Standardised practice in Norwegian child welfare services: How standardisation influences professional practice in child welfare services



child welfare services, standardisation


This thesis explores how standardisation in Norwegian child welfare services (CWS) influences CWS professionals and practices. CWS is a complex field, which has been criticised for poor decision-making and for not putting effective measures into place for families in need. CWS practice is also criticised for not being informed by research. As a response to these criticisms, we have witnessed an increased use of standards and standardisation to ensure effective and accountable services of high quality. Consequently, the use of standardised assessment forms and standardised intervention programmes has been on the rise, in Norway and internationally. This has led to considerable debate concerning the tension between standardisation as a tool of control and professional practice involving discretion. Critical voices have argued that standardisation limits professionals’ discretion and restricts their ability to use specialised abstract knowledge, a key feature of professional work. Much research on standardisation has focused on effects of standardised practices with a top-down approach. Hence, there is a need for research on the ‘ongoing work’ that frontline professionals engage in and how frontline practice is influenced by standardisation, which is the aim of this study.

This thesis aims to expand the body of knowledge on how standardisation affects professional practice. This is done by investigating how CWS professionals use two standardised tools commonly used in Norway, namely the Kvello Assessment Framework tool (KF) and Circle of Security - parenting (COS-P). The overall research question is: How do CWS professionals become carriers of standardised practice and how does standardised practice influence the professional role? To answer the research question, a case study design was chosen, the case being standardised practice. The data stem from fieldwork, client documents and interviews with CWS professionals in two child welfare offices. In order to explore how the frontline professionals respond to the standardised tools, the analysis draws on institutional theory and the theory of profession.

The body of this thesis consists of three articles. The first article examines how the professionals adapt the two standardised tools into the local practice. Findings are based on observation (45 days), client documents (15) and interviews with 49 participants, including frontline professionals and managers. The findings show that new rules for practice and knowledge emerged, but that the professionals modified the tools for ethical and practical reasons. Consequently, the professionals were active agents through the exercise of discretion. The second article explores how the two standardised tools influence the professional role in relation to CWS work. The analysis is based on interviews with 31 frontline professionals (individual and group interviews). The findings show that the standardised tools enhanced professionals’ competence but also challenged their professional knowledge base, reflective practice and accountability through a more rule-following approach. Moreover, the article points to the potential of doing families injustice. The third article examines how use of the KF influences assessment work in CWS.

The data stem from fieldwork, client documents and interviews with 32 CWS professionals, including frontline professionals and managers. While the two first articles focus on both standardised tools, the third article pays particular attention to the KF. Findings revealed that the KF tool led to a proceduralist approach in assessment work, placing demands on focus and activities, as well as interpretative demands upon the professionals. Moreover, lack of transparency in decision-making processes was identified, with a heavy reliance on detecting risk factors. A key question raised in the article is whether the proceduralisation of CWS practice leads to better CWS practices.

The thesis expands our knowledge about how standardisation influences professional practice in CWS. By focusing on ‘ongoing work’ performed by the frontline professionals, this thesis provides knowledge on how professionals are also active agents. Although a procedural rule- following approach seemed to dominate among the professionals that took part in this study, some also questioned the standards and took action to alter them with regard to their professional ethos. Moreover, the study contributes knowledge on how standardisation influences professionals’ discretionary space, the knowledge base and the professional role in a CWS practice context. As this thesis shows, standardisation can support CWS practice; however, the use of standardised tools alone will not solve the complexity of CWS work.

Author Biography

Marina Snipsøyr Sletten

PhD Fellow
University in Stavanger
PhD Programme in Social Sciences
Department of Social Studies


Abbott, A. (1988). The system of professions : an essay on the division of expert labor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Abbott, A. (1991). The future of professions: Occupation and expertise in the age of organization. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 8(1), 17-42.

Act of 17 July 1992 No. 100 relating to Child Welfare Services (1992).

