decisions not only about students’ academic potential but also about their suitability to be entered on the GSCC register.7 Furthermore, like their counterparts in teaching and nursing (Brown et al., 2006; Yam, 2004) social work courses exercise a regulatory function in delivering the prescribed curriculum. On the other hand, universities are not equal partners in regulation: their compliance with GSCC requirements is continuously monitored, and serious departures can lead to the suspension and closure of programmes (Lombard, 2010). The curriculum itself is open to politically driven change, evidenced by the creation of a Social Work Taskforce to address the most recently documented failings of the profession and social work education.
In this section, I have argued that professional registration and the Social Work Degree are linked elements of a historically specific discourse of regulation. I suggest that the curriculum is thus influenced as much by the regulatory discourse as by educational ones;
and that social work education occupies a (relatively) powerful position within the discourse. Professional registration itself, however, is subject to multiple and contradictory influences.
2.5 Conflicting threads in the argumentative texture
I have argued that discourses always intersect and co-exist with other discourses. Drawing on Laclau (1993), Wetherell (2001b:25) depicts this process as ‘an argumentative texture or a discursive fabric that brings together many different threads which can be combined and woven differently’. This can also be referred to as a ‘discursive space’ in which meanings are continually contested and evolve. How do these ideas contribute to an understanding of professional registration?
7 This is not a legal requirement, but agencies who provide practice placements can only claim funding for students who are on the GSCC register.
Social work registration is not unique to the UK. My literature review suggests that (like social work itself) registration has to be understood in the context of each country’s social conditions, welfare systems and wider governance (McDonald et al., 2003). In some countries - for example, Italy (Fargion, 2008) - registration is compulsory, whereas in others such as New Zealand, registration is on a voluntary basis (Orme and Rennie, 2006).
There is no register in Australia, although the Australian Association of Social Workers encourages practitioners to adopt the values and principles of self-regulation (Kent, 2006).
There are also differences between the meanings associated with social work registration.
For example, in the USA, it is a mark of professional standing (Edwards et al., 2006) and in some states is available only to those with a master’s level qualification (Strauss, 2008).
Registered social workers in America are said to ‘have greater autonomy and status’ than in the UK (Bisman, 2004:110). On the other hand, in New Zealand, social work registration is framed primarily as a means to protect service users and the public, with no explicit intention to improve the status of the profession (Orme and Rennie, 2006). It is clear, then, that the meaning of professional registration depends on the dominant professional and cultural discourses prevailing in a particular society.
Within England, there is evidence to suggest that the ‘argumentative texture’ of registration is characterised by the contrasting discourses of ‘professionalism’ and
‘control’. Introducing compulsory registration, Stephen Ladyman, then Community Care Minister, claimed that it would ‘help to elevate the profession's status to the same level as that of doctors or lawyers’ (Batty, 2004). The professionalism discourse, discussed in chapter 4, conveys powerful meanings: a regulated profession is associated with
trustworthiness and high standards. It has also been suggested that regulation conveys a mark of state approval on social work as a valuable occupation (McDonald et al., 2003).
On the other hand, the General Social Care Council’s website adopts a ‘control’ discourse;
it states its business to be ‘setting standards of conduct and practice for social care workers [,] … regulating the workforce, and … regulating social work education and training’
(GSCC, undated). Under the terms of the control discourse, social workers are seen as a potential threat to ‘vulnerable’ service users who need to be protected. From this perspective, registration can be interpreted as a challenge to professional integrity and autonomy, signalling that social workers are not to be trusted and require systems to control and regulate them (Banks, 2004; Ferguson, 2004). The tension between the discourses of professionalism and control will be considered again in chapter 9, which analyses student’s talk about registration.
Another set of competing discourses can be seen in the workings of the Care Standards Tribunal (CST), which considers appeals against decisions made by the GSCC. Reports of GSCC decisions and CST appeals are regularly discussed in the social work press, and thus, I suggest, contribute to the discursive meanings to which students are exposed in the workplace. Detailed reports of the Tribunal’s decisions can be found on its public website.
My analysis of twelve CST decision reports revealed inconsistencies (Appendix 2).
According to the GSCC (2008:18), the most commonly breached code is 5.8, which requires social workers to conduct themselves ‘suitably’ in private life. It is not surprising, therefore, that many of the appeals heard by the CST involve instances where behaviour out of work has given cause for concern: criminal offences; health issues; behaviours such as drinking alcohol; personal and sexual relationships; and other personal difficulties.
