Structuration processes of client-oriented and system-oriented social work practice: the view point of client documentation

ABSTRACT

Social work practice and related documentation are being challenged by the consumerist–managerialist discourse, which simultaneously emphasizes the aims of a client orientation and the demand for economical and efficient activity that reflects a system orientation. This article explores the structuration processes of social work practice in the context of case-based social work with disabled people in Finland. The theoretical framework is provided by Anthony Giddens’ structuration theory. By applying qualitative multiple case study research and analysing client documents from seven individual cases, two combined cases are reconstructed: a client-oriented case and a system-oriented case. Based on the analysis, the prevailing structure of social work practice is structured between the two dimensions, reflecting intersections of client orientation and system orientation. The findings show, that structuration of client-oriented social work practice throughout a case requires social work to increase its critical consciousness and reflection on the client’s need in addition to have various resources. The structuration of client-oriented social work practice should also be visible in client documents. The article concludes that every encounter between organizational structures, the social worker and the client represents a new opportunity to structure client-oriented social work practice.

KEYWORDS:

• Social work practice
• structuration theory
• documentation
• Finland

Introduction

Client orientation and system orientation relate to organizational practices and the ways in which employees representing them perform their work. An increase in the number of client orientation discussions has been linked to the consumerist-managerialist discourse, which simultaneously focuses on the needs and desires of the client and the production of efficient and economic services. Thus, the concept of client orientation is contradictory by nature. On the one hand it emphasizes the power of the client, but on the other hand assigns personal responsibility also to those clients who would benefit from system`s support for their agency. (Beresford and Croft 2004; Heffernan 2006; Wheeler-Brooks 2009; Kivistö and Hautala 2020)

Social work has always focused on the needs of people (Heffernan 2006). In social work, the concept of client orientation is linked to partnership, cooperation, dialogue and mutual understanding between the social worker and the client. Social work client orientation also relates to the attitudes of employees, processing times, accessibility, competence, effective planning and interventions, active interaction, as well as clarity regarding the roles, rights, responsibilities and opportunities of clients (Gambrill 2013). It is obvious that organizational structures greatly impact social work practice, but, in order to implement client orientation, committed professionals are needed. Social work organizations have been criticized for naming client orientation as a target but giving employees limited power and opportunities to implement it. (Grell, Blom, and Ahmadi 2019; Beresford and Croft 2004.)

This article explores the structuration processes of social work practice in Finland. The focus of the research is on client orientation and system orientation. Finland has a legislative foundation for client orientation (Act on the Status and Rights of Social Welfare Clients, 2000; Social Welfare Act, 2014). However, the studies have made system-oriented practices also visible (eg. Närhi and Kokkonen 2014). The theoretical framework is based on Anthony Giddens’s (1984) structuration theory, which has rarely been applied in empirical research concerning social work practice. Social work with disabled people provides the research context, and the data consist of client documents from seven individual cases. In light of the nature of our data, we ask the following question: how does the structuration of client-oriented and system-oriented practice appear in social work with disabled people based on an examination of client documentation? Our interest is in making the structuration processes of social work practice more visible to increase critical consciousness and reflexivity, as well as awareness of important but partially hidden features related to client orientation (see Wheeler-Brooks 2009; Günther, Raitakari, and Juhila 2015; Kivistö and Hautala 2020).

Duality of structure as a theoretical approach

Anthony Giddens’s (1984) structuration theory discusses the structuration of social practices in the relationship between the structure and the actor, in which every encounter is a new event for maintaining or transforming the prevailing structure. In his theory, Giddens focuses on the dynamics and interaction of the relationship instead of the structure–actor dichotomy. Structuration is a matter of developing structural arrangements (Wheeler-Brooks 2009, 129). Social structure – in other words, structured social practices – exist on multiple levels from institutions to explicit and implicit principles. Thus, structure is not only or primarily material by nature. Giddens (1984, 377) defines social structure as ‘rules and resources, recursively implicated in the reproduction of social systems, existing only as memory traces, the organic basis of human knowledgeability, and instantiated in action’. Duality of structure is a central element in social structure. Social structure sets conditions and restrictions, while actors maintain and transform existing structures in situations and events in their day-to-day activity. (Giddens 1984, 25–28.)

