Locating Sámi social work in Finland: Meanings produced by social workers in working with Sámi people

Abstract

This article examines culturally and locally relevant social work. Social work knowledge and practices are usually constructed on the basis of values and norms of the dominant culture. Our aim is to examine social work that is sensitive to local traditions by studying social work being carried out in Finland’s Sámi region. Our focus is on the meanings produced by social workers working with Sámi people. Sámi social work was found to be multidimensional. It was special, yet shared common features with mainstream social work. Cultural sensitivity is constructed in each encounter between a Sámi client and a social worker.

Keywords

Contextual constructionism cultural sensitivity locally relevant social work positions of social workers in Sami area Sámi social work

Introduction

Encounters between cultures are daily occurrences in social work. In Northern Finland, social workers interact with Sámi, their language and culture. In Finland, according to the Act on the Status and Rights of Social Welfare Clients (2000), all clients have equal rights regardless of their cultural or ethnic background, and social work is to take into account the client’s wishes, opinions and individual needs as well as his/her mother tongue and cultural background. In the Sámi region, the law further prescribes that Sámi have the right to use their own language before public authorities (Sámi Language Act, 2003). While the principles are straightforward, their implementation in practice has progressed slowly; little has been produced in the way of culturally sensitive social and healthcare services. Satisfaction with services and confidence in the availability and quality of services are lower among the Sámi than among Finns at large (Heikkilä et al., 2013).

There is a need for knowledge on Sámi social work in Finland. There is only one recent study of Sámi people’s experiences of social services (Heikkilä et al., 2013) and one other on social work and substance abuse in the region (Heikkilä, 2010). However, some research has been done in Norway on the distinctive features of Sámi social services (e.g. Boine, 2007, 2010; Daerga et al., 2012; Jávo, 2010; Saus, 2006, 2008).

The article examines the meanings produced by social workers in their work with Sámi clients in the Sámi area, the aim of the research being to contribute to the debate on the dimensions of culturally and locally relevant social work. It is important to develop social work practices that take into account the social, cultural, historical and political contexts in which that work is done (e.g. Gray and Coates, 2010; Yunong and Xiong, 2011). Debates on the issues have challenged the applicability of the values and principles of Western social work among indigenous peoples. One viable alternative is social work that is sensitive to local traditions. Such sensitivity would give due consideration to cultural diversity and needs (Chau and Yu, 2009; Weaver, 1999).

Theoretical commitments

The theoretical and methodological frame in this article is contextual constructionism, which views reality as being socially constructed through human thought, interaction and action. In the case of the Sámi, the construction of reality is contextualized by the people’s cultural heritage and the region’s distinctiveness as well as by societal institutions and mechanisms of power (Berger and Luckmann, 1966; Hacking, 1999; Wetherell and Potter, 1992). The work which social workers do in interacting with Sámi is conditioned by historical, cultural and professional interlinkages; the meanings they produce in that process construct the reality of the work.

Cultural sensitivity is a key concept in this research. Jávo (2010) points out three things a person working with minority groups must understand: the cultural background of the client, the status of the particular minority and the effect of these circumstances on the client’s situation. The central dimensions in culturally sensitive social work are those embracing knowledge, cultural reflexivity, professional explanatory models and practices. Social work requires knowledge of the cultural context and of emerging worldviews and ways of communicating. Also crucial is knowledge of the community’s values, norms, history and language (Dagsvold et al., 2015; Devore and Schlesinger, 1999; Saus, 2006). The knowledge and practice applied in social work among indigenous peoples should draw from the local culture and focus on culturally significant problems specific to the context.

Locally and culturally competent social work comprises professional knowledge, skills and values, as well as the ability to apply these in each situation encountered. Cultural reflexivity refers to social workers’ ability to recognize their own cultural background, attitudes and values. Social work among indigenous peoples requires social workers to respect their clients’ culture and to have a genuine interest in learning the culture. The crux of this undertaking is to develop a new attitude characterized by the creation of joint, shared knowledge and practice (Brydon, 2012).

Implementation of the research

Aims and data

Six social workers who were employed in the Sámi region and represented both Finnish and Sámi culture were interviewed. The interviewees represent the majority of the social workers in the region, which, although large, is sparsely populated. The data were collected through thematic interviews, the transcriptions of which yielded 59 pages of text. The themes discussed in the interviews were the definition and special features of Sámi social work, its differences compared to mainstream social work, the knowledge and skills it requires and the concept of cultural sensitivity in the Sámi context.

We investigate the following questions: What are the special features which social workers might produce in working with Sámi? What kinds of positions do social workers take when speaking about their work?

