Comunicação seinajoki

Helena Neves Almeida 26-01-01

NEW APPROACHES TO SOCIAL INTERVENTION

- THE APPLICATION AND CONSTRUCTION OF KNOWLEDGE: A CHALLENGE AND CURRENT DYNAMIC IN SOCIAL WORK-

Helena Neves Almeida1

There are many theoretical benchmarks for social intervention, and these

are as varied as the contexts, purposes and subjects involved in action.

Different kinds of knowledge are at issue: theoretical knowledge, which helps us

to identify facts and to understand the factors concerned, as well as their

influence in the life situations indicated; and practical knowledge, which is know-

how, knowledge that calls on skills, expertise and attitudes. Even though this is

associated with, and reflects theoretical knowledge, it nonetheless has a distinct

visibility within the process (for example, in compiling reports, conducting

interviews, providing guidance, communicating clearly, listening, and dialogue).

Finally there is axiological knowledge which, embracing theory and practice, is

imbued with values. Social work should not try to compartmentalize the impact

of action, since when they do so, they are deceiving themselves (De Bruyne,

Herman and Schoutheete, 1991; Banks, 1995). The three fields are

interdependent and interact in the everyday practice of intervention.

Social work has provided the setting for various theoretical incursions,

which have not always been appropriate to social reality. This has been broadly

recognized since the second half of the 1960s. The call for the indigenization of

1 Assistant Professor at the Instituto Superior Bissaya-Barreto (Coimbra), PH.D. in Social Work.


social work, that is, for an effort to construct knowledge and apply models

designed on the basis of the reality of each social training (Kahn, 1970), bears

witness to this fact. If it is true that such a call has the advantage of avoiding the

mistakes committed in other countries, the low investment in the domain of

action-research has relegated the field of intervention to a position of isolation

and dependency in relation to the theoretical production of the social and

human sciences.

Research into the use of theories in practice suggests that the latter rarely

employs a particular, identifiable theory, but rather a “practical theory” (Banks,

1995, 52), that is, knowledge gained from practice and from parts of the

theoretical corpora, and skills acquired from work (Curnock and Hardicker,

1979; Roberts, 1990). The activities and roles are so varied, and the contexts

so wide-ranging, that it is hard to establish a single theoretical corpus for social

work. Banks defines social work as “a knowledge of theoretical or practical

comprehension of certain branches of science, art, learning or other area of

study”, and, in this regard, social workers have a panoply of theories that

influence their reflective practice (Schön, 1987) and performance (Ronnby,

1992). In this logic, social workers are restricted to being mere users of

knowledge. They are not seen as producers of new learning.

The question then is to know the relationship between theory and practice

in the intervention process, and what the arguments are in this context.


1 – The relationship between theory and practice in the process of

social work

There are several studies showing that social workers devise and retain models

during their practical work, despite the difficulties they have in identifying them.

In 1979, Carew conducted a study on 20 social workers in the north of England,

and this showed that not many were using theory explicitly during the course of

their work, but a lot were using it without realizing it, as a system rather than as

an explicit guide to action. Most said they had acquired a series of skills from

practice, which allowed them to develop procedures suited to the problems

presented by clients. Another study, carried out by Barbour in 1984, on 20

students, not only identified two perspectives of the use of theory (one

supportive and the other curative), but also made it possible to identify three

groups of situations:

a) students who had acquired general ideas and methods, but who could not

say where they had come from, were unable to locate them on the theory

plane;

b) students who would use the particular theories they regarded as relevant,

with each student creating a ‘stock’, a collection of professional tools to be

used, and

c) students whose use of knowledge was linked to their personality. The use

of theory in practice thus raises certain questions.


In this domain, there are three prominent arguments (Payne, 1994):

The pragmatic argument, the positivist argument an d eclecticism.

