Social work in a superdiverse society: an exploration of cooperation in professional practice

ABSTRACT

Superdiversity is a rapidly expanding social phenomenon with major implications for social work practice. In this paper, we outline the key characteristics of superdiversity as it is currently understood and explore its implications for social work practice. Drawing on the seminal work of Richard Sennett we consider how his conceptual ideas about cooperation, as a vehicle for embracing difference through dialogue, can be translated into everyday social work practice in contexts of superdiversity. Empirical research into contemporary social work practice with urban migrant communities provides rich illustrations of the intricacies of social workers’ cooperative mindsets and skillsets and their capacity to respond to the challenges that superdiversity poses to professional practice. This paper considers the affordances of this conceptual approach for social work and superdiversity and closes with an affirmative rallying call to cooperative action and a re-conceptualisation of cooperation based on embracing difference.

ABSTRAKT

Superdiversitet är ett snabbt växande samhälleligt fenomen med omfattande konsekvenser för socialt arbete. Med utgångspunkt från Richard Sennetts banbrytande arbete analyserar vi hur hans konceptuella idéer om samverkan, som ett medel för att omfamna skillnad genom dialog, kan översättas till dagligt socialt arbete i sammanhang med supermångfald. Empirisk forskning om samtida sociala arbete inom urbana migranta miljöer illustrerar komplexiteten i socialarbetarnas samarbetsformer. Artikeln diskuterar de möjligheter som detta konceptuella tillvägagångssätt kan innebära för socialt arbete i mångfald. Artikeln avslutar med ett upprop för en uppslutning kring samarbete som bekräftar mångfald och som bygger både på befintliga och framväxande färdigheter hos socialarbetare.

ABSTRAKTI

Superdiversiteetti on nopeasti kasvava yhteiskunnallinen ilmiö, joka vaikuttaa laajasti sosiaalityön ammatilliseen käytäntöön. Artikkelissa kuvataan superdiversiteetin keskeiset tunnuspiirteet ja analysoidaan niiden vaikutuksia sosiaalityöhön. Artikkeli nojaa Richard Sennettin uraauurtavaan työhön ja käsitteelliseen ajatteluun yhteistyöstä dialogisena käytäntönä, joka mahdollistaa eroavuuksien ja moninaisuuden esiintulon. Empiirinen tutkimus kaupunkien maahanmuuttajayhteisöjen kanssa tehtävästä sosiaalityöstä havainnollistaa sosiaalityöntekijöiden yhteistyömuotojen monimutkaisuutta ja työntekijöiden kykyä vastata superdiversiteetin asettamiin haasteisiin. Artikkelissa pohditaan uuden käsitteellisen lähestymistavan esiintuomia toimintamahdollisuuksia sosiaalityölle. Lopuksi esitetään, että muuttuvassa ja moninaistuvassa yhteiskunnassa on korostunut tarve erot ja moninaisuuden tunnustavalle vahvalle yhteistyölle vahvalle yhteistyölle, joka perustuu sosiaalityöntekijöiden olemassa olevalle ja kehittyvälle ammattitaidolle ja osaamiselle.

KEYWORDS:

• Cooperation
• superdiversity
• empathic curiosity
• dialogue

NYCKELORD:

• samverkan
• supermångfald
• empatisk nyfikenhet
• dialog

AVAINSANAT:

• yhteistyö
• superdiversiteetti
• empaattinen uteliaisuus
• dialogisuus

Introduction

In recent times, increased mobility has shaped the demographic landscapes in European cities. Current trends are characterised by growing political, economic and environmental interdependency which flows within and beyond nation-states. The implications of these accelerating social transformations for social work practice are considerable and involve a transition from nationally anchored social work frameworks towards complex transnational approaches, which foreground uncertainty (Harrikari & Rauhala, 2018; Livholts & Bryant, 2017).

Williams and Graham (2016) highlight the need for the resettlement of professional thinking and the creation of new theories of change, particularly about superdiversity. This demographic reality specifically acknowledges the complexities, and other intersecting factors beyond culture and ethnic background, that affect people’s lives. They urge social work to reset professional thinking about what the problematics are at the heart of contemporary social work practices; more attention must be paid, they argue, to understanding how ethnic diversity is named, categorised and mobilised by professionals, their organisations and service users in the context of social work interactions.

Encounters with diversity are clearly of great importance, both globally and locally. According to Boccagni (2015), there is a rich and widespread repertoire of professional experiences with diversity, but very limited reflexivity regarding its influence and impact. Policy and practice approaches that might have worked in the past are no longer seen as relevant or applicable in the new landscape of diversity of peoples, place and changing identifications and expectations (Boccagni, 2015; Withaeckx et al., 2017).

