Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This study aims to highlight school social workers’ professional self-perception and how they manage their broad discretion. The empirical data is based on open-ended responses from a survey of 215 school social workers in upper secondary schools in Sweden. The responses have been analysed using thematic text analysis. The results show that school social workers and the school organisation are continuously engaged in a coordinated dance, where social workers must follow steps dictated by time constraints, collaboration with other professions, method application and more. They navigate a complex choreography, often finding themselves dancing solo to an uncertain tune.

Keywords

Creativity discretion profession school social work social work upper secondary school

Introduction

‘It is expected that I should develop the service, based on the needs of the students at the school through the knowledge that I bring’, a school social worker wrote in a survey. This statement illustrates professional discretion and contextual adaptation, however, practicsing social work within the school setting entails operating in an environment where another field, pedagogy, takes precedence (Backlund, 2007; Isaksson and Sjöström, 2017). The school social workers work alongside other professionals, such as nurses, psychologists and special educators, in student health service teams. While the other professions have more fixed tasks and job descriptions, clearer technologies and higher legitimacy the school social workers’ roles are vaguely defined in Sweden (Backlund et al., 2017; Isaksson, 2014), as well as in other countries (Binks et al., 2024), necessitating negotiation of roles within the team (Altshuler and Webb, 2009; Backlund, 2007). Furthermore, Kjellgren et al. (2022) found that school social workers faced significant challenges in navigating between medical and educational arenas, dealing with the unclear regulations and leadership, and negotiating reasonable tasks. Similarly, school counsellors in Bhutan also express a need for a clearer definition of their role to ensure that other interests do not take precedence (Larran and Hein, 2025). Isaksson (2016), Binks et al. (2024) and Murphy et al. (2024) all report that the school social workers express limited autonomy, feeling the need for support from the principal or school district to gain legitimacy for their work.

Over the past two decades, social work in general has shifted towards a more evidence-based approach in Sweden, with less emphasis on the art of practice and less consideration of social and cultural differences (Bergmark and Lundström, 2016; Williams, 2016). Some researchers argue that the ‘social’ aspect of social work is overshadowed by standardisation and individualising perspectives on problems (Hanssen et al., 2015). Yet, the adaptability of evidence-based practice and standardisation is challenged in different local contexts (Hanssen et al., 2015). Also, student health services are facing demands for more evidence-based work (National Board of Health and Welfare and National Agency for Education, 2016), but a scoping review reveals, among other things, that school social workers lack support, such as access to resources for an evidence-based practice (Binks et al., 2024).

Backlund (2007) demonstrates that school social workers in primary and lower secondary schools lacked their own technology and that they defined their tasks in relation to the other professional groups within the team. Nearly a decade later, when the role of school social worker had been included in the Education Act, Isaksson (2016) found that they had specific technologies based on various theoretical approaches, but they still struggled to describe their practice. In a study conducted in Virginia, USA, school social workers reported having so many responsibilities that they struggled to prioritise their tasks. They also expressed lacking clear models for working with students, which limited their ability to act effectively (Murphy et al., 2024).

Altshuler and Webb (2009) argue that the vague role of school social workers requires them to continuously legitimise their existence in relation to other professionals in schools. Wicki et al. (2020) show, in a Swiss study, that other professions primarily viewed the social workers as problem solvers but had varying opinions on how the work should be conducted. Carnes (2023) claims that clarifying roles and responsibilities is essential for school social workers to avoid burning out, while Binks et al. (2024), in a scoping review, found five facilitating areas for school social work practice, among which social workers’ competency, knowledge and support, as well as their role and others’ expectations, were included. Apart from external factors, such as infrastructure and school climate, research clearly shows that the way a school social worker handles their professional role is essential for both their personal job satisfaction and the outcome of their practice. Furthermore, it also shows that the school social workers must handle their role and tasks with discretion since they are not supported by clear guidelines for their work.

Although many studies show a lack of supportive material and regulations, it might not evidently mean that it is a problem for the social workers. Taking another perspective, the limited support could be regarded as having a high level of professional discretion. During the COVID-19 pandemic, school social workers showed an ability to transform and adapt their practices, maintaining connection with students and families (Polizotto and Zinn, 2021). Another study shows school social workers to have a ‘more or less creative touch’ in their work with students (Kjellgren et al., 2022: 8). These authors describe creativity as an art form, where the school social worker and the student create something together using pens, paper, a whiteboard or music to explore and guide the counselling sessions.