• The pragmatic argument holds that there is a confused mass of theories,

mostly imported from different social, economic and political contexts, and of no

useful relevance. The obstacles to practical application have various origins,

among which the following stand out: the generalist nature of some theories,

which hampers their using in specific practical actions, and the existence of a

high degree of competition between theories, making it difficult to choose a

particular one. According to the pragmatic argument, there are three distinct

traditions.

a) the pragmatic tradition associated with social work in official services

(Poor Law, Social Security), whose economic support component is

fundamental;

b) the socialist tradition that embraces social reforms, social criticism and

collective intervention (such as groups and communities);

c) the therapeutic tradition related to individuals and groups who have

personal problems and social difficulties.

Keeping these approaches in mind, different practices reflect the

influence of sundry theoretical benchmarks from the social and human

sciences, particularly sociology and psychology, such as: theories of

communication; theories of change; theories of conflict; psychodynamic theories


of the personality; behavioral theories; cognitive theories; systems theory,

among others. This fact makes it difficult for social workers to use them.

• The positivist argument 2 argues that many theories are insufficiently

rigorous and do not constitute true theories, since they describe and raise

hypotheses, but do not have an explicative power based on empirical

references. According to this perspective, the comprehension of human activity

should be based on the methods of the natural sciences, and therefore predict

behaviours on the basis of experimental methods and statistical tests.

• Eclecticism focuses its attention on the possibility of using a

combination of several theories at the same time. By this argument, clients

ought to be able to benefit from all the knowledge available, since the theories

belong to various disciplinary domains, or may work on different levels. This

fact underpins the argument that it should be possible to make use of different

theories, in combined way.

2 According to De Bruyne (1984) positivism accepts that: 1 – the social world is inaccessible, only the

world of facts is scientifically analysable; 2 – the subjective world (conscience, intuition and values)

eludes science; 3 – external observation is the sole guide, with comprehension and introspection being

rejected due to lack of control; 4 – the notion of general law lies at the center of the positivist program,

which aims to discover and confirm general laws. The individual in itself is of no interest and has no

signification; 5 –knowledge of essential structure and fundamental and final causes is illusory. True

knowledge is the fruit of the capacity to predict events that belong to the sphere of pertinence of the laws

it has established. Erickson (1986) holds that the positivist paradigm is rooted in the postulate of the


2 – What consideration should we give to such argum ents?

What concerns to the pragmatic argument, if we consider that theory is

socially constructed and that it often corresponds to the need to respond to

questions and problems encountered in various institutions (Grawitz, 1986,

331), then theory and practice are not separate universes. Theory may be

useful in replenishing practices, and practice, taken as a sphere of interaction

for a multiplicity of factors, such as context, demand and actors, is essential to

the construction of new knowledge. If the question is put at the level of capacity

for prescription, then it is best to say that everything that we do is theoretical

(Howe, 1987).

The positivist argument is also fallacious. The 1960s saw the

emergence of new epistemological orientations which, influenced by the

Weberian tradition, value the subjective and significative nature of the actors’

actions. According to the interpretative / comprehensive paradigm, relations

between the behaviors and the significations that the actors ascribe to them,

vary through their social interactions, and so different significations may

correspond to identical behaviors (Lessard-Herbert; Goyette and Boutin, 1994)3.

uniformity of social life. Positivist orientation values an “axiological neutrality” towards action and

favours the values of rationality, rigour and efficacy (Groulx, 1984). 3 The authors cited have characterised the interpretative paradigm as an orientation based on the dualist

ontological postulate (reality is simultaneously materialist and spiritualist), with a social dimension which

values the spatial and temporal context (significations vary in terms of specific groups of individuals,

who, through their interactions, share determined comprehensions and traditions particular to this

environment, which differs from one group to another). From the ontological standpoint, the uniformity

of social life is apparent, even though it constitutes an epistemological category that is necessary for

interpreting the world.


The interpretative paradigm ensures a kind of continuity relative to the wisdom

of common sense. The learning of common sense that all subjects have with

respect to their reality, history and environment form the basis for knowledge of

social realities. This presupposition does not imply a breach with the common

sense advocated by positivism, but a continuity between that and scientific

learning. In this context, the everyday world comes to be valued as a source of

knowledge, influenced by the phenomenological stream of Husserl. This new

approach allows the familiar to become strange, and explains what is implicit.

