Negotiating the boundaries between home and work practices: The case of home-workers

When people work from home, the domains of home and work are co-located, often under one roof. Home-workers have to cope with the meeting of two practices that have traditionally been physically separated. In light of this, we need to understand: how do people who work from home negotiate the boundaries between their home and work practices? What kinds of boundaries do people construct? How do boundaries affect the relationship between home and work as domains? What kinds of boundaries are available to home-workers? Are home-workers in charge of their boundaries or do they co-create them with others? How does this position home-workers in their domains? In order to address these questions, I analysed a variety of data, including newspaper columns, online forum discussions, interviews, and personal diary entries, using a discourse analytic approach that lends itself to issues of positioning. Current literature clashes over whether home-workers are in control of their boundaries, and over the relationship between home and work that arises out of boundary negotiations, i.e. whether home and work are dichotomous or layered. I seek to contribute to boundary theory by adopting a practice theory stance (Wenger, 1998) to guide my analysis. By viewing home and work as practices, I show that boundary negotiations depend on how home-workers are positioned, e.g. if they are positioned as peripheral in a domain, they lack influence over boundaries. I demonstrate that home and work constitute a number of different practices, rather than a rigid dichotomy, and that the way home and work are related are not the same for all home-workers. The application of practice concepts further shows how relationships between practices are created. The contribution of this work is a reconceptualisation of current boundary theory away from individual and cognitive notions (Nippert-Eng, 1996) into the realm of positioning.

Job retention and turnover: a study of child protection and welfare social workers in Ireland

Retaining social workers in child protection and welfare organisations has been identified as a problem in Ireland (McGrath, 2001; Ombudsman for Children, 2006; Houses of the Oireachtas, 2008) and internationally (Ellet et al., 2006; Mor Barak et al., 2006; Tham, 2006). While low levels of retention have been identified, there is no research that examines the factors in Ireland that influence the retention of social workers. In this thesis, data is analysed from qualitative interviews with 45 social workers in the Health Service Executive South about what influences their decisions to stay in or leave child protection and welfare social work. These social workers’ views are examined in relation to quantitative research on the levels of turnover and employment mobility of child protection and welfare social workers employed in the same organisation. Contrary to expectations, the study found that the retention rate of social workers during the period of data collection (March 2005 to December 2006) was high and that the majority of social workers remained positive about this work and their retention. The quality of social workers’ supervision, social supports from colleagues, high levels of autonomy, a commitment to child protection and welfare work, good variety in the work, and a perception that they were making a difference, emerged as important factors in social workers’ decisions to stay. Perceptions of being unsupported by the organisation, which was usually described in terms of high caseloads and demanding workloads, a lack of resources, work with involuntary clients and not being able to make a difference, were the most significant factors in social workers’ decisions to leave and/or to want to leave. Social workers felt particularly professionally unsupported when they received low quality and/or infrequent professional supervision. This thesis critiques the theories of perceived organisational support theory, social exchange theory and job characteristics theory, and uses the concept of ‘professional career’, to help analyse the retention of social workers in child protection and welfare.

Community workers' understandings and practices of resistance

This research is focused on Community Workers located in Southern Ireland, and their understandings and practices of resistance. It is an attempt to explore the ways in which community workers’ understandings and practices of resistance are formed and, in turn, inform their sense of identity and their responses to the wider context of community development work in Ireland today. This study is specifically located but also has wider application and relevance because of the extended international reach of neo-liberal and managerial rationalities, and their implications for politics, policy and practice. The study considers resistance in a number of inter-related ways: as a collective oppositional position (with negative and positive dimensions); a personal and/or professional value (associated with the ‘expansion of contention’); a strategy for negotiating unequal power relations (in a range of levels and spaces of power); an identity (in relation to the sustaining of ‘reflexive subjectivities’); a set of practices, (which take into account the interplay between economic, political and cultural influences); and an educational process through which practitioners assess and enact personal and professional agency. Critical theorisations of community development and of the Irish state over time, trace the ways in which neo-liberalism and managerialism has inflected community development practice and the positions of community workers and communities in that process. The study draws on James C. Scott, Gramsci, Barnes and Prior, among others, which enabled the interrogation of resistance in relation to everyday practices through engaging with ‘hidden transcripts’ and spaces. The method chosen was focus group discussions with three groups of community workers located in different counties in Southern Ireland. This method facilitated a deep discourse analysis of practitioners’ encounters with resistance in the field of community work. Key findings relate to the various interpretations of the role of resistance, practices of resistance (including current restrictions), the value of resistance work and the conditions that may be conducive to practising resistance.