Perspective Chapter: Structures of Thinking in Community-Based Working Culture – Renewing Social Work Practices

Abstract

In this article, a community-based working culture is introduced, and the development of social work orientations within a socially and culturally diverse community in Finland is examined through a case study. The objective is to expand understanding of the evolution of social work, grounding it in its ethical foundations. Two authors have previously synthesized competences of community social work; here, these competences are revisited in the context of recent practice development, with a focus on deconstructing power and knowledge. The assertion is that structures of thinking are a requisite to translate competencies into action, while moral courage and a tangible scope for action are essential to transforming practices. Tailoring social work to the lived experiences and contexts of those in need is imperative to effectively respond to evolving social challenges, some of which emanate from structural injustices.

1. Introduction

Social work (SW) with communities is gaining importance in our individualized societies, where communal bonds have weakened [1], and not all existing communities serve as places of empowerment [2]. In Finland, community social work (CSW) was recently incorporated into the Social Welfare Act [3], with the section concerning this area taking effect in July 2023. This regulation signifies a paradigm shift in the social work discourse. On one side, community-based social work addresses the need to engage with hard-to-reach individuals and acknowledges that many social support needs are communal [4]. Conversely, community social work can also be interpreted as a response to the fluctuating legitimacy of the Nordic welfare state.

Leppänen and colleagues [4] assessed community social work competencies based on a pilot study in which a drop-in community center Kototori was established in Tampere. This pilot was part of a project titled “Enhancing Two-Way Integration through Community Work” (abbreviated as TEKO), conducted from 2016 to 2019. The researchers identified competencies such as relationship-based social work, fostering a sense of community, joint action for social change, creativity, analytical thinking, and close collaboration. They concluded that community and structural social work are intertwined; community social work necessitates moral courage to advocate for changes in existing structures when necessary [4, 5]. We build upon and deepen this discourse, investigating how the adoption of these competencies influenced community social work practices in Tampere and the wellbeing services county of Pirkanmaa.

In many Western societies, including Finland, discourses and terminologies rooted in psychology dominate both institutional practices and the broader cultural landscape [6]. Therapeutic solutions are proposed for a wide range of issues, some of which are fundamentally structural, not stemming from individual vulnerabilities [6, 7, 8]. Community social work can counterbalance the potentially harmful focus on “repairing” the individual. As Leppänen et al. [4] note, community social work operates at individual, organizational, and community levels, collectively facilitating broader structural change. Thus, community belonging and participation can be as healing and transformative as therapeutic interventions, benefiting both social service users and practitioners.

Community social work also challenges the established knowledge base of social work. Historically, in Finnish social work, the focus has been on official social work managed by municipalities and, later, welfare service counties. NGOs and other informal entities have augmented these official services, even in the Nordic countries [9]. Equipped with the competencies delineated by Leppänen et al. [4], there is potential to reshape the traditional roles and hierarchies between statutory social services, NGOs, and community members, transforming the dynamics between social work professionals and service users.

In this chapter, we delve into the practices of community center L8 and the subsequent evolution of community social work in Tampere and the welfare services county of Pirkanmaa. We outline the community social work development in the given case and also briefly discuss our data and analysis methods. We argue that beyond competencies, reimagined thought structures are crucial in forging a mutual understanding of development trajectories and rejuvenating practices rooted in the ethical foundations of social work.

2. Steps of development: community social work within challenging communities

2.1 A new vision for community social work

In 2020, a project focused on the development of multilingual guidance and counseling was launched. The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the need for a new location for Kototori, as it was not safe for a large number of visitors to congregate in a densely packed drop-in community center. By the end of 2020, a new space was secured, prompting social work practitioners to reopen Kototori there. This new location was more spacious and presented greater potential than its predecessor, leading to the concept of a new community social work center. The vision was for Kototori to become an integral part of this space, emphasizing multilingual guidance and counseling, while still being a component of the larger community social work center. This shift would broaden the scope of social work to cater to the entire region’s requirements, transcending linguistic barriers, as the evolving social and structural contexts necessitated a more expansive community-oriented approach to social work [5, 10].

The foundational meeting for the new community social work center took place in January 2021. Having been engaged in the area since 2017, the social work practitioners from Kototori had a deep understanding of local organizations and their operations, as well as the challenges and needs of the community. In this inaugural meeting, the term “community center” was coined to refer to the collaborative space encompassing public social services, the municipality, the third sector, and the local residents.

