Construction of discretion-related characters in social work with persons with disabilities in Finland

ABSTRACT

This study explores characterisation regarding discretion in social work with persons with disabilities (PWD) in Finland. Discretion is conceptualised as a relational and institutional practice that is connected to narratives and conducted through relationships. The writings of six social workers and 36 clients about discretion in social work with PWD were analysed through characterisation. The research question was as follows: How do social workers and clients construct discretion-related characters for each other in their writings? Based on the findings, the characters were constructed regarding desired and undesired attributes. The discretion-related characters with desired attributes were a client at the centre of everything and a social worker advocating for a client, while the characters with undesired attributes were a social worker promoting the system and a client in inappropriate services. This study argues that the construction of characters is conducted through available material and narrative resources that matter for both the relationships and the discretion in social work with PWD.

TIIVISTELMÄ

Tutkimuksessa tarkastellaan harkintaan liittyvien henkilöhahmojen rakentumista vammaissosiaalityössä Suomessa. Sosiaalityön harkinta käsitteellistetään suhteisena ja institutionaalisena käytäntönä, jota rakennetaan yhteydessä narratiiveihin ja joka toteutuu suhteissa. Kuuden sosiaalityöntekijän ja 36 asiakkaan kirjoitelmat vammaissosiaalityön harkinnasta analysoitiin tarinallisen hahmoanalyysin (characterisation) menetelmällä. Tutkimuskysymys oli seuraava: Miten sosiaalityöntekijät ja asiakkaat rakentavat toisilleen harkintaan liittyviä hahmoja kirjoitelmissaan? Tulosten perusteella hahmot rakennettiin toivottujen ja ei-toivottujen ominaisuuksien kautta. Toivottuja ominaisuuksia sisältävät hahmot olivat asiakas kaiken keskiössä ja asiakasta puolustava sosiaalityöntekijä, kun ei-toivottuja ominaisuuksia sisältävät hahmot olivat järjestelmää tukeva sosiaalityöntekijä ja asiakas epäsopivissa palveluissa. Tutkimuksessa argumentoidaan, että hahmojen rakentaminen tapahtuu käytettävissä olevien materiaalisten ja narratiivisten resurssien kautta, joilla on merkitystä sekä suhteille että harkinnalle vammaissosiaalityössä.

KEYWORDS:

• Discretion
• characterisation
• narrative
• client–social worker relationship
• persons with disabilities

AVAINSANAT:

• harkinta
• hahmoanalyysi
• narratiivi
• asiakas–sosiaalityöntekijä -suhde
• vammaiset ihmiset

Introduction

This study explores characterisation regarding discretion in social work with persons with disabilities (PWD) in Finland. The study focuses on the client–social worker relationship around discretion. Based on the existing body of knowledge, more research on client-professional encounters (Mik-Meyer & Silverman, 2019) and narrative research on client-social worker relationships is needed (Riessman & Quinney, 2005). The narrative approach is deployed here in order to understand social work (Baldwin, 2013). It promotes a critical appreciation of how social work constructs narratives, for example, about clients and social work itself (Baldwin, 2013, p. 4). In doing so, social work is understood as a practice that is constructed in relation to the available narrative resources (Baldwin, 2013; Parton & O’Byrne, 2000). Both clients and professionals construct their agency and relationships in relation to the available (narrative) resources (Baldwin, 2013; Mik-Meyer & Haugaard, 2020).

Discretion is a multidimensional concept. It has been explored, for example, from the perspective of the state, citizens or professionals, and in relation to legal, economic, organisational or ethical matters (Evans & Hupe, 2020). In addition to formal (or legal) discretion, social workers use discretion when they make various choices in ‘street-level’ encounters with their clients or take a course of action based on available information, knowledge and values. Discretion is also included in social workers’ considerations regarding how to conduct relationships with clients. However, every assessment, judgement or decision is influenced by both the personal and professional characteristics of a social worker and the organisational, political and societal context which has been, in recent years, influenced especially by managerialism that posits a management-based logic. (Evans & Hupe, 2020; Lipsky, 2010; Taylor, 2012.) In this study, discretion is conceptualised as a relational and institutional practice that is connected to narratives and conducted through relationships (Maynard-Moody & Musheno, 2000; Tarvainen & Kivistö, 2023). In addition to a social worker, discretion includes other human actors – most importantly the client. However, the institutional relationships around discretion are contextual and typically hierarchical (Evans & Hupe, 2020).