Recently Payne and Hall (2019, p. 32) urged the social work research and practice community to consider its position:

If it is to achieve artistry and craft, social work must have theory that also helps practitioners to respect and respond to the complexities of social relations in general as they affect practice in particular instances.

While social work researchers look for new theoretical and methodological conceptions, the work of Richard Sennett (2004, 2012), which explores the functioning of respect and cooperation in society at large, provides a generative framework for the contemporary development of social work theory and practice. Elaborating on the experiences of encounters with difference in a pluralistic – and inequitable – society, in his book Together: The ritual pleasures and politics of cooperation, Sennett (2012) focuses on how individuals cooperate with people who are different from them and suggests that modern societies are disregarding the significance of embracing and respecting each other’s differences.

In this article, we set out to explore the contemporary challenges for social work of accelerating transformative demographic changes, with particular attention paid to the impact of superdiversity, asking:

• How does the social work profession rise to the challenges associated with superdiversity?

• In the context of a socially superdiverse society, how might professional social work relationships be re-imagined?

Drawing on the work of Richard Sennett and secondary analysis of empirical data from a recent Finnish study of urban social work and migrant inclusion, we scrutinise how Sennett’s understanding of cooperation might work as a vehicle for reconfiguring social work practice.

The superdiverse context: what it is and why it matters

Superdiversity is a way of representing complexity and refers to the emergence of a new demographic reality, entailing the movement of people from increasingly widespread national, ethnic, linguistic and religious backgrounds, who hold diverse legal statuses and bring a wide range of human capital into large cities (Foner, 2017). The concept was coined by Vertovec (2015) as a ‘transformative diversification of diversity’ and as a way of avoiding homogenisation and universalism when talking about other people or groups of people. The notion of superdiversity has been presented as moving beyond an ‘ethno-focal lens’ that calls for greater attention to other bases of differentiation – such as gender, social class, age and language – within each ethnic or national origin group (Foner, 2017). The concept of superdiversity is also thought to suit a complexity framework as it takes into account a variegation that supports the analysis of our contemporary social reality (Alvaréz-Peréz et al., 2021). Still, the concept as such does not convey the historical roots of migration systems and the politics of contradiction (Hall, 2017).

A newly published literature review that examined articles on superdiversity in the fields of sociology, social policy and social work highlights how other bases of differentiation, such as legal rights, gender issues, power relations and educational levels, are being taken into account when analysing superdiversity, underlining the increasing diversity within diversity (López-Pelaez et al., 2021). The authors claim that the methodological lens of superdiversity can aid in improving the implementation of social policies for disadvantaged groups, but caution that more effort is needed to develop practical tools.

The likelihood of welfare professionals working within multinational, multilingual and multicultural contexts is greater, therefore, than it ever has been, particularly in large cities, which in turn places a strain on professionals’ abilities to work with diverse service user groups (Genova & Barberis, 2018). Despite the growing awareness of this phenomenon little research currently exists on the engagement of social work in diverse urban settings, as most urban studies research is connected to other social science disciplines, and seldom to social work (Geldof, 2011; Geldof et al., 2017; Shaw, 2011). A recent scoping review, however, showed that the conceptualisation of urban social work in Europe is strongly shaped by questions concerning migration, diversity, new forms of mobility and accelerating social transformations, highlighting how the challenges world require responses characterised by mental agility and flexibility (Asén et al., 2021). Equally challenged are the social protection and legal systems which, as yet, have not adapted to accommodate these changes (Mulinari et al., 2020). Righard (2018) further highlights that methodological nationalism still shapes professional social work today. Ferreira (2021), leaning on an analysis of children in superdiversity contexts, concludes that the dynamics of superdiversity may have profound implications for how professionals and policy-makers understand and deal with modes of difference within diverse populations.

Superdiversity and social work: where have we got to?

There is a long history of social work practice with migrants and migrant communities which stems back to the early 1900s and the beginnings of the social work profession (Addams, 1920; Park & Kemp, 2006; Shaw, 2015). In their paper tracing the early years of social work engagement with the immigrant population in America, Park and Kemp (2006) highlight how, despite its best intentions to redress injustices, social work practice has been shaped by the dominant discourses surrounding immigration that saw migrants as both victim and perpetrator of social ills. In turn, this complex and contradictory discourse led to their marginalisation and exclusion from public life. They conclude their paper by asking the rhetorical question: What are the slippages in today’s social work discourse on immigrants? (Park & Kemp, 2006, p. 729). In line with Park and Kemp, Righard (2018) also discusses the critique of the divide between the migrant and non-migrant and proposes a transnational paradigm in social work theory as a way of unbounding social work from a national frame, although acknowledging that the transnational paradigm does not provide a straightforward way to apply its ideas in practice.