Despite its promises, structuration theory has been criticized for its inability to analyse change and overcome micro-macro dualism (e.g. Archer 1996; Bates 2006; King 2010). The theory is also considered to provide little in the way of concrete solutions and to create the risk of unnecessary pressure among human actors by emphasizing the impact of the knowledgeable agent on structures (Wheeler-Brooks 2009). Harrikari and Rauhala (2019) also note that modern social theories, such as structuration theory, cannot be taken as self-evident in the current post-modern society with its multi-layered social systems. Instead, the relationship between the structure and the actor requires an empirical analysis of each context (ibid).

As a solution to the challenges of applying structuration theory in social work, Jennifer Wheeler-Brooks (2009) proposes an increase in consciousness and reinforcement of the empowerment orientation. We view empowerment orientation related to critical social work theory, which states that social work can use critical reflection to overcome bureaucratic structures and to provide an opportunity for alternative forms of organization and flexible structures (see Fook and Pease 1999, 225; McDonald 2006). Empowerment also draws on trust (Grell, Blom, and Ahmadi 2019; Ornellas et al. 2019). In empowering and trusting encounters, clients and social workers can share and combine their power to influence the social practices that surround them (Wheeler-Brooks 2009). Social work is also a powerful collective actor participating in structuration processes (Giddens 1984).

The stratification of the social work structure

For social work, discussion of the relationship between the structure and the actor is natural (McDonald 2006; Wheeler-Brooks 2009) as social work aims to affect the lives of individual citizens, societal structures and, above all, the relationship between them. Structuration theory (Giddens 1984) can be considered a suitable theory for understanding holistic social work as it provides a comprehensive way of structuring situations, as well as the opportunity to integrate various elements (Wheeler-Brooks 2009). Social work is an example of a deeply layered practice that forms and changes in the relationships between the institutional structure and the actors (Giddens 1984; Harrikari 2004). We interpret social work as one kind of social system with its own laws and practices – where the (social) structure of social work is created and re-created over and over again in interaction settings, in a broader societal context (see Giddens 1984, 25, 27). In their contemporary diagnosis, Harrikari and Rauhala (2019) state that current social work faces the simultaneous challenge of an increasingly complex social dimension and a shift away from its roots.

Despite the extent of the social work field, many established and institutionalized practices can be identified inside social work as ‘structural principles’ or ‘structural features’ (Giddens 1984, xxvii). For example, on a global scale, social work is guided by its common values, definition, goal and target (Günther, Raitakari, and Juhila 2015; Ornellas et al. 2019). Nationally, for example, the laws are strong social rules making impact on structuration (Giddens 1984, 23). At the same time, different social work organizations have locally developed practices, cultures, routines and attitudes. The resources and management of organizations, their explicit and implicit instructions and their regulations are also key contextual factors that affect the social work practice (Giddens 1984, 24; McDonald 2006; Grell, Blom, and Ahmadi 2019). Thus, the social structure of social work includes recognized, as well as unrecognized and unspoken, rules and practices, which are maintained and reformed by actors at different levels (Giddens 1984; Wheeler-Brooks 2009; Grell, Blom, and Ahmadi 2019).

The human actors in social work are the social workers and the clients; however, they do not have equal positions as actors. In relation to agency, social workers have professional and ethical obligations that are challenged by the clients’ needs and organizational requirements (Heffernan 2006; Laitinen and Niskala 2016; Slasberg and Beresford 2017; Grell, Blom, and Ahmadi 2019). Although social workers are qualified professionals, rather than operating in a completely independent manner, they are, at least to some degree, institutionalized and structured actors who perform repetitive routines and are socialized into the prevailing structure of the service system. In addition, clients are more or less socialized into the dominant practice of social work. Social workers and clients both operate according their situated and structured social roles, which are products of structuration processes. (Giddens 1984, xxv;)

The structuration of social practices, such as social work, is an interactive process that is, in addition to material factors, influenced by non-material ones, such as discourses and politics (Giddens 1984). A particularly strong influence on the current structure of social work, established in language use, practices and documentation, has come from managerialism and the new public management, which have increased the system-oriented – rather than client-oriented – nature of social work practice in response to the growing demand for administrative speech, various strict instructions, systematization and standardization, as well as economic efficiency (Beresford and Croft 2004; Heffernan 2006; McDonald 2006; Günther 2015; Ornellas et al. 2019). This managerialism leaves limited space for consideration of how social work and people-oriented, dynamically flexible structures could actually serve client orientation, as well as economic and efficiency goals (Yliruka and Karvinen-Niinikoski 2013). The current situation has been identified as a value crisis in social work (Ornellas et al. 2019, 1187) and the failure of social work to influence unequal institutionalized structures (McDonald 2006, 175). However, as social work is intrinsically tied to economic and political change, managerialism is not external to social work (Heffernan 2006, 140). Instead, social work is involved in the structuration processes of not just the social work structure but also the social structure of society (see Giddens 1984, 25).