Analysis

The method used in examining the interview data was discourse analysis (Gee, 2011; Johnstone, 2002). This was chosen because we acknowledge that it is impossible to produce a single true description of Sámi social work and we are interested in the meanings produced by social workers in the Sámi area. Our understanding has features from critical discourse analysis in that we see social and political issues intertwined in language and meanings (Gee, 2011). The analysis proceeds from the data collected, but it is essential that it is also contextualized culturally. While the meanings and positions are constructed situationally, they are also associated with the professional culture of social work, broader societal practices and the debate on the Sámi community.

Our focus is on the content of discourses and the influence discourses have on the relations between actors. In the context of discourse analysis, language describes the world; in the process it also creates meanings, organizes and constructs social reality and produces various functions and outcomes (Potter and Wetherell, 1987). As Johnstone (2002) notes, ‘Discourse is shaped by the world, and discourse shapes the world’ (p. 9). Meanings produced in the course of Sámi social work have consequences in carrying out that work.

The analysis began with a careful reading and rereading in order to find the meaningful data, differences and similarities in the social workers’ accounts. We consider their accounts as not only describing things, but also making meanings of the world (Antaki, 1994). In order to create as diverse a picture as possible of Sámi social work, this phase of the analysis was not strictly tied to the research questions or interview themes. In the next phase we used reflexive reading, in which we interpreted the meanings found in the social workers’ accounts, asking what these signify in terms of the special features of Sámi social work. The meanings were then organized into interpretative repertoires. According to Potter and Wetherell (1987), an interpretative repertoire is a systematic look at phenomena that have traditionally been understood in terms of beliefs and attributions. They are systems of terms used for characterizing and evaluating phenomena. In the present context, we understand interpretative repertoires as systems of interlinked meanings that are constructed in social practices and at the same time construct social reality (Wetherell and Potter, 1992).

We establish three repertoires: one relating to special issues in Sámi social work, one taking differences into account and one neutralizing cultural differences. The repertoire entailing special questions concerning Sámi social work is the most extensive; the other two are approximately equal in extent. The repertoires are ideal types and have overlapping elements.

In the next phase of analysis, we address ‘the concern with function and consequence’ (Potter and Wetherell, 1987). As repertoires make possible certain kinds of positions (Wetherell, 1998), the study proceeded to analyse which positions the social workers took in their accounts. The concept of position is applicable when the analysis encompasses possibilities for and restrictions on acting as well as variations in actors’ position (Wetherell and Potter, 1992). Four positions emerged: cultural bearer, outsider, learner and delegator.

Ethical issues

Ethical issues were present in every stage of the research. It is essential that research such as this be trustworthy and that the anonymity of the participants can be ensured. Accordingly, given the very small number of social workers in the Sámi region, we do not describe the interviewees in any detail.

There is a need to reflect on both internal and external ethicality. Internal ethicality encompasses informed consent, confidentiality and respect for participants; external ethicality encompasses cultural and social responsibility and respect for community and diversity (Hart, 2010; Hudson, 2009). In research on Sámi social work any consideration of ethics will involve an assessment of how the research might affect the improvement of services. One must ask, ‘Could the research weaken or strengthen a Sámi client’s cultural background in social work?’ and ‘What image does it project of the Sámi client?’ Here, we find ourselves facing sensitive issues.

Research can reinforce or create a stereotypical image of its object of interest. Research on the Sámi, in emphasizing their particular values, norms and customs, can also maintain stereotypes (Hart, 2010; Valkonen, 2009). Valkonen criticizes the way in which the diverse and multicultural Sámi people are portrayed as being ethnically and culturally uniform. This observation should remind us that the members of minorities are individuals and that culturally sensitive ways of working and acting in some contexts are not necessarily applicable in all situations. The problems of the Sámi should not be made so special that workers consider themselves incapable of helping a Sámi client without special competence in ‘Sáminess’.

One might also ask who it is that should study Sámi social work. This question originates from the discussion on the decolonization of Sámi society. Development of research on the Sámi has played a central role in the decolonization of the Sámi community: research by Sámi has secured inclusion of Sámi perspectives in the scientific debate (Valkonen, 2009). However, it is contradictory to claim that only Sámi can do research on Sámi, because the majority population should also have an understanding of Sámi issues (Lehtola, 2005). Understanding another culture’s needs requires not only information about it, but also a grasp of what questions the information is a response to.

From the point of view of culturally competent research it is important that the researchers involved have cultural competence; also of great importance is the cultural responsiveness of interviewees (Casado et al., 2012). The first author of the article has worked as a social worker in the Sámi region and been involved daily with Sámi clients. In addition, the authors all have a long history of cooperation as researchers with actors in social services for the Sámi.

