Pragmatic professionalism: micro-level discourse in

This article was downloaded by: [University of Gothenburg] On: 20 November 2012, At: 19:26 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

European Journal of Social Work Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cesw20

Pragmatic professionalism: micro-level discourse in social work Andreas Liljegren Version of record first published: 19 Jul 2011.

To cite this article: Andreas Liljegren (2012): Pragmatic professionalism: micro-level discourse in social work, European Journal of Social Work, 15:3, 295-312 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13691457.2010.543888

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-andconditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

European Journal of Social Work Vol. 15, No. 3, July 2012, pp. 295312

Downloaded by [University of Gothenburg] at 19:26 20 November 2012

Pragmatic professionalism: micro-level discourse in social work Pragmatisk professionalism: mikropolitiska konstruktioner i socialt arbete Andreas Liljegren

In recent years the welfare sector has encountered numerous and often challenging changes, such as marketisation, New Public Management, and demands for evidencebased practices. These changes can be seen as a shift between the two logics of creating and maintaining authority, and as a movement from occupational towards organizational professionalism. Perhaps the most important difference between these logics is that, in occupational professionalism, authority is built on trust in the professionals’ education and ethics, whilst in organizational professionalism it is grounded in regulation and control expressed, for example, in rules, regulations, and routines. The article focuses on the ways in which two groups of social workers in Swedish social welfare offices orient themselves towards organizational and occupational professionalism in constructing themselves and in the construction of each other, as well as the work that is carried out by each group. The aim is thus to elaborate on what these logics mean at the microlevel. In this respect, pertinent questions such as ‘How are they to be understood?’, ‘Regarded from the point of view of micro politics, what do these logics mean?’ and ‘How are the logics internalized by the social workers?’ are posed. Keywords: Organizational Professionalism; Occupational Professionalism; Boundary Work; Social Work; Social Welfare Office; Sweden

Correspondence to: Andreas Liljegren, Department of Social Work, Go¨teborg University, Box 720, 405 30 Go¨teborg, Sweden. Tel.: 0046-709137019; Email: [email protected] ISSN 1369-1457 (print)/ISSN 1468-2664 (online) # 2012 Taylor & Francis http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13691457.2010.543888


296 A. Liljegren

Pa˚ senare a˚r har va¨lfa¨rdssektorn genomga˚tt omfattande fo¨ra¨ndringar, exempelvis i form av marknadisering, New Public Management (NPM) och krav pa˚ evidensbaserade praktiker. Ett sa¨tt att fo¨rsta˚ dessa fo¨ra¨ndringar a¨r att se dem i termer av en fo¨rskjutning mellan tva˚ idealtypiska logiker. fo¨r att skapa och beha˚lla legitimitet och som en fo¨ra¨ndring fra˚n yrkes- till organisationsprofessionalism. Den kanske viktigaste skillnaden mellan dessa logiker a¨r att yrkesprofessionalismens legitimitet byggs pa˚ tillit till de professionellas utbildning och etik, medan tilliten i organisationsprofessionalismen kommer fra˚n bland annat kontroll, regler och rutiner. Artikeln analyserar hur tva˚ grupper av socionomer pa˚ socialkontor konstruerar sig sja¨lva och det arbete som utfo¨rs. Syftet med artikeln a¨r att fo¨rdjupa fo¨rsta˚elsen fo¨r vad dessa logiker inneba¨r genom att sta¨lla fra˚gor som: Hur skall logikerna fo¨rsta˚s? Vad betyder logikerna pa˚ den mikropolitiska niva˚n? Hur internaliseras logikerna av socialarbetarna? Nyckelord: Yrkesprofessionalism; Organisationsprofessionalism; Gra¨nsarbete; Socialkontor; Sverige In common with many other professionals, social workers today have to deal with the continuous specialization of their services. Whilst on the one hand this creates better opportunities for concentrating on different aspects of social work, on the other it creates new tensions when different professions and professional segments are required to collaborate with one another. All professions encompass a multitude of tensions between, for example, users of different methods, different theoretical understandings, various collaborative partners, varying organizations, and even between different departments within organizations. For Swedish welfare offices, although specialization comes in many forms, a common way of organizing work is to have a social assistance group that administers the provision of social welfare grants and other issues concerning how clients support themselves financially, and different kinds of treatment groups that deal with other social problems such as child neglect, youth crime, or substance abuse among adults. The aim of this article is to analyse professional discourses in these groups in relation to two different ideal types of logic: organizational and occupational professionalism (more about this later). From an actor perspective, professional groups can be seen as collective actors who manoeuvre within their specific contexts (Freidson, 1975; Larson, 1977; Abbott, 1988). The processes in which professions and professionals are involved can be understood in terms of boundaries and boundary work (Gieryn, 1983, 1999; Liljegren et al., 2008). In this framework, professions create, maintain, and breakdown boundaries in order to separate ‘us’ from ‘them’, and to keep others out of areas of claimed professional turf. Boundary work is conducted for several purposes: to create legitimacy, to negotiate jurisdictional boundaries, to determine the nature and extent of rewards, and to define levels of discretion and autonomy. Boundary work can be carried out for both altruistic and egoistic motives. In general, the processes of boundary determination is therefore important to analyse professional discourses


