Terry T.F. Leung Department of Social Work The Chinese University of Hong Kong AUTHENTIC ARGUMENTATION BETWEEN THE WELFARE SERVICE USERS AND WELFARE PROFESSIONALS – RHETORICAL OR REAL?

Disagreements and conflicts are rationally resolvable through a mode of communication that supports the force of the better argument Innate orientation to mutual understanding People are able to take part in a process of argumentation to make or question any assertion without domination of power structure Validity claim by truth, truthfulness and normative rightness People are able to take part in a process of argumentation to make or question any assertion without domination of power structure Validity claim by truth, truthfulness and normative rightness Communicative action all participants have equal opportunity to put forth reasons for their claims to learn from explicit mistakes to improve collective decisions by exposing claims to criticism all participants have equal opportunity to put forth reasons for their claims to learn from explicit mistakes to improve collective decisions by exposing claims to criticism Goal of communicative action is to ensure that THE HABERMASIAN VISION OF AUTHENTIC ARGUMENTATION

Deliberative democracy is gathering momentum in the welfare and social care sector Increasingly, welfare service users are included in the decisional processes for service management and planning User participation has a strong appeal to social workers for its congruence with the professional mission of empowering the service users User participation promises organizational effectiveness and gains legitimacy for the service system

Notably in UK, the government and research funders require user involvement in research and service evaluation In the West In China, consultative meetings and public hearings are introduced in many urban and rural communities In Hong Kong, government-funded welfare organizations are required to incorporate the user perspective in service management and planning In the East

Institutional presence of the welfare service users What happens in the discursive platforms? To what extent is the discursive platforms free from domination of power structure? To what extent can participants’ claims be exposed to criticism for improving collective decisions?

How did the welfare service users who participated in the organizations’ management or governance structure perceive their relationship with the administrative system? To what extent did they find themselves free to engage in negotiation and argument with system representatives in the participatory platform? To what extent did they find their lived experience, needs and interests accepted in the decisional process? IN THE CONTEXT OF HONG KONG, THIS STUDY ASKS…

3 focus groups 15 individual interviews 25 service users who were members of functional committees in Hong Kong welfare service organizations DATA COLLECTED FROM…

SOME FINDINGS FROM THE HABERMASIAN PERSPECTIVE

“we are very frustrated….we don’t have many representatives in the Executive Committee….they (system representatives) always see things from an administrative perspective, the money perspective….But for us service users, the mission and goal is more important. I cannot feel their genuineness in proactive development of service for us. Really disappointed.” (Care giver, user member of governance structure in Organization A) Discordant “They (system representatives) are willing to listen to views of the service users. If not, there is no need to organize the users’ committee, isn’t it?....Of course our views are sometimes filtered, to make them more workable.” (Older people, member of user committee in Organization B) Amicable TWO DIFFERENT ATTITUDES TOWARDS SYSTEM REPRESENTATIVES

Novel language, unfriendly meeting schedules, and inadequate information on the discussion topics Users’ lived experiences and needs were subservient to fiscal consideration and organizational development in the claim to advance users’ benefits Perceived colonization of their lifeworld by system logic of efficiency and economy System representatives perceived as lack of truthfulness Using the discursive platform to gain legitimacy for their pre- determined decisions Perceived organizational reasons for installing the discursive platforms DISCORDANT GROUP

Participation as a means for redressing unfair allocation of services and resources Rejecting the normative rightness of system representatives to control the decisional process The service users were instrumental too The participatory platform becomes a venue for contest rather than mutual understanding “We-they” demarcation between the service users and system representatives DISCORDANT GROUP

Decision making recognized as the formal mandate of system representatives Normative rightness for system representatives to control the decisional process Legitimate power Users were grateful to social workers who supported them in their difficult times Truthfulness of system representatives was not questioned Referent power System representatives were considered more knowledgeable of system operation Truth of their claims was not questioned Expert power AMICABLE GROUP

Sense respect for their everyday life experiences in the cooperative encounters and supportive interactions users had with social workers In return, users were more ready to understand the difficulties system representatives had in dealing with dilemmas in service management and planning Sense respect for their everyday life experiences in the cooperative encounters and supportive interactions users had with social workers In return, users were more ready to understand the difficulties system representatives had in dealing with dilemmas in service management and planning Appreciation of lifeworld in systems In communicative action, the taken-for-granted content of the lifeworld is subject to constant challenges to enhance ability to solve problems Only a few was able to express reflection and learning from participation in the discursive platform - those few came with questions rather than answers Lifeworld and system remained separated In communicative action, the taken-for-granted content of the lifeworld is subject to constant challenges to enhance ability to solve problems Only a few was able to express reflection and learning from participation in the discursive platform - those few came with questions rather than answers Lifeworld and system remained separated Rationalization of lifeworld AMICABLE GROUP

Separation between lifeworld and systems The discordant group regretted the colonization of their lifeworld by system logic The amicable group remained detached from the system, only a few could rationalize their lifeworld through participation Lack of readiness for rational adjudication of validity claims The discordant group denounced truthfulness of system representatives and pre-conceived their assertions as invalid The amicable group had total trust in the system representatives and gave up rational adjudication of their assertions Prevalence of power influence Overt system power perceived by the discordant group Covert system power in the amicable group WAS AUTHENTIC ARGUMENTATION BETWEEN WELFARE SERVICE USERS AND SYSTEM REPRESENTATIVES RHETORICAL OR REAL?

Only voices of the service users Follow up on voices of the system representatives Limitations New power relationship New orientation to the discursive platform (communicative rather instrumental) New interaction between lifeworld and systems (rationalization rather colonization or separation) Insights on how to nurture facilitative conditions for authentic argument

THANK YOU