“Live Social Work”: How to Bring Life Back into Social Work

Abstract

In this article I discuss how professional social work can entail critical, reflexive work. This is accomplished by adapting the concept of “live sociology”. It is mainly an exploratory article, trying to raise suggestions that can be adopted and be further developed. I argue that people coming into contact with contemporary social work are sometimes reduced to being “dead” objects, as they are pinned down into static categories. The demand for developing evidence-based social work risks substantiating this tendency even further. In contrast, I claim that social work needs to move away from these kinds of explanations and instead turn towards developing “live social work”; that is to say, social work where everyday life, agency, and what people do in what context needs to be the focus, not what people are.     

Social desire paths: a new theoretical concept to increase the usability of social science research in society

Social scientists are well-trained to observe and chart social trends, but less experienced at presenting scientific findings in formats that can inform social change work. In this article, I propose a new theoretical concept that provides a mechanism by which social science research can be more effectively applied for proactive policy, organizational, and program development. The approach is to use the metaphor of “desire paths” from landscape architecture to show how social scientists can identify and analyze social desire paths that appear on the social structural landscape. Social desire paths usually emerge because existing formal structures do not meet individual or group needs. Such paths are generally started at the individual level, followed by others through individual actions, and ultimately leave an (usually informal) imprint on the social structure, even though the motivations behind those actions are not usually social change. Using what we know about the sociology of interests and what we have learned from trying to apply social science findings to policy, I propose seven criteria for phenomena to be defined as social desire paths. I then apply the criteria to two case studies related to housing, and discuss social desire paths usefulness to social scientists involved in any research that captures interests, deviance, or innovation; and that also has the potential to inform formal structures such as policy, organizations, program development, and participatory democracy.     

Teasing Out the Lessons of the 1960s: Family Diversity and Family Privilege

The tumult of the 1960s brought new strains of cultural relativism. I survey the continuing impact of some of these strains on family studies, focusing especially on the study of family diversity as an offshoot of the relativistic project. A dominant discourse still drives much of our work, however, and I illustrate it with some recent examples. The diversity agenda is hampered too often by unintended erasures of large categories of people in nondominant family arrangements. As a corrective to this tendency, I propose an agenda to study family privilege and entitlement, that is, to treat it as a “social problem” much as we treat poverty or juvenile delinquency. I illustrate with my own narrative of how I learned privilege and entitlement growing up male in a White, Jewish, upper‐middle‐class family. I end with some recommendations about how we might bring this agenda into our research and writing.     

Green collar work: Conceptualizing and exploring an emerging field of work

In this paper, I consider “green collar work,” broadly defined as work intended to counter environmental degradation. I consider what might count as green collar work and compare the greening of work in different sectors, including industrial production, service work, working on “nature,” and expert work. I look also at how organizations affect the “greenness” of work. I stress that “green work” is not consistent across time and place and that it is important to understand the interdependencies between different kinds of work. As this is a new topic in sociology, I draw on research from different social science disciplines.     

Organizational theory in political sociology

Organizational theory and research has been enormously generative for political sociologists, if not always as fully centered as it might be, relative to broader notions of political power, economic resources, culture, and their interplay. This review both calls attention to the ways that organizational theory continues to inform political sociology and sets an agenda for how this interchange can be productively extended in various ways in scholarship on states, political parties, advocacy organizations, and business influences in politics. I highlight the genealogy of the new institutionalism and its variants (World Polity and institutional logics), population ecology (and the growing interest in both categories and audiences, alongside studies of the “ecology of ideology”), and research that follows in the broad tradition of resource dependence theory (and the link to more management-oriented approaches such as “non-market strategy” and stakeholder theories of organizational political activities). I also emphasize how novel theories of social movements and fields have offered innovative insights that incorporate organizational and political processes. I conclude by elaborating an agenda for how political sociologists can go further in maintaining and extending their highly productive and rewarding engagements with organizational theory.     