Alfandari, R. (2017). Systemic barriers to effective utilization of decision making tools in child protection practice. Child Abuse & Neglect, 67, 207-215.

Almklov, P. G., Ulset, G., & Røyrvik, J. (2017). Standardisering og måling i barnevernet. In T. Larsen & E. Røyrvik (Eds.), Trangen til å telle : objektivering, måling og standardisering som samfunnspraksis. Oslo: Scandinavian Academic Press.

Atkinson, P., & Coffey, A. (2011). Analysing Documentary Realities. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative research : issues of theory, method and practice (3rd ed., pp. 77-92). Los Angeles: Sage.

Bache-Hansen, E. (2009). Hva innebærer et kunnskapsbasert barnevern? Fontene Forskning, 2/09(2), 4-16. Retrieved from

Banks, S. (2009). Professional values and accountabilities. In R. Adams, L. Dominelli, & M. Payne (Eds.), Critical practice in social work (2nd ed., pp. 32-43). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Barlow, J., Fisher, J. D., & Jones, D. (2012). Systematic review of models of analysing significant harm (Report No.DFE-RR199). Retrieved from Oxford University: Oxford

Bartelink, C., Van Yperen, T. A., & Ten Berge, I., J. (2015). Deciding on child maltreatment: A literature review on methods that improve decision-making. Child Abuse & Neglect, 49, 142-153.

Benbenishty, R., Davidson-Arad, B., López, M., Devaney, J., Spratt, T., Koopmans, C., Hayes, D. (2015). Decision making in child protection: An international comparative study on maltreatment substantiation, risk assessment and interventions recommendations, and the role of professionals' child welfare attitudes. Child Abuse & Neglect, 49, 63-75.

Bergmark, A., & Lundström, T. (2006). Mot en evidensbaserad praktik? Om färdriktningen i socialt arbete. Socialvetenskaplig tidskrift, 13, 99-113. Retrieved from

Bergmark, A., & Lundström, T. (2011). Guided or independent? Social workers, central bureaucracy and evidence-based practice. European Journal of Social Work, 14(3), 323-337.

Bergmark, Å., & Lundström, T. (2002). Education, practice and research. Knowledge and attitudes to knowledge of Swedish social workers. Social Work Education, 21(3), 359-373.

Bonner, A., & Tolhurst, G. (2002). Insider-outsider perspectives of participant observation. Nurse Researcher, 9(4), 7-19.

Boris, N. W., Brandtzæg, I., & Torsteinson, S. (2020, 13.02.2020). Re: Forvirrende og villedende om foreldreveiledning. Message posted to

Brante, T. (2011). Professions as Science-Based Occupations. Professions and Professionalism, 1(1).

Brante, T., Johnsson, E., Olofsson, G., & Svensson, L. G. (2015). Professionerna i kunskapssamhället : en jämförande studie av svenska professioner. Stockholm: Liber.

Bratberg, Ø. (2017). Tekstanalyse for samfunnsvitere (2nd ed.). Oslo: Cappelen Damm akademisk.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.

Breit, E., Andreassen, T. A., & Salomon, R. H. (2016). Modification of public policies by street-level organisations: An institutional work perspective. Journal of Social Policy, 45(4), 709-728.

Broadhurst, K., Hall, C., Wastell, D., White, S., & Pithouse, A. (2010). Risk, instrumentalism and the humane project in social work: Identifying the informal logics of risk management in children's statutory services. The British Journal of Social Work, 40(4), 1046-1064.

Broadhurst, K., Wastell, D., White, S., Hall, C., Peckover, S., Thompson, K., . . . Davey, D. (2009). Performing 'initial assessment': Identifying the latent conditions for error at the front-door of local authority children's services. The British Journal of Social Work, 40(2), 352-370.

Brunsson, N., & Jacobsson, B. (2000a). The contemporary expansion of standardization. In N. Brunsson & B. Jacobsson (Eds.), A world of standards (pp. 1-17). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Brunsson, N., & Jacobsson, B. (2000b). A world of standards. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods (5th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bråten, B., & Sønsterudbråten, S. (2016). Foreldreveiledning - virker det? : En kunnskapsstatus. FAFO-rapport 2016:29 (Vol. 2016:29). Oslo: Fafo.

