Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Identity of clients and social workers in service provision: an institutional logics perspective
Ersta Sköndal Bräcke University College, Department of Social Sciences. Stockholms universitet.ORCID iD: 0000-0001-7116-5601
2020 (English)In: Social Work & Social Sciences Review, ISSN 0953-5225, E-ISSN 1746-6105, Vol. 1, no 3, p. 46-66Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

This article illustrates how the theory of institutional logics can be used for analyzing the identity of social workers and clients, focusing on people processing that precedes treatment (control access, assessment, and treatment deliberation, among others). The article has two research questions: (1) What identities of social workers and clients can be distinguished by institutional logics? (2) How are identities intertwined in practice (exemplified by well-established decision-making models such as evidence-based practice, family group conference, and government by voucher)? Identity is examined using institutional logics and the findings reported in the current body of social work literature. The article derives two conclusions. The first conclusion is that institutional logics can be used for distinguishing ideal type identities: three client identities, namely taken care of community member (community logic), active citizen (participatory democracy logic), and consumer (market logic); and three social worker identities, namely professional (professional logic), bureaucrat (State logic), and executor of management directives (corporation logic). The second conclusion is that identities and institutional logics coexist in well-established models for processing people and treatment deliberation, but the conditions for coexistence differ. For instance, evidence-based practice is characterized by segregation (a bureaucratic and a professional alignment have been separated from the original version of EBP), whereas family group conference and government by voucher are typified by assimilation (logics coexist with the core elements of original logics preserved).

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2020. Vol. 1, no 3, p. 46-66
Keywords [en]
Social work, Institutional logics, People processing, Decision-making
National Category
Social Work
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:esh:diva-8310DOI: 10.1921/swssr.v21i3.1340OAI: oai:DiVA.org:esh-8310DiVA, id: diva2:1460755
Available from: 2020-08-25 Created: 2020-08-25 Last updated: 2022-01-04Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full text

Authority records

Wollter, Filip

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Wollter, Filip
By organisation
Department of Social Sciences
In the same journal
Social Work & Social Sciences Review
Social Work

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 693 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf