SOCIAL WORK PRACTICE

Introduction
For social work there is a continuing tension between practiceand theory. This tension exists both within social work and aboutsocial work. At times students and practitioners have protestedthat it was necessary to forget theory once in practice. The argumenthas been that theory is abstract, inaccessible, and that it reduces spontaneity in helping people. Using theory implied distance and objectivity which contrasted with feelings and the living reality of social work encounters. As such it was seen to be a stumbling-block to developing individual style, and the most that could be hoped for was that students would admit that they might subconsciously be using theory that they had absorbed during their education and training.
Other discussions that have taken place, mainly among academics, are that social work has suffered because it has been seen to be theory-less or atheoretical. The suggestion is that because social work is about practice then it is neither a profession nor an academic discipline, it is merely the appliance of other social sciences (Orme, 2000a). While this might be seen, in more ways than one, to be an academic debate it is important because social work’s uneasy relationship with theory has made it vulnerable in many ways. Policy-makers could argue that anyone can do social work, or that social work was not necessary. Or they could introduce policies and practices, such as care management, that soughtto displace social work to the extent that they rename it social care.
In universities the fact that social work did not develop, or was notseen to be developing, theory meant that its legitimacy was beingchallenged. Social work did not have a place in universities. Forthose who deny the need for theory, education and/or training forsocial work practice this is not a problem. For social work as awhole and those for whom social work exists, client/service users,it constitutes a threat to the quality of services provided.In a text about social work practice it is vital that we considerthe role of theory. This is not because theory should prescribe howsocial work must be practised, but because the use of theory is thehallmark of a good practitioner. This introductory chapter willexplore what is meant by theory, and how social workers applytheory in practice. To do this is not merely a justification for thetext; it is a contribution to the defence of social work as an activity.
Why practice needs theory
Over time students have become less antagonistic to theoreticalideas, naming and trying to integrate what can at first glance appear to be a smorgasbord of apparently contradictory explanations of behaviour. Education about theories that might underpinndecision-making, or that might inform what action to take, isnenjoying resurgence in the form of the social work degree but this has not been without a struggle.
The competence-based approach to education and training introducedin the 1980s (CCETSW, 1989a), reflected assumptions that social work is a set of functions, and that practitioners need to be trained merely to perform these functions. This was reinforced by legislation and policy initiatives that were accompanied by sets of ‘guidelines’, attempting to set limits on social work activity. The consequence of this prescriptive account of social work intervention was that the emphasis was on tasks, and task performance, not on workers’ abilities to analyse and process information drawn from their skilled interactions with individuals, families or groups. Such an approach was unethical, failing to provide users of social work with appropriate interventions, and as such it is incompetent. As Howe (2000) argues, practitioners who develop and offer coherentapplications of what is going on in their practice keep their professionalbearing and sustain their commitment. Service users deserveprofessional and committed practitioners.
More importantly if such a mechanistic approach is adopted, there is no understanding that the information gleaned during social work interventions might be interpreted in many different ways, depending on which theoretical approach is used. Nor is there any expectation that students and practitioners will review their intervention in the light of the growing amount of practicebased research available in social work. The competence-based approach (see Ford and Hayes, 1996, for a discussion of this approach) requires certainties; that if you are dealing with A, you can intervene with B and that will secure an acceptable outcome C.
In the history of social work such assumptions were associated witha scientific approach when social workers, in their quest for a professional identity, looked to medicine.
In a climate of increased managerialism, workers are scrutinisedon performance indicators that include the number of service usersor problems dealt with, the time taken to respond to a referral (or toprepare a report) or other calculations of throughput and output. The‘management’ outcome is often that the required form has been completed. The quality of the intervention, what has occurred ormight occur between the worker and the service user while the formis being completed, was not covered in national standards forprobation practice, competences for care management or definitionsof ‘best value’.
The dilemma for social workers is that there are tasks to beperformed and skills to be utilised, but prescriptions of ‘the what’and ‘the how’ cannot be constructed in a vacuum. Social workers,to be truly effective, need to be constantly asking ‘why?’ It is in thisquest for understandings about, for example, why situations arise,why people react in certain ways and why particular interventionsmight be utilised, that theory informs practice. However, this mightsuggest that there is a certainty about what theories should betaught, that theory for social work practice is uncontentious. Whatfollows in this chapter is a discussion of what constitutes theoryand the contribution of theory to ‘ethical and effective’ practice.
