LIST OF FIGURES
3 THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES WITH RESPECT TO SCHOOL SOCIAL WORK
4.2 DATA COLLECTION
This chapter provides an overview of the data collection methods in the four sub-studies. For the purposes of the single-country study (sub-study 1), as well as to map the field of cross-national comparative research (sub-study 2), a systematic review of the literature was conducted. To compare the response of the German and Finnish school social workers to an exemplary case of child maltreatment in sub-study 3, and to assess the work-related stressors that accompany the German and Finnish school social workers while
assessing children’s well-being in sub-study 4, semi-structured interviews were conducted in combination with the case vignette technique.
Systematic literature reviews
In sub-studies 1 and 2, it was intended to conduct two systematic literature reviews. Conducting a systematic literature review was seen as an appropriate method to develop new insights that would not be obtainable by recognising only individual publications; hence, this method was applied to clarify the terminological and conceptual diversity of SSW in Germany because this diversity only becomes obvious when investigated in its entirety (sub-study 1). Moreover, this method was used to map the field of cross-national comparative research in SSW (sub-study 2), as well as to identify the central practice themes on which school social workers focus in their work.
The reviews followed the stages proposed by Aveyard (2010), who clarifies that a systematic review is mostly associated with a “Cochrane Collaboration-style systematic review”; nonetheless, even if this strict protocol is not followed,
“a literature review can be approached in a systematic manner” (Aveyard, 2010, p. 15). Moreover, a systematic review can be applied to investigate not only research literature but “any literature based in the practice area that falls short of research” (Aveyard, 2010, pp. 15, 116).
Accordingly, first, a research question for the review was defined. Second, a search strategy, including inclusion criteria, was developed. Third, the literature search was conducted, and relevant material identified. Fourth, the quality of the material was assessed and the literature critically appraised;
in particular, as both sub-studies included mostly non-research articles, the publications were critically appraised regarding whether the subject could be deemed relevant to the review questions, whether they were peer-reviewed and whether the quality was otherwise ensured and the material well-written and credible (Hek, Langton & Blunden, 2000; as cited in Aveyard, 2010, p. 116).
Fifth, the data were summarised, and sixth, the results were interpreted and discussed. Table 3 provides information about the databases and secondary sources, time frames and keywords that were used in stand-alone fashion or in combination, as well as inclusion criteria (see Table 3).
Table 3 Literature reviews in sub-studies 1 and 2 (Beck, 2017; Beck &
Hämäläinen, 2020).
Sub-study 1 Sub-study 2
Databases • GESIS Sowiport (USB Köln, SSOAR, GESIS Bibliothek, DZA, DIPF / FIS Bildung, IAB / LitDokAB, SOFIS, SOLIS, FES –Katalog, DZI, SSA, SA, WPSA, ASSIA, PAIS, PEI, WAO, and PAO)
• EBSCOhost Academic Search Premier, FIS Bildung, which combines FIS Bildung, Library of Congress, Casalini libri and ERIC (Institute of Education Sciences), GESIS Bibliothek, SSOAR, USB Köln, FES-Katalog and SocINDEX with Full Text (EBSCO) the European Journal of Social Work),
• Reference lists
• Data provided by the INSSW Time
frame • 2000–2016 • Until September 2018 Keywords • Schulsozialarbeit/School
• SGB VIII/Social Code Book VIII Konzept/Concept
• School social work
• Comparison
• Worldwide OR globally OR internationally
Sub-study 1 Sub-study 2 Inclusion
criteria 1. Focus on SSW,
2. published between 2000 and 2016,
3. written in German, 4. focuses on Germany, 5. not limited to one specific type of school, and
6. provides an abstract.
1. Focus on SSW,
2. provides a cross-national comparison of SSW in two or more countries or a separate description of SSW in two or more countries based on comparable criteria, and 3. written in English.
4. To be eligible, the publication must not primarily present an empirical study; also, non-empirical publications were included.
In sub-study 1, the meta-database GESIS Sowiport was used, which is comprised of 18 different databases; this meta-database was deemed suitable as solely German-language literature was included. Secondary sources included reference lists, legislative texts, as well as child and youth reports by the Federal Government of Germany; it was possible to identify some lesser-known literature, but the approach “also failed to find some of the well-known literature due to poor indexing, imprecise or missing abstracts and a lack of terminological standardization” (Beck, 2017, p. 2).
As GESIS Sowiport ceased its operation, other databases had to be used for the purpose of sub-study 2; in any event, GESIS Sowiport would not have been the appropriate database as it was intended to identify comparative studies that deal with SSW in two or more countries and that are written in the English language. Hence, a combination of databases that were included in GESIS Sowiport, as well as other databases, were used in combination.
Secondary sources to enhance the data foundation for the synthesis included reference lists, a manual search of key social work journals and data provided by the INSSW.
