EBP and Personal Ombudsman

Formalizations and objectivities

Abstract

Evidence-based practice (EBP) has long been the subject of a polarized debate in social work. The most pronounced disagreements concern how science is viewed in EBP. In the debate, this is accentuated by EBP being associated with a narrow methodological focus. At the same time, EBP has in practice been reinterpreted to the extent that it risks becoming a label without content. Neither narrow methodological focus nor non-committal applications are likely to be optimal for generating improvements in social care or for taking advantage of reflections made within the social services that can be valuable in relation to revisions of EBP. This study therefore aims to introduce partially new concepts and highlight their implications for the development of new attitudes and approaches. This is done by analysing the relationship between EBP and a social services practice (Personal Ombudsman) which exemplifies the complexity considered typical of social work. A further purpose is to reflect on which elements of EBP need to be revised or preserved in order for EBP to be a desirable project in that type of practice. The empirical material is based on interviews in a Personal Ombudsman unit and it is analysed within the framework of science and technology studies. The results show that the type of cognitive formalization applied, and the type of mechanical objectivity aimed for in EBP can be problematic in the Personal Ombudsman practice. At the same time, formalizations in themselves are not problematic because, despite the initial impression of complexity, the studied practice is more formalized than first assumed. However, the most important formalizations in the studied practice are not cognitive but social and the analysis indicates that structured incorporation of such social formalizations in order to strengthen disciplinary objectivity could potentially be of great value as a supplement to current models of EBP.