A qualitative analysis of the field experiences of Hong Kong school social workers in encountering different forms of power

Abstract

Power and empowerment are intimately connected concepts, and to develop an empowering youth work policy and practice, we must first understand the complexity of power. This study adopts a qualitative approach to investigate the field experiences of Hong Kong school social workers in encountering different forms of power. Fifteen frontline school social workers were invited to be research participants. Their narratives unfolded the broad spectrum of micro- and macro-politics involved in the school setting. Much reference is made to how sovereign power and disciplinary power complement each other and exert influence on daily practices. They are interwoven and create a complex political environment with which school social workers must cope in order to pursue organisational changes conducive to students' positive development. The findings also illustrate how practitioners develop their own strategies of daily resistance to micro- and macro-power. The study helps fill the knowledge gap of existing school social work literature and opens up new policy, practice and research directions.

Keywords:

• power
• empowerment
• school social worker
• school
• students

Introduction

This study is a pioneering attempt to investigate the field experiences of school social workers interacting with different forms of power. Using qualitative analysis as the research strategy adds a power dimension to analysing the life stories of practitioners and locating them in the Hong Kong context.

Facilitating the whole-person development of young people in a school setting and advocating positive changes to the school system are understood as two pivotal purposes of the school social work service (Dupper, 2003; Harris & Franklin, 2010). Nevertheless, a review of the literature revealed that school social workers concentrate on helping students adapt to the school system rather than collaborating with school personnel and students to create a favourable school environment (Allen-Meares, 1993; Chiu & Wong, 2002; Clancy, 1995; Liu, 1997). In the views of some intellectuals and practitioners, a major obstacle to initiating system change is the power struggles between different parties in school (Dupper, 2003; Harris & Franklin, 2010; Lee, 1983; Rees, 1991). While they were significant contributors to analyse the political dimension of school social work service (Lee, 1983; Rees, 1991), there is a lack of empirical studies to investigate the power issues encountered day after day by the practitioners.

Literature on local school social work provides little information regarding the political dimension in this service, but the working lives of practitioners provide some insights into such a study (To, 2009a). For example, Ma (1992) and Ching (1998) maintain that local practitioners are under great stress while interacting with the school system. Even though Tam and Mong (2005) find that local workers do not seem to experience a high level of job stress, they do suffer from role strain and identity confusion. Other studies suggest that practitioners may be treated as ‘aliens’ in a school setting, as they and school personnel come from different sectors. Social workers often find it difficult to protect the welfare of students while maintaining a good working relationship with school personnel (Law, 1981; To, 2009a; Wong, 1983). These findings imply that local practitioners face a complex political environment.

Moreover, existing research findings show that there is little involvement of young people in influencing the school and education policies in Hong Kong (Hong Kong Council of Social Service, 2005; Lam, 1998). Even worse, some studies indicate the exploitation of student rights and the intrusion of social justice in schools (Hong Kong Christian Service, 2000, 2002). Although the government suggests that suspension and expulsion of students should be avoided because students have the right to continued normal schooling (Education and Manpower Bureau, 2005), some students are treated with suspension for a considerable period of time; some are advised or even forced to leave school. Education affects the future trajectory of the lives of young people, so it is necessary for practitioners to collaborate with school personnel to protect student rights and to enhance student participation in school affairs. However, in the face of the power structure of the school and education systems and the differential distribution of powers among different parties, Dupper (2003) and Harris and Franklin (2010) maintain that practitioners have to strive for survival in the web of power before they can carry out the mission of school social work.

School social work and power

Incorporating the power perspective to study school organisations is prevalent within educational studies (Ball, 1987; Blasé, 1991; Hoyle, 1986). Hoyle (1986) holds that, due to scarce resources, conflicting ideologies and clashing interests in the school setting, the emergence of power and politics in school management is common. The school setting contains macro-politics via its interactions with the government and the education system, and micro-politics exist within the school, as evidenced by the diverse strategies of school members attempting to use power to obtain resources, settle conflicts or fulfil their own interests. As such, school social workers step into a school organisation that exists in a vortex of government mandates, social and economic pressures, and conflicting values and interests associated with school administrators, teachers and students.

