The rise of active citizenship:
The role of professionals in implementing and executing ‘own strength’ and the
use of social networks
Date: 13-06-2016
Name: Philip Stein
Student id number: 6030815
1st supervisor: prof. dr. W.G.J. Duyvendak 2nd supervisor: dr. L.H. Jansen Verplanke
Master: Sociology
Track: Social Problems and Social Policy
The rise of active citizenship:
The role of professionals in
implementing and stimulating ‘own
strength’ and the use of social networks
Acknowledgements
This thesis was a long and intensive project in which I have learned a lot about a for me unknown field; youth welfare. I would like to thank a number of people who have helped me during my whole thesis trajectory. Firstly my supervisors Jan-Willem Duyvendak and Loes Verplanke for their constructive input and feedback. Secondly Marleen Beumer, head of the program team of the Parent and Child Teams Amsterdam, for her willingness and
openness to let me do research in this organization. Thirdly all the interviewed professionals who were willing to spend some of their time and energy to this project. Lastly I would like to thank my parents and friends for their love and support in times of hardship.
Abstract
In this research the implementation of new policy – the principle of using 'own
strength' of youth, parents and their social network - in the youth welfare sector is researched. The central question is whether the policy goals can be achieved and if so in what way? The focus is on the role of professionals, working in neighborhood social work teams, who have to stimulate the intrinsic strength of the family unit ('own strength') and the use of their social networks for support. Sixteen youth welfare professionals were interviewed individually for one hour and their interviews were transcribed and analyzed using Atlas.ti. Findings are: professionals agree with the change of policy and see themselves as capable of implementing 'own strength' and social networks. But professionals underpin the importance of certain conditions which have to be met: the most important one is having enough time. Because the 'own strength' approach is time-consuming this makes it difficult to obtain results.
Furthermore professionals working practices are not always in accordance with the policy demands: in certain situations they ignore rules and procedures and act on the basis of their own professional judgment. This makes an effective implementation of policy difficult. Concluding it would look like the policy goals can be achieved under the precondition that professionals have enough time and management increases its insight into the working practices of professionals.
Contents
Description page number
Acknowledgements Abstract
Contents
1. Introduction 1
2. Theoretical framework 6
2.1 History of citizenship: citizenship as a right 6
2.1 The rise of active citizenship: from right to plight 7
2.3 Framing & feeling rules 8
2.4 Framing and feeling rules of the government 9
2.5 Criteria of professionalism 10
2.6 New Style Social Work 11
2.7 New position of professionals 13
2.8 New role of professionals 14
2.9 New competences of professionals 16
3. Data & methodology 18
3.1 Methodological standpoint 18
3.2 Qualitative research 18
3.3 Data collection 19
3.4 Analysis 21
4. Results 22
4.1 Moral framing rules: 'own strength' 22
4.2 Moral framing rules: social network 26
4.3 Pragmatic framing rules: 'own strength' 29
4.4 Pragmatic framing rules: social network 33
4.5 New position 35
4.6 New role 36
4.7 New competences 41
4.8 Practice 42
4.9 Activating and strengthening ‘own strength’ in practice 42
5. Conclusion and discussion 63
5.1 Overview of results 63
5.2 Discussion 63
1
1. Introduction
The Dutch welfare state is under reform. Since the 1990’s it is slowly shifting from a classic welfare state to a more neo-liberal, activating welfare state. In this reform the
relationship between citizen and government is changing. On the one hand the welfare state seems to partially pull back and on the other hand it tries to stimulate a civil society in which people actively participate and take responsibility for their own lives. This shift is clearly visible in new policy-making in which the government is trying to activate citizens. The government is summoning citizens to actively take personal responsibility for the challenges in their lives, such as their employability, health and finances (Borgi & van Berkel, 2007: 413–14; Fuller, Kershaw & Pulkingham, 2008: 157–8) as well as to take responsibility for the social cohesion, safety and livability of their communities by taking care of vulnerable
citizens in their environment, i.e. those who are in need of support (Marinetto, 2003; Newman & Tonkens, 2011, Trappenburg, 2011).
The activating of citizens shows the prominence of the notion of active citizenship. The promotion of active citizenship over the last two to three decades has become the ‘ethical a priori’ of neo-liberal policy-making in Western welfare states (Rose, 2006: 159-60). In short active citizenship means that citizens must strive for self-sufficiency and take more responsibility for their personal circumstances and ‘consume’ less social services (Newman & Tonkens, 2011). Similar developments with regard to active citizenship, have been witnessed in other western welfare states such as the United Kingdom, Sweden, Italy and Canada (Verhoeven, Verplanke & Kampen, 2013).
With regards to the Netherlands, activation was first only aimed at social support (decreasing claims at social support and ending misuse of social support) and labour market policy (stimulating labour participation of women) (WRR, 2006: 34; Verhoeven & Ham, 2010). In later years activation became common in many sectors of the welfare state such as health care, education, employment and social housing. In combination with activation were reforms in the social support systems of these sectors, which led to a sobering down of social support by limiting expenses and tightening up the conditions of eligibility to social services (Veldheer, Jonker, van Noije & Vrooman, 2012). Government claims these reforms are necessary due to an ongoing financial crisis and an ageing population (van de Bovenkamp & Trappenburg, 2010).
The full culmination of the activating of citizens came when the Social Support Act (Wet Maatschappelijke Ondersteuning; WMO) was installed in 2007. The Social Support Act
2 aims at a larger participation of citizens in the domain of care and welfare. The act has four goals: to promote self-sufficiency, to increase participation, to stimulate active citizenship and to improve social cohesion. The frame behind the Social Support Act is that, especially vulnerable, citizens will take more control of their own lives and of their community. Citizens are expected to resort less to publicly available care and professional support and instead to make more use of their informal networks as resources. Consequently, this would lead to a reduction of costs.
Three years after the introduction of the Social Support Act the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport started a government programme called ‘New Style Social Work’ (Welzijn Nieuwe Stijl). The goal of the programme was to give a new impetus to the implementation of the Social Support Act and to increase the participation and self-sufficiency of citizens. ‘New Style Social Work’ is a transition into the core of the social work profession: supporting vulnerable citizens in dealing with their problems (Kluft, 2012, p. 65). The emphasis shifts from what citizens or professionals can do to what social networks,
volunteering initiatives and neighborhood communities can do. In the programme there is a search for an optimal ratio of what citizens can do independently and what professionals are supposed to do. To realize these goals the programme offers a framework for the further development of social policy and social work on the basis of eight themes. (Scholte, 2010).
