Dignity‐based practices in Norwegian activation work

Abstract

This qualitative study sought to identify dignity‐based practices in a Norwegian activation programme − the Qualification Programme. Some welfare recipients are likely to experience shame in connection with their interaction with the welfare system. Previous research suggests that a dignity‐based approach could help welfare recipients to avoid such negative experiences. The operational components of dignity have been identified as autonomy, empathy and rights. Data gathered through individual interviews with participants and activation workers were examined using interpretative phenomenological analysis with a focus on exploring respondents’ perceptions of events to which they ascribe meaning. The findings indicate that accounts of empathy were common, but that the study’s participants seldom reported experiencing that their autonomy and rights were enhanced. Participation in the programme appeared to undermine the participants’ dignity, particularly when individual needs were overlooked. An underlying reason could be the current move away from a comprehensive understanding of service users’ different needs and to a narrow focus on employability.

Combining generalist and specialist social work in activation policies: A participatory action research

“…Activation has a central role in contemporary social work policy and practice within the con‐text of the active European welfare state. A narrow focus on employability, however, means that members of disadvantaged target groups often do not receive the support they need (Naessens & Raeymaeckers, 2020; Ohls, 2020; Raeymaeckers, 2016; Raeymaeckers & Dierckx, 2013). In accordance with prior studies that have emphasised the importance of a broad approach to activation (Raeymaeckers, 2016; Raeymaeckers & Dierckx, 2013) and the crucial role of both specialist and generalist social work practices in assisting clients with multiple needs (Blom, 2004; Raeymaeckers, 2016), our PAR project proposed that generalist social work is an essential, yet an often lacking component of activation practices.…”

“…From the clients' perspective, an overly narrow focus on employability seems to negatively impact service users' feelings of dignity (Ohls, 2020). Hultqvist and Nørup (2015, 2017) showed that activation policies that only focus on work have negative consequences for people with health problems and can increase stigmatisation and exclusion.…”

“…One of the challenges is that social services with an overly narrow or specialist focus on employment and employability, fall short in supporting vulnerable target groups (Heidenreich & Aurich‐Beerheide, 2014). More specifically, people confronted with several needs in different life domains frequently fall through the gaps in the service net if social support only focuses on work and neglects other life domains (Naessens & Raeymaeckers, 2020; Ohls, 2020; Raeymaeckers, 2016).…”

Practising professionalism in activation work: Developing and testing a questionnaire

“…Various empirical studies used social work as a ‘proxy’ of the profession being practised in activation work. But this is problematic as, in a considerable number of countries, many activation workers are not trained as social workers (Ohls, 2020; Van Berkel & Knies, 2018). Taking the practising professionalism approach as our starting point allowed us to elaborate on the issue of professional activation practice while abstracting from specific social professions.…”

“…In the wake of studies carried out in the United States and Australia (Brodkin & Marston, 2013), the last 15 years have seen an increasing number of publications on the frontline or street‐level delivery of activation or welfare‐to‐work policies in European countries (Fuertes & Lindsay, 2016; Grandia et al, 2020; Ohls, 2020; Van Berkel et al, 2017). These studies opened the black box of the delivery of these policies by showing how activation workers activate their clients and how contextual characteristics structure workers’ practices.…”