Format and Explanations

The question format arrived at is set out below. The interviews were not totally inorganic in that clarifications were provided and derivative or different questions were asked at times, but the following questions were put to all the research participants. An explanation of the thought processes behind the construction of each question is set out in order to illustrate the intent of this work.

Section One:

Practice Location (Context of practice) - How do experienced social workers describe their experience of the socio-political location of social work?

1. Who are your clients? – Do they tend to be come from any particular section of society? If so, what do you think this means for you and your clients? This opening question is clearly intended to elicit views about the relative socio- economic positioning of social work clients. The final part of this question - what societal positioning may ‘mean’ in practice for social workers and their clients? - is intentionally open-ended. The aim is to ‘test’ the perception that clients are drawn disproportionately from lower socio-economic groupings. However, I am also interesting in developing our understanding of what social workers think about the consequences of socio-economic factors for their work, the lives of their clients and their relationships with their clients. I wanted to be open to new ideas and perspectives rather than limit responses to my existing perceptions.

2. Do you advocate for your clients? Can you tell me about this?

As described above, this question was partially designed to prepare ground for consideration of the question that follows. However client advocacy is arguably common to all forms of social work and I am looking to see if this is universally acknowledged by participants. Also the question potentially links to the notion of speaking for others and the care needed in relation to the pit-falls associated with this process. Finally the idea of ‘getting close’ - engaging with the lived reality of client experience - can also be associated with the concept of advocacy. This creates the possibility of generating data with wider implications. For example such data could be associated with the process of gaining a deeper understanding of the ‘other’s world’ or

of insight into the relations of power between those who seek access to resources and those who decide who is eligible. In this way a seemingly straightforward question can generate data that is potentially relevant to much wider constructions.

3. Social workers have been described as occupying an ‘in-between’ location and performing a mediating role. Is this consistent with your experience? If so, can you describe this?

As indicated above this is a direct question about the notion of ‘in-between’ positioning. The link to the concept of mediating proved slightly controversial in that some social workers who affirmed the in-between concept questioned the idea of ‘mediating’ - preferring the notion of strong advocacy to the connotation of compromise which they associated with mediation. This question is also designed to potentially identify data relevant to wider questions about power in the social world and social workers’ perceptions (or perhaps ‘positional view’) in relation to power, privilege and social capital. Such issues are considered to be too conceptually difficult to translate meaningfully into specific questions for an interview such as this. However the aim is to indirectly create the possibility for data to emerge that is consistent with more complex constructions. These constructions may be prefigured to some degree but they may also be emergent and unforeseen.

4. Are there some clients that you can’t work with because they fail to qualify for assistance or refuse to accept assistance for some reason? If so, can you tell me how you feel about this?

This question is also broadly expressed and designed to elicit an interpretive response from participants. It is designed to include the issue of emotional involvement or investment in client ‘welfare’ (or perhaps in commitment to client well-being through social work engagement). This is why emphasis is placed on ‘feelings’ that may be generated for the social worker. It also potentially captures beliefs about self- responsibility and choice that may or may not resonate with the foregoing theoretical discussion about the political construction of social work in the neo-liberal era. Alternately there is potential for data to be generated in relation to exceptions, special cases and the ‘bending’ of rules in relation to client need and eligibility for assistance - the ‘impulse to inclusion’ that has been theorised as a ‘big picture’ component of the social work ethos. In this sense question 5 (below) is prefigured as per questions 2 and 3 (above).

5. What about cases that are borderline or ‘grey’ areas? Can you tell me about how you manage these situations?

This question is concerned with the notion of inclusion and potential conflict between this ‘reflex’ and agency mandates / resource constraints. The idea of managing borderline situations potentially relates to the concept of ‘practice discretion’ and the power which individual social workers are able to exercise. This notion touches on the issue of how this discretion - if it exists - may be constructed and managed. This in turn prefigures the later question (8 below) regarding the moral parameters of social work judgements about inclusion. As is the case with question 3, there is potential for emerging data to inform theory construction that extends well beyond the prima facie question.

6. Are there some clients that you go the ‘extra mile’ for? What sort of situations might this apply to?

This question is also facilitated by the previous question to a degree. It is asking for reflection about the application of discretion and motivations for exceptional practice in particular situations. Potentially it refers to some of the tensions underlying social work practice - namely the injunction to treat all clients with equal care, the posited imperative to enable those who are excluded, and also where social work sits in relation to socio-political constructions which position some people as being of greater social or moral worth than others.

