In Sweden, decision making in child protection is heavily dependent on laypersons appointed to municipal child protection committees (CPCs). These laypersons have the power to decide upon proposals coming from professionals. Members of the committees are appointed from among their political party’s members. In the committee, they are supposed to act as judicious laypersons equipped with sound judgement. In this study, 31 committee meetings in three municipalities were followed using observational techniques and audio recordings. The appointed CPC members’ decision-making processes and communicative strategies to influence social work practice were analysed.
Findings
The results show differences between the CPCs, indicating localized decision-making cultures. The representatives worked (not as party politicians, but) as a team with the professionals as counterparts. Communication strategies, most frequently questions, were used to govern the social work practice, over and above the decision making. Questions served both to obtain the information needed and also to exert normative influence by setting up a normative grid for ways to pass the committee.
Applications
This research shows that social work in Sweden has a long way to go until it is acknowledged full professional status. The study also suggests that improvements in the CPCs’ decision making need to be based on a closer look at the laypersons’ knowledge, values and common sense and how these aspects affect decision making.
AtkinsonJ. M.DrewP. (1979) Order in court, London, England: Macmillan.
2.
BellB.DadomoC. (2006) Magistrates’ courts and the 2003 reforms of the criminal justice system. European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice14(4): 339–365. doi: 10.1163/157181706780132869.
3.
Bengtsson, M. (2011). Anticiperande förvaltning [Anticipating administration]. Gothenburg, Sweden: University of Gothenburg.
4.
Bengtsson, M., & Karlsson, D. (2012). Demokratins svängrum: Lokalpolitikens roll i den specialreglerade verksamheten [Room for democracy: The role of local politics in the specially regulated sections of the public sector]. Gothenburg, Sweden: Förvaltningshögskolan.
5.
BraunD. (2011) Implicating questions. Mind and Language26(5): 574–595. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0017.2011.01431.x.
6.
Bäck, H. (2006). Komparativ kommunal konstitutionspolitik [Comparative constitutional politics in municipal government]. Stockholm, Sweden: Sveriges kommuner och landsting.
7.
CalabresiG.BobbittP. (1978) Tragic choices: The conflicts society confronts in the allocation of tragically scarce resources, New York, NY: Norton.
8.
CameronD. (2007) Talk from the top down. Language and Communication28(2): 143–145. doi: 10.1016/j.langcom.2007.09.001.
9.
ChambonA. S. (1999) Foucault's approach: Making the familiar visible. In: ChambonA.IrvingA.EpsteinL. (eds) Reading Foucault for social work, New York, NY: Columbia University Press, pp. 51–83.
10.
Chambon, A., Irving, A., & Epstein, L. (Eds). (1999). Reading Foucault for social work. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
11.
ChourliarakiL.FaircloughN. (1999) Discourse in late modernity: Rethinking critical discourse analysis, Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh University Press.
12.
CleggS. (1989) Framework of power, London, England: Sage.
13.
CorbyB. C. (2003) Supporting families and protecting children: Assisting child care professionals in initial decision-making and review of cases. Journal of Social Work3(2): 195–210. doi: 10.1177/14680173030032005.
14.
DickensJ. (2008) Welfare, law, managerialism: Inter-discursivity and inter-professional practice in child care social work. Journal of Social Work8(1): 45–64. doi: 10.1177/1468017307084735.
15.
DrewP.HeritageJ. (1992a) Analyzing talk at work: An introduction. In: DrewP.HeritageJ. (eds) Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings, Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–65.
16.
DrewP.HeritageJ. (1992b) Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings, Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
17.
Ekström von Essen, U. (2003). Folkhemmets kommun: socialdemokratiska idéer om lokalsamhället 1939–1952 [The municipal welfare state: Social democratic ideas regarding local communities, 1939–1952]. Stockholm, Sweden: Atlas.
18.
Forkby, T. (2006). Hemmalaget formeras [The home team takes shape]. Göteborg, Sweden: FoU i Väst/GR.
19.
Forkby, T., Höjer, S., & Liljegren, A. (2013). Making sense of common sense. Examining the decision-making of politically appointed representatives in Swedish child protection. Child & Family Social Work, doi: 10.1111/cfs.12100.
20.
FoucaultM.BurchellG.GordonC.MillerP. (1991) The Foucault effect: Studies in governmentality: With two lectures by and an interview with Michel Foucault, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
21.
Freed, F. A., & Ehrlich, S. (2010). The function of questions in institutional discourse. In F. A. Freed & S. Ehrlich (Eds), Why do you ask? The functions of questions in institutional discourse. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
22.
GilbertN.PartonN.SkivenesM. (2011) Child protection systems: International trends and orientations, New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
23.
Giljam, M., Karlsson, D., & Sundell, A. (2010). Representationsprinciper i riksdag och kommuner [Principles of representation in national and local government]. In M. Brothén & S. Holmberg (Eds), Folkets representanter: En bok om riksdagsledamöter och politisk representation i Sverige [Representatives for the public: A book about members of the national parliament and political representation in Sweden] (pp. 35–64). Gothenburg, Sweden: Statsvetenskapliga institutionen.
24.
GoffmanE. (1990) The presentation of self in everyday life, London, England: Penguin Books.
25.
HasenfeldY. (2010) Human services as complex organizations, (2nd ed. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
26.
Haus, M., Heinelt, H., & Stewart, M. (Eds). (2005). Urban governance and democracy: Leadership and community involvement. London, England: Routledge.
27.
HöjerS.ForkbyT. (2011) Care for sale: The influence of new public management in child protection in Sweden. British Journal of Social Work41(1): 93–110. doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bcq053.
28.
Höjer, S., Forkby, T., & Liljegren, A. (2014). Lekmän inom den sociala barnavården: En studie av förtroendevalda i sociala utskott i 99 kommuner [Laypersons in child welfare: A study of elected representatives in social welfare committees in 99 municipalities]. Socionomens forskningssupplement, 35(2), 42–52.
Liljegren, A., Höjer, S., & Forkby, T. (2014). Laypersons, professions and governance in the welfare state: The Swedish child protection system. Journal of Professions and organization. doi: 10.1093/jpo/jou005.
31.
Lundström, T. (1993). Tvångsomhändertagande av barn: En studie av lagarna, professionerna och praktiken under 1900-talet [Compulsory care of children: A study of the legislation, the professions, and the practice in the 20th century]. Stockholm, Sweden: University of Stockholm.
32.
MarkováI.FoppaK. (1991) Asymmetrics in dialogue, Hemel Hempstead, England: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
33.
MaynardD. W. (1991) Interaction and asymmetry in clinical discourse. American Journal of Sociology97(2): 448–495. doi: 10.1086/229785.
34.
MeeuwisseA.ScaramuzzinoR.SwaürdH. (2011) Everyday realities and visionary ideals among social workers in the Nordic countries: A matter of specialization and work tasks?Nordic Social Work Research1(1): 5–23. doi: 10.1080/2156857X.2011.562030.
35.
Murch, M. (2012). The role of the family court system of England and Wales in child-related parental disputes: Towards a new concept of the family justice process. In A. Belfour, M. Morgan, & C. Vincent (Eds), How couples shape our world. London, England: Karnac.
36.
ParkI. (2010) Marking an impasse: The use of anyway as a sequence-closing device. Journal of Pragmatics42(12): 3283–3299. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.06.002.
37.
Parton, N., & Berridge, D. (2011). Child protection in England. In N. Gilbert, N. Parton, & M. Skivenes (Eds), Child protection systems: International trends and orientations. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
38.
Pettersson, U. (2001). Socialt arbete, politik och professionalisering [Social work, politics, and professionalization]. Stockholm, Sweden: Natur och Kultur.
39.
PierreJ. (2011) The politics of urban governance, Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
40.
RoseN.MillerP. (1992) Political power beyond the state: Problematics of government. The British Journal of Sociology43(2): 173–205. doi: 10.2307/591464.
41.
Sarangi, S., & Roberts, C. (Eds). (1999). Talk, work, and institutional order: Discourse in medical, mediation and management settings. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
42.
Schegloff, E. A. (1991). Reflections on talk and social structure. In D. Boden & D. H. Zimmerman (Eds), Talk and social structure: Studies in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis. Cambridge, England: Polity Press in association with Blackwell.
43.
SchofieldG.BeekM.WardE. (2012) Part of the family: Planning for permanence in long-term family foster care. Children and Youth Services Review34(1): 244–253. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.10.020.
44.
Socialstyrelsen. (2010). Jämförelsetal för socialtjänsten [Comparative figures for the social services]. Stockholm, Sweden: Author.
45.
SOU. (2009). Vanvård i social barnavård under 1900-talet [Maltreatment in child protection and care during the 20th century]. Stockholm, Sweden: Fritzes.
46.
StanleyT. (2009) Safeguarding ‘Children in need’: An initial evaluation of a child in need reviewing service. Practice21(2): 107–118. doi: 10.1080/09503150902875935.
47.
TracyK.RoblesJ. (2009) Questions, questioning, and institutional practices: An introduction. Discourse Studies11(2): 131–152. doi: 10.1177/1461445608100941.
48.
WetherellM.TaylorS.YatesS. J. (2001) Discourse as data: A guide for analysis, London, England: Sage.
