BEU, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 34: Henvendelse af 20/1-23 fra Asbjørn Ammitzbøll Flügge, Ph.d.-studerende, Datalogisk Institut ved Københavns Universitet om erfaringer og forskning fra digitalisering i jobcentre (anmodning om foretræde)

Beskæftigelsesudvalget 2022-23 (2. samling)
BEU Alm.del Bilag 34
Offentligt

Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW)

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-022-09449-0

RESEARCH ARTICLE

to Springer Nature B.V., 2022

The Role of Physical Cues in Co-located

and Remote Casework

Asbjørn Ammitzbøll Flügge*

& Naja Holten Møller

Department of Computer Science, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

(E-mail: [email protected])

Accepted: 8 September 2022

Abstract.

Across the world, large swaths of society closed in response to the COVID-19 (C-19)

pandemic, transforming the provision of government services, including welfare. The shift to

remote work afforded a glimpse of what a future digitized public sector might look like. In Den-

mark, employment assistance went fully remote in spring 2020 to prevent the spread of C-19. Case-

workers assessed unemployed individuals’ needs for welfare benefits over the phone instead of at

the physical job center. With this change, caseworkers could no longer rely on nonverbal commu-

nication, such as physical cues (e.g., the appearance of an unemployed individual), in their assess-

ment practice. Although they are not explicitly described in the formal work process, caseworkers

report that such cues influence their assessment of an individual’s challenges related to their unem-

ployment. Taking a qualitative approach, we conducted 60 telephone interviews with 6 caseworkers

across 3 Danish job centers during the first wave of the pandemic. Later, during the second wave

of the pandemic (August 2020-June 2021), we conducted observational studies (22.5 h) including

on-site interviews in two job centers where caseworkers had returned to work having consultations

with unemployed individuals both remotely and co-located. During this second-wave period we

also conducted new interviews (n = 18) with the caseworkers from the first part of the study. The

contribution of this paper is an empirical description of how casework changes when it shifts from

co-located to remote consultations, focused on two factors: (1) the role of physical cues and how

caseworkers rely on these cues to communicate with and assess the individual, and (2) documenta-

tion practices, and how earlier documentation became more important when caseworkers lacked

access to physical cues. We contribute to CSCW research by showing that although implicit infor-

mation about the individual is valuable for caseworkers, it is not problem-free, and therefore we

argue that there is a need to find new ways to assess individuals, in particular interpreting implicit

or un-spoken information, as the complicated use of physical cues can tip over to become a matter

of bias.

Keywords:

COVID-19, Public services, Digital public services, Casework, Job placement,

Documentation, Digital ethnography

Vol.:(0123456789)

BEU, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 34: Henvendelse af 20/1-23 fra Asbjørn Ammitzbøll Flügge, Ph.d.-studerende, Datalogisk Institut ved Københavns Universitet om erfaringer og forskning fra digitalisering i jobcentre (anmodning om foretræde)

A. A. Flügge, N. H. Møller

1 Introduction

COVID-19 (C-19) drastically impacted employment services in Denmark, as

several thousand people (of a population of approximately 5.8 million) lost their

jobs in the beginning of the pandemic (Danish Agency for Labour and Mar-

ket Recruitment,

2020).

Almost overnight, job centers closed, and caseworkers

were sent home. Suddenly, and without precedent, caseworkers were expected to

continue their work remotely. Working across distance is a long-standing inter-

est in the CSCW community (Bjørn et al.,

2014;

Ciolfi et al.,

2008;

Finholt and

Sproull,

1990;

Gerson,

2008).

Before the pandemic, remote work was becom-

ing commonplace (D’Angelo and Gergle,

2018),

for example, in the private sec-

tor, where software development is often outsourced (Matthiesen et al.,

2014).

the public sector, remote work was increasingly being adopted in health services

(Andersen et al.,

2019)

by contrast, welfare services had not yet experienced the

same shift towards remote or hybrid work.

As a growing interest within CSCW, job placement casework mostly has been

studied as a co-located work practice (Boulus-Rødje,

2018;

Boulus-Rødje,

2019;

Petersen et al.,

2020;

Petersen et al.,

2021).

This make sense, since pre-pandemic

job placement legislation in Denmark required that unemployed individuals meet

in person with caseworkers. With caseworkers working from home and remotely

interacting with their colleagues and unemployed individuals, the C-19 crisis

provides an unexpected opportunity to gain insight into how public service case-

work is reconfigured in a remote setting. Since C-19 hit Europe at the beginning

of 2020, some have speculated that responses will propel the emergence of the

future of work, particularly a digitalized public sector. For example, municipali-

ties, responsible for job placement efforts in Demark, have seen increased digi-

tization since the pandemic began (Kommunernes Landsforening,

2020a;

Kom-

munernes Landsforening,

2020b)

and already envision a new national and digital

platform for unemployed individuals’ interaction with job centers (Kommunernes

Landsforening,

2021).

Caseworkers are the traditional street-level bureaucrats of job placement (All-

hutter et al.,

2020;

Böhringer,

2015;

Dolata et al.,

2020;

Hansen et al.,

2016;

Flügge

et al.

2021;

Møller et al.,

2019;

Møller et al.

2020;

Petersen et al.

2020).

Their

main task is to hold meetings or consultations with unemployed individuals, ide-

ally facilitating their return to work (Dolata et al.,

2020).

In a Danish context, these

consultations are scheduled to take place in job centers and last for 20 min, and

approximately ten minutes of pre-consultation preparation and post-consultation

documentation. These consultations are mandatory for unemployed individuals

(Boulus-Rødje,

2018;

Boulus-Rødje,

2019).

Prior research found this co-located

(physical) form of consultation is particularly important for the individual’s expe-

rience: if consultations take a screen-mediated form, primarily focused on data

collection rather than on tending to the situation of the unemployed individual

The Role of Physical Cues in Co-located and Remote Casework

and helping them, the unemployed individual is unlikely to see the value of such

meetings, which can influence their willingness to collaborate (Böhringer,

2015).

CSCW has taken a key interest in how data and digitalization play growing role in

vulnerable areas of public services as child welfare (Saxena et al.,

2021),

asylum

decision-making (Kaltenhäuser et al.,

2022;

Rask Nielsen and Møller,

2022)

and

job placement (Alhutter et al.,

2020;

Flügge et al.,

2021).

However, demands for

increased efficiency in public services often bring more digitalization, including

more screen-mediated interaction, for example caseworkers searching for data in

their case management system, and less face-to-face interaction with public serv-

ants (Jansson and Erlingsson,

2014;

Buffat,

2015;

Lindgren et al.,

2019).

Unem-

ployed individuals also spend more time on screens, for example engaging with

online self-service systems to provide data about themselves, which requires com-

petencies that not all unemployed individuals have (Seidelin et al.,

2022).

Since new legislation enabled caseworkers to temporarily work remotely

because of C-19, we try to make sense of the unexpected transition from co-

located to remote and hybrid consultations. We investigated this qualitatively and

conducted our study in two parts: the first part of the study was conducted during

the first lockdown in Denmark through telephone interviews with caseworkers

(April-June 2020). The second part was conducted in the hybrid work setting of

combined physical and remote work, with co-located and remote consultations

and observations of caseworkers (August 2020-June 2021). In the study’s first

part, for ten weeks we conducted weekly telephone interviews (n = 60) with six

caseworkers who work with newly unemployed individuals across three Dan-

ish municipalities. The three municipalities differ in size, location, and local

employment situation. During the study, unemployment drastically increased in

all three study sites; although, a municipality heavily reliant upon the service sec-

tor and tourism was more affected than a municipality with little tourism. The

three municipalities in our study use the same casework system (CWS), which

constitutes the primary digital infrastructure for casework (Møller et al.,

2019).

The CWS is used by caseworkers to document meetings with individuals, archive

or locate information, as well as accumulate data and information for manage-

rial purposes. It also allows for the scheduling of meetings, emails, and push

messages to the unemployed individual requesting action. In the second part of

the study (August 2020 - June 2021), we interviewed five of the same six case-

workers over the telephone (n = 18) and conducted four visits to one of the job

centers (A), and one visit to another (C), where we held on-site interviews with

caseworkers and observed consultations they held with unemployed individuals

(n = 22,5 h).

This paper contributes an empirical characterization of job placement case-

work, in particular: (1) the role of physical cues for assessing and communicat-

ing with unemployed individuals in co-located and remote consultations, and (2)

A. A. Flügge, N. H. Møller

documentation practices. We describe physical cues as the non-verbal informa-

tion from a person’s gestures, expressions, or appearance: in short, what might

be understood about another individual from experiencing them in person. As

caseworkers strive to assess an unemployed individual according to the legal cat-

egories of welfare support, physical cues such as soiled clothing or the smell of

alcohol early in the morning can play a role in understanding the individual’s

situation and possible challenges. Gestures, body language, or facial expressions

can also indicate to the caseworkers how the individual reacts to a message, and

whether they understood important information. For instance, if an individual

says they understand but appears confused, the caseworker may rephrase or use

other methods to make sure the individual comprehends the information. We find

that physical cues play a vital role in caseworkers’ work of communicating with

and assessing the state of the individual, and quickly providing implicit infor-

mation about the unemployed individual, thereby guiding caseworkers’ focus in

their consultation.

By documentation, we refer to documents or files collected and available in

the IT-infrastructure accessible to the caseworkers. For example, all interactions

(consultations, email, etc.) between caseworkers and individuals are documented

in the unemployed individual’s case file, as well as documents from exter-

nal practitioners (e.g., doctors) or other departments of the job center (e.g., the

department handling monetary support). We find that documentation of consulta-

tions can fulfill several purposes. For example, it can facilitate collaborative work

by providing information about earlier agreements other caseworkers may have

made with the individual, which can inform the next meetings or bring sensitive

topics (e.g., health issues) to the caseworker’s attention.

As caseworkers shifted to remote work, we could study how they experienced

the lack of nonverbal communication and other physical cues in their work. The

role of physical cues and documentation stands out as we seek to understand how

the interaction between caseworkers and unemployed individuals is shaped by the

conditions of remote work. An important aspect of casework is common ground

between the caseworker and the individual. This is not a matter of agreeing on

the main challenges for job placement; rather, common ground is conditioned by

the individual’s understanding of casework, for example, the obligations the indi-

vidual needs to fulfill to receive public support.

This article shows how caseworkers across the three municipalities experi-

enced changes in their work practices and workplaces due to the C-19 pandemic.

We find that mundane technologies, primarily the telephone, became the main

supportive tool for caseworkers in this new situation. They already used comput-

ers, caseworker systems, pen, paper, etc., but prior to the pandemic the telephone

was not essential for their work. There are pros and cons that need to be weighed

in remote/co-located consultation, the paper shows, but these are highly depend-

ent on the individual caseworker and unemployed person. The findings point

The Role of Physical Cues in Co-located and Remote Casework

out that, on the one hand, it can be harder for caseworkers to establish common

ground—both with colleagues and the unemployed individuals—because they

cannot rely on physical, and in particular, visible cues for assessing the individual

and communicating with them. On the other hand, there are some advantages for

the individual, such as further agency regarding the information they choose to

disclose. Relying on physical cues is not unproblematic, as it can cause implicit

bias or prejudice against the individual based on, e.g., appearance, but bias in it-

systems and algorithms also is a well-described problem (Flügge et al.,

2020).

the co-located setting, caseworkers can more easily share their experience of an

individual because they are physically closer to their colleagues and in a shared

workspace (different from working from home). The contribution of the article is

relevant for the CSCW community, because although implicit information about

the individual is valuable for caseworkers, it is not problem-free, and therefore

we argue that there is a need to find new ways to assess individuals, in particular

interpreting implicit or un-spoken information. Thus, it is also relevant for case-

workers and managers in public employment services, because it provides a thor-

ough basis for reflection on how remote work impact, in particular, the relational

aspects of casework. This paper is also relevant for politicians formulating the

legislative boundaries of public employment services, reminding them that both

co-location and remote settings come with different opportunities and costs.

