Browsing by Subject "laadullinen asennetutkimus"

Aims. In this thesis I analyze social worker's attitudes by studying their speech regarding socially or economically disadvantaged people and the reasons for their status. Previous research in this field is mostly connected with discussion regarding the reasons for poverty. These reasons can be separated in three categories: individual, structural and fatalistic. The approach can be seen to be connected with person's attitude towards the disadvantaged and also with the welfare culture and moral climate of the society. If poverty is seen to have it's origins in the individual it increases demands for citizen activity and accordingly diminishes support for social benefits and redistribution of income. Previous research also shows that social workers attitudes are always passed on to their clients on some level. The particular aim for this study was to bring forth possible attitudes towards social disadvantage. The research questions were: 1. What reasons do the social workers see for social disadvantage, income problems and poverty? 2. Is there different attitudes towards different client groups? and 3. Are sanctions seen as a plausible strategy to help the disadvantaged? Methods. The qualitative research material consisted of individual theme interviews of 10 social workers. Firstly, the material was categorized in observation classes by using the qualitative attitude research method. Thereafter, the material was analyzed to trace and interpret the attitudes by applying the discursive reading method. Results and conclusions. The social workers saw social disadvantage primarily to be attributed to structural reasons. The main reason for disadvantage in their view was unemployment, mental problems and alcohol and substance abuse. Although the social workers saw most part of the disadvantaged people as innocent for their status, they also regarded some of them as irresponsible and immoral freeloaders. Five central discourses could be identified in the material: 1. Discourse for tax payer resenting dependence for social welfare, 2. The competitiveness discourse demanding economic efficiency and effectivity, 3. Universal discourse respecting equal human rights, 4. Solidarity discourse calling for joint responsibility and 5. Care discourse oozing empathy, warmth and care. In the interview group the emphasis was particularly on solidarity discourse seasoned with a touch of care discourse.