Secondary victimization is additional damage, which does not originate out of the main event. Rather out of the reactions of the institutions and specialists on which people turn to for help. In the Slovenian area, the secondary victimization is discussed more in the manor of criminal proceedings, rather than a risk that is found in the processes of support and help in centers for social work. Where the supporting role is intertwined with statutory authority. The aim of the undergraduate thesis was to gain insight in to how professional workers understand and recognize secondary victimization, which risk factors they recognize on a procedural level, relational-communicative level and organizational level of their work, how do they experience interwinding of support and statutory authority, with what procedures do they lower the risks and what needs do they recognize. In the theoretical part of this work, I define secondary victimization and intuitional context of its beginning. The main focus is mostly on the tasks of social work centers and concepts of social work, legal and professional framework of victim protection, understanding trauma with a reasoning approach, language role and documentation, ethnic principles, epistemological foundations of second- and third-order cybernetics. The research conducted was empirical, qualitative and exploratory. The data were gathered through interviews, using guidelines for a semi-structured interview consisting of eighteen open-ended questions as the research instrument. In addition of the non-probability sample there were also included six female professionals from three different social work centers. Which work with protecting children and families, with domestic violence, crisis intervention and initial social assistance. The materials were analyzed with open and axial coding. All of the findings show that the participants are familiar with the term and situate it in the processes of support and help. They describe its recognition to be difficult because it is not always possible to recognize the struggles. It can also be shown as apparent cooperation. In depth they describe risk factors at a procedural level. Such as repeatedly recounting their story, which also stands out, less shown are procedures based on relational - communicative. In the manor of lowering the risk is the relationship reversed. Most are described relation – communicative based and stating only one on a organizational level. Results show that the system generates risks on a procedural and organizational level, while the responsibility is sifted onto individual professionals.
|