The manuscript is structured as follows: Section 2 reviews prior CSCW litera-

ture on remote work and documentation and data work in public services; Sec-

tion

presents the method; Section

analyzes and presents our findings from

remote work in job placement; Section 5 discusses our case, and Section 6 con-

cludes and reflects on the study.

2 Related work

2.1 Cues in remote work

The challenges of remote work are well known to the CSCW community. In

particular, Olson and Olson’s (2000) seminal work demonstrating the chal-

lenges of work across distance has been the common starting point in the lit-

erature on distributed work in CSCW and related fields (Bjørn et al.,

2014;

Hinds and Kiesler,

2002).

Olson and Olson found that contemporary technolo-

gies (telephone, email, and video conference, to mention a few) were incapa-

ble of replicating face-to-face interaction. Olson and Olson originally devel-

oped four concepts for explaining the importance of distance in remote work:

common ground, coupling of work, collaboration readiness, and collaboration

technology readiness. They later added a fifth concept: organizational manage-

ment (Olson et al.,

2008).

In this paper, we focus on the concept of common

ground, which is important for effective communication (Clark and Brennan,

A. A. Flügge, N. H. Møller

1991)

and refers to “that knowledge participants have in common, and are

aware that they have in common” (Olson and Olson,

2000

p.157). We do this

because common ground describes what caseworkers try to achieve during

their consultations with unemployed individuals, to best help the individual

and so the individual knows what is required of them to receive public support.

Establishing common ground occurs through gaining general knowledge

about a person’s background, and specific knowledge about the person’s

appearance and behavior during the interaction. For example, facial expres-

sions or gestures can show a reaction to a comment or a question. According

to Olson and Olson, common ground is established from the cues perceived

at the moment – the fewer the cues, the harder the work to construct com-

mon ground. Olson and Olson are primarily focused on co-worker collabora-

tion, not on interactions between practitioners and individuals, as in our case.

Other scholars have described how collaborative work between, say, an expert

(practitioner) and a layperson, involves establishing and negotiating a shared

“lexicon” (Clark,

1996;

Dolata and Schwabe,

2019).

According to Clark and

Brennan, several factors can influence the establishment of common ground:

copresence, visibility, audibility, cotemporality, simultaneity, sequentiality,

reviewability, and revisability (Clark and Brennan,

1991).

Following Clark

and Brennan (1991), Olson and Olson (2000) illustrate how technologies for

distributed work and communication (e.g., phone calls) share many of the

same characteristics as face-to-face communication; but, video communica-

tion lacks copresence and phone calls lack visibility.

•

Co-presence: sharing the same physical environment and surroundings.

One can easily see and hear what each other is doing, saying, or looking at,

including access to the same artifacts, gestures, and shared context.

Visibility: being visible and seeing each other, which provides rich infor-

mation about the situation and the state of the other person(s) in the con-

versation, but not necessarily the ability to see what the other is doing or

looking at.

Although a lot has changed in the use of technologies for supporting coop-

eration since the turn of the century, Bjørn et al. find that common ground

is still critical to consider when working across distance (2014). Common

ground serves as an important lens for understanding work in job placement,

both physical and remote. The main task for caseworkers is to hold meetings

with unemployed individuals, which are referred to as consultations (Dolata

et al.,

2020).

Although not documented in prior literature, caseworkers tell us

that establishing a “mutually trustful relationship” is an essential part of their

work. Establishing common ground is a predecessor for trust, which is frag-

ile in electronic communication (Olson and Olson,

2000).

Since Olson and

The Role of Physical Cues in Co-located and Remote Casework

Olson’s seminal paper, many authors have investigated remote work in various

settings, for example, in Global Software Development (GDS) (Avram et al.,

2009;

Bjørn et al.,

2014;

Matthiesen et al.,

2017)

or health (Andersen et al.,

2019;

Robertson et al.,

2010).

Across these domains, establishing and main-

taining common ground remains a challenge for making remote work

work.

For example, systems may fail to account for local circumstances (Gerson

2008),

such as unstable electronic connection (Olson and Olson,

2000),

infra-

structural constraints (Matthiesen and Bjørn,

2016),

or technical breakdown

(Bjørn and Christensen,

2011).

As we turn to studies of remote work, the power differences (Hinds et al.,

2015),

perception of distance (Bradner and Mark,

2002),

and/or implicit bias

(Matthiesen et al.,

2020)

pose additional challenges. The power difference is

also a condition built into casework and public services, as prior research on job

placement shows (Møller et al.,

2021).

In other forms of public service (e.g.,

health services), phone consultations to assess progress also entail other types

of work, such as providing comfort for the individual or coordinating next steps

(Andersen et al.,

2019).

Peddle examines the barriers to the uptake of telecare

technologies for mediating distance, specifically through video conferencing, and

finds that the challenges are not simply technical but also related to social issues

of culture and trust (Peddle,

2007,

p. 601). Pool reminds us that although phone

calls have their limits, they are an effective tool (Pool,

1977);

for example, phone

voice calls may help provide more context (and trust) when formal categories in

workflow systems are not self-explanatory (Møller and Bjørn,

2011).

However,

other important cues may be lost over the phone, hindering collaborative deci-

sion-making (Gerson,

2008).

Thus, we turn our attention to the role of documen-

tation as a secondary resource for caseworkers in remote conditions.

2.2 Documentation as a basis for remote work

Documentation is a practice of record keeping (Berg,

1997).

Winthereik and

Vikkelsø (2005) argue that record keeping can help support work by bridging

organizational divisions. They find that practitioners use documentation to trans-

late (rather than transfer) information, and in this way to bridge across divisions

and specializations of an organization. This is also the case in job placement,

where documentation informs casework across divisions specializing in different

types of unemployment (e.g., newly unemployed versus long-term unemployed

individuals (Flügge et al.,

2021).

Determining what information is appropriate,

how to format it within the caseworker system, and then entering it into the sys-

tem creates practical challenges during implementation; thus, while assembling

the case, the individual and caseworker work together on the case documentation

(Møller et al.,

2019).

In this process, documentation also becomes an important

shared resource for collaboration. Documentation plays a critical role for ensur-

ing continuity across practitioners, as a critical tool for ‘abstracting’ and aligning

A. A. Flügge, N. H. Møller

the work (Bansler et al.

2013;

Berg,

1997;

Mønsted et al.,

2011).

Increasingly,

records are shared across different practices; for example, job centers often rely

on health records for documenting the challenges of an unemployed individual

(Møller et al.,

2019).

If we look at the healthcare domain, the introduction of the

Personal Health Record (PHR) is shifting the capabilities, roles, and responsi-

bilities of patients and practitioners (Vassilakopoulou et al.,

2019).

In job place-

ment, a caseworker can use documentation, such as records regarding health

issues, to approve concrete types of support and benefits for an unemployed per-

son. Documenting is not often a straightforward or unproblematic task. Boulus-

Rødje and others show how caseworker systems formalize ‘appearance’ as part

of caseworkers’ formal categorization of individuals in job placement (Boulus-

Rødje

2018).

In a recent study in Germany, Dolata et al., (2020) find that even

though one of the main purposes of consultations is for the caseworker to get to

know the unemployed person, documentation and formal agreements play a criti-

cal role. Yet, if the individuals experience the consultations as a mere data col-

lection exercise, they can be less willing to actively participate in them. Dolata

et al., (2020) find that even though documentation is mandatory, it is rarely used

by caseworkers or their colleagues. Although caseworkers are required to “docu-

ment anything relevant for the case,” a lack of standards for documentation and

recordkeeping was found in a municipal department working with social issues

related to children (Petersen et al.,

2020).

Emotion and relationship building are

typically considered incompatible with decision-making in public services, and

so they are often not reported even if they impact decisions, as we learn from

recent studies of casework.

3 Methodology

C-19 and the associated national restrictions in Denmark between March 12 and

May 15, 2020, obstructed the authors’ planned ethnographic field study of the

use of algorithmic decision-support technologies in Danish job centers (Flügge

et al.,

2020;

Flügge,

2021).

Throughout the course of collecting and analyz-

ing data and writing the manuscript, the social restrictions and relevant legis-

lation within the employment service repeatedly changed. Our first opportu-

nity to conduct co-located fieldwork only became possible after several months

of the study. Historically, ethnography is a prolonged activity, as Randall et al.

remind us (2007). We found the duration of our study necessary to understand

how cooperative work was disrupted and routinized in this unprecedented situa-

tion. We take a practice-oriented approach, attending to the transformative nature

of job placement practices (Wullf et al.,

2011;

Dolata and Schwabe

2018)

dur-

ing the C-19 pandemic. The study focuses on caseworkers’ efforts to navigate

the transition from co-located to remote work. In particular, we explore what

changes the shift had on consultations with unemployed individuals, and the

The Role of Physical Cues in Co-located and Remote Casework

role of documentation practices. We investigate this by interviewing caseworkers

from three different municipal job centers, which are responsible for job place-

ment efforts in Denmark. When we began our study, all caseworkers were work-

ing from home, communicating with colleagues over digital platforms such as

Skype or MsTeams, and talking with unemployed individuals over the phone.

Our approach resembles a multi-sited workplace study (Luff et al.,

2000;

Ran-

dell et al.,

2011),

through which we aim to understand: how did work happen,

and what was changed, lost, or gained in the transition from co-located to remote

work? Since a large part of this study was conducted over the telephone, it shares

similarities with digital ethnography (Hine,

2000;

Hsu,

2012;

Pink,

2015).

3.1 Data collection: remote, co-located, and hybrid job placement

Our data collection comprised two parts. The first part was conducted during

the (first) lockdown in Denmark through telephone interviews with caseworkers.

The second part was conducted in the hybrid work setting of physical and remote

work, with both co-located and remote interviews and observations of casework-

ers (see Table 1).

with six caseworkers from three municipalities in the period from April 20 and June 25, 2020.

The first author conducted 63 interviews, totaling more than 24 h, including two interviews

with public officials from governmental institutions, and one with the interest organization

of municipalities (Kommunernes Landsforening). The interviews with public officials served

a double purpose. First, they shed light on this unique situation from the perspective of the

national government, which is responsible for guidelines and legislation in the area of employ-

ment services. Secondly, they allowed us to present and gain feedback on our early results. In

total, we compiled approximately 120 pages of notes, including interview guides, interview

notes, and memos. The interviews lasted between 15 and 45 min and were conducted in Dan-

ish. The interviews were not recorded for two reasons. First, as the authors were also work-

ing from home, we lacked the necessary technological infrastructure (for example, apps for

recording and space online for safe storage of interview files). Second, since we aimed to

build rapport with and provide comfort and a feeling of security to the caseworkers, whom

we at the time had not met, not recording allowed us to create a safe space for them to talk

freely. We took notes during the interviews using a headset, so that both hands were free to

type notes “on the go.” Quotes used in this paper are translated into English by the authors.