European Journal of Social Work

297

since they are an essential part of the way in which boundaries are drawn and negotiations are conducted. Organizations are important settings in these negotiations as it is here that the claimed expertise of professional groups takes a concrete form (Hasenfeld, 1992). Even though the uniqueness of human service organizations seems to be somewhat exaggerated, there are nevertheless reasons to believe that the negotiations that take place in them are more extensive than those that take place in other organizations (Lipsky, 1980; Mintzberg, 1980). First, due to the relatively high level of discretion in professional bureaucracies, professionals have greater opportunities to decide what to work with and how to manage that work (Lipsky, 1980; Hasenfeld, 1983). Second, the vagueness of organizational and professional goals often makes interpretations more contestable (Lipsky, 1980; Hasenfeld, 1983). Finally, since some human service organizations, such as social services, depend on technologies only to a limited extent, they therefore need to adapt more to dominant belief systems and ideologies, which are by no means always clear (Meyer & Rowan, 1977). An important dimension of professions and professional work is that both are built on authority and trust. Authority is needed for professional groups in relation to the state, colleagues, organizations, clients, and other interested parties with whom they interact. As professional life is characterized by continual processes of change, professional groups by their very nature need to respond to a multitude of new situations in order to survive. In recent years the welfare sector has encountered numerous and often challenging changes, such as marketization and demands for evidence-based practices. These processes have implications for how professional groups legitimize themselves in society. These changes can be seen as a shift between the two logics of creating and maintaining authority and as a movement from occupational towards organizational professionalism (Evetts & Wilson, 2005; Evetts, 2006; Evetts et al., 2006). Perhaps the most important difference between these logics is that in occupational professionalism, authority is built on trust in the professionals’ education and ethics, whilst in organizational professionalism it is grounded in regulation and control, expressed for example, in rules, regulations, and routines, or, in other words, in different forms of external control systems. There are, in addition, also internal mechanisms of control, or a governmentality that instructs professionals about what to do and how to carry out the tasks. The concept of governmentality was developed by Foucault (1979), who argued that part of the process of the modernization of society has been achieved through citizens learning to govern themselves and to be governed by others. The concept of governmentality operates on a discursive level and mechanisms of control are internalized by those who are its subjects (Miller & Rose, 1990; Fournier, 1999; Evetts & Dingwall, 2002). Consequently, control is no longer embedded into rules, regulations, and routines, but into the norms of the worker supervising the work process from a distance (Evetts, 2003a, 2003b, 2007). Managers play an important role in the introduction of organizational professionalism and organizational goals (Enteman, 1993). Accountability is a keyword in both


298 A. Liljegren

of these versions of professionalism. In occupational professionalism, accountability entails entrusting professionals to deliver and justify that which is best for their clients on the basis of their academic and practical training and professional code of ethics. In organizational professionalism, however, accountability is achieved through the trust that is engendered through measurable means, such as the adoption of evidence-based practices. In a sense, these logics can be seen as a conflict between an organizational and a professional sphere. Traditionally, organizations have been described as striving to restrict the discretion of professionals. Professions, on the other hand, attempt to increase their discretion as a part of their overall goals. However, issues concerning discretion are rather complex, since it is not axiomatically so that increases in rules will lead to reduced discretion (Evans & Harris, 2004). In terms of boundary work, professional groups can keep and create legitimacy by turning to the logic of organizational and occupational professionalism. To create and to keep boundaries and legitimacy in these negotiations/conflicts it is possible to walk both these paths. This study is an example of intra-professional boundary work between two different groups of trained social workers in Swedish social welfare offices: the social assistance group and the treatment group. The article deals with how these two groups of social workers orient in their constructions of themselves and the work that is carried out by each group. The initial aim is to trace these two forms of professionalism in the boundary work of these professional groups. Evetts’s insights on these matters are mainly located on the national and international levels; the second aim is therefore to elaborate on what these logics mean on the micro-level. How are they to be understood? Regarded from the point of view of micro-politics, what do these logics mean? How are the logics internalized by the social workers? The logics can be expressed in both discourse and actual practice, in other words, both in what the professionals say and do. The empirical work focuses on the discourse, but reflections will also be made on what the logics mean at a more practical level. Context This article deals with two professional categories of qualified social workers employed in Swedish social welfare offices. As in other parts of Europe, Swedish social workers have had to cope with continuous changes in their work. Some of the changes in the Swedish welfare model are like those in many other countries in Europe, where the provision of welfare services has undergone processes of decentralization and market orientation. However, Sweden is still a system in which the state and the municipalities provide a large proportion of the welfare services and the third sector is relatively small (Liljegren et al., 2008). The high degree of academization of social work is something else that is unique to the Scandinavian countries in comparison to the rest of Europe (Dellgran & Ho¨jer, 2000). A common arrangement is to organize the provision of welfare services in a way that distinguishes between a social assistance group and a treatment group. The main task of the social assistance group is to help clients in managing their financial