There is also a close relationship between social work and power. Smith (2008), Thompson (2007) and Webb (2000) hold that the power and politics of social work revolve around the structuring and organisation of professional relationships within various settings, and the structuring and organisation of relationships between service users and their environment. Practitioners are thus simultaneously governing people and being governed within the macro- and micro-spheres in the course of interacting with stakeholders. The former includes various social institutions, the welfare system and the government; the latter, service users, helping professionals and administrators of welfare organisations.

Lee (1983) was one of the earliest contributors to examine the power issues encountered by school social workers. Through using the typology of power proposed by French and Raven (1959), Lee considers that school social workers often use the following five bases of power to wrestle with different interesting groups. These include reward power, coercive power, expert power, referent power and legitimate power. Lee concludes that, unless practitioners can consolidate their position through political understanding and skills while strategically handling relationships with different parties, the goals of social work are unlikely to be attained in school. Lee gives new insights into the study of school social work, but the underlying limitations of the traditional concept of power should be taken into account. The traditional concept of power assumes that people can describe and categorise the various forms of power as well as cognitively choose which forms they will use to achieve their goals. Thoughts, actions and interactions of human beings may indeed be governed by power, which diffuses in subtler ways in society (Hindess, 1996; Smith, 2008; Thompson, 2007). Post-modernists even argue that power is bound up with knowledge, which structures our sense of who we are and how we relate to others (Gilbert & Powell, 2010; Wendt & Seymour, 2009). On the basis of an over-simplistic view of power, the former discussion of power in school social work literature should thus be subjected to scrutiny.

Though Lee and other intellectuals have examined the political dimension of school social work (Dupper, 2003; Harris & Franklin, 2010; Rees, 1991), few rigorous studies have been conducted on this research topic either within Hong Kong or overseas. Although some studies have been carried out on this service (Huxtable & Blyth, 2002), most of the available studies employ highly structured quantitative methods such as self-administered rating scales. While such an approach may result in a large pool of data, it may overlook the complex situations encountered by practitioners and miss significant factors that are not easily quantified. Thus, there is a need to fill the knowledge gap of existing school social work literature and open up new research, practice and policy directions.

Conceptualising power

The intertwined sovereign and disciplinary powers are a key part of the analysis of the complex power issues in school social work service. Hindess (1996) argues that there are two types of power: the sovereign power and the disciplinary power. The concept of sovereign power is first articulated by Hobbes, who considers that people institute sovereign power, ‘the Leviathan’, to rule over them, as they fear that without a source of authority to bind them together they will dissolve into a chaotic and conflicting mass (Hindess, 1996). In a modern sense, sovereign power is power exercised by people in the form of capacity or right to repress others, to influence others, or to protect themselves (Smith, 2008). The concept of sovereign power dominated the field of social science until the emergence of the concept of disciplinary power proposed by Foucault.

Foucault defines power as a set of relations which are played out in practice (Foucault, 1980; Smith, 2008). It means that power is manifested in the course of human interaction and at all levels of society (Ngai, 2006; Smith, 2008). In contrast with many former conceptualisations of power, Foucault suggests that power in itself is ‘relational’ (Foucault, 1980; Gilbert & Powell, 2010), meaning that power should be understood as something that is employed and exercised through a net-like organisation in which individuals can be subjected to its effects and become the vehicles for its articulation. While one social actor may exercise power in interacting with other parties, other parties also exercise power in their social relationships and create holes in disciplinary mechanisms to allow for spaces of resistance (Fook, 2002; Gilbert & Powell, 2010; To, 2006). As such, Foucault's interest is primarily the ‘power relation’ that appears in diverse forms and runs through the whole social body (Wendt & Seymour, 2009). Foucault recognises the sovereign power, but he elaborates more on disciplinary power. Disciplinary power is defined as the use of different types of technology that constitute forms of power which produce ‘docile bodies’ in modern society (Ngai, 2006). The technologies comprise different sets of instruments, techniques, procedures, levels of application, and targets with the processes of classification and objectification (Marshall, 1996).

However, Foucault is not totally pessimistic about the practice of freedom. Foucault has considered the concept of resistance as an aspect of power relation. Power and resistance coexist intrinsically, and this does not necessarily mean that the presence of resistance can lead to a change of power, but it is a matter of ‘possibility’ and ‘potentiality’ to resist (Allan, 2003; To, 2006). Resistance can thus create new forms of subjectivity through immediate struggles and local contests between individuals (Gilbert & Powell, 2010). In addition to the sovereign power, this paper also examines the disciplinary power and various forms of resistance of individuals as advocated by Foucault.

