Social Work Theory in Practice

Philip Heslop, Cathryn Meredith, Author

• Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd
• Year: 2020
• Print ISBN: 9781526492364, 9781526492371
• eBook ISBN: 9781529737394
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Social Work
• Index: Social Sciences

A step-by-step guide to the underpinning theoretical knowledge in social work helping your students to confidently apply theory in practice.

-          Exercises will help them get to grips with the essentials and reflect on learning.

-          Case studies from eight fictional social workers located in a busy local authority office will allow them to explore a range of different practice experience, theoretical perspectives and approaches to understanding situations and identifying possible courses of action.

-          The authors' own experiences will show the importance of reflection, supervision and continual learning to help them prepare for the reality of practice.

Part I Theory: explaining the world and understanding our practice

1 Understanding theory in practice

Introduction

This chapter is our starting point: a place to examine what theory is and is not, to recognise its often-ambiguous nature and to consider how it relates to social work. We will help you think through your existing understanding of theory, and recognise how it influences your sense making – sometimes explicitly, but most often implicitly.

What is theory?

A standard definition of theory is:

a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained [or] an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action. (Oxford Dictionary, 2019)

Exercise 1.1

In the beginning, what existed? This question poses many possibilities and the way you think about it will depend on how you see the world. In considering this question, you will draw on your own unique combination of existing knowledge, beliefs and understandings, and in using these to attempt to answer the question, you are theorising; each possibility is a theoretical construct.

Humankind has been theorising the nature of existence… well, as long as we have existed! Was the way that you interpreted and responded to the question based on your particular religious or scientific perspectives? Perhaps it was a combination of both. Religion and science continue to present the main theoretical explanations of existence. In science, this is variously referred to as Theory of Everything, Final Theory, Ultimate Theory or Master Theory. Stephen Hawking’s book A Brief History of Time has sold more than 10 million copies and has been translated into over 35 languages, indicating a huge global interest in scientific explanations of our universe. Religion remains popular: 84% of the global population identifies with a particular faith, and religious affiliation is rising everywhere other than Western Europe and North America (Pew Research Center, 2017). Whilst organised religion is less fashionable in Western societies, many people who do not identify with a specific faith acknowledge some form of spirituality. It is clear that religious and spiritual theories of existence are pervasive. Some people accommodate scientific theories within their religious belief (or vice versa), for example, believing that god was responsible for the big bang that was responsible for the universe.

Exercise 1.2

Let’s consider another example – something a little more straightforward than the nature of existence! Throw up a pen, watch it drop and land. What is happening here, and why? We can theorise to explain this phenomenon. We know the pen will hit the ground because logic and experience tell us this is what will happen and most of us have at least a basic understanding of the theory of gravity. A physicist will have a more sophisticated understanding and may use theory to devise mathematical formulae predicting and describing the pen’s route through the air by taking into account factors such as density, speed, velocity, trajectory, landing point, etc. Now, do you think that a dog watching the pen being thrown understands what’s happening? Almost certainly not in the same way as humans do, but then, not all humans understand what is happening to the pen in the same way as the physicist does. Dogs catch sticks – maybe the dog watching the pen will catch it before it lands. The dog does not know about gravity and is not making mathematical calculations, but may still catch the pen. Is the dog theorising or just chasing and catching? This is all theoretical conjecture.

What theory is not

Theory is not truth. It is an interpretive tool which helps us to develop an understanding, but it does not give us absolute or definitive answers. People perceive the truth differently and can hold entirely different perspectives and opinions on the same situation without either being wrong or right, so who is to decide what is true? Nor is theory constant. It evolves over time and shifts in response to culture. New theories emerge to challenge existing ones and ideas which we once viewed as fact become defunct. Perhaps these factors are reflected in the commonly used phrase, ‘it’s just a theory’.