The first interview with each caseworker followed the same semi-structured interview for-

mat (Kvale and Brinkman,

2014).

Thereafter, we adjusted the interview guides to the differ-

ent groups of unemployed individuals with whom the caseworkers worked, and to the local

practice at their specific job center or department. This also made it possible to observe how

different caseworkers and job centers reacted to the same events, for example how the re-

activation of the employment effort played out.

Part 1

As physical meetings were prohibited, the first author conducted telephone interviews

A natural part of these interviews was respondent validation (Hammersley and

Atkinson,

2017),

wherein we asked the caseworkers if they could recognize their

Table 1

Data sources of the ethnographic fieldwork conducted during the C-19 pandemic.

Part 2:

August 12, 2020 – June 20, 2021

20 total

Caseworkers: 18

Public official: 1

Manager at job center: 1

Total interview time: 10 h

Shortest/longest interview: 8 min/54

Part 1:

April 20-June 25 2020

“Remote” interviews

63 total

Caseworkers: 60

Public officials: 3

Total interview time: 26 h

Shortest/longest interview: 15 min/45

“On-site” (co-located)

Respondent validation

Presented early parts of the analysis continuously through inter-

views with the caseworkers. To support this, we also conducted

2 interviews with public officials responsible for the employment

area.

5 visits (in two job centers)

11 interviews with/observations of 10 caseworkers

Observations of 15 consultations (7 telephone and 8 co-located)

Total field study time: 22.5 h

We presented parts of the analysis during several of the inter-

views. We also presented our analysis on three different occa-

sions to a manager at a job center, a public official responsible

for the employment area, and did a presentation on Skype for

all employees (including managers) working at another of the

job centers in the study.

A. A. Flügge, N. H. Møller

The dates of the study indicate the first and last dates of interviews with caseworkers. “On-site” refers to the researchers co-located at the job center. “Numbers” refer to the

number of interviews, and not the number of interviewees

The Role of Physical Cues in Co-located and Remote Casework

own, and their colleagues’, accounts. We already had contact with the managers

at the different job centers; through them, we received contact information for

caseworkers at the job center who might participate in our study. The casework-

ers’ participation was voluntary. We anonymized the participating caseworkers,

and Table 2 shows the labeling system we applied to them. During our fieldwork

we also talked with (e.g., during lunch) and observed caseworkers other than

those presented in the table.

of work (remote or co-located) for caseworkers changed several times, as some municipalities

were allowed back to work earlier than others, while others had to close down again. Accord-

ingly, the first author conducted 17 telephone interviews with caseworkers, some from the

first part of the study, but also some (P10) whom we had not interviewed before (P1:3, P3:1,

P4:1, P5:4, P6:6, P10:2). We also conducted five visits to two of the job centers (22.5 h) from

the first part (four visits to municipality A from September to October 2020, and one visit to

municipality C in June 2021). During the fieldwork we made observations of caseworkers’

daily work as well as conducted on-site interviews with caseworkers. Part of the reason why

we conducted fewer telephone interviews with caseworkers from municipality A compared to

municipality C was that we visited municipality A four times, and thus conducted fieldwork

instead of additional telephone interviews. During our visits, some of our on-site interviews

were with caseworkers we already had interviewed over the telephone (e.g., P1 or P3), while

others were with caseworkers we had not interviewed before (e.g., P7-P9). In total, the first

author observed eight co-located consultations and seven remote consultations.

– Co-located: P7: 1, P3: 2, P9: 3, P8: 2.

– Remote: P1: 3, P10: 1, P8: 3.

Part 2

Starting in August 2020, the place of work (the job center or at home) and the format

In the remote consultations, the first author sat next to the caseworker who

was on the phone or Skype with the unemployed person. The first author could

only hear the caseworker and observe how they navigated their system and took

notes during the consultation. In the co-located consultations, all the unemployed

individuals were asked whether it was okay for the first author to observe the

consultations, and all consented. Sometimes the first author was introduced by

the caseworker as a “colleague just looking and learning how they do their job.”

Sometimes, at the initiative of the caseworkers, the first author introduced him-

self as “a researcher investigating technology used in job placement and case-

work.” The data collected from this part of the study mainly consisted of hand-

written fieldnotes taken during fieldwork or immediately after the visits to the job

centers.

3.2 Data analysis

The interviews were analyzed through an interpretive approach (Klein and Mey-

ers,

1999),

which allowed different themes to emerge. Quotes and examples

are brought forward to create a better understanding of how the caseworkers

Table 2

Labeling system and background information about the primary participants in the study.

Group of unemployed individuals

Unemployed individuals below 30 without education after high-

school or equivalent.

Unemployed individuals below 30 without education after high-

school or equivalent.

Municipality

Participant Education and experience

Educated as a lab technician, and several other diploma educations

(e.g., employment). +12 years of experience from the job center.

Unemployed individuals below 30 with education after high-school

(e.g., hair-dressers, teachers)

Different groups. Unemployed individuals above 30 with an education B

and persons with private insurance funds.

Unemployed individuals with private insurance funds.

Vulnerable and Long-term unemployed individuals

Unemployed individuals with private insurance funds.

P10

Educated as a social worker in an Eastern European country, and

further academic education within social work and employment.

+10 years of experience from the job center.

Educated as a teacher, with further education within psychiatry and

coaching. +9 years of experience from the job center

Educated within sales and marketing.

+ 2 years of experience from the job center, but + 5 years of experi-

ence from another job center.

Educated within marketing, former CEO of a hotel chain, but also

experience as a management consultant. +6 years of experience

from the job center.

Educated within administration. +2 years of experience from the job

center, but in total + 20 years of experience from public employment

services.

Educated social worker.

+ 19 years of experience in the job center.

Only On-site interviews.

+ 1 year of experience from the job center.

Only on-site interviews.

+ 6 years of experience from the job center.

Only on-site interviews.

+ 2 years of experience from the job center. Educated social worker.

A. A. Flügge, N. H. Møller

P1-P6 are the caseworkers we conducted telephone interviews with in Part 1 of the study, and P7-P10 are the caseworkers we only observed and conducted on-site inter-

views with, except for P10, whom we also interviewed over the telephone

The Role of Physical Cues in Co-located and Remote Casework

experienced the changes due to C-19 in their work, with a special focus on how

physical cues and documentation practices played a role in their work. The length

of the study also made it possible to discuss tendencies and conduct respond-

ent validation (Hammersley and Atkinson,

2017).

Through respondent valida-

tion, participants may have access to additional knowledge that is not available

to the ethnographer (2019, p.193). We did this, for example, through follow-up

interviews, and a presentation at a meeting for all the employees at one of the job

centers (see Table 1). On several occasions, respondent validation added nuance

to our findings; on other occasions, clear contributions became messier, but also

yielded unexpected contributions. For example, at the beginning of Part 1, the

caseworkers often spoke about how much they missed their colleagues and how

easy it had been when they were co-located to get help on daily work issues, as

many of them sat in offices close to one another. At the end of the first part of the

study, the participants rarely talked about their colleagues. When the caseworkers

were just starting to work from the job center again, many of them were struck

by the number of interruptions, the noise level, and their lack of opportunities

for focused and effective work. Several stated that they were more productive at

home. This change in the relationship (having less contact and preferring to work

from home for productivity reasons) seemed clear as the first part of the study

came to an end. However, this was contested and nuanced during our interviews

in the second part of the study, where the responses were more divided when

it came to whether the caseworkers preferred working from home or at the job

center. The caseworkers’ co-located work experiences became crucial for our

understanding of remote work.

3.3 Reflections on ethnographic work under unstable conditions

Traditionally, gaining access is a struggle for many ethnographic researchers

(Hammersley and Atkinson,

2017).

We had already been in contact with manag-

ers from the involved municipalities, and we as researchers, as well as them as

managers and caseworkers, were all curious about the fundamental question of

crisis (following Greenhouse et al.,

2002):

What does this crisis teach us that we

must unlearn or change when the crisis ends?

When the study began, all the caseworkers were working from home. They

said this made it comfortable for them to plan and conduct their weekly phone

calls with us and not disturb colleagues while talking to us. The six caseworkers

we followed were not challenged by also taking care of their kids when work-

ing from home, because schools and kindergartens were open. We presume

this would have been a challenge if our study began earlier, but in that case, the

authors would have faced the same difficulties. Working from home, no one could

see exactly how often, or how much of their time, the caseworkers spent assisting

our research, instead of working with individuals or other tasks. This was con-

firmed during the interviews. Both after the employment effort was re-activated

A. A. Flügge, N. H. Møller

and when the caseworkers returned to the job centers, they reiterated that they

had less time for us than during the lockdown period from April to June 2020.

Several of the caseworkers expressed a social emptiness, as they lacked contact

with colleagues, friends, and family. Several of them said during the interviews

that it was nice to have someone to talk to and someone with whom they could

make sense of the situation. From the many interviews, we gained the impres-

sion that we, especially in the beginning, brought a degree of comfort simply by

listening to the caseworkers, calling them every week to hear how things were

going. The caseworkers also used this time to inquire about our interviews with

their colleagues. Several times the caseworkers asked questions like ‘how are the

other caseworkers doing?’ or ‘do they also have this experience?’

In our observations and interviews, we did not address systemic or societal

issues affecting unemployed individuals, focusing instead on how the traits and

situation of the individual affected his/her chances of getting a job. For example,

three of the six caseworkers from the first part of the study, who worked with

unemployed people above 30, all emphasized that age discrimination is an issue,

which in general was a challenge for unemployed individuals above 55 or so.

Our focus was on how professional

work

was affected by the transition to remote

work. Consultations with unemployed individuals comprise one part of case-

workers’ work, but our study solely represents a caseworker perspective, and thus

we cannot claim or describe how unemployed individuals experienced remote or

co-located consultations.

4 Results

Section 4 is divided into three parts. The first part lays out how relevant exter-

nal factors such as legislation were affected by the C-19 pandemic, and how this

changed the conditions for casework in job placement. The second part describes

the traditional setting of casework in job placement. The third part unpacks case-

work in a remote setting, particularly how remote consultations both restrain

and enable relationship building between the caseworkers and the unemployed

individuals.

4.1 The pandemic’s impact on the working conditions for caseworkers

The pandemic impacted caseworkers’ working conditions in several ways.

Their place of work was changed from the job center to home and back again.

The form of the consultations shifted from co-located to remote via telephone.

Changing legislation impacted the required content of the consultations. Within

the first weeks of the societal lockdown, the national government suspended the

legal demands regarding employment efforts and canceled all internships and

The Role of Physical Cues in Co-located and Remote Casework

Picture 1

Timeline of the study from April 2020 to June 2021. In this period, caseworkers worked under changing conditions (remote, co-

located). Period 1 was ~ 2 months, period 2 was ~ 1 month and period 3 was ~ 13 months and remains the current situation, wherein caseworkers are

allowed to work from home sometimes and can hold both co-located and remote consultations with unemployed individuals.

A. A. Flügge, N. H. Møller

activities. Picture 1 illustrates the periods of co-located, remote, and hybrid job

placement.