Research questions

While in the field of school social work little attempt has been made to examine the concept of power and its relevance to this service, the present study aims to answer the following questions: (1) In a setting in which social work is not the dominant profession, do school social workers experience power struggles? (2) How do school social workers interpret and encounter different forms of power in the micro-sphere while interacting with school personnel and students? (3) How do school social workers perceive and wrestle with power in the macro-sphere while interacting with the education system and welfare system?

Method

The method of qualitative analysis was adopted for the research design. According to Tutty, Rothery, and Grinnell (1996), the mission of qualitative studies is to explore, interpret and understand the social world, which is tightly connected to people's interests and to the rich meanings of their actions, thoughts, feelings and events. The qualitative approach adopted in this research adds a power dimension to analysing the research participants' life stories (Willig, 2003). School social workers' interpretations of daily experiences in rendering services usually illustrate significant aspects of their struggles with different forms of power in regard to this service (Fook, 2002). These stories also demonstrate the participants' ability to use diverse strategies to work with power.

Research context

The Hong Kong government established a nine-year universal basic education system in 1978. In 2009, the government adopted a six-year primary, six-year secondary and four-year undergraduate academic system. In other words, a 12-year universal basic education system was implemented. School social work service is provided to all students currently registered in secondary schools. At present, there are 484 school social workers from 34 non-governmental organisations rendering stationing school social work service in 484 secondary schools (Social Welfare Department, 2010). They provide counselling services for students and their families, and organise developmental groups and programmes. Under the present Funding and Service Agreement (FSA), practitioners are expected to maintain a required level of service output (70 cases, 40 sessions of group/programme and 380 consultations per year).

Sampling method and research participants

In this study, purposive sampling was used to achieve the following objectives: (1) to select a sample that can yield the most comprehensive understanding of this research topic; (2) to select a sample that can fairly represent the population (484 school social workers); and (3) to identify important sources of variation in the population and then to select a sample that reflects this variation.

The research participants were chosen according to their service experience and the agencies they belonged to. To summarise, the 10 female and five male research participants in this study came from 13 different welfare organisations. Eleven research participants had six to 10 years of service experience (among the other four participants, one had five years of experience, and three had 11). The age of the majority ranged from 30 to 39, three were in their twenties and one was above 40 at the time of data collection. More than half of them had master's degrees.

Data collection

This study used in-depth individual interviews for data collection. During the period of March 2005 to June 2005, the researcher interviewed each participant twice for approximately 1.5 hours each. All interviews were taped with the written consent of the research participants. A conversational style was maintained during the interview, with particular attention paid to the participants' verbal and non-verbal reactions. Some guiding questions targeting the practitioners' own stories and personal perspectives were predetermined in the interview guidelines, and these questions were posed during the interview in a more open-ended manner. A research journal was written as soon as possible after the interview to record any observations and personal reflections of the researcher (Patton, 2002).

Data analysis

After transcribing the narratives, the researcher began analysing the data. He used open coding in the initial stage of analysis, which involved reading and rereading every line of the transcripts in search of ‘meaning units’ rather than relying on priori concepts to understand the data (Padgett, 1998). Then he assigned codes to these ‘meaning units’ and categorised the codes. In order to ensure trustworthiness, all the transcripts and preliminary data analysis products were sent to the research participants for member checking.

Having considered their comments, the researcher refined the codes and categories and started an advanced level of data analysis. In this phase the proposed codes and categories of the research participants' narratives were treated as themes. Then, the researcher went through the steps of thematic analysis. First, he identified the different ways in which the objects of themes were constructed in the text. Second, he examined the major types and sources of power relations, as well as how they were understood and used by different parties in different situations. Third, he looked for subject positions of school social workers, school personnel and students that were constituted in the power struggles. Fourth, he explored how practitioners subverted the existing power relations through continuous struggles and confrontations. Finally, he linked the themes with the social and cultural contexts.

Next, the researcher sorted out similar themes to form different sub-themes and grouped the sub-themes together to form the major themes of this study. Finally, the researcher chose the narratives that could best illustrate these themes. These steps were taken to ensure that the original meaning of the narratives would not be distorted while the researcher re-interpreted these narratives from a political dimension. In other words, the researcher strove to attain a balance between reflecting the voices of the research participants and analysing their voices from a critical stance.