Everyday life eludes us because it is very familiar, because of the ties of

proximity that make it hard for us to analyze them. The interpretative /

comprehensive paradigm allows us to understand particular situations, by

means of concrete elements of practice; it enables us to consider the

significations that subjects ascribe to events and to the contextual conditions of

existence.

This epistemological orientation is centered on the comprehension of, and

not on the explanation (determinist) for, “external realities”, as the positivism of

Durkheim (1980) argues. Moreover, the explicative power of the social

sciences is illusory, given the difficulty in isolating the factors intervening in

social situations.

In the light of the foregoing, is it possible to question whether the social

will mean to explain or to comprehend. If the social object is seen not as an

external reality, but as a subjective construction, then studying the social will be

to understand it. Understanding may nevertheless signify, as Max Weber

stressed, explaining the motivation and meaning attributed to or associated with


the action. In this regard, explaining is also perceiving the context to which that

action belongs.

Acceptance of the eclectic argument, and recognizing the possibility of

combining sundry knowledge in the course of an action, does not imply that

social workers are released from their responsibilities in the process of

accumulating, integrating and transforming knowledge coming from practice, as

though theory might restrict the action or limit the production of knowledge, or

even as though practice might constitute a reservoir of theory. On the contrary,

theory empowers practice, furnishing it with valuable orientations relative to

understanding the reality / the context in which it operates and to the very

process of intervention, without descending into practicism.

Theory should, therefore, be seen as a tool for gui ding action and

action as a space for renewing knowledge. In this context, the field of

practice is established as a dynamic entity, helpin g towards the

construction of new knowledge. Action always has m eaning and

signification, and the social worker cannot be cons igned to a passive role

in the process of receiving and using knowledge. K nowledge is

replenished in everyday life and in the context of the relations between

social actors. Social workers must be aware of thi s fact and not ignore

the huge source of knowledge which practice compris es. Theory and

practice are inextricably linked.


3 – The value of theory

But let us not belittle the value of theory. It is an essential guide both on

the plane of constructing new knowledge and on that of action, since it supplies

practice (Payne, 1994, 50) with:

models – which make it possible to single out determined principles and

patterns of activity which standardize practices, from descriptions of general

practice procedures;

approaches or perspectives – in the framework of complex human

activities, which allow subjects to participate consciously in the processes in

which they are involved;

explanations – about the reasons why a given action works in a given way,

and in what circumstances this occurs;

prescriptions – for actions, so that those who are intervening know what to

do in specific circumstances;

justifications – for the use of models and explanations of practice

responsibilities – in describing appropriate practices.

It can be made a distinction between comprehensive theories, applied

theories, specific theories and perspective theories:

Comprehensive theories - offer a system of thinking that covers all the

practices of social workers who wish to develop ‘casework’, group work or

residential work practices. Comprehensive theories provide a global

framework, regardless of the core object and area of intervention. This refers to


the knowledge that makes it possible to understand the complexity of the

intervention process, and which serves to buttress the bases for practices that

are differentiated and, at the same time, standardized, from the standpoint of

the intentionality of the action. Among these theories we may place

psychodynamic theories, behavioral theories, cognitivist theories and systems’

theories.

Perspective Theories which consist of ways of considering life,

organizing professional attitudes relative to personal and social change, and

which shape conceptions in the framework of professional practices. In this

group we find the humanist / existentialist and radical approaches.

Specific Theories which delimit specific procedures and benchmark

attitudes, whatever the starting context and theoretic framework may be.

Theories of communication and problem solving can be found in this group of

orientations.

Applied Theories which produce a group of knowledge oriented to

particular concrete situations in an individual or collective field, such as conflict

management, network working, pedagogy of consciousness-raising,

empowerment, advocacy. Social mediation also belongs in this group of

theories (Almeida, 2000).

So, there are several theories backing up methodological and procedural

options (Figure 1), which operate at different levels: the level of global


comprehension; the level of conceptualization of practice, and the procedural

level. The multiplicity of theoretical benchmarks bear witness to the complexity

of the intervention process and the need for interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary

work.