Client-social worker relationships are traditionally perceived as the ‘heart’ of change-oriented and effective social work (e.g. Howe, 1998; Rollins, 2019; Ruch, 2010). Relationships between clients and social workers are highlighted especially in relationship-based social work informed by relationality (Rollins, 2019; Ruch, 2010). Relationship-based social work has a long tradition, for example in the UK (Bryan et al., 2016). It values the client and promotes client-centredness as an essential part of social work. In relationship-based social work, it is the quality of experiences and emotions related to relationships that matters and is given attention. (Hingley-Jones & Ruch, 2016; Howe, 1998; Parton & O’Byrne, 2000; Rollins, 2019; Sinai-Glazer, 2020; Trevithick, 2014.) However, relationship-based social work needs ‘nourishing’ spaces (Hingley-Jones & Ruch, 2016, p. 244).

Institutional settings create a specific space for relationships and roles as well as interactions within social services (e.g. Gubrium & Järvinen, 2014; Juhila, 2003; Mik-Meyer & Silverman, 2019). In terms of power, the relationships between social workers and clients are unequal (Nykänen, 2021) and ‘asymmetrical’ (Juhila, 2003; Mik-Meyer & Silverman, 2019, p. 1642). Moreover, social workers, as public authorities, represent society and institutions for clients in encounters (Harjula, 2023, p. 149). In particular, client-social worker relationships have been challenged as the societal context has changed related to managerialism with efficiency requirements, austerity and bureaucracy (Hingley-Jones & Ruch, 2016; McDonald & Rogowski, 2023; Ruch, 2010; Trevithick, 2014). Restricting structures have affected the relationships and agency of both clients and social workers (Juhila et al., 2020; Machin & Shardlow, 2022, p. 5054; Rozario, 2011). According to Howe (1998), social work has become so procedural and administrative that it has lost its core, i.e. what is has to offer in terms of relationships. Hence, relationship-based social work has been (re)called for in order to ‘humanise’ managerialism in social work (Trevithick, 2014).

This context of tension around discretion and relationships is also present in social work in Finland, including social work with PWD. Social workers have experienced becoming distant from clients and relationships becoming more hierarchical (Harjula, 2023, p. 175). They have experienced a two-fold role as authority on the one hand and as a caring and committed supporter on the other (Järvinen et al., 2023, p. 330). Social work with PWD is framed by many, partly contradictory interests, such as the rights of PWD and the ethics of social work on the one hand, and organisational control, resources and rules on the other (Kivistö & Lindh, 2024; Tarvainen & Kivistö, 2023). Finland has ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), and the Finnish Act on Disability Services and Assistance (1987) promotes the equality of persons with disabilities and cooperation with them. Based on this Act, social work with PWD consists of assessing, decision-making and organising a wide range of disability services, for example, transportation services, personal assistance and housing services. In addition, the work involves consideration regarding how to contact clients, how they are to be encountered and heard, and in which ways actions are carried out. However, social work with PWD in Finland is burdened, affecting social workers’ opportunities to build quality relationships with clients. Both clients and professionals have experienced structural conditions such as economic influencing discretion regarding disability services. (Tarvainen & Kivistö, 2023.) Moreover, the work is relatively bureaucratic and it reflects unequal power relations (Nykänen, 2021). Hence, in this context, we do not focus on relationship-based social work as a particular method for e.g. psychodynamic, therapeutic or systemic social work (cf. Ruch, 2010), but on the overall importance of relationships between clients and social workers, and we are open also to possible tensions in these relationships.