For the progression of community social work, practitioners aspired to establish shared principles, values, structures, and operational methods from the outset. They aimed to diverge from conventional practices typically seen in hierarchical and conservative public entities. There was a collective ambition to deconstruct power dynamics, particularly those manifesting within statutory social work, local organizations, in the minds of residents, and potential service beneficiaries. It was also decided that all information would remain transparent and accessible and that collective decision-making would be prioritized. The shared values were sculpted through multiple workshops, guided by community social work lecturers from Tampere University. Some values were communal in nature, but not all. The core values identified were:

• communality,

• localness,

• actual equality,

• shared agency,

• topicality,

• social tranquility,

• absolute and indivisible client orientation,

• commitment and perseverance,

• critical knowledge production,

• trust,

• experimentality,

• accessibility,

• low threshold,

• respecting experience-based knowledge

Guiding principles for the community center’s activities centered around shared values, resident engagement, social innovations, and collaborative growth. Monthly house meetings were instituted as a framework for these principles, serving as a recurrent platform to collaboratively address observations, experiences, suggestions, and arising issues.

Given the community center’s emphasis on collaborative development, it was deemed crucial to foster a unified identity, not bound by any single entity or targeting a specific visitor group but welcoming all community members. The center’s name became symbolically significant, inspired by its location at Lindforsinkatu 8, it was entitled “L8”—a name that resonated widely within the community. An early foundational decision was that neither organizations nor residents would incur rental charges, enabling them to direct funds toward activities rather than infrastructure. Furthermore, rent was not linked to project-specific funding, ensuring the community center’s immediate integration into statutory social work structures.

The initial year emphasized a collective learning approach for the newly introduced form of social work at community center L8. This process encouraged all involved parties to evolve from their traditional methods, co-creating innovative, region-specific community social work practices. Collaboration was prioritized over rigid planning or target setting. Over time, this collaborative ethos fostered a shared vision, reinforced trust, and introduced innovative partnerships. Collective ownership of community center L8 facilitated a shift from mere participation to a profound sense of belonging.

Reflecting on 2023, the community center L8’s pivotal role in advancing community social work is evident. Its inception ignited a recognition of the significance and efficacy of community social work across Pirkanmaa and Finland, challenging the traditional, individual-focused approach of Finnish social work, which often limited initiatives to short-term projects [5, 11]. Notably, the Social Welfare Act [3] of July 2023 included community and outreach social work, emphasizing the national subtle shift toward community-centric social work.

The legacy of community social work in the Pirkanmaa region endures. The pioneering social work practitioner behind Kototori and the TEKO project now holds a supervisory role in the community social work unit of Pirkanmaa welfare services county. In Pirkanmaa, four distinct institutional frameworks for community social work are in place, resonating with Jack Rothman’s conceptualization [12, 13] encompassing social planning, community development, and social advocacy, all underscored by participatory practices. These frameworks include community centers, community counseling, outreach social work, and drop-in centers, which will be elaborated upon subsequently.

2.2 Community centers, drop-in centers, community counseling, and outreach work in the continuum of social work beyond individual casework

The community center amalgamates the low-threshold services of the municipality, social work, and the third sector. It provides advice, guidance, and activities to community members while fostering the collaboration and development of public social services, association members, and local residents. This center emerges from the community social work paradigm, which envisions social work as a multifaceted discipline, capable of transforming structures and introducing new functions. Ideally, public social work shifts from being a mere subject of administrative reforms to an active catalyst for change. A hallmark of this center is the pronounced presence of the public sector, wielding its power to continuously create participation avenues for both local organizations and local residents.

Community counseling embodies a low-threshold approach to community social work, maturing into a professional model. For instance, a social work “client” or a local resident can evolve into a community advisor, leveraging their personal experiences to guide peers. This transformation hinges on an individual’s willingness to aid others, recognizing and valuing the advisor’s expertise, and fostering their growth. Community counseling not only empowers individuals but also enhances employability and augments professional skills. With the foundation of community social work, community counselors independently guide community members, often in tandem with professional experts, in settings like social security or community centers. These counselors have the bandwidth to support clients in handling matters autonomously and most importantly, to lend a listening ear. Their guidance covers areas that do not necessitate a formal qualification in social care, bridging a critical gap in social services. They might assist in navigating e-services, serve as interpreters, mediate between clients and professionals, or provide advice on benefits.

Outreach social work sees practitioners engaging with community members in streets, malls, neighborhoods, and other public spaces. These practitioners advise and assist those needing help and guide them toward appropriate services when needed. The target audience primarily comprises individuals outside of traditional services or those who have disengaged from the services. On-the-spot evaluations are conducted in these settings, and client interactions help prioritize issues. A significant aspect of this outreach is ensuring clients can voice their needs, receive appropriate support, and access necessary services rightfully. Outreach work also offers anonymity.

Drop-in centers, or daytime activity hubs, cater to individuals grappling with substance misuse challenges. Access is not bound by sobriety conditions. These centers extend basic needs support and opportunities to consult with social work professionals. Moreover, visitors can avail of these services anonymously. The centers emphasize harm reduction, safeguarding basic rights, preventing homelessness, and countering the detrimental effects of substance misuse, all while upholding inherent human dignity. In essence, the facets of community social work (community centers, community counseling, outreach social work, and drop-in centers) are tailored to match unique societal and local contexts. They are shaped by the legal provisions of the Social Welfare Act, adapted to meet local necessities (see also [5]).

3. Conducting the study

We explore the core elements embedded in the recent evolution of community social work, based on the competences outlined by Leppänen and colleagues [4]. We examined the progression of community social work within a specific setting, focusing on the process of its development post the TEKO project. This research was undertaken collaboratively by four researchers, each offering a unique perspective on the topic: The first author had served in a managerial role and later as a developer. The second author had been involved in the evolution of community social work from the TEKO project to the present and had also contributed to the study of the competencies in community social work. The third author was a social advisor student reflecting the development and conceptualization from a student’s perspective. The fourth author was a dedicated researcher who also had contributed to the study on the competencies in community social work and participated in the TEKO project in several other capacities as well, serving, for example, as an instructor of further education, a member of the project group, and a supervisor of theses. Our perspectives were deeply personal, necessitating consideration and reflection [4].

We acknowledge the complexity inherent in the theoretical nature of the concept “community” [14, 15, 16]. In this chapter, we adopt a socio-political perspective to explore communities, discussing their significance to the Nordic welfare state while also recognizing that society itself acts as an environment of communities, rather than simply understanding communities as empirical, unique small groups [14]. Here, we conceptualize communities as being constructed on the foundations of interaction and reciprocity, drawing insights from social pedagogy [15].

Our dataset comprises 28 documents tied to the developmental trajectory of community social work in this particular setting, grounded in the foundational work of the TEKO project. The data is diverse, encompassing presentations, statistics, annual reports, and information gleaned from work orientations—such as reports on structural barriers impinging upon the rights of individuals in vulnerable communities. These documents span a three-year period, starting in the fall of 2020 and concluding in the summer of 2023. They can be viewed as indicative of developmental trends. Given the nature of our research, we also had considerable prior knowledge about the progression of community social work in the case under study. Hence, while these documents offer valuable insights into the evolution of the field, they are not exhaustive.

The majority of our data originates from documents authored by two of us. This study falls under practice research, denoting a collective journey of learning and knowledge production, where the impetus for both research and development stems from the needs identified in social work practices. Through this research, we aim to conceptualize and systematize the practical evolution of community social work within the specified context. This study represents a dual approach: firstly, as practice research, embodying a collaborative synergy between practical application and academic inquiry; and secondly, as practitioner research, highlighting the research initiatives driven by practitioners themselves [17, 18].

We embraced a constructivist paradigm, as it underscores the potential for myriad interpretations of reality [17] and democratizes the rapport between the researcher and the research. This positions the researcher as an active participant in knowledge construction, rather than a seemingly detached observer [19, 20]. This framework allows us to discern and elucidate a reality shaped by its contextual origins and the interactions within which it was forged [21].

For our analysis, first, we employed thematic reading. We meticulously assessed the selected documents, categorizing preliminary themes and insights into more refined themes related to the growth of community social work. Our analytical approach was introspective, characterized by flexibility in its depth, scrutiny levels, and overarching objectives [22]. Owing to this reflective analysis, we abstained from using pre-established concepts at this juncture. Instead, we engaged in theoretical sampling, molding theoretical thematic units from the sharpened themes (akin to the approach in [20, 21, 22, 23]). We used the research on the competences of community social work [4] as a reference point, juxtaposing our central themes against these competences to determine if they enriched or redirected our focus to alternative thematic domains [21]. This was further mapped onto existing literature. Ultimately, we discerned three pivotal theoretical constructs: (1) committing to change, (2) balance of control, and (3) social closeness—all of which epitomize structures of thinking. To elucidate the essence of these constructs, we have incorporated vignettes at the outset of each subsection.

4. Thought structures complementing the competences of community social work

Psychologist Lev Vygotsky [24] contended that structures of thinking are shaped when individuals are systematically influenced by a specific community. According to Vygotsky, thinking evolves in accordance with external rules, yet the rules of collaboration also develop through association with other community members. Drawing from this, we posit that thought structures are constructed within social contexts and shape the thinking of the individual. However, these contextual structures are also perpetually shifting due to transformations at the individual level, since we belong to various communities, whether in a loose or tightly-knit manner.

4.1 Committing to change

Vignette: In Tampere and subsequently in the welfare services county of Pirkanmaa, there was a dedicated commitment to develop community social work. Unlike a rigid strategy, the developmental approach was receptive, originating from the understanding of the need for CSW in the contemporary societal landscape. This approach evolved through engagement and reflection with stakeholders such as service users and collaborators. While the objective was to enhance practices in line with the ethical foundations of social work, adaptability was the key. Changes were constantly evaluated against their foundational intentions, leading to an agile yet purpose-driven approach to CSW. Importantly, these reforms were rooted in the primary ethos of social services and not contingent on ephemeral project funding, ensuring the evolution and continuity of CSW.

This dedication to CSW and low-threshold services illustrates a multi-layered commitment to change amidst the tumultuous environment of social work, shaped by factors such as digitalization, globalization, neoliberal economic policies, and the wavering base of the Nordic welfare state [25, 26]. In operational terms, when CSW confronted pressures primarily centered on reducing public service costs, the response was discerning. Changes were made if they resonated with the ethics of social work. Proposals motivated by a narrower service scope or placing undue responsibility on individuals for systemic issues were discarded.

Such discernment was crucial, especially given arguments that political directions are becoming excessively economized, thereby diminishing the societal essence, even though social capital can bolster financial well-being [27]. The ethos of CSW, particularly its focus on democratic knowledge production and meaningful participation, intersects with structural social work [4, 5, 9]. In contrast to individually centered social work, CSW illuminates systemic injustices more vividly due to its foundational logic.

The commitment to change transcends mere structural modifications to address the inherent reflexivity of social work. Dimitris Michailakis and Werner Schirmer [28] posit that social work’s identity is intricately tied to societal problems. As social work grapples with context-specific constructions of what is socially problematic, Finnish discourse has been punctuated with discussions on subjectively constructed concerns that can be used as a justification for intervention [29].

In the examined case, the commitment to change encompasses a dimension characterized by a critical and reflective examination of both practices and developmental trajectories. This commitment manifests when collaborating with community members, as it involves a deconstruction of expertise from various agents and institutional actors. It acknowledges the diverse social contexts and emphasizes co-produced knowledge. Such shared knowledge facilitates a collective understanding of potential structural oppressions or community ties leading to individual deprivation. Within this framework, the expertise of social workers is not seen as superior to other stakeholders, including NGOs, volunteers, or community members actively engaged in community social work.

In the analyzed case, a dedication to change encapsulated this multi-dimensional critique, fostering shared knowledge production with diverse stakeholders. A defining principle was the belief that transformation should not rely solely on fleeting project funding from potentially incongruent initiatives. In a Finnish context where societal foundations appear ever-fluid and devoid of history [27], the commitment to change in CSW is grounded in understanding historical continuities. It refrains from seeking instant gratifications, recognizing that enduring change necessitates patience, resilience, and an appreciation of the intricate dance of intersecting interests and challenges. Thus, true evolution embeds itself within history, drawing from the past to understand and shape the present [27].

4.2 Balance of control

Vignette: The community center L8 emerged from a realization: individual-focused social work often falls short in addressing broader social challenges, especially within complex community settings. The root of many challenges is not always the individual; sometimes systemic issues manifest themselves at a personal level. Unlike traditional centers with predefined objectives and methods, L8 aimed to empower community-driven social initiatives. Its foundation was trust: a belief that providing a platform for committed social actors would spark meaningful change.

In its inaugural year, L8 hosted workshops for interested collaborators. These sessions helped establish a common set of values and principles. Participants pledged to innovate collectively. As a result, L8 evolved into a comprehensive hub, pooling varied expertise. This wasn’t merely a gathering spot for assorted professionals; it became a nucleus for defining and implementing community-based social work innovations. Initial steps were taken with an open mind, as free from preconceptions as possible.

L8’s journey underscores the importance of embracing uncertainty in fostering an experimental and transformative culture. Collaborative knowledge production was at its core. While the city provided the venue, they refrained from dictating the center’s activities. This ethos extended to interactions with visitors. Rather than assuming or imposing definitions of social problems, L8’s personnel approached community members with humility, striving to understand and respect their lived experiences.