The use of that phrase brings us back to the developing relationship between theory, practice, education and training.
A change of government in the late 1990s and concerted efforts byacademics and practitioners led to a reclaiming of the place andfunction of social work. The incoming Labour government initiallyattempted to dismiss the need for social workers. However repeatedchild abuse tragedies, concerns about mental health users and othersocial problems led to a re-think and a decision to ‘modernise’ socialwork. In the process this offered a chance to increase qualifying levelsin social work. In the development of the degree some importanttensions emerged. The announcement that an undergraduate degreewas to be the minimum qualification was accompanied by a statementfrom the Minister for Health, Jacqui Smith, that this was to bea ‘practical degree’, that services users needed social workers to dopractical tasks to resolve their problems, not think about why theproblems had arisen. Others felt that undergraduate study of bothpractice and theory would prepare workers for the complexity of thesocial work task (Orme, 2001a).
Theory, practice and research
The developments in social work education and training wereaccompanied by increasing attention to the relationship betweenresearch and practice. That a research base for social work is necessaryis indisputable. Initiatives such as Making Research Count andResearch into Practice focus on ways of encouraging social workersto utilise research findings to inform their practice. These initiativeswere supported by the setting up of the Social Care Institute forExcellence (Scie) with a remit to ensure ‘knowledge transfer’, thatis, to gather research findings, evaluate them and disseminate themto the social care workforce.
This infrastructure was to support an evidence-based approach topractice, described in criminal justice as the ‘what works’ approach(McGuire, 1995). However the terms ‘evidence-based’ and ‘whatworks’ have been contentious. Debates about the nature of theresearch, appropriate methodologies, ethical issues and the impact ofresearch are central to social work, both in academia and in practice.Parton (2000) suggests that crucial to discussions about an evidencebase for social work is an understanding of whether evidence of goodpractice refers to the way problems can be solved, or the effectivenessof the organisation. For example, the development of the ‘whatworks’ agenda has influenced service delivery in the criminal justicefield.
Chapter 8 describes how research evidence that demonstratedthat accredited groupwork programmes based on behaviouralapproaches were effective ways of working with offenders led totheir proliferation in the criminal justice services. However notionsof ‘effectiveness’ were part of a managerialist agenda that requiredrequisite numbers of offenders to be processed, and prescribedmethods of intervention (Chapman and Hough, 1998; HomeOffice, 1999) irrespective of the quality of the intervention or theappropriateness for the individual offenders.
Such developments could be seen to fulfil fears that emphasis ontheory curtails the spontaneity and freedom of practitioners. Butapproaches to research that merely describe findings and assume thatthese are the answer to practice dilemmas are not good research, anddo not constitute theory. This does not mean that practitioners canadopt an ‘anything goes’ approach. In research, as in practice,workers have to be reflexive. That is, they do not accept informationuncritically and they must be able to test out ideas in the light ofpractice experience. This has been crucial in the development of goodresearch-informed practice. It has also contributed to approaches toresearch that involve practitioners and service users in research,acknowledging that the best way to understand situations is toascertain the views of those in the situation. While such approachesare desirable they are not straightforward, not least because theychallenge the power of both the practitioner and the researcher(Orme, 2000b). More importantly they recognise an importantstrand of theory building – theory from social work.
What is theory?
Educationalists have debated at length competing positions regarding social reality and the production of knowledge, in other words, theory (for discussion see Rojek, 1986; Howe, 1987). Put more simply theory is a framework for understanding a clustering of ideas that attempt to explain reality in a self-conscious way (Stepney and Ford, 2000, p. viii). This self-conscious explanation involves ‘making sense’ of what is going on by observing, describing, explaining, predicting and intervening (Howe, 2000, p.81). It is also this imperative to explain that distinguishes a theory,which seeks to explain why; from a model, which seeks to describehow factors interact; or a method which involves formal writtenaccounts of how to do the job (Stepney and Ford, 2000). Hence inmany of the following chapters descriptions are given of how to undertake a particular social work intervention, but these are accompanied by different theoretical perspectives on why this model has been developed and which theoretical perspectives explain why it is effective.