7. Do you ever take risks in practice? If so, can you tell me about this?

This question is both closed and open. I am interested in responses to the direct enquiry as to whether or not risk taking occurs and beyond that I am seeking to hear whatever participants have to say. The aim is to invite participants to describe responses to any perceived conflicts in their ‘own words’ as opposed to unduly influencing their answers. The question aims to explore some of the conflicted terrain which the literature discussion identifies as part and parcel of social work. ‘Risk’ is particularly topical in contemporary practice for a number of reasons. There is little disagreement that social work, particularly, statutory work, has become increasingly preoccupied with risk measurement, avoidance and minimisation. Organisationally social workers are constrained from engaging in risky practice. Alternately social workers work with the human condition in the context of social circumstance. By its nature such work is uncertain and contingent: inherently ‘risky’. Social workers are concerned about ‘doing no harm’ to the human lives which their practice inevitably

influences. However social workers are arguably concerned with human potential - possibility as much as probability. In relation to question 6 (above) social workers are asked to consider the making of ‘exceptions’ to some degree. Exceptions to rules are inherently ‘risky’.

8. Are some of the decisions that you make in your work difficult? If so, what guides you when you make difficult decisions? Is your practice influenced by moral values?

This question also connects to several of the previous questions. It invites participants to ponder the complexity of social work practice and to consider the influences which may impact upon decision making processes. It encourages interviewees to consider this issue broadly and is potentially suggestive of the ‘contextual analysis’ motif which recurs within this thesis. It also implicitly ‘begs the question’ as to whether personal and/or professional social work practice values (values and beliefs embedded in a moral / political position) are applied in the process of practice. It may also potentially yield data about any tension that can exist between such a values system and practice as it is organisationally and politically situated.

9. Is awareness of power important in social work? If so can you tell me about this?

We return to a wider theme here and again I am looking for information that will generate further analysis. It is intended that earlier questions will have provided some degree of preparation for a broad consideration of the various ways in which relations of power may impact upon social work practice. The question has been posed in this relatively unstructured way because I am reluctant to pre-empt the ways in which social workers may describe their perceptions.

10. Do you think that social work practice has a special area of knowledge and skill? If so, can you describe this?

This question is designed to encourage participants to articulate what, if anything, they believe might set the practice of social work apart. I am interested in the degree to which concepts described or developed in the foregoing interview are drawn upon and also whether new or unexpected answers are supplied. Again I have pre-existing broad formative ideas about positioning in the social world and the socio-historical ‘place’ of social work. However I am mindful of not clouding the data with these preconceptions.

11. Do you think that there is something about social work that gives you a special learning opportunity? If so, can you describe this?

This question follows from question 10 (above) in that if social work has an area of special knowledge, it is likely that the related notion of special learning for practitioners will be recognised. How this might be described is of interest. I am aware that the tentative theoretical analysis which I have assembled points to the engaged, communicative, interactional nature of practice and am wondering how this may potentially be related to what social workers learn in practice. The nature of the learning under consideration - about practice, about self, about society - is deliberately ambiguous so as not to unduly confine the range of possible responses.

12. Would you say that the things you have seen and done in social work have influenced your view of New Zealand society? If so, can you tell me about this?

This question specifically targets the issue of socio-political awareness as a function of social work practice experience. Clearly it ties to questions of political policy and socio- economic ideology and is potentially associated with issues of social power in relation to categories like class, ethnicity and gender. I am interested in the degree of congruity found in the data which emerges.

13. Is anything changing in the way that social work is delivered in Aotearoa / New Zealand? If so, can you describe this?

Given the wide range of organisational settings represented in this study I am interested in whether similar processes of change are identified across practice settings. There is also a link to the previous question (12 above) in that I am interested to see whether participants make connections between perceived changes and the political rubric against which change is occurring.

14. How much freedom do you have as a social worker?

This is another widely constructed question designed to elicit ‘unconstrained’ responses. It connects back to the notion of discretion and professional autonomy - what this looks like in practice and how it is experienced? How much of it exists and how much of it is desirable? It also potentially relates to wider notions of how freedom is constructed in western liberal societies and the place of social work within this schema.

15. Do you think that social work is influenced by politics and economics? Can you tell me what you think about this?

The final question in this section directly addresses perceptions about the political location of social work. It does allow for the possibility of participants denying a significant connection between social work and politico-economic context and also leaves open the question of the nature and degree of this influence.

Section Two:

Practice in context (Practice Knowledge) - How do experienced social workers describe the knowledge that is generated through the practice of social work? 1a. Social work has been described as a balancing act - a tightrope walk. Does this description fit with your experience?