299

situation. On some occasions this can involve giving advice, whilst on others it is about redirecting clients to other authorities and, as a final resort, deciding whether the client is eligible for a welfare grant. The treatment group, on the other hand, is often less focused on how clients support themselves financially. Instead, their focus is on other social problems, such as child neglect, truancy, and substance abuse. Another difference is that treatment groups often deal with statutory obligations visa`-vis duties towards children and substance abusers. The arena for these two groups of social workers is the social welfare office. It should be noted that generalized descriptions of social welfare offices are difficult to make since there are many local variations due to the fact that it is up to the municipalities to decide how to organize their statutory obligations. Together with professionals, local politicians exert a considerable influence on the organization and practical arrangements for social welfare. In other words, social welfare offices contain a political, an organizational, and a professional domain (Kouzes & Mico, 1979). The political domain affects these organizations at both the national and local levels. At a national level, the state enacts legislation conferring statutory obligations, for instance in the area of child protection, on local authorities. However, the state can also make different kinds of recommendations about, for example, the types of activities the local authorities should carry out. At a local level, politicians make decisions about budgetary frameworks and general issues, although in some cases they also make decisions about matters that more directly concern individual clients. Formally, all welfare decisions are made by local politicians, but in practice many operative-level responsibilities are delegated to street-level social workers. However, in some individual cases, most frequently when the financial stakes are high, politicians end up having the final say. In terms of the organizational domain, it should be noted that the social assistance and treatment groups are, in some respects, significantly different from one another. Whilst ‘social assistance’ is the formal name given to the former group, it is more commonly known informally as ‘the economy group’. The treatment group, on the other hand, is a more informal name, and one which is used as an umbrella term to encompass several different groups, mainly the family and children group, the adolescence group, and the adult group within one operational sector. To a certain extent, the focus of the two groups differs, a factor that also means that they cooperate with different external partners. The social assistance group usually cooperates more closely with different groups/organizations working with employment functions, whilst the treatment groups work more closely with schools and therapeutic rehabilitation units. It is up to each organization and its departmental managers to decide on the kinds of work that should be included in the different operational categories, and professionals seeking employment apply for specific positions in the organization; that is, for a position in the social assistance group or in the treatment group. The

300 A. Liljegren


organization is not expected to move employees from one sector to the other, and indeed the trade unions have a strong influence whenever changes are proposed. The professional domain is dominated by qualified social workers. The main social worker union, Akademikerfo¨rbundet SSR, has for some time campaigned to acquire a state licence for practising social workers, although so far without success.1 Instead, they have awarded their own licence, although it has not been particularly successful in terms of attracting new members nor in terms of how the organizations value and prioritise licensed social work practitioners. In most cases a licence does not provide social workers with either a higher salary or increased options to apply for other positions. Even though other groups can apply for positions in the social welfare offices, by tradition most employees are qualified social workers. Methods The study is based on individual and focus group interviews conducted with 30 social workers in practice in the western part of Sweden. The process started with four individual interviews in which collaboration and opinions about the groups formed the focal points for discussion. Out of these initial interviews, vignettes exemplifying three different cases of collaboration were constructed. Each vignette was sent to the participants of the focus groups in advance of the interview, functioning as a point of departure for the discussions that subsequently took place. Professionals from the social assistance and treatment groups were interviewed separately in order to gain insights into the internal constructions of the other category of employees. One of the aims of the chosen method was to reduce the influence of the interviewer. A common strategy to achieve this is to use focus groups and, as far as possible, to let the groups take responsibility for the discussions (Litosseliti, 2003; Stewart et al., 2007). The focus groups were led by the author with a colleague who acted as an observer and who summed up the discussion at the end of each of the two hour-long sessions. The interviews have been analysed using a discourse analysis approach. In this article professional discourse refers to ‘the ways in which practitioner workers themselves are accepting, incorporating and accommodating to the concepts of ‘‘profession’’ and particularly ‘‘professionalism’’ in their work’ (Evetts, 2007, p. 5). Discourse on professionalism is expressed on at least two levels, initially more directly in terms of what is meant by ‘professionalism’ or ‘professional conduct’. However, since professionalism is a highly normative term it can also be found in more general discussions about what good (professional) or bad (unprofessional) work represents. Wodak (2004, pp. 197198) characterizes critical discourse analysis as ‘the common interest in demystifying ideologies and power through the systematic investigation of semiotic data’. Ideologies can be analysed using a socio-cognitive approach (Van Dijk, 1998). The cognitive side of discourses focuses on argumentation and selfrepresentation. Important questions are how we are different from them and how the groups justify and legitimize these differences. The social side of discourse is about the type of social landscape that the cognitive structures support (Winther