Nevertheless, we can observe a tension between, on the one hand, the demand for evidence-based practice and, on the other hand, the professional discretion embedded in the school social workers, role and practice. Therefore, this study aims to explore how school social workers in Swedish upper secondary schools navigate the tension between demands for evidence-based and standardised practices and their professional discretion. By examining how the school social workers describe their daily work, their use of creativity and their perceptions of discretion, the study seeks to understand how they balance institutional expectations with the relational and adaptive nature of their practice. This will be done by answering the following questions: How do school social workers in Swedish upper secondary schools describe professional discretion in their daily practice? How do they express their creativity?

School social workers

School social work is practised in at least 50 countries worldwide (Huxtable, 2022). A common aspect for school social workers is to consistently collaborate within schools, although their organisation varies. In Sweden, the United States and Finland, school social work is integrated into schools through multiprofessional teams. In other countries, school social workers may be affiliated with independent non-profit organisations or organisations working with youth (Huxtable, 2022). In the United States, school social workers are well established and have professional certification (Alvarez et al., 2023). There, the School Social Worker Association, SSWA, has listed competencies expected of a school social worker, including providing evidence-based educational interventions, fostering a positive school climate and ensuring access to resources. Still, despite high educational requirements, many school counsellors feel they lack necessary competencies (Knox et al., 2020).

School social work has existed in Sweden since the 1940s (Isaksson and Larsson, 2012). Since 2010, the Education Act (SFS 2010:800) states that both primary and secondary schools are required to provide students with access to a social worker. Social workers in Sweden have in general a 3.5-year education for the academic professional degree of social worker (socionom). This title is not protected; there is only one area of social work where the employer needs to employ a person with a social worker degree, and that concerns certain tasks in child protection. Health care social workers are the only group of social workers that holds a licence in Sweden. For that, a 1-year specific further education at university is needed. For school social workers, neither the present law nor the legislative history mentions a social work degree as a relevant educational background, and the term ‘social work’ is not at all mentioned in the preparatory works (Ds. 2009:25; Prop. 2009/10:165). However, studies show that employers predominantly search for persons with a social work degree in job advertisements for school social workers both in Sweden (Jansson et al., 2021) and in other countries around the world (Huxtable, 2022).

Unlike most studies that focus on school social work in primary schools, we focus on those working with teenagers in upper secondary school. During the 2022/2023 academic year, 364,000 students attended upper secondary school in Sweden (National Agency for Education, 2023). Two-thirds of the upper secondary schools are public, and one-third of these schools are independent schools, also called ‘private’, due to the ownership (National Agency for Education, 2014). The owners of these schools are non-governmental bodies, private companies, or associations. However, the independent schools in Sweden are state funded through tax revenues and are not allowed to charge fees for students’ education (SOU 2013:56). Upper secondary school is not compulsory but has a dual mission: an educational one and a social one (Education Act 2010:800 Ch. 7, sections 4, 12; Ch. 1, section 4). The social mission exists in two forms: a fundamental one that occurs through schooling as a general socialisation into becoming a responsible adult and citizen. In addition, it aims to more specifically assist/support/help those who do not achieve educational goals.

School social workers can play a key role through individual counselling (Kjellgren, 2024). Ding et al. (2023) show that most school social work interventions focus on improving students’ social, behavioural and academic outcomes with enhanced academic skills. They also concluded from studies focusing on the student’s mental health that school social workers used various forms of CBT as a method, resulting in positive improvements, though without significant results. Despite their challenges, school social workers have a unique role in helping students through early identification, intervention and problem resolution (Singstad et al., 2024).

Professions and creative discretion as theoretical frameworks

Professions are embedded in organisations within which practice is shaped (Svensson, 2011). In this shaping, professions and organisations can be regarded as in a constant dance together, as their interplay forms the actions taken. The professions take the lead, as they interpret the organisational preconditions and the expectations from involved actors for shaping their practice (Scott, 2009). Thus, the school social workers have knowledge and experience that interact with the organisational preconditions for letting the professional role develop in each specific school. Due to their vaguely defined role, they have considerable discretion, making it possible to act in complex and various situations (Lipsky, 2010). Professional identities are shaped by prior experiences and values and are also influenced by broad professional standards, ethics and principles of practice. Their professional identity evolves with increased knowledge and enhanced skills (Nelson et al., 2024).

School social workers cannot perform their tasks as routines. For managing their discretion, responsibilities and professionalism, social workers need to be creative in their daily work (Lymbery, 2003). Stein (1953) defined creativity as something useful with a certain originality. Runco and Jaeger (2012) discuss this further, arguing that creativity, in addition to originality and effectiveness, also can involve achieving surprising results. Creativity can involve ‘thinking outside the box’ (Johnston, 2009) to find innovative solutions to unforeseen situations (Eadie and Lymbery, 2007). However, innovation does not necessarily have to start from the beginning; it could also be about how to adapt models and ideas (Boden, 1994). Bates (2006) means that school social workers guided by evidence-based practices also adapt the methods to the local context in relation to their own professional experience, together with knowledge from their clients and colleagues. By being creative, the school social workers ‘created opportunities to broaden the concept of evidence’ (Bates, 2006: 105).

