6 Discussion
6.2 Standardisation and knowledge
A fundamental question in professional practice is what counts as knowledge. Relevant to this thesis is the common linking of theoretical scientific knowledge, or formal knowledge, to rationalisation and standardisation (Freidson, 2001). Standardisation has also been linked to what is perceived to be expert knowledge (Jacobsson, 2000). Hence, when professionals use standardised tools, they may, not necessarily deliberately, act as experts on the cases they are dealing with. As discussed above, standardised tools seem to contribute to increased legitimacy from other professionals, which in turn may reinforce the position of expert knowledge, in terms of knowing what is best for
Discussion
families. This raises the crucial question of what type of knowledge the standards are based on, and in turn, how this affects CWS professionals’
reliance on knowledge in their practice.
As discussed in the previous section, psychological knowledge and risk focus seem to be the dominant and preferred reference points for knowledge in the professionals’ practice. However, the application of psychological knowledge is not new, but has deep roots in the history of social work (Munro, 2020). However, as supported by other studies (e.g.
Jensen, 2021; Stanley, 2013), psychological knowledge, with particular emphasis on attachment and risk (Article 2), seems to have gained ground as a new standard for what counts as valid knowledge in CWS practice. Professionals taking part in this study found this knowledge meaningful and supportive of their work, and it enhanced their sense of competence. These findings concur with those of other studies (Munro, 2020; Vis, Lauritzen, & Fossum, 2019). There is no doubt that psychology brings important insights to CWS practice; however, a timely question is what implications the strong leaning on psychology may have for social work, the social work profession and for families in contact with CWS.
In social work, the person-in-situation constitutes the core unit of analysis (Levin, 2021), meaning that when dealing with social problems, it is crucial not to solely base the analysis on traits or capabilities concerning the person, but to include situational or contextual factors.
Professionals strive to obtain optimal knowledge that can reduce
Discussion
uncertainties in cases they are dealing with (Sturmberg & Martin, 2013).
However, child welfare cases are often unpredictable and complex (Gümüscü, Nygren, & Khoo, 2020; Munro, Cartwright, Hardie, &
Montuschi, 2017). This complexity makes a linear causal effect relationship difficult or impossible to detect. Dealing with complexity is demanding, and can leave professionals feeling powerless as to how to help the family or to solve the problem. The increase in standardised tools can be seen as one way to help professionals navigate and deal with complex family cases. Nevertheless, some of the tools seem to lean on a rather one-dimensional or linear understanding of this complexity. For instance, the parents’ lack of mentalisation ability seems to constitute the problem, and therefore, parents’ ability to mentalise is important to assess. Similarly, it may not be possible to define the child’s needs based on a repertoire of risk factors. The problem is not that lack of mentalisation or various risk factors may constitute a risk for the parent-child dyad, but a problem may be excessive use of this type of knowledge without being complemented by more socially and structurally oriented knowledge. When relying solely on psychological knowledge, there is a risk that the ‘in-situation’ part of the unit of analysis of social work becomes detached from the understandings of the challenges faced by families in contact with CWS, with consequences for measures and support from CWS.
As indicated above, the issue is not whether or not professionals should rely on psychological knowledge in their practice. It is, however, important to be cautious and attentive to how psychology-oriented
Discussion
standards place interpretative demands upon professionals (Articles 2 and 3), and thereby interpret ‘everything’ in terms of psychology and risk, thus adopting a ‘one size fits all’ norm. In this study, when risk factors were identified, these were often perceived as factual knowledge.
One could therefore argue that the expert knowledge stored in the standards (Jacobsson, 2000) is what appears to guide the professionals’
actions. This concern is also raised by Featherstone, Gupta, Morris, and White (2018) who argue that the use of standardised tools with an individualistic risk focus leads to overlooking other factors, such as socio-economic or cultural factors that are equally important in CWS practice (Article 2). This kind of social knowledge has played a significant part in the social work knowledge base and practice, and is crucial for understanding the person-in-situation (Levin, 2021).
Accordingly, CWS practice may fail to handle the complexity involved in CWS work. In turn, this may lead to errors and biased decision-making, with implications for measures and interventions offered to families. Clearly, if one is ‘programmed’ to focus on risk, risk is what one will find, which is thus a case of conformation bias (Munro, 2019).
In this sense, the standards are not objective and may result in biased interpretations of families (Munro, 2019).
The message here is that families and their individual needs are best served by acknowledging the importance of relying on different sources of knowledge in the given context. This includes a broad base of formal, practical and tacit knowledge (Grimen, 2008), with an acknowledgement that what knowledge is needed in each specific case should depend on
Discussion
the case, not the tool. In relying on standards, the knowledge is predefined and stored in the standard, and it is thus not the situation that determines what knowledge to rely on. Consequently, there is a potential for applying a one-dimensional knowledge base to help families that after all are multi-dimensional.
Finally, to continue the longstanding debate on enhancing the knowledge base in CWS practice (e.g. Hjelmar & Møller, 2016; Skillmark &
Oscarsson, 2020), there have been several attempts to make use of more research-based knowledge. Implementation of EBP is one such example (Bergmark & Lundström, 2011; Skillmark & Oscarsson, 2020; Aarons, Hurlburt, & Horwitz, 2011), and standardisation, as shown in this study, is another attempt to bridge the gap between research and practice.
Despite these attempts, research shows that social workers use research to a limited degree to inform their practice (Bergmark & Lundström, 2011; Skillmark & Oscarsson, 2020). As shown in this study, standardisation does not ensure a multifaceted knowledge base for CWS practice. Instead of actively searching for relevant research, frontline professionals tend to rely on the knowledge stored in manuals or standards. To enhance ‘research-mindedness’ (Karvinen-Niinikoski, 2005) and strengthen a knowledge-based practice, it is important that CWS professionals combine different sources of knowledge, and critically reflect upon how knowledge is acquired. To achieve a knowledge-based practice, frontline professionals need to combine theoretical, practical and tacit knowledge (Grimen, 2008), to seek out research that goes beyond and expands knowledge stored in the
Discussion
standards, and critically reflect upon how knowledge is applied in CWS practice.
Discussion
Final remarks