Dissertations in Social Sciences and Business Studies
PUBLICATIONS OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND
KATHRIN FRANZISKA BECK
School social work
in the context of the
German and Finnish
welfare regimes and
child welfare systems
ACADEMIC DISSERTATION
Faculty of Social Sciences and Business Studies University of Eastern Finland
Public defence in Auditorium MD100, in Mediteknia building, Yliopistonranta 1 B, Kuopio Campus,
on Friday 6 August 2021 at 12 pm University of Eastern Finland
Kuopio 2021
PUBLICATIONS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND DISSERTATIONS IN SOCIAL SCIENCES AND BUSINESS STUDIES
N:o 253
Kathrin Franziska Beck
SCHOOL SOCIAL WORK IN THE CONTEXT
OF THE GERMAN AND FINNISH WELFARE
REGIMES AND CHILD WELFARE SYSTEMS
School social work in the context of the German and Finnish welfare regimes and child welfare systems
Kathrin Franziska Beck
Kathrin Franziska Beck
School social work in the context of the German and Finnish welfare regimes and child welfare systems
Publications of the University of Eastern Finland Dissertations in Social Sciences and Business Studies
No 253
University of Eastern Finland Kuopio
2021
PunaMusta Oy Joensuu 2021
Editor in-Chief: Markus Mättö Editor: Anna Karttunen
Sales: University of Eastern Finland Library ISBN: 978-952-61-3828-2
ISBN:978-952-61-3829-9 (PDF) ISSNL: 1798-5749
ISSN: 1798-5749 ISSN: 1798-5757 (PDF)
Author’s address: Faculty of Social Sciences and Business University of Eastern Finland
KUOPIO FINLAND
Doctoral programme: Welfare, Health and Management
Supervisors: Professor Juha Hämäläinen, Ph.D.
Department of Social Sciences University of Eastern Finland KUOPIO
FINLAND
Professor Riitta Vornanen, Ph.D.
Department of Social Sciences University of Eastern Finland KUOPIO
FINLAND
Professor Stefan Borrmann, Ph.D.
Faculty of Social Work
University of Applied Sciences Landshut LANDSHUT
GERMANY
Reviewers: Professor Merja Laitinen, Ph.D.
Faculty of Social Sciences University of Lapland ROVANIEMI
FINLAND
Professor Katja Forssén, Ph.D.
Department of Social Research University of Turku
TURKU FINLAND
Opponent: Professor Merja Laitinen, Ph.D.
Faculty of Social Sciences University of Lapland ROVANIEMI
FINLAND
Beck, Kathrin Franziska
School social work in the context of the German and Finnish welfare regimes and child welfare systems
Kuopio: University of Eastern Finland, 2021 Publications of the University of Eastern Finland
Dissertation in Social Sciences and Business Studies; 253 ISBN: 978-952-61-3828-2
ISSNL: 1798-5749 ISSN: 1798-5749
ISBN: 978-952-61-3829-9 (PDF) ISSN: 1798-5757 (PDF)
ABSTRACT
The overall objective of the study is to investigate the nature and role of school social work within the context of the German and Finnish welfare regimes and child welfare systems based on theoretical examinations and empirical investigations. The observed differences are explained from a systems theoretical perspective and theoretical conclusions are essentially based on the interpretations of differences between the German and Finnish welfare regimes and child welfare systems. A comparative method was applied as a means to achieve a deeper theoretical understanding of the nature and role of school social work in both countries. This study had two predominant functions, namely, to reveal the realities of and reasons for its nature and role, as well as to identify innovative ideas in each country that can be used to improve school social work in the other. In addition, this study has the aim of mapping the field of cross-national comparative research in school social work.
For these purposes, four sub-studies, referred to as sub-studies 1 (single- country study), 2 (literature review), 3 (cross-national comparative study) and 4 (cross-national comparative study) were conducted. Each of them focused on a specific aspect with respect to the research objectives established.
Sub-study 1, the starting point of this study, had the aim to identify the relevant aspects of the two reference systems, namely, education and child and youth welfare, as well as to clarify the terminological and conceptual diversity of school social work in Germany based on a systematic approach to reviewing the literature and creating a narrative synthesis. Sub-study 2 mapped the field of cross-national comparative research in school social work. Its aims were to discuss central issues within cross-national comparative research, particularly why, how, and what to compare, to clarify methodological challenges and to present main focus areas, comparative countries and school social work practice themes of previous studies and publications. These aims were achieved based on a systematic literature review, narrative synthesis and a coding process. Sub-study 3 researched and compared the responses of German and Finnish school social workers to an exemplary case of child maltreatment based on semi-structured interviews, the case vignette technique and computer-guided content-structuring content analysis. Sub-study 4 researched and compared the work-related stressors that accompany the German and Finnish school social workers while assessing children’s well-being based on semi-structured interviews, the case vignette technique and a coding process. Additionally, figures were generated with MAXQDA in sub-studies 2, 3 and 4.
The theoretical perspectives applied in this study are Niklas Luhmann’s systems theory and Urie Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory. While the systems theory enables insight into the relations between systems and therefore supports receiving an insight into the interrelations between school social work, welfare regimes and child welfare systems, the ecological systems theory focuses on the relations between a person and their environment and therefore supports the understanding of how school social workers perceive their assigned roles and the identification of potential conflicts between these assigned roles and subjective perceptions concerning these roles. Thus, both perspectives complement each other and are useful in providing the explanatory background for both countries to compare the nature and role of school social work within the context of welfare regimes and child welfare systems.
The findings of this study show that the nature and role of school social work in Germany and Finland is interrelated with each country’s respective welfare regime and child welfare system. The interrelations specifically concern the central principles and ideas of the respective welfare regime, as well as the legislative foundations and requirements of the respective child welfare system. While this situation stipulates the similarity between both countries, the respective content arrangements stipulate the differences.
While the nature and role of school social work is interrelated with the German and Finnish welfare regimes and child welfare systems as outlined in sub-study 3, conflicts between legal requirements and professional values (Germany), as well as between legal requirements and insufficient time and personnel resources to fulfil them (Finland), may lead to work-related stress as revealed in sub-study 4.
This study clarifies the interrelated nature of school social work in Germany and Finland. It has several implications, from a cross-national comparative perspective, that might expand national discussions and stimulate structural changes. It also includes recommendations for school social work practice, its scientific development, education and research. Further, it has mapped the area of cross-national comparative research in school social work and therefore provides interesting knowledge concerning school social work in the two countries to the international scientific community.
Keywords: school social work, cross-national comparative research, child welfare, child protection, welfare regime
Beck, Kathrin Franziska
School social work in the context of the German and Finnish welfare regimes and child welfare systems
Kuopio: University of Eastern Finland, 2021 Publications of the University of Eastern Finland
Dissertation in Social Sciences and Business Studies; 253 ISBN: 978-952-61-3828-2
ISSNL: 1798-5749 ISSN: 1798-5749
ISBN: 978-952-61-3829-9 (PDF) ISSN: 1798-5757 (PDF)
ABSTRAKT
Übergeordnetes Ziel der Studie ist es, die Natur und die Rolle der Schulsozialarbeit im Kontext der deutschen und finnischen Wohlfahrtsregime sowie der Kinder- und Jugendhilfesysteme, basierend auf theoretischen Auseinandersetzungen und empirischen Untersuchungen, zu erforschen. Die beobachteten Unterschiede werden aus systemtheoretischer Perspektive erklärt und die theoretischen Schlussfolgerungen basieren im Wesentlichen auf den Interpretationen der Unterschiede zwischen den deutschen und finnischen Wohlfahrtsregimen und Kinder- und Jugendhilfesystemen.