Results

This paper explores the recurrent themes embedded in the narratives of 15 frontline school social workers, which revealed their perceptions and experiences of the diverse forms of power. The research participants' narratives unfolded the broad spectrum of micro- and macro-politics involved in their positions. In the micro-sphere, the research findings illustrate the power relations among school personnel, students and school social workers. They also show the way in which the school administrative system connects intimately with the operation of disciplinary practices, which shape and direct the practitioners' activities. Analysis of the research participants' stories also involves the social structures that constitute the wider contexts of power relations in the macro-sphere, which indicate that changes in education and welfare policies can be perceived as a form of macro-power over school social workers.

Forms of power in the micro-sphere of school social work service

School is an organisation. In this organisation a school social worker is used to interact with two parties – school personnel and students – day-to-day. School social workers are often caught in the middle of the conflicting views and interests of these two parties, especially on issues concerning the rights of students and social justice in schooling. We first examine power struggles between school social workers and school personnel.

Power relations between school personnel and school social worker

Nearly all research participants touched upon power struggles between school personnel and school social workers. Although coordination and cooperation occur between teachers and practitioners, the diverse ideologies in their minds may lead them to approach their tasks in contradictory ways. There are also confrontations among them due to clashing interests, divergent views and diverse working styles. The accounts of Tracy and Joyce (pseudonyms were given to all research participants) are two examples of portraying the manifold power struggles between school personnel and school social workers.

Tracy: He [the head of the discipline committee] maintained his view all along and decided to treat that student with expulsion. I expressed my opinion, and fortunately many teachers supported me. But the power of the head of the discipline committee was so great, and the student was expelled at last.

Joyce: The deputy principal claimed that she did not want to accept both students because she feared that they might repeat the intimate behavior in the school. However, that incident happened six months ago! So, we had a big quarrel on this issue … Yet, the half-hour discussion did not change the mind of the deputy principal.

Tracy talked about the conflict between her and the head of the discipline committee concerning the fate of a student. Despite the fact that the student had misbehaved inside and outside school, Tracy recognised the strength and willingness of that student to strive for improvement, yet the head of the discipline committee distrusted both the student's motivation and the school social worker's professional judgement. Joyce's narrative gives a deep illustration of the sovereign power of school personnel, which practitioners cannot defy. A boy and a girl, who were 16 years old, were discovered having intimate behaviour on the school campus. Both students expressed regret at their ‘misbehaviour’ and promised to stop dating for a while in order to prepare for the public examination. Nevertheless, even though the two achieved excellent results in the public examination, the deputy principal who was responsible for the student admission affairs only accepted one of them for fear that they would repeat their ‘misbehaviour’. A big quarrel between Joyce and the deputy principal could not alter the decision.

The two stories above are typical examples of the working experiences of other practitioners because they provide solid evidence of how the school personnel acquire the sovereign power to make final decisions concerning the educational rights of students. Other the sovereign power exercised by school personnel, the research participants held that school social workers were excluded from the decision-making process. It often resulted in the absence of their potential criticisms or counter-arguments, and the possibility they might finally accept the school decision, though reluctantly.

Fiona: Can I be involved in the discussion of student problems and the school response to these problems? Sometimes yes, but sometimes the school will not expect me to participate in the discussion. In this case, I can do nothing in the decision-making process within the existing school system.

Doris: School administrators have strong influences over the determination of school policies, procedures and directions for running the school. When they work out a year plan, other school members including the school social worker need to follow such a plan.

Many research participants shared the observations of Fiona and Doris: practitioners had limited participation in school affairs, although somehow the level of control was different in certain school contexts. Practitioners were often excluded from important discussions concerning student behaviour and the punishment imposed by teachers, but they were expected to settle the students' grievances and help regulate their behaviours. They were also acquainted with the limited opportunity to exercise power in debates about school policies, rules and procedures.

The effects of disciplinary power were subjected to the school personnel and school social workers in the forms of surveillance and control. The top-down management approach operated in a school can be viewed as a form of hierarchical observation that makes surveillance an integral part of disciplinary power in this setting (Foucault, 1991; Gilbert & Powell, 2010). By means of this hierarchical observation, a network of power rests on school personnel, with senior members performing the role of supervisors and junior members performing the role of supervisees. As depicted by the previous excerpts, both the junior school personnel and school social workers could hardly assert a sudden change in the preferences of the senior personnel. They must also follow work plans made by school administrators with little involvement in the decision-making process.

