Human and Machine: A Journey - Part 12

Equality as a Transformative Force

Throughout our exploration of modern welfare systems, we've examined the complex dance between human judgment and systematic approaches. We've traced how knowledge flows between research, policy, and practice, explored ethical dimensions of welfare work, and considered how professional communities shape practice. Now we turn to a fundamental value with transformative potential for our entire approach to welfare services: equality.

The Evolution of Equality Through Our Human-Machine Lens

The concept of equality has undergone a profound evolution in welfare systems, mirroring our journey through the human-machine tension. What began as a formal, mechanistic understanding of equality—equal treatment through standardized processes—has expanded to encompass more nuanced, human-centered approaches to what true equality means in practice.

This evolution reflects our core theme: just as we've moved beyond seeing technology as simply replacing human judgment to understanding how they might complement each other, our understanding of equality has shifted from mere standardization to a transformative force that integrates systematic approaches with human wisdom.

As Jan Eliasson¹ highlighted in our discussion of knowledge politics in Part 7, equality stands as one of the crucial sources of hope amid growing societal mistrust. It represents a potential bridge between systematic frameworks and human connection—a value that can guide both machine-like precision and human understanding.

Three Dimensions of Equality in the Human-Machine Tension

Equality in modern welfare systems operates along three dimensions that perfectly illustrate our ongoing exploration of human and machine approaches:

Formal Equality: The Machine Approach

Formal equality represents the machine-like dimension—equal treatment through standardized processes, non-discrimination through consistent application of rules, and universal access through systematic service design. This approach aligns with what we discussed in Part 3 about national guidelines and frameworks, providing essential structure and consistency.

Yet as we explored in Part 8 when asking Good for whom?, standardized approaches often fail when applied uniformly across different contexts. The mechanistic approach to equality—treating everyone identically—can produce dramatically different outcomes. When the assessment frameworks we discussed in Part 3 are applied without contextual understanding, they can actually undermine substantive equality while maintaining formal compliance.

Substantive Equality: The Integration Challenge

Substantive equality moves beyond access to consider actual outcomes, representing the integration challenge we've explored throughout this series. This dimension recognizes that formal equality means little without accounting for structural barriers—echoing our discussions in Part 4 about how tacit knowledge allows professionals to adapt frameworks to specific contexts.

This shift in perspective transforms how we design and evaluate welfare interventions. Rather than simply ensuring procedural compliance, substantive equality demands we examine whether services actually achieve their intended purpose across different populations. This connects directly to our exploration in Part 10 of how different knowledge realities operate simultaneously in welfare practice, requiring sophisticated integration of systematic approaches with contextual understanding.

Transformative Equality: The Human Potential

The most profound dimension—transformative equality—represents the human potential in our ongoing exploration. This approach recognizes that achieving true equality requires fundamentally reconsidering how systems are designed and who participates in their development. It connects directly to our discussion in Part 9 about street-level bureaucracy, where practitioners actively shape how policies transform into practice.

Transformative equality means creating space for marginalized voices not just in receiving services but in designing them—echoing our exploration in Part 8 of whose knowledge counts in defining what constitutes good in welfare services. It requires the kind of democratic knowledge development we explored in Part 7, where multiple perspectives contribute to our understanding of complex social challenges.

Expertise, Knowledge and Equality: Navigating the Three Waves

Our understanding of equality in welfare services has evolved alongside changing conceptions of expertise. Drawing from Collins' analysis² that we discussed in Part 4, we can trace how three distinct waves of expertise have shaped approaches to knowledge - and equality:

First Wave: Expert Dominance

The first wave positioned scientific and professional experts as the definitive authorities. This approach seeks standardized, expert-defined solutions applied uniformly across populations.

While this approach brings important systematic foundations to welfare services, it often fails to account for diverse experiences and needs, particularly of marginalized groups whose perspectives were excluded from knowledge development.