FIG. 1 – THEORETICAL BENCHMARKS FOR SOCIAL WORK

COMPREHENSIVE THEORIES

PSYCHODYNAMIC THEORY. BEHAVIORAL THEORY

COGNITIVIST THEORY SYSTEMS’ THEORY

PERSPECTIVE THEORIES

HUMANIST / EXISTENTIALIST APPROACH

RADICAL APPROACH

SPECIFIC THEORIES

THEORIES OF COMMUNICATION

PRACTICAL THEORIES Conflict Management

Network working Empowerment

Advocacy Social Mediation


Final considerations: The responsibility of univer sity institutions that run training courses in social work.

In the light of the above, the application of knowledge to social reality

implies a drive based on three aspects:

1 – the acknowledgment of the theoretical content which underpins

renewed practices and the meaning ascribed to them;

2 – the identification of the conceptual network that cements the innovative

attitudes on the procedural plane;

3 – the acceptance of the active role played by social workers on the plane

of knowledge construction.

These elements favour both the development of coherent, theoretically

based, strategic actions, that is, actions that are cognitively oriented by means-

ends relations, adapted to the social reality of intervention, and also the

production of new knowledge. The field of action is not a hoard of knowledge

that manifests itself as a routine. Action is the outcome of choices, even when

we are not aware of the fact. And, although their bases may not always be

particularly distinct, these choices lead to the perception that practices are

diverse. The inadequate consideration given to everyday professional life has

contributed a great deal to this.

In this context, the responsibility of university institutions is considerable.

It has become necessary to develop a “culture of research ” that brings the

discourses of theory and practice closer together. And this will only be

achieved by doing research, and teaching how to do it. Relations with the field

of intervention enable knowledge to be replenished, converging strategies and

valuing knowledge.


References:

ALMEIDA H., Conceptions et pratiques de la médiation sociale. Les modèles de

médiation dans le quotidien professionnel des assistants sociaux. Thèse de

doctorat présentée à la Faculté des Lettres de l’Université de Fribourg, en

Suisse, 2000.

BANKS S., Ethics and values in social work, London, Macmillan Press, 1995.

CURNOCK K. & HARDICKER P., Towards Practice Theory. Skills and Methods

in Social Assessments, London, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1979.

DE BRUYNE P. & al., Dynamique de la recherche en sciences sociales, Les

pôles de la pratique méthodologique, Paris, PUF, 1974.

DURKHEIM E., As regras do método sociológico, Lisboa, Editorial Presença,

1980.

ERICKSON F., “Qualitative methods in research on teaching” in WITTROCK

M.C., Handbook of research on teaching, Nova Yorque, Macmillan, 1986,

pp.119-161.

GRAWITZ M., Méthodes des Sciences Sociales, Paris, Précis Dalloz, 7e edition,

1986.

GROULX L., “Recherche et formation en service social au Quebec: tendances

et interprétation” in Service Social dans le Monde, 3, 1984.

HOWE D., An introduction to social work theory: making sense in practice,

Community Care,England, Wildwood House Limited, 1987.

KAHN A., Teoria e prática do planejamento social, S.Paulo, ESSPUC, 1971.

LESSARD-HÉBERT G., & BOUTIN G., Investigação qualitativa: fundamentos e

práticas, Lisboa, Instituto Piaget, 1994.

PAYNE M., Modern Social Theory: a Critical Introduction, London, Macmillan

Press, 1991.

ROBERTS R., Lessons from the Past: Issues for Social Work Theory, London,

Routledge, 1990.

RONNBY A., “Praxiology in Social Work” in International Social Work, vol,35,

1992, pp.317-329.

SCHÖN D., The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action, New

York, Basic Books, 1987.


NEW APPROACHES TO SOCIAL

INTERVENTION

- THE APPLICATION AND CONSTRUCTION OF KNOWLEDGE:

A CHALLENGE AND CURRENT DYNAMIC IN SOCIAL WORK-

Helena Neves Almeida


The question is to know the relationship

between theory and practice in the

intervention process

and

what the arguments are in this

context.


1 – The relationship between theory and

practice in the process of social work

There are three prominent arguments :

The pragmatic argument, the positivist argument an d eclecticism.