301

Jørgensen & Phillips, 2000). To understand the social side, this article draws upon theory concerning the sociology of the professions, or more specifically, upon the idea of boundary work and occupational and organizational professionalism. In more practical terms the analyses started during the transcription process, when comments were written and interesting sections were marked. Different types of analysis demand different levels of precision in the transcription. In this case a rough transcription was made initially, capturing all words but leaving out hesitations, overlapping speech, and emphasizing. After a number of key sections (including a number of candidates for citations) were selected, a more detailed transcription was made of these parts of the interviews. In the translation from Swedish to English some logical and grammatical errors were corrected as grammatical mistakes can be difficult to translate and, more importantly, the study focused more on the cognitive than the linguistic aspects of language. After reading the written interviews a few more times, a thematic structure was constructed. In the next phase each theme was analysed separately. At this point the audiotape was used again to listen to critical passages. The analysis of each theme has been conducted at different levels, from keywords in the text, to sentences and, indeed, entire sections. It has also been important to look for different patterns such as recurring words, phrases, arguments, and perspectives. At each level the analyses involved a process of listening to what the text does to me as a reader/listener and how the speakers achieve this (Wood & Kroger, 2000). A number of points of relevance related to the analyses need to be ventilated. First, analytically, the approach adopted has been one of abduction, which involves a process of moving between the theoretical starting point about occupational and organizational professionalism, and searching for and identifying relevant interview material before returning to the theory (Alvesson & Sko¨ldberg, 2000; Bertilsson, 2004; Alvesson & Ka¨rreman, 2007). Abduction is in some ways a similar analytical process to induction, but with one important difference in that abduction is more explicitly used to develop theoretical frameworks. Second, as with most qualitative studies, the aim is not to make claims about the general state of Swedish social work, but rather to use the case as an analytical tool to deepen our understanding of some important changes in professional life (Alvesson & Ka¨rreman, 2007). Third, although like all social groups, these professional segments are social constructions, the social assistance groups and treatment groups can be regarded as different types of constructions. Whilst the ‘social assistance group’ is the group’s formal title, the ‘treatment group’ is an informal construction comprising what is often more formally termed the child and family group, the adolescence group, and adult group. Third, in relation to the logics, the critical reader might ask whether other logics can be found as well, and if so, why focus only on these two? To answer the first question, it is possible to identify more logics such as market orientation and others (Freidson, 2001). However, the fact that there may be an infinite number of logics to be found does not make the two chosen logics less interesting. Nevertheless that does

302 A. Liljegren

not imply that other logics cannot be interesting in other contexts and in relation to other research questions. In that case, why focus on these two? These logics should be seen as constructions made to emphasize certain aspects of society: the tension between the profession and the organization, which is an important dynamic in contemporary society (Scott, 2008). Finally, in this discussion about the logics it should be noted that in comparing two ideal typical logics with reality, most actual cases fall somewhere between the ideal types.


A qualified work, a qualified knowledge An important difference in how the two groups describe each other’s work is that those in the treatment group claim that their work is more advanced, demanding, and qualified, in contrast to that of the social assistance group, which, they say, carries out more routine work. A social worker from the treatment group explains this in the following way: The idea is that social assistance is supposed to identify the clients at an early stage. The substance abusers and children at risk and at an early stage. But the problem is that they have no time for that kind of work. When you have 80, 90 cases all you can do is administer welfare grants. And it is very structured, you know; you have to follow the law and you can’t give away a krona more than is necessary.

The work of the treatment group is presented as work that is relational, motivating, assessing, and highly discretionary. The word ‘deep’ is often used to describe the relationship that the staff have with their clients, implying that the working tasks of the social assistance group are somewhat shallower. It is claimed (as above) that the task of the social assistance group is only about providing or ‘sending’ money; that is, the mechanical transfers of money between accounts. Sometimes it is even questioned whether the kind of work done by the social assistance group is indeed appropriate for qualified social workers in the first place. When members of the social assistance group talk about the work they do, they claim that their work is just as professionally demanding as that carried out by the social treatment group. Maria, from the social assistance group, explains this in the following way: I usually say that only about 20 percent of what we do is talking about money. The rest is other things. There really is a lot of counselling, assessing, and helping the clients.

Social assistance group staff claim that their work is just as autonomous as that done by the treatment groups. Their work, they argue, involves relational work concerning motivation and change just as much as that of their colleagues in the different treatment groups. The issue at stake at this juncture is whether the work of the social assistance group can be seen as qualified and thus professional at all. Those in the treatment group


303


argue that their work is professional (but that the work carried out by the social assistance group is not) whilst social assistance group staff say that their work is just as professional as that done by their colleagues. A forceful way of creating boundaries between the groups is observed as both say that the other group does not know or fully understand what it is they work with. The two groups, however, also have different opinions about what is considered to be important knowledge. A social worker in the social assistance group expresses this in the following way: Knowledge in our work is very perishable. Because knowledge for us is about what happens in society we must know what is taking place. I mean, all organizations have their rules and regulations and they change all the time. Meetings and ways of dealing with relations with clients do not change that much. No, our work is much more dynamic and you have to be more well-informed about what is happening in society.

As the quotation indicates, those in the social assistance group take pride in their knowledge of the rules and regulations of their own and other organizations. In this case, knowledge is presented as something fresh, dynamic, and in need of constant updating. This is diametrically opposed to the knowledge base of the treatment groups, which is implicitly described as static and introverted. There are also several examples about how those in the social assistance group raise their self-importance by arguing that they possess expertise, not only about other organizations but also about internal administrative routines such as the transfer of money. It is claimed that knowledge about such routines is a source of power. The treatment group, on the other hand, focuses more on its clients’ situations. When it is claimed that the social assistance group does not know anything about the clients’ situations, this is framed in the sense of what can be regarded as serious situations, such as child neglect and substance abuse. Even in cases that are not so acute, those in the social assistance group are said to ‘panic’ because they do not know enough about the clients and their problems. The discussion above can be seen as an example of the differences between the logics. Whilst organizational professionalism has the bureaucratic structure in focus, occupational professionalism focuses on the client. Returning to the discussion about whether the work of the social assistance group is professional or not, it is possible from the perspective of occupational professionalism that organizational professionalism can be seen as something that is not professional at all, since, by definition, it loses sight of the client as the main focus. Adopting such a perspective, it is understandable that the work of the social assistance group might be criticized as not being professional, leading to a questioning of the need for qualified social workers to carry out such working tasks. But in terms of these forms of professionalism, the claim is that occupational professionalism is the only professional way and that the social assistance group adheres to codes of organizational professionalism to far too great an extent. The social assistance group, on the other hand, argues that its work is

304 A. Liljegren

just as much based on occupational professionalism in terms of its relational and autonomous nature. However, at the same time, this group seeks support and justification from organizational professionalism when it comes to the focus of knowledge.