Power relations between school social worker and student

The previous discussions focus on the micro-politics experienced by school social workers in the course of interacting with school personnel. Power struggles also operated between school social workers and students, though in a subtler and more indirect way. When asked about their views towards the tasks of school social workers, most of the research participants contended that Hong Kong school social workers often accorded a higher priority to casework service. Primarily, they selected the so-called ‘maladjusted’ students and helped them solve their problems and adjust well in the existing school environment. The accounts of Janet and Clive can exemplify the impacts of such a deficit model of service:

Janet: Some students express their anxiety to talk to school social workers. It is because in their perceptions school social workers only meet three types of students. The first type is the ones who do not have any friends. The second is the ones with poor academic performance. And the third is the ones who have behavioral and discipline problems.

Clive: How do I view myself? I intervene in emergencies and help students who are in crises, just like the work of a fireman. I may be the one who can first detect the student's problems and step into urgent situations.

Janet admitted that she spent much of her time working with the three types of students mentioned, yet she was conscious of adverse effects such as students avoiding approaching her in order not to be labelled. Clive added that sometimes he spent too much time putting out fires, although he was conscious of the drawbacks of such a remedial function. Practitioners concentrated on treating student problems through rendering casework service and intervening in crises. They might not notice the impacts of the social structures on the problems of students and advocated reforms in the education sector and wider levels of social system. Such supremacy over casework services counted as another form of disciplinary power, which was termed examination by Foucault (1991). It introduces individuality into the field of documentation and makes each individual a ‘case’. Student bodies can be thus governed (Marshall, 1996). As workers treated students as cases and produced a set of documents in relation to their presenting problems, clinical assessment and treatment plans, they aimed to change the thoughts and behaviours of students.

Resistance of school social workers in the micro-sphere of service

A first look at the research data resulted in a set of themes that research participants, caught inside the differential distribution of powers among different parties, were powerless. Nevertheless, a rereading of their field experiences revealed that many research participants indeed had a positive view of their subject positions and adopted a variety of practices that facilitated their participation in the complex political milieu. The following accounts of Mary and Shirley illustrate how practitioners put critical reflections and actions into practice:

Mary: I think the most important thing for a school social worker is her networking and positioning in the school. In my opinion, sometimes a school social worker should get close with teachers and sometimes keep a distance from them … You should give a message to teachers about what you are doing in this school as well as your roles…On the other hand, you must convey a message that although I cooperate with you, I have my own professional judgment and position.

Shirley: I have several strategies, such as exerting influences while dialoguing with the school personnel … I would introduce the practices of other schools which can support my arguments. I would voice out my opinions in daily interactions, the annual service review meeting and the staff meeting.

Mary affirmed her ability to resist the power imposed upon her and she felt a sense of autonomy in practice. Shirley was also conscious and capable of fashioning her style of practice in this setting by making use of the self and all possible channels such as conversation, daily interaction and formal meetings with school personnel to express her opinion and offer recommendations. Their views somehow illustrate Foucault's idea that the subject of a practitioner is not constituted upon well-planned and large-scale strategic interventions (Foucault, 1980). It is a matter of the practitioner having the possibility and opportunity to act. Detailed themes about their resistance strategies have been provided in other articles of the author (To, 2007, 2009a, 2009b).

Forms of power in the macro-sphere of school social work service

Analysis of themes also involves the wider contexts of practice and the power relations in the macro-sphere. The following narratives demonstrate how the power structures of the education and welfare systems foster an array of power relations that affect school social work service.

Power relations between the education system and school social worker

The Hong Kong education system has undergone extensive transformation in recent years. Education reforms covered aspects such as the curriculum, assessment mechanisms, the interface between different education stages and school management (Education Commission, 2000). Most of the research participants contended that the operation of the education reform was too drastic, poorly planned and operated solely by a top-down model. Moreover, school social workers are excluded from the formulation and implementation of education policies and current reforms. The following narrative of Joyce illustrates the difficulties faced by other practitioners:

Joyce: The school perceives the primary function of a school social worker to be to render counseling service for students, their parents, and even for teachers or assess the needs of students and provide relevant programs. You cannot find any opportunity to intervene in the school and education systems.

