Child poverty; inter-organizational networks; social policy
Abstract :
[en] In the international realm, inter-organizational networking is perceived as a highly relevant instrument in social policy that enables welfare organizations to deal with “wicked issues.” In this article, we discuss the central empirical find- ings acquired from a recent qualitative research project that focuses on inter-organizational networks that were formed at the local level to deal with the wicked issue of child pov- erty as a complex and multidimensional social problem. We explore how the network discussions about normative value orientations in four inter-organizational networks evolve, and identify three central fields of tension that illustrate the complexity for local welfare actors in and across networks to create network strategies in dealing with child poverty: (a) selective versus universal provision, (b) conditional ver- sus unconditional strategies, and (c) instrumental versus lifeworld-oriented approaches. Our findings show that net- works can function as valuable forums for collective debate and reflection, since different approaches and perspectives to tackle the problem of child poverty can be confronted with each other. Creating such a forum has the potential to challenge dominant conceptualizations and undesirable assumptions of complex social problems that are present in welfare practices and policies.
Disciplines :
Social work & social policy
Author, co-author :
Jacquet, Nicolas ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Faculté des sciences sociales > Sociologie des ress. hum. et des systèmes institutionnels
Van Haute, Dorien; Universiteit Gent - UGent > social work > Social work
De Corte, Joris; Universiteit Gent - UGent > Social work
Alford, J., & Head, B. W. (2017). Wicked and less wicked problems: A typology and a contingency framework. Policy and Society, 36(3), 397–413.
Allen, C. (2003). Desperately seeking fusion: On “joined-up thinking”, “holistic practice” and the new economy of welfare professional power. British Journal of Social Work, 54(2), 287–306.
Anthony, E., King, B., & Austin, M. (2011). Reducing child poverty by promoting child well-being: Identifying best practices in a time of great need. Children and Youth Services Review, 33, 1999–2009.
Brady, D., & Burroway, R. (2012). Targeting, universalism, and single-mother poverty: A multilevel analysis across 18 affluent democracies. Demography, 49, 719–746.
Broadhead, P., Meleady, C., & Delgado, M. (2008). Children, families and communities: Creating and sustaining integrated services. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.
Clarke, M., & Stewart, J. (1997). Handling the wicked issues: A challenge for government. Birmingham, England: University of Birmingham, Institute of Local Government Studies.
Couture, P. (2007). Child poverty: Love, justice, and social responsibility. St. Louis, MO: Chalice Press.
De Corte, J., Verschuere, B., Roets, G., & Bouverne-De Bie, M. (2017). Uncovering the double-edged sword of inter-organisational networks of welfare services: Tackling wicked issues in social work. British Journal of Social Work, 47(2), 524–541.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2003). Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.
Devaney, J., & Spratt, T. (2009). Child abuse as a complex and wicked problem: Reflecting on policy developments in the United Kingdom in working with children and families with multiple problems. Children and Youth Services Review, 31(6), 635–641.
Dwyer, P. (2004). Creeping conditionality in the UK: From welfare rights to conditional entitlements? The Canadian Journal of Sociology, 29(2), 265–289.
Ferlie, E., Fitzgerald, L., McGivern, G., Dopson, S., & Bennett, C. (2011). Public policy networks and wicked problems: A nascent solution? Public Administration, 89(2), 307–324.
Frost, N. (2005). Research in practice: Professionalism, partnership and joined-up thinking: A research review of front-line working with children and families. Totnes, England: Devon.
Fletcher, D. R., & Flint, J. (2018). Welfare conditionality and social marginality: The folly of the tutelary state? Critical Social Policy. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0261018317753088
Garrett, P. M. (2018). Welfare words: Critical social work and social policy. London, England: Sage.
Gillies, V. (2008). Perspectives on parenting responsibility: Contextualizing values and practices. Journal of Law and Society, 35(1), 95–112.
Goldson, B. (2002). New labour, social justice, and children: Political calculation and the deserving-undeserving schism. British Journal of Social Work, 32(6), 683–695.
Grunwald, K., & Thiersch, H. (2009). The concept of the ‘lifeworld orientation’ for social work and social care. Journal of Social Work Practice, 23(2), 131–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650530902923643
Hood, R. (2014). Complexity and integrated working in children's services. British Journal of Social Work, 44, 27–43. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcs091
Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687
Hughes, P., & MacNaughton, G. (2000). Consensus, dissensus or community: The politics of parental involvement in early childcare education. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 1(3), 241–258.
Keast, R., Mandell, M. P., Brown, K., & Woolcock, G. (2004). Network structures: Working differently and changing expectations. Public Administration Review, 64(3), 363–371.
Span, K. C. L., Luijkx, K. G., Schols, J. M. G. A., & Schalk, R. (2012). The relationship between governance roles and performance in local public Interorganizational networks: A conceptual analysis. The American Review of Public Administration, 42, 186–201.
Kessl, F., Oechler, M., & Schroeder, T. (2019). Charity economy. In K. Fabian, W. Lorenz, H.-U. Otto, & S. White (Eds.), European social work - A compendium. Leverkusen & Farmington Hills: Barbara Budrich Publisher.
