“She isn’t Someone I Associate with Pension”—a Vignette Study of Professional Reasoning

Marie Østergaard Møller

doi:10.7577/pp.1353

Abstract

What drives frontline workers’ categorization of clients in rule-based settings with a large room for discretion? The literature on street-level bureaucracy offers a structural description of discretion that emphasizes working conditions, policy goals, personal preferences, client pressure and professional norms. However, in order to explain why frontline workers with the same room for discretion categorize clients differently, a theory of an epistemic understanding of discretion may contribute to this literature. Based on a vignette study of 24 interviews with Danish caseworkers, the analysis shows how professional reasoning, rules, and social stereotypes inform categorization and discretion. The findings indicate that caseworkers’ categorizations of clients are less responsive to clients’ needs and more sensitive to administrative reasoning when clients are associated with stereotypes of need. In addition, the analysis contributes to the theory of categorization and discretion in lower levels of government Keywords: Categorization, discretion, professionalism, stereotypes of need

Highlights

Even though the interviewed caseworkers share educational status and administrative tasks, and are part of comparable organizations and demographic surroundings, the data show that some are more driven towards stereotyped categorization practices than others
The analysis finds that the stereotypes of needs associated with client characteristics contribute important insights into this relationship
One implication of the analysis can be related to the theory of “hybrid professionalism” (Schott et al, 2016)

Summary

Introduction

The above quote is selected to illustrate how accountability sometimes comes before client responsiveness when caseworkers draw on organizational professionalism to reason about clients’ needs.

Results

Conclusion