Interpretation repertoires for social work with the Sámi

Repertoire for special issues in Sámi social work

The repertoire associated with special issues comprises the themes that the social workers considered most important in their work with Sámi people. Sámi social work is not constructed as being special as such; rather, the question is one of building a framework for such social work. The repertoire embodies the institutional background – the relevant legislation, the rights it protects and their interpretations in practice – as well as Sámi history, culture, language and livelihoods and how these appear in encounters between Sámi and social workers. The repertoire includes contradictions and conflicting views, indicating that the meanings require negotiation. The social workers with a Sámi cultural background emphasize special issues of Sámi social work more than Finnish social workers do.

Although language issues hinge on legislation, questions relating to language prompted consideration of the need for services in the Sámi language. Having the opportunity to use one’s native language is justifiable in particular situations. Language was seen as most important in encounters with individual persons, as many of them do not have a good command of Finnish. Social workers reflect on language issues. Interpretations affect what kind of service a client receives. In this study, a person’s mother tongue was seen as more than a means of verbal communication; it had a strong emotional dimension as well. Sensitivity of interaction is needed, and use of the client’s mother tongue facilitates this:

I can tell about a meeting I had with one father … I couldn’t use his native language … He didn’t show his emotions although we were dealing with very difficult issues. When he talked about them in a foreign language, I could see that he couldn’t speak with feeling. Then … in a meeting where he could speak in his own language … I saw tears starting to flow, body language and him talking much more when he had the chance to use his mother tongue … I saw how important language is. (Social worker 1)

In looking at language issues, it should be noted that the Sámi do not speak just one but three languages. The status of the languages varies in the municipalities of the Sámi region, whereby people’s need for services in their native language differs depending on the context. In addition, there are Sámi who have forgotten the language, those who are learning it and those who do not know it (Valkonen, 2009). Taking Sáminess into consideration is not confined to offering services in Sámi, but rather extends to regard for the everyday life and culture. Language is closely bound to culture; the two cannot be separated. The culture is reflected in the language and the language gives expression to the culture.

Most indigenous peoples have been subjected to processes of colonization that have involved oppression by the dominant population (Bennett et al., 2011; Gray and Coates, 2010; Weaver, 1999). The Sámi as a people have faced a policy of assimilation which sought to make them part of Finnish society and culture. The school system played a significant part in this process: Sámi children received instruction in Finnish; the use of their mother tongue was forbidden; and many had to live in school dormitories due to the long distances. The members of a minority are aware of its past, and identity and history may be key components of a person’s personality, affecting his or her life and choices in life (Devore and Schlesinger, 1999).

The process of assimilation forced the Sámi to change their language, values and ultimately their entire way of life (Minde, 2005). This is reflected in the data:

You can see the impact that assimilation had when they were Fennicized into this society … They speak Finnish but don’t write it and they speak Sámi but they can’t read it. In a way, the Fennicization has sort of damaged them … Some of our child welfare clients are perhaps their children, so we are seeing the damage all the way down the line. One can see and feel that people have a sorrow or injury or damage that society has caused. But I don’t know how to deal with it in my work. (Social worker 2)

The assimilation policy has left some Sámi with negative experiences of the dominant population. In social work these can surface in the form of distrust. To a member of a minority, a social worker represents the authorities, in whose work Western values figure prominently and minority values are overlooked (Boine, 2010).

Achieving trust is often a demanding process, particularly so in Sámi social work because of the history of assimilation. The history of the Sámi is reflected in social work encounters. Social workers need historical sensitivity in order to understand people’s life situations and the events that have shaped these. Those doing social work with Sámi are aware of possible impacts of the people’s collective history. However, the interviews make it clear that it is difficult to put forward causal explanations. Everyone has his/her unique background comprising individual as well as collective experiences, making it impossible to present simple and inclusive explanations for what is observed.

A sense of history furnishes a basis for cultural and contextual sensitivity. The interviews reflect the challenging nature of Sámi social work, which stems in part from the fact that the work adheres to Finnish values, norms and rules. The needs of a Sámi client are not necessarily the same as those of a Finnish one. For example, questions relating to social security and income are sometimes quite distinct where clients are engaged in natural means of livelihood. Helping Sámi often requires social workers to tailor and adapt the methods to fit the particular context:

They are nevertheless a minority culture and indigenous people, so you always have to make adjustments. I can’t work solely on the basis of my education or further training courses. I always have to work a bit harder to adjust to this environment I’m working in. It is quite a challenge. (Social worker 1)

In Sámi social work the special nature of encounters with clients lies in the form of communication and interaction appropriate to the culture and context. In Sámi culture, not speaking and silence are regarded more favourably than in Western cultures (Aikio, 2007). The Sámi style of communication can be described as indirect, with things being communicated through stories, for example. The style of communicating is not judgemental or domineering; rather, Sámi tend to relate matters using ambiguous expressions. A need for help might be expressed indirectly and only after a lengthy conversation (Heikkilä, 2010), meaning that social workers must also have a sensitivity for cultural interpretation.

