Meanings of a client-employee relationship in social work: clients’ perspectives on desisting from crime

References

• Alexander, C., and G. Charles. 2009. “Caring, Mutuality and Reciprocity in Social Worker–Client Relationships: Rethinking Principles of Practice.” Journal of Social Work 9 (1): 5–22. doi:10.1177/1468017308098420.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bagnall, A., J. South, C. Hulme, J. Woodall, K. Vinall-Collier, G. Raine, K. Kinsella, R. Dixey, L. Harris, and N. M. J. Wright. 2015. “A Systematic Review of the Effectiveness and Cost-effectiveness of Peer Education and Peer Support in Prisons.” BMC Public Health 15 (290): 2–30. doi:10.1186/s12889-015-1584-x.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Berger, P. L., and T. Luckman. 1966. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Garden City: Anchor Books.
   Google Scholar
• Billig, M. 1987. Arguing and Thinking. A Rhetorical Approach to Social Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bottoms, A., J. Shapland, A. Costello, D. Holmes, and G. Muir. 2004. “Towards Desistance: Theoretical Underpinnings for an Empirical Study.” The Howard Journal of Crime and Justice 43 (4): 368–389. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2311.2004.00336.x.
   Google Scholar
• Burnett, R., and F. McNeill. 2005. “The Place of the Officer–Offender Relationship in Assisting Offenders to Desist from Crime.” Probation Journal 52 (3): 221–242. doi:10.1177/0264550505055112.
   Google Scholar
• Croft, S., P. Beresford, and E. Wulff-Cochrane. 2004. “The Future of Social Work.” In Managing Front Line Practice in Social Care (Research Highlights in Social Work), edited by D. Statham, 25–46. New York: Kingsley Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Farrall, S. 2004. “Social Capital and Offender Reintegration: Making Probation Desistance Focused.” In After Crime and Punishment: Pathways to Offender Reintegration, edited by S. Maruna and R. Immarigeon, 57–84. Cullompton: Willan Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Farrall, S., and A. Calverley. 2006. Understanding Desistance from Crime: Emerging Theoretical Directions in Resettlement and Rehabilitation. Maidenhead, Berkshire, England: Open University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fletcher, D. R., and E. Batty. 2012. “Offender Peer Interventions: What Do We Know?” Centre for regional Economic and Social Research. Sheffield Hallam University. Accessed 9 July 2020. https://www4.shu.ac.uk/research/cresr/sites/shu.ac.uk/files/offender-peer-interventions.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Giordano, P. C., S. A. Cernkovich, and J. L. Rudolph. 2002. Gender, Crime, and Desistance: Toward a Theory of Cognitive Transformation. Vol. 1, 990–1064. Sociology Faculty Publications. University of Chicago Press. doi:10.1086/343191.
   Google Scholar
• Hansen, H. C., and S. Natland. 2017. “The Working Relationship between Social Worker and Service User in an Activation Policy Context.” Nordic Social Work Research 7 (2): 101–114. doi:10.1080/2156857X.2016.1221850.
   Google Scholar
• Healy, D. 2010. The Dynamics of Desistance: Charting Pathways Through Change. Devon: Willan.
   Google Scholar
• Jokinen, A. 2016. “Asiakkaan ja Sosiaalityöntekijän Välinen Suhde [Relationship between a Client and a Social Worker].” In Vastavuoroinen Sosiaalityö, [Reciprocal Social Work], edited by M. Törrönen, K. Hänninen, P. Jouttimäki, T. Lehto-Lundén, P. Salovaara, and M. Veistilä, 138–147. Helsinki: Gaudeamus.
   Google Scholar
• Juhila, K. 2006. Sosiaalityöntekijöinä ja Asiakkaina. Sosiaalityön Yhteiskunnalliset Tehtävät ja Paikat [As Social Workers and Clients. The Societal Functions and Places of Social Work]. Tampere: Vastapaino.
   Google Scholar
• Juhila, K., Å. Mäkitalo, and M. Noordegraaf. 2014. “Analysing Social Work Interaction: Premises and Approaches.” In Analysing Social Work Communication: Discourse in Practice, edited by C. Hall, K. Juhila, M. Matarese, and C. Van Nijnatten, 9–24. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Juhila, K., and L. Abrams. 2011. “Special Issue Editorial: Constructing Identities in Social Work Settings.” Qualitative Social Work 10 (3): 277–292. doi:10.1177/1473325011409480.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Järveläinen, E., and T. Rantanen. 2019. ”Social Interaction between Employee and Offender in Supervised Probationary Freedom in Finland.” Nordic Journal of Criminology, 20 (2): 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/2578983X.2019.1637093
   Google Scholar
• Kaufman, N. 2015. “Prisoner Incorporation: The Work of the State and Non-governmental Organizations.” Theoretical Criminology 19 (4): 534–553. doi:10.1177/1362480614567172.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kazemian, L. 2007. “Desistance from Crime. Theoretical, Empirical, Methodological and Policy Considerations.” Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 23 (1): 5–27. doi:10.1177/1043986206298940.
   Google Scholar
• King, S. 2013. “Assisted Desistance and Experiences of Probation Supervision.” Probation Journal 60 (2): 136–151. doi:10.1177/0264550513478320.