Previous studies have shown that both clients and social workers value similar elements in their relationships, for example, friendliness, trust, availability, continuity, listening and becoming understood (Beresford et al., 2008; Rollins, 2019; Sinai-Glazer, 2020). On the other hand, client–social worker relationships are tenuous and precarious and may involve conflict, suspicion and mistrust (Ferguson et al., 2021; Mikulcová et al., 2024; Rollins, 2019; Urek, 2005). In the European context, the characterisation of a client (e.g. ‘unsuitable mother’) constructed by social workers has been explored regarding child protection (Urek, 2005) and different characterisations, for example, as ‘a client with limited agency’, have been examined in social work with undocumented immigrants (Machin & Shardlow, 2022). In terms of social work with PWD, it has been emphasised that social workers should not act as ‘masters’, but rather as ‘servants’ to PWD (James et al., 2017). On the other hand, professionals using discretion in disability services have self-identified as both clients’ ‘allies’ and ‘gatekeepers’ of the system (Symonds et al., 2018). In Finland, professionals working in disability services have characterised themselves as being caught between serving the client and maintaining the system, and have experienced challenges in client relationships regarding trust and understanding. At times, professionals have perceived clients’ requests as unrealistic. (Nykänen, 2021, p. 351.) In terms of narrative social work, the connections of discretion and ‘everyday life, equality and economy’ have been described from the perspective of clients and social workers in social work with PWD (Tarvainen & Kivistö, 2023). However, arguably, the characterisation related to discretion and the relationships between clients and social workers in social work with PWD has not been explored before. This study contributes to the discussion concerning discretion in social work with PWD by asking: How do social workers and clients construct discretion-related characters for each other in their writings?

Materials and methods

Data

The data comprises the writings of social workers (n = 6) and clients (n = 36) regarding discretion in social work with PWD in Finland. Both of these data collection processes were conducted qualitatively: one call was open to social workers, while the other was directed to clients. The data was collected in the Discretion in social work with people with disabilities research project in 2022.

At the time, there were only a few options available as regards reaching social workers in social work with PWD without using the formal channels of organisations. The call for social workers was made through social media platforms (two Facebook groups) and an e-mail-list (maintained by a national institution). The aim of the call for social workers was to give space for professionals to reflect freely on their discretionary work. The following questions, for example, were offered in order to foster participation: What kind of discretion is involved in becoming a client, directing clients to services or in choosing working methods? What promotes and what prevents (good) discretion? Writings were collected by deploying the Webropol platform. The length of writings varied from almost three pages to less than half a page. The average length of a writing was one and a half pages. For that participation was as convenient as possible, the data gathering was anonymous, and the call included information for participants not to share any personal or organisational background information in their writings. In the writings, discretion was discussed both with positive and negative tone. Regarding the positives, the social workers illustrated, for example, client-orientation in their writings.

Correspondingly, the call for clients’ writings was available on social media and on other sites, such as the research project’s webpage. Moreover, the call was circulated to various disability organisations in Finland with the forewords of circulating the call freely and widely through their channels (not from a person to a person). The call for clients’ writings was directed to adults (persons over 18 years of age) with direct, own experiences regarding social services and disability as well as discretion within. Additionally, the call was open for persons with related experiences about discretion in disability services and social work, such as the parents of a child with disabilities. However, most participants participated in the call by sharing their own, direct experiences. The aim was to tell as freely they wanted and participants could choose whether they wanted to deploy supportive questions, e.g. the following: How have you experienced discretion in social services? How has your viewpoint been considered? Writings were collected by using the Webropol platform and the maximum length of an answer was from two to three pages. As the topic entailed sensitive research ethical points, including clientship in social services regarding disabilities, any identifying or personal data were not collected, and participants were informed not to share such pieces of information. In cases where some hints could be found, these were anonymised after the data collection. Arguably, the participants represented a wide spectrum of clients in social work with PWD. Through their self-identification, the range of disabilities was broad and included, e.g. physical and sensory disabilities as well as long-term illnesses. Like the professionals, the clients discussed their experiences concerning discretion in both positive and negative tones, although more the latter. In doing so, they illustrated construction of emotionally loaded social relationships with professionals.

Ethics

The guidelines of the Finnish National Board on Research Integrity (TENK, 2019; 2023) were followed through the entire research process regarding both procedural and processual aspects. Due to the sensitive topic, no personal or identification data was collected. The project was approved by the Committee on Research Ethics at the University of Lapland on 13th December 2021. Participants were given information about the research and its data management practices through the call for participation and on the web-based platforms that we used for data collecting. The participants gave their informed consent at the platform before accessing the main area for writing at the given platform.

Analysis

We were familiar with these datasets from our previous works (e.g. Tarvainen & Kivistö, 2023). Therefore, we were aware that one of the central themes in the writings about discretion in social work with PWD concerned the relationships and the ‘street-level’ encounters between clients and social workers, which we chosen as the topic of this study for further exploration. We focused on social workers and clients as primary stakeholders regarding discretion in general and in these data sets. Through narrative inquiry, we appreciate the participants’ writings as narrative accounts and as meaningful social constructions regarding discretion and human relationships in institutional settings of social work (Urek, 2005).