The balance of control involves shifting the exclusive ownership of social work’s expertise and defining power to a broader community. This community views social work from diverse perspectives, including those of volunteers, NGOs, and lived-experience experts. This shift necessitates recognizing the limitations of traditional social work perspectives and the intricate nature of social problems. By deconstructing these power dynamics and knowledge bases, a more open dialog and egalitarian relationship between experts and clients or service users can emerge. Yet, this transfer and balance of expertise and control are inherently challenging. It aligns with the portrayal of social work as the “Other” and the ongoing debates around the delineation and evolution of expertise within the field [30].

As outlined by Matthies [30, 31], social work grapples with diminishing the sense of “otherness” while simultaneously performing institutional roles that draw boundaries between “them” or “the Others” and “us.” Societies seem to necessitate this dichotomy: without these defined margins, the central “us” becomes indefinable. The evolution of community center L8 critically examines this inherent tendency toward marginalization and “Otherness.” Institutionalized social work has increasingly aimed to be more inclusive, particularly in the face of societal challenges and the complex landscapes within which social work operates.

By distributing control among the diverse actors in the community center, L8 actively challenges the typical “us” and “others” categorization, fostering democratization and a breakdown of entrenched power dynamics. Activities within L8 are driven by collective decision-making and embrace a multitude of voices, promoting a sense of unity even in professional practices. For instance, house meetings at L8, where communal decisions are determined, exemplify these inclusive, multi-perspective approaches. Furthermore, L8 features a community panel comprised of community members. This panel holds equal influence in bringing issues to these house meetings, matching the influence of professional practitioners within the center.

Information sharing at L8 is equitable: all parties, irrespective of their role, have equal access to knowledge about the space and its functions. No entity, including statutory social work, has a monopoly on information. This balanced control is evident in daily routines: every entity at L8 has a dedicated space and keys that access all areas of the community center. At L8, there is not a distant administrative entity; instead, those with administrative responsibilities are as integral to the community as any other practitioners. They are not mere visitors. The term “dismounting” is not employed at L8 because every entity, whether representing statutory social work or informal community work, forms part of a collective ecosystem where functions, operations, and practices are collaboratively owned and operated.

Community members are pivotal to this environment, allowing community social work to function without resorting to normative power dynamics or the “Othering” process, thus facilitating inventive partnerships that acknowledge the comprehensive nature of daily life. In practice, unity is promoted through activities that champion diversity over reinforcing dichotomies like marginalized vs. not marginalized, vulnerable vs. not vulnerable, and included vs. excluded (similarly discussed by Ref. [30]). The limitations of institutional expertise are recognized: community members aren’t just subjects of interventions but co-creators of knowledge and functions. Their suggestions are valued and championed.

For instance, a community member, who was unemployed and faced financial constraints, practiced photography. Despite these limitations, they were eager to share their expertise and proposed the formation of a photography group. A CSW practitioner seized this idea, reaching out to the library manager who generously offered space and materials for the group. The CSW practitioners assisted in creating an advertisement for the group. Cautiously, the community member inquired whether it was possible to receive a small compensation for tutoring the group, to which the CSW practitioner facilitated a financial reward. In conclusion, an exhibition was organized. Ultimately, the group was coordinated through a collaboration among the community members, the library, and community center L8.

Services provided at L8—ranging from adult social work, substance abuse interventions, health counseling, church-related social work, immigrant assistance, to financial counseling—target the community at large rather than specific problem categories. The diverse array of social circumstances is represented in L8’s daily operations, allowing individuals from varied backgrounds to interact, fostering inclusion and balanced interactions.

Dialog is pivotal for fostering mutual and equal exchanges. L8 has emphasized practices responsive to challenges and social issues shaped by contemporary temporal, spatial, and structural conditions. Yet, dialog goes beyond mere conversation; it signifies action. This is manifested in the endeavors to craft an environment conducive to safety and tolerance for mistakes, rooted in the belief that dialogic actions are developmental and accumulate over time. At L8, perfection is not the immediate goal; innovation requires embracing risk, an idea supported by prior research (see, for instance, [32]).

4.3 Social closeness

Vignette: The community advisor model evolved from the TEKO project, which aimed to shift power dynamics by transforming community members into practitioners. The community advisors are individuals from the community keen on guiding others based on their unique expertise, passions, and abilities. They can work independently or in tandem with professionals, offering their time to listen, foster the autonomy of other community members, and provide encouragement. Community advising is versatile; it can be approached as volunteer work, internship, rehabilitative work, or even a formal job. Moreover, community advisors receive guidance and support in their work, and their subsequent paths into education, employment, or other pursuits are encouraged.

This model hinges on the recognition that community members possess insights and knowledge that may elude both statutory social work and unofficial community work. Rather than predetermining required skills, the model acknowledges the diverse competencies each advisor brings. In practice, they can have included fluency in foreign languages, firsthand experience with social welfare services, or other kinds of expertise.

