Skip to main content

The Role of Discretion in the Age of Automation

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Danish conference on ‘Digital-ready Legislation’ held on September 19th, 2018

  2. 2.

    Course on ‘Digitising Professional’s Competences’ offered by Copenhagen Business School in 2018/2019

References

  1. 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.

  2. Barfoed, Elizabeth Martinell; and Katarina Jacobsson (2012). Moving from ‘gut feeling’ to ‘pure facts’: Launching the ASI interview as part of in-service training for social workers. Nordic Social Work Research, vol 2, no. 1, pp. 5–20.

  3. Berrick, Jill D.; Sue Peckover; Tarja Pösö; and Marit Skiveness (2015). The formalized framework for decision-making in child protection care orders: A cross-country analysis. Journal of European Social Policy, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 366–378.

  4. Biestek, Felix P. (1957). The Casework Relationship. Chicago: Loyola University Press.

  5. Black, Julia (2001). Managing discretion. ARLC Conference Papers on Penalties: Policy, Principles and Practice in Government Regulation. https://www.academia.edu/1295954/Managing_discretion.

  6. Bovens, Mark; and Stavros Zouridis (2002). From street-level to system-level bureaucracies: How information and communication technology is transforming administrative discretion and constitutional control. Public Administration Review, vol. 62, no. 2, pp. 174–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Cabitza, Federico; and Carla Simone (2013). Computational Coordination Mechanisms: A tale of a struggle for flexibility. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), vol 22, pp. 475–529.

  8. Caspersen, Marianne; and Charlotte Laustsen (2009). Systematisk sagsbehandling i børnesager - principper og arbejdsgange. Denmark: UC Vest Press.

  9. Cheraghi-Sohi, Sudeh; and Michael Calnan (2013). Discretion or discretions? Delineating professional discretion: The case of English medical practice. Social Science and Medicine, vol. 96, pp. 52–59.

  10. Christensen, Lars Rune (2013). Coordinative Practices in the Building Process: An Ethnographic Perspective. London: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  11. Digitaliseringsstyrelsen (2018). Vejledning om digitaliseringsklar lovgivning. https://digst.dk/media/16953/vejledning_om_digitaliseringsklar_-lovgivning_maj_2018_tg.pdf.

  12. Ebsen, Frank (2018). Decision-making in social work. Nordic Social Work Research, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. European Commission (2019). The Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI). https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/desi.

  14. Evans, Tony (2010). Professionals, managers and discretion: Critiquing street-level bureaucracy. The British Journal of Social Work, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 368–386.

  15. Evans, Tony; and John Harris (2004). Street-Level Bureaucracy, Social Work and the (Exaggerated) Death of Discretion. British Journal of Social Work, vol. 34, pp. 871–895.

  16. Finansministeriet (2018). Bred politisk aftale skal gøre lovgivningen klar til digitalisering. https://www.fm.dk/nyheder/pressemeddelelser/2018/01/digitaliseringsklar-1.

  17. Frederiksen, Lærke Øland (2018). Skal en computer kunne tvangsfjerne et barn? Socialrådgiveren, vol. 10, no. 18, p 26.

  18. 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.

  19. Hagendorff, Thilo; and Katharina Wezel (2019). 15 challenges for AI: Or what AI (currently) can’t do. AI & Society, pp. 1–11.

  20. 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.

  21. Harper, Richard; David Randall; and Wes Sharrock (2016). Choice: The Sciences of Reason in the 21st Century: A Critical Assessment. Cambridge: Polity Press.

  22. Hørby, Anita (2015). Consolidation Act on Social Services. http://english.sm.dk/media/14900/consolidation-act-on-social-services.pdf.

  23. Høybye-Mortensen, Matilde (2013). Decision-Making Tools and Their Influence on Caseworkers’ Room for Discretion. British Journal of Social Work, pp. 1–16.

  24. Høybye-Mortensen, Matilde (2014). I velfærdsstatens frontlinje: Administration, styring og beslutningstagning, vol. 1. Denmark: Hans Reitzels Forlag.

  25. 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.

  26. 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.

  27. Jordan, Brigitte. (1996). Ethnographic Workplace Studies and Computer-Supported Cooperative Work. In The Design of Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Groupware Systems. Holland: Elsevier Science B. V., pp. 17–42.