Social work with disabled people as a research context

The structuration processes are contextual (Giddens 1984, xviii). In Finland, social work with disabled people is case- and process-based. Social case work traditionally focuses on individual situated cases, and the goal is to positively influence the relationship between the person and the environment (Richmond [1922] 1939). However, in recent years, disability activists and researchers have critically pointed out how social (case) work has been extensively replaced by case and care management dominated by financial accountability and the rationing of services (Oliver, Sapey, and Thomas 2012, 1). These features have also been identified in Finland (Laisi, Lappalainen, and Vauramo 2016). Along with clients’ needs, case management highlights, workers’ obligations to the service system. The concept of case management literally relates to the managerialist shift in welfare service delivery. (Beresford and Croft 2004; Xun 2019.)

In addition to applying some working methods over others, the social positions of social workers vary depending on the (social) hierarchies of the organization. Although Finnish social workers working in disability services should be able to act as client-oriented professionals, they quite often lack resources. In some organizations, for example, the power to make decisions concerning specific disability services has been transferred to social work supervisors. It is not also uncommon that a single social worker in disability services can be responsible for hundreds of clients. Due to the heavy workload, much of the direct client work is conducted by social counsellors instead of qualified social workers with university-level degree. (see Laisi, Lappalainen, and Vauramo 2016; Heini et al. 2019.)

The social work process can be defined as target-oriented work pertaining to the client and the situation and containing various events or a series of actions and the factors affecting it. The aim of the process is to achieve a positive change in the situation. The examination of social work as a process emphasizes its holistic nature. (Compton, Galaway, and Cournoyer 2005; Payne 2009) Richmond ([1922] 1939) described the social work process as part of social case work as a kind of problem-solving process that consists of collecting and processing diverse and relevant information about the client’s contextual situation, as well as solutions based on the information gathered and analysed.

We view the social work process as part of the social work structure. Despite the quite loose definition of the process above, which emphasizes actors and their reflexive agency, the social work process is quite rigidly structured and phased in the institutional social work practice. In the current practice, the social work process is easily seen as work phases performed by social workers, even though social work process concerns – above all – encounters between clients and social workers (Payne 2009). As result, the dominant bureaucratic social work process partly conflicts with the holistic, dynamic and contextual nature of social work. The linear model of the social work process does not express the true complexity of social work practices and decision-making processes. (Mackrill et al. 2018.)

In Finland, the social work process and related documentation are structured by law. From the administrative perspective, the process phases are defined as the initiation of proceedings, service needs assessment, service plan, decision-making and arrangement of services (Social Welfare Act, 2014). The Act on Social Welfare Client Documents (2015) specifies the essential documents associated with different phases of the process. The Act also obliges professional social welfare personnel to record sufficient and necessary information related to the planning, implementation and supervision of social services. Regarding social work with disabled people, the Act on Disability Services and Assistance (1987) sets deadlines for assessment and decision-making and states that a service plan must be compiled without delay and reassessed when necessary. Furthermore, according to the Act, decisions must be made promptly and within three months of an application at the latest.

Methodological frames

Research participants and data

The data consist of client documents related to the cases of seven (n = 7) persons aged 20–46 with a physical or visual impairment. At the time of data collection, the participants’ client relationships in disability services had lasted for years, but our study was limited to their most recent sub-process (see Payne 2009, 168) in which the participants, according to the client documents, were most commonly applying for extra hours related to their personal assistance services. The data, consisting of applications, client reports, combined service needs assessments and service plans, and decision-making documents, was collected in 2017. A total of 48 pages of data were included in the analysis.¹

The client documents could be classified not only as private and personal but also as official and institutional (Bryman 2008). Client documents have been produced since the earliest days of social work (Richmond [1922] 1939; Cumming et al. 2007; Doyle 2010; Savaya 2010), but the functions and practices of documentation, as well as practices in general, have been altered as part of the current policy changes (Günther 2015, 38–39). We understand documentation as a structured practice linked to case-based and processual social work, and client documents as providing a possible recording of the social work performed and its client orientation (see Günther 2012; Kivistö and Hautala 2020). As a part of structured practice, standardized forms influence writing and interaction in social work, and a more active interviewer role for the social worker generally provides less space for the client’s agency in documentation (Günther, Raitakari, and Juhila 2015; Martinell Barfoed 2018). Although studies have highlighted the idea that standardized forms add quality to social work documentation and ensure that limited resources are allocated to documentation that is based on necessity (Cumming et al. 2007; Skillmark and Denvall 2018), it is important to consider whether cases are documented from the client-oriented perspective of individual situations or whether system-oriented documentation forces those situations into a certain format shaped by standardized, mechanical and bureaucratic forms and practices (see Beresford and Croft 2004; Günther, Raitakari, and Juhila 2015; Martinell Barfoed 2018).

