Att ge information i skriven interaktion
– personanpassning i den digitala välfärdsstatens frontlinje
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3384/SVT.2024.31.1.4877Keywords:
digital interaction, conversation analysis, street-level bureaucracy, responsivenessAbstract
To provide information in written interaction – responsiveness at the digital welfare state’s frontline
Digitalisation has created opportunities for people to have contact with representatives of human service organisations through various text-based channels (e.g., online chat, social media, email). Despite the fact that such text-based interaction is common in social work practice today, there is remarkably little knowledge about how the interaction is structured in practice and what characteristics the different forms have. Such knowledge is central to designing appropriate contacts that respond to clients’ needs. This study uses conversation analysis to study two forms of digital text-based interaction between clients and representatives of the Swedish Social Insurance Agency (SSIA). The data consist of circa 900 exchanges via email and the SSIA’s official Facebook page for parents. Identified patterns are also compared with 300 recorded phone calls to the SSIA, to make visible how participants orient to the limitations and affordances that the textual arenas provide in practice and which functions they thereby fulfill with regard to client relations. The analysis focuses on how practitioners manage responsiveness in replies to client questions. We show how practitioners’ replies tend to deviate from conversational norms by not being designed in line with the design or content of the questions. For example, practitioners often provide information that is conditioned (e.g., “if …then …”) rather than yes/no answers (even when replying to yes/no questions). Through this, the analysis also demonstrates how practitioners realise policy and organisational goals in digital text-based interaction. The study contributes knowledge about how help and service is provided in digital text-based interaction and highlights the problem of generally held replies that are not adapted to the recipient, as the interaction risks not fulfilling the expected function for the clients. We also problematise how textual interaction on social media platforms poses risks for clients’ privacy from an ethical perspective.
References
Antaki, C. & Bloch, S. (2020) Advising without personalising: how a helpline may satisfy callers without giving medical advice beyond its remit. Sociology of Health & Illness, 42(5): 1202–1219. doi: 10.1111/1467-9566.13088
Bartels, K.P.R. (2013) Public encounters: the history and future of face-to-face contact between public professionals and citizens. Public Administration, 91(2): 469–483. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9299.2012.02101.x
Bovens, M. & Zouridis, S. (2002) From street-level to system-level bureaucracies: how information and communication technology is transforming administrative discretion and constitutional control. Public Administration Review, 62(2): 174–184. doi:10.1111/00333352.00168
Breit, E., Egeland, C., Løberg, I.B. & Røhnebæk, M.T. (2021) Digital coping: how frontline workers cope with digital service encounters. Social Policy & Administration, 55(5): 833–847. doi: 10.1111/spol.12664
Caswell, D. (2020) Talking policy into being: how street-level bureaucrats and vulnerable unemployed talk about labor market participation. European Policy Analysis, 6(1): 23–37. doi: 10.1002/epa2.1071
Di Rosa, R.T., Musso, G., Dellavalle, M. & Gucciardo, G. (2018) Social work online: a recognition of experiences and practices in Italy. European Journal of Social Work, 21(6): 889–901. doi: 10.1080/13691457.2018.1469473
Flinkfeldt, M., Iversen, C., Jørgensen, S.E., Monteiro, D. & Wilkins, D. (2022) Conversation analysis in social work research: a scoping review. Qualitative Social Work, 21(6): 1011–1042. doi: 10.1177/14733250221124215
Fukkink, R. & Hermanns, J. (2009) Counseling children at a helpline: chatting or calling? Journal of Community Psychology, 37(8): 939–948. doi: 10.1002/jcop.20340
Garrett, P.M. (2005) Social work’s ”electronic turn”: notes on the deployment of information and communication technologies in social work with children and families. Critical Social Policy, 25(4): 529–553. doi: 10.1177/0261018305057044
Giles, D., Stommel, W., Paulus, T., Lester, J. & Reed, D. (2015) Microanalysis of online data: the methodological development of ”digital CA”. Discourse, Context & Media, 7: 45–51. doi: 10.1016/j.dcm.2014.12.002
Hasenfeld, Y. (1983) Human service organizations. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Heritage, J. & Clayman, S. (2010) Talk in action: interactions, identities, and institutions. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
Höglund, F. & Flinkfeldt, M. (2022) Ett inkluderande språk: kön och sexualitet i svar på klienters e-postfrågor. I: I. Iversen. & M. Flinkfeldt (red.) Samtal i socialt arbete: ett samtalsanalytiskt perspektiv (s. 83–96). Malmö: Gleerups.
Höglund, F. & Flinkfeldt, M. (2023) The practical realization of the feminist welfare state: equal sharing and gender equality in institutional interaction about parental leave in Sweden. Feminism & Psychology, 1–19. doi: 10.1177/09593535231217135
Höglund, F. & Flinkfeldt, M. (2024) De-gendering parents: gender inclusion and standardised language in screen-level bureaucracy. International Journal of Social Welfare, 33(1): 188–201. doi: 10.1111/ijsw.12597
Iversen, C. & Flinkfeldt, M. (red.) (2022) Samtal i socialt arbete: ett samtalsanalytiskt perspektiv. Malmö: Gleerups.
