: Vida Fućak : dr. Irena Šumi

(1)

FIELDWORK IN SOCIAL WORK: AN EXPERIENTIAL ANALYSIS

July 2021

Author: Vida Fućak

Mentor: dr. Irena Šumi

(2)

MASTER'S THESIS INFORMATION Name and surname: Vida Fućak

Title of Master's Thesis: Fieldwork in Social Work: An Experiental Analysis Place: Ljubljana

Year: 2021

No. pages: 75 No. Graphics: 0

No. tabeles: 0

No. Annex: 0

No. Pictures: 8

Mentor: dr. Irena Šumi

Key words: fieldwork, ethography, anthropology, people on the move, migrations, social work

Summary of the Master's Thesis: The master thesis explores the link between fieldwork and social work. The theoretical section introduces topics such as the history of fieldwork, the use of fieldwork and ethnography in social work practice, education and research, ethical dilemmas, and trauma. The main part of the thesis consists of personal diaries illustrating work with people on the move in Bosnia and the daily challenges faced by people on the move and volunteers/activists. The data in this thesis was collected through observation with participation during my three months of fieldwork.

(3)

In my Master's thesis I will look at the fieldwork within social work that is associated with migrations and try to extend the topic to all areas of social work. The introductory chapter brings the relevant definitions associated with these issues and establishes a common ground between fieldwork in social work and other disciplines (especially anthropology).

The introduction also addresses ethical dilemmas that I, as well as others involved in grassroots movements, constantly encounter as a person who is out in the field more often than writing articles from the comfort of my room. I have attempted to combine theory and practise through the analysis of selected documents and the application of a theoretical concept. The bulk of my thesis will focus on a critique of social work theory, that is, the critique of the differences between theory and practise and the (in)possibility of actually putting theory into practise.

In the second part, I will focus on my personal experience of fieldwork and an attempt to paint a broader picture of the current situation at the borders of Fortress Europe from the perspective of a social worker; a social worker who is both an activist and a supporter of marginalised groups, in my case people on the run. While discussing, describing and analysing the current situations, I will address issues such as trauma, cultural diversity and learning, solidarity and self-organisation.

To help the reader get a more vivid picture, but also to analyse my personal views and actions and to give myself space for personal growth and learning, I will cite my field diaries to give a more detailed account of the reality these people face.

The text will also address issues such as social work education, specifically the curriculum of the Faculty of Social Work at the University of Ljubljana, from which I also graduated and which I consider the most important foundation for defining the future work ethics of students and professionals. My critique of work under formal conditions is intertwined with fieldwork that is direct (person to person) and radical.

(5)

The events and insights presented in this text were gathered through getting to know, talking to, and conducting unstructured interviews not only with people on the move, but also with volunteers. I recorded all of this in my fieldwork diaries.

My role and approach to data collection in this process can also be described as using the anthropological and ethnographic method of first-hand observation with active participation.

Throughout the work I use expressions developed or used by people on the move to describe particular situations.

First, I reproduce here a diary entry I wrote at the end of my fieldwork experience in Bosnia and Herzegovina, when I was travelling on the "Balkan route" between countries - for me a very unchallenging and safe route.

I must go. I have to physically remove myself from everything that's going on. I think about why writing is so hard for me, why it's not easy, like it always was. I think it's because, in reality, I have no words.

There are no words to describe the situations people go through while hoping and wishing for a better life.

Seeing children play Croatian police and smugglers. Watching parents and singles ceaselessly search for new paths and ways, only to be brought back to where they started in the end. Handing out food in the parking lot of Central Station to hundreds of people for whom it will often be their only meal of the day. More and more people every day. When will it end? Watching volunteers crumble under the pressure because they know they can't do as much as they need to.

I keep telling myself: food, clothing and footwear, maybe a roof over their heads and medical help. If they're lucky, a sleeping bag and a backpack. That's all I can do. And a few kind words, a handshake, a hug. But I know that's not enough. And it hurts me and it breaks me, but I can't stop. I can't come to terms with the fact that this is the world I have to live in. I can't go back and pretend I don't know. About all the illegal deportations, the police brutality, the negligence of the states.

I don't know what I can do or how much sense it all makes, but I do know that every day I will do my best to make it at least a little easier for someone. I can't save anyone. Not even myself. But I can fight back against this system. I can, and I will. That is my moral

(6)

duty as a human being and as a social worker (Fieldwork diary entry, Sarajevo- Ljubljana, June 2018).

(7)

INTRODUCTION

Fieldwork as a form of learning provides experiential material, the opportunity to test theories already established, and space for the creation of new theories, methods, and concepts in social work. As society changes, the theories and methods should also change and adapt to the needs of the people. The only way I see for myself is to continuously work in the field and keep up to date with the political, economic and social changes.

By analysing and reflecting on our fieldwork, we can explore a wide range of social work elements. Thoughts on ethical dilemmas, cultural sensitivity, and approaches to social work are some of the elements that will be covered in this text. I will also offer a few personal experiences from fieldwork and my explanation of why it is so important for us as social workers to revisit theory learned in the classroom and how to apply it in real life situations.

DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED IN THE TEXT

People on the move/run – This phrase is referring to all the migrating people: refugees, asylum seekers, migrants. I chose that term because I think that all people have the same right to free movement, while their reasons for moving should be their own concern.

The Balkan route – This is a migration path that usually begins in Turkey and then winds through either Bulgaria or Greece. People on the move then make their way further northwest, eventually reaching Slovenia or Hungary on their way towards countries like Germany. It has been opened in 2012 and officially closed in 2016, but the route is still active as thousands of people are still trying to reach Western Europe through this route. After 2016, when Croatia, Macedonia and Slovenia closed their borders, new routes opened, nowadays the route mostly goes through Bosnia.