Second Wave: Radical Skepticism

The second wave brought constructivist critique of expertise itself, questioning whether any form of knowledge could claim objective authority. This perspective challenged standardized approaches as inherently power-laden and potentially oppressive, sometimes rejecting systematic knowledge entirely in favor of purely local, subjective understandings.

This wave significantly influenced certain strands of social work theory, particularly those emphasizing narrative approaches and radical critique of power structures. While this opened important space for previously marginalized voices, it sometimes created a false opposition between systematic knowledge and lived experience, making coherent service development challenging.

Third Wave: Differentiated Expertise

The third wave, which shapes our current moment, recognizes multiple valid forms of expertise while maintaining that not all claims to knowledge are equally valid in all contexts. This approach seeks integration rather than opposition, acknowledging both the value of systematic knowledge and the essential contributions of experiential understanding.

This evolution parallels our journey exploring the relationship between human judgment and systematic approaches. The third wave doesn't simply split the difference between mechanistic standardization and radical skepticism—it offers a more sophisticated integration that recognizes the contextual nature of expertise while maintaining commitment to systematic knowledge.

The challenge in contemporary welfare systems isn't choosing between expert knowledge and lived experience, but creating frameworks that integrate multiple forms of expertise while maintaining professional responsibility for decisions. As Collins notes, democratizing expertise doesn't mean abandoning professional judgment—it means enriching that judgment through engagement with multiple knowledge sources.

Equality and the Hourglass: Reconfiguring Knowledge Flow

This third-wave understanding of expertise requires us to revisit the hourglass model of knowledge flow we introduced in Part 3. Traditional knowledge hierarchies placed research evidence at the top, flowing down through policy to practice. Equality as a transformative force reconfigures this flow, creating multi-directional exchanges between different knowledge types.

In this reconfigured hourglass:

• Research knowledge remains crucial but is understood as one form of systematic knowledge among others

• Practice wisdom moves from the bottom to occupy a more central position

• Experiential knowledge from service users flows more actively throughout the system

• Cultural and community knowledge becomes recognized as essential rather than peripheral

This reconfiguration doesn't abandon systematic approaches—it enhances them by incorporating knowledge forms that have traditionally been marginalized. The result is welfare services that maintain necessary rigor while becoming more responsive to diverse needs and perspectives.

Digital Equality: New Frontiers in the Human-Machine Relationship

As we discussed in Part 6 on AI in social services, technological transformation brings both risks and opportunities for equality. The rapid development of AI capabilities forces us to consider new dimensions of the relationship between human judgment and systematic approaches.

AI systems trained on historical data risk systematizing and amplifying existing inequalities. We can think of it like: The algorithm doesn't create bias—it automates it. When predictive models in child welfare incorporate data from systems with historical biases, they make these biases appear objective and scientific, potentially undermining equality while claiming to enhance it.

Yet thoughtfully designed digital tools can also promote equality by:

• Identifying patterns of systematic disadvantage that might otherwise remain invisible

• Reducing administrative burden on practitioners, creating more space for relationship-building

• Making knowledge more accessible across different contexts and communities

• Supporting more consistent implementation of evidence-based approaches

The equality impact of digital systems depends crucially on who participates in their development and how they're integrated into practice. This connects directly to our discussion in Part 11 about how professional communities mediate between systematic approaches and professional judgment. When these communities include diverse perspectives and maintain critical awareness of potential biases, they can help ensure that digital tools enhance rather than undermine equality.

Building Equality into Welfare Systems: Human-Machine Integration

How do we build equality into the very fabric of our welfare systems? Drawing on our journey through the human-machine tension, several key principles emerge:

1. Human-Machine Knowledge Integration

True equality requires integrating multiple forms of knowledge—research evidence, professional wisdom, and experiential knowledge from service users. As we discussed in Part 10, different knowledge realities exist simultaneously in welfare practice. Building equality means creating space for all these knowledge forms to inform how services are designed and delivered.

This integration requires thoughtful configuration of both human processes and technological systems. Documentation frameworks need to capture not just standardized metrics but also qualitative insights and contextual understanding. Decision-support tools should enhance rather than replace professional judgment, integrating systematic knowledge with practice wisdom.