The recognition of the potential for perverse professional perspectives and practices in the context of work with migrants raises pressing questions in today’s context of superdiversity: how do social workers practice to respectfully and authentically engage with issues of superdiversity as they are manifested in relation to migrants, their communities and wider society? Of particular significance is how the uniquely distinctive, but potentially contradictory and competing, dual focus of the social work profession on the wellbeing of the individual and of society, is negotiated. Responses to these questions are currently limited, as research into social work and superdiversity is in its infancy (Boccagni, 2015; Hendriks & van Ewijk, 2019; Williams, 2016).

Recent studies, however, have begun to establish some foundational ideas about how the social work profession needs to develop its knowledge base, values and skillset, to be professionally responsive to the challenges that superdiversity presents. Van Robaeys et al.’s (2018a) research explores how social workers utilise theory in action in superdiverse contexts. In situating their empirical research in the current theoretical context of superdiversity they rehearse similar concerns to those of Park and Kemp (2006), namely that unless the dynamics of superdiversity are more fully understood, social workers are at risk of attributing disadvantage in general, and poverty specifically, to an individual’s ethnicity and cultural identity. To develop an understanding of superdiversity that avoids the dangers of pathologising, racialising and ‘othering’ individuals, professionals need to focus on ‘the complexities resulting from underlying concurrent processes of social differentiation’ (Van Robaeys et al., 2018b, p. 278). The theoretical development of urban social work (Williams, 2016) and the multi-scalar approach to welfare services (Kazepov, 2010) may also contribute to a re-scaling of social work (Righard, 2018). Van Robaeys et al. (2018a, p. 284) emphasise how social workers are required to respond, on a daily basis, to the complex interaction of issues associated with migration, social exclusion and legal status and the ‘multiple simultaneously relevant aspects of differentiation caused by novel migration patterns and policy responses to these patterns.’

With this awareness comes a sophisticated understanding of superdiversity, as intersectional, relational and dynamic, capable of positioning individuals simultaneously as both oppressed and privileged. Furthermore, the recognition within superdiverse contexts of multiple individual and societal complexities allows social workers to recognise their professional limitations and accept that they can't understand or resolve everything singlehanded. Phillimore and colleagues (2019), for instance, highlight the importance of making visible how people connect with resources from across localities, the world, and different health, as well as social care, systems.

The emergence of an embryonic framework for social work practice in superdiverse contexts, which reflects the profession’s commitment to social justice, collaboration and empowerment, is an important, but not unproblematic, epistemological and practical contemporary development. The question arises as to whether there are established conceptual devices which might support and enhance this developmental process. One such device, that appears to have significant generative potential for the social work profession’s engagement with a superdiverse society, is Sennett’s (2012) conceptualisation of cooperation. It is to this that we now turn.

The architecture of cooperation in superdiverse societies

Historically cooperation has been seen as a struggle between homogeneity and heterogeneity, assimilation and diversification, the individual and society and the personal and the political (Sennett, 2012). In the main homogeneity, assimilation and individualised, personal responses have held sway. In his seminal text Together, Sennett (2012) opens up an alternative approach to understanding cooperation, shifting it from one that aligns cooperation with solidarity, to one that firmly embraces difference. On several occasions, Sennett refers to the relationship between migration and social relations and practices, although superdiversity, specifically, does not feature in his writing as a contemporary social phenomenon. Nonetheless, when positioned alongside each other it is possible to see numerous parallels between Sennett’s exposition of cooperation and the characteristics of superdiverse societies (Table 1):

Table 1. Cooperation and superdiversity commonalities.

Superdiversity	Cooperation
Complexity and intersectionality	Difference and heterogeneity
Polyphony	Empathic curiosity
Inclusivity and dealing with ambiguities	Dialogue and subjunctive voice
Multiple service matrix, renewal of practices	Informality

Sennett’s cooperation treatise begins by outlining traditional understandings of cooperation that privilege sameness. From this perspective, cooperation is framed as agreement through similarity and leads to cooperation being understood as solidarity. For Sennett, however, meaningful cooperation needs to resist the homogenisation of human experiences, which are, by definition, rich in diversity and uniqueness, to highlight difference. To achieve this requires a willingness to be open to the other and their experience; it involves people exercising empathic curiosity. This emphasis on heterogeneity and curiosity complements key characteristics of superdiversity – complexity, intersectionality and polyphony. Superdiversity highlights the multi-factorial dimensions of individuals’ lives, requiring professionals to recognise the interconnected complexity of all aspects of a service user’s circumstances and to be adept at resisting the temptation to privilege any one element – race, ethnicity, gender, employment status – over another. Sennett’s emphasis on cooperation as an empathic embracing of difference aligns itself closely, for example, with the recognition of complexity within research into superdiversity, as illustrated by Williams and Mikola’s (2018, p. 9) research which eschews an over-reliance on ethnic essentialism and decentres culture as the organising principle for intervention. The logical conclusion then is that professional practice will be nuanced and reflective of individuals’ unique experiences of human relations. For Sennett, this practice is manifest in two specific ways. The first is the careful, judicious and respectful use of language – choosing to converse dialogically and using, where-ever possible, the subjunctive over the declarative mood. To support his argument Sennett draws an important distinction between dialogical and dialectical conversations.

