Can I Have A Word? Social Worker Interaction and Sense‐Making

Abstract

This paper explores the ways in which practitioners in children and family social work teams make sense of information in their work. By examining observations and recordings from an ethnographic study, the paper focuses on how informal discussions within the office space inform and affect social workers' analysis (or sense‐making). Three elements of sense‐making activity are illustrated with vignettes and extracts from field notes: methodical doubt, proximity/reflexivity and security. These three distinct features of practice are then discussed and the significance of the findings considered in relation to contemporary practice. The paper highlights the importance of informal interaction and discussion in the social work office as part of the process of social workers' sense‐making. It indicates that feelings of trust and security may be linked to intellectual curiosity and an ability to work with uncertainty in sense‐making. Ethnography can provide a means of illuminating this complex and inaccessible element of practice and the findings add to the body of knowledge. Practitioners and organisations may wish to reflect on the findings and consider how they contribute to, and are affected by, such cultures and practices. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. ‘Explores the ways in which practitioners in children and family social work teams make sense of information in their work’ Key Practitioner Messages Curiosity and methodical doubt are central elements in effective social work sense‐making. Social workers can use informal discussions effectively to support open‐minded and rigorous sense‐making. Choice and proximity of colleagues can promote shared sense‐making. The nature of office spaces may influence the sense of self‐security that underpins effective sense‐making. ‘Choice and proximity of colleagues can promote shared sense‐making’

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 25 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.