Jefferson, G. (2004) Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. I: G.H. Lerner (red.) Conversation analysis: studies from the first generation (s. 13–31). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Lindsten, P.O. (2023) ”Den här tekniken har anammats på en vecka – överallt globalt”. Dagens Industri, 14 mars. Hämtat från [https://www.di.se/nyheter/den-har-tekniken-har-anammats-pa-en-vecka-overallt-globalt/].
Lipsky, M. (2010) Street-level bureaucracy: dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Løberg, I.B. & Egeland, C. (2023) ”You get a completely different feeling”: an empirical exploration of emotions and their functions in digital frontline work. European Journal of Social Work, 26(1): 108–120. doi: 10.1080/13691457.2021.2016650.
Meredith, J. (2016) Using conversation analysis and discursive psychology to analyse online data. I: D. Silverman (red.) Qualitative research (s. 261–276). London: SAGE.
Milles, K. (2011) Feminist language planning in Sweden. Current Issues in Language Planning, 12(1): 21–33. doi: 10.1080/14664208.2011.541388.
Mondada, L. (2013) The conversation analytic approach to data collection. I: J. Sidnell. & T. Stivers (red.) Handbook of conversation analysis (s. 32–56). Chichester: Blackwell-Wiley.
Raymond, G. (2003) Grammar and social organization: yes/no interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review, 68(6): 939–967. doi: 10.2307/1519752
Riksrevisionen (2023) Digitala tjänster till privatpersoner: stora utvecklingsmöjligheter för statliga myndigheter. RiR 2023:6. Stockholm: Riksrevisionen. Hämtat från [https://www.riksrevisionen.se/download/18.1a05284c18705c2c0d82b763/1679914467060/RiR_2023_6_rapport.pdf].
Ryan, D. & Garrett, P.M. (2018) Social work ”logged on”: contemporary dilemmas in an evolving ”techno-habitat”. European Journal of Social Work, 21(1): 32–44. doi: 10.1080/13691457.2016.1278520
Sacks, H. (1992) Lectures on conversation. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Sacks, H. & Schegloff, E.A. (1979) Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons in conversation and their interaction. I: G. Psathas (red.) Everyday language: studies in ethnomethodology (s. 15–21). New York: Irvington Publishers.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E.A. & Jefferson, G. (1974) A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4): 696–735. doi: 10.2307/412243
Scaramuzzino, G. & Hjärpe, T. (2021) E-socialt arbete inom socialtjänstens individ- och familjeomsorg: en systematisk litteraturöversikt. Stockholm: Forskningsrådet för hälsa, arbetsliv och välfärd. Hämtat från [https://forte.se/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/rapport-e-socialt-arbete-inom-socialtjanstens-individ-och-familjeomsorg.pdf].
Schellenberg Strømhaug, L.B. & Halvorsen, K. (2023) Ambivalence in digital social work: giving advice about welfare-to-work programmes to unemployed clients. Nordic Social Work Research, 1–14. doi: 10.1080/2156857X.2023.2218391
SFS 1993:387. Lag om stöd och service till vissa funktionshindrade.
SOU 2014:13. En digital agenda i människans tjänst: en ljusnande framtid kan bli vår.
SOU 2015:66. En förvaltning som håller ihop.
Statskontoret (2010) Centralisering och specialisering inom svensk statsförvaltning. Stockholm: Statskontoret. Hämtat från [https://www.statskontoret.se/siteassets/publikationer/om-offentlig-sektor-1-11/om-offentlig-sektor-7.pdf].
Stivers, T., Enfield, N.J. & Levinson, S.C. (2007) Person reference in interaction. I: N.J. Enfield. & T. Stivers (red.) Person reference in interaction: linguistic, cultural, and social perspectives (s. 1–20). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stokoe, E. (2010) Gender, conversation analysis, and the anatomy of membership categorization practices. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(7): 428–438. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00261.x
Stommel, W., Paulus, T.M. & Atkins, D.P. (2017) ”Here’s the link”: hyperlinking in service-focused chat interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 115: 56–67. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2017.02.009
Thell, N. (2022a) Socialrådgivning på nätet. I: A. Angelin. & T. Hjort (red.) Socialt arbete i förändring: utmaningar och villkor inom utbildning, forskning och praktik (s. 257–276). Lund: Socialhögskolan, Lunds universitet.
Thell, N. (2022b) ”Do I understand you right then?”: (re)formulations of users’ initial problem descriptions in social services’ online chat. Qualitative Social Work, 21(6): 1167–1184. doi: 10.1177/14733250221124208
Thunman, E., Ekström, M. & Bruhn, A. (2020) Dealing with questions of responsiveness in a low-discretion context: offers of assistance in standardized public service encounters. Administration & Society, 52(9): 1333–1361. doi:10.1177/0095399720907807.
Waring, Z.H., Reddington, E., Yu, D. & Clemente, I. (2018) Going general: responding to yes–no questions in informational webinars for prospective grant applicants. Discourse & Communication, 12(3): 307–327. doi: 10.1177/1750481318757762
Zhu, H. & Andersen, S.T. (2022) Digital competence in social work practice and education: experiences from Norway. Nordic Social Work Tesearch, 12(5): 823–838. doi: 10.1080/2156857X.2021.1899967
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Frida Höglund, Marie Flinkfeldt
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