The changes in social policy and social work are further increased with the decentralizations of government tasks to the municipalities in 2015. As of 2015 the state delegated its responsibility to fulfill the tasks arising out of the Youth Care Act (Jeugdwet), the Social Support Act (Wet Maatschappelijke Ondersteuning) and the Participation Law (Participatiewet) to the Dutch municipalities. Municipalities are now responsible for their citizens with regards to the domains of youth care, work and elderly and terminally ill care. The purpose of the decentralizations is to have less expensive and more effective care with less bureaucracy and nearer to the citizen. According to the government municipalities are in a better position to deliver tailor-made solutions, to diminish bureaucratic arrangements and to prevent expensive specialized care from happening. Therefore with the delegation of responsibility also came budget cuts of around 15-20 percent for social support.
Municipalities are facing a hard task in managing this transition well, since they see both an increase in tasks and responsibility and a decrease in the amount of financial aid available for care.
Many municipalities shape the new transition by setting up neighborhood social work teams (Van Arum & Schoorl, 2015). Some municipalities have set up teams who work
3 specifically in the domain of youth care. The teams are composed of a diverse group of youth welfare professionals who are knowledgeable on a broad domain. The teams strive to work according to the motto 'one household, one plan, one case manager', with the goal to deliver more effective and efficient care (Van Arum & Schoorl, 2015). A lot is expected from the professionals working in the neighborhood social work teams. Due to the new policy
demands they have to adapt their way of working by taking on a new role, different tasks and adapt their vision and attitudes. Previously the professional was expected to help clients by taking on an expert role, now the views and input of the clients have to be put at the forefront, thus putting clients in a more central position. Clients are expected to take responsibility for describing their issues and problems and for deciding on a course of action. In this new way of working professionals are expected to support their clients by stimulating their ‘own strength’ and in developing and making use of their social networks for support.
According to Lipsky (1980) it is important to investigate the role of professionals in the implementation of policy as policy is not made in legislatures or offices of high-ranking administrators, and does not simply end once a policy is set out but that policy is made by front-line workers in the daily encounters they have with their clients. Lipsky argues against a top-down account of policy making and the reason is because professionals have
discretionary space. Discretionary space means professionals can make decisions regarding their work on the basis of their own professional judgment, instead of on the basis of
organizational rules and procedures (Lipsky, 1980). It gives professionals power to not follow or even actively resist the policy. This can happen when professionals are not happy with the policy changes.
The professionals working in social neighborhood work teams are likely to experience an increase in their discretionary space, as increasing the discretionary space was one of the central themes of the programme 'New Style Social Work'. This would indicate three things. Firstly the professionals are expected to be meeting the criteria of professionalism as
discretionary space is usually only reserved for professionals. Secondly the professionals are expected to be capable to implement the policy changes and change their way of working. Thirdly professionals are expected to play an important role in the implementation of the policy. Their acceptance of the policy changes is important because they have more power to not follow or even resist the policy changes. After all they have increased autonomy in determining how they will support their client. When professionals do not follow the policy changes or resist them it is likely it would hinder an effective implementation of the policy.
4 The central research question is: can the policy goals be achieved by the porfessionals and, if so, in what way? The research question is divided into three research themes. The first theme describes the policy demands professionals are supposed to fulfill. The second theme discusses the results of the policy demands: do professionals’ practices align with the policy demands? The third theme presents the practices of professionals with regard to stimulating own strength and social networks. The first theme is operationalized into three research questions. The second theme is operationalized into two research questions. The third theme is operationalized into two research questions.
Theme 1: Policy demands
1. How does the government frame the stimulation of ‘own strength’ and social networks?
2. Do professionals meet the criteria of professionalism?
3. What does the policy demand from the professionals as individuals? 3.1 What demands are being made to the position of the professional? 3.2 What demands are being made to the role of the professional?
3.3 What demands are being made to the competences of the professional? Theme 2: Results
1. Is there congruence on the frames of professionals and the government?
a. Is there congruence on the moral framing rules regarding own strength? b. Is there congruence on the moral framing rules regarding social networks c. Is there congruence on the pragmatic framing rules regarding own strength? d. Is there congruence on the pragmatic framing rules regarding social networks? 2. Do professionals practices correspond to the policy demands?
a. Does their position correspond with that of their policy demands?
b. Does their role correspond with the policy demand of how a role should be? c. Do their competences correspond with the policy demands of how
competences should be? Theme 3: Practices
1. How do professionals stimulate 'own strength' ?
2. How do professionals stimulate the use of social networks?
The questions are researched within the Parent and Child Teams of the municipality of Amsterdam on the basis of interviews with professionals. The Parent and Child Teams
5 focus specifically on the youth sector. The professionals who are responsible for
implementing these policies are called ‘parent and child advisors’ (ouder- en kindadviseurs). This research has societal relevance as these changes may have a great influence on the lives of (vulnerable) citizens. If professionals have to work differently with their clients it is important that citizens still experience a good enough, or even better, quality of care. The scientific relevance is that not much research has been done concerning the implementation of the new policy and how professionals give meaning to it.
Outline of thesis
The chapters in this thesis are organized as follows. Chapter 2 offers the theoretical framework for the study and describes the policy demands made to professionals. Chapter 3 is an account of the research methodology and method. Chapter 4 describes the results regarding the policy demands and the practices of stimulating the own strength and social networks. In Chapter 5 the conclusion and discussion are described. Chapter 6 is the bibliography.
6
2. Theoretical framework 2.1 History of citizenship: citizenship as a right
The British sociologist Marshall (1950) thought of the concept of citizenship as consisting of three elements: civil, political and social. According to Marshall a historical development has taken place towards achieving emancipation in all three elements in western societies. Thus citizenship was aimed at developing civil rights (right of property, freedom of speech, religion, congregation), political rights (voting rights, right of voice in democratic affairs) and social rights (being entitled to support for elder persons, and in cases of disease and accidents) (Marshall, 1965). The movement towards emancipation happened in three different historical periods. Roughly speaking the first emancipation, the receiving of civil rights, happened in the eighteenth century, the second emancipation, the receiving of political rights, took place in the nineteenth century and the third emancipation, the receiving of social rights happened after world war II.
The advent of social citizenship is important for this thesis as it deals with the relationship between citizens and the state with regards to the domain of care, i.e. social support. The main change was the flipping of the ideal of autonomy. In the pillarized society citizens who needed care were dependent on their direct social circle, i.e. family, friends, neighbours. This changed with the advent of social citizenship, in which citizens were
granted social rights and were eligible to apply to collective support systems (Adriaansens en Zijderveld 1981: 18). It was seen as more ideal when citizens were dependent on the state for social support instead of being dependent on their social circle. In order to organize this social support the state set up a thoroughly organized bureaucratic system of rules and rights. It operates on the principle of equality of rights and is made possible by redistribution of income. Redistribution happens by taxation of the state to which every citizen is subjected. This form of taxation implies a passive solidarity in which citizens have no choice but as to contribute to the system.