The first author was primarily responsible for handling the data in this study. Nevertheless, we conducted the analysis and writing the entire paper jointly. The first author drafted the first version of the analysis that we continued together. The analysis was conducted as follows: The first author collected excerpts about the relationships between clients and social workers from both data sets. We read these excerpts that disclosed discretion-related interactions and relationships carefully several times. We noticed that the condensed data was about characters and their characteristics and, therefore, we chose to continue the analysis trough the characterisation approach (Baldwin, 2013).

Characterisation is a way of conducting narrative inquiry (Baldwin, 2013). It appreciates the construction of characters as a significant part of the story. Sometimes characters may even be the driver of the story and its plot (Baldwin, 2013, pp. 13–16). Characters are recognisable and demonstrate motivations as well as the moral points of the entire story. Characters bear values, ethics and moral assessment and are thus of essence regarding social work that appreciates narratives. From the narrator’s perspective, characters are part of constructing a believable story through rhetorical purposes. (Baldwin, 2013, pp. 14–15.) Attributes describe what the character is like and what qualities are associated with it in the characterisation (Baldwin, 2013, pp. 13–15). Moreover, characters pose for un/desired attributes. Thus, characterisation as ‘character work’ relates to uncovering how a presented person thinks and acts (Baldwin, 2013, p. 90). Traditional characters in stories are, for example, heroes, victims and villains (Jasper et al., 2018). Additionally, characters can be abstract or concrete (or ‘flat’ or ‘round’) depending on their features (e.g. Machin & Shardlow, 2022). Through characterisation, the participants of this study made sense of interactions within a client and a social worker regarding discretion in social work with PWD. The characters are descriptive not of an individual person, but of a construction of character for each other in the client-social worker relationship (McLaughlin, 2009). Moreover, the construction of characters for each other is interlinked with the construction of one’s own characteristics in the relationship (e.g. Baldwin & Estey-Burtt, 2012).

Results

The construction of characters related to discretion in social work with PWD were discussed regarding both desired and undesired attributes in the writings. The client in the social workers’ writings with desired attributes was described as being a client at the centre of everything. The social worker with desired attributes in the clients’ writings was described as a social worker advocating for a client. Both groups of participants also discussed characters with undesired attributes. In the clients’ writings, another character of a social worker was depicted as a social worker promoting the system. The other character of a client with undesired attributes in the social workers’ writings referred to a client in inappropriate services. (Table 1).

Table 1. The discretion-related characters in social work with PWD based on social workers’ and clients’ writings.

	The characters of a client	The characters of a social worker
Characters with desired attributes	A client at the centre of everything (a main character)	A social worker advocating for a client (a side character)
Characters with undesired attributes	A client in inappropriate services (a side character)	A social worker promoting the system (a main character)

In the following sections, we describe these discretion-related characters in more detail. We refer to the social workers’ writings with the abbreviation of SW and the given number of a participant at the web-based platform. The abbreviation of C stands for clients and the numbers derive from the given participant numbers at the web-based platform. The original data is in Finnish and, therefore, we have translated the accounts from Finnish to English.

The discretion-related characters with desired attributes

The characters with desired attributes were a client at the centre of everything and a social worker advocating for a client. Both characters were discussed in a positive tone and the depictions suggest moral aspirations. However, while a client at the centre of everything was the main character of a client in the social workers’ writings regarding discretion, a social worker advocating for a client was just a side character of a social worker in the clients’ stories. The construction of the characters relates to the available discursive and material conditions in which discretion in social work with PWD is conducted. The characters with desired attributes were constructed through, for example, the discourses of social work ethics and disability rights.

The description provided by the social workers of a client who is at the centre of everything revealed a moral self-narrative of social work and the social workers’ commitment to this narrative. The point of the characterisation of a client at the centre of everything is basically that the client is the one who is primarily considered in all activities related to discretion in social work with PWD. The best interest of a client is in focus when social workers assess a client’s need or situation, or when social workers consider how to listen to, contact or inform their clients. Within this characterisation, the client is highly valued in every situation related to ‘quality’ discretion.