Bufdir. (2020a). Digibarnevern: Leveransene. Retrieved from

Bufdir. (2020b). Tilskudd: Utlysning: Utprøving av grunnmodell for hjelpetiltak i barnevernstjenester. Retrieved from

Bufdir. (2020c). Tilskuddsordning: Foreldrestøttende tiltak i kommunene. Retrieved from

Bufdir. (2020d). Årsrapport 2019 Barne-, ungdoms- og familiedirektoratet. Retrieved from 9_barne_ungdoms_og_familiedirektoratet_oppslag.pdf

Bufdir. (2021). Barnevernsstatistikk. Retrieved from

Burton, J., & van den Broek, D. (2009). Accountable and Countable: Information Management Systems and the Bureaucratization of Social Work. The British Journal of Social Work, 39(7), 1326- 1342.

Cassidy, J., Brett, B. E., Gross, J. T., Stern, J. A., Martin, D. R., Mohr, J. J., & Woodhouse, S. S. (2017). Circle of Security-Parenting: A randomized controlled trial in Head Start. Development and Psychopathology, 29(2), 651-673.

Cassidy, J., Woodhouse, S. S., Sherman, L. J., Stupica, B., & Lejuez, C. (2011). Enhancing infant attachment security: An examination of treatment efficacy and differential susceptibility. Development and Psychopathology, 23(1), 131-148.

Circle of Security International. (2019). Circle of Security International, Trainers. Retrieved from

Cloutier, C., Denis, J.-L., Langley, A., & Lamothe, L. (2015). Agency at the managerial interface: public sector reform as institutional work. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 26(2), 259-276.

Cooper, D. A., & Coyne, J. (2020). Does knowing translate to doing? Practitioners' experiences of Circle of Security-Parenting (COS- P) training and implementation. Infant Mental Health Journal, 41(3), 393-410.

Cooper, D. J., & Robson, K. (2006). Accounting, professions and regulation: Locating the sites of professionalization. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 31(4-5), 415-444.

Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Foust, R., Vaithianathan, R., & Putnam-Hornstein, E. (2017). Risk assessment and decision making in child protective services: Predictive risk modeling in context. Children and Youth Services Review, 79, 291-298.

Delyser, D. (2001). "Do you Really Live Here?" Thoughts on Insider Research. Geographical Review, 91(1-2), 441-453.

Djupvik, A. R., Pithouse, A., Myklebust, V., Rees, A., Ekeland, T.-J., & Brookfield, C. (2019). New public management and practitioner autonomy in children's services in Norway and Wales: views from the frontline. European Journal of Social Work, 1-13.

Drozd, F., Slinning, K., Nielsen, B., & Høstmælingen, A. (2020, 5 February). Re: Foreldreveiledning - Hva virker for hvem? Message posted to og-villedende-om foreldreveiledning/#_ENREF_8

Dworkin, R. (1977). Taking rights seriously. London: Duckworth.

Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Dhaw, L. L. (2001). Participant observation and fieldnotes. In P. Atkinson (Ed.), Handbook of ethnography (pp. 352-368). London: Sage.

Evans, T. (2010). Professional discretion in welfare services: Beyond street-level bureaucracy. New York: Routledge.

Evans, T., & Harris, J. (2004). Street-level bureaucracy, social work and the (exaggerated) death of discretion. The British Journal of Social Work, 34(6), 871-895.

Evans, T., & Hupe, P. L. (2020). Discretion and the quest for controlled freedom. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Evetts, J. (2003). The Sociological Analysis of Professionalism: Occupational Change in the Modern World. International Sociology, 18(2), 395-415.

Evetts, J. (2009). New professionalism and new public management: Changes, continuities and consequences. Comparative Sociology, 8(2), 247-266.

