Applying standardisation tools in social work practice from the perspectives of social workers, managers, and politicians: a Swedish case study

References

• Agevall, L., Jonnergård, K., & Krantz, J. (2017). Frihet under ansvar eller ansvar under tillsyn?: Om dokumentstyrning av professioner [ Freedom under responsibility or responsibility under transparency? About management by document of professions]. Växjö: Linnaeus University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Broadhurst, K., Hall, C., Wastell, D., White, S., & Pithouse, A. (2010). Risk, instrumentalism and the humane project in social work: Identifying the informal logics of risk management in children’s statutory services. British Journal of Social Work, 40(4), 1046–1064. doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bcq011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Broadhurst, K., Wastell, D., White, S., Hall, S., Peckover, K., Pithouse, A., & Davey, D. (2010). Performing ‘initial assessment’ identifying the latent conditions for error at the front-door of local authority children’s services. British Journal of Social Work, 40(2), 352–370. doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bcn162
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brodkin, E. Z. (1997). Inside the welfare contract: Discretion and accountability in state welfare administration. Social Service Review, 71(1), 1–33. doi: 10.1086/604228
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cleaver, H., & Walker, S. (2004). From policy to practice: The implementation of a new framework for social work assessments of children and families. Child and Family Social Work, 9, 81–90. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2206.2004.00314.x
   Google Scholar
• de Witte, J., Declerq, A., & Hermans, K. (2016). Street-level strategies of child welfare social workers in Flanders: The use of electronic client records in practice. British Journal of Social Work, 46(5), 1249–1265. doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bcv076
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans, T. (2010). Professional discretion in welfare services. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
   Google Scholar
• Evetts, J. (2010). Reconnecting professional occupations with professional organizations: Risks and opportunities. In L. Svensson & J. Evetts (Eds.), Sociology of professions: Continental and Anglo-Saxon traditions (pp. 123–144). Borås: Daidalos.
   Google Scholar
• Fixsen, D., Blasé, K., Naoom, S., & Duda, M. (2013). Implementation drivers: Assessing best practice. National Implementation Science Network (NIRN). Chapel Hill, NC: Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute, University of North Carolina.
   Google Scholar
• Gillingham, P., & Humphreys, C. (2010). Child protection practitioners and decision-making tools: Observations and reflections from the front line. British Journal of Social Work, 40(8), 2598–2616. doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bcp155
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gubrium, J. F., Buckholdt, D. R., & Lynott, R. J. (1989). The descriptive tyranny of forms. Perspectives on Social Problems, 1, 195–214.
   Google Scholar
• Hall, C., Parton, N., Peckover, S., & White, S. (2010). Child-centric information and communication technology (ICT) and the fragmentation of child welfare practice in England. Journal of Social Policy, 39(3), 393–413. doi: 10.1017/S0047279410000012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hasenfeld, Y. (Ed.). (2010). Human services as complex organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Høybye-Mortensen, M. (2015). Decision-making tools and their influence on caseworker’s room for discretion. British Journal of Social Work, 45(2), 600–615. doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bct144
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huuskonen, S., & Vakkari, P. (2013). ‘I did it my way’: Social workers as secondary designers of a client information system. Information Processing & Management, 49(1), 380–391. doi: 10.1016/j.ipm.2012.05.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johansson, S. (2010). Implementing evidence-based practices and programmes in the human services: Lessons from research in public administration. European Journal of Social Work, 13(1), 109–125. doi: 10.1080/13691450903135691
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kitzinger, J. (1994). The methodology of focus groups: The importance of interaction between research participants. Sociology of Health and Illness, 16(1), 103–121. doi: 10.1111/1467-9566.ep11347023
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kouzes, J., & Mico, P. (1979). Domain theory: An introduction to organizational behaviour in human organizations. The Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, 15(4), 449–469. doi: 10.1177/002188637901500402
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lauri, M. (2016). Narratives of governing: Rationalization, responsibility and resistance in social work (Doctoral dissertation). Umeå University, Umeå.
