Didier Reynaert, Siebren Nachtergaele, Nadine De Stercke, Hildegard Gobeyn, Rudi Roose, Social Work as a Human Rights Profession: An Action Framework, The British Journal of Social Work, Volume 52, Issue 2, March 2022, Pages 928–945, https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcab083
Navbar Search Filter Mobile Enter search term Search Navbar Search Filter Enter search term SearchHuman rights are foundational to social work, as recognised in the global definition, leading many to consider social work a human rights profession. Although human rights has become an important compass for social work, comprehensive frameworks for understanding the ‘practice’ of human rights in social work are still limited. Only recently attempts have been made to fill this gap. This article seeks to continue these efforts and contribute to a better understanding of how social work constructs, deconstructs and reconstructs ideas of human rights in daily practice. We investigated the following research question: ‘How do social workers “act” when using human rights as a framework for practice?’ We used a qualitative research design consisting of ethnographic research and focus groups, with both social workers and service-users participating. Based on our research, we developed five building blocks for an action framework for human rights in social work: (i) systemworld-oriented action; (ii) lifeworld-oriented action; (iii) participatory action; (iv) joined-up action and (v) politicised action. These building blocks give a comprehensive account for the discursive practice of human rights in social work.
Human rights are foundational to social work, as recognised in the global definition, leading many to consider social work a human rights profession ( Healy, 2008; Staub-Bernasconi, 2016; Mapp et al., 2019). Staub-Bernasconi (2016), together with Gatenio Gabel (2015), among others, acknowledges the historical connection of social work with human rights. In recent years, the recognition of social work as a human rights profession gained renewed attention in social work scholarship. In his book ‘Practicing rights. Human rights-based approaches to social work practice’, Androff (2016) makes a comprehensive account of the state of human rights in social work. He shows how (inter)national social work organisations adopted human rights in their codes of ethics, how social work scholars increasingly published books and articles on human rights or how social work education developed a range of training materials and educational programmes on human rights. Based on his analysis, Androff concludes that ‘The growth of scholarship and education focused on human rights suggests that the field is turning towards human rights, rediscovering its rights-based roots. It is now undeniable that there is a consensus that human rights are important and relevant to social work.’ ( Androff, 2016, p. 10). These observations are in line with conclusions of Cubillos-Vega (2017), who conducted a study on the scientific output on human rights in social work based on articles published in international indexed journals between 2000 and 2015. She notes that in recent years, the academic output on social work and human rights gradually increased. However, Cubillos-Vega’s (2017) study also reveals that published articles were primarily of theoretical nature. From the fifty-seven articles analysed, hardly one-third (sixteen) were of an empirical type. This trend is striking, Cubillos-Vega argues, because of the nature of the discipline of social work, taking a position between theory and practice. Already in 2012, Ife came to a similar conclusion: ‘Much of the academic debate about human rights remains at the theoretical level; less has been written about the practice of human rights. … There is little articulation of what it means in practice for professionals to claim that their work is based on human rights, and so human rights remain a “nice idea” rather than a solid foundation for the development of practice theories and methodologies.’ ( Ife, 2012, pp. 10–11). Despite the ground-breaking work of several pioneers in the domain of social work and human rights (e.g. Reichert, 2003; Wronka, 2008; Ife, 2009, 2012; Lundy, 2011), the practice of human right still remains a black box. To date, social work scholarship insufficiently succeed to gain practical knowledge showing how social workers ‘act’ when using the framework of human rights. Together with Ife, we acknowledge the presumption that human rights in social work have a discursive character, as they need to be permanently constructed, deconstructed and reconstructed throughout social work practice. ‘Social workers need to see themselves as active participants in this discursive process, and indeed social work practice itself can be seen as part of the ongoing process of the reconstruction of human rights. It is partly through social work practice that human rights are operationalised, and hence defined.’ ( Ife, 2012, p. 133). Social work should recognise its actorship or agency in constructing human rights and social work scholarship should conscientiously scrutinise this construction process of human rights through social work practice.