Indirect communication and the expression of needs through stories are familiar to social workers with a Sámi background:

With the way Sámi use language you have to be good at reading the situation. They don’t necessarily talk about their problems. This is natural to me, having grown up in the culture. But for someone coming from the outside this might be hard to realize. (Social worker 6)

This social worker, who has a Sámi background, finds indirect communication to be natural, whereas an outsider may find it hard to understand. The individualistic welfare state model does not accommodate the needs, values and customs of the Sámi. The Sámi might have different views on social services and how they should be provided. However, more research is needed on this question. The interview responses also point to a need to consider in broader scope what cultural sensitivity means in Sámi social work.

Interpretation repertoire recognizing differences

This repertoire highlights the uniqueness of each encounter. The Sámi are usually portrayed as a homogeneous people with a shared and identical past, cultural experiences and identity (Dagsvold et al., 2015; Valkonen, 2009). Treating the Sámi that way in social work is problematic. If the differences between individuals are overlooked, the work can be based on stereotypical assumptions. In the interpretation repertoire that recognizes differences, the social workers speak about the individuality of Sámi clients and the diverse nature of Sáminess:

To me it seems just impossible that we could have a textbook telling us that Sámi culture means this, or that something is an outcome of the culture. This is offensive in fact, and is not the case. Sámi culture here is quite diverse; it has many different nuances. (Social worker 5)

The social workers are well aware of the diversity of Sámi culture. Sensitivity to diversity encompasses recognition of individuals’ varying life situations, social circumstances and broader societal relations:

First of all you have to understand the environment in which a person lives. You have to understand the broader community where the people live, the kind of values they have and the even bigger picture of how people make a living. Of course you have to understand people as individuals, too. It is essential and very important in Sámi social work. (Social worker 1)

The diversity within Sámi culture means that it is not possible to put forward any generalizations about it. Cultures are always bound to time and place and they are characterized by constant change, which reshapes traditional beliefs and customs (Parrot, 2009). Emphasizing the homogeneity of the Sámi might erode the Sámi community and weaken its cohesiveness. Attempts to generalize might seem odd to individuals, and not all Sámi are likely to subscribe to the generalizations presented. In the midst of constant change, it is important to consider who defines the correct culture. The blind spot in discourse on the Sámi is that it does not see that cultures evolve or see multiculturalism and individuals behind cultures (Valkonen, 2009). The interviews bring out the context-bound nature of Sámi culture and of Sámi social work.

The interpretation repertoire recognizing differences also embraces recognition of a social worker’s own distinctive experiences. One of the social workers with a Sámi background draws attention to this:

I am aware of my own cultural background and values in my life and in work. But I also distinguish and keep them apart from the values of the person and family I am working with. I have respect for the other party. I can approach the work with an open mind; it is the other person’s story, I’m trying to understand them and why they are in a particular situation and what it means for them. I don’t find that just because I am from such an environment that all other Sámi have the same background. (Social worker 1)

The speaker distinguishes between his/her own and the client’s values and acknowledges that where people have the same cultural background, this does not mean that they have the same experiences as individuals. This kind of value sensitivity is associated with respect for the client. Space is created for his/her story. Experiences of cultural sensitivity are constructed in each encounter.

Interpretation repertoire neutralizing cultural differences

The repertoire neutralizing Sámi culture was more pronounced in the responses of the Finnish interviewees; it is characterized by the neutralization of cultural differences. Interpretation is constructed on the non-special nature of Sámi social work, with no significant differences seen between Sámi and other social work. The repertoire includes references not only to equality and the nature of social work, but also to how Sáminess is not visible in social work.

Considerations of equality figure prominently in the neutralizing repertoire, with the concept of equality acquiring a variety of meanings in the interviewees’ responses. That clients differ is not considered significant:

I have never been able to think that they are different in any way. They are clients like any others. Likewise, I don’t ask anyone if they’re a Sámi … or a Swede … Some clients need English, some Sámi, and I have needed English more in this work. (Social worker 2)

The social worker distances him-/herself from the emphasis on the special and different nature of Sámi social work. The response stresses a generic client-centredness, which is characterized by neutralization of the client’s cultural background.

The cultural background of the client is not always a central consideration, nor does it necessarily have any significance in a social worker’s conception of social work. Social workers often either deny the significance of clients’ cultural background or romanticize it (Juuso, 2000). In such cases the Sámi are viewed as exotic natives.

An approach acknowledging differences considers difference to be a positive element, one worth nurturing (Thompson, 2011). Although the social worker quoted above neutralizes the cultural background of the clients, he/she is not blind to differences. Emphasizing difference may lead to stereotyping and clients may find any differences produced to be alien in their case. On the other hand, emphasizing similarities in the name of equality may cause the social worker to overlook a client’s special needs (Saus, 2008).

Responses neutralizing cultural differences are associated with equal treatment of clients:

Yes, it is sometimes hard to stop and think about whether to emphasize equality among clients or … take the special features of the culture into account … I am happy to listen and want to take the client’s own culture into consideration. But in some matters I have to put all the clients on the same footing. (Social worker 4)

Some regarded social work as being ‘culturally sensitive overall’ (Social worker 2). Special needs of and differences between clients are recognized even though they are not given any particular prominence. General sensitivity is seen as covering the comprehensive acknowledgement of the individual; this involves challenging the need for a separate, culturally directed sensitivity. The point of departure in social work is respect for the client as well as the creation of a confidential client relationship. However, if a social worker is not critically aware of cultural differences, it is possible that the cultural dimension will fall outside of work with a holistic focus.

Some of the interviews reveal that Sáminess is invisible in everyday social work. In Boine’s (2007) research, workers recognized Sámi clients most readily by the fact that they spoke Sámi. Otherwise, Sáminess might go unnoticed. Nymo (2004) described how some Sámi may deliberately conceal their ethnicity because they have been made to feel ashamed of it. In multicultural encounters in the social services, a client’s cultural background may go unacknowledged. The invisibility of Sáminess may lead to a situation where it is considered unnecessary to develop culturally sensitive practices (Saus, 2006, 2008).

Positions adopted by social workers

Interpretative repertoires serve as a background for realization of different kinds of positions (Wetherell, 1998). The interviewees have not one but several positions: in addition to the position of social worker, they take the positions of bearer of culture, outsider, delegator and learner.

The social workers with a Sámi background take the position of bearer of culture. As Sámi, they are practising social work within their own community:

I can speak Sámi, have a Sámi cultural background and come from a Sámi family. I have a strong cultural and linguistic background. So it is only natural, among Sámi, that some of my clients are Sámi-speaking. (Social worker 6)

In presenting his/her cultural background, the social worker signifies insiderness. An outsider finds it difficult to challenge knowledge that is constructed through insiderness. Nor does an outsider have access to the position of bearer of culture.

A Sámi cultural background takes on many meanings in the research. For one social worker, personal experiences of exclusion led to a desire to change things:

I experienced the shame myself, when I was young. It has probably had a lot to do with the profession I have chosen. I can help people by showing respect for them. (Social worker 1)

It is important to distinguish between cultural understanding and understanding based on cultural background. Cultural understanding is a theoretical perspective that can be achieved through analysis and experience, and it is constructed as a person grows up in a particular culture. However, this does not mean that a person has the competence to understand a client’s situation. A worker’s background is no evidence that he/she also has cultural understanding (Boine, 2010). A particular cultural background will not necessarily offer explanations or solutions for the phenomena encountered in social work, as reflected in the following excerpt:

In the first years I relied on my own cultural heritage and experiences … But at the university, they said we shouldn’t just use our own culture but also analyse it and understand it in a different way, not just in terms of our own background. It makes things easy if you think only from your own point of view … If I did that, I might not understand the context which the person has to live in. (Social worker 1)

The position of bearer of culture entails obligations. Sámi social workers function as ‘culture interpreters’ for colleagues. Sámi customs and values will not necessarily be familiar to a social worker from the outside and it falls to Sámi social workers to explain the way the community works and its values. Sometimes a Sámi social worker also has to defend the Sámi’s rights and try to influence the attitudes of other workers.

The social workers who came from outside the Sámi community placed themselves in the position of outsider. They saw that their knowledge of Sámi culture was limited. They felt that they did not know the clients’ culture and were aware of this shortcoming. The position of outsider is characterized by respect for the client:

You can say to a client, ‘I’m not terribly familiar with Sámi culture’ … and ask what things to take into account … Then it is the client who determines what the situation is like. It has to do with respect and building trust; those of us who come from the outside – we’re not experts on Sáminess. But it is part of respect for the client that you can say this. (Social worker 3)

Information on Sámi culture makes it easier to get oriented in the community (Saus, 2006). In this position, the client is expected to have the knowledge that the social worker lacks. At its best, this can make the relationship more equal. At its worst, the position of outsider can lead to withdrawal: ‘It’s a good idea to keep a sufficient distance, because you don’t understand’ (Social worker 4).

