The informational context in which social work has been operating over the past decade has gained much more significance. In this context, Electronic Information Systems are often implemented with the aim of being responsive to the needs of children and families. However, research has critically identified some major concerns with using Electronic Information Systems in ways that tend to reduce social work to a technical practice. As a result, practitioners and managers are using their discretion to shape and bend regulations precisely in order to achieve responsive social work practice. In this paper, our aim is to capture the meaning of these strategies for the development of responsive social work. To do so, we interviewed social practitioners working with Electronic Information Systems on a daily basis.
Findings
Our results show how practitioners develop a diversity of strategies to recreate the relational aspect of social work, thereby challenging the hypothesis that this was curtailed by the use of Electronic Information Systems.
Applications
By fleshing out the meaning of the strategies practitioners use in their daily practice, we aim to contribute to the contemporary debate about the use of these strategies in social work practice. At the same time, it is also important to understand the meaning of these strategies in relation to the development of responsive social work as this development cannot be reduced to a mere relational practice where principles of justice, equality and solidarity are not equally considered.
AasK. F. (2004).
From narrative to database: Technological change and penal culture. Punishment & Society – International Journal of Penology,
6, 379–393. doi:10.1177/1462474504046119
2.
AmesN. (1999).
Social work recording: A new look at an old issue. Journal of Social Work Education,
35, 227–237. doi:10.1080/10437797.1999.10778962
3.
AronsonJ.SmithK. (2009).
Managing restructured social services: Expanding the social?British Journal of Social Work,
40, 530–547. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcp002
4.
AronsonJ.SmithK. (2010).
Identity work and critical social service management: Balancing on a tightrope?British Journal of Social Work,
41, 432–448. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcq102
5.
Banks, S. (2013). Negotiating personal engagement and professional accountability: professional wisdom and ethics work. European Journal of Social Work, 16, 587–604. doi:10.1080/13691457.2012.732931
6.
Bar-OnA. (2002).
Restoring power to social work practice.British Journal of Social Work,
32, 997–1014. doi:10.1093/Bjsw/32.8.997
7.
BovensM.ZouridisS. (2002).
From street-level to system-level bureaucracies: How information and communication technology is transforming administrative discretion and constitutional control.Public Administration Review,
62, 174–184. doi:10.1111/0033-3352.00168
8.
BradtL.RooseR.Bouverne-De BieM.De SchryverM. (2011).
Data recording and social work: From the relational to the social.British Journal of Social Work,
41, 1372–1382. doi:10.1093/Bjsw/Bcr131
9.
BroadhurstK.HallC.WastellD.WhiteS.PithouseA. (2010).
Risk, instrumentalism and the humane project in social work: Identifying the informal logics of risk management in children’s statutory services.British Journal of Social Work,
40, 1046–1064. doi:10.1093/Bjsw/Bcq011
10.
BroadhurstK.MasonC. (2012).
Social work beyond the VDU: Foregrounding co-presence in situated practice – Why face-to-face practice matters.British Journal of Social Work,
44, 578–595. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcs124
11.
BurtonJ.van den BroekD. (2009).
Accountable and countable: Information management systems and the bureaucratization of social work.British Journal of Social Work,
39, 1326–1342. doi:10.1093/Bjsw/Bcn027
12.
CarrilioT. E. (2005).
Management information systems.Administration in Social Work,
29, 43–61. doi:10.1300/J147v29n02_04
13.
CarrilioT. E. (2008).
Accountability, evidence, and the use of information systems in social service programs.Journal of Social Work,
8, 135–148. doi:10.1177/1468017307088495
14.
ClarkeJ.NewmanJ. (1997). The managerial state.
London, UK:
Sage.
ColemanN.HarrisJ. (2008).
Calling social work.British Journal of Social Work,
38, 580–599. doi:10.1093/Bjsw/Bcl371
17.
De MeersmanW. (2010). Moeder, waarom meten wij? In De VosK.GrymonprezH.KergerD.RoetsG.RooseR.VerstraeteP. (Eds), Handboek integrale jeugdhulp, pp. 1–12.
Brussels, Belgium:
Politeia.
18.
De WitteJ.DeclercqA.HermansK. (2015). Street-level strategies of child welfare social workers in Flanders: The use of electronic client records in practice. British Journal of Social Work, Advance Access published September 8, 2015. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcv076
19.