Negotiating work tasks Both groups frequently made reference to one specific case: the question of who should take care of substance abusers who lack the motivation to change their lifestyle. As discussed previously, although substance abusers form a core client group for the treatment group, when it comes to who should deal with these people both groups say that the other should take primary responsibility. In this case the social assistance group claims that these clients should belong to the treatment group because it has the specialized knowledge of substance abuse that can benefit these clients. I’m a bit upset that it is so difficult to transfer drug abusers to the treatment group. They want the clients to be explicitly motivated to do something about their lives, but they [the treatment group] are really the ones that have the knowledge about drug abuse to do the motivational work.

Those in the treatment group, on the other hand, argue that, in accordance with the social welfare act (SoL) or by statutory obligation (LVM), they can only take clients who voluntarily apply for help. As a means of rejecting these clients, they turn to the legislation, even though it might be possible to establish support contacts and carry out motivational work. In other cases the clients have to comply with different administrative routines, such as filling in different assessment forms before being accepted by the treatment group. From one perspective it could be seen as a way of handling unwanted work. Thus whilst, in this particular instance, the social assistance group uses the welfare of the clients to motivate their non-intervention, the adult group uses the bureaucratic structure for a similar purpose. According to the interviewees, the social assistance group usually loses these conflicts/negotiations and has to do the necessary motivational work. It should be noted that there is a discrepancy between, on the one hand, the way in which the groups present positive attitudes towards motivational work but, on the other, in the case of unmotivated substance abusers, attempt to shift this category of clients to the other group. Even though the example of the unmotivated drug abusers is the one discussed most frequently in the focus groups, it forms an exception in the material as a whole. Most often those in the treatment group present themselves as more client-oriented and argue for using the welfare of the client as a point of departure. The treatment group also claims that the social assistance group works only in accordance with its own regulations. One social worker in the treatment group explained this in the following way:


305


We think in a longer time frame and several steps ahead; what happens if we do this or that to the client? If we send him to a treatment centre and/or if he loses his bus card and so on. But they think more in the here and now and that they must follow the rules and the regulations, and the rules says ‘no’, ‘rejection’, and that is final.

The treatment group gives many examples to support this way of viewing the social assistance group. Smaller expenses, such as a pair of glasses, bus tickets, and minor incomes earned ‘on the side’, are claimed to be of major value for the clients, but form cases where the social assistance group rules against clients since such examples would be a breach of regulations. The shorter time frame referred to above is exemplified by families who will not get money to pay their rent, which, in the long run, creates problems when these families lose their accommodation and have to apply for social welfare grants. Often, however, the treatment group claims, the social assistance group does not pay attention to such details. Instead, those in the treatment group describe the social assistance group as more bureaucratic, ‘squareminded’, or governed by rules and regulations. Based on their experience, the treatment group believes that in such cases the rules are followed too readily and, to a certain extent, the consequence is that clients will suffer. To support these claims treatment group members say that in some cases it would be easier*and indeed better*to pay the clients themselves out of their own pockets. These two ways of motivating who should do what can be seen as another difference between the logics. Whilst occupational professionalism has the client as the primary focus, organizational professionalism has its focus on the bureaucratic structure. The claims made about the lack of ability to think several steps ahead can also be seen as a difference between the logics. Referral to rules and regulations does not demand any extra motivation. Rules stand in their own right and do not need any more explanation, whereas when arguing for the welfare of the client there is always another side to the situation, always an ‘on the other hand’. Whilst not implying that rules are always easy to interpret, comparisons with the welfare of the client, when referring to the bureaucratic structure, can possibly be a more successful strategy as it provides clearer directions. For this reason the robustness of the bureaucratic structure can thus have advantages in negotiations about desired/undesired work. In a setting where the valued work is defined as client-oriented, motivational, and relational, work tensions can be expected if too much emphasis is placed on the bureaucratic structure. So, put another way, what is gained in the micro-political arena can nevertheless be lost in the eyes of the professional collective. We could say that there is a potential conflict between, on the one hand, the use of successful strategies for organizational professionalism but, on the other, that there is a risk of losing the valued client-orientation that in certain ways both groups strive to achieve. To control or not to control? Whilst the treatment group sees no point in control, or argues against it, the social assistance group most often presents different types of argument favouring the


306 A. Liljegren

importance of control. What is expressed here (and elsewhere in the interviews) can be interpreted as a discourse that is constructed in relation to some of the strong influences that reflexive therapeutic views have had on Swedish social work, where the relationship with the client has been an important part of the ideology (Payne, 2005). When it comes to control, the social assistance group might argue, for instance, that it is necessary to demand that the clients provide receipts in order to prove that they use their benefits in the manner intended. Some say that clients should be controlled for their own benefit and that allowing them too much freedom is not in the clients’ best interests. By controlling the clients, it is argued, they are taught responsibility. At times control is also important on a more personal level where, it is claimed, control is necessary in order to avoid being deceived by clients. This is presented in such a way that it would be seen as a personal betrayal if the clients were to use their benefits in unintended ways. Control is also justified in the sense that it is a matter of fairness to taxpayers. It’s no wonder that we are the ones who are trusted by the organization to handle the social allowance. They [the treatment group] are a bit naı¨ve when it comes to money. They spend money for this and that but they have no clue what the clients use the money for. They don’t even ask for receipts.

