Social work on the edge: not knowing, singularity and acceptance

Abstract

Social work has never been an easy task. Fraught with uncertainty, social workers are charged with making sense of the present and predicting the futures of people, places and events that represent perpetual possibility. As aspects of perception come into view, their appearance is shaped by structures and status states of individual and collective creation that afford security, yet limit and restrict. This conceptual paper explores the act of 'knowing', considering it to be an active process, shaped by emotion and bound by contingent and expectant contexts that limit the possibilities of the future, through the collective selfimposition of ideas of knowing and of how the world works. It is suggested that emancipation from limited understandings and subjugated positions lies in an acceptance of that which cannot be known, together with an enhanced connection with who we are, enabled and supported by social work's core values. The paper's intent is to stimulate debate of an alternate future that enables and emboldens us to reach beyond organisational and selfimposed limitations that serve to reproduce disadvantage and social injustice. In doing so, it takes a reflective, psycho-social approach that offers a space for critical and transformative thought -the starting point for transformative, value-based, practice.

Doing Knowing Ethically – Where Social Work Values Meet Critical Realism

“…Although Mason's (2011) observation that identity power depends on shared institutions, meanings and expectations does much of the work for me here, in terms of providing a position statement, it is useful to try and tidy this up a little, within the parameters of what can be achieved in the remaining space of this article. While Mason's views sit quite comfortably with my own, more constructivist interpretations of 'reality' (see Dore, 2018) -heavily influenced as they are by Searle's (2006) thoughts on collective intentionally and how enduring version of reality can be 'known', or rather be seen to be epistemically objective, despite being created by the actions and attitudes of individuals -this moves us to a different ontological place. This should not be a problem, given my aim of borrowing from critical realism in order to hone analytical capability, but, none-the-less, it is important to tie things off as smoothly as I can.…”

“…Critical realism, whilst not a perspective I fully subscribe to, given my preference for a constructivist approach (see Dore, 2018), can, as I have argued elsewhere (Dore, 2006), offer insight that is more ontologically astute than some of the harder, positivist orientated, incarnations that feature in discussions about knowledge and use of evidence in social work.…”

“…This is not to be read as a passive, inevitable, acceptance, but one which is embracing, outward looking and inclusive, one which celebrates difference and is open to alternative possibility. Without such acceptance it is hard to see how entrenched ways of being or knowing can be transformed (see Dore, 2018). With it comes tolerance and an ability to embrace the unsettledness that accompanies a more open, less imposing and uncertain way of being.…”

‘Informed consent’ in consensual child welfare: some reflections on its controversial nature

“…The binary form of informed consent forces individuals' views into something that may not be experientially fair. 'Not-knowing' should be an option for children as well as parents for these humanely, emotionally, socially, and culturally difficult situations (Dore, 2018). This option exists in a way in the present practice as some children and parents withdraw from expressing their view.…”

Knowledge and Position: How to Manage Ambiguous Public Welfare Work

“…Although not the only work setting dealing with ambiguity, public welfare bureaucracies have some inherent ambiguous characteristics worth discussing in relation to management and leadership, described as a setting where employees draw on tacit and explicit knowledge to navigate grey areas (Blom et al 2007;Dore 2018;Øverbye 2013). The environment is commanded by uncertainty, confusion, and doubt (Lawler & Bilson 2009), with a 'high level of ambiguity in input, process, and output' (Buch & Andersen 2013, p. 158).…”