未完成的专业化：社会工作项目评估标准中管理与专业的动态平衡

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 基于社会建构论范式，结合新管理主义和专业主义的理论框架及国外社会工作评估发展史，分析2010—2018年间参与广东D区社会工作项目评估及评估标准制定的案例，发现D区社会工作评估标准的演变分为工作汇报型、管理规范型、专业规范型和专业经验型四个阶段，8年来D区的社会工作项目评估走向专业化的原因是政府和社会工作行业双方在尝试贯彻自身思维于评估标准时，采取了有所让步又有所坚持的协商策略，从而使政府购买方的管理思维和服务承接方的专业思维在动态博弈中达到了暂时性平衡。但由于服务对象未能参与到现有评估标准的建构之中，D区社会工作评估依然是一种未完成的专业化。因此，建议政府不断提高管理水平，评估方积极参与评估标准设计或修改，社会工作机构和项目社会工作者主动总结和分享专业经验，并赋权服务对象参与评估。

关键词: 新管理主义, 专业主义, 项目评估, 社会工作

Abstract: Based on the social paradigm of constructivism, the theoretical framework of new managerialism and professionalism, and the development history of foreign social work evaluation, this current research found that the local social work evaluation standards were changing and developing through the data collected by the author who participated in social work project evaluation in District D of Guangdong from 2010 to 2018. The article summarized the evolution of social work evaluation standards in District D into 4 stages and types, namely the work-report type, management-norm type, professional-norm type and professional-experience type. Also, the article argued that in the past eight years, social work evaluation had become professional for the reason that the government and the social work industry had adopted negotiation strategies with compromise and persistence when they tried to implement their own minds in the evaluation standard design, resulting in a temporary balance during the dynamic game between the government purchasers’ managerial mind and the service providers’ professional mind. However, as the service users had little access to the construction of the evaluation standards, the author believed that the social work evaluation in District D indicated an unfinished professionalization of social work. Therefore, it is suggested that the government should continuously improve the management level, the evaluators should actively participate in the design or modification of evaluation standards, social work agencies and project social workers should take the initiative to summarize and share professional experience, and the service objects should be empowered to participate in the evaluation.

Key words: new managerialism, professionalism, project evaluation, social work

中图分类号:

C916

吴耀健. 未完成的专业化：社会工作项目评估标准中管理与专业的动态平衡[J]. 社会工作与管理, 2020, 20(5): 53-61.

WU Yaojian. Unfinished Professionalization: The Dynamic Balance between Management and Profession within Social Work Project Evaluation Standards[J]. SOCIAL WORK AND MANAGEMENT, 2020, 20(5): 53-61.

参考文献

[1] 朱晨海, 曾群. 结果导向的社会工作评估指标体系建构研究——以都江堰市城北馨居灾后重建服务为例[J]. 西北师大学报(社会科学版), 2009(3):63-68
[2] 刘江. 效果导向的项目管理指标体系研究——基于128个残疾人服务项目评估结果的量化分析[J]. 社会建设, 2018(5):55-63
[3] 姚进忠, 崔坤杰. 绩效抑或专业:我国社会工作评估的困境与对策[J]. 中州学刊, 2015(1):73-78
[4] 雷杰, 黄婉怡. 广州家庭综合服务中心的评估导向[C]. 广州:社会工作本色与本土——广东社工发展论坛, 2013.
[5] 王壬, 罗观翠. 我国社会工作专业化发展路径分析及对社会工作教育的启示[J]. 中国社会工作研究(第九辑), 2012(9):136-151
[6] 尹阿雳, 赵环. 审核与增能:社会工作服务机构评估模式的整合升级——基于深圳市社工服务机构评估(2009-2016年)的经验反思[J]. 社会工作与管理, 2018(1):11-16
[7] 刘江. 赋权评估:迈向一种内部评估实践[J]. 华东理工大学学报(社会科学版), 2018(4):11-18
[8] CHEETHAM J, MULLEN E J, SOYDAN H, etal. Evaluation as a tool in the development of social work discourse:National diversity or shared preoccupations? Reflections from a conference[J]. Evaluation, 1998, 4(1):9-24
[9] TSANG A K T, SIN R, JIA C, YAN M C. Another snapshot of social work in China:Capturing multiple positioning and intersecting discourses in rapid movement[J]. Australian social work, 2008, 61(1):72-87
[10] YAN M C, TSANG A K T. Re-envisioning indigenization:When Bentuhuade and bentude social work intersect in China[C]//GREY M, COATES J, YELLOW BIRDS M. Indigenous social work around the world:Towards culturally relevant education and practice. Hampshire:Ashgate, 2008:191-202.
[11] MALCOLM PAYNE. 现代社会工作理论[M]. 上海:华东理工大学出版社, 2005:16.
[12] GRINNELL R M, UNRAU Y. Social work research and evaluation:Qualitative and quantitative approaches[M]. Itasca:FE Peacock Publishers, 2001:483.
[13] HOOD C. A public management for all reasons?[J]. Public administration, 1991, 69(1):3-19
[14] CLARKE J, NEWMAN J. The managerial state:Power, politics and ideology in the remaking of social welfare[M]. London. SAGE Publications, 1997:66.
[15] CLARKE J, GEWIRTZ S, MCLAUGHLIN E. New managerialism, new welfare?[M]. London. SAGE Publications, 2000:130.
[16] HARLOW E. New managerialism, social service departments and social work practice today[J]. Practice, 2003, 15(2):29-44
[17] LEUNG J C B. The advent of managerialism in social welfare:The case of Hong Kong[J]. The Hong Kong journal of social work, 2002, 36(01-02):61-81
[18] MORGAN S, PYAYNE M. Managerialism and state social work in Britain[J]. The Hong Kong journal of social work, 2002, 36(01n02):27-43
[19] TSUI M S, CHEUNG F C H. Gone with the wind:The impacts of managerialism on human services[J]. British journal of social work, 2004, 34(3):437-442
[20] SCHON D A. The reflective practitioner:How professionals think in action[M]. New York:Routledge, 2017:13-14.
[21] LARSON M S. Professionalism:Rise and fall[J]. International journal of health services, 1979, 9(4):607-627
[22] NOORDEGRAAF M. From Pure" to "Hybrid" professionalism:Present-Day professionalism in ambiguous public domains[J]. Administration & society, 2007, 39(6):761-785
[23] ABBOTT A. The system of professions:An essay on the division of expert labor[M]. Chicago:University of Chicago press, 2014:80.
[24] FREIDSON E. Professionalism, the third logic:On the practice of knowledge[M]. Chicago:University of Chicago press, 2001:145-146.
[25] ROSSI PH, FREEMAN HE, LIPSEY MW. Evaluation:A systematic approach[M]. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage Publications, 1999:20.
[26] GINSBERG L H. 社会工作评估——原理与方法[M]. 上海:华东理工大学出版社, 2005:12-16.
[27] 郭伟和. 后专业化时代的社会工作及其借鉴意义[J]. 社会学研究, 2014(5):217-240
[28] 吕磊, 陈晓律. 当代西方福利国家的危机——以英国为例[J]. 南京大学学报(哲学·人文社科·社会科学版), 2011(6):18-28
[29] HARLOW E, BERG E, BARRY J, CHANDLER J. Neoliberalism, managerialism and the reconfiguring of social work in Sweden and the United Kingdom[J]. Organization, 2013, 20(4):534-550
[30] TREVITHICK P. Humanising managerialism:Reclaiming emotional reasoning, intuition, the relationship, and knowledge and skills in social work[J]. Journal of social work practice, 2014, 28(3):287-311
[31] 李伟. 去社会工作何以走向"去社会变革化"?——基于美国百年社会工作史的分析[J]. 社会, 2018(4):100-132
[32] FERGUSO I, WOODWARD R. Radical social work in practice:Making a difference[M]. New York:Bristol:Policy Press, 2009:43-44.
[33] SPECHT H, COURTNEY M E. Unfaithful angels:How social work has abandoned its mission[M]. Simon and Schuster, 1995.
[34] 郭伟和. 迈向反身性实践的社会工作实务理论——当前社会工作理论界的若干争论及其超越[J]. 学海, 2018(1):125-133
"