Under ordinary circumstances, non-physical consultations do not meet the

legal requirements for first consultations, but this requirement was suspended

between March 12 and May 15. In a completely unprecedented shift, all case-

workers began working remotely from home. Since the employment efforts were

suspended, the legal demands of active employment, ensuring that the unem-

ployed person is in some form of training or internship, became irrelevant. All

interactions (internships, courses, welfare programs, resume workshops, and so

forth) between the job center and unemployed individuals became voluntary.

During this period, the main task of caseworkers was to postpone planned con-

sultations via email and call newly unemployed individuals. Calling the newly

unemployed individuals had two purposes: first, to categorize them according

to legal classifications of unemployment. The categories determine what kind

of monetary support the unemployed person is entitled to, depending on their

assessed capabilities. This assessment is a fundamental part of a caseworker’s

work, which we will elaborate on later. Second, the caseworkers called the unem-

ployed individuals to check in with them, and to identify the most vulnerable

individuals: for example, to prevent loneliness or to assign vulnerable individuals

to follow-up calls with someone from the job center.

For the caseworkers working from home, calling newly unemployed indi-

viduals on their phone without much to offer, but also without legal demands,

yielded surprising reactions. According to P2: ‘The unemployed individuals are

happy that we call them. It’s different than before when they had to come to the

job center. They are happy that they are not forgotten, that someone cares about

them’ (Telephone interview, P2, April 22, 2020). P1 elaborates:

‘We call it a care-conversation because the unemployed individuals can just

say “no” to talk with us. It’s voluntary. But of course, they don’t do that. The

difference between the conversations and consultations is that in a regular

[legally compliant] consultation, we would have to activate an offer [intern-

ship or the like], that’s obligations and rights’ (Telephone interview, P1, April

27, 2020).

The interviews between caseworkers and the unemployed individuals were not

about their risk of sanction or loss of monetary support for not fulfilling legal

demands. Instead, the content was about care for the individual. The casework-

ers contested that they did more care work at that time than before. They did

not have to do the part of their job where they are ‘…telling people what to do.’

(Telephone interview, P1, May 7, 2020). As the caseworkers elaborate, these

“care-conversations” were especially important for identifying the most vulner-

able individuals or those who needed someone to talk to. Decreasing loneliness,

The Role of Physical Cues in Co-located and Remote Casework

for example, could be a way to prevent long-term unemployment. Legal catego-

rization still served the purpose of reaching out to the newly unemployed indi-

viduals. This is because the categorization determines the kind of public support

for which they are eligible. In practice, the caseworkers did not take the usually

required steps to, e.g., test the work ability of newly unemployed individuals

who said they were unable to work. In this moment of crisis, the caseworkers

explained, people in need of public support should receive it, and a later assess-

ment could reevaluate the case. With exploding numbers of newly unemployed

people, the caseworkers often made this determination in one phone call.

While caseworkers worked remotely from home in Part 1, the government

resumed active employment efforts, including rights and obligations. This

included the possibility that unemployed people’s monetary welfare support

would be sanctioned if they failed to live up to their obligations. Communication

with the job center was no longer voluntary. During this period, the consulta-

tions changed character again, and were no longer ‘care-conversations or ‘service

calls.’ This posed a new challenge for the caseworkers, as they had to handle

more complex issues, such as rights and obligations, over the telephone. As P3

explained: ‘It’s about rights and obligations now … both to ensure their legal

rights, and also making it possible for us to sanction them. It’s our only line of

action. So…yes, the consultations have changed’ (Telephone interview, P3, June

10, 2020).

Whereas the two prior phases were uniform and clear cut for all job centers in

Denmark, the next phase (here described as a hybrid phase) became more con-

tingent on local circumstances in the individual municipality. Caseworkers in

one part of Denmark were required to return to the job center earlier than others.

Each job center was distinct in terms of how much caseworkers were required to

work from the job center as opposed to from home. All consultations with unem-

ployed individuals had been remote (via telephone) in the two prior phases.

4.2 Casework in job placement

During our field studies, we followed caseworkers in two of the job centers

involved in the study and the routines of their daily work. The following section

lays out how casework took place while the job centers were open for co-located

consultations, particularly focusing on the role of physical cues and caseworkers

documentation practices.

4.2.1 Documenting interactions and consultations

Documentation is mainly produced in and retrieved from the caseworker sys-

tem (CWS), which caseworkers use daily. Caseworkers record, locate, share, and

retrieve data and documentation about a person’s case in the CWS. All commu-

nication with unemployed individuals is required to be documented, including

earlier agreements with unemployed individuals about activities, documentation

A. A. Flügge, N. H. Møller

Jobsearch

Content in the active employment effort

Follow on earlier agreements

Follow up on CV

“Memo” (notes to the documentation)

Attachments

Picture 2

Screenshot of the interface of the caseworker system where caseworkers docu-

ment consultations. Provided by the caseworkers, translated by the authors.

from consultations, letters sent to the unemployed person’s e-mail account or his/

her union. The management staff of the job centers and the governmental agency

responsible for employment efforts also use the CWS to gather metrics about

unemployment. For example, the government agency might want to create a cat-

egorized list of newly unemployed people, or track the number of consultations

held within a given period, to gain an overview of the activity level in job centers

(Governmental agency, May 12, 2020). The main task for caseworkers is consul-

tations with unemployed individuals, and documenting this interaction is a man-

datory part of their work (Picture 2).

We find that documentation can become an important resource for the case-

worker’s work. To exemplify this, we report on a concrete consultation we

observed in the job center A we visited in Part 2.

P7 is an experienced caseworker with more than two decades in employment

services. While preparing a consultation with an unemployed woman on mater-

nity leave, P7 first looks at the length of her maternity leave and what other kinds

of absence leave she has taken, such as sick leave. The unemployed woman has

been on public support for almost a decade ‘probably longer, the system only

goes back so many years’ P7 tells us. Trying to get an overview of the case,

P7 reads the journals (documentation) from the first and last consultations. P7

is looking at the last journal, to find ‘what are the earlier agreements with her’,

which often includes something about what the individual needs to work on and

improve. In the concrete case, she is working on her self-esteem. P7 can also

see documentation from another department working with social issues, which

reveals that: ‘there is attention on her from other places’. Her goal is explicit in

The Role of Physical Cues in Co-located and Remote Casework

the documentation: to graduate from primary school and complete a high school

education.

In the consultation, P7 suggests an assessment to determine her ability to par-

ticipate in activities, ‘so it doesn’t get too boring for you’. This is to determine her

ability to work. P7 asks if she is in any treatment, how she would feel working

1 h per day, and about her dreams for the future. The unemployed woman is posi-

tive about the activity, but says she is nervous about whether she can manage the

demands required of her. They agree that she will participate in the activity after

determining her work ability, and she will receive an email with the informa-

tion. After the consultation, P7 reflects: ‘We also need to guard her self-respect.

It said [in the documentation] that she was working on her self-esteem, so there

is no need to flog the issue.’ In this consultation, the documentation guided P7

to determine, for example, whether the unemployed woman can take on the last

courses of 9th grade, and in what format. P7 believes that determining her work

ability will be the best way to ensure that the process of trying to pass 9th grade

fits her needs and abilities, decreasing the risk of a bad experience and drop-

out. P7 is also aware, given that there is documentation from another department

related to social issues, that this is

not

something she needs to address unless the

woman wants to talk about it. This is to protect her self-respect and self-esteem:

the “issue” from before.

During the consultation, P7 takes notes on an A5 notebook. Although the size

of the notebook varied amongst he caseworkers, and some used blank A4 papers,

the main form of documentation was handwritten notes, which the caseworkers

took during the consultations. After the consultation, they – depending on when

the next consultation was – typed the notes into the caseworker system as docu-

mentation of the consultation. Picture 3 shows notes taken during two consulta-

tions (not the case of P7).

The case serves as an example of how earlier documentation can serve as a

resource for collaboration. Although it is not written directly in the case, P7 is

aware that the woman faces some social issues, but P7 does not go into this in the

consultation due what P7 read in the documentation from another department. In

this way, what to follow up on, which questions to ask, and which topics to avoid

are guided by the earlier documentation. In this case, the documentation about

the woman’s low self-esteem also makes P7 aware that she, for example, might

need to deal with this woman with a higher degree of sensitivity than other cases.

In this way, P7 and the other department collaborated around the specific case

to ensure that these sensitive topics that might be relevant for her ability to par-

ticipate in activities were not a topic in the curreny consultation. Another case-

worker, P8, with less than two years of experience from the job center, reflected

on the collaborative aspect of casework in documentation: ‘First and foremost

I’m writing to the unemployed individual, but I also know that I’m also writing

to my colleagues’ (On site interview, P8, October 29, 2020). P8 was not alone.

A. A. Flügge, N. H. Møller

Picture 3

Example of notes taken during the consultation.

Several of the caseworkers (e.g., P1 and P2) stressed the importance of writing

precisely, for example avoiding abbreviations, and describing instead of inter-

preting, because their notes affect their colleagues’ work. The consultants’ work

may easily be mistaken as an individual endeavor since they have one-on-one

consultations with unemployed individuals and individually document these con-

sultations. However, as we show here, documentation is essential for collabora-

tion in casework.

4.2.2 The role of physical cues

We describe physical cues as the non-verbal information available from a per-

son’s gestures, expressions, or appearance: in short, what might be known about

another individual from experiencing them in person. This might include the

condition of their clothing or their demeanor. This type of information about an

unemployed person is not often documented in casework. If a person appears

in increasingly worse shape as consultations progress, then this can indicate an

unresolved personal issue that needs to be addressed. While caseworkers do not

presume to know everything about the individual based on appearance, they do

interpret physical cues as part of their assessment. As one of the caseworkers

reflected:

‘We may ask different questions to the guy who might be looking a little

scruffy, with old shoes or untidy beard than we do to the young woman, where

you can see she dressed for the appointment at the job center.’ (Telephone

interview, P3, September 30, 2020).

The Role of Physical Cues in Co-located and Remote Casework

Creating a trustful relationship with the unemployed person is an important

aspect of a caseworker’s job. The goal is not only to help people find a job, but

also to help them with their challenges—in other words, to find them the right

support. Identifying any underlying personal issues, for example, a medical diag-

nosis or drug misuse, and getting this “out in the open,” becomes a central work

task for caseworkers. This can blur the line between employment support and

social work in a more traditional sense. Caseworkers say they often need to do

both. Several of the caseworkers describe ‘creating a mutually trustful relation-

ship’ as a crucial part of their work. This is because caseworkers need unem-

ployed individuals to be open about their situation, competencies, and obstacles

in order to find the right welfare program and or category of needs for them. If

someone is unable to work due to serious challenges, then it does not make sense

for them to apply for jobs. They first need to handle these challenges. If a carpen-

ter, for which there is a high demand, does not get a job quickly, then there might

be one or more unresolved (personal) issues. If the carpenter starts looking more

and more untidy or neglected as the months go by, and he starts smelling of alco-

hol before midday, then there is perhaps an issue other than just the lack of a job.