In particular, the social workers from outside the Sámi community often took the position of learner. A worker who does not acknowledge a client’s cultural world cannot ask questions about it either (Dunfjeld, 2004). Learning is part of professional growth and it embraces many different fields. Social workers from outside the focal community need enthusiasm for and curiosity about the new culture. Also at work here is the act of taking responsibility for one’s own competence:

You can’t close your eyes or take the attitude, ‘Well, I’m not a Sámi I don’t understand these things’. When you do this kind of work, you have to try to figure things out. (Social worker 4)

A social worker can be in the position of outsider and learner at the same time. An interest in learning means change: movement from outsider to insider.

Cultural sensitivity also manifests itself in the position of delegator. This means that a social worker finds it important to take the cultural background into account, but considers other people, including clients, responsible for doing so as well:

You hope it would be mutual. That the clients, if they want cultural sensitivity, would also open up and say what they mean by it, and what things you should take into account … Sensitivity requires mutual effort. It is a pretty poor starting point if the idea is ‘We have to be given special treatment because we have this or that background’. (Social worker 4)

The present data indicate that social workers learn about Sámi culture through their personal interest, work experience, colleagues and clients. Cultural sensitivity is constructed in reciprocal relationships.

To conclude, social workers’ own cultural backgrounds play a significant role in the positions they take. The positions are not fixed; rather, workers move from one position to another or take more than one simultaneously. The choice depends on their interpretation of Sámi social work. A social worker can be in the position of outsider and learner at the same time. He/she may take the position of delegator to some extent as well.

Discussion

In this research we have analysed the meanings produced by Finnish social workers in the course of work with Sámi people and communities. Despite their small number, the interviews proved to be a rich source of data that yielded a wide-ranging picture of Sámi social work in Finland. According to the data, Sámi social work proceeds on the same bases as other social work, such as client-centredness, ethicality and seeing the person in his/her particular life situation. In addition, there are special issues that merit attention.

Based on our data, Sámi social work proved to be multidimensional work in which a social worker has to understand the client’s unique situation in its historical, cultural and contextual sensitivity, but at the same time must keep in mind equality among clients (Figure 1). Historical and cultural sensitivity proceeds from a range of perspectives, such as the people’s language and history, the impacts of colonization, distinctive everyday customs and ways of communicating and interacting. The cultural and historical circumstances of the Sámi and their living environment, closely intertwined with nature as they are, require contextual sensitivity. Yet it is important to avoid thinking of culture as essential in nature (Chau and Yu, 2009); it has different meanings for different persons. Individual and local life situations, as well as social and societal circumstances, become concretized, prompting a need for a sensitive understanding of diversity.

Figure 1.

Special features of Sámi social work.

The data show that the interpretation of a client’s situation also depends on the position taken by the social worker in relation to Sáminess. The Sámi social workers stressed the special nature of Sámi social work more than those from outside the Sámi community. The ‘outsiders’ more often produced the interpretative repertoire that neutralized Sámi culture. They recognized their lack of knowledge and in the position of learner were able to extend their cultural competence. They could also take the position of delegator, which meant not only passing the baton to a social worker on the inside, but also delegating power to the client in the form of negotiating the meanings of his/her Sámi background. Brascoupé and Waters (2009) stress ‘a continuum of moving from cultural awareness to cultural competence and cultural safety’, in which cultural safety refers to culturally relevant practices as well as an outcome of the services. Cultural safety means a change in the relationships of power and stresses the service user’s experience of the encounter. The service user is not seen solely as passive recipient, but as powerful participant. This orientation can be seen in the present data.

Conclusion

This research indicates that Sámi social work in Finland should be approached at the societal, community and individual levels. The societal level determines the constraints on such social work to a large extent. The application of Western social work values and principles to all cultures has received much attention in the past few decades (e.g. Chau and Yu, 2009; Gray and Coates, 2010; Hudson, 2009). In this research as well, the Sámi social workers confirm that the knowledge base of social work is not always applicable to the Sámi community, but rather social workers adapt and tailor the available knowledge and practices to the culture. It is necessary to define the issues relating to Sámi social work within the culture of the Sámi people, developing responsive services and strengthening client participation (Brascoupé and Waters, 2009). Chau and Yu (2009) highlight the question of hearing the voices of service users in service provision and the policy process underlying provision. They contend that social workers should take an active role in helping people getting their voices heard.

At the community level, the frame of reference for Sámi social work is constructed on the basis of knowledge of Sámi history and culture. Another important consideration is taking the language into account. The local circumstances of the Sámi, the need to use the language and their wishes regarding services differ, making it essential that social workers take this diversity into account in their work.

At the individual level, one challenge in creating Sámi social work is avoiding stereotypes. This is also the focal ethical aim in our research. The research reveals the diverse character of Sáminess, which gives rise to the conception that it is impossible to put forward generalizations (Brascoupé and Waters, 2009; Hart, 2010; Hudson, 2009). Each service encounter constructs experiences of cultural sensitivity. A culturally sensitive approach can mean very different things to different clients and in terms of clients’ needs for different types of help. Although there are special features in Sámi social work, the encounters between Sámi people and social workers are always unique.

In the field of social work, it would be worthwhile discussing what the position of culture and ethnicity is in relation to the focus on taking differences and equality into account. Also worth analysing would be the question of whose equality one is talking about, that is, who defines equality, what an equitable approach is in a given situation and what form this takes in encounters between different cultures. In light of the present research, one can conclude that social work bears responsibility for supporting and preserving minority cultures.

Footnotes

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Author biographies

Linda Järvensivu (MSocSc) is a social worker who has worked in the Sámi area.

Anneli Pohjola, is a professor of social work at the University of Lapland, Finland and the coordinator of Sosnet, the Finnish National University Network for Social Work. Her research has focused on the development of welfare services, particularly for minorities and in sparsely populated rural areas, the client’s position in welfare services and social work education.

Marjo Romakkaniemi, (DSocSc) is a lecturer of social work at the University of Lapland, Finland. Her research has focused on social work in mental health, the expertise of social work and the client’s participation in welfare services.

References

Act on the Status and Rights of Social Welfare Clients (2000) 22.9.2000/812. Available online at: http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/2000/20000812 (accessed 24 June 2015).

Aikio

(2007) Saamelainen elämänpolitiikka [Sámi Life Politics]. Rovaniemi: Lapin yliopisto.

Antaki

(1994) Explaining and Arguing: The Social Organization of Accounts. London: SAGE.

Bennett

Zubrzycki

Bacon

(2011) ‘What Do We Know? The Experiences of Social Workers Working Alongside Aboriginal People’, Australian Social Work 64(1): 20–37.

Berger

Luckmann

(1966) The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. New York: Anchor Books.

Boine

(2007) Samisk kulturkompetanse og nettverksbygging [Sami Cultural Competence and Building Networks]. Tromsø: Barnevernets Utviklingssenter i Nord Norge.

Boine

(2010) Kulturorientert praksis – en veileder [Culturally Oriented Practices – A Guide]. Tromsø: Barnevernets utviklingssenter i Nord-Norge.

Brascoupé

Waters

(2009) ‘Cultural Safety: Exploring the Applicability of the Concept of Cultural Safety to Aboriginal Health and Community Wellness’, Journal of Aboriginal Health 5: 6–41.

Brydon

(2012) ‘Promoting Diversity or Conforming Hegemony? In Search of New Insights for Social Work’, International Social Work 55(2): 155–67.

10.

Casado

B.L.

Negi

N.J.

Hong

(2012) ‘Culturally Competent Social Work Research: Methodological Considerations for Research with Language Minorities’, Social Work 57(1): 1–10.

11.

Chau

R.C.M.

S.W.K.

(2009) ‘Culturally Sensitive Approaches to Health and Social Care: Uniformity and Diversity in the Chinese Community in the UK’, International Social Work 52(6): 773–84.

12.

Daerga

Sjölander

Jacobsson

Edin-Liljegren

(2012) ‘The Confidence in Health Care and Social Services in Northern Sweden – A Comparison Between Reindeer-herding Sami and the non-Sami Majority Population’, Scandinavian Journal of Public Health 40: 516–22.

13.

Dagsvold

Møllersen

Stordahl

(2015) ‘What Can We Talk About, in Which Language, in What Way and with Whom? Sami Patients’ Experiences of Language Choice and Cultural Norms in Mental Health Treatment’, International Journal of Circumpolar Health 74: 26952.

14.

Devore

Schlesinger

E.G.

(1999) Ethnic-sensitive Social Work Practice. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

15.

Dunfjeld

(2004) ‘Pedagogisk psykologisk tjeneste i en flerkulturell kontekst’ [Educational Psychology Services in a Multicultural Context], in Tronvoll

I.M.

Moe

Henriksen

J.E.

(eds) Hjelp i kontekst. Praksis, refleksjon og forskning [Help in Context. Practice, Reflection and Research], pp. 163–76. Indre Billeffjord: Iđut.

16.

Gee

J.P.

(2011) An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method. London: Routledge.

17.