Workfare Oz-Style

Summary

Traditional approaches to the promotion of welfare have disappeared in Australia, replaced by a new institutional order represented by welfare-cum-workfare. This has impacted on social work—both as a collective entity and as a set of practices. This paper maps the shift to workfare in Australia and examines its impacts on and implications for social work. We briefly discuss the Australian model of social protection, illustrating our own brand of “exceptionalism,” and lay out what we have termed “Workfare Oz-style.” Drawing upon neo-institutional theory, we review and analyze two key contexts where “Workfare Oz-style” is operationalized—the Job Network and Centrelink. Some tentative conclusions are given and the dimensions of a research agenda, which will put any emerging propositions to empirical test, are proposed.     

Towards design sociology

In this review essay, I introduce and map the field of what I call “design sociology”. I argue that design research methods have relevance to a wide range of sociological research interests, and particularly for applied research that seeks to understand people's engagements with objects, systems and services, better engage publics and other stakeholders, work towards social change, and identify and intervene in futures. I discuss 3 main ways in which design sociology can be conducted: the sociology of design, sociology through design and sociology with design. I explain key terms in design and dominant approaches in social design research—participatory, critical, adversarial, speculative, and ludic design. Examples of how sociologists have already engaged with design research methods are outlined. The essay concludes with suggestions about what the future directions of design sociology might be.     

Spiralling Up or Spinning Out: A Guide for Reflecting on Action Research Practice

This paper offers a theoretical ‘action research spiral’ model to guide reflection on the dual client focus of action research. While theoretically exploring and highlighting the tensions and dilemmas created by this dual client focus, this paper will argue for a greater degree of reflection on action research practice and utilize vignettes from action research cases to illustrate those reflective processes. It is concluded that further discussion and reflection on the process of action research is an important component of social science’s contribution to phronetic knowledge.

I saw the University as helping us to reflect on what we are doing—they are the expert reflectors. This is particularly what I saw as X’s role. Sometimes his interjections go above their heads and his ‘nine words or less’ statements need to have some explanation, and I should feed this back to him. I also see the University as playing a visionary role, helping to show us new things about what is possible. I don’t see the University as helping to pull the team together—that is when it gets confusing. They are observing us, they are looking at us as the rats, and when they see something that they think needs to be addressed, they can feed this back to us—and this is where teaching and formal learning comes in. This is a difficult role for the University. I can see some of the University people just squirming—you can see it in their face that they want to intervene. They know something about what we are doing but are not imparting the knowledge. This can piss people off. They are withholding what they know and not helping. But it can also piss people off if they come in too early and tell us what is going on and what to do and not let us wallow around for a while, and learn. This is what I see as a major problem for the University. As you observe us, at what point do you reflect the learning and feedback, and yet not prostitute the learning or dirty the data. …We are the rats, the factory is your laboratory. But when we are looking at the role of the University, you are the rats. (Plant Manager and Industry Sponsor of an Action Research Project, 2000)     

Sociological Social Psychology and Intersectionality: A Synergistic Relationship

Sociological social psychology developed out of interdisciplinary knowledge growth. Despite this positive progress, critics have argued that sociological social psychologists need to “step up their game”. In this paper, I review the three “faces” of sociological social psychology and propose a potential avenue to address this critique by incorporating ideas from intersectionality research into sociological social psychology's paradigms. To accomplish this integration, I also discuss the background and current debates of intersectionality research. Intersectionality scholarship originated in the gender studies area and has always been multidisciplinary. However, notions from intersectionality have not spread widely within the field of sociological social psychology. I propose a true synergy between sociological social psychology and intersectionality with the hope of advancing both fields.     

“No Place Like Home?”