Using this line of argument, those in the treatment group, it is claimed, are generally less conscious about costs, which is seen as a reason why they (the treatment group) are not empowered with the authority to make financial transfers. The treatment group places much less emphasis on control. Often they take a stand against controlling the clients, arguing that even if they get too much money, or the client does not use the money in the intended way, it is not really a problem since the clients have such a tough situation anyway and that it is only ‘fair’. However, at times they also argue against control for economic reasons. For instance, it is argued that it does not matter if they give the clients some extra money for a bus ticket, since, in the end, it is simply a transfer between two public bodies and, thus, nobody loses anything anyway. So what if the clients get some extra money for a bus ticket. Even if they don’t use it on the bus, sooner or later the money will end up in some public account anyway. In that way the extra money is just a transferral between public accounts.

When those in the treatment group argue for economic responsibility, they often do so in the following terms: What is good for the client or for society but not what is good for the organization. They also argue that they could not work in the social assistance group because they are too generous and place too much trust in people. Those in the social assistance group are aware of the criticism that they are seen as bureaucratic and, to a certain extent, agree with this critique, although often with the caveat that, ‘Yes, there are some bureaucrats like that but I am not one of them’. Instead, they claim that these bureaucratic people can be found elsewhere*in other



307

organizations or in other groups that are run by bureaucratically oriented managers. The role of the manager and the manager’s leadership is argued to be of importance in accounting for why some groups become transformed into bureaucrats. Age is also discussed in relation to bureaucratic ways of working. Some relatively young social workers claim that bureaucrats are more commonly found among older social workers who are set in their fixed routines and thereby lack the flexibility that is needed for collaboration. Conversely, some older social workers argue that bureaucrats are more commonly found among younger staff, who are more closely supervized by their managers. Again, managers are highlighted as those who establish and maintain bureaucratic systems of control. Control is important in organizational professionalism and the examples that follow provide different ways of arguing for or against control. The discussions are related to different aspects of the client’s situation, justice, the personality traits of the street-level bureaucrat, and the nature of the organization. With regard to most of these aspects, the two groups argued in different ways and came to different conclusions. For example, client welfare could be regarded as both being taught responsibility and as receiving more resources. Justice could be seen as ‘taxpayers’ justice versus social justice, whilst wastefulness or being fooled could be contrasted with generosity. However, when considering the organization, both groups agreed that the organization has the most to gain from the imposition of control. It would cost the organization too much to have the generous (or wasteful) social workers from the treatment group working in the social assistance group. If we are to believe the claims that it is the organizations that gain the most from the implementation of different control systems, these discourses do not have to be expressed in terms of organizational goals. Indeed, when client justice or desirable personality traits are in focus, it is possible to come to the same conclusion. The discussions on control are closely connected to reasoning about economic responsibility. Whilst it is conceptually possible to view the development of controlling mechanisms as a means of prioritizing economic values, there is another argument*advanced by the treatment group*which is that it is possible to argue on a societal level and thereby arrive at more generous decisions about the clients. This means that economic awareness in itself will not work as an instrument of control. At the same time the process of personalizing control is arguably the clearest example of governmentality in the interviews. It seems as if interpreting control as something that prevents the clients from fooling the social workers functions as a strong motivator for introducing and maintaining control structures and that management could have a strong vested interest in promoting such discourses. Even though it is questionable whether these kinds of discourses are implemented consciously by the managers, they seem nevertheless to have the potential to govern the social workers in the social assistance group and would appear to fit neatly in the overall framework of control so that ‘subjects learn to survey themselves, to be reflexively self-regarding as if under the ever present and watchful eye of surveillance’ (Clegg, 1998, p. 82). The effectiveness of these internalized means of control lies in


308 A. Liljegren

the fact that they do not overtly control, and therefore do not run the risk of possibly creating resistance. Through these micro-techniques of power, organizational control is normalized into that which is taken for granted. However, it would seem to be too hasty a conclusion to assume that these discourses are always induced from above. Certainly, the management should not be expected to complain about raising budget awareness and instilling awareness of rules and regulations, etc., but as has been argued above, professional groups can have their own interests in adapting to organizational professionalism. Indeed it is arguable that they are not just passively adapting to some controlling discourse, but actively choosing organizational professionalism in order to gain other professional benefits, such as a more desirable set of working tasks. Even though occupational professionalism seems to have been more highly valued in the history of professions, it is possible that a more successful strategy is to turn to organizational professionalism. It could be argued that whilst, on the one hand, organizational professionalism contains less discretion, on the other hand, different professional goals, such as status, money, and jurisdictional boundaries could be attained in a more productive manner. This could especially be the case for welfare professionals who are more thoroughly embedded into the welfare state than is the case for other, less regulated professions. Conclusion To conclude, organizational professionalism entails being positive towards the bureaucratic structure as the primary object of knowledge and using the bureaucratic structure to legitimize the negotiated order of tasks (see Table 1). Control is also important, but mainly as evidenced in arguments about the employees controlling the clients. Since the control of clients can be an aspect of budgetary constraints, and therefore in the interests of the organization, it can be seen as a part of organizational professionalism. Economic responsibility in itself is not a part of organizational professionalism, since it needs to be specified in order to serve the organization. A part of the governmentality of organizational professionalism is an internalization of organizational goals, such as budget limitations, organizational Table 1 Theoretical summary Occupational professionalism Knowledge orientation The client Legitimizing a division of Using the client as a point of labour departure Using a longer time frame Possibly a weaker way of legitimizing claims Control Less emphasis on control Economic responsibility Towards society Justice Social justice

