Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T07:37:36.645Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Self-Reflexivity as a form of Client Participation: Clients as Citizens, Consumers, Partners or Self-Entrepreneurs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2019

MERETE MONRAD Open the ORCID record for MERETE MONRAD [Opens in a new window]
MERETE MONRAD*
Affiliation:
Aalborg University, Sociology and Social Work, Frederikskaj 10B, 1. sal, Copenhagen 2450, Denmark email: monrad@socsci.aau.dk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The article suggests that self-reflexive participation should be considered a distinct form of client participation. Self-reflexive participation is an individualized form of participation that occurs through a development-oriented dialogue between the client and a practitioner. In this dialogue, clients reflect on themselves, set goals for the future and devise strategies, thereby improving their self-regulatory potentials. The article discusses important differences between self-reflexive participation and democratic, consumerist and co-productive participation in terms of the form participation takes, the aim of participation, the client role, the resources required from clients to participate, the assumed relationship between the agency and the client and organizational responsiveness. Self-reflexive participation is based on a view of the client as capable and reflexive and it may foster a tailoring of social services to the wishes and life-projects of clients. However, self-reflexive participation is based on the assumption that clients can be empowered through improved skills of self-observation and life-planning. When focus is on these skills, it may gloss over important conflicts between clients and agency and detach questions of client participation from organizational responsiveness and struggles over user control.

Keywords

participationdemocracyconsumerismself-reflexivityco-productionclient participation
Type
Article
Information
Journal of Social Policy , Volume 49 , Issue 3 , July 2020 , pp. 546 - 563
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aberbach, J. D. and Christensen, T. (2005), ‘Citizens and consumers: An NPM dilemma’, Public Management Review, 7, 2, 225–245.10.1080/14719030500091319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alford, J. (2009), Engaging Public Sector Clients. From Service-Delivery to Co-Production, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9780230235816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andreassen, T. A. (2018), ‘From democratic consultation to user-employment: shifting institutional embedding of citizen involvement in health and social care’, Journal of Social Policy, 47, 1, 99–117.10.1017/S0047279417000228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnstein, S. R. (1969), ‘A ladder of citizen participation’, Journal of the American Planning Association, 35, 4, 216–224.Google Scholar
Askheim, O. P., Christensen, K., Fluge, S. and Guldvik, I. (2017), ‘User participation in the Norwegian welfare context: an analysis of policy discourses’, Journal of Social Policy, 46, 3, 583–601.10.1017/S0047279416000817CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, M. (2011), ‘Users as citizens: collective action and the local governance of welfare’, in: Cornwall, A. (ed.), The Participation Reader, London: Zed Books, 345–362.Google Scholar
Barnes, M. and Prior, D. (1995), ‘Spoilt for choice? How consumerism can disempower public service users’, Public Money & Management, 15, 53–58.10.1080/09540969509387882CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borghi, V. and van Berkel, R. (2007), ‘Individualised service provision in an era of activation and new governance’, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 27, 9/10, 413–424.10.1108/01443330710822101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Born, A. W. and Jensen, P. H. (2005), ‘Individualising citizenship’, in: Andersen, J. G., Guillemard, A., Jensen, P. H. and Pfau-Effinger, B. (eds.), The Changing Face of Welfare: Consequences and Outcomes from a Citizenship Perspective, Bristol: The Policy Press, 151–167.10.2307/j.ctt9qgz9p.15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Born, A. W. and Jensen, P. H. (2010), ‘Dialogued‐based activation – a new “dispositif”?’ International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 30, 5/6, 326–336.10.1108/01443331011054271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bovaird, T. (2007), ‘Beyond engagement and participation: user and community coproduction of public services’, Public Administration Review, 67, 846–860.10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00773.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bovaird, T., Van Ryzin, G. G., Loeffler, E. and Parrado, S. (2015), ‘Activating citizens to participate in collective co-production of public services’, Journal of Social Policy, 44, 1, 1–23.10.1017/S0047279414000567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brodkin, E. Z. (2013a), ‘Street-level organizations and the welfare state’, in: Brodkin, E. Z. and Marston, G. (eds.), Work and the Welfare State. Street-Level Organizations and Workfare Politics, Washington: Georgetown University Press, 17–34.Google Scholar