Interpreting physical cues is a sensitive matter, and the caseworkers also dem-

onstrate and acknowledge their own potential bias. Consultations can be a very

personal experience for caseworkers. One of the caseworkers reflected upon how

she tries to make the consultation a pleasant experience, while at the same time

making sure that the information she provides is understood: ‘I always try to use

personality and body language. Over the phone, it’s hard to know when to pres-

sure them.’ (On site interview, P9, September 30, 2020). When they talk about

“pressuring,” the caseworkers refer to situations when they need to persuade or

convince the unemployed people. For example, caseworkers may need to con-

vince them that a CV workshop will help them back to work or ensure that the

unemployed person understands the demands known as rights and obligations.

The use of physical cues in casework touches on the more fundamental ques-

tion of what prohibits or enables people to get a job. Answering this is one of the

tasks of caseworkers, as one of them explains: ‘This, that impacts if one can get a

job. What you can see when you have him sitting right next to you. Does his gaze

flicker? Does he smell? Is his CV decorated? Would you trust him?’ (Telephone

interview, P5, May 27, 2021).

4.3 Remote casework in disruptive times

Producing, collecting, and reading documentation is a well-described part of

casework in public services, including employment services. Due to shifts in

legislation, as well as the restrained access to visible physical cues in consulta-

tions, caseworkers’ documentation practices changed. In the period from March

12 to May 15, 2020, consultations were voluntary for unemployed individuals,

and not legally compelled. One of the major changes was that individuals were

A. A. Flügge, N. H. Møller

not informed about their rights and obligations. Since this was an unprecedented

situation, it was not clear how these consultations should be documented. One

of the caseworkers at first recorded these consultations in the CWS by writing a

summary (“memo”) of the consultation in a document on each individual’s case.

Some of her colleagues recorded these as “other consultations,” which usually

count as “follow-up” consultations but not as one of the legally compelled con-

sultations. Yet, a month into the remote work, the practice of documenting these

telephone consultations changed.

‘In the beginning, we documented all communication as a “memo,” but it is

difficult to extract this as a list. Now, today there is a message from the gov-

ernmental agency, that everything should be registered as a ‘consultation.’

But, there are a lot of demands for the content of a consultation compared to

other types of interviews. It’s going to be a massive task going through all the

cases since March 12 and formatting them into “consultations”. How exactly

we are going to is unclear at the moment. I imagine that you will look at the

‘memo’ and then copy-paste it. But, if the ‘memo’ isn’t good enough, we need

to talk to the individual again. Down the road, it may be important that the

individuals get registered ‘consultations’ that don’t live up the legislation and

demands [for the legally complying consultations]’ (Telephone interview, P3,

April 24, 2020).

Recording phone conversations as ‘memos’ was useful for the caseworkers as

the memo contained the content of the conversation, which was framed as a care-

conversation. This also complied with the suspended employment effort. In these

consultations, the caseworkers did not touch on content, as they would usually

be required to. Yet, they would still categorize unemployed individuals accord-

ing to their needs, for example, “job-ready,” “ready for education,” or “activity

ready,” to approve their welfare support. In this short period of paused legisla-

tion, they mainly documented: (1) individual reasons for unemployment (e.g.,

whether C-19 was a reason for unemployment or if there were other reasons), and

(2) individual needs emerging from unemployment (e.g., preventing loneliness

as a measure to mitigate long-term unemployment). Documentation supported

what seemed important for the individual at that moment, and caseworkers did

not document aspects related to the obligations of unemployed individuals, for

example, whether the individual was applying for the right number of jobs per

week or participating in courses. If someone was lonely, then caseworkers deter-

mined they should more closely be followed. However, the practice of document-

ing consultations as memos was not useful for the management or the govern-

mental agency responsible for job placement efforts trying to gain an overview of

the employment effort, because it was not possible to extract data on the number

of new “memos” made, as it had been with “consultations.” This is important

The Role of Physical Cues in Co-located and Remote Casework

because the government reimburses the job center according to their number of

consultations. When the government could not obtain the overview of the num-

ber of consultations because they were registered as something else, a problem

arose. Ultimately, the practice was changed to satisfy this bureaucratic and mana-

gerial need – ‘memos’ were updated to ‘consultations.’ The task of formatting all

the consultations is a tiresome task for the caseworkers, and reveals some of the

messiness of work during the pandemic.

‘It’s a meaningless task. It’s only about reimbursement. Moving something

around in a caseworker system. Each time things like these are distributed,

new problems occur that weren’t thought about before. Right now, there are

a lot of quick fixes, work processes, and law-making that don’t fit. It’s basi-

cally about proving that we have been busy during the lockdown. The govern-

mental agency would like to see how many interviews the job center has had

with unemployed individuals. It’s not something that makes a difference for

the individuals, or us [caseworkers], it’s for the system’ (Telephone interview,

P3, April 28, 2020).

This example illustrates how the traditional bureaucratic logic did not thrive

in this new data practice, where documentation mainly was seen as a resource

for what made sense and was required at the moment, for example, determin-

ing the reason for unemployment. Several of the caseworkers expressed concern

about the potential consequences for the unemployed individuals who may in the

future have to account for consultations where they were presumably informed

about rights and obligations, when this did not in fact occur during “care-con-

versations.” Re-classifying memos as consultations was a tiresome and time-

demanding task, which did not have any immediate benefits for the unemployed

individuals, according to the caseworkers. In reality, it turned out to be more dif-

ficult than they expected to keep an overview of when unemployed individuals

should meet for their next consultation. By law, unemployed individuals should

have six compelled consultations in the first six months. Having registered “care-

conversations” as legally compliant consultations made it almost impossible for

the caseworkers to identify who had received what type of consultation, and who

fulfilled this demand or what number of consultations they fulfilled within six

months. In practice, it was almost impossible for the caseworkers to enforce the

legislation, for example, to sanction individuals if they did not book themselves

for new consultations. They could not rely on the documentation to determine

whether or not a consultation was legally compliant. This is problematic, because

participating in a certain number of consultations is required of unemployed indi-

viduals, and if they did not book them in time, they risked being sanctioned. If

the unemployed individual had only had contact with the job center while the

legislation was paused, they would not have been informed of this obligation. As

A. A. Flügge, N. H. Møller

a caseworker explained during one of our visits while preparing a consultation:

‘She has been unemployed and received unemployment support since March, but

she only has 7 weeks of legally counting unemployment. It’s because of COVID.

It’s difficult to keep an overview of it because of COVID’ (On site interview, P9,

October 29, 2020).

As of May 15, 2020, when remote consultations should have contained the

same content as the traditional co-located consultations, the caseworkers faced

an unexpected challenge. A yellow pop-up box appeared in their caseworker

system: ‘Pay attention: this type of consultation does not necessarily count’ (see

Picture

4).

The CWS simply does not allow a first legally compliant consulta-

tion to be conducted via telephone. At this time, the caseworkers knew that a

new legislative framework was implemented due to the pandemic that enabled

remote consultations. In the beginning, they acknowledged that the developers

probably did not have time to adjust the CWS for the new legislation. Most of

the caseworkers in the study registered the consultations as a telephone consulta-

tion, although the system clearly stated that it does not count as legally compli-

ant. Several of the caseworkers expressed a hope that somewhere between them

(the job center) and the governmental agency someone would fix this error. Con-

fronted with this issue, the caseworkers discussed with their colleagues how to

do it correctly. One of the caseworkers who also had managerial responsibilities

explained how she worked around the system. She registered her telephone con-

sultations like in-person consultations and then wrote a memo on the case stating

that the consultation was conducted remotely. She did that because the system

allowed it, and because the content of the two consultations should be the same.

The IT vendor took several months to update the consultations that caseworkers

had incorrectly registered. Since co-location was embedded in this way within

the technical infrastructure, work could not be conducted correctly. This led to

workarounds to mitigate the technical limitation.

Working around the CWS was not the only aspect of consultants’ documenta-

tion practices that changed in the remote setting. We also observed that the act of

taking notes in the consultations also changed for some of the caseworkers. For

example, in the case of P7 and the unemployed woman on maternity leave, we

described how P7 took notes using pen and paper in the co-located consultations.

In remote consultations, the caseworkers more often documented and typed data

and in the system during the consultation. This was possible because the case-

workers used a headset in the telephone consultations, leaving them free to type

with both hands. Furthermore, in telephone conversations the caseworkers did

not need to act as if they were sitting in front of another person, and, for exam-

ple look at their conversation partner. Remotely, they talked with the individual

while typing or looking at data in the system. This also made it possible for the

unemployed individuals to look up information, write notes, or edit documents,

such as the unemployed person’s CV, on their computer during the consultation.

The Role of Physical Cues in Co-located and Remote Casework

Picture 4

Screenshot of the system, when the caseworkers document a remote consultation. The yellow box says: “Pay attention: this type of con-

sultation does not necessarily count, as the unemployed person is not participating in an activity. See guide on the right side”.

A. A. Flügge, N. H. Møller

P8 highlighted this as one of the affordances of remote consultations: “It is one of

the benefits with remote consultations that I both can take notes and look at the

things at the same time. Sometimes I can hear them [the unemployed individuals]

say something like ‘wait for a second, I’m just writing this down’ or ‘I will edit

this straight away’” (On site interview, P8, October 29, 2020). However, not all

caseworkers preferred taking notes on the computer. This ethnographic vignette

is from a conversation between two caseworkers the first authors observed.

[Name] talked about how she always took notes on paper because it is sound-

less. She was tired of hearing people taking notes on the computer while being

on the phone because then they weren’t really there. P10 agreed. To him it

was just as much about being able to respond to what’s being said: “If you’re

just busy writing down then you’re not able to react just as quickly to what the

unemployed person says. But if you have a steady keyboard, and you can do it

soundlessly, then it’s not a problem” (Observation, June 15, 2021)

A contribution related to documentation practices is how documentation of

earlier consultations seemed to gain importance in the context of remote consul-

tations. Without access to visible physical cues, the available historical informa-

tion became more important. This was illustrated as we observed a consultation

between an experienced caseworker and a woman in her late twenties who had

been unemployed for almost two years. While the caseworker prepared the con-

sultation, there were some issues regarding missing data in the system, on which

she wanted to shed light. She expected to meet someone who would be

system-

ramt,

which basically describes people who have been in the employment system

for a long period, and who lack motivation, energy, and so forth. However, we

– the caseworker and the first author - were both taken by surprise. The vignette

is from our field notes right after the consultation.

[First author] ‘When could you feel that this was not as you expected?’

[P9] ‘Well, this was not the consultation I expected. I could sense it right away, how she

answered my questions and we ‘ping-ponged’. In the system it says ‘heavy individual

who hasn’t had a job for almost two years’ but it is clear that something has changed for

her by moving [to a bigger city]. She had really good energy I can sense that…If I had

talked with her over the phone, I could probably feel her energy, but I would stick more

to the underlying historical data. I wouldn’t have met her where she is today, but who

she was in the data’ (On site interview, P9, October 29, 2020).

In the consultation, the caseworker did not touch upon what she had planned,

because the person was simply not as she expected from the system. She states

how the data or missing data in the system would have played a bigger role in

the consultation if it had taken place over the phone, because it would have been

the main source of information about the unemployed woman. A consequence of

this is how caseworkers’ own or their colleague’s earlier documentation comes to

The Role of Physical Cues in Co-located and Remote Casework

play a more significant role in the remote assessment of the individual. Or, as one

of her colleagues argued: ‘There is a thin line between preparation and prejudice’

(On site interview, P3, October 29, 2020).

