Abstract
Social work writing, often referred to as ‘recording’ or ‘paperwork’, is frequently the target of criticism in reviews and public media reporting in the UK. However, despite the many criticisms made and its significance in social work practice, little empirical research has been carried out on professional social work writing. This paper draws on findings from an ESRC-funded study in the UK to offer a baseline characterization of the nature and function of writing in contemporary social work. Drawing on text and ethnographic data, the paper foregrounds three key dimensions: the number of written texts, key textual functionalities and genres; the specific ways in which ‘text work’ constitutes everyday social work professional practice, using case studies from the domains of adults, children and mental health; and the concerns of social workers about the amount of time they are required to spend on writing. The baseline characterization provides empirical evidence for claims made about the increased bureaucratization of social work practice, signalling contemporary social work as a ‘writing-intensive’ profession which is at odds with social workers’ professional ‘imaginary’. The paper concludes by outlining the educational and policy implications of the baseline characterization and calls for debate about the nature of contemporary social work practice.
Highlights
In official reports and inspections of professional social work, the importance of writing, usually under the label ‘recording’, figures prominently
A small number of studies have been carried out on professional social work writing which include writing as empirical data: one case of written records in Children’s Services in a study focusing on spoken discourse (Hall et al 2006); a diary, text and interview-based study with five social workers (Lillis and Rai 2012); and an ethnographically framed study on case recording in adult services (Lillis 2017)
We use the term ‘baseline’ in the same sense as it is used by ethnographic researchers, as a valid construct for referring to descriptions of people/places/events at a particular moment in time against which future comparisons can be made, without detracting from the value of individual case studies. This reflects our empirical goal in this paper of offering a first-level descriptive account of the nature and role of writing in professional social work, given the limited lillis, leedham and twiner 31 empirical accounts generated to date, and against the background of which further analyses can be carried out
Summary
In official reports and inspections of professional social work, the importance of writing, usually under the label ‘recording’, figures prominently. We use the term ‘baseline’ in the same sense as it is used by ethnographic researchers, as a valid construct for referring to descriptions of people/places/events at a particular moment in time against which future comparisons can be made, without detracting from the value of individual case studies This reflects our empirical goal in this paper of offering a first-level descriptive account of the nature and role of writing in professional social work, given the limited lillis, leedham and twiner 31 empirical accounts generated to date, and against the background of which further analyses (from the existing WiSP data and future studies) can be carried out. The paper concludes by arguing that contemporary social work is a ‘writing-intensive’ (Brandt 2005) profession, which is fundamentally at odds with social workers’ professional ‘imaginary’ (Castoriadis 1987)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