For social work, accurate documentation is an ethical obligation (Cumming et al. 2007). Despite this, previous research has shown how basic information, as well as entries about the impacts of social work interventions, are often missing from documents. In some cases, documentation has been identified as unclear, confusing and scarce. (Cumming et al. 2007; Savaya 2010; Kivistö 2014; Kivistö and Hautala 2020) Due to the variation in documentation, a national standard of structured documentation in social welfare is currently under implementation in Finland. Structured documentation means recording information in electronic customer data registers using uniform concepts and data structures. The structured documentation practice is justified for reasons related to information production and research, as well as process efficiency and management. Client orientation is also highlighted. (Rötsä et al. 2016.)

Research strategy and analysis

A case study (e.g. Byrne and Ragin 2009; Yin 2009) is considered as a potential method when the aim is to reveal some routines of practices that have previously remained hidden. We considered the case study research as a suitable method for our research because social work traditionally focuses on a case – a person in a situation (Richmond [1922] 1939). We applied a qualitative multiple case study approach (see Yin 2009, 142) and started by analysing the data as seven client-specific cases and then as two ‘combined cases’ with the findings from the individual cases presented in an aggregated format.

First, during the data-driven analysis phase, our aim was to use the documents to identify each client’s situation, as well as perceive what was happening in the case (see Payne 2009, 168). At this time, a short case description was written for each sub-process based on the documents. In the second phase, we moved to a theory-driven analysis, utilizing Giddens’s (1984) interpretation of the structuration of social practice. In this phase, we made observations about the client-specific case descriptions, which we then classified according to the structures, the actors and the relationships between them. We examined what happened in each case in light of the client orientation and system orientation, and in terms of the organization’s practices, social workers’ actions and clients’ agency, such as when applying for services, assessing needs or making a service plan or a decision related to services. We also evaluated the client orientation of each sub-process as a whole. During the third phase of the analysis, we summarized the observations made about the client-specific cases and reconstructed them into the two combined cases to represent a client-oriented and a system-oriented social work practice. Based on the analysis, the prevailing structure of social work practice lies between these two dimensions, reflecting intersections of client orientation and system orientation.

At the end of the analysis, we revisited the individual case descriptions in order to compare our observations to them.²

Ethical considerations

Research permit applications related to data collection were submitted to two disability service organizations located in different parts of Finland. The process complied with the ethical principles of research and the research permit practices of each organization and considered the ethical requirements that apply to register-based research, processing personal data and data management (Finnish advisory board on research integrity 2012). In addition, the clients gave their informed consent to use their documents for research purposes. A representative of the organization collected the documents from the client register system following instructions from the researcher. In accordance with the approved research plan, only one researcher (Author 1) had access to the original client documents.

Limitations

The study is based on a small set of data. The content of the data may have been influenced by a heavy workload, which can force social workers to prioritize other tasks ahead of documentation (Cumming et al. 2007). In addition, the data was collected at a time when the impacts of the national development of social work (structured) documentation in Finland were not yet visible. Furthermore, we recognize that the content of client documents is structured by the forms used and that client documents do not reveal everything that is discussed in social work encounters (Günther 2012; Günther, Raitakari, and Juhila 2015; Martinell Barfoed 2018).

The structuration of social work practice in intersections of client orientation and system orientation

According to Giddens (1984), structuration occurs particularly during interaction, determining the continuity or transformativity of the social structure. The encounters that took place in the individual cases in our data revealed reciprocal interaction, along with collisions between clients’ needs, social work actions and organizational structures. Client orientation and system orientation intersected in the cases reflecting varying shades between the two dimensions, depending on the case, process phase, encounter, or actor. For example, an individual client situation and need was highlighted at the beginning of a document, but ready-made model phrases were used at the end of the document to assign responsibility to the client. In some cases, the structural starting points appeared to be flexible at first, but the social worker’s actions became formal as the process moved ahead. The opposite was found in cases where; for example, clients were supposed to fill in a several-page-long application form due to system-oriented operating methods, but the social welfare professionals helped individual clients complete it.

Next, we present the two combined cases, which we interpret, in line with Giddens’s structuration theory (Giddens 1984), as presenting structuration processes of social work practice that is associated with the duality of structure in which the management structures are conditioning and restricting (Harrikari 2004, 31) and the existing practices are maintained or transformed in the interaction between the structure and the actors. We start with a case that we interpret as linked to the non-critical but – in many ways – unconscious maintenance of system-oriented practice. Then, we present a case that illustrates structuration of client-oriented social work practice in which actions are transformed according to the client’s needs.

A case in which system-oriented practice is maintained and reproduced

The interaction between structures and actors is not seamless in system-oriented social work practice, and, the activities are not focused on the client’s needs throughout this case. We use the term restricting to refer to organizational structures that prevent the fulfilment of the promise of client orientation. In restricting structures, social work practice appears static and driven by system-oriented rules. Restricting structures reflect strictly and, explicitly or implicitly, regulated practices, and make the background organization appear as a distant, passive system that has centralized power and is incapable of proactively impacting clients’ situations and related needs. Restricting structures are overly bureaucratic and do not further client-oriented power sharing. Instead, they can weaken the client’s trust in the service system and the social worker (Grell, Blom, and Ahmadi 2019). In the data, for example, many of the cases included a multi-step decision-making process in which the final decision on services was made by a social work supervisor instead of the front-line social worker who met with the client. Practices like this risk excluding both the client and the social worker. Repetitive fixed-term decisions made under restricting and standardized structures were also seen in the data even in relation to long-term clients with stable needs.

Restricting organizational structures strive to limit social workers’ opportunities for professional and ethical agency. We identified a type of social worker’s agency in the data that represents the maintenance of system-oriented practice. This type of agency is formal in nature. At first, a social worker with formal agency appears to act correctly when performing the work, such as assessing the need for services or compiling a service plan. However, upon more critical examination of the client documents, it seems that a social worker with formal agency prioritizes the organization and its rules instead of making the client’s needs the true basis for the work. In the case of formal agency, the social worker’s accountability obligation focuses more on the organization than on the client (Grell, Blom, and Ahmadi 2019). A social worker’s formal agency relates to organizational professionalism (Skillmark and Denvall 2018), which undermines professional identity, which is, above all, based on the ethical and moral foundation of social work (Beresford and Croft 2004). In such cases, the social worker is working superficially in relation to the aim and tasks of social work without truly being a professionally and ethically aware actor who strives for and is able to recognize those elements that prevent client orientation (McDonald 2006). Based on the data, rather than being explicit partner with the client, formally acting social worker appear as structured bureaucratic actor who maintains the dominant structure, even if it is system-oriented and oppressive.

Restricting organizational structures combined with a social worker’s formal agency can lead to social work practice in which the client is left with the main responsibility for action and interaction. We call this forced client agency. When forced, the client’s agency is not supported by the formal authorities even in those cases where the client clearly needs help to survive in the service system. Instead, clients have to rely on their relatives, non-governmental organizations (Grell, Blom, and Ahmadi 2019) or their personal assistants for information and support. In a forced agency situation, clients are also compelled to describe their needs over and over again.

In the following case description, we have reconstructed a case that combines the key factors from six of the seven individual cases in the data that we interpret as representing restricting organizational structures, the social worker’s formal agency and the client’s forced agency. As client orientation and system orientation intersected in most of the cases, the combined case also contains some features of client orientation, such as assessing needs and compiling a service plan through cooperation between the client and the professional. However, the case is prevailingly system-oriented.

At that time when the client, a woman aged 40, had previously contacted a social worker from disability services, she was still living with her parents and receiving personal assistance services in addition to the help provided by her parents. Based on the client documents, matters related to the implementation of personal assistance services were discussed during the home visit in accordance with the client’s reason for contact. In light of the client’s age and life situation, discussions related to independent living may also have been appropriate. However, the service plan made during the meeting included no notes about this topic.

The client contacted disability services again six months later. She was now moving out to live on her own and needed additional personal assistance services. The move was scheduled to take place in two weeks. A new comprehensive assessment was performed quickly in cooperation between the client, her parents and the social worker, but the notes in the service plan still did not indicate what was agreed in terms of how the process would move ahead. Instead, the following ready-made entry was made at the end of the plan: ‘the client must make contact two months before the plan expires so that it can be updated’. The validity of the service plan was two years.

