Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-qs9v7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-13T19:08:28.506Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Informationalisation of the Australian Community Sector

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 March 2014

Rebecca French  and
Larry Stillman
Rebecca French
Affiliation:
Faculty of IT, Monash University E-mail: Rebecca.French@monash.edu
Larry Stillman
Affiliation:
Faculty of IT, Monash University E-mail: Larry.Stillman@monash.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Based on research in Australia, this article offers explanatory concepts about how welfare workers deal with contradictions between the rationalising ‘informationalisation’ of welfare system governance and the demands of people-centred welfare practice, or ‘technologies of care’. While the situation in Australia with respect to the relationship between government, funders and welfare workers may not be mirrored in other places, the concepts are relevant for the development of local research, insights and practice.

Suggestions are also made for further action to bridge the gap between information systems design and welfare practice through the adoption of a dialogic and representational system for more effective interoperable design that reflects the needs of the major parties involved, including funders, designers and particularly welfare workers.

Keywords

Social-technical systemsdata doubleselectronic childrenbricolageinformationalisationgovernmentalityelectronic welfare work
Type
Themed Section on Hiding in plain sight or Disappearing in the rear view mirror?: Whatever happened to the revolution in information for Health and Social Care – Learning from England and Australia
Information
Social Policy and Society , Volume 13 , Issue 4 , October 2014 , pp. 623 - 634
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aas, K. F. (2004) ‘From narrative to database: technological change and penal culture’, Punishment and Society, 6, 4, 379–93.Google Scholar
Baker, T. and Nelson, R. E. (2005) ‘Creating something from nothing: resource construction through entrepreneurial bricolage’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 3, 329–66.Google Scholar
Bamford, T. (1989) ‘Discretion and managerialism’, in Shardlow, S. (ed.), Values of Change in Social Work, London: Routledge, pp. 129–48.Google Scholar
Bauman, Z. (2000)Liquid Modernity, Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Bell, D. (1980) The Winding Passage: Essays and Sociological Journeys, 1960–1980, Cambridge, MA: Abt Books.Google Scholar
Braithwaite, J. (2000) ‘The new regulatory state and the transformation of criminology’, British Journal of Criminology, 40, 2, 222–38.Google Scholar
Calnan, M. and Rowe, R. (2008) ‘Trust, accountability and choice’, Health, Risk and Society, 10, 3, 201–6.Google Scholar
Checkland, P. B. and Holwell, S. (1998) Information, Systems, and Information Systems, Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
Day, R. (2007) ‘Information connecting people with services: the information and referral role of community service organisations’, Australasian Public Libraries and Information Services, 20, 3, 103–17.Google Scholar
de Moor, A. and Aakhus, M. (2006) ‘Argumentation support: from technologies to tools’, Communications of the ACM, 49, 3, 93–8.Google Scholar
de Moor, A. and Weigand, H. (2006) ‘Effective communication in virtual adversarial collaborative communities’, Journal of Community Informatics, 2, 2, 116–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duymedjian, R. and Ruling, C.-C. (2010) ‘Towards a foundation of bricolage in organization and management theory’, Organization Studies, 31, 2, 133–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, H. (2008) ‘Liquid social work: welfare interventions as mobile practices’, British Journal of Social Work, 38, 3, 561–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flyvbjerg, B. (2011) ‘Case study’, in Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. (eds.), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 301–16.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. (1988) Technologies of the Self: A Seminar with Michel Foucault, London: Tavistock.Google Scholar
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, 529–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gillingham, P. (2013) ‘The development of electronic information systems for the future: practitioners, embodied structures and technologies-in-practice’, British Journal of Social Work, 43, 3, 430–45.Google Scholar
Gobbi, M. (2005) ‘Nursing practice as bricoleur activity: a concept explored’, Nursing Inquiry, 12, 2, 117–25.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1997) Frame Analysis, Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. (1972) Toward a Rational Society, London, Heinemann.Google Scholar
Haggerty, K. D. and Ericson, R. V. (2000) ‘The surveillant assemblage’, The British Journal of Sociology, 51, 4, 605–22.Google Scholar