- The pragmatic argument holds that there is a confused mass of theories,

mostly imported from different social, economic and political contexts, and of

no useful relevance. The obstacles to practical application have various

origins, among which the following stand out: the generalist nature of some

theories, which hampers their using in specific practical actions, and the

existence of a high degree of competition between theories, making it

difficult to choose a particular one.

- The positivist argument argues that many theories are insufficiently

rigorous and do not constitute true theories, since they describe and raise

hypotheses, but do not have an explicative power based on empirical

references. According to this perspective, the comprehension of human

activity should be based on the methods of the natural sciences, and

therefore predict behaviours on the basis of experimental methods and

statistical tests.


- Eclecticism focuses its attention on the possibility of using a combination of

several theories at the same time. By this argument, clients ought to be able

to benefit from all the knowledge available, since the theories belong to

various disciplinary domains, or may work on different levels. This fact

underpins the argument that it should be possible to make use of different

theories, in combined way.


2 – What consideration should we give to

such arguments?

Theory should, therefore, be seen as a tool for gui ding

action and action as a space for renewing knowledge . In this

context, the field of practice is established as a dynamic entity,

helping towards the construction of new knowledge.

Action always has meaning and signification, and th e

social worker cannot be consigned to a passive role in the

process of receiving and using knowledge.

Knowledge is replenished in everyday life and in th e

context of the relations between social actors. So cial workers

must be aware of this fact and not ignore the huge source of

knowledge which practice comprises.

Theory and practice are inextricably linked.


3 – The value of theory

But let us not belittle the value of theory . It is an essential guide both

on the plane of constructing new knowledge and on that of action, since it

supplies practice with:

models – which make it possible to single out determined principles and

patterns of activity which standardize practices, from descriptions of general

practice procedures;

approaches or perspectives – in the framework of complex human

activities, which allow subjects to participate consciously in the processes in

which they are involved;

explanations – about the reasons why a given action works in a given

way, and in what circumstances this occurs;

prescriptions – for actions, so that those who are intervening know what

to do in specific circumstances;

justifications – for the use of models and explanations of practice


It can be made a distinction between

comprehensive theories, applied theories,

specific theories and perspective theories.

FIG. 1 – THEORETICAL BENCHMARKS FOR SOCIAL WORK

COMPREHENSIVE THEORIES

PSYCHODYNAMIC THEORY. BEHAVIORAL THEORY

COGNITIVIST THEORY SYSTEMS’ THEORY

PERSPECTIVE THEORIES

HUMANIST / EXISTENTIALIST APPROACH

RADICAL APPROACH

SPECIFIC THEORIES

THEORIES OF COMMUNICATION

PRACTICAL THEORIES Conflict Management

Network working Empowerment

Advocacy Social Mediation


Final considerations The responsibility of university institutions

that run training courses in social work.

In the light of the above, the application of knowledge to social reality

implies a drive based on three aspects :

1 – the acknowledgment of the theoretical content w hich

underpins renewed practices and the meaning ascribe d to

them;

2 – the identification of the conceptual network th at

cements the innovative attitudes on the procedural plane;

3 – the acceptance of the active role played by soc ial

workers on the plane of knowledge construction.


These elements favour both the development of coher ent,

theoretically based, strategic actions, that is, ac tions that are

cognitively oriented by means-ends relations, adapt ed to the

social reality of intervention, and also the produc tion of new

knowledge. The field of action is not a hoard of k nowledge that

manifests itself as a routine. Action is the outco me of choices,

even when we are not aware of the fact. And, altho ugh their

bases may not always be particularly distinct, thes e choices

lead to the perception that practices are diverse. The

inadequate consideration given to everyday professi onal life

has contributed a great deal to this.

In this context, the responsibility of university i nstitutions

is considerable. It has become necessary to develo p a

“culture of research” that brings the discourses of theory

and practice closer together. And this will only b e achieved by

doing research, and teaching how to do it. Relatio ns with the

field of intervention enable knowledge to be replen ished,

converging strategies and valuing knowledge.

Documents

Comunicação seinajoki