five - Fostering a human rights discourse in the provision of social care for adults
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 January 2022
Summary
In this chapter, we examine the findings of interviews conducted with 14 social workers/social care staff working in three local authorities in the South East of England. In terms of the composition of the sample, three were men and 11 were women. All were white. Three were aged under 40 and the others 40+. Five were graduates and the others were all qualified to Diploma level (one had a nursing qualification, the other 13 a social work qualification). Between them, they had a range of experience with a variety of user groups, but their present roles were mainly focused on services for older people and people with mental health problems. Given their numerical superiority (13/14), participants are hereafter referred to as ‘the social workers’.
The chapter is divided into two main sections. The first presents the findings as they relate to the three core themes of dependency, responsibility and rights explored during interviews. The second offers an analysis of those findings that takes account of the policy and practice contexts within which social workers currently operate. In particular, we evaluate the promised cultural transformation of public authorities in the wake of the implementation of the 1998 Human Rights Act (HRA) and its potential impact on social care practice with vulnerable adults. As in Chapter Six of this book, we acknowledge that a considerable degree of caution must be observed in relation to the suggested interpretations that are offered in the following discussion, given the small sample size.
The interview findings
Dependency
The social workers were proportionately more likely than the core sample to see dependency in terms of practical factors (10/14, compared to 17/49). Eligibility criteria governing social care for adults are generally based on levels of dependency and the attendant risk of physical harm were services not provided. It is unsurprising, therefore, that in their initial definitions a majority associated dependency with physical or cognitive incapacity and a consequential inability to function without assistance:
Dependent is basically that they can’t function in their body in day-to-day living.
… people who need services from us … they would be dependent on us in some way because they can’t construct their lives, either in a physical way, or an emotional way or a psychological way.
Perhaps because of their proximity to human vulnerability, the social workers differed from the core sample in their unanimous view that dependency was unavoidable.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Ethics of WelfareHuman Rights, Dependency and Responsibility, pp. 89 - 110Publisher: Bristol University PressPrint publication year: 2004