The Role of Discretion in the Age of Automation
- 35 Downloads
This paper examines the nature of discretion in social work in order to debunk myths dominating prevalent debates on digitisation and automation in the public sector. Social workers have traditionally used their discretion widely and with great autonomy, but discretion has increasingly come under pressure for its apparent subjectivity and randomness. In Denmark, our case in point, the government recently planned to standardise laws to limit or remove discretion where possible in order for automation of case management to gain a foothold. Recent studies have focused on discretion in the public sector, but few have examined it explicitly and as part of real cases. As a consequence, they often leave the myths about discretion unchallenged. Inspired by the literature on discretion and CSCW research on rules in action, this study reports on an empirical investigation of discretion in child protection services in Denmark. The results of our analysis provide a new understanding of discretion as a cooperative endeavour, based on consultation and skill, rather than an arbitrary or idiosyncratic choice. In this manner, our study contradicts the myth of discretion inherent in the automation agenda. Correspondingly, we ask for attention to be given to systems that integrate discretion with technology rather than seek to undermine it directly or get around it surreptitiously. In this age of automation, this is not only an important but also an urgent task for CSCW researchers to fulfil.
KeywordsSocial work Decision-making Discretion Administrative work Casework Rules in action Automation Digitisation Digital-ready legislation
This research was conducted as part of a project entitled ‘Effective co-created and complication adaptive case management for knowledge workers’ (EcoKnow) and supported by a grant from the Innovation Fund Denmark. Special thanks to all the participants who generously shared their time, experience and knowledge for the purpose of this study. We are also grateful to Richard Harper for his insightsful comments on earlier drafts and to the anonymous reviewers and journal editors for their immensely helpful recommendations.
- Alkhatib, Ali; and Michael Bernstein (2019). Street–Level Algorithms: A Theory at the Gaps Between Policy and Decision: CHI 2019. Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Glasgow, Scotland, UK, 4–9 May 2019, New York: ACM Press, pp. 1–13.Google Scholar
- Biestek, Felix P. (1957). The Casework Relationship. Chicago: Loyola University Press.Google Scholar
- Black, Julia (2001). Managing discretion. ARLC Conference Papers on Penalties: Policy, Principles and Practice in Government Regulation. https://www.academia.edu/1295954/Managing_discretion.
- Caspersen, Marianne; and Charlotte Laustsen (2009). Systematisk sagsbehandling i børnesager - principper og arbejdsgange. Denmark: UC Vest Press.Google Scholar
- Digitaliseringsstyrelsen (2018). Vejledning om digitaliseringsklar lovgivning. https://digst.dk/media/16953/vejledning_om_digitaliseringsklar_-lovgivning_maj_2018_tg.pdf.
- European Commission (2019). The Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI). https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/desi.
- Finansministeriet (2018). Bred politisk aftale skal gøre lovgivningen klar til digitalisering. https://www.fm.dk/nyheder/pressemeddelelser/2018/01/digitaliseringsklar-1.
- Frederiksen, Lærke Øland (2018). Skal en computer kunne tvangsfjerne et barn? Socialrådgiveren, vol. 10, no. 18, p 26.Google Scholar
- Gilson, Lucy (2015). Lipsky’s Street Level Bureaucracy. In Martin Lodge; Edward C. Page; and Steven J. Balla (eds): Oxford Handbook of Classics in Public Policy and Administration. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–24.Google Scholar
- Hagendorff, Thilo; and Katharina Wezel (2019). 15 challenges for AI: Or what AI (currently) can’t do. AI & Society, pp. 1–11.Google Scholar
- Hammersley, Martyn (2005). What can the literature on communities of practice tell us about educational research? Reflections on some recent proposals. International Journal of Research and Method in Education, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 5–21.Google Scholar
- Harper, Richard; David Randall; and Wes Sharrock (2016). Choice: The Sciences of Reason in the 21st Century: A Critical Assessment. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
- Hørby, Anita (2015). Consolidation Act on Social Services. http://english.sm.dk/media/14900/consolidation-act-on-social-services.pdf.