Other participants also claimed that decisions were normally made by government officials, intellectuals and school administrators with little school social worker involvement or consultation. The previous excerpt implies that school social workers are placed in the disciplinary technologies in two ways: First, roles and practices of practitioners were regulated by school administration, which represented the structure of control in the form of job descriptions and the establishment of a bureaucratic system. School social workers were thus not allowed to go beyond their job duties to intervene in school and education systems, and they were requested to behave as expected by the school administrators. Second, the process of objectification functioned to create a certain kind of school social worker identity, such as ‘caseworker’ or ‘school counsellor’. They might act according to the constituted identity and thus neglect the broader or institutional levels of school and education systems that affect students.

Power relations between the welfare system and school social worker

Another key theme was identified in the research participants' descriptions of the macro-politics in school social work service. The government used to regulate school social work service through an evaluation system, in which workers were required to submit service output information regularly (Social Welfare Department, 1994). Aside from this evaluation system, the government has imposed a series of welfare reforms in recent years that help establish a new financing mechanism for welfare organisations. Efficiency and cost-effectiveness have been the major concerns because of the reforms in the service's accountability and subvention systems (Newman, 1998). The following account of Doris illustrates her view:

Doris: I think it is necessary to have a baseline, which means a reasonable workload requirement for school social workers. However, I think the contexts of schools are quite different. For example, some schools encourage you to run a lot of programs, and the standard of 40 sessions of programs is indeed very low, and you need not feel worried about it. But in some schools … you may have difficulty in achieving the standard of 70 cases.

Research participants admitted that they needed to employ certain strategies in order to meet the output standard. For instance, they treated some students as clients, like the ones who sought brief career guidance or advice on further studies. The school social work service thus becomes even more problem oriented. Practitioners concentrate on discovering ‘student problems’ and rendering casework services; however, these problems can be understood as common developmental needs of young people, and such needs may be better met by groups and programmes.

The imposition of a new subvention system also aroused great worries among the welfare organisations. Practitioners must strive for improvement by modelling themselves on the ideas and practices drawn from the business sector (Newman, 1998; Smith, 2008). Even though they did not welcome the shift to a business method of running welfare organisations, they needed to engage themselves in applying for government and non-government funding. Doris argued that the bidding system had various drawbacks:

Doris: As the purposes of the agencies are simply to bid for projects, they do not consider who carries out the projects until they get the tender offers; however, it is always the frontline staff who execute the projects. Therefore, you seldom have the opportunity to develop innovative projects in your service because you need to run the projects bid by your agency.

As Doris stated in the interview, the implementation of the new subvention system put limits on practitioners and thus programmes and projects were conducted in conventional ways, causing practitioners to lack the motivation to develop creative activities.

Resistance of school social workers in the macro-sphere of service

There have been intensifying concerns that the government put service delivery into the realm of explicit calculation. Many research participants thus took part in micro-political activities to cope with the vagaries of power inherent in this accountability system. However, they contended that radical oppositions to the government's supervisory requirements would bring about negative consequences. They had to adapt to the political imperatives of the government while fulfilling the public expectations and securing further government financial support.

The notion of resistance held by Foucault illuminates the struggles of practitioners in constituting their versions of school social work service. Foucault views resistance as inherent in power relations, and it predicates itself on an individual's style of existence (Foucault, 1980). As shown by the narratives of the research participants, practitioners can reduce the effects of domination of the service's accountability system that compels them to be subject to the government's supervisory regime. For example, to avoid preserving a large amount of cases only for the sake of survival, some research participants expressed that they had another strategy for reaching the standard caseload. Mary gave a typical example of this strategy:

Mary: We evaluate the service output at the team level and the individual level. We have made a compromise that we needed to supplement each other. It is because some schools would prefer running more programs, while others would put more emphasis on casework service; thus, the situations are quite different in different school contexts.

This is an example of the covert strategies that practitioners can adopt in response to the supervisory regime. Both the service supervisors and the colleagues of their working units agreed that practitioners serving different schools would shoulder different caseloads. Thus, they could help meet the aggregate output standard of the whole working unit. Furthermore, many research participants said that the service standards might to some extent reinforce a mechanistic view of casework process. In this case, practitioners subtly resist the power effect of the service standards. The working experience of Kenny helps construct an alternative practice of school social workers:

Kenny: My procedure would be a little bit different. For example, service users are not required to sign the consent form in the first or second sessions of interview, and they have to do this only after several sessions. In this case they would not have the impression that I open the case and establish the relationship with them in order to fulfill my duty. Rather, they would feel my care and concern.