Evetts, J. (2011). A new professionalism? Challenges and opportunities. Current Sociology, 59(4), 406-422. Retrieved from

Evetts, J. (2013). Professionalism: Value and ideology. 61(5-6), 778-796.

Fantl, J. (2017). "Knowledge how". In N. Z. Edward (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2017 ed.). Retrieved from

Featherstone, B., Gupta, A., Morris, K., & White, S. (2018). Protecting children : a social model. Briston: Policy Press.

Fluke, J. D., López López, M., Benbenishty, R., Knorth, E. J., & Baumann, D. J. (2020). Advancing the field of decision-making and judgments in child welfare and protection. In J. D. Fluke, M. López López, R. Benbenishty, E. J. Knorth, & D. J. Baumann (Eds.), Decision-Making and Judgment in Child Welfare and Protection (pp. 301-317). New York: Oxford University Press.

Freidson, E. (2001). Professionalism : the third logic. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Frey, J. H., & Fontana, A. (1991). The group interview in social research. The Social Science Journal, 28(2), 175-187.

Gambrill, E. (2016). Is social work evidence-based? Does saying so make it so? Ongoing challenges in integrating research, practice and policy. Journal of Social Work Education, 52(sup1), S110-S125.

du Gay, P., & Pedersen, K. Z. (2020). Discretion and bureaucracy. In T. Evans & P. L. Hupe (Eds.), Discretion and the quest for controlled freedom (pp. 221-236). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Gibbs, L., & Gambrill, E. (2002). Evidence-based practice: Counterarguments to objections. Research on Social Work Practice, 12(3), 452-476.

Gilbert, N., Parton, N., & Skivenes, M. (2011). Child protection systems : international trends and orientations. New York: Oxford University Press.

Gillingham, P. (2011). Decision-making tools and the development of expertise in child protection practitioners: are we 'just breeding workers who are good at ticking boxes'? Child & Family Social Work, 16(4), 412-421.

Gillingham, P. (2019). Can Predictive Algorithms Assist Decision- Making in Social Work with Children and Families? Child Abuse Review, 28(2), 114-126.

Gillingham, P., Harnett, P., Healy, K., Lynch, D., & Tower, M. (2017). Decision making in child and family welfare: The role of tools and practice frameworks. Children Australia, 42(1), 49-56.

Gillingham, P., & Humphreys, C. (2009). Child protection practitioners and decision-making tools: Observations and reflections from the front line. The British Journal of Social Work, 40(8), 2598-2616.

Graneheim, U. H., Lindgren, B.-M., & Lundman, B. (2017). Methodological challenges in qualitative content analysis: A discussion paper. Nurse Education Today, 56, 29-34.

Graneheim, U. H., & Lundman, B. (2004). Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Education Today, 24(2), 105-112.

Grimen, H. (2008). Profesjon og kunnskap. In A. Molander & L. I. Terum (Eds.), Profesjonsstudier. Oslo: Universitetsforl.

Grimen, H. (2009). Debatten om evidensbasering - noen utfordringer. In L. I. Terum & H. Grimen (Eds.), Evidensbasert profesjonsutøvelse. Oslo: Abstrakt.

Grimen, H., & Molander, A. (2008). Profesjon og skjønn. In A. Molander & L. I. Terum (Eds.), Profesjonsstudier. Oslo: Universitetsforl.

Gümüscü, A., Nygren, L., & Khoo, E. (2020). Social work and the management of complexity in Swedish child welfare services. Nordic Social Work Research, 10(3), 257-269.

Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (1996). Feltmetodikk (2nd ed.). Oslo: Ad Notam Gyldendal.

Healy, K., & Meagher, G. (2004). The reprofessionalization of social work: Collaborative approaches for achieving professional recognition. The British Journal of Social Work, 34(2), 243-260.

Hjelmar, U., & Møller, A. M. (2016). From knowledge to action: the potentials of knowledge portals. Nordic Social Work Research, 6(2), 126-137.