Social workers need to be creative in their work to adapt interventions to individual needs and avoid the work becoming ‘sterile and unimaginative’ (Eadie and Lymbery, 2007). Thus, school social workers can develop and adapt interventions in innovative ways based on individual needs, ensuring no one falls through the cracks due to narrow categorisations (Evans, 2020).

In this study, we take our point of departure in understanding creativity primarily in how Evans (2020) describes it – as a way of rethinking discretion. He argues that thinking about discretion as creativity ‘can help us recognise the positive ways in which social workers are often involved in developing and extending services and responding to citizens’ needs’ (p. 6). The concept of discretion is used in the analysis to understand how school social workers navigate their roles within organisational constraints while exercising professional judgement. The framework helps to highlight the tensions between structure and discretion and how social workers interpret, adapt and sometimes challenge the boundaries of their roles. Our understanding is based on the notion that discretion can be understood both as the professional’s discretion to act within the organisational conditions of their jurisdiction and as the ability to independently assess and act on issues based on their professional judgement (Molander et al., 2012). A prerequisite for discretion is a fundamental trust or confidence in the profession’s ability to make these assessments (Dellgran, 2023; Lipsky, 2010; Svensson, 2011). Svensson (2011) points out that with great professional discretion comes great responsibility. On the other hand, having significant discretion can create opportunities for professionals to act and assist people based on their judgement when organisational frameworks are vague (Ponnert and Svensson, 2016).

Methods

The study is based on free text writing in a national digital survey of school social workers in upper secondary schools. The survey examined the extent to which school social workers used structured and evidence-based methods, asking for use of methods that other studies had suggested for school social work. However, the outcome was that very few structured methods were used and almost none of the evidence-based programmes. Instead, the respondents discussed their discretion and practice in the parts of the survey where free text was possible. These responses gave a dynamic insight into their perspective on school social work and why this material became the best insight in their work.

Data collection

The School Unit Register (n.d.) registers all school units in Sweden and was used for finding the upper secondary schools. When the file was downloaded on 6 April 2021, 1300 units were registered (one school can have several units). The register contained information about the schools’ websites, from which contact details for the school social workers were collected into an e-mailing list. This review identified a list of 623 social workers in upper secondary schools. An email with information about the study and a link to the digital survey was sent to everyone on the list on 3 May 2021. Subsequently, 38 automatic replies indicated that the address was outdated or that the person had left their position. This means that the survey was ultimately distributed to 584 school social workers, making it almost a total study. One reminder email was sent to the group, and in the end, 215 responses were received when the survey was closed on 21 May 2021. Resulting in a response rate of 37 percent.

Participants

Most of the respondents were female (84.7%), with males representing 14.9 percent of the sample. Most worked in public schools (82.3%), while 17.7 percent were employed in independent schools. Regarding educational background, 75.8 percent held a bachelor’s degree in social work (socionom), whereas 13.5 percent were trained as behavioural scientists, 5.6 percent as social pedagogues and 5.1 percent had other educational qualifications. Unlike individual interviews, the use of a survey provided access to a substantially broader empirical foundation, both in terms of the number of participants in the study and the diversity of contextual settings represented, since all 215 participants wrote comments.

Analysis

The survey was highly standardised but also included six open-ended questions, making it possible to comment on their answers to the fixed questions. These were related to evidence-based methods, organisation, workload, support and reflection.

In this study, the responses to the open-ended questions were utilised and analysed using thematic analysis, where patterns and themes were identified (Braun and Clarke, 2006). The analysis began with a thorough reading of all responses to familiarise us with the data. Initial coding was conducted inductively, followed by thematisation according to Braun and Clarke (2006), identifying three main themes – time as an organisational challenge, professional discretion and flexibility in practice. This formed the basis for a second reading where two more main themes – creativity as strategy and tensions between standardisation and individualisation – were identified. Further analysis identified subthemes for each main theme (see Table 1). The process involved moving back and forth between different steps, reviewing the themes and ensuring the data aligned with the study’s aim (cf. Braun and Clarke, 2006). The coded material was finally compiled, and quotes were selected to illustrate the findings.

Table 1.

Overview of main themes and subthemes identified in the thematic analysis of school social workers’ professional practice and discretion.