   Google Scholar
• Layder, D. (1998). Sociological practice: Linking theory and social research. London, UK: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Lipsky, M. (2010). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public service. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Martinell Barfoed, E., & Jacobsson, K. (2012). Moving from ‘gut feeling’ to ‘pure facts’: Launching the ASI interview as part of in-service training for social workers. Nordic Social Work Research, 2(1), 5–20. doi: 10.1080/2156857X.2012.667245
   Google Scholar
• Matscheck, D., & Berg Eklundh, L. (2015). Does BBIC make a difference? Structured assessment of child protection and support. Nordic Social Work Research, 5(3), 193–211. doi: 10.1080/2156857X.2014.986749
   Google Scholar
• Munro, E. (2004). The impact of audit on social work practice. British Journal of Social Work, 34(8), 1075–1095. doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bch130
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Board of Health and Welfare. (2008). Social barnavård i förändring [ Social child care in transition]. Stockholm: Socialstyrelsen.
   Google Scholar
• Nygren, L., Hyvönen, U., & Khoo, E. (2009). The travelling idea of looking after children: Conditions for moulding a systematic approach in child welfare into three national contexts – Australia, Canada and Sweden. Australian Social Work, 62(4), 491–506. doi: 10.1080/03124070903281135
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ponnert, L., & Svensson, K. (2016). Standardisation – the end of professional discretion? European Journal of Social Work, 19(3–4), 586–599. doi: 10.1080/13691457.2015.1074551
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Power, M. (1997). The audit society: Rituals of verification. Oxford, UK: OUP
   Google Scholar
• Scott, M. B., & Lyman, S. M. (1968). Accounts. American Sociological Review, 33(1), 46–62. doi: 10.2307/2092239
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seale, C. (1999). The quality of qualitative research. London, UK: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Shanks, E., Lundström, T., & Wiklund, S. (2015). Middle managers in social work: Professional identity and management in a marketised welfare state. British Journal of Social Work, 45(6), 1871–1887. doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bcu061
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shaw, I., Bell, M., Sinclair, I., Sloper, P., Mitchell, W., Dyson, P., … Rafferty, J. (2009). An exemplary scheme? An evaluation of the Integrated Children’s System. British Journal of Social Work, 39(4), 613–626. doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bcp040
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skillmark, M., & Denvall, V. (2017). The standardizers: Social workers’ role when implementing assessment tools in the Swedish social services. Nordic Social Work Research, 8(1), 88–99. doi: 10.1080/2156857X.2017.1309678
   Google Scholar
• Svensson, L. (2010). Professions, organizations, collegiality and accountability. In L. Svensson & J. Evetts (Eds.), Sociology of professions: Continental and Anglo-Saxon traditions (pp. 145–166). Borås: Daidalos.
   Google Scholar
• The Personal Data Act 1998:204. The Swedish Government, Ministry of Justice.
   Google Scholar
• Wastell, D., White, S., Broadhurst, K., Peckover, K., & Pithouse, A. (2010). Children’s services in the iron cage of performance management: Street-level bureaucracy and the spectre of Svejkism. International Journal of Social Welfare, 19(3), 310–320. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2397.2009.00716.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• White, S., Broadhurst, K., Wastell, D., Peckover, S., Hall, C., & Pithouse, A. (2009). Whither practice-near research in the modernization programme? Policy blunders in children’s services. Journal of Social Work Practice, 23(4), 401–411. doi: 10.1080/02650530903374945
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• White, S., Hall, C., & Peckover, S. (2009). The descriptive tyranny of the Common Assessment Framework: Technologies of categorization and professional practice in child welfare. British Journal of Social Work, 39(7), 1197–1217. doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bcn053
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• White, S., Wastell, D., Broadhurst, K., & Hall, C. (2010). When policy o’erleaps itself: The ‘tragic tale’ of the Integrated Children’s System. Critical Social Policy, 30(3), 405–429. doi: 10.1177/0261018310367675
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). London, UK: Sage.
   Google Scholar