Hoffman, K. T., Marvin, R. S., Cooper, G., & Powell, B. (2006). Changing toddlers' and preschoolers' attachment classifications: the Circle of Security intervention. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 74(6), 1017.

Høybye-Mortensen, M. (2015). Decision-making tools and their influence on caseworkers' room for discretion. The British Journal of Social Work, 45(2), 600-615.

Huber, A., Hawkins, E., & Cooper, G. (2018). Circle of Security. In J. Lebow, A. Chambers, & D. C. Breunlin (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Couple and Family Therapy (pp. 1-6). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Jacobsson, B. (2000). Standardization and expert knowledge. In N. Brunsson & B. Jacobsson (Eds.), A world of standards (pp. 40- 49). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Jensen, I. B. (2021). Ways of Seeing Children: Perspectives of Social Workers in Chile and Norway. (PhD thesis). University of Stavanger, Stavanger.

Jensen, I. B., Studsrød, I., & Ellingsen, I. T. (2019). Child protection social workers' constructions of children and childhood: An integrative review. Child & Family Social Work, 25(S1), 83-96.

Karvinen-Niinikoski, S. (2205). Research orientation and expertise in social work-challenges for social work education. European Journal of Social Work, 8 (3), 256-271.

Kjær, A.-K. B. (2019). Risikovurderinger i barnevernet - hva innebærer det og når trengs det? Tidsskrift for familierett, arverett og barnevernrettslige spørsmål, 17(2), 131-149.

Kriz, K., & Skivenes, M. (201 ). Systemic differences in views on risk: A comparative case vignette study of risk assessment in England, Norway and the United States (California). Children and Youth Services Review, 35(11), 1862-1870.

Kriz, K., & Skivenes, M. (2014). Street-level policy aims of child welfare workers in England, Norway and the United States: An exploratory study. Children and Youth Services Review, 40, 71- 78.

Kvello, Ø. (2015). Barn i risiko : skadelige omsorgssituasjoner (2nd ed.). Oslo: Gyldendal akademisk.

Lampland, M., & Star, S. L. (2009). Standards and their stories : how quantifying, classifying, and formalizing practices shape everyday life. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Lauritzen, C., Vis, S. A., Havnen, K. J. S., & Fossum, S. (2017). Barnevernets undersøkelsesarbeid - Evaluering av Kvellomalen Delrapport 2. Tromsø: RKBU Nord.

Lawrence, T., & Suddaby, R. (2006). Institutions and institutional work. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, T. Lawrence, & W. R. Nord (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organization studies (2nd ed.). London: SAGE Publications.

Lawrence, T., Suddaby, R., & Leca, B. (2011). Institutional work: Refocusing institutional studies of organization. Journal of Management Inquiry, 20(1), 52-58.

Léveillé, S., & Chamberland, C. (2010). Toward a general model for child welfare and protection services: A meta-evaluation of international experiences regarding the adoption of the Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need and Their Families (FACNF). Children and Youth Services Review, 32(7), 929-944.

Levin, I. (2021). Hva er sosialt arbeid (2nd ed. Vol. 7). Oslo: Universitetsforlaget

Lipsky, M. (2010). Street-level bureaucracy : dilemmas of the individual in public services (30th anniversary expanded edition). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

López López, M., & Benbenishty, R. (2020). Lessons Learned from International Studies on Child Protection Decision Making Employing the Model of Judgments and Decisions Processes in Context (JUDPIC). In J. D. Fluke, M. López López, R. Benbenishty, E. J. Knorth, & D. J. Baumann (Eds.), Decision- Making and Judgment in Child Welfare and Protection (pp. 136- 148). New York: Oxford University Press.

Martin, G. P., & Williams, O. (2019). Evidence and service delivery. In A. Boaz, H. T. O. Davies, A. Fraser, & S. M. Nutley (Eds.), What works now? : evidence informed policy and practice. Bristol: Policy Press.