In general, when seeing citizenship as emancipation on civil, political and social rights, as Marshall does, this implies a passive or private concept of citizenship. This is due to the strong emphasis on individual civil rights and on citizenship as a formal judicial status and due to the limited attention to civic duties and citizenship as active participation (Van de Wijdeven, de Graaf & Hendriks, 2013).
7
2.2 The rise of active citizenship: from right to plight
Seeing citizenship as passive or private changed after the 1980 when under influence of the crisis of the welfare state and other societal developments (individualisation,
secularisation) the idea of citizenship was reviewed again. In the new conception of
citizenship good citizenship now was not only about claiming one’s rights, but also implied having to fulfill certain obligations as a civilian. This implied a radical change for citizenship as the theoretical rationale behind citizenship shifted from entitlement towards obligation.
The government, by asking citizens to take responsibility and show active solidarity, is using a new concept of citizenship. One of the consequences is that the social space no longer is a domain in which the administration is active, but a domain that has to originate through interactions among active citizens (Muehlebach 2012: 42-44). In order to achieve that citizens want to mutually care for each other, the government, politicians and policy makers steer peoples way of thinking and judging regarding this subject by adding a moral-emotional connotation to the concept of citizenship. They do this by appealing to the
‘affective’ bonds between citizens. In doing so the government explicitly refers to emotions such as compassion, solidarity and empathy (Muehlebach, 2012). People need to feel right about caring for others. A yearning for mutual/reciprocal care must originate backed up by an explanation of indisputable and necessary reforms. By changing the conception of citizenship the government expects citizens to accept and experience the laid upon duties by the
government in the domain of care as an internally felt necessity. Thus the way in which citizenship is constructed is now contingent on how certain emotions are recognized and encouraged.
With the advent of active citizenship autonomy is still seen as ideal but it's
interpretation has changed. Autonomy from the state is now seen as ideal. For care, in the first place one now has to rely on one’s family, friends and the local community, i.e. the neighborhood. A pitfall of the new approach to pay attention to is that, with the advent of active citizenship, the importance of having stable relationships is increasing. Deterioration of relationships could imply less stability in providing care. Furthermore the shift to looking to one’s network for help is criticized. It is argued that families and local communities, as a consequence of individualization processes, have become much less cohesive and care on a personal basis between individuals is no longer self-evident (Beck & Beck-Gernsheim, 1994; Linders, 2010). Summarising citizens are expected to care for each other (care as a plight) instead of getting support from the government (care as a right).
8
2.3 Framing & feeling rules
In order for the government to achieve its goals it is important that citizens and professionals understand and agree to the calls to active citizenship. Framing and feeling rules offer insight into how and if citizens understand and agree to new beliefs, thoughts and behaviors.
Feeling rules are socially shared rules which define how one is supposed to feel and how one wants to feel in that situation (Hochschild, 1979). People have an active role in their feelings, they think about their feelings, interpret and judge their feelings and try to work on their feelings (Hochschild, 2003). Feeling rules reflect patterns of social group membership and in this way reflect social guidelines as how to judge the appropriateness of one’s own emotions. Feeling rules are shaped by framing rules.
Framing rules form the framework of reference with which citizens give meaning to specific events, issues, actions or situations. Framing rules determine not only what citizens think and what demands they make but also the feelings they experience. This is in line with framing theory which states that the meaning people ascribe to situations depends on their frame of reference (Gross & D’Ambrosio, 2004). Frames can be seen as narratives (Gamson & Modigliani, 1987:143). Thus how citizens give meaning to political events or problematic issues is for a large part dependent on the framing of these issues (Gross & D'Ambrosio, 2004:1).
Framing rules originate in institutions, standards within families, groups of friends, political parties, professions or religious communities. Framing rules can for instance be formed by the way care is structured in a country. It matters whether care is a private
business, when a market system is being used or if the government or the civil society is held responsible (Tonkens, 2008: 14).
According to Hochschild event or issues can be framed on the basis of three types of rules: moral, historic and pragmatic rules. Moral rules are indicative as to what citizens see as their duty, for instance, the eldest daughter who because she considers it as her plight,
delivers most of the care for her parents whereas her brother delivers much less care and considers this as normal since it is more of a woman’s job to care for the parents. Historic rules are indicative of (one’s own) history, for instance the fact that people are resistant to the laid upon changes to show ‘own strength’ and to make use of their social network as they consider it the task of government to look after them as government has done so for the last decades. Pragmatic rules concern of what is available for an actor, for instance a woman whom sees herself as being lucky to receive care and support at home for a couple of hours a
9 week as there are long waiting lists. Concluding, framing rules determine how a person thinks how events, issues or situations should be and feeling rules determine how events, issues or situations should feel.
2.4 Framing and feeling rules of the government
As said before the government is trying to establish new feeling and framing rules with regard to social support. They try to set up the new feeling rule that citizens should feel good when delivering care to other citizens such as neighbours, family members and also feel good when this care is reciprocated. Through appealing to emotions such as compassion, solidarity and empathy, government is trying to foster normal natural affective bonds between citizens. This way government tries to engineer what citizens should feel about welfare reform.
These new feeling rules are shaped by moral and pragmatic framing rules. The moral framing rule of the state is that it is the morally just thing to do for citizens if they take responsibility for their own life and make use of their networks for support and also be helping other people. Through conveying a moralistic message which tells citizens the standpoint they should take on informal and formal care the government is trying to change the frame of social support (Grootegoed, 2013, Verhoeven, Verplanke & Kampen, 2013). To support the message that social support has to be framed differently a pragmatic framing rule is also applied. This rule, which is not as commonly emphasized as the moral framing rule, states that due to the economic crisis there is less money available nowadays as before, which limits the scope and options professionals can deliver to citizens and thus it is better if
citizens take ‘own strength’.
This framing of the policy makes it clear how the government shifts the responsibility to the citizen. Furthermore it looks as if professionals before did not stimulate citizens ‘own strength’ enough. Lastly in the framing rules there is an assumption of the government that citizens have the skills which are necessary to help themselves and participate in society.
The professionals have follow along in this change, as they are expected to transfer this message to citizens and make citizens feel and think different about care. They have to stimulate citizens ‘own strength’ and direct citizens to more cheap, common services and prevent more expensive customized services. It is important that their frames are congruent with the frames laid out by the state and the new municipal policy for a successful
implementation of the new policy. In case the frames are incongruent this would mean that the implementation of the new policy is likely to be hampered as this can lead to problems
10 such as misaligned expectations, resistance and skepticism. Therefore the frames of
professionals will be contrasted with those of the government regarding the policy changes to see if there is congruence or incongruence.
