Human and Machine: A Journey - Part 16

Democratizing Social Work

Throughout our journey exploring welfare systems, we've examined the complex dance between human judgment and systematic approaches. We've traced knowledge flows between research and practice, the role of tacit knowledge, ethical dimensions, professional communities, and transformative forces like equality and youth engagement. Now we turn to perhaps the most fundamental element that binds this entire exploration: democracy itself.

Social work is fundamentally work by citizens, for citizens. It emerges from and exists within the democratic fabric of society (dive deeper in Part 2). In Sweden, where my practice is based, this democratic foundation is explicitly recognized both in constitutional principles stating that all public power proceeds from the people¹ and in the Social Services Act, which establishes that social services must build upon solidarity and democracy as foundational values².

Democracy as Relational Process

At its core, democracy is a deeply relational concept - not merely a set of procedures or structures but an ongoing process of human connection and collective decision-making. While society's machinery consists of institutions, laws, and systems, democracy requires relationships - both between citizens and between citizens and the system itself.

This relational aspect often gets overlooked as distance increases between institutions and the people they serve. When welfare systems become overly bureaucratized or technologized, the human connections that give these systems legitimacy and purpose can fade from view. Yet it is precisely these relationships that make democratic governance possible and meaningful.

The democratization of social work means making these relationships visible again - reconnecting the machine of society with the humans it serves and is composed of. This reconnection flows in both directions: citizens engaging more actively with welfare systems while these systems become more responsive and accountable to citizens.

Multiple Knowledge Worlds in Democratic Practice

When scientific uncertainty is high and multiple values are at stake, traditional approaches to expertise become insufficient. In complex welfare challenges, no single knowledge form - whether research evidence, professional judgment, or administrative data - can provide complete understanding. These situations call for what Funtowicz and Ravetz³ termed extended peer communities - where those affected by decisions participate meaningfully in knowledge development and decision-making processes.

This democratization of knowledge recognizes that in complex social questions:

• Scientific certainty is often limited

• Multiple legitimate perspectives exist

• Value questions cannot be resolved through technical means alone

• Those affected by decisions bring crucial experiential knowledge

In child welfare, for example, reliable evidence about long-term effects of different placement options remains limited despite decades of research. Decisions involve complex tradeoffs between safety, attachment, cultural continuity, and developmental needs - fundamentally value-laden questions that cannot be resolved through research alone. In these contexts, meaningful engagement of families, youth with care experience, and community members becomes not just ethically important but epistemologically necessary for sound decision-making.

This approach doesn't diminish professional expertise or research knowledge but rather enhances them through integration with other knowledge forms. As one family support worker explained to me: When we started actually listening to families about what they needed rather than telling them what the goal for the (intervention) plan should be, our outcomes and collaboration greatly improved.

Democratic Knowledge in Practice

Creating truly democratic knowledge in welfare services requires more than occasional consultation or tokenistic participation. It means fundamentally reconfiguring how knowledge is created, valued, and applied throughout the system.

Several key principles guide this reconfiguration:

Recognition of Multiple Expertise

Democratic knowledge development begins with recognizing different forms of expertise:

• Professional expertise based on systematic knowledge and practice experience

• Lived experience expertise from service users and community members

• Research expertise from both academic and practice-based inquiry

• Cultural and community expertise about local contexts and histories

Each form brings distinct and valuable insights that, when integrated, create more comprehensive understanding than any single perspective could provide. As we explored in Part 8, when asking "Good for whom?", different knowledge forms help us understand both what might work and how it might work in specific contexts.

Creation of Dialogue Spaces

Democratic knowledge requires spaces where different forms of expertise can engage in genuine dialogue:

• Physical spaces where diverse perspectives meet as equals

• Temporal spaces that allow for reflection and deliberation

• Psychological spaces that support honest exchange across differences

• Digital spaces that increase accessibility and participation

These spaces aren't just about sharing information but about co-creating new understanding through interaction between different knowledge forms. Success depends on addressing power imbalances, developing shared language, and creating conditions where all participants can contribute authentically.

Transparency About Values and Uncertainties

Democratic approaches make explicit the values and uncertainties that shape welfare decisions:

• Acknowledging limits of current evidence

• Making value choices visible rather than hiding them behind technical language

• Clarifying where disagreements reflect different values rather than different facts

• Being honest about tradeoffs between competing goods

This transparency supports more meaningful engagement by clarifying what is known, what remains uncertain, and where legitimate differences in priorities might lead to different approaches. It moves beyond the false certainty that sometimes characterizes both professional expertise and systematic evidence to create space for democratic deliberation about complex social questions.

Digital Democracy: Risks and Possibilities

As welfare services undergo digital transformation, new questions emerge about democracy in increasingly technologized systems. How will artificial intelligence and algorithmic decision support affect democratic governance and accountability? What new possibilities might emerge for citizen participation in system development and evaluation?