Devlieghere, J., Bradt, L., & Roose, R. (2016). Policy Rationales for Electronic Information Systems: An Area of Ambiguity. British Journal of Social Work, 47, 1500–1516. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcw097
20.
DiCicco-BloomB.CrabtreeB.F. (2006).
The qualitative research interview.Medical Education,
40, 314–321. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02418.x
21.
Evans, T., & Hardy, M. (2017). The ethics of practical reasoning-exploring the terrain. European Journal of Social Work, 20, 947–957. doi:10.1080/13691457.2016.1278524
22.
EvansT. (2010). Professional discretion in welfare services.
Aldershot, UK:
Ashgate.
23.
EvansT. (2011).
Professionals, managers and discretion: Critiquing street-level bureaucracy.British Journal of Social Work,
41, 368–386. doi:10.1093/Bjsw/Bcq074
24.
EvansT. (2013).
Organisational rules and discretion in adult social work.British Journal of Social Work,
43, 739–758. doi:10.1093/Bjsw/Bcs008
25.
EvansT. (2015).
Street-level bureaucracy, management and the corrupted world of service.European Journal of Social Work,
19, 602–615. doi:10.1080/13691457.2015.1084274
26.
EvansT.HarrisJ. (2004).
Street-level bureaucracy, social work and the (exaggerated) death of discretion.British Journal of Social Work,
34, 871–895. doi:10.1093/Bjsw/Bch106
27.
GarrettP. M. (2005).
Social work’s “electronic turn”: Notes on the deployment of information and communication technologies in social work with children and families.Critical Social Policy,
25, 529–553. doi:10.1177/0261018305057044
28.
GillP.StewartK.TreasureE.ChadwickB. (2008).
Methods of data collection in qualitative research: Interviews and focus groups.British Dental Journal,
204, 291–295. doi:10.1038/bdj.2008.192
29.
Gillingham, P., & Graham, T. (2015). Designing electronic information systems for the future: Social workers and the challenge of New Public Management. Critical Social Policy, 36, 187–204. doi: 10.1177/0261018315620867
30.
GillinghamP. (2009). The use of assessment tools in child protection: An ethnomethodological study.
Melbourne, Australia:
The University of Melbourne.
31.
GillinghamP. (2011).
Computer-based information systems and human service organisations: Emerging problems and future possibilities.Australian Social Work,
64, 299–312. doi:10.1080/0312407x.2010.524705
32.
GillinghamP. (2013).
The development of Electronic Information Systems for the future: Practitioners, “embodied structures” and “technologies-in-practice”.British Journal of Social Work,
43, 430–445. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcr202
33.
GillinghamP. (2014).
Electronic information systems and social work: Who are we designing for?Practice,
26, 313–326. doi:10.1080/09503153.2014.958454
34.
HallC.PartonN.PeckoverS.WhiteS. (2010).
Child-centric information and communication technology (ICT) and the fragmentation of child welfare practice in England.Journal of Social Policy,
39, 393–413. doi:10.1017/S0047279410000012
35.
HardikerP.ExtonK.BakerM. (1991). Policies and practices in preventive child care. Aldershot: Ashgate.
36.
HarlowE.WebbS. A. (2003). Information and communication technologies in the welfare services.
London, UK:
Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
37.
HillA.ShawI. (2011). Social work and ICT.
London, UK:
Sage.
38.
HsiehH. F.ShannonS. E. (2005).
Three approaches to qualitative content analysis.Qualitative Health Research,
15, 1277–1288. doi:10.1177/1049732305276687
39.
HudsonJ. (2002).
Digitising the structures of government: The UK’s information age government agenda.Policy and Politics,
30, 515–531. doi:10.1332/030557302760590431
40.
HuuskonenS.VakkariP. (2013).
Selective clients’ trajectories in case files: Filtering out information in the recording process in child protection.British Journal of Social Work,
45, 792–808. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bct160
41.
JohanssonS. (2012).
Who runs the mill? The distribution of power in Swedish social service agencies.European Journal of Social Work,
15, 679–695. doi:10.1080/13691457.2011.594424
42.
KesslF. (2014).
Critical reflexivity, social work, and the emerging European post-welfare states.European Journal of Social Work,
12, 305–317. doi:10.1080/13691450902930746
43.
KeymolenE.BroedersD. (2013).