2.5 Criteria of Professionalism
In recent years the term professional is on the rise in the Dutch public debate. In the current public debate all professionals who have received some training and see clients are looked upon as 'professionals' (Noordegraaf, 2007, 2008). The term is applied to laborers working in the public sector such as teachers, police officers, social workers, nurses, GP's and medical specialists (Jansen, Van den Brink & Kole, 2009: 17). In sociology however the concept of professionalism entails more strict criteria in order to call employees professionals (Freidson, 2001). According to Freidson (2001) professionalism is a method to organize work alternative to the logic of bureaucracy and the market to organize work. Professionalism is characterized by five structural underpinnings. Firstly there is an occupationally controlled division of labour meaning that the profession decides how the work has to be divided and whom may do what. Secondly it is an occupationally controlled labour market in which the profession decided whom are members and what entry-level requirements are, such as having the right diploma’s and certificates. Thirdly there is an occupationally controlled training programme which aims at developing new knowledge. Fourthly a penal system has been set up for controlling, reprimanding and punishing professionals who do not comply with the demands of the profession. Fifthly there is a shared ideology meaning that the work of professionals serves a higher purpose such as health, justice, intellectual development and is not primarily about earning money (Freidson, 2001; Duyvendak, Knijn & Kremer, 2006: 14, Trappenburg 2011: 3).
Acting professionally, generally speaking, means being able to apply general
scientific knowledge to specific cases in routinized or institutionalized ways (Freidson, 2001; Noordegraaf, 2007). This knowledge basis on which professionals act is systematic,
theoretical and practical and is documented in professional guidelines and standards (Freidson, 2001). In order to build up this knowledge basis professionals have followed a scientific vocational education, that is recognized in society and established in a profession (ibid.). A classic example of ideal types of professionals who adhere to almost all criteria are lawyers and doctors, as they have a clearly distinguished knowledge base, are strongly organized and have clear demarcations of inclusion and exclusion into these types of professions.
11 As the people working in the parent and child teams have seen an increase in their
discretionary space, which is normally only reserved for professionals, it is interesting to see if they meet the criteria of professionalism. In general the professional status of people working in the care and welfare sectors is questioned as they usually do not meet all Freidson’s (2001) criteria of professionalism (Noordegraaf, 2007, 2008). There is often no professional organisation and no occupationally controlled division of labour. Furthermore the expertise and knowledge of care and welfare workers is not always acknowledged due to the fact that most of their tasks are in close connection with a non-professional logic, that of the family (Duyvendak, Knijn & Kremer, 2006: 15). Family logic is based on kinship, reciprocity, normative claims and bonding. As a consequence it is arbitrary. In contrast with the logic of the state and the market it is never indifferent, objective or impersonal but it is aimed at a subjective, personal approach with attention to difference Duyvendak, Knijn & Kremer, 2006).
However Noordegraaf (2007) also argues that recent developments have led to an increase in knowledge, expertise and autonomy of care and welfare workers. Even though the parent and child advisors in this research are used to less autonomy, have received less training and are less protected by a professionals association in contrast with more classic professionals such as doctors and lawyers they are still seen as professionals. This is in line with the current trend, highlighted previously, in which the exact meaning and approach to professionalism is in flux and becoming less restrictive.
2.6 New Style Social Work
As described in the introduction the programme 'New Style Social Work' offers a framework for the further development of social policy and social work on the basis of eight themes. The themes are: a more client centered approach, emphasis on the citizens own strength, a direct handling of problematic situations, making use of the social networks of the client, working towards more collective than to individual solutions, integral working in collaboration with other relevant institutions, a result oriented way of working and giving more space to the professional autonomy.
As this thesis examines the attitudes professionals have and the practices they use in stimulating the ‘own strength’ of clients and their social networks for support only the following five themes are of interest : (1) a more client centered approach, (2) the own strength of the citizen, (3) informal versus formal care, (4) integral working, (5) giving space to professional autonomy. They content of each theme will be explicated below.
12 The first theme focusses on a more client centered approach meaning that the client takes in a central position in the division of tasks between client and professional. Clients are expected to take responsibility for both describing the problems they face and on the possible steps for action they can take (Van Yperen, Booy, & Van der Veldt, 2003, p.). The
professional is not expected to be an expert who sets the diagnose and selects the steps for action but more a supporter and activator of the client. The professional does offer his or her expertise and advice but it is based on and judged by the input of the client.
The second theme puts the emphasis on the ‘own strength’ of citizens. Own strength is central to achieve the goal of clients taking their own responsibility and participating in society. Own strength of the citizen refers to who (client or professional) is responsible for what. It is reasoned that too often the own strength of citizens, their networks, their
neighborhoods is neglected by the professional. By taking over responsibility over the problems of clients professionals might hinder their ability to solve problems themselves. Therefore the focus in own strength is on what people are capable of, instead of what they are not capable of. Clients (children and parents) should, as much as possible, take responsibility for their own lives. This means that professionals have to take family members seriously and treat them as equal partners and believe in their strength.
The third theme concerns the divide of responsibilities between informal and formal care as it searches for an optimal ratio of what citizens can do independently and what professionals are supposed to do. Participation should not only be enhanced by appealing to the own capabilities of citizens or the effort of professionals but also by appealing to social networks, voluntary initiatives and community connections. Citizens have to take care of each other more. It is reasoned that structural dependency from clients on professionals can be prevented by activating the problem solving capabilities of both individuals as well as groups. According to Tonkens and Duyvendak (2013) however civilians need to be able to do this and also need to be motivated. They question the premise that informal care (i.e. care supported by the social network) is better than formal care (care regulated by the state). Furthermore they expect that volunteers will not be able to deal with the multitude of challenges and tasks in the social domain and will not want to perform those tasks either.
The fourth theme, integral working in collaboration with other relevant institutions, deals with the relatedness of problems. A question or problem usually is related to other issues. In those cases it is important that related problems are also dealt with accordingly. The related way of dealing with problems is called integral working. Within the social
13 clients, professionals approach the issues from a perspective of having one plan and one
director per family. This is set up to prevent a multitude of different professionals working with the same family at the same time. Often that leads to a differentiation of types of help and a lack of overview of what is going on. Because clients can have different types of difficulties which require different kinds of expertise, the teams have a multidisciplinary composition. Thus within each team the professional that, according to his or her expertise, is deemed to be best suited to help a client will help this specific client.