Um ein tieferes theoretisches Verständnis der Natur und der Rolle der Schulsozialarbeit in beiden Ländern zu erlangen, wurde eine vergleichende Methode als Instrument angewandt. Diese Studie hatte zwei vorherrschende Funktionen, nämlich die Realitäten und die Gründe für die Natur und die Rolle der Schulsozialarbeit aufzudecken sowie innovative Ideen in jedem Land zu identifizieren, die zu deren Verbesserung im jeweils anderen verwendet werden können. Darüber hinaus hat diese Studie das Ziel, das Feld der länderübergreifenden, vergleichenden Forschung in der Schulsozialarbeit abzubilden.
Zu diesem Zweck wurden vier Teilstudien, die als Teilstudien 1 (Einzelländerstudie), 2 (Literaturrecherche), 3 (länderübergreifende Vergleichsstudie) und 4 (länderübergreifende Vergleichsstudie) bezeichnet werden, durchgeführt. Jede von ihnen konzentrierte sich auf einen bestimmten Aspekt im Hinblick auf die festgelegten Forschungsziele.
Teilstudie 1 bildet den Ausgangspunkt der Gesamtstudie und hatte zum Ziel, die relevanten Aspekte der beiden Bezugssysteme Bildung und Kinder- und Jugendhilfe zu identifizieren und die terminologische und konzeptionelle Vielfalt der Schulsozialarbeit in Deutschland zu klären; basierend auf einem systematischen Ansatz zur Literaturrecherche und der Erstellung einer narrativen Synthese. Teilstudie 2 bildet das Feld der länderübergreifenden, vergleichenden Forschung in der Schulsozialarbeit ab. Ziel war es, zentrale Fragen der länderübergreifenden, vergleichenden Forschung zu diskutieren, insbesondere „warum“, „wie“ und „was“ zu vergleichen ist, methodische Herausforderungen zu klären und Schwerpunkte, Vergleichsländer und Praxisthemen der Schulsozialarbeit, die in bisherigen Studien und Publikationen identifiziert wurden, vorzustellen. Diese Ziele wurden auf der Grundlage einer systematischen Literaturrecherche, einer narrativen Synthese und eines Kodierungsprozesses erreicht. Teilstudie 3 untersuchte und verglich die Antworten deutscher und finnischer Schulsozialarbeiter*innen zu einem exemplarischen Fall von Kindesmisshandlung anhand von teilstrukturierten Interviews, der Fallvignettentechnik und einer computergestützten, inhaltlich-strukturierenden Inhaltsanalyse. Teilstudie 4 untersuchte und verglich die arbeitsbezogenen Stressoren, die die deutschen und finnischen Schulsozialarbeiter*innen bei der Einschätzung des Kindeswohls begleiten, basierend auf semistrukturierten Interviews, der Fallvignettentechnik und einem Kodierungsprozess. Zusätzlich wurden in den Teilstudien 2, 3 und 4 mit MAXQDA Abbildungen generiert.
Die in dieser Studie verwendeten theoretischen Perspektiven sind die Systemtheorie von Niklas Luhmann und die ökologische Systemtheorie von Urie Bronfenbrenner. Während die Systemtheorie Einblick in die Beziehungen zwischen Systemen ermöglicht und daher den Einblick in die Wechselbeziehungen zwischen Schulsozialarbeit, Wohlfahrtsregimen und Kinder- und Jugendhilfesystemen unterstützt, konzentriert sich die Theorie
der ökologischen Systeme auf die Beziehungen zwischen einer Person und ihrer Umwelt und unterstützt deshalb das Verständnis dafür, wie Schulsozialarbeiter*innen die ihnen zugewiesenen Rollen wahrnehmen sowie die Identifizierung potenzieller Konflikte zwischen diesen zugewiesenen Rollen und subjektiven Wahrnehmungen in Bezug auf diese Rollen. Somit ergänzen sich beide Perspektiven und sind nützlich, den erklärenden Hintergrund für beide Länder zu liefern, um die Natur und Rolle der Schulsozialarbeit im Kontext von Wohlfahrtsregimen und Kinder- und Jugendhilfesystemen zu vergleichen.
Die Ergebnisse dieser Studie zeigen, dass die Natur und Rolle der Schulsozialarbeit in Deutschland und Finnland mit dem jeweiligen Wohlfahrtsregime und dem Kinder- und Jugendhilfesystem verknüpft sind. Die Zusammenhänge betreffen insbesondere die zentralen Grundsätze und Vorstellungen des jeweiligen Wohlfahrtsregimes sowie die gesetzlichen Grundlagen und Anforderungen des jeweiligen Kinder- und Jugendhilfesystems. Während diese Situation die Ähnlichkeit zwischen beiden Ländern darstellt, stellen die jeweiligen inhaltlichen Ausgestaltungen die Unterschiede dar. Während die Natur und Rolle der Schulsozialarbeit mit den deutschen und finnischen Wohlfahrtsregimen und Kinder- und Jugendhilfesystemen verknüpft sind, wie in Teilstudie 3 skizziert, bestehen Konflikte zwischen gesetzlichen Anforderungen und professionellen Werten (Deutschland) sowie zwischen gesetzlichen Anforderungen und ungenügenden zeitlichen und personellen Ressourcen, um diese zu erfüllen (Finnland), was zu arbeitsbezogenem Stress führen kann, wie in Teilstudie 4 gezeigt wurde.
Diese Studie verdeutlicht die Verflechtung der Schulsozialarbeit in Deutschland und Finnland. Sie hat, aus einer länderübergreifenden, vergleichenden Perspektive heraus, mehrere Implikationen, die die nationalen Diskussionen erweitern und strukturelle Veränderungen anregen könnten.
Sie enthält auch Empfehlungen für die Praxis der Schulsozialarbeit, deren wissenschaftliche Entwicklung, Ausbildung und Forschung. Darüber hinaus hat diese Studie den Bereich der länderübergreifenden, vergleichenden Forschung in der Schulsozialarbeit abgebildet und stellt somit der
internationalen Wissenschaftsgemeinschaft wichtige Erkenntnisse zur Schulsozialarbeit in den beiden Ländern zur Verfügung.
Schlüsselwörter: Schulsozialarbeit; länderübergreifende, vergleichende Forschung; Kinderfürsorge; Kinderschutz; Wohlfahrtsregime
Beck, Kathrin Franziska
School social work in the context of the German and Finnish welfare regimes and child welfare systems
Kuopio: Itä-Suomen yliopisto, 2021
Publications of the University of Eastern Finland
Dissertation in Social Sciences and Business Studies; 253 ISBN: 978-952-61-3828-2
ISSNL: 1798-5749 ISSN: 1798-5749
ISBN: 978-952-61-3829-9 (PDF) ISSN: 1798-5757 (PDF)
TIIVISTELMÄ
Tutkimuksen yleisenä tavoitteena on tarkastella teoreettisten ja empiiris- ten tutkimusten pohjalta koulujen sosiaalityön luonnetta ja roolia Saksan ja Suomen hyvinvointi- ja lastensuojelujärjestelmien osalta. Havaitut erot selitetään systeemiteoreettisesti, ja teoreettiset johtopäätökset perustuvat pääosin Saksan ja Suomen hyvinvointi- ja lastensuojelujärjestelmien välisten erojen tulkintoihin. Teoreettista ymmärrystä koulujen sosiaalityön luonteesta ja roolista molemmissa maissa pyrittiin syventämään vertailumenetelmän avulla. Tällä tutkimuksella oli kaksi keskeistä tehtävää: sen tarkoituksena oli paljastaa koulujen sosiaalityön luonteen ja roolin realiteetit ja niihin vaikutta- vat syyt sekä tunnistaa kummassakin maassa virinneitä innovatiivisia ideoita, joiden avulla koulujen sosiaalityötä toisessa maassa on mahdollista paran- taa. Lisäksi tutkimuksen tavoitteena on kartoittaa kansainvälisen vertailevan tutkimuksen alaa koulujen sosiaalityössä.