Risks to Democratic Governance

Digital transformation creates several potential risks to democratic practice in welfare services:

• Algorithmic opacity may obscure how decisions are made, reducing transparency and accountability

• Automated systems might embed existing biases while appearing objective and neutral

• Technical complexity could further distance citizens from meaningful participation

• Data-driven approaches might privilege easily measured outcomes over more complex human values

These risks don't mean we should avoid technological development, but they require careful attention to how we configure digital systems to support rather than undermine democratic principles.

New Democratic Possibilities

Yet digital transformation also creates exciting new possibilities for democratizing welfare services:

• Digital platforms can enable broader and more diverse participation in service development

• Real-time feedback systems allow continuous learning from service user experiences

• Data aggregation can reveal patterns of inequality or ineffectiveness that might otherwise remain hidden

• AI systems could potentially make complex research more accessible to both practitioners and citizens

The key lies in configuring these technologies to enhance human connection and democratic deliberation. This means designing systems with explicit attention to transparency, accountability, and meaningful participation at all stages of development and implementation.

Participatory Design as Democratic Practice

One promising approach is participatory design of digital welfare systems - where those who will use and be affected by these systems actively shape their development. This approach:

• Engages diverse stakeholders from the earliest design stages

• Recognizes users as experts in their own experience and needs

• Iteratively tests and refines systems based on actual use

• Maintains ongoing dialogue between developers, users, and those affected by the system

When social workers, service users, and community members actively participate in designing digital systems, these systems are more likely to support rather than undermine democratic values and human relationships.

Democratization as Continuous Practice

Democratizing social work isn't a destination but a continuous practice - an ongoing commitment to making welfare systems more responsive, accountable, and participatory. This commitment manifests through several key approaches:

Visible Relationality

Democratization means making the relational aspect of welfare systems visible again - revealing how these systems exist through networks of human connections rather than as abstract bureaucratic structures. This includes:

• Recognizing practitioners not just as representatives of systems but as relational beings

• Documenting the relational work that makes interventions effective

• Valuing the relationships between citizens that support community well-being

• Making visible how policy decisions affect human relationships

Expanded Participation

Democratic practice creates expanded opportunities for meaningful participation:

• Moving beyond consultation to shared decision-making about service design and evaluation

• Creating accessible forums where diverse voices can contribute

• Valuing participation not just for its instrumental benefits but as a democratic right

• Developing capabilities for effective participation across different contexts

Reconfigured Expertise

Democracy requires reconfiguring traditional notions of expertise:

• Recognizing expertise as contextual rather than absolute

• Creating structures where different forms of knowledge can productively interact

• Developing new hybrid roles that bridge between professional and experiential knowledge

• Cultivating the capabilities to move between different knowledge worlds

Reflective Accountability

Democratic systems develop forms of accountability that support learning and development:

• Creating feedback loops that inform continuous improvement

• Balancing outcome measurement with narrative understanding

• Making power relations explicit rather than obscuring them

• Recognizing both rights and responsibilities across all participants

Looking Forward: Democracy in an AI-Enhanced World

As we stand at the threshold of potentially transformative advances in artificial intelligence, the democratic foundations of social work face both new challenges and possibilities. The rapid development of large language models and other AI systems could fundamentally reshape how welfare services operate, raising profound questions about democratic governance and accountability.

Yet these developments also create new possibilities for democratizing welfare systems. AI could potentially help make complex research more accessible to practitioners and citizens, identify patterns in service experiences that might otherwise remain invisible, and free professionals from administrative tasks to focus on the human relationships that are central to democratic practice.

The key lies in approaching this transformation with explicit attention to democratic values and processes. This means:

• Ensuring diverse participation in designing and implementing AI systems

• Making algorithmic decision processes transparent and accountable

• Maintaining human judgment and responsibility in critical decisions

• Using AI to enhance rather than replace human connection

Above all, it means recognizing that democracy itself is neither purely human nor purely systematic - it requires thoughtful integration of both elements. Effective democracy depends on both structured processes that ensure representation and accountability, and human judgment that interprets and applies democratic principles in complex situations. As we navigate the evolving relationship between humans and machines in welfare services, maintaining this democratic foundation remains our most crucial challenge.

As we approach the final part of our journey exploring human and machine approaches in welfare systems, I invite you to reflect on:

• How do you experience the relationship between democracy and welfare services in your own context?

• What helps you maintain democratic values amid increasing systematization and technological change?

• Where do you see opportunities for more meaningful participation in welfare system development?

• How might we configure AI and other emerging technologies to enhance rather than undermine democratic practice?

  ---

This is part 16 in our ongoing series exploring the intersection of human judgment and systematic knowledge in modern welfare systems. Join the conversation by sharing your thoughts and experiences in the comments below.

1. Chapter 1, Section 1 of the Instrument of Government

2. Chapter 1, Section 1 of the Social Services Act

3. Funtowicz, S. & Ravetz, J. (2003). Post-Normal Science. International Society for Ecological Economics, Internet Encyclopaedia of Ecological Economics, 1-10.