Recent launches in social work scholarship rose to this challenge. In 2015, the SpringerBriefs in Rights-Based Approaches to Social Work were launched. The series aims to develop a social work practice grounded in human rights by presenting and reflecting on new methods ( Gatenio Gabel, 2015). The Journal of Human Rights and Social Work, established in 2016, has similar aims. In the inaugural issue, the editors-in-chief state that the journal ‘offers the opportunity for educators, practitioners, administrators, and students in this and related disciplines to have a voice and to expand their knowledge base on issues within human rights practice, knowledge of human rights tools, and to develop skills practicing from a human rights perspective’ ( Gatenio Gabel and Mapp, 2016, p. 1). Additionally, several social work scholars have been developing practice approaches for human rights in social work. Androff (2016, 2018), for instance, seeks to integrate the five-principles framework of human rights (human dignity, non-discrimination, participation, transparency and accountability) into the social work arena. According to Androff, this framework can offer an integrative account across a wide range of social work practices (see also Mapp et al., 2019). One step further is the proposal of McPherson ( McPherson, 2015a; Mapp et al., 2019; McPherson and Abell, 2020), which contains a comprehensive framework for human rights practice in social work (HRPSW). It comprises three pillars of practice: a human rights lens, human rights methods and human rights goals. McPherson (2015a) explains that the HRPSW model can be useful for both social work practice and social work education. What these practice models demonstrate is the increased academic interest in practice approaches of human rights in social work ( McPherson, 2015b).
In this article, we build upon these efforts and present an action framework for human rights in social work. Our action framework expands the above mentioned models in an important way. It provides an understanding of human rights in social work in the context of a different welfare regime. Both the studies of Androff and McPherson are USA based, thereby confirming Cubillos-Vega’s (2017) observation of an Anglo-Saxon hegemony in social work scholarship on human rights. However, different social welfare regimes show different traditions of social work ( Lorenz, 2001, 2008), associated with different understandings of human rights ( Alseth, 2020). Our study was conducted in Belgium, which is generally conceived as a conservative welfare state, distinct from the liberal welfare regime of the USA. Conservative welfare regimes have a certain tradition with social rights in particular. Additionally, conservative welfare regimes are characterised by a welfare state architecture of corporatism, balancing civil society’s interest and state power ( Esping-Andersen 1990; Lorenz, 2001; Dean, 2002). It is within this corporatist structure that human rights take shape with social workers developing a human right-based practice.
Because of the open character of our research question (‘How does social workers act when using human rights as a framework for practice?’), we chose a qualitative research design ( Shaw and Holland, 2014; Carey, 2012), developed in two parts. The first part consists of ethnographic research; the second, of focus groups.
Ethnographic research allows one to understand complex practices in their ‘natural setting’ ( D’Cruz and Jones, 2004) by being ‘involved in the ongoing, daily world of the people being studied’ ( Fielding, 2008, p. 269). Being part of and participating in human-rights-based practices in social work allows the ethnographer to get to know the logic, dynamics and meanings behind these practices. For this study, collaboration was set up with one of the eight regional institutions for community development in Flanders, Belgium. These institutions are recognised and subsidised by the Flemish government through the 1991 Act on Community Development. The overall mission of the institutions for community development is to contribute to realising the right to a decent life for people living in vulnerable life conditions. The institutions for community development explicitly use human rights as a framework to realise their mission. In particular, they focus on social rights as they are recognised in the Belgian Constitution: the right to decent housing, the right to education, the right to social security, the right to health care, the right to work, the right to a healthy living environment and the right to cultural and social development. The participatory approach is typical for the work of the institutions for community development. They are not working just ‘for’, but above all ‘with’ people living in vulnerable life conditions. Therefore, the institutions for community development are an interesting case for investigating the meaning of social work as a human rights profession. Our research took place in the institution for community development in East Flanders, one of the five Flemish provinces in Belgium. In collaboration with the institution, we decided to select two human rights domains to study: housing and education. These domains could be considered as exemplary to study social work as a human rights profession.
Research methods used in ethnographic research can be very diverse. For this study, we used a documentary review, participant observation and conversation-style interviews with key informants ( D’Cruz and Jones, 2004). For the documentary review, we used documents produced by social workers who are active in the institution for community development. These documents gave us an insight into the work of the institution regarding the role of social work in ‘doing’ human rights. Policy notes, minutes of meetings, annual reports, etc. were all considered. Because in ethnographic research, it is important to understand the particular historical and socio-cultural context of the practices being researched ( Bryman, 2012), additional documents produced outside the institution for community development were selected. They were used to develop an environmental analysis in order to ‘capture’ the work of the institution in relation to the broader policy context (demographic data, a ‘map’ of the available welfare organisations, the history of particular neighbourhoods, etc.).