Social closeness characterizes the day-to-day and contextual activities of community social work. It embodies the pursuit of genuine connections with community members encountered in these settings. Both statutory social work and unofficial community work foster closeness, not just with each other but also with the people they engage with. This is evident in subtle practices, like the shared coffee policy at community center L8. Finnish coffee culture, steeped in unique traditions, becomes an emblem of this closeness at L8. Unlike conventional institutional settings, both practitioners and community members at L8 partake from the same coffee thermos. Though it might seem inconsequential, this act symbolizes the horizontal relationships nurtured through such contextual practices. Social closeness is, therefore, not just a lofty ideal but is deeply woven into daily actions.

The vignette discussed earlier emphasizes the necessity of power deconstruction and redistribution in the community advisor policy. Echoing the insights of Hekkala and colleagues [33], who explored social inclusion work, knowledge is recognized in CSW practices as a fundamental tool to combat epistemic injustice. Various and intersecting forms of knowledge are acknowledged, without placing institutional knowledge on a pedestal above other types of knowledge. Alongside specialized skills (like fluency in another language), experiential insights and an understanding of societal functions are considered as invaluable as formal professional knowledge. Institutional practices can inadvertently perpetuate social injustice by prioritizing formal over experiential and practical knowledge. CSW counters this by promoting a pluralistic view of knowledge and championing democratic knowledge generation.

In CSW practices, the recognition of practical and experiential knowledge extends beyond the role of community advisors to daily operations. Roles are fluid, and boundaries between them often blur. For instance, during one visit to the community center, a community member observed an acquaintance seeking advice from a community advisor. When the advisor hesitated, unsure of the best course of action, another community visitor stepped in to assist. This incident underscores the non-hierarchical approach of the center, illustrating that beneficial knowledge is embraced irrespective of its origin.

In a study into the competencies of community-based social work, two of the authors identified that relationship-focused social work operates on three tiers: individual, organizational, and community [4]. Conceptualized as a mindset, social closeness is about forging trust-based relationships across these layers. Hence, trust holds equal importance in community and organizational contexts as it does in individual social work practices. These layers are intrinsically linked, with the principle of relationship-building emanating from individual interactions and cascading to encompass organizational and community realms. From this perspective, relationships rooted in trust fundamentally hinge on human connections. Such relationships initiate a positive feedback loop, fostering further trust, which in turn creates opportunities for transformative actions and addressing challenges framed as societal issues.

A tangible example illustrating the trust spiral across both organizational and community tiers is evident in the following scenario: Two practitioners from separate NGOs collaborating within the community center L8 began working closely during the planning phase of the center’s opening ceremony. One was involved in substance misuse work, while the other was dedicated to combatting loneliness. This personal rapport led to a functional partnership between the two distinct NGOs, broadening the scope of trust from the individual to the organizational domain. This community dimension manifested when the NGO centered on substance misuse work and recommended one of their consistent visitors to volunteer for the NGO to address loneliness. This individual began assisting elderly residents with tasks such as doctor visits. Without the foundational trust at an individual level, the partnership between these NGOs might never have emerged. Furthermore, without the ripple effect of trust, one NGO would not have referred its visitor to the other. In a competitive environment, where NGOs vie for funding and clientele, it is noteworthy that an organization focused on alleviating loneliness would embrace a recovering addict as a volunteer.

As previously mentioned, social closeness, alongside other structures of thinking, manifests in multifaceted dimensions. This is evident when formal authorities engage in unofficial capacities. For instance, an NGO community worker’s evaluation might be the basis for granting supplementary or preventive social assistance. Rather than wading through bureaucratic red tape during crises, immediate necessities can be addressed promptly, rooted in the trust placed in community members and the informal assessments. However, there is caution to ensure this approach does not overshadow the primary goals of CSW by predominantly focusing on urgent financial issues. To date, this trust-based approach has yielded positive outcomes.

The situation with supplementary and preventive social assistance exemplifies how trust, cultivated through social closeness, can dismantle unnecessary hierarchies and red tape. In settings where both statutory SW and informal community work coexist, there is a commitment to transparency. The intent is not to artificially distance formal from informal practices. Rather, the goal is to ensure that the CSW framework is inherently supportive of the communities and demographics it serves. This is a delicate balance given the intricate nature of SW, which is often caught between exerting control over certain populations while also upholding its ethical foundation of championing social justice (for example, [30]).

