This last chapter of Part I deals with the care-ethical theory of presence as it has developed since 2001. Before going into the major topics in relational caring that are discussed in the chapters of Part II, we present the presence theory as a presence-theoretical perspective on relational caring, a configuration of diverse ‘lenses’ with which to look at care practices in healthcare and social work. This configuration and the lenses with which it is configured are flexible, complex heuristic devices that are put together on the spot, as it were.

Qualitative presence-theoretical research since 2001

Since the publication of A Theory of Presence (Baart, 2001), the description, analysis, theoretical elaboration and justification of the practice of presence have been received quite positively, including in fields far beyond the realm of pastoral care. The vocabulary of presence has come to be appreciated by social workers, nurses, youth workers, professionals in addiction care, general practitioners, educators and so forth, because it helps them to articulate their own motivation and aims, as well as their frustrations at the way they are increasingly being trained, assessed and managed, and to think and deliberate with colleagues about their work and the issues they face. Since 2001, the practising of presence has been developed horizontally – to other professional domains, situations and issues – and vertically – to leadership, quality of care, the formation of professionals and transitional processes. This was done in concrete, specific practices and in many qualitative studies, both by Andries Baart, his PhD students and others.

Relational caring and its prerequisites were studied in the care of people with a psychiatric background, relating it to such concepts as ‘paving the way’, ‘recovery’ and ‘contact after treatment’. In her PhD study, ‘Paving the way: Making scope for people with a psychiatric background’ (in Dutch), Doortje Kal answered the question of how to work on the hospitable reception in community centres and voluntary work of people with psychiatric disabilities. She makes it clear that what appears to be an individual problem is in fact a problem of how we organise society. If we want someone with a psychiatric background to participate in society, then we will have to accommodate, to give in (Kal, 2001).