For the participant observation, the relevant activities to understand the work of the institution for community development were selected in mutual consultation with a ‘gatekeeper’ ( Fielding, 2008) of the institution. Gradually, the researcher also spontaneously took part in a variety of activities. Participation by the researcher was always overt (see Bryman, 2012). Field notes were kept during or directly after the participant observation. These field notes took the form of detailed descriptions of particular events and of people’s actions in these events, as well as the researcher’s initial reflections on these events. In total, participant observations took four months and more than 400 h. Time was divided equally between the domains of education and housing.
The third method we used was conversation-style interviews with key informants. In order to guarantee the validity of the observations, provisional ideas on the findings, striking observations or remaining questions were ‘shared with the member’s world’ ( Fielding, 2008) and checked. These ‘ethnographic interviews’ often took the form of ‘interviews on the spot’ and gave a deeper understanding of the practice being studied. For both education and housing, 26 people participated in an interview (total n = 52). In the case of education, the group consisted of eight community development workers, twelve social workers from partner organisations (civil servants from the city, school social workers, school directors, social workers from the public centre for social welfare [PCSW], social workers from poverty-related organisations, etc.) and six service-users from the institution for community development. The service-users all had a background of living in poverty, and were selected as members of a parent group from a local school for primary education.
In the case of housing, the participants were six community development workers, eleven social workers from partner organisations (civil servants from the city, social workers from the social housing company, social workers from the PCSW, social workers from poverty-related organisations, etc.) and nine service-users. The service-users were selected based on their participation in the working group on housing that is organised by the institution for community development. This working group consists of people who all face problems with regard to housing. All interviews were audiotaped and transcribed. The researchers had no personal connection whatsoever with the institution for community development. The only professional link that the researchers had with the research context was expertise in the domain of community development and encounters with representatives of the institution in the context of education-related activities (e.g. internships).
In the second part of the study, focus groups were set up. While the general aim of a focus group is to discuss a specific topic ( Bryman, 2012), we had an additional 2-fold goal. First, we wanted to flesh out several issues that were not clear after the ethnographic research (deepening). Second, we wanted to explore whether the findings of our ethnographic research that took place in the context of community development were applicable in other domains of social work (broadening). We chose focus groups because they allow for creating rich data, enabling in-depth analysis. We selected people with a more expert profile in social work and human rights. The selection criteria used for participants were (i) being familiar with human rights in a social work context and (ii) having a generalist view on social work practice or policy. Participants from the focus group were senior staff members of various social work organisations, as well as lecturers and professors who teach social work at universities and universities of applied sciences in Flanders. Four focus groups of four to six people were organised (total n = 18). In addition, seven in-depth interviews were organised with experts who, because of practical considerations, were not able to attend the focus groups. All the focus groups were led by two people: the researcher who conducted the ethnographic research and whose role it was to bring up the content for discussion and a supervisor who was the moderator of the focus group. Each focus group lasted approximately an hour and a half, and each was organised around three statements: (i) Participatory action, as a foundation of a human rights-based approach in social work, can also exclude people; (ii) a human rights-based approach in social work contributes to individualisation and responsibilisation and (iii) a human rights-based approach that starts from rules and laws (a top-down perspective) obstructs an approach that starts from the needs of people (a bottom-up perspective). The discussion in the focus groups was organised based on the five-stage model proposed by Cronin (2008): (1) introduction; (2) opening; (3) introductory statement; (4) key questions and (5) ending questions. Both the focus group discussions and interviews were audiotaped and transcribed.
The study was approved and funded by the Research Council of the HOGENT University of Applied Sciences and Arts. It was carried out in collaboration with Ghent University in compliance with the ethical standards of both the institutions. Informed consent was obtained from all of the participants after an extensive explanation of the research project.
