Rovaniemi, 2007

1. Sune Sunesson Social Work Research in Perspective An unjust discourse Rovaniemi, 2007

2. What is this a case of? An unjust discourse never aspires to cover all angles It is rooted in a conviction that something should be said in open My story on social work research begins long ago

3. Two things to know something about :The first problem: poverty, 500 years ago • The secularization of poor relief created the poor law complex All around Europe and its colonies poverty was to be punished. Towns and parishes adopted two principles: Means –test/Work-test Exclusion of poor strangers

4. 1510 – 1610: Poor laws and new forms of incarceration • Two Long-lived organisational structures were created: • Poor houses, work houses for men, womenand children • Local government = poverty government • The periphery was later to legislate: Sweden (incl. Finland) came in 1624

5. The second problem: population • Before 1776 and 1789 there was no ”population” The poor and the rich were not thinkable as one population or nation. ”Mankind”, ”humankind” and human rights were revolutionary inventions. Population was also a menace: Malthus 1798 When empires were built by means of conscripted armies population came into central political focus

6. The growth and reproduction of people • The politics of People: Where were all the children? Infant mortality as a riddle to be solved. France and foster care – Back to laws from the 16th century Suicide: who commands the Saxons to kill themselves? Marriage politics, Housing politics, Sewage politics

7. Homo hygienicus succeeds homo laborans? • Health, hygiene and protection of women and children A new science of city planning, hygiene and prevention “Wissenschaftliche Soziale Arbeit”

8. A historical bifurcation… The hatred against the poor law system The demands to reproduce the population lead to Social policy and Social insurance, e.g. Bismarck’s laws These new inventions confirm the extentions of ”rights” and burst the poor law institutional shell

9. On the other hand – an unfortunate grafting • Child welfare: A ”globalised” movement • International break-through of child legislation c:a 1900 • A modern institution grafted onto a poor law apparatus

10. These two problem areas are what we want to get knowledge about 1 Poverty and poor law institutions and their heirlooms and successors, research on outcomes, professions and social rights 2 Population politics and the threats to it: Filth, abuse, drunkenness, disease, i.e. Social Problems

11. What more do we want to know? Research on the two main problems and their attempted solutions has a top down bias Reflective research First stage (1910 – 1960) Field research, taking other perspectives Second stage (1950 – 1980) Foucault, Szasz, Goffman, Laing: Against incarceration

12. Reflections today: what works? Evidence based practice: a new controversy ¤ The knowledge base of day to day practice is useless: We cannot drive with eyes closed ¤ Methodical demands make the result of “evidence research” useless

13. Politics and evidence… • Strong political pressure to find out what works • Justified user claims to know if what they’re subjected to is any good • But … • ”Evidence” covers less than the proverbial fig leaf… • Fragmentation of research and fragmentation of social work practice go hand in hand

14. A classic controversy: 40 years ago • Howard Becker wrote ”Whose side are we on?” • When investigating a social institution like ”prison” or ”welfare office” the social scientist must take the standpoint of the subordinate or client otherwise we become oppressors too • That is because those on top are always believed, ”The hierarchy of credibility”

15. The rejoinder: • Alvin Gouldner thought differently: • ”Underdogs” are not always the best judges • When you scold the class-room teacher, you forget the headmaster and the school board, when you scold the prison-guard you forget the penal system • Criticism of the lowest level officials frees the bureaucracy – you become its best friend!

16. Society disappears? • Gouldner’s main argument is that SOCIETY disappears if you blame ”street-level” or ”first-line” buraucrats. The image of society will be torn and fragmented: ”There is no such thing as ”society”

17. An example from child welfare research • There is an international tendency to fragment research, partly, but not only in accordance with demands on methodology • Method x is compared to nothing or method z and we are rocked into a feeling of safety. • But watch this:

18. Obscene results! Ryburn (1993): The most obscene statistics ever to emerge… What was that? A study by Bebbington and Miles on the risk for children to ”enter local authority care” showed that

19. The risk was 1 in 7000 if from two-parent, white family, non crowded house, not on welfare benefits But if from mixed ethnic background, single-parent, crowded dwellings, on welfare the risk was 1 in 10 These were the obscene findings:

20. But in the Nordic countries… This, of course were data from 108 towns in England in the 80’s. But what’s the situation here? For 15 years, no similar study appeared anywhere!! Until now, when some Stockholm social work scientists (Franzen, Vinnerljung and Hjern) Their results:

21. Mother married/cohabi Mom had post-secondary education Worked Not on social assistance Fewer than 1 in 2.000 placed in care before age seven Mother single With only basic education Was out of work all year On social assistance 1 in 7 placed in care before age seven Children born in Sweden 1992 -1996

22. Are we obscene? • These results are as ”obscene” as the English ones • This study is the first in the world in 18 years to follow Beddington and Miles • But what does this say for social work research? • In my opinion, it points to the risk of fragmentation and banality of much social work research.

23. Thank you