Gray

Coates

(2010) ‘“Indigenization” and Knowledge Development: Extending the Debate’, International Social Work 53(5): 613–27.

18.

Hacking

(1999) The Social Construction of What? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

19.

Hart

M.A.

(2010) ‘Indigenous Worldviews, Knowledge, and Research: The Development of an Indigenous Research Paradigm’, Journal of Indigenous Voices in Social Work 1(1): 1–16.

20.

Heikkilä

(2010) ‘Goaikkanas – saamelaiset voimavarat päihdetyöhön’ [Goaikkanas – The Sámi Strengths-based Perspective in Substance Abuse Work], in Magga

Guttorm

(eds) Bálgá Nala – Kulttuurisia erityispiirteitä etsimässä [Seeking Culturally Special Traits], pp. 64–84. Inari: SamiSosterry.

21.

Heikkilä

Laiti-Hedemäki

Pohjola

(2013) Buorre eallin: Saamelaisten hyvä elämä ja hyvinvointipalvelut [Good Life of the Sámi and Welfare Services]. Rovaniemi: Lapin yliopistokustannus.

22.

Hudson

(2009) ‘Think Globally, Act Locally: Collective Consent and the Ethics of Knowledge Production’, International Social Science Journal 60(195): 125–133.

23.

Jávo

(2010) Kulturens betydning for oppdragelse og atferdsproblemer. Transkulturell forståelse, veiledning og behandling [The Importance of Culture for Education and Behavioural Problems. Transcultural Understanding, Guidance and Treatment]. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.

24.

Johnstone

(2002) Discourse Analysis. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

25.

Juuso

(2000) Samiskhet under endring – Barns syn på etnisk identitet og slektsnettverk [Sáminess in Change – Children’s Views on Ethnic Identity and Ancestry Networks], Hovedfagoppgave ved institutt for sosialt arbeid, Norges teknisk naturvitenskaplige universitet, Trondheim.

26.

Lehtola

V.P.

(2005) Saamelaiset itse tutkimuksensa tekijöiksi [The Sami Should Do Research Themselves]. Available online at: http://www.kaltio.fi/vanhat/index959a.html?766 (accessed 24 June 2015).

27.

Minde

(2005) ‘Assimilation of the Sami – Implementation and Consequences’, Journal of Indigenous Peoples Rights 3. Available online at: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.694.4991&rep=rep1&type=pdf

28.

Nymo

(2004) ‘Kroppen som bærer av kultur og livsanskuelse’ [The Body as a Carrier of Culture and Philosophy of Life], in Tronvoll

I.A.

Moe

Henriksen

J.E.

Horndal

(eds) Hjelp i kontekst. Praksis, refleksjon og forskning [Help in Context. Practice, Reflection and Research], pp. 142–62. Indre Billeffjord: Iđut.

29.

Parrot

(2009) ‘Constructive Marginality: Conflicts and Dilemmas in Cultural Competence and Anti-oppressive Practice’, Social Work Education 28(6): 617–30.

30.

Potter

Wetherell

(1987) Discourse and Social Psychology: Beyond Attitudes and Behaviour. London: SAGE.

31.

Sámi Language Act (2003) 15.12.2003/1086. Available online at: http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/alkup/2003/20031086 (accessed 24 June 2015).

32.

Saus

(2006) Kultursensitivitet som en måte å se lokalsamfunn på: Billefjord og Kautokeino [Cultural Sensitivity as a Way of Seeing Communities: Billefjord and Kautokeino]. Tromsø: Barnevernets utviklingssenter i Nord-Norge.

33.

Saus

(2008) Kunnskapsstatus og kunnskapsbehov for barnevernet i samiske områder [The Status and Need for Knowledge in Child Welfare in Sámi Areas]. Tromsø: Barnevernets utviklingssenter i Nord-Norge.

34.

Thompson

(2011) Promoting Equality: Working with Diversity and Difference. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

35.

Valkonen

(2009) Poliittinen saamelaisuus [Political Sáminess]. Tampere: Vastapaino.

36.

Weaver

(1999) ‘Indigenous People and the Social Work Profession: Defining Culturally Competent Services’. Available online at: https://www.socialworkers.org/diversity/ethnic/weaver.pdf (accessed 24 June 2015).

37.

Wetherell

(1998) ‘Positioning and Interpretative Repertoires: Conversation Analysis and Post-structuralism in Dialogue’, Discourse & Society 9(3): 387–412.

38.

Wetherell

Potter

(1992) Mapping the Language of Racism: Discourse and Legitimation of Explanation. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

39.

Yunong

Xiong

(2011) ‘Further Discussion of Indigenization in Social Work: A Response to Gray and Coates’, International Social Work 55(1): 40–52.