The aim of this study was to illustrate how a selection of social secretaries reason about the assessment of an LVU case. We also wanted to investigate whether the assessments differed and the working methods the social secretaries used in the case. To achieve the aim, a qualitative method was used where the data collection consisted of a fictitious LVU case in the form of a vignette and semi-structured interviews. A total of five social secretaries were interviewed, active in different municipalities and with different years of experience. Thereafter a qualitative analysis was used to interpret and structure the collected data. The results showed that the social secretaries’ reasoning regarding the assessment of the vignette differed to some extent. This is because the social secretaries, among other things, had different reasoning regarding which contacts they wanted to make in the case before being able to make an assessment. Furthermore, the results showed that the child's attitude to care as well as the child's network are a central part of the reasoning in the assessment. In conclusion, the results also show that the social secretaries’ choice of methods was largely unitary. However, the choice of methods could depend on what further education the social secretaries had received.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:UPSALLA1/oai:DiVA.org:kau-83385 |
| Date | January 2021 |
| Creators | Kjellén, Petra, Engholm, Michaela |
| Publisher | Karlstads universitet, Fakulteten för humaniora och samhällsvetenskap (from 2013), Karlstads universitet, Fakulteten för humaniora och samhällsvetenskap (from 2013) |
| Source Sets | DiVA Archive at Upsalla University |
| Language | Swedish |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Student thesis, info:eu-repo/semantics/bachelorThesis, text |
| Format | application/pdf, application/pdf |
| Rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess, info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
Page generated in 0.0016 seconds