Looking into backstage discussions in social work: A qualitative synthesis of recent empirical findings

IF 1.5 3区 社会学 Q2 SOCIAL WORK
Annika Taghizadeh Larsson, Anna Olaison, J. Österholm
{"title":"Looking into backstage discussions in social work: A qualitative synthesis of recent empirical findings","authors":"Annika Taghizadeh Larsson, Anna Olaison, J. Österholm","doi":"10.1177/14680173221144556","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Summary Social work practice has a history of collegial, intra-, and interprofessional discussions that take place backstage, that is, without the presence of clients. Because of their backstage character, these discussions may be considered even more important to examine than meetings at which clients are present and that are in a way already open to the public. The purpose of the present review was to provide insight into this practice by identifying and synthesizing recent empirical findings from existing studies using naturalistic data, published in English in peer-reviewed journals. Findings We identified four types of interaction among practitioners in relation to the case discussed and three types of content that were raised and shared, as well as an apparent mismatch between formal reasons for the discussions and the purpose they serve in practice. A lack of common vocabulary for conceptualizing the discussions and of attention given to their backstage character was identified in the included studies. Applications The review highlights an important area for further research and stresses the importance of not being blinded by formal purposes or ideological underpinnings in examining intra- and interprofessional discussions in social work; it shows that it is important to look into what is actually going on in practice.","PeriodicalId":47142,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Social Work","volume":"23 1","pages":"793 - 812"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Social Work","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14680173221144556","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL WORK","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Summary Social work practice has a history of collegial, intra-, and interprofessional discussions that take place backstage, that is, without the presence of clients. Because of their backstage character, these discussions may be considered even more important to examine than meetings at which clients are present and that are in a way already open to the public. The purpose of the present review was to provide insight into this practice by identifying and synthesizing recent empirical findings from existing studies using naturalistic data, published in English in peer-reviewed journals. Findings We identified four types of interaction among practitioners in relation to the case discussed and three types of content that were raised and shared, as well as an apparent mismatch between formal reasons for the discussions and the purpose they serve in practice. A lack of common vocabulary for conceptualizing the discussions and of attention given to their backstage character was identified in the included studies. Applications The review highlights an important area for further research and stresses the importance of not being blinded by formal purposes or ideological underpinnings in examining intra- and interprofessional discussions in social work; it shows that it is important to look into what is actually going on in practice.
探讨社会工作中的幕后讨论:对最近实证研究结果的定性综合
总结社会工作实践有着在后台进行的合议、内部和跨专业讨论的历史,也就是说,没有客户在场。由于其后台性质,这些讨论可能被认为比客户出席的会议更重要,而且这些会议在某种程度上已经向公众开放。本综述的目的是通过使用在同行评审期刊上以英文发表的自然主义数据,识别和综合现有研究的最新实证结果,从而深入了解这种做法。研究结果我们确定了从业者之间与所讨论的案例有关的四种类型的互动,提出和分享的三种类型的内容,以及讨论的正式原因与实践目的之间的明显不匹配。在纳入的研究中发现,缺乏用于概念化讨论的通用词汇,也缺乏对其后台特征的关注。申请该综述强调了一个需要进一步研究的重要领域,并强调了在审查社会工作中的专业内部和跨专业讨论时,不要被正式目的或意识形态基础所蒙蔽的重要性;这表明,研究实践中实际发生的事情很重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Social Work
Journal of Social Work SOCIAL WORK-
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Journal of Social Work is a forum for the publication, dissemination and debate of key ideas and research in social work. The journal aims to advance theoretical understanding, shape policy, and inform practice, and welcomes submissions from all areas of social work.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信