Organizational professionalism The bureaucratic structure Using the bureaucratic structure Using a shorter time frame Possibly a stronger way of legitimizing claims More emphasis on control Towards the organization In relation to the bureaucratic structure



309

control, and explicit bureaucratic rules and regulations (Evetts, 2007). In the interviews conducted here, personalizing control is an example of how governmentality can operate in a street-level bureaucracy (Fournier, 1999). Occupational professionalism has the client in focus both when it comes to knowledge orientation and ways in which the negotiated division of labour can be legitimized. Discretion and reduced control are favoured over bureaucratization. It should be noted that the different parts of the logics support each other: you specialize in certain aspects of work, you use the specialized knowledge to argue for the preferred division of labour, you come to different conclusions regarding control, and you end up having different goals with work. These indicators of the logics should not be seen as an exclusive list but as an attempt to exemplify some factors contained within. When it comes to the specific groups studied here, both express mixed emotions towards organizational professionalism. However, for the social assistance group, there seems to be a more fundamental ambivalence being, on the one hand, positive towards a client-oriented approach, presented as relational and motivational work, whilst on the other, emphasizing control and valuing knowledge focused on bureaucratic structures. The mixing of logics was most clearly evident when it came to legitimizing who should do what, as both groups alternated between using the client and the bureaucratic structure as a point of departure. However, these facts notwithstanding, the overall impression is that the treatment group is more oriented towards occupational professionalism whilst the social assistance group leans more towards organizational professionalism. This can be seen as an example of a pragmatic professionalism where the professionals claim to stand for one form of professionalism but, at times, fall back on the opposing form (Table 2). Another conclusion is that professional groups should not be seen as victims of organizational professionalism. Organizational professionalism has not necessarily been induced from above (Enteman, 1993; Evetts, 2007). Professional groups themselves can also have their own reasons to turn to the organizational logic, for example, for micro-political reasons. An old discussion in the sociology of the professions considers whether professions can survive the bureaucracies (Scott, 1969; Davies, 1983; Murphy, 1990). The pragmatic professionalism indicates that professions can do better than survive; some occupational groups can even benefit from these kinds of processes. The question is thus, could a professional group be successful without mastering both? Probably not! It is reasonable to believe that successful boundary work at the micro-political level involves a combination of professionalisms. It is also reasonable to believe that the logics work better in different Table 2 Empirical summary The treatment group Orientation Making claims on occupational professionalism, but uses both Pragmatic professionalism

The social assistance group Making claims on organizational professionalism, but uses both Pragmatic professionalism

310 A. Liljegren

domains (Kouzes & Mico, 1979). In terms of presenting arguments for increased resources, it may prove better to turn to the organizational logic and argue about how much money can be saved, whereas the process of legitimizing the group’s work towards the general public may be more successful if knowledge of the client group is emphasized. A challenge for professional groups in the future is thus to incorporate the legitimating ingredient of organizational professionalism without losing discretion, something which thus demands a balancing between trust through professional or organizationally based trust.


Note [1]

Akademikerfo¨rbundet SSR refers to the academic association SSR. SSR is used to relate to social workers, but as the union has opened up to some other occupational groups that meaning of the abbreviation no longer applies.

References Abbott, A. (1988) The System of Professions: An Essay on the Division of Expert Labor, University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Alvesson, M. & Ka¨rreman, D. (2007) ‘Constructing mystery: empirical matters in theory development’, Academy of Management Review, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 12651281. Alvesson, M. & Sko¨ldberg, K. (2000) Reflexive Methodology: New Vistas for Qualitative Research, Sage, London. Bertilsson, M. (2004) ‘The elementary forms of pragmatism: on different types of abduction’, European Journal of Social Theory, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 371389. Clegg, S. R. (1998) ‘Foucault, power and organizations’, in Foucault, Management and Organizational Theory: From Panopticon to Technologies of Self, eds A. McKinlay & K. Starkey, Sage, London, pp. 2948. Davies, C. (1983) ‘Professionals in bureaucracies: the conflict thesis revisited’, in The Sociology of Professions: Lawyers, Doctors and Others, eds R. Dingwall & P. Lewis, Macmillian, London, pp. 177194. Dellgran, P. & Ho¨jer, S. (2000) ‘From 10/90 to 50/50: on the import and extension of theoretical knowledge in Swedish social work’, in Kunskapsbildning, akademisering och professionalisering i socialt arbete, eds P. Dellgran & S. Ho¨jer, Institutionen fo¨r Socialt Arbete, Go¨teborgs Universitet, Go¨teborg, pp. 123. Enteman, W. F. (1993) Managerialism: The Emergence of a New Ideology, University of Wisconsin, Madison. Evans, T. & Harris, J. (2004) ‘Street-level bureaucracy, social work and the (exaggerated) death of discretion’, British Journal of Social Work, vol. 34, pp. 871895. Evetts, J. (2003a) ‘The construction of professionalism in new and existing occupational contexts: promoting and facilitating occupational change’, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, vol. 23, no. 4/5, pp. 2235. Evetts, J. (2003b) ‘Reinterpreting professionalism: as discourse of social control and occupational change’, in Conceptual and Comparative Studies of Continental and Anglo-American Professions, eds L. G. Svensson & J. Evetts, Almqvist & Wiksell International, So¨derta¨lje, pp. 2133. Evetts, J. (2006) ‘Global and local professionalism: centralized regulation or occupational trust’, paper presented at the 4th ESA Interim Meeting: Professions, Globalization and the European Project: Shifting Spheres of Opportunity, Bremen, 29 March1 April.



311

Evetts, J. (2007) ‘Professionalism and managerialism: organizational control ‘‘from a distance’’’, paper presented at the 8th Conference of the European Sociological Association: Conflict, Citizenship and Civic Society, Glasgow, 36 Sept. Evetts, J. & Dingwall, R. (2002) ‘Professional occupations in the UK and Europe: legitimation and governmentality’, International Review of Sociology, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 159171. Evetts, J., Mieg, H. & Felt, U. (2006) ‘Professionalization, scientific expertise, and elitism: a sociological perspective’, in The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance, eds K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. J. Feltovich & R. R. Hoffman, Cambridge University, Cambridge, pp. 105126. Evetts, J. & Wilson, K. (2005) ‘Different interpretations of professionalism: the professionalization of foster care in the UK’, Knowledge Work and Society, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 5980. Foucault, M. (1979) ‘Governmentality’, Ideology and Consciousness, vol. 6, pp. 522. Fournier, V. (1999) ‘The appeal to ‘‘professionalism’’ as a disciplinary mechanism’, The Sociological Review, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 280307. Freidson, E. (1975) ‘The division of labor as social interaction’, Social Problems, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 305313. Freidson, E. (2001) Professionalism: The Third Logic, University of Chicago, Chicago. Gieryn, T. F. (1983) ‘Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists’, American Sociological Review, vol. 48, no. 6, pp. 781795. Gieryn, T. F. (1999) Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line, University of Chicago, Chicago. Hasenfeld, Y. (1983) Human Service Organizations, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Hasenfeld, Y. (1992) ‘The nature of human service organizations’, in Human Services as Complex Organizations, ed. Y. Hasenfeld, Sage, Newbury Park, pp. 323. Kouzes, J. M. & Mico, P. R. (1979) ‘Domain theory: an introduction to organizational behavior in human service organizations’, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 449 469. Larson, M. S. (1977) The Rise of Professionalism: A Sociological Analysis, University of California, Berkeley. Liljegren, A., Dellgran, P. & Ho¨jer, S. (2008) ‘The heroine and the capitalist: the professions debate about privatization in Swedish social work’, European Journal of Social Work, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 195208. Lipsky, M. (1980) Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services, Russell Sage Foundation, New York. Litosseliti, L. (2003) Using Focus Groups in Research, Continuum, London. Meyer, J. W. & Rowan, B. (1977) ‘Institutionalized organizations: formal structure as myth and ceremony’, The American Journal of Sociology, vol. 83, no. 2, pp. 340363. Miller, P. & Rose, N. (1990) ‘Governing economic life’, Economy and Society, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 131. Mintzberg, H. (1980) ‘Structure in 5’s: a synthesis of the research on organization design’, Management Science, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 322341. Murphy, R. (1990) ‘Proletarianization or bureaucratization: the fall of the professional?’, in The Formation of Professions: Knowledge, State and Strategy, eds R. Torstendahl & M. Burrage, Sage, London, pp. 7196. Payne, M. (2005) Modern Social Work Theory, 3rd edn, Palgrave Macmillian, New York. Scott, W. R. (1969) ‘Professional employees in a bureaucratic structure: social work’, in The SemiProfessions and their Organization; Teachers, Nurses, Social Workers, ed. A. Etzioni, Free Press, New York, pp. 82140. Scott, W. R. (2008) ‘Lords of dance: professionals as institutional agents’, Organization Studies, vol. 28, no. 20, pp. 219238.

312 A. Liljegren


Stewart, D. W., Shamdasani, P. N. & Rook, D. W. (2007) Focus Groups: Theory and Practice, 2nd edn, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Van Dijk, T. A. (1998) Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach, Sage, London. Winther Jørgensen, M. & Phillips, L. (2000) Diskursanalys som teori och metod, Studentlitteratur, Lund. Wodak, R. (2004) ‘Critical discourse analysis’, in Qualitative Research Practice, eds C. Seale, G. Gobo, J. F. Gubrium & D. Silverman, Sage, London, pp. 197213. Wood, L. A. & Kroger, R. O. (2000) Doing Discourse Analysis: Methods for Studying Action in Talk and Text, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.