A fuzzy concept

Earlier, we appeared to offer a concrete definition of theory, but dictionary definitions are by nature simplifications. Theories are only a means to understand or explain to some extent what is happening; they are fuzzy concepts. Fuzziness occurs when the boundaries and application of information are not clear-cut and can vary considerably according to context. Understanding fuzziness helps us appreciate that theory is less concrete than it at first seems. The term fuzzy logic was first coined in the 1960s by Lotfi Zadeh of the University of California at Berkeley, in relation to computers and the notion that nothing is precisely true or false because different variables create partial truths. Is a 30-year-old young? Youth is a fuzzy concept because there is no single value which defines it. Someone who is 60 may well consider the 30-year-old young, whilst someone who is 15 very likely will not, rendering the same person simultaneously young and old! We have no agreed boundaries for the concept of youth, and it has many possible definitions depending on the context. It is useful for us to think of theory in the same way in order to realise it is a generalised, perspective-bound way of explaining phenomena, rather than a definite universal truth based on objective reality (or truism).

Exercise 1.3

Do you believe in aliens? Some people do not, whilst others believe that they have encountered, or even been abducted by aliens. Many more people accept that it is highly unlikely that the Earth is the only planet supporting life, therefore it is inevitable that aliens exist in some form, somewhere in the wide expanse of the universe. It is possible for two people to both believe that aliens exist, but for entirely different reasons. Silly though this alien discussion appears, it demonstrates that true and false are not the same as the sides of a coin. A coin has only two variables: heads or tails. If tossed, it will land on either heads or tails and we can reasonably predict (everything being equal) a 50% probability of either heads or tails. Life is more complex than this. We cannot think about whether aliens exist in the same binary terms as we can heads or tails, so any answer to this question can only really elicit partial truths. Humans employ fuzzy logic to make sense of our lives, situations and experiences. But then, this is just a theory!

Theory and social work

We have started to consider what is meant by theory, but what do we mean by social work theory? How do we even agree the parameters of social work theory when the very nature of social work is theoretically contested? It’s helpful to start by rejecting the idea that a theory has to originate within social work in order to be a social work theory. We often find that when students are discussing how theory was applied to social work practice, what they are actually referencing are the methods and approaches (for example, anti-oppressive practice, task-centred, strengths-based, etc.) that guided their intervention. But before we intervene to navigate towards solutions, we need to situate the individual experience of the person we are working with in the broader political and social structures of the world. We need to consider not just the external, observable elements of people’s lives, but also their internal, psychological worlds. Social work is informed by countless theories across a multitude of disciplines. In our earlier book, Social Work: From Assessment to Intervention, we referred to it as ‘a magpie profession because we are not captivated by a single theory; rather we adopt different approaches that we apply in diverse contexts’ (Heslop and Meredith, 2019, p. 115).

It is also helpful to recognise that as social workers we use theory all of the time – whether we intend to or not. Beckett and Horner (2016) differentiate between formal theories which have a recognisable proponent or theoretician, and informal theories, which cannot be attributed to a recognisable theoretician, but nonetheless inform how social workers assess, form opinions and decide on interventions. Beckett and Horner (2016) cite Payne’s (2014) explanation that formal theory is written, debated academically and within the profession, whilst informal theory consists of wider societal ideas and/or practitioner’s experience; they highlight the advantages of applying formal and informal theory together. A wealth of literature considers informal theories in the form of practitioner decision-making and reflexivity (Fook and Gardner, 2007; Taylor and White, 2000). Maclean and Harrison (2015) suggest that informal theories represent knowledge from experience and practice wisdom. Many social work academics (such as Doel and Shardlow, 1998; Munro, 2011) recognise and promote the importance of practice wisdom, though it has no identifiable theoretician.

Social work as a theory-driven profession

If we think about the central tasks of social work as supporting individuals, families and communities through difficulties and safeguarding vulnerable people of all ages from harm, it is difficult to imagine any historical society without something akin to social workers. People helped others long before anything like a state, as we now know it, emerged. But there is much speculation and debate about when and where social work began to be an organised response with specific objectives beyond the basic human need to help others. Doel (2012) explains that social work is a modern profession with its roots in antiquity, and has both reformist and radical roots. Its role in mediating between the state and the individual is highly contested (Parton, 1996/2000). The nature of social work is not fixed; people view it differently and their views alter over time (Oko, 2011) and are influenced by geographical, cultural and historical contexts. It is therefore no wonder that social work has evolved from and continues to embrace many different theories:

social work is an age old phenomenon. The seeds of the origin of social work could be traced from global ideologies which include humanism, rationalism, welfarism, liberalism, democracy, secularism and utilitarianism. (Thomas, 2010, Preface)