Abstract

The concept of “home” is subject to individual interpretations; a “home” may be conceived of as a physical space, such as a building/house, a geographical space such as a street, a town or a community, or a place where meaningful social relationships and/or kinship are fostered. Consider, then, what would happen to our understandings of “home” if seen from the perspectives of young people that are “home-less” and estranged from their families and kin groups, sometimes due to their sexual orientation. This article presents results from a research project conducted together with Kentish homelessness charity Porchlight. The aim of the research is to formulate an understanding of the lived realities of homeless LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) youth (ages 16–25). Young people who identify as LGB or T are often victims of hate crime, bullying, harassment, violence, oppression, discrimination, and social exclusion in the home, in schools, and in the community at large. In many cases, these factors can contribute to alienation from the family home and subsequently result in homelessness. Here, I look specifically at how young people experience home and homelessness in relation to kin and social relationships, and drawing from anthropological literature on “the house”, “home”, kinship and “liminality”, I consider how these concepts can better inform our understanding of LGBT youth homelessness.     

Social scientists as technicians,advisors and meaning producers

In this paper, we are addressing three issues that are at the core of scholarly reflections about the societal role of social science knowledge: (1) Social scientists tend to follow – although this is not always a deliberate choice – one of three models that describe their role as the producers of practical knowledge. For the sake of simplicity we have called the three models the “model of the technician”, the “model of the advisor” and the “model of the meaning producer”. (2) Due to the need for social inquiry to adopt a particular, restrictive perspective of its domain, useful knowledge is a complicated matter. Hence the need to put into question a widely supported notion at least among social scientists: When asked about the reasons for the limited “power” of social science knowledge the response frequently is that the adequacy and practical usefulness of social science knowledge is a function of its capturing the full complexity of what indeed are complex social phenomena. (3) Social scientists often tend to lament the marginal impact their intellectual efforts have on society, and they look with great envy across the divide of the so-called two cultures, wondering how and when they will be able to achieve the same kind of success and prestige the natural sciences and technology appear to enjoy in most societies. However, this unhappy view systematically understates the actual power of social science knowledge, in particular its role as a mind maker or meaning producer.     

The Green Elephants in the Room: Perceived Environmental Harm and Support for Regulation Among Republicans

Previous research identifies a “great paradox” in attitudes toward environmental regulation: some people close to environmental risk nevertheless oppose environmental regulation for partisan reasons. Does this pattern hold in large survey samples? Unexpectedly, we do not find evidence for it. Instead, we find that Republicans who report higher levels of personal environmental harm also report stronger support for environmental regulation. This pattern holds across varied measurement specifications, and it is weaker for Democrats, suggesting that exposure to environmental harm might directly challenge and change partisan opposition to environmental reform. We present a theory and research agenda that accounts for these “green elephants in the room.” Our work, as we will demonstrate, crosses at least three disciplinary boundaries: social psychology, cultural sociology, and political science. A conceptual replication of results is provided in the Appendices S1 and S2.     

“That proves you mad,because you know it not”: impaired insight and the dilemma of governing psychiatric patients as legal subjects

This article investigates “impaired insight,” a controversial psychiatric category describing a mad person unable to know his or her madness. Like “moral insanity” and other concepts before it, impaired insight offers a way to link the disparate logics of human responsibility in psychiatry and the law. I attribute its development to changes wrought by deinstitutionalization, the rise of antipsychotic medication, and patient incarceration in penal settings. In a system that aims to govern psychiatric patients through their freedom, the logic of impaired insight introduces a wrinkle: can a person make an informed choice to refuse treatment if madness itself impairs awareness of illness? Drawing on tools from the sociology of science, I trace the process by which researchers recast psychodynamic “denial” as a neurological and therefore non-volitional “impairment” in the 1990s. I then show how social movement actors mobilized the materialized form in the legal and policy fields in the 2000s, bringing insight science to bear upon the very questions of custodial management and patient rights that gave birth to it. At stake is this dilemma: how can societies that simultaneously privilege individual responsibility and somatic accounts of behavior govern those at the border of legal capacity, and with what justification?     

Outline of a sociology of decisionism

I propose an agenda for empirical research on decision, choice, decision‐makers, and decision‐making qua social facts. Given society S, group G, or field F, I make a twofold sociological proposal. First, empirically investigate the conditions under which something—call it X—is taken to be a decision or choice, or the outcome of a decision‐making process. What must X be like? What doesn't count (besides, presumably, myotatic reflexes and blushing)? Whom or what must X be done by? What can't be a decision‐maker (besides, presumably, rocks and apples)? Second, empirically investigate how decision/choice concepts are used in everyday life, politics, business, education, law, technology, and science. What are they used for? To what extent do people understand and represent themselves and others as decision‐makers? Where do decision‐centric or “decisionist” understandings succeed? These aren't armchair, theoretical, philosophical questions, but empirical ones. Decision/choice concepts’ apparent ubiquity in contemporary societies calls for a well‐thought‐out research program on their social life and uses.     

Out of the Labs and into the Streets: Scientists Get Political

Scientists are participating in more visible and vocal forms of political action. In this essay, I sketch key moments in this shift, with the hope of generating new research questions and lines of sociological inquiry. Specifically, I ponder whether this is a new wave of science activism, and if so, how is it different from past forms of science activism? I also ask whether and in what form we, as sociologists, should “stand up for science”?     

The cultural environment: measuring culture with big data

The rise of the Internet, social media, and digitized historical archives has produced a colossal amount of text-based data in recent years. While computer scientists have produced powerful new tools for automated analyses of such “big data,” they lack the theoretical direction necessary to extract meaning from them. Meanwhile, cultural sociologists have produced sophisticated theories of the social origins of meaning, but lack the methodological capacity to explore them beyond micro-levels of analysis. I propose a synthesis of these two fields that adjoins conventional qualitative methods and new techniques for automated analysis of large amounts of text in iterative fashion. First, I explain how automated text extraction methods may be used to map the contours of cultural environments. Second, I discuss the potential of automated text-classification methods to classify different types of culture such as frames, schema, or symbolic boundaries. Finally, I explain how these new tools can be combined with conventional qualitative methods to trace the evolution of such cultural elements over time. While my assessment of the integration of big data and cultural sociology is optimistic, my conclusion highlights several challenges in implementing this agenda. These include a lack of information about the social context in which texts are produced, the construction of reliable coding schemes that can be automated algorithmically, and the relatively high entry costs for cultural sociologists who wish to develop the technical expertise currently necessary to work with big data.     

Political Position and Social Knowledge1

The nature of social cognition—how we “know about” the social world—is one of the most deceptively obvious problems for sociology. Because we know what we know, we often think that we know how or why we know it. Here, we investigate one particular aspect of social cognition, namely, what we will call “political ideology”—that is, people’s self‐placement on a dimension on which persons can be arrayed from left to right. We focus on that understanding that is in some ways the “ur‐form” of social cognition—our sense of how we stand by others in an implicit social formation whose meaning is totally relational. At the same time, these self‐conceptions seem to be of the greatest importance for the development of the polity and of civil society itself. Our question is, when citizens develop such a “political ideology,” what does this mean, and what do they do with it? We examine what citizens gain from their subjective placement on the dimension from liberalism to conservatism by using the results of a survey experiment that alters aspects of a hypothetical policy.     

Name generation in interpersonal political network data: Results from a series of experiments

We present results from three large scale survey experiments focused on the manipulation of political name generators. Using syntax that is widely employed outside of political science, we generate interpersonal political network data by varying the roles of alters, the time horizons of relationships, and the specific political nature of social exchanges. Across varying samples and electoral environments, we look for differences in these conditions on a wide range of common interpersonal network items, assess latency data on these treatments, and employ more detailed information on named discussants than most existing political ego-centric studies. We evaluate how well the now standard “compound” political name generator captures interpersonal political networks, finding that it does quite well save a few items of significant political importance. We discuss the implications of this research agenda for theories of social influence and the study of disagreement in democratic politics.