Main themes	Subthemes
Time as an organisational challenge	Competition for time between teaching and student health services.
	Difficulties in working preventively within the school’s structure.
	Negotiation of time with other professional groups.
Professional discretion	Influence of school leadership’s understanding and support.
	Interaction between profession and organisation (‘the dance’).
	Variation in perceived autonomy among school counsellors.
Flexibility in practice	Adapting work methods to meet students’ needs.
	Departures from standardised approaches.
	Emphasis on relationships and individualised support.
	Creation of own tools and materials.
Creativity as a professional strategy	Creativity as a way to manage the lack of evidence-based methods.
	Combining different theories and approaches.
	Visualisation techniques (e.g. paper and pen, whiteboard).
	Creativity as an expression of professional judgement.
	Ambivalence regarding legal certainty and equity.
Tensions between standardisation and individualisation	Risks associated with each counsellor creating their own solutions.
	Concerns about legal certainty and equity.
	Need for national guidelines versus local adaptation.

The themes were analysed within a theoretical framework of discretionary and professional creativity. In the analysis, we found special interest in the respondents’ descriptions of the possibilities of doing things differently and finding new ways, which Evans (2020) describes as discretionary creativity, meaning creativity based on a cognitive process grounded in knowledge and experience.

Ethics

The Swedish Law on ethical review of research involving humans (SFS 2003:460) states that all research that involves sensitive personal data should have ethical approval. The definition of sensitive data is connected to the Regulation (2016/679) European General Data Protection (GDPR), article 9. This survey focused solely on the respondents as professionals and their work tasks, which is why no sensitive personal data was collected, and the study was not subject to ethical review.

Furthermore, the survey was constructed so that the researcher could not see who had responded, as no code was linked to the specific participants; they were therefore fully anonymous. The participants in the study received information about the aim of the study and the anonymity of their responses when the survey was distributed. The respondents were informed that they could stop answering and not submit the questions if they wanted. They were also informed that by choosing to complete the survey, they consented to participate and that the information provided would be used for research purposes. The analysis conducted for this article is entirely within the scope of the information provided to the participants.

Results and analysis

Time as an organisational challenge

Time is a recurring theme in the social workers’ responses. In this context, time is a question of competition between interests, where the most evident concern the students’ schedules. The social worker should not interfere in the teaching schedule and is supposed to find space for contact with the students at other times. However, several school social workers highlight the importance of accessing students during school hours, which means their ability to work preventively and promotively can be influenced by the organisational aspects of the school and teachers’ willingness to share their time with the students. As one respondent wrote,

Generally, it is difficult in upper secondary school to work preventatively and promote health in smaller groups because it is hard to find time and coordinate students from different classes. (Respondent 33, municipal school)

Negotiating priorities with other professions is one of the inherent conditions of school social work, as seen also in findings from previous studies on social workers (Bergcrantz McCann and Runesson, 2022; Kjellgren et al., 2022). School social workers describe a struggle over how time should be allocated between the components of the school’s dual mission, as well as their mandate to work promotively, preventively and remedially. The way these priorities are decided is influenced by the school management and their view of the social worker’s role. Thus, the school social worker’s discretion is shaped by the interaction with other professionals at the school, with school leadership playing a particularly significant role. This is what Scott (2009) talks about as a dance, where the organisation leads, and the profession has to follow. The school management can limit the social workers’ discretionary space by organisational aspects that hinder them from performing their work.

Professional discretion

The responses reveal a desire for a clearer structure around student health work, as well as the belief that more professionals, not just the social workers, should take responsibility for this work. Several comments indicate that it is challenging to get school management to understand the social workers’ complex tasks. Good collaboration with principals is described as important for them to gain insight into the work, which in turn can support the social work efforts:

Great importance is placed on how much insight and knowledge the school leader has about student health and its work. If there is an understanding of the often-complex work of school social workers, there is also increased understanding for planning time for documentation, planning equality work, etc. (Respondent 46, municipal school)

Nevertheless, there is a widespread belief among school social workers that they have significant discretion to develop their work and decide how it should be carried out based on their own knowledge and experience. In the end, it has to be anchored with school management, but then in a ‘dance’ where the profession takes the lead:

I have a very advantageous position where I can completely control my setup in consultation with the principal. I feel that I can be flexible based on the classes we have and the changes that occur. Then, urgent matters can arise that may require rescheduling and postponing things, but fundamentally, the interventions are not significantly disrupted. (Respondent 152, independent school)

Thus, school social workers describe a varied picture. Their discretionary space is influenced by the school management, and it can turn out to be either the profession or the organisation that sets the limit for what is possible to do. Through the interaction between the social worker and the school, their discretionary space is formed. Still, the existing frameworks are presented as relatively vague and open to influence, which provides a good scope for professional judgement in a flexible practice.

