THE RESEARCH AND COMPARATIVE PROCESSES

The process of research and comparison used in this study were chosen in consideration of the overall research objectives, namely, to explore the nature and role of SSW within the context of the German and Finnish welfare regimes and child welfare systems, and to map the field of cross-national comparative research in SSW. The two countries are both the object and context of the study (Kohn, 1987, pp. 714–715); thus, not only are the nature and role of SSW in Germany and Finland to be compared but both countries are also viewed as the context in that the nature and role of SSW develops.

Two theoretical perspectives are combined that enable insights into the interrelations between SSW, welfare regimes and child welfare systems and into the structures that influence a human being’s actions (Barth, 2007, p.

97). They also clarifies that not only is a setting itself of specific importance, but also the way in which it is subjectively perceived (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, p. 22). Hence, both theoretical perspectives provide insight into the different interrelations as well as into how school social workers perceive their assigned roles in this context and therewith associated, into the conflicts between these assigned roles and the subjective perceptions of these by school social workers. Hence, both perspectives support answering the main research question, namely the investigation and comparison of the nature and role of SSW within the context of welfare regimes and child welfare systems.

In accordance, systems theoretical perspectives can be used to research, for example, individual functional systems, such as the political system, or the “phenomenon of structural couplings” between different systems (Redepenning & Wilhelm, 2014, p. 324; this researcher’s translation). For this reason, systems theoretical perspectives can be applied to investigate

“intersystemic relations” (Becker & Reinhardt-Becker, 2001, p. 63; this researcher’s translation). Hence, in this study, the observed differences in the nature and role of SSW in Germany and Finland are explained from a systems theoretical perspective and the theoretical conclusions are essentially based on interpretations of the differences between the German and Finnish welfare regimes and child welfare systems. This means that SSW is to be viewed from a “networked and holistic perspective” and, hence, within its country-specific context to engage with the system’s complexity (Barth, 2007, p. 235, this researcher’s translation).

In addition, ecological systems theoretical perspectives are used that focus on the relations between a person and their environment (Bronfenbrenner, 1995, p. 623); thus, these perspectives can be applied to identify the

“fundamental structures, of which the individual action is dependent” (Barth, 2007, p. 97; this researcher’s translation). Furthermore, they emphasise the specific importance not only of the setting itself but also of its subjective perception (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, p. 22). Thus, these perspectives can support the understanding of how school social workers perceive their assigned roles, and the identification of potential conflicts between these assigned roles and the subjective perceptions of these. As the greater context must be recognised, it is crucial to use a methodological approach that investigates the German and Finnish welfare regimes and child welfare systems, and that provides a juxtaposition and comparison between these to identify SSW’s nature and role therein.

Thus, it is of specific importance to clarify not only the knowledge interest in making such a comparison but also the “methodical control of the comparison” that schematises the comparative process (Hörner, 1999, p.

115, this researcher’s translation). A comparison can have different functions, particularly, an idiographic, melioristic, experimental or evolutionistic function; in this study, the comparison had an idiographic function; that is,

it aimed to clarify (1) the nature and role of SSW in the researcher’s own country and in another country (Finland) and (2) why things are how they are (Hörner, 1997, p. 70). In conducting such a comparison, recognising “the sociopolitical system of the country” is a crucial element in understanding the “country-specific characteristics of social work” (Hämäläinen, 2014, p.

200) in our case of SSW, and in avoiding misjudgements (Hörner, 1993, p. 7).

Therefore, this study is in line with research that assumes that social work is shaped by the respective social-policy model (Meeuwisse & Swärd, 2007).

Furthermore, the comparison had a melioristic function and, thus, had the aim of identifying alternative approaches that might lead to improvements in the home country without “teaching how social problems have to be solved in a specific and universal way, regardless of society and culture” (Borrmann, Klassen & Spatscheck, 2007, p. 11).

The current considerations regarding the control of comparisons in social work are considered “insufficient”, which is why the comparative method in education developed by Bereday is widely applied in comparative studies (Homfeldt & Walser, 2004, p. 203, this researcher’s translation).

Recently, Hämäläinen (2014, p. 192) suggested the application of a pair of

“methodological concepts (‘diachronic’-‘synchronic’), drawn from linguistics”, to comparative social work.