Adopting a dialogical position involves embracing and privileging empathy, curiosity and a respectful, inclusive understanding of the other. Importantly, for Sennett, dialogically orientated conversations are open to disagreement, ultimately seeking understanding, as opposed to agreement. It challenges the dialectical stance, that so often characterises social work conversations, which, whilst well intentioned and seeking agreement, is inclined to promote assumption-laden and homogenising attitudes towards difference and diversity. In contrast, Sennett’s dialogical position is facilitative of a productive engagement with the contemporary challenges of superdiversity, which require social workers to move:

beyond monolithic, ethno-cultural categories of difference to suggest more complex and nuanced understandings of the multiple axes of identification that pertain to an individual’s circumstances. (Williams & Mikola, 2018, p. 17)

An important component of a dialogical discourse according to Sennett is the use of the subjunctive, which invites engagement with ambiguity and uncertainty, a critical feature of professional practice in contexts of immense complexity where obvious, or indeed any, solutions are not always apparent (Van Robaeys et al., 2018a). The use of dialogue and the subjunctive requires social workers to explore different communication skills, without being overly intrusive, culturally insensitive or colonially dismissive.

The use of the subjunctive and inviting different voices to a dialogically oriented conversation focus on gaining understanding more than reaching agreement. Sennett (2012, p. 211) succinctly captures this as cooperation’s preference for ‘nudge to command’. In a similar vein, in contexts of superdiversity there is a call for:

a sophisticated, multicultural literacy on the part of practitioners that moves beyond us and them categories of traditional multicultural approaches, a process that as yet has only marginally been evidenced (Van Robaeys et al., 2018a/2016; cited in Williams & Mikola, 2018, p. 18)

The second consequence of Sennett’s distinctive understanding of cooperation is the importance of paying detailed attention to the quotidian – to ordinary, everyday living – and more specifically to the exercise of informal social relationships and practices. Once again, Sennett’s interpretation of cooperation elides with core features of superdiversity, notably holding each person’s own experience in high regard ‘with a strong emphasis on autonomy and self/family help over recourse to formal services’ (Williams & Mikola, 2018, p. 18). This personalised response takes place within the broader context of a growing ‘matrix of services formal and informal, virtual and corporeal, local, trans-local and transnational in complex combinations’ (Williams & Mikola, 2018, p. 18). For professionals to begin to recognise and release the power of informality as a cooperative practice requires them, according to Sennett (2012), to learn ways to ‘informalise’. This is accomplished, in part, through the use of rituals and gestures:

‘ … the gestures which bond are learned behaviour rather than involuntary reflexes; the better we get at gesture the more visceral and expressive informality becomes.’ (Sennett, 2012, p. 208)

In combination, a commitment to practices which promote dialogue and informality helps to reduce the need to use force, another characteristic of Sennett’s cooperative approach. ‘Working with resistance using minimal force’ (Sennett, 2012, p. 208) infers that the application of minimal force is the most effective way to work with resistance. In complex anxiety-ridden, multi-dimensional professional contexts the aim should not be to eliminate unfamiliarity and resistance but to behave with minimal self-assertiveness, thereby enabling others to open up. Whereas confrontation and competition breed resistance, cooperation invites understanding. For social workers, particularly those in government-funded posts, familiarity with this aspect of cooperation is essential given so much of their practice is statutory and involves heightened levels of anxiety.

Identifying a contextualised, empathically curious, cooperative skillset: examples from research in practice

To illustrate and identify how social workers in their daily practices bring to life conceptual ideas on collaboration in a superdiverse context, as outlined above, we have drawn on research data gathered in the course of a recent Finnish study on urban social work and migrant inclusion. The study was conducted in 2017–2018 in the Helsinki metropolitan area (Kettunen et al., 2019) and set out to analyse the landscape of social work practices in urban settings. In the aftermath of the escalation of refugee migration in 2015 an intriguing characteristic of the research context was the dramatic increase in the number of service users who were migrants and the consequent unprecedented demand on integration services. The research material comprises 12 focus group interviews and one-off individual interviews with in total 38 social work professionals from specialised migrant services and adult social work services, with the focus on the professionalś perceptions and experiences of working with migrant communities. Diversity as such among the social workers was not at focus in the study and was not asked for. In general, the work of the specialised migrant units comprises an ethnically diverse workforce, focusing on facilitating the integration of migrants with first residence permits. In comparison, the adult social work personnel was less diverse and concentrated on more generalised services.