4.3.1 The role of physical cues in remote work

The caseworkers felt it was a safer and more comfortable experience for the

unemployed individuals to interact with them over the telephone, because the job

center was not necessarily a place where most people want to go. By conduct-

ing meetings over on the phone, unemployed individuals could avoid the physi-

cal experience of commuting to the job center and finding their way through the

building. Since they are not visible to each other over the telephone, this seems to

balance some of the underlying power imbalance of the consultation.

‘The challenge is the fact that there is a power-relationship when they step

through the door. So, the relationship is always a little unequal because the

job center is the authority. Something happens when people walk through the

door, which doesn’t happen over the telephone’ (Telephone interview, P1,

April 20, 2020).

The caseworkers explained how they had really good conversations with peo-

ple about serious issues over the telephone. They reasoned that to the unem-

ployed individuals it might be less frightening or uncomfortable to talk about

such issues when their talking partner (caseworker) is not sitting right in front of

them, for example, seeing them cry.

‘People are really happy when you call. They do not see it as matter of course.

I’m coming to them. Not the other way around…I had two long conversations,

both had some anxiety issues, which one of them wanted to talk about. The

doctor had asked if she wants to take a sick leave, but she said “No, I’d like to

talk with the job center”. Some things are difficult for her. It becomes private

almost therapeutical. That was a real conversation where I was used, where

there was someone who needed feedback, someone to talk to on different lev-

els…I could sense that one of them was very emotional, and heard tears run-

ning from her eyes, except I can’t see her’ (Telephone interview, P6, October

12, 2020).

Yet, the telephone also limits the kind of information that caseworkers can

gain about the unemployed person. In the quote above, the telephone might

enhance the relationship between the caseworkers and the unemployed indi-

viduals, but part of caseworkers’ work is to determine whether the individu-

als are challenged by decreased functionality, for example, if an unemployed

person has a weak knee or dyslexia. Another important aspect of their work

A. A. Flügge, N. H. Møller

is to explain complex legal topics such as rights and obligations; but, without

visible feedback, they have a harder time knowing whether the unemployed

individuals understood them.

‘What you lose is your ability to see their reaction. You lack their feedback

– have they understood what you’re saying, or how much should you pres-

sure them? You’re not able to get the same [information] through, and it’s

difficult to keep pressuring. Those who need help, they would benefit from

physical consultations (On site interview, P9, September 29, 2020)

When their awareness about the reaction or state of the person in front of

them is restrained in the remote consultations, caseworkers to a large degree

depend on the individual’s own ability or willingness to explain their chal-

lenges. This can make it easier for unemployed individuals to disguise infor-

mation because the caseworkers ‘can’t act on what we don’t know’ (On site

interview, P7, September 16). “Knowing” in this context means seeing or sens-

ing. This, on the one hand, supports the autonomy of the unemployed person,

as they can decide

whether

they want to reveal information, for example about

physical challenges, which is perhaps easy to see, but impossible to hear.

‘The relationship with the individual is absolutely crucial, and it is not

always possible to create this relationship over the telephone. You can usu-

ally sense from the individual if they have physical challenges. But not eve-

ryone can tell you how they feel, or which other challenges they face other

than unemployment’ (Telephone interview, P3, April 22, 2020).

On the other hand, while telephone consultations might be more pleasant,

they are not necessarily desirable, because it is difficult for caseworkers to ask

questions about what they cannot see. For example, one of the caseworkers

reflected on how she was taken by surprise when she had a co-located consul-

tation with someone she had only spoken with before over the phone:

‘Did I really talk with you? Over the phone, you can’t tell if they are weigh-

ing 160 kilos. Someone can sound completely ordinary, but then you see

them and think this was not how I expected them’ (On site interview, P7,

October 22, 2020).

The quote demonstrates a potential bias against larger people, but also illus-

trates the obvious things one can overlook without visibility. Weighing 160

kilos could mean the person has trouble moving around, which can be a chal-

lenge for common, but more physically demanding jobs, such as a pedagogue.

The Role of Physical Cues in Co-located and Remote Casework

A part of the caseworker’s work is, in their own words, to establish a

mutually trustful relationship with the unemployed person. It is important to

gain a deeper understanding of the unemployed person and get to the root

of their challenges, in particular to determine the category of needs for the

individual. Someone who on paper might seem like a “job ready” individ-

ual might in fact face challenges that are not visible, documented, or even

acknowledged by the individual themselves. Categorizing someone as “activ-

ity ready,” instead of “job ready,” can be a way to lift some pressure from

their shoulders, as their monetary support increases a bit and their rights and

obligations are limited. Gaining this deeper understanding required to make

the right categorization of needs can be a challenge for the caseworkers, par-

ticularly when they cannot rely on the same access to physical cues in their

decision-making.

‘It is comfortable to have the consultations from home, but not necessarily

the most expedient. It is important to meet physically, because you can get

a sense of things in the first meeting regarding potential decreased func-

tionality’ (Telephone interview, P5, August 18, 2020)

The caseworkers use their personality as an integral part of their job for

relationship building. As several of them explained, they find it more diffi-

cult to express personality without access to nonverbal communication like

bodily gestures and facial expressions to support their oral communication.

The caseworkers were also concerned about what the unemployed person

understood from their communication. P8 reflects after a telephone consul-

tation with a non-Danish individual, where P8 had to repeat questions and

sentences in English.

‘It is really hard to tell how much he understood. And he has definitely not

understood everything from the first consultation. I didn’t talk with him

about rights and obligations, but we agreed that he should apply for this

job. You balance how much you can explain to them’ (P8, On site inter-

view, October 29 2020)

When co-located, the caseworkers try to establish common ground in the

interaction with the individuals by sharing information orally and by using

artifacts such as drawings on paper, small pamphlets, or showing and point-

ing to things on their computer (e.g., caseworker system, webpages, etc.).

Knowing whether the information was understood by the person is even more

difficult without physical cues, because these cues can guide the questions

that the caseworkers asks, as well as their non-verbal reactions, during the

consultation.

A. A. Flügge, N. H. Møller

5 Discussion

5.1 Physical cues and documentation in casework

When casework went remote, an unprecedented opportunity arose to gain a

deeper understanding of the role of physical cues and documentation in case-

work. When co-located, caseworkers can use the unemployed person’s physical

cues, such as behavior, clothing, facial expressions, and body language, to con-

textualize other types of information, for example, earlier documentation, grade

transcripts, information from medical practitioners, etc. Physical cues play an

important role in casework because they allow caseworkers to quickly access

implicit information about the individual. In particular, the appearance of the

individual can provide some indication of their personal state; for example, if a

person starts looking more and more tired or neglected over time, this can inform

the caseworkers that actions might be needed. Body language, facial expression,

and gestures can support communication with the individual during the consul-

tation; for example, if the individual says “yes” but their face says “no” (a case-

worker’s own example), the caseworker can take action, for example rephrase

their wording or use other methods to better convey the information. Similar to

Morrison et al., we found that the importance of such physical cues first became

clear when shifting from a co-located to a remote situation, where non-verbal

physical cues are lost (Morrison et al.,

2011).

However, we do not suggest that

co-located consultations are always better for the caseworker or the individual; it

depends on a range of factors. For example, when visibility is limited, the case-

workers to a larger degree depends on the unemployed person’s ability to orally

explain and describe their situation, which not everyone is able, or willing, to

do. Interpreting someone’s attitude for example, is highly subjective. Seeing the

person in front of them may mislead the caseworker’s decision-making or lead to

biased decisions based on prejudice or assumptions about appearance. Access-

ing implicit information about the individual is an essential part of the relational

aspect of casework. In this sense, remote consultations conducted via the phone

might reduce potential bias, just as some organizations are removing pictures and

names from job applications to avoid discrimination in the application process.

Although it might be tempting to implement technology such as algorithmic sys-

tems to remove or reduce human (caseworker) bias, there are numerous examples

of bias in algorithmic systems. Relational work is a crucial aspect of public ser-

vice casework, thus there is a need to interpret and access unspoken or implicit

information about the individual, and we need new ways of doing this. If we want

to improve caseworkers’ ability to assess unemployed individuals, we need to

move beyond physical cues. For example, increased training on how to ask ques-

tions, how to listen, and providing other services or tools that might allow the

unemployed person a way to share their life story ahead of time becomes more

important as consultations become remote.

The Role of Physical Cues in Co-located and Remote Casework

As we show, there are benefits and downsides to remote consultations. For the

individuals, as reported by the caseworkers, are the benefits of not commuting

to the job center, which can be costly and time consuming. Furthermore, indi-

viduals are free from experiencing the potential stigma of going to the job center.

From a caseworker’s perspective, it is more comfortable, for example, to hold

remote consultations from home. Also, with remote consultations they can skip

the work they may usually have to do in the beginning of the consultation to reas-

sure and calm individuals who experience discomfort at the job center. Finally,

it is often enough to conduct the consultations remotely. On the negative side,

caseworkers will not have access to physical cues, and thus may miss implicit

or unspoken or undocumented information about the individual. It is also harder

to ensure that individuals understand complex information, for example regard-

ing legislation. Technology both constrains and opens the possibilities for com-

munication, and both limits and expands the information that can be conveyed.

Remote work can increase awareness of different facts, for example when some-

one logs on and off a system, or how they interact with a system. If the remote

consultation is mediated by a technology other than the telephone as in this case

(e.g., video-meetings, 3D-avatar, or Virtual Reality), this would again impact the

consultation and how it was experienced by both caseworker and individual, but

would also open the opportunity for glitches, e.g., due to bad internet connection,

webcam quality, etc. This again changes the demands of the caseworkers, who

may have to spend more time on technical issues, instead of talking with and lis-

tening to unemployed individuals.

When describing common ground, Olson and Olson (2000) focus on the

working situation between co-workers. Although caseworkers and unemployed

individuals need to collaborate on the progress of the individual, our study differs

because the relationship is not one between co-workers and is far from equal. In a

remote interaction, this can perhaps be a challenge due to different levels of com-

mitment or willingness to work, and an obstacle to achieving common ground.

For example, it is easier for individuals to withhold information about themselves

in a phone meeting, which also can include that they, e.g., do not understand the

information about rights and obligations. On the other hand, what is evident from

our study is that remote consultations feel more equal to the caseworkers. Ear-

lier studies dealing with advice-giving (e.g., Dolata et al.,

2019;

Fischer et al.,

2017)

focus on encounters that rely on physical collaboration. Fischer and others

(Fischer et al. 2017) report how an energy advisor and a client rely on and gain

value from physical cues (smell of mold, dampness) as a part of their collabora-

tive work of situating climate sensors in the home. The setting we report from is

novel compared to the existing literature since advice-giving has not been done

primarily remotely before. However, it also distinguishes itself from the earlier

literature due to the nature and power relationship in casework, which is not only

advice-giving, but also includes enforcement of regulation.