Thus, social closeness is actualized via critical and structural social work. In the realm of CSW, it is acknowledged that social work can actively oppose the remedial tendencies of a neoliberal society manifested in therapeutic power dynamics, pathologization, and the push for individual adaptation (about therapy culture, see [6, 7, 8]). By emphasizing belonging and community, social work can prioritize social justice, acknowledging oppressive structures and advocating for and alongside those in vulnerable circumstances. A prime example of structural social work in action can be seen in the general practice of community advising. Through the adoption of the community advising model, positions for multilingual advisors were established. These advisors, engaging with individuals who speak foreign languages, provided guidance about Finnish society and performed cultural interpretation. The incorporation of multilingual advisors signifies a shift toward recognizing immigrants as citizens who are entitled to services, regardless of their proficiency in Finnish. Resources were not solely allocated to language training but also to enhancing accessibility, contemplating how services can be tailored to meet the needs of the clientele.

5. Discussion: transforming knowledge production into action through community-based working culture

In this chapter, we explore the progression of community social work influenced by the TEKO project, basing our analysis on the foundational principles presented in the article that examines the competences intrinsic to community-based social work. We propose that these “structures of thinking” are dynamic and evolving frameworks that shape practitioners’ thought processes. Such structures, we believe, are deeply contextual and rooted in social constructs [24]. We have discerned three pivotal thinking structures—commitment to change, balance of control, and social closeness. These intertwine with competences like forming relationship-centric social work, fostering a sense of community, encouraging experimentation, collective action for societal change, creativity, and analytical thinking [4].

These thinking structures and competences are interdependent: specific competences do not materialize without the corresponding structures of thought and vice versa. We posit that it’s the production of knowledge that morphs these elements into a distinctive working culture. We see this knowledge production as a dynamic interplay [34]. Thus, to truly grasp the practices of CSW within this context, our analysis delves deeper into the foundational aspects of these practices, rather than just their surface features. As stated by Georg Walls [35], knowledge production encapsulates processes of absorption, assimilation, interpretation, and the subsequent conveyance of these interpretations. We believe that competences and thinking structures materialize as practices through the lens of knowledge production, as described by Walls [35]. Central to knowledge production and practices is the working culture, which, in this case, is based on communities.

Terhi Myller [36] undertook a qualitative examination of professional cultures within social work, situating her study within a Finnish paradigm across both rural and urban environments. Through her research, she integrated discussions on social work, particularly focusing on the professional working culture across Nordic nations. She deduced that the working culture of social work comprises organizational methodologies, the tangible practices of social workers, reinforcement of service users’ agency in professional contexts, and political backdrops. Organizational methodologies encompass the significance of contexts, overarching processes, and governance. The professional practices touch upon roles social workers assume, ethical challenges faced, the crafting of professional identities, and the weightage given to the organizational structure. Strengthening the agency of service users hinges on bolstering the client’s active participation. The political milieu as extracted from literature epitomizes neoliberal tendencies and societal progression [36].

Based on interviews, Myller [36] found that, in Finnish contexts, professional working cultures can be categorized into three types: (1) the professional working culture formed by organizational preconditions, (2) the professional working culture constructed through social relationships, and (3) the professional working culture built within cultural and situational practices.

Employing Myller’s [36] theoretical architecture, we argue that the community-based working culture is evident in community social work’s professional practices. Such practices incorporate the dismantling of hierarchical structures, non-bureaucratic stances, and the fundamental adoption of community as the essence of social work. Moreover, when discussing the agency of community members, practices span a variety of temporal and spatial scopes. People encountered in CSW settings are perceived as members of the community rather than mere clients. The emphasis is strongly on fostering equitable, mutual relationships. Yet, we further enrich this community-based working culture paradigm by infusing it with nuanced, context-driven practices. These practices render palpable the production of knowledge, subsequent professional methodologies, and practices related to community members’ agency in CSW’s daily operations.

Viewed from this vantage point, practices ingrained in the community-based working culture, as contextualized in CSW, are a harmonious blend of foundational principles and routine norms. Hence, these practices transcend mere rhetoric to become transformative actions. As highlighted by Myller [36], social work’s operational cultures are influenced by political dynamics. A community-based working culture within CSW is no exception. While it crafts its own unique ecosystem, given the societal obligations bestowed upon social work, CSW cannot operate in isolation. Drawing from our research, themes of neoliberalism, contemporary public governance, and the erosion of the welfare state interplay with the conceived working culture. This interaction is not a straightforward pathway from political contexts to the working culture and its methodologies. Critical and structural aspects of social work intersect with CSW’s practices, leading to a pursuit of structural alterations advocating social justice across multiple CSW layers (see [4, 5]). The interplay between knowledge production, competences, and structures of thinking that converge to form working culture that stems from communities is encapsulated in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Community-based working culture and the process of knowledge production.