The research focussed on how urban social work can facilitate migrants’ integration into their new social context. The focus group discussions invited the social workers to reflect on the everyday realities of migrants, their inclusion within the realm of welfare services and their own professional experiences of these encounters. A particular focus was on how social workers responded to the current challenges related to migrant inclusion. Although questions about (super)diversity were not explicitly asked as part of the original research, one of the main themes brought up was the complex cooperative practices associated with migration and it was apparent that there was a need to examine more deeply how social workers encounter collaboration with migrants. This led to us re-analysing the material with a focus on the overarching research questions: How does the social work profession rise to the challenges associated with superdiversity? Delving more deeply we explored:

1. How do professionals deal with the complexities of cooperation; (2) How do professionals engage in dialogue to listen and respond to people’s needs; (3) How do professionals show respect and talk to and about others? These questions directly address how professionals within welfare and migrant services talk about and enact migrant inclusion practices in collaboration with ‘the other’. In line with Ruggiano and Perry (2019) this second study, that is the focus of this paper, comprises secondary analysis utilising data from the primary research combined with a deductive approach informed by Sennett’s conceptual framework. In approaching the data deductively with more specific research questions it has been possible to begin to identify the emerging skills needed to undertake social work in superdiverse contexts and the potential of Sennett’s co-operative approach to serve as a tool to support these contemporary practice developments.

Recognising and reading the superdiverse context: engaging with and embracing complexity and difference

How did the social welfare professionals talk about the demographic phenomenon of superdiversity and its implications for everyday life? Although the awareness of superdiversity was not explicitly looked for as part of our secondary analysis it emerged as a distinguishing feature of the social workers' responses, and highlighted the differing levels of awareness that existed across the sample. From this perspective, the ongoing process of social transformation and migration inside Finland, which is concentrated in larger cities, was recognised, but mainly as a stress factor on service provision, not as an important factor contributing to the processes of differentiation or co-operation. This is understandable with the timing of the study and the focus on social work practices. Awareness of the wider context, however, were spotted. In the following quote, for example, two social work professionals in the specialised migrant service unit made reference to the global social and political context:

Global and local questions combined … I think it is extremely important to understand also the global power relations, kind of big mechanisms. This can give – at least to me – a new perspective to what it means to live and act in a Finnish society

Kind of big, big flows, tendencies (…) It is interesting, when you face your service user and deal with their everyday matters … even a hint about the effects of societal and world political phenomena can give you new sorts of tools to interpret the situation and to work with the service user.

Although the evidence was embryonic some social work professionals did display an awareness of the importance of recognising the glocal, social and political context that surrounds individual migrants and needs to be taken into account when dealing with ‘everyday matters’. As the excerpt above acknowledges, awareness of the glocal context can provide tools, or a new attitude, to help social workers better understand the complexity of a service user’s situation. Sennett invites a re-conceptualisation of co-operation based on difference, and similarly Geldof et al. (2017, p. 457) argue, that transnational social work is ‘as much an attitude as an actual practice as the development of a transnational awareness serves as an important precondition for recognising transmigrants’ welfare needs’.

Developing a superdiverse professional attitude: empathic curiosity and polyphonic voices

In the research data it was possible to detect the social workers using several explanatory categories such as ethnic or cultural background, religion, residence permit status or traumatic experiences to interpret and explain service users’ needs and to endorsing the importance of social work practice embracing difference and diversity. Information about a person's history and previous conditions were seen as important for gaining a better understanding of their special situation, rights and need for services:

There are the same rules and principles for everyone and it does not matter whether you are a migrant or born in Finland. However, it is useful (for a worker) to explore the background, for instance, that there is a collective culture. But again, there is the problem, if you, as a migrant, have fallen out of this community because of substance abuse, then you are really alone, and you cannot even get into the community of Finnish substance abusers, that is at least what I have noticed.

The conventional risk associated with emphasising these different demographic factors is that service users can be essentialised and stereotyped by pathologising mindsets and categorisations, with the migrant status of the individuals concerned being used to position them as ‘victims’ of oppression. In contrast a superdiverse lens de-essentialises ethnic and cultural differences and focuses on wider processes and the multiple attributes over the life course that are relevant for how social actors, as individuals make sense and react to their circumstances (Boccagni, 2015; Geldof, 2016). It is in this space that the idea of polyphonic voices associated with superdiversity and of empathic curiosity, associated with Sennett’s work, can begin to take hold.