Tätä varten suoritettiin neljä osatutkimusta: osatutkimus 1 (yhdessä maassa suoritettava tutkimus), osatutkimus 2 (kirjallisuuskatsaus), osatut- kimus 3 (ylikansallinen vertaileva tutkimus) ja osatutkimus 4 (ylikansallinen vertaileva tutkimus). Kukin niistä keskittyi tiettyyn näkökohtaan asetettujen
tutkimustavoitteiden osalta. Tutkimuksen lähtökohtana olevalla osatutki- muksella 1 pyrittiin tunnistamaan näiden kahden viitejärjestelmän merki- tykselliset näkökohdat, kuten koulutus sekä lasten ja nuorten hyvinvointi, sekä selventämään koulujen sosiaalityön terminologista ja käsitteellistä mo- nimuotoisuutta Saksassa kirjallisuuskatsaukseen ja narratiivisen synteesiin sovellettavan systemaattisen lähestymistavan pohjalta. Osatutkimuksessa 2 kartoitettiin koulujen sosiaalityön kansainvälisen vertailevan tutkimuksen alaa. Sen tavoitteena oli tarkastella keskeisiä kysymyksiä kansainvälisessä vertailevassa tutkimuksessa erityisesti sen kannalta, miksi, miten ja mitä tu- lisi vertailla, selkeyttää metodologisia haasteita sekä esitellä aiempien tutki- musten ja julkaisujen keskeiset painopistealueet, vertailumaat ja koulujen sosiaalityön käytännön teemat. Nämä tavoitteet saavutettiin systemaattisen kirjallisuuskatsauksen, narratiivisen synteesin ja koodausprosessin pohjal- ta. Osatutkimuksessa 3 tutkittiin ja verrattiin saksalaisten ja suomalaisten koulujen sosiaalityöntekijöiden antamia vastauksia lasten huonoa kohtelua koskevaan esimerkkitapaukseen liittyviin kysymyksiin puolijäsenneltyjen haastattelujen, tapausvinjettitekniikan ja tietokoneohjatun, sisällön jäsente- lyyn tähtäävän sisällönanalyysin pohjalta. Osatutkimuksessa 4 tutkittiin ja verrattiin saksalaisten ja suomalaisten koulujen sosiaalityöntekijöiden työ- hön liittyviä stressitekijöitä ja arvioitiin lasten hyvinvointia puolijäsenneltyjen haastattelujen, tapausvinjettitekniikan ja koodausprosessin pohjalta. Lisäksi osatutkimuksissa 2, 3 ja 4 tuotettiin kaavioita MAXQDA-ohjelmistolla.
Tässä tutkimuksessa sovellettuja teoreettisia näkökulmia ovat Niklas Luh- mannin systeemiteoria ja Urie Bronfenbrennerin ekologinen systeemiteoria.
Vaikka systeemiteorian avulla on mahdollista tarkastella järjestelmien väli- siä suhteita ja saada käsitys koulujen sosiaalityön, hyvinvointijärjestelmien ja lastensuojelujärjestelmien välisistä suhteista, ekologinen systeemiteoria keskittyy henkilön ja hänen ympäristönsä välisiin suhteisiin. Näin ollen se aut- taa ymmärtämään, miten koulujen sosiaalityöntekijät kokevat heille osoitetut roolit, ja tunnistamaan näiden heille osoitettujen roolien ja niitä koskevien subjektiivisten näkemysten välille mahdollisesti syntyviä ristiriitoja. Molem- mat näkökulmat täydentävät siten toisiaan ja tarjoavat molemmille maille se- littävän taustakehyksen, jonka avulla voidaan vertailla koulujen sosiaalityön
luonnetta ja roolia hyvinvointijärjestelmien ja lastensuojelujärjestelmien yh- teydessä.
Tutkimuksen tulokset osoittavat, että koulujen sosiaalityön luonne ja rooli Saksassa ja Suomessa liittyvät kummankin maan omaan hyvinvointijärjestel- mään ja lastensuojelujärjestelmään. Keskinäiset suhteet koskevat erityisesti kummankin hyvinvointijärjestelmän keskeisiä periaatteita ja ajatuksia sekä kummankin maan lastensuojelujärjestelmän lainsäädännöllisiä perusteita ja vaatimuksia. Vaikka näiden kahden maan järjestelmien välillä on tiettyjä sa- mankaltaisuuksia, aiheeseen liittyvien sisältöjärjestelyiden vuoksi niissä on myös tiettyjä eroja. Koulujen sosiaalityön luonne ja rooli liittyvät osatutkimuk- sen 3 mukaisesti Saksan ja Suomen hyvinvointijärjestelmiin ja lastensuoje- lujärjestelmiin, mutta ristiriidat lakisääteisten vaatimusten ja ammatillisten arvojen välillä (Saksa) sekä lakisääteisten vaatimusten ja riittämättömien aika- ja henkilöstöresurssien välillä (Suomi) voivat johtaa osatutkimuksessa 4 ilmenneeseen työperäiseen stressiin.
Tässä tutkimuksessa selvitetään Saksassa ja Suomessa toimivien koulujen sosiaalityön keskinäistä riippuvuutta. Kansainvälisten vertailujen näkökul- masta tutkimuksella on useita vaikutuksia, jotka voivat laajentaa kansallisia keskusteluja ja edistää rakenteellisia muutoksia. Se sisältää myös suosituk- sia koulujen sosiaalityön käytännöistä sekä sen tieteellisestä kehittämisestä, koulutuksesta ja tutkimuksesta. Lisäksi tutkimuksella on kartoitettu koulujen sosiaalityön kansainvälisen vertailevan tutkimuksen alaa, minkä ansiosta se tarjoaa kansainväliselle tiedeyhteisölle tärkeää tietoa koulujen sosiaalityöstä näissä kahdessa maassa.
Avainsanat: koulujen sosiaalityö, kansainvälinen vertaileva tutkimus, lasten hyvinvointi, lastensuojelu, hyvinvointijärjestelmä
Acknowledgments
When I was asked in 2009 whether I would like to travel to Norway, Sweden and Finland by car, I did not hesitate for a second. I immediately fell in love with the idea of just driving off and stopping wherever there was something beautiful to discover, no matter what it may be; of not knowing, when waking up in the morning, where I might end up that night; and of looking at the sea for hours in the evening, having deep conversations, or simply sitting silently, preferably with a cold beer in hand.
Nothing has changed about that. What has changed in the years since then is my perspective on certain things, to which my time in Finland has contributed significantly and for which I am profoundly grateful.
With the deepest gratitude, I thank my supervisors, Professor Juha Hämäläinen, Professor Riitta Vornanen and Professor Stefan Borrmann.
Juha, it has been such a great honour to have you as my first supervisor. I thank you very much for your guidance, dependability and patience over the last few years and for sharing your knowledge with me, which has always made me think and has broadened my horizons. Riitta, I am delighted that you have been my second supervisor; I thank you very much for your great commitment, and I will always remember both your scientific expertise and your wonderfully empathic nature. Stefan, I thank you very much for providing me with clear and precious feedback that has supported me in improving my manuscript.