However, as has already been stated, this does not mean thatthere is only one explanation or perspective. Academics and practitionerswith particular theoretical perspectives will observe, describe, explain, predict and intervene in different ways. This is referred to on a number of occasions throughout this book when critiques of particular approaches are provided to help practitioners reflect both on what is being proposed, and on their own particular position in relation to those proposals. While for some this lack of certainty might seem unhelpful, Howe suggests that it should be embraced positively: ‘Rather than bemoan the number and range of theories the practitioner needs to acknowledge that diversityreflects the subtlety and complexity of the human condition’(Howe, 2000, p. 83).
Also there is no need to assume that because there are differentperspectives, these are necessarily contradictory rather thancomplementary. The ‘gladiatorial paradigm’, that is, the notion thatsocial work theories compete and cannot be integrated since theyoffer opposing interpretations of social reality, ignores thecommonalities and interdependence of explanations of how humanbeings shape, and are shaped by, their internal and external worlds.
Moreover it ignores ambiguity, uncertainty and doubt which arefeatures of the complexity of social work practice (Parton, 2000).
Either/or arguments, such as insisting that counsellors must beeither Rogerian or behaviourist, or that social workers are eitherradical or traditional in their approach, fail to see the underlyingcontinuities that hold together such apparently diverse positions.
Most theories have elements in common as well as elements inopposition. The eclectic practitioner, who claims to take the ‘best’from different theories, actually holds a consistent view of peopleand their situations (Howe, 1992: Payne, 1998). Purists mightattack this seemingly undisciplined and incoherent way of working;yet this is the way in which practice is generally conducted, notleast because it reflects the complexity of situations in which socialworkers intervene. However such debates do highlight the rangeof theoretical perspectives upon which social work draws, anddemonstrate that social work is certainly not atheoretical.
Theory for practice
Since there are competing explanations for the situations socialworkers meet, it is not surprising that there is little agreement aboutthe nature of theory that is required to intervene in those situations.
Siporin (1975), for example, believed that social workers neededfoundation knowledge (personality theory, social theory and socialpolicy theory) that would contribute to an understanding of theperson in society. Jones (1996) on the other hand criticised socialwork academics’ selectivity in identifying and privileging certaintheories or, in his words, ‘seeing (theory) as a resource to be plunderedand pillaged’ (Jones, 1996, p. 203).Another way of framing theory is offered by Pilalis’s (1986) sixmeanings of ‘theory’ which reflect visions that are carried amongststudent groups. Some regarded theory as general rules or lawstestable against observable evidence. Others, similarly influencedby the physical sciences, took it to mean a probability, a hypothesisor a speculative explanation subject to research. The third andfourth meanings, specific to the human sciences, involved a systemof principles which help us to understand events more clearly or tocapture, for practical purposes, underlying ideological and valuebases of say psychological, sociological or political ideas. Finally,popular uses of the word ‘theory’ are encapsulated in the fifth andsixth examples. That is the way in which it is distinguished frompractice (‘this is theory rather than practice’) and the dismissive,‘that is all very well in theory’ which sees knowledge as idealistic,and representing unattainable goals.A more common way to classify theory is to distinguish between‘levels’ of theory. So called ‘grand theories’ included Freudian orMarxist explanations of what motivates human nature, givingseemingly all-inclusive accounts. On the other hand, ‘mid-rangetheories’ are not so comprehensive, they address particularphenomena such as loss, attachment, delinquency and so on and tryto explain their causes and consequences. Such explanations can beoffered within Marxian or Freudian understandings of the world(see Howe, 1987 for examples). Finally, micro theories describe andexplain particular practices.These classifications, also known as the deductive approach(Howe, 2000), can be described as theories for social work. Thatis, the relevant social sciences are applied to practice. Howeverpractice is more than a ‘rational–technical’ activity (Parton, 2000) ofapplying knowledge from other disciplines to help decide what to do.