Harlow, E. and Webb, S. A. (2003) Information and Communication Technologies in the Welfare Services, London, Philadelphia, PA: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.Google Scholar
Harper, D. (1987) Working Knowledge: Skill and Community in a Small Shop, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hirschheim, R., Klein, H. K. and Lyytinen, K. (1996) ‘Exploring the intellectual structures of information systems development: a social action theoretic analysis’, Accounting, Management and Information Technologies, 6, 1–2, 1–64.Google Scholar
Hood, C. (1998) The Art of the State: Culture, Rhetoric and Public Management, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Howe, D. (1996) ‘Surface and depth in social-work practice’, in Parton, N. (ed.), Social Theory, Social Change and Social Work, London: Routledge, pp. 77–97.Google Scholar
Kitchen, R. and Dodge, M. (2011) Code/Space. Software and Everyday Life, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kling, R. (2000) ‘Learning about information technologies and social change: the contribution of social informatics’, The Information Society, 16, 3, 217–32.Google Scholar
Lamb, R. and Kling, R. (2003) ‘Reconceptualising users as social actors in information systems research’, MIS Quarterly, 27, 2, 197–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levi-Strauss, C. (1966) The Savage Mind, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lyons, M. (2001) Third Sector: The Contribution of Nonprofit and Co-Operative Enterprises in Australia, St Leonards, NSW: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Merton, R. K. (1968) Social Theory and Social Structure, New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Orlikowski, W. J. (2000) ‘Using technology and constituting structures: a practice lens for studying technology in organizations’, Organization Science, 11, 4, 404–28.Google Scholar
Parton, N. (1996) ‘Social work, risk and the “blaming system”’, in Parton, N. (ed.), Social Theory, Social Change and Social Work, London: Routledge, pp. 98–114.Google Scholar
Parton, N. (1998) ‘Risk, advanced liberalism and child welfare: the need to rediscover uncertainty and ambiguity’, British Journal of Social Work, 28, 1, 5–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parton, N. and Kirk, S. (2010) ‘The nature and purposes of social work’, in Shaw, I., Briar-Lawson, K., Orme, J. and Ruckdeschel, R. (eds.), The Sage Handbook of Social Work Research, London: Sage, pp. 23–36.Google Scholar
Peckover, S., White, S. and Hall, C. (2008) ‘Making and managing electronic children: E-assessment in child welfare’, Information, Communication and Society, 11, 3, 375–94.Google Scholar
Power, M. (1997) The Audit Society: Rituals of Verification, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Productivity Commission (2010) Contribution of the Not-for-Profit Sector, Productivity Commission Research Report, Canberra: Productivity Commission.Google Scholar
Rose, J. (2002) ‘Interaction, transformation and information systems development – an extended application of soft systems methodology’, Information Technology and People, 15, 3, 242–68.Google Scholar
Rose, N. S. (1999) Powers of Freedom Reframing Political Thought, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sawyer, A.-M. (2009) ‘Mental health workers negotiating risk on the frontline’, Australian Journal of Social Work, 62, 4, 441–59.Google Scholar
Sen, A. K. (2001) Development as Freedom, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Shaw, I. and Clayden, J. (2009) ‘Technology, evidence and professional practice: reflections on the integrated children's system’, Journal of Children's Services, 4, 4, 15–27.Google Scholar
Sheppard, M. (1998) ‘Practice validity, reflexivity and knowledge for social work’, British Journal of Social Work, 28, 5, 763–81.Google Scholar
Stillman, L. (2010) ‘Technologies of care in community based organizations: agency and authenticity’, AI and Society, 25, 3, 309–20.Google Scholar
Stillman, L., Kethers, S., French, R. and Lombard, D. (2009) ‘Adapting corporate modelling for community informatics’, VINE: The Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems, 39, 3, 259–74.Google Scholar
Stillman, L., Kethers, S., French, R. and Lombard, D. (2010) Doing IT Better Project: Final Report, Melbourne: Centre for Community Networking Research-Victorian Council for Social Service, http://www.doingitbetter.net.au.Google Scholar
Stillman, L. and Linger, H. (2009) ‘Community informatics and information systems: how can they be better connected?’, The Information Society, 25, 4, 1–10.Google Scholar
Westbrook, L. (2009) ‘Crisis information concerns: information needs of domestic violence survivors’, Information Processing and Management, 45, 1, 98–114.Google Scholar
White, S., Hall, C. and Peckover, S. (2009) ‘The descriptive tyranny of the common assessment framework: technologies of categorization and professional practice in child welfare’, British Journal of Social Work, 39, 7, 1197–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar