![](http://static.cambridge.org/content/id/urn:cambridge.org:id:book:9781447327219/resource/name/9781447327219i.jpg)
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of tables and figures
- Notes on contributors
- Preface
- one European social and caring professions in transition
- Part 1 Knowledge, reflection and identity in the social and caring welfare professions
- Part 2 Control, regulation and management
- Part 3 Collaboration, conflict and competition
- Part 4 Assessment, negotiation and decision making
- Index
fourteen - Can complexity in welfare professionals’ work be handled with standardised professional knowledge?
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 April 2022
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of tables and figures
- Notes on contributors
- Preface
- one European social and caring professions in transition
- Part 1 Knowledge, reflection and identity in the social and caring welfare professions
- Part 2 Control, regulation and management
- Part 3 Collaboration, conflict and competition
- Part 4 Assessment, negotiation and decision making
- Index
Summary
Introduction
In order to reduce uncertainty and complexity, and to prevent or manage the emergence of problematic situations in professional work, many welfare professions have experienced increased expectations to standardise and evidence base their professional practice (Grimen and Terum, 2009; Morago, 2010; Rexvid et al, 2012). To overcome problematic situations, reduce complexity and achieve best practice (Reynolds, 2000; Grimen and Terum, 2009), non-medical professions such as social workers are expected to adopt and implement the principles that underpin evidence-based medicine.
But what are the sources of complexity, uncertainty and problematic situations? In research on professions, complexity in professional work is often discussed in relation to the professional body of knowledge, and the role and use of expert knowledge (Larson, 1977; Abbott, 1988; Johnson, 1993; Freidson, 2004; Molander and Terum, 2010; Svensson and Karlsson, 2008; Svensson and Evetts, 2010). There is a tendency to relate professional success, problems, mishaps and shortcomings to flaws and limitations in the professions’ expert knowledge or how that expert knowledge is utilised (Abbott, 1988; Sackett et al, 1996; Sackett, 2000; Howitt and Armstrong, 1999; Sekimoto et al, 2006; Serour et al, 2009; Hasenfeld, 2010; Molander and Terum, 2010; Morago, 2010).
However, in this chapter we are going to argue that complexity and problematic situations in professional work can have other sources. More precisely, based on two empirical studies of social workers within Swedish social services, we are going to show how complexity and social workers’ perception of problematic situations stem out of everyday encounter with clients and the way that the work is organised.
The troublesome work organisation
In a Swedish study social workers reported that the way their work was organised gave rise to problematic situations and disrupted their professional practice (Perlinski, 2010; Perlinski et al, 2012). Based on the social workers’ description we have chosen to call them specialised professional rooms and multiple timetables. Specialised rooms refers to social workers’ description of how the work organisation divides their professional practice on several ‘hands’, thereby spatially separating social workers working with the same client. Multiple timetables refer to social workers’ notion that the work organisation put high demands on social workers to synchronise and coordinate their work.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Social and Caring Professions in European Welfare StatesPolicies, Services and Professional Practices, pp. 209 - 222Publisher: Bristol University PressPrint publication year: 2017
- 1
- Cited by