“Game” – The people who are moving through the Balkans call their efforts to continue their dangerous journey the „Game‟, not without cynical humour. It is a cruel „game‟ whereby safety and protection are replaced with violence and intimidation from people in authority. As they attempt to reach a place of safety, people are forced to take enormous risks and suffer abuse in the hands of human traffickers; brave freezing temperatures in winter; and negotiate the unknown and dangerous terrain, including forests and fast-flowing rivers. This is an often

(8)

terrifying journey rife with beatings, dog attacks and robberies, leading to serious injuries and even death.¹

Grassroot Movement/activism - Grassroots activism is about mobilizing a group of people who are passionate about a cause, and harnessing the power of their conviction to push for a different outcome. This kind of movement relies on individuals who are willing to drive the change that they are passionate about from the ground-up. Often the cause is something personal to them as the problem exists in the activist‟s own community.²

Formal / informal social work - Formal social work is tied to state institutions and depends on state policy, is depoliticized and hierarchical (Hrvatin, 2015). Informal social work is politically engaged activist work in direct contact with communities in social distress. It could also be defined as radical social work (Lavalette, 2013).

Pushback – This term is used to describe the practice by authorities of preventing the people from seeking protection on their territory by forcibly returning them to another country. By pushing them back, the states relinquish their responsibility to examine their individual cases.

Pushbacks encompass the legal concept of collective expulsion, which is prohibited in Article 4 of Protocol No 4 to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Specifically, the ECHR explicates the “prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens” that occurs when a group is compelled to leave a country without reasonable and objective examination of individual cases. Pushbacks violate the international and EU law because they undermine the people‟s right to seek asylum; deny the people the right to due process before a decision to expel them is adopted; and constitute the risk of sending the refugees and others in need of international protection back into danger.³

1 For more on this see: https://www-cdn.oxfam.org/s3fs-public/file_attachments/bp-dangerous-game-pushback- migrants-refugees-060417-en_0.pdf. Retrieved 2 July 2021.

2 See for example: https://www.thoughtworks.com/insights/blog/grassroots-activism-make-change. Retrieved 2 July 2021.

3 See for example: https://www-cdn.oxfam.org/s3fs-public/file_attachments/bp-dangerous-game-pushback- migrants-refugees-060417-en_0.pdf). Retreived 2 July 2021.

(9)

HYPOTHESES, RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND METHODS

In the introduction, I brought relevant practice within social work concerning the use of the ethnographic field method. In the main research part, I presented ethnographic field work, and how it can enrich the practice of social work, gain new experiences and knowledge that cannot be obtained only through theory and lectures at the faculty. I described one of my volunteer experiences in the field and tried to illustrate the real situation, illegal practices that support leading policies, the challenges we as activists face, and the range of problems that people on the move face.

As I prepared for fieldwork and considered writing a master‟s degree, I posed a few research questions to make it easier for me to focus while working on the field. What interested me about fieldwork with people on the move is this:

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

Rq1: What is the necessary structure of fieldwork with people on the move?

Rq2: What is specific to the goals of social work as a human rights profession concerning the people on the move?

Rq3: What are the qualitative surplus sides of fieldwork that yield a deep understanding the problems of people on the road for social workers?

In order to obtain the answers to the above questions, I set out with four hypotheses that I tested doing fieldwork, observation, and active participation.

HYPOTHESES

H1: The absolute necessity of a thorough preparation in for fieldwork in terms of background international politics knowledge; knowledge on humanitarian issues; a solid theoretical grasp on the method of ethnographic fieldwork

H2: The reality of the ideal synchronous supervision / mentoring of fieldworkers is probably experientially different than in theory

H3: While the importance of empathic techniques for achieving social work goals (interpersonal conversations; a relationship between the fieldworker and the collocutors that

(10)

ideally establishes the dyad of mutual learning / teaching is probably different in practice than in theory

H4: Empathic self-monitoring while working with collocutors on fieldwork is probably more sporadic than it is ideally presented.

METHODOLOGY

In my work I used the method of ethnographic fieldwork. I collected data in the field in BiH, in the period from the beginning of April to the end of June 2018. The field is divided by location into three parts: Sarajevo, Bihać and Velika Kladuša. During the fieldwork I wrote field diaries, both private and those collecting field notes, regularly recorded events and sometimes took photos.

I wrote the notes in such a way that during the day I usually briefly and succinctly noted important events. At night, I sometimes (every 2-4 days) wrote an uninhibited, personal, uncensored record. I have used some of these records in this text to illustrate my mental state during fieldwork. When I had days off (about every 10-14 days), I used clues and an uncensored record to write a formal, censored record that I used to reflect on my work and my feelings.

What I see with a delay is that if I had written both censored and uncensored records more often, I would have had a better picture, and I could have analysed the events more easily. I am aware that this is one of the things I still have a lot to work on. Writing this thesis was also helped by the audio recordings I exchanged with other volunteers and people on the street, as this is the quickest and easiest way to communicate in moments. With all this audio, visual and written material I tried to illustrate the events in BiH.

I collected most of the data with informal interviews with people and activists and with active participation in the collective. The interviews were not structured, but took place in a similar way, adapted to individuals and their abilities. I had two friends who helped me translate for people who did not speak English. I also learned basics in Farsi so I could talk to people when there were no translators around.

(11)

The population in my research consists of people I met in HoA and on the streets of Sarajevo, Bihać, and Kladuša during my three months there, as well as international and local activists I worked with. The population had changed during my work. Some people stayed in HoA for all three months that I was there, and the others left in the first month. Still, I kept in touch with people who made it through the borders and got to their desired destinations.

I did not have a sample, I wanted to cover the entire population, which is impossible, but I still made contact with hundreds if not thousands of people and all the conversations are valuable to me.

Gathering data on the topic I identified was - in my opinion - only possible through empirical research. Because it is a very specific space, information in the form of verbal descriptions provides the best insight into this area and offers the most information. While working in the field, I gathered experiential material through situational and informal conversations in the community and through my activities in the space. Therefore, my research is qualitative in that it does not involve quantitative data (Mesec 1997: 40).

(12)

HISTORY OF FIELDWORK Pole and Hillyard define fieldwork as

…a way of doing research where the emphasis is placed on the collection of data at first hand by a researcher. It relies on personal interaction or engagement between the researcher and those being researched in the research setting, during which the researcher(s) will use one or a combination of particular methods to collect data over a prolonged period of time (Pole & Hillyard, 2016:3).

Fieldwork has been developed within anthropological studies. It is closely associated with the era of colonialism and at its base there were two streams; the British and the American. I will briefly present the main characteristics of both.

Shu-Min Huang argues that British anthropology, which adheres strongly to structural functionalism, sees the role of the anthropological fieldworker as essentially neutral, as "an invisible conduit mechanically recording 'facts' and 'truths' parading before her or him"

(Huang, 1999:414).

