A Case of Mistaken Identity? Debating the Dilemmas of Street-level Bureaucracy with Musil et al.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Standard

A Case of Mistaken Identity? Debating the Dilemmas of Street-level Bureaucracy with Musil et al. / Evans, T.; Harris, J.

In: European Journal of Social Work, Vol. 9, No. 4, 12.2006, p. 445-459.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Harvard

Evans, T & Harris, J 2006, 'A Case of Mistaken Identity? Debating the Dilemmas of Street-level Bureaucracy with Musil et al.', European Journal of Social Work, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 445-459. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691450600958494

APA

Evans, T., & Harris, J. (2006). A Case of Mistaken Identity? Debating the Dilemmas of Street-level Bureaucracy with Musil et al. European Journal of Social Work, 9(4), 445-459. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691450600958494

Vancouver

Evans T, Harris J. A Case of Mistaken Identity? Debating the Dilemmas of Street-level Bureaucracy with Musil et al. European Journal of Social Work. 2006 Dec;9(4):445-459. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691450600958494

Author

Evans, T. ; Harris, J. / A Case of Mistaken Identity? Debating the Dilemmas of Street-level Bureaucracy with Musil et al. In: European Journal of Social Work. 2006 ; Vol. 9, No. 4. pp. 445-459.

Bibtex - Download

@article{02c27418f78d403cb747080f7441939e,
title = "A Case of Mistaken Identity? Debating the Dilemmas of Street-level Bureaucracy with Musil et al.",
abstract = "Lipsky's Street-level Bureaucracy (Russell Sage Foundation, New York, 1980) has exerted a strong influence on the study of public service organisations. There has been a growing interest in using this perspective to understand the organisational context of social work and Musil et al.'s article in the EJSW (2004, 'Do social workers avoid the dilemmas of work with clients?', European Journal of Social Work, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 305-319) reflects this interest. Musil et al. argue that it is possible to identify two forms of practitioner response to the constraints of street-level bureaucracies: adapting working practices in ways that disadvantage service users or challenging working conditions in order to achieve more professionally acceptable practice. Their contribution to the debate is helpful, particularly with regard to their identification of responses by practitioners that seek to advance the interests of service users. However, we view their approach as constrained by lack of consideration of the construction of social work roles within particular street-level bureaucracies. We suggest that Lipsky's work should be approached as a tentative analytic framework, rather than as a fixed model and we argue that a productive approach to research on social workers as street-level bureaucrats is conjunctural analysis. Such analysis examines the contexts, circumstances and statuses of practitioners and how these factors shape the specific forms of street-level practice that operate in particular organisational settings. We illustrate this in our discussion of the factors that are likely to have had a bearing on the two practice settings used as case studies by Musil et al.",
author = "T. Evans and J. Harris",
year = "2006",
month = "12",
doi = "10.1080/13691450600958494",
language = "English",
volume = "9",
pages = "445--459",
journal = "European Journal of Social Work",
issn = "1369-1457",
publisher = "Routledge",
number = "4",

}

RIS (suitable for import to EndNote) - Download

TY - JOUR

T1 - A Case of Mistaken Identity? Debating the Dilemmas of Street-level Bureaucracy with Musil et al.

AU - Evans, T.

AU - Harris, J.

PY - 2006/12

Y1 - 2006/12

N2 - Lipsky's Street-level Bureaucracy (Russell Sage Foundation, New York, 1980) has exerted a strong influence on the study of public service organisations. There has been a growing interest in using this perspective to understand the organisational context of social work and Musil et al.'s article in the EJSW (2004, 'Do social workers avoid the dilemmas of work with clients?', European Journal of Social Work, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 305-319) reflects this interest. Musil et al. argue that it is possible to identify two forms of practitioner response to the constraints of street-level bureaucracies: adapting working practices in ways that disadvantage service users or challenging working conditions in order to achieve more professionally acceptable practice. Their contribution to the debate is helpful, particularly with regard to their identification of responses by practitioners that seek to advance the interests of service users. However, we view their approach as constrained by lack of consideration of the construction of social work roles within particular street-level bureaucracies. We suggest that Lipsky's work should be approached as a tentative analytic framework, rather than as a fixed model and we argue that a productive approach to research on social workers as street-level bureaucrats is conjunctural analysis. Such analysis examines the contexts, circumstances and statuses of practitioners and how these factors shape the specific forms of street-level practice that operate in particular organisational settings. We illustrate this in our discussion of the factors that are likely to have had a bearing on the two practice settings used as case studies by Musil et al.

AB - Lipsky's Street-level Bureaucracy (Russell Sage Foundation, New York, 1980) has exerted a strong influence on the study of public service organisations. There has been a growing interest in using this perspective to understand the organisational context of social work and Musil et al.'s article in the EJSW (2004, 'Do social workers avoid the dilemmas of work with clients?', European Journal of Social Work, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 305-319) reflects this interest. Musil et al. argue that it is possible to identify two forms of practitioner response to the constraints of street-level bureaucracies: adapting working practices in ways that disadvantage service users or challenging working conditions in order to achieve more professionally acceptable practice. Their contribution to the debate is helpful, particularly with regard to their identification of responses by practitioners that seek to advance the interests of service users. However, we view their approach as constrained by lack of consideration of the construction of social work roles within particular street-level bureaucracies. We suggest that Lipsky's work should be approached as a tentative analytic framework, rather than as a fixed model and we argue that a productive approach to research on social workers as street-level bureaucrats is conjunctural analysis. Such analysis examines the contexts, circumstances and statuses of practitioners and how these factors shape the specific forms of street-level practice that operate in particular organisational settings. We illustrate this in our discussion of the factors that are likely to have had a bearing on the two practice settings used as case studies by Musil et al.

U2 - 10.1080/13691450600958494

DO - 10.1080/13691450600958494

M3 - Article

VL - 9

SP - 445

EP - 459

JO - European Journal of Social Work

JF - European Journal of Social Work

SN - 1369-1457

IS - 4

ER -