Semi-structured interviews
In the sub-studies 3 and 4, semi-structured interviews with eight German and Finnish SSW professionals were combined with the case vignette technique.
Using both methods in combination was deemed the appropriate approach to receive as authentic answers as possible. Semi-structured interviews are considered to be the “standard approach to qualitative interviewing”
(Brinkmann, 2012, pp. 18–19) and were used in sub-study 3 primarily for three reasons: they provide an interview guide, ensuring that all relevant aspects are queried, and offer flexibility that allows the interviewer to ask questions that arise during the interview, whereby the statements of interviewees can be deepened, new insights obtained (Hussy, Schreier &
Echterhoff, 2010, p. 225) and “knowledge-producing potentials of dialogues”
better used (Brinkmann, 2012, p. 21). Also, with reference to the ecological systems’ theoretical perspectives, the subjective perception of a setting is important (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, p. 22); therefore, conducting semi-structured interviews was seen as appropriate.
Data were collected between September 2017 and May 2018 by means of four individual semi-structured interviews with German school social workers and two semi-structured group interviews with Finnish school social workers (a total of eight participants). The German interviewees came from three towns in Bavaria and were contacted by telephone; the Finnish interviewees came from two municipalities and were contacted by e-mail. While four German participants, identified through a regional network of school social workers and employed by an unattached provider, responded to the invitation, only two Finnish participants, identified through online searches and employed by municipalities, responded to the invitation. For this reason, two further Finnish participants were secured by snowball sampling (Hussy et al., 2010).
Participants from Finland were interviewed in groups as they felt more comfortable that way because they were using a foreign language (English).
The interviews had to be conducted in English due to the fact that it was the only language shared by the interviewer and the interviewees. In contrast, the German participants were interviewed in their mother tongue (German).
Despite the fact that two different methods of data collection were used, both
followed the same pattern and were focused on the same issues. To prevent the different interview forms from having too much influence on the results, the conversations between the participants were predominately limited to the mutual translation of unfamiliar words. During the interviews, three different forms of questions were asked: introductory questions, questions of the interview guide and ad hoc questions (Hussy et al., 2010, pp. 225–226).
The German participants possessed a bachelor’s degree, less than five years of work experience in schools, were serving at one to three schools in a part-time capacity (ranging from 50% to 83.5% employment), and were responsible for 280 to 2,300 pupils. In contrast, the Finnish participants possessed a master’s degree or licentiate, had work experience ranging from less than five years to more than 11 years, were serving at two to five schools, mainly in a full-time position (three of four), and were responsible for 1,090 to 1,563 pupils.
While it is suggested that each professional have approximately 600 pupils in Finland (Talentia, 2016), the study participants were responsible for more pupils.34 Therefore, the Finnish participants clarified in the interviews that they were forced to reprioritise their tasks and, therefore, were primarily providing interventions and less so prevention. This finding aligns with those of other scholars who note “the scarcity of resources” and “too large number of pupils per worker” (Rácz, 2008, p. 38; referring to Sipilä-Lähdekorpi, 2004, p. 115; Jääskeläinen, 2004, p. 71), as well as with another research (e.g., Hietanen-Peltola, Vaara & Laitinen, K., 2019, p. 8; see also Rytioja, 2010, p.
13; referring to Sipilä-Lähdekorpi, 2004, p. 118).
34 The findings of other research show that school social workers in Finland are responsible for 1,300 students and 1 to 22 schools (Rácz, 2008, p. 38; referring to Sipilä-Lähdekorpi, 2004, p.30; Gråsten-Salonen, 2008). Current research shows that a Finnish school social worker has 875 pupils on average; specifically, 39% reported having 900–1,099 students and 9% to having 1,100 or more students. In addition, 36% of all full-time professionals were reported to work at two schools, 21% at three schools, 19% at four to five schools, 12% at 6–10 schools and 1% at 11–15 schools (Hietanen-Peltola, Vaara & Laitinen, K., 2019, pp. 4–5).
Case vignette technique
In sub-studies 3 and 4, the case vignette technique was applied for two main reasons. First, the case vignette was intended to provide the participants from Germany and Finland with a common starting point to allow for the identification of different processing routes in both countries concerning the same case. In this way, the likelihood was increased that all participants would talk about the same issue, which is a situation that was deemed to be of specific importance in an international context where terms and interpretations might vary tremendously. Thus, its use was seen as possibly enabling later explanation of the identified similarities and differences concerning the same starting point, with reference to the respective country-specific context. Moreover, doing so was seen as a way to gain a deeper theoretical understanding.
Second, it was presumed that due to the use of a case vignette that is focused on the topic of child maltreatment, it would be possible to identify the nature and role of SSW in the context of the German and Finnish welfare regimes and child welfare systems and to enhance knowledge concerning SSW practice.