An inductive or constructive approach, that is, building theory frompractice and observation is just as, if not more, important.In developing a particular approach to practice, a constructiveapproach, Parton and O’Byrne argue that there has been a failureto articulate and develop concepts and theories for practice. By thisthey mean ‘a range of insights and concepts which had previouslybeen derived from detailed analysis of what goes on between socialworker and service user’ (2000, p. 7). However, these are, in fact,theories from practice. Before considering what that means, weneed to recognise that there has also been a development of theoriesof practice.
Theories of practice
Theories of social work include understandings of, for example, what it is and who is it for, but also contribute to models of how to do social work. Often this theory is developed inductively when workers build up theory from observations of their practice and observation. An example of this is task-centred practice, where a whole new approach to practice was developed after existing practices were observed and new ones introduced and assessed (see Chapter 7).
However other developments are not so overt. Theory that is implicit (Evans, 1976), alternatively called practice theory or practicewisdom, makes assumptions about what social workers do andhow they make sense of their experiences. This explains in an organised way how social workers may usefully act, using their knowledge of the social world. England (1986) argues that a social worker’s ‘practice knowledge’ involves a unique understanding of the people who constitute the clients, ‘the general processes of perception and the creation of meanings which determine the individual’s capacity to cope’ (England, 1986, p. 34). However, in espousing a commonsense approach, England is being neither atheoretical nor anti-theoretical, but argues that ‘defined’ knowledge is not enough on its own. Professional learning has to be accompanied by, or mediated through, ‘personal’ knowledge that willinform intuitive knowledge and intuitive behaviour (England,1986, p. 35). This position is reinforced by Parton (2000). His definitionof social work as a practical moral activity involves social workers drawing upon tacit knowledge to inform and make sense of their interventions.Significant in the development of an evidence base for social work is the work of Scie in trying to elucidate this tacit knowledge.
By producing practice overviews and practice guides, resourceguides, knowledge reviews, reports and positions papers (all availableon the Scie website: www.scie.org.uk), Scie promotes good practice by reviewing knowledge to find out what works best and sharing this knowledge with all kinds of people involved in social work.
Theories from practice
Knowledge gained from theory exists to inform social workers’understanding, not to dominate it. As England argues, theory is notan end in itself, ‘Abstract knowledge in social work, whilst it remains abstract knowledge, is utterly useless’ (England, 1986, p.35). If effective strategies and techniques are recorded and developed, then knowledge is created and can be used to direct others to what is common and regularly occurring in human experience.Some codification of activity enables social workers to evaluatetheir practice. When social workers evaluate their efforts, be theyservices to individuals or whole programmes of care, they begin toengage in theory building. Much social work theory derives fromsomeone’s experience that has been written down and shared withothers. This can be described as theory from practice. However thisdoes not mean that it is unassailable. What it does mean is thateveryone’s perspective is valuable, and importantly this recognisesthe perspectives of users and carers in the development of theory.
PostmodernismAs social work searches for a theory base, the notion of theoreticalcoherence is being challenged by postmodernism (Howe, 1994;Fook, 2002). Postmodernism focuses on how and why we seek forexplanations or underlying causes, rather than what those causesmight be. Hence postmodern notions of practice theories for socialwork would be ‘a kaleidoscope of ideas, research findings, argument,practice wisdom, values and critical speculation, whose coherence would lie in relationships between the different parts, and between them and the reader’s experience’ (Tuson, 1996, p. 70).
But as Stepney and Ford point out, while academics might usefully debate theoretical dilemmas such as whether truth exists, practitioners can only afford such luxuries if they bring about tangible benefits and lead to positive outcomes (Stepney and Ford, 2000, p. 21). But accepting that there are many influences on the construction of social work theory, and ultimately practice, can be enormously helpful to practitioners. That there is no one timeless, all-embracing theory for social work, and that socialwork evolves and reforms according to local and cultural conditionsof all social life (Howe, 1994) creates the potential to build theory from practice. More importantly, doing so calls into question who defines relevant theory, or which theories are privileged at any one time.Social work theory should never become an end in itself, it canbe generative offering new insights and perspectives (Parton, 2000).
It therefore has to be both interactive and reflexive, and will changein response to practice constructions (Payne, 1991).
Reflexive practiceThe notion of reflexive practice has contributed to the synthesisof postmodern critiques and theory building in social work. Thissynthesis has contributed to the development of emancipatory ortransformational theory (Payne, 1998). As Fook (2002) explains,part of the resistance to theory is that there has been an inexorablelink between knowledge and power. Postmodernism questions the supremacy of professional knowledge and thus significantly undermines the professions’ claim to dominance (Fook, 2002, p. 37).
This might seem ironic in that so far this chapter has argued fordeveloping a theory base as part of the recognition of somethingcalled ‘social work’. But this depends on a particular use of knowledgeby professionals. Schon (1987) argues that technical knowledgehelps professionals only to a limited extent. Reflecting on the differentcontributions to any social work interaction involves identifyingthe limits of existing theories and developing new ones. Hence areflexive stance requires practitioners to ‘reflect in action’ anddemonstrate or construct accounts of what they have done, in whatorder and the outcomes; the values, strategies and assumptions thatmake up ‘theories’ in action (Schon, 1987). It is this that holds thepotential for change (Fook, 2002), not only in professionals’ perceptionsof the situation that they are dealing with, but also in theoriesthat inform the situation, the theories for and of practice.However a truly reflexive stance, a one that develops theory from practice, has to recognise that explanations of what is happening in social work interactions are not the sole prerogative of practitioners. Any understanding has to incorporate the contribution to knowledge from users and carers. Postmodernism questions assumptions about ‘legitimate’ knowledge. Often legitimacy is granted because of the way things are known, who knows them and how knowledge is conveyed to others (Fook, 2002). Writers such as Foucault (1980) have highlighted that some knowledges (that is what people know about their experiences) are classed as inauthentic, not valid and not taken into account. In the past theknowledge, experience and views of service users have been treated as inauthentic or subsidiary. This contributed to the oppression of service users by the processes and practices of social work. Practice informed by user and carer perspectives is emancipatory and reflects the anti-oppressive value base of social work.
The potential of critical reflection is not that it overthrows or throws out all other understandings of theory, but that it challenges assumptions that only certain theories are valid. It does not mean that only one form of knowledge, that is, either professional knowledge or service user knowledge, is valid; it accepts that both have a contribution to make to understanding situations, and therefore constructing theory about them. This is crucial in the process of undertaking social work assessments, as we shall see in the next chapter.
PraxisCritical reflection also helps to bring together theory and practicein a way that is meaningful to practitioners. The educationalist/community worker Freire (1972) calls the ability to think and do ‘praxis’, a Marxist term that has been explored further by feminist scholarship (Stanley and Wise, 1990). The notion of praxis encourages people to perceive, interpret, criticise and transform the world around them. In social work a lot of time is spent in giving tangible, immediate, practical help, but this does not invalidate attempts to look beyond the obvious to ensure that experiences of inequality and oppression are revealed and challenged.
Underpinning praxis is the notion that it is not enough to study the world; the aim is to change it. Hence we have come full circle in exploring the relationship between theory and practice.ConclusionProfessional social work practice requires that workers deploy awide-ranging repertoire of skills, underpinned by a value base thatrespects others. This will enable them to respond to the diversity ofexperiences and reactions that are encountered when working withfellow human beings. Skills and values are only meaningful if theyare informed by theories. However as we have seen in this chaptertheory building and theory application require a complex interactionbetween knowledge and process, challenging notions of whoproduces knowledge, how it is used and what are the implicationsfor practice.In this context the aim of this text is to provide not a recipe book, a manual of how to do social work, but an array of approaches which themselves arise out of, and are constructed by, the attempts of others to describe practice. It is important for practitioners to be able to utilise the knowledge generated and to understand that each intervention in which they are involved will add to their knowledge and understanding, and help to contribute to their own theoretical approach.
In this way, and in manyothers, this text should be considered as a beginning, and not an end in itself. putting it into practice
1. Identify a piece of your own practice. This might be a case or just oneinterview. While you are thinking about it list all the ‘assumptions’that you made when dealing with the situation: about the people involved; what was going on; what might happen; what you might do to help those in the situation and so on.
2. When you have made the list try to organise it into themes aroundthe kind of theory that has informed your thinking. This might be theory about human development, theory about oppression and discrimination or it might be theory associated with a particular way of intervening.