福利制度与社会工作者对社会问题和专业角色的认识

Q3 Social Sciences
Lennart Nygren, Alastair Christie, Carolina Muñoz Guzmán, Rasa Naujanienė
{"title":"福利制度与社会工作者对社会问题和专业角色的认识","authors":"Lennart Nygren, Alastair Christie, Carolina Muñoz Guzmán, Rasa Naujanienė","doi":"10.31265/jcsw.v18i2.547","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article compares social work in countries representing four different welfare regimes: Chile, the Republic of Ireland (refer to elsewhere as ‘Ireland’), Lithuania and Sweden. The aim is to examine how social workers in different contexts refer to families’ complex needs, how contextual factors influence social workers’ positions and actions, and how they make sense of their work. Social workers in 15 focus groups, 4 per country except for Chile with 3, were interviewed about their conceptions of ‘family’, ‘families with complex needs’, and reasoning about interventions in relation to a fictitious complex case vignette. The understanding of complex needs appears relatively individualized in Chile and Lithuania, while contextual factors were more pronounced in the Irish and Swedish material. Chile, exemplifying a familialized family policy regime, reflects a poverty-compensatory social worker role that also supports familial reproduction; Ireland, a partly de-familialized regime, reflects a supportive and risk-reactive role; Lithuania, a re-familialized regime reflects a patriarchal risk-reducing role and Sweden, a de-familialized policy regime, reflects a rights-oriented and technocratic role. Welfare regimes shape different social work practice contexts. However, to some extent, social workers around the world share a common work ethos in how they, for the best interest of the people they work with, deal with the cross-pressure from social problems and political-ideological priorities.","PeriodicalId":37599,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Comparative Social Work","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Welfare regimes and social workers' conceptions of social problems and professional roles\",\"authors\":\"Lennart Nygren, Alastair Christie, Carolina Muñoz Guzmán, Rasa Naujanienė\",\"doi\":\"10.31265/jcsw.v18i2.547\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article compares social work in countries representing four different welfare regimes: Chile, the Republic of Ireland (refer to elsewhere as ‘Ireland’), Lithuania and Sweden. The aim is to examine how social workers in different contexts refer to families’ complex needs, how contextual factors influence social workers’ positions and actions, and how they make sense of their work. Social workers in 15 focus groups, 4 per country except for Chile with 3, were interviewed about their conceptions of ‘family’, ‘families with complex needs’, and reasoning about interventions in relation to a fictitious complex case vignette. The understanding of complex needs appears relatively individualized in Chile and Lithuania, while contextual factors were more pronounced in the Irish and Swedish material. Chile, exemplifying a familialized family policy regime, reflects a poverty-compensatory social worker role that also supports familial reproduction; Ireland, a partly de-familialized regime, reflects a supportive and risk-reactive role; Lithuania, a re-familialized regime reflects a patriarchal risk-reducing role and Sweden, a de-familialized policy regime, reflects a rights-oriented and technocratic role. Welfare regimes shape different social work practice contexts. However, to some extent, social workers around the world share a common work ethos in how they, for the best interest of the people they work with, deal with the cross-pressure from social problems and political-ideological priorities.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37599,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Comparative Social Work\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Comparative Social Work\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.31265/jcsw.v18i2.547\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Comparative Social Work","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31265/jcsw.v18i2.547","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文比较了代表四种不同福利制度的国家的社会工作:智利、爱尔兰共和国(下文简称 "爱尔兰")、立陶宛和瑞典。目的是研究不同环境下的社会工作者如何应对家庭的复杂需求,环境因素如何影响社会工作者的立场和行动,以及他们如何理解自己的工作。在 15 个焦点小组中,除智利有 3 个小组外,每个国家有 4 个小组的社会工作者接受了关于他们对 "家庭"、"有复杂需求的家庭 "的概念,以及与虚构的复杂案例相关的干预推理的访谈。在智利和立陶宛,对复杂需求的理解显得相对个性化,而在爱尔兰和瑞典的材料中,背景因素则更为明显。智利是家庭政策制度家庭化的典范,反映了社会工作者在贫困补偿和支持家庭再生产方面的作用;爱尔兰是部分去家庭化的制度,反映了社会工作者在支持和应对风险方面的作用;立陶宛是重新家庭化的制度,反映了社会工作者在减少父权制风险方面的作用;瑞典是去家庭化的政策制度,反映了社会工作者在权利导向和技术官僚方面的作用。福利制度塑造了不同的社会工作实践环境。然而,在某种程度上,世界各地的社会工作者有着共同的工作精神,即他们如何为其工作对象的最佳利益,处理来自社会问题和政治意识形态优先事项的交叉压力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Welfare regimes and social workers' conceptions of social problems and professional roles
This article compares social work in countries representing four different welfare regimes: Chile, the Republic of Ireland (refer to elsewhere as ‘Ireland’), Lithuania and Sweden. The aim is to examine how social workers in different contexts refer to families’ complex needs, how contextual factors influence social workers’ positions and actions, and how they make sense of their work. Social workers in 15 focus groups, 4 per country except for Chile with 3, were interviewed about their conceptions of ‘family’, ‘families with complex needs’, and reasoning about interventions in relation to a fictitious complex case vignette. The understanding of complex needs appears relatively individualized in Chile and Lithuania, while contextual factors were more pronounced in the Irish and Swedish material. Chile, exemplifying a familialized family policy regime, reflects a poverty-compensatory social worker role that also supports familial reproduction; Ireland, a partly de-familialized regime, reflects a supportive and risk-reactive role; Lithuania, a re-familialized regime reflects a patriarchal risk-reducing role and Sweden, a de-familialized policy regime, reflects a rights-oriented and technocratic role. Welfare regimes shape different social work practice contexts. However, to some extent, social workers around the world share a common work ethos in how they, for the best interest of the people they work with, deal with the cross-pressure from social problems and political-ideological priorities.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Comparative Social Work
Journal of Comparative Social Work Social Sciences-Social Sciences (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
7
审稿时长
25 weeks
期刊介绍: This journal promotes contributions, discussions and an exchange of knowledge on Social Work issues. Social Work is a line of work carried out by trained professionals, or "Social Workers", in many different countries. Accordingly, the nature of social work can vary widely. However, its broad aim is to assess and meet people''s social needs by providing services that enable them to live in safety, independence and dignity. In order to appropriately cater to the needs of the people they serve, the practices, aims and values of Social Workers must reflect the cultural and social norms of the society in which they operate. Comparative social work emphasizes comparative studies of social work between different countries, cultures and contexts. The journal aims to support practitioners and academics alike through its discussions of matters relevant to Social Work Practice. This journal publishes two types of peer-reviewed scientific articles on subjects of importance for social work, with a special emphasis on comparative research on different aspects. This includes: -Comparative studies -Single site studies that also generate insight and knowledge in various geographical/cultural and national settings. We also welcome essays discussing/reflecting relevant subjects from an individual point of view, and at least two members of our editorial board will review such papers (maximum of 3,000 words). The JCSW was founded in 2006 and is currently hosted by the University of Stavanger, in cooperation with the University of Agder and the University of Nordland.
×
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