On the other hand, American anthropologists have incorporated the "self" into the fieldwork setting, tearing down structural functionalism's feigned claim to scientific objectivity and ideological neutralism. They make the case that a reflexive (or subjective) anthropology that engages researchers in their research contexts by revealing their personal entanglements, ideological stances, and ethical commitments actually contributes to better grounded anthropological narratives and theories (Huang, 1999:414).

K.O.L. Burridge in his article gives the following explanation:

(i) Fieldwork, whether carried out by a professional anthropologist or in its more primitive form as a travel account, is an integral part of the European tradition.

(ii) Inherent in the European experience is

a) a notion of the individual, a concern for the unique self in society, which other cultures or civilizations do not exhibit

b) an awareness of otherness, of alternative kinds of social order which should be understood and so incorporated in a general body of accessible knowledge so that,

(13)

c) the nature of the individual may be fully comprehended.

The European approach to other cultures and societies, an approach that arises from above, is also conditioned by the fact that the European experience is a developing experience which has encountered relatively static social orders (Burridge, Lévi-Strauss, 1975:569-570).

Pole and Hillyard use the term "total experience" to describe fieldwork. With this term they try to convey "a sense in which fieldwork is an absorbing activity because of the involvement it demands of the researcher, technically in terms of using particular methods and intellectually in thinking about and planning research strategies" (Pole and Hillyard, 2016:5).

They also point out that the intention of fieldwork is "to try to understand what is being studied from the perspective of those being studied. This requires the researcher to be immersed in the research setting and to use research methods that provide, as much as possible, an insider's perspective" (Pole and Hillyard, 2016:5).

They also describe the early and contemporary field researcher as a person "driven by curiosity, by a desire to understand, to be there when things happen, and to use what he/she sees, hears, and experiences to begin to explain social behaviour" (Pole and Hillyard, 2016:10).

Although this broad competency for fieldwork dates back to anthropology, the process of

"coming home," as the authors argue, means that fieldwork is now a research process that applies to many disciplines. (Pole and Hillyard, 2016:10). Social work is one of them.

In my view, one of the most important things for students of social work (and similar professions) is a quality education about fieldwork. This must include both theory and practice. By educating students, we create less room to make mistakes once we become professionals, and this is very important, especially because of the people we work with. One small mistake can set off a big chain reaction and shut down opportunities to meet and get to know and support whole groups of people.

In his article, Ron Baker writes about teaching fieldwork in social work. His central assumption, with which I agree, is "that the quality of service that tomorrow's practitioner will be able to provide is significantly influenced by how he* is taught and "socialized" as a

(14)

student today" (Baker, 2008:11). He also points out that fieldwork teaching has become a seriously neglected area of social work education. I could not agree more. During my studies in the Faculty of Social Work, little was said about fieldwork. In 5 years we had only one subject that talked directly about fieldwork, and even that was an elective.

In his discussion, he points out five goals of fieldwork instruction, which I quote:

To develop the student's ability to plan and carry out programmes of change in line with explicitly stated goals

To assist the student's development of interpersonal competence

To promote skill in undertaking the general tasks and common roles of practice

To foster identification with professional social work, in harmony with social work's knowledge and value base

To promote the development of self-awareness of behaviour that promotes or impedes skill in practice (Baker, 2008:12).

He goes on to define the ultimate goal of fieldwork as "a practitioner who can intervene sensitively, systematically, and competently at any system level and within a chosen goal of change" (Baker, 2008:12).

In my fieldwork I often felt incompetent to make the decisions that needed to be made at any given time. I believe I would have had more confidence in myself and my competence if I had had more opportunities to educate myself and review what I learned in lectures and internships in college. I encountered many completely new situations where I had to react according to the moral principles of the profession and was unsure of the correctness of the decisions.

In the same article, Baker quotes Simon, and here we get to the heart of the problem with social work education:

Narrow technicians are the result of training or apprenticeship rather than professional education. When a student learns the practice of a specific agency as if it were the whole of social work, he is trained not educated. When he experiences social work practice in terms of accomplishment of specific isolated tasks, he is trained not educated. When he thinks that what one does depends on the case, the group, or the committee, he is trained not educated (Simon, 1966, in: Baker, 12:2008).

(15)

As the above quote says, and what I felt in practice and in the field, is that through five years of college I was more trained and less educated. And that made my job more difficult and brought with it a much greater psychological burden that if I had better training I could recognize and manage without major psychological consequences, such as burnout.

Bishnu and Sanjoy come to similar conclusions; they see fieldwork as an intention to help students apply theoretical knowledge taught in the classroom to real-life situations and to connect and test the theories with the professional aspects of the workplace (Bishnu, Sanjoy, 2019:6).

ETHNOGRAPHY IN SOCIAL WORK

Ethnography, the distinctive method of anthropology, originated in the social sciences (Agar, 1996; Bernard, 2006; Clifford & Marcus, 1986; Marcus, 1995). By making connections between different places, fostering interactive processes, and linking politics to practice, ethnography is a lens through which the human condition-and all its complexities-can be better understood. Ethnography is an experiential research method that involves fieldwork or participant observation; it typically requires a researcher to immerse themselves in natural settings, both as a participant and as an observer in real community contexts, with the general goal of understanding patterns of continuity and change (Balestrery, 2016:4).

As Balestrery writes in her article, field research involves data collection in the form of field notes, which usually include interviews and documents, and in the end the product of ethnographic research is usually a book - a compilation of textual research material that tells a story.

Ethnography is used in a variety of disciplines, including social work. When adopted as a method and metaphor, ethnography broadens the interdisciplinary perspective of social work and generates potential paradigm shifts. It also promotes innovation in social work education because it is based on the logic of spatial interconnectedness (Balestrery, 2016:4).

Throughout history, there have been several paradigm shifts, for example, ethnography experienced a "shift from an objectifying methodology to an intersubjective methodology" in

(16)

the 1960s and 1970s (Tedlock, 2000:471). This interpretive turn contrasts with the history of social work, where positivism seems to have dominated. In social work, historical leaders have embraced the positivist epistemological orientation "as a means of framing activities and gaining credibility and respect," which further legitimized this orientation in the 1950s (Rodwell,1998 in Balestrery, 2016:4).

The epistemology of positivism springs from a modernist paradigm rooted in European colonial and imperial history. It is an epistemological orientation that strives for a certain reality: universal laws, generalizations in scientific understanding, and an objective, deterministic, scientific "truth." In contrast to the rationality of positivism, an interpretive epistemology views reality as contextualized with multiple truths, knowledge as dialogical, and meaning-making as a process of multiple ethnographic encounters (Rodwell, 1998;

Tedlock, 1991 in Balestrery 2016:4).

Further in article, Balestrery points to three core contributions that ethnography makes to social work education: methodological holism, methodological engagement, and methodological comparison. I will briefly describe all three.

The first is methodological holism, which refers to "seeking contexts in order to understand"

(Sanchez, 2013 in Balestrery 2016:5). It involves the movement of the researcher across multiple settings, typically understood as physical locations, meaning that the researcher continuously enters and exits multiple settings or environments in which they adapt and move across multiple boundaries and contexts. Ethnographic movement can also extend beyond physical locations to multiple spaces. By moving across multiple spaces, the traditional ethnographic study that focuses on a particular place or places becomes a study that focuses on "[e]mpirically following the thread," the thread of a group of people, things, metaphors, or stories (Marcus, 1995:97 in Balestrery, 2016:6).

Whether the focus is on a particular place or a "thread," ethnography examines processes of cultural continuity and change in different settings. In doing so, ethnography involves a "peripatetic, translational mapping of brave new worlds"

(Marcus, 1995:114). In contemporary society, these new worlds include social spaces, including the Internet, social media, and cyberspace (Balestrery, 2016:6).

When the researcher enters these spaces, he or she participates in a "process of merging"

(Ingold, 2011:222 in Balestrery, 2016:7). This process connects the ethnographer to the lives

(17)

of those the ethnographer observes and participates in. Regardless of the approach, ethnography aims to make part-whole relationships visible across multiple places or spaces.

Overall, ethnography strives to integrate seemingly disparate elements within a context to illuminate processes of cultural continuity and change. In doing so, the ethnographer identifies connections across multiple settings that are relevant to the topic under study. These connections reflect the logic of spatial interconnectedness embedded in ethnography (Balestrery, 2016:5-6).

Ethnographic fieldwork is not only experiential, but also emergent. While ethnographers map the parameters of the 'field', the actual paths or roads they travel during fieldwork may not be visible. Fieldwork has a way of showing new paths that are not initially seen, or pointing out new directions in which a path or road must be taken. Therefore, ethnography embraces a

"funnel approach," an approach that is "dialectical rather than linear" (Agar, 1996, p. 62). In this approach, an ethnographer learns something during fieldwork, attempts to understand it contextually, extends that learning through ongoing fieldwork, and then refines the understanding. Data collection and analysis makes visible the meaningful sum of all parts, synthesizes part-whole relationships, and uncovers taken-for-granted assumptions.

“The message of methodological holism is one of connection. For social work to have a demonstrable impact on improving social problems, it is necessary to promote pedagogical approaches that make connections between different places” (Balestrery, 2016:6).

“The second, methodological engagement refers to the process of 'entering into first-hand interaction with people in their everyday lives'.” (Tedlock, 2000: 470 in Balestrery, 2016:5).

Guided by methodological engagement, ethnography embeds the notion of positionality throughout the process or method of research. Ethnographic positionality is the experience of standing between different settings and contexts. It is about the ethnographer embodying the research lens through which the research is conducted and produced; it is about the researcher's social location or reflexivity, which refers to "the influence of every aspect of ourselves and our context that affects the research" (Fook, 1999, p. 12). Consequently, the researcher's own sociocultural background influences their participation with others, their observations, and their interpretations of experiences (Balestrery, 2016:6).

(18)

I worked for years with people on the move in a few countries. As I worked, I evolved, my understanding of the world, of politics, of social work evolved. What I thought I knew in the beginning turned out to be completely wrong after a few months spent in different places with different people. Every day I learned something new, which opened my mind in ways that would never be possible in a classroom.

Fieldwork is a complicated business that positions the ethnographer in different worlds and cultural contexts. The positionality of an ethnographer reveals a unique tension where there are "dangers of too much distance or over-identification" (Baines & Cunningham, 2013:75 in Balestrery, 2016:7). Ethnography is a process that provides insight into and makes visible many contextual complexities. Fieldwork, which is "regarded as a source of human understanding, is happily devoid of the manipulativeness of, for example, experimental laboratories and the dream of control" (Landes, 1972 in Balestrary, 2016:7). In summary, methodological engagement is about direct interaction with people, which I believe is lacking in institutional social work practice.

For social work to have a demonstrable impact on improving social problems, it is necessary to promote pedagogical approaches that foster interactional processes with real people in real places (Balestrery, 2016:7).

The third, methodological comparison, refers to "bifocality," viewing "from at least two sides" (Marcus, 1991:68 in Balestrery, 2016:5).

Guided by methodological comparison, ethnography embeds the notion of perspective throughout the process or method. Fieldwork continuously exposes an ethnographer to different worldviews and belief systems. Through the act of comparing and contrasting, the ethnographer strives for analytical acuity by identifying similarities and differences across settings and contexts. When a single perspective is expanded to include multiple perspectives, a deeper and more complex understanding of a situation is achieved.

((Balestrery, 2016:7).

Methodological comparison leads to a multidimensional perspective. “If we are to comprehend and explain cultural and other variations-which we believe are still at the heart of the anthropological enterprise-we must follow the connections made and broken in everyday

(19)

movements between differences and similarities" (Mohacsi & Morita, 2013:182 in Balestrery, 2016:8). Following the connections between differences and similarities invokes the logic of (spatial) entanglement (Balestrery, 2016:8).

“The message of methodological comparison is one of questioning assumptions and beliefs in different contexts, which deepens understanding about the human condition.” (Balestrery, 2016:8). These core contributions align with aspects of innovation in social work education because it provides a lens for transformative learning. It helps social workers better understand the complexity of mutual interactions between real people and their real environments and how all these parts are integrated into a larger whole.

Transformative learning is an approach to learning that creates new possibilities that go beyond the assumed status quo. This approach to learning is facilitated by encouraging creativity, the "engine of imagination," and problematization, which is "expressed in questions" (Witkin, 2014: 594-595 in Balestrery, 2016:8).

Viewed as a lens for transformative learning, ethnography encourages a rethinking of conventional approaches, which is the core of innovation. Transformative learning in social work education involves rethinking conventional approaches to teaching, research, and practice (Balestrery, 2016:8).

Ethnography, when applied as a method and metaphorical lens in social work education, promotes a deeper understanding of the human condition. A transformative learning approach to social work education is "more than a change in students' beliefs," it is "a process of producing transformative thinkers" (Witkin, 2014:596 in Balestrery, 2016:9).

In this sense, transformative learning strives to produce transformers - rather than reproducers - of reality. Particularly relevant to social work is that "imagination, creativity, and innovation are desperately needed" in a contemporary neoliberal reality (Witkin, 2014: 594 in in Balestrery, 2016:9).

The core contributions of ethnography include critical thinking, tolerance for uncertainty or ambiguity, and recognition of complex social contexts. Consequently, conflicting values may arise in practice (Balestrery, 2016:12).

(20)

ETHNOGRAPHY AND SOCIAL WORK RESEARCH

Balestrery describes the ethnographic research method as one “that complicates rather than simplifies reality, broadens rather than narrows perspective, and problematizes rather than prescribes action” (Balestrery, 2016:11). She argues that ethnography makes visible contexts that otherwise remain invisible. For example, although social work typically views the world through the various analytical levels of micro, mezzo and macro (e.g. individual, community and political), it does so only conceptually because the real world is not so easily separated (Balestrery, 2016:11).

In the article entitled Intersecting Feminist theory and ethnography in social work research, the author finds three key similarities between ethnography and social work and two key differences. The similarities include the emphasis on the self as a key tool in the process, whether in counselling or research, the engagement with other cultures and the methods of participant observation and interviewing in both disciplines (Archer, 2009:147-148).

Differences include ethnography's field orientation and the issue of gift-giving. (Archer, 2009:149). The use of the self as a key tool in the process is about one's intuition and empathy. As Creswell (1998) said, ethnography should be interpretive and empathic, relying heavily on the intuition of the researcher. We could also find the same assertion in clinical social work texts; the importance of using our own intuition and empathy as social workers to help clients interpret their own behaviour (Archer, 2009:147).

Engaging with other cultures that are different from our own is the second similarity.

The term "culture" is intrinsic to the ethnographic method (Agar, 1980; Creswell, 1998).

Culture refers to "the acquired knowledge that people use to interpret experiences and produce social behaviour" (Spradley and McCurdy, 2000: 4). Essentially, this definition refers to the postmodern notion that knowledge, interpretation and behaviour are socially constructed. Individuals who share membership in a culture share the context of that social construction (Archer, 2009:147).

I can agree with Archer when she writes that

the concept that social conditions play a large role in an individual's thoughts, attitudes, and voice is not foreign. Rather, it coincides with the social work concept of the "person

(21)

in the environment" (PIE), in which social conditions are also seen as significantly influencing the individual (Archer, 2009:147).

And it does not play into the modernist notion that there are universal truths that can be applied sweepingly to cultures that may share certain social conditions. The idea that social conditions/context influence the formation of a culture, and the fact that the individual is a member of that culture, speaks directly to the influence of culture on the individual - but it does not diminish individual differences or voices, the social work “person” within PIE (Archer, 2009:147).

Ethnography and social work also share the methods of participant observation and interviewing. These two methods are hallmarks of the ethnographic research approach (Agar, 1980; Spradley, 1979 in Archer, 2009:148). Through participant observation and interviewing we seek to gain an understanding of people's lives from their own perspectives, which should be central to working with clients.

The first difference between clinical social work and ethnography is field orientation.

Ethnographic research is field-oriented, which is not the case in clinical social work, which is usually conducted in private or government offices, hospitals, and clinics. The ethnographic researcher takes the process a step further by conducting it in the everyday environment of the culture being researched (Archer, 2009:149).

Social workers and ethnographers also differ on the issue of gift giving. Many social work authorities consider it inappropriate for social workers to accept gifts from clients or to give them gifts. Ethnographers, on the other hand, advocate appropriate gifts as a means of promoting reciprocity between researchers and research subjects (Archer, 2009:149).

In my opinion, the giving and receiving of gifts can only positively influence a relationship. In the situations I find myself in, it happens very often that someone gives me a gift. These are all little things, the only way for people to show their gratitude for the effort we make. To refuse such a gift would be disrespecting the person and can be interpreted as me being above the person giving me something, and in any case this negatively affects the relationship itself.

Even before, during my faculty internship, I often received small things from the people I worked with. For me, it's an appreciation for what I do. People are happy with me and my work and want to show that in a certain way. It goes both ways, I've given a few gifts to the

(22)

people I've worked with as well, but they're all just little things to show people my respect and gratitude.

When talking about gift giving and reciprocity, I would like to refer to Mechthild von Vacano's (2019) definition in which he relates reciprocity to "non-monetary and socially significant features of gift relationships" and non-market exchanges that are intended to foster social bonds and are driven by social motives (Vacano, 2019:125).

In the article, Archer explains two elements of feminist scholarship in relation to ethnographic research and social work traditions. The first is contextual diversity and the other is reciprocity.

Contextual diversity' is a term I have constructed to serve as a link between the three different lenses of social work, feminist theory and ethnography. Contextual diversity includes two key elements, the postmodern emphasis on 'multiple voices' and Third World postcolonial and feminist concerns with 'context' (Archer, 2009: 150).

These elements also serve as cornerstones in social work and ethnography (ibid). Multiple voices stem from the concept of 'multiple truths' central to postmodern theory. In contrast to the modernist concept of 'universal truths' (truths that are constant and exist outside the individual), it asserts that there are only individual truths, multiple realities constructed by individuals out of their particular experience of history and life circumstances (Archer, 2009:151).

From this context, feminist research methodology requires the inclusion of multiple women's realities expressed through the voices of these women (compiled from Abramowitz, 1996;

Chowdry, 1995; Mohanty, 1991; Naples, 2000; Waterfall, 1997). In postcolonial and Third World feminist theories, they go beyond the category of gender to suggest that feminist researchers need to include more voices that also address issues of class, ethnicity, locality, and constructed identities (Archer, 2009:151).

Contextual diversity is also present in social work theories, which asserts that within each social, political, cultural, and economic location, there are multiple interpretations of that location. As Archer writes, social work's sole mandate to "meet clients where they are" is inextricably linked to the notion of "contextual diversity." It speaks to the core of recognizing

(23)

the client's own social situation as it is experienced by the client and not assumed by the social worker or others (Archer, 2009:151).

Element of Context is about disavowing the construct of universal truths, even amongst those who share a common context. This is clearly and simply demonstrated by a statement made by Bronislaw Malinowski (1950: 25 in Archer, 2009:151) who wrote that the real aim of ethnography is "to grasp the native's point of view, to discern his [sic] relation to life, his vision of his world".

The part about reciprocity talks about the power relations between researcher and researched, which is a major concern of feminist methodologists. Archer quotes England‟s (1994: 86) state that the research relationship is "inherently hierarchical". This is related to concerns in the social work profession about the hierarchy inherent in client-worker relationships. In social work practice, there are numerous skills and methods that social workers use to empower clients and also to balance the power relations between worker and client, both in micro and community-based practice, locally and globally (Mishna and Rasmussen, 2001;

Sewpaul, 2006; Smale et al., 2000 in Archer,2009:154).

Reciprocity is a concept used in feminist theories to explain how an inherent power imbalance can be diminished in a research study (England, 1994; Higginbottom and Serrant-Green, 2005; Lawless, 1992, Naples, 2003 in Archer, 2009:154). Reciprocal relationships between the researcher and informant include at least the following:

(1) The research effort is viewed as a collaborative effort between the two;

(2) The relationship is based on empathy and mutual respect; and

(3) it is explicitly acknowledged by the researcher that both people have knowledge and skills to contribute – and that, in fact, the informant has more knowledge related to the specific research questions (Archer, 2009:154).

Ethnographers also pick up on these elements of reciprocity (Hoffman, 2007; Schwalbe and Wolkomir, 2002; Vigouroux, 2007). Archer quotes Spradley (1979: 3-4) stating that the essence of ethnography is not to “study” people or collect “data” about them; rather, “the ethnographer seeks to learn from people, to be taught by them”.

Spradley's characterization of the research participant as teacher and the researcher as student parallels an important tenet of social work-namely, viewing clients as experts on

(24)

their own lives and the social worker as someone who has specific skills to bring to the relationship. Through these characterisations, both ethnography and social work reflect the feminist mandates for reciprocal relationships mentioned earlier, both of which emphasize the importance of a relationship based on collaboration, empathy, respect and the recognition of each individual's knowledge and experience (Archer; 2009:154).

Reciprocity, a relationship based on collaboration, empathy and respect are, in my opinion, the foundation of fieldwork and social work practice in general. At every moment of my work I take the position of a person who is there to actually learn and not to lecture others. My skills and knowledge can help by giving ideas or support, but still every person I meet has a better and deeper view of things, an idea of how things could be improved and why. From my perspective, working with people on the move and volunteers has given me a whole new perspective, new feelings, new thoughts. I became rich on all levels of life, both personally and professionally. I also realized that specific knowledge and information about people on the move cannot be gained in any other way than through direct communication with people and, in a way, living with them. Much of what is placed by the media, "scientific" portals, experts in these fields is false, misunderstood, intentionally distorted and stems from ignorance and intolerance with the idea of further manipulation.

ETHNOGRAPHY AND SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE

Balestrery asserts that the application of the ethnographic lens in social work practice is not only helpful, but is an effective practice that she (and other authors) explain as "holistic, taking into account the totality of context and identity" (Sisneros, Schmitz, Stakeman, &

Joyner, 2008:104 in Balestrery, 2009:11). She gives an example of using an ethnographic approach in practice as "a method of cultural discovery" so that during interviews "the person being interviewed becomes the social worker's cultural guide" (Leigh, 1998/2002: 12 in Balestrery, 2009:11).

This approach assists social workers to 'see the person's uniqueness as both similar to and completely different from previous familiar situations, without first judging in what ways they are similar or different' (Leigh, 1998/2002, p. 79). Thus, as social workers 'recognize the similarities and differences between individuals, [they] value the uniqueness of each person' (Sisneros et al., 2008, p. 96 in Balestrery, 2009:12).

(25)

An ethnographic lens in social work practice positions the social worker as an ongoing learner about another lifeworld, thereby immersing one in a different cultural worldview. This lens integrates reflective practice, in which a social worker reflects on his or her assumptions and actions, with reflexive practice, in which a social worker situates him or herself socially within the interactional context (Fook, 1999). In doing so, social workers may reflect on similarities and differences between themselves and those with whom they work, as well as between present and past situations, in order to provide effective, nonjudgmental, and culturally relevant services (Leigh, 1998/2002, p. 33). Just as one's use of self is the instrument in ethnography, so one's use of self is the instrument in social work practice.

Examples of an ethnographic approach in social work practice include the use of

“friendly conversations'" (Leigh, 1998/2002) and the use of critical consciousness in EBP decision-making (O'Neill, 2015). While the purpose of "friendly conversations" - the general, informal conversations - is to "begin the relationship not as a client or as a social worker, but essentially as two people coming together to get to know each other"

(Leigh, 1998/2002. 60-61). The purpose of applying critical consciousness to EBP decision making is to integrate a positivist and rationalist approach to EBP decision making with an interpretive approach. An interpretive approach "requires an awareness of the interpersonal and structural dynamics of power in social work practice" (O'Neill, 2015, p. 628). Both examples involve moving away from traditional practice approaches that involve EBP or prescribed tasks such as intake assessment (Balestrery, 2009:12).

Ethnography as a method and message is an approach that resists “forced binary choices” because it can provide new information and novel ideas, which can transcend practical restraints. By focusing on real people in real places, ethnography emphasizes and encompasses diversity in all its forms – thought, paradigm, approach, perspective, etc. – and across all domains-age, geographic location, gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc. By doing so, ethnography is the message as a lens for transformative learning in social work education (Balestrery, 2009:13).

Next quote describes exactly my feelings and situations in the field:

It is a scary thing, isn‟t it: the idea of being alone „in the field‟, trying to accomplish a task initially formulated as a perfectly coherent research plan with questions, methods, readings and so on – and finding out that the „field‟ is a chaotic, hugely complex place.

(26)

Fieldwork is the moment when the researcher climbs down to everyday reality and finds out that the rules of academia are not necessarily the same as those of everyday life (Blommaert & Jie, 2010:1).

Ethnography produces empirically rich case studies of complex social problems, illuminates contradictions in social policy, theory-practice (Floersch et al., 2012:4). It focuses on human services, social and psychological problems such as child welfare, homelessness, drugs in urban contexts, rural community life, people with disabilities (Floersch, et al., 2012:2)…

Ian Shaw, in Evaluating in Practice, highlights the use of ethnography in social work assessment, planning, practice and evaluation (Shaw, 2011). He writes that "dimensions of place and space are deeply embedded throughout social work practice" (2011: 82- 83). For Shaw, ethnography is both a source and a model for social work practice (Floersch et al., 2012:4).

Interest in ethnography has long existed among social workers. For many, the goals and methods of ethnography are a natural fit for their way of thinking and practicing. Just as social workers seek to better understand the everyday lives and perspectives of their increasingly diverse clients, one goal of ethnographers is to understand what it means for people to be differently situated in terms of values, goals, resources, and social position (Haight, Kayama, and Korang-Okrah, 2014:128).

Ethnographers seek to understand the complex systems of beliefs and practices of different individuals and groups as embedded in particular sociocultural and historical contexts.

Ethnography does not provide us with a roadmap for better practice and policy. Rather, it provides us with a critical perspective outside the cultural (and subcultural) contexts we take for granted (Haight, Kayama, and Korang-Okrah, 2014:128).

These multiple cultural perspectives allow us to reflect on our own practices and policies (e.g. Miller et al., 2003). Such reflection is arguably a prerequisite for effective social work practice and meaningful social change in our diverse and global society.

Moreover, the methods of both social work practice and ethnography are profound, holistic, and systemic. The methods of ethnographic research including narratives, life stories, and participant observation may even be preferred by social work clients from communities with rich oral traditions and values that emphasize cooperative and

(27)

reciprocal relationships (Kanuha, 2000). At the same time that ethnography provides social workers with powerful tools, it also carries risk (Haight, Kayama and Korang- Okrah, 2014:128).

In the article, the authors used several studies to illustrate cases of opportunities and challenges of ethnography in social work. The first case is about “designing culturally sensitive social work interventions while minimizing risks to vulnerable individuals” (Haight, Kayama and Korang-Okrah, 2014:128).

A key assumption of ethnographic research is that the best way to understand other people's beliefs, motivations and behaviors is to engage with them in close and prolonged interaction in their everyday lives (e.g. Tedlock, 2000). Yet many participants in social work research are vulnerable or marginalized. The prolonged involvement of ethnographers in their lives can raise complex ethical issues where such involvement increases the risk to participants. (Haight, Kayama and Korang-Okrah, 2014:128).

The second case is about addressing the discrepancy between local culture and politics, overcoming complex role boundaries. It illustrates how ethnographic approaches also offer important opportunities for international social workers, including those advocating for policy change to address human rights violations. Even after the ratification of international human rights treaties, implementing effective responses to human rights abuses requires an understanding of the local significance of practices that are considered abusive by the international community. The interplay of insider and outsider perspectives in ethnographic research can facilitate such understanding. On the other hand, it is challenging to communicate exactly what we are doing together through ethnographic research and what realistic gains we can expect, especially with literate individuals who may view the social work ethnographer as an advocate (Haight, Kayama and Korang-Okrah, 2014:133).

.

The interplay of insider and outsider perspectives in ethnography offers international social workers a clearer view than the inherently limited view of a single cultural perspective. As insiders, we effortlessly live within a set of taken-for-granted premises, but may have difficulty seeing or articulating those premises. As outsiders, we may engage in a process Bakhtin calls "creative understanding" (Morson and Emerson, 1990), in which we position ourselves outside the group to identify cultural "blind

(28)

spots," patterns of beliefs, thoughts, and behaviours that insiders take for granted. At the same time, a cultural outsider cannot flexibly implement, change, or contextualize these premises (Haight, Kayama and Korang-Okrah, 2014:135).

Ethnographic methods pose challenges for international research, especially in developing countries. Through ethnographic methods, we place ourselves in the lives of others who may be living with significant difficulties. It is important to consider how these people understand our relationships and what we do together. If participants view us as friends with unique resources, then it can be easy to inadvertently over-promise what our research can realistically expect (Haight, Kayama and Korang-Okrah, 2014:136).

Maybe that doesn't sound very harsh, but I've often found myself in this problem. Sometimes I found it too hard to be realistic about my plans and possibilities, and I promise someone something that I end up not being able to deliver. This can have a bad effect on relationships and cause you to lose the trust of the group.

Ethnographic methods also offer social workers the opportunity to reflect on our own practice and policies through meaningful, respectful cross-cultural conversations that address alternative understandings and approaches to common human challenges. On the other hand, many human challenges faced by marginalized people can be highly stigmatized. Gaining a deep understanding of such experiences requires sensitivity to how discussions about these issues may affect participants (Haight, Kayama, and Korang-Okrah, 2014:136).

Haight and Kayama conclude with these cases that "ethnography offers social workers a powerful and unique vehicle for gaining a deep, contextualized understanding of participants' perspectives and experiences necessary for effective social work practice and advocacy"

(Haight, Kayama, and Korang-Okrah, 2014:140).

There are also some risks in using ethnography in social work research. Unlike other forms of social inquiry such as surveys, interviews, and administrative database analysis, a hallmark of ethnographic research is its sustained involvement in the lives of participants. Unlike ethnographic research in other disciplines, such as developmental psychology or anthropology, social work research has a strong social justice component.

(29)

As a result, participants in social work ethnographies often come from vulnerable, marginalized, or stigmatized group (Haight, Kayama, and Korang-Okrah, 2014:140).

.

Haight and Kayama also provide some recommendations for social workers to realize the promise of the ethnographic tradition; they develop "strategies to balance the potential and risks of their methods to minimize harm to vulnerable individuals, communicate complex and unfamiliar role boundaries, and enter the lives of stigmatized individuals with care" (Haight, Kayama and Korang-Okrah,2014:140).

In all the case studies, taking the time to build and maintain trusting relationships with participants was crucial to the ethical practice of ethnography in social work. Time is needed not only to understand the perspectives of individuals who have a very different social perspective to our own, but also to allow participants, many of whom belong to marginalized, even stigmatized groups, to tell us their stories at their leisure. Clear communication is necessary to ensure that participants, many of whom have little to no experience of social science research, understand the limitations of the time-limited researcher-participant relationship and that research that is only one step towards policy change. There is also a recommendation to invest in the families and communities that give us access to their lives.

(Haight, Kayama and Korang-Okrah, 2014:141).

The final recommendation relates to the development of sustained collaboration between social work practitioners and university social work ethnographers for our mutual benefit and ultimately that of our clients (Haight, Kayama and Korang-Okrah, 2014:141).

(30)

ETHICAL DILEMMAS

Ethics consists of critical reflection on personal or group morality. It is postulated that every human being is capable of feeling what is moral or of judging morally. In contrast, feeling is considered ethical. In practice, this is most evident when our sense of what is moral is inconsistent with the ethical framework of social work. Ethics in social work can then be understood as acting in a way that is consistent with social work values and principles, a way of being oneself that social workers have committed to while working in their profession.

Morality can be understood as a set of values and beliefs that may or may not be consistent with social work ethics. Making a decision in an ethical way is closely related to social work practice.

Sobočan defines ethical decision-making as a behavior closely related to value decisions and consisting of two levels: the intuitive level (personal feelings, ideas, and opinions about what is right and what is wrong in a given situation) and the critical-reflective level of assessing the situation (knowing about and thinking in terms of ethical theories and principles, professional values, and standards). Ethical behavior involves questioning personal moral intuition and theoretical thinking. Differences arise when personal morality does not match the ethical framework of social work. Thus, we find out whether someone has acted ethically or not, in accordance with the values and principles of the profession of social work. (Sobočan, 2013).

I find problematic the fact that sometimes codes and principles neither anticipate real, factual life situations, nor offer possibilities for their understanding and action. I will substantiate my claim with practical examples I have encountered in the field.

THE IFSW GLOBAL SOCIAL WORK STATEMENT OF ETHICAL PRINCIPLES

Unlike other codes and regulations, this statement is supposed to be the result of a reflection on the feedback from the consultation. Immediately, the question arises as to the areas from which this feedback came. I assume that those who had access to institutional and organisational provision were those who could have provided feedback. Then I think of all the others who do not have even basic human rights. Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of human rights states: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should treat one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

(31)

Article 3 of the same declaration asserts: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

I remember one of the families I met during my time working in the fields. The family had two children, aged one and a half and three years. Neither of the children had any documents, any proof of their existence then or later. They have no birth certificate, they have no kind of document. They were born in "camps" on the way to Western Europe. One child in Greece, the other in Serbia. They were deprived of freedom of movement (and other freedoms) because they were born "on the move". They were in closed sections of asylum shelters, in open sections, on the streets, in the woods. They were kept everywhere but where they should be kept: in safety.

These children do not exist in any system and therefore do not have equal opportunities or access to resources. These children cannot give feedback because they do not, in fact, exist. In other words, as is usually the case, the statement can only be applied to certain groups of people and does not cover all possibilities.

Reading the statement further reveals the need for a conceptual shift: from locating human dignity primarily in the context of autonomy to recognising intersubjectivity and the intertwining of human dignity and human rights. Far from being autonomous and independent beings as constructed by liberal theory, as human beings we are all embedded in societies and dependent on their socio-political, economic and cultural structures and conventions. I think this part is very important because, in a sense, it doesn't shift all responsibility to the individual (which often happens in the neoliberal world). Instead, it takes into account the broader concept or situation.

The next paragraph of the statement deals with the political dimension of social work as a profession. This political dimension, according to the statement, is the result of the power and authority given to professionals by the state. The paragraph itself is quite understandable, but I had great difficulty understanding it in the context of contemporary countries and political systems, which generally do not act in the interests of the people. At least not in the interest of all people. As a trainee social worker working in the field of migration and with people on the run, the so-called "illegal migrants" as they are often called by the media, politicians and other

"opponents" (I categorically reject this term at all levels, but I think it is important to use it to represent the real situation), if I want to work for the people, I have to work against the state

(32)

or the system in some way. If the state's policies are such that it violates human rights, does not admit its mistakes but repeats them, amends them, and develops new ways to oppress marginalised groups, then I find it more than necessary to reject the authority and power that the same state gives me.

I can bring this in relation to the part of the Declaration that deals with the principles of supporting human rights. Articles 2.5 and 2.6 state: social workers provide people with information about their rights and support people's efforts to exercise their rights. In 2.6:

Social workers recognise the state as a key actor in the defence, promotion and fulfilment of human rights.

Using a specific example (just one of many) that I encountered during fieldwork, I can illustrate the point I am making here: States do not work for the benefit of people. On the contrary, they create and entrench differences. Therefore, I believe that it is our moral responsibility as social workers and human beings to fight against these kinds of systems at all levels.

The example itself is very banal, but if you consider it as part of everyday events that lead to social changes, which can also be linked to historical events, it becomes very important. It is not the first time in history that people who show solidarity and try to help groups that are discriminated against are criminalised, intimidated and sanctioned. Something similar happened for example (and there are numerous examples) in the world war II when people who helped Jews were sanctioned.

The example describes the practises of intimidation, preventing solidarity and refusing to help in the form of sharing information and advocating for vulnerable groups. The example is written down in my diary and later reproduced in a paragraph in my thesis.

In short, this happened in Sarajevo, a few weeks after my arrival and active fieldwork. It is important to emphasize that my status was "legalized", I had a permit confirming that I was in BiH legally, it confirmed my identity and the address I had registered. Because I didn't think I needed to be afraid or hide, I didn't. The police patrols that occasionally came to check the house where I worked all had my home phone number. They called me several times to ask me certain questions (nothing involving people, just questions about the house), and I always

: Vida Fućak : dr. Irena Šumi

FIELDWORK IN SOCIAL WORK: AN EXPERIENTIAL ANALYSIS

July 2021

Author: Vida Fućak

Mentor: dr. Irena Šumi

TABLE OF CONTENTS