Social workers in multidisciplinary teams: issues and dilemmas for professional practice
ABSTRACT This paper draws on the findings of a project, funded by the Economic and Social Research Council of the UK, examining how child and family multidisciplinary teams learn and work together. It outlines the approach taken by the research team before going on to explore New Labour policy around ‘joined-up thinking’. The paper focuses on the role of social workers in the teams and uses qualitative data to explore the experience of social workers in relation to four key issues: models of professional practice, status and power, confidentiality and information sharing, and relations with external agencies. We argue that these are complex and contested issues that are challenging for the workers concerned. We conclude that whilst joined-up working is complex and demanding, social work is well situated to meet the challenge, and that social workers in multidisciplinary teams are committed to making them work.
SourceAvailable from: Anette Bolin
Dataset: Bolin shifting subordination 2011
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: This article describes collaborations between child welfare officers and rabbis in an ultra-Orthodox Jewish community in Israel. The study is based on interviews with 10 child welfare officers who intervene in ultra-Orthodox communities. The analysis of the interviews showed that cooperation with the rabbis was essential for reducing the community's hostile resistance to interventions by the child welfare officers, who were perceived as threatening to community values. On the other hand, the child welfare officers had to cope with conflicts between religious values, the law, and professional perceptions. The discussion of the findings highlights the need for understanding the cooperation in terms of boundaries and power. Future research is needed to explore further the issues raised from the perspectives of the rabbis and the families involved.Journal of Social Service Research 03/2013; 39(2):204-217. DOI:10.1080/01488376.2012.745825 · 0.44 Impact Factor