A superdiverse attitude requires professionals to resist the temptation to privilege any one attribute or characteristic in a person over another. In the interviews some of the respondents questioned the dominant ‘migrant’ discourses:

This talk about immigrants is wearing me out, in my opinion we should talk more about cultures (…) how we maintain Finnishness, what it is to be a Finn, what does immigration mean, all this … because for an individual, it matters, how she or he feels being welcomed to be part of this society.

The interviewee calls for an individual perspective over essentialist ‘migrant talk’ and suggests the focus should be on talking about different cultures instead. On the other hand, critiques towards culture-essentialism discourse were raised. The following excerpt displays how one professional reflects his controversial feelings when using a cultural framework to interpret social problems:

I many times feel guilty of blaming the culture, like ‘oh, this must be a (wider) cultural issue’, like it possible partly is, but also family roles are influences and family cultures. (…) A service user as well might explain (their behaviour) like that (blaming the culture). It is like their weapon, and sometimes it is my weapon to explain that ‘oh, this is because … ’. It annoys me, but I cannot come up with anything else, I cannot.

Overall, what is apparent is that social work professionals are recognising the need to resist dominant discourses and replace them with something new, but an alternative framework is yet to emerge. Superdiverse approaches do not give straightforward answers but do indicate that an inclusive approach and empathic and curious attitude, derived from Sennett’s conceptual framework, can serve as a valuable starting point to help social workers navigate in a complex, polyphonic world.

Building cooperative relationships: subtle dialogue and sensitive interactions

Important as a curious, empathic professional attitude is, in and of itself it is insufficient; to be effective it needs to be operationalised through ethical communication and interventions that create respectful relationships. From the research, it is possible to hear how social workers stressed the importance of creating confidential relationships and shared understandings with service users. Any limitations in communication, for example problems with language translation, impacted on the relationship-building process. Social workers spoke about the importance of professionals being agile and responsive in their interactions with migrants, but also about the challenge of finding new ways to interact. For example, if a service user had difficulties expressing their needs or feelings, even small gestures, such as temporarily giving up a strict official role and paying close attention to the encounter, were recognised as vital for the creation of a trusting atmosphere. The continuity of and adherence to meetings were also seen as important features of effective relationships, especially if at the beginning resistance or mistrust was apparent. Service users needed reliability, encouragement and a sense of being understood. The social workers also acknowledged how the emphasis on the relational aspects of the professional encounter were also recognised and valued by service users:

Many service users remember the first social worker. This encounter has a tremendous impact on how trust is built.

In some respects paying careful attention to interactions and communication skills may not sound like anything new for social work. It is, however, the heightened complexity of migrants’ circumstances and their profoundly unstable and anxiety-provoking living situations that necessitates such careful, skilled engagement. One social worker’s description provides a glimpse of the concrete impact of migration policies on service users and suggests how social workers can respectfully respond to this experience of precarity:

These traumatic experiences come out as severe health problems and they cannot, for instance, sit in a class. We don’t have much knowledge about these health issues. And then because of all these health related problems all courses, job opportunities, trainings go out the window. We cannot guarantee that they will be better in six months, but it would be good if we could secure them peacefulness when they experience that they cannot manage.

Such expressions of empathic curiosity, of seeking understanding and of being engaged with the ambiguities of the circumstances surrounding migrants’ lives represent the types of subtle, contextualised micro-communications and interactions that practice in superdiverse contexts needs to embrace. Importantly, in keeping with Sennett’s understanding of dialogic discourse, such encounters do not provide immediate solutions, but do afford an opportunity to gain a greater understanding of the extent of the complexities of migrants’ lives. Expressions of curiosity were also reversed. Social workers experienced the agency and autonomy of migrant service users, with one social worker’s account illustrating how a service user displayed empathic curiosity towards her, as a professional: ‘When I meet my previous service users in the streets they always ask me how my grandchildren are’. A closeness and sense of kinship can be created through such interactions, challenging any tendencies to ‘other’ migrants and to position them only as victims.

In the context of such challenging practice there can be a tendency for the non-engagement of a migrant with a service to be perceived as the ‘fault’ of the individual service user. In his writing about his approach to and understanding of cooperation, Sennett includes his thinking about how to deal with non-engagement or what he refers to ‘resistance’, something that the social workers in the research experienced in their practice. Their accounts of such encounters illustrate resistance on many levels including, institutional collaboration strategies, migrant policies and direct practice with service users. Paradoxically, this last manifestation of ‘resistance’ was reflected on by one social worker as ‘the best moments’:

 … And if we experience conflicts with our service users, we just continue our work relentlessly. And it can happen sometimes that in the beginning, there is resistance, service users build up a safety wall, but when we do not back out, but just stay put and be there for them, then eventually trust will grow.