I consider at least the following things every day – – the client’s possible need for special support, the client’s or the child’s best interest – – the client’s overall situation – – In addition, there is a lot of discretion that – – gets wrapped up in the client process – – hearing the client, whether the client is genuinely heard, how the client is heard, whether the client is met sufficiently – – The starting point as well as the final goal of quality discretion is a client’s best interest. (SW1, italics added)

However, perhaps more than actual agency for a client, the character may represent the social workers’ engagement with social work ethics and values. By creating such a character for clients, the social workers performed and also practiced their professional engagement with ethical principles of social work, such as commitment to the clients’ rights when using discretion: ‘[c]lients’ independence and self-determination are valued as much as possible’ (SW5).

Based on the social workers’ writings, when a client is at the centre of everything, they act as a partner of the social worker and are involved when discretion is exercised, for example, when a course of action is taken: ‘[W]e reassess [with a client] whether to continue working in the same way or whether something should be changed’ (SW4). Furthermore, the character illustrates a social worker’s aim to construct a confidential and co-operative relationship with the client. The client at the centre of everything is so important in terms of discretion that s/he is encountered as many times as needed to achieve the best outcome, and a social worker strives to get to know the clients and their conditions well: ‘Of course, discretion requires sufficient familiarity with the client’s life situation’ (SW5).

The character of a social worker advocating for a client, constructed by clients, formed a kind of counterpart for the character of a client at the centre of everything. In general, typical attributes of this social worker’s character were approachableness and client-centredness. Furthermore, the character of a social worker advocating for a client takes a morally correct position related to discretion. In the clients’ accounts, the character of a social worker advocating for a client was depicted as focusing on encounters with clients when exercising discretion. However, this character of a social worker represents, at least partially, an ideal, which the clients had not necessarily faced yet, but who they wished to meet when discretion is used: ‘[I] want support and encounters [from social workers]’ (C1). Based on the clients’ writings, social workers act in a client-oriented manner at best when assessing their need for disability services, but this depends on the person.

At best, individual discretion is applied in disability services to the client’s benefit – – a good outcome, unfortunately, often also depends on the social worker’s personality and willingness to help. (C16)

On the other hand, the character of a social worker advocating for a client not only represents an ideal in the clients’ stories, but is also occasionally encountered in reality. In these cases, a social worker advocating for a client was presented to be, for example, a ‘competent client servant and appropriate in their actions’ (C2). Desired attributes for this social worker also regarded continuity and the ability to build a trusting relationship with a client. In the clients’ stories regarding discretion, this mattered, for example, for families with a member with disability: ‘It has been wonderful for both the child [the client] and the family to have the same social worker for all these years’ (C15). The character of a social worker advocating for a client stood up for clients in such a way that they felt that they had a professional on their side. However, as in the case of a client at the centre of everything, the character of a social worker advocating for a client was relatively abstract. Moreover, a social worker advocating for a client was just a side character that clients constructed for social workers regarding discretion in social work with PWD.

Discretion-related characters with undesired attributes

The character of a social worker promoting the system represented undesired attributes of a social worker in the clients’ writings and was the main discretion-related character of a social worker. This character was presented as mainly advocating for the system instead of the client. In turn, in the social workers’ writings, the character of a client in inappropriate services represented undesired attributes of a client. This character was illustrated as being in inappropriate services when having a clientship in social work with PWD or the character was described as using disability services in some inappropriate way, for instance, too excessively compared to their needs. The construction of characters with undesired attributes revealed a tension around discretion and the construction of characters related to the discourse of managerialism and lack of material resources (e.g. money for services at the organisational level), as well as illustrating the challenges of positioning clients in the available disability services. These characters stood for actual issues that are faced in social work with PWD.

The clients were mostly critical of social workers in their stories. The character of a social worker promoting the system was positioned as the opposite of a social worker advocating for a client and with more concrete attributes. The character of a social worker promoting the system was typically presented as a distant and busy person who does not stay long with a client: ‘Social workers change too often, and they are very busy.’ (C18). Based on the clients’ writings, it is hard to form a relationship with a social worker promoting the system, who does not necessarily visit clients or familiarise themselves with clients’ living conditions when making decisions concerning disability services: ‘that person who was on the phone has never visited me’ (C22). This character of a social worker is presented as using discretion as an administrative bureaucrat without seeking to enter into real-time encounters with clients.

