Ten-Year Development of Collaborative Social Work with Families in Complex Problem Situations in Slovenia: Thematic Analysis of Project Documentation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this article, the authors review 7 of their past projects as a research study. They are especially interested in key questions that arise in social work about how to help others (“families in complex problem situations”) and how to do this within systems that may not be well structured to help (“reducing the existing gap between theory and practice”). In particular, they are concerned about tensions experienced as they developed and completed projects — confronting tensions between best practice ideal in social work of collaboration and co-creation (with families and practitioners) against “managerial” pressures of the New Public Management (NPM) system in Slovenia. I struggled with how to rate the article using the format provided by Social Sciences because the content and purpose are very compelling— but the framing of the article as a research study is not (for this reader). As a research study, the limitations identified by the authors are significant and need more explanation— for example, how can the authors claim to review 10 years of social work in Slovenia based on their seven projects? As a research study, the title should be reframed as a thematic analysis of secondary data (i.e. project reports) from seven projects. By using this approach, however the authors may be evaluated by readers in relation to empirical studies of social work practice — but I think the authors are thinking through /reflecting on the challenges they have experienced between how they wanted to conduct the projects (such as through co-creation and collaboration) and what they were able to do. 

While I find less merit in the paper as a research study, there are other ways to frame the paper. The tensions raised about trying to collaborate and co-create in neoliberal times of efficiency pressures will be familiar to scholars and practitioners in social work— and the context of Slovenia will add a dimension that is not common in the literature. In addition, the authors value a reflexive approach to their work, so a reflexive essay reviewing challenges to meeting the goals of social work practice with families given policy, research funding, and other structures would be helpful to those who also face budget cuts, neoliberal trends, and pressures to be efficient rather than empathetic and engaged. The literature cited so far seems adequate as background for the reader. 

To provide an example from the journal Social Sciences, there is one writen by anthropologists about tensions for them in working in the field of gerontology — written by B.M. Howell and M.A. Guest, entitled “Why Gerontology Needs Anthropology: Toward an Applied Anthropological Gerontology. Social Sciences, 13(1), 4. (2023). If the authors were not hampered by the article structure of a research study, they could better focus on why they completed a self-study, and focus the paper on addressing the underlying questions that inspired this effort.  

 

Author Response

We thank you for your review and have included the responses to your suggestions in the attached document. Changes to the article are highlighted in yellow, deletions are crossed out. With kind regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is original in its subject matter and procedure of access to the object of study. The theoretical framework used is broad and current. The research objectives are well described. The results are consistent with the objectives and findings described. The conclusions describe the main contributions. The references are timely and well focused.

Author Response

Thank you for your review and positive feedback on the article. We are pleased that you found the paper to be original, that the results are consistent with the objectives and that the conclusions describe the main contributions to the field. Kind regards. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to read your article. The approach of evaluating your projects with thematic analysis is original and innovative and can yield important insights into the delivery of social work services, as you have intended. There are some places in the article as detailed below where more clarity on the organisation of social work and the related institutions would be helpful for those readers who may need more explanation of this. These are minor concerns. The main concern in in Section 3 where the detail of projects seemed to overwhelm the results of the thematic analysis, making it seem like this section was more of a descriptive discussion of the projects than a discussion of the results of the thematic analysis. I am suggesting that you look more closely at the way you present the thematic analysis results in this section to ensure that those stand out, and to consider how to discuss these results with the necessary information on each project but without losing the focus on presenting the results as such. For instance, rather than reporting results project by project, would it be helpful to present the results theme by theme, and then include within each theme the needed details of the relevant projects?

 

Introduction: It would be helpful if you can offer a definition or explanation of “complex problem situations” early in the discussion for clarity.

 

Lines 55-60 provide a clear statement on the purpose of the research—it might be helpful if this information came slightly earlier in your opening discussion.

 

Line 72—what is the new terminology you are using? Is it “complex problem situations” or “multi-problem situations”? Are these used interchangeably to mean the same thing? A bit more explanation here would be helpful in ensuring this is more clear.

 

Lines 80-91 This is helpful information on the fragmentation of services—it might be helpful to briefly highlight this early in your introduction. This information helps the reader understand the focus and need for this particular research which is the subject of the article.

 

Lines 146-147 A little bit more information on Social Work Centres would be helpful. Are these private organisations or part of the state? How are they staffed and structured? Are they centrally managed, locally managed, or something else? How are they funded?

 

Section 3---Results The detail of the projects through this section becomes a bit confusing and it is easy to lose focus on what this article is about. It might be helpful to link that detail of discussion in with the thematic analysis more clearly, or to cut back on the amount of detail provided. While the article is about the results of the thematic analysis of the projects, the detail on the projects seems to over ride the results of the thematic analysis, making the reading in this somewhat unclear and difficult to follow. It is difficult to discern the results of the thematic analysis in this discussion, as it seems to be more of a descriptive discussion of the different projects.

 

Author Response

We thank you for your review and have included the responses to your suggestions in the attached document. Changes to the article are highlighted in yellow, deletions are crossed out. With kind regards. 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is very clear and provides a helpful overview and insight into social work research and practice challenges in Slovenia. My one minor suggestion as you finalize for publication is to consider removing parentheses and use of "etc." As a reader, I did not know what was in "etc," which meant that term wasn't informative. Then, on line 422, why not bring out those examples as in, Examples include... and then provide that list. Lastly, given that there has been so much centralization of authority and control, coupled with standardization of services, it was not immediately obvious as to why that led to fragmentation of services (lines 214 and 215).