I found variation between the reports, in terms of the decisions made and the rationale given. In one case, the Tribunal takes the view that social workers’ misconduct cannot be overlooked because ‘once doubt has been cast on how they are seen by others, the damage is done’ (Care Standards Tribunal, 2006). In other reports, misconduct (criminal offences) did not result in the social workers’ removal from the register (Care Standards Tribunal, 2007; 2008b). Particularly surprising - given the GSCC’s guidance (2002: code 5.4) that social care workers must not ‘[form] inappropriate personal relationships with service users’ - is that two social workers had developed relationships with adult service users, and yet were not judged to be professionally unsuitable (Care Standards Tribunal, 2008a;
2008b). Misconduct, therefore, does not always lead the Tribunal panel to conclude that a social worker is unsuitable. Variation may arise because membership of Tribunal panels changes between cases (Pearl, 2008). However, another possibility is that it reflects competing discourses and perspectives at play in the Tribunal’s work.
Where proven misconduct does not lead to sanction, it appears that ‘risk’ is balanced against the social worker’s capacity for change: the Tribunal takes account of mitigating factors such as expressions of remorse, evidence of an otherwise ‘good character’ and their own judgement that no risk is posed to the public. In another case, the panel weighs up a social worker’s right to a private life against the ‘public interest’. It concludes that, in becoming registered, social workers bring their private life into contact with their public life, and therefore:
any ‘right’ to an unrestricted social life must give way to the wider public interest in ensuring that professionals do not present a risk to service users (Care Standards Tribunal, 2008a:13).
These comments reinforce the argument that registration requires social workers’ private lives to be available for scrutiny. Thus it appears that, as Clark (2006) suggests, the private and professional lives of social workers cannot be separated.
The findings from my examination of CST reports accord with K. McLaughlin’s (2010) analysis, which draws attention to the inconsistencies in CST judgements. He argues that these reflect a lack of clarity and transparency in how the GSCC requirements are to be interpreted. My own concern, however, is not so much to evaluate the regulatory requirements but rather to explore what the inconsistencies suggest about competing discourses inherent in professional registration.
Earlier in this chapter I discussed the idea that discourses rely on being continually reproduced, through texts and practices, to remain powerful. However, Foucault (1994a:324) argues that ‘[t]here is no power without potential refusal or revolt’ because discourses and power always contain the seeds of resistance. This goes hand in hand with the fluid nature of discourse: just as meanings are produced through discourse, they can also be subverted and changed. Resistance can take many forms. The more subtle and personal expressions of resistance will be discussed further in chapter 3. Another kind of resistance is expressed through collective actions and debates. For example, some social work academics and practitioners have resisted the trend towards ‘professionalisation’, arguing that its elitist connotations set up barriers between practitioners and service users (Payne, 2002).
The mechanism for appeals against GSCC decisions provides an opportunity for individuals to challenge the regulatory discourse, albeit within institutionalised parameters.
Perhaps equally significant, however, are practitioners’ online debates (Community Care, 2006), in response to press reports about GSCC decisions and CST appeals. These forums provide the space for resistance to be expressed: as discussed in chapter 1, debates typically raise questions about the definition of misconduct, and the privacy of individual workers. More recently, a survey by Community Care (Hayes, 2008) found that only fifty-three per cent of respondents agreed that social workers’ private lives should be subject to care councils’ conduct processes; a quarter disagreed, and fifteen per cent were undecided.
Practitioner debates - reflecting a mixture of views, both compliant and resistant - indicate the range of discourses which circulate in students’ workplaces and practice learning placements, and thus provide a resource for understanding talk about registration.
Reviewing this section, the evidence supports the idea that professional registration can be seen as a ‘discursive space’ in which meanings are continually contested. The meanings are contingent on differing professional, cultural and workplace contexts; and on conflicting ideas about professionalism versus control, risk versus rights, and even about human nature. The notion of contested meanings provides a resource for analysing students’ talk, particularly in relation to the discussion of personal and professional life in chapter 8. In chapter 9, the concept of resistance provides a way to interpret data that appears initially puzzling. I have indicated that certain discursive meanings emerge from an analysis of academic and policy texts; I now want to consider the advantages - and some drawbacks - of using discourse analysis as a research method.