Kohlbacher, F. (2006). The use of qualitative content analysis in case study research. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 7(1): Art 21. http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/75
Krumer-Nevo, M. (2016). Poverty-aware social work: A paradigm for social work practice with people in poverty. British Journal of Social Work, 46(6), 1793–1808. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcv118
Leighninger, L. (2008). The history of social work and social welfare. In K. M. Sowers & C. N. Dulmus (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of social work and social welfare. The profession of social work (pp. 1–24). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Lister, R. (2003). Investing in citizen-workers of the future: Transformations in citizenship and the state under new labour. Social Policy & Administration, 37, 427–443.
Lister, R. (2004). Poverty. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
Lister, R. (2006). Children (but not women) first: Now labour, child welfare and gender. Critical Social Policy, 26(5), 315–335.
Lorenz, W. (2016). Rediscovering the social question. European Journal of Social Work, 19(1), 4–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691457.2015.1082984
Lubeck, S. (1998). Is developmentally appropriate practice for everyone? Childhood Education, 74(5), 283–292.
Mack, N., Woodsong, C., MacQueen, K., Guest, G., & Namey, E. (2005). Qualitative research methods: A data Collector's field guide. North Carolina, NC: Family Health International.
Maeseele, T. (2012), From charity to welfare rights? A study of social care in practices. (PhD thesis). Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1854/LU-3066986
Martin, C. (2010). The reframing of family policies in France: Processes and actors. Journal of European Social Policy, 20(5), 410–421.
Mestrum, F. (2011). Child poverty. A critical perspective. Social Work & Society, 9, 161–168.
Morse, J. M., Barrett, M., Mayan, M., Olson, K., & Spiers, J. (2002). Verification strategies for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1(2), 1–19.
Morvaridi, B. (2016). New philanthropy and social justice: Debating the conceptual and policy discourse. Bristol, England: Policy Press.
Myring, P. (2000). Qualitative content analysis. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(2), 1–10.
Nandhakumar, J., & Jones, M. (1997). Too close for comfort? Distance and engagement in interpretive information system research. Information Systems Journal, 7, 109–131.
Oelkers, N. (2012). The redistribution of responsibility between state and parents: Family in the context of post-welfare-state transformation. In M. Richter & S. Andresen (Eds.), The politicization of parenthood (pp. 101–110). London, England: Springer.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Parton, N. (2011). Child protection and safeguarding in England: Changing and competing conceptions of risk and their implications for social work. British Journal of Social Work, 41, 854–875.
Payne, M. (2005). The origins of social work: Continuity and change. Basingstoke, England: Palgrave.
Platt, L. (2005). Discovering child poverty: The creation of policy agenda from 1800 to the present. Bristol, England: The Policy Press.
Provan, K. G., & Sebastian, J. G. (1998). Networks within networks: Service link overlap, organizational cliques, and network effectiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 41(4), 453–463.
Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169.
Roets, G., Roose, R., Schiettecat, T., & Vandenbroeck, M. (2016). Reconstructing the foundations of joined-up working: From organisational reform towards a joint engagement of child and family services. British Journal of Social Work, 46(2), 306–322.
Roose, R., Roets, G., Van Houte, S., Vandenhole, W., & Reynaert, D. (2013). From parental engagement to the engagement of social work services: Discussing reductionist and democratic forms of partnership with families. Child & Family Social Work, 18(4), 449–457.
Rose, J. (2011). Dilemmas of inter-professional collaboration: Can they be resolved? Children & Society, 25(2), 151–163.
Schiettecat, T., Roets, G., & Vandenbroeck, M. (2014). Do families in poverty need child and family social work? European Journal of Social Work, 18(5), 647–660.
Schiettecat, T., Roets, G., & Vandenbroeck, M. (2018). Hide and seek: Political agency of social workers in supporting families living in poverty. British Journal of Social Work, 48(7), 1874–1891.
Smith, P., Daniels, H., Edwards, A., Apostolov, A., Brown, S., Kinti, I., … Youngs, S. (2008). Learning in and for multi-agency working in preventing social exclusion. Research brief. Institute of Education: London, England.
Spradley, J. P. (1980). Participant observation. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Statham, J. (2011). Working together for children. In A review of international evidence on interagency working, to inform the development of children's services committees in Ireland. London, England: Department of Children and Youth Affairs.
Thompson, A. M., & Perry, J. L. (2006). Collaboration processes: Inside the black box. Public Administration Review, 66(Special Issue), 20–32.
Vangen, S., & Huxham, C. (2013). Building and using the theory of collaborative advantage. In R. Keast, M. Mandell, & R. Agranoff (Eds.), Network theory in the public sector: Building new theoretical frameworks. New York, NY: Taylor and Francis.
Vanobbergen, B., Vandenbroeck, M., Roose, R., & Bouverne-De Bie, M. (2006). “We are one big, happy family”: Beyond negotiation and compulsory happiness. Educational Theory, 56(4), 423–437.
Villadsen, K. (2007a). The emergence of ‘neo-philanthropy’. A new discursive space in welfare policy? Acta Sociologica, 50(3), 309–323.
Villadsen, K. (2007b). The emergence of neo-philanthropy: A new discursive space in, The emergence of 'neo-Philanthropy' welfare policy? Acta Sociologica, 50(9), 309–323.
Weber, E. P., & Khademian, A. M. (2008). Wicked problems, knowledge challenges, and collaborative capacity builders in network settings. Public Management Review, 68(2), 334–349.