2. Participatory Development: Democracy in Practice

Equality demands participation—not just consultation after key decisions are made, but meaningful involvement in the development and evaluation of services. This principle connects directly to our discussion of the politics of knowledge in Part 7, highlighting how democratic participation shapes whose knowledge counts.

Participatory approaches don't just make services more responsive to diverse needs; they fundamentally transform power relations in welfare systems. When marginalized communities move from being objects of intervention to active participants in service design, the entire character of welfare work shifts toward more transformative forms of equality.

3. Reflective Practice and Professional Communities

Equality requires ongoing reflection and learning rather than fixed solutions. As societal understandings of equality evolve and new challenges emerge, welfare systems must adapt accordingly. This means building in mechanisms for continuous learning that engage with evolving perspectives on what equality means in practice.

This connects to our discussion of professional communities in Part 11, emphasizing how these communities create spaces where practitioners can collectively reflect on their practice, share knowledge, and develop new approaches to complex challenges. From an equality perspective, these communities are essential for critically examining potential biases and developing more inclusive approaches.

4. Configuring Systems for Human-Machine Balance

Building equality into welfare systems requires thoughtful balance between standardization and flexibility. While some degree of standardization helps ensure baseline consistency in service quality, meaningful equality often requires adapting approaches to different contexts and needs.

The Transformative Potential: Beyond False Dichotomies

Perhaps most importantly, equality offers transformative potential for reimagining welfare services. Rather than simply improving existing systems, equality-centered approaches can fundamentally reconfigure how we understand the purpose and practice of welfare work.

Equality helps us transcend false dichotomies that have shaped welfare services:

• Beyond the individual/society dichotomy: Equality reveals how personal circumstances and structural conditions constantly shape each other, requiring integrated rather than fragmented responses.

• Beyond the professional/client dichotomy: Transformative equality reconfigures relationships between service providers and users, creating collaboration between professional knowledge and lived experience without diminishing professional responsibility.

• Beyond the human/system dichotomy: Equality-centered designs create systems that enhance rather than constrain human capabilities—documentation that supports reflection, tools that facilitate judgment, and structures that enable relationships.

Most crucially, equality helps us move beyond the opposition between human judgment and systematic approaches. Rather than forcing a choice between these approaches, equality reveals their potential complementarity in service of human dignity and social justice.

Looking Forward: Youth Engagement and the Future of Welfare

As we move toward exploring youth engagement in welfare innovation in Part 13, equality provides crucial groundwork. Young people have traditionally been positioned as objects rather than subjects in welfare services, their perspectives often marginalized in system development.

Yet their engagement represents precisely the kind of transformative approach to equality we've explored in this post. By creating genuine space for young people's knowledge and leadership, we can develop approaches that better address their needs while building capabilities for active citizenship.

The engagement of youth in welfare innovation also confronts us with fundamental questions about expertise and equality. How do we balance young people's experiential knowledge with professional wisdom and systematic evidence? How do we create meaningful participation without abandoning professional responsibility? How might digital tools either enhance or constrain youth engagement?

These questions perfectly illustrate the ongoing tension between human and machine approaches that has guided our journey. They remind us that equality isn't about simplistic rejection of expertise or systematic approaches, but about enriching these through engagement with diverse perspectives and experiences of whats Human.

Before we explore these themes further, consider:

• How do you integrate different forms of knowledge in your practice to promote equality?

• What helps you balance standardized approaches with the flexibility needed to address diverse needs?

• Where do you see opportunities for more transformative approaches to equality in welfare services?

• How might professional communities contribute to developing more equality-enhancing approaches?

This is part 12 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. Eliasson, J. (2024, Oct 4). Det nya globala landskapet [The New Global Landscape]. Keynote speech presented at Socialchefsdagarna 2024, Stockholm, Sweden.

2. Collins, H. (2014). Are We All Scientific Experts Now? Polity Press.