No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Organisational Influences on Professional Behaviour: Factors Affecting Social Work Involvement in ‘Schemes’*
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 January 2009
Abstract
Community schemes play an important part in a community approach to social work. This paper investigates the extent to which social workers' involvement in such schemes is influenced by personal preference or by their work setting. Data from questionnaires completed by 394 social workers/social work assistants show that the likelihood of a worker's involvement with a scheme varies with the organisation and procedures of the area office, the perceived attitudes of team leaders and the title of the worker's job. Workers' personal attitudes were related to involvement in schemes only in area offices organised on a geographical basis. The paper discusses the implications of these findings for the development of a community approach to social work and for the degree to which social workers can expect to control their work as autonomous professionals.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990
References
REFERENCES
Barclay, P. (ed.) (1982), Social Workers: Their Roles and Tasks, Bedford Square Press, London.Google Scholar
Bayley, M., Seyd, R. and Tennant, A. (1985), Neighbourhood Services Project, Dinnington, The Final Report, University of Sheffield, Sheffield.Google Scholar
Black, J., Bowl, R., Burns, D., Critcher, C., Grant, G. and Stockford, D. (1983), Social Work in Context: A Comparative Study of Three Social Services Teams, Tavistock, London.Google Scholar
Blau, P. M. (1963), The Dynamics of Bureaucracy, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Brown, P., Hadley, R. and White, K.J. (1982), ‘Appendix A: A case for neighbourhood-based social work and social services’, in Barclay, P. (ed.), Social Workers: Their Roles and Tasks, Bedford Square Press, London.Google Scholar
Crosbie, D., Vickery, A. and Sinclair, I. (1988), ‘Social workers and schemes: issues of time pressure and training’, Social Work Education, 7:3.Google Scholar
Challis, D. and Ferlie, E. (1986), Changing Patterns of Fieldwork Organisation, II: The Team Leaders' View, Discussion Paper 443, Personal Social Services Research Unit, University of Kent at Canterbury.Google Scholar
Goldberg, E.M. and Warburton, R.W. (1979), Ends and Means in Social Work, Allen and Unwin, London.Google Scholar
Hadley, R. and McGrath, M. (1984), When Social Services are Local: The Normanton Experience, Allen and Unwin, London.Google Scholar
Hatch, S., Smolka, G. and Mocroft, I. (1981), ‘Social services and the community’, unpublished report to DHSS.Google Scholar
Pinker, R. (1982), ‘Appendix B: an alternative view’, in Barclay, P. (ed.), Social Workers: Their Roles and Tasks, Bedford Square Press, London.Google Scholar
Scott, R.W. (1966), ‘Professionals in bureaucracies’ in Vollmer, H.M. and Mills, M. (eds.), Professionalisation, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.Google Scholar
Sinclair, I.A.C., Crosbie, D., O'Connor, P., Stanforth, L. and Vickery, A. (1988), Bridging Two Worlds: Social Work and the Elderly Living Alone, Gower, Aldershot.Google Scholar
Stevenson, O. and Parsloe, P. (1978), Social Services Teams: The Practitioner's View, HMSO, London.Google Scholar
Stocking, B. (1985), Initiative and Inertia: Case Studies in the NHS, Nuffleld Provincial Hospital Trust, London.Google Scholar
Specht, H. and Vickery, A. (1977), Integrating Social Work Methods, Allen and Unwin, London.Google Scholar