A. A. Flügge, N. H. Møller

On the role of documentation, Dolata and others find that even though case-

workers are required by law to collect large amounts of data about the unem-

ployed individual as a part the consultation, the documentation is rarely later

used by caseworkers or their colleagues (Dolata et al. 2020). Our study seems to

contradict this finding, both in remote and co-located casework. National legisla-

tion, level of digitalization in the public sector, local work practices, and cultural

differences are examples of possible factors that affect caseworkers’ documen-

tation practices across the two studies. Another difference is how caseworkers

can collect or access data about unemployed individuals. In Denmark, case-

worker systems rely on data about individuals (e.g., age, gender, address) that is

accessible from the public technology infrastructure. This data is linked to each

person’s unique social security number. Furthermore, when someone becomes

unemployed in Denmark, they need to self-register information online (e.g., CV,

job goals, education). In Dolata’s paper, in the first consultation, the amount of

data to be collected is described as “overwhelming” (2020, p25), including infor-

mation about the unemployed person’s education and background. In Denmark,

caseworkers will already have most of this information before the actual consul-

tation. The differences in documentation practices across the two studies indicate

that CSCW researchers need to gain a better understanding of documentation in

public services. Despite acknowledging the importance of documentation for cit-

izen autonomy (Møller et al.,

2020)

or collaboration among caseworkers (Flügge

et al.,

2021),

we still do not know much about caseworkers’ approach to, or prior-

itization of, the different types of documentation, or the impact on the quality of

documentation during long-term remote consultation. Since documentation is a

vital part of much public service work, this deserves more attention.

5.2 Suggestions for the future of casework

What we learn from this study is that physical cues and documentation play a

critical role and are integral to the nature of casework. Thus, unless the case-

worker is confident (based on available information about the individual) that the

unemployed individual will find a job quickly without support from the job center

(e.g., if their education and work experience are in high demand industries like

software development, nursing, or carpentry), we suggest that the first consulta-

tion should be co-located. Following consultations could be remote if the case-

worker and individual agree upon it, with the possibility of holding co-located

consultations at a later time. Having the first consultation co-located provides an

opportunity for the caseworker and the unemployed individual to see and experi-

ence each other in person. This initial consultation is when the caseworker needs

to share important and complex information about rights and obligations with

the individual. Holding the following consultations remotely saves transportation

time and the experience of going to the job center. This can also relieve the case-

workers from the potential comforting work they may have to do at the beginning

The Role of Physical Cues in Co-located and Remote Casework

of the consultations, meaning they can more swiftly move to the important top-

ics for the individual (job search, challenges, etc.). Remote consultations also

make it easier for the caseworkers to work from home if they want to. It is cru-

cial to acknowledge and remember as public employment services is envisioned

as even more digital (Kommunernes Landsforening,

2021)

that flexibility should

be ensured, including space for collaborative work between the caseworker and

individual to decide what process, including the type of consultation, is best

suited to the needs of the individual. However, we acknowledge that flexibility

in the format of the consultation might also spark potential conflict between the

unemployed individual and the caseworker, for example if the caseworker prefers

physical consultations and the individual prefers remote consultations.

6 Conclusion

In Denmark, the transformation from co-located to remote work significantly

changed the employment area, providing a novel peek into a remote and more

digital public sector. We conducted a qualitative study across three Danish job

centers lasting 14 months during the COVID-19 pandemic. The role of physi-

cal cues (e.g., appearance) and documentation (e.g., abstraction for continuity) in

casework are important to acknowledge as we seek to understand how the inter-

action between caseworkers and unemployed individuals is shaped by the condi-

tions of remote work. Working remotely, caseworkers used their telephones to

hold consultations with unemployed individuals, instead of being co-located. The

contribution of this paper is an empirical description of how casework changed

from co-located to remote consultations, in particular focused on two factors:

(1) the role of physical cues and how caseworkers rely on these to communicate

with and assess the individual, and (2) documentation of consultations and how

documentation became more important when caseworkers did not have access

to physical cues in the consultation with the individual. It is important to rec-

ognize how remote consultations challenge caseworkers’ reliance on physical

cues, which potentially can be biased, as well as how remote consultations can

enhance the autonomy of the individual, as the individual has more agency to

decide whether they will disclose information about their physical condition that

might be relevant to the case.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful for the time and patience of all the caseworkers involved in

the study. We also wish to thank the unemployed individuals, who allowed our

presence in the consultations. A huge thank goes to our colleagues at the Univer-

sity of Copenhagen, Stine Lomborg Irina Shklovski, Finn Kensing, Trine Rask

Nielsen, Henrik Palmer Olsen, Thomas Hildebrandt, and Stina Matthiesen. Many

A. A. Flügge, N. H. Møller

thanks to the anonymous reviewers, who patiently have provided generous feed-

back and suggestions that have helped the article take its form.

Funding

This work has been supported by the Independent Research Fund Den-

mark (PACTA: award number 8091-00025b).

Declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this paper.

References

Alhutter, Doris; Florian Cech; Fabian Fischer; Gabriel Grill; and Astrid Mager (2020). Algorithmic

Profiling of Job Seekers in Austria: How Austerity Politics Are Made Effective.

Frontiers in Big

Data.,

vol. 3, no. 5, 21 February 2020.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fdata.2020.00005

Andersen, Tariq Osman; Karen Dam Nielsen; Jonas Moll; and Jesper Hastrup Svendsen (2019).

Unpacking telemonitoring work: Workload and telephone calls to patients in implanted car-

diac device care.

International Journal of Medical Informatics,

vol. 129, September 2019,

pp. 381–387.

Avram, Gabriela; Liam Bannon; John Bowers; Anne Sheehan; and Daniel K. Sullivan (2009).

Bridging, Patching and Keeping the Work Flowing: Defect Resolution in Distributed Software

Development.

Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW),

vol. 18, issue 5–6, December

2009, pp. 477–507.

Bansler, Jørgen; Erling Havn; Troels Mønsted; Kjeld Schmidt; and Jesper Hastrup Svendsen

(2013). Physician’s Progress Notes. In: O. Bertelsen; L. Ciolfi; M. Grasso; and G. Papadopoulos

(eds):

ECSCW 2013: Proceedings of the 13th European Conference on Computer Supported

Cooperative Work, 21–25 September 2013, Paphos, Cyprus.

London: Springer, pp. 123–142.

Berg, Marc (1997).

Rationalizing Medical Work. Decision Support Techniques and Medical Prac-

tices.

Cambridge: MIT Press.

Bjørn, Pernille; and Lars Rune Christensen (2011). Relation work: Creating socio-technical con-

nections in global engineering. In: S. Bødker; N. Bouvin; V. Wulf; L. Ciolfi; and W. Lutters

(eds):

ECSCW 2011: Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Computer Supported

Cooperative Work, 24–28 September 2011, Aarhus Denmark.

London: Springer, pp. 133–152.

Bjørn, Pernille; Morten Esbensen, Rasmus Eskild Jensen, and; Stina Matthiesen (2014). Does

Distance Still Matter? Revisiting the CSCW Fundamentals on Distributed Collaboration.

ACM

Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI),

vol. 21, issue 5, no 27.

Böhringer, Daniela (2015). Editorial:

Labour Market Policy at Street Level. Social Work and Soci-

ety,

vol. 13, no. 1, April 2015, pp. 1–3.

Boulus-Rødje, Nina (2019). Welfare-to-work Policies Meeting Complex Realities of Unemployed

Citizens: Examining Assumptions in Welfare.

Nordic Journal of Working Life Studies,

vol. 9 no.

2, pp. 47–65.

Boulus-Rødje, Nina (2018). In search for the perfect pathway: Supporting knowledge work of wel-

fare workers.

Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW),

vol. 27, no. 3–6, pp. 841–874.

Bradner, Erin; and Gloria Mark (2002). Why distance matters: effects on cooperation, persuasion

and deception.

CSCW’02. In Proceedings of the 2002 ACM conference on Computer supported

cooperative work New Orleans Louisiana, USA November 16 - 20, 2002.

New York: ACM

Press, pp. 226–235, November 2002.

The Role of Physical Cues in Co-located and Remote Casework

Buffat, Aurélien (2015). Street-Level Bureaucracy and E-Government.

Public Management Review,

vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 149–161.

Ciolfi, Luigiana; Geraldine Fitzpatrick; and Liam Bannon (2008). Settings for Collaboration: the

Role of Place.

Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW),

vol. 17, issue 2–3 pp. 91–96.

Clark, Herbert; and Susan E. Brennan (1991). Grounding in communication.

Perspectives on

Socially Shared Cognition,

vol. 13, pp. 127–149.

Clark, Herbert H. (1996).

Using Language.

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Danish Agency for Labour Market and Recruitment (2020). Aktuel overvågning af situationen

på arbejdsmarkedet. Beskæftigelsesministeriets COVID-19 beredskab.

https://www.jobin

dsats. dk/ jobin dsats/ media/ 60844/ 22062 020- aktuel- overv aagni ng- af- situa tionen- paa- arbej

dsmarkedet-covid19-beredskab.pdf

accessed June 2020.

D’Angelo, Sarah; and Darren Gergle (2018). An Eye For Design: Gaze Visualizations

for Remote Collaborative Work.

CHI’18: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on

Human Factors in Computing Systems, Montreal, CA, 2018.

New York: ACM Press,

pp. 349:1-349:12.

Dolata, Mateusz; Birgit Schenk; Jara Fuhrer; Alina Marit; and Gerhard Schwabe (2020). When

the System Does Not Fit: Coping Strategies of Caseworkers.

Computer Supported Coopera-

tive Work (CSCW), vol.

29, pp. 657–696.

Dolata, Mateusz; and Gerhard Schwabe (2019). Translation and Adoption: Exploring Vocabu-

lary Work in Expert-Layperson Encounters.

Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW),

vol. 28, issue 3–4, pp. 685–722.

Dolata, Mateusz; and Gerhard Schwabe (2018). Don’t be afraid! Persuasive Practices in the

Wild.

Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW),

vol. 27, issue 3–6, pp. 427–462.

Finholt, Tom; and Lee S. Sproul (1990).

Electronic groups at work. Organization Science,

vol.

1, no. 1, February 1990, pp. 41–64.

Fischer, Joel E.; Andy Crabtree; James A. Colley; Tom Rodden; and Enrico Costanza (2017). Data

Work: How Energy Advisors and Clients Make IoT Data Accountable.

Computer Supported

Cooperative Work

(CSCW), vol. 26, issue 4–6, pp. 597–626.

Flügge, Asbjørn Ammitzbøll (2021). Perspectives from Practice: Algorithmic Decision-Making

in Public Employment Services.

CSCW ‘21: Companion Publication of the 2021 Conference

on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social

Computing. New York: ACM Press,

pp. 253–255

Flügge, Asbjørn Ammitzbøll; Thomas Hildebrandt; and Naja Holten Møller (2020). Algorith-

mic Decision Making in Public Services: A CSCW-Perspective.

GROUP’20: Companion of

the 2020 ACM International Conference on Supporting Group Work.

New York: ACM Press,

pp. 111–114.

Flügge, Asbjørn Ammitzbøll; Thomas Hildebrandt; and Naja Holten Møller (2021). Street-Level

Algorithms and AI in Bureaucratic Decision-Making: A Caseworker Perspective. In

CSCW’21:

Proceedings of the ACM on Human- Computer Interaction,

vol. 5, issue 1, Article 40.

Gerson, Elihu M. (2008). Reach, Bracket, and the Limits of Rationalized Coordination: Some Chal-

lenges for CSCW. In:

Resources, Co-Evolution and Artifacts. Computer Supported Cooperative

Work (CSCW).

London: Springer.

Greenhouse, Carol J.;, Elizabeth Mertz; and Kay B. Warren (2002).

Ethnography in Unstable

Places. Everyday Lives in Contexts of Dramatic Political Change.

Duke University Press.