Transportation services were granted without meeting me, when I applied for personal assistance, a social worker has not yet met me – – . My current social worker has been my responsible social worker for about three years and I have never met this person, even though I have contacted the person with phone and e-mail. [The social worker] has never suggested a meeting. (C1)

According to the clients’ writings, a social worker promoting the system is a character who does not inform clients openly about the different options or services they could be entitled to. Instead, the clients’ descriptions of a social worker promoting the system illustrate a questioning or even neglectful character: ‘[The social worker] basically rejects and doubts all application processes of the disabled person’ (C2). Furthermore, when considering a client’s case, this character of a social worker is, in some stories, presented as dismissing a client’s functional limitations, such as the following: ‘[My] disability has been understated and it has been claimed that it neither exists nor causes difficulties’ (C27). In the clients’ stories, a social worker promoting the system does not use their professional competence neither conduct decision-making and assessments properly: ‘[A social worker] considers [the need] smaller than it actually is’ (C3). In summary, the traits described above portray the character as a person who uses discretion arbitrarily and at a distance from the client. However, some of the clients highlighted that the actions of social workers are consequences of a dysfunctional system.

Individual [social workers] usually mean well and do their best. But this system doesn't work. (C14)

The character of a client with undesired attributes in the social workers’ writings was a client in inappropriate services. This was a distinguishable but non-typical side character, and only some social workers discussed this character. This character is substantially different from the main character of a client, a client at the centre of everything, as a client in inappropriate services has not found their place or position in the service system. Additionally, as a character, a client in inappropriate services is presented more as an object than as a subject with agency.

When presenting some clients as users of inappropriate services, the social workers’ arguments referred, for example, to some young mental health rehabilitators or persons with challenging behaviour considered as being in unsuitable services when they had clientship in social work with PWD. The social workers did not necessarily consider them to be PWD who would benefit from disability services. In this case, the reason for the client`s inappropriate use of services was found primarily in the system, for example in the legislation.

Legislation – – does not adequately meet all clients’ needs. – – Granting services according to the Act on Disability Services – – in these cases is not necessarily in the clients’ best interest in the long run. (SW5)

In some social workers’ writings, the character of a client in inappropriate services referred to a client who uses disability services ‘more than is needed’ (SW2). In this case, the character of a client in inappropriate services was constructed in order to present some client-related reasons for social workers not being able to use positive discretion: ‘[i]t is really unfortunate that many times due to [individual disabled persons] the use of discretion has ended’ (SW2). In this case, the social workers constructed the character of a client regarding their neediness and also worthiness due to the inappropriate usage of services. Moreover, the social workers emphasised their own ability to assess the appropriateness of the clients’ use of the services and deservedness: ‘Only with experience you learn to recognize [client’s] real, necessary need for services as opposed to the mere purpose of benefit.’ (SW3). The construction of the character of a client in inappropriate services revealed the social workers’ aims to make sense of their professional acts in the service system as gatekeepers. In doing so, they seemed to justify and give some reasons for their discretionary actions. However, as highlighted, the character of a client in inappropriate services was just a side character that the social workers constructed in their writings.

Discussion

The aim of this study was to explore the characterisation regarding discretion in the clients’ and social workers’ writings and thus to make sense of the construction of discretion-related characters. The context of the study was social work with PWD in Finland. The study used the narrative social work approach as a means of understanding social work (Baldwin, 2013) and the client-social worker relationship as the ‘heart’ of social work (Howe, 1998; McDonald & Rogowski, 2023; Ruch, 2010; Trevithick, 2014). However, the tensions between societal and institutional context, client-social worker relationships and discretion were also considered (Hingley-Jones & Ruch, 2016; Nykänen, 2021; Tarvainen & Kivistö, 2023).

Based on the findings, discretion-related characters were constructed regarding desired and undesired attributes, which both the clients and social workers discussed in connection with their relationships. For the social workers, the character of a client at the centre of everything was a key person in terms of discretion. As a parallel, the character constructed by the clients of a social worker advocating for a client focused on clients when using discretion. In contrast, a social worker promoting the system presented for clients a character who advocates the system and even neglects a client when using discretion. A client in inappropriate services was a character who misuses disability services, either because of a poorly organised system or because of their own actions. The characters with desired attributes, a client at the centre of everything and a social worker advocating for a client, illustrated a close client-social worker relationship around discretion in social work with PWD, while the characters with undesired attributes, a social worker promoting the system and a client in inappropriate services, reflected a distant relationship. As a whole, the characters reflect the complexity of relationships around discretion, as well as the impact of context and structures.

In terms of narratives, there were contrasts between the social workers’ and clients’ writings. The typical tone in the social workers’ data set was positive and they presented mostly appreciative stories about their relationships with clients. In doing so, they performed their engagement with the ethics and values of social work (Baldwin, 2013, p. 15). Client-centredness in social work is a strong ‘norm’, which is loaded with moral aspirations and social responsibilities concerning social services (Mik-Meyer & Haugaard, 2020, p. 508). On the other hand, the clients’ stories engaged with the topic (discretion) with a relatively negative tone concerning the character of a social worker. This may be interpreted as a rhetorical choice in order to seek appropriate services and justice for themselves as well as for other PWD. (Baldwin, 2013, pp. 14–16; Riessman & Quinney, 2005, pp. 393–395) Additionally, when representing a social worker promoting the system as a kind of ‘villain’ (Jasper et al., 2018; Rozario, 2011), the clients also constructed their own characteristics (e.g. Baldwin & Estey-Burtt, 2012) as ‘victims’ (Jasper et al., 2018). In sum, the construction of characters in the discretion-related accounts of social workers and clients revealed that the descriptions of each other interlinked with the available discourses, norms and values, as well as ‘situated practices’ to which the exercise of discretion is linked (Mik-Meyer & Silverman, 2019, p. 1657). Thus, a narrative analysis of relationships may help to understand clients’ experiences more deeply (Parton & O’Byrne, 2000; Riessman & Quinney, 2005, p. 405). Moreover, narrative analysis constructs and promotes professionals’ self-understanding.

In addition to the narrative nature of social work (Baldwin, 2013), the characters emphasise the multidimensionality and complexity of discretion. They embody the dual role of social workers as clients’ supporters, but also as controllers and gatekeepers of the service system and its resources (Järvinen et al., 2023; Lipsky, 2010; Mikulcová et al., 2024; Nykänen, 2021; Rollins, 2019; Symonds et al., 2018; Urek, 2005). Correspondingly, PWD are usually presented as ‘deserving’ people regarding social services, but the character of a client in inappropriate services illustrates how the perceived deservingness of PWD in relation to services actually varies (Baumberg Geiger, 2021). In sum, the discretion-related characters emphases human actors on the one hand, but on the other hand the effects of organisations and their resources and rules. In particular, the characters of a social worker promoting the system and a client in inappropriate services illustrate system-related challenges regarding discretion, in line with the previous research literature (e.g. Evans & Hupe, 2020; Lipsky, 2010).

This study has some limitations. We chose a method of web-based data collection, which means we did not reach all potential participants. However, the participants had time to think and even re-think on the topic and what they wanted to submit. In addition, the main theme of the data collection was discretion, not the client-social worker relationship. Furthermore, the results contextualised in Finland cannot be directly applied to other countries due to different service system. On the other hand, as many contextual challenges regarding social work relationships and discretion share similar characteristics in different countries, the findings of this study have wider relevance too. As this study focused on the client-social worker relationship, further studies may provide information about other relevant relationships and characterisations related to discretion in social work with PWD, for example, the characterisation of clients’ family members, social work managers or members of the multi-professional network.

In conclusion, the discretion-related characters reflect the importance of the relationship between a client and a social worker. Based on this study, there is a need to strengthen the client-social worker relationship around discretion. A distant client–social worker relationship challenges the use and quality of discretion. In contrast, co-operative use of discretion in the relationships may help to reach a mutual understanding about the clients’ lived conditions, but also about the conditions in which social workers navigate. Regarding the important role of social work in the implementation of the CRPD, the study reflects the contextual relationships around discretion through an empirical study that combines both the clients’ and social workers’ experiences in social work with PWD. The study illustrates the meaning of the relationships between clients and social workers in the available conditions around discretion, especially here in Finland, but looking forward to studies from a wider European and international context too. The study argues that the construction of characters is conducted through the available material and narrative resources that matter for both relationships and discretion in social work.

Disclosure statement

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

Additional information

Funding

Ministry of Social Affairs and Health in Finland (VN/13817/2021).

Notes on contributors

Mari Kivistö

Dr Mari Kivistö is a University Lecturer in the Faculty of Social Sciences at the University of Lapland. Her research has focused on social work with persons with disabilities. She has also studied social work and digitalisation and mental health services.

Merja Tarvainen

Dr Merja Tarvainen’s current research intersects Disability Studies and Social Work. She works as a University Lecturer in social work, esp. social security and social services at the University of Eastern Finland.