Based on the subsequent documentation, the client had to submit a separate application and describe her needs in detail despite the jointly made assessment, her permanent disability and a long client relationship. Since the client required help in completing the written application, she was only able to submit the document a few weeks after the actual move had taken place.

At the organisation in question, the social work supervisor had official decision-making power concerning personal assistance services. In this case, the decision-making process took time. The client only received additional assistance two months after the move and the start of the need, and the decision only became valid on the day of the decision. Like the client’s earlier decision concerning personal assistance services, the new decision was valid for a fixed term covering the following two years. A note, again ready-made, reminding the client of her responsibilities was added at the end of the document: ‘The client has a notification obligation if the situation or conditions change[…]the client must submit a new application if the service need continues after the validity of this decision[…]the client is responsible for the costs of the service after the decision expires’.

This combined case illustrates the low level of social work involvement in the everyday lives of clients and the challenges to pro-actively meet upcoming changes in clients’ life situations, as well as the shortcomings in the properly-timed arrangement of services, when the social work practice is remote in relation to the client. These shortcomings revealed in the data are associated with deficiencies related to implementing planning based social work. The content of the service plans focused on the current situation of the client rather than her future plans and methods to achieve those goals (see Günther 2012; Günther, Raitakari, and Juhila 2015; Mackrill et al. 2018). One reason for this may be the multi-step decision-making process, which came up in the data. If social workers have no actual decision-making power regarding services, they may be unable to plan services in co-operation with the client and document those plans explicitly; they may also be unable to effectively implement plans and commit to the needs of the client (Kivistö 2014).

Overall, system-oriented social work practice is primarily guided by the organization’s bureaucratic operating culture rather than by the needs of the client. The combined case emphasized system-oriented practice, especially after the second service plan was compiled when the client was still required to submit a written report on her need regardless of the comprehensive assessment that was completed earlier in cooperation with a social worker. The combined case gives the impression that it is almost impossible to act in social work without the client taking the first action. In addition, the client was not helped at the right time in the case and not supported by the social worker despite her need for help with administrative procedures. Furthermore, the client was explicitly given the responsibility for continuing the service and requesting an update of the service plan.

A case in which client-oriented and transformative social work practice is presented

In client-oriented social work practice, the interaction between the structure and the actors appears fluent. We use the term enabling to refer to organizational structures that reflect client orientation. Enabling social work organizational structures are often characterized by their flexibility and informality (Payne 2009; Heini et al. 2019; Grell, Blom, and Ahmadi 2019). As attitudes are part of an organization’s structures, a general attitude of flexibility creates the possibility for a client-oriented beginning, smooth progress and good result for a case. Enabling organizational structures give social workers permission and the opportunity to focus their actions in the manner required by each individual situation. An organization with enabling structures trusts the employees and the clients, which is reflected in respect for employee competence and value placed on client participation (Grell, Blom, and Ahmadi 2019; Heini et al. 2019). Enabling structures make it easier for the client and the social worker to achieve the mutual understanding and partnership needed in social work. Enabling structures rely on the professional skills, reflexivity and judgement of the social workers and, in enabling structures, the social worker can adapt various methods to individual cases based on professional judgement and negotiations with the clients. Enabling structures provide social workers with sufficient resources and permission to initiate processes and contact clients without fear that emerging needs might lead to additional costs (see Heini et al. 2019). In the data, enabling organizational structures allowed social workers to take actions based on individual situations, such as accepting oral applications if they considered them necessary or making quick decisions on services by phone when needed, instead of having exclusively standard solutions that were the same regardless of the case.

As structuration of social practices is interactive, the flexibility of structure and the provision of space also depends on the actors (Giddens 1984). In addition to organizational boundary spanning, client-oriented social work practice requires flexibility related to the professional boundaries of employees (Beresford, Croft, and Adshead 2007; Grell, Blom, and Ahmadi 2019). Although social workers are often put into challenging positions as actors mediating organizational rules and clients’ needs, the data indicated how a social worker is able to act – as a conscious actor – in a case-based and client-oriented manner even in restricting structures when so required by the client’s needs (see Grell, Blom, and Ahmani 2019; McDonald 2006). We identified situated agency as a central feature of a social worker’s client-oriented activity. In situated agency, the social worker uses professional and ethical judgement throughout the case. A social worker with situated agency acts quickly in urgent matters and in a committed manner when more time is required. In situated agency, the social worker is active and alert by nature and ready to personally support the client’s agency when necessary.

