This article looks at the hidden history of ‘popular social work’. It suggests that suspicion of state-directed social welfare and social work has a long history, that state-directed welfare is rarely unconditional and non-stigmatising, but that these values are enshrined and embedded within popular social work, which is often rooted in social movement activity. The article argues that we need to see social work as a much more contested activity, shaped by politics and that we need to rediscover the history of popular social work, which has been ignored within most professional histories.
Narrative has been observed to be central to the policy process – constituting public policy instruments, persuading decision makers and the public, and shaping all stages of the policy process. This article distils useful policy advice, which can be employed by scholars and practitioners alike. We call attention to two potential communication pitfalls to which practitioners are likely to fall prey: (1) the knowledge fallacy, and (2) the empathy fallacy. We then focus our discussion on ‘intervention points’ where narrative can play an important role, drawing attention to recent narrative research, which provides the strongest basis for overcoming communication fallacies. Based on arguments presented here, policy actors can construct better narratives to accomplish their policy goals, while scholars can better understand how narratives are constructed and the intervention points where narratives might be observed and therefore studied.
There is plenty of science, philosophy, and literature pointing to the importance of narrative in human affairs. One way to understand the findings and arguments presented is that people, by nature, are inclined to impose meaning on the world and that when they do, they rely on information shortcuts (heuristics) to develop quick and easy emotional renderings of the world that fit with who they think they are and what they know. People’s preferred way of meaning-making is through story (see Jones et al, 2014b). The essence of these interdisciplinary findings is captured by Hardy:
For we dream in narrative, daydream in narrative, remember, anticipate, hope, despair, believe, doubt, plan, revise, criticise, construct, gossip, learn, hate and love by narrative. In order to really live, we make up stories about ourselves and others, about the personal as well as the social past and future. (1968, 5)
If this is true of individuals, it should not be surprising that narrative also matters in public policy. Public policy is navigated by a system of actors who are vying for their preferred policy goals. Within this system, policy actors wield narratives to help achieve their goals, communicate problems and solutions, and citizens use them to communicate their preferences to policy elites, among other uses. However, much of this storytelling is governed by intuition, anecdote, and ad hoc theorising, which is not to malign policy actors – there is little else to go on.
The Palestinians of the West Bank have been living a life of poverty, oppression and occupation. Yet amid this maelstrom, they have managed to organise a range of grassroots welfare projects that meet some of the complex needs of the communities they serve. Drawing on interviews with Palestinian young people about their experiences of life under occupation, this chapter describes some magnificent welfare projects in the West Bank. The majority of those the authors spoke to had no formal qualifications in social work, yet the quality of the work they undertook holds lessons for social workers everywhere. This chapter is based on interview material with six workers at the Yaffa Centre, Balata, with three workers at the Jenin Disability Centre, and with three workers at the Am’ari Children’s Centre. All three projects are in refugee camps.
Numerous published efforts have compared and contrasted policy process theories. Few assessments, however, have examined the extent to which they are inclusive or diverse. Here we summarise lessons from previous assessments, paying attention to how Paul Sabatier’s science-based criteria have shaped the contours of the field. In looking at these contours, we explore evidence of diversity and inclusivity of policy process approaches in terms of methods, concepts, topics, geography and authors. We conclude with strategies to address challenges revealed by our examination: creating space for conversations among scholars of differing perspectives and approaches; building sustained and meaningful efforts to recruit and train researchers with diverse backgrounds; establishing research coordination networks that focus on policy problems; and creating better metrics to assess our diversity and inclusivity.