The case vignette technique is nowadays commonly applied to investigate and to compare social work practice (e.g., Froslund, Jergeby, Soydan &
Williams, 2002) in quantitative and qualitative research (Soydan, 1996, p.
126). Case vignettes represent “fictitious cases” (Meeuwisse, 2009, p. 14) that
“consist of stimuli that are interpreted as concrete and detailed descriptions of social situations and circumstances” (Soydan, 1996, p. 121). Thus, by using this technique, it is possible to reveal similarities and differences in social work practice (Meeuwisse, 2009, p. 14; Nybom, 2005).
The vignette that was applied as a starting point for the participants of both countries implied different forms of child maltreatment, including sexual abuse, the failure to provide a child with adequate nutrition and hygiene and exposure to violent environments; the vignette was formulated as follows:
Florian is nine years old and has lived with his mother since his parents divorced. Both parents live in a deprived area where crime rates are
high. At the weekends, he stays in his father’s one-bedroom flat, which is in a poor and unsanitary condition. Florian attends school unwashed, without having eaten breakfast and without bringing a packed lunch with him. After the last weekend, Florian told his classmate Daniel that his father showed him pornographic films and that they both shared a bed, and that he felt very uncomfortable about that. Daniel is worried about his friend and contacts the school social worker.
The case vignette was developed by taking into account the different categories of child maltreatment, as stipulated in a classification system developed by Leeb, Paulozzi, Melanson, Simon & Arias (2008). Table 4 shows the different forms of child maltreatment according to this system (see Table 4).
Table 4 Forms of child maltreatment (table by author; based on Leeb et al., 2008).
Acts of Commission Physical abuse
Sexual abuse Sexual acts
Abusive sexual contacts Noncontact sexual abuse Psychological abuse Terrorising
Isolating
Acts of Omission Failure to provide Physical neglect Emotional neglect Medical/dental neglect Educational neglect Failure to supervise Inadequate supervision
Exposure to violent environments
In accordance with this system of categorisation, child maltreatment includes any “act or series of acts of commission or omission by a parent or other caregiver that results in harm, potential for harm, or threat of harm to a child” (Leeb et al., 2008, p. 11). This pre-existing system of classification was used in this study as a unifying frame due to the fact that there is a lack of a legally stipulated definition of child abuse and neglect in either country.
Hence, in Germany, child maltreatment is defined as the “endangerment of the well-being of a child”, which represents a “much vaguer notion” of child endangerment rather than a clear definition of child maltreatment (Wolff et al., 2011, p. 189). Also, in the Finnish CWA (417/2007), the terms “child maltreatment” and “child abuse” are not mentioned, which is why “specific problem formulations” apart from “illegal acts” are lacking; instead, these terms are included in “wider formulations” that differ between open-care measures and taking a child into care (Pösö, 2011, p. 115; Finnish CWA 417/2007, Sections 34, 40). Therefore, a unifying concept was needed as a reference point for the participants of both countries.
The topic of child maltreatment was chosen for three primary reasons:
first, this topic enables insight into the connections between welfare regime orientations, child welfare systems and SSW; it is presumed that dominant principles and ideas such as those concerning parenting might influence a country’s child welfare system and the nature and role of SSW. As school social workers work directly at schools, these professionals are in a unique position to assess the well-being of all children, to detect signs of child maltreatment at an early stage and to fulfil their country-specific role in this case.
Second, in both countries, all children have the right to grow up without corporal punishment (for Germany, see, e.g., Civil Code, Section 1631, subsection 2); for Finland, see, e.g., Eydal & Satka, 2006; pp. 309–310).
However, a representative study that investigated the child maltreatment prevalence rates in Germany, based on the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire, with 2,478 participants, shows that 31.0% (n = 772) of all participants reported
“having experienced at least one type of child maltreatment”; 6.5% reported being a victim of “at least moderate emotional abuse”, 6.7% of physical abuse, 7.6% of sexual abuse, 13.3% emotional neglect and 22.5% of physical neglect (Witt, Glaesmer, Jud, Plener, Brähler, Brown & Fegert, 2018, p. 4). Also, a
comparative study that investigated self-reports made by 3,170 Finnish and 1,358 Swedish parents concerning the exercising of corporal punishment shows that one-third of all Finnish and Swedish parents used some type of corporal punishment at least once in the last 12 months (Ellonen, Lucas, Tindberg & Janson, 2017, p. 296). Thus, some children in both countries are still affected by corporal punishment, which is a situation of high relevance for the included societies.
Third, child maltreatment has long-lasting consequences for the physical and psychological health of a child. These include behavioural and societal consequences that entail “direct costs (e.g., hospitalizations, foster care payments) and indirect costs (e.g., long-term care, lost productivity at school, juvenile and criminal justice systems costs)” (Child Welfare Information Gateway, 2019, pp. 1–5).