Theme five: giving space to professional autonomy. In the last decade the increasing demands concerning accountability and performance that professionals in the public sector face are receiving ever more attention in both public and academic debate (Noordegraaf & Steijn, 2013). The idea is that, especially in the care and welfare sector, professionals spend too much time dealing with bureaucratic demands and have too little space to do their work appropriately, due to the overload of protocols and procedures (Tonkens, 2008). Having to follow strict rules would leave professionals not enough space to determine what is good for the health or wellbeing of the client on the basis of their expertise (Freidson, 2001, Vogd, 2006, Tweede Kamer, 2008, De Onderwijsagenda, 2010 as cited in van Hassel, Tonkens & Hoijtink, p.7). This critique is in line with Lipsky’s argument that having discretionairy space is important for professionals working in public service as the situations they face are too complex to reduce to prescribed responses. ‘The nature of service provision calls for human judgement that cannot be programmed and for which machines cannot substitute (Lipsky, 1980, p.161). Having to choose from prescribed responses would render them unable to do the job as they are required to make decisions about people who are unpredictable, varied and having different and dynamic needs. Due to this type of critique ‘New Style Social Work’ therefore aims at an increase of the discretionary space and autonomy of professionals.
2.7 New position of professionals
After the programme ‘Welfare Style Social Work’ the Council for Social
Development (Raad voor Maatschappelijke Ontwikkeling; RMO, 2012) published a report called “Ontzorgen en normaliseren. Naar een sterke eerstelijnszorg jeugd-en gezinszorg”in which they state the need for a new approach in youth welfare. Many policy documents on the transition in the youth care refer to this report. The report states the following: many common troubles within families are made into bigger troubles then necessary and
consequently there is too much specialized professional help involved in the daily lives of parents and their children. Professional support has to take place close to home in the direct
14 living environment and has to fit into the possibilities of families and their social
environment. It suggests a stronger first line of caretakers, in this case the professionals, to prevent more specialized forms of youth care and especially to strengthen the active effort of families and their social environment in solving problems and in keeping their problems controllable. The new approach expects professionals to adapt their way of working and implement new principles. Professionals should work as generalists, work integral and preventive.
A generalist is someone who has a broad knowledge base of multiple domains and has further developed him or herself with additional training to become a special type of
generalist, a generalist specialist, within the broader terrain of care and welfare. Such professionals may refer clients to other institutions of care, mediate, execute light interventions out themselves and look out for problems and opportunities. Generalists connect citizens with the institutional world but also connect professionals amongst each other and citizens amongst each other with a strong emphasis on empowerment in the process of doing so ( Scholte, Sprinkhuizen & Zuithof, 2012: p.16). Generalists have the task to activate and strengthen the ‘own strength’ of the family and their social environment
(Verhoeven & Jacobs, 2014; Barnhoorn, Broeren, Distelbrink, de Greef, van Grieken, Jansen, Pels, Pijnenburg & Raat, 2013).
Working integral, as mentioned previously, means that professionals approach the issues of clients not from a single problem definition but take in the whole perspective as usually problems as related to other problems and therefore professionals try to solve problems from the perspective of having one plan and one director per family.
Thirdly working preventively means that professionals try to prevent problems from arising, worsening or escalating. Indirectly this is also about trying to prevent citizens making appeals to social support or having to make use of more specialized and/or more intense social support.
2.8 New role of professionals
In their new role professionals are expected to shift from having a directive stance towards clients to having a more coaching, supporting and facilitating stance towards the client. As the professionals change their stance, taking on less of an expert role and more of an supportive role, this has implications for the power dynamic of the relationship between professional and client. It is becoming more equal and horizontal, aimed at cooperation. The rationale for changing the role of professionals is that government is convinced that support
15 and care to children and youngsters can be better and more effective if professionals work
together with children and their families and that clients have as much as possible to say in setting up an integral plan. In their working with clients the government hopes that
professionals see their work with the ultimate goal in their mind to make themselves as redundant as possible (Linders, Bouma & Steyaert, 2008: 86, 87, 93). By trying to decrease the professional power the government aims at increasing the personal control of citizens over their own lives and hopes that clients will take their own responsibility and become self-supportive (Verhoeven, Verplanke & Kampen, 2013: 17-19). Choice, participation and responsibility of clients are now important key words for stimulating ‘own strength’ of citizens (Newman & Tonkens, 2011). The cause of this rationale started with the wave of democratization in the 70's in which democratization, self-realization and assertiveness became important values for customers and clients and both professionalism and paternalism suffered of this as the good intentions of professionals, their (monopolistic) position and the added value of their knowledge were questioned (Tonkens 2003, 14-20). Even though this wave had positive consequences according to Tonkens there are also negative consequences as citizens can also become highly assertive (Tonkens, 2003, p. 20) which professionals have to deal with. According to Tonkens the increasing assertiveness of clients and the aversion to paternalism on the one hand and the accountability processes have led to the 'tamed'
professional (Tonkens, 2003, p.23): a professional who has to defend his knowledge and relevance against the increasing assertiveness of citizens. Therefore she arguments that professionals should listen but also dare to disagree with their clients and sometimes know things better (Tonkens, 2003, p.23). In accordance with Tonkens (2003) Kluft (2012, p.66) also arguments that even though the emphasis is on the self-sufficienc and own responsibility of the citizen it should be emphasized that the professionals is the one who has the
experiences, methodological knowledge and skills.
Furthermore the professional is expected to negotiate between different parties: the client, the healthcare provider and the (local) government. Lastly as mentioned before the discretionary space of professionals is increased as government believes that support and care for children can be better and more effective if professionals have more discretionary space when at work, meaning that bureaucracy is limited as much as possible. Altogether it means that professionals have to be able to be flexible in switching between the different roles of being a coach (activating, strengthening), builder (helping practically) and director
(coordinating transcending) as well as being able to take in different perspectives (family, youth welfare professionals, organizations).
16
2.9 New competences of professionals
The new position and role require a different type of behaviors of professionals and means they have to master new competences. Therefore 10 basic competences have been set up by the Netherlands Youth Institute (Nederlands Jeugdinstituut; NJi), specifically for youth-and family generalists, which professionals must master to successfully implement the changes (Vlaar, Kluft & Liefhebber, 2013, Wijland & de Goede, 2012). The 10 basic
competences are described below.
Firstly, clarifying questions and needs by active listening, building up of trust and letting the question of clients be leading.
Secondly, strengthening ‘own strength’ and self-determination (finding of one’s own solutions) by motivating and stimulating ‘own strength’, helping to discover skills and, if necessary offering support or transferring of care.
Thirdly, being visible and reaching out to meet people (youth and parents) and in doing so making oneself easily accessible in the living situation. Also being professionally visible in the local society, profession and policy.
Fourthly, stimulating responsible behavior from youth and parents, solving obstacles and searching for solutions.