For the data analysis, an inductive approach was chosen ( Hodkinsons, 2008). More specifically, a thematic analysis was done on the materials obtained from the ethnographic research. The analysis was executed in two steps by the two first authors. In the first step, both authors separately analysed the same six interviews (two community development workers, two social workers form partner organisations and two service-users) for each domain (education and housing). The analysis was based on the six-step model developed by Braun and Clarke (2006; see also Teater, 2017). Initial codes were assigned to the materials and afterwards they were grouped around several themes or ‘building blocks’. To answer the question of how social work acts when using human rights, we were looking for themes or building blocks that constitute a comprehensive action-framework for human rights in social work. We were particularly looking for different or even conflicting interpretations or constructions of human rights by social work, as these different interpretations could clearly demonstrate the action component of our framework. After individual analysis by the two authors, the results were pooled and discussed. This working method increases the inter-rater reliability among the researchers ( Oluwatayo, 2012). The result of this first step was a first draft of an action framework for human rights in social work. In the second step, the second author continued the analysis of the remaining interviews and also analysed the documentary review and the participant observations.
Although the analysis was primarily data-driven, we, as researchers with an interest in social work and human rights, could not disengage from our pre-existing knowledge. As Braun and Clarke explain, ‘data are not coded in an epistemological vacuum’ (2006, p. 14). So the research context of community development coloured our data to a certain extent. As explained earlier, the community development organisations explicitly use human rights as a framework for their practice. In recent years, they acquired a great deal of expertise in the field of human rights, which has been reflected in numerous reports, memoranda and suchlike. Furthermore, as social work is a practice characterised by interconnectedness with local communities, working with vulnerable people, both at the micro-level of individual support and at the macro-level of structural change, it is no coincidence that related themes emerged from the data. Altogether, the first phase analysis yielded five themes or building blocks for an action framework for human rights in social work: (i) systemworld-oriented action, (ii) lifeworld-oriented action, (iii) participatory action, (iv) joined-up action and (v) politicised action. In the next step, these findings were presented to all the authors and discussed. This did not result in any adjustments at the level of themes, but it did result in some changes to the topics included under each building block. The remaining points of discussion and things that were unclear were taken to the focus groups. After the focus groups were held, the same procedure was followed: the four transcribed focus groups and seven additional interviews were analysed by the two first authors, and then discussed with all the authors, until consensus was reached. Again, this did not result in any adjustments at the level of the building blocks.
Based on our data, an action framework for human rights in social work was developed, consisting of five building blocks. In the next part of this article, we present these five building blocks.
The right to social support would be meaningless without social services; the right to education would be meaningless without schools; the right to decent housing would be meaningless without houses and the right to health care would be meaningless without hospitals. All these systems—social services, schools, houses, health care, social security, etc.—are considered parts of the systemworld. The systemworld can be defined as all the institutionalised societal resources necessary for the realisation of human rights. Access to these systems is often difficult for people living in vulnerable life conditions. They frequently experience high thresholds.
The problem is that you have to be well informed and to know the right person. … How many people know about the income guarantee for elderly people? A lot of people probably know about the premium for housing, but how many of them are actually applying for it? Definitely not that many, because it requires a lot of jargon that keeps people from applying. (a service-user)
It is a recurring complaint that social systems are inaccessible, because people who need care and support must deal with bureaucracy. The problem is not just the large number of forms that need to be filled in. Social workers also send people from pillar to post, so that ultimately people give up and do not apply for the support they are entitled to. In the end, social rights are often not realised.
We do not understand just how high the thresholds are for people who are already in a vulnerable position, who are living in difficult circumstances, and who are then confronted with a multitude of services that are not working in an integrated way, have cultural thresholds, etc. We have no idea what it means to live in poverty, how hard that is … so that support by social services and an emancipatory approach don’t mean anything. (a social worker, institution for community development)
An important topic related to creating accessible social institutions concerns the distinction between ‘universal’ and ‘selective’ social systems. Based on a human rights perspective, social workers often argue for universal social systems. However, some social workers point out the risks of this approach.
Human rights are of course for everyone. But I think that certain groups are more easily deprived of them. These are certainly socially vulnerable groups. … Other groups have more power to make their voices heard. In any case, they also have easier access to certain rights. Education, for example, is more in line with middle-class culture. (a social worker, institution for community development)
Another social worker puts it even more bluntly:
That is actually a waste of time and resources if we focus on all citizens. … In such an inclusive organisation, time and energy are not focused on the most vulnerable people. (a social worker, institution for community development)
To resolve the tension between a universal and a selective approach, some social workers argue for so-called progressive universalism. According to this line of thinking, social support should in principle be universal in orientation, and therefore should be addressed to everyone. However, these universal social systems should simultaneously develop ways of supporting people living in vulnerable life conditions who may fall through the cracks, by supplementing them with selective measures ‘within’ these universal systems. So a community centre can be open to everyone, but for people living in poverty, extra support should be provided ‘within’ this community centre to guarantee their participation.