  28. Jorna, Frans; and Pieter Wagenaar (2007). The ‘Iron Cage’ Strengthened? Discretion and Digital Discipline. Public Administration, vol. 85, no. 1, pp. 189–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Justesen, Lise; and Ursula Plesner (2018). Fra skøn til algoritme: Digitaliseringsklar lovgivning og automatisering af administrativ sagsbehandling. Tidsskrift for Arbejdsliv, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 9–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Keymolen, Esther; and Dennis Broeders (2011). Innocence Lost: Care and Control in Dutch Digital Youth Care. British Journal of Social Work, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 41–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Kosar, Kevin R. (2011). Review: Street Level-Bureaucracy: The Dilemmas Endure. Public Administration Review, vol. 71, no. 2, pp. 299–302.

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 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.

  33. Lave, Jean; and Etienne Wenger (1991). Situated Learning. Legitimate peripheral participation New York: Cambridge University Press.

  34. Lipsky, Michael (1969). Toward a theory of street-level bureaucracy. Institute for Research on Poverty, University of Wisconsin.

  35. Lipsky, Michael (1980). Street-Level Bureaucracy: The Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Service. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

  36. Molander, Anders (2016). Discretion in the Welfare State: Social Rights and Professional Judgement. Abingdon: Routledge.

  37. 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.

  38. Nyathi, Nhlanganiso (2018). Child protection decision-making: social workers’ perceptions. Journal of Social Work Practice, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 189–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. O’Sullivan, Terence (1999). Decision making in social work. London: Macmillan Publishers Limited.

  40. 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.

  41. 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

  42. Plesner, Ursula; Lise Justesen; and Cecilie Glerup (2018). The transformation of work in digitized public sector organizations. Journal of Organizational Change Management, vol. 31, no. 5, pp. 1176–1190.

  43. Ponnert, Lina; and Kirsten Svensson (2016). Standardisation - the end of professional discretion? European Journal of Social Work, vol. 19, no. 3–4, pp. 586–599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Pycock, Jonathan (1999). Designing Systems: Studies of Design Practice, Unpublished PhD, Manchester University.

  45. Randall, David; Richard Harper; and Mark Rouncefield (2007). Fieldwork for Design: Theory and Practice. London: Springer Science and Business Media.

  46. Redaelli, Ilaria (2015). Understanding Planning Practices: Insights from a Situated Study on an Italian Airport. (Ph.D. in Communication Sciences), Università della Svizzera italiana.

  47. Redaelli, Ilaria; and Antonella Carassa (2018). New Perspectives on Plans: Studying Planning as an Instance of Instructed Action. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 107–148.

  48. Rouncefield, Mark; and Peter Tolmie (2016). Ethnomethodology at work. New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  49. Schmidt, Kjeld (2011). Cooperative Work and Coordinative Practices: Contributions to the Conceptual Foundations of Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW). London: Springer.

  50. Suchman, Lucy (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problem of human-machine communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  51. Suchman, Lucy (1989). Notes on Computer Support for Cooperative Work. Working Paper WP-12. Department of Computer Science. University of Jyvaskyla. Jyvaskyla, Finland.

  52. 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.

  53. Taylor, Brian; and Andrew Whittaker (2018). Professional judgement and decision-making in social work. Journal of Social Work Practice, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 105–109.

  54. 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.

  55. Vega, Arturo; Mike Chiasson; and David Brown (2013). Understanding the Causes of Informal and Formal Discretion in the Delivery of Enterprise Policies: A Multiple Case Study. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 102–118.

  56. Wagenaar, Hendrick (2004). “Knowing” the Rules: Administrative Work as Practice. Public Administration Review, vol. 61, no. 6, pp. 643–656.

  57. Wallander, Lisa; and Anders Molader (2014). Disentangling Professional Discretion: A Conceptual and Methodological Approach. Professions and Professionalism, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 1–19.

  58. Webb, Stephen. A. (2001). Some Considerations on the Validity of Evidence-based Practice in Social Work. British Journal of Social Work, vol. 31, pp. 57–79.

  59. Zang, Xiaowei (2016). Research on Street-Level Discretion in the West: Past, Present, and the Future. Chinese Political Science Review, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 610–622.

  60. Zeleznikow, John (2000). Building Decision Support Systems in Discretionary Legal Domains. International Review of Law, Computers and Technology, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 341–356.

  61. Zisman, Michael David (1977). Representations, Specifications and Automation of Office Procedures. (PhD dissertation), University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Download references

Acknowledgements

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.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anette C. M. Petersen.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Petersen, A.C.M., Christensen, L.R. & Hildebrandt, T.T. The Role of Discretion in the Age of Automation. Comput Supported Coop Work 29, 303–333 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-020-09371-3

Download citation

Keywords

  • Social work
  • Decision-making
  • Discretion
  • Administrative work
  • Casework
  • Rules in action
  • Automation
  • Digitisation
  • Digital-ready legislation