Search

Much of the discourse regarding social care practice focuses on the differences between the various professions, practice fields, geographical, and organizational contexts involved in the provision of social care. This study surveyed Australian social care practitioners’ (N = 438) perceptions of influence on their practice and what similarities and differences existed in these perceptions. Eighteen influential factors were identified with minimal differences across the participants’ profession, practice field, organizational sector, or geographical context. These findings suggest that a common ground of experience exists that can be used as a basis for critical discussions and interdisciplinary practice and, thereby, provide a foundation for more consistent and integrated service delivery and outcomes.

Arid systems are markedly different from non-arid systems. This distinctiveness extends to arid-social networks, by which we mean social networks which are influenced by the suite of factors driving arid and semi-arid regions. Neither the process of how aridity interacts with social structure, nor what happens as a result of this interaction, is adequately understood. This paper postulates three relative characteristics which make arid-social networks distinct: that they are tightly bound, are hierarchical in structure and, hence, prone to power abuses, and contain a relatively higher proportion of weak links, making them reactive to crisis. These ideas were modified from workshop discussions during 2006. Although they are neither tested nor presented as strong beliefs, they are based on the anecdotal observations of arid-system scientists with many years of experience. This paper does not test the ideas, but rather examines them in the context of five arid-social network case studies with the aim of hypotheses building. Our cases are networks related to pastoralism, Aboriginal outstations, the ‘Far West Coast Aboriginal Enterprise Network’ and natural resources in both the Lake-Eyre basin and the Murray–Darling catchment. Our cases highlight that (1) social networks do not have clear boundaries, and that how participants perceive their network boundaries may differ from what network data imply, (2) although network structures are important determinants of system behaviour, the role of participants as individuals is still pivotal, (3) and while in certain arid cases weak links are engaged in crisis, the exact structure of all weak links in terms of how they place participants in relation to other communities is what matters.

Even though there is substantial agreement about the nature of rural contexts, practice principles, and factors influencing practice we still do not have a framework for organising this knowledge in a way that can directly inform the practitioner in their day-to-day work. In this paper, we introduce the concepts 'practice domains', 'domain location', and 'domain alignment' that, taken together, provide such a framework. We suggest that each practitioner works within a number of practice domains. A domain is a discourse about practice comprising narratives about how a social worker should practise and which factors they should take most account of in their practice decision making. Each practitioner, and each practice process, can be located somewhere within each domain (domain location) and also situated amongst domains according to their relative alignment with each of them (domain alignment). In this paper, we present this framework and show how it is useful for practitioners in understanding practice, identifying factors influencing it, and making practice decisions in immediate, concrete situations.