Professional ethics - in practical social work

1. Professional ethics-in practical social work Jens Eistrup School of Social Work UNBC October 12th 2017

2. Program • Background & aim • Theoretical framework and design • Questions and answers

3. Background (1) Studying social work and ethics over a couple of years, something struck me: Ever more - and ever more solemn – talk and statements from professionals about importance of ethics Increasing criticism of inhumane systems preventing professionals from acting in accordance with ethical principles

4. Background (2) “When we obscure the essential human and moral aspects of care behind ever more rules and regulations we make the daily practice of social work ever more distant from its original ethical impulse” (Bauman 2000, s9)

5. Background (3) ”The ethical moment counts as professionals are forced to a trade-off between multiple competing ideals”(Pedersen 2011, s 253) Pedersen on public institution trends: → centralized decison making on ”vital” policy areas → legitimization of decision ”shifted downwards” in public hierarchy → ethical judgment of practitioners becomes intrumental to system legitimacy

6. Background (4) SO • Professional ethics seems to be ‘on the rise’ and under pressure at the same time. • This apparent paradox, somehow, has to do with the complexity and “uncontrollability” of modern organizations

7. Questions • What is the relationship between rising complexity of organizations and decision making and the role of professional ethics in social work? • How does the political and organizational context affect social workers handling of ethical principles in practice? • How do social work professionals and their directors (respectively) refer to ethical principles in every day practice?

8. Theoretical framework K. E. Løgstrup Zygmunt Bauman • Sociology of professions: • Funktionalism • Weberianism • Governmentality Sociology of administrative decision making (Andersen) “Ethical instance” in social work practice

9. Theoretical framework K. E. Løgstrup Zygmunt Bauman

10. Theoretical framework “You can never have to do with another human being, without holding a piece of that human beings life in your hand” (K. E. Løgstrup) “Human reality is complicated and ambivalent.” (…) “The choice is not between following rules or violating rules, as there is no one set of rules to either follow or violate (…) Every obedient action is, and cannot be anything but, a disobedient action.” (Zygmunt Bauman 2016/1993) SUM UP • Pluralism and mutual dependence in modern society create new conditions for an ethics based on real human responsibility (unlike blind rule following behavior) • Personal ethical responsibility for effects of actions intensifies in a pluralist, complex society (it is inescapable!).

11. Theoretical framework K. E. Løgstrup Zygmunt Bauman

12. Theoretical framework K. E. Løgstrup Zygmunt Bauman • Sociology of professions: • Funktionalism • Weberianism • Governmentality

13. Theoretical framework

14. Theoretical framework

15. Theoretical framework

16. Theoretical framework ”It is misconceived to see the state-profession relationship as one of two subjects”. (…) “We are forced to conclude not only that the independence of the professions depend on the state, but that the state is dependent on the independence of the professions in securing the capacity to govern as well as legitimating its governance.” (Terry Johnson 1995, p9 +p17)

17. Theoretical framework K. E. Løgstrup Zygmunt Bauman • Sociology of professions: • Funktionalism • Weberianism • Governmentality

18. Theoretical framework K. E. Løgstrup Zygmunt Bauman • Sociology of professions: • Funktionalism • Weberianism • Governmentality Sociology of administrative decision making (Andersen)

19. Theoretical framework Trends in public sector decision making (Danish context): ”By portraying the future as indeterminate dilemmas, the public sector and its institutions and citizens are made responsible as co-producers of the future. Central government communicates no clear-cut solutions, nor any clear problems or future horizons but calls instead for institutions to think outside the box. They are offered indeterminate complexity and insoluble dilemmas and are expected to see these as sources of radical innovation.” This way, public sectors top level operates ”…a decision that does not want to be a decision.” (Andersen/Pors 2017, p13+14)

20. Theoretical framework SO • Administrative top counts on independence and responsibility of institutions and public officials (f.x. partnerships, contracts, obligations to design strategies) • Innovation and “out-of-the box” thinking are in demand BUT • This mode of decision making co-exist with more classical bureaucratic modes of decision making (f.x. hierarchy and the legality of rules based decision making) • Result is double-up on complexity and “important semantic frictions”. • Servants responsibilities overloaded?

21. Theoretical framework K. E. Løgstrup Zygmunt Bauman • Sociology of professions: • Funktionalism • Weberianism • Governmentality Sociology of administrative decision making (Andersen)

22. Theoretical framework K. E. Løgstrup Zygmunt Bauman • Sociology of professions: • Funktionalism • Weberianism • Governmentality Sociology of administrative decision making (Andersen) “Ethical instance” in social work practice

23. Theoretical framework – “Etiskinstans” Political demand Direction Organization - Delegation - Complexity reduction - Legitimacy • Obey! • Be independent! • Be efficient! • Innovate! • Makes results! “Etiskinstans” - Promise of responsibility - Demand for resources* Practitioner • Profession • Education • Professional values • Citizens • Civil rights • Specific needs

24. Theoretical framework SO – my hypothesis • The “ethical instance” (Etiskinstans) emerges as a bargain or co-creation between practitioners and direction • It is referred to as a key of solving problems of complexity and/or overload of demands in the context of social work. • Thus, organizations can trust practitioners with difficult trade-offs at the floor level.

25. Refined research questions ”I wish to examine, from a perspective of profession sociology and organizational theory, how social workers and directors in the context of social work agencies (respectively) understand and value practictioners ethical responsibility in relation to their actions towards and their relationships with citizens/clients”

26. Design Explore two expectedly different contexts of social work (comparative case study). Examine the context of practice and decision making (multiple forces – identify possible challenging trade-offs) Methodology • Understanding context (organization, funding, contracts, policy documents, manuals, organizational objectives and strategies etc.) • Observations of social work in practice, identifying difficult trade-offs, dilemma and decisions. • Interviews with social workers - and their directors - as for the role of ethical principles in practice, based on the observed cases/situations

27. Questions, Comments, Answers….