When the organizational structures are enabling and the social worker has situated agency, it becomes possible for the client to have personalized agency. In this case, the client’s agency can be independent or supported, depending on the individual situation. A client’s personalized agency can be verified in different ways based on the case and the encounters in it. However, in contrast to social workers, the client’s agency should represent an opportunity rather than an obligation (Wheeler-Brooks 2009, 137).

The following combined case is a reconstruction of the client-oriented activities in three of the seven individual cases in the data. As client and system orientation intersected in most of the cases, the combined case contains also some features of system-oriented social work practice, such as the use of a several-page-long application form and a multi-step decision process. Despite this, the prevailing structure presented in the case is client-oriented.

The male client, aged around 45, had been using personal assistance services for years. Now he needed more personal assistance related to working and for starting a new hobby. The client contacted disability services, and a home visit was scheduled for only a few days later. The social worker informed the client that also a social counsellor, who had experience with personal assistance practices and the related options, would attend the meeting.

Several hours were reserved for the home visit, and a comprehensive assessment and a service plan were compiled in cooperation with the client. The recourses of client were considered and documented, as well as his service needs. He was also given a lot of guidance and counselling related to using the personal assistance service because the discussion revealed that he had experienced problems related to effective implementation of the service. During the discussion, the participants also assessed and negotiated in collaboration about the amount of personal assistance the client would need. The main points of the dialogue were documented in the client records, for example, as follows: ‘The client says he needs help all day long from early morning until late evening[…]. We pointed out and discussed with the client that he has managed without constant presence of the assistant until now. The client states that he cannot do anything else except being home and watching TV, as he cannot go outside home without his assistant[…]. The client was given instructions that[…]he can apply for more hours for personal assistance’. An application for extra hours was also compiled in cooperation during the home visit. The social counsellor helped the client fill in the application because writing was difficult for him, and the formal application was several pages long. Furthermore, the client was told that, in the future, he could submit the application orally if necessary and that the social worker and social counsellor would be willing to visit again if he needed any further guidance related to personal assistance or other services.

The client received a positive decision concerning extra hours of personal assistance on the following day. The decision was made in a very short period even though the authoritative decision-maker was the social work supervisor. The social worker and social counsellor who made the home visit had presented the matter to the supervisor as soon as possible after returning to the agency. They also prepared the case records immediately and as thoroughly as possible.

The organization’s enabling structures are tangible in the case as the general client-oriented attitude, as well as the sufficient resources that the social worker was able to allocate in the manner required by the client’s situation. Adequate resources offered by the organization can take various forms, such as the social worker’s ability to invite a work partner to participate in the process or arrange several meetings with the client, if necessary.

In client-oriented social work practice, enabling organizational structures allow social workers to concentrate on cooperation with the clients. Realization of client orientation means the client’s confidential relationship with a competent employee and the entire service system (Beresford, Croft, and Adshead 2007; Grell, Blom, and Ahmadi 2019). In client-oriented practice, clients can rely on their social worker to do everything possible to help them (Grell, Blom, and Ahmani 2019). This means that the requirement for social workers’ situated agency focusing on client needs also creates situations in which the social workers have to challenge prevailing organizational structures and use their professional and ethical judgement in a way that may differ from the standard routines and rules. In terms of verifying client orientation, the social worker’s use of professional judgement and situated agency has to be realized throughout the case rather than only be associated with a single process phase (Kivistö and Hautala 2020). For example, flexibly receiving an application over the telephone or helping a client fill in an application would not be enough to make the entire case client-oriented if the social worker then accepts – even in an urgent matter – a system-oriented, bureaucratic and time-consuming practice. The combined case presented above can also be considered client-oriented because the multi-step decision-making process that initially reflected system orientation progressed smoothly in the case. This demonstrates how human actors, such as social welfare professionals, have the opportunity to influence the structuration of social work practice.

The need for recognizing the duality of structure in social work practice

Discussion and conclusion

In this article, we have sought to make some of the structuration processes of social work practice visible. The focus was on the structuration of client-oriented and system-oriented social work practice in interaction settings between structure and actors. The context of the research located in social work with disabled people in Finland, and the data consisted client documents from seven individual cases.

