Urban Nothdurfter

When, how, and which disciplines started to deal with which forms and aspects of LGBT+ parenthood is not a coincidence but is linked to occasions of discussion as well as to visibility, acceptance, and recognition in the wider social and political contexts. This particularly applies to sociological contributions which look at families and parenting involving relations to social institutions and their impact and shaping of forms, challenges, and meanings of parenting and family life. In Italy, issues about LGBT+ parenting began to appear in the sociological literature some thirty years ago. Since then, the debate has seen different waves and shifts, which show both how external movements, occasions, and discussions influenced the sociological debate and how the latter has, in turn, contributed to the construction and recognition of the phenomenon. Against this background, using a data mining approach, the article presents an analysis of the most recent sociological literature on LGBT+ parenting, highlighting the main dimensions of the debate and outlining expressions, concepts, and words most used on this topic. Using Italian sociology as an example, the critical analysis of these findings shows how issues of topicality and (in)visibility are both reflected and reiterated by contextual sociological discourses and debates.

Introduction: Heteronormativity describes a hierarchical societal system that encompasses heterosexuality and binary gender identity as normal and natural, defining boundaries of acceptable heterosexuality and gender identity. As no comprehensive measures of heteronormativity exist in Italy, this study evaluated the psychometric characteristics of an Italian version of the Heteronormative Attitudes and Beliefs Scale (HABS), a measure assessing essential and binary beliefs about sex and gender and normative behaviors.Methods: Five hundred sixty-four cisgender heterosexual and sexual and gender minority individuals, ranging from 18 to 77 years of age (M = 34.66,SD = 11.13), were recruited in 2020 to participate in an online cross-sectional survey on heteronormativity, homonegativity, authoritarianism, intolerance of ambiguity, openness to experience, and religiosity.Results: Confirmatory factor analysis showed that the original 2-factor model had adequate fit to the Italian data. However, although appropriately fit to the data, 4 items showed a loading below .40. Criterion and discriminant validity were fully confirmed, as heteronormativity positively correlated with homonegativity, authoritarianism, intolerance of ambiguity, and religiosity, and negatively with openness to experience; all these correlations were below .60. Furthermore, the results indicated that male gender and heterosexual cisgender individuals showed higher levels of heteronormativity than female gender and sexual and gender minority individuals.Conclusions: This study offers evidence of the validity and reliability of an Italian version of the HABS, providing researchers with a measure to assess heteronormativity in the Italian context.Policy Implications: Assessing heteronormative attitudes and beliefs may help to make societal institutions more inclusive.

This literature review analyses the adoption and development of a street‐level perspective in public management, social policy and social work. The last years have seen a prominent revival of a perspective based on Michael Lipsky's street‐level bureaucracy approach in the debates conducted within all three disciplinary fields. Based on 71 key publications in public management, social policy and social work, the review analyses the adoption of the street‐level bureaucracy approach during the period 2005–2015, pointing out the main themes of the debate within, as well as overlaps and differences between, the three disciplines. The findings show the potential of better integrating the different perspectives and taking stock of the articulated debate. Lastly, the review discerns a common viewpoint for further street‐level research, emphasising its importance for the critical analysis and understanding of street‐level work as a vital dimension of responsive and accountable institutions and as a decisive moment to shape positive policy outcomes on the ground.Key Practitioner Message: • The use of discretion by frontline practitioners and their role as policy actors on the ground has become an important focus of research; • This literature review shows that the debate has gone far beyond discussing discretion as an all‐or‐nothing issue, pointing out both positive and negative aspects of discretion and developing comprehensive frameworks to explain the use of discretion at the street‐level; • However, street‐level research has traditionally rather neglected the notion of professionalism. The social work literature brings in the perspective of professionalism; more research efforts are needed to better explore and explain how professionalism matters in relation to challenges and dilemmas of different policy and practice fields.

In several European countries there is an increasing trend within social and labour market policy to implement employment-oriented policies. In some countries, this turn towards employment has opened up a new professional arena for social workers, so called employment-oriented social work. The chapter examines the challenges that this development has brought to the social work profession, especially in regard to how knowledge and decision-making is negotiated in relation to clients and other professions within the same policy arena. The chapter is based on Danish, Italian and Austrian data including register data, semi-structured interviews, observations and sound recordings.

The acquisition of an appropriate and theoretically informed knowledge base constitutes an important requirement for the development of competent social work practice with lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans (LGBT) people. This article discusses problems and potentials of addressing LGBT issues in social work and presents the findings of an inventory on LGBT-related content in European social work journal publishing from 2010 to 2015. Although the number of contributions is very limited, the findings confirm an attention to social aspects of LGBT issues and a strong focus on LGBT people’s needs in social work debates. More attention is, however, required in relation to theoretical choices capable of challenging heteronormativity on a more radical level.

The debate on activation policies and challenges to social citizenship has to go beyond the level of formal policy and take into account also its operational and street-level dimension, which shapes what eventually arrives as policy on the ground. In this context, frontline practice plays a crucial role since it constitutes the very moment when activation policies encounter their target groups and real-world solutions have to be found. This article outlines a conceptual framework to approach frontline work within the context of activation and presents the main findings of a research project aimed at exploring the challenges, interpretations and reactions of frontline practitioners in Public Employment Services in the cities of Vienna (Austria) and Milan (Italy). The findings contribute to the debate on the constraints and possibilities for a practice of citizenship in a practice field whose challenges are often neglected both by social policy and social work research although it has become a central arena for welfare state intervention in which social citizenship, eventually, becomes manifest. Particular attention is paid to different framings of practice and to the questions whether and to what extent professionalising ‘activation work’ could counteract the precarious and highly individualised role of frontline practitioners in this ambiguous public domain.