I am also grateful for the two reviewers of this study, Professor Katja Forssén and Professor Merja Laitinen. I thank you very much for your constructive and developmentally critical feedback, and I especially appreciate you, Professor Laitinen, for acting as the opponent at my public defence.
I appreciate Professor Hannele Forsberg for sharing her expertise with me.
I would like to thank Professor Janet Anand for an inspiring summer school on ‘International Migration Studies in Child, Youth and Family Welfare’ and Dr Satu Tuomainen for an enriching summer school on ‘Advanced English Academic and Professional Communication’ at the University of Eastern Finland.
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to several Finnish people who crossed my path over the last few years in a wide variety of contexts and who, although they did not really know me, were incredibly kind and supportive. I would also like to thank Jari and Tapani very much for your support, especially during the finalising process of this thesis.
I would like to thank my parents for their support, for enabling me to take up studies and for thus making this day possible. Grandfather Willi, I thank you for believing in me, albeit unspoken.
The last few years have been a time of both loss and joy. After embarking upon my doctoral studies, my father Alexander and both my grandmothers, Gertrud and Klara, passed away. Dad, I cannot put into words how sad I am that you cannot be here. I firmly believe that you are celebrating for me up there.
Yet I also married my wonderful husband, Christian, and I am so happy that we share the same desires. I am so grateful for when we can just drive off together and stop where there is something beautiful to discover, no matter what it may be; for not knowing, when waking up in the morning, where we might end up that night; and for looking at the sea for hours in the evening, having deep conversations, or simply sitting silently together with a cold beer in hand.
Danke.
Neustadt an der Waldnaab, June 2021 Kathrin Franziska Beck
Table of contents
1 INTRODUCTION ... 29 1.1 BACKGROUND ...29 1.2 RATIONALE ...32 1.2.1 The growing importance of school social work ...32 1.2.2 Germany and Finland as the comparative countries ...33 1.2.3 The cross-national comparative approach ...36 1.3 AIMS AND STRUCTURE OF THE STUDY ...38 2 PRACTICAL AND PROFESSIONAL ISSUES RELATED TO SCHOOL
SOCIAL WORK ... 46 2.1 SCHOOL SOCIAL WORK IN AN INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT ...46 2.2 SCHOOL SOCIAL WORK IN GERMANY AND FINLAND ...49 2.2.1 The roles in school social work ...49 2.2.2 The range of tasks in school social work ...52 2.2.3 The variety of working methods in school social work ...56 2.2.4 Formal requirements ...59 3 THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES WITH RESPECT TO SCHOOL SOCIAL
WORK ... 62 3.1 SYSTEMS AND ECOLOGICAL SYSTEMS THEORETICAL
PERSPECTIVES ...62 3.2 THE RELATION OF SCHOOL SOCIAL WORK TO SOCIETAL
SYSTEMS IN GERMANY AND FINLAND ...67 3.2.1 Welfare regimes as extended country-specific contexts ...67 3.2.2 The German and Finnish child welfare systems ...74 3.2.3 The German and Finnish education systems ...85 4 METHODOLOGY ... 96 4.1 THE RESEARCH AND COMPARATIVE PROCESSES ...96 4.2 DATA COLLECTION ...105 4.3 DATA ANALYSIS ...114 4.4 TRUSTWORTHINESS ...132 4.5 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS...141
5 FINDINGS ... 144 5.1 THE NATURE AND ROLE OF SCHOOL SOCIAL WORK IN THE
CONTEXTS OF THE GERMAN AND FINNISH WELFARE
REGIMES AND CHILD WELFARE SYSTEMS ...144 5.1.1 Characteristics of societal systems from a comparative
perspective ...144 5.1.2 The various roles, tasks and methods of school
social work ...148 5.1.3 The role in cases of child maltreatment ...152 5.1.4 Work-related stressors while assessing children’s
well-being ...160 5.2 CROSS-NATIONAL COMPARATIVE RESEARCH IN SCHOOL SOCIAL
WORK ...167 6 CONCLUSION ... 171
6.1 THE INTERRELATIONS BETWEEN SCHOOL SOCIAL WORK,
WELFARE REGIMES AND CHILD WELFARE SYSTEMS IN GERMANY AND FINLAND ...171 6.2 THE INTERRELATED NATURE OF SCHOOL SOCIAL WORK ...178 7 DISCUSSION ... 181 7.1 THE THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES OF THE STUDY ...181 7.2 A MODEL OF THE INTERRELATED NATURE OF SCHOOL
SOCIAL WORK ...184 7.3 THE EVALUATION OF THE STUDY ...185 7.4 RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE STUDY AND SUGGESTIONS
FOR FUTURE RESEARCH ...186 7.5 THE VALUE OF COMPARING...189 REFERENCES ... 191 APPENDICES ... 239 ARTICLES ... 241
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Overview of the four sub-studies/articles and
the summary section. ...41 Table 2 Research aims, methods and processes in the four
sub-studies and summary section. ...100 Table 3 Literature reviews in sub-studies 1 and 2 (Beck, 2017; Beck &
Hämäläinen, 2020). ...107 Table 4 Forms of child maltreatment (table by author; based on
Leeb et al., 2008). ...112 Table 5 Example of the data analysis for the category school-related
issues in sub-study 2. ...117 Table 6 Category system of sub-study 4. ...118 Table 7 An exemplary category in sub-study 4. ...119 Table 8 The applied colour scheme and percentages of all tiles
in the document in the respective colours in sub-study 4. ...120 Table 9 Category system of sub-study 3. ...122 Table 10 An exemplary deductive and inductive category in
sub-study 3. ...123 Table 11 The applied colour scheme and percentages of all tiles in
the document in the respective colours in sub-study 3. ...125 Table 12 The different visual tools in MAXQDA applied in the four
sub-studies and summary. ...128 Table 13 Characteristics of the German and Finnish welfare regimes. ..145 Table 14 Characteristics of the German and Finnish child welfare
systems. ...146 Table 15 The roles, tasks and methods of school social work in
Germany and Finland...150 Table 16 The roles of SSW in Germany and Finland concerning sexual
abuse. ...153 Table 17 The roles of SSW in Germany and Finland concerning the
provision of nutrition. ...156 Table 18 Global tasks of school social work that emerged in
sub-study 2. ...169 Table 19 The interrelatedness of welfare regimes and child welfare
systems in Germany and Finland (table by author; idea of the visual representation based on Rice, 2013). ...172 Table 20 The role of SSW in the context of the German and Finnish
welfare regimes and child welfare systems (table by author;
idea of the visual representation based on Rice, 2013). ...173
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 School social work in Germany as part of the child and youth welfare system. ...78 Figure 2 Pupil welfare in schools in Finland (referring to Laitinen, K. &
Hallantie, 2011, pp. 26–27; see also Laitinen, K., 2012, p. 2). ....91 Figure 3 School social work within the context of the Finnish pupil
welfare system and school system. ...94 Figure 4 A Two-Cases Model illustrating the differences, in terms of the
comparative countries and continents, between all publications with and without the surveys conducted by the INSSW
(MAXQDA) (slightly modified from that published by
Beck &Hämäläinen, 2020, in International Social Work). ...130 Figure 5 A Code Map illustrating connected work-related stressors as
identified in sub-study 4 (MAXQDA; figure from the accepted anuscript by Beck, Vornanen, Hämäläinen & Borrmann, in International Social Work, 27.01.2021). ...161 Figure 6 The interrelatedness between the German and Finnish welfare
regimes, child welfare systems and school social work. ...175
1 INTRODUCTION
This study investigates the nature and role of school social work [SSW] within the context of the German and Finnish welfare regimes and child welfare systems based on theoretical examinations and empirical investigations. The observed differences are explained from a systems theoretical perspective and theoretical conclusions are essentially based on the interpretations of differences between the German and Finnish welfare regimes and child welfare systems. A comparative approach was adopted as a means to obtain a deeper theoretical understanding of the nature and role of SSW in both countries. In addition, this study investigates cross-national comparative research into SSW in an international context. This chapter provides the introduction to this study. First, the background of this study is presented, after which the rationale is discussed. The focus is centred on clarifying why it is valuable to compare SSW in Germany and Finland. Finally, the aims and structure of the present study are provided.