Matscheck, D., & Berg Eklundh, L. (2015). Does BBIC make a difference? Structured assessment of child protection and support. Nordic Social Work Research, 5(3), 193-211.

Maxwell, A.-M., McMahon, C., Huber, A., Hawkins, E., & Reay, R. E. (2020). Addressing the Evidence Gap: Protocol for an Effectiveness Study of Circle of Security Parenting, an Attachment-Based Intervention. Frontiers in Global Women's Health, 1(10).

Mercer, J. (2014). Examining Circle of Security™: A Review of Research and Theory. Research on Social Work Practice, 25(3), 382-392.

Molander, A. (2016). Discretion in the welfare state : social rights and professional judgment (Vol. 129). Oxon, UK: Routledge.

Molander, A., Grimen, H., & Eriksen, E. O. (2012). Professional discretion and accountability in the welfare state. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 29(3), 214-230.

Molander, A., & Terum, L. I. (2008). Profesjonsstudier - en introduksjon. In A. Molander & L. I. Terum (Eds.), Profesjonsstudier. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.

Møller, A. M. (2018). Organizing knowledge and decision-making in street-level professional practice: A practice-based study of Danish child protective services. Frederiksberg: SL Grafik.

Møller, A. M., Elvebakken, K. T., & Hansen, H. F. (2019). Using evidence in Scandinavia. In A. Boaz, H. T. O. Davies, A. Fraser, & S. M. Nutley (Eds.), What works now? : Evidence informed policy and practice. Bristol: Policy Press.

Montin, S. (2015). Från tilltrobaserad till misstrobaserad styrning. Nordisk Administrativt Tidsskrift, 92(1), 58-75.

Mothander, P. R., & Neander, K. (2017). Trygghetscirkeln som stöd till späd-och småbarnsfamiljer-användbarhet och effekter. Socialmedicinsk tidskrift, 94(4), 426-436.

Munro, E. (1998). Improving Social Workers' Knowledge Base in Child Protection Work. The British Journal of Social Work, 28(1), 89-105.

Munro, E. (2004a). The impact of audit on social work practice. The British Journal of Social Work, 34(8), 1075-1095.

Munro, E. (2004b). A simpler way to understand the results of risk assessment instruments. Children and Youth Services Review, 26(9),873-883.

Munro, E. (2010). Learning to Reduce Risk in Child Protection. The British Journal of Social Work, 40(4), 1135-1151.

Munro, E. (2011). The Munro review of child protection: Final report, a child-centered system (Vol. 8062). London: Department of Education.

Munro, E. (2019). Decision-making under uncertainty in child protection: Creating a just and learning culture. Child & Family Social Work 24(1), 123-130.

Munro, E. (2020). Effective child protection (3rd ed.). London: Sage. Munro, E., Cartwright, N., Hardie, J., & Montuschi, E. (2017). Improving child safety: deliberation, judgement and empirical research. Durham: Centre for Humanities Engaging Science and Society (CHESS).

Munro, E., & Hardie, J. (2018). Why We Should Stop Talking About Objectivity and Subjectivity in Social Work. The British Journal of Social Work, 49(2), 411-427.

Muzio, D., Brock, D. M., & Suddaby, R. (2013). Professions and Institutional Change: Towards an Institutionalist Sociology of the Professions. Journal of Management Studies, 50(5), 699-721.

United Nations. (1989). Convention on the Rights of the Child. Retrieved from x

Nielsen, B., Oddli, H. W., Slinning, K., & Drozd, F. (2020). Implementation of attachment-based interventions in mental health and social welfare services: Therapist's experiences from the Circle of Security-Virginia Family intervention. Children and Youth Services Review, 108, 104550. doi:

Noordegraaf, M. (2013). Reconfiguring professional work: Changing forms of professionalism in public services. Administration & Society, 0095399713509242.

