Social workers’ interpretations of generalist social work in rural areas
The issue of rurality is a concern in many countries, especially with regard to the organisation of welfare services and, although Finland’s geographical and population characteristics qualify it as a rural country, generalist rural social work in rural Finnish municipalities is under-studied. Withi...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Other Authors: | |
| Format: | Master Thesis |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
fi=Lapin yliopisto|en=University of Lapland|
2014
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://lauda.ulapland.fi/handle/10024/61607 http://nbn-resolving.org/URN:NBN:fi:ula-201409241414 |
| Summary: | The issue of rurality is a concern in many countries, especially with regard to the organisation of welfare services and, although Finland’s geographical and population characteristics qualify it as a rural country, generalist rural social work in rural Finnish municipalities is under-studied. Within this study, I will explicate this phenomenon with the goal of analysing the methods social workers in rural areas use to guide them in identifying their main priorities in conducting social work. The data were drawn from three focus group interviews conducted in rural municipalities in Lapland, which excluded all four cities of the region. Although this study took place in a Finnish context, the phenomenon it addresses exists similarly, at least in some level, in other countries, such as Great Britain, Canada, and Australia. Both the distribution and the comparison of knowledge are needed to promote welfare services in rural areas. Therefore, this study also has international significance. In preparing this study, I adapted Ruth Liepins’ method to explore community, in which she holds that community can be analysed through the concepts of meanings, practices, spaces and structures. My focus deviates from her study in that the community is one of the indicators in this study, rather than its target. Because this definition delineates the theoretical approach, the analysis method used in this study was theorybased content analysis. Based on the focus group interviews, the dimensions of generalist social work can be situated in five, theorybased categories: 1) Geographical and demographic class; 2) Economic class; 3) Structures and spaces; 4) Community; 5) Practices. According to my findings, parts of multidimensional, nuanced generalist rural social work can be universal, but the context and its character relate rural social work specifically to locally-oriented professions. While geographical dimensions do challenge rural social work, they, along with other challenges of population, such as ageing, can also be seen as a resource. Since inhabitants’ livelihood consists of multiple sources, their need for economic support depends on region, its structures and periodic changes in employment opportunities. Moreover, based on results, the economy of smallness is prevalent in generalist rural social work, where time, local structures and experiential spaces call for it. Local history, too, can hinder generalist social work because the challenges of otherness versus oneness prevail on both professional and personal levels. The organization of generalist rural social work is a crucial factor, and equity in delivering services must also be considered. The importance of nature and green social work is presently under-studied, even when the significance of nature is recognized. Generalist rural social work also makes demands on contemporary research and education. Additional knowledge of generalist rural social work is needed, for both current practice and educational development. |
|---|