Search

This paper critically discusses the limitations of theorising social work from psychological and sociological perspectives and argues that phenomenology offers more opportunity to understand the embodied experiences of service users and social workers themselves. The paper argues that psychology and sociology have a limited analysis of being-in-the-world, which ought to be social work's primary consideration. The paper offers an overview of the sociology of risk before embarking on an extensive description and discussion of Heidegger's and Merleau-Ponty's phenomenology applied to the lived experience of child protection social workers working within risk society. The argument is put that phenomenology is a useful tool for understanding the lived experience of social work practitioners. Findings: The authors conclude that embodied social work practice containing fear and anxiety can be thought of as akin to taking part in extreme risk sports and that this is an unhealthy experience that is likely to skew decision-making and adversely affect the lives of social workers and service users. Applications: The authors argue that phenomenology can enhance understanding of practice and decision-making and offers insights into the lived experience of social workers. Phenomenology is useful for helping social workers negotiate risk-saturated environments, through a focus on meaning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary : How does one go about doing or engaging in ethnomethodological study of local occasions? Would such study be of value for social workers, hence would it help them to understand the everyday accomplishment of practice as social work? Harold Garfinkel, the founder of ethnomethodology, argued that the task is to start with and to be in the midst of ordinary and everyday activities. A beginning in ordinary, mundane, and everyday activities is also to be surrounded by taken-for-granted understandings, frameworks, and facts or facticities. The focus on "facticities" of everyday things directs us to attend to utterly ordinary and mundane interactions, and here there is deep congruence with social work interests and practices. Findings: This paper turns to Garfinkel's oeuvre to set out in readily understandable language the orientation and tools needed for social workers to do ethnomethodological studies. A focal question is: Just how might social workers in the midst of practice actually go about engaging in EM? Application: By taking up tools from ethnomethodology, social workers can better understand and explicate the essential reflexivity of their everyday practice. As a result, EM provides a pathway for both understanding and teaching effective social work through a reflective and reflexive turn. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]