Fifthly aiming for commitment and participation from youth and parents, knows when it’s necessary to intervene.
Sixthly, connecting individual questions and needs with collective needs and potentials (volunteers, citizens, organizations), hereby stimulating social cohesion and an integrative approach.
Seventhly: reinforcing and supporting social networks of youth and parents hereby working together in a broad network consisting of families, professionals, associations, business owners and policy makers to realize set goals.
Eighthly, moving around easily in different environments of both youth and parents, being well capable of dealing with organizations, capable of changing perspectives and bringing together different environments. This means that professionals have to be capable of operating in different cultures; have respect for and build on the values, preferences, religion, culture and identity of the child, the family and the neighborhood/environment.
Nine, having an antenna for social relations between youth, educators and
17 Ten, making optimal use of the professional space in order to create new opportunities with youth, educators and professions and is in doing so entrepreneurial, reflective, makes effects visible and shares effects.
18
3. Data & methodology 3.1 Methodological standpoint
All research in social sciences is based on underlying assumptions as to how social phenomena can be viewed and approached. Meaning there are different approaches as to what is reality, what can be known about reality and how one can go about to generate knowledge.
The methodological stance in this research is called interpretivism. Interpretivism is about understanding the standpoint of other people and the way in which they view and experience the social world (Bryman, 2012). The way people act and how they give meaning and judgments to social phenomena is dependent on how they view reality. Interpretivism views reality as multiple and relative (Hudson and Ozanne, 1988). Reality is a matter of interpretation which can only be known indirectly, through the interpretations of people. People can interpret the same social phenomenon differently and consequently give different meanings to it. Thus it follows that individuals and groups can interpret reality through different lenses. The epistemological implication is that knowledge is always indeterminate and situational. According to Flyvbjerg (2001), the interpretative approach is the best approach for social sciences to do research as social phenomena cannot be reduced to rules, context is always important. Social sciences should deal with understanding and explaining acting in the social world, processes of giving meaning and value judgments. People act on the basis of how they give meaning to their own acting and on how other’s act. Concluding, in interpretivism, there is no objective understanding of reality, there are many truths possible.
3.2 Qualitative research
As the focus in this research is on how the professionals implement and give meaning to the aforementioned policy changes it makes sense to choose a qualitative research based design. Qualitative research is most suited for research dealing with issues concerning how social reality is interpreted (Bryman, 2008). In qualitative research the assumption is that the social reality is created by individuals and consequently is in a constant state of flux
(Bryman, 2008: 22). Only a qualitative research based design gives justice to the different interpretations which professionals have about the policy changes.
Using a qualitative based research design however has both advantages and disadvantages. The overarching main advantage of qualitative research methods is that respondents have more freedom to explicate their standpoint, their way of seeing and
19 experiencing the world as they do not have to answer pre-designed- questions. In qualitative research respondents have the possibility to highlight topics which they find interesting and which had not been encapsulated in the structure of the research, they can further explicate their answers, bring on nuance and ask for clarification of the questions in case they do not understand. Finally the interviewer can steer the answers of respondents to give more clear answers to the main research question (‘t Hart e. a., 2006).
Qualitative research also has a few disadvantages. Firstly it is hardly ever
generalizable as it deals with processes of interpretation and furthermore as it is much more time-intensive usually has has a limited amount of respondents. Secondly, as the method of data-collection is little standardized, the validity of the research findings can be threatened as there is more space for interpretation and guiding of the way the research enfolds by the researcher. The researcher can for instance ask questions in a certain way and focus on certain aspects when coding the data. Also choosing to take in or not take in certain
respondents can give biased results (‘t Hart, e. a., 2006). Another threat to the validity is the dilemma of socially desirable answers. According to Tonkens (2006) this research is taking place in a field which is heavily occupied by societal ideals and norms, thus leading to a higher possibility of respondents giving socially desirable answers (Tonkens, 2006: 12-13). However these socially desirable answers fit however interpretative research as they can be looked upon as how respondents view ‘reality’. Thirdly it is likely that there is a low reliability as there are usually fewer respondents as with quantitative research. Thus replicating the results of the research becomes harder.
3.3 Data collection
Parent and Child Teams Amsterdam
Through a friend who was working as parent and child advisor contact was made with the head of this municipal department. She agreed in giving the researcher access to the organisation and to the professionals. It would have been useful to combine interviews with an observational study but the researcher did not get permission for this.
Selection of respondents
Respondents have been approached through sending out a message on Yammer, the social network in which all the professionals are connected. Thus with a minimum of effort a large amount of potential respondents was reached. In the message the goals of the research were explicated and the contact information of the researcher was embedded. If professionals were interested they could approach the researcher him or herself. Furthermore, the researcher was
20 once present at a meeting for parent and child advisors where he pitched the research. In total, 19 respondents were interviewed, 16 of those reached out to the researcher due to the
Yammer message and 3 respondents agreed to an interview after the meeting where the researched pitched the research proposal. As most respondents are not selected at random but voluntarily agreed to be interviewed it is likely that they have a special interest in the subject matter. Thus there is a low external validity (Verhoeven, 2007; Bryman ,2012) and research results cannot be generalized over all the other professionals.
Method: semi-structured interviews
In this research semi-structured interviews have been chosen as the way to do collect data. In a semi-structured interviews there is a framework of themes to be explored on the basis of a predetermined set of questions which the interviewee is supposed to answer. The difference with a structured interview is that in a semi-structured interview there is freedom to explore the findings until saturation has been achieved whereas in a structured interview there is no freedom to expand and it is not allowed to divert from the predetermined set of questions. The advantage is that this leaves more space to hear the story of the interviewee than a structured interview. This is important as this research focuses on how professionals implement and interpret the new policy. Furthermore according to Bryman (2008) the semi-structured interview is most suited for finding out which frames people use as it deals with retrieving what respondents find important in understanding and explaining events, patterns and behaviors. This is made possible by giving the respondent the freedom to steer his or her own answer (Bryman, 2008: 438). Finally it offers more structure then a fully unstructured interview, even if questions are not always asked in the same way and in the same order, all same topics have been asked about, which leads to more certainty about the collection of the right data and increases the reliability of the research (Bryman, 2008: 438-439).
The questions have been set up on the basis of policy documents set out by the SCP, the municipality of Amsterdam such as rapports, working methods and on the basis of literature such as scientific articles and books about professionalism, discretionary space, feeling & framing rules and networks and on an interview with an expert on social work. As said, a framework has been set up consisting of themes with each theme having a different set of questions.
