Summary: While managerialism is widely criticized for its deskilling effect on professional discourses, the evaluation of the power relations between managerialism and the critical professionalism that opposes it has not yet been sufficiently developed. To enable the assessment of fluctuations in these power relations, this study used in-depth interviews with 14 street-level social workers to examine the encounter between these discursive standpoints in the context of a specific case of an administrative request for critical professional programs to be implemented in the field. Findings: The findings highlight the operation of recognition as a salient parameter of discursive power positions. We address three aspects of recognition—discursive, interpersonal, and institutional—and demonstrate the existence of a struggle over the acceptable professional standpoint in the institutionalized public field of social work. Applications: Attention should be given to the different dimensions of recognition in order to enable the implementation of critical practice in the public field of social work. These dimensions can be addressed through broad training of various players in the field and the institutional backing of critical practice requirements.

One of the main characteristics of social work is the fundamental tension between the profession’s conservative and critical rationales. In the last three decades, this tension has informed the development of critical resistance to the deprofessionalisation effects of neo-managerial rationality, which establishes cost reduction and fiscal accountability as the basis for professional practice. However, the theoretical conceptualisation of such critical resistance is caught between minor and major operations, both of which are considered insufficient. Addressing this gap, this article builds on the theoretical framework of radical incrementalism to develop a research agenda for the future study of resistance processes, which we conceptualise as operating in the middle range of a power exertion scale, between minor and major forms of operation. We portray the operation of resistance in the middle range of such a power exertion scale and offer a research agenda that includes relevant research directions and methodological considerations. In this way, the article suggests new ways of understanding, conceptualising and operating resistance to enable further development of the social justice-informed professionalisation of social work.

In the current construction of critical theory of social work practice, recognition is a central explanatory concept. It informs critical practice as primarily relational, focused on providing respect and visibility for service users, and allowing their voices to be heard. However, while critical political theory emphasizes the ethical commitment to integrating recognition with redistribution, the focus on recognition in social work practice hinders the conceptualization of providing material support as a valuable practice. This gap may lead to the construction of direct social work as irrelevant for people living in poverty and social exclusion, who suffer from a lack of both recognition and redistribution. This article offers an integrated model for critical social work practice in which recognition and redistribution intersect. This model identifies four different types of casework practice: isolated emotional support, isolated material assistance, managerialist withdrawal, and critical practice, and contributes to the construction of a relevant theory of critical practice for social work.

The recent literature concerning partnership between professionals and young people reveals important developments regarding the nature of partnership: from short-term partnerships with young people's parents intended to improve decision-making in the context of critical life decisions, to a growing interest in direct partnership between professionals and young people as a core principle of long-term relationships. Although it is widely acknowledged among health and social service professionals that partnerships can have positive outcomes for young people, the concept and implementation of partnership remain vague. This article examines the meanings of partnership for people involved in a community youth centre for marginalised youth. Data were collected during the year 2011 using multiple-methods including focus groups (with eight youth workers), participant observations (in assembly meetings and 'partnership meetings') and semi-structured interviews (with 10 principal stakeholders, including youth, youth workers and the Center's founders). Data were analysed using principles of grounded theory to articulate partnership as an ongoing experience, combining both structural-technical and content-experiential components. Our findings present partnership as existing simultaneously in the practice of decision-making and in the realm of self-experience and interpersonal relationships, and explore the relationship between both spheres. The findings also shed light on the importance of the specific characteristics of shared decision-making (atmosphere, content and duration) in the creation of partnership. We discuss our findings in the light of possibilities for partnership-based practice with marginalised youth.

Scholars claim that the integration of critical social work into public social services is impossible considering its weak position in the managerialist context of these services. Consequently, critical practice is mainly described as covert and reflective of the hierarchical power dynamics between managerialism and critical professionalism. Thus, the option of integrating critical social work into the institutionalised operation of the profession, which involves engaging in critical practice to the extent possible in the context of public services beyond micro and covert practices, has not been sufficiently described. This study addresses this gap, exploring the process of implementing the critical professional ‘Poverty-Aware Social Work Paradigm’ (PAP) into the Israeli public welfare services. Based on twenty-five interviews with field-level social workers in the PAP programmes, the findings describe critical practices as operating simultaneously at the interpersonal and structural levels, mainly through covert actions. The discussion illustrates the significance of merging the interpersonal and structural levels of critical practice and describes the limited arena in which critical professionalism operates in public services.