I sometimes employ the metaphor of a tightrope walker skilfully balancing a range of demands in order to achieve a precarious outcome as an image of social work practice. This image seems to go some way to conveying the nature of practice as a function of its location and also the degree of autonomy possessed by practitioners. Here participants are asked to reflect on this metaphor without embellishment or explanation. 2a. Some theorists talk about the idea of a kind of practice knowledge that is hard to describe - knowing what / when /and how to do things. Can you tell me how this fits with your experience?

This question is designed to focus participants on the notion of tacit knowledge or knowing in action. It concerns the balance between emotion, intuition and reason and also the significance of experience. I have endeavoured to keep the form of the question uncomplicated so as to facilitate clear engagement with the idea.

3a. Can you tell me about how interactions with clients might influence the decisions that you make?

This is a direct probe about the interactive and relational elements of practice - the fact that some clients are more persuasive, articulate, personable, even more ‘likeable’ than others - and whether such interactional processes influence the quality of service provision. It is a question that I was required to clarify several times. On reflection it was not formulated specifically enough. In later interviews I routinely clarified the question in similar terms to those expressed above.

4a. The process of listening to your clients - Can you describe how you go about doing this?

This question alludes to the idea that in order to establish meaningful relationships a ‘close’ and / or respectful engagement needs to be achieved. I was interested in exploring how practitioners described such a crucial micro-process in the practice of social work and the insights that might be generated by this exercise. This focus also relates back to the tacit practice knowledge concept addressed in question 2.a (above) – that what you know and believe is embedded in what you do, or perhaps more importantly in the context of social work, ‘how’ you do things.

5a. Can you tell me about the sorts of things that you are watching out for when you are conversing with clients?

This question potentially relates to a range of issues. It holds the promise of generating data about the notion of practice duality - doing and watching - a process of simultaneous engagement and assessment. It also connects to the idea of complex contextual communication - that communication and understanding between social workers and clients is a complex and multi-layered process. I am looking for data that will assist in exploration and description of this context.

6a. Persuading people to look at situations differently - Is this part of your work? Can you describe how you do this?

This question potentially yields further data about the communicative nature of practice and it also relates to questions of power in relationships, both with clients and with ‘the authorities’: speaking with clients and speaking for clients. In relation to Philp’s (1979) hypothesis, I am interested in whether this question sheds any light on the proposition that social workers ‘humanise’ excluded subjects. I am also interested in the possible tensions which practitioners might experience between the ethical liberal commitment to choice and autonomy and the capacity (or need) to influence the perceptions of clients. I am also interested in how such processes of influence may occur in the context of ‘relationship’ (in the sense of embodied / interactional human communication) and how social workers identify or negotiate any dilemmas which may arise from this.

7a. Empathy - Do you make an effort to see situations from the perspective of your clients? How do you go about doing this?

The notion of feeling ‘with’ or ‘for’ others as a dimension of ‘deep’ understanding is often associated with caring work. I am interested in participants’ views about the nature and validity of this construct. As with question 4a (above) I am also interested in the micro-description of how social workers ‘conduct’ themselves in this process. 8a. Thinking in action - When you are engaged with clients do you think about how you are being seen and heard? If so, can you describe how this process works?

This question again refers to the ‘connected’ and interactive elements of client engagement and to the notion of reflection in practice. To what extent do social workers see themselves as presenting a ‘role’ or a persona? What, if any, are the boundaries between ‘self’, practice ‘skills’ and ‘professional’ role in practice? How might these boundaries be established or negotiated in practice?

9a. Emotional context - Do you encounter situations in your work that make you sad or angry? Can you tell me about this?

This question directly relates to the emotional context of practice and also potential connects with ‘motivations’ for practice. I am wondering how the emotional context of practice is managed by experienced practitioners and whether a desire to alleviate suffering or redress injustice in the lives of particular individuals and families fundamentally motivates the practice and / or the ‘identity’ of social work. I am interested in the degree of ‘passion’ which is expressed by ‘long-serving’ practitioners. Wider constructions of social work as a conduit for ‘individuated social justice’ may be connected with an on-going desire to alleviate individual suffering. The friction that can be associated with a mandate for individual assistance and perceptions of systemic causation is also of interest in terms of elucidating the tensions which afflict social work. Again, these and other potential analytical associations are not directly suggested - rather they are left to emerge from the narrative.

10a. Are there times in your work when how you are presenting yourself and how you are feeling do not fit together? Can you tell me about this?