Innocence lost: Care and control in Dutch digital youth care.British Journal of Social Work,
43, 41–63. doi:10.1093/Bjsw/Bcr169
44.
LashS. (2002). Critique of information.
London, UK:
Sage.
45.
LecluijzeI. (2015). The wrong tool for the job. The introduction of the child index in Dutch child welfare.
Maastricht, The Netherlands:
Universitaire Pers Maastricht.
46.
LipskyM. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services.
New York:
Russell Sage.
47.
LorenzW. (2007).
Practising history: Memory and contemporary professional practice.International Social Work,
50, 597–612. doi:10.1177/0020872807079918
48.
LorenzW. (2008).
Paradigms and politics: Understanding methods paradigms in a historical context: The case of social pedagogy.British Journal of Social Work,
38, 625–644. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcn025
49.
ManovichL. (2001). The language of new media.
London, UK:
MIT Press.
Munro E. (2004). The Impact of Audit on Social Work Practice, British Journal of Social Work, 34, 1075–1095. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bch130
52.
MutschlerE.HasenfeldY. (1986).
Integrated information-systems for social work practice.Social Work,
31, 345–349. doi:10.1093/sw/31.5.345
53.
ParrotL.Madoc-JonesI. (2008).
Reclaiming information and communication technologies for empowering social work practice.Journal of Social Work,
8(2), 181–197. doi:10.1177/1468017307084739
54.
PartonN. (2006).
Changes in the form of knowledge in social work: From the “social” to the “informational”?British Journal of Social Work,
38, 253–269. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcl337
55.
PartonN. (2008).
The “Change for Children” programme in England: Towards the “preventive-surveillance state”.Journal of Law and Society,
35, 166–187. doi:10.1111/J.1467-6478.2008.00420.X
56.
PartonN. (2009).
Challenges to practice and knowledge in child welfare social work: From the “social” to the “informational”?Children and Youth Services Review,
31, 715–721. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2009.01.008
57.
PithouseA.BroadhurstK.HallC.PeckoverS.WastellD.WhiteS. (2012).
Trust, risk and the (mis)management of contingency and discretion through new information technologies in children’s services.Journal of Social Work,
12, 158–178. doi:10.1177/1468017310382151
58.
PostleK. (2002).
Working “between the idea and the reality”: Ambiguities and tensions in care managers’ work.British Journal of Social Work,
32, 335–351. doi:10.1093/Bjsw/32.3.335
59.
RooseR.RoetsG.Bouverne-De BieM. (2012).
Irony and social work: In search of the happy Sisyphus.British Journal of Social Work,
42, 1592–1607. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcr163
60.
SpechtH.CourtneyM. (1994). Unfaithful angels: How social work has abandoned its mission.
New York:
The Free Press.
61.
TimmsN. (1972). Recording in social work.
London, UK:
Routledge and Kegan Paul.
62.
TregeagleS.DarcyM. (2008).
Child welfare and information and communication technology: Today’s challenge.British Journal of Social Work,
38, 1481–1498. doi:10.1093/Bjsw/Bcm048
63.
TsuiM. S.CheungF. C. H. (2004).
Gone with the wind: The impacts of managerialism on human services.British Journal of Social Work,
34, 437–442. doi:10.1093/Bjsw/Bch046
Van YperenT. (2013). Met kennis oogsten. Monitoring en doorontwikkeling van een integrale zorg voor jeugd.
Groningen, The Netherlands:
Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.
66.
VanheeJ. P. (2014). Dat verandert de zaak.
Brussels, Belgium:
Politeia.
67.
WastellD.WhiteS. (2014).
Beyond bureaucracy: Emerging trends in social care informatics.Health Informatics Journal,
20, 213–219. doi:10.1177/1460458213487535
68.
WebbS. A. (2006). Social work in a risk society: Social and political perspectives.
Basingstoke, UK:
Palgrave/Macmillan.
69.
WhiteS.HallC.PeckoverS. (2009).
The descriptive tyranny of the Common Assessment Framework: Technologies of categorization and professional practice in child welfare.British Journal of Social Work,
39, 1197–1217. doi:10.1093/Bjsw/Bcn053
70.
WhiteS.WastellD.BroadhurstK.HallC. (2010).
When policy o’erleaps itself: The “tragic tale” of the integrated children’s system.Critical Social Policy,
30, 405–429. doi:10.1177/0261018310367675
