I finally finished transcribing the first FGD today. Considering how I expected to be able to finish transcribing one FGD within one day at most I have a lot more work to do - which should still fit within the timeline set out. This has made me fully appreciate the issues with the way I work, as I tend to need little distractions along the way to ensure that I can work for longer periods on the same piece of work. At home these distractions would include taking snacks or having the television on in the background, or having music on. In the office it consists of drinking more tea/water and alternating between reading journal articles and transcribing. The only issue here is that this could affect my ability to be more efficient at my work. I need to find ways to make myself increasingly more effecient at work I feel.
Today was also the first seminar for field placement in school, with Mr Benny Bong. It was a bit strange being the only year 4 there and knowing nobody else except Yu Wei. I'm still not sure if they know that I am a year 4, or if they assume that I'm a year 3 with Yu Wei. As usual I realised that I end up talking more than most of the others in the group, despite my conscious efforts not to - simply because it can get frustrating when a question goes for a long time without anyone coming forward to offer any opinions.
It was interesting to see how NCSS' role fits in with the other social work roles that the other students are currently in, and made me really consider how the macro and micro sectors continually affect each other (and need to continue to challenge each other). To understand the necessity to do programme reviews to ensure service quality and relevancy so that funding isn't being channeled into programmes and services that are not benefitial at all, and through this to find service/programme shortcomings and gaps.
As usual, one of the issues that came up was the concept of advocacy - the necessity to advocate for our clients. Obviously the other students had faced some issues about advocating for their clients in direct practise (for example advocating for an elderly patient who was physically able but was beginning to experience dementia). However, it was interesting to note that we all have this grand idea of what advocacy is like in social work - the concept of striking or petitioning or making a lot of noise (literally) so that the governing bodies take note and pay attention to us - yet obviously this cannot really be done in Singapore due to our strict laws regarding strikes and public speaking and assembly, and the notorious amount of red tape that bureaucracies carry.
It seemed that nobody had actually thought of looking at the service gaps and actually doing something actively about them - we all knew of some service gaps, yet all we actually did was talk about them and perhaps provide some feedback through the "proper channels" that something needed to be done. Nobody had thought of going out on a limb to actually do something tangible, such as approach a VWO that could be a potential stakeholder to set up a fund or service or programme that could address this need and gap. By doing so, this would allow the VWO to provide a service/programme that the government agencies might be hesitant to provide due to government philosophy etc. and in so doing help to address the gap.
I feel that it is unfortunate that our generation has grown up with all this "new found" ability to think critically, yet we lack that initiative that our forefathers had to go out and do something about it "with our bare hands". Instead we are so used to the system that we believe that there is nothing left for us to actually do; so instead we write and speak (while being politically correct) and wait for something to "fall from heaven". I think there is a great need for the new social workers coming into the field to learn to "step up to heaven" and understand that there ARE actually ways we can impact the system without going against it, as long as we can be bothered to do so.
Finally Mr Benny discussed the generalist role of the social worker, howe we know a lot about everything, but not enough about specific things. In kepeing a holistic view of the person, we are very important in ensuring that every aspect of the issue is addressed and taken into consideration, thus ensuring balance. So we are a profession that is important, but because we focus more on breadth than depth, we become a "jack of all trades". This is possibly why some might not think of us as a "legitimate" profession, but rather something that a volunteer can do - which is extraordinarily far from the truth. Unfortunately I always get the impression that we as a profession tend to be less respected than a lot of other professions, which seem to prefer depth (however lopsided it might make the situation) to breadth, or who would rather just stick different professions that cover depth together and expect them to be able to come up with a cohesive holistic view of the situation. Which almost never happens.
Perhaps we need to somehow "specialise" in our ability to link the individual and the environment together - but how? How do we make it such that that becomes our obvious expertise and people respect that as a "valid" expertise? Is it even possible to make the general a "specialty", or do we need to repackage the profession as a whole? So the professionalisation of the profession (at least in the eyes of the public) is tough. And in fact this might also not even be entirely desirable as this might make the client populations we serve feel like we are elitist and exclusive, which goes completely against what we must be to help them, and defeats the purpose of our job, which is to help make the system and all its available resources accessible to our clients; this would necessitate us being viewed as accessible to them as well. If we were to attempt to make ourselves seem more like experts, this might compromise our rapport and relationship with our clients.
The question then becomes how do we balance the two? And how can we help other professions to understand that accessibility to clients is not the measure of ones professionalism (i.e. the less accessible you are does not equate to your being more an expert or professional)?
I feel efficiency is measured by the ability to meet dateline to produce quality work and not by the amount of time spent. so if you are able to achieve lots during those hours that you are on it, then a little distraction should not be of too great a concern.
ReplyDeleteAs social worker, there are times we have to deal with silence. Silence is also a form of communication. In a session with clients, be it counselling or groupwork, we will have to assess and verify with clients on the meaning of silence. There are times where we need to let silence take place, but there are also times where we have to interrupt the silence. Therefore, a worker's perception and reactions towards silence may also have impact. If a worker is uncomfortable with silence, then the worker needs to understand why and be aware of how's one reaction may positively or negatively impact on the sessions with clients.
If advocacy cannot be done the way it is 'well-known' (make strikes, public speeches, etc), what would you suggest we can advocate in Singapore? I do believe advocacy by social worker do happen, just that in a more subtle manner. But of course, the next question to ask is how effective are those methods of advocacy? I think there could be more that we can do.
Could it be that your generation, as well as my generation, we have grown up in an environment where most things are in place, and there is no real need to actively advocate for something? Like we all have the basic necessities, we need not like our forefathers to fight for it.
Before we ask the public perception of social workers, we probably need to ask social worker of their perception of the profession. How many social workers are actively advocating the professionalism of social workers. If the number is not high, why so? Could it be that they are not that particular in their being seen as a professional but rather more concern about helping clients? Or is there some other reasons?
Once, my supervisor commented that social worker will get the status of being a profession only when there is occurance a major social issue where our profession is really needed. eg. the SARS incident has brought on recognition and respect for nurses, who were once not that highly recognised.
Another way we could look at would probably be: which part of our work can be easily recognied as a niche and be respected by public for social work to be recognised as a profesion?