Hammersley, Martyn; and Paul Atkinson (2017).

Ethnography. Principles in Practice.

Fourth Edi-

tion, Routledge.

Hansen, Hans-Tore; Kjetil Lundberg; and Liv Johanne Syltevik (2016). Digitalization, Street-Level

Bureaucracy and Welfare Users’ Experiences.

Social Policy & Administration,

vol. 52, no. 1,

December 2016, pp. 67–90.

A. A. Flügge, N. H. Møller

Hinds, Pamela; Daniela Retelny; and Catherine Cramton (2015). In the Flow, Being Heard, and

Having Opportunities: Sources of Power and Power Dynamics in Global Teams.

CSCW ‘15:

Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social

Computing, Vancouver BC, Canada.

New York: ACM Press, pp. 864–875.

Hinds, Pamela; and Sara Kiesler (2002).

Distributed Work.

Cambridge: MIT Press.

Hine, Christine (2000).

Virtual Ethnography.

London: SAGE.

Hsu, Wendy (2012). On digital ethnography, what do computers have to do with ethnography?

October 27, 2021. Ethnography Makers.

https://ethnographymatters.net/blog/2012/10/27/on-

digital-ethnography-part-one-what-do-computers-have-to-do-with-ethnography/.

8 Jan 2021

Jansson, Gabriella; and Gissur Ó. Erlingsson (2014). More E-Government, Less Street-Level

Bureaucracy? On Legitimacy and the Human Side of Public Administration,

Journal of Infor-

mation Technology & Politics,

vol. 11:3, pp. 291–308.

Kaltenhäuser, Kristin; Tijs Slaats; Thomas Gammeltoft-Hansen; and Naja Holten Møller (2022):

Deconstructing Gender in Asylum Categories: An Archival Perspective on a Practice with

Limited Access.

ECSCW 2022: Proceedings of the 20th European Conference on Computer-

Supported Cooperative Work: The International Venue on Practice-centred Computing on

the Design of Cooperation Technologies, 27 June – 1 July 2022, Coimbra, Portugal.

London:

Springer.

Klein, Heinz; and Michael Myers (1999). A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpre-

tive field studies in information systems.

MIS Quarterly, vol.

23, no. 1, March 1999, pp. 67–93

Kommunernes Landsforening (2020a). Beskæftigelsesindsatsen under covid-19.

https://www.kl.dk/

kommunale-opgaver/beskaeftigelse/gode-eksempler-paa-kommunernes-beskaeftigelsesindsats/

beskaeftigelsesindsatsen-under-covid-19/

(Accessed June 29th, 2020)

Kommunernes Landsforening (2020b). Debatindlæg: Slip de ledige og beskæftigelsessystemet fri

til digitale samtaler.

https://www.kl.dk/forsidenyheder/2020/juni/slip-de-ledige-og-beskaeftig

elsessystemet-fri-til-digitale-samtaler/

(Accessed June 29th, 2020)

Kommunernes Landsforening (2021): Visionsoplæg: Det virtuelle jobunivers.

Kvale, Steiner; and Svend Brinkman (2014).

InterViews: Learning the Craft of Qualitative

Research Interviewing.

United States: SAGE Publications Inc. Thousand Oaks.

Lindgren, Ida; Christian Østergaard Madsen; Sara Hofmann; and Ulf Melin (2019). Close encoun-

ters of the digital kind: A research agenda for the digitalization of public services.

Government

Information Quarterly,

vol 36, issue 3, July 2019, pp. 427–436.

Luff, Paul; Jon Hindmarsh; and Christian Heath, ed. (2000).

Workplace studies: recovering work

practice and informing system design.

Cambridge, UK; New York, USA: Cambridge University

Press.

Matthiesen, Stina; and Pernille Bjørn (2017). When distribution of tasks and skills are fundamen-

tally problematic: A failure story from global software outsourcing.

CSCW’17: Proceedings of

ACM Human-Computer Interact,

vol. 1, no. 74. New York: ACM Press, pp. 1–16.

Matthiesen, Stina; Pernille Bjørn; and Claus Trillingsgaard (2020). Attending to implicit bias as a

way to move beyond negative stereotyping in GSE.

ICGSE ‘20: Proceedings of the 15th Interna-

tional Conference on Global Software Engineering, Seoul, Republic of Korea.

New York: ACM

Press, pp. 22–32.

Matthiesen, Stina; Pernille Bjørn; and Lise Møller Petersen (2014). “Figure out how to code

with the hands of others”: recognizing cultural blind spots in global software development.

CSCW’14: Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative

work & social computing, Baltimore Maryland, USA.

New York: ACM Press, pp. 1107–

1119, February 2014.

Matthiesen, Stina; and Pernille Bjørn (2016). Let’s Look Outside the Office: Analytical Lens

Unpacking Collaborative Relationships in Global Work. In: A. De Angeli; L. Bannon; P.

The Role of Physical Cues in Co-located and Remote Casework

Marti; and S. Bordin (eds):

COOP 2016: Proceedings of the 12th International Confer-

ence on the Design of Cooperative Systems, May 2016, Trento, Italy.

London: Springer,

pp. 107–122.

Møller, Naja Holten; Geraldine Fitzpatrick; and Christopher Le Dantec (2019). Assembling the

case: Citizens’ strategies for exercising authority and personal autonomy in social welfare.

GROUP 2019: Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Supporting Group Work,

New York:

ACM Press, vol. 3, article 244.

Møller, Naja Holten; Irina Shklovski; and Thomas T. Hildebrandt (2020). Shifting Concepts of

Value: Designing Algorithmic Decision-Support Systems for Public Services.

NordiCHI ‘20:

Proceedings of the 11th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Shaping Expe-

riences, Shaping Society, Tallinn, Estonia.

New York: ACM Press, no. 70, pp. 1–12, October

2020.

Møller, Naja Holten; Trine Rask Rask Nielsen; and Christopher Le Dantec (2021). Work of the

Unemployed: An inquiry into individuals’ experience of data usage in public services and

possibilities for their agency.

DIS’21:

Proceedings

of Designing Interactive Systems Confer-

ence 2021, Virtual Event, USA.

New York: ACM Press, June 2021, pp. 438–448.

Møller, Naja Holten; and Pernille Bjørn (2011). Layers in Sorting Practices: Sorting out Patients

with Potential. Cancer.

Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), vol

20, issue 3, June

2011, pp. 123–153.

Mønsted, Troels; Madhu C. Reddy; and Jørgen P. Bansler (2011). The Use of Narratives in

Medical Work: A Field Study of Physician-Patient Consultations. In: S. Bødker; N. Bouvin;

V. Wulf; L. Ciolfi; and W. Lutters (eds):

ECSCW 2011: Proceedings of the 12th European

Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 24–28 September 2011, Aarhus Den-

mark.

London: Springer, pp. 81–100.

Morrison, Cecily; Fitzpatrick, Geraldine; and Alan Blackwell (2011). Multi-disciplinary col-

laboration during ward rounds: Embodied aspects of electronic medical record usage.

Inter-

national Journal of Medical Informatics,

vol. 80, no 8, August 2011, pp. e96–e111.

Olson, Judith; Erik C. Hofer; Nathan Bos; Ann Zimmerman; Gary M. Olson; Daniel Cooney;

and Ixchel Faniel (2008). A theory of remote scientific collaboration. In Gary M. Olson, Ann

Zimmerman, and Nathan Bos (eds),

Scientific Collaboration on the Internet.

Cambridge:

MIT Press, pp. 73-97.

Olson, Gary M; and Judith S. Olson (2000). Distance matters.

Human-Computer Interaction,

vol. 15, issue 2–3, December 2000, pp. 139–178.

Peddle, Katrina (2007). Telehealth in Context: Socio-technical Barriers to Telehealth use in

Labrador, Canada.

Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW),

vol. 16, issue 6, Sep-

tember 2017, pp. 595–614.

Petersen, Anette C. M; Lars Rune Christensen; and Thomas Troels Hildebrandt (2020). The

Role of Discretion in the Age of Automation.

Computer Supported Cooperative Work

(CSCW),

vol. 29, no. 3, January 2020, pp. 303–333.

Petersen, Anette C. M.; Lars Rune Christensen; Richard Harper; and Thomas Hildebrandt

(2021). “We Would Never Write That Down”: Classifications of Unemployed and Data Chal-

lenges for AI.

CSCW’21: Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Computer Supported

Cooperative Work,

vol. 5, issue 1, no. 102. New York: ACM Press.

Pink, Sarah (2015).

Digital Ethnography: Principles and Practice.

London: SAGE.

Pool, Ithiel de Sola (1977).

The social impact of the telephone.

Cambridge: MIT Press.

Randall, Dave; Richard Harper; and Mark Rouncefield (2007).

Fieldwork for Design: Theory and

Practice

(Computer Supported Cooperative Work). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg.

Randell, Rebecca; Stephanie Wilson; and Peter Woodward (2011). Variations and Commonalities

in Processes of Collaboration: The Need for Multi-Site Workplace Studies.

Computer Supported

Cooperative Work (CSCW),

vol. 20, issue 1–2, October 2010, pp. 37–59.

A. A. Flügge, N. H. Møller

Rask Nielsen, Trine; and Naja Holten Møller (2022). Data as a Lens for Understanding what

Constitutes Credibility in Asylum Decision-making.

GROUP’22: Proceedings of the ACM on

Human-Computer Interaction,

vol. 6, pp 1–23. New York: ACM Press

Robertson, Toni; Jane Li; Kenton O’Hara; and Susan Hansen (2010). Collaboration Within Differ-

ent Settings: A Study of Co-located and Distributed Multidisciplinary Medical Team Meetings.

Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW),

vol. 19, issue 5, October 2010, pp- 483–513

Saxena, Devansh; Karla Badillo-Urquiola; Pamela J. Wisniewski; and Shion Guha (2021). A

Framework of High-Stakes Algorithmic Decision-Making for the Public Sector Developed

through a Case Study of Child-Welfare.

CSCW’21: Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference

on Computer Supported Cooperative Work,

vol. 5, issue 2, no. 348. New York: ACM Press.

Seidelin, Cathrine; Therese Moreau; Irina Shklovski; and Naja Holten Møller (2022). Auditing

Long-Term Unemployment.

GROUP’22: Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Inter-

action,

vol. 6, issue GROUP, no. 8. New York: ACM Press.

Vassilakopoulou, Polyxeni; Miria Grisot; and Margunn Aanestad (2019). Between Personal and

Common: the Design of Hybrid Information Spaces.

Computer Supported Cooperative Work

(CSCW),

vol. 28, October 2019, pp. 1011–1038.

Winthereik, Brit Ross; and Signe Vikkelsø (2005). ICT and Integrated Care: Some Dilemmas of

Standardising Inter- Organisational Communication.

Computer Supported Cooperative Work

(CSCW),

vol. 14, no. 1, February 2005, pp. 43–67.

Wulf, Volker; Markus Rohde; Volkmar Pipek; and Gunnar Stevens (2011). Engaging with prac-

tices: Design case studies as a research framework in CSCW. In P. Hinds; J. C. Tang; J. Wang;

J. Bardram; and N. Ducheneaut (eds):

CSCW’11: Proceedings of the ACM 2011 Confer-

ence on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Hangzhou, China.

New York: ACM Press,

pp. 505–512.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published

maps and institutional affiliations.

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the

author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely

governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.