Noordegraaf, M. (2015). Public Management: Performance, Professionalism and Politics: London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Parton, N., & Berridge, D. (2011). Child Protection in England. In N. Gilbert, N. Parton, & M. Skivenes (Eds.), Child protection systems: international trends and orientations (pp. 66-88). New York: Oxford University Press.

Polanyi, M., & Sen, A. (2009 [1966]). The tacit dimension: Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Ponnert, L., & Svensson, K. (2016). Standardisation-the end of professional discretion? European Journal of Social Work, 19(3- 4), 586-599.

Postholm, M. B. (2010). Kvalitativ metode : en innføring med fokus på fenomenologi, etnografi og kasusstudier (2nd ed.). Oslo: Universitetsforl.

Powell, B., Cooper, G., Hoffman, K., & Marvin, B. (2014). The circle of security intervention: Enhancing attachment in early parent- child relationships. New York, NY: Guilford Publications.

Power, M. (2007). Organized uncertainty : designing a world of risk management. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Prop.84L. (2019-2020). Prop. 84 L (2019-2020): Endringer i barnevernloven (samtaleprosess, årlig tilstandsrapportering mv.): Proposisjon til stortinget (forslag til lovvedtak). Oslo: Det kongelige barne- og familiedepartement.

Risholm Mothander, P., Furmark, C., & Neander, K. (2018). Adding "Circle of Security - Parenting" to treatment as usual in three Swedish infant mental health clinics. Effects on parents' internal representations and quality of parent-infant interaction. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 59(3), 262-272.

RKBU-Nord. (2021). Ungsinn Tidsskrift for virksomme tiltak for barn og unge. Retrieved from

Røvik, K. A. (2007). Trender og translasjoner : ideer som former det 21. århundrets organisasjon. Oslo: Universitetsforl.

Schatzki, T. R. (2001a). Introduction, Practice theory. In T. R. Schatzki, K. Knorr Cetina, & E. von Savigny (Eds.), The practice turn in contemporary theory (pp. 1-15). London: Routledge.

Schatzki, T. R. (2001b). Practice mind-ed orders. In T. R. Schatzki, K. Knorr Cetina, & E. von Savigny (Eds.), The practice turn in contemporary theory (pp. 42-55). London: Routledge.

Schatzki, T. R. (2002). The site of the social : a philosophical account of the constitution of social life and change. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.

Schatzki, T. R. (2019). On plural actions. In A. Buch & T. R. Schatzki (Eds.), Routledge studies in contemporary philosophy. Questions of practice in philosophy and social theory (Vol. 111, pp. 49-64).

Schön, D. A. (1991). The reflective practitioner : how professionals think in action. Aldershot: Avebury.

Skillmark, M. (2018). Uppdrag standardisering : införande och användning av manualbaserade utrednings- och bedömningsverktyg i socialtjänsten. (Doctoral thesis, comprehensive summary). Kalmar: Linnaeus University Press. Retrieved from DiVA database.

Skillmark, M., & Denvall, V. (2018). The standardizers: social workers' role when implementing assessment tools in the Swedish social services. Nordic Social Work Research, 8(1), 88-99.

Skillmark, M., & Oscarsson, L. (2020). Applying standardisation tools in social work practice from the perspectives of social workers, managers, and politicians: a Swedish case study. European Journal of Social Work, 23(2), 265-276.

Skivenes, M. (2011). Norway: Toward a child-centric perspective. In N. Gilbert, N. Parton, & M. Skivenes (Eds.), Child protection systems : international trends and orientations. New York: Oxford University Press.

Skivenes, M., & Søvig, K. H. (2017). Norway: Child welfare decision- making in cases of removal of children. In K. Burns, T. Pösö, & M. Skivenes (Eds.), Child welfare removals by the state : a cross- country analysis of decision-making systems. New York: Oxford University Press.

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Stanley, T. (2013). 'Our tariff will rise': Risk, probabilities and child protection. Health, Risk and Society, 15(1), 67-83.