Brodkin, E. Z. (2013b), ‘Commodification, inclusion, or what? Workfare in everyday organizational life’, in: Brodkin, E. Z. and Marston, G. (eds.), Work and the Welfare State. Street-Level Organizations and Workfare Politics, Washington: Georgetown University Press, 143–166.Google Scholar
Christensen, K. and Pilling, D. (2018), ‘User participation policies in Norway and England – the case of older people and social care’, Journal of Social Policy, 1–19, doi: 10.1017/S0047279418000272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D’Cruz, H., Gillingham, P. and Melendez, S. (2007), ‘Reflexivity, its meanings and relevance for social work: a critical review of the literature’, British Journal of Social Work, 37, 73–90.10.1093/bjsw/bcl001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dent, M. and Pahor, M. (2015), ‘Patient involvement in Europe – a comparative framework’, Journal of Health Organization and Management, 29, 5, 546–555.10.1108/JHOM-05-2015-0078CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Djuve, A. B. and Kavli, H. C. (2015), ‘Facilitating user involvement in activation programmes: when carers and clerks meet pawns and queens’, Journal of Social Policy, 44, 2, 235–254.10.1017/S0047279414000804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dubois, V. (2009), ‘The bureaucrat and the poor: encounters in welfare offices’, GSPE Working Paper, Centre for European Political Sociology, University of Strasbourg.Google Scholar
Ferguson, H. (2003), ‘Welfare, social exclusion and reflexivity: the case of child and woman protection’, Journal of Social Policy, 32, 2, 199–216.10.1017/S0047279402006967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fotaki, M. (2011), ‘Towards developing new partnerships in public services: Users as consumers, citizens and/or co-producers in health and social care in England and Sweden’, Public Administration, 89, 3, 933–955.10.1111/j.1467-9299.2010.01879.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hirschman, A. O. (1970), Exit, Voice, and Loyalty, London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hoggett, P. (2001), ‘Agency, rationality and social policy’, Journal of Social Policy, 30, 1, 37–56.10.1017/S0047279400006152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holland, S., Scourfield, J., O’Neill, S. and Pithouse, A. (2005), ‘Democratising the family and the state? The case of family group conferences in child welfare’, Journal of Social Policy, 34, 1, 59–77.10.1017/S0047279404008268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, P. H. and Pfau-Effinger, B. (2005), ‘”Active” citizenship: the new face of welfare’, in: Andersen, J. G., Guillemard, A., Jensen, P. H. and Pfau-Effinger, B. (eds.), The Changing Face of Welfare: Consequences and Outcomes from a Citizenship Perspective, Bristol: The Policy Press, 1–14.Google Scholar
Järvinen, M. (2002), ’Mötet mellan klient och system – om forskning i socialt arbete’, Dansk Sociologi, 13, 2, 73–84.10.22439/dansoc.v13i2.493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kampmann, J. (2004), ’Det selv-i-agt-tagelige barn’, Psyke & Logos, 25, 2, 516–536.Google Scholar
Karila, K. and Alasuutari, M. (2012), ‘Drawing partnership on paper: How do the forms for individual educational plans frame parent ‐ teacher relationship?’, International Journal about Parents in Education, 6, 1, 15–27.Google Scholar
Kelty, C., Panofsky, A., Currie, M., Crooks, R., Erickson, S., Garcia, P., Wartenbe, M. and Wood, S. (2015), ‘Seven dimensions of contemporary participation disentangled’, Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66, 3, 474–488.10.1002/asi.23202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lash, S. (1994), ‘Reflexivity and its doubles: structure, aesthetics, community’, in: Beck, U., Giddens, A. and Lash, S. (eds.), Reflexive modernization, Cambridge: Polity Press, 110–173.Google Scholar
Lipsky, M. (1980), Street-Level Bureaucracy. Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services, New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
May, J. (2006), ‘Ladders, stars and triangles: old and new theory for the practice of public participation’, International Journal of Market Research, 48, 3, 305–319.10.1177/147078530604800305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mik-Meyer, N. (2006), ‘Identities and organizations. Evaluating the personality traits of clients in two Danish rehabilitation organizations’, Critical Social Studies, 8, 1, 32–48.Google Scholar