We shouldn’t become the home of the poor either. We have to keep it a bit open without opening it up again to everyone, because then you know that the weakest people will fall out again. (a social worker, institution for community development)
Systemworld-oriented action has its counterpart in lifeworld-oriented action. Lifeworld-oriented action is about social workers making connections with the experiences from people’s everyday lifeworld. The focus is not so much on institutionalised resources, but rather on the practices that people themselves develop to cope with daily experiences of injustice and with violations of human rights.
Actually, being in the field, close to the people, makes you better able to understand the underlying causes … you can more easily contextualise situations. People don’t always say what they want to say or what they think. If you know the context, you can understand that people formulate things in a certain way but mean it differently. (a social worker, institution for community development)
People living in vulnerable life conditions often find that their living environments are insufficiently understood by social workers as well as others. At the same time, they experience difficulties in explaining their own situation to social work organisations.
A lifeworld orientation also requires that social workers facilitate the opportunities to connect different lifeworlds. Connecting lifeworlds can contribute to sharing diverse experiences and to creating connectedness.
One time there was a ‘week of empathisation’. This is good for involving citizens so they can also experience it that way. They cannot imagine what it is like. … It is good to involve them, so they get a very different view of our problems, because those people don’t normally have to deal with these problems. They should do this a lot more, through a campaign set up by the working group on housing, so these people are motivated to join our conversations and to experience what is going on. (a service-user)
Social workers also point out several risks that might be associated with a lifeworld approach. Specifically, they warn against a narrowing view on social problems where not only are social problems observed in the lifeworlds of people, but also solutions for these social problems are sought within the same lifeworlds. However, problems that manifest in the lifeworlds of people often originate from external causes, such as the labour market, the housing market or the school system. Therefore, social workers should always try to link issues raised in the lifeworld with the way social systems are organised.
That double movement has to be part of our work. That is why we say that you should not see our work merely as directed downwards. You have to work from the bottom up, but that movement must also go upwards. … You have to link the work with a broader movement of social organisations. They help to raise the issues of social inequality, and they can move society in the direction of redistribution. … It is even more necessary to set up broader alliances, so that all those little things that happen can become part of a broader context and become part of a wider environment. (a social worker, institution for community development)
The final crucial aspect of social work with lifeworld-oriented action is social duty in public deliberation.
The articulation of different needs of different groups is the core of democracy; that is a social issue. Which needs do we as a society recognise, and which not? Which needs can be defined as rights, how are they recognised, and can we organise ourselves accordingly? These are public debates. These are collective discussions, because not having your needs recognised, and, consequently, not being seen or heard in society, is usually a collective and structural problem. (a lecturer on social work)
Participation is a loose concept, but nevertheless a key notion when talking about an action framework for human rights in social work. After all, shaping human rights requires dialogue between social workers and citizens about how to construct human rights and for what purpose. Social workers point to two complementary features of participation. First, participatory action entails involvement, connection and reciprocity between social workers and citizens. Here, social workers focus on the ‘relational’ characteristic of the practice of participation.
Participative work cannot be one-sided. You cannot expect your client to participate in everything that comes out of your sleeve. I think the art is to participate with them, and to play it by ear: ‘What is going on here?’ If you as a social worker participate with them, you are going to exclude far fewer people than you would if you expect them to come and participate with you. (a social worker, institution for community development)
Social workers also recognise that participation is not simply a relational issue, but that it entails a ‘structural’ approach as well.
If I say that we have to be more individual, this doesn’t mean that we have to find an individual solution. What I mean is that we have to approach people individually and then hear from there what problems those people or those groups are experiencing. It is also important that policy acknowledges the stories of those people. (a social worker, institution for community development)
Participatory action comes with many pitfalls. One is the social exclusion caused by participatory practices. For social work, it is important to be aware of these processes of exclusion and to identify possible barriers and difficulties. In general, social workers indicate that ‘stronger’ people are the ones who participate in available activities, as these practices require a certain assertiveness or particular social or cultural skills.
