged and/or the unheard voice” (Jones 2004:97). By using a qualitative model with an emphasis on narratives, rather than regimented statistics “…opportunities can be presented for the understanding of ‘others’ through narrated self- knowledge, reflective practise and acknowledgement of the shared habitus” (Jones, 2004:98). This will cumulate in a narrative summary using meta-ethnography; “an interpretive synthesis approach that reconceptualises key themes and synthesises and extends the findings of individual studies” (Snilstveit et al, 2012:421).

3.3 Data collection

The aim of data collection is to find evidence that will support the research question. The author created a checklist of potential information sources (i.e. electronic databases) and tools (i.e. abstracts) that could be used (see appendix 1). This ensured a methodical thought process which structured the author’s actions into manageable tasks. It also alleviates what Wurman (cited in Girard et al, 2008:111) terms “information anxiety: ‘not understanding information; feeling overwhelmed by the amount of information, not knowing if certain information exists, not knowing where to find it; and knowing where to find it but not having the key to accesses it.”

3.4 Literature search

The author conducted his literature search using electronic technology as data is readily available, expansive and simpler to refer to with hast. Details of academic books, articles, journals and reviews are stored electronically in various databases. Many of the databases are held by private, commercial or educational organisations with restricted and particular access, for example through Shibboleth, which allows sites to make informed authorisation decisions for individual access of protected online resources. In this instance the author is able to access academic material through Shibboleth using his University of Portsmouth student credentials. This allowed the author access to a number of electronic journals such as The British Journal of Social Work. Search criterions were used in database indexes and catalogues to identify potentially relevant sources. The results of these searches were evidenced in the Electronic Search Results table (see appendix 2), all resulted extracted were measured against post- positivist criteria proposed by Lincoln et al (1985 cited in Devers, 1995:1165) to establish “trustworthiness.” This included ascertaining the ‘credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability’ by reading the abstracts. Those extracted were placed in a table to record meta-data such as the title, author, date, subject, and brief summary for quick reference and a visual comparative tool (See appendix 3). They were further appraised for key themes and trends related to the research question using Biggams three R’s; are the sources relevant - reliable - recent? (Biggam, 2011:43). Sources that met these appraisals where then selected for analysis in the paper and coded to provide a simple and quick reference mechanism between relevant tables and the authors findings. The author used his initials (GH) and the first two letters of this field of enquiry (social work -SW) as well as numbers to code the studies (i.e. GHSW01). Table 3 (pg. 21) illustrates the quality of items and quality of the studies used within them using both Lincoln and Biggams measures.

A meta-ethnographical synthesis will be used to determine how the “studies related through an examination of primary and secondary themes and concepts, organising them into relevant categories” (Snilstveit et al, 2012:422). A meta-summary of each study has been completed to ensure the author has a quick reference point with regards to source comparisons, discussion points and methodological considerations (see appendix 4).

3.5 Search inclusion and exclusion criteria

The author used inclusion and exclusion criteria when searching for sources to restrict the quantity of material found. The inclusion criteria used in the searches were; English language only and produced since 2000. Search terms included “social worker voice”, “agency” “statutory” and “children and families”. This was problematic as the term agency was often not found in the context of its sociological meaning, I expanded the search to incorporate the terms action and autonomy. Autonomy was chosen as “…agency and autonomy exist along a continuum and that agency needs to be in place for…autonomy to be possible” (Claiborne, 2010:1).

3.6 Research methodological issues

The author has endeavoured to identity appropriate and relevant sources to answer the research question, however the author has identified limitations in his search. This included being the only researcher.

[...]