Flexibility in practice

In the survey, several school social workers described that they could decide how to structure their individual work with students, based on the students’ needs and their own knowledge and experience. This partly contradicts the findings of Murphy et al. (2024), where school social workers reported feeling restricted in carrying out their tasks due to a lack of guidance. In this study school social workers declared that they need to adopt methods to fit the students:

Like most, I pick parts that fit from different methods, courses, and books so that it aligns with what we agree on. I think that the relationship and that the student feels we are spending time on ‘the right things for them’ takes precedence over strictly following a method. (Respondent 105, municipal school)

Several school social workers describe that each conversation and each student are unique, and they find it difficult to see that one method fits all. From the responses, we can see that the school social workers would rather use their professional judgement to decide when flexibility is needed to meet students’ needs than stick to specific suggested methods. Which is in line with Bates’s (2006) findings, where the school social workers broaden the concept of evidence. One of them described the basis for their work:

combined competence and experience of a variety of things that work. Flexible creation based on needs. (Respondent 158, municipal school)

The responding school social workers describe the professional creation of their own toolbox consisting of combinations of different methods and theories, something we will examine more closely in the following sections. In these toolboxes, various visual techniques support the social worker’s work with students, as also shown by Kjellgren et al. (2022) in primary schools. They use simple tools, such as paper and pen, to clarify what they are discussing:

I often use paper and pen to draw their system to see the positive and negative people/places/abilities, etc. This way, it becomes clear, both for me and the student, where the problem lies and what needs to be worked on. (Respondent 56, independent school)

In addition, many school social workers also use whiteboards where they, or the students, write and draw what they are discussing. Other visual support materials mentioned include conversation cards, visual aids, role-playing, short film clips, various apps and self-help books. School social workers describe using these aids to visualise and clarify the subject of the conversation. By using various tools and techniques, the social workers activate their creativity in the interplay with the students. This aligns with Evans’s (2020) argument about exercising their discretionary creativity. However, creativity can go deeper than this.

Creativity as a professional strategy

Two-thirds of the school social workers wrote that they adapt their conversations based on previous experience but also on various methods or theories and that they use parts of standardised methods based on a holistic view of the individual student’s needs:

Given my long professional experience, it is not methods that guide but needs. I pick from different methods and approaches. I start from a holistic perspective. (Respondent 11, municipal school)

Statements like these indicate that many school social workers shape their own working methods based on their experience and weave this together with parts of methods deemed suitable for each individual student’s needs. Evans (2020) argues that creative discretion generates opportunities to adapt working methods to individual needs and that this can help ensure no one falls through the cracks and fails to receive help.

Creative discretion means activating a cognitive process, a process that in everyday conversation could be known as ‘thinking outside the box’, finding new ways to perform new actions (Evans, 2020; Johnston, 2009). Nearly one-third of the respondents indicated that they have created their own materials for conversations with students. This includes conversation templates and other materials and was based on knowledge from different sources. Asked about the type of conversational support they use in their individual sessions, responses revealed the mixed base of sources:

Own material based on personal experience, including MI and solution-focused conversations. The student’s needs always guide the choice. (Respondent 17, municipal school)

The high number of school social workers reporting creating their own materials seems to indicate a professional ability to come up with new solutions to problems. These descriptions suggest that school social workers have a high level of discretionary creativity in student conversations. This creativity could be interpreted as ‘necessity-driven’ in some situations, as several responses also indicate a lack of evidence-based methods and highlight the risk of legal insecurity when everyone invents their own solutions. However, it can be interpreted that they have a high degree of professionalism based on their professional standards, ethics and principles of practice, allowing them to tailor their approach to each individual’s conditions and needs (cf. Nelson et al., 2024).

Creativity is not a concept explicitly used by the school social workers but shown in terms of combining methods in new ways to suit the individual student and the local context, as well as transforming existing knowledge into something new (cf. Bates, 2006; Boden, 1994). The social workers’ knowledge and professional experience provide them with a basis for using combinations of approaches in their work, continuously adapting them to the current person and situation. This is how they express their professional judgement and their ability to use their discretionary space. Here, we can see what Evans (2020) claims: that creativity might be a better concept for understanding vaguely defined practices than talking about discretion.

Tensions between standardisation and individualisation

Some social workers discussed the challenges in making their own materials, arguing that there is a risk that students in different schools and different parts of the country may not receive equivalent support, which could be perceived as legally insecure or unfair:

Many times, I feel that it seems to be up to each individual to design their work, which can contribute to unequal support for students. (Respondent 102, municipal school)

No nationally approved assessment material; everyone invents their own = legally insecure for the student. (Respondent 180, municipal school)

Statements like these reveal a tension between the idea that it would be more ‘legally secure’ and fair if everyone did the same and the idea of the ability to adapt the work to the situation. Based on the many comments about school social workers creating supporting materials and their explanations for why they do so, it could be understood as they find it helpful in their work.