1.1 BACKGROUND
Social work is oriented towards the individual living conditions of human beings, especially of socially disadvantaged ones, as well as towards the societal circumstances that are in need of change to achieve social justice for all (Spatscheck & Wagenblass, 2013, pp. 9–10; referring to Hämäläinen, 2003;
Engelke, Borrmann & Spatscheck, 2009; Soydan, 1999); hence, social work must challenge situations in which resources are not adequately distributed and where unjust policies exist (International Federation of Social Workers [IFSW], 2018). Social work that is subject-oriented is political work (Spatscheck
& Wagenblass, 2013, p. 14).
The world is an uncertain place, especially for vulnerable groups like children. A recent survey conducted by United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF) (2016, p. 4) identifies climate change, inequalities in countries, environmental degradation, violent extremism, as
well as political instability as global risks which highly likely affect children in the next 15 years. Hence, children’s development and well-being are not only affected by settings in which they actively participate but also by “events occurring in settings in which the person is not even present”
(Bronfenbrenner, 1979, p. 3). Besides these risks, children around the globe are still confronted with education-related issues and inequalities such as those related to their enrolment in and completion of school and poor quality of education (UNICEF, 2015). In Finland, youth unemployment “has become a lasting phenomenon” (Forsberg & Kröger, 2010, p. 2). This is why current labour market and education policies focus on preventing unemployment among young people, including by “intensifying special support systems in school”, such as pupil welfare teams (Julkunen, 2007, pp. 128–130), including SSW, as well as the extension of compulsory education up to the age of 18 (Ministry of Education and Culture, 2021).
In addition, children are affected by different forms of maltreatment. In June 2020, a child pornography ring was uncovered in Germany in which 11 people were arrested “on suspicion of severely abusing at least three boys, filming the acts and selling them for profit”; among those arrested were close relatives of the children (Eddy, 2020). In Finland, an international child pornography ring was broken up in 2019; the ring involved the live broadcast of abuse into 17 countries (Kauranen, 2019). Thus, children around the globe are being confronted with different threats to their well-being. Furthermore, due to further global pandemics similar to that caused by COVID-19, already existing problematic situations might intensify (Schmitt, 2020).
Modern societies are characterised by functional differentiation; thus, every functional system represents society in its own sphere and fulfils a specific function that relates to a societal problem (Luhmann, 1997, pp. 742–
746). Also, each case of endangerment is seen as one of “self-endangerment”;
hence, society endangers the living conditions of its own members by causing environmental changes (Smirnova, von Elverfeldt & Egner, 2018, p. 16, this researcher’s translation; referring to Luhmann, 2008; Egner, 2008). Society itself causes damage to which it must react (Kneer & Nassehi, 2000, p. 169), and neediness is seen as being structurally conditioned (Bommes & Scherr, 2012, p. 115).
SSW is exercised in a “secondary setting” (Openshaw, 2008, p. 5) or a “host”
setting that is focused on education (Dupper, 2003, p. 30); it stands at the interface between child welfare and education and is a service directly located at school; therefore, it can prevent difficult situations from escalating and can intervene in those that have already developed (for Germany, see, e.g., Social Code Book VIII [SGB VIII], Section 1, subsection 3; for Finland, see, e.g., Rytioja, 2010, p. 7; referring to studies conducted by Sipilä-Lähdekorpi, 2004 and Lipiäinen, 1977). However, in an international context, SSW is, for the most part, reduced to its role as a contributor to schools’ objectives (Openshaw, 2008), as well as to a work area that performs tasks that are influenced by school systems’ needs (Huxtable, 2013). In this study, a sole orientation towards school objectives is regarded as a reduction of the full potential of SSW.
In addition, there are currently national debates about the service provision of SSW in both countries. Thus, in Germany, despite the fact that SSW is considered the responsibility of child and youth welfare [CYW] (Olk
& Speck, 2009; Rademacker, 2009), there is the tendency to provide SSW through schools or school authorities in recent years. Concerning this issue, several associations, such as Caritas, argue that from the perspective of children, this allocation has to be rejected and SSW must be provided by CYW for several reasons; these associations hold that only if it is provided by CYW, SSW can function as a lobby for children, its independence from school can be guaranteed and the general principles of CYW can be applied (Bundesarbeitsgemeinschaft Katholische Jugendsozialarbeit, 2015, pp. 1–5).
In the Finnish context, health care and social services are currently under reform. Thus, while SSW and school psychology are currently primarily provided by education providers, it is intended to implement integrated social and health centres that provide “all services under one roof”, such as primary and oral health care and social work, having its focus on preventive services (Finnish institute for health and welfare, 2020). In this connection, the responsibility for providing SSW and school psychology has planned to be shifted towards these centres (Finnish Government, 2020).
Thus, investigating the nature and role of SSW within the context of the German and Finnish welfare regimes and child welfare systems is a topic
of current interest. In addition, it is important to understand the complex interrelations of the included societal systems in which SSW is practiced in order to be aware of the potential tension between the school social worker’s professional values on the one hand, and national preconditions and legal requirements, on the other.
1.2 RATIONALE
This chapter presents the rationale for this study. The growing importance of SSW is first clarified before information is provided concerning why Germany and Finland were chosen as the two comparative countries. Finally, it is argued why the cross-national comparative approach was chosen to obtain knowledge.
1.2.1 The growing importance of school social work
SSW was chosen as the object of the comparison primarily for two reasons.
First of all, SSW is nowadays practiced in at least 53 countries (Huxtable, 2018). Thus, it is part of children’s daily life throughout the world. In the global context, SSW fulfils, besides its traditional role in supporting a child in school enrolment and completion (Huxtable & Blyth, 2002, pp. 3–4), a broad range of tasks that promote a child in reaching full academic potential. For example, it reduces school dropout rates (Nadir & Aktan, 2015) and prepares for, responds to and provides recovery not only for children but also for school personnel and the community in cases of mass school violence and other crises (Werner, 2015). Furthermore, SSW promotes children’s problem- solving skills, reduces bullying at school (Cotter, Smokowski & Evans, 2015) and performs tasks influenced by a school system’s needs (Huxtable, 2013).
Hence, SSW ensures that “school systems meet various performance goals and mandates for inclusion” (Huxtable, Sottie & Ulziitungalag, 2012, p. 232) and aims to enable “students to function and learn in the school environment”
(Openshaw, 2008, p. 5), as well as to facilitate education processes (Hancock, 1982, p. 16).
Second, and most importantly, SSW is able to make the difference when it comes to the promotion of a child’s well-being and protection from harm;
hence, from the perspective of child welfare, schools are the appropriate place, if not “one of the most practical arenas”, to support a child’s development and to reach parents in time (Allen-Meares, 2008, p. 3; see also Crosson-Tower, 2003). They are viewed as “excellent places” in terms of enabling the support of a child’s health and welfare (Välimaa, Kannas, Lahtinen, Peltonen, Tynjälä &
Villberg, 2008, p. 97); hence, professionals can use the organisation of school to reach all children and especially those who are in need of specific support.
In addition, SSW supports children who are victims of domestic violence (Sterne & Poole with Chadwick, Lawler & Dodd, 2010). It provides social security, increases parental involvement and supports children with personal and social problems (Pushkina, 2017). SSW also works to prevent physical, mental and sexual abuse by educating parents and the surrounding community (Hancock, 1982, p. 162), providing a low-threshold setting and detecting indications of maltreatment early (Crosson-Tower, 2003) or, as in many cases, before anyone else (Bathke, Bücken & Fiegenbaum, 2019, p. 2).
Thus, to conclude, SSW fulfils a broad range of tasks that promote a child in reaching full academic potential. In addition, it fulfils several tasks that go beyond processing school-related issues and that focus on the promotion of children’s well-being, as well as protection from harm.
1.2.2 Germany and Finland as the comparative countries
Germany and Finland were chosen as the two comparative countries for three main reasons. First, as the aim of this study is to investigate the nature and role of SSW in the context of welfare regimes and child welfare systems, two countries that are characterised as functionally differentiated societies and, thus, have norm-based social welfare systems were needed. Hence, the development of SSW in both countries was highly shaped and influenced by legislation. In Germany, SSW was introduced in the 1970s to support a child’s socialisation and adaption to school (Wulfers, 2002, p. 124). While SSW developed well during the next two decades, it stagnated at the end of the 1980s; it was only due to the introduction of the new child and youth welfare act [KJHG] on 3 October 1990 in the old federal states (in the western part
of the country) and in the new federal states (in the eastern part) that SSW gained in importance again as the cooperation between both systems was legally consolidated (Aden-Grossmann, 2016, p. 191). Current regulations concerning SSW are found in the SGB VIII.
In Finland, the roots of SSW go back to 1921 when a new law on compulsory education came into force and led to the need for measures to deal with children who either did not adapt to school rules or did not succeed at school (Pippuri, 2015, p. 12). The first SSW positions were introduced in the 1960s in Helsinki and Kotka (Andersson, Pösö, Väisänen, & Wallin, 2002, p. 81). Due to a lack of legislation, further development was hampered (Ikonen, 2014, p. 7) until SSW was regulated and became statutory in the Finnish Child Welfare Act [CWA] in 1990 (Andersson et al., 2002, p. 82). Current regulations concerning SSW are found in the Pupil and Student Welfare Act (1287/2013), which came into force on 1 August 2014.
Second, several researchers share the idea that social work practice is essentially influenced by and shaped through the welfare regime in which it is embedded (e.g., Meeuwisse & Swärd, 2007, p. 483; referring to Lorenz, 1994; Morales & Sheafor, 2004; Soydan, 1996, p. 122). Elsewhere in the literature, there exist several comparative studies that consider the different welfare systems in which social work is anchored (Shardlow & Hämäläinen, 2015). Nonetheless, in the area of SSW, the majority of publications focus on SSW as a work area of the social work profession (Huxtable & Blyth, 2002), youth work (Chui, 2013, p. XIII), or as a form of cooperation between two systems, particularly CYW and the school (Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend [BMFSFJ], 2013; Lerch-Wolfrum & Renges, 2014).
Consequently, there is a lack of a deeper consideration of SSW in the context of a welfare regime. It is the aim of the present study to contribute to filling this research gap, to identify similarities and especially differences in the nature and role of SSW, as well as to find explanations for these with respect to each country-specific context. Therefore, two countries were needed that represent different welfare regimes rich in contrast.
Within the frame of cross-national comparative studies, welfare regimes are usually investigated based on typologies that reduce “observed complexity”
(Van Kersbergen, 2019, pp. 116–118). In this study, a typology developed by
Esping-Andersen (1990) was applied that differentiates between conservative/
corporatist, social democratic and liberal welfare regimes, which represent three ideal-typical regimes (Aspalter, 2019a, p. 301).1 Accordingly, the German welfare regime is considered conservative/corporatist in that services are primarily delivered by non-public providers and it is shaped by the principle of subsidiarity; in contrast, the Finnish welfare regime is called ‘social-democratic’
by Esping-Andersen in that it is mainly the state that is involved in delivering services (Esping-Andersen, 1990), although there are nowadays various other agencies involved as well (Kröger, 1999, p. 58).
Third, there is, to this day, a lack of English-language literature about SSW in both countries; in recent years, there are numerous publications that focus on SSW in Germany (Haase, 2017; Just, 2016; Reinecke-Terner, 2017) and in Finland (Jauhiainen, 1993; Pippuri, 2015; Sipilä-Lähdekorpi, 2004; Tallavaara, 2011; Wallin, 2011). However, almost all publications regarding SSW are in the German or Finnish2 language, which is why it is difficult to access them in international scientific communication. Thus, this study provides information concerning SSW in Germany and Finland that was previously unknown outside of these countries in order to enable international communication and exchange of information. In light of the above, the present study “is about mutual understanding and shared learning, rather than about 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); hence, ethnocentrism must be overcome in cross-national comparative research (Askeland & Payne, 2006).
To conclude, Germany and Finland were chosen as the comparative countries as the development of SSW in both countries was shaped by
1 This typology is not without criticism; hence, it has been criticised on a theoretical level, such as that it only provides a limited range of countries, on a methodological level and concerning its empirical validity (Bambra, 2007, pp. 1100–1101). Also, the types represent three ideal-typical welfare regimes (Aspalter, 2019a, p. 301). While some details may not show up when using ideal-typologies, they enable “the greater picture” to be shown (Aspalter, 2019b, p. 316). Hence, using this typology was seen as an adequate frame.
2 See, for example, Andersson et al. (2002) for Finland, Wulfers (2002) for Germany and Julkunen and Walther (2019) for both countries.
legislative changes, and as both countries are classified as having different welfare regimes (conservative/corporative in Germany and social-democratic in Finland). Finally, there is a great dearth of English publications concerning SSW in both countries.
1.2.3 The cross-national comparative approach
The cross-national comparative approach was chosen for two primary reasons. First of all, the cross-national comparative approach is discussed by various scholars as having different functions and as enabling various opportunities. For example, Hämäläinen (2014, p. 192) points out the possibility “to clarify the theoretical and institutional diversity of social work” through the comparative method. Elsewhere, Hörner (1993, pp. 5–11) clarifies the idiographic, melioristic, experimental and evolutionistic function of the cross-national comparative approach: the idiographic function aims to identify the nature of a phenomenon in another country and the reasons for it; the melioristic function aims to transfer elements assessed positively to one’s own country; the experimental function aims to generate and verify hypotheses; and the evolutionistic function aims to identify common trends.
Baistow (2000, pp. 11–12) notes the opportunity to learn about others, from others, with others and about ourselves. This highlights that it is possible to learn about others and, hence, obtain knowledge about a phenomenon in another country (Baistow, 2000, p. 12; see also Göppner & Hämäläinen, 2004; Schweppe & Hirschler, 2007). The possibility of learning from others (Baistow, 2000, p. 12) is exemplified by alternative social work practices that can lead to improvements in one’s own practice (Friesenhahn & Kniephoff- Knebel, 2011; Huxtable, 2013, p. 10). By analogy, one country can be used as a “role model” for another one (Schweppe & Hirschler, 2007; as cited in Beck
& Hämäläinen, 2020, p. 2). It is possible for researchers and practitioners from different countries to learn by collaborating with each other, as well as to learn about themselves (Baistow, 2000, p. 12). Nonetheless, to be comparable, comparative objects must be similar in structure, have a specific function in common or a sense that is commutated (Seidenfaden, 1966, p. 13); thus, “the central element of a comparison is its object, the Tertium Comparationis”
(Beck & Hämäläinen, 2020, p. 3).
In this study, the comparative method is applied as a “means” (Anand &
Das, 2019, p. 107) to obtain a deeper understanding of the nature and role of SSW in the context of the German and Finnish welfare regimes and child welfare systems. It has an idiographic and melioristic function; thus, it aims to clarify the characteristics of its nature and role in Germany and Finland, and that the reasons behind these characteristics, as well as to identify elements in each country that might support improvements in the other. It is assumed that confronting the same phenomenon in another context enables critical reflection and broadens one’s own assumptions of normality (Walther, 2005, p. 110). Moreover, a deeper theoretical understanding of the nature and role of SSW can be gained in this way compared to an individual review of solely one country (Germany OR Finland). Thus, comparing a phenomenon in two different contexts (Germany AND Finland) allows for questioning one’s
“own taken for granted practice” (Williams & Simpson, 2009, p. 3) and the deconstruction of one’s own concepts (Baistow, 2000, p. 12; Walther, 2005, p. 110).
Second, cross-national comparative studies in SSW remain rare to this day, which is why a lack of knowledge regarding this area of work persists (Huxtable & Blyth, 2002, p. 10). Within social work, there has been an increase in comparative studies in recent years (see the bibliographical entry of Shardlow & Hämäläinen, 2015) that focus primarily on social policy models and profession- and practice-related aspects of social work (Meeuwisse
& Swärd, 2007); however, comparative perspectives are not obvious in social work “theory building and research” (Beck & Hämäläinen, 2020, p. 1;
referring to Friesenhahn & Kniephoff-Knebel, 2011; Göppner & Hämäläinen, 2004; Hämäläinen, 2014). While there are studies that aim at systematic comparisons (Hämäläinen, 2014, pp. 193–194) and attempts “to piece together the characteristics of the social work traditions of individual countries one- by-one, especially in the European context”, the majority of publications are descriptive and unsystematic (Göppner & Hämäläinen, 2004, p. 272).
To “go beyond data collection and collation” (Hantrais & Mangen, 1996, p. 4) and to avoid misjudgements (Hörner, 1993, p. 7), findings must be interpreted against the background of the context of the origin. Thus, describing specific aspects of another country’s societal systems is an ambitious but necessary
task (Göppner & Hämäläinen, 2004, p. 273). Several scholars state that social work is not an isolated phenomenon, and that contextualisation is an important element in cross-national comparative research in social work (see, e.g., Erath, 2012; Friesenhahn & Kniephoff-Knebel, 2011; Hämäläinen, 2014; Williams & Simpson, 2009). Borrmann, Klassen and Spatscheck (2007, p. 9) note that “social work practice varies from society to society depending on cultural variables such as politics, the economy, culture and religion”;
Erath, Hämäläinen and Sing (2001, p. 1) clarify that social work being shaped and constructed through “national economic, political and legal systems and cultural practices is not in question”; and Hämäläinen (2014, pp. 193–194) points out the importance of considering country-specific “social, economic, political and cultural factors” that relate to and shape social work “to understand the similarities and differences between the traditions of social work.”
Thus, to conclude, the cross-national comparative approach has idiographic and melioristic functions. It was chosen to achieve a deeper theoretical understanding of the nature and role of SSW in the contexts of the German and Finnish welfare regimes and child welfare systems, as well as to contribute to filling the existing gap in cross-national comparative studies and knowledge concerning SSW in both countries. Finally, from the researcher’s German perspective, this choice was made with the intention of learning with and from Finnish practitioners and researchers.
1.3 AIMS AND STRUCTURE OF THE STUDY
The overall research objectives of this study are to investigate 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, as well as to map the field of cross-national comparative research in SSW. The pair of countries simultaneously represents both the object and context of the study (Kohn, 1987, pp. 714–715). That is, on the one hand, the nature and role of SSW in both countries is to be compared;
however, on the other hand, the two countries are also seen as the context in
which the nature and role of SSW develop. The comparison has an idiographic and melioristic function (Hörner, 1997, p. 70); thus, it aims to clarify the characteristics of the nature and role of SSW in another country (Finland) as compared to one’s own (Germany) and that the reasons for them, as well as to identify alternative approaches that can lead to improvements in both countries. The entire construction is methodologically bound together by the
“multi-stage model of comparison” (Friesenhahn & Kniephoff-Knebel, 2011, pp. 41–48): after the findings of the study are systematised and juxtaposed, they will be interpreted against the background of the context of origin.
The theoretical perspectives applied in this study are Niklas Luhmann’s systems theory and Urie Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory. The systems theory enables insight into the functional differentiation in a modern society and into the relations between systems (Becker & Reinhardt-Becker, 2001, p. 63). Therefore, it provides insights into the interrelations between SSW, welfare regimes and child welfare systems and, thus, in the nature and role of SSW in the context of the German and Finnish welfare regimes and child welfare systems. In addition, the ecological systems theory focuses on the relations between a person and their environment (Bronfenbrenner, 1995, p.
623) and clarifies that not only a setting itself is of specific importance, but also the way in which it is subjectively perceived (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, p. 22). It therefore supports the understanding of how school social workers perceive their assigned roles and the identification of potential conflicts between these assigned roles and subjective perceptions concerning these roles. Thus, both perspectives complement each other and are useful in providing the explanatory background for both countries to compare the nature and role of SSW within the context of welfare regimes and child welfare systems.
To achieve the overall research objectives, four sub-studies – referred to as sub-studies 1, 2, 3 and 4 – were conducted; two sub-studies are theory- oriented (sub-studies 1 and 2) and two sub-studies are empirically-oriented (sub-studies 3 and 4). Each sub-study focuses on a specific aspect with respect to the set objectives. Sub-studies 1 and 2 theoretically examined relevant aspects of the two reference systems, namely education and CYW, as well as the terminological and conceptual diversity of SSW in Germany (sub-study 1), and mapped the field of cross-national comparative research in SSW
(sub-study 2). Sub-studies 3 and 4 empirically investigated the SSW’s role and nature in the context of the German and Finnish welfare regimes and child welfare systems by investigating the response of German and Finnish school social workers to a case vignette (sub-study 3) and by investigating the work-related stressors that accompany them while assessing children’s well-being (sub-study 4).
Sub-studies 1, 3 and 4 are built one upon the other, whereas sub-study 2 provides knowledge regarding the nature, role and tasks of SSW not only in Germany and Finland but also in a global context. Table 1 provides an overview of the four sub-studies/articles and the summary section (see Table 1).
Table 1 Overview of the four sub-studies/articles and the summary section.
Sub-study/Article Publication Research aim 1 (Single-country
study) Beck, K. F. (2017). The diversity of school social work in Germany: A systematic review of the literature. International Journal of School Social Work, 2(1).
• To identify relevant aspects of the two reference systems, namely, CYW and education in Germany
• To clarify the terminological and conceptual diversity of SSW in Germany 2 (Literature
review) Beck, K. F., & Hämäläinen, J.
(2020). Mapping the field of international comparative research in school social work. International Social Work (First published online).
• To map the field of cross-national
comparative research in SSW
• To identify the main focus areas of previous research and common practice themes 3 (Comparative
study) Beck, K. F., & Vornanen, R.
(2019). Responding to child maltreatment: comparison between school social work in Finland and Germany.
Journal of Comparative Social Work, 14(2), pp. 5–29.
• 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
Sub-study/Article Publication Research aim 4 (Comparative
study) Beck, K. F., Vornanen, R., Hämäläinen, J., & Borrmann, S. (2021). Work-related stressors accompanying school social workers while assessing children’s well-being: a comparative study between Germany and Finland (Accepted in International Social Work 27.1.2021)
• 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
Summary • To provide the theoretical
foundations of this study
• To conceptualise the nature and role of SSW 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
Sub-study 1, the starting point of this study, is a single-country study. Its aim was to identify the relevant aspects of the two reference systems, namely, education and CYW, as well as to clarify the terminological and conceptual diversity of SSW in Germany based on a systematic approach to reviewing the literature and creating a narrative synthesis. In this study, a great heterogeneity of terminologies and concepts was expected due to the lack of a clear section in the SGB VIII concerning SSW and the cultural sovereignty of the federal states in the realms of education, science and culture. Both of these factors have, in turn, an influence on the nature, roles and tasks and methods used in SSW. As SSW in Finland is regulated by law, a greater homogeneity was presumed from a German perspective; therefore, this study focused solely on Germany. Hence, sub-study 1 was seen as an important and necessary step to allow a later juxtapositioning and comparison with Finland; in addition, the findings form the foundation of the first comparison with Finland.
Sub-study 2, which is a literature review, mapped the field of cross-national comparative research in SSW. Its aims were to discuss central issues within cross-national comparative research, particularly why, how, and what to compare, to clarify methodological challenges and to present main focus areas, comparative countries and SSW practice themes of previous studies and publications. These aims were achieved based on a systematic literature review, narrative synthesis and a coding process (Auerbach & Silverstein, 2003). Gaps in existing research were identified and recommendations for future research and SSW practice developed. This study was considered an important contribution as there is, to the best knowledge of the author, no previous study that maps the field of cross-national comparative research in SSW. In addition, the identified practice themes provide knowledge concerning the nature, role and tasks of SSW in Germany and Finland, as well as globally.
The findings of sub-study 1 reveal that the role of SSW in cases of child maltreatment is hardly mentioned in the literature. Sub-study 3 researched and compared the responses of German and Finnish school social workers to an exemplary case of child maltreatment based on semi-structured interviews, the case vignette technique and computer-guided content- structuring content analysis (Kuckartz, 2016). Similarities and differences were identified, explanations for these developed, against the background
of the German and Finnish welfare regimes and child welfare systems, and recommendations made. This study was conducted as it was presumed that investigating the role of SSW in processing child maltreatment would provide insight into the nature and role of SSW within the contexts of the German and Finnish welfare regimes and child welfare systems.
Sub-study 4 researched and compared the work-related stressors that accompany the German and Finnish school social workers while assessing children’s well-being based on semi-structured interviews, the case vignette technique and a coding process (Auerbach & Silverstein, 2003). Similarities and predominately differences were identified, explanations for these were developed against the background of the German and Finnish welfare regimes and child welfare systems and recommendations were made. This study was conducted as it was presumed that investigating work-related stressors that accompany school social workers while assessing children’s well-being would provide insight into the nature and role of SSW within the context of the German and Finnish welfare regimes and child welfare systems.
Linking the findings of the four sub-studies revealed extensive knowledge regarding the nature and role of SSW within the contexts of the German and Finnish welfare regimes and child welfare systems, as well as in the global context. Besides discussing the results of the four sub-studies, this summary aims to present the theoretical foundations of this study and to investigate the nature and role of SSW in the contexts of the welfare regimes and child welfare systems of the two focal countries. Since SSW is defined as social work that is practiced in schools, relevant aspects of the German and Finnish education systems and the organisation of the school were investigated to a reasonable extent.
In line with the overall methodological considerations of this study (Friesenhahn & Kniephoff-Knebel, 2011), chapters 2 and 3 provide country information separately and only brief concluding remarks for reasons of clarity. Chapter 2 is focused on practical and professional issues related to SSW. First, SSW in an international context is presented, after which SSW in Germany and Finland is outlined; a specific focus is placed not only on the roles, tasks and work methods used in SSW, but also on the formal requirements to act as a school social worker. Chapter 3 provides the theoretical perspectives
of this study with respect to SSW. The theoretical framework is presented first, with specific attention paid to the systems theory of Luhmann and the ecological systems theory of Bronfenbrenner. There follows an outline of SSW with respect to different societal systems, particularly the German and Finnish welfare regimes, child welfare systems and education systems and a juxtaposition and summarised presentation.
Chapter 4 shows the methodological aspects of this study; first, the research and comparative processes are presented, and thereafter the data collection and analysis methods. Finally, aspects regarding trustworthiness and ethical considerations are provided. Chapter 5 presents the findings of the theoretical examinations and empirical investigations of this study. First, the findings related to the nature and role of SSW within the context of the German and Finnish welfare regimes and child welfare systems are presented. A specific focus is on the characteristics of these societal systems from a comparative perspective, before the various roles, tasks and work methods of SSW are shown. The role of SSW in cases of child maltreatment, and the work-related stressors that accompany them while assessing children’s well-being, are also examined. Second, the findings related to cross-national comparative research in SSW, as well as the nature, roles and tasks of SSW in a global context, are outlined.
Chapter 6 provides the conclusion of this study. In line with the overall methodological considerations (Friesenhahn & Kniephoff-Knebel, 2011), the findings of this study will be embedded within their country-specific context.
The interrelations between SSW, welfare regimes and child welfare systems are provided, after which the interrelated nature of SSW is outlined. Chapter 7 provides a discussion of this study. First, the theoretical perspectives of this study and the model that emerged from the interrelated nature of SSW are reflected upon. Then, an evaluation of this study is undertaken before recommendations and suggestions for future research are presented and the value of comparing is discussed.
2 PRACTICAL AND PROFESSIONAL ISSUES RELATED TO SCHOOL SOCIAL WORK
This chapter provides practical and professional issues related to SSW. First, SSW in an international context is introduced. Second, SSW in Germany and Finland is outlined. Specific attention is paid to the professional roles, the broad range of tasks and the variety of work methods, as well as formal requirements to work as a school social worker. In each chapter, a brief country-specific summary is presented.
2.1 SCHOOL SOCIAL WORK IN AN INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT
Recently, there has been an increased interest in “cross-national activities in social work”, including cross-national comparative research in social work and the publication of scientific works (Hämäläinen, 2014, p. 193). While social work is diversely practiced in different countries, its “ideological principles”
are shared among practitioners worldwide, as stipulated in the definition of social work adopted by the International Association of Schools of Social Work [IASSW] and IFSW (Borrmann, Klassen & Spatscheck, 2007, p. 9). Also, social work is described as being “international in scale” due to the fact that
“problems and solutions are no longer located and contained within local or national boundaries” (Anand & Das, 2019, p. 1); therefore, international communication and cross-national comparative research have become increasingly valuable.
In light of the above, there is increased interest in recent years in SSW, which is a specialised working area within the social work profession (Huxtable & Blyth, 2002; Villarreal Sosa, Bamba, Ismayilova & Tan-Wu, 2017, p. 221) and which is, nowadays, practiced in at least 53 countries (Huxtable, 2018). The development of SSW was closely connected with the introduction of compulsory education in Canada (1870s), England (the end of 19th century), and the United States (1918) to eradicate illiteracy and to support children’s education levels (Huxtable & Blyth, 2002; referring to Allen-Meares,