What we now consider social work practice traces its roots to the Industrial Revolution. Whilst the Industrial Revolution sparked huge leaps in technological and scientific advancements, the great migrations to urban areas throughout the Western world led to increased social problems and in turn social activism (see Chapter 3). In England, the 1834 Victorian Poor Laws established workhouses where destitute people could work in harsh conditions in return for shelter and food. The workhouse system ignited debates about the deserving/undeserving nature of poverty and the success or otherwise of offering universal relief. Public opinion vacillated between contempt and sympathy for the poor, and Victorian philanthropists emerged to set up charities to help people experiencing hardship and poverty. The relationship between charit-able relief and workhouse support was ill-defined, and led to concerns about whether support fostered dependency which perpetuated poverty. In 1869, the government published a policy statement (the Goschen Minute) on the ‘necessity for co-operation between the London Boards of Guardians [who managed Poor Law relief and workhouse provision] and London charities’ (The Spectator, 1869). This statement delineated the support available to poor people, emphasising that the Guardians were to assist only the ‘totally destitute’, whilst charities could provide help before people reached this point. It also instructed both Guardians and charities to record and list assistance being provided to people in order to prevent overlap.

From the mid-19th century onwards, various Christian societies organised the visiting of poor people – sometimes weekly – in a practice known as district, or household, visiting. Visiting was a voluntary, religiously motivated practice based on the belief – or theory – that destitution could be alleviated through spiritual welfare.

The simple doctrine that informed district visiting for much of its history was that impoverished and benighted souls could be saved by the agency of another human being, who cared enough about them to be interested in their survival and spiritual well-being. (Prochaska, 2006, pp. 66–7)

Visits included Christian discussion and practical support in the form of clothes, blankets and food. Prochaska (2006) argues this practice of district visiting was the forerunner of the social casework model developed by the Charity Organisation Societies (COS), founded in England in 1869 (Wilson et al., 2011). The casework approach was first developed by Mrs Ellen Ranyard through the Bible & Domestic Female Mission in Glasgow in 1857, whose working-class women voluntarily visited poor people. Members of the COS adopted this approach and termed it a form of scientific casework or ‘scientific charity’, so as to separate out the ‘undeserving’ from the ‘deserving’ poor. Theoretically speaking, casework was established to determine whether or not impoverished people deserved support, and if so, what form this should take. However, whilst the COS had given social work a structured approach in both the UK and USA, American educational reformer Abraham Flexner, writing in 1915, challenged its professional status, arguing that it lacked a teachable method, specialist skills, knowledge or theory (Gitterman, 2014).

Visiting was ultimately superseded by state social services funded through compulsory taxation following the Beveridge Report (1942) and the Second World War (1939–44). The birth of the British welfare state in the post-war period extended people’s rights to social services and created further demand for social work. In his work on Christianity and social service in modern Britain, Prochaska (2006) suggests religion and secularism competed on how best to provide social care, with the former arguing for voluntary support based on religious values and the latter on compulsory contributions and collectivist state-provided services. However, it can be argued that theory was incorporated into social work functions on a relatively ad hoc basis, given that there was no statutory requirement for social workers to have specific training until the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 and the creation of the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work (CCETSW).

In the 1970s CCETSW began to establish social work as an academic discipline. Social work education drew – and continues to draw – from theories associ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Publisher Note
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Acknowledgements
• Contents
• About the authors
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction
• The Social Workers
• Part I Theory: explaining the world and understanding our practice
• 1 Understanding theory in practice
• 2 Foundations of theory in social work
• 3 Economics, politics and the organisational delivery of social work
• 4 Critical and radical theories
• 5 Theories of human development
• 6 Theories of systems and relationships
• 7 Theories of risk and vulnerability
• Part II Practice: using theory in our work with people
• 8 Applying Theory in practice
• 9 Children and their families
• 10 Foster and kinship care
• 11 Offenders
• 12 Physical disabilities
• 13 Mental distress
• 14 Learning disabilities and autism
• 15 Older people
• Summary and final thoughts
• References
• Index