相关文章 15

[1]	童敏, 吴宝红. 从英雄主义到平民关怀：社会工作伦理的反思与重构[J]. 社会工作与管理, 2022, 22(4): 5-12.
[2]	赵芳, 孔春燕. 基于“关系”的社会工作伦理实践[J]. 社会工作与管理, 2022, 22(4): 13-19.
[3]	何龙韬, 吴汉. 应对社会工作伦理困境的反思能力教学和培养模式[J]. 社会工作与管理, 2022, 22(4): 20-30.
[4]	秦海波, 李玉昆, 赵燕燕, 程海源. 提升薪资能否留住社会工作者？——工作自主权的调节作用[J]. 社会工作与管理, 2022, 22(4): 31-40.
[5]	金舒衡, 戴海静. 社区不文明行为与流动母亲的安全感——兼论社会工作的空间介入[J]. 社会工作与管理, 2022, 22(4): 41-47.
[6]	雷杰, 易雪娇, 张忠民. 行政化导向的新管理主义：乡镇 (街道)社会工作站建设与政府购买社会工作服务——以湖南省“禾计划”A市项目为例[J]. 社会工作与管理, 2022, 22(4): 62-74.
[7]	于铁山, 居正. 政治与专业互嵌：社会工作机构党建发展与服务进阶研究——以广东省D地27家社会工作机构为例[J]. 社会工作与管理, 2022, 22(4): 86-92.
[8]	文军, 敖淑凤. 从碎片化到整合化：志愿服务本土实践路径探索——以无锡市X区为例[J]. 社会工作与管理, 2022, 22(3): 5-12.
[9]	韩央迪, 黄翠萍, 张雪峰, 王琛迪, 李相蒲. “橙希”互助：循证导向下的癌患家属照顾者生活希望计划——以上海市H医院肿瘤内科为例[J]. 社会工作与管理, 2022, 22(3): 13-22.
[10]	赵迪, 张志鹏, 张伟. 因为专业所以认同——南京市社会工作者主观地位认同的质性研究[J]. 社会工作与管理, 2022, 22(3): 23-34.
[11]	陈蓓蓓. 分类视阈下社会工作机构公共危机应对研究——基于湖北省H市的调查[J]. 社会工作与管理, 2022, 22(3): 35-44.
[12]	时怡雯, 周静. 整合视角下我国少数民族留守儿童社会工作服务模式探究——基于云南省Y县少数民族留守儿童需求评估分析[J]. 社会工作与管理, 2022, 22(3): 45-54.
[13]	杨红, 陈涛. 社会工作机构支撑的村庄多元主体协同治理——北京市Z村治理模式研究[J]. 社会工作与管理, 2022, 22(3): 80-91.
[14]	何雪松, 王天齐. 2021年社会工作研究年度进展述评[J]. 社会工作与管理, 2022, 22(2): 5-15.
[15]	何健, 蓝财广. 互助助人VS助人自助：中国社会工作本土化理念的新阐释[J]. 社会工作与管理, 2022, 22(2): 16-24.

Metrics

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed