ABSTRACT
Social workers must often decide about priority at a case level, in a context of scarce resources. These decisions are disputable and controversial, which raises the question on what grounds are they made in practice. This article addresses that question through an empirical study of real-life case discussions in youth care in Flanders, the Dutch-speaking part of Belgium. Toulmin’s argumentation model is used to analyse the data. The study finds that most case discussions are processed in a rather technical manner. But where there is active deliberation, key incidents show that the decision-makers undertake active and personal interpretation of the situation at hand, and that they also take a personal stance on the criteria for assigning priority. In other words, their practice can be understood as a hermeneutical activity. The article’s main conclusion is that the prioritisation process illustrates the moral-political core that is present in any social work decision-making practice. As this moral-political core seems to be hidden most of the time behind a technical-rational approach, questions remain whether the professionals involved are aware that it characterises their own judgements and whether insights into its nature are stimulated.
Disclosure Statement
The first author works at the Youth Care Agency of the Flemish government. This article is written in his own name and does not necessarily represent the viewpoint of the Flemish government.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Koen Gevaert
Koen Gevaert is PhD-student at the Department of Social Work and Social Pedagogy at Ghent University (Belgium).
Sabrina Keinemans
Sabrina Keinemans is professor at the Research Group for Social Integration at Zuyd University of Applied Sciences (The Netherlands).
Rudi Roose
Rudi Roose is associate professor at the Department of Social Work and Social Pedagogy at Ghent University (Belgium).