Such articulations of practice represent the forms of minimal force or everyday diplomacy that Sennett (2012) advocates as an effective way to work with resistance, one which leads to skilled conflict management and meaningful engagement.

Resistance, as acknowledged above, was not restricted to the individual service user encounters but also arose in relation to the welfare system itself. This source of conflict was more frequently presented in the focus group discussions:

 … and then there is an enormous amount of time used on us communicating with the employment offices what the problem of the service user really is? Instead of the service user, going there by themselves and then the employment officer would try to comprehend and listen to the service user. So what are we needed for? Well - of course, advocating the service user’s issues, but still - an outrageous amount of time goes into this.

These articulations underlined how the professionals understood their role as a go-between and advocate not only in relation to service users but also with other professionals. Social workers, as professionals, have a co-operative mindset but the demands associated with superdiversity calls for a more considered understanding of the complex and multifaceted welfare service system that is required for working with migrants. Furthermore, it requires an increased acknowledgment of how policies influence and impact inclusive responses to migrants (cf. Geldof, 2011). In exercising minimal force Sennett calls for a subtle, nuanced kind of participation, that, to use Sennett’s language, calls for ‘eschewing agency’ (Sennett, 2012, p.239), to enable all parties to engage equally in the discussion.

Nurturing co-operation in diversified networks: paying attention to the everyday and informal practices

According to Sennett, paying attention to the quotidian and informal aspects of engagement are important components of co-operative mindsets. For social workers, this requires a careful melding of genuine empathic curiosity, alongside the application of a more forensic assessment mindset. One social worker reflects on the spaces where ‘things happen’ and the difficulties in finding time and courage for these:

I do think that we in social work have a lot to work on, to find the places where it really happens. Certainly there are a lot of public meeting points where we are not present.. one could move on foot and be more courageous and go to these places..

Everyday encounters can still happen at the office. An example of this skilled approach brought up by one of the social workers in her interview, involved a situation that began with a tricky rent debt situation. During that meeting, they dealt with the debt issue in a formal way and with some time in hand for ‘small talk’, the daughter, who functioned as the interpreter of the mother, starts to tell the social worker about her job situation and about her mother’s hobbies with her friends. This opened up a completely new world for the social worker, who gains valuable insights into their everyday lives:

You learn from your service users something different, when it comes spontaneously … . This is what I like the most, you find certain aspects to grab onto and something new is being created.

This example suggests that this particular social worker managed to combine exercising professional efficacy and expressing empathic curiosity towards the family’s everyday lives. In achieving this, the social worker enabled the family to feel confident about opening up and talking more freely about their lived experiences.

Sennett (2012, p. 238ff) discusses the borderline between formality and informality and describes it as a liminal zone where the skills of indirect cooperation are put to the test and suggests that Satow’s (1917, ref. in Roberts, 2016) four counsels (ritual of deference, eschewing agency, exchange of non-controversial observations, friendliness) are particularly useful in such spaces. Although Satow’s examples concern complex international political contexts, Sennett considers these standards to be critical for everyday conduct when faced with other types of complex issue, that are not easily resolved through straightforward decision-making. Whilst this approach to practice will not be entirely new to social workers, such detailed, subtle understandings of relationship-building processes complement and enhance the interpersonal skills that social workers already possess prior to the onset of the ‘superdiversity era’.

The affordances of a co-operative mindset for social work in a superdiverse world

There is a common understanding that the development of conceptual tools beyond the ethnocultural lens is challenging and that we need more empirical research on how professionals tackle and understand diversity and superdiversity in their daily practice. In this study, we have explored the epistemologically generative potential of Sennett’s conceptual approach as a tool for social work and identified three conditions for a co-operative professional mindset:

Complexity and difference, unpredictability and uncertainty: developing an epistemological framework

Looking back at the literature on superdiversity, one crucial element appears to be how we look at difference, that is, do we go beyond the ethnic lens and start from ‘sameness’ instead of binaries (Van Robaeys et al., 2018a or do we embrace differences as Sennet proposes? Embracing complexity and difference entails ‘a mind-frame of undefined becoming’ (Boelens & de Roo, 2016) that embraces a more open view on society. Epistemologically, this means that social work should take account of the complexity of society and move from taming complexity to engaging with it.