The encounters between organizational structures and human actors that occur in the social work practice and can become visible in client documents appear to culminate in two elements – power and trust – which both can be understood as resources for the structuration of client-oriented social work practice. In an empowerment-oriented process (Wheeler-Brooks 2009), organizations with enabling structures give social workers the power to use their professional judgement and competence according to clients’ needs. Acting in the spirit of partnership and serving as situated mediators, social workers then transfer the power to clients. In client-oriented practice, the organization has confidence in its employees and their professionalism, and the organization and its employees trust the clients (Heini et al. 2019). Furthermore, in such a practice – clients are able to have a trustworthy relationship with both – the system and the worker who represents it (Beresford, Croft, and Adshead 2007; Grell, Blom, and Ahmadi 2019).

The consideration of client needs, which is the focus of client-oriented social work practice, is realized when the interaction between structure and actors is active, easy and reciprocal, and actions are conducted in true collaboration during encounters. In a client-oriented social work practice, this takes place in an open manner without clients needing to know in advance for which specific services they are applying and without having to adapt their individual needs to the organization’s standard service delivery and service-specific criteria (Beresford and Croft 2004; Payne 2009; Slasberg and Beresford 2017; Martinell Barfoed 2018). Client-oriented social work practice emphasizes the meaning of mutual negotiations between the client and the social worker and – instead of formally completing separate work phases – focuses on a more holistic and dynamic understanding of social work, which originates in the roots of social work but also includes the ability to respond to current and future challenges (Richmond [1922] 1939; Ebsen 2018; Harrikari and Rauhala 2019).

The main result derived from the analysis is that, the dimensions of client orientation and system orientation intersect in the structuration processes of social work practice. In terms of case study research, this indicates the complexity of a case (Byrne 2009, 2). In light of structuration theory this means structural contradiction as disjunction of structural principles of the (social work) system (Giddens 1984, 198). Our data suggested that, in some cases or at least during individual encounters, organizational structures are enabling and social workers act in a flexible and situated manner and in active collaboration with the client, committing to the client’s needs and enabling the client to have a personalized agency. However, the system-oriented practice appeared more frequently in the data than the client-oriented practice. This was manifested in the power relations of the two orientations in individual cases in which a larger number of cases were found to have a system orientation.

We propose that social workers as ethical professionals and knowledgeable agents should – regardless of the obligations of bureaucratic work and their structured and partly contradictory roles as case managers for example in social work in disability services – to position themselves more clearly on the side of the client, and in this way, explicitly build the much-invoked empowering partnership between social work and clients (see Richmond [1922] 1939; Beresford, Croft, and Adshead 2007; Wheeler-Brooks 2009; Xun 2019). The client orientation of social work should be visible also in every client document. Grell, Blom, and Ahmadi (2019) have also highlighted the need to invest in the relationship between social work and the client, as well as flexible social work organizational structures. However, they ask the relevant question of how much the freedom of actors can be increased without social work becoming too unpredictable and even chaotic, and from where the resources needed for flexible and situated social work would come (ibid). The challenge of social work is that, in addition to various material and non-material resources, it requires both systematicity and flexibility in its structure (Beresford and Croft 2004).

Based on the analysis, we argue that verification or a lack thereof regarding client orientation in the social work practice is structured as a continuous negotiation between structure and actors. Thus, we conclude that, every encounter in social work practice is, in principle, an event that simultaneously provides an opportunity to maintain or change the prevailing social work structure. As some consequences of structuring actions are unintended, non-critical maintenance and reproduction of system-oriented practice may happen unconsciously and as an easy alternative, whereas consciously structuring client-oriented practice requires various resources and types of effort (Giddens 1984, 27). As a starting point, the capability to structure client-oriented social work practice depends on actors’ ability to recognize the existing situation and all dimensions of structuration (Giddens 1984; Wheeler-Brooks 2009). As conscious, critical and reflective actors, individual social workers and social work as a collective are the key actors in terms of the structuration of client-oriented social work practice in encounters with clients (Giddens 1984; McDonald 2006).

There is an evident need for more research on this topic, which should also focus on the formal aspects of documentation, such as the standard forms and how those are completed in social work practice. Methodically, future research should utilize larger data sets and direct observation, as well as video or audio recordings on encounters, to supplement the data obtained from client documents. By observing the actual encounters, it is possible to learn more on the dynamic relationship between different structural arrangements and human agency in social work practice (see Giddens 1984).

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by European Social Fund (S20752) .

Notes

1. The final analysis did not include, for example, service plans that had been compiled several years earlier and were not updated during the client’s most recent sub-process.

2. Author 1 also reviewed the original client documents.