In this study, the decision was made to use the “multi-stage model of comparison” (Friesenhahn & Kniephoff-Knebel, 2011) as this approach was, unlike Bereday’s comparative method, especially developed for cross-national comparative research in social work. Accordingly, the object of comparison and the leading research questions were identified in order to clarify what would be compared and why the comparative method was chosen; subsequently, relevant categories of comparison were developed with respect to the knowledge in which the researcher was interested, which represents a pre-structuring of the object of comparison through categories that allows a juxtapositioning to follow later; then, the country-specific data were collected, as well as systematised and juxtaposed with reference to the developed categories of comparison in order to identify the similarities and differences between them, before they were interpreted against the

background of the context of origin (Friesenhahn & Kniephoff-Knebel, 2011, pp. 41–48).

To achieve the overall research objectives, four sub-studies, referred to as sub-studies 1, 2, 3 and 4 (corresponding to articles 1, 2, 3 and 4), were conducted, and it was considered necessary and appropriate to apply different research methods in each sub-study. Table 2 summarises the research aims, methods and processes of sub-studies 1, 2, 3 and 4 and the summary section (see Table 2).

Table 2 Research aims, methods and processes in the four sub-studies and summary section. Sub-study/ArticleResearch aimResearch methodsResearch process

1 (Single-country study)

• To identify relevant aspects of the two reference systems, namely, child welfare and education in Germany

• To clarify the terminological and conceptual diversity of SSW in Germany

• Systematic literature review (Aveyard, 2010)

• Narrative synthesis (Popay, Roberts, Sowden, Petticrew, Arai, Rodgers, Britten, Roen & Duffy, 2006)

• Leading research question • Development of a search strategy

• Conducting the search • Material assessment and critical appraisal

• Summary of the data • Interpretation and discussion of the results (Aveyard, 2010)

2 (Literature review)•

To map the field of cross- national comparative research in SSW

• To identify main focus areas in previous research and common practice themes

• Systematic literature review (Aveyard, 2010)

• Narrative synthesis (Popay et al., 2006)

• Coding process (Auerbach & Silverstein, 2003)

• MAXQDA

• Leading research question • Development of a search strategy

• Conducting the search • Material assessment and critical appraisal

• Summary of the data • Interpretation and discussion of the results (Aveyard, 2010)

Sub-study/ArticleResearch aimResearch methodsResearch process

3 (Comparative study)

• To investigate and compare the response of German and Finnish school social workers to a case vignette

• To identify similarities and differences against the background of the German and Finnish welfare regimes and child welfare systems and to deduce implications for both countries

• Case vignette technique • Semi-structured interviews • Computer-guided content- structuring content analysis (Kuckartz, 2016)

• MAXQDA

• Objects of comparison and leading research question

• Categories/dimensions of comparison

• Collection of country-specific data

• Systematisation and juxtaposition

• Interpretation against the context of origin (Friesenhahn & Kniephoff-Knebel, 2011)

4 (Comparative study)

• To investigate and compare work-related stressors that accompany German and Finnish school social workers while assessing children’s well-being

• To identify similarities and differences against the background of the German and Finnish welfare regimes and child welfare systems and to deduce implications for both countries

• Case vignette technique • Semi-structured interviews • Coding process (Auerbach & Silverstein, 2003)

• MAXQDA

• Selection of relevant text • Identification of repeating ideas

• Development of superordinate themes (Auerbach & Silverstein, 2003)

• Identification of connected stressors

Sub-study/ArticleResearch aimResearch methodsResearch process Summary• To provide the theoretical foundations of this study

• To conceptualise SSW’s nature and role in the context of the German and Finnish welfare regimes and child welfare systems based on theoretical examinations and empirical investigations

• To reflect upon the usefulness of visualisation tools in qualitative cross- national comparative research

• To identify similarities and differences, to find explanations and to develop recommendations for both countries

• Multi-stage model of comparison (Friesenhahn & Kniephoff-Knebel, 2011)

• Object of comparison and leading research question

• Categories/dimensions of comparison

• Collection of country-specific data

• Systematisation and juxtaposition

• Interpretation against the context of origin (Friesenhahn & Kniephoff-Knebel, 2011)

As noted in Table 2, sub-study 1 is a single-country study that had as its aim to identify the terminological and conceptual diversity of SSW in Germany, as well as relevant aspects of the two reference systems, namely, CYW and school. In line with the overall methodological considerations, Germany was herein taken to be the object and context of the study and the presumed diversity of terminologies and concepts was expected to have an influence on the nature of German SSW, along with the roles, tasks and working methods.