Mizrahi, T., Humphreys, M. L. and Torres, D. (2009), ‘The social construction of client participation: the evolution and transformation of the role of service recipients in child welfare and mental disabilities’, Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, XXXVI, 2, 35–61.Google Scholar
Morgan, D. F. and Shinn, C. W. (2014), ‘The foundations of new public governance’, in: Morgan, D. F. and Cook, B. J. (eds.), New Public Governance, London: M.E. Sharpe, 3–12.Google Scholar
Nabatchi, T., Sancino, A. and Sicilia, M. (2017), ‘Varieties of participation in public services: The who, when, and what of coproduction’, Public Administration Review, 77, 5, 766–776.10.1111/puar.12765CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newman, J. and Vidler, E. (2006), ‘Discriminating customers, responsible patients, empowered users: consumerism and the modernisation of health care’, Journal of Social Policy, 35, 2, 193–209.10.1017/S0047279405009487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olesen, S. P. (2003), ‘Client, user, member as constructed in institutional interaction’, in: Hall, C., Juhila, K., Parton, N. and Pösö, T. (eds.), Constructing Clienthood in Social Work and Human Services. Interactions, Identities and Practices, London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 208–222.Google Scholar
Osborne, S. P. (2006), ‘The new public governance?’ Public Management Review, 8, 3, 377–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pateman, C. (1970), Participation and Democratic Theory, London: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511720444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, M. (2001), ‘Education, enterprise culture and the entrepreneurial self: a Foucauldian perspective’, Journal of Educational Enquiry, 2, 2, 58–71.Google Scholar
Rose, N. (1999), Governing the soul. The shaping of the private self, London: Free Association Books.Google Scholar
Runya, X., Qigui, S. and Wei, S. (2015), ‘The third wave of public administration: the new public governance’, Canadian Social Science, 11, 7, 11–21.Google Scholar
Røiseland, A. (2016), ‘User choice – blessing or curse? Exploring democratic participation in Swedish and Norwegian local governments’, Scandinavian Journal of Public Administration, 20, 4, 27–51.Google Scholar
Rønning, R. and Solheim, L. J. (1998), Hjelp på Egne Premisser? Om Brukermedvirkning i Velferdssektoren. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Scourfield, J. and Welsh, I. (2003), ‘Risk, reflexivity and social control in child protection: New times or same old story?‘, Critical Social Policy, 23, 3, 398–420.10.1177/02610183030233005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scourfield, P. (2007), ‘Social care and the modern citizen: client, consumer, service user, manager and entrepreneur’, British Journal of Social Work, 37, 107–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Short, S. D. (1996), ‘Patient compliance, client participation and lay reskilling: a review of some sociological work on lay participation in health care decision making’, Health Care Analysis, 4, 168–173.10.1002/(SICI)1099-1042(199605)4:2<168::AID-HCA164>3.0.CO;2-N3.0.CO;2-N>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Small, N. and Rhodes, P. (2000), Too ill to talk? User involvement and palliative care, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Stage, C. and Ingerslev, K. (2015), ‘Participation as assemblage’, Conjunctions: Transdisciplinary Journal of Cultural Participation, 2, 2, 117–136.10.7146/tjcp.v2i2.22923CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torfing, J., Sørensen, E. and Røiseland, A. (2019), ‘Transforming the public sector into an arena for co-creation: barriers, drivers, benefits, and ways forward’, Administration & Society, doi: 10.1177/0095399716680057CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tritter, J. Q. and McCallum, A. (2006), ‘The snakes and ladders of user involvement: moving beyond Arnstein’, Health Policy, 76, 156–168.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Voorberg, W. H., Bekkers, V. J. J. M. and Tummers, L. G. (2015), ‘A systematic review of co-creation and co-production: embarking on the social innovation journey’, Public Management Review, 17, 9, 1333–1357.10.1080/14719037.2014.930505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warren, M. E. (2011), ‘Voting with your feet: exit-based empowerment in democratic theory’, American Political Science Review, 105, 4, 683–701.10.1017/S0003055411000323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitaker, G. P. (1980), ‘Coproduction: citizen participation in service delivery’, Public Administration Review, 40, May/June, 240–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, S. (2011), ‘Depoliticizing development: the uses and abuses of participation’. In: Cornwall, A. (ed.), The Participation Reader. London: Zed Books, 57–69.Google Scholar
Wistow, G. and Barnes, M. (1993), ‘User involvement in community care: Origins, purposes and applications’, Public Administration, 71, 3, 279–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar