Danielle Dierckx

How can we study the integration of networks among human service organizations? Some lessons from organizational sociology

Since the 1970s, the concept of social networks became very popular in the sociological literature on organizations. This is especially the case when focusing on human service organizations. We follow Provan and Milward in defining the networks among human service organizations as ‘service delivery vehicles’ providing value to a population confronted with varying needs, in ways that could not have been achieved by a single organization. An important question deals with the effectiveness of these networks. The pioneering work of Provan and Milward resulted in some first preliminary theories and findings on how network integration is able to improve the effectiveness of social service delivery. These authors argue that a high level of integration among organizations improves the quality of service delivery and therefore results in better outcomes at the client level. In this article, we combine insights from organizational sociology and social work to develop a comprehensive framework to study the concept of network integration. We distinguish four dimensions: communicative integration, cultural integration, normative integration, and functional integration. Furthermore, we elaborate on how power differences among actors in the network influence the integration at the network level.

Two birds of a feather? Collaboration in social work research in Europe

Social work research, what’s in a name? Definitely, it is not as carefree as it might seem at first glance. Questions are being asked on how this research should be conducted and what kind of research social work practice needs. A noteworthy number of writings show that the discussion is still current. Social work research is dominated by tensions and questions on the usability, the implementation and, more generally, the identity of the research. One can say that this is inherent in the emergence of a ‘new’ discipline. However, social work research has its history and is not as new as sometimes imagined (as shown by Ian Shaw’s contribution in this volume). But after decades of looking for a distinct identity, social work research is evolving at rather different rates and forms in different European countries. Nowadays, finding research-based answers for social work issues is still liable to problems of uncertainty as to how practice and research are related. Social work research is not profiled as a distinct academic discipline but departs from an interdisciplinary point of view. Moreover, it holds a characteristic research approach that is oriented towards change and has an egalitarian relationship between the objects and subjects of research (in most cases the practitioners and the researchers) (see Hugh McLaughlin’s contribution in this volume). Defining social work research is no longer a question of listing subjects or themes such as ‘care’ and ‘welfare’ as preferred domains, but increasingly one of how to perform the research. Today, we do not question what the subject of social work research should be, but rather who should be involved in what way. It is acknowledged that a (reciprocal) relationship between practice and research is an important feature. Consequently, more should be learned about the way in which collaboration can support both research and practice and what challenges nowadays are faced in this respect. With this special issue, we focus on collaboration. The issue is the result of a conference on this topic that took place in September 2009 in Antwerp. The initiative for the conference was provided by the newborn Masters in Social Work at the University of Antwerp, Belgium. When establishing this new educational programme, debates arose on the specific nature and identity, on the attainments and goals of that academic degree. Collaboration between academics, practitioners and other actors became a central issue in the exchange of ideas on social work research’s

Subsidiarity and social citizenship : social assistance schemes in Austria, Belgium, Switzerland and Norway

Previous research has emphasised that conditionality impinges on social citizenship. However, a systematic assessment examining the impact of functional and territorial subsidiarity has been overlooked. Developing seven operational criteria – rights, means testing, conditionality, voice and choice, discretion, benefits adequacy and supplementary system – we determined levels of subsidiarity and social citizenship in social assistance schemes. Analysing the benefit reform trajectories of Austria, Belgium, Norway and Switzerland, we conclude that social assistance schemes have not improved. Low benefits, means testing and work linkage have strengthened functional subsidiarity, whereas questions of voice and choice are rarely on the agenda. Caseworkers’ discretion and local administration have sustained territorial subsidiarity. Therefore, considering the potential role that benefits could play in the welfare state, low up-take minimises the redistributive potential and, in general, risk has substantially shifted towards social assistance.

The challenge of superdiversity for the identity of the social work profession: Experiences of social workers in ‘De Sloep’ in Ghent, Belgium

This article examines the challenges that superdiversity and complexity pose for social workers. Taking an ethnographic approach, we focus on the ‘knowledge-in-action’ of social workers in a small service organization in Belgium in order to access their experiences of being professionals in superdiverse contexts. The reflections of the social workers reveal the prominence of three inter-related issues: the social vulnerability of clients, the tensions that arise in coping with differences between personal and professional frameworks and identities, and the discontinuity that challenges the professional self-confidence of social workers. The findings raise important questions for the professional identity of social work.

The ‘activation turn’ and the new horizontal division of labour at the local level: the case of social assistance services in Austria, Belgium, Norway and Switzerland: Changes, Challenges and Policy Implications for Europe in Times of Austerity

In this chapter we focus on social assistance services, such as housing, childcare, counselling, food and other types of benefits, that are provided to people receiving a guaranteed subsistence income from the state, defined here as social assistance beneficiaries. These services are delivered by social workers in public agencies, often collaborating with other public and non-profit service providers at the local level. We will specifically address how the ‘horizontal division of labour’ (Martinelli, Chapter 1, in this volume) among government actors and a variety of social service providers (public, non-profit and for-profit) has been affected by the socalled ‘activation turn’ (Kazepov, 2010; Raeymaeckers and Dierckx, 2013) in social assistance. In recent decades, most European countries have made a transition to an ‘active’ welfare state, whereby social policies are aimed at facilitating the transition of people in poverty to the labour market. This shift is defined as the ‘activation turn’. In most European welfare states, this turn has reallocated the tasks of social workers and caseworkers at the local level from supporting the vulnerable target group of social assistance beneficiaries by providing services in different life domains towards supporting labour market activation (Raeymaeckers and Dierckx, 2013). In some countries, such as Switzerland, a trend towards vertical subsidiarity is observed, whereby responsibilities concerning services for and the activation of

Investing in work: exclusionary inclusion in Austria, Belgium and Norway

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to compare the impact of two social investment strategies (labour activation and governance coordination) targeted to social assistance clients within three different welfare-system coordination cases, with focus on social and economic inclusion. Design/methodology/approach The authors focus on the impact of reform at micro (individually experienced impact), meso (impact across settings) and macro (socio-structural impact) levels. Findings While social investment reform has given some clients new opportunities, in no study case were clients fully able to use the incentive-driven strategies. Reforms have led to a “Matthew effect”: the better resourced reap the largest benefit from new services on offer while the less resourced have their marginal socioeconomic position reinforced. Clients may internalise their relative activation success. Intimate connections between macro- and micro-impacts may have heightened the sense of social and economic exclusion, stigma and shame experienced by those who are most vulnerable. Social implications Social investment reform (labour activation) may not be a model that reduces social and economic exclusion and it may, instead, reify socioeconomic marginalisation, enhancing sense of stigma and shame and reducing self-efficacy. Originality/value Scholars have assessed social investment according to its economic performance, but there has been a lack of research considering impact of reform on socioeconomic inclusion.