Social Assessment Theory and Practice

A Multi-Disciplinary Framework

Derek Clifford

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• Print ISBN: 9781138342996
• eBook ISBN: 9780429800061
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Social Science Research & Methodology
• Index: Social Sciences

First published in 1998, Social Assessment Theory and Practice provides an innovative and comprehensive theoretical and practical basis for social assessment. It examines both multi-disciplinary and multi-professional issues in social assessment and is based on perspectives drawn from all the major service users and oppressed social groups. The book integrates social theory and practice at multiple levels, using summaries, checklists, diagrams and a running case study.

Part One

Critical auto/biography: Social theory for social assessment

This part of the book attempts to set out a theoretical basis for social assessment under six inter-related headings, with reference to contemporary social science methodology and values. The first chapter argues that auto/biography and other related developments in qualitative social research can and should be used as a basis for social assessment, but offers a specific, value-based interpretation of auto /biography. The following chapters spell out that framework. It is not being offered in any sense as final: it is all too clear that the changing issues involved could be debated at great length.

I have chosen to write about both theory and practice in a specific area, and therefore can only indicate positions which are discussed more fully by others (especially white and black feminists and other social theorists - to which I will refer). The argument should therefore be considered in the light of a range of developing theories which link research methodology and practice to the complex nature of oppression and its implications for any possible understanding of social issues in relation to individual lives and professional practice.

1 Values and methodology

Introduction

This first chapter highlights some basic arguments about the nature of social assessment, and sets the pattern for subsequent chapters in Part One.

It will firstly propose six interconnected methodological principles on which to ground the theory and practice of social assessment - a methodological framework which will be described as ‘critical auto/biography (CA/B). It outlines general practical and professional implications - ideas that will be examined in Part Two in relation to specific user and social groups, where theoretically informed practice methods and procedures will be discussed.

This first chapter will also discuss the first principle being proposed, which is concerned with methodology and oppression. Subsequent chapters in Part One will discuss the other principles proposed, the justification for them, possible objections, and general implications for practice.

Historically, the task of social history assessment has often been associated with hierarchically subordinate gendered roles in various agencies, with (mainly) women being managed by (mainly) men. In health, the nurse or junior doctor has ‘taken a history’ from a patient in order to inform senior consultants, and in social services a significant part of the basic-grade social worker’s role has been to construct a ‘social history’ for other professionals to use - either in the courts, or to inform psychiatrists or other medical personnel. This socially constructed position of subordination has been reinforced by a relative absence of theoretical input to what has often been seen as a practical task at which women are particularly good - except where, occasionally, it is done by higher-status professionals. Compare, for instance, the theoretical input by forensic clinical psychologists into the assessment of sexual abusers (McMurren and Hodge, 1994) with the evidence that probation officers, working with the same kind of offenders, work with little or no agreed theoretical framework (Kemshall, 1995).

Historically, major theoretical contributions have been made by various psychodynamic traditions interpreting individual lives in terms of psychological development. Given their status, it is not surprising that it is these theories which traditionally underpin the social history as it has been used particularly in some mental health areas, and in social work with children and families. Even so, women are again stereotypically seen as particularly useful at gaining access to information about feelings, hence the common division of labour in multi-professional teams between (usually) women nurses or social workers who relate directly to the user, and the (not always) male doctors and consultants who are responsible for interpretation and diagnosis. Recent developments in the bureaucratisation of assessment practices, particularly in community care, have again emphasised the relatively low-status work, and minimal training required for completing assessment checklists and forms (Dominelli, 1996a, 1996b). Here a more unambiguous medical model appears to dominate, involving the collection of elementary historical data and identification of current key indicators of specified areas of need. There has therefore also been a link with social class status, since the pay and working conditions for women in this kind of low- level work are deemed to be very different from the elite training and working conditions required for either detailed psychological analysis or medical diagnosis - or indeed for the managerial and higher administrative roles that are required in the larger organisations.

However, the importance and the difficulty of making good enough assessments of complex individual and micro-social situations has always been potentially obvious. In recent years, the question has been at the forefront of public discussion, notably in relation to child abuse scandals and mental health tragedies, and increasingly in relation to other groups who may be at risk, or in need, such as older people, or those who cause others to be at risk, such as offenders.

One question that needs to be answered is how far social science theory can be used to assist and justify the difficult decisions involved for professionals who have such responsibilities in these areas. A traditional academic stance has been to study the practices of professionals and other practitioners from a suitable distance - from the proverbial ivory tower - and to comment eruditely on the theoretical implications and adequacy of their performance. This has sometimes resulted in a seemingly elitist perspective on the work of female ‘semi-professions’ (Sibeon, 1990 and 1991). The aim here is to try to pull together useful theoretical contributions from the social sciences to provide a sound basis for assessment, drawing on practice experience in order to make that selection and evaluation. However, I deliberately try to use the theoretical contributions of authors from nonelite social groups in order to positively value the work of women (especially) in this area, and to counterbalance and inform the limitations of my own past and current experience and knowledge. In this way, the intention is to further understanding of what good social assessment entails; to increase respect for those who have to do it in difficult circumstances; to increase awareness amongst practitioners of the methodological issues and the implications of these for practice, and to increase theoreticians’ awareness of the complexity and intellectual challenge of practice and its interpretation. The following is therefore addressed both to those involved in practice and to those involved in theorising about practice, in the hope that it will make a contribution in both areas, and ultimately that it will have some benefit for those on the receiving end.