Working in unpredictable and uncertain contexts, on the other hand, requires high levels of trust from the actors involved for worthwhile exchanges of knowledge to be realised (Nielsen, 2009). Hence, unpredictability and uncertainty may not only be a challenge but also an opportunity to become professionally more responsive and adaptable. Already at the local level, practitioners are seizing this opportunity and developing their transnational awareness in individual interactions with transmigrants. This involves recognising service users’ specific backgrounds, their embeddedness in transnational social networks, and the impact of these networks upon service users’ lives, as well as taking into account the effects of previous migration experiences (Withaeckx et al., 2017). Nurturing these approaches to professional practice, however, requires qualifying social work programmes to be rooted in inclusive epistemological perspectives and reflective and relational pedagogic practices, and for practice settings to nourish and sustain these features of professional practice and identity through the provision of reflective forms of supervision (Ruch, 2018).

Empathic curiosity, culturally humble communication and research-mindedness

A key feature of empathic curiosity is a willingness to acknowledge cultural humility, as opposed to the more familiar idea of cultural competence. Cultural humility recognises our limited knowledge and our need to learn. It removes any notions of cultural superiority or privilege and is manifested in social workers’ attention to the importance of micro-communications, rituals and gestures, as promoted by Sennett. It also embraces diversity and deals with controversies and ambiguities. This open and inclusive professional stance invites practitioners to develop their research-mindedness, allowing new knowledge to emerge from the ground up.

Superdiversity encourages a radical and empirically-informed interrogation about social care and social work. It also raises the question of how diversity is represented and reflected within the social work communities and that there is a need to interculturalise social work, and include under-represented groups in knowledge development, policies and practices. Such an approach employs the polyphony of voice in line with Sennett and collaborative approaches to knowledge production, which produce locally-informed thick descriptions about professional practices in superdiverse populations (Phillimore et al., 2019).

Re-envisioning social work agency in informal settings

Creativity in the design and delivery modes of services is also imperative if the growing needs of superdiverse urban populations are to be adequately met. In this respect, the application of Sennett’s model of cooperation, not just to service user groups but also to inter-professional working relationships is particularly pertinent. The well-established and recognised challenges that arise in inter-professional networks (Fairtlough, 2017) are accentuated in contexts of superdiversity where the complex inter-sectionalities, in both service user and professional communities, are foregrounded. Bringing together all the relevant, and not always so explicitly relevant, actors with all their rich diversity and difference, creates the possibility for truly meaningful encounters to happen and innovative service designs to emerge. This requires calling for a subtle kind of participation that ensures all parties to engage equally in the discussion; a form of ‘eschewing agency’ that Sennett (2012, p. 239) refers to. Consultation and collaborative mechanisms of this type, as well as new types of partnership between formal, informal and not-for profit sectors is crucial, according to Williams and Mikola (2018, p. 19), are required if service developments are to effectively meet the requirements of superdiverse communities.

Conclusion

Superdiversity is a rapidly evolving social phenomenon that the social work profession cannot afford to ignore. If the profession’s commitment to social work values and social justice is to be upheld, further research and professional development in this field of practice are urgently needed. This paper seeks to contribute empirically and conceptually to the evolution of cooperative social work practice for professionals to respond to the inter-connected complexity of practices in superdiverse communities.

Acknowledgements

The empirical research was financially supported by the Helsinki Metropolitan Region Urban Research Programme to which we show our appreciation.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Ilse Julkunen

Ilse Julkunen is Professor of Social Work at the Faculty of Social Sciences at University of Helsinki. Her expertise is in research on youth unemployment and NEET, youth transitions, and practice research in social work. She is the scientific co-leader of Helsinki Practice Research Centre, a research milieux that promotes well-being, participation and equality by producing practice relevant and collaborative social work research. Her current research includes Urban Social Work and vulnerability among youth and she has currently co-edited a book on Social Work, Social Welfare and Vulnerablity among Youth in Routledge Advances in Social Work.

Gillian Ruch

Gillian Ruch is Professor of Social Work in the Department of Social Work and Social Care at the University of Sussex. Her particular interests are in the areas of child care social work and promoting psycho-social research methods and reflective discussion and supervision forums that facilitate relationship-based practice. Gillian’s current research includes the Innovate Project, ESRC-funded research exploring innovation in the fields of contextual safeguarding, transitional safeguarding and trauma informed practice https://theinnovateproject.co.uk/. She is also involved in generating research impact from the Talking and Listening to Children exploring how social workers communicate with children – http://www.talkingandlisteningtochildren.co.uk/.

Anna Nurmi

Anna Nurmi is Master of Social Science and is currently working as a social worker at the City of Helsinki Immigration Unit. Her practical and research interests are linked with urban studies and multiprofessional collaboration in metropolitan settings. Anna has also worked as a research assistant in the project on Urban Social Work Facilitating Immigrant Integration in Helsinki Metropolitan Area and Lahti, and co-authored an article concerning housing and construction of ontological security among refugees.