Participation usually starts from a certain framework and not everyone fits into that framework. It also requires certain skills from clients—skills they don’t always have. So participatory practices exclude people, but at the same time, this makes us aware that we need to find a different way to involve those excluded. (social worker, institution for community development)
Another pitfall has to do with participation in social policy. One of the working methods of the institution for community development is to coach people who live in vulnerable life conditions to speak with policymakers. This involves a risk of instrumentalisation, not only by policymakers, but also by social workers, as these people adapt themselves to the preferences of social workers.
In everything we do, of course, it is important that we let people make their own choices. But to what extent we, as community workers, steer those choices … I’m not sure. … We wouldn’t say it like that, but we do come up with the solutions. … We start a project and then we involve people in it. (a social worker, institution for community development)
Social work exists in many fields of practice. This can lead to physical or metaphorical borders between these fields. The over-organised professional field of social work often results in fragmentation or compartmentalisation. Social work from a human rights perspective should question these borders and even try to break through them. This is what is meant by joined-up action. Joined-up action aims to counteract structures and logic that withhold the realisation of human rights in social work.
A trend in the social field is to divide everything into separate human rights or compartments. That is how social policy is organised. A human-rights-based perspective implies an integrated or joined-up approach. This requires breaking through this administrative compartmentalisation of human rights. (a social worker, institution for community development)
Besides the limitations caused by the organisation of social work in different fields, social work is often restricted by the proliferation of rules, procedures, protocols, etc. From a human rights perspective, this requires social workers to push boundaries.
It is about pushing and crossing boundaries, looking outside the range of tasks, thinking outside the box. Laws are not violated, but rules are; these are agreements, and they can be interpreted more broadly or reinterpreted … . (a social worker, community health centre)
Social workers call for questioning rules and procedures. Joined-up action here means that social workers should use their professional discretion in order to be guided by their ethical duty instead of following fixed rules and arrangements.
Having sufficient professional discretion is very important, especially if you work with the most vulnerable groups. You need to take the side of these people instead of working with a double agenda. In any case, they will feel this immediately. But secondly, the more professional discretion social workers use in a system, the more they can defend the rights of vulnerable groups in society. … It is important that they make full use of their professional discretion in order to develop a social reflex as much as possible. (a social worker, institution for community development)
Politicisation concerns questioning and contesting power. Power is mostly conceived of as something that belongs to societal structures, like politics or the judiciary system. Exercising power may result in injustice and in inhuman living conditions. The role of social work is thought to be to collectivise individual experiences of human rights violations and to bring these to the public debate. Politicised social work should use political advocacy to denounce structures and systems of power that cause violations of human rights.
You can try to help the person on an individual level to realise his or her rights, but you will always come across structural issues. (a social worker, institution for community development)
Power is also something that is situated in speaking about particular social issues. These discourses of power have a significant impact on people. The role of social work is to question these dominant orders of society. A social worker from a poverty-related organisation working with young people explains:
Many of the young people who arrive at our organisation are caught up in the ‘it’s your own fault’ discourse … . These young people are caught in a system and therefore they often blame themselves: ‘I think it’s me’ … . For example, education is an often recurring subject: 90% have attended special education. How is that possible? Is it only because of the context of poverty that they are being referred to this type of education, largely determining their future? In our organisation, they learn that this is happening not only to them, but this is something systemic. We explain that it is caused by our educational system failing to give everyone equal opportunities. By doing this, we are ‘de-blaming’ them: there is an individual responsibility, but there is also a social responsibility. For them, this is a process of awareness-raising about how society works and about who decides what. In the beginning, this often alienates these young people, these issues of politics, policy, human rights. (a social worker, poverty organisation).
However, because of the often extensive subsidisation of social work organisations by the government, the politicising role of social work is frequently at odds with the autonomy and independence of the organisation.
You are actually in a sort of a split, which keeps you from going fully for human rights. We cannot just be a protest movement. We can never go full 100 per cent. We can do that, but only with the blessing of a minister. (a social worker, institution for community development)
Therefore, social workers should be aware of depoliticising tendencies that increasingly emphasise the controlling side of social work over its emancipatory character.