However, we can see an ambivalent attitude towards creativity and, by extension, how others might view the support provided in school social work. This ambivalence is evident when revisiting the statements about the conditions of school social work and the need for feedback from school management and other professionals. While the ability to create and adapt materials showcases the social workers’ creativity and professional judgement, it also raises concerns about equal treatment and fairness. As some social workers pointed out, the lack of nationally approved assessment materials can lead to unequal support for students, highlighting the tension between standardised practices and individualised approaches.

Discussion

In this study, we have demonstrated that school social workers have ample opportunities to exercise their professional discretion within the set frames. This study thus contributes to research that has shown how they have shaped their work based on theoretical perspectives in social work (Isaksson, 2016; Kjellgren et al., 2022). The descriptions consistently indicate discretionary work based on their ability to make assessments in individual cases regarding the support students need. This work also encompasses significant professional creativity, where school social workers describe how they can think outside the box to match the student’s needs based on existing knowledge (cf. Johnston, 2009; Lymbery, 2003). The image of the school social worker as an active agent in creating their working methods by creatively combining, developing and transforming methods to fit the local context and individual needs is a testament to their professionalism.

School social workers seem to explore new ideas and come up with innovative solutions to problems (cf. Eadie and Lymbery, 2007; Runco and Jaeger, 2012; Stein, 1953; Zhao and Seibert, 2006). By being creative and using their imagination to find new solutions to problems, school social workers can develop and adapt interventions based on individual needs, ensuring that no one falls through the cracks due to narrow categorisations (cf. Evans, 2020).

Since creativity appears to be valued by the school social workers themselves as an important part of their work, we identify a challenge due to how the individual creativity of school social workers can be transferred and collectively harnessed to solve problems at a broader level and to develop interventions that benefit both colleagues and society (cf. Evans, 2020). This study has pointed out the different interpretations, but more knowledge is needed to assess when discretionary creativity is beneficial and when it is arbitrary. In-depth studies of social workers’ practices are therefore important for the further development of the profession. In such studies, it would be essential not only to consider the internal professional perception or the organisation’s view. What do children seek and need in their interactions with school social workers? To what extent is this consistent with the social workers’ perception of their professionalism? In which areas is the social worker’s creativity particularly important for professionalism and the well-being of children?

Limitations

There are limitations to this study, as the material is based on questionnaire responses with limited text. Alternative materials, such as interviews with school social workers or observations of their practice, could have provided a deeper understanding of how they work in this creative manner and how they have achieved legitimacy in another field to work in this way. An overarching question is also: How have they managed to obtain this free zone from standardisation, which is otherwise a strong factor in the field of social work?

Conclusion

Previous research has shown that school social workers often navigate their roles without clear guidelines and that they constantly need to demonstrate the legitimacy of their work due to low professional autonomy. However, we argue that another perspective may change this understanding. If school social workers’ vague role and the lack of guidelines are instead understood as a high level of professional discretion, their creativity for adjusting their expertise to each specific context and situation appears.

School social workers and the school organisation are continuously engaged in a coordinated dance, where the social workers must follow steps dictated by time constraints, collaboration with other professions, method application and more. They navigate a complex choreography, often finding themselves dancing solo to an uncertain tune. In conclusion, we can state that at a time when the practice of social work tends to diminish in favour of standardisation and individualisation, it seems that school social workers in Sweden have the opportunity to go against the tide and instead develop their creative discretion. This is most probably also the case elsewhere, which is why more detailed studies of school social workers’ creativity are needed.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-isw-10.1177_00208728251400279 – Supplemental material for School social workers’ discretionary practice in Sweden: The need for professional creativity

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-isw-10.1177_00208728251400279 for School social workers’ discretionary practice in Sweden: The need for professional creativity by Sandra Lindström and Kerstin Svensson in International Social Work

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Sandra Lindström

Ethical considerations

According to The Swedish Act (2003:460) concerning the ethical review of research involving humans, ethical approval is needed for studies concerning sensitive personal data. Sensitive data is defined as it is in Article 9, GDPR. Thus, in studying professionals’ stories about their practice does not need ethical approval, as long as it does not include any personal data. No personal data has been collected in this project. The researcher who collected the surveys (the first author) could not identify the respondents, as no codes in the surveys were linked to the participants. Thus, the data collection was entirely anonymous, and no sensitive personal data was gathered.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Data availability statement

The participants of this study did not give written consent for their data to be shared publicly, so supporting data is not available.

AI

Text editing has been made with AI support, only for securing proper spelling and grammar and has been validated by the authors. No AI support has been used for any development of content.

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Author biographies

Sandra Lindström is a social worker and lecturer in Social Work at Jönköping University, Sweden. Sandra has previously worked as a school social worker.

Kerstin Svensson is a social worker and professor in Social Work, Lund University, Sweden. Her research concerns professions and organisations, with a specific focus on social work in different settings.

References

Altshuler

Webb

(2009) School social work: Increasing the legitimacy of the profession. Children & Schools 31(4): 207–218.

Alvarez

Santamaria

Mahoney

, et al. (2023) Launching national certification for school social workers. School Social Work Journal 48(1): 19–28.

Backlund

(2007) Elevvård i grundskolan. Resurser, organisering och praktik. PhD thesis, Stockholm University, Stockholm.

Backlund

Högdin

Spånberger Weitz

(2017) Skolsocialt arbete–en introduktion. In: Backlund

Högdin

Spånberger Weitz

(eds) Skolsocialt arbete: Skolan som plats för och del i det sociala arbetet. Malmö: Gleerups, pp. 15–66.

Bates

(2006) A critically reflective approach to evidence-based practice: A sample of school social workers. Canadian Social Work Review 23(1/2): 95–109.

Bergcrantz McCann

Runesson

(2022) Hälso- och sjukvårdskurator på IVA – en specialiserad yrkesroll som riskerar att bli personbunden. Socialmedicinsk tidskrift 99(1): 29–40. https://doi.org/10.62607/smt.v99i1.37886

Bergmark

Lundström

(2016) Mot en evidensbaserad praktik? Om färdriktningen i socialt arbete. Socialvetenskaplig tidskrift 13(2): 99–113.

Binks

Hickey

Heath

, et al. (2024) Social workers’ perceived barriers and facilitators to social work practice in schools: A scoping review. The British Journal of Social Work 54(6): 2661–2680.

Boden

(1994) What is creativity? In: Boden

(ed.) Dimensions of Creativity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 75–117.

10.

Braun

Clarke

(2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2): 77–101.

11.

Carnes

(2023) ‘Overworked and stretched thin’: Burnout and systemic failure in school social work. Children & Schools 45(3): 151–159.

12.

Dellgran

(2023) Människobehandlande professioner. In: Johansson

Dellgran

Höjer

(eds) Människobehandlande organisationer; Villkor för ledning, styrning och professionellt välfärdsarbete. Stockholm: Natur & Kultur, pp. 206–233.

13.

Ding

Lightfoot

Berkowitz

, et al. (2023) Characteristics and outcomes of school social work services: A scoping review of published evidence 2000–June 2022. School Mental Health 15(3): 787–811.

14.

Ds. 2009:25 Den nya skollagen – för kunskap, valfrihet och trygghet. Available at: https://www.regeringen.se/rattsliga-dokument/departementsserien-och-promemorior/2009/06/ds-200925/

15.

Eadie

Lymbery

(2007) Promoting creative practice through social work education. Social Work Education 26(7): 670–683.

16.

Evans

(2020) Creativity: Re-thinking professional discretion. Social Work & Society 18(1): 1–9. Available at: http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:hbz:464-sws-2078

17.

Hanssen

Hutchinson

Lyngstad

, et al. (2015) What happens to the social in social work? Nordic Social Work Research 5(Suppl. 1): 115–126.

18.

Huxtable

(2022) A global picture of school social work in 2021. International Journal of School Social Work 7(1). https://doi.org/10.4148/2161-4148.1090

19.

Isaksson

(2014) Skolkuratorers handlingsutrymme–gränser, legitimitet och jurisdiktion. Socialvetenskaplig tidskrift 21(1): 47–66.

20.

Isaksson

(2016) Den kritiska gästen: En professionsstudie om skolkuratorer. PhD thesis, Umeå University, Umeå.

21.

Isaksson

Larsson

(2012) Skolkuratoryrkets framväxt och utveckling i Sverige. Socionomens forsknings supplement 32(6): 24–33.

22.

Isaksson

Sjöström

(2017) Looking for ‘social work’ in school social work. Skolkuratorers användande av teorier i social arbete. European Journal of Social Work 20(2): 191–202.

23.

Jansson

Evertsson

Perlinski

(2021) Skolkurator sökes–skolhuvudmäns beskrivning i platsannonser av skolkuratorns uppdrag, arbetsuppgifter, organisation, kvalifikationer och färdigheter. Socialvetenskaplig tidskrift 3: 289–312.