Studsrød, I., Ellingsen, I. T., Guzmán, C. M., & Espinoza, S. E. M. (2018). Conceptualisations of Family and Social Work Family Practice in Chile, Mexico and Norway. Social Policy and Society, 17(4), 637-649.

Sturmberg, J. P., & Martin, C. (2013). Handbook of Systems and Complexity in Health.

Sørensen, K. M. (2016). Skemaernes betydning for den børnefaglige undersøgelse. Fontene Forskning(2), 4-15.

Sørensen, K. M. (2018). A comparative study of the use of different risk- assessment models in Danish municipalities. The British Journal of Social Work, 48(1), 195-214.

Sørensen, K. M. (2019). The impact of political guidelines on participation of children and families' network in the risk assessment process. Nordic Social Work Research, 9(3), 250- 261.

Thoburn, J. (2010). Achieving safety, stability and belonging for children in out-of-home care: The search for 'what works' acorss national boundaries. International Journal of Child and Family Welfare, 13(1), 34-49. Retrieved from

Thompson, N. (2016). The professional social worker: Meeting the challenge. London: Macmillan International Higher Education.

Timmermans, S., & Berg, M. (2003). The gold standard. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Timmermans, S., & Epstein, S. (2010). A world of standards but not a standard world: Toward a sociology of standards and standardization. Annual Review of Sociology, 36, 69-89.

Vagli, Å. (2009). Behind closed doors : exploring the institutional logic of child protection work. Bergen: University of Bergen.

Vaismoradi, M., Jones, J., Turunen, H., & Snelgrove, S. (2016). Theme development in qualitative content analysis and thematic analysis. Journal of Nursing Education and Practice, 6(5), 100- 110.

Vaismoradi, M., Turunen, H., & Bondas, T. (2013). Content analysis and thematic analysis: Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nursing & Health Sciences, 15(3), 398-405.

Vis, S. A., Christiansen, Ø., Havnen, K. J. S., Lauritzen, C., Iversen, A. C., & Tjelflaat, T. (2020). Barnevernets undersøkelsesarbeid-fra bekymring til beslutning. Samlede resultater og anbefalinger. Tromsø: UiT Norges Arktiske Universitet.

Vis, S. A., Lauritzen, C., & Fossum, S. (2019). Systematic approaches to assessment in child protection investigations: A literature review. International Social Work, 1-16. doi:

Vis, S. A., Storvold, A., Skilbred, D., Christiansen, Ø., & Andersen, A. (2015). Statusrapport om barnevernets undersøkelsesarbeid - høsten 2014. Tromsø: RKBU Nord. Retrieved from barnevernets_undersokelsesarbeid.pdf

Wallander, L., & Molander, A. (2014). Disentangling Professional Discretion : A Conceptual and Methodological Approach. Professions and Professionalism, 3(4), 1-19.

Webb, S. A. (2006). Social Work in a Risk Society: Social and Political Perspectives. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Wesseltoft-Rao, N., Holt, T., & Helland, M. (2017). Gruppetiltak og kurs for foreldre: Norsk praksis, erfaringer og effektevalueringer. Oslo: Folkehelseinstituttet. Retrieved from praksis-erfaringer-og-effektevalueringer/

White, S., Hall, C., & Peckover, S. (2008). The descriptive tyranny of the common assessment framework: Technologies of categorization and professional practice in child welfare. The British Journal of Social Work, 39(7), 1197-1217.

Wike, T. L., Bledsoe, S. E., Manuel, J. I., Despard, M., Johnson, L. V., Bellamy, J. L., & Killian-Farrell, C. (2014). Evidence-based practice in social work: Challenges and opportunities for clinicians and organizations. Clinical Social Work Journal, 42(2), 161-170.

Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: design and methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Zacka, B. (2017). When the state meets the street : public service and moral agency. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Aarons, G., Hurlburt, M., & Horwitz, S. (2011). Advancing a Conceptual Model of Evidence-Based Practice Implementation in Public Service Sectors. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 38(1), 4-23.

Cover image



November 11, 2021


Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.