Kenny puts more emphasis on establishing rapport with service users by utilising a person- and relationship-oriented process. It can be viewed as a kind of micro-strategy that overcomes the drawbacks of the service standards which produce a linear casework procedure. The resistance strategies mentioned earlier thus widen the space for practitioners to strive for their own versions of school social work service under the government's accountability requirements. Other than these small-scale strategies, their narratives also show how practitioners engage in the school, community and even institutional dimensions of resistance. For instance, Joyce recounted her field experience in forming a concern group with other youth workers that paid attention to the protection of student rights. The description and analysis of these narratives can be found in other works of the author (To, 2007, 2009a, 2009b).

Discussion

The narratives of the research participants illustrate the ways in which different sorts of power are manifested in the micro- and macro-spheres of the school social work service. The research findings have many significant points that can stimulate further discussion.

The central thrust of the present study is that school social workers' engagement in power struggles in the school system is not to fulfil their own selfish interest or to enhance their personal position (Dupper, 2003). Rather, they recognise the significance of interacting with different parties in pursuing organisational changes conducive to students' learning needs and positive development (To, 2007, 2009a). In other words, practitioners' profound understanding and careful tackling of the multiplicity, fluidity and contextual variability of the power relations is essential to initiating empowering youth work practices (Ngai, 2006; To, 2009b). By using diverse political strategies, practitioners can enable students to defend their welfare and educational opportunities, elicit their concerns on school affairs and form a partnership with school personnel to create a favourable school environment.

In the findings, much reference is made to how sovereign power and disciplinary power complement each other. Clear sovereign power struggles exist between school personnel and school social workers. Coalescing with the sovereign power, practitioners are also placed in the relations of power inherent in the disciplinary technologies, which are subtle and microscopic in scale (Wendt & Seymour, 2009). Therefore, sovereign and disciplinary mechanisms are two integral constituents of power relations emerging in school social work practice. Practitioners need to react to overt and covert forms of power within the micro-sphere and the macro-sphere (Smith, 2008; Thompson, 2007; Webb, 2000).

The findings indicate that, as Hong Kong school social workers come from non-governmental welfare organisations and render stationing service, they encounter a state of alienation and isolation in a ‘host’ setting. They were expected to help students adjust in school, but they were excluded from discussions on school affairs. It seems that there is a rigid boundary of control between schools and school social workers that is difficult to change. Previous research also suggests that school social workers are often perceived as outsiders and their work is under scrutiny by school personnel (Law, 1981; Wong, 1983). They also suffer from role strain and identity confusion (Tam & Mong, 2005). The results of this study correspond with the literature and go beyond it by illustrating the ways in which different sorts of power are manifested in the micro- and macro-spheres.

The conceptualisation of the purposes of modern school social work has steadily developed into a broader sense, covering a wider perspective (Dupper, 2003; Harris & Franklin, 2010). However, the findings suggest that the Hong Kong school social work service still operates through a deficit model that focuses on helping students solve their problems at personal levels and adjust in the existing school environment. These findings echo previous studies that local practitioners put more emphasis on individual work than on system work (Chiu & Wong, 2002; Liu, 1997). It also illustrates the close relationship between the role expectation of local practitioners and the official discourse of school social work service, as the government suggested that ‘school social workers should accord a higher priority to casework’ and should ‘concentrate their attention on remedial services and casework counseling’ (Government Secretariat, 1986, pp. 55–56). The findings also show another side of the coin. The research participants used various strategies in response to the power struggles inherent in this casework-oriented service. Although it is a matter of small-scale resistance, it can be viewed as a way in which the micro-politics of school social work practice is used to resist the supervisory regime of the government.

Changes in education and welfare policies can be perceived as a form of macro-power over school social workers. These policies shape the management of both schools and welfare agencies on the one hand and the daily actions of practitioners on the other. The findings show that school social workers are often regarded as those who followed and implemented the policies determined by the government, and their role in the decision-making process is strictly limited. Social policies can be understood as keystones of strong governance over social institutions and people, or ‘governmentality’, as termed by Foucault (2000). Governmentality essentially concerns the correct ways of managing individuals in the modern society (Gilbert & Powell, 2010). In line with this argument, education and welfare policies help constitute socially determinant statements about the nature of school social work service with a supervisory regime over the practitioners.