24.

Johnston

(2009) Critical thinking and creativity in a social work diversity course: Challenging students to ‘think outside the box’. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment 19(5): 646–656.

25.

Kjellgren

(2024) Skolkuratorns samtalspraktik: En studie om individuella samtal med barn i den svenska grundskolan. PhD thesis, Umeå University, Umeå.

26.

Kjellgren

Lilliehorn

Markström

(2022) The counselling practice of school social workers in Swedish elementary schools: A focus group study. Nordic Social Work Research 14(1): 18–31.

27.

Knox

Gherardi

Stoner

(2020) Rules, roles, and practices: Exploring school social worker preparation for practice. International Journal of School Social Work 5(2): 6.

28.

Larran

Hein

(2025) A survey study of Bhutanese school guidance counselors’ roles, responsibilities, challenges, and resources. Psychology in the Schools 62(5): 1607–1621.

29.

Lipsky

(2010) Street-level Bureaucracy; Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services (edn). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

30.

Lymbery

MEF

(2003) Negotiating the contradictions between competence and creativity in social work education. Journal of Social Work: JSW 3(1): 99–117.

31.

Molander

Grimen

Eriksen

(2012) Professional discretion and accountability in the welfare state. Journal of Applied Philosophy 29(3): 214–230.

32.

Murphy

Borge

Harrell

, et al. (2024) ‘We want to be there to support . . . Do we have the capacity to do that?’ Current priorities and challenges in school social work. The Journal of School Health 95(3): 219–226.

33.

National Agency for Education (2014) Privata aktörer inom förskola och skola. En nationell kartläggning av enskilda huvudmän och ägare. Available at: https://www.skolverket.se/download/18.6bfaca41169863e6a65b24a/1553965777874/pdf3307.pdf

34.

National Agency for Education (2023) Elever i gymnasieskolan: Läsåret 2022/23. Available at: https://www.skolverket.se/getFile?file=11241

35.

National Board of Health and Welfare and National Agency for Education (2016) Vägledning för elevhälsan. Socialstyrelsen. Available at: https://www.socialstyrelsen.se/globalassets/sharepoint-dokument/artikelkatalog/vagledning/2016-11-4.pdf

36.

Nelson

Grumbach

Johnson

(2024) The professional habit of self-reflection for school social workers. School Social Work Journal 48(2): 56–68.

37.

Polizotto

Zinn

(2021) School social work: Adapting the ways of connecting during COVID-19. Children & Schools 43(3): 187–190.

38.

Ponnert

Svensson

(2016) Standardisation – the end of professional discretion? European Journal of Social Work 19(3–4): 586–599.

39.

Prop. 2009/10:165 Den nya skollagen – för kunskap, valfrihet och trygghet.

40.

Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation).

41.

Runco

Jaeger

(2012) The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal 24(1): 92–96.

42.

School Unit Register (n.d.) Available at: https://www.skolverket.se/skolutveckling/statistik/skoladresser-fran-skolenhetsregistret (accessed 6 April 2021).

43.

Scott

(2009) Lords of the dance: Professionals as institutional agents. Organization Studies 29(2): 219–238.

44.

SFS 2003:460 Law on ethical review of research involving humans. Available at: https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-och-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningssamling/lag-2003460-om-etikprovning-av-forskning-som_sfs-2003-460/

45.

SFS 2010:800 Education Act. [Skollag]. Available at: https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningssamling/skollag-2010800_sfs-2010-800

46.

Singstad

Røkenes

Ekornes

(2024) Untapped potential? A scoping review exploring school social work in Norwegian primary schools. Nordic Social Work Research. Epub ahead of print 22 August. DOI: 10.1080/2156857X.2024.2390368.

47.

SOU 2013:56 Friskolorna i samhället, Betänkande av friskolekommittén. Stockholm: Utbildningsdepartementet.

48.

Stein

(1953) Creativity and culture. The Journal of Psychology 36(2): 311–322.

49.

Svensson

(2011) Profession, organisation, kollegialitet och ansvar. Socialvetenskaplig tidskrift 18(4): 301–319.

50.

Wicki

Künzle

Mueller

, et al. (2020) Tasks and impact of school social work in Switzerland as perceived by teachers, principals and school social workers – A multilevel analysis. International Journal of School Social Work 5(2): 3.

51.

Williams

(2016) The future of effective social work practice: Broadening multidisciplinary collaboration and increasing flexibility. Social Work (New York) 61(4): 363–365.

52.

Zhao

Seibert

(2006) The big five personality dimensions and entrepreneurial status: A meta-analytical review. Journal of Applied Psychology 91(2): 259–271.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB