<p>Utilizing autoethnography and thematic analysis, this thesis explores reflexivity and social work praxis. Specifically, it illuminates the phenomenon of reflexivity and its related themes; reflexivity’s multiple meanings, challenges and enabling factors, its link to internal processes, rationale for usage and timeliness of inquiry. The multiple ways that practitioners engage in reflexive inquiry was revealed through dyadic interviews. However, current literature does not reflect this and the breadth and scope of reflexive inquiry is lost within contemporary social work discourse. Therefore, this thesis puts forth multiple definitions of reflexivity, which broaden the scope of reflexive inquiry, contextualize its usage and highlight its indications. The first group of definitions, efficacious, exigent and entrenched reflexivity are defined in terms of four key components; the reflexivity’s focus and center, what the reflexivity seeks and the degree to which reflexivity is utilized as a tool of practice. These definitions shed light on the varying depths of reflexive inquiry. The next group of definitions, extant and revenant reflexivity can serve to highlight to the worker when an experience needs to be reflected upon. The final group of definitions, polycentric and monocentric reflexivity, identify the context in which reflexivity takes place, namely communally or in isolation. The impetus for disseminating these broadened definitions is my belief that their incorporation into contemporary social work discourse and utilization as a required tool of practice will further promote the integration and support of the dual existences of the professional and personal selves; that their procurement into practitioner pedagogy will lead to dedicated space within the practice setting that enables one to be an emotional being, complete with emotional realities while simultaneously coexisting as a social worker, complete with social work related realities. I believe this will result in increased efficiency and productivity to serve and care for our clients, as well as increased worker health and well-being, to serve and care for ourselves.</p> / Master of Social Work (MSW)

Contemporary South Africa prides itself on having a Bill of Rights. For 84 years (1910 to 1994) public administration regulated the general welfare and lives of inhabitants in the finest detail, while being subject to almost only the whims and political objectives of the governing authority. On 27 April 1994 the 1993 Constitution introduced a constitutional obligation and radical change to the manner in which public administration must be exercised. Today, still an infant in experience relating to a bill of rights, public administration must be exercised with the Bill of Rights as an integral part of this inhabitant / governing authority interaction. The primary aim of this study is to attempt to describe the manner in which public administration was exercised, firstly, during constitutional dispensations prior to 1994 and, secondly, since public administration became subject to constitutionally entrenched fundamental rights. The empirical investigation is aimed at exploring and analysing the extent to which public administration has realised the constitutional obligation in practice. The results of the empirical investigation highlighted, primarily, that the majority of the officials that participated in the survey do not know of the Bill of Rights, and that half of those who do know of the Bill have little knowledge of its provisions. More than half of the respondents lack awareness of section 195 of the 1996 Constitution, which states that public administration must be governed by democratic principles enshrined in the Constitution. Barely one tenth of respondents were informed of the significance of the Bill and its role regarding public administration. The majority of respondents have not of their own accord studied the Bill and the Bill does not have the desired effect on the manner in which public administration is exercised. Two thirds of respondents have mixed perceptions as to whether to serve the interests of inhabitants above the political objectives of the governing authority and less than a quarter of respondents give recognition to the Bill when rendering public services. It seems as if South African public administration has a long way to go in adhering to its constitutional obligation in practice. / Public Administration / D. Litt et Phil.(Public Administration)

Contemporary South Africa prides itself on having a Bill of Rights. For 84 years (1910 to 1994) public administration regulated the general welfare and lives of inhabitants in the finest detail, while being subject to almost only the whims and political objectives of the governing authority. On 27 April 1994 the 1993 Constitution introduced a constitutional obligation and radical change to the manner in which public administration must be exercised. Today, still an infant in experience relating to a bill of rights, public administration must be exercised with the Bill of Rights as an integral part of this inhabitant / governing authority interaction. The primary aim of this study is to attempt to describe the manner in which public administration was exercised, firstly, during constitutional dispensations prior to 1994 and, secondly, since public administration became subject to constitutionally entrenched fundamental rights. The empirical investigation is aimed at exploring and analysing the extent to which public administration has realised the constitutional obligation in practice. The results of the empirical investigation highlighted, primarily, that the majority of the officials that participated in the survey do not know of the Bill of Rights, and that half of those who do know of the Bill have little knowledge of its provisions. More than half of the respondents lack awareness of section 195 of the 1996 Constitution, which states that public administration must be governed by democratic principles enshrined in the Constitution. Barely one tenth of respondents were informed of the significance of the Bill and its role regarding public administration. The majority of respondents have not of their own accord studied the Bill and the Bill does not have the desired effect on the manner in which public administration is exercised. Two thirds of respondents have mixed perceptions as to whether to serve the interests of inhabitants above the political objectives of the governing authority and less than a quarter of respondents give recognition to the Bill when rendering public services. It seems as if South African public administration has a long way to go in adhering to its constitutional obligation in practice. / Public Administration and Management / D. Litt et Phil.(Public Administration)