The pressure is increasing for social workers to exercise control. I think it is important that social workers be very conscious of this: what is my task? … You see that organisations that are not complying are experiencing consequences. … We owe it to ourselves to say why we stand for. If we don’t do that, we do not take our clients seriously. We must unite as social workers to make it clear to policymakers: this is social work and this is not social work. … We must be able to define our role as social workers: what do we serve? We cannot be used for everything. (a social worker, organisation supporting people with a migration background)
Social workers indicate that they should be much more concerned with their self-critical role. Their own actions as social workers should also be scrutinised in some form of ‘self-politicisation’.
Our qualitative research on how social work acts when aiming to realise human rights reveals five building blocks. They flesh out what it can mean for social work to be a human rights profession. It is important to consider these five building blocks in connection to one another as an action framework for human rights in social work. The key point of this framework is the recognition that human rights in social work are collectively constructed and that social workers play a crucial role in this construction process. To state that human rights are collectively constructed is to acknowledge the discursive, contested and complex nature of human rights in social work ( Cemlyn, 2008; Ife, 2012). There is no single way to construct human rights. On the contrary, trying to realise human rights is a process characterised by a plurality of potential constructions, based on the plurality of interests of the communities and community members involved. Part of our data also show opposing constructions of human rights ‘within’ building blocks. The discussion on systemworld-oriented action, for instance, demonstrates that some social workers are in favour of selective social services, while others defend universal ones. The same goes for participatory action: being recognised as an agent and being acknowledged as a partner in dialogue can conflict with instrumentalising tendencies. It is remarkable that the conflicting perspectives each underpin their opposite positions from the same framework of human rights. Another part of our data show opposing views on human rights ‘between’ building blocks. This is probably most obvious in the building blocks of lifeworld-oriented action and systemworld-oriented action, which can be considered opposites. The approach of starting from the needs experienced by communities seems to be difficult to reconcile with the bureaucratic procedures of institutions within a system, although both rely on human rights.
Our action framework has an ambiguous relationship with previous action models. It resonates only partially with Androff’s five-principles framework ( Androff, 2016), particularly regarding the principle of participation. The principle of accountability in Androff’s model is closely linked to the building block of politicised action. For the other principles, the two frameworks can be considered complementary. The same goes for McPhersons’s HRPSW framework (2015; see also McPherson and Abell, 2020). Some of the human rights methods in her model share similarities with our action framework: participation is a shared concern; accountability and activism correspond to politicised action; community and interdisciplinary collaboration are related to lifeworld-oriented action and micro/macro integration and capacity building resonate with systemworld-oriented action. On the other hand, the human rights lens and human rights goals are absent from our action framework. As for earlier research in the Flemish context, our action framework agrees with some aspects of it but not others. Vandekinderen et al. (2020) conducted a research project to explore the common ground of social work in Flanders. They identified five building blocks that are considered the DNA of social work in Flanders. Of these, politicising work is the only building block that both frameworks have in common. It is no surprise that this building block also shows up in our results, as politicising work is a main concern in the work of community development organisations in Flanders.
The observed divergences between our own action framework and the practice approaches of Androff and McPherson can be explained in different ways. In part, this is probably due to the different research contexts in which the projects took place. In our project, collaboration was set up with organisations in the field of community development. Although we included focus group discussions to see whether our findings were transferable, additional research in other social work domains could reveal different emphases or even different building blocks. Furthermore, comparative studies between countries could provide more insight into the international transferability of our action framework. As explained in the ‘Introduction’ section, the nature of social work is closely linked to the welfare regime of a country, which in turn ‘set the scene’ for understanding human rights. How different welfare regimes affect the translation of human rights in social work practice remains a blind spot in social work scholarship. However, this is of particular relevance as welfare regimes all over the world are facing far-reaching transformation that have a significant impact on how human rights in social work are understood. Further research might reveal the link between the nature of different welfare regimes and the way social workers use human rights in their practice. Finally, although we included the voices of service-users in our research project, they often remain left out of rights-based practice literature. Further research on human rights in social work should pay much more attention to the perspective of service-users and to the way that a human rights framework affects their situations and life conditions. These issues require an empirical shift in order to fully understand social work as a human rights profession. Understanding these issues could lend more nuance to the discussions on the relationship between social work and human rights, and would move this debate beyond empty slogans and catchphrases.