ECSWR March 23-24

Categories: Methods, Must, Reflections
Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: 27/03/2012

Went to the European Conference on Social Work Research (see abstract book here).

Made some notes for my PhD-project (I’ll put the relation to my other work in the Master Social Work somewhere else):

  1. From the talk of Sue White:
    1. Weick says something about ‘organizational culture as a source for high reliability’ in a 1987 article in Culture Management Review. How is reliability defined, here? Is that a concept also applicable to a neighborhood community?
    2. “Fish don’t know they are in the water”. In other words: we all have defensive routines in a context to keep things non-discussable, and we don’t realize that. The stuff that is (far) below water level of the cultural ice berg.
  2. From the talk of Andreas Walter:
    1. The matrix with the micro-meso-macro was interesting to maybe use in my literature review as a means to order my concepts.
    2. Also the principle of “normalization of life course narrative” might be something to look at. I have to remember that it is from the caregiver perspective. First wait until I an answer on my mail for his presentation.
  3. From the talk from Jean-Michel Bronvin and Stephan Dahmen:
    1. The capability approach as a model to assess EBP’s, acountability and a normative tool for social work. Might be a theory to use in my research. I have an example in my sources that I can check later on.
    2. This makes me think again of the character of many theoretical concepts within the domain of social work (and thus the ECSWR-conference): often they are related to an intervention that has to solve a certain problem; not to prevent a possible problem or, in other words, grab a chance….
  4. From Matthias Otten’s talk:
    1. On the congruence of three dimensions when it comes to intercultural communication research: alignment of concept of culture, methods and views on significance.
      1. Being culture-doing culture,
      2. emic methods-etic methods and
      3. research als predictor- research als signifier.
      4. See this article.
  5. From the workshop of Ute Karl and Ulla Peters:
    1. (Institutional) conversational analysis
      1. How are things said?
      2. What is the function of what is said?
      3. Why this utterance?
      4. What is the orientation?
      5. What are the different layers of context? (geographical, interactional, institutional, intentional, etc.)
      6. What is the context of knowledge production?
    2. Documentary analysis
      1. The hermeneutic stence.
      2. Document sense with cultural worlds and frames located in social practices.
      3. Problem solving in interaction (sinngenetisch) and/or in society (soziogenetisch).
      4. Happens in conjunctive experiences.
      5. See for example this text and these books by Scott.
  6. From the workshop of Ian Shawn, which is all about ‘narrative research’:
    1. Thematic analysis:
      1. More themes in one narrative.
      2. Text can contain different meanings and idea’s.
      3. These with-case-themes can be compared across different cases.
      4. It is about what is being said.
    2. Narrative analysis:
      1. One narrative seen as a whole.
      2. That must be a message then?
      3. Can be used to compare cases as a whole.
      4. Is about how it is said
    3. With the last bit I don’t agree completely. I would say that different themes can be introduced in the narrative in order the build up the story as a whole. Maybe we can say something like: how the teller talks about the themes, connects them, tells us the narrative as a whole. So the ‘what question’ can be asked on different levels and the how frames or enriches these meanings.
    4. I have to check the literature on narrative analysis when I am ready for it. See also the literature on Ian’s slides.
  7. So there are the following analyses I have been introduced to:
    1. Discourse, narrative, thematic, conversational, documentary.
    2. Questions like the following can be asked, but I have to find out more about these different analyses.
      1. What is said?
      2. How is it said?
      3. What are the themes?
      4. What is meant?
      5. What is the message/ plot?
      6. What are the assumptions?
      7. What is the intention?
      8. What are the different kind of contexts?

Share this

No Comments - Leave a comment

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>


Welcome , today is Sunday, 23/07/2017