In her 2022 research concerning community social work and structural social work, Aila-Leena Matthies [5] analyzed project plans crafted by Finnish social work students as applications for funding. These students broadly represented early-career social work practitioners from diverse Finnish regions, spanning rural to urban contexts. Notably, the central practice models Matthies [5] identified closely mirrored those in the CSW practices we examined. The key models she pinpointed included community meeting points and houses, extensive networking between professional agencies and target groups, tangible alterations and innovations in service systems, ecosocial approaches fostering alternative services and novel paradigms, and political and/or economic shifts. Interestingly, the ecosocial models were the only ones absent from the CSW orientations in our specific study. Given this, Matthies’ [5] categorization aligns seamlessly with emerging CSW practices in the Pirkanmaa region. Additionally, our case study introduced complementary core practice models, such as (1) deconstruction of knowledge and power emphasizing community members’ agency, and (2) viewing community as a tool for social empowerment and justice.

The notion of “ethics as lived” emerged in the realm of ethnographic research [37, 38]. This concept underscores ethical decision-making during practical engagements, going beyond mere adherence to ethical protocols. It is not strictly anchored in the ethics of care or researcher empathy. Instead, “lived ethics” is conceived as a blend of actual practices, ethical tenets, and emotional underpinnings [37]. It prioritizes reflective thinking as the foundation for data generation and interpretation [38], portraying the researcher as deeply embedded in the research milieu [37, 38].

Such a representation of “lived ethics” aptly characterizes ethical dimensions within CSW settings. Practices hinge on active community presence and upholding community members’ agency. Nevertheless, neither statutory social work nor informal community work can evade the inherent power dynamics. Statutory SW wields authority over informal community initiatives, and concurrently, both realms exert influence over community members. Efforts are made to dismantle these power hierarchies and distribute power as equitably as feasible. The essence of “ethics as lived and experienced” encapsulates this ethical decision-making approach, recognizing the ethically significant elements unique to each context. Compassion, emotions, and ethical mandates, rooted in principles, steer ethical judgments.

Embracing such lived and experienced ethics necessitates moral fortitude, challenging conventional stances held by social work professionals and their typical ethical decision-making processes. While the term “moral courage” may be nebulous, we interpret it here as risking external disapproval in pursuit of righteous action [39] (see also [40]), particularly upholding the ethical pillars of social work and the values underpinning the CSW framework for Pirkanmaa. Eyal Press [39] contends that peers sharing similar perspectives significantly influence acts of moral courage. Likewise, a study on moral courage within social work suggests a collective character. Ethical dilemmas were navigated either in collaboration with peers or through introspective dialogs. Social workers reliant on internal deliberations described experiences of moral courage as more emotionally taxing compared to those engaging with like-minded colleagues sharing foundational ethical convictions [41]. In our case, CSW’s evolution began with introspection but rapidly expanded, fueled by trust and cooperative efforts. This evolution illustrates that moral courage can be communal, embodying an act of structural social work.

6. Conclusions

In this chapter, we have illustrated the recent development of CSW in a specific context. The results are not generalizable, but our conceptualization might provide insight into the dimensions of development and the foundations upon which SW practices are built. In the Finnish context, the emergence of new public governance and a therapy-centric culture has shifted the focus of social work toward individual responsibility. Contrasting with the prevailing trend of individualization in social work practices, our discussion has centered on CSW and its emphasis on the structural dimensions of phenomena that are perceived or constructed as social problems. This shift in focus toward structural considerations is notably significant.

The development of CSW in the Pirkanmaa region has been progressing for nearly 8 years, which represents the gradual shifts in professional working culture. Moreover, the theoretical framework outlined in previous research concerning the competencies of CSW has been meaningful and may have facilitated cultural change. Therefore, the dialog between practice and theory has been of significance.

In this chapter, we have detailed the fundamental characteristics of a community-based working culture. However, there remains a need for thorough examination of how these features collectively manifest, potentially effecting a shift in the prevailing professional working culture. Therefore, it is imperative for future research and development to concentrate on examining the mechanisms underlying the working cultures in social work.

The central thesis of this chapter underscores the notion that practices are constructed on a foundation of thought structures intertwined with competencies. Consequently, structural social work must initiate the transformation of these structures of thinking. The concept of thought structures can be further elucidated by, for instance, analyzing contemporary structural issues recognized as social problems, like mental health concerns or matters related to street gangs. Consequently, it is our hope that this chapter can be situated within the continuum of theory of practice and motivate future research and development of SW.