21
3.4 Analysis
All interviews have been recorded, transcribed and then analyzed using ATLAS.ti, version 7. By transcribing the interviews a thorough analysis of the sayings of respondents is made possible. Furthermore other researchers have access to the data set and can control and evaluate if the researches is biased when analyzing the data (Bryman, 2008: 451). In order to analyze the data the underlying theme’s and frames in the material have been codified and if needed recodified. Then when all data was codified, codes where assembled into different mind-maps and thus coherently put together according to their underlying theme. This led to more clarification and oversight of the structure of all the codes and how they are related to one another.
22
4. Results
In this chapter the main findings are discussed. Firstly the congruence or incongruence between the moral and pragmatic framing rules of professionals and government on the ‘own strength’ of clients and on the appeal to make use of their social networks is discussed. As there were no respondents referring to historic framing rule these rules are not included in the analysis. Secondly if professionals comply to the policy demands on their new position, role and competences.
4.1 Moral framing rules: 'own strength'
As mentioned in chapter 1, moral framing rules are indicative of the convictions of professionals regarding the duties of citizens in the domain of care and support. The moral framing rules of most professionals seem to be congruent with the moral framing rules of the government. The moral framing rule of the government on ‘own strength’ is that it is the responsibility of the client and family to solve their own issues and as a consequence citizens have to make use of their ‘own strength’ as much as possible. The moral framing rule
professionals use is: ‘what people can do themselves they should do themselves’. Professionals still help their clients by giving advice but they also ask them to take responsibility to act on their own. Thus the client is held more responsible and the professional takes on a more coaching and facilitating role and tries not to be forceful or directive. The following quotes illustrate this moral way of thinking:
I said ‘You’re wondering how to go on holidays with your disabled child. I’m willing to look into that, but I won’t actually make the plans for you. I’m going to lean away from the situation and simply observe how you’re able to do certain things’. Then it came down to filling out a form, and she asked me to fill it in for her. I told her, ‘I was just about to ask you to do the same, and if you can’t manage then you can send me photos explaining what doesn’t work for you’. She was a smart woman who really was capable of doing such things and was just used to having everything done for her. You have to hand over the director’s role to her, and if she makes a decision to not receive support, that’s fine, as she is not a lady unable to take care of herself. (Professional 6)
Eventually it [the situation for which the client needs help] is the problem of the family, and they have to solve it. I mean I’m not around them 24 hours a
23 day. I can give them tips, but eventually they have to do it themselves. That’s what I try to emphasize all the time. And if they name an example of
something they did that went well, I tell them ‘you did this yourselves, you know, because I was not there’. (Professional 4)
At a certain moment, they have to do it themselves. Parents have to do it themselves. You can stand next to them and give them support, but eventually they really need to rely on their own strength. So it’s a trap, actually, to do everything for them. That is, I believe what happens when one does not take over is of added value. (Professional 15)
Professionals use three different motivations to explain why they support this moral framing rule: (1) when people solve their problems themselves this increases their self-confidence, (2) people are more capable of solving problems on their own contrary to what they believe, (3) using ‘own strength’ helps clients to live their life more independent.
The first type of motivation, used by most professionals, is when people solve their problems themselves this increases their self-confidence. This type of motivation is illustrated by the following quotes:
It’s very important for people to solve problems on their own and with their own strength. That’s the loveliest thing there is. Receiving help from a stranger, whether for a short period or in general, is nice, but if one solves something oneself then that person has more self-confidence. That is so important for people. I think you have to work off of that feeling as well. For example, you might be sitting next to someone who is practicing making phone calls—what they have to say and so forth—and you might do this together the next time, maybe three times together, just like teaching a child to ride a bike. Then this person does it independently the fourth time and is so proud of him/herself and can set things up for him/herself. You have to work from that feeling. (Professional 16)
Lately I am more and more like, ‘come on, do it yourselves, you can do it’. I’m more inclined to think that people really should not play the role of victim, which is what one sees a lot. Things are being done for you. You have no
24 money; you have kids; you don’t say anything, and then you sit and wait till someone does something for you. And I believe it is very easy for
professionals to fall in the trap of ‘oh yeah, I’ll fix that that for you, I’m nice’. So sometimes it’s good to think, how can you [the professional] do that, talk about that. There are many possibilities in the neighborhood, volunteers in all kinds of areas, social work, advising, and legal aid. One might also go to Homestart, an organization consisting of volunteers who offer support to their clients, so that clients can make friends with the volunteers. It’s not
caregiving, and it’s not expensive, but it is accessible. So I think it’s about searching for what works so that people take action, take steps and then integrate better and also feel better about themselves. For instance, a language class where women talk with each other and socialize. Look, it’s very weird to tell a single depressive woman to go to a community center where such and such happens because I as a ‘caregiver’ think she needs more help but maybe it will help her. I see that if she really takes steps to go to a language lesson, however tough it may be, she gains some more self-confidence. She thinks ‘Oh, I can go to the municipality, then I can ask for something, then I can do this and that’. So it does help. Seeking help demands something of people, but I think, in the long term, they only profit from it. (Professional 15)
Encouraging clients to draw on their own strength is an approach I support. I have to work harder this way than when I just let myself take over. Leaning backwards is not so easy for a social worker, who is likely to think, ‘we have literally spent the last three months filling out a form which I could have done in five minutes, so let me just do it myself’. Nonetheless, it’s a question of principle. What people can do themselves they should do themselves, because that makes them feel more powerful. (Professional 6)
I think this works well for families. They become more self-reliant and more independent from social work. If one feels more powerful, that also has an effect in how they bring up their children and relate to others. It works in all areas to take care of things oneself, including on a societal level. If one feels more powerful and has more self-confidence, then this can also manifest in other areas. But, of course, developing this confidence often needs attention,
25 and people keep coming back because of other problems or for other children. But I also find it good that they dare to come. And then, maybe they need one or two talks, and then they move on, or they need a sort of refresher
conversation, just a confirmation that they are on the right track, and then they move on. (Professional 2)
The following quote highlights the second type of motivation which is that people are more capable of solving problems on their own, contrary to what they believe:
The idea of relying on one’s own strength I find really perfect. It’s just that many people don’t know how much they can do and how much they already do well, so to point this out to them is just great. (Professional 12)
The third type of motivation is that through using ‘own strength’ clients can live for longer independently. The following quote exemplifies this:
So if one looks at earlier techniques, where much was taken over and whereby clients would lose their own strength, then I would assume that clients
continuously declined in their wellbeing and, as such, would need help again. Whereas if one teaches a client what his or her own strengths are, he or she can live independently for longer. (Professional 12)
One professional mentions that an exception needs to be made to the rule of ‘own strength’ for more ‘vulnerable’ families. She nuances the principle of leaving responsibility with the family by stating that if people really cannot solve their own issues and are thus impeded in their functioning in society then it is the responsibility of the professional to offer support. The rationale is that professionals are not there to solve issues people can do themselves but if they constantly have trouble solving issues by themselves then professional support is needed:
Being transparent about why you believe a parent should do something him/herself is also important. Because it is not my job to constantly fill out forms. But if one notices that the same problems keep repeating themselves, then it is useful to provide some support in those areas that they really cannot
26 handle themselves. And I find the same thing with writing letters. If Dutch is not your mother tongue, then it really is impossible for some people to fill out forms. (Professional 8)
Further on in the interview it becomes clear that this professional is applying emotion work. Emotion work is when somebody is adjusting his/her cognitive and emotional frame,
reframing something as being a good change but still having trouble to make that frame one’s own. It shows in the discrepancy between what she believes she needs to do and her own conviction of being a professional helper.
I think it is good to encourage clients to make use of their own strength and to stimulate networks, but it is very…this method doesn’t suit me very well as a helping professional. Because I really like to help people, so I am inclined to say I will fix something or I will make a call for a client. That is simply how I and many of my colleagues are. So, with that in mind, I have to train myself very much to take a step back and to think ‘I don’t need to do this myself. I can do this together with the parent, or the parent can do this alone’.
Previously, for example, we also said to schools: ‘hand me the phone number of the parent, and I will call her’. And I am still very much in favor of that tactic as it sometimes breaks down barriers. But this technique has nothing to do with the ability of that parent. Because if that parent says that she or he will call then we assume they will do so. (Professional 8)
4.2 Moral framing rules: social network
The moral framing rule which states that it is good to make use of the social networks for support and care is congruent with the framing rule of most professionals. But
professionals use different motivations and qualifications to explain why it is good to make use of the social networks. Firstly professionals reason that networks play a most important role as they offer more continuous help, lead to behavioral change and more safety through social control. Secondly the use of social networks is qualified by stating that social networks are happy to help the family when asked to offer help. Thirdly professionals state then when making use of networks it should be because it serves as purpose and not in order to save money, i.e. as a budgetary reduction. Fourthly they reason that making use of networks should not be forced on clients but clients should have to make that decision freely on their
27 own will. The following quotes, used by most professionals, illustrate the important role
networks play:
Using networks needs to be justified and effective. I think that the using of one’s own network is very important. Certainly this is the case when the network needs to know what is going on and also has to provide support. The network can fulfill a key role by offering different types of help. So there are many important ways to make use of the social network. (Professional 5)
I think that eventually it is a plus if people have support from their network. This is because the network provides more continuous support. Also, people will just behave differently under social pressure and will adapt better and try to show their better sides. It’s all good. (Professional 15)
Yes, I find social networks to add a lot of value. In addition to them helping out a lot, often there is just a lot of care-taking already in such a family. Or school is very biased. It’s just good to have a neighbor who is down to earth and says ‘this I find not normal whereas that I find normal’. He approaches problems in a simpler way that matches better with the parents. And besides, with social networks, one has more control. For instance, if someone has trouble raising the children, then a neighbor is, of course, the first one to see and hear it. A caretaker who visits once a week cannot notice all the problems. (Professional 14)
It’s important that someone within the extended family knows what is going on. Because if we cannot make contact with the inner family, then it is useful to have someone outside the inner family with whom we can eventually make contact. It’s very important to clarify why such contact is important. It’s not so that we know what they’re doing all the time, but more just for safety reasons. And also to fall back upon. So having these connections is already a step. (Professional 13)
Secondly, the use of networks is qualified by stating that networks members are happy to out when asked for help:
28 Asking someone to run a small errand or perform a small service is never too much, I believe. That’s why it’s also good to set people in motion to ask their networks for help. Because often the networks sees that maybe something needs to happen, but people don’t want to intrude upon or meddle in the affairs of the family. If someone asks for help, then the network is sometimes just happy that they can finally do something. (Professional 11)
Thirdly it is reasoned that making use of networks should be done on the basis of serving a purpose and not used as a budgetary reduction:
Sometimes, they have a very one-sided network, and the network itself is, in fact, a problem. So one has to make sure the network serves a good purpose, and isn’t just the result of some sort of budget cut, or a way of passing off the problems of the client to the network. (Professional 5)
Fourthly making use of networks should be based on a principle of voluntarism, which is important and should not be forced upon families:
I think that I myself also understand when the clients sometimes don’t want to bother other people with their issues. I mean, well, we live in 2015, and things are just busy. People are more selfish. They have their own issues, own troubles; they work, are busy. The pressure is just greater with everyone. So if I hear from a client, ‘I don’t want to bother my mum or an aunt with that issue’, then I do understand what they mean, and I don’t think they are entirely wrong. This is my opinion, but maybe it is not useful to fully express this opinion at work. (Professional 12)
One professional combined the moral framing rules of ‘own strength’ and social network. She has different motivations regarding the moral framing rules. Firstly she believes that it leads to both happiness and satisfaction:
We must not forget that everyone wants to solve their own problems. Doing so is the source of people’s strength, actually. Sometimes it looks indeed like they come to you for easy answers, but if someone can eventually take care of
29 their own issues through the support of their own networks, that gives more satisfaction or gratification than what they get from professional caretaking. Caretaking is also a temporary thing. People should not be dependent on us. You can give help but you must always point out how people can help themselves more, how they can, with the support of their environment, solve things themselves, and how they get much more satisfaction from doing so. This way their self-confidence and self-esteem also get bigger. (Professional 16)
Secondly, the professional also has mixed feelings about it:
Yes, I have some mixed feelings about stimulating a client’s own strength. On one hand, when I did my training to be a social worker, a lot of the curriculum was about how important it is for people to solve their problems using their own strength and to stimulate that. Only it’s quite difficult when their networks consist of people with the same low levels in language proficiency and low levels of education. It’s very hard for these people to make use of their networks to solve their problems. (Professional 16)
4.3 Pragmatic framing rules: 'own strength'
In the following part the pragmatic framing rules of ‘own strength’ are discussed. As mentioned pragmatic rules concern of what is available for an actor and the following actions, in this research that is in the domain of care. The first pragmatic framing rule
regarding 'own strength' which is especially used by the government, is that stimulating ‘own strength’ is necessary due to having to cut costs. This framing rule is incongruent with the framing rules of most professionals, as only a few professionals stimulate ‘own strength’ in order to reduce the budget and consequently have developed more cost awareness:
So I’ve noticed that over the years there has been a change in how we look at the client generally. There have been cutbacks in the social-support budget; as a result, clients have to do more themselves. But I also believe that we have been heading more towards that direction anyway. I think that we were much more used to telling people to do this or do that. Because when we did so there was no price tag connected to it. (Professional 15)