- Høybye-Mortensen, Matilde (2013). Decision-Making Tools and Their Influence on Caseworkers’ Room for Discretion. British Journal of Social Work, pp. 1–16.Google Scholar
- Høybye-Mortensen, Matilde (2014). I velfærdsstatens frontlinje: Administration, styring og beslutningstagning, vol. 1. Denmark: Hans Reitzels Forlag.Google Scholar
- Høybye-Mortensen, Matilde; and Peter Ejbye-Ernst (2018). The long way to data-driven decision-making: How do casework registrations become management information? STS Encounters, vol. 10, no 2.2 pp. 5–36.Google Scholar
- Jensen, Dan (2017). It-minister Sophie Løhde: Lovgivning står i vejen for succesfuld digitalisering. https://www.computerworld.dk/art/240338/it-minister-sophie-loehde-lovgivning-staar-i-vejen-for-succesfuld-digitalisering.
- Larsson, Bengt; and Bengt Jacobsson (2013). Discretion in the “Backyard of Law”: Case handling of debt relief in Sweden. Professions and Professionalism, vol. 3. no. 1, pp. 1–17.Google Scholar
- Lave, Jean; and Etienne Wenger (1991). Situated Learning. Legitimate peripheral participation New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Lipsky, Michael (1969). Toward a theory of street-level bureaucracy. Institute for Research on Poverty, University of Wisconsin.Google Scholar
- Lipsky, Michael (1980). Street-Level Bureaucracy: The Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Service. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
- Molander, Anders (2016). Discretion in the Welfare State: Social Rights and Professional Judgement. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Møller, Marie Østergaard (2016). “She isn’t Someone I Associate with Pension”—A Vignette Study of Professional Reasoning. Professions and Professionalism, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1–20.Google Scholar
- O’Sullivan, Terence (1999). Decision making in social work. London: Macmillan Publishers Limited.Google Scholar
- Pasquale, Frank (2019). A Rule of Persons, Not Machines: The Limits of Legal Automation. The George Washington Law Review, vol. 87, no. 1, pp. 1–55.Google Scholar
- Pedersen, Morten Jarlbæk (2018). Morten Jarlbæk: Succesfuld digitalisering kræver bevidste valg – og fravalg. https://www.altinget.dk/embedsvaerk/artikel/moderniseringsstyrelsen-succesfuld-digitalisering-kraever-bevidste-valg-og-fravalg
- Pycock, Jonathan (1999). Designing Systems: Studies of Design Practice, Unpublished PhD, Manchester University.Google Scholar
- Randall, David; Richard Harper; and Mark Rouncefield (2007). Fieldwork for Design: Theory and Practice. London: Springer Science and Business Media.Google Scholar
- Redaelli, Ilaria (2015). Understanding Planning Practices: Insights from a Situated Study on an Italian Airport. (Ph.D. in Communication Sciences), Università della Svizzera italiana.Google Scholar
- Schmidt, Kjeld (2011). Cooperative Work and Coordinative Practices: Contributions to the Conceptual Foundations of Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW). London: Springer.Google Scholar
- Suchman, Lucy (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problem of human-machine communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Suchman, Lucy (1989). Notes on Computer Support for Cooperative Work. Working Paper WP-12. Department of Computer Science. University of Jyvaskyla. Jyvaskyla, Finland.Google Scholar
- Svendsen, Idamarie Leth (2016). Managing complex child law - social workers’ decision making under Danish legal regulation. Social Work and Society, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 1–12.Google Scholar
- Varavithya, Wanchai; and Vatcharaporn Esichaikul (2005). The Collaborative Model to Support Discretionary Decision-making in E-government.eGOV05. eGovernment Workshop ‘05, Brunel University, West London, UK, 13 September 2005. Pp. 1–15.Google Scholar
- Wallander, Lisa; and Anders Molader (2014). Disentangling Professional Discretion: A Conceptual and Methodological Approach. Professions and Professionalism, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 1–19.Google Scholar
- Zisman, Michael David (1977). Representations, Specifications and Automation of Office Procedures. (PhD dissertation), University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.Google Scholar