‘State governing of knowledge’ – constraining social work research and practice^*

* An earlier version of this text in Swedish was published in a festschrift for a colleague. The present text in English, however, has undergone significant rework both theoretically and in terms of content. [Jacobsson, K., Lappalainen, R. E., & Meeuwisse, A. (2017). “Statlig kunskapsstyrning” – en exkluderingsprocess. In B. Andersson, F. Petersson, & A. Skårner (Eds.), Den motspänstiga akademikern (pp. 107–134). Malmö: Egalité]

ABSTRACT

Evidence-based practice (EBP) has been launched, spread, and established in social work in Sweden in the last decade. Today, impact studies and ‘what works’ are the recommended approaches, and medical ways to understand and examine social problems thus are prioritised over the broad social science perspectives on which social work rests. This development has culminated in an institutionalised system called ‘state governing of knowledge’. We analyse the Swedish EBP movement as an ‘epistemic community’, directing our attention to the ways in which evidence is constructed and proclaimed valid for policy and practice. Empirically, we build on documents from various actors involved in EBP in social work and on results from our on-going research on documentary practices in the social services. We identify four strategies that key actors use within the Swedish EBP community to contest, redefine, and constrain the academic knowledge base of social work: efforts to (1) construct a (state) knowledge bureaucracy, (2) standardise social work research, (3) exclude important aspects of social work expertise, and (4) govern social work practice. All four strategies are supported by ‘improvement rhetoric’ that aims at justifying the project.

ABSTRAKT

Evidensbaserad praktik (EBP) har lanserats, spridits och etablerats i socialt arbete i Sverige under det senaste decenniet. Idag är effektstudier högt värderade och “what works” förekommer som honnörsord inom offentlig förvaltning. Denna typ av medicinska sätt att förstå och undersöka sociala problem prioriteras framför de breda samhällsvetenskapliga perspektiv som socialt arbete vilar på. Utvecklingen har kulminerat i ett institutionaliserat system som kallas statlig kunskapsstyrning. Vi analyserar den svenska EBP-rörelsen som en “epistemisk gemenskap”, och riktar vår uppmärksamhet mot hur evidens konstrueras och lanseras som primär måttstock för praktik och policyarbete. Vår empiri består av dokument från olika aktörer som är involverade i EBP inom socialt arbete och på resultat från vår pågående forskning om dokumenteringspraktiker i socialtjänsten. Vi identifierar och analyserar fyra strategier som används av nyckelaktörer inom den svenska EBP-gemenskapen för att utmana, omdefiniera och begränsa den akademiska kunskapsbasen för socialt arbete: ambitionen att 1) konstruera en (statlig) kunskapsbyråkrati, 2) standardisera socialt arbete, 3) bortse från viktiga aspekter av expertis inom socialt arbete, och 4) reglera socialt arbete. Alla fyra strategier stöds av en förbättringsretorik som syftar till att rättfärdiga EBP-projektet.

KEYWORDS:

• Evidence-based practice
• epistemic community
• knowledge base
• state governing
• rhetoric

NYCKELORD:

• evidensbaserad praktik
• epistemisk gemenskap
• kunskapsbas
• statlig styrning
• retorik

Acknowledgements

Thanks to professor Rosmari Eliasson-Lappalainen who contributed to this text in the capacity of a wise and initiated discussion partner. Many thanks also to participants at the social work conference in Lund, 2016, who commented an early version and inspired us to develop the analysis further.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors

Katarina Jacobsson is professor of social work at Lund University, Sweden. With a general interest in qualitative methodology and sociology of knowledge, her current projects deal with documenting practices among human service workers. A selection of previous work includes studies of bribery (‘Accounts of Honesty’ in Deviant Behavior) and medical staff’s use of categories (‘Categories by heart’ in Professions and Professionalism). A text on methodology, ‘Interviewees with an agenda’ (with M Åkerström) is published in Qualitative Research.

Anna Meeuwisse is professor of social work at Lund University, Sweden. Her fields of research include comparative social work, social policy and welfare state change, civil society and transnational social movements. She has co-edited several textbooks in social work in use at various universities in the Scandinavian countries. Recent publications include studies of social workers’ attitudes (e.g. ‘Social workers’ attitudes to privatization in five countries’ in Journal of Social Work) and research on Europeanization of civil society (e.g. Europeanization in Sweden, co-edited with R. Scaramuzzino, in print at Berghahn Books).

Notes

* An earlier version of this text in Swedish was published in a festschrift for a colleague. The present text in English, however, has undergone significant rework both theoretically and in terms of content. [Jacobsson, K., Lappalainen, R. E., & Meeuwisse, A. (2017). “Statlig kunskapsstyrning” – en exkluderingsprocess. In B. Andersson, F. Petersson, & A. Skårner (Eds.), Den motspänstiga akademikern (pp. 107–134). Malmö: Egalité]

1 We also draw on results from our research group’s ethnographic studies on documentary practices in health care and social services, where efforts to implement evidence-based social work are followed by a growing burden of paperwork (e.g. Hjärpe, 2016; Carlstedt & Jacobsson, 2017; Martinell Barfoed, 2018).

2 http://www.sbu.se/sv/om-sbu/vart-uppdrag/ (date of access: 171018)

3 http://www.sbu.se/sv/publikationer/kunskapsluckor/ (date of access: 171018).

4 http://www.sbu.se/contentassets/0bf7b4ca7c02466d9b85ad7f971770c7/behov_av_praktiknara_forskning_och_vetenskaplig_utvardering_inom_viktiga_omrade_smf_2017.pdf (date of access: 180305)

Additional information

Funding

This work was partly supported by The Swedish Foundation for Humanities and Social Sciences [grant number Dnr: P12-1045:1].