The key task which has not been met by previous discussions of assessment is the primary shortcoming identified in a recent discussion of holistic assessment: ‘there is no conceptual framework which adequately embraces the range of assessment tasks’ (Lloyd and Taylor, 1995, pp.692-3). The authors were addressing the fragmented range of types of assessment done in social work, where government concern and intervention has resulted in initiatives which have not succeeded in resolving issues. Problems arise particularly because of the multi-professional and multidisciplinary nature of assessments in the health and social services - and also in other areas such as law and education, where the social aspect of assessment always intrudes. Problems also arise because of differences arising from values and perspectives that cross cultural, national and other social boundaries (Boushel, 1994). Published government guides to assessment (e.g. DoH, 1988; 1989a; 1990; 1991) concern both health and welfare services, but have not employed a theoretical framework which could evaluate and integrate the various professions, disciplines and perspectives which are involved. The aim of what follows is to contribute to that basis.

The concept of critical auto/biography

I am using the term ‘critical auto/biography’ to refer to a framework of related social research concepts concerned with understanding and intervention in individual lives. This area of interest is obviously central to social assessment, but it is surprising how little the social sciences have contributed to the complexities involved - until very recent times. The fact that the task of understanding individual people’s lives and social relationships is not reducible to one discipline may be the reason why it has not received the kind of sustained, co-operative academic attention it deserves. However, female-dominated professions such as nursing and social work have also had low status in the academic world as well as in the rest of society, so (mainly male) academics and researchers have been less interested in studying their problems.

My interest has drawn on four main sources. Firstly, I have studied some of the academic perspectives that have been developing in the area of multidisciplinary studies of micro-social situations, in the belief that they might have something to offer in terms of methodology and intellectual grounding. Secondly, I have studied the perspectives of dominated social groups in the belief that their insights are essential to both methodological and ethical adequacy of any approach that could possibly be useful to practitioners in these fields. Thirdly, I draw on the experience of working with social work colleagues and service users, and fourthly on researching assessment practice.

I use Liz Stanley’s formulation of the term ‘auto/biography’ (with the slash separating ‘auto’ and ‘biography’) to denote the importance of the connection between understanding other lives in interaction with understanding your own, and vice versa (Stanley, 1992). The term thus includes both biography and autobiography, and various connections between them. I also follow her declaration about this field of study, and why it is of such innate interest - it is central to the study of the social sciences, as it raises many of the key questions which have concerned theorists and must also concern practitioners. Self-evidently, it raises issues concerning the relationship between micro-, mezzo- and macro-social levels of social life - from individual and small-group interactions, through organisational and community life to national and international relationships. It clearly raises the basic questions of human agency and structure, and the nature of structural and post-structural explanations: the extent to which the structural functional demands of social systems impinge on people’s lives, explaining their behaviour, and/or can be resisted and changed by individual or group action. It also inevitably raises all the fundamental issues about values, perspectives, interpretation and identity, and provides a multi-disciplinary context in which the questions of interrelationship between disciplines such as psychology, sociology, medicine and law cannot be avoided. It further raises issues about epistemology, ontology and ethics which bridge social science and philosophical fields of enquiry. Any methodology must have implications for these philosophical issues which deal with the conditions and nature of knowledge and being in the social world (Guba and Lincoln, 1994).

In Stanley’s formulation, it also addresses concerns raised by postmodernist and post-structuralist ideas, such as diversity and discourse, which have also been influential in theorising the study of people’s lives (Denzin, 1989). However, given the context of her writing, key concepts such as deconstruction, difference, power and reflexivity are seen as already anticipated in feminist and other writings (Stanley and Wise, 1994). Similarly, postmodernism and post-structuralism are treated here as influential and contributory, rather than as ‘foundational’. These theories have been well debated by feminists (e.g. Nicholson, 1990; Ferguson and Wicke, 1994), and some male academics regard the ‘postmodernist’ movement as past its peak (Marcus, 1994, p.563), but it is none the less useful to indicate these areas of overlap. The concern with representing lives and the methodological difficulties associated with this area of research is not confined to Stanley’s writings but has been a major area of feminist investigation in recent times (and is reviewed in Marcus, 1995). A good example of an auto/biographical approach to research that has recently been published comprises the self- critical reflection and involvement a researcher studying the lives of people with learning difficulties (Atkinson, 1997).

I use the phrase ‘critical auto/biography’ to indicate some development from Stanley’s concept, with the emphasis on relevance to an applied context. I simply wish to stress the importance of practically taking a particular critical (and self-critical) stance on issues to do with values and action - a matter of central concern to people involved in action research, as well as workers in health and social welfare in general. Such workers assess and intervene in the lives of vulnerable people, and their own personal values, understanding and conduct are therefore important issues, and need to be the subject of critical reflection as well as commitment. The workers must of necessity simultaneously research, assess and construct the social world, with their own participation, histories and identities as crucial elements in the process.

There is also a (loose) connection with the ‘critical theory’ tradition of social criticism (Jay, 1973; Harvey, 1990; Kincheloe and McLaren, 1994), which also deliberately takes up an evaluative perspective critical of dominating ideologies and structures. The point here is to connect with social science traditions which have tried to view social life from a critical perspective, especially views from ‘below’, which express the interests and perspectives of dominated social groups generally, and more specifically the interests and perspectives of the user groups whose members are the subjects of professional assessment. I also value the link with other liberal and postmodern academic traditions concerning the critical evaluation and deconstruction of ideas - particularly dominant ones - which attempt to show: ‘connections that are hidden ... to understand the world and to change it’ (Humphries, 1996, p.iii).

Another feminist writer has already used the concept of ‘critical autobiography’ - although without the slash separating the ‘auto’ from the ‘biography’. Morwenna Griffiths has been concerned with analysing the ‘web of identity’ that is constituted by the changing intersection of social difference in people’s lives. Her interest is more focused on understanding the fragmented self, and she distinguishes between the simple individual narrative of traditional autobiography and a ‘critical autobiography’ which: ‘... makes use of individual experience, theory, and a process of reflection and re-thinking, which includes attention to politically situated perspectives’ (Griffiths, 1995, p.70). Thus, although her attention is concentrated on the identity of the self, her approach is grounded on feminist concerns with experience, theory and situated perspectives and is therefore broadly compatible (though different from) the way I am using the different term ‘critical auto/biography’.

Since the construction of the life-course is itself a negotiated and situated part of social reality, then it behoves any attempted account to examine the way the account is itself constituted (Gubrium, 1994). The conclusion drawn here is that there is therefore every justification in making clear to the reader the value basis for the proposed methodology: this could be regarded as a helpful deconstructive writing practice (Stanley, 1993). It does not entail a denial, but a recognition and admission that the writer (or assessor) belongs to an actual social world, and accounting for that in the approach taken. This is especially important for this particular author in attempting to develop a general theory of assessment, but unable, for example, to identify ontologically with Stanley’s feminist auto/biography. Not having had the experience of being female, nor being part of other dominated social groups (e.g. black, gay or disabled) has specific implications for this author’s ability to understand concepts drawn from outside his experience. I assume that any writer or practitioner must draw critically on the range of experiences they have had, and must use their intelligence and imagination for the rest (see ‘Autobiographical notes and acknowledgements’). But the evidence is that people’s intelligence and imagination are inevitably limited by their social location and experience.

The relevance of methodology?

At this point, we may ask is there really any relevance in discussion of the above complex methodology for many practitioners? The academic use of unnecessarily obscure concepts and neologisms, and the workload pressures desensitising practitioners to the importance of reflection and analysis would suggest not.

The answer comes in two parts, intellectual and practical. The first involves a clear issue of logic and consistency: the use of various methods to assess people and situations cannot adequately be justified on a casual, common-sense basis. Any number of fairly obvious objections can be raised, but principally the great variety of interpretations of what common-sense methods might be in this area, including what is taken as common sense in different professions. A distinction that needs to made, which may help to clarify the point, is that between a methodology - a justification or rationale for using certain methods - and the methods or procedures themselves. The two terms are related but different. The methodology is the rationale which is exemplified in the related methods, and the methods must be consistent with the methodology: ‘The methodological question cannot be reduced to a question of methods; methods must be fitted to a ... methodology’ (Guba and Lincoln, 1994, p.108; emphasis added). The difficulty lies in defining what kind of methodology is relevant to the sorts of methods that will help practitioners study micro-social circumstances. In this section, I concentrate on explaining the concepts of an appropriate methodology for social assessment. It is an argument that presents a particular kind of research methodology - critical auto /biography - as the most relevant and effective basis for this kind of task.

The second reason for discussing a complex methodology as a basis for a practical task such as assessment is itself a practical argument. It is that the status of the assessments done by women workers is linked to the status of the workers themselves, and they are therefore often undermined or ignored in various contexts where they should be more seriously considered. This happens especially in the court system, but also throughout the health and social services, where workers’ assessments are under scrutiny by maledominated managers and other interconnected elite groups. The advantage of developing a methodology which is informed by a significant use of social science theory is not only that it gives the use of various methods some consistency, and an improved degree of comparability, but also that it gives social assessment the status it deserves, as an exacting and intellectually justifiable, as well as a skilful, ethical procedure. The question here is how easily can workers make use of the methodology, however appropriate it might be? This will largel...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Dedication
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• List of figures
• Preface
• Autobiographical notes and acknowledgements
• Notes on terminology
• Part One Critical auto/biography: Social theory for social assessment
• Part Two Critical auto/biography: Developing methods and dialogues in practice
• Part Three Conclusion
• References
• Subject Index
• Index of Authors Cited