   Google Scholar
• Laub, J., and R. Sampson. 2001. “Understanding Desistance from Crime.” Crime and Justice 28: 1–69. doi:10.1086/652208.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LeBel, T. P., R. Burnett, S. Maruna, and S. Bushway. 2008. “The `Chicken and Egg’ of Subjective and Social Factors in Desistance from Crime.” European Journal of Criminology 5 (2): 131–159. doi:10.1177/1477370807087640.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCulloch, T. 2005. “Probation, Social Context and Desistance: Retracing the Relationship.” Probation Journal. The Journal of Community and Criminal Justice 52 (1): 8–22. doi:10.1177/0264550505050623.
   Google Scholar
• McNeill, F., D. Bracken, and A. Clarke. 2010. “Social Work in Criminal Justice.” In The SAGE Handbook of Social Work Research, edited by I. Shaw, K. Briar-Lawson, J. Orme, and R. Ruckdeschel, 447–462. London: SAGE Publications.
   Google Scholar
• McNeill, F., and B. Weaver. 2010. “Changing Lives? Desistance Research and Offender Management.” Research Report No. 3/2010. Scottish Centre for Crime and Justice. Accessed 8 July 2020. https://www.sccjr.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Report_2010_03_-_Changing_Lives.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Peltola, S., and K. M. Vesala. 2013. “Constructing Entrepreneurial Orientation in a Selling Context: The Qualitative Attitude Approach.” Poznan University of Economics Review 13 (1): 26–47. Accessed 8 July 2020. https://www.ebr.edu.pl/pub/2013126.pdf.http://www.puereview.ue.poznan.pl/pdf/12-57.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Pyysiäinen, J., and K. M. Vesala. 2013. “Activating Farmers. Uses of Entrepreneurship Discourse in the Rhetoric of Policy Implementers.” Discourse & Communication 7 (1): 55–73. doi:10.1177/1750481312466475.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reamer, F. G. 2003. “Boundary Issues in Social Work: Managing Dual Relationships.” Social Work 48 (1): 121–133. doi:10.1093/sw/48.1.121.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rollins, W.2020. “Social Worker–client Relationships: Social Worker Perspectives.” Australian Social Work 73 (4): 395–407. doi:10.1080/0312407X.2019.1669687.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruch, G., D. Turney, and A. Ward, Eds. 2018. Relationship-based Social Work: Getting to the Heart of Practice. Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Sampson, R. J., and J. H. Laub. 2003. “Desistance from Crime over the Life Course.” In Handbook of the Life Course. Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research, edited by J. T. Mortimer and M. J. Shanahan, 295–310. New York: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Shapland, J., A. Bottoms, S. Farrall, F. McNeill, C. Priede, and G. Robinson. 2012. “Quality of Probation Supervision – A Literature Review.” Occasional Paper 3. Centre for Criminological Research. University of Sheffield. Accessed 8 July 2020. https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/polopoly_fs/1.159010!/file/QualityofProbationSupervision.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Simmonds, J. 2018. “Relating and Relationships in Supervision. Supportive and Companionable or Dominant and Submissive?” In Relationship-based Social Work: Getting to the Heart of Practice, edited by G. Ruch, D. Turney, and A. Ward, 221–236. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• The Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity (TENK). 2012. “Responsible Conduct of Research and Procedures for Handling Allegations of Misconduct in Finland.” Accessed 8 July 2020.https://www.tenk.fi/sites/tenk.fi/files/HTK_ohje_2012.pdf
   Google Scholar
• The Finnish National Board on Research Integrity (TENK).2019. “The Ethical Principles of Research with Human Participants and Ethical Review in the Human Sciences in Finland.” Finnish National Board on Research Integrity guidelines, 3/2019. Accessed 8 July 2020. https://www.tenk.fi/sites/tenk.fi/files/Ihmistieteiden_eettisen_ennakkoarvioinnin_ohje_2019.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Toikko, T. 2009. ”Tapauskohtainen Sosiaalityö [Case Work].“ In Sosiaalityö ja Teoria [Social Work and Theory], edited by M. Mäntysaari, A. Pohjola, and T. Pösö, 271–291. Jyväskylä: PS-kustannus.
   Google Scholar
• Turner, S. 2010. “Case Management in Corrections: Evidence, Issues and Challenges.” In Offender Supervision New Directions in Theory, Research and Practice, edited by F. McNeill, P. Raynor, and C. Trotter, 344–366. New York: William Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Turney, D. 2018. “Sustaining Relationships: Working with Strong Feelings.” In Relationship-based Social Work: Getting to the Heart of Practice, edited by G. Ruch, D. Turney, and A. Ward, 129–145. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• The Probationary Liberty under Supervision Act (629/2013). Finlex. 2013
   Google Scholar
• Vesala, K. M., and T. Rantanen. 2007. ”Laadullinen Asennetutkimus: Lähtökohtia, Periaatteita, Mahdollisuuksia [Qualitative Attitude Approach: Departure Points, Principles, Possibilities].” In Argumentaatio ja Tulkinta: Laadullisen Asennetutkimuksen Lähestymistapa[Argumentation and Interpretation: Qualitative Attitude Approach], edited by K. M. Vesala and T. Rantanen, 11–61. Helsinki: Gaudeamus
   Google Scholar
• Weaver, B., and F. McNeill. 2012. “Managing Cases or Supporting Change? Some Implications of Desistance Research for Case Management”. EuroVista: Probation and Community Justice 2 (2): 97–108. Accessed 8 July 2020. https://www.cep-probation.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/VOL-2.2-Managing-cases-or-supporting-change-Some-implications-of-desistance-research-for-case-management.pdf
   Google Scholar