As exemplified by the narratives of the research participants, although the government uses the accountability system to govern school social workers' practice by a control-oriented supervision model (Newman, 1998; Smith, 2008), practitioners can reduce or avoid the effects of domination of the service's accountability system. It should also be noted that none of the tactics the participants mentioned are unethical or deceitful, but they help practitioners impose their own particular interpretation on the accountability system. These resistance strategies can widen the space for practitioners to strive for their own versions of school social work service under the government's accountability requirements.

This research is a first attempt to investigate the diverse forms of power experienced by Hong Kong school social workers. The research findings show the rich meanings of their thoughts, feelings and actions in daily practice. The implications of this study are inductively derived from these findings, which can be categorised into the policy, practice and research domains.

Policy

According to the narratives of the research participants, much follow-up is required by the government to improve the present school social work policy. There is still a shortage of human resources in view of the increasing demands of students and schools and the government's accountability requirements. Practitioners still spent most of their time rendering counselling services to students rather than networking the surrounding social systems such as the school, community and education sector (Chiu & Wong, 2002; Liu, 1997). An increased work force is crucial to enhancing school social workers' participation in keeping alert to the impacts of the current education system on students and making recommendations for improvement. The findings also show that the government gives few opportunities for frontline practitioners to contribute their views for the improvement of school social work policy. The Social Welfare Department should organise more sharing sessions for frontline practitioners, service supervisors and government officials to exchange opinions on school social work service and its development. They should also allow frontline workers to audit the relevant meetings. For instance, the research participants have indicated in their narratives that the existing Funding and Service Agreement should be reviewed, and the government can invite more frontline workers to give comments and suggestions on this.

Practice

In face of the vagaries of power within the macro-sphere and the micro-sphere, the findings illustrate the importance of practitioners' political savvy in wrestling with different stakeholders (To, 2009a). Acknowledging that a school is a political organisation, school social workers have to prepare themselves to be involved in power struggles with school personnel, viewing them as both the subject of empowerment and the vehicles for its articulation (To, 2007, 2009b). As power struggles among school personnel are complex and prone to change, they can use the divergent values, opposing views and conflicting interests of different groups of teachers to counter-balance the dominance of any particular group (To, 2009a). In light of the notion of resistance as advocated by Foucault, practitioners need to make full use of their subject positions, roles, communication skills, professional knowledge, language and even gestures to exert influences on discussions of student welfare, school policies, rules and regulations, resource distribution and conflict resolution (Allan, 2003; Fook, 2002). The findings provide good reference for other practitioners, especially new ones, to prepare themselves to work in this field.

Research

To design a new youth service or evaluate the existing service mode, sometimes we rely on the findings of quantitative studies for the sake of objectivity, precision and ease of prediction. On some occasions quantitative analysis is necessary, but on others it may overlook the complex situations encountered by both practitioners and young people, missing significant factors that are not easily quantified and neglecting the multiple facets of youth needs and the ways of satisfying these needs. In this regard, the qualitative approach has become a rising trend in youth work literature with the purpose of generating a comprehensive understanding of the utilities, contributions, limitations and future directions of different kinds of youth services or programmes (Padgett, 1998; Patton, 2002). Nevertheless, studies on local youth services seldom adopted the qualitative approach. More qualitative studies should be done with a view to understanding the stories of practitioners and target groups of different kinds of youth services, which can supplement the inadequacies of quantitative studies and offer information that is useful for service planning, development and evaluation.

Although school social work exists in many countries (Huxtable & Blyth, 2002), a review of the literature revealed that little attempt has been made to study the present research topic. Discussions about the conceptual framework, methodology, steps of data collection and data analysis are presented in this study, thus providing concrete materials for intellectuals and practitioners from other countries to explore the school social work development through a political dimension. There is also a need to extend this research topic to examine the political nature of youth services (Ngai, 2006). Incorporating the power perspective to investigate youth workers' narratives thus helps supplement local texts of youth practice by showing how power operates in youth services.

Limitations of the study

There are two limitations that should be taken into account: First, given the small sample size, it is questionable whether our research participants share the same perceptions and experiences with other frontline school social workers. Second, although a warm rapport with the research participants was established during the study, some might feel insecure about disclosing sensitive issues. Multiple methods of data collection should thus be used to enhance the credibility of similar studies (Patton, 2002). Researchers can search for different data sources that may supplement the research findings derived from school social workers' narratives. Interviews with school principals, teachers, students and parents can be conducted to capture the discrepancies of the narrations between them and those of school social workers.