Bagsiden af recovery - omsorgssvigt: Rehabilitering af omsorgen i det sociale arbejde og socialarbejdernes frihed hertil
Oversat titel
The downside to recovery - neglect: Rehabilitation of care in social work and the social workers freedom to do so
Forfatter
Pedersen, Majken Munch
Semester
4. semester
Uddannelse
Udgivelsesår
2014
Afleveret
2014-04-03
Antal sider
94
Abstract
Specialet undersøger et grundlæggende paradoks i socialt arbejde: Hvorfor iværksætte indsatser, der forventer en aktiv og ansvarstagende borger, når bevillingen netop forudsætter, at borgeren har nedsat evne til dette? Risikoen er, at nogle ikke får den hjælp, de faktisk har brug for. Jeg kobler paradokset til, at socialt arbejde består af interventioner mod sociale problemer, ofte kaldet rehabiliterende indsatser. Over tid er forståelsen skiftet fra traditionel rehabilitering til det, der i dag ofte kaldes recovery (at komme sig). Med dette skifte – formet af en neoliberal metadiskurs, som understreger individuelt ansvar – er ansvaret for forandring i højere grad placeret hos brugerne selv i en ansvarlighedsdiskurs. Som modstykke udvikler jeg analytisk en omsorgsdiskurs, der fremhæver professionel omsorg og fælles ansvar. Jeg undersøger, hvordan ansvarligheds- og omsorgsdiskurserne får liv i praksis: hvordan socialt arbejde både formes af og selv former disse forståelser, og hvordan dette kan forklare de problemer, der opstår i praksis. Metodisk kombinerer jeg Faircloughs kritiske diskursanalyse med Smiths institutionelle etnografi. Jeg sætter Faircloughs dimension "social praksis" i relation til Smiths "translokale forhold" (overordnede organisatoriske forbindelser) og Faircloughs "diskursive praksis" i relation til Smiths "etnografiske niveau" (det lokale, konkrete), for at forbinde det partikulære med det generelle. Analysen viser en vedvarende kamp mellem ansvarligheds- og omsorgsdiskurs. Den ambivalens, der præger hverdagen, peger på, at ansvarlighedsdiskursen dominerer. Det ses også i de problemer, socialarbejdere oplever: ansvarlighedens styrende effekter kommer så stærkt til udtryk, at de skubber omsorgens måder at forstå og støtte borgere i baggrunden. Specialet tilbyder således et nødvendigt alternativt perspektiv og argumenterer for at rehabilitere omsorgen i socialt arbejde. Bagsiden af recovery kan være omsorgssvigt – derfor bør omsorg igen have en central plads.
This thesis examines a fundamental paradox in social work: Why design interventions that expect people to be active and responsible when eligibility presupposes a reduced ability to do exactly that? The risk is that some do not receive the help they actually need. I link this paradox to the idea that social work consists of interventions against social problems, often grouped as rehabilitative efforts. Over time, the focus has shifted from traditional rehabilitation to what is now often called recovery. With this shift—shaped by a neoliberal meta-discourse that emphasizes individual responsibility—responsibility for change has to a larger extent been placed on service users, in an accountability discourse. As a counterpoint, I analytically develop a care discourse that foregrounds professional care and shared responsibility. I examine how the accountability and care discourses play out in everyday practice: how practice is both shaped by and itself shapes these understandings, and how this helps explain problems that arise in practice. Methodologically, I combine Fairclough’s critical discourse analysis with Smith’s institutional ethnography. I align Fairclough’s "social practice" dimension with Smith’s "translocal relations" (overarching organizational connections) and Fairclough’s "discursive practice" with Smith’s "ethnographic level" (the local, concrete) to connect the particular with the general. The analysis shows an ongoing struggle between accountability and care. The ambivalence that permeates everyday work indicates the dominance of the accountability discourse. This also appears in the problems practitioners report: the steering effects of accountability are so strong that they push care-based ways of understanding and supporting people into the background. The thesis therefore offers a necessary alternative perspective and argues for rehabilitating care within social work. The downside of recovery can be neglect of care—hence care should once again be central.
[Dette resumé er genereret ved hjælp af AI]
Emneord