In order to achieve these research objectives, it was intended to conduct a systematic literature review (Aveyard, 2010) and a narrative synthesis (Popay et al., 2006). Using a systematic literature review was expected to shed light on the variety of terminologies and concepts that only becomes obvious when investigated in its entirety. A narrative synthesis was conducted as a textual approach was needed to combine the highly heterogeneous results achieved “in the way that seems most feasible or appropriate” (Rodgers, Sowden, Petticrew, Arai, Roberts, Britten & Popay, 2009, p. 50). After the leading research question was identified, a search strategy was developed and the search conducted, after which the material was assessed and critically appraised; finally, the data were summarised and the results interpreted and discussed (Aveyard, 2010).

Sub-study 2 is a review of the literature and had the dual aim of mapping the field of cross-national comparative research in SSW and of identifying the main focus areas of previous research and common practice themes in SSW globally. The presumed common practice themes that transcend national boundaries were expected to provide insight into the nature and role of SSW in Germany and Finland, as well as globally. To achieve these research objectives, a systematic literature review (Aveyard, 2010), a narrative synthesis (Popay et al., 2006) and a coding process (Auerbach & Silverstein, 2003) were conducted and the findings visually analysed and represented (MAXQDA). Using a systematic literature review was expected to allow for the detection of all publications that provide a cross-national comparative study investigating SSW in two or more countries. The narrative synthesis was conducted to textually combine the findings (Rodgers & Sowden et al., 2009, p. 50). The coding process was carried out to tackle the diversity of ideas regarding the main foci of SSW practice. After the leading research

question was identified, a search strategy was developed, and the search conducted, after which material was assessed and critically appraised. Finally, the data were summarised, and the results interpreted and discussed. A visual representation of the findings was created to support the analysis and to clarify the findings.

Sub-study 3 is a comparative study with the aim of investigating and comparing the responses of German and Finnish school social workers to an exemplary child maltreatment case, as well as to identify the observed similarities and differences and to deduce implications for both countries.

The intention behind conducting this sub-study was to identify the nature and role of SSW within the context of the German and Finnish welfare regimes and child welfare systems. To achieve these research objectives, semi-structured interviews were conducted in combination with the case vignette technique, and the data were analysed afterwards by applying computer-guided content-structuring content analysis (Kuckartz, 2016). In addition, various figures were generated with MAXQDA.

Semi-structured interviews were applied as they provide an interview guide that ensures that all relevant aspects are queried, on the one hand, as well as guarantee sufficient flexibility to enable the interviewer to ask questions that arise in the course of the interview, on the other (Hussy, Schreier &

Echterhoff, 2010, p. 225). The case vignette technique was applied as it provides the study participants from both countries with a common starting point, thereby increasing the likelihood that all participants will talk about the same issue. Finally, computer-guided content-structuring content analysis (Kuckartz, 2016) was conducted and MAXQDA used as both were developed by Kuckartz, for which reason the greatest possible compatibility between the analysis method and software could be assumed. First, the comparison object and leading research questions were identified, relevant categories of comparison developed, and the country-specific data collected. Afterwards, the data were systematised, juxtaposed, and then interpreted against the background of the context of origin (Friesenhahn & Kniephoff-Knebel, 2011, pp. 41–48).

Sub-study 4 is a comparative study with the aim of investigating and comparing work-related stressors that accompany the participating

German and Finnish school social workers while assessing children’s well-being, to identify similarities and differences and to develop explanations and recommendations. This study was conducted as it was presumed that investigating work-related stressors that accompany school social workers while they are assessing children’s well-being would provide insight into the nature and role of SSW within the contexts of the German and Finnish welfare regimes and child welfare systems. To achieve these research objectives, the interview data were subjected to a coding process (Auerbach & Silverstein, 2003). In addition, various figures were generated with MAXQDA and the findings were embedded in the wider national context, comprising welfare regimes and child welfare systems. The coding process was carried out to tackle the diversity of work-related stressors.

The summary section of this study aims to outline the overarching theoretical foundations, to conceptualise the nature and role of SSW within the context of the German and Finnish welfare regimes and child welfare systems based on theoretical examinations and empirical investigations, and to reflect upon the usefulness of visualisation tools within qualitative cross-national comparative research. Finally, it also aims to identify similarities and differences, to find explanations for these, and to develop recommendations for both countries. To properly document the outcomes, the summary is oriented towards the “multi-stage model of comparison” (Friesenhahn &

Kniephoff-Knebel, 2011).

In document School social work in the context of the German and Finnish welfare regimes and child welfare systems (sivua 100-109)